I Corinthians 11
4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
Every time I come to this passage, I wonder... Am I in rebellion? Why can I disregard this teaching and adhere to others? More and more, lately, I am coming to think that to disregard this is rebellion.
People say that this passage is speaking to the culture of the day, and that in that culture, women were claiming a higher place and lording it over their men by shaving their heads. However, this passage speaks not just to the time in which Paul lived, but...
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
This was the order from the time of creation...
10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
...and the reason for the covering of the head from the start.
Because of the angels...
For this reason...
What reason? because woman came from man, and was made for man. That is from the beginning, not in the first century.
...and because of the angels
The angels of the first century? These angels, worshiping with us, and watching us. Would they be offended if they saw how we dishonour our head?
Here's an interesting note:
I Corinthians 11 goes on to say, "14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.Matthew Henry says of this passage, "'...The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.' Note, It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies, to make no breach upon the rules of natural decency." (emphasis added becausse it comes from a time of men with, and from the mouth of a man with long, lovely locks)
I welcome your input. I do not wish to draw attention to myself, but I desire to learn from God and walk in the way pleasing to Him.
Tonight, while I was trying to find other places that spoke of this issue, I came to Isaiah 2:3 and Micah 4:2
Many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Finally, sister, from Isaiah 2:5
Come, O house of Jacob,
let us walk in the light of the LORD.
5 comments:
Way way back Kara had a series of posts on this on her blog. Perhaps a year ago or more. I know she has considered this, as has Kristin. Also Dawn would be another to speak to. I too am not sure about this, much like it says for women not to take on men's dress... nowadays that would be slacks... so, I am not sure.
Clarification anyone? I would wish to be God fearing in what I do, rather than man pleasing.
Blessings, Kim
Thank you Kim and Kara. Kara, I thought that your post was very well put, and appreciated your Dad's comments. Although I know no Greek, I would agree that the "we have no other custom (approximate wording)" is difficult to ignore...almost frightening to ignore.
So far I am not getting any explanations that are satisfactory for ignoring this command, that doesn't sound very close to rationalizing.
There must be a reason for disregarding this!
Why would we treat lightly the Word of God for the simple sake of fashion!
I also would agree that it is particularly public prayer and prophecy that is dealt with here, and not private. Therefore the prayer without ceasing would not constitute supergluing a veil to your head.
I would humbly say that the submission to authority would not mean the authority of the customs of the culture or the church in which you are present, either, because as you said, Paul takes us back to creation and the presence of angels.
So, while praying in church (aloud or silently?) and reading the word of God in public (aloud or silently?) in church or on the street corner? While singing? While worshipping? In the presence of angels but not men, men but not angels?
Should the veil be pretty or plain? Should you match your outfit?
I guess we can pick it apart too much. The plain reading is quite clear.
the wretched one,
Rachel
Kim,
BTW, slacks now can be feminine or masculine. I have seen some women in the business world wearing slacks that are made for women, but definitely designed for power. Other women wear slacks that were made to be worn by men. Other slacks are very feminine in design, but might not qualify for modesty.
On the other hand, my daughters were telling me that boys sometimes wear girls pants (slacks, jeans, capris). I didn't believe them but thought that some might if they were under privilaged and were wearing their sisters' hand-me-downs. No, they assured me, some boys do it for a fashion statement, and it is not the gay guys.
Still, I didn't believe, and then I saw a waiter at a restaurant wearing girl's capris. Now, I happen to think that this waiter was effeminate, so it might be that either I or the girls are misreading these boys.
But that is a digression from the subject specifically.
(although it is a difference between men and women, and also about modesty in that is is a covering of the woman's glory --as pointed out to me by Dawn S.-- which is one issue of modesty in the worship setting.)
Rachel
USA Today yesterday had an article about how women who cover are using the internet to find each other...
I was going to include a link, but I'm no good at it.
Rachel
Post a Comment