1 Corinthians 11:14

[Romans922]

I thought most of the people here thought that this passage isn't about hair>>???

 

[Davidius]

I hate to say it, but, when people in the "Church", are actually worried about shoulder length hair, on a man, etc...are they really getting what being a Christian is all about?

I fear far more--spiritually speaking--for the person, who is hung up on long hair or clothing styles (I'm not talking modesty), than I do about those who are wearing such.

With so many issues of the day, post-modern thought, man centered righteousness, the elect still in need of a clear gospel message, etc.; for someone to actually focus on the length of hair...seems like they are missing it!

In my study of the Emergent Churches, I find error after error, but it is the very fact, that people can and will be judged for hair length, that those movements have been born. When the Church becomes a place of rote ritual, and rules about hair, it's no wonder, they want to re-invent it.

Let's keep it real, let's keep it about Jesus, the Holy God, King of Kings...let's keep it about sound doctrine...hair length is not what it's about...really sad actually.

Is taking the verse that says "Be not drunk on wine" to mean that we shouldn't get drunk turning the Church into a place of rote ritual? The verse says that it's wrong for a man to have long hair. If you want to argue for a particular interpretation, fine, but to say that someone who derives from this verse its most surface-level meaning is "not keeping it about Jesus" is silly. No one, at least on this board, is getting unnecessarily "hung up" on verses which at least seem to be clearly implying something.

I've heard some argue for headcoverings based on the fact that Paul uses arguments from nature in this passage, not cultural relevance. If this is so, how can the statement about long hair be taken as culturally conditioned?

"How long is 'long'?" one might ask. I don't know. How drunk is drunk? That questions such as this can be asked does not deny the reality of the principle, if that is what Paul is teaching. That the line between "a nice buzz" and "drunkenness" can be blurry does not abrogate the principle of not getting drunk.

The point is, He was rebuked...for having long hair...I think that's missing the point, completely, of why we are in church.

You can use as many ellipses as you want, but your amazement that such a thing could happen still rests on the assumption that the verse isn't meant to rebuke men with long hair, which is the point which must first be decided before you can say that the one would rebuke is wrong.

I'm not saying the discussion is irrelevant, but, to actually, rebuke someone for it? To discuss it, and understand the verse is fine. I'm speaking, to the state of the Church...that people, feel the need to rebuke someone for it.

Again, would you rebuke someone who is in sin? If the verse means that men with long hair are sinning then it's perfectly reasonably for someone to rebuke them.

I'm saying, we are missing the point, If we think that's what it's about, rebuking people for stuff like long hair.

What is the point? What is "it"? The Word of God is for teaching, correcting, and rebuking. Church is therefore a perfect place for someone to be rebuked if they are in sin. Your incredulity still rests on presupposing that men with long hair aren't sinning.

Getting drunk vs different length of hair?

Apparently seeing a real argument is confusing for you, but try to follow me.

If getting drunk is a sin, the fact that being able to tell when a person is drunk does not mean that the precept should be thrown out.

If it is a sin for a man to have long hair, the fact that defining "long" may be difficult does not annul the precept.

What you must prove, before saying that someone who would rebuke a man for having long hair is being a pharisee, is that the verse doesn't mean that having long hair is a sin. Would you rebuke a person who walked into church drunk? At these point the idea that the two are different cases is merely your assertion.

If anything, I see Jesus, rebuking the people, who are worried about long hair, while inviting the drunkard, into his presence.

Sorry you are not getting that.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for adding to the law. If the verse means that men shouldn't have long hair, then no one is adding to the law and the pharisee analogy is out of bounds.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

I thought most of the people here thought that this passage isn't about hair>>???

It's about submission to authority. In context, head coverings.

And it seems there is a submission to authority kind of problem in the opening post.

1 Corinthians 11:14

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 1 Corinthians 11:14

A woman at church rebuked me with this verse.

A single verse ripped out of context. The context begins at 11:2 and goes through verse 16. I find it interesting that those who use verse 14 to rebuke men for their "long" hair never bother to read verse 16.

1 Cor. 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I find it even more humorous that it was a woman who rebuked him.

I would point her to 1 Cor. 14:34-35:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I mean if the goose can wrench a single verse out of context, I believe as they say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

 

[tdowns]

Not worth the effort....

Is taking the verse that says "Be not drunk on wine" to mean that we shouldn't get drunk turning the Church into a place of rote ritual? The verse says that it's wrong for a man to have long hair. If you want to argue for a particular interpretation, fine, but to say that someone who derives from this verse its most surface-level meaning is "not keeping it about Jesus" is silly. No one, at least on this board, is getting unnecessarily "hung up" on verses which at least seem to be clearly implying something.

I've heard some argue for headcoverings based on the fact that Paul uses arguments from nature in this passage, not cultural relevance. If this is so, how can the statement about long hair be taken as culturally conditioned?

"How long is 'long'?" one might ask. I don't know. How drunk is drunk? That questions such as this can be asked does not deny the reality of the principle, if that is what Paul is teaching. That the line between "a nice buzz" and "drunkenness" can be blurry does not abrogate the principle of not getting drunk.

The point is, He was rebuked...for having long hair...I think that's missing the point, completely, of why we are in church.

You can use as many ellipses as you want, but your amazement that such a thing could happen still rests on the assumption that the verse isn't meant to rebuke men with long hair, which is the point which must first be decided before you can say that the one would rebuke is wrong.



Again, would you rebuke someone who is in sin? If the verse means that men with long hair are sinning then it's perfectly reasonably for someone to rebuke them.



What is the point? What is "it"? The Word of God is for teaching, correcting, and rebuking. Church is therefore a perfect place for someone to be rebuked if they are in sin. Your incredulity still rests on presupposing that men with long hair aren't sinning.

Getting drunk vs different length of hair?

Apparently seeing a real argument is confusing for you, but try to follow me.

If getting drunk is a sin, the fact that being able to tell when a person is drunk does not mean that the precept should be thrown out.

If it is a sin for a man to have long hair, the fact that defining "long" may be difficult does not annul the precept.

What you must prove, before saying that someone who would rebuke a man for having long hair is being a pharisee, is that the verse doesn't mean that having long hair is a sin. Would you rebuke a person who walked into church drunk? At these point the idea that the two are different cases is merely your assertion.

If anything, I see Jesus, rebuking the people, who are worried about long hair, while inviting the drunkard, into his presence.

Sorry you are not getting that.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for adding to the law. If the verse means that men shouldn't have long hair, then no one is adding to the law and the pharisee analogy is out of bounds.

That's a big IF...

Have fun rebuking.

 

[Mushroom]

Yeah, PD, I had the same thought. The woman presuming to teach a matter of doctrine seems more significant than the hair. And I agree that many people seem to miss the following verse. Seems that Paul is telling us its nothing to get in a snit about, just because the hippe seems contentious about it.

But I do confess to getting uptight in an old codger kinda way when the ushers take up the offering wearing ponytails. Just doesn't seem right....

 

[satz]

I find it even more humorous that it was a woman who rebuked him.

I would point her to 1 Cor. 14:34-35:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I mean if the goose can wrench a single verse out of context, I believe as they say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

I don't see what is the problem, unless she rebuked him during the service itself.

Should women never ever speak up about sin or doctrine?

 

[Mushroom]

Should women never ever speak up about sin or doctrine?

Sure. All Christians should, but in the appropriate way. Isn't rebuking someone on a point of doctrine a form of teaching? Should women members presume it upon themselves to 'straighten out' men who are in their view errant in their practice? I think the biblical channel would have been through a male relative of hers or a Church officer. But I'm probably just an old fuddy-duddy.

 

[satz]

Should women never ever speak up about sin or doctrine?

Sure. All Christians should, but in the appropriate way. Isn't rebuking someone on a point of doctrine a form of teaching? Should women members presume it upon themselves to 'straighten out' men who are in their view errant in their practice? I think the biblical channel would have been through a male relative of hers or a Church officer. But I'm probably just an old fuddy-duddy.

Absolutely, everything should be done in an appropriate way. I agree that generally it is best for a man to straighten out other men, but there is no bible prohibition on women teaching men in an informal way.

I don't know what caused this particular woman to approach this manner directly instead of going to another man. I do believe that as a general principle, if sin can be dealt with by involving a minimum of persons, that is preferrable to getting more people involved. If a woman can gracefully raise an issue of sin with a man and obtain repentance and changed behavior, I do not believe the bible would consider that presumptuous of her.

In any case, the main issue is, as Davidus pointed out, the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:14. Attacking the gender of the person who was making the argument is, I would humbly submit, really besides the point, as whether something is true or not really has nothing to do with the messenger.

 

[ServantofGod]

Here it is long.

[/IMG]