Long Hair

I Cor 11:1--16

http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Jn3-16.html

Go to the website and look at John 3:16 in Koine Greek. You will see that there is an absence of punctuations:

KOINGREEKAPPEARSTOBEWRITTENWITHOUTCAPITALSCOM
MASPERIODSANDWHENTHERESEEMSTOBEANEEDFORANEW
PARAGRAPHTHEREISNONESOITSALITTLECHALLENGINGTOSOR
TOUTTHEINTENDEDORDEROFTHOUGHTS

That’s why I think I can suggest that in the context of the Gospel, which is Good News, which is Liberty, there are no pharisaical rules added to the Spirit of liberty in HaMashiach. From the text, we see that there are no paragraph breaks in the original language, but the apparent contradictions in this passage, seem to be dialog that Paul is presenting to contrast bondage to liberty:

The words, “But”, and “nevertheless” are used in a couple of places that seem to suggest contrasting ideas:

“I praise you for this, BUT I would have you know?"
He ought to say,
“I praise you for this, but I praise you not for that.”
Look at verse 17: "I praise you not".

It looks like it’s indeed possible that the pharisaical rules where part of a question that was asked of Paul in an epistle that we don‘t have. Yes, the Corinthians wrote unto Paul, and Paul wrote back.

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: . . .

SINCETHERWERENOPARAGRAPHSORCOMMASORQUOTATIONMARKS,it only makes sense that the conjunctions give a indication as to change of intent.

Pharisaical Bondage:
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Not Liberty, is it? It‘s talking about dishonor, shame, and autonomy of males. The pharisees would love this.

“Nevertheless” is similar to “but”--contrarywise

Liberty in HaMashiach:
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Co 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

That sounds like Liberty. That is a direct rebuttal to “the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man”. Are we not male, nor female, bond nor free, Jew nor Gentile?

Back to Pharisaical Bondage:
1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Not Liberty. Are we to get our teaching from nature, or the Word of Yahweh? Are we the judges? Who decides what is comely? Whose doctrine is it that hair is a channel for shame?

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

There is no church custom wherein there is shame in praying to God, being dressed wrong, or having the wrong length of hair.
Does that make sense? Did Yahoshua make us free so that he could lay on us more burden to wear the right covering?

As always, I am open to correction by the Word of God. I am subject to error, the same as everyone else. But I will rejoice in the truth.

In the Love of Yahoshua HaMashiach,
Wesley, nobody but His servant