Holiness, long hair, short hair and 1Co 11

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Mark Basset posted this "study" here some time ago:

>Slipping Past the Harbor
>A Study of Bible Standards Regarding Hair & the Order of Creation
>M.D. Treece
>(transcribed and annotated by M.W. Bassett)

I didn't have time to respond to it then, but there are so many 
dangerous errors in the Bible exposition that I could not leave it 
alone. 

As is often forgotten, there are 1900 years of cultural development 
between us and the NT writers. Often we make the error of reading our 
days' culture (social dogmas, ideologies, even hairstyles!) into the 
texts. It does not help that the literal translation of these texts 
sometimes make them seem to say the opposite of what they did say to a 
1st century audience. 

This is especially evident in these verses that I will address.

 1Co 11:4 Any man who prays or
    prophesies with his head covered
    dishonors his head,
 1Co 11:5 but any woman who prays
    or prophesies with her head
    unveiled dishonors her head--it
    is the same as if her head were
    shaven.
 1Co 11:6 For if a woman will not
    veil herself, then she should cut
    off her hair; but if it is
    disgraceful for a woman to be
    shorn or shaven, let her wear a
    veil.

In his comment to these verses, Treece make the mistake any modern 
reader without knowledge of the Greek text and the customs of the day 
will make:

|Man is the head of woman, but God is the head of Christ. Many people
|do not know why women ought to wear uncut, long hear, and men ought to
|cut their hair short. The reason is that it establishes and
|promulgates the knowledge of the order of creation of man.

Actually, the text says the opposite! But Treece, unlike most readers, 
is not ignorant of the Greek and knows that this does not refer to a 
hat or veil but to the hair itself. Even many translators assume Paul 
was saying a woman should cover her hair with a veil or a hat, and that 
likewise, he argued that a man should *not* wear a hat or veil. When 
Treece knows the facts, it is hard to understand how he can reach this 
conclusion about women:

| If a woman cuts some of it off, she may as well shave it as it 
| relates to a covering before God, and it=92s power or authority to pray=
 
| and prophecy. This is the clear instruction of apostolic leadership.

This is indeed nothing but a pure perversion of the word. Since Treece 
knows that the "cutting" in the Greek expression only refers to a 
complete removal of *all* hair, he intentionally distorts the facts by 
claiming it somehow means that women cannot cut the hair at all.

Verse 4 says that a man should not pray or prophecy "with something 
hanging down from the hair." What Paul means, is that he should not 
have long hair hanging down. The reason is that this was a custom among 
homosexuals of the day.

Paul uses parallelism in this text, mirroring the requirements for 
women with those of men. We can see in verse 7 that Paul even makes 
strained reference to man being in God's image. Indeed, he did know 
that in Gen 2:21-23 *both* man and woman was in God's image. 
Nevertheless, Paul's point is that God's intention was for man and 
woman to be *different* (re. De 22:5). Later, in verse 11, he says that 
"woman is not otherwise than man". They are equals, yet different. 

The error of interpretation becomes almost comical when certain 
denominations demands woman to have long hair hanging down. This was 
just  what Paul did *not* want them to do while doing service. When 1Co 
11:5 says women should not have "her head uncovered" it does not mean 
that she should wear a veil or hat, but that she should use her hair as 
a covering. Having "unbound" head means having unordered hair hanging 
down. This, according to Paul, was improper, and she could just as well 
cut it all off since long hair made her look like a man anyway (!). 

This is so far from our standards and the hairstyles we know that it is 
hard to understand. Yet another lesson not to take Bible texts 
uncritically out of its social setting and apply it to our days.

Treece also argues:
|It has been often said that Paul deals only with a local custom, or
|cultural matter here. That is incorrect.

And he gives very little support for this interpretation. Paul *is* 
dealing only with local customs. The alternative is of course to change 
all our clothes styles and hairstyles back to that of the hellenistic 
world of the 1st century. It's pretty obvious that Paul does *not* mean 
that long hair for a man in itself is wrong, or that short hair for 
women is wrong. The point is that geneder differences should be 
visible, and a local custom emphasising this is for the good. Treece 
further hides the fact that Paul himself let his hair grow long as a 
Nazirite, before cutting it according to Mosaic law (Acts 21:24; Num 
6:13-). If it was literally "against nature" for a man to have long 
hair, one can wonder why God *required* this from Samson and the other 
nazirites in the Law. Is God's laws against the nature?

 From this, it follows quote naturally that the interpretation that 
requires christian women of our times to have long, uncut hair is 
simply a great misunderstanding. It is what follows when men with 
little knowledge and too much power tries to force their personal ideas 
onto others.

Finally a little note on verse 10, which usually reads:

  1Co 11:10 That is why a woman ought to
     have a veil on her head, because of
     the angels. [RSV]

This is a pure mistranslation. Indeed, the text in KJV, though 
difficult, is literally correct:

  1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman
     to have power on [her] head because
     of the angels. [AV]

What does it mean to have "power on her head"? NIV says "have a sign of 
authority on her head" which leaves it open for the classical 
"veil"-interpretation. It certainly does not, as many will say, mean to 
have a veil on her head. It does, however, mean what it says: She as a 
woman can exercise authority in the church (or ecclesia) as a teacher, 
a diaconos, a prophetess or whatever the spirit has called her to do. 
The Greek expression "exousian echein" can only mean authority *to be 
exercised*. She must, however, even with her hairstyle demonstrate her 
femininity (in the 1st century, by having her head bound with her 
hair!). This she must do "on account of the angels", that is in order 
not to scandalize *envoys* from other ecclesias. The text does not 
refer to heavenly angels (aggelos). Compare with semilar usage of 
"aggelos" in Gal 4:14; Luke 7:24; 9:52 as contrasted with Gal 1:8 "an 
angel [messenger] *from heaven*".

[Ref: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p 809]


- Jan
-- 
          http://home.sol.no/jansh/wteng/jwindex.html