Holiness, long hair, short hair and 1Co 11

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

  [ Originally Posted by Christ Foster <cf01@zeus.odyssey.net> was rejected ]
  [ posted by moderator Tyler Nally <tnally@csci.csc.com> due to checksum err ]
  
Jan writes, 

>As is often forgotten, there are 1900 years of cultural development between
us and the NT writers. 

I agree so often with you on this simple but profound truth that one must
read the scriptures with an eye upon the historical setting.  But I disagree
that the cultural development is relative to this discussion. 

Verse 16 of 1Cor. 11 (NIV has the best rendering) is conclusive Paul is very
clear that this is the only recognized custom that the churches recognize.
The application Treece makes IMHO is that of Paul's referring to the order
of creation, i.e. man made first and the woman made from the man, the woman
made for man and not the man made for the woman, verses 7-9.  It seems that
this is intended purpose of God for all time.  This 'order of creation' is
the focus and not a cultural or social dogma. 

>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.

Isn't this a speculation pure and simple.  Cutting refers *only* to complete
removal?  Where is your source?

>The reason is that this was a custom among homosexuals of the day.  Paul
even makes strained reference >to man being in God's image. 

Strained?  Once again the focus is the 'order of creation' not an unnatural
forced stretched out of proportioned reference, but a natural progression of
thought.

>The error of interpretation becomes almost comical when certain
denominations demands woman to >have long hair hanging down. 

The error of your interpretation is comical to us who see this passage in
the light of the authority God places in His creation.

>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. 

Agreed

>Having "unbound" head *means having unordered hair hanging down.* 

Your opinion not mine. Cut or uncut, not hanging down or bound up.

>Yet another lesson not to take Bible texts uncritically out of its social
setting and apply it to our days.

Again, not the social setting of the first century is in view here, but the
order of God's creation and thus the authority God places in the man/woman
>
>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. 

Nothing in the scope of 1Corinthians is in reference to clothing.

>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. 

This statement is diametrically opposed to what Paul writes in verse 13-14
when he says, and I paraphrase, you judge, doesn't nature itself teach you
the shame of a man having long hair.  How do you arrive at the conclusion
that Paul does not mean that long hair for a man in itself is wrong?    

>The point is that geneder differences should be visible, 

YES

>and a local custom emphasizing this is for the good. 

You missed it, not local custom, God's creative order.

>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? 

No, God's laws are not against nature.  But the Nazarite vow had to do with
a special consecration upon the individual that had taken that vow.  It was
therefore unnatural (against nature) for a man to wear long hair and the
nazire vow emphasized the point.  At the end of the vow they were to cut off
the hair and return to the normal way of life or they would be guilty of
actions that were not consistent with who they were.
  
>It is what follows when men with little knowledge and too much power tries
to force their personal >ideas onto others.

I know of none in the UPC forcing anyone to conform to any standard of
living.  I do know of many that are searching out the truths that transform
peoples lives.  I do not believe this view to be a controlling sexist power
mongering personal idea.  I believe it is a sincere look at the scriptures
and cognizant way of their application to our lives.

I know that you made this last statement because that you believe that we
are a cult.  I think it unfair that you paint with a broad brush and call
this view of 1Cor 11 'forcing personal ideas onto others.'

I can be as unfair in my opinion also by saying, Because you believe that
everyone is saved, you are nothing but a philosopher, since it make no
difference to you whether or not the gospel is preached, because God is
going to 'save' everyone in the end. Therefore why argue the point?  Except
to wallow in you own pride of heart?  This would be unfair to you in the
same manner that you are being unfair to others.

To all that are reading this post, I say, Beware, lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world and not after Christ.

I probably will cause a great deal of discussion now......oh well. 
He who sows