Long Hair or Uncut Hair
|
Women that follow William Branham's message are not permitted to cut their hair. This is one of the primary legalistic tenets of William Branham's followers. In fact, the easiest way to identify women that are followers of William Branham is the length of their hair and their mode of dress. William Branham said:
But what are the scriptural requirements relating to the length of a woman's hair? As outlined in the discussion below, from a Biblical perspective, while men honor God if they have short hair and likewise women honor God if they have long hair, there is nothing to infer that long hair means "uncut" hair. Additionally, notwithstanding William Branham's statement that a man is allowed to divorce his wife if she cuts her hair, there is nothing in the Bible to support this outrageous claim. That fact that he stated that this was "thus saith the Lord" would cast doubt on his credibility when he uses this phrase at other times. What does the Bible say?The events that lie behind 1 Cor 11:3–16 seem to proceed as follows. Because of their new found freedom in Christ, women in the Corinthian church were praying and prophesying (verse 5). Christian tradition from Pentecost on had approved of such practice (Acts 2:18), and it readily fit Paul’s own emphasis on freedom. But these women were not merely speaking in worship but doing it in a way that unnecessarily flaunted social convention and the order of creation. So Paul has to encourage them to exercise restraint. As in 1 Corinthians chapters 8–10, knowledge must be tempered with love. “With his head covered” in verse 4 reads literally in the Greek, “having down from the head.” This might refer to long hair rather than to some external covering like a veil or shawl. In verses 14–15, Paul is definitely talking about relative lengths of hair for men and women, so it is somewhat more natural to assume that he has been talking about hairstyles all along. Long hair on Greek men might well have led to suspicions of homosexual behavior. If an external covering is meant, then Paul is probably objecting to a practice which resembled that of Roman priests pulling their togas up over their heads while offering sacrifice or performing religious rituals. Wives, however, should keep their heads covered (verse 5). Again, the covering could refer to long hair. It could be that Paul wants them to keep it “done up,” as was the custom among married women, rather than loose and flowing — a sign in some circles of being unmarried or, worse still, of suspected adultery (among Jews) or pagan, prophetic frenzy (among Greeks). Or it could be that they are simply wearing their hair too short, perilously close to the shaven heads of a convicted adulteress in Jewish circles or of the more “masculine” partner in a lesbian relationship in the Greek world. Alternately, if an external head covering is meant, Paul probably wants married women to wear a shawl over their hair and shoulders, as many Greek women still did in public, and not to resemble those who discarded their hair coverings during pagan worship in order to demonstrate their temporary transcendence of human sexuality. Paul also remarks ironically that if women are going to send ambiguous signals about their sexuality or religious commitments through inappropriate hairstyles or lack of headdress, then they might as well go all the way and become bald (or discard all head coverings) and unequivocally send the wrong signals. Verses 7–10, however, state Paul’s true preference — that the Corinthian husbands and their wives revert back to the culturally appropriate signs of marital fidelity and worship of the one true God. Verse 15 supports the idea that hair length or style has been the issue throughout verses 2–16. “As a covering” might more literally be rendered from the Greek as “instead of a wrap-around garment.” That is, rather than wearing the customary hair shawl as Greek women did, long hair, perhaps done up in a bun, will suffice for Christian women. On the other hand, if an external garment is in view in verses 3–10, then Paul will be drawing an analogy here. Just as “nature” teaches that women should wear long hair as a head covering, so it is appropriate for women to further cover their heads according to the established custom of the day. But the transition is abrupt, and it would seem slightly better to see hair as the primary topic of this entire section. Grammatically, the least probable portions of this alternate rendering are the phrases, “let her be for now with short hair” and “she should grow it again” in verse 6. But the translation problems are solved if we adopt the interpretation that women were not keeping their hair “done up” properly. Then this verse would convey the sense, “If a woman will not do her hair properly, she might as well cut it off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven as men are, she should do her hair in a womanly fashion.” Verse 15 might then be translated, “For long hair is given her so that she may wind it around her head.” This interpretation is further benefited from that fact that the Greek words that are translated into English as "long hair" are "κομάω" or "κόμη" (komao or kome). The Greek word for hair is θρίξ (thrix) and is used 15 times to denote the hair of the head or the hair of animals. However, komao only appears in 1 Corinthians 11 and is used to designate the hair as an ornament (with the notion of length being only secondary and suggested) and hence differs from the word for physical hair. The opening phrase in 1 Cor 11:16, “If anyone wants to be contentious about this,” is one of four such occurrences in 1 Corinthians, each indicating that this is what some are doing. Paul’s final appeal to these women is that “we have no such practice — nor do the churches of God.” The words “such practice,” therefore, must refer to that which the “contentious” are advocating, and which this argument has been combating. This is the third time that Paul has tried to correct Corinthian behavior by appealing to what is taught or practiced in the other churches. This probably reflects something of the independent spirit that is at work in this community. The distinction between “we” and “the churches of God” is most likely between the Pauline (and therefore the “we” includes the Corinthians) and other churches. If so, then Paul is also reminding the Corinthians of how much greater a body it is to which he and they belong. Even though Paul has now spent considerable effort on this issue, the very nature of his argument reveals that it is not something over which he has great passion. Indeed, there is nothing quite like this in his other letters, where he argues for maintaining a custom, let alone predicating a large part of the argument on shame, propriety, and custom. Two observations, therefore, need to be made. The very fact that Paul argues in this way, and that even at the end he does not give a commandment, suggests that such a “church custom,” although not thereby unimportant for the Corinthians, is not to be raised to the position of a legal requirement. The very “customary” nature of the problem, which could be argued in this way in the common uniform cultural environment of the Roman empire, makes it nearly impossible to transfer “across the board” to the multifaceted cultures in which the church finds itself today—even if we knew exactly what it was we were to transfer, which we do not. But in each culture there are surely those modes of dress that are appropriate and those that are not. Finally, the more casual way Paul argues against this present “deviation” in comparison with what follows, seems to indicate the greater significance—for him at least—of the next one. Here he can appeal to shame, propriety, and custom; in the abuse that follows there is only attack and imperative. What they were doing with the Lord's Supper cut at the heart of both the gospel and the church; therefore, much is at stake. But here it is not quite so. The distinction between the sexes is to be maintained; the covering is to go back on; but for Paul it does not seem to be a life-and-death matter. Quotes
Therefore He said, "Let the man cut his hair because of Christ. And let the woman have her hair, for if she cuts her hair she dishonors her husband." See? See what I mean or what the Scripture says?
You say, "Well, my hair's long. See, it's down to my shoulders." That was short hair, "Christ..." You said, "had... Christ had long hair." No, He never. Christ had shoulder length hair, so they say. Just... They just pull it around this way and cut it off, shoulder length hair. Look at the Greek word on that in there, and you'll find out. THE.SEAL.OF.GOD_ JEFF.IN V-26 N-4 FRIDAY_ 54-0514
And you women, get out here and cut your yards with overalls on and with man's garments. And the Bible said... Almighty God said, "A woman that'll put on a garment that pertains to a man, it's an abomination and filthy in the sight of God." And you do it.
THE.WORST.SINNER.IN.THE.CITY_ MINNEAPOLIS.MN SATURDAY_ 56-0218E
THE.SPOKEN.WORD.IS.THE.ORIGINAL.SEED_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-1 SUNDAY_ 62-0318
And now, these, I didn't put the Scriptures down, 'cause I just picked them up (You see?) a few minutes ago. I pick up one now and then that I haven't got time... QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS.3_ JEFF.IN COD SUNDAY_ 64-0830M
I say one thing. I wished... Now, I know my kids has done that too, Rebekah and Sarah, I seen when they cut their hair off here in front, and plait it back here in the back, and make these things across the front, like this. I--I don't, I--I... Now, not holding them. See? No, sir. To me, I wished they didn't even put a scissors on their hair at all. But when they got all long, hanging down like this, and just cut the front of it out of their eyes, little kids maybe. I--I wouldn't know whether that'd be wrong; I wouldn't think so. See? But when you get... If you can, I--for you sisters, I'd just let it the way the Lord made it. See?
A.THINKING.MAN'S.FILTER_ JEFF.IN V-5 N-6 SUNDAY_ 65-0822E
GOD'S.ONLY.PROVIDED.PLACE.OF.WORSHIP_ SHP.LA V-7 N-4 SUNDAY_ 65-1128M
ReferencesBlomberg, C. 1994. 1 Corinthians. The NIV Application Commentary (208). Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, MI Fee, G. D. 1987. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (530). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids, MI |