Jump to content

Long Hair or Uncut Hair: Difference between revisions

Long Hair or Uncut Hair (view source)

Revision as of 14:11, 2 November 2017

2,722 bytes added ,  6 years ago
→‎What William Branham taught
(11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Top of Page}}
{{Top of Page}}
 
[[Image:Rebekah's bangs.jpg|thumb|right|250px|William, Billy Paul, Rebekah (with cut hair) and Meda Branham in the 1950s.]]
{{Legalism}}
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.
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.


=What William Branham taught=
=What William Branham taught=
 
[[Image:Branham Girls.jpg|thumb|250px|William and Meda Braham with their daughters, with their skirts above their knees and hair to their shoulders.]]
William Branham said:  
William Branham said:  


Line 10: Line 11:
#It is a sin for a woman to cut her hair.
#It is a sin for a woman to cut her hair.
#God doesn't hear the prayer of a women that cuts her hair.
#God doesn't hear the prayer of a women that cuts her hair.
#Joan of Arc was a spiritual woman who heard the voice of God.


There are a couple of logic problems with the interaction of William Branham's interpretation of the Bible and the plain reading of scripture:
There are a couple of logic problems with the interaction of William Branham's interpretation of the Bible and the plain reading of scripture:
Line 20: Line 22:
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.
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?=
=What does the Bible actually 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 (1 Cor 11:5).  From Pentecost on women had participated in prayer and prophecy (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 1 Cor 11:14–15, 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 (1 Cor 11:5).  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.  1 Cor 11:7–10, 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.
 
1 Cor 11:15 supports the idea that hair length or style has been the issue throughout 1 Cor 11:2–16.  “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 1 Cor 11:3–10, 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.
Message believers in general hold that a woman cannot even trim her hair.  But is this what the scriptures teach?


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.
==The wording of 1 Corinthians 11==


Paul’s final appeal to these women is that “we have no such practice — nor do the churches of God.”
1 Corinthians 11:4-5 states:


The words “such practice,” therefore, must refer to that which the “contentious” are advocating, and which this argument has been combating.
''Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.  But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...<ref>The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Co 11:4-5</ref>


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 New Testament was originally written in Greek, so we need to look at the original text to understand what is being said. Paul states that the man would shame his “head” if he were to have (something) “hanging down the head”; whereas the opposite would prevail for the woman: she would shame her “head” if she were to prophesy “uncovered as to the head.” <ref>Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 495.</ref>


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.
The question, of course, is what “having down the head” means, or to put that in another way, “having what down the head”?


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.<ref>
Some have argued that this refers to having long hair “down the head,” Because there was disdain for long hair on men was usually in conjunction with homosexuality, where longer hair was artistically decorated to resemble a woman’s. The problem with this, however, is that these passages always refer to hair, and never remotely resemble the language Paul uses here. If Paul had intended long hair, this idiom is a most unusual way of referring to it. On the other hand, although Paul’s idiom is somewhat unusual, it is not without precedent. In Esther 6:12, Haman is said to have “hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered”. The Septuagint translates this last phrase kata kephalēs (= “down the head”). So also Plutarch speaks of Scipio the Younger as beginning to walk through Alexandria “having the himation down the head,” meaning that he covered his head with part of his toga so as to be unrecognized by the people. Almost certainly, therefore, by this idiom Paul is referring to an external cloth covering.<ref>Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 506–507.</ref>
The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament) by Gordon D. Fee</ref>
 
==Can a woman trim her hair?==
 
Message believers in general hold that a woman cannot even trim her hair.


There three main pillars on which the “no trimming ” doctrine rests, at least as we have been taught it, which are as follows:
There three main pillars on which the “no trimming ” doctrine rests, at least as we have been taught it, which are as follows:
Line 101: Line 84:




:''1101-Q-343 343. When they cut it in... Is long--is long hair when they cut it in front? (Huh. Now, wait a minute; let me get this here. I...) Is long hair when they...
:'''''Q-343'''. When they cut it in... Is long--is long hair when they cut it in front? (Huh. Now, wait a minute; let me get this here. I...) Is long hair when they...


:''Well, I--I--maybe they mean this: "Is it long hair any longer when they cut it in front?" Not any longer; they've cut it off. See? But like the man that had the trousers cut them off three times and still too short. What say? What say? [Brother Branham has conversation with someone in audience--Ed.] Oh, that's what they're talking about. As I tease my little girl, she said... The "booms" I call them, you know, bangs, or whatever it is, you know, across the front here.
:''Well, I--I--maybe they mean this: "Is it long hair any longer when they cut it in front?" Not any longer; they've cut it off. See? But like the man that had the trousers cut them off three times and still too short. What say? What say? [Brother Branham has conversation with someone in audience--Ed.] Oh, that's what they're talking about. As I tease my little girl, she said... The "booms" I call them, you know, bangs, or whatever it is, you know, across the front here.


:''Well, I imagine those kids that's cutting their hair in front... You--maybe your mother could tell you about that (See?), if she wants you to do that way. I think it'd look kinda--kinda a little bit like a woman was looking through the rear view if she passed about twenty-five years old and wanted to cut them off in front like that, look like some little kid. Look on out here where you're going, sis, not where you've been. See?
:''Well, I imagine those kids that's cutting their hair in front... You--maybe your mother could tell you about that (See?), if she wants you to do that way. I think it'd look kinda--kinda a little bit like a woman was looking through the rear view if she passed about twenty-five years old and wanted to cut them off in front like that, look like some little kid. Look on out here where you're going, sis, not where you've been. See?
1102-186 And now, but cutting the hair, I--I--I'll tell you this. I can't--I--I ain't got no--no Scripture to say that you can cut so much of it and can't do the other. '''I--I haven't got no Scripture for that; I--I couldn't tell you that, sister, or brother, ever who it is.'''
 
:''And now, but cutting the hair, I--I--I'll tell you this. I can't--I--I ain't got no--no Scripture to say that you can cut so much of it and can't do the other. '''I--I haven't got no Scripture for that; I--I couldn't tell you that, sister, or brother, ever who it is.'''


:''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?
:''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?
Line 121: Line 105:


True revelation from God will fulfill the scripture, not change it. We should not shy away from nor attempt to re-define words from scripture, teachings from the early church or reformers, or other pertinent information, but should confront these facts straight forwardly with respect to scriptural doctrine. We should never try to mold facts to fit a doctrine, but should mold our doctrine to fit God’s word.
True revelation from God will fulfill the scripture, not change it. We should not shy away from nor attempt to re-define words from scripture, teachings from the early church or reformers, or other pertinent information, but should confront these facts straight forwardly with respect to scriptural doctrine. We should never try to mold facts to fit a doctrine, but should mold our doctrine to fit God’s word.
=Commentary by Bible Scholars=
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 (1 Cor 11:5).  From Pentecost on women had participated in prayer and prophecy (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 1 Cor 11:14–15, 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 (1 Cor 11:5).  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.  1 Cor 11:7–10, 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.
1 Cor 11:15 supports the idea that hair length or style has been the issue throughout 1 Cor 11:2–16.  “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 1 Cor 11:3–10, 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.
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.<ref>
The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament) by Gordon D. Fee</ref>


=Quotes of William Branham=
=Quotes of William Branham=
Line 178: Line 193:
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
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


==Footnotes==
{{Bottom of Page}}
 
[[Category: Unfinished articles]]
<references/>
[[Category:Doctrines]]
 
[[Category:Legalism]]
{{Portal Navigation}}
[[Category:William Branham and Women]]
|-
|}
Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/17391...22940"