11,141
edits
Long Hair or Uncut Hair: Difference between revisions
→The wording of 1 Corinthians 11
| (16 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 | ==Does "long hair" mean "uncut hair"?== | ||
There are a couple of logic problems with the interaction of William Branham's interpretation of the Bible and the plain reading of scripture. | |||
#William Branham taught that it was a sin for woman to have her hair cut, as her hair was her covering. 1 Corinthians 11 also says that it is a shame for her to pray in public with her head uncovered. So, logic would tell us that if hair is a covering, and men are shamed for praying with their head covered.... that means, men should all be BALD. (using "message logic"). | #William Branham taught that it was a sin for woman to have her hair cut, as her hair was her covering. 1 Corinthians 11 also says that it is a shame for her to pray in public with her head uncovered. So, logic would tell us that if hair is a covering, and men are shamed for praying with their head covered.... that means, men should all be BALD. (using "message logic"). | ||
#It also stands to reason that if "long hair" by definition is strictly "UNCUT" hair for women, then "short" hair must mean "cut" hair for men. So a man could have hair halfway down his back, but as long as he trimmed the ends, it's the "short" that Paul had in mind. | #It also stands to reason that if "long hair" by definition is strictly "UNCUT" hair for women, then "short" hair must mean "cut" hair for men. So a man could have hair halfway down his back, but as long as he trimmed the ends, it's the "short" that Paul had in mind. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
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. | 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 | 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 he stated this was "thus saith the Lord" would cast doubt where he uses this phrase at other times. | ||
=What does the Bible say?= | =What does the Bible actually say?= | ||
Message believers in general hold that a woman cannot even trim her hair. But is this what the scriptures teach? | |||
==The wording of 1 Corinthians 11== | |||
1 Corinthians 11:4-5 states: | |||
''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> | |||
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 ''“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 question, of course, is what having “down the head” means, or to put that in another way, “having what down the head”? | |||
Some have argued that this refers to having long hair “down the head,” because there is some indication in Greek literature that long hair on men was associated with homosexuality, where longer hair was artistically decorated to resemble a woman’s. The problem with this, however, is that these passages in Greek literature 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 as he simply could have said "short hair" or " long hair." 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> | |||
===Interpretation by message ministers=== | |||
There three main pillars on which the “no trimming ” doctrine rests, at least as message churches teach it, are as follows: | |||
1) The word “shorn” means “cut or clip – period”. | |||
2) The early church and true Christians have always taught “no trimming”. | |||
3) William Branham believed in “no trimming”. | |||
Meaning of the Word “Shorn” in the Scriptures: | |||
Shorn in the modern English language can mean to “cut or clip”. However, it is usually meant to signify “cutting close” and is usually used in reference to shearing sheep. If you search Brother Branham’s usage of the word, it was used to signify shearing sheep or typing people to being sheared as a sheep. | |||
Shorn in the New Testament was translated from the Greek work Kiero, which means “to sheer: a sheep; to get or let be shorn, of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head”. | |||
The word “shorn” is used 4 times in scripture (there are other instances where another form of the word such as “shear” is used, but these are not listed here). Song of Solomon 4:2 refers to shearing of sheep. It is also used Acts 18:18 referring to Paul having shorn his head because of a vow. Based on Paul’s own teaching, one would conclude that he cut his hair regularly (unless he were to have taken a Nazarite vow). This word “shorn” did not signify simply another trimming or cutting of his hair, but a “cutting close” or “shaving” of his head for sake of the vow. Based on these examples, why would we assume the two times it is used in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 would mean anything different? | |||
Note that Brother Branham also stated that “shorn” means the same thing as “shaven” (QA.HEBREWS.PART.3_ JEFF.IN COD SUNDAY_ 57-1006) which seems consistent with the way it was used in association with a vow in Acts 18:18. | |||
In consideration of the meaning of the word “shorn” let us consider 1 Corinthians 11:6. If the word shorn means “cut hair”, covered means “uncut hair”, and uncovered means “cut hair”, the verse does not read coherently as follows: | |||
:“For if the woman [has cut hair], let her also [cut her hair]... | |||
However, if this chapter is speaking of four different lengths, the verse make sense, with covered meaning “long hair”, uncovered meaning “short hair”, shorn meaning “hair cut close to the skin”, and shaven meaning “bald”. | |||
:“For if the woman [has short hair], let her also [cut her hair close to the skin]: but if it be a shame for a woman to [have hair cut close to the skin] or [be shaven completely], let her [have long hair]”. | |||
With this, we see the true meaning of the scripture. Paul is saying that if a woman wants to cut her hair short, she might as well shave it. | |||
==Practices in the early church== | |||
Upon researching early church teachings on this subject, I could find no places where they addressed a “no cutting or trimming” doctrine. In fact, they taught that women were to be veiled with a separate covering other than hair. | |||
I believe 1 Corinthians 11:15 states that a woman’s hair is given to her for a covering. I believe that veiling was a cultural issue, just as it largely is in Middle Eastern culture today. Many supporters of a separate covering support their doctrine by stating that two separate Greek words are used to define the covering. The Greek word used in verses 5-7 is “katakalupto”, which means “to cover wholly, i.e. to veil”. The Greek word used in verse 15 is “peribolaion”, meaning “something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle or veil”. They also state that verses 5-7 are speaking of a temporary condition (praying or prophesying), so that it must mean a separate covering. | |||
As I see it, the fact that two separate Greek words are translated as covering does not change the meaning. Either way, verse 15 says that a woman’s hair is her covering, or mantle, or veil. In verses 5-7, Paul is asking “is it comely for a woman to prey or prophesy uncovered”? If not, then she should have long hair in order to pray or prophesy. I don’t believe this necessarily relates to a temporary condition that requires a separate covering for prayer or prophesying. | |||
In the early church it may have been a cultural necessity for the women to be veiled with a separate veil, but that doesn’t mean it is necessary in our culture. Similarly, the scriptures admonish us in four (4) separate places to “greet one another with a holy kiss”. We do not practice that as it is not our cultural custom, and even though it is sanctified as holy by the scriptures, it could be construed as perverted within our culture. | |||
Brother Branham’s Teaching: | |||
During his ministry, Brother William Marrion Branham spoke out against women with short hair hundreds if not thousands of times. He stressed the meaning and importance of 1 Corinthians 11 as it deals with God’s order for men and women, and how that relates to our order under Christ. He used terms such as “short hair”, “bobbed hair”, “cut off hair”, and “cut hair”. When he used the term “cut hair” was he referring to the legality of cutting or trimming even a fraction of an inch, or was he referring to a worldly, perverted and “unladylike” look resulting from cutting noticeable length from the hair? | |||
Brother Branham allowed his daughters to trim their hair, but it was not short like men’s hair. This is evident from the pictures in the “Messenger” / “Believers International” photo album, as well as admitted in his sermon on questions and answers as quoted below. As much as he preached against men without a backbone who allowed women to cut their hair, it seems unlikely that he would allow this within his own family if he truly believed “no trimming – period”. He stated that he “wished they (his daughters) didn’t even put a scissors in their hair”, but also stated that he didn’t think that would be wrong. When referring to older women with bangs, he said he thought they would be trying to look like “some little kid”, but he didn’t say it was wrong. | |||
One could make the argument that it is okay for young girls, but not for married women to cut or trim their hair. I don’t believe this is supported scripturally. The scripture states that a virgin cares for the things of God and how she can please God, while a married woman cares for her husband and how she can please her husband. A married woman is under the headship of her husband, while an unmarried woman is under the headship of her earthly father. All are under the headship of Christ. The unmarried woman being uncovered would dishonor her earthly father the same as a married woman being uncovered would dishonor her husband. | |||
Throughout William Branham's ministry, we have been unable to find him dealing with this subject, except in “Questions and Answers”, 64-0830M. The applicable section is included in its entirety below for proper context. | |||
:'''''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 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? | |||
:''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? | |||
:''And of course, I know women wants to look pretty; that's nature; and that--that's what they should be. See? They should be that way. And so, that's fine, but just don't--don't; otherwise like this, don't look like the world (See?); don't pattern after the world. Things wrong... You want it cut off, like that, but don't cut your hair now. If you got the braids hanging down, or--or whatever it is in your hair, you leave it long. Don't cut it like it's going to look like the world. If you're just them little girls...<ref>QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS_ JEFF.IN COD SUNDAY_ 64-0830M</ref> | |||
William Branham stated that he has no scripture to say “you can cut so much of it and not the other”. We agree with him on that. The scripture doesn’t say, just as it doesn’t give details to define modesty. It is based on appearance – a woman should look distinctly different from a man by her hair. Her long hair is her glory, and it is given to her as a covering. | |||
What does “Long” mean as used in 1 Corinthians 11?: | |||
After going through all of the preceding discussions, the entire question regarding the “no trimming” doctrine hinges upon the meaning of the word “long”. The “covering” discussed in 1 Corinthians 11 is the “hair”. If a man or woman has “long hair”, he or she is said to be “covered”. If a man or woman does not have “long hair”, he or she is said to be “uncovered”. The Greek word for “long” used in this chapter is “komao”, which is translated as “to let the hair grow, have long hair”. It would seem that “long” is a subjective term, just as “modesty” is a subjective term. God wants his people to dress in a manner that doesn’t excite the flesh of the opposite sex. God also wants men to be distinctly men and masculine, and women to be distinctly women and feminine. He is saying that nature itself teaches that the difference should be shown by the way the hair is worn. When men or women cross that line, it is a perversion. | |||
If the word “long” implies “uncut” hair for women, then it must have a completely different definition for men. No one would say that a man with hair to his waist and trimmed ends has short hair. “Nature itself” teaches us that this is wrong, according to Paul. However, if we take this meaning, a woman with hair to her waist and trimmed ends does by definition have short hair. These differing meanings are difficult to reconcile logically. | |||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 140: | ||
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 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. | 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 106: | Line 199: | ||
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 | ||
{{Bottom of Page}} | |||
[[Category: Unfinished articles]] | |||
[[Category:Doctrines]] | |||
[[Category:Legalism]] | |||
{{ | [[Category:William Branham and Women]] | ||