Question 25 (ABM) - Is it OK for a woman to cut her hair?: Difference between revisions

Question 25 (ABM) - Is it OK for a woman to cut her hair? (view source)

Revision as of 22:37, 15 January 2019

10,994 bytes added , 5 years ago

no edit summary

Admin

Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, nuke, Suppressors, Administrators

11,141

edits

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 ABM
+=Follow up from BTS - Can a woman with short hair be saved?=
+Dear ABM,
+We are to ignore the plain meaning of what William Branham said.  I do understand that you have said that in a few instances in our discussion.
+So let's go on to the consequences of short hair for a woman.
+William Branham stated:
+:''Let a woman say she’s a Christian, with short hair? Huh-uh! You know better than that, see. Yes, sir. Let her say she’s a Christian, wearing paint and make-up, and shorts, and say she’s a Christian? You know better than that. The Word of God teaches you better than that. The Word says she can’t do it and be a Christian. She is even dishonorable, and everything. How is God going to put a dishonorable thing in His Kingdom? No, sir, not at all. No, sir. Theirselves, they shows their desire.  (65-0829 - Satan's Eden, para. 150)
+So he is saying that a woman with short hair is not a Christian.  Or am I misunderstanding the plain meaning of his words?
+He stated:
+:''“The woman that liveth in pleasure,” with her bobbed hair and painted face, “is dead while she is alive.” The Bible said so. See? See, she may be religious, but she never was saved. She’s got a outward motion. She might sing in the choir, or she might dance in the Spirit, she might speak in tongues, and have all the manifestations of the Spirit. But unless that soul on the inside is God’s daughter, see, she is gone, no matter what she does. (65-0822E - A Thinking Man's Filter, para. 70)
+But that is not what the Bible states.  Speaking of widows, Paul says, "But the one who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives." (1 Tim 5:6).  A widow who "lives for pleasure" is not the same as a person who conforms to societal norms for dress, even if William Branham disagreed with them.
+William Branham is effectively saying that a woman with short hair who wears makeup cannot be saved.
+Do you agree with his position?
+Shalom,
+BTS
+=Response from ABM=
+BTS,
+===Long hair is relative===
+I have to give some caveats. There are parts of the world I have ministers that women are genetically incapable of growing long hair. African and Polynesian women cannot grow long hair in the same way European or Asian people can. So short hair is a relative term.
+I interpret what Bro. Branham is saying strictly within western society. I would also suggest times have changed since Bro. Branham was alive. When he was living, especially before the 1960s, it was uncommon to see a western woman with short hair. Society frowned on it, and it was indeed viewed with negative connotations. It was such that, in those days, every woman who cut her hair short was knowingly bucking historic societal norms. Bro. Branham's statements were before the sexual revolution, and right up to the start of it.
+So this is where eating fifty year old manna gets a person in trouble. Today, most women do not consider it to mean anything to cut their hair short. For most of them, it has been that way their whole life and they think nothing of it.
+===Sin is in the heart===
+Short hair itself is not wrong, it is the motive in the heart behind it which truly is the cause of the sin. Why were they cutting their hair short in Bro. Branham's day? For sinful reasons. As a form of rebellion. If we move forward in time to the present day, we find their rebellion was fully successful and what was radical in the 1950s has now become the norm. I am sure as a Christian, you probably do not approve of a majority of the sexual revolution. I suspect you would agree that the changes in women's style of clothing and hair that originated in those days are directly related to it.
+Nowadays, no one even thinks about this anymore in society. If I look a average woman in the world who has always had short hair, I would not judge her harshly like Bro. Branham judged the ones who were trailblazing the trend of short hair in his time. I see a difference in now and then. Because there is a different motive in their hearts. One was pushing the limits and advancing immorality, while those today simply do not know any better.. That is why you can pull quotes like this and make modern people gasp - "Bro. Branham was a cave man!" they will say. Because they do not even have an understanding that his views were once pretty close to the mainstream of Wesleyan thought... He was less strict than the holiness movement of the post-civil war years, for example.
+Bro. Branham is within the maintstream of Wesleyan thought
+John Wesley wrote "Women shall refrain from cutting their hair or curling it either by commercial processes or by home permanent methods." This was mainstream thought throughout the Wesleyan and Pentecostal world. Bro. Branham was merely following in their footsteps on this subject, and ultimately less strict than his predecessors. So while I understand you are rejecting this thought as something Bro. Branham said, I would suggest to you that you are actually rejecting historic Wesleyan thought which Bro. Branham was still holding to. This type of thought was widely accepted in the United States as part of the second great awakening and reached the peak of its popularity in the second half of the 1800s. It was entering decline during the ministry of Bro. Branham.
+===The present truth===
+Our reality is different than Bro. Branham's was. I certainly teach that women should wear long hair because the bible stipulates it. The other ministers who fellowship with us teach the same. Long hair though is relative, depending on a person's genetics. Our ministers in Africa adapt the teaching for their circumstances. But a woman in the world who does not know any better can no longer be judged in the same manner as Bro. Branham was able to judge western women during his ministry. Because their short hair is no longer a clear sign of rebellion against God, whereas it was a much clearer sign during his lifetime.
+I will say this. I think a woman with short hair and who wears makeup is not living up to what the scriptures asks of us. She could be saved, and if she comes to the knowledge of salvation and is led taught by a righteous minister the truth, I believe she will accept the scripture and grow long hair if it be possible for her to do so.
+===Conclusion===
+So you ask: "William Branham is effectively saying that a woman with short hair who wears makeup cannot be saved."
+Answer: I believe Bro. Branham did not mean they could never be saved, but merely that the women who were participating in the sexual revolution by cutting their hair short were clearly in a non-saved state. A Christian woman led by the spirit of God would not be participating in such a rebellion against God.
+Kind Regards,
+ABM
+=Response from BTS=
+Dear ABM,
+You really have diverged significantly from what I believe William Branham clearly taught.  But obviously, I am fine with that as I think William Branham was clearly outside of scripture on this issue. You think he meant something different from what he clearly stated, and I think he meant what he said and that he was simply wrong.
+Was Paul referring to a hairstyle or a physical covering in 1 Cor 11:4-7?  What does the Greek word, κατακαλύπτω (katakalypto), which most English translations interpret as “cover,” mean?  I could go into the Greek usage of the term but it is clear that modern day scholars virtually all agree that to argue that Paul was speaking of "hairstyle" and not a physical covering is to ignore usage of the word in Greek in the first century.
+It is also interesting to note that Irenaeus, along with many other of the church fathers stated that women were required to have “a veil on her head.”<ref> Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 327.</ref>  John Wesley also interpreted this passage as requiring women to wear a veil on their heads.<ref>John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, Fourth American Edition (New York: J. Soule and T. Mason, 1818), 444.</ref>
+ Furthermore, modern orthodox Jewish women cover their hair once they are married.  Only their husband is allowed to see their uncovered hair.  As such, they would appear to be in agreement with Paul’s instructions (where most message women would not).
+Personally, I think Paul was arguing that Christians should behave in ways that are honourable within their culture. In Corinth, the temple of Aphrodite overlooked the city. Many think that the temple prostitutes either had short hair or walked through the streets with their hair uncovered.  Most statues of women from the first century had their head covered. What Paul was saying was that in the Corinthian culture, Christian women should keep their hair covered. If short or uncovered hair on women was a sign of prostitution, then a Christian woman with short or uncovered hair would not be a good witness for Christ. Paul was encouraging believers to avoid appearances and behavior that would detract from demonstrating their Christian faith.<ref>Bruce B. Barton and Grant R. Osborne, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1999), 159.</ref>
+I don't think we need to go into this any further as I do think your position on this issue is reasonable (as opposed to virtually everyone else in the message that I have had contact with).
+I do want to move on to some other of William Branham's legalistic teachings on dress which I will do in my next question.
+Shalom,
+BTS
+=Final word from ABM=
+BTS,
+Just to reply to your one question: "Was Paul referring to a hairstyle or a physical covering in 1 Cor 11:4-7?"
+The context of Paul's statement is a little ambiguous. He clearly is speaking about hair in verse 6, so it seems reasonable to conclude he was also speaking about hair as a covering throughout. I lean towards that interpretation, which Bro. Branham also taught.
+However, to add a bit of historic context, it was actually common in that time for women to wear wigs. Especially among the well-to-do. They actually kept themselves shaved, and wore a wig on their head. So I lean towards the covering being a wig. I personally find that interpretation makes the most sense of any that I have ever heard. Which explains why he goes on to say let the women be shorn - not because they go around bald, but because then they can wear the wig.
+I could insert a picture of Vestal Goodman here.. haha.
+Ultimately on this topic I believe the bible clearly calls for a woman to have long hair.
+You state "You really have diverged significantly from what I believe William Branham clearly taught." That is a nice way of saying the same thing the Ontario street preachers say about us. We would argue we are the true continuation of Bro. Branham's followers.
+Kind Regards,
+ABM
 {{Bottom of Page}}