-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
hair length/head covering
- Thread starter Jewel
- Start date
While I don't know the whole history of shaving beards (and heads), it seems apparent through art and descriptions that armies of ancient empires began the practice as part of their 'standards' of cleanliness and nonnterference. That may not make a lot of sense considering other things they did, but it obviously did help in the wearing of helmets or mail and the use of bows; or even imagine a fight for your life in 1-on-1 combat with swords with a long flopping beard in the way. And if shaving the beard of whole head worked for making combat easier, surely it was reasoned it the idea could help in other things.
If you want a good laugh from an old game show (the best, IMO), check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgib4c4MG0Y
If you want a good laugh from an old game show (the best, IMO), check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgib4c4MG0Y
thomas not doubting
New Member
I can think of one very good reason NOT to have a beard:
Critters
I saw a documentary on cable TV perhaps ten years ago that revealed ALL men who wear beards have little "critters" living permanently in their beard. These little mites are about the size, or smaller than the period on the end of a sentence. They happily munch away on the crumbs and other microscopic food bits that fall into their beard when the person eats.
Washing or brushing the beard does NOT get rid of the critters. The only way to get rid of them is (you guessed it) shave the beard off.
The documentary did not say anything about mustaches but I would guess that men who wear longer mustaches that hang down to their upper lip might have the same problem, but that's just a guess.
Critters
I saw a documentary on cable TV perhaps ten years ago that revealed ALL men who wear beards have little "critters" living permanently in their beard. These little mites are about the size, or smaller than the period on the end of a sentence. They happily munch away on the crumbs and other microscopic food bits that fall into their beard when the person eats.
Washing or brushing the beard does NOT get rid of the critters. The only way to get rid of them is (you guessed it) shave the beard off.
The documentary did not say anything about mustaches but I would guess that men who wear longer mustaches that hang down to their upper lip might have the same problem, but that's just a guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
ccrobinson
Active Member
Doesn't matter what you believe, webdog. It only matters what my wife believes in this matter. :smilewinkgrin:
Brother Bob
New Member
We only eat with the mouth, so that is the only place where the crumbs are, I think.................
BBob,
BBob,
Brother Bob
New Member
Just think when you kiss him, you have to share..........:thumbs:Amy.G said:
thomas not doubting
New Member
Alcott said:
The only reason the "critters" were there was because of the food crumbs that fell into the beard as the person ate (You're correct, Brother Bob.)
I remember when the narrator was explaining this, they were showing two men with long, grey beards eating, with bread crumbs dropping down. The camera angle then changed and was from the perspective inside the beard looking up as though one was one of the little mites, with little munching sounds in the soundtrack; the mites eating their dinner as the men were eating theirs.
The narrator's voice I remember. He often narrates, or used to narrate documentaries on channels such as Discovery, or the "old" A&E chnanel. He's an older moddle aged gentleman with grayish-silvery hair, can't remember his name. But a distinctive voice.
cowboymatt
New Member
I finally got to teach on the passage in question (1 Cor 11:2-16). After all of my study and research I have come to a few conclusions about this passage:
1) Women had an active role in the religious life of Corinth. The question here is
not whether they should pray and prophesy, but how they should wear their hear or whether or not they should cover their heads while praying and prophesying. This is in agreeance with Gal 3.28, as well as the other female leaders in Pauline churches, like Phoebe, Junias, Priscilla, Euodia, and Syntyche (amongst others).
2) Paul appears to be calling the women in Corinth to behave within the cultural norms of their day. Women in public did not wear their hair down unless they were looking for a man, so for a woman in the church to pray and prophesy with her hair down may be sending a sexual message to the men of the congregation. Also, there may have been some confusion on the part of the church in Corinth about what was public and what was private since their church met inside a home, space which was normally considered private. Here Paul seems to be saying that even home churches are to be considered public, and thus that the women of the congregation should dress appropriately, as if they were in public. If the women didn't do this, it could lead to disunity within the church and it could hinder their praying and prophesying from being heard properly by people in attendence, especially unbelievers.
3) Also, women who had active roles in the pagan cults of Corinth often had wild, long, loosed hair, so Paul is calling on the women of Corinth to be different from the pagans. Paul wants to distant Christian worship from pagan worship. We also see this in chapter 12 and 14 where Paul advises agains ecstatic worship (speaking in tongues), which may have looked and sounded much like pagan worship, like that of Isis and Dionysus.
4) I don't believe that this is a call for women today to where head coverings or have long hair. Head coverings and long hair are not the central point of this passage. The central point is that during worship those in an active role should dress in culturally decent ways. So for us that could mean many different things, depending on where we live. In some places women wearing pants is viewed as offensive culturally, so a woman in an active role in a church in the culture should wear a skirt or dress. In many places men wearing a hat inside the church is culturally unacceptable, so when leading in an active role in the church men should not wear hats in that culture. In Texas it was expected that the preacher wore a suit and tie (at least in the churches I attended), so whenever I preached I wore a suit and a tie. Here in California things are a little different, so I may not wear a suit and tie when I preach...actually wearing a suit and tie may actually hinder people from listening to me. I think Paul's point was that he was telling the women in Corinth to get out of the way of unity and the gospel as much as possible, which for them meant wearing head coverings. Today Paul would tell us the same principle (get out of the way of unity and the gospel as much as possible) though it could manifest itself in very different ways (such as the tie in Texas but not in California).
1) Women had an active role in the religious life of Corinth. The question here is
not whether they should pray and prophesy, but how they should wear their hear or whether or not they should cover their heads while praying and prophesying. This is in agreeance with Gal 3.28, as well as the other female leaders in Pauline churches, like Phoebe, Junias, Priscilla, Euodia, and Syntyche (amongst others).
2) Paul appears to be calling the women in Corinth to behave within the cultural norms of their day. Women in public did not wear their hair down unless they were looking for a man, so for a woman in the church to pray and prophesy with her hair down may be sending a sexual message to the men of the congregation. Also, there may have been some confusion on the part of the church in Corinth about what was public and what was private since their church met inside a home, space which was normally considered private. Here Paul seems to be saying that even home churches are to be considered public, and thus that the women of the congregation should dress appropriately, as if they were in public. If the women didn't do this, it could lead to disunity within the church and it could hinder their praying and prophesying from being heard properly by people in attendence, especially unbelievers.
3) Also, women who had active roles in the pagan cults of Corinth often had wild, long, loosed hair, so Paul is calling on the women of Corinth to be different from the pagans. Paul wants to distant Christian worship from pagan worship. We also see this in chapter 12 and 14 where Paul advises agains ecstatic worship (speaking in tongues), which may have looked and sounded much like pagan worship, like that of Isis and Dionysus.
4) I don't believe that this is a call for women today to where head coverings or have long hair. Head coverings and long hair are not the central point of this passage. The central point is that during worship those in an active role should dress in culturally decent ways. So for us that could mean many different things, depending on where we live. In some places women wearing pants is viewed as offensive culturally, so a woman in an active role in a church in the culture should wear a skirt or dress. In many places men wearing a hat inside the church is culturally unacceptable, so when leading in an active role in the church men should not wear hats in that culture. In Texas it was expected that the preacher wore a suit and tie (at least in the churches I attended), so whenever I preached I wore a suit and a tie. Here in California things are a little different, so I may not wear a suit and tie when I preach...actually wearing a suit and tie may actually hinder people from listening to me. I think Paul's point was that he was telling the women in Corinth to get out of the way of unity and the gospel as much as possible, which for them meant wearing head coverings. Today Paul would tell us the same principle (get out of the way of unity and the gospel as much as possible) though it could manifest itself in very different ways (such as the tie in Texas but not in California).
Justlittleoldme
New Member
Why hair up?
Okay, I am a little confused here. Where in this passage does Paul say a woman's hair should be worn up? I think it says the "head" should be covered doesn't it?
What reference book did you get the "cultural norm of their day" from that said the women may have been sending a sexual message to the men of the congregation?
Just curious.
cowboymatt said:
Okay, I am a little confused here. Where in this passage does Paul say a woman's hair should be worn up? I think it says the "head" should be covered doesn't it?
What reference book did you get the "cultural norm of their day" from that said the women may have been sending a sexual message to the men of the congregation?
Just curious.
cowboymatt
New Member
I'll have to poke around in the commentaries and articles again to answer your second question (which I'll gladly do on Sunday afternoon or on Monday). I answer it a little bit below with regard to statues and there is some other evidence that in some pagan religions of the time and area women "priestesses" wore their hair down and that they also engaged in sexual religious practices with men who visited their places of worship (often called "temple prostitutes" in books and sermons).Justlittleoldme said:
There are some translational problems with Greek word for "veil" or "head covering" -- it could mean that a woman has an up do. I think that it is more likely that Paul has in mind "head covering" here, but many scholars argue against this in favor of up do (they do this more based on the fact that almost every single Roman statue that we have seen of a married woman [wives of important people like senators, emperors, philosophers, etc] have up do's...which I guess partly answers your second question...if married women had their hair up, then perhaps unmarried women wore it down, indicating that they were free game.)
Justlittleoldme
New Member
I hope you can find the commentaries because so far I only see opinion and suposition in your answer. You could also come to the conclusion, by your standard of fact, that if the Roman women that were married wore their hair up then this might have been some kind of pagan ritual or custom as well. You might also argue that is why the braiding of hair is mentioned in the verse about the outward adorning of a woman. Couldn´t you? ç
Just throwing ideas out there.)
Just throwing ideas out there.
)cowboymatt
New Member
Here is some of the "evidence" that I have found:
Musonius Rufus, am ancient Stoic Philosopher, argued in Fragment 21 that men and women should not try to look androgynous by the way that they wear their hair, which supports Paul's discussion of hair length.
The ancient geographer Strabo, in Geography 10.3.8, and Epictetus, in Discourses 3.1.24-36, both argue that men and women could be identified by the way that they wore their hair, which again supports Paul's hair length argument.
Also supporting the hair length argument is a statement found in an ancient Hellenistic-Jewish document, "Long hair is not fit for boys, but for voluptuous women" (Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 210-212). By adding the qualifier "voluptuous," it appears the long hair had a sexual connotation as well.
The ancient Hellenistic Jew Philo also supports Paul's hair length argument by saying that men who make themselves look like women by how they wear their hair (amongst other things) are "worthy of death" and "debase nature" (Special Laws 3.37-38).
From David Garland's commentary on 1 Corinthians (pages 520-521): "For a Hebrew woman to go out uncovered was widely regarded as a disgrace (3 Macc. 4:6; b. Ned. 30b) because a covered head was a sign of modesty (b. Yoma 47b). To go out with loose hair in public (m. B. Qam. 8:6) was a greater disgrace and considered grounds for divorce (m. Ketub. 7:6; b. Ketub. 72a). Paul is not imposing Palestinian customs on the Corinthians, however, the Corinthian culture also looked askance at women going out in public without a head covering. The literature suggests that it was taken for granted that respectable women would wear some kind of head covering in public (...Plutarch, Mor. 232C, 267A). ... Uncovering the head in public had sexual implications. ... [quoting Thiselton] 'A woman who went out...unvieled forfeited the protection of Roman law against possible attacker who were entitled to plead extenuating circumstances.' ... Hair (exposed) is included in a list of sexual incitements in b. Ber. 24a." Garland then concludes his thoughts like this: "Women are not to be ogled as sex objects in worship. Paul's primary interest in this passage is to prevent this from happening..."
Charles Talbert, in Reading 1 Corinthians (page 87) writes that "In a pagan millieu, the sight of disheveled hair was connected with the worship of Oriental deities (Tibullus says a woman friend let her hair down twice daily in the worship of Isis [1.3.29-32]).
Thus, adding all of this together, Paul seems to be arguing, along with the cultural norms of his day, that men should look like men and women like women when leading in worship. Also, leaders in worship (especially women) should not make themselves appear to be disgraceful (sexually or otherwise) with regard to their hairstyle or head attire. Lastly, Christian worship should look different than pagan worship, particularly with regard to female hairstyle and head attire.
Regarding the braiding of a woman's hair, that is not found in the passage, though the NT does address it elsewhere. Probably what is in mind is the over-adornment of the hair, not a simple braid.
Musonius Rufus, am ancient Stoic Philosopher, argued in Fragment 21 that men and women should not try to look androgynous by the way that they wear their hair, which supports Paul's discussion of hair length.
The ancient geographer Strabo, in Geography 10.3.8, and Epictetus, in Discourses 3.1.24-36, both argue that men and women could be identified by the way that they wore their hair, which again supports Paul's hair length argument.
Also supporting the hair length argument is a statement found in an ancient Hellenistic-Jewish document, "Long hair is not fit for boys, but for voluptuous women" (Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 210-212). By adding the qualifier "voluptuous," it appears the long hair had a sexual connotation as well.
The ancient Hellenistic Jew Philo also supports Paul's hair length argument by saying that men who make themselves look like women by how they wear their hair (amongst other things) are "worthy of death" and "debase nature" (Special Laws 3.37-38).
From David Garland's commentary on 1 Corinthians (pages 520-521): "For a Hebrew woman to go out uncovered was widely regarded as a disgrace (3 Macc. 4:6; b. Ned. 30b) because a covered head was a sign of modesty (b. Yoma 47b). To go out with loose hair in public (m. B. Qam. 8:6) was a greater disgrace and considered grounds for divorce (m. Ketub. 7:6; b. Ketub. 72a). Paul is not imposing Palestinian customs on the Corinthians, however, the Corinthian culture also looked askance at women going out in public without a head covering. The literature suggests that it was taken for granted that respectable women would wear some kind of head covering in public (...Plutarch, Mor. 232C, 267A). ... Uncovering the head in public had sexual implications. ... [quoting Thiselton] 'A woman who went out...unvieled forfeited the protection of Roman law against possible attacker who were entitled to plead extenuating circumstances.' ... Hair (exposed) is included in a list of sexual incitements in b. Ber. 24a." Garland then concludes his thoughts like this: "Women are not to be ogled as sex objects in worship. Paul's primary interest in this passage is to prevent this from happening..."
Charles Talbert, in Reading 1 Corinthians (page 87) writes that "In a pagan millieu, the sight of disheveled hair was connected with the worship of Oriental deities (Tibullus says a woman friend let her hair down twice daily in the worship of Isis [1.3.29-32]).
Thus, adding all of this together, Paul seems to be arguing, along with the cultural norms of his day, that men should look like men and women like women when leading in worship. Also, leaders in worship (especially women) should not make themselves appear to be disgraceful (sexually or otherwise) with regard to their hairstyle or head attire. Lastly, Christian worship should look different than pagan worship, particularly with regard to female hairstyle and head attire.
Regarding the braiding of a woman's hair, that is not found in the passage, though the NT does address it elsewhere. Probably what is in mind is the over-adornment of the hair, not a simple braid.
Adam M. O'Donnell
New Member
Here is what I've always preached...
I may not know how "long, long is".... But I do know how "short, short is"!!!!!!!!!!!
I may not know how "long, long is".... But I do know how "short, short is"!!!!!!!!!!!
cowboymatt
New Member
So are you saying that because short hair was viewed as masculine in the Corinthians' culture that we should preach against women having short hair today, even though short hair is not necessarily a sign of masculinity today?Adam M. O'Donnell said:
Can't you see how that is imposing the culture of Paul's day on today's Christians, instead of calling us toward the point or truth of the passage?
By the way, almost every commentator around says that this passage is about dressing/behaving in appropriate manners during worship...isn't that what we should be preaching then?
Baptist in Socialist Land
New Member
Long hair on women is great, short hair on women makes them look like men and is usually a clear sign of rebellion, plus it looks unnatural (I should know because here in Socialist Land many women wear short hair and act like men (rebellion)).
And the opposite is true for men.
Ask yourself why the satanist rockers love to wear long hair, the Holy Bible says it's shameful so these weirdos then want to do the opposite of what the Holy Bible says naturally.
It's not very hard to see except for the ones that don't want to see.
Isn't the modernism and humanism that has crept into the Church nice?
In tend to think this matter has a whole lot to do with this matter:
Women in Church Office
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/women_pastors.shtml
and this is all a clear sign of the growing apostasy and rebellion as I see it.
And the opposite is true for men.
Ask yourself why the satanist rockers love to wear long hair, the Holy Bible says it's shameful so these weirdos then want to do the opposite of what the Holy Bible says naturally.
It's not very hard to see except for the ones that don't want to see.
Isn't the modernism and humanism that has crept into the Church nice?
In tend to think this matter has a whole lot to do with this matter:
Women in Church Office
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/women_pastors.shtml
and this is all a clear sign of the growing apostasy and rebellion as I see it.