Saturday, March 25, 2017

Nature does NOT teach that Long Hair is a Shame to Men: 1 Corinthians 11:13-16



1 Corinthians 11:13 Among yourselves judge it [is] comely that a woman pray to God unveiled 14: nor does nature autos teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him[1] 15: and if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her for hair is given her anti-peribolaion  [instead[2] of a veil[3]] 16: and if any seem to be contentious we have no such custom neither the churches of God[4]


[1]
“Verse 14 purports to be a question asking, "Doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame?" Now every candid person must answer this question with a "No." It is not nature, but the barber who keeps man’s hair short. In China, millions of men wear long hair, and nature has never taught them that it is a shame. Furthermore, the last time the Corinthians saw the apostle Paul before he wrote this Epistle, he himself had long hair (Acts 18:18); and to the Jew, accustomed to religious vows (Numbers 6:1-21), long hair, religiously speaking, was more of a "glory" than a "shame." Additionally to this, the native Corinthian's would have thought this a strange question to submit to them, for they would boast that they were descendants of the “long-haired Achaeans," celebrated as such on almost every page of that most famous and most ancient Greek poem, Homer's Iliad. Therefore we do not believe that St Paul asked a question, here. His simple statement of fact, "Nor doth nature teach you," has been changed into a question by the uninspired men who put in the punctuation marks centuries later than St. Paul wrote  these words. As a question, this is a Tremendous Misfit. It contradicts a fact of nature; it makes St. Paul inconsistent in his practice with his teaching; it is an entirely unsuitable question to submit to Achaeans." –God’s Word to Women, 1908, Katherine Bushnell

[2] G473 anti can mean: in support of or opposed to; opposite to or instead of…
[3] G4018 paribolaion can even refer to a full-body covering such as a burqa, which would not have been uncommon among even the Jews in Paul’s day.
[4] Paul is referring to the “custom” of the Jews and Greeks of veiling their women. He is refuting the custom of veiling by saying that the Christian faith does not veil (cover and hide) their women. Today, most Eastern and Middle Eastern women continue to be hidden by the veil (e.g., the Muslim hijab), or they may be required to completely hide themselves with the burqa, which renders them essentially invisible—completely hidden from society. Traditional role religionists and the complementarian sect of Christianity continue to veil their women, as well—but instead of veils, hijabs, wraps, and burqas, they use restrictive roles to keep their women in their traditional “place.” These sects of Christianity enable only men to be entirely autonomous. Traditional-role-religion and complementarianism agree with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism in granting full autonomy only to men. Patriarchal traditional-role-religion and complementarian paradigms, diabolically oppose the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and the early Church, in granting the same liberties to Christian women as was granted to Christian men.  

This is an excerpt from the Hungry Hearts Bible Commentary (HHBC)

No comments:

Post a Comment