Women's Hair In Christianity?
Women's Hair In Christianity?
According to The Biblical scriptures. It is a must for a woman to wear a head covering and cover all of her hair. For if she does not, then she should cut off all her hair. Since it is shameful for one to do so, as hair is on of the characteristics that signifies a woman's beauty, it is best to cover otherwise they would have to shave.
"Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. And man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man. For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority. But among the Lord's people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Isn't it obvious that it's disgraceful for a man to have long hair? And isn't long hair a woman's pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering. But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God's other churches. But in the following instructions, I cannot praise you. For it sounds as if more harm than good is done when you meet together. First, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it. But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that you who have God's approval will be recognized! When you meet together, you are not really interested in the Lord's Supper. What? Don't you have your own homes for eating? Or do you really want to disgrace God's church and shame the poor? What am I supposed to say? Do you want me to praise you? Well, I certainly will not praise you for this! For I pass on to you what I received from the Lord himself. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread. and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and said, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this to remember me." "(1 Corinthians 11:6-25)
Elliots commentary for English Readers states:
—The force of this argument depends on the fact that a woman’s head being uncovered would be regarded by others as implying the same shame as was indicated by a woman’s hair being cut short (i.e., shorn), or altogether removed (i.e., shaven). It is as if the Apostle said—If a woman insists on her right to pray and speak in an assembly with uncovered head, let her carry out this principle to its logical result; let her insist on her right to have her hair cut short, so as to show her equality with man—and what would be thought of her then! No woman with a spark of shame in her would think of doing that. Accordingly you admit that this principle of sexual equality does not apply in all such matters; and it is illogical to argue in favour of any general principle as if it were of universal obligation, when you yourselves admit that it is not applicable in some cases.
Expositer's Greek Testament reads:
With a second γάρ, presses the above identity; the Ap. bids the woman who discards the veil carry her defiance a step further: “For if a woman is not veiled, let her also crop (her head); but if it is a disgrace for a woman to crop (it) or to keep (it) shaven, let her retain the veil” (καλυπτέσθω, pr[1619] impv[1620], continuous). P. uses the modus tollens of the hypothetical syllogism: “If a woman prefers a bare head, she should remove her hair; womanly feeling forbids the latter, then it should forbid the former, for the like shame attaches to both.” The argument appeals to Gr[1621] and Eastern sentiment; “physical barefacedness led to the inference of moral, in a city like Corinth” (Ev[1622]). κειράσθω and κείρασθαι, aor[1623] mid[1624], denote a single act on the woman’s part, “to cut off her locks”; ξυρᾶσθαι, pres. mid[1625],—a shaven condition; the single art[1626] comprises the infs. in one view.—Paul’s directions do not agree precisely with current practice. Jewish men covered their heads at prayers with the Tallith (cf. the allusion of 2 Corinthians 3:14 ff.)—this custom, retained probably by some Jews at Christian meetings (1 Corinthians 11:4), P. corrects without censure; women were both veiled and kept behind a screen.
Amongst the Greeks, both sexes worshipped with uncovered head, although women covered their heads at other times (see Hermann, Gottesdienstl. Alterthümer, § 36, 18 f.; Plato, Phœdo, 89B, ), while Roman men and women alike covered their heads during religious rites. The usage here prescribed seems to be an adaptation of Gr [1627] custom to Christian conceptions. With us the diff[1628] of sex is more strongly marked in the general attire than with the ancients; but the draped head has still its appropriateness, and the distinction laid down in this passage has been universally observed.—The woman is recognised by the side of the man as “praying” and “prophesying” (see note on 1 Corinthians 12:10); there is no ground in the text for limiting the ref[1629] in her case to the exercise of these gifts in domestic and private circles (thus Hf [1630], Bt [1631], and some others); on the contradiction with 1 Corinthians 14:34, see note ad loc [1632] Under the Old Covenant women were at times signally endued with supernatural powers, and the prophetess occasionally played a leading public part (e.g. Deborah and Huldah); in the Christian dispensation, from Acts 1:14 onwards, they receive a more equal share in the powers of the Spirit. But in the point of ἐξουσία there lies an ineffaceable distinction.
According to the Matthew Henry Commentary:
11:2-16 Here begin particulars respecting the public assemblies, ch. 1Co 14. In the abundance of spiritual gifts bestowed on the Corinthians, some abuses had crept in; but as Christ did the will, and sought the honour of God, so the Christian should avow his subjection to Christ, doing his will and seeking his glory. We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have power, that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.
In conclusion:
One has to ponder on the fact why the majority of Christians have never even heard of such a verse nor could have possibly imagined it had existed. The Biblical verses says that it is shameful if their hair is not covered and if a man has long hair it is considered disgraceful. But didn't Jesus have long hair? So is he now considered disgraceful by his own religion?
BrightData Proxy Download:
Boost Your Social Media Following:
https://socialboost.grsm.io/Best CRM to Organize Your Gmail:
https://get.streak.com/
Comments
Post a Comment