I felt the need to address this in a new blog because while I did address some of the main arguments for the uncut hair doctrine, It was brought to my attention that I spent too much time focusing on the extreme views and imposing those on all Pentecostals. I recognize that not all Pentecostals who hold to the uncut hair doctrine are spiritually abusive in their teaching.
Sometimes we can see the abuse, we can see the negative effects some that these extreme teachings have on people and react to only that. I will say, if you do not agree with those extreme positions I am glad! But I wish more people would push back against them.
These extreme views are commonly held and taught by some of the premier names in the Oneness Pentecostal movement. Raymond Woodward, Lee Stoneking, Ruth Harvey, Kim Haney, and others all teach or write about these extreme positions. The Texas District Ladies Conference, in March of this year, featured Kim Haney as one of the speakers. She touched on much of the sensational arguments I have already attempted to debunk. In fact, I have seen reports of some women coming back from that conference and laying their uncut hair on people while praying for them, believing they had power on their heads because of their uncut hair. This is superstitious and stems from the oversensationalizing of this teaching.
With that said, I am going to attempt to tackle the issue of uncut hair from a more practical perspective this time. I will leave out any extreme view on this subject and will do my best to present what I think is the best Biblical understanding on this topic. Let's dive in!
The entire discussion on the topic of uncut hair comes from 1st Corinthians 11. So we need to focus on the chapter as a whole and ask ourselves, what is the main purpose of this chapter? In this discussion, we often miss the forest for the trees. What I mean by that is by focusing on the what, whether or not Paul is talking about a literal veil or uncut hair in this chapter, we often overlook the why, why is Paul telling them to cover their heads?
What is the main point of this chapter?
The main point is divine order and authority. Verse 3 says, "But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."
Paul is teaching on divine order, showing that the order of authority flows from God - Christ - Man - Woman. I personally believe this is referring to hubands and wives and that this is NOT teaching that women are subordinate or inferior to men, just like this is NOT teaching that Christ was subordinate or inferior to God the Father. It's the divine order of authority. While men and women are equal in worth and value, they are different in function and role within the church.
"The true subject of this passage is about relationships and authority, not hair or coverings. They are symbols of the principle. The concept of headship and submission is best described as relationship and responsibility, not superiority and inferiority.
God did ordain the man to be the head of the home in the sense of responsibility, not tyranny (1 Peter 3:7 and Ephesians 5:22-33). Wholeness comes when each gender accepts their God-given roles; and it is this wholeness that testifies to the holiness of God who created us.
Bob Deffinbaugh notes:
It is only when we are under the authority of our 'head' that we have authority. Jesus had great authority, and yet he constantly acknowledged that he was under the authority of His Father. The centurion said to Jesus, "I too, am a man under authority" (Matthew 8:9). He understood that our Lord's authority came from being under authority. In this sense, it is the woman's submission to the headship of her man which gives her authority."
The concept of voluntary submission to God's divine order was portrayed in the life of Jesus as an example for all to follow."
-- Are We Splitting Hairs? by Joel Chipman
By understanding the main issue we can better understand the purpose of Paul talking about the covering. Paul is using the head covering as a symbol of a greater principle. Culturally the women of Corinth wore veils. Christian women were coming into the church and using their newfound freedom to remove these veils and by doing this they disgraced their husbands.
"The Greek-speaking Christians in first century Corinth would naturally recognize Paul’s usage of the common idiom as referring to an external material head covering, thus precluding long hair from being the covering in question. This is the only reasonable conclusion consistent with the ancient Greco-Roman culture.
“The word group, which includes the words translated as “cover” and “uncover” in verses 5, 6, 7, and 13, is not used elsewhere to refer to the hair.” In the Greek Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), usage of kalupto (also: apokalupto, katakalumma, katakalupto, kalumma, krupto, sunkaumma, and sunkalupto) refers to an external fabric covering over 80 times, but never once to long hair. Consider just a few Scriptural examples:
a) Gen. 24:64-65 And Rebekah…she took a veil, and covered herself.
b) Gen. 28:15…she had covered her face (with a veil – Gen. 38:14)
c) Ex. 28:42…make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness
d) Num. 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman’s head
e) Ruth 3:4, 7, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet… (a material covering)
f) Esther 6:12…and having his head covered
What did women do in the Bible whenever they “covered” their head? Conduct a word search for the word “covering” and note the overabundance of references that denote that the covering was indicative of a cloth wrapping material (not hair).
Chipman, Joel. Are We Splitting Hairs? (pp. 50-51). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
Also, it is important to understand that Paul only addresses 'praying or prophesying'. He didn't say that women need to wear the covering at all times, he is addressing church decorum. Also note that Paul only mentions shaving or cutting the hair short in response to women refusing to wear the veil. Why would Paul in verse 6 say, "For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair" if the subject is about uncut hair? That would make Paul's statement sound ridiculous. If cover her head means leave the hair uncut, Paul is essentially saying "If a woman will not leave her hair uncut, she should cut her hair." This should help us realize that Paul is referencing a literal veil.
Why then does Paul equate not wearing the head covering with cutting the hair short or shaving the head?
In the book ‘After Paul Left Corinth:' by Bruce W. Winter, he wrote the following,
"Paul made a startling statement about the unveiled wife. He said that her behaviour was `one and the same thing as a woman who has been shorn' (11:5). It is known, e.g., that in Cyprus the law prescribed that `a woman guilty of adultery shall have her hair cut off and be a prostitute, i.e., like a foreigner or freedwoman who provided sexual favours at a dinner.
Therefore Paul equated not wearing a veil with the social stigma of a publicly exposed and punished adulteress reduced to the status of a prostitute. Even more surprising is Paul's imperative, `If a woman is not veiled, she must also be shorn' (11:6a). An adulterous wife would be shorn or have her head shaved as a punishment intended to humiliate her publicly (11:6b). He was, in effect, accusing the Christian wife who removed her veil when praying and prophesying of parading like one of the profligate `new' Roman women. If she did this while participating in a leading way in an open meeting, then she publicly dishonoured her husband (11:5) and ought to bear the public stigma.
Paul then argued the converse, that if it was shameful for a wife to be shorn or shaven, then the only alternative was to wear the marriage veil (11:6c). The Corinthian congregation was also called upon to judge how the action of the unveiled wife appeared (11:13). Paul used an adverb `seemly', indicating that it was a matter of decorum - an issue of supreme importance in Roman society. For a Christian wife to indicate that she placed herself among the high-class `new' Roman women grossly misrepresented the teaching of Christianity on marriage.
Mr. Bruce W. Winter. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Kindle Locations 1464-1472). Kindle Edition
Some argue that everything I said so far is correct, that Paul was teaching the Corinthians that the women should wear head covering. But they will then point to verses 14-15 to say that Paul says the woman's long (uncut) hair replaces the veil. This would mean the teaching to wear a veil was a cultural teaching, but the universal principle is uncut hair. But is this true?
What does Paul mean in 1st Corinthians 11:14-15?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
In the appeal to “nature” (φύσις) here Paul makes contact with another philosophy of ancient times, known as Stoicism. The Stoics believed that intelligent men could discern what is best in life by examining the laws of nature, without relying on the changeable customs and divers laws made by human rulers. If we consult Nature, we find that it constantly puts visible differences between the male and the female of every species, and it also gives us certain natural inclinations when judging what is proper to each sex.
So Paul uses an analogy, comparing the woman’s headcovering to her long hair, which is thought to be more natural for a woman. Though long hair on men is possible, and in some cultures it has been customary for men to have long hair, it is justly regarded as effeminate. It requires much grooming, it interferes with vigorous physical work, and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight. It is therefore unmanly by nature. But a woman’s long hair is her glory. Here again is the word δόξα, used opposite ἀτιμία “disgrace,” in the sense of “something bringing honor.” Long and well-kept hair brings praise to a woman because it contributes to her feminine beauty. The headcovering, which covers the head like a woman’s hair, may be seen in the same way. Our natural sense of propriety regarding the hair may therefore be carried over to the headcovering.
Recently some authors have maintained that when Paul says “her hair is given to her for a covering” he is saying that the hair suffices as a covering, and this interpretation has enjoyed some popular currency, but it cannot be the Apostle’s meaning. There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted in verses 5 and 6 that such cropped hair would be disgraceful, and so everyone agrees that a woman’s head should be covered. And if there is something especially suitable about a woman’s head being covered, then she should be glad to wear a headcovering in addition to the long hair. But if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also! The argument here involves a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum in which there is an analogy made between headcoverings and hair. These verses make no sense otherwise. If by “uncovered” Paul means only a shorn head in the first place, as some would have it, then his argument in verses 5 and 6 amounts to the nonsensical “if a woman will not refrain from cutting off her hair, then let her cut off her hair also.”
Another point that is routinely made to prove that "nature itself teaches" us that men should have short hair is male pattern baldness. The argument is that because of testosterone that men are more likely to develop baldness meaning that it is more "natural" for men to go bald. This argument falls flat however because by nature Paul is referencing natural order not biology. Men and women can both grow really long hair, but it is natural in most cultures that women wear their hair longer than men.
another quote expounding on verse 14 is found here,
Paul makes one final argument to support his teaching that the women in the Corinthian church should wear a head covering when praying or prophesying in church. This time, he points to the example of nature, not theology.
Nature itself teaches, Paul says, that long hair is a disgrace if worn by a man. Two things should be noted: When Paul says "nature," he seems to mean how most people naturally wear their hair in society, at large. Hair grows the same rate on the heads of men and women, after all. But throughout time and culture, most men in most places have short hair. Or, at least, shorter hair than women.
This was especially true in the Roman empire. The other truth is that the term "short" is relative. The shortest haircuts for men in the modern era involve shaving the head bald or close to it. Men of some Greek cultures often wore hair that modern people would consider "long." In general, though, men wear their hair shorter than most women, in most cultures, without being forced to do so.
For Paul, this was evidence of God's design for men to leave their heads "uncovered" to better reflect the glory of God. More generally, the principle Paul speaks to here is the same as that laid out in prior verses. Each culture interprets physical appearances to have certain meanings. In that era, a woman's uncovered head was something intimate and even sexual. Modern people have drastically different applications of that idea, but based those on the same principle.
If society "naturally" interprets something as sexually suggestive, it's inappropriate for a Christian gathering. The same applies to gender roles: though the details change by culture, men ought to look "like men" and women ought to look "like women" (1 Corinthians 6:9).
Another common point made in support of uncut hair is the word long itself. Since long is subjective and certain women can grow longer hair than others, the only way to be consistent is for long to mean uncut. This is actually a decent counterpoint. However, the emphasis in this passage as we've already pointed out is divine order and authority. Men should look like men, and women should look like women. This means that the hair should reflect the gender of the person. In our culture, women's hairstyles vary in length and style, but women wearing men's haircuts are the extreme and not the norm. Likewise, men wear their hair both short and long, but in our culture the differences between men's hair and women's is still noticeable.
As long as the style and length of hair is consistent with the gender of the person wearing it then the same principle that applies to Dueteronomy 22:5 applies here. Gender distinction. Men should look like men, both in their clothing, and in their hairstyles. Women should look like women in how they dress and style their hair. A woman can cut her hair and still retain her feminine beauty, it is absurd to assume otherwise. My wife cuts her hair and wears pants, nobody is confused about which one of us is the man and which one of us is the woman.
Divine Order VS Chaos
Most of the time when we discuss these passages we stop at verse 16 as if that is the end of the chapter. For the longest time I just assumed Paul changed the subject and started talking about something else entirely, but that is not the case. Remember, Church decorum and divine order are the subjects at hand in this chapter.
Verses 17-34 Paul addresses the abuse of the Lord's Supper within their services. The Corinthians are eating full course meals and drinking until they are drunk while others in their services are too poor to participate. Paul rebukes this practice and corrects them. Their actions were bringing judgment on themselves because they were out of order.
When you study the Old Testament, from the creation account to the laws given to Israel, you will find that divine order plays a huge part in the story. In Psalm 74:13-17 the Psalmist describes the creation account. in Verse14 he says that God crushed the head of the sea monster Leviathan.
This sea creature symbolizes the destructive water of the sea, and in turn, the forces of chaos that threaten the established order. In the OT, the battle with the sea motif is applied to Yahweh's victories over the forces of chaos at creation and in history (see Psalm 74:13-14; 77:16-20; 89:9-10; Isaiah 51:9-10). -- NET Study Bible notes
Notice Revelation 21:1 "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth ceased to exist, and the sea existed no more." This shows that chaos will cease to exist in the new heaven and earth.
I am intentionally including several sources in this blog to show that I am not just making an emotional opinion based on my past experiences. That through careful study I have concluded that the teaching of the headcovering is a cultural practice and that the universal principle is divine order and authority. This is represented in how men and women carry themselves. This principle is consistent with the rest of Paul's teachings.
1st Timothy 2:8-15 NET
"So I want the men to pray in every place, lifting up holy hands without anger or dispute. Likewise the women are to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet."
This passage has been misrepresented by many different sides. Here Paul both sets up the divine order and gives new liberties to women. Verse 11 gives a positive statement, a woman should learn, this was a radical and liberating departure from the Jewish view that women were not to learn the law. He contrasts this with divine order, 'But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man'.
This passage has been a source of debate and fighting forever. Some take this passage to mean women cannot teach at all, while others see this as cultural. The exact meaning is not the point for this blog. For now we should just notice the consistent theme of divine order, decorum, and authority that Paul is emphasizing.
Ephesians 5:22-33
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church - he himself being the savior of the body. But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so that he may present to himself as glorious - not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."
Again, we see Paul teaching divine order, this time using the relationship between Christ and the church and husbands and wives. Wives submit to your husbands as the church submits to Christ, husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church.
These are just two examples that show that while 1st Corinthians 11 does talk about headcoverings, we cannot lose sight of the main point of the chapter. Paul is concerned with divine order and authority. God is a God of order. Men should not present themselves in a way that dishonors their head (Christ), and women should not present themselves in a way that brings dishonor to her husband.
Nothing in the passage suggests that uncut hair is the proper understanding of this passage. This is an interpretation that is being placed on the phrase 'long hair'. I understand that long is subjective, I understand that making the principle uncut hair that you are making a subjective stance non-subjective, but by focusing on uncut vs long hair I feel that we miss the point entirely.
Comentarios