We believe because we want to believe and our belief is based on our perception of the person telling us the alleged fact.
Those in the know tell us what the United States did in Iraq when we removed a legal government and turned their president over to his enemies for execution and then reorganized their entire system of government could be likened to the North, following the civil war, putting the black folks in charge of everything in the South.
Women in history have always been considered differently than men. Even in our enlightened society women could not vote until the early part of the 20th century. For a long time they were denied education. Imagine if the Holy Spirit had included in the Bill of Rights in 1791, the right of black women to vote. Imagine Mississippi in the 1860s or even 1960s. Paul had similar considerations. Jesus did not free the slaves. Generally the Bible does not upset cultural norms but neither does it enforce those norms on other cultures. Neither should we.
You have to read on the subject of head coverings and hairstyles and come to your own conclusions. As much as Al talks against commentaries Al is a commentator no different than any other commentator. Not knowing the original languages I can only rely on what commentator's or author's think on the subject.
My conclusions to-date include: In 1 Corinthians Paul gave theological reason why a Christian man ought not to wear something hanging down from the head while praying or prophesying. He reminded the readers that their head is not Moses, but Christ. Look in Exodus 34 concerning Moses' veil etc. Paul says the question is not what a man does with his head, but what a man says by what he does with his head.
Jewish custom demanded that women too cover their heads when worshiping. If Paul was to be consistent in his insistence on the oneness of men and women in Christ, wouldn't you expect him to give the same instructions to women concerning head coverings as he did to men? But what a woman did with her head held different social significance from what a man did with his.
Married Jewish women were obligated to keep their hair bound up on their heads or else covered over whenever they appeared in public---as was the practice of many Greek married women. It was a symbol of their married state, much like a wedding ring today. For a Jewish woman to loosen her hair in public would have been even more dramatic than for a woman to throw her wedding ring away.
Therefore, Paul objected to those wives who appeared in public worship with hair hanging loose, uncovered before the eyes of the congregation. It was the same as if they had their hair cut close (the style of prostitutes) or as if they had their heads shaved. To take such a liberty with her hair would shame a wife's "head," her husband. It was not a matter of a woman's hair being unseemly---it was her 'glory." But she herself is the glory of her husband, and she should not shame him. The question is not what a woman does with her head, but what she says by what she does with her head.
Since customs have changed and hairstyles no longer mean what they did in the societies of Paul's' time, his specific instruction are no longer relevant to modern Christians. However, the principle behind these instructions, of being sensitive to what message our dress codes and styles convey to others, still holds.
Look for yourself and see what you conclude and don't forget those silent women.
John Jenkins
865-803-8179 cell
Gatlinburg, TN
Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
http://alumcave.blogspot.com/
''Being an executive requires a combination of charisma, a capacity to sustain boredom, and the ability to shallowly perform on harrying schedules.''
No comments:
Post a Comment