Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Check out this blog that was recently posted. Here are some questions:

oldlandmark.wordpress.com

-- do these Church Fathers and early writers have any authority as evidence to what the 1st Century church believed?

-- while none of this addresses 1 Corinthians from an exegetical stand-point, can history itself help us interpret a passage (hermeneutics says it can).

-- what are your thoughts? are you curious about other early writers?

This writer doesn't stop at uncut hair (which I'm not sure where he gets from the writings), but goes on to talk about ornaments and head bands!

Before we fire back because we think it's ludicrous, please give some thoughtful feedback. Let's try to keep conversation specifically aimed at the points above (inevitably this will turn into another full-fledged hair thread, so I'm trying to preserve it as early as possible)

Thanks, everyone.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

I'll meet your article and raise you a fairly scholarly booklet.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cypr...rBeVeiled.html

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

This isn't the point of the evidence I posited though. I have many expository/exegetical studies on 1 Cor 11. I'm referring to the Church Fathers and their writings with the questions posed above.

Thanks for the link though, I'll check it out.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

http://www.blufftonyg.com/Literature...eries/veil.asp

the church fathers all agree, cover your hair :)

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

That was then, this is now.

In our culture (United States) a woman is not considered immoral if her hair and/or face is visible.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

I am much more concerned with what scripture has to say on the matter, than any "church father."

"St. Paul" wasn't just another church father--he penned scripture under the inspiration of GOD. Therefore, his words were really God's words. BIG difference between what is recorded in scripture, penned by men, and simple writings of men about scripture.

Ergo--I will look to scripture for doctrine, and everything else is just an educated opinion, which may or may not influence my beliefs.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

MB, point being, as we seek to interpret the New Testament, wouldn't history help us with interpretation? OP's claim there was a precedent in the NT times concerning hair, by going to their own works we can see if that truly exists.

Most aren't agreeing on interpretation, so that's the problem.

I'll take a look at these other links later... thanks everyone.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

So this reasoning for contempt of scripture is based on what? Paul does not give such reasoning and his foundation is not based on culture in the text but Spiritual prinicples of God witnessed and verified by the Apostle himself. Whether you agree it's hair or veiling or both... Little reasoning can be given to it doesn't apply today from the text. That would be reasoning external to the text itself.

Also who justified changing such principles of modesty in culture was right? If we want to get into warranted reasons for excluding we can also give for modesty and love for inclusion more which are principle based. Even more so in this perverted lustful generation.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

If Hermeneutics tells us history helps in interpreting scripture....why don't the protestants all go back to the RCC who have more history than they do?

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

TheLegalist, in my opinion nobody is trying to justify changing the principles of modesty in culture. If you have read any of my posts, you know that I do NOT claim to be a scholar and do not want to get into a debate. I have just recently started studying all this myself. That said, my response is below.

If you read all the "stuff" in other threads and go to some of the links you will see that many believe that Paul was respecting the culture in the Corinthian churches and such. For instance, he spoke against those expecting gentiles to be circumcised and then required Luke, I think it was, to be circumcised because of the "culture" of the area they were going to visit.

So, for some it stands to reason that we need to respect the culture at large that we are visiting and living in. Not to say that we become like the worst of society! I guarantee that my unsaved, smoking and drinking friends know what is modest and what is not modest. (Not according to UPC, but according to the majority of US society.)

They would say that low cut blouses, tight clothing and such are a stumbling block for both men and women. Men know what "turns them on" and so do women. Both know how to dress if they want to get the attention of the opposite sex. ;-)

Now in response to the question for this thread...

Everything goes back to opinion, of course, but I agree that the scriptures they refer to are suggesting that women should not adorn themselves for attention and that trying to change the way God made us to look and the natural aging process that God also caused (due to sin in the beginning in my opinion) is not pleasing to God.

That said, I DO NOT think that we should make heaven or hell issues out of things that God did not make as heaven or hell issues. :nah We each need to pray and be open to God speaking to us personally about what we should wear, where we should go etc.

I am not sure where to mention this in my post, but it still strikes me funny when we discuss the hair issue and don't recognize what Paul is saying about the veils. Just as these articles are saying, a veil is a covering, a complete covering. So if we are going to get into legalism, we need to forget the hair stuff because it would not be seen. LOL

Also, if Paul were saying that women should always wear a veil, then why mention not braiding the hair and putting ornaments in it since nobody would be able to see their hair? Oops, I guess that would be a question for another thread. :blush

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Good post! I agree with everything said but am wondering about the above paragraph?

So you do not think it is ok to look younger (or try to look overall better)?

Actually, maybe we shouldn't get into this since it takes the discussion too far from the original topic..... (A "tangent" to those living in Rio Linda)

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Who said the veil covered all of the hair? Also who said wearing veils all the time was necessary? The text says praying and prophecying? Otherwise in Spiritual order to God. Thus I think your points lack textual support.

Concerning your other points... They don't deal with text itself. Paul does not give that form or type of reasoning at all. I have read and reasearched the arguments from both sides and been through formal debate after formal debate. To each his own but in the end it is God who we must seek 1st and his will. I cannot justify the reasoning of others that make the text not for today. It doesn't say that nor even hint to such.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

I would think one would want to be able to pray at any time. I can't imagine God removing all the trappings of the OT law that stood between common man and Him, and then replacing it with a law that tells women they can't pray unless they cover their heads. What if no headcovering is available? I suppose a woman could put her hand on her head in order to cover it appropriately....

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

God is merciful! David ate when he was not supposed to of the bread. Did not change the point of order though. Many things ae in our way before God.... We must do as he says and negate the other distractions that would keep us from doing his will and give all to him. God is a God of order and we stand before God anew in this covenant in which we are blessed. Thus as partakers we stand before God unique as never before.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Also the righteousness of God was between God and man which was due to man's sinfulness and the weakness of us through the flesh. His "law" was holy, righteous an Good. He did not remove the "trappings" of righteousness! He removed our sin of which the law pointed.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

It helps, it's not the end-all. It's one of many: historical context at the time, general history, what did it mean then, what does it mean now, etc...

RCC has been helpful with some historical verification. We use it often as a help for many of our commentaries. Not all are formally RCC, though maybe claimed as such. For example, Eusebius was a historian.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Hey, we agree! Most people get off on the veil hair thing and somehow think hair is the covering Paul was talking about, and thus think they have to have long uncut hair all the time, when he was talking about something that covered their head when they prayed and prophesied. It is all so confusing what people do with that scripture I can't even make heads or tails of it to type it out here. LOL

Anything I type that is wrong will be no surprise. I get a lot of things wrong. I am old, forgetful and have a hard time getting a lot of things correct. :blush

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Are you sure about that? What makes you certain that his appeal transcended culture?

It most certainly applies today, the question is how. To understand that, one needs to understand what it mean then first and foremost. As I understand it, the principle is that while we are a sub-culture, we ought not be counter-cultural. Additionally, the church should not be associated with things today that general society abhors. The church should co-exist and be a positive in society, not a rival to it. In the world, just not of it (in terms of core values, ideas, beliefs, etc...) We win the world by making disciples.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Some good common sense thoughts in here.

One point, I don't think most make this a soteriological issue (matter of salvation), but reason it as an ecclesiasiological (concerning the theology of the church).

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Yes but they do have the longest history. In fact RCCs appeal to history all the time as do all Trinitarians I have encountered

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

NewsFlash: The Jewish Faith is not looming over our backs, and we are far-removed from the time when Jews, who made up a large portion of the early church, were moving into Christianity. Paul made many accomodations for them, being sensitive to how new most of it was. Of course he rebuked the Judaizers too.

Have you researched the type of veils worn? What did you come up with? From what I've read, they were long and flowing veils that went to the ground almost.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

if long uncut hair was to be her veil then a LOT of Pentecostal ladies are violating this scripture by not letting their hair down but piling it up on top of her head

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Oh yes, they even trump history over the written word due to ex cathedra. Their popes still speak scripture. Imagine that.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

If we used the historical/biblical method, should we all be Roman Catholics? :nah

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

No, we should all be Day of Pentecostics. The ultimate trump on history is the New Testament. The others serve as guides for interpretation. Historical/Biblical method uses both church and secular history to help understand the original Text, not opine into editorials about new text.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Good point. So, get together and use human languages you haven't learned, bring tongues as of flame down, listen to the wind.... :hmmm

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Is that the entire context of the New Testament? Go steal one of those Gideons out of the hotel room! :nutso

Martin Luther called out the RCC because of its straying away from NT Christianity. He noticed it on their soteriology. This progressed, blah blah blah... if you are a Restoriationist, you see us still returning back to the D.O.P., the birthday of the Church.

What I'm saying is we use historical writings as evidence, not as our truth claims.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

It was just the most "Day of Pentecostic" thing I could think of. :thumbsup

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Ha! I say Day of Pentecost because all agree that was the birth of the church. From there is where all the controversy has come from. And yes, DOP was not some strange, crazed event. "This was that prophesied by the prophet Joel", right into Peter's message, and the 3,000 souls that were added.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

I have always heard it taught as salvational.

If you cut your hair (women) you have sinned, you will go to hell unless you repent. (that's the way it was taught)

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Where did Paul get the idea that GOD REQUIRED a woman's head to be covered? With anything, veil or hair?

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

I have too. But I've also heard it as non-salvific, but emphasized just the same on the account of ecclesiology.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Very curious was Jewish history reveals here. Doing some current studying on this, as well as interaction with a Rabbi. I'll report if anything neworthy comes out of it.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Didn't you know that there will be NO bobbed haired women in the bride? (Unless of course the woman's name is "Bob" that is.)

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

This particular UPC church seems to teache Holiness Standards are salvational:

http://cornerstonepc.net/index.php?o...-for-salvation

Just look at the results of the poll thus far. The fact that they even have a poll which asks this questions raises an eyebrow.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

I don't think my post reflected any "contempt of scripture."

Paul addressed a situation in a given time and in a given place. At that time and in that place women were considered immoral if they appeared in public without a veil. Paul was teaching them not to indulge in activity (going without a veil) that would seem immoral and scandalous to those around them.

What is the application? Avoid behavior that goes against contemporary morality.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

haha. The poll gave me a tickle. You could find more if you want, but when discussing this, we should differentiate, and understand that not all consider it salvific.

Re: Church Fathers Opinion of Hair
 

Shame, Sam! Are you suggesting culture has something to do with this!? :)