Well, Diligent, I checked your references to Barnes and Clarke and it appears that you misread them. They are saying what all the commentators of that period said, just as I had found.
Albert Barnes is very clear that a veil, a cloth covering, is what Paul is requiring:
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/vi...co&chapter=011
Quote:
|
it seems probable that some of the women who, on pretence of being inspired, had prayed or prophesied in the Corinthian church, had cast off their veils after the manner Of the heathen priestesses.
|
(From what I read, the heathen priestesses most of the time did wear veils in their service to their gods, though not in everyday public life as the Jewish women did, so he has a different history than I found, but in any case he is quite clear that the passage is talking about an additional cloth covering and not hair.)
Quote:
it was regarded everywhere as dishonourable and improper for a woman to lay aside the appropriate symbol of her sex, and the emblem of subordination, and to be uncovered in the presence of the man, (1 Corinthians 11:3-6;) that if a woman was not veiled, if she laid aside the appropriate emblem of her sex and of her subordinate condition, she might as well part with her hair, which all knew would be dishonourable and improper . . .
and that nature on this subject was a good instructor, and showed that it was uncomely for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, that her hair had been given her for an ornament and for beauty, and that, as it would be as improper for her to remove her veil as to cut off her hair, nature itself required that this symbol of her subordination should not be laid aside in public . . .
|
And Adam Clarke also makes it very clear that the covering is a cloth covering, not the hair:
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1cor11.htm
Quote:
Having his head covered] With his cap or turban on, dishonoureth his head; because the head being covered was a sign of subjection; and while he was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be considered as a representative of Christ, and on this account his being veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason. "He should veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold him." See much in Lightfoot on this point. . . .
The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils.
|
(He’s wrong about the customs of the time from what I have read. The Greek and Roman women did NOT always wear a veil or covering when they went out; only the Jewish women did. In any case it's clear he's talking about a cloth covering and not hair.
However, he is one who believes that the Jewish custom of men’s covering their heads was the practice in Paul’s time.)
He spends quite a bit of time on the hair problem but although he says it is in a sense a veil for women, as the scripture itself also says, he nowhere suggests that it IS the same as the veil or covering Paul is requiring of women, but from the above equation of that covering with a "cap or turban" in the case of a man, there is no doubt he recognizes that just as Paul is telling men not to wear anything on their heads, he is asking for a cloth covering for women.
Quote:
Verse 14. Doth not-nature-teach you, that, if a man have long hair] Nature certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for women to have long hair; and it is not so with men. The hair of the male rarely grows like that of a female, unless art is used, and even then it bears but a scanty proportion to the former. Hence it is truly womanish to have long hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it. In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great variety of places, karhkomowntev acaioi, the long-haired Greeks, or Achaeans. Soldiers, in different countries, have been distinguished for their long hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or blame, or whether Homer uses it always as a term of respect, when he applies it to the Greeks, I shall not wait here to inquire. Long hair was certainly not in repute among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was as a token of humiliation; and it is possible that St. Paul had this in view. There were consequently two reasons why the apostle should condemn this practice:-1. Because it was a sign of humiliation; 2. Because it was womanish. After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to dressed, frizzled and curled hair, which shallow and effeminate men might have affected in that time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.
Verse 15. But if a woman have long hair] The Author of their being has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases serve as a veil.
It is a certain fact that a man's long hair renders him contemptible, and a woman's long hair renders her more amiable. Nature and the apostle speak the same language; we may account for it as we please.
Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious] ei de tiv dokei filoneikov einai? If any person sets himself up as a wrangler-puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have already seen that the verb dokein, which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.
|
04-04-2008, 09:24 AM
Threaded Mode