Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
You are as bad a Lee at generalizing everything beyond its context.
Paul is speaking into a particular context and culture, not universally. We like to think that everything is generally applicable because we have and read all the letters. But they were not just random writings to whoever saying anything that was universally applicable in all cases. When Paul wrote concerning the customs and norms of certain areas, it would appear that he was concerned that the church should not be iconoclast or weird with respect to things that were of no important moral distinction. So if the custom is short hair on a man, don't buck the trend. If it was otherwise, then that was OK.
In any case, long hair on a man was not always and in all cases a shame to a man. For starters, if it was always a shame, then how could Absalom find anyone to follow him in his rebellion against his father, David, if his very being was a shame to him (as evidenced by the fact that he had enough hair to get it caught in a tree). I guess maybe there could have been a middle-eastern hippie generation at that time with a bunch hanging out at the corner of Haight and Babylon streets in lower Jerusalem.
And if it was not always so, then it is a serious doubt that it became so in the NT. At least as a general rule.
|
So then, if I understand you correctly, the explanation for "doesn't nature teach us that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him" is not referring to nature but tradition, and not to a universal tradition, but one that was narrow both in time and place? The apostle with the ministry to the gentiles. That is your explanation?