Modesty -- Sensuality

MODESTY – SENSUALITY

4-4-2019

The wife and I, along with her brother, recently attended a Mennonite Barbecue fundraising event.  According to Wikipedia:  The Mennonites are members of certain Christian groups belonging to the church communities of Anabaptist denominations named after Menno Simons.  Their manners and dress codes are similar to the Amish although they are not associated with them.

The men wear plain clothes, grow a beard without a mustache, and usually wear suspenders.  However, the women are extremely plain in appearance.  They wear neck to floor dresses with long sleeves, wear their hair up donned with a cap or hat, do not wear jewelry or makeup, and never color with hair.  No part or their body (particularly bosom) is accentuated.  They have no hint of sensual or sexual attraction (actually no attraction at all).  Their dress and actions within the private confines of their home is unknown.

Why am I relating this story?  While we were eating, the brother-in-law mentioned that Mennonite women were adhering to the scriptural rule to cover their heads.  He was referring to the information contained in 1 Corinthians 11, specifically 11:5 and 11:13.

1 Corinthians 11:5 NET But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head.

1 Corinthians 11:13 NET (13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

After some investigation, it must be noted that Paul’s comment is not a “rule” nor is it mentioned within the laws of God.  The question is:  why did Paul make this comment and what if the purpose of the comment?

Because of the Angels

To further complicate the issue Paul also claims it is “because of the angels” although he gives no further information about “what angels” and what are the circumstances concerning the angels.

1 Corinthians 11:10 NET (10) For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

The type and circumstances of the angels has various answers among commentators.

The IVP Commentary states:  Women’s hair was a common object of lust in antiquity, and in much of the eastern Mediterranean women were expected to cover their hair. To fail to cover their hair was thought to provoke male lust as a bathing suit is thought to provoke it in some cultures today. Head covering prevailed in Jewish Palestine (where it extended even to a face veil) and elsewhere, but upper-class women eager to show off their fashionable hairstyles did not practice it. Thus Paul must address a clash of culture in the church between upper-class fashion and lower-class concern that sexual propriety is being violated.

The Guzik Commentary states:  Angels are present at any assembly of Christians for worship and note any departure from reverent order; and apparently, angels are offended by any violation of propriety.

The Gospel Advocate Commentary states:  because of the angels.—Much diversity exists as to who the angels are. Many think they were the messengers of the churches. But the apostle nowhere presents a thought as to how woman shall appear before men; the question is, How shall she appear before God? How shall she approach God in prophecy or prayer? The direction applies to her, whether in public or private. It is necessary for a woman to approach God with the tokens of her subjection to man in secret prayer, or private teaching as in public, just as it is necessary for man to approach God as a servant of Christ in private or in public.

The NET Notes states:  Paul does not explain this reference to the angels, and its point is not entirely clear. It seems to reflect an awareness that angels are witnesses to church life (cf. Eph_3:10) and would be particularly sensitive to resistance against God’s created order.

The above Commentary quotes represent the generally accepted explanation of Paul’s head covering edict.  A man should not have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God.  However, the woman is the glory of the man.  A man did not come from woman, but the woman from a man.  Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but a woman for the man.  But they do not accurately explain why Paul said, “because of the angels” or why would or should angels be offended or lust after the uncovered hair of a woman (or was Paul referring to men?).

Another perspective is given below:

https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/2017/07/08/1-corinthians-head-coverings/

1 Corinthians 11:1-6 On head coverings for men and women. In Hebraic biblical culture, it was common for a married (or betrothed) woman to wear a veil or head covering to indicate that she was taken sexually or belonged to a man, even as a wedding ring now publicly telegraphs this idea.

At the same time, the Bible nowhere forbids men from wearing hats. It was common in biblical times for men and women to wear head coverings to protect themselves from the weather, since many of their activities occurred outdoors. Whether a man wears a head covering now while ministering is a matter of personal choice, for the Bible neither commands nor prohibits it. So why does Paul instruct women to wear a head covering while ministering?

Similarly, the Bible nowhere prohibits men from having long hair.  If this were true, then the Nazirites with the Torah-prescribed long hair would have been in violation of God’s laws.

To properly understand Paul’s comments in this passage, we must understand some cultural and historical context. First, Corinth was an extremely libertine and licentious city sexually, since it housed a pagan temple dedicated to the goddess of fertility whose worship involved ritual or cultic prostitution and various sex acts. This was socially acceptable and even a social requirement, and a source of revenue for the temple. Second, the Torah and Hebraic biblical culture were very strict about maintaining the distinction between the genders. Any blurring of the lines was forbidden. This is why the Torah forbids crossdressing or one gender wearing the clothes pertaining to the other gender. These two contextual points must be considered when reading Paul’s instructions in this chapter. In other words, men were not to wear veils that covered their faces, while women were to either have long hair or to have head coverings as expressions of their femininity.

Concerning the angels, one commentator wrote:  “This warning ultimately takes readers back to the incident with the Watchers (sons of God) in Gen. 6:1-4”.

Genesis 6:1-2 NET When humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, (2) the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose.

1 Enoch 7:1-2 It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

2) And when the angels (Watchers), ⁽³⁾ the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

1 Enoch 8:1 Moreover Azazyel taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates, the fabrication of mirrors, and the workmanship of bracelets and ornaments, the use of paint, the beautifying of the eyebrows, the use of stones of every valuable and select kind, and all sorts of dyes, so that the world became altered.

It must be noted that neither Genesis 6:1-4 nor the first 16 chapters of 1 Enoch (which discusses Watchers and their interaction with human women) ever mention that Watchers were enamored by the hair of a woman, although it is possible.

The accepted explanation may be that angels could be offended If Paul’s comments on a woman’s position within the hierarchy of God is not followed with a hair covering signifying that a woman is the glory of a man and indirectly the glory of God.

Greek Theory of Hollow Hair

Dr. Michael Heiser wrote an article, based on information from another article and author, that Paul with his 1 Cor. 11 hair chapter got his information (which he apparently considered true) from a false Greek teaching that hair is hollow and is filled with semen.

Hippocratic authors hold that hair is hollow and grows primarily from either male or female reproductive fluid or semen flowing into it and congealing (Hippocrates, Nat puer 20). Since hollow body parts create a vacuum and attract fluid, hair attracts semen.

Hair grows most prolifically from the head because the brain is the place where the semen is produced or at least stored (Hippocrates, Genit. I). Hair grows only on the head of prepubescent humans because semen is stored in the brain and the channels of the body have not yet become large enough for reproductive fluid to travel throughout the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer.20; Genit. 2).

At puberty, secondary hair growth in the pubic area marks the movement of reproductive fluid from the brain to the rest of the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20; Genit. I). Women have less body hair not only because they have less semen but also because their colder bodies do not froth the semen throughout their bodies but reduce semen evaporation at the ends of their hair (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20).

According to these medical authors, men have more hair because they have more semen and their hotter bodies froth this semen more readily throughout their whole bodies (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20). The nature (φύσις) of men is to release or eject the semen.

During intercourse, semen has to fill all the hollow hairs on its way from the male brain to the genital area (Aristotle, Probi. 893b. 10-17). Thus, men have hair growth on their face, chest, and stomach.  A man with long hair retains much or all of his semen, and his long hollow hair draws the semen toward his head area but away from his genital area, where it should be ejected. Therefore, 1 Cor 11:14 correctly states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair since the male nature (φύσις) is to eject rather than retain semen.

I personally do not believe that Paul was so stupid and ignorant to agree and adhere to the Greek hollow hair theory.  His reasoning for 1 Corinthians 11 was based on teaching modesty, the symbolic gesture of women to confirm they were wives, and for their current cultural clothing and hair style observance.

The Bikini and the Burka

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.

Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.

One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations."

The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the turmoil in the Middle East is about stripping Muslims of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.

For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.

The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.

In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV.  A feminist, she belongs to herself.  In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.

In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)

As an adolescent, her role model is Miley Cyrus, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Miley, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" furtively rather than to demand patient courtship, love and marriage.

As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a large part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.

FEMININITY

The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice.  Masculinity is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.

Feminism deceives women to believe femininity has resulted in "oppression" and they should adopt male behavior instead.  The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.

This is the goal of the NWO social engineers: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce the population. In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be mothers and progenitors of the race. They are meant to be autonomous sex objects.

Liberating women is often given as an excuse for the war in places like Afghanistan. Liberating them to what? To Miley Cyrus? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? If they really cared about women, maybe they'd end the war.

Since this article was written in 2002, it has been reposted on numerous Muslim,
Christian, and Hindu websites.  I revisit this reaffirmation of gender, marriage and family which are all under savage daily attack by Satanists (Liberals, Communists) in government, education & media.

"I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails."

Many people, even males, may consider an unattractive or overweight woman in a bikini as a perversion rather than a sensual exhibition.