women long hair, men short hair

lambofgod43985889 said:

this is what apostle paul says, as far as i know, in the new testament
so didn't jesus use to use long hair?

Click to expand...

It's not merely "long" hair that Paul preaches against but elaborate hairstyles for men. Honestly, the meaning is what we call a "metrosexual" today. It's someone overly concerned with his looks primarily to entice women.

Google "apostolic constitutions" and read the section Commandments to Men. It has a rather full description of requirements for the dress of men.

Just an addition to the question:

Because we live in grace through Jesus Christ, there are some women who prefer short hair and I had some men in my family who had long hair for a long time until they cut it short. As for me, I have a conviction for long hair as it reminds me that I am covered by the blood of Jesus. I'll always have a covering even if I lose my hair by circumstance. There are other reasons why I have this conviction concerning my own hair, and we shouldn't judge someone else' appearance. As an example: there are those who come to Christ having a bunch of tattoos. We cannot judge by appearances.

I hope that might answer some questions that is tied to the OP's question.

lambofgod43985889 said:

this is what apostle paul says, as far as i know, in the new testament
so didn't jesus use to use long hair?

Click to expand...

Another example of the early church conforming to the Roman Empire norms.

women long hair, men short hair
(UGH, me Tarzan, you Jane)

lambofgod43985889 said:

this is what apostle paul says, as far as i know, in the new testament
so didn't jesus use to use long hair?

Click to expand...

Yes, Paul commands what hair length is required. He never says this command is merely cultural as many believe.

lambofgod43985889 said:

this is what apostle paul says, as far as i know, in the new testament
so didn't jesus use to use long hair?

Click to expand...

It's just something that was important at the time. No comment in the bible on Jesus' hair length.

For all we know Jesus could have been bald.

All that need be said about such things is found in Galatians, I Corinthians 8 and in Romans 14. Don't be a jerk with your hair. That's all.

1 Corinthians 11:14-15

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Click to expand...

Yeah... that's in the bible.

And it sure looks like it's wrong for a man to have long hair...

Yet, it's still tough to be dogmatic about this issue.

Consider Samson... was his long hair a "shame" to him? He was a Naririte from birth by God's own command. Never was to have his hair cut.

John the Baptizer was also a Nazirite, so he too must have had very long hair. Was it a shame to him?

And the Prophet Samuel, I believe, was also a Nazirite.

Jesus wasn't a Nazirite (although He was from Nazareth... that's different), since he drank wine, so we don't know if He had long hair for the same reason as John or Samson.

Paul knew about these guys and their long hair when he wrote this scripture.

So, we either take Paul's meaning at the face value that it seems to mean--and are left calling Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptizer "shameful"--or we look for more insight that will help us understand.

I don't know exactly what Paul meant (or what God wants us to learn from this), but I have some unanswered questions that I think would need answers before we can really be sure.

• What did Paul mean by "nature"?
  • Is "nature" a moral determiner or a moral absolute?
  • Precisely what about "nature" did Paul have in mind?
• What was Paul calling "Long Hair"?
  • How long is "long" to Paul?
  • Could he have been referring to some sort of special treatment or styling of the hair?
• What does Paul mean by "shame to him"?
• How is a woman's "long hair" a "glory" to her?
• What does Paul mean by "Covering"?

I suspect that what Paul meant in each of these questions was a bit different than what we generally think when we read these verses uncritically and just on the surface.

I'm a full believer in the authority of God's Word. But this passage simply is not as clear as it first appears.

lambofgod43985889 said:

this is what apostle paul says, as far as i know, in the new testament
so didn't jesus use to use long hair?

Click to expand...

We don't actually know how long Jesus' hair was.

His forelocks were undoubtedly longer because the Mosaic law required it, but we don't know how long He wore the rest of His hair. The fact that the Mosaic Law did separate Nazirites as having uncut hair suggests that men normally kept it cut to some length rather than never cutting it.

We do know that in the Roman custom--the culture Paul addressed--men wore their hair short.

Gordon Wright said:

For all we know Jesus could have been bald.

All that need be said about such things is found in Galatians, I Corinthians 8 and in Romans 14. Don't be a jerk with your hair. That's all.

Click to expand...

Yes. Paul was essentially following the same concept as explained in 1 Peter:

If you're going to offend people, offend them with the gospel, not with your attitude or appearance.

jesus316 said:

Yes, Paul commands what hair length is required. He never says this command is merely cultural as many believe.

Click to expand...

Well, he wouldn’t. It’s unlikely that the idea of something being ‘cultural’ would have occurred to him, he was simply writing about how things were seen at the time from the perspective of a Jew educated in Jewish customs, some of which he took to be universally true. It can hardly be expected for him to leave a footnote for future generations.

lambofgod43985889 said:

so you are saying paul was mistaken taking as an universally true this command?

Click to expand...

Taking it as a command? What do you mean?

lambofgod43985889 said:

so you are saying paul was mistaken taking as an universally true this command?

Click to expand...

Sorry I was a bit confused by your question. If you mean that he had this as a command from God and was passing it on, I don't think that is the case, no. If you look at verses 2 (tradition) and 16 (practice), this makes it clear that this was part of some broader range of practices that were common at the time. Clearly he expected this to make sense to his readers - verse 13, 'judge for yourselves' - but it doesn't make any sense to us, because it's not something that has any link to anything we would take as being culturally obvious or as a recognised tradition or practice. Some things, like the other traditions Paul mentions but doesn't elaborate on, are just lost to us, we can only speculate about what significance they might have had at the time. From the rest of Paul's writings it's pretty clear that the specifics of how we do this or that thing in a church doesn't have any central importance. To do something we have no understanding of, like adopting certain hairstyles, just because it is in the bible, is a bit pointless.

lambofgod43985889 said:

it's not good to offend nobody

Click to expand...

Jesus offended some people merely by healing on the Sabbath.

Do you believe He should have stopped doing that?

lambofgod43985889 said:

so you are saying paul was mistaken taking as an universally true this command?

Click to expand...

The concept of not offending by style when one can offend by substance is timeless.

The specifics are circumstantial.

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.
....
If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. -- 1 Peter 4