Why does Christian ART portray CHRIST with LONG HAIR, but PAUL calls it a DISGRACE?

[jgarden]

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to to him, but if a women has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God." (1 Corinthians 11:14-16)

Church art throughout history has portrayed Christ as bearded with long hair, as was the custom of the time. Christ makes reference to "hair" in the NT, but never within the context of a "contentious" practice. It is left to Paul to state, categorically, that hair length was a religious issue in the Christian Church. Paul, a Roman citizen, seems more in keeping with Roman traditions than Jewish ones.

(1) If we are to assume that Christ followed the Jewish traditions, wouldn't he be considered a "disgrace" according to 1 Corinthians 11:14-16?

(2) Even if Christ did have short hair, why would Church Art portray him in what Paul would consider a "disgraceful" state?

 

[Mi Zai]

Do not follow the teachings of Paul, follow the teachings of Christ.

 

[Norseman]

Christ also shouldn't be depicted as a caucasian. He was born in the middle east, he would look middle eastern. Same with his parents.

 

[seebs]

Interpreting Paul requires subtlety and attention.

 

[Abiel]

How long is a piece of string?

 

[BarbB]

What about Samson who had huge long braids of hair? Well, we know where that got him, don't we!

 

[artybloke]

St Paul was a square, maaaaaaaan.....

 

[He put me back together]

1) If we are to assume that Christ followed the Jewish traditions, wouldn't he be considered a "disgrace" according to 1 Corinthians 11:14-16?

First of all, Paul specifically and blatantly said that long hair/short hair had nothing to do with Jewish tradition. Remember your quote?

If, however, anyone seems to be contentious, we do not have such a habit, nor do the assemblies of Elohim.

(2) Even if Christ did have short hair, why would Church Art portray him in what Paul would consider a "disgraceful" state?

They painted him with long hair, because they knew men with long hair. They painted him as a European, because they knew European men. Would we do any different, if we lived in that time? These artists had never seen a Jew before, most of them, and by the time they did, the *traditional* Jesus had already been installed. Is it inaccurate? Yes, most certainly. Is it malicious? No, not at all--at least painting Christ as one understands men is not. We today should know better, but before television, before photographs, before mass-transit, painting foreigners wasn't as easy as people today wish to insist that it was. And, for the sake of being fair, the oldest painting we have of Christ is one of a Roman. Short hair, a Roman nose (as most paintings of caucasian Christ), and Roman clothes, standing in a field of sheep.

Did Jews of Jesus' time have long hair? Well, we know better than to say that carpenters did, anyway. Even if they did have long hair, it wouldn't be straight, as it is in the old paintings. Anybody who has ever known any number of Jews knows that their hair simply doesn't behave that way, for the most part. But is it a big deal? No, not really...hey, there was a little girl from the orient who was adopted by white parents. When she drew the nativity, she drew a white Mary and Joseph, and an oriental Jesus. We should have a desire to break free from this religious, thin, long-haired hippy Jesus, and get into who he really was. Frankly, I'm disgusted by some "reserved" views of Jesus--the man was able to shout, he was able to laugh, and...please don't excommunicate me...he was able to burp. But we shouldn't jump all over artists just because they paint Jesus in the only way they know how...we should jump on them for being ridiculous. White? Black? Oriental? He was a man. But anorexic? Religiously poised? Quaint and appearing as if he never raised his voice or lifted a single plank? Again, he was a man. Don't paint him as anything else but a man, because he didn't appear as anything else.

 

[TwinCrier]

I've seen pictures of black and asian Christs as well. Doesn't bother me. We worship the being, not the picture. How an artist envisions Christ is their personal preference.

 

[wonder111]

someone else pointed out on another thread, that one of the earliest paintings of Christ was done by Peter? is that correct? if so, that would have to be semi-accurate

 

[He put me back together]

someone else pointed out on another thread, that one of the earliest paintings of Christ was done by Peter? is that correct? if so, that would have to be semi-accurate

I don't believe that's true. The greatest reason for skepticism is Peter was most likely not a painter...not to mention that paintings aren't particularly what you would call the art form of choice of his people at the time. This claim sounds a lot like a "skull of John the Baptist" to me. But no matter the truth, the oldest intact image that we know about, that we are in possession of, and is thought to be one of Christ (well, practically known to be of Christ, since it is a murial in a Christian church), is one of a Roman with short hair, Roman clothes, and keeping a herd of sheep. It isn't literally accurate by a long shot in any light, but the figurative depiction of a shepherd is sweet, and the depiction of a Roman is simply the condition of a man painting men as he knows them. Frankly, it is much more acceptable in my opinion than the later paintings of a thin, worldly reverent, RELIGIOUS Jesus.

 

[PaladinValer]

St. Paul was talking about a cultural trait.

I personally have long hair; I have no shame for it one bit.