Long Hair

[Deborah]

Someone told me the bible said if a man has long it's a sin. I can't find anything that says that in the bible. Does anyone know about that?

[implodespw]

I couldn't find any scripture referance with that in it. Ask them to prove it.

[C.A.LeeJr]

There is provision for Long hair though with the Nazarite vow, but nothing about short hair. Some people will twist it and say that you are not to be "of the world" and long hair is "of the world" however - that is by their interpreataion, and not something that is in the Word.

implodespw's right - nothing about short hair.

[KaintBkwite]

They're referring to I Corinthians 11:14-16 -

"Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But, if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."



K~

[C.A.LeeJr]

I guess that's your answer

[kylee]

They're referring to I Corinthians 11:14-16 -

"Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But, if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."



K~

that really confuses me.
so its sinful to have long hair then huh?
ive had "long" hair since like 7th grade.
i dont understand that,
because the view of long hair is nothing more than a subjective thing.
its different to people.
whats long for a guy, isnt for a girl.

i always thought God looked at our hearts, not our hair.

[kylee]

They're referring to I Corinthians 11:14-16 -

"Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But, if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."



K~

that really confuses me.
so its sinful to have long hair then huh?
ive had "long" hair since like 7th grade.
i dont understand that,
because the view of long hair is nothing more than a subjective thing.
its different to people.
whats long for a guy, isnt for a girl.

i always thought God looked at our hearts, not our hair.

[kylee]

that really confuses me.
so its sinful to have long hair then huh?
ive had "long" hair since like 7th grade.
i dont understand that,
because the view of long hair is nothing more than a subjective thing.
its different to people.
whats long for a guy, isnt for a girl.

i always thought God looked at our hearts, not our hair.

[implodespw]

It not a sin for a Male to have long hair: Look at verse 16, the part K italicised, it referse to the verses before it saying that our custom is not to look at someone because of their hair. Men can have long hair and women can worship God without their head covered.

[His]

I couldn't find any scripture referance with that in it. Ask them to prove it.

When Rob had long hair, he said that the last fella in the bible that cgot his hair cut had some serious problems (Sampson).

[MBP]

When Rob had long hair, he said that the last fella in the bible that cgot his hair cut had some serious problems (Sampson).

Yeah,..that's funny,..when I had my long hair I wasn't no where near as strong as Samson. He-Man was my hero,..but for some reason I didn't get the strength of either.

On a serious note,...it is important to remember that this was more of a cultural reference than a spiritual. Remember, women in Biblical times were considered to be just above animals. Almost property if you will. A distinction was made in the seating of the synagogue with women in the back. Heads covered, unable to speak or socialize until the worship was over. Is this the same today? In some 3rd world countries but for the most part - NO. Is there anything wrong with it? No.
Men also in these times were distinguished first by their clothing, (Pharisees, Saducees, Officials, Governors, Emperors,.....etc.) It was considered a part of status. What each individual distinction was we can not know in detail,..but Paul was addressing what was considered "culturally acceptable" and the norm for the area in which he was writing.
God does look at the heart,...and we should be thankful for that. Jesus broke all the socio-economic acceptable stereotypes for just such a reason. To relate to those he came to seek and save, that no one is above another and that all have the grace of God as a gift if they want it.
Proverbs 22: 2
"The rich and the poor have this in common, the Lord is the maker of them all!"

[beowulf]

Don't even get me started.

[C.A.LeeJr]

Don't even get me started.

hippie

[Polish Tom]

that's what my pastor calls me

[the Dante]

Not to contend with the majority here, but this is Matthew Henry's commentary on the passage here in reference.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.vii.xii.html

VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, v. 16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.

[the Dante]

And an apparently different approach from another commentator, whom I don't know.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... hapter=011

Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious
ειδετις δοκειφιλονεικοςειναι. 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 δοκειν, 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.

[the Dante]

From my favorite theologian, Calvin, with a bit more on the part about "does not nature teach ..."

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/c ... /xviii.htm

Doth not even nature itself. He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom -- even among the Greeks -- he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn. It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome -- about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned all unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed.

16. But if any man seem. A contentious person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs -- raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful -- who do not yield to reasonings -- who cannot endure that any one should be above them. Of this description, also, are those (ajkoinw>nhtoi) would be singular persons who, from a foolish affectation, aim at some new and unusual way of acting. Such persons Paul does not reckon worthy of being replied to, inasmuch as contention is a pernicious thing, and ought, therefore, to be banished from the Churches. By this he teaches us, that those that are obstinate and fond of quarrelling, should rather be restrained by authority than confuted by lengthened disputations. For you will never have an end of contentions, if you are disposed to contend with a combative person until you have vanquished him; for though vanquished a hundred times, he would argue still. Let us therefore carefully mark this passage, that we may not allow ourselves to be carried away with needless disputations, provided at the same time we know how to distinguish contentious persons. For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church.

[the Dante]

commentary in easy english by Hilda Bright I think (whoever she is).

http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-comme ... ns-lbw.htm

Verses 14-15 Paul appeals to the way that they felt about things in their society. Paintings and *statues from Paul’s time show that it was normal for men to have short hair. People thought that it was shameful for men to have long hair. It was not natural. For a woman, it was the opposite. Long hair was not shameful. It was a cover that God had given to her. And it gave her honour. Paul was comparing the natural appearance of a woman with that of a man. He was not thinking here about the way that women should appear in public.

Verse 16 For anyone who wanted to argue about the matter, Paul did not give a command. He just told them that, where he was (at Ephesus), women did not pray without a cover on the head. This was true in other churches as well.

The problem that Paul talked about was important for the church in Corinth in his time. But it is still true that for both men and women there are ways to show respect in public *worship. These ways will vary with local customs in different countries.

[the Dante]

I just thought it would be interesting to see what different commentators (not necessarily ones I favor) say about the subject.

I think more about the preceding passages in this discussion, and the commentaries for these, would be enlightening as well.

I personally am not giving my thoughts on the matter. Just wanted to post commentaries.

[phreakydude]

well thank you.

I for one would LOVE to have ANY hair, let alone have it be long!