Hair length

[Karen]

As Maverick noted, Gentile men's haircuts were shorter than those of Jews.
So I am confused. A lot of posters on this thread seem to be saying that short Roman men's haircuts are more Biblical than longer Jewish men's haircuts. And why so little concern over facial hair? If women should have very long hair, why should not men have beards like the early Christian men did? Yet that does not seem to be emphasized. Being clean-shaven like the Romans is seemingly seen as ideal.

Karen

 

[rlvaughn]

This has been an interesting (though perhaps futile) discussion. In most discussions about hair length, there seem to be two main arguments against applying the standard of long hair for women and short hair for men to us today: (1) Paul's argument was cultural, therefore relating to the Corinthians only and is not for us today; and (2) Since we can't know how long long is and how short short is, this apparently is not meant as a standard. Number One seems plausible at first, but it has a huge hurdle to jump - Paul framed his argument on permanent facts rather than the standards of Corinthian culture. He did not even mention them! I don't see how one can just dismiss the six facts that Paul presents. Why, if permanent facts, are they not still applicable to us today? Number two seems to carry a great deal of weight until we (1) break the argument down to its simplest form, and (2) view that the context may indicate what is long hair. How can we know what long is; how can we know what short is? The Bible doesn't give a "hair down to the shoulder is long and anything above that is short" kind of an answer. But many things taught in the Bible are not presented to us in such a fashion. Words do have meaning, but every single word used in the Bible is not defined in the Bible. Perhaps we're coming precariously close to Clinton's "what is is." Most of us in general have a pretty good idea of the difference between long and short hair. If we boil this argument down, the real idea is not that we do not understand that long hair is long or that short hair is short, but - where is the dividing point in the middle? When does short hair grow long enough to become long hair? Those accepting this as command will simply avoid the confusing "middle ground" and those who believe this is cultural think it doesn't really matter anyway. So, in my opinion, this argument has a lot of smoke from a small fire. But does Paul have anything to say about how long long is? I think he does. I Cor. 11:4 - "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." If a man's hair is long enough to answer for a covering, it is too long. I Cor. 11:5,6 - "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." I Cor. 11:15 - "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." If a woman's hair is not long enough to answer for a covering, it is too short. When we lift the hair discussion out of context of Paul's teaching on praying and prophesying with covered or uncovered heads, we loose the tools we have for interpreting the passage.

I have noticed that some people seem to think that discussing how long Christians' hair should be is silly. How so, if Paul spent "14 verses" discussing it? I have also noticed that some people who don't meet the hair standards of others have obviously been attacked and hurt about the issue and are resentful. Please do not equate the desire of some to study, understand, and apply this passage with the desire of some to force conformity to their position and condemn all those who do not. I know some good women with short hair and some good men with long hair; I know some evil women with long hair and some evil men with short hair. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence does not negate Paul's teaching. It must stand or fall with good scriptural interpretation of the passage.

 

[eric_b]

Wow, good analysis, rlvaughn... that's hard to argue with. As a man with short hair (and no desire to ever wear it long) I don't have much vested interest in the outcome of this discussion, but I've always have had some sympathy for women who don't like to wear their hair long. Let me ask you an honest question: if your daughter/neice/whatever came to you and asked what's the shortest length she should consider wearing her hair, what would you tell her?

Eric

 

[latterrain77]

Hi rvaughn! Thank you for your comments. However, Paul was speaking about a “religious custom” – not “fashion” in 1 Cor. 11: 14-16. V16 bears this out, where the word “custom” is explicitly applied. This is not speaking about a "cultural" custom, as some have said. It has to do with "relgious custom" (a custom that is still practiced by some in certain Jewish religious denominations today).

I enjoyed your argument about “covering” to determine HOW long or short hair should be. The problem is: how long is a covering?

Taken strictly, only totally BALD headed men would NOT have a covering on their head. On the women side, short hair is just as much a covering of the head as is long hair. So, using this theory, a woman could essentially have a man’s style crew cut, and still have her head “covered.” While I like the effort, the argument does not hold.

Now, if we read 1 Cor. 11: 14-16 exactly as it is written, we see instantly that Paul was speaking about religious custom, not fashion. True, if a man wears his hair LONG believing that there is some spiritual substance to it, then he sins. If he wears it long because he likes it that way, then there is nothing wrong with it. Likewise, if a man wears his hair short, and believes there is some spiritual signficance to it, then he sins.

latterrain77

 

[Bro. Curtis]

so if I use Paul's instructions as a rule, to keep my hair short, am I sinning ? (I shave my head, BTW&gt

I know it sounds flippant, but I'm a little discouraged about this discussion. Are you calling men who keep their hair short, because of what Paul is saying, legalists ? Are churches who require the men in authority to have short hair, legalist churches ?

[ August 28, 2002, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]

 

[Abiyah]

One thing I would like to mention here is this
minor fact: a post somewhere on BBB said
that it was a shame, or some such statement,
that even the older women keep their hair
somewhat short. Well, at my age, it is prudent
to do so. When one has a problem with
persistent joint pain in the shoulder, hair care
for a woman with hair that must be constantly
prepped is very painful, I know.

Furthermore, some of us live in climates in
which long hair is very problematic because
of the heat. The definitions of "long" and
"short" often change accordingly.

If we are going to go by societal norms where
we live, my hair is presently close to medium
length, while long hair is upon the shoulder.
A woman can find this out fairly quickly by
the listed hair lengths upon hair products.

As one who came in second in the longest
pony tail in my city as a child, and who wore
her hair very long for years, I know the con-
stant work and upkeep on long hair. It is real
easy for men to define the long and short of
it while most believing men have short hair,
but they have no concept of the "rest of the
story."

In the same way, it is usually men who try to
define proper clothing for women while
having no clue.

I do not intend to claim that men should have
no opinions with regard to these things, but too
often, there is a tendency to ignore what the
believing women have to say.

[ August 28, 2002, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[hrhema]

I spent many years in Holiness Churches. I am very aware of hair issues.

I do not believe a woman cannot cut or trim her hair. I am very aware of the problems women had in these churches with this very long hair being piled up on top of their heads. Many suffered terrible pain with migraines and neck and back pain. I also realize the hassle it is to take care of non cut hair. Yet, I believe there is a standard that Christian women should use and that standard is that they should not cut their hair like a man's short hair cut.

The majority of women I have been around who do cut their hair like a man's short hair cut act very masculine. They dress also in men's clothing. The majority of them are lesbian.

The male counterpart in a lesbian relationship wears a certain hair style. I think a earlier post spoke of this and I know from an ex relative.

Gay men can wear a certain hair style and a certain hair color but not all of them. Back in Biblical days the Jewish man wore their hair short but the sides of their hair was long. In one of the Books of the Old TEstament it tells us they polled their hair which means they cut the back short. All these paintings and movies that show Jewish men wearing their hair long are incorrect. In certain societies men wore their hair long and they were homosexual. These same men were well known artists who portrayed Jesus with long hair. The only men in Biblical times who wore their hair long were those who took the Nazarite vow except Absalom who wore his hair long as a symbol of rebellion and pride.

Paul did not ever take the Nazarite vow. There were sanctification vows the Jews took for 7 days when they purified their bodies through fasting and prayer. THey shaved their heads for this time. Those who took the Nazarite vow wore their hair long for many many months, did not drink strong drink and refrained from sexual relations with their wives. At the end of the vow they shaved their heads. This is not what Paul was doing. He arrived in Jerusalem and the men asked him to take the purification vows and he did so.

The majority of the men who wore their hair long in the 60's and 70's may have been following a style but that style was started from rebelliousness against any kind of authority. Why would anyone want to follow a fashion or style that was started as a symbol of rebelliousness against authority who professes Christianity? I think since the swing in fashion or style has reverted back to short hair this also makes me question why a person wants to stand out so conspicuously if they are not trying to make some kind of statement.

Satan consistently said "I WILL." This has been a major problem with mankind we want our wills not God's.

There is a local youth pastor in a pretty large congregation in this area who said he was wearing his hair long, wearing tatoos etc so he could be down to the level with the kids on the street. THis may bring them in to a church for a short time but there never is any substance to their relationships with Christ so they last a few months maybe a few years but they are back on the streets deeper in sin than ever. This should tell Christians we should not compromise whether it is on the subject of hair length, modesty or any other thing. People want to holler legalism if you try to guide them to follow Biblical principles but you see the commandments we are told we must follow are not salvation issues but issues of pleasing God.

Paul may wrote that salvation does not come through obeying the law but on the other hand he gave us rules that we as Christians are to obey.

 

[A.J.Armitage]

Speaking for myself, I believe that men should have short hair and I keep mine fairly short, but I don't judge those who don't.

I'm surprised the focus is on men's hair instead of women's, given that long hair for men has been out of style for a long time now.

 

[stubbornkelly]

The majority of women I have been around who do cut their hair like a man's short hair cut act very masculine. They dress also in men's clothing. The majority of them are lesbian.

See, that's fascinating to me. Most of the women over 40 at my home church have short haircuts. Other than the fact that many of them use hair spray and theirs is a little more poofy (I just can't think of another word for it) than the men's, it's more like a man's haircut. Or does the poofiness and stylization of a short haircut determine whether it is a male or female short haircut? 'Cos of those women, few, if any, dress "mannishly" and I certainly don't think they're butch lesbians (or lesbians at all). Mighty big shock to their husbands and chidren if they were . . . .

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by eric_b:
Let me ask you an honest question: if your daughter/neice/whatever came to you and asked what's the shortest length she should consider wearing her hair, what would you tell her?

If she asked me, I would advise against cutting it at all. If she got it cut, I would love her just the same.

BTW, my daughter is 18, in college, and has her hair cut and styled at about shoulder length. I taught my family what I believe about this, and beyond that am perfectly willing to leave their decision between them and God.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
...Paul was speaking about a “religious custom” – not “fashion” in 1 Cor. 11: 14-16.

I'm not sure where I applied the word "fashion" to this discussion. If I did, I did not mean it, because that would be in error.

V16 bears this out, where the word “custom” is explicitly applied. This is not speaking about a "cultural" custom, as some have said. It has to do with "religious custom" (a custom that is still practiced by some in certain Jewish religious denominations today).

Yes, Paul does use the word custom in verse 16. He does not bring up the Jewishness of the custom, but describes it as the "custom" of all the Christian churches. It is probably more accurate that this word applies to the head covering, which is the center of discussion, rather than hair length. Hair length is brought up by the Apostle as a supporting argument for the head covering. The length of men's and women's hair is not the focus, but rather supports Paul's argument for the head covering. If Paul did not have in mind man's hair short enough that it did not appear to be a covering, and woman's hair long enough that it did, to me it seems that his point would be lost. If "custom" were all the argument that applied to the discussion, it might fit the "not for today" side - but that is not all that Paul had to say. The apostle gives six reasons supporting the woman's need for a covering:
1. The headship of man, verses 3-6
2. God's order in creation, verses 8,9
3. Because of the angels, verse 10 (possibly their presence? I'm not sure)
4. A sense of propriety, verse 13
5. The very nature of things, verses 14,15 (including the distinctions between male & female, and the woman's natural head covering)
6. The practice of all the churches, verse 16

I enjoyed your argument about “covering” to determine HOW long or short hair should be. The problem is: how long is a covering?

Taken strictly, only totally BALD headed men would NOT have a covering on their head. On the women side, short hair is just as much a covering of the head as is long hair. So, using this theory, a woman could essentially have a man’s style crew cut, and still have her head “covered.” While I like the effort, the argument does not hold.

But the only reason it would seem that one would want to force such strictness into the passage would be to get around the argument Paul is making. In verses 5 & 6, Paul equates a woman with shorn hair as in principle the same as being shaven. That makes it quite obvious that Paul DID NOT consider shorn hair a covering. So while you and others may think that a woman could have a man's style crew cut and still be covered, Paul did not think so.

Now, if we read 1 Cor. 11: 14-16 exactly as it is written, we see instantly that Paul was speaking about religious custom, not fashion.

If verses 14-16 could be pulled out of the context, then we might believe Paul was only preserving a religious custom. There are five other factors that must also be considered.

Likewise, if a man wears his hair short, and believes there is some spiritual signficance to it, then he sins.

If you are correct, then I and others who believe (and practice accordingly) that "if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him" and "every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head (Christ)" are guilty of sinning against God. It may be so, but I must take my chances according to the best light I have received up to this point.

 

[Glory Bound]

In verses 5 & 6, Paul equates a woman with shorn hair as in principle the same as being shaven. That makes it quite obvious that Paul DID NOT consider shorn hair a covering. So while you and others may think that a woman could have a man's style crew cut and still be covered, Paul did not think so.

By the same measurement then, it seems that men should shave their heads. Seems clear to me. It also solves that messy "how long is too long" question. Any hair is too long, guys!

I mean - think about it. What is being covered? The HEAD. All but the shortest crew-cuts cover the HEAD. But, the head is exposed when shaven, as noted.

A woman with hair down to her waist covers much more than her head. She can cover her face, neck, shoulders, back and chest, and possibly waist. Sounds like overkill.

So, the dispute is settled - women can have hair, men cannot. On to the next subject!

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Glory Bound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />rlvaughn:
In verses 5 & 6, Paul equates a woman with shorn hair as in principle the same as being shaven. That makes it quite obvious that Paul DID NOT consider shorn hair a covering. So while you and others may think that a woman could have a man's style crew cut and still be covered, Paul did not think so.

By the same measurement then, it seems that men should shave their heads. Seems clear to me. It also solves that messy "how long is too long" question. Any hair is too long, guys!

I mean - think about it. What is being covered? The HEAD. All but the shortest crew-cuts cover the HEAD. But, the head is exposed when shaven, as noted...</font>[/QUOTE]Glory Bound, I understand that you are being humorous, though I am not sure to what extent. I don't want to be guilty of taking to seriously that which you do not intend to be taken seriously, but...

What you are saying is exactly the opposite of what Paul is saying. Note I Cor. 11:5,6 again - "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." Shorn and shaven are two different words; both are unacceptable to Paul. He is not saying, as you are, that any amount of hair constitutes a covering, but rather that shorn hair does not suffice as a covering - no more than shaving the head would.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

On and on it goes... where it will stop...nobody knows...

I believe that when the Bible spoke of a woman's hair being a covering... it meant a body covering not a head covering.

And, I do not know of a passage in the Bible where it says that a man's hair is a covering...(in response to someone saying that previously)

I've heard some pretty amazing claimes on this thread. Some thought provoking...some just plain silly. I thought someones thoughts on ear and nose hair particularly funny... thank you.

Why discuss hair length for 5 pages (so far)?because it's so much easier than discussing a topic that is more serious in nature I guess. Oh well... who needs glamour magazines when you have the good old B.B. ?

Laughter doeth good like a medicine...thank you for giving me a good dose of it. (no offense intended)

 

[latterrain77]

Thank you rlvaughn and all the others for the great comments. I'm hearing everything you are saying on this topic, and I thank you for taking the time and effort to present your terrific thoughts.

Rlvaughn, I did not mean to imply that you referred to Paul’s comments as being “fashion.” Rather, that is what I called it, drawing a comparison to "custom." Paul clearly did NOT call it fashion. He called it “custom.” Sorry if you were confused.

The “custom” aspect at the Corinthian church had everything to do with the customs that I already mentioned in my previous post (and which some Jewish denominations still practice until this day). In both instances, the hairstyle worn by these men comes from religious CUSTOM traditions. It is not fashion based. A similar mystery occurred in the Corinthian church on other matters too (eating habits, idolatry, etc). In each instance, “religious” things were paganized by the Corinthians.

The idea of hair length being defined by the word “covering” was something that you suggested in your original post. I was responding to your idea (which is a good and interesting idea). However, this theory is “strict” by it’s own self-definition. If hair is a covering, then ANY hair length must be a covering. As a result, only “no hair” (bald) would NOT be a covering. Of course, this strictness is not necessary if the word “custom” in v16 means what it says (which I believe is fairly straightforward). I’m not trying to split hairs though (pun intended).

I don’t think Paul was “preserving a religious custom.” I think he was rejecting it! He was rejecting the practice of men wearing long hair as a religious practice or custom (not as a matter of fashion).

Of course, there is nothing sinful at all about men wearing “short hair.” However, it IS sinful if a man with short hair believes there is something “spiritually significant” about wearing it short. If someone believes they are “holier” or more “devout” because of their hair length, then it is OBVIOUSLY sinful. If hair length, or the food we eat, or the public prayers we recite could make us holy, then being “holy” would simply be a matter of works (Matt. 6: 5, Matt. 23: 5). I prefer a gospel of salvation that is based upon GRACE. If by works, then we are all doomed (pony tail and all). Thankfully, we ARE saved by grace (Eph. 2: 8).

I’m certain that the VAST majority of men who wear their hair short do not believe wearing it that way has any spiritual significance. They wear it short because they like it that way (same for men with long hair). There is nothing wrong with either, unless a religious component is added to wearing it either way.

I never said that I think a woman should have a man’s short haircut (I personally prefer long hair on a woman - though it depends on many factors – hair quality, facial shape, bodily shape, etc). I did say that your definition of the word “covering,” as defining “how long” hair length might be, would logically arrive at that conclusion.

Finally, some on the board have suggested that discussing this topic might be “silly.” While I respect the thought, I think it is wrong. The Bible mentions the topic (that is why we are debating it) and therefore, there is nothing silly about it. I think the verse was placed in the inerrant Bible, by GOD, to teach the EXACT opposite of what most believe it to teach. Well, I guess you already figured that out though – didn’t you?

latterrain77

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I certainly don't think short hair makes me "more saved" than anyone else. I just think that if the Bible says to do something, we should try and do it. Not try to find excuses not to.

 

[Sherrie]

I think in bible times it had to do with being clean. matted hair...head lice....dirty....things being caught in it. Hair being in the way of working.

I don't think your hair has anything to do with your being saved. Gays have short hair.

And it seems no one can define long on a man and what is short.

Sherrie

 

[rlvaughn]

laterrain77, I have always found your posts interesting. Whether or not I agree with you, I appreciate that you try to establish your position on Biblical ground. One thing I have found frustrating about this discussion is that so many ideas about hair length have no relation - from one side or the other - to anything Paul said in I Corinthians 11. That being said, I still have found some of what you are saying a little confusing and hard to follow.

Originally posted by latterrain77:
The “custom” aspect at the Corinthian church had everything to do with the customs that I already mentioned in my previous post (and which some Jewish denominations still practice until this day).

The only thing that I understand Paul to be saying about custom is that neither he nor any of the churches have a "custom" of dispensing with the head covering (Remember, that is his subject, not hair length. He concludes with a comment about the main subject). Therefore, any who are contentious about the matter should take into consideration the practice of all the churches. Why would he spend time establishing the need for the covering with facts of creation, headship, etc., then dispense with it all as unneccessary in a sentence?

In both instances, the hairstyle worn by these men comes from religious CUSTOM traditions.

In relation to hair length, he doesn't say that religious customs teach us, but rather nature itself (verses 14 & 15).

However, this theory is “strict” by it’s own self-definition. If hair is a covering, then ANY hair length must be a covering. As a result, only “no hair” (bald) would NOT be a covering.

This is your definition, not Paul's. I understand that it seems logical to equate "no hair = no covering" and "some hair = covering." But that just doesn't take into account that Paul equated shorn hair (cut) and shaved heads (no hair) as BOTH being no covering (verses 5 & 6). I must take what he says over what seems logical to me.

If someone believes they are “holier” or more “devout” because of their hair length, then it is OBVIOUSLY sinful...I prefer a gospel of salvation that is based upon GRACE. If by works, then we are all doomed (pony tail and all). Thankfully, we ARE saved by grace (Eph. 2: 8).

Some may or may not believe that hair length makes one more holy or devout than others. I have not meant nor intended to imply that in any of my posts. Yet I do follow my position on hair length because I believe that is what Paul teaches. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that in itself would be sinful. And I'm not sure how hair length got connected to salvation by grace or works. Salvation is certainly, totally, and only by grace, whether one has no hair or two hundred feet of it!

Finally, some on the board have suggested that discussing this topic might be “silly.” While I respect the thought, I think it is wrong. The Bible mentions the topic (that is why we are debating it) and therefore, there is nothing silly about it...

I couldn't agree more!!

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker
I've heard some pretty amazing claimes on this thread. Some thought provoking...some just plain silly. I thought someones thoughts on ear and nose hair particularly funny... thank you.

As you can plainly see, I never said discussing verses that are found in the Bible are silly.

The weightier, more important topics in the Bible...the one's God really wanted us to ruminate on...are mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible. The topic of how a person should wear their hair is mentioned just a couple of times. I just found it amusing that topics such as hair, which are obviously not the most repeatetive in the Bible have 6 pages devoted to discussing them.

I am sorry that you misunderstood what I meant. I hope this post will clear that up for you.

[ August 29, 2002, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

[Sister Deb]

The Holy Ghost convicted me of looking like a man by wearing my hair short. I wear my hair longer now in obedience to his leading but it didn’t change my salvation. I don’t know if this would possibly work in reverse?