Hair length

Okay. . .monkey wrench time. . .

Remember Samson? His long hair was a religious thing. Up until he was captured, a razor never touched his head, and his hair was a symbol of God's presence with him. . .

Brett

 

Samson had long hair because he took a Nazarite vow. This involved not cutting his hair for the duration of the vow, usually one year. What we must bear in mind was that the Nazarite vow was a period of humility, expressing the Greatness of God and the smallness of our own desires. Growing the hair long was a means of humility. Others would look at a man with long hair and think he was beneath them, unclean, sinful. That would effectuate the humility the vow was designed to produce. The whole point of the vow was self humiliation! That is why Paul says "Does not nature itself teach us that it is a shame unto a man if he have long hair!" It ought to be humiliating for a man to have long hair!

 

Surely there's a definitive verse or statement in the Bible somewhere about what is long or short. Or somewhere it must give someone the authority to decide these matters.
I can't seem to find it. Can someone help me out?

 

Hi rlvaughn. Thank you again for your excellent observations. I very much appreciate reading them, as I do all of your comments. It appears that we agree on much, except this matter concerning men with long hair. I view the “long hair” issue in the Corinthian church, and the custom described in v16, as being tied together since they are mentioned together. I don’t see the word “custom” as being separated and meaning anything else. The word is used in context with the controversy surrounding “long hair” on men.

I never thought you believed hair length (short or long) had spiritual significance. You have clearly built your argument on Biblical text, which is SUPERB! Undoubtedly though, some do believe hair length has a spiritual element, that it somehow reflects upon salvation (though they may not realize that this places a spiritual element on hair length).

The “shame” is in the practice of a man wearing long hair for religious custom purposes (v16). I agree with Paul. It would be impossible for the long hair itself to be the object of “shame” otherwise Samson would have been an example of a shameful man. In fact, the Bible says the exact opposite is true about Samson (Judges 13: 24, Judges 14: 19, Judges 15: 14, Judges 16: 28-31). In fact, longhaired Samson was so NON-shameful, that he ruled as a Judge in Israel for twenty years! (Judges 15: 20).

Wisdom Seeker, I thank you much for your terrific thoughts. My comment regarding the seriousness of the subject was not a result of your statement. A number of posters had suggested the topic was not very important and frivolous. I only meant to point out that the subject matter IS important and not frivolous. However, I agree with you entirely that turning the topic into an empty debate would be very silly indeed. I VERY much enjoy and learn from your excellent comments on this thread, and on so many other threads in which you have posted too. PLEASE keep up the great work.

Brett & DocCas, I think both of your comments are excellent. Samson’s hair length was LONG for a period much longer than one year. The Bible states that Samson ALWAYS wore his hair long – from his youth and through adulthood (Judges 16: 17). No razor ever came upon Samson’s head. Accordingly, I conclude that the “one year” Nazarite time limit that DocCas described did not apply to Samson.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that Samson’s long hair had anything to do with “humility.” It did have much to do with strength and power, which Samson lost when his long hair was cut.

The evil ones were bent on cutting Samson’s long hair (Judges 16: 19). We should be careful when we make demands upon Christian men with Long Hair to cut it. This is precisely what Delilah and her cronies did. Tragedy came to Samson when these evil ones succeeded in cutting Samson's hair (Judge 16: 19-27). Only in GOD’s mercy did Samson have the ultimate victory (Judges 16: 28-31).

Incidentally, for those who hold the warped view that men with long hair is somehow linked with homosexuality, Samson proves HOW wrong that false belief is. That long hair rascal Samson was obviously heterosexual! Samson’s blatantly heterosexual antics wreak havoc on the theory that men with long hair are somehow connected to homosexuality. That should put a rest to that false teaching nonsense once and for all.

latterrian77

[ August 30, 2002, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

I don't think long hair on a man, or short hair on a woman reflects salvation, or lack of it. But to me, it reflects how seriously somebody is willing to take biblical teachings. I wouldn't throw anybody out of church for ignoring the teachings concerning long or short hair. But I would be very careful about recommending them to an office in the church.

 

We do not find anywhere in the New Testament where the Apostles and the Early Church kept the Nazarite Vows or even taught that this was acceptable or necessary. Using Samson is a weak argument because God chose Samson to live as a Nazarite for all of his life.

Absalom is an example of the true meaning of long hair on a man. He wore his hair long out of rebellion and pride. The Bible is very clear about that and look where his long hair got him.
Caught in a tree hanging by his hair until Joab came and killed him. Can you imagine the pain he was in just from the fact he was hanging in the tree by his hair.

Post after post individuals have said we are not
under the Law but under grace and those of us who say that we still have rules and regulations to follow according to the Bible we are called Pharisees or Legalist but let someone wear their hair long and they want to run back into the Old Testament to justify this.

Paul did not arbitrarily bring this subject up for no reason. How does nature teach us about mens hair. So many more men lose their by going bald including Paul. This is how nature teaches us about long hair on men. This is the New Testament standard given to men.

 

Rhema --

Acts 18:18 and 21:20 - 26 clearly show Paul
taking the Nazirite vow. This vow required
the uncut hair, and it required a sacrifice. Paul
not only participated in the vow, but in the 21st
chapter, it shows the other disciples encourag-
ing Paul to show that he still followed the Law,
It also shows Paul making a public demonstra-
tion of it and paying for the young men's fee
for doing it as well. The purpose was that
many thousands of Jews believed and all were
zealous for the Law but were informed that
Paul taught all Jews who lived among the
Gentiles to turn away from Moses, thus to turn
from the Law. They wanted to prove that the
rumors were nonsense.

[ August 30, 2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Abiyah, I have read that scripture and have studied this many times. Paul did not take the Nazarite vow. For some reason it seems like you think all vows are the same. Paul took a purification vow. This was to please the Judaizers. The Nazarite vow was a vow of separation unto the Lord under the Law. Paul would not have taken this vow just for the simple fact that this would have put him back under the bondage of the law. The purification vow was such a mild thing that he did this only to pacify
these Judaizers. It was a very low key ritual.

 

From Gill's Commentary"
Acts 18:18
For he had a vow; this, some think, could not be the vow of the Nazarites, for then he should have stayed till he came to Jerusalem, and have shaved his head at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and cast the hair into the fire, under the pot in which the peace offerings were boiled (b); though he that vowed in the country, was not obliged to this: others think it was such an one as the Jews in travelling used, that they would not shave till they came to such a place; and so the apostle had made a vow that he would shave at Cenchrea; and accordingly did; but this is not likely, that the apostle should make a vow upon so light an occasion: others that it refers to his going to Jerusalem, to keep the feast there, Act_18:21 and so these think the words are a reason, not of his shaving of his head, but of his sailing to Syria; the first is most probable, that it was a Nazarite's vow; see Acts 21:24.

Acts 21:24
That they may shave their heads; according to the law in Num_6:18. This was done in לשכת הנזירים, the chamber of the Nazarites (r); for there the Nazarites boiled their peace offerings, and shaved their hair, and put it under the pot, in the fire that was under it: Maimonides says (s),

"if he shaved in the city it was excusable; but whether he shaved in the city or in the sanctuary, under the pot his hair must be cast; and he did not shave until the door of the court was opened, as it is said, "at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation", Num_6:18 not that he shaved over against the door, for that would be a contempt of the sanctuary.''

Moreover, it may be observed, that a person who had not made a vow, or fulfilled a Nazariteship himself, which was the apostle's case, yet he might join in bearing the expenses of others, at the time of their shaving and cleansing: for so run the Jewish canons (t);

"he that says, upon me be the shaving of a Nazarite, he is bound to bring the offerings of shaving for purification, and he may offer them by the hand of what Nazarite he pleases; he that says, upon me be half the offerings of a Nazarite, or if he says, upon me be half the shaving of a Nazarite, he brings half the offerings by what Nazarite he will, and that Nazarite perfects his offerings out of that which is his.''

Barnes and others agree on this point.

 

And there are commentaries that disagree.

If you study Judaism you will find there were purification vows that were taken that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Nazarite Vow. These were vows that were taken before sabbath and before other high and holy days and were very common around the Passover.

The men were to shave and they also shaved their heads with this purification vow. If you study about the Nazarite vow this was not a short term vow but last many years. There is no indication that this happened with Paul. Why would Paul take a Nazarite vow when he so taught against the keeping of the law. If we are going to believe he did then we need to quit saying works has nothing to do with anything.

 

The whole point of him taking the vow - whatever you want to call it - was to show the Jews they could still obey the law and be a Christian, too.
I've researched this quite a bit more. I'd be interested in whose commentaries disagree. Thanks.

 

Your words are intentionally demeaning. That is
very interesting to me. It is also interesting that
Jewish historians and educators disagree with
you.

 

Though I still do not agree with you, your comments above cleared up some confusion that I had concerning what you were saying. Thanks.

 

There was no intention on my part of being demeaning. Yet you are making comments like all Jewish historians etc are disagreeing with me and that is just not true. There has been a great division on this subject from times past.

Also if this is showing us that Christians can obey the law then we have a serious problem now because this would nullify everything Paul taught on Grace.