C
Chris
Guest
I thought this might be fun to work out if Jesus was more likely to have had short or long hair. See if you can work it out!
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
I've gone through this one myself a few times. Seems there are arguments on both sides, and all have their faults. Usually those arguments come from folks who are trying to support their penchant for imposing their own preferences of hair style on others around them. But neither the Bible nor other historical documents mention His hair length, nor does the Bible dictate hair style.
PS. I couldn't vote in your poll because you don't offer a "we aren't told" or a "we don't know" type of choice. But I'm anxious to see what others have found on this!
PS. I couldn't vote in your poll because you don't offer a "we aren't told" or a "we don't know" type of choice. But I'm anxious to see what others have found on this!
Last edited by a moderator:
John the Baptist was bound by the oath of the Nazarite but Jesus was from Nazareth --> not the same thing. A Nazarite would end his vow with the shaving of his head (Numbers 6:18-19). Other principles on hair and beard styles and lengths are designed to teach us to refuse the customs of idol worship.
I like the answer of the other poster, "I dunno." He didn't look like the portraits of him from the Renaissance period where He was protrayed with European features, feminine eyes, and smooth flowing locks.
1 Corinthians 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Paul was an expert in the law. He could not give that admonishment had he not known the basis for it and I am convinced that even though we are never told the exact distinction (in inches or centimeters, lol) between what was considered "long" and "short" there is a distinction drawn between hair that is considered a "covering" (female style) and hair that is not considered a "covering". How could Paul have given the teaching principle he did if he knew that Jesus had hair long enough to be considered feminine (or in other terms, a "covering")?
Finally, there is a passage found in Isaiah that may be about Him --
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Sparrow;
This is a subject that comes up among people around me a lot and I've had to deal with it many times, usually regarding the Corinthians passage you mentioned. I'm wondering though... I haven't seen this passage from Isaiah used to support either side before. Could you explain what it has to do with hair style? At least with hair on the head? Although I don't think the phrase "bared His holy arm " is an instruction to us all to shave our arms, that is the only thing I am seeing that seems to relate to hair at all, and I don't even think that is the correct interpretation of the phrase. Probably I'm just half asleep and confused today!:help
....
Oats, you just put a picture in my head of Jesus looking like a young, 1970's era Richard Pryor with his big afro!:D
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Chris
Guest
I always assumed because of what Paul wrote in Corinthians about it being shameful for a man to have long hair that maybe it was short. I would think it strange that Paul might condemn someone for having a trait Jesus did if he had long hair.
I watched a documentary about this once and the conclusion they drew was he probably was of middle eastern appearance like with darker skin than most Europeans have and short hair.
I wish I could remember hat that documentary was called so I could post it here.
I watched a documentary about this once and the conclusion they drew was he probably was of middle eastern appearance like with darker skin than most Europeans have and short hair.
I wish I could remember hat that documentary was called so I could post it here.
Jesus would probably have looked like the typical Jewish man of his day, whatever the length of His hair it was certainly not like the hair length of the women of that time.
I was getting my tag renewed a couple of days back and this couple were standing in front of me and the woman had a very short haircut,just like men usually have their hair, and the man had a pony tail,like women used to have.
I quoted that passage in support of my allegation that the painters from the 1400 and 1500's got it wrong then they portrayed Jesus with European features, feminine eyes and long flowing locks. Johnny Depp's character, Captain Jack Sparrow and Jesus don't look like brothers except that the pirate mentioned has a darker complexion than most of the Jesus portraits.
View attachment 1839
My official answer to the question is that "I don't know" -or- "I'm not sure" b/c the bible doesn't specifically define "long" and "short" hairlengths. But instead refers to what 'nature' teaches and also about hair that is considered a "covering" or not. When we look at Captain Jack above would the average person describe his hair style as "long" or "short" ?? That should give us a clue.
It's not my purpose to raise controversy and I don't know Jewish law or custom of His times well enough to say, but to my modern eye that (what Paul speaks about when he refers to hair as a covering) could mean hair that hung and covered the ear or hung down and covered the neck (or in extreme, hair that covered major portions of the back or buttocks even). To speak about hairlengths that covered the top of the head seems more like non-sense because all hair styles, both male and female alike -- cover the top parts of our heads.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, now I understand! Sorry for the confusion. It does make sense in refuting those type of pictures.
<O:p
<O:p</O:p
The other school of thought on that verse in Corinthians is that Paul did not intend to say that long hair is a sin against God. He was confronting the Corinthian Church regarding an attitude of arrogance and rebellion among them. The men's long hair happened to be one manifestation of this in their particular time and place. The attitude, which stemmed from a lack of love for those around them, was shameful. The verse does not necessarily mean that all men with long hair today are expressing rebelliousness or arrogance.
Paul was a well educated man, with good command of the Greek language of the time, and chose the word “atimia” (translated to "shame") carefully. Later in the same letter, when Paul is referring to sins against God (1Cor 15:3) he uses the word “hamartia” instead of “atimia”, showing that he knew and respected the difference between the two words. Furthermore, here in chapter 11, Paul specifically states that this shame or dishonor is “unto him” (Greek: autos), which means unto the man himself, not God, or anyone else.
Considering that in other scripture, Paul makes if very clear that Christianity is not a religion of following man's rules (beyond avoiding actual sin), it seems uncharacteristic of him to suddenly give us this rule that is mentioned no where else in scripture. In fact, since God required those who took the Nazarite vow to refrain from cutting their hair, for Paul to now say men’s long hair, in an of itself, is a sin seems to actually disagree with God!
<O:p
<O:p</O:pOh how men all over the world suffering from that large bald spot crowning the only small ring of hair they have left just below it are going to be upset with you!:D
(Just kidding. I understand what you mean!)
Last edited by a moderator:
The Nazarite would end his vow and shave his head.
I don't agree that Paul "seemed" to disagree with God. I also have refrained from condemning men or women regarding their hairlengths. It would be ridiculous of me to assert such a thing, but the topic is, "Did Jesus have short or long hair," not "Is it sinful for a man to have hair past the top of his ear to hair that hangs down to touch his neck."
I don't think it's sinful, just don't know what Jesus actually looked like is all. The law that is written into our hearts teaches us that it is more important to be considerate of others than to try to make up rules. Who would care about hair?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but that was at the end. Unless God intervened with a supernatural stopping of hair growth that we are never told about, his hair would certainly grow long during the period of the vow. Why would God require this if it were a sin? I've always understood that God does not require us to do anything that is a sin.
This is true, but both you and the OP brought up the Corinthians scripture as a possible indication that Jesus may have had short hair. Since this section of scripture is a hot topic in many Christian circles it needs to be addressed. In fact, this particular scripture has been used not only to condemn, but to actually throw people out of some "Christian" churches (I know some of them, and even know one of the "pastors" that has done this, so I know this is true!) I just wanted our readers who may not have looked closely into this before to know there are different valid interpretations of this scripture other than the outright condemnation of men with long hair (or women with short hair). While I have personally researched this interpretation of the Corinthians verse that I have put forth here, it is not just my own opinion, but also comes from respected Biblical Scholars. They give many valid reasons for their interpretation in addition to what I have touched on here.
Long hair is shameful for a man. We've agree on that much, so far.
Having a heart of disobedience is sinful.
When we start speaking in general terms about Christians in rebellion to their pastors --it is entirely a different subject.
Entirely different. I hope that I don't regret my participation here. If the discussion turns your friend and the pastor who you allege mistreated him, it's not my business. Those are heart matters between your friend, the pastor and God. I would hope that Lord look kindly on both the pastor and the member, or ex-member. Putting somebody out of the church is a serious matter and in my opinion should be only performed after all other avenues of action are attempted. When I was a young man the pastor of my church didn't understand the scriptures about clean and unclean meats. He prohibited eating pork for those who followed with him. It wasn't just that, but the entire law concerning clean and unclean meats was applied to his flock.
Nobody was put out of the church over that issue but it didn't hurt me to stop eating pork. Not in the least. I learned the truth about it later and today I know that such things are not sin but if the pastor thought in his heart of hearts that it was, well --I think it only right that he preached according to the truth as his good conscience guided. The implication that pastors must be 100% correct in every point is unreasonable. If we are discussing the hair length of our Lord, I'd guess short, whatever that would mean to those of his day. If we are speaking about a heart of obedience and denying oneself as we seek the Lord together ---> a different thread may be needed because there are many, many examples other than hair that go to the issue. Agreed?
Last edited by a moderator:
tim-from-pa
Member
I personally believe Jesus had short hair, the way men wore it back then in that culture. His hair was probably ruddy and he had a very fair complexion (I base my opinion on the description of King David).
Most of the people in bible times, including OT times such as Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian and so forth from those empires were fair. Some of the so-called darker skin of the area comes from the Hamidic factor (or a very dark tan
).
Most of the people in bible times, including OT times such as Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian and so forth from those empires were fair. Some of the so-called darker skin of the area comes from the Hamidic factor (or a very dark tan
).Hmmmm. Actually, I said the attitude that manefested itself in the men growing long hair was shameful, not the long hair in and of itself. The attitude was one of arrogance and rebellion, and innvovled things that were going on in the culture of the place and time. That is what was shameful. Not all men with long hair wear it that way our of those attitudes.
Well, no. The example wasn't meant to be of a Christian being rebellious to his pastor, nor was it one isolated incident by any means. It is not an entirely different subject because it is directly related to the verse brought up by the OP.
It seems I have upset you, and I didn't mean to do that. I won't discuss it any further. Folks here can take what I have said, research it themselves, and determine if it stands up against the rest of scripture to decide for themselves.
Extract from Chuck Smith Commentary on 1st Corinthians, Chapter 11
Shall we turn in our Bibles now to I Corinthians 11.
Paul here in the first verse said,
In the previous verse he spoke about how he was not seeking his own profit, his own glory, but the profit of the whole body of Christ. And then he said, "Be followers of me." The word followers in the Greek is mimetes, in which we get our word mimic. Be mimickers, or be imitators of me. Follow the example that I have set. That is, don't seek for your own profit, but seek for the profit of the whole body. Don't just be looking out for yourself, but look out for one another. Be sensitive to one another's needs, and be looking out for each other.
So Paul is giving them praise for the fact that they did remember him, that they were keeping ordinances that he had established among them.
Now, Paul is establishing here sort of a chain of command. The word head here being the idea of authority. And so the husband the authority over the wife. Christ is the authority over the husband. And God is the authority over Christ. This, of course, gets into issues which are being debated today in our society as we find all of these E.R.A. type of movements.
I do not believe that the Bible has ever taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman. When God looked at man and said, "It is not good that man should live alone," and so He made the woman from man that she might be a helpmeet for him.
Now, some people misinterpret that. The helpmeet, the word meet is an old English word fit, a help that is fit for him, created for him. No way does it signify a subservient position. God saw that man by himself could never make it, and thus, the woman created, as God said, "for the man."
Now, the woman is weaker than the man, in a physical sense. I had a mental picture of these women and, of course, I guess it has become quite a thing for women to get involved now in bodybuilding programs. I personally think that men involved in bodybuilding programs get to the place where they look grotesque; those bulges and all, they get grotesque. But for a woman to be bulging in the wrong areas is also grotesque. I think it is rather sad that to develop an identity of sorts to try and show that they are capable and all that they get involved in this bodybuilding kind of a thing. That isn't really, to me, the best use of a person's time.
He is establishing the chain of command. However, I do think that there is something worth noting here. The authority over the man is Christ, even as the authority over the woman is the man. And I feel that if the man, the husband, is not under the authority of Christ, then the woman has to jump the missing link. I do not believe that God intends that a godly woman be under the authority of an ungodly man. Under the authority of man only as he is under the authority of Jesus Christ. God never meant marriage to be a slavery kind of a situation, or a tyranny kind of a situation, where some big oaf rules over his wife with force, or whatever. And I am totally opposed to that kind of an interpretation or understanding of the scripture that a woman thinks, "Well, he is my husband. I have got to be in submission to him." Yes, as he is in submission to Christ.
Now, we are dealing with an Eastern culture. In this Eastern culture the women wore veils, and the veils, many times, were across the bridge of their nose tied in the back and went all the way to the ground. Now, in some of the Eastern areas it was even more than that. The veils covered their head and they had just slits for their eyes. And of course, they wore these bulky clothes, and how can you know you were really in love when all you can see is just the eyes? When you got married it was really an interesting thing, I suppose. However, this veil was a protection to the woman. It was a covering for her, which was a covering of protection, and no man would approach a woman, accost a woman, or flirt with a woman who was covered with a veil. It was almost death for the man to touch a woman or to approach her in an overt way when she was covered with her veil. For a woman to go out without a veil was an open invitation for the men. It was sort of a declaration, "I am available." But for a veiled woman, no man would dare to approach her. Thus, it was a covering.
Today it is still this way in Eastern cultures, especially in the Moslem world. Of course, the women in Iran, the more liberalized women are really chasing under Khomeini, because he went back to the old veils. You see, these orthodox Moslem women now with the black covers, and all you can see are the eyes again. Many times on our tours to the Middle East, the liberated ladies from America, not understanding the mindset of the Oriental, would go over there with sleeveless dresses or things of this nature, and they don't know what it does to some of these men who are used to not seeing a woman except she be totally veiled. Many times they have been accosted by these men, because it is just a part of their whole cultural background and thinking.
So, Paul is dealing with a cultural situation when he addresses the subject here of head coverings, or of veils.
The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied. Now that is interesting coming from Paul considering that in Orthodox Jewry today, they all wear their little hats whenever they come into any sacred place of prayer. You can wear any kind of a hat, but they won't let the men into the Western Wall, or those areas, unless you do have your head covered. Coming from Paul, it is an interesting thing that he would speak of the men with their heads uncovered and it would be a dishonoring thing to pray with his head covered.
So Paul, then, speaking of the woman is saying it is dishonoring in a sense to her husband, her head, if she would go unveiled.
Now evidently, the women in Corinth were feeling that liberty that was theirs in Christ. "We are no longer under a yoke of bondage, for in Christ we are all one, neither male nor female, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free." So they were beginning to come without veils and it, no doubt, created some problems. Paul said that it was dishonoring to your husbands, because living there in Corinth they were living in the center of pagan licentiousness. The temple of Aphrodite was on the Acropolis above Corinth. The priestesses within the temple of Aphrodite, some one thousand of them, would nightly come down into the city of Corinth. They were prostitutes, and the temple was supported by their prostitution. And they could be recognized in that they didn't wear veils. So the women in Corinth who were then beginning to feel liberty in Christ, not wanting to wear their veils, not being understood by the world, were opening themselves to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus, dishonoring their husbands. So Paul is encouraging them to continue with the customs of wearing the veils there in Corinth.
That is, God created man in His own image, and from the man He took the woman.
Now, I wish he hadn't of said that, because I was able to follow him pretty well up to this point. But what he meant by "because of the angels" is something that theologians have discussed through the years. One suggestion . . . now, we know that when we gather together, the angels of the Lord gather with us. And it has been suggested that the angels, being creatures of rank and order, respect the order of God, and they like to see the orders and the rankings of God followed.
The second suggestion is that there are also evil angels present and a woman without a veil is attractive to them. I sort of reject the second idea, because nowhere in the New Testament where angels are mentioned in this sense are they fallen angels. I would prefer the former, but I am not satisfied with it. I don't really know what he is referring to, to tell you the truth.
In other words, as far as the Lord is concerned we are all on an equal par. And the woman is not without the man and the man is not without the woman. We are both necessary for each other.
I was born by my mother is what Paul is saying. My mother was necessary for my existence being here. The woman was taken out of the man, but yet, it is reversed now. God has established them male and female and they are all a part of God's divine order.
Is it proper? Is it the right thing to do?
One thing that we should definitely note here in light of I Corinthians 14, where Paul said, "Let the women keep silent in the church, and if they would learn, let them ask their husbands when they get home," Paul evidently is not at all assigning her to total silence in the church. Here she is recognized as having a right to pray. Here she is recognized as having a right to exercise the gift of prophecy within the church. He is not saying anything contrary or against her praying and prophesying, only should she be doing it without a veil in the church of Corinth.
So he said,
Now, during the hippie movement when a lot of the fellows decided to let their hair grow, this was a scripture that was brought up quite a bit by the Bible thumpers down in the south who were so opposed to these young men having long hair.
I, in traveling around the country, was a guest on some of the radio talk shows, and some of these irate people would call in. And the thing that was really bothering them were these young people with long hair, because they had pictures of our baptisms and a lot of young men with long hair and all were being baptized, and it really bothered these people for these young men to have long hair. They would call in and they would make their crude remarks and then quote this verse of scripture.
So, the Lord did a very interesting thing. He called me to defend these young men, their right to have long hair. I always figured the Lord had a sense of humor. And I would point out to these irate callers that, first of all, Paul said, "Does not nature itself." It doesn't say that God is teaching this. It said that nature is teaching it. "Does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame?" It doesn't teach you that it is a sin. They were trying to make a sin out of this thing. But it doesn't say God says it is a sin. It says nature says it is a shame.
Now, long hair is a relative term. My barber this morning signaled me in service . . . I do go to the barber. And it's coming over my collar in the back and it is time. But long is a relative term.
If you look at some of the presidents of the United States, they had long hair compared to the forties and fifties looks where the guys had the crew cuts and all. So long is a relative term.
I have seen some fellows whose hair I would say was indeed a shame with flowing hair down to their waist. Nature tells you what a shame. I see them with their long locks and I just sort of say, "What a shame." But in reality, when I try to comb what I have, I also say, "What a shame!" So, nature teaches you to not have long hair, and if you don't have any hair, it is all a shame. That is all it is.
Hey, that is another matter.
Now, if you got a big deal over this, Paul says,
Thus, it was not intended to be a universal rule for the church as some of the churches sought to make it a universal rule. For years the women have had to wear hats and all when they went to church. But Paul said that we don't have any such custom in all the churches. If you want to argue about it and all, there is no such custom in all the churches. It was something that did relate more to the church in Corinth.
____________[END OF EXERCPT: CHUCH SMITH COMMENTARY]___________
So we can see that Paul was talking about a chain of command and speaking to the Corinthians about things larger than hairstyle or fashion. He said that we were to consider the angels as we worshipped God. I don't think what was taught by Paul can be construed to mean anything about Jesus except that we could infer that (as others in thread have already said) Jesus probably had what was called "short" hair according to the custom of his time. The conclusion about sin and rebellion cannot be directly drawn from hairstyle.
Oh, about having upset me? No worries there. I'm not so fragile that such a matter would upset my apple cart. If you wanna know, just ask! :yes
Shall we turn in our Bibles now to I Corinthians 11.
Paul here in the first verse said,
In the previous verse he spoke about how he was not seeking his own profit, his own glory, but the profit of the whole body of Christ. And then he said, "Be followers of me." The word followers in the Greek is mimetes, in which we get our word mimic. Be mimickers, or be imitators of me. Follow the example that I have set. That is, don't seek for your own profit, but seek for the profit of the whole body. Don't just be looking out for yourself, but look out for one another. Be sensitive to one another's needs, and be looking out for each other.
So Paul is giving them praise for the fact that they did remember him, that they were keeping ordinances that he had established among them.
Now, Paul is establishing here sort of a chain of command. The word head here being the idea of authority. And so the husband the authority over the wife. Christ is the authority over the husband. And God is the authority over Christ. This, of course, gets into issues which are being debated today in our society as we find all of these E.R.A. type of movements.
I do not believe that the Bible has ever taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman. When God looked at man and said, "It is not good that man should live alone," and so He made the woman from man that she might be a helpmeet for him.
Now, some people misinterpret that. The helpmeet, the word meet is an old English word fit, a help that is fit for him, created for him. No way does it signify a subservient position. God saw that man by himself could never make it, and thus, the woman created, as God said, "for the man."
Now, the woman is weaker than the man, in a physical sense. I had a mental picture of these women and, of course, I guess it has become quite a thing for women to get involved now in bodybuilding programs. I personally think that men involved in bodybuilding programs get to the place where they look grotesque; those bulges and all, they get grotesque. But for a woman to be bulging in the wrong areas is also grotesque. I think it is rather sad that to develop an identity of sorts to try and show that they are capable and all that they get involved in this bodybuilding kind of a thing. That isn't really, to me, the best use of a person's time.
He is establishing the chain of command. However, I do think that there is something worth noting here. The authority over the man is Christ, even as the authority over the woman is the man. And I feel that if the man, the husband, is not under the authority of Christ, then the woman has to jump the missing link. I do not believe that God intends that a godly woman be under the authority of an ungodly man. Under the authority of man only as he is under the authority of Jesus Christ. God never meant marriage to be a slavery kind of a situation, or a tyranny kind of a situation, where some big oaf rules over his wife with force, or whatever. And I am totally opposed to that kind of an interpretation or understanding of the scripture that a woman thinks, "Well, he is my husband. I have got to be in submission to him." Yes, as he is in submission to Christ.
Now, we are dealing with an Eastern culture. In this Eastern culture the women wore veils, and the veils, many times, were across the bridge of their nose tied in the back and went all the way to the ground. Now, in some of the Eastern areas it was even more than that. The veils covered their head and they had just slits for their eyes. And of course, they wore these bulky clothes, and how can you know you were really in love when all you can see is just the eyes? When you got married it was really an interesting thing, I suppose. However, this veil was a protection to the woman. It was a covering for her, which was a covering of protection, and no man would approach a woman, accost a woman, or flirt with a woman who was covered with a veil. It was almost death for the man to touch a woman or to approach her in an overt way when she was covered with her veil. For a woman to go out without a veil was an open invitation for the men. It was sort of a declaration, "I am available." But for a veiled woman, no man would dare to approach her. Thus, it was a covering.
Today it is still this way in Eastern cultures, especially in the Moslem world. Of course, the women in Iran, the more liberalized women are really chasing under Khomeini, because he went back to the old veils. You see, these orthodox Moslem women now with the black covers, and all you can see are the eyes again. Many times on our tours to the Middle East, the liberated ladies from America, not understanding the mindset of the Oriental, would go over there with sleeveless dresses or things of this nature, and they don't know what it does to some of these men who are used to not seeing a woman except she be totally veiled. Many times they have been accosted by these men, because it is just a part of their whole cultural background and thinking.
So, Paul is dealing with a cultural situation when he addresses the subject here of head coverings, or of veils.
The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied. Now that is interesting coming from Paul considering that in Orthodox Jewry today, they all wear their little hats whenever they come into any sacred place of prayer. You can wear any kind of a hat, but they won't let the men into the Western Wall, or those areas, unless you do have your head covered. Coming from Paul, it is an interesting thing that he would speak of the men with their heads uncovered and it would be a dishonoring thing to pray with his head covered.
So Paul, then, speaking of the woman is saying it is dishonoring in a sense to her husband, her head, if she would go unveiled.
Now evidently, the women in Corinth were feeling that liberty that was theirs in Christ. "We are no longer under a yoke of bondage, for in Christ we are all one, neither male nor female, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free." So they were beginning to come without veils and it, no doubt, created some problems. Paul said that it was dishonoring to your husbands, because living there in Corinth they were living in the center of pagan licentiousness. The temple of Aphrodite was on the Acropolis above Corinth. The priestesses within the temple of Aphrodite, some one thousand of them, would nightly come down into the city of Corinth. They were prostitutes, and the temple was supported by their prostitution. And they could be recognized in that they didn't wear veils. So the women in Corinth who were then beginning to feel liberty in Christ, not wanting to wear their veils, not being understood by the world, were opening themselves to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus, dishonoring their husbands. So Paul is encouraging them to continue with the customs of wearing the veils there in Corinth.
That is, God created man in His own image, and from the man He took the woman.
Now, I wish he hadn't of said that, because I was able to follow him pretty well up to this point. But what he meant by "because of the angels" is something that theologians have discussed through the years. One suggestion . . . now, we know that when we gather together, the angels of the Lord gather with us. And it has been suggested that the angels, being creatures of rank and order, respect the order of God, and they like to see the orders and the rankings of God followed.
The second suggestion is that there are also evil angels present and a woman without a veil is attractive to them. I sort of reject the second idea, because nowhere in the New Testament where angels are mentioned in this sense are they fallen angels. I would prefer the former, but I am not satisfied with it. I don't really know what he is referring to, to tell you the truth.
In other words, as far as the Lord is concerned we are all on an equal par. And the woman is not without the man and the man is not without the woman. We are both necessary for each other.
I was born by my mother is what Paul is saying. My mother was necessary for my existence being here. The woman was taken out of the man, but yet, it is reversed now. God has established them male and female and they are all a part of God's divine order.
Is it proper? Is it the right thing to do?
One thing that we should definitely note here in light of I Corinthians 14, where Paul said, "Let the women keep silent in the church, and if they would learn, let them ask their husbands when they get home," Paul evidently is not at all assigning her to total silence in the church. Here she is recognized as having a right to pray. Here she is recognized as having a right to exercise the gift of prophecy within the church. He is not saying anything contrary or against her praying and prophesying, only should she be doing it without a veil in the church of Corinth.
So he said,
Now, during the hippie movement when a lot of the fellows decided to let their hair grow, this was a scripture that was brought up quite a bit by the Bible thumpers down in the south who were so opposed to these young men having long hair.
I, in traveling around the country, was a guest on some of the radio talk shows, and some of these irate people would call in. And the thing that was really bothering them were these young people with long hair, because they had pictures of our baptisms and a lot of young men with long hair and all were being baptized, and it really bothered these people for these young men to have long hair. They would call in and they would make their crude remarks and then quote this verse of scripture.
So, the Lord did a very interesting thing. He called me to defend these young men, their right to have long hair. I always figured the Lord had a sense of humor. And I would point out to these irate callers that, first of all, Paul said, "Does not nature itself." It doesn't say that God is teaching this. It said that nature is teaching it. "Does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame?" It doesn't teach you that it is a sin. They were trying to make a sin out of this thing. But it doesn't say God says it is a sin. It says nature says it is a shame.
Now, long hair is a relative term. My barber this morning signaled me in service . . . I do go to the barber. And it's coming over my collar in the back and it is time. But long is a relative term.
If you look at some of the presidents of the United States, they had long hair compared to the forties and fifties looks where the guys had the crew cuts and all. So long is a relative term.
I have seen some fellows whose hair I would say was indeed a shame with flowing hair down to their waist. Nature tells you what a shame. I see them with their long locks and I just sort of say, "What a shame." But in reality, when I try to comb what I have, I also say, "What a shame!" So, nature teaches you to not have long hair, and if you don't have any hair, it is all a shame. That is all it is.
Hey, that is another matter.
Now, if you got a big deal over this, Paul says,
Thus, it was not intended to be a universal rule for the church as some of the churches sought to make it a universal rule. For years the women have had to wear hats and all when they went to church. But Paul said that we don't have any such custom in all the churches. If you want to argue about it and all, there is no such custom in all the churches. It was something that did relate more to the church in Corinth.
____________[END OF EXERCPT: CHUCH SMITH COMMENTARY]___________
So we can see that Paul was talking about a chain of command and speaking to the Corinthians about things larger than hairstyle or fashion. He said that we were to consider the angels as we worshipped God. I don't think what was taught by Paul can be construed to mean anything about Jesus except that we could infer that (as others in thread have already said) Jesus probably had what was called "short" hair according to the custom of his time. The conclusion about sin and rebellion cannot be directly drawn from hairstyle.
Oh, about having upset me? No worries there. I'm not so fragile that such a matter would upset my apple cart. If you wanna know, just ask! :yes
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Chris
Guest
good post sparrow hawk you put a lot of effort into that