Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Costeon]

Either a man or a woman could take the Nazirite vow: "When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite . . ." (Num 6.2).

One of the requirements of this vow was "all the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head" (v. 5) (The "he" here is a generic singular pronoun referring to an individual whether male or female. This is the same usage found in the other requirements as well.)

This seems to suggest that it was not the norm for Israelite women to have uncut hair, that is, to never use a razor to cut their hair. Otherwise how could this vow to abstain from cutting her hair symbolize her Nazirite consecration if she never cut it anyway?

[1ofthechosen]

I put this on another thread the one about fake charismatic apostolic's with the music video.:

QUOTE=Michael The Disciple;1533596]So is it ONLY over 1 Cor. 11? And what is about 1 Cor. 11 that some feel Apostolics are compromising?

To me it seems like almost ALL of the "White" Apostolic Churches are in compromise about 1 Cor. 11.

Almost NONE of them practice Biblical headcovering. I cant think of ONE "White" Apostolic Church that is not in rebellion to the truth.[/QUOTE]

To which I said:
The text is not talking of a cloth veil head covering, thats only if they do cut their hair would that then be needed. (Which is the case for the women at Gino Jennings church. Those women clearly cut their hair, and they then use a cloth head covering.) Otherwise the hair is given as the covering. But cutting it is the same as shaving it, so if that be a shame that you be shaven then when its shorn you need a head covering. Otherwise the hair is given as a covering, that you shouldnt cut. To cut is to be equal with shaving it.

Brother Roger Perkins breaks it down here:

https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

"As it relates to the wearing of a literal veil, v. 15 could not be clearer: “Her hair is given her for/anti a covering.” The Greek preposition translated “for” is anti, where we get the English prefix “anti–” and is defined as “instead of” or “against.” The most straightforward rendering would be (and often is), “her hair is given her instead of a veil.”

"From a historical perspective, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; Vol. 5, p. 18, informs us: “Women never cut their hair (cf. Jer. vii. 29), and long hair was their greatest ornament (Cant. iv. 1; cf. I Cor. xi 15; Cant. vii. 5).”

*The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 158, “Hair”: “A woman’s hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation.” Remember, Jesus endorsed the Jewish concept(s) of God to the woman at the well (Jn. 4) and Paul affirmed that to the Jews were written, “the oracles of God” (Rom.).

*The World of Ancient Israel, pg. 84, “When a woman was accused and found guilty of adultery, her hair was cut or her head shaved.”

Not just him but Brother Robert Killmon agreesthough I feel brother Perkins went more in depth):
http://indianabiblecollege.org/2017/...r-womens-hair/

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

To cut is to be equal with shaving it.

First, thank you for the info.

Now regarding the quote, though this has been a common idea among Apostolics, I think it is almost impossible to maintain. The verse this idea rests on is 11.6: "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered."

So the contrast is between "shorn" and "shaved." There is really no debate on what "shaved" means so I won't address it. But does "shorn" simply mean "to cut"? If someone looked the word up in a Greek lexicon, they might be able to maintain this definition, but the meaning of words is not determined by looking at a lexicon or dictionary alone; you have to look up the contexts in which the word occurs to determine the range of meaning of this word and to truly understand the lexicon definition. There are only two places besides 1 Cor 11 in the NT where this verb is used that shed light on the meaning of the word. In neither is the idea to simply cut.

Acts 8.32: "The place in the Scripture which he read was this: 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so He opened not His mouth.'"

"Shearer" is not a noun in the Greek but a participial form of the verb that appears in 11.6.

So the first example is dealing with shearing sheep--not trimming them a bit but cutting off their wool.

Acts 18.18: "So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow."

So here, Paul didn't get his hair trimmed--he didn't go for just a regular hair cut--he had all his hair ceremonially cut off (similar to Num 6).

Since in the other NT contexts this verb does not mean "to cut" but "to cut off," there is no reason to interpret 1 Cor 11.6 as "to cut." In other words, in this verse Paul is contrasting similar things--shaving off and cutting the hair off--not dissimilar things--shaving and trimming.

"As it relates to the wearing of a literal veil, v. 15 could not be clearer: “Her hair is given her for/anti a covering.” The Greek preposition translated “for” is anti, where we get the English prefix “anti–” and is defined as “instead of” or “against.” The most straightforward rendering would be (and often is), “her hair is given her instead of a veil.”

Well here again, there is another possible meaning. "Anti" can also express that something is equivalent to or corresponds to something else or that something is for something else.

Some examples:

Matt 5.38: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for [anti] an eye and a tooth for [anti] a tooth.’

Eph 5.31: “For [anti] this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

And so many think Paul is saying that there is some sort of correspondence between a cloth head covering and hair.

I personally think, in light of their cultural context that respectable married women did not appear in public without a head covering, Paul is arguing in this passage that the Corinthian women should not flaunt their freedom in Christ (where there is neither male nor female) and throw off this societal expectation and so should wear a head covering. He concludes his argument based on their culture with an appeal to their sense of propriety. As a final clincher, he asserts that even nature supports his point that they should wear head coverings--even nature has given woman a natural covering.

Whether or not my current view is correct, the point is there is ambiguity in this passage, and so this passage simply cannot bear the weight that Apostolics place on it to support the doctrine of uncut hair.

There is nothing like in all of Scripture a simple prohibition: "Women shall not cut their hair." It seems if uncut hair were so important, there would be unambiguous verses to express this.

"From a historical perspective, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; Vol. 5, p. 18, informs us: “Women never cut their hair (cf. Jer. vii. 29), and long hair was their greatest ornament (Cant. iv. 1; cf. I Cor. xi 15; Cant. vii. 5).”

*The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 158, “Hair”: “A woman’s hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation.” Remember, Jesus endorsed the Jewish concept(s) of God to the woman at the well (Jn. 4) and Paul affirmed that to the Jews were written, “the oracles of God” (Rom.).

*The World of Ancient Israel, pg. 84, “When a woman was accused and found guilty of adultery, her hair was cut or her head shaved.”

Note that these resources basically support what I was saying about 11.6. We're not talking about trimming the hair, but cutting it off or shaving it off in grief or shame.

It would have been really helpful if these resources had dealt with female Nazirites and the implication of the passage in Numbers 6 that normally it would have been acceptable to trim it (not to cut it short) to, say, enhance the appearance of "their greatest ornament."

[Evang.Benincasa]

What is hair like women?

Revelation 9:8?

Faces of men is an easy one, and lion's teeth pretty easy.

Hair like women?

[Evang.Benincasa]

When Jerome translated the Greek Bible OT and NT he chose the word nutriat, which means to grow. The same as the Spanish which uses crecer as to grow a child, nurture. Same as nutriat.

Mulier vero si comam nutriat gloria est illi quoniam capilli pro velamine ei dati sunt.

The Greek word preposition ἀντί means instead, or opposite, depending its use in a sentence. In γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ, δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται αὐτῇ. Here it is indicating that the hair is instead of the covering.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What is hair like women?

Revelation 9:8?

Faces of men is an easy one, and lion's teeth pretty easy.

Hair like women?

Long, of course.

But that doesn't explicitly mean uncut. In our normal everyday lives, it is obvious that if a woman had hair flowing down her back and often trimmed it, nobody would cease recognizing it as long.

There are several verses that indicate that women had long hair (Mary wiping Jesus feet, for example) but that does not prove uncut hair is an absolute requirement. It just doesn't. And if we're going to demand something of women regarding their hair, it seems reasonable that we would base it on several unambiguous passages of Scripture, not on one passage that sincere Bible believers can't seem to agree on.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Long, of course.

But that doesn't explicitly mean uncut. In our normal everyday lives, it is obvious that if a woman had hair flowing down her back and often trimmed it, nobody would cease recognizing it as long.

There are several verses that indicate that women had long hair (Mary wiping Jesus feet, for example) but that does not prove uncut hair is an absolute requirement. It just doesn't. And if we're going to demand something of women regarding their hair, it seems reasonable that we would base it on several unambiguous passages of Scripture, not on one passage that sincere Bible believers can't seem to agree on.

Then you have no measurement of length, what is long? This wasn't their understanding for centuries, because of the language. Like I pointed out in Latin. It is mainly translated nutriat because of the Greek. The Spanish is way more defined than English. Because we don't know what long is? Unless we are given a measurement of length. It is a shame for a man to have long hair? How long is long hair? Ponytail on the bald guy driving the Corvette?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

First, thank you for the info.

Now regarding the quote, though this has been a common idea among Apostolics, I think it is almost impossible to maintain. The verse this idea rests on is 11.6: "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered."

So the contrast is between "shorn" and "shaved." There is really no debate on what "shaved" means so I won't address it. But does "shorn" simply mean "to cut"? If someone looked the word up in a Greek lexicon, they might be able to maintain this definition, but the meaning of words is not determined by looking at a lexicon or dictionary alone; you have to look up the contexts in which the word occurs to determine the range of meaning of this word and to truly understand the lexicon definition. There are only two places besides 1 Cor 11 in the NT where this verb is used that shed light on the meaning of the word. In neither is the idea to simply cut.

Acts 8.32: "The place in the Scripture he read was this: 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so He opened not His mouth.'"

"Shearer" is not a noun in the Greek but a participial form of the verb that appears in 11.6.

So the first example is dealing with shearing sheep--not trimming them a bit but cutting off their wool.

Acts 18.18: "So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow."

So here, Paul didn't get his hair trimmed--he didn't go for just a regular hair cut--he had all his hair ceremonially cut off (similar to Num 6).

Since in the other NT contexts this verb does not mean "to cut" but "to cut off," there is no reason to interpret 1 Cor 11.6 as "to cut." In other words, in this verse Paul is contrasting similar things--shaving off and cutting the hair off--not dissimilar things--shaving and trimming.

"The Greek verb translated as “shorn” (κείρασθαι) appears in the middle voice indicating that the action is performed upon—or with reference to—the subject. Here’s what some of the most authoritative lexicographers in existence state about this specific term: “Mid. [voice] cut one’s hair or have one’s hair cut…Abs(olute sense)…I Cor. 11:6a, b” (Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon; 2nd ed., p. 427 [BDAG affirms the same thing}). “To have one’s hair cut” (Dr. F.W. Gingrich’s, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, p. 114).

*Analytical Greek NT Lexicon: “middle cut one’s hair, have one’s hair cut off (1 C 11.6).”

*Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon Based upon Semantic Domain: 19.23 “κείρω to cut the hair of a person or animal – to cut hair, to shear. εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνήκαὶ κειράσθω if the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair 1CO. 11.6″

*For these grammatical reasons, many linguists have translated this verb as “cut off,” or simply “to cut” (e.g., RSV, NEB, Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, NAB, NIV, Amplified Bible, James Moffatt).

*Additionally, on p. 245 of the United Bible Societies A Translators Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, we read: “To be shorn, literally ‘cut-her-hair’ in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair.”

*This is the lexical definition of the verb translated “shorn/κείρασθαι” and hence is the very thing the Holy Spirit is prohibiting through the writings of the Apostle Paul.

*Regarding the adjective translated “shame (or) disgrace” (v. 6), see here BAGD, p. 25: “it is disgraceful…for a woman to cut her hair.” Thayer’s; p. 17: “disgrace, dishonorable.” Louw & Nida: “since it is shameful for a woman to shave or cut her hair, she should cover her head 1CO. 11:6.”

This is Brother Roger Perkins article he answers all this very well.
*What does “long hair” mean? We will define it in two ways: (i) The literal definition of the word itself (which should be sufficient standing alone); (ii) Its usage else were in Scripture.

*Long Hair: First, as we’ve seen above, the Greek term translated “long hair” is komaō and is defined as, “to allow the hair to grow.” If one cuts their hair they are not “allowing it to grow,” particularly since the hair grows from the root and not the ends."

It all boils down to this : "Obviously, someone cannot allow hair to grow and cut it at the same time, particularly since the hair grows from the root & not the ends."

Above breaks down shorn and shaven they are equal to one another. Not as interchangeable words, but two different words with 2 different meanings.

Here's the link one more time..
https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

*Long Hair: First, as we’ve seen above, the Greek term translated “long hair” is komaō and is defined as, “to allow the hair to grow.” If one cuts their hair they are not “allowing it to grow,” particularly since the hair grows from the root and not the ends."

It all boils down to this : "Obviously, someone cannot allow hair to grow and cut it at the same time, particularly since the hair grows from the root & not the ends."

After cutting the ends (stopping growth? huh?) when does it start to grow again? Immediately? Two weeks? A month?

If the issue isn't long or short (???!) but "growing or not" then is it not okay for a man to have hair down to his belt - as long as it's "cut"?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

After cutting the ends (stopping growth? huh?) when does it start to grow again? Immediately? Two weeks? A month?

If the issue isn't long or short (???!) but "growing or not" then is it not okay for a man to have hair down to his belt - as long as it's "cut"?

This was dealing with women hair specifically Brother. That was just a piece of what was said. All its saying is you can't be growing your hair long and cut it at the same time.

But I got this all from Brother RDP's article here's the link:
https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/