Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[rdp]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

So now that you have "defeated" that teaching, what about jewelry?

*Yea', in fact, why not just allow men to wear long hair and skirts now 'eh?

[Esaias]

When Paul says "nature", could he have been referring to the Creation era, the Garden of Eden, and shortly thereafter (the Fall and the Curse)? I notice most of his reasoning in the chapter is essentially from the Creation account.

If nature meant biology itself, that would seem strange since biologically a man's hair will grow just about as much as any woman's. If by nature he meant societal norms or culture that would seem strange too since Greek societal norms were often horrifically ungodly.

"The natural state of things" seems too vague and subject to contention.

Paul seemed to be appealing to something quite self evident. Or was he? Perhaps he was asking a rhetorical question, that is, making a statement but putting it in the form of a question?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Esaias

When Paul says "nature", could he have been referring to the Creation era, the Garden of Eden, and shortly thereafter (the Fall and the Curse)? I notice most of his reasoning in the chapter is essentially from the Creation account.

If nature meant biology itself, that would seem strange since biologically a man's hair will grow just about as much as any woman's. If by nature he meant societal norms or culture that would seem strange too since Greek societal norms were often horrifically ungodly.

"The natural state of things" seems too vague and subject to contention.

Paul seemed to be appealing to something quite self evident. Or was he? Perhaps he was asking a rhetorical question, that is, making a statement but putting it in the form of a question?

*Personally, I would argue that Paul is using the expression "nature itself" in this context of headship, creation, etc. to denote the natural-inherent instincts of the contrasting genders as given in His order of creation. That is, it denotes "the way things are" because of God's design:

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (NET)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Personally, I would argue that Paul is using the expression "nature itself" in this context of headship, creation, etc. to denote the natural-inherent instincts of the contrasting genders as given in His order of creation. That is, it denotes "the way things are" because of God's design:

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (NET)

Hmm.

I trying to see how Paul's opposition would understand his argument. Or at least, how those "sitting on the fence" would have understood what he was saying.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "natural inherent instincts of the contrasting genders"?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hmm.

I trying to see how Paul's opposition would understand his argument. Or at least, how those "sitting on the fence" would have understood what he was saying.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "natural inherent instincts of the contrasting genders"?

*A natural repulsion of opposing genders fulfilling the roles of, or mimicking, the other gender as instituted by the Creator.

*The principle of Deut. 22.5 plays into this concept in the backdrop IMO.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Is talking about the creation and the relinquishing of man's ministerial position of teacher to his wife.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Is talking about the creation and the relinquishing of man's ministerial position of teacher to his wife.

I believe it’s referring to the natural fact that men typically go bald at a much higher rate than women. It happens naturally. Therefore nature itself teaches us.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I believe it’s referring to the natural fact that men typically go bald at a much higher rate than women. It happens naturally. Therefore nature itself teaches us.

[Amanah]

Paul says to follow him, he is teaching an ordinance he wants us to follow
Paul says he is speaking of ordinances and the order of authority, it's not a custom, it is an ordinance

Christ -> Man -> Woman

Men are to be uncovered or they dishonor Christ because they are the symbol of Christ
Women are the symbol of the Church and for them to be uncovered represents the church not being in submission to Christ.

There are 3 lengths of hair:
shorn, shaven, and long (cut, shaved, and uncut)

A women who cuts her hair represents the church being dishonorable and losing her glory, power, authority

Isaiah 10:3-4
3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?
4 Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

1 Corinthians 11 King James Version (KJV)
11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 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.
6 For if the 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.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Nature teaches us that if a man has long hair he looks feminine. His girly locks might get caught in a tree.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Amanah

There are 3 lengths of hair:
shorn, shaven, and long (cut, shaved, and uncut)

Regarding "shorn" and "long," it seems that hair length apparently has nothing to do with actual appearance, correct?

If a woman has hair to her knees, but trims a small amount from it every few months, or like Absalom once a year, does she have "shorn hair" though it may look exceptionally long?

Or if she cuts her hair short once a year like Absalom did, but then let's it remain uncut for a year, does she have "long hair" during this period though her hair for a good while may look very short?

Nature teaches us that if a man has long hair he looks feminine. His girly locks might get caught in a tree.

Absalom was considered the most handsome man in Israel: "Now in all Israel there was no one who was praised as much as Absalom for his good looks" (2 Sam 14.25). Since Absalom must have looked feminine since he had "girly locks," had Israel begun to value a feminine look for a man at this time? Or perhaps his long hair was not, in fact, regarded as effeminate looking?