Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp
*Based upon this “general” definition, do you assert that if a woman has hair just “past the shoulder” it is classified as “long,” but if a man has hair “to the shoulder” he is still guilty of not having “short” hair?
|
Whatever a specific length is classified or called, it is the same for a man or a woman.
In
1 Cor 11.6, however shorn hair is defined, it is the same for a man or a woman. But in the man's case it would be acceptable, while we see from Paul's words here, that in the woman's case it would be shameful.
In
1 Cor 11.14-15, however long hair is defined, it is the same for a man or a woman. But in the man's case, we see from Paul's words here, that it would be dishonorable to him, while in the woman's case, it would be a glory to her.
There is nothing in the passage that would suggest that "shorn" or "has long hair" should be defined differently when referring to males or females. Long hair is the same idea whether speaking of a man or a woman. Shorn hair is the same idea, etc.
I (and Esaias) have noted that if someone defines "shorn hair" simply as "trimmed hair" rather than as something like hair cut short like the average man's of that day, or if someone defines long hair simply as "uncut hair," rather than as something like hair that has been allowed to grow out long like the average woman's of that day, conundrums (others, not I, might be inclined to call them absurdities) appear.
A man or a woman could have what would appear to everyone as exceptionally long hair--let's say the exact same length to their calves--but as long as it was trimmed, the man would still be technically shorn, and so his hair, though from the fleshly perspective would be obviously long, from God's perspective, it would nevertheless be "shorn," and therefore not a shame to him; whereas, for the woman, though from the fleshly perspective it would be obviously long, perhaps quite beautiful and a true ornament, from God's perspective, it would nevertheless be "shorn," and therefore a disgrace to her.
The man could have either a crew cut or, if trimmed, calf-length hair, and both would still be acceptable for him because both, despite all appearances to the contrary, would still be shorn hair from the divine perspective. But the woman could have the most gorgeous calf-length hair, but if trimmed, it would still be unacceptable for her, because despite all appearances to the contrary, it would still be shorn hair from the divine perspective, and therefore a disgrace to her.
So the only time a man's hair would be dishonorable to him is if he never ever cut it after becoming a believer and learning of God's law. Then and only then would he have "long hair," if indeed long hair is merely uncut hair as it appears many on this forum define it. But provided he at least trimmed it, say, every few years, he would still have shorn hair--if indeed "shorn hair" is only trimmed hair.
And if a woman ever trimmed her hair after becoming a believer and learning of God's law, then she never again could be said to have long hair, if indeed "long hair" is simply uncut hair, even if it reached her calves or to the floor. If someone says, no, the moment she starts letting it grow out again, she then is in the state of having long hair again in God's sight, despite how short it may appear to the carnal eye, and would remain in that state unless she cut it again, then it seems that a man, as long as his hair is growing out in between cuts would be in the state of having long hair, despite how short it may appear to the carnal eye.
Paul is writing to a church in the Roman city of Corinth. When he mentions shorn and long hair, he speaks of what they would be familiar with and what they understood by these terms. Attached are some sculptures of Roman men and women around the first century AD.
Linear Mode
