Uncut Hair

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul taught that Christian women ought to be covered when praying, and cited no local custom for support, only Biblical reasons, and one supporting argument from nature. He affirmed this was the position of all the churches of God.

Sorry, I don't have a Wikipedia source for these claims.

It was still a local custom.

5. Her head uncovered. Rev., unveiled. The Greek women rarely appeared in public, but lived in strict seclusion. Unmarried women never quitted their apartments, except on occasions of festal processions, either as spectators or participants. Even after marriage they were largely confined to the gynaeconitis or women’s rooms. Thus Euripides: “As to that which brings the reproach of a bad reputation upon her who remains not at home, giving up the desire of this, I tarried in my dwelling” (“Troades,” 649). And Menander: “The door of the court is the boundary fixed for the free woman.” The head-dress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair-bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A shawl which enveloped the body was also often thrown over the head, especially at marriages or funerals. This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the christian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. This custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man. Among the Jews, in ancient times, both married and unmarried women appeared in public unveiled. The later Jewish authorities insisted on the use of the veil

Vincent, M. R. (1887). Word studies in the New Testament (Vol. 3, pp. 246–247). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.


With her head unveiled (ἀκατακαλυπτῳ τῃ κεφαλῃ [akatakaluptōi tēi kephalēi]). Associative instrumental case of manner and the predicative adjective (compound adjective and feminine form same as masculine), “with the head unveiled.” Probably some of the women had violated this custom. “Amongst Greeks only the ἑταιραι [hetairai], so numerous in Corinth, went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head—also a punishment of the adulteress”

Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (1 Co 11:5). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.


The veil covering. Sir William Anderson gives us some insight into the cultural implications of the veil:

In Oriental lands the veil is the power and the honor and the dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen; it is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to observe a veiled woman on the streets. She is alone. The rest of the people around her are nonexistent to her, and she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd.… But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom any man may insult.… A woman’s authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards (cited by Robertson and Plummer in Corinthians One, International Critical Commentary, p. 311).


Richards, L., & Richards, L. O. (1987). The teacher’s commentary (p. 867). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

[good samaritan]

In the text he begins the chapter by commanding to keep the ordinances and in verse 16 he concludes by explaining if any be contentious there is no other custom of practice in the churches. There is nothing in the text which allows us to disregard this teaching. Their are times when the Apostle Paul speaks his own opinion of things and in those times it is stated in the text. Here Paul lets us know that it is and ordinance to be followed not just a point of view or a custom of the day.

[Cracker Barrel]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

How many here believe that a lady should have uncut hair as per I Cor. 11?

Yes indeedy, Brudah!
Neither burned, trimmed, ironed, permed, curled, or dyed.
All deez tings damage and shorten the hair by distorting the cuticle from its natural. I understand that's how the black sisters straighten their hair dey use the same chemical that shocks the cuticle to change its natural, causing it to weaken and fall off over time.
It was a shame for a man to hang on a tree, and it is just as serious if a woman or man shame God.
Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame

A shame is no small thing to God, it is sin
Lolo I say!

Oh yes, Mele Kalikimaka!!

[Truthseeker]

Uncut hair doctrine just isn't biblical.

[good samaritan]

Uncut hair is good exegesis of 1 Cor. 11. as has already been explained. You may have come to different conclusions on the interpretation of those verses, but to say uncut hair is not biblical; that is unproven by the arguments made against it. I personally don't think that uncut hair in itself may necessarily be a salvation issue, but I do think it is the correct rendering of 1 Cor 11.

I think another big question is would people obey if they ever got cut or uncut hair as a revelation of the scripture. Many people refuse to comply with passages of scripture out of inconvenience. I think it then becomes an issue of the heart.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Uncut hair is good exegesis of 1 Cor. 11. as has already been explained. You may have come to different conclusions on the interpretation of those verses, but to say uncut hair is not biblical; that is unproven by the arguments made against it. I personally don't think that uncut hair in itself may necessarily be a salvation issue, but I do think it is the correct rendering of 1 Cor 11.

I think another big question is would people obey if they ever got cut or uncut hair as a revelation of the scripture. Many people refuse to comply with passages of scripture out of inconvenience. I think it then becomes an issue of the heart.

I see a major flaw in uncut hair doctrine. I am not judging anyone either way... but consider this:

1Co 11:14-15 KJV 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.

If "HAVE LONG HAIR" means UNCUT HAIR, then you can only apply it to verse 15 for the woman and not to the man. Howso?

here's how: Replace "UNCUT HAIR" for "LONG HAIR" and read it:

1Co 11:14-15 KJV Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have UNCUT HAIR, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have UNCUT HAIR, it is a glory to her: for her UNCUT HAIR is given her for a covering.

Now, since the issue is UNCUT HAIR, that means if a woman cuts a half inch off her hair it is NOT LONG, right?

Well, translate that into verse 15. If a man TRIMS HALF AN INCH off his FOOT LONG hair, then IT IS NOT LONG HAIR and he is not violating anything! But everyone says HE HAS LONG HAIR! Howso? Long means UNCUT, right? A foot of hair down a man's back and be trimmed half an inch, and it's not LONG because that is the alleged rule for the woman with LONG hair. And that makes no sense.

See what I mean? You have to change the definition of the SAME WORD from one verse to the very next one to say a man and woman BOTH cannot have trimmed hair down their backs.

Solution. Long simply means long, not UNCUT. And it cannot be measured. It's the SPIRIT of it. If a man is said to have "LONG HAIR" when people look at him, it's wrong. If a woman has LONG HAIR, disregarding any trimming or not, it is what Paul encouraged in verse 15 and 16. But I maintain that was only a witness support to the real issue of a veiling.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I see a major flaw in uncut hair doctrine. I am not judging anyone either way... but consider this:

1Co 11:14-15 KJV 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.

If "HAVE LONG HAIR" means UNCUT HAIR, then you can only apply it to verse 15 for the woman and not to the man. Howso?

here's how: Replace "UNCUT HAIR" for "LONG HAIR" and read it:

1Co 11:14-15 KJV Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have UNCUT HAIR, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have UNCUT HAIR, it is a glory to her: for her UNCUT HAIR is given her for a covering.

Now, since the issue is UNCUT HAIR, that means if a woman cuts a half inch off her hair it is NOT LONG, right?

Well, translate that into verse 15. If a man TRIMS HALF AN INCH off his FOOT LONG hair, then IT IS NOT LONG HAIR and he is not violating anything! But everyone says HE HAS LONG HAIR! Howso? Long means UNCUT, right? A foot of hair down a man's back and be trimmed half an inch, and it's not LONG because that is the alleged rule for the woman with LONG hair. And that makes no sense.

See what I mean? You have to change the definition of the SAME WORD from one verse to the very next one to say a man and woman BOTH cannot have trimmed hair down their backs.

Solution. Long simply means long, not UNCUT. And it cannot be measured. It's the SPIRIT of it. If a man is said to have "LONG HAIR" when people look at him, it's wrong. If a woman has LONG HAIR, disregarding any trimming or not, it is what Paul encouraged in verse 15 and 16. But I maintain that was only a witness support to the real issue of a veiling.

Deja vu, I remember making the exact same argument with brother Bassett. I was told not to be too demanding of consistency, I think there was an Emerson quote thrown in there (or was it Thoreau?) as well.

lol

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Deja vu, I remember making the exact same argument with brother Bassett. I was told not to be too demanding of consistency, I think there was an Emerson quote thrown in there (or was it Thoreau?) as well.

lol

I presented this to him as well and he said there is a change of definitions from one verse to the next. I did not let him live that one down.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I see a major flaw in uncut hair doctrine. I am not judging anyone either way... but consider this:

1Co 11:14-15 KJV 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.

If "HAVE LONG HAIR" means UNCUT HAIR, then you can only apply it to verse 15 for the woman and not to the man. Howso?

here's how: Replace "UNCUT HAIR" for "LONG HAIR" and read it:

1Co 11:14-15 KJV Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have UNCUT HAIR, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have UNCUT HAIR, it is a glory to her: for her UNCUT HAIR is given her for a covering.

Now, since the issue is UNCUT HAIR, that means if a woman cuts a half inch off her hair it is NOT LONG, right?

Well, translate that into verse 15. If a man TRIMS HALF AN INCH off his FOOT LONG hair, then IT IS NOT LONG HAIR and he is not violating anything! But everyone says HE HAS LONG HAIR! Howso? Long means UNCUT, right? A foot of hair down a man's back and be trimmed half an inch, and it's not LONG because that is the alleged rule for the woman with LONG hair. And that makes no sense.

See what I mean? You have to change the definition of the SAME WORD from one verse to the very next one to say a man and woman BOTH cannot have trimmed hair down their backs.

Solution. Long simply means long, not UNCUT. And it cannot be measured. It's the SPIRIT of it. If a man is said to have "LONG HAIR" when people look at him, it's wrong. If a woman has LONG HAIR, disregarding any trimming or not, it is what Paul encouraged in verse 15 and 16. But I maintain that was only a witness support to the real issue of a veiling.

The Greek word for long hair as you probably know

Strong's
g2863. κομάω komaō; from 2864; to wear tresses of hair:— have long hair.
AV (2)- have long hair 2;
to let the hair grow, have long hair

I didn't mean to insert the word uncut into the verse, but instead to elaborate on the greek of what long is in the original language. If you let something grow IMO that means you don't cut it off. In other words it is a glory for a lady to just let her hair grow, but a man should not (he should cut his hair).

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The Greek word for long hair as you probably know



I didn't mean to insert the word uncut into the verse, but instead to elaborate on the greek of what long is in the original language. If you let something grow that means you don't cut it off. In other words it is a glory for a lady to just let her hair grow, but a man should not (he should cut his hair).

The verb is HAVE and it does not point to the action of growing but possessing. And that means the idea of not cutting is still not there. Again, the same phrase or word is used in verse 15. So whatever you say about verse 16 definition has to be applied to be verse 15 and the men.

It still means men cannot do what women can do. And if you restrict it to CUTTING then a man with hair down his back that trims it is okay. And we both disagree that is okay. So, it cannot be uncut.