Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

I have only had time to read the first five pages of this thread...
However,
Backing up a verse that was brough up earlier, let’s also add facial hair on men to our long hair on women doctrine

Rev. 9 ...
and their faces were as the faces of men. (Beards!)

8 And they had hair as the hair of women, (Long hair)

Keep reading, it gets really good on about page 500. :-)

You are in the Book! Beards for all men! Alas, for those who can't grow them.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I find it interesting that no one can provide one command from God or the Law that speaks against cutting hair. How would the OT sisters know to not cur their hair?

"sin is transgression of the law" If its not commanded how would they know its sin to cut their hair?

I don't believe there is such a command. I guess the reason I stated this thread was because it struck me that the OT Nazirite vow might actually imply that it was not normally forbidden for women to cut their hair, after all how could the command to not cut their hair have any meaning to someone who never had cut it anyway.

Of course Israelite women did have long hair, and many on this forum have posted quotes from resources that assert that they (generally?) did not cut their hair, but without a definite command from God not to cut their hair, I don't see how we can conclude anything but that this was their culture and custom and not a mandate from God.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sometimes we need someone to point out when we are splitting hairs.

LOL!

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I don't believe there is such a command. I guess the reason I stated this thread was because it struck me that the OT Nazirite vow might actually imply that it was not normally forbidden for women to cut their hair, after all how could the command to not cut their hair have any meaning to someone who never had cut it anyway.

Of course Israelite women did have long hair, and many on this forum have posted quotes from resources that assert that they (generally?) did not cut their hair, but without a definite command from God not to cut their hair, I don't see how we can conclude anything but that this was their culture and custom and not a mandate from God.

So wouldn't that mean it wasn't sin to have cut hair?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I apologize, didn't mean to be offensive. And I don't think you are childish at all. I suspect that until recently it wasn't an issue because all women had long hair and covered their heads. I honestly think both interpretations have merit.

It probably wasn't an issue because people didn't have social media to thoroughly discuss it without getting blowback.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

So wouldn't mean it wasn't sin to have cut hair?

That's how I would understand it. But I would still keep in mind that Paul does appeal to nature as somehow teaching women to have long hair and men short hair, so I would at least say that, cut hair or not, the way we wear our hair is still significant and should not be such that it blurs that distinction--a woman having a "mannish" hair cut, a man having a feminine "womanish" hair cut. :-) Regarding the latter, though this might not seem like an issue now, I have read early Christian writers who in fact did rebuke some men for wearing long feminine hairstyles.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Costeon

That's how I would understand it. But I would still keep in mind that Paul does appeal to nature as somehow teaching women to have long hair and men short hair, so I would at least say that, cut hair or not, the way we wear our hair is still significant and should not be such that it blurs that distinction--a woman having a "mannish" hair cut, a man having a feminine "womanish" hair cut. :-) Regarding the latter, though this might not seem like an issue now, I have read early Christian writers who in fact did rebuke some men for wearingThat long feminine hairstyles.

What do you think nature means in that text?

I agree with you on gender distinction.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I'm wanting one or two verses with this verb besides 1 Cor 11.6 from either the Greek OT or NT, i.e., "the Greek Bible," that definitely mean only "to cut." That is a reasonable request.

You have not provided that. Because you can't.

*Silly. Using this logic we shouldn't even attend church since there's only "one" verse that says not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. I thought someone really important said that "all Scripture is God-breathed...and is profitable for doctrine" (including I Cor. 11.6).

*Indeed, Jesus emphasized a superscript ("tittle" - KJV). The whole context clearly teaches long-uncut-untrimmed (cf. BDAG; ALGNT; L&N; etc.) hair. The onus is on you to disprove these mountains of professional linguists whose clear assertions militate directly against your attacks on their work. I am thinking at this point that isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by Costeon

BDAG doesn't provide that either.

*BDAG couldn't be plainer. You simply have a religious preference to protect so you are desperately trying to spin away from their crystal-clear statements. But, since I'm a fair man, here's another of many I could provide you from BDAG (in discussing the adjective αἰσχρόν, as used in I Cor. 11.6!):

Neut. in the expr. αἰσχρόν ἐστί τινι w. inf. foll. it is disgraceful for someone (cp. 4 Macc 16:17; Jdth 12:12): for a woman to cut her hair 1 Cor 11:6;

*Let me guess, this doesn't mean what it clearly says either right?

Originally Posted by Costeon

Your entire argument is that BDAG and other authorities say this verb simply means "to cut." But outside of this verse there is no support for that translation. 1 Cor 11.6 is the only verse listed in BDAG for this possible meaning. Without other examples to weigh and consider, no one can just assert it means only "to cut" when I have provided a great deal of evidence from the Greek OT and NT and from other Koine sources that this verb normally means "to cut off"--regarding males, females, and even sheep!

*You mean "authorities" such as BDAG; Bauer's Concise Lexicon, UBS, Friberg's ALGNT, L&N, etc. (I promise you I have more)? If you've had 2 years of Greek you should know that these are the standard lexicographers & authorities (every one of my prof.'s have used these same resources).

*You again take a verb applied to men and "even sheep" and unwarrantedly cover women w. the meaning, not allowing God's "nature" to remain distinct. I'm honestly surprised that you make such a simple mistake. Or, are you telling me that if the noun for "skirt" is applied to men (such as w. Boaz) that Christian men can now wear "skirts?" In fact, since you have equally appealed to "sheep" to defend your doctrine, are you claiming that what is said of animals can be used to equally apply to humans ?

Originally Posted by Costeon

Your entire doctrine ultimately is based on a single disputed passage. You cannot support the doctrine of uncut hair from even one other passage. That is not how you exegete Scripture.

*False. Did you not read the following on my blog:

*The way long hair is used elsewhere in Scripture would seem to demand the idea of uncut, or not trimmed.

*”They shall not shave their heads or let their locks grow long; they shall surely trim the hair of their heads.” Ezekiel 44.20

*In this verse it is clear that trimming the hair would prevent it from being long. Long hair is untrimmed hair. This is not the only verse that indicates this:

*”All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6.5; ESV).

*The command to the one under the Nazarite Vow is: “He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.” This is set in contrast to, “no razor shall touch his head.” Clearly the Nazarite vow prohibited any cutting of the hair.

*Again, Dr. John Gill: “he might not shave his beard, nor cut off his locks, and shave his head, nor cut short his locks with a pair of scissors, nor any with anything by which the hair may be removed, as Ben Gersom; nor pluck off his hair with his hands, as Maimonides says (x); but let it grow as long as it would during the time of his separation.”

*Regarding "how to exegete Scripture," neither does anyone I've ever known who studies Greek seriously withstand mountains of professional linguists, all of whom say the same thing about this passage. I don't think you're in any position to correct someone else on their exegetical skills (I have never claimed to be a Greek scholar anyway). The very fact that you have appealed to L-S-J clued me in that you're a bit outdated in your resources. I've repeatedly read that students of Koine' should not appeal to L-S-J.

Originally Posted by Costeon

I've provided authorities too, noting that no major modern translation or major commentary support you. You of course dismiss them out of hand.

*First, if you will not accept the claims of "major" grammarians like BDAG, UBS, Bauer, ALGNT, L&N, etc. - you would not accept any other resource, other than your own. In fact, I even list numerous Classical linguists who specifically stated that I COR 11 teaches "uncut hair" (I know you read them). What do you do w. all of their expertise? "Dismiss them out of hand" - the very thing you charge me with doing.

*Second, I specifically mentioned numerous translations on my blog that specifically & directly translate the passage as "to cut her hair." Of course, to be 100% expected, below you dismiss these as "minor" paraphrases. How did I know that was coming? Didn't you appeal to the NLT earlier (which is actually more accurate than many formal equivalences in places). I'm currently taking classes from Dr. Daniel Wallace on text-criticism so I do understand the philosophy's behind these translations.

Originally Posted by Costeon

You note that there are translations that do support you. I looked over your blog to see which ones you quote. You mention that the Today's English Version and CEV read "to cut." This is true for these minor dynamic-equivalent translations/paraphrases.

*Again, the great irony of dynamic vs. formal equivalence is that there are places that dynamic equivalence is more accurate to the intended meaning than a stilted rendering. Cf., e.g., I Tim. 3.1 in the NLT (Mounce pointed this out in a class I took from him).

Originally Posted by Costeon

Then I came across this on your blog, which after all these posts really surprised me, in which you list some more authorities.

*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).

*Not sure why this would surprise you? Did you not notice how these linguists translate the "one" passage that you keep complaining about? As L&N state: if the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair 1CO. 11.6

*I honestly don't know what else you want at this point. I mean, seriously, since this topic is defined as "disgraceful" (however you interpret it) - one would think that you would form your conclusion in the safety and fear of God Almighty.

Originally Posted by Costeon

Regarding what is in bold, why on earth haven't you admitted this before?!

*It seems that in the active voice the verb can mean to cut short, but not in the middle voice when applied in context to women (as here {not as in Acts 18.18}). Concise Greek-English Lexicon: κείρω shear (sheep); midd. cut one's hair, have one's hair cut.

Originally Posted by Costeon

The Louw&Nida is interesting because it mentions cutting the hair of a person (not just a woman) or an animal. Again, all the examples of this involve cutting it all off, like shearing a sheep.

*However, Louw & Nida specifically referenced the woman under consideration in I Cor. 11.6: εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνήκαὶ κειράσθω if the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair 1CO.11:6

*Continued...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Following your admission that "many linguists have translated this verb as “cut off" or simply as "to cut," you then list examples of translations, implying that some translate it "to cut." You mention the RSV, NEB, NAB, NIV, Amplified Bible, and James Moffatt. I checked all these online and none of them say just "to cut" but rather translate it to "cut off."

*You have misunderstood what you claim I am "implying." I included both "to cut" and "to cut off" in these renderings that anyone can readily review - as you have done.

*Second, there is nothing to "admit" (loaded guilt term BTW). This verb means either "to cut" or "to cut short," but when in the middle voice and applied to a woman in cf. w. context (e.g., "κομᾷ" vv. 14-15) the verb means simply "to have one's hair trimmed or cut" according to the most reputable linguists available.

*For some reason you are denying this, which I honestly find odd. Would you accept the claims of BDAG in how they define the prepositional phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" in the Acts 2.38 baptismal account (as to orally invoke the name)? If so, why then do you reject the same lexicographers in the hair issue of I Cor. 11.6? This reveals your bias IMO.

*Before you respond that there are other examples of "in the name of" demanding an oral invocation - I'll just remind you that 3 different prep.'s are used in the baptismal accounts (I don't think there is any take away diff. meaning though).

Originally Posted by Costeon

In sum, you have no additional biblical verses from the Greek OT or NT, no major modern translations, and no major commentaries that support your interpretation of 1 Cor 11.6.

I, in contrast, have many additional biblical verses from the Greek OT and NT, all the major modern translations, and the major commentaries that support my interpretation of 1 Cor 11.6--and of course there are the many linguists as well that you admit support the translation "to cut off."

*This is simply flatly false, as anyone can scroll through this thread and my blog and see demonstrated. As I have explained many times already - replete w. direct quotes in context - "major" (if BDAG & UBS are not "major" I don't know what is?) linguists from both the Classical and Koine' period, commentaries (UBS), lexicons, etc. all very specifically say that this verb - as used in I Cor. 11.6 - means "to cut or trim the hair."

*You can claim that I have not provided the same, but it is still staring you right in the eyes all the while you claim it's not there. This is like someone standing on the beach in CA on a bright sunny day & repeatedly asking someone to show them the blue sky (?).

Originally Posted by Costeon

I know we are not going to come to an agreement, but I am glad for the opportunity to have discussed this with you. God bless.

*On this we likely agree from what I have seen. But, I also have enjoyed the stimulating discussion. God bless.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*The way long hair is used elsewhere in Scripture would seem to demand the idea of uncut, or not trimmed.

*”They shall not shave their heads or let their locks grow long; they shall surely trim the hair of their heads.” Ezekiel 44.20

*In this verse it is clear that trimming the hair would prevent it from being long. Long hair is untrimmed hair. This is not the only verse that indicates this:

*”All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6.5; ESV).

*The command to the one under the Nazarite Vow is: “He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.” This is set in contrast to, “no razor shall touch his head.” Clearly the Nazarite vow prohibited any cutting of the hair.

rdp, you don't agree with the evidence I have presented; I don't agree with how you interpret the evidence, so we're at an impasse. I could go line by line and comment on your last two posts, but we know it would really accomplish nothing.

But as far as any future discussions go, I do wish you would refrain from attributing any motive to me but a sincere desire for the truth. You wrote, "You simply have a religious preference to protect so you are desperately trying to spin away from their crystal-clear statements." Why would you say that when you don't know me? You attribute sincerity to yourself—"But, since I'm a fair man"—so, why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt that I am sincere and then refrain from making it personal? I will try to do that for you. I may be mistaken in my analysis of the evidence, but I am not trying to spin anything. If you read my response yesterday to Amanah in this thread, you will see that I said that I frankly would prefer your view to be true. But, alas, I don't think the evidence points in that direction.

I would like to plainly explain my approach to BDAG. As I mentioned in other posts I have it and use it, and I do recognize it as the standard lexicon for NT Greek. But the men who created this lexicon did not come up with definitions for words in the abstract and then go find examples in Koine Greek to support their definitions. Rather, they found all the places a particular word occurs in the NT and Septuagint and in other places in Koine literature to determine the range of meaning for the word, and then they listed these various meanings along with the supporting evidence in their lexicon for others to consult.

In the case of the verb we’re arguing about, they list only one example for the meaning “to cut.” Just as we shouldn’t base an entire doctrine on one verse, we shouldn’t base our entire understanding of the meaning of a word on one example. If BDAG doesn’t provide more evidence to support their definition, then it is the responsibility of other scholars to supply the supporting data before arguing that a word has a particular definition. Gordon Fee, for example, has done so in his commentary and lists two examples where this verb is in the middle voice and is about women and in both examples it clearly means “to cut short.”

I’m not trying to discredit BDAG or any of the other lexical resources that you have mentioned, nor am I suggesting that they should not be consulted, but I am suggesting that they are not divinely inspired. Other scholars have access to all the evidence that BDAG consulted and have weighed the evidence themselves. And so, I think it is telling that none of the major commentaries on 1 Corinthians and none of the major, well-known translations understand the verb to mean “to cut” in 1 Cor 11.6. (So it is not a matter of little ole me with two years of Greek disputing the Great Lexical Authorities.) After noting the arguments of the commentaries and reading all these translations and how they translate the verb and after my own study of the verb in its various contexts in the Greek OT and NT, I find it compelling that the verb means “to cut off” in 1 Cor 11.6. You may disagree with this, and that’s fine, but at least don’t question my motives.

I do want to comment on what I have quoted above from your post.

Regarding Ezekiel 44.20, “They shall neither shave their heads nor let their hair grow long, but they shall keep their hair well trimmed" (NKJV). To me, it is not clear "that trimming the hair would prevent it from being long" or that "long hair is untrimmed hair."

First, it seems to me that it is certainly possible to have long hair and still trim it and the average person recognize that it is long hair. I have done this all my life in observing men and women who had obviously long hair but who still cut it at times. Trimming and long hair are not mutually exclusive.

Second, if "long hair is untrimmed hair," it seems to imply that as long a priest trimmed his hair at all, he could conceivably grow his hair out to his waist, for example, and it still would not be long and would not therefore violate what God had just commanded. But that clearly would violate the spirit of what God had commanded here through Ezekiel. Ezekiel's point, it seems to me, is that the priests were to adopt a moderate position between the two extremes of a shaved head and long hair, that is, their hair should be cut regularly and short enough that those in their day would recognize it as short.

And regarding 1 Cor 11.14, if "long hair is untrimmed hair" it would seem to imply that as long as I trimmed my hair ever or at all, I could grow it out as long as I wanted and it still would not be a dishonor to me. Only untrimmed hair would be long. Mine would be trimmed, so it would not be long.

Regarding the Nazirite vow, this was a unique situation in that it does explicitly state that the hair was to be uncut. This is unique, which to me implies that we are not to apply this generally to every other instance in which long hair is mentioned. In fact, as I mentioned in the original post of this thread, the fact that female Nazirites were commanded not to cut their hair at all during the time of their consecration implies that it would have been acceptable to do so at other times—even if Israelite women might not have been inclined to do so. At any rate, it would not be forbidden. Otherwise, this particular command would have no relevance for the female Nazirite.