Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So a man with five feet of hair but who trims it regularly isn't "komao" -ing his hair.

This is when we go back to nature. Would that be natural for a man, to have 5 feet of hair? If you say no then it would be a shame to him. Just as for a woman to be shorn is to be shaven and that would be a shame unto her.

Brother Esaias don't you start pushing all the questions to the extremes too. That's how these people on here looking for a loophole get to acting all the time!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

This is when we go back to nature. Would that be natural for a man, to have 5 feet of hair? If you say no then it would be a shame to him. Just as for a woman to be shorn is to be shaven and that would be a shame unto her.

Brother Esaias don't you start pushing all the questions to the extremes too. That's how these people on here looking for a loophole get to acting all the time!

lol

Brother, what I'm saying is we gotta be consistent. Most folks know what "long hair" looks like. You just proved it. Long is long, and shorn is shorn, and shaved is shaved.

And more importantly, the apostle was telling women to WEAR A HEADCOVERING IN WORSHIP.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And more importantly, the apostle was telling women to WEAR A HEADCOVERING IN WORSHIP.

But Brother verse 16 says "Her hair is given unto her instead of a covering."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

But Brother verse 16 says "Her hair is given unto her instead of a covering."

I don't see the word "instead" in my Bible.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't see the word "instead" in my Bible.

That's in the original language that's what the word means. Anti means "instead of or in place of."

Vs 15: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

This word translated here as "For" comes from the Greek word "anti'. Which Thayer even defines as "for, instead of, in place of (something)."

So it could be rendered "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her instead of, in place of a covering."

So Brother I don't believe the Apostle was saying anything about wearing a head covering to the women who had long hair. If you may of even had doubts whether it was long well that sounds like a qualifier. But otherwise "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her instead of, in place of a covering."

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Who we are in the dark behind locked doors is the real us. An everyday citizen will kill more people in his mind, then John Wayne Gacy did physically. That is our true worship to Jesus, when no one can hear us, no one can see us, what goes on in our minds. Does it please Him, or disgust Him?

Real holiness.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

"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/

I don't see where you actually interact with the only other texts from the NT where this verb appears. Are you saying that the sheep only got trimmed and that Paul simply had his hair cut? In both cases it was cut off. Again, Paul is speaking of cutting off the hair or having it completely shaved off.

I realize that nothing I could say will alter your view on this, but I will add to your list of lexical sources, from the standard classical Greek lexicon, which is also valid for NT Greek.

Liddell and Scott:

I.to cut the hair short, shear, clip, Il., Hdt., Eur.:— Mid. to cut off one's hair or have it cut off, as in deep mourning, Hom., Eur., etc.:—Pass., βοστρύχους κεκαρμένος having one's locks cut off, Eur.; κεκάρθαι τὰς κεφαλάς to have their heads shorn, in sign of mourning, Hdt.: of the hair, to be cut off, Pind.
II.to cut or hew out, Il.; ὕλην Soph.
III.to ravage a country, by cutting down the crops and fruit-trees, Hdt., Thuc.:—Pass., of a country, to be ravaged, Thuc.:—Mid., Ἄρης πλάκα κερσάμενος having had the plain swept clean (by destroying the men), Aesch.
IV.generally, to destroy, and so,
1.to tear, eat greedily, Lat. depasci, of beasts, Hom.; ἔκειρε πολύκερων φόνον, i. e. he slaughtered many a horned beast, Soph.
2.of the suitors, to consume, waste one's substance, Od.

I think the definitions not dealing with hair are enlightening. These deal with things that are absolute, overwhelming, drastic. That sense obviously goes along with completing cutting the hair off and not the idea of a simple trim. In light of this evidence, it's not surprising that the only examples we have in the NT involve Paul having his hair cut off and sheep being sheared.

The only example where this verb is used in reference to human hair involves it being completely cut off!

The only example where this verb is used in reference to animal hair involves it being completely cut off!

If actual NT examples can't be our guide to establishing meaning, how is legitimate interpretation even possible?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

That's in the original language that's what the word means. Anti means "instead of or in place of."

Vs 15: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

This word translated here as "For" comes from the Greek word "anti'. Which Thayer even defines as "for, instead of, in place of (something)."

So it could be rendered "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her instead of, in place of a covering."

So Brother I don't believe the Apostle was saying anything about wearing a head covering to the women who had long hair. If you may of even had doubts whether it was long well that sounds like a qualifier. But otherwise "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her instead of, in place of a covering."

I gave you examples in a previous post where "anti" does not simply mean what you say here.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Nazarite was especially separated to God, cut off from wine and grapes (representing blessings of ordinary life) and cut off from burying the dead, including their own family members (representing separation from one of the inevitable duties of ordinary life). The Nazarite was ceremonially separated to God and ceremonially separated from ordinary society. This was symbolized with the hair. Men grw their hair out like women, taking upon themselves society's "shame" as a representation of sanctification to God. Women shaved their hair off, again representing a societal "shame" as an old covenant, typological symbol of separation from the world and separation to God.

The ascetic in every culture is "outside the societal norms" in regards to dress and appearance, one way or the other. With the Nazarite, the man wore his extra-normal societal "shame" during the vow. The woman wore hers at the end of the vow. Both were identified by behaviors during the vow (no wine, no dead bodies, etc).

The Nazarite vow was a time in which a person symbolically withdrew from ordinary human society. Therefore, the requirements (no grapes/wine, no touching the dead, growing the hair out then shaving it off) were such that separated the vow taker from his or her ordinary lifestyle and customs, whether male or female.

Thank you for this post. Very interesting.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I don't see where you actually interact with the only other texts from the NT where this verb appears. Are you saying that the sheep only got trimmed and that Paul simply had his hair cut? In both cases it was cut off. Again, Paul is speaking of cutting off the hair or having it completely shaved off.

I realize that nothing I could say will alter your view on this, but I will add to your list of lexical sources, from the standard classical Greek lexicon, which is also valid for NT Greek.

Liddell and Scott:

I.to cut the hair short, shear, clip, Il., Hdt., Eur.:— Mid. to cut off one's hair or have it cut off, as in deep mourning, Hom., Eur., etc.:—Pass., βοστρύχους κεκαρμένος having one's locks cut off, Eur.; κεκάρθαι τὰς κεφαλάς to have their heads shorn, in sign of mourning, Hdt.: of the hair, to be cut off, Pind.
II.to cut or hew out, Il.; ὕλην Soph.
III.to ravage a country, by cutting down the crops and fruit-trees, Hdt., Thuc.:—Pass., of a country, to be ravaged, Thuc.:—Mid., Ἄρης πλάκα κερσάμενος having had the plain swept clean (by destroying the men), Aesch.
IV.generally, to destroy, and so,
1.to tear, eat greedily, Lat. depasci, of beasts, Hom.; ἔκειρε πολύκερων φόνον, i. e. he slaughtered many a horned beast, Soph.
2.of the suitors, to consume, waste one's substance, Od.

I think the definitions not dealing with hair are enlightening. These deal with things that are absolute, overwhelming, drastic. That sense obviously goes along with completing cutting the hair off and not the idea of a simple trim. In light of this evidence, it's not surprising that the only examples we have in the NT involve Paul having his hair cut off and sheep being sheared.

The only example where this verb is used in reference to human hair involves it being completely cut off!

The only example where this verb is used in reference to animal hair involves it being completely cut off!

If actual NT examples can't be our guide to establishing meaning, how is legitimate interpretation even possible?

So your saying the text is basically saying shorn and shaven are the same thing? Ok i have no problem with that but why would it use two words that mean the exact same thing at all? Of course would be the same as to be shaven if they are saying two different words that mean the exact same thing. The only question I have is why would he because that would be obvious? Who used the word the other 2 times it's used? Luke and Paul used it.

But it's used 3 times in the same verse 11:6 "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." Ok so it would say "for it a woman be not covered, let shorn also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered?" Explain because the her being the same word is throwing me off.