Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Ok but it would be obvious the person who had a buzz cut is the same to have their hair shaven,because a buzz cut is shaven. He wouldn't need to write that, that would be obvious and redundant.

I'm just interjecting this again as we've traveled 30 + pages, and for argument sake it works, but common sense wise it doesn't.

Then why has anyone in the history of language ever used a synonym? Nothing could be more common than stating a similar idea in various ways.

What doesn't work common sense wise is suggesting Paul is contrasting a simple trim where the appearance would be hardly altered with shaving a woman slick bald as if they would be equally shameful to a woman.

Some of the women on here could surely speak to this. Would you walk about feeling the same way if a 1/4" of your hair had been cut off as you would if you had been shaved bald?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Then why has anyone in the history of language ever used a synonym? Nothing could be more common than stating a similar idea in various ways.

What doesn't work common sense wise is suggesting Paul is contrasting a simple trim where the appearance would be hardly altered with shaving a woman slick bald as if they would be equally shameful to a woman.

Some of the women on here could surely speak to this. Would you walk about feeling the same way if a 1/4" of your hair had been cut off as you would if you had been shaved bald?

If the Apostle is bringing us back to nature which shows mens hair to be short, and womens hair long by crearion the conclusion you are supporting would be totally opposite of what's being portrayed. It would make sense that he is talking about 1/4 of a inch being cut off as the same as being shaven because of nature, then it would to say "you have 1/4 of a inch of hair left and that's the same as being shaven." And why because you are shaven, that's redundant. That understanding wouldn't illicit 16+ verses of explanation.

And I doubt he's talking about the appearance, because this whole thing in scripture has to do with headship, and authority. This idea of the appearance of it, is the least of what any of this about. It's 99% about sumbission and headship not just upon the earth, but also in the heavenlies. It's a covenant between the woman and God.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

That's what I'm going to have right now.

BBQ!!!!

But it’s not Texas BBQ.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

If the Apostle is bringing us back to nature which shows mens hair to be short, and womens hair long by crearion the conclusion you are supporting would be totally opposite of what's being portrayed.

I showed in a previous post, based on resources that you and rdp have posted, how nature apparently didn't show Jewish men to have short hair--nor many other men in many other cultures.

See "nature" is ambiguous here in this passage; that is, it is capable of more than one interpretation. Of course ardent supporters of one view or another never think there is possibly any other interpretation than their own.

People have also argued at length in this thread over what komao means, of course convinced they are right and no other views have any possible merit.

Which brings me back to the most basic point I have made in this thread: The doctrine that burdens our sisters in the Lord with never being able to even trim their hair or risk hell fire rests on one ambiguous passage. If this thread doesn't demonstrate that it is ambiguous, I don't know what would.

Oh for just one explicit unambiguous command from God! "Women, you shall not cut your hair."

It would make sense that he is talking about 1/4 of a inch being cut off as the same as being shaven because of nature, then it would to say "you have 1/4 of a inch of hair left and that's the same as being shaven." And why because you are shaven, that's redundant. That understanding wouldn't illicit 16+ verses of explanation.

Obviously I don't agree with you. I don't think you are expressing my view. Oh well.

If this passage were unambiguous we wouldn't have 42 pages of debate on it.

And I doubt he's talking about the appearance, because this whole thing in scripture has to do with headship, and authority. This idea of the appearance of it, is the least of what any of this about. It's 99% about sumbission and headship not just upon the earth, but also in the heavenlies. It's a covenant between the woman and God.

I don't agree with you, but it would be futile to give any reasons for it.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I showed in a previous post, based on resources that you and rdp have posted, how nature apparently didn't show Jewish men to have short hair--nor many other men in many other cultures.

See "nature" is ambiguous here in this passage; that is, it is capable of more than one interpretation. Of course ardent supporters of one view or another never think there is possibly any other interpretation than their own.

People have also argued at length in this thread over what komao means, of course convinced they are right and no other views have any possible merit.

Which brings me back to the most basic point I have made in this thread: The doctrine that burdens our sisters in the Lord with never being able to even trim their hair or risk hell fire rests on one ambiguous passage. If this thread doesn't demonstrate that it is ambiguous, I don't know what would.

Oh for just one explicit unambiguous command from God! "Women, you shall not cut your hair."



Obviously I don't agree with you. I don't think you are expressing my view. Oh well.

If this passage were unambiguous we wouldn't have 42 pages of debate on it.



I don't agree with you, but it would be futile to give any reasons for it.

Well that's all I have on this one. You sound sold on your understanding. If you are ok with having with a modern day understandanding, that would be foreign to antiquity then hey, Lord Love you Brother and God bless, in Jesus name!

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Then why has anyone in the history of language ever used a synonym? Nothing could be more common than stating a similar idea in various ways.

What doesn't work common sense wise is suggesting Paul is contrasting a simple trim where the appearance would be hardly altered with shaving a woman slick bald as if they would be equally shameful to a woman.

Some of the women on here could surely speak to this. Would you walk about feeling the same way if a 1/4" of your hair had been cut off as you would if you had been shaved bald?

Exactly right, excellent point.

Hard to think how many {tens of thousands?} maybe far more women have possibly left Oneness because of this doctrine? Hearts of stone will think "well yes they deserve trillions of years in blazing torture, they trimmed their hair!"

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Well that's all I have on this one. You sound sold on your understanding. If you are ok with having with a modern day understandanding, that would be foreign to antiquity then hey, Lord Love you Brother and God bless, in Jesus name!

The main thing I'm sold on is that this is an ambiguous passage capable of multiple interpretations by sincere Christians, and therefore it can't be the basis for the doctrine of uncut hair.

There no other passages this view is based on, and there are no simple commands from God establishing this teaching.

Of course I'm not ok "with having a modern day understanding," which is why I have based my arguments on Scripture and other ancient witnesses that BDAG and other lexical resources have mentioned.

It's fine if you disagree with my handling of the ancient evidence but what is it that compels you and others to mischaracterize my approach? Just say, "I don't think you have made a compelling case based on the evidence" or whatever.

And after you totally mischaracterize my approach, why patronize me with "then hey, Lord Love you Brother and God bless, in Jesus name!" as if you really mean that?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Exactly right, excellent point.

Thanks, Michael.

I have had some friends who really struggled with this teaching. It seemed to me that they did truly want to follow God's Word, but couldn't understand why such a teaching wasn't based on clear commands from God. I never had a good response.

Hard to think how many {tens of thousands?} maybe far more women have possibly left Oneness because of this doctrine? Hearts of stone will think "well yes they deserve trillions of years in blazing torture, they trimmed their hair!"

Indeed. I wonder how many women have been attracted to our churches but were ultimately closed to apostolic teaching because they couldn't get over this teaching?

I again want to say that I don't want to come across like I'm ridiculing women who have embraced and believe this teaching. I would never ridicule someone's sincere belief, even if I thought its scriptural foundation was too weak to truly support the doctrine.

[Esaias]

This thread ought to be a sticky...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This thread ought to be a sticky...