Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

To yours

*Umm, did you graduate high school? This smacks of, "I know you are, but what am I?" So good to see you abiding by your own rules of congenial engagement .

[rdp]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Bro you cant win for losing with you. You will get offended about anything I say nice or otherwise. For 1000's of years in middle eastern culture women didn't cut their hair. It's all about headship. This whole thing about modern women getting ran off by it, is ridiculous. It's the same as this whole idea there's mighty men of God with beards that are rejected by the church of the living God. All of that is backwards. If you can't come under obedience, then you are on a bad path in the first place.

You can't submit unless you can obey. Obedience is the first step, but submission is something that comes from wanting more than anything to please God, and the authority He's placed in your life. "Whatever you do whether in word or in deed, do it all in the name of the Lord", everything else will work itself out. You can have God's way or your own, and sometimes obedience has nothing to do with whether you understand why. Revival and a move of God come from Unity and purity, you lose holiness inwardly and outwardly and the glory will depart. It doesn't just all go at once.

Advising people to be self willed is never a good thing, because some people are only looking for a excuse.

*The fella' just don't get it Bro. Excellent post.

*God bless.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

Unbeknownst to you I have received contact from others who have stated that my demeanor on here has been acceptable.

Neat.

They could have mentioned it publicly.

You are simply now out of ammo (I'm just getting warmed up)

Sure.

Of course you are.

Oh, you mean the debate where the host Trinitarian pastor, his wife and people in his congregation explicitly told me they despised White's pomp and arrogance? You mean the debate where the moderator (a judicial moderator in AUS) approached me immediately after the debate and said that if he were judging the debate on points he would have voted for me (I never make these assertions myself) - and then literally cussed White to me for his nasty demeanor? The debate where afterwards the host Trinitarian pastor and others in his congregation told me they were so glad I didn't let him bully me as he had done so many others. The debate wherein I have received contacts from all over the world expressing the identical thing? Yea', I do remember that one !

The way y'all both acted was cringeworthy.

*Simply, if you can dish it out be fully prepared to receive it. How many YouTube videos have I posted toward you in ridicule, or how many times have I posted in ALL CAPS with exclamation points at the end of the sentence? Zero. Here, my gift of discernment is kicking in: "Hogwash!"

*Back soon to continue the party !

It occurred to me a bit earlier that I didn't have to keep defending myself against you distorting what I say and do. Sensible people are reading this thread and can tell when you are mischaracterizing me.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Umm, did you graduate high school? This smacks of, "I know you are, but what am I?" So good to see you abiding by your own rules of congenial engagement .

Yes

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

The way y'all both acted was cringeworthy.

*Tell you what, why don't you just remain in the spectator seats and let those who have been in the actual ring for years do what they need to do. Opinions are like noses.

Originally Posted by Costeon

It occurred to me a bit earlier that I didn't have to keep defending myself against you distorting what I say and do. Sensible people are reading this thread and can tell when you are mischaracterizing me.

*Yes, sensible people are indeed reading this thread - and they have told me so personally ! Rather hard to "mischaracterize" your own quotes, videos, scorn and sneering - but keep trying to deflect ..

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

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.

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?

*And I pastor a lady and her family who told me she never understood the hair issue coming up, until I taught her from the original languages and she now understands and appreciates it.

*When I was evangelizing I taught much of this material all over the country and many churches communicated the same thing to me. And I am honest enough to represent the objections such as you have offered in this thread. Honestly not boasting at all, just pointing out it works both ways equally.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Tell you what, why don't you just remain in the spectator seats and let those who have been in the actual ring for years do what they need to do.

LOL! Cue the Rocky theme.

I've been reading BDAG on "kata kephales exon" and "katakalupto." I thought it was interesting that they don't support your views and explicitly cite 1 Cor 11.4 and 11.6ab as involving covering oneself with a veil, not hair. It will be interesting debating these verses too.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I got one common sense question if shear means what you so avidly you say it does Costeon, why would Paul need to say that's the same as being shaven? That would be a double duh?

I truthfully believe he's being derogatory to a woman being cut, as being sheared. Here just watch a sheep get sheered. It's very demeaning to the Sheep, and so should cutting be to a woman. That's what I believe it means in context, after further meditation upon the scripture.

To say 2 different words that mean the exact same thing, and come to the exact same conclusion, just makes no sense in my opinion.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Costeon

LOL! Cue the Rocky theme.

I've been reading BDAG on "kata kephales exon" and "katakalupto." I thought it was interesting that they don't support your views and explicitly cite 1 Cor 11.4 and 11.6ab as involving covering oneself with a veil, not hair. It will be interesting debating these verses too.

*You mean the BDAG that says this about the Greek adjective translated "shame" in 11.6?

αἰσχρός, ά, όν (in var. senses from ‘ugly’ in an external sense to ‘base’ as in moral deformity Hom.+; also αἰσχρότερα Ar. 11, 7; αἴσχιστον Just., A II, 7, 3; αἰσχρῶς Just., A I, 27, 1; D. 90, 1. A term esp. significant in honor-shame oriented society; gener. in ref. to that which fails to meet expected moral and cultural standards [opp. καλός]) pert. to being socially or morally unacceptable, shameful, base αἰσχρόν κέρδος dishonest gain Tit 1:11 (Theognis 466; Polyb. 6, 46, 3; s. αἰσχροκερδής, -ῶς). ῥῆμα (PFlor 309, 4) Hv 1, 1, 7. 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;

*I read BDAG a lot too (as I already told you earlier). I could just as easily say that UBS, Bauer, etc. do not agree w. your view in this text. Also, we all (myself included) need to be careful to distinguish between BDAG's grammatical assertions and their theological claims. For example, under the noun rendered "form" in Phil. 2.6, BDAG comments:

μορφή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) form, outward appearance, shape gener. of bodily form 1 Cl 39:3; ApcPt 4:13 (Job 4:16; ApcEsdr 4:14 p. 28, 16 Tdf.; SJCh 78, 13). Of the shape or form of statues (Jos., Vi. 65; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 67, 11]) Dg 2:3. Of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons (Callisthenes [IV B.C.]: 124 fgm. 13 p. 644, 32 Jac. [in Athen. 10, 75, 452b] Λιμὸς ἔχων γυναικὸς μορφήν; Diod. S. 3, 31, 4 ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρώπων; TestAbr A 16 p. 97, 11 [Stone p. 42] ἀρχαγγέλου μορφὴν περικείμενος; Jos., Ant. 5, 213 a messenger fr. heaven νεανίσκου μορφῇ): of God’s assembly, the church Hv 3, 10, 2; 9; 3, 11, 1; 3, 13, 1; s 9, 1, 1; of the angel of repentance ἡ μ. αὐτοῦ ἠλλοιώθη his appearance had changed m 12, 4, 1.

Of Christ (ἐν μ. ἀνθρώπου TestBenj 10:7; Just., D. 61, 1; Tat. 2, 1; Hippol., Ref. 5, 16, 10. Cp. Did., Gen. 56, 18; of deities ἐν ἀνθρωπίνη μορφῇ: Iambl., Vi. Pyth. 6, 30; cp. Philo, Abr. 118) μορφὴν δούλου λαβών he took on the form of a slave=expression of servility Phil 2:7 (w. σχῆμα as Aristot., Cat. 10a, 11f, PA 640b, 30-36). This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preëxistent Christ: ἐν μ. θεοῦ ὑπάρχων although he was in the form of God;

*Clearly the noun μορφῇ does not denote a "preexisent Messiah" - esp. when BDAG just defined the term as denoting "bodily form" (the normative tag of μορφῇ). That is, as I have pointed out in journal papers before, quite often lexicographers will militate against their own provided definitions when their theology kicks in.

*And yes, the same thing can be said of their entry on keiro in I Cor. 11.6. But, when you have many linguists all saying the same thing, both dependently and independently of one another - this is something to take seriously.

*Are you now arguing in favor of an actual cloth veil based upon BDAG?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Well, the Socratic method of inquiry typically requires the person(s) being asked the questions to answer first - then offers a rejoinder if need be.

*Since I have categorically answered virtually every question posed on here while almost every question I ask is completely ignored, I'd say it's time for some of my questions be answered before I continue chasing rabbit trails (after which I will gladly respond, as I have done all along ). Here are the questions again:

(i) What constitutes biblically defined "long hair" on the Christian woman?

(ii) Does it vary from culture to culture for the Christian woman?

(iii) Does it vary individually for each Christian woman?

*If someone responds by asserting that as long as her hair is distinct from a man's it is considered "long" - I will just once again point out that what one person deems as "long" another will not view as "long," until these verses have no practical applicability whatsoever (which would be unthinkable for those who take God's Word seriously).

*(Note: We are not discussing anomaly's such as cancer, balding women, etc.- since that is not the context of I Cor. 11.)

How long is long? Interesting, as the only people I know who ask that question are oneness Pentecostals... and recalcitrant boys whose mothers have said "It's time you got a haircut".

Long and short, in English, are relative terms. For example, where I live, to go to the grocery story it's about 30+ minutes one way from the house. To many people, that's quite a "long drive just to go get bread". To us, however, it's not a long drive. Going to Dallas would be a long drive, but going 30 miles to the grocer isn't.

Likewise, when most people say "she has long hair" they have no concept in mind that her hair must be a certain particular length in inches or feet. Nor do they have in mind any idea that - regardless of measurement - that person's hair is necessarily untrimmed by any amount.

So, "long and short" are general words in English that refer to length without reference to any certain, definite, specific measurement:

Long
LONG, adjective [Latin longus.]

1. Extended; drawn out in a line, or in the direction of length; opposed to short, and contradistinguished from broad or wide. long is a relative term; for a thing may be long in respect to one thing, and short with respect to another. We apply long to things greatly extended, and to things which exceed the common measure. we say, a long way, a long distance, a long line, and long hair, long arms. By the latter terms, we mean hair and arms exceeding the usual length.

2. Drawn out or extended in time; as a long time; a long period of time; a long while; a long series of events; a long sickness or confinement; a long session; a long debate.

3. Extended to any certain measure expressed; as a span long; a yard long; a mile long that is, extended to the measure of a mile, etc.

4. Dilatory; continuing for an extended time.

5. Tedious; continued to a great length.

A tale should never be too long

6. Continued in a series to a great extent; as a long succession of princes; a long line of ancestors.

7. Continued in sound; protracted; as a long note; a long syllable.

8. Continued; lingering or longing.

Praying for him, and casting a long look that way, he saw the galley leave the pursuit.

9. Extensive; extending far in prospect or into futurity.

The perennial existence of bodies corporate and their fortunes, are things particularly suited to a man who has long views.

To demand that "long" must have a universally agreed-upon and easily definable, specific length, is to demand that the word have a meaning which, grammatically, it simply doesn't.

Now, if you are told to cut a board "long" (or "short"), you will demand greater precision: "How long, exactly, do you want it?" But now you have left the term "long" and its simple etymology, and are expecting greater precision. Applied to the subject at hand, it means that "how long is long" cannot be answered by an appeal to the etymology of the term, but must be answered by entering the theological arena.

Or to put it more simply, how long is long in regards to hair is really just asking "How long (or short) must a person's hair be to be considered acceptable?" And this is a theological question, not a grammatical one, apparently.

Going to the Greek, the question is "can a woman slightly trim her hair but it still be kome?" I believe a Greek citation was found and quoted earlier which directly addressed that specific situation, and apparently (linguistically, at least) it is within the semantic range of komao-kome for a woman to slightly trim her hair (and test still komao or have kome).

Then the discussion turns upon keiro. Does keiro include the idea of a slight trim? THAT seems to be the crux of the grammatical/lexigraphical debate here. Keiro, it seems, is a term that corresponds most closely with "shear" in English. Shear usually implies in most people's minds a close-cropping (ie cutting short) but it cannot be denied there is a more literal, technical meaning of shear. To shear LITERALLY means to cut something by means of a shearing (scissoring) action, does it not? Thus the reason scissors are called a type or class of shears. So TECHNICALLY, to get a trim would require a "shearing" of the ends of the hair.

The question then becomes, "What was Paul meaning when he said then let her also be shorn/sheared/keiro'd?" Was he meaning the woman's hair should given a slight trim? Would that have been recognizable to the audience as a shameful, disgraceful condition, exposing the woman to open mockery in public? Would it be consistent with the fact that as she was usurping what belonged to the man, she might as well go ahead and have something done to her hair that LIKEWISE ("also") expressed the same unbecoming masculinity? Would a slight trim fit that?

Or is it more likely Paul is saying since she is acting like a man she ought to cut her hair like a man, finish the work, and have her antifeminine and abominable masculinity shine for everyone to see and recognize her as being a gender-bender?