Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Costeon]

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!

If nature teaches a woman what long hair is, i.e., uncut, how does nature teach a man what short is? How much does he have to cut it for him to be able to say, "Ok nature has revealed that this is the proper length"?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

If nature teaches a woman what long hair is, i.e., uncut, how does nature teach a man what short is? How much does he have to cut it for him to be able to say, "Ok nature has revealed that this is the proper length"?

That it's the opposite end of the spectrum so shaven.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

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.

Brother, is this what the passage means?

Every man praying or prophesying, having his hair uncut, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her hair cut dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if her hair were cut. For if the woman have cut hair, let her also have her hair cut: but if it be a shame for a woman to have her hair cut, let her have uncut hair.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6)

???

I think it makes more sense like this:

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 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.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6)

Obviously, he is talking about having an actual head covering.

Speaking of Greek...

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

That word "covering" is peribolaion, and only occurs there in 1 Cor 11 and once more, in Hebrews:

Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

The word is used in the Greek Old Testament referring to a wrap-around garment (like a mantle or shawl) which was worn by both men and women. The word is a definite word, referring to clothing. If the woman's hair is given her "instead of" a peribolaion, then this means a woman who doesn't trim her hair has no need for a peribolaion - a garment that wraps around her. But I don't know anyone that proposes a woman's uncut hair excuses her from being clothed!

Also, the context of the verse is here:

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
(1 Corinthians 11:13-14)

This is clearly a lesson from nature (the apostle says so). Therefore, the long hair, given as a peribolaion to the woman, is something IN NATURE. And THIS NATURAL FACT is a support to the doctrine the apostle is trying to teach. Paul is not trying to teach a lesson about nature, but rather he refers to the lesson from nature as a proof of his doctrine.

"Does not even nature itself teach you..."? If you look at nature, we see that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. Because her hair (still in the natural here!) is given her for a mantle or shawl (peribolaion, a wrap-around garment). According to nature, the woman is naturally designed to be covered whereas the man is not. And this is a parallel in nature to what the apostle is trying to teach!

Which means it is not in itself what he was trying to teach. Therefore, the covering he commands in the first part of the chapter is not the hair. Rather, the hair (specifically the lesson nature teaches us using long hair) points us towards the propriety of Paul's command for women to be covered when they pray or prophesy.

Notice the overall context is when praying or prophesying. That refers to worship. All worship is either speaking to God (praying) or speaking for God (prophesying). So the subject is worship. If Paul was trying to tell men to cut their hair and women to grow their hair out he would have had no need to limit the discussion to worship. In fact, it would be improper to limit the discussion to worship, he would have just said "it is wrong for men to have long hair and women to have short hair". Instead, he speaks about headship, authority, the creation order, and head covering, all in the context of worship.

Having his head covered; which, it seems, was the custom of some of them so to do in attendance on public worship: this they either did in imitation of the Heathens (r), who worshipped their deities with their heads covered, excepting Saturn and Hercules, whose solemnities were celebrated with heads unveiled, contrary to the prevailing customs and usages in the worship of others; or rather in imitation of the Jews, who used to veil themselves in public worship, through a spirit of bondage unto fear, under which they were, and do to this day; and with whom it is a rule (s), that

"a man might not stand and pray, neither with his girdle on, ולא בראש מגולה, nor with his head uncovered; nor with his feet uncovered.''

Accordingly it is said (t) of Nicodemus ben Gorion,

"that he went into the school grieved, and נתעטף, "veiled himself", and stood in prayer;''

and a little after that

"that he went into the sanctuary and "veiled" himself, and stood and prayed;''

though the Targum on Jdg_5:2 suggests,

"that the wise men sit in the synagogues, בריש גלי, "with the head uncovered", to teach the people the words of the law;''

and on Jdg_5:9 has these words,

"Deborah in prophecy said, I am sent to praise the Scribes of Israel, who when they were in tribulation did not cease from expounding the law; and so it was beautiful for them to sit in the synagogues, "with the head uncovered", and teach the people the words of the law, and bless and confess before the Lord;''

but it seems that a different custom had now prevailed; now from this Gentile or judaizing practice, the apostle would dissuade them by observing, that such an one that uses it, "dishonoureth his head"; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship; or otherwise the reverse is suggested of him, which is highly to dishonour him, and is the sense many interpreters give into: rather the reason should be, because Christ, the believer's head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, and his intercession not prevalent: but the natural head, taken in a literal sense, is rather meant; and the sense is, that by covering it, it looks as if he was guilty and ashamed, and in subjection; whereas to appear uncovered expresses freedom, boldness, and superiority, like himself, who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman's veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable. - Gill's Commentary

The phrase "having the head covered/uncovered" was well known in antiquity, and was not understood of having cut or uncut hair, or short or long hair, or trimmed or untrimmed hair, but was referring to the wearing of an actual head covering.

In the law it is written, concerning the woman suspected of adultery:

Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

Did Moses command that the woman get a hair cut?

Concerning lepers, it is written:

And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean. And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, he is forehead bald: yet is he clean. And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish sore; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or his bald forehead. Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of the sore be white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh; He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head. And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
(Leviticus 13:40-45)

The Greek is interesting. For the phrase bolded above, "his head bare", the Greek reads thus:

Καὶ ὁ λεπρός, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ ἁφή, τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔστω παραλελυμένα καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκατακάλυπτος, καὶ περὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ περιβαλέσθω καὶ ἀκάθαρτος κεκλήσεται·

His head is to be "akatakaluptos". That is the same word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5 referring to the woman being uncovered:

πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ προσευχομένη ἢ προφητεύουσα ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς· ἓν γάρ ἐστι καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ.

Her head is akatakalpto, just like the leper's head was to be in Leviticus.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

If you read the Leviticus account again, you will see the leper having his head bare is NOT REFERRING TO HIS HAIR!! The leper was already bald, whether because of leprosy or naturally, thus had no hair. But, once he was declared to be leprous by the priest, he was to "have his head bare", or uncovered - akatakalupto - as one of the signs of his leprosy (obviously so that everyone would see and know he had a leprous sore in his head - which they would not see if he wore a headcovering). The leper was forbidden to hide his leprosy, lest others unknowingly contract ritual uncleanness by contacting him without seeing that he was in fact ritually unclean. but he was not forbidden to hide his leprosy by "letting his hair grow out", but by actually wearing some type of headcovering.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother, is this what the passage means?

Every man praying or prophesying, having his hair uncut, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her hair cut dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if her hair were cut. For if the woman have cut hair, let her also have her hair cut: but if it be a shame for a woman to have her hair cut, let her have uncut hair.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6)

???

I think it makes more sense like this:

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 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.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6)

Obviously, he is talking about having an actual head covering.

Speaking of Greek...

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

That word "covering" is peribolaion, and only occurs there in 1 Cor 11 and once more, in Hebrews:

Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

The word is used in the Greek Old Testament referring to a wrap-around garment (like a mantle or shawl) which was worn by both men and women. The word is a definite word, referring to clothing. If the woman's hair is given her "instead of" a peribolaion, then this means a woman who doesn't trim her hair has no need for a peribolaion - a garment that wraps around her. But I don't know anyone that proposes a woman's uncut hair excuses her from being clothed!

Also, the context of the verse is here:

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
(1 Corinthians 11:13-14)

This is clearly a lesson from nature (the apostle says so). Therefore, the long hair, given as a peribolaion to the woman, is something IN NATURE. And THIS NATURAL FACT is a support to the doctrine the apostle is trying to teach. Paul is not trying to teach a lesson about nature, but rather he refers to the lesson from nature as a proof of his doctrine.

"Does not even nature itself teach you..."? If you look at nature, we see that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. Because her hair (still in the natural here!) is given her for a mantle or shawl (peribolaion, a wrap-around garment). According to nature, the woman is naturally designed to be covered whereas the man is not. And this is a parallel in nature to what the apostle is trying to teach!

Which means it is not in itself what he was trying to teach. Therefore, the covering he commands in the first part of the chapter is not the hair. Rather, the hair (specifically the lesson nature teaches us using long hair) points us towards the propriety of Paul's command for women to be uncovered when they pray or prophesy.

Notice the overall context is when praying or prophesying. That refers to worship. All worship is either speaking to God (praying) or speaking for God (prophesying). So the subject is worship. If Paul was trying to tell men to cut their hair and women to grow their hair out he would have had no need to limit the discussion to worship. In fact, it would be improper to limit the discussion to worship, he would have just said "it is wrong for men to have long hair and women to have short hair". Instead, he speaks about headship, authority, the creation order, and head covering, all in the context of worship.

Having his head covered; which, it seems, was the custom of some of them so to do in attendance on public worship: this they either did in imitation of the Heathens (r), who worshipped their deities with their heads covered, excepting Saturn and Hercules, whose solemnities were celebrated with heads unveiled, contrary to the prevailing customs and usages in the worship of others; or rather in imitation of the Jews, who used to veil themselves in public worship, through a spirit of bondage unto fear, under which they were, and do to this day; and with whom it is a rule (s), that

"a man might not stand and pray, neither with his girdle on, ולא בראש מגולה, nor with his head uncovered; nor with his feet uncovered.''

Accordingly it is said (t) of Nicodemus ben Gorion,

"that he went into the school grieved, and נתעטף, "veiled himself", and stood in prayer;''

and a little after that

"that he went into the sanctuary and "veiled" himself, and stood and prayed;''

though the Targum on Jdg_5:2 suggests,

"that the wise men sit in the synagogues, בריש גלי, "with the head uncovered", to teach the people the words of the law;''

and on Jdg_5:9 has these words,

"Deborah in prophecy said, I am sent to praise the Scribes of Israel, who when they were in tribulation did not cease from expounding the law; and so it was beautiful for them to sit in the synagogues, "with the head uncovered", and teach the people the words of the law, and bless and confess before the Lord;''

but it seems that a different custom had now prevailed; now from this Gentile or judaizing practice, the apostle would dissuade them by observing, that such an one that uses it, "dishonoureth his head"; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship; or otherwise the reverse is suggested of him, which is highly to dishonour him, and is the sense many interpreters give into: rather the reason should be, because Christ, the believer's head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, and his intercession not prevalent: but the natural head, taken in a literal sense, is rather meant; and the sense is, that by covering it, it looks as if he was guilty and ashamed, and in subjection; whereas to appear uncovered expresses freedom, boldness, and superiority, like himself, who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman's veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable. - Gill's Commentary

The phrase "having the head covered/uncovered" was well known in antiquity, and was not understood of having cut or uncut hair, or short or long hair, or trimmed or untrimmed hair, but was referring to the wearing of an actual head covering.

In the law it is written, concerning the woman suspected of adultery:

Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

Did Moses command that the woman get a hair cut?

Concerning lepers, it is written:

And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean. And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, he is forehead bald: yet is he clean. And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish sore; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or his bald forehead. Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of the sore be white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh; He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head. And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
(Leviticus 13:40-45)

The Greek is interesting. For the phrase bolded above, "his head bare", the Greek reads thus:

Καὶ ὁ λεπρός, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ ἁφή, τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔστω παραλελυμένα καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκατακάλυπτος, καὶ περὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ περιβαλέσθω καὶ ἀκάθαρτος κεκλήσεται·

His head is to be "akatakaluptos". That is the same word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5 referring to the woman being uncovered:

πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ προσευχομένη ἢ προφητεύουσα ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς· ἓν γάρ ἐστι καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ.

Her head is akatakalpto, just like the leper's head was to be in Leviticus.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

If you read the Leviticus account again, you will see the leper having his head bare is NOT REFERRING TO HIS HAIR!! The leper was already bald, whether because of leprosy or naturally, thus had no hair. But, once he was declared to be leprous by the priest, he was to "have his head bare", or uncovered - akatakalupto - as one of the signs of his leprosy (obviously so that everyone would see and know he had a leprous sore in his head - which they would not see if he wore a headcovering). The leper was forbidden to hide his leprosy, lest others unknowingly contract ritual uncleanness by contacting him without seeing that he was in fact ritually unclean. but he was not to hide his leprosy by "letting his hair grow out", but by actually wearing some type of headcovering.

Excellent teaching! As far as I know you are the only "White" Apostolic Pastor who teaches the headcovering. Aside from the Russian group we discussed a while back are you aware of any others?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother, is this what the passage means?

Every man praying or prophesying, having his hair uncut, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her hair cut dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if her hair were cut. For if the woman have cut hair, let her also have her hair cut: but if it be a shame for a woman to have her hair cut, let her have uncut hair.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6)

???

I think it makes more sense like this:

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 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.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6)

Obviously, he is talking about having an actual head covering.

Speaking of Greek...

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

That word "covering" is peribolaion, and only occurs there in 1 Cor 11 and once more, in Hebrews:

Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

The word is used in the Greek Old Testament referring to a wrap-around garment (like a mantle or shawl) which was worn by both men and women. The word is a definite word, referring to clothing. If the woman's hair is given her "instead of" a peribolaion, then this means a woman who doesn't trim her hair has no need for a peribolaion - a garment that wraps around her. But I don't know anyone that proposes a woman's uncut hair excuses her from being clothed!

Also, the context of the verse is here:

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
(1 Corinthians 11:13-14)

This is clearly a lesson from nature (the apostle says so). Therefore, the long hair, given as a peribolaion to the woman, is something IN NATURE. And THIS NATURAL FACT is a support to the doctrine the apostle is trying to teach. Paul is not trying to teach a lesson about nature, but rather he refers to the lesson from nature as a proof of his doctrine.

"Does not even nature itself teach you..."? If you look at nature, we see that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. Because her hair (still in the natural here!) is given her for a mantle or shawl (peribolaion, a wrap-around garment). According to nature, the woman is naturally designed to be covered whereas the man is not. And this is a parallel in nature to what the apostle is trying to teach!

Which means it is not in itself what he was trying to teach. Therefore, the covering he commands in the first part of the chapter is not the hair. Rather, the hair (specifically the lesson nature teaches us using long hair) points us towards the propriety of Paul's command for women to be covered when they pray or prophesy.

Notice the overall context is when praying or prophesying. That refers to worship. All worship is either speaking to God (praying) or speaking for God (prophesying). So the subject is worship. If Paul was trying to tell men to cut their hair and women to grow their hair out he would have had no need to limit the discussion to worship. In fact, it would be improper to limit the discussion to worship, he would have just said "it is wrong for men to have long hair and women to have short hair". Instead, he speaks about headship, authority, the creation order, and head covering, all in the context of worship.

Having his head covered; which, it seems, was the custom of some of them so to do in attendance on public worship: this they either did in imitation of the Heathens (r), who worshipped their deities with their heads covered, excepting Saturn and Hercules, whose solemnities were celebrated with heads unveiled, contrary to the prevailing customs and usages in the worship of others; or rather in imitation of the Jews, who used to veil themselves in public worship, through a spirit of bondage unto fear, under which they were, and do to this day; and with whom it is a rule (s), that

"a man might not stand and pray, neither with his girdle on, ולא בראש מגולה, nor with his head uncovered; nor with his feet uncovered.''

Accordingly it is said (t) of Nicodemus ben Gorion,

"that he went into the school grieved, and נתעטף, "veiled himself", and stood in prayer;''

and a little after that

"that he went into the sanctuary and "veiled" himself, and stood and prayed;''

though the Targum on Jdg_5:2 suggests,

"that the wise men sit in the synagogues, בריש גלי, "with the head uncovered", to teach the people the words of the law;''

and on Jdg_5:9 has these words,

"Deborah in prophecy said, I am sent to praise the Scribes of Israel, who when they were in tribulation did not cease from expounding the law; and so it was beautiful for them to sit in the synagogues, "with the head uncovered", and teach the people the words of the law, and bless and confess before the Lord;''

but it seems that a different custom had now prevailed; now from this Gentile or judaizing practice, the apostle would dissuade them by observing, that such an one that uses it, "dishonoureth his head"; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship; or otherwise the reverse is suggested of him, which is highly to dishonour him, and is the sense many interpreters give into: rather the reason should be, because Christ, the believer's head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, and his intercession not prevalent: but the natural head, taken in a literal sense, is rather meant; and the sense is, that by covering it, it looks as if he was guilty and ashamed, and in subjection; whereas to appear uncovered expresses freedom, boldness, and superiority, like himself, who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman's veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable. - Gill's Commentary

The phrase "having the head covered/uncovered" was well known in antiquity, and was not understood of having cut or uncut hair, or short or long hair, or trimmed or untrimmed hair, but was referring to the wearing of an actual head covering.

In the law it is written, concerning the woman suspected of adultery:

Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

Did Moses command that the woman get a hair cut?

Concerning lepers, it is written:

And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean. And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, he is forehead bald: yet is he clean. And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish sore; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or his bald forehead. Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of the sore be white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh; He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head. And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
(Leviticus 13:40-45)

The Greek is interesting. For the phrase bolded above, "his head bare", the Greek reads thus:

Καὶ ὁ λεπρός, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ ἁφή, τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔστω παραλελυμένα καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκατακάλυπτος, καὶ περὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ περιβαλέσθω καὶ ἀκάθαρτος κεκλήσεται·

His head is to be "akatakaluptos". That is the same word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5 referring to the woman being uncovered:

πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ προσευχομένη ἢ προφητεύουσα ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς· ἓν γάρ ἐστι καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ.

Her head is akatakalpto, just like the leper's head was to be in Leviticus.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

If you read the Leviticus account again, you will see the leper having his head bare is NOT REFERRING TO HIS HAIR!! The leper was already bald, whether because of leprosy or naturally, thus had no hair. But, once he was declared to be leprous by the priest, he was to "have his head bare", or uncovered - akatakalupto - as one of the signs of his leprosy (obviously so that everyone would see and know he had a leprous sore in his head - which they would not see if he wore a headcovering). The leper was forbidden to hide his leprosy, lest others unknowingly contract ritual uncleanness by contacting him without seeing that he was in fact ritually unclean. but he was not forbidden to hide his leprosy by "letting his hair grow out", but by actually wearing some type of headcovering.

Im not going to lie I received alot of what you said some I couldn't see it most the stuff at the top? But you made some very good points though, so great teaching!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Costeon

First, thank you for the info.

Now regarding the quote, though this has been a common idea among Apostolics, I think it is almost impossible to maintain. The verse this idea rests on is 11.6: "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered."

So the contrast is between "shorn" and "shaved." There is really no debate on what "shaved" means so I won't address it. But does "shorn" simply mean "to cut"? If someone looked the word up in a Greek lexicon, they might be able to maintain this definition, but the meaning of words is not determined by looking at a lexicon or dictionary alone; you have to look up the contexts in which the word occurs to determine the range of meaning of this word and to truly understand the lexicon definition. There are only two places besides 1 Cor 11 in the NT where this verb is used that shed light on the meaning of the word. In neither is the idea to simply cut.

Acts 8.32: "The place in the Scripture which he read was this: 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so He opened not His mouth.'"

"Shearer" is not a noun in the Greek but a participial form of the verb that appears in 11.6.

So the first example is dealing with shearing sheep--not trimming them a bit but cutting off their wool.

Acts 18.18: "So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow."

So here, Paul didn't get his hair trimmed--he didn't go for just a regular hair cut--he had all his hair ceremonially cut off (similar to Num 6).

Since in the other NT contexts this verb does not mean "to cut" but "to cut off," there is no reason to interpret 1 Cor 11.6 as "to cut." In other words, in this verse Paul is contrasting similar things--shaving off and cutting the hair off--not dissimilar things--shaving and trimming.



Well here again, there is another possible meaning. "Anti" can also express that something is equivalent to or corresponds to something else or that something is for something else.

Some examples:

Matt 5.38: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for [anti] an eye and a tooth for [anti] a tooth.’

Eph 5.31: “For [anti] this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

And so many think Paul is saying that there is some sort of correspondence between a cloth head covering and hair.

I personally think, in light of their cultural context that respectable married women did not appear in public without a head covering, Paul is arguing in this passage that the Corinthian women should not flaunt their freedom in Christ (where there is neither male nor female) and throw off this societal expectation and so should wear a head covering. He concludes his argument based on their culture with an appeal to their sense of propriety. As a final clincher, he asserts that even nature supports his point that they should wear head coverings--even nature has given woman a natural covering.

Whether or not my current view is correct, the point is there is ambiguity in this passage, and so this passage simply cannot bear the weight that Apostolics place on it to support the doctrine of uncut hair.

There is nothing like in all of Scripture a simple prohibition: "Women shall not cut their hair." It seems if uncut hair were so important, there would be unambiguous verses to express this.



Note that these resources basically support what I was saying about 11.6. We're not talking about trimming the hair, but cutting it off or shaving it off in grief or shame.

It would have been really helpful if these resources had dealt with female Nazirites and the implication of the passage in Numbers 6 that normally it would have been acceptable to trim it (not to cut it short) to, say, enhance the appearance of "their greatest ornament."

I would like to point out that if anyone were studying the Bible without "helps", this is how they would go about it.

Acts 18:18 does use the word "shorn" and Paul did cut off all of his hair.

Hmmmmm....


Also, Esaias has a great lengthy post - well done.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother, is this what the passage means?

Every man praying or prophesying, having his hair uncut, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her hair cut dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if her hair were cut. For if the woman have cut hair, let her also have her hair cut: but if it be a shame for a woman to have her hair cut, let her have uncut hair.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6)

???

I think it makes more sense like this:

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 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.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6)

Obviously, he is talking about having an actual head covering.

Speaking of Greek...

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

That word "covering" is peribolaion, and only occurs there in 1 Cor 11 and once more, in Hebrews:

Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

The word is used in the Greek Old Testament referring to a wrap-around garment (like a mantle or shawl) which was worn by both men and women. The word is a definite word, referring to clothing. If the woman's hair is given her "instead of" a peribolaion, then this means a woman who doesn't trim her hair has no need for a peribolaion - a garment that wraps around her. But I don't know anyone that proposes a woman's uncut hair excuses her from being clothed!

Also, the context of the verse is here:

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
(1 Corinthians 11:13-14)

This is clearly a lesson from nature (the apostle says so). Therefore, the long hair, given as a peribolaion to the woman, is something IN NATURE. And THIS NATURAL FACT is a support to the doctrine the apostle is trying to teach. Paul is not trying to teach a lesson about nature, but rather he refers to the lesson from nature as a proof of his doctrine.

"Does not even nature itself teach you..."? If you look at nature, we see that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. Because her hair (still in the natural here!) is given her for a mantle or shawl (peribolaion, a wrap-around garment). According to nature, the woman is naturally designed to be covered whereas the man is not. And this is a parallel in nature to what the apostle is trying to teach!

Which means it is not in itself what he was trying to teach. Therefore, the covering he commands in the first part of the chapter is not the hair. Rather, the hair (specifically the lesson nature teaches us using long hair) points us towards the propriety of Paul's command for women to be covered when they pray or prophesy.

Notice the overall context is when praying or prophesying. That refers to worship. All worship is either speaking to God (praying) or speaking for God (prophesying). So the subject is worship. If Paul was trying to tell men to cut their hair and women to grow their hair out he would have had no need to limit the discussion to worship. In fact, it would be improper to limit the discussion to worship, he would have just said "it is wrong for men to have long hair and women to have short hair". Instead, he speaks about headship, authority, the creation order, and head covering, all in the context of worship.

Having his head covered; which, it seems, was the custom of some of them so to do in attendance on public worship: this they either did in imitation of the Heathens (r), who worshipped their deities with their heads covered, excepting Saturn and Hercules, whose solemnities were celebrated with heads unveiled, contrary to the prevailing customs and usages in the worship of others; or rather in imitation of the Jews, who used to veil themselves in public worship, through a spirit of bondage unto fear, under which they were, and do to this day; and with whom it is a rule (s), that

"a man might not stand and pray, neither with his girdle on, ולא בראש מגולה, nor with his head uncovered; nor with his feet uncovered.''

Accordingly it is said (t) of Nicodemus ben Gorion,

"that he went into the school grieved, and נתעטף, "veiled himself", and stood in prayer;''

and a little after that

"that he went into the sanctuary and "veiled" himself, and stood and prayed;''

though the Targum on Jdg_5:2 suggests,

"that the wise men sit in the synagogues, בריש גלי, "with the head uncovered", to teach the people the words of the law;''

and on Jdg_5:9 has these words,

"Deborah in prophecy said, I am sent to praise the Scribes of Israel, who when they were in tribulation did not cease from expounding the law; and so it was beautiful for them to sit in the synagogues, "with the head uncovered", and teach the people the words of the law, and bless and confess before the Lord;''

but it seems that a different custom had now prevailed; now from this Gentile or judaizing practice, the apostle would dissuade them by observing, that such an one that uses it, "dishonoureth his head"; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship; or otherwise the reverse is suggested of him, which is highly to dishonour him, and is the sense many interpreters give into: rather the reason should be, because Christ, the believer's head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, and his intercession not prevalent: but the natural head, taken in a literal sense, is rather meant; and the sense is, that by covering it, it looks as if he was guilty and ashamed, and in subjection; whereas to appear uncovered expresses freedom, boldness, and superiority, like himself, who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman's veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable. - Gill's Commentary

The phrase "having the head covered/uncovered" was well known in antiquity, and was not understood of having cut or uncut hair, or short or long hair, or trimmed or untrimmed hair, but was referring to the wearing of an actual head covering.

In the law it is written, concerning the woman suspected of adultery:

Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

Did Moses command that the woman get a hair cut?

Concerning lepers, it is written:

And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean. And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, he is forehead bald: yet is he clean. And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white reddish sore; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or his bald forehead. Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of the sore be white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh; He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head. And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
(Leviticus 13:40-45)

The Greek is interesting. For the phrase bolded above, "his head bare", the Greek reads thus:

Καὶ ὁ λεπρός, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ ἁφή, τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔστω παραλελυμένα καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκατακάλυπτος, καὶ περὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ περιβαλέσθω καὶ ἀκάθαρτος κεκλήσεται·

His head is to be "akatakaluptos". That is the same word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5 referring to the woman being uncovered:

πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ προσευχομένη ἢ προφητεύουσα ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς· ἓν γάρ ἐστι καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ.

Her head is akatakalpto, just like the leper's head was to be in Leviticus.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

If you read the Leviticus account again, you will see the leper having his head bare is NOT REFERRING TO HIS HAIR!! The leper was already bald, whether because of leprosy or naturally, thus had no hair. But, once he was declared to be leprous by the priest, he was to "have his head bare", or uncovered - akatakalupto - as one of the signs of his leprosy (obviously so that everyone would see and know he had a leprous sore in his head - which they would not see if he wore a headcovering). The leper was forbidden to hide his leprosy, lest others unknowingly contract ritual uncleanness by contacting him without seeing that he was in fact ritually unclean. but he was not forbidden to hide his leprosy by "letting his hair grow out", but by actually wearing some type of headcovering.

Great post, Esaias!

I just wanted to add a few things.

Phrases that Paul uses to describe the head covering are used in places in the Septuagint to describe a fabric head covering. In 1 Cor 11.4 the phrase kata kephales echon translated “having his head covered” which literally means “having down the head,” is used in Esther 6.12. Haman is said to have run to his house in shame with "his head covered." This last phrase in Greek is kata kephales, again, "down the head," just like Paul wrote.

The Greek writer Plutarch in his Moralia, Sayings of the Romans, wrote that when Scipio the Younger "arrived at Alexandria, after disembarking, was walking with his toga covering his head, [his toga was kata kephales] the Alexandrians quickly surrounded him, and insisted that he uncover and show his face to their yearning eyes," meaning that he had covered his head with part of his toga so the crowds could not recognize him.

So here are two examples that refer to having cloth over the head, and Paul uses the same phrase regarding men in Corinth having their head covered. Paul is clearly referring to an external cloth covering.

Throughout 1 Cor 11 Paul mentions covered/uncovered. All the various forms involve katakalupt/akatakalupt with various endings. In Gen 38 when Tamar is said to cover herself with a veil, a verb form related to the words Paul uses is used for Tamar's action. She clearly covered herself with a cloth veil.

Moreover, all these words Paul uses, and how Tamar's action is described, are derived from to the word kalumma, which is a cloth veil. It appears in the OT and NT and always refers to a cloth veil, never hair. In 2 Cor 3, for example, this is what Moses covered himself with.

[rdp]

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?

*On what exegetical basis would you reject all of these NT Koine' lexicographers in favor of L-S-J (which is not the same Greek as the biblical writers)? As the quote below demonstrates, L-S-J is a poor resource relative to the study of NT Greek (I have many more quotes if you would like to read them?):

(Advances in the Study of NT Greek; Dr. Constantine Campbell): Regarding the standard lexicon for Ancient Greek — Liddell-Scott-Jones — Lee is unreserved: it (L-S-J) “has no coherent definition method, but relies on glosses; its basic material is derived from predecessors, in some cases descending from the ancient lexicographers; and the organization is chaotic as a result of piecemeal revisions." (c.f., John A. L. Lee, “The Present State of Lexicography of Ancient Greek,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker [ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 68.)

*Incidentally, regarding the preposition "anti," see here:

(Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics; An Exegetical Syntax of the Greek NT; Dr. Daniel Wallace):

Some scholars reject the meaning of in place of for ἀντί here, accepting instead the vaguer meaning of on behalf of, thus effectively denying substitutionary atonement in this passage. Such a usage for ἀντί (i.e., on behalf of) is based on two passages—Gen 44:33 (LXX) and Matt 17:27. Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, following Bauer’s lead, hold to this view for this crux interpretum. Büchsel also thinks that ἀντί = ὑπέρ in Matt 17:27, but he does not apply this meaning to Matt 20:28.

The argument that ἀντί ever bore the mere sense of representation (i.e., = ὑπέρ) has a surprisingly slim basis. In support of the substitutionary atonement view of this text, note the comments of the following scholars.

Nigel Turner on the use of ἀντί in Matt 17:27:

From Exodus 3011 it is clear that originally the half-shekel tax was a redemption tax, for at a public census Moses was commanded to exact this amount, so that each man could give a ransom for himself, and this was understood to be the purchase money required to buy the subject from a hypothetical servitude. So “yourself and me” can be conceived as the objects desired to purchase, preceded as they are by anti, and the half-shekel paid by Simon was the price of purchase.

He concludes: “In consequence, we may safely rule out (4) [“on behalf of”] as a separate category of meaning for anti; the sole significance of the preposition in each New Testament context is that of substitution and exchange.”

R. E. Davies comments on the use of ἀντί in Gen 44:33 (LXX):

Walter Bauer thinks that Genesis 44:33 shows how the meaning “in place of” can develop into “in behalf of” someone, so that ἀντί becomes equivalent to ὑπέρ. However, the meaning is clearly “in place of” as is evident from a most cursory reading of the verse: “Now therefore, let your servant, I pray you, remain instead of the lad as a slave to my lord; and let the lad go back with his brothers.”

Davies concludes on the use of ἀντί in extra-NT literature (including the LXX):

This brief survey of the background literature to the New Testament should suffice to show that the meaning of ἀντί is basically that of substitution or exchange. No instances have been found where the “broader” meaning appears.

As for the NT, and Matt 20:28 in particular, Davies concludes that ἀντί must mean in place of: “What we would add to this is that the preposition ἀντί demands this sort of interpretation. It cannot be understood otherwise.”
Harris writes:

As in 1 Tim. 2:6 (antilytron hyper pantōn), the notions of exchange and substitution are both present. It is hardly a sound hermeneutical procedure to appeal to a contestable “wider” sense of anti (viz. “on behalf of”) in Matt. 17:27 (or Gen. 44:33) as the key to the proper understanding of anti in this passage.

Waltke, after an exhaustive discussion of ἀντί in extra-NT literature, writes: It should also be observed that there is very little development in the usage of the preposition from the time of Homer to modern times; that is to say, that the word is quite static for it did not expand or become eclectic to assume other significations. In this respect ἀντί is unlike ὑπέρ.

Also important is the conclusion that ἀντί always maintains its individual notion of substitution whether in the meaning in exchange for with its concrete meanings or its more logical or mental inferences, or in the meaning instead of for in the thought of exchange is the basic thought of something taking the place of another in order to transact the exchange, and in the signification of instead of the substitutionary aspect is plain....ἀντί always has either the local meanings of opposite, over against or the metaphorical meaning of substituting one thing for another which may result in either the meaning in exchange for or instead of.

This fact has been confirmed in two ways: 1) by refutation; and 2) by exhaustive investigations of the different periods of Greek literature. The examples of both Liddell and Scott and Bauer which might disprove that ἀντί always has a substitutionary sense outside of its local signification have been examined and found wanting in that in every example cited the individual notion of counter-balancing and substituting has been found in a very prominent way.

In no instance was the meaning on behalf of, for the sake of necessary to the understanding of the preposition in any particular context....the writer agrees with Moulton that even as the individual notion is always to be found in the New Testament so also it is always to be found in literature outside of the New Testament.

With reference to the NT, Waltke summarizes: “It is concluded that the usage of ἀντί in New Testament passages not considered by the writer to be theologically important is consistent with its usage in Greek literature outside the New Testament.”

Finally, with reference to Matt 20:28/Mark 10:45, Dr. Waltke writes:

It appears to the writer, therefore, that it is best to accept and recognize both theological significations of ἀντί in this passage. The life of Christ not only is the price paid for the redemption of the many, stressing the redemptive work on the cross, but also He did this by “... nothing less than to step into their places... ,” enduring the divine wrath to make propitiation. The meaning in exchange for points to the results of His vicarious suffering; and the meaning in the place of points to the method in which this redemptive work is accomplished. The blending of two concepts into the one preposition is not unusual.

In summary, the evidence appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of viewing ἀντί in Matt 20:28/Mark 10:45 as meaning in the place of and very possibly with the secondary meaning in exchange for, while the evidence for it meaning simply the vague idea of on behalf of is suspect at best.

*For those who teach a cloth veil as the supposed "covering of the head" - which does not actually cover the "head," but rather the "hair" ( these are 2 entirely diff. Greek nouns) - simply google "Weatherly/Hayes Debate Head Covering" on YouTube for a sound refutation.

*Finally, if one - for whatever possible reason? - still somehow denies the grammatical expertise of professional Koine' linguists such as BDAG; UBS; ALGNT; L&N; Bauer; etc. & yet favors L-S-J (the only reason I can think of would be doctrinal bias), note that even L-S-J includes the definition "to clip" and simply "to cut" (for this verb). But, again, under absolutely no circumstances should L-S-J be used to override biblical Greek authorities. Indeed, in no Greek class I've ever taken has L-S-J been used by a professor (the sources I referenced on my blog are the standard authorities).

*The Greek verb rendered "shorn" as used in I Corinthians 11.6 means simply "to have one's hair cut." So much more I could point out, but I rarely log on here for obvious reasons (just happened to see this).

*Blessings!

[Esaias]

It would be interesting for the serious student researching this subject to seek the answer to the following:

Who taught that the only covering a Christian woman needed was long hair (instead of an actual head covering) prior to the 1880 presentation by German liberal theologian Karl Holsten, as cited by Godet in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians.

[Esaias]

Here's a post I made way back yonder on the general subject:

Originally Posted by Eliseus

TimLan posted a theory regarding the origin of the uncut hair doctrine prominent in the UPC and associated organisations. Note, the uncut hair doctrine is that a woman must, per 1 Corinthians 11, not cut or trim her hair whatsoever, in order for it to be "long" and provide the covering required by the chapter.

I corresponded with Vinson Synan, a prominent International Pentecostal Holiness Church scholar regarding this issue, and he said he did not have any idea where this doctrine came from, had never heard of it, and thought it was a doctrine unique to the UPC.

Some may remember a relative of the former General Superintendant of the Church of God, Cleveland declared he too had never heard of the doctrine, and that it was never taught in the Church of God.

I had sent some correspondence to some other, non Oneness Pentecostal ministers in an attempt to see if this doctrine was, indeed, unique to the UPC and related groups.

I just received an email from Matthew Vance, who is associated with the Independent Holiness Publishers, a trinitarian Pentecostal-Holiness group serving the greater Conservative Independent Pentecostal Holiness movement (most, if not all, of whom are trinitarian).

He said, in short, that the teaching of uncut hair (as I defined it above) has been around "as long as anyone can remember". He mentioned a church he knows of, which is about to celebrate their 75th anniversary service, and said this church hs ALWAYS taught uncut hair. He said "Our churches believe that
long hair is only long when it is uncut or untrimmed."

So there is a witness to the fact that the uncut hair doctrine was not invented in the 50s or 60s by one Murray Burr. While Murray Burr may have been the one to introduce the doctrine to the United Pentecostal Church, or may have been the one to popularise the doctrine amongst the UPC, it does seem that others, outside of Burr's circle of influence, have long held to this belief, while others seem blissfully unaware of the doctrine altogether.