1Cr 11:14 - Long Hair

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Is modern

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Israel living within the borders set by God through Joshua? IOW is modern Israel a smaller country landwise than the boundaries given it by Joshua?

That might take us quickly off topic- and it's my fault. I brought it up.

And yes, they are smaller. There is, however, a very complex debate among Israelis and Jews in general about where to draw their line in the sand, as it were. Some say Joshua's "river of Egypt" is the Nile. They hold that the "promised land" goes from the Euphrates to the Nile, expanding greatly upon the extent of territory held by David and Solomon.

Others say that the modern state should not exceed the boundaries of the 1948 UN mandate. They will still argue about "God's displeasure" in spite of the fact that they are not talking about the same real estate as God was through Moses and Joshua. Everybody else falls somewhere in between.

Wikipedia has some good info and links. Of course you should take controversial topics discussed on wikipedia with a lot of discernment. The articles on Zionism and Aliyah and the section under Political Zionism on this page covers what I've been saying- and offer a variety of view points.

My point in mentioning that was just to show that the ancient practices and concerns of the Bible are still active and relevant today. On the topic of men or warriors wearing long hair - this was an important thing in Israel and distinguished the holy warrior from "civilians." This practice was repeated right up to the Confederacy in the U.S.

As an Israelite warrior you had to follow the vow of the Nazarite and God's instructions on making holy war. This meant that the warrior, in addition to not cutting his hair, had to abstain from all sexual relations, not collect plunder or booty, not drink wine and so remain sober at all times and not fight for land outside of Israel's inheritance.

That's why God (and even Joab!) was displeased with David numbering the people. In ancient Israel you numbered the people for 2 reasons, 1) Taxation and 2) War. The context emphasizes over and again that David had no reason at that time to go to war, yet he prepared to do so anyway. That was why God punished him and the people. Some in Israel are fearful of the same punishment today - even though they are nowhere near the boundaries set in the books of Numbers and Joshua.

But this was about long hair on men - and ancient warriors up until the Roman example almost always grew their locks. My quibble with an earlier poster was just about that issue, but the whole field of discussion is fascinating for me, everything from their boot latches to their dreadlocks (or whatever head gear and foot wear was in question).

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Actually, no to both statements.

In most ancient cultures the warriors would let their hair and beards grow uncut until the fighting season was over (wars were usually fought on a seasonal basis).

The Nazarite vow in ancient Israel was for holy warriors. The warriors would let their "locks" grow until the campaigning season was over. This is why we read of Absalom getting his hair "polled" just once a year. Judges 5:2 (the Song of Deborah) starts with the memorable phrase, "When locks hung loose in Israel..." though the KJV tidies that up.

Paul appears to have taken a Nazarite vow at one point and then presented himself with a cleanly shaven head at the temple in Jerusalem.

The Philistines famously wore their long hair into battle mixed with lime to appear as if they had feathered headdresses on. Their Celtic cousins (a relationship based upon the reasoning that the Philistines and "Sea Peoples" were a part of the same Dorian migrations that placed the Celtic Galatians into Anatolia) similarly wore their long hair stiffened with lime.

Samurai, Korean (Cho-sun) and Han warriors were all known for the "Que" or long ponytail that they wore (though the Samurai wore a different style and called it something else). Greeks all the way into the Hellenistic Age boasted of their fine 'dos anointed with olive oil. The Indian Vedic warriors all sported long hair. For Native Americans, the sign that a man was "truly a man" was his long hair.

During the American Civil War many if not most of the Confederate troops would not cut their hair as long as they were in battle. In parts of Missouri and other border states, even today, someone with long hair is said to have "Bushwacker curls." The Bushwackers were the irregular cavalry that raided Union sympathizes and troops in that part of the country.

The close cropped hair and clean shaven faces that we see in many of today's militaries was a Roman innovation. In fact, the Muslim Mujahedeen deliberately grow their beards and hair when in battle so as to not look like Romans or Westerners.

I know of just 2 religious organizations that require their clergy to wear short hair and clean shaven faces: the Roman Catholic Church and the UPCI. In the case of the Roman Church, it's actually been spelled out since the time immediately following Gregory the Great that as a "sign of submission" to the Pope, all Catholic clergy are to be clean shaven (see the article on Beards in the Catholic Encyclopedia). Catholic clergy who sport beards today (mostly "liberation theology" proponents and other "radicals") do so to show that they are deliberately rebelling against Rome.

** Added - I have forgotten to mention how that Luther and Calvin and their followers grew beards to show their break from the Roman Catholic Church. Sporting a beard was a sign that a clergyman had made the life threatening decision to preach the "Evangelical Gospel."

The clergy in the Eastern Churches purposefully wear longer hair and beards to show two things: 1) That they are in fact practicing the more ancient custom, and 2) That they are not under submission to the Bishop of Rome.

For the record, and to my knowledge, I was the first person with a beard ever to be approved for a UPC license. I may be wrong about that - does anyone know of any others? I know of a Spanish pastor who had a mustache when he joined the UPC but later shaved that off as a sign of "submission" to the heirarchy.

I appreciate the facts and reference links you give with your posts. My wife and I spent the better part of an hour looking them up. Fascinating material. I have noticed that the usual people that rail against long hair on men, or facial hair in general, haven't exactly responded to you.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I appreciate the facts and reference links you give with your posts. My wife and I spent the better part of an hour looking them up. Fascinating material. I have noticed that the usual people that rail against long hair on men, or facial hair in general, haven't exactly responded to you.

Twisp, do you look like a band member from Z Z Top? You once were a clean cut guy, LOL! Who has longer hair you or the Misses? I love you Twisp!

[Pressing-On]

Pelathais,
I have throughly enjoyed the information you posted. Very interesting stuff!

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Twisp, do you look like a band member from Z Z Top? You once were a clean cut guy, LOL! Who has longer hair you or the Misses? I love you Twisp!

Haha, not quite. I have a wedding coming up that I am going to be in and I don't think they are going to let me have my closely shaved goatee. Not a big deal, but I didn't shave it for my wedding and I'm not sure if I'm going to shave it for this wedding. That's what got me wondering about this verse.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Actually, no to both statements.

In most ancient cultures the warriors would let their hair and beards grow uncut until the fighting season was over (wars were usually fought on a seasonal basis).

The Nazarite vow in ancient Israel was for holy warriors. The warriors would let their "locks" grow until the campaigning season was over. This is why we read of Absalom getting his hair "polled" just once a year. Judges 5:2 (the Song of Deborah) starts with the memorable phrase, "When locks hung loose in Israel..." though the KJV tidies that up.

Paul appears to have taken a Nazarite vow at one point and then presented himself with a cleanly shaven head at the temple in Jerusalem.

The Philistines famously wore their long hair into battle mixed with lime to appear as if they had feathered headdresses on. Their Celtic cousins (a relationship based upon the reasoning that the Philistines and "Sea Peoples" were a part of the same Dorian migrations that placed the Celtic Galatians into Anatolia) similarly wore their long hair stiffened with lime.

Samurai, Korean (Cho-sun) and Han warriors were all known for the "Que" or long ponytail that they wore (though the Samurai wore a different style and called it something else). Greeks all the way into the Hellenistic Age boasted of their fine 'dos anointed with olive oil. The Indian Vedic warriors all sported long hair. For Native Americans, the sign that a man was "truly a man" was his long hair.

During the American Civil War many if not most of the Confederate troops would not cut their hair as long as they were in battle. In parts of Missouri and other border states, even today, someone with long hair is said to have "Bushwacker curls." The Bushwackers were the irregular cavalry that raided Union sympathizes and troops in that part of the country.

The close cropped hair and clean shaven faces that we see in many of today's militaries was a Roman innovation. In fact, the Muslim Mujahedeen deliberately grow their beards and hair when in battle so as to not look like Romans or Westerners.

I know of just 2 religious organizations that require their clergy to wear short hair and clean shaven faces: the Roman Catholic Church and the UPCI. In the case of the Roman Church, it's actually been spelled out since the time immediately following Gregory the Great that as a "sign of submission" to the Pope, all Catholic clergy are to be clean shaven (see the article on Beards in the Catholic Encyclopedia). Catholic clergy who sport beards today (mostly "liberation theology" proponents and other "radicals") do so to show that they are deliberately rebelling against Rome.

** Added - I have forgotten to mention how that Luther and Calvin and their followers grew beards to show their break from the Roman Catholic Church. Sporting a beard was a sign that a clergyman had made the life threatening decision to preach the "Evangelical Gospel."

The clergy in the Eastern Churches purposefully wear longer hair and beards to show two things: 1) That they are in fact practicing the more ancient custom, and 2) That they are not under submission to the Bishop of Rome.

For the record, and to my knowledge, I was the first person with a beard ever to be approved for a UPC license. I may be wrong about that - does anyone know of any others? I know of a Spanish pastor who had a mustache when he joined the UPC but later shaved that off as a sign of "submission" to the heirarchy.

OP_Carl, you don't want to respond to this? I was kinda waiting for Bro. Epley to say something, too.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Twisp

OP_Carl, you don't want to respond to this? I was kinda waiting for Bro. Epley to say something, too.

How would I respond? We've gotten six pages of history and sociology lesson in response to a tangential point I made in my post.

The main point of my post is unaffected. By nature, men can become bald. It's no big deal to see a man with a completely hairless head, and it never has been. That is the "nature" referred to in the verse.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

How would I respond? We've gotten six pages of history and sociology lesson in response to a tangential point I made in my post.

The main point of my post is unaffected. By nature, men can become bald. It's no big deal to see a man with a completely hairless head, and it never has been. That is the "nature" referred to in the verse.

Thanks OP_Carl. And I can be verbose when the mood strikes me. Sorry about that.

What I had responded to was the following:

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

If you observe an older man who has no hair, does he look unnatural or just like an old bald man?

(no offense to you testosterone-fueled chrome domes out there)

If you observe a woman who has no hair, it looks unnatural. Your first thoughts are along the lines of 'burn victim' or 'chemotherapy.' And her first thoughts are to get to the wig store.

It is in a woman's nature to care for and attractively arrange her hair.

It is in a man's nature to ignore his hair, or keep it out of his way.

It is unnatural for a man to consider his hair to be an important part of his public presentation of himself. Most men look at Grandpa and realize that they had better not become too emotionally involved with whatever little hair their creator has been bestowed upon their heads, for this, too, shall pass.

From the dawn of time militaries have recognized the disadvantage of long hair in combat, and have proscribed short hair on soldiers.

In many cultures, men with carefully arranged or longer hair are/were prostitutes, homosexual, or both.

Your point about the testosterone and balding hits a little too close to home... for whatever reasons...

The bolded statements are what I think Twisp had in mind. Regards.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

How would I respond? We've gotten six pages of history and sociology lesson in response to a tangential point I made in my post.

The main point of my post is unaffected. By nature, men can become bald. It's no big deal to see a man with a completely hairless head, and it never has been. That is the "nature" referred to in the verse.

Using that logic,by nature, men can grow long hair. What's the difference?

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Using that logic,by nature, men can grow long hair. What's the difference?

Women rarely go bald.

A woman's long hair has long been considered among her feminine charms. To which men are, ummmmm . . . "romantically" drawn.

I "preferred" long hair on girls long before I even knew what a Pentecostal was!