Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Costeon]

Either a man or a woman could take the Nazirite vow: "When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite . . ." (Num 6.2).

One of the requirements of this vow was "all the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head" (v. 5) (The "he" here is a generic singular pronoun referring to an individual whether male or female. This is the same usage found in the other requirements as well.)

This seems to suggest that it was not the norm for Israelite women to have uncut hair, that is, to never use a razor to cut their hair. Otherwise how could this vow to abstain from cutting her hair symbolize her Nazirite consecration if she never cut it anyway?

[1ofthechosen]

I put this on another thread the one about fake charismatic apostolic's with the music video.:

QUOTE=Michael The Disciple;1533596]So is it ONLY over 1 Cor. 11? And what is about 1 Cor. 11 that some feel Apostolics are compromising?

To me it seems like almost ALL of the "White" Apostolic Churches are in compromise about 1 Cor. 11.

Almost NONE of them practice Biblical headcovering. I cant think of ONE "White" Apostolic Church that is not in rebellion to the truth.[/QUOTE]

To which I said:
The text is not talking of a cloth veil head covering, thats only if they do cut their hair would that then be needed. (Which is the case for the women at Gino Jennings church. Those women clearly cut their hair, and they then use a cloth head covering.) Otherwise the hair is given as the covering. But cutting it is the same as shaving it, so if that be a shame that you be shaven then when its shorn you need a head covering. Otherwise the hair is given as a covering, that you shouldnt cut. To cut is to be equal with shaving it.

Brother Roger Perkins breaks it down here:

https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

"As it relates to the wearing of a literal veil, v. 15 could not be clearer: “Her hair is given her for/anti a covering.” The Greek preposition translated “for” is anti, where we get the English prefix “anti–” and is defined as “instead of” or “against.” The most straightforward rendering would be (and often is), “her hair is given her instead of a veil.”

"From a historical perspective, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; Vol. 5, p. 18, informs us: “Women never cut their hair (cf. Jer. vii. 29), and long hair was their greatest ornament (Cant. iv. 1; cf. I Cor. xi 15; Cant. vii. 5).”

*The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 158, “Hair”: “A woman’s hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation.” Remember, Jesus endorsed the Jewish concept(s) of God to the woman at the well (Jn. 4) and Paul affirmed that to the Jews were written, “the oracles of God” (Rom.).

*The World of Ancient Israel, pg. 84, “When a woman was accused and found guilty of adultery, her hair was cut or her head shaved.”

Not just him but Brother Robert Killmon agreesthough I feel brother Perkins went more in depth):
http://indianabiblecollege.org/2017/...r-womens-hair/

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Either a man or a woman could take the Nazirite vow: "When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite . . ." (Num 6.2).

One of the requirements of this vow was "all the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head" (v. 5) (The "he" here is a generic singular pronoun referring to an individual whether male or female. This is the same usage found in the other requirements as well.)

This seems to suggest that it was not the norm for Israelite women to have uncut hair, that is, to never use a razor to cut their hair. Otherwise how could this vow to abstain from cutting her hair symbolize her Nazirite consecration if she never cut it anyway?

Everyone wasn't commanded to have a Nazarite vow. What if a guy went naturally bald? The Church isn't Israelism the Romans who converted to Christianity weren't required to circumcise, to to eat only clean kosher items, to enter the temple to sacrifice (non circumcision prevented that) Therefore since these are the case Paul isn't looking at his Greek/Roman/Diaspora churches to keep any Nazarite vows. Bald headed women are covered by Paul, and he instructs what they were to do in the event of baldness. But those who had converted into the Apostolic church wouldn't have to worry about Nazarite vows, since the priesthood Numbers 6:11 had to be a vital part of the process. I wonder what it looked like when Jesus turned to the water into wine and all the Nazarites got up and ran out of the wedding.

I say that in jest because like all religious asceticism it isn't demanded by the whole religion. If someone wants to partake in the rituals of an ascetic fine. If not the religion doesn't demand that they do.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Either a man or a woman could take the Nazirite vow: "When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite . . ." (Num 6.2).

One of the requirements of this vow was "all the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head" (v. 5) (The "he" here is a generic singular pronoun referring to an individual whether male or female. This is the same usage found in the other requirements as well.)

This seems to suggest that it was not the norm for Israelite women to have uncut hair, that is, to never use a razor to cut their hair. Otherwise how could this vow to abstain from cutting her hair symbolize her Nazirite consecration if she never cut it anyway?

The Nazirite vow appears to conflict with the policy of uncut hair that the typical Apostolic church teaches. As pointed out in the OP, the vow could be taken by a male or female, and no distinction is drawn between the two in regards to the practice.

Where it gets interesting is when the period of time that the vow is kept is completed, the hair is cut and burned upon the same fire 🔥 that was used to offer sacrifice as described in Numbers chapter 6, verse 18 below.

18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

There is no distinction made for male or female gender, so it seems that the women would offer their hair as part of their sacrifice as well as men, which once again seems to conflict with the Apostolic hair doctrine. The idea that women should shave their hair at the end of their vow conflicts on one end, and the fact that men would never cut their hair (Samson and John the Baptist were Nazirites for life, Samson from birth and John the Baptist from possibly his teens?) would seem to conflict on the men’s side.

It just doesn’t seem to reconcile with our doctrine. Like EB points out, it is another tradition (of the Mosaic law) for another people, in another time. I personally believe our hair doctrine is based on misinterpretation of the scripture, but maybe that’s just me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The Nazirite vow appears to conflict with the policy of uncut hair that the typical Apostolic church teaches. As pointed out in the OP, the vow could be taken by a male or female, and no distinction is drawn between the two in regards to the practice.

Where it gets interesting is when the period of time that the vow is kept is completed, the hair is cut and burned upon the same fire �� that was used to offer sacrifice as described in Numbers chapter 6, verse 18 below.

18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

There is no distinction made for male or female gender, so it seems that the women would offer their hair as part of their sacrifice as well as men, which once again seems to conflict with the Apostolic hair doctrine. The idea that women should shave their hair at the end of their vow conflicts on one end, and the fact that men would never cut their hair (Samson and John the Baptist were Nazirites for life, Samson from birth and John the Baptist from possibly his teens?) would seem to conflict on the men’s side.

It just doesn’t seem to reconcile with our doctrine. Like EB points out, it is another tradition (of the Mosaic law) for another people, in another time. I personally believe our hair doctrine is based on misinterpretation of the scripture, but maybe that’s just me.

No misinterpretation because Paul is pretty plain in what he is saying in Greek the original language of the document. Also in Latin it is even more plain. Christians for 1,700 years had zero problem with seeing Paul teaching for uncut hair. In Spanish Reina Valera Oso 1569 we have "criar el cabello le es honrroſo." meaning that if a woman grows her hair it is an honor.

Yet, the Nazarite is right up there with Levitical and Temple tithe systems.

No issue with the Apostolic church, because the Apostolic Church couldn't continue in a system which would no longer be needed. We get mikva once, where the Israelists got mikva multiple times, and frequently. Yet, long hair and coverings continued in Christianity for not only hundreds but thousands of years. The Romans believed in headcoverings and long uncut hair even before they adopted Christianity. https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Wives-W.../dp/0802849717

Bruce W. Winter has an interesting book on the subject, while I don't agree with everything he finds, I still believe its worth reading. Especially where he points out how Roman Law was "you were what you wore." which lasted in culture for over 2,000 years. While it is still true today, it seems that modern American Churchanity is leaning towards looking like they were shot out of a canon. Or like the Indian Sadhu naked in ashes.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Tithemonster here is a book I think you will like

https://books.google.com/books?id=2f...stians&f=false

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bruce W. Winter[/URL] has an interesting book on the subject, while I don't agree with everything he finds, I still believe its worth reading. Especially where he points out how Roman Law was "you were what you wore." which lasted in culture for over 2,000 years. While it is still true today, it seems that modern American Churchanity is leaning towards looking like they were shot out of a canon. Or like the Indian Sadhu naked in ashes.

Lol this made my day bro! All I can say is for real!

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

To cut is to be equal with shaving it.

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.

"As it relates to the wearing of a literal veil, v. 15 could not be clearer: “Her hair is given her for/anti a covering.” The Greek preposition translated “for” is anti, where we get the English prefix “anti–” and is defined as “instead of” or “against.” The most straightforward rendering would be (and often is), “her hair is given her instead of a veil.”

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.

"From a historical perspective, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; Vol. 5, p. 18, informs us: “Women never cut their hair (cf. Jer. vii. 29), and long hair was their greatest ornament (Cant. iv. 1; cf. I Cor. xi 15; Cant. vii. 5).”

*The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 158, “Hair”: “A woman’s hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation.” Remember, Jesus endorsed the Jewish concept(s) of God to the woman at the well (Jn. 4) and Paul affirmed that to the Jews were written, “the oracles of God” (Rom.).

*The World of Ancient Israel, pg. 84, “When a woman was accused and found guilty of adultery, her hair was cut or her head shaved.”

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."

[Evang.Benincasa]

What is hair like women?

Revelation 9:8?

Faces of men is an easy one, and lion's teeth pretty easy.

Hair like women?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Everyone wasn't commanded to have a Nazarite vow. What if a guy went naturally bald? The Church isn't Israelism the Romans who converted to Christianity weren't required to circumcise, to to eat only clean kosher items, to enter the temple to sacrifice (non circumcision prevented that) Therefore since these are the case Paul isn't looking at his Greek/Roman/Diaspora churches to keep any Nazarite vows. Bald headed women are covered by Paul, and he instructs what they were to do in the event of baldness. But those who had converted into the Apostolic church wouldn't have to worry about Nazarite vows, since the priesthood Numbers 6:11 had to be a vital part of the process. I wonder what it looked like when Jesus turned to the water into wine and all the Nazarites got up and ran out of the wedding.

I say that in jest because like all religious asceticism it isn't demanded by the whole religion. If someone wants to partake in the rituals of an ascetic fine. If not the religion doesn't demand that they do.

I agree this wasn't demanded of everyone, but was a special vow taken by some, and I don't think Paul would have expected his Gentile converts to take Nazirite vows, though he himself still took certain vows that required him to cut off his hair at the conclusion of the vow.

What I'm ultimately getting at is that the Nazirite vow seems to indicate that the norm for Israelites was to cut their hair (keeping it shorter for men, keeping it longer for women) and only to refrain from cutting it at all during a Nazirite vow. Otherwise the requirement for uncut hair would have no meaning for females taking the vow. If this is so, then someone who supports the doctrine of uncut hair would have to say that it was somehow a new thing for the New Covenant.

And regarding the guy who went naturally bald, well he would end up with that most hideous of all hairdos: bald on top with his long sides and back tied up in a pony tail. :-)

Nazirites and Apostolics both would flee from the party when wine started flowing. :-)