Did Yeshua have long hair??

[aaronjm]

Samson was under Old Testament Law though, Leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head, or clip off the edges of your beard." That doesn't really have anything to do with Samson, but they had different laws then. Orthodox Jews still go by these standards, so I don't see any contradiction. When following those laws became routine, and meaningless Yeshua came to put new meaning to them, but I still don't understand what Paul is talking about in regards to long hair being " a disgrace." Maybe something was happening in the Church of Corinth that would make him say these things. A lot of what Paul said is being debated by everyone, especially in dealing with women preachers, which we will not get into on here, lol, please. My study Bible says that Paul was talking about it being common custom for men to wear their hair short, and women long in worship services... I dont know G-d Bless

Aaron

If I'm not mistaken, his point was that Old or New Testament/ Old or New Covenant, the fact remains that God does not contradict Himself - ever. Thus, when something in the New seems to contradict the Old, we must conclude that it is our interpretation at fault not that God has changed. And yes, there was vast wickedness and corruption within the church at Corinth. From rebellion within families to rampant sexual perversions and temple prostitutes. In fact, from what I understand, the reason behind much of Paul's focus on sexual purity and order within the church and home was because the line between the world and the body of Christ had been so blurred there was little to no distinction at all anymore. The women within the church were dressing in the same attire that the temple prostitutes would wear, etc...so Paul was being specific about the need for distinction. He was trying to establish boundaries that would reflect submission to God and a clear seperation between the lusts of the flesh and hearts that were led by God's Spirit. He wasn't being the fashion police and defining what was "sin" (in regards to appearance). The entire point is about order, authority, submission, humility and obedience. It's not about the length of one's hair or whether you wear jewelry or not.

Very good post. I was discussing this verse with someone, and they told me that Paul wrote this becuase of the culture they were living in. An example of this today is, we have the peace sign here in America, which is perfectly fine to do, but if you take that custom over to other countries, France if I'm not mistaken, it is the equivelent of the middle finger in America. So what they followed in Corinth, Greece, at that time, it was considered taboo to have long hair, looked on as being a a disgrace, and Paul didn't want the church to be portrayed that way. It might be wrong, but it sounds right to me. And G-d has never, and will never contradict Himself.

[apothanein kerdos]

If long hair is a shame and this passage is to be taken literally....then what was it part of the Nazarite vow...the most holy vow a person could take? Either God changed His mind, God contradicts Himself, or we're interpreting this passage in a highly incorrect manner. Which one is more logical?

Sorry, for some reason I'm not tracking you here. I'm not saying that long hair is a shame for a woman, but for a man. I don;t see any contradiction with saying that as being part of the Nazarite vow. Women could take the vow too, which would mean that they'd have had to shave their heads.

It should have read..."then WHY was it part of the Nazarite vow..."

In other words, man is not suppose to have long hair according to the literal interpretation of 1 Corinthians. The problem with this, is that if this truly ist he feeling of God, then He contradicted Himself. Look at Samson. Let us assume that 1 Corinthians is to be taken literally, it is a shame for man to have long hair. Yet Samson had strengh in long hair (long enough to braid) and when it was cut God left him. Thus if 1 Corinthians is taken literally, then God contradicts Himself...which doesn't make Him God at all.

I disagree. The point of the vow, according to Lev. 6:2 is for the person taking it to separate himself unto the Lord. To be separated unto the Lord certainly must mean that toward the Lord He is consecrated and toward man he is separated. As such there has to be a spiritual significance to each part of the vow that enable the taker to be pure before God and to be unique and saparate from man.

So with the abstinence of the fruit of the vine, in principal this should mean that the Nazarite is willing to abstain from the joys, the pleasures, of the world. With the separation from death, it should mean that the Nazarite is willing to be separate from sin and death. Finally, with regard to hair, the Nazarite should be willing to bear reproach for the Lord's testimony. I see these three items as matching the requirement that the Lord gave to His disciples in Luke 9:23 (cf. Mark 8:35).

With regard to Samson, his strength was not in his hair. In Judges 16:17 Samson told Delilah that, "A razor has never come upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother's womb. If I be shaved, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man." Since, by the shaving of his hair (Which signified the end of the Nazarite's period of separation, see Num. 6:18-19), Samson was no longer separated unto the Lord, he became common - with the same strength of a common man. That's the significance of the shaving of his head, it was not that Samson's long hair made him strong.

It is possible that Samson's faith was dependent upon the vow itself and not entirely upon God. Therefore, what a great lesson to those who read of Samson, to learn that absolute and unwaivering faith in God is the true "strength" of the Christian life (2 Sam. 22:33; Psa. 27:1).

I think that perhaps there is something to say for the fact that the vow had anything to do with long hair, in fact. If long hair were common among the children of Israel, then why would long hair be part of the vow at all? It seems likely to me that there must have been a common tradition to cut the hair shorter (At the very least by the standard of the day), and so that part of the vow would have greater significance.

I think you're missing the point of what I"m saying. We can both agree that Samson had long hair as part of consencrating himself to God. If long hair is a sin, then he sinned in his attempt to be holy.

[Gerioke]

How can something that is not sin be shameful?

[aaronjm]

Paul isn't teaching that long hair is a sin, in that culture long hair was considered disgraceful, but it wasn't a sin. They wouldn't go to hell for having long hair, if that were the case, then Christ's death was for nothing. Samson having long hair has nothing to do with the letter Paul wrote to the church in Corinth.

Aaron

[Mikeyjay]

In these verses Paul is talking about Women to have long hair, and men to have short hair. He goes on to say that isn't it a disgrace for a man to have long hair? If Yeshua himself had long hair, I doubt that Paul would have made this statement. Am I completely misunderstanding this part of scripture?? Thanks for any clarification.

Aaron

I believe that Jesus would have had long hair because it was prevalent to His culture...

I believe Paul was speaking to Gentiles in these passages and it was therefore prevalent

to their culture...I believe that Paul cut his hair so that he could fulfill his words "being all

things to all men"... i don't believe that this vow was a vow of the Nazarite, for Sampson

was a Nazarite and his was a vow to never cut his hair !!! So why would one

Nazarite vow contradict another ???

Edited December 10, 2005 by Mikeyjay