Are we commanded to cut our hair or not?

[Bolts]

This is a Hair Raising Discussion

... a bit too curly for me

[Guest lovinghim4ever]

Heey, what about finger and toe nails. Are they supposed to be long, short painted or what.?

If what the length of my hair was. was all I had to worry about, life would be a dream. Poor old Elisha was a baldie and you know what happened to the youngies that mocked him.

Okay,........okay,.....keep your hair on.

Thanks! I needed that!

[Guest lovinghim4ever]

This is a Hair Raising Discussion

... a bit too curly for me

Thanks! I needed that too!

[Guest shiloh357]

Well, I found two verses that appear contradictory. I have heard that Leviticus 19 is referring to cutting your hair, how do we know that's what it means? Because if it does indeed mean "Do not cut your hair" then how can we possibly prevent a man from having long hair? And is shaving okay?

Leviticus 19:27 - Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Just a note, the first part of this verse in the NIV bible makes reference to hair specifically, but in the KJV it does not.

1 Corinthians 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

I'm somewhat confused, help please?

God Bless,

Keilan

I thought it would be nice to respond to the OP a bit. This is not a contradiction. Leviticus 19:27 was commanded to the priests of Israel, not to the entire male population of Israel (there's that "address" thing I mentioned yesterday). God did not want the priests of Israel to mimick the pagans. He not only prohibited the worship of other gods, but He also prohibited the priests from worshipping Him in the same manner that the pagan priests worshipped their gods. He simply did not want Israel's priests too look like the pagan priests. He was trying to keep Israel separate from the other nations.

1 Cor. 11:14 is concerned with men attempt to appear feminine. Taken within the context of the chapter, AND the cultural issues the Corinthian Christians were battling against, it was not the length hair itself but the motivation behind having long hair, in this case, to be attractive and appear feminine toward homosexual men. Having long hair is not, in and of itself, "feminine." Paul is addressing more than that. He is addressing the conduct of the Corinthians with respect to their former lifestyle.

[Openly Curious]

The church I attend at the women's hair at leasts flops and others of the women's hair is what I would consider long in length and all the men have short hair and to my knowledge they just do it as I've never heard a sermon on hair length since I have attended there. And guess what we all look different and have variety contrary to what some have been assertaining to in this thread.

The word "long" means in the Greek/Hebrew Strong's Concordance to "flop" as I brought out in another post.

OC

[Guest shiloh357]

If it is not feminine for someone to have long hair, what would cause an individual to come to a place where they thought it was? There had to be some reason for their thinking. In addition, if it was not enticing to homosexuals, it seems like they would quickly abandon the practice. Nature itself teaches us that if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her, but if a man has long hair it is a shame to him.

Okay, for the one millionth time Butero, Paul was addressing this to the way the Corinthian homosexuals were making their hair to be feminine. Paul, in order to prevent the temptation to do this, is instructing them to cut their hair. Paul is not so much concerned with hair length, but what kind of stumbling block this would present to the Corinthians. For these men long hair, even if not adorned or fixed in a feminine fashion might be a stumbling block. They would be tempted to make it appear feminine or it might tempt other men in the congregation who were still in the process of shedding their old ways and still struggling with old passions or desires.

Oh yes, the issue about nature. Paul is not saying that nature teaches that men should not have long hair. What Paul is teaching is that nature teaches us that there is a distinctiveness between the sexes and that it is a shame for man to adorn himself, and carry himself as a woman, and woman to adorn herself and carry herself like a man. In the sense that the Corinthian men had long hair, Paul is exactly correct, it is a shameful for a man to act and carry on like a woman, but he never intended his remark to be twisted into an issue about hair length across the board.

[Guest]

Well, I found two verses that appear contradictory. I have heard that Leviticus 19 is referring to cutting your hair, how do we know that's what it means? Because if it does indeed mean "Do not cut your hair" then how can we possibly prevent a man from having long hair? And is shaving okay?

Leviticus 19:27 - Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Just a note, the first part of this verse in the NIV bible makes reference to hair specifically, but in the KJV it does not.

1 Corinthians 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

I'm somewhat confused, help please?

God Bless,

Keilan

I thought it would be nice to respond to the OP a bit. This is not a contradiction. Leviticus 19:27 was commanded to the priests of Israel, not to the entire male population of Israel (there's that "address" thing I mentioned yesterday). God did not want the priests of Israel to mimic the pagans. He not only prohibited the worship of other gods, but He also prohibited the priests from worshiping Him in the same manner that the pagan priests worshiped their gods. He simply did not want Israel's priests too look like the pagan priests. He was trying to keep Israel separate from the other nations.

1 Cor. 11:14 is concerned with men attempt to appear feminine. Taken within the context of the chapter, AND the cultural issues the Corinthian Christians were battling against, it was not the length hair itself but the motivation behind having long hair, in this case, to be attractive and appear feminine toward homosexual men. Having long hair is not, in and of itself, "feminine." Paul is addressing more than that. He is addressing the conduct of the Corinthians with respect to their former lifestyle.

This is great stuff!

Thanks brother!

Oh Yeah!

I found a note from some little old Jewish guy I just love to hear from.

It was tucked away in The Book.

Thought it might have an application here and there!

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:2

Yeah! Yeah!

I know. I know,

I need to read it myself.

Happy Resurrection Day!

Maranatha!

Hallelujah!

Love, Joe

[Guest shiloh357]

In the case of Timothy, Paul told Timothy that personally. He didn't say, teach the church to take a little wine for their stomach sake. In reality though, if it was good enough for Timothy, I suppose it is good enough for me if I knew I had the same ailment he did.

Yes, and in the case of the Corinthians, Paul was talking to them personally. 1 Corinthians is not a general epistle written to the church at large. It was a letter written to the Corinthian Church specifically, and while it contains some general doctrinal information (extant in other letters as well), it is a personal letter written to a specific, targeted audience. So the same principle applies, hermeneutically.

As far as remaining kosher, I am following the Bible by not remaining kosher. It teaches me that the laws concerning unclean foods were a sign to the Jews of their seperation from the unclean gentiles. Once the gentiles were added to the church through faith, we are all one body, thus when I eat whatsoever is sold in the market place, I am acknowledging we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Actually you are mixing issues. Eating whatever is sold in the market place concerned meat sacrificed to idols, which would the exact opposite of anything kosher, but whatever. The inclusion of the Gentiles has nothing to do with the dietary commandments given Leviticus or Deuteronomy. Oh and one other very important thing. If you read your Bible, you will find that the Bible NEVER calls the Gentiles unclean.

This makes my point, though. You are able (when you want to) to make a distinction in other areas of the Bible as to what applied to other people, and what was meant for a particular people or was being addressed to a particular audience. It is not that you don't understand. Rather, you simply have a pet doctrine that you perfer to hold to at the expense of the truth.

The death penalty for witches and breaking the sabbath was not given to individuals to carry out, but was the law of the land in Israel. It would therefore only be valid today if it became the law of the land in America.

Yes, which again, speaks to the point I was making. If we applied your approach to 1 Cor. 11 to the entire Bible though, we would miss that important point. Your approach to 1 Cor. 11 amounts to reading into the passage what you want, while ignoring the history and cultural issues that were in play when the letter was originally penned. Thank you for making my point.

The teachings on hair length are clear, and they do not state that they only apply to the church at Corinth and no place else. That would be like trying to say that walking in the Spirit was a specific need of the church at Galatia, but not important at Corinth, or that upholding sexual morality was important at Corinth but not at Ephesus.

No it is not like that at all, because hair length is not a general doctrine elucidated for us elsewhere in the NT. Where is the spiriual moral issues you bring up are amount to general/universal doctrinal issues that prevalent in multiple areas of the New Testament. So, you are really comparing dissimilar things. I did not say that EVERY issue in 1 Corinthians was ONLY for them . What I am saying is that we need to distinguish between what is a doctrinal issue, and what was meant only has personal advice or or counsel coming from Paul relative to the specific needs and challenges the Corinthian Christians were facing. You cannot treat both the same way.

[Guest shiloh357]

If it is not feminine for someone to have long hair, what would cause an individual to come to a place where they thought it was? There had to be some reason for their thinking. In addition, if it was not enticing to homosexuals, it seems like they would quickly abandon the practice. Nature itself teaches us that if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her, but if a man has long hair it is a shame to him.

Okay, for the one millionth time Butero, Paul was addressing this to the way the Corinthian homosexuals were making their hair to be feminine. Paul, in order to prevent the temptation to do this, is instructing them to cut their hair. Paul is not so much concerned with hair length, but what kind of stumbling block this would present to the Corinthians. For these men long hair, even if not adorned or fixed in a feminine fashion might be a stumbling block. They would be tempted to make it appear feminine or it might tempt other men in the congregation who were still in the process of shedding their old ways and still struggling with old passions or desires.

Oh yes, the issue about nature. Paul is not saying that nature teaches that men should not have long hair. What Paul is teaching is that nature teaches us that there is a distinctiveness between the sexes and that it is a shame for man to adorn himself, and carry himself as a woman, and woman to adorn herself and carry herself like a man. In the sense that the Corinthian men had long hair, Paul is exactly correct, it is a shameful for a man to act and carry on like a woman, but he never intended his remark to be twisted into an issue about hair length across the board.

I could continue to argue this, but it is apparent we are simply going in circles. I don't agree with you on this issue. I do believe nature teaches us that a man is to have short hair and women are to have long hair. I do believe long hair is feminine. I also believe this has applications today, as well as in the Corinthian Church. We will simply have to agree to dissagree on this matter.

I realize you persist on being wrong. It is your perogative. You hold on to your pet ideas at the expense of biblical truth, but you are free to do that.

[roselady]

Hair? I dont think it really matters, you should see my hair (or maybe not, bad hair day) hehehe. Its got a mind of its own, curley and all. Naww, I think what really matters is how you are on the inside. The Lord said something like this. The Lord seeith not as man seeith but the Lord looketh not on the outward appearance. Sorry if my quote is a bit off, its all from memory. Plus King James is hard, I like NASB best, especially John MacArthurs Study bible.

The reason Samson couldn't cut his hair was due to a Nazarite vow. It is ok for someone with such a vow to not cut their hair till the time of the vow is up. Afterward, they are to shave their head and weigh the hair. Samson was a Nazarite for life. We are not speaking of those under a Nazarite vow, so what you said is irrelivant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I rarely am. However, I am pretty sure that Samson didn't cut his hair because GOD told him not to.