1 Cor 11 and hair length

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

satz

Puritan Board Senior
Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:


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

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

Is this teaching that men must have short hair and women long hair?

I have done some reading of commentaries on these verses and found quite a large array of options.

Would anyone be so kind as to share their opinions?
 
I believe that Scripture clearly teaches -- as does the "light of nature" -- that there is to be a distinction in hair length between men and women. Only women are to have long hair for it is their glory.

I think it is unwise to set specific hair lengths as Biblical or not Biblical because the Bible does not do so. However, the principle itself of a distinction is clear.

Matthew Henry on this passage:

Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.
Click to expand...
 
but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the difference in my opinion. I have long hair but I don't think it's too long. I also don't "cherish" it spending countless time styling it or using numerous hair products on it. I don't carry a brush around with me no do I fling it around with my hands all the time.

I think I look better with longer hair (I had VERY short hair just recently) and with my beard, build, and style of dress no one is going to mistake me for a female. What's funny is that some people say I look like pictures of Jesus they have seen!
 
Mark, Paul is not addressing personal hygiene and/or ascetics. What he wanted the Corinthian church to understand is that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
 
Could we also say that this command is tied into Paul's recognition of the sin of androgyny, as listed in Deuteronmy 22:5, seeing that confusing the order of creation is just as much a moral abomination to the Lord in any time as it was in days of Theocratic Israel?
 
One interesting point I've noticed on "hair length" is that if you look at some of the pictures of great Christian stalwarts EG:
John Owen,
Samuel Rutherford,
Whom one might expect to have "short" hair, due to the "ideology" that has grown up about 1Cor.11 - But the portraits of these guys distinctly show their long hair.

My personal preference and conviction is short hair for men - which corresponds to the difference highlighted in the chapter viz: long hair for the girls. AND it's not about culture.

Who is this John Owen anyway.??;):lol:
 
In other words,, "short" or "long" are relative. Men are not to "appear" as women, and vice versa.

"Nature" eventually eliminates some or all of most men's hair, unlike women. Most men don't like to spend time on their coif, and the one biblical example of a man who did is pretty negative--Absalom. Hair is the "glory" of women, generally.
 
Whenever I hear this passage cited, the person quoting it always stops at the end of verse 15. Regarding the former verses, Verse 16 goes on to say "But if anyone seems to be contentious, WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM, NOR DO THE CHURCHES OF GOD."

I doubt Matthew Henry had a problem with men simply having long hair. Have you seen his pictures and engravings? Men are not to be effeminate. The bible is very clear about that. I have long hair and my wife and friends will tell you I am far from feminine.

How does the Nazarite vow fit into this discussion? Not setting a razor to the head was a sign of their commitment to God. By the way, I havent taken the Nazarite vow, as I really enjoy a good ale.

Mike
 
randy20027pd22bm.jpg


I wasn't a Girly Man when I had longer hair.
 
I read one time, I think it was in Chrysostom's homily on the passage, that in Paul's day, learned men of philosophy would grow their hair and beards long - as long as they could - to show off their status as a student and/or teacher of philosophy.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I believe that Scripture clearly teaches -- as does the "light of nature" -- that there is to be a distinction in hair length between men and women. Only women are to have long hair for it is their glory.

I think it is unwise to set specific hair lengths as Biblical or not Biblical because the Bible does not do so. However, the principle itself of a distinction is clear.

Matthew Henry on this passage:

Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's a good quote but Henry is dead wrong on his exegesis but right on his application...at least in our culture. How can nature commend something unnatural (i.e. a haircut)? Paul is referring to mainting both physical and cultural distinction between the genders.
 
Mike
Your
""Whenever I hear this passage cited, the person quoting it always stops at the end of verse 15. Regarding the former verses, Verse 16 goes on to say "But if anyone seems to be contentious, WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM, NOR DO THE CHURCHES OF GOD.""

Surely Paul would not write 15 verses only to be contradicted in tne next verse.
Therefore verse 16 is a natural part of the statement made in verses 1-15.
The chapter at this point states that there is to be an obvious and visual difference between male and female. The reason for this Paul teaches is in relation to God's creation of man and woman and in relation to submission of authority. God is head of Christ - no arguement there.
Man is head of woman - now we enter a difference of opinions.
But why.? The same word "head" (kephale`) is used in both comparisons. This is not "from" culture; - but culture if correctly administered by adherence to Scripture should follow the teaching.
Sinful man of course will seek to overturn and reject the teaching of the Lord.

Verse 16 is an admonishing of those who would seek to reject the teachings that man is the "head" of woman and this should be obvious in Church and worship, before God.
 
Originally posted by MICWARFIELD
Whenever I hear this passage cited, the person quoting it always stops at the end of verse 15. Regarding the former verses, Verse 16 goes on to say "But if anyone seems to be contentious, WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM, NOR DO THE CHURCHES OF GOD."

I doubt Matthew Henry had a problem with men simply having long hair. Have you seen his pictures and engravings? Men are not to be effeminate. The bible is very clear about that. I have long hair and my wife and friends will tell you I am far from feminine.
Click to expand...



Interestingly enough, the NIV renders it
16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice"”nor do the churches of God.
Click to expand...
and the NASB is similar
16But if one is inclined to be contentious, (Q)we have no other practice, nor have (R)the churches of God.
Click to expand...
Is the word "other' part of the original Greek?
 
Andrew,

This isnt to add any weight to my argument, but just for clarification purposes. Matthew Henry didnt author that quote you gave from the Matthew Henry commentary. The 1st Corinthians commentary was written by Mr. Simon Browne. Henry would have been a walking contradiction had he been the author, since he wore his hair long.

Mike
 
Originally posted by gwine
Interestingly enough, the NIV renders it
16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice"”nor do the churches of God.
Click to expand...
and the NASB is similar
16But if one is inclined to be contentious, (Q)we have no other practice, nor have (R)the churches of God.
Click to expand...
Is the word "other' part of the original Greek?
Click to expand...

I am only studying Greek now, and am open to correction by the true Greek scholars on this board, but I believe that the root word in the Textus Receptus on which the Authorised Version is based is "toioutos", which should indeed mean "such", as in "of this kind or sort". Strong's does not seem to give an alternate meaning of "other", so I am not certain whether the difference in the modern translations may come from their using a different underlying Greek text?

However, I have always understood the "such custom" in this verse to be referring to a man "being contentious" . . . We and the churches of God, Paul says, have no such custom as that of being contentious and going against the principles which have been expounded in the first 15 verses of the chapter. It would certainly seem impossible that Paul means the churches have no such custom as what he has just taught on hair length, coverings, etc. Paul is surely confirming what has been expounded in the first 15 verses, not contradicting and negating it.

I agree with Andrew, the principle of a difference in hair length between men and women is clearly Biblical, though we cannot be dogmatic about the precise length since the Bible has given no such details. What the apostle meant by "long" may well have been longer than what we associate with the term today; it may well be that the hair of Puritan men reaching to around their shoulders would not have been excessively long according to the principle Paul was expounding, provided that the women had much longer hair than that.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli
 
Thanks for all the replies guys.

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Anyone have any info on beards?

I went to a fundy college for a short time and they disallowed facial hair, yet interpreted that Deuteronomy passage to mean that women couldn't wear pants.

They told me that I had to shave my beard. I wrote a letter to the Pres telling him that their super-holy school would be too good to allow Spurgeon and Jesus to enroll. I got to know the faculty really well!
Click to expand...

I dunno... i think its this kind of crazy thinking that makes it harder for christians to promote what the bible does actually say about dressing and appearance.
 
Originally posted by MICWARFIELD
Andrew,

This isnt to add any weight to my argument, but just for clarification purposes. Matthew Henry didnt author that quote you gave from the Matthew Henry commentary. The 1st Corinthians commentary was written by Mr. Simon Browne. Henry would have been a walking contradiction had he been the author, since he wore his hair long.

Mike
Click to expand...

It is quite true that Matthew Henry's Commentary on 1 Corinthians was written not by Matthew Henry but by Simon Browne. However, those ministers who completed Henry's Commentary after his death, I think, were faithful to adhere as much as possible to the sense and principles of Henry previously expressed by him. In fact, they claim that the commentaries which follow Acts were based in large part on Henry's personal notes. They proclaim that their treatment of these NT books is appropriately published under his name and not their own because of their fidelity to Henry's writings.

And as a matter of fact, Henry himself wrote this with respect to Deut. 22.5:

The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbour's chastity, v. 5. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (1 Cor. xi. 14), and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally.
Click to expand...

There are not many pictures of Matthew Henry. I am aware of only one. The hair length in that picture is a bit long, as you know. However, I think Jie-Huli's suggestion with respect to the length of men and womens' hair in Henry's day overcomes the difficulty because from what I have read womens' hair was typically much longer. I would also add that one picture of a person may not always be representative of how they wore their hair throughout their life. I'm also not sure if he was wearing a wig, and how they plays into the situation given the English penchant for men to wear wigs in certain formal circumstances. I am also comfortable with the principle expounded by Henry even if he personally did not adhere to it. The principle is sound regardless of who said it. But as I mention, I think what Simon Browne wrote is fully consistent with what Henry himself wrote above.
 
Andrew,

a completely honest question: would you say the definition of long and short hair is completely ( or mostly) cultural? Would it be at all lawful for a man to wear shoulder lenght hair today ( under the principle expounded by matthew henry)?
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
How can nature commend something unnatural (i.e. a haircut)?
Click to expand...

The same way that the light of nature teaches that we should cover our bodies and wear clothes.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Besides, you (and Henry) are reading Western mores into the text.
 
Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Anyone have any info on beards?

I went to a fundy college for a short time and they disallowed facial hair, yet interpreted that Deuteronomy passage to mean that women couldn't wear pants.

They told me that I had to shave my beard. I wrote a letter to the Pres telling him that their super-holy school would be too good to allow Spurgeon and Jesus to enroll. I got to know the faculty really well!
Click to expand...

I KNOW!!! Jesus would never have worn a beard!!!!

Oh wait...he did.

Well, at least women shouldn't wear pants...:lol:
 
Mike,

You seem to think that v. 16 is an apostolic waiver that allows the church to disregard the previous command if any should become contentious over it. Yet, the phrase "we have no such practice" can just as easily be referring to the practice of contentiousness against church teaching, as it could the content of the teaching itself.

Therefore, Paul would be saying, "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice (of allowing contentiousness against apostolic instruction), nor do the churches of God." This would then become a disciplinary statement against the quarrelers, and not a dismissive, "whatever..." from an apathetic apostle. The Greek grammar allows either, although only one can be the intent of Paul. Calvin interprets it in this disciplinarian fashion in his commentary on the passage.

I had the same confusion regarding this passage as you in the past, and wondered how the final statement could jive with the preceding commands (why not have just left the whole thing out if it is optional to begin with?) I side with Calvin (and Paul!), regarding v.16 now.
 
It would seem that men wore their hair fairly long ( at least by our modern standards ) before WWII, but afterward military style cuts became commonplace in the US, which significantly shortened the average hair-line. In my opinion, it is from hard to impossible to have short enough hair, if you're a man, to differentiate you from a typical American woman, which is a shame to America, in my opinion.

Women with truly long hair are so charming that, in my opinion, it quickly becomes an issue of modesty to keep that hair pinned up, unless they would have broken jaws to accompany them as they travel through life.. :-) Maybe not all people feel this way, but.. hmmmmm..... ;-)
 
"It would seem that men wore their hair fairly long ( at least by our modern standards ) before WWII, but afterward military style cuts became commonplace in the US, which significantly shortened the average hair-line."

Actually it was a bit earlier. Between WWI and WWII, Hollywood made quite a few WWI movies, and the actors had to get military haircuts for the roles. Men in the general population emulated Hollywood actors and got their cut short as well. This is also why beards disappeared in the US until the 60's.
 
Prove it Randall.

You've neither made your case from the Scriptures or from any other authority. I expect better from a "reformed" seminary student than that - all attempts to intimidate through the forcefully stated, concluding punctuation mark notwithstanding.

[Edited on 4-7-2006 by Archlute]
 
It it me, or is this issue becoming more complex than it needs to be?

We all can agree that Paul is calling men to not wear their hair after the fashion of women, right? Indeed, it is likely that most men in Paul's day might have longish hair--by our standards. However long it may have been - adherence to Sripture would mean they would not have braided, adorned, or otherwised coiffed it in a feminine fashion. In other words, they wore in a "man-like" style.

"Well Matthew Henry had long hair ..." Well, that may be, but no one in that culture for a MINUTE would have thought his hair effeminate or girly.
Take a look at Cromwell's "roundheads" (I am not espousing all of Cromwell's beliefs, btw). In the context of the MASSIVE hair styles of the day, which were part of the indulgent, effeminate, and degenerate royal courts of both France and England, Cromwell's "roundheads" chose to "cut" their hair. Now, the hair-cutting technology of that day clearly didn't allow for Marine-style flat-tops - but it was short enough to remove any resemblance to the "girlie" styles of the English court:

So, what is the application for us today? Well, the Bible clearly doesn't define short hair as "xzz" cm in length - but it does command us to NOT wear our hair in the manner of women.

I'll take it one step further: I say this honestly and without malice - but gents, hair halfway down one's back in our current culture, is a sign of rebellion and defiance. One may not associate with those lifestyles, but long hair (or mohawked, etc) is an almost universal statement of defiance.

I would never be judgemental of a long-haired brother, but I am given to ask"what is the motivation for wearing these hairstlyes? Why try to see how long I can wear my hair and still be honouring God?"

As I said, we shouldn't be going around with tape measures in hand, but if our bodies are indeed the Lord's temple, is taking the chance we look either like a hippie, a gang biker, or a rocker worth taking?

In Him,

dl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Romans922
  • Locked
1 Cor. 11 - prophesying
Replies
2
Views
2K
whirlingmerc
W
M
  • Locked
I Cor. 11:1
Replies
3
Views
2K
moselle
M
Notthemama1984
  • Locked
1 Cor 11:27-29
Replies
18
Views
5K
Wannabee
Wannabee
Corey Powell
  • Locked
1 Cor 11:2-16 and Authority
Replies
2
Views
2K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
brandonadams
  • Locked
A Novel Interpretation of 1 Cor 11:2-16?
Replies
0
Views
2K
brandonadams
brandonadams
Back
Top