CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I was just reading in 1 Corinthians and came across this verse http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:14&version=TNIV

What does this mean, exactly? Didn't Jesus have long hair? (at least, thats how all the paintings show Him) Please help explain this to me.

I think you're taking that section out of context a little. The whole section is talking about covering your head during worship. We don't know whether Jesus had "long hair", but his hair in modern depictions is long- according to modern standards. What were the standards 2000 years ago?

It does overall give the impression that long hair for a man is disgrace, but I'm going to point to one of my friends who's in a really conservative, uuber-literalist branch. To her, this section means that she never cuts her hair (hasn't even trimmed it in two year, and it shows. So scraggly!). So it's about waist-length. This would probably be more like what is being said here- having waist-length hair for a man is wrong.

I just don't really care for this section overall. It says that because women are inferior to men (okay, I'm exaggerating here- but they are considered less Godly than men), they should wear long hair. I'm not up for that.

I think another thing that should be taken into consideration is that this is a letter to a specific place at a specific time. It's entirely possible that in Paul's day, in Corinth, hair past a certain length was a sign of being a prostitute or a worshiper of a specific deity. Things like this in these letters must be taken within the context of the culture at the time they were written.

It's cultural context. Paul was writing to the people in Corinth, using language for and referring to customs within their culture. This verse (and others like it) do not mean that men aren't allowed to have long hair, nor does it mean that women are only allowed to have long hair. XD Any other interpretation (i.e., an interpretation that requires men and women to keep their hair a certain length to retain righteousness) is legalism. XD

Short hair on women is totally hotter than long hair.

...just throwing that out there.

mechana2015 (post: 1456100) wrote:I think another thing that should be taken into consideration is that this is a letter to a specific place at a specific time. It's entirely possible that in Paul's day, in Corinth, hair past a certain length was a sign of being a prostitute or a worshiper of a specific deity. Things like this in these letters must be taken within the context of the culture at the time they were written.

</thread>

Baisically, the passage is saying women should cover their hair in worship, and why. I think, though that it says that because back then if you were a woman with uncovered hair in public, it normally meant you were a prostitute, and was considered immodest, so I think to apply it to modern life it would mean don't dress innapropriatly during public worship. Most of the rest of the passage is very confusing and, as Atria pointed out, rather unnerving to a woman reading it. Although it does say "women aren't independant of Men, and Men aren't independant of Women" And I do agree with that

I asked this very question last year on a radio program called Pastor's Perspective. One of the men on the air (Pastor Chuck Smith), pointed out that the verse states that nature itself teaches that it's a shame. He also agreed that it becomes very legalistic, especially if you have to ask "Well, how long is too long?" and other related questions.

K. Ayato (post: 1456116) wrote:One of the men on the air (Pastor Chuck Smith), pointed out that the verse states that nature itself teaches that it's a shame.

I would like to know the cultural context and background for that specific phrasing though. Without that I'm not sure what part of nature teaches us this since animals have uniform hair for both genders, in many cases, and humans left without tools won't stop growing hair. If anything SHORT hair is unnatural, since it requires alteration, so I think that there may be a cultural statement going on here that has been lost over the eons.

There are many cultures around the world that don't believe that short hair is disgraceful, and indeed many for whom the CUTTING of hair was a disgrace, used to indicate shaming or even enslaving of the person who's hair was shorn.

We have to understand that many of these minor rules are Jewish in origin, not necessarily that they're sins against God and that he was displeased with long hair. Personally I find waist-length hair on women to be unattractive but that's just me.

Lynna (post: 1456115) wrote:Baisically, the passage is saying women should cover their hair in worship, and why. I think, though that it says that because back then if you were a woman with uncovered hair in public, it normally meant you were a prostitute, and was considered immodest, so I think to apply it to modern life it would mean don't dress innapropriatly during public worship. Most of the rest of the passage is very confusing and, as Atria pointed out, rather unnerving to a woman reading it. Although it does say "women aren't independant of Men, and Men aren't independant of Women" And I do agree with that

Along with what Mech said, this is a good point. Take it within it's cultural context. and also apply it to what it means for us today. I think it also might be taken sybolic as well. Like dont dress weird and innapropriate for church..? XD idk there could be a couple thing you could take away from this.

HIPPIES ARE THE DEVIL; THE BIBLE SAID SO.

Okay, not really, but I'm not sure the length of a person's hair has anything at all to do with whether they can effectively serve God, and I don't think a man with long hair is necessarily an abomination (unless he doesn't take care of it and gets all nasty. YEESH). Look at Samson: He was not allowed to cut his hair. Pretty sure he still had supernatural power from God.

I'ma go with the people who say "cultural context."

EDIT: Gah, NINJA'D!!!

See the post directly above yours: I do believe I may have ninja'd you.

Don't forget about the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6, emphasis v.5) and also that Paul, author of 1 Corinthians, spent time as a Nazirite (Acts 18:18) At least, that's what I think of first when I come to this passage as I fumble for context. We're going to be discussing 1 Corinthians soon in my NT Epistles class, so I'll let you know what information I come across when that time comes. Although I have other things to pick my New Testament professor's brain about beforehand, but if I get the chance, I'll bring it to attention.

For reference I doubt Jesus look anything like the paintings of him today. He would probably look Arabic if anything, meaning that his skin color would be one or two shades browner than most modern images of him.



This is an artist rendition of how the average person would have looked in that region during that time. I sincerely doubt he looked Roman/Italian.

*Edit - There is a physical description of him in revelations, but it sounds largely poetic. I must admit I laughed when I read of the seven stars on his right hand.*

Anyhow, long hair, long hair. Works with some, not so much with others I suppose. It related back to some worship principles back in the day, but the demonic description used by some Christians today is frankly overused. It would take a lot more than long hair to get to such a stage.

Jaden Mental (post: 1456152) wrote:

403 Forbidden. Dang.

In any case, this has helped my understanding of the passage, and I appreciate it!

Oh well, it's just a picture of what one would expect to be an average middle eastern guy at the time, but still.

Jaden Mental (post: 1456195) wrote:Oh well, it's just a picture of what one would expect to be an average middle eastern guy at the time, but still.

Well, I meant the thread was helping my understanding of the passage.

But it's an interesting picture! He looks like a nice guy

I think it was more of a cultural thing. I really don't see how the length of your hair would determine your relationshio with God. You know what I mean? Meanwhile, I'm going to admit I do tend to find longer hair on guys attractive.

TopazRaven (post: 1456198) wrote: Meanwhile, I'm going to admit I do tend to find longer hair on guys attractive.

Same here actually hehe XD as long as they keep it nice anyways...

Lynna (post: 1456213) wrote:Same here actually hehe XD as long as they keep it nice anyways...

Ahaha! Yeah, me to. Not that I can talk. My hair stinks. It gets so frizzy and untamable, I really want to shave it all of sometimes.

The thing against long hair is cultural. Corinthian Greeks, like those in neighboring city-states, customarily wore their hair short whereas Greek women grew their hair long.

Look under clothes & accessories:

http://www.crystalinks.com/greekculture.html

Men with long hair were thus viewed as effeminate.

Nate (post: 1456103) wrote:Short hair on women is totally hotter than long hair.

...just throwing that out there.

I strongly disagree with you.

That's my only contribution to this thread, I think everything else was covered

I always thought it had to do more with men not having effeminate hair. Obviously, long hair in of itself isn't sinful, as demonstrated in Samson's case. By the way, I don't see anything about the passage calling women less Godly than men.

If you're interested, Reverend Henry has an interesting commentary on it: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.vii.xii.html

Shao Feng-Li (post: 1456231) wrote:I always thought it had to do more with men not having effeminate hair. Obviously, long hair in of itself isn't sinful, as demonstrated in Samson's case. By the way, I don't see anything about the passage calling women less Godly than men.

If you're interested, Reverend Henry has an interesting commentary on it: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.vii.xii.html

It's later in the same section (NIV 2010, though)-

" 7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

Since Man is closer to God, then it's not okay for him to have long hair, but since a woman comes from Man and therefore is farther from God and His image, women can have long hair.

I don't believe Paul is calling women less godly or farther away from God, but stressing that women are subject to men. I've never even heard the idea that that passage is calling women less godly than men. Also, we know that isn't true, so that can't be what the passage means.

Wither it was considering women less Godly or not I think for the most part we can agree it was more of a cultural thing or Paul's own opinion right? We know God doesn't use favortisim.

um... ya'll oughta focus more on the whole passage rather than the "context."
Read 1 Corinthians 11;16
"but if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."

It's the same vein as whether people eat food sacrificed to idols or celebrate certain holidays; Paul believes that men should have short hair and women should have covered heads, but he also concedes that it doesn't matter in light of Christ, and that for the sake of the brethren, he won't make it an issue should somebody not follow that custom.

idk if this has been mentioned (there was a lot to read) but at the end of that section paul says "if this causes a discrepancy among you, i have no such custom" it was a custom to begin with... not a law