• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Long Hair On Men

Natural Submission

Active Member
Is it permissible for men to have long hair? Paul apparently disagrees with the Tanakhi consensus on this matter. According to the Tanakh, long hair on men is encouraged and is part of the outward signs of the most holy oath of Nizro.

Numbers 6:5 tells us "All the days of his Neder Nizro (vow of Naziritism) there shall no razor come upon his head; until the days be fulfilled, in which he consecrates himself unto YHWH, he shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long."
כָּל-יְמֵי נֶדֶר נִזְרוֹ, תַּעַר לֹא-יַעֲבֹר עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ: עַד-מְלֹאת הַיָּמִם אֲשֶׁר-יַזִּיר לַיהוָה, קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה--גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע, שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ.

Later in the Book of Judges chapter 13:5 we are told of the birth and vow of great suicide martyr Shimshon: "For, lo, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a Nazir unto Elohim from the womb; and he shall begin to save Yisrael out of the hand of the P'lishtim."
כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן, וּמוֹרָה לֹא-יַעֲלֶה עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר, מִן-הַבָּטֶן; וְהוּא, יָחֵל לְהוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל--מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים.

1 Samuel 1:11 says of Sh'mu'el: "And she vowed a vow, and said: 'YHWH Tzabaoth, if You will indeed look on the affliction of Your handmaid, and remember me, and not forget Your handmaid, but will give unto Your handmaid a man-child, then I will give him unto YHWH all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.'"
וַתִּדֹּר נֶדֶר וַתֹּאמַר, יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אִם-רָאֹה תִרְאֶה בָּעֳנִי אֲמָתֶךָ וּזְכַרְתַּנִי וְלֹא-תִשְׁכַּח אֶת-אֲמָתֶךָ, וְנָתַתָּה לַאֲמָתְךָ, זֶרַע אֲנָשִׁים--וּנְתַתִּיו לַיהוָה כָּל-יְמֵי חַיָּיו, וּמוֹרָה לֹא-יַעֲלֶה עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ.

However, Paul says quite the opposite. Long hair on men is shameful in the so-called "New Testament".

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

How does "Nature" teach us that? Does a male lion not have a long mane? The lion is the symbol of Kingship in Jewish tradition. The locks of a man are his Glory and a symbol of the length of his vow of Naziritism (which he argued against repeatedly). Paul was against the Biblical Nazirite oath, and thus he was against long hair on men.

Who should we believe, various accounts in the Tanakh or Paul's personal opinion? Either way, SOMEONE in the Bible is wrong. If long hair is encouraged in the N'zirim, then Paul is a liar.
 

ayani

member
i don't see a problem with long hair on men, anymore than i see a problem with short hair on women. as Marji in Persepolis said, "if hair was such a big deal to God, He wuld surely have made us bald!"
 

CaptainXeroid

Following Christ
'So-called New Testament'? :rolleyes: Come on....these books about the life of Jesus and the foundation of the Christian church are the New Testament.

The thing I find most curious about Paul's words about men not having long hair is that most paintings of Jesus show him with long hair.:confused: I realize there is a debate going on as to whether or not that image is correct or not. Other than that one verse in Corinthians, I can't recall another NT passage that refers to men and long hair. I would say how you live your life is more important than how long your hair is....but that's just me. ;)
 

oracle

Active Member
Natural Submission said:
Is it permissible for men to have long hair? Paul apparently disagrees with the Tanakhi consensus on this matter. According to the Tanakh, long hair on men is encouraged and is part of the outward signs of the most holy oath of Nizro.

Numbers 6:5 tells us "All the days of his Neder Nizro (vow of Naziritism) there shall no razor come upon his head; until the days be fulfilled, in which he consecrates himself unto YHWH, he shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long."
כָּל-יְמֵי נֶדֶר נִזְרוֹ, תַּעַר לֹא-יַעֲבֹר עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ: עַד-מְלֹאת הַיָּמִם אֲשֶׁר-יַזִּיר לַיהוָה, קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה--גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע, שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ.

Later in the Book of Judges chapter 13:5 we are told of the birth and vow of great suicide martyr Shimshon: "For, lo, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a Nazir unto Elohim from the womb; and he shall begin to save Yisrael out of the hand of the P'lishtim."
כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן, וּמוֹרָה לֹא-יַעֲלֶה עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר, מִן-הַבָּטֶן; וְהוּא, יָחֵל לְהוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל--מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים.

1 Samuel 1:11 says of Sh'mu'el: "And she vowed a vow, and said: 'YHWH Tzabaoth, if You will indeed look on the affliction of Your handmaid, and remember me, and not forget Your handmaid, but will give unto Your handmaid a man-child, then I will give him unto YHWH all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.'"
וַתִּדֹּר נֶדֶר וַתֹּאמַר, יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אִם-רָאֹה תִרְאֶה בָּעֳנִי אֲמָתֶךָ וּזְכַרְתַּנִי וְלֹא-תִשְׁכַּח אֶת-אֲמָתֶךָ, וְנָתַתָּה לַאֲמָתְךָ, זֶרַע אֲנָשִׁים--וּנְתַתִּיו לַיהוָה כָּל-יְמֵי חַיָּיו, וּמוֹרָה לֹא-יַעֲלֶה עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ.

However, Paul says quite the opposite. Long hair on men is shameful in the so-called "New Testament".

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

How does "Nature" teach us that? Does a male lion not have a long mane? The lion is the symbol of Kingship in Jewish tradition. The locks of a man are his Glory and a symbol of the length of his vow of Naziritism (which he argued against repeatedly). Paul was against the Biblical Nazirite oath, and thus he was against long hair on men.

Who should we believe, various accounts in the Tanakh or Paul's personal opinion? Either way, SOMEONE in the Bible is wrong. If long hair is encouraged in the N'zirim, then Paul is a liar.
Culteral norms and values will determine what is socially acceptable. We have what I call, natural morals as the individual's capacity to understand what is harmful and what is beneficial to themselves and society as a co-existential survival mechanism, which keeps us coherent. Organisms need to have a basis of cooperative behavior because ultimately a single organism is dependent on other organisms within its own species to survive. Morals and values, simply put, regulate behavior so that a species stays cohesive.

Then there is what I call unnatural morals, which is caused by an abstract perception or misconception of life. In this case having long hair is seen to the individual as unethical behavior, when in reality having long hair does not contribute to what is unethical and it is not destructive to society. Another example is how uncircumcision was spiritually and religiously unacceptable in that society. Unnatural morals digress into what I call legalistic dogma. I remember I had walked into a church when I was a bit younger. I had worn long, baggy pants, and had received a negetive comment by a church member, because to them my apparel was immoral. I can also recall my dad accusing me of being associated with an occult simply because I possesed a soundtrack with a mortal combat logo. [Also take T3gah's argument on why Christmas is immorally wrong to celebrate as an example].

No*s can explain the verse where Paul seems to have deemed long hair as unacceptable. I think the correct interpretation is that extensive hair grooming is unacceptable, not having long hair. Long hair was the norm for that society, so assuming that Paul said such a thing, is probably a misinterpretation of Greek words. The English translaters are apperently from a society where long hair is unacceptable. No*s can definitely confirm the correct translation, and whether or not this assumption is correct.

I actually don't consider much of the bible as an accurate source for making a distinction between what is immoral and what is not. I only consider Jesus's teachings as being accurate. Having long hair or not, does not determine anything, nor is it a sign of anything, nor does it contribute to anything. When it is percieved as an unconformity to moral standards, it then becomes destructive and unethical from that individual's subjective perspective. Any assumptions made however, are simply prejudices and stereotypes, which often avoids what is objectively true because of misinterpretation. We are however, judgmental creatures. We tend to size up everything immediately, nevertheless our perspectives are not always reliable.
 

Natural Submission

Active Member
CaptainXeroid said:
'So-called New Testament'? :rolleyes: Come on....these books about the life of Jesus and the foundation of the Christian church are the New Testament.

The thing I find most curious about Paul's words about men not having long hair is that most paintings of Jesus show him with long hair.:confused: I realize there is a debate going on as to whether or not that image is correct or not. Other than that one verse in Corinthians, I can't recall another NT passage that refers to men and long hair. I would say how you live your life is more important than how long your hair is....but that's just me. ;)

When i say "so-called new testament" i am condemning the division between the so-called "old" and "new". In my opinion there shouldn't have been a split, for it is all a testamony of God and God's holy Prophets. i am not putting down the Messiah or the Bible in any way, rather, the man-made innovation of division. But this should be for another thread.
 

Natural Submission

Active Member
As far as it being ethical to have long hair, OBVIOUSLY it is perfectly fine and as some have made mention, it shouldn't be the focus of our spiritual cultivation.

What i am challenging is the fact that Paul knew Jesus, John the Immerser, James the brother of Jesus, the disciples etc, if they didn't have long hair they certainly accepted the Naziri vow completely. So why does Paul go against it?
 

Dinogrrl

peeb!
I have no problem with guys having long hair. I don't see how that'd affect his relationship with God, at any rate. :}

Speaking of guys with long hair...what about girls with short hair? Is that all right? If not, my mom's been in a world of hurt for like, half of her life :D.
 

ayani

member
Dinogrrl said:
Speaking of guys with long hair...what about girls with short hair? Is that all right?
yeah, why not? all this talk of proper hair length is silly. now, spending hours of the day on your hair is a waste of time and vain, in my opinion. if your hair causes you that much trouble and pride, better to cut it off and not have to fret over it as much.
 

oracle

Active Member
gracie said:
yeah, why not? all this talk of proper hair length is silly. now, spending hours of the day on your hair is a waste of time and vain, in my opinion. if your hair causes you that much trouble and pride, better to cut it off and not have to fret over it as much.
Actually I think that was the point Paul was trying to intentionally make.
 
gracie said:
yeah, why not? all this talk of proper hair length is silly. now, spending hours of the day on your hair is a waste of time and vain, in my opinion. if your hair causes you that much trouble and pride, better to cut it off and not have to fret over it as much.
Are you calling Paul silly, gracie?
 
I'm very impressed, gracie! I have to admit, I did not expect a straight answer. And although I don't know much about Quakers, if your posts are representative, I'm beginning to respect them a great deal. :)

I mean, look what you did here....you read something that Paul said, and then you thought about it critically and formed your own opinion of it....I really am very impressed. :jam: Frubals coming your way!
 

Natural Submission

Active Member
oracle said:
Actually I think that was the point Paul was trying to intentionally make.

YOUR intention to find goodness in Pauls statement is the good intention. But what he said is clear:

"Does not even nature herself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

A SHAME unto him. He is not teaching us to be humble, he is slandering those with long hair. And it is clear that many Holy Prophets had long hair.
 

ayani

member
Mr_Spinkles said:
...And although I don't know much about Quakers, if your posts are representative, I'm beginning to respect them a great deal. :)
: very flattered : and i've barely been Quaker for two years! but no, i'm being prideful. stop it, gracie!

at any rate, i'm honored to give my fellow liberal Mennonites a good name in cyber space! thank you. Mr. Sprinkles.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Out of interest, is this aimed at everyone, or did you intend it to be directed at the Jewish people ?:)
 

johnnys4life

Pro-life Mommy
There is never-ending controversy over that passage about hair, and what a silly little thing! Far as I can recall, Jesus was a Nazarene, wasn't he? Or he was simply from Nazareth, and not a Nazarene? Because Nazarene men were to have long hair. I don't believe that is so for ALL men in the Bible times, but I could be wrong. But was Paul talking to the Greeks or the Jews in that segment? Because different letters are adressed to different people, Corinth is in ...?
 
Top