1 Corinthians 11:14

[biscuit1953]

1 Corinthians 11:14 - Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor ("shame" - KJV) to him?

If I could have a serious answer it would be appreciated.  How would you interpret this verse?  I remember when the Beatles came to America their hair was considered long.  I remember my dad telling me that only girls wore bangs and he made me "comb my hair back like a man."

I have seen pictures of John Wesley and he along with most other men at that time had what would have been considered today "long hair."  This is his explanation.

"For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him."

He doesn't discuss why nature teaches it but believed it was the way it was worn that made the difference.  Would you agree?  How would you interpret the part concerning nature?  Please don't make this a thread of stupid jokes.

 

[jayne]

Here's an interesting commentary on the word "nature" in reference to your verse in question.

http://www.bibleissues.org/hair1.html

 

[biscuit1953]

Here's an interesting commentary on the word "nature" in reference to your verse in question.

http://www.bibleissues.org/hair1.html

Thanks for the link!

 

[Izdaari]

Nature teaches me no such thing. I think of the magnificent manes of male lions, while the females lack such adornment.

Paul was from Tarsus, in what is now Turkey. That city was the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia, and Paul was a Roman citizen. Short hair for men was in Paul's time the Greek and Roman cultural norm. He was probably taught that growing up, and that likely was the source of his opinion on the matter.

As you may remember, Paul admitted to at times including his own personal opinions in his letters, and did not claim divine inspiration for them. I think this is one of those cases.

 

[Ransom]

At least in v. 14, Paul writes, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?" Notwithstanding the fact that most of us, if honest, would quickly answer the question, no, the term "nature" suggests that Paul appeals to some timeless principle of which we are simply unaware. Here a knowledge of Scripture and of some historical background helps. Paul, raised as a devout Jew, knew of one major category of Jewish man  who was praised by God for never cutting his hair--the Nazirite (Num. 6:1-21). Paul himself had practiced such vows on a temporary basis (Acts 18:18). So "the nature of things" in 1 Cor. 11:14 must mean something like "the common custom throughout the first-century Greco-Roman world," which in turn explains why all the churches of the time had adopted this practice (v. 16). We see again the need to understand the culture of the time to find the rationale. The best recent research suggests that long hair (perhaps resembling an external head covering) on a man likely made him appear to much like Roman priests officiating at certain pagan rituals. Once again, if long hair is inextricably bound up witgh non-Christian religious practice in some modern culture, then it, too, should remain taboo. But if not, then hair style with God is not a moral issue.

- William W. Klein, Craig L. Blombert, & Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: W Publishing, 1993), 414-15.

This would also parallel similar rules seen in the Mosaic law, concerning such things as tattoos or shaving the head or sideburns. It wasn't that God's law demanded bearded men for all time, but that these practices were associated with pagan worship amongst the Egyptians and Canaanites, and God's people were not to imitate them.

Today, clean-shaven men are an everyday occurrence: not because we are all pagan, but because that is one of the grooming customs that currently obtains. We aren't disobeying God; the specific rule simply no longer applies.

Hypothetically, if a new religious cult came along in which a unique hair or beard style was worn, then it would presumably be necessary for Christians to refuse to wear that particular style, as we would not wish to be mistakenly identified as members of the cult.

 

[brianb]

1 Corinthians 11:14 - Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor ("shame" - KJV) to him?

If I could have a serious answer it would be appreciated.  How would you interpret this verse?  I remember when the Beatles came to America their hair was considered long.  I remember my dad telling me that only girls wore bangs and he made me "comb my hair back like a man."

I have seen pictures of John Wesley and he along with most other men at that time had what would have been considered today "long hair."  This is his explanation.

"For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him."

He doesn't discuss why nature teaches it but believed it was the way it was worn that made the difference.  Would you agree?  How would you interpret the part concerning nature?  Please don't make this a thread of stupid jokes.

I don't think there is a specific length prescribes but I think the whole idea is to appear to distinguished from women. I know that's a tricky one because even in churches today you will see women with a variety of hair lengths.

 

[biscuit1953]

I know it is stupid but I've struggled with this verse for years.  Just trying to get my mind wrapped around it.  Thanks for the replies.

 

[Izdaari]

I don't think there is a specific length prescribes but I think the whole idea is to appear to distinguished from women. I know that's a tricky one because even in churches today you will see women with a variety of hair lengths.

Indeed. I know lots of men with longer hair than me. Hair length is not how you would tell us apart.

Joan Jett's hair style in this video is about like mine:

http://youtu.be/y0gjcF05UGI