Men's hair length

[Jules C]

Is it a biblical issue?

[Duane Morse]

Did Jesus have long hair?
Samson?
Moses?

Every painting of any of these portray them with long hair.

And in fact, the only verse in the Bible which refers to long hair on men as being bad is this, by Paul:
1co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

How, I ask, does nature teach this?
It is simply Paul's opinion, and nothing to do with anything scriptural.

So personally, I would say it is not a scriptural issue - except when you want to take Paul's personal opinions as the Gospel TRUTH.

[chal]

chal>I kinda sorta hate to answer a question with more questions (Do I do that?), but;

Exactly what length should we consider "long," according to scripture? What was socially accepted then? Or now?

Do you think there may be more than a superficial meaning to 1Corinthians 11:14 (I can't think of any other scripture in which this subject is mentioned)?

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

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God

chal> The church has "no such custom."

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman ; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

chal> Is this not a teaching concerning whether a woman should pray "uncovered," rather than a teaching concerning whether men should have long hair?

[Rufus_1611]

Did Jesus have long hair? No.
Samson?No.
Moses?No.

Every painting of any of these portray them with long hair. Paintings are not the word of God. Images are not spoken of positively in the Bible and certainly images of the Godhead were discouraged. It is wrong for folks to attempt to depict Jesus Christ by art or man's devices and it is certainly wrong to depict Him in such a shameful way.

And in fact, the only verse in the Bible which refers to long hair on men as being bad is this, by Paul:
1co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

How, I ask, does nature teach this?
It is simply Paul's opinion, and nothing to do with anything scriptural. Paul's "opinion" is recorded in scripture. What books make up your scripture if not the words of Paul?

So personally, I would say it is not a scriptural issue - except when you want to take Paul's personal opinions as the Gospel TRUTH. The "personal opinion's" of Paul is the gospel TRUTH. Believe the Bible.

[Jules C]

That was what my pastor was thinking.
And my boyfriend put it into practice this morning.
http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=142049

[Duane Morse]

No.
No.
No.

Paintings are not the word of God. Images are not spoken of positively in the Bible and certainly images of the Godhead were discouraged. It is wrong for folks to attempt to depict Jesus Christ by art or man's devices and it is certainly wrong to depict Him in such a shameful way.

Paul's "opinion" is recorded in scripture. What books make up your scripture if not the words of Paul?

The "personal opinion's" of Paul is the gospel TRUTH. Believe the Bible.
Sorry, but none of us has any idea how long their hair was.

[Duane Morse]

Is this not a teaching concerning whether a woman should pray "uncovered," rather than a teaching concerning whether men should have long hair?
Define 'uncovered', then.

Does it have anything to do with hair at all? If that were the case, a woman would have to be shaved bald to be uncovered.

[chal]

Define 'uncovered', then.

Does it have anything to do with hair at all? If that were the case, a woman would have to be shaved bald to be uncovered.

chal> No, it (the teaching) doesn't have anything at all to do with hair. It's not about a dress code. He was using the social mores of that time to describe a deeper truth concerning authority and hierarchy. We are to be covered by Christ. There is a hierarchy in how we are to receive that covering.This passage teaches us how. It has to be read in context.

10 (sword:///I%20Corinthians%2011:10) because of this, the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels.

chal> This does not concern superficial coverings, such as hats or prayer shawls. Those are symbols of a deeper truth. The woman is to be covered in authority, by the man who is covered by Christ and ultimately, both are covered in Christ.

3 (sword:///I%20Corinthians%2011:3) But I want you to know that Christ is the Head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

chal> It's strange that concerning hair in this passage, no one can ever seem to define exactly what is to be considered "long according to the text." Shaved? Crew Cut? Flat Top?:eek:

[Rufus_1611]

Sorry, but none of us has any idea how long their hair was. In the case of Jesus Christ, we can be assured that his hair was not long for he was sinless and without shame.

What books make up your scripture if not the words of Paul?

[chal]

In the case of Jesus Christ, we can be assured that his hair was not long for he was sinless and without shame.

What books make up your scripture if not the words of Paul?

chal> What should we consider "long?" Can you give a measurement?
This is the word translated into "long hair:"

[*StrongsGreek*][02863]
2863 komao kom-ah'-o from 2864; to wear tresses of hair:--have long hair. see GREEK for 2864

Tressed \Tressed\, a.
1. Having tresses.
[1913 Webster]

2. Formed into ringlets or braided; braided; curled.
--Spenser. Drayton.
[1913 Webster]

chal> I sure hope you don't have curly hair.

[Rufus_1611]

chal> What should we consider "long?" Can you give a measurement? There is no cause for a measurement for that which is naturally taught.

[chal]

There is no cause for a measurement for that which is naturally taught.

chal> If it is naturally taught, then (naturally) you should be able to give a natural explanation.

[ynnedenny]

In the case of Jesus Christ, we can be assured that his hair was not long for he was sinless and without shame.

Really? Then explain why 99% of artisitic interpretations of Jesus Christ portray him with long hair and a beard. Is it just some random chance that so many people see Him this way? Obviously these depictions are based on an early, eyewitness account, or possibly an illustration, from the time when He was still on this Earth. But then, what do billions of people over thousands of years know? SURELY you know more than all of them. Or maybe it's just your personal preference that you try to justify with scripture. Either way, I'm not buying it.

PS: I have long hair, and I feel NO shame whatsoever about it.

[Izdaari]

The only concern I have about the length of a man's hair is: Does it look good on him? Some men look good with short hair or even shaved heads. Others look best with long hair, sometimes even very long, even waist length maybe.

And of course practical considerations come into it too. In some jobs, a man can't have long hair because it would get in the way of function or professional image. In that case, a man who would look better with long hair may just have to settle for a worse look in order to meet his goals.

[Rufus_1611]

Really? Really.

Then explain why 99% of artisitic interpretations of Jesus Christ portray him with long hair and a beard.Is it just some random chance that so many people see Him this way? Again, we have contention between images and the Word. The Word has prevailed and will always prevail.

First, seeking truth from the majority, or the majority opinion, is a faulty position in light of the word of God. The majority of the humans in the garden rebelled against God. Consider that the majority of people perished in the flood and Jesus Christ prophesied that in the last days it would be like the days of Noe. Today, in a world of 6 billion people only 2.1 billion claim to be a Christian and a far lower number of these 2.1 billion actually are. This makes it quite clear that the majority is quite wrong about truth.

Second, it is sinful to depict the Godhead through art. If one tried to create an image of the Holy Ghost, would you believe their depiction to be true? What about God the Father? Can any man know what He looks like and be so foolish to try to depict Him in art? The same is true of the Word or the Son of God. No man should effort such a project and be so vain as to think that they know what the Son of Man looks like in light of the lack of a detailed description in the Word of God and in light of clear scripture that says we ought not think that the Godhead is to be graven by art and man's device.

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." - Acts 17:29

Thus, an artist who creates an image of the Holy Begotten of God is starting from a position of sin. How then, after they sin in creating this image, would they be wise enough in the scripture to actually get the image right? God isn't going to bless such an effort, for His Holy Word declares that this ought not be done and it is certainly fitting that a rebellious artist, creating an image rebelliously, would depict Jesus Christ as a rebel.

Obviously these depictions are based on an early, eyewitness account, or possibly an illustration, from the time when He was still on this Earth. But then, what do billions of people over thousands of years know? SURELY you know more than all of them. Or maybe it's just your personal preference that you try to justify with scripture. If it was my personal preference, I probably wouldn't care (and I didn't care when I was of the world). However, there are my preferences and then there are the preferences of God and, in the end, my preferences and your preferences don't matter even a little bit, compared to God's preferences.

Either way, I'm not buying it. There's nothing for sale. It's merely obedience or rebellion.

PS: I have long hair, and I feel NO shame whatsoever about it. We ought not be led by feelings (feminine) but by reason (masculine). Reason studies the word and compares scripture against scripture. Feelings abdicate scripture in favor of following the heart or emotion.

[Rufus_1611]

The only concern I have about the length of a man's hair is: Does it look good on him? Some men look good with short hair or even shaved heads. Others look best with long hair, sometimes even very long, even waist length maybe.

And of course practical considerations come into it too. In some jobs, a man can't have long hair because it would get in the way of function or professional image. In that case, a man who would look better with long hair may just have to settle for a worse look in order to meet his goals. Why do you suppose a professional image requires a man to have short hair?

[renthead188]

13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

1 Cor 11:13-16


Paul does not define what "long" means. "Long" is a relative term that can be understood to mean nearly any length. We do not know what Paul meant by "long" hair.

Paul says that nature teaches that a man with long hair is dishonored.
Paul does NOT say that GOD teaches this.

Paul says that nature teaches that a man with long hair is dishonored.
Paul does NOT say that the man has sinned.

Paul says that if anyone has a problem with this, he does not hold this custom and neither do the Churches of God.

So we see that...

Paul does NOT write that God says that men should not have long hair.
Paul does NOT write that a man with long hair has sinned.

Paul DOES write that if anyone has a problem with this idea (that long hair on men is dishonorable), that neither He nor the Churches of God hold any such custom.

Based solely upon these verses, we see that men's hair length is NOT a biblical issue but a cultural one. Hair length in and of itself does not matter.

However


9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?
11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.
12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.
13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
1 Cor 8:12-13


We read that Paul teaches that if his diet causes his brother to sin, that he will change his diet to keep from causing his brother to fall. Since men's hair length, as shown above, is meaningless in and of itself, if it causes a brother to sin, it would seem that the appropriate response would be to refrain from having long hair for the brother's sake. If Paul would change his diet, I think we could change our hair style.

If this is why the boyfriend cut his hair, I have great respect for his decision. I have shoulder length hair and no one has ever addressed this with me before, although I was a bit thrown the first time I read this verse. After I got to verse 16 I breathed a huge sigh of relief. It was then that I remembered that God doesn't care about your head, it's your heart that He's after.

in love

Christopher

[Bethany67]

We ought not be led by feelings (feminine) but by reason (masculine).

Please explain Biblically the proof that feelings are 'feminine' and reason 'masculine.'

[Rufus_1611]

Paul does not define what "long" means. "Long" is a relative term that can be understood to mean nearly any length. We do not know what Paul meant by "long" hair. He meant long as in, not short.

Paul says that nature teaches that a man with long hair is dishonored. Actually, he said that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.

Paul does NOT say that GOD teaches this. That which is natural is of God. God created nature, not Mother Nature/Mother Gaia that the world likes to promote.

Paul says that nature teaches that a man with long hair is dishonored. Paul does NOT say that the man has sinned. It is sinful to do that which is shameful.

"Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." - 1 Corinthians 15:34

Paul says that if anyone has a problem with this, he does not hold this custom and neither do the Churches of God.

So we see that...

Paul does NOT write that God says that men should not have long hair.
Paul does NOT write that a man with long hair has sinned.

Paul DOES write that if anyone has a problem with this idea (that long hair on men is dishonorable), that neither He nor the Churches of God hold any such custom. He is saying if a man be contentious and promotes that men should have long hair and women have short hair, that there is no such custom within the church of God. Paul didn't spend 15 verses explaining submission, only to finish it off with "meh, don't worry about it".

Based solely upon these verses, we see that men's hair length is NOT a biblical issue but a cultural one. Hair length in and of itself does not matter.

However



We read that Paul teaches that if his diet causes his brother to sin, that he will change his diet to keep from causing his brother to fall. Since men's hair length, as shown above, is meaningless in and of itself, if it causes a brother to sin, it would seem that the appropriate response would be to refrain from having long hair for the brother's sake. If Paul would change his diet, I think we could change our hair style.

If this is why the boyfriend cut his hair, I have great respect for his decision. I have shoulder length hair and no one has ever addressed this with me before, although I was a bit thrown the first time I read this verse. After I got to verse 16 I breathed a huge sigh of relief. It was then that I remembered that God doesn't care about your head, it's your heart that He's after.

in love

Christopher

[Rufus_1611]

Please explain Biblically the proof that feelings are 'feminine' and reason 'masculine.'

That would be kind of an involved study and would likely require its own thread but, throughout the Bible, reason is associated to the spirit and emotions is associated to the soul. Then you will see scripture that speaks of the spirit being associated to male likeness and you will see scripture referring to the soul with female likeness.

For example:
"My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad." - Psalms 34:2

[Jules C]

When I posted this, I didn't realise what a hotly debated and contentious subject it was!

[Reynolds357]

Is it a biblical issue?

Having had long hair many years ago, I can not imagine why a man would want it. It it most aggravating. It is so much simpler to have short hair. I grew it out because I was assigned to the drug task force at the time. I hated the long hair.
I do not see long hair as sin unless it is worn as a symbol of rebellion. If the heart is just, I see no problem with long hair. If hair is worn with a clean heart, go for it. If it is worn to show rebellion for moral authority, I would then say it is the sin of rebellion being manifested.

[chal]

chal> The only shame I see going on concerning this, is men imposing their personal opinions, that go directly against God's character, on others, by twisting scriptures. The scripture that is used to promote men cutting their hair short is not about dress codes or hair length. That is explained clearly in the text itself. To gather anything of that sort, verses have to be ripped out of context. We can see from the scripture below, what God's character is like concerning outward appearances.

1st Samuel 16: 7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

chal> BTW, I don't have what I consider long hair, so I'm not "hotly debating," this issue. It's almost shaved, but I don't like to see verses being shaved off of scripture. I'm simply presenting another consideration. Like Paul, I have no such custom. IMO, his advice to judge for yourselves, (using scripture properly in context of course), is very apropos.

[ynnedenny]

Really.

Again, we have contention between images and the Word. The Word has prevailed and will always prevail.

OK. So, where is this bit of Word that you think proves your point? Back up your assumptions with hard evidence, or you'll just be perceived as somebody pushing their own agenda with no substance behid it.


Second, it is sinful to depict the Godhead through art. If one tried to create an image of the Holy Ghost, would you believe their depiction to be true? What about God the Father? Can any man know what He looks like and be so foolish to try to depict Him in art? The same is true of the Word or the Son of God. No man should effort such a project and be so vain as to think that they know what the Son of Man looks like in light of the lack of a detailed description in the Word of God and in light of clear scripture that says we ought not think that the Godhead is to be graven by art and man's device.


(and I didn't care when I was of the world).

Wow! You SURE think highly of yourself. Well, you just lost every ounce of credibility in my eyes. Do the words "Holier than thou" mean anything to you?

We ought not be led by feelings (feminine) but by reason (masculine).

Where did you come up with THIS little gem? :rofl:

Seriously. What's next? Man, I'm glad there are good Christians in this world... I've met my share of Rufuses in this world, and if that had ben ALL I had met, I never would have been saved. When you step down off your pedestal, come join the rest of the meek. We're gonna inherit the Earth, ya know.;)

Long haired and fine with it.

[renthead188]

I'd like to continue talking about this topic, but I feel that it's best if we all take some time to ensure that this is truly an edifying discussion. It can be a slippery slope from discussing Scripture to battling Scripture if we don't keep our intentions in check.

Do all to His glory.

I will write back tomorrow.

in love

Christopher

[Izdaari]

Why do you suppose a professional image requires a man to have short hair?
American cultural considerations only, same as suits and ties. There's nothing distinctively Christian about any of that.

[DARKastheRAIN]

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." - Acts 17:29

Thus, an artist who creates an image of the Holy Begotten of God is starting from a position of sin. How then, after they sin in creating this image, would they be wise enough in the scripture to actually get the image right? God isn't going to bless such an effort, for His Holy Word declares that this ought not be done and it is certainly fitting that a rebellious artist, creating an image rebelliously, would depict Jesus Christ as a rebel.

Surely that verse is only saying that we shouldn't get so confused that we think God actually IS like gold, silver, stone, or paint on a canvas. It doesn't sound to me like it's saying you can't paint a picture of Jesus, just that you shouldn't start worshiping the painting and thinking the painting you created is God. Because he's obviously so so much more than that.

If an artist paints a picture of his Savior out of love and devotion to Him, knowing that nothing he can paint could ever compare to the real thing and not trying to create his own God to get glory for himself, surely that's an act of worship. Surely that's starting from a position of love. How can that be sinful and rebelious? "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul." that's the first commandment, that and "love your neighbor as yourself" pretty much cover everything, don't they.

Do you also believe it's sinful to write and sing songs about God? That too is an art form and a device of man. If you were to start worshiping the song or the singers that would obviously be wrong. That seems to me what the verse is saying.

I trully hope you realize that it's about love and relationship, and not all about rules.

[Rufus_1611]

OK. So, where is this bit of Word that you think proves your point? Back up your assumptions with hard evidence, or you'll just be perceived as somebody pushing their own agenda with no substance behid it. 1 Corinthians 11

Wow! You SURE think highly of yourself. Well, you just lost every ounce of credibility in my eyes. Do the words "Holier than thou" mean anything to you? You sure seem to be focusing less on the topic and more on the person. Where is your substance for arguing for long hair on a man? Do you believe that long hair has been given to the man for his glory? Break down 1 Corinthians 11 for me in light of your doctrine. Make a solid, scriptural, argument and I can be persuaded to your beliefs.

Where did you come up with THIS little gem? :rofl: The Holy Bible.

It prophesied your :*.rofl: as well...

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts," - 1 Peter 3:3

Seriously. What's next? Man, I'm glad there are good Christians in this world... I've met my share of Rufuses in this world, and if that had ben ALL I had met, I never would have been saved. I didn't think there were many like me left. Should you encounter 'em again, send 'em my way as I would look forward to the fellowship.

When you step down off your pedestal, come join the rest of the meek. We're gonna inherit the Earth, ya know.;) The meek will, the effeminate will not...

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Long haired and fine with it. Whether you're fine with it or not is not the issue and, ultimately, I doubt that you really are fine with it or it would seem you wouldn't be so stirred up by the topic.

[Rufus_1611]

American cultural considerations only, same as suits and ties. There's nothing distinctively Christian about any of that. Where did the American cultural considerations come from?

[Rufus_1611]

Surely that verse is only saying that we shouldn't get so confused that we think God actually IS like gold, silver, stone, or paint on a canvas. It doesn't sound to me like it's saying you can't paint a picture of Jesus, just that you shouldn't start worshiping the painting and thinking the painting you created is God. Because he's obviously so so much more than that. If I concurred with your statement it would change nothing. We have folks in this very thread that believe those images represent Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ has long hair. They falsely believe this based on an image rather than on the Word.

If an artist paints a picture of his Savior out of love and devotion to Him, knowing that nothing he can paint could ever compare to the real thing and not trying to create his own God to get glory for himself, surely that's an act of worship. It is an act of worship. Nadab and Abihu also participated in an act of worship.

Surely that's starting from a position of love. How can that be sinful and rebelious? "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul." that's the first commandment, that and "love your neighbor as yourself" pretty much cover everything, don't they.

Do you also believe it's sinful to write and sing songs about God? No.

That too is an art form and a device of man. If you were to start worshiping the song or the singers that would obviously be wrong. That seems to me what the verse is saying. That "art form" is not "graven" and is not what was being described in Acts 17:29. So long as the music is a hymn, psalm or spiritual song, it is acceptable unto the Lord.

I trully hope you realize that it's about love and relationship, and not all about rules. Loving God is about rules.

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." - John 14:15

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." - John 15:10

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments." - 1 John 5:2

[Rebelnote]

Where did the American cultural considerations come from?
A blend of Christian, Greek, and Roman culture.... which the blend created ba da bum da! Western culture!

[DARKastheRAIN]

Loving God is about rules.
"If ye love me, keep my commandments." - John 14:15

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." - John 15:10

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments." - 1 John 5:2


Rules are about loving God. Word order makes a big difference. :)

the rule said don't be thinking that God is that thing made by man. (Which would not be loving God, it'd be loving the thing; so the rule was literally about loving God)

The rule didn't say 'thou shalt not paint a picture of Jesus' The verb used was 'think', not 'paint', 'engrave', 'sculpt', etc. The rule in this case is about mindset.

The painter didn't think the thing he made was his God, therefore he didn't break the rule.

That long off topic detour is all to say: that verse may have worked to tell people not be so sure that Jesus looked exactly like what those people painted, but when you tried to use it to condem everyone who ever painted a picture of Jesus, and thereby discredit them, I believe you missused it.

[Rufus_1611]

Rules are about loving God. Word order makes a big difference. :)

the rule said don't be thinking that God is that thing made by man. (Which would not be loving God, it'd be loving the thing; so the rule was literally about loving God)

The rule didn't say 'thou shalt not paint a picture of Jesus' The verb used was 'think', not 'paint', 'engrave', 'sculpt', etc. The rule in this case is about mindset.

The painter didn't think the thing he made was his God, therefore he didn't break the rule.

That long off topic detour is all to say: that verse may have worked to tell people not be so sure that Jesus looked exactly like what those people painted, but when you tried to use it to condem everyone who ever painted a picture of Jesus, and thereby discredit them, I believe you missused it. If we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device, then why should we think that someone ought to go and engrave the Godhead by art and man's device?

"What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?" - Habakuk 2:18

In addition, the fruits of what these artists have done should be manifest. By their artwork of the Godhead, they have created false images of Jesus Christ, giving men justification for modeling themselves after the false image, rather than the true Word found in the Holy Bible.

[MrAnteater]

Hair was an issue under the Mosaic system because the Hebrew people were full of idolatry at the time and the reason behind hair length was part of that offense to God.

Fast forward to today we have a new covenant of grace and hair length is no longer a symbol of worship to a false God.

It doesn't matter.

[DARKastheRAIN]

The fruits you allude to being that long hair, which most likely wasn't copied off of paintings of Jesus anyway, and that you condemn only because you believe Paul's references to early 1st century BC culture to also be God's laws.

And what are the awful fruits of men having long hair?

[Rufus_1611]

Hair was an issue under the Mosaic system because the Hebrew people were full of idolatry at the time and the reason behind hair length was part of that offense to God.

Fast forward to today we have a new covenant of grace and hair length is no longer a symbol of worship to a false God.

It doesn't matter. Then why is hair discussed at length (the pun is free) in 1 Corinthians 11, written by Paul to the Christian Church of Corinth? If it doesn't matter, then what is the subject doing in the Bible?

[Rufus_1611]

The fruits you allude to being that long hair, which most likely wasn't copied off of paintings of Jesus anyway, and that you condemn only because you believe Paul's references to early 1st century BC culture to also be God's laws.

And what are the awful fruits of men having long hair? Rebelliousness and gender confusion.

[MrAnteater]

Then why is hair discussed at length (the pun is free) in 1 Corinthians 11, written by Paul to the Christian Church of Corinth? If it doesn't matter, then what is the subject doing in the Bible?

I don't think you understand the point of that text.

First, the point of the Corinthian Epistle was to address the idolatry, pride, lewdness, and gross indecency of the city and the church at the time. Not to give us a checklist of works we need to accomplish for salvation.

Second, because the culture of 1st century was still full of idolatry, this is directly relevant to what Paul was writing about. It was a pagan practice for women to uncover their head and men to have long hair, meaning, an outward symbol of worshiping a false God. Paul commands Christians to put down the practices of idolatry and paganism and worship the true God.

In today's society, hair style or covering of the head is not done in association with pagan rituals. It is a matter of personal preference and the freedom we enjoy in believing in Christ.

[Rebelnote]

In addition, the fruits of what these artists have done should be manifest. By their artwork of the Godhead, they have created false images of Jesus Christ, giving men justification for modeling themselves after the false image, rather than the true Word found in the Holy Bible.
Or your definition of "long" is wrong. You are going by a Roman definition of short.
All the historic and cultural study I've done says that Roman men had short, short (shaved to a few inches) hair, and never understood why Jewish men let their hair grown down to their shoulders.
Women also had MUCH longer hair, usually down past their waist.
In reality, it is more culturally accurate to show Jesus with longer dark hair. To show Jesus with shorter hair (a few inches) is to show a Jesus influenced by Roman and western culture, not Jewish culture of the time of Jesus.
Which also supports that what Paul meant by "long" does not mean that mens hair can only be a few inches long.
In addition, the Old Testament is filled with descriptions of both godly, and un-godly men having long hair.

[Rebelnote]

In addition, I don't see anywhere for scriptural support for hair-length in 1 Corinthians 11:11-17.

11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Verse 13 says judge for yourselves. THAT is the headliner pre-stating this is a CULTURAL issue, not a Biblical law.
The fact that it says "nature teaches" instead of God teaches is another hint. When you said God is a God who controls nature is true, the Bible is also clear that nature does not define God's laws. Take sex for example. Nature says that I'm ready to go reproduce, and spread my genes!
God's law says no, wait until marriage...
God's law often has us combating nature (usually our flesh).
And with the verse ending with "if anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God." It's saying to argue about hair-length and impose hair-length restrictions regardless of what nature says (women have a hormone that promotes longer hair-growth, men go bald) is not an example of Godliness.

Your position is not supported by this scripture, and with the Old Testament describing many Godly men with long hair, (and with the other verses describing about God looking at the heart and not outward appearance), I can only conclude that this passage is not creating a rule about hair-length. It's creating a rule about people who try to impose hair-length on anyone else.

[Izdaari]

Where did the American cultural considerations come from?

A blend of Christian, Greek, and Roman culture.... which the blend created ba da bum da! Western culture!
Pretty much, yep, and all the other things that went into creating Western European culture, and specifically the English culture that's the predominant element in American culture. One thing that factors in is that men often have to do military service and other 'dirty jobs' in which long hair is not practical.

But none of that has anything to do with what God expects of us, only what society expects of us.

[Rebelnote]

Pretty much, yep, and all the other things that went into creating Western European culture, and specifically the English culture that's the predominant element in American culture. One thing that factors in is that men often have to do military service and other 'dirty jobs' in which long hair is not practical.

But none of that has anything to do with what God expects of us, only what society expects of us.
What's funny is that in the Baroque/Romantic era of British culture men had long hair in pony tails with bows, make up, and very long extravagant wigs. :hmm:

[DARKastheRAIN]

Rebelliousness and gender confusion.

mmm hmmm

.....