PDA

View Full Version : Did Jesus have long hair?



Marc B
Nov 20th 2008, 02:18 PM
Likr you see in paintings and statues? If so then can you explain this /bible passage.


1 Corinthians 11
3 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-3.htm) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-4.htm) Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-5.htm) But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-6.htm) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-7.htm) For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-8.htm) For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-9.htm) for indeed man was not created for the womanís sake, but woman for the manís sake. 10 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-10.htm) Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-11.htm) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-12.htm) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-13.htm) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htm) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-15.htm) but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

RabbiKnife
Nov 20th 2008, 02:48 PM
We can state this for a certainty....

Jesus had hair. Other than that, we don't have a clue. But yes, he had a beard. We know that, too.

Brother Mark
Nov 20th 2008, 03:27 PM
Well, given there is only one passage that speaks to short hair, long hair, shame, etc. in scripture, then it's not that big an issue. Having stated that, Jesus was not a nazarite but a nazareen. My guess is that somewhere along the line, people got the two mixed up and so we have paintings of Jesus with long hair.

Doesn't matter as it's such a minor issue in scripture compared to other issues.

Emanate
Nov 20th 2008, 03:45 PM
Well, given their is only one passage that speaks to short hair, long hair, shame, etc. in scripture, then it's not that big an issue. Having stated that, Jesus was not a nazarite but a nazareen. My guess is that somewhere along the line, people got the two mixed up and so we have paintings of Jesus with long hair.

Doesn't matter as it's such a minor issue in scripture compared to other issues.


It is interesting that many people truly believe that nazarene and nazirite are interchangeable. I have had a few 'discussions' about this.

Emanate
Nov 20th 2008, 04:49 PM
We can state this for a certainty....

Jesus had hair. Other than that, we don't have a clue. But yes, he had a beard. We know that, too.


His beard was most likely big and scraggly.

Back2Front
Nov 20th 2008, 05:08 PM
We know that Christ was the perfect example of how to live in the law as he is the author.

The law states that one is not to cut the edges of his beard. Christ would have adhered to this. However his Payot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidelocks) would not have been some outstanding phylacteries that said, "SEEE... I OBEY THE LAW!". It would have been discrete and nondescript yet still understood he was compliant. This law also suggests that he in fact would have had long hair as well as a beard.

I actually have issues with this in my life. I have long hair for the same reason. I work with a lot of x-military, active military, and government officials. I get a lot of side comments all the time like, "Get a hair cut!". I laugh, and it goes away. Some know why I keep my hair long, and even some of the x-military have long hair for different reasons.

RJ Mac
Nov 20th 2008, 05:10 PM
Renascence man had long hair, and they are the ones doing the paintings.
Knowing the climate, having long hair wouldn't make sense neither would
a beard and a long one at that. So Emanate could you explain why He would
have a long scraggly beard, thanks.

He wasn't the blond, tall handsome character that many artists today portray.
At least according to my understanding of Isa.53:1-3
In fact the handsome one artists paint today would better describe Satan.
2Cor.11:14 who dresses himself as an angel of light.

So we buy into the Hollywood belief that handsome and beautiful are good
and ugly and fat are bad. Then we teach these things to our children by
simply buying the books that show Jesus in His splendor.

Beauty, brains and bucks - mans standards and we load them on the kids.
So what happens to those who don't have the standards are they evil?
Do they think themselves to be evil?

Does this shed light on dressing Goth? I don't know, just asking.

RJ

theBelovedDisciple
Nov 20th 2008, 05:29 PM
Whether He had a beard or not.. that really doesnt matter to me.. or even long hair.. I guess when I see Him face to face for the first time I will know.. I just 'know' He is who He says He is...and that without a doubt...

Here is some interesting scripture... characteristics of the Son of Man the 1st time He arrived on this planet...

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.



Jesus had no 'outward' appearance that made Him look beautiful and attract people to him... His Beauty was on the Inside.. He was Truly God in the flesh.. Full of Grace Mercy and Truth... and when He spoke... His Words are what attracted people and drew them to Him.. thru the work of the Holy Ghost... His Words spoken by God Himself.. moved the hearts of those who heard Him...

It also states in Isaiah that He was a 'man of sorrows'.. aquainted with grief.... He was despised and rejected of men.. He was not esteemed... He was the suffering Servant of Isaiah.. sent to Bear the sins of His people and the sins of the world.. those He bore on that bloody tree...

Next time He comes He's not coming as the suffering servant.. but the King of kings and Lord of lords... He has 'overcome' and won... and will return in Glory and Power .. He will come on the clouds... just as He did when He ascended.. to be seated at the the Right Hand of God the Father.. He will come again with Glory and Power... Amen...

Levin
Nov 21st 2008, 10:12 AM
Actually, it isn't necessarily true that Jesus didn't cut his hair. Such laws are found in Leviticus, and Jesus was not a Levite (He didn't have to follow such laws). I have no problem asserting that he cut his hair at times, but his hair was likely really curly and prone to afroing (He was Jewish).

Back2Front
Nov 21st 2008, 07:17 PM
Actually, it isn't necessarily true that Jesus didn't cut his hair. Such laws are found in Leviticus, and Jesus was not a Levite (He didn't have to follow such laws). I have no problem asserting that he cut his hair at times, but his hair was likely really curly and prone to afroing (He was Jewish).

Christ was, and still is the highest priest, and would have acted accordingly as a priest should per his own law. He obeyed his own law with absolute perfection, in all that he did, said, wore, and ate. He fulfilled it perfectly. He set the perfect example, and commands us to follow it.

We know through scripture that the hows, ways, and whys Christ lived in his law, was a complete affront to the hows, ways, and whys the ruling authority, through their sin, thought that it supposed to be lived. We see that yet today.

It's Christs hows, whys, and ways that people yet today struggle to figure out. Thus the phrase "Walking with Christ and working out our salvation".

Even those who have made their minds up as to the reasons for his death and resurrection, struggle with the hows, ways, and whys he lived his life. Some don't even consider it.

Through what I have been taught by the Holy Spirit, I know his resurrection in the flesh was made possible by hows, ways, and whys he lived perfectly in that same flesh, according to his laws of how to live in the flesh.

Further more, Salvation for me is of both Flesh and Spirit. No different than Christ perfect in both to this day. This results in the knowledge that if one lives according to the true Spirit, then it will manifest in the Flesh through the law of the flesh, as it manifested in the flesh of the one who has the true Spirit, being Christ. That is to say that if one seeks the true perfect Spirit, the true perfect flesh will be sought and found as well.

Conversely, if one seeks the true perfect flesh, then the true perfect Spirit will be sought and found as well. What good is one without the other? What does one really have if they only have one, and not the other? If one thinks they have one, and don't have the other, do they really have the one?

Who claims to have the true Spirit, yet no fruits in their Flesh?

Who claims to have the true flesh, yet no fruits in their Spirit?

Those of Christs day who claimed to have the true Flesh, had to manifest a false spirit to justify their sinful hows, ways, and whys they lived in that flesh. In the exact same way, those of today who claim to have the true Spirit, have to manifest a false flesh to justify the hows, ways, and whys they live in that Spirit.

Marc B
Nov 21st 2008, 07:32 PM
Back to the subject at hand, remember this. Jesus was able to walk around unnoticed until he became well known to everyone around him so he had to look like everyone else. If you look at history men had short hair in those days, some clean shaven and others with beards.

Back2Front
Nov 21st 2008, 07:41 PM
Back to the subject at hand, remember this. Jesus was able to walk around unnoticed until he became well known to everyone around him

I can relate.


so he had to look like everyone else. If you look at history men had short hair in those days, some clean shaven and others with beards.

No different than today. Especially with a huge influence from Rome twined into the culture.

Back2Front
Nov 21st 2008, 07:52 PM
so he had to look like everyone else.

He had to do what he was sent to do. Live according to his own law, perfect in both Spirit and Flesh, die, and rise from the dead for the Salvation of the world.

He looked like the Christ. He looked like one who lived perfectly in the law. I don't think anyone else looked that way. Nor do I think he looked like anyone else as he was the Christ. He only looked like the Christ to those who believed he was, and like a demon to those who didn't believe yet knew he was who he said he was. The rest were to wrapped up in themselves and their own way of doing things to even care.

theBelovedDisciple
Nov 21st 2008, 07:52 PM
Christ was, and still is the highest priest, and would have acted accordingly as a priest should per his own law. He obeyed his own law with absolute perfection, in all that he did, said, wore, and ate. He fulfilled it perfectly. He set the perfect example, and commands us to follow it.

We know through scripture that the hows, ways, and whys Christ lived in his law, was a complete affront to the hows, ways, and whys the ruling authority, through their sin, thought that it supposed to be lived. We see that yet today.

It's Christs hows, whys, and ways that people yet today struggle to figure out. Thus the phrase "Walking with Christ and working out our salvation".

Even those who have made their minds up as to the reasons for his death and resurrection, struggle with the hows, ways, and whys he lived his life. Some don't even consider it.

Through what I have been taught by the Holy Spirit, I know his resurrection in the flesh was made possible by hows, ways, and whys he lived perfectly in that same flesh, according to his laws of how to live in the flesh.

Further more, Salvation for me is of both Flesh and Spirit. No different than Christ perfect in both to this day. This results in the knowledge that if one lives according to the true Spirit, then it will manifest in the Flesh through the law of the flesh, as it did in the flesh of the one who has the true Spirit, being Christ. That is to say that if one seeks the true perfect Spirit, the true perfect flesh will be sought and found as well.

Conversely, if one seeks the true perfect flesh, then the true perfect Spirit will be sought and found as well. What good is one without the other? What does one really have if they only have one, and not the other? If one thinks they have one, and don't have the other, do they really have the one?

Who claims to have the true Spirit, yet no fruits in their Flesh?

Who claims to have the true flesh, yet no fruits in their Spirit?

Those of Christs day who claimed to have the true Flesh, had to manifest a false spirit to justify their sinful hows, ways, and whys they lived in that flesh. In the exact same way, those of today who claim to have the true Spirit, have to manifest a false flesh to justify the hows, ways, and whys they live in that Spirit.


-------------------------------

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.


My friend...


Paul talks about his flesh having no good thing.. not that its evil, but that its 'weak' ...

I for one along with Paul have no confidence in my flesh... and he states it in this verse....

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.



I'm curious as to what you mean by 'true flesh'...... as far as it refers to 'believers'....

Alaska
Nov 22nd 2008, 05:57 PM
Doesn't matter as it's such a minor issue in scripture compared to other issues.


So doing something shameful is a minor issue.
You say it is minor because it is only mentioned once, yet Paul goes to great lengths in about 16 verses addressing the issue of covering basing it on God's intention at creation and the truth as it pertains to our behaviour now and you will call that minor.
I don't think so.
Or should anything shameful be allowed since the man having long hair is shameful so shameful things are "minor"?
What kind of lukewarm, watered down, liberal Gospel of truth is that?

mikebr
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:15 PM
Likr you see in paintings and statues? If so then can you explain this /bible passage.


1 Corinthians 11
3 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-3.htm) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-4.htm) Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-5.htm) But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-6.htm) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-7.htm) For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-8.htm) For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-9.htm) for indeed man was not created for the womanís sake, but woman for the manís sake. 10 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-10.htm) Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-11.htm) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-12.htm) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-13.htm) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htm) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-15.htm) but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Define long.

Hair on your collar, sin in your heart long or down to your waist long?

mikebr
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:19 PM
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, 15 whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? 16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.



Why did you leave this verse out?

Back2Front
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:35 PM
-------------------------------

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.


My friend...


Paul talks about his flesh having no good thing.. not that its evil, but that its 'weak' ...

I for one along with Paul have no confidence in my flesh... and he states it in this verse....

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.



I'm curious as to what you mean by 'true flesh'...... as far as it refers to 'believers'....

Through the flesh is where we live. We have no choice. By the Spirit in that flesh is how we attempt to live, always falling short. To put your confidence in the flesh is indeed in error. To put your Confidence in the Spirit, and for that Spirit to manifest through the flesh is the fruits.

If the Spirit does not manifest in the flesh by how we act, what we say, what we do, how we treat others, and how we treat ourselves and does not produce fruits for that Spirit through the flesh, then what Spirit do we really have?

In a nutshell, feeding the poor as an act of the flesh by the Spirit for the Spirit, is a fruit.

Feeding the poor as an act of the flesh to get a congregation to pat you on the back for it, is dead in the flesh and spirit by the actor. Yet God still gets the poor fed.

Persecuting, rebuking, and telling others they need to feed the poor as an act by the Spirit, but you yourself won't in your flesh, is dead in flesh and Spirit by the actor. Yet God still gets the poor fed.

True flesh is the same as Christs true flesh who rose in Spirit and flesh. I seek the same knowing I will always fall short. But falling short is not an excuse not to sacrifice my flesh in obedience to the law, as he did his.

The difference is my flesh is sacrificed for him through my sin in attempted obedience to his law and his example of how to live it. Whereas his sacrifice is his perfect obedience to his law that covers where I fall short in my efforts. But he demands my efforts nonetheless.

Better said, Grace takes over only where I inevitably will fall short in my humanism, not where I choose to fall short in active sin knowing the law.

Put another way: Justifying why I don't have to follow the law for the sake of not following the law, is not the same as attempting to follow the law at the cost of my life, knowing I will fall short and hoping and having faith that Grace will cover those short fallings.

divaD
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:36 PM
Define long.

Hair on your collar, sin in your heart long or down to your waist long?



Actually, this is the problem. If we can define long according to man's standards, how would we define long according to God's standards? Afterall, if long hair on a man is actually a sin in God's eyes, how do we know what is long hair to God, and what is not? If God didn't want man to have long hair, then man wouldn't have hair that could grow. Take the hair on your arms for instance. This hair only grows so much. There is never a need to trim it. I'm 50 yrs old and have never trimmed the hair on my forearms nor ever needed to. I wonder why God didn't design man's head of hair in the same manner, if it were a sin to have long hair. And why is it that the male can grow both facial and a head of hair, while the woman can only grow a head of hair, but not facial hair?

IMO, too many are being legalistic if they're judging a man by the length of his hair. God doesn't see man the way man sees man, God sees man thru man's heart.

mikebr
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:53 PM
Actually, this is the problem. If we can define long according to man's standards, how would we define long according to God's standards? Afterall, if long hair on a man is actually a sin in God's eyes, how do we know what is long hair to God, and what is not? If God didn't want man to have long hair, then man wouldn't have hair that could grow. Take the hair on your arms for instance. This hair only grows so much. There is never a need to trim it. I'm 50 yrs old and have never trimmed the hair on my forearms nor ever needed to. I wonder why God didn't design man's head of hair in the same manner, if it were a sin to have long hair. And why is it that the male can grow both facial and a head of hair, while the woman can only grow a head of hair, but not facial hair?

IMO, too many are being legalistic if they're judging a man by the length of his hair. God doesn't see man the way man sees man, God sees man thru man's heart.


We are in complete agreement. I really like your example of arm hair. Great insight.:idea:

Back2Front
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:07 PM
In a nutshell, feeding the poor as an act of the flesh by the Spirit for the Spirit, is a fruit.

So how do I think this is this done?

I read what he commands me in my Torah, then compare it to how He did it in his life.

This way, I obey it in my flesh as he clearly commands me to do, and I do it using the Spirit in which it was intended (meaning the Spirit of love and sacrifice as he loved and sacrificed for others). If it is done this way, it eliminates any guessing or having to make it up, or justifying why. The why becomes simply, "he commands it", and the Spirit becomes the justification rather than my sinful agenda.

Back2Front
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:15 PM
IMO, too many are being legalistic if they're judging a man by the length of his hair. God doesn't see man the way man sees man, God sees man thru man's heart.

Amen to this!

Moreover, God sees a mans heart through his intent to obey his laws, commands, and decrees through the Spirit of Love and sacrifice of said mans life, as Gods son set the example for us to follow.

As we all know, Christs life is the measuring stick and standard by which all hearts and intents towards the law are judged.

theLogos
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:27 PM
Define long.


Yes. That is what should be understood. In Jesus' time, hair on a woman was down to the middle of her back or to her waist. So if this is to be the measure of long hair than if a man had shoulder length hair that would not be considered long, now would it? In fact, I would argue that hair that long on a man was probably common in that time and location(although that is just my opinion, I would have to look into it more for evidence).

But in any case, what does it matter? This was an issue that early on in my christian walk that I really thought a lot about. But as I have grown I have realized that it is an absolutely fruitless endeavor, even if it is an interesting one by human standards. Jesus is who He is. So whether His hair was/is "long" it should be of no consequence to us. We love and obey Him not because of the length of His hair but because of who He is and what He has done and continues to do for us.

Back2Front
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:37 PM
The real point here for me is:

No matter what you do, no matter how small or big, do it for the lord, and do it out of obedience to his law, and obey in the Spirit of the Lord. Do it as Christ did it.

If the Torah comes right out and Says:

Grow your hair long!

Which it doesn't particularly, then Grow it Long.

If it says:

Cut your Hair!

Which it doesn't particularly, then cut it.

Fact is, you consulted his law of the flesh as given by God and that you are commanded to consult. The Spirit convicted you one way or the other using Christ as your example. You have acted in that Spirit for the Spirit sake in your flesh. The result is the Spirit manifest in the flesh. No matter what, THERE IS GOING TO BE CONSEQUENCE, always. That consequence will always ultimately result in your death on this earth.

The question becomes:

Did you live according to your own sinful justifications, or according to the Spirit Justifying you?

Lamplighter
Nov 23rd 2008, 01:38 AM
Likr you see in paintings and statues? If so then can you explain this /bible passage.


1 Corinthians 11
3 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-3.htm) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-4.htm) Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-5.htm) But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-6.htm) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-7.htm) For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-8.htm) For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-9.htm) for indeed man was not created for the womanís sake, but woman for the manís sake. 10 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-10.htm) Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-11.htm) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-12.htm) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-13.htm) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htm) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-15.htm) but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Just so you know, the context of 1 Cor 11:3-13 has nothing to do with the hair length of a man.

It is addressing the role of Christ, the husband, and the wife in a Christian marriage relationship as established in verse 3.

Secondly, I think Christ had shaggy hair and a long beard. But it doesn't matter either way.

livingwaters
Nov 23rd 2008, 02:36 AM
Hebrews 6:4-7:


4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

RabbiKnife
Nov 24th 2008, 02:41 PM
Why did you leave this verse out?

Because it ruins our argument about short hair on men if we understand, as Paul did, that this was a particular localized issue in Corinth related to temple prostitution.