Women Cutting Their Hair, Please Help.

[deltaguitar]

Ok, so basically I am UPC and have been all of my life. And as much as I want to believe what I have been taught it is very hard for me to get that a woman's hair should be uncut based on 1 Corinthians 11.

Can anyone help me reconcile myself with the UPC doctrine?

:nod

[nathan_slatter]

Ok, so basically I am UPC and have been all of my life. And as much as I want to believe what I have been taught it is very hard for me to get that a woman's hair should be uncut based on 1 Corinthians 11.

Can anyone help me reconcile myself with the UPC doctrine?

:nod

No... :D

[Malvaro]

Ok, so basically I am UPC and have been all of my life. And as much as I want to believe what I have been taught it is very hard for me to get that a woman's hair should be uncut based on 1 Corinthians 11.

Can anyone help me reconcile myself with the UPC doctrine?

:nod

If you want to believe it, then why is it so hard? it's in there, isn't it?

[CC1]

Ok, so basically I am UPC and have been all of my life. And as much as I want to believe what I have been taught it is very hard for me to get that a woman's hair should be uncut based on 1 Corinthians 11.

Can anyone help me reconcile myself with the UPC doctrine?

:nod

Just shutup and obey. You don't want to be a witch do you?

Questioning is rebellion. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

Don't listen to those goofy libs who point out that Paul was dealing with a specific cultural issue of his day and that this whole thing was an example of how a local church / pastor is to handle things rather than an absolute injunction for women throughout the ages not to cut their hair.

Next I guess you will be starting a thread claiming that the Bible does not teach against makeup, pants, or jewelry.:haloplug

[berkeley]

If you want to believe it, then why is it so hard? it's in there, isn't it?

If it was in there, she wouldn't have a hard time believing it, would she?

[berkeley]

Just shutup and obey. You don't want to be a witch do you?

Questioning is rebellion. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

Don't listen to those goofy libs who point out that Paul was dealing with a specific cultural issue of his day and that this whole thing was an example of how a local church / pastor is to handle things rather than an absolute injunction for women throughout the ages not to cut their hair.

Next I guess you will be starting a thread claiming that the Bible does not teach against makeup, pants, or jewelry.:haloplug

You did not answer my question yesterday, so I am placing you on ignore!!! But, that was a funny post.

[deltaguitar]

Really, my church is UPC. My wife does not cut her hair. However, I can read and study the bible and I don't get uncut out of it.

Now if you take the stance that this is not cultural and that it applies to christians of today the only thing I get is that longer hair might possibly be more please and respectful towards the husband. Am I reading this wrong?

[CC1]

You did not answer my question yesterday, so I am placing you on ignore!!! But, that was a funny post.

I didn't see your question. Where is it and what was it?

[berkeley]

Really, my church is UPC. My wife does not cut her hair. However, I can read and study the bible and I don't get uncut out of it.

Now if you take the stance that this is not cultural and that it applies to christians of today the only thing I get is that longer hair might possibly be more please and respectful towards the husband. Am I reading this wrong?
Read it again, and you may see something different. Everytime I go over that passage I get something else.

[berkeley]

I didn't see your question. Wher is it and what was it?

LoL. It wasn't in the form of a question. I asked you to share your journey from con to lib. You don't have to. Or you can PM me.. whatevah.. it's your call.

[Jack Shephard]

Really, my church is UPC. My wife does not cut her hair. However, I can read and study the bible and I don't get uncut out of it.

Now if you take the stance that this is not cultural and that it applies to christians of today the only thing I get is that longer hair might possibly be more please and respectful towards the husband. Am I reading this wrong?

Delta, you got it on track. The fact is that the scripture in Corinthians is not talking about cutting hair. It is talking about submission to authority. I started out having the same question you have now. My wife does not cut, burn or color either. But I have told her that the truth is that the verses that the UPC controlers have taught that it is wrong but at a closer look the scripture is taken out of context.

[deltaguitar]

Delta, you got it on track. The fact is that the scripture in Corinthians is not talking about cutting hair. It is talking about submission to authority. I started out having the same question you have now. My wife does not cut, burn or color either. But I have told her that the truth is that the verses that the UPC controlers have taught that it is wrong but at a closer look the scripture is taken out of context.

Well, I have no problem following the standards of the UPC even if I know they are sometimes wrong because I want unity in our church. Also, I have no problem trusting those who are older and have more wisdom than me. But it amazes me that people I know who have been to Bible College can't even agree that this passage of scripture might at least be debatable.

[BrotherEastman]

If it was in there, she wouldn't have a hard time believing it, would she?
He, Berk, deltaguitar is a he.

[berkeley]

Sorry delta... my bad.

[CC1]

LoL. It wasn't in the form of a question. I asked you to share your journey from con to lib. You don't have to. Or you can PM me.. whatevah.. it's your call.

Oh, I didn't see that.

Easy. Been there, done that, got the T Shirt. Ain't going back.:lol

Actually I was raised in a very conservative UPC church in Alaska with a great pastor.

I was an inner lib all along as at an early age I noticed the many inconsistencies in old time Pentecostal thinking when it came to so called "standards".

I will elaborate later on another thread.

[Rico]

Really, my church is UPC. My wife does not cut her hair. However, I can read and study the bible and I don't get uncut out of it.

Now if you take the stance that this is not cultural and that it applies to christians of today the only thing I get is that longer hair might possibly be more please and respectful towards the husband. Am I reading this wrong?

And another starts the ride down the slippery slope. Welcome to da club, Bro. :)

[berkeley]

Oh, I didn't see that.

Easy. Been there, done that, got the T Shirt. Ain't going back.:lol

Actually I was raised in a very conservative UPC church in Alaska with a great pastor.

I was an inner lib all along as at an early age I noticed the many inconsistencies in old time Pentecostal thinking when it came to so called "standards".

I will elaborate later on another thread.

I will be looking forward to reading that...

thanks

[Jack Shephard]

Well, I have no problem following the standards of the UPC even if I know they are sometimes wrong because I want unity in our church. Also, I have no problem trusting those who are older and have more wisdom than me. But it amazes me that people I know who have been to Bible College can't even agree that this passage of scripture might at least be debatable.

You can follow the dress code set forth, it is easier for a man to do so. But to say it is for the sake of unity that is different. There is sooooo many more thing essential to unity than the dress code. If you are doing it to obey the minister that is ok too. But unity has very little if anything to do with the dress code and cutting hair. The unity should be because of the Acts 2:38.

You will never find that there is verse that everyone agrees on. That is why are admonish to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Walk circumspectly before Him, not before man.

[mfblume]

Ok, so basically I am UPC and have been all of my life. And as much as I want to believe what I have been taught it is very hard for me to get that a woman's hair should be uncut based on 1 Corinthians 11.

Can anyone help me reconcile myself with the UPC doctrine?

:nod

It's not uncut, it's just LONG. Let's not change the Word of God.

[ILG]

Really, my church is UPC. My wife does not cut her hair. However, I can read and study the bible and I don't get uncut out of it.

Now if you take the stance that this is not cultural and that it applies to christians of today the only thing I get is that longer hair might possibly be more please and respectful towards the husband. Am I reading this wrong?

That's what I get out of it too.

[ILG]

Well, I have no problem following the standards of the UPC even if I know they are sometimes wrong because I want unity in our church. Also, I have no problem trusting those who are older and have more wisdom than me. But it amazes me that people I know who have been to Bible College can't even agree that this passage of scripture might at least be debatable.

Is it unity? Or conformity?

[SDG]

It's not uncut, it's just LONG. Let's not change the Word of God.


Galatians 10:6 - 10:“ I wonder, at how you so speedily move from the one who called to you in the grace of Christ, to another gospel…. those who upset you and meaning to turn about the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preaches to you the gospel different to how we preach it, let it be an anathema ….if anyone preaches to you differently than what was received by you, le it be an anathema”

Proverbs 30:5 - 6: “Every word of the Lord is tested….. Do not add to His words, in case He ever checks you and you are found to be a liar”


Deuteronomy 4: 2: “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you deduct from it, so that you might guard the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you”

Deuteronomy 12:32: “Everything that I command you to do, make sure that you do it; you shall not add to it, nor remove anything from it”



Revelations 22 “…to the prophecy of this book if anyone adds anything, God shall add upon him afflictions…. And if anyone removes something from the book of this prophecy, God shall remove….. from the tree of life…”

[philjones]

It's not uncut, it's just LONG. Let's not change the Word of God.

Keep in mind that one man's short is another woman's long!:lol It then becomes relative and unable to be defined other than in a personally subjective manner. Therefore, there is no real expectation regarding hair and the writing of Paul is egregious and superfluous!:haloplug

[ILG]

What I want to know is if it is a shame for a man to have long hair, why did God command Samson not to cut his?

[SDG]

Keep in mind that one man's short is another woman's long!:lol It then becomes relative and unable to be defined other than in a personally subjective manner. Therefore, there is no real expectation regarding hair and the writing of Paul is egregious and superfluous!:haloplug

Agreed ... but to add to the word and state it should be UNCUT is dangerous ground to tread.

[philjones]

Agreed ... but to add to the word and state it should be UNCUT is dangerous ground to tread.

Without a doubt, adding to the Word of God is grievous error!

[ILG]

What I want to know is if it is a shame for a man to have long hair, why did God command Samson not to cut his?

Bump! I'm serious folks. I don't want men to have long hair and I do believe it is a shame, but I don't get this and never have.

[mfblume]

Keep in mind that one man's short is another woman's long!:lol It then becomes relative and unable to be defined other than in a personally subjective manner. Therefore, there is no real expectation regarding hair and the writing of Paul is egregious and superfluous!:haloplug

There are extremes both ways, for sure, and both are wrong. I think the line we have to draw cannot be made with a ruler. It is when something LOOKS masculine and no longer feminine that it is short. The spirit of a thing is the entire point. :)

[BrotherEastman]

Bump! I'm serious folks. I don't want men to have long hair and I do believe it is a shame, but I don't get this and never have.
Samson was a nazarite from what I understand. A jewish boy will have his head shaved at his Bar-mizvah when he turns 13. A Nazarite would not shave his head if he had a nazarite vow. The story of Samson was that he was not to have a razor to his head, not that he wasn't allowed to cut his hair with shears, there is a difference between allowing a razor to come to your hair, and allowing shears (or scissors) to come to your hair. I hope this helps. see Judges 13:5 It says razor, not shears according to the custom of the Jewish Nazarite vow.

[Tech]

Ok, so basically I am UPC and have been all of my life. And as much as I want to believe what I have been taught it is very hard for me to get that a woman's hair should be uncut based on 1 Corinthians 11.

Can anyone help me reconcile myself with the UPC doctrine?

:nod

You will not be able to reconcile yourself with this UPC doctrine, because that is not what it says.

It is sad for me to see some of the ladies that i grew up with that are elderly now.Becuse they never trimmed the dead ends off their hair ,it is unhealthy and some are loosing their hair.It makes no sense to me at all.

Some local Pentecostal ladies were eating lunch with my wife a while back.They told her it was wrong for her to cut her hair,but they could teach her how to break it off with a hot curling iron.

I am curious ,is this a common practice?

[BrotherEastman]

You will not be able to reconcile yourself with this UPC doctrine, because that is not what it says.

It is sad for me to see some of the ladies that i grew up with that are elderly now.Becuse they never trimmed the dead ends off their hair ,it is unhealthy and some are loosing their hair.It makes no sense to me at all.

Some local Pentecostal ladies were eating lunch with my wife a while back.They told her it was wrong for her to cut her hair,but they could teach her how to break it off with a hot curling iron.

I am curious ,is this a common practice?
I'm sorry about the inconsistancy with this story. My wife doesn't use a hot curling iron. If the hair falls off then so be it. I'm sorry they did that with your wife, really I am.

[berkeley]

You will not be able to reconcile yourself with this UPC doctrine, because that is not what it says.

It is sad for me to see some of the ladies that i grew up with that are elderly now.Becuse they never trimmed the dead ends off their hair ,it is unhealthy and some are loosing their hair.It makes no sense to me at all.

Some local Pentecostal ladies were eating lunch with my wife a while back.They told her it was wrong for her to cut her hair,but they could teach her how to break it off with a hot curling iron.

I am curious ,is this a common practice?

:lol

[Tech]

I'm sorry about the inconsistancy with this story. My wife doesn't use a hot curling iron. If the hair falls off then so be it. I'm sorry they did that with your wife, really I am.

I was not accusing anyones wife brother.I was just wondering if this is a common practice.These ladies were from two different churches in this area both UPC.

I just told the wife to ignore them.:club

[Tech]

:lol

It is funny in a way Berkley,but at the same time sad.:sshhh

[berkeley]

It is funny in a way Berkley,but at the same time sad.:sshhh

Yes, they have found a way to make the word of God to no effect (if in fact it is anti'cut)

[SDG]

It is funny in a way Berkley,but at the same time sad.:sshhh

It's as pitiful as Atlanta Bishop's son who encountered a UPCI girl at camp and showed him her baby she had out of wedlock ... while stating ... "At least I didn't cut my hair"

[Sam]

What I want to know is if it is a shame for a man to have long hair, why did God command Samson not to cut his?

In the Old Testament both men and women could take a Nazirite vow.
Part of the vow was that they would not cut their hair for a specific period.
This could be as long as a lifetime in the case of Samson (Judges 13:5), Samuel ( 1 Sam. 1:11) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15), but was (from what I have read) usually just for a month. This is found in Numbers chapter 6. Paul the Apostle practiced this at least once (Acts 18:18) and when he went to Jerusalem (Acts 21:20-27) he sponsored some Jewish brethren in their Nazirite vow by paying for the animal sacrifice for them. So under the Old Testament it was customary for both men and women to cut their hair but they could take a vow and not cut it for a while as an act of consecration.

The "shame for a man to have long hair" and the shaved head for a woman refers to a custom of cross dressing practiced by men and women at that time and in that area as part of heathen sex rituals of a religion practiced at that time.

[COOPER]

Really, my church is UPC. My wife does not cut her hair. However, I can read and study the bible and I don't get uncut out of it.

Now if you take the stance that this is not cultural and that it applies to Christians of today the only thing I get is that longer hair might possibly be more please and respectful to wards the husband. Am I reading this wrong?

History shows that Paul's writing on hair was sixty years after Pentecost.

What about the women that cut their hair before that?

I believe it was a struggle of traditions even then. The Jews wanted to make Gentiles get circumcised.

[Sam]

A site that addresses this and some other issues is:
http://www.actseighteen.com/

The hair issue is addressed in:
http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/uncuthair.htm

[Sherri]

You will not be able to reconcile yourself with this UPC doctrine, because that is not what it says.

It is sad for me to see some of the ladies that i grew up with that are elderly now.Becuse they never trimmed the dead ends off their hair ,it is unhealthy and some are loosing their hair.It makes no sense to me at all.

Some local Pentecostal ladies were eating lunch with my wife a while back.They told her it was wrong for her to cut her hair,but they could teach her how to break it off with a hot curling iron.

I am curious ,is this a common practice?

It is for those who want to live by the letter of the law, but it's not in their hearts. I know several who have never "cut" their hair with scissors, but they have burned it, pulled it out, broken it off, etc. Those women are like the Pharisees who just obey enough to get by, or so they think.

I would bet God is just thinking, "IT'S JUST HAIR; What's the big deal?" But that's just my opinion. :lol

[Sam]

When I came here to SW Ohio in the spring of 1957, many of the women and teen age girls in the local UPC church had "long" hair. This church was pastored by the Dist. Supt. Bro. F.E. Curts. At that time it was taught among the ladies that putting your hair up tightly in bobby pins could keep it from getting too long and also that hot curling irons could burn it to keep it from getting too long. A teenage girl (who was to later become my wife) who was a new Christian was "shocked" when her cousin (currently a UPC pastor's wife) and the pastor's granddaughter both got their hair "trimmed" for youth camp. Some believed that trimming was OK because it was not really cutting.

[Theresa]

LoL. It wasn't in the form of a question. I asked you to share your journey from con to lib. You don't have to. Or you can PM me.. whatevah.. it's your call.

his journey?

nahhh - his wife said so, so he did ROFL!!!!!!!!

[Tech]

It's as pitiful as Atlanta Bishop's son who encountered a UPCI girl at camp and showed him her baby she had out of wedlock ... while stating ... "At least I didn't cut my hair"

That is pitifull Dan.But when 4 out of 5 messages these children here preached are about standards, their understanding about what is right and wrong becomes distorted.

There is so much time spent preaching about how a person should look, that the important issues in a persons life are neglected.

I had these things drilled so deep into my head that it took me years to get past them.Even after i realized that they were not biblical truths.

[berkeley]

his journey?

nahhh - his wife said so, so he did ROFL!!!!!!!!

CC1,

What is your response to this accusation??

[Trouvere]

To God everything means something.Its that heart He is looking at.I would never try to suppose what He is thinking.Its not just hair when someone has vowed a vow.Paul vowed a vow and then later shaved when he completed his vow,did God say it was just hair?Sampsons strengh was his uncut hair.Why did his uncut hair give him strength and when it was cut he had none? I am not thinking the magic hair doctrine but I know the word does not lie and that when the hair grew back and his vow was again in place along came the annointing and strength.Guess what? He did not cut his own hair but he did play with his vow and gamble it away as unimportant.So is it just hair to God? I don't know.So because of this I don't veer into areas that I consider the marriage bed of God.The intimate place where promises are made and covenants are born.I would never ever step there.Its not a good thing to under mine anyones dedication or consecrations.God just may like them.I don't dress in a dress to my neck and wear a veil but if my sister does who knows if God doesn't like what she does for him? Some places are sacred places and altars of self sacrifice and dying to self will.I worry about myself and what my sister does or doesn't do is not my concern.I also don't want to be a stumbling
block for anyone.That will anger the Lord for sure.

[Jack Shephard]

That is pitifull Dan.But when 4 out of 5 messages these children here preached are about standards, their understanding about what is right and wrong becomes distorted.

There is so much time spent preaching about how a person should look, that the important issues in a persons life are neglected.

I had these things drilled so deep into my head that it took me years to get past them.Even after i realized that they were not biblical truths.

Wow Tech, well said. I was the same way. My pastors growing up were very balanced with preaching. Although most of the messages touched on "righteous living." I have heard my former pastor say that if you even "mess around" before marriage you are a "whoremunger." That is how hard he preached somethings. I have heard a UPC pastor at a church I attended that TV is a sin.

I agree 100% that there is not enough preaching on other topics that accually are cause and affect in our lives. I have been in this Oneness Pentecostal movement for over 20 yrs and I have only heard maybe 3 messages on sex in that marriage. I have heard alot about sex outside marriage, but not many on how sex in the marriage is healthy, etc. Ya feel?

[BrotherEastman]

To God everything means something.Its that heart He is looking at.I would never try to suppose what He is thinking.Its not just hair when someone has vowed a vow.Paul vowed a vow and then later shaved when he completed his vow,did God say it was just hair?Sampsons strengh was his uncut hair.Why did his uncut hair give him strength and when it was cut he had none? I am not thinking the magic hair doctrine but I know the word does not lie and that when the hair grew back and his vow was again in place along came the annointing and strength.Guess what? He did not cut his own hair but he did play with his vow and gamble it away as unimportant.So is it just hair to God? I don't know.So because of this I don't veer into areas that I consider the marriage bed of God.The intimate place where promises are made and covenants are born.I would never ever step there.Its not a good thing to under mine anyones dedication or consecrations.God just may like them.I don't dress in a dress to my neck and wear a veil but if my sister does who knows if God doesn't like what she does for him? Some places are sacred places and altars of self sacrifice and dying to self will.I worry about myself and what my sister does or doesn't do is not my concern.I also don't want to be a stumbling
block for anyone.That will anger the Lord for sure.
Trouvere, you say Samsons strength was in his UNCUT hair. How do you know that his hair wasn't cut? Read my previuos post.

[BrotherEastman]

Samson was a nazarite from what I understand. A jewish boy will have his head shaved at his Bar-mizvah when he turns 13. A Nazarite would not shave his head if he had a nazarite vow. The story of Samson was that he was not to have a razor to his head, not that he wasn't allowed to cut his hair with shears, there is a difference between allowing a razor to come to your hair, and allowing shears (or scissors) to come to your hair. I hope this helps. see Judges 13:5 It says razor, not shears according to the custom of the Jewish Nazarite vow.
*bump for ILG*

[deltaguitar]

A site that addresses this and some other issues is:
http://www.actseighteen.com/

The hair issue is addressed in:
http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/uncuthair.htm

Thank you sir.

[SDG]

Samson was a nazarite from what I understand. A jewish boy will have his head shaved at his Bar-mizvah when he turns 13. A Nazarite would not shave his head if he had a nazarite vow. The story of Samson was that he was not to have a razor to his head, not that he wasn't allowed to cut his hair with shears, there is a difference between allowing a razor to come to your hair, and allowing shears (or scissors) to come to your hair. I hope this helps. see Judges 13:5 It says razor, not shears according to the custom of the Jewish Nazarite vow.

Trouvere, you say Samsons strength was in his UNCUT hair. How do you know that his hair wasn't cut? Read my previuos post.

It seems to me once again you are trying to fit the bible into your paradigm ... brother Eastman ... I can't find any biblical, theological or rabbinical support that the Nazarite vow did allow for cutting of hair of any sorts ... you are allowing your Jimmy English KJV once again predicate your doctrine

Wiki:

Being a nazirite

This vow required the man or woman to observe the following:
Abstain from wine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine), wine vinegar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar), grapes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapes), raisins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisins), and according - to some alcohol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol) and vinegar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar) from alcohol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol);
Refrain from cutting the hair on one's head;
Avoid corpses and graves, even those of family members, and any structure which contains such.It is also forbidden for the nazirite to have grape, or grape derivatives even if they are not alcoholic. According to Rabbinical interpretation there is no prohibition for the nazirite to drink alcoholic beverages not derived from grapes.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite#_note-11) According to non-Rabbinical interpretation a Nazarite is forbidden to consume any alcohol, and vinegar from such alcohol, regardless of its source. The laws of wine or grapes mixing in other food is similar to other dietary laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut) that apply to all Jews.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite#_note-12)

A nazirite can groom his hair with his hand or scratch his head and needn’t be concerned if some hair falls out. However a nazirite cannot comb his hair since it is a near certainty to pull out some hair. A nazirite is not allowed to use a chemical depilatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_depilatory) that will remove hair.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite#_note-13) A nazirite that recovers from Tzaraath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraath), a skin disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermatology) described in Leviticus 14 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Leviticus&verse=14&src=JP), is obligated to cut his hair despite being a nazirite.


The nazirite (except for a Samson-like nazirite as stated above) may not become ritually impure by a dead body. This includes not being under the same roof as a corpse. However a nazirite can contract other kinds of ritual impurity. A nazirite that finds an unburied corpse is obligated to bury it, even though he will become defiled in the process.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite#_note-14)
-----------------------------------------------

In Judge 16 ... Samson uses the word razor however in the hebrew it is in the sense and tense of shearing .... using the word transliterated word mo-raw

hrwm from (04171 (http://studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=004171)) in the sense of shearing


So he told (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05046) her all (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03605) that was in his heart (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03820) and said (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0559) to her, "A razor (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=04177) has never (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03808) come (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05927) on my head (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07218), for I have been a Nazirite (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05139) to God (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430) from my mother's (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0517) womb (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0990). If (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0518) I am shaved (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01548), then my strength (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03581) will leave (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05493) * (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=04480) me and I will become (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02470) weak (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02470) and be like any (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03605) other man (http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0120)."

[ForeverBlessed]

Well, I have no problem following the standards of the UPC even if I know they are sometimes wrong because I want unity in our church. Also, I have no problem trusting those who are older and have more wisdom than me. But it amazes me that people I know who have been to Bible College can't even agree that this passage of scripture might at least be debatable.

Someone close to me is a minister w/UPC. I started talking about the hair subject with him recently. In talking, I brought up the word shorn... had he ever looked up the meaning? Did he realize that it meant cut close to the head? Did he realize that it goes hand in hand w/shaven... think sheep and cutting off all the hair. From the expression on his face, it was clear that he had not. So, I continued talking to him... and I sent him an email stating in detail what I've found in studying. He read it and promised me that he will study it out. He's been really busy right now, been oversees working w/missions, but I know that he will do it because he promised me.

I might be a little predudice, but he is intelligent and is an excellent speaker... he is an awesome preacher and teacher. He really studies the Greek and Hebrew on everything. I was amazed he hadn't ever studied this subject closely. Of course he is a man and hair doesn't really pertain to him all that much. :) I do know that he once promoted RR and her "power in hair" message and absolutely does not believe that now... and I know that he doesn't believe cutting hair will send you to hell. *sigh of relief*

I am not for a total abandonment of standards.. I just want truth taught.... and nothing more. If it isn't in there for "uncut" then quit teaching that it is.. Quit laying a burden on some women who find it very difficult not to trim and keep their hair neat and groomed.

[SDG]

Brother Eastman,

The rabbinical teachers taught that a nazarite should'nt even comb their hair for fear of cutting it ...

Rashi's commentary, a Jewish bible commentary, states that the command was more than just letting the hair grow long ... but to allow it to GROW WILDLY ...

5. All the days of his vow of abstinence, no razor shall pass over his head; until the completion of the term that he abstains for the sake of the Lord, it shall be sacred, and he shall allow the growth of the hair of his head to grow wild.


it shall be sacred[That is,] his hair; he must let the growth of the hair of his head flourish


growth Heb. פֶּרַע. [The word] is vowelized with a small “pattach” [known as “segol”] because it is [a construct state and] attached to the phrase“the hair of his head.”

[The meaning is:] A growth of hair, and the word פֶּרַע means to allow the hair to grow [wild]. Similarly [we find],“He shall not allow his head to grow freely (לֹא יִפְרָע)” (Lev. 21:10). Any growth [of hair] less than thirty days is not considered פֶּרַע.

[ILG]

Samson was a nazarite from what I understand. A jewish boy will have his head shaved at his Bar-mizvah when he turns 13. A Nazarite would not shave his head if he had a nazarite vow. The story of Samson was that he was not to have a razor to his head, not that he wasn't allowed to cut his hair with shears, there is a difference between allowing a razor to come to your hair, and allowing shears (or scissors) to come to your hair. I hope this helps. see Judges 13:5 It says razor, not shears according to the custom of the Jewish Nazarite vow.

Sorry but what yo said makes no sense to me. How is long hair on a man a shame in one place and not in another. What difference does it makes if he uses a razor or shears? Can a woman use a razor and be okay?

[ILG]

In the Old Testament both men and women could take a Nazirite vow.
Part of the vow was that they would not cut their hair for a specific period.
This could be as long as a lifetime in the case of Samson (Judges 13:5), Samuel ( 1 Sam. 1:11) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15), but was (from what I have read) usually just for a month. This is found in Numbers chapter 6. Paul the Apostle practiced this at least once (Acts 18:18) and when he went to Jerusalem (Acts 21:20-27) he sponsored some Jewish brethren in their Nazirite vow by paying for the animal sacrifice for them. So under the Old Testament it was customary for both men and women to cut their hair but they could take a vow and not cut it for a while as an act of consecration.

The "shame for a man to have long hair" and the shaved head for a woman refers to a custom of cross dressing practiced by men and women at that time and in that area as part of heathen sex rituals of a religion practiced at that time.

Okay. Is it a shame for a man to have long hair now aside from culture?

[SDG]

Sorry but what yo said makes no sense to me. How is long hair on a man a shame in one place and not in another. What difference does it makes if he uses a razor or shears? Can a woman use a razor and be okay?

BINGO ... the command in Numbers was it was to grow long and wild ....

[ILG]

To God everything means something.Its that heart He is looking at.I would never try to suppose what He is thinking.Its not just hair when someone has vowed a vow.Paul vowed a vow and then later shaved when he completed his vow,did God say it was just hair?Sampsons strengh was his uncut hair.Why did his uncut hair give him strength and when it was cut he had none? I am not thinking the magic hair doctrine but I know the word does not lie and that when the hair grew back and his vow was again in place along came the annointing and strength.Guess what? He did not cut his own hair but he did play with his vow and gamble it away as unimportant.So is it just hair to God? I don't know.So because of this I don't veer into areas that I consider the marriage bed of God.The intimate place where promises are made and covenants are born.I would never ever step there.Its not a good thing to under mine anyones dedication or consecrations.God just may like them.I don't dress in a dress to my neck and wear a veil but if my sister does who knows if God doesn't like what she does for him? Some places are sacred places and altars of self sacrifice and dying to self will.I worry about myself and what my sister does or doesn't do is not my concern.I also don't want to be a stumbling
block for anyone.That will anger the Lord for sure.

Good points, Trouvere.

[Trouvere]

Good points, Trouvere.

:starsThanks sis.

[becky123abc]

:starsThanks sis.


I appreciate what you said too Trouvere.

[Subdued]

Someone close to me is a minister w/UPC. I started talking about the hair subject with him recently. In talking, I brought up the word shorn... had he ever looked up the meaning? Did he realize that it meant cut close to the head? Did he realize that it goes hand in hand w/shaven... think sheep and cutting off all the hair. From the expression on his face, it was clear that he had not. So, I continued talking to him... and I sent him an email stating in detail what I've found in studying. He read it and promised me that he will study it out. He's been really busy right now, been oversees working w/missions, but I know that he will do it because he promised me.

I might be a little predudice, but he is intelligent and is an excellent speaker... he is an awesome preacher and teacher. He really studies the Greek and Hebrew on everything. I was amazed he hadn't ever studied this subject closely. Of course he is a man and hair doesn't really pertain to him all that much. :) I do know that he once promoted RR and her "power in hair" message and absolutely does not believe that now... and I know that he doesn't believe cutting hair will send you to hell. *sigh of relief*

I am not for a total abandonment of standards.. I just want truth taught.... and nothing more. If it isn't in there for "uncut" then quit teaching that it is.. Quit laying a burden on some women who find it very difficult not to trim and keep their hair neat and groomed.


This is how I feel as well.

[mfblume]

Here's a conundrum for some:

WOMEN took the Nazarite vow and had to shave their heads after it was over:

Num 6:2 KJV Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:

Num 6:5 KJV All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

Num 6:9 KJV And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.

[BrotherEastman]

Danny, thank you for taking the time to post this long post as the book of Judges does not say anything about Samson not cutting his hair. Danny, what is the purpose of a razor going to ones head unless you were going to shave it? I apologize if the King Jimmy bible isn't good enough for you, but it works for me. If I am shaved, then my strength will leave.

[berkeley]

If I am shaved, then my strength will leave.

weirdo

[Sheltiedad]

I'm shaved and I just rode my bike 10 miles this morning before work... felt fine...

[The Mrs]

Here's a conundrum for some:

WOMEN took the Nazarite vow and had to shave their heads after it was over:

Num 6:2 KJV Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:

Num 6:5 KJV All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

Num 6:9 KJV And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.

AHA!!! :igotit I was just going to post the same thing! I still remember that thread...we never did get any good answers, did we? :D

[mfblume]

Nope, never did.

[WordPreacher]

Someone close to me is a minister w/UPC. I started talking about the hair subject with him recently. In talking, I brought up the word shorn... had he ever looked up the meaning? Did he realize that it meant cut close to the head? Did he realize that it goes hand in hand w/shaven... think sheep and cutting off all the hair. From the expression on his face, it was clear that he had not. So, I continued talking to him... and I sent him an email stating in detail what I've found in studying. He read it and promised me that he will study it out. He's been really busy right now, been oversees working w/missions, but I know that he will do it because he promised me.

I might be a little predudice, but he is intelligent and is an excellent speaker... he is an awesome preacher and teacher. He really studies the Greek and Hebrew on everything. I was amazed he hadn't ever studied this subject closely. Of course he is a man and hair doesn't really pertain to him all that much. :) I do know that he once promoted RR and her "power in hair" message and absolutely does not believe that now... and I know that he doesn't believe cutting hair will send you to hell. *sigh of relief*

I am not for a total abandonment of standards.. I just want truth taught.... and nothing more. If it isn't in there for "uncut" then quit teaching that it is.. Quit laying a burden on some women who find it very difficult not to trim and keep their hair neat and groomed.

Preach It Sister!!!!

[deltaguitar]

Nope, never did.

:itsover

[mfblume]

:itsover

HAHAHAHA.

[Sam]

Here's a conundrum for some:

WOMEN took the Nazarite vow and had to shave their heads after it was over:

Both women and men would cease the normal cutting of their hair for a designated period (usually one month) and then shave the head. Cutting their hair was just the norm for both men and women in the Old Testament. There is no prohibition in the Old Testament for a man or woman to cut their hair. Neither is there a prohibition in the Old Testament for a man or woman to let gheir hair grow.

[mfblume]

Both women and men would cease the normal cutting of their hair for a designated period (usually one month) and then shave the head. Cutting their hair was just the norm for both men and women in the Old Testament. There is no prohibition in the Old Testament for a man or woman to cut their hair. Neither is there a prohibition in the Old Testament for a man or woman to let gheir hair grow.

Interesting response. So, would you propose that 1 Cor 11 is something NEW in God's Word to the church alone, and only since the church came into being?

[Sacerdotal]

I'm so thankful that yet another thread is started to war against the UPC and standards. Not.

This forum is strange.

[SDG]

Danny, thank you for taking the time to post this long post as the book of Judges does not say anything about Samson not cutting his hair. Danny, what is the purpose of a razor going to ones head unless you were going to shave it? I apologize if the King Jimmy bible isn't good enough for you, but it works for me. If I am shaved, then my strength will leave.

It's to bad you chose not to read ... please realize that languages have there own nuances distinct to culture, region, etc ... the word mowar, used in Numbers, is in the sense of shearing ... that's the word used by Moses ... you stay w/ your KJV and backwoods theology... I'll dig deeper. Lastly ... I'll reiterate ... they were taught not even to comb their hair for fear of breaking the vow.

[The Dean]

I'm so thankful that yet another thread is started to war against the UPC and standards. Not.

This forum is strange.

Please understand that the forum as a whole isn't like that. And, yes, some are taking a lot of liberties lately being anti-UPC.

I hope that changes soon.

[HeavenlyOne]

Samson was a nazarite from what I understand. A jewish boy will have his head shaved at his Bar-mizvah when he turns 13. A Nazarite would not shave his head if he had a nazarite vow. The story of Samson was that he was not to have a razor to his head, not that he wasn't allowed to cut his hair with shears, there is a difference between allowing a razor to come to your hair, and allowing shears (or scissors) to come to your hair. I hope this helps. see Judges 13:5 It says razor, not shears according to the custom of the Jewish Nazarite vow.

Just came upon this post and had to chuckle.

You are using the same argument about Samson possibly having his hair cut that I do for women not being told they cannot cut theirs.

Consider the same language and wording you have above that is also used in 1 Cor 11. There is not a single verse that says women cannot cut their hair, only that (the implication is) she shouldn't have her HEAD shorn or shaven.

There is no scripture that says a woman cannot take shears to her hair, but it would be difficult getting shorn or shaven without a razor being involved.

Thanks!

[Subdued]

Samson was a nazarite from what I understand. A jewish boy will have his head shaved at his Bar-mizvah when he turns 13. A Nazarite would not shave his head if he had a nazarite vow. The story of Samson was that he was not to have a razor to his head, not that he wasn't allowed to cut his hair with shears, there is a difference between allowing a razor to come to your hair, and allowing shears (or scissors) to come to your hair. I hope this helps. see Judges 13:5 It says razor, not shears according to the custom of the Jewish Nazarite vow.

Just came upon this post and had to chuckle.

You are using the same argument about Samson possibly having his hair cut that I do for women not being told they cannot cut theirs.

Consider the same language and wording you have above that is also used in 1 Cor 11. There is not a single verse that says women cannot cut their hair, only that (the implication is) she shouldn't have her HEAD shorn or shaven.

There is no scripture that says a woman cannot take shears to her hair, but it would be difficult getting shorn or shaven without a razor being involved.

Thanks!

Well, there ya go!

[HeavenlyOne]

Well, there ya go!

Hey, if Paul really meant 'cut', he would have just said so. The fact that he used 'shorn or shaven' indicates the same basic look and that women shouldn't have it, if it be a shame.

Samson's hair was long enough to tie together with bands, but it wasn't 'long' cause that would be a shame!

I agree with Eastman. Samson was able to cut his hair even close, as long as he used shears and not a razor. It was the razor that was prohibited!



*insert pot-stirring smiley here*

[Sam]

Interesting response. So, would you propose that 1 Cor 11 is something NEW in God's Word to the church alone, and only since the church came into being?

In my opinion, the Apostle Paul was addressing a local issue in 1 Cor. 11.
I do not believe he was teaching that it was wrong for a woman to trim, cut, or alter the length of her hair in any manner. In my opinion, he was teaching that women should be veiled because of local social mores.

[mfblume]

In my opinion, the Apostle Paul was addressing a local issue in 1 Cor. 11.
I do not believe he was teaching that it was wrong for a woman to trim, cut, or alter the length of her hair in any manner. In my opinion, he was teaching that women should be veiled because of local social mores.

I agree it was about a veil, and hair was only used as an object lesson from nature.

What do you believe about verse 16?

[Hoovie]

I agree it was about a veil, and hair was only used as an object lesson from nature.
What do you believe about verse 16?

This is the way I understand it as well.

[BrotherEastman]

Hey, if Paul really meant 'cut', he would have just said so. The fact that he used 'shorn or shaven' indicates the same basic look and that women shouldn't have it, if it be a shame.

Samson's hair was long enough to tie together with bands, but it wasn't 'long' cause that would be a shame!

I agree with Eastman. Samson was able to cut his hair even close, as long as he used shears and not a razor. It was the razor that was prohibited!



*insert pot-stirring smiley here*
excuse me, greek and hebrew are different.

[HeavenlyOne]

excuse me, greek and hebrew are different.

What do Greek and Hebrew have to do with the conversation?

The point was made by you that a razor to the head doesn't mean he couldn't cut it. You said nothing about the Hebrew.

I made the same point that a woman not having her head shorn or shaven doesn't mean she can't cut it. I said nothing about the Greek.

Are you trying to say that there is something in the Greek that wasn't translated correctly to English?

[Trouvere]

hummm....remembers to pack dollies to wear incase she visits mfblumes church in Ca...:girlpopcorn

[mfblume]

hummm....remembers to pack dollies to wear incase she visits mfblumes church in Ca...:girlpopcorn

You must also know that I think, like Sam, it was a localized issue -- but I see it as the entire middle east, whereas he mentioned it as Corinth alone. Everyone over there in the middle east -- and the far east -- knew that veils meant submission, or covering the woman's head because her husband was her head -- and there is only one head on a body while her and her husband are one flesh. So in North America it is irrelevant. I will not be preaching for women to wear them in our church because everyone here does NOT see it as a sign of submission like they did in the middle east.

[Trouvere]

You must also know that I think, like Sam, it was a localized issue -- but I see it as the entire middle east, whereas he mentioned it as Corinth alone. Everyone over there in the middle east -- and the far east -- knew that veils meant submission, or covering the woman's head because her husband was her head -- and there is only one head on a body while her and her husband are one flesh. So in North America it is irrelevant. I will not be preaching for women to wear them in our church because everyone here does NOT see it as a sign of submission like they did in the middle east.

Now you have messed up my new shopping trip to Swarmees Middle Eastern Turban Barn.I was gonna maybe bid on one like Daniels on E-Bay.

[mfblume]

Now you have messed up my new shopping trip to Swarmees Middle Eastern Turban Barn.I was gonna maybe bid on one like Daniels on E-Bay.

Still do it! You'll stand out! :D

[Hoovie]

You must also know that I think, like Sam, it was a localized issue -- but I see it as the entire middle east, whereas he mentioned it as Corinth alone. Everyone over there in the middle east -- and the far east -- knew that veils meant submission, or covering the woman's head because her husband was her head -- and there is only one head on a body while her and her husband are one flesh. So in North America it is irrelevant. I will not be preaching for women to wear them in our church because everyone here does NOT see it as a sign of submission like they did in the middle east.

This is a departure of sorts of what you have said in the past - right?

PS whats happening in CA?

[Trouvere]

Still do it! You'll stand out! :D

Sounds good.Let the shopping begin.:woohoo

[mfblume]

This is a departure of sorts of what you have said in the past - right?

Yes it is. I maintained the wearing of coverings for women in the past, but something hit me regarding purpose of symbol. The same chapter deals with the symbols of the communion, and they are all well known in the church. They are symbols amongst us. But the issue of covering is simply unknown to be that of submission in North Am. So the message is never related anyway. And since the entire point is submission, THAT is the main thing to be maintained anyway.

I am always praying for God to correct me should I be mistaken in issues.

PS whats happening in CA?

I am starting a church with another brother. Yucaipa area.

Check it out: http://mikeblume.com/confirmations.htm

[DaniB]

Really, my church is UPC. My wife does not cut her hair. However, I can read and study the bible and I don't get uncut out of it.

Now if you take the stance that this is not cultural and that it applies to christians of today the only thing I get is that longer hair might possibly be more please and respectful towards the husband. Am I reading this wrong?


UPC ministers and saints usually draw the conclusion "uncut" from verse 5 or I Cor 11: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." and also from verse 15: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." Verse 15 follows the verse which begins, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

People argue about old testament prophets like Samson, but don't stop to think, that was an actual vow he took that set him apart (the Nazarite vow). Everybody didn't look like him. So men (except Nazarites) usually cut their hair in the OT.

So, really, the UPC stance on uncut hair comes from verse 5 and verse 15. They see verse 15 as explaining verse 5. Other apostolics who wear hats or bonnets or doilies or something see it as actual head covering. I, as an apostolic woman raised UPC, personally have uncut hair. But I believe you should keep in mind as you consider all this the principle behind the practice. The principle is submission.

As a man, your head is Christ as per I Cor 11:3 and the head of Christ is God. What does that mean? You are answerable to Jesus Christ, the One who bled and died for us all. Your wife is answerable to you. Your head should be uncovered, your wife's should be covered. That covering/uncovering status is an outward expression of your inward submission to God's plan and order. And there are a lot of Apostolics who do not understand this and get hung up on how it "looks". If your heart is lined up with this principle, you will "look" the way GOD wants you to look. So will your wife. And you will radiate HIS love.

The UPC and ALJC churches have been blessed with great power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost and that power comes when we worship God in spirit and in truth. Our women have been covering their heads for decades, not simply because they're told to, but because of the desire to be submitted to God and His Order, His Will. James 4:7 says "Submit yourselves to God; resist the devil and he will flee from you." THAT is why the Holy Ghost is pleased. When we submit. The uncut hair is our women's covering. Another organization may see the hat or doily as being such. But uncut hair is what OUR women have been called to do. God wanted us set apart and unique, so here we are.

[DaniB]

Yes it is. I maintained the wearing of coverings for women in the past, but something hit me regarding purpose of symbol. The same chapter deals with the symbols of the communion, and they are all well known in the church. They are symbols amongst us. But the issue of covering is simply unknown to be that of submission in North Am. So the message is never related anyway. And since the entire point is submission, THAT is the main thing to be maintained anyway.

I am always praying for God to correct me should I be mistaken in issues.



I am starting a church with another brother. Yucaipa area.

Check it out: http://mikeblume.com/confirmations.htm


The loss of understanding about the head covering issue is a recent development in Western History. Victorian era women had long, usually uncut hair and wore hats on a regular basis. The trend toward cutting women's hair coincided with the flapper era of the 1920s. People who were in church (pre-Azusa street revival and/or women's suffrage movement) used to understand what long hair and hats meant. The 20th Century pop culture trends were so widespread and insistent, however. People used to understand that a woman with long hair wearing a hat was submissive. The 20th Century turned the word "submissive" into a bad word partly because of the way Victorian men ignored women when they insisted on being allowed to vote. That whole thing was manipulated to pit men against women, is the best I can conclude. The hat and submission went out the window and women got out their scissors and "retaliated", you could say.

So now, in the 21st century, Christians are left with the pieces left over from these various cultural revolutions, including the Sexual Revolution of the 60s, which in addition to re-visiting flapper fashion trends, supposedly gave women permission to half-dress themselves and still go out in public and be accepted, even to the point of wearing miniskirts to the office. We all know the resulting fallout: erosion of family values and more disrespect between the sexes.

I don't have any simple answers. What I do know is that those families who followed the leading of the Lord Jesus Christ through these situations were kept out of these pitfalls and lived to tell about it. They avoided immodest dress, and continued to demonstrate submissive demeanor, and if that meant avoiding scissors, they avoided scissors. They were blessed. Yes, always keep the main principle, the "point" of it all in mind. But examine these old-fashioned rules carefully in light of God's Word. There's a reason God has blessed and kept those who have followed them.

[Praxeas]

In the heat of Egypt, noblemen and women clipped their hair close to the head. But for ceremonial occasions heavy, curly black wigs were donned. Women’s wigs were often long and braided, adorned with gold ornaments or ivory hairpins. Men’s faces were generally clean shaved, but stiff false beards were sometimes worn.

In classical Greece women’s hair was long and pulled back into a chignon. Many dyed their hair red with henna and sprinkled it with gold powder, often adorning it with fresh flowers or jewelled tiara’s. Men’s hair was short and even shaved on occasion.

In austere Rome the tendency was to follow Greek styles. The upper classes would use curling irons and favoured the gold powdered look of the Greeks. Women often dyed their hair blonde or wore wigs made from hair of captive civilization slaves. Later, hairstyles became more ornate with hair curled tight and piled high on the head often shaped around wire frames. Hairdressing became popular and the upper classes were attended to by slaves or visited public barber shops.

Native American Indians were divided in their hairstyles – those on the East Coast sporting entirely shaved heads save for a ridge of hair along the crown, whilst Plains Indians, both men and women, wore the recognized long braids adorned with feathers. Further South the Incas sported black headbands over relatively, short often bobbed hair, whilst Aztec women plaited their hair entwined with strips of coloured cloth then wound around the head. The Mayan nobility, although having shaved heads, donned high, ornate headdresses

In the 15th century – The Renaissance period – the ladies of the upper classes really took ‘plucking’ to its limit! If you think tweezing the odd eyebrow here and there is painful, imagine yourself plucking the entire front hairline away to give the appearance of a higher forehead! The rest of the hair was tightly scraped back to show off the elaborate headdresses of the day. This was a practise common in Europe whereas the upper class ladies of Italy preferred to cover the hairline with low caps and jewelled turbans. They did, however, envy the fairer hair of Northern Europeans and sat for many hours in the heat of the sun in an attempt to Bleach their hair. The ‘bleach’ of the day was made using either saffron or onion skins!
By the 16th century Queen Elizabeth was the main female icon and set the trends for the era. Her lily-white complexion and red tresses set women everywhere rushing for copious amounts of white face powder and red wigs. Thos really serious about achieving a pallid complexion used the very successful but highly poisonous white lead, adding glowing cheeks with – lead based rouge! Follow this with a thin layer of egg-white to bind it all together and you were ready to party

The 18th century saw the emergence of elaborate wigs, mile-high coiffures and highly decorated curls. White powdered wigs with long ringlets were the order of the day often tied back with a black bow for men or decorated with feathers, bows and garlands for women. Big hair was definitely the ‘in’ thing and many styles were modelled over a cage frame or horsehair pads – the bigger the better. Some immensely tall coiffures took hours to create and were heavily starched and powdered. However, the length of time spent creating these elaborate styles did mean that weeks went by between styling and the mixture of horsehair and heavy powder created perfect nesting material for vermin!

This didn’t seem to put them off though, and some adventurous souls had mini gardens or maritime scenes complete with model ship incorporated into their style – in fact it was not unknown for imaginative ladies to create mini-bird cages complete with birds on top of their heads!

Following the decadence of the previous era, the Victorians took a much more subdued and puritanical line. Middleclass ladies, although not abandoning make-up completely, did tone things down considerably with more of an emphasis on natural beauty. A Victorian lady would play up her natural features and aimed at a healthy hygienic look. Hair was supposed to look sleek, shiny and healthy and styles were altogether more elegant and demure. The hair was often smoothed down with oils and curled into long ringlets, fringes were short and decoration was more subtle.
Hairnets were often worn during the day to keep curls
confined and clipped to the back of the head with a simple ivory comb or black bow. Later in the century hair was often plaited and wound into heavy coils pinned neatly to the nape of the neck. Neatness was the order of the day and ‘loose’ hair would have been considered vulgar. Men of the time kept their hair relatively short, pomaded with macassar oil and most would have worn some form of moustache, beard and sideburns.

1920’s society very much abandoned the puritanical standards and constraints of Victorian life. The ‘Roaring Twenties’ saw the emergence of short, bobbed and waved styles, signifying the new independent, free-spirited, free-woman ethos of the day. Women increasingly had access to cinema and theatre and trends were set by the ‘superstars’ of the time. Make-up was very much back in fashion – powder, rouge and very red lips were ‘in’ albeit in a more demure way than the earlier 18th century Style. Men’s hair remained short, as in the Victorian era but was most often worn with a centre parting and slicked back using brilliantine and highly perfumed oils.

http://www.ukhairdressers.com/history%20of%20hair.asp

Observation: I don't see anything about women never cutting their hair until the 1920s....I see though that as far as hair styles/trends go the 20s brought in a very SHORT hair style.

I'd like to see the evidence women never cut their hair until recently

[Aquila]

Traditions of men.

[James Griffin]

Originally posted on another forum but I believe pertinent to this thread.



One of the basic tenets of good hermeneutics is that you cannot base an entire doctrine on a single passage of scripture.

For example, suppose for some bizarre reason the meaning of Acts 2:38 were to come under question. If you were to momentarily ignore that passage, there are dozens of verses dealing with repentance, several examples of exactly how the apostles baptized and various verses explaining the necessity of being filled with the Holy Ghost and once again examples of exactly what happened went people were actually baptized with the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 being the only correct response to the gospel is by no means dependant SOLELY on the existence of Acts 2:38.

Similarly every single tenet “vital to salvation” can be explained and defined by using scripture. In I Corinthians 11 it was stated that hair was important enough to warrant half a chapter, I would respectfully disagree and suggest that portion of scripture had to do with the hierarchy of authority and hair was merely used as an example. Yet some would take a single verse like 1 Cor 11:10 and build an entire doctrine unsupported by scripture anywhere else in the Bible. I would also respectfully submit that the meaning and definition of “long” is subject to REASONABLE interpretation and it is unconscionable to me that anything so vital as to effect whether or not one is saved to be rendered in an ambiguous passage.

I believe it is simply wrong to equate this passage to the blood of Christ, repentance, burial in His name, being filled or being filled with His Spirit.

I do understand and support the necessity of separation, I do freely admit I have a different opinion as to what that entails than I did as a child.

With that understanding I would have to say no it is not “vital to salvation.” In that as stated above it is not my understanding that a woman who has been buried in His Name, repented of her sins, is pure inside and out, has an indisputably feminine appearance will split hell wide open because she trims split ends. Which IS the position of many here !!

However, take away ANY part of repentance, burial in His name, being filled with the Holy Ghost living a pure life within and without and you are lacking something “VITAL TO SALVATION”

[*AQuietPlace*]

One of the basic tenets of good hermeneutics is that you cannot base an entire doctrine on a single passage of scripture.

For example, suppose for some bizarre reason the meaning of Acts 2:38 were to come under question. If you were to momentarily ignore that passage, there are dozens of verses dealing with repentance, several examples of exactly how the apostles baptized and various verses explaining the necessity of being filled with the Holy Ghost and once again examples of exactly what happened went people were actually baptized with the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 being the only correct response to the gospel is by no means dependant SOLELY on the existence of Acts 2:38.

Similarly every single tenet “vital to salvation” can be explained and defined by using scripture. In I Corinthians 11 it was stated that hair was important enough to warrant half a chapter, I would respectfully disagree and suggest that portion of scripture had to do with the hierarchy of authority and hair was merely used as an example. Yet some would take a single verse like 1 Cor 11:10 and build an entire doctrine unsupported by scripture anywhere else in the Bible. I would also respectfully submit that the meaning and definition of “long” is subject to REASONABLE interpretation and it is unconscionable to me that anything so vital as to effect whether or not one is saved to be rendered in an ambiguous passage.




Exactly my opinion! I cannot get past the fact that from Genesis to Revelation there is not ONE prohibition against a woman cutting her hair. We teach that this is a huge, huge, huge thing to God - and yet it was not even hinted at in the law??

Godly principles are supported throughout the Bible. Submission, headship, male/female... Genesis to Revelation.

[deltaguitar]

Wow, very weird to see this thread from two years ago. My wife and I both were still UPC and still followed all the standards. Seems like a lifetime ago.

[Sept5SavedTeen]

Wow, very weird to see this thread from two years ago. My wife and I both were still UPC and still followed all the standards. Seems like a lifetime ago.

Isn't it cool to get to look back and see where you once were, and see where you are now (assuming one is in a better place in the "now" rather than the "then.")? If I searched hard enough I might even be able to find my posts from a year or year and a half ago when I still believed the sisters had to have uncut hair, and a headcovering on...

It's a great journey when GOD leads every step!

-Bro. Alex

[Falla39]

Too many people today listen to the voice of men rather than to listen to
the still small voice of the Spirit. Time will prove what VOICE we listened to.

I don't feel we can say, when we come to the Great White Throne Judgment,
etc. etc.
I believe we are being judged right now. Our words and actions prove whether
we have sought HIM for direction or if chose to please ourselves. HE KNOWS.
HE sees inside, where man cannot see. HE is THE RIGHTOUS JUDGE.

Falla39

[deltaguitar]

Isn't it cool to get to look back and see where you once were, and see where you are now (assuming one is in a better place in the "now" rather than the "then.")? If I searched hard enough I might even be able to find my posts from a year or year and a half ago when I still believed the sisters had to have uncut hair, and a headcovering on...

It's a great journey when GOD leads every step!

-Bro. Alex

It is cool but also sobering. Over time we remember things happening differently than they really did and this just reminds us of where we came from and keeps us truthful with ourselves.

Here, on the Internet, in plan sight for anyone in the world is a part of my struggle that will be documented forever.

I had already decided that I didn't believe the uncut doctrine but I knew certain people were watching my moves on this forum. I thought that if I could have an open debate people could then decide for themselves.

I went to a UPC church where probably 70% of the women cut their hair and the hair standard had never been preached from the pulpit. All of a sudden folks were standing up for this standard and it was all very confusing.

[rgcraig]

Wow, very weird to see this thread from two years ago. My wife and I both were still UPC and still followed all the standards. Seems like a lifetime ago.

I was going to ask you how it feels now two years later to see your journey.

[RandyWayne]

It is cool but also sobering. Over time we remember things happening differently than they really did and this just reminds us of where we came from and keeps us truthful with ourselves.

Here, on the Internet, in plan sight for anyone in the world is a part of my struggle that will be documented forever.

I had already decided that I didn't believe the uncut doctrine but I knew certain people were watching my moves on this forum. I thought that if I could have an open debate people could then decide for themselves.

I went to a UPC church where probably 70% of the women cut their hair and the hair standard had never been preached from the pulpit. All of a sudden folks were standing up for this standard and it was all very confusing.

And this was about the the time that the HMH doctrine started rearing ITS ugly head as well. At least in open discussions.

[Michlow]

Wow, very weird to see this thread from two years ago. My wife and I both were still UPC and still followed all the standards. Seems like a lifetime ago.

That's why I'm very glad that the threads from the original FCF and NFCF are lost and gone forever! I don't think I could handle reading threads in which I actually argued FOR standards! And I was probably all sarcastic and smug about it too!

I'd have to build a time machine, just so I could go back in time and rebuke myself (with a smack upside the head!)

[staysharp]

Wow, very weird to see this thread from two years ago. My wife and I both were still UPC and still followed all the standards. Seems like a lifetime ago.

This has been an incredible journey, one that could only have been experienced by following Christ. If the last two years held such growth and spiritual awareness, I can hardly wait to see what the next two years is going to hold!

[CAD/JPY]

Ok, so basically I am UPC and have been all of my life. And as much as I want to believe what I have been taught it is very hard for me to get that a woman's hair should be uncut based on 1 Corinthians 11.

Can anyone help me reconcile myself with the UPC doctrine?

:nod

Sorry, if someone has allready posted these points, but I didn't want to read through 11 pages of posts before I answered your question.

The UPC doctrine of I Cor. 11 gets "uncut" from two areas, Strong's Concordance base definition of shorn and the dictionary meaing of shorn, being the past tense of shear, and shear means "to cut". Lines up well with Strongs.

Now here is the probably with that one. The other Biblical scriptures where shorn is used are refering to hair being cut close to the skin. Even Paul's own head was "shorn" in Acts 18:18 because he had a vow.

We make light of trinatarian baptism because they don't use Jesus name, but we turn right around and do the same thing with the "uncut" hair doctrine. We don't use dictionaries for defining baptism in Jesus name, so why do we use them to support a dress standard? WHEN ALL THE OTHER SCRIPTURES IN THE BIBLE MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

People ask, how long is long then? Well, that is easily answered. The hair is used in reference to a women wearing a veil when praying or prophesying before God, it actually translates in ICor. 11:15 that the "hair replaces the veil". Notice it does not say "long hair replaces the veil" just simply "hair replaces the veil", but it does say that "long hair" is a glory to the women... again, that is "long hair is a glory to the women, not that long hair is a glory to God.... which we seem to hear more and more of.

So what did the veil cover, it covered the head and shoulders of a woman. That is how they wore the veils back then, and that is similar to what you see today in traditional middle east culture. So if a women truly needs a length defined that would be one.

Some UPCI people take the premise that long is supposed to mean you should allow a women's hair to grow as long as nature will let it. Because this refers to the order of creation, and let nature teach you what to do. I have a very difficult time seeing it in I Cor 11 that way, but to those that do, I believe in good conscience before God they must INSIST THAT MEAN SHAVE THEIR HEADS... because even a little bit of hair covering a man's head while they pray or prophesy would be a shame before God. That is for those who really believe it like that, they have to add the same principle to the men in the church also. It's not just something our women in the church have to bear the burden of.

And yes, I am frustrated, and hold license with the UPCI, and went to the right Bible College, and grew up in this, etc. etc. No, I'm not rebellious, but I believe we lose a lot of people who can't accept what they don't see. So when we cram it down their throat as a holiness standard, they can't help but be a little worried...

That doesn't mean we throw away the UPCI. Overall I believe very much with what they teach, especially our fundamental doctrine. I think the "uncut" hair was one of the conservative standards that grabbed a hold, and just hung in there. You see liberal thoughts are easily shot down, but to argue against a conservative belief is a lot harder... how can you fault someone for being too conservative? I mean, this is between them and God.

If you read those last two sentences, and though "Uh huh, that is right"... well, you have forgetten their is a danger in getting too conservative also.... no different than going too liberal. The Bible tells us that we will be cursed for adding and taking away from God's word.

Blessings

[tbpew]

so at least everybody here at AFF shares God's expectation that women are to have long hair. That will certainly serve the beauty of distinction among the genders.

[freeatlast]

so at least everybody here at AFF shares God's expectation that women are to have long hair. That will certainly serve the beauty of distinction among the genders.

Paul gave an example or an analogy using a womens hair. I don't see where God expects a woman to have long hair, as we OP's define long hair.

[tbpew]

Paul gave an example or an analogy using a womens hair. I don't see where God expects a woman to have long hair, as we OP's define long hair.

Two questions for Freeatlast...
How do you define LONG hair?
Do you think that God sees hair length as a witness that differentiates the males and females among humans?

[deltaguitar]

Paul gave an example or an analogy using a womens hair. I don't see where God expects a woman to have long hair, as we OP's define long hair.

I agree with this. No matter how much I argue the various points on this passage I know deep down that Paul is using womans hair as an illustration. That is all it is. So simple yet we make it so hard.

Paul is using the physical covering as an illustration of the spiritual covering. I don't see any reason to argue Greek or grammar or meaning of shorn or shaven when hair isn't even the subject of this text.

The point of the text is submission to God's order and God given roles to the male and female.

[tbpew]

I agree with this. No matter how much I argue the various points on this passage I know deep down that Paul is using womans hair as an illustration. That is all it is. So simple yet we make it so hard.

Paul is using the physical covering as an illustration of the spiritual covering. I don't see any reason to argue Greek or grammar or meaning of shorn or shaven when hair isn't even the subject of this text.

The point of the text is submission to God's order and God given roles to the male and female.

delta,
do you think LONG would be a good condition for something that was to be a covering?
Do you think God has purposed for women to have long hair?

Please know that I understand what LONG means will be decided by each woman who is seeking to follow where God's spirit leads...but is LONG hair something that pertains to the woman?

[Falla39]

My thoughts:

The same Spirit that inspired Paul to write the 16 verses in 1Cor. 11, inspired my late
paternal Grandmother Lizzie, to no longer cut her hair, after she received His Spirit.
This same Spirit also led my late mother, her mother, me, our three daughters, and on
and on.
It does no good to try to "make or force" an adult to do something they do not see or
believe. If the Spirit doesn't do it, it won't get done. If we are led by the Spirit of God,
we are HIS sons and daughters.
I do not, nor will I, try to tell others what to do. Parents are to "train up" and when they
are adults, it will be in God's Hands.:thumbsup

Paul knew by inspiration of God, that there would be those who would contend! If any MAN seem....:smack LOL!

Blessings,

Falla39

[*AQuietPlace*]

Do you think that God sees hair length as a witness that differentiates the males and females among humans?
No, it was the beard. :D

Both men and women have hair that grows and grows*, but only men have beards. ;)

(*although if left completely to nature, a woman's hair will generally get much longer and be fuller than most men's... even in the hippie days, a man with waist-length hair was unusual... most of the men had to be content with shoulder-length)



---- this post was partially tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be a serious commentary on I Cor. 11. :)

[tbpew]

No, it was the beard. :D

Both men and women have hair that grows and grows*, but only men have beards. ;)

(*although if left completely to nature, a woman's hair will generally get much longer and be fuller than most men's)
So Quiet...
you do not see LONG hair as something that pertains to a woman?

[deltaguitar]

This has been an incredible journey, one that could only have been experienced by following Christ. If the last two years held such growth and spiritual awareness, I can hardly wait to see what the next two years is going to hold!

Thanks staysharp, it has been a wonderful journey. I am not the same person I was two years ago. I feel like I have been born again and I don't use that term lightly. I try not to hold anything against what I came out of and I realize that I was taught many good things.

It isn't easy leaving family and heritage for an unknown destination but God has proved to be faithful, not only to our needs but also our desires.

[deltaguitar]

delta,
do you think LONG would be a good condition for something that was to be a covering?
Do you think God has purposed for women to have long hair?

Please know that I understand what LONG means will be decided by each woman who is seeking to follow where God's spirit leads...but is LONG hair something that pertains to the woman?

No. Young sexy beautiful women will almost always have long hair. It is something that most women think is beautiful. Then as women get older and need less attention for their beauty they usually don't care for long hair as much.

[*AQuietPlace*]

So Quiet...
you do not see LONG hair as something that pertains to a woman?
Longer, yes. I mentioned the hippie days... if a man did have waist-length hair, the comment was usually something like - "Wow, his hair looks like a woman's."

If both men and women let their hair grow as long as it could get, most women would have much longer and thicker hair. Most men would have shoulder-length, and it would be rather thin. Of course, there are exceptions, but it's the general rule.

Men tend to go bald, women usually don't. My grandparents - grandfather is almost completely bald, grandmother still has a thick head of hair.

I think "hair" in general is a woman thing. If a man gets cancer, has to take chemo, and loses his hair, it's not that noticeable, he won't get odd stares in public. If a woman does, everyone feels so badly for her, and she will get stares in public. Women cancer patients tend to wear wigs or scarves. Men don't.

Beautiful, glorious hair is a woman thing. Fairly long is usually a part of that.

[DaniB]

Observation: I don't see anything about women never cutting their hair until the 1920s....I see though that as far as hair styles/trends go the 20s brought in a very SHORT hair style.

I'd like to see the evidence women never cut their hair until recently
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I re-read my post and realized I didn't highlight the fact I was referring to WESTERN culture, specifically British/European/American. Also I didn't say that women NEVER cut their hair, but simply that long/uncut hair and hats were the norm and reflected society's understanding of submission in women. If you read the Little House books and other Victorian/Pioneer era stuff, you will see that women wore bangs and may have trimmed their hair as well. Also understand that a sweeping religious revival (the Second Great Awakening) had shaped British and American cultural mores by that time. The result was simple dress codes and the expectation of modesty across the board. For men AND women. After World War I, that was changing. Hence short hair on "flapper" women.

I Cor 11 does not say "Thou shalt not cut thy hair." It explains the proper order. God, Christ, man, woman; and a guideline on how that attitude was to be expressed. Scripture was never meant to oppress but to liberate. Remember, we are under grace, not the law. Jesus fulfilled the law.