Uncut Hair

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thank you again. “Nutriat” is something that looks solid enough to study.

Let me further develop my thoughts on this.

When I brought up Peter in Acts 10 and the point on the relevance of antiquity, I was referring more to a reference in the OT Word than simply antiquity. Peter had a reference to bolster or prove that what he was doing was from God.

In I Corinthians 15:3-4 it says, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

What scriptures is this talking about? Because I believe there are scriptures that intimate and are symbolic that Jesus would be crucified, buried for three days and rise on the third day. But, there isn’t one that actually says that. There are only references, types and shadows to show us or express that truth indirectly.

So, my question would be - Aside from antiquity (because, somehow, that doesn't seem as important to me), is there anything in the OT that expresses this truth on hair indirectly as I Cor. 15 does about Jesus Christ?

I could be wrong, but I would think that Paul would need that as he had amble proof of who God was and what He planned to do, i.e., pouring out His Spirit upon all flesh, reaching for the Gentiles, etc. Those things I see and can assuredly stand upon.

A lot of people want to link the hair topic of 1 Corinthians 11 to the Nazarite Vow in Numbers, but I think that's a mistake. There, only a man is mentioned as someone eligible for the vow, it's also temporary and not a lifelong mandate, and the sacrifices involved when the vow ends are not part of the New Covenant.

Instead, I would look to the passage about the Law of Jealousy, also found in Numbers, right before the chapter about the Nazarite Vow (See Numbers 5:12-31).

Note the similarities:

- Both passages are about hair
- Both passages are about husbands and wives
- Both passages deal with submission and headship
- Both passages deal with the possibility of transgression being involved
- Both passages indicate the possibility of what it means to be shorn and the shame associated with it

So, if one were looking for OT clues, insights, correlations, and ways in which the 1 Corinthians verses were informed by the Holy Scriptures of old, I would say, look no further than Numbers 5.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

A lot of people want to link the hair topic of 1 Corinthians 11 to the Nazarite Vow in Numbers, but I think that's a mistake. There, only a man is mentioned as someone eligible for the vow, it's also temporary and not a lifelong mandate, and the sacrifices involved when the vow ends are not part of the New Covenant.

Instead, I would look to the passage about the Law of Jealousy, also found in Numbers, right before the chapter about the Nazarite Vow (See Numbers 5:12-31).

Note the similarities:

- Both passages are about hair
- Both passages are about husbands and wives
- Both passages deal with submission and headship
- Both passages deal with the possibility of transgression being involved
- Both passages indicate the possibility of what it means to be shorn and the shame associated with it

So, if one were looking for OT clues, insights, correlations, and ways in which the 1 Corinthians verses were informed by the Holy Scriptures of old, I would say, look no further than Numbers 5.

that seems to support a head covering rather than uncut hair.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

that seems to support a head covering rather than uncut hair.

You know what? Please disregard the post. I need to check my memory board, since I typed all of what you quoted, from memory, but now, checking into the verses more deeply, I see several places where I have erred or conflated two separate issues. My apologies to all.

If or when I can make better sense of what I was trying to communicate, I will report back.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You know what? Please disregard the post. I need to check my memory board, since I typed all of what you quoted, from memory, but now, checking into the verses more deeply, I see several places where I have erred or conflated two separate issues. My apologies to all.

If or when I can make better sense of what I was trying to communicate, I will report back.

ROFL! No backtracking now, cat's out of the bag, toothpaste been squeezed out, etc. The passage does, as Amanah noticed, support head covering. Well, for proper women, anyway. Having her head uncovered indicated she was under suspicions of impropriety...

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

ROFL! No backtracking now, cat's out of the bag, toothpaste been squeezed out, etc. The passage does, as Amanah noticed, support head covering. Well, for proper women, anyway. Having her head uncovered indicated she was under suspicions of impropriety...

Good one.

My backtrack was more about what I wrote regarding Numbers 5 and 6. Made some errors, there.