Did Paul let his hair grow long?

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I asked this on the wrong thread. This question and the Nazarite vow has always been an interest to me...any serious thoughts about this?

The following is taken from "Because We Are His, Biblical Studies in Practical Holiness, The Hair Question" by Raymond Woodward...

"Some contend that while Paul taught men to have short hair, he himself took a Nazarite vow, basing this opinion on Acts 18:18 - “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” However, the “vow” referred to in this verse is from “euche,” the same word used in James 5:15 for the “prayer” of faith. Paul did not shave his head because he was finishing a Nazarite vow, for the New Testament church did not practice that! Rather, he had just been delivered from the court of Gallio, so he needed to cut (“kiero”) his hair because he was going to prayer! Paul knew that God cared what his hair looked like!"

The whole section on hair is quite interesting.

[CAD/JPY]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

The following is taken from "Because We Are His, Biblical Studies in Practical Holiness, The Hair Question" by Raymond Woodward...

"Some contend that while Paul taught men to have short hair, he himself took a Nazarite vow, basing this opinion on Acts 18:18 - “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” However, the “vow” referred to in this verse is from “euche,” the same word used in James 5:15 for the “prayer” of faith. Paul did not shave his head because he was finishing a Nazarite vow, for the New Testament church did not practice that! Rather, he had just been delivered from the court of Gallio, so he needed to cut (“kiero”) his hair because he was going to prayer! Paul knew that God cared what his hair looked like!"

The whole section on hair is quite interesting.

Speaking of interesting! I find it very interesting, that here "shorn" obviously means that Paul's hair was cut very short, same as all the other uses in Scripture. BUT when it comes to I Cor. 14, our traditional translation has been simply "kiero" cut. The main basis for teaching women's hair be "uncut".

So how does one in their mind translate all the other uses of shorn in the scripture without fail, but make an exception for this one??

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by CAD/JPY

Speaking of interesting! I find it very interesting, that here "shorn" obviously means that Paul's hair was cut very short, same as all the other uses in Scripture. BUT when it comes to I Cor. 14, our traditional translation has been simply "kiero" cut. The main basis for teaching women's hair be "uncut".

So how does one in their mind translate all the other uses of shorn in the scripture without fail, but make an exception for this one??

I think you mean 1 Cor 11.

That chapter mentions shorn and shaven.

I highly recommend you read Woodward's "Because We Are His" bible study which includes a great section on hair. It can be found online at...

http://www.capitalcommunity.ca/pdf/B...0Are%20His.pdf

Hair is the covering and to pray uncovered one must remove some of the covering.

[Sister Alvear]

Respectfully, I disagree with his Bible study...

[CAD/JPY]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

I think you mean 1 Cor 11.

That chapter mentions shorn and shaven.

I highly recommend you read Woodward's "Because We Are His" bible study which includes a great section on hair. It can be found online at...

http://www.capitalcommunity.ca/pdf/B...0Are%20His.pdf

Hair is the covering and to pray uncovered one must remove some of the covering.

Thanks, I have a bit of difficulty with people who try to use the occult to prove their point, and also take random events (like the stock market crash) and state that it was an act of God or the judgement of God.

If I was to apply that same thinking, I would have to say that all of our good Pentecostal brethern in Chalmate and New Orleans, LA were living horribly and thus felt the judgment of God in the wrath of Hurricane Katrina. Surely there were more than 10 righteous there...

I stopped reading after the occult part. Sorry... might continue later.

BUT to comment on your last line about hair being the covering... It also clearly states what it is supposed to cover. The head. And it states that long hair is given to replace the veil.

All the best.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by CAD/JPY

Thanks, I have a bit of difficulty with people who try to use the occult to prove their point, and also take random events (like the stock market crash) and state that it was an act of God or the judgement of God.

If I was to apply that same thinking, I would have to say that all of our good Pentecostal brethern in Chalmate and New Orleans, LA were living horribly and thus felt the judgment of God in the wrath of Hurricane Katrina. Surely there were more than 10 righteous there...

I stopped reading after the occult part. Sorry... might continue later.

BUT to comment on your last line about hair being the covering... It also clearly states what it is supposed to cover. The head. And it states that long hair is given to replace the veil.

All the best.

After the "spiritual significance of the hair" part that you stopped at, the bible study goes verse by verse into 1 Cor 11. A lot of good stuff there that you will miss if you don't continue; but hey, that's your choice.

If you will continue, the study talks about the veil.

In any event, to pray uncovered means that a woman has removed some (shorn) or all (shaven) of her covering. If hair is the covering and one removes some of it, then they have removed some of their covering; it has become a little bit uncovered. Hair is the covering. To "un" something means to reverse or "undo" something.

But why should re-invent the wheel and try to explain it, when the bible study I mentioned does such a better job.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

After the "spiritual significance of the hair" part that you stopped at, the bible study goes verse by verse into 1 Cor 11. A lot of good stuff there that you will miss if you don't continue; but hey, that's your choice.

If you will continue, the study talks about the veil.

In any event, to pray uncovered means that a woman has removed some (shorn) or all (shaven) of her covering. If hair is the covering and one removes some of it, then they have removed some of their covering; it has become a little bit uncovered. Hair is the covering. To "un" something means to reverse or "undo" something.

But why should re-invent the wheel and try to explain it, when the bible study I mentioned does such a better job.

We cannot cover ourselves...we are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. That's the silliest thing I've heard. If a women can't pray with her head uncovered because she is in submission then a man shouldn't either because he is in submission to Christ.

BTW the Jewish men have prayed with their heads covered since the time of Moses.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by staysharp

We cannot cover ourselves...we are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. That's the silliest thing I've heard. If a women can't pray with her head uncovered because she is in submission then a man shouldn't either because he is in submission to Christ.

BTW the Jewish men have prayed with their heads covered since the time of Moses.

Read 1 Cor 11 and please tell me what was given the woman for a covering according to the word of God?

[comeasyouare]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

The following is taken from "Because We Are His, Biblical Studies in Practical Holiness, The Hair Question" by Raymond Woodward...

"Some contend that while Paul taught men to have short hair, he himself took a Nazarite vow, basing this opinion on Acts 18:18 - “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” However, the “vow” referred to in this verse is from “euche,” the same word used in James 5:15 for the “prayer” of faith. Paul did not shave his head because he was finishing a Nazarite vow, for the New Testament church did not practice that! Rather, he had just been delivered from the court of Gallio, so he needed to cut (“kiero”) his hair because he was going to prayer! Paul knew that God cared what his hair looked like!"

The whole section on hair is quite interesting.

I have to interpret the above passage as unscriptural to the extent of being ridiculous. Read the entire passage of Acts 18-21. The Jews were after Paul's life because they thought he taught against the Law of Moses. As a trick, or a decoy, to get along with the Jews, Paul took a meaningless OT vow of a Nazarite. Those who took the Nazarite vow (both men and women) were required to shave their heads at its completion (Num. 6:2-18). In Acts 21:23 there were 4 other disciples who also took the vow, and their heads were shaved in the Temple, whereas Paul ended his vow with his head shorn in Cenchrea. Shorn (keiro) and shave (xurao) are closely related, etymologically, and used synonymously at times.

Paul took his vow in Corinth where he stayed a year and 6 months (Acts 18:11). In vv12-17 the Jews came against Paul. Then in v18, "And Paul after this tarried there yet a GOOD WHILE, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria...having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow."

It was during Paul's extended stay at Corinth that he did not cut his hair. It was not cut until he got to Cenchrea, the eastern seaport of Corinth, where he boarded a ship to continue his missionary journey. His hair grew to a length somewhere between "shorn" and the length at which it would have been a "shame" or "long" in ancient Greco-Roman culture.

It was not a "shame" for men in OT times to have "long" hair. Samuel was a Nazarite from birth as was Samson and perhaps John the Baptist. Hebrew Nazarite men wore "long" hair, and there was no sign of effeminancy attached. Women, who ended a Nazarite vow, had shaved heads with no sign of lesbianism, or "shame," attached. The ancient Hebrews, as well as Greeks and Romans, routinely shaved the heads of female captives. In ancient times Greek and Roman men all wore "long" hair, and ALL Greek men were "gay." The Romans thought being "gay" was "cool," but through the work of the moral philosophers and the Emperor's program (esp. Augustus) to raise the morals of the Empire, by the 1st century the ENTIRE EMPIRE viewed long hair on men and short haircuts on women as sexual inversions. Men wore the Ceasarcuts after the Emperor and ALL women wore long hair.

The word, "shame," used by the Apostle in v6, is not the word, "sin," and does NOT mean a condition before God, but it bear a CULTURAL meaning -- that of wearing a badge of infamy before the public. The Greek word is atimia. It was the most common word used by philosophers to describe effeminate hair. Paul used both atimia and phusis ("nature") in condemning homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27. Such terminology also occurs in Philo of Alexandria, who also condemned same-sex love as contrary to nature. There is a lengthy list of ancient writers who regarded lebsian practices as "unnatural": Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, Dorotheos of Siden, Manetho, Pseudo-Phocyclides..." The moral philosophers who eschewed homoerotic relationships utilized appeals to "nature" as "proof" for their arguments.

Paul was opposed to long hair on men and short haircuts on women because of the association with and involvement hair length had with homosexuality and lesbianism in his CULTURE. This connection did NOT exist in ancient times, or before the 1st century. After the "fall of Rome," longer hair on men came into vogue, having lost its link with homosexuality. Throughout history, longer hair on men has come in and out of style. George Washington wore a pony tail, called a queue, but no one accuses the Founding Fathers of our country of being "gay." The Titus cut in France in 1796 ushered in the fashion of short hair for women (1790-1800), and short hair styles for women became totally detached from lesbianism.

So, yes, Paul let his hair grow for the duration of his Nazarite vow, but it didn't grow to his shoulders, which was considered "long." The Greek verb, komao, translated "have long hair," had more than one meaning, depending upon the context of the reading passage. In some contexts, like that of a VOW, be it the Hebrew Nazarite vow or a Pagan vow, komao would mean "uncut" hair, or let the hair grow; but, komao was the general term for hair that had reached a length of measuremnent of "long" or a length that distinguished between the sexes and was NOT the Greek word for "uncut" hair.

Go here for more info:

http://www.studyholiness.com/hair_length_2.html

[rdp]

Originally Posted by comeasyouare

I have to interpret the above passage as unscriptural to the extent of being ridiculous. Read the entire passage of Acts 18-21. The Jews were after Paul's life because they thought he taught against the Law of Moses. As a trick, or a decoy, to get along with the Jews, Paul took a meaningless OT vow of a Nazarite. Those who took the Nazarite vow (both men and women) were required to shave their heads at its completion (Num. 6:2-18). In Acts 21:23 there were 4 other disciples who also took the vow, and their heads were shaved in the Temple, whereas Paul ended his vow with his head shorn in Cenchrea. Shorn (keiro) and shave (xurao) are closely related, etymologically, and used synonymously at times.

Paul took his vow in Corinth where he stayed a year and 6 months (Acts 18:11). In vv12-17 the Jews came against Paul. Then in v18, "And Paul after this tarried there yet a GOOD WHILE, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria...having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow."

It was during Paul's extended stay at Corinth that he did not cut his hair. It was not cut until he got to Cenchrea, the eastern seaport of Corinth, where he boarded a ship to continue his missionary journey. His hair grew to a length somewhere between "shorn" and the length at which it would have been a "shame" or "long" in ancient Greco-Roman culture.

It was not a "shame" for men in OT times to have "long" hair. Samuel was a Nazarite from birth as was Samson and perhaps John the Baptist. Hebrew Nazarite men wore "long" hair, and there was no sign of effeminancy attached. Women, who ended a Nazarite vow, had shaved heads with no sign of lesbianism, or "shame," attached. The ancient Hebrews, as well as Greeks and Romans, routinely shaved the heads of female captives. In ancient times Greek and Roman men all wore "long" hair, and ALL Greek men were "gay." The Romans thought being "gay" was "cool," but through the work of the moral philosophers and the Emperor's program (esp. Augustus) to raise the morals of the Empire, by the 1st century the ENTIRE EMPIRE viewed long hair on men and short haircuts on women as sexual inversions. Men wore the Ceasarcuts after the Emperor and ALL women wore long hair.

The word, "shame," used by the Apostle in v6, is not the word, "sin," and does NOT mean a condition before God, but it bear a CULTURAL meaning -- that of wearing a badge of infamy before the public. The Greek word is atimia. It was the most common word used by philosophers to describe effeminate hair. Paul used both atimia and phusis ("nature") in condemning homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27. Such terminology also occurs in Philo of Alexandria, who also condemned same-sex love as contrary to nature. There is a lengthy list of ancient writers who regarded lebsian practices as "unnatural": Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, Dorotheos of Siden, Manetho, Pseudo-Phocyclides..." The moral philosophers who eschewed homoerotic relationships utilized appeals to "nature" as "proof" for their arguments.

Paul was opposed to long hair on men and short haircuts on women because of the association with and involvement hair length had with homosexuality and lesbianism in his CULTURE. This connection did NOT exist in ancient times, or before the 1st century. After the "fall of Rome," longer hair on men came into vogue, having lost its link with homosexuality. Throughout history, longer hair on men has come in and out of style. George Washington wore a pony tail, called a queue, but no one accuses the Founding Fathers of our country of being "gay." The Titus cut in France in 1796 ushered in the fashion of short hair for women (1790-1800), and short hair styles for women became totally detached from lesbianism.

So, yes, Paul let his hair grow for the duration of his Nazarite vow, but it didn't grow to his shoulders, which was considered "long." The Greek verb, komao, translated "have long hair," had more than one meaning, depending upon the context of the reading passage. In some contexts, like that of a VOW, be it the Hebrew Nazarite vow or a Pagan vow, komao would mean "uncut" hair, or let the hair grow; but, komao was the general term for hair that had reached a length of measuremnent of "long" or a length that distinguished between the sexes and was NOT the Greek word for "uncut" hair.

Go here for more info:

http://www.studyholiness.com/hair_length_2.html

While I do not have the time presently due to studies, I have been to this site & suffice it to say you have much misinformation therein....Particularly as it relates to the verbs "keiro" & "komao" of I Cor. 11.

I have numerous lexical-grammatical quotes stating that the verb "keiro" means simply, "to cut one's hair." In fact, the UBS's translation of I Cor. 11 outright states that this verb "probably refers to the regular trimming of one's hair" (this comment is added commentary after these linguists defined the term as "to cut the hair").

A Greek professor told me personally that the word means simply "to cut."

Again, don't have the time now, but wanted to warn readers of the misinformation on this site...And not just concerning the hair issue either (I spent significant time investigating your claims).

Blessings anyway.......