New Testament writer had long hair

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If we teach that Scripture teaches it is a sin for a man to have long hair and then we have Samuel, Sampson, John the Baptist, and maybe Elijah having long hair seems inconsistent. Commands in Scripture to shave a woman’s head if she were to take the nazirite vow, if she were a foreign captive taken as a wife etc. the fact that Paul took a nazarite vow in the NT, regardless of the fact that he was a Jew, the Old Covenant was finished.

You don't see a contradiction when you teach it is a sin for a man to have long hair and for a woman to cut hers??

There is no inconsistency at all.
Scripture tells us that both Samuel and Samson (and quite possibly John) were Nazirites from birth, so it would be understood that their long hair was a sign of the Nazirite vow they were under all their lives.

(I don't see where the Bible says Elijah had long hair)

The captured heathen women were to have their hair shaven (and their finger nails & toenails nails clipped off) as part of a purification process before being allowed into the family of Israel.

These were both special situations clearly described by scripture. Neither of those situations/scenarios negate the fact that under God's natural law (1 Cor 11:14), men are expected to have short hair and women to let their hair grow.

[Aquila]

I think there's a leap in logic in some posts here. Paul explained to the Corinthians that long hair was a shame on a man but a woman's glory. And that if a woman uncover her head (actually head covering but we apply it to hair) it dishonors her head (her husband).

Where does it say that long hair on a man or short hair on a woman is "sin"? Sin is the breaking of God's commandments. Sin is a heaven or hell issue. Paul is talking about propriety, modesty,proper appearance, and conduct in the church. A shame isn't the same thing as a sin.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think there's a leap in logic in some posts here. Paul explained to the Corinthians that long hair was a shame on a man but a woman's glory. And that if a woman uncover her head (actually head covering but we apply it to hair) it dishonors her head (her husband).

Where does it say that long hair on a man or short hair on a woman is "sin"? Sin is the breaking of God's commandments. Sin is a heaven or hell issue. Paul is talking about propriety, modesty,proper appearance, and conduct in the church. A shame isn't the same thing as a sin.

Fine. You can try to make that distinction if you want... but why would any Christian want to do something the bible describes as being a shame? I think one commons sense rule is: if you know God doesn't like something, just don't do it.

And to your other point... "sin" isn't just breaking a commandment of God. Sin is also not doing something that we know God clearly expects from us. Once we have the knowledge of what God wants, we have an obligation to do it.
As James 4:17 says "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin"

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think there's a leap in logic in some posts here. Paul explained to the Corinthians that long hair was a shame on a man but a woman's glory. And that if a woman uncover her head (actually head covering but we apply it to hair) it dishonors her head (her husband).

Where does it say that long hair on a man or short hair on a woman is "sin"? Sin is the breaking of God's commandments. Sin is a heaven or hell issue. Paul is talking about propriety, modesty,proper appearance, and conduct in the church. A shame isn't the same thing as a sin.

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

v. 6 – Is it a sin or just a “shame” for a woman to cut her hair? This word “shame” comes from the Greek “aischron” which refers to something that is a disgrace. It is the neuter form of “aischros” which is translated “filthy.” In W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, “aischros” is defined as “that which is opposed to modesty or purity.”

· v. 6 – In spite of its obvious Greek meaning, some still object to the strength of the word “shame” by quoting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. (“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”) By taking these verses out of context, they claim that if we teach women not to cut their hair, we must also teach them not to speak in church since the same word for “shame” is used here. However, if Paul was teaching that, he would be contradicting himself – in the same epistle in which he has already stated that women did pray and prophesy in the church! (1 Corinthians 11:5) They have overlooked the entire thrust of chapter 14, which is to teach ORDER in church services, so that EDIFICATION would be the result rather than CONFUSION.

BACKGROUND:
The church services in ancient Corinth were like a rather informal synagogue meeting, in which the men and women sat in different areas, and only the men were allowed to ask questions of the speaker. Many of the women addressed here by Paul had recently been converted from heathenism; they were hungry for the gospel, but had little or no education (due to their subservient role in ancient culture) and were disrupting the meetings with
questions shouted to their husbands. The word used for “silence” here is the same word used in 14:28 and 14:30, where Paul is teaching that a message in tongues should not be given without an interpreter and that two prophecies should not be given at the same time. It is not a mandate to silence the woman in church any more than Paul means to silence messages in tongues or prophecies! When Paul says it is a shame for women to SPEAK in the church, he uses the Greek word “LALEO” which means “to chatter, babble, prattle, gabble or talk in an undertone.” There are several other Greek words he could have used if he merely meant normal speech. Rather, Paul is teaching that it is “A DISGRACE, A FILTHY THING” before God for the women to DISRUPT the moving of His Spirit with their idle chatter. (see 14:32-33, 14:40) WE MUST BE REVERENT IN THE HOUSE OF GOD! It is faulty interpretation and dishonest scholarship to twist the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in an attempt to negate the clear meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:6. To God, SHAME IS SIN!

[TRFrance]

Brother, I think the Bible is very clear on this. I dont particularly care what Hobbes, Locke, or Aquinas have to say.

There's no need for us to go round and round on this. So...you work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, and do what seems best to you. And I'll do the same.

(I think you're really overthinking this for some reason, but thats just me.)
Have a good day, sir.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Brother, I think the Bible is very clear on this. I dont particularly care what Hobbes, Locke, or Aquinas have to say.

There's no need for us to go round and round on this. So...you work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, and do what seems best to you. And I'll do the same.

(I think you're really overthinking this for some reason, but thats just me.)
Have a good day, sir.

Hold up...you used the term "natural law" I simply showed you that you were in error as to the use of it. If you don't have an argument say so but making it about Locke v. the Bible is clearly not what was said.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Hold up...you used the term "natural law" I simply showed you that you were in error as to the use of it. If you don't have an argument say so but making it about Locke v. the Bible is clearly not what was said.

I "dont have an argument"? OK. Whatever.
You seem to unwilling to let this go, so let me just say it plainly like this:

The long hair teaching that Paul laid down is not based solely on natural law.

Paul simply referred to it ("does not even nature itself teach you") to further buttress the point he was making.

Thus, Locke and Aquina's words on natural law still dont undermine what Paul says on the issue, because natural law is not the sole basis of Paul's teaching.

Have a good day sir. Maybe someone else here wants to argue with you further on this. I don't.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I "dont have an argument"? OK. Whatever.
You seem to unwilling to let this go, so let me just say it plainly like this:

The long hair teaching that Paul laid down is not based solely on natural law.

Paul simply referred to it ("does not even nature itself teach you") to further buttress the point he was making.

Thus, Locke and Aquina's words on natural law still dont undermine what Paul says on the issue, because natural law is not the sole basis of Paul's teaching.

Have a good day sir. Maybe someone else here wants to argue with you further on this. I don't.

An argument is not a negative thing, when I go to court I better have one. I am not trying to be rude, I am trying to be logical and consistent with Scripture. Did God suddenly change his mind and reveal in the NT his law on hair that was contrary to multiple exceptions he made in the law? That doesn't seem likely to me. My main argument was not Locke or Aquinas but the Scripture itself and logic which it would appear is discounted if it doesn’t line up with a particular interpretation of Scripture.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

An argument is not a negative thing, when I go to court I better have one. I am not trying to be rude, I am trying to be logical and consistent with Scripture. Did God suddenly change his mind and reveal in the NT his law on hair that was contrary to multiple exceptions he made in the law? That doesn't seem likely to me. My main argument was not Locke or Aquinas but the Scripture itself and logic which it would appear is discounted if it doesn’t line up with a particular interpretation of Scripture.

Bro...I'm not trying to be contentious either. I just think we're going to go round and round on this, and not accomplish much.

To me, your own words above, "multiple exceptions" goes to the very core the issue. They were exceptions, not the norm. Paul was just spelling out for the saints what the norm is. But the existence of clearly understood and explained exceptions in the Bible does not in anyway negate what Paul stated as being the norm. Thus God didnt "suddenly change his mind"...as a matter of fact, he didn't change his mind at all. The fact that they were, as you yourself say, "exceptions" in the OT means that long hair on men etc, was never God's norm. Thus there is really no inconsistency at all, despite what some assert.

To me, it seems pretty straightforward. But what seems clear and logical to me, doesn't seem the same to you... and vice versa. So let's simply agree to disagree, and move on. If either of us is in error on this, may the Lord reveal it to us.

Blessings.

[COOPER]

Our Old brother Sammy in the old Testy had long hair like a Rastifarian.....God liked it and anointed him with great strength!


LONG hair may be a shame but it gave Sammy history in the Bible ! GOD DID NOT CALL HIS LONG HAIR A SHAME OR SIN.

Shame is not a Sin!


PAUL was just opinionated