Hair

Helen If you read JP Greens translation in the colum to the left He translates the word into LONG HAIR.
VERSE 15- "But if a woman should adorn the hair,it is a glory to her; because the LONG HAIR has been given to her instead of a veil"

Even JP Green translates KOME as long hair. Im sorry I didn't check this out before my first post then I wouldn't have questioned JP Greens accuracy. Sorry Mr. Green.

Yours in Christ Jim

 

Just throwing this in about the long hair issue:

What about women who have alopecia (baldness), or have lost their hair due to chemotherapy?

Are they to be cast aside or looked down upon by legalists?

Just a couple of thoughts....

BTW, I wear short hair & have never been convicted that it was wrong. Even though as a Baptist PK, I was not permitted to wear shorts (only pedal pushers), and NEVER anything but dresses to any church events. (What would people think?)

As an old lady, I wear jeans, slacks, pant suits, and yes, even bermuda shorts (chubby legs, varicose veins, and all! If someone gets a thrill out of that, they have a LOT of issues!) (gasp!)

When I sing in the choir or play piano or organ for church, I always wear dresses or skirts, however, not because I have to, but that is my personal choice. (What would people think is still part of my psyche, ingrained very well...)

....but I also know in Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that (judgment) day.

Does anyone here really think that we will be judged (at the Bema seat, not Great White Throne) for how we wore our hair or if we wore jeans? Or will we be judged on how we spread the Gospel, visited the sick, visited those in jail, fed the poor, raised our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and how we treated our husbands, etc.? The Jesus I love and serve doesn't care about my short hair or jeans. And I know that if He were coming in the flesh to my house, I wouldn't run & put on a long wig or hurry and change into a dress....because He's not only my Savior and Lord, but He's my BEST PAL!

 

He is also your King and Judge. Every work, including how we present ourselves, will be judged whether it is good or evil. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that Jesus is not concerned with the way we present ourselves in our day-to-day lives. He is.

 

Aaron, I was saved by Grace! PTL! Not works.

However, I do not want to face my Savior & have Him say, "Child of mine, why did you dress as a streetwalker?" Or something to that effect. Neither do I want to face Him and have Him say, "Child of mine, why did you allow yourself to be distressed or depressed or in duress from legalists and pharisees and saducees, when I died to set you free?" Modesty is, of course, befitting a Godly Woman.

 

It was the Apostle Paul, not legalists and Pharisees and Sadducees, that said, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." I understand "long hair" here to mean long hair, and that long hair on men is in some sense a shame, as Paul said. On that basis, I choose to wear my hair short. I do not feel convicted in any way that I am a Pharisee or a Sadducee because of that.

 

Something I have always wondered about is, lions, male lion have long hair, and females do not. Bt then I guess it depends on what you call long.

 

Nobody called you that. You do not feel convicted that you are a Pharisee or Sadducee, I do not feel convicted about wearing short hair or jeans.

No one as yet has answered my alopecia or chemotherapy question regarding women.

Here's another one:

What about nurses and nurse aides? Shall they be accursed for wearing pant uniforms on the job?

And speaking of hair, I suppose use of hair coloring is acursed, as well. Shall I throw my Clairol dark auburn away & truly look like a grandmother? What's next, my Reeboks? Back to the old black lace up shoes! Throw Revlon Express Finish nail polish in the garbage at $3.69 a bottle? What? No lips? No eyeliner? No deodorant or perfume? Where does this legalism ever end???? Burqas for all!

The point about the lion and lioness is very interesting. Also the Nazarite vow.

[ December 10, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: SheEagle911 ]

 

Dear Sister She Eagle,
Thank you for your work in standing up for the unborn. And it is interesting that you mention nurses.

My mother was a nurse when nurses wore dresses and you guessed, it headcoverings. I have a picture of her with the nurses dress and covering on.

I also knew a woman who recently was convicted to wear a headcovering. She is a nurse. She began to wear the old time cap that nurses used to wear. When she came to work with it on the other nurses told her to take it off because it was demeaning to todays modern woman.

HCL

 

It's God's book and God's ways, and if He wants to make an exception (Nazarite vow) to the fact that long hair is a shame to a man, then so be it. Why question God? His ways are above ours, and 1 Cor 1:25 the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

By the way, I am sure most of you have noted that the NT makes no mention of the Nazarite vow.

As for women who have lost their hair due to one reason or another, God sees and God knows . . . He giveth grace. Besides, there are many ways a woman could cover her head . . . wigs, coverings, etc.

Another by the way . . . . . . please, I do implore you, stop the incesstant and wrongful use of the words legalist and Pharisee. Name-calling does nothing to edify anyone on this Board. It only causes strife and contetion.

Not to mention the fact that no one here is saying that our outward appearance makes us acceptable to God nor does it keep us on His good side. If the Bible says that short hair is a shame to a man and long hair on a woman is her covering and her glory, and someone believes what the word says, that does not make that person a legalist.

Believing and practicing God's word does not a legalist or Pharisee make.

Julia

 

There is no argument reguarding what the Greek words are properly translated as, so lets not change directions..

The issue of the nazarene vow is very simple, even though they did not cut their hair they most likely wore it in a wrap,same as Sampson.They did not let it hang down that would be very impractical.

Why do we keep trying to change Gods Word to JUSTIFY our own CULTURE?!

[ December 10, 2002, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: jimslade ]

 

How about a woman for what ever reason has lost her hair? Soem illnesses, some drugs, then hormonal imballances, family inheritance, any number of things can happen to casue hair to fall out. What about those women? Huh?
It is legalistic, to take scritpure ou of context, make a law out of it to earn grace, then tell others they have to do to obey this twisted law. Legalism.

 

And how is believing what God has plainly said (women should have long hair as a covering and that it is her glory) taking it out of context. Please tell us who is taking this passage out of context and in what way they have done this.

No one has done this on this board to my knowledge. If you think someone has, then please point out their post so that we can assess it.

God's word certainly isn't twisted, and God is the one who has said women are to have long hair. How is believing God's word and encouraging others to follow it legalism?

My pastor tells me God wants me to be faithful to God and my church. Is he a legalist?

My pastor tells me I should not lie . . . is he a legalist?

My pastor tells me to love my neighbor . . . is he a legalist?

Julia

[ December 11, 2002, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: KeeperOfMyHome ]

 

What about them? What are we supposed to do when God has afflicted an individual? What saith the Scripture?

 

Nor did I accuse anyone of calling me that. I deliberately made the statement that way, because ultimately it does not matter whether I feel convicted that I am a Pharisee or a legalist, nor does it ultimately matter whether men feel convicted about having long hair or whether women feel convicted about having short hair. The Scriptures are authoritative, and I will determine my practice based on how I interpret this passage (and others). I expect others will do the same. Or put another way, I might be a Pharisee or a legalist, even though I don't feel that I am; and others might be wrong about hair, headcoverings, pants, etc., regardless of their feelings. I am not recommending that we throw feelings out the window; just that we remember that they are affected by our sinful nature and may send us a wrong message as well as a true one. I believe that 98% of the regular posters to the Baptist Board are generally living by their convictions. Obviously, we are not all right. But we probably are all mostly sincere.

Would we argue that no one should obey the command to be baptized just because the thief on the cross went to paradise without baptism? If not, then why would we argue against a general expectation because some are unable to fulfill it? Would we use the fact that some people are invalid as an excuse for those who are not to not attend church, etc.? Because one person is in no position to obey does not excuse those who can.

Interesting, but not related to Paul's argument. Paul is not arguing about whether animals in nature have long or short hair. In context, he is arguing the natural order of things (vs. 3), and probably also has in mind the natural tendency of women's hair to be longer and more luxuriant.

If men naturally and commonly wore long hair, there would be nothing outstanding nor unusual about his hair length relative to the Nazarite vow. IMO, the idea, in light of Paul's statement in I Corinthians, is that the Nazarite bears shame for his Lord.

Does it say that they were forbidden to cut the hair on the top of their head? I only remember it refering to the beards.

In looking back at your first post, your interpretation of I Timothy and I Peter would seem to preclude hair ornamented with braiding in jewelry etc. What would you mean then by "ornamented hair?" And would you also be a legalist for suggesting that women must have ornamented hair and that men cannot??

[ December 10, 2002, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

As a personal opinion, I don't think we honour God, or the Christian religion, when we make a spectacle of ourselves in any way. We honour God with our lives. We ought not to attract attention to ourselves. "Only let your life be as it becomes the gospel..." Philippians 1:27

Cheers,

Jim

 

Lets make no mistake about this issue, we are dealing with a long hair covering issue. To say we are dealing with a ornamental dressing of the hair defies logic,and anyone with Greek language experience.
If anyone disagrees they will have to take it up with the Author of this book.

Keeperofmyhome Excellent

[ December 10, 2002, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: jimslade ]

 

ITS TO BAD THAT WHEN CHRISTIANS ARE PROVEN WRONG THEY HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING-I'M SORRY IM WRONG.

PRIDE IS ONE OF THE MAIN FACTORS IN PRODUCING-DOCTRINES OF MEN.

[ December 11, 2002, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: jimslade ]

 

Here's a few thoughts I just had:

If head covering for women is mandatory according to Scripture and it is mandatory for a man to not have long hair, why has it not been taught in Baptist Sunday School for the past 50 years? Why isn't this taught in all Baptist Sunday Schools?

Why isn't this taught as a matter of fact part of theology in seminary, especially Baptist seminaries?

If it was taught at one time, when & why did this stop?

Why don't mainstream fundamentalist Baptist preachers preach this from the pulpit? I've never heard a Baptist preacher preach head covering is mandatory for women (from the pulpit).

Why is this not mainstream fundamentalist Baptist doctrine, just as baptism by immersion, OSAS, etc.?

Huh? Inquiring minds want to know.

There's got to be a good solid reason. Unless most Baptists have just missed the boat and are leading people astray. (Which I find PRITTY hard to believe, thank you very much.)