Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 1 Corinthians

[Head William]

1 Corinthians 11:14 states it is a shame for man to have long hair. What do you make of this verse? Should we pretend it's not there, or is it ok to have long hair? How long is long? The bible actually tells the length of man's hair

I really am interested as an unbeliever, because I noticed your hair was quite long ,....feel free to wear your hair long, it's ok by me, but the bible says its a shame for men to have long hair ,....if it swings like a mantle it's too long. your hair swings and from the side and back; it looks very feminine.

i'm not judging, I don't care if your hair is a foot long.

[jimwalton]

I read ten commentaries on this verse, just to make sure I am being as objective as possible (and not just making the text say what I want it to say). They all speak of long hair as how the culture interprets it. In Jewish, Greek, and Roman culture, men wore short hair, and women long hair. Here are some of their comments:

Charles Hodge: The point is that the men shouldn’t be feminine-like, and the women shouldn’t be manly. The sexes should remain distinct. It was considered a mark of effeminacy for men to wear long hair.

Robert Hughes: Paul is asking the to admit that the most commonly accepted hairstyle was short for men and long for women. That was not to say there never could occur situations in which a woman could have shorter hair and man longer hair.

Charles Erdman: In their culture it was improper for a man to let his hair grow long, but it was expected for a woman.

Fred Fisher: Paul is asking them to retain the values and expectations of their culture: women keep your hair long and men keep your hair short.

Sarah Ruden: The ancients believed it was the nature of long female hair to inflame men sexually, almost like breasts or genitals. Men experienced women’s hair as powerfully and inescapably erotic. This is why women needed to keep their hair covered in worship.

Craig Keener: In most cultures around the world (if not all), men wear their hair shorter than women. Sexual distinctions are important. Let’s maintain them in the church.

So it seems to me the conclusion of the matter is this: What’s important is maintaining a difference between the sexes: unisexual efforts and cross-dressing practices are contrary to nature. A man shouldn’t be woman-like, and a woman shouldn’t be man-like. And we shouldn’t be sexually enticing in worship situations, let alone out in the world. We need to maintain a sense of propriety.

No definitions or boundaries are given for what is considered “long” or “short”. It seems that in their culture such things were understood. What he is teaching seems tied to their cultural practices and understandings, and not to universal principles. Therefore, it seems, as long as I am not wearing my hair long because I want to look effeminate, or to be sexually enticing, and as long as its length is within the boundaries of what my culture considers appropriate, there is nothing sinful about it.

What do you think?

[Free Thinker]

So, this sin, in your opinion, is linked to cultural perspective? Like it is a sin in some cultures and not a sin in others?

[jimwalton]

Yes. What is considered long hair varies from culture to culture. In Colonial America, many men had longer hair. So also in various indigenous cultures around the world at various points in history. It was my conclusion that the issue is not the length of the hair but rather the blurring of sexual distinctions. Long hair on men has been "accepted" in Western culture since the 1960s. Most men who prefer long hair don't do it to look like a woman but instead because they like long hair. That's fine. I think Paul's words speak against transvestism.

[Ingenuity]

> Therefore, it seems, as long as I am not wearing my hair long because I want to look effeminate, or to be sexually enticing, and as long as its length is within the boundaries of what my culture considers appropriate, there is nothing sinful about it.

That isn't what this verse says though. It says no long hair for men. It doesn't say no long hair if your not trying to look feminine or if long hair is okay with your culture. This is the very problem people take with believers and the bible. You're making an exception for men and long hair here because times have changed and you personally don't see the issue with men having long hair. But I'm guessing you're not willing to make an exception for something else like being gay because you personally are not okay with it. Can you see why some would call this hypocritical?

[jimwalton]

> That isn't what this verse says though. It says no long hair for men.

We know that 1 Corinthians is filled with situations specific to their church and culture. Many of Paul's directives in 1 Corinthians are specific to them and only apply to us in principle—and we do have to discern the principle behind the situation.

In addition, the context of 1 Corinthians 11 is that of worship. Robertson, Vincent, Fisher, and Orr & Walther all agree that "He’s talking about the native sense of propriety in addition to mere custom, but one that rests on the objective difference in the constitution of things." The teachings about head-coverings, veils, hair and baldness are all cultural ones, but we discern the principles behind them. His principle pertains to the nature of men and women—sexual distinctions—more than making a rule about hair length.

Absalom had long hair. So also Samson. Was that a disgrace for them?

> But I'm guessing you're not willing to make an exception for something else like being gay because you personally are not okay with it. Can you see why some would call this hypocritical?

This is exactly the point, and it's consistent, not hypocritical. It's not hair length that is of concern to Paul, but instead the blurring of sexual distinctions, as our gay culture is doing. As Leon Morris writes: This section raises the perennial question of the relationship of current social customs to Christian morality and practice. Behind all that Paul says is the principle that Christians must always act in a seemly and moral manner (1 Cor. 14.40.). In their culture, there were specific practices that were therefore forbidden (women wearing jewelry in worship, having their heads covered, and men keeping short hair). The principal is of permanent validity, though its application may differ in place and time.

[Free Thinker]

Ok. So, what is and is not a sin changes depending on the culture? In your opinion, sin isn't some objective line?

[jimwalton]

Sometimes sin is an objective line, and sometimes it is not.

From Romans 14:

"One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. ... One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. ... So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. ... I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. ... So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

If someone goes against their conscience and their stance of faith, for them that is sin even though for another Christian it may not be.
There are some actions that are always sin, such as rape, sex outside of marriage, cold-blooded murder, and many others. There are some actions that depend on the conscience and faith of the believer, like hiding Jews in one's house during WWII and lying about it, or various stances against government mandates. In those cases, it depends on one's heart, mind, soul, and conscience, along with one's motives and attitudes.

[Ingenuity]

> Absalom had long hair. So also Samson. Was that a disgrace for them?

That's old testament. I get told this all the time if I bring up anything old testament. So it doesn't matter.

> but instead the blurring of sexual distinctions,

So why didn't he just say that? If he meant this it is very easy to say this. He didn't need to even be specific about long hair. If he had said men don't dress feminine according to your culture we wouldn't be having a different conversation. What's to keep someone from reading other straight forward verses in the new testament and using this same culture exception or any other exception they want to come up with?

[jimwalton]

> That's old testament. I get told this all the time if I bring up anything old testament. So it doesn't matter.

So what you're saying is that you agree with me that it (no long hair for men) isn't a universal teaching for all men in all places in all eras, but it matters what the cultural standards, practices, and perceptions are?

> So why didn't he just say that?

He's been talking about keeping sexual distinctions clear in the whole chapter. He's talking about the differences in nature between men and women, the differences in how they are perceived, and therefore how they must act. He's been talking about nature, morality, and practice. What do you mean, "Why didn't he just say that?" Have you read and studied the context of the verse in question?

For the three previous chapters, Paul has written about what it means to be free. It turns out that freedom in Christ is a wonderful reality that people viciously abuse. They use their freedom to criticize others for sin on the one hand, to tolerate sin in others on another hand, and to indulge in sin themselves. It’s like we’re just too eager to judge and to sin. Paul is strong to shut all of that down.

Then we get to chapters 11-14, where Paul is going to focus on our freedom in worship. You’ll notice that he wants people to be free (whether male or female, whether of different gifts, as the celebrate the Lord’s supper, etc.), but they are not to use their freedom to make a mess of things, especially worship and their witness. Purity of life, self-control, consideration for others, love for others, unity in Christ, and a desire for an uncompromising witness in the world are to be their non-negotiable values in their pursuit of knowing Christ and living for Him.

> He didn't need to even be specific about long hair.

In chapter 11 he's been talking about propriety in worship, and in their culture, hair was one of the issues of disruption. Leon Morris writes, "Evidently some 'emancipated' Corinthian women had dispensed with the veil in public worship, and Paul argues they should not do this. The practice of these women outraged public propriety." Showing hair or not, and the length of hair, could make the Christians be disregarded as not only contemptible but also immoral. It really mattered in their culture.

> What's to keep someone from reading other straight forward verses in the new testament and using this same culture exception or any other exception they want to come up with?

We always do our very best to interpret a text properly and not falsely. Great effort is expended to understand the Scriptures accurately.