Lessons #373 and 374
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual delivery not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GW = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Covering: Lessons from nature (1 Cor 11:3-16)
… 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
The message of this section of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 that is concerned with head covering we have been considering is that Men should not have their head covered during prayer and likewise women who wear their hair the way God has given it to them, but they should cover it if they either cut or shave it. We had stated that expounding this message involves understanding of three parts knowledge the Holy Spirit through the apostle wants us to have. The first part concerns the concept of hierarchy given in verses 3 to 10. The second involves the relationship between men and women given in verses 11 and 12 that we considered in our last study. Consequently, we emphasized that the two verses are concerned with stating to us that there is equality in the standing of believers – male and female – before God in Christ Jesus and that each contributes to the mission of the church of Christ in such a way not to disregard the order in God’s creation of men and women. So, we proceed to the third that concerns lessons learned from nature given in verses 13 to 15.
Apostle Paul began dealing with the third concern of the knowledge believers in Corinth should have with a plea or command for them to immediately and seriously evaluate what he has written and what he was about to state to see how improper it is for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered. This he did with the first instruction of 1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves.
The apostle wants the Corinthians to critically evaluate or scrutinize what he has said and was about to say because of the word “judge” he used. The word “judge” is translated from a Greek word (krinō) that may mean “to judge, pass judgment upon, express an opinion about” as it is used in the Lord’s instruction concerning looking down on others in a condemning way in Luke 6:37:
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
The word may mean “to judge as guilty,” “to condemn” as the word is used to describe the states of those who believe in the Lord Jesus and those who do not, in John 3:18:
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
The word may mean “to punish” as in Stephen’s sermon as he referred to God’s promise to Abraham of punishing those who would enslave his descendants, according to Acts 7:7:
But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,’ God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place.’
The word may mean to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, hence means “to consider,” as Lydia used the word to persuade Apostle Paul and his team to stay in her house if the apostle considered her a believer in Christ as we read in Acts 16:15:
When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.
The word may mean “to prefer” as it is used to describe the preference of believers regarding a day of worship although it is translated “considers” in the NIV of Romans 14:5:
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
The word may mean “to convince” as in Apostle Paul’s certainty about the death of Christ for all human beings as stated in 2 Corinthians 5:14:
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:13, the sense of the word is “to evaluate,” that is, “ to form a critical opinion of something (either positive or negative) by examination or scrutiny.”
The evaluation the apostle wants the Corinthians to do is both to be carried out individually and collectively. In effect, each one should independently evaluate what he has said and is about to say but they should not stop there. They should discuss their evaluation with each other presumably after they have heard the letter read. This group evaluation should probably not take place during the reading of the letter but when believers meet each other or in any other setting that believers get together. It is our assertion that the apostle not only wants believers to individually evaluate what the apostle says but collectively because of the instruction of the apostle in 1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves. Literally, the Greek reads Judge among yourselves. This is because the Greek preposition (en) used may mean “among” in which case the implication is that the evaluation is to be done eventually as a group for after all the apostle addressed the church in Corinth. You see, the Greek preposition permits the translation of the Greek expression as judge to yourselves which will imply that each one should silently or inwardly evaluate what the apostle states. It is this interpretation that is implied in the translation of the NIV for yourselves. That aside, the phrase to yourselves of the alternative translation we have given, in certain process implies one dealing silently with a matter, as for example, when John the Baptist challenged the Jews not to inwardly rely on their physical relationship with Abraham to carry them in their relationship with God rather to produce the fruit that is appropriate to their repentance as we read in Matthew 3:9:
And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Hence, we are correct to say that the literal translation judge to yourselves would imply that each Corinthian should silently evaluate what the apostle says. Because the command the apostle gave could be interpreted to mean personal reflection as well as collective reflection of what the apostle says, we contend that he meant for each person to personally evaluate what he says but also should be involved in comparing notes with other believers’ evaluation. This should not be a surprise because the apostle was dealing with a matter of concern to the entire church in Corinth which will imply that there must have been discussions among the Corinthians that warrant the matter of head covering that has been brought to the notice of the apostle. Anyway, the Greek command the apostle used that is translated Judge for yourselves implies that what the apostle requests of the Corinthians should be urgently carried out so that they reach the right conclusion based on what the apostle has written.
No one can arrive at a correct conclusion about an issue that is debated without having facts and understanding what the issue is. The problem that we find among people who bicker about some issues is primarily because, first they do not know really what the issue is, and they do not have facts about what they are arguing or that they reach different conclusions based on the fact. Nonetheless, it is knowing clearly what the issue is and having facts that help a person to reach the correct conclusion. Believers are expected to attain the same conclusion about truths that are given in Scripture although this is not always the case. However, we contend that we are supposed to reach the same conclusion so that we think the same way on a given issue that has been clearly stated. That this is expected of believers is implied by what the Holy Spirit says to the Philippians and so to all of us through Apostle Paul in Philippians 3:15:
All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.
Anyway, the thing the apostle wants the Corinthians to evaluate critically is the appropriateness of a woman praying or prophesying without a covering on the head. This he introduced with a question that is given next in 1 Corinthians 11:13 Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? The word “head” does not appear in the Greek, but it is implied since the Greek literally reads is it being fitting for a woman to pray to God uncovered? The word “uncovered” used in the literal translation is translated from a Greek word (akatakalyptos) that occurs only twice in the Greek NT both in this eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, here and in verse 5. It pertains to not being covered. Thus, the word is concerned with a woman that does not have a covering on the head. Hence, the adding of the word “head” by translators of the NIV in the question Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
The word “proper” is translated from a Greek word (prepō) that may mean “to be fitting” as it is used in describing what God did about Christ to provide our salvation as we read in Hebrews 2:10:
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
The word may mean “to be appropriate” as it is used to describe good deeds to be associated with believing women in 1 Timothy 2:10:
but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:13, it has the sense of to be proper, that is, “to be or become marked by suitability, rightness, or appropriateness.” Hence, the apostle is concerned that the Corinthians should by listening to what he says conclude that it is improper for a woman to pray or prophesy without a covering on her head. In effect, the apostle wants the Corinthians to arrive at a conclusion that was to be considered praiseworthy in life in keeping with what he expected about the thinking of the Philippians as he stated in Philippians 4:8:
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
We have stated that the apostle is concerned that the Corinthians reach the conclusion that it is inappropriate for a woman to pray or prophesy without a covering on her head although the question contains only the word “pray” as the question of question of 1 Corinthians 11:13 Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? True the word “prophesy” is not used in this question, but the apostle expects the reader to recognize that he is concerned with praying or prophesying since he mentioned the two in the two verses, he made statement about a woman having a head covering, that is, 1 Corinthians 11:4–5:
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.
So, when the apostle mentioned only prayer in verse 13, he expects us to recognize he meant praying and prophesying although he mentioned only one of the two activities he was concerned with.
Be that as it may, the apostle continued to provide information that should be used by the Corinthians to reach the appropriate conclusion that it is improper for a woman to pray or prophesy without a covering on her head. This further information provided in question format is concerned with lessons the Corinthians should learn from nature regarding the matter of head covering. The question is divided into two. The first is given in the first part of 1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him. The translation of the NIV is slightly different from majority of our English versions that reflect more literally the Greek sentence that reads Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him. The primary difference between the NIV and majority of our English versions is with the phrase of the NIV the very nature of things that is literally even nature itself.
Does it matter whether the Greek phrase in 1 Corinthians 11:14 is rendered literally as even nature itself or as in the NIV the very nature of things especially since both rendering captures the emphasis the apostle intended in the Greek? We say that both translations capture the emphasis the apostle intended because the apostle used a Greek pronoun (autos) that may means “self” as a marker of emphasis, setting an item off from everything else through emphasis and contrast but in our verse it is used to focus attention on the distinctiveness of the Greek word that we will get to shortly that is translated in the English as “nature.” The translators of the NIV captured the emphasis the apostle placed on the Greek word translated “nature” by their use of the adverb very while most of our English versions do the same with the phrase even … itself.
Be that as it may, the question we need to consider is: Does it matter whether the Greek phrase in 1 Corinthians 11:14 is rendered literally as even nature itself or as in the NIV the very nature of things? All things being equal, the answer would have been that it does not matter but since all things are not equal, it matters how the Greek is translated. By this we mean that if all English readers understand the word “nature” as having at least two meanings so that each English reader is careful to determine which of the meanings apply here. Most English readers when they encounter the word “nature” think of the physical force that is regarded as causing and regulating the phenomena of the physical world so that some even think in terms of what they call “mother nature.” That certainly could not have been what the apostle meant. Another meaning associated with the English word “nature” is “the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing.” The English reader who takes this meaning would come closer to what the translators of the NIV meant in the translation of the very nature of things.
What does the apostle mean in 1 Corinthians 11:14 with the literal word “nature” used in most of our English versions? To answer this, we should note that the word “nature” is translated from a Greek word (physis) that is predominantly used in the Greek NT by Apostle Paul in that, of the thirteen occurrences of the Greek word, he used it eleven times. The word may mean condition or circumstance as determined by birth hence may mean “birth” as Apostle Paul used the word to distinguish Jews from Gentiles in Galatians 2:15:
“We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’.
The phrase by birth is literally by nature. The word has the sense of “characteristic” when Apostle Paul used it to describe pagan gods in Galatians 4:8:
Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods.
The word “nature” here refers to one’s essential character or characteristic so that our Greek word has the sense of “characteristic” or “disposition.” The word may mean “nature” as the regular or established order of things as the word is used by Apostle Paul to describe “the non-negotiable order of things” in the matter of homosexuality in Romans 1:26:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
Apostle Paul used it to describe what can be said about the law in relationship to Gentiles when they fulfil the law’s demands by following the natural order (of things) as stated in Romans 2:14:
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
The word may mean “specie” or “kind” of animals as it is used in James to describe the taming of various kinds or species of animals in James 3:7:
All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man,
We have considered the range of meanings of the Greek word that is often translated “nature” in our English versions, but the question is to determine in what sense the apostle used it. Interestingly, there have been four different interpretations of the word as used in our passage. The first interpretation is that the word refers to an intuitive or inborn sense of what is fitting, right, or seemly. The second is that it refers to the way humans are created, that is, their constitution as men and women. The third takes the word to mean the physical reality of how the world is ordered. The fourth is that it refers to the customs of a given society. Our interpretation is related to the third and fourth interpretation in that we agree with the interpretation that our Greek word means “nature” in the sense of “the attributes and purposes which are proper for persons or things in view of their origin” of Lexham Research Lexicon of Greek NT. Hence, the apostle in the use of the word “nature” is concerned with what is considered normal or acceptable among people that can be traced as far back as humans have been on this earth or to the origin of humanity. In other words, the apostle is concerned with the way God made things to have certain characteristics as understood or recognized by humans. To me there are a handful of English versions that convey what the apostle meant to convey. The AMP conveyed this in that instead of the more literal rendering of the Greek phrase as even nature itself its translators rendered it the native sense of propriety (experience, common sense, reason) itself. The Passion Translation (TPT) rendered the Greek phrase long-established cultural tradition. These two English versions attempted to indicate that the word “nature” as used by the apostle is concerned with what is socially accepted in the world or at least among the Corinthians. So, the translation of the NIV the very nature of things makes better sense in conveying what the apostle meant in the Greek rather than the more literal translation even nature itself. Anyway, we emphasize that the apostle meant in the literal translation even nature itself, the way God made things to have certain characteristics as understood or recognized by humans.
The apostle stated that nature or as we have stated the acceptable characteristic of men’s hair should convey something to the Corinthians and so to us about a man’s hair. It is this that the apostle wrote as part of his question as we read in 1 Corinthians 11:14 the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.
The sentence the very nature of things teach you is somewhat peculiar that we should consider it. This is because of the possible meanings of the Greek word translated “teach” usually involves a person as we can illustrate by considering the various meanings of the Greek word used in our passage. The word “teach” is translated from a Greek word (didaskō) that may mean “to tell, to instruct,” that is, to tell someone what to do, as the word is used to bribe the Roman soldiers by the Jewish authorities to deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ as evident in an empty tomb they were to explain away by saying that His disciples stole His body from the tomb while the soldiers slept, as we read in Matthew 28:15:
So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
The word may mean “to teach,” that is, to provide instruction in a formal or informal setting as in the responsibility of Timothy to the local church he was the pastor, as we read in 1 Timothy 6:2:
Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
Here Timothy is the one that does the teaching. There is only one passage where our word is used without a clear reference to the person that is understood as the teacher. I am referring to what is written by Apostle John in 1 John 2:27:
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
In this passage, the subject of teaching is described in the phrase his anointing that refers to the Holy Spirit that is responsible for the teaching of believers. However, in our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:14, it is inanimate thing that does the teaching. This should cause us to recognize that the word “teach” should be taken to mean “to cause to learn” or “to prove.” Hence, the apostle probably meant that nature, that is, the acceptable characteristic about a man derived from God’s creation should cause us to learn or should prove to us what the apostle stated about a man’s hair is indeed true.
The thing the apostle states about a man’s hair is that it is disgraceful for his hair to be long as in the clause of 1 Corinthians 11:14 that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him. The translators of the NIV did not translate a Greek particle (men) used here that may be used as a marker of emphasis with the meaning “indeed.” However, when our Greek particle is used with another clause that involves the use of a Greek particle that often is translated “but” in our English versions as used in verse 15 then the Greek structure could be translated something like “to be sure … but, on the one hand … on the other hand.” Following this explanation, the clause of 1 Corinthians 11:14 that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him is more literally that (a) man on the one hand if he wears long hair it is (a) dishonor to him since the apostle contrasts the state of men and women regarding the nature of the hair in their heads.
It is true that because of our fallen human nature we humans have the tendency to rebel against norms established in our society, right or wrong. Therefore, the Holy Spirit directed the apostle to state the condition that leads to the thing he says is the state of man with long hair in a way that recognizes that what he states does not have to take place. The conditional clause if a man has long hair involves a Greek conditional particle (ean) that is used as a marker of condition with the implication of reduced probability. In other words, the apostle states that what he asserts does occur although rarely. It is not usually the case that men have long hair, but it does rarely occur. The apostle is not denying that some men wear long hair but that it is something rare. The expression “has long hair” is translated from a Greek word (komaō) that means “to wear long hair, let one’s hair grow long.” However, some think that Paul refers to the effeminate manner in which some males coiffured their long hair, rather than to the mere wearing of hair in full length.
Having stated that it is possible although rare for a man to wear long hair, the apostle stated what results when that is the case. It is this resulting state that is given in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 11:14 it is a disgrace to him. The word “disgrace” is translated from a Greek word (atimia) that may mean “common use” as the apostle used it to describe pottery that a porter makes from a lump of clay for ordinary use in Romans 9:21:
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
The word may mean “dishonor, disgrace, shame” as Apostle Paul used it to describe himself probably in a sarcastic manner in 2 Corinthians 11:21
To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that! What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:14, it means “dishonor,” that is, a state of shame or disgrace.
How is wearing a long hair disgrace to a man? To answer this question, we need to consider information about men’s hair in biblical world and facts stated in the OT Scripture about it. The information available to us indicate that the Egyptian men often shaved their heads, meaning that they did not wear their hair long. This may explain Joseph’s shaving before going to meet with Pharaoh as we read in Genesis 41:14:
So Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was quickly brought from the dungeon. When he had shaved and changed his clothes, he came before Pharaoh.
The handling of men’s hair among the Greeks and the Romans varied from time to time. Originally, the men wore their hair long but in the time of Apostle Paul, the Greeks and Romans preferred for men to wear their hair short, that is, shorter than women. Thus, the length of hair on men served to distinguish them from women so there can be no mistaken of a man for a woman. Among the Hebrew people, the men did not wear their hair long so that wearing of long hair was unusual. Long hair was worn for religious purpose associated with Nazirite vow, concerned with being set apart for holiness, as we may gather from Numbers 6:5:
“‘During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long.
When the vow was over, the hair was to be cut and presented as part of fellowship offering as we read in Numbers 6:18:
“‘Then at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that he dedicated. He is to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering.
It was because Samson was to be a Nazirite that he wore his hair long as we read in Judges 13:5:
because you will conceive and give birth to a son. No razor may be used on his head, because the boy is to be a Nazirite, set apart to God from birth, and he will begin the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”
Samson’s long hair symbolized that he was set apart for God’s purpose which was to use him to judge the Philistines as part of the process of delivering Israel from their control as in the clause of Judges 13:5 and he will begin the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the Philistines. Samson wearing his hair long was to symbolize God’s power in him as per his confession in Judges 16:17:
So he told her everything. “No razor has ever been used on my head,” he said, “because I have been a Nazirite set apart to God since birth. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as any other man.”
Once his head was shaved, Samson became weakened that the Philistines captured him. However, when his hair grew back, he prayed to the Lord to grant him power to destroy the Philistines, which was granted. The fact that his hair grew back is mentioned in Judges 16:22:
But the hair on his head began to grow again after it had been shaved.
The Lord’s answered prayer to Samson is recorded in Judges 16:28–30:
28 Then Samson prayed to the LORD, “O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.” 29 Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, 30 Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.
Because of the Nazirite vow, that involves special dedication to God, it is very likely that Prophet Samuel wore his hair long all his life as implied by his mother’s vow stated in 1 Samuel 1:11:
And she made a vow, saying, “O LORD Almighty, if you will only look upon your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the LORD for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head.”
Anyway, it is not usual for Hebrew men to wear their hair long. It is true that Absalom seemed to have been admired by some in Israel because of his long hair but then he cut his hair at a regular set time, according to 2 Samuel 14:26:
Whenever he cut the hair of his head—he used to cut his hair from time to time when it became too heavy for him—he would weigh it, and its weight was two hundred shekels by the royal standard.
It is probably to convey that Absalom wearing long hair was unacceptable that his long hair was mentioned as part of what led to his death as recorded in in 2 Samuel 18:9:
Now Absalom happened to meet David’s men. He was riding his mule, and as the mule went under the thick branches of a large oak, Absalom’s head got caught in the tree. He was left hanging in midair, while the mule he was riding kept on going.
That aside, the priests were not to wear their hair long, according to Ezekiel 44:20:
“‘They must not shave their heads or let their hair grow long, but they are to keep the hair of their heads trimmed.
The requirement of priests not shaving their heads is probably so that the priests do not resemble the priests of pagan gods that were known for shaving their head while the requirement for the priests not to wear their hair long may be to differentiate them from those who had taken the Nazirite vow. The point is that wearing of hair long or unkept in Israel was not normal. In fact, an unkept hair in a man in Israel signaled disgrace or uncleanness because such a person had leprosy as we read in Leviticus 13:45:
“The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’
It is also noteworthy that Nebuchadnezzar wore long hair as symbol of his judgment by the Lord as we read in Daniel 4:33:
Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.
We have cited passages in the OT that indicated that wearing long hair among Hebrew people was not normal. We do not have a direct statement that implied men wore their hair short in the NT times but that was certainly the case since the Jews at the time of NT ensured that there was a clear distinction between men and women for moral reasons. We only read of women with long hairs. For example, Mary was described as having long hair by which she wiped Jesus’ feet as recorded in John 11:2:
This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair.
The implication is that women certainly wore their hair long but not men. This would make sense with the requirement of the OT Scripture and perhaps conform to the Roman practice of men wearing short hair in the NT times. Why would this matter? It is because the Jews at that time were under Roman domination so it is possible that the Romans might have pressured Jewish men to wear their hair short if they already did not because of the influence of their Scripture.
The background information we have considered enables us to answer the question of what the apostle meant by saying that wearing a long hair is a disgrace to a man. He meant that such a practice puts a man in situation that he would be mistaken for a woman and therefore he would be doing something that is unacceptable to others. He would put himself in a position that he would be thought of in a negative light as not respecting the generally accepted norm.
It is interesting we recognize that depending on the context, the same action may be interpreted differently in Scripture. I am saying that we have in the Scripture situations where an action is considered a sin in one context but not in another. A good example is that of killing a person. To take the life of a human is quite serious a sin that human laws are not to be made that make it easy to take the life of another human being. God’s view of taking the life of another human being is stated before the Ten Commandments were given to Israel as we read in Genesis 9:5–6:
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
The seriousness of taking another person’s life is conveyed to Israel regarding what they should do when someone is killed, and the murderer is unknown. The blood shed must be atoned as given to Israel in Deuteronomy 21:1–9:
1 If a man is found slain, lying in a field in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess, and it is not known who killed him, 2 your elders and judges shall go out and measure the distance from the body to the neighboring towns. 3 Then the elders of the town nearest the body shall take a heifer that has never been worked and has never worn a yoke 4 and lead her down to a valley that has not been plowed or planted and where there is a flowing stream. There in the valley they are to break the heifer’s neck. 5 The priests, the sons of Levi, shall step forward, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister and to pronounce blessings in the name of the LORD and to decide all cases of dispute and assault. 6 Then all the elders of the town nearest the body shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, 7 and they shall declare: “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. 8 Accept this atonement for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, O LORD, and do not hold your people guilty of the blood of an innocent man.” And the bloodshed will be atoned for. 9 So you will purge from yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood, since you have done what is right in the eyes of the LORD.
Therefore, it is no small matter for anyone’s blood to be shed. It is for this reason that I stated that human laws should not be made that make it easy to kill another human being. A society may acquit a person of killing another but that does not mean that God is satisfied. For one thing God indicates that shedding blood defiles a land especially if the shedding of the blood is not atoned as we read in Numbers 35:33:
“‘Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.
Thus, we can be sure that God brings His own verdict on the location or nation where a person is killed and the killer is not held responsible depending on whether the killing is justified, not based on human laws, but on God’s law. The point I am making is that the same action may be right or wrong depending on the context. This matter of killing reveals it. The Scripture gives an example where killing a thief may or may not result in guilt on the part of the one who kills. This is given in Exodus 22:2–3:
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. “A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.
Nighttime puts limitation on what we see even if we have light. Therefore, when a thief breaks in at night, the owner does not know if the thief is armed to the point that he would kill the owner of the house to steal. Because the owner does not know this, if he kills the person then he is not charged of being guilty of bloodshed but if this happens in the day light, the owner sees better to know if the person is armed and so could kill the owner. If the person is not armed as far as the owner could tell to threaten his own life, the owner should not kill the thief since life is more precious than property. This is biblical standard but that is not the standard in human laws concerning acquitting people regarding the matter of killing. That aside, our concern is that the same action may be sinful on one occasion but not in another. This same truth is conveyed with the matter of food and drink. A person may eat, or drink and it would not be a sin, but another person would do that, and it would be a sin. Someone may say that is easy to see because one person may be guilty of gluttony which is a sin or be drunk which is also a sin for unless the two are sinful actions the Jews would not have charged the Lord Jesus of both because they think that He is a sinner as the Lord states in what Matthew recorded in Matthew 11:19:
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”
I am not really concerned now with the fact that a person may become guilty of gluttony or become drunk but that a person may eat or drink in a manner that violates the individual’s conscience and that may become sin. Apostle Paul referred to this situation in the matter of weak and stronger believer as we read in Romans 14:22–23:
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
Here the apostle is concerned with a strong believer who because of his knowledge knows that there is nothing wrong with eating and drinking and so is confident that what the person did is right, then eating or drinking is not a sin. This is different for the weak believer who thinks that eating some food or drinking is sinful. If such a person goes against his conscience, he would be guilty of sin because he would not be acting in faith. Without going into the detail of this passage, we should recognize that the same act is considered sinful on the part of one person but not in another. By the way the sentence everything that does not come from faith is sin is to be understood to mean that if you do anything without the confidence that it is right then it is sin. Anyway, we are concerned that the same action may be sinful in one condition and not in another.
Why did I digress to the point that I have made regarding the fact that an action may or may not be wrong depending on the context? It is because we are dealing with the matter of hair. We have seen that it is humiliating or dishonoring to a man if he wears his hair long but the Holy Spirit through the apostle evaluates wearing a long hair in a woman differently. We will continue with this evaluation in our next study.
12/17//21 [End of Lessons #373 and 374]