Eight Articles On The Question Of Hair Length On Men And Women
Article #1 Question-
The standard of holiness in dress and hair in our church is different than a neighboring church. My Pastor is more strict than the other pastor, and insists that we obey him and the standard of holiness he preaches. I can’t see why we have to be different than the other church. If they can dress differently and be saved, why can’t we?
Answer- by Reverend David F. Gray
I can understand your confusion. I hope the day will come when we all can speak with one voice on these matters and have a unified standard all over our fellowship. Frankly, however, it seems to me that the day is still far off when everyone sees eye-to-eye on every point.
But let us not magnify these differences. For the most part they are minor. We stand unitedly on the major, important things relative to dress: We all believe in long, uncut hair for our girls and women; short, cut hair for boys and men. We believe in modest apparel for both sexes, the women’s dress covering their knees and upper arms with no sheers or “see-throughs” and no tight skirts: and the men with no tight pants, effeminate styles, or long sideburns.
Having said this, let me now stress the value of convictions, and the solid ground a Pastor is on when he teaches and preaches additional convictions to his people, whether other ministers do or not.
God has little use for namby-pambly, spineless, follow-the-crowd weaklings, whether in the pulpit or in the pew. The men God has used have always been men of deep personal conviction. When a minister compromises his convictions for expediency’s sake, because of threats that his saints will leave him unless he does, or to follow the lead of another minister who is getting a crowd, he is then in deep trouble.
First he loses his self-respect, knowing he has sold out. Then, even those worldly-minded members of his congregation who want to compromise lose respect for him, although they might have been the very ones that urged him to do so. The holiness-minded saints are bewildered and ashamed. Worst of all, his ministry loses its power and anointing. He becomes a hireling, and Satan has his number. The downhill slide never stops once the momentum has begun. “Ichabod”, the glory has departed, is eventually written over the church door. I am sure you do not want this to happen. Therefore you should be glad that your pastor is a strong man, a man of conviction and spirituality.
Here is a Scripture we should never forget: “Obey (that is, outwardly conform to your pastor’s teaching in full obedience) them that have the rule over you (God has not given the neighboring pastor the oversight of your soul, but He has given it to your pastor), and submit yourselves (this is an inward attitude void of resentment or secret desires to disobey or rebel) : for they watch for your souls (your pastor is burdened for you, that you will be saved), as they that must give account (never forget that God will call your pastor to account for the convictions He has given him to preach), that they may do it with joy, and not with grief (a disobedient or rebellious saint is a grief to his pastor, and it will turn to be a grief to that saint when the pastor gives account of his disobedience to God): for that is unprofitable for you.” Hebrews 13:17.
Finally, suppose the neighboring pastor is wrong and your pastor is right? The chances are that the strictest one is closer to the will of God and God’s true standard of holiness than the more lenient one. It is always safe to adhere to the strictest standard you can. Take it from God when your pastor preaches it-he does not do it because he enjoys it, but because he wants you to make it into heaven.
You are not responsible to obey the pastor of a neighboring church. But you are responsible to obey your own pastor. The old saying, “The grass is greener on the other side of the fence”, is not always true. The blessing of God will come into your heart only when you stop looking across the fence, pray through, obey your pastor with gladness, and rejoice that your pastor is a man with deep and God-given convictions. By submitting to his leadership you will make it through to heaven.
Article #2 Did Jesus Wear Long Hair?
By: E.L. Bynum
Many men today are wearing their hair long. This style seems to have had its start in modern times by certain musical groups such as the beetles and others. The hippie movement Which has spread like a plague, has adopted the long hair style for men. The “Jesus freaks” and other religious hippie cults
have taken the long hair road. Unfortunately many men and boys who are not hippies have started to wear their hair in this manner. Many try to justify long hair by stating that Jesus Christ wore long hair. The time has come to set the record straight.
History Does Not Support The Idea That Jesus Wore Long Hair
Many pictures drawn by artists in recent times, picture Jesus with long hair. In this they are wrong. The following is taken from the book, “The Modern Student’s Life of Christ”, by Philip Vollmer, published some years ago by Fleming H. Revell Company.
“Archaeologists object to the conventional pictures of Christ because they are not true to history. A German painter, L. Fahrenkrog says: “Christ certainly never wore a beard and his hair was beyond a doubt closely cut. For this we have historical proof. The oldest representations, going back to the first Christian centuries, and found chiefly in the catacombs of Rome, all pictured him without a beard. All the Christ pictures down to the beginning of the fourth century at least, and even later, are of this kind'”‘
Even from Leonardo da Vinci and Michaelangelo we have pictures of Christ in the Final Judgement according to this older type.
The June, 1971 issue of “Tomorrow’s World” carried an article entitled – Did Jesus Wear Long Hair? The article was illustrated with authentic busts from the ancient world of the Roman Empire leaders proving that short hair was the accepted made in Roman-occupied Judea.
The busts of General Pompey, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Emperor Trajan, and King Herod Agrippa – all showed that short hair was the style. The article stated:
“For example, on pages 126-127 of Avi-Honah’s work (A History of the Holy Land) are found busts of Pombey, Augustus, and one believed to be Herod – all with short hair.All statues and carvings of legionaires show them with closely cropped hair. A Roman with long hair was an oddity as is – used to be the
case for men in our society. In fact, all Roman Emperors before, during, and after the time of Christ, from Julius Caesar to Trajan, wore short hair. And the emperor was the individual who set the pattern
in style and mode of dress for the whole empire.”
We do not think that it is scriptural to hang pictures of Jesus Christ in the Church or in the home. Many popular pictures of Jesus that were painted in relatively recent times, have perpetuated the satanic idea that Jesus wore long hair.
THERE IS NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE THAT JESUS WORE LONG HAIR
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”
1 Corinthians 11:14
Jesus was not a Nazarite: According to Numbers 6:1-27,a Nazarite did wear long hair. However, Jesus was a Nazarene and not a Nazarite. While the two words look similar in English, they are entirely different in looks and meaning in the original language of the Bible. A Nazarene was one that lived in Nazareth, according to Matthew 2:23. A Nazarite was one who took a Nazarite vow, according to Numbers 6.
The Nazarite vow was usually a temporary (Samson and Samuel seem to be notable exceptions, for their vow was for life. See I Samuel 1:11 and Judges 13:5; 16:17).
The Nazarite vow was a vow of separation. Three things were forbidden as long as he was under the VOW. (1) “He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist Srapes, or dried.” Num. 6:3. (2) He could not cut his hair. (3) He could not touch or come near a dead body. Num. 6:6-9.
A Nazarite could not have used any product of the vine, and thus Jesus could not have instituted the Lord’s Supper if he had been a Nazarite. For in this, he used the fruit of the vine.
If He had been a Nazarite, He could not have touched the funeral “bier”(open coffin) of the dead man in Luke 7:11-18.
If He had been a Nazarite, it is doubtful that the Holy Spirit would have caused Paul to write, “if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.” I Cor. 11:14.
If He had been a Nazarite, Judas would not have needed to identify Him in Gethsemane, since Jesus would have been the only long haired man there. Everything in the New Testament seems to indicate that Jesus looked much like the other Jewish men of His age. If there had been any radical difference in His appearance, we believe that it would have been mentioned in the Bible.
“Doth not even nature itself teach you” , that a man should have short hair and a woman long hair? I have never seen a bald headed woman, but I have seen many bald headed men. Very, very few women become bald, and those that do, are careful to conceal it with a wig. This surely must be “nature” teaching us.
The Bible clearly indicates that the hair style of a man should be short, and that the woman’s hair should be long. There should be a clear distinction between the hair of a man and a woman. Many scriptures teach that a woman’s hair should be or was long. (See Luke 7:38, 44; John 11:2; I Peter 3:3; I Timothy 2:9 and many others.) On the other hand the scriptures indicate just the opposite for the man, for you can find no such list of scriptures as above, in relationship to the man.Other than the very few Nazarites mentioned in the Old Testament, we can think of only one long haired man in the Bible and that was Absalom. He was the wicked rebellious son of David.
“IF A MAN HAVE LONG HAIR IT IS A SHAME UNTO HIM”
The above quoted words were written by Paul and were Divinely inspired of God. Therefore, we are going to accept what God says, rather than the fashion trend of the day. For the Christian, the Bible is the final word, not some picture or popular tradition.
For evidence, we quote what scholars have said about I Cor. 11:14.
Lange says, “Accordingly, in contrast with the practices of a cruder heathenism of the earlier time, when long hair prevailed, there has grown up among the most civilized nations, that good taste which declares itself in favor of short hair for men and long hair for women. Among men, the wearing of long hair is new reprobated as a mark of effeminacy and dishonoring to them, inasmuch as it prevents the free exposure of the countenance.”
Matthew Henry says, “The woman’s hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.”
“…If any man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.” The Greek Word “ATIMA” is translated “shame” in the above text. Elsewhere in the New Testament is translated “dishonor”, “reproach” and “vile”. Thayer’s comments on this word are interesting and informative. He says: “Atima, dishonor, ignominy, disgrace, I Cor 11:14; I Cor. 15:43, (in a state of disgrace, used of the unseemliness and offensiveness of a dead body);… base lusts, vile passions, Rom. 1 :26’:
Could anything be plainer? The “shame”‘(atima) of long hair is elsewhere used in connection with a dead and putrefying, decaying body. In Romans 1:26, “atima” is translated “vile”. Let us read this verse
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind…” Romans 1:26-28.
God is thus associating the “shame” of long hair with the “vile” affections of the sodomites and homosexuals. Our generation has made long hair acceptable and is seeking to legalize and popularize homosexuality. Now, we have homosexual churches and other churches that gladly welcome them into their membership. Long hair and homosexuality do not always go together, but they are very compatible. They both represent a revolt against God given nature, and against His precious
What Does Long Hair Mean Today?
Let the radical subversive Jerry Rubin, answer from his book, “Do It”. “Young kids identify short hair with authority, discipline, unhappiness, boredom;, rigidity, hatred of life – and long hair with letting go…whereever we go, our hair tells people where we stand on Vietnam, Wallace, Campus disruption, dope. We’re living TV
commercials for the revolution… Long hair is the beginning of our liberation from sexual oppression that underlies the whole military society”.
PREACHERS, CHURCHES AND PARENTS MUST STAND AGAINST LONG HAIR
Parents who allow a son to grow and wear long hair are contributing to a rebellion against God and against our country. This is a sure step in losing control of a child. Preachers and Churches who compromise on this subject, hoping to reach more young people are actually fighting against God. Let us stand, whatever the cost!
We believe that Christian young men, when taught the truth, will want to wear their hair short. Informed Christians will not want to be identified with the “shame” or revolutionary revolt that long hair symbolizes.
Article #3 Question-
Concerning the ladies long uncut hair: What is the proper length, shoulder, down to waist, or longer? Do you approve of trimming the ends? Consider, after ten years ones hair could grow down to the calves of the legs! Don’t you think it’s unreasonable for the ministers to demand our ladies to do their hair up if it’s five feet long? Its such a battle. (The letter continues with questions about hair being a covering, dying the hair, permanent waves, braiding, plaiting, ringlets and curls, etc.)
ANSWER-by Reverend David F. Gray
The purpose of women having long hair (Gr. KOMAO, to let the hair grow without cutting) is to acknowledge head-ship. First, the headship of Christ, that “the head of every man is Christ” (I Cor. 11:3). Secondly, the headship of man, that he is “head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the Church….Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (Eph.
This principle carries over into the church where saints are to “obey them (in outward actions) that have the rule over you and submit yourselves (an inward heart condition)” (Heb. 13:17). Long, uncut hair on a woman is the outward sign of this submission of heart.
However, your letter shows everything but submission, sister. Your problem is not of the head but of the heart, for even though you may have long hair on your head as a sign of submission, you have resentment and rebellion in your heart. If your heart was right you would never dream of calling your pastor “unreasonable.” He watches for your soul, and your salvation depends upon your submission. You may not always understand, but then you do not always have to understand.
Your greatest need is not for me to answer every point you have raised, although I will very briefly answer one or two before I finish, but to help you to see that you can go to hell with long hair on your head if you do it with rebellion and insubordination in your heart against those who God has placed over you. You can “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” like the Pharisees of old (Matt. 23:24), argue over how long “long hair” should be, and be seething on the inside with the very fires of hell because you do not want to be subject to your pastor.
Even though you may outwardly obey, if you are not inwardly submissive you are in deep trouble, sister. It is evident that a “root of bitterness” is growing in your heart, and if you permit it to remain you will not only lose your own soul but it may be that “many (others) will be defiled” (Heb. 12:15). May I sincerely plead with you to “repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22).
General outlines on many subjects are taught by the Word of God, divine principles that are “forever settled in heaven,” the details of which, in some instances, God has left the Church and the ministry to fill in, so that the outlines of divine truth as revealed in God’s Word may be fulfilled by present-day Christians. An example is concerning hair. You ask, Do you approve of permanent waves? The Bible does not mention waves at all. This is a detail concerning which God has left us to fill in. But the general outline of Bible teaching concerning hair is given in I Cor. 11. Our answer to your question must be in harmony with this outline. The chemicals used in permanents in order to be strong enough to “permanently” curl the hair, are so strong that they burn the hair and cause the ends of the hair to split, which in turn must be trimmed off. Thus the teaching of God’s Word concerning hair is violated.
All the other questions you ask could be answered the same way.
You see, when your spirit is right, you do not “kick against the pricks.” You will obey your pastor’s teaching concerning hair because you know God had entrusted him with the responsibility of filling in the general teaching of the Word of God on the subject.
It is evident that your Pastor has already answered your questions, Your responsibility now is to obey him and submit yourself with a sweet and quiet resignation to his teachings as the will of God for you.
But you may say, Suppose he is wrong? The chances are against it. I would rather believe a godly, praying pastor than the argument of a carnally minded. rebellious “saint.”
Article #4 Question-
How do you explain the fact that I Cor. 11:3-16 is the only reference to women not cutting their hair, in the light of II Cor. 13:1 stating that in mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word of truth be established?
Answer-by Reverend Clyde J. Haney.
The scripture in II Cor. 13:1 does not refer to the need of two or three scriptures to establish a Bible fact or practice. Paul is stating that this will be his third visit and that if the whispering and strife (c.f. with context verses 20 and 21 of the preceding chapter) are still present which had already been reported by the house of Chloe (I Cor. 1:11) then this condition would stand as a proven fact by two or three different human witnesses. This was in accord with Deut. 19:15 that more than one individual must witness against a person to convict him. This was certainly a fair and just rule.
It is a recommended rule that Bible doctrines also have two or three scriptural statements to support them; however God’s Word does not need more than one witness for God cannot lie. There are cases in fact where only one witness is given. For example the spear entering Jesus’ side and forthwith came blood and water (John 19;34-35). This is a very strong scripture supporting Christ’s atoning work. Yet John is the only one who records it for he was the only disciple present. The others had fled.
Time would not allow us to go into lengthy discussion on such single events. Let us say; however, that some stands that the Church have taken have had no direct single mention, such as cigarettes. No place is smoking mentioned yet the true Church always stood against such practices because our bodies are declared to be the temple of the Holy Ghost and the scripture says he that will defile this temple (body) him will God destroy. Today medical science supports the Church’s stand that cigarettes defile and destroy the body.
There is no scripture that names LSD or heroin yet they are covered by scriptures that demand pureness and holiness. The true Church does not need the exact mention of certain evils for our Lord in Matt. 18:18 invested the authority in the Church to deal with evil and said “… Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…” This gives a true Apostolic movement the authority to deal with any new modern civil that may present itself in these last days.
Now let us turn to the subject in question (1 Cor.11) concerning women cutting their hair. Paul produces two other witnesses in this chapter besides himself. After Paul in verses 5-13 makes clear that it is a shame for a woman to cut off her hair, in verse 14 he appeals to nature as a witness against such practice. In other words nature which is God in creation testified that a woman should have long hair while for a man to have long hair it was a shame to him. It is to be remembered that we live in an age when man is doing his worst to pollute nature and in this distorted generation it is hard for men to get a true picture of true nature. It is true that only as we draw close to God do we get a true vision of his creative will.
It is worth noting that every religious order that had power with Godtook their stand against women cutting their hair such as Methodist, Nazarene, Trinity Pentecostals, so called, and others but follow their spiritual decline and you will note they let down on this stand as well as other standards.
Paul then produces his third witness in verse 16, “but if any man seem to be contentious we (Apostles) have no custom neither do the Churches of God.” The Churches of God referred primarily to the Hebrew Christians or congregations. In other words you Corinthians are allowing a practice that is foreign to God’s people and the Hebrew people which had advantage Paul states over Gentiles in as much as the oracles came through them. Therefore the hair question had not been a problem with the Hebrew Christians.
Where did such practice come from in Corinth? A little study will show that Corinth was one of the most wicked Gentile play lands of about 400,000 population. There is where the great temple of Venus was where
a thousand slave prostitutes practiced prostitution in their pagan worship. No doubt these prostitutes cut off their hair and painted their faces. As history will show that these were the first to practice these customs. In our own nation sixty years ago if a woman cut her hair and painted her face she was known to belong in the “red light” district. Thus Paul establishes his stand on three of the strongest witnesses that truth can be founded on. Number one “nature” or the creator. Number two “we Apostles”. Number three “the Church of God”. For any one needing more proof than these, it could be said, “hey would not believe though one arose from the dead and witnessed to them.”
Article #5 Masculinity Threat Seen In Long Hair
By Watford Reed Journal Church Editor –
Most adults only widen the generation gap when they try to tell why they dislike long hair on boys.
They usually come up with some gem like “It looks terrible,” and that, after all, is only a personal feeling. It isn’t worth much more than a boy’s feeling that it looks great.
Far different is Clifford L. Tierney, minister of Holladay Park Church of God, who sees the threat to masculinity and the western tradition of male leadership which is involved.
“Today’s male is losing his masculinity.” Tierney warned.
“Along with long hair on boys go bright colors, flowery designs of clothing which, reveals body lines.”
This is part believes, of a growing “lack of respect for masculine authority.”
“Men should have a counterpart of the song, “I’m glad I’m a girl,” he said. “A man should be thankful he is a man, who requires respect because of his strength, ability to make decisions in time of stress, use of good judgment and the privilege of walking, talking and looking different from the female of the race.”
Tierney finds that many wearers of long hair are below standard in other phases of personal life, too. He went on: “It is no secret that men with long hair have more trouble getting good jobs. Again the long hair probably is not the chief issue. Most employers don’t want to risk a job by hiring a rebel. Things are tough enough without that.”
To the silly argument that Jesus Christ, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln wore their hair long, Tierney points put: “They looked like their fellow men. They did not undertake to be different or call
attention to themselves.
It also is true that the long hair you see on pictures of Washington was not his. He wore a wig in a day when men shaved their heads and put on wigs over the bare scalp (to help control lice).
Other adults feel-but too often do not say- that they like good grooming and long hair almost always is unkept.
Nor do they prove of following a fad begun by some rock `n’ roll performers who have given examples which should be shunned, not followed. And neither do they approve of undoing progress away from the long hair which barbarians wore 1,000 years ago.
When a boy shakes his hair out of his eyes long enough to say, “You people are silly to care so much about the length of hair,” a wise adult will answer, “Then why is it so important to you?”
When a federal judge said the other day that Jesus Christ himself couldn’t meet a high school hair code (which actually was too lax) at Marquette, Mich., Harry Leeding executive news editor of the Journal,
“So what? They wouldn’t let him (Christ) in anyway. He really believed in prayer.”
ARTICLE #6 QUESTION-
I knew a young preacher who came before the District Board for a local license and he had long sideburns. He was rightly told by the board that he had to cut his sideburns before he could get his license.
Most of our pastors teach us that it is wrong to wear long sideburns, hair that is over the ears or long in back, or mustaches. They tell us that to wear these things is to follow the trend of the world, and the Bible, tells us to be a separate people.
As a young man I feel this is the right stand for us to take. But I have found it rather hard to convince; other young people that this is wrong when they can see preachers’ doing the very thing they are told not to do. I can show you ordained ministers who have these very things and they are still allowed to preach.
Long sideburns, long hair, or a mustache is usually worn with pride. The Bible says pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. Don’t you feel that there is too much pride creeping into our churches and into the ministry, and that this is one of the ways the devil is trying to stop the work of God? Don’t you feel that the older ministers need to be examples to the young men coming up who will be leading the churches of tomorrow?
Answer- By Reverend David F. Gray
I do indeed! It is a grievous and tragic thing when ministers no longer conduct themselves in such a way as to inspire the saints to a higher, holier, nobler walk with God.
Even young ministers are counselled, “…Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (I Tim. 4:12). How much more we who are older, more mature, and I trust, deeper in God; how much more are we to be “ensamples to the flock” (I Peter 5:3).
But while I say this I would add one word of warning to you. Look out for your own spirit that you do not get into a condemning or critical attitude toward the ministry, or that you presume to judge another man’s motives. As a young man, you must respect the ministry and leave the dealing with them to those authorized to do so or to God.
You can get into such a condemnatory spirit that your usefulness for God will be seriously impaired. Never forget that when David, already anointed of God to be king in the place of Saul, so much as snipped a strip from the hem of Saul’s garment his conscience smote him deeply, even though Saul had so grievously sinned that he had become reprobate.
David realized that as long as God allowed Saul to be king he should honor him and leave him in God’s hands. No wonder David was “a man after God’s own heart”.
Article #7 “Long Hair For Men”
By: Hal Webb
The current “craze” of male members of society to wear long hair is not the harmless fad that many assume. It is a planned, calculated trend to break down the manliness of American men.
In the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD under “Commie Goals,” long hair is listed as a step of removal of the masculinity of the American male. It is developing a “unisex” population of weakness, while it destroys the ruggedness of men.
It degrades, sissifies and victimizes our youth who pattern their hair after the “faires,” “creeps, “addicts,” “homos,” and anarchists” of this generation.
Most are aware that these are strong accusations, but read further. Of course to your present thinking it may just be a style, yet ask yourself a question or two: Is long hair on a man right? Is it best? Does it please God? (Or do you care what God thinks?–if you are an infidel you need read no further–but if you want to know some facts; the truth; read on: The Bible calls it shame. Now please check some facts:
THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE PROOF THAT JESUS WORE LONG HAIR. The facts are clearly opposite. The unscriptural idea of Christ’s long hair came from a school of artists who never saw Him and were mostly devoid of Bible knowledge. This is the same group that put wings on feminine looking angels, although the Bible always refers to them in the masculine gender. The very earliest painters did not paint Jesus with long hair until the fourth century artists did not even paint Him with a beard. The pictures in the catacombs of Rome all portray Jesus in short hair. Ah, but you may say, Jesus was a Nazarite and such men did not cut their hair. You are very wrong. He was a Nazarene, but this simply meant He came from the town of Nazareth. (In the same way you might call one a Philadelphian because he came from the city of “brotherly love.” There is no proof that Jesus ever took Nazarite vows. Had He done so, He could not have drunk grape juice at the last supper (Numbers 6:2-4; Mark 14:22-25), nor touched the dead girl (Numbers 6:6-7; Mark 5:41).
History makes it clear that all other Jews, except those having taken a Nazarite vow, were short, trimmed hair. Christ was familiar with the Jewish Talmud which required,the priests to cut their hair every thirty days. They were not to shave their heads–a sign of sorrow. Nor were they to let it grow long–a sign of rebellion. The Talmud specifies the Julian” cut as the required style. Busts and statues of Caesars before, during, and after the time of Christ all had short cropped hair. All histories show that the Caesars set the complete style for the men of their generation.
” During the days of Alexander the Great, when the Grecian Empire ruled the then known world, the style was short hair. In the book, DANIEL TO PAUL by Gaolyahu Cornfield pp. 55-156, all the leaders have short hair. In the reign of Julius Caesar the hair length continued the same. A man wore his hair short as a sign of authority.
Jesus would never contradict the clear principle taught by I Corinthians 11:14-15; “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him, But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.” The word “nature” in the Greek is pronounced “phusis.” It means the regular law or order of God. The same word “nature” appears in many places in the Bible. Notice Romans 1:26 where Cod said “women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
God planned men and women to use sex in the proper way but not man with man or woman with woman. This is against nature and uses the same word to express His displeasure with long hair on men.
A woman’s covering is her long hair, which stands for subjection or submission. (Now the women’s lib crowd rebels at this, nevertheless God would have it thus). Long hair is glory to a woman but “shame” upon a
Romans, chapter 1, gives us a clear picture of the meaning of the word “shame”. In verse 26 it is translated “vile affections.” In verse 27 it is written as “unseemly.” In verse 27 it is written as “dishonor.” Shame “Atima” is translated dishonor, reproach, disgrace, offensive, base lusts and vile. The word is not a good one and is often used in the Bible in connection with sodomy or homosexuality. In the use of the word “shame” God certainly shows the seriousness of long hair on a man. The Word clearly teaches the man is to be a manly symbol of the authority and leadership of God. The Apostle Paul would not have recorded the dishonor of long hair upon a man, if Jesus had worn it thus.
THE BIBLE CONDEMNS EFFEMINATE MEN.
“Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (homosexuals), nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God” (I
If you look up the word “effeminate” in Webster’s dictionary you will see it means “to become womanly, having the qualities or characteristics of a woman, to appear delicate or unmanly.” “To become womanish or weak.” Paul clearly states a day would dawn when many men would leave their God-given role of masculinity and take on characteristics of a woman. We have lived to see this day, with men’s clothing designed almost identically on the lines of feminine fashion. Lace shirts, flowered pants, bright-button flies, high-heeled shoes, beads, purses and cosmetics are all “unisex” symbols of a degraded manhood. Pony tails, hair bands, and earrings are also the “in” thing for the new crowd of “pretty” men. Whenever a man’s hair style resembles a woman’s, long or short, he becomes a disgrace to manhood.
Long Hair Tells A Story.
In our major cities the drug addicts brag that long hair is a badge of drug abuse. Some wear it to attract other homosexuals into “gay” parties, pads and acts of immorality. Long hair has become the uniform of those who disapprove of American values. Such men disrupt orderly political meetings, preventing public officials from being heard. They often stand for violent revolution and glorify the heroes of communism. They wave the Viet Cong flag and burn ours. The following is an excerpt from a letter written by a long-haired “teen.”
“Hair is an effective means of non-verbal communication. I don’t need brothers, sisters, or my enemies, “Hey look, I’m against war, racism, poverty and pollution. I dig grass, black power and revelation, like to get stoned, listen to rock and make love. They look at my hair and they know.”
Article #8 Question-
Why is there so much objection to long hair for men and boys in our church today, when Jesus was a Nazarite who therefore had long, uncut hair? The pictures of Jesus show that His hair was long.
ANSWER- by Reverend David F. Gray
The desire of men and boys to have long hair is evidence, not that they desire to be like Jesus, but that they want to be like the world.
Your premise that Jesus had long hair is faulty on three points:
1. Jesus was not a Nazarite. He was a Nazarene, a very different thing. A Nazarene was a person from the city of Nazareth while s Nazarite was a person such as Samson who was under a special vow, which consisted of substaining from three things: (1) partaking of the fruit of the vine, (2) touching a dead body, and (3) cutting the hair- See Num. 6:1-6.
Jesus, not being a nazarite, drank of the fruit of the vine (Luke 7:34), touched the dead bodies (Luke 7:14), and therefore, not being under the law of the Nazarite He had not observe the third prohibition of not cutting the hair. The fact that cutting the hair was prohibited to the Nazarite is evident proof that for men to cut their hair was the accepted custom of the Jewish nation.
2. The pictures of Jesus do not accurately portray the physical likeness of Jesus nor the customs of His day. They are totally imaginary, and undoubtedly false. God did not intend for us to have an accurate picture of how Jesus looked in the days of His flesh, for He know that if we did would make a god of His likeness and bow before that instead of worshipping Him in the Spirit. Yet man is determined to worship a physical form, so pictures, statues, and crucifixes are made and used in religious rituals and forms. But all these are purely the product of man’s imagination. God’s plan is shown in I Peter 1:8: “Whom having not seen ye love…”
Further, these pictures showing Jesus with long, flowing, feminine-looking locks of hair are contrary to the customs of the day. The likenesses of those contemporary with Jesus as shown in the statuary of the ruling power of Palestine, which was Roman, shows that the universal custom of that day was for men to have short hair; much, much shorter than in the popular pictures of Jesus. Only women wore long hair such as the pictures show Jesus wearing.
3. Jesus would never go contrary to His own Word. God’s Word says, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” I Cor. 11:14. Nature, the Word of God, and both Jewish and contemporary custom all agree together: Jesus did not wear His hair long! By the same token, boys and men should not wear their hair long today. No matter what the customs of this perverse day are, God’s Word stands forever.
I cannot conclude without reference to the marvelously anointed message Brother Robert Sabin preached at the General Conference at Houston in October on the text, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation”, Acts 2:40. Brother Sabin delineated the Christ-rejection, Hell-bound generation of this day, and then rang out this challenging statement: “I will not bow down to this generation in any way, shape or form, not even by allowing my hair to grow 1/8 of an inch longer. This generation is going to hell. I want no part of it.” May God help us to stand without compromise for God and His Word today.