“Cut your hair, young man. The Bible says it’s a disgrace for a man to have long hair. Long hair is for ladies.”
Is that true? Does the Bible really say that?
Yes. And no.
Yes, there is a verse that sounds a bit like “cut your hair, hippies.” In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul says, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him…” Can we then conclude with former MBTS professor Owen Strachan that the man bun needs to go?
Men: cut the man bun. Lop it off. Time to look like a man. No one wants to say this in an androgynous age, but in obedience to God, do it.
No perfect length, but cut that hair down your back. And hand that Scrunchie back to your little sister.
Look manly. God’s glory is in it! pic.twitter.com/EkP5TYuuQN
— Owen Strachan (@ostrachan) January 18, 2022
Wait, Didn’t Jesus have long hair?
If you’ve seen any pictures of “Jesus” in your church you’ve likely marveled at his long flowing locks of hair. For many of us, to picture Jesus is to picture someone who looks like Kenny Loggins or Johnny Damon. But in reality Jesus probably had shorter hair. The Jewish men who had longer hair were Nazirites, not Nazarenes.
“‘During the entire period of their Nazirite vow, no razor may be used on their head. They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the Lord is over; they must let their hair grow long.” –Numbers 6:5
Think Samson. And think of John the Baptist. Jesus’ cousin was a Nazarite, so he would have had longer hair. Which, I believe, does pertain to how we would read a verse like 1 Corinthians 11:14. Was a Nazarite shameful because of his long hair? How would John the Baptist have interacted with Paul’s statement here?
The Context of 1 Corinthians 11:14
I also believe it must be admitted there is at least some element of gender distinctions in this passage. Whatever the specifics, how a woman (or wife) is to relate to man (or her husband) in the public gathering is the topic of the passage. I think most would agree with these general parameters, it is when we get specific that the debate begins.
As for me, I believe the major point in this section is that gender distinctions should be preserved during public worship. Decent evidence has been given that there was much disorder within the worship services at Corinth. This was only one of those areas. I would not be dogmatic on specifics, but I do believe it has a good deal to do with representation (headship) within an honor/shame culture.
The prophecy of Joel was being beautifully fulfilled within the early church. Both men and women were prophesying and praying together. It was a beautiful thing. So did this mean, then, that there we no longer any distinctions between the genders? That is Paul’s concern and the way they answered that question was reflected in how they presented themselves as men and women.
What Is An Argument From Nature?
The word used in 1 Corinthians 11:4 for “nature” is a word with broad meaning. It can be connected to an argument from creation, it can refer to that which is from birth, it can point to a disposition, or to the regular and established order of things.
Is Paul here making an argument from creation (as in “God created this way”) or from culture (as in “this is what is considered normal in our society)? I tend to agree with Schreiner:
It seems that the creation and culture coalesce here. The hair of men and women, generally speaking, is quite different; hence for a man to wear his hair long disgraces him. What long hair means is not defined, but Paul probably had in mind a man wearing his hair so that he looks like a woman. (Schreiner, 237)
In other words, yes, it is typical (natural) for women to have longer hair and for men to be on a march toward baldness. But there is also a way in which a man can wear his hair that would make him look feminine (and vice versa) within a certain culture. And the words that Paul used for “long hair” may also be a clue. The word komao only appears here in the Scriptures. If Paul had simply meant hair that gets long and isn’t cut he could have used a different term. Instead, this term is more likely referring specifically to ornamental hair. It would be similar to what Pseudo-Phocylides writes:
“If a child is a boy, do not let locks grow on his head. Do not braid his crown nor cross knots at the top of his head. Long hair is not fit for boys, but for voluptuous women.”
In other words, in that culture the “natural thing” was for a boy to have non-decorated hair (probably shorter) and for women to wear their hair decorated and more lengthy. How, then, in Corinthian worship do men present themselves as men and women present themselves as women?
Back to John the Baptist
So how would John the Baptist, a long-haired fella, worship among the people of Corinth? Or to put that negatively: how, if he desired to rebel, would he go about sticking it to Paul’s words and tradition here?
First of all, Paul’s words are not about typical attire. The context here is worship. So, John could wear his hair wild, dress how ever he wanted, etc. and not fall under Paul’s instruction in this passage. This passage is for a specific setting; namely, the gathered church.
But if John the Baptist wanted to mess up the Corinthian worship service and stick it to Paul, he could probably keep his hair long—but he’d need to decorate it in such a way that his contemporaries would know that he is attempting to show himself to be a lady. (So he might want to shave that beard and do something about the locusts in his teeth).
So do I agree with that tweet from Owen Strachan?
Not at all.
First, Strachan is extending a direction to a Corinthians worship gathering to an American Tuesday afternoon. Oddly enough, consistency here might demand that a long-haired man draw his hair up during a worship service. So, if anything, this passage may be calling a long-haired man to wear a man bun. (Though, I don’t believe that to be the case—I just appreciate the irony).
Secondly, Owen is taking his skewed definition of masculinity (and masculine appearance) and imposing it upon the Bible. Having a man bun does not in our culture indicate that someone is a female, nor does having long hair down your back. And Paul is not grounding his long hair/short hair argument in creation. As if God created Adam with short hair and every long-haired male is an aberration of his good design. (If that were the case he wouldn’t have instructed men to take a Nazirite vow).
This text isn’t saying “look manly”. It is saying, I believe, when you gather within worship the beauty of receiving the blessing of Joel does not negate gender distinctions. Keep God’s good order. The fact that some would say, “doesn’t that mean look manly” only indicates how captive to a certain period of culture some are.
Don’t bring cultural shame upon your family by the way you dress in gathered worship. Dress in such a way that you accurately reflect God’s good creation. That’s the universal commandment here. And it may be harder and harder to break as well as model, specifically within our culture. But to impose something other than this onto the text is, frankly, to not accurately read, believe, or apply the Bible.
—
Photo source: here
