fbpx

Navigate / search

Are Appropriate Hair Lengths Dictated by Culture?

Head Covering Objections
The Objection: Appropriate hair lengths are dictated by culture, not nature. In many cultures long hair on men is normative such as the Native American Indians. When Paul mentioned ‘nature’ he was appealing to their cultural perception of what was right to them.

One objection to calling long hair unnatural for men is the fact that in many cultures it isn’t seen as offensive. One example often cited is the Native American Indians in which many men wore their hair long. If in some cultures it’s acceptable for men to wear long hair, how can we say nature teaches the opposite?

Right In Their Own Eyes

First it’s important to establish that just because a culture embraces something does not make it right. A good example are the Mosuo people of China where the heads of their households are women. Though they probably see this as right in their own eyes, it is not how God designed it to be. It is the opposite of God’s created order (1 Cor 11:3).

Was Long Hair on Men Shameful?

Another misconception is a wrong view of Paul’s own culture. Since Paul called long hair on men “dishonorable” (1 Cor 11:14) those who advocate a cultural view of hair lengths assume that long hair on men would have been seen as shameful. The problem with this view is that solid literary evidence suggests otherwise.

Cynthia L. Thompson (PhD, Yale) writing in Biblical Archaeology quotes Dio Chrysostom (40-115 AD) to show that there were notable exceptions to men wearing their hair short. She says:

Paul was in harmony with general Greco-Roman customs as observed in iconography. His argument that “nature,” with its universal implications, teaches men to have short hair, however, ignores important exceptions that, as a Roman citizen with claims to literacy in Greek, should have been known to him. Philosophers, priests, peasants, and barbarians are mentioned as exceptions to the rule of men’s short hair by Dio Chrysostom, who criticizes philosophers for making a connection between their long hair and moral superiority: “I still maintain that long hair [koman] must not by any means be taken as a mark of virtue. For many human beings wear it long because of some deity; and farmers wear long hair, without ever having even heard the word philosophy; and, by Zeus, most barbarians also wear long hair, some for a covering and some because they believe it to be becoming. In none of these cases is a man subjected to odium or ridicule.” 1) See ‘Hairstyles, Head-coverings, and St. Paul: Portraits from Roman Corinth’ by Cynthia L. Thompson (Biblical Archaeologist, June 1988) page 104

Chrysostom says that there were many men who wore their hair long and they were not “subjected to odium (hated) or ridicule”. That’s another way of saying it was normal. Not only that, but they weren’t doing so to rebel against society as they saw it as a “mark of virtue”. This is really important because the cultural argument assumes that Paul’s Corinth had a completely different view on these issues than the modern Western world. Their view is propagated by saying that if a man was seen with long hair in that culture, people would have dropped their jaws in shock at the public display of shamefulness.  As we’ve seen, that picture just doesn’t fit the evidence.

Cynthia Thompson seems to find this troubling by wrongfully assuming that something taught by ‘nature’ would be universally practiced. I don’t believe that we should be surprised when sinful men and women do what’s right in their own eyes. Men and women regularly do the opposite of what both natural and special revelation 2) Natural revelation is the created universe (Rom 1:20) and special revelation is God speaking through words (Scriptures and prophecy) teaches us.

Defining Nature

When it comes to how we should define terms, it’s important to see if the author who used the word in question also provides the definition. We can gain some insight to Paul’s understanding of ‘nature’ in Romans 2.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature (phusis) do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (Romans 2:14-15 ESV)

Here Paul teaches us that humans by “nature” have an inborn sense of right and wrong. He further says that “nature” lines up with God’s written law. When we (apart from special revelation) follow that natural sense of right and wrong, we’re bearing witness that God has indeed written a law upon our hearts. Since Paul sees nature as lining up with God’s law, it’s erroneous to define it as a cultural opinion.

Elsewhere in the New Testament wherever ‘nature’ (phusis) is used, it always refers to aspects of God’s creation. Here’s a sampling of the 14 times phusis appears in the New Testament:

  • Born Jewish: “We are Jews by nature (phusis)” (Gal 2:15)
  • Naturally uncircumcised: “he who is physically (phusis) uncircumcised” (Rom 2:27)
  • Created identity: “you were slaves to those which by nature (phusis) are no gods.” (Gal 4:8)
  • Born sinful: “were by nature (phusis) children of wrath” (Eph 2:3)
  • Kinds of created beings: “every species (phusis) of beasts…has been tamed by the human race (phusis) (James 3:7)
  • Natural branches of a tree: “for if God did not spare the natural (phusis) branches” (Rom 11:21)

Since “nature” (phusis) is never used in the Bible to refer to a cultural practice or decision, it would be arbitrary to start defining it that way when referring to our hair lengths (1 Cor 11:14-15).

Homosexuality and Long Hair

One last example of something that is taught by “nature” is heterosexuality. This example is important to this discussion because the Apostle Paul condemned both homosexuality and men wearing their hair long using the same Greek words. He says both are against nature (phusis) and both are dishonorable/disgraceful (atimia). Before we look at these passages it’s important to clarify that this is not to say that both are equally dishonorable. Paul also taught us that there are different degrees of sin, with sexual sin being on its own level (1 Cor 6:18 ESV).

Here’s what he says on both topics:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable (atimia) passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (phusis); and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another… (Rom 1:26-27 ESV)

Does not nature (phusis) itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace (atimia) for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:14-15 ESV)

So in light of these verses, here’s a set of questions for you.

  1. Do you believe that homosexuality is right or wrong based on culture’s judgment or do you believe that God has an original design for sexuality that should be followed?
  2. Do you believe that long hair on men is right or wrong based on culture’s judgment or do you believe that God has an original design for our hair lengths that should be followed?

However you answer these questions, to be consistent you must answer both the same. Since we have the same author, making the same moral judgment (dishonorable), by appealing to the same reason (nature) we must treat both the same.  In the Western world today, homosexuality is culturally acceptable as is short hair on women and long hair on men. However, just because culture blesses a practice, that does not make it right.

References

1.
 See ‘Hairstyles, Head-coverings, and St. Paul: Portraits from Roman Corinth’ by Cynthia L. Thompson (Biblical Archaeologist, June 1988) page 104
2.
 Natural revelation is the created universe (Rom 1:20) and special revelation is God speaking through words (Scriptures and prophecy)

Jeremy Gardiner

Jeremy is the founder of the Head Covering Movement and the author of Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times. He is a member of Fellowship Baptist Church and a student at Moody Bible Institute. He lives in Alberta, Canada with his wife and five young children. Jeremy is also the founder and operator of Gospel eBooks, a popular website that provides alerts for free and discounted Christian e-books.

Latest posts by Jeremy Gardiner (see all)

Comments

Alisha
Reply

Great article. I think Satan uses the cultural statement to trick Christians all the time. We should trust His Word and believe what it says.

Janelina Perebenta
Reply

Hi.

Congratulations to your article.
I want to know more about the church that use the headcovering.
Do you know a famous Brazilian church with Headcovering in the worship?
I think that this church is the biggest church with headcovering in the world.
It’s called Christian Congregation in Brazil or Christian Congregation in United States.
Janete Silva had post this comment and I have curiosity to know about this.
Can you research it?

See you later. Thank you!

therocknb100 .
Reply

What about Nazarite vows? They are still being made today.

Jeremy Gardiner
Reply

Thanks for the reply. We plan on responding to this objection soon. It should be on the site within two months. Going to deal with one other objection first (women not being able to grow their hair long).

2ruthmatters
Reply

Why did God give Sampson strength in his long hair if He is opposed to it? What about the priestly garments that included a head covering.

therocknb100 .
Reply

Not only was the ‘strength’ in the hair but I came across a very interesting article about our military hiring Native Americans as scouts or trackers. To everyone’s surprise (the NA) included when their hair was shaved for the military they could not track any better than any other one else. This was not the case when their hair was long. It seemed their hair acted like an antenna for their tracking needs. Interesting that Samson could no longer ‘detect’ the enemy after his hair had been shaved by Delilah.

Janete Silva
Reply

I agree with you. I believe that long hair in women is the right, the correct to God. Long hair in men is the opposite of the nature.

prince griffin
Reply

Yes but doesnt the bible also say a women husband his her head covering

Jeremy Gardiner
Reply

It says the man is her head, not her “head covering.” The covering is a garment to be worn while “praying and prophesying”.

Michael
Reply

A side note. At various times in history prostitutes would have their heads shave as a sign of disgrace.

After WWII French women who were known to have given ‘horizontal aid and comfort’ to the enemy during the war had their hair cut off as a sign, and to humiliate them, for what they did.

The secular books I’ve read don’t make the connection to 1 Corinthians 11, but I believe the connection is clear. Short hair on women is not natural and humiliating.

Alice
Reply

A great article, thanks. II found the original Chrysostom quote by typing “by zeus most barbarians long hair” into Google and reading the 35th discourse (or parts of it) in the Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom. I also found evidence elsewhere that in Paul’s time Greek men sometimes wore long hair and sometimes did not, as you stated. However, I agree that your article doesn’t answer the question about why Nazirites (like Samson – see Judges 13:5 and Numbers 6:5) had to grow their hair long.

Alice
Reply

Sorry, now I see that you have an article on Samson (which is also excellent)! Thanks.

Alice
Reply

The reference for short and long hair on Greek men in ancient times (3rd century or earlier) can be found if you type Greek homosexuality long hair. It’s on page 78 of Kenneth Dover’s book, if you are interested.

Mimi
Reply

Arg. Michael is promoting a myth. Prostitutes didn’t shave their heads or have their heads shaved by decree. That’s sheer silliness. Adulteresses had their heads shaved as punishment at various times and places. Totally different.

Cropped hair on a woman was symbolic mutilation. It was a mortification of the flesh. That DOES NOT mean that most, much less all, women grew their hair as long as it would grow. Some did, I’m sure. And at times, that was fashionable. But the hair of maidens looks very obviously trimmed in many images, and literally no one in manuscript illustrations or in the rare classical illustration where a woman has hair down had hair as long as MANY, perhaps half, of women can grow their hair naturally. I challenge you to find a single image of a woman not in braid-sheaths–during a mania for super long hair–who has hair noticeably longer than her finger tips. The average woman can grow her hair down so that it brushes the chair when she sits, but at least half can grow it longer. Sometimes far longer. Yet even in images of Mary, who is supposed to be the most feminine woman, we see a woman with hair somewhere between elbows and butt. You won’t find super long hair on any images of maidens. But you will find images with obviously trimmed hair that’s shorter, like this one: http://www.classicaldiscoveries.org/images_2/early_music/medieval_illuminated_manuscript/women_playing_music_british_library2960.jpg

There was a cultural context to “cropped” and “shorn” hair even then. With both men and women, the voluntary cropping of the hair was seen as a kind of sacrificial act, but with women, it meant self-mortification, too. It was, in fact, completely appropriate for a woman to cut off all her hair if she was in the deepest mourning (which would be for her husband) or if she was deliberately mortifying the flesh (a maiden cutting off her hair to avoid an unwanted marriage, for instance–many saints did this and were praised for it; nuns also cut off their hair upon taking up the veil). The WHOLE CONTEXT of the head covering is about MARRIED WOMEN. We know this because this is what women actually did in church and elsewhere. Married women covered their heads. Unmarried women did not. Tertullian tried to get maidens to cover their heads, too, but he didn’t appeal to Paul because he knew perfectly well Paul didn’t mean that.

It’s also pretty flatly perverted to imagine that other men are exercising authority over a different man’s wife, or that unmarried women should cover their hair as a sign of random men’s authority. There were wide degrees of rank, and women of high rank exercised authority over men of lower rank constantly, day in and day out. Women owned male slaves, and Paul didn’t say “male slaves, you should obey your male masters but not the women” because male slaves were under the authority of their mistresses as much as they were any master. Biblical women were “bosses” and mistresses over men all the time. Younger men were ordered to speak to older men as their mothers–that is, someone who would have authority over THEM.

A husband was the head of his wife, as Adam was the head of Eve. Some other dude has zero authority over a woman just because he’s male, though. It was shameful for MARRIED WOMEN to crop their hair because it symbolized mortification in grief or in the symbolic sacrifice of femininity. Both of these are inappropriate in a marriage, because wives wouldn’t cut off their hair for the death of anyone but a very beloved husband, and the implication of chastity in voluntary cropping is also not appropriate in marriage. (Paul kept having to tell married people that they shouldn’t be avoiding sex in an attempt to be holier–this would also be a part of that same message.) Obviously, the imputation of unchastity in involuntary cropping (if someone didn’t know why a woman’s hair was cropped) was even LESS appropriate to someone living properly.

People who say “short hair on women is not natural and humiliating” just don’t understand the difference between a crop (the sacrificial or punitive act) and a trimmed style, and they also don’t understand the meaning of the mortification of the flesh and how it could be either a praiseworthy thing OR a shameful thing, depending on the context, in that very culture. People of Paul’s era had zero problems understanding this, just like they had zero problems with upper class women having authority over younger, lower class, and slave men, which they constantly did.

Paul was speaking in generalities. He was NOT speaking about a Nazarite vow (which he probably took at least once, see Acts 18) but about the connotations of cropped hair on a married woman in general and cropped hair on men in general. Effeminate long hair on a man is shameful, as is growing out hair for male vanity. Nazarite hair is not, and Paul isn’t talking about that. A married woman who has cropped her hair voluntarily in this culture would basically mean someone who is forswearing sex, which would be shameful in a married relationship. (An adulteress with her hair forcibly cropped is obviously even worse.) A widow cropping off her hair out of grief is not addressed by this any more than the Nazarite is.

Egalitarians are wrong, but people who declare that women are generally under the authority of random men are even more wrong. Jesus is the bridegroom, and the church is the bride. This is supposed to mirror husband/wife relationships, not some random dude/whatever woman relationships. That’s perverted and creepy in the extreme.

Leave a comment

name*

email* (not published)

website

Send this to a friend