Is Long Hair On Man A Disgrace?

By BIP

Long HairMany view long hair on man as feminine or disgraceful. The reason they do is because they’re influenced by a bad translation from the bible in 1 Corinthians 11:14.

“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him…”

Here’s the right translation.

“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man wears tresses of hair, it is a dishonor to him…”

The Greek word that is translated as has long hair in the wrongly translated version is komao. It literally means to wear tresses of hair. It is derived from the word kome and denotes locks of hair as ornamental, as opposed to one’s own hair on the scalp which itself is the Greek word thrix. These are two separate and distinct words.

Further, keep in mind that the Apostle Paul, in that chapter of the first book of Corinthians, was putting in context the spiritual authority of man over woman using a hair metaphor.

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God…” 1 Corinthians 11:7

For a man to wear tresses of hair would be tantamount to covering his head with what belongs to woman (i.e., placing himself under the authority of another man when man’s authority is Jesus Himself, as the Apostle Paul clearly pointed out at the beginning of the chapter).

“I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ…” 1 Corinthians 11:3

Therefore, if a man places himself in such a position (spiritually covered by a man other than Christ), it would be a disgrace to him. However, the woman must always have her head covered (i.e., be under the authority of man).

“It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head…” 1 Corinthians 11: 10

“…the head of the woman is man.” 1 Corinthians 11:3

Besides, why did God accept long hair on Nazirites such as Samson and John the Baptist? Their long hair coif was neither feminine nor a disgrace.

Advertisements