Doesn’t I Corinthians 11 prove that Jesus couldn’t have had long hair?
Question:
Regarding "Didn't Jesus have Long Hair?" Don't you think that I Corinthians 11:11ff shows that Jesus had to have short hair?
I read your post regarding this subject and think this text would answer that question.
"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God" (I Corinthians 11:11-16).
I don't think Paul would have written this if Jesus had long hair. Would Jesus do something disgraceful?
Answer:
I covered I Corinthians 11 in Hair.
The argument you make wouldn't work. For example, John the Baptist was under a Nazarite vow, which would imply that he had long hair. It wasn't a disgrace because he was following God's rules. It would have been unusual since few people lived under the vow. Therefore, if it were true that Jesus was under a Nazarite vow, then long hair would be expected. The short article "Didn't Jesus have Long Hair?" was to deal with the fact that Jesus wasn't a Nazarite.
