Question: Is it wrong for men to have long hair?
Pastor John's words are in black font. My comments on his words are in blue font.
Ask Pastor John Episode 1239: Is it wrong for men to have long hair?
Well, men should not wear long hair. At least, the apostle Paul says so. Why? Because nature says it’s unnatural. But how does Paul arrive at such a conclusion? Isn’t nature the reason why men can grow long hair in the first place? Today’s question comes from the one and only Dr. Andy Naselli, who asks this.
“Hello, Pastor John! Paul argues from ‘nature’ in both Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 11:14-15. In Romans, Paul argues that same-sex passions and intercourse are ‘contrary to nature’ because they fundamentally rebel against God’s created design for sex. In 1 Corinthians, Paul asserts that ‘nature’ teaches that long hair on men and short hair on women are dishonorable. How do you reconcile those two passages?
“Is Paul using the word ‘nature’ in the same way? Or is he using the same word in different senses? It’s problematic to see Paul using ‘nature’ in exactly the same way in both passages. If you say they are both only cultural, then that opens the door to same-sex passions and intercourse being okay in other cultures.
But if you say that they are both based on God’s created design, then you have to say that long hair on men and short hair on women are always wrong in every culture without exception. And, as a friendly reminder, Jonathan Edwards had long hair!”
Consistency is required. Nature (physis) cannot possibly convey 2 contradictory senses. Words have a range of meaning. But a word cannot contain 2 contradictory senses.
How we interpret "nature" in 1 passage is going to impact the interpretation in the other passage. Interpreting "nature" to be only cultural serves as an excuse not to maintain the tradition of 1 Cor 11, since hair lengths and headcoverings were only a cultural practice - so this false argument goes. This error will spillover into the homosexuality controversy.
Those who want an excuse to no longer maintain the Bible’s teaching that it is sin to practice homosexuality can appeal to this false definition of "nature" as only cultural. In other words, the argument will go: In Rom 1, Paul forbade homosexuality because it was not the "natural-cultural-norm" in the 1st century to have “monogamous-homosexual-marriage”. But nowadays, Western cultural norms increasingly permit homosexuality, especially when it is “monogamous-homosexual-marriage”. Just as we don’t insist on maintaining certain hair lengths or headcoverings in today’s culture, so likewise we should not insist that homosexuality be forbidden in today’s culture. This will be an argument to justify LGBTQ errors.
Let’s test Pastor John’s attempt to resolve this inconsistency.
Well, we will get to Jonathan Edwards in a minute. But this is a great question coming from Dr. Andy Naselli, professor of New Testament at Bethlehem College & Seminary. Even as we speak, he is writing a commentary on 1 Corinthians. I’m sure he knows way more than I do about this text and all the others.
This answer may sound a little complicated. I suggest that those who want to go deeper and think harder read a short article on this at Desiring God called “Creation, Culture, and Corinthian Prophetesses.” Let me state the problem and the solution as simply as I can, at least the solution as I see it.
God’s Design
First, let’s quote the two passages.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature [that’s the word Andy was referring to] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.(Romans 1:26-27)
Now, I think what Paul means by nature in this passage is who we are as male and female humans, designed by God with our built-in, God-designed natural differences — both physical, and more essentially, the deeper-than-physical, distinct realities of manhood and womanhood rooted in our God-designed male and female souls.
“The key question is, how does nature teach us that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair?”
Now, that’s a long definition of nature, but you can pause and go back and listen to it rather than me repeating it here. The implications for Paul are that we should conform our sexual relations to what God has designed our natural bodies for and written on our natural male and female souls. Homosexual intercourse, Paul says, is contrary to this nature and so is shameful and dishonorable.
Note Pastor John’s definition of nature in Rom 1v26-27. In the last 2 paragraphs above, Pastor John repeated 4 times: “designed by God”, “God-designed natural differences”, “God-designed male and female souls”, “God has designed…”.
"Nature" refers to characteristics (bodies, souls, sexuality) that are God-designed. Nothing to do with cultural norms. He's absolutely right.
Now, here’s the text in 1 Corinthians 11 that Andy is specifically focusing on, dealing with how women may properly pray and prophesy in mixed gatherings in Corinth in the first century. Here’s what he says: “Judge for yourselves: is it proper” — prepōn in Greek: fitting, seemly. That’s an interesting ethical category for Paul. It’s very important. “Is it proper” — is it seemly, fitting — “for a wife [woman] to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature [same word as in Romans 1:26] itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace 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 11:13-15).
Here’s 1 variation of the cultural norm argument.
V13 “Judge for yourselves: is it proper…”
Some see the word “proper” as a reference to: behavior that fits the cultural norm.
So v13 would mean something like, “Judge for yourselves: does it fit your culture for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
So what’s the meaning of the word translated “proper”?
“proper” is the ESV’s translation of prepō (πρέπω).
Prepō is found 7 times in the New Testament (Matt 3v15, Eph 5v3, 1 Tim 2v10, Tit 2v1, Heb 2v10, Heb 7v26 and 1 Cor 11v13)
This is the question we’ll ask for each instance: Is this behavior prepō because it is fits the cultural norm?
Let’s begin by checking how Paul used the word prepō elsewhere.
Eph 5v1-3: Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. 3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper (prepō) among saints.
Q: Is abstaining from sexual immorality prepō because it fits the cultural norm?
A: No. Christians abstain from sexual immorality because we are to imitate God as beloved children and walk in love.
Abstaining from sexual immorality is ironically, going against the cultural norm. It’s counter-cultural.
Prepō here involves behavior that in fact goes against the cultural norm!
1 Tim 2v9-10: women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper (prepō) for women who profess godliness—with good works.
Q: Is the modest, non-showy dressing of godly Christian women prepō because it fits the cultural norm?
A: No. The cultural norm is to dress up and dress to impress. So again, ironically, this is counter-cultural behavior. Prepō here involves behavior that goes against the cultural norm!
Titus 2v1: But as for you, teach what accords (prepō) with sound doctrine.
Q: Is teaching on godliness prepō because it fits the cultural norm?
A: No. Titus was commanded to teach on godliness because such teaching fits sound doctrine. Nothing to do with fitting the cultural norm.
Now let’s check how other NT writers use prepō.
Matt 3v13-17: 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting (prepō) for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Q: Was Jesus’ baptism prepō because it fit the cultural norm?
A: No. Jesus’ baptism by John was fitting (prepō) because it was to fulfill all righteousness. It was fitting because it pleased God. Jesus’ baptism had nothing to do with fitting the cultural norm.
Heb 2v9-10: 9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting (prepō) that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Q: Was Jesus’ crucifixion prepō because it fit the cultural norm?
A: No. Christ being crucified to save God’s children is not what any human culture expected. But God decided it was fitting (prepō) for Jesus to suffer death to bring many sons to glory. Nothing to do with fitting the cultural norm.
Heb 7v26-28: For it was indeed fitting (prepō) that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
Q: Is Jesus’ qualification to be our high priest prepō because it fits the cultural norm?
A: No. Jesus qualifies to be our high priest because it was fitting and prepō according to God’s will.
It was God’s will to have a better high priest serve his people than the high priests of the Levitical order.
It is prepō according to God’s word.
God sworn a word of oath that appointed the Son as high priest.
Clearly, Jesus’ appointment as high priest has got nothing to do with fitting the cultural norm.
1 Cor 11v13: Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Q: Is prepō a reference to the cultural norm?
A: No. There is no explicit reference to fitting the cultural norm in the context of 1 Cor 11v2-16. Nothing in the previous verses. Nothing in the subsequent verses.
Neither Paul nor the other NT writers ever used prepō to mean “behavior that fits the cultural norm”.
So in short: 7 out of 7 times, no.
Wrong definition of Prepō
I’m not sure what Pastor John means by prepō being “an interesting ethical category for Paul.” Prepō is just referring to typical Bible-based ethics. Prepō is used to refer to behavior that fits God’s word, God’s will, behavior befitting God’s children, behavior that fits God’s standard of righteousness.
Prepō has got nothing to do with fitting the cultural norm according to the NT writers.
So a women takes her hair, wraps it up, and puts it on her head for a covering. Now, the key statement is, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14).
Andy asks, “Is Paul using the word nature in the same way in these two texts? Or is he using the same word in different senses?”
Wrong Assumption
Then I think Andy makes a wrong assumption. Now, perhaps he’s doing this for the sake of asking the question, not because he’s got a settled conviction, but I think he states a wrong assumption for me to react to.
He says, “If you say they are both based on God’s created design, then you have to say long hair is wrong for men in every culture.” In other words, if they have the same meaning, and they refer to God’s created design, then you have to say that long hair on men and short hair on women are always wrong in every culture without exception.
My response is “No, you don’t.” This is not true. That’s a false inference from saying that the word nature has the same meaning in both texts. I do think Paul is using the word nature in the same way in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11, at least essentially the same way.
Note Pastor John’s qualification in the last phrase, “at least essentially the same way”. So he admits that he interprets Paul to be using nature in not exactly the same way in 1 Cor 11v14 and Rom 1v26-27, although he thinks that its still essentially the same way. In fact, Pastor John interprets Paul to be using nature in contradictory ways!
I don’t think this demands that we think Paul was teaching that any particular length of hair in relation to women is a universal requirement. The key question is, how does nature teach us that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair?
What Does Nature Teach?
If you think about it, in one way nature teaches exactly the opposite of what Paul says. Male lions have longer hair; they have manes. Cocks have combs. Peacocks have long feathers and the female peahens don’t.
Pastor John says “nature teaches exactly the opposite of what Paul says”. Then he gives examples from the animal kingdom. So it seems that nature is defined: nature = animal kingdom.
Is this an exegetical argument from Scripture? Is Pastor John explaining how he gets his definition of nature (physis) from Scripture? Far from it. For this reason alone, this line of argument is flawed and should be rejected.
But for the sake of argument, let’s consider his point anyway.
Pastor John is arguing from an analogy based on certain male animal hair-lengths to draw a conclusion for man’s hair-length. Male lions have longer hair than female lions. So Paul cannot possibly be saying men must have shorter hair than women. This argument assumes that what is true for a male animal must be also true for a man.
Paul teaches one-man-one-woman sexual relations in marriage. But male lions mate with multiple females of his pride. So… doesn’t nature (nature = animal kingdom) teach exactly the opposite of what Paul says regarding human sexuality also?
If Pastor John appeals to male lion’s hair as an analogy relevant for the issue of men’s hair, can we also appeal to male lion’s sexual behavior as an analogy relevant for the issue of men’s sexual behavior? Note that on this argument, a man’s homosexual behavior can also be justified by an analogous comparison to male animals’ homosexual behavior.
Pastor John will no doubt rightly reject the application of such analogies to human sexuality. Since that is certainly the case, then an analogous argument from male animal hair-length should not be applied to the issue of a man’s hair-length either.
“Paul is saying that by nature a man feels shameful for wearing culturally defined symbols of womanhood.”
Human males, left to nature, will have just as much hair on their heads as women, and more hair on their faces. If you think one way, you seem to get the opposite of what Paul’s saying. But Paul’s not stupid. He could feel his cheek — he’s not stupid.
Pastor John’s double repetition, “Paul’s not stupid” seems to be implying something about interpreting 1 Cor 11v14 as Paul teaching men to keep our hair short in accordance with God-given nature. That is ironic given the weakness of his previous argument on male animal hair and the weakness of his current argument too.
Is this an exegetical argument from Scripture? Is Pastor John explaining how he gets his definition of nature (physis) from Scripture? Far from it.
Again: Note Pastor John’s shifting definitions of nature. In the male animal example, nature = animal kingdom. Now the definition seems to be nature = human biology or nature = what just happens.
- Pastor John’s definitions are not well-defined, they keep shifting.
- Pastor John’s definitions are not demonstrated from Scripture.
The very fact that this definition of nature does not come from Scripture is enough reason to reject it. But once again, for the sake of argument, let’s consider his point anyway.
It is true that, generally, men’s hair will just keep on growing. Our genes do not tell the hair on our heads to stop growing once it hits our shirt collars. This is what happens to men’s hair when “left to nature”. Furthermore, men have more facial hair than women when “left to nature”. In other words, if “left to nature”, men’s head hair + facial hair exceeds women’s head hair + minimal facial hair.
God has given a pattern for male-female hair lengths that is to be considered natural (1 Cor 11v14-15). Has Pastor John’s observation above disproved this interpretation of 1 Cor 11v14-15? No.
Firstly, facial hair on the cheek is irrelevant to this issue. There is nothing in 1 Cor 11v2-16 about facial hair. Paul was only referring to the hair on one’s head.
Secondly, Pastor John seems to assume that what happens when the human body is “left to nature (nature = human biology / nature = what just happens)” cannot be regulated by God. This is mistaken. God has every right to regulate bodily functions which are just typical human biology. God even has the right to regulate bodily functions which are involuntary, unconscious, bodily functions that just happen. For example, under the Mosaic law, Lev 15v16-18, Deut 23v10-11 regulate how men should respond to semen emission. Lev 15v19-24 regulates how women should respond to menstruation. Deut 23v12-14 regulates how people should respond to the urge to take a dump.
When “left to nature”, men produce semen, women produce blood, we both produce excrement. Likewise, when “left to nature” men’s hair grows long and doesn’t stop at a predetermined length. None of these observations regarding bodies “left to nature” constitute an argument against God’s right to define how these bodily functions should be conducted.
When God required Israelite men to do certain things after emission, then that is so. When God required Israelite women to do certain things after menstruation, then that is so. When God required Israelites to do their big business a certain way, then it is so. No excuses that this is just what happens or this is what my body does when “left to nature” so God it is strange for you to regulate how it is done.
Likewise, when God declared his definition of what constitutes natural male hair length, then it is so. Just as God instituted a certain procedure for Israelite men after emission or a dump, likewise, a very simple act of obedience for Christian men is to get a haircut every now and then.
Pastor John’s argument should be rejected since God has demonstrated in Scripture that he has the right to regulate bodily functions, even the most “natural = human biology / just happens”, mundane, or private ones. Hair lengths is no exception.
Has Pastor John pondered the implication of his “left to nature” argument?
Suppose someone claimed that his homosexual desire was based on his genetics. It is just who I am when “left to nature”. He argues that homosexuality is as "natural" to him as his hair growth. Pastor John won’t make this argument. But I am showing you how Pastor John's flawed argument can be taken to its logical conclusion. Pastor John won’t do so. But others who desperately want to get around the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality will use his argument to legitimize sin. This argument to justify disobedience to 1 Cor 11v2-16 was already flawed to begin with, but those who keep sharing it don’t realize that they are unintentionally setting up LGBTQ arguments which will be used to justify disobedience to Rom 1v26-27.
I don’t assume that Paul is thinking that way. I think Paul is saying that nature — that is, natural, intrinsic maleness — inclines a man to feel repulsed and shameful for wearing culturally defined symbols of womanhood. Paul is saying that nature — that is, natural, built-in, God-given, intrinsic maleness — inclines a man to feel repulsed and shameful by wearing the culturally defined symbols of womanhood.
If I walked into church five years ago, while I was still preaching, wearing a dress, high heels, stockings, long floppy earrings, and lipstick, the elders should hustle me off to a side room and with dismay say, “Pastor, doesn’t nature teach you not to wear a dress?”
They would be right. It does. It would be horrifically contrary to my maleness. Nature does teach me that. This is the very same nature that teaches me that having sex with a man is shameful. But this is not because kilts in Scotland are sinful or that long earrings on men in Papua New Guinea are sinful. This is because whatever culturally defined accompaniments of femininity are in a culture, a man’s nature as a male will find this — that Greek word prepōn — unseemly, improper, shameful, and repulsive.
Pastor John’s states his definition of nature in 1 Cor 11v14: nature…inclines a man to feel repulsed and shameful by wearing the culturally defined symbols of womanhood.”
Pastor John then gives several examples of a man feeling ashamed for contradicting different American, Scottish, Papuan cultural norms. His point is that what is shameful for a man to do in American culture is not shameful for a man to do in Scottish or Papuan culture. What is sinful is when one contradicts the cultural norm that is applicable to your context.
Exegetical support for sin = contradicting the cultural norm applicable to your context? He appeals to “that Greek word prepōn — unseemly, improper, shameful, and repulsive.”
Recall what was written earlier about the prepō word:
Neither Paul nor the other NT writers ever used prepō to mean “behavior that fits the cultural norm”.
Prepō is used to refer to behavior that fits God’s word, God’s will, behavior befitting God’s children, behavior that fits God’s standard of righteousness.
Prepō has got nothing to do with fitting the cultural norm according to the NT writers.
It is wearisome to hear the same repeated appeal to a word that does not mean what they claim it means. Zero evidence, but no problem, just repeat it. Every interpreter of 1 Cor 11v2-16 who ends up saying that the hair-headcovering instructions don’t apply repeat this same baseless argument again and again. “Is it proper? (1 Cor 11v13). Oh, Paul means do what is in conformity to the culture. That is what Paul means by nature (1 Cor 11v14).”
Please reader, please take 6min, click here, look through 6 other verses besides 1 Cor 11v14 and see for yourself what I mean: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4241&t=ESV
Now, let’s review Pastor John’s multiple definitions of nature.
Definition #1: Rom 1v26-27. Sexual relations contrary to nature. Here, nature = God-given design
Definition #2: Analogy between men’s hair as compared to animals’ hair. Here, nature = animal kingdom
Definition #3: Men’s hair just keeps growing when “left to nature”. Here, nature = human biology?
I.e. My genes dictate that my hair will keep growing.
Definition #4: Or is Pastor John taking nature = it just happens. A state without human intervention?
I.e. When a man doesn’t do anything about his hair, it will just keep growing longer and longer without human intervention.
Definition #5: In 1 Cor 11v14, Pastor John argues that man’s nature is “inclines a man to feel repulsed and shameful by wearing the culturally defined symbols of womanhood”.
Where else in Scripture does "nature" mean what he claims it means in 1 Cor 11v14? Nowhere. In other words, he has MADE UP a meaning of "nature" just for 1 Cor 11v14.
Notice that for Definition #1, Pastor John used Rom 1v26-27 to explain the meaning of nature (physis). Everyone should agree with his definition for Pastor John has faithfully brought out the meaning of nature (physis) from the Scripture.
However, definitions #2-4 were not drawn out from any Scriptural text. Moreover, he doesn't even use them in discussing 1 Cor 11v14. It was a digression. These definitions of nature (physis) and the arguments that accompanied them were for one purpose only: To make it appear stupid to take Paul’s definition of nature in 1 Cor 11v14 just like how we understand it in Rom 1v26. I interacted with those arguments already, even though they had no Scriptural basis and they are logically inconsistent. Pastor John will not accept the same argument when applied to other issues.
Now, recall what Pastor John said earlier, “I do think Paul is using the word nature in the same way in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11, at least essentially the same way.”
In 1 Cor 11v14, what is defined as natural hair length for man and woman is determined in relation to cultural norms. In Rom 1v26-27, what is defined as natural sexuality is determined by God’s Biblical norms. This is definitely not using the word “nature” in exactly the same way. How is this even using the word “nature” in essentially the same way?! It is using the word “nature” in contradictory ways!
Edwards on Long Hair
Since Andy mentioned Jonathan Edwards, maybe I should cite him, because he argues exactly this way in his blank Bible, his notes on Scripture. He’s got a long section on this with remarkable illustrations. I would love to give all of them, but let me just give one.
Here’s a quote:
It is against nature in a proper sense, to bow down before an idol, because it is against nature to adore an idol; and bowing down, by universal custom, is used to denote adoration; but if bowing down by universal custom were used to denote contempt, it would not be against nature. (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, II:800)
That’s brilliant. That’s exactly right. The universal truth that it is against nature to bow down to what is false becomes relative in its outward expression according to what customs denote adoration.
Once again, we need exegetical support from 1 Cor 11v2-16 that Paul used the word “nature” as defined in relation to cultural norms. Citing an example from a famous Protestant cannot replace exegesis of the text.
Jonathan Edward’s cultural norm example is not 1 Cor 11v2-16 exegesis. Only after proving from 1 Cor 11v2-16 that Paul meant to define “nature” in relation to cultural norms can we apply Jonathan Edward’s argument by analogy to male and female hair lengths.
Here’s my summary. Did nature teach the Corinthians that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him? Yes, it did. Nature did because the God-designed, healthy male soul revolts against clothing himself in symbols of femininity, just like the God-designed, healthy female soul revolts against presenting herself as a man. That revolt from nature is a God-given teacher.
Pastor John mentioned "God-designed" or "God-given" 3 times in reference to nature:
- God-designed, healthy male soul revolts against clothing himself in symbols of femininity
- just like the God-designed, healthy female soul revolts against presenting herself as a man.
- That revolt from nature is a God-given teacher.
Earlier Pastor John already said:
- Paul is saying that nature — that is, natural, built-in, God-given, intrinsic maleness — inclines a man to feel repulsed and shameful by wearing the culturally defined symbols of womanhood.
But what did Paul say was God-given in 1 Cor 11v14-15?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a shawl.
The verb “give” is a divine passive.
When used in this form, the verb is used to speak of the action performed by God.
Which means that a woman's long hair is given by God not her society.
Therefore, the word, “nature”, physis, cannot refer to social customs or cultural norms here since Paul was talking about God-given male and female hair lengths.
Double-confirm this point on the divine passive in the Blue Letter Bible: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G1325&t=ESV&ot=MGNT&word=δέδοται
The word “give” in the divine passive is used 6 times in NT in 5 verses (Matt 13v11 - twice, Matt 19v11, Mark 4v11, Luke 8v10, 1 Cor 11v15)
Paul’s point is not that nature in 1 Cor 11v14-15 = a God-given inclination to avoid contradicting one’s culturally defined symbols accompanied by a God-given revulsion when one does so.
Paul’s point is that nature in 1 Cor 11v14-15 = a God-given male-female hair length pattern.
Man > Short hair. Woman > Long hair.
Rom 1v26: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable (atimia) passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (physis)…
1 Cor 11v14: Does not nature (physis) itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace (atimia) for him…
When women sleep with other women, contrary to nature (God-given male-female pattern for sexuality), they are acting on dishonorable (atimia) passions. Likewise for gay men.
Men who wear long hair disgrace (atimia) themselves because that is contrary to nature (God-given male-female pattern for hair lengths). Vice versa for women with short hair.
This is Paul’s true definition of nature (physis).
The disgrace (atimia) one feels (or should feel) is because of sin against God’s will. Not because someone contradicted the cultural norm.
My summary is this instead: Did nature teach the Corinthians that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him? Yes, it did. Did nature teach the Corinthians that if a woman wears long hair, it is her glory? Yes, it did. Nature did so because God gave women long hair. God did not give men long hair. Men’s hair will grow long unless you do something about it. So do something about it. Cut it short. God has the right to regulate our entire bodies, all our bodily functions, yes, even our hair lengths. It is unnatural to go against the God-given template for our hair lengths. If you do so, it is disgraceful. The cultural norms of the world are irrelevant to this discussion because it has ZERO exegetical basis - not a single word in 1 Cor 11v2-16 supports it. So let what God defines as natural teach us 2 simple lessons. Men cut your hair short to avoid disgracing yourself. Women keep your hair long and glorious.
Conclusion: Pastor John’s interpretation of "proper" and "nature" contradicts Scripture’s teaching. 2/5 definitions of "nature" are irrelevant. The only definition that has Scriptural basis is the definition found in Rom 1v26-27: "nature" is God-given design. But he does not apply this definition to 1 Cor 11v14. The arguments used on animal & man's hair lengths are bizarre and even open the door unintentionally to LGBTQ arguments.
Unfortunately most of us seem to approach 1 Cor 11v2-16 burdened with heavy cultural baggage that hinders even complementarians from holding up the truth consistently.
See this table how Pastor John's flawed definition of "nature" in 1 Cor 11v14 can be adapted and used to distort the definition of "nature" in Rom 1v26-27. Pastor John's arguments are in black font. A potential LGBTQ adaptation of his arguments is presented in red font.
Males of certain animal species have longer hair than females. Thus, Paul can't have meant that men are to keep their hair short to conform to a God-given natural hair length. Instead, nature (physis) in 1 Cor 11v14 refers to the instinct to conform to cultural norms. | When hair is just left to grow, men's head hair grows as long as women's. Also, men have more facial hair than women. Men's hair growth is "natural" (It is pure biology). Paul's not stupid. He can't have meant that men are to keep their hair short to conform to a God-given natural hair length. Instead, nature (physis) in 1 Cor 11v14 refers to the instinct to conform to cultural norms. | Paul is saying that nature — that is, natural, built-in, God-given, intrinsic maleness — inclines a man to feel repulsed and shameful by wearing the culturally defined symbols of womanhood. Since our culturally defined symbol of womanhood with regard to hair lengths has changed and it is now culturally acceptable for men to wear long hair and women to have short hair, that means God approves. Paul can't have meant that men are to keep their hair short to conform to a God-given natural hair length. Instead, nature (physis) in 1 Cor 11v14 refers to the instinct to conform to cultural norms. |
Males of certain animal species have sexual relations with males too. Thus, Paul can't have meant that men are to keep sexual relations between men-women to conform to God-given natural sexuality. Instead, nature (physis) in Rom 1v26 refers to the instinct to conform to cultural norms. | When human sexuality is just left to develop, some men develop sexual attraction to other men. They didn't ask for it, many even rather not feel it. It was just "natural" (Claim that it is pure biology). Thus, Paul can't have meant that men are to keep sexual relations between men-women to conform to a God-given natural sexuality. Instead, nature (physis) in Rom 1v26 refers to the instinct to conform to cultural norms. | Paul is saying that nature — that is, natural, built-in, God-given, intrinsic maleness — inclines a man to feel repulsed and shameful by acting out the culturally defined symbol of female-sexuality (I.e. having sexual relations with a man). Since Western culturally defined symbols of sexuality has changed and homosexuality is now culturally acceptable (in Western cultures), that means God approves. Paul can't have meant that men are to only have sexual relations with women not men in order to conform to a God-given natural sexuality. Instead, nature (physis) in Rom 1v26 refers to the instinct to conform to cultural norms. |
Exhortation: Most think that refusing to maintain the headcovering tradition comes with no consequences. But don’t you fear the coming day when the homosexuality controversy really explodes? Then all the arguments you’ve used to reject the headcovering tradition will reappear - this time in the mouths of your opponents who advocate LGBTQ errors in the church. By then it will be too late. Your own cultural norm arguments will be quoted back against you.
Even if you sincerely but belatedly realize your cultural norm argument was erroneous from the beginning and it shouldn’t have been used to excuse rejecting the hair-headcovering tradition, your LGBTQ opponents can easily portray you as backtracking on 1 Cor 11 only because you desperately want to win the argument against them.
In the Singapore church, the homosexuality controversy hasn’t exploded yet, unlike in Western church after Western church. But it is coming soon. This is a ticking time bomb which will explode eventually. You can act now and defuse it before it is too late. It is not too late to repent from your 1 Cor 11 errors. It will be embarrassing. It will be unpopular to re-establish the hair-headcovering tradition. But what is this in comparison to the future divisions and compromise with errors which will inevitably happen when the homosexuality controversy erupts and you find yourself cornered with your own erroneous arguments? Repent before it's too late!
Alternatively, you can continue foolishly propagating the erroneous cultural norm argument everywhere, thus laying a foundation of interpretation errors for your future LGBTQ opponents to build on and destroy your churches. Just visualize the horrifying moment when your own friends, your own children or grandchildren use your own cultural norm arguments against you to justify homosexual practices for themselves, or others. You will reap what you sow. Repent before its too late!
1Cor11v16: If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
The Corinthians, 1 of the most rebellious 1st-century churches, read 1Cor11v2-16 and repented. Never again was there a whisper of any further contentious rejection of the hair & headcovering tradition in 2Cor. What's that tell you about the Complementarians? Contentious Complementarians, worse than even the Corinthians.
For a paper with fuller explanation of 1Cor11v2-16: https://tinyurl.com/headship-hairlength-headcovers
Or watch the video on 1Cor11v14 and the true meaning of "nature" in context: https://youtu.be/h0VpTVk80kM
Comments