I say it was only relevant to the day and the culture. If anything it speaks to avoiding gender confusion as well as keeping a certain perception of order and authority in the church. We need to do the same today but hair length is not the issue in my opinion.Judah wrote:FFC, to recover your credibility, your attention to the following is invited...
Judah wrote:However, I'm wondering how FFC is going to justify his pick-and-mix approach to hair style and dress.![]()
Some churches today say that a woman shouldn't wear pants because there is a verse in the OT saying that a woman shouldn't wear the apparell of a man and vice versa. But what of jeans that are made for women? Was my grandmother a sinner for wearing a pant suit? And what do we do with Jesus and the Jews of His day who wore the long flowing robes.
It's always the spirit of the law that we need to get in tune with or it will always turn into legalism.
Having said all that I'm still not sure what the meaning of the verse is. I've had hair down to my waste and no hair at all. So what is the point to it all?