The following verses are a perfect example of translators allowing their doctrinal and cultural bias to influence how they translate a religious text.
I Corinthians 11:14-15
(14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
(15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
What does the verse actually say in the original Greek texts?
1 Corinthians 11:14-15
(14) Doth(G2228) not evenG3761 natureG5449 itselfG846 teachG1321 you,G5209 that,G3754 ifG1437 a manG435 have long hair,(G2863) it isG2076 a shameG819 unto him?G846
(15) ButG1161 ifG1437 a womanG1135 have long hair,G2863 it isG2076 a gloryG1391 to her:G846 forG3754 her hairG2864 is givenG1325 herG846 forG473 a covering.G4018
G2863
κομάω
komaō
kom-ah'-o
From G2864; to wear tresses of hair: - have long hair.
G2864
komē
kom'-ay
Apparently from the same as G2865; the hair of the head (locks, as ornamental, and thus differing from G2359, which properly denotes merely the scalp): - hair.
G2359
θρίξ, τριχός
thrix trichos
threeks
Of uncertain derivation; hair: - hair. Compare G2864.
The Greek word Komao was only used twice in the New Testament and both cases were done in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, hence we cannot cross-reference other passages to see how the word was used in other contexts. The author of this passage (Paul) was likely referring to the Greek custom of women who would pile their hair on top of their heads... braiding, twisting, and tressing it with ornate hairpins (sometimes with gold, silver, and precious jewels). In our modern culture, it has become less common, but still seen where woman will decorate their hair in all kinds of styles, designs, and jewelry. However, to see a man decorate his hair as such would certainly be taboo. Men with long hair generally keep it very plain, pulled back, or disgustingly unkept and manly (insert grin of sarcasm)... and it is likely that men in antiquity also had similar customs, as ancient artwork often confirms. For example, men of war are frequently depicted with facial hair AND long head-hair from regions as far as ancient Japan and China to Germania and Britannia. Even the early Roman period had men with long hair and beards.
Alternate translation
I Corinthians 11:14-15
(14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have ornamental locks of hair, it is a shame unto him?
(15) But if a woman have ornamental locks of hair, it is a glory to her: for her ornamental hair is given her for a covering.
Questions to consider
1.) Nazarites were told to let the locks (H6545) of the hair of their heads grow long (Numbers 6:5). If it was shameful for men to grow long hair, why would Nazarites be told to not cut their hair? If it is sinful for men to have long hair (as many Christians and Messianics propose), is it not ludicrous to assume Nazarite men were permitted to sin in order to be more set-apart/holy? For example, would a Nazarite be told to hire a prostitute or commit adultery or some other disgraceful/shameful sin in order to be more set-apart?
2.) The priests of Ezekiel's prophesied Temple period will not be permitted to shave their heads nor grow their locks of hair long (Ezekiel 44:20). To not be permitted to have long hair, but to also not be permitted to shave with a razor, means one has to trim or poll the hair to some length. However, we are not told how long the hair was to be polled or trimmed. A couple inches? Several inches? Above the shoulders? One's reasoning should lead us to understand why a priest would be commanded to poll his locks of hair... for they will be dealing with alot of blood and other set-apart offerings... and having the long hair of a Nazarite would be more than just inconvenient while performing priestly duties. Furthermore, if it will be widely customary for all men to poll their hair short like the priests were commanded, why the specificity for the priests? In other words, if it will be widely understood that all men should have short polled hair, then why be so specific with the priests?
3.) Absalom, a son of King David, was highly praised by the people of Israel because of his beauty. He cut his hair once every year because of its extreme weight (2 Samuel 14:25-26). We also know he was able to temporarily steal away the hearts of all the men of Israel from his father (2 Samuel 15:6). Is it probable that Absalom would have been able to grow his hair long and win the hearts of the men, if having long hair was disgraceful and shameful?
Note: The Greek word used in the LXX translation for Absalom's hair (in 2 Samuel 14:26) was not the word Komao (G2863), but Trichos (G2359). More evidence that Absalom's practice would likely not have been considered shameful by Paul. 1 Corinthians 11:14 is simply the victim of poor and/or manipulative translators.
4.) Assuming the Apostle Paul wrote and meant what most translators have translated, did Paul have the authority to add new commandments which are not already prescribed in the Written Torah of Moshe (Moses)? And did the Apostle Paul have the authority to contradict verses in the Written Torah which clearly permit long hair on men, such as with the Nazarite vows (Numbers 6:1-21)?
Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of יהוה your Elohim which I command you."
Deuteronomy 12:32 "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it"
The Clean-cut Roman Christian soldier paradigm
This man-made religiously-charged custom of pressuring men to have short-hair and clean-shaven faces in order to be perceived as upright and stable citizens of the kingdom is an intensely inaccurate and misleading reality not shared with most all of our ancestors, including those in ancient Israel. To some degree, this modern paradigm is reinforced by the American Hippie culture of the 60s, where the "free love and sex movement" was predominantly depicted by men with long hair and beards, later to be carried into the Heavy Metal drug and music scene of the 70s and 80s. Having lots of hair was redefined to represent those living rebellious sinful lifestyles (especially in the United States and other western cultures)... or maybe... because of the confused self-righteous Christian culture, the rebellious took on appearances that went against the pre-fab Roman Christian appearance?
In conclusion, we should be careful not to let our modern cultures define what is truly right and acceptable practices. The Torah should define these things for us, and if it is NOT in the Torah, then apparently it was considered permissible by the Creator of the Universe. In this case, no where in the Written Torah does it forbid the common man from trimming his hair long or short (both are permissible according to Torah). Conversely, no where does it forbid women from trimming their hair to various specific lengths, correct?
Be ever mindful not to ADD to the Torah! Such is breaking the Torah. Such dilutes the Torah and makes it weak.... just like adding water to your coffee or tea.
Hanok ben-Isaak
Note: I'm not suggesting men "should" have long-hair. I'm proposing there is freedom within the Torah for men to have various lengths of head-hair.
