I was reading in Leviticus this past weekend, and I came upon this verse:
Leviticus 19:27 - Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Does anyone know what "round the corners of your head" means? Here's the context.
I've found out that this is something the Gentiles used to do when in mourning, but it didn't actually explain what it was.
Here's a bunch of different translations. However, some of them almost seem to describe different things. It's not a big deal, I was just curious to see if anyone had a good answer.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
'You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"Never shave the hair on your foreheads, and never cut the edges of your beard.
King James Bible
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
American King James Version
You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you mar the corners of your beard.
American Standard Version
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Bible in Basic English
The ends of the hair round your face and on your chin may not be cut off.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Nor shall you cut your hair roundwise: nor shave your beard.
Darby Bible Translation
ye shall not shave the corners of your head round, neither shalt thou mutilate the corners of thy beard.
English Revised Version
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Webster's Bible Translation
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
World English Bible
"'You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard.
Young's Literal Translation
'Ye do not round the corner of your head, nor destroy the corner of thy beard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
i thought it was so people wouldn't shave their heads when they mourn. also, i'm pretty sure God loves beards. i'm on his side.
Yeah, I heard you were sporting the facial hair on Sunday. :-) I'll still greet you. Tony said you got chewed out by some lady he didn't know.
Good question, Luke. I looked around the net a bit and most people either supported Traever's mourning theory or they thought that it was an effort to not conform to some pagan traditions of that time (evidently it was common for some cultures to support a "bowl" cut of sorts). Either of these approaches emphasizes the cultural context of such statements.
I think this can be supported given general context (the other warnings in this section are given against seemingly cultural institutions - I mean, making "cuttings in your flesh for the dead" hardly seems to be a temptation that arises naturally) as well as the argument given in v29. The writer does not speak against prostitution because it's wrong, but because if daughters are whored out, it won't be long before the land is whored out. In other words, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this pericope is written with the intention of protecting Israel from the surrounding cultures/religions/kingdoms.
it was marge feuct, curt's mom. she was just razzing me a little, ray used to too. we're family.
but old people really hate facial hair. they can't tell you why, they just hate it. same with elvis shaking his hips, that rock n' roll racket, and teenagers walking on their lawn.
Why is this detail not focused on at the annual brotherhood conference?
Sandy
Sandy: What "detail" are you speaking of: Rounding the corners of your head, or facial hair?
btw, you need to sign your comments "Aunt Sandy" or something 'cause I thought you were my sister Sandy until I looked at your IP address and noticed it came from Indianapolis. :-)
Why would God give instruction in a limited geographical, historical, and cultural context - rendering it meaningless in our time - and then state unequivocally in the New Testament that, "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"?
Don,
I don't think that anyone in this conversation has argued (or implied) that a limited context makes the Bible meaningless.
I think the contextual instruction of a verse can be limited to a geographical, historical, or cultural context, and that verse can still be profitable for instruction in righteousness. Don't you?
Nick,
First, my apologies for misconstruing your comments, and second, my apologies for dashing off a quick thought without taking the time to be precise. (Time seems to be at a premium these days.) I need to learn that it's probably better to refrain from joining a discussion than to jump in and offer a thought that is only half-baked.
Luke,
I do think that such a verse can still be profitable. Please forgive my generalization. However, I do think that many students of the Bible are too quick to interpret seemingly insignificant or incongruous instruction as cultural - both in intent and extent - and more often than not relegate it to a position of practical insignificance.
It seems to me that this particular pericope is framed by the 2nd and the 37th verses - and is God's instruction in and requirement for holiness. To me, the context appears to be universal rather than cultural. Several verses confirm the Ten Commandments, while others deal with fraud, respect for handicapped, love for brother/neighbor, grudges, purity of breeding, eating of blood, use of enchantments, honor for old men, etc. Wouldn't it seem that the few verses that seem to be less significant might not rather mesh with the rest of the chapter? Shouldn't we therefore try to understand them in the context of universal holiness?
Let's assume that the practices that are condemned (whether practiced by the cultures around Israel or not) were/are practices that are motivated or inspired by Satan and/or his evil spirits. In his clear opposition to God, it seems that the ways that Satan provokes men to sin are clearly not random. All that he does is with the clear intent to work against God. To my simple mind, it seems that if God saw fit to include these things in His instruction for holiness that they probably have great relevance, even though we may not know why.
I tend to think that the evil cultures around Israel (as well as the evil cultures in which we are immersed today) were responding to and rebelling against God, rather than God responding to them in his law.
Thanks for your patience. I'm guessing this is still only 3/4 baked!
Don,
Thanks for the clarification.
To your last point (evil cultures were responding to God, God wasn't responding to them), I'm not sure why both of these can't be the case. After all, since Israel was local and cultural, I'm not sure why the law shouldn't contain local and cultural elements as well as "universal" elements (though I'm uncomfortable with using this word for other reasons). This doesn't make them wrong. This doesn't even necessarily mean that they can't or shouldn't be used today. It just means that we need to tread softly.
One example of this could be v29 (which I mentioned in my earlier comment), assuming I'm reading it correctly. It specifically decries prostitution, but unlike many of the other verses in this section, it actually tells us why. It doesn't point to some universal truth or even natural law, but to the very local concern that "the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness". However, regardless of locality, I wouldn't argue prostitution is morally justified because this command is from a different context (even though it is).
Beyond recognizing the possibility of a local context in the law, this issue would probably bring up many other questions of interpretation typically confuse me. Since I think Luke interprets Scripture from the standpoint of original intent (Luke, please correct me if I'm wrong), I was trying to approach this passage from that standpoint. Given the reasoning from v29, I stepped back and saw that many of the commands in this particular section seemed to be stemming from concerns about the possible influence of surrounding cultures upon Israel and the need to remain a distinct people and thought that this would fit with the various interpretations of v27 I saw online (since I don't have a good commentary on Leviticus, I can't go much further at the moment).
Another possible interpretation of v29 might have to do with seeing the land as the literal dirt of Israel and that that same land would somehow be filled with wickedness. This would suggest more similarity with purity laws (and might slightly hearken back to God cursing the ground for Adam's sin). Since I don't understand this interpretation, I'm not sure where to go with it. In general, though, I think it's fair to say that this interpretation is fairly local as well.
Another possibility would be to go for an allegorical approach to the passage (one example might be seeing the land as the church and arguing for purity). This is even further beyond my grasp, though.
Does all that make some sense?
Nick,
It does make some sense, and I understand the difficulty of ascertaining God's intent - which is what I think we're struggling with here. What was God's intent in writing these laws, and what sort of meaning do they have for us today? Although it is difficult to communicate body language in writing, in any discussion of this sort, I acknowledge my ignorance and my intent to "tread softly". I have way more questions than answers.
I'm kind of a simple guy, so I tend to see things from a perspective that a God who exists outside the boundaries of time would have written laws that had lasting significance rather than limited local significance. I realize that He could have written limited local laws, but it doesn't make sense to me that He would have bothered to preserve them only to muddy the waters today.
So, to me, v29 communicates a principle (universal truth) that if you are willing to prostitute your own daughters, the inevitable result is a land that is depraved. One cannot justify corruption by urgent need in the micro-environment without affecting the macro-environment in an equally corrupt (or exponentially worse)manner. I sense this is a principle that applies in many ways. If I'm willing to corrupt myself in dealing with big corporations or the government, then others like me will be willing to deal corruptly with me and the land will be corrupt. If I'm willing to accept government subsidies in my life, then I can't complain if someone down the road is on welfare... etc. (not necessarily even corrupt, but perhaps in some ways a form of prostitution.)If I'm willing to kill, then it is inevitable that I need to watch my back. Someone will be willing to kill me and the land will be filled with violence. (Ask any gang member)
Does that seem reasonable to you? Once again, I had to write this in a hurry, so hope it isn't too off base.
Many mistranslations occur when translators fail to understand the customs and idioms of the times in which they were originally penned. Lamsa translation from the Ancient Eastern Text makes it plain and scriptural:
"You shall not let the hair of your head grow, neither shall you trim the corners of your beard."
This harmonizes with the main scriptural difference between the sexes: faces of men (beards) and hair like women (long). Let's keep it simple and scriptural.
Respectfully submitted,
Zachary Brinkerhoff
bkz717717@gmail.com
I think it may be a line up, shape up etc done by the barber.
I DID NOTICE THAT MOST OF YOU ARE NOT VERY EDUCATED IN THE CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES OF FOREIGN AND PAGHAN RELIGIONS ...REMEMBER ISRAEL WAS BROUGHT OUT OF A PAGAN NATION OF EYGPT....THEY OFFERED THEIR HAIR TO THEIR GODS AND BURNED IT....SO DID OTHER PAGAN NATIONS...THEY MARKED THEIR FLESH WITH CUTTINGS TO MOURN THE DEAD....AMERICAN INDIANS CUT OFF A FINGER SOMETIMES...AND THEY TATOOED THEMSELVES A PAGAN PRACTICE TO EMPOWER THEMSELVES WITH THEIR GODS..A REMINDER OF WHOM THEY WORSHIPPED...CHRISTIANS DON'T DO ANY OF THESE....IT DOES'NT MEAN WE CAN'T GET A HAIR CUT OR TRIM OUR BEARDS...I LIKE MY CUT BEARD AND MY CUT HAIR ON MY HEAD ..I'M BALDING....GOD HAD TO CLEAN UP HIS PEOPLE TO HIS STANDARDS ,WHICH IS THE BEST WAY TO LIVE FOLLOWING GODS STANDARDS...WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OR TORAH...CHECK IT OUT AND SEE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AS GENTILES.....EUDCATE YOURSELVES...GOD BLESS ALL WHO READS THIS EXPLANATION
Post a Comment