Why do Churches picture Jesus with long hair?

Question

Whenever I see a picture of Jesus, whether its a big painting on a Church or Cathedral wall or window, it always shows jesus with long dark (or light) brown hair that reached his shoulders. But does it not say in the Bible that this is sameful?
Corinthians 11:14 says "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Can someone please explain?

CB4UP your answer totally sucks. When someone asks a question they expect an answer, not another question because it is obvious you're trying to avoid answering the question in the first place.

Answer 1

Hmmm not sure I haven't read that lately.
I thought all people had long hair back then.

Maybe to them his hair was short, as you know hair grows much longer then that and women wear it down their backs.
My sisters hair was so long at one time that it almost reached the floor.
No kidding she had a thing for really long hair and I hear she actually cried when she had it cut.
Women!

Answer 2

Jews often would have short hair. It wasn't as easy to get a haircut back then. Long hair was considered special. Usually if a Jewish man had long hair it meant he had taken a special vow. It isn't certain that Jesus ever did this. The artists just depict Jesus how they want to. The shame thing has to do with the fact that the vow was often taken because of great sin. After the vow was completed the man could shave and go back to worshiping God with the other Jewish men. John the Baptist, however, took the vow without commiting sin first. Another place in the Bible having long hair is considered good. Sampson was a strong man who had long hair. Later his hair was cut off.

Answer 3

It has to do with a strange confusion in the New Testament between the ascetic Nazarite sect and the term for people that supposedly live in a town named Nazareth.

Here's a bunch of confusing information from Wikipedia on the subject that will probably not be terribly helpful:

Nazirite vows do not appear to have been understood by the Gentiles, nor are they even mentioned in patristic writings; therefore, some look to "nazirite" rather than "of Nazareth" or "the Nazarene" for the origin of these Hebrew/Aramaic epithets for Jesus. This conclusion is based in part on the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 that says of Jesus, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." It is doubtful that the prophets had actually said 'Nazarene', rather than 'Nazirite', because reference bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to Judges 13:5-7 concerning Samson's description as "a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death". In addition, there is no word translated ‘Nazarene’ or any reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Furthermore, although Luke 1:13-15 describes John the Baptist as a Nazirite from birth, John implied that Jesus was holier than he in Matthew 3:13-15, which says, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him". Thus Jesus was baptized, immersion in water being a fulfillment of the nazirite vow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarite

Basically, the Nazarite ascetics didn't cut their hair. Matthew seems to be saying that Jesus was somehow related with the Nazarites because he lived in Nazareth. So, its assumed Jesus didn't cut his hair. Its a weird screwy thing that looks like a flaw in the book of Matthew.

The problem comes down to the fact that Matt. 2:23 is either referencing Judges 13:5-7 or its referring some portion of Jewish scripture that got lost and no one knows about anymore. If it is referencing Judges 13:5-7, then it appears that the author of Matthew had an incorrect understanding of Judges 13.

At some point, it appears that it became common in Christianity to just gloss over the confusion in the reference in Matthew and just assume that some of the stuff in Judges applied to Jesus and that he therefor must have had long hair.

However, even if Jesus didn't have long hair, Corinthians 11:14 is still a problem because Sampson definitely had long hair and God didn't have a problem with that. Moreover, all the members of the Nazarite ascetic sect had long hair and it was God that told them to do it. So, the verse in Corinthians seems to be a fairly obvious contradiction.

Some Christians say that the verse in Corinthians was a cultural thing that only applied at that time. If so, it would have been nice for God to have somehow made this fact to be explicitly stated in the text. If people begin assuming that some parts of the Bible are OK to ignore because of cultural issues, then you get to the point where people will just pick and choose what they like and obey only that, (which is basically what most Christians do anyway).

Of course, if you don't believe in Biblic inerrancy and literalism, then this conflict shouldn't be a problem. If you do believe in those things, then....good luck.

Answer 4

Back in those days having long hair meant REALLY long hair, like below the waist. The apostles themselves had long hair by today's standards.
It's all a matter of perspective. In the early 60's, the Beatles were considered to have long hair. By the end of that decade that same look would be considered nerdy.
The Corinthians quote you made has to be interpreted: It was an advise, telling men to concern themselves about their general appearance; not a standard on how long your hair should be, because that's something that changes with fashion...

Answer 5

The image of Christ with long hair, comes from the emergence of the Shroud of Turin. Before this "Discovery" all paintings and tapestries depicting Christ, showed him having closely cropped hair. The shroud has been fully discredited by many professionals, and has been recreated in the past few years. Many believe that DaVinci was the one to have created the shroud using a optica obscurer, white linen, and silver nitrate. Thou shalt make no graven image before the Lord your God. DaVinci was a well known hater of Christianity.

Answer 6

Paintings of so called Jesus of any kind long hair or not have No Basis In Reality. Religious Art Came into existence 300 years after Christ Death. Notice that you will not find a SINGLE painting of "Jesus" Smiling or Laughing, not to talk about his Anorexic Figure. Its disgraceful. Religious artwork of that Era was meant to imply sympathy.

Answer 7

I recently got a flier from the local art museum. They're having an exhibit on Christian and Muslim art. There was one Christian piece dated 480 AD and anything else Christian was from the 1500's on up.
So, they (the medieval artists) pictured him as white (like them) and thought he was poor so he wouldn't have short hair since he couldn't afford a haircut. They probably made it neat in appearance b/c who's going to paint a picture of JC with unkempt hair? And everyone after that just followed along.
In reality, he's supposed to be of Jewish decent and have short hair. I think there's even a verse in the NT that describes him as plain-looking. Not bad or good.
Edit: Oh, BTW The picture of him from 480 AD on a cross was a raised sculpture thing that showed him with kinda short hair and very boring-looking. It was long after di died but at least it was still close to that era. (You might want to look up the Council of Nicaea)

Answer 8

Hello, Christian:

When the N.T. discusses hats and hair, it is refering to modesty and morals--don't dress like the other sex.

The O.T. Abslom and Naserites wore long hair, it was a sign of piety. And the church historian Josephus, described Jesus with sholder-length hair.

And, believe it or not, there just might be a surviving representation of Jesus, as the Gentiles were not ashamed to make statues, busts, and pictures. See: www.revelado.org/likeness.htm

Shalom, peace in Jesus, Ben Yeshua

Answer 9

Why any of it? The beard, the bedroom blue eyes, the milky white skin, the blondish shoulder-length Vidal Sassoon locks. It's conventional.

The historical "Jesus" was probably 5 feet tall, swarthy, and unwashed (per the Gospels). "Christians" who have spent their lives worshiping the whitewashed Latin image would be in for a shock if they could glimpse the reality.

Answer 10

Historically, that is who men wore their hair over 2000 years ago. Jesus was a poor carpenter and could not afford the lavishness of a hair cut.