Well, men should not wear long hair. The Apostle Paul says so. But 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 Nasselli, who asks this. Well, Pastor John, Paul argues from nature in both Romans 1 26 27 and 1 Corinthians 11 14 and 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 as using nature in exactly the same way in both passages. If you say they're 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. Pastor John, how do you respond to Andy?

Andy's trying to get some free counselor here. Well, we'll get to Jonathan Edwards in a minute. Great question, of course, coming from Dr. Andy Nasselli, professor of New Testament at Bethlehem College and Seminary, who even as we speak is writing a commentary on 1 Corinthians. I'm sure he knows way more than I do about this text and all the others.

So this may sound a little complicated, and I just suggest to those who want to go deeper and think harder, I do have a little short article on this at Desiring God called "Creation Culture and Corinthian Prophetics." So you can search on that at the website. So let me state the problem and the solution as simply as I can, at least the solution as I see it.

First, let's quote the two passages. Romans 1, here's what Paul says, "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped 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 that Andy's referring to.

Verse 27, "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." 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.

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, dishonorable. Now, here's the text in 1 Corinthians 11 that Andy's specifically focusing on in dealing how women may properly pray and prophesy in mixed gatherings in Corinth in the first century. And here's what it says, "Judge for yourselves, is it proper," prepon in Greek, fitting, seemly.

That's an interesting ethical category for Paul, very important. "Is it proper, seemingly fitting for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature," same word as in Romans 1, 26, "Does not nature 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 covering." She takes it, wraps it up, and puts it on her head for a covering. Now, here's the key statement. "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him?" And 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?" And then I think Andy makes a wrong assumption.

Now, perhaps and probably 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 that they both are based on God's created design, then you have to say," 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." And my response is, "No, you don't." That 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 basically, essentially the same way. And 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.

So the key question is, how does nature teach us that it's disgraceful for a man to have long hair? If you think about it 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.

And the human males left to nature will have just as much hair on their heads as women and more hair on their faces. So if you think one way—and Paul's not stupid. He can feel his cheek. He's not stupid. He doesn't assume—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, shameful, by wearing the culturally defined symbols of womanhood. I'm going to say that again. I think Paul is saying that nature, that is, natural, built-in, God-given, intrinsic maleness, inclines a man to feel repulsed, shameful, by wearing the culturally defined symbols of womanhood.

If I walked into church—five years ago while I was still preaching—if I walked into church to preach my final sermon 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?" And they would be right.

It would be horrifically contrary to my maleness. Nature does teach me that. 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 a Papua New Guinea man 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 prepon—unseemly, improper, indeed shameful, repulsive.

And since Andy mentioned Jonathan Edwards, maybe I should cite him because he argues exactly this way in his blank Bible and 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 'tis 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, but proper to bow down before an idol and show contempt." That's brilliant!

That's exactly right. That's 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. So 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. And that revolt from nature is a God-given teacher. That's really helpful. And I hope it's helpful to you, Dr. Neseli, out there listening.

Great question. Thanks for sending it in. And thanks for joining us today over at our online home. You can explore all 1,250 of our episodes. You can scan a list of our most popular ones, read full transcripts. And if you're writing a commentary, send us a question of your own.

Go to DesiringGod.org/AskPastorJohn and get new episodes delivered to you three times per week. Subscribe to the Ask Pastor John podcast in your favorite podcast app. Well, our friend Jen Wilkin is a wife, a mom, a Bible teacher, and she's the author of a very fine book, Women of the Word, How to Study the Bible with Both Our Hearts and Our Minds.

That book is now four years old this summer, and it sold 200,000 print copies already. Amazing. When we return on Wednesday, I want Jen to talk with us about the book and trends she sees in Bible reading and Bible studies, specifically what social media is doing to our time in the Word.

That's coming up with Jen Wilkin. I'm your host, Tony Reinke. We'll see you on Wednesday.