In Leviticus 19:26-29, we find God demanding the Israelites to remain separated from their pagan neighbors as their cultures reflected the pagan thoughts based from their myths. One of the interesting statements in this passage is, “neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” This carries religious pagan practices that continue the thought of gender distinction. Adam Clarke wrote, “The corners of thy beard – Probably meaning the hair of the cheek that connects the hair of the head with the beard. This was no doubt cut in some peculiar manner, for the superstitious purposes mentioned above. Several of our own countrymen wear this said hair in a curious form; for what purposes they know best: we cannot say precisely that it is the ancient Egyptian custom revived. From the images and paintings which remain of the ancient Egyptians, we find that they were accustomed to shave the whole hair off their face, except merely that upon the chin, which last they cut off only in times of mourning.” The command again appears in Leviticus 21:5-6 identifying the priests not to profane the Holy God of Israel by adapting pagan practices. “They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.” The command to be holy is reiterated in the New Testament (1 Peter 1:15-16), and it is important to note that the Christian’s concept of holiness is in no wise altered in the New Testament, nor has the emphasis on gender distinction in any passage of the New Testament been nullified, which is very relevant to this discussion.

The prophet Isaiah recorded the expression, “Stand by thyself, come not near to me;

for I am holier than thou” (Isa. 65:5). Edward Young comments on this verse, “This commandment is uttered by the idolatrous Jews not to those who had remained faithful to God, but to God Himself.” These Jews were telling God to stay away because they were holier than Him. “In reality, Israel hated the holiness God had demanded.” John Gill’s commentary of this verse expressed, “this is the language of a self-righteous man, of a Pharisee[.]” Indeed, the biblical definition of “Phariseeism” is someone who established a standard of holiness based on man made traditions that contradict the word of God (Matt. 15:2-3). There are many Christians today that were taught in Bible colleges by professors that reacted against the hippy generation and established a tradition that considered being clean shaved is an image of holiness. This idea in essence is exalting man’s tradition as holier than God’s commandment to not shave off one’s beard as a mark of holiness (Lev. 21:5-6). At the ordination of Aaron as the high priest, his holiness is specifically connected to his beard as it is mentioned the anointing oil running over it as well as his consecrated high priestly garments (Psalm 133:2).

To the Jewish concept as presented in the Old Testament, a shaved beard was a reason for embarrassment to the Jews (2 Sam. 10:4-5), and to the mid-eastern culture it was to represent defeat (Isa. 7:20). An enemy shaving off the beards of men was to subordinate them and was considered highly offensive. When David wage war against Ammon for shaving his men (2 Sam. 10:4-5), when he finally took their capital city “he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon” (2 Sam. 12:31).

Shaving off ones beard was self-inflicted only for the purpose of cleansing from plagues according the Levitical laws (Lev. 14:9), or mourning (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2). James Freeman wrote, “To make the head bald, or to shave or pluck the beard, was a sign of mourning among the Hebrews and many other nations. See also [Ezra 9:3; Job 1:20; Isa. 22:12; Jer. 7:29; 16:6; 41:5; 47:5; 48:37; Micah 1:16].” A shaved beard was connected to idolatry and apostasy when the Jews were doing it (Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5). It was obviously an action that was rare in the culture and drew everyone’s attention (Ezek. 5:1). When one reads through the Bible and pays attention to this concept of facial hair (or hair in general), one will conclude that it is spoken of very frequently throughout the texts of the Old Testament. The Family Bible Dictionary defined the word “beard” as “Badge of manhood.”

David had a beard (1 Sam. 21:13), as did Davids servants (2 Sam. 10:4-5), and Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 19:24) who normally kept it trimmed. Amasa had a beard (2 Sam. 20:9), Ezra (Ezra 9:3), Aaron (Psa. 133:2), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 5:1), as did Joseph (Gen. 41:14). This was part of the Jewish culture and is therefore read as a backdrop into the New Testament. Obviously the Lord Jesus Christ had a beard (Isa. 50:6).

In the pagan culture of Egypt, the topic was viwed differently, and this is important to note to day as Hermeticism (i.e. the Egyptian mystery religion) has been exploding exponentially as Christianity is growing more and more apostate today. “The ancient Romans thought that a lack of major body hair was some kind of terrible deformity. But not in Egypt. …priests there believed that body hair was shameful and unclean. Wild animals and barbarian people had hair, not the sophisticated, super-advanced Egyptian civilization….Men, women, and even the children of ancient Egypt all shaved their heads bald…”

Hair removal was so important to Ancient Egyptians that kings would have their barbers shave them with sanctified, jewel-encrusted razors. When a king died, he was often buried with a barber and his trusty razor, so he could continue to get his daily shaves in the afterlife. While Dynastic Egyptians eschewed facial hair, they still reverenced the beard as a symbol of divinity and power. Kings during this period were often depicted sporting beards. But rather than embracing the full-on natural beard like their predecessors in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, Dynastic kings sported a small fake goatee called the “osird,” or “the divine beard.” The osird was usually made of precious metals like gold or silver and was worn during religious rites or celebrations. While living, a king’s osird was straight. When he died, an upward pointed curl would be added at the end, denoting that the pharaoh had become a god.

Much of the Egyptian custom had to do with their religion. For example, Lisbeth Fried noted in an article for Biblical Archaeological Review entitle “Why Did Joseph Shave?” that the priests of Egypt had to be “pure” to enter a temple or to go before the pharaoh. This “pure” included being circumcised, completely shaved, and not having eaten fish.

Egypt was not the only civilization that required those entering the temples to be completely shaven. The Akkadian term gullubu, literally “shaven,” refers to a type of priest, and the installation ceremony of the high priestess of Baal at Emar (modern Syria) included a day set aside for shaving her, probably her entire body.

This is obviously depicting a matriarchal religion. We also see Sennacherib, King of Assyria, in an image receiving his minister who attended his military officers after defeating Israel at Lachish in 701 BC. Notice these officers have beards but the eunuchs behind him have their faces shaved. These eunuchs were most likely castrated, forcefully effeminated so that they do not pose a threat.

Joseph was forced to shave before entering the presence of Pharaoh (Gen. 41:14), which is why his brothers would not recognize him (Gen. 42:8), as they would have expected facial hair worn by any Hebrew man. Bernard Ramm’s classic work on biblical hermeneutics, wrote, “Joseph’s shaving before he saw Pharoh, his receiving Pharaoh’s ring, and his wearing the gold chain about his neck, are now understood as Egyptian practices.” Spiros Zodhiates stated, “As an Egyptian leader, he would have been clean-shaven and well-dressed.” It is not reasonable to view this one exception as justification for shaving as he had to abide by the pagan custom while in Egypt. Because the Egyptians were involved with worship of the goddess Isis, men became effeminate due to the matriarchal religion. Peter Jones notes the connection between Gnosticism in the early Christian era with Egyptian Isis religion:

The connection is appropriate, since Isis was the Egyptian Goddess of Wisdom….

… Gnosticism serves most admirably as a bridge for paganism to infiltrate Christianity…

Isis was thus the giver of magical, occult knowledge and wisdom through which, like Sophia, she revealed the distant, unknown Egyptian God behind all things, Re….

Through the gender confusion Sophia brings, she deconstructs the God of the Bible. But her ultimate role is to point beyond the feminine gender to the androgynous state of true monism. For, as one Gnostic specialist rightly notes, in Gnosticism “the ultimate image of salvation is neither male nor female but the restored unity of an androgynous Mother-Father, who has passed through diversity.”

Indeed, the Egyptian creation myth taught that their creator god was androgynous (meaning hermaphrodite) that impregnated him/herself to give birth to creation. “Since one of his names was Ra-Atum he was necessarily connected with the sun which was so important in the religion of ancient Egypt. He created more gods by mating with himself–the Pyramid Texts of the fifth century BC suggest that he was regarded as bisexual or, so to speak, both-sexual; the Egyptians saw the process of creation in sexual terms so the first god would logically be of both sexes.” Thus in Egypt, being godly was what today is called gender confused, or transgendered as imitation of this androgynous god. The claim that Joseph shaved without being condemned in Scripture gives justification as “christian liberty” to shave today, is not valid for a number of reasons when understanding this Egyptian historical background.

He shaved as partaking in a practice of a pagan cultural custom (Romans 12:2). “By shaving his beard, Joseph immediately transforms himself from a foreigner to an Egyptian.” Jews would not view this lightly as to go unpunished. “Many scholars suspect that the flogging was the traditional Jewish thirty-nine lashes (2 Cor 11:24)… Later Rabbis inflicted the punishment for various offenses, … trimming hair to emulate pagans…” This custom was embedded in their idolatrous worship (1 John 5:21). Herodotus tells us that the Egyptian “priests shave their whole body every other day… when they are engaged in the service of the gods.” There is no reason to think Joseph desired to be shaved. The fact that he had to shave before going to Pharaoh shows that while he was in prison he did not shave (Genesis 41:14). Since his brothers did not recognize Joseph, it is obvious that men shaving was not a normal custom for Joseph’s culture. His family was from a culture which understood the true creation account of distinct genders created by the true God (Genesis 42:8). In our current culture, the progressive trends of gender confusion and transgenderism is all the more reason we should uphold the biblical picture of a masculine man by having beards to stand separated from the pagan culture of today. Being recorded in a historical narrative needs to be understood as often such narratives simply record the events that took place without condemning the individual involved. An example is that David is never condemned for having multiple wives, but we know he was wrong for doing so because the kings were commanded not to multiply wives (Deuteronomy 17:17). We can find fault with Joseph as shaving the beard is condemned in Leviticus 19:27. Dennis Jowers mentions Herod’s massacre of children in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16-18), stating “Scripture, after all, never explicitly condemns it or countless other manifestly unlawful deeds.” He references many other examples (2 Kings 3:27; 8:15; 15:10; 15:14; 15:25; 15:30; 19:37) concluding “These are only a small fraction of the crimes that Scripture reports, but does not explicitly condemn.” It is reasonable that Joseph could be included in this list. Though Leviticus 19:27 condemns shaving, the principle of progressive revelation must be understood to accurately interpret Scripture. The command to not shave was given hundreds of years after Joseph was dead. A codified law against shaving could not have been established for the Jewish people at this early of a date since Israel became a nation in Egypt and their law was given to them after the exodus. This means if one seeks to say Joseph was not wrong for shaving, he was unaware of the command and it still would not relieve anyone after the command was given. Joseph is not depicted in Scripture as innocent as people attempt to make him. Note that Ezekiel referred to Noah, Daniel, and Job (Ezekiel 14:14, 20) as righteous men but does not mention Joseph. The Bible does indeed acknowledge Joseph having sinned. In Genesis 44:5 and 44:15; Joseph placed a cup in Benjamin’s bag and claims it was his cup that he practiced divination with. Either he actually did perform occultism, which is an abomination (Deuteronomy 18:9-12); or he lied, which is an abomination (Proverbs 12:22). Most likely, the command to not shave was given in a polemic sense for separation from pagan cultural customs, specifically those of Egypt which the Israelite’s were just escaping from when receiving the command to not shave. The evidence for this is seen in that the command is placed in the contexts of other pagan customs that the Israelite’s were not supposed to copy (Leviticus 19:26-31). J. Vernon McGee commented on verses 26-28 stating “There are six commands here that condemn the practices and superstitions of the heathen.” Being repeated in Leviticus 21:5-6 for the priests to remain holy [the root for “holy” means separate] “and not profane the name of their God” further indicates this was to separate them from the Egyptian pagan custom. Manethos, an ancient Egyptian priest that is quoted by Josephus, wrote, “When he [Moses] had made such laws as these, and many more such as were mainly opposite to the customs of the Egyptians…”

The early church fathers took appropriate reactions against pagan ideas and practices from infiltrating their new faith by recognizing obedience to the biblical principle of separation ignited by the perverse culture they lived in. Such response to the gender confused culture confirms that a clean-shaved face on men was never part of the historical Jewish or Christian heritage. Clement of Alexandria wrote of on what basis a man’s facial hair should be cut: “that of the moustache similarly, which is dirtied in eating, is to be cut round, not by the razor, for that were not well-bred, but by a pair of cropping scissors. But the hair on the chin is not to be disturbed, as it give no trouble, and lends to the face dignity and paternal terror.” He also wrote, “About the hair, the following seems right. Let the head of men be shaven, unless it has curly hair. But let the chin have the hair.” Clement’s point is well taken but does err from the fact that Scripture does indicate proper grooming of the beard (which does get dirtied in eating over-easy eggs). Mephibosheth normally kept his beard trimmed, but on the occasion to show he had been mourning for David’s absence from Jerusalem ceased to do so (2 Samuel 19:24). The biblical picture of a beard was enough to grab a handful (2 Samuel 20:9; Isaiah 55:6), but well kept and trimmed. Archaeology also presents this in the Jewish culture.

This image of Asiatics traveling to Egypt believed to be around the time of Joseph (possibly Jacob and his family traveling to join Joseph in Egypt) shows early Jewish depiction of the darker skinned Asiatics with short beards and the light skinned Egyptians with no beards.

Notice in this same image presented above of Sennacherib, defeating Israel at Lachish in 701 B.C.; the full picture presents the Assyrians with larger beards than the Jews who are being subjugated (more clearly discernible in the reproduction below).

This is a carved head from a statue estimated to have stood between eight and ten inches tall discovered in the ancient city of Abel Beth Maacah, in northern Israel. The glazed ceramic head depicts an elite bearded man with long, black hair held with a yellow and black headband, possibly representing a king. Radiocarbon dating of organic material found in the same room as the sculpture suggests it is about 2,800 years old. The region had shifted hands of who controlled it around that time between Israel, Tyre, and Damascus, so it is uncertain what culture this figurine depicts.

So we can see in archaeology that for over a thousand years, from the time of Jacob and Joseph in Genesis to the time when the northern tribes lost their kingdom of Israel, the cultural perspective of beards did not change.

Paul approach this discussion in 1 Corinthians 11, speaking of gender distinction as observed in men having short hair and women having long hair. He makes the brief comment, “Doth not even nature itself teach you” (1 Cor. 11:14). Paul’s discussion on gender distinction address how one wears their hair, but nature does not tell us that a man’s hair is short since it is not nature that cause short hair on men, but the intervention of the hair’s growth by implementing a scissors. The backdrop of a Christian morality assumes modesty (as does the contextual discussion of virgins in the earlier chapter), so it is not indicating hair on one’s chest is the evidence nature gives for gender distinction. No, the hair that nature gives to identify gender distinction is on their face–men have it there, women do not. A late second century Christian author, Tertullian, wrote with acknowledgment of this implication in Paul’s words about nature teaching us: “If it is true, (as it is,) that in men, for the sake of women (just as in women for the sake of men), there is implanted, by a defect of nature, the will to please; and if this sex of ours acknowledges to itself deceptive trickeries of form peculiarly its own,– (such as) to cut the beard too sharply; to pluck it out here and there; to shave round about (the mouth); to arrange the hair, and disguise its hoariness by dyes; to remove all the incipient down all over the body; to fix (each particular hair) in its place with (some) womanly pigment; to smooth all the rest of the body by the aid of some rough powder or other: then, further, to take every opportunity for consulting the mirror; to gaze anxiously into it:-while yet, when (once) the knowledge of God has put an end to all wish to please by means of voluptuous attraction, all these things are rejected as frivolous, as hostile to modesty.” (italics added)

The late third century Christian author, Lacantius, stated, “Then the nature of the beard contributes in an incredible degree to distinguish the maturity of bodies, or to the distinction of sex, or to the beauty of manliness and strength; so that it appears that the system of the whole work would not have been in agreement, if any thing had been made otherwise than it is.” (italics added) Arnobius questioned why men “should acquire gems, precious stones, pearls, at the expense of their purity; should entwine their necks with these, pierce the tips of their ears, bind their foreheads with fillets, seek for cosmetics to deck their bodies, darken their eyes with henna; nor, though in the forms of men, blush to curl their hair with crisping-pins, to make the skin of the body smooth, to walk with bare knees, and with every other kind of wantonness, both to lay aside the strength of their manhood, and to grow in effeminacy to a woman’s habits and luxury?”

The word “effeminate” in Greek μαλακος literally means “soft.” Aristotle recognized the word as “uttering some insult … as being effeminate“ Demosthenes expressed it as an insult, saying “so effeminate and so cowardly” Polybius spoke of “a man of disgraceful and effeminate character” Thayer’s lexicon defines the Greek word as “soft,” and also states “of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness” James Strong also indicated “catamite” as one of the definitions. The term “catamite” refers to young boy slaves who were forced to adopt an effeminate appearance and be sodomized by the master or served as prostitutes at the pagan temples in a similar fashion. Historian Robin Lane Fox refers to the Greece-Roman culture of the New Testament era, saying, “In civic life, homosexuality between young men, or an older and younger partner was socially acceptable.” If one was rich enough to afford a catamite, pedophilia and sodomy was social acceptable as well.

The gentile Mediterranean world of the apostle Paul’s day viewed men without beards as effeminate. This opinion went further than just the Jewish culture. It was practically worldwide in the ancient cultures with Egypt as the primary exception. Aretaeus spoke of manhood beginning at puberty, said, “For it is the semen, when possessed of vitality, which makes us to be men, hot, well braced in limbs, hairy, well voiced, spirited, strong to think and to act, as the characteristics of men prove. For when the semen is not possessed of its vitality, persons become shrivelled, have a sharp tone of voice, lose their hair and their beard, and become effeminate, as the characteristics of eunuchs prove.” Quintilian discussed “For just as the slave-dealer regards strength and muscle, and above all, the beard and other natural characteristics of manhood as blemishes… But I take Nature for my guide and regard any man whatsoever as fairer to view than a eunuch, nor can I believe that Providence is ever so indifferent to what itself has created as to allow weakness to be an excellence, nor again can I think that the knife [for shaving the beard] can render beautiful that which, if produced in the natural course of birth, would be regarded as a monster. A false resemblance to the female sex may in itself delight lust, if it will, but depravity of morals will never acquire such ascendancy as to succeed in giving real value to that to which it has succeeded in giving a high price. Consequently, although this debauched eloquence (for I intend to speak with the utmost frankness) may please modern audiences by its effeminate and voluptuous charms, I absolutely refuse to regard it as eloquence at all: for it retains not the slightest trace of purity and virility in itself, not to say of these qualities in the speaker.” Aulus Gellius ” reproached Publius Sulpicius Gallus, an effeminate man” by citing Publius Africanus who wrote about Publius saying, “For one who daily perfumes himself and dresses before a mirror, whose eyebrows are trimmed, who walks abroad with beard plucked out and thighs made smooth, who at banquets, though a young man, has reclined in a long-sleeved tunic on the inner side of the couch with a lover, who is fond not only of wine but of men—does anyone doubt that he does what wantons commonly do?”

This matter of Christians rejecting the biblical truth of gender distinct is essentially a form of Gnosticism reviving in these last days. As mentioned above, Hermeticism is a growing fad in contemporary apostate Christianity. Gnosticism taught that man was originally created androgynous (that is as a hermaphrodite–both male and female) and the fall was not the sin of rebellion but separation of genders, hence salvation is to merge them together once more. In the Gnostic scripture entitled The Secret Book of John, it is stated, “Adam became a mortal person, the first to descend and the first to become estranged.” Adam is reported to have said, “God, the ruler of the realm and powers, angrily divided us. Then we became two beings, and the glory in our hearts departed from your mother Eve and me, as did the previous knowledge that breathed in us.” Jesus allegedly says “…when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female… then will you enter [the kingdom].” And “I will guide her [Mary] to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who make herself male will enter heaven’s kingdom.” Thus, woman desiring the salvation of Gnosticism are seeking to make herself resemble a male. Excerpt from the Perfect Discourse related it this way: “If you wish to see the nature of this mystery, consider the marvelous image of sexual intercourse between male and female.” That is to identify the two genders becoming one flesh. A text entitled Zostrianos tells women, “Flee the madness and the bondage of femininity and choose for yourselves the salvation of masculinity.” So the female role of submission is bondage and this bondage is identified in her long hair and clothing. Even today men crack jokes on each other about their wife wearing the pants in their house. Such jokes represent a remnant of biblical thinking in our culture is being reversed when women rejected their “bondage of femininity” and begin to dress and act like a man whom they should be submitting to. Women wearing pants is the symbol of them dressing like men, which they should not be doing (Deuteronomy 22:5).

This is not to be understood as focused on masculinizing women only, but also feminizing men. “Hippolytus witnessed it and documented the fact that the Naassenes [a Gnostic sect] he knew openly attended the pagan worship ceremonies of the Goddess. There they sought spirituality what the pagan priest realized physically, namely androgyny through castration.” Of course it is well known that castration was widely practiced in pagan religions which Hippolytus discussed in his ten books entitled Philosphumena or A Refutation of All Heresies in which he identified the “pagan origin of all heresies” that infiltrated the churches of his day through Gnosticism. Strangely, the few churches and Bible colleges today that remain biblical in the teaching of gender distinction of women wearing modesty dresses ignore the topic of a man’s facial hair as part of this doctrine. Every Bible school that I am personally aware of that teaches gender distinction also implement rules that the men must be clean shaven. Where does such thinking come from? Where is the consistency when it is taught women have to dress like women but men can claim “christian liberty” when it comes to shaving off the God given mark of masculinity? Adam Clarke (1762- 1832) commented on Deuteronomy 22:5, “It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male’s attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion.”

The early years of Christianity utterly opposed any art forms depicting the Lord Jesus Christ as being condemned by the second commandment (Exodus 20:4). Only Gnostics produced images and art of Christ. “Only one group of early Christians, the heretical Carpocratians, are known to have owned portraits of Christ… By the mid-third century, variable figures of Christ, with and without a beard, could be seen in wall paintings of the house-church in Dura…” An interesting note is that the earliest dated depiction from art produced considered within orthodoxy of a “Christian” with a shaved face is the emperor Constantine. He obviously was influenced by paganism as every author would acknowledge to varying degrees. Why should we not assume it is the influence of paganism on Christians today? The problem is most Christians have simply never thought of the topic of facial hair from a gender distinction or pagan influenced perspective.

A coin depicting Emperor Constantine the Great, minted between early 307 A.D. to May 22, 337 A.D. This represents the earliest depiction of a “Christian” without facial hair. However, Constantine has always been doubted as having a true conversion. Interestingly, the Christian author Lacantius quoted above (see footnote 24) was hired by Constantine as a tutor, so Constantine would have been aware of the Christian’s teaching on this topic.