Hair Question: Chapter 3

Why scholars avoided the use of “to let the hair grow”

POCKETARTICLES.org

As we’ve shown, “to let the hair grow” is clearly a minority definition (used literally only by Thayer, who himself implied it was not the intended meaning for this passage [stating rather that “length of hair” was “suggested”]).

But this is probably not the only reason no major committee chose “to let the hair grow,” “to let the hair grow long,” or “to have uncut hair” as the proper Biblcal translation.

In fact, there are also compelling contextual problems that would have prevented any responsible Greek-English translation scholar from employing this definition.

Here, I’ll notice two compelling reasons why “to let the hair grow” would have been entirely inappropriate for use by any Greek-English translation committee: First, it renders a nonsensical meaning for verses 14 and 15. And second, it renders a nonsensical meaning for the overall context of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.


Problem #1: “To let the hair grow” renders a nonsensical meaning for verses 14 & 15


I’d like to plug in a few definitions I’ve heard over the years for komaō. By so doing, I believe you’ll readily be able to see why none of the scholars seriously considered “to let the hair grow” as an appropriate definition to use in any of their Bible translations.

But first, let’s notice how they actually translated it:


Definition #1: “To have/wear long hair”


Here, I’ll plug in what scholars considered the correct definition for koma, which is: “has/wears long hair”— used by every major translation committee. Here’s how they chose to translate the text: Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her [long] hair is given to her for a covering.
(1 Corinthians 11:14-15, NASB) This rendering is entirely logical and understandable. A man must not have long hair; conversely, a woman must have long hair. It also harmonizes with verses 5-6, where the Bible plainly states that a sheared (“cut very short, as in shearing a sheep”) or shaved head is unacceptable.

It also agrees with early Christian thoughts on this issue (noticed shortly). Most importantly, it agrees with scholars of every reputable Greek-English Bible translation committee we know about. It also, as was pointed out previously, fits exactly with the proper translation of Present tense, Active voice, and Subjunctive mood for koma.

In other words, what you read in your Bible represents a proper conjugation and an accurate rendition of what the Holy Spirit was trying to convey to us.

But what about “to let the hair grow?” Why was it never used by the scholars?


Definition #2: “To let the hair grow”


Now, let’s plug in the definition that I used to believe, and which the Uncut position essentially holds as the only viable possibility for komaō: “to let the hair grow.”

This definition is usually modified to “to let the hair grow continuously” due to the involvement of the Active voice of the verb form. So, here’s how many think the text should/could read: Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man lets his hair grow [continuously], it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman lets her hair grow [continuously], it is a glory to her? For her [continually growing] hair is given to her instead of a covering.
(1 Corinthians 11:14-15, NASB) Using this definition, the statement above seems (on the surface) to make complete sense for women. It could be construed to mean that a woman must “let her hair grow continuously,” in other words, not interrupt the growth of her hair. Since cutting the hair presumably interrupts it from growing continuously, this could be further interpreted to mean “uncut hair.”

Indeed, the rhetorical question: “How can a woman cut her hair and still ‘let it grow?'” is probably the most popular argument I hear used among Uncut proponents. It’s easy to see how that “cutting the hair” could be construed as “keeping the hair from growing”, and even “keeping it from growing longer” or even “keeping it from growing long.” For that matter, so would the use of chemicals or electrical heat, which often “burn off” a woman’s hair instead of “cutting it off.”

However, cutting the hair does not keep it from growing whatsoever, neither does it necessarily keep it from growing long; and, since hair is always growing, cutting the hair doesn’t necessarily even keep it from growing longer. In other words, whenever it is growing, it’s growing longer. By cutting it (or damaging it by perms, hot irons, or the like), a woman can sometimes prevent her hair from growing LONG (for example, by cutting a large portion of it off it versus slightly trimming it), but she cannot prevent it from (a) growing or (b) growing longer (which it is doing whenever it is growing, which is always).

As little sense as this makes for women, it makes even less sense for men. Remember, the same Greek word is being conjugated for both the man and the woman: komaō. Therefore, we are required to keep the definition exactly the same. So, this means a man is required to “not let his hair grow continuously.” Obviously, this is essentially impossible, since a man cannot keep his hair from continuously growing. In fact, even cutting the hair doesn’t keep it from growing, rendering a nonsensical meaning for women and men alike. Hair grows before, during, and after cutting.

Adding further to the nonsensical contextual conclusions: Since some of the Uncut Hair position might reason that, since a woman MUST let her hair grow continuously (and not cutting it does the trick), this means a man MUST NOT let his hair grow continuously, meaning he must be perpetually cutting his hair. Again, this reasoning arises because the man is gramatically required to do the exact opposite of the woman (the same Greek word is used for both). Yet even this reasoning is invalid, for even a perpetual cutting of the hair would not stop a man’s hair from continuously growing. It grows before, during, and after cutting.

And additionally, as stated, it makes no sense to say that ONLY “when praying / prophesying, a woman should not cut her hair,” or, should “keep her hair growing continuously.” Remember, the Bible is extremely clear that these requirements were necessary only when praying / prophesying. To say that she is not allowed to prevent her hair from growing ONLY when praying / teaching is quite clearly nonsensical.

These nonsensical conclusions undoubtedly weighed heavily into the decisions of ALL Greek-English translation committees to NOT use “to let the hair grow” in their translations of our Bibles. Please look again at the translations: “to let the hair grow” was not chosen by the ASV, the NASB, the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV, the NRSV, the RSV, and not even by lesser known translations such as Cambridge Basic, Darby, Weymouth’s, Young’s, The Living Oracles, etc, etc. None of these many, many Greek scholars considered “to let the hair grow” as the proper definition to use.

They correctly and unanimously chose the same definition early Christian writers also believed komaō to mean: “to have long hair.”


Other definitions


Other possibilities can be plugged into the passage as well. I’ve heard/read of various possibilities, but they all entail the notion of “continuously growing hair,” which renders them nonsensical in the same way as does “to let the hair grow.”

One thing to be cautious of in discussions like this is the changing of komaō‘s definition when discussing the man versus the woman. For example, komaō is often described to mean “to have uncut hair” for the woman, but doesn’t make a lot of sense for the man (“to not have uncut hair,” which could be taken to suggest that long hair is permissible). So it’s modified to “to have short hair.” But that doesn’t fit for the woman, because that would imply that she simply needs “to have long hair,” which is not what the Uncut Hair position holds. In other words, instead of realizing the “uncut hair” definition is illogical, the definition is modified for the man. Obviously, changing the definition in middle of the passage is disingenuous, and such a practice was not used by any Greek-English translation committee.


Problem #2: “To let the hair grow” does not harmonize properly with 1 Corinthians 11:5-6


In addition to lacking logical soundness in verses 14 and 15, the Uncut position also runs in to a logical roadblock in verses 5 and 6.

Basically, the Bible plainly condemns a shorn (cut very short, as a farmer shears sheep) or shaved head for a woman. It is specifically called “disgraceful.” This is probably the plainest language the Holy Spirit could use. Yet, plainly, the Uncut position believes it is not disgraceful for Christian women to have shorn or shaved heads.

I’ve devoted the next chapter, entitled “A woman’s shorn or shaved head dishonors God and Christ“, to a more detailed discussion of these logical inconsistencies.



Not forgetting that a literal symbol is involved


Sometimes–in our zeal to get our interpretation of these teachings right–we forget the main point of this passage: the simple fact that God wants men and women to show proper respect to their Spiritual Heads.

In the case of women, this is done by wearing (when praying / prophesying) a literal symbol of authority on her physical head, denoting her submission to her spiritual Heads. This concept of God giving us physical symbols to remind us of essential spiritual concepts is very common throughout the Bible.

Consider baptism, if you will. Baptism is a physical act that represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:1-5). Consider also Communion, where the cup is a physical object (the so-called “literal cup”) that represents the New Testament, and the literal Bread represents the Body of Christ. Similarly, the literal act of jointly partaking from one loaf and cup represents the unity of the church (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). So we can see the general Biblical pattern: a physical act or object is used to denote something spiritual, something intangible.

In the same way, the literal, physical covering of a woman’s head has spiritual significance. It represents her submission to her spiritual Heads. One should be able to immediately recognize–at a glance–whether or not a woman is demonstrating this submission. Either she has an appropriate literal, physical covering on her head–or she does not. It is illogical to assume that one woman could be bald or shorn and be considered covered (because she had determined never cut her hair again), while the next woman could have hair dragging the ground, but because she had trimmed it she was not covered. I believe the head covering is intended to be literal, not spiritual or abstract.

The Uncut assumption that the head covering need not be literal is probably why many seem uncomfortable referring to this issue as the “Head Covering” issue (they prefer to call it “the Hair Question”). This is presumably because, as stated, they believe no visible, literal covering of the head is even required. Everything is acceptable: short hair, shorn heads, shaved heads, long bound hair, long unbound hair, veils, no veils, artificial hair, no artificial hair, etc–nothing physically matters to God except “growing hair,” since that’s the “covering.”



Why did Paul (in v. 15) use komē instead of thrix to denote the woman’s hair?


At least two Greek words are used in the New Testament by the Holy Spirit to denote the hair of a person’s head. One is komē and one is thrix. What is the difference?

First, let’s look at an example of how those words have been used in the Bible.

Komē is used only one time in the NT (verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 11): “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair [komē] is given to her for a covering.”

However, thrix is used many times in the NT. One example is Rev 9.8: “Their hair was like women’s hair [thrix], and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. ”
So, what is the difference between komē and thrix, and why would Paul have chosen one over the other?

Thayer provides the answer, when, in his comments on komē he quotes Schmidt, who believed that when komē is used it denotes hair that is being displayed “as an ornament” with the notion of length “secondary and SUGGESTED.”

Of course, this differs from the far more common Greek word for human hair: thrix.

So, since the hair was to be displayed, and length of hair was SUGGESTED for this passage, one may rightfully conclude Thayer apparently would have chosen part (b) of his primary definition for use in this passage: “[to] have long hair”—JUST AS EVERY MAJOR ENGLISH TRANSLATION ALSO CHOSE.



Important: Paul did not use the word “cut” anywhere in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16


As you likely realize, the word “cut” is not found in our Bibles (neither in the Greek texts nor our English translations); it is entirely humanly derived.

Some have wondered: “If Paul’s intent was that women should not cut or trim their hair, why didn’t he simply state it plainly for all to understand?”

There are plain, simple Greek words Paul could have used to denote the concept of not cutting the hair. For example, apokopto, “to cut off” (Mark 9:43,45; John 18:10,26; Acts 27:32); or aphaireo, “to take away, remove, cut off” (Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50; Matthew 26:51). Yet in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul chose a different word: the Present Active Subjunctive form of komaō, which all the listed translation scholars rendered from “to have long hair” rather than “to have continuously growing / uncut hair.”

Paul’s decision to use komaō instead of the above Greek options leads us to believe he was not implying cutting of hair in 1 Corinthians 11.

On the other hand, if he was trying to convey the concept of “having long hair,” the language he used would have been exactly as is, and what scholars through time have considered the intended meaning of this passage.

The bottom line is this: the translators did an outstanding job of properly translating this passage so that we could understand exactly what God intended for us to obey. So, let’s be resolved not to change the Bible to suit our traditional understandings.



CHAPTER 4