CHAPTER 5:
DOES KOMA’S ACTIVE VOICE PROVE THE UNCUT HAIR POSITION?
POCKETSERMONS.org
By Rick Cutter (contact)
When I used to believe in the Uncut Hair doctrine, I mainly hung my logical hat on two “unassailable” assumptions.
The FIRST ASSUMPTION was just debunked in Chapter 4. It was my incorrect assumption that the proper definition for komao was, “to let the hair grow.” But every reputable, literally-minded Greek-English translation scholar disagreed (see Chapter 3). Their conclusion was that “length of hair” was vital to the proper understanding of komao, and therefore rendered komao in their renowned translations as “to have/wear long hair.” And reputable lexicons also concurred, with all of them including the concept of “having long hair” in their lexicons, and virtually all in their primary definitions of komao (see Chapter 4)—thus making komao one of the least disputed Greek words of our New Testaments among Greek-English authorities. Spoken plainly: The proper meaning of komao is “to have long hair”—it is not “to let the hair grow.” And “length of hair” matters.
My SECOND ASSUMPTION was that since the verb “koma” was conjugated from komao in the Active Voice, then “that meant komao had to be an action verb.” And if that was true, then wouldn’t that mean that God wants women to “let their hair grow” actively, continuously, and with progressive force, longer and longer, without cutting it?”
Here’s What’s Wrong with Assumption #2
We’ve already demonstrated that it is incorrect to think that “let the hair grow” is the proper meaning for koma in 1 Corinthians 11.
So now let’s more carefully explain why assumption #2 above (the assumption that koma’s “active voice” implies that it’s an “action” verb) is also faulty. To understand this better, please take another close look at 1 Corinthians 11:14-15:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 NKJV
(14) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man HAS LONG HAIR (koma, PAS verb form*), it is a dishonor to him?
(15) But if a woman HAS LONG HAIR (koma, PAS verb form*), it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
As you can see, the verb koma (in both v. 14, regarding the man, and v. 15, regarding the woman) has been translated from komao into the PAS verb form. But what is the PAS verb form?
THE “PAS” VERB FORM
The “PAS” verb form stands for the PRESENT tense, ACTIVE voice, and SUBJUNCTIVE mood.
While this may sound complicated, it’s actually very simple. PAS was a common and easy verb form for scholars to understand and to accurately translate from Greek into English, said to occur 352 times in the New Testament. Two of those 352 times are found in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15. And as has been mentioned repeatedly, every reputable Bible translation committee (see above) was in 100% agreement on how koma should be accurately translated into our English language in a grammatically correct way.
So, what does Present Tense, Active Voice, and Subjunctive Mood mean?
PRESENT TENSE just refers to a simple statement of fact or reality, viewed as occurring in actual time (i.e., now). For example, the woman HAS LONG HAIR. (She has long hair at the present time.)
ACTIVE VOICE just means that the subject of the sentence is the one “doing or performing” the verb (a very obvious fact). For example, the WOMAN has long hair. (The “woman” is the subject of the sentence; she is the one who “has long hair” at the present moment.)
IMPORTANT NOTE!!! It’s important to understand that just because koma is in the “Active Voice” does not imply that it’s an Action Verb. I cannot emphasize this enough. It’s a common (and understandable) myth to think (as I did in the past) that because koma is in the Active Voice, then the verb must be an “action” verb. But this is not true for many Greek “Active Voice” verbs. Nor is it true for koma. Remember, a verb can be “an action, or a state of being, etc.” Plainly, the unanimous body of scholars translated koma as “HAS LONG HAIR,” which is not an action, but a “state of being.” There are clear logical reasons why scholars were forced contextually to do this (noticed momentarily). So, again, koma’s “Active Voice” in verse 15 just means that the woman, being the subject of the sentence, is the one who “has long hair.” It does not imply that she has to be actively growing her hair “longer and longer” without cutting. In this context it just means she needs to be in a state of “having long hair.”
SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD: The subjunctive mood just refers to “the mood of possibility and potentiality.” In other words, it’s “conditional,” which means that the verb described “may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances.” For example, IF a woman HAS LONG HAIR, it is a glory to her. (This is subjunctive; it’s “conditional,” meaning that the verb described “may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances.” In other words, IF the woman maintains long hair, it is a glory to her. If she does NOT, it is NOT a glory to her.)
So, as you can hopefully see, there’s nothing magical or complicated about the PAS verb form in this passage. It is basically very easy to translate accurately, and the literal translation committees were essentially unanimous—down through the centuries—on how to translate koma into the PAS verb form (as a “state of being” verb and not an “action” verb).
More on the “Active Voice” Myth, and Thinking that Koma Implies “Continuously Growing, Uncut Hair”
We just noticed that the “active voice” certainly does not imply that koma must be an action verb, which some incorrectly assume. And from this they further conclude that a woman must be always growing and growing her hair progressively longer and longer. In other words, the assumption is made that her (invisible) “hair growth” was her covering, rather than her (visible) “long hair” being her covering (or, in the absence of long hair, an appropriate artificial covering, see v. 15, examined later).
So—my thinking was that since a Christian woman must always have “actively, continually growing hair,” doesn’t that mean that she must not cut it, or she sins? After all, “How can a woman cut her hair and still let it grow/grow longer?” (This is the rhetorical question that myself and other Uncut Hair proponents would voice as proof of the “unassailability” of the Uncut Hair doctrine).
But the problem is that while it’s easy for a woman to have hair that is “continuously growing longer”—it’s literally impossible for a man to KEEP his hair from “continuously and actively growing longer and longer (with so-called progressive force).”
For if a woman must actively/continually be growing her hair longer and longer—and even if she limits that growing process for an instant by cutting it, she sins—this would mean that a man must be doing the exact opposite, he must “actively” and continuously be cutting his hair every moment to keep it from growing longer and longer. But even then, he cannot succeed. That’s because the hair of both a man and a woman grows longer all the time, whether it is being cut or not.
THEREFORE, BY ASSUMING A VERB CAN ONLY BE AN ACTION, AND ADDING THE “CONTINUOUSLY GROWING HAIR” ASSUMPTION, UNCUT HAIR PROPONENTS HAVE TURNED PAUL’S DIRECTIVE FOR MEN INTO AN IMPOSSIBLE DIRECTIVE TO OBEY. THE WOMAN, OF COURSE, CAN EASILY COMPLY, SINCE SHE LITERALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO BUT “GROW HAIR” (and “length of hair” supposedly does not matter, which is another myth, see Chapter 6). BUT THE MAN CANNOT KEEP HIS HAIR FROM ACTIVELY GROWING.
And here’s another problem. We should not forget that (in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16) Paul is teaching men and women how to properly respect their spiritual Heads (God and Christ)—especially when they are praying to them or prophesying their Words to others. Therefore—when praying or prophesying—a woman’s head MUST be Scripturally covered (and a man’s head must not be covered).
But, again, if a woman’s “covering” is simply her “continuously growing, uncut hair,” this would mean that Paul was telling women to maintain continuously growing, uncut hair whenever they prayed or prophesied. Wouldn’t this mean that as long as she wasn’t praying or prophesying could cut her hair any length she wished?
So, to assume that a verb may only be an action (but not a “state of being”) is a fatal grammatical mistake—one which none of the reputable Bible translations made. Again, the definition of a verb is that it may be either “an action or a state of being, etc.” Thus, every reputable translation committee (listed in Chapter 3) unanimously translated the verb koma to not be an action, but rather to be a state of being (to repeat, “has long hair” refers to the “state of having long hair”; but “continually growing hair” is an action, not a state of being, and not translated thusly by any reputable literally-minded translation committee).
So, putting it all together, the unmodified Word of God plainly (and accurately) teaches the following for men and women. It teaches that…
…If a man prays/prophesies in a state of having long hair, it is a dishonor to him (v. 14). But if a woman prays/prophesies in a state of having long hair (descending, implied, see Chapter 9 below and Commentary for verses 4 & 5), it is a glory to her (v. 15)—and that her (long, descending) hair is her covering in the sight of God. However, in the absence of long, descending hair, she must have an artificial covering—a “peribolaion” (implied in v. 15, discussed shortly.)
These are simple and accurate directives from God’s Holy Spirit that should make immediate sense to most truth-seeking readers.
Another 521 Infraction: The Uncut Position Changes the Definition of Koma Between the Man and The Woman…Is This Right?
Since we’re talking about koma’s grammar, here is another grammatical misconception of the Uncut Hair position that should be pointed out. To understand this, please look again at verses 14 and 15:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 NKJV
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man HAS LONG HAIR (koma), it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman HAS LONG HAIR (koma), it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
These two verses are simple and easy to understand, as is. The problem is that they don’t support the Uncut Hair position. So, in our churches, the following subtle mental “re-translation” of these two verses takes place, resulting in the following:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (no translation)
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man HAS LONG HAIR (koma), it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman LETS HER HAIR CONTINUOUSLY GROW / HAS UNCUT HAIR (koma), it is a glory to her; for her [growing] hair is given to her as her covering.
I hope you can see that “has LONG hair” (for the man) and “has CONTINUOUSLY GROWING / UNCUT hair” (for the woman) do not mean the same thing. They are not interchangeable definitions for koma.
But the Uncut position is forced to have one definition of komao for the man a different one for the woman—because although “not having long hair” is acceptable for men, “having long hair” could conflict with the Uncut Hair doctrine. After all, even with long hair she could be “sinning” (if she has trimmed it, for example). On the other hand, if she trims it, it would no longer be “uncut.” And she must keep it “uncut” to conform to the Uncut Hair doctrine. Therefore, for the woman only, Uncut Hair advocates must choose the definition “to have uncut hair / continuously growing hair” (or similar). They cannot choose “to have long hair” for her because that doesn’t harmonize with the Uncut doctrine.
But if we use “has uncut hair/continuously growing hair” for the man, it also violates the Uncut view. That’s because then the Bible would be saying: “If a man has uncut hair, it is a dishonor to him…” In other words, this would mean that all a man must do to please God is to have one haircut—since after one haircut he would no longer have “uncut hair.” Of course, the Uncut position isn’t happy with that, for it maintains that “long hair” is shameful for men. So, they accept the actual literal Bible translations to be accurate (see Chapter 3), which is that if a man “has long hair” it is a dishonor to him. (By the way, “has continuously growing hair” for the man doesn’t work either, since his hair is continuously growing perpetually whether he cuts it or not; and so is the woman’s, a fact I hope to examine more closely in a moment).
So, because the meanings of “has long hair” (for the man) and “has continuously growing / uncut hair” (for the woman) are plainly different, honesty demands that we choose which of the two is the proper definition of koma—and then use it consistently for both the man and the woman.
Since, for both the man and the woman—koma has the exact same verb form (PAS), reside in the exact same context (1 Corinthians 11:14-15), and are probably in the exact same sentence—properly handling God’s word demands that they must both be understood to mean the exact same thing. To assume koma suggests “long hair” for the man, but then change it’s meaning to “uncut hair” or “continuously growing hair” for the woman, is illogical and disingenuous. We cannot have it both ways. I don’t mean to be offensive to the many wonderful, faithful and sincere Christian women and men (who hold to the Uncut Position) in our churches, but using the Bible in this way does not result in “sound doctrine,” which God requires of His Church (please read these warnings for church leaders: Titus 2:1, 1:9; 2 Tim 4:3-4).
Therefore, the translators have unanimously, accurately and responsibly chosen “to have long hair” as the proper definition of komao for both the man and the woman.
Copyright 2024-2025 (all versions)