CHAPTER 7:
ANOTHER UNCUT HAIR MISSTEP: ASSUMING THAT SHEAR AND SHORN MEAN
“TO SLIGHTLY TRIM”
POCKETSERMONS.org
By Rick Cutter (contact)
Growing up as an adamant believer of the Uncut Hair doctrine, I considered it sinful for a woman to cut her hair—even to slightly trim it.
But—as you may have already noticed—the idea that “slightly trimming the hair is sinful” presents a difficult dilemma for the Uncut Hair position. To understand how, please consider again verses 5 and 6:
1 Corinthians 11:5-6 NKJV
(Similar to KJV, ESV, RSV, NASB, ASV, NIV, CSB, and many others)
(5)…every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved (xurao: “to shear, shave / to get oneself shaved”).
(6) For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn (keiro: “to be shorn, or to cut short the hair of the head”). But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn (keiro) or shaved (xurao), let her be covered.
As you can see, this correctly translated passage is very easy to understand. In verse 5, it simply teaches that if a woman prays/prophesies with an “uncovered” head (the “covering” is still undefined at this point in the text, see Commentary below), she dishonors her spiritual head (which is man; and by logical extension, his Heads: Christ and God – see v. 3).
Dishonoring her head in this way is the equivalent to her SHAVING her head (v. 5)—an obviously shameful and embarrassing state. So, Paul continues (in v. 6) by teaching that since not having her head properly covered means she may as well be shorn (sheared) or shaved, then she obviously should be covered! Walking around with a bald or sheared head would not only be personally embarrassing, but—if she prayed/prophesied in this state—would also be a dishonor to man (and Christ/God by logical extension). In other words, simply put, having her head properly covered (whenever she prays/prophesies) is a very important thing to do.
The fact that her covering needs to be engaged only while she would pray (or teach) exposes the Uncut Position to be invalid. That’s because “growing hair” cannot be taken off and then put back on. The Uncut position becomes logically exposed when trying to explain this. To say that a woman must have uncut hair when praying/prophesying implies that whenever she wasn’t praying/prophesying she could Scripturally cut her hair. (While this harmonizes well for the Veil position, several other facts do not. Please read: APPENDIX A: Fact-Checking the “Veil Position” for more details). It also harmonizes well for the Long Hair position, especially when it’s understood that a woman’s long hair (when she prays/prophesies) must be “down from” and “throughout,” which implies, I believe, “partially or entirely unbound long hair” (see Commentary, verse 4, and also definition of kata). This means that she could disengage her status of being Scripturally “covered” by stacking her long hair atop her head in buns, braiding it tightly, or anything else that would cause her head to no longer be Scripturally covered (when praying/prophesying). Again, we’ve jumped ahead of ourselves a bit, but please see Chapter 9 for a proper explanation.
But—returning to 1 Corinthians 11:5-6—as you may know by now, my (formerly held) Uncut Hair doctrine contradicts verses 5 & 6. That’s because the Uncut Hair viewpoint does not consider it sinful for a woman to pray/prophesy with a bald/sheared head; instead, they (wrongly) assume that length of hair is totally unimportant to God (an opinion already debunked in Chapter 6).
So then, how does the Uncut Hair position get around this dilemma of thinking that “length doesn’t matter” when the Bible—in the plainest possible language—teaches (in verses 5 and 6) that length DOES IN FACT MATTER TO GOD? These verses teach that if a woman’s hair is shaved off or sheared off, these are sinful lengths of hair (whenever she would pray/prophesy).
The Uncut position tries to avoid this dilemma by changing the definition of keiro to not just mean “to shear,” but also to include the idea of “slightly trimming.” Then verses 5 and 6 are mentally re-translated to say the following:
1 Corinthians 11:5-6 (no Bible translation I’m aware of)
…every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved (xurao).
For if a woman is not covered, let her also be TRIMMED (made up definition of “keiro”). But if it is shameful for a woman to be TRIMMED (made-up definition of “keiro”) or shaved (xurao), let her be covered.
The problem with changing keiro to mean “to trim” is simply that it does not mean that. Here again are Thayer’s actual definitions of xurao and keiro:
xurao: “to shear, shave / to get oneself shaved” (used in both verses 5 & 6).
keiro: “to shear: a sheep / to get or let be shorn / of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head” (used twice in verse 6). Please notice again that it does not mean “to barely trim the hair.”
So, once again, all of the literal translations got this right. None of them suggested that keiro could also imply “to slightly trim.” A farmer who shears his sheep does not “slightly trim” the dead ends off the hair of a sheep. He harvests the wool of the sheep by cutting it very short. It’s more like a burr haircut that we see military entrants sometimes receive. Their hair will be cut very close to the scalp; it will be “sheared” or “burred” off. All long hair is gone.
In summary, keiro is not a complicated word to understand, nor is it a complicated word to translate. ALL reputable, literal translations accurately rendered keiro as follows (again, it’s used twice in v. 6):
KJV: shorn / shorn
NKJV: shorn / shorn
ESV: cut her hair short / cut off her hair
RSV: cut off / shorn
NASB: cut her hair off / have her hair cut off
ASV: shorn / shorn
NIV: have her hair cut off / have her hair cut off
CSB: have her hair cut off / have her hair cut off
So, per the definitions above, please notice that the word “trim” is neither a part of the definition of keiro, nor is it implied in the definition of keiro.
By adding the concept of “trimming being sinful” to the word “keiro” in verse 6, Uncut proponents then feel at liberty to use verse 6 to condemn women who merely trim their dead ends, something not condemned in Scripture. Please remember that Peter strictly warned that those who use the Scriptures in this way, who twist and distort Paul’s Holy Spirit-inspired teachings, will do so “to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Instead of suggesting that a woman can’t even trim her dead ends or she grievously sins—the Scriptures plainly state that a woman must have long hair (or it the absence of it, an appropriate artificial covering, v. 15). A woman could certainly trim her hair regularly and still keep it long at the same time. But if she shaved or sheared her head she could not also maintain long hair.
Finally, I hope you can see that verses 5 & 6 above—when correctly understood—perfectly harmonize with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:15:
“But if a woman HAS LONG HAIR (komao), it is a glory to her; for her (LONG, reasonably implied) hair is given to her for a covering (peribolaion).”
Obviously, for a woman to “have long hair,” she cannot shave it off (xurao) or cut it short by shearing it off (keiro). If so, it would no longer be “long,” and therefore would place a woman in a shameful state whenever she would pray/prophesy—disgracing not only her immediate head (man)—but more importantly Christ and God (by extension).
Therefore, because simply trimming hair does not radically remove it, then trimming long hair is not specifically disallowed by Paul in this passage—if after trimming she would continue to have “long hair.”
So…
—by changing the meaning of koma from “has long hair” (see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4) to “has continually growing/uncut hair,” and…
—by ignoring what the Active Voice means (it does not imply an “action verb” only, see Chapter 5), and…
—by changing the definition of keiro to not just mean “shear all of one’s hair off” but also “to barely trim the dead-ends”…
—the Pentecostal Uncut Hair doctrine is born.
But Didn’t Paul take the Nazirite Vow (Acts 18:18) and Wouldn’t That Justify a Man Having Long Hair?
Let’s switch gears now to the opposite extreme, and focus a bit on the man’s responsibility.
Some have actually argued that it’s ok for a man to “have long hair” because Paul (in Acts 18:18) presumably “took the Nazirite vow“, which required that a man grow his hair long (see Numbers 6:5, 13-19). Their reasoning is that if “long hair was good enough for the apostle Paul, then it’s good enough for the modern Christian man too.” But a closer examination of this reasoning exposes glaring flaws.
To understand these flaws, let’s take a quick look at Acts 18:18. It says:
Acts 18:18 NKJV—”[Paul] had his hair cut off (keiro) at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.”
There that word “keiro” is again. We just noticed that keiro is a verb that basically means “to cut the hair off.” In other words, the translators once again got this right. But doesn’t this strongly imply that Paul was taking the Nazirite vow – which requires him to “have long hair” and then to “shave it off” when his vow was over?
The first obvious problem with this reasoning is the glaring absence of the term, “Nazirite vow.” The Bible simply does not say that Paul was taking the Nazirite vow. Furthermore, it was certainly not the Old Testament’s description of the Nazirite vow of Numbers 6, unless it was a very “evolved” version of it. Modifying the commands of God and creating new traditions was common among Jewish leaders of that day. The Pharisees in particular were fond of distorting actual commandments of the Old Testament, and Jesus pointed out (in Matthew 15:1-9) that when they did this, they “nullified (cancelled out) the commands of God.”
So what is going on here in Acts 18:18? Well, since keiro means “to shear,” Paul seems to have received a military style haircut. But there’s a big problem: Women could also take the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:2). So now we have this passage seemingly permitting not only a man to have long hair, but also now permitting a woman to shave her hair off (which is what the vow-maker was required to do at the end of his/her vow). This is a total violation of Paul’s own teachings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, which plainly teach the opposite.
We’ve abundantly shown that for a Christian woman to shear (or shave) her head in this manner would have been shameful (per 1 Corinthians 11:5-6). Similarly, for a man to have had long hair would have also been shameful per 1 Corinthians 11:14. Yet the Nazirite vow specifically required that the vow-maker must “let the locks of his/her head grow long” (Numbers 6:5 ESV, RSV, NASB, ASV, CSB, NIV, etc)—and then shave his/her hair off (not shear his/her hair off) when the vow was over. Therefore, Paul would have been blatantly violating his own Spirit-inspired words, and exposing himself as being hypocritical.
Since these are plain and simple teachings of Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 11, it would have been highly sanctimonious of him to let his hair grow long just to comply with an Old Testament teaching, especially since he himself strongly insisted the Law of Moses was no longer in effect for the Christian (Galatians 3:24; 5:4; Ephesians 2:15; Acts 15:5-12; etc).
Another problem is that Paul only had his head sheared (keiro). But Numbers 6 never spoke of the need for the vow-maker end the vow by merely shearing his/her head. It was very clear that the hair had to be shaved off to terminate the vow (see Numbers 6:5). Shearing (keiro) and shaving (xurao) are similar, but distinctly different things. Shearing leaves some hair on the head, but shaving removes it all. Again, keiro means to “cut short the hair of the head,” not to shave it.
Here’s yet another problem: The Nazirite vow required that during the duration of the vow no wine or grape juice be consumed. Numbers 6:3 says: “…he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins.”
But since it is God’s will for Christians to partake of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:23-34; 16:1-2), and since this involves drinking the “fruit of the vine” (Matthew 26:26-29), it would have been impossible for Paul to comply with both the Old Testament’s Nazirite vow and the New Testament’s teachings on the Lord’s Supper (Communion). That’s because it could take months before a man could grow long hair as required by the Nazirite vow. But during this time, Paul would have had to abstain from Communion, that was partaken of “every first day of the week” (Acts 20:7).
As stated, Christians are not required to observe the Law of Moses (see verses above). So why then would Paul have his hair sheared off? I believe that Paul went along with this apparent tradition in order to gain influence with the Jews so he could bring them to Christ (1 Corinthians 9.19-22), and/or not offend them (Acts 21:19-26). In other words, getting his hair shaved off would probably appease some Jews who thought that the Law of Moses was still in effect. By shaving his hair off it could be viewed as “terminating (or even initiating) certain vows,” and would not have violated any New Testament teaching. But growing his hair long would have been blatantly sinful to Paul’s own teachings of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. (The same would be true if a Christian woman decided to take this vow and then have her long hair shaved off to terminate it.)
The bottom line is this: Assuming Paul took the Nazirite vow described in Numbers 6 is simply illogical. He was possibly taking an evolved version of it that would not conflict with the Law of Christ, which (unlike the Law of Moses) all Christians are required to keep (1 Corinthians 9:21).
OBJECTIONS: “When God said it was a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, He was just giving an ‘exception’ to the rule”
Some time ago I asked a well-known and highly respected brotherhood preacher how he explained verse 6, which plainly teaches that—for women—shorn and shaved heads are sinful states (when praying/prophesying). (Of course, the Uncut Hair position holds that shorn or shaved heads are “perfectly acceptable” for women—that is, if they’ve confessed their “sin” of cutting it and are now “letting their hair grow.” They also believe that “length of hair” is irrelevant to God, a theory debunked in Chapter 6.)
He explained it this way:
If a woman enters the church today without any hair (or with short or shorn hair), this represents an “exceptional” case, and 1 Corinthians 11 is not dealing with exceptions. In other words, if a woman is trying to “let her hair grow,” then God accepts her as she is, even if she would pray having a shaved or shorn head.
But I found this reasoning unconvincing.
First, I found it to be untrue that Paul wasn’t dealing with “exceptions” here. In fact, Paul specifically mentioned the “exception” when he stated that short/shaved hair on a woman was disgraceful for Christian women (1 Corinthians 11:6). In other words, Paul was specifically pointing to these so-called “exceptions” (shorn/shaven heads) as disgraceful states for women.
A QUICK EXAMPLE. Take the command to be baptized, for example. Most of us believe that it’s at the point of baptism that we officially become saved Christians, since that’s when our sins are actually “washed away” (Acts 22:16), and we are placed “into Christ” (Galatians 3:26-27). But what if a sincere believer was killed in a car accident on his way to be baptized? Would he still be saved?
Although some would say that he would not be, others might argue that he would be, since God knows our intent—and since the believer, although not yet baptized, fully intended to obey, and his ACTIONS proved that (this is similar to Abraham “sacrificing” Isaac, which God had commanded him to do; however, the deed was never completed because an “act of God” prevented it; but Abraham’s sincere, “good faith” intent was plainly evident…thus God “counted/imputed” Abraham’s attempt as right/justified in His sight – see James 2:21-24; Romans 4:1-10, 19-25). Similarly, the thief on the cross was accepted despite the fact he couldn’t obey Christ’s teachings prior to dying, such as helping the poor, helping in the ministry of Christ’s disciples, keeping the requirements of the Law of Moses (which they were still under and therefore Christ taught them to obey it, see Matthew 5:17-19), or anything else Christ taught. He was fully accepted by Christ, “as is,” because that was all he was capable of doing (Luke 23:43).
But what if the Holy Spirit had written: “Baptism saves you—UNLESS you are killed while going to be baptized; then you will not be saved.” In this case, surely we’d all agree that the so-called “exceptional case” is specifically considered “unacceptable to God.” Otherwise, the Holy Spirit could never make an exception to any command He gave; yet He plainly did this in many instances. Take the Marriage Question issue as an example. It states that divorce is not permitted: “…except for sexual immorality (e.g., adultery)” (Matthew 5:31-32). It would be ridiculous for us to assume that since the teaching was against divorce, then divorce for any cause—including adultery—was unacceptable because “exceptions are not the rule” and “we can’t change the rule based on an exception.”
Similarly, the Bible specifically addresses the “exceptional” cases of “shorn” and “shaved” heads, and specifically calls these exceptional conditions “shameful.” Therefore, shorn and shaved heads for women are clearly shameful in the sight of God, and disallowed when praying/prophesying. If a woman prays in either of these states, she would be dishonoring her Heads (God, Christ) and her head (man, per v. 5-6). In this situation, she would certainly be required to be covered. Her long hair is her natural covering; but in the absence of it, it is necessarily inferable that an appropriate artificial covering would be required if she did not have long hair (see 1 Corinthians 11:15). For more about what a woman must do in the absence of her natural, long hair covering, see Chapter 11.
Copyright 2024-2025 (all versions)