COMMENTARY (Full Version)
1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16
POCKETSERMONS.org
By Rick Cutter (contact)
The following is a verse-by-verse explanation of the “Head Covering” teachings of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. The main purpose of this is to see how well the Uncut Hair and Long Hair Positions harmonize for this passage.
Click here for the SHORT VERSION of this Commentary.
Commentary for VEIL POSITION believers (1 Corinthians 11:1-16).
. . . . . . . . . . .
NOTE: The New King James Version is being used. Important Greek words are underlined (Strong’s indexed and in their base forms, transliterated for readability).
. . . . . . . . . . .
—————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:1 (NKJV)
—————————————————
Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Basically, Paul here is reminding the Corinthian believers to imitate his example (pertaining mainly to eating food sacrificed to idols, see end of previous chapter verses 23-33), because he himself is following the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul’s attitude was that, out of love, we should not eat food sacrificed to idols if doing so would offend weaker Christians—so that they may be saved. Essentially, he was a servant to all, in order to bring all to Christ.
However, please notice that Paul (even though, out of love, he went along with practices that were not Biblically required) still took the time to educate them on the actual Truth of Christ on such matters. The intent, I believe, is that the Corinthians would understand God’s clear teachings on the matter and grow to understand and obey the actual Truth, rather than to remain perpetually in an unnecessary/traditional practice and/or force others to follow it, thus potentially dividing the Church.
As an example, in Galatians 2—when dealing with the Jews who were trying to enforce their traditions (from the Law of Moses) upon the Gentiles—Paul strongly condemned the apostle Peter for submitting to peer pressure by going along with those who insisted on obedience to these obsolete (and potentially divisive) practices.
So, therefore, Paul encourages the Corinthians to imitate him (on exhibiting love in the handling of these issues), just as he also imitated Christ.
It is said that most behaviors are learned by imitation, so let us strive to live our lives as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1-2), in a way that reflects Christ Himself, and in a way that—by our example—influences others to do things the right way.
————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:2
————————————————
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
. . . . . . . . . . .
KEEP (katecho, g-2722): to hold back, retain, hold fast, keep secure, keep firm possession of.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Paul now introduces at least two “traditions” of the Church that he urges the Corinthians to also imitate and obey, “just as I [Paul] delivered them to you.”
Those two traditions are:
(#1) The Head Covering teachings (vs 2-16); and,
(#2) The Lord’s Supper observance (vs. 17-34).
Some would suggest that these Traditions are minor teachings of the Law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21)—and “therefore” God won’t judge us strictly if we ignore them. But while they may not be Biblically emphasized nearly as much as faith, love, salvation, good deeds, worship, marriage, (and many more)—they are also not “optional minor teachings” for the Christian. Paul was very emphatic that they should keep (hold fast, keep firm possession of) these “just as he had delivered them to them.”
Regarding the “less emphasized” teachings of Truth, Jesus was clear that the person “…who is faithful (trustworthy) in what is least (very little, smallest) is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust (unrighteous, wrong) in what is least is unjust also in much.” (Luke 16:10)
Our calling as believers in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is simple: To do everything that He (and the inspired apostles and prophets) have instructed us to do (see Acts 2:42). Also, in the 4th beatitude Jesus said: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled…” (Matthew 5:6). And John said: “Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.” (1 John 3:7)
Paul then proceeds to instruct the Church how to obey these two traditions “exactly as they have been delivered.” He starts with the Head Covering teachings.
————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3
————————————————
But I want you to know that the Head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the Head of Christ is God.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Here Paul sets the stage for the “Head Covering” teachings. He starts by clearly defining the order of spiritual Heads/heads, which is: God, Christ, man, woman.
Of course, there are other Scriptures that address the order of leadership in the Church. For example, among men, the order for church leadership is (per Ephesians 4:11-16): “Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors/elders, and teachers…” (Note: Apostles and prophets do not exist today, because the Apostles have died, and because miraculous prophecy was designed as a temporary function of the infant Church – see 4 Facts that PROVE Miracles Are No Longer Active).
NOTE: Some translations say, “…the head of the wife is her husband…” While it’s true that the Greek word for “woman” can also be translated as “wife” (only if the context demands it, see gune, g1135), this is not what Paul was teaching here. That’s because in v. 12 it would have Paul nonsensically saying that the “husband is born of the wife” (instead of “man is born of woman”). Another problem is v. 4; it’s unlikely that Paul was teaching that husbands would not be allowed to have anything downward-directional from their heads, but unmarried men could Scripturally do so. And v. 5 is similarly problematic: it’s unlikely that a married woman must be covered but all other women could sport shorn or shaved heads simply because they aren’t married. It seems illogical that a shaved head would be fine with God if the woman wasn’t married, but a great dishonor to God if she were married. “It should also be kept in mind that in ancient Greek society, unmarried women were not independent but remained under the authority of their fathers.” – link.
So—with our SPIRITUAL HEADSHIP now identified for this context, Paul has set the stage for the following teachings about how we can either honor or dishonor our spiritual “Heads”—especially when praying (speaking words to God) or prophesying (receiving, then speaking forth words from God).
————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:4
———————————————
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (kata) dishonors his Head.
. . . . . . . . . . .
COVERED (kata, g-2596, a preposition): [something] down from, throughout/according to, toward, along
. . . . . . . . . . .
If I were to explain (in one sentence) what 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 was about, it might be something like: “Paul’s teachings on how to honor/dishonor our spiritual head/Heads whenever we pray to God, or whenever we prophesy* words from God.” (In my opinion, “to prophesy” in today’s church means “to teach/read from God’s Word, the Bible,” see footnote below.) I believe that this entire passage is about one main thing: HONORING AND GLORIFYING GOD AND OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST WHENEVER WE PRAY OR “PROPHESY.”
“To prophesy” means “to speak forth God’s Word,” and in the first century was a miraculous gift, needed in the absence of the written Word, which we now have in completed form; thus, the miraculous gift of prophecy has fulfilled its God-given purpose. However, prophesying still occurs—in its non-miraculous form—any time we “speak forth the (accurate) will of God,” such as when we reading the Scriptures or truthfully teach from It. Our very existence, the very reason we are created, is to honor and glorify our God and Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Corinthians 10:31). In verse 3, Paul revealed our spiritual order of authority: God, Christ, man, and woman.
So—starting here in verse 4, Paul sets out on a decidedly negative tone. He plainly informs us that a man actually dishonors God and Christ (our Heads) whenever he prays/prophesies if he has “…his head covered (kata)...”
Dear reader, please understand the following point very, very clearly—because failure to do so has resulted in great and unnecessary division among God’s people:
In 1 Corinthians 11:4, the English word “covered” comes from the Greek word “kata”—which simply means (primary definition), “down from, throughout.”
Again, the Greek word “kata” does not simply mean “covered”—as it has been translated by the NKJV and others. At first glance, “covered” appears to be an adjective modifying the word “head.” Instead, “kata” is a preposition that modifies the word “head,” and simply means (primarily) “down from, throughout.” Apparently, the translators (understandably) felt the need to supply the word “covered” to make better sense to the English reader. This is occasionally done in the Bible, and is often useful, but also runs the risk of some things being “lost in the translation.” And I believe this is what has happened in verse 4. The important “down from, and throughout” concept has been translated out of our English Bibles.
The NASB and CSB have done the same, and perhaps introduced some confusion. The NASB translates v. 4 as “…Every man who has something (italicized because it’s and added word; i.e., not in the Greek) on his head…“—and the CSB is similar, except “something” is not italicized. These two translations are a bit misleading, and probably why some think it’s improper for a man to wear a ballcap during prayer, since there would be “something” on his head. (However, technically speaking, most ballcaps are not “down from” the head, so in my judgement are Scripturally permissible.)
To hopefully make this easier to understand, here’s how 1 Corinthians 11:4 literally reads in the Greek, translated into English word-for-word. As you can hopefully see, verse 4 consists of only 12 Greek words (transliterated below, base words only). I’ve added punctuation and caps for emphasis: (By the way, in case you’re wondering, both the Textus Receptus and the GNT are identical in the Greek on this verse):
. . . . . . . . . . .
1 Corinthians 11:4
(This is exactly how the literal Greek reads)
pas(every/all) aner(man) proseuchomai(pray) e(or) propheteuo(prophesy) kata (DOWN-FROM, THROUGHOUT!!) kephale(head) echo(having) kataischuno(dishonor) ho(the) kephale(head) autos(his). (See Greek )
. . . . . . . . . . .
1 Corinthians 11:4
(Leaving the English words only)
Every man pray or prophesy DOWN-FROM head having dishonor the Head His.
. . . . . . . . . . .
1 Corinthians 11:4
(Rearranging the English words for readability)
Every man praying or prophesying having DOWN-FROM head dishonors His Head.
. . . . . . . . . . .
1 Corinthians 11:4
(Actual, literal meaning in English)
Every man praying or prophesying having [something] DOWN-FROM [his] head dishonors His Head. (Bracketed words are supplied for English readability.)
. . . . . . . . . . .
1 Corinthians 11:4
(How the NKJV rendered this verse.)
Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head [covered] dishonors his Head.
(Note that “covered” is bracketed because it does not exist in the Greek, only the preposition “kata” exists in the Greek.)
. . . . . . . . . . .
As you can hopefully see, unfortunately the important “down-from” concept was “lost in the translation.”
As stated, many translators replaced the word kata (a preposition) with the supplied English word “covered” (an adjective). Again, I believe the translators did this for innocent purposes, probably because there was no good English equivalent for “down-from head”—so they chose to say, basically, “covered head.” (This situation occasionally occurs in translating from the Greek to English, such as with Galatians 3:24, paidagogos, see Chapter 4, above, regarding Thayer.) But, again, kata does not mean “covered.” I’m assuming that the translators felt justified in doing this because they assumed that the context of verses 5-15 would later clarify/identify what their supplied word “covered” was implying here in v. 4 (in other words, they “punted” the ball, content for the reader to hopefully discover the meaning as he/she read through the passage. Unfortunately, most apparently have not.)
However—again—if we keep the meaning of “kata kephale” (down-from head) more literally intact (per the Holy Spirit’s actual, original words), I believe that v. 4 would suggest something like this:
1 Corinthians 11:4
The intended meaning of the Holy Spirit…
“Every man praying or prophesying having [something DOWN-FROM,THROUGHOUT] head dishonors his Head (God/Christ).”
. . . . . . . . . . .
So—Paul here seems to be describing that a man cannot have anything on his head that covers it “downward-directionally.” And as we hope to shortly demonstrate, this “down-from” concept perfectly harmonizes with this entire context found in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
For example, in verse 14, men are taught that “long hair” is shameful. Of course, long hair is hair that would typically/naturally hang “down-from” his head (which is disallowed per v. 4). Then in verse 15, Paul has plainly taught that a woman’s long hair has been provided to her “for / as / instead of a covering.” (As stated above repeatedly, this implies that if a woman’s long hair did not exist, she would need to be artificially covered.) This strongly implies that a woman’s artificial covering should also be “long and down-from the head,” rather than a doily or napkin on top of her head, as is popular among some of our good Veil brethren.
This “downward-directional” concept, in my opinion, is why some first century Christians believed not only that a woman’s hair must be long (“at least to the shoulders” in their opinions), but also “unbound.” Obviously, “bound” hair for a woman (commonly observed throughout our churches these days) often does not descend from the head and is therefore unscriptural (when praying/prophesying [teaching]). (Regarding men wearing head-coverings in Biblical times, as mentioned above, apparently some men of the first century did so, see this image of Caesar Augustus wearing a first-century head covering).
(For more information on the “down-from” principle, please see Chapter 9 above.)
————————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:5-6
————————————————————
(5) But 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.
(6) For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
. . . . . . . . . . .
UNCOVERED (akatakaluptos, g-177, adjective): not covered, unveiled (see also v. 13)
SHAVED (xurao, g-3587, verb): to shear, shave / to get oneself shaved.
COVERED (katakalupto, g-2619, verb): to cover up / to veil or cover oneself.
Strong’s: to cover wholly, veil.
SHORN (keiro, g-2751, verb): to sheer (a sheep) / to get or let be shorn / of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head.
. . . . . . . . . . .
If you will carefully examine the KEY WORDS underlined above in verses 5 and 6, and their definitions below the verses, you will see that the translators did an excellent job of responsibly translating these simple words according to their primary definitions. Unfortunately, great division has occurred because of believers through time who took it upon themselves to subtly redefine these (and other key words of this passage), thereby totally distorting the objective meaning intended by the Holy Spirit.
In addition to dividing God’s people, failure to understand the meaning of these simple words has resulted in many Christian women living in open sin before the very God they are praying to. That’s because instead of honoring Him, they dishonor Him by praying to Him or “speaking forth” His Word with improperly covered heads. Women of the Church must understand that they are responsible for what is actually taught in the Bible, not for adhering to popular traditional viewpoints that may not be correct.
PROVING THE ACCURATE TRANSLATION OF 1 Corinthian 11:5-6
In the above list of KEY WORDS for 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, in my experience there are typically two key words on this list that have been seriously misrepresented, which has resulted in people arriving at very wrong conclusions.
Those two words are covered and shorn. As you can hopefully see above, “covered” comes from the Greek word “katakalupto,” and “shorn” comes from the Greek word “keiro.”
The oversight some brethren have made regarding covered (katakalupto)—generally Veil brethren—is that they’ve overlooked the primary meaning of the word (“to cover” – katakalupto) and chosen instead the secondary meaning: “to veil.” This may seem like an innocent move, but results in serious ramifications for the meaning of this entire passage. That’s because “to cover” is a generic word that could be referring to head-coverings other than “veil” (or cloth) head-coverings only. It’s like changing the word “dog” to mean “poodle.” Yes, all poodles are dogs, but dogs could also be German Shepherds, pit bulls, bulldogs, chihuahuas, and many other types. Similarly, while a veil could certainly be a head covering, a head covering could also be a scarf, shawl, artificial hair—and most significantly, a woman’s long hair (which Paul very plainly taught (in v. 15) has been given to the Christian woman “for / as / instead of” (anti) a covering. So, I hope you can see that if we ignore the primary meaning of katakalupto—which is a simple, generic word—and force it to mean only a veil (or “cloth covering”), then the rest of this passage does not harmonize well. This should become more obvious as we proceed through the remaining verses of 1 Corinthians 11. (NOTE: In a separate writing, “6 Reasons I Cannot Accept the Veil Position“, I examine anti and how that it has been translated correctly by all major, reputable, literal translations to mean “for / as / instead of / in the place of / etc.”)
The inaccuracy some brethren have regarding “shorn” (keiro)— mainly Uncut Hair brethren—is that they subtly misunderstand its definition, which is: “to sheer (a sheep) / to get or let be shorn / of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head.” They incorrectly believe that this definition also implies “barely trimming the hair.” But there is significant difference between a person’s head being “shorn/sheared”—and a person hair being “barely trimmed.” To shear implies that it is cut very short. Like shearing sheep—the hair is being harvested, not barely trimmed. It is cut short. But keiro does not mean “to slightly trim,” it refers (typically) to the radical removal of hair (especially if the hair was long to begin with), the shearing off of hair (or shaving the head), an act that would make long hair (if present) to become short hair. However, if a woman merely trims the dead ends of her hair, she is not shearing her hair off and thereby rendering it no longer to be “long.” No reputable translation translated keiro as “trimmed”—but instead accurately translated it as “sheared/shorn” (see this list of English translations). I say this respectfully, but Christians today in our churches must stop twisting and distorting the simple meanings of Bible words to accommodate traditional beliefs. “Adding to the Word of God” by altering the meaning of Greek words is Scripturally reckless, and results in wrong textual conclusions that not only cause Christian women to sin—but makes church division almost inevitable—especially if such wrong interpretations are dogmatically enforced upon others as Truth, which they often are. (For more on this, please read: Chapter 7: “Do ‘Shear’ and ‘Shorn’ Imply ‘Slightly Trimming’ the Hair?)
So—now that we have hopefully identified the most commonly misused words of this passage, let’s look at the actual meaning of this passage.
UNPACKING THE MEANING
First, please recall that back in verse 4, the Holy Spirit first addressed the man. There he taught that a man dishonors Christ if he has something “downward-directionally” covering his head (when praying/prophesying, meaning “teaching;” please see footnote on v. 4, above).
Therefore—since a man must not have anything hanging “down from” his head when praying/teaching the Words of God—by implication, we would expect that it would be the opposite for the woman; we should expect that she must have a downward directional covering on her head whenever she prays/prophesies to God.
And this is exactly what Paul teaches here in verse 5. We find out that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (akatakaluptos) dishonors her head…” This is a perfectly translated passage. In plain English we could summarize it as follows:
“Every woman (when praying/prophesying-teaching) must be sure to have her head COVERED—because if it’s UNCOVERED, she disobeys God.” (Again, since the woman’s head is man, by inference she would also be dishonoring Christ and God because They are the spiritual Heads of all.)
(Please note that “uncovered,” akatakaluptos, is simply the negative form of katakaluptos; the “a” in front of it indicates the “opposite” of it in the Greek. Therefore, katakaluptos means “covered,” and akatakaluptos means “uncovered,” or, literally, “not covered”).
So, her physical head must be “COVERED” when praying/prophesying-teaching—but what exactly is the “covering”?
Remember, the specific type of “covering” has not yet been identified. That’s because “to cover” (katakalupto) is a generic word. All we know about it at this point is that the “covering” is something that covers the woman’s head. We must not jump to the conclusion that this is a veil-covering, shawl-covering, long hair-covering, or anything else at this point in Paul’s explanation. Instead, we must let the Scriptures identify what qualifies as a God-pleasing “head covering” for women. Now—if Paul really wanted to indicate a “veil-covering,” then why did he use a generic word for covering (katakaluptos) instead of a specific type of covering, like a veil? The Greek word for “veil” is kalumma. Paul was well familiar with the word, using kalumma four times in his writings (all in 2 Corinthians 3:13-16)—but in that passage he wasn’t talking about a head covering for women, but a face covering for Moses (after having been in the presence of God on Sinai). By contrast, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul did not choose the specific word “kalumma” (veil), he chose the more generic word “katakaluptos” (which could denote a covering of any kind, depending on the context). Paul could have also used “peribolaion” (which he did use in v. 15, and indicates basically an artificial covering – more on that momentarily). But, again, instead of “peribolaion” he chose the flexible verb “katakalupto” that could suggest any kind of a head-covering (and is determined by context).
To demonstrate this, in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) katakalupto, conjugated into its various forms, is used to describe land COVERED with people, land COVERED with nettles, entrails COVERED with fat, an angel’s face COVERED with wings, faces COVERED with disgrace, the sea COVERED with waters, even Tamar’s face COVERED with a wrapper/shawl/veil. So, it’s abundantly clear that katakalupto refers to a GENERIC covering, but NOT necessarily a veil (or any other kind of cloth-covering). To repeat: If Paul was trying to teach that a woman must wearing a veil / cloth covering, he could have used the word “veil” (kalumma) directly (as he did four times in 2 Corinthians 3:13-16, referring to Moses covering his face).
And here’s another important (and easy to overlook) thing that Paul said in verse 5. Please consider again his full statement:
1 Corinthians 11:5—But 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).
Please pay attention to the underlined phrase: “…for that is one and the same as if her head were SHAVED (xurao).” This phrase equates a woman’s “uncovered head” to a woman’s shaved head. Please recall that Paul later said that long hair is a woman’s glory. So, again, a woman’s shaved head is her SHAME. But a woman’s long hair is her GLORY. This is a strong clue that “length of hair” plays an important role in pleasing God!
Finally, Paul continued in verse 6:
1 Corinthians 11:6—For if a woman is not COVERED, let her also be SHORN. But if it is shameful for a woman to be SHORN or SHAVED, let her be COVERED.
In plain English, Paul seems to be saying here that if a woman isn’t “covered” (again, a generic word still undefined at this point) then she may as well have her hair sheared off. But since it’s a SHAME for a woman to have a sheared or shaved head, then she should be “covered.” In other words, if she has no downward-directional covering (implied in vs. 4 – 5), her situation in the sight of God is as shameful as if she were bald or shorn. (Again, this refers to whenever she would be praying/prophesying-teaching.)
(Notice how that Paul deals a lot with the negative aspect of women not being properly head-covered. Apparently, it was a common problem in the first century—just like it is today. Paul also seemed to insinuate this in verse 16, where he insisted that if any Christian disagreed, there was no other practice allowed by God in his churches.)
AS YOU CAN HOPEFULLY SEE, THE HEAD COVERING IS LITERAL
Finally, please notice that in verses 5 and 6, the covering is literal and visible—and symbolizes something of great importance. This is not uncommon in the Bible. In fact, just a few verses later in Chapter 11, Paul indicates that the literal cup of Communion symbolizes the New Testament. Similarly, in the Head Covering teachings, the woman’s head covering symbolizes her respect to her head/Heads. It’s important to understand that Paul is speaking of a literal, visible covering that descends “down from the head (and throughout)” (see again kata in verse 4 above).
So, the “covering” is literal. Please look again at verses 5 and 6 above: a physical head covering is contrasted to a completely uncovered head, or a shaved head. Paul is clear: A shaved-headed woman is not considered covered if her head is not veiled or covered with some other appropriate head covering (one which descends from the head [kata: “down from, throughout”—verse 4]). This means the head covering is something one can readily observe, something that descends “down from” a woman’s head. (I make this point because some believe that a shaved-headed woman is entirely covered in God’s eyes if she simply asks God for forgiveness for cutting her hair. But Paul teaches quite differently here. He implies, v. 15, that—in the absence of long descending (unbound) hair—she would still need to be covered artificially when praying/prophesying-teaching).
NOTE: Some of our good Uncut brethren believe that katakalupto implies that a woman’s hair should be allowed to grow “as long as nature will allow.” This theory was debunked in Chapter 8 (towards the end of the chapter).
————————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:7-12
————————————————————
In verses 7 – 12 (mostly excluded for brevity), Paul reminds the Corinthians that a man shouldn’t cover his head (when praying/prophesying) since he is the “image and glory” of His Heads (God and Christ). Likewise, Paul reminds them that the man was the first to be created, that woman was created for man—and that for this and other reasons a woman should wear a “sign of authority,” or “head covering” (whenever she would pray or prophesy, implied). She should do this in submission to her direct spiritual head (man, and by logical extension His Heads: God and Christ).
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover (katakalupto=”to cover wholly”) his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
By the way, some believe that a woman must cover her hair (instead of her head) because her hair is her glory (per v. 15), and “therefore” she would be competing with God’s glory if her head was not covered. But if this were true, men would nonsensically have to cover their wives, for it says in this verse that that the “woman is the glory of the man.”
8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
Some believe that Paul is talking about “husbands” and “wives” (instead of “men” and “women”) in the head covering teachings of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 passage—but if this were true, Paul would be saying nonsensically here that “wives came from their husbands.”
9. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10. For this reason the woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head, because of the angels.
So far in this passage Paul has obviously been teaching about how Christians are to properly honor their spiritual Heads whenever they pray to God (or “prophesy,” which means to speak forth Words from God). Then we come to verse 10. Here Paul connects a woman’s head covering (whenever she prays or teaches the Word) to having a “symbol of authority” on her head, “because of the angels.” (By the way, “a symbol of” is not in the Greek, but was added by translators for readability. The actual Greek simply says that the woman must have “authority on her head” because of the angels. Paul appears to be saying that—by having her physical head Scripturally covered whenever she would pray or teach—a woman then is granted “authority/power/permission” (see definition of exousia – g-1849) to pray/teach in a way that does not dishonor God/Christ—or her immediate head, man. In essence, because she has visibly acknowledged her place in the authority-chain (by having a God-approved head covering), she then has been granted permission, the lawful authority (exousia) to communicate with God via prayer/prophesy. Otherwise, if she prays while unscripturally head-covered, she dishonors Christ and God, and her prayers will apparently not be heard because of this. This is a very serious thing that many women in our churches seem to be totally unaware of.
So a woman must have a (literal) symbol of authority on her head. But what do the ANGELS have to do with a woman having authority/permission to pray to God (or receive messages from God)? To answer this, please recall that the definition of the Greek word for “angel” (angelos, g-32) is: “a messenger, one who is SENT, a messenger from God.” In other words, an angel (among other things) COMMUNICATES messages. Please understand that whenever we pray, we are communicating to God. And whenever we prophesy (akin to accurately teaching the Word), we are “speaking forth” words that originated from God. Basically, our messages to or from God are transmitted from God’s throne via “angelic transport.” The following following verses seem to support this:
ANGELS WERE SENT TO COMMUNICATE GOD’S MESSAGE TO JOHN THE APOSTLE, AS WELL AS TO EACH OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF ASIA: Revelation 1:1, Revelation 8:3-4, Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14. (NOTE: Some speculate that “angel” spoken of in these verses was just “the pastor of the church.” I find that illogical since the “one pastor leader” concept is found nowhere in the Scriptures. In every definitive example, local churches were led by two or more elders. See Acts 15:4,6,22,23; 20:17; 1 Timothy 14:4; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). OTHER EXAMPLES: Hebrews 2:2, Acts 7:53, and Galatians 3:19.
So—to summarize—when a woman prays or prophesies, her head must be Scripturally “head-covered.” If she is not Scripturally head-covered, she is sinning, and her prayers may be hindered from reaching God (again, because the angels would not have permission to communicate them without her proper head-covering). She also wouldn’t have lawful permission/authority to be speaking to God—to “enter the throne-room of God,” so to speak. Similarly, if an early Christian woman possessed the miraculous gift of prophesy, while improperly head-covered, she would not be able to receive prophetic information from God (or to transmit it to others) because the angels would not permit the transmission due to her unlawful state. (Please recall Isaiah 59:1-2 says that God does not listen/hear the prayers of sinners. The righteous, however, He will hear. In that case, angels are authorized to carry their requests to God. The same I believe is true of prophesying in the New Testament age. I’m not aware of any instance that God communicated prophecy to a Christian who was living in sin.)
11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
————————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:10
————————————————————
For this reason the woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head, because of the angels.
. . . . . . . . . . .
AUTHORITY (exousia, g-1849, noun): Power, permission, authority, etc. (Related to STRONG’S (g-1832, exesti): Lawful, privilege, permission, etc. See Matt 12:2; “lawful”=exesti)
ANGEL (angelos, g-32, noun): A messenger, one who is sent, a messenger from God.
. . . . . . . . . . .
So far in this passage Paul has obviously been teaching about how Christians are to properly honor their spiritual Heads whenever they pray to God (or “prophesy,” which means to speak forth Words from God). Then we come to verse 10. Here Paul connects a woman’s head covering (whenever she prays or teaches the Word) to having a “symbol of authority” on her head, “because of the angels.” (By the way, “a symbol of” is not in the Greek, but was added by translators for readability. The actual Greek simply says that the woman must have “authority on her head” because of the angels. Paul appears to be saying that—by having her physical head Scripturally covered whenever she would pray or teach—a woman then is granted “authority/power/permission” (see definition of exousia – g-1849) to pray/teach in a way that does not dishonor God/Christ—or her immediate head, man. In essence, because she has visibly acknowledged her place in the authority-chain (by having a God-approved head covering), she then has been granted permission, the lawful authority (exousia) to communicate with God via prayer/prophesy. Otherwise, if she prays while unscripturally head-covered, she dishonors Christ and God, and her prayers will apparently not be heard because of this. This is a very serious thing that many women in our churches seem to be totally unaware of.
So a woman must have a (literal) symbol of authority on her head. But what do the ANGELS have to do with a woman having authority/permission to pray to God (or receive messages from God)?
To answer this, please recall that the definition of the Greek word for “angel” (angelos, g-32) is: “a messenger, one who is SENT, a messenger from God.” In other words, an angel (among other things) COMMUNICATES messages. Please understand that whenever we pray, we are communicating to God. And whenever we prophesy (akin to accurately teaching the Word), we are “speaking forth” words that originated from God. Basically, our messages to or from God are transmitted from God’s throne via “angelic transport.” The following following verses seem to support this:
ANGELS WERE SENT TO COMMUNICATE GOD’S MESSAGE TO JOHN THE APOSTLE, AS WELL AS TO EACH OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF ASIA: Revelation 1:1, Revelation 8:3-4, Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14. (NOTE: Some speculate that “angel” spoken of in these verses was just “the pastor of the church.” I find that illogical since the “one pastor leader” concept is found nowhere in the Scriptures. In every definitive example, local churches were led by two or more elders. See Acts 15:4,6,22,23; 20:17; 1 Timothy 14:4; Titus 1:5; James 5:14).
MORE EXAMPLES: Hebrews 2:2, Acts 7:53, and Galatians 3:19.
So—to summarize—when a woman prays or prophesies, her head must be Scripturally “head-covered.” If she is not Scripturally head-covered, she is sinning, and her prayers may be hindered from reaching God (again, because the angels would not have permission to communicate them without her proper head-covering). She also wouldn’t have lawful permission/authority to be speaking to God—to “enter the throne-room of God,” so to speak. Similarly, if an early Christian woman possessed the miraculous gift of prophesy, while improperly head-covered, she would not be able to receive prophetic information from God (or to transmit it to others) because the angels would not permit the transmission due to her unlawful state. (Please recall Isaiah 59:1-2 says that God does not listen/hear the prayers of sinners. The righteous, however, He will hear. In that case, angels are authorized to carry their requests to God. The same I believe is true of prophesying in the New Testament age. I’m not aware of any instance that God communicated prophecy to a Christian who was living in sin.)
————————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:13
————————————————————
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
. . . . . . . . . . .
UNCOVERED (akatakaluptos, g-177, adjective): not covered, unveiled (see also v. 5)
. . . . . . . . . . .
Paul here appeals to the Corinthians’ common sense by asking them this rhetorical question: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?”
He then proceeds to answer it in the next two highly controversial verses…
————————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:14
————————————————————
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair (komao), it is a dishonor to him?
. . . . . . . . . . .
NATURE (phusis, g-5449, noun): The nature of things, order of nature (as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse). (Similar to “physics,” the science of matter, motion, and energy.)
HAS LONG HAIR (komao [conjugated koma], g-2863, verb): To have long hair, to let the hair grow long.
. . . . . . . . . . .
As you can see, this is an extremely simple verse. It basically implies that if we will observe nature it can “teach us” things. For example, natures “teaches us” that if a man has long hair (koma), it is a dishonor to him. If we look across the world, the tendencies of societies worldwide are that men generally have short hair when compared to women. Therefore, long hair on men is more of an oddity, abnormal, and in some instances, even shameful for men. But not so for women. We read of the instance when a woman “…began to wash His (Jesus’) feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head…” (Luke 7:38). Also, Revelation 9:7-8 says, “…their faces [were] like the faces of men. They had hair like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth.” Because long hair was not the natural order of things for men, it was mentioned as a distinguishing characteristic for these warriors, implying that it was the natural order of things for women. This was a general fact of human nature then—and I believe that many of us would agree that it remains so today. If you look across the world men seem to prefer to have short/shorter hair than women. Of course, every rule like this can have exceptions, but even in totally godless societies (if factors such as religion / politics / etc. / haven’t affected their behavior), the “natural order of things” is that men will have short(er) hair, and women will have long(er) hair—often to the shoulders or longer.
Another simple but extremely important observation is this. Where it says: “…if a man has long hair…”, the literal Greek word is koma, which has been conjugated from its infinitive form, komao, which means: “to have long hair.” The NKJV translation of “has long hair” is a 100% accurate translation of koma, as is. Its accuracy has been confirmed by all reputable lexicon authorities used commonly in the church (see Chapter 4), along with all universally known, literally-minded English translations and numerous others (see Chapter 3). This includes, but is not limited to, the KJV, NKJV, ESV, RSV, NASB, ASV, NIV, CSB—and many more. Its definition and translation confirm it to be one of the least disputed Greek words by scholars in the Bible.
So—koma has been accurately translated as “HAS LONG HAIR.” It doesn’t primarily mean, “has uncut hair,” “has growing hair,” “has hair that is growing long(er)”—or anything else of the like. For proof that “have/has/wears long hair” is logically the only accurate possibility of koma’s meaning, please see the above chapters (especially Chapter 8):
— Chapter 3: How do the literal Bible Translations translate verses 14 and 15?
— Chapter 4: How do the literal Bible Translations define komao?
— Chapter 5: Does komao’s Active Voice prove the Uncut Hair position?
— Chapter 6: A closer look: Is “length of hair” really that important to God?
— Chapter 8: Contrasting the popular definitions of komao—extremely important, please read!
— APPENDIX A: Fact-Checking the “Veil Position”
————————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:15
————————————————————
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
. . . . . . . . . . .
HAS LONG HAIR (komao [conjugated koma], g-2863, verb): To have long hair, to let the hair grow long.
HAIR (kome, g-2864, noun) The hair of the head (locks, as ornamental).
FOR (AS): (anti, g-473, preposition): Opposite; instead or because of (rarely in addition to).
COVERING (peribolaion, g-4018, noun): A covering thrown around, a head-covering wrapper; A head-covering mantle; A veil.
. . . . . . . . . . .
As you can see, this verse is about as simple as can be found anywhere in the New Testament. And as a result, it is therefore under virtually no dispute among literally-minded English translation scholars—not only in modern times, but for centuries.
Click here for a list of every reputable English translation on 1 Corinthians 11:15.)
So in this verse, Paul simply says that it is a glorious thing—it is honorable and good—if a woman “has long hair” (unbound is implied, see comments, v. 4). And furthermore, if she “has long hair,” then that long hair serves as a proper “head-covering.” Her long hair is given to her “for / as / instead of / as opposed to” an “artificial head covering” (peribolaion).
And since by now the reader would’ve already read verses 3 through 6, he/she would know that Paul is talking about the need for a woman’s head to be properly covered in two situations: First, whenever she would pray to God. And second, whenever she would prophesy (“speak forth”) words from God. (We also demonstrated, from verses 4 – 5, that the head covering should be downward-directional, and unbound is probably implied.)
So—if a woman prays/teaches the Word with a shorn or shaven head, or with short hair—not only does it dishonor her immediate head (man), but much more importantly (by inference), it therefore dishonors her “Greater Heads”—God and our Lord Jesus Christ. (After all, they are the ones passing down these directives to us in the first place!)
However, if she cannot “have long hair,” she is still required to be head-covered (as is necessarily inferred in vs. 5, 6 & 13). Although this is my opinion, I believe it’s reasonable to think that whatever head-covering she would choose—in the absence of her God-given “long-hair” head-covering—should generally imitate naturally long, downward directional, mostly unbound hair (see this actual example of a first century Christian woman praying in the catacombs wearing a head-covering. Click here for other examples of first century head-coverings.)
And, as noticed in Chapter 5 (above), komao (“to have long hair”) has been accurately translated (in both verses 14 and 15) into the Present, Active, Subjunctive verb form. The PAS verb form is a simple verb form that appears hundreds of times in the New Testament, so the translators were undoubtedly highly familiar with it. Also noticed in Chapter 5—the “Active Voice” does not imply that komao is an “Action verb.” In fact, komao turns out to be a “state of being” verb. In other words, if a man is in the “state of having long hair” it is a shame to him; conversely, if a woman is in the “state of having long hair (down and throughout)” it is a glory to her. Please notice that the “state of having long hair” is what is a glory to the woman, not the “action of having growing hair.”
Finally, when it says “her hair is given to her for a covering”—that word “hair” comes from kome, which means:
HAIR: (kome, g-2864, noun) The hair of the head (locks, as ornamental).
Please understand kome plainly does not imply uncut hair. It refers to “the hair of the head (locks, AS ORNAMENTAL). Simply put, I believe that God expects the woman to have her long, down-flowing hair (or an artificial covering in its absence) on display, as an ornament. Her beautiful long hair is her glory. Kome’s definition is yet more evidence that a woman’s long, downward-directional, unbound (implied) hair should be visible for all to see. (Please contrast this to the Uncut Hair and Veil Positions, which hold that length of hair does not matter whatsoever—and that a woman with very short hair (e.g., a new convert) is perfectly fine as long as she has prayed for forgiveness. However, per the Scriptures, in this case, she must cover her short hair (or shaved/sheared head) with a “peribolaion” (an appropriate artificial covering).
Thayer also points out in his comments on kome that a woman’s hair is worn as “an ornament”; and that the notion of length is “secondary and suggested.” I repeat: Per Thayer, “long hair” is suggested for this passage. This means, per Thayer’s opinion, that God is suggesting that “long hair” (not “growing hair” or “uncut hair” or a “veiled head”) is a proper natural head covering that replaces the need for an artificial head covering (again, while praying / teaching).
Please see above chapters for proof of this, especially:
— Chapter 3: How do the literal Bible Translations translate verses 14 and 15?
— Chapter 4: How do the literal Bible Translations define komao?
— Chapter 5: Does komao’s Active Voice prove the Uncut Hair position?
— Chapter 6: A closer look: Is “length of hair” really that important to God?
— Chapter 8: Contrasting the popular definitions of komao—extremely important, please read!
— APPENDIX A: Why the Veil Position is an Invalid Doctrine
————————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:16
————————————————————
But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
. . . . . . . . . . .
In my view, verse 16 suggests that Paul’s head-covering teachings were probably not the most popular of his day. Clearly, the same is true in today’s Church. Much (unnecessary) disagreement exists over these straightforward teachings, and most of it (in my experience) has come from an unhealthy reliance on traditional norms, along with a lack of trust in our literally-minded English translations, which representing centuries of scholarship.
I find it highly inconsistent that we trust our literal English Bible translations virtually everywhere else in Scripture—in both Old and New Testaments alike—but in this passage, respectfully, brethren routinely “mentally re-translate” words (such as komao, keiro, and katakalupto) to match their traditional views rather than what their Bibles actually say. Tradition is frequently a distraction to Truth, and Jesus warned that they can “nullify” (cancel out) the Word of God (Matthew 15:3, 7-9). Unfortunately—regarding the Head Covering teachings—this is exactly what has happened in our churches.
Copyright 2024-2025 (all versions)