| Brief overview of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 POCKETARTICLES.org Here’s a quick overview of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. My intent here is to show that the “Long Hair” position harmonizes very well with the overall context of this passage. The New American Standard Bible is used as the primary text. Verses 1-2 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. Here Paul is encouraging the Corinthians to follow him as he is following the example of Christ. He then praises them for holding firmly to the teachings—exactly as he has delivered them. This includes his teachings that follow on the Head Covering. You may have noticed a lot of people think this whole discussion is insignificant, and that “whatever a person chooses to think on this” is fine with God. Not so with Paul. He made it clear that these teachings most certainly apply to the modern Christian. They are not mere “customs that applied only to the Corinthians themselves but do not apply to us today,” as many believe. In fact, he went so far as to say (at the end of this passage in verse 16) that these teachings applied to all the “churches of God” (rather than to the Corinthians only). In other words, if our goal is to please Christ, we need to obey these teachings on the Head Covering. Verse 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. No harmonization problems here. Here Paul lists the spiritual Heads / heads of the church, in order of spiritual hierarchy: God, Christ, man, and woman. In the verses that follow, Paul will teach that a woman honors her heads (God, Christ, and man) by having her physical head appropriately covered when praying / teaching. Man, on the other hand, shows his respect for his Heads (God and Christ) by not having his head physically covered when praying / teaching. Of course, one key question is: “What constitutes a ‘physical’ covering?” Paul will give us the answer shortly. Verse 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. You may have noticed that several other translations vary with the NASB’s translation of this verse. The KJV, NKJV, NIV, and RSV read: “Every man who has his head covered” or the like. Note that the word “covered” is added by these translations; it is not used in the Greek. Instead, the Greek word kata is used, which means “[something] down from, throughout/according to, toward, along” the head. The NASB and ASV exclude the word “covering,” and therefore, I believe, are more technically accurate. In other words, the “covering”—whatever it is, is “something” that is down from, or descends from the head. This concept, I believe, is important to understand if we expect to properly harmonize this passage. Does the Long Hair position harmonize? Absolutely—provided a woman’s hair is arranged to descend “down from” the head. (I believe a lot of women in our churches—both of the Uncut Hair and Long Hair viewpoints, are not in compliance with this obvious aspect of a proper “head covering.” The Bible seems to be teaching here that, while praying / prophesying, women must have a covering that hangs “down from” the head.) Please notice also that a proper covering / uncovering of our heads applies only to times when we are “praying or prophesying.” The Bible is very clear on this. It doesn’t refer to times when the man or women is not “praying or prophesying.” I believe that “prophesying” equates to our modern day “teaching,” although space does not permit me to elaborate. Women are commanded to teach (privately); when they do so they show their respect to their Heads by properly covering their physical heads. Verse 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. Paul indicates here that a woman who has an “uncovered” head (akatakalyptos: “not covered, unveiled”)—when praying or prophesying—dishonors her head (man); and, if so, she may as well have a “shaved” head (xurao: “to shear, shave/to get one’s self shaved”—used again in the following verse). A couple of very important facts should not be overlooked here. First, notice the covering is literal and visible—just as with typical symbols in the Bible. In other words, you have a literal, visible, “obvious” symbol (for example, the cup of communion—see verse 25 later in this same chapter) symbolizing a spiritually important concept (e.g., the cup symbolizes the New Testament; similarly, the woman’s head covering symbolizes her respect). In this case, it’s important to understand Paul is speaking of a literal, visible covering that descends “down from the head” [kata]—such as a veil-like covering (akatakalyptos: “not covered, unveiled”). So, the “covering” is literal. Please look again at the above verse: a physical head covering is contrasted to a completely uncovered, or shaved head. Paul is clear: A shaved-headed woman was not considered covered if her head was not veiled or covered with some other appropriate head covering (one which descended from the head [kata: “down from, throughout/according to, toward, along”—verse 4]). This means the head covering was something one could readily observe, something that descended down from a woman’s head. (I make this point because it is believed among us that a shaved-headed woman is entirely covered if she has simply asked God for forgiveness for cutting her hair. Paul teaches quite differently here.) Again, please pay attention to the “kata” in akatakalyptos. Akatakalyptos means “not covered, unveiled;” kata means “down from…etc.” The notion of a long, descending covering—such as long hair or a veil—is unmistakable. Indeed later—in v 15—Paul speaks of a woman’s “[long] hair.” I’ll get to this shortly, but Thayer plainly states that “long” is suggested here. This idea is also in agreement with every major English translation. Paul stated that a woman’s “long hair” is used instead of a “covering.” The word “covering” used there is peribolaion, meaning “a covering thrown around, a wrapper; a mantle / a veil.” In other words, with long, descending hair, there is no need of a veil, shawl, or other artificial covering (when a woman prays / teachers). It substitutes for it. But—and this is important—the Bible seems plain in suggesting that a long, descending covering is needed in every case for a woman to have a “covered” head when praying / teaching (whether actual long hair or an artificial covering. More on this later. Please also understand that Paul’s first century readers would have naturally understood (when he spoke of a “covering”) that he was referring to the head coverings worn commonly in that day—veils / shawls. Early Christian writings also reflect this fact. Interestingly, they debated whether or not a Christian woman needed to wear the veil always or just when praying or teaching; but they certainly considered the “veil” to be a valid covering possibility. But any generic, proper covering seems to be permitted by this text (veils / shawls / artificial hair) if natural long hair is absent. (In fact, today women of our society (and the church) often wear artificial coverings—for example, to covering their heads while going through chemotherapy, or for similar reasons). Artificial covering of the head is more common in our society today that we probably realize, although even if it were not, we would still be required to obey the teaching. Consider also how the RSV reads on this (v 5-6): Verse 5-6 (RSV) But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. My opinion is that the translation “covering” rather than “veil” is more accurate—it includes a broader range of possible coverings that extend “down from the head” (shawls, long hair, artificial hair, etc [v 15]). However, I believe the veil is certainly included in this list of legitimate “coverings,” and probably would have been primarily understood by the Paul’s original readers. Again, we see no logical inconsistencies with the Long Hair position, although the Uncut Position has some serious explaining to do. Consider the next verse as well… Verse 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. Again, “cover” comes from that same Greek word katakalypto “to cover up / to veil or cover one’s self,” with that same concept of the covering “descending from the head” (kata). But here there is much confusion and misrepresentation among Uncut Hair advocates over the words “cut off” and “shaved.” “Cut off” (used twice in this verse) comes from the Greek word keiro, which simply means “to sheer: a sheep/to get or let be shorn/of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head.” “Shaved” comes from a similar Greek word, xurao, which simply means “to shear, shave/to get one’s self shaved.” This is the same Greek word used in verse 5. So, this appears to be what Paul is teaching: He is teaching that if a woman does not have an adequate literal head covering (veil, shawl, long hair, artificial hair, or the like), she may as well have her hair “cut off” (i.e., shorn, as a sheep is shorn), or shaved. Plainly, Paul is contrasting extremely short hair (or a shaved head) with a covering that descends from the head. There is a clear distinction made. Shorn or shaved heads are not considered adequate coverings (when praying / teaching). As I said, there is apparently confusion over the meaning of the word “shorn.” Shorn does not mean “a trimming of the hair,” but it is clearly is a full-blown “shearing off of the hair,” as a farmer shears his sheep. Unfortunately, some of the Uncut Hair persuasion believe from this that it’s sinful for a woman to merely trim her hair—but keiro clearly does not mean that. Trimming of the hair does not necessarily prevent a woman from having “long hair” (which Paul speaks of in verses 14-15). However, if a woman shears or shaves her head, her hair will no longer be long. Men, on the other hand, must keep short hair, contrasted to the “long hair” of the woman. As you can see, the Long Hair position completely harmonizes, but the Uncut Hair position does not. This verse is one of several logical concerns I have with the Uncut Position, which holds that a woman may indeed pray to God with a shaved or shorn head—without any other appropriate covering for her head—as long as she repented of cutting her hair. Obviously, this is in direct opposition to what Paul is teaching. He clearly points out that God does not consider a woman’s shaved or shorn head to be an adequate “covering”—in this case she must be covered with an appropriated literal covering, or she sins. The Long Hair position is completely consistent to obeying this verse; the Uncut Hair position is not logical here. We cannot change the meaning of “shorn” and “shaved” to accommodate a traditional position. Again, “shorn” does not mean “trimmed slightly.” Verses 7-12 (Not covered in this discussion.) In these verses (NASB reference excluded for brevity), Paul reminds the Corinthians—among other things—that man should not cover his head 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” on her head. Verse 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Paul here appeals to the Corinthians’ “common sense” by asking them this 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 controversial verses… Verses 14-15 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 is given to her for a covering. (NASB) Here’s how the RSV reads: “Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” (RSV) As I’ve pointed out abundantly, “has long hair” is translated from a conjugation of the Greek word komao, which means “to wear long hair / have long hair,” or, as Thayer wrote, “to let the hair grow, have long hair” (and stated in his lexicon that length of hair is suggested). It’s been defined correctly, translated accurately, and translated accurately in accordance with the Present Active Subjunctive verb form of komao taken into account. This was all noticed in abundant detail previously. Now, please consider the phrase: “…her [long] hair is given to her for a covering”. The words “for a” comes from the Greek word anti, which can mean “instead of, in place of.” In other words, a woman’s long, descending hair is a permissible substitute “instead of” an artificial covering. I noticed all that already back in verses 5 and 6. Now, consider the word “covering”. That word “covering” comes from peribolaion, which means “a covering thrown around, a wrapper; a mantle / a veil.” Peribolaion clearly denotes an artificial covering. Verse 15 is the only place peribolaion is used in this passage. Finally, when it says “her hair is given to her for a covering”—that word “hair” comes from kome, which means “hair, head of hair.” While not every translation translates kome as “long hair” (which is the necessarily inferred meaning), Thayer points out in his comments that such hair is worn as “an ornament”; and that the notion of length is “secondary and suggested.” Again: long hair is suggested. This means God is suggesting that “long hair” (not just “growing hair” or “uncut hair”) is a proper natural head covering that replaces the need for an artificial head covering (again, while praying / teaching). In fact, every scholar I have read believes “long hair” is certainly the intent of the Holy Spirit in this passage, not simply “hair of any length”, such as short, uncut hair (since last prayer of repentance). In other words, “long hair” is an adequate substitute in the place of an artificial covering. Verse 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. As you can see, this was not (as we commonly hear from the denominational world) a mere custom of the Corinthians that applied only to them and not to us. It was practiced in the “churches of God” generally as well. APPENDIX B |