Hair Question: Chapter 2

A closer look at why people believe the ‘Long Hair’ viewpoint


In review, why people hold to the Long Hair position is simple to explain:

We are not permitted to modify God’s words to suit our traditional teachings, as is routinely done in the denominational world.

The Bible plainly teaches that if a woman “has long hair” she is in Biblical compliance. As noticed already, every Bible translation in common use today agrees with this translation of koma.

Many Greek-English scholars define komaō (the infinitive from which koma has been translated) as “to have/wear long hair.” This was clearly the definition translation scholars justifiably chose to conjugate and translate into English, in order to convey accurate Biblical meaning to English speaking Christians. I’ll notice the scholars’ definitions of komaō shortly.

After selecting “to have long hair” as the proper definition for komaō, translation scholars then correctly conjugated this definition into English using the Present tense, Active voice, and Subjunctive mood. They understandably had intimate knowledge as to how to conjugate this simple Greek form. I’ll notice PAS in more detail shortly.

If, in agreement with the scholars, we take “has long hair” as the proper concept to understand in 1 Corinthians 11:15, it harmonizes seamlessly throughout this entire passage. As mentioned, the Uncut position has several harmonization problems, several more of which I’ll notice later.

Early Christian writers clearly believed variations of the Long Hair position–but not the Uncut Hair position. I have not been able to locate any reference to an “Uncut Hair position” among early Christian writings, even though they wrote sometimes extensively about the Head Covering. Early Christian writers generally believed that men were required to have short hair (a very common topic of discussion among them). However, no mention was ever perceptibly made that Uncut Hair was required of Christian women. Christian women were to (depending on the author) have long “unbound” hair (at least to the shoulders), and literal artificial head coverings were always necessary in the absence of a woman’s long, “unbound hair.” In several cases, head coverings were believed mandatory regardless of the length of a woman’s hair.

On this, Wikipedia states: 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 contains the only reference in the New Testament referring to a headcovering for women and to an absence of a headcovering for men. Various early Church Fathers, such as Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo and Tertullian also mentioned women’s headcoverings. Early Christian art shows women wearing headcoverings. During the ensuing centuries, women definitely wore the head coverings during the church service, especially when praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5). I’ll notice later in more detail the views of early Christian writers.

Alexander Campbell, perhaps the most prominent leader of our “Restoration Movement,” also apparently held to the Long Hair position. Although Long Hair advocates do not hold the Long Hair position because Campbell did, it’s interesting to realize that this prominent Restoration Movement scholar and leader was apparently not an Uncut Hair advocate, at least according to the writings I’m aware of. As for the accusation that the Long Hair position “lacks scholarship,” it’s difficult to take this seriously in view of Campbell’s knowledge of Biblical Greek, not to mention the knowledge and intimacy that early Christian writers had of Biblical Greek. I’ll notice specific quotations from Campbell later.


A closer look at how the scholars translated koma


When it comes to “why Long Hair advocates believe the way they do,” it all starts with this answer: “because that’s the way our Bibles read.”

Here’s the list again of how all the commonly-known, reputable translations (along with a few lesser known translations) translated koma:

American Standard Version:    Have long hair
Cambridge Basic English:    Has long hair
Darby Version:    Have long hair
King James Version:    Have long hair
New American Standard Version:    Has long hair
New International Version:    Has long hair
New King James Version:    Has long hair
New Living Translation:    Have long hair
New Revised Standard Version:    Wears long hair
Revised Standard Version:    Has long hair
Weymouth’s New Testament:    Has long hair
Young’s Literal Translation:    Have long hair
The Living Oracles (A. Campbell)    Have long hair

Again, no Greek committee of any major, reputable English translation translated koma (and conjugated it using PAS) in any way other than: “has / have / wears long hair.” We must not tamper with the Biblical text.

By the way, scholars aren’t afraid to disagree on how Greek words should be translated into English–if they feel the need to. But koma was not an area of disagreement among the translations. As mentioned, these Greek-English committees agreed unanimously on the translation of koma. Koma was apparently not a complex issue for the translators. Therefore, due to the simplicity of translating koma into English using the Present Active Subjunctive form, every committee of scholars above, in each of their translations, agreed that koma must include the concept of “having / wearing long hair”–rather than the concept of “letting the hair grow” or “having uncut hair,” or the like.


A closer look at how the scholars defined komaō


As I mentioned, the MAJOR DISAGREEMENT AMONG US STEMS FROM OUR VIEW OF HOW KOMA SHOULD BE DEFINED, not how it is conjugated.

So, let’s take a look now at how scholars DEFINED komaō (komaō is the infinitive verb form from which koma was conjugated): F. Wilbur Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon:

To wear long hair
H.G. Liddell & R. Scott’s Greek Lexicon:
To let the hair grow long
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
To let the hair grow, have long hair
Walter Bauer’s Greek Lexicon:
To let one’s hair grow long
The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Wesley J. Perschbacher):
To have long hair, wear the hair long
The New Strong’s Guide to Bible Words (James Strong):
To wear long hair
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and N.T. Words:
To let the hair grow long, to wear long hair
Word Study Greek-English New Testament (Paul R. McReynolds):
To wear long hair
The New Greek-English Interlinear N.T. (R. K. Brown & Philip W. Comfort):
To wear long hair
The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Farstad, Hodges,…):
To wear long hair
New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:
To wear long hair
Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Robert Young):
To have long hair

Why did our English translations unanimously select “have / has/ wears long hair” as the proper translation for koma?

Probably because–as the 12 definitions above suggest (which were all I had access to in my original work, and certainly enough for us to get the meaning)–“long hair” is unquestionably embedded in the definition of komaō.

Please take a closer look at these definitions. Of these 12 definitions, 10 of them literally use the words “long hair” as part of their definitions–and the remaining two definitions can be easily understood to imply “long hair.”

Thus, the concept of “length of hair” is included in all 12 definitions, and “long hair” is specifically mentioned in 10 of them. This fact directly opposes the Uncut notion that “length is irrelevant.” Yet the critical component of “length of hair” was included, arguably, by every Greek-English translation scholar mentioned previously. I therefore believe that, had they chosen to ignore “length of hair” in koma‘s translation, it would have been–at the very least–an unscholarly and irresponsible oversight.

(It should probably be noted here that Uncut proponents prefer to emphasize the word “grow” in the above definitions, which is listed in four of the 12 definitions above. I’m not suggesting everyone does this, but emphasizing “grow” and ignoring any reference to “long hair” or, “length of hair” among these scholars’ definitions is, I believe, disingenuous. Yet, the ignoring of length is probably necessary if one is to hold the Uncut position. I’ll notice this in more detail shortly.)

Said simply, the Greek-English scholars translated koma as “has / have / wears long hair” because that’s exactly what it means by definition. I believe they purposely chose not to translate koma as “lets the hair grow,” “lets the hair grow long,” “keeps the hair growing long,” or the like, because each of these–when plugged into the passage and applied to both men and women–leads to nonsensical conclusions that do not properly harmonize with this passage. “Has long hair” harmonizes extremely well and does not lead to nonsensical conclusions. I’ll notice all of this in detail shortly.


What about Thayer: Didn’t he disagree with the notion of “long hair” in komaō‘s definition?


In order to show that length of hair is irrelevant, some Uncut advocates point to Thayer’s related comment for evidence (see his definition of kome–translated in verse 15 as “hair / long hair” by translators).

There, Thayer stated that length of hair was “secondary and suggested.” For some reason, some Uncut advocates believe that since Thayer said length was “secondary,” then it was therefore unimportant and “not suggested” by Paul in of this passage.

But please look again closely at what Thayer actually said: he indicated that length was “secondary and suggested.” Ironically, instead of downplaying “length of hair” as “unimportant,” Thayer rather indicated that it was indeed suggested in this passage–in agreement with all our major English translations. Obviously, “suggested” means “the intended meaning” for this passage. So, this would logically lead one to conclude that his secondary definition, “have long hair”–which several scholars chose as their primary definition–was the proper one to use (remember, Thayer’s definition was “[1] To let the hair grow; [2] have long hair”). If true, Thayer was in complete harmony with the thinking of every major Greek-English translation committee, which one would expect from someone of his apparent scholarship.

Probably no other scholar is more often pointed to as proof of the Uncut position than Thayer. Yet it’s interesting to note that Thayer actually considered length of hair to in fact be suggested in this passage.

By contrast, Uncut advocates believe “length of hair” is not suggested in this passage. In other words, by their estimation, Thayer would have apparently disagreed with all the above translations of koma: “has / wears long hair.” Again, when Thayer indicates that long hair is “suggested,” this means “it’s the intended meaning of the text.” This is also how all the translation committees understood it. They also believed long hair was suggested in this passage; hence, they translated koma as “has/have/wears long hair,” rather than “has growing or uncut hair.”

The truth is, the notion of length of hair is very important not just for the man, but for both the man and the woman. The Holy Spirit uses the same Greek word, koma, for both men and women. Therefore, clearly, if length is an important consideration for one, it is also important for the other. The exact same context is used for both.


But is it proper to use “long hair” (adjective + noun) in a definition?


Some of the Uncut position basically complain that Long Hair believers use the two words “long hair” inside a verb, and that this is grammatically incorrect.

They complain that since komaō is a verb–and since a verb must describe action–then “long hair” is improper, since it’ s an adjective modifying a noun.

Of course, they fail to recall that it was the scholars themselves who supplied us with the definition “to have/wear long hair.” You can plainly see that the scholars included an adjective sandwiched with a noun within the definition of a verb–in several of the definitions listed above. In fact, this is extremely common, both in Greek and English.

Clearly, the verb in use here is not “long hair” (which is not a verb, but a noun that’s modified by an adjective). Rather, the verb’s actual definition in full is “to have long hair.” This is a perfectly acceptable verb definition, in spite of the fact that an adjective with a noun is part of the definition.

In other words, a woman must simply “have long hair.” This is very, very basic and very simple language–probably as simple as it gets. I point it out merely to show that the above “adjective + noun” complaint is invalid.


A closer look at how the translators conjugated koma


Long Hair proponents not only believe the scholars used the correct definition for koma (“have / has / wears long hair”), and not only did they translate it accordingly, but we also believe the translators did an excellent job of correctly conjugating komaō into the Present tense, Active voice, and Subjunctive mood.

As mentioned, the Present Active Subjunctive (PAS) is an extremely common verb form in our Greek New Testaments (apparently used 352 times), undoubtedly well understood by any translator with scholarship credentials worthy of him/her serving on a translating committee.

Indeed, scholars doubtlessly knew–as a matter of basic translation routine–how to translate PAS verb forms into English.

So, let’s take a moment to show, again, that the scholars knew what they were doing.


Present tense


First, the present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality, viewed as occurring in actual time. In other words, it’s happening “right now.”

Therefore, Long Hair holds that a woman must, “right now,” have long hair in order to be covered with her hair. The Uncut viewpoint, by contrast, suggests the woman must, “right now,” have growing hair in order to be covered. The problem is that both men and women have “growing hair” all the time (even when their hair is being cut), meaning that men are always covered and therefore always living in sin. Since God would not command us to do something impossible to do, it renders the theory that “long hair really means uncut hair” to be a nonsensical one. I believe this is one reason (though not the only reason) the scholars thought “long hair” was certainly “suggested” in this passage (which Thayer also clearly admitted)–rather than “growing hair.”


Active voice


Next, the Active voice means the subject of the sentence (in this case, the subject is man verse 14, and woman in verse 15) is the one “doing or performing” the action. This is so simple it almost goes without saying.

In other words, the Long Hair position would state that it’s the woman who must be “right now [present tense] wearing / having long hair” if she is to be properly covered with her hair. On the other hand, the Uncut Position would argue that it’s the woman who must be “right now [present tense] having uncut / continuously growing hair” if she is to be properly covered with her hair.

Some try to make the subtle point that “progressive force,” meaning simply “continuous action,” is said to be employed here, which is consistent with the Active voice–and that this “proves” the Uncut position. While I most certainly agree that “continuous action” is involved, this thought has no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. It’s just a complicated way of simply and plainly saying that “if a woman has [continually] long hair, it is a glory to her…” The idea of “continually having long hair” is obvious in this sentence; therefore, the scholars once again demonstrated proper understanding of the Greek language in translating our Bibles as they did.

However, if they had rendered it as some Uncut advocates believe: “if a woman lets the hair grow [continually], it is a glory to her…”, it becomes a nonsensical statement. This is because a woman’s hair is always growing anyway, even when it’s being cut.


Subjunctive mood


Finally, let’s examine the subjunctive mood–(some have referred to it as the “potential mood”). The subjunctive mood is “the mood of possibility and potentiality.” Experts explain that the action described “may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances.”

So, if you will examine your Bible, you will again observe that the Greek scholars have translated your English Bible properly (as usual) for the subjunctive mood: “if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her…”

In other words, only IF a woman has long hair is it a glory to her. In some cases, women may not possess long hair, thus putting into play the teachings that will be discussed in more detail shortly. Therefore, once again, we find the Long Hair position to be logical.

However, the subjunctive mood causes logical problems for the Uncut Hair position. Why? Please look again at verse 15. This verse explains that a woman’s [long] hair was given to her “instead of a covering [peribolaion: an artificial covering].” The Long Hair position argues that this means that IF long hair exists, no artificial head covering is necessary. However, without long hair (for example, with a shaved or shorn head–v 6) such an artificial covering would be necessary. You can see how the subjunctive mood comes into play here: most of the time, in normal circumstances, a woman will have long hair, and her long hair will serve as her proper covering. But in cases where “long hair” does not exist, the Bible necessarily infers that other steps must be taken. So, the situation of having “long hair” may or may not exist, per the subjunctive mood.

Unfortunately, as stated, the Uncut Hair position has problems here. This is because for one to say: “continuously growing hair may or may not exist” is nonsensical, since the hair of a man or woman is always growing continuously, even while being cut. In other words, there is no subjunctive mood possibility in the Uncut Hair position, since there is no possibility that “growing hair” does not exist. Growing hair always exists. Thus, again, the translators logically and understandably avoided any notion of “growing hair” in their Greek-English translations. Again, they virtually all agreed that length of hair, not “growing” hair, was what was intended by the Holy Spirit in this passage.

(Another problem: It’s nonsensical to suggest that a woman should not cut her hair “while praying or prophesying.” This makes no sense. Does this mean that as long as she isn’t “praying or prophesying” she is at liberty to cut it?)

So, I’ve gone through all this to simply point out the obvious–your translation is correct, as it reads.

Komaō truly does mean “to have/wear long hair” rather than “to have growing / uncut hair.”

In fact, the way our English Bibles read is probably the only grammatically correct way translators could have accurately translated koma so that our English Bibles could be understood properly. Thus we see their lack of controversy on the translation of koma.


Did the scholars who translated our Bibles really “lack scholarship”?


Some of the Uncut persuasion have suggested that when unscholarly individuals (such as Long Hair proponents, or so they seem to be insinuating) pick up a lexicon and take a literal definition (such as “to have long hair”) and plug it into the text, their ignorance of Greek can inadvertently lead them to wrong-headed conclusions.

They suggest that the definition “to have long hair,” for example, when plugged directly into the text–“without an explanation of what its actual Greek meaning ‘really’ is”–leads the simple into error. They apparently think that such people are akin to the “ignorant and unstable” mentioned by Peter when speaking of Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:16).

Unfortunately, if this charge is leveled at Long Hair advocates, it must also be leveled against virtually the entire Greek-English community of scholars, for it was they who specifically chose to translate from the definition “to have / wear long hair,” and it was they who specifically (and correctly) translated it “has / wears long hair,” and it was they who correctly conjugated it as “has / wears long hair” (in complete accordance with proper understanding of the Present Active Subjunctive verb form). It is also they who are teaching us Biblical Greek in the universities and colleges of our country–rather than those who are leveling the charges.

Along with these many scholars, who easily represent the significant modern-day majority, we’ll also see that apparently many scholars of past ages–from the earliest Christian writers to Alexander Campbell–evidently held to various forms of the “long hair” position, but never so much as mentioned the Uncut Hair position.

In other words, the criticisms of some among us who suggest that Long Hair proponents (and thus, the many translators with whom they agree, along with many scholars of past ages) lack scholarship, and have neglected to comprehend some deeply embedded grammatical concept, and have failed to properly translate the Present Active Subjunctive verb form of koma–are entirely unwarranted.

After close examination, I see absolutely no good reason whatsoever for anyone to doubt the scholarship of the many translating committees who translated these verses from Greek to English. In all the above cases, they have done their job admirably, and before us in our Bibles we have the Holy Spirit’s intended meaning–as usual, just as it is written.



CHAPTER 3