COMMENTARY (Short 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 FULL 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. 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 10:23-33), 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.

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 hold fast to, “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 two 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.” 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.

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.

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, I believe that prophesying still occurs—in its non-miraculous form—any time we “speak forth the (accurate) will of God,” such as when reading the Word or truthfully teaching 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). So, here Paul reveals our spiritual order of authority: God, Christ, man, and woman. As we see in the next few verses, we can honor (or dishonor) God and Christ if we pray/speak forth God’s Word while improperly head-covered. To our Headship, our head covering is a symbol of submission and acknowledgment of Their spiritual authority.

4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (kata=”down from, throughout”), dishonors his head.

Here Paul is teaches that any man who has a downward-directional head-covering whenever he would pray/teach—dishonors his Head (Jesus Christ, and by logical extension, God, Who is the Head of Christ). In this verse, in the Greek, two consecutive words are used (base forms indicated): kata (down from, throughout) and kephale (head). (For a more detailed explanation of this, please read the main Commentary’s comments for verse 4.) Therefore, I believe that if a man has anything “down from, throughout” his head when praying/teaching—be it long hair, a hoodie, or any other downward-directional head covering—he dishonors his God and Christ. Also, because “dishonor” in the Greek is an intensified verb form, I believe this would mean that he would be greatly dishonoring God/Christ if he did this. Thus this is a very serious matter. (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).

5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (akatakaluptos=”uncovered”) dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

Paul now addresses the next person of the spiritual hierarchy: woman. I believe that he implies in v. 5 that just as it would greatly dishonor God/Christ if a man prays/teaches having a downward directional head-covering, the opposite is true for the woman: she greatly dishonors her head (man; and by logical extension, his Heads, Christ and God) if she prays/teaches without something “down from” her head (and “throughout” – for example, naturally long unbound hair, head-covering mantles, head-covering veils, or the like). The word “uncovered” here in the Greek, akatakaluptos, is a generic word and does not specify the type of covering she would need. Paul here simply states that if a woman isn’t appropriately head-covered, in the eyes of God she dishonors her head/Heads every bit as much as if she prayed to God with a shaved (or shorn, see next verse) head.

NOTE: Paul doesn’t reveal what an acceptable head covering for the woman could specifically be until v. 15; there he implies that it primarily could be either long hair—or in the absence of long hair, an appropriate artificial covering. A shaved/shorn head was considered a shameful state for women of that day, just as the vast majority of women in our day would also feel ashamed if their heads were to be shorn or shaven.

6. For if a woman is not covered (katakalupto=”to cover wholly”, a verb), let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered (katakalupto=”to cover wholly”).

As stated, a shaved/shorn head for a woman is a shameful state (they are not “wholly covered states”!), and Paul implies that women who pray (or teach God’s Word) without “wholly” covering their heads will be dishonoring their head/Heads. That is a very serious matter!

In verses 7 – 12 (mostly excluded for brevity – except v. 10), 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.

13. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (akatakaluptos=”uncovered”)

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 not being Scripturally covered?” He then proceeds to answer this question in the next two highly controversial verses…

14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor (i.e. disgrace) to him?

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”

15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair (implied: long hair) is given to her FOR (anti=”as, in the place of, instead of”) a covering (peribolaion=“a head-wrapper; a head-mantle, a veil”).

I believe Paul is teaching here that if a woman has her long hair arranged “down from the head and throughout” – see vs. 4 & 5 (thus mostly unbound)—this fully replaces the need for any artificial head-covering (such as head-covering wraps, head-covering mantles, head-covering veils, or the like—which were common in Paul’s day). In saying this I truly believe that God is releasing the Christian woman from the burdensome and long-standing societal and religious customs of the day, that expected women to have their heads covered with something other than the only covering God has literally “given” to the majority of women, which is “long hair.” (Remember that v. 15 teaches that a woman‘s natural long hair “…has been given to her [by God, obviously] in the place of an [artificial head] covering [peribolaion].”) 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.)

NOTE: 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 that “her hair is given to her for a covering“—that word “hair” comes from kome (g-2864), which means: “The hair of the head (locks, as ornamental).” It is plain to see that kome does not imply “uncut hair.” It refers to “the LOCKS (long hair) of the head, worn ornamentally (i.e., displayed for beauty).” Simply put, I believe that God expects the praying/prophesying woman to have visibly long, down-flowing, mostly unbound hair (or an appropriate artificial covering in its absence). It is the visible symbol of her submission to God whenever she would pray or teach the Word. Thayer also points out in his comments that the notion of length is “secondary and suggested.” This means, per Thayer’s opinion, that God is suggesting that “long hair” (not “growing hair” or “uncut hair”) is a proper head covering, and this head covering replaces the need for any artificial head covering (again, while praying / teaching). It also obviously would imply hair (or an artificial covering) that is “long” and arranged downward-directionally, and throughout—as stated above. And “nature teaches us” that this is a glorious state for women. Women world-wide commonly have their hair arranged “long, downward and unbound,” and this is the natural state that God considers their “God-given” covering. However, if long hair is not maintained, then it becomes unmanageable, thus tempting women to arrange their long hair unscripturally (for praying/teaching the Word).

Please see above chapters for proof of this, especially:

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.

PREV CHAPTERS NEXT