CHAPTER 8:
CONTRASTING THE POPULAR DEFINITIONS OF KOMAO—EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ THIS!!
POCKETSERMONS.org
By Rick Cutter (contact)
As demonstrated in Chapter 3, all the major, reputable English Bible translations we typically use in the Church today—and numerous others—consider the proper definition/concepts of komao to be: “To have long hair.”
Furthermore, in Chapter 5 we noticed the logical reasons why no reputable translation committee rendered koma as “has growing hair” or “has uncut hair” or “has long, growing hair” or any variation thereof.
But to hopefully make things as clear as possible, let’s plug into the text the following four popular definitions/concepts for komao to see how much logical sense each of them makes:
• “To let the hair grow”
• “To let the hair grow long”
• “To have long hair“ (chosen by every reputable literally-minded English Bible translation committee, see Chapter 3)
• “To have uncut hair” (chosen by no known literally-minded translation committee or creditable lexicon, but due to its popularity we will examine it also).
• “To let the hair grow as long as nature allows“ (chosen by no known translation committee or creditable scholar as the proper understanding of komao – see Chapters 3 and 4; but, again, because it is held by some Uncut Hair believers we will examine it also).
“To Let the Hair Grow”
As mentioned, growing up as an Uncut Hair believer, I was told (and therefore taught others) that “to let the hair grow” is what komao (koma‘s infinitive) meant. So, let’s plug that definition into the text and see if it harmonizes. Here again is what using the “to let the hair grow” definition would look like if inserted into v. 14 and v. 15:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (no reputable English translation)
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man LETS HIS HAIR GROW (koma), it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman LETS HER HAIR GROW (koma), it is a glory to her; for her (GROWING) hair is given to her for a covering.
On the surface of things, this sounds perfectly harmonious for the woman. She can easily “let her hair” grow. It requires doing absolutely nothing.
Therefore, for the woman, if she must “let her hair grow,” this means (or so it is believed) that she must never cut her hair, right? Hence the “Uncut Hair” belief.
But, as stated above, this definition comes into serious harmonization misfortune when it’s applied to the man (that’s because the same Greek word, koma, is used for the man—and is also conjugated into the same verb form, PAS). It runs into logical problems because if the woman must never cut her hair or she sins, then a man’s situation is the opposite—he must never stop cutting his hair or he sins. He would need to “keep his hair from growing perpetually/continuously,” which is clearly a practical impossibility. According to the Uncut Hair doctrine which I formerly believed, this would literally mean that A MAN MUST BE PERPETUALLY CUTTING HIS HAIR, BECAUSE THE MOMENT THAT HE STOPS, HE SINS; HE IS “LETTING HIS HAIR GROW.”
But—to make matters worse—it is impossible for a man OR a woman to keep his/her hair from growing, even for a moment. Both his/her hair is growing before it is cut. It is growing while it is being cut. And it continues to grow after it is cut. In fact, we’re told that our hair grows for a time even after we die.
So, if God’s command for a woman is to “let her hair grow,” she is complying whether or not she cuts her hair, because she couldn’t naturally keep it from growing if her life depended on it.
But the man is in the same grammatical boat. He too cannot keep his hair from growing. And because he cannot naturally stop his hair from growing, this would be an impossible command for him to obey, since he’s been charged with not letting his hair grow even for a second (that is, if “to let the hair grow” were the correct meaning for this passage, which it isn’t—please see again Chapter 5).
Therefore, as we have seen, no reputable Greek-English translation committee chose “to let the hair grow” as the proper translation of komao for this passage (see again Chapter 3). None of the lexicons did either—including Thayer’s Lexicon (see again Chapter 4).
“To Let the Hair Grow Long”
So, we have seen that “to let the hair grow” does not logically cooperate with this passage.
But someone might say: “But what about using ‘to let the hair grow LONG’ as the definition for komao? Would that harmonize better?” So let’s plug it in and give it a try:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (no reputable English translation)
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man LETS HIS HAIR GROW LONG (koma), it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman LETS HER HAIR GROW LONG (koma), it is a glory to her; for her (GROWING) hair is given to her for a covering.
I believe that this is much better. A man shouldn’t let his hair grow LONG, while a woman should let her hair grow LONG.
However, if (for the woman) we think that “growing LONG” means it must never be cut, and that she must let it grow perpetually longer and longer, we should realize that it again becomes impossible for the man to obey, for he cannot possibly keep his hair from perpetually growing longer.
Again, every moment, both a man’s and woman’s hair are perpetually growing both LONG, and LONGER. It is certainly not growing shorter!
Therefore, these logical harmonization issues, in my view, are why none of the translators above—representing centuries of Bible translation scholarship—employed “to let the hair grow / grow long” as the definition. Instead, they unanimously and correctly chose “to have/wear long hair” as the proper definition.
Let’s look at that definition now…
“To Have/Wear Long Hair”
So, we have seen that neither “to let the hair grow” nor “to let the hair grow long” logically harmonize for this passage.
But what about the definition that all reputable English Bible translations actually chose for komao: “to have/wear long hair”? Does it harmonize? Let’s give it a try:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (Similar to EVERY reputable English translation, including the NKJV, KJV, ESV, RSV, NASB, ASV, CSB, NIV…and numerous more – see list)
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man HAS LONG HAIR (koma), it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman HAS LONG HAIR (koma), it is a glory to her; for her (LONG) hair is given to her for a covering.
Plainly, this makes simple and logical sense. When praying/prophesying…
…a man must have hair that IS NOT LONG, and,
…a woman man must have hair that IS LONG.
(And if you’re wondering “How long is LONG?”—that is covered in Chapter 10—and the answer is not complicated.)
So—in other words—ALL of our major, reputable, literally translated English Bibles (see Chapter 3) have translated 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 correctly, as is. That is not only comforting to know, but also exactly what we should expect from any translation that we would consider “literally translated.”
(NOTE: Some have wrongly argued that a verb’s definition cannot have an adjective + noun as part of the definition. For example, “to have long hair” has an adjective, “long,” and a noun, “hair,” as part of the definition of komao. Such people need to take up their argument with the multitude of scholars through time, for every reputable lexicon, including Thayer, did exactly that when they defined komao, in either the primary or secondary definition, as “to have or wear LONG HAIR” (notice the adjective + noun!). This is common in definitions. It troubles me when men in our churches use arguments like this, that surely they must know are unfactual. And worse, when they use such reasoning to justify excommunicating their brethren.)
“To Have Uncut Hair”
It should be noted that “to have uncut hair” is a definition that simply does not exist in any major reputable lexicon that I have ever seen for komao. (Someone apparently scrounged around and found it in an obscure lexicon, but no creditable lexicon I’ve seen used such a definition, including Thayer.)
However, since many Uncut Hair proponents insist that “to have Uncut Hair” is a legitimate definition for komao, let’s also give it an opportunity:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (no reputable English translation or credited Greek lexicon)
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man HAS UNCUT HAIR, it is a dishonor to him?
But if a woman HAS UNCUT HAIR, it is a glory to her; for her (UNCUT) hair is given to her for a covering.
Again, this is easy for the woman to obey: she literally must do nothing to “HAVE UNCUT HAIR.” But, once again, it becomes harmoniously problematic for the man. That’s because, if taken literally, to comply with Scripture a man could simply cut his hair once—and then never cut it again.
Why? Because as soon as he cuts it once, he no longer has “UNCUT HAIR.” Therefore, taken literally, an obedient church could have men with hair just as long, if not longer, than many of their female counterparts.
This represents a situation where there is no clear distinction between the sexes, a concept which certainly does not harmonize with the rest of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, especially verses 4, 5, 6, 14 & 15.
(By the way, did you notice that “has Uncut Hair”—like “has Long Hair”—is not an action verb, but a state of being verb? This debunks the Uncut Hair opinion that insists koma—because it’s in the Active Voice—must be an “action verb,” but not a “state of being verb.” See Chapter 5 for more info.)
“To Let the Hair Grow As Long As Nature Will Allow“
This theory probably came about from the mistaken thinking (see verses 14-15) that “nature teaches us…that if a woman ‘lets her hair grow,’ then her (growing, uncut) hair IS her covering.”
We have already noticed above the illogicality that any “growing hair” theory would bring to the table. However, because some Uncut Hair advocates sincerely believe that “letting the hair grow as long as nature will allow” is what Paul intended to suggest for Christian women, let’s plug in that definition and see how well it harmonizes:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (no English translation or Greek lexicon)
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man LETS HIS HAIR GROW AS LONG AS NATURE ALLOWS, it is a dishonor to him?
But if a woman LETS HER HAIR GROW AS LONG AS NATURE ALLOWS, it is a glory to her; for her (GROWING) hair is given to her for a covering.
As you can probably see, this theory of koma’s meaning immediately runs into the same problems that were discussed above under the “to have UNCUT HAIR” definition.
Please think about it: if a woman must “let her hair grow as long as nature will allow,” then the exact opposite must be true for the man: he must simply NOT “let his hair grow as nature will allow” to be compliant. This would mean that as soon as a man would cut his hair one time, it would no longer be “as long as nature would allow.” That’s because nature “would have allowed” it to be longer by the approximate length of hair he removed during his one haircut. Therefore, from then on he would be free to grow his hair as long as he pleased. I think many of my readers would agree that this is blatantly disobedient to what the Bible actually says—which is that if a man “has long hair” it is a SHAME to him (see v. 14).
To circumvent this obvious Scriptural inconsistency, the Uncut position has resorted to using two “definitions” for komao: one for the woman, and a different one for the man. The one for the woman is that she must “let her hair grow as long as nature would allow.” But the one for the man is that he must “not have long hair” (1 Corinthians 11:14).
Unfortunately for the Uncut Hair position, Christians are not permitted to just re-define Bible words (like koma) any way they choose. That’s because we are talking about identical Greek words (koma), that have identical verb forms (PAS), are in the exact same context (1 Corinthians 11:14-15), and are probably in the very same sentence (see the ESV, RSV, NASB, CSB, NIV, etc.). My dear brothers and sisters, we are not permitted to use the Bible in this reckless way! The Bible warns repeatedly that we must teach what is in accordance with “sound doctrine,” and changing the meaning of words like koma in mid-stream “to make the passage harmonize better” is not sound hermeneutics. It is disingenuous and sinful. Therefore the theory that a woman must grow her hair “as long as nature will allow” is invalid. (Please see Chapter 5 for a simple, more complete explanation of how the Uncut doctrine changes definition of koma between the man and the woman.)
But Doesn’t the Greek Word Katakalupto Imply the Uncut Hair Viewpoint?”
Let’s set aside for a moment the aforementioned contextual inconsistencies and focus our attention now on another misunderstanding of our good brethren. It’s the belief that the word katakalupto (in vs. 5-6) necessarily implies that a woman must “let her hair grow continually (i.e., as long as nature allows).”
To understand this argument, please take another look at 1 Corinthians 11:5-6. It says this:
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 (katakalupto), let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered (katakalupto).
. . . . . . . . . . .
COVERED (katakalupto, g-2619, verb):
THAYER: To cover up / to veil or cover oneself. From G2596 (KATA: down from, through out) and G2572 (KALUPTO: to cover, veil, hide).
STRONG’S: To cover wholly, i.e., veil:—cover, hide.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Please notice that Strong’s definition of katakalupto is: “to cover wholly.“ Since Uncut proponents seem to prefer this definition, this is what I use below.
It’s very important to understand that at this point in his writing, Paul had not yet actually identified what the “covering” specifically was. It was undefined. That’s because katakalupto (“to cover”) can—in its primary sense—refer to any kind of a covering. Speaking plainly, it does not automatically imply a veil or cloth covering, which some of our good Veil brethren believe. This fact is made very obvious in the Septuagint (which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament). In the Septuagint we find several instances of katakalupto variously referring to “grass covering (katakalupto) the land,” “people covering (katakalupto) the land,” “fat covering (katakalupto) the entrails of sacrifices,” and the like. Interestingly, although katakalupto (conjugated variously) is used almost 20 times in the Septuagint, it is never refers to artificial head coverings. That’s probably because artificial coverings were never commanded under the Law of Moses. Nor are they commanded in the New Testament—although they are necessarily inferred for a woman if she prays/”prophesies” without her natural covering (her long descending hair), a conclusion is implied from v. 15. I say all of this because some of our friends of the Veil persuasion believe that katakalupto necessarily refers specifically to a “cloth covering on a person’s head.” But the Septuagint’s use of katakalupto solidly confirms that it’s a generic word that can refer to virtually anything that covers virtually anything else. In the context of 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, the covering could certainly be referring either to a natural, long-hair covering—or to an artificial covering (again, see v. 15).
But back to 1 Corinthians 11:6. Again—katakalupto is defined (by Strong’s) as “to cover wholly.” However, the context seems to strongly suggest a literal, visible covering. Paul describes a woman’s literally shorn (burred) or shaved head as shameful states. And a woman’s shorn/shaved head is contrasted to a woman’s “wholly covered” (katakalupto) head. As you can hopefully see, in these states (shorn, bald), women’s heads are literally uncovered (they don’t have a long hair OR an artificial covering), and therefore shameful states in which to pray/prophesy. So, SINCE these are shameful states for a woman—especially when praying/”prophesying”—what then is considered a covered state that God approves of?
Once again, Paul gave the plain answer in verse 15. There he describes two possible coverings that God would find acceptable: (1) Either a woman’s natural, LONG HAIR (down-from, descending, see Chapter 9, next) or, (2) in the absence of it, an appropriate artificial covering (in my view, a long and descending artificial covering is implied in this passage, see Chapter 9).
So, this is 100% literally logical:
• Shaved/shorn head = uncovered head (in the sight of God).
• Long (descending) hair / or an appropriate artificial covering = wholly covered head (in the sight of God).
Finally, please recall that the Uncut position considers a woman’s covering to simply be her “continuously growing hair” (“as long as nature will allow”). So let’s substitute katakalupto with that definition to see if 1 Corinthians 11:6 harmonizes with the Uncut Hair position:
“…if a woman doesn’t have continuously growing hair, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, she must have continuously growing hair.“
This is at best a confusing statement, and makes little or no sense in this passage. That’s because a woman’s hair is always growing continuously. In other words, even if she’s shorn or shaven, her hair is growing. It’s even growing while her head is being shorn or shave. Therefore, because it’s always growing, the above statement becomes nonsensical.
Meanwhile, it makes total sense for the Long Hair position:
“…if a woman doesn’t have long hair, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, she must have long hair.”
This makes complete sense for the Long Hair position because a woman’s head is Scripturally covered by her hair ONLY if she has long hair (rather than if she has hair that is shorn, shaven, or simply not long enough to be considered “long”). In those situations, she is not covered in God’s eyes if she prays/prophesies. (Her hair must also be “down from” the head, explained in Chapter 9, noticed shortly. )
BUT WOULDN’T THE FACT THAT KATAKALUPTO IS INTENSIFIED SUGGEST “CONTINUOUSLY GROWING (UNCUT) HAIR” IS THE WOMAN’S COVERING?
Some believe that because katakalupto is an “intensified” verb, this would suggest it refers to “hair that grows continually as long as nature will allow.”
To understand this argument, we must first understand the very simple concept of what an “intensified” verb is. To say that a verb is “intensified” is just a fancy way of saying that the verb has a small word that’s stuck on the front of it that “intensifies” it (examples: ek, apo, dia, kata, etc). By sticking one of these prefixes on the front, this means the verb will be “increased in extent or intensity; made more intense, stronger, or more marked.”
To use a simple example of intensifying a verb, the Greek word esthio means “I eat.” However, the word katesthio means “I devour.” Because “kata” (in this case, shortened to “kat”) is in front of the word “esthio,” the “action” of eating has been intensified to “devouring.”
So let’s get back to katakalupto. Please notice “kata” on the front of it: Katakalupto. “Kata” is said to intensify “kalupto.” In other words:
NON-INTENSIFIED WORD:
Kalupto: to cover up (veil, hide a thing with anything – see katakalupto in Septuagint for examples).
INTENSIFIED WORD (Strong’s):
Katakalupto: to cover wholly, i.e., veil:—cover, hide. From kata (“down from, throughout”) and kalupto (“cover, veil, hide”).
So, the intensified definition of katakalupto is”to cover wholly.” However, “covering wholly” certainly doesn’t imply that woman’s “[continuously] growing hair” is her covering. That’s because “growing hair” may not be long enough to serve as a covering that God would consider acceptable. As stated above—when discussing verses 5 & 6—we found that Paul very plainly implied that a shorn/shaved head is unscriptural when she would be praying/prophesying. As has been stated repeatedly, a woman’s hair is growing before, during, and after it is cut/trimmed, shaved or shorn.
So, simply having “growing hair” certainly does not necessarily imply that she is therefore “wholly covered.”
On the other hand, from a Long Hair viewpoint, if we “intensify” a shorn or shaved head to a “wholly covered” state, what would we get? We would get long hair—which is exactly what Paul would go on to say in verses 14 and 15 has been given to a woman as her (God-given) covering. Please again notice that “long hair” is a literal, visible state, just as shorn or shaved heads are literal, visible states. Obviously, length of hair matters to God, since length is implied when Scripture speaks of the various hair-lengths of: “shaved-off” hair (vs. 5 & 6); “sheared-off” hair (v. 6); hair that is “not long” (v. 14); and “LONG” hair (v. 15).
But from an Uncut Hair perspective, the belief is that “since katakalupto is intensified,” that necessarily means a woman’s shaved or shorn head suddenly could be considered as ‘wholly covered’ in the sight of God (that is, if she had prayed to be forgiven of having cut her hair). Therefore, the “covering” is invisible. You can’t see “growing hair.” But, again, we know this is wrong according to verses 5 & 6, noticed previously. (As mentioned, another Uncut Hair inconsistency is the belief that “length of hair doesn’t matter” for the woman; yet, length of hair certainly does matter for the man. This is a conclusion, because whatever koma means for the woman it also means for the man, except in the opposite sense, as was noticed previously in Chapters 5-7). Therefore, the theory of “intensification” plainly does not harmonize well for the Uncut Hair position.
In conclusion: One thing that we know with absolute certainty is that whatever the “covering” is, if a woman “has long hair” (downward-directional, mostly unbound, see Chapter 9) when praying/prophesying (vs. 5-6), she is fully accepted by the Lord. Her long hair has been given to her “as her covering” (v. 15). In the Lord’s eyes, that is her acceptable covering. She is “wholly covered” in the sight of God with this covering. Also, per v. 15, a woman’s long hair covering has been given to her “instead of an artificial covering” (v. 15). So, to obey God, if a woman’s hair has been shaved or shorn (vs. 5-6), or is “not long” (v. 14, implied)—her literal covering must be “intensified” to “long hair” to please God. But if her hair remains in a shaved/short, or “not long” state, I believe that it is necessarily inferred that she must wear an appropriate (many are not!) artificial head covering that (I believe) should roughly resemble her natural “long hair” covering (down from and throughout, see Strong’s above).
But simply having “growing hair” is not an acceptable covering when a woman prays/prophesies (see verses 5-6). Again, Paul said: “But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn (meaning “sheared as a sheep” or “cut short”) or shaved, let her be covered” (1 Corinthians 11:6b). To deny this plain teaching is to deny the very Words of the Holy Spirit of God.
Is The Church of Christ Commentary Correct About This?
Interestingly, in our own Church of Christ’s “Contending for the Faith” Commentary for 1 Corinthians 11:6, the following illustration is employed to prove that “uncut hair” was God’s will for the Christian woman.
First, it is accurately noted (in the Commentary) that Strong’s definition of katakalupto is “to cover wholly.”
Then, to prove that “covering wholly” implies “uncut hair,” the writer—whom I believe to be a very fine man and from a very fine family of devout Christians—suggested the following illustration:
He noted that if just one shingle on a house was missing, the house would no longer be “wholly covered” with shingles (which, of course, would be unacceptable to the owner). He then apparently compares this situation to a woman’s hair, in the sense that if she were to merely trim even a small amount of her hair, her head would no longer be “wholly covered” in the eyes of God.
On the surface of things this reasoning sounds plausible. But a closer look reveals problems. First, the illustration deals with literal shingles. Plainly, any amount of shingles missing would be unacceptable to the owner. And the more that were missing, the more unacceptable it would be to the owner.
Similarly in 1 Corinthians 11 we’re dealing with a woman’s literal hair—and literal lengths of it. If a woman has anything less than “long hair” (which is “wholly covered” in God’s eyes, see v. 15), this is unacceptable to God when she would pray/prophesy. That’s because God plainly stated that “long hair” was given to her “as her covering.” In other words, God accepts her natural long hair as being “wholly covered” when praying to Him. Furthermore, the shorter a woman’s hair is, the worse it is. That’s because it would take more time before she could grow it to be “long.” Paul specifically called or implied the following states “shameful” for a woman when praying: shaven (vs. 5-6), shorn (v. 6), “not long” (implied from vs. 14-15).
But both a woman’s hair and a house’s shingles are literal, and in both cases the amount of them matters. If shingles are missing from a roof, and a storm is coming, a tarp might be applied; similarly, if a woman has hair that isn’t long enough, she would need an artificial head covering when praying to God—that is, until her hair would become long again.
Another problem with the shingles example is this: The uncut position holds that “length of hair” (even if she had a completely shaved head) doesn’t matter to God (if she has prayed for forgiveness). This would be equivalent to an owner having no problem whatsoever with a completely shingle-less roof as long as the roofing contractor apologized for not covering the roof wholly. Instead, an owner would need to apologize for not covering the roof wholly, and then set about covering it properly until the roof was wholly covered. And the part that would need to be covered would plainly be the part that lacked shingles.
But Christian women can take comfort in knowing that God clearly defined how a “wholly covered” head on a woman should look (per v. 15):
1 CORINTHIANS 11:15
But if a woman has long (descending)* hair, it is a glory to her; for her (long*) hair is given to her (by God) for a covering.
(*For an explanation of this, please see Chapter 9, noticed next.)
Copyright 2024-2025 (all versions)