CHAPTER 9:
SHOULD A WOMAN’S LONG HAIR BE “DOWNWARD DIRECTIONAL” WHEN SHE PRAYS OR PROPHESIES (i.e., speaks forth the Word)?
POCKETSERMONS.org
By Rick Cutter (contact)
The concept of “downward directional” head coverings comes from the very beginning of this passage (1 Corinthians 11:4), where Paul says this:
1 Corinthians 11:4 NKJV
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (kata), dishonors his Head (God and Christ, see v. 3).
Please pay special attention to the words “having his head covered.” The way this is translated, you might assume that “covered” is an adjective modifying the noun “head.” But kata is not an adjective, it’s a preposition that modifies the word “head” (just like an adjective would do). And what does kata mean? It’s primary definition is:
KATA (g-2596, preposition): down from, through out.
See link for more info.
So, putting all of this together, here’s what Paul seems to be saying:
1 Corinthians 11:4
Every man praying or prophesying, having a down-covered (kata) head, dishonors his Head.
In other words—whenever praying/prophesying—if a man has a “down-covered head,” he doesn’t merely sin, he also dishonors his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and therefore God the Father (by implication).
Of course, there are many ways that a man’s head could be “down-covered.” A few quick examples would be with long hair, a turban, shawl, veil, hoodie, artificial hair, etc. Any of these (and many more) could qualify as a downward-directional head covering.” (In my view, ball-caps would not qualify since they don’t descend from the head.)
IMPORTANT:
If a downward-directional head covering (for the man) dishonors God (when the man prays/prophesies)—wouldn’t the opposite be true for the woman? In other words, wouldn’t it be honorable for her to to have a down-covered head? I believe that this is a necessary inference from this passage.
I believe that is why Paul—after instructing men that they must not have something “downward-directional” from their heads when praying/teaching—in the very next verse said this (regarding women):
1 Corinthians 11:5 NKJV
But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (akatakaluptos=“not covered, unveiled”, or, inferred by contrast, not having anything down from the head) dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
The ESV is slightly plainer:
1 Corinthians 11:5 ESV
…but every wife [woman] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (akatakaluptos) dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
I believe there’s strong inference that there must be a visible contrast between the man and the woman. Paul seems to be contrasting the man—who’s head must not be “down-from covered” when praying/prophesying—to the woman, who’s head must be “down-from” covered (when praying/prophesying).
Of course, this would mean that the Church’s common tradition of women having hair arranged, when praying, “up from” the head—instead of “down from” it—is disobedient to Paul’s heavenly mandate, and, according to Scripture, dishonors God and Christ. For a better explanation of this, please click here to see the Commentary for 1 CORINTHIANS 11:4.
Now…as we get a little deeper into this topic, to help understand this, let’s next take a quick review of this passage and concentrate on the key words regarding the head covering:
1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16 – A Quick Review
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
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.
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (kata=”down from, throughout”, a preposition), dishonors his head.
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (akatakaluptos=”uncovered”, an adjective) 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=”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“).
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.
8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
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.
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”)?
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor (i.e. disgrace) to him?
15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her (long, implied) hair is given to her FOR (anti=”as, in the place of, instead of“) a covering (peribolaion=”a wrapper; a mantle, a veil”).
16. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Did You Notice that THREE Different Greek Words Translated to ONE English Word??
One thing you may have noticed in reading the above verses is that there are three different Greek words—each with distinctly different definitions—that are translated into one English word: “COVER” (used variously in its verb and adjective forms).
The English reader is totally uninformed (by the translators) that although these three words are translated the same, they do not mean the same thing.
Of course, the glaring question is: Since the Holy Spirit of God used three totally different Greek words, why are they are all translated the same way into English? Why aren’t they disambiguated? Their differing meanings can (and do!) affect the ultimate accurate understanding of this passage.
To illustrate what I mean, let’s take a closer look at these three words from the passage above and hopefully you will see what I’m talking about.
(1) THE FIRST GREEK WORD that is translated to mean “cover/covering” is kata (see v. 4). Kata is a preposition that means “down from, throughout” (see link). Kata shows up only one time (as a whole word) in this passage (see v. 4), but five more times as part of another word (please see vs. 5, 6, 6, 7, & 13, noticed shortly). Verse four in our English translations say this:
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (kata=”down from, throughout”), dishonors his head.
A more literal reading based on the Greek would suggest this:
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having a down-covered (kata) head, dishonors his head.
Or even more literally:
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having something down from (kata) his head, dishonors his head.
In other words—whenever praying/prophesying—if a man has something down from his head, he doesn’t merely sin, he also dishonors his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and therefore God the Father (by implication). As you can hopefully see, the word “covered” (in English) is an assumed word that doesn’t appear in the Greek. The actual Greek word it is assumed from is “kata,” which, as stated, is a preposition that just means, “down from, throughout.” When the Scriptures speak of something “down from” a man’s head—this appears to be referring mainly to a man having long hair that is hanging “down from his head.” I believe that it could be literally understood to include any head covering that comes down from his head, like a hoodie or any other similar head covering (see this image of Caesar Augustus wearing a first-century head covering). So, to repeat, if this is the case when a man is praying/prophesying, then the man doing so dishonors his spiritual Head, Jesus Christ (see previous verse). So, this is very serious business. Again, it is not just that his prayer will not be heard by God; he also commits sin in this process. So, the first word translated “covered” in this passage is kata.
(2) THE SECOND GREEK WORD(S) that are translated to mean “cover/covering” are the “kalupto” words (see vs. 5-7,13). Katakalupto (vs. 6 & 7) is a verb that means “to cover wholly” (see link, Strong’s). Katakalupto also has an adjective relative, akatakaluptos (see vs. 5 & 13). Akatakaluptos means “uncovered”.
Please notice that the word katakalupto is a compound word that comes from two Greek words: kata (down from, throughout) and kalupto (a covering [a generic covering that is determined based on context]). In its most basic original form, it obviously would refer to being “covered with a down-from covering.” Katakalupto (along with its adjective form akatakaluptos) starts showing up in verse five, and repeatedly thereafter:
4. Every MAN praying or prophesying, having something down from (kata) his head, dishonors his Head.
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.
6 For if a WOMAN is not covered (katakalupto=”to cover wholly”), 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”).
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.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a WOMAN to pray to God with her head uncovered (akatakaluptos=”uncovered”)?
Again, as stated, katakalupto is derived from combining kata (down from, throughout) with kalupto (a covering [a generic covering that is determined based on context]). It apparently suggested “a down-from covering” initially. But over time, like most words, it likely evolved to mean “to cover wholly.” Compound words like katakalupto are commonly considered to be intensified words. (This simply means that the verb in question is “made more intense, more pronounced, or strengthened – see the footnote* for other examples). Remember, if Paul just wanted to imply that any cloth covering of any size on a woman’s head would be fine as her “head covering,” he could have simply chosen to use kalupto (to cover) alone. “To cover” (without being intensified) could certainly imply “cover the surface of (only).” But in its intensified form, it’s hard to make that argument, and seems to imply a covering not just covering the surface (of the head) but continuing “down from the head” (when used in this context). It certainly would not imply a doily, scarf, napkin, or minimal cloth covering. (See this example of a first century Christian woman praying in the catacombs. Click here for other examples of head-coverings.)
Again, kalupto alone—without being intensified to katakalupto—could suggest that even a small doily on top of a woman’s head, or a small scarf, or short hair could serve as a woman’s head covering. But by intensifying the word kalupto to become katakalupto—and maintaining the downward directional concept established in verse 4 of this passage—this would imply that a woman’s “covering” would need to be intensified from a small amount of cloth or hair to either long hair or a downward-directional head covering that more “wholly” covers her in the sight of God. The covering would likely be a longer, more substantial “down from (and throughout)” covering which were common in that day (link).
Uncut Hair comment: As discussed at the end of Chapter 8, the Uncut Hair position holds that the intensification of kalupto to katakalupto implies that a woman wearing this covering is not simply covered, but “so covered” that she must have “continuously growing, uncut hair.” And to the extent that “hair itself” no longer becomes relevant, because, it is believed, God views her as “being covered” even if her head is shorn or shaven. This exposes the Uncut Hair position to be invalid because of the Holy Spirit’s plain admonition that a woman’s shorn or shaved heads are NOT AT ALL acceptable “coverings” in the eyes of God (see vs. 5 & 6)—nor would a doily on top of a woman’s head, or a small scarf, or a napkin, or a woman’s short hair, etc. (see above reasoning)
(3) THE THIRD GREEK WORD that is translated to mean “cover/covering” is peribolaion. This is found in v. 15 which implies that a woman’s long hair has been given to her “for a covering (peribolaion).“
Per Strong’s, peribolaion literally means “a wrapper; a mantle, a veil” (see link). In this context it is obviously referring to a head-covering wrapper, a head-covering mantle, and/or a head-covering veil (see link for examples).
So, again, per verse 15, a woman’s LONG HAIR is her natural head covering. This is the one God gave her to be her head covering (see v. 15).
By contrast, a peribolaion is an artificial head covering. This is the covering she must have in the absence of long hair.
According to verse 15, God gave the woman long hair FOR (anti=”as, in the place of, instead of”) any artificial head covering (peribolaion). Plainly stated, a woman’s natural, downward-directional long hair REPLACES the need for a woman to have an artificial head covering. (Note: anti means “in the place of,” NOT “IN ADDITION TO”). In other words, one or the other is accepted by God when a woman would pray to God. Both of them at the same time—though not unscriptural—are not required.
Again—if she does not have long hair, I believe the inference is that she must still be covered; in this case, with an appropriately long, downward-directional artificial head covering (see this example of a first century Christian woman praying in the catacombs).
Therefore, verse 15, when properly understood according to accurate Greek word definitions and context, resolutely invalidates both the Uncut Hair and Veil positions.
My best understanding of God’s will regarding the Head Covering teachings can be found in the following commentaries:
Click here for an ABBREVIATED VERSION of the Commentary (1 Corinthians 11:2-16).
Click here for a FULL VERSION of the Commentary (1 Corinthians 11:2-16).
Copyright 2024-2025 (all versions)