1 Corinthians 11:15Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

First he requires that the woman not uncover her head. Then he explains that she must be covered constantly: "for this is the same as if she were shaved."

She must be covered with all care and circumspection. For he did not simply say καλύπτεσθαι, "let her be covered," but κατακαλύπτεσθαι, that is, she must be carefully covered on every side.

He also shows the indecency of the contrary way of acting and sharply reproves it when he says, "If she will not be covered, let her also be shorn."

If, he says, you cast off the covering established by the law of God, then cast off also the covering given by nature.

But someone will say: how can it be a dishonor to a woman if she rises to the honor of the man?

We reply that by this she not only does not rise, but is deprived even of her own honor.

For not to observe one's own boundaries and the laws established by God, and to transgress them, is not exaltation but abasement.

One who desires what belongs to another and seizes what is not his does not acquire anything, but is abased and loses even what he had. This happened, for example, in paradise.

So also in this case, the woman does not acquire for herself the nobility of the man, but loses even the propriety of the woman. Moreover, not only this is shameful for her, but also the greed itself.

Thus, having pointed to what is undoubtedly acknowledged as shameful, in the words, "But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved," the Apostle finally speaks on his own behalf: "let her be covered."

He did not say, "let her grow her hair," but, "let her be covered." He shows that the two are equivalent, proving this from two sides: from the law and from the opposite side, that is, from nature.

The covering and long hair, he says, are one and the same. Likewise a shaved head and an uncovered head are one and the same. "For this," he says, "is the same as if she were shaved."

But someone will ask: how are they the same, when one has a natural covering, while the shaved woman does not even have this?

We shall say that by having her head uncovered, she has rejected the natural covering by her own will. If she is not deprived of hair, that is the work of nature, not of her will.

Consequently, as the shaved woman has her head uncovered, so does she. For this reason God commanded nature to cover the head with hair, so that the woman, taught by nature, might also cover herself.

Next the Apostle gives the reason, reasoning with his hearers as with free persons, as I have often observed. What is the reason?

"But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God" (1 Cor 11:16). Therefore opposition is a sign of obstinacy, not of good sense.

Yet here also he rebukes moderately, and at the same time strongly shames them. This made his words very forceful.

We, he says, have no such custom of disputing, contending, and contradicting. He does not stop there, but adds, "nor do the churches of God."

By this he indicates that, by disobeying, they are at enmity with and oppose the whole world. But if the Corinthians then contradicted this law, now the whole world has received it and preserves it.

Such is the power of the Crucified One!

This was fitting for the Nazoreans only for the sake of the type. The ancients were guided by types of the future, and they wore hair on the head because of a vow.

This lasted until the promise of peace came and was fulfilled, that is, until the Head appeared, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. Then the Ever-existing One became known in the world.

He was not known by all mankind, but only by some who believed in Him. Thus, having come to know the Head, we should not bring shame upon the head.

For the Apostle is not speaking properly about each person's head, but derives from it the matter of reproaching Christ. He says, "Does not nature itself teach us that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?" (1 Cor 11:14).

This dishonor is not praiseworthy, just as that of which it is said, "You despised shame." It is not some good work for God, even though it is undertaken for God's sake.

Rather, this custom is maintained by obstinacy after the figure under the Law has passed away and the truth has appeared.

The Apostle says, "If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the Churches of God" (1 Cor 11:16). Therefore he excludes from the apostolic law and from the Church of God those who do and act in this way, and who persist in obstinacy.

These words indicate that what the Apostle has set forth above concerns custom. If anyone wished to dispute it, he would be reproved not by a commandment of the Lord (cf. 7, 10), but only by existing custom. Customs change.

In particular, concerning men growing their hair, the Apostle finds that nature itself teaches that this is a dishonor for a man (v. 14). Here he appeals not to a commandment of the Lord, but only to "nature."

He considers the growing of hair natural not for a man, but only for a woman (v. 15). Yet naturalness is not always an obligatory property of human actions. In other words, not everything natural is therefore obligatory.

For example, in hot weather it is natural to go barefoot, yet it is not obligatory. As for covering the head, there is a distinction between simple covering and crowning the head.

The mitres of Orthodox bishops, and the kamilavkas and skufias of priests, are adornments of the head, like diadems or crowns, that is, bands or wreaths. The Apostle could not have condemned such adornments.

As a zealous visitor to the temple in Jerusalem, he certainly saw the headband on the head of the Jewish high priest, in Greek the mitra (Ex 29:6; Lev 8:9). He also saw the caps on the priests (Ex 29:9; Lev 8:13).

Therefore he could not have thought that every adornment or crowning of the head is contrary to God's commandments.

Thus the universal spread of Christian customs is one of the most important proofs of the necessity of observing customs of this kind.

For this reason, from ancient times all modest wives have considered, and still consider, it necessary to cover their head in the presence of men. Only false freedom leads some to a custom contrary to this and exceedingly harmful.

For "through one person the enemy sometimes does evil to hundreds" (Theophan).

To persuade them to fulfill this commandment, he points to nature and to the custom that follows nature. Consequently, if a man grows his hair, he does not violate a commandment, but only departs from custom.

Custom is not the same as law or rule. A law or rule is a manner of acting prescribed for all, either in a whole society or in a particular class of people.

Custom is a manner of acting received by the majority, through tradition that is not strictly binding and through imitation. One who violates a law becomes guilty.

One who departs from custom may remain innocent. In special circumstances, he may even deserve approval.

Whatever that self-willed enlightenment may say which wishes to equalize the rights of the male and female sex, the testimony of nature does not favor this.

Greater strength is given to the man, less to the woman. This is a sign that he can defend her and exercise headship over her, for one cannot defend the self-willed. She may need his protection, and for that reason obey him.

Greater boldness is given to the man, greater modesty to the woman. This is a sign that the man is appointed more for open activity, and the woman more for hidden domestic activity.

Similarly, in the fact that long hair is given to the woman, the Apostle finds a sign, or a hint of nature, that she ought to be covered.

Long hair can cover part of her nakedness: "her hair is given to her for a covering." But during labor, long loose hair becomes an obstacle.

Need therefore leads to its being braided, wound around the head, or laid upon the head. To keep it there, a band or cloth on the head becomes necessary.

Thus custom is founded. When a woman fulfills the modest custom, she deserves approval: "it is glory to her."

A man's hair is usually not so long and does not suggest the idea of clothing. Yet it too hinders him during labor, falling upon the face and eyes.

The man, being stronger in reason and bolder than the woman, frees himself from the obstacle more decisively and briefly by cutting off the excess hair.

Since this is necessary for all who labor, it naturally becomes a general custom. If someone, contrary to the general custom, grew long hair and came into a society shorn according to the general custom, he would certainly be censured and mocked.

"It is a dishonor to him." In the glory and approval of a woman who grows her hair and covers her head, there is something essential and well-founded: namely, the moral thought of modesty.

By contrast, in a man's cutting his hair according to the general custom, there is no moral thought. Therefore the dishonor or condemnation of a man who does not cut his hair is only customary human opinion, without essential truth and without deep foundation.

Thus there is greater obligation in the custom that a woman should grow her hair and cover her head than in the custom that a man should cut his hair.

For this reason the latter custom more readily admits exceptions. There are exceptional circumstances in which a man's growing his hair has greater dignity than cutting it.

The latter is customary, while the former is sometimes sacred. By divine institution, the Nazirite grew his hair during the time of his vow. Of him it is said, "He shall be holy and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow" (Num 6:5).

The Apostle himself, who wrote against a man's growing long hair, submitted by condescension to the Christians from among the Jews, who had not yet been detached from the rites of the Mosaic law.

He submitted to the law of the Nazirite when he cut his head in Cenchreae (Acts 18:18). This was the beginning of Nazirite hair-growing, or its renewal after an accidental violation of the vow (Num 6:9).

The Hebrew Nazirite was a type of Christ (Mt 2:23). Christ the Savior, corresponding to the type and explaining it by the very appearance of His face, did not cut His hair according to the Nazirite type.

His icons show this from antiquity, beginning with the Image Not Made by Hands.

It is very natural that the followers of Christ the Savior, and still more the servants of the faith by a special calling, desired to imitate Him not only spiritually but also outwardly.

From this came the growing of hair among those belonging to the clergy, ascetics, and monks. It was, of course, less free in the centuries of persecution against Christianity than in the following centuries of safety.

It is visible in ancient images of the saints, painted from evident knowledge or from faithful tradition.

Ulpius the Roman, in a Greek manuscript kept in the Synodal Library, writes in his description of the bodily appearance of certain saints that Saint Dionysius the Areopagite and Saint Cyril of Jerusalem had long hair.

He writes that Saint Basil the Great had hair somewhat trimmed, probably to avoid the difficulty caused by its length.

For those received into monasticism and the clergy, the tonsure on the crown of the head does not contradict the growing of hair.

This is not at all the same as the simple domestic and civil custom of cutting the hair, often indicated by nature and often by necessity. It is an ecclesiastical blessing and symbol.

What is hair? It is light-bearing, raylike emanations from the head, clothed in an outward form corresponding to them: a fine, jointless, flexible reed.

Therefore hair is a close image and symbol of human thoughts. By the tonsure of one received into the clergy or monasticism, a sign is placed that he must cut off fleshly and worldly thoughts.

After this, let the head that has received the blessing abundantly grow new hair: thoughts that are spiritual, pure, and holy.

But for everyone, instead of contending about growing and cutting hair, would it not be better to care for cutting off fleshly and worldly thoughts, and for restoring thoughts that are spiritual, pure, and holy?