1 Corinthians 11:6Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

These words indicate that what the Apostle set forth above is a matter of custom. If anyone wished to argue with this, he would be reproved not by the Lord's commandment, compare 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 too he refers not to the Lord's commandment, but only to "nature," considering long 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 that is natural is obligatory. For example, it is natural to go barefoot in hot weather, but it is not obligatory.

As for covering the head, there is a distinction between simple covering and crowning the head. The miters of Orthodox bishops, and the kamilavkas and skufias of priests, are head ornaments, like diadems or crowns, that is, bands or wreaths.

The Apostle could not have condemned such ornaments. As a zealous visitor to the temple in Jerusalem, he of course saw the headpiece, in Greek the mitra, on the head of the Jewish high priest (Ex 29:6; Lev 8:9). He also saw head coverings on the priests (Ex 29:9; Lev 8:13).

Therefore he could not have thought that every ornament or crowning of the head was contrary to the commandments of God.

In another place he says: "Man and woman need many signs, to one of authority, to the other of subordination. Among these is that the woman should be covered, and the man should have his head bare.

If these are signs, then both sin if they violate good order and the commandment of God. They transgress their own limits, the man sinking to the woman's abasement, and the woman exalting herself by her outward appearance over the man."

What made the violation of this natural order especially unpleasant in Corinth was this. Certain persons allowed themselves to violate generally accepted decency, propriety, and modesty during the holiest moments of prayer and inspired edification.

In the primitive Church, both men and women were counted worthy of these things, as happened, for example, with the daughters of the Apostle Philip and others. This was in fulfillment of the words of the prophet Joel: "Your sons shall prophesy, and your daughters shall see visions" (Joel 2:28).

For not to observe one's own boundaries and laws established by God, but to transgress them, is not exaltation, but humiliation. The one who desires another's property and seizes what does not belong to him does not gain, but is humbled and loses what he had. This happened, for example, in Paradise.

So also the woman in this case does not acquire for herself the man's nobility. Rather, she loses the propriety of a woman.

Thus, after pointing to what is undoubtedly acknowledged as shameful in the words, 'If it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven,' the Apostle finally says on his own authority, 'let her be covered.' He did not say, 'let her grow her hair,' but 'let her be covered,' teaching that both things are alike.

The veil and the grown hair, he says, are one and the same, just as a shaven and uncovered head are one and the same. For he says, 'It is one and the same as if she were shaven.'

But someone may ask: How are they one and the same, when the one has a natural covering, while the shaven woman does not even have this? We shall say that the woman with a bare head has, by her own will, rejected even the natural covering.

If she is not deprived of hair, that is a work of nature, not hers. Consequently, just as the shaven woman has a bare head, so does she. For this reason God commanded nature to cover the head with hair, so that the woman, having learned from nature, should also cover herself" (Chrysostom).