The following article is taken from the book "Women's Adornment" and are not necessarily the views of this blogger or participants of this website, but are simply given as objective informational answers to lingering questions.
Should Women Wear Head-Coverings?
There are within the epistles of Paul "somethings hard to be understood" (II Peter 3:16). Most commentators admit that I Corinthians 11:3-16 could be included in this category. It would appear that Paul was commanding the practice of veiling for women during worship, yet there is no other passage or example in the Bible to support this view. Besides, Paul's conclusion to this passage implies that he had no such custom, neithcr the churches of God!
Some feel that while veiling was not the Christian custom, yet because Corinth was a Greek city, Paul taught veiling for them because of Greek custom. But, as some commentators have pointed out, "the custom with Greeks of both sexes was to offer sacrifice barcheaded." So it does not seem likely that the veiling of women in worship stemed from an old Greek custom. Some teach that honorable women wore veils, but harlots went with their heads unveiled at Corinth. If this was the custom, and Paul was teaching veiling in view of this, one still wonders why he would speak specifically about veiling within the assembly, and that in connection with praying and prophesying. What about other times, and especially outside the assembly, if his concern was about a proper appearance before those outside the Christian faith? While it is possible that veiling was linked to some local custom, the passage itself speaks of such "because of the angels"!, a verse which has resulted in a great variety of explanations, none of which are entirely satisfactory.
Elsewhere Paul says there is no difference between men and women in Christ, in the spiritual sense. Was he in this case making a difference, requiring women to veil for worship? In another letter to the Corinthians, he speaks of the veil being taken away in Christ. Though he was speaking of spiritual veil being removed, this appears somewhat out of place if the women at Corinth still had to worship hidden behind a literal veil.
Still other difficulties appear in this passage. If Paul's question about men's hair means that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, how can we explain the fact that Paul himself had long hair while at Corinth? There is not so much as a hint elsewhere in the Bible that long hair was a shame. To the contrary, there were many men in the Bible who had long hair. No wonder commentators speak of this passage as "difficult"!
We shall take a closer look at all of these questions, but for now, we should determine what kind of veil is being discussed in I Corinthians 11. Some assume that Paul was speaking of hats, scarves, doilies, or the like, just anything to cover the top (or part of the top) of the head. But the veil mentioned here covered not only the top of the head, it hung clear down over the face as well! The Greek word is katakalupto (Strong's Concordance, #2619). The prefix kata indicates the idea of "down"; kalupto has the meaning of "to cover wholly, to conceal."
Katakalupto appears in the following places of I Corinthians 11:
- ". . . if a woman be not covered" (verse 6)
- ". . . let her be covered" (verse 6)
- ". . .a man ought not to cover his head" (verse 7).
In its noun form, the word translated "covered" is kaluma. Bullinger defines it as "a covering . . . a veil hiding all the face except the eyes and falling upon the shoulders. "Liddell and Scott define it as "a covering, a hood or veil, a grave"; that is, the kaluma covered the whole head, even as a grave covers the whole body. That the kaluma covered the face (and not just the top of the head) is clearly seen in the example of Moses who "put a veil (kaluma) over his face" (II Corinthians 3:13). It so completely covered his face that the brightness of his countenance could not be seen.
Now was Paul really commanding women to wear veils? Who does it today? What purpose could it serve? Realizing that such veiling could add nothing to true worship, and seeking to harmonize these words with the rest of the Bible, some believe that a portion of I Corinthians 11, possibly verses 4-10 about veiling, may not be the words of Paul at all. Instead, he may have been quoting from a letter he had received from the church elders at Corinth. This view may seem a little awkward at first. However, we do know that Paul had received a letter from the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 7:1). It is evident that much of this epistle was written in answer to questions which had been sent to him from this church.
We know also that in the Greek there were no quotation marks, question marks or any punctuation as we know it now. As far as we would know from the Greek text, verse 5 might just as well read: "Does every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonour her head?" (a question). Or, if written like a statement, but placed within quotation marks, it would indicate that Paul was quoting from the letter he had received. If Paul did refer to this letter in I Corinthians ll, the Corinthians, at the time, would have recognized the references to their letter. But now, almost 2,000 years later, we may not know exactly which statements were made by Paul and which might have been quotations from the letter he had received. It is possible, then, that a portion of this chapter (verses 4-10) referred to the elders' letter and was not the doctrine of Paul who had "no such custom." Bearing these things in mind, this view which is possible may even appear probable when we find that much of what is stated in these verses is contrary to every other verse in the Bible on the subjects covered!
In 1 Corinthians 11:4,7, for example, we read: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head . . . a man indeed ought not to cover his head." But there is nothing else in the Bible which would indicate this was wrong. To the contrary, the high priest in the Old Testament was to have his head covered as he ministered! "And he that is the high priest among his brethren . . . shall not uncover his head" (Lev. 21:10). Aaron and his sons all wore some type of headdress during their sacrificial rituals (Lev. 8:9, 13; 10:6).
It was not wrong for Ezekiel to prophesy with something on his hcad. "The word of the Lord came unto me, saying . . . bind the tire of thine head upon thee, and put on thy shoes upon thy feet." After doing "these things", he began to prophesy: "Thus saith the Lord . . ." (Ezekiel 24:15-21).
It was not wrong for Moses to prophesy with his head covered! When Moses came down from mount Sinai his face shone and "he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him in mount Sinai. And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face" (Exodus 34:32, 33).
It was not wrong for David or Elijah to pray with their heads covered! Elijah "wrapped his face in his mantle" (1 Kings 19:13) as he stood in the presence of the Lord and spoke with him. When David fled from Absalom, he "went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered . . . and all the people that was with him covered every man his head . . . and . . . David said, 0 Lord, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness . . ." (II Samuel 15:30-32).
As the men of Jerusalem and Judah "covered their heads" (Jer. 14:3), modern Jews at prayer cover their heads with a tallith shawl, or, if not available, at least a skullcap as a sign of reverence. They consider praying bareheaded to be disgraceful, not the other way around.
"Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head" (I Cor. 11:5). If this phrase is a statement of Paul (rather than a quotation from the letter), it would be saying that it is wrong for a woman to pray without a veil over her head. But why? Nowhere else in the Bible is there any command or example showing that a woman should veil when she prays. Hannah did not have a veil over her face when she prayed. Eli the priest noticed "her mouth . . . only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard" (1 Samuel 1:12-13). Hannah was not doing wrong when she prayed without a veil. Instead, her prayer was honored and answered!
Many have seen pictures of Arab women with their hideous face-veils and assume that such were commonly worn by women in Bible times. But the use of such veils dates from the spread of the Koran which forbids women to appear with heads unveiled before any but their nearest relatives. Such is a Mohammedan, custom, not a Christian custom.
In the Bible, there is only an occasional mention of the use of a veil. Rebekah "took a veil and covered herself." If this was a face-veil, its use had significance only because she was about to meet the man who would become her husband. Prior to this, she did not have a veil on, as when she talked to Abraham's servant (Genesis 24:65). Judah supposed that a certain woman who "covered her face" with a veil was an harlot (Genesis 38:14-15), a fact which indicates that women in general did not wear a veil covering their face. (References to veils in Ruth 3:15, Song o Solomon 5:7, and Isaiah 3:23, translated from different words, refer to forms of clothing not directly linked with covering the face.)
There is nothing to imply that face veils were a common article of clothing for women of the Bible. Sarah did not wear a veil over her face, for "when Abraham was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair" (Genesis 12:14). When Jacob saw Rachel, he kissed her. She had no veil over her face (Genesis 29:10, 11). The clothing God provided for Eve did not include a veil. The fact that women in the Bible used jewelry such as earings, nose rings, and jewels for the forehead also shows they did not go about with their heads hidden behind a veil. Paul's comment about a woman's braided hair (I Tim. 2:9) could have little point, one way or another, if the hair was covered with a veil. The Bible mentions women such as Sarah, Rebekah, Miriam, Elizabeth, Mary, Martha, and many more. Never are we told that any of them ever put on a veil in order to pray!
Returning to I Corinthians 11, what were the reasons given as to why a woman should veil and a man should not? Verses 4 and 5 say that if a man veils when he prays, he dishonours his head; but if a woman does not veil, she dishonours her head. But what kind of reasoning is this? Just before these words, Paul said he wanted them to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God (verse 3). The fact that the man has a head, and not the woman only, actually destroys the theory that a woman must veil because she has a head. Does Christ have to veil because he has a head? No. Does the man have to veil because he has a head? No. Why, then, would a woman have to veil because she has a head? The word translated "head" throughout I Corinthians 11 is the same, whether referring to a head (as a leader) or to the literal heads of men and women. In the Greek there may have been a play on words; that is, the true headship compared with some useless custom about whether one must veil his or her physical head.
A "reason" given in verse 7 as to why a man should not cover his head is because "he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." What can this mean? If a woman must wear a veil because she is the glory of the man, then the man, being the glory of God, would have to wear a veil too! In no other passage in the Bible are we told that man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is not. All believers are "conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom. 8:29; Col. 3:10). All of us "with open face" are changed into the same image from glory to glory (II Cor. 3:18). Both men and women are changed into the same image and reflect the glory of the Lord. Why, then, should we suppose Paul would say that the man is the glory and image of God, but the woman is not?
Then in verse 10 we read: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." We might question what this wording "power on her head" can mean. Translators commonly (add a few words here, as in the marginal rendering: "that is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband." But as far as the scriptures are concerned, there is no proof that a veil is a sign of subjection. If it did symbolize subjection, then why wouldn't a man wear one too, since he is said to be subject to Christ?
The idea that a woman must veil "because of the angels" has resulted in a long list of guesses by expositors as to its proper meaning, none being very satisfactory. Strangely enough, some feel that if a woman prayed or prophesied with her head uncovered, the very sight of her hair might have caused angels to be tempted to lust! This belief may stem from an idea held by some rabbis that angels (Genesis 6) once got possession of women by their hair. We can only say that if angels are in danger of being led into lust because they see a woman's face or her hair in a church meeting, their moral stability is very weak. If this is the case, why the mention of when women are praying or prophesying? What about other times? There are a number of verses in the Bible in which angels talked to women, but in no reference are we told that these women put veils on their heads (Judges 13:3, 9, Luke 1:28; etc.).
Taking everything into consideration, the idea that women should veil "because of the angels" sounds more like an oral tradition the elders at Corinth had mistakenly adopted, rather than a teaching of Paul. As to Paul's doctrine, consider what he wrote in another letter to the church at Corinth. After speaking of "Moses, which put a veil over his face", Paul said that those who follow Moses (instead of Christ), have a veil over them in the reading of the Old Testament. "But we"-notice the contrast! "But we all" (men and women who have turned to the Lord through the gospel) "with open face"(not with a veil over it!) "beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory" (II Corinthians 3:3-18). The point is that the veil is removed through Christ, spiritually speaking. But would there be any point if the veil was removed spiritually, yet women had to wear a veil literally? If Paul had actually commanded veiling in First Corinthians, these words in Second Corinthians would be difficult indeed to understand.
We see, then, that a number of statements in verses 4-10 simply do not fit with other verses in the Bible. Instead of it being a dishonor for a man to pray with something on his head, we have Biblical examples in which men did pray in this way. Nowhere else are we told that women must veil for prayer. There is no support for the idea that man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is not. The idea that women must veil because of the angels is without any supporting scripture. Then verses 8 and 9 say: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Biblically speaking, the woman was originally created for the man. But even this statement must be qualified. This Paul does in verses 11 and 12: "Nevertheless" (note the contrast that comes in now) "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so, is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."
Paul is saying that even in the natural creation, the woman is of the man and the man of the woman. It takes both a man and a woman to produce another life. But, when all is said and done, all life stems from God anyhow ("all things of God"). Furthermore, spiritually speaking, "there is neither male or female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Why, then, in spiritual things, such as praying and prophesying, should women (and not men) have to be veiled?
Next, Paul appeals to their own power of reason, verse 13: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" (without the kaluma veil. Even their own judgment should indicate that it was not uncomely for a woman to pray without the veil. Hannah had no veil on when she prayed, nor is there any record of any other woman in the Bible who prayed while veiled! As far as the original text is concerned, verse 13 could just as well have been translated: "Judge in yourselves: it is comely that a woman pray unto God without the veil."
I have been in homes of people who believe women must always have something on their heads before they can pray. If prayer is to be offered over food or before leaving the home, each woman or girl must quickly look around the house to find a towel, a scarf, a handkerchief, something to put on her head so prayer can be offered! But such adds neither power nor virtue to prayer.
Next, Paul appeals to an argument from nature. What the KJV translators give as a question, ("Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?") could just as correctly be translated: "Even nature does not teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." What, then, was Paul saying? That nature teaches it is a shame for a man to have long hair? Or was he saying nature does not make this distinction?
Speaking strictly from the viewpoint of nature, both the hair of men and women will grow long if not cut. In fact, the record for the longest hair of all time has been claimed, not by a woman, but by a man. An Indian monk, Swami Pandarasannadhi, was reported in 1949 as having hair 26 feet long! (Guinness Book of World Records, p. 38).
Since Corinth was a Greek city, we might well ask: Did nature teach the people of Corinth, as Greeks, that long hair was a shame for a man? To the contrary, in ancient times at least, "ancient Greek men wore hair so long they had to braid it in topknots on the crowns of their heads and hold it in place with hairpins" (The Long and Short of It - 5,000 Years of Fun and Fury Over Hair, p. 24). Greek men were noted for their long hair as seen in Homer's numerous references to them as the long-haired Greeks. Later, shorter hair styles for men did come into acceptance, but not without suspicion on the part of some. There were those who felt short hair for men was a sign of effeminate weakness and that such would undermine the strength of the nation! In Corinth, Diogenes walked the streets shining a lantern into the faces of those he passed looking for an honest man. He wanted one with long hair-as he thought any real man should wear! It is apparent, then, that at earlier times long hair for a man was not considered a shame by the Greeks-short hair was. Is it possible by the time Paul wrote that their feelings about long hair for men had completely reversed, so that now long hair was considered ashame instead of short hair? Yes, it is possible, but it does not seem conclusive.
Did those at Corinth with a Jewish background (for the converts at Corinth were from among the Jews and the Greeks-Acts 18:4) hold the belief that long hair was a shame for a man? Or did they, as Christians hold this belief? Apparently not, for the scriptures (which made up their Bible) give many examples of men who had long hair--some even at the command of God!
It was not considered a shame for Absalom to have long hair. "But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty . . . and when he polled his head, (for it was at every year's end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it:) he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king is weight" (II Samuel 14:25,26). That Absalom had "long hair" cannot be disputed. We notice also that it was not cut because of a divine commandment against long hair, but because it became too heavy.
It has sometimes been debated whether Jesus had long hair. Artists have commonly painted him thus. The Bible itself does not tell us his hair was long, nor does it tell us it was short. It simply does not say.
Some might assume that from Adam on down through Biblical history that most men had short hair. There is no foundation for this whatsoever. In those primitive times, men like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc., probably had hair that many today would consider "long." Without the sophisticated hair cutting equipment that is now available, we can be sure that they were not able to have the finely trimmed sideburns or the neatly clipped exposure of the ear that is now common. In most cases, the hair probably hung down over the ears. Jonathan told David: "My father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me", or, as the margin says: "uncover my ear" (I Samuel 20:2,12; 22:8,17). This wording, as Biblical commentators point out, probably referred to one telling a closely guarded secret at close range to the other person. In doing so, he would uncover the hair from the ear and whisper the message to him.
If it was a shame for a man to have long hair, why was this one of the requirements for Nazarites (men who were especially dedicated to God) (Numbers 6:2-5)? Would something that was a "shame" be a proper symbol of Nazarites? Nazarites were to abstain from "wine and strong drink" (verse 3). Concerning John the baptist, an angel said: "He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink" (Lk. 1:15). The similarity between these two verses seems so close, it is highly possible that John may have been a Nazarite and, as such, would have had long hair.
A very famous example of a Nazarite was, of course, Samson. An angel told his mother: "No rasor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God" (Judges 13:5). Nature did not stop Samson's hair from growing. It was so long, in fact, that Delilah could weave his seven locks on a hand-loom! (Judges 16:13, 14). In the story of Samson, his sin was not having long hair; it was when his hair was cut off that the Lord departed from him (verses 17-20). Samuel also had longhair. Hannah prayed: "I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no rasor come upon his head" (1 Samuel 1:11).
Unlike Samson and Samuel, however, not all Nazarites were Nazarites for life. Instead the laws regarding Nazarites had to do with a vow taken for a period of time. "All the days of the vou,. . . there shall no rasor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled" (Number 6:5). There were in the church at Jerusalem four Jewish men which had taken a vow. During the time of their vow they let their hair grow long, after which it was shaved off and they purified themselves (Acts 21:23-27). We see, then, that the practice of letting the hair grow long during the time of a vow was apparently still a custom at that time. For these men to have long hair was not considered a shame!
Following this same custom, Paul himself had allowed his hair to grow long during the time of a vow, after which he cut his hair off. Thus we read in Acts 18:18 that Paul sailed into Syria, "having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow." Now an ordinary hair cut would not be anything significant to record. Instead, this was clearly a case of all of his hair being sheared off following the period of a vow, during which it had grown long!
This point seems especially significant in connection with our study of I Corinthians 11, for it was during Paul's extended stay at Corinth (Acts 18) that he did not cut his hair! When he left Corinth his hair was still not cut. It was not cut until he got to Cenchrea, the eastern seaport of Corinth, where he boarded a ship to continue his missionary journey! Now doesn't it seem strange that Paul would write to the Corinthians and tell them it is a shame for a man to have long hair when he, himself, had long hair while at Corinth?
In view of all these things we have mentioned, it is very possible that Paul's words should be understood as a statement: "Nature does not teach it is a shame for a man to have long hair." If so, then verse 15-which is connected in the line of thought-is saying that neither does nature teach that if a woman have long hair it is her glory! That is, hair could not be, by nature, a woman's glory exclusively, for a man's hair will grow long too. All of this would actually argue against the artificial distinction which would teach that a woman must veil and a man must not.
Let me hasten to say, parenthetically, that I do not mean to imply that I think men should grow long hair! This is not the point. The length of a man's hair might be determined more by the customs at a given time or place. Whether some of us personally care for a long hair style on men or not, we cannot correctly say there is any direct Biblical command against it. Even if nature in some way did teach the people at Corinth that long hair was a shame, Paul's reference to what nature taught them could hardly be a basis of doctrine for us. The evidence would only be indirect at its best. In view of this, I think it is sad that some churches have made the length of a man's hair-or the length of his sideburns or how his hair should be combed-a major point of doctrine and division. The real objectives of Christianity are far above fighting and dividing over such things.
If Paul was not commanding veiling (assuming a portion of this passage was a reference to the letter he had received), then we can understand his conclusion: "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Or, if he had no such custom, but taught veiling at Corinth because of a local situation there-eitber way, it seems clear that this passage can hardly be a command for Christian women to wear kaluma veils. On this, I think there must be agreement, for we do not see women wearing such veils in churches today.
A passage with difficulties of interpretation (regardless of which view we favor) is not a sound basis on which to build dogmatic rules. In the interpretation of the Bible, the clear portions must explain the unclear, not the otherway around. It is also considered a sound rule of interpretation that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Cor. 13:1; Mt. 18:16). All essential doctrines are based on two or more scriptures. But this portion presents things about veils and hair that are unsupported by other verses, and, in several instances, are contrary to other verses. Bearing this in mind, we feel that the view we have presented has definite merit. Nevertheless, we present it "as a study", certainly not as a dogmatic or infallible conclusion.
Should Women Cut Their Hair?
There are some churches that believe and teach that a Christian woman must never cut her hair. A woman's hair is not to be touched by scissors, they reason, for it is "a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven" (I Cor. 11:6). Those who hold this view seem to think that "shorn" means any cutting of the hair. This, however, is not the case. "Shorn" is simply the past participle of the word shear. If a woman has her head shaved or shorn, the hair is removed right down to the scalp!
There were at Corinth certain cult prostitutes who had shaved heads, though, as Lenski points out, "only a few of the very lowest type had shaved heads" (Commentary on First Corinthians, p. 439). Because of this, we can understand why a woman's shaved head was a sign of "shame" at Corinth, and thus the reference in I Corinthians 11:6. But what does any of this have to do with a Christian woman today merely having her hair cut? There is no connection whatsoever.
While the shaved head was considered a shame at Corinth, because of its association with harlotry there, it was not necessarily a sign of shame elsewhere. Instead, shaving of the hair of the head, as strange as this practice would appear to us today, was a common sign of mourning. In the scriptures, there are numerous references to people making themselves bald by shearing or shaving off the hair of their heads.
Job, for example, shaved his head and mourned (Job 1:20; 2:11, 13). Other verses include the following: "They shall make themselves utterly bald . . . they shall weep" (Ezekiel 27:31). "Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children . . . for they are gone into captivity" (Micah 1:16). ". . . all of them mourning. . . and baldness upon every head" (Amos 8:10). "On all their heads shall be baldness . . . weeping abundantly" (Isaiah 15:2; Jeremiah 16:6; Jeremiah 48:37; Isaiah 22:12; Ezra 9:3; etc.).
Both men and women shaved off their hair in times of extreme mourning, not just men. Troubles that were to come upon Jerusalem would cause the daughters of Zion to mourn and put on sackcloth. Instead of well set hair, they would have baldness, the result of hair being shaved off in mourning (Isaiah 3:24). Jerusalem, likened to a woman, was told: "Cut off thine hair, 0 Jerusalem, and cast it away, and take up a lamentation" (Jeremiah 7:29).
If a soldier of Israel took a wife from among the captives of war, the instructions were that "she shall shave her head", mourn for her parents for one month, and then become his wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If it is a sin for a woman to cut her hair, as some suppose, how can we explain the instructions here in which a woman's hair was not just cut, but even shaved off? if it was not a sin in the Bible for a woman to shave off all the hair of her head in a time of mourning, as the custom then was, how can it be a sin for a Christian woman today to merely have part of her hair cut off?
I have seen women who give others the impression that they are "especially holy" because they have long, uncut hair. They feel they are given this long hair for a covering! Yet what does it cover? It is commonly worn on top of their heads instead of hanging down. It neither covers their face, back, or neck. It covers little more than the short hair on a man's head would cover!
Some insist that a woman is to have "long hair" which, to them, means hair that is not cut or trimmed by scissors. Yet if they see a man with hair that hangs down over his ears, even though a several inches have been cut off by sissors, they smoothly change their definition and say he is a shame because he has "long hair," quoting 1 Corinthians 11:14.
If the explanation we gave earlier is correct, "Even nature itself does not teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (I Corinthians 11: 14-15). The word translated "covering" in verse 15 is not the same Greek word that was used earlier in this chapter when it spoke of a woman covering her head. The word "covering" in verse 15 is peribolaion (Strong's Concordance, #4018), which means "something thrown around one." This word appears one other place and is translated "vesture" (Hebrews 1:12). It means simply clothing. The line of thought connects verses 14 and 15 together. The point is, according to "nature" a man's long hair is not a shame ; nor is a woman's long hair her glory, as though it were given to her for clothing (or literally, instead of clothing)!
On the other hand, if we are to understand this passage about what "nature" teaches as a rule that women must have long hair, this is still not the extreme view that the hair can never be cut. "Long hair" does not, necessarily, mean hair that is never cut or trimmed. Furthermore, if a woman had to have hair hanging down her back in order to be a Christian, millions of women would be automatically excluded. Women of some races simply do not have hair that grows lonq!
The Bible does not instruct us to take a measuring tape to see if a woman's hair is long enough to qualify her for church membership! Instead, the Christian woman is left at liberty to wear her hair the length she finds comfortable, practical, and appropriate within the realm of her own Christian convictions.
While it may be true that most women in the Bible wore their hair in a long style, there is no direct Biblical commandment for so doing. There would actually be more Biblical support for men wearing beards, than for the idea that a woman must never cut her hair. Yet, the vast majority of those men who insist on uncut hair for women, do not, themselves, wear a beard!
For a moment, consider a few things about beards. Men in the Bible such as Aaron (Psalm 133:2 ), Mephibosheth (II Samuel 19:24), David (I Samuel 21:13), Ezra (Ezra 9:3), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 5:1) are all specifically mentioned as having beards. A verse, commonly applied to the sufferings of Jesus, indicates that he had a beard: "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair" (Isaiah 50:6). The apostles apparently also had beards, for Jesus and his apostles looked enough alike that Judas had to point out which one was Jesus (Matthew 26:48).
All of David's servants had beards. We read that Hanun, supposing them to be spies, "took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away" (II Samuel 10:4). Even though their garments were cut off, they seem to have been especially embarrassed because of what happened to their beards! "The men were greatly ashamed"; so David told them to stay at Jericho "until your beards be grown, and then return"!
Since boys before reaching the age of manhood, and also eunuchs, were without facial hair, primitive man reasoned that a beard was not only an indication of male virility, some believed it was the very source of it! But for whatever reasons men in the Bible wore beards, they did so because of custom, not divine commandment.
That the wearing of beards was not an inflexible command is seen by the fact that Joseph "shaved himself" (Genesis 41:14) when he was taken from the dungeon to appear before Pharoah. Since the Egyptians did not wear beards, it seems probable that Joseph followed the Egyptian custom in order to appear acceptable before Pharoah. On this same basis, whether a man wants a beard or not is entirely up to him as an individual. The Bible does not command it.
I believe it is proper for a woman to look like a woman and a man like a man in matters of dress and appearance according to time and place. However, this rule must have its necessary limitations, otherwise a beard would be an absolute requirement for all men. A beard clearly identifies the face of a man from that of a woman. It is also true that among people who normally wore beards, when some men began to shave, they were accused of trying to look like women! In view of these things, it is not very consistent for men to accuse women of trying to look like men, because they wear slacks or have their hair cut, when these men shave off their beards.
