Is long hair a sufficient head covering for a woman?

Some say that since long hair is naturally given to the woman “in lieu of a veil” (1 Cor. 11: 15), then this sufficiently addresses what the apostle says in v5 about a woman needing to cover her head when praying or prophesying. Long hair, they say, is the head-covering (indeed the AV of v15 seems to support the idea: “for her hair is given her for a covering”). However, the words in Greek are neither the same nor related: the noun translated covering (or veil) in v15, is peribolaion, while the verb covered (as in vs. 6, 7) is katakaluptw. Now peribolaion literally means to throw around while katakaluptw means to cover with what hangs down. The use of these different words (and their meaning) indicates that long hair in a woman, while it admits the doctrine of headship, is not adequate, in itself, to meet the demands of the doctrine. A woman’s long hair can be wrapped around her head in a suggestion that her head ought to be hidden, but what is required by Paul is a definite covering up, by placing something over the head. Hence the reverse situation “Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on his head” (v4) means to cover up his head—“For man indeed ought not to have his head covered” (v7—katakaluptw). How would such a man uncover his head? Through removing his hat. If, by contrast, the covering is just long hair, then the man would only need to get it trimmed. That, however, is not the solution implied by v6 where (supposedly) the woman with insufficiently long hair is to have her hair “cut off” (not cut but shorn—keirw) or “shaved” (xuraw). Hence, if the option for women was to have long hair, or no hair at all (a disgrace—see v6), then the option for men must be long hair (a disgrace—see v14), or no hair at all. Yet even Paul himself did not normally have a shorn head (see Acts 18: 18).  

   That the head covering and long hair are not to be confused, is further demonstrated by comparing what is said in 1 Cor. 11: 2 with what is said in v14. In v2 the apostle tells the Corinthians “Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me, and that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions” (comp. 2 Thess. 2: 15; 3: 6). He then proceeds to add to those directions by saying “But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man …” (1 Cor. 11: 3) and this new apostolic teaching extends over vs. 3-12. In v14, however, he turns to another teacher by saying “Does not even nature itself teach you”. Verses 3-12 is apostolic teaching for Christians; Verses 14-15 is the teaching of nature for all men and women. The teaching of nature (hair) is supplementary to the teaching of the apostle (head-coverings) but it is not the equivalent of it. Having stated his doctrine in vs. 3-12, Paul appeals to the intuition of the Corinthians (“Judge in yourselves”—v13) and then turns in v14 to nature to show that even that is a witness that men and women are different. The subject of vs. 14, 15, though related, is not identical to the subject of vs. 3-12. Those who say that the subject is the same throughout (the length of hair) ignore the fact that Paul uses different Greek words for covering in each section. If peribolaion had been used from the start, then they might have an argument but its absence in vs. 3-12 is telling.

   Of course, we live in days when the prevailing culture is trying to erase as much as possible the differences between men and women. That culture (sadly) has also infiltrated the Assembly, and such disobedience (for that is what it is) will have been noted by our angelic observers (see v10). The truth is that “Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head [is] the man, and the Christ’s head God” (v3). A woman acknowledges her place in the divine hierarchy by covering her head when she prays to God or prophesies from God (see v5)—the head-covering demonstrates that she is not ignoring the fact that the man is her head because it hides hers. Indeed, “if a woman be not covered” (when praying or prophesying) then “let her hair also be cut off” (v6)—that is, she may as well renounce her femininity altogether since she thinks she can act as a man before God. Note the word also (kai)—if she discards the covering, then why not discard what nature has given her as well? It is absurd to say if a woman will not have long hair, then let her also be shorn (see v6) for in being without long hair, she is essentially no different from a shorn woman (see v5). It makes far more sense to say if a woman will not cover her head, then let her also be shorn (see v6) for in being uncovered she is essentially no different from a shorn woman (see v5). The apostle’s argument about it being shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off in v6 loses much of its force when, according to some, the woman already has short hair. Why? Because it is a woman’s “long hair” that is “glory to her” (v15, my emphasis).

   Finally, the subject of the passage is head-covering. If we make the subject hair length then what is distinctly apostolic is lost, for hair length relates only to what nature teaches. Nature, at best, is an imperfect teacher.