Does The Bible Teach That Women Cannot Cut Their Hair?

I know that some topics I write about are going to make people upset, but sometimes you have to just tell the truth in love. If I didn’t love people, I wouldn’t be trying to point people to the truth of God’s Word!

this is an exhaustive look at the topic, but for those who have been taught this doctrine my hope is that this can be a great resource for you!

I was reading a book on my computer on the topic of uncut hair and I saw this quote in reference to 1st Corinthians 11:7 and it raised a red flag:

1st Corinthians 11:7 “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

"v. 7 – The word glory (Greek “doxa”) expresses the fact that man in his redeemed state REFLECTS the image of God. Woman on the other hand is the reflection of man. Man is the only creature that can stand in the presence of God “uncovered” because he is the only creature that is made in the image and likeness of God. Women must have a head covering! Angels must cover their faces!"

- Because We Are His, Raymond Woodward, Pg. 16

Obviously, I was curious, does the Bible say that only man is made in the image of God and not the woman? The short answer is no.

Genesis 1:27 NET "God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them."

I like the NET translation because it has a lot of footnotes, here's what it says,

"The Hebrew text has the article prefixed to the noun (ha'adam). The article does not distinguish man from woman here ("the man" as opposed to "the woman"), but rather indicates previous reference (see v. 26, where the noun appears without the article). it has the same function as English "the aforementioned.”

Another passage that confirms this is Genesis 5:3 “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man (Adam in Hebrew).”

The idea that women need uncut hair as a covering because only the man is made in the image of God is not what the Bible teaches.

Ok, maybe that isn’t the best place to start in this discussion, but I just wanted to give an example in the beginning of how this idea is often forced onto the Biblical Text rather than drawn out of it.

So what’s the argument for uncut hair? It comes from only one passage in the Bible so let’s look at it.

1st Corinthians 11:4-7 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven, for if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” (ESV)

The Uncut Hair doctrine is something that I was convinced was true. I was taught that long hair meant uncut in the Greek. I was taught that the woman took the place of Satan as the covering of God’s glory, and that she is now the keeper of the glory (more on that later). This doctrine comes from the idea of coverings and from what Paul wrote in verse 10.

“that is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

The King James Version (which is what most Apostolics use) says it this way, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” This single verse has created all kinds of issues, namely, that women have power because of their uncut hair.

I know people who have been in close calls while driving, I know people who have been in tragic situations and God brought them through, only for them to say that it was because of the power of uncut hair.

The power was not in your wife’s hair, it was in God’s mercy! I recently heard a sermon by Kim Haney from the Texas District Ladies Conference where she said she held up her split ends to God and reminded him of her covenant with him.

God is sovereign, he does what he wills. We don’t have the right to demand anything from God. He’s good, we are not.

So what does the Bible actually say? Let’s start with verse 6, “for if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short.”

The idea that ‘cover her head’ should mean uncut hair is hard to make sense of in this verse, if we take that meaning then Paul is saying, if a wife will not keep her hair uncut, then she should cut her hair short. Why say this? If it’s not uncut isn’t it already cut? Maybe there’s something else going on here!

The Greek word used in this passage for cover is ‘katakalypto’ which means to cover up, to veil, or cover one’s self.

The Greek word for uncovered that is used in verse 5 is ‘akatakalyptos’ which means unveiled or uncovered. Neither of these words used has anything to do with hair.

“The word group, which includes the words translated as “cover” and “uncover” in verses 5, 6, 7, and 13, is not used elsewhere to refer to the hair.”

In the Greek Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), usage of kalupto (also: apokalupto, katakalumma, katakalupto, kalumma, krupto, sunkaumma, and sunkalupto) refers to an external fabric covering over 80 times, but never once to long hair.

Consider just a few Scriptural examples:

Gen. 24:64-65 And Rebekah…she took a veil, and covered herself.

Gen. 28:15…she had covered her face (with a veil – Gen. 38:14)

Ex. 28:42…make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness

Num. 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman’s head

- Chipman, Joel. Are We Splitting Hairs? (pp. 50-51). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

So why does verse 6 (in the KJV) say ‘if a woman will not be covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.’ Doesn’t this say that cutting or shaving the hair is shameful? Therefore the appropriate understanding of this verse is if it is shameful to cut or to shave then let the hair remain uncut?

Let’s examine these words then.

Shorn, the Greek word used is ‘keiro’ (Strong’s 2751); meaning to sheer: a sheep, to get or let be shorn, of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head.

Shaven, the Greek word used is ‘xyrao’ (Strong’s 3587); meaning to shear, shave, to get one’s self shaved. (meaning a razor) to shave.

The Greek word that is used for shorn in this passage is used a total of three times in the New Testament, 2 other places besides here in 1st Corinthians, let’s examine these instances to see if we can determine what the actual use of this word is.

Acts 8:32 “The place of the Scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:”

Acts 18:18 “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”

As you can see from the passages that use the word shorn, it doesn’t simply mean ‘to cut at all’ as some suggest, but it means to cut the hair short.

Now the Greek word used for shaven appears a total of 3 times with it being used twice in 1st Corinthians 11, let’s examine the verse that it appears in.

Acts 21:24 “Take them, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.”

So Paul in 1st Corinthians 11:6 is commanding the women not to cut their hair short or to shave it because doing either of these is disgraceful. He points to nature to drive home his point in verses 14 & 15,

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, [“komao”] it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, [“komao”] it is a glory to her: for her hair [“kome”] is given her for a covering.”

“Have long hair” in verses 14-15 is translated from the Greek verb, komao, which comes from the noun, kome, translated “hair” in v15. Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words defines komao, #2863, as, “to wear tresses of hair:--have long hair.”

Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, defines komao the same and further states, “Komao signifies “to let the hair grow long, to wear long hair,” a glory to a woman, a dishonor to a man (as taught by nature), 1 Corinthians 11:14, 15.”

The noun, kome, #2864 in Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, means, “the hair of the head (locks, as ornamental...) A synonym, thrix, #2359, is the anatomical or physical term for hair; whereas kome designates the hair as an ornament, the notion of length being only secondary and suggested.”

Both komao and kome come from the root word, komeo, which means in Strong’s “to tend, i.e. take care of.” Komao is nothing more than a verb-form of kome, akin to the verb, komeo—“care for.”

Again, to say that long hair in this passage is referring to uncut hair is wrong, no serious study or scholar will agree with that statement. So what about when Paul said in verse 15 that her hair was given to her for a covering?

The Greek word used for covering in verse 15 surprisingly is a different word than was used earlier. It’s ‘peribolaion’ (Strong’s 4018), meaning a covering thrown around, a wrapper, mantle, veil. So for those who insist that verse 15 confirms that all the previous verses about covering are talking about actual hair, it’s not even the same Greek word.

There’s just not enough evidence in the text itself to make the case that long hair has to mean uncut. Also, it is inconsistent to assume that long hair on a woman has to mean uncut, while at the same time arguing that long hair on a man is simply long. The Greek text does not support this distinction. It simply means long.

"An interpretation that leaves parts of Scripture void or unreasonable should be rejected.

This principle is simply common sense reduced to words. When you or I write a letter or an essay, we normally intend for everything we write to have meaning, don’t we? We don’t intend for some of our statements to be totally ignored. Nor do we intend for part of what we write to be interpreted in such a way as to totally nullify the other things we have written.

The historical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 squarely meets this common sense principle. It gives full meaning to everything Paul has said. In contrast, our modern interpretations do not.

Take, for example, the interpretation that Paul was saying that men should wear their hair short and women should wear their hair long. What does it do to verses 4 through 6?

Paul says in verse 4: “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head.” Under this interpretation, the “something” that Paul is talking about would have to be hair, wouldn’t it? So should men shave off all of their hair?

In verse 6, Paul says, “If a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off.” To follow the modern interpretation, Paul would be saying, “If a woman does not have long hair, let her also have her hair cut off.” How reasonable is that? If a woman’s hair is short, it is because it is already cut off.

If Paul is talking about the length of hair, why would he focus on “praying or prophesying”? Can a man’s hair be long while he is doing other things and then suddenly become short when he is praying or prophesying? Can a woman’s hair be short while she is doing other things and then suddenly become long when she is praying or prophesying?

In short, this modern interpretation reduces most of this passage to an absurdity. If Paul were simply addressing the length of hair, why didn’t he just come out and say it? Why would he have gone through this protracted language about coverings or veils? He could have simply said, “Men should wear their hair short and women should wear their hair long.” Any interpretation that renders a passage absurd is an absurd interpretation.”

— Common Sense by David Bercot

Another source we can look to is the early church writings. While these texts should never be confused as inspired text, they do give us a look into what they believed and taught about certain passages in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Clement of Alexandria writing from Egypt around the year 190 said,

“Let the women observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happens to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.”

Hippolytus, a leader in the church at Rome around the year 200, compiled a record of the various customs and practices in that church from the generations that proceeded him. His Apostolic Tradition contains this statement.

“And let all women have their heads covered with an oblique cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering.”

The only disagreement among the early church writers wasn’t whether or not this passage was talking about hair, it was whether or not this passage was for all women or for married women. Tertullian wrote a tract called “The Veiling of Virgins” in which he argued that the veil was for all women. Not one church writer ever made the argument for uncut hair in their writings.

Another issue that rises out of the uncut hair doctrine is women with uncut hair being the keepers of the glory of God. There is a sermon entitled ‘Keepers of the Glory’ by Joe Campetella, and a book called Reflecting the Glory by Ruth Rieder in which they present the doctrine that when Satan was in heaven he was the covering cherubim. But when he fell the role that he had in heaven is now given to the women.

I attempted to do a lot of research on this concept, but the reality is there is no Scriptural basis for this doctrine whatsoever. The only mention of women and covering is in 1st Corinthians and it says that Christ is the covering of the man and the man is the covering of the woman. It goes on to say that her hair is given to her for a covering.

Nothing to insinuate that women keep the glory of God, it just isn’t supported by Scripture. The only real argument I’ve seen is found in Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman,” This is used to show that Satan has a special hatred for the women, the reason for this hatred is her role as the covering of God's glory.

A couple of problems with this. First, Genesis 3:15 is not talking about a hatred that exists only between the woman and the serpent, the whole verse reads, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This passage is a prophetic image of Christ defeating Satan at Calvary. Second, the covering in 1st Corinthians isn't covering God's glory, it's covering her husband's glory.

Every other attempt I have seen to try to prove that women are keepers of the glory of God is people looking through all the verses that refer to angels covering themselves and trying to erroneously connect it with 1st Corinthians 11 or by some appeal to witchcraft and pagan practices of uncut hair and power.

There is a review online from Roxanne Murphy, who is a Oneness Pentecostal, she believes in uncut hair and summed up this idea of women being keepers of the glory in this quote.

“This whole created doctrine of ‘guardians of the glory’ is, in my opinion, nigh to idolatry. It wrongly tells women that they have special power if they don’t cut their hair, that their uncut hair brings special protection to them and their family, that it gives them a special place in ministry, and that it gives them the position before God’s throne that Lucifer once held. It creates a sense of spiritual pride and superiority, and does damage to the true teaching of the Bible regarding authority, headship, the leadership of the home and family. Plainly put, to believe this doctrine is to do damage to other parts of scripture. I believe the words of the apostle Peter sum it up well: ‘Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.’ (2 Peter 1:20)”

I mentioned an appeal to the occult and to witchcraft to defend the belief in uncut hair. This is an actual teaching that I have heard from more than one person. Raymond Woodward in his book "Because We Are His" says this on page 13,

Recognize the Spiritual Significance of Hair

• If only Christians knew what witches and New Agers know! There is “power on [the] head” because of what we do with our hair! What God meant for good, the devil wants to use for evil

• The Encyclopedia of Superstition, Folklore and The Occult Sciences of the World, page 282: “Women’s hair is a most precious amulet and wards off a great many evils and diseases.”

• The Power of Magic Secrets and Mysteries Ancient and Modern, page 74: “Hair has always been considered strong magic; witches casting an evil spell needed a piece of hair from their victim to make it truly efficacious.”

• The Women‟s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects, page 313: “Women’s hair carried heavy symbolic and spiritual significance in Oriental Religions. Tantric sages proclaimed that the binding or unbinding of women’s hair could control cosmic powers of creation and destruction.”

• The Donning International Encyclopedic Psychic Dictionary, page 269: “Hair has psychical powers that act as a protection from evil entities of the etheric world; cutting of the hair was done in a ritual to discontinue this protection; it is symbolic of strength. It contributes to one’s personality, and is a mark of identification; to shave one’s head is to remove one’s self-image so one can begin a new self-image.”

• Encyclopedia on Witches and Witchcraft, page 149: “A witch’s magical power is bound in her hair; by shaking her hair in the wind, the power of a spell is doubled.”

• Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, page 572: “Hair has had an occult significance since ancient times. It has been regarded as a source of strength. The association of hair with sexual features of the body has given it remarkable force, and distinctions between male and female hair have emphasized sexual attraction. The unisex fashions of the permissive society and rock groups have tended to create sexual confusion and neurotic behavior.”

• Think of the “classic image” of a witch ... it is a woman with long, scraggly uncut hair. WHY? Because the evil side of the supernatural realm knows there is power associated with hair!

This isn’t the only prominent teaching on this subject, Lee Stoneking and others teach similar things in their sermons. Also, in the book ‘My Hair, My Glory’ by Juli Jasinski, she writes this about the topic of witchcraft and hair,

“I decided to go directly to the public library to look in the witchcraft section. As I approached the occult section you could just feel the demonic spirits. First I prayed against the wickedness I sensed and anointed the area with oil where the occult books were so that I could think clearly to start my search. To my surprise, I found many, many references concerning hair. I was amazed; and at times dumbfounded! I thought to myself, “If only Christians knew what the witches knew.” Later I told a friend that if today’s Christians knew this they might view this subject in a different light. At one point, I asked a good friend of mine to come with me to a metaphysical bookstore in Santa Cruz, the heart of central California’s witch haven. She got a first-hand look at all the information herself. She, too, marvelled at the voluminous sight.”

— My Hair My Glory by Juli Jasinski (Kindle Version)

I don't understand the appeal to witchcraft and the occult. Whether they believe in the power of uncut hair or not is irrelevant to the discussion. 1st Corinthians 11:10 does not teach that women have special power because of their uncut hair. I've seen this teaching lean into spiritual abuse, sharing stories of women who cut their hair and the tragedies that came as a result. Teaching about demons and the spirit realm recognizing women who have and who haven't cut their hair. It is abusive.

There isn’t a single passage in scripture that teaches anything close to that. This is all assumed based off the one obscure passage in 1 Corinthians 11:10 “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” This isn’t theology, its myth. The proof is in the appeals to witchcraft, pagans, and the occult.

Here are a few more quotes from Juli Jasinski, just ask yourself, why is this in a book defending supposed Biblical teaching?

“According to Wendy Cooper, author of the book, Hair Sex, Society and Symbolism, so ‘wide-spread was the faith in the power of hair…that in Scotland it was ominous even to meet a woman with her hair uncovered…if a woman shook her hair at you, they believed anything could happen.’

‘One of the most common uses of hair’ says the Encyclopedia of Religion, ‘ is in hostile magical; the hair clippings of an intended victim are obtained, and ensorcelled…and mixed together with other bodily secretions.’”

— My Hair My Glory by Juli Jasinski (Kindle Version)

This next quote is a perfect example of Spiritual Abuse. She teaches women that their lack of submission to this teaching is causing God to not answer prayers.

“Sometimes I wonder what’s wrong with the power of God in our altar services? Is our power cut off from God? Could this be why when we lay hands on the sick they do not recover miraculously or when we lay hands on the blind, they do not receive their sight? Jesus gave his disciples the“ …power to heal sickness, and to cast out devils:” (Mark 3: 15). As a Church, we too, should have this power but how can we obtain it?

It may be obtained through the act of obedience; however, by the mere snip of the shears our power has been cut off and now lying dormant in the Body of Christ. Hence, the sick, the lame, the blind go away disappointed and frustrated. Sure, the Lord fills those hungry souls with the power of the Holy Ghost by His mercy and grace, but we don’t see the miraculous wonder-working power of old!

Conference speaker Marietta Wolfe once said at a Washington Ladies Meeting, “The reason there is so little power and glory in some churches is because the ladies have so little power and glory on their heads!”

— My Hair My Glory by Juli Jasinski (Kindle Version)

Any teaching that blames people’s lack of faith, lack of obedience, or lack of consecration as a reason for God not answering prayers is teaching a doctrine not found in Scripture. It is contrary to the teaching of the Sovereignty of God. He does what he wills regardless of our faith or obedience. Imagine the weight it puts on people when they lose loved ones to a terminal illness and all they have been taught was that they needed more faith or they needed to obey better. That is a burden nobody should carry. It is abusive.

Finally, to truly understand why Paul wrote about the veil we must look into the cultural setting of Corinth.

In the book ‘After Paul Left Corinth:' by Bruce W. Winter, he wrote the following,

“The very mention of the word `veil' by Paul would automatically indicate to the Corinthians that the females under discussion in this passage were married. As S. Treggiari has pointed out in Latin `the verb used of the woman marrying, nebo, is related to nubes, a cloud, and means literally "I veil myself"'. The marriage ceremony involved what was called in Greek (`veiling the bride’).

Both Tacitus and Juvenal venal describe the taking of `the veil of a bride' as one of the essential components of marriage. It was the social indicator by which the marital status of a woman was made clear to everyone. So Paul did not use a generic term to refer to women of indeterminate marital status, but the combining of the two terms `veil' and `woman' indicates that she was married. The widow would no longer wear the marriage veil. There are secure grounds for concluding that the issue here was married women praying and prophesying without their veil in the Christian meeting.

Paul made a startling statement about the unveiled wife. He said that her behaviour was `one and the same thing as a woman who has been shorn' (11:5). It is known, e.g., that in Cyprus the law prescribed that `a woman guilty of adultery shall have her hair cut off and be a prostitute, i.e., like a foreigner or freedwoman who provided sexual favours at a dinner.

Therefore Paul equated not wearing a veil with the social stigma of a publicly exposed and punished adulteress reduced to the status of a prostitute. Even more surprising is Paul's imperative, `If a woman is not veiled, she must also be shorn' (11:6a). An adulterous wife would be shorn or have her head shaved as a punishment intended to humiliate her publicly (11:6b). He was, in effect, accusing the Christian wife who removed her veil when praying and prophesying of parading like one of the profligate `new' Roman women. If she did this while participating in a leading way in an open meeting, then she publicly dishonoured her husband (11:5) and ought to bear the public stigma.

Paul then argued the converse, that if it was shameful for a wife to be shorn or shaven, then the only alternative was to wear the marriage veil (11:6c). The Corinthian congregation was also called upon to judge how the action of the unveiled wife appeared (11:13). Paul used an adverb `seemly', indicating that it was a matter of decorum - an issue of supreme importance in Roman society. For a Christian wife to indicate that she placed herself among the high-class `new' Roman women grossly misrepresented the teaching of Christianity on marriage.

Mr. Bruce W. Winter. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Kindle Locations 1464-1472). Kindle Edition.

The veil issue is not teaching that women cannot cut their hair, the veil was a symbol of modesty for the married Corinthian women.

"It bears repeating that most interpreters believe the specific issue of a woman covering her head to preserve her glory for her husband was related to the social standards of the time. Paul is relaying specific application of a universal principle: modesty. Christians may live in widely varied cultures, with variant standards of dress and fashion. All believers should appropriately "cover their glory" in public worship services according to conscience and the standards for modesty in their own era."

-- https://www.bibleref.com/1-Corinthians/11/1-Corinthians-11-10.html

Before we wrap up this discussion I want to address one more argument for the uncut hair position, 1st Corinthians 11:14-15 "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if. a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."

Common arguments I've heard is one way nature teaches us that men should have short hair is male pattern baldness. The argument from nature is not that men go bald, the argument for nature has to do with what is normal.

"Two things should be noted: When Paul says "nature," he seems to mean how most people naturally wear their hair in society, at large. Hair grows the same rate on the heads of men and women, after all. But throughout time and culture, most men in most places have short hair. Or, at least, shorter than women. This was especially true in the Roman empire. The other truth is that the term "short" is relative. The shortest haircuts for men in the modern era involve shaving the head bold or close to it. Men of some Greek cultures often wore hair that modern people would consider "long". In general, though, men wear their hair shorter than most women, in most cultures, without being forced to do so. For Paul, this was evidence of God's design for men to leave their heads "uncovered" to better reflect the glory of God.

More generally, the principle Paul speaks to here is the same as that laid out in prior verses. Each culture interprets physical appearances to have certain meanings. In that era, a woman's uncovered head was something intimate and even sexual. Modern people have drastically different applications of that idea, but based those on the same principle. If society"naturally" interprets something as sexually suggestive, it's inappropriate for a Christian gathering.

The same applies to gender roles: though the details change by culture, men ought to look "like men" and women ought to look "like women" (1st Corinthians 6:9)."

https://www.bibleref.com/1-Corinthians/11/1-Corinthians-11-14.html

So just from a quick glance at the Greek, a look at sources from the early church fathers, as well as the cultural setting of Corinth, we see that nowhere outside of the Oneness Pentecostal teachings is there any connection to this passage and women having uncut hair. It just isn’t there. So no, the Bible does not teach that women should not cut their hair.