1 Corinthians 11:14

(14) Nature itself.—This may mean, either “the native inborn sense of what is seemly” as contrasted with revelation; or it may signify the ordinary and evident arrangement of things in creation. Probably the former is the true meaning of the passage which refers to the fact that the heathen who had no direct revelation did (by regarding long hair as a woman’s glory) “by nature” the things contained in the Law (Rom_11:14).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Ver. 14. That if a man hath long hair] Bushes of vanity, which they will never part with, said Marbury, until the devil put a candle into the bush. But our gallants object, that the apostle here intendeth such hair as is as long as women’s hair. Whereunto we answer, That Homer calleth the Greeks hair-nourishing men (καρηκομοωντας Αχαιους, Homer), who yet did not wear their hair long as women. How Cromwell handled the shag-haired ruffian, see Acts and Monuments of the Church, fol. 1083. How God hath punished this unnatural sin by that loathsome and horrible disease in the hair, called Plica Polonica, see Hercules de Saxonia; and out of him Mr Belfort in his Four Last Things, page 40. It begun first, saith he, not many years ago in Poland; it is now entered into many parts of Germany. And methinks our monstrous fashionists, both male and female, the one for nourishing their horrid bushes of vanity, the other for the most unnatural and cursed cutting their hair, should every hour fear and tremble, lest they should bring it upon their own heads, and among us in this kingdom. Our Henry I repressed the wearing of long hair, which though it were a gaiety of no charge, yet for the indecency thereof, he reformed it, and all other dissoluteness. (Daniel’s Hist.) See Mr Prins’ Unloveliness of Love Locks. See also a book entitled Diatriba Theologica de capillis, constans disputatione Textuali, ad 1Co 11:14-15.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11:14 Isn’t it obvious? (literally Doesn’t nature itself teach you?): In Paul’s culture, men would never wear long hair.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 11:14. Οὐδε αὐτὴ) does not even nature itself, from which all learn very easily.—ἡ φύσις, nature) and its light concerning what is becoming.—ἐὰν κομᾷ) if he has long hair, like a covering; for he is not commanded to be altogether shorn.—ἀτιμία, disgrace) viz., if he do that without any reason; for sometimes even hair becomes men.—Num 6:5; 2Sa 14:26; Act 18:18. The Nazarite, who had hair, however long, ought to retain it.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 11:14-15 . The question οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ κ . τ . λ .; summons personal instinct to the aid of social sentiment: “Does not even nature of herself teach you that, etc.?” For ἡ φύσις , see Rom 2:14 ; in this connexion it points to man’s moral constitution rather than to external regulations; Hf. and El [1654] however, taking φύσις in the latter sense, reverse the order of thought in 1Co 11:13 f., seeing in the former ver. individual instinct (they render ἐν ἑαυτοῖς within yourselves ), and in this ver. social rule. Hf [1655] and Hn [1656] , by a strained constr. of διδάσκει , render ὅτι “because,” and draw the obj. of “teach” from 1Co 11:13 , seeing in ὅτι κ . τ . λ . the ground of the affirmative answer tacitly given to both questions: “Does not nature of herself teach (this)? (Yes), for if a man have long hair, etc.” The common rendering is preferable; the teaching of nature is expressed in a double sentence, which gathers the consensus gentium on the subject: “that in a man’s case, if he wear long hair ( vir quidem si comam nutriat , Vg [1657] ), it is a dishonour to him; but in a woman’s, if she wear long hair, it is a glory to her”. ἀνήρ , γυνὴ stand in conspicuous antithesis preceding the conj.: what is discreditable in the one is delightful in the other. Homer’s warriors, it is true, wore long hair ( καρηκομοῶντες Ἀχαιοί ), a fashion retained at Sparta; but the Athenian youth cropped his head at 18, and it was a mark of foppery or effeminacy (a legal ἀτιμία ), except for the aristocratic Knights, to let the hair afterwards grow long. This feeling prevailed in ancient as it does in modern manners ( cf. the case of Absalom). In the rule of the Nazirites natural instinct was set aside by an exceptional religious vocation. The woman’s κόμη is not merely no ἀτιμία , but a positive δόξα ; herself the δόξα ἀνδρός , her beauty has in this its crown and ensign. And this “glory” is grounded upon her humility: “because her hair to serve as a hood ( ἀντὶ περιβολαίου ) has been given her” not as a substitute for head-dress (this would be to stultify Paul’s contention), but in the nature of a covering, thus to match the veil ( en guise de voile , Gd [1658] ); cf. χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος , Joh 1:16 ; ἀντὶ κασιγνήτου ξεῖνος … τέτευκται , Odyss . viii., 456. δέδοται (pf. pass [1659] ) connotes a permanent boon (see 2Co 8:1 , 1Jn 3:1 , etc.). περιβόλαιον (from περιβάλλω ), a wrapper, mantle , is here exceptionally used of head-gear.

[1654] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

[1655] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).

[1656] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1657] Latin Vulgate Translation.

[1658] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[1659] passive voice.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:14, 1Co_11:15

Doth not even nature itself 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.

Doth not nature itself. The word (φύσις), nature, sometimes means essence or substance, sometimes the laws of nature or of our natural constitution; sometimes, the instinctive feelings or judgments which are the effects of those laws. The form which feelings assume is necessarily determined in a great measure by education and habit. The instinctive sense of propriety in an eastern maiden prompts her, when surprised by strangers, to cover her face. In an European it would not produce that effect. In writing, therefore, to eastern females, it would be correct to ask whether their native sense of propriety did not prompt them to cover their heads in public. The response would infallibly be in the affirmative. It is in this sense the word nature is commonly taken here. It may, however, mean the laws or course of nature. Nature gives the man short hair and the woman long hair; and therefore nature itself teaches that long hair is a disgrace to the one and an ornament to the other; for it is disgraceful in a man to be like a woman, and in a woman to be like a man. Wearing long hair was contrary to the custom both of the Hebrews and Greeks. The Nazarites, as a distinction, allowed their hair to grow. Num_6:8; see also Eze_44:20. It was considered so much a mark of effeminacy for men to wear long hair, that it was not only ridiculed by Juvenal, but in after times seriously censured by church councils. To a woman, however, in all ages and countries, long hair has been considered an ornament. It is given to her, Paul says, as a covering, or as a natural veil; and it is a glory to her because it is a veil. The veil itself, therefore, must be becoming and decorous in a woman.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Num 6:5). Compare as to Absalom, Sa2 14:26, and Act 18:18.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 14. Doth not - nature - teach you, that, if a man have long hair] Nature certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for women to have long hair; and it is not so with men. The hair of the male rarely grows like that of a female, unless art is used, and even then it bears but a scanty proportion to the former. Hence it is truly womanish to have long hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it. In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great variety of places, καρηκομοωντεςαχαιοι, the long-haired Greeks, or Achaeans. Soldiers, in different countries, have been distinguished for their long hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or blame, or whether Homer uses it always as a term of respect, when he applies it to the Greeks, I shall not wait here to inquire. Long hair was certainly not in repute among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was as a token of humiliation; and it is possible that St. Paul had this in view. There were consequently two reasons why the apostle should condemn this practice: -

1. Because it was a sign of humiliation;

2. Because it was womanish.

After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to dressed, frizzled and curled hair, which shallow and effeminate men might have affected in that time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. Doth not even nature itself teach you] This argument from nature must not be pressed too far. St Paul is speaking of the natural sense of what is fitting in those whom he addressed. In early times the Greeks and the Romans wore long hair, and the Gauls and Germans did so in St Paul’s own time. So Homer continually speaks of the “long-haired Greeks.” St Chrysostom remarks that those who addicted themselves to philosophy in his day wore their hair long. But this was mere affectation. Cf. Horace, De Arte Poetica, 297,

“Bona pars non ungues ponere curat,

Non barbam, secreta petit loca, balnea vitat.”

But the general verdict of society has been that appealed to by the Apostle. “This instinctive consciousness of propriety on this point had been established by custom, and had become φύσις (nature).”—Meyer.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But if a woman have long hair,.... And wears it, without cutting it, as men do:

it is a glory to her; it is comely and beautiful; it is agreeable to her sex, she looks like herself; it becomes and adorns her:

for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other: we read indeed of the daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion, that she was obliged to make use of her hair for a covering in such a sense (l);

"it happened to R. Jochanan ben Zaccai that he rode upon an ass, and went out of Jerusalem, and his disciples went after him; he saw a young woman gathering barley corns out of the dung of the Arabian cattle; when she saw him, , "she covered herself with her hair", and stood before him:''

but this covering was made use of, not of choice, but by force, through her poverty, she having no other; this was not the custom of the nation, nor was the hair given to women for a covering in this sense, nor used by them as such, unless by Eve before the fall; but is rather an indication that they want another covering for their head, it not being so decent that their long hair should be seen. The Jewish women used to esteem it an immodest thing for their hair to be seen, and therefore they took care, as much as possible, to hide it under another covering;

"one woman, whose name was Kimchith, had seven sons, and they all ministered in the high priesthood; the wise men said unto her, what hast thou done, that thou art so worthy? she replied to them, all my days the beams of my house never saw , "the plaits of my hair" (m);''

that is, they were never seen by any person, even within her house.

(l) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 66. 2. (m) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 47. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Doth not even nature itself - The word nature (φύσις phusis) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among people. Thus, we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war - the duties of office, of government and of professional life, should be discharged by people. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it. The word in this place, therefore, does not mean the constitution of the sexes, as Locke, Whitby, and Pierce maintain; nor reason and experience, as Macknight supposes; nor simple use and custom, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, and most recent expositors suppose; but it refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right; a sense which is expressed extensively in all nations. showing what that sense is.

No reason can be given, in the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the man not; but the custom prevails extensively everywhere, and nature, in all nations, has prompted to the same course. “Use is second nature;” but the usage in this case is not arbitrary, but is founded in an anterior universal sense of what is proper and right. A few, and only a few, have regarded it as comely for a man to wear his hair long. Aristotle tells us, indeed (Rhet. 1: - see Rosenmuller), that among the Lacedemonians, freemen wore their hair long. In the time of Homer, also, the Greeks were called by him καρηκομόωντες Ἀχαῖοι karēkomoōntes Achaioi, long-haired Greeks; and some of the Asiatic nations adopted the same custom. But the general habit among people has been different. Among the Hebrews, it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his hair long, except he had a vow as a Nazarite, Num 6:1-5; Jdg 13:5; Jdg 16:17; 1Sa 1:11. Occasionally, for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow, as was the case with Absalom 2Sa 14:26; but the traditional law of the Jews on the subject was strict. The same rule existed among the Greeks; and it was regarded as disgraceful to wear long hair in the time of Aelian; Hist. lib. 9:c. 14. Eustath. on Hom. 2:v.

It is a shame unto him? - It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the female sex.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He tells them, that they could not judge this as a thing comely, for nature itself taught them, that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair. By

nature here some understand the law of nature, according to which it would have an intrinsic evil in it, which it is plain it hath not; for then neither must the Nazarites have used it, (as they did), neither would it be lawful for the sake of men’s health or life. Others understand by nature the law of nations; but neither is this true, for in many nations men wear hair at the utmost length. Others understand common sense, or the light and judgment of that natural reason which since the fall is left in man; but this must be the same in all men, and we know that all men do not judge this shameful. Others therefore by nature here understand a common custom, which (as they say) maketh as it were a second nature; so the term is taken, Rom 11:24; but it cannot so signify here; for there neither is, nor ever was, such a universal custom in any place, that none in it wore long hair. Others by nature here understand natural inclination; but neither can this be the sense, for there is in some men, as well as in women, a natural propension and inclination to wear their hair at excessive lengths. Others here by nature understand the difference of the sex, as they take this word to be used, Rom 1:26; the distinction of the sexes teacheth us this: and this seemath to be the most probable sense of this text. The apostle arguing, that as the male and female sex are artificially distinguished by garments, and it was the will of God they should be so, so they should also be distinguished by the wearing of their hair; and it was no less shame for a man to wear his hair like a woman, than to wear garments like a woman.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. Nature itself teach—Our natural sense of beauty affirms that long and flowing hair (of the Caucasian woman, not of the African) is one of the permanent points of female attraction. To shear it diminishes woman’s beauty; to shave it off deforms her, for the naked scalp is ever and by nature a disagreeable object to the sight. On the other hand, for a man to imitate this beauty is effeminate and contemptible. And this effeminacy was especially exemplified by a class of infamous males guilty of unnatural basenesses. Note on Rom_1:24-25. Yet if nature—that is, the instinct of propriety—did teach that long hair was a shame to a man in Paul’s day, it equally taught the Homeric Greeks that it was a pride, and teaches the Chinese at the present day that a pigtail is a dignity to every male celestial. That is, the instinct varies its decisions according to circumstances, to customs and feelings of age and race, and to reasons derived from symbol and sign. Paul radically assumes that Christianity ratifies the authority of the instinct; but he gives the applications and decisions of the instinct as they suited his age and peoples.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Doth not even nature itself teach you? "Nature" here has much the lame sense as "instinct.

His fair large front and eye sublime declared Absolute rule; and hyacinthine locks Round from his parted forelock manly hung Clustering, but not beneath his shoulders broad: She, as a veil, down to the slender waist Her unadorned golden tresses wore. (Milton, "Paradise Lost," 4:304. )

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. Doth not even nature itself, etc.? It is nature's arrangement that men should wear short hair, and a woman long. For a man to have long hair and a woman to be shorn are violations of nature's teachings.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

14. ἡ φύσις. This argument from nature must not be pressed too far. St Paul is speaking of the natural sense of what is fitting in those whom he addressed. In early times the Greeks and the Romans wore long hair, and the Gauls and Germans did so in St Paul’s own time. So Homer continually speaks of the ‘long-haired Greeks.’ St Chrysostom remarks that those who addicted themselves to philosophy in his day wore their hair long. But this was mere affectation. Cf. Horace, De Arte Poetica, 297,

‘Bona pars non ungues ponere curat,

Non barbam, secreta petit loca, balnea vitat.’

But the general verdict of society has been that appealed to by the Apostle. ‘This instinctive consciousness of propriety on this point had been established by custom, and had become φύσις (nature).’ Meyer.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14.] ἡ φύσις αὐτή, nature herself: i.e. the mere fact of one sex being by nature unveiled, i.e. having short hair,—the other, veiled, i.e. having long hair. This plainly declares that man was intended to be uncovered,—woman, covered. When therefore we deal with the proprieties of the artificial state, of clothing the body, we must be regulated by nature’s suggestion: that which she has indicated to be left uncovered, we must so leave: that which she has covered, when we clothe the body, we must cover likewise. This is the argument. φύσις is not sense of natural propriety, but Nature,—the law of creation.

κομᾷ] So Eustathius, Il. γ. 288, in Wetst., κόμην δὲ ἔχειν, καὶ εὔκομον εἶναι, γυναικώτερόν ἐστιν. διὸ καὶ ὁ Πάρις ὀνειδίζεται ὡς κόμην ἔχων. On φύσις and κομᾷ Pool observes, ‘locus est vexatissimus doctorum sententiis;’ and gives a note of four folio columns; and Bengel has a long discussion on the lawfulness of wigs.

The Apostle (see above) makes no allusion to the customs of nations in the matter, nor is even the mention of them relevant [: he is speaking of the dictates of nature herself.]

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. A further argument, supporting the previous one. Instinctively they must feel the impropriety; and then external nature confirms the instinctive feeling. Even if the internal feeling should not arise, does not even nature by itself show that, while doubtless man, being short-haired, is by Divine order unveiled, woman, being long-haired, is by Divine order veiled? Naturae debet respondere voluntas (Beng.).* While fanaticism defies nature, Christianity respects and refines it; and whatever shocks the common feelings of mankind is not likely to be right. At this period, civilized men, whether Jews, Greeks, or Romans, wore their hair short. ‘Long hair is a permanent endowment (δέδοται) of woman, to serve as an enveloping mantle’ (Heb 1:12 from Ps. 101:27; Jdg 8:26; Eze 16:13, Eze 16:27:7; Isa 59:17). Note the emphasis on ἀνήρ and γυνή, also on the clause introduced by δέ. Nowhere else in Biblical Greek does κομάω occur. Milligan, Grk. Papyri, p. 84.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Nature [φυσις] . The recognized constitution of things. In this case the natural distinction of the woman 's long hair. 117

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 14. The ἤ, or, of the T. R. might be suitable so far as the sense goes: “Or indeed, if you answer my question in the negative, does not nature teach you...?” This use of the ἤ is frequent in Paul. But for this very reason the particle might easily have been introduced; the authorities in its favour are weak.

Vv. 14 must therefore be regarded as directly answering the question put in 1Co 11:13 : “After all I have said to resolve the question, is there not another master whose voice you ought of yourselves to hear, and who will teach you that...?” This master is nature, ἡ φύσις, a word which here can neither signify moral instinct nor established usage. It follows indeed from 1Co 11:15 that Paul is thinking of the physical organization of woman. If we receive the reading of the T. R., αὐτὴ ἡ φύσις, even nature, the idea is: “That which seemed unable to teach us anything in such a domain.” But if we follow the other reading, ἡ φύσις αὐτή, nature itself, the meaning is rather: “itself, without me, without my teaching.”

Hofmann and Heinrici understand the following ὅτι in the sense of because, and make the διδάσκει an intransitive verb: “Does not nature itself instruct you?” But the ὅτι after such a verb as διδάσκειν naturally signifies that, and all the more because the ὅτι at the end of 1Co 11:15 really signifies because, and serves to explain the bearing of the two preceding ὅτι: “Does not nature itself show you that...and that..., seeing that...?” By not giving the man long hair, like the woman’s, nature itself has shown that an uncovered head, and an open brow, suit his dignity as king of creation. The hair of the man is a crown, while, as the following verse adds, that of the woman is a veil.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.