Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
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 (nature).” Meyer.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Doth not even nature itself – The word nature ( 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 karekomoontes 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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, , 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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 mens 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. The fact that nature hasprovided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man wasdesigned to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however,wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Nu6:5). Compare as to Absalom, 2Sa 14:26;Act 18:18.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Doth not even nature itself teach you,…. By nature is either meant, the law and light of nature, reason in man, common sense, or rather custom, which is second nature; and which, in this case, must be restrained to the Greeks and Jews; for though among the Grecians the men cut their hair, and did not suffer it to grow long, as also did the Jews, yet there were many nations k who did not, even at that time, observe such a rule or custom; but as the Jews and Greeks were the persons chiefly, if not solely, known to the Corinthians, the apostle signifies, that the usages of these people might direct and inform them in this matter:
that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him; he looks unmanly and womanish, and exposes himself to ridicule and contempt.
k Alex. ab. Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 5. c. 18. Servius in Virgil. Aeneid. l. 10. prope finem.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Nature itself ( ). He reenforces the appeal to custom by the appeal to nature in a question that expects the affirmative answer (). , from old verb , to produce, like our word nature (Latin natura), is difficult to define. Here it means native sense of propriety (cf. Ro 2:14) in addition to mere custom, but one that rests on the objective difference in the constitution of things.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Nature [] . The recognized constitution of things. In this case the natural distinction of the woman ‘s long hair. 117
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Doth not even nature itself teach you.” (oude he phusis aute didaskei humas) “Nature herself teaches you, does she not?” Paul uses rhetoric affirmation to lead the Corinthians to recognize that men and women were by nature very different in their hair covering.
2) “That if a man have long hair.” (hoti aner men ean koma) “That a man with, if he wears his hair long.” If he have or hold on to long, unshorn hair, as Absalom did, 2Sa 14:26; 2Sa 18:9-15.
3) “It is a shame unto him?” (atimia auto estin) “it is a dishonor to him.” It discredits his manhood and is a symbol of effeminacy, if not suggestive also of sodomy and moral rebellion and perversion against man’s identity and order in nature, 1Co 6:9.
While the holy vow of the Nazarite was upon a man he was pledged not to cut his hair, but for a man without the vow of the Nazarite to let his hair grow like a Shetland pony was a social and moral disgrace, hindered the influence of a Christian, Paul suggested.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(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 womans glory) by nature the things contained in the Law (Rom. 11:14).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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 ( , 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 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
14. ] , 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. is not sense of natural propriety , but NATURE, the law of creation .
] So Eustathius, Il. . 288, in Wetst., , , . . On and 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.]
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 11:14-15 . The question . . .; summons personal instinct to the aid of social sentiment: “Does not even nature of herself teach you that, etc.?” For , 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 in the latter sense, reverse the order of thought in 1Co 11:13 f., seeing in the former ver. individual instinct (they render within yourselves ), and in this ver. social rule. Hf [1655] and Hn [1656] , by a strained constr. of , render “because,” and draw the obj. of “teach” from 1Co 11:13 , seeing in . . . 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”. , 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 ( ), 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 ), 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 is not merely no , but a positive ; herself the , 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 ( ) 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. , Joh 1:16 ; , Odyss . viii., 456. (pf. pass [1659] ) connotes a permanent boon (see 2Co 8:1 , 1Jn 3:1 , etc.). (from ), 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 Erklrung 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. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[1659] passive voice.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
not even. Greek. oude.
if. App-118.
have long hair = let the hair grow. Greek. komao. Only here and 1Co 11:15.
shame. Greek. atimia. See Rom 1:26.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
14.] , 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 natures 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. is not sense of natural propriety, but NATURE,-the law of creation.
] So Eustathius, Il. . 288, in Wetst., , , . . On and 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.]
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 11:14. ) does not even nature itself, from which all learn very easily.- , nature) and its light concerning what is becoming.- ) if he has long hair, like a covering; for he is not commanded to be altogether shorn.-, 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.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 11:14
1Co 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?-While in all nations in the world, women wear long hair, and men short hair, is it nature that suggests it? It does not mean custom. The fact so universal, and the declaration of the apostle, seems to settle this. Sometimes nature suggests a custom. A practice prompted by nature becomes a custom, and is said to be from or by nature. How came the custom to be universal among all nations and in all parts of the world, if there is not something in nature to suggest it?
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
if: 2Sa 14:26
it is: 1Co 14:35
Reciprocal: Eze 44:20 – nor suffer Luk 12:57 – General Rom 2:14 – do by 1Co 6:5 – to your 1Co 11:4 – having Rev 9:8 – hair
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 11:14. Nature is from PHUSIS, which Thayer defines at this place, “nature, i.e., natural sense, native conviction or knowledge,” and he adds the explanation, “as opposed to that which is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law.” Robinson gives virtually the same definition. The explanation given of the definition is an exact description of the customs discussed in the preceding verses as to what use a woman should make of her hair, and he says it is opposed to (different from) that which nature teaches. Customs change because they are the product of man, while nature never changes because it is the creation of God. As long as nature exists it will be a shame for a man to have long hair, and, as a necessary conclusion, it will be a shame for a woman to cut her hair. Sometimes a quibble is made by asking just what it takes to constitute long hair. In the first place, the statement of Paul remains in the text, and it is as much the obligation of the quibbler to answer the question and prove his answer, as It is that of the one who insists on observing the teaching of the apostle. However, for the benefit of the sincere inquirer, I will state that the Lord has given us a clear-cut definition of what constitutes, long hair, in the stipulations for a Nazarite which included Tong hair. The passages that state the law on it are Num 6:5; Jdg 13:5; 1Sa 1:11. These all require that no razor is to be used on the head, hence by long hair the Lord means hair that is as long as nature makes it. If a man cuts any of it off he ceases to have long hair, and exposes his head to shame. By the same token, if a woman cuts any of her hair she also ceases to have long hair in the sense the apostle is using the term, and thus she does that which is a shame.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 11:14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonour to him? The Roman satirist lashes the effeminacy of some men in his day who wore their hair long (Juv., Sat. ii. 96).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 14. The , 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 is frequent in Paul. But for this very reason the particle might easily have been introduced; the authorities in its favour are weak.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 14
Is a shame unto him; being a mark of effeminacy.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Women’s hair naturally grows longer than men’s hair. Paul reasoned from this fact that God intended for women to have more head-covering than men. People generally regard the reverse of what is natural as dishonorable. In the man’s case this would be long hair and in the woman’s case short hair. By "nature" Paul evidently meant how his culture felt about what was natural. [Note: Barrett, p. 257.] "Glory" means "honor."
This is a very general observation. The fact that some acceptable men’s hairstyles are longer than some women’s does not mean these styles are perversions of the natural order. Men are usually taller than women, but this does not mean that short men or tall women are dishonorable. I understand that women’s hair generally grows fuller and faster due to the estrogen in women, whereas men’s hair tends to become thinner and fall out faster because of the testosterone in men.