1 Corinthians 11:14

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

'nature' -'The recognized constitution of things.' (Vincent p. 248) 'That is another way of saying, "the way things are" equals "nature"..' (McGuiggan p. 150) 'The nature of things.' (NIV) 'To the "natural feeling" that they shared together as part of their contemporary culture.' (Fee p. 527)

Points to Note:

1. The physical laws that govern the natural world don't really teach us that long-haired males are. disgrace. For. many men can grow long hair and some can grow it in abundance. (2 Samuel 2:26)

2. Long hair on males isn't inherently sinful. (Numbers 2:1; Acts 18:18) And yet Fee adds, 'But the very nature of the vow--both letting the hair grow long and cutting it again--demonstrates the " normalcy " of shorter hair on men, as it also evidenced by thousands of contemporary paintings, reliefs, and pieces of sculpture.' (p. 527)

And yet, in most societies, short-hair was the "norm" for men and long-hair for women. 'The Athenian youth cropped his head at 18, and it was. mark of foppery or effeminacy..to let the hair afterwards grow long. This feeling prevailed in ancient as it does in modern manners.' (Gr. Ex. N.T. p. 875)

3. Hence "nature" seems to mean the "nature of things" in society.

Paul seems to be arguing: (1) The Corinthians could "tell" that society frowned upon long-haired males. Society viewed such as "effeminate". (2) Women, even the Corinthian women arguing for the removal of the veil, took pride in their natural covering, i.e. their long hair. (3) So everyone could see that there existed things that were viewed as distinctly "feminine (under normal circumtances), i.e. belonging to women.' (4) If they could see this in reference to. "natural covering", then while can't they see that their society placed the same type of meaning on. artificial covering. (5) Respecting the use of the veil, was just like respecting the fact that certain hairstyles belonged to women and others to men.

4. McGuiggan argues that, 'He wasn't speaking of simple length, he was speaking of being womanish.' (p. 151)