5. The Meaning of "Shame"

Next to be addressed is the usages of the word “shame”. It surprises many people to learn that there are different Greek words, with different meanings for this word.

The word used for “shame” in v. 6 is Strong's #149 - indecorum - which means social unacceptability in a “decorated” fashion. It would be socially unacceptable for a woman to be shorn. What about the shame of men’s long hair? This is an entirely different word translated “shame”:it is Strong's #819 - infamy - which means base, sordid, filthy, or villainous. Paul is indicating the fashions of male prostitutes. Paul is saying,Look around you. Is it natural for men to have long hair? Who wears their hair so? ”

What of this word “nature”? This footnote appears in the Diaglott, in reference to Paul's use of that same word in Romans 2:14:

“Phusei, by nature, means also 'an infused disposition, which is become, as it were, natural. . . '”(italics his)

Thus it is reasonable to conclude that Paul is talking of learned behaviours rather than something we are born inclined to do. He therefore means the manner of the society in which the Corinthian believers found themselves. Is it not in our “nature” to see prostitution in this same light of infamy, although it is acceptable to those who participate in it? Short hair for men was the norm in Corinth, except for certain infamous individuals who were engaged in the practice of prostitution.

His point about the hair lengths in vv. 13-15 is simply that a shaved or shorn head on a man would not readily be taken as a sign of mourning, since normally, they cut their hair frequently, whereas it would be strikingly noticeable on a woman since their custom showed that a woman's hair was for beauty. The word in v. 13 for “comely” is Strong's #4241, which means “to tower up, to be conspicuous” ie, to be obviously noticeable. Therefore he is indicating that it would not be conspicuous if these women prayed with uncovered heads since they always decorated their hair. The conspicuity is from the covering on what would otherwise be uncovered and adorned.

Here we must make a retraction of a previous assumption. In studies subsequent to our original “Hats” paper, it has come to our attention that we made an error in assuming that Corinthian women would have worn bourkas. This would not have been the case because the society in Corinth was a Roman-based culture, and not Semitic-based as we had previously thought. When Paul visited the city it was less than 100 years old. After 102 years of desolation, brought about by the Roman general Mummios, it was rebuilt under Julius Caesar in 44 B. C. and Romans were brought in to colonize it. This would therefore mean their customs would have been Roman rather than Semitic. Hence men would have had short hair and women would have had uncovered, styled, long hair.

Paul is saying that in their society, which was Roman in nature, they were taught that long-haired men were infamous because men customarily wore their hair short, whereas women customarily dressed their hair up as ornamentation. Therefore, shearing a man's head to show mourning would not have been a conspicuous action for that society. Because a woman's hair was long, shearing would be a conspicuously obvious symbol of the ecclesia in mourning, but because it would be seen as socially unacceptable, it would be just as conspicuous for the women to cover their hair in like Biblical symbology since it was normally worn in ornamented fashion.