LNE

Thanks Cheryl, that was very edifying. I kind of figured that imperatives could sometimes be used in the permissive sense, since I had noticed certain imperatives logically seem like they must be only permissive in certain passages, but I did not know this was an established rule of Greek grammar, so it was helpful that you posted those excerpts from Robertson’s Grammar.

However, something said in the excerpt you posted has me confused again. It seems to say that the hermeneutical considerations will not allow making the “imperative (into a) permissive” in 1 Cor 11:6. It then says, I think, that the verbs for “let her have her hair cut” and “let her be covered” imply logical necessity.
Is this excerpt saying that “let her have her hair cut” is therefore imperative, something a woman must do if she does not cover her head? It seems like the writer of Robertson’s Grammar is saying that both of these verbs are used imperatively, not permissively, even though imperative verbs can be used permissively in other places (but not here according to what I’m reading from the excerpt.). I may be reading this all wrong, hopefully you can straighten me out.

Cheryl said:”The permission to have her head “shaved” is because there is no imperative whatsoever for shaving her head. In the first part of 1 Corinthians 11:6, Paul says “let her have her hair cut off”, but he does not say that it is a logical necessity for her to have her head shaved. The Greek words translated as “hair cut” and “shaved” are two different Greek words.”

Sorry, I mistakenly used the term “shaved” forgetting that there were two distinct terms for “have her hair cut”, and “shaved”. I meant “shaved” to mean the exact same thing as “have her hair cut off”. So my question was, is Paul telling uncovered women they should or must (imperatively) cut off their hair (or simply have their hair cut in some way) if they don’t cover their head, or merely that they may do so (permissively) if they want to?

Also, are the verbs for “to have the hair cut off” (keiro) and “to be shaven” (xurao) nearly synonymous, as it seems from the lexicons I’m reading, or does one mean something significantly different than the other?

Cheryl said: In the second part Paul gives two conditions. If it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut or if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shaved, then she has permission to cover her head. (See Robertson’s grammar in the comment above regarding the permissive meaning).

I already asked this above, but it seems like Robertson’s grammar is saying the opposite, that both “let her cut her hair” and “let her be covered” are logical necessities, or imperatives, not permissive uses of the imperative in this case. Again, I’m no expert so I could be way off here, or maybe I’m just not understanding this excerpt properly.

Cheryl said: Notice that Paul does not say that if a woman’s husband is disgraced in verse 6. In verse 6, Paul is talking about the woman’s shame. It is her shame that is given permission to be covered in verse 6.

It is true that verse 6 is talking about the woman’s shame, but Paul does seem to be tying this to the shame of her “head” (her source, the man) from the previous verses, detailing that when a woman is uncovered, it is the same as being shaven, and she shames her head because of the “shaven head” for whatever reason.
It seems like if a woman shaves her head, she, as well as her husband at the same time, are shamed (in that cultural context).

Cheryl said: In this passage, Paul is not talking about punishing a woman by shaving her head. He is just giving her permission to cover her head during prayer or prophesying, if she experiences shame. The logical necessity is to withdraw from the cultural requirement in total by cutting the hair, not by shaving the head completely off.
We need to note that the woman who has made a vow to God and has complied with God’s requirements by shaving off her hair when the vow is complete, is an honorable thing, not a dishonorable thing. It was obedience to God that caused the shaving, not a sign of shame.

Are you then saying that Paul is telling women who don’t cover their heads to cut their hair, or merely recommending/permitting it?

God did tell those who took the Nazirite Vow to shave their heads. But Paul says the woman who is uncovered shames her head because she is as if shaven, and Paul equates the shaven head with shame. I don’t know why he does, but he does.
I’ve heard prostitutes of the era had shaven heads, and it was a punishment enacted toward adulterous women in Paul’s day, but I do not know what more to make of this. I’ve also heard that Jewish women were expected to cover their head, because it was seen as a private area. I believe Dr. Payne give references for the former two reasons being applicable during the time of Paul.
For whatever reason, Paul says the uncovered woman shames her head, because it was the same as being shaven. God tells women to cover their heads with something if a shaven head is shameful (perhaps He only permitted this, I don’t know yet), so God permitted women to shave their heads, but they should or may be covered while shaven if it is a shame to have an uncovered shaven head.

I see this as akin to what the previous chapter of 1 Corinthians ( 1 Cor 10) spoke about concerning not offending brothers and sisters unnecessarily, or anyone else if it can be avoided. I see this as something Paul either requires or permits because of mercy and the desire to avoid offense (and also his desire that man and woman submit to each other mutually for the others’ benefit, and honor each other above themselves, i.e. not shame each other if they can help it), not because a woman needs to show her submission by wearing a head covering as a symbol of the man’s authority over her (a Comp view).

Cheryl said: We also can know for certainty that “nature” does not teach a law regarding the length of hair on a man or a woman. Both are equally given hair that grows unless you cut it. This equal natural expression of hair was given to both by God Himself. God is not shamed by a woman without hair (as the rule of the Nazarite vow shows) and God is not shamed by a man with long hair (as the rule of the Nazarite vows shows). Paul was not forcing a veil on a woman so Paul was not upholding a man-made law.

I would like to agree with you here because it does seem that nature itself does not teach that a man’s long hair is a shame (since God commanded some men to have long hair, like Samson. Priests could not have long hair, nor shaven heads apparently, but we are not Levitical Priests.).

I have found that almost everywhere else in the NT where “oude” begins a sentence, as in 1 Cor 11:14, the sentence is declarative and not interrogative (a question). There are only three exceptions, all in The Gospels.
Paul never uses “oude” at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a question, from my study. Therefore, this supports the interpretation that verse 14 is not saying that long hair on men is a shame, nor that long hair is a woman’s glory. The only issue I have found with taking verse 14 as a declarative statement is that there is apparently a textual variant at the beginning of verse 14.
The variant is in the Textus Receptus and it is the little “n” or “or” particle, which often heads up interrogative rhetorical questions. I don’t know how many manuscripts, and which ones exactly, contain the “n” particle before the “oude” in verse 14, but if that particle is well attested then it does make verse 14 in all likelihood a question, supporting the idea that man’s long hair is a shame (which seems to be the traditional view). I have heard that the “n” particle that is part of the Textus Receptus here is not well attested and does not appear in any Greek critical text. Maybe you know more about this?

I’m hoping to have this cleared up, because your interpretation is the only one I think I have ever heard that remains faithful to the words in the passage and appears to me to be totally logical. I have always found Comp interpretations of this passage wanting, or based on mistranslations (1 Cor 11:10′s “a woman should have authority over her head”, made into the, in my opinion, utterly grammatically and syntactically improper ” a woman should have a [symbol of] authority on her head”, and the blatant mistranslation of verse 16, changing “no such custom” into “no other custom”, even though the word rendered “such” or “other” is from my research only known to mean “such”, never “other”. This subtle change of wording drastically changes the meaning of this verse.)

I thank you for sticking with me and answering these questions when I know you have other pressing business to attend to. I can only hope my apparent density will only be used by God to help those who read these comments to understand this passage even better.