Cheryl Schatz

LNE,

You asked:

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.

The best that I can say is that it is a logical imperative. This means that there is something that logically goes together the necessitates the cutting of the hair. Let’s take an example of a godly Christian woman who has no need to culturally wear the head covering. Her husband will not divorce her, as he is a Christian man. So she makes the move to freedom in Christ. She is not under a cultural obligation. It may very well be that the sign that one is not under the cultural obligation is that one removes the veil and cuts the hair. It is not one or the other, but both together that spells freedom.

We can be sure that the people of that day understood the logical nature of removing both the veil and cutting the hair.

We can also be sure that Paul gives women full rights to do what they want with their heads.

How do both of these statements go together. I can only surmise that taking off the veil but keeping the long, uncut hair, gives a mixed message. Paul was not one to promote mixed messages, thus the logical imperative for one thing that follows another. If Paul had wanted women to be punished for taking off their veils by forcing them to have their hair shaved off, then he could not have said that women have power over their own head.

Does this make sense?