Quote:
Originally Posted by Amanah
she was disgraced until proven innocent.
For if a woman does not cover her head,
let her also have her hair cut off
But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off
Or her head shaved
Let her cover her head |
Bingo.
You see, Paul's teachings in this passage are in perfect harmony with ancient cultural norms, Jewish practice, and even implications drawn from the law. The husbands in these congregations were outraged. The women were not in subjection. And the women's abandonment of their veils was bringing dishonor upon their husbands (their heads) because according to social norms, they looked like immodest and immoral women, or women of questionable morals at best.
This teaching about "uncut hair" and "hair being the covering" is something I've only found among Apostolic Pentecostals in the United States. It's a private interpretation that is divorced from the traditional understanding of the Greek language, social history, and cultural norms that have been in place for over 1,800 years.
Here's a very interesting article that might help us see things as Paul might have understood them and better understand the principles he laid out for the church:
Hair Coverings for Married Women
Why most Orthodox women cover their hair, whether with wigs, hats or scarves.
By Alieza Salzberg
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...married-women/
Those who say that head covering wasn't an issue of modesty and public propriety truly need to dig deeper into the issue. And not just from mid-Twentieth Century American Pentecostal sources.