Lurking here and trying to take in all the relevant things being said here.
The initial post was a statement about teaching that long, uncut hair was really about enticing women to seek out power and control and this was bad but the op doesn’t really say why it’s bad. We’re left to interpret her implications and this has basically turned into a rambling pseudo-debate about whether or not the Bible actually says a woman’s hair should be uncut.
So let’s just break this down into the coherent parts:
• 1Cor11:15 clearly states that “her hair is given to her for a covering.” So no, the wearing of a veil is not biblical. The woman’s hair is her covering. The Bible is clear enough on this as to be beyond further discussion. Reading “her hair is given to her for a covering” and arguing for a veil nonetheless is a “private interpretation.”
• Reading 1Cor chapter 11 in full context clearly lays out that God has a hierarchy of authority; Christ, man, woman. Short version – the woman’s long, feminine hair is a sign of her submission to her husband and thus to God.
• The teaching of uncut hair is unclear in the scripture but it is very clear that it is a matter of a woman remaining feminine i.e. long hair and a man masculine i.e. short hair. Paul says that this is so natural that it is self-evident.
• So a feminine man or a masculine woman is out of God’s natural order just as a woman who is not submitted to her husband or a man who does not rightly exercise his natural authority in the home is out of God’s natural order.
• The idea of a doctrine requiring at least 2 or 3 verses comes from theology and is not biblical. It may be a good rule of thumb but there is nothing rigidly biblical about it. Another theological practice that is more true in practice is that of First Principles. Look it up, not important enough to get deeply into here but essentially something that is stated plainly enough to be self-evident can be a 1st principle i.e.
Acts 2:38
Threaded Mode
