[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This sort of reminds me of the fallacious argument over if her hair is her covering how is she supposed to remove it when not praying or prophesying...see actually Paul does not say she has to remove her covering. He was only pointing out how wrong it is for her to prophesy or pray without one.

Let's look at the grammar again of the first verse in question
1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Notice that Christ is the head of EVERY man...not "Christ is the head of THE man"....Using a definite article might imply a certain amount of uniqueness. Christ is not the head of husbands only, but is head of EVERY man. But then Paul adds a definite article in the remainder of the context..THE man is the head of a woman. It's talking about a specific man in that instance...as opposed to the indefinite. The converse view, which you are espousing perhaps unwittingly, makes me your head...it would make every male your head.

Again Christ is THE head of every man. THE man IS THE head of a woman and God is the head of Christ....even if you disagree with the word man refering to a husband in that relation to the woman you still have a verse that explicitly teaches headship.

Notice here again how Paul uses the articles
1Co 11:7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

Are you my glory? Notice the play between the definite and indefinite articles? Is EVERY woman the glory of EVERY man or is this speaking of THE woman and THE man...obviously. The definite articles here are important Newman

Notice what Paul says here
1Co 11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head.

Not "The man", but ANY man.

Also the sole reason for a woman having long hair is NOT simply in relation to her husband. This goes back to the "she can't take off her veil if it's her hair" fallacy...

Long hair is a glory given to all women
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

If she cuts her covering off or if you will, does not wear a veil she disgraces her head when praying or prophesying

The notion that she does not need to have long hair UNTIL she gets married might sound like a good argument to NOT remain a virgin UNTIL she gets married....in other words not save it for marriage. If her long hair is a symbol of submission to a husband by cutting it she shows symbolically her lack of submission perhaps to any possibly suiters :-)



Ok...or ORDER OF CREATION. The point isn't that she needs to be submissive...the point is what is the context saying. Newman...Paul is tying in the subject of hair and coverings with headship...even if it only means order of creation or source of the point is still headship and this throws a monkey wrench into the notion that Paul was ONLY addressing a cultural issue and not a universal one. It's an absolute universal truth that God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of man and the man is the head of a woman.


Well that sounds Trinitarian....no, it sounds Arian...God created Christ and Christ created man and then woman from the man?

2 tn Or "the husband is the head of his wife." The same Greek words translated "man" and "woman" can mean, as determined by context, "husband" and "wife" respectively. Such an approach is followed by NAB, TEV, NRSV, and NLT (with some variations).

This whole post is excellent, Prax. Lots of things to consider. You broke it down in an excellent way for agreement or rebuttal. lol