[Colossians]

But I know that if a father or husband is dead the woman is not under that authority. But it doesn't mean that a woman can be under the authority of general man (every man, or whichever man thinks to choose to be that authority). It means that she ought to be, if she is not already, under some specific authority. For example... if the father is dead, would she be under a living grandfather's authority?
No.

Widows who are old, are very unlikely to have an uncle Pete.

That is why the NT gives instruction to look after "those who are widows indeed".

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Note again that "every woman" includes widows, who have no marital head.

Do we then conclude that a widow could pray uncovered?

Well...considering that the covering is the hair and not some external garment, then of course not!: the widow also must have female-length hair. For Paul speaks of the fact the nature itself should tell us what is appropriate for the length of a woman's hair.

So given that the issue applies to widows as well, we necessarily conclude that the head which the widow would dishonour were she to pray uncovered (ie with male-length hair) would be male man in general, and not her (non-existent) husband.

This is enforced by the fact that we are told that it is "because of the angels". That is, the angels are aware of the protocol in the creation.

I think you are saying she doesn't belong to anyone so she needs to be submitted to every man, either specifically or in general.

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Colossians

But I know that if a father or husband is dead the woman is not under that authority. But it doesn't mean that a woman can be under the authority of general man (every man, or whichever man thinks to choose to be that authority). It means that she ought to be, if she is not already, under some specific authority. For example... if the father is dead, would she be under a living grandfather's authority?
No.

Widows who are old, are very unlikely to have an uncle Pete.

That is why the NT gives instruction to look after "those who are widows indeed".

This is within the church. It does not mean she is to be subject to unbelieving men.

[Colossians]

I think you are saying she doesn't belong to anyone so she needs to be submitted to every man, either specifically or in general.
Not submitted specifically. Just respectful.

But that is not really the issue: the issue is symbolism, not submission per se. The point is that a woman should not wear her hair as a man, for that were repugnant to God in the case where she approaches Him in prayer.

God made the creation very specifically, for a reason, and one should be mindful of that. That is what Paul is talking about.

So the issue is "what 'insignia' am I wearing on my head with regard to the order of things created?".

I clearly stated in the OP that the idea that every woman is to be submitted to every man just because she is a woman is not the intent of Paul's instruction, and that such a notion were undesireable.

[Colossians]

Good day to you.

It is 2:30am in Australia.

[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Colossians

I think you are saying she doesn't belong to anyone so she needs to be submitted to every man, either specifically or in general.
Not submitted specifically. Just respectful.

But that is not really the issue: the issue is symbolism, not submission per se. The point is that a woman should not wear her hair as a man, for that were repugnant to God in the case where she approaches Him in prayer.

God made the creation very specifically, for a reason, and one should be mindful of that. That is what Paul is talking about.

So the issue is "what 'insignia' am I wearing on my head with regard to the order of things created?".

I clearly stated in the OP that the idea that every woman is to be submitted to every man just because she is a woman is not the intent of Paul's instruction, and that such a notion were undesireable.

I'm not into symbols, but the text uses the word symbol. 1 Corinthians 11:10.

[sky.]

If the covering for a woman is her hair and you use the Scripture to say that she is covered by her hair and man is to be uncovered then should the man shave his head?

[Colossians]

Sky,

A woman is considered uncovered if her hair resembles that of a man's.

So the constraint is on the woman to not behave as a man, and not on the man to behave as Kojak.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

I'm not into symbols, but the text uses the word symbol. 1 Corinthians 11:10.

The word 'symbol' is not in the original Greek. That is why it is printed in italics. It was added by the translator. Erroneously of course.

[sky.]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Sky,

A woman is considered uncovered if her hair resembles that of a man's.

So the constraint is on the woman to not behave as a man, and not on the man to behave as Kojak.

What man?

[Colossians]

1. The text primarily concerns women, not men
2. The terms "the man" and "the woman" are used generically: they refer to any instances of mankind.

You'll need to read the OP in depth. No shortcuts here for a topic on hair.

[Colossians]

Desert,

When used with the word exousia, this always means authority over something such as a captain has authority over his troops. Nowhere in ancient Greek literature does exousia mean some kind of object that represents authority. It always means the authority itself and when used with epi, what comes after the epi is what you have authority over.
As is usual with those who focus on words rather than logical and theological principles, you have no idea what you are talking about.

1. Spiritual principles dictate that one can only have authority when one is under authority.
2. The verse (v10) begins "for this reason". That reason, is v9. V9 states that man is not made for woman, but woman for man. So v10 tells us most clearly that the power on a woman is one of power over her, primarily: it is based on the fact that he was not made for her, but she for him. Then when she is under authority, she has authority, just as Christ only has authority because He is under authority.

So your usual truncated modus operandi, where you strain at a gnat and consider the words in isolation from the body of the text, leads you astray, so much so that you essentially produce a feminist result.





"And yet we cannot escape the fact that the word “authority” is not used, but “ power” , and moreover, a power which is over her by virtue of being on her. Thus we are compelled to not only understand this as a reference to authority over the woman, but power for the woman by virtue of her being under that authority."
I've underlined and bolded the idea in question that is incorrect. Once again, Colossians errs through his ignorance of Greek.
Er...rather, learn to read.

You have completely misappropriated that which you have underlined. Read the very next sentence.

[Colossians]

bump