But, Paul has laid out a specific order of glory that he is dealing with. I agree that in a different sense than he writes of here all of creation is the glory of God, I just don't think that's what he's addressing in this particular text.
It's not the whole Glory of creation that I am talking about.
I'm referencing that male and female human beings are made in the image of God. They are God's glory because they are made in his image. Animals, and grain, and other things are not specifically the image of God. Those things glorify God in a different way. Man is unique.
Genesis 1:27 So God created
man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and
female created he them.
Therefore, the glory of being made in the image of God comes only to mankind; and any Glory about man as specifically male and female is what Paul is talking about in the sentences of 1Corinthians 11:3. Paul doesn't use the generic, 'anthropos' (man), but rather words specifically meaning both male and human, and also female and human.
As far as I know -- all Glory a person has, is connected to God by their name; But -- when God first created Adam and Eve, he called them as a pair by a single name; Adam : Genesis 5:2 --- God did not call them by two different names. Rather: It is Adam who named and gained power over Eve at a later date, but only after she fell into sin and not a moment before.
That is why I am wondering about what is 'wrong' with the woman in a new creation, with Christ redeeming her every bit as much as he redeems man. Why would she differs from man in Glory in way which she did not before sin ?
If woman, and I mean -- a human being, and not the church as a whole -- is what Paul is talking about in 1Corinthians 11:3, then interpreting that as making her somehow separate from the man, and a possession of man for his Glory, would symbolically makes her the equivalent of a trophy or a crown. Therefore the elders in Revelation 4:4 or someone should be throwing women into the sea if women really and always and only belong to man; for the other thing that is man's Glory is explicitly "a crown of life" and that is thrown into the sea in order to give God Glory over man's glory.
Revelation 2:10, Genesis 3:20, Revelation 4:10-11
And the angel stuff you speak of is really confusing, I *really* don't understand what Tertullian is talking about...
When I read Isaiah, about the angels, I come to the very distinct conclusion that the angels are, NOT watching -- for their eyes are covered (veiled). With a little more study, I come to the conclusion that the seraphim are serpent like angels, and that's why Moses had a seraph serpent (fire serpent) on his staff. As far as I can tell, the seraphim are likely the same class of angel from which came the Devil, except that he lost his wings and no longer is a bearer of light; whereas the seraphim in heaven have both wings and fire. They are like the sun, or like lightning, or stars when they wish to be; That is why the devil's name was once lucifer (light bearer). So -- perhaps the Seraphim as a class have a reason to be ashamed that the Devil came from them, and one particular woman (Eve) who was deceived by the devil, but it doesn't make any sense to me that the angels wear veils. while the woman wears a dominion cap of authority when angels are mentioned, according to the Greek (1Corinthians 11:10), and some kind of turban according to Tertulian. Its a total disconnect.
For I looked to see what can be found about women in heaven, or in a heavenly liturgy like Isaiah or Revelation.
But the only headpiece mentioned in Revelation for a woman is not a Veil, which would 'cover' her, rather she wears a crown (Revelation 12:1) which is a dominion hat, but one clearly made of angels (for stars are a sign meaning angels), and that kind of thing on her head would definitely NOT hide her FROM the angels. Both Isaiah and Revelation are visions of the same place, so they ought to be consistent.
But: if long hair is a covering, then it is strange that the only place it is mentioned in the heavenly visions is in a very negative light: eg: Revelation 9:7-8.
I don't know why you are repeating the shorn hair commands to me, for yes -- it is a command; but I see no women in heaven with hair or coverings. So maybe having short hair is appropriate.
I do agree that Paul lays out an order: 1st -- "I [Paul] am a follower of Christ" 2nd -- "be you-all imitators of me"
and he does this immediately before laying out a second order, the order you are speaking about -- but he does it as a series of sentence fragments; I've looked at an interlinear for the sentence, where translators show interpolated, added words that aren't in the original Greek in brackets [] , and all the brackets are concentrated around the woman; 1Corinthians 11:3
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/11-3.htm
When I study the sentence, this is what I see and think:
1Corinthians 11:3 but I'll have you know that of all [a] male, the head [united with] the Anointed, is .
The words Head and Anointed are both subject words, neither of them is a predicate. Their genders differ, hence that usually indicates a family/covenant/marriage relationship in Greek for otherwise the gender of adjectives are supposed to match (and they don't). Thats why I say [united with]; So -- One way it can be read is that: Out of all that is male, the head is the anointed. Or the annointed is the Head. Or, I might read it that all heads united with the Christ are male -- but there is only one head (singular) male.
What I am sure of is that this head male, is in the position of some kind of elder and is consecrated (anointed).
Then the sentence goes on, and a semicolon in the original text indicates where the word 'but' would be in English.
1Corinthinans 11:3 ... but [a] head woman [united with] the male,
Which is an incomplete sentence fragment and not really translatable without adding a whole bunch of words.
Again there are no predicate (AKA accusative case words) in the ongoing sentence fragment, and worse -- there is no definite article on woman, and no adjective saying every woman, and worst of all -- no verb whatsoever. We don't know who this woman is; but there is only one of her and being juxtaposed with a male -- that is normally a sign that two people (male and female) are married.
And in the final part of the sentence, Paul switches to genitive grammar which breaks the previous patterns and says, "but head -of-the-annointed [is] God." No marriage is implied as the words are not gender mismatched and Paul is very careful not to allow homosexual unions to be suggested when it comes to God.
So -- what I see is that God is the one who put an annointed male as head of [a] [particular] marriage.
Nothing more. So it looks to me.
But I see clearly that tons of translators are adding words to English versions of the bible in order to make sense out of what Paul said in that passage; and it's not very clear to me exactly what Paul means ( 2Peter 3:16 ), except that an elder is anointed, not the wife, and God is the head of anointing.
But even if I accept the KJV's version of the translation of 1Corinthians 11:3 and 1Corinthians 11:5, it's not going to help; for the KJV doesn't say her 'own' head, but merely her 'head'. So, Paul could mean that she tries to pray together with her anointed/consecrated husband, or Paul could mean she prays without a covering on her head in general.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here either. Paul says that if a woman will not cover let her shave her head. When Paul writes let her be shorn, it is a command. In other words if she will not cover her head she is commanded to shave her head. Either way she dishonors her head, which in this case is the man but ultimately God
Yes, it's a command. But -- It was you who brought up Tertullian, and church history -- was it not?
Tertulian is also an early witnesses to
men of the church wearing pointy hats called mitres:
Tertulian Chapter 14: Clue to the error of the Jews: "He was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned with a garment down to the foot, and with a turban and a clean mitre, that is, (with the garb) of the SECOND ADVENT; since He is demonstrated as having attained "glory and honour."
http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0198_tertullian_answer-jews.html
So, even though Paul says men should go bald (like he himself??), the fact is that Tertulian witnesses that men wear hats, eg: for church too, at least some of them do part of the time. His rules must be very nuanced.
