The spiritual discernment involved in interpreting I Corinthians’,11th chapter isn’t necessarily something you would think would fall into awkward use, but it surely does.
3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6For 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.
7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
It appears there is sometimes a temptation to overemphasize the headship seen in V3 that leads to being more at ease to separate the verse from the rest and not to accommodate the Apostle’s elaboration concerning that headship. I also see difficulties arise in inserting extra-biblical meanings which are neither disproved nor stated or implied at all.
There is only one reason:
V7”For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God”
Yes, the head of woman, of man, of Christ, God as stated, the order of subjection in the most fundamental of meanings.
Possibly, this is like the couple that went to the bank to withdraw a large stack of unbound singles from the teller. A large line of intensely curious onlookers behind sees the woman attempting to manhandle the many bills, but because she didn’t bring a purse, everyone becomes embarrassed with her. Of course, you-know-who was able to catch and carry every one of them with ease, recomposing all anxiety (shame).
The Bank (Head) wasn’t at fault for the missing purse, but it would have been handy advice to apply beforehand, or accommodate shall we say. Neither is the purse (covering) to be confused with the bank, but knows who may not be following instructions for the greater good.
My point is as with this passage, non-partitioned.