<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Interesting approach. However, methinks one would be hard pressed to show that this "praying" and/or "prophesying" done by women refers strictly to the ecstatic gifts, which passed away at the close of the Canon and the death of the Apostles.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Well, I would think that we could agree that the prophesying is a pretty open and shut case. As to prayer, I cannot prove that it means public prayer emanating from the special gifts of the Spirit, but I believe it is the more likely meaning. If Paul really intended for us to understand that the head covering was meant for the general participation of women in the corporate assembly, then the more suitable term would have been sunerxomai (see 1 Corinthians 11:18 for instance). The fact that prophesy has ceased would mean that we must extrapolate prayer to be shorthand for the corporate worship assembly in general to apply it directly today in the way it is typically observed, which I believe is reading more into the text than is necessary given the strong thematic context of the charismatic gifts throughout the remaining chapters and how much better it fits without those additional assumptions. At the very most it seems to me you can only make a case for covering oneself during prayer without making larger assumptions. So my argument at this point is simply that I find it much more compelling to believe that prayer is intended to mean prayer and that prophesy means prophesy since both of them are referred to in the context of miraculous gifts within this same discussion rather than introducing other concepts not necessary to making sense of the text.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Of course, your explanation wouldn't account for Paul's disdain for men having long hair, which is against "nature". And thus, I see your suggestion as creating perhaps more problems than it hopes to resolve. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I think our exegesis of verse 6 and following is identical actually, so I don’t understand the problem that is introduced by my narrower context in mind. The principle at work here for me is that a woman should not exercise what might be perceived as a “leading role” without a sign of authority on her. The polemic used by Paul to justify a covering is the same regardless of what we might consider the legitimate context for wearing the covering. He uses the argument from nature to justify his polemic for the covering, but I don’t believe the polemic itself bears upon the question as to what the setting is in which the covering is supposed to be worn.<br><br>Finally, I would just add a couple of thoughts here regarding the issue in general. If indeed this is referring to the general participation by women in the corporate worship assembly, then we should acknowledge that this is a new ordinance peculiar to the New Covenant that was not practiced in the Old. This has a tension of its own considering that Paul uses an argument from general revelation. This would mean that nature itself teaches that women should wear a head covering in worship at all times, but the people of God did not know this or practice it until the New Covenant. I don’t believe the “common sense” to which Paul appeals actually makes sense unless you assume that the woman is doing something that gives the appearance of usurping authority. Women participating in congregational worship do not give such an appearance ordinarily. When we consider the emphasis upon the simplicity of the New Covenant worship as opposed to the Old, with those former regulations having been fulfilled in the ministry of Christ, a reading that introduces a new ordinance of this kind is against the grain, so to speak (and I know you can identify with that analogy! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]).<br><br>Anyway, that’s the best I can do for now with just a few hours sleep over the last few days and a few minutes to spare for posting. I realize it’s off topic, but my wife, two daughters and I were blessed to receive a son into our midst on September 3rd. We named him Josiah Matthew. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/joy.gif" alt="joy" title="joy[/img]<br><br>[Linked Image]<br><br>Warm regards. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/doze.gif" alt="doze" title="doze[/img]<br><br>~Jason<br>