[princesaelenaorgana]

I had a very poor comp mentor who always quoted this verse to me and I could tell through his body language and tone of voice, even though I have Asperger's, that he believed women were inferior to men. What does it really mean?

[Don]

ISV 1Co 11:3  Now I want you to realize that the Messiah is the head of every man, and man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of the Messiah.

ESV 1Co 11:3  But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Notice how the ESV translates it differently, probably because of Eph 5. 

How do I understand it?

I think 1 Cor 11:3 is giving a analogy based on forming.  That is, the Word forms all humans (that is, God in Christ is our Creator), the woman was formed from the man in Gen 2, and the incarnate Word was formed by God (including the Holy Spirit) in the gospels.   

Head is being used as an extended metaphor implying "source of".

[Sonnet]

I agree with Don.
Since Eve was made out of the same bone and flesh as Adam, and they were both created in the image of God, and they were both told to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground,” (Gen. 1:28) then how can men be superior to women?
 

[EricW]

I agree with Don.
Since Eve was made out of the same bone and flesh as Adam, and they were both created in the image of God, and they were both told to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground,” (Gen. 1:28) then how can men be superior to women?

Men can only be superior to women if they choose to keep themselves and their wives or women living  and bound under the cursed and fallen conditions of the old creation.

[Marg]

ISV 1Co 11:3  Now I want you to realize that the Messiah is the head of every man, and man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of the Messiah.

ESV 1Co 11:3  But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Notice how the ESV translates it differently, probably because of Eph 5. 

How do I understand it?

I think 1 Cor 11:3 is giving a analogy based on forming.  That is, the Word forms all humans (that is, God in Christ is our Creator), the woman was formed from the man in Gen 2, and the incarnate Word was formed by God (including the Holy Spirit) in the gospels.   

Head is being used as an extended metaphor implying "source of".

I've looked at many English translations of 1 Cor 11:3 and found that most of them use the words man and woman and not man (or husband) and wife.  I don't believe that 1 Cor 11:3 refers to marriage but to origin or source.  That leaves Eph 5.  This is the only passage in the whole Bible that says that the husband is the head of the woman.  This passage has been hugely over-emphasized and, I believe, misinterpreted.

[Persistius]

I'm glad you asked this one...it's been on my mind more than once.

[EricW]

1 Corinthians 11:3
Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι
παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν,
κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ,
κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός.

But I-want y'all to-know that
of-each/every man the head the Christ is,
and [the] head of-[each/every]-woman the man [is],
and [the] head of-the Christ the God [is].

Re: the three "head of" clauses, the last two have the same syntax, which differs from the syntax of the first clause. [ ] indicates my translational interpolations.

[TL]

My guess would be because the first statement is the first event in human history, the creation of 'every human' or humanity.

[EricW]

My guess would be because the first statement is the first event in human history, the creation of 'every human' or humanity.

It's not the word for "human" in the first clause, but the word for man/husband (versus woman/wife). While it can be used for "person," I think in the context of 1 Cor 11 it means a male person/man. The same word is used in the second clause as well as the rest of the discussion re: head and hair and coverings.

[Don]

I think in the context of 1 Cor 11 it is ambiguous.  The reason is the "every" aner/man could easily be seen as inclusive, except if there is a reason to think otherwise and while that reason may be the use of woman in the next phrase, I do not see that as conclusive.  It might be the case that Paul is using a quote from Corinth perhaps partially in 1 Cor 11:3, that he uses to partially agree with his opponents at Corinth as far as he can before clarifying things. 

1 Cor 11 seems to me that we today are missing some piece of the puzzle to make it all hang together, as there are various options, each possible but not certain.  So I have a working assumption that there is something we are missing that would be known and obvious to the original recipients of the letter.

[EricW]

If anēr in 11:3 means every human, then males are not there in contrast to females; it becomes "Christ is the head of every human, humans are the head of women, and God is the head of Christ."

[TL]

My guess would be because the first statement is the first event in human history, the creation of 'every human' or humanity.

It's not the word for "human" in the first clause, but the word for man/husband (versus woman/wife). While it can be used for "person," I think in the context of 1 Cor 11 it means a male person/man. The same word is used in the second clause as well as the rest of the discussion re: head and hair and coverings.

As you said, often aner can and is used to refer to humans.  Contextually, it can go both ways because the first human was considered a male human, but when you add 'every' man it refers to all the humans that came from that first human.  That first event, though Christ created one human, He was in actuality through that one human, creating every human.  At least that's the way it looks to me.

How does that reflect on head coverings?  I think it's a question of honor and esteem.  That first human, later referred to as ish, is the one through whom the first woman came and then through her and him, all of humanity (vs.12 which follows the same dimensions).  There should be some honor and appreciation given.  It looks to me as if each of the 3 events, there is honor to be given: all should honor Christ for our existence, woman should honor man for she is of the same flesh and bone, and Christ has honored God as His Father.  If we all seek to honor each other (mutual submission in another angle) then there is peace.  Verse 12 again.   

[TL]

If anēr in 11:3 means every human, then males are not there in contrast to females; it becomes "Christ is the head of every human, humans are the head of women, and God is the head of Christ."

I think its more intricate.  Christ is the head of man (the first man - which in effect is every man), then through that first man came the first woman, and then at the culmination, at the right time, Christ the Messiah was born the perfect Human.

[Don]

But it does not SAY "first man or first human" it says "every man".  That is what makes it so ambiguous to me.

[EricW]

I think you're reading too much into it. While anēr can mean "human," I think anthrōpos would be the more usual way of meaning human or person, and because of how anēr is used in contrast to gynē not only in the same verse but also throughout the rest of the first half of 1 Corinthians 11, to make it mean a group that also includes gynē seems to me to be forcing a meaning on anēr to make the text be more amenable to an egalitarian reading than to just let it mean what it would more likely be plainly read to mean.