I Corinthians 11:2ff
Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, has been addressing many issues which have either been brought to his attention via those from Chloe’s household, (1:11; 5:1) or through a letter which they brought to him (7:1). Many of these issues have centered on the relationship of the Corinthian believers to each other and the divisions between them. Up to this point in the letter Paul has had to challenge his hearers to obey some very heavy exhortations and teachings. At times he has thrown the full weight of his apostleship behind his exhortations and one sees that this fellowship was in great need of correction for some very serious sins. When we reach our passage, (11:2-16) we find a Paul who has found some point at which he can provide invaluable teaching, but which does not appear to be a correction in the same stern sense as much else in the letter. Instead, Paul seeks to teach the Corinthians to follow a certain practice, which for them has most likely been only a minor problem.
Paul begins this passage with words of praise:
(2) I commend you because you have remembered me in everything and just as I delivered them to you, you are holding fast the traditions. Paul’s praise for the Corinthians’ “holding fast†to the “traditions†(paradoveiV) he had preached to them is in stark contrast to both the preceding chapter and the immediately ensuing passage (vv. 17-34). Although the language of the passage does not state that he is addressing a problem in the Corinthian church, which he has been made aware of, (cf. 7:1,25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1) he is clearly giving directions for a manner of public worship that the church is probably not presently engaged in. However, it still must be noted that the fact that Paul brings this issue up at all is some indication that this has become an issue for the church. The tenor of his opening remarks also alerts us to the fact that he doesn’t consider this issue to be one which is on a par with those he has addressed which are inflicting great wounds on the unity of the body. Except for his warning against being “argumentative,†(filovneikoV v. 16) he does not appear to foresee great difficulty on the part of the Corinthians to accept this teaching.
But, why does Paul praise them for “holding fast†to “traditions� Elsewhere he has spoken of “traditions†in the same positive way as here, (cf. Gal 1:14; II Thess. 2:15; 3:6) but also once in a negative sense (Col 2:8). Perhaps it is because the issue following is not of the greatest concern to Paul, as is the issue of the “Lord’s supper†in vv. 17-34, in which he begins by stating that he has “no praise†for them. It would appear then that Paul has sought to contrast one area of ministry in which he simply wants them to follow an established practice (cf. v. 16) with another in which he is quite dissatisfied with their behavior. His use of paradovseiV (traditions), then, can be seen in the positive light; that he believes his following directives to be a “tradition†passed on to them when he was first with them and which is followed in the other “churches of God†(v. 16).
(3) Now I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of woman, and Christ is the head of God. It is significant that Paul begins his argument with this statement. However he means for his readers to understand “head†(kefalhv), it is clear that Paul’s grammar is calling for this to be the foundation for the proceeding rationale; that women should cover their heads in worship and men should not. We must first consider how Paul might have meant his readers to understand this word – kefalhv. While the true meaning Paul meant to convey by his use of this word must remain just out of our reach, we must attempt, at any rate, to come to some conclusion about it’s use in ancient literature and ultimately what Paul’s hearers understood. Only then can we get a sense of why he would begin by using this “headship†formula as he has done elsewhere (cf. Ephesians 5:23).
The B.A.G.D. gives the range of meanings for kefalhv as: a) physical head of man or beast, b) uppermost part or extremity or c) figuratively to denote superior rank. The L.S.J. adds a couple different options, including a) source, b) sum, c) crown or d) completion. The most common translation for this word is simply the literal rendering, “head.†The translation of this word, therefore, in its allegorical sense, is what is really at issue here. For the most part, scholarship is equally divided between the concepts of “source†or “origin†and “authority†or “rulership,†and so whatever our conclusions we must remember to be charitable towards all with whom we might disagree.
Of the 324 uses of the word kefalhv in ancient literature, which I have personally read, dating from the writings of Homer in the 8th Century B.C. to Pausanius in the 2nd Century A.D., there are very few examples which suggests that “head†means anything similar to superior rank. One sense in which we find an idea of rulership is within the head/body metaphor, though this is a difficult meaning to pin down in that there are two different ideas being conveyed. One example is from Josephus: “of which the royal city Jerusalem was the supreme, and presided over all the neighboring country, as the head does over the body.â€Â[1] This does indeed give the sense of authority, though as we look more closely at the ancient head/body metaphor, we will find disagreement as to the actual meaning. In fact, we will see that even within examples using this metaphor there can be found equally sound meanings on both sides of the debate.
Other examples extant, not of the head/body variety, include such uses as the following: “to command the rear, he himself ran to the head of the company,â€Â[2] “…received the tribute of the country, and of every head among them,â€Â[3] and “pay half a shekel to God for every head.â€Â[4] While these sources are not much help to us except to provide clear evidence that “head†most often referred to the physical head or figuratively as enumerating individuals, Philo provides many other helpful examples. As a contemporary of Jesus, Philo affords us one of the closest glimpses into the meaning of kefalhv at the time of the writing of the New Testament.
For evidence which suggests a meaning of “source†or “origin†we can look at On Rewards and Punishments, where Philo writes that “For as in an animal the head is the first and best part and the tail the last…the virtuous one, whether single man or people, will be the head of the human race and all the others like the limbs of a body which draw their life from the forces in the head and at the top.â€Â[5] While the sense here appears to agree with our position of “source,†Wayne Grudem has stated that “There is a sense here of the members of the ‘body’ being encouraged and directed by the virtuous leaders who are the ‘head,’ but there is no sense in which the ordinary people derive their being or existence from the leaders who are the ‘head;’ thus, ‘source’ would be an inappropriate sense of kefalhv here as well.â€Â[6] What Grudem has done is opt for a different translation of the latter part of this verse. His reads: “are animated by the powers in the head and at the top.†This is part of the difficulty in interpreting exactly what is meant. In charity, we will recognize that it could mean either, but for our purposes we are well justified to see the sense of “origin,†especially within the context of the passage.
Another example in Philo is in The Preliminary Studies where he writes, “And of all the members of the clan here described Esau is the progenitor, the head as it were of the whole creature…â€Â[7] This verse is a nice example of the use of “head†to describe one thing as the “source from which something develops;†the actual definition. Two other verses might clarify these as well. In Moses II Philo writes, “Since the mind is head and ruler of the sense-faculty in us,..â€Â[8] and finally, in On Dreams we read “‘Head’ we interpret allegorically to mean the ruling part of the soul, the mind on which all things lie…â€Â[9] In both of these verses we must understand just how the head “rules†the soul. Is the head the authority from which the soul derives its activity or is it the place from which the soul derives its being? How one answers this unanswerable question will both determine one’s view of “headship†and will itself be determined by that view.
Philo does however provide some evidence for a possible reading of “superior rank,†“rulership,†or “authority;†although we are still at somewhat of a loss to completely understand this allegorical usage. In The Special Laws we read, “Just as nature conferred the sovereignty of the body on the head…conducted it thither to take command and established it on high with the whole framework from neck to foot set below…â€Â[10] We also see in another verse in On Rewards and Punishments its use in an allegorical sense: “So then one such man in a city, if such be found, will be superior to the city…as the head above the body, to be conspicuous on every side, not for its own glory but rather for the benefit of the beholders.â€Â[11] This verse is of particular interest for the sense we get of “headship†as it relates to one being both the “glory†of another and a beneficent partner. In v. 7 we are dealing with one being the glory of another, and if our understanding of v. 3 is correct, that the man is the “source†for the woman, this beneficence is a better reading than any idea of “superiority†or “authority†and agrees with our argument here.
When we consider the New Testament writers’ use of kefalhv we must look to the Septuagint (LXX) for its contemporary meaning. Here we see its full range of meaning displayed. In its use as the physical head of man or beast, see for instance: “The beast had four wings of a bird on its back and four heads;†(Daniel 7:6). Another common use was as the top of something, which, in this case, gives us cause to think we might understand more fully the use of this word in terms of “superior rankâ€Â: “The LORD will make you the head, and not the tail; you shall be only at the top, and not at the bottom†(Deuteronomy 28:13).
An important use for this study is that of a pre-eminence of position or responsibility of one person before a group of people or of a principal city of a region. Consider Numbers 31:26: "You and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the ancestral houses of the congregation make an inventory of the booty captured, both human and animal,†and “For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin†(Isaiah 7:8,9). But, we must also take special note of 1 Chronicles 23:24 where the head of the family is a;rconteV, or ruler: “These were the sons of Levi by their ancestral houses, the ‘heads of families’ (ajrconteV tw¾n patriw¾n) as they were enrolled according to the number of the names…†The translators of the Septuagint felt compelled here to make clear the sense of rulership, and in so doing used ajrconteV instead of kefalhv. This is just such the case in the Old Testament of the LXX when the translators avoided kefalhv for the most part when rendering “authority.â€Â
We must also weigh carefully how this word was used by Paul as well as the other New Testament authors. Paul uses kefalhv twenty-four times throughout his letters, accounting for ten different passages. Eight uses in Paul indicate nothing more than the physical head of mankind.[12] In all other uses except one (I Corinthians 12:21) Paul is referring to Christ as the “head†and in two places (Ephesians 5:23 and in our passage in I Corinthians 11:3) the man is said to also be “head†of the wife.[13] In virtually all of Paul’s references to “head,†then, there is a metaphorical use and it is therefore necessary to attempt to understand just what he means.
As “head†Christ is said by Paul to be that from which “the whole body, nourished…grows with a growth that is from God†(Col. 2;19) and that “he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead†(Col. 1:18). In this reading, Christ as the “head†is seen as the one from whom life comes – as if a source thereof. In two places, however, Paul’s suggestion is one of authority. Paul states that, “He (God) is the head of every power and authority†(Colossians 2:19) and that “He (God) has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church.†(Eph. 1:22) It is vital here to note that Paul was very careful to qualify just what sort of subjection his later reference to “head†entailed. The fact that He writes “kai. pa,nta u`pe,taxen u`po. tou.j po,daj auvtou/†(and he has put (subjected) all things under his feet) suggests that it was not enough for Paul to let kefalhv stand alone.
In the many occurrences of the Gospels and Acts, only a few have a meaning other than that of the physical head. In Acts 27:15 we see that Paul’s ship was “caught by the storm and could not head into the wind†and we read of “heads†of grain in the Gospels. Outside of the Gospels, we see many uses in Revelation, but these all refer to the physical head of a human or beast. We also see in Peter its use to describe a “capstone†(1 Peter 2:7). While it may never be possible this side of heaven to come to a complete conclusion regarding the exact meaning of kefalhv, it seems clear that only Paul uses the term metaphorically, and that usage is still subject to some valid debate.
Wayne Grudem has also shown other ancient witnesses, which suggest allegorical uses of “head†to mean “authority,†although some of these suffer contexts which render them questionable for our use. A few such examples he has found include Theodotian, a translator of the LXX: Judges 10:18, “He will be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead;â€Â[14] Libanius’ Oration 20.3.15: People who derided government authorities are said to have “heaped on their own heads insults,†and Greek Anthology 8.19 (Epigram of Gregory of Nazianus, fourth century A.D.): Gregory is called the “head of a wife and three children.â€Â[15] While the contexts of the first two illustrate governmental authority and, therefore, are difficult to compare to our non-governmental passage, the final example is far too late to be of much help and may in fact show a dependence upon the writer’s interpretation of the New Testament texts in light of the culture of that writer’s day.
While it is clear that both “authority†and “source†are well attested in ancient Greek, our immediate context must help determine the best choice for kefalhv. The only sense of authority in this passage is that which comes in v. 10 where the woman is said to have a “authority†on her head. This authority appears to relate to her own authority to prophesy and not another’s over her. It would seem more likely, then, that what Paul has in mind is an argument, by use of the “headship†of women and men alike, that both are equally “derived†from each other (v. 11,12) and therefore must operate in a manner fitting with the unity of the body, which has been a running theme throughout the Epistle to this point, and will be a major point in the following chapter.
Paul then seems to use kefalhv in both its metaphorical and literal sense. He states that
(4) Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered (having down the head) is disgracing his head. (5) And every woman praying or prophesying with uncovered head is disgracing her head – for the one is the same as having her head shaved. (6) For if a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to have her head shaved, she should cover her head. Here Paul is most likely playing with the allegorical and literal sense of “head,†noting that if a man prays or prophesies with his physical head covered, he dishonors his “head,†that is Christ. The same structure is seen in the woman who dishonors her “head,†or husband, by praying or prophesying with her physical head uncovered. But, the question is asked, how does one honor or dishonor another by covering or leaving uncovered one’s head? This will be answered in conjunction with the following verse (7), but for now it should be noted that the man’s uncovering, “having down the head,†has given interpreters some trouble.
Some would translate the phrase as referring to long hair. Murphy-O’Connor has shown that long hair in first century Roman culture on a man was “usually in conjunction with homosexuality, where longer hair was artistically decorated to resemble a woman’s.â€Â[16] This is troubling, though, in as much as Paul could have easily used koma¾/ (“long hairâ€Â), which he does in vv. 14,15. Another possibility is that of a man praying or prophesying with something hanging down on the head, that is some sort of head covering. The difficulty here lies in the fact that Paul does not use peribolaivou, as he does in v. 15 to refer to a “covering.†Fee notes that such use of kata kefaleV does have other attestation: Plutarch, for example, describing a man “having the himation down the head,†meaning that he “covered his head with part of his toga so as to be unrecognized by the people,†as a sign of shame.[17] Finally, however, Fee notes that it is mere speculation to ascertain the exact meaning of the text, especially in light of the fact that men rarely covered their heads in ancient Roman, Greek or Jewish culture.[18] However we understand it, then, it appears most likely that by wearing a head covering the man is disgracing Christ by doing something which is not customary for a man to do, a reading which suggests that men and women are being called to reflect the fact that they are of unique genders.
Likewise, the practice of a woman praying or prophesying with an uncovered head is said to be just as shameful as the man’s. Whatever the reason for this, whether cultural (vv. 14,15) or because of angels (v. 10) or because of the effect this will have upon the “glory†of another, it is clear that the injunction for and against head coverings is inextricably tied to the male/female relationship and that with their relationship to God.
Although the marriage relationship is in view in verse 3, we should not immediately view the men and women in Paul’s exhortation to be married men and women. His language in verses 4 and 5 (pa¾V ajnh;r, “every man†v. 4 and pa¾sa dev gunh., “every woman†v. 5) and verse 8, “man did not come from woman†should not lead us to the conclusion that these are married individuals. His exhortation seems to point toward maleness and femaleness in general and therefore such distinction should be maintained in the worship experience.
The issue of head coverings does cause us some difficulty. Craig Keener begins by noting that some scholars have considered this passage to be an “interpolation,†though the grounds for such a position are “impossibly weak.â€Â[19] Indeed, one notices in the apparatus of the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition, absolutely no textual evidence to suggest that this passage was a post-Pauline insertion. Therefore, we have no good reason to view this difficult passage as anything other than Pauline. It is clear, at least, that Paul does indeed want the Corinthian women to cover their heads when praying and prophesying. We must determine why.
If we consider the context of this passage as part of the larger Epistle, we see Paul consistently calling for submission of some to a certain practice whose end result is unity. Paul even claims to submit himself to a certain lifestyle, which he otherwise had a “right†(evxousi,an) to engage in, namely “food and drink,†“taking a believing wife along,†and “right of support,†for the furtherance of the Gospel. Paul states that the Corinthian women should wear the head coverings as “authorityâ€Â[20] (evxousi,an) on her own head. Of course, one outstanding question is just whose authority is on her head; her own or her husbands. It seems most likely, in this context, that the woman is to show that she does indeed have the authority to “pray or prophesy†and the head covering shows this to the body. So then she is submitting to the head covering, not because of the authority of her husband, but because of what is right culturally. This will be covered more fully under
v. 10.
There is certainly much to be said about the custom of women in ancient Rome wearing head coverings. One theory is that prostitutes did not cover their heads – flowing hair being a seductive trait – and so Paul is requiring the Corinthian women to do so. Keener notes, however, that such evidence for this is “slender.â€Â[21] Closer to the worship context of our passage, however, is the practice of pagan prophetesses, who were said to have “uncovered and disheveled heads,â€Â[22] but Keener makes the point that if Paul were to compare the two groups of women, head coverings would not have been the most important comparison.
Keener also notes the possibility that some “well-to-do women†were no longer covering their heads because it was not befitting women of their status, but the objects of lust they were becoming in the service was cause for serious disorder in the fellowship.[23] In the same way that Paul submitted himself for the sake of the body, he is now asking the women to maintain the cultural practice of head covering for a similar reason. The same would be true of a modern day church, which met on the beach in Hawaii or California. If some of the women found nothing wrong with wearing bikinis to the beach on Saturday and chose to also do so on Sunday, this might cause serious problems in the service. Their being asked to cover up a bit would be in line with what Paul is asking these women to do. If, however, the problem in Corinth was a status issue – quite possible given the makeup of Corinth and the social dimensions which caused some to desire to elevate themselves[24] – Paul is still seeking order and unity in the church service. It is known that in the early church believers of all economic status had to meet in the same homes, typically that of a wealthier member, and this may account for the status division.[25] It is noteworthy that Paul’s enjoinder to wear head coverings is only given in the context of worship and not in daily life, as in common gatherings in such homes.
As for whether or not women would have been expected to wear a head covering in worship, Ben Witherington notes ancient Roman artworks which show a procession of individuals offering sacrifice in which the woman at the head of the procession is the only one with her head covered.[26] He also notes that during the “prophetic reading of the entrails†head coverings would be worn.[27] For our context this is an important observation, even if it does not completely conform to the Christian worship in Corinth. However, noting the fact that men are not to cover their heads in worship forces us to look beyond this contemporary cultural practice, as the men bringing the sacrifice also covered their heads. Paul is certainly not arguing that the cultural manner of offering sacrifice should be imitated by the Corinthian church, so we must look to the way in which he continues his argument to reflect the new worship experience in Christ. After all, Witherington remarks further that “Paul was about the business of reforming his coverts’ social assumptions and conventions in the context of the Christian community.â€Â[28]
Paul now gives his first rationale for why the woman is to cover her head but the man is not:
(7) A man should not cover his head, for he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. This is not an easy rationale to understand. Paul has certainly in mind the Genesis account of the creation, a point which he will develop more fully in the next two verses. However, the Genesis account clearly proclaims both man and woman to be made in the “image and likeness†of God. The fact that Paul should note the creation order may be important for our understanding. While man was made from the dust of the ground, woman was made from man. In the “headship†sense of “source†or “origin,†(v. 3) which we have chosen to accept for this passage, it makes sense that Paul would continue this line of thought: as man was made first he bears the most direct image, perhaps, while woman bears the image of God through her relationship with man, having come from him. In fact, he continues it in the next two verses as well.
But, how woman might be man’s glory and at the same time not be stated to be the “image and glory†of God leaves us puzzled. By Paul’s previous phrasing, that man disgraces his head (Christ) while woman disgraces her head (man) by certain actions (not wearing head coverings), it appears that for Paul the special relationship by which Christ is the man’s origin and man is the woman’s origin (v. 8), is endangered by any act which might conceal the gender-specific differences between the man and the woman, primarily in this context by hairstyle or head covering. So, Paul is not saying that woman is not made in the “image and likeness†of God, but rather she has been made as a man’s glory.
F.F. Bruce notes that the way in which Paul viewed the “image and glory†of God in man was by reading Genesis 1:26 in the light of 2:18, that “it was first in the form of the male that mankind was created to bear the image of God.â€Â[29] Furthermore, he states that by “male and female he created them†is taken to mean “first male and later female.â€Â[30] If Paul does, in fact, have this in view, our understanding of how the woman is the glory of man is clearer: while man is the glory of God more directly, woman is the God by being the glory of man. This would seem to be in agreement with the argument he advances in the next verse, beginning with the coordinating conjunction gar.
(8) For man is not from woman, but woman from man; (9) and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.
These two verses serve to qualify the preceding verse. There is something, in Paul’s thought, which shows the importance of the creation account to help us understand how woman is man’s glory, but not the other way round. Fee makes the point that the woman “exists to his honor as the one who having come from man is the one companion suitable to him, so that he might be complete and that together they might form humanity.â€Â[31] It is exactly this complementary nature of man and woman which accounts for the need to maintain distinguishing gender features. In the context of worship the man must not appear as a woman, with a head covering, and the woman must not appear “unwomanly,†without one. The cultural distinctives, which Paul enjoins both man and woman to maintain, are those which demonstrate the truth of creation and its continuous relevance for worship. Disgrace is the result of the failure of either to demonstrate the differences God has created; the man disgraces Christ and the woman disgraces man, as per the creation order.
It is then
(10) For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have authority over her head. Before we try to understand what angels have to do with this, it is important to determine how Paul intended to use the term authority and how this might relate to the preceding argument. The translation “have authority over her head†is much preferred to that of the NIV (“sign of authorityâ€Â) and the NAS (“symbol of authorityâ€Â) for two reasons. First, these translations argue for an interpretation of head coverings as a “sign of authority†against the most literal reading of the text and anything within the text which might suggest such a reading. Rather, the head coverings should be considered a “sign†of the complementariness of humanity. Second, these translations appear to be derived from the idea that the head covering is a “sign†of the man’s authority over the woman, a translation determined by a variant understanding of “head†in v. 3. Since nowhere in the text do we get the sense that head coverings are to be understood in any light other than that which helps draw the gender distinctives, we must allow the authority to refer only to that which the woman has.
Fee’s solution is also troublesome and not wholly acceptable. It is his position that the woman’s authority is that which allows her “freedom or right to choose.â€Â[32] This, even as he points out, does not adequately address the fact that she does not, in fact, have the right to choose; Paul has already determined that she will wear a head covering. What, then, may this “authority†refer to? Witherington offers the possible interpretation that “since woman is the glory of man and her hair is her own glory, she must cover her head so that only God’s glory is reflected in Christian worship.â€Â[33]
So what do angels have to do with a woman having “authority over her head?†There has been much debate as to not only who these “angels†(ajggevlouV) were, but how they should influence whether or not a woman wore a head covering. Two problematic interpretations include the idea out of Genesis 6 that there are lustful angels, “sons of God,†who will be tempted by the sensuality of the women’s uncovered heads in worship. The other offers a different translation of ajggevlouV to refer to “messengers†from other churches (v. 16) who were visiting the church at Corinth and would have been offended by the women’s practice of worshipping without head coverings.[34]
The problem with both interpretations follow the same line of reasoning. In the latter instance, Paul nowhere else uses the term “angels†to refer to messengers in this sense. We would therefore be reading into the text something which Paul likely did not mean. The former instance fails to recognize that the interpretation of “sons of God†meaning fallen angels is troublesome on its own merits. Even if they were fallen angels (lustful), what would the rationale be for wearing the head coverings? Would hiding her hair from the lustful angel be enough to subdue him?
Fee observes that this argument is dependent upon a translation not of “covering†but rather “veiling,†for which there is scant evidence of such a practice in ancient literature.[35] A third interpretation might get us closer to the answer. Elsewhere in the Bible we find instances of the angelic presence in worship, or at least their active observance of us (cf. Psalm 138:1; Hebrews 12:22; 1 Cor. 4:9). If in fact Paul views the angels as observing the worshippers, it would seem that his argument calling for orderliness in this sense – men and women observing specific gender roles in worship – is made even stronger. The angels who are observing the worshipping church are representative of the host of heaven, including God Himself, who are present in the worship setting and therefore must be honored.
The fact that this verse begins with “for this reason†alerts us to the fact that the authority is necessitated both by that which follows and that which is preceded. Verses 8 and 9 stress that woman is from man while verses 11 and 12 stress that now, “in the Lord,†man is from woman.
(11) Nevertheless, neither is woman apart from man, nor is man apart from woman, and (12) For just as woman is from man, in the same way man comes from woman. But all things are from God.
Whatever importance previously derived form the fact that one comes from the other, this is cancelled out by the fact that neither man nor woman is “apart†or independent of the other. Therefore, it seems right that the context of the passage, praying and prophesying, allows us to see that the woman’s “right†or “authority†to pray or prophesy is by the authority which comes from God, not that which is derived from the man. The way in which she behaves while praying and prophesying (vv. 5,6) is tied to, as is the man’s, her femaleness as his is to his maleness, but her authority to do so comes from God himself (v. 12). Any reading which seeks to subject the woman to the man in worship, i.e. in praying and prophesying, must take into consideration the radical leveling Paul is calling for. The man and the woman are equal partners in worship. The only distinction which must be observed is that which honors God in His creative act: the maleness and femaleness which He has created.
(13) Judge these things among yourselves: Is it fitting or proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered? (14) Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace to him, (15) but if a woman wears long hair, it is her glory? Because long hair is given to her for a covering. Here we are brought back by Paul to his fundamental argument begun in verse 3 that “nature†has something to say about the uniqueness of male and female. Whether or not we agree that long hair is as “natural†for a woman as short hair is for a man, it is obvious that for most cultures (our own notwithstanding) long hair on a man has been seen as feminine while short hair on a woman as masculine. Paul’s argument continues, however, by saying that such long hair is not only the woman’s “glory,†but it has been “given†to her as a covering. Leon Morris notes that “nature is giving a hint at the need for a woman to have her head covered on appropriate occasions.â€Â[36] Keener is perhaps a bit more helpful than Morris when he states that Paul’s appeal to nature was a “standard Greco-Roman argument†by many of his day.[37] Perhaps we can see here, then, something more than a pronouncement for all time that long hair is the requirement for women and short hair for men. In the context of worship men and women should maintain their gender distinctions before God.
Finally, Paul closes his argument by reminding the Corinthians that he is requiring of them the same as he requires of the other “churches of God.â€Â
(16) If anyone is disposed to be argumentative, we have no other practice-- nor do the churches of God. He no doubt expects some to be “argumentative†about this and so he demonstrates that this is not a new teaching. As a precursor to chapter 12, Paul here calls upon the Corinthian church to accept its place in the larger Body of Christ. This has been a serious issue for the Corinthians and Paul reminds them of this.
What Paul has so successfully done, then, is to remind the Corinthian church, and therefore us as well, that when coming together for worship, women have the same authority as men, to pray and prophesy. They – and we – must not restrict women from being fully engaged in the life of the worshipping church. To do so ignores the fact that woman is from God (v. 12) and has been given authority to worship (vv. 5, 10). It is also vital that we accept our differences, which are most clearly seen in our gender. That we complement one another in the image of God (v. 7) is reason enough to honor Him by maintaining our gender distinctives, especially in our worship before Him. Our complementariness also shows us the equality of man and woman before God. Any actions which seek to subject woman to man in our congregations, which are not otherwise specifically commanded by Scripture must be dealt with in light of passages like these, which call for unity in the body as best displayed in the male/female dichotomy.
Written by Scott
The Greek obviously did not format and I'm not going to waste the time to translitera it would most likely be foreign to the reader anyway. If I didn't translate it within the text and it is not legible, you're just out of luck. Ask if you want clarification.
Footnotes
[1] The Perseus Digital Library (Medford, Mass: Tufts University, 2000 – [cited 21 March 2001]) available from
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ - Josephus: War of the Jews 3,54.
[2] Perseus: Pausanius’ Description of Greece 4,21,12.
[3] Perseus: Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 7,109.
[4] Perseus: Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 7,318.
[5] The Loeb Classical Library: Philo, Vol. VIII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 389.
[6] Wayne Grudem, “Does Kefalhv (“Headâ€Â) Mean “Source†Or “Authority Over†In Greek Literature?: A Survey Of 2,336 Examples,†Trinity Journal 6:1 (Spring 1985): 55.
[7] Loeb Classical Library, Vol. IV, p. 489.
[8] Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 489.
[9] Ibid., Vol. V, p. 537.
[10] Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 591.
[11] The Loeb Classical Library: Philo, Vol. VIII, p. 381.
[12] See Romans 12:20; I Corinthians 11:4, 5, 7, 10.
[13] For Christ as “head†see I Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:10, 19.
[14] A variant reading in the Vaticanus text uses ajrconta, “ruler.â€Â
[15] Grudem, 56.
[16] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: New International Commentary on the New Testament 1st Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 506.
[17] Fee, 507.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1992), 20.
[20] Some interpreters prefer “sign of authority,†but usually do so in order to show this as symbolic of the male’s authority.
[21] Keener, 24.
[22] Keener, 25.
[23] Keener, 30.
[24] Fee notes that the re-founding of Corinth by freedmen from Rome, those whose status was just above slave, would have led to an “aristocracy of money†and its attendant status seeking. p. 2.
[25] Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 30,31.
[26] Witherington, p. 233.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid., 235.
[29] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 123 fn 30.
[30] Bruce, 123.
[31] Fee, 517.
[32] Fee, 520.
[33] Witherington, 237.
[34] Manfred T. Brauch, et al. Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 605.
[35] Fee, 521.
[36] Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: Tyndale New Testament Commentary. (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 154.
[37] Keener, 42.
