Does our culture today erase distinctions between men and women in the name of freedom? Would Paul think that's cool? What's the big deal anyway if we do? Should there be a hierarchy in society or in the church between men and women? Isn't egalitarianism "better"? How do you use your freedom to be your authentic self and not abuse it? Are there any guiding principles in using your freedom?
From something they wrote Paul, they affirm their loyalty to the traditions he'd handed to them (1 Cor 11:2). From what follows, they're arguing for certain practices that would erase the distinctions between men and women in worship—which Paul disapproves. Hearing only Paul's side of the conversation, perhaps they wrote to him as follows:
Your devoted followers,
The church in Corinth
- Paul endorses the freedom of women to pray and prophesy in the assembly; the only question is what sort of headdress is appropriate for them while exercising this freedom.
- The patriarchal order (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is set in counterpoint with mutual interdependence of men and women "in the Lord" (1 Cor 11:11–12).
- The passage is a symbolic distinction between the sexes and doesn't require subordination of women—even though some of Paul's arguments presuppose a hierarchical ordering.
- The immediate concern of the passage is for them to avoid bringing shame on the church.
A hierarchical chain of being (1 Cor 11:3) with "head" (kephal) as a metaphorical sense is how Paul 1st comes at their question about head coverings indirectly. [Some explain away the hierarchical implications by arguing that kephal means "source" rather than "ruler." This is a possible meaning when Paul alludes to Genesis describing the creation of woman out of man (1 Cor 11:8). But in the whole shape of the argument, the patriarchal implications of 1 Cor 11:3 are undeniable. Cf. 1 Cor 11:7–9.] The argument about bare heads in worship is thereby placed within a symbolic framework different from the one they had been presupposing. The covering or uncovering of the head is not a sign of individual freedom, but it signifies either respect or disrespect for one's superior in the hierarchy. So, to display the head inappropriately attired in worship is to bring shame upon one's figurative "head" (1 Cor 11:4–5). Analogous customs persist in our social world. If a man shows up at a formal dinner—or in church—wearing a baseball cap it'd be perceived as rude and irreverent. In ancient Mediterranean culture such a breach of etiquette brings disgrace not only on the perpetrator but also on the "head" to whom that person was responsible. Paul's concern is that women who pray and prophesy with "uncovered" heads (1 Cor 11:5) are in effect shaming the men of the congregation. [For men to cover their heads would bring shame to Christ. Since Paul focuses primarily on the women, his comments about men's head coverings are purely hypothetical.]
Paul's directives apply to everyone in the church, married or unmarried: women should cover heads in worship; men should not. In Greek there are no words equivalent to the English "husband" and "wife": the generic words for "man" (anr) and "woman" (gyn) do double duty, and the context determines whether reference to a married couple is intended. Here the context doesn't help. [NRSV translates as "husband" and "wife" (1 Cor 11:3), but as "man" and "woman" elsewhere the passage; this seems arbitrary.]
"Covered" and "uncovered" heads. What does Paul want the women to do? Traditionally it was understood that women should wear veils, and this continues to exert influence over English translations (NRSV, NEB, JB). But "veil" occurs nowhere in the passage. A more literal translation is by the NIV: "every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head" (1 Cor 11:5-6). Paul is clearly discussing hair (1 Cor 11:13-15); he affirms that a woman's long hair is "given to her for a covering." Some suggest that the whole passage deals not with wearing a veil but with having the hair bound or unbound. To have the head "covered" would mean to have the hair tied up on top of the head rather than hanging loose. This makes excellent sense.
Women having loose hair in public in Greek/Roman cultures was conventionally shameful, a sign associated with prostitutes or—perhaps worse from Paul's point of view—with women caught up in the cult worship practices associated with Dionysius, Cybele, and Isis. [It wasn't the normal custom for women to be veiled; thus, it's hard to see how their being unveiled in worship would be controversial or shameful.] Paul is concerned that the practice of Christian prophecy be sharply distinguished from the frenzied behavior of prophetesses in pagan worship (14:26–33, 37–40). The symbolic confusion introduced by women with loose, disheveled hair in the Christian assembly would therefore be shameful. If women won't keep their hair bound up, they should cut it off—an action which is self-evidently disgraceful.
Strictly an argument about honor and shame (1 Cor 11:4-6). Some women were acting in ways that brought shame on the community by blurring the traditional lines of gender distinction and/or by appearing to act in a disgraceful or disorderly manner. Such conduct brings shame on the men in the church, whose "headship" is discredited by the disorderly behavior of the women. The logic of Paul's advice depends upon unspoken and undefended (because "self-evident") assumptions about what is honorable and shameful behavior for men and women in 1st-century Greco-Roman culture. For our culture, it'd be as though Paul had written, "Men shouldn't come to church wearing dresses, and women shouldn't come to church topless." Whatever one may think about the ultimate theological validity of such judgments, they're understandable pastoral advice.
Theological stakes raised with the Genesis creation story (1 Cor 11:7-9). A man shouldn't cover his head because man is created as "the image and glory of God" (Gen 1:27), but woman is "the glory of man." Regrettably, Paul gets into a theological quagmire. Gen 1:27 explicitly says that humankind is created "in the image of God … male and female he created them." Paul's interpretation seems to depend on a tradition—perhaps based on Gen 2:7—that thinks of the male only as originally created in God's image. Also, it's difficult to see how Genesis provides any support for the notion that woman is the "glory" of man (1 Esdras 4:17: "Women … bring men glory"). Additionally, Paul fails to explain how any of this is relevant to the issue of head coverings. Perhaps he means that the man with uncovered head will reflect the glory of God by letting the divine image shine forth (2 Cor 3:18). If so, this would then help explain why women should be covered: given Paul's assumption that woman is the glory of the man, her uncovered head would then inappropriately reflect the man's glory in the worship setting, deflecting attention from God's glory. None of this is stated in Paul's argument. He leaves us to infer the relevance of 1 Cor 11:7.
The ontological priority of the male (1 Cor 11:8-9). Man was created 1st and the woman "out of" him (Gen 2:21–23), and the woman was created for the man (Gen 2:18), not the other way around. These exegetical observations provide further support for Paul's insistence that the symbolic distinctions between the genders must acknowledge the right hierarchical ordering between male and female (1 Cor 11:3).
Unpersuasive and objectionable today, but the central imperative of the unit is "let her be covered" (1 Cor 11:6), with 1 Cor 11:7–9 in support. The covering of the woman with bound-up hair appropriately symbolizes her relation to the man within the order of creation; the unbinding of the hair effaces the created distinction between the sexes and somehow impugns the man's role as bearer of the image of God. Though cringe worthy today to some/many, this is what Paul actually wrote.
"For this reason a woman ought to have authority upon her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor 11:10). [If not confused and confounded already, Paul abruptly interjects a sentence that has remained almost completely bewildering.] 2 very difficult problems:
Strictly an argument about honor and shame (1 Cor 11:4-6). Some women were acting in ways that brought shame on the community by blurring the traditional lines of gender distinction and/or by appearing to act in a disgraceful or disorderly manner. Such conduct brings shame on the men in the church, whose "headship" is discredited by the disorderly behavior of the women. The logic of Paul's advice depends upon unspoken and undefended (because "self-evident") assumptions about what is honorable and shameful behavior for men and women in 1st-century Greco-Roman culture. For our culture, it'd be as though Paul had written, "Men shouldn't come to church wearing dresses, and women shouldn't come to church topless." Whatever one may think about the ultimate theological validity of such judgments, they're understandable pastoral advice.
Theological stakes raised with the Genesis creation story (1 Cor 11:7-9). A man shouldn't cover his head because man is created as "the image and glory of God" (Gen 1:27), but woman is "the glory of man." Regrettably, Paul gets into a theological quagmire. Gen 1:27 explicitly says that humankind is created "in the image of God … male and female he created them." Paul's interpretation seems to depend on a tradition—perhaps based on Gen 2:7—that thinks of the male only as originally created in God's image. Also, it's difficult to see how Genesis provides any support for the notion that woman is the "glory" of man (1 Esdras 4:17: "Women … bring men glory"). Additionally, Paul fails to explain how any of this is relevant to the issue of head coverings. Perhaps he means that the man with uncovered head will reflect the glory of God by letting the divine image shine forth (2 Cor 3:18). If so, this would then help explain why women should be covered: given Paul's assumption that woman is the glory of the man, her uncovered head would then inappropriately reflect the man's glory in the worship setting, deflecting attention from God's glory. None of this is stated in Paul's argument. He leaves us to infer the relevance of 1 Cor 11:7.
The ontological priority of the male (1 Cor 11:8-9). Man was created 1st and the woman "out of" him (Gen 2:21–23), and the woman was created for the man (Gen 2:18), not the other way around. These exegetical observations provide further support for Paul's insistence that the symbolic distinctions between the genders must acknowledge the right hierarchical ordering between male and female (1 Cor 11:3).
Unpersuasive and objectionable today, but the central imperative of the unit is "let her be covered" (1 Cor 11:6), with 1 Cor 11:7–9 in support. The covering of the woman with bound-up hair appropriately symbolizes her relation to the man within the order of creation; the unbinding of the hair effaces the created distinction between the sexes and somehow impugns the man's role as bearer of the image of God. Though cringe worthy today to some/many, this is what Paul actually wrote.
"For this reason a woman ought to have authority upon her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor 11:10). [If not confused and confounded already, Paul abruptly interjects a sentence that has remained almost completely bewildering.] 2 very difficult problems:
- what does the idiom "to have authority upon her head" mean, and
- what do "angels" have to do with the argument?
With Q1, some answers traditionally given can be rejected. The word "authority" (exousia) does not mean "veil" (as in the RSV), nor is there any reason to think that Paul means a woman ought to have a symbol of being under authority on her head. "To have authority" in Greek always means, just as it does in English, to exercise authority, not to submit to it. Thus, 2 interpretations are plausible. On the one hand, the sentence might mean that a woman should wear her hair bound up as a symbol of her new authority in Christ to prophesy and pray in the assembly. This interpretation seems incongruous with the context, and it's unclear how bound-up hair, which was the normal cultural custom, would serve to symbolize a new authoritative status for women. More likely, the expression should be translated "to have authority over [epi] her head" ["have authority over" (Rev 11:6b; 14:18; 20:6) means that she should take charge of her hair and keep it under control, i.e., bound up rather than loose. This is consonant with the specific directive that Paul has already given to women (1 Cor 11:5–6). By telling the women to "take charge" of their own heads, Paul seeks to transform the symbolic connotations of the head covering: the bound hair becomes a fitting symbol of the self-control and orderliness that Paul desires for the community as a whole.
With Q2, Paul's fleeting reference to angels here is completely cryptic, for nothing is said about them before or after this. Among the many guesses proposed, 2 are worthy of mention. From antiquity, some interpreters have suggested that Paul regards the uncovered heads of woman as a sexual provocation to the angels, who might be tempted to mate with the women (Gen 6:1–4). But if Paul intended to express this rather bizarre idea, he'd have offered a somewhat fuller explanation. More likely is that Paul thinks of the angels as present with the worshiping community as guardians of order and as participants in the church's praise to God; parallels to this idea can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Presumably, Paul means that the community ought to behave in a decorous manner because of the presence of these heavenly "dignitaries" in their midst. Whether he thinks the angels would be offended by the women's loose hair or whether he thinks the angels might in some way punish disorderly behavior is impossible to say; the text simply offers us too little to go on.
Functionally equal. Paul actually reaffirms the theological convictions that had led the women to discard their head coverings in the first place (1 Cor 11:11-12). Social decorum does require women and men to maintain symbolic distinctions, and such distinctions have a basis in creation itself (11:3–9). Nevertheless "in the Lord" (1 Cor 11:11) things are different. Men and women live in mutual interdependence. This doesn't mean that the differences between the sexes are abolished, but that they are both radically dependent on God (1 Cor 11:12b; 8:6) and that they're called to live as complementary partners in Christ. These statements do not, as is sometimes claimed, contradict or revoke the position that Paul articulated (11:3–10). Rather, they render it more complex. The hierarchical order that Paul sketched (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is counterbalanced by other considerations. So, the earlier statement that woman is "from man"—an exegetical remark based on Genesis 2—is now balanced by the argument that "man comes through woman" in childbirth. The result is that Paul supports a functional equality of men and women in the church. Women are free to pray and prophesy and exercise leadership through the guidance of the Spirit, so long as they maintain the external markers of gender difference, particularly with regard to head coverings.
An argument from "nature" (1 Cor 11:13–15) and an argument from "custom" are 2 more considerations. Judge for themselves (1 Cor 11:13) is not really an open invitation to independent judgment, but a rhetorical gesture with a set of questions whose answers are self-evident. "Nature" teaches that long hair is shameful for men and glorious for women. Such appeal as a source of behavioral norms is characteristic of the Stoic and Cynic philosophers—and highly unusual in Paul. This is another case (1 Cor 3:21–22; 6:7) where Paul points out, with much irony, that the philosophical wisdom on which they pride themselves ought to lead them to behave differently. Paul's comments parallel that of Epictetus: "Can anything be more useless than the hairs on a chin? Well, what then? Has not nature used even these in the most suitable way possible? Has she not by these means distinguished between the male and the female? … Wherefore, we ought to preserve the signs [symbola] which God has given; we ought not to throw them away; we ought not, so far as in us lies, to confuse the sexes which have been distinguished in this fashion."
They regard themselves as transcending the patterns of "nature" as understood in their culture. By virtue of possessing the Spirit, they were able to know and do things beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals. Paul's appeal and invocation of a particular cultural code was intended to bring them back down to earth and remind them that they're still living within the constraints of finitude while awaiting the return of the Lord. If that is the major burden of the argument in 11:2–16, the parallel to Paul's arguments about sex and marriage is strong indeed.
Paul reckons with continuing contentiousness from them on this issue (1 Cor 11:16). Perhaps Paul recognizes the weakness of his own rather fragmented argument. His trump card, then, is to appeal to the custom of "the churches of God." Presumably he's referring not only to his own mission churches but to other early Christian communities, including Jewish-Christian communities that look to Jerusalem as their spiritual leader. This final argument assumes that they'll recognize themselves as bound to respect the uniformity of practice in the other churches of the fledgling Christian movement. Whether this argument in fact carried any weight with them or not, Paul seems to regard it as decisive: Even if they do not accept his arguments, they should conform their head-covering practices to those of the other churches, because they are called to be one with "all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:2).
REFLECTIONS. More than any other passage in this letter, 11:2–16 presents severe problems for the interpreter. 1st principle to apply is the principle of hermeneutical honesty: don't pretend to understand more than you do. With this passage, acknowledge that we can neither understand it entirely nor accept it entirely. Tell the truth about such matters helps us recognize more clearly the great cultural distance between 1st-century Corinth and our world. But don't say that the text doesn't apply to us because it is "culturally conditioned," for all texts are culturally conditioned.
With Q2, Paul's fleeting reference to angels here is completely cryptic, for nothing is said about them before or after this. Among the many guesses proposed, 2 are worthy of mention. From antiquity, some interpreters have suggested that Paul regards the uncovered heads of woman as a sexual provocation to the angels, who might be tempted to mate with the women (Gen 6:1–4). But if Paul intended to express this rather bizarre idea, he'd have offered a somewhat fuller explanation. More likely is that Paul thinks of the angels as present with the worshiping community as guardians of order and as participants in the church's praise to God; parallels to this idea can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Presumably, Paul means that the community ought to behave in a decorous manner because of the presence of these heavenly "dignitaries" in their midst. Whether he thinks the angels would be offended by the women's loose hair or whether he thinks the angels might in some way punish disorderly behavior is impossible to say; the text simply offers us too little to go on.
Functionally equal. Paul actually reaffirms the theological convictions that had led the women to discard their head coverings in the first place (1 Cor 11:11-12). Social decorum does require women and men to maintain symbolic distinctions, and such distinctions have a basis in creation itself (11:3–9). Nevertheless "in the Lord" (1 Cor 11:11) things are different. Men and women live in mutual interdependence. This doesn't mean that the differences between the sexes are abolished, but that they are both radically dependent on God (1 Cor 11:12b; 8:6) and that they're called to live as complementary partners in Christ. These statements do not, as is sometimes claimed, contradict or revoke the position that Paul articulated (11:3–10). Rather, they render it more complex. The hierarchical order that Paul sketched (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is counterbalanced by other considerations. So, the earlier statement that woman is "from man"—an exegetical remark based on Genesis 2—is now balanced by the argument that "man comes through woman" in childbirth. The result is that Paul supports a functional equality of men and women in the church. Women are free to pray and prophesy and exercise leadership through the guidance of the Spirit, so long as they maintain the external markers of gender difference, particularly with regard to head coverings.
An argument from "nature" (1 Cor 11:13–15) and an argument from "custom" are 2 more considerations. Judge for themselves (1 Cor 11:13) is not really an open invitation to independent judgment, but a rhetorical gesture with a set of questions whose answers are self-evident. "Nature" teaches that long hair is shameful for men and glorious for women. Such appeal as a source of behavioral norms is characteristic of the Stoic and Cynic philosophers—and highly unusual in Paul. This is another case (1 Cor 3:21–22; 6:7) where Paul points out, with much irony, that the philosophical wisdom on which they pride themselves ought to lead them to behave differently. Paul's comments parallel that of Epictetus: "Can anything be more useless than the hairs on a chin? Well, what then? Has not nature used even these in the most suitable way possible? Has she not by these means distinguished between the male and the female? … Wherefore, we ought to preserve the signs [symbola] which God has given; we ought not to throw them away; we ought not, so far as in us lies, to confuse the sexes which have been distinguished in this fashion."
They regard themselves as transcending the patterns of "nature" as understood in their culture. By virtue of possessing the Spirit, they were able to know and do things beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals. Paul's appeal and invocation of a particular cultural code was intended to bring them back down to earth and remind them that they're still living within the constraints of finitude while awaiting the return of the Lord. If that is the major burden of the argument in 11:2–16, the parallel to Paul's arguments about sex and marriage is strong indeed.
Paul reckons with continuing contentiousness from them on this issue (1 Cor 11:16). Perhaps Paul recognizes the weakness of his own rather fragmented argument. His trump card, then, is to appeal to the custom of "the churches of God." Presumably he's referring not only to his own mission churches but to other early Christian communities, including Jewish-Christian communities that look to Jerusalem as their spiritual leader. This final argument assumes that they'll recognize themselves as bound to respect the uniformity of practice in the other churches of the fledgling Christian movement. Whether this argument in fact carried any weight with them or not, Paul seems to regard it as decisive: Even if they do not accept his arguments, they should conform their head-covering practices to those of the other churches, because they are called to be one with "all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:2).
REFLECTIONS. More than any other passage in this letter, 11:2–16 presents severe problems for the interpreter. 1st principle to apply is the principle of hermeneutical honesty: don't pretend to understand more than you do. With this passage, acknowledge that we can neither understand it entirely nor accept it entirely. Tell the truth about such matters helps us recognize more clearly the great cultural distance between 1st-century Corinth and our world. But don't say that the text doesn't apply to us because it is "culturally conditioned," for all texts are culturally conditioned.
The aim of Paul's letters is to reshape his churches into cultural patterns that he takes to be consistent with the gospel. The question to ask is whether Paul's directives are persuasive on their own terms, whether he successfully mounts an argument consonant with his own fundamental theological vision. If not, the argument has no weight at all; if so, then we have to ask how his advice to them might speak analogically to Christians in dramatically different cultural settings.
Are Paul's arguments persuasive on their own terms? The picture is complex. Paul focuses on the created distinction between man and woman and places that distinction within a larger view of the complementarity of the sexes (1 Cor 11:11–12). His arguments make sense and are consistent with the theological vision that he articulates throughout the letter. His advice for men and women to maintain their traditional symbolic gender distinctions even in Christian worship is one more expression of the "eschatological reservation" that he has articulated repeatedly: the community in Christ should remain in the condition in which they were called (7:17–24) while they await the coming of the Lord. To transcend or eradicate gender differences are premature and presumptuous, for "Christians are not angels." [Talbert] They live in the world with a specific gender identity, male or female.
In addition to a hierarchy based on gender, Paul's argument becomes strained and begins to break down, by his problematical exegesis of Genesis. If Gen 1:27 provides the overarching framework within which Genesis 2 must be read, then in fact women as well as men are created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Then, the hierarchical chain (1 Cor 11:3) and the argument for women's head coverings (1 Cor 11:7) lose their validity.
The Revised Common Lectionary doesn't deal with this text, but questions about it will arise from time to time. Perhaps the best way to deal with it is in the context of a study group, where the various proposals for interpreting the text can be fully considered. In the context of such a study, several issues should be highlighted--distinction and equality.
Are Paul's arguments persuasive on their own terms? The picture is complex. Paul focuses on the created distinction between man and woman and places that distinction within a larger view of the complementarity of the sexes (1 Cor 11:11–12). His arguments make sense and are consistent with the theological vision that he articulates throughout the letter. His advice for men and women to maintain their traditional symbolic gender distinctions even in Christian worship is one more expression of the "eschatological reservation" that he has articulated repeatedly: the community in Christ should remain in the condition in which they were called (7:17–24) while they await the coming of the Lord. To transcend or eradicate gender differences are premature and presumptuous, for "Christians are not angels." [Talbert] They live in the world with a specific gender identity, male or female.
In addition to a hierarchy based on gender, Paul's argument becomes strained and begins to break down, by his problematical exegesis of Genesis. If Gen 1:27 provides the overarching framework within which Genesis 2 must be read, then in fact women as well as men are created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Then, the hierarchical chain (1 Cor 11:3) and the argument for women's head coverings (1 Cor 11:7) lose their validity.
The Revised Common Lectionary doesn't deal with this text, but questions about it will arise from time to time. Perhaps the best way to deal with it is in the context of a study group, where the various proposals for interpreting the text can be fully considered. In the context of such a study, several issues should be highlighted--distinction and equality.
- The created distinction between man and woman should be honored in the church. Symbolic "gender-bending" actions in which women and men seek to reject their specific sexual identities are a sign not of authentic spirituality but of an adolescent impatience with the world in which God has placed us. We're not disembodied spirits. Thus, spiritual maturity in Christ will lead us to become mature women and men in Christ. Our dress and outward appearance should appropriately reflect our gender identity; to blur these distinctions is to bring shame on the church. With rampant confusion about gender identity in our culture, Paul's teaching is timely for us. A healthy church needs men and women together (1 Cor 11:11), not one with sexless neutrality.
- The functional equality of men and women in worship and church leadership should be emphasized. Head coverings for women are not to restrict their participation in prayer and prophecy but to enable them to perform these activities with dignity, avoiding distractions for people whose cultural sensibilities were formed by the social conventions of the ancient Mediterranean world. Anyone who appeals to this passage to silence women or to deny them leadership roles in the church is flagrantly misusing the text. The gift of prophecy is "from God" (1 Cor 11:12b), and women and men alike can exercise it freely. Churches today have begun to recover the long-suppression of women's ministry and leadership in the church. This work of the Spirit would be celebrated by Paul.
- Confronting the patriarchal implications (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is required by any honest appraisal. They cannot be explained away [translating kephal as "source," cf. "head"], for the patriarchal assumptions are in Paul's argument. An approaches to this problem is to show how patriarchal presuppositions shape Paul's reading of Gen 1:27 thro' the lens of Gen 2:7, and to consider other readings that challenge it. Reconsider how the doctrine of creation might lead us to conclusions about the relation between male and female that are not precisely the same as Paul's. Another strategy begins with...
- "God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3) and what such headship means in a trinitarian understanding of God. Paul often operated with a subordinationist christology (1 Cor 15:28). However, through a theological tradition affirming Christ's full participation in the Godhead, how does this affect our understanding of the analogy between "God is the head of Christ" and "man is the head of woman" (1 Cor 11:3)? The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity works against the subordinationist: implications of Paul about men and women. Rethink how "in the Lord" men and women participate together in a new identity that transcends notions of superiority and inferiority. This moves us beyond simplistic arguments about whether Paul was right or wrong and enables us to rethink more deeply the substantive theological issues raised by his treatment of hairstyles in the worship of the Corinthian church.
