I present in my seminar, The Gift of Gender, how Paul’s reading of Moses in 1Corinthians 11 forms the basis of building a Biblical theology of gender. It is the key text where Paul lays out his understanding of gender, in order to apply it to the Corinthians’ pressing head covering question. Paul wisely discerns that the matter wasn’t really about head coverings, which as a cultural practice was neither here nor there, but about a deep underlying relation and distinction between men and women. Consequently, he goes back to Genesis to derive principles for how we love each other differently.
It strikes me as funny that this argument hinges upon a silly thing like a woman’s accoutrement. But Paul’s inquirers’ pressed upon him this issue of the moment and it thereupon becomes the occasion for his teaching. I suppose that our glorious fleshliness has dictated dire truth on matters of even less import. Hence, we must do our best to truly understand the cultural custom to understand Paul.
Head coverings were a thing in the first century Roman world. Valerius Maximus (writing c. 30AD) (Factorum… 6.3.10) describes severity of Sulpicius Gallus (d.149BC), a consul of the Roman Republic, who divorced his wife because she had gone about in public with her head uncovered. In saying why this was, Sulpicius, in this account, makes reference to some kind of law about head coverings for wives. We should note that Maximus, writing in the era of Paul as he does, feels no compulsion to give an explanation of the fact of head covering, as if it needed any comment for his audience. Dio Chrysostom (d. 120AD) (Orations 33.48), describes how this custom of women veiling survived to his day. We then find Tertullian, (On the Veiling of Virgins 2.1), explaining it to be, at that time in the early 3rd century AD, the custom of unmarried women to veil themselves in churches “throughout Greece.”
So women covering the head was a prevalent custom. And the statues I have catalogued throughout Turkey from the Roman period, as well as funerary reliefs (as documented in the enormously useful 1964 N. Firatli, Les steles funeraires de Byzance greco-romaine), confirm this, even though there is sometimes variation. As Plutarch phrases the situation in his work on morals at the end of the first century AD (Moralia Roman Question #14), “it is more often the custom for women to be veiled,” especially in the Greek influenced parts. More often, but not always. Cynthia Thompson, reporting on the 20th century excavation of Corinth shows that it wasn’t always the custom for the rich women there.
In other words, head coverings custom was sometimes questioned or challenged. This is key for understanding the text of 1Corinthians 11. To the disagreement, Paul advocates for maintaining the cultural tradition because of what it said about wives and husbands. It wasn’t about the status of women, which is a different question. As Ramsay MacMullen points out (in his article, Women in Public in the Roman Empire), at Pompeii and other places, “at both the top and the bottom of society, women appear to take an active part in the common business of the city.” Rather, head covering as Paul understands it said something dire about the meaning of intergendered relationships.
Even so, the activity under discussion was women publicly prophesying (v5), and that was the grating practice Paul insisted on preserving (v2). I say grating because, as MacMullen also explains, “women are rarely found in roles… which would require their speaking in public. [In the Roman world] they are to be seen and not heard.” In the Christian church, however, they were being seen and heard quite a bit. Because God made them also, as Paul reads Moses, in the image of God.
The apostle insists on that equality right alongside his teaching of what he calls the headship of husbands, publicly acknowledged.
Far removed from that time and place, in a culture where head coverings don’t say anything meaningful, I don’t advise the practice for wives. But, with Paul, I urge we plumb the meaning of gender distinction, and wear Paul’s two principles, headship and equality, squarely on our heads. Or, perhaps, cocked to one side.
Impressively erudite and insightful as usual, Sam.
My personal belief is that Paul is quoting a faction of men from Corinth who wrote him in 1 Corinthians 11:4-6. I believe that it is a faction of men who want women to be veiled while praying or prophesying. The men are making a “literal” head argument saying:
4″Every man who has anything down over his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his [own] head. 5But every woman who has her head unveiled while praying or prophesying disgraces her [own] head, for it is one and the same thing as having been shaved. 6For if a woman is not veiled, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be veiled.”
Because the men made a “literal” head argument, Paul gives his model (v.3) with the “figurative” meaning of “head/kephale” which means “source/origin/first/beginning.”
Then, in verses 7-16 Paul gives his rebuttal where he refers back to his model. He starts off by saying, 7″For a man indeed ought not to veil his [figurative] head, since He [Christ] is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. Here, Paul is using Jesus Christ as a correlation as to why women should not be veiled. “Hyparchon” (V-PPA-NMS) is not referring to “aner” (N-NMS) in verse 7; it is referring to “Christos” (N-NMS) in verse 3. Indeed, it is Jesus Christ (not man) who is the image and glory of God. (Please see 2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, John 1:14, Heb. 1:3, Phil. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:23 for confirmation of this.) Male and female are created IN the image of God, but only Jesus Christ IS the image of God because He is the Word made flesh.
So, Paul is saying that just as a man ought not to veil his head, Christ, since He is the image and glory of God, so also the man ought not to veil the woman since she is his glory. Then, in verses 8-10, Paul goes on to give the reasons as to why a woman is a man’s glory.
Also, verses 13-15 should be translated as statements, not questions. Paul is continuing to refute their argument by saying:
13″Judge for yourselves that it is proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled. 14For not even nature itself teaches 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 because the long hair has been given [to us all] instead of a covering.”
In verse 15, the pronoun “aute” (to her) is omitted by Papyrus 46, D, F, G, and also by the majority of later Greek manuscripts. Therefore, I believe it was not original to Paul. Paul is saying that nature (which God has created) does not teach us that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him. God had commanded that men such as Samson and Samuel have long hair. If God did not want men to have long hair, then He would have disallowed it through nature just as He has disallowed women from growing mustaches or beards through nature. Also, Paul is saying that nature does not teach us that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory (as many women have undesirable hair.) God did not give long hair to men to shame them, nor did He give long hair to women for vain beauty purposes. He gave long hair to both men and women for protection (as a covering) from weather extremes so that they do not have to wear an additional covering every time they step outside.
Paul ends the debate by saying, 16″But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice [of requiring women to veil their heads], nor have the people of God.”
Anyway, this is just what I believe from my study of Scripture. Thank you for allowing me to share.
Hi Kristen,
Thank you for your comment and explanation of your reading of 1Co 11. It is clear that you have thought long and hard about this passage and what it means for us. I admire how you have really sought for a coherent and respectful way of understanding these challenging verses. I would like to give you a few thoughts to consider for your position.
First, the idea that Paul was quoting a group of people at Corinth, first put forth in 1987, while increasingly popular, does have its difficulties. There is no clue in the text that would tell us Paul is quoting someone else’s opinion rather than his own. Consider the other place in the letter where Paul quotes a slogan he disagrees with, clearly alerting them: “you say…” (1Co 15:12). Wouldn’t he somehow signal that here if he were disagreeing? This makes the decision that vv4-6 of 1Co 11 are someone else’s thoughts rather than Paul’s sound kind of arbitrary. We could also start doing that with whatever the New Testament letters say that we don’t like.
Second, if I understand you rightly, you say that Paul in v7 is telling a man not to veil/cover Christ. I don’t understand what it would mean for a man to put a head-covering on Christ. Even if it is meant symbolically, that would be the parallel with women’s head-coverings. A woman would wear a head-covering in the first century Roman Empire to mean she had a husband. It was a good thing. He was her authority. So that reading of v7 doesn’t carry force with me.
A couple other less important points.
Third, you read “head” to mean “source/origin/first/beginning.” If that is all Paul meant by “head,” why would he talk about authority on the head (v10) and all the asymmetries (which I am happy to see you accept) of vv8-10? So, I don’t know if you can be so certain to reject the far more common meaning of κεφαλή (kephale, head).
Your reading vv13-15 as statements rather than questions is intriguing, especially in light of your point that the Chester Beatty papyrus lacks αὐτῇ (‘autaei’ , to her) in v15. It would mean that Paul is taking a very different tack in those verses, since it seems he is distinguishing men and women throughout the passage. If he meant to apply the glory of long hair to everyone, why not say that instead of switching back and forth? It would also mean that Paul was advocating everyone to wear long hair, which would seriously contradict the 1st century culture of Corinth, as is clear from the unearthed portraiture (guys had short hair). It is a suggestive thought, though.
Again, I applaud your work in trying to understand the text and giving some helpful challenges.
–Sam
Hi Sam,
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your respectful and thoughtful response. If I may, I would like to respond to your comments as well and to your questions.
First, you said that there is no clue in the text that would tell us Paul is quoting someone else’s opinion rather than his own. But many scholars do believe that Paul quotes throughout 1 Corinthians where there is no indication that he is quoting. For example, the NIV translators believe Paul is quoting in 1 Cor. 6:12. “Everything is permissible for me” –but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me” –but I will not be mastered by anything. Also, 1 Cor. 6:13, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food” –but God will destroy them both. In both of these verses there is no indication that Paul is quoting those from Corinth.
I agree, we cannot just start saying something is quoted just because we don’t like it. Unfortunately, we do not have the original letter(s) from the Corinthians. However, we as believers know Scripture. And we can compare Scripture with Scripture to attain the truth.
Yes, you understood me correctly that Paul, in v. 7, is telling a man not to veil/cover [his head] Christ. No, the men were not trying to veil Christ. But the men were trying to veil the women. So, Paul is going to use “head” in a different way to try to get them to understand why women should not be veiled. If we remember, the men made a “literal” head argument saying, 3″Every man who has anything down over his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his [own] head.” So, in verse 7, Paul is going to agree with them. The only difference is that the men were talking about their own “literal” heads, while Paul is talking about a man’s “figurative” head, Christ. He is doing this because he is trying to get them to understand that just as a man ought not to veil his head [Christ] since He is the image and glory of God, so also the man ought not to veil the woman since she is his glory. No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket.
Also, you may not understand me correctly about what I’m saying regarding vv. 8-10. In verse 7, Paul has just stated that a woman is the glory of man. He then goes on to give the reasons as to why she is his glory. He states:
8″For man is not of woman, but woman of man; 9for indeed, man was not created because of the woman, but woman because of the man [because of his need for her]. 10For this reason, the woman ought to have authority over her head….”
These verses are typically taken as the reasons as to why a woman is inferior to a man. However, Paul does not go on to say that a woman is inferior to a man after stating that she is his glory. Paul, after stating that a woman is a man’s glory (v. 7) goes on to give the reasons as to why she is his glory (vv.8-10). In Gen. 2:18, God said that it was not good for the man to be alone. Because it was not good for the man to be alone, God created an “ezer kenegdo” for him. An “ezer kenegdo” never refers to the lower helper in Scripture. Rather, it describes the one who comes to the aid of someone in need.
Also, some translations add the words “a symbol of” in verse 10. However, the words “a symbol of” are not in the original Greek. By adding these words, translators are trying to give the words “exousia epi” (authority over) a passive sense. They are trying to say that the woman is under the man’s authority. However, thankfully many scholars today have come forward to say that a passive sense is indefensible and that there is no known evidence that “exousia” is ever taken in the passive sense. Authority over (exousia epi) occurs a number of times in the New Testament, never with the passive sense, always with the active sense. It is best translated as “authority over” her head.
So, there are only two possibilities here. The woman has authority over her own head. Or the woman has authority over her head (or source) the man. Most people believe that the woman is to have authority over her own head, but I believe that Paul is referring to a woman’s figurative head, the man. He is saying that the woman was created for the man’s sake, therefore, it is the woman who ought to have authority over the source from which she came. However, Paul used the word “ought” because he knows that God did not give the woman authority over the man or man authority over the woman. This is why he says in verses 11-12:
11″However, in the Lord neither is woman without man, nor is man without woman. 12For as the woman is from the man, so also the man through the woman, and all things from God.”
Indeed, God has given men and women interdependent origins so that neither can boast. It is God alone who has authority over us. This is why Jesus always said that believers are to do the will of His Father in heaven. Never once did Jesus ever tell a believer to submit to another person. People are sinners. God alone is righteous.
And lastly, I just want to say that Paul is not advocating for everyone to have long hair. He is advocating that both men and women have the option to grow it long if they wish, or to cut it short if they so choose. Again, we know that it was not shameful for men to have long hair in the Bible.
Really, there is much more I could say about this passage, but there is limited space and time. I know that you still may not be convinced but if you would like to read my book, I will send you a free copy if you contact me on my website and tell me where to send it. I am much more thorough in my book. But blessings to you. Again, thank you for allowing me to share what I believe on your blog.