Today, we have the privilege of wrestling with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. This passage has been called the most complicated, difficult passage in the NT (N.T Wright). Some of the most brilliant minds in NT studies have said that the key to the passage has not yet been unlocked (G. B. Caird). Almost every key word and phrase can mean multiple things, and is debated. The passage can only be understood, as a whole, through trying to reconstruct the historical situation that Paul is addressing. The problem is, that any reconstruction we make involves a little bit more imagination than is ideal.
And the amusing thing about all of this, is that the more time you spend studying the passage, and the more in-depth you get, the more problems you see.
If I wanted to try to work through every issue, and explain everything to the best of my ability, it would take a month, maybe. I'd have to write a little book, basically. And I'm not feeling any particular urge to do that. Instead, I'm going to simplify things, and pass over things. You aren't going to get a perfect explanation of every detail. But I think I can point you in the right direction in a single week, and give you the solution, and offer an application.
Our passage breaks up nicely into three sections: verses 2-3, 4-10, and 11-16. What we're going to see is that verses 2-3 are ambiguous, by themselves. Verses 4-10, if we're honest, are going to really bother us (Or they should!). And in verses 11-16, everything makes sense-- but it makes sense in a way that contradicts verses 4-10.
I'm going to read off my translation, partly just because it doesn't try to answer all the ambiguities of the Greek. Verses 2-3:
(2) Now, I commend you,
because all the things of mine [=all I taught] you remember,
and just as I handed over to you the traditions, you adhere firmly.
(3) Now, I wish you to have known that of every man/husband, the head/source is the Christ. ["of every man/husband" is focused, I think. Also, possibly, "the Christ."].
Now, the man/husband is the head/source of the woman/wife.
Now, the head/source of the Christ [is] the God.
When we read these verses, we should find ourselves asking some questions. Is Paul talking about men, or husbands? And what does the word "head" mean? Does head have to do with power, and authority, and hierarchy? Or does head mean something more like "source"? Like we'd talk about the head of the Mississippi, is Lake Itasca. But the most important question we can ask ourselves, is this: Why does Paul start by talking about the men, and their relationship to Christ? Why is it that the only place Paul puts focus, in the Greek, has do with men? People tend to read this passage, focused on women, thinking that women are the problem (h/t Lucy Peppiatt). But Paul starts with the men.
The other thing I want you to see, is that Paul doesn't unpack verses 2-3 really at all. He starts by praising the Corinthians for their adherence to what he taught them. And verse 3, presumably, is part of that teaching. So this is shared territory for Paul and the Corinthians.
At the same time, as we keep reading, we will get the impression that there is something about the way they've interpreted Paul's teaching, or applied it, that's wrong. They've twisted it, accidentally or not. Verse 3 is ambiguous, or open to misunderstanding, and the Corinthians have messed up Paul's teaching. And this whole section is basically designed to fix that misunderstanding.
With this, we come to verses 4-10. You'll notice in your translation handout that I've italicized these verses. And I'll explain why, a little later.
(4) Every man/husband praying or prophesying, having something on his head, shames/ disgraces/dishonors his head.
(5) Now, every woman/wife praying or prophesying with an uncovered/revealed head, shames/ disgraces/dishonors her head.
For one and the same, she is, with the one having been shaved.
(6) For if a woman/wife doesn't cover herself, her hair should also be shorn off.
Now, if it is shameful to be shorn or shaved, she should cover herself.
(7) For, on the one hand, a man must not cover his head,
the image and glory of God being.
Now. on the other hand, the woman, the glory of the man/husband, she is ["the glory of the man" is focused].
(8) For man isn't from woman, but woman from man.
(9) For indeed/also, a man wasn't created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.
(10) For this reason, the woman must have [a symbol of] authority upon her head, because of the angels/messengers.
Let's pause here for just a minute, and try to grab the argument of verses 4-10 as a whole. Verse 4 says that men should pray with head uncovered, so they don't disgrace their head. Presumably, this means that if men pray head uncovered, they dishonor Christ. Christ is their head.
Women, on the other hand, should pray with their head covered, so they don't dishonor their head. Presumably, this means that when pray without covering their head, they dishonor men. If a woman refuses to wear a head covering, she should have their hair shorn. But this would shameful also (prostitutes had shaved heads in Roman culture; h/t Bruce Winter, After Corinth), so at that point she should cover her head.
The stated reasons for all of this are given in verses 7-10. This is the "why," for why men shouldn't cover, and women should. And what I want you to see, above all else here, is that the stated reasons have nothing to do with culture. The reasons are rooted in creation [put these five things on the left hand side of a whiteboard].
(1) In verse 7, we read that the man is the image and glory of God. Man-- the male-- reflects God's glory. And so the idea is that man's glory isn't something that should be covered up. When man prays to God, you should see God's glory.
(2) In verse 7, we read that for women, on the other hand, things are different. Women are not the image and glory of God. They are the glory of the man. And for some reason, then, a woman being uncovered when praying messes everything up. Her head covering helps her compensate, in some way.
Verses 8-10 strengthen all of this by giving three supporting arguments.
The first, is in verse 8: "Man isn't from woman. Woman is from man." Woman comes from man, and so she is inferior, or secondary.
The second, is in verse 9. "Man wasn't created for the woman. Woman was created for the man." So what this means, is that the man is like the crown jewel of creation. The woman is the secondary piece.
The third, is in verse 10. The woman must have a symbol of authority on her head-- the head covering-- because of, either, angels, or messengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Either, the fear is that angels will see women uncovered, and desire to make babies with them (ala Genesis 6), or that non-Christian messengers carrying messages will walk in to a house church, see women uncovered, and draw conclusions about the nature of Christianity they shouldn't-- this is Bruce Winter's proposal).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do verses 4-10 sound to you? Patriarchal? Sexist? Like a pretty cruddy misreading of Genesis 1 and 2? All of us know, I think, that men and women, together, are made in God's image. And that's it only together, really, that we fully image God on earth. None of us would apply Genesis 2, and the creation order, like verses 8-10 do.
So at this point, if you're like me, you have major problems. You're super bothered.
And now we are in verses 11-16. What we will see here, is that these verses push back against verses 4-10 (and this is the brilliance of Lucy Peppiatt):
Let's start by reading just the first word in verse 11:
(11) Nevertheless,
The Greek word here, p??´? , is a "marker of something that is contrastingly added for consideration" (BDAG). It often works to break off a discussion, or argument, and emphasize what's important (BDAG lists 1 Cor. 11:11; Ephesians 5:33; Philippians 3:16; Philippians 4:14 as having this meaning).
------------------------------------------------------------------
BDAG:
? only, in any case, on the other hand, but, breaking off a discussion and emphasizing what is important
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So understand that Paul here breaks off his conversation, signaling he's starting a new section, and emphasizing what's important. Okay?
Nevertheless, neither is the woman apart from the man anything, nor is the man apart from the woman anything in the Lord.
(12) For just as the woman [is] from the man, in the same way the man [is] through the woman.
Now, all things [are] from God.
Among yourselves, judge.
Proper, is it, for an uncovered woman to pray to God? ["Proper" is focused, and possibly also "to pray"],
(14) and doesn't nature itself teach you
that a man, on the one hand, if he has long hair, a dishonor to him it is? ["a dishonor" is focused].
(15) Now, a woman, if she has long hair, glory to her it is? ["glory/honor" is focused]
because her hair in place of a mantle/covering, it is given ["in place of a covering" is focused].
(16) Now, if anyone decides, quarrelsome/contentious, to be, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Without trying to explain everything, I just want to point out four things here.
(1) The first, is that verse 11 counters verse 8 (this is the right side of the whiteboard). Verse 8 had said, "Woman is for the sake of man." This is countered with, "Neither is anything apart from the other, in the Lord."
(2) The second, is that verse 12 also counters verse 8. "Woman is from man." This is countered in two ways: (A) "man is through woman.", and (B) "All are from God."
(3) The third, is in verse 15. A woman's long hair is her glory. And her hair takes the place of a head covering, so she doesn't need a head covering. So verse 7 had made it sound like women have less glory than men. Men, not women, are the glory and image of God. Women were inferior. But here, Paul says a woman's hair is her glory. So nature itself teaches you that women have more glory, than verse 7 made it sound.
Actually, let me say one other thing. In verses 14-15, Paul is being snarky. While Paul was with the Corinthian church, he'd taken a vow to not cut his hair. And this vow went on for 18 months. So while Paul was among the Corinthians, he looked like a hippie (h/t Lucy Peppiatt). So probably, Paul is using their own views on proper hair length among men and women against them. "Nature" teaches that long hair on a man-- like what Paul had-- is a disgrace to men. And "nature" teaches that long hair is glory to women. The point Paul is making, is that the Corinthians themselves acknowledge a woman's glory.
(4) In verse 16, Paul sums up all of it, and says, we have no custom, in any of the churches, of women wearing head coverings. If you're reading an NIV, it makes completely the opposite point. The NIV says that we have no other custom. But this is widely recognized to be a flawed translation (h/t Lucy Peppiatt). Paul says that none of the churches, anywhere, has women wear head coverings.
And so verses 15 and 16 seems to directly contradict verse 4. Verse 4 had said that women should wear head coverings. And verses 15-16 say that nowhere, in any other church, do believers wear head coverings.
What you see on this whiteboard is a major part of why scholars are sharply divided over this passage. It's also why churches today are divided. Should women wear head coverings? Should they have long hair? The answer seems to depend on which verses you focus on. If you focus on verses 4-10, you get one list of answers. But if you focus on verses 11-16, you get a completely different list.
So what's the way out? What's the solution?
Well. There's a perfect solution to this, actually.
Paul, throughout 1 Corinthians, has been responding to a letter the Corinthian wrote him. The Corinthian church disagrees with Paul over a number of issues, and Paul is trying to persuade them to change their life, and their positions. So picture Paul writing his letter, with their letter in front of him.
And what've seen, as we've worked through 1 Corinthians, is that Paul quotes their letter repeatedly, only to counter it. There's nothing in the Greek that tells us when he's doing this. But we can often tell when he's quoting them, based on three things (Lucy Peppiatt, Unveiling Paul's Women, 30-31, following Sir William Ramsay). The first, is when Paul alludes to something the Corinthians know. The second, is when Paul says things he doesn't mean-- that contradict something he says elsewhere. And third, when Paul says something, only to push back against it.
It's been a while since we've seen these, but let's go back and reread them (listed in Lucy Peppiatt, Unveiling Paul's Women, pg. 27):
1 Corinthians 6:12-14:
[Corinthians Quote 1]: “All things are permitted for me,” but [Paul's counter] not all things are beneficial.
[Corinthians Quote 2]: “All things are permitted for me,” but [Paul's counter] I will not be dominated by anything.
[Corinthian Quote 3]: 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,”[d] and God will destroy both one and the other. [Probably, the quote goes up to here, as some translations note.] [Paul's counters]: (A) The body is meant not for sexual immorality but for the Lord and the Lord for the body. (B) 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.
1 Corinthians 7:1:
7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
1 Corinthians 8:1:
8 Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
4 Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists” and that “there is no God but one.”
1 Corinthians 10:23:
23 “All things are permitted,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are permitted,” but not all things build up.
English translations differ on some of these-- most notably, in chapter 6-- on what Paul's words are, and what the Corinthians' words are. But again, there are three ways to tell when Paul is quoting the Corinthians (Lucy Peppiatt, Unveiling Paul's Women, 30-31, following Sir William Ramsay):
(1) When Paul alludes to knowledge that the Corinthians have ("we know," "concerning what you wrote," as in 1 Corinthians 11:2).
(2) When what Paul says, doesn't agree with what he says elsewhere (verses 4-10).
(3) When the following statements push back against what's been said (verses 11-16).
When we turn back to 1 Corinthians 11, and look again at the whiteboard, we see the same situation. Paul starts off in 1 Corinthians 11:2 by talking about the Corinthians' knowledge. Then, when we read verses 4-10, Paul says a bunch of things that don't agree with what he says elsewhere, and that run counter to the plain meaning of Genesis. Then, verses 11-16 start with a "nevertheless," that forms a contrast with what precedes. And then the verses push back against the middle section in multiple ways. And the most important of these ways, has to do with the basic question of whether or not women should wear head coverings. Verse 4 says "yes." Verses 15-16 say "no."
So the simple, elegant solution to this, is to say that Paul is quoting the Corinthian letter at length in verses 4-10, and then pushing back against it. If you want to know what Paul actually thinks, and not the Corinthians, you need to focus on verses 11-16. So in your Bibles, if you're brave, you'll put quotes around verses 4-10. Nothing in verses 4-10 is actually right. [And if you're using an NIV, you'll scratch out the word "other" in verse 16].
At this point, let's try to picture what's going on in the Corinthian church. It's often assumed that the women were the problem in the Corinthian church. But if I'm right (with Lucy Peppiatt, followed by Scot McKnight and maybe Douglas Campbell), it's the men who are the problem. While Paul was among the Corinthians, women were allowed to freely serve, and worship, and pray in the church. They were full partners in ministry. 1 Corinthians 14:26 (NIV no reason):
26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.
Each person, man and woman, had a hymn, or a word of instruction (!), or revelation, or tongue, or an interpretation.
And then, after Paul left, the Corinthian men started reverting to their old patriarchal systems of thought. The Roman world didn't place much value on women. They weren't considered equals in anything. Women were considered inferior, in every way.
And so the Corinthian men fell back into this (what follows is all building on Lucy Peppiatt). They started teaching that only men were made in God's image. That men came first, and so they're more important, and of a higher status. That women came second, and were made for men. And they taught that all of this should be obviously reflected in church, through head coverings. Every woman-- probably not just the wives-- needed to wear a head covering, to demonstrate their inferior status. Every man-- probably not just husbands-- should pray bareheaded, so that all could see God's glory.
So what's the actual truth?
Men and women, together, are God's image and glory and likeness. Men and women are interdependent. And men and women, together, should freely worship, and serve, and pray in church. Men and women, together, are "in Christ." Men and women, together, are "from God."
At this point, let's jump back and reread verse 3, and try to tackle some of the ambiguity. There's one more thing I'd like to talk about a little:
(3) Now, I wish you to know that of every man/husband, the head/source is the Christ. ["of every man/husband" is focused, I think. Also, possibly, "the Christ."].
Now, the man/husband is the head/source of the woman/wife.
Now, the head/source of the Christ [is] the God.
If you look at English translations of verse 3, some of them think that Paul is addressing husbands and wives-- the ESV, Young's, and RSV. Others, think Paul is talking more broadly about men and women (KJV, NRSV, NASB). The Greek words for "man" and "woman," by themselves, with no context, can mean other. It can mean man, or husband. It can mean woman, or wife.
But if we read the passage as a whole, and specifically verses 7-8, we see that these two Greek words can't mean "husbands" and "wives" the whole way through. Verse 7 isn't saying that it's only husbands who are the glory and image of God. It's saying that men in general are. And verse 8 isn't saying that wives are from husbands. It's saying that women are from men.
In fact, when we read the passage as a whole, it has nothing to do with marriage. Paul is addressing problems with the way the Corinthian church worships (and this is widely accepted among academics-- many commentators go out of their way to talk about this).
So I left the ambiguity in at first. But you should cross off "husbands" and "wives." Paul is talking about men and women in general.
Why does this matter?
If you're reading verse 3 in an ESV, this is what you hear:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband,[b] and the head of Christ is God.
This is the clearest passage in the entire Bible, for arguing that husbands are the heads of their wives. A major part of the patriarchal, hierarchical view of women comes from this translation of this verse. But the translation, again, is indefensible. Nothing in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has to do with marriage. It has to do with the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Witherington's commentary:
"Is Paul talking about behavior of husbands and wives, or of men and women in general? In some parts of the text it is clearly impossible to argue that aner means “husband” and gyne “wife,” and elsewhere these translations are implausible, especially because Paul keeps saying things like “every man” or “any woman.” The argument is not about family relations but about praying and prophesying in Christian worship."
------------------------------------------------------
On top of this, let's turn to 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 (NIV no reason):
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
How does authority work in a marriage? The wife has authority over her husband's body. The husband has authority over his wife's body. There is an interdependence, and mutuality, to husbands and wives.
So now that we've crossed off "husbands" and "wives" from verse 3, let's reread it one last time:
(3) Now, I wish you to know that of every man, the head/source is the Christ.
Now, the man is the head/source of the woman.
Now, the head/source of the Christ [is] the God.
The other ambiguity here has to do with the nature of "headship."
This is probably the most debated thing among scholars, and there's a lot of heat that goes into that argument.
Lots of people see this language about headship, and think in terms of power, and authority, and dominion, and hierarchy. God rules over Christ. Christ rules over men. Men rule over women. And it's not just me, ruling over my wife. It's me, ruling over every woman here.
Now, the Greek word is ambiguous, just like in English. At a business, if you're the "head" of the board, you're in charge. But "head" can also mean "source." We talk about how the headwaters of the Mississippi is Lake Itasca.
When we read 1 Corinthians 11, we see that both ideas are present. In verse 8, the Corinthians argue that man is the source of woman. Eve came from Adam's side. And since woman comes from man, woman is inferior. The two ideas are combined.
Paul then counters this in three ways. First, men come "through" women, every time a woman gives birth. Second, verse 12, all things are "from God." So God is the ultimate source of everything. And third, verse 11, men and women apart from each other are nothing, IN THE LORD.
When all of us-- men and women-- were joined to Christ, issues of class, and status, and rank, fell away. In Christ, there's neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female (Galatians 3:28). All the ways we try to put people in boxes, don't work in Christ. All of us are "sons" of God, in Christ (Galatians 3:26).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So that's the passage, or at least, the big picture the passage gives us. What should we learn from this?
In every man-centered (patriarchal) society, men are tempted to justify having power, and authority, and dominion over women. It's part of the curse-- that men will try to rule over women (Genesis 3:16). And there's no better way to accomplish this, than by trying to use the Bible to defend that view.
You can twist Scriptures, like Genesis 2, and make them say things they don't. You can use the Bible to say that man is superior, that creation is built around man, and that man should rule over woman, a husband over his wife. You can say that man alone is king.
But this is wrong.
Men and women together are made in God's image, and are God's glory and likeness.
Men and women together have dominion over the earth.
Men and women together are free to serve God, and worship Him, and pray to Him.
Men and women are interdependent. There is a mutuality, and interconnectedness, among men and women. We need each other, and we are nothing apart from each other.
Women shouldn't wear head coverings. Women are not second class citizens in God's kingdom. They don't need to wear something to show they are inferior, because they're not.
Translation:
(2) Now, I commend you,
because all the things of mine [=all I taught] you remember,
and just as I handed over to you the traditions, you adhere firmly.
(3) Now, I wish you to know that of every man/husband, the head is the Christ. ["of every man/husband" is focused, I think. Also, possibly, "the Christ."].
Now, the man/husband is the head of the woman/wife.
Now, the head of the Christ [is] the God.
(4) Every man/husband praying or prophesying, having something on his head, shames/ disgraces/dishonors his head.
(5) Now, every woman/wife praying or prophesying with an uncovered/revealed head, shames/ disgraces/dishonors her head.
For one and the same, she is, with the one having been shaved.
(6) For if a woman/wife doesn't cover herself, her hair should also be shorn off.
Now, if it is shameful to be shorn or shaved, she should cover herself.
For, on the one hand, a man must not cover his head,
the image and glory of God being.
Now. on the other hand, the woman, the glory of the man/husband, she is ["the glory of the man" is focused].
For man isn't from woman, but woman from man.
For indeed/also, a man wasn't created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.
(10) For this reason, the woman must have [a symbol of] authority upon her head, because of the angels/messengers.
(11) Nevertheless, neither is the woman apart from the man anything, nor is the man apart from the woman anything in the Lord.
(12) For just as the woman [is] from the man, in the same way the man [is] through the woman.
Now, all things [are] from God.
(13) Among yourselves, judge.
Proper, is it, for an uncovered woman to pray to God? ["Proper" is focused, and possibly also "to pray"],
(14) and doesn't nature itself teach you
that a man, on the one hand, if he has long hair, a dishonor to him it is? ["a dishonor" is focused].
(15) Now, a woman, if she has long hair, glory to her it is? ["glory/honor" is focused]
because her hair in place of a mantle/covering, it is given ["in place of a covering" is focused].
(16) Now, if anyone decides, quarrelsome/contentious, to be, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the Corinthian church has four main arguments that Paul addresses:
(1) An argument from marriage, and traditional Roman dress, and adultery (verse 4-6).
(2) An argument from Genesis 1, with "man" being made in God's image (verse 7). "Man" is too glorious-- too fine, lol-- to cover. Women, on the other hand, image men, not God.
(3) An argument from Genesis 2, with the purpose for woman's creation.
(4) An argument from either Genesis 6, or from missionary concerns ("because of the angels/messengers"; which would be really clever for them).
