Posted on 04/27/2023 9:27:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The assumption that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 reinforces a universal Church custom that women must wear a garment over their heads in Christian worship to show their subordination to men makes this “one of the most obscure Pauline passages” (W. Meeks), one that “still awaits a really convincing explanation” (C.F.D. Moule, G. B. Caird).
This passage has many statements, including the following twelve, which do not make sense if it’s about a Church custom that all women must have a garment covering symbolizing subordination:
“I praise you for … holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). This doesn’t make sense as the introduction to a passage about Corinthians flouting a custom Paul taught in all the churches, especially since the very next section begins, “In the following instructions I do not praise you …”
It was not disgraceful “for every man” (1 Corinthians 11:4) to drape a garment over his head. The capite velato was a sign of dignity and piety. Furthermore, Exodus 29:4–9 and Leviticus 16:3–4 command priests to wear a head-covering garment.
Prayer with uncovered heads was the common Hellenistic custom, not disgraceful. Head coverings were optional. Most depictions of women have no head-covering garment, so its absence was not disgraceful for “every woman.”
“For she is one and the same with the shorn woman” (1 Corinthians 11:5b). In Paul’s day, an accused adulteress had her hair let down. It was shaved if she was convicted. This explains their equivalence. There is no comparable equivalence between not wearing a head-covering garment and being shaved.
“The woman ought to have [and exercise] authority over her head” (1 Corinthians 11:10) asserts the woman’s authority. If this passage is about woman’s subordination to man’s authority, why does it only reference “authority” that is asserted by woman?
“However, the important thing [plēn BDAG 826 1c] is that woman is not separate from man” (1 Corinthians 11:11a). This denies a division between woman and man in the Lord and highlights this as Paul’s important point. This contradicts the idea that this passage asserts man’s authority over woman. As Anthony Thiselton has shown, the translation “independent” goes beyond the meaning of chōris. Most Greek dictionaries do not mention people “being independent” as a meaning of this word.
“Nor is man separate from woman in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11b). This is incompatible with woman being subordinate to man. In the Lord, namely in the experience of community in Christ, there is no separation by gender. Woman and man have equal standing. This is why both can lead worship in prayer and prophecy.
“For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman” (1 Corinthians 11:11b). This counterbalances any basis man might have as the source of woman for special standing or privilege.
“Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14). It is unrelated to Paul’s topic if he is talking about garment coverings.
“But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory” ( 1 Corinthians 11:15a) undermines Paul’s message if he wanted women to cover their hair with a garment.
“This is because long hair is given her as a covering (peribolaiou)” ( 1 Corinthians 11:15b). This, the only word specifying a head-covering garment in this passage, identifies long hair as her covering. This undermines Paul’s message if he intended women to cover their hair with a garment. 1 Corinthians 11 has no reference to a veil (kalymma) even though Paul uses kalymma four times in 2 Corinthians 3:13–16.
“We, the churches of God, have no such (toiautēn) custom” (1 Corinthians 11:16). This contradicts the idea that Paul is appealing to a universal custom of the churches requiring women to cover their heads with a garment. Toiautēn means the exact opposite of the NIV, RSV, and NASB translation, “no other”!
No word in this chapter demands a garment “head covering.” No other Bible passage prohibits male worship leaders from draping a garment over their heads or demands that female worship leaders drape a garment over their heads. On the contrary, the prohibitions of “braided hair intertwined with gold” in 1 Peter 3:3 and 1 Timothy 2:9 seem to assume that women’s hair is visible.
So what is Paul talking about? Two cultural and one linguistic insight (which I will explain in my next op-ed) made sense of this whole passage.
One day while doing research at Cambridge. I found a study by H. Herter, “Effeminatus,” in RAC (1957) 2:620–650. It cites over one hundred passages from classical antiquity, the largest number from Paul’s time, that railed against men with effeminate hairstyles. Many are about homosexual-hookup solicitation. This fits the setting in Corinth because 1 Corinthians 6:9 states that some in that church had been “men who have sex with men.” Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Timothy 1:9–11 identify homosexual acts as contrary to God’s design and the Gospel. All this explains why Paul writes, “Every man who prays or prophesies having [long effeminate hair] hanging down from the head disgraces his head.
This also avoids interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11:7–8 that contradict Genesis’s affirmations of the image of God equally in male and female: “7For a man ought [expressing a moral issue] not to display effeminate hair [covering his head] since he is the image and glory of God [and so should live in a way that upholds God’s design in creation and brings God glory. Displaying effeminate hair to solicit homosexual hookups is contrary to the way God created man for sexual relations with a woman.] Rather, it is the woman [not another man] who is [created by God to be] the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man [to be his sexual partner]; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man [to be his sexual partner]."
The second key cultural background is that Dionysiac revelries on Mount Parnassus near the Gulf of Corinth were infamous for immoral sexual practices (Livy 11:255; Pausanius 10.6.2). Women (called “maenads”) let their hair down (symbolizing undisciplined sexuality, C. R. Hallpike, “Social Hair,” Man NS 4 (1969): 256–264), uttered ecstatic “prophecy,” and engaged in orgies. The Roman historian Livy (59 BC–17 AD, LCL 11:255) writes that in Dionysiac initiation rites “there were more lustful practices among men with one another than among women.”
Pervasive Dionysiac influence, with its strong emphasis on freedom from cultural restraints, best explains why at least one man in the church in Corinth would display effeminate hair and why at least one woman, perhaps wanting to express her freedom in Christ, let her hair down when praying or prophesying.
Everything in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 makes sense if it opposes hairstyles that symbolize sexual availability. The only occurrence of the word in 11:5 for “uncovered” in the Greek Old Testament (Leviticus 13:45) is also about an “uncovered head” (NASB 1977) (translating hē kephalē autou akatakalyptos). Akatakalyptos translates the same Hebrew word that in Numbers 5:18’s bitter water test refers to hair let down loose (HALOT 3:970). These coverings are all hair.
Philip B. Payne (Ph.D. The University of Cambridge) has taught New Testament in colleges of the University of Cambridge and has been a Visiting Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Bethel Seminary, and Fuller Theological Seminary. He is well known for seminal articles on the parables of Jesus, women in the teachings of Paul, textual criticism, and Codex Vaticanus. His books include Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters, Why Can’t Women Do That? Breaking Down the Reasons Churches Put Men in Charge, and (forthcoming April 4, 2023) The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood: How God’s Word Consistently Affirms Gender Equality. He founded Linguist’s Software, which provides fonts and input systems for over 2600 languages, including the fonts used to publish the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 28th edition, the UBS The Greek New Testament, and HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament). He and his wife Nancy were missionaries in Japan. Their three children and six grandchildren all love the Lord.
Its an assumption that headwear makes women subservient to men. Most people don’t feel that way, just a few who want to be argumentative.
Not so long ago - within my lifetime - women covered their heads when attending religious services. It was and is the biblically correct thing to do.
It’s Warning to cover their heads with Christ because the fallen angles are coming back. And they like women. As in the days of Noah.
“...in Christ, there is no separation by gender. Woman and man have equal standing”
“No separation” is not the same thing as “equal standing”.
There’s no separation between Christ and the Church, and yet the Church certainly does not have equal standing with Christ. Christ is the head, and the Church is the body. The head can command the body, but the body cannot command the head.
Philip B. Payne (Ph.D. The University of Cambridge)
Piled high.Deep.
Good luck to the spiritual Pharisees and Sadducees of the last about 2,000 demon possessed swine years..
Yes
RE: The head can command the body, but the body cannot command the head.
Christ is the perfect head, so the church is obligated to obey and submit him unswervingly.
What does the imperfect earthly body do if the imperfect earthly head is wrong? is the body obligated to submit to the head then?
RE: Yes
So, women today MUST cover their heads as well?
It’s hard to tell sometimes when Paul is commanding or just saying what he prefers.
The context is about men "praying or prophesying" (v. 4) or women "praying or prophesying" (v. 5). With the prophesying aspect, I'm assuming that the praying is public praying (or leading in prayer as we say today). So this head covering instruction isn't for all men and women just attending church. This is for the people doing some aspect of leading in the church.
And for background on the culture: Greeks were big on presenting who they are by what they say more than how they dressed. Romans changed that by being more about how one dressed. This is the Greco-Roman culture in the Corinthian church that Paul was writing to. Also related is that it was the custom for many religions in the area, including Judaism, for men to have their heads covered during religious ceremonies. That Christian men have their head uncovered is quite remarkable in my opinion.
Altogether, I take Paul's teaching here to be about two points to those leading some kind of teachings or worship or whatever in church: men should dress like we have a direct connection to Christ by having our heads uncovered, showing that Christianity is about a very real relationship to Jesus and not some standoff-ish relationship like is expected with other religions. And women aren't supposed to show off their hair like a harlot in that day (IMHO look like a Greek temple prostitute). Just like shaving the head is a disgrace (verse 5), perhaps as many Aphrodite temple prostitutes in Corinth were slaves (head shaven) forced into temple prostitution. Showing off the hair suggesting looking like a temple prostitute who was doing it willingly.
Again, the context in this is about women not having a hedonistic appearance when teaching (prophesying) or praying like the worldly people were promoting a woman's appearance (much like is done today). And men who are teaching/praying should promote an appearance that says us Christian men are different from other men in that we know we have a direct connection to our Lord. Now with the customs today being different, I wouldn't say women who lead in church should cover their hair. But the overall attitude of modest appearance should be adhered to. As should men promote an overall attitude of us having direct access to Jesus.
Versus 9 and 10 in that chapter are key to the answer... For the woman’s submission and because of the Angels.
Well, here is how I see it:
St. Paul adds this is why a woman, or wife, should have authority on her head when praying or prophesying in a public church service.
Some Biblical Scholars read this to mean that a woman should have a symbol of her husband’s or father’s authority over her. Others understand it to mean that woman should use her own “authority over herself” or self-control to cover her glory—her head, in this case—while in public.
In either case, women should cover their glory while praying or prophesying in a church service because of the angels.
That statement from Paul leads to suggestions from Bible scholars that range far and wide. Most conclude that Paul means angels observe our public worship services. Since they are watching, it is important for women to be appropriate in covering their glory and not dishonoring their husbands.
It bears repeating that most interpreters believe the specific issue of a woman covering her head to preserve her glory for her husband was related to the social standards of the time. Paul is relaying specific application of a universal principle: modesty. Christians may live in widely varied cultures, with variant standards of dress and fashion. All believers should appropriately “cover their glory” in public worship services according to conscience and the standards for modesty in their own era.
Christ is risen. We are no longer bound by Mosaic Law. Head coverings for Christian women is an obsolete standard.
Without a doubt, it was standard practice throughout most of US history for women to wear head coverings at church — a hat, a veil, a scarf. The practice ended in the 1970s.
“In the 1970s there was a judgment issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document titled Inter Insigniores that basically stated that since chapel veils were not a matter of faith, it was no longer mandatory for women to wear them. In paragraph 4 it states:
“It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-happened-to-head-coverings-at-mass
And just because something is not obligatory doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Abstinence from meat on all Fridays should be observed throughout the year as a penitential act, the faithful should dress appropriately for Mass, the faithful should attend all the Lenten services during the Triduum, etc...
Most of those in the Catholic Church want an IKEA minimalist Mass and religious life. But what do you get out of that? Ugly furniture that falls apart when under stress.
From my experiences in divorce, I think it would be better for women to cover their mouths. Most men who come to me, that is their biggest complaint - that their wives never shut up their nagging. That they nag for the pure joy of nagging. That they nag, for the noise-aspect of it, like chickens continually cluck to each other. Then, when the women have destroyed any sense of closeness, they, the women, seek a divorce because they are no longer happy.
Isn't the only imperative in this passage about head coverings in verse 13? "Judge among yourselves" could be seen as commanding the church to make up its mind and don't fight about it and be contentious (verse 16). Is there any other passage in Scripture where head coverings for women are commanded? Could this be one of these debatable things that Paul tells us not to fight about but make up your own mind on the issue?
I don't think that Paul completed his thought in verse 16. In verse 17, Paul appears to change topics but does he really? In verse 16, he shows his disapproval of contentions within the church over head coverings and in the following verses about the Lord's Supper, he is upset about the fractious nature of the Corinthian church as shown by their practices in communion. I'm not sure that Paul is as concerned about doctrine in this section of the epistle (approximately Chapter 11) as he is about the Corinthians' contentious behavior.
An observation from my church. The two most submissive wives in the congregation (which is fairly small) do not wear head coverings. On the other hand, the two whose submission to their husbands I would see as the most questionable, conscientiously wear head coverings. The two who have the reality don't have the symbol and the other two have the symbol but not the reality. The former is definitely a better situation than the latter, although some would argue that all women should have both.
That’s how I see what Paul says there. I am not going to argue about it with you or anyone else. A question was asked and I answered it. If you don’t like the answer, live with it. So many people these days put their lives at risk just because they don’t like someone’s point of view. Very foolish, especially in person. I am old and literally don’t care any more. That guy the other day on video saying it would be the last mistake anyone ever made to stop a transgender from going into a women’s bathroom is one of the most inflammatory things I have ever heard one of those kind of people say. Why he hasn’t been arrested blows my mind.
Quote
“such requirements no longer have a normative value.”
Wonder if they thought about the spiritual value of what Paul was teaching..
2 Corinthians.😆😆
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.