1 Corinthians 11:2-16
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such practice—nor do the churches of God.
The Difficulty of this Passage
Richard Hays, a New Testament scholar, writes on this passage, “we should never pretend to understand more than we do.” There are many possible interpretations of this text. Gordon Fee says, “The two crucial contextual questions, what was going on and why, are especially difficult to reconstruct.” Which is to say, the text isn’t that clear and many people are confused. I haven’t figured it all out, but I will share two solid interpretations.
#1 – Lucy Peppiatt
The Rhetorical Approach
Lucy Peppiatt is a pastor, systematic theologian, and the principal of Westminster Theological Centre. In her book, Women and Worship at Corinth, she makes a good argument that some verses of this chapter are the Corinthians’ own ideas that Paul then repeats to argue against.
This may seem strange at first, but Paul regularly quotes the Corinthians throughout his letters in order to correct them. The Greek does not have quotation marks, so the only way to know is by context. Translators then add in the quotation marks themselves. For example,
“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (6:12-13)
Again Paul writes,
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. (8:1-3) (See also 7:1, 8:4, 10:23, and 15:12)
The Corinthian Context
First, Peppiatt’s view of the context. Corinth was a place of Roman, Greek, and Jewish believers, all of them following different cultural dress codes. Greek women were usually depicted without a head covering (even in prayer), while head coverings were common for men in all three contexts. Peppiatt writes, “There was no one convention regarding head coverings in Corinth among the Romans, Greeks, and Jews that we can identify as the norm both for men and women with respect to signifiers for shame and honor.”
Therefore, the Corinthian leaders, presumably men, were appealing to their particular view of head coverings and enforcing that view—that all women should wear them—on the entire congregation. If they didn’t cover their head, they were dishonoring the men in the congregation. These women may as well have cut all of their hair off. Paul responds by poking fun at them: So it’s either head coverings or a shaved head!
The Creation Story
The Corinthian leaders root the practice of head coverings in their view of creation. The question is whether this is a correct summary of the creation story. In their explanation, man is the image and glory of God. Woman is the glory of man, and therefore not the image of God or glory of God. These verses have historically been used to say women are inferior to men. Charles Hodge, a 19th century theologian, even said,
[t]he central idea must be that the woman, being taken from man, is inferior to him. It is even truer that she was created because of man, which means that the purpose of her existence is not in herself.
It is no surprise that this is the conclusion many readers come to. If we take these to be Paul’s own words instead of the Corinthians’ ideas, it looks like Paul is reinterpreting the Genesis story. The story in Genesis and the one in 1 Corinthians are not the same. Genesis 1:27 is clear that both male and female are made in the image of God: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
1 Corinthians 11:8-9 goes on, “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” In some sense, this verse fits with Genesis 2:18:
“The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’”
and 2:22:
“Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [or side] he had taken out of the man.”
The meaning of these verses is important here. Was woman made as a subordinate kind of helper? Was man made to do 75% of the work and woman to help with the other 25%? Is she an assistant or is she a co-laborer? What does it mean for woman to be created from man’s side?
Same of my Same
“A helper suitable for him” comes from the phrase ezer kenegdo in Hebrew. Ezer, or helper, can in no way suggest a subordinate role because this same word is used throughout Scripture for God as the Helper of his people. Kenegdo can be translated as “matching.” The NET Bible says this phrase shows “that she has everything that God had invested in him.”[1] Therefore, this passage does not stress the different roles of man and woman, but their sameness. Adam affirms this in the next verse:
“The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.’” (22:23a)
The point is, Adam sees every animal in the garden and none of them are like him. God finally creates Eve, a human being just like him. She is made of the same substance as Adam, meaning that she is his equal.
The Meaning of “Head”
Paul affirms what he taught the Corinthians in verse 3: “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
This statement is a difficult one. Some have used this verse to say that woman is subordinate to man just as Christ is subordinate to God the Father. It’s problematic to think of the Trinity this way because it implies hierarchy within God himself. It denies the equality of the Father and the Son. Instead, Cyril of Alexandria interprets it this way:
Thus we say that the kephale [head] of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephale of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise, the kephale of Christ is God, because He is from Him according to nature.
Peppiatt says, “Whatever kephale does mean, it does not mean that as God rules over Christ, Christ rules over man, and man rules over woman, because we cannot claim that God rules over Christ in the first place.”
No Such Practice
Paul ends this section with harsh words: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such practice—nor do the churches of God.” In other words, Peppiatt says, Paul is clarifying that “if they wish to be argumentative about it, then they will find they are on their own.”
Some have argued that Paul desired all women to wear head coverings (and all men to have short hair), but this seems unlikely for a number of reasons. First, Acts 18:18 says Paul shaved his head as a result of a vow he had taken. It’s likely that this was the Nazarite vow, which means he would’ve grown his hair for eighteen months—having long hair himself. Even more, his hair would’ve been long while in Corinth!
Second, in John 12:1-8, Mary poured expensive perfume on Jesus feet. And what does she do? She wipes his feet with her hair. Jesus commends her! This story is in all four gospels and in Mark 14:9, Jesus astoundingly says, “Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”
Finally, it’s unlikely in light of verses 11 and 12 where Paul emphasizes the equality and mutuality of man and woman: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” Paul did say that woman was made from man at creation, but it does not imply a hierarchical relationship. Rather it implies mutual dependence. Man is now born from woman, and both need each other to fulfill God’s calling as image-bearers.
Conclusion
Lucy Peppiatt’s rhetorical approach solves many issues in this passage. It makes sense of the strange creation summary and straightens out wrong ways we have thought about the Trinity. It reiterates the equality of man and woman we see in Genesis. One post can’t possibly sum up Peppiatt’s compelling argument. So I highly recommend her book, Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians.
How to Read the Passage
This is how Peppiatt divides the passage to show Paul’s words and the Corinthians’ words in 11:2-16 (Paul is in bold; the Corinthians are italicized):
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions/teachings, just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man, but the head of Christ is God.
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.
So 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!
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
Nevertheless [the point is] in the Lord, woman is not independent on/separated from man, nor is man independent of/separated from woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it fitting for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her in place of a head covering. If anyone wants to be dangerously divisive about this, we have no such custom—nor do the churches of God.
[1]NET Bible.
I think what I wanted from Peppiatt was a distinct, “Here is what ‘head’ means in the context of this passage.” I realize that may not have been the scope of what she was writing about, but I am curious to hear how she would define headship.
While I do not buy into the subordinationism of many of the New Calvinists, I do nonetheless think it is important that we acknowledge that while the Son is not subordinate to the father, he does relate to the father differently than the father relates to Him. In other words, the Son eternally relates to the Father as the Son, and the Father eternally relates to the Son as the Father. The relationship is reciprocal––one is not subordinate to the other––yet not like a mirror.
Similarly, with regards to husband and wife, I would argue that both man and woman exist for the same end, that is the creation mandate. Yet, man through doing and woman through helping. This is demonstrated clearly when we see that it is Adam who names all of the animals, and it is also Adam who names Eve. Yet without Eve, Adam could not fulfill the “and multiply” command contained within the creation mandate.
For further clarity, I am curious to hear how you would talk about the “coequalness” of man and woman. In other words, how do man and woman relate to one another in their vocation? Are they coequal mirrors (do they serve the exact same ends in the exact same way), or are they reciprocal yet different (they serve the same end, yet in different ways)? Or again put differently, is there anything unique about faithful masculinity and faithful femininity, or is it all just our body parts?
She writes more on the meaning of head than I could summarize here. In her book, she focuses most on what it does not mean–aka, the language of hierarchy or authority. So I don’t think she would use the word “headship” since that usually implies authority. The meaning is “polymorphous” since the relationships between man and woman, man and Christ, and Christ and God cannot exactly correlate. But she seems to think words like origin, relation, and provenance define it best.
I think there is something unique about being man and woman, since both sexes are the image of God. If one “type of human” was sufficient, there wouldn’t be two. However, I’m wary about defining exactly what that is–especially explaining it in terms of authority and submission, leading and following. Does being a woman affect the way I approach vocation in a different way than it affects a man? Yes. Just as my personality and culture and age do. But I don’t think I can draw a line from my gender directly to my vocation in a way I can easily explain. So yes, I think there is something unique about being either man or woman, but not so much a mold we fit into as much as it is just who we are. As we imitate Christ by sacrificially loving others, we will be faithfully displaying the glory of being male and female.
I am curious what exactly you mean by “doing” vs “helping.” Also, how exactly would you say man and woman relate to one another in their vocation?