Men and Women are Distinct and Equal-1 Cor 11:2-16

Yohan‘s Sermon on 1 Cor 11:2-16 [1/31/2021]. Good morning. So I guess I’m standing here because this is a potentially controversial passage and I guess Dr. Ben wanted to give this one to me. I believe also, the lectionary reading avoids this passage. Now I think yes, this could be a controversial topic, but it doesn’t need to be. I think both conservatives and liberals today would like this passage to offer more clarity about what Paul is saying regarding gender distinctions, but I think there is a lot more than just that going in this passage. So it doesn’t offer a very clear cut way forward on that issue. Now, not everything that Paul says applies to us that we should follow it to the letter. But what he says always enlightens us as to how to apply the gospel in specific situations, even for our culture.

So let’s take a look at some of the things it says. So Paul here basically addressed the issue of head coverings for women during worship. Apparently, this is another issue that the Corinthian church had asked Paul about. Now for us, something like this would seem so trivial. Head coverings or not, who really cares? We would take this to be a fashion issue in our culture. But apparently in that culture, this wasn’t a trivial matter. It really did arouse enough controversy for them to bring it up to Paul and for Paul to respond. And Paul responds emphatically that women should cover their heads.

Why? Paul seems to offer multiple reasons here. First, Paul says in 1 Cor 11:3 that the head of every man is Christ and the head of a wife is her husband and the head of Christ is God. And then in 1 Cor 11:5 he says that every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. Here Paul seems to affirm the hierarchy that a man is above the woman. But didn’t he say in Galatians that in Christ, there is no male and female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile (Gal 3:28)? Like I had said before, Paul was a “victim” of his own success. Apparently some women had taken that message of the gospel and thought that they could show up to church without head coverings. And now Paul found himself tampering down his own message of equality. How to explain this tension in Paul or in the biblical text? Well, I think part of it is that the kingdom of God is already here but at the same time not quite here yet. In our lectionary reading also, it is stated that the kingdom of God is near (Mk 1:15). The church lives in the times between the times, which means that Jesus already established his kingdom through his coming, death and resurrection, and at the same time, not quite yet until he comes in all his glory again.

In a previous sermon, I had explained the need for hierarchies in society and even the church. Let me repeat that again. So when humanity fell into sin in Gen 3, the punishment to the woman was, “your desire will be for your husband and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16). We tend to look at this verse very negatively and I’m sure a lot of men have abused this verse to put their wives under submission.  But every punishment in Gen 3 has a somewhat redemptive aspect to it. It’s not just punishment for the sake of punishment. When you look at it not so much as a gender hierarchy, but the establishment of hierarchy in general, I think the punishment makes a lot of sense. When human beings are sinful they need to be accountable to someone, and often times that someone is someone in authority above us. God was merely establishing the first hierarchy in Genesis. If children, who often misbehave, didn’t have their parents and teachers above them, forget about raising up a community. Yet Jesus brought forth his kingdom and with it gave us a new covenant in our hearts. So if Jesus makes us pure (Mt 5:8), the need of a hierarchy is diminished and we are then all equal in Jesus. Yet we are still sinful until his second coming, so we will always need some hierarchy to keep us accountable. Once again, the kingdom is already here and at the same time, not yet.

Ok, that’s very nice, you may say, but perhaps this may seem like a cop out, because my version of hierarchies does not involve genders, but Paul clearly seems to be talking about gendered hierarchies. My answer to that would be that the gospel and the Bible is always contextual and must be applied according to each culture. So in Paul’s time clearly women were still mostly under the men and that was the hierarchy at the time. And if hierarchies are still necessary in our sinful world, then some of the hierarchies in that culture needed to be preserved to some extent. And in the past, when most women stayed at home, the only person they could be accountable to would be their husband. But does this apply to our culture today? Well, it depends. I would say that in the 21st century, there seems to be very little of “our” culture. Everyone has their own culture. Every person and every family lives very differently. And today a lot of women go to work. And it seems like the workplace is the place where most accountability seems to take place, for better or worse. In other words, our most immediate hierarchy we submit to is our boss. So one could argue that a lot of women today already have some accountability to a great extent. And given that every person is different, I presume there will be families in which the man acts more like the woman and the woman more like the man, and that’s okay, as long as each is willing to submit humbly to one another (Eph 5:21).

It is helpful to look at 1 Cor 11:3 again. It says that the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. The analogy is made to Christ and God. That’s interesting because in our orthodox Christian doctrine, it’s not like the Father God is superior to the Son. Philippians 2 says that though Jesus was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God to be grasped, but emptied himself, being born in the likeness of men (Phil 2:6-8). So is Paul saying that women are inferior? I don’t think so, because Christ is not inferior to the Father God. But anyone who submits to anyone, should do so with the same attitude as Christ did. So yes, truly, we are all equal. As a matter of fact, when God created everything in Genesis 1 it says, “in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27), suggesting that both male and female equally reflect God’s image. Yet, we humbly submit to each other, as Christ submitted to the Father. And clearly man and woman need each other not equally in terms of roles, but equally in value. Paul says this 1 Cor 11:11, “in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. All things are from God.” Moreover, one should take note that it is implied that women can pray and prophesy in public in this congregation, and Paul has no issue with that whatsoever. Just because they have to wear a head covering, it doesn’t mean they can’t take some leadership roles in the church.

But moving on, another part of the argument that seems inescapable is that Paul seems to make gender distinctions. In other words, the head covering issue is not just a matter of hierarchy but about the fact that each gender is different. He even says in 1 Cor 11:14, “Does not nature itself teach you this…”  Of course, nature itself does not really tell us that one gender has to have short hair and the other one long covered hair. Plenty of men have grown their hair and have looked pretty good. But I don’t think one can easily dismiss Paul as having mistaken cultural norms for nature. Because part of his argument is that man and woman are truly different from each other. I mean, biologically, this is true! I mean just look at us. Every child can tell the difference early on. If man and woman are different in nature, and if we are called to live according to the different gifts that God has given us, then we wouldn’t fight our nature so much, but follow it, so to speak.

It wouldn’t be wise ignore our general biological differences, whether in a marriage or worship or whatever we do. Sometimes when my students ask me about gender and the Bible I give them this example. So assume you have a young couple. They both work. No problem so far. But then, they have children. And they need to decide who will quit the job to stay at home to take care of the child. Well, who should quit his/her job? Of course, this can simply be reduced to whoever wants to, but what if they both don’t want to equally?  At this point, the decision should be made based on what is most beneficial for the family, which often is tantamount to saying the child or children. Assume now that both husband and wife made the same income. In such a case, usually, it should be the woman who quits and stays at home. Why?? Because it has been proven biologically that usually mothers are better at parenting than fathers are. And part of it is the bonding that comes from the hormones of bearing that child for nine months and breastfeeding. So if one is thinking about doing what is best for the children, one can only reach this conclusion.

Am I saying though that this is an absolute rule? Not at all. For instance, what if the woman makes a lot more money than the man? Or what if she has more opportunities for advancement at her job? That changes the calculus completely, once again, thinking for what is most beneficial for the family, because money is important after all. In such a case, it would make sense for the father to quit his job. Or could there also be a few cases in which the father happens to be a better parent than the mother? Absolutely.Could there be cases in which a man is more like a woman and a woman like a man? Of course. See, I understand that many today could get offended by a biblical passage like this one because it seems to leave out cases (the minorities) that don’t quite fit the mold. But I think it is okay to generalize as long as one is always open to exceptions to the mold. If we can’t generalize then, it would take a long time to talk about every individual case. The Bible makes a lot of generalizations and that’s fine as long as we can see exceptions to that.

Finally, there is the issue of shame or dishonor. 1 Cor 11:5 suggests that every woman who prays or prophesies with head uncovered brings dishonor to her head, and of course, the implication is to her husband. We must ask ourselves, why was this the case? Was it distasteful fashion? Here it seems trivial for the men of this congregation to take offense at what their wives were doing. One could say, hey mind your own business. If women were doing this in the light of equality that Christ brings, why should they even care what their men think about this? This would seem to be the reasonable response in our culture.

However, if you have been following this letter pretty closely, you realize this is not what our response is in light of the gospel. Remember, “everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial” (1 Cor 6:12; 8:1). We are free to do anything, but we give up our rights for the sake of building up others, or the church. In some respects, one could argue, women are free to do whatever they want with their hair. But if their men think it brings shame on them or the community, they would think twice about offending them. It’s just like the issue of food sacrificed to the idols. People were arguing it was ok to eat the meat because food is just food and idols aren’t real (1 Cor 8:4-6), so what’s the big deal. Yet in doing so, they were making their “weaker” brothers stumble into sin (1 Cor 8:10-11).

The head covering is a somewhat similar situation. What we need to ask ourselves is, were the men just petty or what the women were doing really cringe worthy for their culture? Some commentators believe that given that Corinth was a Greek city, the issue was not really about wearing veils but whether to arrange one’s hair as to cover the head or to have one’s hair loose. The problem of loose hair in public is that prostitutes used to do this in public. Not only that, we know that prostitution was often part of pagan religious ritual, and when some pagan women went into a religious frenzy, they often had loose hair.

So you could make an argument here that Paul wanted Christian worship to be orderly in contrast to pagan worship in which people went into a frenzy. Now I understand that as Christians have given up traditional churches more and more, our worship has become more and more disorderly, so to speak. Whether Paul would think too much of this, I’m not sure.

But on the other issue, I don’t think the men were being super petty in thinking that their women were causing them shame through this seemingly insignificant hair style issue. I mean most men today would not want their wives to be dressing like prostitutes in public. See, the women here may have thought that they were just exercising their new given freedoms in Christ and expressing their newly given equality, but maybe they inadvertently were causing other negative side effects.

And though Paul doesn’t address this head on, an unspoken issue that I think is implied is that this is an issue about modesty. I think it is a universal thing throughout most cultures and most periods of time that a woman’s hair was always considered very beautiful. Now of course, there is nothing wrong with beauty. God gave us beauty to enjoy. In Genesis 2, God gave people trees that were “pleasing to the eye and good for food” (Gen 2:9). If all we needed was food, he could have just made some ugly trees that tasted good. But God gave us as sense of beauty and artistry and therefore made the garden of Eden beautiful too. So one may ask, why are these Corinthian women being asked to cover their beautiful hair?

Well see, part of the problem is that after the fall into sin, our sense of beauty and artistry became lustful. We can clearly see this in Genesis 3 after the woman talked with the serpent, suddenly the forbidden fruit also became “pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Gen 3:6). And ever since, beauty has ensnarled and become a stumbling block for many. So in some ways, Paul is asking the women here to dress modestly. Of course, a woman could argue that she has the right to dress any way she wants. But once again, this is like the issue of food sacrificed to the idols. In the light of the gospel, a woman would not only think about her freedoms and rights, but how those freedom would affect others. And if the way she dresses makes a man stumble into sin, perhaps she should refrain from doing so.

Of course, we can understand this in our culture where a lot of women out there dress scantily. But hair?? Can beautiful hair really arouse a man? My answer to this would be that what arouses or tempts people depends on how much of something they have been exposed to. In the hypersexualized culture that we live in we see women in bikinis all the time on the billboards. So frankly loose hair for men today is not such a big deal because we see it all the time. But one can imagine that in the ancient past, when men were not exposed much to women’s bodies, hair may have been really arousing.

One last thing I’d like to address is, doesn’t Paul seem SO legalistic here? If it does, I think it’s because the American evangelical church has often overemphasized the freedom we have in Christ and has attempted to tear down a lot of norms. Evangelicalism has its roots in Protestantism of course, and during the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers were partly protesting the traditions and the “legalism” of the Catholic Church. Given all the rules that Catholics had and still have, this is to some extent understandable. But if we are really honest, Evangelicals have overdone this quite a bit. They have swung the pendulum towards what is called antinomianism, in other words, towards grace and anti-Law.

But notice how Paul starts off. He says, “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2). Wait a minute, so traditions do matter! And for us Christians, church tradition should matter! Because without it we are left to our devices to interpret the Bible in whatever way we want, which is not the right thing to do. If we are honest, every single community, has explicit and implicit rules. Every culture has its taboos. Of course, many evangelical churches claim not to be legalistic in matters of fashion or drinking, dancing, or whatever, but there are things that should not be okay in any church. I want to provide an example of “legalism” in schools, because I’m a teacher. You could make the argument that having a uniform policy is quite legalistic for a Christian school. After all, the Bible never says how to dress very specifically. Yet the research clearly shows that students in schools with a uniform policy perform better overall. Why? Because students are not distracted with fashion trends, money and class issues, or even gang related paraphernalia. So it is good for school communities to be “legalistic” in their own way.

Consider also that churches or religions that mandate some form of head covering to this day, actually live holier and purer lives than most other Christians do. Think of the Mennonites or the Amish. They often wear a bonnet and very long dresses. We also tend to criticize Muslims for their legalism, but their lives are generally much holier and more devout than Christians’ because they abstain from drinking and the hijab is a sign of modesty. They also pray far more often if we are honest. If you look at all the famous Christian scandals, for Christians everything seems to go given that God will forgive us anyways. Isn’t there something to learn from such “legalistic” communities? It really is too bad that often times Christians will often give such bad witness to Christ through living undisciplined lives that basically just abuse the grace of God. So in this sermon, I’m not saying that women here should wear a head covering, but we shouldn’t be too quick to judge Paul for saying women should do so. There were good reasons why he did so. And there is a lot to learn from the spirit of what he said, if not the letter of what he said.

Let us pray.

Questions for Discussion:

–In what ways are hierarchies good and necessary?

-In what ways are women and men equal?

-In what ways are they different?

-In what ways can a man bring shame on his wife and vice-versa today?

-In what ways does this issue compare with the issue of food sacrificed to idols and about the freedoms and rights of a Christian? Does any of that apply here?

-Is Paul too legalistic? In what ways is “legalism” a good thing?

Distinction and Equality (11:2-16) [Richard Hays]

• Does our culture erase distinctions between men and women in the name of freedom? What would Paul say? What’s the big deal 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 guiding principles in using your freedom?

After prohibiting them from eating idol food in temples (ch. 8-10), Paul addresses 3 items of abuse in the church:

1. Women’s head covering in worship (11:2-16)
2. Abuse of the poor at the Lord‘s Table (11:17-34)
3. Abuse of speaking in tongues in church (ch. 12-14)

Outline of 11:2-16:

1. An Argument from Culture and Shame (11:2-6)
2. An Argument from Creation (11:7-12)
3. An Argument from Propriety (11:13-16)

From something they wrote, they affirm their loyalty to the traditions Paul handed them (1 Cor 11:2). Then they argued 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:Dear Paul, We remember you fondly and wish to see you again. Some of us keep the traditions you taught, like we learned at our baptism that in Christ there‘s no longer any distinction between male and female [Gal 3:27–28]. So, when we gather for worship, the women play a role equal to the men, praying and prophesying freely by the inspiration of the Spirit like when you’re with us. But a dispute arose: some women, acting in the freedom and power of the Spirit, removed their head coverings and loosed their hair when they prophesy as a sign of their freedom in Christ. The more timid conservative members objected, thinking it unseemly and disgraceful for women to let their hair down in public. Most of us believe that you’d surely approve of this, for it’s a visible sign of the tradition we received from you. Could you comment on this to dispel any doubt about this? We remain your devoted followers, The church in CorinthAfter praising them for keeping the traditions (1 Cor 11:2), Paul uses “head” metaphorically to designate 3 kinds of relationships:

• man/Christ
• woman/man
• Christ/God

2 kinds of “covering” in the 1st set of gender contrasts (1 Cor 11:4-5a), where the “head” will be dishonored by the man’s and woman’s actions. The “dishonoring” leads Paul to elaborate on the woman [where the shame is her own as well as the man’s], to help her accept being “covered.” 1 Cor 11:3 was traditionally interpreted as the woman to keep her place of subordination to her “head” [husband]. But likely, this is Paul’s attempt to put it in a broader context of relationships, and to set the literal problem into a larger theological framework.

Women’s freedom to prophesy with unbound hair. Paul says to maintain the discipline symbolized by head coverings. His reasoning is obscure, not knowing how to interpret some terms, and because of his labored and convoluted argument. In view of these uncertainties, a fully confident interpretation isn’t possible. But the following can be affirmed and must be kept in mind:

• 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.
• A patriarchal / hierarchical order (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is set in counterpoint/balanced with mutual interdependence of men and women “in the Lord” (1 Cor 11:11–12).
• There’s a symbolic distinction between the sexes and doesn’t require subordination of women—even though Paul presupposes a hierarchical ordering.
• The immediate concern is for them to avoid bringing shame on the church.

Free to not wear head coverings. Some women enthusiastically embraced the early Christian tradition that in Christ there is no male and female (Gal 3:28), and they’re seeking to transcend their sexuality. Some women removed their head coverings or let their hair down in worship to discard a traditional marker of gender distinction. The head covering—whatever it was—symbolized their femininity and simultaneously their inferior status as women. To throw it off was to throw off a symbol of confinement and to enter the realm of freedom and autonomy traditionally accorded only to men. This symbolic function of the head covering is expressed in the Hellenistic Jewish narrative Joseph and Aseneth (1st century B.C.E. or 1st or 2nd century C.E.): after her conversion to Judaism, the young woman Aseneth is ordered by an angel to remove her head covering, “because you are a holy virgin today and your head is as that of a young man” (Joseph and Aseneth 15:1–2). The Corinthian women who rejected head coverings were giving expression to a similar claim of transformed spiritual status. Paul shares the view that women enjoy a new spiritual status in Christ; however, just as in ch. 7, he rejects some of the behavioral inferences that they’re drawing from this theological truth.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 it’s a reference to a married couple. Here context doesn’t help. [NRSV–“husband” and “wife” (1 Cor 11:3), but as “man” and “woman” elsewhere; 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 what has remained completely bewildering.]  2 very difficult problems:

1. what does the idiom “to have authority upon her head” mean, and
2. 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 1 Cor, 11:2–16 presents severe problems. So apply hermeneutical honesty: don’t pretend to understand more than you do. Acknowledge that we can neither understand it nor accept it entirely. Recognize 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. Are Paul’s directives persuasive? Do his arguments align with his theological vision? If so, how would his advice to them speak to Christians in different cultural settings?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 are consistent with his theological vision throughout the letter. He advises maintaining their traditional symbolic gender distinctions in Christian worship. It’s 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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…
4. “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.

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987, 2014.
3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.