Household: "Head" in 1 Corinthians 11 (Part 2)

We pick up now with the rest of the passage following 1 Corinthians 11:3:

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband (or man) is the head of his wife (woman), and God is the head of Christ.

I've said that "head" here functions as "origin." The chiasmus in verses 4-16 will make this clear. Here is how Kenneth Bailey presents it using his own translation. An interpretation in verse 9 is critical to this passage, and I have bolded the keywords:

A  4 Any man who prays or prophesies
     with his head covered
     dishonors his head.
    5 Any woman who prays or prophesies
    with her head unveiled
    dishonors her head.

     B  6 for it is the same as if her head were shaved
          for if a woman (prophet) will not veil herself,
          then let her cut off her hair
          but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved
          then let her wear a veil

          C  7 For a man ought not to cover the head
               Since he is the image and glory of God,
               and woman is the glory of man.

               D  8 For man is not from (ek) woman
                    but (alla) woman is from (ek) man.

                    E  9 For man was not created because of (dia) woman
                         but (alla) woman because of (dia) the man.

                         F  10 Because of (dia) this
                              the woman should have authority on her head,
                              because of (dia) the angels.

                    E' 11 Specifically (plen), woman is not independent of man
                         nor independent of woman in the Lord.

               D' 12 For as the woman is from (ek) the man
                    So also the man is (born) through (dia) the woman.
                    And all things are from (ek) God.

          C' 13 Judge in yourselves:
                         is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?

     B' 14 Does not nature itself teach you
          that for a man to wear long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
          15 but if a woman has long hair,
          it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

A '16 If anyone is disposed to be contentious
we recognize no other practice,
nor do the churches of God.

Here is how Bailey characterizes each stanza:

A  Church Practice (and its reason)
     B  Example – Women (shaved = dishonor/disgraces)
          C  Men – Not Cover Gen. 1:27
               D  Man – Not From Woman, Woman From Man
                    E  Dependence Gen 2:18
                         F  Authority
                    E' Dependence
               D' Woman From Man, Man Through Woman  Gen 1:27
          C' Women – Veiled
     B’ Example – Men (long hair = dishonor) – Women (long hair = glory)
A' Church Practice

Verses 4 and 5 tell us the presenting problem: Head covering for men and women. John Chrysostom (349 – c. 407) wrote in his Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians:

“The Corinthian women used to pray and to prophesy (for in those days women also prophesied) with their heads bare. Meanwhile, the men, who had spent a long time in philosophy, wore their hair long and covered their heads when praying, which was the Greek custom. Paul had already admonished them about these things. It seems that some had listened to him but that others disobeyed. Here praises the obedient before going on to correct others.” (26.2)

I present this to show that early in the Church's life, at least some did not see this purely as an issue of women in disobedience.

Bailey points out that Corinth was morally loose even by Roman standards. Corinth was the center of worship for the goddess Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty, love, and procreation. Like honeybees collecting pollen, 1,000 temple prostitutes would seek sexual relations with men, thus connecting the men with the goddess and using the financial proceeds to operate the temple. Hair was considered especially sensuous, so these prostitutes exposed their hair and adorned it with ornaments. We also know that some Greco-Roman women of high status tended to disregard restrictions observed by other women. We know from elsewhere in the letter that some wealthy, high-status people were part of the Church. Bailey points out that similar prohibitions against uncovered heads for women existed in Jewish circles, sometimes with very stiff penalties.

Some women were apparently participating in worship with their heads uncovered. This clearly would have been disturbing for more conservative Greeks and Jews. In their eyes, such women dishonored men, their husbands, and the Church community. They were disgracing their "heads," both in the sense of their dishonor and dishonor to men, including their husbands. They violated the traditional expression that honored the divinely established distinction between the sexes. Based on Chrysostom, it is also possible that some men were also behaving dishonorably in their appearance. Paul is likely getting a bit sarcastic in telling the women to cut off their hair, similar to when he suggested some troublemakers should cut off other body parts in Galatians 5:12. 

Verse 7 indicates that both man and woman are in the image of God, but that woman is the glory of man. Thus, when a man gets up to speak with his head uncovered, he reflects the glory of God, but when a woman rises to speak with her head uncovered, she reflects the glory of man. She detracts from the glory to be given to God. Therefore, she should cover her glory so that worshipers are not distracted by the glory of man she reflects. (This comes from Kenneth Bailey's lectures Women in the New Testament:  A Middle Eastern Perspective.)

Verse 8 states what we know from Genesis about the creation order, but verse 9 is critical. Most English Bible versions translate the two occurrences of the Greek word dia as "for" in this passage, even though they twice translate it as "because" in the very next verse. Thus, in verse 8, we have woman created "for" man and not "because" of man. Using "for" suggests that woman was created as an assistant of secondary status to suit the purposes of man. This fits with a tradition that interprets Eve created as a "helper" (ezer) to man to mean that she was created to be his servant and subordinate. Yet this is the same word used to describe God as our "helper" in times of need. If there is a status difference, it is one of a person with superior resources coming to help someone with less. But the real purpose of the Genesis account is to highlight Eve's completion of Adam as a corresponding match. There is nothing of hierarchy or subordination in the passage. The point is not that Adam needed a servant to help him. In this sense, Eve was not created for Adam. Adam was incomplete and needed his matching, but missing, partner. Therefore, because of Adam (in his incompleteness), Eve was created.

Verses 7-9 affirm the significance of woman as a corresponding partner to man but points out the differences in origin. Paul believes it is important to honor this distinction even though it may seem esoteric to us 2,000 years later, living in Western culture. Women have the authority to prophesy and participate in public worship. A woman shows authority when she covers her head, bringing honor to herself and the community through her respectful and reverent behavior. "Because of this…" Paul writes in verse 10, "…the woman should have…" What? Submission on her head? No. "…authority on her head." The head covering symbolizes that she is discerning, moral, and responsible.

Then we get to the peculiar end of verse 10, which talks about doing this "because of the angles." Bailey points out that in Scripture, the angels frequently approve and praise witnesses to acts of God and the Church. For instance, some believed that angels were present at creation, singing God's praises as he created the universe. Revelation speaks of churches having angels. It is possible that Paul is saying that rather than the angels having to watch despicable behavior, wear your head coverings and give them something to praise and celebrate. The precise meaning is simply unclear.

In case the point was not clear about the corresponding mutuality of male and female, Paul drives the point home in verses 11 and 12. Then, he shames the Corinthians in verses 13-15 for not doing what should be obvious to them (though maybe not to us) from nature. Then, in verse 16, he gives them the Pauline equivalent of "Do it because I said so!"

What I hope this demonstrates is that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is about a behavioral controversy that was culturally specific. Women, and maybe men, were behaving arrogantly and disrespectfully in worship. Paul intended to put a stop to it. As we saw yesterday, Paul moves on in chiasmus form to talk about the arrogant abuse of the communion meal in 11:17-33. Then, he discusses gifts given to all for building up the Church in Chapter 12, using a human body metaphor. At the focal point of chiasmus is the powerful passage on other-centered love in Chapter 13. He moves back out from the focal point with instructions on using the gifts in 14:1-25. Then, paralleling the instruction against disorderly communion, he instructs them to behave in an orderly manner in 14:26-33a. Finally, he comes to the passage about women disrupting worship with questions and inappropriate conversation. He instructs them to be still, submit to the proceedings, and stop being disruptive. (This is another controversial passage that we won't go into here. However, based on the chiasmus analysis, it doesn't appear to be a later insertion as some have claimed.)

For our purposes, the central point is this: Verse 3 is Paul's illustration of the principle of honor given to origins to correct a culturally bound disruptive practice that was in play at Corinth. "Head" is used here in the sense of "origin." The succeeding verses illustrate that verse 3 is only loosely the controlling passage for what follows. Mostly it functions as a way to introduce the concept of heads and glory.

(For a brief article on this passage by Kenneth Bailey, see his article in the Jan-Feb 2000 issue of Theology Matters, Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View, and go to page 11. You will notice that Bailey does allow that "head" can mean authority over when he is looking at Greek passages. This is a point I qualify more narrowly than he does based on other works I've read. I maintain that "head" can indicate preeminence in authority, a statement of relative status compared to others, but it does not seem to relate to the quality of "ruling others." Otherwise, why use the Greek archon (ruler) to translate ros (head) from Hebrew instead of using the literal Greek equivalent kephale (head) when moving from Hebrew to Greek in the Septuagint?)

Series Index

Comments

[Peter Kirk]

Thanks for clarifying that woman was created because of man, because man was incomplete without her, rather than for man, as mere servant.

It is interesting to note, but not clear in Bailey as you present him, that Paul seems to be making a word play with dia. He is consistent in verses 8 and 11 that woman is ek man and not vice versa. But in verse 9 man is not dia + accusative "because of" woman but vice versa; nevertheless in verse 12 man is dia + genitive "through" woman. (In verse 10 both dia's are + accusative "because of".) I suspect that Paul uses this word play deliberately to show that although he has different roles for men and women he is treating them equally.

[Michael W. Kruse]

I remember that Bailey addresses some the grammar issues in his lectures but I honestly can't remember if he makes the point as precisely as you made it. What you say certainly matches the gist of his analysis and makes sense to me.

[Dana Ames]

Michael, I'm not at home now, but when I get back I'll send you the link to an interesting article someone on the Wrightsaid list pointed out. According to the author, the "aggelos" are some kind of spies (messengers) who attended meetings to make sure they were on the up-and-up with the empire. It was a very interesting paper.

Dana

[Michael W. Kruse]

Now that is a take I haven't heard before. I'd love to learn more.