Contextual Understanding of the Role of Women in the Early Church Pt. 2 – 1 Cor 11:2-16

Part Two

NOTE: Footnotes can be read by clicking on the number in the body of the text.

Most of the textual information we have about the role of women in the early church is attributed to Paul.  The three major texts (1 Cor 11:1-16; 1 Cor 14:1-40; 1 Tim 2:1-15) are only supplemented by the incidental mentioning of other women (Phil 4:1-3; Rom 16:1-4, 7; Col 4:15).

Some knowledge of the first century world and, to some degree, the ancient world is crucial in understanding the role women played in the early church.  This involves examining the contexts and objectives of biblical texts, and in some situations, the meanings of words within the text itself.  If the texts are viewed through a 21^st century lens, our perception of them could well be distorted.  

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF 1 CORINTHIANS 

Paul’s tumultuous relationship with the Corinthian church predates the writing of 1 Corinthians. Some of the problems he had with them are apparent from the texts we have, however two or perhaps three other letters he wrote to them are missing. ¹Paul penned the “lost” letter in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-20; 1 Cor 5:9). When Paul visited Corinth (CE 51 or 52) it was the seat of Roman government for southern Greece or Achaia (Acts 18:12-16) and was noted for its wealth, and the luxurious yet immoral lifestyle of its people. ²1 Cor 6:9-11; 8:4, 7. As a Grecian port city, about 48 miles west of Athens, its population was a mixture of Romans, Greeks, and Jews.  Their geographical location provided a fertile field for pagan influences.³The head dress of men and women in the early church may have varied in different geographical locations.   Their Greek heritage fostered an elite attitude, the Roman culture encouraged self-sufficiency, and the Jewish tradition required privileged synagogue worship (Acts 18:7).  Paul’s concern about Christians and their assemblies begins in 8:1 and ends in 14:40. Apparently most of their issues surfaced when they were in some type of group setting—pagan or Christian. 

All of Paul’s letters were addressed to individuals and/or house churches composed of 50 people or less.⁴The objectives of Paul’s letters depended upon the target audience. In Romans, he felt a basic understanding of gospel was essential in uniting a Jew/Gentile church. In Galatians, he opposed a different gospel that could have destroyed entire churches.  The Ephesian letter targeted issues common to the churches in the Lycus Valley. In Philippians, Paul provided an update about his situation in prison and urged them to deal with a selfish spirit.  In Colossians, he addressed their confusion concerning the work of Christ. Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 41.  While we do not know the location of the meeting place in Corinth, we do know It was large enough for the “whole church” (1 Cor 14:23).  Note:  When Paul wrote the letter to the church in Rome from Corinth, he mentioned that Gaius, his host, had a house large enough to accommodate the “whole church” (Rom 16:23).⁵Mary’s house was large enough for the Christians to assemble there (Acts 12:12). The meeting in Ephesus was upstairs, but the crowd was so big Eutychus had to sit in the window opening (Acts 20:7-12; 1:13). In Corinthians, Paul makes a distinction between “homes” and where they were meeting when they “came together” (1 Cor 11:18; 14:26, 35). For special occasions, dining rooms could be rented at the pagan temples (1 Cor 8:13; Acts 2:40). 

The Corinthian church had been established by Paul, Silas, and Timothy during an 18 month visit there.  At that point, Paul left for Ephesus where he remained for the next three years. It was there Paul heard of the divisions and abuses in the Corinthian church and penned the first letter (5:9)to them with the hope of correcting the factious and arrogant spirit that prevailed in the church. The origin of this letter to Paul is unknown but his writing “I hear” (11:18) and his directions in 11:34 indicate some knowledge of the situation.  The information could have been written by Chole, those who carried the letter to Paul, or perhaps by a group within the church.  Note:  The mentioning of Chole does indicate she was well respected and considered a leader in the church.

While Paul opens letters to other churches with some sort of thanksgiving for them,⁶Rom 1:8; Phil 1:3; 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:3; Phile 1:4 this was not the case with 1 Corinthians.  He begins 1 Cor 1:4 by expressing thanksgiving for what God had done for them (“his grace given you”), very quickly affirms they had all the spiritual gifts they needed (1:7), but then straightforwardly addresses their problems. Central to the entirety of 1 Corinthians is relationship.  As God, Christ, man and woman have relationships, so the body of Christians have relationships (11:3).⁷Baptism into the body of Christ brings one into a relationship with fellow believers (1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:28). The four basic divisions of 1 Corinthians build on this theme and address their lack of respect for others and their need for unity.  This basic theme is underscored by the subordinate themes of submission,⁸1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:11; Eph 5:21-24; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5. headship,⁹1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23. and creation.¹⁰1 Cor 11:8,12; 1 Tim 2:13; Rom 1:19-25

 In the first division (1 Corinthians 1-4) Paul rebukes them for forming factions that chose to follow him, Christ, Apollos, or Cephas.   He emphasizes the importance of identifying with Christ and not men (1:10, 30; 2:2, 26); the importance of Christ as the wisdom of God (1:30);¹¹

The following observations support this emphasis:

1. His appeal in 1:10 is based on the “Lord Jesus Christ.”
2. “Christ Jesus” is the wisdom of God (1:30).
3. It is what he preached (1:23-24; 2:2). 
4. Paul declares “we have the mind of Christ” (2:26).
5. The apostles are “servants of Christ” (4:1). 
6. It is in” Christ Jesus” Paul had become their father (4:15).
7. They “were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (6:11). 
8. Widows are to marry someone who belonged “to the Lord” (7:39). 
9. There is only one Lord Jesus Christ (8:6).
10. Paul believes the Corinthian church was his “work in the Lord” (9:1) and the seal of his apostleship (9:2).
11. “Are you trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy” (10:22). 
12. He is following the example of Christ (11:1). 
13. Aquilla and Priscilla greet them “warmly in the Lord” (16:19).
14. Paul wants them to have the “grace of the Lord Jesus” (16:23).
15. He closes the letter by saying: “my love to all of you in Christ Jesus” (16:24).

  and the need to have the mind of Christ (2:16).  The apostles were mere servants of Christ (4:1).¹²Paul does not use his normal word for servant (Phil 1:1 δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ-servants of Christ) but the word (ὑπηρέτας-hyperetes) which means “under rower”—the lowest slave in the ancient world. After establishing his own credibility to speak as their father (4:14-15), he proceeds to urge¹³“I urge” is used 21 times in the New Testament. The phrase is preceded by Paul’s purpose for writing (1:10) and is followed by his main point. By emphasizing Christ as the wisdom of God, Paul is stressing to his readers the importance of following Christ rather than others—even himself.  them to be united (4:16).

In the second division Paul addresses their immorality (5-7).  Legal action among Christians is discouraged (6:1-8) as was sexual promiscuity because it affects the body (church), Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit (6:15-20). 

In many ways the third division (1 Cor 8-10) describes the only ‘right’ of a Christian—and that was the ‘right’ to give up their other rights! This discussion centers around a question Paul had been asked about food sacrificed to idols (8:1). Because most houses were too small for large celebrations, rooms were rented at local pagan temples for these purposes. Some in the church apparently felt eating meat sacrificed to idols on such occasions was permissible while others did not.  Because Paul felt respect was paramount, he opposed such activity (10:21). This lack of respect for others could lead to sinning “against Christ” (8:12) and ultimately cause the weak to stumble (8:9). Knowledge should not determine what one did, but love. Paul declares, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (8:1).  Paul begins the conclusion to this section by saying, “Therefore my dear friends” (10:14)¹⁴Διόπερ, ἀγαπητοί μου is best understood as a conclusion to conduct in a pagan atmosphere that began in 8:1.  and ends with an admonition to follow his example as he followed “the example of Christ” (11:1).¹⁵James’ opposition in Acts 15:19 is against Christians going to pagan temples where all four prohibitions were practiced. Paul quotes from Exod 32:6 as examples of idols, idol worship, idol food and immorality (1 Cor 10:6-10). Jesus’ servant attitude was seen in his willingness to give up his rights if it meant saving others (Mark 10:45).

The fourth and final division of 1 Corinthians also addresses respect for others in issues of culture, the Lord’s supper, and the assemblies (1 Corinthians 11-14).  The chaos described in 1 Corinthians 14 was just symptomatic of the larger problem. 

Paul concludes the letter by commenting on the resurrection of the dead, providing general greetings and further instructions (1 Corinthians 15-16), and answering their questions about the contribution (16:1) and Apollos (16:12).

In summary and regarding Paul’s concern about their relationships to each other:

1. He was concerned about factions that were following people instead of Christ (1:10-12).
2. He addressed pagan feasts that were causing division (8:1-11:1).
3. He provided advice about issues in the assembly that were causing division including the dress of women when they prayed and prophesied (11:2-16); how Christians were to treat one another in the context of the Lord’s Supper or common meal (11: 17-34); and how they were to have an orderly and edifying assembly (14:1-40).

PAUL’S CONCEPT OF MINISTRY 

Throughout his ministry and regardless of his audience or issues he was addressing, Paul emphasizes transformation.¹⁶The concepts of being formed, conformed, and transformed are central to Paul’s ministry of maturing disciples (Gal 4:19; Rom 8:28; 2 Cor 3:18).  In the book of Romans, he devotes 11 chapters to justification by faith and then states, “not to conform to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2).  Christians are to think Christologically, “we have the mind of Christ” (2:16; Phil 2:5), and they are to think as a “new creation,” created in Christ Jesus to be like God.¹⁷2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:10; 4:24. With this type of mindset, the goals of unity and holiness are attainable (1:2; Eph 5:27).

INTRODUCTION TO 1 COR 11:2-16 

Significantly, Paul does not begin this section with “now concerning” indicating a response to questions as found in 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12.  Having dealt with the conduct of believers among unbelievers, Paul immediately turns his attention to the conduct of believers in the assembly.¹⁸This could have been part of the information conveyed from Chloe’s house and did not need a “now concerning” (peri de).  Their divisive and disrespectful attitudes surface in the assemblies mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2-34 and also in 14:1-40. The text does not indicate the Corinthians were rebelling against Paul’s teachings but rather that they needed clarification in some areas. Largely because of syncretism,¹⁹Corinth was a melting pot for many different ethnic groups in addition to Romans and Greeks.  the Corinthian believers were confused as to the preferred policy on head coverings in the assembly. For example, the Romans were accustomed to covering their heads in worship while the Greeks were not. 

Paul begins his comments with praise for them, specifically in two areas: (1) they had remembered Paul, and (2) they had held to his teachings. After this commendation he begins his comments about women who were praying and prophesying. The issue does not appear to be WHAT they were doing, but rather HOW they were doing it (with uncovered heads).

In the three texts Paul writes about spiritual gifts he does not distinguish between

the gifts that were miraculous and those that were not.  In each case the Spirit had the freedom to bestow them at will (12:11) and there was a correlation between the gifts and the issues facing the respective churches.   The Ephesians needed gifts for leadership and maturity (Eph 4:11-13).  The Roman church needed help in uniting a church composed of Jews and Gentiles and therefore needed non-miraculous gifts that would aid this process (Rom 12:3-8).  The Corinthian church needed miraculous gifts (12:27-31) that would aid in maturing the church (3:1; 14:20) and in evangelism (14:23-25).

NATURE OF PROPHECY²⁰Prophet (προφήτης)  comes from two words: (1) Pro meaning before, and (2) Phemi meaning to tell.

Prophecy was a significant and widespread part of the early church and was practiced by both men and women.²¹Acts 21:9; Acts 2:17-18; 1 Cor 11:1-5. There were several prophets in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27).  Its purpose was for edifying, teaching, exhorting, and strengthening²²Luke expresses how prophecy affectes the church: “Judas and Silas who themselves were prophets said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers” (Acts 15:32). more than predicting the future. While preaching and prophesying could overlap, they were not the same in that prophecy could possess an element of “revelation” (14:30) and could be predictive (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11).²³Paul feels the gift of prophecy was a preferred gift (14:1-5). In Acts 13:1-3 Rom 12: 6-8, 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11 prophets are mentioned before teachers. 

PRAYING AND PROPHESYING  

Prophesying was considered a miraculous spiritual gift (12:10), as was praying in tongues (14:2, 15).  Otherwise, prayer was not regarded as such. The text does not indicate the gifts (miraculous or otherwise) were gender exclusive.  Both men and women were involved in both praying and prophesying in the assemblies that are referenced in 11:4-5 and 14: 26-33.²⁴1 Cor 14:9, 26; Acts 1:14; 2:42; 4:24; 10:46; 13:3; 16:13.[./mfn] As our further study will reveal, Paul gives no indication he was opposed to women and men²⁴Some have attempted to make the head covering an issue between a wife and a husband because the terms woman (γυνὴ) and man (ἀνὴρ) can mean husband and wife.  Because there is no personal pronoun (his or her), and because the terms in 11:3 do not mean husband and wife, the reference in 11:4-5 is most likely a man and a woman.  praying and prophesying in the Corinthian church as long as they adhered to the cultural understanding of attire, specifically head coverings. ²⁵

Richard Oster, “Women, Diaspora Synagogues (Prosecuhe) and Acts 16:13 (Philippi).” A Festschrift in Honor of Earl and Ottie Mearl Stuckenbruck. David A. Fiensy and Williams D. Howden (eds.). European Evangelistic Society (Atlanta, 1995), 260-299. See BDAG, 878-879. A place of prayer was almost always the same as a synagogue. See Acts 1:14; 16:13,16.

See Randall D. Chestnutt, “Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman Era,” Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity (ed. Carroll Osburn; Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993): 1, 130.

The situation in Acts 16 indicates Lydia had an influence on the activities in what would be called a synagogue. Luke refers to the place of prayer (proseuche: προσευχὴν) rather than the normal word synagogue (synagoge). He also refers to some women being “prominent women” in Acts 17:12. Even though the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures encouraged women to be involved in domestic duties, this was not true of all women in the ancient world. Historically the role of women in the ancient world was not monolithic, therefore women could have functioned differently in various cultures.

THREE EXEGETICAL ISSUES OF 1 COR 11:2-16²⁶Mark Black, “1 Cor. 11:2-16—A Reinvestigation,” Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity (ed. Carroll Osburn; Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993): 1, 191-218.  This is an outstanding discussion of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and several observations in this article are taken from this source even though not footnoted. 

In order to determine Paul’s teaching in 11:2-16, three issues need to be addressed: (1) the meaning of the word head, (2) the use of head coverings, and (3) the public or private nature of the assembly in 11:2-16.

Understanding “Head”

1. Literal and Metaphorical

The first exegetical issue centers on Paul’s use of the word head (kephale κεφαλὴ).The term is seldom (if ever) understood as “boss/leader” in the Greek context.  It appears nine times in this text—five times five metaphorically and four times literally.  For example, the man who prayed or prophesied with his “literal head” covered dishonored his “metaphorical head” which was Christ.  The woman who prayed or prophesied with her “literal head” uncovered dishonored her “metaphorical head” which was the man (11:4-5).  Note:  While most translations refer to “the woman,” the correct Greek interpretation is “a woman” and “a man” (male and female) and not husband and wife (11:3). This is further supported by the lack of the possessive pronouns (her or his).²⁷

The following are examples of the use of the personal pronouns to indicate whether γυναικὸςor ἀνδρὸς is referring to a wife or a husband:1 Cor 7:2 ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα (his wife)
1 Cor 7:39 ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς (husband of her)
1 Cor 14:35 ἰδίους ἄνδρας (own husband)
Eph 5:33 ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα (his wife)
1 Peter 3:1, 5 ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν (your husbands)
Titus 2:5 ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν (their husbands)
John 4:16 ἄνδρα σου (your husband)
Acts 5:10 ἄνδρα αὐτῆς (her husband) 
Matt 19:5, 9 τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (wife of him)

  In 11:3 there are three pairs of six nouns—each pair corresponding to the others: 
 (1) man/Christ.
 (2) woman/man.
 (3) Christ/God. 

2. Meaning of Head: Relationship

The most plausible meaning of the word “head” is relationship. The importance of this concept is established in the introduction when Paul declares God had called them “into a fellowship (or relationship JJ) with his son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1:9). Paul’s rabbinic²⁸Paul was trained as a rabbi at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the greatest rabbis in the first century (Acts 5:34-39; 22:3).  Unlike his Jewish contemporaries, Gamaliel had a healthy respect for women. understanding of mutuality/equality from Genesis 1-2 is foundational in his teaching about the relationship of man/woman in 11:3. He is not trying to establish a (patriarchal) arrangement in 11:3 but was only using the hierarchical language of the day to make his point. Defined in this way, the issue of the text is NOT authority.   In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul uses the relationship of the body and the head to teach mutuality.²⁹Carroll Osburn, Women in the Church, Women in the Church: Reclaiming the Ideal. (Abilene: ACU Press, 2001),178-180. The same analogy fits 11:3.  As man was united with Christ and Christ was united with God so woman and man were united.  Christ found his origin in God and that resulted in his honoring God, so the woman found her origin in man and honored him. However, neither implies inferiority.  When viewed in this way and through the lens of 11:8-12, the relationship of 11:3 is one of mutuality/equality and cooperation.  

Paul’s concern in this text centers on how men and women were relating to each other in the assembly.  The failure of the women to wear head coverings and the choice of men to wear head coverings showed a lack of respect for one another and misunderstanding of a proper relationship.This meaning is also supported by following parallel texts which appear to balance the man/woman relationship.

11:9   ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα (man created for woman) ³⁰Dia (διὰ)means ‘because of, through or account of.’

11:12 ἀνὴρ διὰτῆς γυναικός· (man is born of woman)

It is true the first woman came from man, but all men that followed came from woman.³¹Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 195. “As Adam was the instrumental source of the first woman, so woman is the instrumental source for all subsequent men (including Jesus, Matt 1:16; Gal 4:4).”

Paul further emphasizes equality of men and women by declaring: “But all this comes from God” (11:12b). 

In many ways Paul’s teaching is counterculture to the husband/wife relationship defined by Aristotle (384-322 BCE) that had been adopted by the Roman empire.  This obedient/submissive posture of women to their husbands was based on four pragmatic factors. (1) Men had more education than women. (2) Men had more social experience and exposure than women. (3) The economy was more dependent on men than on women. (4) Women were married to older men at young ages (12-14).³²William Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 213-216. Perhaps this is best illustrated in the teachings of Demosthenes (59.122):³³Demosthenes was born in 384 BCE and was a Greek statesman and orator in Athens. 

For this is what living with a woman as one’s wife means—to have  children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, (suburb of Athens JJ) and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one’s own.  Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.

3. 1 Corinthians 7 Supports the Meaning of Relationship

Paul’s stress on the mutuality/equality of men and women does not begin in 11:3.³⁴The mutuality/equality of men and women is shown in his joint reference to “brothers and sisters” (NRSV, CEB, NLT, NIVI) in reference to their calling (7:24) and declaration of time being short (7:29).  He also emphasizes it in 1 Corinthians 7 by using the word “likewise” twice in 7:3-4 as he discusses sexuality and marriage.³⁵

Paul discusses the subject of sexuality and marriage in response to their question (7:1). The following comparisons show the equality of the males and females:
7:2 equal access to sexual activity. 
7:3 equal duties.
7:4 equal authority over the other.
7:8 equal directions for widowers and widows.
7:10-11 equal directions for divorce.
7:12-16 equal directions for believing husbands and wives; if unbeliever leaves, equal directions for men and women believers. 
7:25-28 same directions for engaged believers. 
7:32-35 same directions for the unmarried.

  This theme of mutuality between a wife and husband continues throughout the chapter.³⁶Bartlett, Men in Christ, and Women, 25-26. 

4. Use of Head in Ephesians

In his letter to the Ephesians Paul uses head as relationship.  First, in 1:22-23 the emphasis is not one of a “ruling head,” but a head which causes the church to grow and flourish.  Second, in 4:15-16, the head provides growth, cohesion and oneness—not rule. Third, Paul makes two parallel statements:³⁷For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body (Eph 5:23 ASV). For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body (Eph 5:23 NASB). head of the church and savior of the body (5:21-33)³⁸Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts. (London: InterVarsity Press, 2019), 50-53. as he connects head to Christ’s work as savior as shown in sacrifice. The text of Eph 5:21-33 is especially helpful in explaining the man/woman illustration of 11:3.³⁹In reference to slaves, Paul uses “just as” (Eph 6:5). In explaining the responsibility of the husband, he uses “just as” in Eph 5:25 and 5:29.  Regarding forgiveness, he uses “just as” (Eph 4:32). Paul sets the tone for his thoughts in 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21).⁴⁰A major theme of 1 Peter is submission. Christians are to submit to others (2:15-17). Slaves are to submit to masters (2:18-21). Jesus is an example of one who submitted to ungodly people (2:21-24). In 3:1, wives “in the same way” are to submit to their husbands for three reasons: (1) win them over (3:1), (2) God loves “a gentile and quiet spirit” (3:4), and (3) as example for other women (3:5-6). The husbands are to respond “in the same way” because they are equal heirs (3:7).  If Peter believed women were subordinate to men, he did not say so.  Bartlett, Women and Men in Christ, 114.  Paul’s use of submission is not the same as “authority over.” Submission is self-imposed (reflexive middle in Greek)—not imposed by another.  Paul’s use of head in 5:32 infers a position of unity, service, and sacrifice⁴¹Jesus’ position as head is best explained with one word—Savior! In 5:31 Paul quotes Gen 2:24 to support the unity of the husband and wife. It is through this lens 11:3 should be read.  Jesus is the example to be followed and imitated (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6). In Eph 5:25-129, Jesus served the church be feeding and caring for it. as exemplified by Jesus.⁴²Paul uses four phrases to stress the sacrificial work of Christ: 5:25:  gave himself up, 5:28; loved as own body, 5:29-30; fed and cared for her; loved her as himself, 5:33.  Jesus is the source of love and provisions for the church and husbands should be the same for their wives.⁴³Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 209. ⁴⁴Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 32-33. Kephale meaning source has been rejected by most scholars.

5. Possible Meaning of Head: Authority

Even though “relationship” appears to be the most feasible way to interpret head in 11:3, some suggest the term could signify authority.  As indicated previously this meaning can be traced back to Aristotle and his definition of the family that was later adopted by the Caesars.⁴⁵Emperor Augustus (63 BCE-14CE) wanted the empire to be more family centered. He made divorce laws sticker and made adultery a crime against the state.  Penalties included banishment and in some cases the husband or father of the adulterer could kill the adulterous wife. He taxed prostitution and made homosexual activity a punishable offense. He adopted the definition of the family from Aristotle in order to improve family values and unite the empire.  His reported last words were: “I found Rome in clay; I leave it to you in marble.” Plutarch (40 CE to 120 CE) fostered the idea that the family needed to adopt the religion of the father.  As applied to our text, this definition of head is based on creation order, Jesus’ relationship to his father, and on two other texts (Eph 1:22 and Col 1:18).  Viewed this way, head has the same connotation as “over”:   Christ is over man, God over is Christ, man is over the woman.  Those who support this view cite Paul’s reference to Jesus as he submits to the father (Phil 2:8).  Indeed Jesus did submit to the will of his father (Mark 14:36) and he came to do the will of the father (John 6:38), but this does not mean Jesus did not have a mutual/equal relationship with his father. Eph 1:22 and Col 1:18 refer to Jesus having authority over the church.  Head can mean authority in both of these texts, but these texts also stress the redemptive work of Christ.  Even if the term in these texts is defined as “authority,” this does not mean the definition holds true in 11:3. Paul could and did use the same word in the same correspondence to mean different things. In 1 Corinthians Paul uses the word body in three ways: physical body (6:19), body of Jesus (11:24, 27), and the body (church) (11:29). Paul uses the term temple in two ways:  church (3:16-17) and individuals ((6:19); and he uses sanctification in two ways:  salvation (6:11) and approval (7:12). As with any word in the Bible, context determines meaning.  Regardless, both texts emphasize love and mutuality.

Summary of the Meaning of Head

In summary, Paul did not view woman as inferior or subordinate to man, but rather in a complementary, mutual, and equal relationship with him.  Paul’s understanding of Genesis 1-2 is definitely not one of hierarchy, but of equality in relationship.  It seems that if Paul had wanted to support a hierarchical relationship, he would have said God/Christ, man/woman, but instead he started with man/Christ and woman/man.  Only after the fall did the relationship change (Gen 3:16) from being mutual to hierarchical. Even though the meaning of head may be questionable, this does not destroy the fact of that both men and women were prophesying and praying in the assembly at Corinth and both men and women were to respect the use of head coverings. 

Use of the Veil

1. Description and Practice

The second exegetical issue of 1 Cor 11: 2-16 centers on the use of the veil⁴⁶In the Greco-Roman world head coverings were used by both men and women.  In the Mesopotamian world the faces of women were covered. The head covering was connected to modesty for married women but in some cases, it did not apply to virgins who were looking for husbands. Hair was considered a “temptation” for young men. The uncovered head of a married woman was regarded as immodest and in such a situation the woman could have been divorced on the basis of infidelity.  Craig Keener and Walton John. (eds). “Head Coverings in Antiquity,” Cultural Background Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 2003. —a covering over the head.⁴⁷Roman and Greek women were unveiled in public, but not Jewish women. Jewish women in Palestine were veiled.  Roman women pulled veils over their heads in worship as did the men. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 19-47.  In Greek the term literally means “having down from the head.”⁴⁸

Could be “having over the head” depending on how you translate kata.
κατὰ              κεφαλῆς  ἔχων 
down (over) the head having 

Mark Black describes the head covering in the following way:⁴⁹Black, “1 Cor. 11:2-16—A Reinvestigation,” Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, 202. 

It is rather the outer garment simply pulled up from the back and across the head approximately to the ears. The common Latin term for this arrangement was capite velato.  

Even though there does not appear to be a unified practice in the various cultures and locations, there is a general consensus that some kind of head covering was found in both the Jewish and Greco/Roman cultures. Note:  While sexual modesty could be attached to the covering of hair (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3),⁵⁰Testament of Reuben 5:5 “Flee, therefore fornication, my children, and command your wives and daughters, that they adorn not their heads or faces to deceive the mind; because every woman who useth these wiles hath been reserved for eternal punishment.” (2^nd century CE). not all hair arrangements were a violation of sexual modesty. 

As mentioned previously, the church in Corinth represented many cultural streams.   In some cultures, public and private attire differed and sometimes events (religious or secular) determined the manner of dress.  Available evidence indicates women in the Jewish world wore a veil in public and the same could well have been true in the Roman world.⁵¹The Babylonian Talmud Ketuboth 72a states that women who went out with the uncovered head were to be divorced without receiving the kethubah. The same was affirmed in the Mishna (Ketuboth 7.6D) and in 3 Maccabees 4:6. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, Aphrodite’s Tortoise: The Veiled Woman of Ancient Greece (Classical Press of Wales; Oakville, CT,2003), 3-4, 11, 88-89, 175.
Benjamin Marx,” ‘Wifely Submission’ and ‘Husbandly Authority’ in Plutarch’s Moralia and Corpus Paulinum” JGRChJ 14 (2018) 56-88.  The original roots of the church were Jewish⁵²In Paul’s hometown of Tarsus, the women wore head coverings. Black, “1 Cor. 11:2-16—A Reinvestigation,” Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, 204. and Paul’s education was Jewish. In Torah, men wore turbans in the temple (Ezek 44:18).  The city of Corinth became a Roman colony in 44 BCE, and in a pagan Roman ritual, only those making the sacrifice had their togas pulled over their heads.  It was only natural that Roman men and women⁵³Romans believed apparel indicated rank or social standing. would have brought this custom into an assembly of the church.⁵⁴“Why is it that when they worship the gods, they cover their heads, but when they meet any of their fellow-men worthy of honour, if they happen to have the toga over the head, they uncover?” (Plutarch, Moralia, The Roman Questions 10). ⁵⁵David W. J. Gill, “The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head-Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.” TynD 41.2 (1990), 245, 248. The covered head indicated one was functioning as a priest—mediating between God and the congregation thus assuming the role of Jesus.   Paul’s concern for both men and woman is supported by the parallelism found in 11:3-5, 7, 10.

11:3
“the head of every man is Christ” 
“the head of the woman is man” 
11:4-5
“Every man who prays or prophesies with his head uncovered dishonors his  head”
“every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors
  her head” 
11:7 and 10
“A man ought not to cover his head”
“the woman ought not to have a sign of authority on her head” ⁵⁶The following are the ways 11:10 has been translated: “symbol of authority” (ESV, NET, NKJV, NRSV), “sign of authority” (ASV), “wear a covering” (NLT), “power on her head” (KJV) “wear a veil” (RSV) and “to have authority” (NIVI).  The lack of uniformity in translations of the text makes understanding it extremely problematic.  Only the word for authority (ἐξουσίαν) is in the Greek text and the translators.  In 1 Corinthians Paul uses this word “authority” (ἐξουσίαν) to mean “rights or privileges” for several things.  For example, it is used in 7:37 as not to marry; in 8:9 a stumbling block; in 9:4 to food and drink; in 9:5 to marry; 9:12 to support.  With the head covering women could exercise their “right” to pray and prophesy (11:4-5).  Some have contended the “authority” was “man or her hair,” but head covering appears to be the best choice given the context and circumstances.

2. Problem of Head Coverings for Men and Women

Quite possibly the Greek women⁵⁷The Greek word for uncovered in 1 Cor 11:2 is ἀκατακαλύπτῳ. The woman in Num 5:18 had her head uncovered (ἀποκαλύψει) as a sign of immodesty therefore indicating she was not in subjection to her husband. According to Torah, the uncovered head communicated something bad or improper. The phrase in Num 5:18 is ἀποκαλύψει τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆς γυναικὸς and the phrase in Lev 13:45 is κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκατακάλυπτος. A woman with an uncovered head could be accused of trying to seduce a man.  If a wife went into public with her hair down and exposed, she could be divorced with no financial support. (Note: The infected leper covered his head, ἀκατακάλυπτος Lev 13:45).  Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 29. knew the custom of a head covering but did not want to honor it because they had been taught “everything is permissible”⁵⁸Gill, “The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head-Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” 258. (6:12; 10;23). Paul was aware of the importance of how others perceived the actions of believers and in Roman society, long hair (as opposed to the shaven head) was a symbol of a wife’s relationship to her husband.   When Paul suggests the bare headed woman was like the shaven head⁵⁹Just as a shaven head of a wife would embarrass her husband so would her uncovered head.  By use of a hyperbole Paul is showing the seriousness of this issue. (Note: The woman’s head could be shaven in a time of mourning (Deut 21:12). of a prostitute, he makes it clear how inappropriate it was (a disgrace) for a woman not to wear a head covering.⁶⁰“Paul uses the ancient debate principle of reduction ad absurdum: If they were so concerned to bare their heads, why not also remove the natural covering, their hair? Paul thereby reduces their insistence to the absurd: the greatest physical shame for a woman was to be shaved or have her hair cut like a man’s.” Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 476.  In 11:4-6, Paul mentions it was as much a dishonor for a man’s head to be covered as it was for a woman’s head to be uncovered.   The man with a head covering dishonored his head, Christ, and the uncovered woman dishonored her head, man. 

A depiction of a worship event preserved in stone (found in the Louvre cn. Domitius Ahenobarus) shows a veiled woman making a sacrifice while the women with her do not have the veil. This is strong indication that the women who were taking an active part in the worship were required to wear a veil—perhaps for reasons of modesty.⁶¹Arguments can be made Paul was referring to hair as a covering and not a veil, but this interpretation is not without serious problems. Payne, Woman and Man, One in Christ, 141-188. Possibly hair functioned as a sexual distraction for the men,⁶²Some contend the veil included a “face mask,” but this is debatable. Even if a woman had a “face” mask, this would not preclude her from speaking any more than it would preclude her from having interaction with people in the community. The veil over than face was not “soundproof.”  and the veil eliminated the issue.  Regarding the assembly at Ephesus, Paul does express concern for women who had braided hair. ⁶³If all the women in an assembly were wearing veils, there would not be a concern about women with braided hair. 1 Pet 3:3 indicates not all women wore a veil in public. The men never wore a head covering regardless of whether they were praying or prophesying or only listening.⁶⁴“Specifically, Paul states that it is during the act of praying and/or during the act of prophesying that men should not be veiled, and women should be veiled.  The necessity of women wearing head coverings is not mentioned if someone else is praying or prophesying.  A man is told to be uncovered only when he himself is praying or prophesying.”  Oster, “Culture or Binding Principle: A Study of Head Coverings, Hairstyles, 432 

According to Richard Oster⁶⁵Richard Oster, “When Men Wore Veils to Worship: The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11:4” NTS, Vol 34, 1988, 481-505. strong evidence indicates Roman men covered their heads

in pagan worship.  Because of this, Paul may have wanted men to be differentiated from women.⁶⁶Even though it was possible for men to wear head coverings, this might not have been the custom in Corinth because Paul devotes more time to the women.  This problem of a possible “unisex”⁶⁷Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 46. “one should not bring reproach upon one’s family or upon the Christian gospel; one should not seek to destroy symbolic gender distinctions by pioneering unisex clothing styles; one should respect custom and do one’s best to avoid causing someone to stumble.” appearance⁶⁸In the ancient world gender was marked by hair and clothes. ⁶⁹Evidence indicates the veil was something that covered the face of the women whereas the men pulled a toga over their heads covering their ears. Paul’s objection to the men prophesying with a head covering is three-fold: (1) it hid the glory of God, (2) it produced a unisex assembly, and (3) it violated creation.  Paul’s solution is simple: women needed to have veils that covered their faces when praying and prophesying and the men were not to pull their togas over their heads covering their ears.  Romans practiced the use of a head covering whereas non-Romans did not. In the case of the Roman Christians, both the men and women would have covered their heads and this gave the assembly a unisex appearance. Paul concludes this was the practice of the churches of God. Richard Oster, “Culture or Binding Principle: A Study of Head Coverings, Hairstyles, Etc” The Church of God in a Pagan World (Delight, AR.: Gospel Light, 1990),427-453. would be solved if women wore head coverings and men did not (11:14).⁷⁰“Neither should the beard be cut from the chin (for it is not superfluous), but it too has been provided for us by nature a kind of cover and protection.  Moreover, the beard is nature’s symbol of the male just as the crest of the cock and the mane of the lion so one ought to remove the growth of hair that becomes burdensome, but nothing of the beard; for the beard is no burden so long as the body is healthy and not afflicted with any disease for which it is necessary to cut the hair of the chin.” Musonius Rufus Lecture XXI (He was a Roman Stoic philosopher who was born 25 CE and died in 95 CE).

3. Glory and the Use of the Veil

The image of God and man are closely tied together. In creation, man was made in the image of God (Gen 1:26) and was expected to be holy as God was holy (Lev 11:44,45; 19:2; 20:7).  The mission of Jesus was to show God in a human form (John 1:18; 14:9). Paul emphasizes the importance of man being God-like (Col 3:10; Eph 5:1), and states in 11:7 that man is to be “the image and glory of God.”

Glory can have several meanings including splendor, radiance, and expectation.⁷¹Head and glory are really two sides of the same coin.” Linda Belleville, Women Leaders and the Church: Three Crucial Questions. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 131. Two translations refer to “glory” (δόξα) as a “reflection of God” (NRSV and Message).⁷²“For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.” (NRSV) “Man was created first, as a beautiful shining reflection of God” (Message). Paul’s emphasis on the use of the veil for women is tied to his understanding of “glory.” As man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of the man for two reasons, both of which hail from creation.   

(1)  Woman was made from the man and she was to reflect her source (11:8).⁷³

οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ  ἐκ γυναικὸς   ἀλλὰ γυνὴ    ἐξ ἀνδρός

     not for    is   man  out of woman but woman out of man

καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ      διὰ          τὴν γυναῖκα ἀλλὰ γυνὴ.               διὰ       τὸν ἄνδρα.

    And for  not created man on account   of the woman, but woman on account of the man.

Cukrowski, The Problem of Uncovered Prophets, Leaven 2001. 

 (2)  Woman was created (on account of) for man (11:9). 

Conduct reflects relationship. As the conduct of man reflects on God and Christ reflects on God so the woman’s conduct reflects on man.  In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, a woman without a veil reflected in a negative way on the man.⁷⁴Osburn, Women in the Church,183-184. With her head covered she did not take away from the glory of God seen on the uncovered head of the man (11:7).  Craig Keener makes the following observation:⁷⁵Keener, Paul, Women & Wives, 33. 

Husbands receive glory or shame from their wives, just as Christ receives glory   or shame from the behavior of men.

4. Seven Arguments for Women to Wear Veils ⁷⁶Some of Paul’s arguments made sense in his era, but not necessarily in the 21^st century.

Paul makes the following arguments for women who were praying or prophesying to wear veils (11:6-15; Luke 2:36-37). 

1. The veiled woman showed respect for the men in the assembly (11:6) and the veil allowed her to pray and prophesy.
2. Evidently the women with braided hair were somewhat of a distraction in the worship service in Ephesus (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3)⁷⁷Women dressing in an improper manner could have provided a distraction for the worshipping men (1 Tim 2:9-10). This could also be a problem for women dressing in an immodest manner in a Sunday assembly in the 21^st century western worship service. How would Paul regard short skirts and cleavage in a Sunday assembly of believers? Would he have seen it as a distraction as he did with the uncovered women of 1 Cor 11:5?  and perhaps Paul was indicating unveiled women were a similar distraction.  
3. In 11:7, the men were told not to cover their heads because it dishonored their head (Christ). 
4. There was a common belief that another world was watching so women were to be careful how they dressed. ⁷⁸“and I will sing psalms to thee before the angels; for thou hast heard all the words of my mouth.” (Psa 138:1 LXX) “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.” (Tobit 12:15 RSV). Philo, On the Virtues, 74. “In the midst of men and angels, Moses sang his hymns with every kind of harmony and concord, in order that both humans and ministering angels might give heed; that humans might learn thankfulness similar to his own; that angels, as overseers watching, might listen in accordance with their own musical expertise, lest there be any dissonance in his song.” ⁷⁹The bad angels could have been “lustfully” watching the women. Angels are mentioned in Heb 1:14. Paul mentions angels in various texts (Gal 1:8; 2 Cor 11:14; 1 Cor 4:9; 6:3; see Acts 5:18; 12:7,12) ⁸⁰“Because of the angels” (1 Cor 11:10) has always been a challenging text.  The word angel can mean “messenger” therefore this could be a reference to spies sent by the wealthy people to find out what was going on in the assembly. Paul wants the conduct in the assembly not to bring reproach by outsiders, hence the women wore veils as a sign of authority. He does mention some false believers had infiltrated their ranks to spy on the freedom they had in Christ Jesus in Gal 2:4. 
5. Women needed a “sign of authority” on their heads and the veil was the sign.
6. Paul stressed what was (11:13) proper or fitting (prepi).⁸¹1 Tim 2:10; Titus 2:1; Eph 5:3. This argument would apply to Paul’s world and not the 21^st century. 
7. In 11:4-5, the man who prayed or prophesied with his head covered was shameful (καταισχύνει) as was the woman who prayed or prophesied without a head covering (καταισχύνει).⁸²“when he prays or prophesies brings shame on his head; a woman on the contrary, brings shame on her head if she prays or prophesies bare-headed;” (11:4-5 NEB). In chapter 14, Paul uses αἰσχρὸν in reference to a woman speaking in the assembly (14:35). The NEB translates it as a “shocking thing.” Troy Martin has attempted to translate ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται [αὐτῇ] as “For her hair is given to her instead of a testicle.”  The translation of περιβολαίου is the crux of his argument. He maintains women were given long hair because its hollow nature would draw and retain semen. If this were the case hair would be considered part of female genitalia, therefore Paul argued was not right for women to display this when praying to God.  However, Martin’s proof for this understanding of περιβολαίον is not totally convincing.  Mark Goodacre, “Does περιβολαίον Mean ‘Testicle in 1 Corinthians 11:15?” JBL 130, no. 2 (2011): 391-396. 

5. Summary of the Use of the Veil

Paul emphasizes the relationship of men and women was to be seen from the viewpoint of the Lord. ⁸³Paul changes the order in 11:11-12 by putting the woman before the man in 11:8.  

“Nevertheless, In the Lord woman is not independent (without) of man, nor is man independent (without) of woman.” (1 Cor 11:11) 

The word “nevertheless” (πλὴν)⁸⁴

πλὴν            οὔτε       γυνὴ   χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνὴρ χωρὶς γυναικὸς ἐν κυρίῳ

   nevertheless either   woman without man      or  man without woman  in the Lord

11:11-12 could be translated as follows: “Nevertheless neither is woman anything without man nor is man anything without woman in the Lord.  For as woman is from man so man is through woman.” Ken Cukrowski, The Problem of Uncovered Prophets, Leaven 2001.

  has the intended meaning of “listen up” or “yes, but” and is followed by “in the Lord” (ἐν κυρίῳ).  In the Greek New Testament the phrase appears at the end of the verse rather than at the beginning and as such serves as a summary statement.  Paul continues his argument in 11:12: “For as woman came from man so also man is born of woman.  But everything comes from God.”  He then concludes his teaching, “Judge for yourselves it is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered” (11:13) and ends the comments he began in 11:3.  In many ways, 11:11-12 and its emphasis on mutuality/equality provides the lens through which 11:3 is interpreted.

Assembly: Public or Private?⁸⁵Osburn, Women in the Church, 175-176. 

The third exegetical issue pertains to the public or private nature of the assemblies mentioned in 1 Corinthians.⁸⁶Because the early church gathered in houses (maybe some exceptions with larger groups) the categories of “private” or “public” were never an issue.  It is possible the church could have rented a banquet room at a local pagan temple, but there is no evidence in 1 Corinthians the assemblies were in pagan banquet rooms.

1. Head Coverings and Lord’s Supper

Throughout the section of 1 Corinthians 11-14, the word (synerchesthe the church coming together) is mentioned several times (11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34, :14:23, 26). In two cases, the word for “assembly” is used (11:18; 14:23).  In an attempt to harmonize women praying and prophesying in 11:2-5 with the instruction that they remain silent in 14:34-35, some have suggested 11:2-16 was a private assembly and 14:26-40 was a public assembly of the church.  This reasoning lies in the wording of 11:17, “… I have no praise for you…” and 11:18 “…when you come together as a church…”  therefore indicating a shift from a private to public assembly.⁸⁷Scholarship is divided as to whether 11:2-16 is a private or public assembly. Osburn reports a number of men in the Restoration Movement believed it referred to the public assembly. He also quotes George DeHoff: “There is no verse in the Bible which teaches that women must teach God’s word in private. The ‘in private’ is added by false teachers.” (See George W. DeHoff, Sermons on First Corinthians (Murfreesboro, TN: Christian Press, 1947), 99. Osburn, Women in the Church, 174-175. When the entirety of the text is examined, Paul appears to use this wording to stress the seriousness of division within the Lord’s supper and not necessarily a contrast between the two texts. 

2. The Veil was Not Needed

If a woman was praying and prophesying with only her husband and immediate family present, the veil would have been a non-issue. 

3. The Function of Prophesy

The function of prophecy demanded the presence of others because prophecy was used to convince the unbelievers (14:24), to edify the church (14:4) and to give predications (Acts 11:27-30; 21:10-16).  “But everyone who prophesies speaks to men…” (14:3). Paul instructs the prophets to speak one at a time (14:31) and while a prophet spoke, the other prophets were to weigh (evaluate) what was being said (14:29).  This indicates the presence of more than one prophet.  The church in Antioch had “prophets and teachers” (Acts 13:1) and the assembly in Corinth had at least three prophets (1 Cor 14:29).  Whether Philip’s daughters prophesied as a team in the church at Caesarea or separately is not known (Acts 21:8-9).  Paul’s teaching is directed to “every woman” and “every man” (11:4-5; 14:39).  Viewed in this way, the men and women prophets mentioned in 11:4-5 would have been in a public setting as well.⁸⁸When Paul wants to address an activity that should take place in private home, he specifies such i.e.: asking questions of a husband (14:35) or eating at home before the assembly (11:34).    

4. 1 Cor 11:2 as a Change in Subject from Pagan Assemblies to Christian Assemblies

Assuming the section of 10:31-11:1 concludes Paul’s remarks about eating food sacrificed to idols (8:1), 11:2 indicates a change in subject to issues related to the assembly.   The end of 11:16 and the beginning of 11:17 is not marked with a conclusion such as is found at the end of the discussion concerning food in 10:14 (“Therefore my dear friends…”).⁸⁹The section of 11:2-16 is connected to 11:17-34 with two introductory statements: “I praise you” (11:2) and “I have no praise for you” (11:17).  The two statements indicate Paul was dealing with two problems in the same assembly. The mention of men and women who prayed and prophesied and issues with the Lord’s supper indicate a public assembly of believers. The transition of the remarks about the Lord’s supper (conducted publicly) and the wearing of veils by both men and women is seamless, and as such, indicates the same assembly.   Before addressing the issues with the Lord’s supper (11:17-34), he closes the section by indicating these practices were in other “churches of God” (11:16).

5. Restoration Movement Leaders: Public Assembly 

Early leaders in the Restoration Movement in America saw the information in 1 Cor 11:2-16 relevant to the public worship of the whole church.  A commentary by J. W McGarvey and Philip Pendleton published in 1916, states:⁹⁰J. W. McGarvey and Pendleton, Philip, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Foundation, 1916), 108, 113. 

Paul has been discussing the disorderly conduct of individual Christians.  He now proceeds to discuss more general disorder; i. e., those which took place in the meetings of the congregation, and in which the whole church gathered…Paul is here discussing how men and women should be attired when they take a leading part in public worship.

Daniel Sommer (1850-1940) who was an early leader in the restoration movement did not believe women should be elders or evangelists, but he did write “If a sister in good standing wish to arise in the congregation and offer an exhortation it is her privilege to do.”⁹¹Octographic Review 44.34 [1901] 1.

SUMMARY OF 1 COR 11:2-16

Succinctly stated, the section of 11:3-15 can be divided into five arguments Paul made concerning head coverings. He appeals to culture 11:3-6,⁹²He appeals to culture and uses the word for shame (dishonors or disgrace) three times in 11:3-6. Head coverings were a problem for both men and women because of the need for gender distinctions.  Paul urges the women not conduct themselves in a “shameful manner. creation 11:7-10,⁹³He appeals to creation using the words “image” and “created” (11:7-10). Because God’s glory should only be seen in the worship assembly, man should not cover his head, but the woman should cover her head so as to not take away from the glory of God. Paul understands anyone in Christ is a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). A literal Greek translation is “in Christ new creation” ((ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις). When talking about who the widow should marry (7:39), Paul uses “in the Lord.”  new creation 11:11-12, culture 11:13 (again but from different reasoning), and nature 11:14-15.  Evidently Paul’s teaching on the importance of the veil was based on a cultural situation (1 Cor 9:19-23), and because this topic does not appear in any other New Testament letter, it can be assumed the use of the veil was a non-issue in other churches. When the cultural situation ceased, the command to have a veil ceased. No longer was a shaven head the sign of a prostitute nor the veil a sign of authority.⁹⁴How universal the practices of the Corinthian churches were and how long they were maintained is unknown. Certainly, many changes have occurred in the churches of Christ in the past 125 years.  For example, in the 20^th century some rural churches preferred men sit on one side of the building and women on the other. (Smyrna church of Christ had one entrance for men and another entrance for women.) The preacher was expected to wear a suit and tie, men removed their hats/caps when they entered the building, and women wore dresses or skirts. The communion was covered with a white cloth.

             After Paul dealt with the issues related to pagan assemblies (8:1-11:1), he addresses the issues related to Christian assemblies.  Whether these issues were found in every assembly or whether they were issues in specific house churches or when a number of house churches met together cannot be determined. However, proper respect each for the other is woven throughout as Paul addresses proper attire, the Lord’s supper, and an orderly (non-chaotic) assembly.  Christians are connected to each other, and that one principle trumps their opinions and preferences as they interact with other members of the body.  

Paul is not opposed to women praying and prophesying in the assembly, but when they did so, they were to honor the custom and cover their heads. (Note: This agrees with Acts 2:17 and Acts 21:9.)  It seems if he had wanted them to remain silent, he would have indicated that as he did in 1 Cor 14:34-35. 

The exact meaning of “head coverings”⁹⁵Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ, 142-159.  and whether or not these coverings were used outside the assembly, or whether they were worn by all women—married and single—is unknown.⁹⁶If the women of 1 Cor 11:4-5 had to be married, the large group of unmarried women (1 Corinthians 7) in the church and visiting single prophets from other churches (Acts 21:9) would have presented a problem. There is no proof women prophets in 1 Corinthians 14 were married. Regardless, Paul approves of women engaged in prayer (relationship with God) and prophecy (relationship with fellow believers) in the assembly in the presence of men.  “Who was doing what” is not the issue with Paul but rather “how they were doing it.”⁹⁷In 1 Corinthians 11, both men and women were to dress properly. The issue in 1 Corinthians 14 was a chaotic assembly that had been created by men and women alike. The issue in both of these chapters is conduct and not gender.