1 Corinthians 11:1-16

[Josh]

10/05:

A LOT of questions here, of course. I have two great books on this subject that have helped me a lot: Hard Sayings of the Bible, and What Paul Really Said About Women, which I'd like to use in regard to this passage.

Here are some of the typical questions this passage engenders (heheh):

What does Paul mean by "man is the head of the woman"?
Is he implying that women are one step removed from God?
What does he mean by "woman is the glory of man"?
Is he implying that women aren't created in the image of God, only men?
What do head coverings, hair, and 'the angels' have to do with all this?

[Josh]

10/05:

I am fully convinced by what I've read that "head" (or kephale in the Greek) in this passage is sorely misunderstood from a modern perspective. Manfred Bruach, in Hard Sayings of the Bible, explains it something like this:
Kephale literally means a physical head in Greek. It can also have a symbolic meaning, which is what we are forced to have when we read the text as well. BUT, the symbolic definition it would have had to a Greek speaking person in that day would not be "authority figure, ruler, leader, chief, boss, or director".

To quote Bruach: "The most exhaustive Greek-English Lexicon covering Greek Literature from about 900 BC to 600 AD, among numerous metaphorical meanings for kephale, does not give a single definition to indicate that in ordinary Greek usage it included the meaning "superior rank" or "supreme over" or "leader" or "authority"."

He also gives evidence from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) to back this up.

He goes on to say, that if that meaning had been intended, there were other words for that in Greek: "archon" is typical.

Nowhere else in the NT is kephale used to designate a figure of authority. It could have served well in several places, but was NOT used.

He goes on to say that the best interpretation for kephale here is "source or origin".

The text would now mean something like this:

3 Now I want you to realize that the head (source) of every man is Christ, and the head (source) of the woman is man, and the head (source) of Christ is God.

This makes perfect sense in light of Genesis and Paul-- Christ having his earthly birth in God, man being created by Christ, the woman being created from man.

Justus just woke up!!

More later...

[Josh]

10/05:

Paul had a dilemma in what should or shouldn't be worn on the head during worship:
Jewish men and women worshipped with their heads covered, as a way to 'sheild' them from the glory of God in worship. Jewish women always wore their hair up or covered when in public. "Letting down one's hair" was suitably only at home and was considered flirtatious behavior in public. Although they wore head coverings, Jewish women did not wear veils.

Married Greek women also covered/ or bound their hair in public for modesty, and often wore veils, and as a sign that they were 'spoken for'-- like a wedding ring only more obvious. I believe Greek girls could wear their hair down.

When Paul says a man shouldn't cover his head in worship, he is majorly breaking Jewish tradition, probably to symoblize that there need be nothing between us and God but Christ (we can now enter boldly into the throneroom, the veil has been rent, yada yada yada).
But why doesn't he say the same for women?

That is most likely because he is concerned about how that might affect sexual mores and how the Gentile world will perceive Christians. Probably some women in Corinth, hearing Paul's message that there was equality among the sexes, had abandoned the cultural signs of marriage and propriety. Paul is trying to say that they shouldn't abandon those cultural symbols because that 'covering' honors marriage in that culture and mitigates against sexual temptation.

Incidentally, I learned that the Greek words for man and woman are the same words for husband and wife, making it difficult to translate some passages. However, if a writer really wanted to avoid the husband/ wife connotation, they could have used the Greek words for male and female.

So, we can see how these policies about head coverings are culturally conditioned, but my further question is, does that mean that Christians shouldn't challenge cultural norms related to propriety in dress? Does that mean that it's okay for women to wear jeans now, because it's 'socially acceptable', but that it was wrong for the earlier Christians to wear them when it was breaking boundaries??? This seems a strange conclusion to me.

It seems difficult to know when to acquiesce and when it's okay to break cultural norms.

[michelle]

10/05:

Josh, I completely agree with your dilemma at the end. I've often though, "well, it's not the spoken directly from God or Jesus, so maybe there is a little more leniency." But then you run into the slippery slope of what can be modified (if anything) and what cannot. So I've found that it is not a great standard.

I'd like to bring attention to a couple of things. You'll notice in verse 6 that it says, "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." Note the big IF.

Another things in verses 13-16, namely 13 and 16, I believe Paul allows us an "out" to this rule. "13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncoverd? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God." When I read this I think Paul is saying that we are to decide for ourselves if it is proper because there aren't any set rules to go by. It sounds to me like a rule he made up just for the Corinthian women for whatever reason.

Also, some commentary says that the reason women needed to have their head covered in the early church was so that the angels would know that they had the authority to prophesy. In that case I think it is a pretty powerful thing that Paul would suggest their heads being covered.

[Josh]

10/05:

Yep, it's a hard call....
The book I have says that prostitutes in that culture shaved their heads, and interpreted Paul's IF in terms of: "not wearing a head covering is like being a prostitute, and if it's a disgrace to be a prostitute, then women should cover their heads".

I agree that verse 13 (Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncoverd?) might actually serve as an 'out' for us today, but I think Paul thought the answer was clear for then: in their culture all women should wear head coverings and that that was the ONLY Church policy at that time and he wasn't going to tolerate contention about it. If, as it appears to me, he was appealing to 'common wisdom' or 'conventional wisdom' of the day- which, if that's the standard, then clearly things have changed.

Yep, I read a similar theory about the angels. Actually, there are several, but I like that one the best- if anyone wants more clarification on it, let me know.

[hume]

10/05:

"we can see how these policies about head coverings are culturally conditioned ... Does that mean that it's okay for women to wear jeans now, because it's 'socially acceptable', but that it was wrong for the earlier Christians to wear them when it was breaking boundaries??? This seems a strange conclusion to me."

Why does this seem strange? Some distinctions are absolute, some are relative. (Tune down your antennae, this isn't philosophical Relativism ... I'm talking "small r" relative here.) The interpretation of the meaning of clothing styles is highly relative. The "boundaries" you mention are constantly shifting. If you think otherwise, you're in the difficult position of establishing which arbitrary clothing practice is the official norm (Victorian? Hide those ankles! Saudi? Eyes only! Bushman? Lose those pants! It's humid in the jungle!)

Maybe Paul's discussion of eating meat sacrificed to idols is helpful here: iirc, he felt that, since the "gods" represented by these idols were illusory, any Christian who understood this could safely eat meat that had been sacrificed to them (the act would be no more meaningful than going along with a child's belief in Santa). However, while this act was not harmful to a mature Christian, it might be misunderstood by onlookers who really believed in the deities represented by those idols (they might assume that Christians are polytheistic, or that these particular Christians were heretical, etc.). In absolute terms, there was nothing wrong with it; but relative to the limited understanding of others, it was better to avoid the practice. Similarly with clothing: in absolute terms, there's not much prohibited -- possibly clothing is strictly unnecessary for a theoretical fully-developed believer (a creature who likely has never yet existed aside from Christ), who would be so balanced and pure that this would present no difficulty for him/her. Still, behavior must be considered in light of its effects on others, even if their reaction is due to some mistake or ignorance.

In the case of head-coverings for men, Paul counted on this reaction: he wanted outsiders to be puzzled, and ask what it meant. For women, on the other hand, the reaction would have been simply unhelpful -- onlookers would assume the worst, and the only answer to give them would sound like a dodge (basically, "hey man, it's all good as long as you're one of us").

[Josh]

10/05:

Well, Jason, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but the part I wasn't getting is: When is it okay to break cultural norms??? I mean, it's all fine and good for us as Christians to enjoy rock and roll music or for Christian women to wear pants NOW that the cultural norm has shifted, but was it wrong for the Christians when the norm was still changing-- when rock and roll was still suspect and when jeans seemed masculine??? I don't think it was, but using Paul's advice, it basically seems like he prefered not to rock the boat. So, is there ever a time to 'challenge the norm'

Now, in writing this I see how Paul did challenge the norm by not having men wear head coverings-- to make a spiritual point. But, if Paul was concerned that women without head coverings would be too suggestive, what would he have said to the suggestivity of rock music???

Not that Paul is our be all end all, but his reasoning here is and has been the general reasoning of the Church.

[michelle]

10/05:

I think you challenge the norm by first testing the waters. I think if one day all women started wearing jeans, it might turn the boat over. But if one or two start it, yes it my cause some waves, but a boat with a good crew will be able to bear the storm. If there are constantly waves a crew will become accustomed to having to work under those conditions until it becomes a norm.

While I am so thankful for the place that we are now (ladies, can you imagine not being able to wear jeans??) I often worry that by slowly changing the church will at some point slip away. It's the whole "slippery slope" theory. Does anybody else think about this?

[hume]

10/05:

I guess the answer I'm suggesting above is: hardly any of this is "wrong." These norms are not Christian norms. It's all a tactical issue. The decision whether or not to follow the general practice would come down to one's impression of what conclusions people would draw about more important things on the basis of this trivia.

It's instructive that Paul lands on different sides of the same cultural issue (for the men, ignoring it; for the women, observing it). This is not inconsistent; rather it emphasizes the fact that he's applying a totally independent measure

[Josh]

10/05:

Thanks, those are helpful distinctions.