Categories
Let Her Lead Theology

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Should Women Be Silent in Church?

We’re almost at the end of our biblical exploration of what the Bible has to say about gender roles in ministry. This post will be the last on that topic. Then in just one post, I’ll address what gender roles, if any, should be held in the family. Finally, I’ll close out this series with a few posts on application and personal reflection as I’ve journeyed through this process of changing my view.

One of the most controversial passages from Paul on gender comes in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Here it is in the ESV:

[T]he women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

This seems so harsh of Paul, doesn’t it? What in the world is going on here? Let’s dig in.

Two Verses, So Many Possibilities

When we look around at how Christians have interpreted these words, we find that there are no less than seven major interpretations on verses 34-35![1] Seven!

Any time a verse or passage has that many possibilities, it’s a big clue that we shouldn’t build a doctrine or practice on that passage. Christians can “agree to disagree” on this text.

Let’s get one thing clear right away, however: Paul cannot be saying that women are not allowed to speak in church. Why? Because 1 Corinthians 11:5 implies that Paul expects women will pray and prophesy in church! Paul wouldn’t contradict himself.

Whatever 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is saying, we can be sure it’s not a timeless prohibition against women speaking in church. So what does it mean?

A Common Complementarian View

One of the more common views among leading complementarians goes like this: Paul means that women are to be silent in reference to the evaluation of prophecy.[2]

I believe complementarians need to interpret this passage this way in order to maintain their practice of not allowing women to “exercise authority over men.” Is the complementarian view accurate though? I think it fails to take into consideration several things:

  1. While Paul mentioned weighing prophecies in verse 29, that’s not in close proximity to verses 34-35. Would the Corinthians have made the connection between verses 29 and verses 34-35?
  2. If women can prophesy (11:5; 14:26, 31), why wouldn’t they be allowed to judge a prophecy?
  3. The women in quesiton are not in a place to evaluate prophecies. Paul words clearly call them to learn at home by asking their husbands. It seems they don’t understand what’s going on in the worship gathering at all!
  4. The larger theme in chapter 14 is order-disorder in worship. If women did evaluate prophecies, that would actually contribute to order. The issue must be some other kind of disruptive speech.

I believe there are at least two better interpretive options for Christians who want to be faithful to the text of Scripture. Let’s look at both of those options.

Option 1: Purposeful Silence For Undistrubed Worship

Paul’s priority in chapter 14 is to help the Corinthians understand that disorder in the worship gathering keeps people from being edified. Put positively, well-ordered worship benefits everyone because then everyone can understand what’s going on.

First-century worship gatherings were much more participatory than ours today. There was plenty of opportunity for confusion and chaos to break out because everyone–not just one man on stage–was involved in speaking, teaching, and, yes, even leading. Hence the call for silence on certain occasions.

The word “silent” (Gk sigaō) occurs in verse 34 and two other times in this chapter:

  • In verse 28, someone speaking in another language must be silent if no one can interpret for everyone else to understand.
  • In verse 30, if multiple people want to prophesy, the prophet who has already spoken should be silent when another is ready to speak.
  • In verse 34, if women want to learn something, they are to be silent during the gathering and ask their husbands at home.

Any kind of speech that disturbs worship should stop until it is appropriate.

Each of these occurrences of sigaō is in the present, active indicative. By using this verb form, Paul calls for particular individuals to pause speaking for a specific reason at a specific time–not for all time. Any kind of speech that disturbs worship should stop until it is appropriate.

Sigaō is only used ten times in the New Testament. It is never used in a way to command silence forever. It’s always immediate and occasional.

Bill Rudd writes, “By addressing these groups, Paul did not assume that every tongues-speaker, prophet, or woman was part of the problem. It is likely that these three parallel scenarios involved a few people who needed to stop speaking so others could participate.”[3]

The female prophets referred to in chapter 11 are not called to stop prophesying![4] After all, they don’t need to learn something from their husbands at home. They are actually the ones doing the instructing alongside male prophets![5]

Why does Paul emphasize female silence? What about men? Is this where we see Paul the Middle Eastern chauvinist rear his ugly head? I don’t think so.

As we’ve discussed before, it’s a well-known fact that women in the first century were not as educated as men. Women didn’t enjoy the same social and business opportunities, and their understanding of Greek and other local languages was less refined than men because of it. Simply, women were at an extreme disadvantage in any social setting, including in the church.[6]

Add to all this the fact that Corinth was one of the most diverse cities in the Roman Empire.[7] This is why Paul spends an entire chapter addressing “languages” (aka “tongues,” i.e. languages other than Greek) and interpreting those languages for the benefit of everyone.

If the entire point of chapter 14 is the intelligibility of speech in the worship gathering, doesn’t it seem likely that there were some women who were confused at what was being said during worship? Isn’t it plausible, even probable, that some women started to interrupt with questions or chat among themselves as humans often do when they’re unengaged?

Kenneth Bailey paraphrases Paul’s message to the Corinthian women:

[Women,] I know your Greek is limited. But your husbands have learned a bit more Greek than you have managed to absorb. They have to in order to function on the job. You have not had this chance and it is not your fault. But things have gotten out of hand on a number of levels. Please be helpful and put your questions to your husbands after you return home. I have just told the speakers when to be quiet. This is a situation in which you also need to listen quietly even if you can’t follow what is said.[8]

Understood this way in the Corinthians’ context, we begin to see Paul as a compassionate and gracious friend willing to guide the Corinthians as they learn how to worship together.

Option 2: Paul Refutes a Corinthian Quotation

The second possibility is that Paul quotes a Corinthian belief and then refutes it. He does this often throughout the letter (6:12; 7:1-2; 8:1; 8:22-23; 10:23).

Verses 33b-35 is the Corinthian quotation; verses 36-38 is the refutation.[9]

I’ve heard the argument that this quote is “too long” to be an actual quote. Why? Because the other quotations Paul cites (see above) aren’t that long.

My response: haven’t you ever read an article with long and short quotes?

Who’s to say Paul can’t cite a four-word quote here and a four-sentence quote somewhere else? Why do we think we’re the arbiter of what Paul can and can’t do?

Is it a quote or not? We have good reasons to believe it is.

First, the end of verse 34 includes something odd. It says that women are to be in submission/subject “as the law also says.” But there is not one place in the Old Testament where women are told to be silent or to be submissive to men.

There is not one place in the Old Testament where women are told to be silent or to be submissive to men.

Complementarians argue that Paul refers to the Old Testament in general or Genesis 2 where Adam is the “firstborn.”[10]

But this doesn’t make the best sense of “the Law” (capital L for Torah Law), especially as Paul uses it in his letters.

This must be referring to some other law entirely.

Beth Allison Barr, in her book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, suggests an interesting possibility.[11] Barr says that the Oppian Law (in effect from 215-195 BC) is likely the background here. The Oppian Law was designed to limit female freedom, particularly their public displays of wealth.

Now, 195 BC is over two centuries before Paul writes to the Corinthians. That’s quite the distance in time! But Barr shows that even during the first century AD, the Oppian Law had left its mark on Roman society. Cato the Elder, who opposed repealing the law, gave a speech about the danger of women’s freedom. In that speech he said,

I walked through a band of women…I should have said, “What kind of behavior is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women’s husbands! Could you not have asked your own husbands the same thing at home? Are you more charming in public with others’ husbands than at home with your own?” (my emphasis).[12]

You can hear an echo of this reflected in 1 Corinthians 14 (see italics). What if the Corinthians, in an effort to bolster their position on limiting female freedom, particularly when it comes to speaking gifts, used a defunct Roman law as their foundation? Anything is possible for a church that believed sex between married couples was bad (see chapter 7) and getting drunk at communion was good (see chapter 11).

I’m very intrigued by this possibility. However, there’s another option available to us. It’s possible that “the law” is a reference to the Jewish oral law. Not the written Torah (the first five books of our Old Testament), but rather the oral rabbinic tradition–God’s law (according to the rabbis) that was not written down. The Mishnah, one of the major collections of the oral law, states that it’s sinful for a woman to speak with a man in the worship gathering.[13]

It’s pretty likely that the diverse Corinthian church would have dealt with a Jewish faction that impressed aspects of the oral law on it. We have reason to believe this happened to almost every church in the New Testament! These orals laws circulated among the house churches (“as in all the churches,” v. 33b), negatively influencing their behavior.

Second, in verse 36, Paul uses “Or…Or” as a signifier that he is refuting what he just wrote (verses 33b-35). In other quote refutations, Paul uses the words “but” instead (see

Taking these two points into consideration, we now read Paul’s words in a different light. Consider this possible translation, which is almost identical to the NRSV. I have added the quotation marks to help us see what is likely the Corinthians’ quotation.

“As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you men the only ones it has reached? Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized. 

You may have noticed the addition of “men” in the second “or” phrase (“Or are you [men] the only ones…”). The reason for this is that Paul uses a masculine plural pronoun here rather than a female one.

He chides the men, reminding them that they haven’t cornered the market on God’s word.

If he was correcting women in verses 34-35 for speaking during worship, then we’d expect him to use a female plural pronoun. But he doesn’t. On the other hand, if verses 34-35 is a quote the Corinthian men used to silence women, then it makes sense for Paul to address them directly in his correction.

Understood this way, we see that Paul refutes a false Corinthian belief that women are not allowed to speak up in the assembly. He chides the men, reminding them that they haven’t cornered the market on God’s word.[14]

Do you see the ironic twist? Complemetnarians have taken a passage meant to encourage women’s participation in the gathered church and instead used it against them.

Summing it All Up

Paul may be calling for a temporary silence on a select group of women who chatting or asking nuisance questions during worship. Or Paul may actually be correcting the Corinthian men who were trying to silence women.

At this point, if I had to choose one option, I’d probably lean toward option 2. But there’s also the possibility that verses 34-35 aren’t original to Paul and were added later on.[15]

Whatever option we go with, we know that Paul does not silence all women for all time in the church’s worship. He had just encouraged female participation in chapter 11 and never limited women in his discussion of spiritual gifts (chapter 12).

Both options are reasonable and don’t require playing fast and loose with Scripture to make it say something it doesn’t. These options, in my opinion, make better sense than the traditional patriarchal explanation.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that Paul ends the chapter by encouraging both genders to use their speaking gifts: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (vv 39-40).


Notes

Feature photo: Kristina Flour on Unsplash.

[1] Marg Mowczko, “Interpretations and Applications of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” 7/9/2011.

[2] This is the view of complementarians like D.A Carson, Wayne Grudem, and John Piper. See D.A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 179-197, which represents this view. Carson writes, “Paul’s point here…is that [women] may not participate in the oral weighing of such prophecies.”

[3] Bill Rudd, “Context and Words Matter: Reexamining 1 Corinthians 14,” CBE blog, 9/29/2021.

[4] Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 2011), 415.

[5] Notice the connection between prophecy and instruction/teaching/learning in 14:6, 19, and 31. Because of these verses, I try not to draw too thick of a line between “prophecy” and “teaching.” In Paul’s mind, it seems to me, there is quite a bit of overlap. But that’s for another post.

[6] Again, these are generalities. Priscilla, a member of the Corinthian church, was obviously a highly educated person who traveled with her husband. Lydia, a successful businesswoman in Philippi, likely didn’t face these obstacles. The point is that the typical first-century woman was at a tremendous disadvantage compared to the typical first-century man.

[7] Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, 412.

[8] Ibid, 416.

[9] Kirk MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 as a Pauline Quotation-Refutation Device,” Priscilla Papers 23/1, 2018.

[10] See Mowczko, “Interpretations and Applications,” for more on Grudem.

[11] Beth Allison Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001), 56-61.

[12] Quoted in ibid., 59.

[13] MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 14:33b-38.”

[14] For more on this, see MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 14:33b-38.”

[15] There is some evidence that this passage is not original to Paul and was added by a scribe later on. In fact, if you take out verses 33b-35 and jump from verse 33a to verse 36, the text still makes perfect sense. If youi’re curious about this, see Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 2009, 216-268; and Gordon D. Fee, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2014, 699-708.

Categories
Commentary Let Her Lead Theology

1 Corinthians 11:2-16: Hairstyles, Head Coverings, and…Authority?

For modern readers like you and me, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is one of the more difficult passages to interpret and understand in the New Testament.

It’s often been a proof text for complementarians who believe men (specifically, husbands) are designed by God to be in authority over their wives. Verses 9-10, specifically, are levied against women: “Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. This is why a wife ought to have a symbol authority on her head” (ESV).

There it is, women were created for men and men are in authority over women.

Is this another tally in the complementarian column?

It’s not that cut and dry. Arguing this way ignores other details in the text and Paul’s overall concern for a specific problem in Corinth.

I’ll work through the passage a few verses at a time. Here’s what I hope you’ll see. The issue is not who can lead in the church’s worship but how those leading present themselves.

Most interpreters believe this passage is about women wearing a literal head covering–a hijab (headscarf) something similar. But the end of the passage gives us a big clue that the issue has more to do with hairstyles.

In verses 14-15, Paul writes, “Does not the very nature of things [Gk physis] teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.”

Paul isn’t concerned with gender subordination, but with gender distinction.

As Paul summarizes his whole argument, he seems to indicate that a woman doesn’t need to wear anything on her head. He literally says, “Her long hair is the covering!” We must keep this in mind whenever we see the word “cover” or “uncover” in the text.

Paul desires, then, for men to look like men and women to look like women, in that particular culture. He isn’t concerned with gender subordination, but with gender distinction.[1]

We’ll come back to Paul’s conclusion later on in the post.

Now, let’s take a look at the cultural background of the passage before getting to the commentary.

The Cultural Context

Corinth was a multiethnic metropolis. The church there, like most other churches in the Roman Empire, consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. In this first-century context, women wore their hair up and covered, while men wore it short and uncovered. In worship gatherings, Roman men and women often covered their heads. Jewish (non-Christian) men also covered their heads with a tallit.[2]

For Jewish women, head coverings were a matter of propriety outside the home. If a woman’s hair or head was exposed, it was deemed immodest and inappropriate. The rabbis put it this way: “A woman’s hair is a sexual incitement, as [the Scripture] says, ‘Thy hair is a flock of goats.”[3]

Wealthy Roman women, on the other hand, often wore elaborate hairstyles and were less likely to cover their hair in public (see 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3).

Consider also that nearly all historians believe that ancient prostitutes did not cover their heads, precisely because a woman’s hair was seen as an enticement. Prostitutes, including those in temples, were common throughout the Empire.

Some Corinthian women may have used their freedom in Christ to dress however they wanted in worship, not realizing it may not be beneficial for everone (see 6:12; 10:23). Others may have taken Paul’s mantra “In Christ…there is no male or female” to an improper extreme. Perhaps the way they wore their hair or coverings was an attempt to blur any gender distinctions.

Now, consider that churches met in homes, where any woman, Jew or Gentile, could leave their hair uncovered for their husbands and family to see. This may have caused a lot of confusion for many of the Corinthian Christians meeting in those homes.[4]

As a collectivist culture, how the Corinthians conducted and presented themselves publicly–including the style of dress and headwear–would bring honor or shame to their family and community. You see hints of this as Paul uses words like “dishonor” or “disgrace” and “glory.”

The problem could be stated like this: “We are in someone’s home. BUT this is a community gathering, basically open to the public. Should her hair really be exposed like that? That’s basically a come-on! She’s bringing shame on her family! On herself! What do we do?!”[5]

Paul doesn’t want anything–even hairstyles–to bring disrepute on the faith community and the gospel itself.

Put this way, it’s easy to see that the Corinthians had very real problems in their context.

Paul cares about hairstyles (or head coverings) because, as Marg Mowczko writes, “[He] did not want the Corinthian men and women to wear hairstyles that were sexually or morally confusing.”[6]

The issue isn’t that women are leading and they need to stand down and submit to men. It’s that Paul doesn’t want anything–even hairstyles–to bring disrepute on the faith community and the gospel itself.

Because of these real-life problems, the Corinthians needed real-life solutions.

On to the passage.

Verses 2-5

Verse 2 is introductory, so I’m going to start with verse 3 because that’s where much of the controversy lies. Verse 3 contains the word “head,” which is kephale in Greek. In the passage, kephale occurs 14 times.

Complementarians claim that this word kephale means “authority” or to be “in authority over.” This is how we often use “head” metaphorically in English (“She is the head of a company”). So, complementarians say, men/husbands are the authority over women/wives. And that settles the issue.

But is “authority” the best way to understand kephale? I don’t belive it is.

Almost exclusively, kephale means the literal, physical head of a body. And in antiquity, it rarely ever meant “authority/in authority over.” In fact, the Liddel-Scott-Jones Lexicon (LSJ), one of the most authoritative Greek-English lexicons, doesn’t list “authority” as a possible meaning for kephale.[7]

In our short passage, every time kephale occurs it refers to the literal, physical head of a person, except for each occurrence in verse 3: “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

How should we understand kephale here? I think we have two options that work better than “authority.”

Option 1: Source/Origin

First, we could understand it in the sense of source or origin.[8] Man was created by God. Woman comes from man. The Christ (Messiah) comes from God.

But if kephale means source or origin, wouldn’t we be guilty of the Arian heresy that claimed Christ was created by God the Father?[9]

Of course, Jesus was not created! But “source” doesn’t only have the connotation of “beginning.” As Richard Cervin writes, “[T]he English words origin and beginning are not always equivalent. The origin of a book, movie, or play is not the same thing as its beginning.”[10]

Instead, we have the option to understand “source” as meaning “to come from.” The Son is begotten of the Father. The Son was sent by the Father. The Messiah (Christ) is most definitely from God.

This idea is clearly articulated later in the Nicene Creed, written about 300 years after 1 Corinthians: Messiah Jesus is “God from God, Light from Light…begotten, not made.”[11]

Option 2: Prominence/Honor

Kephale can also have the sense of “prominence” or “honor.” LSJ offers “the noblest part” as one possible meaning.

As I mentioned above, the Corinthians, like the Jews, were a collectivist, honor-shame culture. Women did not have their own honor. Their honor was connected to and derived from a male relative (usually a husband or father).[12] Yet women could bring shame and disrepute upon their family.

This is the likely backdrop to Paul’s words in verses 4-5:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. (NIV)

Notice the language of shame Paul uses in those verses: dishonors (twice) and shaved (a symbol of shame in the ancient world).

I’m inclined to think “head” must mean source/origin or prominence/honor precisely because verses 4-5 make clear that both men and women are praying and prophesying!

I’m inclined to think “head” must mean source/origin or prominence/honor precisely because verses 4-5 make clear that both men and women are praying and prophesying!

This is something patriarchal commentators often miss. The passage cannot possibly be used to restrict women’s leadership activity because both genders are exercising their God-given spiritual gifts in the Corinthian congregation.

Paul assumes both genders will pray and prophesy–both leadership activities in the first-century–when the church comes together. He never says, “Men, you need to step up and lead! And, oh ladies, please submit and let the men do all the talking!”

So what’s Paul’s point? He wants to prevent women (or wives) from bringing shame/dishonor on the men (or their husbands) in the church becuase of their hairstyle or lack of head covering.

Whichever option we choose, both fit the cultural context much better than the complementarian view that focuses on men being in charge.

Verse 6

Paul’s solution to all this was very simple: Ladies, cover your hair. If you don’t want to do that, why don’t you shave it all off? (see v 6).[13] Of course, Paul knows a shaved head reeks of shame. That’s why he essentially says at the end of verse 6, “Just cover your head.”

He’s not putting women “in their place” here. As the Apostle of the heart set free, he never treated women that way. Ever! Indeed, the high-status women he met on his missionary journeys would have never joined the Jesus movement if they weren’t treated as equals.[14]

Paul helps the Corinthians understand how the church ought to conduct itself in the midst of a society that has certain norms and expectations for men and women. Yes, they have freedom in Christ. Praise God for freedom! But using your freedom is not always beneficial (cf. Gal 5:1).

Verses 7-10

While women must cover their heads, Paul writes in verse 7, “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”

Notice that he does not say that “woman is the image of man” but the glory of man. The word for glory here is doxa (think “doxology”). It does usually mean “glory” but it can carry the meaning of “good repute or honor.”[15]

Considering that Paul talks about disgrace/dishonor throughout, it’s reasonable to conclude “glory” relates to the honor/shame dynamic (see verses 14-15 as well). Complementarian Craig Blomberg concedes, “In both places [glory] probably carries the sense of ‘honor.'”[16]

What’s Paul saying then? A Christian man’s behavior affects how people view God. He can bring honor, glory, a good reputation to God’s name. Similarly, a first-century woman’s behavior can affect her husband or family’s honor and reputation.

Listen to how Marg Mowczko puts it:

In honour-shame cultures, it can be difficult for a woman to attain honour for herself. Rather, women protect the reputation and honour of the men in their family by being discreet and socially respectable. This respectability usually has a heavy emphasis on being, and appearing to be, sexually chaste. In such societies, family members, especially women, who display aberrant behaviour or loose morals bring dishonour on the whole family, but especially on the senior male.[17

What about the “created order” in verses 8-9? Complementarians teach that a wife exists to serve and support her husband and his calling based on who was created first.

It shouldn’t take someone being an egalitarian, however, to see that this is outside the scope of the passage. Again, Paul’s not saying anything about gender roles. They would need to be read into the passage. Instead, Paul’s talking about one’s physical appearance in a worship gathering to prevent bringing shame upon oneself and family.

Verses 8-10 bring up an interesting translation dilemma. Look at the ESV:

8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for [dia] woman, but woman for [dia] man. 10That is why [dia] a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of [dia] the angels.

You can see from the brackets that the word “for” is the Greek word dia. It’s one of those elastic Greek pronouns that can be translated many different ways. The ESV choose to translate dia as “for” verse 9. Curiously, it’s translated as “That is why” at the beginning of verse 10 and then as “because of” at the end. (The NIV is almost identical to this, by the way.)

It’s perfectly reasonable to translate dia as “because of” every time, however. In fact, “for” is not a common translation for dia. With a word occurring four times this closely, there’s no reason to translate it differently if one translation makes good sense for every occurrence. “Because of” works quite well all four times:

8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created because of woman, but woman because of man. 10Because of this, a wife ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head, because of the angels.

Why does this matter?

Remember back to our discussion of Genesis 2? There we saw that the woman was created so that the man would not be alone. Not mainly that he’d have a romantic partner (though that’s part of it, I’m sure). In the context, he needed someone to help him work and keep the Garden. The man was needy. God sent him help. The man finally found his “corresponding strength” (‘ezer kenegedo in Hebrew) in the woman.[18]

Seen this way, Paul reminds the Corinthians that “women…are placed by God in the human scene as the strong who come to help/save the needy (the men). In this reading of the text, Paul the Middle Eastern male chauvinist disappears.”[19]

The crescendo of Genesis 2 is the formation of the woman. Humanity, indeed all of creation, has reached its apex when she enters the story.

Yet some complementarian somewhere is still shouting, “BUT THE CREATED ORDER!”

The problem with “created order,” as Kenneth Bailey points out, is that if we want to give priority to what’s first, then the empty void at the beginning would take the cake. But creation moves from lower forms of life to higher ones.[20]

What comes later is most precious.

The crescendo of Genesis 2 is the formation of the woman. Humanity, indeed all of creation, has reached its apex when she enters the story.

Now, what about verse 10? I should have mentioned at the beginning that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is a chiasm. This is a literary structure in the shape of an X (chi = X in the Greek alphabet). A chiasm is used to emphasize a particular point. In the case of our passage, verse 10 is at the center of the chiasm. This means that while we may debate about what Paul meant here or there, we can be sure that verse 10 was his “big take away.”

Verse 10 in the ESV says, “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

Having “a symbol of authority” (a passive activity) would mean women are subjugated to men, evidenced by their head coverings.

Walter Kaiser calls this “one of the weirdest twists in translation history.”[21] Why?

The word for “a symbol of authority” in Greek is exousia. It’s just the typical Greek word translated “authority,” It’s never used in a passive sense, but always active. In other words, authority is not something done to you, it’s something you have or do.

The NIV gets it right: “It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head.”

Paul wants the Corinthians women to know they have authority to pray and prophesy in the gathering so long as they present themselves in culturally acceptable ways.[22]

Verses 11-12

If you are still unconvinced at this point, listen to verses 11-12. These two verses reveal Paul has little regard for “created order” when it comes to gender roles.

“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” (NIV)

So what if the first woman came from a man? Every man since has come from a woman (aka his mom!). Much more importantly, everything comes from God.

He meticulously expresses the interdependence and partnership of both genders under God, without elevating one over the other.

Verses 13-16

Paul ends this discussion by appealing to nature. “Does not the very nature of things [Gk physis] teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?” This word physis can be understood as “naturally” or “what’s natural” to you.[23]

Paul’s usage here suggest that women do not need to wear anything on their head. Their appropriate hairstyle is sufficient!

In other words, Paul expected men to wear their hair short and women to wear their hair long because that is what humans naturally do. Of course, hairstyles have deviated from this at times in certain cultures. But we can all agree that for the most part, this has been humanity’s norm.

Then, as I mentioned in the introduction, Paul says something that helps us make sense of the whole passage: “For long hair is given to her as a covering.” The word “covering” here is different than the word Paul uses for “cover/covered” (vv 4, 6, 7) and “uncovered” (v 5, 13). It means something like “cloth, clothing, robe.”

But Paul’s usage here suggest that women do not need to wear anything on their head. Their appropriate hairstyle is sufficient! Biblical scholar Philip Payne agrees:

“This implies that Paul did not require women to wear any item of clothing on top of their modestly-done-up hair. After all, why would Paul end his argument by stating that a woman has been given long hair as a covering if his point all along was to require a garment head covering?”[24]

In the end, the issue isn’t authority, but how men and women distinguish themselves in worship by their appearances–namely their hairstyles.[25]

How Do We Apply This Today?

As we read more and more of the biblical text, we begin to see that we can’t always make one-to-one applications. That’s the case for this text! In many Western contexts today, women can wear short hair and men can wear long hair and no one is confused or offended by that.

Complementarians, who think the passage is about authority structures, will apply this passage by saying women who participate in worship need to wear a wedding ring as a sign that they are under their husband’s authority.[26] But this passage is not about which gender has authority, so that application is completely off base.

To apply the text, we start with the abstract principle: don’t present yourself in a way that is sexually or morally confusing. Getting to the concrete expression will vary from place to place.

One scholar offered this wise approach:

The cultural markers for [the uniqueness of each gender] will vary widely from time-to-time and from place-to-place, but the principle endures. Although our appearance should not be dictated by the culture around us, we should be sensitive to how we appear within that context—especially regarding those to whom we minister.

In other words, be free, but do not use your freedom as a cover up for evil (see Gal 5:1).

Summing It All Up

Once again, we see that a passage traditionally held to favor complementarians can easily be explained another way that is faithful the cultural context and takes into consideration all that Paul has to say about women.

First Corinthians 11:2-16 isn’t about gender roles or gender subordination. It’s about gender distinction in worship. Men and women both led worship in Corinth and Paul knew this. He never told women to stop leading because it wasn’t wrong for them to do so. His aim was to remind the women not to ignore cultural gender norms so that they did not distract others from worshiping God.

Now, let’s tackle the final controversial text on women in the church: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.


Notes

[1] Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 2011), 300.

[2] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “Correcting Caricatures: The Biblical Teaching on Women,” Pricilla Papers 19/2, 2005, writes that Paul may desire that men stop the practice of covering their heads because of the Jewish tallit, mainly because it symbolized the law (and thus the guilt that comes with failing to uphold the law). Because there is no condemnation in Christ (Rom 8:1), why should men continue to cover their heads?

[3] Quoted in ibid., 305. See Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 14a for original quote. It is very unclear to me how a flock of goats can be an illustration for a sexual enticement. Alas, I am not an ancient Jew. And I never will be.

[4] Craig Keener, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), on BibleGateway.com..

[5] Remember 14:24 which suggests the possibility that anyone may enter the gathering at any time, even unbelievers.

[6] Marg Mowczko, “A note on nature and hairstyles in 1 Cor. 11:14-15,” 9/2/2021. “Sexually” doesn’t mean “She’s trying to be sexy.” Instead, it’s related to the physical makeup of an individual (e.g. is this person male or female?)–what the ancients called a person’s “constitution.”

[7] LSJ Online Lexicon, kephale.

[8] Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, 301.

[9] Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), on BibleGateway.com.

[10] Richard Cervin, “On the Significance of Kephalē (“Head”): A Study of the Abuse of One Greek Word,” Priscilla Papers 30/1, April 30, 2016. In this case, the text would mean something like 1) the origin of every man is Christ since Christ is the agent of God in creation; 2) the origin of woman is the man (Adam) since the woman was “taken out of man” (see Gen 2:21-23); 3) the origin of Christ is God since the Christ (i.e. not Jesus’ last name but literally “the Messiah”) comes from God. See Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, 302.

[11] Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Colorado Springs: Lewis and Roth, 2003), 61-63 also uses the Nicene Creed to prove his point that Jesus is equal but subordinate to the Father. But the authors of the Nicene Creed were surely not trying to show that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. They wanted to be clear he was equal to the Father. While complementarians may be uncomfortable with this “source” language, it makes me equally uncomfortable to say that the authority of Christ is God! If Jesus is “of the same essence of the Father,” then isn’t he of the same authority? It’s true that Jesus says he can only do what he sees his Father doing (John 5:19). But he can also say that no one can take his life from him and he has authority to lay it down (John 10:18). Something has to give. So while Jesus does submit to his Father, we should be very careful to argue that Jesus was always subordinate to his Father or continues to be lest we begin to sound like we’re saying he is “not quite as much God” as God the Father. This, too, is straight from the Arian playbook.

[12] Marg Mowczko, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16, in a Nutshell,” 8/10/21.

[13] Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, 306.

[14] Ibid.

[15] LSJ Online Lexicon, doxa.

[16] Keener, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16.”

[17] Marg Mowczko, “Man and woman as the image and glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:7),” August 7, 2018.

[18] Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, 311.

[19] Ibid., 310.

[20] Ibid., 303.

[21] Kaiser, “Correcting Caricatures.”

[22] What’s the deal with the angels? The word for “angels” is a generic word that can also be translated as “messengers.” We don’t need to understand this word to mean angelic beings. There may have been messengers who were spying on the Corinthian church, hence the reason Paul is so concerned about how they dress in the gathering. This same word is translated “spies” in James 2:25. For more on this, see Mowczko, “Man and woman as the image and glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:7),” and “1 Corinthians 11:2-16, in a Nutshell.”

[23] Mowzcko, “A note on nature.”

[24] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman: One in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 205.

[25] The ESV Study Bible, “1 Corinthians 11:14,” (Wheaton, IL: Crossway), 2008, a complementarian work, says, “Paul’s point is that men should look like men in that culture, and women should look like women in that culture, rather than seeking to deny or disparage the God-given differences between the sexes.”

[26] Jeremy Gardiner, “Can Wedding Rings Replace Head Coverings?” critiques the typical complemetnarian application. This is a very interesting perspective because the author founded the “Head Covering Movement.” Yes, there is such a thing. And of course it would be a man who leads it.

Categories
Life

“1 Corinthians 15:55”

A song by Johnny Cash, taken from the Apostle Paul:

O Death, where is thy sting?
O Grief, where is they victory?
O Life, you are a shining path.
And hope springs eternal, just over the rise,
When I see my redeemer beckoning me.

Oh row my ship over the waves of your sea
Let me find a safe port now and then
Don’t let the dark one in your sanctuary
Until it’s time to pack it in

O, row, row my ship
With the fire of your breath
And don’t lay a broadside on your ship as yet
Blow ye warm winds
When it’s chilly and wet
And don’t come to soon yet
For collecting my debt

O Death, where is thy sting?
O Grief, where is they victory?
O Life, you are a shining path.
And hope springs eternal, just over the rise,
When I see my redeemer beckoning me.

Oh let me sail on
With my ship to the East
And keep my eye on the North Star
When the journey is no good for man or for beast
I’ll be safe wherever you are

Just let me sail into your harbor of lights
And there and forever to cast out my night
Give me my task
And let me do it right
And do it with all of my might

O Death, where is thy sting?
O Grief, where is they victory?
O Life, you are a shining path.
And hope springs eternal, just over the rise,
When I see my redeemer beckoning me.

Categories
Life Theology

A Hard Lesson on Sunday Morning at 6 am

In my personal time of worship before church this morning I read 1 Corinthians 13:4, “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant.”

What particularly stuck out to me was “love does not envy or boast.”  They are two opposite things. Normally people don’t envy and boast at the same time. It can happen. But it is not likely. People envy when they recognize with self-pity that someone is “better” than they are. People boast when they selfishly recognize that they are “better” than someone else.

I am no different. And this morning, God rebuked my sin and called me to realize, and repent of, these deep, dark transgressions. But it didn’t stop there. He called — and is calling — me to dig down to the root of why I am this way.

I often envy people for their gifts, abilities, or opportunities. I want to be “the man.” I want the glory. It’s embarrassing, yes, but it’s the truth. I often boast in my own accomplishments and skills so that people praise me.  Perhaps it’s not always verbally to others, but it frequently happens in my heart. It’s shameful, yes, but it’s the truth.

Both of these sins are rooted in craving the praise of man. I envy and boast because I want to be made much of. The only way to kill these sins is to look to gospel — where God’s love is manifested and provided in the person and work of Jesus without envy or boasting. Gospel love is unselfish and humble. It is sacrificial and servant-oriented. I will never love God and others as I ought if I let the praise of man rule my heart. God’s love — that love which gave up his only Son on the cross to remove his wrath and forgive my sin — must rule my heart.

O Lord, make me see how you love me, and cause that transform me so that I am empowered to love others that way.

Categories
Life Theology

What Love is, and What Love is Not

Here’s some of my notes from studying 1 Corinthians 13:4-5:

In addition to telling us two things love is, Paul tells us seven things that love is not. Love is not envious or boastful.  Love is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own agenda.   Love doesn’t get irritable or resentful.

At this point, it’s necessary to point out that just because we love people does not mean we cannot act for our own benefit or joy. When Paul says that love “does not insist on its own way” it means, as Jonathan Edwards points out, its own selfish, private gain.  This passage is not aimed solely at a marriage, but it is applicable to a marriage.  When a husband loves his wife in the way he should, he is seeking her good as well as his. No husband ever loved his wife so he could be unhappy. No (good) husband ever loved his wife dutifully.  He loves his wife so that she will be joyful and so that he will be joyful.  Picture this: A husband comes home to his wife with flowers and she says, “Oh, I love them!  You didn’t need to get these!”  He replies, “Well, I know I’m supposed to sacrifice and it’s my duty as a husband to get these for you.  They were even on sale.”  He would need grab his cup before he said that.  Instead, imagine this: The same husband comes home to his wife with flowers and says, “Call the babysitter.  I’ve made reservations at your favorite restaurant and then we’ll come back here for a wonderfully romantic night.”  The wife will probably cover her mouth in utter joy.  She’ll say, “Why?”  He will reply, “Because nothing gives me more joy in this world than loving you and making you happy.”  I think every woman would rather hear the latter.  That response shows a heart’s desire to please and love a wife, as well as seeking good, godly joy for himself.

Also, we must say that love is not making much of people. That is idolatry. Love is making much of Christ and pointing people to him. In our American culture, we have defined love as making other people feel good about themselves. C.S. Lewis wrote, “Love is something more splendid and stern than mere kindness.” Lewis is not overstepping Scripture by saying love is more than kindness. After all, Paul said, “Love is…kind.” What Lewis means is that love is not mere kindness. It is a supernatural, divine kindness that is able to be humble, gracious, merciful, truthful, and just all in one. If Scripture is used for teaching, correction, rebuking, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17), then making people feel good about themselves is a contradiction and, most of the time, impossible. Sometimes love is harsh and hurtful. But we know that “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6).  The wounds of a true friend are usually always helpful and prosperous. People who appear to be friends but only butter you up and make you feel good about yourself are not true friends. The Bible, and the gospel itself, is wounding. It shows us our brokenness and need for a Savior and makes much of the God who sent his Son to die for us.  The Bible was not written to make much of people.  It was written to make much of Jesus.  Anyone who read Scripture and feels better about themselves is not a Christian.  The gospel should cause us to fall on our faces in humble repentance because of the disgusting nature of our hearts.  The good news in all this is that Jesus came to love perfectly and save us through the ultimate act of love: willingly and joyfully dying for our sins (Heb. 12:1-2).