1
Corinthians 11:2-16
The
Text
Rex Banks
I
have argued that Paul’s head covering instructions in 1 Cor 11:2-16 are
grounded upon Creation Law. To do
justice to the apostle’s argument we need to look closely at the entire text.
This is an unavoidably lengthy discussion because
like other passages in the New Testament
dealing with gender specific matters (eg 1 Timothy 2:8;
1 Corinthians 14:34, 35) virtually every
verse in 1 Cor 11:2-16 has been endlessly
scrutinized and debated by those who take opposing positions.
Verse
2
Now
I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the
traditions just as I delivered them to you (NASB)
Textual variation
Some versions (e.g. KJV) have αδελφοι (brethren) after επαινω δε υμας (“Now I praise you”). Metzger treats this as an interpolation: “It was to
be expected that, at the beginning of a new section and following επαινω
δε υμας,
many witnesses would interpolate αδελφοι …” (A Textual
Commentary on the New Testament p. 501). He adds that the omission of this
word from early versions and the Coptic is “inexplicable” if it had been
present originally. This textual variation does not impact our present
discussion.
Praise
Paul praises the Corinthians because they
"remember" (ie recall to mind, keep in
mind) him, the perfect tense carrying the idea of an ongoing state. Only here
and in 1:4-9 do we have words of praise for the Corinthians and elsewhere in
chapter 11 he censures them for their conduct (vv 17,
22). Here in v 2 they are praised because they "hold fast to the
traditions" which Paul "delivered" to them.
Traditions
The word “traditions” is the noun form of the verb
translated "delivered" in this verse. In scripture “traditions” (παραδοσεις) can speak of things handed down which are
of human origin or of divine origin (eg 2 Thess.3:6).
Context determines if it is used in a good or bad sense. Frequently inspired men warn that the traditions of men must not invalidate
the ordinances of God (eg Matt 15:1-9; Mk 7:1-13; Col
2:8). On the other hand traditions
handed down by inspired men like Paul are of divine origin. These are
traditions which are to be held on to and obeyed. According to the Jewish New Testament Commentary:
“At 1Cor 11:23 and1Cor 15:3 the words 'received' and
"passed on" are used of two of these "traditions"-the
Lord's Supper and the evidence of Yeshua's
resurrection. "Tradition" in this sense simply means "that which
has been carefully and faithfully 'passed on' by one generation and 'received'
by the next." This corresponds to Jewish understanding.”
Here Paul commends the
Corinthians for holding firmly to
certain traditions which he has
taught them.
Traditions concerning worship
I have argued that in 1 Cor 11:2 - 14:40
Paul is dealing with issues which have arisen in connection with the Lord’s
Supper assembly (see Context). This
section (11:2-16) “has been
understood by the vast majority of scholars both ancient and modern to
pertain to the assembled worship” (Jackson). Because of this I understand “traditions”
here to refer to "directions Paul had given for
public worship” (1 Corinthians (Tyndale
New Testament Commentaries Leon Morris p. 151). ·
Calvin has “decorum ...to be observed in the sacred
assemblies" (emphasis mine). ·
James Mac Knight has "tradition concerning public worship” (A New Literal Translation, from the Original
Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles p. 171). ·
Vine has "apostolic teaching concerning believers in their assembly capacity" (p 145
[emphasis mine]). ·
Fee has "the traditions that have to do with worship (as in 11:23)” (p. 499 [emphasis mine]) and
he suggests that the opening sentence "most likely serves to introduce the
whole of chapters 11-14” (ibid p. 500) which deal with public worship. Likely Paul is here responding to a claim by the
Corinthians’ that they are worshiping according to his instructions. It may be
significant that elsewhere where he responds to direct questions from them, he uses the phrase "now
concerning." For example "Now concerning virgins," (7:25) "Now
concerning things sacrificed to idols" (8:1) "Now concerning
spiritual gifts" (12:1 c.f. 7:1; 16:1). The absence of this phrase here
suggests that Paul is not responding to a direct question, but rather is
commenting upon their claim to have been worshiping as he directed. It is evident that they are indeed assembling for public worship regularly. They are
partaking of the emblems of the Supper (vv l7-34),
praying, singing and proclaiming (l Cor 14) and giving (16:1, 2). In my view
Paul offers genuine praise in response to their assurance that they are
not forsaking corporate worship. When possible he will praise them and he does
so here because they are not forsaking their assembling together. Some argue that Paul's words are sarcastic, but likely
he is offering genuine praise. Transition Paul has other sources of information about the
situation at Corinth (e.g. Chloe's people 1:11) and likely these sources have
told him that although the Corinthians are indeed assembling for worship, there
are some areas with regard to the "traditions" of worship where
praise is not in order. "They may be following the 'traditions' all right, but not in
the proper ways” (Fee p. 500). Thus in v 3 corrective instructions begin
as to the how
of worship. Verse
3 But
I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is
the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ "But" here is adversative as suggested by
most major English versions. Here then we have "censure in contrast to the
praise in v 2” (Robertson vol. 4 p. 159). Now "the previous commendation throws into relief the coming censure
"(G. G. Findlay Expositors Greek New Testament vol. 2 p. 870). Paul has praised the Corinthians for continuing to engage
in public worship (v 2) but it is how
they worship which needs attention. Headship hierarchy Something is amiss in the way the Corinthians
are worshiping and " (the) indecorum in question offends against a foundational
principle, viz that of subordination under the divine
government " (Findlay p. 871). This is an important point. Certain
practices in the Corinthian assembly are incompatible with the headship
hierarchy - God, Christ, man,
woman. What he is about to correct involves an
offense against this unchanging headship principle. It is this statement
concerning the fixed, unchanging principle of headship which introduces the
discussion of the head covering which follows, and it is upon the basis of
this unchanging headship principle that Paul issues the instructions following
v 3. Unwarranted conclusion Some have drawn an unwarranted conclusion
from the words "I want you to understand." They argue that these
words indicate that Paul had not previously discussed the head covering with
the Corinthians. Most recognize that this is not a good argument. This same argument is used by
those who deny that 1 Tim 2:8 ff is part of
the apostolic pattern. For example Keener,
speaking of Paul's instruction in 1 Tim 2 says: "Paul does not assume that Timothy already knows
this rule (about male leadership - Rex). Had this rule been established
and universal, is it possible that Timothy, who had worked many years with
Paul, would not have known it already?" (Keener p.
112 [emphasis mine]). Keener wants to prove that 1
Tim 2:8 ff is new to Timothy. Of course this
would constitute proof that male leadership in 1 Tim 2 is not part of the apostolic
pattern. This argument is not convincing here in 1 Tim 2 and it does not work
in 1 Cor 11 either. This expression "I want
you to understand" is an example
of "a form used in letter writing convention" of Paul's day which
some call “disclosure form" (Peter T. O'Brien Word Biblical Commentary
Colossians, Philemon p. 91). O'Brien
gives Rom 1:13;11:25; 1 Cor 10:1; 11:3;
12: 1; 2 Cor 1:8; l Thess
4:3 and Col 2:1 as examples. Compare this with Paul's words to the
Galatians: “For I would have you know
brethren that the gospel which was
preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from a man
nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ
" (Gal 1:11, 12). We cannot conclude from the
words “I would have you know” that Paul had never before revealed the source of
his gospel to the Galatians. Again in 1 Cor 15:1: "Now I make known to you
brethren, the gospel which I preached
to you..." They already knew this of
course. He is not here revealing new information to them. “Paul it appears had taught the Corinthians (as
he taught his other converts) that in meetings of the church women should have
their heads veiled when they prayed. But this piece of instruction was being
ignored in Corinth” (Bruce p. 103 [emphasis mine]). We might add that many other instructions
were being ignored. Let's be careful not to build
arguments upon unwarranted assumptions as Keener does in 1 Tim 2. In an attempt
to justify female leadership he says: “Had this rule [male
leadership] been established and universal, is it possible that Timothy, who
had worked many years with Paul, would not have known it already?" He is attempting to lead us to
a conclusion by way of an argument which is based upon an unwarranted
assumption. Focus on the text Before leaving this point, look
closely at the text again. Paul says “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man,
and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” If we
let Paul make his own case what he wants them to understand is that
“Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God
is the head of Christ.” Those who insist that Paul is sharing new
information here must deal with the fact that this is basic teaching
concerning the deity and the male-female relationship, and it is teaching
which is undoubtedly part of the apostolic doctrine. In my view Barnes is correct that "The phrase ('But I want you to understand') is
designed to call attention to the subject,
like that used so often in the N.T. 'He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear' "(Barnes p. 753 [emphasis mine]). Head With the rise of so-called "liberation
theology" the meaning of the word "head" (kephalē) in v 3 has been much debated. As brother McWhorter
says "there was no controversy until the feminists began performing hermeneutical
gymnastics with it" (Gender p. 69), but now many are trying to argue
that it does not have the meaning here of "superior rank" or
"preeminence." Many insist that the real meaning here is
"source". This is simply an attempt to be politically correct in an
age which rejects the idea of male headship and authority. In Women and Leadership in the Public Assembly I have argued that
headship here includes the idea of authority. Certainly this word is used this
way in scripture. Vine
tells us that the Hebrew word ro'sh “sometimes means 'leader,' whether appointed, elected, or
self-appointed.” He continues: “The word can be used of the tribal fathers, who are the
leaders of a group of people: 'And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and
made them heads over the people...' (Exo_18:25). Military leaders are
also called 'heads': "These be the names of the
mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in
the seat, chief among the captains..." (2Sa_23:8). In Num_1:16,
the princes are called 'heads' (cf. Jdg_10:18). This word is used of
those who represent or lead the people in worship (2Ki_25:18—the chief
priest).” This is true of κεφαλή
in the NT. Jesus is “the head of all principality and
power” (Col 2:10). Man – woman or husband – wife? Some have suggested that by
“man” and “woman” Paul here means “husband” and “wife.” However while it is
true that ἀνήρ and γυνή can mean “husband” and “wife” this is not the natural meaning
here. Christ is not simply the head of every husband, but rather the
head of every man. In v 4 it is not
every “husband” who disgraces his head by inappropriate attire, but
rather every man. It is not simply the married man who is the image and glory of God (v
7) but all males. The meaning of v 12 is
not that the husband is born through the wife, but rather that
the man is born through the woman. Summary It is very important to note that Paul begins his
discussion by reminding the Corinthians, not of some social convention and not
of the need to conform to custom, but rather of the eternal headship
hierarchy - God, Christ, Man, Woman. This unchanging order is the ground
upon which his following instructions rest. Thomas R Schreiner
points out that “11:3 … is fundamental to the whole passage” explaining: “Verses 4-6 flow from the theological
principle enunciated in 11:3. Since Christ is the authority over men, and since
men are the authority over women, it follows that no man should wear a head
covering when he prays and prophesies, while a woman should” (Head Coverings,
Prophecies and the Trinity 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 https://bible.org/seriespage/head-coverings-prophecies-and-trinity-1-corinthians-112-16). Clearly culture does not determine that the male
is the head of the female, any more
than culture determines that God is head of
Christ. Thus as in 1 Tim. 2:8 ff, Paul regulates the activities of the male and the
female in the worship assembly on the basis of an eternal unchanging fact,
namely the natural headship hierarchy. Paul is making it clear at the outset
that the principles which he is setting forth with respect to males and females
in the worship assembly in this section are grounded upon the unchanging
headship relationship. Verse 4 Every
man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his
head Every man In v 2 Paul has addressed the
Corinthians saying “Now I praise you (Corinthians) because you (Corinthians)
remember me ...” However the foundational statement about the headship
hierarchy (God, Christ, man, woman) which follows takes us from the local to
the universal. Christ is not the head of every Corinthian man, He is “the head of every man.” It is not every Corinthian
man who is the head of the Corinthian woman but rather “the man” who is
the head of “the woman.” Verse 3 leads seamlessly into v 4. Having spoken of “every man” (παντος
ανδρος) of whom Christ
is the head (v 3) he now speaks of “every man” (πας ανηρ) “who has something on his head while
praying or prophesying” (v 4). His comments in v 4 concern the male whose
position in the headship hierarchy is fixed by divine decree (v 3). In v 4 Paul
is speaking of every man of whom Christ is the head. Later in v 7, “a
man” is not a "Corinthian
man" or "first century man"
but every man who is (the image and) "glory" of God; namely all who
are male. Maleness, not culture is the issue. who has something on his head (κατὰ
κεφαλῆς
ἔχων) Greek idiom This clause is not easy to translate. The
first word is a preposition. It governs the second word translated
"head" which is in the genitive. Here the preposition with the
genitive most naturally means "down from." Long hair? Because the text does not tell us what is down
from the head some insist that Paul has long hair in mind. For example
brother Coffman says that "the logical
understanding of this would refer it to 'long hair,' being long enough to hang
down from the head." He says that "the Greek New Testament does not indicate in this verse an
artificial covering of any kind." He continues: "The ancients accepted Paul's dictum
on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an
infraction of Paul's words. 'The hair of the head may not
grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes ... cropping is to be
adopted ... let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into
womanish ringlets.' Clement of
Alexandria, in the Ante Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1956 Vol. II, p. 286.) Response
to “long hair” Brother
Coffman's comment to the effect that the “ancients accepted Paul's dictum on
this” needs clarification. I am sure that brother Coffman did not mean to
mislead, but the placement of this comment under v 4 could suggest that the
ancients understood Paul's words to mean that the apostle was discussing hair
length in this verse. This is not the case. As we have seen (Replacing Old Custom Arguments with New Custom Arguments)
during the very earliest period of church history it was taken for granted that an
artificial garment was under discussion in v 4. Moreover
brother Coffman's quotation from Clement under v 4 may suggest that this early
writer subscribed to the view that Paul was discussing hair rather than an
artificial covering. This is not the case. In The Instructor Clement says concerning women that “this is the wish
of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" (3:12) Clement appears to have some kind of
burka-type covering in view but the point is that he clearly understood that
the woman needed to wear an artificial
covering in order to "pray veiled," (c.f. 1 Cor 11:5) this being
"the wish of the Word." Unfortunately in his
commentary brother Coffman does not discuss Paul's use of “also” in v 6. Nor
does brother Coffman discuss the words “one and the same with her whose head is
shaved” in v 5. Since these verses make it clear that Paul differentiates
the head covering from hair, a comment would have been helpful. The Septuagint Version is very
helpful here. The Septuagint was "the Bible of most writers of the
N.T." (J. Thackeray International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia vol.
4 p. 2722) and "their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its
language"(ibid). It was also "the Bible of the early Greek
Fathers" (ibid), and "was made for the populace and written in large
measure in the language of their everyday life" (ibid).
For this reason it is very helpful to lexicographers in the study of N.T. words
and expression. In this
context we recall that in Esther 6:12, Haman having been humiliated by
Mordecai's success hurried home with his head covered. The translators
of the Sept. render this "κατα κεφαλης". They knew that those who used the
"language of everyday life" would understand its meaning. When they wanted to speak of an artificial covering upon the
head in a way which was understandable to people using the Greek language, they
used the same expression as that used by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:4. Fee tells us that
"Plutarch speaks of Scipio the Younger as beginning to walk through
Alexandria 'having the himation down the head' (Moralia
200F) meaning that he covered his head with part of his toga so as to be
unrecognized by the people." He adds that the relevant expression is
"identical to Paul's idiom except for the expressed object of the
verb" (Footnote 60 p 507) and concludes:
"Almost certainly therefore by this idiom Paul is referring to an external
head covering." In Replacing Old Custom Arguments
with New Custom Arguments we saw that from the close of the NT onward it was accepted that an
artificial covering is under discussion. For example Tertullian describing men leading in prayer in corporate
worship speaks of them praying "with uncovered heads, as unashamed." In his commentary Chrysostom speaks of the man who
has long hair as "like to one
covered", thus making a distinction between the two. He condemns both, but it is quite clear that
he understands v 4 to refer to an artificial
covering. Chrysostom was not inspired of
course, but the point is that like Tertullian before him he provides a link
with the early Christian community and their practices. The early church had no
difficulty understanding that an
artificial covering was under discussion in this verse dealing with male
worshipers. Finally nothing in the
expression “something on his head” specifies that a particular kind of
artificial covering is in view. Nothing in this expression suggests that Paul
limits his instruction to (for example) first century Roman or Greek headgear
which came in various styles. (Additional notes in Appendix 1 – Loosed
Hair? A
Word about the Man). while
praying or prophesying See Context where
I have argued these two present participles function as synecdoche, meaning
that Paul uses them here to speak of all worship
activities. We recall Fee's comment that “The two verbs (i.e.” praying"
and prophesying) are neither exhaustive nor exclusive but representative; they
point to the two foci of Christian worship, God and the gathered
believers" (Fee p. 506). I have also argued that 1 Cor 11:2-16 is
discussing the Lord’s Day assembly (see Context) but of course this does
not mean that praying and prophesying were limited to the Lord's Day assembly. Prophesying involves inspired activity,
but although scripture mentions inspired prayer (eg
1 Cor 14:15) this activity was normally uninspired. Prophesy is an
example of inspired speech while most references to prayer in the NT are
to uninspired activity. Prophesy is addressed to fellow worshipers
while prayer is directed towards God. If these terms function as synecdoche here they may
have been chosen, first because they represent activities
which are both miraculous and non-miraculous and second because they
represent both horizontal and vertical communication. Some argue that because prophesying
involves inspired activity we are to understand prayer here as inspired
prayer. In my view it is more likely that these terms are chosen for the
reasons just stated. Moreover if Paul is
speaking only of inspired activity and if (as most affirm) Paul's instructions
reflect first century custom why would the apostle be selective in his
comments? Why would the apostle tell inspired men that it was
disgraceful to pray with the head covered but permit uninspired men to
pray with covered heads? Again if (as most affirm) it was disgraceful for
first century women to appear in public without a covering, why would the uninspired bareheaded
first century woman be socially acceptable while the inspired first
century woman seated beside her be socially unacceptable (v 5)? Nothing in the
text itself permits us to make this distinction. disgraces
his head The word translated "disgraces" combines the
preposition κατα and the word for shame or disgrace. It is
used in v 22 of those who "shame" the poor. Twice Paul uses the word
when he quotes Isa.28:16: "And he who believes in Him will not be
disappointed ("ashamed" KJV) (Rom 9:33; 10:11). This is a strong word
for shame.
Is "head" here a reference to Christ (v 3) or to the man's own head (v 4) or both? In v 3 Paul has identified Christ as man's head and in v 4 he
has spoken of the man's own head. Likely there is a twofold meaning here.
Anyway the behavior is reprehensible. Connection with v 3 Again it must be emphasized that this statement
concerning shame grows out of v 3 and the divine headship arrangement (v 3). It is because of the male's place in
this headship hierarchy that it is shameful for him to cover his head in this
setting, and his place in this headship hierarchy is fixed and permanent.
Because of man’s place in this
unchanging headship hierarchy
(unaffected by culture), every man (of whom Christ is the head)
disgraces his head by praying and prophesying with his head covered. The fixed
headship hierarchy not
custom lies behind Paul’s instruction. Sometimes the following claim is made: “In deciding the binding nature of this command, we must next examine the
reasons Paul gives for continuing this practice. First, we note the strong
emotive terms applying it to the cultural setting: To fail to obey is dishonorable
(vv 4, 5) … this points to a cultural tie”
(Hermeneutics And Women In The Church
Grant R. Osborne
Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 20:4 Dec 1977 p. 341) However
in the Sept Version “the verb … fully interchangeable with ... καταισχύνω is often found
in the sense of ‘to shame’ or ‘to bring shame’ … Mostly God is the subject
and the shame to which he brings is His judgment” (TWNT vol
1 p 189) So David prays that “the wicked be put to shame” (Psa 31:17) and exults in the fact that “workers of
wickedness” are “put to shame,
because God has rejected them” (Psa
53:5). Paul uses this word when he tells
us that “Whosoever believeth on him (Jesus) shall not be
ashamed” (Rom 10:11). Nothing about this word restricts it to “the cultural
setting.” Covered men? Likely no problem existed with men praying and prophesying with covered
heads (although some take this position). The
situation is likely hypothetical. It seems clear that the real problem concerns
the women. However even though the situation is likely hypothetical as regards
the man, this does not alter the
fact that Paul, by inspiration says that the covered male head is shameful
in the circumstances under discussion.
This is a very important point. In
Gal 1:8 Paul says: "But even though we or an angel from heaven should
preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you let him
be accursed." No actual problem
existed with Paul or angels from heaven preaching
a different gospel, but it is just as true that such an action would indeed result
in their being cursed. So while it is likely that no problem existed with men covering their heads in worship at
Corinth, this does not alter the truth of what Paul says: such behavior by a
male would bring disgrace upon his head. This is an important point. Likely the
situation at Corinth which called forth the instructions in vv
2-16 concerned Christian sisters, but we must not skip over Paul's instructions
concerning men. Paul says not one word about lewdness or immodesty on the part
of uncovered women, but rather he contrasts the genders. It is tempting
to overlook Paul's instructions concerning the male because this raises
problems for those who take the custom position. The custom position Those who argue that Paul’s
instructions simply reflect first century custom are confronted with some real
problems when dealing with v 4. As we have seen (First Century Worship
Practices) what Paul calls a disgrace in v 4 was a common practice among
male Roman worshipers. It is important to be clear on this point. I am not
arguing that all Roman men always wore a covering in worship.
What I am affirming is that the covered male head in worship was not
considered unusual or disgraceful.
Those who take the custom
position must deal with the fact that what Paul calls disgraceful was
considered honorable by many in a typical Roman Greek city of the first
century. We recall that a "larger than life" statue of Augustus "making a sacrifice according to the Roman rite" was on public display "in a large civic building at the end of Roman Corinth called the Julian Basilica" (Thompson). His toga covers his head.
The
Geneva Annotations of 1560 provide a good example of the fact that culture
often trumps text in discussions of 1 Cor 11:2-16. Under v 3 the notes read:
“He sets down God, in Christ
our mediator, as the end and mark not only of doctrine, but also of ecclesiastical
comeliness.”
I believe that this is correct. Paul uses v
3 to introduce his discussion of church order. But when we come to v 4 the notes include the
following:
“It appears, that this was a
political law serving only for
the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for
a man to speak
bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.”
Sadly culture trumps text.