|
|
Now let's look at the New Testment verses on Women
1 Corinthians 11:3 Head of Woman Is Man?
These words in 1 Corinthians 11:3 are easily part of one of the most difficult and debated passages in all of Paul’s epistles. What, precisely, does he mean when he says that “man is the head of woman”? How are we to understand the assertion of 1 Corinthians 11:7, which follows the “head” passage, that man “is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man”? And finally, who are “the angels” in 11:10, due to whom “the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head”?
These sayings, because they appear in the same immediate context (1 Cor 11:2–16) are closely tied to one another; thus in my interpretation I shall occasionally need to refer to matter treated in one or both of the other sayings.
In 1 Corinthians 11:3 the often-heated debate centers on the meaning of the word head (a literal rendering of the Greek kephale). For most English readers of the text, the common figurative sense of “head” as ruler, leader, chief, boss, director suggests itself almost immediately. Such an understanding of “head” as connoting “authority over” leads to an interpretation of this text (and of Eph 5:22–23) as Paul’s teaching about hierarchical order in the relation between men and women. Some who stand within this interpretive tradition go so far as to posit a “chain of command,” where authority is passed along: from God to Christ to man to woman.
While the NIV, RSV, NASB and NEB are cautious in their translation, rendering the Greek kephale with its literal English equivalent “head,” other contemporary versions opt for a figurative meaning. Thus the TEV renders kephale with “supreme over.” The LB’s paraphrase becomes even more interpretive when it renders the text: “a wife is responsible to her husband, her husband is responsible to Christ, and Christ is responsible to God.”
Even when such explicit interpretations of the term kephale are not employed, the literal “head,” as in the NIV, implicitly suggests an interpretation along the same lines because of the common understanding of “head” in English when applied to persons in relationships such as marriage or other institutions. Common phrases like “she is head of the division” or “he is the head of his family” illustrate this everyday metaphorical meaning of “head” in our language.
Apart from the question whether this common English meaning is also the common Greek meaning of “head” when used figuratively, serious issues are raised by such an interpretation. How are we to see the relation between Christ and God? If God occupies a rank superior to Christ, then we have here a revival of the ancient heresy of “subordinationism” and a challenge to the classical doctrine of the Trinity.
Further, if husbands (or men; the Greek word is the same) are under the authority of Christ, and wives (or women; the same Greek word) are under the authority of husbands/men, do we then not have a situation where women stand only in indirect relation to Christ, via their husbands? Such a conclusion is in fact reached by some when they understand the series (God – Christ – Man – Woman) as indicating a “growing distance from God,” or by others who extend the “chain of command” to children (on the basis of Eph 5:21–6:4) and maintain that the woman’s authority over her children is a “derived” authority; that is, she exercises that authority “on behalf of” her husband.
The core issue in our attempt to grasp Paul’s instruction is this: what meaning, or meanings, did the word kephale have in the common Greek language of the New Testament period? How would Greek-speaking Christians in Corinth have heard Paul when he used kephale And how did this help them understand Paul’s instructions concerning appropriate decorum in their public worship (1 Cor 11:4–16)? To answer these questions attention will be given to linguistic data, Paul’s use of kephale elsewhere in his epistles, and the thrust of his argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.
The linguistic evidence points strongly, if not overwhelmingly, away from the common reading of head as “chief,” “ruler,” “authority over,” though there are many conservative scholars who would challenge this. The most exhaustive Greek-English Lexicon covering Greek literature from about 900 b.c. to a.d. 600, 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.”
What is especially interesting in this lexicographic evidence is that in the 1897 eighth revised edition of this lexicon, the final entry under “metaphorical” meanings is “of persons, a chief.”1 But not a single citation from the literature is given to support or illustrate such a definition. Therefore, in light of the lack of evidence, that definition is not included in the later editions. However, among the range of meanings which kephale had in ordinary Greek were “origin” or “source” or “starting point” and “crown” or “completion” or “consummation.” As we shall see below, these meanings do far greater justice to the Pauline usages of kephale than the “authority” nuances conveyed by the English “head.”
Strong support for the linguistic evidence (that is, that the metaphorical range of meanings of kephale did not normally include the ideas of “authority over” or “superior rank”) comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Septuagint) made between approximately 250–150 b.c. by a large group of Jewish scholars for the Jews living outside Palestine whose first, and sometimes only, language was Greek.
Like the English word “head” and the Greek word kephale, the Hebrew word ro's has first of all the literal meaning “head of man or beast.” But like English and Greek, it also has numerous figurative meanings. In an exhaustive study of how the Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew word ro's2, the following data emerged. In the more than 200 times when it refers to a physical head, the translators almost always used kephale. About 180 times, ro's clearly has the figurative meaning of “leader” or “chief” or “authority figure” of a group. There is thus a close similarity between the English “head” and the Hebrew roµsû; figuratively, both frequently designate an authority figure.
When the translators, however, sought the appropriate Greek word to render this figurative meaning, they used not kephale but archon (and its derivatives) in the great majority of cases (138 times). Archon means “ruler,” “commander,” “leader.” Its derivatives include meanings such as “authority,” “chief,” “captain,” “prince,” “chief of tribe,” “head of family.” Most of the remaining occurrences of ro's (when it designates an authority figure) are translated by several other specific Greek words (such as hegeomai, “to have dominion over”). In only eight out of 180 cases was kephale used to translate ro's when it designated the leader or ruler of a group. It is very possible that one of the figurative meanings of kephale (namely, “top” or “crown”) allowed the translator to use it in describing a prominent individual. It may also be that in these few cases one of the Septuagint translators simply used the literal equivalent for ro's, namely kephale (since both mean “head”). This is in fact what happens all too frequently in any translation when it is too literal. The exact equivalent may, in fact, distort the meaning conveyed by the original in its own context.
It is clear from this data that the Greek translators were keenly aware that kephale did not normally have a metaphorical meaning equivalent to that of ro's.
This linguistic evidence, which suggests that the idea of “authority over” was not native to the Greek kephale, has led numerous scholars to see behind Paul’s use of “head” either the meaning “source, origin” or “top, crown, completion.”3
Another factor to take into consideration is that nowhere else in the New Testament is kephale used to designate a figure of authority. If that had been a prominent meaning, it could have served well in numerous places in the Gospels where the head or master of a household appears; yet it is never used to convey this meaning (see, for example, Mt 10:25; 13:52; Lk 13:25; 14:21).
If the readers of Paul’s Greek did not hear our “headship” concept in the word kephale, but rather the idea of “source, origin,” what did it convey to them, and how did that meaning in 11:3 lay the foundation for Paul’s admonitions about appropriate hair length and decorum in public worship? Cyril of Alexandria, an important Greek-speaking leader of the church in the fourth century, commenting on this text wrote: “Thus we say that the kephaleµ of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephale of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise, the kephale of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature.”4
This interpretation meets all the requirements of the passage and its context, and at the same time sheds light on several other of Paul’s statements where both Christ and the man are designated as “head” of something or someone (Eph 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:15–20; 2:19). Paul, as other New Testament writers, affirms Christ as the one by whom all things were created (Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16). Thus Paul can say that Christ, as God’s agent of creation, gave the first man, and thus every man, life (“Christ is the source of man’s life”). Such a meaning is confirmed by the fact that in the same passage (1 Cor 11:7–9) he clearly has the creation narrative of Genesis 1–2 in mind. Though it is obvious that, in a final sense, Christ/God is also the source of the woman’s life (1 Cor 11:12), Paul is here considering the sequence of creation of the human species in Genesis 2.
This temporal, sequential thought continues in the sentence “And the head of the woman is man” (that is, “the man is the source of woman’s life”). According to Genesis 2:21–23 Adam is the origin of Eve’s being. And it is precisely this Old Testament text which Paul has in mind (1 Cor 11:8, 12). That “source” is the appropriate meaning of kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is confirmed by Paul’s “source” language in his appeal to Genesis 2.
Behind this temporal sequence stands God (“everything comes from God”; that is, God is the source of everything; see 1 Cor 8:6). Therefore, “the head of Christ is God” (that is, the source of Christ’s being is God). Cyril of Alexandria said, “the kephale of Christ is God because he is from him according to nature” (emphasis mine). Though Cyril’s language reflects the later trinitarian discussion, his affirmation is solidly grounded in the New Testament. According to John 1:1–14, the Word, which was God and was with God, came forth and became flesh in the Incarnation. In John 8:42, 13:3 and 16:27 Jesus is said to have come from God.
It would therefore seem best to translate 1 Corinthians 11:3 as “I want you to understand that Christ is the source of man’s being; the man is the source of woman’s being; and God is the source of Christ’s being.” When read like this, it lays a solid foundation for, and sheds light on, the rest of the passage (1 Cor 11:4–16), in which the next two hard sayings are located.
Notes:
1Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 2 vols., rev. H.S. Jones and R. MKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), 1:944-45.
2Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?" in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 97-110.
3See, for example, Stephen Bedale, "The Meaning of Kephale in the Pauline Epistles," Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 5 (1954): 211-15; C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968); H.N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of Theology, trans. J. Richard deWitt (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 379-82; S. Scott Bartchy, "power, Submission, and Sexual Identity Among the Early Christians," in Essay on New Testament Christianity, ed. C. R. Wetzel (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1978), pp.50-80.
4 G.W. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 749
1 Corinthians 11:7 Woman the Glory of Man?
Once again Paul seems to put women one step further removed from God than men. Why is man said to be the glory of God, while woman is the glory of man? Why are women not also said to be the glory of God? And does the fact that God’s image is affirmed for man, but not for woman, mean that only the male half of the species is made in God’s image? And what does covering of one’s head (with a veil or one’s hair) have to do with being or reflecting someone’s glory?
In 1 Corinthians 8–10, Paul has been dealing with the issue of Christian liberty in light of true knowledge (“correct beliefs”), caring love for one’s fellow believers, and concern for living and acting in ways which “build up” others or the church. That is, Christian freedom with respect to externals—to rules and regulations, to forms of ritual and ceremony—is not an absolute freedom. Christian freedom, based on the liberating grace of God, is freedom for the other, for the other’s good, for the growth of the fellowship in love and faith and hope.
Paul sums up this discussion with these words: “whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). How do we live and act for the glory of God? By not causing “anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God. … For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved” (10:32–33). Both with respect to the outside world and the fellowship, this principle of Christian behavior is the source for Paul’s specific instructions which follow.
Concerns about propriety with regard to appearance in the context of public worship are addressed first (1 Cor 11:2–16). This is followed by a severe criticism of their misunderstanding of the nature of the Lord’s Supper and its consequence in their actions (1 Cor 11:17–34). Finally, Paul addresses the use and misuse of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:1–14:40). In each of these situations, the principle for Christian action laid down in 1 Corinthians 10:31–33 must be kept in mind.
What precisely is the problem regarding proper appearance for worship in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16? As frequently is the case in this “occasional” letter, we must make deductions from Paul’s answers. From 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 we may assume that social, cultural or ritual norms were being ignored or deliberately set aside in the context of worship. It is possible that their libertine enthusiasm, which had led them to a demeaning or total rejection of male-female sexuality and distinctions (see 1 Cor 7), had also led them to reject other cultural and religious norms. Thus, perhaps in a deliberate attempt to wipe out distinctions, some men may have worn a head covering in worship (1 Cor 11:4), while some women rejected the covering prescribed for them by cultural or religious conventions (1 Cor 11:5).
Though the Greek word for “veil” does not appear in this text (and therefore some commentators have argued that Paul is here speaking only of hair as a covering), it is best to understand the phrase “having [something] down from the head” (1 Cor 11:4) to refer to a head covering that concealed the hair and shoulders. First Corinthians 11:6 seems to confirm this sense, where “not covering the head” is likened to shaving or cutting the hair short. The sense seems to be that “if you are not going to cover (veil) your head, you might as well cut off your hair; it amounts to the same thing!”
Why does a man who prays and prophesies with his head covered dishonor his head (1 Cor 11:4), while a woman who prays and prophesies with her head uncovered dishonor her head (1 Cor 11:5–6)? The answer to this question is cryptically given in 1 Corinthians 11:7. But in order to understand that answer, the problem of honoring and dishonoring the head needs some unraveling.
The first uses of “head” in these sentences (“with his head covered” and “with her head uncovered”) are obviously references to their physical heads. Does “head” in the phrases “dishonor his/her head” refer also to their physical heads or to their figurative heads given in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (Christ, of the man; the man, of the woman)? Commentators are fairly divided, with some holding that both meanings may be intended.
In either or both cases, dishonor is the result. When a man wears a covering on his head, it is as if he wore long hair; but long hair on men is against “nature” (1 Cor 11:14). For Paul, as in popular Greek philosophy, cultural customs were perceived as extensions of natural law (and for Paul, more specifically God’s created order of things). Therefore, wearing a covering was against God’s purposes. It demeans God’s design and thus dishonors both God and man. Woman’s long hair—also designed “by nature” (that is, God)—is her glory (1 Cor 11:15). To uncover it is the same as cutting it off. That disgraces her, since her very being is demeaned. It may also disgrace her “figurative” head (that is, her husband), since appearing in public without a covering brings reproach on him from the society (especially if, as some have argued, it was the practice of prostitutes and other libertines in Corinth to move in public without a covering).
In light of Paul’s principle for Christian life—to act in ways that lead to the good, the salvation of as many as possible (1 Cor 10:32–33)—he is concerned that Christians maintain the kind of public worship which does not bring disgrace through unacceptable, shameful practices. The church was God’s alternative to broken Corinthian society (see discussion of 1 Corinthians 11:3). Its flouting of contemporary cultural conventions could bring social criticism and hinder the gospel.
Yet Paul is much more than a pragmatist. He grounds his reasoning in an understanding of God’s revealed intention. This intention is focused in 11:7, though its foundation is already laid in 11:3. If, as we have argued in the previous chapter, Paul’s use of the Greek word kephale(“head”) is to be understood not in terms of our idea of “headship” (that is, authority over), but rather in terms of “source/origin,” then a central, unifying theme in his argument emerges.
Paul’s guiding principle for Christian conduct (1 Cor 10:32–33) is grounded in the even higher principle: “whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). Since the word glory appears three more times in the passage which follows (1 Cor 11:7, 15), we can assume that the manifestation of God’s glory and human participation in that glory is a central purpose of community worship.
|
In biblical thought, that which is made, or emerges out of another, manifests or reflects the glory of its maker or origin. Thus, “the heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork” (Ps 19:1 RSV). The worshiper is exhorted to declare God’s glory (Ps 96:3–8) and stands under judgment when God’s glory is perverted in false worship and distorted human living (Rom 1:22–32). According to both John and Paul, Jesus’ life reflected God’s glory (Jn 1:14; 13:31–32; 17:4; Col 1:27). Since in Christ the fullness of God expressed itself (Col 1:19), Paul could say that “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God [was revealed] in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). Not only that, but Christ is the very “image of God” (2 Cor 4:4).
This complex of ideas seems to stand behind the language and ideas here. Insofar as the man is the result of God’s creative work (Gen 1:26; 2:7) and has his existence out of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), who is the glory and image of God, “he is the image and glory of God.” And insofar as the woman has her existence out of the man (Gen 2:21–23; 1 Cor 11:3), she “is the glory of man.”
What Paul does not say in this context is important. He does not say that woman is the image of man; she is only his glory. For Paul knew that, according to Genesis 1:26–27, human beings as male and female were created in God’s image. He is also clear that both the man and the woman have their being ultimately out of God’s being as a result of God’s creative act (1 Cor 11:12). Thus the woman as man’s glory is only a recognition of the temporal sequence of God’s creative activity, since her being is derived from the being of Adam. But no less than man, woman is the glory and image of God since she too is “from God” (1 Cor 11:12).
The purpose of worship is to glorify God. In contexts where cultural-religious norms and customs for proper attire and length of hair were understood as reflecting, at least to some extent, the order of “nature” (1 Cor 11:14–15),1 the rejection of those customs in the worship of the church in Corinth undermined the purpose of worship. A “covered” man or an “uncovered” woman would bring dishonor rather than glory. It is this concern which motivates Paul’s thought in this difficult passage.
Note:
1 See the discussion of this matter in C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp.256-57.
1 Corinthians 11:10 What Is the Sign of Authority?
Who are “the angels,” because of whom women are “to have a sign of authority” on their heads when praying and prophesying? Why should they be interested in women’s appearance in worship? What is the “sign of authority” on a woman’s head, and whose authority does it signify?
In the discussion of 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 we saw that Paul argued for the appropriateness of women praying and prophesying in public worship with a head covering for both practical evangelistic reasons and biblical-theological considerations. Now he adds yet another dimension to the discussion. The opening words of the sentence, “For this reason,” are most naturally a reference to the preceding discussion and the reasons already given for the propriety of a woman’s head covering. Some see this statement as pointing forward to the phrase “on account of the angels.” A good example is the TEV, which reads, “on account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering.” To take it in that way would make the whole prior discussion, with its various reasons for a head covering, meaningless.
Why is “because of the angels” another reason for the observance of the custom? What do angels have to do with the situation? Because of the obscurity of this statement, various interpretations have been offered throughout the church’s history.
Among early church fathers the interpretation of the “angels” as priests or bishops was prominent. The Greek word angelos literally means “messenger” and could refer to a human messenger in the sense of an envoy, one who is sent. Thus the “angel of the church in Ephesus” (as well as the other “angels” of the churches addressed in Revelation 2–3) were held to be the bishops of those churches. From this the conclusion was drawn that the “angels” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 referred to visiting leaders from other churches, who would be offended by women’s inappropriate appearance in worship.
This interpretation is unsatisfactory because nowhere in Paul’s epistles, or the rest of the Epistles, is the word angelos ever used as designation of a church leader. In all but one case, Paul uses the word exclusively for supernatural, spiritual beings, the servants of God. The one exception is Galatians 4:14, where it is a self-designation: “You welcomed me as if I were an angel of God.” Since it is used as an analogy, it really belongs to the category of Paul’s normal usage.
A second line of interpretation sees these “angels” as a threat to women, against which the head covering in worship protects them. On the basis of Genesis 6:2–4, where it is said that the “sons of God” were attracted by the beauty of human females and impregnated them, Jewish traditions arose which interpreted these “sons of God” as angelic beings, who, as fallen angels, lusted after women. There are numerous passages in the noncanonical intertestamental literature that build on the Genesis narrative and speculate on the danger to humanity from these fallen angels.1 This linkage of 1 Corinthians 11:10 with Genesis 6 and subsequent speculation is at best problematic. There is no indication whatever in this text that Paul is concerned about women’s protection from evil angelic beings. And how would the veil, while the women were praying or prophesying, protect against their lustful advances?
A third interpretation, which seems more fruitful as a context for Paul’s cryptic allusion, sees behind the reference “because of the angels” the common Jewish belief that God’s servants, the angels, are present especially in the worship of God’s people. In Psalm 138:1 the worshiper exclaims, “I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart; before the ‘gods’ I will sing your praise.” These “gods” were understood as heavenly beings, servants in the divine court and guardians of the created order. Hebrews reflects these ideas when it envisions the ultimate context of worship, the heavenly Jerusalem where God and “thousands of angels in joyful assembly” are present (12:22). Paul elsewhere posits angels as observers of human conduct as well (1 Cor 4:9).
A more specific background for this text from Judaism is to be found in the Qumran writings, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. J. A. Fitzmyer has shown that these Jewish sectarians believed that angels were present when the community assembled for worship, and that they would be offended by any acts which transgressed created order.2 Paul confirms the presence of such a belief in a word addressed to Timothy: “In the presence of God and of Christ and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules” (1 Tim 5:21 RSV). We have here, as in 1 Corinthians 11:3, the connection between worship, congregational norms and angels who are present.
If, in light of this background, the angels of 1 Corinthians 11:10 are to be understood as guardians of those orders which are according to “the very nature of things” (1 Cor 11:14), then women’s uncovered heads would be an infringement on that order. Thus, “because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”
What, then, constitutes the “sign of authority”? Why “authority”? Whose authority?
The text reads literally, “The woman ought to have authority on the head.” Because of the emphasis on a head covering in the context, one would have expected Paul to say, “The woman ought to have a head covering.” This expectation in fact caused some early church fathers to replace the word authority with the word veil. The identification between the head covering and “authority on the head” seems certain (note the RSV decision to translate, “That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels”). By using the word “authority” (the Greek exousia, “authority,” “power,” “right”), Paul apparently intends to interpret the significance of the covering for the woman’s participation in the prayer life and prophetic ministry of the congregation.
Since the head covering cannot by itself possess authority, some commentators and translations have opted for “a sign of authority” (that is, the veil is a sign for something else); examples are the NIV and NEB (NASB renders “symbol of authority”). Such a rendering leaves open the questions “Authority for what?” and “Whose authority?” In my judgment, both TEV and the LB go significantly beyond both the textual and contextual evidence. The TEV translates, “A woman should have a covering over her head to show that she is under her husband’s authority.” That translation decision answers the questions posed above by giving the husband authority over the wife. The LB interprets essentially the same way, except that it generalizes the concept of authority: not only is the wife to be under the authority of her husband, but “woman … is under man’s authority.”
|
These readings of the text presuppose two things and then import them into the text: (1) They assume that the relationship between man/husband and woman/wife as posited in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is a relationship of “authority over,” and that this “principle of headship” determines all aspects of the rest of the passage (1 Cor 11:4–16). I have attempted to show (see discussion on 1 Cor 11:3) that such a reading is likely incorrect. (2) They assume that the head covering is in fact a symbol of the husband’s authority over his wife. Yet no convincing proof of this assumption exists. A parallel has been sought in the Greek word basileia, which usually means “kingship” or “kingdom,” but also can have the meaning “royal crown”; and the crown was a “sign of royal power/authority.” This supposed parallel breaks down when we recognize that here the power and authority of the wearer is meant, and not that of another person.
In view of these problems, the text needs to be read much more literally. What really does Paul say? The text reads: “the woman should have exousia .[‘power,’ ‘right,’ ‘authority’] on the head.” By choosing the word exousia rather than “head covering,” Paul seems to suggest that by wearing the covering—and thus conforming her outward appearance with “nature/custom”—the woman has authority. Such an understanding of the text is strongly supported by recent studies.3
Authority for what? is the final question. We have seen that the ultimate purpose of worship is to give glory to God. A part of the way by which the glory of God is reflected is through the prayers of the worshipers and the proclamation of the gospel. Now since the woman has her origin in the man and thus reflects his glory, she ought to wear a head covering in worship in order to conceal “man’s glory” and therefore be in a position to reflect the glory of God in praying and prophesying. By being veiled, women would not distract attention from the worship of God and avoid accusations of disgraceful behavior.
At the same time, the covering also represents her God-given right to bring glory to God through praying and prophesying, a gift of the Spirit (see Acts 2:17–18) which transcends former religious and cultural limitations imposed on women in public worship. As Walter Liefeld has shown, Paul used the word exousia(“authority”) five times within the larger context of 1 Corinthians 8–14, always in the sense of Christian freedom from externals for the sake of others and the progress of the gospel.4 By linking this same concept with the woman’s covering Paul is, at one and the same time, affirming the need for restraint regarding externals and her right (authority) to participate in that which is essential; namely, the expression of her direct relation to God in prayer and the exercise of the gift of prophetic proclamation for the edification of the church and the glory of God.
This understanding of the text leads naturally to the next two verses. The statement that “in the Lord” man and woman are interdependent and complementary (1 Cor 11:11–12) has often been taken to represent a halfhearted concession by Paul. In light of the interpretation of the previous verses which has been offered, these verses are a ringing affirmation that in the new era which has been inaugurated (that is, “in the Lord”), despite the need for temporal limitations, man and woman have their being in God (“everything comes from God”) and are called to do everything “for the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31).
Notes:
1See the passages in the following books of the Pseudepigrapha: Enoch 6-7, 67-78; Testament of Ruben 5; Jubilees 5; Apocalypse of Baruch 56:8-13.
2See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Corinthians 11:10," New Testament Studies 4 (1957-1958): 45-58.
3M.D. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Corinthians 11:10,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963-1964): 410-16. Walter L. Liefeld, “Women, Submission and Ministry in 1 Corinthians,” in Women, Authority and the Bible , ede. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 145-46. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 254-55; William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians, The Anchor Bible, vol. 32 (New York: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 260-64.
4Liefield, “Women, Submission and Ministry,” pp.145-46.
1 Corinthians 14:33–34 Women to Keep Silence?
Several acute problems are raised by these verses for the Bible reader who seeks to be a faithful interpreter of the whole counsel of God revealed in Scripture as well as an obedient follower of Christ.
First, a series of questions is forced on us by the text itself and the verses which follow: Does the New Testament as a whole show that women were routinely excluded from verbal participation in Christian worship? Why are they not allowed to speak? Which “Law” is referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:34? How are “submission” and “silence” related?
A second series of questions is raised by the relation between this hard saying and the immediate and wider biblical context. How can Paul say earlier in this epistle that women are to have a head covering on while praying and proclaiming the gospel (1 Cor 11:3–16) and now in the same letter forbid verbal participation? Further, how are we to take the apparent discrepancy between this blanket prohibition and the fact that there are numerous examples of women’s active participation in the worship life of early Christianity?
The text we are looking at is located at the conclusion of a lengthy section (1 Cor 11–14) in which Paul deals with problem situations in the context of worship. He has dealt with proper decorum of men and women while praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:2–16); with irregularities at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17–34); and finally with the nature, function, use and abuse of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12–14), with special consideration of the ecstatic phenomenon “speaking in tongues” and “prophecy” (1 Cor 14:1–25).
It is apparent in the immediately surrounding context (1 Cor 14:26–40) of this saying that the elevation and glorification of ecstatic, unintelligible utterance by some faction in the congregation created disorder and confusion in worship (see comment on 1 Cor 14:5). Thus in addressing those who speak in tongues (1 Cor 14:27–28), he calls for order: they should speak “one at a time.” The utterances should be interpreted (1 Cor 14:27), since without interpretation it would confound the hearers and cause them to wonder whether there is madness here (1 Cor 14:23). Without an interpreter, “the speaker should keep quiet in the church” (1 Cor 14:28). In addressing those who have the gift for prophetic proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor 14:29–33), the concern for order in worship is also evident. Their speaking is to be “in turn,” that is, not all at the same time. The purpose of all verbal communication is “the strengthening of the church” (1 Cor 14:26) through the instruction and encouragement of everyone (1 Cor 14:31). That purpose, as Paul sees it, can only be accomplished when there is order in worship, “for God is not a God of disorder, but of peace” (1 Cor 14:33; see also 1 Cor 14:40).
All of the above shows that Paul is dealing with abuses and actions in worship which disrupt God’s purposes and which therefore need correction. Within such a setting, the text seems clearly to belong to the category of “corrective texts” whose purpose is focused toward a local situation. Paul’s word that “women should remain silent in the churches” would therefore seem, at least primarily, to have authoritative import (“What I am writing to you is the Lord’s command,” 1 Cor 14:37) for the particular situation in Corinth (as well as similar situations; for example, the one addressed in 1 Tim 2:11–12). One must be careful therefore not to immediately jump to the conclusion that Paul’s injunction has implications for all women in all churches.
Support for restraint in this area comes from both other things Paul writes and practices in the early churches which show that women’s vocal participation in worship and in other instructional or leadership roles was accepted and affirmed. Paul himself acknowledges in this same letter the validity and appropriateness of women as full participants in public prayer and the proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor 11:5, 13). What he finds invalid and unacceptable is that they engage in this activity without a head covering, since that rejection of cultural/religious custom creates a potential stumbling block. Paul even affirms in that context that “the churches of God” recognize no other practice (1 Cor 11:16), namely, the appropriateness of a head covering for women who are praying and prophesying in the church.
If Paul believed that women should be silent in the churches in a comprehensive, universal sense, he would not have spent so much time instructing women what to do with their heads; he would have simply forbidden their practice of praying and prophesying in the assembled congregation.
|
Paul’s larger view—which acknowledged and validated the vocal participation of women in the churches—is supported in other New Testament writings. Thus the proclamation of the “wonders of God” (namely, his redemptive work in and through Jesus of Nazareth—Acts 2:11, 22–36) is interpreted in Peter’s Pentecost sermon as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2:28–29 that in the last days, under the inspiration of God’s outpoured Spirit, “your sons and daughters will prophesy. … Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18, emphasis mine). In keeping with this prophetic word and the commencement of its fulfillment at Pentecost, Luke mentions matter-of-factly that the evangelist Philip had four daughters who were engaged in the prophetic ministry of the good news (Acts 21:8–9).
In light of this evidence that women in the early churches were moved by the Spirit to engage in ministries of the Word side by side with men, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand Paul’s injunction as a categorical imperative intended for all churches in all places in all times. Rather, the injunction must be understood within its own context as addressing a problem in Corinth which needed correcting.
We have already seen above that the particular problem was disorder and confusion in public worship. This situation was apparently caused by the inappropriate expression of both the gift of prophecy and speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:26–31). It is thus probable that the admonition to silence is in some way related to women’s participation in the inappropriate use of these gifts. It is possible that women in the Corinthian congregation, due to the liberating experience of the gospel from all sorts of cultural and religious bondage, may have been at the forefront of noninterpreted, unintelligible utterance (glossolalia) and enthusiastic prophetic proclamation which did not yield the “congregational floor” to others. Some may have continued to speak at the same time another was prophesying, creating noisy confusion in which no one could be “instructed and encouraged.”
That such a connection existed between the women who are asked to be silent and the disorderly expression of tongues and prophetic speech receives support from two sets of parallel phrases in these texts. In addressing those speaking in tongues without the benefit of interpretation, Paul says, “The speaker should keep quiet in the church” (1 Cor 14:28). Then, in 1 Corinthians 14:34, he uses the same words: “the women should keep quiet in the churches.” The NIV variation in translation does not reflect the fact that the Greek verb (sigao) is the same in both.
Second, in addressing the issues of disorderly prophetic speaking (1 Cor 14:29–32), Paul again urges silence on some so that others can speak. The NIV’s “the first speaker should stop” (1 Cor 14:30) again does not reflect the fact that the verb sigao (“remain silent”) is also used here. But more important, in calling on the prophets in the congregation to recognize that they are mutually accountable to each other, Paul says, “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets” (1 Cor 14:32). The Greek word rendered “subject to the control of” is hypotasso. That is the same word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where he follows the admonition to silence (according to the NIV) with the words “[they] must be in submission.” In other words, prophets must be in submission to other prophets (and thus to each other) in the church.
If, as seems likely, women were prominently in that group of prophets who were disposed to be “disorderly,” Paul may be addressing them specifically with regard to this matter of submission to other prophets for the sake of order and peace (1 Cor 14:32–33). These parallelisms in the imperatives to “keep quiet” and “to be in submission” strongly suggest that the problem of disorderly participation in prophetic proclamation and tongues was particularly prominent among women believers in Corinth, and that it is with respect to this context that Paul’s admonitions must be understood.
A final problem needs brief attention. What is the “Law” on which the injunction to submit is based (1 Cor 14:34)? Assuming that the submission envisioned is to the men/husbands in the congregation, some have sought Old Testament texts to ground such an injunction. The most common text cited from “the Law” is Genesis 3:16. Two factors militate against it. Wherever Paul deals with the relation between men and women, he never appeals to this passage. Further, it is clear from the context of Genesis 2–3 that 3:16, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you,” does not announce God’s created design for “male leadership” but is the statement of a cursed existence because of sin. Surely Paul knew that Christ’s redemptive work freed human beings from the curse of Eden.
Others see in Paul’s term (“as the Law says”) a reference to both Jewish and Gentile norms which restricted women’s public participation, and these restrictions existed within the context of male-dominant cultures. Yet Paul uses the word “be submissive” without saying “to whom.” Thus the assumption that it is to men/husbands may not be warranted. It is more likely that he is referring back to the statement that “prophets are to be submissive to (other) prophets” (see 1 Cor 14:32). The question “Submissive to whom or what?” would then have an answer in the immediate context: either to other prophets or to the principle of order which has its origin in God (1 Cor 14:33).
Paul’s operative principle for congregational life and worship is constant. Whatever hinders the movement of the gospel, causes confusion rather than growth, offends rather than encourages or strengthens, builds up the self at the expense of others—all this is contrary to God’s intention. And insofar as the women in Corinth and elsewhere in the young churches used their gifts contrary to God’s intention, the injunction to silence is an appropriate, authoritative word. The principle which underlies the injunction is authoritative for both men and women in all churches.
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, Submit?
The problem is not in understanding the rather straightforward language, but its meaning. Since the patriarchal norms of the Greco-Roman world, built into the rules and regulations for everyday life and relationships, clearly demanded a wife’s submission to the authority of the husband, is Paul simply advocating the continuance of conventional norms? If so, why would that be necessary? Does the qualifying phrase “as unto the Lord” introduce a radically new dimension into the nature and form of submission (or subordination)?
Of utmost importance for a proper grasp of Paul’s intention are (1) the part this saying plays in the larger argument and (2) the specific meaning of terms and phrases in this saying and the surrounding text.
The larger context of this saying deals with Paul’s concern that the believers, as a community and as individuals, would be strengthened by the Spirit of Christ (Eph 3:16–17) so that they would grow toward maturity (Eph 4:11–16). Such maturity comes as they are “kind and compassionate to one another” (Eph 4:32), living a life of love in imitation of God, as modeled in Christ’s self-giving, sacrificial servant ministry (Eph 5:1–2).
How does this “imitation of Christ” work itself out concretely in the fellowship and common human relationships? That is the subject matter of Ephesians 5–6, and Ephesians 5:22 is part of that.
A general discussion of Christian behavior under the admonition “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness” (Eph 5:3–16) is followed by more specific instructions regarding relationships in the fellowship and other social contexts, like the family. This section is introduced by the admonition “understand what the will of the Lord is. … Be filled with the Spirit” (5:17–18 RSV). Then, by means of four closely related participial phrases (5:19–21), he shows how the Spirit-filled and guided life, in tune with God’s will, expresses itself: (1) “speaking to each other,” (2) “singing and making music,” (3) “giving thanks” and (4) “submitting to one another.”1 It is this last participial phrase which is critical for our understanding of Ephesians 5:22.
Paul has clearly shown throughout the epistle that Christians are a new social order created to express the fullness of Christ in the midst of the old, fallen order. What he is saying in Ephesians 5:21 is that the Spirit empowers Christians to exist in relationship with each other in a radical, culturally transforming way, namely, through mutual self-submission. The ground for this radically new approach to human relationships is “out of reverence for Christ.” The reason for that reverence (or, perhaps better, awe) is the radical nature of Christ’s earthly life, the total, free submission of himself as God’s suffering servant, climaxed in his self-giving on the cross (Eph 5:2, 25). It is reverence and awe toward that self-giving love that is to motivate our mutual self-submission to each other.
This understanding of Ephesians 5:21 (“Submit to one another”) sheds critical light on Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives, submit... ”). Both the English translations and commentators often fail us at this point, printing the participial clause of Ephesians 5:21 as an isolate |
|
| |
|