The first part of 1 Corinthians 11, dealing with veils, hair length, and such, is a puzzlement. No, “puzzlement” is not strong enough. This chapter is a consternation. Commentator after commentator throws up his hands in frustration at trying to reach a clear sense of Paul’s meaning. Our respect for inspiration and the brilliant Paul is too great to even imagine that Paul was unclear to his readers in Corinth, but today the chapter is indeed very challenging-and it is challenging to those who take any position on the women’s issues. It is not made hard by my view of things. It is just hard.
(1 Cor. 11:2-16) I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
Now 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.
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
In the Lord, however, 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.
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things 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.
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God.
What is a “head”?
For our purposes, the most important portions of this passage are those dealing directly with the relationship of men and women. Paul begins by pointing out that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. This statement is puzzling, in that nowhere else do we see the Bible refer to Christ as the head of man as opposed to woman. Ephesians and Colossians declare Christ the head of the church, but not of just the men in the church! Certainly, if by “head” Paul means “Lord,” then Christ is the head of both men and women.
As mentioned earlier with respect to Ephesians 5, the Greeks did not use kephale or “head” in quite the same way as 21st Century Americans. While kephale could take the meaning “ruler,” this was not idiomatic when 1 Corinthians was written. Indeed, it appears that there was no well-established idiomatic usage of “head.” In modern English, we use “head” so often to mean ruler or leader that we forget that we are using a metaphor. The Greeks also used the word metaphorically, but the metaphor was not nearly so standardized. “Head” could mean beginning, life, ruler, or the most prominent part of something.
Moreover, as much as we’d like to do so, we can’t turn over to Ephesians to determine the meaning of “head” in 1 Corinthians 11, because this chapter was written many years before Ephesians was written — and to different people. The Corinthian church members could not turn to Ephesians to interpret Paul’s meaning, and so we must resist the temptation to do so.
Nor is there any reason to impose on the Paul a rule that he use a metaphor the same way each time he uses it. After all, Jesus sometimes used “leaven” to refer to good and sometimes to refer to evil. Paul and Jesus often speak figuratively, but never in code. If figures of speech could be easily replaced with a single word or two, there’d be no need for figures of speech.
“Ruler”
There is limited support in First Century Greek literature for “head” to be used of a ruler. Is this Paul’s point? (to be derived, obviously, other than from the word “head” itself — we can’t argue in circles!)
Verse 9 states that woman was created “for man,” while man was not created for woman. But we have already studied the Creation accounts. Clearly, the reference to woman being created for man recalls that Eve was created as Adam’s suitable complement.
But God did not give Adam rule over Eve until He cursed the Creation (Gen 3:16). Therefore, Eve’s being created “for” Adam — before the curse — cannot be interpreted as making Adam her ruler or as making men rule women. It means, rather, that Eve (and any wife) is to make up what is lacking in her husband, since it is not good for man to be alone. Moreover, as man’s complement and helper, a wife must not bring shame to her husband.
Problems treating “head” as “ruler.”
There are serious difficulties with interpreting “head” as ruler. Jesus, at least while on earth, was subordinate to His Father’s will. He had to “learn obedience” (Heb. 5:8). Men are subordinate to Christ. And so, one might argue, the meaning is that women must be subordinate to men.
But Paul says that God “is” the head of Christ, long after Jesus announced, “All authority has been given to me on heaven and on earth” due to His resurrection (Matt. 28:18). Thus, the relationship between God and Christ at the time 1 Corinthians was written was one where God had long before yielded “all authority” to Jesus. Paul is not speaking of what Christ’s relationship with God was before His glorification.
Other verses support this conclusion —
(Eph 1:22-23) And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
(Heb 1:2) … his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Our natural assumption is that Jesus was given rule of everything but remains subject to God. But 1 Cor 15:28 says Jesus won’t be made subject to God until the end of time.
(1 Cor 15:28) When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
It’s a tough one to ponder, but this is what Paul says in the same book that contains 1 Cor 11.
The passage is hard, but it may help to refer to Phil 2 —
(Phil 2:5-11) Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death– even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Before he was incarnated, Jesus had “equality with God.” He became a servant (meaning he wasn’t one before) and was therefore exalted to the “highest place” in “heaven and on earth.” Is Paul saying that Jesus wound up with less glory than before he started? I don’t think so. His subjection — his servanthood — ended when he was glorified.
Do I understand all this? Frankly, no. Is it consistent with 1 Corinthians to hold that Jesus is presently subject to God in the same sense that men are subject to Jesus? No, it’s not.
Other problems
But the difficulty of interpreting “head” as ruler goes much deeper. First, if man is the ruler of woman, then this is the first time in the entire Bible that this doctrine appears. In Genesis 3:16, wives are cursed with the domination of their husbands, but women are not subjected to men in general.
And if men are to rule women, just what is the extent and nature of this kind of headship? Does it apply to the workplace? Home? Church? Friendships? And just what service may men command from women? To what extent must your daughters submit to whatever man they should happen across?
The difficulty is this: While many fine and studious Christians have concluded that men are the heads of women — meaning rulers of women — these same Christians cannot agree what this means in practice or in theory. By interpreting “head” as ruler, these commentators impose a doctrine with boundaries that cannot be found in the pages of scripture. It is as though God has told us just enough of His will for us to know that there is a rule, without knowing what the rule is!
Each hierarchalist commentator seems to reach different conclusions as to where to draw the lines. Some frankly admit that they don’t know where the lines are but insist that there be lines limiting a woman’s role somewhere. Finding these lines thus becomes an exercise in human preference rather than biblical exegesis.
Some would limit the impact of this headship to just the explicit passages dealing with men and women: women can’t be elders, can’t speak in the assembly, can’t teach, can’t usurp authority — but this approach begs the questions: What is the male authority that cannot be usurped? Can women teach teenage boys? What if the boys have been baptized?
We simply have no guidance without a unifying principle. I mean, do we seriously believe that these passages are arbitrary rules without any underlying foundation?
Others would find these to be but examples of a larger principle — the universal principle of male spiritual leadership. But they are unable to agree or prove from the Bible just what this principle is. And thus such persons find themselves construing the command of male dominion over women to suit their personal preferences and traditions but with very little in the way of biblical support for the particulars and boundaries of their doctrine.
The 21st Century notion of a biblical principle of “male spiritual leadership” is often pronounced by hierarchalists, but the verses they rely on fail to support a leadership principle. Genesis 3:16 declares that husbands rule their wives, not that they just lead them. 1 Peter 3:6 urges women to emulate Sarah by calling their non-Christian husbands “master” or “lord,” much stronger words than “leader.” Thus, it’s hard to find “leadership” in contrast to “rule.”
Context in 1 Corinthians
It’s hard to imagine that 1 Cor 11:3 describes a relationship of God, Jesus, and man not previously alluded to. After all, in the absence some earlier reference to that relationship, 11:3 would be opaque even to the Corinthians, as “head” could have meant several different things.
There’s a good case to made that Paul was alluding back to —
(1 Cor 8:6) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
The passage describes God as the original creator, working through Jesus to provide “all things.” Moreover, Christians live “for” God and “through” Jesus.
This passage is no incidental reference to God and Christ. As N. T. Wright explains, it’s Paul’s re-working of the Shema (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deu 6:4)) in Christological terms, adding the Christ to the central declaration of Judaism that God is one.
And if this verse is as central as Wright asserts, it would certainly make sense for it to form the basis of the “head” relationships described in 1 Cor 11.
I should add this verse as well —
(1 Cor 3:21-23) So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future — all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.
Paul is less explicit here about what it means to be “of Christ” or “of God,” but the passage plainly anticipates 8:6 in saying the church has “all” (panta) — including life and the world in very cosmic terms — because of its relationship with Christ and his relationship with God.
To further show the centrality of this thought to Paul, we note that Paul comes back to this thought in chapter 15,
(1 Cor 15:27) For he “has put everything [panta] under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
Paul is actually quoting Ps 8:6 (ESV) —
6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,
7 all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the seas.
which certainly reinforces the idea that these verses form a major theme of 1 Corinthians.
Ironically enough, the relationships described in 8:6 are those of source. God is the source of all things. Jesus Christ is the source of those things to the universe. Man is a recipient of those things.
But “source” is only one way of looking at the thought. It would be more like Paul to think in terms of life. After all, 8:6 is very much declaring that God created life through Jesus. And as we noted earlier, “life” is a common meaning of kephale.
And so, let’s try —
(1 Cor 11:3) Now I want you to realize that the [life] of every man is Christ, and the [life] of the woman is man, and the [life] of Christ is God.
Hmm …
God resurrected Jesus and gave him life. Moreover, Paul pictures Jesus as a “life-giving spirit” in 15:45. And Paul is plainly alluding to Adam as the origin of Eve’s life.
In fact,11:8-9 actually explain how Adam is the life of Eve —
(1 Cor 11:8-9) For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
And 11-12 are further consistent with that view —
(1 Cor 11:11-12) In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
In fact, “everything comes from God” is plainly an allusion back to 8:6! In the Greek, “all things” in 11:12 is the same as “everything” in 8:6 (panta in both cases).
And so we see a thread throughout 1 Corinthians of God as the giver of life to Jesus, through his resurrection, of Jesus being the immediate source of life to the Creation, including Adam, and Adam being the source of life to Eve.
Are we back to “source”?
Although “source” is not a dictionary meaning of kephale, the relationship of God to Christ and Christ to church in 3:21-23 and 8:6 is plainly that all things come to the church from Christ, who receives all things from God. And Paul plainly returns to this theme in 11:12, in phrasing which seems to summarize what went before.
Of course, one of the things given along these lines is life (3:22; 8:6; 11:12). And so we find life, beginnings, and source all tied together. I don’t know that we have to decide which we like the best, but it’s worth pondering. After all, if we recognize 3:21-23 and 8:6 as the source of 11:3, then Paul has told his readers what relationship he means — “source of life” comes closest.
And this has the very cool advantage of being very much the same thought as in Ephesians and Colossians.
Further on “life”
Two possible meanings from the dictionaries are “beginning” and “life.” And “beginning” actually fits. So does life. After all, in Biblical terms, the beginning and the giving of life are pretty closely related, and you could actually translate “beginning/life” as in —
(1 Cor 11:3) Now I want you to realize that the [beginning/life] of every man is Christ, and the [beginning/life] of the woman is man, and the [beginning/life] of Christ is God.
If the dual meaning bothers you, remember that it’s a figure of speech. If Paul thought he could have been clear enough with simple, single, literal word, that’s what he’d have used. He used a figure to convey a complex thought.
Whether you pick “beginning” or “life” or both, a symmetry develops. The beginning/life of every man is Christ through Adam. The beginning/life of the woman is man through Eve. Both relationships go back to Genesis 2, which Paul refers to more explicitly later in the passage —
(1 Cor 11:8-9) For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
(1 Cor 11:12) For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
It only makes good rhetorical sense, if Paul begins with Adam and Eve, for him to wrap up his argument in the same terms.
Now, the logical flow of 8,9, and 12 is the giving of life, right? Adam gave life to Eve, and women give life to men. And God gives life to all. That is the thought, isn’t it? Many commentators have rightly noted that “source” is at issue in this verse, but so is “life”!
But then again, so is “beginning.” Men’s lives begin with women, Eve began with Adam, and we all begin in God. But “life” works better, because Jesus is co-eternal with God and has no temporal beginning.
Some of the sense of the passage can be found in Hebrews 1 —
(Heb 1:1-3) In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
The metaphor for Jesus is a very helpful one. If you picture a flame, God is the center, burning part. Jesus is the radiance (effulgence) that surrounds the flame. The radiance comes from the flame but is as old as the flame. Just so Jesus is as old as God but comes from God.
But we also see the Jesus “sustains all things.” He holds everything together. The same thought is found here —
(Col 1:17) He is before all things, and in him all things hold together
And so, there is a relationship of God to Christ as sustainer. And Christ is the sustainer of men. And husbands sustain their wives. Hence, we are not far from Paul’s use of “head” in Ephesians.
Another theory
Now, it’s entirely possible for a metaphor to have a double or even triple meaning (just think of the Lord’s Supper!) Here’s another thought worth considering.
In John 17:20-21 Jesus prays that his followers “may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” Moreover, Paul regularly refers to the unity of husbands and wives described in Genesis 2. And Ephesians plainly teaches that Christ is united with the church just as a husband is united with his wife.
And consider —
(John 17:20-21) “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
Jesus insists on the essential unity of himself and God.
Although God is nowhere else called the “head” of Christ, in those passages where Christ is said to be the head of the church and husband the head of his wife, much of the thought is that there’s an essential, mystical, ontological unity between the head and body.
(Eph 5:29-32) After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church — 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery — but I am talking about Christ and the church.
Hence, it’s arguable that “head” refers to the unity of head and body. In fact, I’d really like this theory if I could just find an example of God being called “head” of Jesus, but I’ve not found it. Perhaps someone else will.
Conclusions
Among the many mistakes commentators (myself included) have made in interpreting this passage are —
* A failure to give due weight to 15:28, which specifically declares that Christ will not be “made subject to” God until the end of time. This is a difficult thought, and so commentators understandably assume that Christ is still subordinate to God, as he was before his glorification, but the idea does not withstand scrutiny.
* A failure to recognize the essential unity of all three relationships.
* A failure to recognize that the “head” relationships are built on 8:6, a central passage in all the New Testament in claiming full oneness of Jesus Christ with God — and a passage clearly echoed in 11:12. After all, in 11:3 Paul surely was referring back to a thought already introduced.
* A failure to look beyond “authority” and “source” for possible meanings of kephale in this passage. In particular, “beginning” and “life” should be considered. Both ideas are very much present in 8:6, and life in particular is found in Paul’s use of “head” in Ephesians and Colossians. “Sustainer” is one who gives or maintains life.
* A failure to give due weight to the creation order of Genesis 2. Although it’s plainly present in 11:8-9 and :12, commentators often fail to see it in 11:3. But if Paul is building his argument from scripture, where else would he turn to understand the relationship of husbands and wives? Moreover, finding references to both Adam and Eve in 11:3 creates an appealing symmetry to Paul’s argument in 11:2-16.
* A failure to distinguish between the rule husbands were given over their wives in Gen 3:16 from the relationship of unity and one flesh given when Eve was created.
* A failure to distinguish the role wives have toward their husbands, established in Genesis, from the role of women in general to men in general. They are two very different things. Indeed, it’s hard to find evidence of the subordination to women to men anywhere in scripture before 11:3. Did Paul initiate this doctrine for the first time here?
In summary, there is no implication of rule or authority in 11:3. We’ll consider the rest of the passage in the next post.
