[This is expanded to include responses to comments. I’ll likely edit it some more as I work further through the comments. It’s been great working through the commentaries this afternoon, digging into the word to better understand this challenging passage, but it’s preschool graduation, my wife chairs the board, and it’s death if I miss it!]
1 Corinthians 7 and 11 are not the only passages in 1 Corinthians dealing with men and women — they are not even the most controversial.
1 Cor. 14:33b-36 As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?
Scriptural context
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 refers to the assembly
Like all scripture, we must first consider the context of this passage. The following synopsis of chapters 11 through 14 will serve to set the stage:
1 Cor. 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. 3 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.
4-16 [discussion of prayer, prophecy, and head coverings]
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18-19 [condemnation of division]
20-34 [discussion of the Lord’s Supper]
12:1 Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. 2-30 [discussion of spiritual gifts and the unity of believers] 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts.
And now I will show you the most excellent way. 13:1-12 [discussion contrasting faith, hope, and love to other spiritual gifts] 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2-25 [spiritual gifts are good, but must edify the church when used in the assembly].
26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two-or at the most three-should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. 29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?
37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
This long quote shows the structure of these four chapters of 1 Corinthians.
A. You should first notice that chapter 11 contains two general discussions — head coverings and the Lord’s Supper. Paul ties them together. He introduces the first by saying, “I praise you.” In clear contrast, he introduces the next section of chapter 11 by saying, “In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.”
B. It is possible that the lack of praise relates not only to the Lord’s Supper, but also the abuses of the Spirit that are discussed in chapter 12-14. Paul says that he has no praise “in the following directives,” indicating that there would be a series of critical directives. And certainly the criticisms made in chapters 12-14 fit well within Paul’s pointed “your meetings do more harm than good.” Chapter 14 in particular describes meetings that do more harm than good and fits Paul’s words as well as Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper in chapter 11. Also tying the chapters together is the theme of condemnation of division.
C. Prophecy and prayer are common themes of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 1 Cor 14. We have men and women together praying and prophesying in 1 Cor 11. We next read about prophesying in c 12 and in c 14, where prophecy and prayer (14:14-15) are again topics, and it’s clearly in the assembly.
D. Paul refers to the presence of the angels, which is generally thought to be a reference to the Jewish belief that angels are present at worship gatherings. (Morris, in the Tyndale commentary series, and Robert E. Picirilli, 1, 2 Corinthians, p. 159, and John Roberts Dumelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, for example.) or else the view of angels as guardians of the created order.
However, Bruce W. Winter, in his influential After Paul Left Corinth, argues that “angel” should be translated “messenger,” which is the more common meaning of the word (aggelos). As the Christians met in homes, and Corinthian homes surrounded a courtyard that was open to the street, any assembly was necessarily “public.” If women were to act in ways that brought shame to the community, agents of the government may well cause the church trouble. After all, Christianity, unlike Judaism, did not have permission to meet weekly, and absent special permission, Rome only allowed groups to meet monthly — to prevent sedition. It was therefore extremely important not to offend Roman sensibilities if not necessary.
Winter describes the Roman world at the time of the writing of 1 Cor. Many women were in rebellion against cultural norms, and the government was very opposed to these changes. Moreover, the government often retained spies to report on civil disorder. (pages 133 ff).
No one has come up with an overwhelmingly convincing theory, but these two, which are the two best-attested in my readings, but both presume a public assembly, and not a private prayer or prophecy.
Winter’s argument presume Roman sensibilities. Other commentators argue for Jewish sensibilities. Of course, there’s no reason that both wouldn’t be in mind.
E. The women are required to cover their heads, which was generally not true in the home, only in public. If this were a private gathering, why the concern over head coverings?
As Winter explains (127-8),
The presence of an unveiled woman accompanied by a man in public signalled that she might not be his wife. At a typical banquet a woman (not necessarily his wife) seated next to a married man would be his social and sexual companion, hetaira, for that evening.
A married woman did not normally wear her veil in her own household, so that the wife of the patron of the church, or the patroness in the case of Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), might not have felt that it was necessary for her to wear a veil for a Christian gathering being held in her own home. A wife visiting the house of a friend would not be expected to continue to wear her veil once she had entered it.
Hence, Paul is not likely to be speaking of a woman praying over her children or with her husband at home. The concern is one of decorum under local culture.
F. Moreover, the immediately following discussion deals with communion. The prayer/prophecy discussion begins with “I praise you …” while the communion discussion begins with “I praise you not …” creating an obvious rhetorical connection.
G. Just so, 14:40, commanding that things be done “decently and in order” can easily refer to the problems dealt with in chapters 11-13.
Chapter 12 deals with misuse of spiritual gifts in the assembly, including prophecy, easily connecting the discussion.
H. And if 11:2-16 isn’t dealing with the assembly, what event is in mind? Prophesying at home? A special, Pentecostal “come to Jesus” meeting?
I. And Catholics and Protestants have both traditionally made this interpretation. Those churches that require women to wear head coverings in the assembly certainly take 11:2-16 to be speaking of the assembly.
The point is simply this. All of chapters 11, 12, 13, and 14 are closely related discussions dealing with division and related problems in the Christian assemblies. Different particular problems are discussed, but the general theme is the same — stop sinning in your assemblies, especially the sin of division.
Objections
Alan Rouse argues to the contrary here, ably summarizing the contrary position. I interlineate my responses. (Alan’s comments are slightly re-ordered to facilitate this style of responding.)
You make a connection between praying and prophesying and the assembly, but that connection is not in the text. In verse 17 he begins a new subject, saying that the following discussion is about the assembly. (in contrast to the preceding discussion which was not). So chapters 12 and 14 are part of a separate discussion.
He says “I praise you” in the first part of the chapter, then “I praise you not” in the next discussion. Rather than connecting the two contexts, that clearly separates them. And the latter conversation is clearly identified as covering problems in the assembly. If the first part of the chapter also addressed the assembly, then he would not be able to praise them for it, because their assemblies did more harm than good. The fact that he could praise them for it makes it clear that it was NOT addressing the assembly.
I honestly have no idea what Paul was praising in v. 2. Certainly not the length of their hair or their head coverings! There’s no a word of praise in 11:3-16.
Paul says in 11:17, in which he introduces the subject of the Lord’s Supper,
(1 Cor 11:17 ESV) But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.
Of all the counter-arguments, this one is admittedly the strongest. If Paul had been discussing a time of coming together, he certainly had plenty of criticisms for them in 11:2-16, so why this special introduction to words of criticism when he’d already been criticizing them?
However, there are other possibilities. The sins cataloged in 11:17-34 are far worse than the sins described earlier in c. 11. Some church members were getting drunk! And others were left hungry. It was astonishingly un-Christian behavior. Certainly, Paul took a much more strident tone in the second half of the chapter, and it’s easy to see why.
Paul’s point in v. 17 isn’t “I’m now talking about the assembly” but “Your behavior is so bad it would be better to stay at home than to gather and act this way!” — which is surely his point. The failure to wear veils was bad, but no that bad! It didn’t challenge the heart of the gospel in such a severe and direct way.
Your argument about angels presumes that angels are *only* present at the assembly. I doubt you really believe that.
The reference “because of the angels” does not imply the assembly. Angels are present with Christians outside the assembly. (Heb 13:2 for one of many examples)
No, but my argument does not so presume.
There are those who argue that the veil is required to prevent the angels from lusting after the women. Most commentators have come to reject that view. After all, as Gorden Fee argues in the New International Commentary,
And what difference would it make in any case? Would they follow through on their lust?
If women had to wear veils everywhere angels were present, they’d have to sleep in them! That’s not Paul’s argument.
As angels are everywhere, Paul’s concern can’t be simply that the angels are present. Rather, he must be thinking that angels have a special concern for worship of God. Or he’s thinking that angels are concerned with the order of things established by God — that women be suitable complements for their husbands. If so, then in that society at that time, public gatherings would require a veil, but not private gatherings.
The statement about “decently and in order” (14:40) refers to the entire discussion about the assembly, which begain in 11:17.
This is only to state a conclusion from points previously discussed. It’s possible, but the conclusion has to come from other considerations.
Spiritual gifts were used outside the assembly as well as in the assembly. Chapter 12 occurs in the context of a discussion of the assembly. That certainly does not support the notion that prophecy only occurs in the assembly, nor that every discussion of prophecy must be limited to the context of the assembly.
11:2-16 is addressing every context in which a woman prays or prophesies.
Paul was concerned with head coverings when woman pray or prophesy. Since woman were forbidden to speak in the assembly, that obviously was not an issue there.
It’s certainly true that neither prayer nor prophecy was limited to the assembly. It’s hard to imagine that Paul would require a woman praying with her husband at home in the bedroom to wear a veil!
Moreover, he is speaking of an event at which both men were present. It was not the ladies Bible class! He is also referring to a situation in which he can argue from his readers’ sensibilities —
(1 Cor 11:13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
“Proper” translates “prepon.” Winters says,
Paul used the adverb ‘seemly’ (prepon), indicating it was a matter of decorum — an issue of supreme importance in Roman society.
It was, moreover, a recurring event, not merely an accidental happenstance. In 11:5, where Paul says “every woman who prays or prophesies,” the two verbs are present participles and indicate continuous action. This was an ongoing, continuing problem, not something that happened on infrequent occasion.
If we eliminate the assembly and the home, what ongoing circumstance could Paul have been referring to? What event where both men and women were present and women were praying and prophesying?
Your arguments betray your preconceptions. All of them rest on assumptions that are not stated in the text.
Everyone is biased. Not everyone is wrong. I think I’ve mentioned the text a few times.
Paul’s instruction about head coverings was limited to when the woman is praying or prophesying. That is much more limited than the then-existing Jewish practice. He doesn’t specify where or when, so the expectation was that wherever and whenever a woman prays or prophesies, she must wear a head covering.
Well, that depends. If the women never wore a veil, then that would be true. But the assumption of most commentators is that the women doffed their veils only in the assembly, which makes some sense.
As Winter argues in the text quoted above, as the church was meeting in private homes, it was certainly easy for women to adopt the custom appropriate for the household, thinking church was like a family gathering. That would have been a very sensible conclusion, actually.
But Paul had an overriding concern for decorum — how the church would be perceived by the Roman unbelievers, who would not understand the Christian assembly as we do.
To the extent Jewish sensibilities were in mind, the same holds true. The women were likely acting very much in accord with their own culture, understanding the assembly, taking place in their homes, was like family. They just didn’t think about how they’d be perceived by those outside the church or those within the church from a different cultural background.
Hence, they were in error, but nothing like the error in the Lord’s Supper.
I don't see any rebuke or correction in 1 Cor 11:2-16 except for the last part where he addresses those who would be contentious about the matter. Instead, Paul is explaining why there was an expecation about head coverings. It seems to me that he was praising them because they were complying with the teaching. Note "I want you to realize…" in verse 3. He was providing instruction, filling in some gaps in their understanding.
It is apparent from verse 16 that some were questioning whether it was really necessary. Apparently the then-current leaders in Corinth didn't have a good answer about why it was necessary. That is what Paul supplied in the first half of 1 Cor 11.
So, Paul was praising them for their obedience, and explaining why those things were necessary. That was quite a different kind of conversation from what followed from verse 17 onward.
Alan,
That assertion is dependent upon the translation of verse 16. I still can't find anywhere in the NT where 'toioutos' means anything but SUCH.
The simplest translation of 11.16 seems to be, "If anyone wants to be contentious, we do not have any custom like this, and neither do God's assemblies." It might be that the custom he's referring to is "contentiousness." But Paul doesn't call attitudes "customs". He calls practices customs (1 Cor 8, where he speaks of people who've experienced the practice of idolatry rather than an attitude of idolatry), and the practice under discussion is head covering.
He seems to be saying, "This is why you should practice it, but it is not worth fighting over." What IS worth contending over? The Lord's Supper, etc.
Which assertion?
Nick,
Since you keep coming back to the question of "such" versus "other" in verse 16, let me focus on that for a minute. The NIV, NAS, RSV, and HCSB all render it "other". The KJV, ESV, ASV all have "such". The sense is the same in either case. The contentious ones were advocating a practice that was not found in any of the first century churches. Paul was saying that was unacceptable.
Note that Barnes, Clarke, Jamieson-Fausett-Brown, Matthew Henry, and J. W. McGarvey all took that view, despite the fact that they worked in the era of the ASV and KJV, two translations that render it "such."
Tertullian, in the Veiling of Virgins, quotes this passage and makes it clear that Paul was summarily rejecting the validity of the argument of the contentious ones. Note that he was working from the original Greek, as one who spoke that language fluently.
I am not aware of even one commentary taking the position that Paul was deferring to the contentious ones on this topic in verse 16. On the contrary, he was closing the argument by saying this is how it has to be. That is the position widely taken by many commentators, going all the way back to Tertulian.
Let’s continue arguing on semantics and the meaning of “such”. . Eugelion which is Greek root for gospel and or evangelism actually originated from Caesar it was the eugelion of Cesar’s conquest and accomplishments. Now let's see. Here the good news women must be silent in the church and never utter a word in order to be pleasing to God. That doesn’t sound like very good news to me if I don’t know God, sounds more like an empty controlling dogmatic religion. We also need to be careful when using the early writings of non-biblical church leaders such as Tertullian, Clement, and Justyn because we only use them to the support our presupposed ideas and conclusions. They had many ideas and practices that they write about that we would reject. Such as painting crosses with ashes on the forehead, certain places being holy, and most significantly that Paul authored 10 letters that they considered to be canonical rather then those in the Bible such as the third and fourth letter to Corinth and the letter to Laodicea mentioned twice in Colossians. Don’t bring them into this unless we ready to start establishing biblical authority based on secular history. That will be a problem for many of us because what the early church leaders such as Polycarp and the others did and wrote about is no where near what the local church of Christ looks like today. We only pick out the parts that support what we have already concluded and established such as Clement’s rejection of instrumental music. If you read all of what he wrote about it you would see he has a much different attitude about it than we do. It was not a gospel issue for him but the desire not to be like the pagan religions that existed at the time. The more I read their writings the more I realize that there was no set pattern for doing church as we have understood it and certain any pattern that may have existed was not part of the Gospel or good news. An example would be there is no evidence to confirm a multiplicity of elders and strong suggestion that many churches were pastored by one bishop such as Polycarp. I have studied many of the early church writings and early Christianity in history and recently went to the Kimball museum and looked at an exhibit of the earliest Christian art. I viewed a Fifth century Bible that was illustrated it was in Coptic. There were no BCV scripture divisions as those did not exist then.
Joe,
I don't consider Tertullian's opinions about doctrine to be very helpful. But his writing does tell us what the Greek words meant to a native speaker of ancient Greek — something that no modern commentator can offer.