Deciphering Complex New Testament Texts about Women Part Two: 1 Corinthians 11 & 14
From the Gallery of the Academy of Florence. Orcagna’s 1365-1370 Pentecost painting features Mary of Nazareth in the center surrounded by the apostles. Above each person’s head is a flame, representing the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Image source: Shala Graham, Visual Museum of Women in Christianity
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Buckle up – this one’s a doozy, my friends. 1 Corinthians 11 is perhaps one of the most convoluted passages of Scripture. Why? Because Paul seems to directly contradict himself in the space of about 15 verses. Scholars have wrestled with these verses for centuries. I recommend you read the passage for yourself first (NIV):[1]
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord 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.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
If you’re scratching your head, you’re not alone. It’s confusing. Should women be wearing head coverings? Why does the length of a man’s hair matter? Does Paul contradict Genesis 1:27?
“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”
Scholars wrestling with this passage have suggested all kinds of things:
Paul is BOTH egalitarian and patriarchal
Paul made a mistake
Paul was confused
Paul wanted us to hold all these conflicting ideas in tension
Paul is only egalitarian OR only patriarchal
There are questions about the meaning of the word “head” in verse 3 and whether Paul is talking about head coverings or hairstyles, wives or women (which is the same word in Greek), husbands or men (again, the same Greek word is used for both). The list goes on.
I do not think anyone can honestly say they 100% understand this passage. (Notice this is a trend when it comes to so-called “prohibitive” Pauline texts that seem to put extra limitations on women that are not placed on men.) The best explanation that makes the most sense of this text, in my opinion, is Lucy Peppiatt’s. She presents her argument at length in Women and Worship at Corinth and more concisely in Unveiling Paul’s Women. I highly recommend the second book – it’s short, sweet, and much easier to understand than the former. I will concisely summarize her argument below, but again, it’s good to read her work, especially for details and lingering “what abouts.”
What I Appreciate about Her Work
She’s committed to understanding Paul as a coherent, skilled writer. He’s not confused or incoherent.
She looks at 1 Corinthians as a whole to understand this specific passage.
She doesn’t skirt around the difficulties of this passage. She addresses them directly and admits when the passage is still unclear.
She engages extensively with other scholars in her longer book, Women and Worship in Corinth.
1 Corinthians Background
Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians before 1 Corinthians. We don’t know what Paul said in that original letter. I’ll call it 0 Corinthians for clarity.
The Corinthian church wrote Paul a letter in response to 0 Corinthians. We do not have a copy of this letter, either.
Our 1 Corinthians is Paul’s response to the Corinthian church’s letter.
Nearly all scholars recognize that Paul quotes from the letter written by the Corinthian church at various points in 1 Corinthians. Read through the entire letter in the NRSV and you’ll see what I mean; chapter 6 is a good case study.
Paul’s original letters do not contain verse numbers, chapter numbers, or punctuation, including quotation marks. Those were added by later Christ followers. So, scholars must make educated guesses as to when Paul quotes from the Corinthians’ letter and when Paul writes his own ideas. Many of those best guesses show up in our modern translations with quotation marks to indicate they’re ideas from the Corinthians rather than from Paul.
1 Corinthians would have been read to the Corinthian church out loud, probably by someone Paul trained to read it in a certain way, making his points clearer to the audience. The Corinthians would know which parts Paul quoted from their letter. We must do some detective work to read the letter as the Corinthians would have heard it.
Peppiatt’s Argument, TL;DR Version
As scholars agree he does throughout this letter, Paul quotes and then responds to Corinthian arguments in this passage (and also in 1 Corinthians 14). Peppiatt finds it more likely that the men were behaving in domineering ways towards the women than that the women were throwing convention out the door and doing whatever they wanted. Scholars realize that women’s head covering was not uniform practice throughout Corinth, but depended on subcultures, religious practices, social class, and more.
We ought to read 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as a rhetorical back-and-forth conversation between Paul and the Corinthians, where Paul corrects the faulty ideas of the Corinthians.
So how should we read/interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?
Here’s a summary of each verse and possible meaning a la Peppiatt.
Paul’s Words: 2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
In the next verse, Paul will modify or perhaps correct a teaching he gave to the Corinthians previously, but that they misunderstood.[2]
Paul’s Words: 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
“Head” (Greek: kephalē) can mean so many different things: a physical head, authority/ruler, source/origin, first principle, and more. It’s not the usual Greek word Paul uses for authority or ruler. Each of the interpretive options presents challenges when applied to all three of Paul’s pairings (i.e. God the Father is not the ruler of Christ because they are equal; this would be a heretical interpretation of this verse in my opinion). Peppiatt believes the most reasonable meaning is that there is unity in each pairing; unity is a major theme throughout 1 Corinthians. Man + Christ united, woman/wife + man/husband united, Christ + God united.[3] There remains the issue of women not being connected directly to Christ, but Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:15 that we are all members of Christ’s body, united with Him. All includes women.
From the Corinthians’ Letter: 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.
Peppiatt points out that threatening to shave a woman’s head is extremely harsh and probably not endorsed by Paul.[4] Also, Jewish men covered their heads and Paul was Jewish, so it’s unlikely he would find that practice dishonorable.[5] It’s more likely a Corinthian idea.
Paul’s Words: 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
Here, Paul “responds by taking [the Corinthians’] reasoning to its logical absurd conclusion.”[6] Try reading it like this (my words): “She might as well cut off her hair! But that’s shameful so she’s going to have to cover her head.” Paul “demonstrates with a question how the Corinthians have trapped the women into head coverings.”[7]
From the Corinthians’ Letter: 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
First, man is MADE IN the image of God; Christ IS the image of God (Colossians 1:15). So, there are theological problems right off the bat if we believe these words to be Paul’s. Second, a woman is equally made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) so Paul is either implying this fundamental teaching is incorrect or he’s quoting someone else, namely the Corinthians.[8] Third, verses 8-9 do not contain the same mutuality as verses 11-12. Peppiatt translates verse 10 as “For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head,” which would refer to the female head covering favored by the Corinthian men.
Paul’s Words: 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord 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.
Here Paul shifts to his own thinking – it’s full of mutuality between men and women (or husbands/wives).
Paul’s Words: 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not “the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,” 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
In verse 13, Paul summarizes the issue at hand, then in verse 14 includes a brief quote from the Corinthians, followed by his own concluding thoughts. Addressing verse 14, Paul cannot be against long hair on men. He himself had long hair while in Corinth (Acts 18:18, Acts 21).[9] For verse 15, Peppiatt interprets Paul as saying, “Long hair is given to her instead of a covering.”[10] Therefore, she doesn’t need a head covering; she already has hair! In verse 16, Paul proclaims that none of the other churches require head coverings for women and neither does he. Peppiatt translates this verse “we have no such custom – nor do the churches of God.”[11]
1 Corinthians 14:34-38
Now we turn to another head-scratching section of 1 Corinthians. If you’re a woman, someone has probably already used this section against you. Or you’ve read it yourself and cringed at the sexism.
First, Context:
1 Corinthians 11 focuses on orderly worship practices, especially speaking in tongues and prophecy. Paul says, “The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified” (1 Cor. 11:5b).
Also, remember that in 11:26, Paul says, “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.” Notice Paul does not provide gender distinction in what each member may bring to the assembly.
Paul apparently gives priority to certain spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 10:27-31. For example: “And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues” (10:28). There is at least one female apostle (Junia, Romans 16:7), many female prophets (as an example, Philip’s four daughters in Acts 21:8-9), and Priscilla and her husband teach Apollos (Acts 18:26). We could explore more examples of women having all these Spirit-given gifts, but I don’t want this article to be a mile long.
So, women obviously had these spiritual gifts. The question is: were they allowed to demonstrate them in an assembly of believers? 11:26 and 11:36-38 indicate to me that Paul would emphatically answer “yes!” as long as it’s done in an orderly manner, as expected of all church members.
At some point, the Corinthians allowed women to pray and prophesy during church service. In 1 Corinthians 11, they say “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved” (11:5, bold added). Women were already praying and prophesying in the Corinthian church. Prophesying involves speaking…out loud…in church…gasp. So when the Corinthians wrote that letter to Paul, did they want to stop women from speaking out loud in church, or was this a rumor they were clarifying? We can’t know. Whoever Paul quotes in 14:34-35, he clearly reprimands in 14:36-38.
Onto the Passage in Question (NIV)
“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 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.”
Important Questions
We must pause to ask an important question. Where in the law (read: Old Testament law) does it say that women are not allowed to speak and must be in submission? Seriously, please find me the verse. I certainly can’t find it. Paul was a pharisee trained in the law. Do we really think he didn’t know what the law said?
Verse 36 is a strong reprimand. So, why does Paul accuse the Corinthians of making up their own version of God’s word? Paul insists his teaching comes from God. The Corinthians cannot make up their own teaching if it contradicts God’s. Paul’s reprimand in verse 36 makes good sense if Paul just quoted a faulty Corinthian idea.
Why would Paul silence women in the church? Paul wants the gospel preached and the Spirit’s gifts used. Why limit that to only men in a church setting, knowing full well the Spirit gifts anyone of God’s choosing with any spiritual gift?
What if a woman is unmarried? How will she learn? Seriously, let’s think about it. There were widows and single women in first-century churches. A widow or a single woman doesn’t have a husband to ask. And anyway, why would husbands know theology better than their wives?
Reading 1 Corinthians 14:34-38 with Clarity
Lucy Peppiatt argues we ought to read this passage as a rhetorical back-and-forth conversation between Paul and the Corinthians like we did with 1 Corinthians 11.
Quoted Words of the Corinthians: “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.”
Paul’s Response: “36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.”
Concluding Thoughts: 1 Corinthians 7
Let’s put a pin on this discussion of 1 Corinthians by reading some of Paul’s other words about the relationship between husbands and wives in 1 Corinthians 7. Notice the mutuality and reciprocity. There are not different instructions for the husbands; Paul says the same thing to husbands AND to wives.
1 Corinthians 7 NIV (bold added by me)
“1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband.[13] In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
…
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?”
References & Notes
[1] I will use the New International Version (NIV) Bible translation throughout this article.
[2] Lucy Peppiatt, Unveiling Paul’s Women (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018), 56-57.
[3] Peppiatt, Unveiling, 56-67.
[4] Peppiatt, Unveiling, 22-23.
[5] Peppiatt, Unveiling, 14-15.
[6] Peppiatt, Unveiling, 35.
[7] Peppiatt, Unveiling, 35.
[8] See Peppiatt, Unveiling, 45-55 for an in-depth analysis of these verses.
[9] Peppiatt, Unveiling, 37-38.
[10] Peppiatt, Unveiling, 38.
[11] Peppiatt, Unveiling, 38.
[12] Lucy Peppiatt, Women and Worship in Corinth (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015), 110. Here she references the argument of Flanagan and Snyder, “Did Paul Put Down Women in 1 Cor 14:34-36?” Biblical Theology Bulletin 11 (1981) 10-12.
[13] These verses should not be used to defend marital rape or sexual coercion. Any level of sexual abuse or coercion violates Paul’s mandates that husbands and wives set aside their selfishness to love one another well. See Ephesians 5. In these verses, Paul validates the goodness of consensual sexual intimacy in a marital relationship. New married converts to Christianity did not need to stop having sex to be Christ followers. God designed sex; it is not inherently dirty or unholy.
Also note: the Bible uses “husband/man” and “wife/woman” - I do not seek to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, but for clarity, I will use the Biblical language.
