Paul and Women’s Heads
What follows is a long commentary on 1 Cor. 11:3-16. Save yourself while there’s still time!
Barbara wrote:
I of course liked your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 much more
than the picture I get by just reading the verses literally. Unfortunately, many people do not have
the education in theology that you do (myself included) so it would be helpful for me in sharing
this interpretation with others to know how you came to this conclusion of its meaning.
These 14 verses are among the most difficult to follow in the Bible, particularly since the world has changed so dramatically. In the explanation that follows, I am largely paraphrasing Christopher Bryan, who is a New Testament professor at the divinity school of the University of the South at Sewanee; the Bible Background Commentary; and What Paul REALLY Said About Women, by John Temple Bristow.
The initial key to understanding the passage better is the Greek word akatakalyptos, which most translations give us as "unveiled" (e.g., NRSV) or "uncovered." In Leviticus 13:45, however, it says that a person who has "leprosy" is supposed to signal that state to the world by staying dirty and keeping his hair "disheveled" — akatakalyptos. I’m pretty sure the word is used nowhere else in the Bible but in the Septuagint’s (Greek) translation of Leviticus and 1 Corinthians. (For example, when the NRSV says Noah was “uncovered,” the Septuagint says he was naked.)
Akatakalyptos actually does mean "uncovered" — the root word is kalypto, to cover, plus the preposition kata, or "down over," plus the negation a-. We have to remember, however, that in most of the ancient Mediterranean world, virtually all adult women wore head coverings at all times. In Jewish Palestine, if a man who was not your husband or an intimate member of your family saw your unbound hair, your husband had legal grounds for divorce!!
(That, incidentally, is why people assume that the unnamed "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50 was a prostitute — for the story to work, we have to be able to see her flowing, unbound hair. So the woman was either Jesus's sister, wife, or betrothed (as is implied in the Fourth Gospel, when Mary of Bethany does it), or she is not what we used to call a "nice" girl.)
In What Paul REALLY Said About Women, John Temple Bristow writes,
"For Jews, worshipping without one's head covered was regarded with stern disapproval.
. . . They believed that the Shekhinah [an often anthropomorphized feminine word], the glory and radiance of the Almighty, surrounds the worshiper and rests upon the man and woman who please God. Therefore, it was regarded as an act of reverence and humility for a person to wear a head covering during worship [i.e., veils for women and prayer shawls for men], just as Moses wore a veil after descending Mount Sinai.. . . Some people wore something on their heads at all times, whether awake or asleep."Jewish women were required to wear their hair bound up whenever they left their homes. Unbound, flowing hair was regarded as sensual and almost a form of nudity. If a woman let her hair down in public she was seen as tempting men to sin. Therefore, the Mishnah declared that a husband might divorce his wife and not have to return her dowry in the event that she 'goes out with her hair unbound
. . . or speaks to any man' [who isn't related to her].. . . 'How does a man differ from a woman?' the Mishnah asks. 'He may go with hair unbound.'"
Moreover, the natural term for wearing something on your head is epi. Paul wrote, kata, literally "down over." The Greek word for hair is thrix, but Paul used komao, to wear long hair — although short hair for men was then the approved style, in an earlier generation in Corinth, long hair on men was a sign of aristocracy. (In verse 14, the word fysis (physics) did mean nature or the natural order, but in this particular context, a clearer translation would be, long-established custom.)
Women's hair was a common object of lust back then, and a woman who failed to cover her head was rather like a woman showing up at church today wearing nothing but a G-string. In Jewish Palestine, women even veiled their faces — often one eye was all that showed, so the woman could see where she was going. In other parts of the world, upper-class women dispensed with head coverings so that they could show off their incredibly elaborate hairdos — some of those braidings took longer to achieve than cornrows.
We also have to remember that Paul's world, and Corinth in particular, was crawling with sects that gave orgiastic worship to pagan gods and goddesses, and that a woman’s disheveled hair showed that she was a priestess of Isis (who had a big following in Corinth), Dionysos, or some of the other "bacchanalian" religions.
But the bottom line is, if you were living in Corinth in roughly 50 C.E., either you were a wealthy upper-class woman with an elaborate hairdo that took hours and hours to achieve; or you were an ordinary woman with hair that was tidily braided or "bound" and covered with a veil; or you were a prostitute; or you were taking part in an orgy as part of your worship of Isis or some other pagan goddess or god.
In the original Greek, Paul says, "Every man who is praying or prophesying" — i.e., is up in front of the congregation leading a worship service ("prophesying" in this context meant preaching) — "while having [anything] against/down over his head, humiliates the head of him." (The word I’ve translated “humiliates” literally means “brings ugliness/shame/disgrace/foulness down upon.”)
Bristow says, "The Jewish custom of wearing head coverings during worship was linked to the idea of God's [glory] (Shekinah) shining upon the devout. Just as one might wear a hat to keep off the sun's rays, one would wear a hat when entering the brilliance of God's splendor. The custom of wearing something on top of one's head became a symbol of the kind of glory that Moses covered with a veil." But Paul says men ought not have something hanging down off their heads because their head isn't Moses — it's Christ. (And the head of Christ is God.) "To cover one's head, Paul seems to be saying, is to act as if one were ashamed of Christ, our head, who is the image and glory of God."
In the literal Greek, Paul continues, "But every woman who is praying or prophesying with head akatalyptos humiliates the head of her, since it is one and the same as her having been shaved." Bristow asks, if Paul were as egalitarian as he, Bristow, is arguing, why didn't he also tell women not to "kata" themselves? Because women's hair had a different social significance. "For a Jewish woman to loosen her hair in public would have been even more dramatic than for a woman today to throw her wedding ring away."
Incidentally, verse 6 says literally, "For if a woman is not covered, shear/cut short [her] hair” (many prostitutes wore their hair cut close); “but if [it is] ugly/disgraceful/foul for a woman to have [her hair] cut short or shaved, she should cover up."
Throughout history, most women have had longer hair than most men, probably as a means of sexual differentiation — men, after all, can grow beards. Generally a shaven head was a sign of mourning. But I remember in WW2, how women were humiliated by having their heads shaved, and although I can't find anything in any of the reference books I’ve got at hand, I'd bet a lot that it was a humiliation 2,000 years ago too.
But notice what Paul snuck in there — if a man is leading a worship service, he ought to do X, and if a woman is leading a worship service, she ought to do Y. THE LANGUAGE IS IDENTICAL! In Judaism, women weren't allowed to lead public worship, and Paul was a good Pharisee before he was "slain by the Spirit." If Paul had believed that women should not be leaders of public worship in the first place, he would have said something like, "If a man is leading a worship service, he ought to do X, but those women I've heard are leading worship in Corinth ought to knock it off right now."
Christopher Bryan wrote, "First Corinthians 11:5 and 13 should be translated 'with her hair
unbound' or 'with her hair loose.' Verse 10 should then be translated to mean what even the RSV
margin admits it really does mean: 'a woman should have her hair under control.'
Paul begins his "theological rationale" by harking back to Genesis 2, where ha'adam, the person, is divided into ha'ish, the man, and ha'ish-shah, the woman. (Then as now, it was the common understanding that the person was male and that the woman was taken out of the person's side — but that's NOT what the Bible actually says. I say "divided" because the word that is usually translated as "rib" is in dispute. It could also mean "structural element vital to physical integrity," like the rib of a ship or the support beam of a building, or it could mean "half of a pair of French doors.")
In 11:3, where Paul talks about husbands being the "heads" of their wives, the word ought properly to be translated as "source" rather than "authority over" — otherwise verses 8 and 9 don't make sense. (There's scholarly quarreling about this interpretation of kephalay, btw, but I don't understand all the nuances, so I won't go into it.)
And speaking of verses 8 and 9 (I'll get back to verse 10 a little later) — verse 8 reflects the common understanding of Genesis 2, as I said a moment ago. When you're considering verse 9, it is important to remember that in the original Hebrew, the woman was created to be the man's ezer kenegdo — and brilliant Paul knew this. This is the only time in the Bible that this phrase (more or less, "suitable partner") is applied to a human being. In all other uses, God is humanity's ezer: savior, redeemer.
In other words, the traditional understanding, of (dispensable) "helpmate" is inadequate. God
divided the human being into the man and the woman because ha'adam NEEDED the
companionship, support, and strength of an ezer kenegdo. The woman was not created to
be the person's sidekick, but to be "his" savior! (Did you know that Hebrew has no word for "it"?! —
every word is automatically masculine unless you're talking about something specifically
feminine, like truth, wisdom, beauty, glory, etc.
Bryan notices that the appeal to Genesis 2 "hovers on the brink of implying that women are in some way inferior to men. Paul, however, seeing where the argument is leading, forthrightly declares that this is not what he meant:
"Nevertheless, in Christ woman is not different from man nor man from woman; for as [Genesis 2 says] woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God."
Bryan’s is actually a very close translation of verse 11, which literally reads, "Nevertheless, neither woman [can be] without man nor man without woman in the Lord; for just as woman [came] out of man, therefore in the same way man [comes] out of woman and all things [come] out of God."
Bristow comments, “The old notion about women stated that they are inferior to men because Eve was created out of Adam. Paul observed that every man alive came out of woman (that is, was born of woman). The implication is that if Eve were inferior to Adam by virtue of being made out of his body, then every man is inferior to his mother for the same reason.” And all things come out of God; if God designed ha’adam, then God also designed ha’ish and ha’ish-shah.
Bryan continues, "Unfortunately, the effect of this declaration is that the entire argument, which has been based on an asserted difference between man and woman, collapses. Obviously, Paul knew that his Corinthians would be quite bright enough to see that. Changing tactics, he appeals first to common sense (11:13), then (like a Stoic) to 'nature' (11:14-15)."
Bryan continues, "Neither appeal is convincing, even to Paul, as is evident from his final comment, which is exactly what adults say to a child when they either cannot or will not voice their real objection: 'It's simply not done!' (11:16)."
The Bible Background Commentary provides what I consider a somewhat better explanation of 11:16: a "philosophical group called the Skeptics rejected all arguments except an almost universally accepted one: the argument from custom — 'that's just not the way it's done.'"
My feeling is that Paul was trying to cover all his bases — appealing first to Jewish theology, since the Jesus Movement started out Jewish, and that’s what he knew best; then to common sense; then to Stoicism; then to Skepticism, a philosophy that states that the truth of all knowledge is in doubt and must be tested.
Verse 10 is probably the most difficult to understand and translate in the whole passage. The NRSV gives it as, "For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." The Greek literally says, "Because of this" (i.e., the reasoning in verses 8 and 9), "a woman ought to have exousia on/over (epi, NOT kata) the head, because of/for the sake of the angels." OR, "because of/for the sake of the messengers."
The Greek word Paul uses is exousia, and I believe the NRSV is showing its unconscious sexism by translating it as "symbol of authority." Exousia is used of God, kings, and other rulers, and means power, right, strength, or authority — and it is never used metaphorically about a piece of wearing apparel. In Matthew 9:6 and 28:18, exousia epi means "authority over" — the earth and demons, respectively.
Not only that, but Paul does not say "her head," he says "THE head." In other words, “a woman ought to have exousia over the head” could equally well be translated, given the context, as “a woman/wife ought to have power over [her] man/husband.” My own guess is that Paul meant, “A woman who is leading a worship service should be wearing something to show she’s in charge” — not that she’s a priestess of Isis about to have an orgasm.
It could be that "the angels" are divine administrators who rule the Universe on God's behalf — that was part of first-century thought, like today’s image of St. Peter as heaven's doorman. If that's the meaning, Paul is saying that a woman who leads worship bareheaded is showing disrespect for the divine order, the Way God Intended Things To Be.
It could be that "the angels" are cosmic, demonic powers from whom protection is needed — the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:1-3, who lusted after human women. I.e., “if you look like a bacchanalian, you might get raped.”
Bristow says that before Pentecost, women were not recognized as having any spiritual authority; but at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came down on both men and women, and Peter quotes Joel as saying that both sons and daughters would prophesy, both male and female slaves would receive the Holy Spirit.
Unlike the men of the gospels, women were the ones who got the visits from angels — an angel came to Mary to persuade her to risk her life, angels announced the Resurrection to the female disciples at the empty tomb. Bristow says that the angels of verse 10 may symbolize the new spiritual authority that has been conferred on women by the Holy Spirit. "One thing is certain, however: Paul affirmed that women are given authority in the Church."
Or it could be that "the angels" are simply messengers from other Christian churches in other towns and cities, whom the Corinthian female prophets ought not offend. Most of the Christians in Corinth were, after all, the first-century equivalent of truck drivers and serving staff in greasy- spoon cafés. This is the interpretation I favor — Paul is saying in the whole passage, “Don’t give the other grassroots churches in our infant movement any more reason to diss you. I’m tired of getting s—t from Peter by the first-century version of bicycle messengers.”
In verse 7, Paul says, "Therefore indeed a man ought not to have his head covered, the image and glory of God's possessions; but a woman is the glory of a man." In verse 9, he reminds us that woman was created because man NEEDS woman. He is saying very strongly here that woman was NOT an afterthought, as many still believe today; not a distraction, as the Essenes claimed; not an object to be owned and used, as the Greeks believed (and many men around the world still believe today!) — she is the "glory" of man, or in Paul’s native tongue, the Shekhinah.
My own very loose translation of 11:3-16 is:
I want you to understand that Christ is the source of every human alive, and Adam was the source of Eve, and God is the source of Christ. “Head” as in the head of a river. The source of nourishment, what sustains our being. God created, redeemed, and sustains us.
Any man who leads public worship with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who leads public worship with her hair disheveled disgraces her head — it is one and the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman who wants to be in a position of leadership does not conform to the customary idea of what is proper for women, she might as well cut her hair short, like a prostitute, or go all the way and shave her head, as if she were in mourning.
As you’ve known all your lives, it has been long customary for both men and women to pray with their heads covered, as Moses covered his head when the glory of God was upon it, lest his people be blinded or killed. But I say that a man ought not to lead worship services with a prayer shawl hanging down his back, because he is the image and glory of God’s possessions. For him to cover his head would make it look as though he were ashamed of Christ, the image and glory of God.
Woman, on the other hand, is the glory of man — what God created after a little practice. Indeed, the standard understanding of Genesis 2 is that instead of the woman giving birth to the man, the man “gave birth” to the woman. By the same token, the man wasn’t created because the woman needed him; the woman was created because the man needed her.
In our modern society of approximately 50 C.E., nice women keep their hair properly braided and covered up. That way, they’re not mistaken for priestesses of orgiastic cults, or prostitutes, or worse. So when a woman is leading a worship service, she ought to be wearing some kind of symbol of her authority, so people know she has the right to be up there. AND so that the messengers from Peter in Jerusalem will get off my back about how relaxed I, Paul, am about “uppity” women.
I have to insist, however, that in Christ, a woman is not fundamentally different from a man, nor a man from a woman. Both of them were created by God. Just as the first woman was “born” from the first man, so today all men are born from women — so if you say that women are inferior to men because of Genesis 2, what you’re really saying is that all men are inferior to their mothers.
Judge for yourselves, you Corinthians of 50 C.E.: If you saw a woman leading a worship service with her hair hanging loose and all messed up, would you think she was an authoritative leader, or would you think she was a priestess of Isis in mid-orgasm? Isn’t it customary for people to sneer at men with long hair? Isn’t it customary for people to consider a woman’s long hair her “crowning glory”?
But, you know, if anyone is going to quarrel or pick nits, the heck with it. It’s approximately 50 C.E., and the Jesus Movement is only a few years old. We’re making this stuff up as we go along.
