Worship in Corinth

That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.  1 Corinthians 11:10 ESV

Because of the angels – Sometimes when you have half a conversation in a letter from another culture and another time, you can barely figure out what the argument was all about.  You have to piece it together like a jigsaw puzzle.  The problem with this particular jigsaw puzzle is that all the pieces are the same color.

Paul writes about head covering.  The very fact that he even broaches the subject tells us that something was happening in Corinth that raised the question about what men wear on their heads during worship.  Interestingly, this isn’t about written Torah commands.  As Paul says, it’s about traditions.  But traditions are extremely powerful and often guide our behavior despite what the Scriptures actually say.  So Paul provides some advice to this struggling assembly.  First, he sets the proper relationship between the parties.  Gilbert Bilezikian’s work makes it clear that “head” (kephale) in verse 3 is about origin, not authority.  Yeshua as Creator is the source (origin) of Man.  Man is the source (origin) of ishshah (woman – Genesis 2) and YHWH is the origin of Yeshua as Messiah (“This is my beloved Son”).  Once Paul establishes this relationship, he turns to its implications for worship.  According to Paul, if a man covers his head during worship, he disgraces his relationship to his own origin.  This may seem strange to us because we don’t think in terms of the symbolic nature of heads or head coverings.  But Paul does, and in Corinth this was apparently an important issue.  Bilezikian suggests that the imagery is like Adam standing before God in the Garden.  Uncovered.  Naked.  Transparent.  For Paul, covering the head (a symbol of a man’s dependence on his Creator) is like Adam’s fig leaves.  It becomes a sign of hidden agendas.  No, says Paul, stand naked before your Creator, that is, completely transparent.  Don’t put anything between you and Him that represents what happened in the Garden.

Then Paul tackles the question about women in worship.  If a woman uncovers her head, she makes herself like the one “whose head is shaved.”  Paul must have some particular cultural circumstance in mind since there is no Torah instruction about women shaving their heads.  Even the Talmud does not require this.  So the custom must have had something to do with Corinthian culture.  There are two cultural traditions that may have been in place in Corinth.  The first was the practice of shaving a woman’s head if she were caught in adultery.  The second was the practice of shaving the heads of temple prostitutes.  Obviously, either case would cast aspersions of the synagogue assembly in Corinth.  Imagine how difficult it would be for a Gentile convert from either circumstance to come into the Messianic fellowship of Corinth.  Paul simply says, “Cover your head,” and rather than single out those whose past was dishonorable by head covering, he suggests that all the women do the same.  Now no one call tell the difference.  Unity and equality prevail.

Paul provides further rationale about this issue with head covering in verses 7-10.  While most congregations emphasize the first half of verse 7, few recognize the implications of the second half.  The first half tells us that man is the glory of God.  Therefore he should not hide this symbolic relationship with a head covering.  Great!  Men hold this up as if it endorses their importance.  But consider the second half of the verse: “but the woman is the glory of man.”  The analogy goes like this:  God’s glory is man.  Man’s glory is woman.  So, who’s the final statement of full glory?  Woman, of course.  She incorporates all of Man’s glory which incorporates all of God’s glory.  No wonder she is the last of God’s creative acts, the pinnacle of His work.  She is the final, ultimate masterpiece.  In fact, the Greek conjunction, de, could be read “and she is the glory.”  The point is that this is not a comparison of relative worth.  It is a statement about order of creation and representation of God’s handiwork.  God’s glory shines through, step by step until the final design.

But just so we don’t jump to the feminist conclusion, Paul adds verse 8.  What is the proper relationship between these two glory-exhibiting creations?  Woman was created from man.  In keeping with the Genesis 2 account, Paul corrects any tendency to assert that woman is in a higher position because she is the final figure of glory.  No, says Paul, she might be last in the design effort but she is designed for the purpose of the ‘ezer kenegdo, the one who brings blessing to her man.  Hers is not the role of tyrant but rather of servant.  She is God’s glory-summary purposed to serve another (just like the way God acts, wouldn’t you say?).

Now we encounter a translation bias.  The NASB translates verse 9 as “woman for man’s sake,” but the Greek text says nothing like this.  ESV says “woman for man,” but that still isn’t right.  The preposition is dia, usually translated “through.”  Read as “through” it follows perfectly the Genesis 2 account.  Man was not created through woman (although obviously every man since is born through woman) but woman was created through man.

Finally we encounter our strange verse.  In the NASB, it begins with “therefore,” reminding us that what Paul says next is based on his prior argument.  And what is the prior argument about?  The argument is about what happens in public worship.  Because of this prior argument about order and decorum in public worship, “a woman ought to have authority on her head.”  Better read that again.  Did you notice that the gloss, “a symbol of” has been removed from this reading?  That’s right, it isn’t in the Greek text.  The Greek text says that a woman ought to have exousian epi kephales.  The NASB and ESV add the gloss “a symbol of.”   But Paul isn’t thinking about symbols.  Symbols were vehicles used to speak about worship.  In the Corinthian culture, a man is uncovered in order to honor God’s name in worship.  A woman covers in order not to dishonor God’s name in worship.  But when it comes to authority, that rests on a woman’s head.  And that is related to the angels.

What does Paul mean?  When authority rests on someone’s head it means that the person acts on her own.  She makes her own choices under her own power.  Exousia is the power to act free from external restraint.  It is the right of choice.  Angels freely choose to worship YHWH.  They continuously sing His praises, not because they are compelled to do so but because they desire to do so.  So a woman with exousia on her head may choose the same and is allowed to do so through (again, dia) the exemplar of the angels.  Women in worship may choose to celebrate His name, to honor Him and praise Him as they desire.  They are not bound to the restrictions of the Corinthian culture when it comes to public worship.

It takes some serious additions and cultural extractions to interpret this verse as an endorsement of male hierarchy.  It’s time to straighten out the glosses – because of the angels.

Topical Index:  angels, angelos, worship, women, authority, 1 Corinthians 11:10

Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael C

If God Himself writes something in stone, let’s say, the Ten Words, then it is quite acceptable to change, modify or mold them according to man’s wishes.

However,

. . . if MAN writes something in stone, let’s say, the universal, unchanging, “obvious” role of women as subservient to man, no man shall in any shape, form or fashion alter, manage, or modify that edict. It is established. Forever and ever. It is over the horizon. Out there. Way out there, not to be touched or shaped otherwise!

We sure can mess things up! We make right left, up down and stop go and call it enlightenment and progress. Amazing!

Thanks shining light on the practice of stone cutting, Skip.

Ester

Well said, Michael C, I agree! Big smile on my face :- )
Ester

Dawn McL

This is a most interesting and clarifying post for me. I live in an area where there are MANY Amish and Apostolic folks. In these groups the women all cover their heads and it is a VERY important thing to them. It even seems to be a salvation issue in that if a women doesn’t cover then she is in rebellion against authority and salvation is questionable. I have wondered whose authority that would be! Could never get answer that made sense or could be explained without telling me just to accept it on faith.
I have long wondered about this being that covering is all based on this one chapter and verse in all of scripture. I could never really make any sense of it nor ask very thought provoking questions. Perhaps now I can!

I am learning that there are more than a few instances when it is almost critical to understand the culture in which scripture was written to be able to form and sort of reasonable conclusion. Greek definitely wants to put everything in a box.
I am making my way slowly thru Guardian Angel which is helping me understand my role as wife and women which is certainly NOT what I have be taught all my life!

Seems like there is much in tradition that makes people chose wrong paths. We tend to honor tradition way higher than Y-H’s actual words. We have made something rather simple very complicated and difficult if not impossible to understand. So then rather than ask questions and use our minds to think for ourselves, we follow men and the crowd and don’t have any idea why we believe what we believe.

Great post Skip. Regular cobweb clearing stuff!!

Andra

Sir, I was raised in a church where the “covering” as per Corinthians 11, is the hair. We are not allowed to cut our hair, as women. Men must keep their hair short, and women must keep it long. I did my own reading and study, and realized two things: 1. “Hair” is the correct covering. 2. Women’s hair does not have to be uncut. The interpretation of “long” is “To hang from the head.” Therefore, a man’s hair cannot “hang from the head”, but a woman’s must. The length after that, is not truly a concern. But that is my unscholarly opinion.

I, personally, have only cut my hair one time, and only to my shoulders, as it was hip-length. I did it for my daughter who was undergoing chemo for cancer. Locks of Love made my daughter a wig using my hair. By the grace of God, she is now cancer free! My hair is again hip-length.
Now, do I use it as a test of fellowship? Or do I believe it is a salvation issue? No. I love all people, and try my best to show it at every turn. I understand where the Mennonite and Amish come to their conclusion, but it is a tradition, as are most of their beliefs, and not founded in Biblical authority.

Dawn McL

As I read over my previous post here I see the words-salvation issue. More Christian lingo that I am not sure I have a grasp on either! Ugh!
I personally have seen some serious arguments over this one.

Annie

Like Dawn said, thank you for another great “cobweb clearing” article! It’s hard to know exactly what transpired in Corinth, but this article compliments another article that I just read, that described Corinth as a very immoral city with temple prostitutes that shrieked incoherent babble as a mark of the ‘goddess being in them’; that the word Paul used in telling women to be ‘silent’ simply meant lack of disruption/disorder, because he also said that women could pray and prophesy. The head-covering covered the prostitutes bald heads as they were learning Torah, and distinguished a convert or believer from a practicing prostitute. Paul’s letters were to gentiles, and at Corinth, he was addressing an openly pagan society. Learning the cultural issues is helping me make sense of some of Paul’s words.

Michael

Peter Tosh – Equal Rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SN7Pko_jCM

Everyone is crying out for peace, yes
None is crying out for justice
Everyone is crying out for peace, yes
None is crying out for justice

I don’t want no peace
I need equal rights and justice
I need equal rights and justice
I need equal rights and justice
Got to get it, equal rights and justice

In my view, feminism is an ideological concept with a positive connotation: equal rights and justice

Like the concept of Christianity, or Judaism, or Socialism

Feminism is a set of beliefs that can take liberal, conservative, reactionary, or revolutionary forms

As I recall, in the New Testament, Paul himself comes in the different ideological forms above

fibromom (Daria)

Dawn wrote: Seems like there is much in tradition that makes people chose wrong paths. We tend to honor tradition way higher than Y-H’s actual words. We have made something rather simple very complicated and difficult if not impossible to understand. So then rather than ask questions and use our minds to think for ourselves, we follow men and the crowd and don’t have any idea why we believe what we believe.

AMEN!!! (Think Constantine/Catholicism, from which all other Greek thought/western culture “christian” denominations have sprung, and the “authority of the Pope in matters of the ‘church
‘” and traditions of the Jews based on the thoughts and beliefs of their rabbis.) So then, let us ask this question: Since that is adding/taking away from YHWH’S WORD, wouldn’t that create a religion all its own… and thus be more of a cult than THE WAY TO THE FATHER?

For years now, I’ve cringed at using the title “christian” to describe my faith because it leaves such twisted connotations of what I truly follow ( we are NOT in fellowship with the 501c3 organizations in America called “churches” which are, in my opinion, GETTING FURTHER AND FURTHER from the truth, the power and the freedom to experience JOY that the REAL Word of God gives. In fact, I believe they, in their function and structure of CLUBS more than set-apart, individual believers and worshipers of THE ONE TRUE GOD, are playing a major role and will continue to be a main player in the ushering in of the Anti-christ. I believe we are in the apostate era.)

I have a dear friend in Israel who is a rabbi and a scribe and the ? president of Operation Lifeshield (google http://www.operationlifeshield.org), Shmuel Bowman. While he no way recognizes Christ as Messiah (PLEASE PRAY FOR HIM), we have respect and love for one another. I asked him what term he thinks I should use to describe who I am in terms of my faith in Messiah. His term is “Christian Ba’alat T’shuva.” He explained that this is a title identifying me as “a Christian returnee to the core ideas and ideals of Yeshua (A JEW) and belief in Him as The Annointed One and Son of God.”

Yeah, that’s me. PRAISE YHVH FOR GIVING ME YESHUA!

Ester

Thank you, this sets verses like the above into its right perspective!
Women have been under such restriction by men that the same has been brought into the “worship” assemblies “of YHWH” as well, and by men who misquote Paul’s letters.
Very, very rarely do we get folks (men) like Skip who would expound Paul’s letters in their right Hebraic and cultural perspective.
Women would not then be so suppressed in their ministry, being unsure which way to go, to even dare to give support to their husbands, or the brethren.

HalleluYAH for Skip!