i)DRESS (Worship)
“The head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head, for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn, but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things by God…Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” (1 Cor 11:3-16)
In 1 Corinthians 11:14-16 Paul “accepted current fashions – against nature for men to have long hair and immodest for women to pray with heads uncovered”J Paul did want equality for women, shown in 1 Cor 7:4, 11:8-12 but he wanted distinction of sexual roles to be maintained (1 Cor 14:33-6). He believed that there was an imminent parousia so “there was not time to remake society”J
When dealing with the covering of heads, theologically Paul found himself in a rabbinical exegesis, abandoned it, and reverted to using custom. Paul’s argument gets tangled when he says long hair is honourable – it partly veils a woman and if it is honourable then why cover it up? He then simply says that the custom is to wear a veil. Chyrostom had an answer to the question: “And if it [hair] be given her for a covering ‘say you, ‘wherefore need she add another covering?’ That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgement of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law.”
Evidently Paul’s decision had not been widely accepted so the letter to Timothy also deals with this problem. Veiling was a common Christian custom and these and public silence was ‘seemly’ at the time. The Law says that women must ‘submit’ and they therefore cannot teach and that women were created after and for the sake of man but fell into sin before him.
Ryder Smith draws attention to the fact that while it says that “[the man] is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man” however, woman is not the image of the man. This relates to Genesis 1:27 “in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”. This also is seen in the emphasis in Galatians 3:28 “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” also seems to bear out the belief that women were also made in the image of God. “When the apostle considered history and looked back to the beginning of things he found himself constrained to admit the inferiority of women, but when he looked forward and considered the ideal he was equally obliged to admit her equality with man.” J
However, other commentators have disagreed with this. St. Chyrostom wrote “symbols many and diverse have been given both to man and woman; to him of rule, to her of subjection: and among them this also, that she should be covered, while he hath his head bare. If now these be symbols, you see that both err when they disturb the proper order, and transgress the disposition of God, and their own proper limits, both the man falling into the woman’s inferiority, and the woman rising up against the man by her outward habiliments.” He further adds that men need only be bare-headed during prayer or prophecy “but the woman he commands to be at all times covered. Wherefore also having said, ‘every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head unveiled, dishonoureth her head.’ He stayed not at this point only, but also proceeded to say, ‘for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.’ But if to be shaven is always dishonourable it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach.”
On the saying “for if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.” Chyrostom wrote “as if he had said ‘if thou cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.” Chyrostom also says that a woman not having a veil does not raise her to the honour of a man, but rather diminishes her and is shameful. Men should not veil themselves because “not only…because he hath Christ to be His Head ought he not to cover the head, but because also he rules over the woman…so neither do thou [venture forth] without the symbols of thy rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest thou insult both thyself and Him that hath honoured thee. And the same thing likewise one may say regarding the woman. For to her also it is a reproach, the not having the symbols of her subjection.” As the woman is the glory of the man, “therefore the rule of the man is natural”J “And if it [hair] be given her for a covering ‘say you, ‘wherefore need she add another covering?’ That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgement of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law.”
Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Cor 11:3 both teach that husband/man has headship over the wife/woman. Most people believe that this means the husband/man has authority over the wife/woman. There are several arguments against this:
1) - During this time the heart was thought to be the seat of reason, but the head the seat of life.
2) - The Greek word kephale (‘head’) is not used for ruler or chief but as source or origin (for example, as the source of a river). However, Hebrew rosh (‘head’) can be used in a metaphorical sense as ‘chief of’ although meaning has priority rather than authority. Paul, as a Hebrew speaker, could have meant the word in the meaning ‘chief of’ but, as he was writing in Greek for a Greek audience, he would have had to make this clear if that was what he meant.
There are two occasions in which Paul uses the word kephale. The first is in 1 Corinthians 11:3. While the word ‘authority’ does occur, it refers to the woman’s authority over herself, not man’s over her. The word ‘submission’ does not occur. It is more likely that it means that man is the source of woman, which could refer to Genesis. Some have said that the fact of woman being created after man shows her subjection, but this is unclear as man was created after the animals and it is not said that animals are superior to man. Greek readers would be more likely to have interpreted this word as ‘source of’ rather than ‘authority over’. In 1 Cor 11:3 Christ is spoken of as having ‘headship’ over man and this does mean he has authority over man. However, he also is the source of man and in Col 1:18 Christ is spoken of as the ‘head’ meaning the source of creation. Source also makes sense in “the head of Christ is God” which removes some of the problems that implied subordination within the Godhead brings. “For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection as thou sayest, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and master. For what if the wife be under subjection thus? It is as a wife, as free, as equal in honour…do not therefore strain the example of the man and the woman to all particulars.” St. Chyrostom goes on to say that it is rather a union between the head and the body and also sees the matter of origin there. He says that we should “accept the notion of a perfect union and the first principle” but warns “for both the union is surer and the beginning more honourable in the Godhead”. This therefore means that it is not automatic that the meaning of this is that the husband has authority over the wife.
That the head of man is Christ “is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.”J Chyrostom then concludes thatconcludes, “it follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honour of the governed is to abide in his obedience. Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is; and that reasonably.”J However, he does say that the corrective , “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things by God” is so that “he might neither lift up the man more than was due nor depress the women” to remind them that both are under God. Ziesler writes that “what I suspect Paul means [in the above passage] is that in the Lord there are no distinctions…but that in the present world there are, and it is in the present world that Christian obedience is to be practised. The established order must be upheld so long as it lasts, but Christians know it is only provisional and that in the New Age its distinctions will disappear.”J
It is difficult to ascertain the exact meaning of some of the words in the passage, as they aren’t used very often in Greek. It is also difficult to know what the customs of the time regarding hair and headgear was. This is often seen as a completely different section of the letter, however Kä Khler suggests that ‘do all to the glory of God’ (10:31) is the theme of the whole letter, and that ‘give no offence to Jew or to Greeks or to the Church of God’ (10:32) is the ‘heading’ of the passage until 11:16
The background of the church at Corinth reveals two possibilities. The first is that a group of women were refusing to cover themselves, seeing it as an act of Christian liberty, while some saw it as an offence against an instruction of Paul’s against the ‘order of creation’ or of propriety. Paul was attempting to reconcile them, saying women should be covered and giving reasons. The second is that people had accepted Paul’s teaching of equality in Christ, and believed that covering showed inequality, or it was culturally unacceptable in Corinth. Paul praises them for upholding his teaching, but says that the covering shows natural difference between the sexes – for women to follow a way appropriate for men was not an expression of her liberty. Paul stresses the inter-dependence of the sexes. In their society it was shameful for a woman to be uncovered and no other church had felt it necessary to abandon this custom. Paul was very concerned with how the church looked to outsiders, in order to gain converts and to official backing. Many scholars including F.F. Bruce (“1 & 2 Corinthians”), H. Conzelmann (“1 Corinthians”) and C.K. Barrett (“1 Corinthians”) believe that the first option was the correct one.
1 Corinthians 11:2 (“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you…the head of every man…”etc.) This section begins by praising them; ‘traditions’ may mean customs, or theological principles of faith. In 1 Cor 11:3 there are many questions brought up by the idea of headship. It is unclear whether the headship pairs are to be seen in series or parallel? What is meant by headship? Who is being referred to here? All men and women, or just Christians? Is the headship situation defining the state of things now, or just a theological principle? If the headship of Christ is the primary theme, as W.J. MartinJ believes, however, there is nothing else referring to the headship of Christ, therefore it is more likely to be about the relationship between men and women. ‘Every man’ is more likely to refer to every Christian man although it cannot be said whether Paul was referring to man/woman relations or husband/wife. If ‘head’ does mean ruler then it was probably referring to husbands and wives, as it was not the case that every woman was under the authority of every man. If, however, it meant that the man was the origin of the woman, then it could refer to either. Paul began his arguments about the Corinthians’ headgear by stressing the distinctive relationship between men and women, which should affect their behaviour. He compares it with the relationship between God and Christ to stress that this is something fundamental.
As ‘head’ does not have to imply subordination, so there need not be a hierarchy (God – Christ – man – woman). Chyrostom wrote that we cannot see a hierarchy here as “the Son will be as far removed from the Father as we are from Him. Nay and the woman will be as far removed from us as we are from the Word of God. And what the Son is to the Father, this both we are to the Son and the woman again to the man. And who will endure this?” Also, why would Paul, if he meant to create a hierarchy, begin in the middle? There is no reason why the pairs cannot simply be seen as analogous parallels. Either Paul is stressing the distinction between man and woman to show that Corinthian women’s claim to equal rights in worship must be neglected, or he is accepting their equality but saying that there must still be a distinction, although it does not affect their equality.
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head, for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn, but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
While men and women are to wear different headgear, they both pray and prophesy equally. Weeks sees verse 5 as “every woman praying or prophesying by means of the unveiling of the head” – i.e. can only pray or prophesy if their head is unveiled, therefore women ought not to prophesy or pray.J However, this would mean verse 4 would have to be ‘every man praying…by means of the covering of the head.’
Paul does not use a specific word for headcovering, he uses various forms of the obscure akataluptos, which has some relation to the head and includes a sense of hanging down but may not mean headcover. Hurley argues that it cannot be the wearing of a shawl or veil here as this would mean Paul was rejecting Old Testament worship customs for men – this would have been mentioned elsewhere.J Both Paul and Jesus took part in synagogue worship, presumably covering their heads – was this shameful? If the custom is that women should wear headcover but men not, then either the Old Testament prescribed something dishonourable or that with the coming of Jesus a new distinction between men and women based on differing relations to God had been born, but “there is neither male nor female” in Christ. Hurley translated akataluptos as ‘unloosed’ hence Paul meant that women should have their hair in a bun during worship. However, S.A. Reynolds translated akataluptos as ‘uncovered’ by long hair.J Martin thought that Paul meant long hair but found it inconceivable that Paul would deny a Christian woman who might have been shorn when a heathen, the right to participate in worship.
There are different tenses used in verse 6 as Mary Evans writes. “If a woman is not covered (has not long hair) then let her remain cropped [keirastho – aorist imperative with cessative force referring to a particular situation]…but since it is a shame for a woman to be cropped or shorn let her become covered [i.e. let her hair grow again; katakaluptesthai – present imperative for a non-terminative inchoahtive action]”J
It is possible that the references to being shorn refer to the public shaving of prostitutes, but this is uncertain. It could simply mean that if women want to be like men, they might as well go the whole way and be bald.
The significance of these verses depends on whether Paul was using ‘head’ in a literal or metaphorical sense. On the first occasions in verses 4 and 5 and on the third occasion in verse 5 it seems literal. The second occasion is usually taken to be metaphorical but this is not necessarily. If it is metaphorical in the second instance then F.F. Bruce believes the dishonour is a denial of status in the creation order which, while this could be seen as dishonouring Christ, how is it dishonouring man?J A second possibility is a denial of the man’s authority over the woman, and a denial of Christ by the man’s denial of his own authority.J (Assuming we take the veil as a sign of submission). It is, however, difficult to see how this dishonoured comes from the man covering his head – i.e. being under someone other than Christ’s authority. If the veil is a sign of submission to man, why is not the man having a veil a sign of submission to Christ? C.K. Barrett believes that ‘head’ is literal throughout, which is supported by reference to shaving in verse 5.J This then means that Paul was saying that following a custom, which in that society was seen as disgraceful was dishonouring. Or, he could have been emphasising the difference between the sexes. If a man or a woman follow a custom appropriate to another sex, they are denying their sex and thus dishonouring themselves.
“For 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 was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.” 1 Cor 11:7-9
As they speak of women being created from and for man these verses are often seen as stressing the authority of men over women. Hence G.W. Knight writes “Paul is saying in effect that it is simply the proper application of concepts and realities to affirm that if one human being is created to be the helper for another human being then the one who receives such help has a certain authority over the one who is his helper.”J However, Genesis and the Old Testament do not support this, where the majority of the time a ‘helper’ is God helping needy Isræl (and could therefore actually mean superiority but Genesis says woman was ‘fit for him’ so neither man nor woman is better.) There is no indication that Paul meant women were to be lesser because they were helpers of men. Paul may have been quoting Genesis merely to say that woman was created different from man and should therefore worship as a woman without imitating man.
Verse 7 has been seen by some as stressing that woman is only the secondary image of God.J However, this would contradict Genesis and raise problems for the unity of mankind ‘in Adam’ and of the Church ‘in Christ’. Evans writes, “it seems likely that there is a deliberate choice of words, ‘image and glory’ (verse 7) rather than ‘image and likeness’ (Genesis 1:26) and a lack of repetition of the word ‘image’ to avoid this implication.”J Possibly Paul did put these in to remind women of their subordinate place and it was also possible that Paul was stressing that men and women are different but equal, if the latter is right then verse 10 follows on.
Verse 10 – “That is why a woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels.” A woman should accept a covering as an indication of her authority as a woman. Some say ‘authority’ (exousia) as that of husband over wifeJ but there is no parallel for exousia being used in this passive way. Some translate ‘authority’ as ‘veil’ (RSV) or ‘power’ (Authorised Version) – Paul’s readers would not have understood it like this, (even with the obscure link that veil and authority have the same root in Aramaic.)
The second occasion in which Paul (or someone else) uses the word kephale is in Ephesians 5:23: “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as the Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.” (Ephesians 5:21-5)
In this the word kephale is found alongside a wife’s submission and so therefore could mean authority. However, headship is not developed as the authority Christ had over the church, but rather as him giving himself and loving the Church and that is the role husbands are supposed to fulfil. “The husband is the head of the wife…But [alla] as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject.” This, in verse 24 provides some difficulties. If headship implies authority, then the ‘but’ is difficult and ‘therefore’ would make more sense. If we follow Paul’s analogy and see the husband’s headship being that he should love his wife and give himself fully on her behalf then the ‘but’ works. It seems to be a case of mutual submission in that the husband is to love and serve his wife and she is also to be subject to him.
The word for submission/subjection is hupotasso whose root meaning is ‘to order’, ‘to arrange’ or ‘to put in place’. For Paul there is a clear distinction between submission of a wife to her husband, and the obedience of a child to its parents or a slave to its master. It is important to stress that submission is voluntary. Only God subjects others, to himself, to another, or to futility (1 Cor 15:24-8; Romans 8:20; Phil 3:21; Ephesians 1:21-2) to reveal a hierarchy. In the New Testament, no ruler or anyone else is ever told to subject Others or ensure the subjection of others, there is rather a voluntary giving in and assuming responsibility.
Subordination is only of Christ and of those in Christ. The word can be used for military purposes as in the wife ‘ordering herself under’ her husband. Barth writes that “of course the word does speak of subordination but in such a way that the emphasis is on mutual adaptation and co-ordination. The authority to which the woman bows in her subordination to man is not the latter’s but that of the taxis (order) to which both are subject.” As with Ephesians 5:21 the submission is meant to be mutual.
There is also a debate over whether this passage is mainly speaking on the husband/wife theme or the Christ/Church theme and whether one or the other is not simply an illustration for the other. However, Barth writes, “a decision between them need not be made…both topics are central and both are, ontologically and noetically so closely tied together that they cannot be unstrung.”J
Ephesians 5:23 “For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church his body, and is himself its Saviour.” Paul sees the headship of Jesus over the Church in terms of his self-giving for them and salvation rather than authority – “as Christ is the deliverer and defender of the Church…so (the implication seems to be) the husband is the protector of his wife.”J Man is head of the wife, not as Jesus is head of all things (including the Church) but as Jesus is head of the Church. It is somewhat incongruous to compare the relationship of Jesus to the Church to the relation between man and wife. While a man may imitate Jesus’ self giving love he cannot be the ‘saviour’ of his wife. St. John Chyrostom agreed with this: “for although the same words are spoken of God and of men, they do not have the same force in respect to God and to men, but in one way those must be understood, and in another these.”J Ephesians 5:24 “But as the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject in everything to their husbands.” Most people translate headship as rule, subjection as obedience and remove the alla (but) and the Authorised Version replaces it with ‘therefore’. The New English Bible leaves the alla in but translates it as “but just as the church is subject to Christ, so must women be to their husbands in everything.” “The verse as it stands, including the ‘but’ seems to make more sense if we take it as meaning that even though the husband as ‘head’ of the wife is to serve her and give himself fully on her behalf, nevertheless the wife must not think that that places her in a special position without responsibilities, for just as the Church is subject to Christ, she too is to be subject to her husband in everything.”
In Ephesians 5:25-30 the self-giving aspect of Jesus’ relation to the church is paralleled with that of men and women as in v25 “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.” This could possibly be seen as contrasting with verse 23, although husband is the head of the wife, he must not take advantage but love her. However, this could also be explaining the meaning of headship in verse 23.
The parallel relation of man and wife, Christ and church cannot be taken too far, as the husband cannot be a duplicate Christ, but can merely use him as a source and example. In the same way, when husbands are told to ‘love their wives as their own bodies’ Bruce says that “Paul does not overdo the analogy and speak of the wife as her husband’s body, as the Church is Christ’s body”J - Paul refers to the ‘one flesh’ of Genesis 2:24. It is worth noting that while parallels with marriage are made, Christ is never spoken of as the husband of the church.
“This is a great mystery and I take it to mean Christ and the Church.” (NEB “it is a great truth that is hidden here. I for my part refer it to Christ and to the Church, but it applies also individually.” A. V. “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”) Ephesians 5:31-3. There are four points to be noted in this passage – the relation between Christ and the church, human marriage at best, the relation between both relationships and each other and in v31 the mystery. Both the subjection of the wife and the love of the husband equal the mutual submission of v21. Paul places a high value on marriage, comparing it to Christ’s relationship with the church. Paul believed in fixed roles for men and women in marriage. Evans writes that “while it is true that these exhortations, to the wife to be subject and to the husband to love, do not take away the responsibility of the wife to love her husband or of the husband to be subject to his wife, nevertheless Paul’s deliberate choice of different terms and in fact his use of the parallel relationship show that he was very much aware that just as the roles of Christ and the church are not interchangeable, so neither are the roles of husband and wife.”J
Overall, in Ephesians 5, “Paul did not see procreation as the only or the primary purpose of marriage, but rather the expression of mutual self-giving love in all its aspects.”J