You know how television current affairs programmes, when they are desperate to boost ratings, run a story about some predictably sensational and sensitive issue, with scant regard for their own integrity as a respectable media outlet? In that vein, let me present…
1 Corinthians 11 and Head Coverings… What the???
My Greek reading group is about to hit 1 Corinthians 11, so I’ve been reading and pondering, pondering and reading this difficult section (vv2-16). I don’t intend to comprehensively analyse this section here – but simply to look at the passage with one question in mind: How does the passage as a whole relate to its context? How does this passage function within the flow of 1 Corinthians? I should say first of all that I view 1 Corinthians as a literary unity – a position that I won’t try to justify here. Anyway – here are a few little observations and questions that relate to this passage, within its broader literary context:
- Notice firstly that this section as a whole (2-16) ostensibly consists of Paul’s ‘praise’ for the Corinthians, for keeping the traditions he passed onto them – preceding a section in which he does ‘not praise’ them (v17ff). Curious…
- Notice also that, at least at first, the application is for men and women: BOTH men and women are warned not to shame their “head”.
- A consistent theme throughout the passage, then, is the advocacy of acknowledged dependence or interdependence, as opposed to independent autonomy. This theme becomes explicit in v11, where it again applies to both men and women: “Nevertheless, neither woman is apart from man, nor man apart from woman in the Lord. For just as woman is from man, so also man is through woman; but all are from God.”
- This term “from God” (theou), used as a corrective to bold autonomy, should ring some bells for those who have been paying attention to the rest of the letter (or those who have been paying attention to cryptotheology!!): In the opening chapters, Paul relentlessly opposes the bold autonomy of the Corinthians, by calling them to stop “boasting in humans” and rather to depend on God, from whom they receive all that they have. Indeed the provocative wording of the introduction to this section (“Of every man the head is Christ; the head of woman is man; and the head of Christ is God”) reminds somewhat of a previous provocative call to subvert assumptions of independence: “All things are yours – whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come – all are yours; and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”
- This call to move away from boastful autonomy (in chs.1-4) culminates in a call to imitate Paul (as he embodies the way of the cross) in 4:16. The present section in ch11 is preceded with the same words: “Become imitators of me, just as I am of Christ.”
- Following that summons to follow Paul’s embodiment of the cross in ch.4, chapters 5-7 arguably apply the cruciform summons to issues of bodily sexual immorality, greed, and impurity, calling the Corinthians to acknowledge that they do not exercise autonomous authority over their bodies – but rather, “you were bought at cost – therefore glorify God in your body”. For husbands and wives, this means acknowledging that they do not “own” themselves: “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband; likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.” There are obvious parallels here to the thought of chapter 11.
- Following on from chapters 5-7, chapters 8-14 seem to continue to apply the example of Paul’s embodiment of the cross to issues of interpersonal interaction within the “body” of Christ, the church – calling the Corinthians to edifying love rather than the self-absorbed exercise of “freedom”/”authority”. Chapter 11 contains a lot of the same words and themes, exhibiting the general pattern of a call to move from bold autonomy to acknowledged dependence & interdependence within the body of Christ.
This doesn’t explain the difficulties of chapter 11 itself – and it doesn’t give specific direction to how the passage might be applied today; but at least it hopefully sets the passage within the flow of the letter, suggesting that the general idea is that (in relation to this particular issue of headcoverings) the Corinthians need to move from the self-absorbed expression of personal autonomy to the enacted acknowledgement of dependence on God, as seen in edifying inter-dependence within the body of Christ.
RSS - Posts
Is there also a theme of symbols of worship? Food offered to idols (8-10), head covering (11:3-16/17), Lord’s Supper (11:17/18-34). NB there is a “now” (δε) in 11:2, but the last “now concerning” (περι δε) was 8:1, the next is 12:1.
Why would a man pray with his head covered? What possible reason could the writer have had for suggesting such a thing?
And what about this praying AND prophesying business? Doesn’t this sound like the activity of prophets, and prophetesses in the case of the women.
And somehow, I can’t see that anyone who wants to pray and prophesy could possibly dishonour God. So never mind about the context in the whole of Corinthians, you can find inconsistencies within a couple of verses.
I suggest that the passage was originally about the equality of men and women before God. So in the Lord (really, in the Spirit), women is independent of man, and man is independent of women – almost the opposite to what we have. The original teaching was to counter the dominance of men over women. So the best of luck getting around the problems of the extant text in your group.
@ Geoff and in general. For great historical background information which would help in interpreting this passage in light of the Graeco-Roman context–particularly the Roman context since Corinth was a Roman colony–would be to read two informative articles on the same topic of head coverings:
• Richard Oster, “When Men Wore Veils to Worship: Historical Context of I Cor. 11:4.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 481-505.
• Cynthia Thompson, “Hairstyles, Head-coverings, and St. Paul. Portraits from Roman Corinth,” Biblical Archaeologist 51 (1988): 99-115.
The two articles came out about the same time and neither one knew of each other’s work on the subject at the time they were published, which is interesting. Part of the issue is that in Roman culture it was a common practice for men to wear head coverings in a religious / ritualistic context. The Latin phrase, ‘capite velato’ (with head covered) is a feature usually found in literature dealing with such contexts. Further, in Roman art, especially imperial art, there are numerous examples, such as in reliefs, which depict a man, usually a priest, in a sacrificial context, ready to begin a ritual sacrifice (usually a bull) while his head is covered by part of his toga or mantle. One good example is the relief on the altar found at the Sanctuary of Augustus in Pompeii (in the Pompeiian Forum).
I believe, as you will read especially in Oster’s article, that this is part of the issue happening in Roman Corinth when Paul is writing. It was part of the culture and some of the men were bringing it into the church there. So check out these readings.
Given the writer’s Jewish background, why should he object to men covering their heads, when Jewish priests and high priests did so?
Drake: I guess I see the “de” as basically equivalent to “peri de”, given that it appears to introduce a response to a new set of oral reports (note 11:18) – and I think the issues of “edifying love versus puffed up knowledge” are expressed throughout all of chs.8-14 – introduced in 8:1, and brought to a climax in chs.13-14. Buy yes, that’s a useful addition – to note that ‘worship’ itself is a continuing focus here.
Geoff: A couple of thoughts:
- I’m not sure that Paul expects that any men in the Corinthian congregation actually were covering their heads in worship – it seems to be used (only in v7) as a hypothetical corrolary of what he is about to conclude in v10 – that women(/wives) should have their heads covered. As Jeremy points out, though, the practice was a known Roman phenomenon.
- Paul is consistently demonstrating that those who display even the most sparkling display of Godward spirituality can actually be dishonouring God – if they are effectively denying their dependence on God, which should be expressed in corporeal surrender and corporate edification: Even partaking of the Lord’s Supper can be done in a way that dishonours God, if it effectively denies one’s placement within the body of Christ: “For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgement against themselves”. It’s the same with praying/prophesying: One could paraphrase the force of this section, “For all who pray and prophesy without discerning the body pray and prophesy judgement against themselves”.
- In the Corinthians context, part of “discerning the body” was acknowledging that Christian worship was not an abandonment of marital relationships (as was implied, perhaps, in the prophetic devotion taking place 50km away in Eleusis), but rather the “ordered” mutual edification of a people who, together, are dependent on God.
Jeremy: Thanks for this. I haven’t come across those articles – does sound intriguing. Here’s a quote from Pseudo-Phocylides that may also be of interest:
“Do not grow locks in the hair of a male child. Braid not his crown or the cross-knots on the top of his head. For men to wear long hair is not seemly, only for sensual women.”
Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences 210-12
11:4 – “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head.” This seems very strange coming from a Jewish writer accustomed to priests wearing headgear.
It is also strange that the theme of praying and prophesying changes to the theme of eating and drinking, when one might have expected a continuation of the former. So may be it wasn’t about waiting for each other to start eating, but it was about waiting for each other to pray and prophesy. The complaint (11.21) might then have been “one remains standing, another gets up”, bearing in mind that folk stood up to pray, possibly in the Jewish tradition with hands raised – as they do today.
I’m not convinced that v4 is necessarily about men covering their heads:
It might even be interpreted:
“Every man praying or prophesying as though he has no head, puts his head to shame”
The wording is “kata kephales [genitive] echon” – which might directly be translated “against a head having”…
Mind you I haven’t really looked into use of idioms like this so who knows…
King James Version
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
American Standard Version
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
Bible in Basic English
11:4 Every man who takes part in prayer, or gives teaching as a prophet, with his head covered, puts shame on his head.
Darby’s English Translation
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having anything on his head, puts his head to shame.
Douay Rheims
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head.
Noah Webster Bible
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
Weymouth New Testament
11:4 A man who wears a veil when praying or prophesying dishonors his Head;
World English Bible
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
Young’s Literal Translation
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having the head covered, doth dishonour his head,
πᾶς ἀνὴρ προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ
Well yes, I can see that the interpretation works as: “Every man praying or prophesying as though he had no head (Christ) dishonours his head (Christ)”, given the previous definition that the head of every man is Christ.
But then 11:7 takes us back to the idea that “a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head”, which is strange coming from a writer familiar with priests covering their heads.
I guess I’ve seen v13 as key to understanding the passage and how to apply it: it says: “Judge for yourselves.”