Headcoverings and Worship

¹⁴Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, ¹⁵but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?

A lot of writers of this period talk about that which is “in accordance with nature” or “against nature”.  One of the ways this is used in relation to sex is to affirm a “natural” distinction between men and women, with implications for human sexuality:

Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences 190-4: Do not transgress natural sex [eunas phuseōs] for irregular passion [Kupron athesmon]: The beasts themselves are not pleased with homosexual intercourse [arsenes eunai].  Do not let women imitate the sexual role [lechos] of men.  Do not let yourself become an uncontrollable torrent [reusēs akathekton] toward your wife.  For Eros is not a god, but a passion [pathos], destructive of all.

Josephus, Against Apion, II, 199: And what of the laws concerning marriage?  The law sees sex only as that according to nature [kata phusin] with a woman; and this for the production of children.  But that of a man with a man it abhors, and punishes with death those who partake in it.

Josephus, Against Apion, II, 273: The people of Elis and Thebes [were led to condemn] that which was against nature [tēs para phusin] and unrestrained homosexual intercourse [arrenas mixeōs].

Josephus, Against Apion, II, 275: The Greeks attributed to the gods homosexual intercourse [arenōn mixeis], and, for the same reason, marriage of brother and sister, that these might be a defence of their indulgence in unspeakable and unnatural pleasures [para phusin hēdonōn].

Gaius Musonius Rufus, Discourse 12: But of all sorts of intercourse it is the adulterous that are most unlawful [paranomōtatai], and of these, none is more immoderate than that of men with men [arrenas tois arresin], because such a reckless thing is against nature [para phusin].

It seems that Paul is keen to preserve cultural expressions of the “natural” distinction between men and women, “on account of the angels”…. What the??  Bruce Winter suggests that perhaps “angelos” here refers to “messengers” – i.e. spies sent by the newly vigorous Roman Imperial cult, to check on potentially illegal political meetings.  Thus, Paul would be saying that, in order not to raise the suspicions of the Roman watchers, the standard practice of wives having their heads covered should be preserved.  It does appear that “angelos” is sometimes used in a similar way in this period – as a human messenger:

Epictetus, 3.22.23: It is necessary for the true Cynic to know that he is a messenger [angelos] from God, sent to the people to show them about the things that are good and the things that are bad.

Epictetus, 3.22.69: [The Cynic ought to be] the messenger [angelon] and spy [kataskopon] and herald [kēruka] of the gods.

It is clear from the archaeological evidence that from Greek to Roman times, women (including wives of emperors) were presented as having hair that was tied up or covered.  Headcoverings are especially evident in grave stones, where the women were obviously intended to be presented as pious wives:

But of course in 1 Corinthians, the issue is not just that women should maintain cultural expressions of marital fidelity, but that this should specifically occur within the context of worship.  Why would it be especially tempting for women to remove the signs of marital fidelity in the context of prayer and prophecy?  Perhaps one direction to explore is the possibility that expressions of female-led spirituality – such as that occurring in Eleusis – were admired by liberated Roman wives in Corinth: In Eleusis, all of the worship was led by women, who represented the goddesses Demeter and Persephone.  In this role, freedom and fertility appear to have been celebrated:

 

In this same context, there are statues of (male) emperors, depicted with their heads covered – as was the custom of Roman worship.  The first two pictures are from Eleusis, the third is from Corinth:

If these sorts of male and female expressions of Greco-Roman worship were being imitated in the Christian church at Corinth, it was presumably communicating both an unhelpful adoption of (status-based) pagan religiosity, and an unhelpful provocation of cultural acceptability.

Tomorrow: The Lord’s Supper in Corinth; Friday: Death in Corinth; Sunday: The resurrection of the dead