Hi friends,
I’m here too:
To confess, I’ve often avoided this passage because it is so strange. But this conversation prompted me to dive in.
And it’s been so interesting! Thank you @alison for starting the conversation and @lakshmi for developing it!
Anthony Thiselton, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, notes:
It is very surprising how readily virtually all commentators appear to ignore the fundamental continuity between the arguments and themes of 8:1–11:1 and the application of these very same themes to issues concerning public or corporate worship in 11:2–14:40. Just as some view 9:1–27 as a “digression” about apostleship which intrudes into 8:1–11:1, so some view 13:1–13 as an unexpected interruption within 11:2–14:40, when the rhythmic discourse on love sums up the major issue in all parts of 11:2–14:40.
…
In 11:2–16 both “rights” to female emancipation and “rights” to male headship receive careful qualification as contributory strands, but by no means the whole picture within a larger, more complex whole, in which respect for “the other” (the other gender and the outside world) remains a fundamental concern. Love modifies “freedom” and “rights” if the good of the whole is thereby better served, and especially if the gospel is more effectively promoted (cf. 9:19–27).
Thiselton also notes, “Yet with a few notable exceptions (see Murphy-O’Connor and others cited below), most writers insist that this passage concerns the clothing (or hair-style) of women rather than (as 11:4 makes clear) of men and women.”
He repeats this concern later, stating, “11:2–16 is not simply about “the head covering of women,” but about men and women, freedom and respect for the otherness of the other in public worship.”
I also found his summary of many commentators helpful, where he summarizes, “Many commentators believe that the tradition for which Paul commends the readers is the eschatological inclusion of men and women as active participants in prayer and prophetic speech, in contrast to the issue of clothing, which Paul believes must still generate signals of gender distinctiveness on the basis of the order of creation, which still holds sway even in the gospel era.”
Thiselton provides a very thorough discussion of how to translate “head.” What I learned from this discussion is that the debate between “authority” and “source” both seem to miss the fluid way that Paul is using this word. Instead of “head” having one meaning throughout the passage, its meaning varies as Paul deftly navigates various conflicts within the church and seeks to bring them along to a better understanding. Thiselton argues for locating the meaning in terms of “preeminence” or “foremost.”
So how does this concept of prominence function in Paul’s theology? Thiselton states,
The more anyone stresses “prominence,” the more that person must ensure that “the other” does not experience the self-humiliation expressed in 12:15. “If the foot (sic, πούς), should say, ‘because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ just because of this does it not belong to the body?” Hence women use prophetic speech alongside men. However, at Corinth women as well as men tended to place “knowledge” and “freedom” before love in the Christian sense. Paul does not permit their “freedom” as part of the gospel new creation to destroy their proper self-respect and respect in the eyes of others by taking part in worship dressed like an “available” woman. That is not love, for it brings “shame” on themselves, their menfolk, and on God.
To consider how much our preconceptions affect how we read this passage, one camp sees, “This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (v 10) as divine sanction for women acknowledging with their hair coverings that they are under male authority, and another camp follows Morna Hooker’s insight, “The head-covering . . . also serves as the sign of the ἐξουσία which is given to the woman . . . — authority: in prayer and prophecy” (quoted in Thiselton, 837).
Towards the end of this discussion (on 11:16), Thiselton argues, “The custom is the acceptance of an equality of status in accordance with which woman may lead in public prayer or preaching (see below on prophecy) side by side with a recognition that gender differences must not be blurred but appreciated, valued, and expressed in appropriate ways in response to God’s unrevoked decree.”
To summarize Thiselton’s complex, sophisticated argument as he surveys the whole range of scholarship: in this passage, Paul addresses the problem caused by both men and women praying and prophesying in church services. As women experienced freedom to do what men had traditionally done, they began to dress as men had dressed, leading to social confusion.
To answer this problem, Paul explains that both men and women should maintain a dress code at church gatherings that directs people’s attention to God, not their sexual availability, and to their distinctive glory as men and women, and not in gender-blurring ways.
I’m curious how Thiselton’s approach to the text sits with others!
But I have learnt some interesting facts.
I know!
So what could have Paul meant? Most likely he was talking about what’s cuturally expected of women in terms of beauty/grace. So we are once again back to cultural understanding of the need for long hair. But this is just one view!