Home|Contents

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

 

The Text

 

Rex Banks





 

 I have argued that Paul’s head covering instructions in 1 Cor 11:2-16 are grounded upon Creation Law.  To do justice to the apostle’s argument we need to look closely at the entire text.      

 

This is an unavoidably lengthy discussion because like other passages in the New Testament dealing with gender specific matters (eg 1 Timothy 2:8; 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35) virtually every verse in 1 Cor 11:2-16 has been endlessly scrutinized and debated by those who take opposing positions.

 

 

Verse 2

 

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you (NASB)

 

Textual variation

 

Some versions (e.g. KJV) have αδελφοι (brethren) after επαινω δε υμας (“Now I praise you”).  Metzger treats this as an interpolation: “It was to be expected that, at the beginning of a new section and following  επαινω δε υμας, many witnesses would interpolate αδελφοι …” (A Textual Commentary on the New Testament p. 501). He adds that the omission of this word from early versions and the Coptic is “inexplicable” if it had been present originally. This textual variation does not impact our present discussion.

 

Praise

 

Paul praises the Corinthians because they "remember" (ie recall to mind, keep in mind) him, the perfect tense carrying the idea of an ongoing state. Only here and in 1:4-9 do we have words of praise for the Corinthians and elsewhere in chapter 11 he censures them for their conduct (vv 17, 22). Here in v 2 they are praised because they "hold fast to the traditions" which Paul "delivered" to them.  

 

Traditions

 

The word “traditions” is the noun form of the verb translated "delivered" in this verse. In scripture “traditions” (παραδοσεις) can speak of things handed down which are of human origin or of divine origin (eg 2 Thess.3:6). Context determines if it is used in a good or bad sense.  Frequently inspired men warn that the traditions of men must not invalidate the ordinances of God (eg Matt 15:1-9; Mk 7:1-13; Col 2:8). On the other hand traditions handed down by inspired men like Paul are of divine origin. These are traditions which are to be held on to and obeyed. According to the Jewish New Testament Commentary:

 

“At 1Cor 11:23 and1Cor 15:3 the words 'received' and "passed on" are used of two of these "traditions"-the Lord's Supper and the evidence of Yeshua's resurrection. "Tradition" in this sense simply means "that which has been carefully and faithfully 'passed on' by one generation and 'received' by the next." This corresponds to Jewish understanding.”

 

Here Paul commends the Corinthians for holding firmly to certain traditions which he has taught them.   

 

 

Traditions concerning worship

 

I have argued that in 1 Cor 11:2 - 14:40 Paul is dealing with issues which have arisen in connection with the Lord’s Supper assembly (see Context). This section (11:2-16) “has been understood by the vast majority of scholars both ancient and modern to pertain to the assembled worship” (Jackson). Because of this I understand “traditions” here to refer to "directions Paul had given for public worship” (1 Corinthians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leon Morris p. 151).

 

·         Calvin has “decorum ...to be observed in the sacred assemblies" (emphasis mine).

 

·         James Mac Knight has "tradition concerning public worship” (A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles p. 171).

 

·         Vine has "apostolic teaching concerning believers in their assembly capacity" (p 145 [emphasis mine]).

 

·         Fee has "the traditions that have to do with worship (as in 11:23)” (p. 499 [emphasis mine]) and he suggests that the opening sentence "most likely serves to introduce the whole of chapters 11-14” (ibid p. 500) which deal with public worship.

 

Likely Paul is here responding to a claim by the Corinthians’ that they are worshiping according to his instructions. It may be significant that elsewhere where he responds to direct questions from them, he uses the phrase "now concerning." For example "Now concerning virgins," (7:25) "Now concerning things sacrificed to idols" (8:1) "Now concerning spiritual gifts" (12:1 c.f. 7:1; 16:1). The absence of this phrase here suggests that Paul is not responding to a direct question, but rather is commenting upon their claim to have been worshiping as he directed.  

 

It is evident that they are indeed assembling for public worship regularly. They are partaking of the emblems of the Supper (vv l7-34), praying, singing and proclaiming (l Cor 14) and giving (16:1, 2). In my view Paul offers genuine praise in response to their assurance that they are not forsaking corporate worship. When possible he will praise them and he does so here because they are not forsaking their assembling together.

 

Some argue that Paul's words are sarcastic, but likely he is offering genuine praise.

 

Transition

 

Paul has other sources of information about the situation at Corinth (e.g. Chloe's people 1:11) and likely these sources have told him that although the Corinthians are indeed assembling for worship, there are some areas with regard to the "traditions" of worship where praise is not in order. "They may be following the 'traditions' all right, but not in the proper ways” (Fee p. 500). Thus in v 3 corrective instructions begin as to the how of worship.

 

 

 

Verse 3

 

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ

 

"But" here is adversative as suggested by most major English versions. Here then we have "censure in contrast to the praise in v 2” (Robertson vol. 4 p. 159). Now "the previous commendation throws into relief the coming censure "(G. G. Findlay Expositors Greek New Testament vol. 2 p. 870). Paul has praised the Corinthians for continuing to engage in public worship (v 2) but it is how they worship which needs attention.

 

Headship hierarchy

 

Something is amiss in the way the Corinthians are worshiping and " (the) indecorum in question offends against a foundational principle, viz that of subordination under the divine government " (Findlay p. 871). This is an important point. Certain practices in the Corinthian assembly are incompatible with the headship hierarchy - God, Christ, man, woman. What he is about to correct involves an offense against this unchanging headship principle. It is this statement concerning the fixed, unchanging principle of headship which introduces the discussion of the head covering which follows, and it is upon the basis of this unchanging headship principle that Paul issues the instructions following v 3.

 

Unwarranted conclusion

 

Some have drawn an unwarranted conclusion from the words "I want you to understand." They argue that these words indicate that Paul had not previously discussed the head covering with the Corinthians. Most recognize that this is not a good argument.

 

This same argument is used by those who deny that 1 Tim 2:8 ff is part of the apostolic pattern.  For example Keener, speaking of Paul's instruction in 1 Tim 2 says:

 

"Paul does not assume that Timothy already knows this rule (about male leadership - Rex). Had this rule been established and universal, is it possible that Timothy, who had worked many years with Paul, would not have known it already?" (Keener p. 112 [emphasis mine]).

 

Keener wants to prove that 1 Tim 2:8 ff is new to Timothy. Of course this would constitute proof that male leadership in 1 Tim 2 is not part of the apostolic pattern. This argument is not convincing  here in 1 Tim 2 and it does not work in 1 Cor 11 either. 

 

This expression "I want you to understand" is an example of "a form used in letter writing convention" of Paul's day which some call “disclosure form" (Peter T. O'Brien Word Biblical Commentary Colossians, Philemon p. 91).  O'Brien gives Rom 1:13;11:25; 1 Cor 10:1; 11:3; 12: 1; 2 Cor 1:8;  l Thess 4:3 and Col 2:1 as examples.  Compare this with Paul's words to the Galatians:

 

“For I would have you know brethren that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from a man nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ " (Gal 1:11, 12).

 

We cannot conclude from the words “I would have you know” that Paul had never before revealed the source of his gospel to the Galatians. Again in 1 Cor 15:1:

 

"Now I make known to you brethren, the gospel which I preached to you..."

 

They already knew this of course. He is not here revealing new information to them.

 

“Paul it appears had taught the Corinthians (as he taught his other converts) that in meetings of the church women should have their heads veiled when they prayed. But this piece of instruction was being ignored in Corinth” (Bruce p. 103 [emphasis mine]).

 

We might add that many other instructions were being ignored.

 

Let's be careful not to build arguments upon unwarranted assumptions as Keener does in 1 Tim 2. In an attempt to justify female leadership he says:

 

“Had this rule [male leadership] been established and universal, is it possible that Timothy, who had worked many years with Paul, would not have known it already?"

 

He is attempting to lead us to a conclusion by way of an argument which is based upon an unwarranted assumption.   

 

Focus on the text

 

Before leaving this point, look closely at the text again. Paul says “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” If we let Paul make his own case what he wants them to understand is that “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” Those who insist that Paul is sharing new information here must deal with the fact that this is basic teaching concerning the deity and the male-female relationship, and it is teaching which is undoubtedly part of the apostolic doctrine.  In my view Barnes is correct that "The phrase ('But I want you to understand') is designed to call attention to the subject, like that used so often in the N.T. 'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear' "(Barnes p. 753 [emphasis mine]).

 

Head

 

With the rise of so-called "liberation theology" the meaning of the word "head" (kephalē) in v 3 has been much debated. As brother McWhorter says "there was no controversy until the feminists began performing hermeneutical gymnastics with it" (Gender p. 69), but now many are trying to argue that it does not have the meaning here of "superior rank" or "preeminence." Many insist that the real meaning here is "source". This is simply an attempt to be politically correct in an age which rejects the idea of male headship and authority. In Women and Leadership in the Public Assembly I have argued that headship here includes the idea of authority. Certainly this word is used this way in scripture. Vine tells us that the Hebrew word ro'shsometimes means 'leader,' whether appointed, elected, or self-appointed.” He continues:

 

“The word can be used of the tribal fathers, who are the leaders of a group of people: 'And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people...' (Exo_18:25). Military leaders are also called 'heads': "These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains..." (2Sa_23:8). In Num_1:16, the princes are called 'heads' (cf. Jdg_10:18). This word is used of those who represent or lead the people in worship (2Ki_25:18—the chief priest).”

 

This is true of κεφαλή in the NT.  Jesus is “the head of all principality and power” (Col 2:10).  

 

Man – woman or husband – wife?

 

Some have suggested that by “man” and “woman” Paul here means “husband” and “wife.” However while it is true that ἀνήρ and γυνή can mean “husband” and “wife” this is not the natural meaning here. Christ is not simply the head of every husband, but rather the head of every man. In v 4 it is not every “husband” who disgraces his head by inappropriate attire, but rather every man. It is not simply the married man  who is the image and glory of God (v 7) but all males.  The meaning of v 12 is not that the husband is born through the wife, but rather that the man is born through the woman.

 

 

Summary

 

It is very important to note that Paul begins his discussion by reminding the Corinthians, not of some social convention and not of the need to conform to custom, but rather of the eternal headship hierarchy - God, Christ, Man, Woman. This unchanging order is the ground upon which his following instructions rest. Thomas R Schreiner points out that “11:3 … is fundamental to the whole passage” explaining:

 

“Verses 4-6 flow from the theological principle enunciated in 11:3. Since Christ is the authority over men, and since men are the authority over women, it follows that no man should wear a head covering when he prays and prophesies, while a woman should” (Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 https://bible.org/seriespage/head-coverings-prophecies-and-trinity-1-corinthians-112-16).

 

 

Clearly culture does not determine that the male is the head of the female, any more than culture determines that God is head of Christ.  Thus as in 1 Tim. 2:8 ff, Paul regulates the activities of the male and the female in the worship assembly on the basis of an eternal unchanging fact, namely the natural headship hierarchy. Paul is making it clear at the outset that the principles which he is setting forth with respect to males and females in the worship assembly in this section are grounded upon the unchanging headship relationship.

 

 

 

Verse  4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head

 

Every man

 

In v 2 Paul has addressed the Corinthians saying “Now I praise you (Corinthians) because you (Corinthians) remember me ...” However the foundational statement about the headship hierarchy (God, Christ, man, woman) which follows takes us from the local to the universal. Christ is not the head of every Corinthian man, He is “the head of every man.” It is not every Corinthian man who is the head of the Corinthian woman but rather “the man” who is the head of “the woman.”      

 

Verse 3 leads seamlessly into v 4. Having spoken of “every man” (παντος ανδρος) of whom Christ is the head (v 3) he now speaks of “every man” (πας ανηρ) “who has something on his head while praying or prophesying” (v 4). His comments in v 4 concern the male whose position in the headship hierarchy is fixed by divine decree (v 3). In v 4 Paul is speaking of every man of whom Christ is the head. Later in v 7, “a man” is not a "Corinthian man" or "first century man" but every man who is (the image and) "glory" of God; namely all who are male. Maleness, not culture is the issue.

 

 

who has something on his head (κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων)

 

Greek idiom

 

This clause is not easy to translate. The first word is a preposition. It governs the second word translated "head" which is in the genitive. Here the preposition with the genitive most naturally means "down from."

 

Long hair?

 

Because the text does not tell us what is down from the head some insist that Paul has long hair in mind. For example brother Coffman says that "the logical understanding of this would refer it to 'long hair,' being long enough to hang down from the head." He says that "the Greek New Testament does not indicate in this verse an artificial covering of any kind." He continues:

 

"The ancients accepted Paul's dictum on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an infraction of Paul's words.

 

'The hair of the head may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes ... cropping is to be adopted ... let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets.' Clement of Alexandria, in the Ante Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956 Vol. II, p. 286.)

 

Response to “long hair”

 

Brother Coffman's comment to the effect that the “ancients accepted Paul's dictum on this” needs clarification. I am sure that brother Coffman did not mean to mislead, but the placement of this comment under v 4 could suggest that the ancients understood Paul's words to mean that the apostle was discussing hair length in this verse. This is not the case. As we have seen (Replacing Old Custom Arguments with New Custom Arguments) during the very earliest period of church history  it was taken for granted that an artificial garment was under discussion in v 4.

 

Moreover brother Coffman's quotation from Clement under v 4 may suggest that this early writer subscribed to the view that Paul was discussing hair rather than an artificial covering. This is not the case.  In The Instructor Clement says concerning women that “this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" (3:12) Clement appears to have some kind of burka-type covering in view but the point is that he clearly understood that the woman needed to wear an artificial covering in order to "pray veiled," (c.f. 1 Cor 11:5) this being "the wish of the Word."

 

Unfortunately in his commentary brother Coffman does not discuss Paul's use of “also” in v 6. Nor does brother Coffman discuss the words “one and the same with her whose head is shaved” in v 5. Since these verses make it clear that Paul differentiates the head covering from hair, a comment would have been helpful. 

 

The Septuagint Version is very helpful here. The Septuagint was "the Bible of most writers of the N.T." (J. Thackeray International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia vol. 4 p. 2722) and "their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its language"(ibid). It was also "the Bible of the early Greek Fathers" (ibid), and "was made for the populace and written in large measure in the language of their everyday life" (ibid). For this reason it is very helpful to lexicographers in the study of N.T. words and expression. In this context we recall that in Esther 6:12, Haman having been humiliated by Mordecai's success hurried home with his head covered. The translators of the Sept. render this "κατα  κεφαλης".  They knew that those who used the "language of everyday life" would understand its meaning.  When they wanted to speak of an artificial covering upon the head in a way which was understandable to people using the Greek language, they used the same expression as that used by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:4. 

 

Fee tells us that "Plutarch speaks of Scipio the Younger as beginning to walk through Alexandria 'having the himation down the head' (Moralia 200F) meaning that he covered his head with part of his toga so as to be unrecognized by the people." He adds that the relevant expression is "identical to Paul's idiom except for the expressed object of the verb" (Footnote 60 p 507) and concludes: "Almost certainly therefore by this idiom Paul is referring to an external head covering."

 

In Replacing Old Custom Arguments with New Custom Arguments we saw that from the close of the NT onward it was accepted that an artificial covering is under discussion. For example Tertullian describing men leading in prayer in corporate worship speaks of them praying "with uncovered heads, as unashamed." In his commentary Chrysostom speaks of the man who has long hair as "like to one covered", thus making a distinction between the two.  He condemns both, but it is quite clear that he understands v 4 to refer to an artificial covering.  Chrysostom was not inspired of course, but the point is that like Tertullian before him he provides a link with the early Christian community and their practices. The early church had no difficulty understanding that an artificial covering was under discussion in this verse dealing with male worshipers.

 

Finally nothing in the expression “something on his head” specifies that a particular kind of artificial covering is in view. Nothing in this expression suggests that Paul limits his instruction to (for example) first century Roman or Greek headgear which came in various styles. (Additional notes in Appendix 1Loosed Hair? A Word about the Man).

 

 

while praying or prophesying

 

See Context where I have argued these two present participles function as synecdoche, meaning that Paul uses them here to speak of all worship activities. We recall Fee's comment that “The two verbs (i.e.” praying" and prophesying) are neither exhaustive nor exclusive but representative; they point to the two foci of Christian worship, God and the gathered believers" (Fee p. 506). I have also argued that 1 Cor 11:2-16 is discussing the Lord’s Day assembly (see Context) but of course this does not mean that praying and prophesying were limited to the Lord's Day assembly.

 

Prophesying involves inspired activity, but although scripture mentions inspired prayer (eg 1 Cor 14:15) this activity was normally uninspired. Prophesy is an example of inspired speech while most references to prayer in the NT are to uninspired activity. Prophesy is addressed to fellow worshipers while prayer is directed towards God. If these terms function as synecdoche here they may have been chosen, first because they represent activities which are both miraculous and non-miraculous and second because they represent both horizontal and vertical communication.

 

Some argue that because prophesying involves inspired activity we are to understand prayer here as inspired prayer. In my view it is more likely that these terms are chosen for the reasons just stated.  Moreover if Paul is speaking only of inspired activity and if (as most affirm) Paul's instructions reflect first century custom why would the apostle be selective in his comments? Why would the apostle tell inspired men that it was disgraceful to pray with the head covered but permit uninspired men to pray with covered heads?  Again if (as most affirm) it was disgraceful for first century women to appear in public without a covering, why would the uninspired bareheaded first century woman be socially acceptable while the inspired first century woman seated beside her be socially unacceptable (v 5)? Nothing in the text itself permits us to make this distinction.      

 

 

disgraces his head

 

The word translated "disgraces" combines the preposition κατα and the word for shame or disgrace. It is used in v 22 of those who "shame" the poor. Twice Paul uses the word when he quotes Isa.28:16: "And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed ("ashamed" KJV) (Rom 9:33; 10:11). This is a strong word for shame.

 

Is "head" here a reference to Christ (v 3) or to the man's own head (v 4) or both? In v 3 Paul has identified Christ as man's head and in v 4 he has spoken of the man's own head. Likely there is a twofold meaning here. Anyway the behavior is reprehensible. 

 

 

Connection with v 3

 

Again it must be emphasized that this statement concerning shame grows out of v 3 and the divine headship arrangement (v 3). It is because of the male's place in this headship hierarchy that it is shameful for him to cover his head in this setting, and his place in this headship hierarchy is fixed and permanent. Because of man’s place in this unchanging headship hierarchy (unaffected by culture), every man (of whom Christ is the head) disgraces his head by praying and prophesying with his head covered. The fixed headship hierarchy  not custom lies behind Paul’s instruction.

 

Sometimes the following claim is made:

 

“In deciding the binding nature of this command, we must next examine the reasons Paul gives for continuing this practice. First, we note the strong emotive terms applying it to the cultural setting: To fail to obey is dishonorable (vv 4, 5) … this points to a cultural tie” (Hermeneutics And Women In The Church Grant R. Osborne Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20:4 Dec 1977 p. 341)

 

However in the Sept Version “the verb … fully interchangeable with ... καταισχύνω is often found in the sense of ‘to shame’ or ‘to bring shame’ … Mostly God is the subject and the shame to which he brings is His judgment” (TWNT vol 1 p 189) So David prays that “the wicked be put to shame” (Psa 31:17) and exults in the fact that “workers of wickedness  are “put to shame, because God has rejected them” (Psa 53:5).  Paul uses this word when he tells us that “Whosoever believeth on him (Jesus) shall not be ashamed” (Rom 10:11). Nothing about this word restricts it to “the cultural setting.”

 

Covered men?

 

Likely no problem existed with men praying and prophesying with covered heads (although some take this position). The situation is likely hypothetical. It seems clear that the real problem concerns the women. However even though the situation is likely hypothetical as regards the man, this does not alter the fact that Paul, by inspiration says that the covered male head is shameful in the circumstances under discussion.  This is a very important point. In Gal 1:8 Paul says: "But even though we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you let him be accursed." No actual problem existed with Paul or angels from heaven preaching a different gospel, but it is just as true that such an action would indeed result in their being cursed. So while it is likely that no problem existed with men covering their heads in worship at Corinth, this does not alter the truth of what Paul says: such behavior by a male would bring disgrace upon his head.

 

This is an important point. Likely the situation at Corinth which called forth the instructions in vv 2-16 concerned Christian sisters, but we must not skip over Paul's instructions concerning men. Paul says not one word about lewdness or immodesty on the part of uncovered women, but rather he contrasts the genders. It is tempting to overlook Paul's instructions concerning the male because this raises problems for those who take the custom position. 

 

 

The custom position

 

Those who argue that Paul’s instructions simply reflect first century custom are confronted with some real problems when dealing with v 4. As we have seen (First Century Worship Practices) what Paul calls a disgrace in v 4 was a common practice among male Roman worshipers. It is important to be clear on this point. I am not arguing that all Roman men always wore a covering in worship. What I am affirming is that the covered male head in worship was not considered unusual or disgraceful. 

 

Those who take the custom position must deal with the fact that what Paul calls disgraceful was considered honorable by many in a typical Roman Greek city of the first century. We recall that a "larger than life" statue of Augustus "making a sacrifice according to the Roman rite" was on public display "in a large civic building at the end of Roman Corinth called the Julian Basilica" (Thompson). His toga covers his head.

 

 The Geneva Annotations of 1560 provide a good example of the fact that culture often trumps text in discussions of 1 Cor 11:2-16. Under v 3 the notes read:

 

He sets down God, in Christ our mediator, as the end and mark not only of doctrine, but also of ecclesiastical comeliness.”

 

I believe that this is correct. Paul uses v 3 to introduce his discussion of church order.  But when we come to v 4 the notes include the following:

 

It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.”

 

Sadly culture trumps text.  NEXT