The Text

Rex Banks

Verses 11, 12  However in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Some versions e.g. KJV have “man” before “woman” because some manuscripts transpose the two clauses here. 

Clearly Paul is emphasizing the interdependency of the male and the female. The word translated "however" can carry the idea of contrast. This reminder is given by Paul as a balance to vv 8, 9 and emphasizes the important fact that woman is not inferior to man.

Paul speaks of the interdependency of the man and the woman "in the Lord." This expression has shades of meaning depending upon context. Perhaps the idea is here " 'in the Lord's intention'; that is in the original creation and its restoration (Barrett)" (Rienecker/Rogers p. 424). Ultimately "all things originate from God" (v 12) which is what really matters. Since these verses do not advance our discussion we will not look at them in detail.

Verse 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?

With v 13 Paul's argument takes a new turn. He makes an appeal which "...is slightly different - (an appeal) to their own judgment and sense of propriety (v 13) based on 'the nature of things' (vv 14, 15)” (Fee p. 525). Finally to the general practice of the churches (v l6). This appeal takes the form of two rhetorical questions. The first (v l3) anticipates a negative response, and the second expects a positive answer.

The expression in 13a can mean "in" or "among" yourselves. "Judge" means just that - consider, look upon. The word translated "proper" occurs in the Greek text of Matt.3:15; Eph.5:3; l Tim 2:10; Tit 2:1; Heb 2:10; 7:26 and means "right, proper, fitting." The word "pray" is the same word as in v 4 and v 5 (here an infinitive) and again it is synecdoche (See under Context).

Keep in mind that Paul has just said that the woman who prays and prophesies with uncovered head disgraces (strong word) her head, likely meaning that she disgraces herself and the male. He has just stated that the uncovered woman is equivalent in shame to the shaven woman (who has removed her God-given glory) and  that the man ought to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God, while the woman is the glory of man. This is Paul’s argument so far, and so far there is no mistaking his position on women and the covering.

Now, in view of all that Paul has just said, there can be no doubt about what answer he expects to his rhetorical question, “is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?” He clearly expects the answer "no, it certainly is not proper, fitting or right for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered and to thus bring disgrace upon herself and the man." How could it be proper for a Christian woman to do something which, according to an inspired writer, brings disgrace upon herself and upon her God-appointed head? Rhetorical questions following persuasive argument are very common in scripture.  "Are we to continue in sin that grace may increase?" asks Paul in Rom 6:1 and the answer of course is "no!" Peter and John say to the Jewish authorities “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye” (Acts 4:19). For those steeped in the Law there could be but one answer. 

This is not the first time that Paul has invited the Corinthians to make a proper judgment following an extended argument on some point. For example in l Cor 8:1-10:23 Paul discusses food sacrificed to idols.  In 10:1-22, he absolutely forbids the eating of sacrificial food at pagan temples.  Then in 10:15 he says: "I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say."  Paul's meaning here is not, "you are free to make up your mind about this matter." Clearly "he does not mean 'judge for yourselves as to its rightness or wrongness.’  They are to judge for themselves that Paul is right" (Fee p. 465 [emphasis mine]). Paul explains "you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (10:21).

Here is the point: when Paul invites the Corinthians to make a judgment in the context of 1 Cor 10, he expects them to make a correct judgment on the basis of what he has just said about the eating of sacrificial food at pagan temples. He expects them to judge on the basis of Christian teaching, not on the basis of Corinthian custom, which would have found the idol temple quite acceptable. He will go on to say "you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (10:21). The apostle is certainly not saying "I'm leaving it up to you to decide." Too, when Paul invites the Corinthians to make a judgment in the context of 1 Cor 11, he expects them to make a correct judgment on the basis of what he has just said about the disgrace of the uncovered female head etc.  Kistemaker has the following:

“With two rhetorical questions, Paul challenges his readers to respond. He expects a negative reply to the first one (v. 1Co 11:13) and a positive response to the second (vv. 1Co 11:14-15). Following the sequence within the text, we now discuss the first query: 'Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with uncovered head?” On the basis of Paul's earlier remark that a woman who prays or prophesies with an uncovered head dishonors her head (v. 1Co_11:5), the reader immediately answers the question in the negative” (Bakers New Testament Commentary 1 Corinthians).

In view of all that Paul has said I do not believe he can be saying  "I'm leaving it up to you to decide whether to disgrace your head or not," just as he cannot be saying a few verses earlier that the Corinthians are free to decide on the matter of pagan sacrifice. This is immediately reinforced by the second rhetorical question (v 14).

Verses 14, 15  Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her?  For her hair is given to her for a covering

Nature

This is Paul's second rhetorical question, and this time the expected response is "yes nature indeed does teach this." We recall that Paul has already linked head covering and hair in v 5 and has already said that the uncovered female praying and prophesying is equivalent in shame to the shaven female. Paul's teaching on males, females and the head covering then, is closely connected with the matter of males, females and hair length.

In the expression “nature itself” the pronoun ("itself") is emphatic and is feminine; "nature" personified as a woman. "Nature" is φυσις (phusis).

Now, many who take the custom position insist that by nature Paul means cultural custom.  I do not believe that this is Paul's meaning here, but for the sake of argument let us suppose for a moment that it is. This would not affect the argument of vv 2-13, because it is quite possible for creation law and custom to coincide and quite understandable when they do. For example, in most cultures throughout history, the husband has been recognized as family head (as prescribed by scripture) even amongst those who do not know that this is the divine arrangement. When social custom conforms to creation law, it simply demonstrates that certain divinely-instilled instincts and tendencies often express themselves in cultural practices.

My point is this: it would not be out of place for Paul to point out that generally speaking long hair on women has gained society's approval (just as male headship in the family has gained society's approval). This would not affect his earlier argument in any way. Earlier he has emphasized the unchanging fact of headship, and given an instruction based upon the unchanging fact of glory. I have no difficulty believing that Paul could invoke custom as well to buttress his argument and if φύσις means custom here this does not affect the headship and glory arguments. Having said this I need to add that, in my view, this is not the best way to understand Paul's use of “nature” here. Let me explain why I take this position.

Clearly our best guide here is the New Testament usage. We need to keep in mind that not every occurrence of the word “nature” in various English Translations is a rendering of φυσις. For example “divine nature” in Acts 17:29 (NASB) and Rom 1:20 (NASB) is θεῖος and θειότης  while “same nature” in Acts 14:15 (NASB)  is  ὁμοιοπαθής. In Heb 1:3 (NASB) it is  ὑπόστασις (“Hypostatic union” speaks of the union of Christ’s humanity and divinity).

Our word φυσις occurs 18 times in the New Testament, 14 times as a noun, 3 times as an adjective and 1 time as an adverb. Consider the following:

Rom. 1:26 - "women exchanged natural function for unnatural”

Rom. 1:27 - "men abandoned the natural function of the woman"
Rom. 2:14 - "when Gentiles do instinctively the things of the Law"
Rom. 2:27 - "he who is physically uncircumcised"
Rom. 11:21 - "God did not spare the natural branches"
Rom. 11:24 – “For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?”

Gal. 2:15 - "we are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among Gentiles.”

Gal. 4:8 - "you were slaves to those which by nature are not gods"
Eph. 2:3 - "you were by nature children of wrath"
James 3:7 - "every species of beasts and birds...has been tamed by the human race"
2 Pet. 1:4 - "you might become partakers of the divine nature"
2 Pet. 2:12 - "creatures of instinct"
Jude 10 - "the things they know by instinct"

I do not believe that “custom” is an appropriate translation in any of these cases and all but four are found I the writings of Paul.

“In his epistles Paul uses phusis 11 times (comprising 11 of the 13 New Testament occurrences of this word). He sometimes employs the word to refer to nature itself understood as the created order (1 Cor 11:14). Elsewhere  phusis means 'what is natural' (Rom 11:21, 24) or what properly belongs to something (Gal 2:15; 4:8)” (Theology for the Community of God  Stanley James Grenz p. 203).   

Thus it is not difficult to understand why many major translations have “nature” in 1 Cor 11:14. Of the 18 translations which I have consulted 17 have “nature” while New Living Translation has: “Isn't it obvious that it's disgraceful for a man to have long hair?”  Barrett says:

"Paul uses the word nature (φύσις) at Rom. i.26; ii.14,27; xi.21,24; Gal. ii.15; iv.8 (cf. Eph. ii.3). These passages do not all express identically the same idea, but the notion common to them all is that of correspondence with things as they are found truly to be, without artificial change. The best parallel to the present passage is Rom. i.26 (cf. the use of φύσικος in Rom. i.26 f.). The idea is not an abstruse theological one; Paul is thinking of the natural world as God made it, rather than (in the Stoic manner) of Nature as a quasi-divine hypostasis” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians C. K. Barrett p. 256).

The Septuagint often helps with NT word studies, helping us to understand the Jewish background. As far as I can determine the word does not occur in the canonical books but the following passages from non-canonical books are helpful:

·         Wis 7:17-20: “For he (God) hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements: The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons: The circuits of years, and the positions of stars: The natures of living creatures, and the furies of wild beasts: the violence of winds, and the reasonings of men: the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots.

·         Wis 13:1 “For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan.”

·         Wis 19:19, 20: “For earthly things were turned into watery, and the things, that before swam in the water, now went upon the ground. The fire had power in the water, forgetting his own virtue: and the water forgat his own quenching nature.”

·         3 Macc 3:29 “Every place detected sheltering a Jew is to be made unapproachable and burned with fire, and shall become useless for all time to any mortal creature."

·         4 Macc 1:20 “The two most comprehensive types of the emotions are pleasure and pain; and each of these is by nature concerned with both body and soul.”

·         4 Macc 5:8, 9 “Why, when nature has granted it to us, should you abhor eating the very excellent meat of this animal?” (i.e. pork – Rex) It is senseless not to enjoy delicious things that are not shameful, and wrong to spurn the gifts of nature.” (The speaker here is not Jewish).

·         4 Macc 5:23 "Therefore we do not eat defiling food; for since we believe that the law was established by God, we know that in the nature of things the Creator of the world in giving us the law has shown sympathy toward us.”

·         4 Macc 13:27 “But although nature and companionship and virtuous habits had augmented the affection of brotherhood, those who were left endured for the sake of religion, while watching their brothers being maltreated and tortured to death.”

·         4 Macc 16:3 “The lions surrounding Daniel were not so savage, nor was the raging fiery furnace of Mishael so intensely hot, as was her innate parental love, inflamed as she saw her seven sons tortured in such varied ways.”

In the Testament of Naphtali (3:4, 5; 4.1) we have the following:

“In the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, in all the products of his workmanship discern the Lord who made all things, so that you do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature. Likewise the watchers departed from nature's order; the Lord pronounced a curse on them at the Flood. On their account he ordered that the earth be without dweller or produce. I say these things, my children, because I have read in the writing of holy Enoch that you also will stray from the Lord, living in accordance with every wickedness of the gentiles and committing every lawlessness of Sodom.”

Clearly in most cases the idea of natural order “without artificial change” is to the fore, and in Jewish thought this order was imposed by Jehovah. 

Turning to Greek thought we find that φύσις was a very significant term many centuries prior to and during the first century. In fact the term was central to discussions of philosophy, ethics, social obligation and the like, and was used to describe a group of thinkers called the nature philosophers. This is a huge subject but in general terms φύσις denoted that which was normal as opposed to the abnormal, that which resulted from origin or growth. Keener has the following:

"Paul's appeal to nature was a standard Greco-Roman argument, used especially by Stoics, but also by Epicureans, other philosophers, and for that matter, just about everyone else ... (I)t was a very common sort of argument in Paul's day ...

Sometimes writers meant by 'nature' pretty much what we mean by the term today: the created order. They could speak of nature as the force or order controlling and arranging natural existence in the cosmos. Nature is said to teach us the way things really are, often through our natural endowments or through the nature of the world around us...

Usually writers used these examples from nature to advocate a specific kind of moral behavior, or simply exhorted living in general in accordance with nature...

Many gender distinctions were also considered part of nature, rather than a matter of mere social convention" (Keener pp. 42, 43 [emphasis mine]).

Keener is certainly correct that φύσις was an important philosophical concept. As he points out, important thinkers used this word to speak of the created order, natural endowments, gender distinctions which are not the result of social conditioning etc.  By way of example consider the following use of "φύσις" by the stoic philosopher Epictetus who lived 50-130 AD:

"Come let us leave the chief works of nature and consider merely what she does in passing. Can anything be more useless than hairs on a chin? Well, what then? Has not nature used even these in the most suitable way possible? Has she not by these means distinguished between the male and the female... Again in the case of women, just as nature has mingled in their voice a certain softer note, so likewise she has taken the hair from their chins ... Wherefore we ought to preserve the signs which God has given; we ought not so far as in us lies, to confuse the sexes which have been distinguished in this fashion" (Fee, footnote p. 527 [emphasis mine]).

Thus the beard of the male and the softer voice of the female are considered to be  nature's way of distinguishing between the sexes and because of this men "ought to preserve" these signs.

Now as has been pointed out by Keener (above) this was a typical use of the word and the people of Paul's day were very familiar with its use in this context (and the use of the Latin equivalent ["natura”] to also speak of created order. Consider the following examples which are also representative:

“Pleasure in mating is due to nature when male unites with female, but contrary to nature when male unites with male or female with female” (Plato Laws 636c).

"Nature too makes clear the fact that mothers should themselves nurse and feed what they have brought into the world, since it is for this purpose that she has provided for every animal which gives birth to young a source of food in its milk"  (Plutarch [born about 50 AD] The Training of Children).

"Suppose that each limb were disposed to think that it would be able to grow strong by taking strength, necessarily the whole body would weaken and die ... (similarly) nature does not allow us to increase our means, our resources and our wealth by despoiling others" ( Cicero, On Duties.  Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought p. 108 ).

Philo (20BC – 50AD) was an Alexandrian Jew who tried to harmonize Greek philosophy and Judaism. In his writings “nature” and divine law are in harmony. For example, in his On the Virtues he discusses Deuteronomy 22:5 where the Law says that "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing.” Philo comments:

“(For) the law, being at all times in perfect consistency and accordance with nature, desires to establish laws which shall be akin to and in perfect harmony with one another from beginning to end … For as it perceived that the figures of men and women, looking at them as if they had been sculptured or painted forms, were very dissimilar, and, moreover, that the same kind of life was not assigned to both the sexes … so also in respect of other matters which were not actually the works of nature, but still were in strict accordance with nature, it judged it expedient to deliver injunctions which were the result of sound sense and wisdom” (The Works of Philo Judaeus  The contemporary of Josephus, translated from the Greek By Charles Duke Yonge p. 416). 

Describing the sexual deviancy of the Sodomites, Philo says that they discarded “the laws of nature.” Males engaged in sexual activity with other males were involved in “unseemly things” and they were “not regarding or respecting their common nature” (On Abraham 135, 6).

In my view all the evidence suggests that Paul uses “nature” in 1 Cor 11:14 to speak of the very constitution of things.  McGuiggan captures the idea:

"Nature in 11:14 is the way things can be observed to exist. A horse is a horse, a rock is a rock, a male is a male and a female is a female. Nature (things just as they are and appear to you) tells you that "(p. 150).

In my view Paul is buttressing his previous arguments by pointing out that typically there are observable and obvious differences between the hair of the male and the hair of the female. A few decades before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, Ovid (43 BC-17 AD.) speaking to women says:

 "(H)ow kind is nature to your beauty ... we (ie .males) are shamefully left bare and carried away by time our hairs fall...”

Ovid says that nature is kind to women with respect to hair in a way that she is not kind to men, whose "hairs fall." Among other things men are more inclined to baldness than women. Today biochemical explanations are available to explain these differences which Ovid observed  Now, differences are most clearly evident when they manifest themselves in extremes and with this in mind consider the following:

"Two primary types of baldness can be distinguished ... permanent hair loss ... and transitory hair loss. The first category is dominated by male pattern baldness which occurs to some extent in as much as 40 per cent of some male populations" (The New Encyclopedia vol. 1 p. 826 [emphasis mine]).

"Male pattern baldness ... seems to be caused by imbalances in the level of male hormones (testosterone and androgens) circulating in the blood..." (Encyclopedia of Human Biology vol. 4 p. 42).

"Men and women have distinctive physiologies in many ways. One of them is in the process of hair growth on the head. Hair develops in three stages--formation and growth, resting, and fallout. The male hormone testosterone speeds up the cycle so that men reach the third stage earlier than women. The female hormone oestrogen causes the cycle to remain in stage one for a longer time, causing women’s hair to grow longer than men’s. Women are rarely bald because few even reach stage three. This physiology is reflected in most cultures of the world in the custom of women wearing longer hair than men" (John Macarthur, 1 Corinthians, The Macarthur New Testament Commentary).

The point is that male pattern baldness is simply the most extreme example of the observable differences between the hair of the male and the female as a general rule. Most would agree with Adam Clarke that the “hair of the male rarely grows like that of the female, unless art is used, and even then it bears scanty proportion to the former "       (vol 6 p. 253). This is understandable in view of the fact the woman's hair has been given to her to function as a " covering," and is her God-given "glory", (v 15) whereas the man's hair (also given to him by God) was not given to him to function as a covering, and is not his God-given glory. Paul appears to be saying that the very constitution of the male and the female supports his argument.

A common objection to this view is that in some cultures men do have long hair and in some cultures women shave their heads. How do we explain this if the very constitution of things teaches that such practices are shameful? How do we explain the fact that men and in various culture seems oblivious to the arrangement of the physical world all around them?  It may be helpful here to look at another passage which also deals with a violation of what scripture calls “nature.” Schreiner points out:

“Romans 1:26-27 is an illuminating parallel because the same word is used. Women and men involved in a homosexual relationship have exchanged the natural function of sexuality for what is contrary to nature, i.e., they have violated the God-given created order and natural instinct, and therefore are engaging in sexual relations with others of the same sex.”

If homosexuality is a violation of  the God-given created order and natural instinct how do we explain the widespread acceptance and celebration of same-sex love in cultures like ancient Greece and 21^st century New Zealand?  The answer is that fallen men and women “having the understanding darkened” (Eph 4:18) and having “exchanged the truth for a lie” (Rom 1:25) readily embrace that which is “against nature” (1:26) with hearty approval (Rom 1:32). Yes general observation of nature reveals the biological basis of heterosexual intercourse and the biological incongruity of homosexual intercourse but all too often fallen men do not draw reasonable conclusions.

“In spite of the general revelation of God's moral law through conscience, people still do what is right in their own eyes even though they are in the wrong” (The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1-15 Bruce Waltke p. 79).      

This being the case we should not be surprised by the widespread acceptance of homosexuality nor by long haired men and short haired women in various cultural settings. Nor should be be surprised to find that in 21^st century democratic western societies there is a growing contempt for patriarchy despite the fact that this too is God's natural arrangement.

In my view Keener is correct that

"Although 'nature' might occasionally mean custom, the term is normally used to mean exactly the opposite of custom: that which is innate in the order of things, which cannot be acquired " ( p. 43).

Nature through the lens of scripture

The deontic fallacy occurs when an attempt is made to derive a prescriptive statement from a descriptive statement. To put it another way it is not possible to derive an “ought” (moral obligation) from an “is” (the way things are). However:

“There seems to be no reason to assume that God’s self-disclosure in the created order is intended to be interpreted independently of God’s verbal self-disclosure. On the contrary, the biblical pattern seems to be that ‘God’s Word (whether oral or written) interprets God’s world’” (Is Natural Theology Biblical? Stephen R. Spencer Grace Theological Journal Spring 1988 p. 62).

Thus both Plato and Paul described homosexuality as contrary to “nature” (Laws1.2; Rom 1:26) but unlike the Greek philosopher the apostle viewed this behaviour through the lens of scripture and recognised it as morally reprehensible. Similarly Ovid recognised that “nature” was “kind” to women in contrast to men who are “shamefully left bare” but Paul through revelation understood that the woman’s natural endowment was her God given “glory. Modern science can explain the differences in terms of “testosterone and androgens” (above) but without revelation the scientist is unable to appreciate the woman’s hair as her God given glory. Hurley understands Paul to be saying “'Does not nature as I have just explained it teach ...'” (p. 178). In my view this is likely the meaning here. As Chrysostom put it “when I say Nature, I mean God. For He created it.”

As Philo pointed out (above) “the law, being at all times in perfect consistency and accordance with nature, desires to establish laws which shall be akin to and in perfect harmony with one another from beginning to end.” The same God who instituted circumcision on the eighth day also authored the book of nature, so it is no surprise to learn that the following about the clotting agent prothrombin: