A Complementarian Reading of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: The Meaning of Kephalē part 9

Introduction 

This post is part 9 of my ongoing series on the meaning of kephalē (“head”) in Paul’s letters, where I’m trying to understand Paul’s two references to men/husbands being the “head” of their wives/women (Eph 5:23 and 1 Cor 11:3). The previous 8 posts looked at the meaning of kephalē outside the New Testament and then looked in particular at Ephesians 5:21-33, where Paul refers to husbands being the “head” of their wives (5:23). If you don’t want to read all 8 posts—they are quite long!—you could just read the previous post, where I summarize the previous 7 and offer an interpretation of Ephesians 5. 

Or, if you’d rather just listen to me explain these posts, I recorded a two-part podcast series on the topic, which you can find over at my Theology in the Raw podcast (the episodes released on March 18 and 25).  

Over the last month or so, I’ve been digging deep into the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, which I believe is one of the most difficult passages to interpret in all of Paul, if not the New Testament. (There’s no need to point out all of the difficulties; just read the passage and you’ll see for yourself.) And yet, as Francis Watson points out, 1 Cor 11:2-16 is “the single most significant discussion of the male/female relation in the Pauline corpus.”[mfn]Watson, “The Authority,” 523.[/mfn]

Tough passages elicit scholarly attention, and, of course, the scholarly literature on 1 Cor 11 is immense. Whole books and dissertations have been written on it, and every book on women in ministry (and there are a lot) devotes a least a lengthy chapter on this passage. I’m keeping a running list of the dozens of peer reviewed journal articles on this passage;I’ve waded through about 20 of these so far and have a few more dozen to go.[mfn]Some of the most helpful and compelling scholarly treatments that I’ve read include Bruce Winter’s scintillating treatments of 1 Cor 11 in his After Paul Left Corinth (121-141) and Roman Wives, Roman Widows (77-96). What I love most about Winter’s treatment is that he’s not focused on complementarian or egalitarian debates. He’s simply interested in opening up the Greco-Roman world through extensive literary and archaeological research. I’ve also really appreciated the articles (among many others) by Mark Finney (“Honour, Head-coverings and Headship”), Preston T. Massey (who’s written several articles on the passage, but I’ve found his “Long Hair as a Glory and as a Covering” particularly helpful), Francis Watson (“The Authority of the Voice”), David W.J. Gill (“The Importance of Roman Portraiture”), and, of course, Morna Hooker’s seminal article (“Authority on Her Head”). If I had a gun to my head, I’d probably say that thus far in my opinion, Judith Gundry-Volf’s essay, “Gender and Creation” offers the most compelling interpretation of the passage. Both Keener (Paul, Women & Wives) and Cynthia Long Westfall (Paul and Gender) offer challenging and thorough interpretations. And of all the commentaries, I’ve found both Fee and especially Thiselton to be most helpful. Of course, if Lucy Peppiatt’s view is correct (which I’ll unpack in a later post), then the case is closed and all the thorny exegetical issues dissolve.[/mfn] 

As I’ve often said, I like to start blogging when I’m about 70-80% confident in a particular interpretation of any given passage. Once again, this post and however many will follow it, on 1 Cor 11 are more exploratory with strong hunches than take it to the bank interpretations I’m willing to defend at all costs. Honestly, in the case of 1 Cor 11, I might be like 50-60% confident that I understand what’s going on. I don’t know if I’ll ever be more than 80% sure. In fact, if you ever come across someone who’s super confident that they know how to solve all the exegetical quandaries in this passage, I’d recommend running the other way, since they probably know way less about the passage than they think they do. 

There are many ways we could begin our discussion of this passage, but what I want to do is start by summarizing as clearly as I can what I’ve found to be a fairly standard complementarian reading of this passage. I’m well aware that this interpretation might sound offensive to some. But again, I’m much more interested in understanding Paul on his own terms, not bringing my modern, western sensibilities to the text to make sure Paul doesn’t offend me. My primary question is not whether I like or dislike the complementarian reading; rather, I want to know if it has the most exegetical merit in terms of understanding what Paul actually said. For what it’s worth, I think there’s much exegetical merit in the reading I’ll summarize below. 

Of all the complementarian exegetes, I’ve found Tom Schreiner to be one of the best. He’s both thorough and clear, and I also find him to be an incredibly honest and humble scholar, which means a lot to me. My reading below will largely follow his interpretation in his article: “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16” (in Piper and Grudem’s Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, pp. 124-139) 

A Complementarian Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

All complementarians interpret kephalē in 11:3 as conveying some sense of authority, and this meaning of “head” is the interpretive key for the rest of the passage: 

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

Complementarians read the text in what they would see is a rather straightforward manner. In the church, men are in authority over women, Christ is in authority over men, and God is in authority over Christ.[mfn]There’s a debate about whether Paul is talking about all men and women in general or husbands and wives in particular. Schreiner assumes that Paul’s talking about men and women in general throughout his essay, but other complementarians argue that the passage is about husbands and wives in particular. Even if some of the reference to “women” could mean “wives,” at least some references cannot be limited to “wives.” For instance, 11:11-12 cannot mean that “wives” give birth to husbands; it has to mean that women give birth to men. However, as we’ll see in a later post, it was common for married women to cover their head (or wear a veil), while unmarried women typically did not. Paul could therefore be talking about wives in particular when he’s addressing head coverings/veils (e.g. vv. 5-6, 10). [/mfn] The last claim—God being in authority over Christ—has elicited charges of heresy, since this would imply ontological subordination (i.e. making Christ a sort of lesser God than the Father).[mfn]There is much literature on this debate. Kevin Giles is probably the most prolific writer who believes that the it’s heresy to say that the Father is in authority over the Son and to root male authority over women in this view of the Trinity (see his The Trinity & Subordination). For a recent overview of the debate and critical response to Giles, see Steve Wellum, “Does Complementarianism Depend on ERAS?” which you can find HERE.[/mfn] However, as Tom Schreiner points out: “The point is not that the Son is essentially inferior to the Father. Rather, the Son willingly submits Himself to the Father’s authority. The difference between the members of the Trinity is a functional one, not an essential one” (p. 128). Schreiner points to other passages like 1 Cor 15:28, which show that Paul speaks freely of Christ being subordinate to the Father: “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28; cf. Phil. 2:5-11). (Most complementarian scholars do not argue for the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father; rather, the Son submitted to the Father in the incarnation.) 

“Head,” then, conveys authority. And this is the interpretive key for understanding what Paul means by “head” throughout the rest of the passage. (kephalē occurs 6x in the rest of the passage: 11:4 [2x], 11:5 [2x], 11:7, 11:10.) While most (if not all) of Paul’s later uses of kephalē refer to a literal head, its symbolic significance is informed by the use of kephalē in 11:3. Specifically, when the head is covered, this symbolizes that the person is under the authority of another. Since women are under the authority of men (or their husbands?), they should have their heads covered while praying or prophesying in a public gathering (11:5-6).[mfn]Some scholars like Jerome Murphy O’Connor and, most prolifically, Phil Payne argue that Paul is talking about hair length or style, not head coverings or veils. I’ll deal with this interpretation in a future post. By far the dominant view among scholars is that 1 Cor 11 has to do with head coverings/veils.[/mfn] Since men are under the authority of Christ, they should not cover their heads while praying or prophesying (11:4), for they are made in “the image and glory of God” (11:7). 

Paul’s curious statement that “man…is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man” (11:7) should not be taken to mean that women aren’t also created in God’s image. Paul is certainly aware of Genesis 1:27, which says men and women are both in God’s image.[mfn]See also Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10-11; cf. Gen 5:1-2.[/mfn] The point of verse 7 corresponds to what Paul already said in verse 3, that women and men bear a unique relationship to each other, which is reflected in the Son’s unique relationship to the Father. 

Paul explains his point rather clearly in 11:8-9, where he says: 

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Paul here alludes to the creation account in Genesis 2, where God saw that: “It is not good for the man to be alone” and so he makes “a helper suitable for him” (Gen 2:18). And so God creates a woman from the man (Gen 2:21) and for the man. Paul’s very language in 11:8-9 (“from man,” ex andros) is almost identical to Gen 2:23 (“from the man,” ek tou andros). Paul enlists the creation account, then, to prove that woman was created for man; that is, to be his helper. Tom Schreiner writes: 

“If woman was created for man’s sake, i.e., to help him in the tasks God gave him, then it follows that woman should honor man. The thrust of 11:7b-9 is that women should wear a head covering because she is man’s glory, i.e., she was created to honor him” (p. 133). 

 In 11:10, Paul then repeats the point he made in 11:7

Therefore the woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Cor 11:10)

The point about the angels is difficult to determine, but it’s not crucial for understanding Paul’s argument. The first part of the verse is rather clear: Paul is giving another reason why women should cover their heads—head coverings are a “symbol of authority.” That is, the head covering symbolizes that the woman is under male authority when she’s praying or prophesying in church (cf. 11:4-5). Since the man is under the authority of Christ, he should not cover his head while praying or prophesying. 

There is a problem with this interpretation of 11:10, however, which complementarians recognize: the word “symbol” is not in the text. 1 Cor 11:10 literally reads: “On account of this the woman ought to have authority over/on the head” (dia touto opheilei hē gunē exousian echein epi tēs kephalēs). Many scholars therefore argue that this verse means that women have the authority (in terms of the right or freedom) over their own heads,[mfn]See Paul’s earlier use of exousia (“authority”) earlier in the letter (7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12, 18). E.g. 1 Cor 7:37 says “the man…has authority over his own will” and uses a very similar phrase as 11:10 (exousian de exei peri tou idiou thelmatos). Mark Finney argues that “to have authority” simply “refers to a right which can be relinquished” (Mark Finney, “Honour, Head-coverings and Headship,” 52 n. 84). Exousia, then, is used in 11:10 in a similar way that Paul uses it earlier in 1 Corinthians, that is “in a wider sense, of freedom of choice together with an element of power” (Finney, “Honour,” 52).[/mfn] which yields an almost opposite meaning than the one offered by complementarians.[mfn]See Morna Hooker, “Authority on Her Head,” 413-14; Craig Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives, 38; Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender, 35-36.[/mfn] Tom Schreiner, however, gives 7 reasons why he does not find this interpretation to be persuasive (pp. 134-36).[mfn](1) The parallel between vv. 7 and 10. (2) The word “ought” = obligation, not that a woman has the freedom to wear a head covering or freedom to prophecy. (3) Hooker’s interpretation doesn’t fit with vv. 3-9 where Paul wants women to cover their heads to show that they are submissive to men. (4) “Symbol of (male) authority makes most sense of vv. 11-12. If Paul had just affirmed a woman’s own authority, then why the need for the corrective in vv. 11-12? (5) Exousia can have a symbolic understanding; citing BDAG and Diodorus of Sicily (1.47.5), who talks about “three kingdoms on its head” (a stone statue) and “kingdoms” means crowns. (6) He expands on the Diodorus reference. (7) Even if authority has an active sense in 11:10, it refers to man’s authority, as the previous argument suggests.[/mfn] While the word “symbol” is not in the text, it is implied since head coverings were indeed “symbols” of authority in Paul’s world. 

Since Paul words in 11:3-10 could be taken too far by his audience, Paul counterbalances his argument in 11:11-12 to stave off the notion that women are inferior to men: 

However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. (11:11-12)

Here, Paul stresses the interdependence and mutuality between men and women in the church. Even though the first woman came from man, and even though women are under the authority of men in the church, men need women just as much as women need men. In a sense, every man owes their existence to women, since every man has been born of a woman. “Verses 11-12,” writes Tom Schreiner, “function as a qualification so that the Corinthians will not misunderstand Paul’s argument. Woman and man stand in interdependence in the Lord” (p. 136). 

The final section in this passage (11:13-16) alludes again to creation in order to highlight sexual distinctions between men and women. Here, Paul appeals hair distinctions between men (short hair) and women (long hair) as an illustration that men and women are different by design. Again, Schreiner writes: 

Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order…The function of verses 13-15 in the argument is to show that the wearing of a head covering by a woman is in accord with the God-given sense that women and men are different (p. 137). 

Throughout 11:3-16, Paul weaves together a dual concern: maintaining sex distinctions and maintaining proper structures of authority. Men and women are different (as illustrated by hair length), and God has ordained that women are under male authority in the church. 

As far as the lasting relevance of head coverings, most complementarians say that while head coverings carried a particular meaning in the first-century culture (i.e. symbolizing authority), they do not carry the same meaning today in many cultures. (If they do, then yes, women should cover their heads in those cultures.) So, while the principle of male authority over women is universally binding on all cultures, the specific symbols that carry this notion might differ from culture to culture. 

Exegetical Strengths of a Complementarian Reading 

Regardless of whether I like or agree with the theological conclusions of this reading, I do think it has several exegetical strengths. 

First, I do think kephalē most often conveys some sense of authority, so it could very well mean that here. (I know Phil Payne might just blow a fuse if he hears me say this again. But all I can do is point people to my observations in my previous posts HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE and let the reader judge the validity of my claim.) While a man’s authority over a woman—or in particular, a husband’s authority over his wife—might offend modern sensibilities, this was simply taken for granted in Paul’s world. Certainly Paul sometimes challenges his cultural norms on several issues, but in other areas he seems to reflect them. In any case, in terms of understanding kephalē to convey authority, I think the complementarian positions rests on good exegetical ground. 

Second, I think the complementarian reading makes good sense of how Paul’s leading statement 11:3 relates to the rest of the passage. I find it very hard to follow Francis Watson, for instance, who believes that 11:3 “plays virtually no part in the argument of the passage”[mfn]“The Authority,” 535.[/mfn] and that “Paul’s metaphorical play with the term kephalē contributes virtually nothing to his argument.”[mfn]“The Authority,” 529.[/mfn] Several other scholars who make some great points about 11:4-16 fail, to my mind, to tie it all together with 11:3. 1 Cor 11:3 seems to be a theologically significant statement for Paul, and it certainly appears to function as theleading key for understanding the meaning of covered and uncovered “heads” throughout the rest of the passage. (Or, perhaps first understanding covered and uncovered heads will help us better understand 11:3?) Complementarians appear to follow what seems to be a rather natural flow of thought. 

Third, Tom Schreiner’s understanding of the logical flow of Paul’s argument makes good grammatical sense. I’m well aware of the grammatical and syntactical issues in the passage. And as I followed Tom’s step by step progression through the passage, I found his interpretations to be very responsible and honest. While I’m not convinced he understands 11:10 correctly (the “symbol of authority” on the woman’s head), I’m not totally convinced of anyone’s interpretation at this point. In any case, over all I found Tom to be interpreting the syntax, grammar, and logical flow of Paul’s words very well. 

Fourth, Tom’s view that 11:11-12 adds a sort of corrective to the potential of taking 11:3-10 too far makes good sense to me. There are, of course, other ways to take this passage. (For instance, what is the significance of Paul’s emphatic “but…in the Lord” [v. 11]? Could he be contrasting hierarchies that are based on particular readings of Genesis with the new eschatological place that women have in the Christian community in the Lord?) But Tom’s view does not seem forced to me. 

Feedback

I do have many other more critical questions and observations about this reading, which we’ll explore over the next few posts. For now, I would love to hear your thoughts on this reading of 1 Corinthians. Have I represented the complementarian perspective fairly? Do you find it to be exegetically persuasive? Why or why not? Again, I’m not asking whether you like or agree with the conclusion; rather, I’m only interested in hearing if you find my summary of the complementarian reading of 1 Cor 11 to be exegetically compelling or not. 

Please drop a comment below! 

[mfn_list]