The Eden Podcast with Bruce C. E. Fleming

1 Corinthians 11:4-9 "No" to Head Coverings!

Episode Summary

Did you know verses 4-6 don’t contain Paul’s words but are his quotation of other people’s words? Other people’s words that he will start correcting as soon as he finishes quoting them? Then, in verses 7-9 he gives two reasons why men shouldn't follow the rules suggested in verses 4-6 and three reasons why women shouldn't either!

Episode Notes

In your mind, simply put quotation marks around the three verses of 1 Corinthians 11:4-6. Or better still pencil in quotation marks around them on the page of your print Bible.

If quotation marks are missing around these verses in the Bible version you are using, is that wrong? Yes, and no. In koiné Greek in which the New Testament was written there were no quotation marks added. You had to add them yourself because this kind of punctuation wasn’t adopted yet. Translators have to decide whether or not to get the idea across in a modern language by doing nothing, by adding quotation marks or even by adding a few introductory words such as, “someone will say.”

Dr. Bill Mounce brings up the example of 1 Corinthians 6:12. He writes, “Many translations put the phrase in quotation marks. “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful.” These include the ESV, and also the HCSB, NRSV and NET. Mounce continues that Paul “is quoting what his Corinthians opponents are saying. He doesn’t agree with them, but he is citing them.”

Placing punctuation. The New International Version placed quotation marks around Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:23-26. Not every word in these verses was put in quotes. The translators noted that Paul was dialoguing with his readers in a brisk give and take. They showed this by adding quotation marks, dashes, and a paragraph break to his comments. They added these even though no punctuation marks were used in Paul’s original letter.

Here is how the NIV punctuates 1 Corinthians 10:23. The words placed in quotation marks by the NIV I will highlight for you:

23“I have the right to do anything”, you say – but not everything is beneficial. 

   “I have the right to do anything” – but not everything is constructive. 

The proposals from Corinth in 1 Corinthians 10 are set apart by the quotation marks and the punctuation added by the NIV. This passage immediately precedes the verses on women and angels in 1 Corinthians 11.

Modern readers are confused if translations do not add punctuation marks. Nevertheless most translators and editors have not placed quotation marks around verses 4-6.

The reader who does not realize that the three verses of 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 are a quotation tries to make it part of Paul’s ideas. This makes the rest of the passage impossible to decipher. By omitting this punctuation translators make it look like Paul is advocating these legalistic ideas! Some scholars have even accused Paul of “reverting to his pre-Christian roots as a Pharisee in verses 4-6.”

In order to continue the thought of verses 4-6, major modifications have been made in the translations, including in verse 10. Commentators go to great lengths to try to make sense of the passage as a whole. But none of this is necessary if one simply and reasonably places verses 4-6 in quotation marks.

Why do people think the ideas in verses 4-6 could possibly be Paul's? I think it is because they have gotten Genesis 3:16 wrong. That's why we need a true 316.

Go Deeper!

Support the Tru316 Project for $3.16/month!

Episode Transcription

Living in Eden, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

 

Transcript of Season 4. Episode 3. 

1 Corinthians 11:4-9. Paul quotes and refutes the legalists, by Bruce C. E. Fleming

Intro: Welcome to The Eden Podcast where we think again about the Bible on women and men and we start with a correct understanding of what happened in the Garden of Eden back in the beginning.

I’m Bruce C. E. Fleming, founder of the Tru316 Project and a former Academic Dean and Professor of Practical Theology.

Chapter 3

The focus of this episode is:

1 Corinthians 11:4-9 Paul quotes and refutes the legalists.

Who mockingly said, “What goes around comes around”? What do you think this saying means? “What goes around comes around”? There are other sayings we could think about. In each case “Who?” said something and “What did they mean by that?” are two important questions to answer.

This is especially true of the quotation inserted by Paul into 1 Corinthians 11 that came to be numbered as verses 4 through 6. Oh wait! Did you know verses 4-6 don’t contain Paul’s words but are his quotation of other people’s words? Other people’s words that he will start correcting as soon as he finishes quoting them?

In your mind, simply put quotation marks around the three verses of 1 Corinthians 11:4-6. Or better still pencil in quotation marks around them on the page of your print Bible.

If quotation marks are missing around these verses in the Bible version you are using, is that wrong? Yes, and no. In koiné Greek in which the New Testament was written there were no quotation marks added. You had to add them yourself because this kind of punctuation wasn’t adopted yet. Translators have to decide whether or not to get the idea across in a modern language by doing nothing, by adding quotation marks or even by adding a few introductory words such as, “someone will say.”

Dr. Bill Mounce brings up the example of 1 Corinthians 6:12. He writes, “Many translations put the phrase in quotation marks. “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful.” These include the ESV, and also the HCSB, NRSV and NET. Mounce continues that Paul “is quoting what his Corinthians opponents are saying. He doesn’t agree with them, but he is citing them.”

Placing punctuation. The New International Version placed quotation marks around Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:23-26. Not every word in these verses was put in quotes. The translators noted that Paul was dialoguing with his readers in a brisk give and take. They showed this by adding quotation marks, dashes, and a paragraph break to his comments. They added these even though no punctuation marks were used in Paul’s original letter.

Here is how the NIV punctuates 1 Corinthians 10:23. The words placed in quotation marks by the NIV I will highlight for you:

23“I have the right to do anything”, you say – but not everything is beneficial. 

   “I have the right to do anything” – but not everything is constructive. 

The proposals from Corinth in 1 Corinthians 10 are set apart by the quotation marks and the punctuation added by the NIV. This passage immediately precedes the verses on women and angels in 1 Corinthians 11.

Modern readers are confused if translations do not add punctuation marks. Nevertheless most translators and editors have not placed quotation marks around verses 4-6.

The reader who does not realize that the three verses of 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 are a quotation tries to make it part of Paul’s ideas. This makes the rest of the passage impossible to decipher. By omitting this punctuation translators make it look like Paul is advocating these legalistic ideas! Some scholars have even accused Paul of “reverting to his pre-Christian roots as a Pharisee in verses 4-6.”

In order to continue the thought of verses 4-6, major modifications have been made in the translations, including in verse 10. Commentators go to great lengths to try to make sense of the passage as a whole. But none of this is necessary if one simply and reasonably places verses 4-6 in quotation marks.

Good doctrine. The “praying and prophesying,” mentioned in verse 4, occurred when the church gathered together. In 1 Corinthians 12:27-28, Paul mentioned those in the body of Christ who were “prophets.” In the Bible, more than ninety per cent of the activity of “prophets” was forth-telling the truth of God. Today we call that “teaching” or “preaching.”

According to Acts 13:1, Paul himself was a prophet and almost all of his prophesying described in the Book of Acts consisted of vigorous teaching and preaching. Paul served as a model for the men in Corinth. He was a man who did not cover his head when he prayed and prophesied. Paul no longer followed the practices of Jewish legalism in his ministry as prophet.

The proposal from Corinth. Anyone who wishes to be persuasive soon learns that to win over someone it is helpful first to find common ground. Building on established common ground, one can then introduce new or difficult ideas. 

Those who wanted to convince Paul to change his policy on women in the church started their argument in verse 4 with words designed to win Paul over. After siding with Paul to a limited extent in verse 4, the legalists then proposed the extra restrictions they wanted to impose on women in verses 5-6.

First, they agreed with Paul in verse 4: “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.” The implied action from this was that, as Paul had taught, and modeled for them, Christian men should not cover their heads. This view was contrary to the Jewish oral law that required men to cover their heads when they prayed. But the legalists apparently were willing to concede this much to Paul. They would agree that other men like them could lead worship and teach with their heads uncovered.

The tradition Paul had taught them was that any and every Christian could freely enter into the presence of God without restriction. The Temple curtain covering the Holy of Holies, which separated God from the people and kept them apart, had been torn apart from top to bottom upon Christ’s sacrifice. Every believer now was part of the new royal priesthood (cf. 1 Peter 2:9). Each had full access to God’s throne (cf. Eph 3:12). 

According to verse 4, these advocates for legalistic restrictions had accepted this much of Paul’s teaching for men. They were “praying and prophesying” without covering their heads.

Let’s stop for a moment here. The word “head” could not be taken literally in verse 3. But the literal sense of a literal “head” fits for every other occurrence in the passage.

Their words. The noted nineteenth century archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay wrote that in Paul’s letters one could usually tell Paul had inserted a quote from someone else into his letter “…whenever there was a sudden change in subject, in vocabulary, style, or a combination of these.” In many ways verses 4-6, and especially 5-6, fit this description.

Verses 5-6 veer off in a radically different direction as soon as women become the subject. Some legalists even may have been willing to accept women leading the congregation, but they would not agree to women doing so with their heads uncovered. 

Why? Perhaps it was because the Jews had so many more reasons for restricting women’s participation in worship! Thus, they made their counter-proposal from verse 5 on.

4 “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 

5 “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head – it is the same as having her head shaved. 

6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.”

This counter-proposal was filled with words and ideas typical of the Jewish oral law. For example, prostitutes were to have their heads “shaved,” and covering a woman’s head was required by many of the Jewish regulations. The Greek word for “disgrace” in verse 6 is harsh and vulgar. It is surprising to find it in the Bible. But it is typical of the sentiments and vocabulary of the oral law.

How could words descriptive of Christian women and of prostitutes get mixed together? How could thoughts of raw disgrace be used in the context of women members in the body of Christ who were preaching and praying? This was not Paul’s way of thinking! This was a quotation of words from disruptive legalists.

Segregated synagogues. On a family visit to Jerusalem, Joy and I looked forward to showing our daughter and son the base of the Western Wall of the Temple in Jerusalem. Months in advance an appointment had been booked to enter the tunnel that had been excavated along the length of the foot of the original Temple wall. We arrived early and went over to the public prayer area.

As we four approached, our son and I were handed white paper yarmulkes to cover our heads in accordance with their custom and then we were encouraged to head straight ahead to the wall. But Joy and our daughter were waved away and directed to go off to the side where a “women’s section” was set apart. We hurriedly glanced at each other before separating and agreed to meet together in time for our tunnel tour.

Our experiences at the Wall were very different. The “men only” side took up much more than half of the visible wall. The small “women’s section” was crowded with worshippers at prayer. The men’s side was almost empty.

As we stood looking at those walls that were there in the time of Jesus, a smiling man gently came up to us. “Would you like to visit the synagogue?” Would we! Joy’s Ph.D. is in Old Testament theology. I knew she would appreciate the visit far more than I could. How wonderful it would be to visit a synagogue at the Wall!

The man took our son’s arm and led the way – to the left, away from the women’s section and the barrier that separated us. Only the two of us would be allowed in. Leaving the glare of the high sun outside, we entered the synagogue. As our eyes adjusted to the shadows, we could pick out several scholars standing, several scholars sitting, and many empty places.

Our meeting time was near. I quickly glanced around, my heart saddening – no place for women.

In Support of Women (7-10) Paul corrects the legalists’ incomplete view.

Here’s my paraphrase of these three verses:

7 Indeed a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; 

and a woman (ought not cover her head, since she is the image and glory of God, 

and she) is the glory of man.

8 Now man did not come from woman, but woman from man

9 For indeed the man was not created for woman but woman for man.

10 Therefore, the woman ought to have authority over her head, because of the angels.

In the course of 1 Corinthians, when Paul corrected proposals from the letter from Corinth, his responses typically included the following points: 

  1. He quoted their own words
  2. He corrected their proposal
  3. He applied the correct view

Paul followed this pattern in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as he corrected the proposal from the legalists in Corinth:

  1. He quoted their own words (verses 4-6)
  2. He corrected their proposal (verses 7-9)
  3. He applied the correct view (verse 10) 

A compact example of this pattern is found in 1 Corinthians 6:12:

Quote: “Everything is permissible for me”

      Correction: But not everything is beneficial

      Application: The body is not for sexual immorality …

Other quotations corrected by Paul in 1 Corinthians include the following:

“We know that we all possess knowledge” (8:1ff.)

“All things are lawful” (10:23ff.)

Responding to the Judaizers. The Jewish oral law required worshippers to cover their heads because they were considered sinners who were unfit to come uncovered into the presence of God, or without some sort of physical barrier between them and God. But Paul taught that all believers were counted spotless in Christ. This was equally true for Jewish believers and for non-Jewish believers. All had full access to the throne of grace (Ephesians 3:1-12)!

Using all his rhetorical skills, Paul defends what he has already taught the Corinthians (11:2) using puns (verse 3), irony (verse 3), quotation (verses 4-6) correction (verses 7-9), application (verse 10) and reference to Scripture (verses 11-12).

New Testament scholar, John Coolidge Hurd, Jr. (Origins, pp. 119-121, 183), described Paul’s method in this way:

Paul’s counterstatements are evidence that the initial statements … were not Paul’s own composition here in 1 Corinthians, but were quotations which he used in order to modify them.

Verse 7a. The proposal from Corinth began, in verse 4, with words with which Paul could agree, so he picked up these words and made them the first part of his response:

7a Indeed a man ought not to cover his head…

But Paul believed that women also ought not cover their heads. He had laid the groundwork for a “more-than-males-only” theology with his word play in verse 3 on “every man.” As commentator Leon Morris (First Corinthians, p. 150) pointed out: “every man … plainly refers to mankind ….” 

Verse 3 was Paul’s verbal first strike at his opposition. It made their “males only” comments in verses 4-6 stand out awkwardly.

It is unlikely that any of Paul’s readers in Corinth missed the point of his word play. This was a point under dispute in Corinth. Everyone wanted to see how Paul would resolve it.

When they read 1 Corinthians 11:2 they anticipated Paul’s dialog to come. In verse 3, they were delighted with his clever play on words and wanted to see how he would respond to the words they had sent to him, that he quoted in verses 4-6. They anticipated what Paul would say next, after quoting their words.

But modern readers, far from the world of first century Corinth, can, and do, misunderstand this passage. This is especially true when they fail to understand Paul’s words in context.

Missing the point. A classic example of this happened in Ethiopia during World War II. Missionaries had just begun work in the countryside when they were expelled for the duration of the war. They left behind a handful of new believers and a copy of the Bible. Years later, after the war, the missionaries returned wondering what they would find. They found that a great revival had taken place. Thousands of new believers welcomed them back to their villages!

But the villages were strangely different. There were no dogs racing out to greet them. All their hunting dogs were gone! When the missionaries asked where the dogs were, the new believers told of finding a passage in Philippians 3:2 that said “Beware of the dogs.” They had taken that verse literally and disposed of all their dogs!

Two reasons for men to uncover. Had the legalists tried to win over Paul by espousing part of his position in verse 4? Paul did the same thing to them in verse 7a. He echoed the part of their statement that was correct and then built on this truth by spelling out clearly two reasons why males leading worship should indeed keep their heads uncovered!

Paul argued that a Christian man reveals the “image” of God. This brings “glory” to God. These two points had not been made by the legalists in their proposal to him. But no doubt they agreed with him.

And then Paul says “Gotcha!” How long did it take them to realize that Paul’s introductory words in verse 7a justified Paul’s point of view but not theirs? These two points did not apply only to Christian men. They applied to Christian women as well! Genesis 1 records that both the man and the woman were created in the image of God:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Both the man and woman were God’s delight (“glory” is not a reflection, but a source of light or even delight, cf. Hebrews 1:3-4):

    28God blessed them … 31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

If Christian men were free to lay aside the restrictions of the past because of the two reasons advanced by Paul in verse 7a, this was an equally strong argument for Christian women!

Three reasons to uncover. In verse 7b, Paul assumes the first two points as a given for women and adds a third point to ensure their equal treatment when they minister in church.

7b and the woman is the glory of man.

In verses 8 and 9, Paul builds on what he means by this. 

8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 

9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

He reminds his readers of how, according to Genesis, the creation of woman was the completion of the creation of humankind. Before her creation something was not good. With her creation all was now complete. The humans, man and woman, were created in God’s image and likeness. With their creation all was very good.

It was not good for the man to be alone. God remedied this situation (“for the man”) by creating the woman. God put the man to sleep and used part of his flesh (“from man”) to make the first woman. When finally both were together in the Garden, the man rejoiced (Genesis 2:23).

Thus, in verse 7a Paul starts with two reasons that validate the high status of a man who is restored to a right relationship with God: he is “the image and glory of God.” These two reasons also apply to a woman in Christ. She is the image and glory of God. 

In verse 7b, Paul adds that a woman has a third reason in her favor: “and the woman is the glory of man.”

Alert! Many modern writers, much like the legalists of Paul’s day, look at the end of verse 7 and claim that Paul admitted only that “the woman is the glory of man.” In their math, Paul listed two reasons unique to men and just one for women! They further suggest that the third reason signifies a reduced status for woman. 

This turns Paul’s reasoning on its head. It makes woman into only the reflection of the man’s glory as if Paul had said, The male is like the radiant sun; the female is the stony moon reflecting his rays from a distance.

Any talk of reflecting misses the mark. “Glory” is glorious for both of them. “Glory” is a positive point for the woman. And not just on one count, but on two counts. She is the glory of God and of the man. In the same way, Paul referred positively to the Thessalonians as his “glory and joy” (1 Thessalonians 2:20). 

Thus, according to verses 7-9, a woman has three points in her favor. That she is “the glory of man” is a third attribute in her favor. These three attributes confirm the value and status of women who walk with God. The redeemed and restored woman is qualified to publicly serve God without restriction.

Building on this, Paul gives his application in verse 10. This application is a confirmation of the tradition referred to in verse 2 that the Corinthians had been applying all along. 

No amount of legalistic regulations will be enough to overturn what Paul has been practicing himself and has been teaching every believer to follow when praying and prophesying like he does. In spite of what the contentious ones want, a woman has the authority to also follow Paul’s example. She has the power to follow his practice with her own head.

Go DEEPER? Start with The Book of Eden, Genesis 2-3 by Bruce C. E. Fleming, based on the work of Joy Fleming, PhD, PsyD