1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11 is a fun, if somewhat strange, chapter. It deals with head coverings, particularly as they relate to prayer. For me the chapter is of interest for two key reasons: 1) it provides strong evidence that God inspired the Bible within certain contexts and that the teaching of the Bible is often time-bound and contextual and 2) it is an important datum on the subjects of women in ministry and women in the home.

First, it is difficult to deny that Paul sets out a hierarchical structure in the household here (11:3). God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of a husband/man. A husband is the head of his wife. The last expression is of course a common Mediterranean belief found in Aristotle's Politics some four hundred years before Paul. The first two expressions are more uniquely Christian beliefs.

There is hierarchy here. The Christian tradition has not yet reached its final form on the relationship between Christ and God, so a more traditional Jewish placement of the Messiah in subordination to God seems presumed. As Messiah, of course, Christ is the king over Israel--now defined by Paul in terms that can include Gentiles.

Of course if the relationship of God and Christ is still in process here, then it would be odd to be irrationally fixated on the nature of the relationship between husband and wife here, especially since it is not uniquely Christian but conforms to the language and categories of secular culture at the time.

So we must ask what the inspired point of Paul's language is here? What is God affirming through this text, what is the inerrant point of the text in the light of Christian revelation? Or to put it a better way, where does this text fit in the overarching breath and word of God?

Another important question is, unfortunately, unanswerable in any final terms. Paul crafts his arguments in relation to the needs of his audiences. What is really going on at Corinth that drives him to make these comments? When Paul affirms the cultural order of husband and wife, does he do so wholeheartedly and with umph, or has a bad situation led him to use this particular argument of choice? For example, 1 Corinthians 7 seems unusually focused on women in relation to divorce and remarriage. Yet Jesus' teaching--which Paul refers to--was more likely focused on men. Is there a "wife problem" at Corinth?

I have a hunch there was, but I cannot prove it given the evidence we have. Nor can anyone disprove my hunch either. We simply do not have enough evidence to know. Yet it does make a good deal of difference. Is Paul using arguments he normally would not because of particular problems?

The specific issue Paul is addressing is head covering. Men shouldn't have stuff on their head when they pray or prophesy--that disgraces Christ. Women should have stuff on her head when she prays or prophesies--otherwise she disgraces her husband.

I will pass over the question of what kind of covering is in view. I go for a hair veil.

Where would such prayer and prophecy take place is a more interesting question. The Christian assembly seems to be the right answer, since a person hardly prophesies alone--at least that's not the picture we get from 1 Corinthians 14. So here we have women speaking in the church. It is for this reason that I've long argued that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 cannot forbid women from teaching or preaching. It must refer to disruptive speech. Of course I have a scholarly hunch that 14:34-35 are an early interpolation that wasn't even in the original copy of 1 Corinthians (the verses are displaced in some manuscripts). But that is a difficult issue on which I do not wish to stake any argument.

Why is the most intriguing question. What makes these words tick?

I believe it has to do with the fact that the veil not only functioned as a statement of modesty, but also as a kind of wedding ring. In a Jewish novel of the time called Joseph and Aseneth, Aseneth takes of the veil of her former marriage when she converts to Judaism from Egyptian religion. The meaning is that she has become a virgin again, and thus that Joseph can now marry her and remain pure.

So it would be a disgrace to her husband for her to pray and prophecy around other men in the church or around God and angels (since they are putatively male). She would be acting like she wasn't married.

I strongly suspect this was happening at Corinth. The situation is difficult since churches met in homes where women were not accustomed to wearing their veils. I suspect it was particularly the matron of the house doing so, who was then likely rich because the church would have met in a large house.

What do we gain from this discussion theologically: 1) that the Bible's words were written in historical and situational contexts. They were frequently not written to be read as transcultural or timeless and 2) Paul not only does not forbid women from speaking publically with spiritual speech in church--he assumes it without argument.