One of the most difficult passages to interpret in the entire Bible is Corinthians 11:1-16. It raises the following controversial questions:

1) What is the issue that Paul is concerned about? Some kind of head covering or a way of wearing the hair?

2) Is Paul opposed to women “prophesying” in church without the required head covering or hair style, or is he responding to a requirement being demanded by the Corinthian church, and claiming instead that women should not be bound by this requirement?

3) What is the meaning of kephalē the Greek word translated as “head”) used as a metaphor?

4) What does Paul mean when he says that man is the glory of God, but that woman is the glory of man?

5) What does Paul mean when he says that a woman should have “authority” over her head?

6) What does Paul mean when he refers to the “angels”?

7) What does Paul mean when he says that “nature” teaches that men should not have long hair? Is this an affirmative statement or rather a question to be answered in the negative?

8) Do “man” and “woman” referred to in the passage refer to men and women in general or to husbands and wives?

9) When Paul says “we have no such practice,” to what practice is he referring?

10) How does what Paul says about women speaking in church in 1 Corinthians 11 correlate with the seemingly contradictory statement in 1 Corinthians 14:34b-35 that women should be “silent” in the churches? Do we read 1 Corinthians 11 in the light of 1 Corinthians 14 or vice versa?

The above questions should make clear that interpreting what Paul says about women and worship in 1 Corinthians is not a straightforward matter of just being faithful to the “plain sense” meaning of the texts. The texts themselves raise a number of questions to which there are no straightforward answers. As I pointed out in previous essays, the question of whether women should be ordained to church office is ultimately a matter of hermeneutics, not of simple exegesis.

In my book Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination (Baylor University Press, 2020), I devoted an entire chapter to 1 Corinthians 11, and I discussed 1 Corinthians 14 in another chapter. In my book, I identified the following schools of interpretation concerning 1 Corinthians 11:1-16:

1) Hierarchical: “Head” in 1 Corinthians 11 as elsewhere in Paul means “authority over.” The “authority” referred to in verse 10 is the man’s (husband’s) authority over the woman (wife). Women in the church at Corinth were engaging in practices that challenged male authority, and Paul’s intention in the passage is to reestablish the authority of men over women.

2) Paradoxical: Paul is inconsistent. In the first half of the passage, he teaches the subordination of women to men, but in the second half, he corrects himself by saying that men and women are interdependent.

3) Revolutionary Subordination: Paul’s concerns about head coverings reflect his desire to promote appropriate public behavior in order to avoid scandal to the surrounding Jewish and pagan society. Nonetheless, Paul’s ultimate goal is to promote interdependence between men and women, so his specific imperatives do not have trans-cultural significance.

4) Egalitarianism: Paul is not talking about hierarchy at all, but simply demanding proper gender distinctions between men and women. “Head” does not mean “authority over,” but “source,” and the “authority” of verse 10 is the woman’s own authority to lead worship as long as she respects proper gender distinctions.

5) Modified Egalitarianism: Paul is not advocating a position in favor of head coverings for women, but rather challenging the Corinthians’ demand for them. Paul is claiming that women have the “authority” to make their own decisions about whether they should wear head coverings.

The sheer complexity of the exegetical and hermeneutical concerns means that any short discussion will necessarily be compressed and omit much. When the ACNA College of Bishops asked Bishop Grant LeMarquand and myself to write Women in Holy Orders to lay out a positive case for the continuing practice of women’s ordination, they asked us to keep the essay as short as possible. Our discussion of 1 Corinthians 11 was only a paragraph in length, shorter than everything I have written up to this point in the introduction to this essay.

The Response of the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word addressed our single paragraph. Indeed, they quoted the entire paragraph (except for the first sentence) in their Response. In what follows, I will address their criticisms. Nonetheless, the sheer complexity of the issues raised in this chapter means that I cannot discuss everything about the passage in this essay. I refer those who want to read a more complete discussion of this passage to the relevant chapters in my book, and to standard biblical commentaries, biblical theologies, and theological discussions of women’s ordination..

Interdependence: No Woman without Man, and Vice Versa

As a preliminary to the discussion, I will include as a kind of diagram a literal translation of verses 8-12, which are the center of Paul’s discussion, and are crucial for sorting out his concerns. This translation is based on that found in several different NT scholars.

A	Not is man from [ek] woman,	a
	but . . . woman from [ek] man (v. 8) cf. Gen. 2:21-22	b
B	Not was created man for the sake/because of [dia] the woman,	a
	but . . . woman for the sake of/because of [dia] the man (v. 9) cf. Gen 2:18	b

(Because of [dia] this, the woman should have authority over her head,  because of [dia] the angels (v. 10)   Nonetheless [plen]       B’  Neither woman without [choris] man, b   nor . . . man without [choris] woman, a   in the Lord; (v. 11)   A’ For just as the woman from [ek] the man, b   so also the man through [dia] the woman a   and all people [panta] from [ek] God (v. 12)

cf. 1 Cor. 8:6

For us there is one God the Father, from [ek] whom are all things [panta] and we in him,
and one Lord Jesus Christ, through [di’] whom are all things [panta] and we through [di’] him.

Limitations of space prohibited a detailed discussions of these verses in our short paragraph in Women in Holy Orders, but they are crucial for the discussion and are presumed in much of what we wrote in that paragraph. Alan Padgett, in his book As Christ Submits to the Church, argues for the significance of reading Paul’s text “from the bottom up.”¹ That is, if we want to assess Paul’s actual position, we need to look to his conclusion. Paul’s chief concerns, and thus what Paul means when he uses the word “head” (kephalē) as a metaphor earlier in 1 Cor. 11:3, can best be assessed by the elaboration of the passage later one. While there are differences about some of the specific details of Paul’s argument – head coverings or hairstyle? – there is a general consensus among NT scholars that verses 8-12 are the heart of Paul’s argument, in the light of which everything else should be understood.

Crucial to Paul’s argument are the parallels between the prepositions ek (from), dia (because of, through), and choris (without).

Paul is creating a contrast, comparison, and correlation between man and woman in this passage, the goal of which is to show male-female interdependence, using the creation narrative of Genesis 2 as his starting point., but modifying the narrative in the light of Christian identity in Christ.

So man is not “from” (ek) woman, but woman is “from” man (v, 8). That is, in Genesis 2, the first woman is taken from the side of the first man. Just as the first human being (ha-adam) is taken from the earth (ha-adamah) (Gen. 2:7), so the woman (issa) is taken from the man (is) (Gen. 2:21-23).

The man was not created for the sake of the woman (dia), but the woman for the sake of (dia) the man. That is, the woman is created as a companion fit for the man (ezer kenegdo) to relieve his loneliness (Gen. 2:22).

The temporal priority of man over woman in creation might lead to an impression of independence or superiority of man over woman, but Paul immediately corrects this misconception. Nonetheless (plen), he writes, there can be no woman without (choris) man (the woman was created to be the helper fitting to the man by removing his loneliness), but neither can there be man without (choris) woman. And this interdependence takes place in the light of a common Christian identity for both men and women – “in the Lord.”

Finally, Paul appeals again to the notion of origins to establish male/female interdependence. If the first woman came from (ek) man, and was created because of (dia) man, so now all men come to being through (dia) women, that is, through the process of childbirth.

Paul finishes by noting that the ultimate source of all human existence is God, as all (creatures or people?) come from (ek) God in creation. Note the parallel in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

The common themes here are mutual interdependence of men and women, and the argument is based on origins. Any advantage that man might have over woman based on temporal priority in the original creation narrative (Gen. 2) is balanced by the priority of all women over men in childbirth now. Beyond the mutual dependence of men and women on one another, both men and women ultimately are dependent on God, who is their Creator through the pre-existing Christ.

It is Paul’s argument for interdependence of men and women that ultimately provides the clue for interpreting the rest of the passage, including the “head” metaphors at the beginning of the passage. In this light, I will now address some of the criticisms raised by The Response.

Were Women Leading Worship?

We had written: “There is general agreement [among NT scholars] on the following: (1) Men and women equally engaged in leading worship in the Corinthian Church. Paul is not restricting the public role of women in worship, but insisting that worship practices should not create public scandal.”

The Responders state: “This is certainly an overstatement. The text has to do with prophesying and praying in the context of public worship. It says nothing about who is engaged in ‘leading worship.’ The most we can say is that women and men both prophesied and prayed” (58).

Paul does not give detailed descriptions about what worship was actually like in the Corinthian church. We know that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated because Paul has discussions about its abuse (1 Cor. 11:17-33). We know that some people spoke in tongues because Paul has discussions about that abuse (1 Cor. 14). Concerning the service itself, Paul states: “When you come together, each one of you has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up” (1 Cor. 14:26). Then follow instructions for those who prophesy, interpret, and speak in tongues (verses 27-40). Paul says nothing else about who did what, but if those engaged in these practices were not “leading worship,” it is hard to imagine what other term to use to describe their activity. Note that Paul does not provide any alternative advice for those who were “leading worship” in contrast to those described in 14:26. In 11:5, Paul refers to women who were “praying” and “prophesying” in church. These are two of the activities that Paul specifically refers to as being done by “each one of you.” Unless there is something else in the text to specifically indicate otherwise, Paul’s discussion about whether women should wear head coverings of some kind has to do with women leading worship.

Whose Authority?

The crucial claim of the hierarchical position is that Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 11 has to do with male authority over women, and that some women had been challenging this authority by praying or prophesying with uncovered heads. However, 1 Corinthians 11:10 is the only verse in the entire chapter that even mentions authority. Literally translated, it reads: “Therefore the woman ought to have authority (exousian echein) over her head because of the angels.” On a straightforward reading of the plain sense of the text, the “authority” in the passage is referring to the authority of the woman who is speaking, whatever that authority might mean.

Unfortunately, many English translations add words not in the actual Greek text. For example, the ESV translates the text “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority over her head, because of the angels.”

The ESV translation implies that the woman should be wearing a head covering as a symbol of someone else’s authority, specifically, that of her husband. However, the words “symbol of” are not in the actual Greek, and nothing in the context suggests that the woman is a wife.

In Women in Holy Orders, we had written: “The NIV correctly translates the passage: ‘It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.’”

The Responders countered that “The word ‘own’ as in ‘over her own head’ does not appear in the greek. . . . The text could mean that a woman ought to possess authority over her own head. But it could just as easily mean that a woman ought to wear a sign indicating that she is under authority, or simply that her head should be under another’s authority (her husband’s presumably). The latter two possibilities seem more probable given the context of the preceding verse, ‘Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man . . . “ (59)

While the Responders are correct that the word “own” is not in the Greek, “own” simply brings out what the text actually says, while the text says nothing about a head covering being a “symbol of” someone else’s authority.

Contemporary scholars have come to recognize that reference to someone else’s authority is simply not a possible interpretation of the text. Gordon Fee states: “This construction (subject, the verb echein [‘has/have’] with exousia as the object followed by the preposition epi) would be read in the only way it is known to occur in the language: the subject has the authority ‘over’ the object of the preposition.”² Philip Payne writes, concerning the translation “sign or symbol of [someone else’s authority]”: “There is no lexical support, nor apparently any instance elsewhere, where ‘authority’ means any of these things . . . All 103 occurrences of [exousia] (‘authority’] in the NT refer to authority held in someone’s own hand. . . . Not only is woman ([gunē]) the stated subject of ‘to have authority’ in verse 10, woman must be its subject since woman ([gunē]) continues as the subject of verse 11 in a way that guards against misuse of her authority . . .”³ Craig S. Keener writes: “The only normal way to read the Greek phrase is to read it that the woman has ‘authority over her own head.”⁴ Alan Padgett writes, “The word authority (exousia) is always, in Greek, the person’s own authority, not someone else’s. The phrase ‘have authority over’ always means having power, freedom, or authority over something. . . . Recent commentators have recognized that power of this argument from good grammar and semantics . . .”⁵

Scholars differ as to what the woman’s own “authority” might mean. Suggestions include that women would exercise their authority by wearing the proper head covering. Other scholars suggest that the head covering is itself a sign of the woman’s authority to proclaim a prophetic word to the congregation. At least one author has suggested that the authority refers to the woman’s authority to make her own decision as to whether to wear or refrain from a head covering when she speaks. Despite lack of absolute certainty about possible practical implications, the consensus of contemporary biblical scholarship is that the authority is the woman’s own. No other translation of the Greek will work.

One last final point here: the writers of the Response use their reading of verse 9 to imply an authority of man over woman that is almost exactly the opposite of what Paul actually writes. They get wrong the meaning of the statement that the woman as created “for the man,” as if this implied some kind of subordination. Genesis 2 is clear that the woman was created for the man as a solution to his loneliness, to satisfy something lacking on the man’s part. The woman was created as a companion, a helper “suitable for” him. The Response also misses the significance of everything that Paul writes following verse 10. That the woman exercises “authority” over her own head does not imply an independence of either the women or the man, but an interdependence. Neither man nor woman is complete without the other. And, of course, Paul’s entire argument following verse 10 is that there is a mutual interdependence between man and woman. Temporal priority of the man over the woman in creation is balanced by the temporal priority of women over men in childbirth.

Was Adam the “source” of Eve?

In Women in Holy Orders, we had written: “If the first man (Adam) is the source of woman in the Genesis creation narrative, the woman is now the source of all men through childbirth, and God is the ultimate source of both man and woman, who equalizes their standing in Christ (v. 12).”

This is a very compressed summary of what can be seen more clearly in the translation of verses 8-12 above. The writers of the Response question it. They point out that “source” does not appear in the verse. They claim that “source” is a “fine way” to summarize God’s relationship to men and women because God is the Creator, the “source” of all. However, they write, although Eve was taken out of Adam, “He was not her source.” Men also come from women in childbirth, but “women do not generate men,” so presumably are not their source.

This is however a misreading of the plain sense of the text. Paul writes that woman is from [ek] man, and man is through [dia] woman. There is certainly a distinction between the way that God is source of all things as Creator, and the ways in which men and women originate from one another in creation and childbirth, but the text itself uses the identical prepositions [ek and dia] to describe the way that all things are created by and through God the Father and Christ, and the way that man and woman are the source of one another.

The Responders are, of course, pushing back against the claim that kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3 means “source” rather than “authority figure” (their terminology), but the actual language of the text goes against them. Paul uses the same Greek prepositions to describe God’s action in creation as he does the way in which men and women originate from one another. The woman is from [ek] the man; creation is from [ek] God. Man comes to be through [dia] woman. Creation comes to be through [di] Christ (1 Cor. 11:12; cf. 8:6).

Is 1 Corinthians concerned with men and women or husbands and wives?

A crucial issue for the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has to do with the correlation between verses 3-7 and 8-13. 8-13 provide the rationale for what Paul writes in 3-7. Verse 8 begins “For not (ou gar) is man from woman, but woman from man.” In this context, the word gar provides a “reason for.” As noted earlier concerning the principle of “reading from the bottom up,” the key rationale for what Paul wants to say in the passage is found in his conclusion. Although verses 8-13 follow 3-7, they also provide the logical rationale for 3-7. If Paul’s discussion of mutuality between men and women in 8-13 is based on a corresponding discussions of origins – woman is originally from man, but all men now come into the world through women – then this notion of interdependence and origins is the most plausible clue for making sense of what Paul means in verses 2-16 about the metaphorical meaning of “head.”

In verses 8-13, Paul is talking about men and women in general, whom he refers to as anēr or andros and gunē. Paul uses the same words andros and gunē to refer to men and women in 3-2. Unless something in the context specifically points to relations between husbands and wives, the proper translation in verse 8-13 should be “man” and “woman” just as it is elsewhere in the passage. The following context makes clear that Paul is talking not about relationships between husbands and wives, but about men and women in general. As we stated in “Women in Holy Orders”: “The origin of woman is man, not ‘her husband’ (as in the ESV translation), but the ‘first man . . .”

The Response is careful to cite the original Greek when they think it will help their case. For example, on p. 29, they cite the Greek of part of our text, 1 Cor. 11:8-12, and later cite the LXX translation to argue against our interpretation of the Hebrew(!) text of Genesis 1. They cite the Greek text of 1 Cor. 11:10 to point out that the original does not contain the word “own” (59). However, in discussing 1 Cor. 11:3, they uncritically rely on English translations: “the head of her wife is her husband” (59). On the previous page, they write: “The question that needs to be asked and answered is whether or not the woman’s head covering has to do with her role vis a vis her husband. Might the ‘scandal’ stem from the message that a lack of headcovering communicates regarding the woman’s respect/submission to her husband?” (58). Again, on the next page “. . . her head should be under another’s authority (her husband’s presumably) . . .”

When Paul actually writes about the relationship between husbands and wives, his context makes that clear, e.g. 1 Corinthians 7, 10:35, Ephesians 5. Nothing whatsoever in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 says anything about husbands and wives. Paul’s discussion in verses 8-12 makes clear that he is concerned about questions of relationships between men and women in general. The issue that Paul is addressing in verses 1-7 must then be concerned about women and men(!) in general leading worship. That the Response introduces the English word “husbands” indicates that they are reading their own concerns about male authority (specifically male husbands) into the text.

What does “head” (kephalē) mean in 1 Corinthians 11:3?

In Women in Holy Orders, we had written “NT scholars argue that ‘head’ in 1 Corinthians 11 means ‘source,’ or ‘preeminent’ or ‘honored source.” We necessarily compressed the argument to fit within a single paragraph. What do contemporary scholars actually say about use of “head” (kephalē) in 1 Corinthians 11:3?

First, kephalē almost certainly does not mean “authority over.” I have already addressed the reasons for this in the two previous essays. Given that Paul’s use of kephalē to describe the relationship between man and woman is unique in the ancient world, the only way to discover Paul’s meaning is through a close examination of his actual texts, not through looking for parallels elsewhere. Within the context of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, there is no evidence whatsoever that the issue of head coverings has to do with “authority” apart from Paul’s use of the word kephalē itself. The only authority (exousia) mentioned in the chapter is the woman’s own authority (v. 10).

Does kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11 mean “source”?

In a previous essay, I argued that because Paul’s use of the metaphor kephalē to describe the relationship between men and women is unique, any understanding of Paul’s use of the metaphor can only be discerned from Paul’s own context. Out of seven passages, 1 Corinthians 11:3 is one of only two that does not use kephalē as a head/body metaphor. At the same time, it does have in common with Ephesians 5:21-24 that it deals with relationships between men and women. In the essay just previous to this one, I followed Philip Payne in laying out three hermeneutical principles to help define the word: particular context, additional literary context that explains the word further, use of the word elsewhere in similar contexts.

In that essay, I compared the examination by Philip Payne and Richard Cervin of six of the seven passages where Paul uses the kephalē metaphor, and discovered that in all but two of the passages, “source” makes good sense. Cervin and Payne agreed that in two of the passages, “height” was a better metaphor than “source,” but even in these two passages, I argue that the notion of “source” is at least implied. “Source” in 1 Corinthians 11:3 would the be consistent with Paul’s use in the other six passages.

Looking to immediate context, reading the passage “from the bottom up” sheds light on Paul’s meaning. Paul’s argument in verses 8-12 (and in 8:6) concerns sources of origin. In the creation narrative of Gen. 2, the man is the source of the woman, that is, the woman is “from” (ek) the man. Conversely, in childbirth, women are now the source of all men in that men are born “through” (dia) women. Finally, God and Christ are the source of all creation as all things or people (panta) are “from” (ek) God, and “through” (di’) Christ.

Note that the figures mentioned in 11:8-11, and 8:6 are identical to the figures mentioned in 11:3: God, Christ, man, woman.

For I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the head of woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. (literal translation)

Based on the interpretive principles of (2) literary context and (3) use elsewhere, there is a strong argument for “source” as the most likely meaning:

(1) The source of every man is Christ, that is Christ is the origin of creation (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6).

(2) The origin of woman is the man; that is, woman is taken out of man (Gen. 2:23; 1 Cor. 11:8).

(3) The origin of Christ is God, that is, God the Father is the agent of the incarnation.

The point of the specific order in which Paul lists the figures – head of man = Christ; head of woman = man; head of Christ = God – does not reflect a hierarchy of authority relationships as complementarians claim, but rather the chronology of salvation-history: All things were created through Christ, the man (Adam) is the source of the woman’s being; God [the Father] is the source of Christ’s incarnation.⁶

Payne points out that the second member is highlighted with an article; not a man, but the man. In the other two cases of Christ and God, both are highlighted with articles in the original Greek: the Christ, the God. Given that Christ and God refer to specific individuals, it would follow that “the man” also refers to a specific individual, that is, not a general reference to man in general – the head (authority) of (every) woman is (every) man, or as the Response essay claims, the head of every wife is her husband – but, rather, the “head,” that is, source or origin of every woman is “the man,” that is, Adam, from whom the first woman was taken.

Payne also points out that the analogy will not work if kephalē means “authority.” In that case, Christ would be the authority of every male person. On the one hand, Christ is not currently the authority of every male person because many do not acknowledge him. Moreover, is Christ not also the “authority” of women? “Source,” however makes sense. Christ is the “source” of the creation of the first man, while the man (Adam) is the source of woman, as the first woman was taken from his side.⁷

Does kephalē in 1 Corinthians mean preeminent?

In our original compressed paragraph, we wrote: “NT scholars argue that ‘head’ in 1 Corinthians means ‘source,’ or ‘preeminent’ or ‘honored source.” That single sentence is a tight summary of several different positions, not simply the single interpretation of head as “source.” In recent years, a newer position has appeared that is a modification of “Revolutionary Subordination” (position 3 above). The position focuses more on the Corinthian social context, and suggests that Paul has two audiences in mind, not only the church gathered in worship, but also outsiders who might be scandalized by behavior that too strongly challenged the hierarchical understandings of social and family relationships of Mediterranean culture. In the previous essay, I had mentioned Paul’s modification of pagan and Jewish “household codes.” This interpretation examines how that modification looks in 1 Corinthians 11.

This reading suggests that verses 7-9 are responding to the “shame/honor” culture of the ancient Mediterranean world, picking up on Paul’s use of the words “shame” and “glory” in verses 4-7. The concern is that in the act of worship, men should bring “glory” to God rather than the “shame” of a non-masculine hair style. Woman is the “glory” of man, and she should not bring “shame” on the man by worshiping in a manner that rejects the cultural symbol of her womanhood.

In this context, “head” is understood in terms of an “honor order of pairs.” Man honors Christ; woman honors man; Christ honors God. There is a tension in the passage insofar as, on the one hand, women and men are leading worship in an identical manner. Nonetheless, there is also a concern to respect the patriarchal social patterns of sexual differentiation in the surrounding culture so as to preserve the church’s mission to the outside world. Still, Paul wants to be clear that this respect for gender distinctions does not imply a sexual hierarchy. The priority of the man (reflecting the patriarchal gender concerns of the surrounding culture) is replaced with interdependence; there can be no man without woman or woman without man.

In terms of assessment, this reading is not a rejection of the egalitarian interpretation of “head” as “source” so much as a qualifying or modifying of it. In the words of Alan Johnson, one of the advocates of this position, the “head” is the “honored source.”⁸ By focusing on concerns of the surrounding “honor culture,” the reading is more one of “revolutionary subordination” than straightforward egalitarianism. Nonetheless, interpreters are not endorsing the complementarian model. “Head” does not mean “authority over.” Advocates agree that there is no reference to “submission” or strict “hierarchy” in the passage. Interpreters who hold this position agree that the “authority” of verse 10 is the woman’s own authority, not that of her husband or another man.⁹

Moreover, any hints of male hierarchy are interpreted as strictly concerns to not offend the surrounding culture for the sake of mission. Writers are clear that in a contemporary culture not bound by traditional patriarchal concerns about shame and honor, these concerns should not apply. In terms of practical implications concerning practices such as women’s equal participation in contemporary church leadership or women’s ordination, the position is identical to the egalitarian position. Both positions endorse women’s ordination.

The writers of the Response give the misleading impression that what are really slightly different suggestions as to how to interpret a very difficult passage are actually strong disagreements. This is not the case! It is important to be clear then that there is no crucial disagreement between “egalitarian” interpreters of the passage and the more recent “revolutionary subordination” position that also looks to issues of honor and shame in the surrounding culture.

The Response is quite misleading in this regard. They cite Alan Johnson’s essay “A Review of the Scholarly Debate on the Meaning of ‘Head’ (Kephale) in Paul’s Writings,” which we had also concluded in our bibliography, which they describe as a “good summary of the differing positions” (67 n134). They claim that “a number of scholars who take the ‘preeminent’ position recognize that in Paul’s social context, preeminence in marriage would necessarily carry with it notions of authority. Those who argue that ‘head’ means source or origin exclusively and deny that it carries any notion of authority now seem to be in the distinct minority.” They cite Johnson, who writes: “Most all parties now agree that in certain contexts kephalē may mean either ‘authority over’ or ‘source,” and “An approach I favor would be to understand kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11:3 as ‘prominent’ or ‘honorable’ of the husband vis-a-vis the wife in terms of the patriarchal social structure of Paul’s day” (67 n136). However, Johnson makes very clear in his commentary on 1 Corinthians what he means by this. Paul’s concern is not the subordination of women to men. Kephalē does not mean “authority over” in 1 Corinthians 11, but “honored source.” There are no references to submission or strict hierarchy in the passage. As Johnson writes at the conclusion of his essay (omitted by the Response): “Again, in our non-patriarchal culture (one not requiring male honor), mutual yielding (v. 21) and mutual respect in my judgment best fulfills this model of Christ.”¹⁰

What is Modified Egalitarianism?

A third position, endorsed by Methodist theologian Alan Padgettt and NT scholar Lucy Peppiatt is that Paul is not endorsing the wearing of head coverings or a particular hairstyle by women at all, but is rather responding to the position of those in the Corinthian church who were demanding this. The statements about a woman covering her head are citations of Paul’s opponents, but since Greek did not have punctuation, this is not obvious in our modern translations.¹¹

The “authority” of verse 10 refers to the woman’s own authority to make her own decision as to whether she should wear a head covering. The question in verse 13 can be read as a statement rather than a question: “Judge for yourself: It is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered.” Verse 14 should definitely be read as a statement, not a question: “Nature herself does not teach that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair.” (Again, there was no punctuation in the original Greek, so what are translated as questions in modern English translations can equally be translated as positive affirmations.) Female head coverings and male hair length are cultural restrictions, and Padgett points to Galatians to remind us that Paul had elsewhere rejected the cultural restriction of circumcision. It only makes sense that Paul would also reject the cultural restrictions of head coverings for women!¹²

While I find Padgett’s discussion intriguing, he has not succeeded in convincing the majority of biblical scholars that Paul is rejecting rather than affirming female head coverings.

Wrapping It All Up or I’ve Got You Covered!

It should not be surprising that egalitarianism, revolutionary subordination, and modified egalitarianism have different assessments of some of the details of Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. As noted in the introduction to this essay, the passage raises at least ten different questions for which Paul does not provide explicit answers. A certain amount of speculation is necessary to both interpret and assess his arguments, and all interpreters have to engage in that speculation. This is as true for complementarian opponents of women’s ordination as it is for advocates of women’s equal participation in church worship.

Nonetheless, over against the complementarian argument that Paul’s argument is about the authority of men over women, there is a consensus among all of these scholars that:

1) Men and women should engage equally in the practice of leading worship. Paul’s concern is not to restrict women from leading worship, but to do so in a manner that avoids public scandal.

2) “In the Lord,” men and women are interdependent. Paul’s use of “head” language is not about hierarchy or authority of men over women or a “role” relationship of male authority.

3) Creation order is irrelevant to church ministry. If man is the origin (source) of woman in the creation narrative of Genesis 2, woman is the origin of all men now through childbirth. God in creation is the ultimate source of both men and women, and equalizes their standing in Christ.

4) That woman is the glory of man does not mean that she was created to serve his ends, but that she completes his being. Men and women both need one another and are interdependent on one another.

5) Even in the age of redemption in Christ, sexual distinctions are maintained. That does not mean that one sex is subordinate to the other.

How does 1 Corinthians 11 relate to 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36?

I devote an entire chapter in my book Icons of Christ to discuss the only two passages in the New Testament that actually seem to restrict the speaking of women in the church in some way: 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 and 1 Timothy 2:12. I would encourage those who want to pursue this issue in detail to read my book.

A crucial hermeneutical concern is whether 1 Corinthians 11 should be read in light of 14:33b-36, or vice versa. The writers of the Response clearly take the latter approach, including an entire Appendix on 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 and 1 Tim. 2:8-15. They claim: “These two passages are the major New Testament texts on the relationship between men and women and their respective roles in the corporate or communal life of the Church” (74).

I have argued in a previous essay that these passages provide the “master story” texts for the Response. That is, they are the texts in the light of which the Response interprets everything else. I argued in that essay that these are not good “master story” texts to discuss the issue of women’s ordination or leadership in the church. Neither one specifically addresses ordination. Both are cursury prohibitions without detailed theological justification. In both cases, it is difficult to discern exactly what is being prohibited or why. The 1 Timothy passage is not a prescriptive passage, but descriptive.

The writers of The Response admit that in light of 1 Corinthians 11, the prohibition in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 cannot be absolute. They take the position that the passage prohibits “participating in the (authoritative) judging or evaluation of prophetic utterances,” citing Anthony Thiselton’s commentary (76). (They neglect to mention that Thiselton favors the ordination of women!)

This in itself is not necessarily controversial. In my book, I refer to three different suggestions about what is being prohibited: “chatting” in church,” “asking questions,” “judging prophecy.” The last interpretation is found in the writing of numerous biblical scholars, including egalitarians. Disagreement arises, however, in the interpreters’ understanding of the reason for the prohibition. All non-complementarian interpreters assume that the problem concerns a kind of disruptive speaking that is inherently disruptive in itself. The problem with the speaking is not that it is speaking, but that it is disruptive. Complementarians assume to the contrary that the problem is not with the speaking, but with the speaker. The problem is that, in speaking, the women are attempting to exercise authority over male prophets. There is nothing in the text that would indicate this to be the case, however.

The crucial difference, I would suggest, following numerous biblical interpreters, is not with the identity of the speakers, but with the context in which the speaking takes place. 1 Corinthians 11 is addressing the question of the manner in which women should go about speaking when they are leading worship. 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 is addressing the question of women speaking when other people are leading worship. The context suggests this is the case. In each case, when someone speaks, others are asked to “be silent.” If anyone speaks in a tongue, the speakers should speak one at a time. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should “be silent.” If two or three prophets are speaking, and a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should “be silent” (1 Cor. 14:28, 30). The context of the prohibition for women concerns asking questions. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their husbands at home (v. 35).

The majority of women in Corinthians society would have been illiterate, and it makes sense that they might have questions about the meaning of what a speaker was saying. Paul is saying that those questions should be saved for later. The women should not interrupt the person speaking to ask their questions.

In other words, the prohibition in 14:33b-36 is not against women speaking when they lead worship – 1 Corinthians 11:5 makes clear that this is permitted – but against interrupting someone else who is speaking while he or she(!) is leading worship in church. Like the tongue-talkers and the prophets of the previous verses, the women are instructed to be respective of the current speaker who is leading worship by keeping silence while the speaker is talking. (A variation on the same Greek word for “silence” is used in v. 28, 30, and 34). The silence demanded of women is no more permanent than the silence demanded of tongue-speakers or prophets. Paul’s concern is about order rather than chaos: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33, KJV).

To use a contemporary example, more and more faculty are prohibiting students from bringing laptop or notebook personal computers or tablets to class because they disrupt the classroom, students tend to spend time on Facebook or Twitter rather than listening to the lecture, and studies have shown that note-taking on a laptop actually interferes with listening to and understanding the lecture.

At the same time, should I as a professor prohibit students from bringing laptops to class, that would not imply that a student could not bring a laptop to class to use during a personal presentation, for example, a PowerPoint talk or reading a paper. That is, laptop use is permitted when the students are leading class, but not allowed when someone else is.

There is then no contradiction or even limitation implied between what Paul says about women prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 and the prohibition of women speaking in 14:33b-36 if we understand that these describe two different situations. Women are not restricted from speaking when they lead worship. They are restricted from speaking if that would mean interrupting someone else who is leading worship.

Note: The above presumes that verses 14:33b-36 are actually part of Paul’s original text. However, a number of scholars have made the case in recent years that these verses are an interpolation, that is, not written by Paul at all, but inserted by a later copyist. If so, the issue of their interpretation becomes mute. The recent arguments for interpolation are certainly worth consideration. However, for the sake of argument, I assume in this essay that the text is authentic. (See Icons of Christ for a more detailed discussion.)

Is 1 Cor. 11:3 speaking of Christ as incarnate?

There has been much controversy concerning complementarian Trinitarian theology in recent decades, with the common criticism that the complementarian position is a return to the heresy of subordinationism, rejected at the Council of Nicea. The church’s historic position is that the Son is entirely equal to the Father within the divine nature; there are three distinct persons in the one nature of the Trinity. Because there is a single nature, the Triune persons share a single divine intellect and will through which all three persons equally know and love one another. Although there is no subordination within the Trinity itself, the Son is subordinate to the Father in terms of what is called the “economy” of salvation. Insofar as the Son is incarnate, the Son as human is obedient to the Father as divine. As noted above, in our original essay, we took the position that in speaking of God as the “head” of Christ, Paul was speaking of the “economy of salvation,” of God’s incarnation in Christ: “The origin of Christ is God. That is, God the Father is the source of Christ’s incarnation.”

1 Cor. 11:3 has been central for complementarian theologians insofar as they point to it as an example of how equality can be combined with subordination. Although the Son of God as the second person of the Trinity is equal to the Father, they clam that the Son is nonetheless subordinate to the Father insofar as the Father commands, and the Son obeys. This proves, the claim goes, that subordination can be combined with equality. In the same way that the Son and the Father are ontologically equal although the Son is subordinate to and obeys the Father, men and women can be ontologically equal although women are subordinate to men.

The Responders follow this logic. They claim that a “false dichotomy between submission and equality is grounded in a category error, the failure to allow for a distinction between relational roles and ontology, that one can be both equal and submissive to, in loving relationship with and under the leadership of the same person” (30). Later, they write: “The question, however, is whether this cruciform spirituality undoes every kind of hierarchical role differentiation between ontological equals?” (53).

The complementarian position concerning the Trinity is more than likely formally heretical. If the eternal Son obeys the eternal Father within the immanent Trinity, this would demand separate wills for the Father and the Son, which would mean not two separate persons, but two separate individuals, or bi-theism, not Trinitarian orthodoxy.

The Responders make clear that they embrace the complementarian understanding of the Trinity, and, by implication find the distinction between ontological equality and subordination of “roles” in the Trinity itself, and make the standard complementarian move of appealing to 1 Corinthians 11:3. They write:

[T]ranslating [kephalē] as “source” in 1 Corinthians 11:3 requires some exegetical acrobtics, forcing the reader to assume that when Paul writes that the head of Christ is God, he is speaking narrowly of Christ’s incarnation as distinct from his divine nature rather than his entire Person. . . . Christ exists, in his humanity because of God. That is a forced narrowing. There is nothing in the text itself that might lead us to believe that Paul is focusing on Jesus’ humanity to the exclusion of his divinity. The a priori decision to understand “head” as “source” forces the interpreter to that conclusion. If, by contrast [kephalē] has to do with authority or even the overlapping concept of preeminence, the exegetical problem disappears.

The authors further buttress their claim by appealing to 1 Cor. 15:26-28, where Paul writes that “When all things are subjected to him, that the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” They conclude: “The ultimate subjection of Son to the Father is forefront in Paul’s mind in this text and the principle here, that the Father will be over all, fits perfectly with the principle in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that the ‘head’ of Christ is God. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that not only does Paul recognize a difference between men and women but that there is an assumed hierarchy in the difference” (69).

The Response makes three fundamental errors here.

The first is exegetical. When Paul writes of “God,” he normally is referring to the God Jesus calls “Father.” Paul’s normal way to refer to Jesus’ divinity is not by the title “God,” but “Lord.” Second, when Paul writes of “Christ,” he almost always writes of Jesus in terms of the economy of salvation, unless he specifically mentions Jesus’ preexistence, in which case he clearly establishes that he is referring to the pre-existent Lord Jesus Christ, e.g., Philippians 2:6-8; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:4; Col. 1:16-17. If, in 1 Cor. 11:3, Paul were referring to the Son in his divine nature in the immanent Trinity, and not as incarnate, Paul would have followed his usual pattern of clearly referring to the pre-incarnate Christ in some way. That Paul simply writes that God is the head of Christ would mean that the Father is the head of the incarnate Christ unless Paul had specifically spoken of the Son as the pre-incarnate Christ.

That the writers reject the interpretation that 1 Cor. 11:3 is referring to the incarnation, makes clear that they affirm a hierarchy of subordination and obedience within the divine nature itself. This is the contemporary complementarian position, but as mentioned above, it is probably formally heretical.

Finally, in appealing to 1 Cor. 15:26-28, the authors seem to be saying that Paul is not speaking of Christ’s subordination as incarnate because eventually Christ will himself be subjected to God the Father. There seems to be no other way to read this  except that the authors seem to think that the risen and exalted Jesus Christ no longer has a human nature. Again, the church’s historic position is that the incarnation is permanent, that even in the ascension, the risen Jesus retains his complete human nature, with a human soul, intellect, will, and body. Thus, when the risen Christ finally subordinates himself to the Father, he does so precisely in his permanent humanity – as incarnate.

So 1 Cor. 15:26-28 actually counts against the Responders’ position. Jesus’ final submission to the Father points to a subordination not of the Son to the Father within their common divine nature, but of the Son as permanently incarnate. The Son as human submits himself to the Father. If the writers of the Response are claiming otherwise, they would seem to have endorsed an additional formal heresy – that the incarnation is not permanent. If pressed, I would hope that the writers of the Response would say that they were not denying the permanence of Christ’s risen humanity. But once make that concession, and the argument collapses. A subordination of the Son in his permanent humanity does not imply a subordination of the Son within the immanent Trinity.

I conclude this discussion of the Trinity by referring back to the essay by Richard Cervin that was central to my previous essay in this discussion. Cervin writes, concerning 1 Cor. 11:3, that “At first blush, ‘source’ may look possible . . .” He hesitates, however, precisely because of Christological concerns: “If kephalē means ‘source’ here, then God becomes the source of Christ and this implication has serious implications for Christology.”¹³ Actually, the church’s historic position is that because of the doctrine of eternal generation, God the Father is indeed the “source” of the Son’s eternal deity. The Father is the fons divinitatis. However, it is unlikely that Paul was thinking of the developed metaphysical ontology of later generations. At the same time, if “source” is referring to God as the “source” of the incarnation within the economy of salvation, then there is no Christological problem at all.