Head coverings and quotation marks: An exegetical sketch of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Correspondence with a friend about how Paul is actually anti-misogynist
Friend:
So what do you make of 1 Corinthians 11:7?:
For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man.
Ever heard anyone give a decent account of this other than “sometimes Paul shows he’s still human and stuck in his patriarchal society”?
Me:
Thanks to Lucy Peppiatt, I hold that as with several other parts of the letter, some of which are already acknowledged by many translations (6:12-13, 7:1-2, 8:1, 10:23 in NIV, ESV, NET, NLT, NRSVUE, HCSB), significant portions of 1 Corinthians 11:3–16, including the specific verse you lift, are quotations from the Corinthian men. Consistency with the rest of the letter and with Paul’s statements elsewhere about women suggest as much—and like 14:20-25 about speaking in tongues, consistency within the passage itself demands as much.
Here’s my go at dividing the whole section into its Pauline parts and Corinthian parts:
Paul (with a sarcastic smirk):
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
Corinthian men:
[quoting Paul]: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head [i.e., origin] of every man [see, for example, 8:6], and the man is the origin of the woman [see Genesis 2:18-23], and God is the origin of Christ.” Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
Paul:
So if a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head! [In other words: Which is it, guys?]
Corinthian men:
For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Paul:
However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him [sarcastically funny for Paul to say in light of Acts 18:18 after just having been with the Corinthians], but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. [In other words: You want her to have a covering? Great: She already has one. It’s called her hair.] But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice [of requiring head coverings for women], nor have the churches of God.
Humbly submitted to your judgment.
Friend:
Wow. Man, the Bible is just quite complex and confusing. That changes everything about the passage.
OK, well, who cares, shut up and go love with the overflow of God’s love. I feel like that should just be the way every one of these questions ends.
Me:
What do you expect from an anthology spanning 1,000 years, three languages, at least five kingdoms/empires, comprising poetry, prophecy, songs, history, legal codes, apocalypse, sayings, biographies, and in-the-moment correspondence with newborn churches?
I find the Bible amazing and challenging in all the right ways. By itself, of course, it can be bent in terrible ways. But paired with the Church, the Holy Spirit, reason, and experience to interpret it, it always points me in the Right Direction. I relish the act of interpretation.
So count me among those who “care” even about this passage. Do you see how Paul is sticking it to these super-spiritual, misogynistic Corinthian men? Do you see how Paul is consistent here with his declaration in the letter to the Galatians that in Christ there is no longer male or female? That’s a point worth making—more detailed and specific than just “go love with the overflow of God’s love,” as good a maxim as that is. It helps us understand the wisdom in that perfect Love, you know? I’d rather have that than merely let the complexity of the passage drive me to shut up about it, especially given that other people actively take the passage in different directions against which I must push.
Friend:
Yes, true. But I expected a God-breathed, inerrant, and infallibly clear rulebook. Anyway, yes, we should care. It just seems like you need a lot of time to read all the commentary on a passage, and even then there will be like ten versions to choose from. But it’s good.