The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood– The Dialogue Part One

The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood– The Dialogue Part One May 13, 2023

Ben : Firstly, do you have or have you consulted the massive Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek?  The entry on kephale is interesting.

 

COM: I have consulted The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek by Montanari, but have not seen the K volume. If you are able to send me an image of the entry on κεφαλή, that would be most welcome.

 

Ben: Source is a small minority reading in those sources, but nevertheless I think you are right that kephale in 1 Cor. 11 likely means source.   I think you present a cogent argument that Paul is talking about hair, which connects all of the things he says in that passage, however, and it is a big however,  you seem to overlook that Paul is dealing with a Roman colony city, and worship practices in that setting did involve head coverings.

 

COM: In fact, I did not overlook that Corinth was a Roman colony. For example, on pp. 60–61, I wrote, “it was customary for leaders in Roman worship (Corinth was a Roman city at this time) to drape a garment over their heads, the capite velato custom. This was not disgraceful, but a sign of piety. However, it was disgraceful for men to display long, effeminate hair. Paul opposed allowing men to lead worship with effeminate hair because those hairstyles were known to attract illicit sexual liaisons. First Corinthians 11:4 addresses the shame a man brings on himself and on Christ, his creator/source, when praying and prophesying with long, effeminate hair.

 

Ben:  You can see this in the statuary from the emperor on down,  Not a veil, which you are right about, but a pulling of the toga over the head, or a headcovering of some other sort.  And frankly the phrase ‘something down from the head’. is weird, when Paul could simply say hair in Greek.

 

COM: Paul doesn’t say “something” down from the head, simply “down from the head”. Simply saying “hair” would not specify long effeminate hairstyles. I find it quite unlikely that Paul would say regarding a custom that was a sign of piety, the capite velato custom, “Every man who prays or prophesies capite velato καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ. Nor do I think readers in a Roman city would agree with that statement, even Christian readers. I can’t think of any other instance in Paul’s writings when he calls something disgraceful that in Hellenistic or Roman culture was a sign of piety. Paul does write of the incompatibility of drinking the cup of the Lord and of demons (1 Cor 10:20–22, but even that is introduced in 10:19 “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? ? No …” and Paul concludes in 10:28–33  “for conscience sake—I mean his conscience, not yours—do not eat it. For why should my liberty be determined by another man’s scruples? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?”  Regarding sacrifices made to idols, Paul makes comments such as “an idol has no read existence” (1 Cor 8:4), “But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.  Only take care that this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.… (1 Cor 8:8–13). Since Paul applies the principle of Christian liberty even to food offered to idols, I find it unlikely that he would attack as disgraceful a religious custom intended to convey piety. But if by “having down from the head” he is referring to effeminate hairstyles that we know from the literature were associated with disgrace and soliciting homosexual hookups, Paul’s words and the message they convey are in harmony with his other statements about homosexual acts. This also fits both the sentiment and wording of 11:14: “Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him.” And regarding the wording, “something down from the head” is weird. If Paul meant κάλυμμα, it would be weird for Paul to convey κάλυμμα with this expression since he uses κάλυμμα repeatedly in 2 Cor 3:13–16—or for ἱμάτιον, a common NT word. But if he is referring to something shameful reported to him in the church in Corinth, a man leading prayer or worship with long effeminate hair, it fits his comments elsewhere regarding things too disgraceful to name, for him to use this euphemism. If this was happening in Corinth, his readers would understand the reference. For it to be a moral issue for both men and women fits the language of 11:7, “A man ought not cover his head…” and 11:10 “a woman ought to exercise authority over her head [by doing her hair up].” The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood page 77, n. 29 cites Herter’s RAC article that gives over 100 citations regarding men wearing effeminate styles, most citing it as disgraceful. The largest number are from Paul’s day. It also cites two other works where I document these issues at far greater length.

 

Ben:  Then there is also the issue of the angels, which as you say are the participants or guardians of worship.

 

COM: I do not recall saying that the angels “are the participants or guardians of worship” What I do say o p.69 is:

On account of the angels”: The context here is worship, and Paul refers to angels in the context of worship elsewhere. Earlier in 1 Corinthians he wrote:

We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. (1 Cor. 4:9)

Paul implies that angels observe the church in 1 Timothy 5:21:

I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels . . .

This fits the New Testament theme that Christian worship reflects the presence of angels before the throne of God (Matt. 18:10). If the symbolism of undisciplined sexuality and the shame it causes both a woman and her husband is not sufficient reason, “because of the angels” (who observe worship and report directly to God) gives one more reason why women should exercise control over their heads by not letting their hair hang loose.

 

Ben:  I agree with you that the reason for a woman to wear a headcovering has nothing to do with her submission to men.

 

COM: According to Cynthia Westfall and Caryn Reeder (if I recall correctly), slave women were not permitted to wear head-covering garments. Would Paul command women to do something illegal?

 

Ben:   It has to do with the fact that only God’s glory should be seen in worship,

 

COM: Can you cite a Scriptural statement of this? The OT temple vestments and the temple’s ornate designs display God’s glory because they reflect his glory. They were not covered.

 

Ben:   a woman’s hair is her glory, hence the need to cover it up.

 

COM: 1 Cor 11:15 states, “Does not nature itself teach you that … if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her long hair is given as a covering.” This identifies the long hair itself as the covering, not that long hair is something that should be covered. Throughout 1 Corinthians 11 it is the “head” that is to be covered, not “hair” that is to be covered. Hair is identified, instead, as the covering in 11:15. I find that this understanding fits the entire passage, including the reference to the bitter water testing of the suspected adulteress in 11:5–6. In Paul’s day, the punishment for a woman found guilty of adultery was that she was shorn.

 

Ben:  This is not said of men’s hair.

 

COM: The reason it is not said of men’s hair that that long effeminately-styled hair was regarded as disgraceful, not man’s glory, especially in Paul’s day, as Herter’s “Effeminatus” RAC article demonstrates.

 

Ben:  It seems to me that Paul is doing a delicate dance of on the one hand wanting to affirm women in ministry, but on the other hand recognizing that it was appropriate for men and women to be recognized as different while at the same time being equals.

 

COM: πλήν in 11:11 does point not simply to Paul’s central concern, but also to a contrast with what precedes. Paul has just given different instructions to men than the instructions he gives to women, so πλήν is particularly appropriate to introduce “However, woman is not separate from man, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord.” I do not, however, see the instructions of 11:4–10 as in any way contradicting the affirmation of gender equality in Christ in v. 11. I understand them both to be telling leaders in worship, whether men or women, not to wear their hair in ways that symbolize in that culture solicitation of homosexual hookups or uncontrolled sexuality. That Paul’s restrictions are limited to people leading in worship, either its vertical dimension, prayer, or its horizontal dimension, prophesy, is fully compatible with a church welcoming prostitutes and men in drag into worship services.

 

Ben:  And I like Hooker’s notion that the headcovering could be seen as rather like a clerical collar, it shows she was authorized to speak in worship as long as her ‘glory’ was not in evidence.

 

COM: What about female slaves? Is Paul telling them to cover their hair, even if that was illegal for them? What in 1 Corinthians 11 says that a woman’s glory should be hidden? What is 1 Corinthians 11 identifies a garment head-covering other than 11:15, where is long hair is said to be given to a woman ἀντὶ περιβολαίου? What in 1 Corinthians 11 indicates that a headcovering is like a clerical collar?

[Ben:  First of all it was not illegal for slaves to cover their heads in a worship setting when an offering was made or other religious acts were performed.  The prohibition doesn’t have to do with what slaves did in a home but what they did in the public, for instance in the agora.]

Ben: 1 Tim. 2 is dealing with a different issue, high status women with bling who want to teach before they learn and usurp the position of the already authorized teachers in  Ephesus (have you seen Gary Hoge’s important monograph on the latter?).

 

COM: I have not seen Gary Hogue’s monograph. Is it or a summary or review of it online?

 

Ben:  One side note— I don’t think the material from the OT about priests and caps is of any relevance to this discussion.  Paul’s not drawing on Levitical practices for his largely Gentile audience.

 

COM: I agree that Paul is not drawing on Levitical practices for his largely Gentile audience. But I do not see Paul anywhere else saying it is disgraceful to do anything demanded in the Torah or calling something disgraceful that in Roman custom was a sign of piety.


Browse Our Archives