There is some context we need to carry into this article from others; namely the historical context regarding womens’ status in 1st Century Rome and Paul’s instructions for them and other socially unprivileged people not to publically wield their freedom in Christ to intentionally defy cultural norms, so stirring up hostility toward the church.
With that bit of congruent historical context, there is some linguistic incongruence here that contrasts with the previous section. In Ephesians, Paul uses the word “head” in its most standard contemporary sense to mean “at the top authoritatively,” then encourages those who do have such cultural headship to lay down their authority like Christ for the Church. However, it’s clear that Paul is turning the linguistic diamond on the word “head” in 1 Corinthians to bring in an additional meaning that we saw earlier in Genesis 2, that being “source.” This isn’t linguistic gymnastics, it’s actually made quite clear by simple observation from the passage itself; verse 8 says “for man does not originate from woman…” and then 12 “For as the woman originated from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” So in verse 3 he uses the word “head” to engage his readers with its common definition, then in those later verses specifies the extended metaphor that he intends the word to carry alongside it in this passage.
Additionally, there’s some clear cultural context to address in this section. Paul simply states as a known fact that it is “disgraceful” for a man to pray with his head covered (or perhaps “with long hair,” the Greek is a bit vague), and conversely “disgraceful” for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, and also a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head. These plain cultural disgraces have no significance in my culture, so I am missing some needed context. Luckily, that cultural context is rather plain, in that Paul states it. In his context, it was disgraceful for men to pray or prophesy with a covered head and similarly disgraceful for a woman to do so without a head covering.
In this passage, Paul again uses Genesis 1 and 2 as reference for his arguments, so those will be important to hold fast as biblical context for this section.
Literarily, this passage arises toward the beginning of a longer section (chapters 11-14) that is overall addressing how the Corinthian church ought to conduct their gatherings. Paul has been addressing several topics in the letter that were clearly being debated by the Corinthian church, thus requiring this guidance from Paul. In previous chapters, the letter addresses divisions in the church, Christian sexual life, how Christians should handle cultural practices regarding food, and then these disputes around how to conduct the gathering. In every section, he’s moving his argument forward to its ultimate source of weight: the resurrection of Jesus (which he unpacks in chapter 15).10 Paul’s final argument is this; it is with hearts transformed by the resurrection of Jesus that the Church ought to conduct themselves. This letter is how Paul sees that theological statement working out practically for the Corinthians.
Such literary context is vital for proper exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Each section of Paul’s letter is addressing an issue that the Corinithians can’t agree on, or are at least divided on how to approach them. This element of underlying disagreement is vital, because it shows us why Paul brings up the issue in this section (whether or not people should cover their heads while they pray). Paul doesn’t address it just because it’s something he’s been thinking about, it’s because it’s something that the Corinthian church is divided on. This is actually really interesting. If it was such a clear cultural-given that men pray with heads uncovered and women with heads covered, or otherwise be disgraced, why does Paul need to address it in this letter? Clearly, it’s because some people in the Corinthian church aren’t following the cultural norm, their counter-cultural practice is being criticized, and in response to the criticism they’re being “contentious” (see verse 16).
This is critical to understand, because it shows that Paul is really aiming at the same thing here that he’s been addressing throughout the letter: unity in the Church. More specifically, ‘how should the church stay unified while navigating a society that doesn’t live in the life of the resurrection? Where is the line between publicly living out the resurrection and being cultural rebels?’
We know this is the direction from which Paul is addressing the issue when we notice that Paul is building off of 1 Corinthians 10:31-33 to launch into this section. There, Paul is essentially saying ‘do everything to the Glory of God, but don’t offend Jews or Greeks or the Church with your practices. Look at me, I don’t do just whatever benefits me, I’m always considering others’ presuppositions and bending to them so that I don’t offend them in hopes that they’ll be more friendly to the gospel. So imitate me in such a mindset, for instance…’
So, again, Paul is making it really clear that what he’s about to say regarding prayer and prophecy practices is not about being theologically or ecclesially perfect, but actually about going out of our way to be as welcoming and inoffensive toward everyone as possible without compromising the gospel.
Finally, the structure of this passage will also help guide our exegesis. Verse 1 connects us to what was just seen in chapter 10. Verse 2 is a little note of encouragement toward those who aren’t being divisive but are practicing self-sacrifice and bending to cultural norms whenever able. Then in verse 3 he gives a bit of the theology that’s driving his argument (that will be unpacked in the ‘theology’ section). Verses 4-7 name the cultural practice that Paul is arguing does not contradict the theology of God and so shouldn’t be hostilely opposed. Verses 8-12 then enforce the theology stated in verse 3. Verses 13-15 make a simple appeal to the way that things tend to naturally occur regarding hair style, but ultimately turns the decision making power over to the local church. Finally, verse 16 restates what this whole section is really about; ‘whatever decisions you do make, don’t be divisive about it.’
With all that in mind then, Paul’s point is this: we know that man and woman are made of the same essence and all by God, just like Jesus is of the same essence as God (see the following section to better understand the theology at work here). So, even though there is this cultural practice of head covering that seems to contradict that, it really doesn’t. In fact, it highlights the distinguished position that the woman is given in Genesis 2 as God’s saving grace for man. So don’t make this a divisive issue. Ultimately, Corinthians, you can decide what is proper with this one, but always consider the unity of the Church first and foremost.
As previously alluded to, the theology in verse 3 works in tandem with the way Paul frames it in verses 11-12. Rather than showing an order of subservience, Paul is actually pulling on the Genesis 2 creation story (and probably a sort of John 1 understanding of reading Christ back into the creation account) to show the essential unity of male and female, just like there is an essential unity between God the Father and Jesus. It’s actually highlighting the fact that the woman was brought forth from the man not as one under authority, but as one that complements the man in such a way that it makes possible for the two to come together as one and such a uniting even more glorious.
Verses 9-10 work to help us understand. As Paul puts it, ‘the woman was created for the man’s sake, therefore she should have a sign of authority on her head.’ Clearly the “sake” of man here isn’t to be seen as a position of lesser status, but actually an exalted one. The woman was the gift of God to save humanity, the gift that was also taken from the man himself; she was made from the same essence, thus she is essentially the same. It’s starting to become clear that this understanding actually moves us rapidly toward the gospel of Jesus, highlighting the unification of His deity and incarnation.
Just as the woman was made from the man himself, so Jesus is eternally originating from God in the same essence as God. Just as the creation of the woman out of the man brings humanity to its fuller glory, so the glory of God is fully revealed in the incarnation of Jesus. What is more, Jesus now invites us to share in His communion with the Father because of His resurrection and the work of the Spirit in us when we give our lives to Him. Jesus gives us the adoption as sons by which our spirits cry “Abba, Father” to our God. And as a note, we are all adopted as “sons” because the cultural understanding of the role of a son is that they would receive the inheritance. So it’s not that women aren’t adopted, but that all who are adopted as children of God enjoy the status of a son.
So now it makes sense why these questions about church practice had become so divisive. The early church was operating under a theology that elevated women’s status significantly in comparison to their surrounding culture. So the church was grappling with a question that might have sounded like this, ‘so we believe men and women are interdependent, all originate from God (and so are equal in His eyes), and that all who give their lives to Jesus enjoy an adoption into sonship. So why do (we 1st Century Christian) men and women practice prayer and prophecy with different dress codes?’ Now, with that question fully understood, we can see how Paul’s answer regarding head coverings is homiletical, and not universally instructive.
After spending time drawing out the theology of how men and women reflect the essential oneness of the triune God and moving to the Gospel of Jesus’s incarnation as God’s glory made manifest to us in whom we receive the adoption as sons, I would then move to Paul’s homiletical section and guide the church to think critically about their identity in Christ and about its effect on one’s public and ecclesial practices.
Paul is clearly thinking critically about the places where the surrounding culture intersects with his Christ-centered theology. He sees salvation in Christ as something that radically changes our identity, but doesn’t mean we ought to abandon all cultural practices. In fact, Paul clearly believes that we should maintain any element of our culture that, after careful consideration, does not threaten the message of the gospel. There is wisdom in this, because Paul is recognizing that, if the church were to totally disengage and look wildly different from the culture around it, people on the outside looking in would see them as radicals or social anarchists. That’s not a good look for the gospel and not what Jesus intends or modeled in the incarnation.
In Paul’s day, it would have been a disgrace to Jews and Greeks for women at the time to pray with heads covered or men with heads uncovered (10:32). Being a public disgrace in the eyes of your neighbors is a massive barrier to the spread of the gospel. People don’t generally listen to someone if they have a predetermined disdain for them. So Paul encourages them to follow his example in an attempt to “please all men in all things...that they may be saved.” Of course, it takes careful consideration and judgement to determine where a person should draw the line to ensure they’re not actually compromising the integrity of the gospel by giving in whole heartedly to the culture around them. This is why Paul leaves it to the local church to consider and judge for themselves.
So, in line with that thinking, I would encourage my congregation to “judge for yourselves” and ask, what are the ways that I can engage in my community’s culture without compromising the identity I have in Christ? And on the other hand, what cultural practices do seem to compromise the gospel that I ought to put a stop to in my life? I would encourage them to deeply consider the gospel and how it does indeed radically reorient our identities to Christ, but that Jesus is an incarnational God that moves us to live similarly. So the church should move forward together in wisdom; not detaching from the culture, but placing our identity in Christ. And in all of this we must not make a non-gospel-essential matter divisive for our church community, but instead aim to accomodate for everyone as far as possible.