Back in 2020, I wrote about a book by Bruce Winter (2003) dealing with the so-called ‘New Women’. Winter claims that some upper-class women in the first century had begun to embrace a lifestyle of sexual freedom, thoroughly rejecting the cultural norm of modesty for women. He argues that this movement had gained a measure of influence in the Corinthian church as well. It explains what was happening in Corinth and what led Paul to write 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: women were refusing to cover their hair. But now, another book forces me to reconsider this.
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCAST
Paul and Gender: No ‘New Women’?
The book is by Cynthia Long Westfall (2016) and its title is Paul and Gender. As such, it deals with a broader subject, but it does cover some of the same ground as Winter: what was going on in Corinth?
Westfall (ibid.: 15) points to the criticism of Cohick (2009: 72-5): there is little hard evidence for the existence of these ‘New Women’. Even if they did exist, they may not have been numerous and there is no evidence that their influence reached Corinth other than what we find in 1 Corinthians. But this makes for a thoroughly circular argument: the ‘New Women’ were causing the problem in Corinth, and the problem in Corinth is evidence of the existence and influence of the ‘New Women ’in Corinth.
It’s Not the Women, It’s the Men
More importantly, Westfall has a very different take on the women and their behaviour in 1 Corinthians 11 than Winter (and most other interpreters). In her view, the issue was not women refusing to wear the traditional head covering. Rather, men in the church were forcing at least certain categories of women (slave girls and former prostitutes) to do so:
It is usually assumed without question that Paul was correcting the Corinthian women. However, the passage is more coherent if it is assumed that the Corinthian women were refusing to remove their head coverings or veils, but were being pressured or encouraged to remove their veils by those in authority, men in the house church, or possibly even their own husbands. (Westfall 2016: 32; cf. Esther 1:11)
After all, social rules and Roman law forbade both slave girls and prostitutes to wear a head covering (ibid.: 31), so the men would have a point.
Westfall (ibid.: 24-37) presents compelling arguments for this explanation. For one, she argues that women in male-dominated cultures like the Mediterranean in the days of Paul and the Middle East today were and are quite loath to put down a head covering because it exposes them.
She also points out that her view makes the best sense of 1 Corinthians 11:10. As I argued in 2020, the verse says nothing about a symbol or sign women should wear and it has nothing to do with submission. On the contrary, the verse should read: “A woman ought to have authority over her head”; to have authority in Greek is always active, referring to legitimate power one may exercise, not authority one is under. It is a surprising thing for Paul to say if he is seeking to correct the women, wanting them to stop refusing the head covering.
More likely, in the argument between men and women, Paul comes down squarely on the side of the women. He backs their right to wear a head covering. Even slaves and former prostitutes – if there were any – did not have to expose themselves to the glares and stares of men.
The remark about being argumentative that concludes the section, 1 Corinthians 11:16, also supports Westfall’s view: the words used are masculine, not feminine (ibid.: 36f). At least some of those who argue with Paul about this, and quite possibly all of them, are male, not female. Paul is not correcting the women; he is correcting men.
Making Sense of 1 Corinthians 11
Westfall puts us in a better position to make sense of 1 Corinthians 11. To interpret the passage, we need to (1) understand the cultural practice and meaning of a head covering at that time; (2) figure out the meaning of the metaphor head (Greek kephale) in this context; and (3) explain Paul’s argument dealing with glory and creation.
1. Cultural Practice
I should point out that there is no disagreement between Winter and Westfall regarding cultural practice and meaning, although Westfall includes the crucial information, missing in Winter, that certain types of women were precluded from wearing a veil.
The veil signalled modesty; it stood for the woman’s honour and gave her protection. It did not signify submission:
It is important to establish what the head covering meant for women in Greco-Roman culture, and what it meant to have an uncovered head … But in traditional biblical studies, most have assumed that veiling means “submission” in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 without delving into understanding the meanings that veiling had for women in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean culture or in its continued widespread use in a number of modern cultures. As Kenneth Bailey observes, “In traditional Middle Eastern society, from the days of the Jewish rabbis to the present, a woman was and is obliged to cover her hair in public.” (Westfall 2016: 26, quoting Bailey 2008: 248)
But why? Because hair was and in the Middle East often still is considered arousing; modest women would want to cover it. Therefore:
Paul, in common with other members of his culture, thought that hair was sexy or a means of attraction (11:15). A modest and chaste woman’s beauty was not supposed to be on public display but should be shown only to her husband. (ibid.: 30)
2. The Meaning of Kephale
Paul’s use of the term kephale (Greek: head) as an image or metaphor has triggered an immense amount of debate. It deserves an issue of its own. I can only scratch the surface here.
First off: In English, the metaphor head suggests authority or leadership; this is NOT the case in Greek. It could have such a meaning in Hebrew, but in the ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, the Septuagint, the Hebrew term for head when used figuratively is rarely translated with the Greek term for head.
Instead, when used in Greek as a metaphor, head could take on several different meanings. One of these is the idea of source or origin, although this is somewhat debated. (However, this meaning fits exceedingly well with the logic and argument of 1 Corinthians 11 – so well in fact that, even if it could not be shown to have this meaning elsewhere, Paul’s use here might be sufficient to establish it as his unique and innovative use of the metaphor.)
Besides, overlooked in the rejection of the potential meaning of source and origin is that we are not necessarily to think of biological origin. Obviously, the husband and men in general are not biologically the origin of a wife or of women. However, the idea may also be the source of life and what sustains a life, that is, the provider of necessities, or the source of identity, especially in the context of family.
This is the meaning it carries in the context of 1 Corinthians 11, according to Westfall (2016: 38): origin, both of life and of identity, because of „the language of the origins of life and creation in the image of God in 11:7-12” and its ties with 1 Corinthians 11:3. This verse is Paul’s point of departure, his foundation of truth for the argument that follows, although it is not immediately clear how its three statements connect to the rest of the passage:
- The head of every man is Christ
- The head of a wife/woman is the husband/man
- The head of Christ is God
This does not work very well to establish a hierarchy (the order would be confusing). But it fits eminently with the idea of origin.
With the first statement, it is tempting to think of Christ as the source and origin of life in salvation for man (and woman). However, based on context (creation), Paul is more likely thinking of Christ as the Word and the original image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; cf. Heb. 1:3): “Christ is the source of man’s life because he is the creator who formed man in Genesis 2:4-9” (ibid.: 87).
Second, woman is from man: “Man is the source of woman’s life because she was created out of man in Genesis 2:18-23” (ibid.). Paul will later balance this out by pointing to the fact that every man is now born from a woman.
And the third statement is not about leadership within the Trinity. The Father and the Son are equals; there is no subordination of the one to the other. It either speaks of the eternal Son proceeding from the Father or, perhaps, of Jesus as the divine Son born of God as the anointed redeemer, coming from God.
Westfall (ibid.: 38) therefore paraphrases 1 Corinthians 11:3 as follows:
But I want you to realize that every man’s life comes from Christ, woman’s life comes from man, and Christ’s life comes from God.
By the way, this understanding of kephale explains Paul’s understanding of Adam as the type of Christ and therefore the head of the human race as well:
Adam is the head of humanity because he is the source of biological life. Adam is not given supremacy, honor, authority, or reverence by humanity; rather, the relationship is one of identity derived from its origin, to which Paul gives a negative appraisal. Jesus replaces Adam as the head because Jesus is the spiritual life-giving source that feeds the church, and the church forms an organic union with him. (ibid.: 85f)
3. The Logic of Glory in Creation
In part, Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 is based on cultural norms, which are relative and temporal (1 Cor. 11:4-6 and 1 Cor. 11:13-15; notice the chiastic structure). We do not experience shame based on whether our heads in prayer are covered or not. Neither is it shameful for a woman in Western culture to have short hair.
Simply put, Paul does not want the church to stand out in shocking ways because of the way its members dress or wear their hair.
But toward the centre of the passage, Paul shifts to an argument based on creation (1 Cor. 11:7-9 and 1 Cor. 11:11f), which has a more universal and absolute feel to it. How does this argument function and what is the role of “glory” in all of this?
It is often read as if woman is ‘merely’ the glory of man and therefore less than the man who is, after all, “the image and glory of God”. However, Paul knew full well that in Genesis 1:26f, the image of God includes both male and female: woman (also) is the image of God.
Paul’s point is not that the woman has less than the male; his point is that she has or is something that man is not: namely, she is (also) the glory of man (whereas man is not the glory of woman). And because of this, in that culture, they dressed in different ways. The glory and beauty of women was too much – for those not accustomed to such a sight – to be on full public display:
What can it mean then that man is the glory of God, but woman is the glory of man? In the context, man shows his humility in appearing before God as the unadorned image of God, and woman shows honor to God, herself, and her family by diminishing her glory/beauty in public and in worship. (Westfall 2016: 40)
[Women] are visually the glory of the glory – that is, women have the greater glory. The fact that the woman was created for man’s sake (1 Cor. 11:9) indicates the purpose of her greater beauty and her attraction for man … Paul’s argument is that the woman’s “head” must be covered in worship, so that glory is directed to God [not to the woman’s beauty]. (ibid.: 41)
At this point, it is important to remember the cultural meaning and perception of female hair and an uncovered head:
A woman’s hair is a primary part of the beauty, which is the rationale behind veiling. If a woman prays or prophesies with an uncovered head, the glorious appearance of their hair competes with the worship of God because it displays the “glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:15). As far as a woman was concerned, her uncovered head was a stigma because it symbolised sexual availability, impurity, and low status in the culture (1 Cor. 11:5-6). (ibid.: 68)
Therefore, in that culture, in worship, the hair had to be covered (and men should not keep women from doing this):
[W]hen it comes to external appearance, there is a difference between the glory of men and the glory of women. In common with the culture, Paul believed that God created women to be more attractive or more glorious, so that she is the glory of man. This becomes a pragmatic problem at the very point when women attempt to manifest the Spirit in prophesying (1 Cor. 11:5; 12:7, 10), or when they lead in prayer in order to worship God. However, the mandate to veil should be understood neither as a polemic against women nor as a subordination of women to men, because veiling was their protection and a sign of whatever status and honor a woman could possess in the Greco-Roman culture. (ibid.: 70)
Once more, this has nothing to do with authority structures:
His focus and concern are not reinforcing or increasing the authority or control of husbands over their wives, but rather ensuring that God is glorified, that the women are not personally disgraced or shamed while they pray and prophesy, and that they do not send out an inappropriate message through their dress by displaying their hair while they minister and worship. If women were resisting taking off their head coverings, Paul was supporting them, their judgement, and their honor within the house church and within the community, possibly even against the church leadership. (ibid.: 42)
Stereotypes Subverted (by Universal Application)
Although not relating directly to 1 Corinthians 11, what follows is too good and important to leave out. It provides an additional and powerful argument against excluding women from teaching or leadership. The argument is based on Paul’s use of male and female stereotypes.
First, we should recognize that it is unlikely Paul would uncritically support cultural norms; he certainly did not do this when it came to leadership or wisdom and rhetoric:
Many interpreters assume that Paul reinforced gender stereotypes in the Greco-Roman culture because they believe that the household codes found in the Pauline Epistles contain simple re-iterations and reinforcements of what is typical for a man’s role and a woman’s role in the Greco-Roman household (e.g., Col. 3:18-4:1 // Eph. 5:18, 21-6:9). This assumption is a very odd starting point for a theology of gender, given the fact that in Romans 12:1-2 Paul urges nonconformity with the culture. Paul was very cognizant of the pressures of his culture that were attempting to mould him into the stereotypical male roles of leader and orator. Paul was explicit in rejecting those models for himself and for his churches in both his theology and his expectations. (Westfall 2016: 45)
We would expect Paul to do the same for cultural ideas about gender. And indeed, what we find is that Paul regularly employs masculine imagery to describe ALL believers, male and female:
Paul often applied masculine imagery to all believers. This includes characteristics such as strength and ability in war, athletic competition, and gladiatorial combat. (ibid.: 46f)
[On the spiritual armour in Ephesians 6:10ff:] These aspects of spiritual warfare that the armor symbolizes are essential for all Christians, regardless of their gender. By applying masculine warfare imagery to all Christians, Paul invited and encouraged women to identify directly with one of the ultimate virile male icons of that culture. (ibid.: 48)
Most striking is Paul’s command to the Corinthians – all of them, male and female – to “be manly” or “to become a man” (1 Cor. 16:13; meant is “be courageous!”, supposedly a ‘male’ virtue)
By extending such characteristics to both men and women, Paul invites women to identify with male stereotypes. But he goes the other way, too.
In a surprising move, Paul uses maternal imagery for pastoral care, depicting his commitment to nurturing believers with childbirth and breast-feeding metaphors: “I fed you with milk” (1 Cor. 3:2), at a time when milk for infants came not out of a bottle but out of a breast (ibid.: 52; notice the OT uses similar images for God!).
This contrasts with stereotypical male leadership images. Paul emphasizes that such feminine roles are apt images for ministry. Looking at it in this light, one might wonder why women are often excluded from being pastors, seeing that, if stereotypes be true, they come eminently equipped for the job:
In 1 Corinthians 3:1-2, Paul draws upon the imagery of breast-feeding and early child care to describe the pastoral care necessary for new and immature believers … While in the Corinthian case the reference to breast-feeding them was somewhat pejorative, it was a primary metaphor for exemplary care in the case of the church plant at Thessalonica [1 Thess. 2:6f] … It is significant that Paul identified with these biological feminine roles, which most differentiate women from men, and placed intimate feminine roles in contrast with the stereotypical dominance of male leaders. Paul’s use of maternal imagery for pastoral care illustrates the compatibility of pastoral care with feminine commitment and a female role of nurture, yet he does not assume that a male is incapable of comparable intimacy, care, and commitment. It thus is odd that Paul defines pastoral care as maternal nurturing, but historically, women have been excluded from church positions that entail pastoral care on the basis of other Pauline writings. (ibid.: 53f)
Paul’s most notable subversion of stereotypical gender roles, so Westfall (ibid.: 56-59), occurs in Ephesians 5:21-33. The husband, initially affirmed as having authority, is included in the bride of Christ. In relation to his wife, he is responsible for activities traditionally designated to the sphere of women (love, nurture, care). In this, he resembles Christ, who washes and cleanses and dresses the church (to put it mildly: not masculine tasks!). By portraying men as nurturing and caring for their wives and Christ doing this for the church, both engage in typically female roles for their culture.
In short, in Ephesians 5, “men are commanded to exercise their headship by acting more like women” (ibid.: 59).
Paul extends masculine virtues to women and uses traditionally female roles and activities to describe ministry within the church. He does not seem to care very much about upholding traditional roles as prescribed by fallen culture, beyond the need for strategic wisdom in reaching out to and redeeming that culture.
Because in Christ, we all take part in all aspects of the ministry of reconciliation according to our gifts, not our gender, and we have all become part of the same royal priesthood, called to reign with him – regardless of whether we are male or female.
Attribution
Mortel, Richard. 2016. “Livia Drusilla, wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius, d. 19 CE, National Archeological Museum, Madrid (1) (29074219390).jpg” <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Livia_Drusilla,_wife_of_Augustus_and_mother_of_Tiberius,_d._19_CE,_National_Archeological_Museum,_Madrid_(1)_(29074219390).jpg> [Accessed 8 January 2020] CC BY 2.0
Nguyen, Marie-Lan. 2019. “Messalina from Rome Louvre” <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Messalina_from_Rome_Louvre_Ma1224_n5.jpg> [Accessed 6 February 2024] CC-BY 4.0
Bauermann, Anja. 2023 <https://unsplash.com/photos/a-black-and-white-photo-of-a-womans-head-sUoG-rKMuOI> [Accessed 5 February 2024] CC0
References
Unless indicated differently, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Titles were crafted with assistance of ChatGPT.
Bailey, Kenneth E. 2008. Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic) (paid link)
Cohick, Lynn H. 2009. Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic) (paid link)
Westfall, Cynthia Long. 2016. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic) (paid link)
Winter, Bruce W. 2003. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans) (paid link)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in this text are ‘affiliate links’. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.