Authority on the head 1 Cor 11:10 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Authority to Cover Her Head: The Liberating Message of 1 Corinthians 11:3–16
Priscilla Papers, 2023
Author: Juliann Bullock Publisher: CBE International So much has been written about 1 Cor 11:3–16 and the topic of head coverings that it may seem there surely could be nothing new to say. Unfortunately, our modern cultural contexts are so far removed from the context of Paul’s original audience that our default understanding of this passage is likely quite different from the understanding of the first-century Corinthians. Many interpreters have read this chapter as an argument for male authority. These interpreters understand “the man is the head of a woman” (1 Cor 11:3) to mean that men should have authority over women, or at least over their own wives. They also tend to understand v. 10 as a command for women to cover their heads to show that they are under male authority.
1 Cor 11: 10 and the Ecclesial Authority of Women
Listening, 1996
Lion is 1 Cor 11:2-16, ",hich IradiLionally IlOIs been IIlHlCrSlIlUd a.s .showing l.hal Paul reinforces the sex-role cJelil1iliun~ of patriarchal Gra:co-Roman culLure.' AL the high poilll of his di,clIssion of proper dress [or prophetesses til the Clll"isliall ~ss(.'l1IbIY1 tradi-uonalisLs argue, Paul requires the submissiutl of rL'llIalc pruphclS 10 tJH~ authurity of males. Similar to the headless hur~clllan of American pupular legend, wumen arc headless wiLlulI1l a rn;l1land Ihis lraiL applies as well 10 prophclic women, Thi" slIuurdi-• naLiunisL pusiLiull has becume noL only pf:lfL of the illlcrpn~llve traditiun, inn is inherenl tn lhc Engli:ih tnlll:ilaliulls as wL'l1. This translauollalanu inlerpretive hisLUry has caused feminist 'sclJulars Lo rejecL tlle Lelil iLseif as "irredeemablc,' 141gree lhallhe Irmliliullal rca{lilJg,.; of lhis leXL iUtit'l•d afe irredeemable for the healLhy life of womeJl and mell ill ,he church today. Elisabeth SChll~slcr FiureI'lla, who ILllS cOlllrilJIlIl"d so much to biblicill and fcmjni.~t sLlHI1{"~, has tried to Sah'aj4l" tbe text by Nuggesting that Paul is here la~in}i fur gTtlllh'd ,l dil-aillcLioll betwecn marrit•d antllllllllHrrh'r! wnnwl]. Uwl('" llJl' iIlIlLu'll["(, or 1 Cur 11:,33b-3u. she JhnJ..;. th;11 ullmarried WOIIH'n ;In' aHnwr'r1 TO prophesy whereas rnardl'rl WOllwn remain sllhordillatcd :1I1C1 arc forbidden 10 :i'peak a(all ill tile litllrgkill galh(,l•ill~. HILt P;'lul ~i\'cS 110 indicatioll lhulthc Spirit call bCht{)W thl" prOphl'lir girt only on
Some scholars hold that 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16 forbids women from prophesying or praying with unveiled heads. But this text is difficult due to the phrase ev xousi, an e; cein ev pi. th/ j kefalh/ j dia. tou. j av gge, louj (to have authority on the head because of the angels). The problem occurs when ka, lumma (veil) substitutes ev xousi, an e; cein (to have authority). Other problems are on the phrases dia. tou. j av gge, louj (because of the angels) and ev pi. th/ j kefalh/ j (on the head), which allegedly denote male superiority and female inferiority. Veiling in the socio-cultural context of the text defined the status of women as inferior compared to that of men. Yet the text never authenticated superiority and authority of men over women. Rather, it inspired women to wisely exercise their right to veil their heads so as to avert dissuading people from worship and to avoid defying the Roman law.
Prophets Under God\u27s Authority: Headcoverings in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16
2000
1Ð16 is a challenging passage, and breaking the code is deeply satisfying. Unlike 1 Tim 2, 1 Cor 11 is clearly describing the assembly of GodÕs people worshiping together. 1 PaulÕs concern in vs. 1Ð16 is convincing the Corinthian church that women must cover their hairÑand so their headsÑwhile praying aloud or prophesying. 2 Some denominations have understood these verses to mean that all women should cover their heads in public, or at least during worship. Not so! The text clearly restricts this command to women while they are praying or prophesying (vs. 4Ð5). 3 (By implication, as this prophesying is public, out loud, in the worship setting, we should see this as public prayer, as well, and not private, silent prayer.) There is no mention of any requirement for all women to cover their heads. When these chosen women have finished praying or prophesying, evidently, they may uncover. (Do these women know in advance they will be praying or prophesying and so bring a headcovering with them? Is one provided, passed out to the women as necessary? We donÕt know.) Why is Paul concerned about these women covering their heads? Burton claims it is so men are not attracted to these women while they are praying or prophesying. 4 I find no warrant for this assumption in the text. It would be odd 1 See my ÒWomen, Teaching, Authority, Silence: 1 Timothy 2:8Ð15 Explained by 1 Peter 3:1Ð6,Ó JATS 10/1-2 (1999), 249Ð254. 2 My friend Keith Burton has provided an excellent rhetorical analysis of this passage in his Ò1 Corinthians 11 and 14: How Does a Woman Prophesy and Keep Silence at the Same Time?Ó JATS 10/1-2 (1999), 232Ð248. This analysis reveals the care with which Paul makes his arguments. 3 Ralph P. Martin refers to 1 Cor 14:3 (ÒBut he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfortÓ KJV) as a clue to the modern corollary of this sort of prophecy in his ÒNew Testament Worship: Some Puzzling Practices,Ó AUSS, 31/2 (Summer 1993), 122. 4 HeÕs not the only one to make this claim. In an otherwise exemplary article, so does M. D. Hooker in ÒAuthority on her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI. 10,Ó New Testament Studies, 10 (1963Ð1964), 410Ð416, though it contradicts her own thesis. Many others have also believed this.
Exousia echein epi tes kephales: 1 COR 11:10 and the Ecclesial Authority of Women
Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture, 1996
One of the more problematic passages for Pauline interpretation is 1 Cor 11:2-16, which traditionally has been understood as showing that Paul reinforces the sex-role definitions of patriarchal Græco-Roman culture. At the high point of his discussion of proper dress for prophetesses in the Christian assembly, traditionalists argue, Paul requires the submission of female prophets to the authority of males. Similar to the headless horseman of American popular legend, women are headless without a man—and this trait applies as well to prophetic women. This subordinationist position has become not only part of the interpretive tradition, but is inherent in the English translations as well. Yet translation bias—not Paul—is the source of this misleading representation of I Cor 11:10. Faulty translations have combined with the ensuing interpretive tradition to undermine the obvious meaning of Paul's text and create a subordinationist reading. Analysis of the structure of 1 Cor 11:2-16 shows that verse 10 is the key to reclaiming this text for future discussion.
A feminist Analysis of the Veiling Passage (1 Corinthians 11:2–
Dieser Artikel spürt den methodologischen Problemen jener neutestamentlichen Forschung nach, die darauf besteht, dass sich in Korinther 11,2–11 und Galater 3,28 keine Gleichberechtigungskämpfe der frühen Christusgläubigen spiegeln. Es wird aufgezeigt, dass die antike androzentrische Ideologie, die sich in diesen Texten äußert, nicht als eine allgemeingültige verstanden werden sollte, sondern dass es plausibel ist, die Geschichte der korinthischen Prophetinnen als eine Geschichte des Widerstands gegen diese antike Ideologie zu verstehen. Insofern unbedeckte Häupter von Frauen mit geschorenen oder sehr kurz geschnittenen Haaren verglichen werden, untergräbt die Praxis des Entschleierns nicht nur eine Gendernorm, sondern ebenso Normen, die mit den Kategorien von Status, Klasse und womöglich Ethnizität zusammenhängen.
This paper analyses Paul's arguments in 1 Cor 11:2-16 from a social, ecclesial and theological perspective. It uncovers the ecclesial situation implied by this passage, and in particular the role (and supporting views) of those women who were praying and prophesying at Corinth. It sets this situation in the broader context of Greco-Roman and Jewish socio-religious norms and determines the extent of such influence (if any) on the ecclesial situation. It examines if and how Paul uses domestic and theological arguments to establish an order in the ecclesia. It proposes a new typological approach to Paul's use of the Genesis creation account and it shows how this sets the context for Paul's invocation of angels.
Authority in the New Testament and the New Testament’s Authority
Ecclesiology, 2017
In an essayistic manner, drawing on both exegetical and systematic theological insights, this paper explores the contours of the notion of authority in the New Testament, arguing that authority in the New Testament is primarily the performance of (liberating) authority by Christ, to which the New Testament witnesses. This witness is the New Testament’s own source of authority, but only in as far as the communities reading the New Testament engage in a communal praxis that is in line with Jesus’ own exercise of authority. The New Testament, it is argued, operates in a manner similar to that of a sacrament, while the diversity contained within its canon offers encouragement for an ongoing search for identity in Christ, rather than constituting a theological embarrassment.
On Whether 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 Allows an Egalitarian Exegesis
Priscilla Papers, 2005
Author: Alex Bearden Publisher: CBE International An unfortunate history of misinterpretation and abuse has surrounded 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. It has been taken out of context and used to suppress women’s involvement in the ministry of the church. The egalitarian interpretation, however, finally perceives this verse, not as a tool of oppression, but as one with a helpful cross-cultural message. At the outset of my paper I will disclose the three most prominent complementarian objections to an egalitarian interpretation: (1) the hierarchy Paul describes in v. 3 lays out a subordinating chain of command, (2) the word “authority” in verse 10 takes a passive meaning and thereby refers to the husband’s authority over the wife, and (3) that while women do not have to wear head coverings today they still need to pray and prophesy in a manner that is submissive to male leadership in the church.