Continued - Part two
The eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians has borne the brunt of much
criticism over the last few decades, and even before. Paul's
insistence on 'coverings' has often been seen as an absolutizing
of a passing local custom (defended by Paul through faulty
exegesis of Gn. 1) as though it were a requisite of the faith. A
recent commentator has said of Paul's teaching in this chapter,
'The apostle elevates the relativities of culture to the
absolutes of Christian piety.' The ten verses (11:7-16) which
develop Paul's rationale for the coverings have been the focus of
such attacks. We must therefore consider them in some detail. To
do this successfully we shall have to consider not only 1
Corinthians, but also some passages from Genesis. Some of these
matters will be raised again in connection with 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
Verse 7 reads, 'A man ought not to cover his head (with long
hair), since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is
the glory of man.' Furore has often attended the reading of this
verse. Many commentators have forcefully pointed out that the
text of I Genesis 1:26 will not permit such an argument as Paul
apparently wishes to make. Paul argues that the man is the image
and glory of God and that the woman is the glory of man. Does he
mean that the woman is not the image of God? Or that she is the
image of man? Genesis says that both men and women are the image
of God. A simple comparison of Genesis 1:26 and 1:28 sustains
this point in the form in which it is usually raised. Genesis
1:26 informs us that God determined to create man (adam, a man/
Adam/mankind) in his own image, with dominion over the earth.
Verse 28 relates God's actions and indicates that he blessed them
and told them to increase in number and to rule the earth. Unless
changes in the manner of reproduction have taken place and unless
God made some other males who are unmentioned, it is inescapable
that the plural 'them' of verse 28 is the man and his wife and
therefore that adam in verse 26 is a collective reference to
mankind rather than to males or to Adam alone.
Further reflection on the structure of Genesis 1 reveals that the
chapter is not intended to give us information about the presence
or absence of hierarchical relations within the species
mentioned. A central stress in that chapter is the rule of God
over his creation and his forming of various realms with rulers
over them; thus the sun and moon rule the day and night, the fish
rule the sea, the birds rule the air, etc. Not surprisingly, when
the creation of man is reported, it is said, 'Let us create man
[-kind] after our image and let him [i.e. mankind = them] have
dominion [exercise rule] over ... all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground' (Gn. 1:26). Mankind is thus
set apart from all of the other creatures. The others rule a
given realm, by divine appointment; mankind images God by ruling
over all of the realms and all of the kinds. It is especially
with respect to this universal rule over the creatures that
mankind is identified as the image of God in Genesis 28. Because
the tent of the chapter is nowhere concerned to speak of
hierarchies within species, it would be an abuse of the verses
26-28 to cite them either for or against the 'headship' of one
partner or the other. To do so is to introduce something which
the text ignores. Animal species for instance very definitely
have
dominant sexes. The text completely omits reference to such
facts, stressing only that each 'kind' is to multiply and to rule
its sphere.
With respect to mankind, therefore, it can and must be stressed
that both sexes are called to multiply and to rule all of the
earth. To go on to suggest the subordination of one sex or the
equality of the sexes would be to abuse the text of Genesis 1.
Other texts must be examined to determine how the sexes are to
relate.
We conclude, therefore, that if Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, meant
to argue from Genesis 1:26-28 that men rather than women are
the image of God, he has not faithfully exegeted the text of
Genesis.
But has Paul in fact appealed to Genesis 1:26 and did he wish to
deny that a woman is the image of God in the sense intended
in Genesis 1:26-28?
Consider for a moment the context of the chapter and Paul's
actual words. The chapter is concerned for authority relation:
social, functional relations in which God is head, Christ is
head, and men are head. Paul has not been discussing personal
dignity or worth (ontological value). Man, in his authority
relation to creation and to his wife, images the dominion of God
over the creation (a central theme in Gn. 1) and the headship of
Christ over, his church (Eph. 1:20-22; 5:22-23,etc.) The woman is
not called to image God or Christ in the relation which she
sustains to her husband. She images instead the response of the
church to God and Christ by willing, loving self-subjection (Eph.
5:22-23). In this particular sense of authority relationships,
the main topic of 1 Corinthians 11, it is absolutely appropriate
to say that the man images God and that the woman does not.
I want to stress that in saying this there need be no implication
whatsoever that women are not, the image of God in other senses.
Paul did not say that man was the image of God and that the woman
was the image of the man.
Indeed, as we shall note when we consider verse 10, Paul himself
points out her rule over creation. The same point can, of course,
be made from Colossians 3:10-11 in which Paul says that all
believers are being renewed according to God's image. The context
of I Corinthians 11, then, does not point to Genesis 1:26 as the
basis of 'image' 1 Corinthians 11:7. It points instead to the
'dominion' theme of Genesis 1 as a whole, of the Old Testament
as a whole, and to the headship idea as expressed in 1
Corinthians 11:3. in particular as the basis of mans role as
image in 1 Corinthians 11:7.
This point is emphasized by Paul's actual word choice. Paul did
not follow the Greek Old Testament when he said that man is the
image and glory of God, although most commentators and virtually
all critics have assumed that he did. All our Greek Old
Testaments translate the Hebrew words for 'image' and 'likeness'
in Genesis 1:26 as eikon (image) and homoioma (likeness),
appropriate words. Paul shows in Romans 1:23 that he is aware of
this fact. In 1 Corinthians 11:7, however, he used eikon (image)
and doxa (glory). He has deliberately not used the terminology of
Genesis. It is important to pursue the meaning of doxa (glory) if
we are to understand him.
We have seen that man imitates or images God and Christ in his
headship role. How does that relate to man's being the 'glory' of
God and to the woman being the 'glory' of the man? What does
'glory' mean? We often think termsof 'reflection', i.e. that
man's glory' reflects God's. This brings 'glory' back into the
sphere of 'image' in that an image and a reflection may be
virtually synonymous. Paul does not use the term quite this way.
The word doxa(glory) had a variety, of shades of meaning. Paul's
use of it in I Corinthians 15:40-41 is helpful here. In that text
he speaks of the differing 'glories' or 'splendours' of the sun,
moon and stars.
The glory of them is that brightness which corresponds to, points
to and emerges from its station. The brightness of the moon
points to or manifests its station. The glory of a thing is thus
that which points to or manifests its dignity, honour or station.
Man is relationally the glory of God when he is in an appropriate
relation to him: under God, thereby pointing to God's dominion;
over creation, thereby manifesting in his action that dominion.
Correspondingly a woman would be 'glory' of her husband as she
stands in a proper relation to him, thereby manifesting his
station. To use the terminology of Ephesians, the husband is to
manifest or visibly demonstrate God's role (=-be the glory of
God) by taking responsible initiative and by being the loving,
self sacrificing head. The woman is manifest or demonstrate the
church's role by being the self-subjecting wife who acknowledges
the man's calling (= being the glory the man). Paul's pattern of
thought may or may not be congenial to the twentieth-century way
of thought, but he is not guilty of denying Genesis' teaching
concerning male and female as the image of God in his remarks in
1 Corinthians 11.
WOMEN FOR THE SAKE OF MAN?
Paul follows his comment on roles with two supporting commenTS
about the creation of the sexes in Genesis 2. He says that the
man was not taken out (ek) of the woman, but vice versa, and
that the man was not created for the sake of the woman but vice
versa. His obvious point is that these two facts imply that the
man should be the 'head'. Modern critics have not been happy
with, his reasoning. Why should the fact that she was taken from
him make her subordinate? Should it not show them to be equal, of
the same stuff? Why could it not be said that she was made for
the sake of his need rather than for the sake of his having
someone to command? The question of the legitimacy of Paul's use
of Genesis is once again raised. It will be raised again when we
consider 2 Timothy 2 8-15, in which Paul appeals to the same
texts and to the same themes. At risk of inadequately treating
our subject, I shall defer consideration of Paul's use of Genesis
until we come to the appropriate place in the discussion of 1
Timothy 2:8-15. Whether or not all agree with Paul that woman's
derivative origin and her creation to be man's 'helper' imply
that she should be subordinate, virtually all agree that that is
what he thought.
A SIGN OF AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS
1 Corinthians 11:10, literally translated, reads, 'Because of
this the woman ought to have [a sign of] authority on her head
because of the angels.' This cryptic. remark has been the
subject of much discussion. Three basic views have been
advanced: (1) the woman ought to have a sign of a man's authority
over her so that angels, also present at the gathering of the
church, will not be sexually aroused by the women; (2) the woman
ought to have a sign of man's authority so that she will not
offend angels, who are the guardians of the divine order; (3) the
'sign of authority' is both a sign of the man's authority with
respect to the woman and a sign of her with respect to the rest
of creation, in particular angels. Let us consider them one by
one.
The 'aroused angels' theory has a long pedigree in theological
thought. Its root lies in Jewish speculation that the 'sons of
God' in Genesis 6:2 were evil angels. The sons of God are better
understood as men faithful to God. Quite a part from the
question of Old Testament exegesis, such a view is quite foreign
to the New Testament. Satan and his hosts were defeated by
Christ's victory. Christian women need not live in fear that they
will be sexually assaulted by them. Further, the angels present
with God's people are obedient to God (cf. Heb. 12:22; Rev.
5:11); and why are the angels more likely to be aroused than the
Corinthian men? There is little to say in favour of the 'aroused
angel' theory.
The 'out of respect for the angels' theory has more to support
it. As we have noted, the New Testament church did think in terms
of the presence of angels with the assembly of God's people. The
Corinthians evidently considered that some of their tongues were
those of angels (13:1). In addition, the Corinthians showed a
particular concern about their relations to angels. More than all
the other letters of Paul, this one discusses relations with
angels. There is good indication that the Corinthians thought
that their state of being raised with Christ had put them on a
par with angels (4:8-9; 6:1; 13:1). Paul was concerned to say
that they were not yet reigning with Christ (4:8) but were at
present a spectacle for the universe to see (4:9), although they
would ultimately judge the angels (6:1). Interpreted in this
light, the 'out of respect for the angels' view calls upon the
Corinthians to respect their relation to the angels as well as
the relations between the sexes by wearing a covering.
There is one serious drawback to this view: the word exousia
(authority), translated here 'sign of authority'. The term does
not mean 'sign of' (someone else's) authority'. It has instead an
active sense and, apart from the context, would be taken as
pointing to the authority of the woman herself, not that of
her husband.
The third way of understanding Paul's remark in verse 10 picks up
the active meaning of exousia. Up to this point in the chapter,
the women have been told to recognize the authority of others.
The woman seems to be told, 'You are low man (!) on the totem
pole!' One is reminded of the saying in which the eldest brother
kicks the next, who kicks the next, until the smallest '. . . and
he went and kicked the dog'. It almost seems that the careful
balancing note which we previously found is missing. In Ephesians
5:22-33 we found careful instructions to the husband, checking
his abuse of authority and reminding him of his close union with
his wife. The same note was struck in 1 Peter 3:7, where husbands
were reminded that their wives were fellow-heirs of the gift of
life (note the parallel with Paul's thought at Galatians 3:28).
In my estimate, verse 10 marks the beginning of just such a
stress on mutual relation in ! Corinthians 11.
The flow of the chapter to this point would lead us to expect
the conclusion that a woman should wear her hair as an
acknowledgment of the continuing relevance of her relation to her
husband. This helped to check Corinthian confusion about the
implications of the present state of the kingdom. Paul's
assertion that her long hair is a sign of authority which she
possesses comes as quite jolt. How can the sign of her relation
to her husband be a sign of authority which she possesses?
'Because of the angels" Paul says.
The woman's hair marks her as a woman. The manner in which she
wears it marks her as a woman embracing her role in the
creation of God in this given moment of the course of
redemptive history.... or as a woman rejecting it. The place of a
woman in Christianity was not the empty, valueless place of many
Eastern women. Her place was above all creations (angels
included), barring only her father or husband (and this too would
change with the return of Christ). Her hair is thus a sign of
tremendous authority as well as a sign of a particular relation
to her husband.
(I would take exception to Hurley's comment about "the manner in
which she wears it marks her as a woman embracing her role in the
creation" - the style of hair a woman wears her hair in has not
one thing to do with anything except her choice as to how she
decides to wear her hair on any particular occasion - Keith
Hunt).
The Corinthian women no doubt saw the loosing of their hair
as a sign at they possessed authority equal to that of the men.
Paul pointed out that their action was in fact a rejection of
the order of God and of the role of women; loosed hair was a sign
of rebellion and disgrace.
(Again, it may have so been at one time in the OT, the loosing of
the hair, but I doubt that was carried over into the NT church -
Keith Hunt).
When that hair was not done as a man's but as a woman's it became
that which marked her as one possessing authority, as vicegerent
of creation, one who would join in the judgment of rebellious
angels, rather than be judged with them (1 Cor. 6:1).
(Once more I would submit that "style" of hair, how a woman wears
her hair is NOT here being spoken about by Paul. He is not
addressing "style" but hair in general, that which is fitting for
a woman as opposed to that which is fitting for a man - Keith
Hunt
Paul's cryptic remark about angels, thus interpreted, is related
to the remark in Ephesians 5:28-31 about the union of husbands
and wives and to the stress in 1 Peter 3:7 on the two as fellow-
heirs.
The next two verses are not at all cryptic or unclear. The theme
of the inter-relatedness of the sexes stands out clear and
strong: 'In the Lord, however, woman is not independent (choris)
of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came out of
(ek) man, so also man is born of (dia + genitive, 'through')
woman. But everything is from God' (1 Cor. 11:11-12). The husband
may not consider himself the ruler of his wife and abuse his
authority. By God's design he is dependent on her for birth; they
are interdependent by God's design. As in each of the other
Passages calling for a social, functional (economic)
subordination of women, we find strong counterbalance to check
male abuse and disregard of the unity of the sexes.
................
TO BE CONTINUED
|
