What Does The Bible Say About Women Pt. 8 - Difficult Passages - 1 Cor 11-14
Click play below as you read along
We’re finally at the point where we can talk about the contested passages in scripture that I’m sure all of you have been chomping at the bit to get at. But it’s important to remember why we spent nearly 2 months laying down the framework on what the Bible does and does not say about this issue.
Remember we had to understand the clear parts of scripture first before we get to the unclear or difficult passages. You use the clear to shed light on the unclear. Let’s get into it!
1 Cor 11:2-10
Read 1 Cor 11:2-10
How do you think this passage has been used within the church in the past and even to today?
To the original audience, what do you think the purpose of this passage was? Or perhaps, why do you think this passage was originally written?
It’s important to note that for every passage of Scripture, there was always a reason why it was written. Every Bible verse has a purpose! And in order to understand the purpose of a specific verse or passage, you first have to understand the question that that verse was meant to answer.
Let me throw out a proposal for this text. What happens to this passage’s meaning if we understand this 1 Cor. 11:2-10 as a defense for women who want to keep their head coverings on, and instead it is the men who are pressuring the women to take them off? In the ancient world, head coverings were often very closely related to their sexual allure. For example, in public women would cover their hair, but when they were in the home with just their husbands, they would let their hair down. Obviously, this holds some sexual overtones with how wives and husbands behaved in public and private.
However, Mystery religions – the major religious system of the Greco-Roman world – would often encourage the female prostitutes to let down their hair during the worship act to the gods, thus sexualizing the pagan worship practices. And since the female prostitutes were there to perform various sex acts with their hair down, you can see how this practice of only letting one's hair down for their husbands vs. letting their hair down during worship, sacrifices, etc., led to some conflicting feelings among newly formed Christian women. Another point of interest, is that up until this very point, “headship” language is never associated with veils or head coverings in the Bible. I say this specifically, because “headship” language is associated with veils in the Greco-Romans Which as we know, stands in direct contrast with God’s Kingdom.
So, looking back at what 1 Cor 11:7-10 says, what do you notice when you think back to the Genesis creation account?
So, which do you think is more likely? That Paul is blatantly contradicting Scripture or that something else might be going on?
So, if we think about this passage as instead being for the men as the primary audience, rather than the women, how does this change the meaning of this text?
First, it shifts the responsibility to the men to treat their wives as precious and important. V. 7 says that women are to be a man’s/husband’s glory – NOT as their Trophies’ as many men in the ancient world believed.
Second, for those of you with physical Bibles, who has a text note in v. 10? What does the text note say?
Some translations insert the word “Symbol” saying that “women ought to have a symbol of authority over her own head.” (NLT, ESV, NKJV [interestingly the KJV doesn’t include the word ‘symbol.”], NASB, and others). When you just read 1 Cor 11:10 in the Greek, it literally just says, “Because of this, a woman ought to have authority over her own head, on account of the angels.” But with “symbol” added it is “Because of this, a woman ought to have a symbol of authority over her head, on account of the angels.” When the word “symbol” appears in the text, it changes the meaning of the text by shifting authority to the man as the one who enforces the usage of head coverings upon their wives. But guess what is not in the original Greek? The word for “symbol.”
What is significant between these two translations? How does the meaning change?
Why do you think that some Bible translations include the word “Symbol” and others don’t?
If we interpret this passage correctly and don’t insert the world's way of thinking about the top-down power structure and instead think the way that Jesus thought and modeled and taught, we find that women have authority over their own heads and if they want to protect their dignity by keeping a head covering on, then no one else can or should take that authority away from them. The issue with this text is that Paul is most likely talking to his audience and this is not necessarily “I Paul, decree that women are subject to men.” I can confidently say this because of what appears in vv. 11-12.
Here, Paul rebuts this seemingly contradictory argument by saying “In the Lord, women is not independent of man, nor is man independent of women, For as women came from man, so also man is born of women. But everything comes from God.” Paul is laying bare the Corinthian argument and saying, “Look you seem to be struggling with who comes from who, and who has authority over who with this head covering issue. But you need to understand there is not a biblical precedent for this head-covering conversation. You must understand that neither man nor woman is above the other.” With this, Paul subverts their line of thinking with we all come from God in vv. 11-12.
Need more proof?
Notice in 11:5. Women here are prophesying in the church. Openly and it is even expected and anticipated by the context.
If there was an issue of hierarchy or authority of one party over the other, why would Paul then immediately contradict himself in 1 Cor 14 and tell women not to speak and to be silent in the church? Let’s take a look at 1 Cor 14 and see what’s going on here.
1 Cor. 14
1 Corinthians 12-14 is all about order within the congregation. There’s this issue that seems to be happening where members of the church at Corinth think that some spiritual gifts – tongues – are superior to other spiritual gifts – prophecy. All throughout, the issue of male prophets vs female prophets or male tongues or female tongues, never even comes up. In these chapters, Paul wants to shut down the idea that one gift is better than another or that some people are more spiritual than others. ALL received the same Spirit, therefore no gift is greater than another. It was a spiritual gifts issue, not a male/female issue.
Read 1 Cor 14: 26-33
In short, Paul is making an argument in this chapter that the “best” gifts are gifts that benefit everyone. For tongues, if there is no interpreter, then not everyone benefits. But with prophecy, everyone benefits. In fact, vv. 29-31 seem to indicate that Everyone can prophecy by speaking truth, with boldness, and with faithful words of God – So that everyone can be instructed and encouraged!
Read 1 Cor 14: 34-35
What seems at odds with what Paul literally just said in vv. 29-31? How can women prophecy if they are being told to be silent in the churches?
So again I’ll ask you, based on the context, and everything we’ve talked about, do you think it is more likely that Paul is simply telling all women everywhere that they are not allowed to speak in church? Or do you think something else might be happening here?
3 theories
Theory 1: is vv. 34-35 original to this text?
For those with a physical Bible, what do your footnotes say about these verses? Some will say that these verses were not present in some of our manuscripts. Others say that their placement is in a different spot. The reason why there is a text note is because early compilers of the manuscripts got together and had questions about these verses. Some were asking basically, “Hey, these two verses don’t sound like something Paul would say. But to be on the safe side, we’ll include them here anyway because we don’t want to accidentally exclude something just incase. We’ll leave a note saying ‘Hey this sounds a little weird.’”
To give you an example of why they were asking this, let’s try something. Let’s read vv. 31-33 then go straight into vv 36-37.
Notice how smooth of a transition that was. It’s possible that vv. 34-35 were a later addition as it seems to disrupt the text.
Theory 2: It’s an issue of disorderly conduct.
If you assume vv.34-35 as original, then it could also make sense that this passage was addressing women who were constantly interrupting church service. Essentially, Paul would be saying “Hey, you group of ladies interrupting, Stop interrupting services and conversations in a disorderly way.” It’s possible that they were asking unrelated questions and causing chaos during worship. This would make sense, especially if this was a specific issue with this specific church. And if it was a specific issue with this specific church, then this wasn’t a general blanket statement to all churches, was it?
Theory 3: It is a blanket statement to all women in all churches.
If this is in fact a blanket statement to all women in all churches, what is the problem with this theory? It completely contradicts everything Paul just got done saying in ch 11-13 Also if you support this, then you must be consistent. So you must advocate that no woman anywhere can talk period “in the church.”
Take away
Understanding passages like this one – which can be difficult indeed – must be read in light of the rest of scripture. It simply doesn’t make sense for Genesis – Romans to advocate for one way of understanding Scripture, only for 1 Corinthians 11 or 14 to suddenly spin everything on its head.
On top of that, if the third theory is correct, then the Kingdom of God is a downgrade for women! Thinking about how the Old Testament understands and views women compared to this third theory of understanding 1 Cor. 14 presents a stark contrast with everything we’ve talked about so far.
Next week, we’re going to keep exploring difficult passages and using the clear to shine light on these difficult passages.