1 Corinthians 11: Head coverings and angels

[KingsGambit]

1 Corinthians 11 is one of the more difficult passages in the New Testament (outside of Revelation, obviously). This is where Paul commands that women wear head coverings in worship, and mentions in verse 10 that this is "because of the angels".

When I was in my debate with foudroyant a few years ago, this passage came up but I wasn't sure what to make of it then, and neither were the authors of the study resources that I consulted.

Today, I was reading an unrelated article by Dr. Michael Heiser. He's a well known evangelical scholar who is completely orthodox (he does work for Logos Bible Software) but who is willing to look into topics that most people think are just crazy. Dr. Heiser made a claim about 1 Corinthians 11 that I was unfamiliar with. He said that there was a cultural belief that a woman's hair was connected to her genitalia and that going without a head covering was showing this off and that as a 1st century Jew, Paul shared in this belief. (He cites ancient writers like Aristotle and Hippocrates, he's not just making this up.) (Source: http://drmsh.com/christians-who-beli...his/#fn-9069-2 )

The obvious question is: If this is what Paul had in mind when he wrote this, what does this mean for modern Christians? Obviously nobody believes that anymore, but 1 Corinthians 11 is still in our Bible. Do we interpret this in general terms of dressing modestly at worship?

[mikewhitney]

I just thought about Romans where there was no mention of head coverings. The gentiles in Rome were in Roman culture far removed from the practices of the Near East. If the covering of women's heads with veils was a central requirement of Christian gatherings, it would seem important to mention that in the letter to the Romans.

For recommended or essential aspects of Christianity, we probably should look for elements common among them. The intersection of ideas gives us more basis to find rules. Maybe this approach is useful only with Romans being used in comparison to Paul's other writings, since the other epistles addressed problems in places where Paul had preached -- and thus wouldn't necessarily focus on every critical element for Christians to pay attention to.

[NorrinRadd]

Various views to consider...

-- An article by P.B. Payne (PDF)

-- A response by Payne to a question submitted to him

-- A response by Payne to a critique (PDF)


-- An article by William Welty (head of the ISV team; PDF)



There is interesting info in commentaries, but I prefer things I can link to easily.

[demi-conservative]

I just thought about Romans where there was no mention of modest dressing. The gentiles in Rome were in Roman culture far removed from the practices of the Near East. If modest dressing was a central requirement of Christian gatherings, it would seem important to mention that in the letter to the Romans.

[hedrick]

In the NIGCT commentary. at least 3 possibilities are noted for the significance of the angels:

• The head covering is a sign of the woman's participation in her proper role, and is a prerequiste to exercising authority in the church, such as prophecy. As such it symbolizes her authority over the angels (though there are several theories about which angels and what authority; some involve authority over evil angels, other not).
  
• There are some Jewish traditions suggesting that angels are present in worship. Because of this, the people had to be perfect. Women covering their head is a sign of their proper participation.
  
• Angels are guardians of order, so again, women should show signs of their participation in the proper order because of the presence of the angels.

The last 2 seem consistent with Payne's understanding.

Personally I'm dubious about the continued usefulness of Paul's image here (Does hair have that kind of implication today? Do we even conceive of gender the same way?), partly because I think he mistook current Jewish culture for universal nature, and partly because it's basically impossible to be sure what he meant. It would be interesting to know whether there was some context in his interaction with Corinth that would have made his meaning clear to the original readers.

[hedrick]

Lest anyone misunderstand my previous comment: I am not suggesting that we should abolish distinctions and turn everyone into some kind of bland neutrality. As Paul says elsewhere, there are many roles in the body, and we should honor them all. What I don't think he quite appreciated is that being of a certain gender doesn't necessarily carry with it a guarantee of a certain role, though there are certainly plenty of people who do just fine in the traditional roles.

[lee_merrill]

I just thought about Romans where there was no mention of head coverings.

But there is no mention of communion, either, in Romans.

Blessings,
Lee

[KingsGambit]

In the NIGCT commentary. at least 3 possibilities are noted for the significance of the angels:

• The head covering is a sign of the woman's participation in her proper role, and is a prerequiste to exercising authority in the church, such as prophecy. As such it symbolizes her authority over the angels (though there are several theories about which angels and what authority; some involve authority over evil angels, other not).
  
• There are some Jewish traditions suggesting that angels are present in worship. Because of this, the people had to be perfect. Women covering their head is a sign of their proper participation.
  
• Angels are guardians of order, so again, women should show signs of their participation in the proper order because of the presence of the angels.

The last 2 seem consistent with Payne's understanding.

Personally I'm dubious about the continued usefulness of Paul's image here (Does hair have that kind of implication today? Do we even conceive of gender the same way?), partly because I think he mistook current Jewish culture for universal nature, and partly because it's basically impossible to be sure what he meant. It would be interesting to know whether there was some context in his interaction with Corinth that would have made his meaning clear to the original readers.

The second two possibilities seem more likely to me. This passage seems different from most of the other controversial Pauline passages on women because most of the others seem easily explained in terms of maintaining cultural respectability. Obviously, this isn't the case here.

[Obsidian]

Hair is obviously sexual for women. You don't need to be an expert in ancient Greek medicine to figure that out. Women with short hair are unattractive. However, Heiser's interpretation has weakness because it's not at all clear that the chapter is even about modesty. Also, I don't think it's even talking about covering hair in the first place. It's saying that the long hair is itself a covering.

[NorrinRadd]

Hair is obviously sexual for women. You don't need to be an expert in ancient Greek medicine to figure that out. Women with short hair are unattractive. However, Heiser's interpretation has weakness because it's not at all clear that the chapter is even about modesty. Also, I don't think it's even talking about covering hair in the first place. It's saying that the long hair is itself a covering.

This is entirely subjective, and asinine to boot.