ANGELS: 1 COR. 11:10by Gary D. Collier |
||
INTRODUCTION This text is notorious for its difficulties. Normally, we in Churches of Christ have read it with some contextual interest, but primarily with a hermeneutic of: "The text is very clear: women are to be subordinate to men; God clearly made it that way." Any attempt to raise questions about or challenge that conclusion is seen as a denial of the authority and inspiration of the Bible and is viewed as a question of "fellowship." There are at least four problems with this kind of approach: 1. Advocates of this (or any similar) view fail to see that at stake is the broader question: "How do we relate ancient text to life." The text is just as clear that women should have "authority on her head because of the angels," but this is typically ignored. 2. Whatever else one says about this text, it is clearly not about social roles but ontology (i.e., the real nature or "being" of male versus female). In this text, both men and women have the same roles in the assembly! Paul was concerned about the ontology of men and women for a reason -- but we usually do not get that far. 3. Our normal approaches to this text are entirely too simplistic and dismissive of important contextual considerations. Much more than superficial attention to hair-styles (and the like) is needed. Before any questions about "application" are asked, detailed attention to the contextual meaning of this text should take place. For example, it is completely inadequate to maintain that women should be subordinate to men and then turn around and completely ignore that "women should have authority on their heads because of the angels." Both are theological statements and both comment on the ontology (being) of the women. Neither is presented as a "social statement"; they stand or fall together. In application, it is illegitimate to choose one and ignore the other since they are both the same kind of theological statement. 4. Usually, we are so much wanting to get "to the bottom line" and so convinced that our "hurry-up" interpretive process is legitimate (i.e., "Just read it and do it!") that we avoid (or ignore) broader issues which are very important for understanding this text in context. Among other issues, we generally fail to discuss the relevance of Paul's eschatology or the Corinthians' attachment to Greek philosophy (by the way, the two are related: Paul so often states his eschatology because they were hooked on Greek philosophy). This is so important, I will give attention to each matter now. PAUL'S ESCHATOLOGY In summary, because the Corinthians viewed the new life in the Spirit as setting them above the corporeal (physical) world -- freeing them either to frolic in it or to renounce it -- it would be important for them to affirm that, "There is no resurrection of the dead!" Why? Because Christians have already fully attained the "spiritual" life; they are now the "ideal" man, "neither male nor female" (in Philo's terms!); the body is no longer of importance, the issue for them is merely the immortality of the soul in terms of Greek philosophy! Who wants the physical body to be raised from the dead?! But Paul responds by reinterpreting the same Genesis texts they are using to bolster their position, and he does it in light of his own current society by changing the Genesis text from saying "mankind as male and female" were formed in the image of God, to saying, that a man or husband is in the image and glory of God, while a woman is only the glory of the man or husband. With this interpretation of Genesis 1-2, Paul can now say that the ontology (being) of the woman is by creation subordinate to that of man as male. This is clearly not the point in Genesis 1-3 which makes the separate ontology of the woman come with the curse in Gen 3:16. But Paul is fighting against a Greek philosophy which is completely sidetracking his readers from believing in the core Gospel: Christ crucified and raised from the dead! So here, Paul debunks it by arguing that we are part of the first Adam, who was physical; only in the coming consummation will we be fully of the second Adam (Christ). And so, says Paul, women should not be removing their head-coverings in assembly as though they have now achieved some special ontological status as the "ideal man" of Greek philosophy who is "neither male nor female!" Stop that and come back to believing in the crucified and resurrected Lord. NOTES ON 1 COR 11:2-16 I. Two main issues: A. What does the text say? B. How do we apply what the text says for today? II. What the Text Says A. Text is divided into 3 parts: 1. vv. 2-6 Honoring the head: Men: no! Women: yes! 2. vv. 7-12 Creation order and purpose (Gen 1-6: From order to angels) 3. vv. 13-16 Supporting arguments a. It isn't proper b. Nature (argument by analogy: The argument is: "Since even nature teaches that women should have long hair, how much more should women cover their heads when coming before the Lord?") 1) Man = long hair a shame! 2) Woman = long hair her glory (long hair = a wrapping. ) c. No other such practice B. Some areas requiring attention: 1. The setting: "household-church" or "the whole church in one place"? 2. Subordinationist Christology 3. Meaning of "head" 4. Man/woman or husband/wife? 5. Men and head-coverings 6. "Because of the angels" / "authority on her head" 7. "Nature" III. How do we apply what the text says for today? A. When applying text to life we must do four things: 1. We must take seriously all aspects of the text before us. 2. We must distinguish clearly between the FORM of the text and the PRINCIPLE or goal of the text which stands behind the form. Is the form necessary for the principle? 3. We must take seriously our own existential situations in applying the principles or goals of the texts. 4. We must be guided primarily by our models in reading Scripture: Jesus, Paul, the prophets, and so on, in applying the weightier matters of the law as a primary concern. B. Items we must address seriously as we seek to apply 1 Cor 11:2-16 to our own situations. 1. Is it timeless? (Order and the Angels): It is often argued that v 3 (hierarchical order: God, Christ, Man, Woman) is a timeless principle since it is based in Paul's understanding of creation order (i.e., Paul's understanding of Scripture, Gen 1-2). However, there is a problem. Both v 3 and v 10 ("A woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels") are "theologically based" statements. That is to say, both statements derive by way of Paul's reflections on theological issues -- both statements are based on Paul's understanding of Scripture! In Churches of Christ, it is common practice to "keep" v 3 but to ignore v 10. This is an illegitimate picking and choosing from the text. Since both statements are "theologically based," if we must keep v 3, we must keep v 10. a. V 10 is often overlooked because it is difficult to understand: what is "authority on her head"? Who are the angels? Is this action to protect women from the angels (a strange concept)? Or a sign of her right to prophesy like men? Do angels have free will? etc., etc. There are many unanswered questions. (So people simply choose to skip it!) b. But whatever the answer to these questions is, the following is very clear and indisputable from this text: 1) The statement, "authority on her head because of the angels" occurs in a larger context which clearly has something to do with head-coverings for women. 2) Women are clearly seen as subordinate to men. 3) Women are to have something on their heads which men are not to have on their heads. 4) This difference separates and distinguishes men from women and represents the ontological subordination of women to men. 5) Whatever the word "angels" refers to, women are to have something on their heads "because of them." 6) The question of head-coverings is not discussed in the text as a cultural phenomenon, but is discussed as a theological necessity (1) "because of the angels" (2) to distinguish them from the men, and (3) to show their subordination to the men. Furthermore, (4) Paul clearly states that, "Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame on her head." c. The conclusion is that if v 3 is to be adhered to, so is v 10. They are tied together intricately as "theologically based statements" -- both as part of the same overall argument -- and cannot be legitimately torn apart from each other. 2. Universal or Ecclesiastical/Domestic Application: If it is argued that v 3 (hierarchical order: God, Christ, Man, Woman) is a timeless principle (an eternal truth -- see #1 above), then a very important question arises: is it also universal -- i.e., applicable to every aspect of life? a. If it is universal, must women show subordination to men in any and every realm in human endeavor? May a woman aspire to management positions in which she has men reporting to her? Or must she remain submissive, accepting no job or promotion which would place her in authority over men? b. If it is not universal, but applies only to "church and home" activities, what from the text indicates this, and how can it then be said that as Christ is head of man, man is head of woman. Is Christ only the head of man in the home and church but not elsewhere? c. It is sometimes argued that "men and women" in this text refers only to "husbands and wives" in particular and not to "men and women" in general. So, it is said, women could take managerial jobs in the work force and still be submissive at home and at church. However, this completely breaks down at vv 9 and 11 when the discussion is clearly with reference to the origin of woman from man, and the present reality that men are born of women. d. It is better to understand that when Paul argued this to the Corinthians, it would have been understood as a universal statement, applicable in any and every situation which involved men and women (and which, of course, would have included husbands and wives). In that society, women in general were regarded as subordinate to men in general, and as a rule were not allowed hold positions of authority over men. (There are notable exceptions, but they are clearly exceptions.) e. In other words, Paul did not want women wearing head-coverings in daily life (showing their subordinate position in society), only to come before the Lord and removing those head-coverings as a show of devotion to a Greek philosophical heresy which in the long run undermines the Gospel of Christ. This, says Paul, brings dishonor to their "head" (their husbands or male guardians). This would, furthermore, expose them shamelessly to the heavenly hosts (angels), would show no respect for the distinctions "from creation" between the ontological subordination of women to men, and would go against what even "nature" teaches, seeing that women have long hair as a "wrapping." [This does not mean that long hair is "the head-covering"] C. Conclusions about applying 1 Cor 11:2-16 to our own situations. 1. The form of 1 Cor 11:2-16 clearly reflects a social and cultural situation in which women wore head-coverings as a matter of course in their daily lives, but who were coming to the Lord in a Christian gathering and removing those head- coverings as a sign of their having attained to the "ideal man" who was "neither male nor female." In such a case, they became like the men, bare-headed before the Lord (i.e., women did not bring a special head-covering to wear "before the Lord" as in some Christian practice today). The Corinthian women simply were removing their normal head-covering which they wore every day as a sign of their ontologically subordinate station in daily life. 2. The form of 1 Cor 11:2-16 clearly advocates that women: ** Are universally and ontologically subordinate to men from creation, ** Are to wear head-coverings to reflect that subordination, ** Are not to remove those head-coverings when coming before the Lord and his heavenly host (angels) (i.e., women and men in "worship" must maintain the distinctions between men and women which were recognized everywhere in society), and ** Must have some type of covering on her head as a result of being created out of man and "because of the angels." 3. The principles, intents, or goals of 1 Cor 11:2- 16: a. If the "abiding principle" from this text is determined to be the subordination of women to men, ** It must be seen as a universal principle applying to all of life relationships between men and women (i.e., on the job as well as in the home and in the church) ** The question of head-coverings "because of the angels" must be seen as crucial to that position as a theologically rooted argument (i.e., "head-coverings" cannot be thrown out as merely cultural while the "hierarchical order of creation" is kept as an eternal principle -- they stand or fall together). ** The very least that must happen is that an equivalent sign of subordinate position must be shown/worn by women: (1) to show distinction between the sexes, (2) to show ontological subordination of women to men, and (3) to reflect a respect for Paul's statement, "authority on her head because of the angels." b. If the "abiding principle" from this text is determined not to be the subordination of women to men (and the accompanying question of clothing which reflects and fulfills that principle), it must rather be the principle of how Paul addresses a current cultural and philosophical situation to bring people to God's will in a given situation. In other words, in this text, Paul brings Scripture to bear on a particular problem involving Greek philosophy in a particular culture to show people how to be part of that culture and part of the Christian community at the same time: namely, one must not be duped by any current philosophy which undermines the core Christian message of "Christ crucified and raised from the dead." 1) In public Christian gatherings it is not appropriate to "make a statement" based on alien philosophies inimical at heart to the Christian Gospel. (For example, taking a position in favor of "equality" of women in our churches primarily because it is politically correct to do so or because radical feminist views demand it would be out of place.) 2) In this particular case, Paul re- interprets the texts being used by his Corinthian "opponents" to support the commonly held views and practices of dominant society that women were ontologically subordinate to men. Thus, Paul concludes that they should not "flout" societal norms. a) Paul used Scripture here primarily to fight an insidious Greek philosophy, and in the process he supports dominant societal views on ontology of women. b) This does not mean that Paul supported everything about society; only that he supported aspects of society which he felt were consistent with, and could be supported by, what he knew of Scripture. c. In view of Paul's expectation that Jesus would be returning very shortly (certainly within his own lifetime), there is every reason to take his statements in 1 Cor 16:2-16 as his solutions for the Corinthian church as it awaits the immanent return of Jesus and as it lives its life within a society which it is trying to win to the Lord. (I.e., Paul is not intending to give a once-for-all interpretation of Gen 1-3 which should be formally and literally applied to every culture of every time, place, and circumstance. He was speaking what he knew to speak: to his own time and his own Gentile mission in the mid-first century.) 4. In the final analysis, it is my own personal conclusion that the abiding principle from 1 Cor 11:2-16 is primarily hermeneutical: viz., do not subordinate the Christian Gospel to philosophies which undermine it! As to "role" of women, this text actually supports equal role! Both men and women do the same things in public assemblies in this text. As far as statements about the ontological subordination of women to men are concerned, I do not believe such a view should be continued on the basis of this text. Paul used Gen 1-3 to help make his case, but he had to change it to do so. Thus, I take Paul's argument as a "local" argument made to support normal societal practices and beliefs against the inroads of Greek philosophical challenges to the Gospel. I take this generally to indicate that men and women are not merely their own, they are a part of a larger whole: the Christian community. As such they must neither "flout" well established societal norms, nor insist on their own "rights" and new insights (as with early Christian women who were removing their head-coverings because of their supposed "new ontology" -- i.e., new compared to their own society). Instead, they must function within the Christian community according to the central tenets of the Gospel message. The society itself does not become the standard by which Christians live; however, Christians will consider society carefully as they make their decisions from Scripture about how to live and behave in light of societal expectations. |
||
|
Return to |