ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τς κεφαλς:
1 Cor 11:10 and the Ecclesial Authority of Women
Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Religious Studies
John Carroll University
20700 North Park Boulevard
University Heights, Ohio 44118
ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τς κεφαλς:
1 Cor 11:10 and the Ecclesial Authority of Women
INTRODUCTION
One of the more problematic passages for Pauline interpretation is I 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 human 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. This translational and interpretive history has caused feminist
scholars to reject the text itself as “irredeemable.”
I will accede that the traditional readings of this text indeed are irredeemable for
the healthy life of women and men in the church today. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza,
who has contributed so much to biblical and feminist studies, has tried to salvage the text
by suggesting that Paul is here taking for granted a distinction between married and
unmarried women; under the influence of 1 Cor 14:33b–36, she finds that unmarried
women are allowed to prophesy whereas married women remain subordinated and are
forbidden to speak at all in the liturgical gathering. But Paul gives no indication that the
Spirit can bestow the prophetic gift only on single women. If the text is read as saying
that women, even women prophets, must be subject to a human male in everything—
including the matter of prophetic speech—then there can be no female prophets at all.
We are no longer talking about a prophetic gift which comes unmediated from God; we
are no longer concerned with a prophetic message which can challenge the status quo,
which stands outside it and even may directly oppose it. If women prophets are headless
and therefore subject to the authority of male human heads—and let us be clear on this, it
is the authority of men due to their maleness; there is no idea of restricting this authority
to male prophets—if this is what Paul teaches in 1 Cor 11, then feminist critics are right
in utterly rejecting this passage. If this is the case, Paul teaches that women cannot be
prophets at all.
However, is this the only reading of the text? Is this subordinationist view (the
“headless prophetess”) the most compelling interpretation of the text? I think not. In
fact, the notion that v. 10 refers to an authority superior to the woman prophet and to
which she is subordinated is quite a faulty understanding of the text.
In this essay, I will argue that it is not the text itself that conveys this
subordinationist view. Rather, a significant translators’ bias regarding 1 Cor 11:10 has
led to a misleading representation of the text. This, combined with the ensuing
interpretive tradition, has undermined the obvious meaning of the text to create a
subordinationist exegesis—thereby indirectly giving rise to the feminist critique and
rejection of the text as “irredeemable.” An analysis of the structure of 1 Cor 11:2–16
shows that verse 10 is the key to reclaiming this text for future discussion.
THE STRUCTURE OF 1 COR 11:2–16
1 Cor 11:10 is the key to interpretation of this pericope. Not only is it the central
verse of the chiasm Gordon Fee has noted in 8–9 and 11–12,
it is also the center of the
entire argument of 1 Cor 11:2–16. The chiasm includes not only vv. 8–12, but all of
1 Cor 11:2–16, and verse 10 provides the key to its interpretation.
A 1 Cor 11:2–3
B 1 Cor 11:4–5
C 1 Cor 11:6–7
D 1 Cor 11:8–9
E 1 Cor 11:10 διὰ τοτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ
ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τς
κεφαλς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους
D' 1 Cor 11:11–12
C' 1 Cor 11:13
B' 1 Cor 11:14–15
A' 1 Cor 11:16
A/A': Verse 2 introduces the idea of the Corinthians’ faithfulness to the tradition
Paul has transmitted to them, while v. 3 provides the content of the tradition which will
be discussed: the notion of “headship;” v. 16 repeats this claim to the authority of the
tradition, now understood in light of v. 10.
B/B': In vv. 4–5, Paul begins the explication of the specific tradition mentioned in
v. 3 by applying the distinction between male and female “heads” (v. 3) and the idea of a
head covering. The significance of a head covering again is emphasized in vv. 14–15,
where the argument from “nature” (and the analogy with hair styles) is designed to
demonstrate that it is appropriate for women to have their heads covered. At this point it
is important to note two things: (1) the term for “covering” is not κάλυμμα (veil);
and
(2) the covering Paul has in view does not require silence; on the contrary, it is precisely
because the woman is actively praying and prophesying in the Christian assembly that she
needs to wear a head covering. (Presumably, a silent woman would not need one.)
C/C': In vv. 6–7, Paul extends the comparison of this head covering to the
woman’s hair, and uses the cultural interpretations of long and short hair styles for
women to bolster his argument that women ought to keep their hair covered, while men
ought not. In v. 13, he charges the Corinthians to decide whether or not this argument
from cultural convention is persuasive or not. Presumably, he believes it is.
D/D': At this point in the argument, Paul seems to think he may have emphasized
too strongly the differences between men and women, so he inserts two sets of
parenthetical remarks. The first (vv. 8–9) attempts to clarify the reference in v. 7 to
woman being the δόξα (glory) of man. Using Genesis2 as the basis for this argument,
Paul points out that woman was created from and for man. But the second parenthetical
remark (vv. 11–12) makes it clear that this appeal to the original “order of creation” is
intended to bridge divisions between men and women, not to create them: neither man
nor woman is independent of the other; men are now born of women, which is a reversal
of the original order of creation; and God is the source of all things, including woman and
man.
E: At this point in the analysis, it is still not clear what precisely Paul intends to
do in this pericope. It remains for verse 10 to provide the interpretive key to this passage.
However, there are three terms which must be discussed before we undertake this task.
Two of these terms (κεφαλὴ and κατακαλύπτω) appear in the text; the third term
(κάλυμμα) is significant for its absence.
Κεφαλὴ. Literally “head,” κεφαλὴ also may be used in a metaphorical sense
meaning “leader” or “source.” In 1 Cor 11:2–16, Paul moves back and forth between the
literal usage and the metaphorical usage. Since the English word “head” can support the
same range of meaning, translators usually use this word to render κεφαλὴ. This wisely
leaves the reader with the task of determining how the term is used in a given instance.
Verse 3 is the one undisputable case of metaphorical usage of the term
(God:Christ:man; man/husband:woman). Commentators disagree on how this metaphor
should be construed, whether in the sense of “leader” or “source.”
But the underlying
issue seems to be whether or not the metaphor should be understood in a subordinationist
sense, whatever term is used in the translation. Analysis of verse 10 will provide the final
answer to this question. However, one also must address the conjunction of the term
κεφαλὴ with the notion that “woman is the δόξα of man” (v.7) and ask why it results in
the injunction: κατακαλύπέσθω.
Κατακαλύπτω and κάλυμμα. κατακαλύπτω comes from καλύπτω, the basic
meaning of which is to hide or bury in the earth or, more generally, to “cover.” Albrecht
Oepke (in the TDNT) mentions that “Even when the idea of burying is not present, a
connection with death often suggests the basic meaning.”
The figurative sense of
covering over (forgiving) sins is common in the Old Testament.
The related term, κάλυμμα, means “veil” or “mask,” and harks back to the
wearing of a mask by Moses when representing the Lord. Exodus 34:30–35 reports that,
after talking directly with God on Sinai, Moses’ face shone with the δόξα of God and the
people could not bear to see it; Moses left his face uncovered when proclaiming to Israel
the words that God gave him, but “he put a κάλυμμα on his face” when he finished
reporting the divine word, and left it on until he went again to speak with the LORD.
In pagan cults, there was a belief that covering the face with a sacred mask
(κάλυμμα) “confers divine powers on the wearer. In particular, it enables the priest to
give an oracle in the name of the deity. Hence covering the face serves to reveal rather
than to conceal the divine.”
But Paul refuses this common term κάλυμμα and with it the
contemporary pagan notion that veiling allows revelation. Instead he elects the tradition
of the Hebrew Bible that conjoins revelation with direct speech and uncovered face.
To convey this directness, Paul chooses the term ἀνακαλύπτω, meaning
“uncover,” “unveil,” or “open” (e.g., a package, a womb). In 2 Cor 3:18,
ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ refers to the immediacy and absoluteness of the Christian experience of
God, even for women: “we all, with uncovered face beholding the glory (δόξα) of the
Lord, are changed into the same image.”
This use of ἀνακαλύπτω in 2 Cor 3:18 should influence our understanding of
κατακαλύπτω in 1 Cor 11:2–16. If even women behold the glory of the Lord with
uncovered faces, then κατακαλύπτω cannot entail wearing the veil (since it would cover
the face); the verb must be taken in the more general sense of “covering” the head. If this
is true, the comparison with long hair as a περιβόλαιον (mantle) in v. 15 makes better
sense, as nature’s sign that the head should be covered (but not the face).
If κατακαλύπτειν means “to cover (the head)” but not “to veil,”
then an apparent
contradiction in the text is resolved. In Jewish culture, the wearing of a κάλυμμα was a
symbol of a woman’s silent submission to the mastery of a man. It is problematic to
insist that κατακαλύπέσθω in 1 Cor 11 means “let her wear a veil” (RSV) because the
κάλυμμα means silence before men, whereas the context presumes that a woman (covered
or uncovered) does indeed speak before and to men—she prays or prophesies in the
liturgical assembly (v. 5). And because such prayer and prophecy are revelations of the
divine word, the woman (like Moses) must have her face uncovered if the prophetic
message is to be heard. To show that she is a woman, her head/hair should be covered;
but she must be unveiled.
THE CORINTHIAN CONTEXT
I have argued elsewhere that the context of this discussion is provided by the
Pauline understanding of the Spirit as a thoroughly eschatological reality: the Christian
experience of the Spirit is a foretaste of the perfected reality intended by God.
This
experience was viewed by Paul and by the Corinthians as something affecting the social
life of the Christian community and its relationship to the world at large. Hence, their
eschatology is inherently a socio-political ideology. The Corinthians believed that Paul’s
“no more male and female” should be taken seriously on the social and political levels.
But they apparently went too far—taking this to mean that Christians had entered into an
androgynous resurrection existence. Paul tries, in 1 Corinthians, to persuade them rather
that the experience of the Spirit does not entail a denial of human sexuality. Instead, it
provides the basis for using male and female differences to create mutuality rather than
domination.
1 COR 11:10 AS INTERPRETIVE KEY
Finally we can return to verse 10: διὰ τοτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ
τς κεφαλς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. The RSV translation reads: “That is why a woman
ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.” Having just discussed the
significance of the term κάλυμμα—and the significance of Paul’s consistent rejection of
it throughout this passage—it is remarkable to find the phrase “to have a veil on her
head” being used to render ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τς κεφαλς.
Έξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τς κεφαλς. Indeed, a quick review of the English versions
shows that the RSV translators are not the only ones who read this verse against a
subordinationist background. In 1 Cor 11:10, the phrase ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τς κεφαλς has
been variously translated as “power on (her) head” (KJV; IB-1a), “a sign of power on
(her) head” (Aubert), “a sign of authority on (her) head” (NIV; NEB), “a symbol of
authority on (her) head” (NASB; NRSV), “a sign of submission on (her) head” (NAB), “a
symbol of man’s authority on (her) head” (Williams), “a symbol of the authority over
them” (JB), “a sign of the authority over her” (NJB), “a sign of dependence” (IB-2a),
“protection” (IB-2b; Conzelmann
), and “a veil on (her) head” (RSV; Clark;
IB-1b).
These translations are remarkable for their creativity. Except for the KJV, which
is the most literal, each translation adds some phrase like “a symbol of” before the term
ἐξουσία (power, authority), or simply replaces the term ἐξουσία with a totally contrary
idea (submission, protection, dependence, veil). And each one inserts the possessive
pronoun “her” before κεφαλ, in place of the definite article. One might be reminded of
the exasperation of Sir William Mitchell Ramsay with scholars commenting upon this
verse:
Most of the ancient and modern commentators say that the “authority”
which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is
subject —a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at
anywhere except in the New Testament, where (as they seem to think)
Greek words may mean anything that commentators choose. Authority or
power that belongs to the bearer, such power as the magistrate possesses in
virtue of his office, was meant by the Greek word exousia.
Curiously enough, the translators realize this fact when dealing with other passages with
precisely the same phrase—when the passages refer to the authority of men. Because the
RSV has been the scholarly standard, I will use it as a case study.
The phrase ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν occurs only once in the GNT, here in 1 Cor 11.
However, it appears three times in the LXX: in Dan 4:17, 1 Macc 11:58, and 1 Esdras
8:22. In each case, the phrase is translated quite differently than the identical phrase in 1
Cor 11. In 1 Macc 11:58 we read: “. . . and granted him the right . . . ;” and in 1 Esdras
8:24: “. . . no one has authority to impose any tax . . . .” The RSV translation of Dan 4:17
uses the reading from the Theodotian text (Θ), which does not include this exact phrase
(whereas the LXX does); in both Greek versions (Θ and LXX), the verse clearly refers to
the ruling power of God.
In each of these instances, then, the phrase ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν is translated as
referring to the authority of the subject of the verb over others.
Coincidentally, each of
the subjects in these passages are male. Yet when the identical phrase is used in reference
to a woman in 1 Cor 11:10, it is translated as meaning that the subject of the verb is
subordinate to the authority of others—precisely the reverse of these other references.
The obvious meaning of the text—that a woman has authority—is subverted.
To a certain extent, this subversion occurs because the term κεφαλ is taken
literally in verse 10. It is not clear what it would mean to have power over one’s own
head, and the difficulty is attributed to the idea of the woman’s power—rather than the
assumption that κεφαλ here refers to her cranium.
However, if one takes the term
κεφαλ in its metaphorical sense (as clearly is the case in v. 3, and perhaps 4b and 5b as
well), the phrase ἐπὶ τς κεφαλς becomes a reference to the prophetic woman’s
authority “over the head,” i.e., over ὁ ἀνήρ, “the man” (v. 3). Then ἐξουσία can be taken
in its obvious sense, as a reference to “the power and the honour and dignity of the
woman” (as Ramsay argued nearly a century ago), without sacrificing the intelligibility of
the verse as a whole.
Thus, a revised translation would read: “On account of all these
things, the woman has a right to authority over the ‘head’ [i.e., the man] through the
angels.”
Once this new translation of verse 10 is pursued, the irony of Paul’s statement
becomes obvious: the patriarch to whom the woman has owed submission has become
one over whom she has authority διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. And, as Schüssler Fiorenza points
out, this authority “because of the angels” is not some sort of requirement that the woman
justify her actions, as if the angels somehow require information or appeasement.
On
the contrary, the angels are the mediators of this power of prophetic women over men
because they are the ones “who according to Jewish and Christian apocalyptic theology
mediate the ‘words of prophecy’”
—and because, according to Paul, it is angelic speech
which underlies Christian prayer and prophecy.
So if the woman has this kind of prophetic authority over women and men (even
her husband), why then should she not lead prayer and proclaim the prophetic word with
her head bare, as men do? Granting that she may not wear the veil, why does she need a
head covering of any kind? Why does Paul insist: κατακαλύπέσθω? A return to
Ramsay’s work may provide a clue.
Ramsay remarked on the difference in social status and authority of covered
women versus uncovered women. Uncovered women were social outcasts—prostitutes,
slaves, lepers—whereas covered women were respected persons of status. In ancient
societies, laws about veiling women were aimed to prohibit the wearing of veils by
marginated women as much as they were intended to enjoin the wearing of veils by
“respectable” women.
If this is the proper context for understanding Paul’s injunction about the wearing
of head-coverings, then this rule takes on a different meaning. If all women who
prophesy should wear a head-covering, then two possibilities present themselves:
(1) either only free women of social status may exercise such a ministry in the church; or
(2) all baptized women should now wear the head-covering which is the mark of their
freedom and equality of status in Christ (their mark of authority). Since Paul argues in
the rest of chapter 11 that social status should not create distinctions in the liturgical
celebration, we can eliminate the first possibility.
The second option then remains. A woman’s head covering becomes a physical
sign that baptism has eliminated class distinctions between her and other women.
Κατακαλύπέσθω then becomes an injunction to remember the baptismal experience of
being buried with Christ (since it comes from καλύπτω, to hide or bury in the earth). And
a woman’s authority, through the angels, to prophesy and lead prayer becomes a symbolic
enactment and foretaste of the resurrection.
This interpretation sheds new light on the opening of the verse, and suggests that
ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν . . . διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους should be read as an infinitive of
result,
with verse 11 specifying that result: πλὴν οὔτε γυνὴ χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνὴρ
χωρὶς γυναικὸς ἐν κυρίῳ, “In the Lord woman is not separate from man nor is man
separate from woman.”
In Christ, and through the angels, baptized women gain
authority as women. Under the influence of the divine Spirit, traditional inequalities are
abrogated—both inequalities between different classes of women, and between women
and men—at least in the divine liturgy.
CONCLUSIONS
1 Cor 11:2–16 is irredeemable if one adopts the “received” translation of the text.
However, it is a misunderstanding (and mis-translation) of verse 10 that is the crux of the
issue. On the basis of a more literal translation of this verse, which is the center of the
chiastic structure of vv. 2–16 and provides the key to interpretation of the pericope, the
passage can be “redeemed” as a positive affirmation of the relationships of women and
men in the church.
Since Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 11:2–16 is aimed at the dress of women, not their
speech, it is clear that he does not intend to silence women altogether. On the contrary, I
contend that his interest in dress springs from a desire to support the equality of Christian
women of various classes, and also to uphold the authority of prophetic women as
women. Far from placing these women in a position of submission and subordination to
the men in the assembly, Paul argues that dressing in such a way that they are recognized
as baptized women provides a physical reminder to the men in the assembly that baptism
has abrogated the cultural domination of women by men. Indeed, because baptism brings
a foretaste of the eschatological reality, women of the Spirit now have authority “through
the angels.” Once chosen by the Spirit for a prophetic task, a woman’s range of authority
now includes even power over “her head” (i.e., men, even her husband).
Paul clearly refutes the idea that this authority requires a denial of their sexuality.
Women have access to the Spirit, just as do men and, when they are gifted by the Spirit,
women have the same divine authority as do prophetic men. This is their right as women,
not as androgynous (or male) beings. Women convey their right to this divine authority
by praying or prophesying while wearing a head covering. The head covering
unmistakably proclaims their redeemed “femaleness” to all observers.
Thus the head-covering of the prophetess, like the cross of Christ, becomes a sign
of contradiction graphically depicting the wisdom of God which is foolishness in the eyes
of men.
AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This paper raises two issues for further research. The first is an analysis of the
history of translation and interpretation of this passage to determine when, and as much as
possible why, 1 Cor 11:10 began to be translated with a subjectionist meaning. A
preliminary review of this question (using the critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland)
indicates that Irenaeus, Augustine, and Jerome interpreted the text in this way, using
“veil” to translate the term ἐξουσία; the Vulgate text presents the same translation. Also,
since the phrase ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν appears so infrequently within the Scriptural canon, it
would be interesting to engage in a comparison of the patterns of translation of this phrase
in the extra-canonical Greek literature.
The second issue which presents itself in analyzing this passage is the possibility
that some of the interpretive difficulties arise because the passage has been interpolated.
In developing the chiastic structure of the pericope, I was interested to find that the two
most problematic verses (3 and 7) are the only ones that do not fit perfectly into the
pattern. In my analysis here, I have accepted them as authentic. However, the relative
insecurity of their placement in the argument suggests that the issue of interpolations
should be re-considered.
APPENDIX
1 Cor 11:2–16
2) I commend you all that you remember all my teachings and guard the traditions just as
I handed them on to you. 3) Now one I want you to understand is: “Christ is the head of
every man, the man is the head of woman; the head of Christ is God.”
4) Any man who prays or prophesies while he wears a head-covering disgraces his
head. 5) But any woman who prays or prophesies with uncovered head disgraces
her head; for it is the same as if her head is shaved.
6) For if a woman will not cover herself, then let her hair be cut off; but if
it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, then let her be covered.
7) Man ought not to have the head covered, being the image and glory of
God; but woman is man’s glory.
8) For man was not from woman, but woman from man; 9) nor
was man created through (the agency of) woman, but woman
through (the agency of) man.
10) On account of all this, the woman has a right to
authority over (her) ‘head’ through the angels.
11) However, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor is
man independent of woman. 12) For just as the woman (was) from
the man, so now man (is) through (the agency of) woman; and all
things are from God.
13) Judge this for yourselves: is it fitting for a woman to pray to God
with her head uncovered?
14) Does not nature itself teach you that it a man shames himself if he has long
hair? Whereas long hair on a woman is a source of glory to her. 15) For the long
hair has been given to her for a mantle.
16) But if anyone is disposed to be contentious, we do not acknowledge such a practice,
nor do the churches of God.