An Exposition of I Corinthians 11:2-15; 14:34-37
An Exerpt from Man and Woman in Biblical Law by Tom Shipley
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering. —I Corinthians 11:2-15
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. —I Corinthians 14:34-37
Commenting upon I Corinthians 11:2-16 in his book, “Man & Woman in Christ,” Stephen B. Clark remarks, “The passage is difficult to interpret clearly,” (pg. 166). Later, he says, “Some phrases in I Corinthians 11 are difficult to understand. In some cases the correct interpretation will probably never be understood,” (pg. 182-183).
Stephen B. Clark is not the only expositor to express problems comprehending this passage. Indeed, a survey of comments by other authors shows that inability to comprehend the passage is the rule and not the exception. Now, it is a generally accepted rule of scriptural interpretation by conservative, Bible-believing commentators (and a rule I endorse here) that difficult passages are to be interpreted by means of consulting other passages of Scripture which speak more simply, directly, and explicitly upon the same subject. Astonishingly, after admitting an inability to understand and interpret I Corinthians 11:2-16, Clark then proceeds to state (pg.183) that our interpretation of I Corinthians 14:34-37 “should be subordinate” to I Corinthians 11:2-16!
I hesitate to contradict Clark because his erudition and scholarship are so manifest, but surely what Clark suggests here is ill-advised at best. If we cannot understand a particular portion of Scripture, how can we possibly use that passage as a basis to properly understand another? Is this not giving reign to irrationality?
Clark’s suggestion here must be rejected outright. It is an invitation to hermeneutical chaos. If the first passage is mysterious and inscrutable, then, beyond dispute, the latter and clearer passage ought to be, and is, exegetically and logically antecedent to the former, and the latter subordinate to the former in terms of exposition.
The truth is, however, that I Corinthians 11:2-16 is not as inscrutable, standing on its own, as many commentators find it to be. The problem here is the same problem that plagues commentators in regard to so many passages of Scripture, that is, that commentators begin, a priori, with an interpretive conclusion, and read into verses 4-5 a “common sense” interpretation which is not explicitly stated in the text—namely, that women may pray and prophesy in the Church. The root of the interpretive problem of so many commentators is that they are trying to approach the text as if Paul is making an explicit and express statement; whereas, he is in fact inferring and implying his meaning which he waits to spell out explicitly in chapter 14.
Let us note from the outset that Paul does not say here that women may pray or prophesy in the church—either with or without a head covering. This is a demonstrable, empirical fact of the text. Such an allowance is simply not stated. Commentators unfortunately jump to conclusions here without putting this assumption to the test. The text says simply that if a woman does pray or prophesy with head uncovered (in the Church—Paul is addressing proper decorum in the Church, the public assembly) that she dishonors her head, her husband. Paul is obviously addressing a practice in the Corinthian church. Since it is obvious from Paul’s remarks that it was the custom of Corinthian Christian women to wear head coverings as a sign of submission to their husbands, we should ask the question, “Why and where did these Corinthian women get the idea that they should remove the sign of subordination to their husbands and pray and prophesy in the Church?” It is my contention that the Corinthians, who, unlike modern readers, had a direct and immediate knowledge of head coverings and their significance, intuitively grasped Paul’s implied meaning which eludes so many modern commentators.
Most commentators too quickly pass by verse 4, which is, in fact, the key verse to understanding the whole passage:
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head, (i.e., Christ).
Why? Why is it dishonoring to Christ for a man to pray (in the Church) with his head covered? The answer to this question will make sense of the entire passage without having to resort to tortured and convoluted exegesis. The answer is simple and straightforward and would have been immediately grasped by the Corinthians: praying and prophesying in the Church are inherently authoritative functions in which the speaker represents Christ to the church, or represents the Church to Christ; covering the head is a sign of being under authority and so, he who speaks in the Church must do so with the head uncovered as a sign of speaking in the name of Christ. To do so with head covered represents our Supreme Head as being under the authority of man.
In other words, verse 4 is the logical premise of verse 5. The Corinthians would have immediately seen the “catch 22” situation in which this placed women addressing the Church or praying before it, and Paul immediately in verse 5 addresses the consequences: if a woman removes her head covering to properly “image” and represent Christ, the consequence is that she dishonors her husband; but if she leaves it on, she dishonors the authority of Christ! Think about it: the only solution to this dilemma is to remain silent!!! This is how simple this whole passage really is. To reiterate: Paul implies his meaning here in chapter 11 and spells it out explicitly in chapter 14, verses 34-37. Could words possibly be plainer and more clear than those of chapter 14, verses 34-37?
Verse 15 in chapter 11 is meant to reinforce Paul’s inference: a woman’s long hair constitutes a covering; if she thinks that all she has to do to properly honor and respect Christ is to remove her head covering, Paul says no, not so fast, you still have a covering in the form of your long hair; you would have to shave off your hair to achieve the desired representation of the authority of Christ. And this is a shame to a woman.
And is not the same commandment spelled out explicitly in I Timothy 2:8-12?
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands…In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel…Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Note that Paul here specifically distinguishes between men and women (the word for “men” is “aner,” not “men” in the Greek but “males”) and specifies that it is the males who are to pray in the Church. Moreover, between I Corinthians and I Timothy, we have no less than three explicit commandments to women to keep silent in the churches: “it is not permitted unto them to speak.” Linguistic analysis will not provide an escape clause for those who wish to defy and disobey the commandment of the Lord in this regard. The Greek word for “speak” is “lalein,” which corresponds precisely to our English “speak.” That is what it means. It does not mean “background chatter” as some expositors attempt to propose, claiming that the Corinthian women were disrupting the worship service by personal chatter to one another; and it does not mean “sing,” so there is no basis to prevent women from joining in songs of worship. The essence of the commandment concerns authority, either in the form of addressing the congregation, or addressing the Lord in the church on behalf of the congregation.
The Old Testament provides some elucidation of, and support for, our doctrine here:
When thou goest forth to war with thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. —Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Note that upon bringing such a woman home, the woman is to shave her head, change her native clothing to (implied) Israeli clothing, bewail her father and mother (who would have been killed in the war), etc. All of this signifies the removal from under the authority of a foreign god, under the authority of a foreign nation, and under the authority of foreign parents. Note that the woman is to shave her own head, herself, thus signifying her consent and affirmation to this change. The removal of her hair, which grew in her old country, signifies the repudiation of her previous authorities; a new growth of hair would provide a new sign of submission to her new god, her new nation, and her new husband. This is an Old Testament allegory of the new birth. The reference to her being “humbled” speaks of these changes, especially the head shaving.
I think it is accurate to say that the majority of modern commentators, even conservative Evangelicals, incorrectly interpret I Corinthians 11:5 as placing a qualification upon a woman praying and prophesying in the Church, namely, that it is lawful to do so provided that she does so with her head covered. It is time that the Bible-believing Church disabuses itself of this heretical notion. For if this proposition is true, then we have blatant contradiction in the Scriptures, and contradiction within the selfsame epistle separated by only three chapters. We would have the apostle Paul in one place explicitly forbidding women to speak in the churches, even to the point of denominating it as “a shame,” and permitting it in another place. Was Paul so obtuse? Of course, not! (This is the same as asking “Is God so obtuse?” since the Scriptures are God-breathed.) It is modern commentators who exhibit obtuseness, perceiving not the contradiction they involve themselves in, and the betrayal of their commitment to the Scriptures as the word of the infallible God.