Sermons and articles 1: Thomas Schreiner on 1 Cor. 11: 2-16, Part 4

The Function of 11:7-10 in the Argument

In the next section Dr. Schreiner discusses what it means that woman is the glory of man and I don't have a serious probem with anything he says in this passage so I'll skip over it. Then he discusses the meaning of verse 10, what it means that the woman should have "authority" on her head, and who the "angels" are for whose benefit this should be done. His answers are speculative as are most writers' on the subject, and I'm not going to comment on them because they really don't affect the central point, which is that they are additional arguments in favor of women's covering their heads, and even if we don't quite grasp what Paul has in mind here, that much is not in doubt.

The Qualification in 11:11-12First Corinthians 11:3-10 is a sustained argument in favor of male headship and female submission . . .

Here I have to point out that "female submission" is not anywhere in this passage Paul's subject. It's not that I have anything against the concept, and I'm well aware it is taught by Paul elsewhere so that it is always part of the overarching context, BUT the fact of the matter is that it is NOT what Paul is teaching here. If you read the passage carefully you will see that Paul is taking us step by step through a hierarchy of authority that, while such a hierarchy of course implies submission from lower to higher, in this case is purely objectively descriptive of God's ordering of the sexes and the EXTERNAL signs he wishes Christians to adopt for the purpose of honoring this order. There is no language of interpersonal submission in this passage. Again, of course it is implied, but it is not the point and Paul's meaning is again being muddied up by the imposition of a concept he is not using, same as when Dr. Schreiner simply labels the head covering as a "custom" and as an "adornment." These labelings impose a meaning on the passage that misrepresents what Paul is actually saying.

So, no, this passage is NOT "a sustained argument in favor of male headship and female submission..."
It is a sustained argument FROM God's hierarchy of headship and authority IN FAVOR OF the covering of a woman's head.

...yet with full participation in worship for women (something
Christians today need to remember more often). Verses 11-12 function as a qualification so that the Corinthians will not misunderstand Paul’s argument. Woman and man stand in interdependence in the Lord (11:11). Paul proves this statement in verse 12. Man is the source of woman, but all men ever since Adam have come into the world through women. Paul anticipates the problem that could arise if one stressed his argument in verses 3-10 too rigidly. Male and female could almost be construed as different species,and men as more valuable than women. That is not Paul’s point at all. There is a profound interdependence and mutuality present in the male-female relationship, and neither sex can boast over the other because the sexes are interdependent. Ultimately “everything comes from God.”

Again, I'm not yet sure myself what level of participation in worship Paul had in mind for women, though my own impression is that he is probably not advocating a leadership role in the "prayer and prophesying" for which we are to cover our heads. I haven't yet studied all Paul's teachings on the role of women in the church so I don't have a solid point of view about it. All I can give is this impression for now. But of course Dr. Schreiner is right about Paul's concern to be sure he isn't giving carte blanche to a raw male chauvinism in his advocacy of the head covering.

Since Dr. Schreiner's main impetus for writing his chapter is to answer some feminist arguments, which is the same as the reason for the book itself in which the chapter appears, he goes on in this vein, but since it is not my own concern I will pass over the rest of his statements along these lines. (My concern is simply to establish what Paul is commanding in this passage, which I'm overwhelmingly convinced is for men to have bare heads and women to have a covering over their heads when we are in church.)

The Concluding Argument for Head Coverings in 11:13-16Paul returns in the final paragraph (verses 13-16) to the main burden of the text: women’s wearing head coverings. This is another indication that verses 11-12 do not cancel out the commands given in verses 4-9. Here Paul appeals to the Corinthians’ own judgment (11:13), confident that “the very nature of things” will instruct them with respect to what is fitting or proper. What is the content of the instruction given by nature? Nature teaches that “if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,” while “if a woman has long hair, it is her glory.”

What is the meaning of the word nature (physis) here? Is Paul simply saying that human tradition and customs have made a distinction between the hair length of men and women? The use of the word practice (sune¯theia) in 11:16 could support this
interpretation. But Paul’s use of nature elsewhere and the use of teach suggest that he is referring to the natural and instinctive sense of right and wrong that God has planted in us, especially with respect to sexuality. This sense of what is appropriate or fitting has been implanted in human beings from creation.28 Romans 1:26-27 is an illuminating parallel because the same word is used. Women and men involved in a homosexual relationship have exchanged the natural function of sexuality for what is contrary to nature, i.e., they have violated the God-given created order and natural instinct, and therefore are engaging in sexual relations with others of the same sex.

I agree with Dr. Schreiner here and think he's said it in an illuminating way.

Nature teaches, then, in the sense that the natural instincts and psychological perceptions of masculinity and femininity are manifested in particular cultural situations. Thus, a male instinctively and naturally shrinks away from doing anything that his culture labels as feminine. So, too, females have a natural inclination to dress like women rather than men. Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. Of course, what constitutes long hair is often debated-what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary widely from culture to culture.

(Just as a side note, I suspect the norm across the world is for women to have long hair and men's hair at least shorter than the women's, whatever else they do with it as far as styling goes, but that would need more research. In Paul's day in the cultures that surrounded him ALL women wore their hair long and men wore theirs shorter except under unusual circumstances.)

The function of verses 13-15 in the argument is to show that the wearing of a head covering by a woman is in accord with the God-given sense that women and men are different. For a woman to dress like a man is inappropriate because it violates the distinction God has ordained between the sexes. And, according to Paul, if a woman prophesies in church without wearing the symbol of being under male authority-i.e., if she prophesies while dressed like a man-she is in effect negating the distinction between men and women that God has ordained from creation.

Dr. Schreiner has here reduced Paul's concern to requiring the sexes to dress so as not to appear like the opposite sex, but really, what justification does he have for this? Very little it seems to me, and what he has is not derived from the text but is his own invention.

The entire context of the passage is not "dress" at all, nor masculinity and femininity, it's God's hierarchy of order. This hierarchy isn't confined to the two sexes, it includes the relation of man to Christ and Christ to God (verse 3).

The headcovering isn't a mere item of clothing or dress, either, it's a functional piece of equipment as it were, with the purpose of concealing "the glory of man" (which would include the woman's own glory in her hair) so that Christ's glory may be displayed as He is the object of worship.

And again, as I've pointed out a number of times, and this can be verified by any number of studies of this passage, there was no one culture represented in Paul's day which had the exact practice Paul is requiring of the churches -- of men's uncovering their heads and women's covering theirs in worship. There was a mixture of customs, some cultures not requiring women to cover at all, some requiring that men cover in worship and so on. So whether one covered the head or not had NO meaning in terms of masculine or feminine appearance.

This idea is Dr. Schreiner's own invention being imposed on the text, just as his calling covering the head a "custom" and an "adornment" is imposed on the text, as well as the idea that the discussion of headship is about female submission. The whole point of the text is the head covering, nothing else. It is what all Paul's arguments are for, to expain why a head covering is needed. In not one of those arguments does he say a word about female submission, about custom or adornment, about feminine or masculine appearance or the like. All this may be incidentally related to his points but is completely inessential to them. It is the head that must be covered or uncovered because it represents personal authority. Nothing else will do. No other item of dress could qualify. It is all about the head.

In verse 16, Paul concludes his argument by saying, “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” Now, some have said that Paul actually rejects the wearing of head coverings by women with these words because the Greek literally says “we have no such practice” (toiaute¯n sune¯theian), and thus they conclude that the practice of wearing head coverings is renounced here by Paul. But such an understanding is surely wrong. Paul in this verse is addressing the contentious, who, the previous context makes clear, do not want to wear a head covering.

The practice of certain Corinthian women who refuse to wear a head covering is what Paul refers to when he says “we have no such practice.” Thus, he says to the contentious that both the apostolic circle (“we”) and the rest of the churches adhere to the custom of head coverings. The instructions Paul has given reflect his own view of the matter and the practice of the other churches. Those who see this advice as limited only to the Corinthian situation have failed to take this verse seriously enough. Paul perceives his instructions here as binding for all churches in the Greco-Roman world. Indeed, the other churches already adhere to the practice Paul recommends here.

Yes. Clearly Paul is affirming the wearing of head coverings in this as in every other statement of this passage, and is here asserting the authority of the apostles to determine practice in the churches.

Such a universal word at the conclusion of the text is a strong indication that the principle that underlies this passage cannot simply be dismissed as cultural.

Yes, but despite Dr. Schreiner's very strong assertion of Paul's requirement of the head covering, here he goes on to undermine it with that phrase "the principle that underlies this passage." To Dr. Schreiner that principle is that the sexes are to dress to distinguish themselves as clearly masculine or feminine, which I've already answered. No, he is quite right that "such a universal word at the conclusion of the text" means we cannot dismiss Paul's requirement as merely cultural, and yet this is exactly what Dr. Schreiner does by inventing a "principle" which supposedly "underlies" the passage which denies that Paul's requirement and the whole tenor of the passage is about covering the head and nothing else.

This will become even clearer in the last part of this discussion.

TO BE CONTINUED.