Williams, Ritva H.

English

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 23
Issue 1 Essays in the History of Interpretation Article 4
5-1-1997
Lifting the Veil: A Social-Science Interpretation of 1
Corinthians 11:2-16
Ritva H. Williams
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
This Studies and Observations is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Consensus by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Williams, Ritva H. (1997) "Lifting the Veil: A Social-Science Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16," Consensus: Vol. 23 : Iss. 1 ,
Article 4.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol23/iss1/4
Lifting the Veil:
A Social-Science Interpretation
of 1 Corinthians 11:2—16
Ritva Williams
Graduate Student, University of Ottawa
Lutherans consider the Bible to contain the inspired word of
God. We believe that God speaks to us through the medium of
this special collection of writings. As such the Bible transcends
the limits of time and space. Its message, we believe, is directed
not only to one place and time in history, but to all places,
times, cultures and societies. The gospel message is meant to
be embodied, to be lived out in communities of faith, and in an
unbelieving world. But sometimes what we read in the Bible
is really difficult to understand. We are left wondering, “What
does this have to do with my life, with my community?”
First Corinthians 11:2-16 is a perfect example of a diffi-
cult biblical text. It begins with Paul writing, “I want you to
understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the hus-
band is the head of his wife.” Then he goes on to explain how
it is disgraceful for men (or husbands) to prophesy and pray
with their heads covered, and that it is disgraceful for women
(or wives) to prophesy and pray with their heads uncoveied.
What on earth are we to do with a text like this? In the past
this text was used to justify the custom of women wearing hats
to church, but that doesn’t seem to be the case any longer. Is
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 a text that has lost its relevance for our
times? It may seem that way, especially since it suggests a hi-
erarchical relationship between women and men (or wives and
husbands) which is repugnant to many people today. Yet it is
precisely because this text is used in some circles as a proof
text for the subordination of women that we dare not ignore
it. It is a text whose meaning must be made clear so that it
will not be misused.
I would like to show how a social-science interpretation of
the text can help us understand better what is at issue in 1
54 Consensus
Corinthians 11:2-16. Social-science analysis is a relatively new
method of interpretation which seeks to understand the biblical
text as a reflection of and a response to the speciflc and cul-
tural setting in which it was produced. Social-science analysis
combines historical information from the ancient Jewish and
Greco-Roman worlds with insights from sociology and cultural
anthropology to illuminate the social context from which the
biblical texts emerge and which they seek to address. In other
words the biblical message comes to us enmeshed and embed-
ded in a particular historical culture. Before we can hope to
grasp how it might be lived out in our time, we need to un-
derstand how the gospel message was embodied in the first
Christian communities.
^
First Corinthians 11:2-16 was written to Christians living
in the city of Corinth around the year A.D. 50. It was written
to people who lived several thousand kilometres eastward on a
different continent 1950 years ago. We are separated from them
by both time and space, and by culture and values. In North
America the primary social institution is economics. Success
in our society is generally measured quantitatively, in terms of
how much money, property or wealth a person has acquired.
Academic success is measured in terms of grades and degrees
achieved. The primary social institution in the societies of
the Mediterranean basin in Paul’s day was not economics but
kinship: the family. Success in first century Corinth consisted
in being related to and knowing the right people. Successful
people were those who belonged to and/or had connections
with the right families. This depended on adhering to the
rules of order by which families were organized and maintained.
Those rules were rooted in the pivotal values of honour and
shame.
Honour is a socially acknowledged claim to worth. It is
linked with respect and prestige, and is associated with hav-
ing a good name or a good reputation. Honour in Paul’s day
worked somewhat like a credit rating does today. In our society
a good credit rating makes money available, allowing a person
to incur debt and acquire goods. One’s credit rating points to
one’s social standing within our society. First century people
did not have credit ratings; they had honour. Like our system
of credit ratings, honour served as a way of ranking people
socially by indicating a person’s social standing and rightful
Veil 55
place in the community. In order to make things happen one
needed honour, a good name and a good reputation.
In first century Mediterranean societies, the family was the
repository of the accumulated honour of one’s ancestors. Ev-
ery member of the family shared in its honour simply by the
fact of birth. Honour was acquired through the act of giving
gifts and granting favours to other families, thus putting them
in one’s debt. This was important because very few people in
the Greco-Roman world were economically self-sufficient and
independent. Families had to rely on each other for mutual
support. It was in this business of mutual support that hon-
our was so important. If one were a first century farmer and
had a bumper crop of wheat, with whom would one share the
proceeds? A family that had an established reputation of hon-
ouring their social debts and sharing from their good fortune.
Then, if the grasshoppers came and ate one’s whole crop next
year, one would have someone to turn to for help.
The head of the family, the father, was responsible for pub-
licly maintaining and if possible increasing the family’s honour.
He publicly symbolized the family’s honour, so that his per-
sonal reputation and the family’s good name were almost syn-
onymous. His wife and children were obliged to show respect,
loyalty and obedience to him. They were to behave publicly in
such a way as to uphold the father’s, and the family’s, honour.
It was their most valuable asset, assuring the family access to
the goods and services needed for its survival. A family’s hon-
our was also its most vulnerable point. Every social interaction
that took place outside of the immediate family circle was a
situation in which honour might be lost or acquired. When
giving and receiving gifts, giving and accepting invitations to
dinner, arranging marriages, buying and selling, arranging co-
operative business ventures, or taking some to court, the first
century Mediterranean person had to assess carefully the pos-
sible impact on the family’s good name.
This brings us to the other side of honour: shame. Shame
has two meanings, one negative the other positive. Shame
is both the opposite of honour and the basis of honour. On
the one hand, for a person to shamed” signals a loss of
honour. “Shameful” behaviour damages a person’s good name
and reputation. On the other hand, for a person to ^^have
shame” means that he or she is sensitive to the opinions of
56 Consensus
others, is concerned about his or her family’s good name and
honour. A person of good repute has both honour and shame.
A disreputable person is one who not only lacks honour, but
one who is “shameless” as well. No one wants to be shamed, to
lose their honour; everyone, however, needs to have shame, to
be concerned about their good name in order to have honour.
Although all persons of good repute have both honour and
shame, honour and shame are also gender specific. We have
already noted the role of the father as the public symbol and
representative of a family’s honour. In general, the lives of
adult men revolved around claiming, gaining and defending
their honour (and that of their families) before their peers in
the public realm. If a family’s honour is embodied by its adult
males, its shame (as a positive value) is embodied by its female
members. A woman’s shame (^honour) can not be acquired,
rather it is presupposed and maintained through a rigorous dis-
cipline of privacy and reserve, of personal and sexual integrity.
What concrete behaviours are involved in establishing a man
or woman as a person of good repute varies, however, from
community to community, and according to a person’s social
status. What counts as shameful behaviour for a Galilean fish-
erman is not necessarily what counts as shameful for a Roman
senator. Activities that are honourable when undertaken by
a senator’s wife might be quite shameful if undertaken by the
wife of an innkeeper.
2
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul associates what individu-
als wear, or do not wear, on their heads with the ques-
tion of honour. He asserts that a man (or husband) who
prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces
—
dishonours—his head, while a woman (or wife) who prays or
prophesies unveiled—dishonours—her head (vv.4-5). Women
(or wives) should be veiled if it is disgraceful—shameful or
dishonourable—for them to cut their hair or to have their heads
shaved (v. 6). The issue here is propriety and honourable con-
duct during worship, a theme which runs through chapters
11-14 of 1 Corinthians. Throughout this section, Paul is con-
cerned that Christians conduct themselves in such a way that
unbelievers and outsiders will not “say that you are out of your
mind” (1 Corinthians 14:23). It is, therefore, the church’s rep-
utation or honour which is at stake. Paul wants the church to
gave a good name, to be recognized as a reputable association.
Veil 57
In Paul’s world honour makes things happen—it opens doors,
attracts benefactors and converts, and keeps the authorities
away.
One thing that needs to be emphasized is that through-
out the passage Paul assumes that men and women function
equally during the community’s worship service. ^ Both men
and women offer up prayers and engage in prophecy, a form of
speech that builds up, encourages and consoles the church (1
Corinthians 14:3), and which reproves unbelievers (1 Corinthi-
ans 14:24). While Paul expects both men and women to have
leading roles in the church’s worship, he believes that they
should dress differently. A bare head is the proper attire for
a male worship leader, and demonstrates his respect and hon-
our for Christ. Women who lead worship with bare heads,
Paul argues, are not showing respect and honour toward their
husbands (men). The point seems to be that even while hon-
ouring Christ in worship women should behave in a way that
also honours their husbands and/or the other men who have
direct authority over them. This means leaving their veils on."^
Paul argues that it is proper for women worship leaders
to wear veils because man is the eikon kai doxa of God, but
woman is the doxa of man (1 Corinthians 11:7). Although the
word doxa is sometimes mistakenly interpreted as “reflection”
(possibly to make Paul’s words cohere with Genesis 1:26-27),
it usually means “brightness, splendor, radiance” or “fame,
renown, honour”.^ Given the centrality of honour in the pre-
vious verses, I suspect that is the meaning which is relevant
here. When Paul says man is the doxa or honour of God, but
woman is the doxa or honour of man, he is reflecting the notion
that while a man publicly embodies the honour of his family, a
women personifies its shame. A man’s bare head signifies that
he is a public person engaged in the pursuit of a good name to
the honour and glory of his Creator.
In the gender divided world of honour and shame, however,
a woman cannot acquire honour. Instead she embodies the
positive value of shame, a quality which can only be guarded
and preserved against loss. Shame is also the basis of honour,
and it is through the strict maintenance of her sexual purity
and personal integrity that a woman contributes to her fam-
ily’s honour.6 The veil is a symbol of a woman’s shame, ^ worn
58 Consensus
in public to mark her off as a private person intent on guard-
ing her purity, and so maintaining the honour of her husband
or her father. This is after all a proper female role because
woman was created from and for man (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
The veil is also a symbol of the “authority”, of the respect
and status, accorded to women who maintain their purity and
integrity (1 Corinthians 11:10). An unveiled woman invites
unwanted attentions not only from men but from supernatural
beings as well (1 Corinthians 11:10).^ Even in the Lord, Paul
asserts, woman and man are not independent of one another
(1 Corinthians 11:11-12). In other words, even when leading
prayer and prophesying in the church women must do so in a
way that preserves the honour of their men.
Having, thus, insisted on the propriety of veils, given the
role of woman in the maintenance of male honour, Paul goes
on to assert that it is natural for women to be veiled. While
long hair degrades a man, a woman’s long hair is her doxa. In
this instance the tendency of translators is to opt for words
such as “pride” (RSV) or “glory” (NRSV), insinuating that
we are really dealing here with a question of personal vanity.
Such treatments do not help to clarify the meaning of the pas-
sage. Once again we are dealing with the issue of honour. A
woman’s long hair is her “honour” because it was given to her
as a covering.9 In other words a woman can only maintain her
“honour” by being covered up. Why? Because female hon-
our consists in shame, in rigidly preserving and guarding a
woman’s sexual purity and personal integrity. Paul does not
seem to consider that if nature has provided woman with such
a natural covering, perhaps she does not need an artificial one.
Nor does Paul consider that if a man did not cut his hair, it
would grow long too. What would that imply? Paul simply
concludes by saying that if anyone continues to be contentious
in spite of his arguments, they are to be reminded that the
wearing of veils is customary in all the churches of God (1
Corinthians 11:16).
A social-science reading of the text shows that the question
of wearing of veils is bound up with the issue of honour. Paul
was concerned that the church be recognized as a reputable as-
sociation, a gathering of honourable men and women. He did
not want outsiders and unbelievers to think that female wor-
ship leaders were “shameless” women. Paul argued that wear-
ing veils was proper, natural and customary for women. His
Veil 59
advice was intended to enhance the reputation of the fledgling
Corinthian church. Unfortunately, we have only a record of
Paul’s response to this issue. How did these women who dared
to appear in the church bare headed justify their actions? We
will never hear their side of the story.
All we can do is focus on how to use this text constructively
to build up the body of Christ today. To do so we must be-
gin by insisting that the embodiment of the biblical message
is not about the wholesale importation of 1st century Mediter-
ranean values into 20th century North American society. We
must recognize and respect the historical and cultural differ-
ences that separate us from the first Christians. We do not live
in a kinship oriented society in which honour and shame are
the dominant values. Women in our society once they reach
adulthood are not wards of men, but are recognized as inde-
pendent, autonomous persons both legally and socially. Hence
the personal integrity of a woman is not directly related to the
reputation of the man who has guardianship of her. Women
in our society are not restricted to domestic roles and func-
tions, but can move back and forth between the public world
of work and the private world of the home. When we recog-
nize these important cultural and social differences we can see
that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is not about wearing hats to church
or about proving that women are intended to be subordinate
to men. The question that is raised in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
(and through to chapter 14) is: What are men and women
doing in the church that maintains, enhances, and/or threat-
ens the honour, the good name and reputation, of the church?
The questions for us to ponder are: What are the signs and
symbols of personal integrity in our society for women and for
men? How is the personal integrity of church members and/or
leaders related to the church’s public reputation?
Notes
^ For more information on social-science methodology in New Testament
studies see John H. Elliot, What is Social- Scientific Criticism? (Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); Carolyn Osiek, What are They Saying
about the Social Setting of the New Testament? (New York: Paulist
Press, 1992); Bengt Holmberg, Sociology and the New Testament: An
Appraisal (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). Each of these works
also contains an extensive bibliography.
60 Consensus
2 Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cul-
tural Anthropology^ revised edition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox
Press, 1993) 28-62; John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina, Biblical Social
Values and Their Meaning: A Handbook (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1993) 95-104; see also J. G. Peristiany, ed., Honour and
Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1974) especially Julian Pitt-River’s article “Honour and
Social Status,” pp. 21-74.
^ Jouette M. Bassler, “I Corinthians,” in Carol A. Newsom and Sharon
H. Ringe, eds.. The Women’s Bible Commentary (London: SPCK;
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992) 321-329, esp. 326-327;
Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theolog-
ical Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroads, 1984)
226.
^ Schiissler Fiorenza, pp. 227-230, argues that the issue is not one of veils
but of hair styles; for a critique of her view see Dennis Ronald MacDon-
ald, “Corinthian Veils and Gnostic Androgynes” in Karen L. King, ed..
Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1988) 276-292, esp. 279-280.
^ Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature 2nd ed., revised and augmented by
F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979) 203-204; Malina, The New Testament World, 59.
^ Pitt-Rivers, pp. 52-53; the greatest dishonour experienced by males
derives from the sexual impurity of their mothers, wives, daughters.
^ MacDonald, “Corinthian Veils,” 281.
8 Ibid. 290.
^ Bassler, “I Corinthians,” 327.
See in MacDonald’s article a summary of the various reasons the
Corinthian women might have removed their veils.


Lifting the Veil: A Social-Science Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 23Issue 1 Essays in the History of Interpretation Article 45-1-1997Lifting the Veil: A Social-Science Interpretation of 1Corinthians 11:2-16Ritva H. WilliamsFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Studies and Observations is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion inConsensus by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationWilliams, Ritva H. (1997) "Lifting the Veil: A Social-Science Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16," Consensus: Vol. 23 : Iss. 1 ,Article 4.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol23/iss1/4Lifting the Veil:A Social-Science Interpretationof 1 Corinthians 11:2—16Ritva WilliamsGraduate Student, University of OttawaLutherans consider the Bible to contain the inspired word ofGod. We believe that God speaks to us through the medium ofthis special collection of writings. As such the Bible transcendsthe limits of time and space. Its message, we believe, is directednot only to one place and time in history, but to all places,times, cultures and societies. The gospel message is meant tobe embodied, to be lived out in communities of faith, and in anunbelieving world. But sometimes what we read in the Bibleis really difficult to understand. We are left wondering, “Whatdoes this have to do with my life, with my community?”First Corinthians 11:2-16 is a perfect example of a diffi-cult biblical text. It begins with Paul writing, “I want you tounderstand that Christ is the head of every man, and the hus-band is the head of his wife.” Then he goes on to explain howit is disgraceful for men (or husbands) to prophesy and praywith their heads covered, and that it is disgraceful for women(or wives) to prophesy and pray with their heads uncoveied.What on earth are we to do with a text like this? In the pastthis text was used to justify the custom of women wearing hatsto church, but that doesn’t seem to be the case any longer. Is1 Corinthians 11:2-16 a text that has lost its relevance for ourtimes? It may seem that way, especially since it suggests a hi-erarchical relationship between women and men (or wives andhusbands) which is repugnant to many people today. Yet it isprecisely because this text is used in some circles as a prooftext for the subordination of women that we dare not ignoreit. It is a text whose meaning must be made clear so that itwill not be misused.I would like to show how a social-science interpretation ofthe text can help us understand better what is at issue in 154 ConsensusCorinthians 11:2-16. Social-science analysis is a relatively newmethod of interpretation which seeks to understand the biblicaltext as a reflection of and a response to the speciflc and cul-tural setting in which it was produced. Social-science analysiscombines historical information from the ancient Jewish andGreco-Roman worlds with insights from sociology and culturalanthropology to illuminate the social context from which thebiblical texts emerge and which they seek to address. In otherwords the biblical message comes to us enmeshed and embed-ded in a particular historical culture. Before we can hope tograsp how it might be lived out in our time, we need to un-derstand how the gospel message was embodied in the firstChristian communities.^First Corinthians 11:2-16 was written to Christians livingin the city of Corinth around the year A.D. 50. It was writtento people who lived several thousand kilometres eastward on adifferent continent 1950 years ago. We are separated from themby both time and space, and by culture and values. In NorthAmerica the primary social institution is economics. Successin our society is generally measured quantitatively, in terms ofhow much money, property or wealth a person has acquired.Academic success is measured in terms of grades and degreesachieved. The primary social institution in the societies ofthe Mediterranean basin in Paul’s day was not economics butkinship: the family. Success in first century Corinth consistedin being related to and knowing the right people. Successfulpeople were those who belonged to and/or had connectionswith the right families. This depended on adhering to therules of order by which families were organized and maintained.Those rules were rooted in the pivotal values of honour andshame.Honour is a socially acknowledged claim to worth. It islinked with respect and prestige, and is associated with hav-ing a good name or a good reputation. Honour in Paul’s dayworked somewhat like a credit rating does today. In our societya good credit rating makes money available, allowing a personto incur debt and acquire goods. One’s credit rating points toone’s social standing within our society. First century peopledid not have credit ratings; they had honour. Like our systemof credit ratings, honour served as a way of ranking peoplesocially by indicating a person’s social standing and rightfulVeil 55place in the community. In order to make things happen oneneeded honour, a good name and a good reputation.In first century Mediterranean societies, the family was therepository of the accumulated honour of one’s ancestors. Ev-ery member of the family shared in its honour simply by thefact of birth. Honour was acquired through the act of givinggifts and granting favours to other families, thus putting themin one’s debt. This was important because very few people inthe Greco-Roman world were economically self-sufficient andindependent. Families had to rely on each other for mutualsupport. It was in this business of mutual support that hon-our was so important. If one were a first century farmer andhad a bumper crop of wheat, with whom would one share theproceeds? A family that had an established reputation of hon-ouring their social debts and sharing from their good fortune.Then, if the grasshoppers came and ate one’s whole crop nextyear, one would have someone to turn to for help.The head of the family, the father, was responsible for pub-licly maintaining and if possible increasing the family’s honour.He publicly symbolized the family’s honour, so that his per-sonal reputation and the family’s good name were almost syn-onymous. His wife and children were obliged to show respect,loyalty and obedience to him. They were to behave publicly insuch a way as to uphold the father’s, and the family’s, honour.It was their most valuable asset, assuring the family access tothe goods and services needed for its survival. A family’s hon-our was also its most vulnerable point. Every social interactionthat took place outside of the immediate family circle was asituation in which honour might be lost or acquired. Whengiving and receiving gifts, giving and accepting invitations todinner, arranging marriages, buying and selling, arranging co-operative business ventures, or taking some to court, the firstcentury Mediterranean person had to assess carefully the pos-sible impact on the family’s good name.This brings us to the other side of honour: shame. Shamehas two meanings, one negative the other positive. Shameis both the opposite of honour and the basis of honour. Onthe one hand, for a person to shamed” signals a loss ofhonour. “Shameful” behaviour damages a person’s good nameand reputation. On the other hand, for a person to ^^haveshame” means that he or she is sensitive to the opinions of56 Consensusothers, is concerned about his or her family’s good name andhonour. A person of good repute has both honour and shame.A disreputable person is one who not only lacks honour, butone who is “shameless” as well. No one wants to be shamed, tolose their honour; everyone, however, needs to have shame, tobe concerned about their good name in order to have honour.Although all persons of good repute have both honour andshame, honour and shame are also gender specific. We havealready noted the role of the father as the public symbol andrepresentative of a family’s honour. In general, the lives ofadult men revolved around claiming, gaining and defendingtheir honour (and that of their families) before their peers inthe public realm. If a family’s honour is embodied by its adultmales, its shame (as a positive value) is embodied by its femalemembers. A woman’s shame (^honour) can not be acquired,rather it is presupposed and maintained through a rigorous dis-cipline of privacy and reserve, of personal and sexual integrity.What concrete behaviours are involved in establishing a manor woman as a person of good repute varies, however, fromcommunity to community, and according to a person’s socialstatus. What counts as shameful behaviour for a Galilean fish-erman is not necessarily what counts as shameful for a Romansenator. Activities that are honourable when undertaken bya senator’s wife might be quite shameful if undertaken by thewife of an innkeeper.2In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul associates what individu-als wear, or do not wear, on their heads with the ques-tion of honour. He asserts that a man (or husband) whoprays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces—dishonours—his head, while a woman (or wife) who prays orprophesies unveiled—dishonours—her head (vv.4-5). Women(or wives) should be veiled if it is disgraceful—shameful ordishonourable—for them to cut their hair or to have their headsshaved (v. 6). The issue here is propriety and honourable con-duct during worship, a theme which runs through chapters11-14 of 1 Corinthians. Throughout this section, Paul is con-cerned that Christians conduct themselves in such a way thatunbelievers and outsiders will not “say that you are out of yourmind” (1 Corinthians 14:23). It is, therefore, the church’s rep-utation or honour which is at stake. Paul wants the church togave a good name, to be recognized as a reputable association.Veil 57In Paul’s world honour makes things happen—it opens doors,attracts benefactors and converts, and keeps the authoritiesaway.One thing that needs to be emphasized is that through-out the passage Paul assumes that men and women functionequally during the community’s worship service. ^ Both menand women offer up prayers and engage in prophecy, a form ofspeech that builds up, encourages and consoles the church (1Corinthians 14:3), and which reproves unbelievers (1 Corinthi-ans 14:24). While Paul expects both men and women to haveleading roles in the church’s worship, he believes that theyshould dress differently. A bare head is the proper attire fora male worship leader, and demonstrates his respect and hon-our for Christ. Women who lead worship with bare heads,Paul argues, are not showing respect and honour toward theirhusbands (men). The point seems to be that even while hon-ouring Christ in worship women should behave in a way thatalso honours their husbands and/or the other men who havedirect authority over them. This means leaving their veils on."^Paul argues that it is proper for women worship leadersto wear veils because man is the eikon kai doxa of God, butwoman is the doxa of man (1 Corinthians 11:7). Although theword doxa is sometimes mistakenly interpreted as “reflection”(possibly to make Paul’s words cohere with Genesis 1:26-27),it usually means “brightness, splendor, radiance” or “fame,renown, honour”.^ Given the centrality of honour in the pre-vious verses, I suspect that is the meaning which is relevanthere. When Paul says man is the doxa or honour of God, butwoman is the doxa or honour of man, he is reflecting the notionthat while a man publicly embodies the honour of his family, awomen personifies its shame. A man’s bare head signifies thathe is a public person engaged in the pursuit of a good name tothe honour and glory of his Creator.In the gender divided world of honour and shame, however,a woman cannot acquire honour. Instead she embodies thepositive value of shame, a quality which can only be guardedand preserved against loss. Shame is also the basis of honour,and it is through the strict maintenance of her sexual purityand personal integrity that a woman contributes to her fam-ily’s honour.6 The veil is a symbol of a woman’s shame, ^ worn58 Consensusin public to mark her off as a private person intent on guard-ing her purity, and so maintaining the honour of her husbandor her father. This is after all a proper female role becausewoman was created from and for man (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).The veil is also a symbol of the “authority”, of the respectand status, accorded to women who maintain their purity andintegrity (1 Corinthians 11:10). An unveiled woman invitesunwanted attentions not only from men but from supernaturalbeings as well (1 Corinthians 11:10).^ Even in the Lord, Paulasserts, woman and man are not independent of one another(1 Corinthians 11:11-12). In other words, even when leadingprayer and prophesying in the church women must do so in away that preserves the honour of their men.Having, thus, insisted on the propriety of veils, given therole of woman in the maintenance of male honour, Paul goeson to assert that it is natural for women to be veiled. Whilelong hair degrades a man, a woman’s long hair is her doxa. Inthis instance the tendency of translators is to opt for wordssuch as “pride” (RSV) or “glory” (NRSV), insinuating thatwe are really dealing here with a question of personal vanity.Such treatments do not help to clarify the meaning of the pas-sage. Once again we are dealing with the issue of honour. Awoman’s long hair is her “honour” because it was given to heras a covering.9 In other words a woman can only maintain her“honour” by being covered up. Why? Because female hon-our consists in shame, in rigidly preserving and guarding awoman’s sexual purity and personal integrity. Paul does notseem to consider that if nature has provided woman with sucha natural covering, perhaps she does not need an artificial one.Nor does Paul consider that if a man did not cut his hair, itwould grow long too. What would that imply? Paul simplyconcludes by saying that if anyone continues to be contentiousin spite of his arguments, they are to be reminded that thewearing of veils is customary in all the churches of God (1Corinthians 11:16).A social-science reading of the text shows that the questionof wearing of veils is bound up with the issue of honour. Paulwas concerned that the church be recognized as a reputable as-sociation, a gathering of honourable men and women. He didnot want outsiders and unbelievers to think that female wor-ship leaders were “shameless” women. Paul argued that wear-ing veils was proper, natural and customary for women. HisVeil 59advice was intended to enhance the reputation of the fledglingCorinthian church. Unfortunately, we have only a record ofPaul’s response to this issue. How did these women who daredto appear in the church bare headed justify their actions? Wewill never hear their side of the story.All we can do is focus on how to use this text constructivelyto build up the body of Christ today. To do so we must be-gin by insisting that the embodiment of the biblical messageis not about the wholesale importation of 1st century Mediter-ranean values into 20th century North American society. Wemust recognize and respect the historical and cultural differ-ences that separate us from the first Christians. We do not livein a kinship oriented society in which honour and shame arethe dominant values. Women in our society once they reachadulthood are not wards of men, but are recognized as inde-pendent, autonomous persons both legally and socially. Hencethe personal integrity of a woman is not directly related to thereputation of the man who has guardianship of her. Womenin our society are not restricted to domestic roles and func-tions, but can move back and forth between the public worldof work and the private world of the home. When we recog-nize these important cultural and social differences we can seethat 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is not about wearing hats to churchor about proving that women are intended to be subordinateto men. The question that is raised in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16(and through to chapter 14) is: What are men and womendoing in the church that maintains, enhances, and/or threat-ens the honour, the good name and reputation, of the church?The questions for us to ponder are: What are the signs andsymbols of personal integrity in our society for women and formen? How is the personal integrity of church members and/orleaders related to the church’s public reputation?Notes^ For more information on social-science methodology in New Testamentstudies see John H. Elliot, What is Social- Scientific Criticism? (Min-neapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); Carolyn Osiek, What are They Sayingabout the Social Setting of the New Testament? (New York: PaulistPress, 1992); Bengt Holmberg, Sociology and the New Testament: AnAppraisal (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). Each of these worksalso contains an extensive bibliography.60 Consensus2 Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cul-tural Anthropology^ revised edition (Louisville: Westminster/John KnoxPress, 1993) 28-62; John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina, Biblical SocialValues and Their Meaning: A Handbook (Peabody, MA: HendricksonPublishers, 1993) 95-104; see also J. G. Peristiany, ed., Honour andShame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1974) especially Julian Pitt-River’s article “Honour andSocial Status,” pp. 21-74.^ Jouette M. Bassler, “I Corinthians,” in Carol A. Newsom and SharonH. Ringe, eds.. The Women’s Bible Commentary (London: SPCK;Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992) 321-329, esp. 326-327;Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theolog-ical Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroads, 1984)226.^ Schiissler Fiorenza, pp. 227-230, argues that the issue is not one of veilsbut of hair styles; for a critique of her view see Dennis Ronald MacDon-ald, “Corinthian Veils and Gnostic Androgynes” in Karen L. King, ed..Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1988) 276-292, esp. 279-280.^ Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament andOther Early Christian Literature 2nd ed., revised and augmented byF. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1979) 203-204; Malina, The New Testament World, 59.^ Pitt-Rivers, pp. 52-53; the greatest dishonour experienced by malesderives from the sexual impurity of their mothers, wives, daughters.^ MacDonald, “Corinthian Veils,” 281.8 Ibid. 290.^ Bassler, “I Corinthians,” 327.See in MacDonald’s article a summary of the various reasons theCorinthian women might have removed their veils.

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&amp;context=consensus

Lifting the Veil: A Social-Science Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Commons

Wilfrid Laurier University