H.

Mecaskey Presentation Paper 1

Hannah M. Mecaskey
STSP 4242: WSR Seminar
Dr. Darleen Pryds
Presentation Paper version
6 December 2010

“Because of the Angels”: A Historiographical Exegesis of 1 Cor 11.2-16

I. Intro: Paul’s perplexing text of 1 Cor 11.2-16 has been the source of much contention between
scholars:
Are women inferior to men, and must demonstrate thus by covering their heads?
Are head-coverings only for married women to demonstrate a sign of submission to their husbands as
to God?
Did Paul actually write this passage or was it inserted by another author?
If women have long hair, do they still need to cover their heads?
Are head-coverings merely a sign that female origin according to the Genesis narrative in chptr 2 that
women were created out of man, and thus do not share equally in God’s image?

In my theological examination of this text through a brief segment of its interpretive history, I find
scholars arguing for the equalization of man and woman despite the apparent inequality of Paul. Yet for a
contemporary Christian, the issue of gender equality in Christian churches has risen to a level of
complexity beyond the distinctions of man and woman, but must also decide how to ethically address
conceptions of gender identity which vary beyond these binary identities: queer gender identities. Upon
examining a historiographical exegesis of the text of 1 Cor 11.2-16, I will attempt to offer some
considerations for the reconstruction of an exegesis which innovates room for the entire spectrum of
gender identities.

Thesis/Argument:
Examining how the term kephalē has been understood in scholarship of this pericope, I will argue that
Paul’s teaching that women should cover their heads while praying and prophesying “because of the
angels” does not establish a religious gender hierarchy, but rather presents an exegetical opportunity for
interpreters to equalize heterosexual gender biases. Since scholars have been able to find bases for gender
social equality in 1 Cor 11.2-16, I believe there may also be grounds for addressing Christian ethical bias
against homosexual gender identities in this pericope.

Text, English Standard Version: 1 Corinthians 11.2-16

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as
I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a
wife [1] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his
head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife [2] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered
dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head,
then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her
head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of
God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from
man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a
symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [3] 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not
 H.Mecaskey Presentation Paper 2

independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of
woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with
her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for
him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If
anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Footnotes

[1] 11:3 Greek gunē. This term may refer to a woman or a wife, depending on the context 
[2] 11:5 In verses 5-13, the Greek word gunē is translated wife in verses that deal with wearing a veil, a
sign of being married in first-century culture 
[3] 11:10 Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report

II. Body, thesis/arguments of each of my 10 academic journals:

A. Modern Scholarship, 1962-1993:
Section A Intro:
Analyzing scholarship from the “modern period,” roughly 1960s-1990s, I analyze articles
presenting varying opinions of the interpretation and implications of kephalē, mostly demonstrating an
assumption of some kind of hierarchical inference in Paul’s use of the word kephalē, though each differ in
their theological application of this passage. While many explain the understanding of Paul’s original
audience to understand 1 Cor 11.2-16 as creating a religious equality of men and women while
maintaining the social hierarchy of Hellenistic Corinth, each explains in a different way why Paul reasons
for woman’s head-covering the way he does. Each of these articles represents a piece of the exegetical
puzzle I am constructing to demonstrate my thesis that Paul’s construction of a gender hierarchy need not
be read as a timeless apostolic decree. Using a “Christian feminist” lens from Grudem’s wording, my
agenda moves beyond the social equalization of women and men, as it seems the liberalizing positions of
these modern scholars attempt, to ethical liberation of queer gender identities in Christian communities, a
more post-modern or “contemporary” social issue in Christian churches.

1. Boucher’s piece in my interpretive puzzle: Boucher readily identifies that in the Corinthian
context, Paul’s instruction about head-covering may give women a religious equality with
men while maintaining their social subordination to male authority. In spite of this, Boucher’s
theological reading of 1 Cor 11.2-16 within the whole of the Christian canon allows modern
interpreters to voice through Paul’s own text a social implementation of Pauline religious
equality.

2. Meier’s piece in my puzzle: While for Meier Paul’s instruction for women to cover their head
in the Corinthian community is a socially conditioned rule, Meier reads Paul as instituting
hierarchical gender definitions within the Corinthian church from a theological position
which differs from modern Catholic theology. If the dictate is merely a socially conditioned
one, does it bear at all in contemporary theological construal of gender distinctions? The
practice of the Catholic Church has been to disregard all of Paul’s teaching on this issue
except for firm, heterosexist gender distinctions. Can there be more flexibility than even this
use of 1 Cor 11.2-16?

3. Grudem’s piece in my puzzle: Grudem contributes to my understanding of kephalē that it is

nearly impossible for this word to be interpreted “source,” even in a metaphorical sense,
though “Christian feminists” have a tendency to read 1 Cor 11.2-16 in this light. From
 H.Mecaskey Presentation Paper 3

Grudem, I derive a sense that a social gender hierarchy which should be maintained today
because it was ordained by God at creation, and those who balk at this are merely presenting
an illegitimate reading of scripture. While arguing from fact, Grudem denies interpretive
imagination in practical application of a text.

4. Corrington’s Piece in my puzzle: Corrington shifts the typical understanding of hierarchy in 1

Cor 11.2-16 as God-created order to a polemic of control: For Corrington, Paul is ardently
concerned about the overthrow of social order, and thus re-established gender barriers to
minimize the freedom of woman because she is too vulnerable and powerful if not reigned in
by man. I ponder in response what the root of this male fear would be—in enticing spirits,
subverting male authority, what would be a decidedly female contribution to the socio-
religious fear of Christianity?

5. Jervis’ piece in my puzzle: While a gender hierarchy in 1 Cor 11.2-16 can be interpreted from
the language of Paul’s constraint, Jervis’ narrative analysis suggests that it is merely an
ordering without polemical connotations. From such a reading, order of generation gives
particular identity, thus if one part of the order attempts to mimic or replace another, both
parts suffer. Seeing Paul as a midrashic scholar offers opportunity to other Christian scholars
who must reinterpret their holy texts to make sense of contemporary issues.

Section A Conclusion:
The continuity between these journals can be seen in the focus on the religious equalizing of women with
men in the Pauline text of 1 Cor 11.2-16. However, these journals seem to emphasize either a egalitarian
religious perspective, or a hierarchical ordering of genders in this pericope, rather than a both/and
approach which is more prevalent in contemporary scholarship. From modern scholarship, we have
gained insights from literary criticism, textual criticism, and historical-critical methodology, indicating
that Paul’s argument is aimed at correcting a prior teaching given to the Corinthians, which they
misunderstood on the basis of their reading of Genesis, preferencing Gen 1 over Gen 2. Thus, we see
from modern scholarship a general trend towards interpreting Paul as instituting religious differentiation
between men and women through gender distinctions, which may be egalitarian or hierarchical in nature,
and do not effect the socio-political gender constructions of the Greco-Roman world.

B. Post-modern or “Contemporary” Scholarship, Journals 2000-2009:

Section B Intro:
Turning to more contemporary exegetical perspectives of 1 Cor 11.2-16, these five articles by
Watson, Hjort, Belleville, Martin and Calef demonstrate attempts at understanding Paul’s message which
challenge the majority of prior interpretation’s assumption of any kind of hierarchy within this pericope.
My selection of authors between 1962 and 1993 explicitly assume Paul’s usage of kephalē connotes a
gender inequality at some level—either social, religious, or both—while more contemporary authors,
beginning with Francis Watson, demonstrate a shift in thinking. Through rhetorical analysis, socio-
political analysis, literary analysis and theological analysis, contemporary scholarship on 1 Cor 11.2-16
generally suggests that Paul’s instruction that women cover their heads during public worship was a kind
of social liberation, though it did not erase Greco-Roman gender identities. Contemporary scholars tend
to widely use the interpretation of kephalē as “source” rather than “authority over,” though they tend to
try to harmonize these two understandings of the term. It seems that contemporary scholars are able to
accept this pericope as more authentically Pauline, making sense of a discussion of head-coverings in the
context of general admonitions against idolatry (1 Cor 8-11). Deeper analysis of this pericope through
Greco-Roman honor/shame categories of gender distinction evidence the possibility that Paul assumed a
monogenetic theology emphasizing male primacy as sole progenitor, forcing female dependency upon
males as imagers of the divine.
 H.Mecaskey Presentation Paper 4

1. Watson’s Piece in my puzzle: Watson manages to demonstrate interdependence of

heterosexist gender identities by harmonizing Paul’s use of hierarchical and egalitarian
language. If Paul’s intent was to liberate women’s voices from male erotic fascination by
veiling her so as to distract from her figure, Watson has done a fantastic job of making head-
coverings positive, though still archaic. Can a more contemporary application of this text
extrapolate that any space designated as “in the Lord” should not objectify any who exercises
their voice, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual gender identity?

2. Hjort’s piece in my puzzle: Hjort presents a Paul in 1 Cor 11.2-16 who is concerned with the
Corinthian spiritually mature taking up “pagan” practices in their self-assuredness, such as
transvestism, hair length neutralization of gender, and other androgynous ways of expression.
To Paul according to Hjort, these practices undermine the freedom the Corinthians have in
Christ, and in the created order of two distinct genders which Paul has instructed them in
from Genesis. So if Paul would have seen gender emancipation from a dualistic gender
structure as a rejection of God’s created nature and consequently a rejection of salvation in
Christ, how can heterosexism be overturned in Christianity? One might have to appeal to the
Corinthians’ conclusion of what “freedom in Christ” meant, encompassing a continuum of
gender-identities.

3. Belville’s piece in my puzzle: Belville suggests that a woman’s head-covering in 1 Cor 11.2-
16 denoted that she did not have her own source, but was born out of man, as it were. This
head-covering is a theological symbol, which Belville does not think constructs a hierarchy of
gender, since these distinctions do not appear functional in nature for her. Belville seems to
be hinting that Paul is self-consciously instituting gender roles as mere social constructions to
emphasize a complimentary difference. If this is so, distinctions can readily be made as
personal identity, and need not be according to heterosexual standards.

4. Martin’s piece in my puzzle: Martin greatly contributes to a sociological understanding of

Paul’s message in 1 Cor 11.2-16, viewing female hair as genitalia which ought to be covered
in public, especially in the public presence of God. If Paul’s theology is entirely construed
upon an archaic sense of biology, corrections to this biology according to modern science can
elucidate new theological conclusions. For example, if the male and female bodies are very
different in genetically minute ways, I can infer that any theological differentiation should be
minute as well.

5. Calef’s piece in my puzzle: Though noting that Paul allows men and women to practice
religion equally, Calef reads the theological connotations of 1 Cor 11.2-16 as pointing to a
monogenetic theory of procreation rooted in male potency. This social construction affects
the religious construction in that women must continue to demonstrate their unstable,
vulnerable conditions without men by a head-covering. Benefitting from Calef’s analysis of
the logic of honor and shame systems, I question what position of honor rests dependently
upon a relationship of shame in the Christian West. Perhaps such a codependent existence can
be seen between hetero-normative gender identities and homosexual gender identities.

Section B Conclusion: Increased tendency to read the Pauline pericope of 1 Cor 11.2-16 as a product of
its time vs. an absolute theological dictate separates these pieces of scholarship from the modern journals,
allowing more ambiguity in theological interpretation of what Paul was arguing. Is sexual differentiation
between man and woman determined by God or merely a product of Paul’s Hellenistic setting? If this
truly is the case, is there anything more we can abstract from the text as a timeless meaning than simply
cover your genitals during public worship? Contemporary scholars give more room for questioning than
they do answers to the questions.
 H.Mecaskey Presentation Paper 5

III. Conclusion:
As hopefully this historiographical exegesis of 1 Corinthian 11.2-16 has exemplified, within the
boundaries of “legitimate” interpretations, there is a wide range of possible meanings for a certain text
within a scholarly framework. The ever-increasing scholarship on problematic passages like the selected
pericope only broadens the possibility for theological interpretation of the text. My understanding of
theological interpretation of scripture is that new generations will always be encountering problems the
previous generation did not face, socially, politically, and religiously, and theological interpretation
should allow each generation to address its issues through possible meanings afforded by the text of
scripture. Since I have not included an article from the current year, 2010, I will address an issue of
interpretation which the scholars included in this historiography have not analyzed: is there room within
the exegetical possibilities of 1 Cor 11.2-16 to legitimize a non-heterosexist understanding of gender?
In vs. 2, we find Paul commending the Corinthian community for maintaining all the teachings he
has given to them, which Boucher has suggested may be an understanding of “freedom in Christ” without
gender distinction. Now, Paul has decided to alter that perspective to one of gender differentiation (vs. 3)
because he may be concerned that prior teaching may have led spiritual members of the Corinthian
community to adopt androgynous practices which are syncretistic with pagan religions, such as the
Dionysius cult as Calef suggests. In vs. 4-6, Paul describes this lack of gender differentiation in terms of
honor/shame which may result from his emphasis of the Gen 2 creation narrative over Gen 1, as
Corrington and Jervis suggest, or may be because due to the Greco-Roman conception of physiology,
Paul considers female hair to be a genital organ (Martin, Calef). Whatever the basis of Paul’s decision, his
system of woman’s need to cover lest she shame her head (her own or that of the man whom she belongs
to) is qualified in vs. 7-10 by a description of un-equal image bearing: man has a special image of God
that woman does not “because of the angels” (v.10). For Grudem, this demonstrates a man’s authority
over woman, which Belville suggests this is merely due to the fact that woman was created out of man. It
is an irreconcilable inequality, however, which Paul seems hesitant to enforce, because in vs. 11-12, he
re-emphasizes the interdependence of man and woman (Watson). In conclusion of this instruction (vs. 13-
16), however, Paul gives the Corinthians the final decision in either an ironical tone (Meier) or sincere
(Hjort).
If sincere, the Christian is free to adopt a literal interpretation from either Paul or the Corinthians,
that head-covering of women in worship is necessary or unnecessary respectively. Serious application of
a historical-critical method analyzing the context in which Paul delivers this message finds it
unequivocally given in from a patriarchal/monogenetic perspective, in which woman is not equal to man
for reasons of creation and physiology. However, if these are only based out of the second creation
account in Genesis, what is to prevent one from preferencing the first creation account other than Paul
prefers the second? From a logical standpoint, contemporary ethics no longer judges male and female
equality on the basis of physiology, thus Paul’s reasoning for gender distinction no longer seems
applicable. In this way, it may be possible to argue that 1 Cor 11.2-16 can be used to support a non-
heterosexist standard of gender identity definition. If redemption ultimately makes us like God and God is
genderless (excepting the figure of the Son) and by faith we are to build heaven on earth now, what is to
stop us from transgressing traditional gender barriers and becoming like the angels?

Conclusion:
Paul does not seem to be breaking new ground for social equality of men and women, though he
does introduce Christ as grounds for religious equality. Since contemporary ethics no longer accepts the
physiology of the Greco-Roman Era, modern interpreters have used Paul's religious statements as grounds
for both social and religious equality of genders according to heterosexist societal distinctions. But what
about the contemporary existence of gender identities which transgress the very issue which Paul seems
to be arguing against, the blurring of distinctions between woman and man? What grounds can be found
in 1 Cor 11.2-16 to address this issue? This seems to be a question of socio-religious gender equality
which contemporary scholars have not yet addressed in this passage.
 H.Mecaskey Presentation Paper 6

Writing in an academic context where faith and reason still seem as divorced from one another as
faith and praxis, I look to the authority of one who practices what he preaches, transgressing the bounds
of Christian social-acceptability to love at a great cost. In the words of Derek Webb from his latest album
“Stockhold Syndrome,” I close with “What Matters More to You?” as a way of interpreting Paul’s
timeless message to the Corinthians:
You say you always treat people like you like to be
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality
You love when people put words in your mouth
'Bout what you believe, make you sound like a freak
'Cause if you really believe what you say you believe
You wouldn't be so damn reckless with the words you speak
Wouldn't silently consent when the liars speak
Denyin' all the dyin' of the remedy
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?
If I can tell what's in your heart by what comes out of your mouth
Then it sure looks to me like being straight is all it's about
It looks like being hated for all the wrong things
Like chasin' the wind while the pendulum swings
'Cause we can talk and debate until we're blue in the face
About the language and tradition that he's comin' to save
Meanwhile we sit just like we don't give a sh**
About 50,000 people who are dyin' today
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?
 H.Mecaskey Presentation Paper 7

Bibliography:

Belville, Linda. “Kephalē and the Issue of Headcovering in 1 Cor 11:2-16.” Paul and the Corinthians:
Studies on a Community in Conflict. Novum Testamentum, Vol CIX. Burke, Trevor and J. Keith
Elliot, ed. Boston: Brill, 2003. 215-231.

Boucher, Madeleine. "Some unexplored parallels to 1 Cor 11:11-12 and Gal 3:28 : the NT on the role of
women." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31, no. 1 (January 1, 1969): 50-58. ATLASerials, Religion
Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Cadbury, Henry Joel. "A Qumran parallel to Paul (1 Cor 11:2-16)." Harvard Theological Review 51, no.
1 (January 1, 1958): 1-2. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24,
2010).

Calef, Susan. “Kephalē, Coverings, and Cosmology: The Impenetrable ‘Logic’ of 1 Corinthians 11.2-16.”
Journal of Society and Religion, Series 5: Women, Gender & Religion (2009):21-44.

Cope, Lamar. "1 Cor 11:2-16 : one step further." Journal of Biblical Literature 97, no. 3 (September 1,
1978): 435-436. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Corrington, Gail Paterson. "The "headless woman" : Paul and the language of the body in 1 Cor 11:2-
16." Perspectives in Religious Studies 18, no. 3 (September 1, 1991): 223-231. ATLASerials,
Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Grudem, Wayne A. "Does kephalē ("head") mean "source" or "authority over" in Greek literature : a
survey of 2,336 examples." Trinity Journal 6, no. 1 (March 1, 1985): 38-59. ATLASerials,
Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Hjort, Brigitte. “Gender Hierarchy or Religious Androgyny? Male-Female Interaction in the Corinthian
Community- a Reading of 1 Cor 11, 2-16.” Studia Theologica- Nordic Journal of Theology, 55:1
(2001), 58-80.

Hurley, James B. "Did Paul require veils or the silence of women : A consideration of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and
14:33b-36." Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 2 (December 1, 1973): 190-
220. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Jervis, L Ann. "But I Want You to Know . . ." : Paul's Midrashic Intertextual Response to the Corinthian
Worshipers (1 Cor 11:2-16)." Journal of Biblical Literature 112, no. 2 (June 1, 1993): 231-
246.ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Judge, Edwin A. "Cultural conformity and innovation in Paul : some clues from contemporary
documents." Tyndale Bulletin 35, (January 1, 1984): 3-24. ATLASerials, Religion Collection,
EBSCOhost(accessed November 24, 2010).

Knight, George W. "New Testament teaching on the role relationship of male and female with special
reference to the teaching/ruling functions in the church." Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society18, no. 2 (March 1, 1975): 81-91. ATLASerials, Religion Collection,
EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Lowery, David K. "The head covering and Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11:2-34." Bibliotheca sacra 143, no.
570 (April 1, 1986): 155-163. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed
November 24, 2010).
 H.Mecaskey Presentation Paper 8

Martin, Troy. “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11.13-15: A Testicle Instead of
a Head-covering.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 1 (March 1, 2004): 75-84.

Meier, John P. "On the veiling of hermeneutics (1 Cor 11:2-16)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 2
(April 1, 1978): 212-226. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24,
2010).

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. "Non-Pauline character of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16." Journal of Biblical

Literature95, no. 4 (December 1, 1976): 615-621. ATLASerials, Religion Collection,
EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Roberts, J W. "The veils in 1 Cor 11:2-16." Restoration Quarterly 3, no. 4 (January 1, 1959): 183-
198.ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Trompf, Garry W. "On attitudes toward women in Paul and Paulinist literature : 1 Corinthians 11:3-16
and its context." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42, no. 2 (April 1, 1980): 196-215. ATLASerials,
Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Walker, William O. "1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul's views regarding women." Journal of Biblical
Literature 94, no. 1 (March 1, 1975): 94-110. ATLASerials, Religion Collection,
EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).

Watson, Francis. “The Authority of the Voice: A Theological Reading of 1 Cor 11.2-16,”New Testament
Studies 46 (2000):520-536.

Weber-Han, Cindy. "Sexual equality according to Paul : an exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and
Ephesians 5:21-33." Brethren Life and Thought 22, no. 3 (June 1, 1977): 167-170. ATLASerials,
Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2010).