A Biblical View of Women in the Ministry, Part 2: Should a Woman Prophesy or Preach before Men?

By H. Wayne House

[Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary]

In 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 Paul has an interesting, though perplexing, discussion about women praying and prophesying. The circumstances of this activity have been enigmatic to interpreters. Several problems arise when one seeks to examine the pericope. Some problems pertain to authenticity,[1] others relate to obscure information about the wearing of headcoverings[2] and angels at congregational worship.[3] Other issues are more appropriate to the present article: the role of apostolic tradition in the teaching of the passage, the significance of the Sitz im Leben, the meaning of κεφαλή (“head”), the role of the second creation narrative as a basis for Paul’s teaching, and the impact of the Christian church in Paul’s thinking on the Corinthian church.

The Setting of the Pericope

The apostle began this pericope after he had concluded a long section about the improper way the Corinthians had taken advantage of their freedom in Christ. Possibly picking up their phrase, “All things are lawful,”[4] he reminded them that all things, however, are not necessary nor do they edify (10:23). Having given gentle rebukes (1:10–11; 3:1–4; 4:7–13, 18; 5:1–3; 6:1–8; 7:1–5; 8:9–12; 10:1–14), he began a sectionwith praise(ἐπαινῶ) for his readers’ remembrance of him and their adherence to the traditions he had delivered (παρέδωκα) to them (11:2). He then proceeded to correct an abuse of freedom in Christ by some women in the Corinthian assembly.[5]

The New Apostolic Instruction

After praising the Corinthians on their positive response to apostolic tradition (1 Cor 11:2),[6] Paul introduced instruction that he apparently had not yet given them. The new teaching was probably not merely the fact that the husband occupies a position of authority over the wife. This teaching was already evident in the Old Testament and practiced (though often overpracticed!) in society. Instead the new emphasis was that this position is inherent in the divine order: Christ is over every man; man is over woman; God is over Christ (v. 3). This refers not to the essence of the individuals, since God is said to be the Head of Christ, but only to function. Though Grosheide relates this authority structure to the re-creation order in Christ, not to the original creation,[7] it seems that the latter is also true (11:8–9).

The Structure of 1 Corinthians 11:3

The reason for the order of the clauses, namely, man-Christ; woman-man; Christ-God, is difficult to ascertain. One might have expected the words to be in this order: God-Christ; Christ-man; man-woman. That way each person in authority would be listed first (God, Christ, man) with the one over whom each exercised authority listed last and in descending graduation.[8] However, the parts of the verse were apparently not intended to be presented in logical order.[9] There is no need to equate the παντὸς ἀνδρός (“every man”) of verse 3a with the ἀνήρ (“man”) of verse 3b. The first is more inclusive than the second. The former has no delimitation; it includes all men[10] (probably believers are in view). The ἀνήρ of verse 3b relates specifically to man in respect to his relationship with woman. Even though the units in the verse are not given in logical progression, it would be wrong not to see the overall proposition as an expression of hierarchical authority through some type of inclusio or pyramidal structure.[11]

The Meaning of κεφαλή

The significance of verse 3 lies in the word κεφαλή (“head”). The verse revolves around the concept of how God, Christ, and man are κεφαλή.[12] Its meaning in Pauline literature (especially in this passage and Eph 5:23) has been much disputed. Grosheide says that “head” is used figuratively as “a governing, ruling organ.”[13] This definition is strongly contested by many New Testament scholars today,[14] as well as by feminists,[15] who insist the word means “source,” not “boss.” Though this view of “source” has been posited by scholars such as Markus Barth[16] and Stephen Bedale,[17] along with a host of others,[18] research by Wayne Grudem of over 2,000 instances of κεφαλή in all the major writings of the classical and Hellenistic Greek periods reveals no clear instances of such a usage.[19] The idea of source in κεφαλή seems to be absent in classical and early first-century A.D. literature.[20] Only when κεφαλή occurs in the plural might that view be sustained.[21] Paul’s usage of κεφαλή reflects its meaning in the Septuagint when κεφαλή is used for the Hebrew רֹאשׁ. Though κεφαλή is not the most regular word for authority, it is used of a chief individual or ruler (cf. Judg 11:11 and 2 Kings 22:44). The Hebrew רֹאשׁ, which is sometimes translated κεφαλή, is also elsewhere translated by words that clearly refer to authority.[22] One of those synonyms that carry the idea of authority is ἀρχή.[23]

Bedale sought to demonstrate that κεφαλή meant “source” in extrabiblical Greek: “In normal Greek usage, classical or contemporary, κεφαλή does not signify ‘head’ in the sense of ruler, or chieftain, of a community.”[24] However, an examination of this much-quoted article shows that he did not cite even one example of ancient literature outside the Bible. To make such a claim but not adduce even one piece of evidence for it is questionable scholarship.

Kroeger has sought to present a number of examples to prove that κεφαλή may mean “source.” She prefaces her paper by quoting from a 16th-century Latin-Greek lexicon, Henry Petrina’s Lexicon Dictionarium Graecolatinum, to demonstrate that a dictionary other than Liddell and Scott’s classical Greek lexicon allows for κεφαλή to mean “source.”[25] For κεφαλή Petrina’s lexicon lists origo statura corporis. Kroeger sees in the word origo evidence for the idea of “source.” However, this reference, “the beginning (origo) of the body’s stature,” speaks of the head not as the source of the body but as the extremity of the body: the head is the top extremity and the feet, it follows, are the bottom extremity.

In seeking to examine the meaning of a term like κεφαλή, the researcher needs to be aware of the semantics of terms. Words do not have unlimited meaning. They are confined within a parameter of larger meaning.[26] Feminists have sought to give κεφαλή a meaning that has no relationship to its root or basal meaning. Marshall has rightly stated, “Words or other linguistic signs have no ‘force,’ validity, or meaning, independently of the relations of equivalence and contrast which hold between them.”[27]

The general meaning of a particular word is known as the normal or natural meaning. It is a general meaning because it is the most common use of the term. This general meaning is also known as the unmarked meaning, that is, it is the meaning one would assume apart from contextual indicators of another meaning besides the general meaning.[28] In reference to κεφαλή, the common or unmarked meaning is the physical head. From that meaning come other meanings such as capital punishment (losing one’s head), the prominent part of something (as the head is to the body), or the ruler of something or someone (as the head is of the body). The idea of source or origin simply has no clear example in the time of the New Testament, even though feminists have gone to great pains to seek to find such usage.

Though κεφαλή carries several of these meanings at different times in the New Testament, the use of the term in referring to Christ becomes paramount because the husband’s headship in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 is paralleled with the type of headship Christ has. The meaning of the term in a given context must be the one that reflects the “marking” given to the word by the author.[29]

To sense the meaning of κεφαλή, the word “leader” or “ruler” may be substituted in each of the passages, and then the word “source” or “origin” may be substituted. Clearly “source” or “origin” does not fit these verses. The same is true in all other examples of κεφαλή in the New Testament. Source is a meaning foreign to the word thoughout the New Testament.

Some scholars, however, argue that an exception to the normal meaning is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3. It is argued that since Paul spoke of the woman coming from the man, surely here κεφαλή means “source.” But if this is so, then one must also argue that God is the origin of Christ. However, since Paul also wrote that man comes from woman, headship as source does not seem appropriate, for then woman would also be the head or source of man, which is contrary to Paul’s point.

The Significance of Man’s Headship

How is the teaching in verse 3 related to that of the overall passage? The mention of the various headships in verse 3 gives the theological impetus for the remainder of the apostle’s instructions. The key to a proper role relationship of man and woman is to recognize that Christ has headship over man[30] even as man has headship over woman. Assuming the truth of the first and third parts of verse 3, Paul proceeded to demonstrate that the center portion of his threefold proposition is also true. A brief look at the subsequent verses indicates that the headship of man over woman is the focal issue. The apostle used “head” as the central concept in his argument, which gives the reason for the submissiveness of the woman who prophesies or prays. She is to recognize that the order of redemption does not release her from the order of creation when she expresses her function within the church.[31] Even as Christ has a head, who is God, so the woman has a head, namely, man.[32] She is to take that into account when she prophesies lest she dishonor man (her head and source of her being in creation) and her own dignity.

The Nature of Prophecy

If women were allowed to prophesy in the Corinthian congregation, and this was probably the case,[33] the nature of their activity must be discerned.

In the Old Testament four women were prophetesses. Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Noadiah (Neh 6:14).[34] With the coming of the church age ushered in on the day of Pentecost there seems to have been more opportunity for women to have the prophetic office (Acts 2:17–18).[35] At Corinth this seems to be the situation, for there can be little question that women were prophesying there alongside men.[36] Of what did this consist, however, and what distinction, if any, was made between men and women in their prophesying?

On the first question the women were involved in the two activities of praying and prophesying, both of which are an effect of the Spirit’s work. The Greek particle ἤ, which unites the words “praying” and “prophesying” in 1 Corinthians 11:5, may separate concepts that are antithetical or those that are closely related. Probably the latter is true here. Prayer and prophecy are typical of the prophet’s activity in the Old Testament (e.g., Abraham, Gen 20:7; Samuel, 1 Sam 12:23; and Jeremiah, Jer 27:18). A New Testament example of this wedding of prayer and prophecy is seen in Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:27). Though a prophetess could pray and give an inspired utterance, she was restricted from the office of teaching in the early church congregation,[37] even as there appears to be no such function in the Old Testament or early Judaism.

Some people believe that women, according to 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15, can serve as preachers or teachers (over men) in the public life of the church so long as they do not usurp authority over the men of the church. One such expositor, Earl Radmacher, has contended that prophecy and preaching are synonymous:

It is safe to conclude that “prophecy” and “preaching” are really synonymous…. In most cases, prophesying simply represents the activity of receiving God’s message and passing it on. Before the time the written revelation was complete, the prophet received his message directly from God. Once the writers had inscripturated God’s message, however, the preacher as God’s spokesman, took it from the printed page and heralded it far and wide.[38]

This theological position of equating prophecy and preaching serves as a raison d’etre for women being allowed to teach men and to preach to the Christian assembly. Such a perspective on the nature of prophecy, however, is unwarranted by the Scriptures.

Cullmann rightly distinguishes between prophecy and preaching. Preaching and teaching, he says, are founded on an intelligible exposition of the Word of God, whereas prophecy is based on ἀποκαλύψις (“revelation”).[39] Hoehner also makes this distinction:

In the New Testament the verb form [προφητεύω] is used twenty-eight times and it always has (with the possible exception of John 11:51) the idea of revelation flowing from God. Paul uses it eleven times. He uses it nine times in 1 Corinthians 12–14 and two times in 1 Corinthians 14:45 [sic, 11:4–5 ]. The noun propheteia is used nineteen times in the New Testament. Paul uses it once in Romans 12:6 and five times in 1 Corinthians 12–14. The consistent New Testament idea is that a prophecy is an actual message or oracle from God. The word is not used in the New Testament to refer to the interpretation of an oracle by a skilled interpreter. In short, prophecy in Paul cannot denote anything other than inspired speech. And prophecy as charisma is neither skill nor aptitude nor talent; the charisma is the actual speaking forth of words given by the Spirit in a particular situation and ceases when the words cease.[40]

This view is consistent with Paul’sdiscussion of prophetic utterance in 1 Corinthians 11–14. When one examines the inspired dimensions of the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians 12–14, there is no reason to consider the nature of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 as being different. To argue that since women prophesied in Corinth, women are allowed to proclaim the gospel in public worship does not follow. The preaching of the church is honored over prophecy in Paul’s writings because of its strategic place in God’s economy and Paul reserved this for men. Prophecy “may offer divine instruction which is helpful hic et nunc, but it is put beneath the apostolic preaching, beneath the gospel, which must occupy the place of honor (compare 1 Cor 12:28).”[41]

Were distinctions made between men and women in prophesying? Apparently certain women were prophesying at Corinth in public worship without covering their heads. The apostle considered such practice a lack of respect for the men (or their husbands)[42] in the Corinthian congregation. The women may have reasoned in an a fortiori way: since in Greek worship women were allowed to worship with loose hair, as an indicator of belonging to “the god” and not the husband when in worship, certainly in Christ matrimonial authority and the order of creation were also circumvented.[43] The Corinthians tended not to move in partial measures; they desired to operate with a realized eschatological view, acting as though the consummation of all things in Christ had already come, and the order of creation had been superseded.[44]

To preserve the order he argued in 11:3, Paul wrote in verse 4 that men should not wear a covering while exercising the ministry of praying or when prophesying (i.e., moved upon by the Spirit to utter divine truth to the congregation). Women on the other hand could function in a prophetic role, but in order to preserve the social order given by the Creator, they must wear a sign of their functional subordination.[45] In their prophesying nothing of church leadership or teaching men is included, since prophecy then was not expounding Scripture but was giving exhortation from God.

Paul’s Theological Reasons

The apostle wrote that the woman is morally bound[46] to follow his instruction on covering her head when prophesying or praying, whereas the man is morally bound not to do so.

Man is the image (εἰκών) and glory (δόξα) of God, while woman is the glory (δόξα) of man. The word εἰκών essentially means something that is similar or like another.[47] To be in the image of someone is to be a representation of him. On the other hand δόξα signifies “brightness,” “splendor,” or “honor.”[48] Woman brings honor to the man by fulfilling her role of functional subordination and vice-regency with him, while man brings glory to God by fulfilling the functional role of leader in God’s creation. But why is woman not viewed as being the εἰκών of God? This may partly be explained by looking to the source of Paul’s teaching here. One might think the image theme relates directly to Genesis 1:26–27, where εἰκόνα and ὁμοίωσιν are found in the Septuagint, but the apostle was more likely deriving his thinking from the entire dominion theme of Genesis 1. Since Genesis 1:26–27 presents male and female as each having the imago Dei ontologically, Paul could hardly have alluded to Genesis 1:26 as support for his position in 1 Corinthians 11:7, which refers to their relationship not their essence. Hurley speaks well to the problem:

Man, in his authority relation to creation and to woman, images the dominion of God over creation (a central theme of Gen 1) and the headship of Christ over his church. The woman has a corresponding but different role to play. The woman is not called to image God in the relation which she sustains to her husband; she is rather to show loving obedience (Eph 5:22). It would be inappropriate to identify her as the image of God in her relation to her husband, although…she does rule over creation with him.[49]

Woman is to be viewed as being the glory of man. The degree to which the man properly fills the position to which God has assigned him determines his ability to bring glory to God. In like manner, to the degree the woman functions within the liberties and responsibilities assigned to her she brings glory to man.

Jaubert argues that a man dishonored by a nonglorifying wife is hindered in his worship of God:

Paul pursues a reasoning that he put in motion with the succession of kefalai and which concerns the hierarchy in the worship. If in the thought of Paul it is by Christ that the man renders glory to God (cf. 2 Cor 1:20) and that he must do honor to Christ, one could think similarly that it is by the man that the woman renders glory in the worship and she ought to do honor to him. The woman is referred to the man because, says Paul, it is not the man who comes from the woman, but the woman who comes from the man; moreover the man was not created because of the woman, but the woman because of the man, an evident allusion to Gen 2. One must without doubt deduce from this that for the man to be able to render to God a proper worship, for him to be the glory of God, it is necessary that he be without shame and therefore that the woman do him honor.[50]

Paul’s reasoning is based on a theology of creation rather than on sociocultural considerations. He stated that woman is from the substance of man and that woman was created to meet man’s need (1 Cor 11:9). This clearly reflects the narrative of Genesis 2. Man’s position of authority over woman resides in his priority and thus in his being economically the image of God. The woman is the glory of her husband when she stands in proper relationship to him within her created role.

Paul’s emphasis in verses 2–9 was on the issue of authority, which the Corinthians apparently had cast aside. Paul found it necessary to correct this error by demonstrating the need for these Christians to maintain the order of creation even though they were equal in Christ (Gal 3:26–28). As Jaubert comments, “Paul argues from an order of the creation, but of a creation reassumed by Christ.”[51]

Lest the role of women in the new order be obscured, the apostle began a transition in verse 10 : “For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head” (NIV). This rendering most likely portrays the sense of the verse. It takes the διὰ τοῦτο at the beginning of the verse as a concatenation, referring to verses 7–9 as well as to the immediately following verses.[52]

Who are the angels and what is the authority women should have on their heads? Several views have been proffered as to the identification of the angels in verse 10.[53] Two major views are that the angels are evil angels who will attack women whose heads are uncovered[54] and that the angels are good angels who observe the decorum and worship of the saints.[55] Rather than enter into the arguments that are only secondary to the solution of the woman’s prophetic role at Corinth, this writer considers that the best solution is to look at the phrase διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους in light of the occurrences of ἄγγελος in 1 Corinthians. Paul used the term four times, more than in any other letter and “in each [passage] issues are raised which tie the angels in with the central problems of Corinth.”[56]

In opposition to the Corinthians who considered themselves as having “arrived” as Christians (apparently an overrealized eschatology), Paul said believers are in a cosmic spectacle (θέατρον, 4:9) before the angels. Christians today are not exalted and reigning. In 6:1–8 Paul chided them for going to court against other believers and reminded them that they would judge angels, a fact of which they were aware.[57] First Corinthians 13:1 speaks of the languages of angels. The Corinthians may have thought that they had become like the angels (Matt 22:30). This may answer why some of the Corinthian believers wanted to lead celibate lives. In 1 Corinthians 11:10 the apostle desired to win the women to obedience because of the high place they occupy. When they uncovered their head, seeking an authority or rule not given to them in creation, it was a sign of rebellion and disgrace. Covering their heads while they prophesied served as a sign of their high position or authority above the angels.

What is the authority (ἐξουσία) that woman properly exercises with covered head?[58] Since Paul’s argument up to verse 10 was on the subordination of women, many have understood the term in a passive sense, meaning that the woman’s ἐξουσία would be a sign of her husband’s authority over her. This sense, as Hooker comments, is strange, for then “the headcovering is not understood as a symbol of authority but, quite the reverse, as a symbol of subjection.”[59] Jaubert considers this a major problem. “The philological difficulty is enormous, since the expression echein exousian in Greek never has the passive sense (undergo a domination) but always the active sense: possess a power.”[60] In similar tone Ramsey wrote that this is “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.”[61]

Most likely ἐξουσία stands for a sign of the woman’s authority. She has a right to function prophetically in the church age when she has her head covered (either having her hair put up or wearing some form of covering).[62] This must not be seen as a unilateral right: she operates as a vice-regent with man in the world and in the church. Several facts support this view of ἐξουσία: (1) It retains the full force of the active sense of ἐξουσία. (2) It fits Paul’s transition in his presentation in which he hopes to show the equality of man and woman in the midst of his discussion on woman’s subordination. (3) Paul was arguing carefully so as to win over the women’s obedience by showing them their high place in the old creation and in the new creation.

By the word πλήν (“however”) in verse 11 Paul sought to build a bridge from the subordination of woman to man to the interdependence of the two. Πλήν clearly signals a limitation to the previous argument.[63] Why did Paul change direction here? According to Jewett, Paul realized that the strong subordination he had been teaching is incompatible with the gospel expounded in Galatians 3:28: “Here we have what may be the first expression of an uneasy conscience on the part of a Christian theologian who argues for the subordination of the female to the male.”[64] A better solution is that the apostle desired to put in proper perspective the administrative and ontological relationships of man and woman. Alexander correctly says,

Paul wants the men to understand clearly that though the woman is to be subordinate, she is not inferior. They should not overpress the arguments of vv. 3–10 to the exclusion of women’s equality. Both man and woman are mutually interdependent upon one another for the continuing process of procreation. After the initial creation, man now comes through the woman, though the source of the woman was the man. Most important of all is that they not become proud of their roles, but remember that all things find their ultimate source in God. There is no place for “lording it” over the woman in this context.[65]

Though in God’s design woman is created for man (v. 9), the woman and man are ontologically equal and interdependent in God’s design for procreation.

As has been amply seen, Paul based his view of the functional (economic) relationships between man and woman on theological considerations from the creation narratives. This is also true in 1 Corinthians 11:13–15 in his argument from nature. He appealed not to social custom[66] but to creation, a theme that has permeated this pericope. (This use of φύσις [“nature”] in v. 14 is in agreement with its meaning in Rom 1:26; 2:14, 27.) How this is so Paul did not say, but he clearly expected his original readers to understand and to concur with his judgment. That 1 Corinthians 11:14–15 was a retreat by the apostle because he viewed his position as weak[67] is indefensible. He plainly established his views and assumed that the evidence was clear enough in the created order (nature) for his readers to agree with him.

The Practice of the Churches

Paul’s conclusion in verse 16 presupposes his pointed question in verse 13. In answer to his question, “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?” one must answer a resounding no. Otherwise no sense can be made of Paul’s discussion. To those who still remain contentious, intransigent, and unconvinced, the apostle appealed to the universal practice of the congregations of God (cf. 14:33b–37). The church at Corinth must not raise its head above the accepted tradition of all God’s people elsewhere in rejecting the apostle’s mandate. In no other church did women prophesy with heads uncovered and neither should such a practice occur in the Corinthian assembly.

Women experienced considerable freedom in the church of the first century, but this freedom was not permitted by the Apostle Paul to contradict the order of creation, as was being done by many women in contemporary pagan religions. Instead the apostle sought to provide the opportunity for women to participate in the life of the church through prayer and prophecy. These were not expressions of authority in the same sense as the proclamation of “revelation”; the prophesying seems to have consisted of worship rather than teaching in the first-century church. Even when women prohesied, however, they were to give recognition of the fact that they saw themselves not over men in the congregation by wearing an indicator of authority and so not dishonoring their husbands by acting independently.

Paul did not base his teaching on mere opinion or rabbinic bias. Rather he clearly founded his teaching on the creation order, the function of the church, and the uniform practice of the church throughout the Roman Empire, in whom also dwelt the Spirit, and obviously the Spirit’s leading.

Notes

1. The traditional stance that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is an original Pauline pericope has been rejected by several scholars recently. Either segments of this portion of Scripture are considered to be later glosses, or the whole section has been under the influence of a later hand. This in turn finds expression in two ways. Either the pericope in whole or in part was written by the apostle but later improperly assigned to its present position, or the portion was written by a later author, possibly from the same group that produced the alleged pseudo-Pauline corpus (it is said this group were antifeminists). This author then awkwardly added 1 Corinthians 11:1 and 17. John Knox argued that the present form of the Pauline text came into existence a generation or so after Paul’s death (Chapters in a Life of Paul [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950], p. 18). E. G. Gunther Bornkamm accepts the unity of 1 Corinthians, but believes that 2 Corinthians is composed of portions of five separate letters (Paul [New York: Harper & Row, 1971], pp. 244-46. Walter Schmithals proposes that 1 and 2 Corinthians are composed of six letters (Gnosticism in Corinthians: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971], pp. 87-101). C. K. Barrett argues that the evidence of the manuscripts tells nothing about the state of the Pauline literature before its publication (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , Harper New Testament Commentary [New York: Harper & Row], p. 14). Hagge was the first to question the unity of 1 Corinthians by suggesting that chapters 1–6, 9:1–18, and chapter 15 should be taken with 2 Corinthians 10–13 (“Die beiden überlieferten Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Korinth,” Jahrbucher für protestantische Theologie, 2 [1876], pp. 481-531, cited by John Coolidge Hurd, Jr., The Origin of 1 Corinthians [New York: Seabury Press, 1965], p. 43). Carl Clemen divided 1 and 2 Corinthians into five letters with his choice of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 as the nucleus of the earliest Corinthian letter (Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1894], pp. 66-67). Johannes Weiss with occasional alterations placed 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:1–22; 6:12–20; 11:2–34; and 9:24–27 together as a first correspondence of Paul to Corinth with the rest of 1 Corinthians as a second letter, except for 1 Corinthians 5:1–6:11 and 1 Corinthians 1–4, which passages were considered to be later correspondence (Der erste Korintherbrief, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1925], pp. xl-xliii). For additional studies on this see Walter Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth: Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1956), pp. 12-18, 22, n. 2; Erich Dinkler, “Korinther-briefe,” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handworterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, 6 vols. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1957–62), 4:18; John Coolidge Hurd, Jr., The Origin of 1 Corinthians (New York: Seaburg Press, 1965), pp. 44-47; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1971), p. 441. Walker has argued that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is a non-Pauline interpolation that reflects an antifeminist group. Excluding this text leaves Paul as a great liberator of women as seen in Galatians 3:28. He gives three reasons for viewing the text as an interpolation and then posits the position that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is composed from three diverse pericopae. He argues that several lines of evidence show that the passage is non-Pauline (William O. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and Paul’s Views Regarding Women,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 [March 1975]: 94-110). For a presentation of Walker’s arguments with a detailed rebuttal see this writer’s “An Investigation of Contemporary Feminist Arguments on Paul’s Teaching on the Role of Women in the Church” (ThD diss, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1986), pp. 66-67, and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16?” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (Dec. 1976): 615-21.
2. See the various positions in James B. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor 11:2–16 and 1 Cor 14:33b–36, ” Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973): 190-220.
3. See views on angels in J. A. Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10, ” New Testament Studies 4 (1957–58): 48-58.
4. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians, p. 43. Rudolf Bultmann says that the phrase was “evidently a slogan of the Gnosticizing Christians in Corinth” (Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951], 1:341).
5. The majority of commentators and authors with whom this writer is acquainted see verses 2–16 in the context of public worship, which is the view of this writer. On the other hand Ralph H. Alexander, after stating that verses 17–34 certainly concern church worship, asserts, “On the contrary, vv. 2–16 appear to be an outgrowth of the previous discussion on Christian freedom and not related to the aspect of church worship” (“An Exegetical Presentation on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15” [paper presented at the Seminar on Women in the Ministry, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, OR, November 1976], p. 4). This view cannot be maintained successfully for at least four reasons: (1) Though verses 2–16 assuredly are an outgrowth of Paul’s theme on abusing freedom in Christ, this is most likely also true of verses 17–34, as well as much of 1 Corinthians. (2) The use of ἐπαινῶ in verse 2 and ὀυκ ἐπαινῶ in verse 17 ties together these two pericopae structurally. They serve as a unit even as chapter 10 does. (3) The question of praying and prophesying is more naturally seen within a public worship setting. If it were a small, private gathering would the admonition be needed? Or then again, is there a difference between a small gathering of Christians and the gathering of the whole church for the practice of Paul’s principles? (4) The instruction is related directly to the need to conform to the practices of the other Christian congregations, which was certainly an issue of public worship. Also A. Isaksson writes against Alexander’s view (Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, trans. Neil Tomkenson and Jean Gray [Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1965], pp. 155-57).
6. Some scholars consider the “praise” to be a sarcastic remark by the apostle, since much of the letter is given to correcting abuses. Cf. E. Evans, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, The Clarendon Bible (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 117; and Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians , pp. 182-84. However, consult the strong arguments against such a contention by James B. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” p. 192.
7. Frederik W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), p. 249.
8. Such a hierarchical view of the passage does not seem to be in view. It could be displayed as follows: Functional Hierarchy View: God, Christ, Man, Woman
9. Gilbert Bilezikian argues that the verse depicts the creation of man, the subsequent formation of woman, and the birth of Christ (Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986], pp. 138-39). The chronological view, as he calls it, seems to assume that κεφαλή carries the idea of source, which, contrary to much “word magic,” cannot be sustained in the writings of Paul, especially in this passage. Bilezikian presents his perspective as follows: See Table 1 below
10. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 249.
11. An inclusio here would be similar to the type of structure found in Genesis 1:26–28 where verse 27 is the focus of the passage. Paul surrounded the main theme, the headship of man, with the headships of Christ and God. This view may be pictured as follows:
12. In this repetitive feature, known as “climax” and common in Greek, the key word of the preceding comment is used in the following (F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], p. 261, par. 493 [3]). Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, however, in contrast to this author, do not believe that 1 Corinthians 11:3 is an example of “climax.”
13. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 249.
14. Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3 , The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1974), pp. 183-92.
15. For example Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1974), pp. 30-31.
16. Barth, Ephesians 1–3 , pp. 183-92.
17. Stephen Bedale, “The Meaning of κεφαλή in the Pauline Epistles,” Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954): 215.
18. A recent essay by Berkley and Alvera Mickelsen attempts to demonstrate that κεφαλή should be interpreted as “source” (“What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986], pp. 97-110). {Editor’s note: Last sentence deleted as instructed in “Errata” BSac, Jul 1988, p. 318.}
19. Gilbert Bilezikian has attempted to cast serious doubt on Grudem’s thesis. Bilezikian gives examples of κεφαλή in conjunction with words of provision or service to argue that the term does not refer to one who rules (Gilbert Bilezikian, “Case-study of an Eisegetical Fabrication: Wayne Grudem’s Treatment of Kephale in Ancient Greek Texts,” pp. 1-37). The fallacy of Bilezikian’s treatment is similar to saying that in the following sentences “legislature” and “general” mean “one who provides”: “The legislature is the head of the government and seeks to provide for the needs of the people,” or “The general is the head of the army and ensures that the army is well fed and paid.” To be a head or ruler does not preclude service and provision as a function. On the other hand Liefeld believes Grudem’s study is basically sound, requiring those who argue for the meaning of “source” to rely only on context, not evidence before the first century (Walter Liefeld, in Women, Authority and the Bible, p. 139). In other words those arguing for source have no real pre-first-century lexical data outside the New Testament to serve as a control on their arguments in the individual texts of the New Testament. Furthermore Grudem’s study demonstrates that there is really no use of κεφαλή with the meaning “source” in the first century and probably not for a considerable period of time thereafter.
20. Wayne Grudem, “Does kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” appendix 1 in George W. Knight III, The Role Relationship of Men and Women (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), pp. 49-80. In a public debate with feminist Catherine Kroeger, the present author asked for an example of κεφαλή as clearly meaning “source” or “origin” and in the singular in extrabiblical literature in the first two centuries of the church era. Mrs. Kroeger, though a classicist specializing in Christian literature, was not able to adduce even one, but rather gave an example from the writings of Athanasius.
21. H. G. Liddell and George Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880), p. 430.
22. E.g., Deuteronomy 20:9, προηγουμένους; 1 Chronicles 24:31, ἄρχοντες.
23. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “κεφαλή,” by Heinrich Schlier, 3:674–75.
24. Bedale, “The Meaning of κεφαλή in the Pauline Epistles,” p. 221.
25. Catherine Kroeger, “The Classical Concept of ‘Head’ as ‘Source’“ (unpublished paper), pp. 1-23.
26. “In view of the importance of the field, [James] Barr and [Kenneth L.] Burres each support Trier’s point that a word has meaning not autonomously or independently but ‘only as a part of a whole’ (nur als Teil des Ganzen); only within a field (im Feld)” (Anthony C. Thiselton, “Semantics and New Testament Interpretation,” in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. Howard Marshall [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977], p. 83).
27. Ibid., p. 82.
28. J. P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), p. 34.
29. Ibid, p. 35.
30. Murphy-O’Connor believes that Christ “designates not the Risen Lord but the community of believers (e.g. 1 Cor 12:12)”, (“The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16?” p. 617). The suggestion is intriguing; it would tightly unite 11:3 and 11:16. But Paul’s discussion does not lend itself to this idea in verses 2–16. Also Paul’s normal terms of identification are “in Christ” (cf. 11:11) and “the body of Christ.”
31. Fritz Zerbst comments, “This brings us close to what Paul evidently wants to express, namely, that for man, woman and Christ there is something which has been ordinated over them; something which either has been established in creation or which has its foundation in the work of redemption, but which in either case expresses the will of God. Kittel notes, 'kephalē designates him whose very reason for being consists in being over another’“ (The Office of Women in the Church, trans. Albert G. Merkens [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955], p. 32.)
32. Morna Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor 11:10, ” New Testament Studies 10 (July 1964): 410.
33. However, Noel Weeks does not agree (“Of Silence and Head Covering,” Westminster Theological Journal 35 [Fall 1972]: 21-27).
34. The rabbis added four more, namely, Sarah, Hannah, Abigail, and Esther, though the rabbis do not list Noadiah. The Septuagint has Noadiah as a prophet, not a prophetess (Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, pp. 157, 159).
35. Anthony David Palma argues that the age of the Spirit fulfills what Moses had desired, that is, that all God’s people might be prophets. Palma therefore believes there is a clear distinction between the “office” of prophet and the “function” of prophet (“Tongues and Prophecy: A Comparative Study in Charismata” [STM thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1966], pp. 5-9).
36. Weeks argues that the apostle was really against women praying and prophesying (“Of Silence and Head Covering,” pp. 21-27). Paul, he wrote, sought to show them the impropriety of such action by reductio ad absurdum: if women are going to function in a male role they should be shaved. But since this is absurd, it is clear they should not prophesy.
37. Jean Daniélou says, “One thing is certain, women are not allowed to teach in the Christian congregation…. But the role of the prophet in the Church is not primarily that of giving instruction: this is the duty of the teacher. The prophetic role is essentially concerned with prayer” (The Ministry of Women in the Early Church, trans. Glyn Simon [Leighton Buzzard: Faith Press, 1961], pp. 10-11). The Didache reveals that the prophet was linked with giving of thanks: “Let the prophets give thanks as they will” (Didache 10.7). It may be that the Old Testament office of prophet, which included teaching, exhortation, revelation, and prayer, has been divided in the new age with, for example, teacher and prophet functioning in different spheres. Women may have been allowed to serve in the prophetic sphere of one who prays but not as teachers or givers of revelation.
38. Earl Radmacher, “The Pre-Eminence of Preaching,” Western Communicator (Fall 1982): 2.
39. Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, trans. A. Stewart Todd and James B. Torrance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1953), p. 20, cited by Palma, “Tongues and Prophecy: A Comparative Study in Charismata,” pp. 56-57. See also Ernest Best, “Prophets and Preachers,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (June 1959): 150; and R. B. Y. Scott, “Is Preaching Prophecy?” Canadian Journal of Theology 1 (April 1955): 16. Wayne Grudem has offered a new perspective on prophetic revelation in the New Testament. He argues that the revelation is similar to an impression from God on which the prophet acts by word or deed. The prophetic word, however, being subject to misunderstanding by the prophet, is subject to evaluation by the other prophets. This would indicate that it is fallible, unlike the Scriptures (“Prophecy—Yes, but Teaching—No: Paul’s Consistent Advocacy of Women’s Participation without Governing Authority,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30 [March 1987]: 11-23).
40. Harold W. Hoehner, “The Purpose of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20–25, ” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), pp. 56-57.
41. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 287. See a similar opinion by Gerhard Friedrich in the subtopic “Evangelium und Prophetie” in his article “Propheten und Prophezeien im Neuen Testament,” Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1959), 6: 856–57.
42. Do ἀνήρ and γυνή refer to the husband and wife, man and woman, or both? Isaksson gives several reasons why the terms refer to husband and wife: (1) The mention of the γυνή as the δόξα of the ἀνήρ is parallel to a Jewish tomb in Rome with a similar inscription, namely, ἡ δόξα Σωφρονίου Λουκίλλα εὐλογημένη. (2) The wife is the husband’s glory (dwObK;) in the Old Testament and rabbinical thought. (3) The πλήν in verse 11 indicates that husband and wife are meant and should not be taken as an adversative but as a concluding statement; neither husband nor wife is exempt from paying proper respect to the other. (4) Verse 12 shows that even as the church is not to annul the relationship of man and woman in marriage, neither is it to annul the sexual differences between man and woman (Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, p. 175). In contrast to Isaksson, Alexander gives seven reasons why ἀνήρ and γυνή should be taken as man and woman: (1) Man and woman are the normal meanings of the Greek terms. (2) The word ἀνήρ is the popular term used to translate אִישׁ in the Septuagint. (3) Verse 3 qualifies ἀνδρός with the adjective “every,” which would tend to indicate all men, not just husbands are in view. (4) The anarthrous γυναικός emphasizes the nature of a woman in verse 3. If wife were intended, the article would be more appropriate to specify the wife of the man. (5) Since verses 4–5 use the word πα̑ς when speaking of man and woman praying and prophesying, it would seem that men and women in general are intended, not husbands and wives. “What would unmarrieds do when they pray and prophesy?” (6) The creation is the basis for the regulations in verses 7–11. This would tend to stress men and women in general. Also since verses 11–12 speak of the mutual interdependence of the man and woman—it would be illogical to consider the husband coming into being through the wife and vice versa—the sense of man and woman seems to be maintained. (7) Verses 13–16 argue from nature and so apparently concern man and woman (“An Exegetical Presentation on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15, ” pp. 5-6). Neither of these positions is totally correct. The text seems to lean toward a general sense of man and woman. Certainly man rather than husband is intended in verse 4 because prophesying was not limited to husbands, and the mention of the interdependence of man and woman in verses 8–9 strongly suggests that Alexander, rather than Isaksson, has the right idea. The concept of husband, however, seems implied in verses 4–5 with the shaming of the respective heads, the ones mentioned in verse 3. There seems to be a double entendre or Stichwört, as suggested by Bruce K. Waltke, so that both may be intended (“1 Corinthians 11:2–16: An Interpretation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (January-March 1978): 51. Zerbst sheds light on the problem: “One may perhaps say, therefore, that every word concerning marriage is at the same time a word concerning the relationships between men and women in general, and vice versa, that every declaration concerning the relationship between the sexes in general is decisive also for marriage. This fact explains the characteristic indefiniteness of 1 Cor 11, which in one place speaks of men and women in general and in another place of married people in particular” (The Office of Women in the Church, p. 34). Thus the apostle seems to speak in general terms that may apply to either married or unmarried persons. The essential aspects of males and females are the same, as are the commands and intentions of God for them. They are equally sexual beings who are to fulfill the creation mandate to procreate; they are equally relational and intelligent beings who are to dominate the earth, with the man providing the leadership; and they are equally spiritual beings who are to worship their Creator.
43. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, p. 182. He thinks that the conduct of the prophetesses conveyed to them the image of the bride of Christ prepared for His coming.
44. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?: A Consideration of 1 Cor 11:2–16 and 1 Cor 14:33b–36, ” p. 211.
45. Exactly what symbol of submission Paul desired is difficult to determine and is not ultimately significant for the present study. Whatever it may have been, several points are clear: (1) The symbol carried a great importance because “the people of Paul’s day felt much more keenly than do people of our day that the outward demeanor of a person is an expression of inner life, specifically, of his religious convictions and moral attitude” (Zerbst, The Office of Women in the Church, p. 40). (2) In the Christian assembly the symbol conveyed that men and women alike recognized the submission of woman to man (wife to husband) as inaugurated in the creation narratives. When women prayed or prophesied, they were to indicate they were still in submission. (3) Only prophetesses are in view in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16; no mention is made of women having this requirement when in a passive role at the meeting. (4) The practice is not reflective of a mere local custom, because Paul appealed to the practice of all the churches (v. 16); his admonitions are based on theology: (a) women are the glory of men (v. 7), (b) men have priority over women because of creation (vv. 8–9), (c) women are to maintain this authority (ἐξουσία) symbol because of the angels (v. 10) and because it is in agreement with nature (creation, v. 14). On the meaning of ἐξουσία see Hooker, “Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor 11:10, ” and E. E. Kellett, “A Note on ‘Power on the Head,’“ Expository Times 23 (1911–12): 39. On the meaning of διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους see J. A. Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10, ” New Testament Studies 4 (1957–58): 48-58, and W. Foerster, “Zu 1 Cor 11:10, ” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 30 (1931): 185-86.
46. See the argument of Alexander, “An Exegetical Presentation on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15, ” p. 8.
47. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. “Image,” by Otto Flender, 2: 286–88.
48. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. “Glory,” by Sverre Salem, 2:44–46; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), pp. 202-3.
49. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?: A Consideration of 1 Cor 11:2–16 and 1 Cor 14:33b–36, ” p. 205.
50. Annié Jaubert, “Le Voile des Femmes (1 Cor xi.2–16),” New Testament Studies 18 (1971–72): 424.
51. Ibid., p. 419. This is opposite to the view of Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), pp. 29-30.
52. See the discussion in Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 151, par. 290.
53. See the following articles for interesting but unconvincing alternatives: W. D. Morris, “1 Corinthians xi.10 ,” Expository Times 39 (1927–28): 139; E. E. Kellett, “A Note on ‘Power on the Head,’“ p. 39; P. Rose, “Power on the Head,” Expository Times 23 (1911–12): 183-84.
54. The view on evil angels has often been bolstered by a reference to Jewish speculation about the sons of God in Genesis 6:2. For a discussion of this view see Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” p. 34; Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10, ” p. 54. Such Jewish speculation, however, is foreign to the New Testament, for believers are freed from the power of Satan and his angels. Only obedient angels are viewed as being at the worship of the saints (Heb 12:22; Rev 5:11).
55. Alexander, “An Exegetical Presentation on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15, ” p. 9. James Moffatt perceives Paul as reflecting on the midrash on Genesis 1:26–28, which made angels guardians of creation (The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1947], p. 152). Fitzmyer sees support for angels assisting in public worship in Psalm 137:1 (138:1), “ἐναντίον ἀγγέλλων ψαλῶ σοι” (Septuagint), and Revelation 8:3 where an angel assists in prayers. Also evidence from Qumran refers to the belief that angels are present at sacred gatherings. In column 7 of the War Scroll ceremonial cleanness was expected of those who were to go to war because of the accompaniment of angels (I QM vii. 4–6). Also the so-called Rule of the Congregation excludes those with physical uncleanness from the congregational meetings because of the presence of angels (I Q Sa ii.3–11) (Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumran Angelology, pp. 55-56). The idea of uncleanness may also relate to the letting down of a woman’s hair. Jaubert recounts an incident from the Jewish community in which the wife of On, son of Peleth, got On drunk and then took down her hair so that anyone coming to look for On, on seeing her undone hair, would turn aside. The display of undone hair was incongruous with the fact that the congregation was holy (Jaubert, “Le Voile des Femmes (1 Cor xi.2–16),” p. 426). Fitzmyer concludes from his study of Qumran material that “the unveiled head of a woman is like a bodily defect which should be excluded from such an assembly, ‘because holy angels are present in their congregation’“ (“A Feature of Qumran Angelology,” p. 57).
56. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” p. 209.
57. Ibid., pp. 209-10.
58. Other interpretations of ἐξουσία are less probable. Some have suggested the view that the ἐξουσία refers to magical power the veiled woman had against attacks by evil spirits (O. Everling, Die paulinische Angelologie und Damonologie [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1888], p. 37; R. Reitzenstein, Poimandres [Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1904], p. 230, n. 1, cited in Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumran Angelology,” p. 52). Though this interpretation maintains the active sense of ἐξουσία, it has little else in its favor. That evil angels are intended has already been discounted in this present article. Moreover, no evidence exists to show that a veil or other type of covering had such magical power in the minds of the people in the days of Paul. Another view has been proposed by Gerhard Kittel. He argued that ἐξουσία is related to the extrabiblical Aramaic word שלטוניה from שלט (a biblical word), meaning “to have power, dominion over” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. ἐξουσία, by Werner Voerster, 2:574; cf. Hooker, “Authority on Her Head,” p. 413). Substantiating this view are the ancient variant reading of Origen in 1 Corinthians 11:10, which has κάλυμμα joined with ἐξουσία, and equivalents of κάλυμμα in some ancient translations and in some of the church fathers. Jerome’s use of velamen gives additional strength. Though this view is ingenious, “Paul would surely not have made his argument depend upon a pun which was in-comprehensible to his Greek readers” (Hooker, “Authority on Her Head,” p. 413).
59. Ibid.
60. Jaubert, “Le Voile des Femmes (1 Cor xi.2–16),” p. 428.
61. William Ramsey, cited in Fitzmyer, “A Feature of Qumran Angelology,” p. 51.
62. See the sources in notes 45 and 46.
63. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 234, par. 449.
64. Paul Jewett, “Doctrine of Man,” p. 99, cited in Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be, p. 28.
65. Alexander, “An Exegetical Presentation on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15, ” p. 9.
66. Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be, p. 67. Paul based his view of economic relationships between man and woman on theological considerations. He developed the equality of male and female in essence from Genesis 1:26–28. The subordination theme is derived from Genesis 2. For an analysis of Genesis 2 and its headship theme see the writer’s “An Investigation of Contemporary Feminist Arguments on Paul’s Teaching on the Role of Women in the Church,” pp. 80-88.
67. Paul Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), p. 113.

Table 1:

	Chronological View
Christ-Man	Man-Woman	God-Christ
(Creation of man)	(Formation of woman)	(Birth of Christ)
First	Second	Third