The Head Covering of 1 Corinthians 11
We have been looking at how the Bible contains errors, owing to the writers’ human limitations of knowledge, and their cultural influences. We now come to consider the women’s head covering of 1 Corinthians 11 as being based in scientific error, and ultimately, how it relates to Paul’s attack on homosexuality in Romans 1.
(See also Chapter 8 of Reversing Hermon by Dr Michael S. Heiser)
The passage about the women's head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 is known for being difficult to interpret. I will outline the exegetical problems with the passage, and then suggest what I believe to be the only coherent explanation of this text, and following the theme of this work, how it is based in human, rather than divine reasoning. The passage reads as follows:
(Note: I used The Source New Testament with extensive notes on Greek word meaning for v3, since the word usually translated “head” is shown by the author's notes to be a translational error: the word can mean “head” as in a physical head, a wig, a mortal life, the end or conclusion of something, or “source of”. The Greek word does not carry the meaning of “head” as to denote authority over someone. Thus, "source of" best fits the context here. This version of v3 is not critical to the main point of this chapter on biblical errors. Dr Michael Heiser used the traditional translation.)
Thus, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is related to male and female fertility. In Paul’s Greco-Roman culture, fertility was highly esteemed. By this ancient physiology, long hair on a man was considered to render a man less fertile, and so Paul proclaims it is “shameful”. Similarly, long hair on a female was thought to increase her fertility, and so, Paul states it is her feminine “glory”. Since long female hair was thought of as a sexual organ, it would be improper for it to be on display in church.
You may now be beginning to understand how this ancient physiology sheds light on this passage, but for clarity- and those utterly confused!- I will give a verse by verse exposition using this formula to demonstrate how it elucidates this text:
(Note: I used The Source New Testament with extensive notes on Greek word meaning for v3, since the word usually translated “head” is shown by the author's notes to be a translational error: the word can mean “head” as in a physical head, a wig, a mortal life, the end or conclusion of something, or “source of". The Greek word does not carry the meaning of “head” as to denote authority over someone. Thus, "source of" best fits the context here. This version of v3 is not critical to the main point of this chapter on biblical errors. Dr Michael Heiser used the traditional translation.)
(V3) Now, I want you to know that the source of every man is the Anointed One, the source of woman is man, and the source of the Anointed One is God. (Ann Nyland The Source New Testament)
As in traditional versions, Paul lists "man", "woman" and "the Anointed One" (or Christ) in that order. Paul is about to make an argument for women to cover their head in church based on the long female hair being a sexual organ, equivalent to the male testicle. Thus, he begins by drawing upon the order of creation: Christ "the Anointed One", as God, created man; and out of man (Adam), Christ, as God, created woman (Eve). Finally, from the offspring of Eve came the incarnation of Christ, or "the Anointed One", who is eternally begotten by the Father.
(v13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Again, Paul is appealing to the contemporary belief that the woman’s long hair was a sexual organ. Thus, it is improper to display her long hair during church gatherings.
(v14) Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
Again, by the Hippocratic science in view here, if a man had long hair, it drew his semen away from his testicles, making him less fertile. Whereas if his hair was short, it wouldn’t have the same vacuum power as long hair, so his semen remains in his genitals, making him more virile. Again, virility was respected in Paul’s culture and male femininity frowned upon. Note: "Nature" is used in the context of their accepted scientific “facts” here.
(v15) but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
A woman’s long hair was considered to make her more fertile by drawing up semen into the womb. Fertility was respectable in Paul’s day, and so long hair on a woman was a mark of her feminine “glory”.
"For long hair is given to her as a covering"- we have contended here that the correct translation should be “but long hair is given her instead of a testicle”, since Paul considered female long hair to be the counterpart to the male testicle by this ancient physiology. Other scholars, such as Mark Goodacre contend “peribolain” meant “covering” in the ancient world. However, this rendering makes no sense of the passage.
(v16) If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Paul is so sure of this line of reasoning that it is asserted as the mandatory practice across all churches.
As we can see, this interpretation certainly makes sense of an otherwise elusive passage. It is likely Paul was aware of these ancient physiological and medical conceptions, since he was an educated Hellenistic Jew and Roman citizen. However, if this was indeed Paul’s reasoning here, it has significant implications for the nature of the Bible and its purported divine inspiration.
Paul’s intention is wholesome in this passage: he does not want women to display their hair, as it was considered a sexual body part, and it was a Jewish custom to cover sexual body parts at religious gatherings. However, his reasoning is based in his limited and flawed scientific understanding that the female long hair is a sexual organ. This is not the reality of how human reproduction works, which means that it would not be necessary to cover women’s long hair in church, since the woman’s hair is not a sexual organ. God would not agree with Paul’s reasoning here, since it is rooted in a lack of scientific insight. Neither would long hair on men be shameful, because again, Paul’s reasoning is flawed.
Note however, that Paul is so assured of his reasoning here that he says “but if anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice- nor do the churches of God” (v16). Thus, Paul is forming a universal moral imperative out of something that is based in his lack of insight, rather than God's timeless omniscience. Here again, the Bible is in error, and cannot reflect the thinking of God. If this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is accurate, then this is another example of how the Bible is not perfect.
Similarly, Paul draws his argument about hair from “nature” (v14). However, we have seen that this passage is based on a lack of scientific insight rather than nature as referring back to a timeless principle of creation. “Nature” here then, does not refer to the true order of God's design in male and female, but to the contemporary scientific beliefs of Paul’s culture. This is especially important as we proceed to look at Paul’s attack on homosexuality in Romans 1, since Paul uses the same Greek word for “nature” there (Greek: phusis).
The Bible again here is limited by human knowledge: It makes a scientific error, and this throws up questions of whether the writing was actually inspired by an all-knowing God.
Finally, to bolster the point of the Bible being fallible and subject to human error here, we can look at the transition of the status of long hair on men between Testaments. In the Old Testament, long hair is allowed (Absalom in 2 Samuel 14:26), and even divinely blessed (Samson and the Nazarite vow in Judges 13:5). However, in the New Testament, Paul condemns long hair on men. What changed? It cannot have been God who changed his mind: Long hair on men is either good or bad to God. This further indicates that Paul was influenced by the culture around him when he wrote 1 Corinthians 11:3-16- it was a Greco-Roman cultural convention that Paul had adopted as well.
The late Christian scholar Dr Michael Heiser was a proponent of this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. However, he still maintained that the Bible is divinely inspired, but limited by the knowledge available to the writers. He contended that the Bible is a spiritual book not a scientific book, which is a fair argument. However, Paul declares homosexuality “against nature” (KJV) in Romans 1, using the same Greek word as in 1 Corinthians 11 (phusis), where we have demonstrated that “nature” here refers an outdated scientific viewpoint, rather than a timeless sentiment of God. If the Romans 1 attack on homosexuality then is similarly based in Paul’s bias rather than God’s own views, then the Bible is doing a great deal of harm to the homosexual community.
For those who wish to scrutinise this view of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, Troy Martin’s original article was rebutted by scholar Mark Goodacre in a 2011 article, to which Martin responded in a second article in 2013. Christian readers of this chapter may be especially sceptical of this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 because it impugns the divine authorship of scripture. Similarly, the admittedly wild explanation Martin suggests may seem implausible. However, as Troy Martin says in his response to Mark Goodacre, it is the only explanation that makes logical sense of this passage. No other explanation coherently expounds these cryptic words of Paul. This to me suggests Martin is correct.
As we will see, this use of “nature” here in 1 Corinthians 11 has a bearing on Paul's attack on homosexuality in Romans 1, since Paul uses the same term there to condemn homosexuality. Here, though, Paul's appeal to "nature" does not reflect reality, and so cannot represent God on the matter. This passage is rooted in human error.
Troy Martin's response to Mark Goodacre:
Troy Martin Περιβόλαιον as “Testicle” in 1 Corinthians 11:15: A Response to Mark Goodacre, 2013
The following interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 was endorsed by the late Christian scholar Dr Michael Heiser. However, he does not draw the same conclusion as I do with respect to it falsifying the divine authorship of this passage. The late scholar maintained the Bible was divinely inspired despite containing scientific errors. Here is Dr Michael Heiser's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, using the same pre-scientific viewpoint as I will take in this chapter (although you can read the chapter first):
(See also Chapter 8 of Reversing Hermon by Dr Michael S. Heiser)
The passage about the women's head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 is known for being difficult to interpret. I will outline the exegetical problems with the passage, and then suggest what I believe to be the only coherent explanation of this text, and following the theme of this work, how it is based in human, rather than divine reasoning. The passage reads as follows:
(Note: I used The Source New Testament with extensive notes on Greek word meaning for v3, since the word usually translated “head” is shown by the author's notes to be a translational error: the word can mean “head” as in a physical head, a wig, a mortal life, the end or conclusion of something, or “source of”. The Greek word does not carry the meaning of “head” as to denote authority over someone. Thus, "source of" best fits the context here. This version of v3 is not critical to the main point of this chapter on biblical errors. Dr Michael Heiser used the traditional translation.)
"3 Now, I want you to know that the source of every man is the Anointed One, the source of woman is man, and the source of the Anointed One is God. (Ann Nyland The Source New Testament)
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (NIV)
~ 1 Corinthians 11:3-16
If you are familiar with this passage or it is your first time reading, you may be struck by the mystery of Paul’s words and logic here. It seems unclear as to why Paul shames long hair on men, while promoting long hair on females. Not only does Paul say these things, but he appeals to “nature” for support. We are left feeling like we are missing something, and we are left to wonder about much of his reasoning. Most confusing, however, is that after going to great lengths to argue for women covering their heads, Paul ends his argument in v15 by stating that a woman’s long hair is given her instead of a covering! This appears to contradict everything Paul has said and further confounds this passage to the modern reader. It is unclear then, whether Paul prescribes the wearing of head coverings or not. It certainly appears to be an enigmatic and even incoherent passage.
This phrase "anti-peribolaion", traditionally translated “covering” in v15 is the cause of the deepest confusion. Why would Paul go to great lengths to prescribe head coverings, and then right at the end declare the woman’s long hair is her covering?:
For long hair is given to her as a covering. (v15)
The whole passage seems very difficult to make logical sense of. However, I have encountered one explanation I wish to share that I feel fully decodes this passage. New Testament scholar Troy Martin presents a compelling, albeit unexpected solution to this problem. In his 2004 article, Martin argues that this word “peribolaion” in verse 15 is also used in ancient literature to denote a “testicle”! Bear with me here, as I know this will sound absurd. Martin summarises the difficulties with understanding this text thus:
"Paul’s notorious argument in 1 Cor 11:2-16 for the veiling of women in public worship is frequently criticized for being logically convoluted and confused….While many features of this argument in 1 Cor 11:2-16 require explanation, the argument from nature in w. 13-15 is particularly problematic. 5 The rationale for the natural shame of a man with long hair is obscure (w. 14-15a). Especially problematic is the statement that a woman's long hair is given to her instead of a covering (anti-peribolaion) in v. 15b. As traditionally understood, this statement nullifies the previous argument that a woman should wear a covering since her long hair apparently serves that purpose. A satisfactory explanation of this argument from nature should resolve the apparent contradiction and enable this argument to support Paul's contention that women should wear the veil in public worship…The term peribolaion in v. 15b provides the key for explaining this argument from nature."
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (NIV)
~ 1 Corinthians 11:3-16
If you are familiar with this passage or it is your first time reading, you may be struck by the mystery of Paul’s words and logic here. It seems unclear as to why Paul shames long hair on men, while promoting long hair on females. Not only does Paul say these things, but he appeals to “nature” for support. We are left feeling like we are missing something, and we are left to wonder about much of his reasoning. Most confusing, however, is that after going to great lengths to argue for women covering their heads, Paul ends his argument in v15 by stating that a woman’s long hair is given her instead of a covering! This appears to contradict everything Paul has said and further confounds this passage to the modern reader. It is unclear then, whether Paul prescribes the wearing of head coverings or not. It certainly appears to be an enigmatic and even incoherent passage.
This phrase "anti-peribolaion", traditionally translated “covering” in v15 is the cause of the deepest confusion. Why would Paul go to great lengths to prescribe head coverings, and then right at the end declare the woman’s long hair is her covering?:
For long hair is given to her as a covering. (v15)
The whole passage seems very difficult to make logical sense of. However, I have encountered one explanation I wish to share that I feel fully decodes this passage. New Testament scholar Troy Martin presents a compelling, albeit unexpected solution to this problem. In his 2004 article, Martin argues that this word “peribolaion” in verse 15 is also used in ancient literature to denote a “testicle”! Bear with me here, as I know this will sound absurd. Martin summarises the difficulties with understanding this text thus:
"Paul’s notorious argument in 1 Cor 11:2-16 for the veiling of women in public worship is frequently criticized for being logically convoluted and confused….While many features of this argument in 1 Cor 11:2-16 require explanation, the argument from nature in w. 13-15 is particularly problematic. 5 The rationale for the natural shame of a man with long hair is obscure (w. 14-15a). Especially problematic is the statement that a woman's long hair is given to her instead of a covering (anti-peribolaion) in v. 15b. As traditionally understood, this statement nullifies the previous argument that a woman should wear a covering since her long hair apparently serves that purpose. A satisfactory explanation of this argument from nature should resolve the apparent contradiction and enable this argument to support Paul's contention that women should wear the veil in public worship…The term peribolaion in v. 15b provides the key for explaining this argument from nature."
(Martin, Paul's Arguement From Nature For The Veil In 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead Of A Head Covering, 2004)
Although the word “peribolaion” is traditionally translated “covering”, Martin argues that the word had a broader range of usage in ancient times. The word before “peribolaion” in Greek is “anti” which means “instead of” or “opposite to”. Thus, it would read “but long hair is given her instead of a “peribolaion”". This means that “peribolaion” may be referring to a body part, since it is compared to the female long hair. He goes on to show that “peribolaion” was used by ancient authors such Euripides to mean “testicle”:
"Since peribolaion is contrasted with hair, which is part of the body, the physiological semantic domain of peribolaion in 1 Cor 11:15b becomes particularly relevant. Euripides (Here fur 1269) uses peribolaion in reference to a body part. He casts Hercules as complaining, "After I received [my] bags of flesh, which are the outward signs of puberty, [I received] labors about which I [shall] undertake to say what is necessary"… A dynamic translation of the first clause would be: "After I received my testicles (peribolaion), which are the outward signs of puberty." In this text from Euripides, the term peribolaion refers to a testicle."
Although the word “peribolaion” is traditionally translated “covering”, Martin argues that the word had a broader range of usage in ancient times. The word before “peribolaion” in Greek is “anti” which means “instead of” or “opposite to”. Thus, it would read “but long hair is given her instead of a “peribolaion”". This means that “peribolaion” may be referring to a body part, since it is compared to the female long hair. He goes on to show that “peribolaion” was used by ancient authors such Euripides to mean “testicle”:
"Since peribolaion is contrasted with hair, which is part of the body, the physiological semantic domain of peribolaion in 1 Cor 11:15b becomes particularly relevant. Euripides (Here fur 1269) uses peribolaion in reference to a body part. He casts Hercules as complaining, "After I received [my] bags of flesh, which are the outward signs of puberty, [I received] labors about which I [shall] undertake to say what is necessary"… A dynamic translation of the first clause would be: "After I received my testicles (peribolaion), which are the outward signs of puberty." In this text from Euripides, the term peribolaion refers to a testicle."
(Martin, Paul's Arguement From Nature For The Veil In 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead Of A Head Covering, 2004)
Thus, v15 is stating that long hair is the female counterpart to the male testicle. As to how this bears upon unlocking the rest of the passage, Martin further discovered that in ancient medical texts, ancient thinkers such as Hippocractes, held that hair was considered to be part of the reproductive system. Hair was thought to be hollow and act as a suction pump to draw semen up through the body through channels by vacuum action. Thus, female hair had to be long in order for enough suction to draw semen up to the womb after copulation, making her more fertile. Whereas, male hair, if long, would by the same token, draw his semen away from his testicles, making him less fertile. Thus, male hair ought to be short so his semen would remain in his testicles where it could be released during sex:
"Ancient medical conceptions confirm this association. Hippocratic authors hold that hair is hollow and grows primarily from either male or female reproductive fluid or semen flowing into it and congealing (Hippocrates, Nat puer 20). 9 Since hollow body parts create a vacuum and attract fluid, hair attracts semen… Hair grows most prolificacy from the head because the brain is the place where the semen is produced or at least stored (Hippocrates, Genit. I). 10 Hair grows only on the head of prepubescent humans because semen is stored in the brain and the channels of the body have not yet become large enough for reproductive fluid to travel throughout the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20; Genit. 2). At puberty, secondary hair growth in the pubic area marks the movement of reproductive fluid from the brain to the rest of the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20; Genit. I). Women have less body hair not only because they have less semen but also because their colder bodies do not froth the semen throughout their bodies but reduce semen evaporation at the ends of their hair (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20)... According to these medical authors, men have more hair because they have more semen and their hotter bodies froth this semen more readily throughout their whole bodies (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20). The nature (phusis) of men is to release or eject the semen… A man with long hair retains much or all of his semen, and his long hollow hair draws the semen toward his head area but away from his genital area, where it should be ejected. Therefore, 1 Cor 11:14 correctly states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair since the male nature (phusis) is to eject rather than retain semen… In contrast, the nature (phusis) of women is to draw up the semen and congeal it into a fetus (Hippocrates, Genit. 5; Nat. puer. 12)… This conception of hair as part of the female genitalia explains the favorite Hippocratic test for sterility in women. A doctor places a scented suppository in a woman's uterus and examines her mouth the next day to see if he can smell the scent of the suppository. If he smells the scent, he diagnoses her as fertile. If he does not smell the scent, he concludes she is sterile because the channels connecting her uterus to her head are blocked. The suction power of her hair cannot draw up the semen through the appropriate channels in her body. The male seed is therefore discharged rather than retained, and the woman cannot conceive."
(Martin, Paul's Arguement From Nature For The Veil In 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead Of A Head Covering, 2004)
Thus, v15 is stating that long hair is the female counterpart to the male testicle. As to how this bears upon unlocking the rest of the passage, Martin further discovered that in ancient medical texts, ancient thinkers such as Hippocractes, held that hair was considered to be part of the reproductive system. Hair was thought to be hollow and act as a suction pump to draw semen up through the body through channels by vacuum action. Thus, female hair had to be long in order for enough suction to draw semen up to the womb after copulation, making her more fertile. Whereas, male hair, if long, would by the same token, draw his semen away from his testicles, making him less fertile. Thus, male hair ought to be short so his semen would remain in his testicles where it could be released during sex:
"Ancient medical conceptions confirm this association. Hippocratic authors hold that hair is hollow and grows primarily from either male or female reproductive fluid or semen flowing into it and congealing (Hippocrates, Nat puer 20). 9 Since hollow body parts create a vacuum and attract fluid, hair attracts semen… Hair grows most prolificacy from the head because the brain is the place where the semen is produced or at least stored (Hippocrates, Genit. I). 10 Hair grows only on the head of prepubescent humans because semen is stored in the brain and the channels of the body have not yet become large enough for reproductive fluid to travel throughout the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20; Genit. 2). At puberty, secondary hair growth in the pubic area marks the movement of reproductive fluid from the brain to the rest of the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20; Genit. I). Women have less body hair not only because they have less semen but also because their colder bodies do not froth the semen throughout their bodies but reduce semen evaporation at the ends of their hair (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20)... According to these medical authors, men have more hair because they have more semen and their hotter bodies froth this semen more readily throughout their whole bodies (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20). The nature (phusis) of men is to release or eject the semen… A man with long hair retains much or all of his semen, and his long hollow hair draws the semen toward his head area but away from his genital area, where it should be ejected. Therefore, 1 Cor 11:14 correctly states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair since the male nature (phusis) is to eject rather than retain semen… In contrast, the nature (phusis) of women is to draw up the semen and congeal it into a fetus (Hippocrates, Genit. 5; Nat. puer. 12)… This conception of hair as part of the female genitalia explains the favorite Hippocratic test for sterility in women. A doctor places a scented suppository in a woman's uterus and examines her mouth the next day to see if he can smell the scent of the suppository. If he smells the scent, he diagnoses her as fertile. If he does not smell the scent, he concludes she is sterile because the channels connecting her uterus to her head are blocked. The suction power of her hair cannot draw up the semen through the appropriate channels in her body. The male seed is therefore discharged rather than retained, and the woman cannot conceive."
(Martin, Paul's Arguement From Nature For The Veil In 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead Of A Head Covering, 2004)
Thus, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is related to male and female fertility. In Paul’s Greco-Roman culture, fertility was highly esteemed. By this ancient physiology, long hair on a man was considered to render a man less fertile, and so Paul proclaims it is “shameful”. Similarly, long hair on a female was thought to increase her fertility, and so, Paul states it is her feminine “glory”. Since long female hair was thought of as a sexual organ, it would be improper for it to be on display in church.
You may now be beginning to understand how this ancient physiology sheds light on this passage, but for clarity- and those utterly confused!- I will give a verse by verse exposition using this formula to demonstrate how it elucidates this text:
(Note: I used The Source New Testament with extensive notes on Greek word meaning for v3, since the word usually translated “head” is shown by the author's notes to be a translational error: the word can mean “head” as in a physical head, a wig, a mortal life, the end or conclusion of something, or “source of". The Greek word does not carry the meaning of “head” as to denote authority over someone. Thus, "source of" best fits the context here. This version of v3 is not critical to the main point of this chapter on biblical errors. Dr Michael Heiser used the traditional translation.)
(V3) Now, I want you to know that the source of every man is the Anointed One, the source of woman is man, and the source of the Anointed One is God. (Ann Nyland The Source New Testament)
As in traditional versions, Paul lists "man", "woman" and "the Anointed One" (or Christ) in that order. Paul is about to make an argument for women to cover their head in church based on the long female hair being a sexual organ, equivalent to the male testicle. Thus, he begins by drawing upon the order of creation: Christ "the Anointed One", as God, created man; and out of man (Adam), Christ, as God, created woman (Eve). Finally, from the offspring of Eve came the incarnation of Christ, or "the Anointed One", who is eternally begotten by the Father.
As becomes more apparent later, this is not about spiritual hierarchy, but the order of creation. Just as Christ reflects God spiritually, man reflects Christ. The woman reflects her male originator physically by having the long hair that is the counterpart of the male testicle, since it draws his semen into her womb so she can conceive. It is about the order of creation, as Paul sees it in Genesis 2. Paul will expand on this in v7-12.
(V4) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
As Paul thought it was proper for men to be manly, it would be shameful for a man to wear a head dress, since it is a female custom, and would effeminise men.
(V5-6) But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
Since a woman’s long hair was seen as a sexual organ, it would be improper for it to be displayed in church. (By Jewish customs, it was forbidden to display sexual body parts in religious meetings). Similarly, because her long hair served to make her fertile by drawing semen up to her womb after sex, if it was shaved, she would be rendered infertile, since this action would be lost. In Paul’s Greco-Roman world, fertility was considered honourable. So for a woman to have shaved hair would be considered shameful, since long hair was essential for her fertility. Thus, the only way to proceed was for women to wear a head covering at church gatherings, so their long hair was covered.
(V7-9) 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Paul again refers to the order of creation: God created man first, and then woman from man. God created man directly, but created woman out of the man. Thus, man is made to reflect God, but a woman reflects her male source from which she was created. In this context, a man has a testicle, as a sign of his physical splendour, whereas a woman has her long hair as a counterpart and reflection of the male splendour.
(V4) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
As Paul thought it was proper for men to be manly, it would be shameful for a man to wear a head dress, since it is a female custom, and would effeminise men.
(V5-6) But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
Since a woman’s long hair was seen as a sexual organ, it would be improper for it to be displayed in church. (By Jewish customs, it was forbidden to display sexual body parts in religious meetings). Similarly, because her long hair served to make her fertile by drawing semen up to her womb after sex, if it was shaved, she would be rendered infertile, since this action would be lost. In Paul’s Greco-Roman world, fertility was considered honourable. So for a woman to have shaved hair would be considered shameful, since long hair was essential for her fertility. Thus, the only way to proceed was for women to wear a head covering at church gatherings, so their long hair was covered.
(V7-9) 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Paul again refers to the order of creation: God created man first, and then woman from man. God created man directly, but created woman out of the man. Thus, man is made to reflect God, but a woman reflects her male source from which she was created. In this context, a man has a testicle, as a sign of his physical splendour, whereas a woman has her long hair as a counterpart and reflection of the male splendour.
V9 in the Source New Testament reads: "for in fact man was not created by means of a woman, but the woman was created by means of a man". Dr Nyland here states the Greek cannot represent "on behalf of", citing William Goodwin, Greek Grammar, 1207, p256. This correct translation makes more sense of the passage, relating this verse back to the order of creation, rather than hierarchy. See author's notes in The Source New Testament with extensive notes on Greek word meaning, p324.
Thus, a man should not cover his head, as it was a female custom, since her long hair was the counterpart to the male testicle, and thus, considered sexual. Whereas, the man had testicles that were his sexual organ, and so his hair was not considered sexual like the woman's, as the female long hair was a reflection of the male glory (or virility) in his testicles. Therefore, to cover his hair would be thought of as an affront to the created order, since it was a female custom. Again, in Paul’s Stoic culture, it was considered shameful for a man to be feminine.
(V10) It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
Here, Paul is referring back to Genesis 6, and the sin of the Watchers. Here, angels saw the beauty of human women and took them as sexual partners. The offspring that this act engendered was ultimately the cause of God destroying the world in the flood.
Paul means that the angels watching over the ceremony should not have to look upon the women’s bare long hair, since it was considered a sexual organ. This was so that the people present at the congregation were doing nothing to tempt the angels again to commit the sin of the Watchers in Genesis 6. Thus, the long hair was to be covered as a sign of the woman’s responsibility shown towards the angels overlooking church events.
(v11-12) Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Paul is stating that this is not about spiritual hierarchy, but about the order of creation: man was created first, then woman. However, men are born on earth through women. Thus, men and women are spiritually equal under God, who created them both.
(V10) It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
Here, Paul is referring back to Genesis 6, and the sin of the Watchers. Here, angels saw the beauty of human women and took them as sexual partners. The offspring that this act engendered was ultimately the cause of God destroying the world in the flood.
Paul means that the angels watching over the ceremony should not have to look upon the women’s bare long hair, since it was considered a sexual organ. This was so that the people present at the congregation were doing nothing to tempt the angels again to commit the sin of the Watchers in Genesis 6. Thus, the long hair was to be covered as a sign of the woman’s responsibility shown towards the angels overlooking church events.
(v11-12) Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Paul is stating that this is not about spiritual hierarchy, but about the order of creation: man was created first, then woman. However, men are born on earth through women. Thus, men and women are spiritually equal under God, who created them both.
Generally, Paul is saying that due to the order of creation- of man first then woman out of man- that men and women are different slightly: a man has his testicles, and a woman has her long hair as the female counterpart. Thus, both male and female, being under God's leadership- both ought to act respectfully and accordingly in church: a man should not cover his head, but a woman should, since she is created differently from men, and her long hair being a sexual organ essential to her fertility, means it should be covered in church out of propriety.
(v13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Again, Paul is appealing to the contemporary belief that the woman’s long hair was a sexual organ. Thus, it is improper to display her long hair during church gatherings.
(v14) Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
Again, by the Hippocratic science in view here, if a man had long hair, it drew his semen away from his testicles, making him less fertile. Whereas if his hair was short, it wouldn’t have the same vacuum power as long hair, so his semen remains in his genitals, making him more virile. Again, virility was respected in Paul’s culture and male femininity frowned upon. Note: "Nature" is used in the context of their accepted scientific “facts” here.
(v15) but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
A woman’s long hair was considered to make her more fertile by drawing up semen into the womb. Fertility was respectable in Paul’s day, and so long hair on a woman was a mark of her feminine “glory”.
"For long hair is given to her as a covering"- we have contended here that the correct translation should be “but long hair is given her instead of a testicle”, since Paul considered female long hair to be the counterpart to the male testicle by this ancient physiology. Other scholars, such as Mark Goodacre contend “peribolain” meant “covering” in the ancient world. However, this rendering makes no sense of the passage.
(v16) If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Paul is so sure of this line of reasoning that it is asserted as the mandatory practice across all churches.
As we can see, this interpretation certainly makes sense of an otherwise elusive passage. It is likely Paul was aware of these ancient physiological and medical conceptions, since he was an educated Hellenistic Jew and Roman citizen. However, if this was indeed Paul’s reasoning here, it has significant implications for the nature of the Bible and its purported divine inspiration.
Paul’s intention is wholesome in this passage: he does not want women to display their hair, as it was considered a sexual body part, and it was a Jewish custom to cover sexual body parts at religious gatherings. However, his reasoning is based in his limited and flawed scientific understanding that the female long hair is a sexual organ. This is not the reality of how human reproduction works, which means that it would not be necessary to cover women’s long hair in church, since the woman’s hair is not a sexual organ. God would not agree with Paul’s reasoning here, since it is rooted in a lack of scientific insight. Neither would long hair on men be shameful, because again, Paul’s reasoning is flawed.
Note however, that Paul is so assured of his reasoning here that he says “but if anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice- nor do the churches of God” (v16). Thus, Paul is forming a universal moral imperative out of something that is based in his lack of insight, rather than God's timeless omniscience. Here again, the Bible is in error, and cannot reflect the thinking of God. If this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is accurate, then this is another example of how the Bible is not perfect.
Similarly, Paul draws his argument about hair from “nature” (v14). However, we have seen that this passage is based on a lack of scientific insight rather than nature as referring back to a timeless principle of creation. “Nature” here then, does not refer to the true order of God's design in male and female, but to the contemporary scientific beliefs of Paul’s culture. This is especially important as we proceed to look at Paul’s attack on homosexuality in Romans 1, since Paul uses the same Greek word for “nature” there (Greek: phusis).
The Bible again here is limited by human knowledge: It makes a scientific error, and this throws up questions of whether the writing was actually inspired by an all-knowing God.
Finally, to bolster the point of the Bible being fallible and subject to human error here, we can look at the transition of the status of long hair on men between Testaments. In the Old Testament, long hair is allowed (Absalom in 2 Samuel 14:26), and even divinely blessed (Samson and the Nazarite vow in Judges 13:5). However, in the New Testament, Paul condemns long hair on men. What changed? It cannot have been God who changed his mind: Long hair on men is either good or bad to God. This further indicates that Paul was influenced by the culture around him when he wrote 1 Corinthians 11:3-16- it was a Greco-Roman cultural convention that Paul had adopted as well.
The late Christian scholar Dr Michael Heiser was a proponent of this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. However, he still maintained that the Bible is divinely inspired, but limited by the knowledge available to the writers. He contended that the Bible is a spiritual book not a scientific book, which is a fair argument. However, Paul declares homosexuality “against nature” (KJV) in Romans 1, using the same Greek word as in 1 Corinthians 11 (phusis), where we have demonstrated that “nature” here refers an outdated scientific viewpoint, rather than a timeless sentiment of God. If the Romans 1 attack on homosexuality then is similarly based in Paul’s bias rather than God’s own views, then the Bible is doing a great deal of harm to the homosexual community.
For those who wish to scrutinise this view of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, Troy Martin’s original article was rebutted by scholar Mark Goodacre in a 2011 article, to which Martin responded in a second article in 2013. Christian readers of this chapter may be especially sceptical of this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 because it impugns the divine authorship of scripture. Similarly, the admittedly wild explanation Martin suggests may seem implausible. However, as Troy Martin says in his response to Mark Goodacre, it is the only explanation that makes logical sense of this passage. No other explanation coherently expounds these cryptic words of Paul. This to me suggests Martin is correct.
As we will see, this use of “nature” here in 1 Corinthians 11 has a bearing on Paul's attack on homosexuality in Romans 1, since Paul uses the same term there to condemn homosexuality. Here, though, Paul's appeal to "nature" does not reflect reality, and so cannot represent God on the matter. This passage is rooted in human error.
References:
Dr Michael Heiser's exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 using Troy Martin's 2004 article:
YouTube: Naked Bible Podcast 086- The Head Covering of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15
Dr Ann Nyland The Source New Testament With Extensive Notes On Greek Word Meaning, Smith and Stirling Publishing, Australia. First Edition. 2004
Troy Martin's original 2004 article:
Troy Martin, Paul's Argument From Nature For The Veil In 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead Of A Head Covering, 2004
Mark Goodacre's response to Troy Martin's 2004 article:
Mark Goodacre Does περιβόλαιον Mean “Testicle” in 1 Corinthians 11:15?, 2011
Troy Martin Περιβόλαιον as “Testicle” in 1 Corinthians 11:15: A Response to Mark Goodacre, 2013
William W. Goodwin Greek Grammar, 1898, p207
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044102849742&seq=296
Comments
Post a Comment