Theology in the Raw - Is Man the Head of Woman? Revisiting Kephale ("Head") in 1 Cor 11:2-16: Preston Sprinkle

Episode Date: December 2, 2024

In this solo podcast episode, I return to my ongoing work on women in church leadership as I dig deep into the interpretive complexities of 1 Cor 11:2-16. For my defense that Paul is talking about head coverings and not hair length/styles in this passage, see these two blog posts: https://theologyintheraw.com/pauls-language-of-hairstyles-or-head-coverings-in-1-cor-11-the-meaning-of-kephale-part-11/ AND https://theologyintheraw.com/the-cultural-context-for-the-hair-length-style-vs-head-coverings-debate-in-1-cor-11-the-meaning-of-kephale-part-12/ For my interpretation of kephale in Ephesians 5:23, see this post: https://theologyintheraw.com/what-does-head-kephale-mean-in-pauls-letters-part-8-ephesians-523/ For my previous two podcast episodes on the meaning of kephale in ancient literature and in Ephesians 5, see episodes 1,162 (March 18, 2024) and 1,164 (March 25, 2024).  -- If you've enjoyed this content, please subscribe to my channel! Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw Or you can support me directly through Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Visit my personal website: https://www.prestonsprinkle.com For questions about faith, sexuality & gender: https://www.centerforfaith.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The exiles and Babylon conferences happening again, April 3rd to April 5th, 2025 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I cannot wait for this conference. We're talking about the gospel and race after George Floyd. We're talking about transgender people in the church, social justice and the gospel, two perspectives, and a dialogical debate about whether the evangelical church is good for this country. Featuring my new friend, Adam Davidson. He's an atheist journalist and Sean McDowell, my other good friend, they're going to banter around about that topic. We also have Latasha Morrison, Ephraim Smith, Mark Yarhouse, Malcolm Foley, and many other awesome speakers. We're also adding some breakouts

this year, and we're going to have a killer after party. I can't wait for that one. Actually, if you want to attend a conference, you can do so by going to theology, raw.com. You want to register early. We do have an early birth, a fairly aggressive early bird special. It ends December 31st. So if you are planning on attending the conference, you want to sign up before then you could also attend virtually. If you can't make it out to Minneapolis again, April 3rd to 5th, Minneapolis, Minnesota, exiles of Babylon, go to theology and the rod.com. And I hope to see you there. Hi, friends. Welcome back to another episode of theology in the raw. This is going to be a, I guess, unique episode. It's going to be a very long one. In fact, if you are, well, you can see the timestamp right now. You can see how long it is. I don't know how long

it's going to be. I'm starting out right now. So I imagine this will take at least a couple hours, maybe more. I, what I want to do is summarize my best understanding of what I see to be and what many scholars see to be the, the most difficult passage in all of Paul's letters, if not the most difficult passage in the entire New Testament, namely 1 Corinthians 11, 2 to 16. I have also invited some of my Patreon supporters to listen in live. They are tuning in right now. We got about a dozen right now. And I also submitted my show notes to the theology in the raw community through Patreon so they can follow along. If you want to have access

to stuff like this, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology and Rob become part of the theology in the rock community. Also, just a reminder, we do have an early bird special going on right now for the exiles of Babylon conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 3rd to 5th, 2025. It's going to be a fantastic conference. And we have a, a, I think about a 60% discount up until the end of the year. So if you want to come to X-House, you want to take advantage of the early bridge special, you want to go to theology and raw.com and get all the information there. All right, let's dig in for the long haul into this very intriguing and difficult passage.

Okay. First Corinthians 11, 2 to 16. It would be helpful if you really want to get the most out of this podcast episode to have your Bibles open to follow along. If you do know, uh, the, if you do know Greek or though a little bit about Greek, it would be helpful to have the Greek texts open. I will have to refer to several Greek phrases. I will, I will do so in such a way that assumes that you don't know Greek. I'm not going to, I hate it when people like the Greek phrase and they, they, they act like people know Greek and stuff. And I know most people don't. Um, it's just some of the interpretive difficulties we're going to wrestle with half have to do with Greek phrases and stuff. So I'll do my best to translate

those, um, along the way. So this passage, I mean, there, there are so many interpretive difficulties in this passage. I mean, two minute account really. Um, first of all, there's the I don't know. I think it's still, I don't know. I haven't done a survey. I still, I still think the majority position is that it's talking about head coverings and that's the position I'll take as you'll see. But that is a debate, whether Paul's talking about hair length or hairstyles and or versus head coverings. There's also the debate just practically as you know, what Paul's talking about here, is this cultural or is it universal? Should we all, should all women be wearing head coverings is something that the church has wrestled with. Is it talking

about men and women generally or husbands and wives specifically? I'm not going to get too deep into that. I think some references to men and women in this passage are best taken to refer to husbands and wives, but there are at least some references to men and women in this passage are best taken to refer to husbands and wives, but there are at least some references that do refer to men and women generally, for instance, in verses 11 to 12, if you look at that passage, that clearly is talking about men and women, not husbands and wives. And it talks about, you know, men coming from women through, you know, through birth, every man was born of a woman. Not every husband was born of a wife. So it gets a little complicated. Even if we take some references, the husband's husbands

and wives, clearly not every reference can be limited to husbands and wives. The meaning of head, which in 11 three, and I'll read the the passage if you don't have your Bibles open, I'll read it in a second. But yeah, the meaning of head in verses three to 10, I mean, that's like one of the main disputed aspects of this passage. How do we understand head? Does it convey some sense of authority? Or is it simply talking about man as the source of women, or is it talking about men as being preeminent? Is it talking about a social social situation or is it talking about a trans cultural more universal situation? Also the syntax and argument of this passage as a whole has so many twists and turns like aside from just the meaning of the words,

what Paul's getting at, whether this is all for today or it's cultural, just the syntax alone, how, how versus are connected logically with what's going on around these versus is, is really difficult and disputed and really does change the meaning of, of the text or of the argument and how we understand it versus seven to 10, seven, well seven to 10, but seven through nine in particular, say some things about women that we kind of wish you wouldn't have said. I mean, just to be honest, I mean, you read these, you read, especially yeah. Versus seven to nine. You're like, wait, what? You know, man is in the image and glory of God, but

woman is in the glory of man. Like what are we talking about here? Are women not in God's image? Like this Paul not have access to Genesis one 27 what's going on here or even, I mean, even further verses seven to nine, like how it relates to versus 10 or even versus 11 to 12, like, like the relationship between specifically seven to nine and 11 to 12, like, like the relationship between specifically seven to nine and 11 to 12, it's same. It feels like Paul's simply contradicting himself here. And we'll spend a good deal of time looking at that relationship. Uh, verse 10 alone, I think is, I think a lot of how people understand this passage hinges on how they interpret verse 10. Unfortunately, verse 10 has several syntactical exegetical issues that like scholars have a very different views on the, the meaning

of authority in this passage. And what about the phrase because of the angels? And I honestly, I'm not even going to get too deep into the, because of the angels thing. I'll touch on it a little bit. I have some footnotes on it, but I just, I, I, the phrase is so cryptic. We just can't have any confident interpretation of what this means. We have some suggestions, you know, and I'll, I'll summarize those briefly, but it's just like Paul throws it out there because of the angel, you know, because of the angels and moves on like, what? I don't know what you're talking about, Paul. What do you mean? Because of the angels, the syntax of verse 10 alone is also very difficult. Then you have a bunch of other issues in verses 13 to 16, you know, is short hair for women and long hair for men. Is this unnatural? And is it unnatural in that culture? Or is

this a trans cultural thing? Paul's talking about? I mean, this is, it gets a little odd when Paul, even when Paul himself grew his hair hair out when he was in Corinth, he was there, what 18 months and he cut his hair and can't create what he left in acts 18, 18. So Paul's saying it's a natural for men to have long hair, but I got long hair, but it's so it's different. It's, it's a vow I took, you know, there's even kind of fringe, not fringe. Yeah. I mean, kind of fringe views on verse 15 that says that, uh, the covering that Paul is mentioning there is actually referring to a testicle. Yes, indeed. Uh, Troy Martin as a scholar, new Testament scholar who argued that and Michael Heiser, the great Mike, the great and late Michael Heiser adopted

that interpretation. Uh, Mark Goodacre, a brilliant new Testament scholar pushed back on Troy Martin, more Martin pushed back in good. Acre, blah, blah, blah. Even little phrases like in verse 16, when Paul says we have no such practices, what we have no such practices. Some translators have such a difficulty with this that they translate it. No other practice, but the Greek phrase means no such practices. And it's, you know, people dispute what that even means. Anyway, I'm not, I'm not going to spend, I don't know if I'll spend any time in verses 13 to 16. I think the, not, not that it's not important. I just think there's so many things to work through in verses three

to 10 or three to 12. Sorry. That I'll give some thoughts about how versus 13 to 16 fits into this towards, towards the end. Okay. Now let me just say upfront, the debate about whether this is talking about head coverings or hair styles or hair length. There's so much literature on this. It gets very, very technical and I wrote, I've already written two extensive blog posts on this at theologianrod.com. I think if you go to theologianrod.com forward slash blog, it'll take you to like a list of the most recent blogs and the last two blogs on the meaning of Kefale both deal with head coverings versus hairstyle length. I will, I'm going

to come at the end of the, well, the latter part of this podcast, I will come back to that. It just gets so technical that I know a lot of people are wanting to dig into, um, kind of just how we understand the passage as a whole without spending an hour, hour and a half summarizing the debate on her head coverings and versus hair, hairstyle. So I will save that towards the end. I am going to assume for the sake of the argument that Paul is talking about head coverings. Okay. And again, I'll, I'm not just assuming that I've done the research and have landed on the

head coverings view. But I don't want to just bog us down too much upfront. I also want to just say just not this means anything, but, um, I am, I've been working on this passage for almost a year now, at least 10 months. Well, I've been looking at the meaning of Kephala in ancient literature and the new Testament for about a year and a half. And I've spent the last like eight to 10 months on first Corinthians 11, two to 16 in particular. And I, I thought that that would have been sufficient to really have a really clear understanding of what this passage means. I don't. In fact, most respectable commentators will admit this is such a difficult passage that we need to

have a lot of humility and we should not have a lot of dogmatism over what this passage means. In fact, I would say if somebody is very, very confident, they know what first Corinthians 11 to 16 is talking about. This is the clear view. No other view really is legit than you might want to run to the way. Like, I don't, I don't think they've appreciated the complexity of this passage. So I actually submitted a proposal back in last winter around February, 2014, 2024, uh, submitted a proposal to present, uh, a paper at the evangelical theological conference in San Diego in, in November. And I submitted the proposal thinking, okay, I'm sure by the time November rolls around, I'll

have this thing nailed down. Oh, and here we are. I'm actually recording this episode on, uh, what is this today? What's today? The 18th. I think, um, I'm about to present this paper in a couple of days in San Diego. So you're the, the, the, this public podcast will be released after I present it. So, uh, hopefully I can get some good critical feedback from that paper, which I'm not going to integrate here because I haven't heard it yet. But I am excited to see how this goes in San Diego. Okay. Okay. So what I want to do is I want to look at the meaning of Kefale as it participates in Paul's complex argument. And here's the specific question I really want to stay focused on is does first Corinthians 11 two to 16 say that men or husbands occupy some kind of authoritative position

over women or wives. So is it men over women or husbands over wives in particular? Like that's kind of the, everything we're going to dig, dig deep into. Um, that's my main question I want to explore in this passage. So what I want to do is I want to look, I'm going to kind of summarize versus four to six briefly. I want to take a more in-depth look at versus seven to nine, and then a more in-depth look at verse 10 in particular with all the issues that surround verse 10. And then I want to see how 11 versus 11 to 12 fits into Paul's argument. Okay. So that's where we're going to go in this episode. Now, to be clear, the only public ministries mentioned in this passage are prayer and prophecy, prayer and prophecy.

And Paul assumes that both men and women are participating in these public church gathered expressions of, well, expressions of ministry. I do think the prayer, you know, when women pray, they should have their heads covered when Paul says that. I think he's talking about like a public prayer, not just praying in silent. And prophecy, I've done a bit of research on this, and it's very clear women are prophesying in the church, in Corinth and elsewhere. And I do think that prophecy is a form of communicating God's Word to God's people. I don't think it's exactly the same as teaching or preaching. I mean, these

are all different words, prophecy, preaching, teaching. But I do think there is a significant enough overlap between what the New Testament says about first century prophecy and what we might call modern day preaching and teaching. Again, not the exact same thing, but enough overlap to say that prophecy is communicating on some sort of authoritative level God's Word to God's people, men and women included. So in this sense, the passage is, to use an anachronistic term, egalitarian, or one might say soft complementarian, if those terms mean anything to you. However, there is, I do think, a compelling interpretation which suggests that married women should be participating in these public ministries while signifying that they are under the authority of their husbands while they are praying and prophesying.

At least this is how verses 11, 3 to 10 can be read, okay? I think that is a valid way to read this passage, which again, we're going to get into in great detail. However, versus 11 to 12 seems to correct or at the very least significantly qualify this perspective. This is one of the many exegetical issues. How does 11 to 12 fit into three to 10? So 11 to 12 creates some kind of tension between three to 10, especially, uh, verses seven to 10 in particular. And then you have again, verse 10 with all of its exegetical conundrum. This lies at the crux of this debate. Okay. So in full disclosure, my work on first Corinthians 11

is part of a much larger project on the role of women in church leadership as a whole. This is an issue I still remain undecided on. I am taking a, what's the, oh, we're, and of course I'm taking an exegetical approach, maybe an aggressively exegetical approach. Like I'm just, I'm trying to understand each individual passage that's significant for this debate on its own terms and its first century context, as if I'm not even like, as if I'm just reading a, a, a religious document of first century. I'm trying really hard. It's impossible. I know, but I'm trying really hard not to make every passage fit into how I think other passages are, what other passages are saying. I'm just

trying to look at the situation in Corinth right now that Paul's writing to and the specific situation that he's addressing the first Corinthians 11, three to two to 16, whether this passage leans commentary leans egalitarian. That doesn't mean I think other passages must also be squeezed into that perspective. I want to put all. And I do have some leanings, which I'm going to explore here. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm

going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to them. Yeah. I'm not, I'm wrestling with that. I'm wrestling with that. And I do have some leanings, which I'm going to explore here. Okay. The key, let's look at the passage. The key yet I would say underdeveloped statement about head head shipper. You know, the word head comes in 11, three verses, first one of these 11 three, Paul says, but I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is man and the head of Christ is God. This sets up Paul's

discussion about literal heads and head. I would say coverings or veils in verses four to six. That's another issue, which again, we'll get to at the end of this episode, the end of this episode. Head covering veil. I think it's kind of a both and thing there. I don't think the difference, I don't think whether you think head covering or veil makes a huge difference. There's a debate about whether exactly what kind of head covering we're talking about here. So I'll use head covering and veil interchangeably. Okay. So verses four to six reads, Paul says, every man who praise or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every woman or wife who praise or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head since it is the same as if her head

were shaven. Now there's the debate about whether this, whether dishonoring the head at the end of verse four at the end and the middle of verse five, whether this is still talking about a literal head or the metaphorical head, namely the man who prays and prophesies with his head covered dishonors Christ his head and the woman or wife who prays with her head uncovered, uh, praise or prophesies with a head uncovered dishonors her head, namely her husband. I do think that's probably what's going on here. That that second reference in each of those verses to head refers to the metaphorical head that Paul mentioned in verse three. Okay, verse six,

for if a woman or wife will not cover her head, then she should have her hair cut off. But since it is disgraceful for a woman or wife to cut her hair or shave her head, then let her cover her head. Assuming as I do that, Paul is talking about head coverings or veils, not a hair length or styles. Um, it was culturally appropriate for married women to cover their heads in public, which included a public worship setting. Okay. This is a public setting head coverings or veils were not only a sign that a woman was married, but also a sign of respectability and modesty. An unveiled woman would be viewed as sexually available, which is why single women would not wear a head covering, uh, or perhaps even

promiscuous. Uh, especially if she was married or she's married, not wearing a head covering or perhaps even promiscuous. Especially if she was married or she's married, not wearing a head covering. It's like, she's looking to hook up. Okay. Which wasn't an, uh, an unknown thing in the first century. Uh, so if I'm, you have a married women prophesying, praying out in public, uh, without a head covering, this would have been a, to say the least, uh, a distraction if, you know, to all the people they're looking on. And I will also, just to put a little hook here in your mind, I'm going to, I'm going to actually explore briefly whether Paul might be even reflecting a situation that scholars refer to as the new Roman woman, kind of championed by Bruce Winter, who's So, this is why Paul draws the conclusion that an uncovered married woman might as well have a marriage with a man who is a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian,

a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, a Christian, I think there's a good case for that. I'll come back to that later. So this is why Paul draws the conclusion that an uncovered married woman might as well have her head shaved since this was the common punishment for a wife who committed adultery. And we have historical evidence for this. I have some, some footnotes here in the show notes men, however, were not to cover their heads. Now it's male head coverings and female head coverings. We're not this didn't send the same cultural message in the first century. It's not like married women covered their heads and married men didn't cover their heads. Like that's, it's not the

same thing. So what's Paul getting out with, with men, why men shouldn't cover their heads. I think this is probably because it was common for high status men to cover their heads during pagan worship. And we have a lot of, um, uh, literary and archeological evidence for this, um, men going to worship at the temples and they would cover their heads, but it was only high status men. So Paul might be not wanting men to cover their heads because this could be a means of flaunting their high social status along with the pagan associations that came with male head coverings. Again, I'll say one more time. I'll come back to that in more detail later.

Okay. Paul then returns to the reason in verse seven, why man ought not to cover his head in verses, in verse seven, the first part of verse seven. And then he follows this by a highly disputed exegetical justification from Genesis two and the rest of verse seven to nine. The verses read this, a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for or account of woman, but woman for or account of man. And here he's, I think he's clearly reflecting on the creation account in Genesis 2. Paul then rounds off his discussion with a concluding statement about women or women authority and her head in verse 10, where he says, on account of this, a woman, and this is my translation,

a woman is obligated to have authority on or over the head because of the angels. Finally, Paul offers a seemingly different perspective about male and female relations in verses 11 to 12. Nevertheless, a woman is not independent or apart from man, nor is man independent of or apart from women in the, in the Lord. And I think in the Lord there is emphatic given the placement in the Greek. First 11 for as, and he gives a justification for the statement for as woman came from man. So also man comes through women, but everything comes from God. All right, let's look at a, how complementarians approach this passage. I will say in my survey of the literature, you can't put everybody in these kind of egalitarian

complimenting boxes. Um, you have people who would read this passage in a quote unquote more complimentary way that Paul is arguing for women submitting to male authority. Um, some who argue, who argue this way would be, you know, conservative evangelical scholars like a Tom Schreiner or Craig Blomberg. And Blomberg might've shifted his view over the years. I'm not totally sure, but in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, he takes an approach similar to Tom Schreiner. But then you also have other scholars who are not evangelical, might not even be, you know, But then you also have other scholars who are not evangelical might not even be, you know, Christian who would also read this passage as reflecting a, again, quote unquote, a put a complimentarian viewpoint or, or, you know, let's, but I don't need to use that anachronistic

term all the time, but, um, they would say, yeah, of course, Paul's arguing that women should be, you know, are under the authority of their husbands. Okay. So, you can't, it's not like you can put everybody in a box of modern-day egalitarian, modern-day commentator, and they're both reading the passage differently in, you know, in a way that reflects other people in that same camp. Egalitarians have a kind of wide range of, like modern-day, you know, people who would be egalitarian, who see the Bible as authoritative that they take, they get there in various different ways in

this passage. Okay. This, this is what makes this passage exciting as an exegete. Like I, it's not like there's only two camps, two different interpretations. You have to kind of pick which camp you're in. It's like, no, there's a vast array of exegetical issues that people will, you know, try to solve and they might end up at an either commentary or egalitarian viewpoint. But it's just not so you can't just neatly divide the interpretive options into two airtight camps. Okay. So having said that, I would say most modern day commentarians take Kefale head in 11, in 11 three is conveying male or a husband's authority over women and chapter and verse versus seven to 12 reinforce this idea. Okay. So in verses seven to 10 wives

are to bring glory or honor to their husbands. Since man was created first and woman was created from man and for man. And just, if you find that conclusion distasteful, just lay that aside for a second to just read these verses. You should be able to admit that it says you can't be like, it's so outlandish. How could anybody come up with this interpretation? It's like the words could very easily be taken that way. According to this reading, Paul uses exeusia or authority in verse 10 to refer to a head covering, which is a cultural signal that a woman is married and therefore under the authority of her husband, which again, that does make sense according to the first

century cultural context. So this understanding of exeusia or authority correlates with Paul's use of caphele in verse 3, where it conveys some sense of authority. So Tom Schreiner and others will then go on to note that Paul is aware that his readers could take this too far to support some kind of male domination of women or ontological inequality. And this is why Paul adds the corrective in verses 11 to 12 to sort of anticipate this potential misapplication that he anticipates might come from his readers. All right, let's evaluate this for a second.

Say it one more time. I'm not yet convinced of a complimentary position as a whole, okay? But I do think Schreiner, Blomberg and others, they do have, again, an exegetically compelling argument for their interpretation for a few reasons. First of all, as I've argued before in a very lengthy podcast, I think last year, and it's also on my blog, I blog through it at theology and rod.com that I do think Kephala most naturally conveys some sense of authority in its extra biblical uses. When it's, when it's used non non literally. Okay. Most of the time carefully just means

a literal head, but sometimes it's just a literal head. So I think that's the way it is. I think that used non-literally, okay? Most of the time, keffale just means a literal head, but sometimes it's used in a non-literal sense. And when it is used in a non-literal sense, I do think in most cases it conveys some sense of authority. And in Paul's only other use of keffale in connection to male-female relations, namely Ephesians 5.23, I do think that that is the sense of Kefale there. And again, if you're freaking out right now, I've given reasons for this interpretation in a podcast over a year ago when I looked at Kefale in Ephesians 5.

To read the passage this way, I think it flowsfle in Ephesians five, um, to read the passageist way, I think it flows well with the logic of Paul's argument, even if his assumptions are offensive to modern ears. Okay. Or even if you say, well, that conflicts with, you know, Phoebe and Junia and you know, women profits and, uh, Mary Magdalene or whatever. Like, like, yeah, okay. All I'm saying is in this, in policy, physical argument here, it does make sense. Second, in a culture where head coverings conveyed marital status, if we take that view, and I think there's lots of support for that view, and where husbands in the first century were considered to have authority over their wives, it would make sense that if a married woman were not, was not covering her head, then this would be

seen as dishonoring her husband and perhaps even rebelling against their authority, the husband's authority. Again, the end of itself, that makes a lot of sense. Third, Paul's use of the creation story in verses seven to nine appears to reflect a common Jewish understanding of primogenitor, namely primo genitor, namely that man occupies a kind of priority in creation. That word priority. What does that mean? Obviously it's a chronological priority. He was created first, but what does that imply? I'm, I'm I'm leaving open or deliberately vague. This term priority. Okay. While this passage has been over read to mean that women are

not created in God's image, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Paul draws attention to man's priority in creation, which relates to Paul's leading statement that the head of the woman or wife is man or her husband. Fourth, as I kind of already hinted at this reading, I mean, this interpretation fits right at home in the Greco-Roman and the Jewish cultural context. No first century reader would have batted an eye at how modern day complimentarians are interpreting this passage, okay?

Now 11 to 12 versus 11 to 12, that's another story. We'll get there, hang on. ["The New World"] Support for today's podcast episode comes from iHerb. iHerb offers the best curated selection of over 50,000 wellness products at the best possible value across a variety of different categories, such as supplements, sports nutrition, groceries, bath and personal care, and even stuff for your pets. Okay? So this is your one-stop shop for all your health and wellness needs.

Look, you guys know how I really value health, if you've listened to me for more than five minutes. For me, I want to feel good. I want to take care of my body. But I also see this as a theological issue. I think God created us as embodied people. And so bodily health, I believe, is a spiritual issue. What I love about iHerb is that they test and verify

to ensure that what you find in every bottle is what is supposed to be there. Products available at iHerb are sourced directly from the brands or authorized distributors in the US, so there's no third-party sellers. And this is really important when there's companies out there selling fake products and you have no idea what the ingredients are, you know, going to the products,

iHerb does not allow third third party sellers on its website. You get free shipping in the US on purchases of over $30 and they offer 24 seven customer service if you have any questions about your order. So our listeners, the all general listeners get 22% off your first order when you use the code theology at you have to go to iherb.com slash shop slash theology. Okay, a couple of slashes there, go to the show notes. You can check out the link. Existing customers get 15% off.

Okay, so if you're a first time customer, 22% off your first order at iherb.com forward slash shop forward slash theology. Use the code theology for your discount. Choose iherb because wellness matters. Okay. I want to, I want to take an extended, we'll get to how egalitarian read this passage. Um, and again, that that's, that's, that's, they read it differently, but I'll, I'll come back to how, uh, egalitarianism is that some of their interpretive conclusions

here, but a lot of the, you got any more egalitarian reading depends on verse 10. So I'm not, I'll get there later. So I'll come back to how egalitarians read this passage. Let's take an extended look at image glory and female relations, male-female relations in verses 7 to 9. Okay. I was pleasantly surprised that very few interpreters, Christian or not, evangelical or not, think that Paul denies that a woman is created in God's image. Now, historically, I haven't looked at, you know, the history of interpretation like throughout church history. I have dabbled in like early church interpretations of this and I don't recall, I think it's kind of mixed how they read, you know, verse 7, whether Paul's implying that women aren't created in God's image. But modern day interpreters,

I mean, this view has pretty much been abandoned. I only found like one or two ish interpreters that think, yeah, Paul's denying that women are creating God's image. And again, not because of some Christian commitment, but simply because, I mean, Genesis one 27 says it right there, Paul, those that verse. So you don't have to believe in inspiration to think that, you know, Paul can't be denying that women are creating God's images. Like one of the, he, Paul's a, a good interpreter. He knows the old Testament. Right? So, so people say, well, he can't be denying that here. Also, Paul says, Paul himself says elsewhere that men and women are creating God's image.

That's even maybe, even if you do think he had kind of a blip and he forgot about Genesis one, 27, well, he himself says that, you know, we, that men and women are in the image of God and we are being conformed to the image of Christ who is the image of God. And there's many verses here. Romans eight, 29, second Corinthians three, 18, four, four Colossians one 15 and so on and so forth. In fact, later in first Corinthians, Paul himself says, this is first Corinthians 15, 49, just as we, which some male and females have born the image of the earthly man. So we shall bear the image of the heavenly man, namely Jesus Christ. The we here includes both men and women, Roy Schumpa and Brian Rosner and their excellent commentary in 1 Corinthians, you know, they point this out and say, quote, understanding 11.7, 1 Corinthians 11.7, in light of 1549 suggests

that for Paul, Adam was created directly in the image of God and that the rest of us from Eve on are made in God's image as we inherit it from Adam and our parents. And you see this logic in Genesis five, three, and in Genesis nine, six. Okay. So most scholars agree that Paul's statement about men being in God's image. This isn't the main point. Rather it quote, who am I quoting here? Quoting Gordon fee. Gordon fee says, quote, it exists to set up Paul's real concern to explain why women should be covered when prophesying. So image of God is only mentioned here. And then Paul kind of leaves it alone and really focuses on this concept of glory. Glory is the key concept in verses seven to nine. It comes up again in verse 15. This

seems to be really Paul's main concern and fees perspective here that this is what most interpreters would say that, um, Paul's not real. He's not, he's not wanting to make any kind of strong statement about image of God here. He's, he's really, he's probably quote. I mean, he's probably riffing off of Genesis 1.27, where it says, you know, we're created in the image and likeness of God. Is that 1.27 or is that 1.26? I forget. Here instead of image and likeness of God, he says image and glory of God. So he's really just kind of alluding to that passage, but what he's really after is the glory piece there. Okay. So what is the point about men being God's glory while women are man's glory?

Does this refer to some kind of subordination or, you know, hierarchy or status difference or authority structure, whatever term you want to use here? Does this refer to some, you know, that between women or wives and men or husbands. Glory is a term that can mean many different things. In this passage, it could mean something like beauty, splendor, or radiance without reference to another person. Okay? Like in 1115, when it says that a woman's long hair is her glory. It's her splendor, radiance, beauty. It's, it's, you know, that's a very valid meaning of glory. In fact, Paul uses that meaning there in 1115 glory can also mean kind of the S kind of something

very similar, except instead of one's own beauty and splendor, it could be a reflection or radiance of another person. So interpreted this way, verses 11 to eight, sorry, seven to eight would mean that man is a reflection of God, radiance of God, while woman is a reflection or radiance of man. Okay. That's another option. Another definition of glory is that it can be used in an objective sense of honor or reputation. In this sense, verses seven to eight would mean that man is to honor God and woman is to honor man. And of course, you know, you could have some overlapping senses here as well. Okay. So that second option there, that glory could mean a reflection of another person.

And if this is what Paul has in mind, then he could be referring to the fact that Adam was created first and directly by God, Genesis 2. Therefore, he reflects the image and glory of God in a way that no other human can say. Not even the first woman. He is the first visible representation of an invisible God. And again, scholars point out that Paul's phrase, image and glory of God, could be patterned after Genesis 126, not 127, where man is created in the image and likeness of God. So, if Paul's really thinking of Genesis 126, then glory here might be in the purview of likeness of God. So if this is, if Paul's really thinking of Genesis 1 26, then glory here might be in the purview of likeness. And this would lend support for interpreting glory in the sense of, you know, reflection here in, in, in first Corinthians 11, Adam

uniquely reflects God since he has created first Eve, however, was created from Adam and is therefore a reflection of the first man. Uh, this is how, you know, Paul, Adam even says in Genesis two 23, this is bone in my flow and bone in my bone, flesh of my flesh. Um, for she was, she comes from me and the converse can't be true. Right? I mean, Adam can't be said to be the glory of woman since he wasn't created out of woman according to how Paul's wrestling with Genesis two. Okay. So that's a very valid way to understand, I think, what Paul's saying here. It correlates with how, you know, we could read Genesis 2. I do think though that there's slightly more evidence for interpreting glory in the sense of giving honor to another person, whether God or man. And I think this is a strong interpretation because you have

a pervasive theme of honor and shame that pervades the entire passage. So women who prophesy with uncovered heads, they shame their husbands in verse 5. In fact, if they don't cover their heads, they might as well receive the shame of being shorn, shame of being shorn. And in verses 14 and 15, first Corinthians 11, Paul contrasts dishonor with glory. Long hair on men is a dishonor while long hair on a woman is her glory. So perhaps Paul interprets Genesis 2 and 1 Corinthians 11 to show that men are to honor God since the first man was created directly by God and in his image, while women are to bring honor to their husbands since the first woman was created from man and for man. Yeah, and Paul could be drawing this notion from the manner in which men and women are

created according to Genesis 1 and 2. Man was not created from woman, but woman from man for also man was not created on account of women, but woman on account of man. Adam was directly created by God. Uh, Eve was created from man and for Adam, not in here. Women has created for man. I don't, don't read into this more than you can squeeze out of the actual text of what Paul's saying. I don't think, you know, she's created for Adam in the sense of serving as everyone to need, you know, or, and does it necessarily imply that she is created to be submissive to Adam? I think, I don't know. Like, I think that might maybe, maybe that's what Paul has in mind. But if you just go on, on Genesis two and how Paul's interpreting this passage, I mean, at the very base level, God saw that

it was not good for Adam to be alone. And it was impossible for him to carry out the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So God created Eve to be a helper suitable for him to carry out the divine mission. He couldn't do it without women. So he creates women for man. Whatever that means, women for man, it's, I don't think Paul gets so specific on what he means there. So here, yeah, so I think the best way to understand this passage is that Paul appeals to certain things in Genesis 2 to encourage women to wear head coverings, signifying that they were not only married, but also faithful and respectful of their husbands,

thus bringing them honor, glorifying them, not in the sense of, yeah. Yeah, let's just stick to bring an honor because once you use glorifying, that sounds like worship or something. because once you use glorifying, that sounds like worship or something. I do want to point out that, you know, the phrase, or to be the glory of another person, this isn't a derogatory thing. In fact, there's some Jewish sources that refer to women bringing men glory in contexts where a woman's power over men is being emphasized. There's a often cited passage from a Jewish book called First Esdras. This comes from the second century BC, where you have some strikingly similar language as we find in First Corinthians 11, seven to nine. So this comes from, I'll read the passage, 1 Esdras chapter four, verses 14 to 17 says this, gentlemen is not the great king and are not men many and is not wine strong. Who is

it then that rules over them or has the mastery over them? Is it not women? Women gave birth to the king and to every person that rules over the sea and land from women. They came and women brought up the very men who plant the vineyards from which comes wine. Women make men's clothes. They bring men glory. Men cannot exist without women. So I mean, you see the parallels here. This is really, there's some striking parallels here. In fact, there is a really interesting article written by Julie Newberry. It's called Paul's elusive reasoning in first Corinthians 11, seven to 12, New Testament studies, 2019, where she goes into great detail looking at all the specific linguistic parallels between first Corinthians 11 and four first as dress for here. It's, you know, first as it's a woman's domestic expertise, you know,

making men's clothes that brought her husband glory. And the context is all about the power that women have over men, not a woman's subservience to men. Now I I'm going to, I, I'm not, it's been a long time since I read all the four first as dress, but I I'm going to assume as you know, almost every Jewish document around the first century does think that women are subs know, almost every Jewish document around the first century does think that women are subservient to men or specifically wives, their husbands. So I, I, I would want to situate this passage in its wider context, but however, I mean, this, at least in the way the language is being used here, glory is not a demeaning

term. Now, Cynthia Long Westfall, brilliant, you have some scholar wrote a great book called Paul and gender. She uses first as dress to shed light on first Corinthians 11, but she argues more specifically that glory refers to a woman's seductive beauty, which quote, this is quoting Westwall, which is dangerous and causes men to lose control. which is dangerous and causes men to lose control. That is, a woman's hair is a primary part of her beauty, which is the rationale behind veiling. If a woman prays or prophesies with an uncovered head,

the glorious appearance of her hair competes with the worship of God because it displays the glory of man." Unquote. Far from being a description of a woman's subservience to men, Glory, quote, describes the power that women have over men. Okay. So you see what Westfall is doing here. She would interpret verses seven to nine in pretty much the exact opposite way that in pretty much the exact opposite way that a more complimentarian interpretation would take. Instead of seven to nine speaking about kind of

the subservience of women or women or male priority over women, it's actually the opposite. It's actually talking about female power over men. I guess I'm not quite convinced the West falls interpretation. I always get nervous saying that because I think she's just, is I just have massive respect for her. And, and, and in most cases, I think she offers a very compelling interpretation. I guess the one problem I see though is that if, if a woman being the glory of man refers to her power over man, then this suggests that being that man being the glory of God

refers to his power over God. So I think however we interpret a woman is the glory of man, it's in parallel with man being the glory of God. So I, if all of a sudden women is, you know, has power over man, I think we'd have to say that Paul also thinks man has power over God, which I don't think is the point. However, glory of is interpreted glory of God, glory of man. It should have similar connotations in both cases. Okay. So, so, but I do think that the parallel with first as just four does suggest that women as the glory of men does not have to be like a derogatory statement about, about women. Okay. So while I think both options of glory are possible

here, again, the two options, the two main options being, you know, uh, that women is a reflection or radiance of man or is to give honor to man. I think both are possible. I think a married woman is both the splendor of her husband, according to Paul's logic, and is therefore to bring honor to her husband, which would have been violated if she was dressing like a promiscuous woman during worship. According again, according to first century standards, I, you know, I don't hesitate making a modern day parallel. This is not going to be an exact parallel, but you might, do I want to go here? This is, I don't know if I'm gonna go here. Let's go here. What the

heck? My Patrons listening on, if you want to give me feedback and whether this analogy that I'm about to give us help for. Okay. So I'm not going to, this is not a one-to-one correlation. Okay. But let's just say you're at a church worship service and a husband's wife is on stage during worship and she's dressing in a way that would be interpreted as being very seductive. Okay. Don't read purity culture in this. I mean, just whatever you think, um, a seductive, there is such a thing as dressing seductively. That is a thing. So whatever that means to you, just that's the image in your head. And she is married to a man, but she's not wearing a wedding ring. She took

off her wedding ring dressing seductively. You can imagine that that might be, um, that might bring dishonor to her husband. Cause most people are going to interpret it that like, is their marriage going okay? Is she looking for something else? Okay. Not a one And then the other thing that I'm going to talk about is the role that the head covering played in the game. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. especially in light of the rich themes of honor and shame in verses 4 to 6 and also 14 to 15, and the role that head coverings played with in the first century in identifying

a woman who was married. An uncovered married woman would certainly be dishonoring into that culture her husband. Wives are to honor their husbands, and the creation of Adam and Eve illustrates this. Okay. Verse nine, having gotten to verse nine yet, really, this one gets even trickier because the wording is not only vague, but it's dependent upon verse seven. Yeah. So there, so we've only been really looking at verse seven. So then we need to look at verses eight and nine and then eight and nine sort of depends in to some extent of verse 10, which we'll get to you. So you see, this is where the syntax gets really difficult because Paul keeps explaining what he means by introducing another difficult and sometimes vague phrase. So the, as our

logic unravels, so does the clarity. It seems like according to modern day interpreters trying to wrestle with balls talking about here. Okay. So we must remember though, that Paul is using the creation story to address a specific situation in Corinth. Not that it can't have universal application, but I just really want to appreciate this first century context before we even explore modern day application. If the Corinthian women were praying and prophesying with uncovered heads, this would have been dishonoring to their husbands. This would, and also it'd be viewed as being immodest. It might, might be, may even suggest, would suggest that a married woman was signaling that she's sexually available, if not unfaithful to her husband. And when we get to the whole

thing with the new Roman women, we'll get there in a little bit. You'll see that this, this was a concern in the first century. This was a thing. We don't know how pervasive it was. We don't necessarily know if it was like widespread at Corinth, but it was a thing in the first century of, of mayor, especially wealthy, wealthy married women sort of, yeah. I mean, having affairs and being visibly sexually promiscuous. We see Roman Greco-Roman writers being cons, you know, writing against this, telling husbands, keep your women in check. You know, what are they doing? Run, running around on you. They're bringing shame to you.

Like they would, that, that was kind of the logic. Like a woman that's doing this, a married woman that's running around, she is shaming her husband. So it makes sense then that Paul highlights the need for women to honor their husbands. Since this was the issue that needed to be addressed and to address it, Paul appeals to the creation story where Eve is created from Adam and for Adam. If read in a vacuum, this could be viewed as what I don't know, patriarchal and sexist as if women need to honor men, but men don't need to honor women. But if, if it was a women in Corinth who were not honoring men by praying and prophesied with uncovered heads, and it

would make sense that Paul would give a seemingly one directional correction where women needed to honor their husbands or men. I mean, Paul does say elsewhere in, in Romans 12, 10 honor one another above yourselves. One another. I think is there, you know, like men and women and women and men like honor each other. I don't think Paul, if you step back outside of his passage and just ask, okay, what is a comp, a comprehensive view of Paul's view of honoring other people? No, only men need to honor women or sorry, only women need to honor men, not men, women. I or sorry, only women need to honor men,

not men, women. I don't think Paul would say that. I think he's addressing the specific situation here. Okay. Let's get the verses eight to nine. Okay. Paul has just said that woman is the glory of man. And then he gives a reason for this for man is not from woman, but woman from man for also man was not created on account of woman, but woman on account of man. Paul is clearly making a distinction between the different ways that man and woman were created. Woman was created from and for man in such a way that the opposite is not true. Man was not created from or for women. That's not how it happens in Genesis 2. So Paul here is reflecting the original creation of going to go back to Genesis 2.

And we're going to go back to Genesis 2. And we're going to go back to Genesis 2. And we're going to go back to Genesis 2. And we're going to go back to Genesis 2. And we're going to go back to Genesis 2. And we're going to go back to Genesis 2. And we're going to go back to Genesis 2. And we're going to go back to Genesis 2.

And we're going to go back to Genesis 2. And we're going to go back to Genesis 2. And we're going multiple meanings of what for him means here in verse nine. What does it mean that woman in Genesis two is created for man or Eve for Adam? Again, I just let's not read beyond what we know Paul is saying. We need to read this in the context of Paul's argument. Why is he, what's he trying to draw out of this passage? It could mean she was created for him to fulfill the creation mandate to rule over a populate the earth. I've already kind of hinted at that could mean she was created for him to exist in community in order to solve his alone list, aloneness member two 18 Genesis two

18. And it wasn't good that Adam was alone. So he created Eve for him because he was alone. So now he's no longer alone. Perhaps he's just highlighting, you know, especially egalitarians typically say that Paul's only point here is a highlight sex differences that were being blurred in the Corinthian worship services. And Paul wants to maintain that men and women are different, not exactly the same. So therefore they should dress differently. That that's at least what Paul's saying, but complimentarian is going to say, no, there's, there's, there's that, but there's also more of a distinct relationship between men and women. One that would imply authority and submission or, you

know, she was created for him. Could mean that even the Corinthian women and maybe even all women since then are created to submit to the leadership of men husbands. That could be what Paul's getting at, but I, you know, we just, it's, it's vague enough that I don't think we can, you know, dogmatically read any of these senses into what Paul means without situating it in the larger argument. What we do know is that Paul is making a case that married women are to honor their husbands and are not to dress in a way that dishonors them, namely in a way that looks like an unfaithful promiscuous wife or even a prostitute. And so Paul's drawing on the creation account to support this.

Say an uncovered married woman praying and prophesying in the public side, it would have dishonored her husbands, which Paul argues goes against the banner in which God created man and women. Now I want to plant a thought in your heads. Okay. That we can't fully understand what Paul's doing in verses seven to nine without 11 and 12 verses 11 to 12. Okay. So, um, I want to, I want, I want, I want you to hold off reading too much out of everything I've said in verses seven to nine. Okay. We're just trying to understand the text now as it unfolds, uh, beginning with individual words, phrases, syntax, Paul's allusions to, you know, Genesis two, how it relates to the first century Corinthian context.

Uh, but we can't fully understand anything till we get to the end of verse 12. Okay. Let's go to verse 10. This is an absolutely a crucial verse. And I'm going to, if any listeners right now in patron, have any immediate questions with anything I've said so far, if you want to go ahead and drop those in the chat, if you want, Lindsay says, good morning. Well, good morning to you, Lindsay. Yeah. If, yeah, go ahead and drop a question if you want, if not, I'll keep going. Okay. Here's one. Okay. What do I think about the syntax ordering a verse three? It's almost like an organizational flow chart, but not in the right order. That Teresa, that's a great question. Like every verse in this

passage, there's lots of debates about that. So again, if you go back to verse three, in fact, let me get my Bible open here. Always helps to open the actual text. I'm wearing glasses for the first time because I'm reading, I've written out my notes. I don't know if you could tell by the way I'm talking, but most of what I'm saying here is written out word for word. So I put my glasses on so I could read my screen, but now I need to take my glasses off to find first Corinthians 10 or 11. Okay. So Paul says, I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is man and the head of Christ is God. So it seems out of order. You would expect you expect the second part to be first. You would expect the head of the woman is

man. The head of man is Christ. The head of Christ is God, but it's out of, it's out of order. And honestly, I mean, I, I would have to dig up my, have this extensive word document with all of my notes on first Corinthians 11. It's it's like a hundred thousand words. It's as I try to document with all of my notes on first Corinthians 11. It's, it's like a hundred thousand words. It's, as I try to document every kind of everything I've reading who interpreted what there, as you can imagine, there, there's a debate about this. Some people say, you know what? It's just not a big deal. We shouldn't read too much into it. Other people say that Paul is quoting almost like a traditional formula

that and he's reworking it. So some people say like the first two parts are kind of something the Corinthians would agree with. And the Paul adds the third part, the article I referenced by Julie Newberry, I think she makes a bigger deal out of the word order. Um, and why this affects the interpretation of the rest of the passage. I would have to go back and look at that. Most scholars, if I recall though, they, they, they acknowledge that this is interesting what Paul's doing here, but they don't think it affects the interpretation of the rest of the passage. So I'm not really decided.

I would need to go back and kind of really look at that and see if I think there's anything extra significant going on. I will come, I will come back and look at that and see if I think there's anything extra significant going on. I will come back and look at 11.3 in a little bit. It is interesting that the only piece of that triad, Christ being the head of man, man being the head of woman, God being the head of Christ, the only piece that is really that significant for the rest of the argument is the middle piece. That Christ is the head of man, that doesn't really play much of a role in the interpretation of the past. Like, Paul doesn't really come back to that.

He does kind of come back to God being the head of Christ at the very end of verse 12, when he says, all things are from God. That might be almost like putting an envelope around that, like, hey, however we work through male female relations, we need to understand all things are from God. You got to put the priority back on God. But it's really that centerpiece that, that is the main point. I, I, and this will come out a little later. I do think that 11 three, I think Paul is citing some kind of familiar tradition that the Corinthians are familiar with, that Paul's familiar with, and Paul wants to sort of reinforce. In fact, he even says in verse

two, right, that, you know, I thank you because you've held onto the traditions I passed on to you. I'll come, I'll come back to 11.3 and how it fits into 11.10 in a second. That's a great question. All right. Let's dive into verse 10. Yeah, this, this verse is absolutely crucial. It really is crucial. Fortunately, unfortunately it's one that poses several interpretive challenges, both for complimentarians and egalitarian actually. And this is where in this may come from more egalitarian scholars. They think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think

that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's the way it is. And I think that's kind of how it feels sometimes. They're just like, ha, look at how they read this. Obviously they're reading this passage. I think it's a lot more difficult than people. Some people make it out to be. Okay. Let's read verse 10. On account of this, Paul says the woman ought to, or I like, I'm going to use the translation is obligated to, because I think it draws out in English more the sense of a fellow, the Greek word here is obligated to have authority on or over the head or could be her head because of the angels. I think I'll come back to this later, but the phrase on account of this or therefore that, you know, that, that opens verse 10,

most scholars rightly would say that this points both backwards and forwards at the very least it does point backwards. In other words, it is sort of summing up the conclusion of what he's been arguing for in verses seven to nine. And some people say it's doing that. And it's also pointing to it comes next, namely this whole thing about the angels. Now, many scholars point out that the Greek construction, uh, fella, Hey, good exe, see on a can, which means, um, the woman ought or is obligated to have authority. Okay. Stop there. referring to that because it says the woman ought to have authority. And that's, that's what the Greek phrase says. The woman, literally a woman ought to have authority. And scholars point out that when I came to have is combined

with a Susie authority and the woman ought to have authority, the woman ought to have authority. So that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the, to have authority. And scholars point out that when I came to have is combined with Exusia authority and the preposition epi on or over, it refers to the subject possessing authority or ability to do something or actor in a certain way upon the object of the preposition. The woman is the authority is a subject of the authority and the head is the object of the preposition. The woman is the authority is a subject of the authority and the head is the object. She is the one, in other words, who has authority over her own head. And then that's how, again, I think every, every single egalitarian I've read

would take that interpretation that the verse 10 is not talking about some symbol of authority. It's not talking about her head covering. It's talking about the woman's own authority. She has authority over her head. Furthermore, Paul has already used the phrase, well, the word Ekeen to have with XC and authority several times in first Corinthians seven and nine. And the subject is always the one who has the authority. For instance, first Corinthians seven 37 says that the man has, and this is the NIV. I think the man has control, but it's Eka, Excucian. The man has authority over his own will in first Corinthians seven 37. There's other references. Let's see. Other times to have is combined with authority the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first

Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first Corinthians, the first The exact phrase, Oh, do I have it here or elsewhere? The exact combination of Exusia with Ekeine with Epi to have authority on or over. I found four other occurrences of this in the book of, they're all in the book of revelation. I come back to, I come back to that stat. Sorry. I'm just looking at my notes here and I I'm getting ahead of myself here. Okay. So go, going back to my original point here. So yeah, Paul is already use Ekeen to have with authority several times in first Corinthians seven to nine in each case he refers to the

subject of that phrase. So and so has authority. It's the person that's the subject that has the authority. So as the argument goes in verse 10, first Corinthians 11, 10, the woman is the subject of to have authority, which suggests that the authority is hers, not in others. This is not talking about some male authority over women. It's talking about a woman's authority over her own head. Now these, I, I mean, when I first came across this, I was aware before I really dug in this passage of the Greek phrase and how it's been translated differently. But when I really dug into the exegetic arguments for this, I was like, Oh, this is the nail in the coffin. The complimentary interpretation sort of falls apart since they're reading

depends on Excusea authority authority here referring to male authority over woman, but it's the woman who's the subject of authority. However, you saw that coming into you. I think interpreting, not, I think, I mean, other, other scholars, but this is, I had to dig a bit to see people push back on this interpretation. It seems to be one of those that's just really accepted by many scholars. But I think interpreting the woman as a subject of an authority in verse 10 faces actually many challenges. Okay. Let me give you a one, two, three, four, five, five challenges to the interpretation that says that the woman, that it's her authority and not somebody else's first. And this is, you're going to have to

just pay attention to pay close attention to the text or you'll, or if you have your Bible open, this will make more sense. Look at the parallel between verse seven A and verse 10 A, the first part of verse seven, first part of verse 10. Okay. The parallel makes the most sense if head coverings are in view in both cases. In verse seven, Paul says that a man ought not to cover the head. That's the same word. I mean, a fellow ought, and then he grounds this assertion in a particular

reading of creation where the woman is created from man of format. And then in verse 10, a Paul concludes his reasoning for this reason about a statement about a woman ought to blank her head. Okay. So let me just verse seven, a, a man ought not to cover the head. And then verse 10, a, which is a logical conclusion to this short argument in seven to 10, a woman ought to blank on the head since, and I say blank. I mean, he says hot to have authority on the head, but we would expect something about head coverings to occupy the object of a woman ought since seven 11 seven is about the obligation of man not to cover their heads. The reader would expect 11, 10 to also speak of a woman's obligation to cover their heads. Given the parallel between

seven and 10, Excusea, Excuseon stands in where we would expect a statement about head coverings, which is why some people say Paul is using authority exusia as a metonymy for a head covering. Okay. So a metonymy is simply a word used to stand a metonymy is just a word. When you use a word to stand in the place of another closely related idea. So for instance, if someone said, Hey, the, the kettle's boiling like in our house, we've got this old fat, my family drinks a lot of tea. I drink a lot of coffee. They drink it. They drink a lot of tea. So they had this old school kettle where the one who are whistles, I can't whistle, but

you know, and sometimes they'll put the kettle on and it starts whistling and they're in the other room because they forgot they put the kettle on and I'm in the room and it's like, Hey, the thing's about the blow up. It's whistling. The cattle's boiling. Well, it's actually the kettle. Kettles don't boil water boils. But when you say the kettle's boiling kettle is a metonymy for water. It's just standing in for the place of water now. And there's no syntactical relationship between kettle and water. It's not like linguistically they're related. It's just contextually. Um, that's how, how it works. It's a metonymy. Okay. So, uh, yeah. So this is why some people say Paul must be using authority must be is probably using Excucian as a metonymy for a head

covering. That is what we would expect given the flow of Paul's argument. Uh, Iver Larson scholar, who had a great article in this passage says, since it is impossible to put an abstract idea like authority on one's head, and since the context clearly talks about putting a head covering on one's head, the most reasonable solution is that the head covering is in some sense connected with or a symbol of authority.

That's a good art. Look, that just the flow of Paul's argument that I think this is a very strong argument, but it's not the only one. Second, it would be odd for Paul to write what he does about women in verses seven to nine, and then deduce from this something about a woman's own authority. Again, 11 10 is logically connected to seven to nine. Logically, it just doesn't make sense for Paul to say something like the woman is the glory of man. She was created from him and for him. And for this reason, she has authority over her own head. That that just doesn't fit the flow of Paul's argument. Unless somehow you read verses seven to nine as, you know, it's actually talking about the

woman's power over man, not any kind of priority of man. I just find that really difficult third. And this is something that, you know, there are a lot of scholars sort of mock the idea that this is referring to anything other than a woman's authority over her own head. And they point to the, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, um, the four other new Testament occurrences where Excucian, Ekean, Epi to have authority on means to have authority over. There's four references that I only found four in, in the book of revelation, all in revelation where, where this is the case. That's, I don't think that's, that's yeah. So, so the phrase can mean that, but however, okay, here's the phrase epi taste, kephalase on the head occurs six other times.

And it always means on the head as in on top of one's literal head. So this is so scholars that emphasize the first Greek phrase and what it means elsewhere. I think sometimes neglect the second Greek phrase and what that means elsewhere. So the question is, should we prioritize how, what? Excuse Sionic and Epi mean to have authority on or over, or do we prioritize the phrase epi taste, Keflis, um, on the head? Cause that always means on top of one's literal head, not some abstract idea of to have authority over to do whatever you want with your own head kind of thing. Since head coverings are the topic of discussion, then I do think I lean towards rendering epi taste, heffa lace as referring to something on top of

one's literal head as it naturally does. This would mean that this would again suggest that perhaps authority, since you can't put an abstract idea on top of one's head, that authority is standing in for one's head covering, which is exactly what we expect given, again, as I said before, the parallel with the verse seven. Fourth, Paul's use of to have with authority, again with Exeusia throughout first Corinthians seven and nine, this carries a meaning that cannot be what Paul means in 11 10. Okay. So throughout first Corinthians seven to nine, Paul highlights a person's freedom to do whatever they want. They can do what they want. They can take a wife. They can not take a wife. Okay. They,

it's like, you have the freedom to choose here. You have the authority to choose. It's kind of the idea here, but Paul, he uses the word ought in verse 11, a Philae. This refers to, so the word ought, it's not like, I think you should. It's like, no, you are obligated to the, uh, a Philae refers to a necessary, perhaps even a legal obligation, not a freedom that a person could do whatever they want. Paul's not highlighting the woman's, he can't be. He can't be highlighting the woman's freedom or right to do what she seems is right with her own head.

In fact, if she doesn't wear a head covering, Paul commands the church to have her shorn, her head shaved, which in the first century, this would have been like a death sentence, just short of a death sentence. I mean, again, so like in, in, um, deal Chris system, Greek writer, he says, according to Cyprian law, at least a woman is guilty of adultery. If she's guilty of adultery, she should have her head cut off and be a prostitute. Basically, uh, Bruce Winter, who's done a lot of interesting work on verse 11, 10 or 11, 10. He says Paul's, you know, therefore Paul, Paul equated not wearing a veil or head covering with the social stigma of being publicly exposed and punished adulterous, which would have reduced her status

to that of a prostitute. So if a married woman's going around with her head shaved, I mean, socially, that would be absolutely devastating. So Paul's not saying, Hey, if you, if you want to cover your head, cover your head. If not, don't cover your head. Hey woman, you have authority to do whatever you want with your own head. That's not what Paul's saying here. This is an obligation in verse 10 and the word of Phel, that's never connected with the other references of Ekein and Exucia to have authority in the prior several chapters. So the use of ought in verse 10 and verse seven, I think this renders irrelevant. All the references to Exucia in first Corinthians 11 to seven that refer to a person's own freedom or right since none of these are framed as a net as necessary obligations. Okay. Fifth, fifth argument for seeing Exusia as a metonymy for a head covering. You do, we do have, well, let, let, let me, let me, uh, I actually,

I should just say this when I was looking at the Egal, you know, the egalitarian and an egalitarian interpretation of this passage, uh, that, you know, people point out that we don't have any other parallels, right? Of Exucia referring as a metonymy for head covering. We have no other examples of this. So how is, how is Paul doing this here? You know, and that's, that's a good point. That's, that's, that's a good argument in favor of the egalitarian interpretation. However, there, there is a, not, not, not a one-to-one parallel, but an interesting parallel in a text by a Dior Dior Dior Dior Dioris Siculus. I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right. Who lived about a hundred years before Paul, where he references this extra biblical reference references a statue that is said to have quote kingdoms

on its head, referring to crowns on the head, which symbolize authority. And so do you, do you, or does says this, he says, there is also another statue of his mother of a mother standing alone, a monolith 20 cubits high. And it has three, literally three kingdoms on its head. Okay. So the word kingdom here is a metonymy for a crown because a crown represents a crink kingdom. It represents rural, but you can't wear an app star. You can't wear a kingdom on your head. So here it's referring to crowns, but he literally says as three kingdoms on its head signifying that she was both the daughter and wife and mother of a king. Okay. So here you have an example of according to Tom Schreiner. And I think he's right. Something on the head that may be a symbol of something else. In fact, in this

context, the crowns, the quote kingdoms, which are crowns represent someone else's authority, namely the authority of the woman's husband, father and son who were all Kings. So it's not, it's not a parallel of Exucia being used in this way, but it is a parallel of a metonymy on one's head, you know, uh, uh, an abstract idea like kingdom being used as a metonymy for kind of authority, right? I mean, a crown representing authority. So not an exact parallel of a metonymy on one's head, but it is a parallel of a metonymy for kind of authority, right? I mean, a crown representing authority. So not an exact parallel, but is an interesting one. Okay. So here's, I don't think either interpretation of 1112 is without its problems. Okay. No matter what interpretation you take, you have problems to deal with.

I just think that interpreting Exusia in 1110 is referring to a head covering, which implies a husband's authority over his wife seems to be the interpretation that has fewer problems than the alternative view. I will come back to a third interpretation where people see, they do see this as a metonymy, but so the authority does refer to head covering, but it's still as the woman's own authority to preach and to prophesy and pray publicly. I think there's more credibility to that interpretation. I, but I still think it runs into some of the same problems that, that we've already seen, but we'll, we'll come back to that later. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that complimentary interpretations fail to appreciate the significance of 11 to 12. Tim just joined us here. Yeah, Tim, we were, we're, we're knee deep in first Corinthians 11. We're just getting to versus 11 to 12. Yeah. You have the notes. You can kind of maybe quickly value. It's gonna be hard for you to survey like 10 pages of notes I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be

able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm translation of the Greek word, chorus here is, is a woman is not without man. Let me just try, let me just try to read it more literally in the Greek here. However, neither woman is without man nor man without woman in the Lord. And I do think in the Lord there is, is emphatic at the end of the sentence here. Like he's stressing a point here. For just as the woman is from the man, thus also the man is through

the woman and all things are from God. Again, as we said earlier, complementarians take 11 to 12 as Paul sort of like anticipating a kind of overreading of verses seven to 10 where the audience might take his words to imply some kind of ontological inequality between women and men. Okay. So this is something that really important for you who might have a bad view of commentaries. I mean, every commentarian scholar I know on this passage goes out of their way to say, Paul is not, is not talking about ontological inequality. Women and men are created in God's image. They are equal. They are equal in intelligence and in, you know, in, in, in every way, right?

Equal and being equal in status. It's just that there are role distinctions within a, an ontological framework of equality, namely that wives are to submit to their husbands. Okay. So even if you find that part distasteful, like they do go out of the way to emphasize And so what, what the commentarians often say is that Paul sort of anticipates that, ah, he said things that kind of his words could be taken too far so far and versus three to 10. And it, you know, people, you know, the Corinthians could take this to mean some sort of ontological inequality. Paul's not trying to say that. So he's saying, well, you know, I'm going to go with the, you know, the, the, the, the

the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, versus three to 10 and it, you know, people, you know, Corinthians could take this to mean some sort of ontological inequality. Paul's not trying to say that. So he sort of anticipates this over reading of what he's saying in, in any sort of, he tempers it a bit in 11 to 12. I think this under appreciates what Paul's doing in 11 to 12. Okay. Let me give you a couple of reasons here. I think under, I think Paul's doing more than simply anticipating a potential overreading of what he already said. I think Paul is giving another perspective, given a fuller perspective

and in the Lord perspective of his own exegesis of Genesis two of his own statements about men and women in verses seven to 10. Okay. First of all, Paul opens verse 11 with a strong, adversitive conjunction. This is, this is a rare, a rare conjunction. It's a plan in the Greek. It's used only for the places in Paul, Ephesians 533, Philippians 118, Philippians 316, and Philippians 414. One dictionary, Greek dictionary, BDAG says that plan is a marker of something that is strongly added for consideration. And in all of Paul's uses, BDAG says it serves as breaking off a discussion and emphasizing what is important. Phil Payne notes correctly, I think that in every occurrence

in Paul's letters plan points to the matter of his central concern. And in each case, it indicates a change in perspective from what went before. Okay. So Paul opens with this. It's a, it's a strong contrast and he follows this such strong contrast by a situation he describes as being in the Lord emphatically. However, or however, trying to get, sorry, blew up your AirPods. However, however, in the Lord, okay, it's strong contrast. Together, this suggests something stronger than simply anticipating a potential misunderstanding. Rather, the contrast seems to point to a different perspective altogether.

Perhaps, you might call it like a new eschatological, new creation reality for male and female relations. Paul, in other words, opens up two spheres of existence, one that's in the Lord and one that's not. There's something about 11, three to 10, or maybe specifically seven to 10, that is not in the Lord. Like that's the most natural way

to take this very strong contrast. A second reason why I think a typical complementarian reading of how 11 to 12 fits in is that why I think that's underestimates what Paul's doing. You know, if you look at Paul's wording in verse 12, he picks up the same wording of verses eight to nine, and he's interacting with his own reading of the creation account. Specifically, Paul provides a different understanding of the significance of a woman coming from man in creation. I mean, if you just, I wrote it out in the notes here, but if you look at how verse 11 interacts directly with verses eight to nine, Paul's not just saying, Hey, you could take this too far or something.

He's, he's, he's actually giving a different angle on his own interpretation of verse of Genesis 12. So verse eight, you know, Paul says for man is not from woman, but woman from man. And here you have the degree of the phrase, EC Guna costs from woman, but woman from man. And here you have the agree, the phrase EC Guna costs from woman, but woman from man X on draws. So the preposition act, and then he moved instead of the preposition act, he moves to the preposition D and the next phrase for also man was not created for, or a kind of the woman on air, D a 10 gunica, but woman four on a kind of man. Gun a dia ton, Andrea. I'm not, gosh, this is getting so yeah. Not trying to show off great care folks. Just just there. It is interesting how he uses the same exact prepositions with a different meaning in verse 12. So verse 12, he says for just as a woman is from the man, that's

that's him quoting himself. That's like woman is from man, not man from woman. And Jenis too. And he's like, yeah, well, and then the verse 12 he's almost like, well, yeah, just as a woman is from man to Andreas, thus also a man is through the woman. Ha on our dia tastes. Gunnar Kass dia. Like he, even the prepositions can sort of match up to the prep with the prepositions can sort of match up to the prep with the prepositions that he used earlier in verses eight to nine. So whatever feel, okay, this is huge. I think whatever theological conclusions one wants to draw from Paul's reading of Genesis

two and first Corinthians 11, seven to 10, they cannot represent Paul's full perspective without 11 to 12. that might be the most significant. You cannot stop at verse 10 and make any conclusions about what Paul is drawing from Genesis two without 11 to 12. Again, man is not simply the source of woman. Yeah. You can't say that. Well, man's the source of woman. So you can't say that. You can't say that. You can't say that. You can't say that. You can't say that. You can't say that. You can't say that. You can't say that. You can't say that. You can't drawing from Genesis to without 11 to 12. Again, man is not simply the source of woman. Yeah. You can't say that. Well, man's a source of woman in an equal eight to nine, because Paul says, yeah, but that's not the full picture from the, you know, is man, the authority,

authoritative source of women. Well, yes and no. While one woman came from one man and Paul draws on that to make a point about head coverings, the rest of history shows that every man came through women and Paul's, you know, so Paul seems to be doing more than just simply put anticipating a potential misunderstanding of versus seven to 10 rather in 11 to 12, Paul is, and I'm quoting a Phil pain here. Paul is intentionally counterbalancing his earlier statement that man is the, unquote, head or source of woman. Does this mean that Paul is contradicting or disagreeing with himself? Cause that's how it could sound like that so far, right? I don't think so. I think and a few others that I've found also think that in verses seven to 10, Paul makes a legitimate

argument from creation, from a certain reading of creation to support the very serious notion that women should cover their heads while praying and prophesying in 1st century Corinth. And he's also just as serious about this new in-the-Lord situation of male and female relations. So how do we reconcile this apparent contradiction? I think here is where I follow the work of Judith Gundry, who offers what I think is the most compelling interpretation of this passage. I disagree with her on a few things, and those of you following along, footnote 46, I identify a few areas where I disagree with some of her exegesis, but her overall take of what Paul's doing in verses seven to 10, well, she says seven to nine,

I would say seven to 10. That's one of our disagreements. I think 10 goes with seven to nine. She actually takes 10 as sort of, I don't know, almost like dangling on its own. It's not, yeah. And I don't think she has to. I think the way she reads seven to nine and 11 to 12, I think she can easily include verse 10 there. It fits exactly what she's arguing for. So instead of 11 to 12 correcting a potential misunderstanding of seven to nine, she argues that Paul is providing two different ways of interpreting the creation account. In 7-9, Paul shows that creation can be interpreted to support a wife's need to honor her husband, which Paul capitalizes on to support this argument about head coverings for women. But creation can also be read to take into account

the new eschological reality of being in the Lord, where men and women exist in a more mutual kind of relationship. So Gundry writes, this is a quote from Judith Gundry, the article is Gender and Creation. Oh, I don't have the full citation here. It's a chapter in a, it's in a German book, but if you Google, uh, Judith Gundry, Wolf, V O L F, uh, Judith Gundry, Wolf, uh, gender and creation, it'll, I'm sure the full citation will come up. So it's a fascinating article. It is very, very responsible, both exegetically, contextually, socially. Um, And I think her reading is more or less correct. So Gundry says this, these contrasting readings, okay, 7 and 9, 11 and 12, or uses of creation come about through Paul's theologizing from two contrasting social

contexts. On the one hand, Paul has in mind the Corinthians' wider social context, a hierarchically structured honor-shame society. And on the other hand, the cultic, cultic just means like the worship context of Corinthian worship, that burst the patriarchal framework. The tension in Paul's argument thus correlates with the tension in the Corinthians life setting." Okay. So that's, okay, unquote. So to summarize, Gundry agrees that Paul draws on creation in seven and nine in a way that reflects a gender hierarchy between men and women. But that doesn't make gender hierarchy the goal of his argument. Rather, she says, it is a necessary part of his argument

for avoiding social shame in a context where shame and honor are defined in terms of the social hierarchy. It would be shameful for a woman to dishonor her husband. It dishonored her husband. And if our reading of the social situation is correct, that is very well what could be going on if they're not covering their heads during worship while preaching and prophesying. Well, sorry, while praying and prophesying or preaching and prophesying. Thus Paul is navigating the countercultural nature of male-female relationships in Christ while advocating for the social acceptability of the Christian community, where wives would

be viewed as dishonorable husbands if they were praying and prophesying with uncovered heads." So, you know, as any good mission, I think Paul's just being a good missionary here. He's negotiating the tension between upholding social codes of conduct that were important in the first century social context— head coverings, male authority, especially ones that could damage the reputation of the church while challenging certain cultural values within a new social order inaugurated by the gospel. And here's the thing, okay? We often see Paul navigating this tension—social acceptability, countercultural nature of the gospel—we see Paul navigating this tension, especially when discussing male-female relations

in the church. This is something, look, many scholars have pointed out that when Paul—and Peter, actually, if you look at 1 Peter 3, when they talk about husband and wife relationships, or the household codes or household conduct more generally, he often gives a kind of like, some scholars call it like a social apologetic to defend against the accusations that Christianity was overturning first century social values. There's a really important work by Balk. Is it David Balk? I don't have the full citation here.

I think it's David Balk. He did some groundbreaking work on the household code in first Peter three, but half of his book is just looking at household codes in general. Um, Alan Padgett has a good article called the, uh, the Pall, the Pauline rationale and others commentators, uh, Lincoln on Ephesians, Phil Towner on, on first Timothy to, uh, Craig Keener talks about this anyway. Um, so when Paul talks about household codes, male female relations, and this is something that this would take a whole nother podcast to kind of unpack, but you see Paul, like he's, he is trying to maintain some social acceptability

of male female relations of household relations, but he's, he's sort of gutting them from the inside out. This is what I, you know, in my previous podcast episode last year on Ephesians five, I think that's exactly what Paul's doing there. He uses the language, the form of a household code that were structured very hierarchically, you know, husbands and wives and children and slaves and servants and, you know, like all these existed in this hierarchical relationship and these were commonly expressed to these household codes. And Paul talks about the household codes in a very similar way with the language, but he just sort of guts it from the inside out while maintaining the sort of veneer of the hierarchy, if that makes sense. Again, I explained

this in great detail in the previous podcast episode. Or if you want to go to my blog post on Ephesians 5, if you go to theologianra.com, the blog page, I think it's the, if you go to the second page, I have my take on Ephesians 5 there where I explain this in more detail. It's not, it's not, I'm not like coming up with something that other scholars haven't pointed out. Let me give an example though, just so you know what I'm talking about. Like in Paul's instruction to Titus, that older women should teach younger women to, quote, this is Titus 2, 4 and 5, to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, busy at home, whatever that means, to be kind and to be submissive to their husbands. Right? This Titus 2 thing. He says this and he ends that sentence with, so that no one will malign the Word of God, so that others aren't speaking badly of the Word of God, the gospel, the

Christian movement. Same thing. When he talks to younger men, the purpose again is so that those who oppose you, like social critics around the church, may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. We need to keep some kind of social respectability in light of the culture that we find ourselves in. The final exhortation in Titus 2 that slaves should be submissive to their masters is, quote, so that in every way they will make the teaching of God our Savior attractive. Attractive! That's to outsiders. That it won't be so socially disruptive that people will be just turned off by the Christian movement. You could think of modern day missionary examples, right? I mean, if you went into,

if you're a missionary in maybe like a middle Eastern context, you know, many other cultural contexts that did have just kind of a social hierarchy of, of husbands and wives and men and women, like you don't go in just blowing the whole thing up. If you went into a context where women were, you know, covered their heads or whatever, or maybe they even were like burkas or something. I don't know the Middle Eastern context. So I don't, you know, but I don't know for the sake of illustrating, like you don't just go in and say, Hey, you don't need to have these burkas on. Like you're, you're equal to your husband in Christ. Like, well, you, you might need to teach that you might need to reinforce that there is equality in Christ

while maintaining the social, what was seen as socially acceptable in that culture, which the social acceptability of certain clothing might have signaled in that cultural context, some sort of hierarchy that's, that, you know, that's how it would have been interpreted, just like head coverings in first century. So Paul, Paul's negotiating that, that tension here, I believe. And Judy Gundry, both beliefs as well. Okay. I want to come back to verse 10 with Exeusia, because this, this really is such a crucial part of this passage. And here's something that if I was going to offer anything, maybe I don't say original, but something I just haven't seen people point out. And maybe I've missed something, but I, you know, in all my reading, I haven't seen anybody really

propose this. First of all, it goes unnoticed by scholars sometimes that exeusia is not a normal Pauline word to describe authority structures within the Christian community. This is, I just think that like, when we talk about, yeah, well, I've got a whole nother sermon there, but yeah, exuse the Greek word exusia is one Greek word used to describe authority. It is not the word Paul uses to describe authority structures within the Christian community. In fact, it's never used this way in the New Testament. Sometimes it describes God's direct, God's direct or delegated authority over creation. Sometimes Jesus's own authority, which he often uses it to exercise over demons and Satan. So kind of a dominant, like, I'm going to crush you kind of

authority. Sometimes it's delegated, this aseusia is delegated from Jesus to the apostles, that they too can exercise power over the demons. In Matthew 8 and 9, it's used of human authority in a very secular, hierarchical sense where, you know, the guy's like ordering servants around. Okay. Secular authority. Exucia, when it's used in interpersonal relations, it often, not always, refers to some kind of secular authority in Paul. Paul uses it 25 times. Exeusia occurs 25 times in Paul. Sometimes Romans nine 21 refers to God's sovereign freedom or authority in several places. It refers to governing authorities. Exeusia is a word Paul uses in Romans 13 governing authority, secular authorities, often in Paul, he uses

exeusia to refer to demonic powers, the principalities and powers and authorities and dominions and rulers, you know, Ephesians one 21, two, two, three, 10th, six, 12 and so on and so forth. He does use it on a few occasions as we already already saw, to refer to a Christian's freedom or right to do something or not do something. These are the references of first Corinthians seven, 37, eight, nine, nine, four, nine, five, nine, six, nine, 12, nine, 18. But again, we've already seen that that, that use of authority, that can't be what Paul means in 1110 can't refer to a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own head. That can't be what Paul's saying there. The only rare use of exeusia to describe interpersonal

relations among Christians is on two occasions when Paul appeals to God's delegated authority given to the apostles over the church, 2 Corinthians 10, 18 and 13,. So, Exusia is never used of non apostolic interpersonal relations in the church. It's never used up leaders, elders, pastors, prophets. They are never used to describe. They're not never described as having some kind of Exusia over other believers. And it's never used of marital relationships, except, except of course, when Paul uses the verb, exusiazo to refer to mutual authority that husbands and wives have over each other's bodies. First Corinthians seven four. So I, when scholars wrestle with what exucia means in 1110, I rarely see them draw attention to how odd this word is. They often just wrestle with, is it a head covering? Is it her own

authority? And then they go that route. But then I've rarely seen people say, why, why is even using Exucia here? I mean, it's a jarring word, not just because of the syntactical difficulties. It's like, this is, this is just not what we'd expect. We wouldn't expect Paul to use this to speak positive of some kind of positive Christian in the Lord kind of authority. When Paul talks about Christian leadership, he often uses the word service, right? As he's done already in first Corinthians. So here's my suggestion. Just a suggestion. Well, I've got some evidence, but I cautiously suggest that Paul uses exeusia to describe a woman's head covering since this was the Corinthians own term that Paul uses to reinforce their adherence to a cultural custom that some have

been abandoning. Okay, so this is somewhat speculative, but it's not without some evidence. Let me give my evidence for this possibility that Paul uses exeusia because this was a term that they liked, that the Corinthians liked this term. And Paul sort of using their own term to reinforce what he's trying to get them to do, namely, get your head coverings back on women. Okay. We should keep in mind that, uh, first Corinthians eight, one to 1134 is one unit of thought, uh, responding to questions raised by the Corinthians. Okay. So Paul kicks open this conversation at eight chapter eight, verse one, when he's explicitly

responding to things they have asked him about now, eight one now about food, sacrifice, idols, and then he goes on. Okay. So he's addressing, he's addressing the Corinthians own sort of questions throughout this section, throughout eight chapters, eight through 11, Paul, actually throughout six through 11, really, Paul interacts extensively with the Chris, with the Corinthians own views,

even using their own slogans and vocabulary. This is something well-known if you go to, if you just turn to, well, I mean, first Corinthians eight, one eight, four, nine 23, or if you go all the way back to six, 12 and 13. Okay. First Corinthians chapter six, 12 and 13, Paul is directly interacting with Corinthians slogans, whole sayings that are familiar to the Corinthians, and Paul's sort of quoting them back to them. So throughout this section, Paul's extensively interacted with the Corinthians own views, even using their own slogans and vocabulary. It would not at all be odd for Paul to continue interacting with the Corinthians own vocabulary

in this passage 11, 2 to 16. In fact, most scholars assume that Paul's cryptic reference, because of the angels in verse 10, that this refers to some perspective held by the Corinthians, which is why Paul can simply mention it without explaining what he means. I mean, that's something almost every scholar says that. Like, you know, Paul says, you know, because of the angels. All right, let's move on. And most people say, well, obviously there's some sort of common knowledge about what he means here. Cause he just references it. Assuming they, you know, like they had this knowledge, this view of the angels that Paul is sort of referencing. So could he be doing something with Exusia in 1110 a it is interesting that several scholars actually say that, this comes from Gordon

Fee, there can be little question that Exucia was one of the Corinthians' own words. And I have a footnote where another scholar who wrote the article on Exucia in the theological dictionary of New Testament theology, somebody, his last name is Forrester, he says, Exucia in the theological dictionary of New Testament theology, somebody's last name is Forrester. He says, Exucia was a Corinthian slogan. I think if I remember correctly, I don't have documentation. I think Anthony Thistleton in his massive commentary, I think he says something similar. I've seen other scholars say the same thing, that Exucia, especially the way Paul uses it in the earlier chapters, it seems to be kind of one of their own words that Paul's playing with. So yeah, it certainly seems like Paul does have the Corinthian zone understanding of, of Exucia in mind throughout first Corinthians six to nine,

where he consistently interacts with their own perspective. And if you go back to six, 12, for instance, that this is actually really interesting possible parallel to what Paul's doing in chapter 11. And I don't see too many people draw attention to this. In 612, Paul confronts a Corinthian slogan by using the verb exuciadzo in a way that gives a fuller understanding of the Corinthians use of excess in it is lawful. Okay. I'm going to explain this in a second. Just, just hang in there.

Excess in is a verb that's very closely related to exe. Odso. In fact, they're semantically related. Exe. The noun is actually a noun derived from excess. Okay. So, okay. So let's go, let's, let's look at six 12 Paul says, and this is my, be the NIV. Well, I it's kind of a blend

of the NIV and my own translation here. Paul says, and he, okay. So here he's quoting the Corinthian slogan. He says, I have the right to do anything. Pata, Moe excess. Then that's, that's where we get the right. And then here he, Paul's quoting them. You see, Oh yeah. So the NIV says, I have the right to do anything you say, but not everything is beneficial. Paul says, so here he's quoting from their phrase. Then he does it again. I have the right to do anything. Same, same phrase. Then Paul says, but I will not be held under the authority of anything using the passive tense of the verb, exeozo. So, okay. So here Paul interacts with the Corinthians own understanding

of authority, exeo in his passive use of the verb exeousiazo. So what's the parallel? You say, well, okay, why does this even matter? Well, here we see him, for lack of a better term, kind of playing with their own understanding of authority using exeusia or the verb exeusiazo. Paul only uses the verb three times in all of his letters, all of which occur here. Once in first Corinthians 612, which of which occur here. Once in 1 Corinthians

6, 12, which I just read. And then the only two other times Paul uses the verb exeusiazo is in 1 Corinthians 7, 4, which of course is where Paul makes the unparalleled statement of all of ancient literature that both husband and wife exercise authority over each other. Could there be something similar going on in 1 Corinthians 11, 7 to 12? It's not a one to one correlation. I'm just saying, you know, just as Paul plays off of the Corinthians own understanding of exeusia by using their term to bring them to a fuller understanding of male-female relations, like from 6 to 12 to 7 and four. So here in chapter 11, Paul utilizes their own Exucia terminology, perhaps even there, maybe, maybe he's even kind of appealing

to their own exegesis of Genesis two to reinforce the need for women to honor their husbands while reiterating the interdependence of male female relations in the Lord. Okay, so I am not actually suggesting with Lucy Pepiot and others, that Paul is directly quoting like lengthy Corinthian slogans. So if you're familiar with Lucy Pepiot's work, it's really provocative and she's a, she's a fantastic scholar and just a wonderful person. She, she very cautiously makes the argument that Paul that that versus seven to

10 is a, is like a, the whole thing is a, is a Corinthian slogan. And then, so Paul doesn't even really agree with that. He simply, Paul starts talking in verses 11 to 12 that that that's in it. She admits she's like, it's hard. You can't prove this without matter of doubt. I mean, we do see Paul interacting with these slogans and in current in Corinthians. So it's not an outrageous possibility. We don't see him quoted such a lengthy ones like she's suggesting, and she admits that. So I'm not saying that seven to 10 is a Corinthian slogan. I am saying that Paul is simply using some Corinthian vocabulary, like vocabulary that they cherished, exousia, and the reference to the angels, to reinforce the need to adhere to the cultural custom

of head coverings for married women while adding to this a more complete eschatological or new creation understanding of male and female relations in the Lord. All right. What do you guys think so far? Uh, those of you who are tuning in on Patreon, Oh, Noah said he would love to see a separate podcast on that tension in scripture. You know, I do have, um, a very, very rough draft of this like in written form. I could probably, I could probably submit to, to Patreon for free to check out. Maybe I'll do something in a podcast. Uh, let's see, Do we want to talk about the new Roman woman? Yeah. Let me, um, just scanning my notes here. Let me, let me just take a little side. I don't want to read all this here. Yeah. Let me just take a little side dive here. Side dive

and excursus like in written form. This would be an excursus. Like, Hey, I'm going to go a little deeper into something here and I'll come back to my main phrase. I do want to come back and continue to wrestle with the way I'm reading this passage because I think there are some pros and cons to it. Okay. I want to talk just briefly about this new Roman woman and the social context of Corinth. Okay. So the phrase new Roman woman, and there's, there's variations to this phrase. This has been used by Roman historians to describe a, a, a sort of like women's lib movement, women's liberation movement that emerged in Rome around 44 BC. These women, these were women of high status who were beginning to enjoy new found financial independence from their husbands. And they,

they saw some would use it to indulge in sexual freedom and pleasure. This new freedom included revolting against the, you know, certain moral standards of the day. So in that culture, married men were sort of allowed to have sex with the prostitute, have sex with an unmarried woman. And it was sort of like socially accepted, but women weren't allowed to do that. And these new Roman women were like, to heck with that, we're going to, you know, take advantage of our rights as well. So, uh, ancient literature attest to these assertive women living in life of parties and self-gratification, choosing and choosing their own lovers. And what's interesting is

that a woman's attire, her dress became the subject of much ancient discussions surrounding these new Roman women. According to Roman historian, uh, T A J McGinn, McGinn, uh, women were, uh, women who were convicted of adultery were for instance, compelled to wear the toga as a symbol of their shame. And they were not allowed to wear a veil, which symbolize marriage. Uh, the law was seeking to distinguish between respectable married women from adulterers and prostitutes. In ancient world, you were what you wore. What you wore signified your social status and even certain behaviors that you were or weren't engaged in. So married women who failed to wear the clothing that signaled their marital status, namely head

coverings, would have dishonored their husbands by signaling that they were an adulterer open to becoming one. So this now it's called new Roman women is the phrase that people use it because this sort of movement existed in Rome. Now, some people say it was a short period of time. It didn't last that long. It was kind of snuffed out, especially by Augustine's marriage laws and in the early part of the first century, other people say, no, this, this movement, or at least, you know, move new woman like behavior existed outside of Rome. So, uh, Bruce winter is a new Testament scholar and ancient historian who is kind of really championed this view that this new women movement

went outside of Rome and it actually, um, was fairly widespread throughout the first century, especially in cities like Corinth and Philippi, because these were Roman colonies. I don't know if you know that. I mean, Philippi, Corinth, these are both Greek cities, but they were a Roman colony. So they had a profound Roman culture alongside or integrated with a Greek culture. So, Dio Chrysostom, writing at the end of the first century, writes about the lifestyle of these new women in the East. He says, quote, men condone even the matter of adultery in a somewhat magnificent fashion, and the practice of it finds great and most charitable consideration where husbands, in their simplicity, do not notice

most things and do not admit knowledge of some things, but suffer the adulterers to be called guests and friends and kinsmen, at times even entertaining these themselves, inviting them to their table at festivals, and invite their bosom friends and display but moderate anger at actions the of ancient texts are not crystal clear, but basically Chris is dumb is getting on these men for condoning these, these, these adulterous women who are, you know, indulging in luxury and parties and you know, having a, a mistress on their own mistress, having an affair on her arm. She's going to parties and stuff. And you know, we all know men do this and that's fine, but women shouldn't be doing this and husbands shouldn't be tolerating their women doing this is kind of his point. So I, as I've looked into this, I think that the, the, the literature

that addresses the new women or new women type behavior, I think this, the language reflects a lot of Paul's concerns in first Timothy two nine to 15. I do think there's something there. So I do think, yeah, it works well for that passage. Also for first Peter three, first Corinthians 11, you know, could, could something similar linger behind the background here where Paul is also concerned with a woman's attire and what this might signal in its first century cultural context. I mean, Paul has already addressed a case where a younger man was having sex with an older, probably high status woman,

his own stepmother and first Corinthians five, the Corinthians were sort of tolerating this, which again is people who critique the new women are philosophers who critique husbands for allowing this. Yes. And they may be similar in first Corinthians five, or you have sexual immorality going on and then they're sort of tolerating it. You have multiple warnings against adultery, sexual morality, and the abuses of wealth, which could lend further support that something like a new woman type behavior has crept into the church. Since head coverings are a social indicator that

one was married and if a female did not cover her head, it was because she was either a child sexually available or a prostitute. If a married woman did not cover her head in public, she would be viewed as an unfaithful wife, much like these new women. This would bring shame not only on her, but also on her husband who was legally legally required to punish her. This is why Paul might've might be saying that she's obligated to wear a head covering. Like this is not just do what you want with your head, um, which, you know, punishment would include having her head shaved. So yeah, anyway, we don't need to spend any more time here. There's a lot more we could say. But this would make sense why Paul uses such strong language in verse versus 11 to 10 even backs it up by one way to read the creation account to say that women should be covering

their heads. You're, you're giving off signals that you're a bunch of new women and you're going to bring down the wrath of the authorities. If you don't, if you, if you, if you don't cover up, okay, let's come back to, let's come back to Kefale. We haven't talked about Kefale in almost two hours as is well known. Kefale or head can convey a sense of authority source or preeminence. Judy Gundry, I think in others point this out. I think she's right. When she says that all of these possible translations have, she says, I don't like this term, but patriarchal connotations. Okay. So Gundry says what, whether we translate carefully as authority or source or leader or preeminence, like they're all suggesting

some sort of priority of ma'am, uh, those who take carefully to mean source, which I think in light of 11, uh, versus well versus eight and nine, I think this is a very valid reading to take carefully a source, but I don't think we can say Kefilah means source and not authority, as if if we say it means source, then we have removed Kefilah from any sense of authority. I mean, from an ancient perspective, to be someone's source, this naturally conveyed notions of authority as well. And we see this sense in some instances where Kefilah refers to one source and early interpretations of first Corinthians 11 three. I've got a lengthy blog post on this, um, where I discuss

Clement of Alexander, Clement of Alexandria, his citation of first Corinthians 11 three and also Theodore of, I don't know how to say Mops Westia Mops Westia. Am I either I miss spelled that or that's just a weird word that I don't know how to pronounce. Anyway, these ancient early fathers who interpret cafe to mean source, but in the context of their interpretation of first-grant these 11 three, they clearly include notions of authority in their understanding of source, Um, which is just that that's not, that's how ancients would have understand source. So according to my reading, Keffley includes some sense of authority, which is signaled in the cultural

custom of head covering and is therefore correlated with Exusia and 11 10, perhaps a startling correlation for modern readers, but one that the Corinthians would have recognized since they, again, this is going out of limb here, but perhaps they themselves were using the Greek word, exousia, one of their favorite words as a metonymy for a head covering. According to their reading offering here, according to my reading, Paul's affirmation that man is the woman's authority hit of sources tethered to the social situation in the Corinth. It does not give the complete picture of male female relations in the Lord. The meaning of the head of women is man is rooted in Paul's exegesis of Genesis two, where woman is man's glory. And the man

is the woman's authoritative source. He was created from him before him. But Paul expands on this unilateral perspective by giving a bilateral perspective in the Lord where both men and women are interdependently the source of each other, though not without its problems. This interpretation has several advantages. First, it's a much smoother way to understand the logical connection between 11.7 to 9 and 11.10. Second, it has strong linguistic support from the phrase epiteskephalus in 11.10, which most likely refers to something on top of the woman's head. Third, it makes good sense. I think of the contrast between 11, seven to 10 and 11, 11 to 12. And fourth, it resonates with how Paul elsewhere

negotiates the social acceptability and theological radicality of male female relations in Christ. Now, any honest interpreter should be able to steal man the best counter arguments for their position, especially when it comes to what, um, Wayne Meeks famous historian, see a historian says that, uh, he says that chapter first one is 11 is quote, one of the most obscure passages in Paul's letters in Napoleon letters. And I think most scholars who've wrestled with this would agree. Okay. So let's steal man, the counter arguments. And I'll offer a response to the steel manned steel person counter arguments. First of all, okay. The phrase, um, the woman ought to have authority in verse 11, 10. I do think yes, by itself that most naturally first, the woman's

own authority. I totally get that. And there's, there's no getting around that. I just think the larger context, namely the connection to a versus seven to nine and the meaning of epi tastes, Keflis sort of nullifies the otherwise strength of that Greek phrase, meaning the woman's own authority. Second, my interpretation does rest on a Susie being a metonymy for a head covering. And I know of no exact parallels for this idea. It would be nice if we had just one other text where Susie was used as a metonymy for a head And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's where we could be pretty confident that Exucia is like a cherished word by the Corinthians. And Paul does seem to play with this word in 1 Corinthians 6 to 9. It is admittedly speculative to suggest that the Corinthians themselves already understood Exucia to mean head covering or that they would have naturally understood the word this way. Well, I mean, again, given how Paul's argument unfolds the parallel between verse seven and verse 10. I, I mean, you, we would expect head covering to be there and exeuseus there. So, uh, but it is speculative to say that they would have, you know, for sure understood

it this way. Uh, third push back to my own interpretation. My interpretation assumes that Paul appeals to creation to support a social custom rather than a trans cultural theological truth. Okay. So this is kind of a linchpin for some people. Some people say when a new Testament writer appeals to creation, this is a trans cultural norm, not cultural. I, I'm still wrestling with this. Craig Keener has done, given a good response to this and the two views on women in ministry, Cynthia long West fallen or book, Paul and gender response to this briefly. And then William Webb extensively responds to this argument in his book, slaves, women and homosexuals or something.

Again, wrestling with the argument that if New Testament writers appeal to creation, it can't be cultural. It has to be transcendent, universal, non-cultural. So I want to respond to that assumption with a few observations, that it has to be universal, not cultural. If he's reading creation first, I mean, I guess I would point out that anyone who doesn't think head coverings are universally binding kind of runs up against the same issue. I mean, Paul, his exes, Jesus and first Corinthians 11, eight to nine, ultimately supports head coverings.

That's what he's doing there. So if you say no, head coverings are cultural. It's like, well, Paul appeals to creation to argue for head coverings. Now somebody could, I guess you could say, well, the principle is still true. Men are an authority or authoritative over where, you know, husband is an authority over his wife and that's trans cultural. And this is the head covering is a specific cultural manifestation of this. I guess you could say that I, but it's still, I don't know. It still seems like Paul is still going to creation to argue for, for specifically head coverings. Second, Paul's reading of creation again, remember that really important statement I drew attention to like an hour ago.

Paul's reading of creation isn't limited to verses eight to nine. It has to include 11 to 12 as, as, as I pointed out above earlier, uh, first Corinthians 11, eight to nine simply does not give Paul's full understanding of the significance of Genesis two for male female relations. Uh, third, it is disputed whether every appeal to creation is aimed at establishing a universal transcultural truth. Certainly, in some cases, it does, I think. I mean, Paul and Jesus, for instance, they both appeal to creation to support a marriage and sexual ethic. In Matthew 19, Ephesians 5, and these do feel very trans cultural and what they're

getting out there, but they also elevate singleness in a way that goes beyond what's envisioned in Genesis one and two. So they appeal to, I mean, if, if all we had was Genesis one and two, we, we singleness isn't anywhere there. Like you would get the assumption that we are all commanded to get married and be fruitful and multiply. Like those are literally commands given in Genesis one. The idea that you can exist as a flourishing life single, that seems to go beyond Genesis one and two and something that both Paul and Jesus very much affirm. Sometimes in the same context that they talk about marriage. One could also argue that the mandate to procreate, keep a six day work week and maintain a vegetarian diet are all

rooted in creation, yet are not universally binding on believers under the new covenant. So, I do think we have to take into account not only the original creation, but also new creation realities if we are going to gain a more complete picture of male-female relations in Christ. Okay, fourth pushback to my view to steel men it. This is kind of similar to the previous point is that, you know, my interpretation could suggest that Paul's leading statement in chapter 11 verse 3 about Christ and man, man and woman, God and Christ, that this does not refer to a universal theological truth. Rather, it sets up Paul's argument that the Corinthians should honor the social custom of wearing head coverings. If it's universally true that Christ

is the head of every man, that God is the head of Christ, then isn't it also universally true that God is the head of Christ, then isn't it also universally true that the head of woman is man? Or again, always as always head of wife is husband. I think this is probably the strongest pushback to the view I'm arguing for here. So it deserves extended and extended evaluation here. Okay. Let me respond to this. And again, I just want to reiterate, I'm really not trying to be super dogmatic here. I'm just, I'm trying to pick a way to read this passage that has the least problems. Every interpretation, if it has problems, if you land on this view here, then that creates tension with this verse here. If you interpret this word here, then that creates problems for this word here. Like it's just, which, whichever there's so many exegetical decisions are related to

something next to it. And if you smooth out this piece, it creates tension over here. If that makes sense. If you've been following me this whole time, what I'm saying there probably makes sense. Okay. So I don't, I don't want to respond like, Oh, you think this that's rubbish. Here's why you're, you know, like I'm just, I, these are, these are really good pushbacks that I'm trying to give my best response to. Okay. My best response to this idea that 11.3 seems to be talking about universal theological truth. Okay.

First of all, the phrase, all things come from God in verse 12. I think that this sort of picks up on the phrase, the head of Christ is God and sort of pushes it further, if you will. this sort of picks up on the phrase, the head of Christ is God, and sort of pushes it further, if you will. It sort of forms like an inclusio or an envelope around 11.3 to 11.12. Okay? So that's closure to what Paul's saying. This would mean that 11.3 sets the stage for a complex argument that goes all the way to verse 12. And this includes both the acceptance of social customs and transcultural theological truth. What Paul means by the head of woman is man cannot be understood by 11.3 alone. We need, we need all of, you know, four to 12 to understand what he means there.

Is that making sense? So I don't, I don't think we could say, well, 11, three must refer to, you know, transcultural theological truth. It's like, well, we don't know what 11 three even means without 11 three to 12. Like Paul is, is unraveling the full understanding of what he, how he takes 11 three to mean. I don't think we can pit 11.3 up against four to 12. I think we need to understand 11.3 by understanding the complex unfolding of Paul's argument in verses four to 12. That might be the best, clearest way of saying it. So as stated above, I'm sorry, I'm reading, as we talked about before,

the meaning of the head of woman is man. And 11 three is rooted in Paul's exegesis of Genesis two and 11 in 11, eight to nine and 11, 11 to 12. Let me say that again. However we stay understand the head of woman is man 11 three, we can't understand that without both Paul's exegesis of Genesis two and 11 in verses eight to nine and verses 11 to 12 to take the head of woman is man as simply unilateral. The source of a woman is the authoritative source of woman is man. Just go look at Genesis two. And if we stop there, we failed to appreciate Paul's fuller understanding of male, female relations as it relates to who came from who the sort who's the source of who? Well, it's kind of complicated. So both am 11 three is pregnant with terse theological potential,

only some of which Paul and packs and is ensuing argument and verses four to 12. We can't know what Paul means in 11 three without four to 12. Okay. Next pushback, second pushback to my interpretation. Oh no, sorry. This is my second pushback to the pushback to my interpretation, namely that 11 three is talking about trans cultural theological truth, not social stuff. My pushback to that, my second pushback is that not every element in 11.3 plays a significant role in Paul's ensuing argument. This is something I mentioned in passing when Teresa was asking about the syntax or ordering of verse three. So Francis Watson, a brilliant New Testament scholar, he says this, he says, and he's done a lot of work on first Corinthians 11. He says that 11, three quote, plays virtually no part in the argument of the passage and that Paul's

metaphorical play with the term Kefale contributes virtually nothing to his argument. That's bull. So Watson, who's a brilliant New Testament scholar, I mean, he, he kind of says, yeah, one three doesn't really do anything to the passage. I think he's, he's, I think he's going too far. That I, that, that I, I remember reading that as I kind of startled, like, what seems to be more important than that. So I think he's going too far there, but it does appear that not every element in one or in 11 three is equally important for the rest of the passage. The phrase, you know, God is ahead of Christ, this contributes virtually nothing to the rest

of Paul's argument. They accept again, except maybe as kind of a foil to Paul's broader statement in 11.12, that all things, not just Christ or from God, but that divine, you know, God, Christ, Father, Son relationship doesn't do anything for the rest of the passage. Even the phrase, the head of every man is Christ, you know, this might, I guess, linger behind Paul's statement in 114 if we take, you know, Paul, you know, a covered, a man with a head covering dishonors his head, maybe mainly dishonors Christ, but it doesn't really play a role in the rest of Paul's argument. Paul does discuss, you know, man's relationship with God in verse seven, but since God is distinguished from Christ in verse three, it's unlikely that Paul is offering some kind

of commentary on the phrase, you know, the head of every man is Christ in, it's unlikely that Paul is offering some kind of commentary on the phrase, you know, the head of every man is Christ. It's not like 11th-7 is a commentary on 11th-3, that, you know, the head of every man is Christ. So, yes, I think Paul, I think he's drawing on a familiar tradition in 11th.3, but he's really only focusing on the middle element that the head of every woman is man. And this is a statement that's unintelligible apart from Paul's ensuing argument in 11.4 to 12, especially 11.7 to 12. In short, even if the first and third elements of 11, three do express some kind of trans cultural truth, it doesn't mean that the second L of

element must function in the same way. So, so that's my response to, um, that really good push back. Okay. I want to return. Oh, what time is it? What day is it? Okay. I want to cover, uh, somewhat briefly, uh, a third interpretation of Exucia that in verse 10, where Exucia is being used as a metonymy for a head covering, but that the head covering symbolizes the woman's authority to pray and prophesy. So some argue for this, that this was an argument that goes back originally to, well, the one who most famously championed this view is, is the great Marta Hooker, a brilliant New Testament scholar. I don't, I don't, I think she's passed away. I remember giving a paper when I was in UK at a small New Testament symposium or something.

There was like 30 scholars there. And I remember looking out as I was giving a paper and I saw the great Mourna Hooker sitting there and I was like, Oh my gosh, I don't want to be here. I think I wet my pants. So, so nervous. She's just really brilliant. So I was like, Oh my gosh, I don't want to be here. I think I wet my pants.

So, so nervous. She's, she's just really brilliant, uh, scholar. It is, I mean, and she's been around since I've been a scholar since I think the sixties or something. And back at a time when you didn't have a lot of female new Testament scholars and she's just like one of the, one of the top. So Mourna Hooker, uh, argues that the man shouldn't cover his head since he is the glory of God. But since woman is the glory of man, her head, her head covering

conceals the glory of man so that God alone receives the glory. Okay. So, and hooker writes her quote, her head must be covered. Not because she is in the presence of man, but because she is in the presence of God and his angels. And in their presence, the glory of man must be hidden. But since man is in the glory of God, his, he must not be hidden because we want the glory of God to shine around. But if, if a woman is heads on covering, she's flaunting the glory of God to shine around. But if, if a woman has heads on covering, she's flaunting the glory of man and we need to keep that thing covered up because that's distracting. So, so then, so, so she ends up saying that the authority

here is her, it is, it is a head covering, but it gives her the authority to pray and prophesy in a worship gathering. Bruce Winter argues for something similar, that exeusiasm autonomy for head covering, but it's, and it's a sign for marriage. So yeah, he takes a slightly different angle. He says, yes, head covering. Yes, it's a sign for marriage, but it represents her own authority to pray and prophesy. So Winter says quote, for the first century woman, the most obvious outward sign of marriage was a wearing of a veil. Therefore she was obligated to have the authority sign of marriage on the head. But then he says, Paul is not saying here that the husband as head exercise authority over his wife, simply that the woman is obligated to wear on her head that which signified to all and sundry that she was married." Unquote.

I didn't find his logic very, his reasoning here, all that convincing, like the reason why he would use Exusia here as a head covering, symbolizing her own authority to pray and prophesy. Roy Schapa and Brian Rosner. I think, I think I think shoppa listens to this podcast. So Roy, if you're out there and I'm misunderstanding your, you guys just take, please let me know. But I, they, they, they're similar to winter here except they put more of an emphasis on modesty. They say this quote, the woman's head is not one over which others have authority, God granted her authority

to pray and prophesy. She exercises that authority in a dignified way by both respecting herself and the rest of the congregation through the avoidance of provocative attire or any dress or behavior, which would bring shame on herself, others, or God in a context where all eyes and every heart should be focused on God's glory in the midst of His holy people." I need to go back and see if they actually agree that Exucia is a metonymy for a head covering. I thought they did, but I'm looking at my notes here and I don't see any direct quotes. Okay. So authority is a head covering, but it's a woman's own authority. I think this interpretation has merit. I think it's has more merit than the view that a woman has authority to kind of do whatever she wants with her head. I think that flies in the face of Paul's logic here.

I think this, this way of viewing Exucia as head covering is, is more legitimate, but I still think it faces some challenges that we've already noted. I mean, for one, it still faces the problem of making sense of Paul's concluding of Paul, concluding his argument about the priority of man in versus seven to nine by referencing the authority of the woman, Jason Badu. I, he has an excellent article. It's called because of the angels. It's on just verse 10. I appreciate his honesty here. You know, he takes, he takes his view that, um, actually he doesn't take the, the autonomy

view. I think he just says that this is a woman's own authority in general, but he admits the problem. He says, quote, we were left to puzzle how much, how such a statement could possibly follow the argument. Paul has just made in favor of, he says, woman's subordination. And then he just says, well, I'm going to prioritize the language in 1110 a the construction woman has authority over. I'm going to prioritize that and live with the perplexing logic. This creates and Paul's argument. I w I guess I would just say, I think once we understand the relationship between verse seven and verse 10 and the phrase on the head, I think then we don't, I don't think the linguistic strength of woman having authority in and of itself is as strong as some people

make it out to be. Also this second, this third understanding of, of Exusia as a metonymy for a woman's own authority, I think it fails to capture the contrast between verses 7 to 10 and 11 to 12. Again, there's something about male-female relations in 7 to 12 that Paul finds incomplete or, can I say, not fully Christian. Verses 7 to 10 represents a view that is not in the Lord. So here, so here, okay, let me speak freely. And I don't, I don't, I don't want to read motivations into here. So I'm not going to name any scholars or whatever, but when I read some egalitarian scholars that they seem to work so hard to make versus seven to 10 be more egalitarian than it, than it seems to be. I think they miss out on the rhetorical power of versus 11 to 12. You know what I mean? Like when

you kind of smooth out 11, seven to 10 to where it's like, no, this isn't talking about subordination. No, there's no male authority. No, no, no. It's actually, you know, females power of our man. Then what do you do with that? Beautiful contrast versus 11 to 12. No longer is that like a powerful contrast. It's just kind of almost like a continuation, I guess, of, of what Paul's been saying all along. Okay. Some of you might be freaking out because I haven't mentioned this yet. Some people say, no, you know, verse 10 is talking about female authority. That's why verse 11 opens up with, hang on a second. I'll tell you what it opens up with.

Where it opens up with an emphasis on a woman not being independent of man. So Paul says in verse 11, never though. Okay. So let's assume verse 10 is referring to the authority of a woman's own authority. It is for, for this, we'll just read the NIV. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head because of the angels. But however, nevertheless, in the Lord, a woman is not independent of man, nor man independent of woman. And so some people say, because he begins with a statement about a woman not being apart from man, that he's actually trying to curb an abuse of women running away with too much authority. Like he highlights women authority, women's authority

in verse 10. And he's like, but hold on a second, hold on a second, women, you're not independent of man. So let's not let your authority to get out of control. You know? So I, um, I guess my pushback to that is I think we need to take all of verse 11 as a unit of thought, not just separate that first part. So I don't think Paul is. So let me tell you what I mean here. So in verse 11, it literally says, however, neither woman apart from man nor man apart from woman in the Lord, the fact that he adds into Lord at the end, that shows that the whole, it's a whole one unit of thought.

Woman not apart from man, men not apart from women. So I don't think we can say the like, he's contrasting some radical statement about female authority and verse 10 with, you know, pulling back a little bit and saying, okay, a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's, it, that that's put on full display when we let seven to 10 be for lack of better terms, you know, reflecting some of the coal cultural hierarchies that, that were just well known in that, in that day. Yeah. And this is what I appreciate about

Gundry Volce article. She just does, she don't, she refuses to kind of like try to squeeze, try to read 11 to nine, 11 to 10, well all right. So yeah, so this kind of third view, I think does run up against some of the same problems that the first few does, namely that it's referring to a woman's authority. And again, the, I just, I just don't see how you can call it can say for the first time, it's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority.

It's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority. It's a woman's authority. run up against some of the same problems that the first few does, namely that it's referring to a woman's authority. And again, I just don't see how you can talk and say, for this reason, in verse 10, based on what he said in verses seven to nine, a woman, for this reason, a woman has authority on her head or over her head. I just think going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to throat from talking so much. So I might come back to this in a future podcast or I can easily just point you to theology draw.com forward slash blog. You can read my extensive reasons why I think it's head coverings and not hairstyles or length. It does get, it does get really tedious. You guys, it wouldn't, it wouldn't actually be super fun to try to follow audibly along with some detailed, um, argumentation there. So yeah, the allgenrad.com forward slash blog will take you right there. So, uh, thanks for tuning in

all of you. And thanks to my, uh, the allgenrad community that was listening along live here. You guys don't have any, any other questions, any, any more questions before we go Tim Henry Noah, Teresa Lindsay, you guys still hanging out here? If not, we will sign out. All right. I think we're gonna sign out. I'm excited to get my paper in a couple days at ETS. We'll see how that goes and we'll see you next time on the all-general. Thanks for listening, y'all. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network. Hi, I'm Haven, and as long as I can remember, I have had different curiosities and thoughts and ideas that I like to explore, usually with a girlfriend over a matcha latte. But then when I had kids, I just didn't have the same time that I did before for the one-on-ones that I crave. So I started Haven the Podcast.

It's a safe space for curiosity and conversation, and we talk about everything from relationships to parenting to friendships to even your view of yourself, and we don't have answers or solutions, but I think the power is actually in the questions. So I'd love for you to join me, Haven, the podcast. Hey friends, Rachel Grohl here from the Hearing Jesus podcast. Do you ever wonder if you're truly hearing from God? Are you tired of trying to figure it all out on your own?

The Hearing Jesus podcast is here to help you live out your faith every single day. And together we will break down these walls by digging deeply into God's Word in a way that you can really understand it. If this sounds like the kind of journey you want to go on, please join us on the Hearing Jesus Podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.