Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Women in Religion
Calvin in Corinth: Complementarian, Confused, or Contextual?

Calvin in Corinth: Complementarian, Confused, or Contextual?

Last updated on: June 8, 2026 at 4:45 pm by Jacob Randolph

0 Comments

Calvin in Corinth: Complementarian, Confused, or Contextual? 2026-06-08T16:45:35-04:00 Jacob Randolph

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Have you ever read something about history that stopped you in your tracks? That shook up your assumptions about the past? It happens to me all the time. I still remember reading the epilogue of Ward Holder’s Calvin and the Christian Tradition (Cambridge University Press, 2022) on a plane ride a few years back, when I was stunned to read about John Calvin’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15. The passage in question comes in the context of Paul arguing that men must pray or prophesy with their heads uncovered, while women must do the same with their heads covered. Observing this tradition will, in Paul’s argument, rightly symbolize the gender hierarchy of husbandly authority and wifely submission. Holder highlighted the scripture, and Calvin’s grappling with it, to make a larger point about how we all, even—especially!—biblicists don’t just come to the Bible and read it afresh. We all read within traditions. These reading traditions tell us what to pick up to bring on the journey and what to leave on the floor, as it were. In Ward’s words, “My argument here is not that biblical literalism is wrong, but that the idea of a biblically literal community is in itself a tradition. Every ‘biblically literal’ community of faith decides subconsciously that certain passages are not meant literally, or that they should be glossed over or not considered.” Holder illustrates this by dialoguing with Tim Keller’s work supporting the withholding women’s ordination. Keller argued from 1 Corinthians 11:3-8, which states the husband is the head of the wife. As Holder writes, Keller argues specifically from the created order, from nature. But, Holder asks, why stop at verse 8? Beginning in verse 13, Paul appeals specifically to nature:

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering (1 Cor. 11:13-15).

Holder then turns to Calvin’s commentary on the passage. This is the part that surprised me. Holder offers his own translation, but I’ll provide the translation from CCEL so interested readers can find it in context. Calvin writes of the passage,

[Paul] again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom — even among the Greeks — he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn. It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome — about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned all unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed.

Calvin writes that Paul was, strictly speaking, incorrect about the “universally understood” teaching that men should have short hair and women long. Paul was limited, as are we all, by his cultural context, and Calvin pointed this out. Holder writes, “Calvin was also clear that this was not the order of nature—not something decreed by God.” To be sure, most conservative churches have followed Calvin’s conclusion by effectively ignoring Paul’s teaching on nature, long hair, short hair, and veils even as they loudly proclaim Paul’s teaching on nature, male authority, and female submission.

I thought of Ward Holder’s dialogue with Tim Keller again this week in the shadow of another looming vote to restrict women’s ordination or public preaching in the Southern Baptist Convention. And I returned to Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 11. The obvious take on Calvin is that he denied the ordination of women, and that he generally saw women as inferior to men. Yes, this is true. And it’s important context. Calvin was a 16th century man of some influence and learning—thus, he was patriarchal in his outlook.

What’s more interesting to me is the way that the Bible pushes on Calvin’s and others’ patriarchal assumptions in real time. Because Calvin took the Bible very seriously, he was often forced to grapple with a text that didn’t behave as expected. There is no “complementarian” synthesis or evangelical reading tradition from which Calvin can draw to help him decide how to go on any given passage. He’s using different maps to chart new paths. This leads to fascinating and often competing through-lines or values in Calvin’s exegesis. It also elevates Calvin’s dependence on hermeneutical strategies like divine condescension and culturally contextual readings. This is clear in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11.

Calvin’s Contextual Approach

To begin with, Calvin views much of this passage as dealing not with eternal decrees, but with order and custom. The beginning of 1 Cor. 11 begins with Paul praising the church in Corinth for “maintaining the traditions just as I handed them on to you.” What traditions? Calvin writes, these are unrecorded traditions having to do with mitigating scandal and promoting dignity: “all actions are set off to advantage by decorum, and are vitiated by the want of it…Hence he prescribes some things that are connected with public order, by which sacred assemblies are rendered honorable.” And later, he writes that these things related to decorum and church government are not rigid. “For we know that every Church has liberty to frame for itself a form of government that is suitable and profitable for it, because the Lord has not prescribed anything definite.” The prevailing motif for Calvin is found in 1 Cor. 14:40, that “all things should be done decently and in order.”

The emphasis on custom and propriety, culturally defined, is carried through Calvin’s interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:3: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.” Calvin writes this seems to conflict with Paul’s teaching elsewhere in Galatians 3:28, that in Christ there is no “male and female.” Calvin’s rhetorical question: “Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he does away with?” His answer:

The solution of this depends on the connection in which the passages occur. When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind — on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum — which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists.

Notice that Calvin doesn’t make the evangelical complementarian move: to underline spiritual equality but highlight divinely ordained and eternally decreed differentiation in roles. Calvin does something quite different. He affirms the spiritual equality of men and women, but then places the headship of men under a different category, that of standing: his concerns orbit around civil order, honorary distinctions, or social decorum. These are all fluid and localized categories. He argues that, for Paul, the relationship between men and women in church settings is like that between the enslaved and the free. Both social hierarchies reflect not the divine decree but rather social arrangements that the Corinthian church should defer to in the spirit of order. Calvin is culturally conservative, and he interprets Paul as one. Nevertheless, he opens the possibility of something different, precisely because Calvin’s reading of Paul respects its contextuality. If, indeed, external arrangements and political decorum are prevailing concerns in the churches, the kinds of arrangements and decorum to be observed are open to change.

At other points, Calvin is unable to imagine the world as other than it is, and thus is forced into an uncomfortable corner, like in his reading of vv. 4-5. The scripture reads: “Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head. Naturally Calvin asks, what’s all this about women praying and prophesying? This creates problems for Calvin, especially since he views prophesying and praying as authoritative public acts. Of prophecy, he says it means “declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers,” while praying means “preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people—which is the part of the public teacher.” So if prophecy and prayer are public and authoritative, what gives, Paul? Calvin essentially argues that Paul isn’t reneging on his teaching in 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Cor. 14, that women should be silent, but rather is condemning uncovered prophecy without commending covered prophecy.

Elsewhere, in his commentary on 1 Timothy, Calvin anticipates objections to his interpretation by those who bring up women prophets and leaders in scripture—Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, and others. “The answer is easy,” he says (a delightful glimpse into Calvin’s style, I might add). “Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above the law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.”

We might turn Calvin’s treatment of Paul on him. Where he seems to argue for male superiority from the state of normalcy, the status quo, even what seems “natural,” we can from our vantage point see that Calvin’s own patriarchal perspective—what he must have assumed to be universal and natural—was a product of custom, decorum, and discrete exercises of power. The world as he saw it was not inevitable, whatever he might have thought.

It’s worth noting, too, that Calvin wasn’t the only early modern commentator who took this tack. Peter Martyr Vermigli, the Italian reformer, wrote of women and prophecy in 1 Corinthians that although the “ordinary and general” pattern was male leadership in the churches, “since occasionally the Spirit of the Lord has come upon them [women], it was not completely forbidden them to say something.” Similarly, French reformer Wolfgang Musculus wrote in his commentary that while “Paul is restraining female rashness, for women are frequently very talkative and, forgetting their place as women, burst forth with teaching and prophesying…Nevertheless, Paul did not quench the spirit whereby some women, inspired to predict the future, were prophesying.”

Patriarchal? Yes. But Calvin and others were certainly not attempting an internally consistent or coherent, systematic approach to the question. In this, they are less than complementarian, more restrictive than nearly all modern churches, and at the same time perhaps more honest with themselves about the tensions inherent in the scriptural witness, and more open to the possibility–at least rhetorically–of the Spirit exploding social categories. If not open, they were at least observant.

Calvin ended his commentary on this section of 1 Cor. 11 with Paul’s admonition against contentious people. “Of this description,” Calvin writes, “are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs, raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful, who do not yield to reasonings, who cannot endure that any one should be above them.” A number of live questions result. How do we know what customs are good and useful–and are good and useful for whom? Are there legitimate reasons–necessary reasons–to abolish longstanding customs? How do we know if a matter is in doubt? Clearly, by the time John Calvin wrote his commentary in 1546, many customs long considered good and necessary had been reworked, reconsidered or just outright ignored.

Calvin does not leave us an example of a church leader who strove for liberative readings of scripture. In many ways, he was far from it. But because he was deeply concerned to engage with the text as both historical and authoritative, his exegesis unfolded in surprising ways. Calvin’s exegesis of 1 Cor. 11 placed Paul’s teachings in the context of the local church in Corinth, thus detaching their meaning from the realm of smooth eternality and situating them on the rough, foreign terrain of antiquity. The universally applicable teachings of 1 Corinthians 11 were, for Calvin, the necessity that churches provide a workable and meaningful structure and attend to questions of dignity, propriety, and decorum. In focusing the application here, Calvin began to chisel at the supposedly ageless traditions of the Latin Church, but he also opened the possibility for a world in which propriety, order, and dignity demand the recognition that the Spirit’s call upon women is not irregular, extraordinary, or at odds with the natural world. Calvin’s culturally contextual, patriarchal exegesis offers a vision of equality, mutuality, and the honoring of women’s authority as a gift to the churches, even though he couldn’t fully see it for himself.

General Christian

Women in Religion

Education and Religion

Previous Post

June 4, 2026

Finding the First Book Ever Written on a Hidden Gospel

Next Post

June 8, 2026 History as Christian Discipleship

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Very good point about MacDonald.I am certainly a Machen fan!"

philipjenkins

Fairies, Witches, Folk Horror, and the ..."

"The Scottish author George MacDonald integrated fairy world into his fiction in a way that ..."

Terry

Fairies, Witches, Folk Horror, and the ..."

"I like the idea that we can have different streams. The coffee analogy is genius."

Lisa Clark Diller

How Do You Take Your Evangelicalism?

"Geography lesson: Southern California is actually in North Texas. I've lived her for 40 years, ..."

Terry

How Do You Take Your Evangelicalism?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe guest post Guest Post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

"Resist the devil, and he will _____."

Select your answer to see how you score.

Grudgingly Respect You Pursue You Despise You Flee From You