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
Does the NT teach the subordination of women? An examination of 1 Cor 11:2-16 (part 1): Women-Injustice#10; Justice#21

Does the NT teach the subordination of women? An examination of 1 Cor 11:2-16 (part 1): Women-Injustice#10; Justice#21

Last updated on: June 17, 2021 at 3:12 am by Rob Dalrymple

Does the NT teach the subordination of women? An examination of 1 Cor 11:2-16 (part 1): Women-Injustice#10; Justice#21 2021-06-14T12:43:16-08:00 Rob Dalrymple

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.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:34-35 are two passages cited by those who affirm male headship in the church and the home (i.e., complementarians).[1] And, on the face of it, these passages sure seem to support the notion that women are subordinate to men.

I will argue, however, that the best reading of these passages shows that the complementarian reading (i.e., male headship) not only contradicts what Paul was saying but it puts the interpreter on the same side as Paul’s opponents.

Women were praying and prophesying in churches (1 Cor 11:2-16)!

The question at hand in 1 Cor 11:2-16 is whether or not women were to have a head-covering as a sign of their subordination to men when praying and prophesying?

Note: the fact that women were doing so (praying and prophesying in church) affirms the elevated status of women in the NT. Paul even argues in the very next chapter of 1 Corinthians that prophets are second only to apostles (1 Cor 12:28).

Are these Paul’s words? Or, was Paul citing the words of his opponents?

Another difficulty faces the interpreter of 1 Cor 11:2-16: namely, one must discern if and when Paul was quoting his opponents in Corinth and when he was speaking for himself.

A key question, which is often overlooked by many, is whether or not Paul was responding to the Corinthians by citing their arguments and then giving his response; or, if the words in these passages are purely the thoughts of Paul?

Complementarians opt for the latter reading. They assume that all, or most, of the words in this passage are Paul’s.[2]

However, if these are all the words of Paul, two problems arise:

Paul would be contradicting himself; and
Paul would be setting forth a poor interpretation of Genesis.

If, however, we conclude that Paul was citing his opponents and then responding, the contradiction is a result of Paul’s response to his opponents.

Furthermore, the poor interpretation of Genesis would be that of his opponents’ words and not his own.

That Paul may well be citing his opponents in this passage is supported by the fact that in 1 Corinthians itself. In 1 Cor 7:1 it is evident that Paul was responding to a letter they wrote to him:

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote.”

The repetition of “now concerning” in 8:1, 12:1, and 16:1 seemingly indicates further instances in which Paul was addressing matters in their letter to him.

What was the problem(s) in Corinth?

Another problem here is that in order to understand 1 Cor 11:2-16 (and 14:34-35 also) we must determine the situation was in the church at Corinth. Complementarians, and even some who are not complementarians,[3] set forth an historical reconstruction of the situation in Corinth in which they suppose that the problems behind 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 14:34-35 were instigated by out-of-control women.

Complementarians argue that the women in Corinth were abusing their newfound liberties in Christ (praying and prophesying in church) and that Paul responds to them by putting limitations on them: i.e., they must wear head coverings (1 Cor 11:2-6) and they are to be silent (1 Cor 14:34-35).

I question this reconstruction. If, after all, the problems in Corinth were with the women, it would represent the only significant instance in the NT in which those who were among the oppressed in society were the ones causing dissension in the church.

1 Corinthians, along with the entirety of the NT, consistently overturns the plight of the oppressed and the marginalized. In fact, in the very next section of 1 Corinthians (11:17-34), Paul rebukes those in leadership of the church in Corinth (11:19) for their actions with regard to the poor: “you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing (1 Cor 11:22).

One of the problems, then, with the suggestion that this passage affirms the subordination of women is that it goes against the entire tenor of the NT, which consistently elevates the status of the outcast and the oppressed.

Secondly, throughout Paul’s ministry he has expended great effort to tear down walls that have been erected between Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:11-22), male and female (Eph 5:21-33)[4] and slave and free (Eph 6:1-9). The complementarian view would have Paul erecting a new barrier—women must wear head coverings to show their subordination to men—when throughout his writings he consistently tears down such barriers.

Lucy Peppiatt observes, “Those who argue that Paul’s views [as opposed to his opponents] are expressed in 1 Corinthians 11:3–10 must make a much stronger case for why Paul instigates practices that re-establish boundaries and divisions in worship between men and women.”[5]

It is my contention that it is far more likely that the trouble came from some of the men in Corinth who were struggling to accept women as equals. These men were declaring that women were inferior to men and that they must wear head coverings to signify their subordination.[6]

Peppiatt notes,

The Corinthian church was being dominated by a group of spiritually gifted and highly articulate teachers who were both overbearing and divisive men. Under their influential leadership, certain oppressive practices had been implemented, and other destructive and selfish practices had remained unchallenged. It was they who believed . . . that men and women should display signs of their own status before God, one another, and the angels in worship. Because, according to Genesis 2, women were created second, the Corinthians were teaching that they have a secondary place in the creation order, deriving their glory not directly from Christ, but from man. For this reason, they needed to wear a sign of authority/subjection/honor on their ‘heads.’ As man is the glory of Christ, and Christ is the ‘head’ of man, however, he must display this glory by remaining bareheaded. I imagine that these men could have been both powerful and forceful, pronouncing the ‘word of God,’ laying down the law, and arguing that if a woman was bareheaded this was tantamount to appearing before God as a prostitute and thus shaming the men, the angels, and God himself—she may as well appear shaven. They may even have articulated this in their letter to Paul.[7]

I will further support this position in my next few posts!

If you have been blessed by this blog post and would like to see others benefit too, would you please consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to support determinetruth ministries and make possible future posts like this? You can do so by following this link: https://tithe.ly/give?c=3648601

If you would like to have Rob speak at your church or organization in person or via zoom, please let us know by filling out the contact info on the Contact me tab on this site.

[1] Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, 85; Grudem, “The Key Issues in the manhood-Womanhood Controversy, and the Way Forward,” Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, 47-49; Grudem, “The Meaning of κεφαλή (“Head”): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged, Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, 145-48, 157, 164-65, 168-71, 179, 187, 192-94, 196-97; Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies, and the Trinity 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, 124-39.

[2] Reading the whole of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 14:34-35 as though they are the words of Paul is a mistake made not only by complementarians. Many egalitarians read the text this way as well. See Belleville, Two Views, 70-78.

[3] It must be acknowledged that most commentators, including egalitarians, present a historical reconstruction in which the women are considered the problem. See Peppiatt, Lucy. Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians, Cascade Books, Kindle Edition.

[4] See my post in which I discuss Eph 5:21ff

[5] Peppiatt, Women and Worship, 76.

[6] It also makes common sense. In a society in which male patriarchy dominates the culture, it is easy to suppose that men, who had been in authority all these many years and are now being told that women are equal in authority, would rebel against Paul and the church.

[7] Peppiatt, Women and Worship, 81-82.

Bible

Biblical Interpretation

Previous Post

June 15, 2021

Does the NT teach the subordination of women? An examination of 1 Cor 11:2-16 (part 1): Women-Injustice#10; Justice#21

Next Post

June 22, 2021 Does the NT teach the subordination of women? An examination of 1 Cor 11:2-16 (part 2): Women-Injustice#11; Justice#22

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 000 1 Cor 11:17-34 1 Corinthians 1 John 1 Peter 1 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 10 Commandments 2 Corinthians 2 John 2 Peter 2 Thessalonians 2 Timothy 3 John 666 Abortion Acts 2:42 Ahmaud Arbery AIPAC All Saints Day America antisemitism BDS Beast Betting Bible Bible study Biblical Interpretation Biden Book of Acts Boycott Campus Protests Catholicism Ceasefire Chavez Ravine Christian Nationalism Christian Zionism Christianity Today Christmas Church Colossians Communion Convict Leasing Covid-19 Craig Blaising creation Crucifixion Daoud Nassar Deception Deconstruction Democracy Devotional guide Discipleship Easter Eden Education Election End-times Ephesians Eschatology Ethnic Cleansing Evangelicalism Evangelicals Evolution Fall Famine Fascism FIFA Freedom of Speech Galatians Gary Burge Gaza Gaza; Genocide; Boycott Genesis Genocide George Floyd Global Warming God's will Gospel Gospel of John Gospel of Luke Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthew Government Grace Great Prostitute Hamas Harris healthcare Hebrews HeGetsUs Holy Spirit Holy Week Honor Father and Mother ICJ Immigration Indigenous peoples day Iran Israel Israel Palestine Itamar Ben Gvir James Jesus Joel Willits Jude Just war Justice Kamala Harris Kingdom Of God Kings and Queens land of Israel Law (OT) Lazarus Les Miserable LGBTQ+ Love Luke Mahmoud Khalil Man of Lawlessness Mark Mark of the Beast Marriage Martin Luther King Jr Mercy Mexican Repatriation Military-Industrial-Complex Ministry Mission Money NAFTA Nakba Netanyahu New Creation New Testament Nicaragua Nicodemus Non Violence Occupation Pacifism Palestine Parable Paul Peace Pentecost Peonage Philemon Philippians Politics Poor Power Prayer Pride Month Priests Pro-life Propaganda Prophesy Prophet Qatar Queen Elizabeth Racism Reconstruction Redemption Reformation Resurrection Revelation Roe v Wade Romans Romans 13:1-7 Rome Russia Sabbath Samaritan Seals Sermon Settlements Slavery Spiritual gifts Taxes Tent of Nations Terrorism The Beast Theology Titus Torture Trump truth Ukraine Uncategorized Veteran's Day War Warsaw Ghetto wealth Wedding Women World Cup 2022 Worldview Worship Wrath Yemen Zionism

Select a Month September 2026 May 2026 February 2026 November 2025 October 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 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 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 August 2018 June 2018 May 2018 March 2018 September 2017 July 2017 May 2017 November 2016 October 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Called from my mother's womb to be a prophet to the nations, I protested that I was too young. Who objected to this divine appointment?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Samuel Jeremiah Isaiah Ezekiel

Support this
Column