Paul's teaching regarding women provides the greatest problematic for Christian writers of feminist literature,1 and indeed for all of us who attempt to work from a base in the New Testament when we deal with such matters as the relations between the sexes and with marriage. Feminist authors are quite comfortable with Jesus' attitude toward women and commonly insist that His teachings and example in this regard must be the point of reference for judging the validity of all other biblical passages.2 The patriarchal cultural situation 3 and the provisional character of the Old Testament are generally assumed so that that part of the canon poses no great difficulty. In the rest of the New Testament apart from Paul's writings, only one other passage, 1 Peter 3:1-7, requires attention. Most of the interpretive problems emerge within the Pauline corpus.

Since the Pauline letters are part of the New Testament which Christians receive as an authoritative point of reference, and since Paul had more to say about existence in the new creation, and about a life-style which corresponds to that existence, than any other New Testament writer, his thought cannot be passed over easily nor regarded as unimportant. For these reasons Christian authors of feminist literature make sincere attempts to understand the Apostle and to correctly interpret the relevance of his ideas for the present. This essay is one more such attempt in the ongoing discussion.

The problem comes to focus on the fact that Paul apparently made contradictory statements as to the status of women and wives in the new creation begun in Christ. One set of his ideas belongs to his affirmation that in the new order "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). This seems to mean that the social distinctions and relationships belonging to the old order have now been transcended in Christ. With reference to women it would seem to imply that the social, religious and marital barriers which for centuries had functioned to oppress and dehumanize them have been removed. This is confirmed by the emphasis on the equality of women to men which emerges in numerous ways in the epistles. A significant number of women responded to Paul's preaching, some of whom became his fellow workers in ministry. The list of persons greeted by the Apostle in Romans 16 singled out eight women by name and the nature of their ministries was recognized. Such persons as Phoebe (Rom. 16:1f.) and Priscilla (Acts 18) carried out important administrative and ministerial functions in conjunction with Paul's work. Other such women included Lydia (Acts 16:13-15, 40), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Euodia and Syntyche(Phil 4:2), Nympha (Col. 4:15) and Apphia (Philemon lf.), who entered into the ministry of Paul in various supportive ways. Paul affirmed a wide range of ministerial offices and functions in connection with these and other women, including deacon (Rom. 16:1), helper (administrative assistant, Rom. 16:2), fellow worker (Rom. 16:3; Phil. 4:2f.), prophet (1 Cor. 11:5), teacher (Titus 2:3), possibly also elder (1 Tim. 5:2) and apostle (Rom. 16:7).

But in spite of this kind of evidence that Paul perceived the realities of the new situation in Christ and that he affirmed the new status of women and their role in ministry, other statements in his writings seem to nullify this outlook and portray the Apostle as imposing anachronistic religious and social mores on the Christian community. Whether or not this is true is another matter, but at least since the second century numerous interpreters have appealed to Paul for New Testament support for enforcing the subordination of women in the home, in society, and in the church.

This points up the fact that several of the Pauline passages have been understood to advocate a hierarchical arrangement of men and women in a chain-of-command pattern of God-Christ-man-woman. Domestically, this involves submissive obedience on the part of the wife to the husband. Religiously, women are prohibited from speaking in worship services, having authority over men, or teaching men. Socially, women have prescribed roles limiting them to housekeeping and mothering. Paul is said to have supported his commands in these areas by appeals to the order of creation, the moral order, natural law, Jewish tradition and ecclesiastical rules. The main Pauline roof texts appealed to are 1 Corinthians 11:3-16; 14:34f.; Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; and Titus 2:3-5.

One Pauline metaphor in particular has been appropriated as scriptural evidence for the continuation of male dominance and female subordination in the new creation, i.e., the idea of the headship of the male. Paul's use of the metaphor is found in Ephesians 5:21-33 and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. The purpose of what follows is to examine those two passages in their theological and historical contexts in order to arrive at an understanding of what Paul meant by male headship.

The thesis I wish to develop is that Paul did not use the idea of male headship in a governmental nor ontological way as establishing a hierarchical relationship between male and female in which the one was dominant and the other submissive. Rather, he used it (1) to designate the proper relationship between the sexes in the context of the new order, and (2) to insist on the continuation of sexual distinctions and the validity of marriage in the new creation in a polemic with gnostic claims to the contrary.

All of Paul's theology is rooted in his belief that Christ's advent, death and resurrection signalled the beginning of eschatological times and conditions.4 The Christ-event marks the arrival of the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10). Eschatological salvation, looked for in the future in the Old Testament and in Judaism, has broken into the present in Christ (2 Cor. 6:2). The new world of the re-creation has dawned and men of faith participate in it (2 Cor. 5:17). The church is the community of the new creation, formed by the eschatological Spirit.5 It has been called out of a fallen world to become the new order of humanity, the church (ekklesia) of God (1 Cor. 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; Gal. 1:13; 1 Tim. 3:15). As such, it has been liberated from the powers and structures which dominate the old order. This includes freedom from sin (Rom. 6:7, 18, 22; 8:2), freedom from the condemning and death-dealing functions of the law (Rom. 6:14; 7:4; Gal. 3:25), freedom from the dominion of demonic powers (Col. 2:15, 20; Gal. 4:3-7, 9), and freedom from the ascetic and legalistic regulations by which the world lives (Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 1:16-23; 1 Tim. 4:3-5). The old mode of existence has lost its control over those who are in Christ. They have their existence in the new order (Rom.6:2-6; Col.2: 11-13). In daily life they are to renounce the old and live by the new (Eph. 4:22ff.; Col. 3:9ff.). Their freedom is not directionless nor irresponsible. It is exercised "for God" (1 Cor.10:31) and "to God" (Col. 3:17). Paul nowhere envisions a freedom which is not in subservience to God. It is not a freedom to pursue fleshly or spiritual hedonism, but a freedom brought under the discipline of love (Gal. 5:13; 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23f.; Rom. 14:15).6

But as much as Paul insisted on the beginning of eschatological realities in the Christ-event, he did not claim that the new age had been fully realized. A tension exists between the "already" and the "not-yet" in his theology. The final resurrection, the judgment, the return of the King with His kingdom, and the Day of the Lord await the future. In the meantime, two ages overlap and are parallel with each other. Sin and death have not yet been destroyed. The old age has not been terminated as a historical reality. Demonic powers constantly confront members of the new creation, challenging their freedom (Eph. 6:10-18).

The dawn of the new creation had radical consequences for the social order, according to Paul. Three times in his writings he stated that entry into the Christian community destroyed the national, social, religious and sexual barriers in which the old creation lives (1 Cor. 12:12f.; Gal. 3:26-28; Col. 3:9-11). The passage which is of most importance here is Galatians 3:26-28:

On the one hand this meant the end of some things. It meant the end of life based on hostility, aggression, and repression-life which perpetuated itself by dominating, exploiting, possessing and manipulating others. These are characteristic of the old order (Eph. 4:17-32; Col.3:5-11). It meant further the elimination of social structures which have served to perpetuate exploitive relationships and to institutionalize subservience of one group to another in the national, racial, economic, religious, and marital orders.7 It meant the end of "superior" and "inferior" persons within these orders. The privileged status of Jews, free men, and males was brought to an end. Assigned spheres of work and ministry which were based on social, religious, and sexual differences were no longer significant.8

But the arrival of the new order in Christ also meant the creation of some new relationships. Gentiles, slaves and women now stood on equal footing with Jews, free men, and males as fellow members of the new order. The Kingdom made no provision for second-class citizens. What Paul was saying is that a new humanity has been brought about in Christ in which each member stands equal with his neighbor. In contrast to the old order, the new people of God are to relate to each other in ways that are truly loving and fully human.9** We who stand at the end of three centuries of democracy, two centuries of abolition and labor reform, and a century of women's suffrage and liberation movements cannot feel the full impact and radical sense of newness that Paul's words had with his world, both Jewish and Gentile.10

There were elements in the first-century Mediterranean world however who heard the words of Paul and the proclamation of the early church 11 in a twisted manner and took them in directions quite contrary to the Apostle's intent. Historical studies have increasingly shown the pervasive presence of Gnosticism in the background of several New Testament books, especially those which are important for this discussion-1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals. At this stage Gnosticism was not so much a defined religious philosophy as it was a radical pneumatic disposition which was diffused throughout many religions including Judaism and Christianity.12 It penetrated the membership, worship practices, and teachings of several congregations in the first and second centuries. It was syncretistic and took various forms and doctrinal stances and was far from being ideologically monolithic. It is possible however, within limits, to identify some of the beliefs and practices of gnostic groups that are singled out by various New Testament books.

The Gnostics held a dualistic view that emphasized the perfections of the heavenly world while deprecating everything which belonged to this world. The world of matter is completely under the control of demonic forces and is beyond redemption.13 This cosmological dualism was paralleled with an anthropological dualism whereby man's spirit was exalted while his body was devalued.14 Man's spirit is actually a spark of the divine spirit which had become imprisoned in a material body. Baptism into Christ meant for these Gnostics that the spirit was set free from and enabled to transcend bodily existence. The spirit was no longer under the power of this world, the flesh, nor the demonic, but was fully possessed by the divine spirit.

What the Gnostics were really advocating was a radical realized eschatology through which they were claiming that they had already attained the final perfection through resurrection in Christ. Their continued existence on earth was in reality only a temporal manifestation of their heavenly being. Their bodies no longer imprisoned their spirits. They had transcended bodily existence and went about totally free of domination by the material and demonic orders. They boasted that they were endowed with spirit (pneuma) while others possessed only soul (psyche).15

Having reached the state of perfection, the Gnostics also claimed to be in possession of heavenly knowledge which was unmediated to them in any creaturely form but was theirs directly by revelation. Such perfect knowledge came to them through ecstatic visions and heavenly languages which suspended ordinary human ways of knowing. The preaching and teaching of these spiritually illuminated persons were to be accepted as truth because in reality they were the truth of the heavenly world delivered through perfected spirits.

These perfected persons appeared to have the same bodily existence as everyone else. But since their spirits were completely freed from their bodies, bodily existence was simply renounced. Ethically and morally this worked out in one of two directions: libertinism or asceticism. Some Gnostics flaunted their freedom from the rules of the lower order by indulging in every immoral and licentious vice, claiming that their perfected spirits were no more affected than gold is when it is dropped into filth. Other Gnostics took the path of ascetic denial of bodily desires. This included avoiding or renouncing marriage, or couples living together without sexual contact. As opposite as these two courses might seem to be, they had in common a repudiation of the lower order, either through excess or through abstention.l6

One other belief among the Gnostics is important for our consideration, the idea of androgyny. The pneumatic who has attained perfection and who belongs to the transcendent world is no longer a man or a woman. Those orders belong to this world. Spirit endowment obliterates such distinctions. That which appeared to be men and women was in actuality perfected spirits who were asexual.17 By this doctrine, Gnosticism was one more of several religions which served as vehicles for the emancipation of females and, as a result, attracted large numbers of women.18

In the controversy that ensued, Paul and the Gnostics took their stances at different ends of the already/not-yet tandem. The Gnostics stressed the "already" of eschatological fulfillment. They had already attained spirit endowment and perfection by their resurrection in Christ. All that remained was the final separation of the spirit from the body before entry into perpetual ecstasy, and that was thought to be imminent. However, they were even now participating in the heavenly realm temporarily when the spirit left the body in moments of ecstatic vision and revelation.19 In the meantime, they were already liberated from the lower order-its wisdom, its rules, and its social structures.

Against such pretensions Paul emphasized the "not-yet" of eschatological fulfillment. Participation in the new creation introduced the equivalence of persons in the natural orders, but it did not eliminate their distinctions. The racial identities and appearances of Jews and Gentiles remained (1 Cor. 7:17-20). The creation distinction between male and female was not altered by androgynous assimiliation or transcendence of sexual differences (1 Cor. 7:12).20** These natural distinctions have only relative significance however for the new creation and the relationships of persons within it. They do not stand in the way of faith or service to God. Since believers have a new identity in Christ, they must guard against becoming the slaves of men, i.e., by attaching any significance to human social prejudices (1 Cor. 7:22f.).21

Paul argued even further that the new creation has not dispensed with existing social structures. Marriages were to remain intact in so far as the believing partners have responsibility (1 Cor. 7:12-17, 27), and new marriages could be contracted (1 Cor.7:9, 28).22 Jews were not to efface their circumcision nor were Gentiles to seek circumcision (1 Cor. 7:17-20). Slaves were not to be concerned about their status in relation to participation in the new order, although they could take advantage of any opportunity for freedom which was offered to them (1 Cor. 7:21-24; Eph. 6:5f.; Titus 2:9f.).23

The Apostle thus did not advocate nor permit (1 Cor. 7:17) any premature encroachments on the existing social order. The gospel did not come as a new social program nor as a rallying cry to overthrow the social order by force. But neither did it merely baptize the status quo. Rather it began to penetrate the structures of society, permeating them with the spirit of Christ, and working to eliminate their dehumanizing features.24 This was more than a matter of propriety with Paul, growing out of fears of reprisals from the Roman state or a concern to avoid unnecessary scandal. Rather, he wanted to affirm the created order as God's order. Human society is more than human disobedience and the sinful abuse of power. It is also the arena within which God has chosen to realize His purpose. Contrary to the Gnostics and Jewish apocalytists, Paul insisted that the secular order has not been abandoned to the demonic. It is the sphere through which God chooses to effect His lordship. That doesn't mean that its structures are divine or unalterable; none of the ones Paul listed in Galatians 3:28 is based on a divine ordinance except the male-female distinction.25

But even more, Paul was convinced that the divine intent was to transform the existing structures by the power of the gospel and the presence of the new creation. The best intent of God in the orders of creation-male-female, work, government, and religion-were twisted by alienated men to serve the powerful and to exploit the weak. In bringing about change however, God doesn't plant dynamite; He kneads in leaven the leaven of the Kingdom of God. Paul concluded that God purposes to set the new creation in the midst of the old, redeemed people in the midst of the fallen, love in the midst of hostility, self-basement in the midst of selfassertion, submission in the midst of domination, to humanize and redeem the fallen structures.26

This then was the theological and historical context within which Paul spoke to the matter of male headship and female subjection. The intent has been to take his words out of the realm of the abstract in order that they might be seen and understood in the concrete situation within which they were first spoken and, in turn, become more relevant for us today. This background having been laid, we are now ready to consider the matter of male headship in Ephesians 5:21-33 and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.

This passage has commonly been understood to establish a hierarchical order of authority in a chain-of-command: God-Christ-man-woman. This is sometimes referred to as a "kephale-structure"27 which was established at the creation and intensified at the fall, governing all subsequent relationships between the sexes.28 In the relationship, man is the "head," i.e. "that which is prior, that which determines, that which leads. The head is the power that begins, it is principium, arche."29 Woman is "from" the man and is sub-ordered to him, determined by him and follows him. This role relationship is not polar; it is not reversible.30

Some interpreters press this principle beyond a governmental structure and regard it as an ontological structure determining not only how men and women are to relate, but also what they are. Calvin, commenting on 1 Timothy 2:12, observed that women "by nature are born to obey men."31 The opposite side of this is that men by nature are born to govern women. This viewpoint still appears from time to time.32

Interpretations of this sort fasten on to the headship and subjection language in the Ephesians 5 passage. Two analogies are drawn upon and then elaborated to support the premise: the head/body and the Christ/ church motifs. The head/body elaboration proceeds with a physiological analogy suggesting that the relationship between a husband and wife corresponds to the function of the human head with reference to the body. The head (and by analogy, the husband) is the most prominent part of the body and carries out the thinking, decision-making, and directing function for the body (and by analogy, the wife). The body (wife) is in subjection to the head (husband) and carries out its (his) directives.

This interpretation runs into difficulty at several points. To begin with, the function of the head (brain) in rational processes was not known prior to the rise of modern science. The ancients didn't have the remotest idea of the function of the brain and the nervous system and attributed psychical functions to the soul, the spirit, or to other parts of the body-the heart, the bowels, the kidneys, the bones, etc.-but never to the head.33 It was thus impossible for Paul to make use of this analogy in his time and would have been meaningless to his readers if he had.

But even more significant is the fact that Paul simply nowhere uses the head-body language in analogy with a physiological model. He did use a physiological model when he spoke of the church as the body of Christ in contexts where the idea of headship is absent (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:12-31; Eph. 4:11-16; Col. 2:19). Likewise, Paul spoke of the "head" in a metaphorical sense in isolation from reference to a body (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22; Col. 2:10). But he used the metaphors to say two different things: the body metaphor addressed the matter of the mutuality of Christian relationships within the believing community; the head metaphor spoke of Christ as the source, beginning, savior, and conserver of the church. The two metaphors do not change these meanings when they are brought into proximity to each other, and to interpret them in correspondence to a physiological model is to create numerous absurdities. Ephesians 4:16 and Colossians 2:19 refer to the church as the "whole body" which, if a physiological model is intended, would have two heads. Nor would the language about the body growing up into the head (Eph. 4:15) make any sense.34

Finally, the physiological interpretation breaks down because Paul does not refer here to the wife as the "body" of the husband, who is the head. There is a correspondence in the passage between Christ-husband (vs. 52 23f.) and church-wife (vs. 23f.). There is also a correspondence between Christ as head of the church and the husband as head of the wife (v.23). But there is no stated correspondence between the church as Christ's body and the wife as the husband's body, which would be present if a physiological model were in view.35** In verse 28, the body is not a reference to the wife but rather to the husband's own body.36

The second Pauline motif drawn upon as a basis for the hierarchical interpretation of Ephesians 5:21-33 is the Christ/church analogy. The reasoning proceeds as follows: the relation of the wife to the headship of her husband is to correspond to the relation of the church to the headship of Christ. Or, stated in the opposite manner, the headship of the husband over his wife is to correspond to the headship of Christ over the church. The repeated use of the word "as" in the passage (vs. 22-24, 28f., 33) reinforces the argument. Let it be conceded here that that is exactly what Paul says! The problem arises when the interpreters do not abide by the limits that Paul places on the comparison here and treat the word "as" as though it were open-ended. Having picked up on the word "as," the interpreters then scour the rest of the New Testament in order to arrive at an understanding of what the relationship between Christ and the church involves. The answer is then read back into the Ephesian passage. The answer is most usually in terms of Lord-servant, involving the related ideas of command-obedience and dominance-submission. Headship is thus invested with an authoritarian connotation which is then reinforced by appeals to verses 22f. where lordship, submission, and headship are drawn into close proximity to each other.37

There is no question but that the relationship between Christ and the church involves lordship and submission in the New Testament. But the question still remains: is that the thrust Paul intended here in his use of the idea of headship? I think not. The fact is that Christ's headship and Christ's lordship are two different, though related, ideas for Paul. Paul's metaphorical use of the word kephale corresponds to a like use of the word rosh in the Old Testament, both meaning the "beginning," "source," or "ground" of something.38 In Colossians 1:15-20, for instance, Christ was the beginning of the natural creation (v. 16), which has its origin and ground in Him and achieves its final destiny in relation to Him (v. 17). He has a relationship of priority and sustainer to the creation (v. 18). He was also the beginning of the church and was the first-born of the new order. He is thus pre-eminent in the original creation and in the new creation (v. 18). The new creation has its origin and ground in Him (v.18). He has this role as a divine being (v. 19, cf. 2:9). God intends to reconcile all things in Him (v. 20) Because He is the source and ground of all creation, He is also the source of all rule and authority (2:10). Ephesians contains a comparable set of ideas. Ephesians 1:21f. parallels Colossians 1:18-20 in its emphasis on Christ's headship in the new creation, a headship that extends to all things and is above all rule, authority, power, and dominion. Ephesians 4:15f. and Colossians 2:19 emphasize the unity which exists between Christ and the church. He is the origin and ground of the church and directs its growth to Himself. The church is edified through His gifts and He is its eschatological orientation (Eph. 4:11-16). None of this can be attained however apart from faith; for this reason the relation of the body to the head is always that of obedient submission.

All of this is said without any identification of Christ's headship and His lordship. The two ideas are drawn together in the Ephesians passage where the Lord Jesus Christ (vs.2f.,15,17; cf. Col.2:10) is exalted above all rule, authority, power, and dominion (v. 21), but they are not the same. Christ's headship speaks of Him as the beginning, origin, and ground of all being. His lordship speaks of His governing rule in the creation. Thus His lordship in the creation is the result of His headship, but the two ideas are not synonymous.

When we look again at the Ephesians 5:21-33 passage, it becomes obvious that Paul did not incorporate all that belongs to Christ's headship when he paralleled it with the husband's headship. He did not affirm that "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" (v. 32) and leave it open-ended for his readers to fill in the specifics. Given the proclivity for fallen man to put himself in the place of God, Paul was very aware as he wrote of how his motif could be misused for sinful purposes. He was very careful therefore to circumscribe and limit his meaning.

The Pauline limitation may be seen at two points. First, Paul did not refer to the husband as "lord" of the wife in this passage. Christ's headship may extend into His lordship over the whole creation, as indicated above, but Paul did not extend the husband's headship to include lordship over his wife. Verse 22 is not to be understood to say that the wife has two lords or that the husband's headship is invested with the character of lordship over his wife. Rather, the Apostle admonished wives to be subject to their husbands as an act compatible with Christian service "to the Lord,"39 i.e., on no other authority than that of Christ. It is obvious from this that Paul did not invest the headship of the husband with the meaning of "lordship" or hierarchical authority. Only Christ's headship, not His lordship, is held up as the model for the husband. Paul thus made use of the idea of headship in a narrow and restricted sense, i.e., that the wife as woman has her source or beginning from the man (v.23).40 We are not free therefore to fill the word with meanings from the rest of the New Testament when Paul himself did not.

Secondly, Paul made very clear in the rest of this passage how far Christ's headship may be taken as a model for the headship role of the husband. Christ's headship toward the church was expressed as Savior (v. 23) in love (v. 25), self-sacrifice (v. 25), provision (vs. 26f.), nourishing (v. 29), and cherishing (v. 29). Indeed, the thought of the self-emptying of Christ (Phil. 2:5-8) permeates this passage as though Paul were saying to husbands "Have the mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2:5). As Christ left His Father's house to take up obedient submission (Phil. 2:6,8), so the husband must leave the home of his parents and enter a relationship of commitment and mutual subjection with his wife (vs. 21, 33). In this way man and wife parallel the mystery of Christ and the church (v. 32). None of these actions and attitudes which Christ modeled involves the exercise of authority, rule, or dominance.41 Paul thus refused to incorporate any authoritarian connotations into the husband's headship but rather specified it in terms of love, sharing, and commitment.

In addition to these limitations, Paul also reoriented the whole conception of headship and subjection in a new and different direction. What tends to get lost in the discussions of Ephesians 5 is the fact that it was primarily directed to husbands.42 Wives were told simply to be subject to their husbands in everything (vs. 21f., 24), and to show respect (v. 33) to them without further specification. That was nothing new to wives; they had heard that for centuries! What was radically new, and what transformed the whole relationship between husbands and wives was Paul's words to husbands. The innovative note was sounded from the opening verse in the section, a call for husbands to enter into the relationship of subjection with their wives (v. 21). Again, we are unable to feel the scandal of these words. In Paul's world the demand for subjection went only one way, to the wives. But for him, this was the way of the old order. The new order, in which the barriers between male and female have been removed (Gal. 3:28), is to be characterized by mutual submission of each partner to the other. The example has already been set by the head of the Church, Christ (vs. 25, 29), and that example is to be followed out of reverence to Him (v. 21).

But there are different kinds of submission. The word used here by Paul (hupotasso) was originally a hierarchical term which stressed the relation of subordinates to superiors. This involved power or conquest on the part of the superior and the lack of freedom or choice on the part of the subordinate. Subjection was thus forced upon the subordinate. Paul however used the word in an entirely different way. In Christian relationships, it is not the subjection of compulsion which is in view but a subjection which is voluntary, motivated not by the strictures of society nor by the demands of the recipient, but only by love for Christ (vs. 21f.). This lack of hierarchical connotation in connection with subjection is pointed up by the fact that in the New Testament, hupotasso does not immediately contain the thought of obedience.43

The kind of submission Paul talked about then was intertwined with love. It implied a readiness to renounce one's own will for the sake of others, to give precedence to others. For the Apostle there is no love apart from submission and submission is the natural outflow of love. Thus he immediately coupled the two with his second word to husbands: "let each one of you love his wife as himself" (v. 33; cf. v. 28). Here he invoked not only the example of Christ, but also the command of Christ in the Second Great Commandment (Mark 10:31). In the context of marriage, the wife is the neighbor whom the husband is to love as he loves himself. Love is the supreme obligation which members of the new creation owe each other (Rom. 13:8, 10) and which characterizes their mode of existence.44

It was in this way that the relationship of male and female came to be transformed in the new order. The wife was lifted in status to a position of equality with her husband whom she could love (Titus 2:4), to whom she could subject herself (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5) without fear of exploitation. In the context of the times, this new position of women was little short of revolutionary.45 The husband in turn was drawn out of the role of the tyrant, dominator, controller, and manipulator, into a relationship of love and self-giving corresponding to the pattern of Christ. This new situation permitted the couple to realize the divine intent in marriage and to work toward their own potential in a relationship of mutual reciprocity.46 The old authoritarian barriers were removed and Ephesians 5:21-33 stood in continuity with Galatians 3:28 and flowed out of it.

The exegetical and interpretive problems in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 arise for three reasons. First, Paul used words here which occur very infrequently in koine Greek and in the rest of the New Testament with the result that we cannot always be certain of his intended meaning. Further, the passage refers to custom and practices which are vague to us, making it difficult to reconstruct with any degree of certainty the historical situation within the church at Corinth which provoked the apostolic directives to the church. Finally, Paul was answering questions put to him by members of the church. If we knew the content of those questions we could better understand the Apostle's answers. As it is, we have only one side of the conversation. For these reasons, attempts at interpretation can only proceed on the basis of the best historical information that we have.

The connecting link between Ephesians 5:21-33 and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is the idea of male headship (v.3). But here the motif is addressed to the relationship between the sexes in the worship services.47 The presence of the headship idea, along with a discussion of the priority of man to woman in the original creation (vs. 7f., 11f.), stated in the context of a consideration of the proper head adornment for women (vs. 4-7, 10, 13-15), has led many interpreters to assume that the subject of verses 3-16 is female subordination.48 That interpretation begins with the premise that the headship language in verse 3 sets forth a hierarchy of authority in the God Christ-man (husband)-woman (wife) model. Paul's appeals to the creation narrative (vs. 8f.), it is alleged, further reinforced his argument for female subordination. The submission of the woman to the authority of the man was to be symbolized by the wearing of veils in the worship services.

But several problems arise in connection with this interpretation. To begin with, as we have seen above, Paul did not make use of the headship idea to speak of a hierarchy of authority and submission and there is no evidence that he did so here.49 Rather, he used it to point to the fact that the woman has her source from the man in the divine creation. Standing as it does at the beginning of the passage, verse 3 thus has significance for the theme of the rest of the section.

In the second place, the word for "veil" (halumma) does not occur anywhere in the passage and it is doubtful whether such a uniform custom existed at Corinth during the first century. Gentile women typically did not wear veils in public and Greco-Roman customs in this regard were quite fluid and non-compulsory in nature.50 Most of the historical information which we have on the practice of wearing veils in the ancient world comes from periods considerably before or after the first century. Jewish women in particular seem not to have worn veils which covered their faces until the second century and later.51

The intent of the passage therefore probably lies in a direction other than that of veil customs and the theme of the hierarchical relationship between men and women. This much is certain: the custom referred to had to do with the different head adornments which were appropriate for men and women in the context of liturgical functions within the congregation. Paul's preoccupation with the head (vs. 4f., 7, 10, 13) and with hair (vs. 6, 14f.) makes this clear and provides the most obvious clue for identifying the practices at Corinth which he found objectionable. According to verses 14f., it is proper in the nature of things for men to have short hair and women to have long hair. Apparently certain men and women at Corinth were reversing the normal male and female hairstyles. In verse 15 it is said that a woman's long hair was given to her for a covering (peribolaiou).52 Her hair served as a kind of headgear which distinguished her sex. During this period women customarily wore their hair long and pinned up as a covering for their heads.53 Men, on the other hand, were not to pray or prophesy with long hair covering their heads in the style of women (vs. 4, 7). The word "cover" (katahaluptesthai, v. 7) does not refer to a veil or other head-covering. Contemporary Judaism had no prohibition against a man covering his head during public worship; in fact, the contrary has been the custom for centuries in Judaism. Further, according to Ezekiel 44:18, the priests in the restored temple were to wear a linen turban on their heads while leading worship. Paul was thus not objecting to men having head-coverings in the worship services, but rather to their wearing hairstyles which were inappropriate for men. Moreover, in the Old Testament the priests were prohibited from cutting their hair in ways which were characteristic of the adherents of other religions (Lev. 19:27; 21:5f.; Deut. 14:1). For Ezekiel (44:20), the priests in the new temple were neither to shave their heads nor to let their hair grow long, but were to cut it in the style of Jewish men at the time. Such prohibitions were based in the fact that cult associations were often symbolized by the manner in which the hair was cut and arranged in ancient times. Such practices were not only forbidden by the Old Testament but also by the Jewish rabbis.54 The term "cover" (katahaluptesthai, v. 7) thus has reference to men covering their heads with long hair in the style of women (v. 15).55 This was degrading to men (v. 14).

That Paul was referring to hairstyles becomes even more clear in verses 5f. Women were not to pray or prophesy with their heads uncovered (akatakalupto, v. 5; ou katakaluptetai, v. 6). The Septuagint used the same Greek words to refer to the case of a leper (Lev. 13:45) and a woman accused of adultery (Num. 5:18), with the meaning that their hair was to be loose and hanging down as a sign of their uncleanness and ceremonial defilement.56 This meaning best fits the context of what Paul was saying here. Women were not to change their hair to styles other than those which were appropriate for women by letting their hair hang down loosely. Such was to bring dishonor to the woman (v. 5). The basis for this judgment is not made clear. The dishonor may have been associated with the significance of loose hair in a Jewish context, i.e., as the public sign of an adulteress (Num. 5:18).57 Or it may have been connected with pagan religious practices where women wore their hair loose during the ceremonies.58

Whatever the context may have been, Paul viewed such practices as reprehensible The dishonor and disgrace was the same as that of the woman whose head was shaved (vs. 5b-6). Here again, the basis of the disgrace is not stated. Shorn hair was a sign of mourning among the Jews (Job 1:20; Jer. 7:29), but it did not bear the character of disgrace.59 Nor is there sufficient evidence that shorn hair was the mark of a prostitute.60 Rather, the association of long hair and shorn hair on women with alien religious practices is the most probable reason for Paul's objection.61 The situation which begins to emerge is that some of the women in the church at Corinth-in celebration of the announced equality of the sexes in the new order 62-proclaimed their new status by changing their hairstyles from those customarily worn by women, letting their hair hang loose. Other women went even further and cut their hair in the style of men.63

These practices were reported to Paul and his response was called for. Paul answered that logically if a woman persisted in appearing like a man, then she should cut her hair short like a man's.64 Paul did not intend to countenance such practices, as is indicated in the remainder of verse 6. To celebrate equality between the sexes in this way was at the same time to create conflicts with existing social and religious mores which, in turn, gave rise to questions about their moral character. In the light of that fact, they were to abandon such practices and return to the use of hairstyles which were characteristic of women (v. 6b).

We may inquire even further as to the source of these practices among both men and women at Corinth, and as to the reason for Paul's strong exceptions. Certainly Paul was not responding to the situation as a rigid, elderly preacher who was unable to tolerate changing styles in dress and grooming. That would be grossly unfair to Paul. His concern may well have been that the gospel not be unnecessarily scandalized through irresponsible exercises of Christian freedom, as it had been in chapters 8 and 10 with regard to eating meats that had been offered to idols. His words in 10:31-11:1 embody this principle and serve to connect together the two themes of eating meat and proper head adornment for the sexes:

But even further, Paul was objecting to hairstyles which were ideologically based in ideas that were contrary to the biblical revelation. These ideas and practices may well have been drawn from the gnostic claim that sexual differences had ceased to exist for those who had already attained perfection and spirit endowment. In addition to the denial of sexual differences and the continuing validity of marriage,65 the androgynous doctrine in Gnosticism may have also involved homosexual practices among the ecstatics.66 The reference in 6:9-11 makes it clear that some members of the congregation had been involved in homosexuality earlier, and the mention of long hair as a violation of "nature" (phases, v. 14) has overtones of a parallel repudiation of homosexuality in Romans 1:26f.

It would appear therefore that the best explanation for the motivation of Paul's words in 11:3-16 was the various gnostic teachings regarding the termination of the sexual distinctions between male and female and the consequences of these teachings for marriage and sexual practices. In the face of such claims, Paul again asserted the "not-yet" of eschatological fulfillment. In chapter 7 he had already defended the continuing validity of marriage on this basis. In chapter 11 he asserted the continuation of sexual differences on the same basis. That is the common thread which ties together the several themes in this section-headship, head adornment, creation differences-rather than the theme of female subordination.

The headship motif in verse 3 thus served to point to the distinction between the sexes which was based on their origin. The male and the female originated at different times and the one had her origin from the other in the creative act. Paul was theologizing here on the basis of Genesis 2:18-23. Man is the head of woman in the sense that she has her historical derivation from him.67** Adam was first with regard to time. That is as far as Paul took the point. He did not press it further to claim a priority of rank for man.68 Here and in verses 7-9, Paul made clear that male and female were separate from their creation and did not emerge from a primal androgynous unity, as some Greek and Rabbinic interpreters concluded.69

Presumably one way of evidencing this relation of headship and the distinction between males and females in early Christianity was by the different head adornments worn by men and women. Paul knew from reports brought to him that both men and women were praying and prophesying in the public worship services and he did not raise an objection to that practice here.70 But he did object to them appearing without the appropriate symbols of their sexual distinction (vs. 4-7). It was disgraceful for men to pray or prophesy with long hair, just as it was disgraceful for women to pray or prophesy with their hair hanging loose. The disgrace had nothing to do with women renouncing their subordinate status to men. The whole passage was addressed both to men and to women and was directed toward any practice by either sex which abridged sexual differences. The disgrace was based in the fact that such practices denied the headship relation of the sexes and their distinction from the creation. Such was in effect a repudiation of the male-female dualism in the created order.

The same point was made in verses 7-10, but this time based on an interpretation of the creation narrative both in Genesis 1:27 and 2:18-23. Paul's scriptural base was still Genesis 2:18-23, but he reached out to grasp one thought in Genesis 1:27: man was created in the image of God. In Jewish theology a close association existed between the image of God and God's glory which was bestowed upon man. Paul's real interest here was with the difference between the glory of man and the glory of woman as that idea had been developed in Jewish thought. The reason we find it so difficult to follow his logical processes here is because this theme was not developed in Christian theology. His use of Genesis 1:27 and the image of God idea was not to deny that woman was also created in the image of God, but to get the glory motif before his readers. Having introduced this idea, he then interpreted it from the order of creation in Genesis 2:18-23. The difference in the character of glory is expressive of the sexual difference between man and woman from the creation. Paul drove the point home in verses 8f.: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." The different glories of man and woman were based in the order of their creation. Again, the emphasis is on the sexual distinction between men and women and not a qualitative judgment on superiority and inferiority, nor does it have anything to do with dominance and submission as an authority structure between them.71

Paul clinched his argument in verse 10 with a very enigmatic sentence: "That is why a woman ought to have a veil [literally, "authority"] on her head, because of the angels." What do the angels have to do with this matter of head-coverings in the worship service, and what is meant by "authority" (exousia) on the woman's head? These two questions have caused no end of consternation on the part of interpreters, and likewise, no end of novel answers.72 The best opinion seems to be that the angels have watch over the created order to see that it is maintained and that the worship of God is carried out in a proper manner.73 For women to function in the worship services in any manner that repudiates the natural distinction between the sexes is to violate the order of creation and is thus to offend the angels which watch over that order.

The word exousia does not refer to a veil nor to the authority of the husband over the wife. Rather, it is the authority which she is to "have" (echein, v. 10), not the authority of another which is exercised over her.74 As used here, the word denotes the authority to prophesy. In the contemporary Jewish view, Moses received his revelation directly from God, but all other prophets received their message mediated through angels. This idea of the angels functioning as the mediators of God's revelation to prophets underlies what Paul said about prophetesses in this verse. The prophetess is to have the authority to prophesy because it has become obvious that the angels speak with her and constitute her a prophetess. The authority is to be placed "on her head" (v.10). Early Christian prophetism was not without limits or regulations; Paul's purpose was to establish regulations against unchecked religious spontaneity in this section of 1 Corinthians. Some form of church authorization for prophets became necessary in the context of numerous syncretistic religious cults. The authority "on the head" may have been a filet or headband which designated the woman as an approved prophet and symbolized her ordination and authorization to function in that capacity in the congregation.75

Through verse 10 Paul stressed the continuation of sexual distinctions within the new creation. Lest he be misunderstood as negating his larger emphasis on the equality of men and women and the reciprocity of their relationship in Christ, he hastened to restate that principle in verses 11f.: "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." The word plen with which he began this statement is used to conclude a discussion and to emphasize what is essential.76 Having established the natural and unalterable differences between men and women, he then turned to emphasize again the mutuality of their existence in God's purpose.77 This was no afterthought on Paul's part, nor an embarrassed reversion to Jewish subordinationism, but rather is the theological climax of the chapter to this point.78 This part of the chapter is a final attempt to affirm the continuation of sexual distinctions within the new order, as symbolized by appropriate apparel and proper worship practices, within the context of the larger fact of the equality of the sexes within the new order. This is the line of continuity which stretches throughout the whole section. As such, it has nothing to say about hierarchy and subordination in the relationships of men and women. Like Ephesians 5:21-33, this passage too stands in continuity with the equality proclaimed in Galatians 3:28.

This study has focused on the idea of male headship in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians because this idea has been the major basis of appeal to support the claim that a divinely appointed governmental structure exists between men and women that creates a hierarchy in which the man is appointed to a position of authority over the woman and the woman to a position of submission to the authority of the man. The apparent discrepancy between this line of thought and Paul's proclamation of the equality of the sexes in Galatians 3:28 is explained by a convenient distinction between equality in salvation on the one hand, and assigned roles in the created order on the other.

I have attempted to show that this interpretation is deficient particularly at two points. First, it incorrectly reads into Paul's conception of headship governmental and authoritarian connotations that in fact are absent from Paul's thought by intention. Paul understood headship to mean that man was the source of woman and woman had her origin from man according to Genesis 2:18-25. The idea of headship does not serve a governmental function for Paul but is a basis for his claim, asserted against certain gnostic counterclaims, that sexual differences and marriage have a continuing role in the new order, in the purposes of God. If this interpretation is correct and Paul did not invest male headship with governmental meaning, then the whole hierarchical interpretation of Paul's thought in this connection collapses.

Secondly, I have concluded that the hierarchical interpretation cannot be squared with Galatians 3:28. In reality that interpretation does not change the status of women in the hierarchy. Their position is the same as it has been from the creation. The hierarchical interpretation attempts to ameliorate the situation and empty it of the potential for abuse by emphasizing the demand for love on the part of the man, but the woman is still subjected to a forced subordination. This in effect is to take away with the left hand what was given by the right. There is no way one can still speak of equality between the sexes and yet retain divinely appointed governmental structures which require a uniform submission of women and a dominant role by men. Nor is it biblically necessary.

The final issue has to do with implementation in the present. For Paul and the early church the equality of male and female in the new order was a matter of divine revelation and was part of the Christian kerygma. He in turn addressed this truth to the customs and cultural situation of the first century. He did so by appealing to social customs and Jewish theological discussions which are no longer part of our culture nor meaningful to us. We have no responsibility to reinstitute the social customs or the extra-biblical theological appeals. But we do have a responsibility to implement the revelatory principle of the equality of the sexes in our own society, making use not only of biblical and theological insights, but also of extrabiblical information from such fields of knowledge as science and sociology which verify that equality.

One is on firm biblical grounds to insist upon male-female dualism and the complementarity which exists between the sexes. Biologically men and women both resemble and differ. How far differences extend into the psychological sphere is debated and generalizations at that point are always suspect. Nonetheless, sexual distinctions in no way affect sexual equality in Christ and the new creation. There may very well be pragmatic reasons for role assignments and employee selection-education, training, experience, physical ability, etc.-but such decisions cannot appeal to a biblical base for an ordered subordination of women to men, if Paul's concept of headship is in view.

1I am using the word "feminist" in the sense as defined by Virginia Mollenkott, Women, Men and the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1977), p. 90: ". . . men and women . . . who believe that the Bible is properly interpreted as supporting the central tenets of feminism."

2Ibid., pp. 9f.

3"For the Old Testament is a man's 'book,' where women appear for the most part simply as adjuncts of men, significant only in the context of men's activities. . . . The Old Testament is a collection of writings by males from a society dominated by males," Phyllis Bird, "Images of Women in the Old Testament," in Rosemary R. Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Simon and Schuster,1974), p.41. A more balanced estimate is suggested by Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible, p. 10: "Although the Old Testament reveals some cultic practices which are distressing to modern women, . . . there is never any outright contempt for women taught in its pages."

4The centrality of this motif for Paul is recognized by a wide range of Pauline interpreters. Cf. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), p. 44; Gunther Bornkamm, Paul (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), pp.197-99; W. G. Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament (New York: Abingdon, 1973)~ pp. 141-46.

5Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribners, 1951), 1:308; History and Eschatology (New York: Hasrper Brothers, 1957), p. 36; Existence and Faith (New York: World Publishing Co., 1960), pp. 83, 140, 249.

6Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline, pp. 259, 295, 303.

7Robin Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 40 (1972): 287f.; Dick and Joyce Boldrey, "Women in Paul's Life," Trinity Studies, 2 (1972):19.

8Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We're Meant to Be (Waco, Texas: Word Book Publishers, 1974), pp. 15f.

9Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," pp. 288f.

10For the status of women in the ancient world, see the following: Old Testament: Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961), pp. 24-40 and scattered references; John Otwell, And Sarah Laughed: The Status of Women in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977). Judaism: Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), pp.359-76; G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944), 2:119-35. Greco-Roman: Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We're Meant To Be, pp. 50-53.

11Scroggs suggests that Paul's words about racial, social, religious, and marital equality in 1 Cor. 12:12f.; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:9-11 were appropriated from existing baptismal liturgies that originated in the church before Paul and were thus part of the general preaching of the church.

12Constance F. Parvey, "The Theology and Leadership of Women in the New Testament," in Reuther, Religion and Sexism, p. 121.

13Ibid., pp. 121f.

14Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (New York: Abingdon, 1971), pp. 160f.

15Ernst Kasemann, New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), p. 71.

16Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953), pp. 270-77; E. M. Yamauchi, Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 24-34.

17The view of some gnostic circles was that women ceased to exist as women and were transformed into men, cf. Parvey, "Theology and Leadership of Women," p.134. For the Greek background of the androgynous concept and later uses of it in Judaism and Christianity, see Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), pp. 24-28.

18Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, p. 245.

19Ibid., p. 179.

20G. B. Caird, "Paul and Women's Liberty," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 54 (1971/72):272f.

21Ridderbos, Paul An Outline, p. 316; Caird, "Paul and Women's Liberty," p. 276.

22Ridderbos, Paul: an Outline, pp. 306-14.

230n the problems connected with translating 7:21, see Boldrey and Boldrey, "Women in Paul's Life," p. 27; Caird, "Paul and Women's Liberty," 274-76.

24Ridderbos, Paul an Outline, pp. 316f.; Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We're Meant To Be, pp. 71f.; Caird, "Paul and Women's Liberty," pp. 272-74.

25Ridderbos, Paul: an Outline, p. 317.

26Boldrey and Boldrey, "Women in Paul's Life," pp. 25-27; Ridderbos, Paul an Outline, pp. 317f.

27Kephale is the Greek word for "head."

28Peter Brunner, The Ministry and the Ministry of Women (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), pp. 24-30; G. K. Knight III, The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977), pp. 25-27.

29Brunner, The Ministry and the Ministry of Women, p. 25.

30It is not clear how Brunner and Knight can speak of the relationship of male and female as being based in the divine intent from creation and then limit its application to relationships within marriage (Christian ?) and in the church, Brunner, pp. 31f.; Knight, pp. 9f. Certainly no such restriction applied in the ancient world; woman's subordination was total including the social, economic, governmental, and vocational spheres. In classical theology the "orders of creation" extended to all human existence and were not limited to the redeemed order. Nor did such a limitation apply in western Christendom until well into the nineteenth century. Why then must the application of the kephale-structure "take an entirely different form today than in the 2d or perhaps the 16th century" (Brunner, p. 31) and be limited to the marital and ecclesiastical realms? One has the uneasy feeling that this is in fact an accommodation to the realities of the twentieth century, a sort of last-ditch-stand on the only remaining ground that is left, rather than being derived from the teachings of Scripture. The nineteenth century learned that the Bible couldn't be used in this way to perpetuate slavery. Hopefully, the twentieth century will come to the same realization with regard to women.

31Quoted by Jewett, Man as Male and Female, p. 131.

32Knight, The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship, develops his thesis largely with reference to headship as a governmental structure, but he also suggests an ontological basis when he says, "Of course no role assigned by God is completely shed in the psychological and sociological dimensions of our lives," p. 10. This contradicts modern psychological insights which show that assertive and passive, leadership and follower personality types exist among both sexes, in spite of centuries of the cultural subordination of women.

33Stephen Bedale, "The Meaning of Kephale in the Pauline Epistles," Journal of Theological Studies, 5 (1954):212; Ridderbos, Paul: an Outline, p. 380 and note 64; see also my "Man and Sin in the Perspective of Biblical Theology," The Asbury Seminarian, 30 (1975):39-41 and bibliography there.

34Ridderbos, Paul an Outline, pp. 376-83, esp. pp. 379-81.

35Ibid., pp. 380f.; Ridderbos thinks it is there by inference, however he insists that a physiological interpretation cannot be made of it: "But it is unwarranted and absurd so to conceive of this as though the wife constituted the trunk of this unity of the two and the husband the head."

36W. D. Stacey, The Pauline View of Man in Relation to its Judaic and Hellenistic Background (London: MacMillan, 1956), pp. 157, 183.

37This interpretation is further reinforced by our cultural understanding of the word "head" when it is used in a metaphorical sense. "Heads of government," "heads of industry," "headquarters," etc., refer to those who have the authority in governmental structures.

38Bedale, "The Meaning of Kephale" pp. 298f., n. 41; Heinrich Schlier, "Kephale, " in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964-), 3:679-81; Scroggs, Paul and the Eschatological Woman, pp. 298f., n. 41; Ridderbos, Paul an Outline, pp. 381f.

39Phrases such as to kurio (Rom. 14:8; Col.3:23), to christo (Eph. 6:5), to theo (Rom. 14:6), and eis doxan theou (1 Cor. 10:31) are ways of speaking about Christian service in Paul's writings.

40Paul was making a play on the double-meaning of the word aner as husband and man. The wife has her origin from the man in the sense of Gen. 2:22; cf. 1 Cor. 11:3.

41Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We're Meant To Be, pp. 30f.

42Ibid., pp.99,102; Boldrey and Boldrey, "Women in Paul's Life," p.22.

43Gerhard Delling, Hupotasso, " TDNT,8:41,45. Delling points out that when Paul wants to speak of compliance with law, social custom, or ecclesiastical rules as external norms, he prefers hupotage, cf. 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11; 2 Cor. 9:13; Gal. 2:4f; 1 Tim. 3:4).

44Ridderbos, Paul an Outline, pp. 293-301.

45IbidL, pp. 460f.

46Boldrey and Boldrey, "Women in Paul's Life," pp. 23-25; Mollenkott, Women, Men and the Bible, pp. 21-25, 27f.

47It is not clear whether the words aner and gune in the passage mean man" and "woman" or "husband" and "wife," since the Greek can mean either. Thus the English translations and the commentaries vary. The question is debated therefore as to whether Paul intended to make a statement about the relation of womankind to the original man, or of women in general to men in general, or of married women to their husbands, with no reference to single women. My own inclination is to regard it as a statement of the relation of women to men in general, growing out of the origin of womankind from the original man.

48Jewett, Man as Male and Female, pp. 51-57; Knight, The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship, pp. 32-36; Brunner, The Ministry and the Ministry of Women, pp. 21f.; Werner Foerster, "Elousia, " TDNT, 2:573f.

49C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 248.

50Albrecht Oepke, "Katakalupto, " TDNT, 3:562. Oepke goes on to suggest that Paul was attempting to introduce a Jewish custom into a basically Gentile congregation. But the existence of such a Jewish custom is also difficult to establish.

51James B. Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36," Westminster Theological Journal, 35 (1973):193-96; Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1965), pp. 164, 177. H. L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament as Talmud and Midrasch (Munchen: C. H. Beck, 1954), 3:423f. and 429-34, lists Jewish sources which treat veiling practices, most all of which date from the second to the fifth centuries and are of little help for knowledge of first-century Jewish customs.

52This word was used in the Septuagint of Deut. 22:12 to refer to the cloak worn as a covering by Jewish men. Paul was saying that the woman's hair is given to her instead of (anti) a cloak.

53Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils," p. 196.

54Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, pp. 161f.; Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils," 198, and references to Jewish sources there.

55Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils" pp. 195f.; 202; Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, p. 173; cf. W. J. Martin, "1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation," in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.,1970), p.233.

56Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, p. 166; Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils," pp. 198f.

57Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, p. 163; Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils," pp. 202f.

58Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, p. 169.

59Isaksson's contention that the reference is to Nazarite vows taken by women without their husband's permission is unconvincing, Ibid., pp. 162f., 170f.

60Martin, "1 Corinthians 11:2-16," p. 233, n. 4; Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, p. 170.

61Martin, "1 Corinthians 11:2-16," pp. 233f.

62Hurley, "Did Paul Require Veils," pp. 200f.

63Martin, "1 Corinthians 11:2-16," pp. 234-39, points out that the definite article in he exuremene, "the shorn woman" (v. 5), indicates the existence of such a group in the church, with a background in Hellenistic religious practices.

64Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetzcal Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967), pp. 227, 231.

65"It is well for a man not to touch a woman" is now commonly regarded to be a quote by Paul out of the letter from the church, originating from an ascetic sentiment which denied marriage.

66Barrett, Commentary, p. 257; Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," p. 297, n. 38.

67Barrett, Commentary, pp. 248f.

68Boldrey and Boldrey, "Women in Paul's Life" pp. 11f.

69Jewett, Man as Male and Female, pp. 24f.

70Barrett, Commentary, p. 251.

71Boldrey and Boldrey, "Women in Paul's Life," p. 12; Scroggs, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," p. 298.

72For a survey of opinions, see Morna D. Hooker, "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor. 11:10," New Testament Studies, 10 (1964):412-14.

73Ibid., pp. 412f.; Barrett, Commentary, p. 254.

74Caird, "Paul and Women's Liberty," p. 277; Hooker, "Authority on Her Head," pp. 413f.

75Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, pp. 180f.

76"Paul and the Eschatological Woman," p. 300, n. 47.

77Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline, pp. 307, 460; Barrett, Commentary, p. 255.

78Jewett's observation on vs.11 f., Man as Male and Female, p. 113, that "Here we have what may be the first expression of an uneasy conscience on the part of a Christian theologian who argues for the subordination of the female to the male by virtue of her derivation from the male" is made on his assumption that verses 3-10 are about the subordination of women to men (ibid., pp. 54-57; 112-114). If the interpretation above is correct and the chapter is not about hierarchy and subordination, but about the distinction between the sexes, then Jewett's conclusion would seem to be out of order.