1 Corinthians 11 isn’t the passage I was originally planning to start with, but since it came up in the discussion of Augustine, I thought we should probably go ahead and tackle it. I’ve written previously about this passage in relation to headcoverings, but that’s not what we’re looking at today — at least not exactly. We’re going to address specifically the claim that Paul “does not attribute the image of God to” woman, and what Paul is communicating generally about men and women in this passage.
1 Corinthians 11:2-12
There’s a little more to this passage when we’re talking about covering, but for our purposes here, 1 Corinthians 11:2-12 is enough.
(2) Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. (3) But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. (5) But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. (6) For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. (7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. (9) Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (10) For this reason the woman ought to have
a symbol ofauthority on her head, because of the angels. (11) Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. (12) For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
The eleven verses above cover what we want to look at here. I’ve struck through the phrase “a symbol of,” which is added to the text by translators and not necessary for sentence flow and, in my opinion, brings confusion to the text (see my post on headcoverings for more on that). And I’ve bolded the sentence that’s at the heart of Augustine’s claim.
Now let’s take a closer look.
Paul’s Careful Balance
Notice, first of all, that unlike many uninspired writers who want to play the either/or game, Paul is very careful to balance the both/and here of hierarchy and equality. Although the passage is about authority, he’s made a point of emphasizing that:
a) woman is necessary and not inferior in purpose
“Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman…”
“…even so man also comes through woman…” And that:
b) The two are interdependent.
“…neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man…”
So even though there’s a hierarchy of government here (although we don’t tend to use the word government where family is concerned), it is not intended to be one that creates independence of either party from the other, but one that fosters interdependence. Both are needed for their respective contributions.
Hierarchy with Purpose
Nevertheless, the passage is laying out a hierarchy — “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” This hierarchy has a purpose, and that purpose is what Augustine missed that led to his ill-advised commentary.
What we’re looking at here is a relationship. Quite possibly the “man” and “woman” here are intended to be limited to “husband” and “wife” (in Greek, the words are the same); certainly they primarily address husbands and wives, just due to the natural demographic breakdown of the culture.
A husband is subject to Christ even as he leads his wife (an important point, because this shapes the nature of biblically-directed leadership), and a wife is subject to her husband as the Church is subject to Christ.
Wait; the passage didn’t say that!
Well, no, not directly. But Ephesians 5:22-33 provides us with that context. With regard to this relationship, a husband (man) is the glory of God — that is, represents the Heavenly Bridegroom. And with regard to this relationship, a wife (woman) is the glory of man — that is, represents (redeemed) mankind, the Church, His Bride.
So man and woman alike — all of humanity — is the glory of God in that we are all image-bearers. But within this man-woman (husband-wife) relationship, we mirror the relationship between Christ and the Church, each partner playing his/her respective part in the depiction of God’s union with the Church.
Value, Not Lack of Value!
Far from devaluing women here, Paul is actually showing us why there’s value even in the authority structure that might seem at first blush to be designed to demean. Because we are, with our marriage, depicting this relationship between God and His Bride, it’s important that our behavior depict that relationship well!
The woman came from man, and so represents the humanity that came from God. She lovingly submits to his loving headship in a mirroring of redeemed humanity’s submission to God’s loving headship.
And yet…even as we recognize this, Paul is quick to point out…man and woman are both necessary and independent and, as a matter of course, man comes from woman, too, so men ought not get cocky. This is not a matter of superiority (because ultimately, man and woman are both “mankind,” made in the image of God; it’s a matter of patterning.
An Illustration
We might think about it this way: baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not of greater and lesser value. They each represent something different, and you can’t simply choose to interchange them, because each represents a particular something. A husband and a wife each represent a different something in their relationship to each other, and if we shuffle that up, it’s a bit like trying to use water for the Lord’s Supper — they each are what they are for a reason.
Paul is telling us here that we each represent something, and that’s why it matters that wives be under authority — because that’s part of representing it properly.
Hi Rachel,
I personally believe that Paul is quoting a faction of men who wrote to him in verses 4-6. I believe it is a faction of men who want women to be veiled while praying and prophesying. So, Paul, in his refutation of this, uses Jesus Christ as a correlation as to why women should not be veiled. In verse 7, Paul tells the men that just as a man ought not to veil his head (Jesus Christ vs. 3) since He is the image and glory of God, so also the man ought not to veil the woman since she is his glory. Indeed, it is Jesus Christ who is the image and glory of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, John 1:14, Heb. 1:3, Phil. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:23). Male and female are created IN God’s image, but only Jesus Christ IS the image and glory of God.
I believe it is quite wrong that you have written that the man glorifies God as representing Christ, whereas the woman does not, as she represents the church. The reason it is wrong is that you have placed the man as representing Christ to the woman. She therefore has an intermediary between her and God – this cannot be right, not least because they were created equal (imago dei). It would be an encouragement to her to worship the husband rather than God. Nothing in the scriptures can possibly lead you to believe that a woman does not have a direct relationship with and responsibility to God.
It is very surprising that you, as a woman, have assumed so uncritically the male and patriarchal mindset that stresses hierarchy and authority. If you read the scriptures yourself with an open mind and a readiness to not just blindly go with what male teachers have always asserted, you would, I think come to a different view, more in line with Christ’s teaching and example.
There is nothing in his ministry to suggest hierarchy or power structures are in any way appropriate to relationships. Indeed he stressed love and rebuked those who want authority over others.
I am unapologetically patriarchal; you can read my other posts which are more specifically about patriarchy to understand why. But I think perhaps you’ve misunderstood me here. You say that I’ve “placed the man as representing Christ to the woman,” (emphasis added by me). I don’t believe that’s what I said; it certainly isn’t what I intended to communicate. These are what man and woman, respectively, communicate to the world through the image that is marriage.
(And it’s a little misogynistic, don’t you think, to automatically assume I only hold my beliefs “uncritically” because it’s “what male teachers have always asserted”? In my experience, most teachers don’t teach this — but Scripture does.)
See Patriarchy is Not a Dirty Word and/or Patriarchy is Not a Result of the Fall.