Man as Image and Glory of God (1 Cor 11:2-16)

This inquiry begins with the one text in Paul that most directly applies Gen 1:26-27 to humanity yet curiously limits the designation to male persons. The difficulties of 1 Cor 11:2- 16 are well known among scholars and arise from numerous exegetical, historical, and grammatical issues, which for the most part are set aside here.45 _{The focus in this study is}

more narrowly to understand Paul’s statement ‘For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man’ (1 Cor 11:7) within the broader literary and theological contours of this text. I propose that Paul’s reading of the first creation narrative points to a new reality ‘in the Lord’ that alters what can be said on the basis of Gen 1 alone. I further suggest that the meaning of this cryptic text comes to sharper focus when read within the broader theological categories of creation and new creation as

understood within an apocalyptic framework of old and new age.

Within a larger discussion of issues related to head-covering practices in worship (1 Cor 11:2-16), Paul includes a didactic unit (11:3b-12) that juxtaposes motifs from the first creation account (11:7-9) with motifs of being ‘in the Lord’ (11:11-12), which I consider short-hand for existence within the new creation. This central didactic portion contrasts with the introduction (11:2-3a) and conclusion (11:13-16) by virtue of its exclusive use of third-

114 ---

44 _{Watson, Text and Truth, 282.}

45 _{Scholarly works on this text are prolific. Included here is a small selection of books and articles, see}

especially, A. C. Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction Through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); J. Okland, Women in Their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of

Gender and Sanctuary Space (JSNTSup, Vol 269; London/New York: T & T Clark, 2004); M. J. Lakey, Image and Glory of God: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 as a Case Study in Bible, Gender and Hermeneutics

(LNTS, Vol 418; New York: T & T Clark, 2010); J. Gundry-Volf, “Gender and Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16: A Study in Paul’s Theological Method,” in Evangelium. Schriftauslegung. Kirche. Festschrift fur

Peter Stuhlmacher (eds J. Adno, S. Hafemann, and O. J. Hofius; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1997), 151–71; J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16,” CBQ 42 (1980): 482–500; J. Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 11.2–16 Once Again,” CBQ 50 (1988): 265–74.

person pronouns. Conversely, both the introduction and conclusion abound in first- and second-person pronouns. These internal grammatical markers suggest that 11:2-3a and 11:13- 16 function as personal commendations that bracket the primary theological didactic unit (outlined below). My attention is limited here to this central unit that when carefully studied helps clarify how Paul reads Gen 1-2 in light of the Christ event.46

v. 7 Ανη`ρ με`ν γα`ρ ου’κ ο’φει'λει κατακαλυ'πτεσθαι τη`ν κεφαλη`ν ει’κω`ν και` δο'ξα θεουñ υ‘πα'ρχων (Gen 1:26) η‘ γυνη` δε` δο'ξα α’νδρο'ς ε’στιν v. 8 ου’ γα'ρ ε’στιν α’νη`ρ ε’κ γυναικο`ς α’λλα` γυνη` ε’ξ α’νδρο'ς (Gen 2:18-23) v. 9 γα`ρ ου’κ ε’κτι'σθη α’νη`ρ δια` τη`ν γυναιñκα α’λλα` γυνη` δια` το`ν α»νδρα (Gen 2:8, 21) v. 10 δια` τουñτο ο’φει'λει η‘ γυνη` ε’ξουσι'αν ε»χειν ε’πι` τηñς κεφαληñς δια του`ς α’γγε'λους v. 11 πλη`ν ου»τε γυνη` χωρι`ς α’νδρο`ς ου»τε α’νη`ρ χωρι`ς γυναικο`ς ε’ν κυρι'ω, v. 12a ω‹σπερ γα`ρ η‘ γυνη` ε’κ τουñ α’νδρο's, ου«τως και` ο‘ α’νη`ρ δια` τηñs γυναικο`ς v. 12b τα` δε` πα'ντα ε’κ τουñ θεουñ

The introductory thesis, that ‘man ought not to cover his head’ (11:7), is supported by a modified reading of Gen 1:26 which states that man exists as the image and glory/reflection of God.47

In the related δε' clause, Paul relates woman to the man as ‘his glory/reflection’; this latter point is the thesis developed in the next three verses. First Corinthians 11:8-9 further grounds the woman’s connection with man through the lens of Gen 2:18-23 by first drawing

---

46 _{This organization is based on the relationship of clauses within the logic of the text. It may reflect a chiastic}

pattern, yet such a pattern is not necessarily present. The literary structure presented here closely follows that suggested by G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987), 493–94. See also W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Korinther 6,12–11,16) (EKK; Benziger: Neukirchener, 1995), 490; Lakey, Image, 107–8.

47 _{It is difficult to know the source of this modified citation of Gen 1:26. Of course, the omission of a specific}

reference to women being created in the image of God does not necessarily mean that Paul did not believe this; it simply means that one cannot demonstrate that Paul believed this from this text. This omission was a point of discussion for some early church authors, see for example, Ambrosiaster, Liber quaestionum ueteris

et noui testamenti 21 (CSEL 50:47-48), 45.2-3 (CSEL 50:82-83). For further explanation of early Christian

discussion of this text see, K. E. Borresen, “God’s Image, Man’s Image? Patristic Interpretation of Gen. 1,27 and 1 Cor. 11,7,” in The Image of God: Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (ed. K. E. Borresen; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 187–209. See also Fee, 1 Corinthians, 512–24; A. C. Thiselton, The First

Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids/Cambridge:

Eerdmans/Carlistle: Paternoster, 2000), 834–37. The focus here is an analysis of Paul’s juxtaposition of Gen 1-2 with being “in the Lord.”

out the features of the woman’s original ontological connection to him: ‘for man is not derived from woman, but woman out of man’ (11:8). Then Paul identifies man’s

incompleteness without the woman: ‘man was not created on account of the woman but the woman on account of man’ (11:9).48 _{Verses 8-9 likely function bilaterally to establish Paul’s}

earlier thesis that ‘the woman is the glory/reflection of man’ as well as the thesis of verse 10, that ‘the woman ought to have authority upon/on her head on account of the angels’.49 _{In both}

instances, Paul’s emphasis is on the woman and her connection to her two ‘heads’ — man as her originating ontological κεφαλη' (11:3) and her autonomy over her own anatomical

κεφαλη'. As Hooker, Fee, and others have noted, verse 10 is literarily and theologically central to Paul’s argument.50

Establishing the woman’s active authority on/upon her own head leads into three clauses (11:11-12) that through a literary parallelism juxtapose Gen 1-2 (11:8-9) with being ‘in the Lord’ (11:11-12): the former (old) is effectively relativized by the latter (new). The adversative conjunction πλη'ν at the beginning of verse 11 (translated as nevertheless or

however) often functions grammatically to signal the most important part of an argument, an

116 ---

48 _{This antithetical series begins on both accounts by establishing what man is not and then, through contrast,}

affirming what woman is. These grounds are articulated especially at her point of material and ontological connection to the man (Gen 2:18-23).

49 _{Although a difficult allusion to angels, Joseph and Aseneth 15.1-2 may help clarify Paul’s usage in this text}

and his complicated use of κεφαλη'. In the presence of the heavenly man, Aseneth is directed to remove the

veil because her head is like that of a man (15.1-2). Thus, in this Jewish text, the unveiled head is necessary

to receive the blessing of the heavenly messenger. This aligns with how Paul depicts veil coverings in 2 Cor 3:12-18 and 1 Cor 11:7. As G. Theissen observes, “in both cases, he [Paul] starts from the same premises: the uncovered head symbolizes an immediate relationship to God. In both cases, the veil is placed in relationship to the divine glory and image. The man is the glory and image of God and must therefore wear no veil (1 Cor. 11:7). The unveiled Christian sees the glory and image of God (2 Cor. 3:18).” See G. Theissen, Psychological Aspect of Pauline Theology (trans. J. Galvin; Philadelphia: T. & T. Clark,

1987), 158. In 1 Cor 11:3-16, most scholars conclude that Paul is directing women to cover their heads with a veil based on some form of social/cultural modesty or alternatively he is concerned with a woman’s hair length. See for example, C. L. Thompson, “Hairstyles Head-Coverings, and St. Paul: Portraits from Roman Corinth,” BA 51 (1988): 99–115; Murphy-O’Connor, “Sex”; Schrage, Korinther, 492–94; J. Gundry-Volf, “Gender”. Although it is not absolutely clear what directive Paul is giving to the woman, ultimately, Paul teaches that “in the Lord” all things come from God. To conclude, he places the question back to the Corinthians to decide, perhaps suggesting that Paul ultimately considered the matter adiaphoron, with the one caveat, that whatever practice was decided upon did not result in contention (11:16).

50 _{The classic work of Hooker has drawn attention to this feature of the text. See M. Hooker, “‘Authority on}

Her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor. XI.10,” NTS 10 (1963–64): 410–16. See also Fee, 1 Corinthians, 518– 22; J. Gundry-Volf, “Gender”. For a discussion of the possible chiastic structure that may heighten the importance of verse 10, see T. P. Shoemaker, “Unveiling of Equality: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16,” BTB 17 (1987): 60–63.

exception or ‘something that is contrastingly added for consideration’.51 _{By way of}

comparison (‘neither is woman without man nor man without woman . . . in the Lord’) and parallel (‘just as the woman is out of man so also the man now comes through woman’), these grammatical addenda function to clarify one’s first creation ordering (11:8-9; Gen 2) in light of one’s new creation standing ‘in the Lord’ (11:11). The final clause subordinates any temporal ordering between man and woman to a theocentric framework where ‘all things have their origin in God’ (11:12b).

By any scholarly judgment, the text remains obscure, without enough background for the modern reader to conclude definitively what underlies Paul’s use of the creation narrative here. Thus, it is difficult to know precisely why Paul adds his cryptic modified version of Gen 1:26 at this juncture of his argument. What is more conclusive, however, is that the literary structure and theological logic of this passage gives priority to the new creation reality of being ‘in the Lord’. Paul’s citation of the original ordering of the man and woman in primordial creation (11:8-9) is eclipsed by a new ordering of the man and woman with a focus on their interdependence, their new standing in Christ, and their ultimate origin in God (11:11-12). Literarily placed between these two readings of creation is the assertion that woman has authority over her head (11:10). This declaration, immediately followed by Paul’s qualifiers, becomes the basis for how a woman ought to cover her head. Women are to be covered (11:5), yet their hair, being their δο'ξα, functions as that covering ‘instead of/in place of an external cloth covering’ (γυνη` δε` ε’α`ν κομαñ, δο'ξα αυ’τηñ, ε’στιν; ο«τι η‘ κο'μη α’ντι`

περιβολαι'ου δε'δοται [αυ’τηñ,] 11:15).52

This same hermeneutic is likely in play in Galatians where Paul states that for those in Christ Jesus, ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male and female’ (Gal 3:28). The abrupt break from the neither/nor pattern with ‘male and female’ signifies that this is likely a direct quotation from Gen 1:26. If so, then both texts demonstrate that Paul reads Gen 1:26 as a designation pointing forward to an eschatological state in Christ where ---

51 _{BAGD, 826.}

52 _{The grammatical construction is straight forward, the woman’s hair is given “instead of/in place of an}

external cloth covering.” See BAGD, 800. See Lakey who interprets Paul in this passage as requiring veils for women. He struggles to fit verse 15 logically into such a reading. Lakey, Image, 119–21.

even one’s created sexuality is ‘no longer’. This does not mean, as some ‘Gnostic’

interpreters concluded, that an asexual humanity results. Rather, as Judith Gundry clarifies, ‘[Paul in Galatians 3:28] refers to the adiaphorization of sex difference in a new creation where being male or female is no advantage or disadvantage in relation to God and others’.53

As elsewhere in this letter and in keeping with the first creation narrative (Gen 1:31), Paul concludes this unit by affirming that ‘all things have their origin in God’ (1 Cor 11:12b; cf. 1 Cor 1:30; 3:21b-23; 8:6; 10:10-26). These observations confirm that origins matter deeply to Paul. Yet as these texts suggest, the epicenter of origins has shifted from ‘in the beginning’ to ‘in the new beginning, in Christ’.54