Is St. Paul Sexist?

Q - Would you please explain for me the passage from 1 Corinthians 11:1-16?
Does the description in 1 Corinthians 11:3 imply some kind of hierarchy therefore subordination from one member to the other? Why is a man not supposed to cover his head while a woman has to? Are these traditions? Finally, Jesus has long hair, do you see any contradiction?


A - Thanks for the questions. I will try and tackle all of them. First of all, we have to remember a few things about the authors of the Sacred Scriptures.
1 - God inspired them to write truth that leads to salvation. Here is what Vatican II said in Dei Verbum:

"since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation."

2 - The human authors are limited by their own humanity and do not write about the natural order of things if they are ignorant about something. God inspires the truth that is supernatural and transcends the natural order. Therefore, a writer could not tell us about modern scientific discoveries thousands of years ago. Thus, when we read the Bible we must consider what the original human author knew about the world. The Catechism says:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

So, when we go through these passages, we must keep these things in mind.
Here is the passage in context:

"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God."
1 Corinthians 11: 1-16

What is Paul getting at here? Well, it will take a while to break it all down.

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. 

When Paul is saying to imitate him, he is speaking about the preceding passage, not this one. So, I will address the rest of this passage without directly linking them to Paul's example.

The rest of this passage is disputed by scholars. One school of thought is that he is talking about sexual differences between all men and women. Some say it has to do with marital relationships, not the broader differences between men and women. The Greek in this passage for "man" and "woman" can be also translated into "husband" and "wife", so this is where some of the scholars get this thought.

Now, the word "head" in Greek is Kephale. It can mean a physical head of a person's body, ruler, leader, source, or origin. So, there are different ways of interpreting what Paul is saying here. One way of interpreting Scripture is to read it in the context of other passages. Paul also talks about headship in Ephesians 5 and starts off with these passages:

"Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,"
-Ephesians 5: 21-16

So, husbands and wives are to be subordinate to one another - which means to let the other person's interests and welfare come before your own. Also, if a man is to be head of his wife as Christ is, then a man should lay down his life for his wife, as Christ did for the Church. There is no subjugation of women here. Rather, there is sacrificial love for one another.

Now, what about the head covering issue?

The Church teaches that this was a cultural practice in Paul's day and he is asking them to keep the practice up. This is not a matter of doctrine, but a discipline, therefore it can be changed as other disciplines in the liturgy have over time. Thus, the document Inter Insigniores says:

"it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value."

So, there is no moral or Church law that would ever require a woman to cover her head or wear what some women still wear - a chapel veil (mantilla) - rather, this is a personal devotion and women are permitted to wear them if they so choose.

As for Jesus and long hair - we just don't know what he looked like or how he had his hair.

Now, based on archaeological data, we can say that most Jews of Jesus day would have had long hair and beards (by today's standard). But, most women would have had hair much longer, probably down to their waists. So, what Paul is calling long is a cultural standard as well. He is asking men to try not to appear as women do.

I hope all of this helps.

Are Humans Inherently Bad?

Numbers in the Book of Revelation

Q - In Revelation – why is the number 7 important? And 1/3 (not the number 3, but specifically 1/3)?

A - Thanks for the questions!

In the time before Jesus there was a popular kind of Jewish writing called Apocalyptic writing (AW). This writing had several characteristics including:

• It dealt with the subject of the last age of the world when good triumphs over evil
• It made much use of symbolism taken from the animal kingdom, astrology, numbers, etc.

The OT book of Daniel influenced much of this writing. These kind of writings also resembled some of the styles used in the OT prophetic books like Isaiah and Zechariah. But, there are differences with the prophetic books, they include:

• AW doesn't use an author's name, but one of a celebrated persona
• AW conceives of this world as being of Satan and incapable of regeneration. Therefore the most that man can hope for is a new world that he can pray for.
• AW has determinism.That is, that there is very little room for personal freedom or conversion.What is, is.

Revelation is not therefore an Apocalyptic writing, like some call it, but rather a work of prophecy. The only one in the NT. Prophecy is not always telling the future, but rather giving a message of God to a people. This is the purpose of the Book of Revelation and it includes language that tells us about the future in part.

As for numbers in Revelation:

The number 7 - This number reflects perfection because God created the world in six days, then rested on the seventh. So, when used in Revelation it signifies such as this example (one of many):

Rev 1:12 Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw golden lampstands.

The lampstands represent seven Churches - thus the perfection of the Church is illuminated here.

The number 1/3 - represents God's mercy. Usually when used the fraction has to do with punishment that God is raining on the earth. For example:

a third of the creatures living in the sea died, and a third of the ships were wrecked. - rev 8:9

So, even when the punishment comes, there is still mercy - God doesn't destroy all.

There are many other symbols in the book of Revelation, which is why I recommend a good commentary, such as the Navarre Bible of the Ignatius Study Bible. We have both in St. Mary's library.

I hope this helps.

Did Jesus Get Frustrated?

Q - I was talking to a friend the other day and the question 'Did Jesus ever get frustrated?' came up. Now, my first reaction was to say yes, that he must have felt frustration at times as part of being human but now I'm not so sure. We both agree that Christ felt anger, but my friend puts frustration in a different category and, if I'm understanding her point, seems to see frustration as part of our fallen nature and that if we see Christ as feeling frustrated we are, more or less, down-grading him from the Divine being he is to fit in line of our perceptions on what it means to be human. Or that frustration stems from insecurity which, as he trusted fully in God, Jesus would not have felt.


A - Thanks for the question. It depends on how we define frustration. If frustration is an emotion which comes from some external opposition, then we could say that Jesus did get frustrated.

One principle that might help is to understand that emotions, in and of themselves, are not either morally good or bad. They are morally neutral. It is our reaction to them that is either good or bad.
The Catechism says:

1768 Strong feelings are not decisive for the morality or the holiness of persons; they are simply the inexhaustible reservoir of images and affections in which the moral life is expressed. Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case. the upright will orders the movements of the senses it appropriates to the good and to beatitude; an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them. Emotions and feelings can be taken up into the virtues or perverted by the vices.

The classic case of seeing Jesus respond to a situation emotionally (yet still morally justified) is in the Temple when He overturns the money changers tables:

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And he said to them, "It is written: 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' 12 but you are making it a den of thieves.""
Matt 21: 12-13

I would expect that Jesus was frustrated, angry, and upset by his Father's temple becoming a place of lies, theft, and dishonesty. This is a righteous anger and no sin is committed. In fact, to allow injustice to flourish without fighting against it is the sin here - not the feelings of frustration or anger.

Sometimes we have an understanding of Jesus as too sugary-sweet. As if He skips around with flowers, singing that he would like to buy the world a Coke and world peace. This isn't the case. Christ fought for His justice not just for mercy.

Was Jesus kind? Absolutely. Was Jesus nice? Not all the time - because "nice people" don't get crucified.

"Be angry, and sin not." -Eph 4:26 

I hope this helps.

Does Christ Advocate Killing Non-Christians?

Q - I used to feel that Muslims killing people of other religion saying that they are 'Infidels' was wrong. But, recently I found that Jesus told us to do that in Luke 19:27. Let me quote it here,

"Luke 19:27 But bring those enemies of mine who didn't want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me."

As faithful christians, shouldn't we go and kill all those who do not accept christ as their savior ? Of course I am not planning a mass massacre. But, I found the quote quite hilarious. I get the feeling that the scribes who wrote the Gospel of Luke fabricated this sentence for effect. And we Christians never paid much attention either. Or, maybe we did.


A - Thanks for the question. To get a good feel for the passage you quote, I would like to place it in context of the story around it. So, here is a bit more:

"He came to Jericho and intended to pass through the town. Now a man there named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector and also a wealthy man, was seeking to see who Jesus was; but he could not see him because of the crowd, for he was short in stature. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus, who was about to pass that way. When he reached the place, Jesus looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house." And he came down quickly and received him with joy. When they all saw this, they began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner." But Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, "Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over." And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost."

While they were listening to him speak, he proceeded to tell a parable because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God would appear there immediately. So he said, "A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return. He called ten of his servants and gave them ten gold coins and told them, 'Engage in trade with these until I return.' His fellow citizens, however, despised him and sent a delegation after him to announce, 'We do not want this man to be our king.' But when he returned after obtaining the kingship, he had the servants called, to whom he had given the money, to learn what they had gained by trading. The first came forward and said, 'Sir, your gold coin has earned ten additional ones.' He replied, 'Well done, good servant! You have been faithful in this very small matter; take charge of ten cities.' Then the second came and reported, 'Your gold coin, sir, has earned five more.' And to this servant too he said, 'You, take charge of five cities.' Then the other servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your gold coin; I kept it stored away in a handkerchief, for I was afraid of you, because you are a demanding person; you take up what you did not lay down and you harvest what you did not plant.' He said to him, 'With your own words I shall condemn you, you wicked servant. You knew I was a demanding person, taking up what I did not lay down and harvesting what I did not plant; why did you not put my money in a bank? Then on my return I would have collected it with interest.' And to those standing by he said, 'Take the gold coin from him and give it to the servant who has ten.' But they said to him, 'Sir, he has ten gold coins.' 'I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'" After he had said this, he proceeded on his journey up to Jerusalem."
-Luke 19: 1-28

Notice a few things. First, we see that Zacchaeus has a conversion to Christ and puts the money he has made toward justice and service of God. He has a right understanding of the gifts given to him by God. This leads into the next section.

Here we see Christ teaching through a parable. A parable is a simple story used to illustrate a moral lesson or teaching. They are not perfect reflections of every situation. But, we can take a lot out of this one here.
The story gives us several representative persons and ideas:

• The King is Jesus.
• The Servants are those that follow him - some remain faithful and others do not.
• The money represents the gifts of God (our talents and possessions).
• The killing of the servants represents a spiritual death, not a physical one.

So, Jesus is certainly not advocating the killing of our enemies, rather he is telling us that those that reject Him are endanger of losing eternal life in Heaven. This is the teaching of the parable.

It also has a second dimension. As St. Luke says, "they thought that the kingdom of God would appear there immediately" - thus, the apostles had a false understanding of the Kingdom of God. It is not a political or earthly kingdom, but a spiritual one.

Finally, God expects us to use the gifts He gives us for His purposes and glory. Notice though that the King lavishes gifts upon the faithful servants who did as he commanded, "Engage in trade with these until I return". The lazy servant wasted the gifts of God, disobeyed the commandment, and was punished accordingly.

This should serve as a reminder to us all. Our salvation is not complete until the end of our lives and we are to be judged on our faithfulness to God by how we lived out His commandments.

There is certainly no fabrication of the sentence and the "scribes" as you call them are actually St. Luke faithfully recording the words of Christ.

I hope this helps.