Someone once said, "The main thing is to see that the main thing remains the main thing." The obvious question is, "What is the main thing that must remain the main thing?" When we come to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 we must ask ourselves, "What is the main thing?" The main issue in this passage is male headship and female subjection. The question is not whether women should wear hats in church, but the question is whether women are wearing the pants (so to speak) at home, in the work force, or in church.
When we speak about women's roles today we're in danger of attack from the ACLU and the feminist movement. They would have us believe that there are no roles specifically for women, but that women can hold any job or position that a man can hold.
Philosopher and feminist scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, who teaches ethics at Clark University says, "Liberal feminism asks for "a fair field and no favors"--that is, for equality of opportunity but not necessarily equality of outcomes, let alone any preferential treatment for women. Additionally, liberal feminism downplays behavioral differences between the sexes (whether rooted in nature, nurture, or both) in order to emphasize their common humanness, especially their common possession of rationality and autonomy." The Corinthian church faced a similar feminist movement at Corinth. The liberty that Christianity had brought to women was being misused and many women were pushing for equality of function and authority.
In this text Paul sought to correct this abuse of authority and regain the order that authority and submission brings. This passage is probably the most complex, controversial, and opaque of any text of comparable length in the New Testament. Every sincere Christian who wants to please the Lord and obey the Scriptures faces some difficult problems in this passage. What is the twentieth century American woman's responsibility in the area of a head covering? To some, the head covering is a test of orthodoxy, while to others it is simply a cultural feature of Corinth and applies only to the Corinthians. To still others the requirement for a head covering is met through a woman wearing long hair. To some, the head covering or hat is a mark of spirituality, and to others it's a sign of legalism. To others a hat is purely a part of their fashion. To some the head covering is totally inconsequential because it is mentioned only once in the New Testament. Yet to others it is a fundamental of the faith.
As we study this text let's keep the main thing the main thing. Anyone who is dogmatic in their interpretation of this passage is either foolish or prideful. Paul began this difficult passage this way: 1 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV) "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
The word "now" indicates the transition to a new subject. 1 Corinthians 11:1 actually belongs at the end of chapter 10. Paul began with a word of praise for those in the church who had been following what he had taught them. The word "ordinances" is the Greek word paradosis which means "that which is passed along by teaching." Paradosis is sometimes used in a negative way in the New Testament when it refers to man-made ideas or practices. But the term is also applied to divinely revealed teachings, as it is here. In chapter 11 Paul looked at two traditions: male headship, which dates from the creation of mankind, and the Lord's Supper, which dates from the beginning of the church. Many but not all of the Corinthian believers had held firmly to Paul's inspired teaching and he praised them.
In verse 3 Paul declared the great tradition of headship as a principle to govern the people of God for all time. In the following verses (4-16), he clarified the practice of this principle under the conditions in Corinth and the world of the first century.
Here is the principle: 1 Corinthians 11:3 (NKJV) "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."
The word "head" is the Greek word kephale which metaphorically means government or authority. When "head" is used figuratively, as it is here, it refers to priority in function. The physical head of the human body runs the body; it controls and sets the direction for the body. Used metaphorically, "head" means leadership and thus it is used in this passage. This is clearly indicated by the Apostle's use of "head" three times in one verse. The controversial headship was the second one, but he bracketed this with two other examples of headship so that the Corinthians would understand from them what the middle one meant. The principle is that order and subordination pervade the whole universe and are essential to its being. ****************************
The first use of the word "head" is "the head of every man is Christ." Paul declared Christ's right to lead the whole human race. Ultimately, as Scripture tells us, all humanity, without exception, will bow the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. So whether men know it or not, Christ is their head and they are responsible to follow him. Christ leads the human race and determines every man's destiny. Most Christians do not have any problems with that statement, at least intellectually.
The next statement of headship is harder to swallow: "The head of the woman is the man." Today a person making this statement might be charged with a hate crime, but this is the teaching of the Bible. The man is the authority or leader over the woman. Male headship is not exclusive to marital relationships; it applies in all relations between man and woman everywhere, especially where Christ is worshiped as head. Women in general are to be submissive to men in general. The man is to lead.
Christian feminists (which is an oxymoron) appeal to Galatians 3:28 to disprove the idea of female subordination. Galatians 3:28 (NKJV) "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."
Spiritually speaking, men and women are equal in their relationship before God, and both are responsible to love and serve God. In terms of personal worth, intellect, and spirituality men and women are equal. But in terms of authority and function men and women are different. A Navy captain is not necessarily superior to a seaman in intelligence, wisdom, spirituality, moral character, or talent. The captain, however, has authority over the seaman. A position of authority does not imply superiority. A position of authority simply distinguishes function and role. The Bible clearly teaches that men and women have different roles in life.
For example, the Old Testament lists no female monarchs of Israel or Juda. There are no female priests in the Old Testament. No woman authored any of the books or any portion of any Old Testament book. No women had an ongoing prophetic ministry. The same is true in the New Testament: there are no female elders, evangelists, or New Testament authors. No sermons or teachings were given by women in the New Testament and all of Jesus' twelve disciples were men. Men and women share equality of spiritual life but different roles.
The truth that God established the principle of male authority and female subordination remains in spite of the protests of feminists. Women are often more intelligent, more spiritual, more talented, superior to their male counterparts, but women are to serve under the men who are answerable to God for the work of God. The matter authority is not one of superiority and inferiority, but of responsibility and accountability.
In New Testament times the Christian faith brought freedom and hope to women, children, and slaves. It taught that all people, regardless of race or gender, were equal before their Creator, and that all believers were one in Jesus Christ. Some women in Corinth carried this newfound freedom to excess. They flaunted their freedom and threw off authority. Paul sought to restore order by reminding the Corinthians that God ordained different roles for men and women.
Paul said first that the head of the man is Christ. Secondly, he reminded his readers that the head of the woman is the man. In his third example he saed, "The head of Christ is God." Jesus, the Son of God, is equal to the Father in his deity, nevertheless submits himself to the leadership of the Father. Jesus repeatedly stated this himself: "I do always those things which please my Father." On one occasion he said, "My meat is to do my Father's will, and to please him who sent me." On another occasion he said, "I and my Father are one." He added on another occasion, "My Father is greater than I." The equality of the members of the Godhead was not threatened by that statement: Christ voluntarily consented to take a lower position than the Father. Therefore Christ could say, "My Father is greater than I."
The divinely ordained hierarchy is God, Christ, man, and woman. God and the Messiah are equally divine, but there is a subordination of function; man and woman are spiritually equal, but one ranks above the other in function.
In 11:4-11 the Apostle applied this principle to the practice of the church which exsisted in Eastern culture of the first century world. The principle of male headship is clear, but the apostle's application of the principle is not so clear. 1 Corinthians 11:4 (NKJV) "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head."
Praying is speaking to God for man and prophesying is speaking to man for God. In other words, Paul was referring to ministering in public. The word "head" is the same word used in verse 3 and we can assume it means his physical head and spiritual head. The problem comes in with the word "covered": it comes from the Greek word kata, which simply means "down." The literal Greek reads "down over his head having." Paul's exact meaning is obscure because of the scarcity of historical data. This might refer to some external covering but it might also refer to long hair. In verses 14-15 Paul definitely talked about relative hair lengths for men and women. I think from the following verses we can safely infer that a man who covered his head (whatever that means) acted like a woman and thus dishonored his head which was Christ.
The word "dishonors" is the Greek word kataischuno, which means to shame down, disgrace or dishonor. For a man to cover his head is to disgrace his Lord. But notice that the opposite is true for a woman. 1 Corinthians 11:5 (NKJV) "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."
When Paul talked about a woman praying and prophesying, he was not referring to the church, but public ministry. This seems clear from Paul's instructions about the conduct of women in the public meetings. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (NKJV) "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NKJV) "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."
The word "uncovered" in 11:5 is from the Greek word akatakaluptos, and it means to uncover. That word is only used in 1 Corinthians 11:5&13. It seems to be the opposite of having the head covered that Paul mentioned in 11:4. A woman who ministered in public with her head uncovered dishonored her head which was man. The exact nature of a head covering might have been clearer if Paul had used the word that he used in 2 Corinthians 3:13. Unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.
The Greek word Paul used in 2 Cor. 3:13 for veil is kaluma. If he had wanted us to understand veil in our text using kaluma would have clarified the text.
Our text could be referring to an external veil. A lot of evidence points toward women wearing a head covering in public as a universal custom in the first century in both Jewish culture ([apocryphal] 3 Maccabees 4:6; Mishnah, Ketuboth 7. 6; Babylonian Talmud, Ketuboth 72a-b) and Greco-Roman culture (Plutarch Moralia 3. 232c; 4. 267b; Apuleius The Golden Ass 11. 10). The nature of the covering varied considerably (Ovid The Art of Love 3:135-65), but it was commonly a portion of the outer garment drawn up over the head like a hood. The veil was the symbol of acceptance and understanding of the principle of headship which Paul declared.
It was indeed disgraceful, shameful, for a woman to appear in public and especially to minister the Word in public without that sign of acknowledgment of the principle of headship in her life. A woman who removed her veil was publicly declaring independence from her husband and rejecting his claims on her. By appearing without a head covering, the woman dishonored her head which was the man. She showed a lack of respect to her husband, father, or to the sex in general by refusing to take the place of subordination. Paul said that for a woman to minister publicly without a head covering was "the same as if her head were shaved." Paul could have meant that Christian women should wear head coverings because not wearing them was the shameful equivalent of shaving their heads. If the head covering referred to long hair, then Paul could have been saying that for a woman to have short hair was the same as shaving off all of her hair. 1 Corinthians 11:6 (NKJV) "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."
The second if in this verse indicates a condition of first class in the Greek. The statement is assumed to be true and it should be translated since. In that day only a prostitute or an extreme feminist shaved her head. The Talmud indicates that a Jew considered a woman with a shaved head extremely ugly, and Chrysostom recorded that women guilty of adultery had their hair shaved off and were marked as prostitutes.
Whatever the exact nature of the head covering, we know for sure from these verses that for a man and woman to minister in public with their head covered is to one a shame and to the other an honor. If these verses say nothing else, they clearly say that the sexes are different! Men and women have different roles and the distinctions should not be blurred. I think that VMI is right and should go private or close rather than to allow women to join the school. Women do not belong in a military academy. For women to lead men is wrong in the church or in the nation. Isaiah spoke judgement on his generation because they allowed women to rule over them. Isaiah 3:12 (NKJV) "As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths." Isaiah 19:16 (NKJV) "In that day Egypt will be like women, and will be afraid and fear because of the waving of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which He waves over it."
Women are not to rule but to be subordinate to men. This principle goes beyond the church and applies to society and our nation.
The principle of male headship is not a matter of custom but a matter of God's order in creation and should never be compromised. 1 Corinthians 11:7 (NKJV) "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."
The principle of headship has been true from the beginning of mankind. By virtue of creation, man is above woman in terms of function. Man is uniquely created to bear the image of God as a ruler, man was given a sphere of sovereignty. Both men and women were created in God's image, but as Paul points out in verse 8, the original creation from the "dust of the ground" was Adam only. Eve was created later from part of Adam himself. The male was given the dominion and authority over God's created world which makes man the glory of God.
Woman is the glory of man: woman was made to manifest man's authority as man was made to manifest God's authority. The woman is viceregent who rules in the stead of man or who carries out man's will, just as man is God's viceregent who rules in His stead or carries out His will. Charles Hodge says, "She receives and reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station; becomes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honor which may belong to her husband." 1 Corinthians 11:8 (NKJV) "For man is not from woman, but woman from man. "Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man."
The man was created directly for God, but the woman was made for man. She was created on his account, and not he on hers. God could have simultaneously created Adam and Eve as he did the animals but he created Adam first, then Eve. God made this distinction for all time, and with it he reveals his design and purpose for the sexes. Woman was created under the headship of man, and in the Greek culture, a woman's head covering was a sign of her submission. 1 Corinthians 11:10 (NKJV) "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."
"For this reason" refers to the fact that the woman was created from and for the man. The text simply says, "The woman ought to have authority on her head," rather than "a symbol of authority". This could mean that the woman's covered head, whether is was a veil or long hair, was the woman's right to pray or prophesy in public since it demonstrated her submissiveness.
The text says that a woman should have authority on her head "because of the angels." The meaning of this phrase is unclear, but perhaps just as man is ranked "a little lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:5), so woman should take her place in submission to man. As far as we know, angels have never been tempted and fallen except on the matter of rebellion against authority.
I would like to quote two good expositors on this verse. Charles Hodge says, "There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators at this. After all that has been written, it remains just as obscure as ever." Simon Kistemaker says, "In all humility, I confess that I really do not know what Paul intended to say in this verse." I stand in agreement with these men. 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 (NKJV) "Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God."
Paul was quick to warn that men must not consider women as inferior. Men were not to abuse their authority by showing contempt to women or by displaying a domineering spirit toward women. Am I glad Paul said this! He reminded them that men and women are dependent upon one another, and that both depend on God (Rom. 11:36; 2 Cor. 5:18). Male chauvinism is as wrong as feminism.
Far from oppressing women, the church has been their greatest liberator. In Greek and Roman societies most women were little more than slaves. In the Jewish culture women were not held in very high esteem either. But Christianity liberated women by giving them equality of value and being. The first woman was created from the man, but every man since then has been created through a woman. Men and women are mutually dependent upon one another. Men and women have different roles but not different value. 1 Corinthians 11:13 (NKJV) "Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"
Paul appealed to the Corinthians' own sense of fitness or appropriateness. This makes me think that the head covering must be a cultural thing that related to authority and subordination and the distinction of the sexes. To them it was wrong for a woman to pray uncovered, and they all knew it. What if we asked the same question today? What kind of response would we get? Few today would think it was wrong. 1 Corinthians 11:14 (NKJV) "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"
Compare this with verse 4. I think that it now becomes clear that hair, not hats, is the important matter. Certainly nature doesn't teach us that women must wear hats to pray. How does nature teach us that man is dishonored by having long hair? Many have struggled over this passage. What is there about nature that indicates that a man with long hair dishonors himself while a woman with long hair is honored? It is not mere intuition, as some suggest, for such an intuition is not universal. But there is a principle that science has come to recognize as true, and it has been true from the very beginning of the race, as far as we can tell. That is the factor of baldness. Geneticists tell us that it takes two genes in a woman to produce baldness but only one in a man. Some women do get bald, but it is very rare. Here is a natural factor that has been functioning since the race began which does indeed display the very thing that Paul declares.
Men wearing long hair was contrary to the custom both of the Hebrews and Greeks. It was considered a mark of effeminacy for men to wear long hair, so much so that it was not only ridiculed by Juvenal, but also seriously censured by church councils. Even the pagan philosopher Epictetus, a Stoic who taught in the second half of the first century, spoke of the difference in hair of men and women respectively. He concluded, "Wherefore, we ought to preserve the signs which God has given; we ought not to throw them away; we ought not, so far as in us lies, to confuse the sexes which have been distinguished in this fashion." From the coins, statues, and painting that depict men in the Greco-Roman world of the first century, we know that men had short hair. To a woman, however, in all ages and countries, long hair has been considered an ornament.
Paul did not say how long is long, but he did say that nature has given us hair length as one way of distinguishing between the sexes. A lady sitting in a maternity ward waiting room saw a long haired father wearing a button that said, "It's a boy." She commented to a friend, "I'm sure glad that they're finally labeling themselves." In the early seventies when long hair was fashionable for young men, my dad used to say, "You can't tell them apart without a program."
Jesus Christ did not have long hair. Every picture we have of our Lord up until the fourth century taken from the catacombs and murals on stone show Jesus with short hair. 1 Corinthians 11:15 (NKJV) "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."
In verses 14-15 "glory" is the opposite of "disgrace," so in both places it probably carries the sense of honor. "For her hair is given her for a covering." The Greek preposition "for" (on-tee) generally means substitution, so that a woman's hair could be given to her "in place of" or "instead of" a covering. In our culture the presence of a hat does not signify subordination of a woman. And Paul was not asking a woman to wear a headpiece. Rather, he wanted a woman to be distinctively feminine in respect to hair and dress and thus fulfill the role that God has intended since creation. It is my opinion that where the wearing of veils is not a custom, then a woman's long hair is an adequate expression of the principle of headship.
There is a clear distinction between men and women: what to one is a disgrace is to the other an honor. God wants there to be a very clear distinction between the sexes. 1 Corinthians 11:16 (NKJV) "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."
This is also a highly debated verse. It seems to me that the "contention" was manifested by long hair on men and short hair on women. "We have no such custom" of men wearing long hair and women wearing short hair.
There are a lot of difficulties and uncertainties in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, but let me sum up by saying what I'm sure of: 1. God has ordained that men rule and women be subordinate. 2. There is to be a clear distinction in the sexes. For a man to look like a woman is to dishonor Christ, and for a woman to look like a man is to dishonor man. 3. Women are to manifest there submission to man's authority by wearing their hair long.
That last summary point leads to one more question: how long is long? I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole and Handel grips. Long and short are relative terms; the issue is whether your hair clearly manifests your masculinity or femininity. Some hairstyles may be borderline but others are clearly too short for women or too long for men.
Men, you can have short hair and still not be the leader in your home, and thus dishonor Christ. Women, you can have long hair and not be submissive to your husband, and thus dishonor him. The outward appearance is supposed to be a manifestation of your heart attitude.
Men, by all means take responsibility as spiritual leaders in the home. You have a responsibility to your head, the Lord Jesus Christ, to know the Word of God and to see that it shapes and molds the atmosphere of your home. Women, your responsibility is to follow your husband in these matters and to support him and encourage him.
Consider this remarkable and sad testimony from a well-known authoress. In a recent interview of Taylor Caldwell by "Family Weekly," the authoress was asked if the nine-hour TV production of her book, Captains and Kings, would bring her solid satisfaction. Her answer was, "There is no solid satisfaction in any career for a woman like myself. There is no home, no true freedom, no hope, no joy, no expectation for tomorrow, no contentment. I would rather cook a meal for a man and bring him his slippers and feel myself in the protection of his arms than have all the citations and awards and honors I have received worldwide, including the Ribbon of Legion of Honor and my property and my bank accounts. They mean nothing to me. And I am only one among the millions of sad women like myself."
For either man or woman to leave their proper God-given roles is only to bring disappointment, emptiness, and to dishonor your head. The main issue in this passage is the subject of male headship and female subjection. We must understand that submission is a key element in the smooth functioning of any business, government, or family. God ordained submission in certain relationships to prevent chaos. It is essential to understand that submission is not surrender, withdrawal, or apathy. It does not mean inferiority because God created all people in his image with equal value. Submission is mutual commitment and cooperation.
The idea of male headship and female subjection may be very contrary to our politically correct society, but this is the Word of God. May God help us overcome the pressure of the world and live in submission to His Word.
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||