Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on April 7, 2012 under Ask the Pastor | 
A writer to the church asks:
I was wondering what insight you could give me on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16—about head coverings
* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
Excellent question. I’ve, unfortunately, had the experience of being in a church once where this issue became very divisive. But I think I can suggest a few things that might help.
First, it’s important to remember that the specific problem that Paul was seeking to solve ought to determine how we interpret what this passage says. There was, at that time in the Corinthian culture, a growing and aggressively destructive ‘feminist’ movement. The Corinthian believers were becoming influenced by this cultural movement. Paul was not trying to suppress one gender under another, but rather to maintain the proper, God-honoring order that benefits both women and men (see vv. 11-12).
Second, there needs to be a distinction made between timeless theological principles and time-bound cultural practices. For example, the wearing of a head-covering meant something specific in that time that it does not mean today—just as short hair on a woman or long hair on a man meant something different at different times of history. We need to draw out the timeless principles that are being taught to us through the time-bound cultural instructions that Paul was giving the Corinthians.
The “timeless principle” that I would draw from this passage is that God has established a basic order of headship in the husband/wife role. I take this from verses 2-3. Paul wrote (in the New King James Version):
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 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 (vv. 2-3).
Paul praised the Corinthians for their remembrance of him and of the “traditions” he taught them (v. 1). These “traditions” were not simply things that Paul came up with, but were the things that were the heritage of godly people throughout the ages. Among the “traditions” he wanted the Corinthians to know was that there is a God-established order of “headship”. Headship, in verse 3, may be best understood as “an order of established authority”. (See Ephesians 5:22-24). God the Father is the Head of Christ; Christ is the Head of man, and the husband is the head of his wife. Men are mentioned first, then the women; but then—as if to affirm His supremacy over both—Christ is mentioned last.
Paul was giving the Corinthians a time-bound or culturally-bound practice, based on that principle, with respect to how the basic order of headship is to be honored in the church. The church would not be behaving properly if it conducted itself in rebellion against this established order of headship—however it may be that this order is expressed in culture. If it does so, it steps out of from under the authority of Christ’s headship.
So; what does Paul tell them about this time-bound practice? First, notice that it is to be maintained in the practice of the church’s worship. In verses 4-7, Paul wrote;
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 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. 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. 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 (vv. 4-7).
This time-bound practice is to be maintained in the manner with which prayer and prophesying (speaking forth what God has said) was to be done. Note that women are NOT forbidden from praying or prophesying in the church. They apparently are very welcomed and encouraged to do so; but whenever a woman does so, the symbols of her submission to her God-appointed head must be maintained. In that culture, the symbol that was recognized was head-covering. In ours, a parallel idea might be the wearing of a wedding ring and the taking-on of the husband’s last name. (For a woman to shave her head in that culture was an expression of open immorality and rebellion; and Paul is arguing that if she will not submit to that God-appointed order of headship, she is expressing rebellion just as much as if were to bear the outward cultural symbol of rebellion. )
The expression of the timeless principle of the headship order in this way is in keeping with the story of Creation. In verses 8-9, Paul went on to write;
For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man (vv. 8-9).
This was taken right out of the creation story in Genesis 2; and shows that God had a specific purpose in the order of creation. To refuse to respect the creation order in the manner in which worship was done in the church was the same as to rebel against God’s authority.
It was also proper with respect to the presence of angels. In verse 10, Paul wrote;
For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (v. 10).
This may be a reference to the fact that the angels are vitally involved in the life of the church (see Hebrews 1:14). They are certainly mightier than human beings; but they themselves nevertheless submit to their God-appointed role of serving the saints. What’s more, they too bear a “covering” in their worship of God (see Isaiah 6:2).
All of this was to be seen in the context of God’s design of interdependency. As Paul wrote in verses 11-12;
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 (vv. 11-12).
In no way do Paul’s instructions destroy the equal value of both men and women. Paul maintains that, just as the woman comes from man in creation, the man comes from woman in birth. They may possess different roles in the order of headship; but by God’s design, the expression of their differing roles is to be seen mutually compatible and equally edifying to one another.
And the expression of this design is self-evidently proper. Paul went on to say in verses 13-15;
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering (vv. 13-15).
In the Corinthian culture (and in most), long, unkempt hair on a man was a symbol of shame (effeminate behavior); but long hair on a woman is a symbol of beauty (see 1 Peter 3:3). Here, the woman’s hair is said to be given as a natural “covering”. (The Bible gives us no specific “length” of hair that is proper and acceptable. This is culturally determined. )
Finally, Paul stressed that this was a practice that was in keeping with the custom of practice in the churches at large. In verse 16, he writes;
But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God (v. 16).
Even if someone were to be contentious about the matter, Paul maintained that there was no other pattern given except that which honors God-appointed headship—neither from the apostles, nor from the church as a whole.
Well; that’s quite a bit. But I hope some if it helps.
Blessings,
Pastor Greg
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on under Ask the Pastor |
A writer to the church has heard it taught that the Bible says women should keep silent in church, and they should rely on their husbands if they have anything to say. She writes:
“I have no problem with it, but I would like to know your opinion on it. What if a woman doesn’t have a husband, especially a Christian husband, dad, brother, son, or any male relative?”
* * * * * * * * * *
Thanks for writing.
This is, obviously, a very delicate matter. And I’m sorry to say that a lot of Bible teachers (some well-meaning, and others not-so-well-meaning) have failed to take the passages in question in their proper contexts; and have ended up making it seem as if women were ‘second-class citizens’ within the household of God. Nothing could be further from the apostle Paul’s intention in the things he wrote.
First, let’s make it clear that there are no “second-class-citizens” in God’s household. As Paul affirmed in Galatians 3:26-27, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. ”
The apostle Paul is sometimes accused (unfairly) of lowering the status of women. But this is not true at all. He depended upon the faithful services and co-labors of a woman named Phoebe. Thanks to her, we have Paul’s wonderful book of Romans in our Bibles today! She was a woman that Paul referred to as “a servant of the church” (literally, a deaconess); and considered her a woman to be received by others in the church “in a manner worthy of the saints” (Romans 16:1-2). In his missionary work in Philippi, he was grateful for the support of a remarkable woman named Lydia—a successful business-woman who appears to have had the sufficient means to even provide her home as the meeting place of the church that was formed there (Acts 16:11-15, 40). There are many other examples in the New Testament. So; the things that Paul said regarding women speaking in the church should not be interpreted in any respect as an effort to suppress them or disrespect them.
* * * * * * * * * *
One of the passages that is often brought up—the one you mentioned in fact—is the one that is found in 1 Timothy 2. This was a passage in which Paul was giving instructions to Pastor Timothy regarding the conduct within the church in its times of corporate worship. After giving instructions regarding the men in the church (vv. 1-7), he then goes on to say, “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works (vv. 8-10). Some churches argue that this passage teaches that women should not pray publicly in church. But after giving instructions regarding prayer, Paul then says “in like manner also”—suggesting that women are to pray too; but in a manner that is befitting of holiness just as is true of the men.
Paul then went on to say, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission” (v. 11). The actual Greek word that is used (hysuchazo) doesn’t speak so much of the absence of sound as it does the quietness of manner—and is associated with the phrase “in all submission”. It’s important to note that Paul doesn’t say “in all submission to all men”. Rather, I believe he’s speaking of a quality of humble, quiet submission to the teaching from God’s word. A parallel thought to this might be in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; where it says, “Let your women [some ancient manuscripts do not have the word 'your'] 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.” We’ll come to that passage just a little later; but for now, just note that Paul is urging that a woman is to heed the teaching of the word; and that if she has a question—rather than be disruptive—she should wait until getting home and ask their husband about what she and he heard. That way, if there really was a problem with the teaching, both husband and wife could bring the concern to the leadership in a united and orderly way; with the head of the household in the lead.
Paul said further, in verse 13, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence [the same basic Greek word as in verse 11]. “This, I believe, is the only ministry-prohibition Paul makes on the basis of gender. A woman (who as we see from the story of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2) can be a deaconess in the church; but she is not to assume the role of a teaching elder. A woman may even teach in the church. Praise God that many do—and do so wonderfully well! But a woman is forbidden from being a teacher in such a way as to hold authority over the men in the church. This conforms with the passages in which Paul gives the qualifications for “elders” or “bishops” in the church (the same thing as a pastor)—that a bishop must, among other things be “the husband of one wife” (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). The reason Paul gives is based on the story of the creation and the fall in Genesis 1-3. In verses 14-15, he says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (Those last words, about “being saved in childbearing” has, I believe, particular reference to Eve; and to the promise that God gave of a Redeemer of fallen humanity through her ‘seed’; see Genesis 3:15).
* * * * * * * * * *
So; the passage in 1 Timothy 2 is not, I would hold, teaching that women must keep silent. It has to do with the attitude of quiet submissiveness to the ministry of the appointed teaching leadership of the church. And because of the context, I believe this has to do primarily with conduct within the gathered church—not as a matter of standing in society at large. To take it any further than its immediate context is to take it seriously out of context!
But what about that passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34; where it says, “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”? Once again, I believe that it’s very important to keep this in context. What Paul was dealing with in that passage—beginning in 1 Corinthians 12 and all the way to the end of chapter 14—was the problem of the abuses of spiritual gifts. In particular, in chapter 14, he is dealing with the matter of speaking in tongues in the public gathering of the saints in the church. The practice was being taken to an out-of-control extreme. And in the context of reining-in the abuses of tongues-speaking, Paul commanded that the women keep silent. This is because a message in tongues was always to be interpreted; and if interpreted, it was to be evaluated by the rest as an authoritative message of instruction from God. Because a woman is not permitted to teach or hold authority over men, then—obviously—such a message in tongues as would involve teaching or authoritative instruction would not be appropriate for a woman to give to the public gathering of the church.
I say all that because I don’t believe Paul is saying, in 1 Corinthians 14, that a woman may not speak at all. I believe he is saying, in that specific context, that a woman may not speak in tongues in the public gathering. That’s what he meant by saying, “for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” He specifically meant “speaking in tongues”. (Just as a matter of principle, we should never take such biblical prohibitions any further than the immediate context demands. )
Another passage that is similar to this is found in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. It has to do with the practice of women praying or prophesying with their heads covered. In the ancient cultures in which Paul spoke these words of instruction, “hair” really meant something. The way a woman wore her hair was understood as a statement of her moral character (which is why Paul warned a woman not to overdress her hair in 1 Timothy 2:9). He wrote; ” Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 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. 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. 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. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 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. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. ”
Behind these words is, I believe, the recognition of a cultural symbol that was understood to represent a woman’s willing and loving submissiveness to her husband (not to all men; just to her husband). Today, in our culture, this is usually represented by such things as the wearing of a wedding ring, and by a woman taking the last name of her husband. In those days, it was represented by the covering of a woman’s head. Back then, as is sometimes true today, women rebelled against the concept of submission to marital headship; and “hair” was one way of doing so. And what’s important to note in this is that Paul was not saying that a woman cannot pray or “prophesy” (that is, speak forth a word from God) in the church. Obviously she can! But a wife must do so in a way that does not usurp the God-appointed headship authority of her husband.
* * * * * * * * * *
Now; you ask this very interesting question: “What if a woman doesn’t have a husband, especially a Christian husband, dad, brother, son, or any male relative?” Given all of the above, I believe that, if she is a woman who is truly without any provision of male leadership in her life, then the leadership of the church needs to lovingly step in and provide care and leadership to her. (This needs to be done carefully, though. I believe the Bible teaches a woman is to “submit” to her own husband as it says in Ephesians 5:22; but it doesn’t mean that she is to “submit” in the same way to all men. ) A woman may, in the case you describe, be “a widow indeed” as mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:3-16. She would have a marvelous opportunity to be involved in ministry to the church; and her work is very valuable. But I don’t believe this means that she should in any way assume a position of teaching leadership over men. If she has a husband who does not believe, she is still—I would say—under her husband’s headship; and she should honor his role (see 1 Corinthians 7:13-14; 1 Peter 3:1-6).
That’s a lot; but I hope some of it helps.
Blessings,
Pastor Greg
