1 Corinthians 11:2-16 - Ordered Authority

Introduction

Last Tuesday, December 5, three elite university presidents testified in a hearing before Congress.[i] Hearings like these are often quite staged and designed more for “gotcha” questions and viral video clips than for an actual exchange of substantive ideas. But Tuesday’s hearing exposed (in dramatic color) a clear and disgusting double-standard among many people in the western world today.

A question was asked to the respective presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania (each in turn) about the acceptability of a certain kind of public speech on campus. Over the last decade or more college and university personnel have notoriously been clamping down on some forms of speech. They have barred speakers, banned groups, and even booted faculty and students who say things that are “dehumanizing,” or “unsafe,” or “abusive.” However, the sort of speech that consistently falls into these categories is almost always conservative (i.e., defending traditional marriage, promoting a pro-life position, or otherwise arguing for generally Judeo-Christian standards of virtue and vice).

The speech in question on Tuesday was the public and repeated call by some folks on these campuses for a “genocide” of “the Jews.” The nightmarish events of October 7 (when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and committed unspeakable acts of barbarism) have been followed by the horrors of war. The Israeli military has launched a campaign to “destroy Hamas,” which is an Islamic terrorist organization entrenched in Gaza. And many supporters of Arab Palestinians seem to be arguing that the survival and dignity of Palestinian civilians is incompatible with the survival and dignity of Jewish people living in a Jewish state.

Whatever you might think about how to resolve the present conflict, it is objectively evil to call for the “genocide” of any ethnic group. This is the definition of dehumanization, and it is racism of the worst kind. And yet, all three university presidents (testifying before Congress) defended the right (on their campuses) to publicly call for the “genocide of the Jews.” Somehow, these elite academics could not see (or at least they would not admit) that this was utterly contradictory to their statements and actions against far less inflammatory speech from conservatives.

How can this be? How can people with such intelligence embrace a position and a practice that is so obviously foolish, self-defeating, and dangerous?

Friends, I want to argue today against the perspective that leadsto this kind of nonsense. But I also want to acknowledge that the fundamental perspective on display here is one that many of us have probably embracedto one degree or another. We might not be calling for violence against “oppressors,” but many of us are carrying the disease that produces this symptom. Our present cultural moment is one marked by the vocabulary and the pervasive interplay of power-dynamics. It’s the water we swim in, and I think it’s safe to say that none of us are entirely dry.

Words like patriarchy and abuse and harmand identity and even authority have taken on definitions in our culture that are completely out of step with a biblical worldview. If you are 30 years old or younger, you are especially prone to hear these words quite differently than the senior citizens in the room. In our culture today, gender distinctions are often flatly denied, abuse is defined solely by one’s power(not necessarily defined by the misconduct itself), and authority is almost always presented as a danger (hardly ever as a joy or a benefitto those under it). We live in a day when women think they are free to bemen (and vice versa). Today the oppressed are often justified in any act against their oppressor (no matter how unruly or violent). And our culture seems to believe that personal autonomy is always better than the imposition of authority over us.

But the Bible calls us to a better way… a way of order. Order is better than chaos, but in a post-Genesis-3 world, chaos is natural. Order is something we have to work for, and when we have it, it’s something we have to guard and preserve. This is a reality that many academic elites and young idealists either don’t understand or don’t want to understand.

And critical to order (order in a home, in a church, in a nation, or in any organization) is the celebration of authorityand submission, responsibility and obedience. The abuseof authority is a terrible reality, but the solution to bad authority is the presence of good authority, not the absence of it.

Repeatedly in the book of Judges, the Bible says that God’s Old Testament people turned to sin and chaos, and twice the phrase is used, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25). And both times, that phrase comes right after another important one, “In those days there was no king in Israel” (Judges 17:6, 21:25). In other words, because no one with authority was keeping things in order, everyone and everything turned to disorder and chaos.

Today we are beginning a new section in Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth, and the next few chapters are all about order… specifically order in the church. The Corinthian church was divided, factious, and chaotic, and Paul wanted them to get themselves back in order. His initial comprehensive command (the one we’ve been studying and applying since chapter 6) was to live their whole lives for God’s glory and with love for one another (and not for their own pleasures or passions). Paul’s second comprehensive command (the one that unifies chapters 11 to 14) was to put things in order among the church.

Let’s read our passage, and let’s consider how Paul’s exhortation to be a church with ordered authority is still relevant in our own day.

Please stand with me as I read 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

Scripture Reading

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (ESV)

[2] Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. [3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

[4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

[6] For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] 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. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

[11] Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; [12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

[13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? [14] Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

[16] If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Main Idea:

A rightly ordered church is one that understands a proper order of authority, and where men and women eagerly live in keeping with their complementarity.

Sermon

1. Authority in the Church (v2-3)

In our passage this morning, Paul offers a commendation. He says, in v2, “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (v2). As we’ve talked about before, Paul was the founding pastor of the church in Corinth. He had ministered among them for 18 months (Acts 18:11), and his pastoral leadership included preaching and teaching about the gospel as well as ordering them as a local church.

Churches are not formed by Christians showing up together at a football game, or meeting together at a coffee shop, or coming together for a conference or a concert. Churches are formed when (1) Christians agreeabout the content of the gospel (i.e., they believe together that Christ is the only and the effective Savior of sinners) and (2) when those believing ones agree to follow Christ together in a formalrelationship (i.e., one that is formalized and structured by the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper).

Churches have to make all sorts of decisions about what they do when they gather, but regarding what a church is, it’s a visible gathering of Christians who agree on (1) what the gospel is and (2) who is numbered among them… and these churchingChristians demonstrate (or make visible) their agreement by baptizing one another into fellowship and by regularly coming to the Lord’s tabletogether.

Our passage, though, is not about what a church is; it’s about what a church does. And the “traditions” Paul referred to, in v2, are the instructions Paul gave the Corinthians about what to do and how to do it when they gathered or assembled or churched together. It’s more explicit in v17-18, where Paul says, “But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you” (1 Cor. 11:17-18).

But even here in our text this morning, we can see that Paul is focused on the activities of “praying” and “prophesying” (v4, 5), and specifically on “practicing” such things among the “churches of God” (v16). And whatever else Paul might have instructed the Corinthians about churching together, the emphasis of our passage is squarely on “understanding” (v3) and “maintaining” (v2) a proper order of “authority” (v10).

Look at v3 with me. Paul writes, “I want you to understand that the headof every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (v3). The word “head” appears fourteen times in our short passage today, and Paul uses the word in twodistinct ways. One way is to refer to a literal “head,” that round appendage that sits atop our shoulders. And the other way is to refer to the metaphorical concept of “head,” as “ruler” or “leader” or “authority.”

This conceptual use of the word “head” is how Paul is using it here in v3. “Christ” is not a body part of “every man,” but “Christ” is the “ruler” of “every man,” He is the “leader” of “every man,” “Christ” sits in the place of “authority” over “every man” (v3). And the same is true (though different in degree) in the relationships of “husband” and “wife,” and of “Christ” and “God” the Father (v3).

I don’t want to get ahead of myself, so we will wait until point 2 to explore the gender distinctions, but we want to note here that authorityand order are inherently tied together. There is an order to the way authority is structured, and the result of rightly structured authority is order as well. In other words, if you want order in any sort of relationship, you have to put authority in the right order.

Friends, in 21st-century America, it is dangerous to say, but I must say it anyway… Social and organizational order is onlypossible when a hierarchy is established and respected. Or to say this in reverse, egalitarianism and absolute democracy necessarily lead to complete chaos. Sometimes people use the word egalitarian, and they mean that every human has equal value and dignity. That is certainly true, but that’s not all the word egalitarian means.

Egalitarianism (pressed to its inevitable application) reaches far beyond the basic equality of human life and dignity. Egalitarianism (in its truest sense) assumes that humans are basically interchangeable. But humans are not interchangeable… and our relationships must reflect an ordered authority.

2. Gender Distinctions (v4-10)

The authoritative order that is the focus of our passage today is that between a husband and wife (specifically) and men and women (generally) among the gathered church. Earlier this year, I preached a few sermons on marriage (March), manhood and womanhood (April), and complementarianism (May). If you want to double-click on some of the stuff I’m saying today, then I recommend that you read those sermon notes and/or listen to the sermon audio. Just ask me about it, and I can direct you to where you can find that stuff on our church website.

Today, the focus of our text is on the structure of authority and the display of it, particularly in the context of the gathered church. There certainly are implications for the home and for society more generally, but that’s not the focus of today. As I’ve already said, Paul is talking about how men and women ought to presentthemselves during the activities of “praying” and “prophesying” (v4, 5), and specifically when this “practice” is going on in the “churches of God” (v16).

For the sake of time, and because we will all have various questions about some of the specifics of this text, I need to tell you that my aim for today is not to be the Bible-answer-man. The definition of “prophesy” will come up later in 1 Corinthians (chs. 12 and 14), so we will delve more into it there; and specifically how women canor should participate in the formal church gathering on a Sunday will also come up later in this letter, so we will address that more later on as well.

But the big emphasis we see in our text this morning is on a hierarchy of authority and the public expression of it. There is a way that a “man” might participate in the gathering of the church that “dishonors his head” (v4). In other words, a man might dishonor “Christ” – his “head” (v3) – by what he does or how he does it. So too, a “wife” might “dishonor her head [i.e., her “husband” (v3)]” by whatshe does or how she does it among the gathered church (v5).

The specific distinction between men and women in the church of Corinth was to be demonstrated or visualized by the “covering” or “uncovering” of one’s “head” (v4-5). And there seems to me two fundamental questions that we need to consider in order to arrive at our destination of present-day application. “What do we do with this passage today?” Well, we need to ask, (1) “Is this command grounded in culture or creation?” And either way, (2) “What is the principle to be applied across cultural boundaries [i.e., in every church in all times]?”

Let’s start with the first… Is this command cultural, or is it grounded in the order of creation? Well, the answer is “yes.” It is both.

Paul says that the reason a “wife” ought to “cover” her “head” and the reason a “man” ought “not cover” his “head” is because (v8) “man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (v8-9). “That is why,” Paul says in v10, “a wife [and not a man] ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” (v10).

Paul reaches back to the creation account in Genesis 2 to argue for the way men and women present themselves among the gathered church. This is not merely contextual or cultural; it is grounded in the God-intended order of creation. We’re told in Genesis 1 that “God created man [both “male and female”] in his own image” (Gen. 1:27)… That’s where we see the biblical foundation of human equality – equality of value and dignity. And in Genesis 2, the Bible teaches us that there is a distinct order in God’s creation of image-bearers… as male and female.

Let’s turn quickly to Genesis 2 to see it together. Look at v18 with me. After God created man and put him in the garden (which God had prepared for him), God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18). Then, in poetic fashion, the Bible teaches us that no “living creature” was sufficient to be the “helper” God intended for “man” (Gen. 2:20). “So,” v21, “the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man’” (Gen. 2:21-23).

In this passage, we see the affirmation of equality – “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23). And we see the affirmation of hierarchal or authoritative order – “she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:23). The woman did not name man, but the man named the woman. And, turning back to our main passage now (in 1 Cor. 11), we see Paul’s own observations that “man was not made from woman, but woman from man” (v8). So too, “man” was not “created for woman, but woman for man” (v9). In other words, she was introduced as his “helper” by God’s design (Gen. 2:20).

Thus, Paul’s teaching about head coverings here cannot be dismissed as merely cultural or contextual. The ground of Paul’s argument is the order of creation, even creation before the Fall. So, this command is not just for Christians in Corinth; it is for all churches in all places and times.

But does that mean that women ought to cover their heads when we gather as a church on Sundays? No, I don’t think so. In fact, I don’t think this passage is primarily about covering or uncovering our heads in church… men or women. It is about the principle of ordered authority, and especially the obvious appearance of a happy embrace of ordered authority.

The second question I mentioned just a bit ago is “What is the principle to be applied here?”. It would be easy to point out a whole bunch of stuff that’s hard to understand about this passage. Should women ever have “short” hair or “shave her head” (v6)? How is the “glory of God” manifest in “a man” and the “glory of man” manifest in “a woman” (v7)? And what in the world does Paul mean by saying that a “wife” ought to cover her head “because of the angels” (v10)?

All of these questions have led to a host of interpretive difficulties for this passage. But if we lose sight of the principle here because we have unanswered questions… well, that is the very definition of missing the forest for the trees.

Paul clearly says that the head covering is a “symbol of authority” (v10). And Paul is commanding the Corinthian “wives” to display this “symbol of authority” in order to express that they are happily submitting to their husbands (v10). So too, Paul commands the Corinthian “men” to church together without this “symbol of authority” on their heads, not because men have no authority over them, but precisely because “Christ” is the “head” of a “man” (v3-4).

The principle, then (as I understand it), is that men who avoid authority and responsibility in the church dishonor Christ (or to put it positively and really simply, men should look and act like men); and wives who assert authority in the church dishonor their husbands (or, again, positively and simply, women should look and act like women).

And remember that authority necessarily includes responsibility, so the double-edged command here cuts both ways. Wives (in every church for all time) ought to display submission to their husbands in the public church gathering… and men (in every church for all time) ought to step up and take responsibility… especially to pray and to teach God’s word among the church.

3. Gender Equality (v11-12)

It would be easy for someone hearing me this morning (especially someone steeped in 21st-century American culture) to dismiss me as a chauvinistic bigot… a misogynist… or a promoter of toxic masculinity. I assume that at least some of us here today are at least a little uncomfortable with the way I am so obviously pointing to the Bible and calling wives to submit to their husbands and for men to take responsibility for what we do as a church.

However, with this third point of my sermon, I don’t want to give you the impression that I’m sorry for or embarrassed by any of the stuff I’ve said thus far. I believe that the ordered authority I’m calling for this morning is what will benefit all of us. I believe that the way of life and the way of churching together that I’m describing today will (in the long run) workout far better than the egalitarian plan that we hear and see promoted all around us every day.

We (at FBC Diana) unapologetically delight in seeing men raised up as elders or pastors. We take joy in the fact that adult male church members are willing and able to preach from the Scriptures every second Sunday evening of the month. We believe it is a good and beneficial practice to have various men lead us in prayers of praise, confession, and thanksgiving each Sunday morning. We believe that such practices are good for all of us – men, women, and children.

But we do not believe that men are better than women, that men are worthier than women, or that all men are more capable than women. Once again, our culture would have us believe that the only way that a woman can be truly valued is if men and women are treated exactly the same, with the exact same opportunities and expectations, bearing the exact same responsibilities and filling the exact same roles. But, friends, nothing could be further from the truth!

Women are valued best when they are treated with respect as women. Men and women are not interchangeable, and they are not the same; and we actually do a disservice to both men and women when we treat them the same. But to embrace gender distinctions without being chauvinistic, we must understand the interdependence and the complementarity that God has designed in the male-female distinctions… and that’s where Paul goes in v11-12.

He says, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman” (v11). In other words, men and woman are different, and they ought to speak and act differently (men like men, and women like women); but they ought not think that either one is better than the other. As a matter of fact, they depend upon each other in all sorts of ways.

One fundamental dependence that men have upon women is that (v12) “man is… born of woman.” Paul’s argument here is that “woman was made from man” at the beginning, but every “man” since has been “born of woman” (v12). There are many ways in which men and women are dependent upon one another, but this fundamental reality touches on the heart of the matter.

In v11-12, we don’t see a flattening out of gender distinctions; we see an affirmation of interdependence and complementarity. And, friends, if you really want to value and respect women as women (and men as men), then we must set our own minds against the egalitarian impulse of our chaotic and confused culture.

All of us (men and women) have the dignity and value of being image-bearers of God… That’s what Paul is getting at by saying “all things are from God” (v12). But when we start there, we must also realize that God Himself has designed masculinity and femininity as distinct expressions of who we are by nature. Men ought to be masculine, and women ought to be feminine, and we need men and women to be themselves for our relationships to work as they should.

Christians can apply this fact in different ways in the various arenas of life – the home, the church, and the society; but to deny this fact or to war against it will lead to the utter disintegration of all relationships.

Ladies, you are not more respectable or more powerful when you strive to speak or act like men. And men, you are not being better men when you speak or act like women. We all need each other, and we need each other to strive to live in light of who and what we are.

4. A Call to Order (v13-16)

In these last several verses, Paul directly calls upon the church in Corinth to make a “judgment” (v13)… to decide whether they will be “contentious” in their “practices” or that they will be ordered as a “church” (v16).

It seems to me that we might conclude by saying that you can have egalitarianism (men and women acting interchangeably, men avoiding their distinct responsibility and authority, and women asserting public authority in ways that dishonor their husbands)… you can have egalitarianism, or you can have a hierarchy (a system of ordered authority, where men act like men and women act like women), but you cannot have both. And if men neglect their responsibilities as men, or if women contend to take on the responsibilities of men, then they do so (as this passage describes) against “nature” (v14), they do it to the “disgrace” of one another (v15), and they do it against the “practices” that are commanded in Scripture for all “the churches of God” (v16).

Friends, as I’ve been arguing throughout my sermon today, we live in a culture that is shot through with the vocabulary and the interplay of power-dynamics. It is simply taken for granted that anyone with greater power or authority or influence must be an oppressor (either explicitly or implicitly). The world around us is beating us over the head with the idea that the only way that anyone can have equality with someone else is if they both have the same resources, the same access, the same opportunities, and even the same outcomes.

But, friends, this is anti-biblical, it’s illogical, and it is the complete destruction of any hope for an ordered society or church.

It is no coincidence that academic elites who have fully embraced the philosophy of power-dynamics and identity-politics were arguing last week that calling for the “genocide of the Jews” is acceptable on a college campus… but calling for the protection of unborn human life is not. Jewish people are often successful, and the Jewish state is quite powerful, so insulting, attacking, and even harming them is acceptable… They are among the oppressor class.

But pregnant women who don’t want the responsibility of motherhood, they are often poor, uneducated, and quite powerless in our society (or at least that’s the scenario we often hear when pro-abortion advocates are making their argument). Therefore, these women ought to be enabled to abort their pregnancy (at any stage), and any opposition to that freedom is unacceptable… because they are among the oppressed class.

This sort of thinking (everything through the oppressor-oppressed dynamic) leads to utter chaos. It’s destructive of families, destructive of churches, destructive of societies, and it will destroy you too.

There is no doubt that authority can be abused. When that happens, it is horrible for everyone involved. But as I said before, the solution to bad authority is not the absence of authority, but the presence of good authority.

Near the end of the book of 2 Samuel are recorded the “last words” of king “David” (2 Sam. 23:1). For all his flaws, David was one of the exemplary kings of Israel, who demonstrated good authority (not perfectly, but generally). And David said this about good authority, “When one rules justly over men, ruling in the fear of God, he dawns on them like the morning light, like the sun shining forth on a cloudless morning, like rain that makes grass to sprout from the earth” (2 Sam. 23:3-4). In other words, good authority is a wonderful blessing to those under it.

Much more could be said about what it looks like to wield good authority and the responsibility that comes along with bearing authority. But the main theme of our passage is not on instruction about why and how to bear authority… it’s about the need for a proper order of authority in the church and the distinct ways in which men and women honor Christ and one another.

Brothers and sisters, we will all benefit most by the exercise of good authority… in our homes and in our church. I pray that God will help us all embrace the responsibilities of authority we have, that God will help us wield authority well, and that God will help us all to submit to the authorities God has put in our lives… that we might enjoy the blessings of ordered authority.

Endnotes

[i] See a description of the hearing and the responses here: https://www.axios.com/2023/12/06/harvard-university-presidents-congress-hearing-antisemitism-campus

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.

Chrysostom, John. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. Edited by Philip Schaff. Logos Research Edition. Vol. 12. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series. New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1889.

Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Logos Research Edition. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. Logos Research Edition. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

Sproul, R. C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition). Logos Research Edition. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2015.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Logos Research Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009.

The Holy Bible: New International Version. Logos Research Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.

The NET Bible First Edition. Logos Research Edition. Biblical Studies Press, 2005.

Vaughan, Curtis, and Thomas D. Lea. 1 Corinthians. Logos Research Edition. Founders Study Commentary. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2002.