Headship

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.  Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head.  And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.  If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.  A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.  For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.  For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.  But everything comes from God.  Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?  Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?  For long hair is given to her as a covering.  If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Veiled?  Or unveiled?  Silent?  Or speaking?  Can a woman participate in worship?  Or is she supposed to be an observer?  Should the church at worship be egalitarian?  Or should the church be complementarian?  The fact that such questions are even raised indicates the degree of confusion surrounding worship and the life of the Body in this day.  While the church is in the world, the church is not to be of the world.  The people of God should influence society instead of submitting to societal norms.  Unfortunately, churches frequently seem more prone to adopt the prevailing view of the culture in which they exist than they are to live according to what God has commanded.  It seems easier to many Christians to avoid conflict through compromise than it does to resist social pressure through standing firmly in the Faith of Christ the Lord.

If we will make sense of this vital passage of Scripture, it will be necessary for us to establish the context in which the passage is found.  The Corinthian church was a church in conflict.  This particular congregation was more modern than we might imagine, in that “rights” appear to have been a major issue among the Corinthians.  Christians are made free in Christ, and the Corinthians had seized upon this issue of freedom.  A catch phrase for the Corinthians seems to have been everything is permissible.  Paul had gently rebuked these wayward saints by repeating this phrase and then reminding them of a neglected corollary.  “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial.  “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive [1 Corinthians 10:23].  In the view of the Apostle, rights were to be submitted to the tests of whether an action was beneficial or constructive.  Consequently, the tests were to determine whether an action was beneficial or constructive, not to the individuals, but to the Body.  Just so, we are obligated to test our actions by the impact on the entire congregation.

Paul repeatedly rebuked the Corinthians.  They were in disunity—and he appealed for harmony [1 Corinthians 1:10, 11].  They were acting in an immature manner—and he urged them to grow up [1 Corinthians 3:1-3].  They were acting as though the Millennium had arrived—and he begged them to act responsibly in a fallen world so as to honour Christ [1 Corinthians 4:7-13].  They were proud of their tolerance—and he commanded them to be intolerant toward evil [1 Corinthians 5:1-3].  They were insisting upon their own rights, even at the expense of fellow Christians—and he pleaded with them to resolve their conflicts among themselves [1 Corinthians 6:1-8].  Families were in rebellion as husbands and wives fought for control over one another—and he urged husbands and wives to consider one another within the family [1 Corinthians 7:1-5].  They revelled in their freedom from rules—and he reminded them of their responsibility to younger saints [1 Corinthians 8:9-12].  They were proud of their ability to resist temptation in their own strength—and the Apostle warned them that God alone had sufficient strength to resist evil [1 Corinthians 10:1-14].  Now Paul must address an abuse of freedom in Christ by women within the Corinthian assembly.

Men and Women at Worship — The issue to which the Apostle turned his attention was in the broadest sense an issue of worship.  Certainly there is no controversy that the latter portion of chapter eleven deals with abuse of the Lord’s Table—an issue of worship.  Chapters twelve, thirteen and fourteen are all addressed to problems related to worship.  Either we must segregate the early verses of chapter eleven from this issue of worship, or we recognise that it naturally addresses what had become an issue of abuse.  Consequently, the issue is virtually identical to the issue which the Apostle addressed in the first letter to Timothy, the pastor of the Ephesian church [cf. 1 Timothy 2:1-15].

In our text, Paul makes it abundantly evident that women have a role in worship.  There are those who say that if we do not approve of women ministers and an egalitarian scheme we are opposed to women.  Anyone reading this passage is driven to the conclusion that Paul encourages women to participate fully in worship.  Participation such as this would have been most unusual in that day since Jewish women were not permitted to participate in the worship either at the synagogue or in the Temple.  The sexes were segregated and women were to maintain absolute silence.  Similarly, worship in the pagan rites of Greeks and Romans denied women opportunity to participate, though those same rites used women as accoutrements and adjuncts to worship.  Some people have suggested that women in the early churches were likewise segregated, but our text does not seem to bear this out.  What is evident is that women both prayed and prophesied in the services of the Corinthian congregation [see verses five and thirteen].

In our text, we discover that an issue involving submission and recognition of authority was creating conflict among the Corinthian Christians.  First, Paul praises the Corinthians for adhering to the oral instructions they had received.  This serves as a means to introduce new instruction which they apparently had not received previously.  The instruction that he is about to give was not likely the mere fact that husbands occupy a position of authority over their wives.  This teaching was already evident through reading the Old Testament and it was practised—perhaps over-practised!  The new teaching which the Apostle was giving was that this authority was inherent in the divine order.  Christ is over every individual; man is over woman; God is over Christ.  This divine hierarchy refers, not to essence, but only to function.

The key information required for understanding the Apostle’s mind is provided in verse three: I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.  What is unusual about this teaching is that Paul is not presenting a hierarchy as you and I might ordinarily expect.  Under normal circumstances, if Paul wished to present a hierarchy he would have presented the structure as flowing from God to Christ to man to woman.  Instead, the Apostle forms pairs to stress the issue of function without making any statement concerning essence.

The key word for understanding Paul’s argument is the word head—kefalh;.  Some believers, primarily evangelical feminists and their supporters, take the position that the normal understanding of the word head concedes superiority.  Consequently, if their understanding is correct, then it would follow that women are necessarily inferior.  They quite naturally rebel at the thought of being considered inferior.  I must state unequivocally that man and woman are equal in essence before God.  No man is superior to a woman, nor is any woman superior to a man.  Paul is not arguing an issue concerning superiority or ability, but rather he is presenting a teaching concerning function.

In reaction to a perceived slight, feminists theologians have proposed that the word head (kefalh;) actually meant source as in the head of a river.[1]  Other concepts include the meaning of beginning or even pre-eminence for the word.[2]  It must be noted that such suggestions have arisen only within recent years, and the historic understanding was that to speak of headship was to speak of authority or governance.  Wayne Grudem has carefully studied this issue and discovered that in over two thousand examples taken from major writings of the classical and Hellenistic Greek periods no clear instance of such a usage can be found.  The idea that kefalh; means source seems to be absent in classical and first-century ad literature.[3]  Only when kefalh; occurs in the plural (kefavlaion) can that view be sustained, and that almost six hundred years after Paul wrote this letter.[4]

To settle this issue in your mind, all you need to do is read verse three and substitute, first the word ruler and then the word source.  It will be immediately clear that neither source nor origin fit.  First, substituting the word ruler for head: Now I want you to realise that the ruler of every man is Christ, and the ruler of the woman is man, and the ruler of Christ is God.  Again, substituting the word source for head: Now I want you to realise that the source of every man is Christ, and the source of the woman is man, and the source of Christ is God.  Source is a meaning foreign to the New Testament, and it certainly is foreign to the meaning of the word Paul used here.  God is not the origin of Christ; Christ is eternal.

At worship, men and women are to each share, but worshippers must be under male authority.  The Apostle is clear in stating that a woman may pray and prophesy.  She must have a sign of authority, which we will address momentarily.  Praying and prophesying are spiritual activities, and in the apostolic understanding, they were spiritually motivated.  Just as we saw when we studied Galatians 3:26-28, men and women are equal in standing before God.  Neither men nor women have greater access to God nor does either have greater standing before Him.  That truth is iterated here.

There have been attempts in recent years to deny that Paul is speaking of public meetings of the church in this passage.  Those individuals suggest that women are to pray or prophesy during private meetings hosted in their homes and with other women.[5]  However, it seems best to understand that Paul is addressing the issue of corporate, public worship in this pericope, just as he does in the latter half of this chapter and in the chapters which follow to the conclusion of the letter.

Praying should require no definition; we know what praying is.  It seems obvious that Paul is referring to public prayer and he states rather clearly that any woman can pray.  Prayer which honours God is not merely a recitation of personal desires, but rather prayer represents the motivation of the Spirit of God and His empowerment as we pray.  In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God [Romans 8:26, 27].  We must each remember and put into practise the admonition that the prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective [James 5:16 nrsv].

Ladies, I plead with you to pray for the pastor as he prepares the message and as he delivers the same.  Ask that God be glorified and ask that His will be revealed so that none of us are confused.  Ask that God honour us with His presence as we assemble and worship Him.  Ask that He reveal His glory in our midst.  Just as our women should be women of prayer, even so they must know that we covet their prayers together with the prayers of the men of this congregation.  Both alike have a vital role in prayer.

Likewise, Paul asserts that women may prophesy.  Though we haven’t time to explore this issue in depth, numerous studies have been published in recent years precisely defining prophecy in the New Testament.[6]  Prophecy is not teaching.  Teaching provided doctrinal and ethical guidance for the church.  Teaching was authoritative in so far as it was grounded in the written Word of God.  To teach in the church is to exercise leadership and authority which strongly influences doctrinal and ethical convictions of the church.  The teachers were generally the elders.

New Testament prophecy had no such authority.  Those who prophesied did not tell the church how to interpret and apply Scripture to life.  They did not proclaim the doctrinal and ethical standards by which the church was guided, nor did they exercise governing authority in the church.  Prophets in New Testament churches rather reported in their own words something which, it seemed to them, God had forcefully brought to mind.[7]  Prophecies were subordinate to authoritative teaching of Scripture.

In our contemporary services of worship, this instruction gives freedom for each of us to pray, to testify of what God is doing in our lives, to read Scripture, to speak of our impression of God’s work in our lives.  Those who do speak prophetically, however, must submit what they have said to judgement by those who are recognised as prophets [see 1 Corinthians 14:29-33a].  This will become important for our understanding when we turn our attention to a later passage of this Corinthian letter in a couple of weeks.

Because this point is so vital to our understanding, let me emphasise by stating that preaching and teaching are founded on intelligible exposition of the Word of God.  Prophecy, on the other hand, is based on revelation (ajpokavluyi").[8]  Women may prophesy, but this must not be construed as permission to preach or to serve as a pastor.  If someone seeks teaching dealing with that issue, they must look elsewhere in Scripture.  This passage affords no comfort for those wishing to place women in ministry.  In fact, Paul’s emphasis is that all that transpires in a service of worship is under male authority.  Women participating are to demonstrate a submissive spirit toward the men.

Practically speaking, women may pray, but women should not be prayer leaders.  Women may prophesy, but women should not initiate prophecy.  Women may testify, but women should not oversee testimony meetings.  Women may read Scripture, but women should not exercise oversight of that activity.  The reason Paul delivers this teaching is that the head of the woman is man (kefalh; de; gunaiko;" oJ ajnhvr).

Lest someone should complain that this seems unfair, consider the rest of the Apostle’s words: The head of everyone is Christ (panto;" ajndro;" hJ kefalh; oJ Cristov" ejstin).  It must be said that all Christians are to exercise submission toward Christ as Master.  This must mean that we submit to His Word, for there is no submitting to Him as Master if we ignore what is said in His Word.  This Word is given either directly through Him or through His Holy Spirit.  Therefore, this Word is the Word of Christ the Lord.  Likewise, the Apostle has stated that the head of Christ is God (kefalh; de; tou` Cristou` oJ qeov").  Consider what this means.  God is equal with Christ: I and the Father are one [John 10:30].  God ever co-operates with Christ: I am not alone, for my Father is with me [John 16:32].  God is the Head of Christ: my Father is greater than I [John 14:28].

This is biblical headship.  Headship speaks of authority and always points us toward the final authority which belongs to God alone.  It is absolutely necessary that we keep in mind that the authority which the Bible presents is the closest and most intimate fellowship and co-operation in being and in service.  Man and woman are not to be in competition for authority, but there is rather to be a sense of mutual building of one another.  Nowhere is this to be more evident than at worship.

Therefore, co-operation and fellowship result as women recognise male responsibility and encourage men to assume that responsibility both in the home and in the church.  Men must recognise that this constitutes neither permission to injure women nor to hold them in check.  It is rather responsibility to ensure that together they build one another and seek to honour Christ through a spirit of sacrifice on the part of men and through a spirit of submission on the part of women.

The Sign of Authority — Now comes that bothersome issue of head coverings, which is presented as a sign of authority (ejxousivan e[cein ejpi; th`" kefalh`") on a woman’s head.  Paul seems to state that women praying or prophesying are to have their heads covered, whilst men praying or prophesying are to do so without a head covering.  This teaching has created great difficulty among the churches to this day because contemporary Christians are often uncertain whether we are confronted with a cultural situation or whether this should be understood as a permanent spiritual injunction.  Some Christians insist that women may only worship if they have something on their heads.  Others insist that long hair is a sign of a woman’s submission.  Others ignore the passage.

Paul speaks of head coverings, but he fails to tell us what the head covering was to be.  Many people have understood that Paul was referring to a veil (kavlumma).  However, he simply speaks of that which hangs down (ajkatakaluvptw/ th`/ kefalh`/).  For this reason and because he shifts the focus of his teaching to hair in a short while, most have understood the Apostle to be speaking of hair.  Women have long hair and men have short hair.  A woman’s long hair substitutes as a head covering in their view.

The text is not an imposition of Jewish practise, for Jewish men covered their heads when they prayed.  To this day, male Jews wear at least a yarmulke at prayer.  Those who are Orthodox wrap a tallith about their head and shoulders as they pray.  Roman men likewise covered their heads at prayer as a sign of reverence to the gods.  Greek men, in contrast, considered covering the head to be a sign of disrespect to the gods.  It should be evident that Paul is addressing a custom within a Greek city and asking that local custom not be violated.[9]  This point will become important in a moment.

James Hurley has provided an exceptional expositions of this particular passage and demonstrates quite ably that Paul does have hair in view.[10]  After exhaustive study of the usage of the terms referring to head coverings in both the Old Testament and New Testament, he concludes that Paul is concerned with hair.  Women wore their hair in a bun or braided on top of their head in Greek society.  This was commonly accepted as a sign of their femininity.  Some women had begun to loosen their hair, letting it fall down around their heads and people were interpreting this as an act of rebellion against male authority in the church.  If a woman let her hair hang loose (ajkatakaluvptw/), she was wearing the sign of an accused adulteress.  She dishonoured her husband and dishonoured herself.  Her statement in that instance was that the proper authority of her husband had been disregarded and that she had permitted herself to be given to another.  Likewise, a man who put his hair up would be publicly announcing that he was no longer under Christ, having instead surrendered to the mastery of another.

Paul does not merely give a ruling while ignoring the rationale behind the judgement.  The reason for his verdict is that man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.  For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head [1 Corinthians 11:7-10].  There are multiple truths contained within this statement and we need to at least note each of these reasons in order to grasp the importance of this text for men and women at worship in this present day.

Man is presented as the image (eijkw;n) and glory (dovxa) of God, while woman is presented as the glory (dovxa) of man.  In some way, man not only reflects the splendour of God, but he is a representation of God, whereas the woman reflects the splendour of man without representing another.  This cannot refer specifically to Genesis 1:26, 27 where both man and woman are said to be in the image (eijkovna) and likeness (oJmoivwsin) of God.

Again, Hurley provides excellent insight into the Apostle’s reasoning.

Man, in his authority relation to creation and to woman, images the dominion of God over creation… and the headship of Christ over His church.  The woman has a corresponding but different role to play.  The woman is not called to image God in the relation which she sustains to her husband; she is rather to show loving obedience (Eph 5:22).  It would be inappropriate to identify her as the image of God in her relation to her husband, although… she does rule over creation with him.  We must conclude from the context that Paul is not appealing to Gen 1:26 but to the dominion theme of Gen 1 and indeed to the whole OT, and that the term “image” is used in a relational rather than an ontological fashion.[11]

Based upon this rationale Paul has presented an additional reason for woman’s subordination in Verse ten: because of the angels, the woman ought to have authority on her head (hJ gunh; ejxousivan e[cein).  Two questions are raised and must be answered.  What do angels have to do with this?  What is this authority on a woman’s head?  The Apostle does not often speak of angels, but he does speak of them on four occasions in this particular letter—more than he does in his other letters.  We can only speculate for the reason Paul did not speak often of angels, but it probably had to do with the threat of Gnosticism to the young churches with its emphasis on angel worship.

The Corinthians consider themselves as having “arrived” as Christians.  Paul said believers are in a cosmic spectacle (qevatron) before angels [1 Corinthians 4:9].  Paul chided the Corinthians for going to court against each other, reminding them that we who are Christians are destined to judge angels [1 Corinthians 6:1-8].  The language of angels is mention in the Love Chapter [1 Corinthians 13:1], as Paul chides the Corinthians for exulting in what God had done.  In 1 Corinthians 11:10 Paul seeks to win women to obedience by pointing to the high position they occupy.  When they uncovered their head, seeking an authority or rule not given them in creation, it was a sign of rebellion and disgrace.  Wearing their hair in the recognised style of women under authority while they prophesied they signalled that they occupied the high position of authority over angels.[12]

Paul was seeking a spirit of subordination in the place of feminine rebellion.  In Greek culture and in the churches of that day, a woman’s hair marked her as a woman.  The style in which she wore her hair marked her as a woman either accepting her role in the creation of God in this given moment of the course of redemptive history or as rejecting that place.  Woman’s place is not an empty, valueless place, but her place is above all creation—barring only her husband or her father.  The hair upon her head must therefore be understood as a sign.

We Have no Other Practise —If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God [1 Corinthians 11:16].  The argument presented to the Corinthians is the same argument presented to us.  Should a woman occupy a position of authority over a man?  Should a woman even give the appearance of rebellion against the created order?  The question demands a resounding “No” as the answer!  The passage is the strongest possible argument for male leadership in the church.  The purpose is that together man and woman might honour God through a spirit of submission and responsibility assigned by God and voluntarily accepted by each gender.

Some Christians reading this passage can see only the issue of head coverings.  They are convinced that this is the issue being addressed here.  They will not likely be persuaded by anything I have said, but they nevertheless should be convinced in their own minds of what God teaches here.  Others will see the issue which Paul addresses as a response to throwing off accepted symbols of male/female role distinctions.  Paul is either telling the Corinthians to wear head coverings as a sign of male/female role distinctives, or he is telling them to wear the proper culturally accepted symbol of male/female distinction.

The question before us today is not whether this passage should be applied today.  It should!  The question is what should be applied.  Should women wear a head covering, or should women dress in such a way that they do not obliterate the God-ordained distinction between men and women?  The common appeal that this is simply a symbol and should therefore be rejected is unacceptable.  Symbols have always been significant for God’s people.  The sacrificial system of the Old Testament was symbolic, as are the two ordinances we observe among the churches to this day (baptism and the Lord’s Supper).  The symbolic nature of head covering is no reason to reject it.

This, then, is the burden of the passage.  Women can pray and prophesy in public, but they must do so with a demeanour and attitude that supports male headship.  In that Greek culture, wearing the hair “up” communicated a submissive demeanour and femininity.  The principle is that women may participate in worship, but they are required in demeanour to be humble and submissive to male leadership.

The fundamental principle underlying the text is that the sexes, though equal, are different.  God has ordained that men have the responsibility to lead, while women have a complementary and supportive role.  More specifically, if women pray and prophesy in church, they should do so under the authority of male headship.  In the first century, failure to wear her hair up sent a signal to the congregation that a woman was rejecting the authority of male leadership.  Paul was concerned about this issue of hair (head covering) only because of the message it sent to people in that culture.[13]

Today, except in certain religious groups, if a woman fails to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying, no one thinks she is in rebellion.  Lack of head covering sends no message at all in our culture.  Nevertheless, the principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership.  Clearly, the attitude and the demeanour with which a woman participates in worship are indicators of whether she is humble and submissive.

Men and women should dress so that they are not confused with the opposite sex.  Confusion of the sexes is contrary to the God-given sense that the sexes are distinct.  It would be wrong for a twenty-first century male to wear a dress in public.  Such an action would violate his masculinity.  Everything within a man would cry out against this action because it violates his appropriate sense of what it means to be a man.  The point is not that women should not wear jeans or pants, but that in every culture there are certain kinds of adornment and dress which become culturally accepted norms of dress for men and women.

There is a connection forged in this passage between femininity and the proper submission of women to men.  The women in Corinth, by prophesying without a head covering, were sending a signal that they were no longer submitting to male authority.  Paul sees this problem as severe because the abrogation of male leadership roles by women ultimately leads to dissolution of the distinctions between men and women.  The text speaks volumes to our culture today.  One of the major problems resulting as women assume full leadership roles is that the action leads to a collapse of the distinction between the sexes.  Paul saw there was a direct link between women appropriating leadership and the loss of femininity.

Permit me to close with the citation by Dr. Dorothy Patterson.

The church has never sought to suppress gifts God has given but rather strives to ensure full and proper use of those gifts in a divinely given framework based upon natural order of creation and appropriateness of function within a master plan.  One cannot accept the Bible as authoritative while rejecting its authority concerning home and church order.  One cannot negate truths concerning the structure of church and home, such as the image of the relationship between God and Israel and between Christ and the church, just to satisfy cultural whim or to accommodate higher plateaus of education and opportunity.  One cannot life outward manifestations, such as a man’s prayer posture or a woman’s head covering (1 Corinthians 11), and use them to ridicule or belittle the timeless directives given to protect and edify men and women within the kingdom.

Without doubt women did have a variety of positions of service, influence, and even leadership and teaching in the early church.  The text of Scripture, however, bears witness that the functions they assumed were done with modesty and order (1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:40), and that they did not teach or exercise authority over men.[14]

We have no other practise—nor do the churches of God.  Our call is a call to obedience to Christ and His Word and to a spirit of acceptance of the high calling He has given to each of us.  Amen.

Paul repeatedly rebuked the Corinthians.  They were in disunity—and he appealed for harmony [1 Corinthians 1:10, 11].  They were acting in an immature manner—and he urged them to grow up [1 Corinthians 3:1-3].  They were acting as though the Millennium had arrived—and he begged them to act responsibly in a fallen world so as to honour Christ [1 Corinthians 4:7-13].  They were proud of their tolerance—and he commanded them to be intolerant toward evil [1 Corinthians 5:1-3].  They were insisting upon their own rights, even at the expense of fellow Christians—and he pleaded with them to resolve their conflicts among themselves [1 Corinthians 6:1-8].  Families were in rebellion as husbands and wives fought for control over one another—and he urged husbands and wives to consider one another within the family [1 Corinthians 7:1-5].  They revelled in their freedom from rules—and he reminded them of their responsibility to younger saints [1 Corinthians 8:9-12].  They were proud of their ability to resist temptation in their own strength—and the Apostle warned them that God alone had sufficient strength to resist evil [1 Corinthians 10:1-14].  Now Paul must address an abuse of freedom in Christ by women within the Corinthian assembly.

Again, Hurley provides excellent insight into the Apostle’s reasoning.

Man, in his authority relation to creation and to woman, images the dominion of God over creation… and the headship of Christ over His church.  The woman has a corresponding but different role to play.  The woman is not called to image God in the relation which she sustains to her husband; she is rather to show loving obedience (Eph 5:22).  It would be inappropriate to identify her as the image of God in her relation to her husband, although… she does rule over creation with him.  We must conclude from the context that Paul is not appealing to Gen 1:26 but to the dominion theme of Gen 1 and indeed to the whole OT, and that the term “image” is used in a relational rather than an ontological fashion.

The church has never sought to suppress gifts God has given but rather strives to ensure full and proper use of those gifts in a divinely given framework based upon natural order of creation and appropriateness of function within a master plan.  One cannot accept the Bible as authoritative while rejecting its authority concerning home and church order.  One cannot negate truths concerning the structure of church and home, such as the image of the relationship between God and Israel and between Christ and the church, just to satisfy cultural whim or to accommodate higher plateaus of education and opportunity.  One cannot life outward manifestations, such as a man’s prayer posture or a woman’s head covering (1 Corinthians 11), and use them to ridicule or belittle the timeless directives given to protect and edify men and women within the kingdom.

Without doubt women did have a variety of positions of service, influence, and even leadership and teaching in the early church.  The text of Scripture, however, bears witness that the functions they assumed were done with modesty and order (1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:40), and that they did not teach or exercise authority over men.

----

[1] Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, Christianity Today, 20 February, 1981, pg. 22; Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (Word: Waco, TX 1974) pg. 30; Catherine Clark Kroeger, “The Classical Concept of Head as ‘Source’,” Appendix 3 in Gretchen Gabelein Hull, Equal to Serve (Baker: Grand Rapids, MI 1987, 1991) pp. 267-283

[2] Stanley J. Grenz with Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church (InterVarsity: Downers Grove, IL 1995) pp. 111-113

[3] Wayne Grudem, “Does kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature?  A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” appendix 1 in George W. Knight III, The Role Relationship of Men and Women (Moody: Chicago 1985) pp. 49-80; Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning of kefalh; in (“Head”): A Response to Recent Studies, Trinity Journal 11:1 (Spring 1990), pp. 3-72

[4] H. G. Liddell and George Scott, A lexicon [computer file]: Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (electronic ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996) 804 p.—(Logos Library System)

[5] Harold R. Holmyard III, “Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church?”, Bibliotheca Sacra, 154 (October 1997) pp 462-473

[6] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Crossway Books: Westchester, IL 1988)

[7] Grudem, pp. 144-5

[8] Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, trans. A. Stewart Todd and James B. Torrance (Henry Regnery Co: Chicago 1953) pg. 20; Wayne Grudem, “Prophecy—Yes, but Teaching—No: Paul’s Consistent Advocacy of Women’s Participation with Governing Authority,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 20 (March 1987), pp 11-23; see also Harold W. Hoehner, “The Purpose of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Moody Press: Chicago 1982), pp. 56-7

[9] R. C. H. Lerski, The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians (Augsburg: Minneapolis 1937 & 1963) pg. 437

[10] James B. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?  A Consideration of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 1 Cor 14:33b-36,” Westminster Theological Journal (Vol. 35 #2, Winter 1973), pp 191-220

[11] James B. Hurley, pg. 205

[12] H. Wayne House, “A Biblical View of Women in the Ministry.  Part 2: Should a Woman Prophesy or Preach before Men?”, Bibliotheca Sacra, 145 (April 1988) 142-162

[13] see Thomas R. Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity (1 Corinthians 11:2-16),” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway: Wheaton, IL 1991) pp. 124-139

[14] Dorothy Kelley Patterson, “Why I Believe Southern Baptist Churches Should Not Ordain Women,” Baptist History and Heritage, Vol. xxiii, no. 3 (July 1988), pp. 61-62