Honouring Our Head

Sermon  •  Submitted
0 ratings
· 25 views
Notes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
View more →

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.

Did you ever wish you could have seen the world immediately after it was created?  Nature in its unspoiled beauty must surely have been a glorious sight — no death, no ruin, no destruction.  There would have been no earthquakes, no tornadoes, no hurricanes, no storms, the ugly scars of war would be utterly absent and the stain resulting from man’s sin was unknown.  What a beautiful world it must have been!

Perhaps you have wished you could have seen the early church when it was yet unspoiled by the conflicts sinful people import into the Body of Christ?  Those first Christians were eager to find and do the will of God.  They had none of the hang-ups plaguing us today as we fight to implement our will over others of God’s congregations.  When we become believers we enter the church in anticipation of finding harmony and unity, but we seem quickly to be disabused of any hope for freshness and obedience.  We rapidly become jaded and even cynical, especially if we don’t guard our hearts.

I don’t suppose there is a church in our nation that hasn’t struggled, or which doesn’t struggle against the conflicts generally represented in society as a whole.  The social fomentation which mars our world in general is ultimately brought into the church.  Perhaps it cannot be avoided.  There is but one sure solution to this wretched plague, and that cure must be resorted to frequently.  We must turn to the Word of God, recommit ourselves to discovering the revealed will of God and courageously commit ourselves to doing that which He wills.  We must support the shepherds of the flock in their task of warning against sin and in instructing us in the mind of God.

One of the areas of conflict which has invaded the church during these past decades is fighting over the role of women in the church.  I rather suspect that the conflict was inevitable since the oppression of women was so intense in the preceding years.  It was easy I suppose for earlier saints to exercise excessive oppression in the social climate, for society as a whole was complacent about the issue of women’s role. 

Following the Second World War, however, women began to expect and demand an expanded role in society.  Women had served to ensure that war materials were available to men fighting in the trenches of Europe and in the jungles of Asia.  Having shared the sacrifices to defeat the Axis powers it was unreasonable to expect that they would be content to return to being voiceless in the very society they had helped create.  Thus the feminist movement was born and women discovered that they did have a voice.  That loud voice was ultimately heard even in the sacred precincts of the church.

I would not argue for a return to either a voiceless society or a voiceless church for women.  That would be a tragic mistake and a travesty of all that Canada represents and it would make a mockery of the freedom which is offered to all in Christ the Lord.  I do, however, insist that we determine that we will be very careful in the exercise of our freedom to ensure that we know and fulfil the mind of the Lord.  In my previous message I carefully laid out the fact that in the church there is no preference among the members.  Distinctions have been eliminated, though distinctiveness remains.  We have no class within the Body of Christ; we are each sons of God with all the rights and privileges of those adopted into His Family.  However, there is a danger that we will abuse our freedom before the Lord if we fail to know the mind of the Lord.  Join me in exploration of one passage which speaks pointedly to the issue of the role of women in the church.

The Setting — Principles, not details, are important in this passage.  Controversy surrounds the details which lead commentators to the position that we don’t know the specifics of the issues about which Paul writes.  He issues instructions which speak in a tangential fashion about head coverings.  Whether he means veils, or scarves, or hair length is less important than is the principle underlying the specific instruction.  Remember that you can do the right thing but displease God if you hold the wrong attitude.  It is the attitude toward God which is important in our service to Him, and not the specific details of our actions.

The ancient customs appear confusing to us.  Greek freemen went bareheaded whilst their slaves had their heads covered.  Roman freemen wore no head coverings whilst their slaves covered their heads.  Jews and Greeks covered their heads when they prayed.  Some women in ancient culture wore head coverings and others wore veils.  When all the conflicting data has been sifted, it appears that the custom in Corinth was that men at worship went bareheaded and women covered their heads during worship, save for prostitutes and possibly those in the service of the goddess Aphrodite.

All of this is presented to demonstrate that Paul is not laying down an absolute rule which is to be observed by Christians of all times with respect of head coverings.  It is not the custom which is important, but it is the significance of the custom which should seize our attention.  The issue is whether or not the people of God will demonstrate reverence for God in worship.  Lenski notes that had Paul written to Jews or to Romans or to Germans, all of whom covered the head during worship because of reverence and shame in God’s presence, he would have to tell them that any man among them who violated this custom thereby showed lack of reverence and shame.  But to write this to Greeks would be incomprehensible to them.[1]

Every indication is that the Corinthians and Paul agreed that women should cover their heads in public worship in Corinth.  There is no indication that the women of this congregation were defying this custom.  The occasion for the question arises over the issue of why this should be so.  Why should Christian women adhere to this custom were they to worship in Corinth?  You need to remember that it is important not only to act in a certain manner, but that the acts be performed intelligently … that is, for the right reasons.  Paul’s entire discussion seeks to furnish the right reason and thus confirm the Corinthians in their practise.[2]

The Theme [v. 3] — Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ [11:1].  These are the Apostle’s words recorded as a preface to what he has to say concerning the instructions he is about to give.  The Apostle had provided a corpus of oral instruction and he was apparently pleased to commend the Corinthians for adhering to those instructions [v. 2]. 

From his opening words in the text we would naturally draw the conclusion that while Paul had instituted the style of worship for the Corinthians, he had not provided definite instruction on each aspect of worship and more particularly he had not provided the reason for maintaining the custom of women wearing a head covering and of men worshipping without a similar head cover.  Everything the Apostle is going to teach revolves around the issue of headship, especially in the church gathered for worship.[3]

Anyone reading these words concerning who is head of whom would naturally infer that to be head is to assume a position of oversight, authority or responsibility.  Those under a head are to be submissive to that head.  Within the past several decades a novel interpretation of the Greek word kefalh; has arisen among some evangelical theologians.  Finding a few instances of alternate usage of kefalh; in the Greek language in times following by many centuries the New Testament dates, they have postulated that the word means the source instead of authority.

An immediate response to this position has been advanced by biblical scholars, especially those scholars who hold to what is often dismissed as “the traditional view” which is also known as the complementarian view.  Dr. Wayne Grudem states,

Where the Bible says that the husband is the "head" (kefalh;) of the wife as Christ is the head (kefalh;) of the church [Ephesians 5:23], and that the head of the woman is the man [1 Corinthians 11:3], you tell us that head here means source and not person in authority over (someone)..  In fact, as far as we can tell, your interpretation depends on the claim that kefalh; means source without the idea of authority.

But we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature that gives support to your interpretation.  Wherever one person is said to be the head of another person (or persons), the person who is called the head is always the one in authority (such as the general of an army, the Roman emperor, Christ, the heads of the tribes of Israel, David as head of he nations, etc.)  Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the head of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons.  So we find no evidence for your claim that head can mean source without authority.  Can you show us any evidence?

We would be happy to look at any Greek text that you could show us from the 8th century BC to the 4th century AD (a span of 12 centuries).  In all of that literature, our question of fact is this: Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for "head" (kefalh;) is used to say that person A is the head of person or persons B, and means what you claim, namely, non-authoritative source?

If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further.  But if we cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of these key verses, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if such factual basis existed.  We would also respectfully ask that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.[4]

To date no answer has been given.

Reviewing this progression of authoritative headship, one notes differences and similarities.  Clearly there is a difference in the authority which God the Father exercises with respect to God the Son from the other authorities recognised in this verse.  Careful reading of the Greek will reveal that Paul uses a definite article when referring to Christ as the head of every man though he fails to do so when referring to man as head of the woman and to God as head of Christ.  One alone is head of all mankind.  All individuals – male and female – have one unit head.  By the same token, only a particular man can be head of a particular woman.  The husband is the head of his wife.  The father is the head of his daughter and no other man has standing to enter into this headship role.

There is a similarity in each instance, to be sure.  In each instance we see a head and a subject to that head who is responsible before God to acknowledge that head.  Submission for the godly man is not optional, nor is a submissive attitude of the godly woman a matter for debate.  To fail to be submissive is to reject the rule of Christ and the appointment of God.  Consider that the thrust of the entire passage is dealing with worship.  The passage will segue to instructions for observance of the Lord’s Supper.  Throughout the entire passage is a plea for a spirit of humility and submission.

Clearly, God is superior to man.  Clearly Christ submitted Himself to the Father.  Jesus said, My will is to do the will of Him who sent Me [John 4:34].  Similar statements include that in which He said, I seek not to please Myself but Him who sent Me [John 5:30].  The submission of the Son to the will of the Father is evident in His words recorded in John 6:38.  I have come down from heaven not to do My will but to do the will of Him who sent Me.  Paul recognises this submission of the Son throughout his writings, and especially in this Corinthian letter.  Listen to these words recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.  For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death.  For he “has put everything under his feet.”  Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.  When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Though there is no competition between the Son and the Father, the Son is submitted to the Father.  Likewise, whether or not mankind exhibits a spirit of submission to Christ, Christ is nevertheless the head of all mankind.  Assuredly, He is the head of the Church, His body, of which He is the Saviour [Ephesians 5:23].  He purchased the church with His own blood [Acts 20:28].  He purchased all mankind with His blood [2 Peter 2:1].  Jesus could speak with authority since all authority has been given Him [Matthew 28:18].  Those who submit to His authority are born again into the Body of Christ.  Those who refuse submission to Him are lost and yet in their sin.

If we accept that the Father is the head of Christ and if we accept that Christ is the head of all mankind, how can it be that there is still a battle over the related and dependent position found sandwiched between those two concepts necessary for worship pleasing to God?  The head of the woman is man.  Either this makes sense or it is utterly meaningless.  One part cannot be rejected without rejecting the other parts of the equation.  Anyone rejecting the principle of woman’s submission to man must reject Christ’s submission to the Father and man’s submission to Christ.  Keep in mind that the realm of worship is in view.  In particular, bear in mind that worship pleasing to God is the goal of the Apostle’s words.

The Swiss theologian Karl Barth addressed this issue concerning headship in a letter to Madame H. Visser’t Hooft.  Dated 27th April, 1934, the honoured theologian responded to a question raised by Madame Visser’t Hooft concerning the meaning of and the application of 1 Corinthians 11:5-11.  In part the learned man stated:

You must bear in mind that not only Paul, but the whole Bible, assumes that the man-woman relationship on earth and in time is not a matriarchy but a patriarchy.  That is a fact…  These selections do not imply any recognition of special worth and excellence in male persons…  But they indicate special dispositions made by God in his dealings with human beings.  Their importance is only temporal.  But as such they cannot be simply ignored, nor can they be disputed with personal arguments…

Whether or not we recognise them as right, whether we like them or not, we have to accept these dispositions in this life until the time of the New Heaven and the New Earth.  We are, of course, at liberty to object to these dispositions; in so doing we may experience to some extent whether they are right or wrong…  Women can object to the fact that the Bible says that “man is the woman’s head.”  Time will show whether it is good to reverse this disposition or (as you would like to do) to neutralise it…  I may point out that there is another possibility: not to oppose God’s dispositions but to accept them without argument because they are, and then perhaps with time to realise that they are good.  These dispositions are bound up with the fact of his revelation in Christ, who was a man, thus confirming the superiority of Adam.[5]

The Instruction [vv. 4-7a] — Authority (and submission) is the theme of the passage.  However take careful note that in each instance the authority and the submission is authority and submission which is based on and revealed in love.  The Father sent the Son in love that through His sacrifice redemption might be provided for all mankind.  The Son willingly submitted to the charge received from the Father and became a man that He might die in the place of others.  Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.  In this act of love our Lord tasted death for all men.  The church is to submit to the Saviour in love.  Likewise, men in general and husbands in particular are to exercise their authority in love, not in tyranny.  Wives are to practise gracious, loving submission toward their husbands in particular.  The authority in each instance is not based on worth or ability, but it is based on God’s design and will for the benefit of all mankind.

In brief, Paul has provided in these verses a means by which Christians may honour Christ in worship.  Both male and female are to embrace their position required by their respective gender.  Men are expected to be masculine in their deportment before God as a mark of respect before the Lord.  Likewise, women are to be feminine in their deportment in worship and in the home as a mark of humility before the Lord.  Each are to assume responsibility before God to avoid violating common social custom which would make them seem offensive in the eyes of outsiders coming in to the worship of the assembly.  Each will show proper respect to their respective position as male and female.  Listen to one of the most respected commentators of our century, Professor F. F. Bruce.  There is nothing frivolous about such an appeal to public conventions of seemliness.  To be followers of the crucified Jesus was in itself unconventional enough, but needless breaches of convention were to be discouraged.[6]

The custom in Corinth, and presumably in all Greek cities in the Roman Empire, was that Christian men and women were distinguished from one another during worship.  In the churches of that day men did not wear a head cover when worshipping though women did wear such a head covering.  The principle which Paul has here stated is that the man should not seek to hide his male status by attempting to manifest his spiritual equality with the woman through outward appearance and actions.  He is still a man even though there is a positional oneness.[7]

Again, you would err if you interpret this to imply that men within the Corinthian Church were attempting to do such a thing, nor does it necessarily follow that the women were attempting to abuse their freedom in Christ.  I take it that the congregation had asked the Apostle for clarification of the reason behind their worship style.  Accordingly, Paul is providing principles for all Christians for all time.  Focus on the principle of the instruction instead of endeavouring to appropriate the particulars of the instruction.

For a man or a woman to violate this particular custom in Corinth was to shame his or her respective head.  Nearly one hundred years ago a gifted servant of God addressed this issue.  The man shames his natural head by wearing a veil; that is, he shames himself by wearing a symbol of subjection to the woman, whereas Christ has given the man supremacy over the woman in Church order, and that supremacy is expressed by the symbol of an unveiled face.  Again, the man that shames his natural head shames also his spiritual head; that is, he that shames himself by wearing a symbol of subjection to the woman, shames Christ, to whom alone God has subjected him.  It follows that, in the case of the man, the symbol of his supremacy over the woman is, at the same time, the symbol of his subjection to Christ…  Long hair was a sign at once of a man’s effeminacy and of his pride.  It was both a disgrace and a conceit.[8]

There is every reason to believe that Paul’s words apply to single women as well.  Paul uses words which generally would be understood to mean male and female.  The hair length ruling illustrates that he considered the practise to be binding on all.  It is the identity as men and as women which is important, though the focus is on husbands and wives.  Do not conclude that every woman must submit to every man, for that is not what is said.  Women were to submit to their husbands and to their husbands only.  They would of course submit in other hierarchical relationships, such as to the elders of the church, just as men would.  You see, submission is God’s order for each of us.  Paul here taught a Christological hierarchy which was to be reflected in public worship as both men and women accepted their respective positions within God’s created order.

Men who will honour God do not wear a hat in the house of God if they intend to pray or to prophesy.  They are to demonstrate respect toward God and toward the church.  They are to avoid blurring the distinction between the sexes, especially are they to avoid surrendering their role as head of the woman.  Likewise, women should bear themselves with a submissive spirit if they choose to pray with the Body assembled or to give a prophecy.  Women are to avoid any attempt to usurp that position which was not assigned of being head over the man.

As an aside of no small moment, the church is anywhere the Body of Christ is assembled for worship.  Whether in a church building, in a private home, in a rented facility, if the people of God are assembled for worship, that is properly the church.

This raises an issue of related importance.  Can a woman speak in church?  The New Testament places no restriction on a woman’s witness in public … not even on witnessing to a man.  Certainly Priscilla, together with her husband Aquila, appears to have been most capable of providing instruction to Apollos, but the instruction was provided in her home and not while the church was assembled.  The Word of God does not prohibit women from taking nonleadership roles in praying with unbelievers or for outsiders.  There are no prohibitions against women teaching other women or against women teaching children during services of the Body of Christ.  However, this passage does not provide permission for women to conduct worship services or to preach.  That issue is clearly addressed elsewhere in the Word of God.

Bear in mind that the customs are fluid though the principles are fixed.  Thus, Paul’s teaching provides an emphasis of the roles of men and women in worship.  His focus is not solely nor even primarily their dress.  The principle would state that men who wear skirts and blouses during worship do not honour God.  Likewise, women who cut their hair short and wear a suit and tie fail to honour God in their efforts at worship.

This passage is not in conflict with Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35.  There Paul proscribes women speaking in church and the context would seem to mean that they may not assume the role of a teacher.  This is especially evident from the instruction provided Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.  I take it from this teaching that women under the authority of their husband may pray in the services of the congregation and if they have a word of testimony (the contemporary equivalent of a prophecy) they may deliver that word of testimony.  With the consent of their husband (or with the consent of a father in the case of an unmarried woman) those prayers and prophecies may be given to the church that all may be encouraged and all may be edified.

The Rationale [vv. 7b-10] — [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.  However unfair you may consider the instruction which Paul has provided, God has spoken.  Throughout this passage God has provided His reason and though we may grapple with that rationale, ultimately we are responsible to submit to the will of God.  Reduced to its simplest form, the issue of authority and divine glory are the stated reasons for God’s sovereign choice.

The man is distinguished from the woman, first, in that he is the glory of God, while she is the glory of the man; second, in that he is the image as well as glory of God, while she is not the image of man.[9]  Though both male and female are created in God’s image, Adam was created first and Eve was created later, from and for Adam [Genesis 2:21,22].  Though the pair was together given dominion and authority over God’s created world [cf. Genesis 1:26,28-30], after the Fall the man was placed in a position of strengthened authority over the woman.  There can be no avoiding the impact of those strong words God spoke to the woman:

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you

[Genesis 3:16b]

The divine issue states that man is the glory of God, and he is so designated because of his priority in creation.  Man was created before woman.  On the other hand, woman is the glory of manShe was created to manifest man’s authority and will just as man was made to manifest God’s authority and will.  The woman is vice-regent — she rules in the stead of man or carries out man’s will, just as man is God’s vice-regent and rules in His stead or carries out His will.  Although woman is fully in the image of God, she is not directly the glory of God, as is man.  She is, however, directly the glory of man, the indirect outshining of man’s glory of God.  Paul’s point is that man reveals how magnificent a creature God can create from Himself, while woman shows how magnificent a creature God can make from a man [Genesis 2:21,22].[10]

There is an additional truth which we dare not overlook, though we haven’t time to fully explore it.  That issue revolves around the interplay of divine glory and authority.  That is, God’s glory consists, partly at least, in authority.[11]  We can sing about Majesty, but we must know that the majesty of God is in part revealed as we submit to His authority.  Likewise, we may only know His glory, seeing His majesty revealed in our midst, as we recognise the authority which He has appointed and as we submit to that authority.  Until Christian men submit to Christ as their head and until Christian women submit to men as their head, all our efforts are futile and destined to disappointment.  Until that is done we are merely playing at church with no real hope of knowing God’s glory in our midst.

Dear people, does it really need to be stated that woman is not intellectually, morally, spiritually, or functionally inferior to man, though she is unique in comparison to him?  The role of woman is to defer to man’s leadership, protection and care, and to be a helper suitable for him [Genesis 2:20b].  Man’s authority over woman is delegated to him by God.  That divinely appointed authority is to be used for God’s purposes and in God’s way.  As a fellow creature sharing the image of God, man has no innate superiority over woman and he has no right to use his authority in a manner which is tyrannical or selfish.  Male chauvinism is no more biblical than feminism.  Both are perversions of God’s plan.[12]

I must draw the message to a conclusion.  Paul has stated that God’s reason for this divinely appointed role in the home and in the church is because of Divine Order [v. 3].  The order of headship is sequenced: God-Christ-man-woman.  This is an obvious hierarchy.  However, it is a hierarchy of authority/submission relationships which exists alongside the concept of equality.  The Order of Creation is important in God’s sight, Adam being created first and Eve created for and from Adam [vv. 8,9].  Divine Glory is given as a reason for God’s instruction.  Man is revealed as the glory of God and woman is the glory of man [v. 7].  Because of the Angels we should heed God’s instruction [v. 10].  Paul taught that giving due regard to the created order was necessary because of the angels.  Nature itself teaches us that there is to be a distinction in worship with women being submissive and men assuming responsibility [vv. 13-15].  By nature men should be exposed before God and women should be covered before Him.  Finally, Paul appeals to the Universality of Christian Practise [v. 16].  Paul’s summary statement carries the sense of I have never permitted the custom of unveiled praying or prophesying by women, and no church has introduced it.[13]  The apostolic instruction illustrates the central nature of headship as they relate to male and female roles in the church.

The point of Paul’s cultural illustration is that we should identify with our society’s symbols of masculinity and femininity (unless, of course, they violate Scripture).  Such symbols can be easily discerned.  Though we live in a day of confused gender symbolism, we can nevertheless usually determine by a woman’s appearance if she is rebelling against all that womanhood stands for, or if a man is effeminate and denying recognised symbols of masculinity.

Gender must not be confused in gathering for worship.  It is offensive to God.  In no small measure this accounts for the fact that homosexuality and transvestism are detestable before the Lord.  Gender confusion becomes significant before the angels who also attend our services.  The gender difference is to be visibly acknowledged.  For the woman, this expresses her acceptance of male governmental responsibilities within the assembly…  For the man, it expresses his acknowledgement of the need to submit to the authority of Christ while he fulfils his role in the church.[14]

Will we submit to the Word of God as authoritative and inerrant; or have we actually become so arrogant that we are prepared to dismiss the writings of the Apostle to the Gentiles as so culturally bound as to become meaningless in the contemporary world?  If we make the latter choice, shall we ignore Paul’s teaching that sin came from one man?  Perhaps we prefer a model of interpretation which has been formulated by contemporary, atheistic anthropologists rather than the traditional interpretation?  Will we refuse to believe that sin does contaminate our lives because we decide that Paul borrowed his ideas on original sin from rabbinical theology.?  If we are unwilling to reject the Apostle’s words on issues bearing on sin and salvation, how have we arrived at a state of rejecting his words on the role of women both in the church and in the home?  The arguments for rejecting Pauline views of sin are not that different from feminist arguments for rejecting Paul’s understanding of women’s roles.  Let us choose to honour God through embracing His will revealed through the writings of the Apostle.  Amen.


----

[1] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Augsburg,  © 1937, 1963) p. 435

[2] cf. Lenski, p. 432

[3] cf. Mary A. Kassian, Women, Creation and the Fall, (Crossway, Westchester, Illinois, © 1990) p. 95

[4] Wayne Grudem, Six Questions that have Never Been Answered, CBMW, 1999

[5] Susannah Herzel, Women in Church and Society (World Council of Churches, Geneva, 1981) Appendix Number 1, pp. 160–166

[6] cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (The New Century Bible Commentaries), (Eerdmans, © 1971) p.107

[7] Robert G. Gromacki, Called to Be Saints, An Exposition of 1 Corinthians, (Baker, © 1977) p. 135

[8] Thomas Charles Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, Minneapolis, © 1885, 1979), p. 273

[9] Edwards, p. 275

[10] John MacArthur, Jr., Different By Design (Chariot Victor Publishing,  © 1994) p. 42

[11] Edwards, p. 275

[12] MacArthur, p. 43

[13] cf. Kassian, pp. 97–100

[14] J. David Pawson, Leadership is Male (Thomas Nelson, © 1990) p. 79

[15] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Augsburg,  © 1937, 1963) p. 435

[16] cf. Lenski, p. 432

[17] cf. Mary A. Kassian, Women, Creation and the Fall, (Crossway, Westchester, Illinois, © 1990) p. 95

[18] Wayne Grudem, Six Questions that have Never Been Answered, CBMW, 1999

[19] Susannah Herzel, Women in Church and Society (World Council of Churches, Geneva, 1981) Appendix Number 1, pp. 160–166

[20] cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (The New Century Bible Commentaries), (Eerdmans, © 1971) p.107

[21] Robert G. Gromacki, Called to Be Saints, An Exposition of 1 Corinthians, (Baker, © 1977) p. 135

[22] Thomas Charles Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, Minneapolis, © 1885, 1979), p. 273

[23] Edwards, p. 275

[24] John MacArthur, Jr., Different By Design (Chariot Victor Publishing,  © 1994) p. 42

[25] Edwards, p. 275

[26] MacArthur, p. 43

[27] Kassian, pp. 97–100

[28] J. David Pawson, Leadership is Male (Thomas Nelson, © 1990) p. 79

Related Media
See more
Related Sermons
See more