Preach Nov 12th 2006
Enniscorthy Christian Fellowship – 12th November 2006
Equal but Different - 1 Corinthians 11v2-16
Jesus’ prayed for us on the night before his death: “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” John 17v20-21 We followers of Jesus have not done well to express this. Many things have caused this, but one of them has been the inability for us to handle our differences.
We’re going to disagree at times. In fact, someone has said, “If two agree on everything, one of them is not needed.” Parts of the Bible are difficult to understand. Even though we hold to the truth and reliability of God’s Word, we might disagree on what it says. So how should we handle our differences? 1 way is to divide from anyone we disagree with –until our church is made up only of people who agree with me on every topic!
Of course we cannot be united with people who reject our primary beliefs, but with secondary issues, there’s a better way. We can express unity without demanding that we agree on everything. This requires maturity, grace, understanding and humility. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13v12: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror… I know in part.”
We need this attitude this morning as we come to 1 Corinthians 11v2-16. Craig Blomberg says: “This passage is probably the most complex, controversial, and opaque of any text of comparable length in the New Testament. A survey of the history of interpretation reveals how many different exegetical options there are for a myriad of questions, and should inspire a fair measure of tentativeness on the part of the interpreter.”
So this morning, as we work at understanding this passage, let’s not judge our brothers or sisters who might after the same struggle come to a different conclusion. Read 1 Corinthians 11v2-16
1) A Crucial Principle – Headship
Paul here appears to be dealing with a problem in this church associated with the principle of headship. The word “head” is a key word in this passage. Paul uses a deliberate play on this word (kephale) to use it to talk about literally and figuratively.
a) God’s Created Order
Paul starts by setting out the principle of headship in v3: “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” There is debate about what this means. The relationship that is really in question is the one in the middle, the relationship between the man and the woman. But who are they? The difficulty is that the words Paul uses could be translated man and woman, or husband and wife. They are used in both ways in the New Testament.
Also, what does it mean that the man is the head of the woman? The word “head” can
mean the source of something – as in headwaters of a river. Or it can mean the authority of one person over another. Paul seems here to use it in both ways – authority in v3-6, and source in v7-12. So it would seem most likely that Paul is using both these meanings when he is talking about headship.
Paul teaches that headship is based on God’s created order. In v7 Paul says that man is “the image and glory of God.” Of course, Genesis 1v27 states that man and woman were both created in God’s image, in his likeness: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Man in some way gives or reflects the glory of God. But here Paul states that the woman is the glory of the man. He gives two reasons:
(i) Source
“Man did not come from woman, but woman from man.” v8. This is a clear reference to the creation record of Genesis 2:23: “The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man.” God doesn’t do things by accident! This is God’s order – man was created first, then woman was formed out of man. And this created order is the reason behind the headship of man! Headship is a reflection of the order of God’s creation!
(ii) Purpose
Paul also says in v9, “Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” This refers to Genesis 2v18 giving the purpose for which Eve was created: “The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Woman was created because man needed a companion who would complete him. And so since the woman was created out of man and was created for man, she brings glory to him and completes him!
b) Equal, and Interdependent
Headship in no way implies any level of inferiority of the woman, or any right of any man to abuse or put down any woman. This is crystal clear because of the headship ascribed to God the Father in relation to the Son in v3! The Son is no less than God, and yet Jesus often talked about his willingness to be subordinate to the Father! Jesus could say in John 10v30: “I and the Father are one.” They are equal. And yet he could also say: “The Father is greater than I.” John 14v28. Headship deals with functional subordination, not with equality!! About the role in God’s way of working in this world, not with superiority and inferiority.
Men and women are equal. This is clear from creation. The image of God is reflected in humanity – men and women! The woman was created as “a helper suitable for him” which praises the woman’s strength because the word “helper” is used more often of God than of anyone else in the Old Testament; “suitable” means “appropriate to,” as an equal. The animals were not equal to Adam and so were not suitable. Woman was made as his equal, completing him. Woman was not made to serve him, but because he needed her strength.
Paul is keen to show that no inferiority is implied and so he clarifies this in v11-12: “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. They need each other - they are interdependent! “As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.” This equality is illustrated in the birth of the man through the woman, and the creation of the woman out of the man. One cannot exist without the other. And Paul finishes that argument by saying that they both depend on God, for they both “come from God.” v12
And in Christ man and women are equal, they are one! Galatians 3v28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
c) But Different
But Men and women are different. God has made us different. Different physically and different in terms of headship, role. As Christ is equal with the Father and yet the Father is the head of Christ and each have a distinct role to play, so the woman is equal with the man, but the man is the head of the woman. And they are called to have different roles in God’s world!
d) Accepting God’s Order
I believe this passage is encouraging the Christians in Corinth to accept this way that God has ordered his world. In Ephesians 5v22-33 this headship is applied to how Christian marriages should function – in mutual loving submission, but with an added leadership responsibility for the men to lovingly lay down their lives for their wives! In 1 Timothy 2v11-15 this headship is applied to who should be responsible for the leadership in the church in teaching God’s Word.
Here it is relating to how we should accept this principle as we worship! This is not something that we Christians should be embarrassed about. I’ve often felt that headship and how it was talked about was an embarrassment to Christianity in the 21st century. Not so. This is about the fact that God did not make a mistake in making us different.
People often talk about the problems because men and women are different. That’s not a problem! We’re not supposed to be the same – we were made to complement each other and so to reflect God’s image. God has a plan for the women here – to serve him as women. God has a plan for us men – to serve him as men. Fulfilling our purpose in life does not mean rejecting our gender! In fact, I think what Paul is getting at here is that fulfilling our purpose in life and so glorifying God requires that we accept and celebrate our difference – that we are men and women!
2) A Common Practice - Headcovering
It seems that in Corinth some were rejecting this principle of headship. This was reflected in the women not covering their heads in church gatherings. Paul taught the Corinthians that this was not right: v4: “ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head.” v5, the other side: “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head.”
a) What? – A Hood
The phrase “with his head covered” is literally “having down from the head.” The question is what is down the head? Some people think this refers to the hair – as later the woman’s long hair is seen as a covering. I’m not convinced by this. It seems easier to understand that Paul is referring to a covering on the head, other than the hair.
Those who have studied the culture of the time say that this covering was like a hood that women pulled up from a shawl. It was not a facial veil.
b) When? - Public worship
The next question is when should this teaching be applied? Paul says when men and women pray and prophesy. Although praying could be in private, prophesy requires an audience. We’ll look at prophesy in later weeks, but it in some way describes sharing a message with others in response to God’s leading. So this teaching applies to when this church met together for worship, sharing, prayer.
v16 seems to back this up. Paul says: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.” Headcovering was the common practice in churches at that time. Paul was only asking the Corinthians to do what other churches at that time did!
This obviously creates a difficulty when we come to 1 Corinthians 14v34: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak.” People have tried to explain this in a number of ways. I think the most consistent and faithful to the Scriptures is to understand the restriction of 1 Corinthians 14 in context, as dealing with a specific situation, the evaluation of prophesies, as this was an exercise of authority or leadership. We’ll take more time on that passage when we come to it.
So, Paul is teaching that when women pray or prophesy in the meetings of the church in Corinth, they should have their head covered.
c) Why?
That of course leads us to the question of why? And Paul explains why
(i) Principle of Headship
The reason is closely linked to the teaching on headship. Man should not cover his head because this would disgrace his head. This probably means his literal head – meaning himself (his head stands for his entire person) and his figurative head – meaning Christ. The woman should cover her head because man is her head – and uncovering her head would disgrace her head – meaning herself and man!
(ii) Glory of God
Paul also says a man should not cover his head because he is the image and glory or the reflection of God. On the other hand the woman is the glory of the man – which as we saw earlier was because she came from man and completed him. For this reason a woman should have “a sign of authority” on her head when she prays.
What does that mean? Does it refer to a sign of the woman’s authority or a sign of authority over the woman? Both would be a correct translation of the word ‘exousia’. We’ve been talking a lot about this word over the past weeks because it is the same word translated “freedom” in 8v4 when Paul talked about taking care in using the freedom we have in Christ, or “right” in 9v4-5, 12, 18 where Paul talked about giving up his rights for the sake of the gospel. It seems possible that this sign of authority refers to the woman’s authority, or freedom to participate in the worship of the church.
In the synagogue, women were not allowed to speak, but now in Christ they have that freedom to do so. Thus the woman should wear a sign of her authority that she has the freedom to do this in the presence of the man who is her head.
(iii) Observing Angels
Paul also gives an additional reason for women covering their heads in v10. He says, “and because of the angels.” There are at least 5 different explanations of this phrase. The most likely is that Paul recognises that angels are spectators of the affairs of humans. “Through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,” Ephesians 3v10
As God’s servants angels have an interest in seeing this God’s created order respected by God’s people. Rejecting this teaching, Paul says, would be offending not only each other, and Christ, but also the angels who observe what is going on in our worship.
(iv) Accepted Understanding
In addition to these 3 reasons, I think Paul gives reasons based on accepted cultural norms. Not everyone would agree with this.
(a) Disgrace
Paul refers to the disgrace in the culture that was associated with headcovering and hair length. So he says in v5 that the disgrace of a woman not covering her head is as bad as having her hair cut or shaved off. Having her hair cut off would place herself amoung the dishonoured in that society. No woman would want to do this – and so she should not discard her headcovering: “if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.” v6
The question is, what is this disgrace associated with an uncovered head or short hair? Paul was sure that the Corinthians knew the answer to this – they would instinctively know it. How did they know it? Was it from a Biblical understanding? I don’t think so. The only possible reference is a reference to loosening the hair of a woman accused of adultery in Numbers 5v18.
Today, we don’t feel this disgrace. A woman appearing in public with her head uncovered or hair cut, doesn’t have any negative meaning in our culture. So it would seem that Paul is referring to the accepted cultural understanding of the 1st century associated with heads and hair for women.
Those who have studied this culture say that men did not wear headcoverings, women did. And the headcovering was a sign of distinction between men and women. “It cannot be unequivocally asserted, but the preponderance of evidence points towards the public covering of woman as a universal custom in the first century in both Jewish culture and Greco-Roman.” Lowery.
So this seems to be the normal sign of distinction in clothing between male and female. To reject this was to ignore the distinction between male and female and it brought disgrace. The disgrace associated with an uncovered head ranged from temple prostitutes whose heads were uncovered to women who were found to be adulteresses. So headcovering was also a symbol of her faithfulness to her husband, her submission to him. Headcovering had a religious and moral significance.
(b) Proper
Then in the climax of his argument, Paul raises questions the Corinthians again should again be able to answer! In v13 he says, “Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? The word “Proper” (perpov) means what is known to be right and appropriate. From what they knew they should see that women worshipping without a headcovering was not appropriate.
(c) Nature
Then in v14 Paul appeals to nature: “Does not the very nature of things…” I don’t believe that “nature” means that women’s hair always grows longer than men’s. And not everyone feels that that long hair for a man, and short for a woman, is shameful. So I think the best understanding of “nature” is the natural feelings of their contemporary culture. Fee states that “the culture taught as a general rule men should have short hair and women have long hair .”
And so society informed women that their hair had been given as a covering and was thus their “glory” or pride. It distinguished her from man, allowed her to function properly and be accepted in society. And so to remove it would bring disgrace!
d) A Symbol of Acceptance of Headship
None of this takes away from Paul’s teaching on headship as a God-given principle. What it does is explain the connection between accepting the Biblical principle and how this was expressed with a covered head.
If a woman did not cover her head it sent out a message that she was in some sense abandoning her femaleness in that culture. She was making a culturally understandable statement of rejecting her submission to her husband. So in that culture she was dressing in a way that indicated she was rebelling against her God-given role as a woman and her acceptance of the headship of man!
In the same way a man covering his head would also indicate that he was in some way abandoning his maleness, his role of being the head of woman.
Maybe the women had misunderstood the teaching of Paul on the equality of all in Christ. They were enjoying their freedom to be actively involved in worship services. But they’d gone too far by removing their headcoverings, the symbol of their distinctiveness between them & men, as if to say, “If we’re equal, then we’re the same!”
In reply Paul says, “Your redemption doesn’t override the creative order. You are equal, but you are different and have a distinct role. You should not reject this sign of distinction between men and women.” I think he was calling them to maintain the practice that recognised that though men and women in Christ are equal and dependent on each other, in God’s plan they are distinct!
3) A Complicated Application
What Paul wanted the Corinthians to do was clear. But what does God want us to learn from this passage today?
a) A Clear Example!
Sometimes when you apply the Bible, we apply the principle, but not the practice. This happens often when we study the Old Testament. Even in the New Testament we sometimes do this. For example when Jesus washed his disciples feet he commanded the disciples to do the same for each other. (John 13v14-15) Do we need to obey Jesus’ words today? Of course. But how do we obey them? By washing feet? Not necessarily. The impact of this example was not teaching a new practice of feet washing, but teaching a new practice of humble service for each other!
Even if we washed each others feet today, then it would still lose its original meaning because it is not a servant’s job and our feet don’t need washed. It would be a symbolic act not a domestic act. So today we apply this, by taking the principle of serving one another in love –doing the most lowly of tasks for each other.
So what about this passage? Should we keep the practice, or just the principle behind it?
b) Two Conflicting Views!
(i) Continue the Practice
Some people, including John, and others in the church believe that Christian women today should wear headcoverings in times of collective worship in recognition of God’s creative order as they were to do in Corinth. They would stress the universal / theological principles in the passage that for them would outweigh any appeal to culture or customs.
Women today need to choose what covering they will use as it is not just a part of their everyday clothing. What they use isn’t too important – although wearing a flashy hat to attract attention seems to be just too far removed from the original practice. Also people need to decide when this covering is required – is it every time there is prayer or only in ‘church services?’
(ii) Keep the Principle, not the practice
I would believe that although the principle of headship is crucially important, this passage doesn’t impose a practice to express this. Rather it teaches the church not to remove the culturally accepted way of expressing the distinction between men and women. That they should not give the impression that the men and women are rebelling against God’s order of headship!
The practice of headcoverings today doesn’t carry this understanding of male and female distinction or disgrace and rebellion. Asking women today to wear them in church is to ask them to do something abnormal rather than normal, which seems to be what Paul wanted to avoid. He wanted them to do what was normal in their culture in reflecting their womanhood and the creative order and distinction.
So how would we apply this principle? By ensuring that we do not follow a practice that denies God’s created order reflected in the male-female distinctions.
We should reject any attempt to blur distinctions between the sexes. God created men and women as different, and we should not try to remove all these differences. It impacts what clothes we wear: Deuteronomy 22v5: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.” This of course needs to be culturally relevant. I would never wear a dress, but am proud to wear a kilt!
And we need to recognise the principle of Headship. This is based not on culture but on God’s order! Men and women must respect each other. We are equal. But we’ve been given different roles. This has nothing to do with who is the bread-winner, or who is the primary carer in the home – it is about spiritual leadership in the home and spiritual leadership in the church!
c) A Commitment to Respect!
I hope that this isn’t as clear as mud? Although a little bit of confusion is a good thing, because it will help us to see that it’s possible to come to different conclusions.
What I don’t want anyone to feel is judged or ridiculed for their conviction of what this teaches. I don’t want to try to force someone to do something they feel is wrong, or not required. Our policy here in ECF is that we will give people the freedom to understand and apply this passage as God’s Spirit leads them!
Whatever our understanding of this passage, I think we need to express a commitment to mutual respect for each other. We need to listen to Paul’s challenge: “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge… but have not love, I am nothing.” 1 Corinthians 13v2
FINISH
“Placing the symbol of authority on the head was a cultural practice. The fact that the symbol was worn on the head also allowed Paul to pursue a word play on the word ‘head’ as noted earlier. The use of ‘on the head’ therefore does not demand that a symbol on the head be retained today, but only that the symbol in that day was to be on the head.”
v4 For a man (in the Corinthian church, and possibly every other NT church) to pray or prophesy with his head covered would dishonour his head (i.e. himself and Christ).
7 Man ought not to cover his head – “he is the image and glory of God”
Genesis 1v26-27 states that man and woman were both created in God’s image, in his likeness.
Both man and woman are made in the image of God and for the glory of God; but since the woman was made from the man (Gen. 2:18–25), she is also the “glory of the man.” She glorifies God and brings glory to the man by submitting to God’s order and keeping her head covered in public worship. Thus, Paul tied together both local custom and biblical truth, the one pointing to the other.
Woman is the glory (doxa) of man – and so she should have a sign of authority on her head (v10)
The reason for the woman being the glory of man is given in v8-9: the woman brings glory to man as she comes from him and completes him!
But Paul sees man as the image and glory (doxa), or the reflection of God. To cover this reflection in a service in which he is praying to Him or delivering a prophetic word from Him would be inconsistent.
It may be that man gives or reflects the glory of God. In some way this glory is resident or reflected from the head of the man and should not be covered.
Woman is the glory (doxa) of man – and so she should have a sign of authority on her head (v10)
The reason for the woman being the glory of man is given in v8-9: the woman brings glory to man as she comes from him and completes him!
Some people have suggested that the fact that Paul uses the word “a sign of authority” here in v10 and not just talk about headcovering explicitly may suggest that the issue is not the exact use of the headcovering but the larger issue of the disregard of distinctions, or the acceptance of God’s created order. They have divided up the chapter into 3 sections:
v3-6, v7-12, and v13-15. In both v3-6 and 13-15, where Paul talks explicitly about headcovering, many people have seen a clear reference to accepted understandings in that culture. In v7-12 where Paul does refer to foundational principles of God’s created order, he uses it to back up the fact that man is the image and glory of God and the woman is the glory of man. Here he does not mention headcoverings explicitly, but rather uses this phrase – “a sign of authority.”
Illustrations
“1 Corinthians 11v2-16 is among the most challenging passages in the Bible. Key words and the thrust of the passage lend themselves to numerous, often conflicting opinions. Because of the controversial and difficult nature of this section, any interpretation must be held with a certain degree of caution.” Wilson
“This passage is probably the most complex, controversial, and opaque of any text of comparable length in the New Testament. A survey of the history of interpretation reveals how many different exegetical options there are for a myriad of questions, and should inspire a fair measure of tentativeness on the part of the interpreter.” Craig Blomberg
If two agree on everything, one of them is not needed.
Enniscorthy Christian Fellowship – 12th November 2006
1 Corinthians 11v2-16
Bringing all Scripture to bear
Head
“And you have been given fulness in Christ, who is the Head over every power and authority.” Colossians 2v10
“He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.” Colossians 2v19
“And you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.” 1 Corinthians 3v23
“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.” 1 Corinthians 15v28
Tradition
2 Timothy 2v2: “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.”
“You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!” Mark 7v9
Maintain Difference
Deuteronomy 22v5: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.”
Equality
Galatians 3v28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Dress
1 Timothy 2v8-10: “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. 9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.”
God’s truth most important
Mark 7v6-9: “He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“ ‘These people honour me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
9 And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”
Creation
Genesis 2:22-23: “Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman’,
for she was taken out of man.”
Genesis 2v18: The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Equality of men and women in Christ
Galatians 3v28. All are equally children of God. In all the New Testament where no sex is specified, we believe that it applies equally to male and female believers. Men and women are of equal importance and value to God and in the church (1 Corinthians 12; 11v11). They have an equally important role or function and all are gifted for the building up of the church.
Genesis 1v26:-27: “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man
in his own image,
in the image of God
he created him;
male and female
he created them.”
Angels
“We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men.” 1 Corinthians 4v9
“His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,” Ephesians 3v10
Other Info.
v2
Two matters in particular merited praise:
the church remembered Paul and appreciated him,
the church was faithful to keep the teaching that had been given them
The word ordinances simply means “traditions,” teachings that were passed on from one person to another (2 Tim. 2:2). The traditions of men should be avoided (Matt. 15:2–3; Col. 2:8), but the traditions that are given in the Word of God must be observed.
3 main units:
v3-6 Reasons for Proper Decorum in Public Worship
Culture Issues - Shame associated with an uncovered head
v7-12 Male-Female distinctives within the framework of equality as part of God’s created order
Authority on their heads!
v13-15 Reasons for Proper Decorum in Public Worship
Culture Issues - Teaching of nature
This issue was important for Paul
The language he used
The grammar of v13-15 – asyndeton
His extended discussion and reasons for teaching this practice
v3-6 An argument from design and disgrace
The principle of headship! The headship in God’s world!!
Christ is the head of man
Man is the head of woman - middle for emphasis as this is the relationship under discussion
God is the head of Christ
Headship deals with functional subordination, not with equality!! This is crystal clear in the light of the headship ascribed to god the Father in relation to the Son in v3!!!!!
He was calling the people in this church to maintain the practice that recognises that though male and female are equal and dependent on each other, in God’s plan they are distinct!
When Paul talks about man and woman, it could be translated husband and wife, rather than in general man and woman.
v3 ‘Head’ – possibly both of source and authority.
HEAD kefalh kephalē
Debate over two possible meanings:
· Source of something – as in headwaters of a river
· Authority of one person over another
Paul seems to use both – authority in v3-6, and source in v7-12
Paul uses both meaning elsewhere (Col 2v10,19)
Christ is willingly subordinate to the Father (1 Cor 3v23, 15:28), but of course this does not imply that Christ came from God
Headship is about the order of God in relation to origination and subordination.
v4 For a man (in the Corinthian church, and possibly every other NT church) to pray or prophesy with his head covered would dishonour his head (i.e. himself and Christ).
Talking about some kind of covering on the head.
The disgrace is of both the literal head and the hierarchical head. Paul uses both meaning here – like a play on words – to mean both.
So praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonours Christ (his hierarchical head)
and himself (his head names the part for the whole, it the head is dishonoured so is the entire person).
v5 For a woman (in the Corinthian church, and possibly every other NT church) to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered would dishonour her head (i.e. herself and man (regenerate)).
Dishonour herself - According to Paul, for a woman to throw off the covering was an act not of liberation but of degradation.
Dishonour the man by claiming to be the same as him, rather than equal but distinct from him.
It seems that this passage is focussed on the practice of the women which might imply that it was the women of this church who were in violation of this instruction.
CULTURE
The custom for women in the New Testament was to cover their heads. Not to do so was to ignore the distinction between male and female. It in some way showed submission to visible authority perhaps.
A lot of dispute about headcoverings. Most people would agree to the 2 following statements:
· Men did not wear them, women did.
· The headcovering was a sign of distinction between men and women.
Headcovering was not a facial covering, but like a hood pulled up from a shawl.
“It cannot be unequivocally asserted, but the preponderance of evidence points towards the public covering of woman as a universal custom in the first century in both Jewish culture and Greco-Roman.” Lowery.
This statement seems to be supported by Paul’s appeals to ‘nature’ v13-14
It seems that the women in Corinth had abandoned the practice of veering their heads in worship – possibly because of the teaching of Paul on the equality of all who are in Christ – Galatians 3v28. Paul appears to be countering this point of view by saying that the women should not reject this sign of distinction between men and women
“Their redemption did not override the creative order.”
When? Not so much about geographical location, as to the function.
The context of this passage appears to be in a public setting as in gatherings of the church or Christians, and specifically to the audible participation in praying and prophesying (praying may include inaudible, but prophesying (sharing a message in response to God’s leading) must obviously be audible).
This obviously creates a difficulty when we also read in 1 Corinthians 14v33-35 about women keeping silent in the congregation of the saints. People have tried to solve this problem a number of ways. I think the clearest is that the restriction of 1 Corinthians 14 is about a specific situation – women were not to be involved in making an evaluation of the prophets as that would be an exercise of authority in the same way women were not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men (1 Timothy 2v12). We’ll take some more time on that passage when we come to it. But save to say, that Paul in this passage is saying that when women pray or prophesy in the context of when the church meets together, they should have their head covered.
The teaching of submission of women to the authority of the man does not seem to be what Paul is teaching in this passage. Rather Paul is instructing both the men and women to submit to the God-given principles that he is teaching in this passage.
v6 Paul is basically saying, that “if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off… and it is, then… she should have her hair cut off.”
CULTURE: Disgrace associated with short hair:
Disgrace associated with uncovered head ranged from temple prostitutes whose heads were uncovered to women who were found to be adulteresses. It seems really clear even from Paul’s writings that not wearing a headcovering was an act of shame.
If a woman willingly uncovered her head, she should also willingly submit to having her hari cut off. But for her to do this was to place herself amoung the dishonoured. She would not want to do this, and so should not discard her headcovering.
v7-12 Male-Female distinctives within the framework of equality as part of God’s created order
In this section where he does ground his commands in the order and purpose of creation, he does so to support his statements that man is the image and glory of God and that wives are the glory of their husbands.
v7 Man ought not to cover his head – “he is the image and glory of God”
Genesis 1v26-27 states that man and woman were both created in God’s image, in his likeness.
Both man and woman are made in the image of God and for the glory of God; but since the woman was made from the man (Gen. 2:18–25), she is also the “glory of the man.” She glorifies God and brings glory to the man by submitting to God’s order and keeping her head covered in public worship. Thus, Paul tied together both local custom and biblical truth, the one pointing to the other.
But Paul sees man as the image and glory (doxa), or the reflection of God. To cover this reflection in a service in which he is praying to Him or delivering a prophetic word from Him would be inconsistent.
It may be that man gives or reflects the glory of God. In some way this glory is resident or reflected from the head of the man and should not be covered.
Woman is the glory (doxa) of man – and so she should have a sign of authority on her head (v10)
The reason for the woman being the glory of man is given in v8-9: the woman brings glory to man as she comes from him and completes him!
v8-9 This verse introduces the idea of the source of woman i.e. man. Woman is the glory of the man for two reasons:
· Woman came from man – created order – the original creation of the first woman in which she was formed from the rib of the man (Genesis 2v22-23)!
· Woman was made “for the man.” Translations differ of this phrase, but it appears that it refers to Genesis 2v18 giving the purpose for which Eve was created – she was created because the man needed a companion who would complete him. Since woman was created because of man’s need for a companion, she brings him glory.
The phrase there translated “helper suitable” praises woman’s strength rather than subordinates her. (“Helper” is used more often of God than of anyone else in the Old Testament; “suitable” means “corresponding” or “appropriate to,” as an equal in contrast to the animals.) Woman was thus created because man needed her strength, not (as some have wrongly interpreted this verse) to be his servant.
v10 Two problems – what is the meaning of authority? What is the meaning of “because of the angels.”
· Authority is the word ‘exousia’. We’ve been talking a lot about it because it is the same word translated freedom in 8v4 when Paul talked about taking care in using the freedom we have in Christ, or right in 9v4-5, 12, 18 where Paul talked about giving up his rights for the sake of the gospel.
The fact that Paul used the word authority here and not just talk about headcovering explicitly may suggest that the issue is not the exact use of the headcovering but the larger issue of the disregard of distinctions.
It seems then appropriate to see this sign of authority to refer to the woman’s authority, or freedom or right to participate in the worship of the church.
In the synagogue, women were not allowed to speak, but now in Christ they have freedom or authority to do so. Thus the woman should wear a sign of her authority in order to have the freedom to pray and prophesy in the presence of the man who is the head over her.
“The sign of authority of course refers to the head covering which serves as a social symbol of the woman’s femaleness… Paul’s point is that wearing the covering means acceptance of one’s created sexuality.”
Placing the symbol of authority on the head was a cultural practice. The fact that the symbol was worn on the head also allowed Paul to pursue a word play on the word ‘head’ as noted earlier. The use of ‘on the head’ therefore does not demand that a symbol on the head be retained today, but only that the symbol in that day was to be on the head.”
· ‘Beacause of the Angels’ – 5 different options of understanding this. Most likely is that Paul recognises that angels are spectators of the affairs of humans, (1 Cor 4v9, Eph 3v10), that they have an knowledge of the order of creation and what it involves – and so we should also recognise that if we reject God’s created order we are not only impacting other people, but also the angels who observe what is going on in our worship:
“if a woman thinks lightly of shocking men, she must remember that she is also shocking the angels, who are present in public worship.”
v11-12 Underscores the equality of men and women in Christianity and their interdependence. Both come from, and are dependent on, God.
This is a clarification of what Paul has said about the order of creation and its significance – introduced by the word “however”
This underscores the equality of men and women in Christianity – in the Lord!!
v11 – they are not independent of each other!!
V12- they are in fact interdependent. Men and women need and complete each other!!
This equality is illustrated in the birth of the man through the woman, and the creation of the woman out of the man.
They are equal in the fact that both depend on God, for they both “come from God.” v12b
Headship deals with functional subordination, not with equality!! This is crystal clear in the light of the headship ascribed to god the Father in relation to the Son in v3!!!!!
He was calling the people in this church to maintain the practice that recognises that though male and female are equal and dependent on each other, in God’s plan they are distinct!
v13-15 Reasons for Proper Decorum in Public Worship
Paul appeals to things that he considers the believers in the church in Corinth would agree with him about. The ‘very nature of things’ appears to refer to the natural feeling of Paul and his readers.
This is the climax of his argument. Figure of speech – asyndeton – an emphatic use- a more powerful effect!
“Judge for yourselves” – take note, appeals to individuals to note this.
v13
Here Paul raises questions the Corinthians should be able to answer without any help from him! Seen him use this kind of way of making an argument before. In the light of these arguments, the Corinthians should decide themselves that it was not proper for a woman to pray without her head covered.
“Proper” (perpov) is general, what is known to be right and appropriate. From what they knew they should see that women worshipping without a headcovering was not appropriate. This is another indication that at least some cultural conditioning is present in the passage!
v14
“nature” – this is not about nature in the sense that women’s hair grows longer than man’s (not known then and not true!) Not everyone feels that that long hair was a shame for a man, and short for a woman, even in the ancient world. So better: “Paul meant the natural feelings of their contemporary culture.” Fee the culture taught as a general rule men should have short hair and women have long hair .
Robertson and Plummer: “At this period, civilised men, whether Jews, Greeks, or Romans wore their hair short.”
v15
How is the woman’s hair a “glory” for her? Pride – but not in a negative way!
Why? Because the woman’s hair was given for her a covering – to distinguish her from man, allowing her to function properly in her created role – Society informed women that their hair had been given as a covering and was thus their “glory”
v16 This verse widens the practice that Paul is talking about to the churches of that day.
Contentious – quarrelsome, one who disputes.
He was showing that he was not asking anything special of the Corinthians for this was how all God’s people conducted themselves.
Application!
Agreed – most people agree on one timeless principle – that Christians should not try to blur all distinctions between the sexes. God created men and women as sexual beings, with sexual differences. So we must not try to efface these distinctives by dressing or grooming in ways that make it impossible to recognise a person’s gender or transvestite behaviour.
What the Corinthians did with their heads mattered because of either the sexual or the religious implcations of their appearance or both.
Points of Agreement
Principle of Paul is teaching here is Headship: Recognition of God’s created order.
Equality and interdependence of men and women
But distinction of the sexes.
Headship should not be disregarded! To overlook God’s distinctive function for men and women is disgraceful.
Some seek to do it thinking they are fighting for women’s rights – but doing so is doing a disservice to women – it is implying that God’s role for women in his world is lesser than his role for men – it is not – it is equal, but different – he has made us different with different positions in his creation – our goal in our lives should be to fulfil God’s purpose for our lives, not someone else’s idea of what that is. This passage elevates the status of women – not minimises it- because it helps men and women realise their different but equal and interdependent positions in God’s world!
For the Corinthians – this expression of disregard was the removal of women’s headcoverings. Paul told them to wear what was the normal cultural expression of male-female distinction – headcoverings!
Question is:
· Was Paul telling them to wear headcoverings as a sign of God-ordained male-female role distinctives
· Or was he telling them to wear the proper cultural symbol of God-ordained male-female role distinctives – i.e. do not abandon the culturally accepted symbol of male-female role disctinctives.
Today
These two possibilities would have led to the same application for the Corinthians, their application today will vary!!
· First option demands that women today wear headcoverings in recognition of God’s creative order.
Yes Because Paul uses universal / theological principles in the passage it is difficult to say that the practice of headcovering is no longer relevant.
a) John believes that the principle of this passage comes through today into requiring women to cover their heads whenever they are prophesying or praying, whether audibly or silently, and also if someone else is praying or prophesying, when Christians publicly meet together.
If people continue to do this, I think we must be careful to understand what we are trying to and not trying to communicate with this practice. The meaning of the headcovering must be explained!
The intent of the custom of women wearing hats today, for fashion, seems far different from the purpose of the custom in the first century.
· The second option demands that women not wear an expression of a false theology and thus signify a rejection of God’s creative order.
i.e. should women wear headcoverings today, or should they dress in such a way that they do not obliterate the God-ordained distinction between men and women.
“Placing the symbol of authority on the head was a cultural practice. The fact that the symbol was worn on the head also allowed Paul to pursue a word play on the word ‘head’ as noted earlier. The use of ‘on the head’ therefore does not demand that a symbol on the head be retained today, but only that the symbol in that day was to be on the head.”
Does the practice of headcoverings apply directly in our culture today?
No Because Paul appeals to things that he and the Corinthians would naturally think and feel (hair length), it is difficult to say that the practice is directly applicable in our culture, where these ‘natural’ feelings are not necessarily the case.
Problem is that to require women today to wear headcoverings in church is to ask them to do something abnormal rather than normal. This seems to be to me what Paul wanted to avoid. He wanted them to do what was normal in their culture in reflecting their womanhood and the creative order and distinction set forth in v3.
At the very least, what is clear is that the meaning of the headcoverings in that culture was clear!
Fee: “For Paul the issue was directly tied to a cultural shame that scarcely prevails in most cultures today… we do not know what the practices were which they were abusing. Thus literal obedience to the text is often merely symbolic.”
Paul based his instruction on:
· The universal concepts of headship
· The order of creation
· Angels? – connected to the order of creation
· What the Corinthians knew to be true about proper headcoverings in the physical realm – the disgrace associated with it, proper, nature
· Universal practice
Principle applies today!!!
Think that : “as long as men and women today are not communicating by their dress that the creative order and distinctions are done away, they are being obedient to this passage.”
“Faithfulness to this passage can be maintained so long as the participants in worship services do not follow a practice that denies God’s created order reflected in the male-female distinctions.”
No symbol is called for in the passage – just the passage forbids the presence of a symbol or practice that denies the male-female distinctions and roles!
Decision
Because of the differences of understanding of this passage we do not want to force someone to do something they feel is wrong, or not required. Our policy is that we will give people the freedom to understand this passage as God helps them to and to apply it as their conscience and God’s Spirit leads them!
Headship—office of authority, responsibility
A. Of Christ:
Over all things Eph. 4:15
Over man 1 Cor. 11:3
Of Church Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18
Of the Corner Stone Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7, 8
B. Of the Father:
Over Christ 1 Cor. 11:3
Gives authority John 5:26, 27; 1 Cor. 15:25–28
C. Of Man:
Of human race Rom. 5:12, 18, 21
Over woman 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23
Homiletical Outline
Introduction:
Homiletical Proposition
Exposition
Conclusion