Introduction
We’ve come back to 1 Corinthians after a long layoff. Where did we stop? The apostle Paul was concerned with practices that amounted to idolatry. Believers were participating in the pagan temple feasts. Paul warns them that, whether or not they think of themselves as worshiping and communing with demons, they in effect are. They are guilty of abusing their freedom in Christ to justify living their own way without regard to living for the glory of God. He has the same concern for their worship in their own church as well.
Text
Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
Paul thinks of something nice to say. They are keeping up the traditions he has taught them (although they have corrupted many of them!).
We come now to the traditions of worship. The first issue of worship is the most difficult for us to grapple for two reasons: one, the subject of the role of women in worship, and in particular in regard to their relation to men, has become of the most controversial and emotion packed subjects of our time. Two, and this is the primary reason, this text is one of the most difficult in the Bible to understand. It is difficult to make sense of Paul’s argument because of his terminology, cultural matters that perhaps were clear then but are obscure now, and some of his logic that is unclear.
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
The particular issue of the text has to do with a custom that distinguished between a man publicly praying/prophesying and a woman praying/prophesying. In particular Paul is dealing with a situation in the Corinth Church in which women are not following the custom of the day by neglecting to wear some kind of head covering while they prophesied. That is the issue.
Paul begins by laying the theological groundwork. Doctrine will determine practice. The doctrine presented here is that of there being a fundamental order in creation based on the order of the Godhead, i.e. the Trinity. Regarding the Trinity, one may say that God the Father is head of God the Son. Though they are the same in essence; though they possess all the full qualities of divinity and the essential being of God, viz., being infinite, eternal, and unchangeable; even so, God the Son willingly submits to God the Father. Christ is not inferior to God the Father, but in the way he acts and relates to the Father, he willingly shows submission.
So, God is head of Christ. Then comes man; Christ is his head. This is easier to grasp, for Christ truly is greater than man; he is man’s Creator and Redeemer. He is divine. Now the point: as God is head of Christ and Christ is head of man, so man is head of woman. There is some kind of order.
This order of relations lays the foundation for an application in church worship:
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—
In the Corinth Church some women are disregarding the custom of wearing a head covering while praying or prophesying. This, according to Paul, ought not to be.
…it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head,
then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
A woman praying or prophesying without a head covering is as shameful as appearing in public with her head shaved. I use the word “woman” as do most of your translations; the ESV uses the term “wife.” Which is it? It is tough to tell because the same Greek word can be used for either, just as the word for man can mean husband. These are the words used in chapter 7:3 where Paul is speaking of relations between husband and wife; he will use them again in chapter 14.
Let’s continue. The custom of head covering makes a theological statement.
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
Both man and woman are made in the image of God. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27). Both are made for the glory of God, of course, but there is a difference in how that glory is displayed.
8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
God created man (Adam) from the dust of the earth; he created woman (Eve) from man. Furthermore, the woman was created to be helper for man.
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him”…. for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:18-23).
In some way, then, as man fulfills his duty to God, he serves as God’s glory; by helping man, woman, or wife, glorifies God by being man’s glory. Again, however we understand it exactly, there is a distinction between man and woman that is meant to be acknowledged by the custom of head covering.
10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
As if Paul’s line of thought is not difficult enough, he throws in this obscure reference to angels. All possible interpretations are little more than speculation and do not bring light on the subject. If the phrase were omitted, the sentence would make sense, though it is open to a couple of interpretations.
Some scholars believe the head covering is a symbol that she possesses authority to, say, prophesy, and others that it symbolizes her being under another’s authority. Either way, because there is a distinction between man and woman, because woman is made from man and for man, she must wear a symbol of authority in order to practice prayer or prophesy.
The next two verses serve as caution.
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
Before the men start to feel proud of their superiority, they need to realize a couple of things. First, men and women need one another. The very reason the woman was created was because the man needed a companion. The distinction of the woman was that she was of the same flesh and bone as the man. She was not an inferior class of being. Furthermore, though man has the distinction of being the first of the human race to be created, ever since man has been born of woman. No woman; no man. Finally, all things are from God. We all owe our being to God and not to ourselves; we are all created by God with the purpose to serve him. Woman is man’s helper so that he may fulfill his responsibility before God.
Back to the issue of head covering:
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Paul now makes an appeal to custom itself.
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
By nature, Paul means what seems natural for a given culture. John Calvin explains how cultures previous to Rome’s saw nothing wrong with long hair on men, and that cutting hair had not yet been adopted in Gaul and Germany during Paul’s day. Paul, then, is appealing to the Corinthians to judge according to the nature of things as expressed by their own culture. Do they not see according to their culture that long hair is disgraceful for men and short hair for women because hair length and style help to mark men and women apart? Thus, what is disgraceful for a man – long hair – is what distinguishes and gives honor to a woman. And, indeed, long hair serves as a natural covering for her.
Paul then adds: 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Disregarding head coverings is not the tradition of the church. We might pass off this statement as a last resort to close discussion of an argument Paul feels he cannot win. “I’m not going to talk about it anymore. We just don’t do that around here.” He certainly does mean to close debate, but he does so using an important principle, which is the authoritative role that tradition carries.
Tradition does not have superior authority. Scripture has that. But when Scripture is unclear; when it does not give clear instruction, then tradition does carry weight, enough so that one must have strong reasons for overriding it. In the case of the Corinthians, they cannot disregard the head covering without giving strong scriptural principles or other reasons that make the custom seem counterproductive or at least irrelevant.
Note further that the tradition is that of the churches. The Corinth Church is not to consider herself an independent church that does what she pleases without consideration of the broader church.
Interpretation
What are we to understand is being taught in this passage? The complexity and obscurity of the context and argument make it hard to give a “thus says the Lord” statement. But we can deduce some principles.
One is that there is a functional order in man-woman relations. Whether the text is speaking to a situation about wives or women in general, there is a complementary role that the woman is to carry out, at least when she becomes a wife. And that role is founded on the very nature of the Trinity and on creation. The roles of men and women are not interchangeable in the fundamental relations between them, no more than the roles between God the Father and God the Son, and between Christ and man.
Furthermore, these roles do involve authority. There is a debate over what being the head means in this passage and other scripture. Does “head” signify “headship/authority” or does it signify “source”? The commentator I primarily rely on in my studies of 1 Corinthians contends that it means source and that the text is making no statement about who has authority over whom. Others disagree and there is a fierce debate over the term.
But even if “source” is how we should understand “head,” authority is still inherent in the meaning. It is not coincident that the “source” also has authority in the examples Paul gave. God the Father has authority over the Son in that the Son does his will. Christ certainly has authority over man. To be the source of life for another is what lends the right of authority. Parents use this argument all the time. “You better obey me; I’m the one who brought you into this world!”
We also must understand this passage in light of the whole Bible and Paul’s own Jewish culture. It is clear that the OT scriptures – the Jewish Bible – present a patriarchal society. Husbands are the leaders of their families; only kings, not queens rule; only men may be priests and elders. There is the exception of Deborah as a judge and one or two others serving as judges. But they stand out as exceptions to the rule. I know of no one, regardless of their position about women in the church, who disputes this. Jewish society of which Paul was a part certainly maintained this perspective.
When we come to the NT and the birth of the Christian Church, there is no strong indication of changes in the roles of men and women. One can show significant roles that women played in the life of the church, but there is no text to turn to giving instruction for women to take the traditional roles of men as elders. The three that deal explicitly about roles such as this one, 14:33-35; and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 clearly reinforce the OT concepts about distinctions. At best, those advocating that roles of authority no longer apply must take passages that are not teaching about the subject and appeal to names that may indicate females were in authority positions. For what would have been a major transformation of social structure within the church, the NT gives little support and offers passages that strongly seem to go against it.
Lessons
Have you been able to stay with me? This has been an arduous text to go through, but it is an essential one for us to take time with because of the importance of the subject. Next week the sermon will give more application. But here is what we can take away from the text so far.
First, though Jesus inaugurated a new age by his redemption and by sending the Holy Spirit to dwell in his people, this great work of freedom and transformation has not erased the distinctions between men and women in the roles they carry out. Maybe when Christ returns those distinctions will be erased. Then, as Jesus said, we will become like the angels. Maybe that means the removal of all male-female distinctions. We don’t know. But for now they remain.
Do you remember way back to chapter 7 which addressed relations between husbands and wives and one’s place as single or married? We noted then that the Corinthians were exploring what it means to belong to the new age of the Spirit. Some were questioning if they needed to remain married, especially those married to unbelievers. As Paul taught then, so he is teaching now, that while this world remains, so we are to practice our freedom within the order that still exists.
What we have got to ask ourselves, both men and women, is whether we are willing to work within those constraints and then how do we do it? We assume, by the way, that this is an area that women struggle with. Perhaps many are wondering how the women in the church are going to handle what is said. It may be a worse problem among men, for too many of us have gladly relinquished the burden of responsibilities that go along with being a head of a marriage, family, or church. I would daresay that if we were to take a poll among the wives in the church, a large percentage would indicate that they want their husbands to exercise greater leadership in the home and the church. Men, how willing, how up to the task are you of being heads in your homes as “Christ is head of the church”? How much responsibility are you willing to take on in the church?
One other question. Do we understand how clearly the world understands the issue of male-female relations? Disney knows. Starting with “Anastasia,” there is no longer a story plot in which the male rescues the female. She is just as likely to save him. You will no longer find a fictional story on TV or film in which the action heroes do not include females – be they soldiers, police, or just plain tough guys. Though the Lord of the Rings has been extremely popular, critics did point to one fault – the fellowship of the nine is lacking a female. No modern writer or producer would make such an omission. Why? Because our society consciously rejects the concept expressed in this passage and the Bible – that woman plays a complementary role to man.
Secular society knows what it is doing. It consciously works out its belief about this in a logical manner. Do we? Do we know what we believe, and if we do, do we know how to practice and reinforce our beliefs? That is the challenge before us all – to discern how to practice a Christian worldview, not just personal morality. Then we must have the determination to live according to the ways of the kingdom. It is hard to do, as the Corinthians discovered; it is no easier for us. But living for God’s glory and our Lord’s pleasure is worth the effort. For to live for God is to fulfill the purpose for which we were made and for which Christ redeemed us. We have been saved, not merely to have a life insurance policy; not merely for the future, but for now. To glorify God now.
