The UK Bible Students Website

Christian Biblical Studies

WOMAN IN SOCIETY AND CHURCH

By W. Resume

Scripture citations are to the New International Version, UK edition of 1984, unless stated otherwise.

Seventh Instalment

This series has so far examined the role of woman in western society, offering an overview of the feminist movement from the nineteenth century to the present, and its success in winning for women more or less equal rights with men. The preceding instalment examined the teaching offices listed in Ephesians 4: 11, and 1 Corinthians 12: 28, which distil down to three principal ones: Apostles, Prophets and Teachers. Were these offices open to the women of the early Christian Church or since? To tackle the question we must go to the Bible we cannot get an answer simply by importing rights and privileges that belong to the social sphere into the religious sphere. To understand what office a woman is entitled to occupy in the Church, it is first necessary to learn from Scripture what role is assigned to her.

______________________________________

The head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. –

1 Corinthians 11: 3

THE PASSAGE IN which this verse appears 1. Corinthians 11: 3-16 has long been a topic of disagreement among interlocutors on both the conservative and liberal sides. The subject is of particular interest now, owing to the clamour for the ordination of women bishops in the Anglican Communion and other denominations, a move seen by many as the inevitable extension of women’s rights.

The admonitions contained in this epistle would no doubt have been read aloud to the church at Corinth. This first-century congregation was what one would style ‘charismatic’: individual ecclesias were not yet organised from a centre, and the canon of Scripture was in the process of being delivered, so in many of the meetings the miraculous gifts of the spirit were on display. Most of the doctrines and principles long since accepted as fundamental to the Christian faith were in the process of being hammered out in the writings and discourses of the Apostles, as they travelled from church to church.

In this, his first letter to the congregation at Corinth, the Apostle Paul reprimands them for ungodly behaviour: factionalism, dubious morality, their litigious tendency, and their disorderly conduct at worship. See 1 Corinthians 3: 1-3; 5: 1-13; 6: 1-20; 14: 26-33. The letter was prompted by complaints St. Paul had received from ‘some in Chloe’s household’ (1: 11).

Having visited this congregation before, he reminds them of the questions they had put to him and of his previous instructions ‘when I came to you’ (2: 1) and ‘the matters you wrote about’ (7: 1). His later, second epistle, covers similar ground, as he rebukes their disloyalty, quarrelling, slander, gossip, arrogance, disorder, and sexual perversions. See 2 Corinthians 11: 19, 20; 12: 20, 21.

In this light, therefore, we should read the Apostle’s remarks about headship and other matters as explaining the hierarchy of their relationship to Christ and to one another, as brothers and sisters in the Lord. His instructions apply today.

_________________________________________________

1 Corinthians 11

1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. 2. I praise you for remembering me in everything and holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. 3. 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.

THE FIRST VERSE probably belongs at the end of chapter 10. In v. 2 St. Paul compliments the church on sticking to his teachings up to a point. To correct a misunderstanding he explains the discrete roles of men and women in the congregational setting. Scholars differ on the implications of v. 3. The Greek for ‘head’ is kephale, which refers principally to the cranial head, and by derivation to ‘headship’ or ‘ruling authority’. Other Scriptures make the same point (italics ours):

Ephesians 1

22. And God placed all things under [Christ’s] feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23. which is his body, the fulness of him who fills everything in every way.

Ephesians 4

15.[S]peaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Colossians 1

15. [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19.For God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in him, 20. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Colossians 2

9. For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form,10. and in Christ you have been given fulness in Christ, who is the Head over every power and authority.

In a separate picture, Paul addresses the relationship of Christian husband and wife (Ephesians 5: 23; italics supplied):

The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body.

The husband stands in for Christ, the Head. The wife stands in for the Church, the Body. Few will claim that the Church is on a par with Christ; to the contrary, she is under His direction. Therefore Paul’s assertion that a wife is a subaltern to her husband is not meant to demean either the wife or the Church, but rather to define the scope and priorities of the relationship. The surrounding verses (22-24) reinforce the argument.

Ephesians 5: 22-24 follows the same vein:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

See also 1 Peter 3: 1, 5b, 6. But also note v. 7, in which a husband is exhorted to be considerate of his wife and to treat her with respect.

So, then, 1 Corinthians 11: 3, appears to teach that Christ has authority over the male, and the male, in turn, has authority over the female. This is where the explanation begins to raise the hackles of many expositors, on at least three points.

A. The notion of male ‘headship’, having earned a poor reputation, is wildly unpopular in a culture which promotes equality of the sexes in all things.

B. The objection is raised that the hierarchy given in v. 3 implies that the woman being under man’s immediate headship, and only indirectly under Christ’s is dependent on the man for her salvation.

(We will indirectly address A and B in the course of this article.)

C. The doctrine of the Trinity, which complicates matters with its declaration that God and Christ are consubstantial and co-equal Persons of the Godhead, thus skewing the relationship of Christ to God, making Paul’s analogy hard to grasp.

As to C: during His earthly ministry, Christ declared Himself subordinate to the Father: John 6: 57 (‘I live because of the Father’); Luke 22: 29 (‘a kingdom . . . as my Father conferred one on me’); Matthew 24: 36 (No-one knows . . . not even the angels . . . nor the Son . . . only the Father’); compare 1 Corinthians 15: 27 (‘God . . . put everything under Christ’).

Yet even now, in Paul’s words to the Corinthians, years after Christ’s ascension into heaven, we find the same restatement of the relationship between Father and Son: Christ remains subordinate to God and will forever be so (1 Corinthians 15: 27, 28; ‘God . . . all in all’). Perhaps it would be easier to acknowledge that there is no denigration of woman’s dignity in her being subordinate to the man, were one willing to accept that Christ Himself is subordinate to God. Properly understood, 1 Corinthians 11: 3 distinguishes between God and Christ and by inference in favour of male-female distinctions in the congregation.

_____________________

1 Corinthians 11

4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. 5. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head it is just as though her head were shaved.

OBSERVE THAT BOTH men and women exercised the privilege to ‘pray and prophesy’, suggesting equal opportunity in this regard. ‘Praying’ is self-explanatory. ‘Prophesying’ does not mean the power to predict the future, as did the Hebrew Prophets. According to 1 Corinthians 14: 3, ‘prophesying’ was uniquely for the ‘strengthening, encouraging, and comforting’ of those present, and is listed as a miraculous gift of the spirit, like tongues (vs. 4, 5; compare Acts 11: 45, 46; 19: 6; 21: 8, 9; re Philip’s daughters). Nor does it mean the revealing of foundational truths.

In the absence of the completed canon of Scripture, fundamental doctrines came only through the Apostles (all male), those identified as foundation stones of the Gospel-Age Church (Revelation 21: 14; ‘twelve Apostles of the Lamb’; compare Luke 22: 30; ‘sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel’). (In this context it is interesting to note Joel 2: 28, which declares that when God would pour out His spirit, ‘your sons and daughters will prophesy’; this prediction was in part fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2: 16, 17).)

The Corinthian congregation was presumptuous, throwing off restrictions they deemed inconvenient, which is why Paul calls them ‘arrogant’ (1 Corinthians 4: 7-10, 18). Their meetings were self-centred (1 Corinthians 11: 17; ‘meetings do more harm than good.’). In the exercise of the spirit gifts, he says, there must be discretion and discipline, with the edification of the congregation in view (1 Corinthians 14: 26). Had the ecclesia the ability to correct its own behaviour through self-analysis or inspired revelation, the Apostle’s intervention would have been unnecessary. Therefore, we must assume he was writing not merely to offer a catalogue of suggestions. He lays down rules of conduct not merely for that particular time or culture, but for the entire Gospel-Age Church rules which are, therefore, in effect today. And although the miraculous gifts of the spirit eventually passed away as the Bible became complete, the need for reverence and good order in the Church remains. The Apostle’s exhortations were at length effective (2 Corinthians 7: 8, 9).

_____________________

1 Corinthians 11

6. 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. 7. 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. 8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

BECAUSE BOTH SEXES exercised equal privilege in ‘praying and prophesying’, Paul’s insistence that only the women need cover their heads is informative, for he finds no fault with their equal religious activity. But had he regarded equality to be a governing principle of church arrangements, he would not have raised objections to the women discarding their head coverings.[fn1]

It was customary in the Romano-Greek society, in which the Corinthian church existed, for women to cover their heads in public; men usually went bare-headed. But some progressive women spurned the practise, earning a reputation for lax and immoral behaviour. Perhaps some women of the Corinth congregation removed their own coverings in emulation of this show of liberty and modernity, despite the fact that the services were (most probably) conducted in a space deemed public. Possibly they were emboldened by the belief that social norms were null and void within the congregation, because they were now free in Christ (Galatians 5: 1).

Regardless of the reason, St. Paul directs their attention to a revised symbolism one not dictated by Gentile or Jewish custom, but one imbued with a purposive and new significance. The size or style of the covering veil, shawl, hat is not essential to understanding the meaning of this text. Such details may vary across the ages, but the significance and power of the symbol remains.[fn2]

Paul declares in v. 6 that if any woman chooses to not cover her hair she ought logically to shave it off, making it resemble the man’s hair, thus unsexing her and blurring the distinction between male and female.[fn3]It was true, as Paul had written elsewhere, that ‘there is now no distinction between male and female’ as believers in Christ (Galatians 3: 28). But at worship the natural sex distinctions remained in force. Why? Because the worship setting forms a tableau, portraying the relationship of the Head and Body Christ and His Church. As such it is a perpetual and sacred allegory, appropriate wherever and whenever the Lord’s people assemble in holy convocation.

The Apostle goes into detail in v. 7: the man need not cover his head because he was (in the original, perfect state) created in the likeness and integrity of God on earth. The Man (Adam) was given authority over earth’s affairs. The inference from this analogy of creation is evident: just as Adam was ruler (head) over the earth, so God was ruler (head) over Man. The archetypal Woman (Eve), was made from the Man (vs. 8, 9). She is supplementary to and reflective of the authority of the Man (Genesis 2: 15, 21-24). The rule of the head covering applies to married and single women.[fn4]

The primitive and harmonious female-male relationship was severely damaged by the fall into sin and death. But participation of both sexes in worship recalls the creation scenario and simultaneously prefigures the redemptive work of Christ and His Church, by whom fallen humanity will be recovered. (Following a similar principle, each time the congregation memorialises Christ’s death in the Lord’s Supper, they recall Christ as the Passover Lamb and simultaneously foreshadow His Second Coming (1 Corinthians 11: 25, 26).)

To be continued

______________

NOTES

[fn] Some commentators maintain that Paul’s instructions were designed merely to curb practices which may have attracted criticism from curious outsiders who decided to ‘look in’ on the meetings. Seeing the Christian women flout the culturally-accepted ‘dress code’ might have caused some to circulate bad reports, bringing persecution on the church. This is not a strong argument. The chaotic behaviour of the congregation could have made just as much of a poor impression on the interested spectator. And if Paul’s admonitions about head coverings are to be revoked when cultural standards shift, what of his other instructions in this letter?

[fn2] Hellenic culture and the veil: ‘The Greek women rarely appeared in public, but lived in strict seclusion. Unmarried women never quitted their apartments, except on occasions of festal processions, either as spectators or participants. . . . The head-dress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair-bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A shawl which enveloped the body was also often thrown over the head, especially at marriages or funerals. This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the Christian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. . . . Among the Jews, in ancient times, both married and unmarried women appeared in public unveiled. The later Jewish authorities insisted on the use of the veil.’ – M.R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2 (Florida: MacDonald Publishing Co.), p. 786.

[fn3] Re hair: Although in Paul’s day a man would have worn his hair longer than is usual in our own culture, the woman’s hair would have been longer still, and styled differently. The identifying characteristics of women’s hair are alluded to in the following passages: Canticles 7: 5 (‘Your head crowns you . . . like royal tapestry . . . the king is held captive by its tresses’); Ezekiel 16: 7 (‘Your breasts were formed and your hair grew . . .’); John 11: 2 (she ‘wiped his feet with her hair.’); 1 Timothy 2: 9 (‘women . . . braided hair . . .’); 1 Peter 3: 3 (‘beauty not come from . . . braided hair . . .’); Revelation 9: 8 (‘Their hair was like women’s hair . . .’).

[fn4] ‘Woman from man’: Rather than ‘head’, some scholars prefer ‘source’ or ‘origin’. However, it is less clear how a Trinitarian approach would cope with the parallel thought that Christ came from (originated from) God, since that doctrine insists that Christ as the Second Person of the Godhead is uncreated and eternally self-existent: that is, without source or origin. In asserting that Christ’s source is God, in the same way that woman’s source is man, one is forced to concede the separateness of each. Some commentators claim that on the matter of headship the Apostle Paul contradicts himself at various points, and that his ‘prejudice’ against women shows through. In this regard they undermine his authority.

‘The hierarchy of the order is God—Christ—man—woman, in which each of the first three members is the head of the following one (1 Cor. 11: 3). Here kephale should probably be understood not as ruler but as source or origin. . . .’ – Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Ed.) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Corp.; 2000), p. 303.

You are free to reproduce any or all of this article, but please let us know if you do so.

↑Return top of page↑