1 Cor 11:1-16:
This passage is definitely about authority but some points need to be borne in mind.
The first deals with the phrase "and the head of Christ is God" (vs 3).
In what sense is this accurate?
Is the sense here that Christ is eternally subordinate to God or is something else being communicated here.
In His human incarnation Jesus pronounced Himself on many occasions as being subordinate to God (the Father) - references too numerous to list. But, in the eternal sense Jesus Christ, along with the Holy Spirit, is co-eternal and co-divine with God the Father.
Why is this important?
Well it shows that there is a situation, His human incarnation, where Christ subjected Himself to God the Father for the purpose of obedient fulfillment of the law unto the point of death in order for His death to be the ultimate sacrifice for sin, whereas in a larger sense He was never subordinate to the Father.
Vs 3 has an interesting order, where the phrase "and the head of Christ is God." terminates the sentence.
Now, if the intent of that whole verse was to establish a pecking order of authority - Father -> Christ -> man -> woman, then the order is wrong, the comparison of man to woman should terminate the sentence.
But, that is NOT how Paul constructs that sentence!
I will come back to the significance of this a bit later, but I need to raise another important point first.
The terms 'man' and 'woman' cannot just unthinkingly be interpreted as a generic male and a generic female.
Why?
In the Koine Greek of the time these words are used far more frequently to refer, in meaning, to 'husband' and 'wife' than generic male and female. There was no specific word for 'husband' and 'wife' as there obviously is in English. In less precise English usage today it is still rather common for a woman to refer to her husband as 'my man' or a man to refer to his wife as 'my woman'. In Koine Greek this was the only way!
So the question naturally arises - which usage of the words 'man' and 'woman' is being employed here?
Well, context decides...
In the subsequent verses the conversation revolves around head coverings for women.
Well, who wore head coverings?
Married women!
This was especially so for Jewish women of the time - to have one's head covered was a sign of respect and submission to one's husband and this can still be observed in Orthodox Jewish circles today.
The Corinthian church was not just composed of Messianic Jews but also included God-fearers (Gentiles who were close followers of Judaism but who were not prepared to be circumcised). The women in this group would also have followed similar patterns of behaviour to the Jewish women-folk.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the context is that Paul is referring to a husband being the head of his wife in vs 3!
It CANNOT be a reference to authority of a man over a woman in the generic sense.
For a woman (adult) to be in submission to a man meant that that man was her husband and the authority that a man has over a woman is due to him being her husband - that is all!
In other words the authority that a man has over a woman is situational - conditional on him being her husband.
The parallel is the authority under which Jesus Christ submitted Himself during His incarnation.
Both are situational and neither are eternal!
The question about head coverings is a non-question today!
Why?
Because the issue is not about head coverings per se but about a woman showing appropriate respect and submission to her husband, and that, directly in the context of praying or prophesying in church. Probably we should now, today, broaden this to any form of ministry in a church that a woman is likely to be involved in.
Looked at in this way the question of head coverings is a complete non-issue.
There are many other important ways in which a woman could and should show respect and submission to her husband while being involved in ministry in the church.
In NT times the way a devout woman would show respect and submission to her husband was to cover her head.
In different times and cultures the devout woman continues to show respect and submission to her husband, but the way in which she does so will be determined by the culture in which she lives!
By the way, if women are meant to be in silent in the church how is it that Paul is giving instructions to women who are praying and prophesying, not be silent, but to show proper respect to their husbands....
This passage is definitely about authority but some points need to be borne in mind.
The first deals with the phrase "and the head of Christ is God" (vs 3).
In what sense is this accurate?
Is the sense here that Christ is eternally subordinate to God or is something else being communicated here.
In His human incarnation Jesus pronounced Himself on many occasions as being subordinate to God (the Father) - references too numerous to list. But, in the eternal sense Jesus Christ, along with the Holy Spirit, is co-eternal and co-divine with God the Father.
Why is this important?
Well it shows that there is a situation, His human incarnation, where Christ subjected Himself to God the Father for the purpose of obedient fulfillment of the law unto the point of death in order for His death to be the ultimate sacrifice for sin, whereas in a larger sense He was never subordinate to the Father.
Vs 3 has an interesting order, where the phrase "and the head of Christ is God." terminates the sentence.
Now, if the intent of that whole verse was to establish a pecking order of authority - Father -> Christ -> man -> woman, then the order is wrong, the comparison of man to woman should terminate the sentence.
But, that is NOT how Paul constructs that sentence!
I will come back to the significance of this a bit later, but I need to raise another important point first.
The terms 'man' and 'woman' cannot just unthinkingly be interpreted as a generic male and a generic female.
Why?
In the Koine Greek of the time these words are used far more frequently to refer, in meaning, to 'husband' and 'wife' than generic male and female. There was no specific word for 'husband' and 'wife' as there obviously is in English. In less precise English usage today it is still rather common for a woman to refer to her husband as 'my man' or a man to refer to his wife as 'my woman'. In Koine Greek this was the only way!
So the question naturally arises - which usage of the words 'man' and 'woman' is being employed here?
Well, context decides...
In the subsequent verses the conversation revolves around head coverings for women.
Well, who wore head coverings?
Married women!
This was especially so for Jewish women of the time - to have one's head covered was a sign of respect and submission to one's husband and this can still be observed in Orthodox Jewish circles today.
The Corinthian church was not just composed of Messianic Jews but also included God-fearers (Gentiles who were close followers of Judaism but who were not prepared to be circumcised). The women in this group would also have followed similar patterns of behaviour to the Jewish women-folk.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the context is that Paul is referring to a husband being the head of his wife in vs 3!
It CANNOT be a reference to authority of a man over a woman in the generic sense.
For a woman (adult) to be in submission to a man meant that that man was her husband and the authority that a man has over a woman is due to him being her husband - that is all!
In other words the authority that a man has over a woman is situational - conditional on him being her husband.
The parallel is the authority under which Jesus Christ submitted Himself during His incarnation.
Both are situational and neither are eternal!
The question about head coverings is a non-question today!
Why?
Because the issue is not about head coverings per se but about a woman showing appropriate respect and submission to her husband, and that, directly in the context of praying or prophesying in church. Probably we should now, today, broaden this to any form of ministry in a church that a woman is likely to be involved in.
Looked at in this way the question of head coverings is a complete non-issue.
There are many other important ways in which a woman could and should show respect and submission to her husband while being involved in ministry in the church.
In NT times the way a devout woman would show respect and submission to her husband was to cover her head.
In different times and cultures the devout woman continues to show respect and submission to her husband, but the way in which she does so will be determined by the culture in which she lives!
By the way, if women are meant to be in silent in the church how is it that Paul is giving instructions to women who are praying and prophesying, not be silent, but to show proper respect to their husbands....
Last edited:
