Women in Ministry

Continuing on with our verse by verse discussion through the section of 1 Corinthians 11 about women, we come to verse 13:

1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Paul is asking the Corinthians now to make a judgment call regarding the evidence that he has brought them. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? What evidence has Paul brought that should cause the Corinthians to say “yes”?

1. Paul says that the woman is the glory of the man. Glory is never to be hidden from view. When Moses went in to speak with God, his face shone forth with the glory of God. Exodus 34:35 shows that Moses did not hide the glory of God from the Israelites.

Exodus 34:35 …the sons of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone…

It wasn’t until the glory was fading away that Moses would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites could not see the fading of the glory.

2 Corinthians 3:13 …and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.

Jesus said that our light was not meant to be hidden:

Matthew 5:14-16 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see you good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”

We are meant to shine forth God’s glory and that glory is not to be hidden. Also Moses himself took off his veil when he was in the presence of God. Is this not a powerful argument that women who are also the glory of God should also be unveiled when they come before God in worship?

2. Paul said that the woman has authority over her head (1 Cor. 11:10). If she has the authority and the right to make a decision regarding her own head, then is it not also right for her to make the decision to uncover in worship as she comes before God?

3. If the man has the preeminence in the creation and the woman has the preeminence since the creation, wouldn’t their interdependent equality make them equal in worship before their maker? Why would must one be forced to cover their glory while the other must uncover their glory? Shouldn’t the man and the woman both uncover their glory before God? Also if we interpret Paul’s writing to say that a woman must cover herself in coming before God, then how can we say that men and women are equal before God?

Paul has carefully crafted his argument concerning the issue of glory by showing that women too have glory. Glory is always to be uncovered. Where does God ever tell us to cover up the glory? He doesn’t.

Next Paul appeals to the fact that a woman has the right to made her own decision regarding her own head. Then Paul appeals to the equal premeninence of man and woman and their interdependent equality. Now we are at the point where Paul makes his appeal using one last argument from nature showing the equality of men and women regarding their hair. The NASB renders verses 14 & 15 this way:

1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
1 Corinthians 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

However the ISV renders these verses very differently and without the question mark:

1 Cor. 11:14, 15 (ISV) Nature itself teaches you neither that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair nor that hair is a woman’s glory, for hair is given as a substitute for coverings.

In order to understand these verses properly we need to understand a couple of very important things about these verses. The first thing is that the Greek was written without punctuation. Whether these verses are a question or a statement has to be determined by the context. The punctuation that we have in our bibles are there because of the translator’s interpretation of what Paul is saying but not all agree that Paul is asking a question.

Let’s look at the context to see if Paul’s words should be taken as a question. Does nature teach us that men should have short hair and that women should have long hair? No, nature doesn’t teach us that at all. The hair on a boys head grow just as the hair on a girls head. Nature does not teach us that there is a difference. Does nature teach us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair? How could nature teach us that? In many cultures men have long hair and they are not ashamed. Nature does not teach them to be ashamed. Why not? Because a man’s hair is designed to keep growing unless it is cut off.

Now we can see that God has designed some hair to show that these hairs are different. Look at the hair on your arms. Does your arm hair keep growing until you cut it? No, it doesn’t. The reason is that God designed the hair on our arms to be different than the hair on our head. But there is nothing in nature that allows us to see a difference in God’s design for hair on the head of a little boy and the hair on the head of a little girl. Each of them has hair that keeps growing until the hair is cut. There is no difference in nature. In nature, the hair on boys and girls are equally growing and nothing in nature shows that there is shame involved regarding the length of their hair.

This brings us to the second thing that we need to know about this passage. We need to know that the glory of hair belongs to “himself or herself” not to just “women”.

1 Corinthians 11:15 (ISV)…nor that hair is a woman’s glory, for hair is given as a substitute for coverings.

Each one of us male and female has been given hair by God for a covering so hair is not a glory just for a woman. Neither male nor female is required to have any outside covering on their head when they come before God.

So are men to be ashamed to have long hair? How can that be? Orthodox male Jews let the sides of their hair grow long and they believe that the bible tells them to leave the corners of their hair long.

Jeremiah 49:32 “Their camels will become plunder, And their many cattle for booty, And I will scatter to all the winds those who cut the corners of their hair; And I will bring their disaster from every side,” declares the LORD.

Here is a picture of an orthodox Jew. The “corners” of his hair are left long and he is not ashamed of his long hair.

Does nature teach them that men are to be ashamed of their long hair? No, not at all. The only command that God had regarding the length of one’s hair was the nazirite vow (Numbers 6:2-18). Both male and female were required in this vow to grow their hair out and when the vow was over, both men and women were required to shave their hair off and offer it as a peace offering to God. Since God required equal rules about hair for both men and women, (both had to have long hair and later both had to shave their hair completely off) how could God then have inspired a passage to say that nature showed that it was a shame for a man to have long hair? Nature says nothing of the sort and God said nothing about long hair being a shame so the words of Paul must be taken as a statement and not a question otherwise we have a contradiction with scripture as well as an illogical argument.

God has designed through nature that the hair on both men and women will grow until it is cut. God has a requirement for both men and women to grow their hair long in the nazirite vow. There is nothing in God’s requirement that would even hint that nature teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair or that it is a shame for a woman to cut her hair.

If we take verses 14 & 15 without the question mark as the International Standard Version does, then it makes sense with the “nature” argument. Paul is arguing for our equality once again. Both men and women are to come before God without a head covering because they both already have a natural head covering and nothing more is needed. Paul isn’t saying that only a woman has her hair as her glory. Hair has been given to both male and female and nothing more is needed when we come before God. Again here we have Paul’s argument as equality between men and women.

Paul then sums up his argument regarding our equality in Christ and our equality in head coverings and hair. Paul says in verse 16 in the International Standard Versions:

1 Corinthians 11:16 (ISV) But if anyone wants to argue about this, we do not have any custom like this, nor do any of God’s churches.

Paul says that if one is inclined to argue about the matter – the matter of head coverings and the length of one’s hair – that one final proof that the head covering is not needed is that none of the churches of God have a custom of head coverings or a requirement for the length of one’s hair.

The NASB adds the word “other” to the passage … (we do not have any “other” custom)…but the word “other” is not in the original inspired Greek. The inspired word is the Greek word toioutos which means “of this sort”. Paul is saying that we do not have this sort of custom (head coverings and rules about the length of one’s hair) and neither do any of God’s churches.

The glory of God belongs to men and women alike. Both are to shine forth the glory of God and women are also to shine forth the glory of man. The glory of hair belongs to men and women alike and God’s only command regarding the length of hair shows equality for men and women alike before God.

Is Paul using this passage to force women to hide their glory with a veil and to force women to leave their hair uncut? Not at all! In fact, his arguments are completely opposite to the human tradition that forces the segregation of men and women. His arguments are also opposite from those who say that only men have  glory and women do not. This inspired passage is rather a tremendously powerful passage supporting men and women’s equality before God and their interdependence with each other. This is God’s way. God is not prejudiced preferring men over women or women over men. God wants us united together in the body of Christ giving each other equal respect as “sons” of God and fellow members of the body of Christ.

In our verse by verse through 1 Corinthians 11, we now come to verse 11:

1 Corinthians 11:11  However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

Paul once again breaks with tradition.  Paul gives the woman the right to make her own decision in verse 10 about what she will or won’t wear on her head when he says the woman ought to have “authority” (exousia) on her head.  Although the cultural tradition gave a woman no authority to make her own decisions, Paul dismisses that tradition as a non-Christian tradition.  However Paul quickly follows the woman’s authority to make a decision (exousia) with the qualifier “however”.  However, Paul says, “in the Lord”, woman is not independent of the man.  She has the right to make her own decision but she is not independent of the man.  In what way is she not independent of the man?  She is not independent of the man in the exact same way that the man is not independent of the woman.

Paul gives the reason for the interdependence in 1 Corinthians 11:12 –

For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Paul makes use of the Greek word “gar” (for) which is a primary particle; properly assigning a reason  for his argument.  The woman is not independent of the man Paul says, because the man is the original source of the woman and she wouldn’t exist without him.  Paul also says that the man is not independent of the woman because the woman is the original source of all men since her creation.  No man would have his existence now without her.  Adam’s position of primacy as the first one created and his being the source of the woman is balanced out and equaled with the woman’s primacy as the source of all men.

Paul sums it all up by saying that the woman is dependent on the man and the man is dependent on the woman but the ultimate source is not man and it is not woman either.  The ultimate source is God.

So how does this all play out regarding decision making?  The woman has the right to make her own decision, but since she is also joined in a one-flesh union with the man, she must consider her husband and his conscience with the issue of the head covering because what she decides to do may bring his weak conscience deep shame.  The cultural tradition of the head covering which brought shame to a man whose wife was uncovered in public needed the time to be exposed and accepted as a faulty tradition.   Instead of bringing the man shame, Paul said that the woman is his glory.  The decision is now in the hands of the woman with her full knowing that she is not completely independent of the man.  As a Christian wife she is to respect her husband and to consider his conscience in her decision.

The woman is the only one given a choice regarding what she will do regarding the head covering.  The man is never told that he can choose to wear the head covering or not.  For him, the decision has already been made because there is only one who is shamed when he wears the head covering.  The cultural tradition that brought shame to Christ is to be abandoned.

Next post we will get into the “hairy” issue of the length of one’s hair in 1 Corinthians 11:13-16.

Continuing our verse by verse through 1 Corinthians 11, we come to verse 6:

For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

We have already discussed that the cultural view of women’s hair coverings is “covered” in verse 5. We have also seen that Paul takes a non-traditional view of women by telling the men that his wife is his glory. Paul reveals that the tradition of women being covered is not God’s way of dealing with glory. Glory is meant to be shown or revealed and not covered up. Just as a man reveals God’s glory and is not to cover his head, so a woman reveals the glory of man and she too should be uncovered.

Women whose husbands are Christians and who understand the women’s freedom in Christ to reveal the glory of the Lord just as men reveal the glory of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18) will have no reason to insist their wives cover themselves because of man’s tradition. So Paul says that “if a woman does not cover her head” then “let her also have her hair cut off”. Here Paul is talking about a woman’s freedom to have her hair cut. Is it wrong for a woman to get a hair cut? Is it wrong for her to have short hair? Paul says the tradition of not cutting one’s hair is in the same category as the tradition that women must wear a head covering.

The woman is her husband’s glory and as such she should be free from the tradition of having to cover her head. Covering the head symbolized both modesty and shame. See the previous post about what the culture thought was the woman’s shame. Once a woman is free from the tradition of covering her head, she is also free from the tradition that a woman must have long hair. She may cut her hair and this act is not breaking God’s law. This tradition is not God’s tradition. Why is that? We know that God does not forbid a woman to have her hair cut because God had regulations for a Nazirite vow that required men and women to grow their hair out when they took the vow and then later when the vow was finished, both men and women were required to shave their hair off. So if God required the woman who takes this vow to shave her hair off, then it could not be against God’s law for her to cut her hair.

If a Jewish woman who had become a Christian wanted to take a Nazirite vow, when the vow was finished, she would be required by God to shave off her hair. If a woman who had shaved off her hair was in the congregation without a head covering, she may experience shame because she had no hair. Paul made allowance for this last “shame” and he said that if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut or her hair shaved off, then she was allowed to cover her head if she had a bald head or her hair had not yet grown out. Paul gives her permission to cover her head by saying “let her cover her head”. Paul never demands that she cover, he just gives her a choice to cover.

The rules for the Nazirite vow are in Numbers chapter 6.

Numbers 6:2 Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the LORD,

Numbers 6:5 All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long.

Numbers 6:13 Now this is the law of the Nazirite when the days of his separation are fulfilled, he shall bring the offering to the doorway of the tent of meeting.

Numbers 6:18 The Nazirite shall then shave his dedicated head of hair at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and take the dedicated hair of his head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings.

The man or woman who had taken a Nazirite vow was required to shave off their hair and put it on the fire as a sacrifice. Both men and women then who had taken this vow would be bald. Men would not experience shame from being bald, but many women would experience shame from their baldness.

Paul allows a woman who has a bald head and who would experience shame because of her bald head to cover her head with a head covering. Paul has given two reasons for shame in chapter 11 that a woman may want to continue to wear a head covering. The first reason was that she may bring her non-Christian husband shame if she is caught in public without her head covering, since he may divorce her for defying the cultural tradition of the head covering.

The second reason that a woman may be covered is because of her own shame. If she was bald or if her hair had not yet fully grown out after she had taken a Nazirite vow, Paul allows her to cover her head. Paul gives a woman permission to veil because of two possible kinds of shame, but Paul never gives the man permission to veil since the culture of the day did not bring shame to a man who had a bald head and the only cultural reason for a man’s head covering shamed Christ.

Paul’s purpose in the discussion of the head covering is to bring Christians to a biblical view of our reflected glory and to discard the faulty cultural view of shame. Paul shows us in 2 Corinthians 3:18 the importance of the unveiled face:

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

While some have seen 1 Corinthians 11 as a mandate for women to wear the veil, a close inspection of the passage shows that Paul is advocating the exact opposite. He is not upholding man’s tradition, but blowing that tradition out of the water. Paul shows that it is God’s will that glory is to be uncovered not hidden, and man’s tradition of forcing the woman to be covered because her uncovering shamed him, is the complete opposite of what God teaches. The woman is the man’s glory not his shame. And as the man’s glory she is to be revealed not hidden.

Since we have already covered verse 10 in a previous post, the next post will pick up at verse 11 and discuss the importance of origins and interdependence.

Here are links to the posts in this series:

Shaming the head 1

Shaming the head 2

Shaming the head 3

Several posts back we talked about how Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 11 that the head covering shamed Christ. This post will discuss why a woman without her head covering shamed her head. Let’s start again with 1 Corinthians 11:4, 5 –

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

Paul has identified the man’s head as Christ and the man who had his head covered during his praying and prophesying shamed Christ. Paul also identified the woman’s head was the man. When she prayed and prophesied with her head uncovered she shamed her head which is her husband (verse 3). Paul doesn’t say why going without a head covering shamed the woman’s husband since the Corinthians would have understood the cultural reason. However we need to do some research to find out why a husband would experience shame when his wife exposed her head in public.

Both the Greek women and the Jewish women wore head coverings in that day but the Jewish women had a stricter standard that punished them if they were caught without their head covering. John Lightfoot gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the Jewish culture of that day. Lightfoot was a Hebrew Scholar who lived from 1602 to 1675 and during his day there was a revival of the study of the Hebrew Bible as well as other Jewish works. Lightfoot’s scholarly writings produced several volumes called “Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica”. In these volumes Lightfoot discusses the reasons why married women wore the head covering.

On page 231 of Vol. 4 Lightfoot writes

“It was the custom of the women and that prescribed them under severe canons, that they should not go abroad but with their face veiled. If a woman do these things, she transgresseth the Jewish law; if she go out into the street, or into an open porch, and there be not a veil upon her as upon all women…”

On a woman’s wedding day she was required to veil herself. The Jewish law was that women who were married were required to cover their hair. The Talmud interprets this custom as a sign of a woman’s shame – guilt for Eve’s sin. Lightfoot elaborates:

“And they fetched the shame of the woman thence that she first brought sin into the world.”

That was their view – that the woman brought sin into the world and her veiling at her marriage was a sign of shame, because they said the woman led the man into sin. The Talmud said that as a result of Eve’s curse women must go about covered as mourners. In the Jewish culture when a woman got married, from that day on she was under compulsion to veil herself and if found in public without her veil, the Talmud prescribed strict consequences.

If she was found without the veil in public her husband could divorce her without payment of her dowry. Without her dowry she would be destitute.

The Talmud explains the reason for the shame of a uncovered head. The husband considered the hair on a woman’s head to be part of her sexuality so the public viewing of her hair was a great shame.

“Some rabbis considered the exposure of a married woman’s hair to the exposure of her private parts since they felt that a woman’s hair could be used for erotic excitement. They forbid the reciting of any blessings in the presence of a bare headed woman.”

Lightfoot goes on to explain that although women wore a veil in public, they unveiled for worship.

“But however women were veiled in the streets, yet when they resorted unto holy service they took off their veils and exposed their naked faces; and that not out of lightness, but out of religion.” Vol. 4 pg 231

 

Wouldn’t this have shamed their husbands by exposing their hair publicly? No, because no man would have seen them because in the synagogue the women were kept separate. Lightfoot continues:

“…that women should sit by themselves, divided from the men, where they might hear and see what is done in the synagogue, yet they themselves remain out of sight…when the women therefore did thus meet apart, it is no wonder if they took off the veils from their faces, when they were now out of sight of men, and the cause of their veiling being removed, which indeed was that they might not be seen by men.”

So the veiling was a sign of shame before men but worshipping before God she was to go with a bare face.

In Paul’s writings we find that Christians are meant to reflect the glory of God. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3:17, 18

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all with unveiled face, beholding in a mirror the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.”

Men and women were both meant to reflect the glory of God and both were to come with unveiled face before in worship. Yet for those Jewish women whose husbands were not yet saved and who had not yet come to understand the glorious liberty we have in Christ, these women were in a predicament. The problem came when Christians met in homes where the men and women were together. If a Jewish woman whose husband was not a Christian found out that she had unveiled in public, he could divorce her, often at the insistence of his family for her public shame.

Paul could not tell her that she needed to unveil in worship in the Christian congregation because that would have infringed on many of their marriages. So although men were forbidden to wear the veil of shame and must pray and prophesy in public without a head covering, women were allowed to make a choice when they prayed and prophesied. Next post we will discuss more about the woman’s choice and the third reason for shame that might require a woman to veil.

But for now let’s talk about the culture that promoted the cultural sign of shame. Paul in this passage rejects the cultural sign of shame. Instead Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:7 –

“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”

Do you see that? The woman is the GLORY of man. As his glory she brings him honor. As his glory she needs to be uncovered so she can shine forth his glory. Just as the man is to shine forth the glory of God, so she is to be allowed to shine forth the glory of man. Do you see that Paul is dispelling the myth that the woman is the shame of the man? Do you see that Paul is dispelling the myth that the woman is to be hidden and kept away from the congregation and hidden and kept away from men? Paul is telling the men that the woman, his wife, is to be his glory. He is not to be ashamed of her. She is not his competitor, she is not to reflect shame – she is to be his glory!

What a marvelous freeing word from Paul! Paul hasn’t used this passage to say that women are not in the image of God nor is he saying that they are not the glory of God. He is comparing one glory with another glory. The Corinthians should be able to see that the man is God’s glory and as God’s glory he is not to be covered. Men are to be uncovered in worship in order to shine forth God’s glory. In the same way they are to see that the woman in the very same way is the husband’s glory. As the husband’s glory she is not to be covered instead she is to shine forth the man’s glory. As the glory of the man, the glory is to be barefaced and he is to be proud of her not ashamed. The culture had taught them that the woman was not the man’s glory, but Paul’s correction changed all that. Now they knew that God intended the woman to be the outshining glory of the man!

Have you ever wondered why Christian women do not wear head coverings? Now you know.

Here are links to the posts in this series:

Shaming the head 1

Shaming the head 2

Shaming the head 3

Paul refutes a faulty tradition

In the last post we discussed that the man is the image and glory of God and Christ is his head. Why does Paul emphasize that the man is the image and glory of God but he says nothing about the woman having God’s glory? It is because Paul is working on a contrast that will blow the lid off a faulty tradition.

In Corinthians 11:3 Paul had just taught the Corinthians that Christ is the head of man. In verse 4 he relates that the one who is the head is not to be dishonored. How is it that a man can shame Christ? The head covering was used historically to show reverence for God and unworthiness to come into God’s presence because of the shame of one’s own sin (see this previous post for the discussion on the historical meaning of the head covering). When a Christian wears something that symbolizes the shame of his sin and his unworthiness to come into the presence of God, Christ is shamed and dishonored for it was Christ himself who died to take away our shame and to be the door of righteousness that takes us into the presence of God. By wearing a reminder of the shame of his sin, the man dishonors Christ. Instead of focusing on his sin, the man is to bring honor to Christ because Christ died to take away the shame of sin, and the penalty that it caused. The man is to respond by bringing honor and glory to Christ, his head. So when a man comes publicly before God through prayer and prophesying, he is to reflect the glory of God.

Now let’s skip down to 1 Cor. 11:7 to see the connection between Christ and the man, and the man and woman.

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

Paul is saying that just as the man is the glory of God, so the woman is the glory of man. Now remember, Paul isn’t saying here that the woman is not the glory of God, but he is going to draw a specific comparison for a specific purpose. The woman is the glory of man, Paul says. This means that what she does brings him glory. She was created to be his glory. He is not to be intimidated by her nor should he consider her to be his competitor because she is his glory. Verse 8 says:

For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

Woman originated from the man and because of that she is to be his glory. Verse 9 says:

for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.

The man had a need and the woman was created to meet his need. Woman is man’s glory. The word glory means reputation, praise, and source of honor and glory.

Paul was saying something that was totally counter-cultural. The culture of that day did not believe that the woman was the glory of the man. They believed that it was a shame for her to be in public. They also believed that for her to be unveiled in public brought great shame to her husband. They did not believe that she was his glory. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul dismantles this false tradition.

Paul teaches that glory is meant to be shown not hidden. Glory is meant to be revealed and to be proud of because it brings honor. Just as the man is not to hide the glory of God, but to fully reveal God’s glory so also the woman is not meant to be hidden by a veil because she is the man’s glory.

But why then does Paul allow a woman to be veiled, if she really is the man’s glory? The answer is all about cultural shame. More in the next post.

Last post we discussed how the head covering shamed Christ.  Before we carry on with 1 Corinthians 11:5 in our verse by verse discussion, I want to skip over to verse 7 to discuss the second reason that a man is not to have his head covered and this has to do with honoring his head.  1 Corinthians 11:7 says:

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God…

The man is not to cover his head when he prays or prophesies because the covering of the head hides the glory and the glory of God is not to be hidden but to be reflected.  Matthew 5:14-16 says:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.  “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

The glory that shines through us is not to be hidden.  The glory properly reflected glorifies the Father in heaven.  2 Corinthians 3:18 says:

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Do you get these points?  The man’s head is Christ.  He is not to have a head covering that signifies the shame of his sin (see last post) because Christ has died to take away that shame.  He is not to cover the head because he is a reflection of Christ’s glory and he is to bring glory to Christ through his being transformed into Christ’s image from glory to glory.

Now does this mean that the woman is not the glory of Christ?  No not at all.  2 Cor. 3:18 says that we all are to be with unveiled face.  We all shine forth the glory of Christ.  So why does Paul emphasize the man as the image and glory of God?  He does so to teach an extremely important lesson that will help to get rid of a faulty tradition concerning women.  More in the next post.

1 Corinthians 11:4-6 lists three “shames” and verse 7 lists two glories. Two of these shames and glories relate directly back to the “head” and one shame relates to the person themselves. Let’s find out about the contrasting “shames” and “glories” because they are vital to understanding this difficult passage.

1 Corinthians 11:4 says:

“Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.”

“Every man” refers back to verse 3 where Paul said that Christ is the head of “every man”. Since Christ is the one who is the head of “every man”, Christ is the one who is shamed when men wear a head covering during the time that they are praying or prophesying. Notice that it isn’t just anytime that a man wears a head covering that Christ is shamed. It is only during the time that he is praying or prophesying.

Why would Christ be shamed if a man prays and prophesies with a head covering on his head? The reason is found in both the historical meaning of the head covering and also in Paul’s reference to honor in verse 7. John Lightfoot a Hebrew Scholar (1602-1675 AD) explains the historical reason for the head covering during worship and prayer. For the Jews, the covering symbolized their unworthiness to look upon God because it symbolized the shame of their sin. Are we unworthy to look upon God and are we to wear something that symbolizes the shame of our sin? Paul says no way. In 1 Corinthians 11:7, Paul says:

“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God…”

The reason is simple – we are to reflect the glory of God not the shame of our sin. Jesus died in our place to cleanse us and to reconcile us to God. If men continue to wear the sign of the shame of their sin, they are disregarding Christ who died to take away that shame. Keeping a sign of the shame of our sin during worship shames Christ because it puts the emphasis on our sinful condition instead of our restored position in Christ. A man who wears a symbol of the shame of his sin shames Christ by holding onto a symbol of what was done away with in Christ when he should be bringing honor to Christ by reflecting the glory of his and head which is Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says:

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Our purpose is to reflect the glory of the Lord, not hold onto the shame that has been removed in Christ. Reflecting the glory of the Lord brings Jesus honor and “every man” is to bring honor to their “head”.

In the next post we will see how Paul contrasts the honor that is due to the man’s “head” with the woman’s position with her “head”.

Links to Shaming the head articles:

Shaming the head 1

Shaming the head 2

Shaming the head 3

In the last post I summarized the foundational points from chapter 10 that is necessary to the understanding of chapter 11. If you haven’t read it already, it can be read by clicking here. In this post I will continue our verse by verse discussion from 1 Corinthians 11:3. I will be using the New American Standard Version for most of these posts unless otherwise indicated. I Corinthians 11:3 –

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 11:3 Paul commended the Corinthians for holding firm to the traditions that he had delivered to them and now Paul is going to help them to understand some of these traditions. In the fall of 2006 I heard a Pastor give an excellent sermon on the traditions that the Jewish people hold to this day that actually symbolize the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus even though they do not even know what they are doing with their traditions. At Passover they take a piece of unleavened bread and fold it into a white napkin and then they hide it in their house for 3 days. When the 3 days are over, the children look for the napkin and when they find it they bring it out and uncover the bread. They keep the tradition but never understand what the tradition is all about. The tradition of the unleavened bread in the white napkin being revived after 3 days is symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. In verses 2 and 3, Paul says that the Corinthians were holding to the traditions that he gave them but he wanted them to understand what the traditions meant.

There has been much scholarly debate about the meaning of the word “head” in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Some have given a meaning to “head” as “authority over another person” or simply “boss” as in a hierarchal order. Others say that “head” means source or origin. However the only way that we can know for sure is to read the context surrounding verse 3 as well as to pay close attention to the inspired word order regarding “head”.

In verse 3 Paul sets up the order of the relationships that he lists in a very unusual order if he had meant a hierarchal ordering. If we come to the passage with the presupposition that God has completely inspired it including inspired words, inspired grammar and inspired word order, then we can clearly see a different pattern presented. If Paul had wanted us to believe that he was constructing a hierarchal ordering, then he made a grave error. He should have listed man as head of woman first, then Christ as head of men second and lastly God as head of Christ. The hierarchy would be woman at the bottom with man over her, Christ over all men and God over Christ.

Yet this is not the way that the word was inspired. Instead we have Christ listed first as head of all men, then the man head of woman, then God head of Christ. In this ordering we have God as Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end and an ordered list of origins. In the ordering we have Christ as the origin of all men, the man as origin of woman, and lastly Jesus Christ (as the one born through a woman) having his origin through God.

It isn’t just the order that tells us that “origins” not “hierarchy” is the meaning of the word “head”. The context of the passage also tells us that Paul is referring to our origins.

1 Corinthians 11:8 says:

“For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;”

Here Paul teaches about the origin of woman. Woman originates from the man. This fits perfectly with verse 3 where the man is the “head” of woman.

1 Corinthians 11:9 says:

“for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”

Here again Paul is referring to origins and the reason for the woman’s origin.

1 Corinthians 11:12 says:

“For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.”

Paul repeats the fact that woman originates from the man (remember that Paul said that repetition is for our safety – Philippians 3:1) and he sums it up by saying that all things originate from God. This is the Alpha and Omega of origins. Christ is the source of all men (He is the Alpha) and God is the source of Christ (the Omega). All things begin and end with God as the ultimate source.

However if we are to interpret “head” as “authority over” or “boss of” in a hierarchal ordering we will find no repetition of this concept in the passage. In this passage Paul is silent regarding any authority that the man has over the woman or any authority that the Father takes over Jesus Christ. Why is that? It is because the interpretation of “head” as “authority” or “boss” is completely out of step with the rest of chapter 11 and it is something completely out of kilter with the subject of the passage.

If we interpreted it this way, we are left scratching our heads wondering what Paul could possibly mean by sticking verse 3 in amongst this passage. We could be left thinking, “What does authority or being boss over someone have to do with this passage? What has this to do with the price of rice in China?” It is completely foreign to the context.

Instead of trying to force the text to mean what we would like it to mean, we must let Paul define his own terms for himself. When we come to the passage with a hierarchal mindset, we miss Paul’s connecting the relationship of man to woman with the importance of origins. There is also more to see about the importance of origins that we will be discussing later on in the chapter.

The next thing that we need to pay attention to is the inspired words of verse 3. Here Paul uses the word for man twice which is “aner”. Let’s look at the second phrase…the man is the head of a woman. Now if we interpret it as “origin” or “source” as Paul repeats in verses 8, 9 and 12, we can understand that Paul is talking about the first man “the man” Adam and the first woman – Eve. Eve literally had her origin from the side of the man. Also wherever man and woman are placed in a relationship to each other in a biblical passage it is a sound practice to interpret this as husband and wife not just any man as head over any woman. That it is the husband that is the head of the wife is repeated by Paul in Ephesians 5:23 so we can know by repetition that this is what Paul is talking about. Paul said:

“For the husband is the head of the wife…”

Now the curious thing about this verse is that the inspired word used in the first relationship is that Christ is the “head” of every “man”. Man here is “aner” meaning a male or a husband and it is not the generic word for mankind. This is the inspired word used and it is not by accident that God has inspired it this way. If “aner” means husband in the second set of relationships, then we can logically give the same meaning to the first set of relationships where the very same term “aner” is used.

Christ then is the “head” of all husbands. Christ is the “source” or “origin” of all husbands. Now Paul is not saying that Christ is “head” only of men or husbands because Christ certainly is “head” of the wives too, but I believe that Paul is emphasizing a special relationship between Christ and the husband. We will talk more about the implications of this later, but for the time being perhaps you would like to give your thoughts on why God inspired the word “aner” to be used twice in verse 3 instead of the generic term for mankind that would normally include women.

Next post we will be discussing the cultural and spiritual “shames” that are brought about by the “head” relationships.

Because I have received several questions posed to me on 1 Corinthians 11, I think it best that we go through the passage verse by verse and that should help deal with each question in context. As we go through each set of verses, please feel free to comment or ask questions on the section that we are covering. This should keep our discussions focused and keep each post and each set of questions separated.

The first thing that we need to note is that 1 Corinthians was not written with the chapter and verse divisions. Instead Paul wrote it as a complete letter to the Corinthians. The chapter and verse divisions were added later by translators for our benefit but these divisions are not inspired. Verse 1 of 1 Corinthians 11 is then a continuation from chapter 10. When Paul says in verse 1:

“Be imitators of me just as I am an imitator of Christ”

he is summing up what he has just told the Corinthians throughout chapter 10. In 1 Corinthians 10:23 Paul said:

“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.”

Paul then gives a principle of behavior in verse 24:

“Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.”

This is an important point to note as this thought will be carried on to chapter 11. Paul is saying that we are “allowed” to do many things, but not everything we are “allowed” to do will be helpful or good for our neighbor. Paul then goes on to give examples such as eating meat. One is allowed to eat meat that has been offered to idols, but will our eating stumble our brother? We are to do things with deliberate thought. We are not just to do things for our own benefit but also for the benefit of our neighbor.

Then in verse 32, Paul gives another statement that is very important to pay attention to because this thought will also be carried forward to chapter 11. Paul says:

“Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God”

There are three types of people mentioned here that have traditions that can be offended. The Jews can be offended, the Greeks or Gentiles can be offended and the church of God can be offended. This is a very key point so keep it in mind as we dive into chapter 11. Next Paul says:

“just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.”

Paul is concerned that men are not offended and he tells the Corinthians that he lives his life in such a way that he is not seeking his own profit but the profit of others (Jews, Greeks, the church of God). The reason that he is seeking their profit is so that there will be no offense brought to the gospel of Christ. Now verse 1 of chapter 11 will make more sense when Paul said:

“Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”

We are going to look at 1 Corinthians 11 with an eye of understanding as to what Paul has already been teaching throughout chapter 10. Paul is talking about not giving an offense to anyone and not doing things for one’s own profit but seeking the benefit of others. With that in mind let’s look at what Paul says next. In verse 2 and the first part of verse 3 Paul says:

“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand…”

Paul is saying that the Corinthians have been holding fast to the traditions that Paul had given them, but Paul now wants them to do more than just hold fast to these traditions. Paul wants them to understand these traditions.

This is the foundation that chapter 11 is built on. Next post we will continue on with verse 3.