Headship and Submission Pt. 3

We come again to this great chapter
of Scripture, if God’s people would turn to 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthians chapter 11, and I say we come again because we
have, we began several weeks ago in consideration of this
chapter, and we’ve got many weeks to go before we draw to a conclusion. This chapter, as we pointed out
in weeks past, is devoted to problems. Problems that were
occurring in the Corinthian church, and this chapter, as I pointed
out, deals with two more problems and a long running list of problems
in that church. Aside from those questions, which
Paul has already answered, here in chapter 11, He’s dealing with
concerns related to headship and submission, as well as problems
related to the Lord’s table of all things. And Paul will continue
answering the problem related questions that were posed to
him by his Corinthian church. And he will continue this all
the way to the end of chapter 14. They have a faithful shepherd
in their friend Paul in his willingness to take on these questions. Paul
introduced the subject of headship and submission in verse three
of this chapter. There he picked up where he left
off in chapter 10 with the Corinthians problems. And this particular
problem was a very troubling problem. Insubordination. Rebellion against authority is
a scourge on any organization, but especially in the church,
where God’s people are called to unity and to joyful submission
to the leadership that God has provided. No wonder Paul begins
his very pointed reminder about the principle of headship and
submission in verse three. He does so with those three points
of truth, that Christ is the head of every man, that the man
is the head of a woman, and that God is the head of Christ. We
noted that by that word head, Paul is speaking of the governing
portion of each of those bodies. This is spiritual truth. but he uses a physical illustration. It’s the metaphor of the human
body. And just as humans have a body
atop which sits a head, the kind of mission control center for
the entire physical frame, so also any organization must have
its head. And Paul cites three examples,
the church, the family, and the Godhead. These three examples
all indicate a divine order. Headship and submission is necessary
by God’s design. God doesn’t leave things to chance. He doesn’t leave us to scramble
to see who’s going to be in charge. He orchestrates it according
to His wise and sovereign will. And as such, we can see headship
and submission intricately woven into all the fabric of life.
That is because God desires order. All organizations and institutions,
no matter how great or small, operate optimally according to
God’s design. And as such, we invariably find
ourselves in either a headship role or a subordinate role. And we may readily observe it
in the family, in the church, in the day-to-day work world,
and in the governing function of nations. All those societies,
from the smallest to the great, function with a head. They function
with a head that provides leadership and direction. They function
necessarily with the subordination of the body to that head. Headship
or leadership by nature requires and even at times demands submission
to authority. And for the Christians, such
subordination is made easier because we know that God ordained
those in authority over us, whether it’s a teacher or a coach or
an elder or a husband or a governor or even a president. as long
as those in leadership are not coercing us to do evil or prohibiting
us from doing what is right, we are to obey. Remember, if
they forbid what God commands or command what God forbids,
that’s the limit. That is God’s ordained order. And to exercise Paul’s example,
the man is subject to Christ because he is the head of the
church. Christ is subject to his heavenly
father because his heavenly father is the head of the Godhead. And the godly woman is to be
subject to man, as we saw, in two spheres. the marriage and
the church. In the home, she is subject to
her own husband’s leadership. And in the church, the woman
is subject to the leadership of the church within her own
God-ordained role. This plan was not new or foreign
to the Corinthian church. Remember, Paul is reminding them. of what they already knew. They
knew these things, and that’s why Paul gently reminds them
of those three examples, the church, the family, and the Godhead. Christ is the head of every man,
the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
But while they knew these things, at least in a cerebral sense,
they were struggling to live them out. When it really counted
in their daily lives, they were not living out the principles
of headship and submission. There may have been other examples
of this, but the most glaring was what was taking place in
the church. The clear mandate to female subordination
to the leadership of the men in the church, the elders, it
was under attack. The headship of the local church
was not only being challenged, but it was also being weakened
through this insubordination. But it was worse. It was worse
because that insubordination was undermining the witness of
the church. Paul knew that he had to address
this matter and quickly. And here in verses three through
16, Paul speaks to the difficulty that the church of Corinth was
having in the realm of headship and submission. The subsection
here, verses four through nine, is the lengthiest in the overall
section of verses two through 16. Here in this section, Paul
is reminding the Corinthian church of the protocols for prayer. The protocols for prayer. Would
you go back again? And I just want to take verses
five through nine this morning. And for our purposes, I’m going
to go back to verse four. 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 in the same as
the woman whose head is shaved. 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. 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. For man does not originate from
woman, but woman from man. For indeed, the man was not created
for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Now, having
looked at Paul’s admonition to the men in verse four, we did
that last Lord’s Day, we’re brought here to Paul’s admonition to
the women in verses five and six. Protocols for women in prayer. And I want to inform you up front
that verses seven through nine append just as much to verses
five and six as they did to verse four. We’ll come back to that.
And that renders for us the exact same outline that we used last
week. First of all, the violation of divine order. We looked at
last week at the violation by the men in verse four. Here in
verses five and six, Paul lays out the violation by the women
in prayer, and the rest of the outline is identical to what
we looked at last week. First of all, second rather in
our outline, the significance of divine order. Look at verse
seven. For the woman is the glory of
man. That’s Paul’s argument. That’s
Paul’s support for what he says in verses five and six. Thirdly,
in our outline, the origin of divine order. Where did this
come from? We see that in verse eight. For woman originates from
man. And then fourthly, in our outline,
the grounds of divine order. Where do you get this? How do
you support this, Paul? Verse nine, for woman was created
for the man’s sake. And so we’ll work our way through
that same exact outline again this week. And I want to give
you one very important caveat. I am not going to apply anything
in this passage this week. I’m not going to apply this passage
this week. We are working through this section. There will come a time for application
and I will give it. We will not arrive there this
week. I just want to tell you what’s
here. I want to tell you, because there’s a lot of misinformation,
I want to tell you what Paul is saying in these passages,
and then we’ll look at what it means to us in the weeks to come.
First of all, let’s go back in our outline, in our mind’s eye.
Let’s go back to the violation of divine order. The men have
their violation, and the women here obviously have theirs. Verse
five, every woman who has her head uncovered disgraces her
head. Okay, so here we are at long
last, and let’s jump right in and consider Paul’s protocol
for women in prayer. When we considered Paul’s admonition
to the men last week, verse four, we acknowledge that it was very
possible that Paul was speaking hypothetically there. That there
were no actual cases of men covering their heads. We can’t be dogmatic
about it. We can’t be absolutely sure of
this. whether there were actually men
covering their heads with the intent of blurring the lines
of headship and submission. We don’t know that that was taking
place, we can’t be certain, but it’s likely that Paul was using
that extreme example as a backdrop for his discussion regarding
women. But if the example of the men’s
behavior was hypothetical, the situation with women was not.
And it wasn’t just a matter of some of the women refusing to
wear a scarf or a hat. The issue was much greater. It
was a disdain for and a rejection of the divine order of headship
and submission in the church. There were some women in Corinth
not unlike our own day and age, who hated the idea about women’s
roles as presented in scripture. Rebellion was the result. There
were women who wanted to level the playing field and perhaps
even to preach or to serve as elders, shepherds of the church,
Their strong-willed emancipation was thorough, full-on, and it
was on full display before the entire church. Here in verse
5, we can be very sure that this was a problem in Corinth. And
Paul’s statement is pretty straightforward here. But it does generate more
than a few questions, doesn’t it? Not the least of which is
the application which, as I’ve already told you, I’m not going
to do. today. But his statement is straightforward.
It’s shockingly blunt. Every woman who has her head
uncovered disgraces her head. As we saw last week with regard
to the men’s violation of the standard, that word disgrace
is a strong word. It speaks of shame. If a woman
does not cover her head, she brings shame upon her head. And, well, we have the same question
here that we faced with men who would bring shame on their head
if they were to cover their heads. The question is, whose head is
Paul referring here? To the woman’s physical head,
her skull, or her spiritual head, her husband? And just as we concluded
with the man, since it is a play on words, here with the word
head, it really seems to refer to both. She brings shame upon
herself and she brings shame upon her husband. If a woman
is to parade around with her head uncovered at church, she
brings shame to herself and shame to her husband. That’s what Paul
says. But what is it to have her head
uncovered? And again, there is interplay between what Paul said
regarding the men. Men are not to have their head
covered. Women are. But what is this covering
exactly? As we saw, the practice of head
covering for women in that culture is very difficult to determine. They probably did wear head coverings
sometimes. But what determined and drove
that is not clear. Virtually all cultures, both
then and now, have their unique practices regarding head coverings. Seemingly, everything impacts
that issue. Culture. geography, time, social
status, economic status, religion, gender, weather, everything affects
the practice of head coverings. We distilled it last week down
to this. The practice of head coverings
varies. It varied then and it varies
now. It varies over time. It varies from culture to culture.
It varies between the sexes. It varies between religions.
It varies between socioeconomic strata. And it varies between
the occasion. The practice of head coverings
varies. And the whole practice of head
covering in general varied widely from culture to culture even
down to sex and social standing. So when Paul speaks to the men,
he speaks very generally. He just cautions, look back at
verse four, he just cautions in verse four, every man who
has something on his head. That’s how it’s translated, at
least in the NAS. It’s very general. Could be a
hat, It could be a scarf. It could be a bandana. It could
be the Jewish yarmulke. It could be a turban. In fact,
it’s so general that it could even be a sheet of paper folded
and placed upon his head. If a man has something, anything
on his head, he brings disgrace. And in the original, that is
in the Greek, it’s even more general. It doesn’t even literally
say the word something. Literally, and I mean quite literally,
the sentence in the Greek says, every man praying or prophesying
down over his head having. Shames his head. But here in verse five, in giving
protocol for women, Paul uses a more specific word. Get this. Akata kaluptos, uncovered. Let me unpack that word for us,
if I may. The word kalupto just means to
cover or to conceal something, to cover over. Kata is a preposition
that refers to direction, covering down over. And in this case,
a covering coming down over the head. But we cannot forget about
that little letter A at the front of that word because it cancels
out everything else. No covering down over the head. And according to the custom of
the day, this could refer to a shawl, which could be pulled
up over the head for prayer, like the Jewish tallith. There’s
no reason to think that it couldn’t refer to a hat or a bonnet or
a veil of some sort. But it isn’t referring to a headband. It isn’t referring to a barrette.
It’s a covering. Every woman who has her head
uncovered in this fashion disgraces her head. That’s very clear.
And it’s important to understand that this word is only used here,
and then again in verse 13, twice in all the New Testament. This covering has nothing to
do, I’ll say it and say it and say it again, this has nothing
to do with a woman’s value or worth. It has nothing to do with
their spiritual standing. It has only to do with divine
order and the woman’s role within the church. Just as the man bears witness
to his headship by refusing to cover his head, The woman bears
witness to her subordination by wearing a head covering. That’s
what Paul is advancing. Her attire is to testify to the
fact that she is subordinate. If she’s married, she’s subordinate
to her God-given husband. If she’s single, she is subordinate
to the leaders of the church. To remove her head covering,
Paul implies, is an act of rebellion against God’s ordained order.
Good so far? That’s what Paul’s saying. Now,
I know that this is highly irregular, but I want to press pause on
the remainder of verses five and six and skip down into verses
seven through nine. Because you see, we’ve already
covered those verses in the context of Paul’s admonition to men Those
things hopefully will still be fresh in our minds, and we’ll
review those points in context of Paul’s admonition to the women,
and then we’ll circle back to verses 5 and 6 and finish up. Fair enough? Skip down then to
verse 7. Paul has given the violation
of divine order, not wearing a head covering in the church.
Now he wants to remind them of the significance of divine order. He did this for the men. Look
at verse seven. 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. Now remember, we looked at verses
seven through nine last week regarding the man and his violation
of divine order. But in each of those verses,
there is a portion that supports the statements in verses five
and six as well. The woman’s violation of divine
order. We’re just going to take those
simple statements quickly. First of all, Paul provides the
significance of divine order in verse seven, and he does so
at the end. For the woman is the glory of
man. And here, just as we saw from
Genesis, that Adam was identified not only as bearing the image
of God, which was equally true of the woman, but Adam manifested
the glory of God because of the noble position bestowed upon
him by the order of creation. Adam was created first. He was
given a host of responsibilities and authority that was not given
to Eve. Adam was the apex of God’s creation
before he had created woman. And as such, Adam was bestowed
a position of glory because of the authority and the responsibility
given to him. Adam was the representative of
the glory of God. Glory here cannot possibly have
its full divine sense of divine majesty. A man does not fully
reflect the glory of God, but he does represent God in his
image and likeness. Man is a glorious representation
of God, and woman is a glorious representation of man. And so in like manner, the woman,
Paul says, is the glory of man. As man is the glory of God, since
mankind is the pinnacle of God’s creation, so also woman is the
glory of man, since she was created from him. We also saw that she was created
for him. Only she can represent man in
his will and authority. It can be said no more simply
than this. Man executes God’s will under God’s authority. Woman executes man’s will under
man’s authority. Now I might be in trouble with
some of the female persuasion if I were to say this. So I’ll
quote a godly pastor here. Speaking of the great honor that
a woman has if she is married, He said, can there be a greater
glory to man than to possess as a loving and devoted helpmeet
a being so admirably endowed as a woman? All the perfection
that belongs to her is homage rendered to the man from whom
and for whom she was made, especially when she consecrates herself
freely to him in the devotion of love. Isn’t that a beautiful
description, if you can embrace it? Basically, it says that to
embrace one’s God ordained role is not only a blessing to the
husband, it’s a blessing to the wife herself. Well, Let’s glance thirdly at
the origin of divine order. We saw that in verse eight regarding
the men’s role. For a woman originates from man. This is Paul’s argument. This
is his ongoing argument. And this too we covered last
week. It’s the order of creation that man, namely Adam, was created
first, then Eve. It’s just affirming what was
said in verse seven. that the woman is the glory of
man. And we found this detail in the
section of Genesis chapter two, where remember after naming all
the animals of God’s creation, there was not found a helper
suitable to him, to Adam. And God subsequently promised
to meet that need. I will make him a helper suitable
for him. And you know, as the narrative
unfolds, God took one of Adam’s ribs and fashioned it into a
woman. Hence, woman originated from
the man. Woman, Paul captures here from
Genesis 2, was created from the man. Thus, as the point that
Paul is making in verse eight, he’s looking to prove, verse
seven, the woman is the glory of man, and he does so by the
direct incorporation of the creation order. Paul is obviously not
speaking about the order of procreation that women sometimes orient from
the woman. He’s speaking of the order at
creation. Man was created first. woman
was created from the man. So we have not only the violation
of divine order in verses five and six, we have the significance
of the divine order in verse seven, we have the origin of
the divine order in verse eight, goes back to the garden, and
finally the grounds of the divine order in verse nine. the grounds of divine order.
For indeed a man was indeed man was not created for the woman’s
sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” At this point, as I said,
we also covered with respect to the man. The man, Adam, was
not created for the woman’s sake, but the woman for the man’s sake.
Remember, Adam had a need. It was not good for him to be
alone. Adam had a need and God met it.
Adam’s need at the very minimum was the need to populate the
earth. And he could hardly do that alone,
right? Be fruitful and multiply and
fill the earth. It would be physically impossible
for Adam to do that alone. And so Eve was created for the
man’s sake, for Adam’s sake. Eve was created from Adam to
be his helper and companion, quite literally to complete him.
God made the woman of the man and for the man and gave her
to the man. And now, if we could, scroll
back up to verses five and six. to begin to understand the practical
implications of what Paul is saying here. We’ve already seen
from verse five, the admonition to women regarding public worship. Specifically, just as he did
with regard to the men, he addressed the violation of divine order,
namely women not wearing head covering. If she does that, she
disgraces her head. We’ve covered all that, we got
it. But there is context. to this
practice. This was not mandated for any
and all occasions. Paul limits the exercise of this
practice to praying or prophesying. And if you’re a fastidious outliner,
this point would be 1A. The context of the order. Glance at verse five, if you
would. every woman who has her head
uncovered while praying or prophesying. And as I forecasted last week,
the admonition for a woman to cover her head while praying
is pretty clear. And as we clarified last week,
this is not likely talking about praying in private, but praying
in a more public forum in the church or in a similar gathering
of believers. The admonition for a woman to
cover her head while praying is clear. But what about the admonition
to observe this practice while prophesying? This gets very complicated
very fast. You remember that we looked at
this word to prophesy last week. In its simplest definition, if
prayer is talking to God about people, prophesying is talking
to people about God. And it took on a much greater
significance when we consider that the word prophetates in
the New Testament means prophet. It is always translated that
way, 138 times. This word points to those men,
the prophets who delivered messages from God to his people. Not necessarily
a prediction of future events, but a message from God to his
people. With regard to men, we liken
this to preaching and teaching in the church. That was simple,
but therein lay the problem. If this word refers to talking
to people about God in the church, then it must necessarily be limited
in some fashion, because God forbids a woman to preach or
teach. In addition to setting forth
the exclusively male leadership role by elders in the church,
male elders. Scripture also specifically limits
the women’s role within the church. Would God’s people please turn
to First Timothy chapter two, just for a moment. First Timothy
chapter two. And I realize these are uncomfortable
passages, but it’s God’s Word. 1 Timothy chapter 2 and scroll
down to verse 11. Let a woman quietly receive instruction
with entire submissiveness, but I do not allow a woman to teach
or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was
Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam
who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into
transgression.” Now, admittedly, while Paul here, writing to Timothy,
does not use the word prophesy, he does specifically mention
teaching in the context of the gathered local church. And he
says that this is not to be permitted. It’s pointless and I would even
say misguided to counter this passage, the argument of this
passage, with the suggestion that Paul is simply sexist. It’s
a cheap way out. The prohibition does not mean
that a woman may not instruct a man with anything at any time. Some of the greatest lessons
I’ve ever learned have come from women. And frankly, men have
a lot to learn and can benefit greatly from the godly example
of the female saints with regard to manners, with regard to caring,
with regard to patience, prayer, selflessness, and so on. But it does mean that in the
context of the gathered local church, women are not to be placed
in positions of instructional authority over men. Paul says
something there at the end of verse 12 that often leads to
misunderstanding and, frankly, controversy. The women are, Paul
says, to remain silent. This drives home the point that
he makes earlier in the verse regarding women teaching. They
are to remain silent. They’re quite obviously not permitted
to preach or to teach. And my personal conviction is
that this does not restrict, obviously, singing. This does
not restrict asking questions in Sunday school or praying in
a prayer meeting. But with regard to the role of
teaching or exercising spiritual authority over men, Paul is clear. Paul gives this same admonition
in First Corinthians chapter 14. Would you flip over there
for a moment? First Corinthians chapter 14.
And when you get there, scroll down
to verse 34. First Corinthians 14, 34. I mean, this is an echo of what
he says to Timothy. The women are to keep silent
in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are
to subject themselves just as the law also says. If they desire
to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for
it is improper for a woman to speak in church. And I would
suggest to you that speaking there is talking specifically
about teaching and preaching. Here, Paul tells us exactly what
is prohibited, speaking in church, teaching or preaching in the
gathered local body of believers. Now, if you’re in 1 Corinthians
14, this is simple. All you got to turn back is three
chapters to chapter 11. 1 Corinthians chapter 11, as
we sprint towards home, So when Paul says here in verse
five that a woman must have her head covered while prophesying,
he must have something other than preaching or teaching in
mind. And I would suggest to you that there are several examples
where this could potentially come into play. Teaching children’s
Sunday school. Participating in adult Sunday
school. sharing the gospel in a public
setting. Those are scenarios where a woman
could potentially prophesy. That is, talk to people about
God. But having looked at the context
of the order to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying,
let’s look at the explanation of the order. He gives us the
context of the order. What about the explanation? Where
do you come from, Paul? Look at verse five again. It’s
the final phrase or clause there. But every woman who has her head
uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is
one and the same woman whose head is shaved. Wow. Please note, glance down again.
Just stay fixated on that end phrase. Paul’s providing us reasoning
here. We know it by that little word,
for. He’s giving us the context, he’s given us the context for
his order, and now he wants to graciously move to provide explanation
for this protocol. And in our outline, if you’re
still outlining, you can label this 1B, the explanation for
the order. There at the end of verse five,
every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying
disgraces her head, for she is one and the same whose woman,
whose head is shaved. Okay, now again, pinning down
exactly what was going on in Corinth is not an easy task. If you parachuted into New York
City or San Francisco or some other big city, some melting
pot of humanity, you would come away with the same bewildering
thought that Paul had there in Corinth. But this is what I’ve
been able to gather. For the Greeks, slaves, men or
women, were shaved. I don’t think that’s Paul’s reference
point here. That if you shaved your head
as a woman, you would look like a slave. I don’t think that’s
what Paul’s referring to here. There were also times and seasons,
even in the Jewish culture, where a woman’s head would be shaved.
If she were found and convicted of a reprehensible sin, or if
she were in a season of great mourning, I don’t think Paul’s
making allowance for that here at all. This is what I believe
was taking place. In the greater culture of Corinth,
the idolatrous temples had some really evil practices. Part of that dealt with women
who provided services for male worshipers as an act of worship. I told you this was evil. Well,
the way that these prostitutes could be easily identified was
by their shaved or shorn hair. And that possibly is a function
of hygiene for them, the prevention of lice. They certainly didn’t
have time to waste on hairdos. Deuteronomy 21.12 also suggests
that for a woman to shave her head was a sign of mourning or
grief. One historian added that the adulterous woman was also
made to shave her head no matter the cause. It was shameful for
a woman to shave her head. Paul says explicitly that for
a woman to refuse or neglect her head covering is just like
a woman who shaves her head. Very strong language. How does
Paul justify this? Well, he moves to provide that
in verse six, and this would be in your outline 1C, the justification
for his order. You have the context of the order,
the explanation of the order. This is how Paul supports it.
For if a woman does not cover her head, let her have her hair
cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to cut her hair off
or her head shaved, let her cover her head. Paul doesn’t mince
words here. If a woman does not cover her
head, let her have her hair cut off. The natural God given covering
is the hair. Verse 14 adds that it is a glory
to her if a woman has long hair. There is more care and effort. We realize that. More care and
effort that has to be expended. But long hair is a blessing to
the woman. But long hair alone is not an
adequate covering for Paul. And so he adds the warning about
not covering her head. He cannot be referring to her
hair because he calls for a covering in addition to her hair. If a
woman was about rather to go about the worship service with
her head uncovered. It would have been a sign of
rebellion. And therefore, Paul goes on to finish his challenge.
He says, if it is unacceptable to go bald, if it is disgraceful
for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let
her cover her head. You see, Paul means business
here. In a sense, he says, look, if
you’re going to be rebellious, go all the way. Get a haircut. Pull out the razor. You might
as well shave your head bald. It’s a strong challenge. Now,
before any of you ladies rush out to get a hat or get a haircut,
Please bear with me. I told you at the outset I’m
not going to apply this today. I only want to preach what is
before us today, to explain as accurately as possible what Paul
has written here. Today, verses five through nine.
We’ll take up the passage beginning in verse 10 and following, Lord
willing, next Lord’s Day. Would you humble yourself before
Him?