COLUMBIA EVANGELICAL SEMINARY Longview, WA

Bible Study Title: A Directed Study of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16

Class number, title, and credit: PM-500 Principles of Teaching (2 semester hours)

By Jeffrey Jones Calgary, Alberta, Canada

July, 2008

Professor: Ric Walston, D. Min., Ph.D.

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION LEARNING OBJECTIVES ADVANCE ORGANIZER LESSON OUTLINE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The Context of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 The Principle of Headship Pauls Application: Head Coverings Must Christian Women Today Wear Head Coverings? Applications 9 14 18 23 1 4 ii iii iv v

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION This small-group study of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 will be a directed expository study. It will be directed in that, though the study is for a small group, it will involve a great deal of explanation and direction from the study leader. Though there will be questions for class discussion and though members will be encouraged to pose questions of their own throughout, this study, due to the importance of background and historical information for the understanding of this particular passage, will consist heavily of classroom-style lecture. The last part of the study, however, which seeks to apply the principles learned to modern life, will provide ample opportunity for group discussion. It will be expository in that it seeks to draw out Pauls intended meaning from the passage and draw practical applications for daily life from that meaning. As such, the study will have both deductive and inductive characteristics. It will be deductive in that the passage being treated is itself a deductive discussion, beginning with Pauls statement of a particular principle (the principle of headship) and then seeing that principle fleshed out in several practical ways (dress for men, dress for women, intent in creation, the differences between men and women as shown by their hair, etc.). It will be inductive in that particular elements of this passage and its historical context offer several other general principles that might be gleaned by careful study and applied to daily life.

ii

OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY Learning Goal The students will demonstrate understanding of Pauls fundamental concern in discussing head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Learning Indicators The students, guided by the study leader, will draw several general Scriptural principles about the roles and relationships of men and women in worship from their study of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. The students will demonstrate their understanding by recognizing applications of this passage in the modern world.

iii

ADVANCE ORGANIZER Students tend to learn better with the aid of what is called an advance organizer.1 People learn better when they establish in advance their intent to learn, and when they see the total organization pattern of the material.2 Thus, this principle will be applied in two ways. First, before reading the passage, the class will be asked to listen for three things. They will listen for the main principle, the theological truth underlying the passage and which Paul wants his hearers to apply in their lives. This principle, explained in more detail later, is that God has established headship in creation that reflects the Fathers headship over the Son. They will also listen for actions related to that principle that Paul is calling his hearers to take. These actions, including covering ones head, uncovering ones head, and judging theological matters, are the applications Paul is seeking his hearers to make of the principle to their lives. Finally, they will listen for words or concepts that are repeated in the reading. These words will clarify and underline the principle and its application. The class will be asked for feedback immediately after the reading. Second, after the reading, the class will be shown a lesson outline. This outline will clearly state not only the plan for the lesson, but particularly the main principle of the passage and the areas of application.

LeRoy Ford, Design For Teaching and Training (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1978), p. 129.
1 1 2

Ibid. iv

LESSON OUTLINE I. Historical context II. Pauls main principle: Mans headship over woman reflects Christs headship over man and Gods headship over Christ. III. Pauls application of the principle: The covering (or lack of covering) of the head. 1. What was the head covering? 2. What meaning did the head covering carry? III. Must Christian women today wear head coverings? IV. Areas of application in our own context 1. Headship and Christian distinctiveness from paganism 2. Headship and modesty 3. Headship and gender distinctions 4. Headship and submission in marriage

1.

THE CONTEXT OF 1 CORINTHIANS 11:3-16

The historical context: Corinth in the first century In this passage, Paul is writing to the church in Corinth, a rich, cosmopolitan Greek city. Corinth had ports on two seas the Corinthian gulf, taking ships arriving from Italy, Sicily, and Spain, and the Saronic Gulf, receiving trade from Asia Minor, Palestine, and Egypt.3 Corinth had a 3.5-mile paved roadway that connected the ports, carrying goods, passengers, and even small ships from one gulf to the other. This roadway removed the need for a dangerous 200-mile voyage around the Cape of Malea and funneled much of the Mediterranean trade through the city.4 As a result, Corinth was fabulously wealthy. Like most ports, it had a great mix of ethnic groups, including Latins, Greeks, and a sizable Jewish community.5 The ethnic and social mix was reflected in Corinths religious and moral practices. Corinth had dozens of pagan temples, including the popular temple of Aphrodite where, the Roman historian Strabo alleged, a thousand cultic prostitutes served worshipers.6 While that number is disputable, Corinth certainly had a reputation for sexual immorality. The

James Strahan, Corinth, in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed. James Hastings (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973), p. 249.
3 3 4

Thomas Brisco, The Holman Bible Atlas (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1998), p. 252.
5 5 6

Ibid., p. 253. Ibid.

2 term Corinthianize became a popular way to describe a slip in moral standards.7 Combined with religious syncretism and mystical Greek philosophies,8 the church in Corinth faced formidable challenges to its witness and Christian life. Paul had to write no less than four letters to the church, the first and third of which have now been lost.9 The literary context: Pauls first letter to the Corinthians It is important to observe that 1 Corinthians is simply one statement in a longstanding dialogue between Paul and the Corinthian church. Paul had started the Corinthian church (Acts 18) around the year A.D. 50,10 and since Luke describes Pauls stay in Corinth as being a year and a half (Acts 18:11), he probably departed in late A.D. 51. Paul then proceeded to Ephesus and remained there for some time, during which it seems he had frequent contact with the Corinthian church. 1 Corinthians itself mentions a report to Paul from the household of Chloe (1:11), tells of an earlier letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9), and 16:17 seems to indicate Paul had just received a visit from members of the Corinthian church. Given the well-established trade between Ephesus and Corinth, frequent communication between Paul and this church should come as no surprise,11 and underlines the fact that 1 Corinthians is but another element of an ongoing dialogue.

Ralph Martin, 2 Corinthians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 40, ed. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, and Ralph Martin (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), pp. xxviii-xxvix.
7 7 8 8 9

Ibid, p. xxxi.

John MacArthur, Jr., 2 Corinthians, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 2003), pp. 4-5.
1 10

James Davis, 1-2 Corinthians, in Baker Commentary on the Bible, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 959. 1 11 Ibid., p. 961.

3 Paul had learned that the church was divided in several ways. Factions were beginning to form as many in the church saw eloquence as a sign of inspiration and rallied to different teachers (1 Cor. 3:4). The whole letter belies great confusion and variety in opinion among the church membership, as Paul addresses a great variety of subjects: marriage and divorce (7:1-40), food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8, 10), the legitimacy of his own apostleship (ch. 9), and sexual immorality (1 Cor. 10:8-13). Following his discussion of gender and head coverings at the beginning of chapter 11, he must go on and deal with the debasement of the Lords Supper (11:17-34), confusion about and abuse of charismatic gifts (1 Cor. 12-14), a lack of submission by women of the church (14:33-35), and confusion about the Gospel as manifested in a denial of the bodily resurrection (ch. 15). In such a context, Paul is very concerned with both the doctrinal purity of the church and the unity of the congregation. Both these issues come into focus in chapter 11: a doctrinal issue (the principle of headship) and a practical issue (how ones dress in church assemblies reflects ones submission to the principle).

2. The Principle Stated

THE PRINCIPLE OF HEADSHIP

Paul, after commending his readers for their adherence to the traditions he gave them, begins our passage by declaring the principle on which the rest of his discussion is based: But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3-11, ESV).12 How do we know that this is the basis for what follows? Paul follows this by discussing how head coverings or the lack thereof will dishonour ones head. The rest of the passage is simply an exposition or application of this principle. What is the principle? Paul lists three things: the headship of Christ over man, the headship of a husband over his wife (or of man over the woman), and the headship of God over Christ. In order for us to understand this statement, we need to look at two issues in the original Greek: first, what is the meaning of the word kephale, usually translated head, and second, is Paul speaking only of wives and husbands (as the ESV translates the passage), or of men and women in general (as NASB, NIV, and HCSB render it)? The Greek word kephale: What does it mean? There has been a large controversy in the past few years over the meaning of the word translated head here. There are quite a few Christian scholars who think that the Greek word kephale means source and not head. The controversy is over the metaphorical meaning of the word. The majority of the time it is used, in the New All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted, Good News Publishers, 2001.
1 12

5 Testament and elsewhere, it means the physical head of a person or animal. That is clearly not what is meant here, because the husband is not literally a part of his wifes physical body! So whatever Paul means by kephale here, it is a metaphor. The traditional interpretation is that kephale means head as in an authority and leader. In recent years, this metaphor has been challenged by proponents of another. To boil down their case to its root, there was found in an ancient Greek literature two cases where kephale might mean source: Herodotus 4.91, where it refers to the sources of a river, and Orphic Fragments 21a, which says Zeus is the kephale of all things in a context which makes it impossible to tell the meaning with certainty.13 This proposed alternate metaphorical interpretation of kephale has been heavily used by those in favour of women in pastoral positions. The problems with source as a meaning for kephale are manifold. First, the two extra-biblical examples on which the proposal rest date from nearly four hundred years before the New Testament.14 Second, not a single lexicon specializing in the New Testament period provide source as a rendering for kephale, but all give authority over as a rendering. Third, where kephale can be shown to have this meaning (i.e. Herodotus), kephale is in the plural, not the singular as in the disputed New Testament passages, including especially 1 Corinthians 11. Furthermore, in the singular and in this even the Liddell-Scott classical Greek lexicon, which is often cited in support of source, agrees

Wayne Grudem, The Meaning of Kephale (Head): A Response To Recent Studies, [article online]; available from http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/ rbmw/meaning_of_head.pdf; Internet; accessed July 1, 2008.
1 13 1 14

All arguments in this paragraph are adapted from Grudem, The Meaning of Kephale.

6 it means mouth. As such, kephale carries no inherent connotation of source even in this context, but rather simply one of extremity or end point. Source can be summarily rejected as a possible translation of kephale on lexical grounds alone. The metaphorical translation of head or authority not only is wellattested in the New Testament and other Greek literature, but it best fits the context of the passage. Men and women, or husbands and wives? In French, the same word, femme, is used of both a woman and a wife. The hearer or reader must rely on the context to determine which is meant. In Greek, the same difficulty exists in both genders. The same word, aner, can mean either man or husband, among other meanings, while the word gune, from which we get our modern word gynecology, can mean woman or wife. So is Paul speaking specifically to wives and husbands here? Or does he mean men and women in general? Another biblical passage, Ephesians 5:23, sheds some light on this question. There Paul speaks in much the same way, saying: For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church In Ephesians, the context clearly indicates that the husband-wife relationship is in view, not that between men and women in general. This supports the idea that Pauls particular concern would be wives and husbands. But does that limit the meaning of this passage exclusively to married couples? Not necessarily. In 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, Paul appeals as an illustration of his principle to the fact that women wear longer hair than men. Whether he means in cultural practice, or a statement that women biologically grow hair longer than men, the statement is true not just of married but of unmarried women. Obviously women do not begin to have longer hair

7 only upon being married. Pauls argument in verses 14 and 15 continues the point he made in verses 8 and 9, where he makes the point that the woman was originally created from the man and for the man. Pauls concern in these verses is to underline the implications of Gods intention in the creation of humanity as man and woman. He is telling his readers that creation, which includes the naturally longer hair of women, testifies to the principle of headship. Since creation has implication for all men and women, not simply for married couples, Paul cannot be restricting these comments to wives and husbands alone. Ephesians 5 is important because it underlines the special and intensive importance of the principle of headship for marriage in particular. It does not limit headship to marriage, however. Headship is displayed in the creation of the genders themselves, and so Pauls words in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are to men and women as genders, not just to wives and husbands. The Principle of Headship is Universal The fact that Paul uses a word, kephale, which has a clear connotation of authority, indicates that Paul is concerned about the relationships of authority and submission in the church. The fact that Paul speaks to the men and women by appealing to differences in creation indicates that his comments have bearing on all the men and women of the church, not just married couples. The men are to submit to Christ, and to display that submission in their dress in worship. The women are also to submit to their husbands, who are their heads, and more generally are to display their submission to Gods institution of male headship in creation by their deportment in the assembly. Submission to God-ordained headship is Pauls central concern in this passage.

3.

PAULS APPLICATION: HEAD COVERINGS

Having stated his principle, Paul proceeds to discuss dress in Christian gatherings. Since he prefaced his statement of the principle with the words, I want you to understand (1 Cor. 11:3a) and then followed the principle with a discussion involving repeated use of the word head and the concepts of propriety and authority, it is fairly obvious that the question of dress is one of application of that principle. It is in light of this fact that a Christian needs to read Pauls commands about head coverings. What was this head covering? The Greek actually does not literally say covering or veil. It actually reads, Having down from the head, with the thing actually hanging being implied, not stated. Something needs to be supplied for this to make sense in English. This same construction has been found in other Greek writings, specifically Plutarch, and there it means something resting on the head.15 Most interpreters take Paul to mean a form of veil or headscarf, then, or possibly a hat. There are some scholars, though, who think that Paul is referring not to head coverings but to hairstyles. Some compare this discussion with the practice of some mystery religions of the time that practiced ecstatic rituals in which women priestesses or worshippers let their hair down.16 They believe Paul ordered the women to cover Simon Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians, The New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993), p. 368.
1 15 1 16

Nancy Carter, Paul and Corinthian Womens Hairstyles [article online]; available from http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/corinthians/hairstyles.stm; Internet; accessed June 27, 2008. 9

10 themselves by pinning their hair up on their heads in a more restrained hairstyle, in order that Christian worship would remain more orderly and controlled than pagan worship. Others think that Paul is simply forbidding short hairstyles on women, looking to Pauls identification of the womans hair as having been given her as a covering and concluding that a long hairstyle is more modest and feminine and thus more appropriate. It is unlikely that the covering Paul discusses is the womans own hair, for a few reasons. First, it does not match other uses of this construction in ancient Greek literature, where an object resting on the head is meant.17 Second, if the womans covering is indeed a hairstyle, it would seem to follow that the covering denied to the men would be a hairstyle as well. However, this makes for a difficult comparison. Is the man to wear no hairstyle at all? Third, if short hair is what is being denied here, then Pauls statement in verse 6 (that if a woman will not be covered, she should cut her hair short) becomes nonsensical. It seems most straightforward, and the best fit with the historical context, to conclude that the covering here is a veil or hat. Why These Instructions On Head Coverings? Biblical scholars have seen a variety of reasons why head coverings might have been so important to ancient Christians in Corinth. Here are a few: 1. Rejection of Paganism: Ancient Romans used to cover their heads during their worship and devotions. When offering prayer or sacrifice, they would often pull their toga forward over their heads. This practice was observed by both men and women.18 Since at the time of Paul Corinth was a Roman colony, this practice may have penetrated the Christian
1 17

1 18

Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians, p. 368. Ibid.

11 community there. John Gill also mentions the practice of some heathen priestesses of the time who would perform their religious rites and sacrifices with open face, and their hair hanging down, and locks spreading, in imitation of whom these women at Corinth are thought to act.19 Therefore, Paul may have been stressing the need to be distinct from pagan customs in practice, especially in worship. 2. Modesty: There are indications that a shaved head on a woman at the time was the mark of a prostitute.20 Thus, the refusal to wear a head covering was equated by Paul with such women, and may be interpreted as a sign of sexual licentiousness. Calvin raises another possibility: since women of the time, like in the present, spent a great deal of time and effort on the appearance and arrangement of their hair, they may have been tempted to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty.21 Thus, to prevent distraction and even lust in Christian gatherings, Paul commands the women to keep their hair covered. 3. Gender Distinctions: Secular history indicates that various feminist movements appeared in the Roman Empire in New Testament times, and so many women refused to wear their veils and even cut their hair to look like men.22 The refusal of some women to wear veils might have been an outright denial of gender distinctions altogether in favour of an androgynous view of humanity. As Matthew Henry put it, This would be in a manner to
1 19

John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible [book online]; available from http://www.freegrace.net/gill/; Internet; accessed July 2, 2008.
2 20

John MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 257.
2 21

John Calvin, I Corinthians, Calvins Commentaries, vol. XX, trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003), p. 356.
2 22

MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, p. 256.

12 declare that she was desirous of changing sexes.23 Paul might then be ordering that Christians not obscure the differences between men and women. 4. Submission to Husbands: The wearing of a head covering was at the time a common practice for married women, and was a sign of their marital status. It indicated respect for and submission to their husbands.24 As such, refusing the head covering was essentially a repudiation of a mans authority over his wife, and in the culture of the time would bring shame upon the husband. Paul is then telling the women to honour their husbands by obeying cultural norms.25 The principle was for the wife to honour her husband; the application of this principle was to wear a veil in public. So, which was Paul concerned about? There is no reason to rule any of them out, and indeed they all reflect Pauls central concern in the passage: that the Corinthians demonstrate their submission to God by expressing the submission of man to Christ and woman to man. Each of these potential problems (pagan practice in Christian worship, immodesty, denial of gender differences, lack of submission to husbands) is a repudiation of the principle. Bringing pagan practice into Christian worship, such as men covering their heads in Roman fashion, is an implicit denial of Christs headship over man. A lack of modesty by the women of the congregation is also a repudiation of Christs headship over their lives, and also an individualistic and selfish denial of their husbands (or fathers) headship over them as wives and daughters. A denial of gender distinctions as women
2 23

Matthew Henry, First Corinthians Chapter XI, Commentary on the Whole Bible Vol. VI (Acts to Revelation) [book online]; available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.iCor.xii.html; Internet; accessed July 2, 2008.
2 24

MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, pp. 255-256.

2 25

Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians, p. 370.

13 attempted to dress and act like men is a rejection of Gods created order and therefore a refusal to submit to divine headship, and also destroys any possibility of honoring Gods will that mans headship over the woman be recognized.

4.

MUST CHRISTIAN WOMEN TODAY WEAR HEAD COVERINGS? There are many Christians who insist that Pauls command here that women be

covered is a universally binding command. They are rightfully concerned that the Bible be interpreted in a straightforward and literal manner, and they fear that rejecting head coverings as simply a cultural expression opens the door to other biblical commands and prohibitions being rejected on similar grounds. That said, there are good reasons to reject the idea that a physical head covering on all Christian women for all time is what is being commanded here. 1. We must distinguish between the biblical principle and its application. Many who advocate literal head coverings for today make the mistake of reading Pauls command that women be covered as the principle being taught in this passage. However, as has already been discussed, the principle Paul is concerned about is not hats or veils or hairstyles, but rather submission to God-ordained headship. This principle is universally binding. Paul commanded the women to be covered as an application of this principle, not as a principle in its own right. 2. Some applications are not universally binding, and may change form across cultures and times. The Bible gives several examples of commanding culturally-specific applications of universal principles. One obvious example is Pauls direction to the Thessalonians: Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss (1 Thes. 5:26). Very few, if any, North American Christians would consider it a breach of Pauls command to greet their brother in Christ

14

15 with a warm handshake rather than a Mediterranean-style kiss on the cheek. An Arab Christian probably would kiss, however. Koreans and Japanese might bow instead. Ancient Celts might have gripped one anothers forearms. A modern Canadian or American female Christian might give a hug. In First Thessalonians, Paul is implicitly appealing to a universal principle: let the world see that Christians love one another. Christian love for fellow believers, then, is to be expressed publicly, warmly, and enthusiastically. This is a universal principle. Its application will take different shapes depending on the norms of the culture. In some parts of North America today, if a man kissed another man in greeting, his sexual orientation might be called into question! That would not be fulfilling Pauls intent. When applying 1 Corinthians 11, the reader must determine whether the application there given would reflect the principle Paul is concerned to guard. In many conservative Christian communities, a woman wearing a doily or a hat in worship would communicate the womans acknowledgement of mans headship. In such cases, head coverings might be very appropriate. In other communities, especially in a contemporary atmosphere increasingly sensitive to the excesses of radical Islam, the message received by others might be very different. If a church required that women wear head coverings in worship, some might interpret that not as an expression of gentle, self-sacrificial male headship and female submission, but of a devaluation of women and denial of their worth and equality as persons. In such cases, a literal head covering might actually obscure the principle Paul is concerned to see upheld.

16 3. Even the Bible itself shows changes in acceptable fashion over time. One strong indication that Pauls words about head coverings and hair are culturally-specific applications, rather than universal laws, can be found in Pauls appeal to nature in verse 14: Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him? Now, is this a universally true statement? Not at all. Look at Gods directions for the Nazirites, those who took a vow to separate themselves unto God for a time: All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long. (Numbers 6:5) In the case of a Nazirites, they were compelled to let their hair grow long. If long hair on men were an inherently and universally disgraceful thing, Pauls comments would contradict Numbers. If, on the other hand, Paul is simply pointing out that long hair on a man would seem effeminate to the Corinthians in their culture and context, then there need be no contradiction. An even more compelling reason for thinking that Paul is not commanding head coverings for all time and in all circumstances is the fact that 1 Corinthians 11 is not the only biblical command pertaining to headdress in worship. While Paul forbids men to wear head coverings in worship, the Mosaic Law in fact requires it: And you shall set the turban on his head and put the holy crown on the turban. You shall take the anointing oil and pour it on his head and anoint him. Then you shall bring his sons and put coats on them, and you shall gird Aaron and his sons with sashes and bind caps on them. And the priesthood shall be theirs by a statute forever. Thus you shall ordain Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:6-9). This command is repeated through the prophet Ezekiel: But the Levitical

17 priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the people of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me. They shall have linen turbans on their heads, and linen undergarments around their waists (Ezekiel 44:15-18). The Law of Moses as it pertained to the ceremony of worship, and especially to the rituals of the priesthood, has been fulfilled in Christ and is no longer binding on Christians. However, these commands regarding headdress in worship illustrate an important point. If a mans wearing a hat in the presence of God as he worships is somehow inherently disgraceful in and of itself, then it never would have been commanded of the priests at Sinai. Thus, the use of headdress may or may not bring disgrace, but this depends upon the context and the circumstances. Furthermore, if men can honour or dishonour God by the same headdress depending on the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that women can as well, and that Pauls command that they be covered in worship is a similar situationally-specific application of a universal principle.

5. Note To The Instructor

APPLICATIONS

At this point, there is an opportunity for meaningful discussion about the topic. Depending upon the maturity of the audience, this section could either be lectured or posed as questions to the class for analysis and application. This section has been arranged in a question-and-answer format for that purpose. Pauls discussion of headship as it is applied in worship through dress offers several different areas of application to consider. A relatively simple way to discover modern applications of this ancient practice is to consider the meanings that head coverings had for the Christians of Pauls time. These meanings will point to corresponding concerns in modern cultural contexts and life situations, and the universal principle of headship may be applied to these to discover practical Christian responses to these issues. Four related yet distinct meanings of head coverings were already discussed in examining Pauls discussion: distinctiveness in Christian worship from pagan practice, modesty, gender distinctions, and female submissiveness. Each of these offers valuable lessons for today. The class is therefore encouraged to offer their own applications for discussion. These general comments intended to prompt and guide the class responses.

Headship and Christian Distinctiveness From Paganism

18

19 How does worldliness enter our worship today? How do Christians today commit the same error as some of these Corinthian men, who covered their heads in worship as the pagans did? One might think that following pagan practices is not such a problem for modern Christians. After all, most modern Christians are not surrounded by pagan idolatry the way the Corinthians were. Christians do not commonly pray like Muslims toward Mecca, or perform proxy baptisms like Mormons. Yet there are many ways the world finds its way into the church, and especially its worship. A lot of people equate worship with a great stage performance and a rush of excitement, and worship in church increasingly imitates secular rock bands. The offering time in a lot of churches, which have been affected by prosperity theology, has become viewed not an act of thanksgiving and sacrifice but at best an investment for personal gain and at worst an attempt to manipulate God, faith, or the so-called law of attraction as a way to get rich. While some of these may be less obvious a pagan act than a man pulling a toga over his head would have been to the Corinthians, the underlying error is the same. How does headship help keep such errors out of our practice? How are Christians to avoid these errors? The headship of Christ over man means that everything Christians do in worship must be in obedience to Christ. The Scriptures speak of Christ and point to Christ, and so for believers to know how to worship they must search the Scriptures. Everything a Christian does, especially in worship, is to be compatible with Scripture. The Bible is the believers rule of faith. Headship and Modesty How does immodesty become a problem in modern churches?

20 Calvin thought some of the Corinthian women were showing off their hair in order to get noticed. Who can honestly say this does not happen in Christian churches today? Some of the more provocative and suggestive fashions popular on the secular street come into the sanctuary on a weekly basis. Certain of these fashions go so far as to near the modern equivalent of a shaved head in Corinth, imitating prostitutes in clothing and accessories. For men, already surrounded with a culture hammering away at their state of sanctification, seeing women sitting in the pew with them or up on stage or even projected on a screen in worship whose dress invites and attracts leering presents a terrible distraction. Women are not the only guilty ones, though perhaps they are more prone to sins of modesty in church. Some Christian men dress for looks as well. Actions can be immodest as well. Flirting, suggestive looks and winks, and certain topics of conversation enter the fellowship hall and sanctuary even when dress is not an issue. The fact that adultery and fornication do happen within church communities testifies to a problem with modesty in Christian churches. How does a proper concept of headship help us avoid immodesty? Proper biblical headship again presents a solution to this problem. Everyone in the church must recognize that each husband is the head of his own wife (or daughters) and that those women must dress with respect for their heads. Every believer needs to remember his or her ultimate head is God, and that he has expectations for believers behaviour. A spirit of godly submission to those authorities placed in the lives of each individual would encourage an atmosphere of modesty. Headship and Gender Distinction How does the worlds trend toward an androgynous society invade the church?

21 Churches are conservative institutions, and Christians are likely the last to accede to an androgynous spirit in their community. While the world desires to minimize the differences between the genders to mere physiology, not even admitting that ones selfidentity as male or female is fixed and unchangeable, evangelical Christians generally resist such trends. Very few churches have a problem with women dressing as men, or vice versa. Yet Christians are prone to compromise in this area, as well. To many modern evangelicals, the idea that men and women are different in any area besides physiology or sexuality is anathema. Feminism is influential in the church, and a spirit that says a woman can do anything a man can do is common. More and more churches accept female pastors and require their men to submit to the authority of women. How does headship help keep the line between man and woman? Headship assumes distinctions between the Father and Christ, between Christ and man, and between man and woman. A church that emphasizes the biblical doctrine of headship will necessarily celebrate and model proper distinctions between men and women because headship requires these distinctions in order to make any biblical sense. Biblical roles and distinctions will be taught to children at an early age, and these expectations will reinforce a childs sense of proper sexual identity. Other applications for Christian life are thus obvious. Christian opposition to bisexuality and homosexuality is motivated by a biblical doctrine of headship, for instance. It is rooted in the conviction that because God created man as male and female, the genders are indeed different and cannot be ignored. For similar reasons, Christians rightly oppose

22 sex-change operations and transvestite practice. Boys are to be raised to be men and girls to be women, and these distinctions are understood to be permanent. Headship and Submission of Wives to Husbands In what ways do we see submission of wives to husbands violated in the church? In many churches, teaching on submission and headship is virtually taboo. Many believers are afraid of touching the subject, even though they may personally agree with the Bibles teaching. There may be fear of what unbelievers might think, or anxiety about possible misinterpretations. Incidents of spousal abuse are easily blamed on a strong stance on male headship, even though the biblical principle, properly understood, should actually be a strong deterrent. Churches which permit women in pastoral leadership breach this principle by placing all of the husbands of the church under the headship of someone elses wife. This turns the proper relationship upon its head by confusing the men about their God-ordained role in the community. This, in turn, by negative example, discourages women from learning and practicing godly submission. Headship safeguards marriage and family by keeping proper order in the community. This in turn leads to a better witness in the community. A church that remembers that the man is the head of his wife will better reflect the truth that Christ is the head of his wife, the Church.

BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Books Brisco, Thomas. The Holman Bible Atlas. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1998 Calvin, John. I Corinthians. Calvins Commentaries, Vol. XX. trans. John Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2003. Davis, James. 1-2 Corinthians. In Baker Commentary on the Bible, ed. Walter Elwell Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989. Ford, LeRoy. Design For Teaching and Training. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1978. Kistemaker, Simon. 1 Corinthians. The New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993. MacArthur, John. 1 Corinthians. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1984. ________. 2 Corinthians. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 2003. Martin, Ralph. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 40. ed. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, and Ralph Martin. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986. Strahan, James. Corinth. In Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. ed. James Hastings, pp. 248-50. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973. II. Internet Documents Carter, Nancy. Paul and Corinthian Womens Hairstyles [article online]; available from http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/corinthians/hairstyles.stm; Internet; accessed June 27, 2008. Gill, John. Exposition of the Entire Bible [book online]; available from http://www.freegrace.net/gill/; Internet; accessed July 2, 2008. Grudem, Wayne. The Meaning of Kephale (Head): A Response To Recent Studies, [article online]; available from http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/ rbmw/meaning_of_head.pdf; Internet; accessed July 1, 2008.

23

24

Henry, Matthew. First Corinthians Chapter XI. Commentary on the Whole Bible Vol. VI (Acts to Revelation) [book online]; available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ henry/mhc6.iCor.xii.html; Internet; accessed July 2, 2008.