Covered with Heads
I recently read an article from a Methodist pastor entitled “Can women minister and teach in church?”. In the article, she references John MacArthur’s harsh words to Beth Moore to “go home”, and an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, 14 and 1 Timothy 2 in order to present an affirmative answer. The article comes with the caveat that the views within are her own and not that of the Methodist church.
I have every confidence that in the years to come, what we know as a “conservative” reading of these texts to present a complementation view of biblical manhood and womanhood will be deeply unpopular and could cause much offence in the culture. Hence, this short article attempts to interpret and explain these two New Testament passages concisely with suggestions for application in the church.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16: Headship in Worship, the Triune God, and Creation
In his first epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul writes with respect to an unknown letter (1 Cor 5:9) in which a series of pastoral issues are raised for his response. He proceeds to address them one by one, including this section on the proper practices for men and women to pray and prophesy in public. Notwithstanding the cessationist view that since the canon is closed and divine verbal revelation is complete, the equivalent of prophecy today is the authoritative act of speaking God’s Word in preaching Christian Scripture, it is clear that both men and women were publicly involved in the worship gathering.
However Paul’s concern is that this should not undermine the “headship principle”. In fact, scholar D A Carson has observed that in a Greek public meeting women were not allowed to speak whereas in the Christian one, women were encouraged to do so. However, men and women participating in the praying and prophesying of the gathered body should not do so in a way that signalled lawlessness. This would have been laid out in 1 Cor 11:3: “the head [kephale] of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Correspondingly, v7 states that “[man] is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” The “headship principle” lays out the view that as Christ submits to His authoritative head in God the Father, the head of a woman is her husband, and a man submits to Christ who is his head. There is a counter argument that the original Greek word for “head” means “source” and not “authority”. The problem with this interpretation, even as it favours a minority usage of the word over the common meaning, is that if it were the case it would imply that the eternal Son and Father were not co-existent in eternity. This cannot be the meaning of Paul’s writing. Paul was instructing the women of the church to refrain from loud and authoritative evaluation of prophecy in the gathered worship setting with uncovered heads that suggested to the onlooker that these women were their own source of authority.
If we feel offended by the idea of a headship principle, two points should be raised: first, what is contributing to the discomfort with submission? Second, do we consider the Son’s submission to the Father humiliating or denigrating (1 Cor 15:28)? It is clear that in Paul’s teaching the Son’s regard for HIs head should also motivate us to think about the trusting, humble submission of wives to their husbands.
Thus from the “headship principle” flows the practical instruction that women should cover their heads as a cultural sign that they honour the authority placed over them as they pray and prophesy, and that men honour their authority by not wearing head coverings. Paul goes on to compare an authority-less woman with her head uncovered like that of Gentile cult prostitutes in the day who had their hair cut short or were shaved.
This arises also from the order of creation in Genesis 2 — man preceding woman in order, and woman for man in necessity — to make the point that the design is purposeful and not reversible. Paul insists that the two need one “in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man of woman” (v11) and thus the two are deeply necessary to one another in God’s design. Yet, Paul stresses that “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (v8-9). In other words, God had a divinely ordained design in mind: one first, one following; one head, one helper.
From this passage we can conclude that: men and woman both participate in public worship, but not in a way that undermines the “headship principle”. This principle draws first from parallels to God’s Trinitarian character and the functional roles within the Godhead, and second, from the order of creation in Genesis 2.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35: Headship in Public Worship and Private Instruction
Paul’s command regarding the silence of women according to 14:34 should be understood in the context of the preceding verses that stress the character of God, not “of confusion but of peace”.
Thus, in the public worship gathering, women should exhibit the character of godliness laid out in the Law which stresses submission and not behaviours stemming from stubborn insubordination or wilfulness. This would have been especially difficult in the context of judging prophecies, which is the context of 1 Corinthians 14. Rather than singling out women for criticism, Paul is eager to preserve the headship principle in the context of judging prophecies. It is likely that the women in this context were disrupting the proceedings with their loud questions about the prophecies being offered, especially on matters of interpretation. Denny Burk argues from 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 that Paul “means that women may prophesy but that they may not judge prophecies.”
Instead of this, Paul’s words to these sisters are to seek private instruction and clarification according to their heads instead, who were likely more educated in this cultural context. This would have applied to the judging of prophecies, and arguments about what the prophecies meant and how they should be applied. Notice that in v36 Paul boldly challenges the Corinthians not to assume they were the only ones who received God’s Word through prophetic revelation, since Scripture, written by Paul, is the Lord’s command. For us, even without the benefits of superior education or the gifts of prophecy, husbands as heads of their spouses must embrace the loving responsibility to care for the spiritual instruction of their families especially through the understanding of God’s Word. According to the orderliness of headship in God’s good design then, “all things should be done decently and in order” (v40) both in public worship and private instruction.
1 Tim 2:8-15: Headship in the Church’s Authoritative Teaching
So should women minister and teach in church? Reading 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, the answer seems to be that participation in public worship is not forbidden, but that the principle of male headship should not be undermined according to God’s good design. However, 1 Tim 2 offers us broader insights.
Paul is often accused of miscogyny for his repeated singling out of women and ordering them to be silent as he does here in 1 Tim 2:11. Another way of looking at this charge is that although he has written that in Christ there is no male or female (Gal 3:28), it does not follow that our maleness or femaleness have no implications for how we understand ourselves in the household of God. We do not cease to be male or female. But as has been stated above, Paul has in mind an orderliness that flows from God’s good design.
1 Tim 2:12 makes it clear that women are not to assume the roles of leadership and teach Scripture authoritatively in the church. Bible teacher Kevin DeYoung writes that “silence, in this text as well as 1 Corinthians 14, refers to the teaching ministry of the church.” In the following passage, the qualifications for an overseer in 1 Tim 3:2-7 make this crystal-clear through the repeated use of the male pronoun “he” that Paul limits the office of overseer or elder in the church to men because of the headship principle applied both the family and the household of God.
Paul fleshes out the headship principle for universal application by appealing to the Genesis 2-3 narrative. He points out again the order of creation, and then the order of temptation, which supercede and undermine arguments to contextualise the interpretation in Ephesus, or present occasion-specific interpretations. As Adam was first formed before Eve, there is headship principle built into all creation, just as primogeniture recognises certain rights of the firstborn. In reminding us of the order of temptation, Paul illustrates what happens when the headship principle is reversed and Adam followed Eve and thus failed to honour his own head, Christ his God.
Thus, one can conclude from 1 Tim 2 that the roles of pastor and elder as discharging authoritative teaching for the church are limited to men. This is because the headship principle is applied not just to the family, but to the gathered church.
And all this too, is not for ill but for good. In this way, we honor our Head, and show that we understand His authority over us all and joyfully, cheerfully submit. And lest it be thought that women are unfairly targeted to submit in obesiance, men, especially fathers and husbands are to submit to Christ by taking up their roles as heads and taking them seriously. It includes that “dying to self” trait that marks the disciple of Jesus. Submission after all, is a blessing and not a curse.
