The Everlasting Subservience of Jesus Christ

     There are basically four views on the Son’s subjection to the Father: (1) Eternal Sonship – Jesus has always been and always will be subservient to the Father; (2) Everlasting Sonship – Jesus became subservient to the Father at the incarnation and forever remains in this role; (3) Epochal Sonship – Jesus temporarily became subservient to the Father at the incarnation but resumed full equality when he returned to heaven; (4) Extended Epochal Sonship – Jesus became subservient to the Father at the incarnation and remains in this position until the scheme of redemption is complete at the final judgment, then he returns to full equality.

Eternal Sonship?

     The Nicene Creed (AD 325) affirms that Jesus Christ is “the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father …” This concept rests on scriptural affirmations of the Father having sent the Son (John 20:21; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:10, 14; cf. John 3:16), the Son having been manifested (1 John 3:8), and the Son’s involvement in creation (Col. 1:13-16;¹ Heb. 1:2). These passages, it is argued, seem to imply that the Father-Son relationship existed long before the incarnation.

     An initial response is one of consistency. The Bible also speaks of “Jesus Christ” having been sent (John 17:3; cf. 6:29; 7:28, 33; 8:42; Luke 9:47-48) and manifested (2 Tim. 1:9-10; cf. Rom. 16:25-26; Heb. 9:24-28; 1 Pet. 1:19-20; 1 John 1:2-3). Yet, predictive prophecy notwithstanding, he was not known as either “Jesus” or “the Christ” prior to his incarnation (cf. Matt. 1:16, 17, 18, 21, 25). These are simply instances of prolepsis – representing something as existing before it actually does. For example, if a history teacher were to say, “President Lincoln was born in Kentucky,” no one would infer from this statement that baby Abraham was already president of the United States at the time of his birth. Because he is currently remembered as President Lincoln, it is natural to speak of him this way, even when describing events before his presidency. If the designation “Jesus Christ” were substituted for “the Son” in the scriptures cited above, the meaning would be the same.

Incarnational Sonship

     The Father-Son relationship has not always been. It began when Jesus became human, and the Son has been subject to the Father since the incarnation. In Luke’s account of the birth narrative, the angel Gabriel proclaims to Mary: “he will be great and will be called Son of [the] Highest …. the holy [one] being born will be called Son of God” (Luke 1:31-35).² The future tense indicates that the Lord was recognized as “Son” in conjunction with his human conception and birth, not before. There are only three references to Jesus as “Son” in the Old Testament (Psa. 2:7, 12; Dan. 7:13), and all of these are prophetic. Though existing in the form of God, Jesus humbled himself by taking on human flesh (John 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:5-8). Jesus as “the Son of God” implies both equality (of nature) and subordination (of role) <see Son of God>.

Everlasting Sonship

     In the context of discussing Christ’s return and the general resurrection, the apostle Paul writes: “But when all things shall have been put into subjection to him [God], then also the Son himself will be put into subjection to the [one] having put all things in subjection to him, that God might be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). This seems to indicate that Jesus’ subordinate status, which began at his conception and birth, continues through eternity.

     Using Philippians 2:5-11 as an outline, let’s recap what has been covered in previous studies in this series and carry through to a reasonable conclusion. Note the following about Jesus: (a) “existing in the form of God” (vv. 5-6); (b) “emptied [kenóō] himself” (vv. 7-8); (c) “God has highly exalted him” (vv. 9-11).

     First, Christ “existing in the form of God” (Phil. 2:5-6) affirms his divine essence (John 1:1-3; 20:26-29; Col. 1:15-19; 2:9; Rev. 1:7-8, 17-18; 22:12-13), and thus his equality with God (John 5:17-18; 8:23-24, 58; 10:30-33; 17:5). His inherent nature cannot change (cf. Heb. 13:8).

     Second, he “emptied [kenóō] himself” (Phil. 2:7-8), which is an allusion to becoming a flesh-and-blood human being (John 1:14; Heb. 5:7; 10:5, 20), subject to every emotion, discomfort, temptation, trial, etc., as we are. In Heb. 2:9-18, which highlights his oneness with mankind, we are told in v. 17 that he became like us katá pánta, “in all things” or “in every respect.” In other words, he had no undue advantage over the rest of humanity. Jesus did not cease being God; he could not discontinue being who he inherently was (John 10:30-33; 20:28). But in becoming a man he did “empty” [kenóō] himself of something. As a human, Jesus gave up the rights, privileges, advantages, prerogatives, and powers of deity <see Son of Man>. His miraculous ability was not inherently his own; it was given to him by the Father through the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38; cf. Matt. 9:8; 12:28; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14-19; John 3:2; 5:36; Acts 2:22). Whatever Jesus needed to confirm his identity and message was supplied to him by the Father, but in his everyday life as a human being Jesus had no unfair advantage over the rest of us. His sinless perfection as a human was not attributable to his divine nature but to his complete submission to the will of the Father (John 5:30; 6:38; 8:29).

     Finally, Paul says, “God has highly exalted him” (Phil. 2:9-11); i.e., Christ has been exalted to a position higher than his earthly role but not to his former state of full equality with God. Note that God has exalted him and given him the lofty name; everyone will confess that “Jesus Christ [is] Lord” (his human name); and all of this is “to the glory of God the Father.” The Father-Son relationship continues and Christ’s submission to the Father remains.

     Note Matthew 28:18 affirms that all authority has been given to Christ; it is derived, not inherent. His oneness with humanity and the consequent subservience to God the Father has not changed. After his death and resurrection, Jesus did not stop being a “flesh and bones” human (Luke 24:39-40). After his ascension into heaven and in view of the coming judgment, Jesus is still referred to as a “man” (Acts 7:55-56; 13:38; 17:30-31; 1 Tim. 2:5). Whatever Jesus is now, we will be like him some day, after the judgment (1 John 3:2); his brotherhood with humanity has not ceased nor will it ever cease.

     At the end of time Jesus will continue to be subject to God the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28). The sacrifice Jesus made for us began at his incarnation but did not end at the cross – it is everlasting. Jesus forever gave up complete equality with God (including the rights, privileges, and powers of deity), never to take it up again. [Note: his divine essence remains intact, but so does his subservience]. The penalty for sin is forever (Matt. 25:46), so the price that Jesus paid for our sins has no end.³

But What About Christ’s Exaltation and Glorification?

     Those who take the Epochal View of Christ’s Sonship (his having returned to full equality) argue their case based primarily on John 17:5 and Phil. 2:9. In Gethsemane Jesus prayed, “and now glorify me, Father, with yourself, with the glory [dóxa] that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5). Then Paul affirms, “God has highly exalted him” (Phil. 2:9).

     As to Jesus’ request to regain his former “glory,” the fundamental question is: what does “glory” [dóxa] actually mean, and does it cancel out subservience to the Father? Gordon Fee has likened the attempt to define dóxa to trying to pick up mercury between one’s fingers. In the same context, Jesus says that the “glory” [dóxa] the Father gave him was also given to the apostles (John 17:22). In fact, all faithful disciples will share in this glory (Rom. 2:7, 10; 8:18, 21; 9:23; 1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:17; Eph. 1:18; 3:13; Phil. 3:21; Col. 1:27; 3:4; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 1:7; 5:1, 4, 10).⁴ There are numerous other passages wherein dóxa does not and cannot mean equality with God (Matt. 6:29; Luke 2:32; 4:6; 12:27; 14:10; 7:18; Rom. 9:4; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15; 15:40-43; 2 Cor. 3:7-11; Phil. 3:19; 1 Thess. 2:20; Heb. 2:7; 1 Pet. 1:24). Whatever Jesus meant in his John 17 prayer, and however the request was answered, do not change the ongoing Father-Son relationship and the subordinate status it entails.

     As to being “highly exalted” (Phil. 2:9), I would suggest this refers to his exalted position higher than his earthly role but doesn’t necessarily mean a return to his pre-incarnate status. The Father-Son relationship remains. The subordination of Christ is not ontological (as per essence or being) but functional (as per the scheme of redemption).

That God May Be All in All

     What, then, is meant by the concluding statement of 1 Cor. 15:28, “that God may be all in all”? Similar terminology is used by Paul in other passages, although he is addressing different audiences in different circumstances grappling with different issues, pertaining to God (Rom. 11:33-36), Christ (Col. 3:11), and the church (Eph. 1:22-23) respectively. If the reference to “God” in 1 Cor. 15:28 is synonymous with “the Father” (cf. v. 24), this would indicate that Christ’s subservience continues through eternity for the Father’s glory. If, however, this is a broader reference to the entire Godhead, perhaps the meaning is that Christ’s subservience ends, and then complete equality within the triune Godhead resumes (the Extended Epochal View of Sonship). While it is unlikely that anyone on earth today has the final answer, here are my thoughts.

The Corinthian Context

     Within the immediate context, both before and after the statement in question, there is a clear distinction between “God” and “Christ” (1 Cor. 15:15, 57); the same occurs throughout the epistle (1:1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 24, 30; etc.). Within this particular discourse, “the kingdom of God the Father” (15:24) is synonymous with “the kingdom of God” (15:50). Earlier in the epistle Paul has reminded his readers of the functional hierarchy within the Godhead: “you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (3:23); “… and God is head of Christ” (11:3). In stark contrast to the polytheistic environment of first-century Corinth, Paul has reminded his readers that there is “no other God but one …. one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom [are] all things …” (8:4-6). Paul has also stated, “but all things are from God” (11:12).

     There doesn’t appear to have been a problem among the Corinthians concerning their allegiance to Christ (cf. 1:6, 9, 12; 3:10-11, 23; 4:15). Yet for some reason Paul places great emphasis on “God” throughout 1 Corinthians (84x): the will of God (1:1), the church[es] of God (1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9), the grace of God (1:4; 3:10; 15:10), the power of God (1:18, 24; 2:5), the wisdom of God (1:21, 24, 30; 2:7), the Spirit of God (2:10-14; 3:16; 6:11, 19; 7:40; 12:3), the deep things of God (2:10, 11; 4:1), the gifts of God (2:12; 3:6, 7; 7:7, 17), the field of God (3:9), the building of God (3:9), the temple of God (3:16, 17; 6:19, 20), the kingdom of God (4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50), the commandments of God (7:19), the faithfulness of God (10:13), the glory of God (10:31; 11:7), the word of God (14:36), the knowledge of God (15:34).

     It is possible that the Corinthians were losing sight of God's preeminence, with a lopsided devotion to Christ. The top of the hierarchical arrangement is God, with access granted to him through Christ. Perhaps the Corinthian slogan “I am of Christ” (1:12) was a henotheistic way of exalting Christ as the only God,⁵ and Paul has to remind them, “… Christ is God’s” (3:23); “… God is head of Christ” (11:3). This would explain the heavy emphasis on God throughout the epistle, the unique discussion in 15:23-28, and the ensuing reprimand, “for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak to your shame” (15:34). This in no way diminishes the preeminence of Christ (which is the issue that needed to be addressed in Colossians), but simply redirects some of the misguided notions of the Corinthians at the time.

Conclusion

     While God is the First and the Last (Isa. 44:6; Rev. 1:8), this does not exclude Jesus the Son (Rev. 1:17-18; 2:8; 22:12-13, 16). From a metaphysical perspective, God is “all in all” in the sense of one God united in three divine Persons. From a soteriological perspective, God is “all in all” in the sense that each member of the triune Godhead has a role to play in the redemptive plan, including the subordination and sacrifice of the Son. From an eschatological perspective, God is “all in all” in the sense that God ultimately wins in the end. This latter emphasis seems to be the best fit in the immediate argument of 1 Cor. 15.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ In Colossians 1:13 Paul speaks of “the kingdom of his beloved Son” following multiple allusions to the Lord Jesus Christ (vv. 1, 3, 4, 10). As the apostle goes on to speak of creation, his emphasis is not on “the Son” per se but on the one now regarded as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation, with emphasis added.

     ³ For an opposing view, see Earl D. Edwards, “End-Times Teaching in First Corinthians 15” (manuscript for 2017 FHU Lectureship, pp. 5-11). Bro. Edwards concedes the permanence of the incarnation but argues that Jesus is now fully restored in glory and equality with the Father.

     ⁴ Note also the angels (Luke 9:26) and departed saints (Luke 9:31).
     ⁵ See J. Moffatt, First Corinthians 249-52. Henotheism, common in the first-century Greco-Roman world, is a form of polytheism that acknowledges multiple deities, while regarding one of them (e.g. Zeus/Jupiter) as the supreme god.

Related Posts: Son of God, Son of Man

Image credit: http://images.christianpost.com/ipost/full/7226/jesus-prayer.jpg?w=350&h=268

Questions Concerning the Role of Women in the Church

Does the statement in Galatians 3:28 mean that “in Christ” men and women are equal in every respect and hence there is no fundamental difference in their designated roles?

     “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28 NKJV). God does not care about one’s ethnic, social or gender status, and He shows no partiality with regard to whom He offers salvation (Rom. 2:11; 1 Tim. 2:3-6). A woman has just as much right to be in Christ as a man. But created gender differences do not simply disappear. In fact, the respective male and female roles were established in the Garden of Eden and continue to be relevant in the Christian Age (1 Tim. 2:11-14). In the church of our Lord both men and women share the benefits of salvation, and they are equal in these higher things, but redemption in Christ does not eliminate their divinely appointed functions, responsibilities, or positions (1 Cor. 11:3).

If women are to “keep silent” and “are not permitted to speak” in church gatherings (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12), wouldn’t this prohibit them from singing or from making comments in Bible class?

     In the context of 1 Corinthians 14, to “speak” (laleō) has reference to the exercise of spiritual gifts to lead the assembly (vv. 5, 6, 19, etc.). Instead of “speaking” as to lead the worship assembly, women are told to be submissive (hupotassō) and remain “silent” (sigaō). But to take this word in its absolute sense is to ignore the context. Paul had just said to the tongue-speakers to “keep silent” (v. 28), and to the prophets to “keep silent” (v. 30), i.e. to refrain from using their gifts to lead the assembly in certain circumstances. This obviously does not refer to singing (v. 15), saying “amen” (v. 16), making a public confession (1 Tim. 6:12), etc. Women are merely forbidden to speak as to lead the corporate assembly. The word translated “silence” in 1 Tim. 2:11-12 is hēsuchia and has reference to a quiet, gentle disposition. A godly woman will not be authoritative, nor will she seek a leadership position in the church, but will be submissive and possess “a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious to God” (1 Pet. 3:4). Simply making comments, asking questions, or even reading in a Bible class do not violate these principles. However, a woman who stands before a mixed assembly and at least gives the impression that she is leading does not exhibit the attitude enjoined by these directives.

What is meant by “let them ask their own husbands at home” (1 Cor. 14:35)?

     To take this universally would exclude unmarried women, widows, and those married to unbelievers (7:8, 13). The word translated “husbands” is andras (literally “men”) and may refer to “their own men” (i.e. husbands, fathers, brothers, or even ‘brothers in Christ’), although it is possible that the women Paul particularly had in mind at this time were all married to believers. It is reasonable to infer that at least some of these women possessed spiritual gifts (cf. 11:5), which may have included the gifts of interpretation and discerning of spirits (12:10). What was a spiritually-gifted woman to do when she questioned the message of a male prophet or tongue-speaker in the assembly? Paul says “keep silent,” refrain from using your gift, and reserve your questions for a setting outside the assembly. There were things appropriate at home that were inappropriate at church gatherings (cf. 11:22), and Paul dissuades women from the appearance of taking a lead in the worship assembly.

Is it permissible for a Christian woman to pray aloud in the presence of and on behalf of Christian men in light of passages like Acts 1:14; 4:24; 12:12?

     When Christians assemble together and pray together, it is to be done in an orderly manner (1 Cor. 14:40). If everyone spoke their personal prayers out loud at the same time, this would be distracting and at least give the appearance of disorder and confusion. In the assemblies at Corinth it seems that one person led the prayer on behalf of the congregation (1 Cor. 14:16), and this person was to be a man (1 Cor. 14:34). While one person was actually speaking aloud, all the rest of the church would have followed his address to God with their hearts and minds, thus the church collectively prayed together. The passages that mention men and women praying together (e.g. Acts 1:14) say nothing about women actually praying on behalf of men. It is important not to read into the text something that is not there, and we must ensure that the overall context of scripture is considered. Incidentally, in Acts 12:12-17, before Peter’s arrival the only ones specifically named in this prayer group are females (cf. Acts 16:13), and they are then told to go report to James and the adelphois (“brothers”). But whether this was an all-female prayer session or not makes no difference to what the passage actually says and does not say.

     In Acts 4:24, the context indicates that this was the apostles praying rather than the whole Jerusalem church. Peter and John had just been released from custody (vv. 19-21), and they returned to their "own" (v. 23). Their own what? The New International Version unnecessarily inserts the word “people,” whereas the New King James Version uses the word “companions.” They prayed for boldness to speak God’s word (v. 29) and to work miracles (v. 30); they were filled with the Spirit and spoke God’s word with boldness (v. 31). Only the apostles are recorded as working miracles and speaking God’s word for the first five chapters of Acts. In Acts 4:32 a new subject begins, and the multitude of believers is mentioned, but it is still only the apostles working miracles (v. 33).

     There is a general biblical principle which should govern our Christian activities: God has given the role of leadership to Christian men, and women are instructed to have a spirit of quietness and submissiveness (1 Cor. 11:3; 14:34-35; 1 Tm. 2:11-12). Notice that this even applies to public prayer: 1 Tim. 2:8-13, “Therefore I desire that the men [Greek andras in contrast to women] pray … Let a woman learn in silence with all submission . . .” When one person voices a prayer and others follow along in their minds, that person is actually leading the thoughts of the group. God has not authorized women to lead men. Some may reason that if the man is in a position of authority, he may therefore delegate certain things for the woman to do. However, a Christian man is not given divine sanction to delegate to a woman things which God would not have her do (e.g. preaching). There is also the question of actual authority and leadership, and perceived authority and leadership. For example, if a woman stands before a mixed assembly to distribute communion, she might not be in a position of actual authority or leadership, but it leaves the impression (at least in the minds of some) that she is in such a position. But a Christian woman must modestly show that she respects her God-appointed role of submission and ought to do nothing that will leave the wrong impression with others.

Does 1 Corinthians 11:5 suggest that women are allowed to lead prayers and preach in a mixed worship assembly?

     In 1 Cor. 11:4-13 Paul merely identifies the activities of praying and prophesying without specifying the environment of these activities. Notice that he is not necessarily discussing a setting where there is both praying AND prophesying, but rather praying OR prophesying. Neither praying nor prophesying is restricted in the NT to the corporate worship assembly (Acts 13:1-3; 15:30-32; 21:10-11; etc.), and mentioning both in the same context does not demand such a setting (cf. Rom. 12:6-12; 1 Thess. 5:16-20). When Paul first wrote this epistle, it was not divided into chapters and verses as in our current English versions. The subject matter of what we now call chapter 11 actually begins in verse 2, and nearly everyone agrees that it was a mistake to mark the beginning of the chapter at verse 1. Moreover, Paul’s original text did not have a chapter heading like, “The Corporate Worship Assembly.” As Paul begins a new subject at verse 17 and introduces matters relevant to the Christian assembly, there is no reason to reverse the context to incorporate the previous discussion. Paul seems to be using the example of men in this discourse as a means of contrast to point out his main theme -- the conduct of women. Since women were not permitted to speak as to lead in a mixed assembly (1 Cor. 14:34-35), the only legitimate setting for them to exercise their spiritual gifts was in all-female gatherings (cf. Ex. 15:20-21; Acts 16:13; Titus 2:3-5). It is unnecessary to assume that Paul was limiting these instructions to a mixed assembly, and in light of what he goes on to write in 14:34-35, he is obviously not giving women permission to lead in a mixed assembly.

Was there a position in the early church for the “deaconess” (i.e. female deacon)?

     In Romans 16:1 Phoebe is called a diakonon of the church in Cenchrea. This word is the accusative form of diakonos, which is rendered “deacon” in Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8-13, and “minister” in 1 Cor. 3:5 and 2 Cor. 6:4. Is it proper, then, for a woman to serve as a “deacon” or a “minister” in the church? When we understand what the word diakonos actually signifies, there is no problem. Its basic meaning is “servant” or “helper,” and in this sense every Christian is to be a diakonos (Matt. 20:26; 23:11; Mark 9:35). Furthermore, the word diakonos is used in both a generic and an official sense in the NT. For example, the word presbuteros (“elder”) generally refers to someone who is older (cf. Luke 15:25; Acts 2:17) and even applies to older women (1 Tim. 5:2). But the same word is also used in a special sense, referring to the position of leadership in a local congregation (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). In order for a person to serve as either a presbuteros (elder) or a diakonos (deacon) in the official sense, he must meet specific qualifications, which, incidentally, clearly exclude women (1 Tim. 3:1-13). When applied to a Christian lady, therefore, whether the word diakonos is rendered “deaconess” or “servant” or even “minister,” it does not change the function designated by the term nor does it alter what a woman is allowed or not allowed to do in the church. The terms diakonos and “leader” represent completely different concepts.

How can female leadership be unacceptable to God considering the account of Deborah in Judges 4-5?

     As the 4th chapter of Judges begins, we find the Israelites in open rebellion against God and consequently suffering oppression by Jabin, king of Canaan, and the commander of his army, Sisera (Judges 4:1-2). “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time” (v. 5). It will be helpful to consider what this “judging” entailed and whether it sets a precedent for female leadership in the Lord’s church today. There is a distinction between leading, prophesying, and judging. Miriam was a prophetess (Ex. 15: 20), but she was not Israel’s leader. Abimelech was the leader of Israel but not their judge (Judg. 9:2-6, 22). Samson and Eli each served in the position of judge but apparently not as Israel’s leader (Judg. 15: 10-11, 20; 16:31; 1 Sam. 4:3, 18). Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life (1 Sam. 7:15-17), even while Saul was leading as king (1 Sam. 10:1-24). Sometimes leaders judged (1 Kgs. 7:7; Prov. 29:14) and judges led (Judg. 3:9-10; 11:11), but not always (2 Chron. 19:1, 5).

     In the book of Judges most of the male judges appear to have been leaders in Israel (cf. 3:9-10, 15, 31; 6:34; 11:11; etc.), but in Deborah’s case we find a different scenario. Deborah was like “a mother in Israel,” and “the children of Israel came up to her for judgment” (Judg. 4:5; 5:7). However, the text identifies Barak as Israel’s leader (Judg. 4:10, 14; 5:12, 15). When Deborah said that “the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman” (Judg. 4:9), reference was being made to Jael who drove a tent peg through Sisera’s head (4:17-24; 5:24-27). Deborah accompanied Barak (at his request) as he led the army (Judg. 4:8-10), though she later sang: “My heart is with the rulers of Israel” (Judg. 5:9). Regardless of the significance of Deborah’s position in ancient Israel, it does not serve as a pattern for Christian activity any more than multiple marriages, animal sacrifices, stoning the disobedient, or other accounts of action recorded in the Old Testament. It is important to consider what this particular account says and does not say and to interpret it in view of the whole context of the Bible.

–Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Let Your Women "Keep Silent", Woman Preacher?, Woman's Service

Related articles: Wes McAdams' "No Male and Female", Steve Higginbotham's Gender Justice

Image credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhodyKJSf1z_XOk-PWuXNYO_Q1-sZWFYLi0ymImLHsqub1rf7NckmrVi0UU3Q7mAkUogRwZckbFPuMEH6_5A-u3FjlvPyQSoLjjKl8aEs9SJcx0gCBYjJwg8Zz8Ql1xxHZJi_rJjJ7uqbc9/s1600/woman.question.jpg

Female Head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Part 5 of 5): Summary, Application, and Conclusion

     For many, the difficulty in interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 seems to rest on two underlying assumptions: (1) if what Paul has written is taken at face value, it cannot be harmonized with the context; and (2) if the context is considered, what Paul has written cannot be taken at face value. Thus the passage has a long history of being modified (distorted) by well-intentioned translators and interpreters, while the apostle’s original purpose remains aloof. However, the inspired text does not need additions or alterations for a reasonable and consistent understanding of it to be attained.

Summary:

     Precise knowledge of the occasion which prompted Paul’s directives is unavailable to modern exegetes. The best we can do is to reconstruct, as closely as possible, a scenario that is consistent with the information provided by the passage itself and its surrounding context. The popular conjecture that the women at Corinth were engaged in a defiant emancipation movement, casting off their head-coverings and flaunting their independence, is untenable. Nothing in Paul’s discourse, or anywhere else in the New Testament, warrants this supposition.

     The Christian ladies at Corinth were probably meeting in private homes to pray and/or prophesy. Gatherings restricted to females (inclusive of children) would have been the only settings in which they could legitimately exercise their gifts and fulfill certain ministries (cf. 14:34-35; Titus 2:3-4). Some of these women might have questioned the necessity of wearing headdresses in the home, especially when no men were present. Should they have the right to uncover their heads in these situations? If others reacted against this notion and sought to bind the head-covering in every circumstance as a matter of faith and religious law, the resulting conflict needed the wise counsel of the apostle Paul.

     On one hand, should women be denied the right to decide in matters of personal expediency, and should a man-made tradition be sanctioned as a matter of objective faith? On the other hand, should the more sensitive and conscientious brethren be dismissed, with the potential of weaker Christians being caused to stumble (cf. 8:9-13) and unbelievers being offended or left with the wrong impression (cf. 10:23-32)?

     Paul does not formulate a rule they had to follow but offers a few reasonable premises and then calls on them to make their own decision. Female submissiveness is according to God’s design, so a Christian ought to be careful not to do something that might give the impression that this arrangement is being disrespected or ignored. In ancient Corinth men were not expected to routinely cover their heads, with the opposite applying to the opposite gender. A Christian woman, therefore, in her demeanor and appearance, especially when engaged in religious activity, should modestly reflect her God-given submissive role.

     At the same time, she ought to have freedom over her head and be trusted to use it responsibly. In the Lord neither man nor woman is independent of the other, and all things are from God. You [Corinthians] must decide among yourselves, already knowing what is proper. But if it is going to generate strife, be aware that “we do not have such a custom,”¹ i.e. this is not a religious mandate. As a social convention it should not be an issue that causes disputes among brethren.

     This passage makes more sense when read through mid-first-century Corinthian glasses. For example, Paul goes on to say to the very same readership, “greet one another with a sacred kiss” (16:20b). Does this mean that modern-day Christians in western cultures ought to be kissing each other as the divinely ordained mode of interaction? We understand that the apostle is not initiating a new and distinct form of greeting for all churches of all times. He is simply regulating the customary kiss-greeting already practiced by his mid-first-century Corinthian audience. In other words, when they greet one another in the conventional way, they are to make sure it is done in a sacred manner for a holy purpose.

Application:

     The conscientious Bible student will begin his/her investigation of any biblical text by considering what the inspired writer was seeking to convey to his original audience and how they would have understood the message in the context in which it was first communicated. When this is the preliminary focus, one is in a much better position to correctly interpret and apply the sacred writings as they were intended (see Biblical Interpretation: Asking the Right Questions).

     The question is not whether Paul’s teachings should be applied today, but rather how the directives and underlying principles should be understood and observed. For example, to dress modestly is a biblical principle, but how does it apply? In 1st-century Ephesus is was applied by women not wearing braided hair or expensive jewelry and clothing (1 Timothy 2:9). In 19th-century Europe it was applied by ladies not wearing skirts above their ankles. In 21st-century Saudi Arabia it is applied by women not exposing their hair or faces. Just because braided hair no longer betokens immodesty in most cultures today, the underlying principle is still valid.

     Seeing that the issue in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 involves culturally relevant symbols, other means which sustain the same principles may be acceptable in different historical and cultural settings (akin to the kiss-greeting, feet washing, laying on of hands, anointing with oil, etc.).² The enduring principles include (1) God’s hierarchical arrangement = God-Christ-man-woman, (2) consistency of Christian behavior, (3) the sanctity of spiritual service kept separate from anything shameful, (4) Christian freedom and responsibility, (5) natural gender distinctions, (6) divinely appointed gender roles, (7) Christian demeanor involving purity and decency, and (8) living in harmony with customs that are right within themselves.

     The means of expressing these principles in mid-first-century Corinth involved women having long hair and covering their heads, with the opposite applying to men. While the principles remain relevant today, the symbols do not, unless one’s cultural conventions are similar to those of the original addressees. It is a mistake to wrest a local directive from the circumstance in which it was given and transform it into a universal decree.³

     In societies where being unveiled is not “one and the same [thing] as the one having been shaved,” it would seem that the appeal to “let her continue to have her [head] covered” would not be directly applicable. Where else would a conditional pronouncement be obligatory when the condition was no longer true? “While the logical conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing is that it is not necessary for women to wear a hat or other head-covering, Christian women, nevertheless, in their dress and behavior will always comply with the accepted conventions consistent with decorum.”⁴

     What about those who wish to bind the precise details of this passage and insist that ladies cover their heads in worship assemblies today? An initial response is one of consistency. Where in this passage is the wearing of a headdress restricted to the corporate worship assembly? If the headdress symbolizes modesty and submission, should not modesty and submission be manifested outside the assembly as well?     

     The meaning of the head-covering was clear to those living in ancient Corinth, but the same is not true for those living in 21st-century western societies. Seeing that Paul is appealing to social disgrace and shame, collective judgment and propriety, and cultural normalcy, the enforcement of the head-covering in cultures where such is not the norm would reverse the purpose of these directives. God’s people are most certainly to be different from the world, yet we are not totally divorced from our environment. Granted, secular society does not set the standard for what is right, but at least in some circumstances it can help define what is improper and offensive.

Conclusion:

     If a Christian woman chooses to wear a head-covering today, she has the right to do so. If a Christian woman chooses not to cover her head, if it is not expected in her culture, she has the right not to do so. The wearing or not wearing of a head-covering is a matter of personal liberty and is not a collective work of the church. If one woman is veiled in an assembly and another is not, neither affects the activity of the other. Both are individually responsible before God.
     Brethren who differ on this matter can still work and worship together, as long as proper attitudes are manifested, opinions are not bound, and consciences are not violated. “There are some issues over which brethren may disagree without any break in fellowship, and wise Christians generally recognize this” (W. Jackson, A Sign of Authority 21).

     Every woman who exhibits a sincere desire to please the Lord and humbly fulfills her divinely ordained role deserves utmost admiration and respect. May all who approach this passage of scripture do so with humility and reverence, avoiding extremes, and seeking to comprehend and obey its timeless message.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations in English are the author's own translation.
     ² While the head-covering no longer expresses the same symbolism that it once did, this alone is not sufficient grounds for rejecting it. After all, the symbolism of baptism and the Lord's Supper requires instruction for the meaning to be understood. But unlike baptism and the Lord's Supper, the significance of women covering or uncovering their heads was already established in ancient eastern societies. Paul is not telling ladies to cover their heads. His arguments concern women, who ordinarily cover their heads, not removing the coverings while praying or prophesying.
     ³ Cf. L. Morris, First Corinthians 156. “It seems that Paul was asking the Corinthians to follow a normal cultural practice that in that day reflected an understanding that God has created men and women to function in different roles. As long as men and women today are not communicating by their dress that the creative order and distinctions are done away, they are being obedient to this passage” (K. T. Wilson, “Should Women Wear Headcoverings?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 [Oct.–Dec. 1991]: 461).

     ⁴ W. J. Martin, “I Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretaion,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel. Eds. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970): 239 n. 3.

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings (Part 1), Part 2, Part 3, Part 4; Questions & Criticisms Part 1, Part 2

Image credit: http://jamywhitaker.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mp900400642.jpg