Home|Contents

Women and Leadership in the Public Assembly


Rex Banks

 

 

 

Part 3:  The Corinthian Passages

 

 

Notwithstanding objections to the "traditional" understanding of 1 Tim. 2:8-15, it is abundantly clear that in this passage of scripture "it is distinctly laid down, on the apostolic authority of...Paul, that in the Church assembles, the functions of public prayer, and public teaching and preaching, are confined to men."  (A.C. Hervey, 1 Timothy, The Pulpit Commentary vol. 21)  Of course "The wide field of more private female ministrations is still open to godly women, and seems to be amply justified by the existence of prophetesses in the primitive Church, and by such examples as that of Priscilla, (Acts 18:26)" (ibid) but this is not enough for those who are strenuously opposed to the very idea of gender-specific roles in the church.  Two other New Testament passages which mention women in the context of "Church assemblies" are found in the book of 1 Corinthians, and like 1 Timothy 2:8-15, these portions of scripture have received a great deal of attention from liberationists. As the following paragraphs show, these passages are in harmony with the teaching of 1 Tim. 2:8-15 that " in the Church assembles, the functions of public prayer, and public teaching and preaching, are confined to men."

 

 

A Word about the Church at Corinth

 

From Paul 's correspondence and the book of Acts, it is evident that most of the Christians at Corinth were Gentiles whose former lives were characterized by idol worship, although a minority were Jews like Crispus, Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:2, 8; l Cor. 1:14; 16:19).  Names mentioned in the letter indicate that the church reflected the population at large, with a good number of Romans and Greeks.  Not "many" had a high social status (1:26), but some evidently were better off and had positions of influence.   

 

We are all aware of the fact that the Corinthian church was it a "problem church" and this is not the place to discuss all  the difficulties mentioned in this letter.   However, it does seem very clear that many of the difficulties can be traced back to a root cause.  Commenting upon 1:2, Gordon Fee says:  "The pneumatikoi (spiritually gifted) in Corinth seem to have struck an independent course, both from Paul and therefore also from the rest of the churches." (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, [NICNT])   It is clear that having struck such an independent course from Paul and  the churches, the Corinthians are in need of firm correction, and throughout the letter Paul strives to combat their proud, individualistic spirit.  Listen to 14:36:  "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth?  Or has it come to you only?"  Paul's point here  is: "Who do they think they are anyway?...has God given them a special word that allows them both to reject Paul's instructions, on the one hand, and be so out of touch with the other churches on the other?"  (Fee)  The answer of course is "no!"   The problem is that the Corinthians possess "a highhandedness that prompts them to break with the practice of other churches and even question Paul's authority."  (D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies)  How did this situation arise?  

 

It is apparent that the Corinthians feel free to pursue an "independent course" because they have come to view themselves as wise, knowledgeable, spiritual people.  This is what lies behind 3:18:  "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may be wise."  So too 8:2: "If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know." Finally in 14:37: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." Here "Paul is zeroing in on the Corinthian's perspective as to their own spirituality.  They do indeed think of themselves as 'the wise' (3: 18) and as 'having knowledge' (8:2)."  (Fee)  It is this spiritual arrogance which has lead them to challenge the pattern of teaching which the apostle shared with every church.  Paul is obliged to remind the Corinthians that there is but one body of teaching, and that it is to this body of teaching that they must return. In this context consider the following statements by Paul in the letter:

 

a)                4:17:  "For this reason I have sent to you Timothy...and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ just as I teach everywhere in every church."  As Fee says on 4:17:  "Given the nature of the aberrations in Corinth, it is important, as he does everywhere in this letter, to remind them that what he and Timothy have taught them is in keeping with what is taught in the church universally, at least in all the Pauline churches."  (Fee)  There is but one pattern of apostolic teaching and like every other church, the Corinthian church is to follow this pattern.

 

b)                7:17:  "Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in that manner let him walk.  And thus I direct in all the churches."  Again Fee comments:  "The lack of this kind of appeal in his other letters suggests that this is his way of reminding them that theirs is the theology that is off track, not his."  The Corinthians must remember that their practices are to be the practices of all the churches, since there is but one apostolic pattern.

 

c)                14:33:  "for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." In context, Paul is telling the Corinthians that they are not entitled to be out of step with the other churches in the matter of exercising their spiritual gifts in the assembly.

 

d)                11:16:  "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no...such (marginal reading N.A.S.V.) practice, nor have the churches of God."  Paul is telling the Corinthians (as he tells them in 4:17; 7:17 and 14:33) that there is but one body of doctrine governing all churches everywhere and that they must return to it.

 

All this is relevant to our present discussion of the role of women in the assembly, because one section of 1 Corinthians (11:2 - 14:40) contains two passages which discuss this topic. Both passages harmonize perfectly with the apostle's teaching in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 that the functions of public prayer, and public teaching and preaching, are confined to men.  In the following paragraphs we will say a word about each of the Corinthians passages.

 

 

Context

 

Although there are a few exceptions, just about all commentators conclude that:  "This section (11:2-14:40) deals with problems connected with church worship - matters concerning the veiling of women (11:2-16), observing the Lord's Supper (11:17-34) and the granting and use of spiritual gifts (12:1-14:40)."  (W. Harold Mare, The Expositors Bible Commentary vol. 10 p 254 [emphasis mine])  It has been "understood by the vast majority of scholars both ancient and modern to pertain to the assembled worship"  (Wayne Jackson: A Sign of Authority) and with good reason.   The fact is that:  "There is no distinction made between the assemblies of (chapters) 11 and 14, and... the whole section covers the same topic: disorders in public worship.  The close connection between 11:2 and 11:17, 18 indicates that the assembly where the Lord's Supper is taken is the assembly under consideration in 11:3-16." (John Mark Hicks and Bruce I. Morton, Woman's Role in the Church)  There are dissenters on this point, but usually their objection to the generally-accepted view arises from their inability to harmonize Paul's instructions concerning women in chapters 11 and 14, rather than from textual considerations. However most students of scripture concur that: "The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly."  (Dave Miller, Piloting the Strait)

 

 

Our Foci

 

This section (11:2-14:40) contains material which is relevant to our discussion of the role of women in the public assembly, and this material is found in the first division (11:2-16) and the third division (12:1 - 14:40).

 

i)     In 1 Cor. 11:2-16  Paul discusses certain aspects of the attire of men and women in the assembly,  and in this context he makes some statements concerning headship (v. 3) and concerning women praying and prophesying (v. 5) which bear upon our present discussion.

 

ii)     In 1 Cor. 14:1-14:40 Paul discusses the granting and use of spiritual gifts, and in this context he argues that women are to "keep silent" in the churches (14:33b - 36).

 

In the following paragraphs we will discuss those matters arising from 1 Cor. 11:3, 5 which have a bearing upon the present discussion, and in Part 4 we will say a word about 14:33b-36). Again it is not surprising that with the rise of liberationism, these verses have become the focal point of much discussion and disagreement.

 

 

 1 Corinthians 11:3, 5:  Verse 3 and the Headship Hierarchy

 

 In 1 Cor. 11:3 Paul writes:

 

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

 

a)         In the previous verse, (1 Cor. 11:2) Paul had praised the Corinthians for holding fast to "the traditions" (paradoseis) just as he had delivered these traditions to them. Now, paradoseis can speak of teachings which are of human origin (e.g. Matt. 15:6) or of divine origin (e.g. 2 Thess.3:6).  I have argued that Paul is discussing corporate worship, (see Context) and in keeping with this view I believe that the "traditions" refer to "directions Paul had given for public worship."  (Leon Morris)  Calvin has: "decorum...to be observed in the sacred assemblies." (emphasis mine)  Mac Knight has: "tradition concerning public worship." (emphasis mine)  Vine has:  "apostolic teaching concerning believers in their assembly capacity." (Vine,  p 145 [emphasis mine])  Fee has:  "the traditions that have to do with worship (as in 11:23)."

 

b)         Some argue that Paul's words of praise in v. 2 are sarcastic, but it is more likely that he is offering genuine praise in response to their assurance that they are not forsaking corporate worship. However Paul has other sources of information about the situation at Corinth (e.g. Chloe's people 1:11) and these sources tell him that there are some areas with regard to the "traditions" of worship where praise is not in order.  "They may be following the 'traditions' all right, but not in the proper ways."  (Fee)  Thus in v. 3, corrective instruction begins as to the how of worship.

 

d)         In v. 3, "But" is adversative as suggested by most major English versions.  Here then we have "censure in contrast to the praise in v. 2".  (Robertson)   Paul has praised the Corinthians for continuing to engage in public worship (v. 2) but it is how they worship which needs attention and hence the change of tone in v. 3.  Something is amiss in the way the Corinthians are worshiping and "(the) indecorum in question offends against a foundational principle, viz that of subordination under the divine government." (ibid)   It is for this reason that Paul begins his corrective instruction by introducing the subject of the hierarchy of nature - God, Christ, man, woman.  He is going to deal with problems in the Corinthian assembly by urging the brethren to act in a manner which is consistent with the natural headship hierarchy.

 

e)         Clearly culture does not determine that the male is the head of the female, any more than culture determines that God is head of Christ.  Thus as in 1 Tim. 2:8 ff, Paul regulates the activities of the male and the female in the worship assembly on the basis of an eternal unchanging fact, namely the natural headship hierarchy.  Paul is making it clear at the outset that the principles which he is setting forth with respect to males and females in the worship assembly in this section are grounded upon the unchanging headship relationship. Obviously then our understanding of headship in 1 Cor. 11:3 will affect our view of these instructions.

 

 

Challenges to the Traditional Understanding

 

a)         Until recently there was general agreement about the meaning of the word "head" (kephale) in 1 Cor. 11:3.  One language specialist (whom we quote at length below) said:  "To my knowledge, no commentary and no lexicon in the history of the church had denied the meaning 'ruler' or 'authority over' in this passage until 1981."  Thus for almost 2,000 years, the general consensus of scholarship was that in 1 Cor. 11:3 Paul is speaking of God's authority over Christ, Christ's authority over man, man's authority over woman.

 

b)         However, the same commitment to egalitarianism which lead many to question the traditional meaning of authentein in 1 Tim. 2:12 (see Part 2) has influenced the way many modern scholars understand kephale in 1 Cor. 11:3.  According to Fee, an article entitled, "The meaning of Kephale in the Pauline Epistles" by S. Bedale, which appeared the Journal of Theological Studies in October 1954, "first brought to the attention of the scholarly world" the fact that "the metaphorical use of kephale...to mean 'chief' or 'the person of the highest rank' is rare in Greek literature."  How interesting that this "first" came to the attention of the scholars almost 2 millennia after Paul had penned 1 Corinthian!  And how convenient that this new insight came about at a time when male leadership in the church was under attack as never before!

 

c)         On the basis of Bedale's research, many liberationists began to suggest alternative meanings for "head" (kephale) in 1 Cor. 11:3 (and also Eph. 5:23).  Although we cannot give an exhaustive account of the saga to date, it is worth mentioning the work of Berkley and Alvera Mickelson in this context, in view of the fact that their research into the meaning of this word is widely quoted with approval by those who are opposed to gender-specific roles in the church.  Wayne Crudem, (whose exhaustive study of kephale is mentioned below) comments that, to his knowledge, until the Mickelsons' appeared upon the scene in the 1980's, "no commentary and no lexicon in the history of the church (had) denied the meaning 'ruler' or 'authority over' in this passage."  (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, [RBMW], Appendix 1 note 5)  Again this strongly suggests that opposition to the traditional meaning of this word is the fruit of the spirit of our age, rather than the product of genuine new insights.

 

d)         Anyway, rejecting such meanings for kephale as "authority over" and "superior in rank," the Mickelsons' affirm that the word means "source", "origin" or something similar in the relevant Biblical passages, and they say in an article written in 1986:

 

"We cannot legitimately read English or Hebrew meaning into the word 'head' in the New Testament when both context and secular Greek literature of the New Testament times indicate that meanings such as 'superior rank' or 'authority over' were not what Greeks usually associated with the word and probably were not what the apostle Paul had in mind. Our misunderstanding of these passages (especially 1 Cor. 11:3 and Eph. 5:23) has been used to support the concept of male dominance that has ruled most pagan and secular societies since the beginning of recorded history."  (What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament, Women, Authority and The Bible)

 

 

Challenging the Challengers

 

a)         But have Bible translators and the vast majority of scholars throughout history misunderstood passages like 1 Cor. 11:3, or does the problem lie with the methodology of those who are suddenly discovering new meanings for certain key terms?  In his book entitled Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson has a chapter on Word-Study Fallacies in which he discusses the problem of "semantic obsolescence."  This fallacy occurs when "the interpreter assigns to a word in his text a meaning that the word in question used to have in earlier times, but that is no longer found within the live, semantic range of the word."  In this context, Carson warns against "any piece of exegesis (which) tries to establish the meaning of a word by appealing first of all to its usage in classical Greek rather than its usage in Hellenistic Greek."  He then cites a 1981 study of  kephale by the Mickelsons (The Head of the Epistles) as an example of this fallacy.

 

b)         Carson points out that in arguing for the meaning "source" or "origin" for kephale, the Mickelsons' appeal "is to the standard classical lexicon (H.G. Liddell, R Scott, H.S Jones, Greek-English Lexicon [LSJ] - which does of course move forward to cover Hellenistic sources), not the standard New Testament and Hellenistic lexicon (Bauer)." He points to the significant fact that "The latter list no meaning of 'source' or 'origin' for kephale (head) for the New Testament period."  Carson's point is that the Mickelsons can only make their case by attaching a meaning to kephale which lexicographers of the period do not.

 

c)         Carson also cites the Mickelsons' research as an example of another kind of fallacy, this one involving the "appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings."  He explains:

 

"Not only do the Mickelsons appeal to LSJ but also they fail to note the constraints that even LSJ imposes on the evidence. The Mickelsons make much of the idea head of a river as the river's 'source'; but in all such cases cited by LSJ, the word is plural, kephalai.  When the singular form kephale is applied to a river, it refers to a river's mouth. The only example listed by LSJ where kephale (singular) means 'source' or 'origin' is the document the Fragments of Orphicorum, from the fifth century B.C. or earlier, which is both textually uncertain and patent of more than one translation.  Although some of the New Testament metaphorical uses of kephale could be taken to mean 'source' all other factors being equal, in no case is that the required meaning; and in every instance the notion of 'headship' implying authority fits equally well or better.  The relevant lexica are full of examples, all culled from the ancient texts, in which kephale connotes 'authority."  (ibid).

 

 

About Word Studies

 

a. Word specialists recognize that  word meaning is everywhere determined by usage. Lexicographers ascertain the meaning of words by examining the context in which they occur, and the dictionaries which we all find so useful contain the fruit of their research. While etymological study (i.e. study of a word's roots) is a useful tool for determining the development of a word, and while a word may reflect the meaning of its component parts, the bottom line is that meaning is determined by usage in context.

 

b)         Another important point is that words change their meanings over time. For example, the King James Version's "ouches of gold",  "vain jangling," and "shamefacedness," sound strange to the modern ear, while words in common use today no longer mean what they did when this version appeared in 1611.  In the K.J.V. "meat" means food in general, "peculiar" means distinctive rather than odd, "let" means prohibit, "suffer" means allow, "conversation" means behaviour and so on. Clearly our understanding of the text will not be enhanced if we study such terms in the KJV. with the assistance of a modern dictionary.  For example according to the K.J.V., "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep," (1 Thess 4:15) but whereas "prevent" meant "go before" in 1611, today it means "to keep from happening; to hinder."

 

c)         Because usage in context determines meaning, careful examination of those passages containing a particular word is necessary to ascertain the meaning of that word, and because words change their meanings over time, it is clear that not all passages containing a particular word are of equal use in determining its meaning at a particular time in history. Language specialists generally agree that sound linguistic analysis of a particular word in the New Testament involves the following:

 

i)     First of all, the careful study of the uses of that term by the writer himself.  This study seeks to determine, from context, how the writer himself characteristically employs a particular term, not forgetting that a writer may not always use a word in precisely the same way.

 

ii)     Second, the careful study of that term by other New Testament writers.  Usage may vary from writer to writer, but because all New Testament writers treat the same subjects, themes and events, usage is likely to be more similar than in other literature.  

 

iii)    Third, the study of this term in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament which likely appeared in the 3rd century B.C. as a result of the labours of certain Jews living in Alexandria.  The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says that "Some of the great theological words of the apostolic age 'seem to have been prepared for their Christian connotation' by their use in the Sept" to quote Swete (p. 404)..."

 

iv)    Next, the study of this term in those documents from the Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament period (e.g. Philo, Josephus) the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers" and evidence from the "Patristic" writings.  In his New Testament Greek for Beginners  J. Gresham Machen has the following to say about  the Apostolic Fathers: "Linguistically considered, (the New Testament) is united in a very close way with...certain Christian writings of the early part of the second century after Christ, which are ordinarily associated under the name 'Apostolic Fathers'."

 

v)    Next, the study of this term in those documents from the Classical Greek period. Now transition from Classical Greek to Koine started around 400 B.C. and because of the differences in time and culture, Classical Greek usage is less likely to convey the same meaning.  For this reason, Thayer makes the following comment in the preface to his Lexicon:

 

"Again: the frequent reference, in the discussion of synonymous terms, to the distinction holding in classic usage...must not be regarded as designed to modify the definitions given in the several articles. On the contrary, the exposition of classical usage is often intended merely to serve as a standard of comparison by which the direction and degree of a word's change in meaning can be measured."

 

d)         As we will see below,  it is only by ignoring this well-established approach to New Testament word study that Liberationists are able to deny that kephale carries  the meaning "authority over" in 1 Cor. 11:3.

 

 

Applying this Procedure to the Study of Kephale

 

a)         Paul's use of kephale elsewhere in the New Testament  shows the strength of the traditional position that kephale means "authority over" in 1 Cor. 11:3.  Here's why:

 

i)     Outside of this section, (1 Cor. 11:2-16) Paul uses kephale metaphorically in the following verses: Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23 (twice); Col. 1:18; 2:10, 19.  Of these seven occurrences, five refer to Christ's relationship to the church, one refers to His headship over all rule  and authority, (Col. 2:10) and one refers to the husband's relationship to the wife (Eph. 5:23).  In his discussion of  kephale in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Heinrich Schlier draws attention the fact that:  "The term kephale takes on decisive theological significance when referred to Christ and the Church in Eph. and Col." and he points out that "the basis of the relation of the body (church) to the Head (Christ) is always the obedience of subjection." (vol. 3 [emphasis mine])  Note:  "always the obedience of subjection."  The Greek-English Lexicon by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, says that kephale is used metaphorically "in the case of living beings, to denote superior rank...Of Christ in relationship to the church Eph. 4:15; 5:23b."  Thayer has:  "Metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent; of persons, master lord:..of Christ the Lord of the Church" citing Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19 as examples. Neither Thayer nor Bauer list the meaning "source" for kephale in Paul's writings, (or the New Testament) and this is true of every other lexicon specializing in the New Testament period!

 

ii)     It is significant that in Paul's first use of kephale in the Ephesian epistle, (1:22) the word is followed by the preposition huper, followed by the accusative (panta "all things"). In Blass and Debrunner's Greek Grammar of the New Testament we have:  "Huper with the accusative...over 'above' to designate that which excels or surpasses" and in Moule's Idiom Book of the New Testament we have:  "With the accusative it means above, beyond."  It is as "head over" all things that Christ is given to the church.  It makes no sense to say that Christ is "source over."  The similarity between Eph. 1:20- 22 and Col. 1:15ff  is apparent.      

 

iii)    Moreover, that Paul uses kephale to speak of the husband's authority over his wife in Eph. 5:23, is clear from the fact that wives are called upon to "be subject" to their husbands (vs. 22, [carried over from v. 21] 24) because (hoti) the husband is the head (kephale) of the wife.  Clearly if the wife is to be subject because of the husband's headship, headship involves the exercise of authority.  Too, it makes no sense to say that the husband is the "source" of the wife.  (True, Adam is the source of Eve, but here Paul is speaking of husband and wife, not our first parents).

 

iv)    Finally, kephale must mean authority over rather than source in Col. 2:10, because although Christ has authority over demonic  "rulers and authorities." (Col. 2:15)  He is not the source of these powers.

 

 The fact is that Paul uses kephale in Ephesians and Colossians to mean authority over, and it is simply perverse to deny that this is its meaning in 1 Cor. 11:3. Amazingly, Linda Belleville, (whom we mentioned in Part 2) dismisses as "textually unsupportable" the idea that kephale means lordship in those verses where Paul speaks of Christ and the church, (Two Views on Women in Ministry) while, even more amazingly, another influential liberationist, Richard S. Cervin claims that the apostle's use of kephale is "illegitimate as evidence" (quoted by Grudem in Appendix 1: The Meaning of Kephale ["Head"]: A Response To Recent Studies, RBMW)

 

b)         Since no other New Testament writer uses kephale metaphorically with reference to human beings, we now turn to the Septuagint. Bauer wrote in the preface to the lexicon that "every page of this lexicon shows that (the influence of the Septuagint) outweighs all other influences on our literature," and thus the evidence from this source carries great weight.

 

It is generally acknowledged that in the Septuagint, kephale means "ruler" or "authority" at least 8 times, but more likely the count is closer to 13 or 16.  According to TDNT:  "The implied element of what is superior or determinative is expressed in the Septuagint along with the sense of 'man' or 'person'."  On the other hand, the word never means source in the Septuagint, and this is significant. Thomas R. Schreiner points out that:  "Even if it were demonstrated that head does mean 'source' in a few passages, it never bears that meaning in the Septuagint, and that is the relevant piece of literature with which Paul would have been most familiar." (Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, [RBMW] editors John Piper and Wayne Grudem)  Schreiner goes on to explain: 

 

"The use of head in the Septuagint is minimized by the Mickelsens because Paul was writing to Greeks who did not know the Old Testament well. But this is an unconvincing argument. Paul appeals to the Old Testament either allusively or by quotation often when writing to Gentile converts. Most evangelicals agree that the Greek Old Testament is the most important source for Paul's theology, and of course this would apply to his use of words as well" (ibid)."

 

The fact that the Hebrew word rosh (lit. "head") is usually translated by arcon rather than kephale by the Septuagint translators when it carried such figurative meanings as "leader" or "chief," is understandable in light of the fact that arcon literally means "a ruler, commander, chief, leader," (Thayer) whereas kephale only carries this meaning metaphorically.  However this does not affect our argument. The fact in the Septuagint,  kephale does sometimes speak of  "what is superior or determinative," but never means "source" is strong support for the traditional view.

 

c)         Next we have documents written in the Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament period (e.g. the works of Philo and Josephus), the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers," and evidence from the "Patristic period."  Earlier we mentioned the exhaustive study of kephale by Wayne Grudem of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the results of which were published in an article entitled:  Does Kephale Mean Source or Authority Over in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples (Trinity Journal 6 [1985]).  In 1991 Grudem published another excellent article entitled:  The Meaning of Kephale, A Response to Recent Studies, which appeared as Appendix 1 in RBMW, and from which we obtain the following information:

 

i)     In the Shepherd of Hermas, a well-known work from the time of the "Apostolic Fathers," kephalis is used to describe the husband as "head of (the) household," and it is clear that the meaning "leader" attaches to this word.

 

ii)     From the period of the "Patristic writings," come "many citations referring to Christ as 'head of the church,' and a few citations where kephale refers to 'religious superiors or bishops'."  Grudem calls this "strong evidence" for the meaning of "authority over," or "leader."  He quotes liberationist Ruth A. Tucker ("Response") whose research into the use of kephale lead her to the conclusion that this word "was generally interpreted by the church fathers...to mean authority, superior rank, or preeminence." Evidently Tucker finds examples of kephale meaning "authority over" in Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-220 A.D.), Tertullian (ca. 169-215 A.D.), Cyprian (ca. 200-55 A.D.), and other early writers." Grudem is critical of the work of Catherine Clarke Kroeger who claims patristic support for the meaning "source," but who cites no patristic writer earlier than 400 A.D.

 

iii)    Clear evidence for the meaning "authority over" is found in documents written in the Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament period, such as the works of Philo (The Special Laws) and Josephus (e.g. War 4:261).  In recent years it has been suggested that an example of the meaning "source" is to be found in the work of  Artemidorus Daldiani, (mid-to late second century) but this is not convincing in light of the fact that Arndt and Gingrich chose this very example to illustrate the meaning "superior rank." Allegedly Philo also uses kephale to mean "source" in two passages, (The Preliminary Studies 61 and On Rewards and Punishments 125) but while Grudem acknowledges that this is a possible translation, he points out that leader" and "ruler are better.

 

d)         Finally, a word about kephale in documents from the Classical Greek period.  As mentioned, differences in time and culture mean that Classical Greek usage is less likely to convey the same meaning for words found in the New Testament, and we recall Carson's warning about "semantic obsolescence" (above).  The writings of Xenophon 4th century B.C., Thucydides 5th century B.C., Sophocles 5th century B.C., Aeschylus 5th century B.C. etc. are far less relevant to this study than the New Testament itself, the Septuagint and the Apostolic Fathers. 

 

However, some liberationists ignore Carson's warning, and mishandle the lexical material, as the following quotation from Gilbert Bilezikian shows:

 

"The authors of works such as A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1968), or Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965, 10 volumes) have thoroughly investigated biblical and contemporary extra-biblical writings and reported that the word kephale was used in the secular and religious Greek contemporary to Paul, with the meaning of source, origin, sustainer, and not of ruler."  (Beyond Sex Roles)

 

However, while it is true that Theological Dictionary of the New Testament cites Heroditus 4:91 as an example of the use of kephale to mean the "source" of a river, we are also told in the dictionary that Heroditus of Halicarnassus lived from 484 - 425 B.C.  Heroditus was not "contemporary to Paul," and we need to remind ourselves that it was not until about 400 B.C. that the transition from Classical Greek to Koine started.  Quite apart from this, there is good reason to believe that in Heroditus 4:91 our word means "end point" rather than source (see below).

 

Bilezikian's comment about Liddell and Scott is also misleading in light of the fact that "The only example listed by LSJ where kephale (singular) means 'source' or 'origin' is the document the Fragments of Orphicorum, from the fifth century B.C. or earlier" (Carson [emphasis mine]).  What's more, according to Wayne Grudem there is good reason to believe that "source" is not the best translation of kephale in Fragments.  In his exhaustive study of kephale ("c" above) Grudem argued that the omission of the meaning "authority over" from the Liddell-Scott Lexicon is an oversight, and also that "source" is not the correct translation of kephale in Fragments of Orphicorum.  In 1997, Grudem wrote an article in which he cited evidence that the then editor of LJS, P.G.W Glare, supported his position.  He wrote:

 

"Regarding kephale, Glare says, 'The entry under this word in LSJ is not very satisfactory." But he adds, 'I was unable to revise the longer articles in LSJ when I was preparing the latest Supplement, since I did not have the financial resources to carry out a full-scale revision.

 

Then Glare adds the following comment:  "The supposed sense 'source' of course does not exist, and it was at least unwise of Liddell and Scott to mention the word. At the most they should have said applied to the source of a river in respect of its position in its (the rivers) course (bold added by Grudem)."  (LSJ Rejects Egalitarian View, CBM News Dec 1997)

 

 

Christological Problems

 

By translating kephale as "source" in 1 Cor. 11:3, liberationists unwittingly teach christological heresy by denying that Christ is equal in essence to the Father.  For example, in her essay in Two Views on Women in Ministry (see Part 2) Linda L. Belleville writes:

 

"Kephale as 'source' goes back to the creation of male and female. It derives from the theological notion of the first man as the 'source' (kephale) of the first woman...The allusion to Genesis 2:21-23 and the creation of the woman from the rib of the man is unmistakable. And so is the notion of source."

 

Belleville is correct that the first man was the source of the first woman, and Paul emphasizes this fact when he says that the woman is from (ek) the man (1 Cor. 11:8, 12).  In fact Thayer cites 1 Cor. 11:12 as an example of the meaning "origin, source, cause" for the preposition ek.  The difficulty is obvious. If Paul is telling us in 1 Cor. 11:3 that man is woman's origin or source, he is also telling us in this verse  that  the Father is Christ's origin or source, implying that Christ is not eternal or self existent, and that He is inferior in essence to the Father.  This smacks of Arianism, a dangerous heresy which arose in the 4th century, proponents of which argued that only the Father was eternal, and that Christ was simply the first and greatest creation.  Some liberationists try to avoid this difficulty by saying that the meaning of 1 Cor. 11:3 is not that the Father is the source of the eternally-existing logos, but rather of the incarnate Redeemer. However, this simply will not work, because this verse also says that Christ is the kephale of man, and at the time of man's creation, the pre-existing logos had not become incarnate as the Christ.

 

Ironically, some liberationists affirm that it is the traditional interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:3 which leads to christological error. Allegedly, those who maintain that the Father has "authority over" the Son, are implying that the Son is inferior to the Father in a way that contradicts such passages as Jn 5:18 ("making Himself equal with God") and 10:30 ("I and the Father are one").  However those who argue in this way fail to recognize that these and other passages of scripture which teach the essential equality of the Father and the Son do not preclude distinctions of role within the Godhead. When our Lord says "the Father is greater than I," (Jn 14:28) and affirms that He has come down from heaven to do the Father's will, (Jn 6:38) He is not implying that He lacks the fullness of deity possessed by the Father (cf. Col. 2:9) and is, for this reason, inferior in nature to Him.  Rather, Jesus is speaking of the functional differences within the triune Godhead, and of His voluntary submission to the Father's authority. Functional subordination does not imply inferiority of essence, and Christ's willingness to obey the Father no more evidences such inferiority than does the citizen's submission to the governing authorities, the child's submission to his parents, or the pupil's submission to the teacher.

 

 

Concluding Comment

 

Even if kephale did mean "source of" rather than "authority over" in 1 Cor. 11:3, it is difficult to see how this helps the liberationist position.  After all, in 1 Tim. 2:8 ff, Paul cites the creation of the man prior to the woman as the reason for male leadership. 

 

In light of context, reference to the fact that Adam was the source of Eve in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 would also suggest male authority and female subordination. However it is clear that the well-nigh universal understanding of 1 Cor. 11:3 for almost 2 millennia is correct, and that kephale carries the meaning "authority over" in this verse. Challenges to the traditional meaning of 1 Cor. 11:3 are not the fruit of new insights or improved methods of  interpretation, but rather the result of a commitment to  egalitarianism, in the same way that challenges to the traditional understanding of authetein in 1 Tim.  2 are the product of this commitment.  However there is no getting around the fact that Paul begins to correct problems in the Corinthian assembly by appealing to the fact that there is an unchanging hierarchy of nature in existence: God - Christ - man - woman. 

 

We learned from our study of 1 Tim. 2:8-15 that male leadership in the assembly is grounded upon creation law, and thus Paul's appeal to the headship hierarchy in a passage dealing with the same assembly, prepares us for this same teaching in 1 Cor. 11:2-16: namely the teaching that leadership is male because of the very nature of the male and the female.  However many have difficulty harmonizing this teaching with a statement in 1 Cor. 11:5, and we need to say a word about this verse before leaving this section. 

 

 

Verse 5:  Keeping Within the Text

 

In 1 Cor. 11:5a  Paul says:

 

"But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head." (N.A.S.V.)  A more "wooden" translation is:  "But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head."

 

a)         Typically liberationists find in this verse apostolic authority for Christian sisters to take leadership roles in the public assembly.  The Kroegers argue that:  "Women were specifically granted permission to prophesy, provided that their heads were appropriately covered (1 Cor. 11:5)" and they go on to point out that prophecy consists of "edification, and exhortation, and consolation," which are "basic elements in Christian instruction." (I Suffer Not a Woman)  Like many other liberationists, they insist that this understanding of 1 Cor. 11:5 must guide our study of all other passages of scripture which discuss the role of women in the assembly.  Thus for example regardless of what 1 Tim. 2:12,13 seems to teach, this verse cannot mean that leadership roles in the assembly are gender specific since 1 Cor. 11:5 says otherwise.

 

b)         What's more, many students of scripture who are convinced that Paul forbids women to teach or exercise authority over a man in the assembly, (1 Tim. 2:8 ff) agree with the liberationists that in 1 Cor. 11:5a the apostle speaks approvingly of women praying and prophesying.  In an attempt to harmonize Paul, some who take this position insist that Paul is not discussing the public mixed assembly in 1 Cor. 11:2-16, but rather meetings at which men are not present.  One brother writes:    

 

"Special Assembly. These verses (4 and 5) clearly show that some Christian women in the church in Corinth were in position to exercise the gifts of prayer and prophesy.  But, 'prophesy' was God's spiritual gift for edifying the church (l Cor. 14:4, 22).  But, the Christian woman could not exercise her gifts of prayer and prophesy in the regular public worship assembly, for such would assume the very authority which she was forbidden to exercise. Therefore there had to be another kind of gathering in which her gifts could be exercised - meetings with Christian women (and children, perhaps).  These Christian women would receive edification, and thus a contribution would be made to the edification of the whole church."   (Roy Deaver, p 270 [emphasis mine])

 

Now, in my view there are very good reasons why "the vast majority of scholars both ancient and modern (understand 1 Cor. 11:2-16) to pertain to the assembled worship" (see Context), and thus I do not think that the "special assembly" suggestion offers the best solution.

 

c)         Others who are convinced that  Paul speaks approvingly of women praying and prophesying in 1 Cor. 11:5, but who also recognize that the apostle forbids Christian sisters  to teach or exercise authority over a man in the assembly, (1 Tim. 2:8 ff) attempt a different harmonization of the Pauline passages.  For example Grudem argues:

 

"Prophecy in the worship of the early church was not the kind of authoritative, infallible revelation we associate with the written prophecies of the Old Testament.  It was a report in human words based on a spontaneous, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:30) for the purpose of edification, encouragement, consolation, conviction, and guidance (1 Corinthians 14:3, 24-25; Acts 21:4; 16:6-10).  Prophecy in the early church did not correspond to the sermon today or to a formal exposition of Scripture.  Both women and men could stand and share what they believed God had brought to mind for the good of the church." (An Overview and Central Concerns, RBMW [emphasis mine])

 

In similar vein Schreiner, another "traditionalist" says:

 

"Paul does not merely impose restrictions on women. He encourages women to pray and prophesy in church if they are properly adorned (1 Cor. 11:5).

 

Prophecy is not preaching. Paul does not permit women to preach and teach if they are properly adorned, but he does allow them to prophesy."  (Two Views on Women in Ministry)

 

In my view, this approach also fails to do justice to the Pauline passages. In 1 Tim. 2:8 Paul makes it clear that men as opposed to women are to "pray" in the public assembly, and what's more "1 Corinthians 14 conclusively demonstrates that praying and prophesying (pneumatic functions) are authoritative functions in which those speaking lead the assembly."  (John Mark Hicks and Bruce I. Morton, Woman's Role in the Church)  Again this attempt to harmonize Paul is not convincing.

 

The fact is that there is no difficulty reconciling 1 Cor. 11:5a with Paul's teaching  that women are not to lead the assembly in worship, once it is realized that this verse does not contain authority for women to pray or prophesy in the setting under discussion. Schreiner is quite wrong when he says that Paul "encourages women to pray and prophesy in church if they are properly adorned (1 Cor. 11:5)."  The apostle says no such thing, and those who take this position are getting more out of 1 Cor. 11:5a than is in the text.

 

Let's look at this problem of getting more out of a text than is there. We must keep in mind that whatever a proposition teaches, it teaches either explicitly or implicitly.  Explicit and implicit teaching is all that a proposition contains. By way of example, consider the following:  an Old Testament prophet hears that certain Israelites who are not priests are putting on the "holy garments" (Lev. 16:4) and offering sacrifice in the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. He issues the following warning:

 

"Any non-Levite, entering the Most Holy Place and making a sin offering with the holy garments on violates the law of Moses."

 

Now, we cannot conclude from this statement that the prophet is authorizing non-Levites to enter the Most Holy Place and make sin offerings provided they do not wear the holy garments when they do so. This is to get more out of the prophet's statement than is there. This statement does not teach either explicitly or implicitly that non-Levites are authorized to enter the Most Holy Place and make sin offerings provided they do not wear the holy garments when they do so. Those who draw this inference are mistaken, and they place the prophet in conflict with the Law. Consider another example. The statement "Any person  worshiping an idol and offering sacrifices in a pagan temple, with a saffron robe on, violates scripture," does not imply that worshiping an idol and offering sacrifices in a pagan temple are acceptable practices  provided that the person engaged in these activities does not wear a saffron robe. We must not get more out of this statement than is there.

   

So too we must not get more out of 1 Cor.11:5a than it teaches. This verse does not teach either explicitly or implicitly that praying and prophesying by women in the setting under discussion is authorized provided the head covering is worn. Many commentators have recognized that this is the case as the following comments show:

 

"It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14."  (John Calvin, 1 Corinthians [emphasis mine])

 

"It may be further observed, however that the fact that Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in the church does not prove that it was right or proper...On another occasion in this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form and enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public, chapter 14:34."  (Albert Barnes, Barnes Notes on the New Testament.  [emphasis mine]) 

 

"He is here speaking of the propriety of women speaking in public unveiled and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public itself. When that subject comes up he expresses his judgment in the clearest terms 14:34."  (Charles Hodge, 1 Corinthians  [emphasis mine])

 

"Paul is not necessarily giving his opinion on the propriety of women praying or prophesying in the church, which he observes was being done, though he does so in 1 Cor. 14:34." (W. Harold Mare, The Expositors Bible Commentary vol. 10)

 

"While this passage shows that Corinthian women were presenting oral utterances to the assembly, the verse gives no explicit indication as to whether Paul approved or disapproved of the practice…However that specific pronouncement is forthcoming in chapter 14:34."  (Dave Miller, The Spiritual Sword April 1994)

 

 

If we keep in mind that 1 Cor. 11:5a does not contain permission for women to pray or prophesy provided certain conditions are met, we will have no difficulty harmonizing those Pauline passages which discuss the role of women in the public assembly. We cannot know for sure why Paul makes this statement in 1 Cor.11:5a, but the following suggestion has merit:

 

"Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with Spirit-imparted miraculous capacities. Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, although Paul does not so state until chapter fourteen....

 

The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an authoritative act of leadership. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul's insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an implicit directive to refrain from leading in the assembly."  (Dave Miller Piloting the Strait

 

Regardless of what we think of this explanation, the important point is that we must be careful not to go beyond the explicit and implicit teaching of 1 Cor. 11:5a, thereby creating unnecessary difficulties. 

 

 

Concluding Comment

 

Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 are in perfect harmony with his teaching in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 that Christian sisters are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the public assembly.  In both passages the apostle grounds his instructions upon creation law, emphasing that male leadership has nothing to do with culture, and everything to do with the nature of the male and the female.  As we will see, this is also the teaching of 1 Cor.14:33b - 36 (see Part 4).