Man is Head of Woman in all Spheres? 1 Cor 11

[Afterthought]

Does the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 imply that man is head (Authority? Leadership? Requiring submission?) of the woman in all spheres of life, not just in the church and family? I notice that the terms are "man" and "woman" not "husband" and "wife," and that the teaching of headship is drawn from a creation principle. Would this then imply that a woman ought not to be in an authoritative role over man in all areas of life (which in turn would restrict certain economical, governmental, and social positions from women)?

If this is the case, then on what basis does one defend the traditional teaching that woman is sovereign in her own spheres of labor? Or the idea that a woman is not to obey just any male authority: it is her husband to which she is required to submit?

Furthermore, how is one to understand such things as "the woman was created for the man" in Paul's teaching here if not all women get married?

(In some ways, this is a spin off from the "Gender Roles" thread.)

 

[lynnie]

As somebody who wears a headcovering and thinks 1 Cor 11 is about wives, I like this piece:

http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/12/05/women-stop-submitting-to-men/

I was definitely, without question, made for my husband and the perfect complement for him. The wife is made for her husband. But no way I was made for all men. Ha. Never.

 

[jwithnell]

The critical distinction is one of relationship. Eve wasn't any ol' female given to Adam, but his wife -- Jesus was said to love his bride to the point of giving his life for her. In the church, women are to be gently guided as the under shepherd of the flock will one day have to give an account for her care. Otherwise, you see women in scripture handling their responsibilities with independence and confidence. She submits to the ones who have been given authority andd responsibility.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

The general teaching of Scripture is that it is normative for womankind to be in subjection to mankind. That is how I understand the passage. This subjection does not look the same in every instance, and there are outright exceptions to the rule (like Deborah); but male leadership in all spheres is normative.

 

[Parakaleo]

male leadership in all spheres is normative.

Well said, brother. Think on 1 Cor. 11 in light of Paul's instructions concerning men and women (not husbands and wives) in 1 Tim. 2. It is generally accepted that Paul's instructions in 1 Tim. 2 should be seen as mainly for conduct in the church. However, ask yourself if the justification Paul gives for this principle loses any force at all by being applied to human society in general?

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived..." 1 Tim. 2:13-14

While male leadership is normative in all spheres, there are many details and particulars that will need to be worked out with wisdom, which will also account for the apparent exceptions we see in Scripture.

 

[smhbbag]

It also seems, Tyler, that the opposite position is simply incoherent.

We are told that a woman must not teach or have authority over men for two reasons: 1) Adam was formed first and 2) Eve was deceived.

It would be terribly odd for facts based in Creation and Fall only to impact the church and home.

As others said, it does not look the same in every circumstance, and in some places the general word "submission" is odd to use. However, we can comfortably say the order of creation, and the nature of the fall cannot be meaningful only in church and home. If it has no relevance in the rest of life, then the restrictions for church and home become pretty arbitrary.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It's not the case that we are free to make different arguments than apostles and prophets make by simply borrowing their axioms, or a facile trade on the form their argument takes.

When we note Paul makes an argument from the creation-narrative--an aspect of special revelation; and then extrapolate to an argument from creation--i.e. general revelation, which we then apply to sundry conditions by our own wits; we cannot claim the same scriptural warrant for our conclusions.

When it comes to nature, we must operate within the parameters of wisdom/prudence, and the reality of circumstances/conditions. It may be the case that in the course of nature, profitability increases for society where males dominate the places of rule. This observation (if it held) plus Paul's revealed counsel concerning church and family leadership would NOT supply the Christian with a tool for judging the propriety of his submission to a queen.

What does nature say? Are males dominant in every phyla? Ants and Bees are among the most socially organized creatures, and they all (including males) bow to the hive queen. Parallelisms and analogies are not going to teach us if it's OK or not for a woman to be supervisor or a CEO. Those are not the questions the Bible addresses in anything like a direct manner. The "right" answer will most likely be variable.

God's Word supplies us with wisdom, along with moral norms; and it leaves us free to make a few trials of application in this setting and that without necessarily fearing a morally dubious choice.

By way of warning us of hasty judgments, I remind all that John Knox wrote: England had no legitimate head in the female monarch Mary Tudor; and he greatly softened his tone as soon as the Protestant Queen Elizabeth succeeded her. hmmmmmmm

 

[Deleted member 6112]

What does nature say? Are males dominant in every phyla? Ants and Bees are among the most socially organized creatures, and they all (including males) bow to the hive queen.

With due respect, Rev. Buchanan, that may be what is natural for ants or bees, but what is it that is natural to human beings? God created human beings to be in families headed by men. The principle of male leadership is found in mankind in his natural state, and is even displayed in the order in which the first man and woman were created. That is Paul's point:

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. - I Cor 11:8-9

This principle need not be understood as excluding submission to female magistrates. It is natural that a child obey his mother, and the same (5th commandment) principle applies to female magistrates as well. However, it is normative that even a child's mother will be subject to her male head.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

It also seems, Tyler, that the opposite position is simply incoherent.

We are told that a woman must not teach or have authority over men for two reasons: 1) Adam was formed first and 2) Eve was deceived.

It would be terribly odd for facts based in Creation and Fall only to impact the church and home.

As others said, it does not look the same in every circumstance, and in some places the general word "submission" is odd to use. However, we can comfortably say the order of creation, and the nature of the fall cannot be meaningful only in church and home. If it has no relevance in the rest of life, then the restrictions for church and home become pretty arbitrary.

Very true, Jeremy. I will only highlight that the "order of creation" as you put it (I love that, by the way) is the order of nature and it is on these natural principles that civil government is established.

 

[MW]

We have to accept the created order is fallen, and God has sanctified the use of the fallen world to the Christian. It does not need to be "redeemed" in order for the Christian to use it. We can say something is not right and still submit to it under God's sovereign allowance. A less than ideal civil government is one of those things, and this includes female leadership. The Church as the redeemed community must reflect the created order as renewed by God's grace. There is no place for female leadership there. But in the State, unredeemed, submission may be given to a female leader even while recognising it is a distortion of the created order. Obviously the tendency will be to normalise and rationalise it, and so what is wrong can start to look right over time; but for the Christian the rationale should only be that a less than ideal form of government is overruled by God to the good use of the Christian.

On 1 Cor. 11, it is better to translate "man" and "woman" throughout. The apostle makes a closely argued case for woman to be under the headship of man, and it depends on the terms "man" and "woman" in order to make sense. The issue is not primarily about "covering" but "speaking;" and the covering is brought in as an argument against the woman speaking because it assumes a function of headship. Just as it would be a shame for a man to cover his head in order to pray or prophesy, so it would be a shame for a woman to uncover her head in order to pray and prophesy; implied in the argument is the fact that the action of praying and prophesying requires the uncovering of the head because it is an act of headship. The translation "husband" and "wife" would effectively create an equivocation and loosen the terms of the argument.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Tyler,
Go back and read the OP, and you will see that I'm addressing this question:

Would this then imply that a woman ought not to be in an authoritative role over man in all areas of life...?

Seems rather obvious that it's asking if (according to Paul and the Christian faith) women should be subservient to men, generally and everywhere, and that in a fallen world (as Rev.Winzer aptly notes).

If the answer was "yes," then no wonder that men so answering are often in contempt of any woman having secular powers: government, business, etc. They have applied some principle they've identified as "biblical" across the board. I'm pleased that in contrast you have room in your orderly vision for valid submission to a female magistrate. The OP wasn't asking if the Bible teaches "male headship" (MH) if applied to church or family situations. Those were never really in dispute--although, there is considerable width to the spectrum of interpretation of what MH practically entails.

If it isn't "across the board" (for adults anyway), then there is no "natural" proposition that grounds Paul's argument; but "special revelation" grounds it, particularly that related to creation, vv8-9. When "nature" is brought in, v14, it is as an adjunct, a kind of "(godless) societal admission" that there is some truth (he connects it to "glory" not "submission") even those without special revelation can see.

Paul does not appeal to "the natural place of woman" to ground his argument. But to the revealed order of creation, so as (1Cor.11) to ground explicitly ecclesiastical society through its government as a thing minutely directed by the Word.

 

[smhbbag]

Rev. Buchanan,

Why is it relevant that Adam was formed first? Why should we restrict teaching and authority in the church because God made Adam first?

And why does it matter that the woman, not the man, was deceived? So Eve was deceived...what connection does that have to women not teaching in the church?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

By way of warning us of hasty judgments, I remind all that John Knox wrote: England had no legitimate head in the female monarch Mary Tudor; and he greatly softened his tone as soon as the Protestant Queen Elizabeth succeeded her

Quite right, Bruce. Just also to remind us here that Calvin regarded Knox's ruminations in said volume to be "ravings," the product of "thoughtless arrogance," in his letter to William Cecil, minister to Elizabeth I, sometime in 1559 (Zurich Letters, XV), noting particularly that it's not so simple in a fallen world (as did Matthew).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Afterthought]

If it helps discussion, we can change the terms of the OP from "ought" to "normative," "ideal," or "point of good order." I don't think there are many who would say that headship (whatever the term may mean) applies across the board who do not also believe that headship is a point of good order/ideal, rather than something requiring insubordination in those subordinated to female leadership outside of the Church and family, i.e., I think most that apply headship across the board (based on what I read in the "Gender Roles" thread, where the terms of discussion were "ideal" vs "nonideal") would agree with Rev. Matthew Winzer above that female leadership in the State ought to be submitted to even though female leadership is a point of disorder/non-ideal.

 

[Afterthought]

Those arguing for "headship" to be applied in all spheres, on what basis do you then argue for female independence in her own sphere? And what do you make of applying the principle that woman was created for man if not all women or men are married? And do you hold that women ought not to teach men either (based on 1 Timothy) in any sphere?

Some have claimed that the text is referring to "mankind" and "womankind" rather than "man" and "woman" as individuals, thus arguing for a generic rather than universal headship. On what basis are the terms restricted in that way?


Those arguing that the headship is not universal, on what basis is "man" and "woman" as a principle of creation restricted? The argument requires the principle to be valid in itself in order to be applied to the specific church situation. We also often take the hermeneutic of the Scriptures to apply to other situations, e.g., Jesus' argument concerning "in the beginning" shows us that many things in creation are normative...including marriage as consisting of union between male and female contra same sex "marriage." If we cannot draw out the argument in this case of headship, then on what basis do we restrict it, and when can we tell that we should restrict the broader application of principles in Scripture?

There is also some natural revelation for male leadership among humans: namely, man as provider and woman as provided for. So there seems to be more than special revelation?

 

[Parakaleo]

I do not argue for female independence in her own sphere. My daughters will go from their father's household into their husband's household. Unmarried women should consider themselves still under the headship of their fathers. If the father is no longer living, the unmarried woman should look to her brothers. If she has no brothers, let her seek the oversight and protection of her uncle or pastor. If another man desires to marry such a woman, let him seek the blessing of the man most closely related to her.

A major theme of the first three chapters of Ruth is the suspense concerning whether Naomi and Ruth will be able to come under the protection of a male redeemer. When Boaz accepts this role, he goes to the closest male relative of the women and sought the permission to take responsibility for the property of Elimelech (including Ruth) in the presence of the elders. Boaz didn't ask permission of Ruth or Naomi, but sought the permission of the near redeemer to purchase all that was Elimelech's.

This principle is partially what makes Dr. Moore's article (linked above) so repulsive. Women are protected under headship when they remain submissive to their fathers and regard other men as they would brothers. Women are unprotected when they resist the headship of their fathers and wrongly give it to others (which is not submission at all). Lest anyone remind me that many fathers are wicked and abuse their authority, I would point out that engaging in sin is never proper submission. When Amnon took hold of Tamar, she did not willingly go to him, though he was her brother. She remained submissive in her resistance.

And I do believe Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 2 is grounds to seriously question whether women should be teaching grown men in any sphere at all.

 

[Pergamum]

Last time I checked Isaiah 3:12 was a curse and not merely an indifferent lifestyle option:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths

 

[smhbbag]

Bump:

Rev. Buchanan,

Why is it relevant that Adam was formed first? Why should we restrict teaching and authority in the church because God made Adam first?

And why does it matter that the woman, not the man, was deceived? So Eve was deceived...what connection does that have to women not teaching in the church?

 

[Pergamum]

I do not argue for female independence in her own sphere. My daughters will go from their father's household into their husband's household. Unmarried women should consider themselves still under the headship of their fathers. If the father is no longer living, the unmarried woman should look to her brothers. If she has no brothers, let her seek the oversight and protection of her uncle or pastor. If another man desires to marry such a woman, let him seek the blessing of the man most closely related to her.

A major theme of the first three chapters of Ruth is the suspense concerning whether Naomi and Ruth will be able to come under the protection of a male redeemer. When Boaz accepts this role, he goes to the closest male relative of the women and sought the permission to take responsibility for the property of Elimelech (including Ruth) in the presence of the elders. Boaz didn't ask permission of Ruth or Naomi, but sought the permission of the near redeemer to purchase all that was Elimelech's.

This principle is partially what makes Dr. Moore's article (linked above) so repulsive. Women are protected under headship when they remain submissive to their fathers and regard other men as they would brothers. Women are unprotected when they resist the headship of their fathers and wrongly give it to others (which is not submission at all). Lest anyone remind me that many fathers are wicked and abuse their authority, I would point out that engaging in sin is never proper submission. When Amnon took hold of Tamar, she did not willingly go to him, though he was her brother. She remained submissive in her resistance.

And I do believe Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 2 is grounds to seriously question whether women should be teaching grown men in any sphere at all.

[SIGH]....Russell Moore with another needlessly provocative title of "Women, stop submitting to men...".... This title ranks right up there with "Jesus has AIDS" and the other tweet about Jesus being an illegal alien.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Rev. Buchanan,

I'm sorry for my tardy response, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood any portion of your earlier post.

If it isn't "across the board" (for adults anyway), then there is no "natural" proposition that grounds Paul's argument; but "special revelation" grounds it, particularly that related to creation, vv8-9. When "nature" is brought in, v14, it is as an adjunct, a kind of "(godless) societal admission" that there is some truth (he connects it to "glory" not "submission") even those without special revelation can see.

Paul does not appeal to "the natural place of woman" to ground his argument. But to the revealed order of creation, so as (1Cor.11) to ground explicitly ecclesiastical society through its government as a thing minutely directed by the Word.

I think we run the risk of talking past one another regarding our use of the word nature. I wasn't claiming an argument from natural revelation exclusively, instead I was claiming and argument from what is natural to man (i. e., God's design for humanity). "Nature," in this sense of the word, is most clearly seen in Scripture, though we can learn a great deal about human nature from general revelation as well.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rev. Buchanan,

Why is it relevant that Adam was formed first? Why should we restrict teaching and authority in the church because God made Adam first?

It's relevant to Paul's point, because he speaking to the church about order in the church. And the creation account is a matter of special revelation. That the man (male) alone was created first, and was given instruction of God, and performed the prophet's service of instructor to Eve, who was given her unique substance out of the original undivided human nature--this all speaks to a peculiar role assigned to various "heads" of institutions. It does not say that the class of men is superior to women in any/all spheres of life and human endeavor, or generally superior, or any such thing.

And, the whole matter is one of special revelation. Not one element of this counsel taught by Paul is accessible to men from general revelation. What general revelation teaches mankind as a whole, shorn of its interpretive counsel in Scripture, is perverted on account of the fall to self serving observations of nature's "laws," which in this case typically ends up as some expression of "the law of the jungle." Males, beasts driven by various levels of testosterone and pride, strive everywhere for domination; and if they don't strive for it, it must not be worth anything. "Hierarchy of strength" is not the same thing as "creation order."

Moreover, it is the revealed creation order that establishes a basis for the raising of women generally from a "place among the weak" to co-equal image bearers among men, and for the recognition of the superior competency of some women to some men in this or that. Where men and women respect the order of creation, a culture and civilization can be constructed that does not rely on force attempting a recast of nature, or view female competency as a threat of some kind.

The fallen world in which we live is full of inequities and bad order of every sort; but we can't always tell the difference at some particular point between a fundamental mixup, and people muddling through as best they can under the circumstances. At least in the church we have a foundation for clarity. Jesus is the permanent Head of this Institution. He's put men (exclusively) in the position of his ministers in part to serve as witnesses to his abiding human nature (X&Y) which he chose for himself; and it is "fitting" for males to represent him in his exclusive Mediatorial role. Further, the church (in a fallen world) will model the order of creation in a proper way to a confused population.

The structure of human societies larger than the family is not idealized in Scripture; and men are free to make trial and error of various set-ups, with or without women (or men) approved for this or that position. The Bible was not written to teach men to have or not have secular kings and/or queens, or the benefits of unicameral legislature comprised exclusively of eunuchs. Maybe one or the other of those will work best for some group. But I don't have to wonder what will be best for the church.

And why does it matter that the woman, not the man, was deceived? So Eve was deceived...what connection does that have to women not teaching in the church?

Eve was responsible to her head, Adam, who was both her husband and her prophet. She was deceived away from minding the role she was given for her good. The devil said in effect, "Why don't you try teaching Adam a thing or two about practical religion?" The text says nothing like she was deceived because she was the dumber of the two, or the more naive, or weaker in some way intrinsic to ladyhood (though some have suggested 1Pet.3:7 to this end). That she was deceived is, again, a matter of special revelation: it is WHAT happened as a matter of fact; and it happened as a result of not simply taking God at his (mediated) Word.

And inasmuch as she then turned and deceived Adam, as if she was a teacher and a revealer of truth to him, she challenged the order of creation (all the way up to the Creator). So as a matter of returning religiously under the reign of God and his good order, there must be acknowledgment of this disorder which proceeded from the first woman, and a willing acquiescence to the proper order. But it does not follow that women cannot teach at all (in a school for example), or that they may only instruct other women (there are approved examples of men learning from women in the Bible).

So, again it cannot be that Paul presents an axiom, which being true in and for the church is also applicable semper, ubique, ab omnibus. The things which are now--which are of this world destined to be shaken to nothing--we are not beholden to them to teach us what ultimate good-order contains. Many things pragmatism and good sense give sufficient guidance. And we should be careful about naming as sins all less-than-ideal choices.

 

[smhbbag]

Further, the church (in a fallen world) will model the order of creation in a proper way to a confused population.

So, they should model the order of creation, but then contribute to the confusion of created order by promoting or permitting female magistrates?

Are we to take our firm knowledge that leads to clarity of created order in the church, and then pretend it doesn't exist (and undermine its principles) in the public square?

Moreover, it is the revealed creation order that establishes a basis for the raising of women generally from a "place among the weak" to co-equal image bearers among men, and for the recognition of the superior competency of some women to some men in this or that.

What groups of people, ideologies, religions, etc. are you critiquing? What periods in Christian history do you think denied (in practice, at least) the co-equal image-bearing of women? That seems implied.

Eve was responsible to her head, Adam, who was both her husband and her prophet. She was deceived away from minding the role she was given for her good. The devil said in effect, "Why don't you try teaching Adam a thing or two about practical religion?" The text says nothing like she was deceived because she was the dumber of the two, or the more naive, or weaker in some way intrinsic to ladyhood (though some have suggested 1Pet.3:7 to this end). That she was deceived is, again, a matter of special revelation: it is WHAT happened as a matter of fact; and it happened as a result of not simply taking God at his (mediated) Word.

It should be noted that Paul does not list Eve attempting to teach Adam, nor her deception of him, as reasons. It says that women must not teach because Eve was deceived. The connection to women not teaching must flow primarily from there, rather than transitioning into what she did after she was deceived. That transition slightly aids your argument, but it is simply not in the text. The text says: Eve was decevied, and therefore women should not teach in the church.

So, again it cannot be that Paul presents an axiom, which being true in and for the church is also applicable semper, ubique, ab omnibus.

Can you identify where someone here has said that it does?

 

[Miss Marple]

Is it true to say that women are more easily deceived? We are more naive, more trusting, perhaps more emotionally needy so we fall for lies more easily?

 

[Pilgrim]

Is it true to say that women are more easily deceived? We are more naive, more trusting, perhaps more emotionally needy so we fall for lies more easily?

I seem to recall Lloyd-Jones saying something to that effect, noting that many cults have been started by or eventually led by women, such as Christian Science, SDA, the Shakers, etc.

 

[Afterthought]

Is it true to say that women are more easily deceived? We are more naive, more trusting, perhaps more emotionally needy so we fall for lies more easily?

Since sin is brought about by deception, this would then suggest that women are more susceptible to sin than men. This seems to me an odd conclusion!

 

[MW]

Is it true to say that women are more easily deceived?

No. In Proverbs wisdom is personified as a woman using her intelligence to win men to truth, and falsehood is likewise characterised as a woman who seduces the simple away from what is right. 1 Tim. 2 does not give a psychological profile. It draws on the historical fact that the temptation subverted the created order in addressing itself to Eve, who was not created "first." It is only raised for the purpose of showing why women are prohibited from exercising authority over a man.

 

[smhbbag]

The problem is that the temptation subverted the created order?

So, in this thread, the text means lots of different things (Satan chose Eve to tempt and subverted the order, Eve taught or deceived
Adam, etc) except the one thing that the text actually says, which is that the problem is that Eve was deceived. It means everything except what it says.

 

[MW]

The problem is that the temptation subverted the created order?

So, in this thread, the text means lots of different things (Satan chose Eve to tempt and subverted the order, Eve taught or deceived
Adam, etc) except the one thing that the text actually says, which is that the problem is that Eve was deceived. It means everything except what it says.

I didn't deny the woman was deceived, so I am not sure why you are insinuating there is some attempt to thwart the meaning of Scripture. The point was to see it in context, and the context is stressing priority. It may also be pointed out that the statement draws on Gen. 3:12-13, which indicates the transgression involved a subversion of the created order.

 

[Parakaleo]

From Rev. Winzer:

We can say something is not right and still submit to it under God's sovereign allowance.

Yes, but the problem raised by several in this thread is that we aren't really saying anything about it.

 

[smhbbag]

I didn't deny the woman was deceived, so I am not sure why you are insinuating there is some attempt to thwart the meaning of Scripture. The point was to see it in context, and the context is stressing priority. It may also be pointed out that the statement draws on Gen. 3:12-13, which indicates the transgression involved a subversion of the created order.

You did not deny that the woman was deceived. But, you did deny that the woman being deceived was the reason for women not teaching.

You say that the problem was that the "temptation subverted the created order in addressing itself to Eve."

That would mean that Satan is the reason that women can't teach in the church.

Paul doesn't pin it on the temptation nor on the tempter (as you do) but on the woman. The problem wasn't that the tempter chose her, but that she was deceived. There is a big difference.