#1 cor

I recently read an article from a Methodist pastor entitled “Can women minister and teach in church?”. In the article, she references John MacArthur’s harsh words to Beth Moore to “go home”, and an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, 14 and 1 Timothy 2 in order to present an affirmative answer. The article comes with the caveat that the views within are her own and not that of the Methodist church. 

I have every confidence that in the years to come, what we know as a “conservative” reading of these texts to present a complementation view of biblical manhood and womanhood will be deeply unpopular and could cause much offence in the culture. Hence, this short article attempts to interpret and explain these two New Testament passages concisely with suggestions for application in the church.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16: Headship in Worship, the Triune God, and Creation

In his first epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul writes with respect to an unknown letter (1 Cor 5:9) in which a series of pastoral issues are raised for his response. He proceeds to address them one by one, including this section on the proper practices for men and women to pray and prophesy in public. Notwithstanding the cessationist view that since the canon is closed and divine verbal revelation is complete, the equivalent of prophecy today is the authoritative act of speaking God’s Word in preaching Christian Scripture, it is clear that both men and women were publicly involved in the worship gathering. 

However Paul’s concern is that this should not undermine the “headship principle”. In fact, scholar D A Carson has observed that in a Greek public meeting women were not allowed to speak whereas in the Christian one, women were encouraged to do so. However, men and women participating in the praying and prophesying of the gathered body should not do so in a way that signalled lawlessness. This would have been laid out in 1 Cor 11:3: “the head [kephale] of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Correspondingly, v7 states that “[man] is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” The “headship principle” lays out the view that as Christ submits to His authoritative head in God the Father, the head of a woman is her husband, and a man submits to Christ who is his head. There is a counter argument that the original Greek word for “head” means “source” and not “authority”. The problem with this interpretation, even as it favours a minority usage of the word over the common meaning, is that if it were the case it would imply that the eternal Son and Father were not co-existent in eternity. This cannot be the meaning of Paul’s writing. Paul was instructing the women of the church to refrain from loud and authoritative evaluation of prophecy in the gathered worship setting with uncovered heads that suggested to the onlooker  that these women were their own source of authority. 

If we feel offended by the idea of a headship principle, two points should be raised: first, what is contributing to the discomfort with submission? Second, do we consider the Son’s submission to the Father humiliating or denigrating (1 Cor 15:28)? It is clear that in Paul’s teaching the Son’s regard for HIs head should also motivate us to think about the trusting, humble submission of wives to their husbands.

Thus from the “headship principle” flows the practical instruction that women should cover their heads as a cultural sign that they honour the authority placed over them as they pray and prophesy, and that men honour their authority by not wearing head coverings. Paul goes on to compare an authority-less woman with her head uncovered like that of Gentile cult prostitutes in the day who had their hair cut short or were shaved.

This arises also from the order of creation in Genesis 2 — man preceding woman in order, and woman for man in necessity — to make the point that the design is purposeful and not reversible. Paul insists that the two need one “in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man of woman” (v11) and thus the two are deeply necessary to one another in God’s design. Yet, Paul stresses that “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (v8-9). In other words, God had a divinely ordained design in mind: one first, one following; one head, one helper.

From this passage we can conclude that: men and woman both participate in public worship, but not in a way that undermines the “headship principle”. This principle draws first from parallels to God’s Trinitarian character and the functional roles within the Godhead, and second, from the order of creation in Genesis 2.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35: Headship in Public Worship and Private Instruction

Paul’s command regarding the silence of women according to 14:34 should be understood in the context of the preceding verses that stress the character of God, not “of confusion but of peace”. 

Thus, in the public worship gathering, women should exhibit the character of godliness laid out in the Law which stresses submission and not behaviours stemming from stubborn insubordination or wilfulness. This would have been especially difficult in the context of judging prophecies, which is the context of 1 Corinthians 14. Rather than singling out women for criticism, Paul is eager to preserve the headship principle in the context of judging prophecies. It is likely that the women in this context were disrupting the proceedings with their loud questions about the prophecies being offered, especially on matters of interpretation. Denny Burk argues from 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 that Paul “means that women may prophesy but that they may not judge prophecies.” 

Instead of this, Paul’s words to these sisters are to seek private instruction and clarification according to their heads instead, who were likely more educated in this cultural context. This would have applied to the judging of prophecies, and arguments about what the prophecies meant and how they should be applied. Notice that in v36 Paul boldly challenges the Corinthians not to assume they were the only ones who received God’s Word through prophetic revelation, since Scripture, written by Paul, is the Lord’s command. For us, even without the benefits of superior education or the gifts of prophecy, husbands as heads of their spouses must embrace the loving responsibility to care for the spiritual instruction of their families especially through the understanding of God’s Word. According to the orderliness of headship in God’s good design then, “all things should be done decently and in order” (v40) both in public worship and private instruction.

1 Tim 2:8-15: Headship in the Church’s Authoritative Teaching

So should women minister and teach in church? Reading 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, the answer seems to be that participation in public worship is not forbidden, but that the principle of male headship should not be undermined according to God’s good design. However, 1 Tim 2 offers us broader insights.

Paul is often accused of miscogyny for his repeated singling out of women and ordering them to be silent as he does here in 1 Tim 2:11. Another way of looking at this charge is that although he has written that in Christ there is no male or female (Gal 3:28), it does not follow that our maleness or femaleness have no implications for how we understand ourselves in the household of God. We do not cease to be male or female. But as has been stated above, Paul has in mind an orderliness that flows from God’s good design. 

1 Tim 2:12 makes it clear that women are not to assume the roles of leadership and teach Scripture authoritatively in the church. Bible teacher Kevin DeYoung writes that “silence, in this text as well as 1 Corinthians 14, refers to the teaching ministry of the church.” In the following passage, the qualifications for an overseer in 1 Tim 3:2-7 make this crystal-clear through the repeated use of the male pronoun “he” that Paul limits the office of overseer or elder in the church to men because of the headship principle applied both the family and the household of God. 

Paul fleshes out the headship principle for universal application by appealing to the Genesis 2-3 narrative. He points out again the order of creation, and then the order of temptation, which supercede and undermine arguments to contextualise the interpretation in Ephesus, or present occasion-specific interpretations. As Adam was first formed before Eve, there is headship principle built into all creation, just as primogeniture recognises certain rights of the firstborn. In reminding us of the order of temptation, Paul illustrates what happens when the headship principle is reversed and Adam followed Eve and thus failed to honour his own head, Christ his God.

Thus, one can conclude from 1 Tim 2 that the roles of pastor and elder as discharging authoritative teaching for the church are limited to men. This is because the headship principle is applied not just to the family, but to the gathered church. 

Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?

absorpta est mors in victoria. ubi est mors victoria tua? ubi est mors stimulus tuus?

The explanation given by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (11:17-34) helps us to understand the meaning of the Lord's Supper. His explanation of the Lord's Supper reveals six major themes.  1. Saving Sacrifice (This is my body): On the night Jesus was arrested and betrayed by one of his close followers to the Jewish and Roman authorities, he broke bread. And as he was doing so, he said, "This is my body which is being given for you."  In the Jewish Passover feast, bread was eaten that was made without yeast. It had been made in haste because they were leaving Egypt in a hurry. In addition, a lamb was slaughtered to avert the angel of death.  The symbolism is now turned in a different direction. The bread represents the death of Jesus for his people. The Apostle Peter says, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God" (1 Pet 3:18). God was justly outraged by our moral rebellion against him. We were under the sentence of death.  Christ died in our place. He was the Passover Lamb who was sacrificed to avert the messenger of death so that we might have life. This is the tradition handed down by Paul in the words, "This is my body which is for you." 2. Covenant (This is my blood): God had made a covenant with his people at Mount Sinai when he brought them out of Egypt. A relationship of love, loyalty and trust had been established. He would be their God, and they would be his people.  This covenant relationship, initiated by sacrifice, had been broken by the people. They had not been faithful to the agreement; they had not followed God's standards for the relationship.  The death of Jesus initiates a new covenant by a better sacrifice -- one that does not need to be repeated. The New Covenant is a better agreement because now not only God, but also his people will be able to keep the agreement.  The cup represents the fact that Jesus died to pay the penalty due unto us for our sins and that through trust in him and in his death for us, we are forgiven and completely pardoned. It speaks of a covenant relationship with God in which he says, "I will be your God, and you shall be my people." 3. Commemoration (Do this in remembrance of me): Some Christians believe that when the minister or priest pronounces the words, "This is my body" and "This is my blood," the bread actually becomes the literal body of Christ, and the wine actually becomes the literal blood of Christ. This teaching, known as transubstantiation, is a misunderstanding of the text for four reasons: a. The words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are to be understood figuratively. When King David says, "The Lord is my Shepherd," he is using a figure of speech, a metaphor. He does not mean that he is literally an animal or a sheep and that the Lord is a sheepherder. He means that his relationship to the Lord is like that between a sheep and the shepherd. If Jesus had meant that the wine becomes his blood, why didn't he use the word "become"? This is exactly what we have in John 2 when Jesus and his mother were at the wedding in Cana, and the text says that the water became wine. b. Second, the Lord's Supper has its origins in the Jewish Passover. This feast was a memorial -- a reminder of the Exodus by the use of symbols. c. Third, the festivals in the pagan religions at this time were also symbolic. It would have required a clear explanation if the Lord's Supper was to be taken literally. d. Fourth, Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." He said this carefully. He said it twice. We eat bread and drink wine as a reminder, not as the literal or real thing. This clearly disproves erroneous thinking. The Lord's Supper is not a new offering of Christ's sacrifice. It is a remembering of the one sacrifice for sin, done once for all.  Furthermore, there is no idea presented that by a physical participation of the bread and the wine a person receives saving grace from God. We receive saving grace by faith, by putting our trust in Jesus Christ. John wrote his gospel that we might believe, and that by believing we might have life (John 20:31). 4. Participation (Community): Paul says that the Lord's Supper is teaching given by Christ and handed on to you (v. 23 plural). The commands "to eat" and "to drink" are in the plural (v. 26). So, this instruction is given to a community, a community of believers, those who are the followers of Jesus.  The covenant binding us to God through the death of Jesus creates a community. By participating in the communal meal, we are bound not only to the Lord Jesus, but also to one another. We have fellowship with Christ in a deep and mysterious way (1 Cor 10:14-21). 5. Expectation (Future hope): Paul commands the Corinthians to continue this ceremony until the Lord Jesus comes. The celebration is one of hope -- certain hope. Jesus Christ will return to this earth bodily and physically.  When he returns, he will judge the earth. He will reward the righteous and punish the wicked. Wrongs will be set right. We will no longer need this reminder then. 6. Proclamation (Evangelism): Finally, Paul says that by performing this ceremony, we proclaim the death of the Lord Jesus. The Lord's Supper dramatizes in symbolic fashion the central facts of the Christian faith and announces these facts to all who observe. In a very simple way, those who do not belong to Jesus can see and understand through these simple actions that the Lord Jesus gave his life for us. Since the Lord's Supper is an expression of continuing in the faith, it follows logically that only baptized believers should participate. By eating the bread and drinking the cup, we are identifying with Jesus Christ as Lord. We are saying that when he died, he died for my sins. When he poured out his blood, it was the sacrificial death that initiated a new covenant -- a new relationship between us and the Creator God. We must recognize or distinguish the body of the Lord. By participating in this celebration, we enjoy deep fellowship with the Lord Jesus. Paul says that just as those who participate in pagan religious festivals are actually participating with demonic spirits, so those who belong to Jesus and who participate are actually involved in deep spiritual participation with Jesus Christ. We must examine and judge ourselves. The ceremony is a way of saying, "I am continuing in my relationship with Jesus Christ." If our behavior is contrary to our confession, we are lying.  If we don't examine our lives, acknowledge our sins and turn from them, we will be disciplined by the Lord. But, we should not abstain from the Supper. We must examine ourselves and then participate (v. 28).