April 29, 2016  1 Corinthians 11:1-22

Our discussion group was about halfway through our time together when one member asked the question crucial to interpreting a passage like this:

“Is there a distinction between timeless truth and time-bound (or cultural) truth?”  That question opens many others.  Are both legitimate categories?  Is there a way to tell the difference?  How binding is “cultural truth” (if there is such a thing)?  Both “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and “Let a woman cover her head” are in the Bible.  Are we justified in interpreting and applying them in different ways?

While we didn’t address that group of questions directly at the beginning of our discussion, we did try to avoid too much initial chaos by using a simple hermeneutic (or interpretive) guideline.  Read a difficult passage like you eat a piece of bony fish.  First concentrate on the meaty parts, then go back to pick at the bones.[1]  Likewise, in a passage with this much potential for confusion it can be helpful to start by noting anything in the passage that at least seems clear on the first reading.  Then (hopefully) those lucid parts will help with the more murky verses.

The result of postponing the most perplexing statements in the text yielded several points of relative clarity in Paul’s instructions:

• Christ is the head of every man (although we later discussed the meaning of “head”) (v. 3).
• Woman was created from man (v. 8) and woman was created for man (v. 9).
• Men and women are not independent of each other (v. 11).
• Everything originates from God. He us our source (v. 12).
• The Corinthian church was experiencing divisions related to the Lord’s Supper (v. 18). (We deferred discussion on this topic until next week.  Including it in the reading for this week was intended to provide some continuity of context between the two parts of Paul’s teaching.)

That brief list displays that even the “meaty” parts of fish can exhibit boniness.  What are the implications of the clear distinction between the genders (v. 8-9) and their equally important mutual interdependence (v. 11)?  How is the word “head” (used of Christ and of God and of man) interpreted?  Is it exactly the same meaning in all three statements?

The thread through this passage is gender and how it affects our relationships with one another, as well as our relationship with God.  Clearly this is a sensitive (and volatile) topic in our day.  It is likely to have been equally sensitive (and equally volatile) in Paul’s day, but for opposite reasons.  Many people in our culture have an instant knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion of differences between the genders, or any limitations or restrictions based on gender.  Paul’s original readers may have had an equally strong reaction to the radical idea of equality of the genders, or that there could be joint participation in any public activity (like praying and prophesying).  With that in mind, the questions become:  What can we learn from this passage about gender?  How does gender affect our worship in the church?  And what does hair length and head covering have to do with it?

Paul begins theologically, with the relative relationships between Christ and men,[2] and men and women, and then between God (presumably the Father) and Christ (v. 3).  The order is interesting, since it would seem to make sense to start with God and Christ, then Christ and men, then with men and women.  Perhaps Paul saves the “God is the head of Christ” for last as the basis for what he has said in the first two relationships.

We know (or at least we think we know) how Christ is the head of every man:  authority, obedience, submission, worship are the words that come to mind when we think of Christ’s headship over any particular individual man.  But if we apply that same grid of characteristics to the next statement, “man is the head of a woman” we may be making an interpretive mistake.  We would impose inappropriate factors (worship, for example) on the relationship of a woman to a man.  Paul waits until the end of the three relational descriptions in order to correct that potential error.  God is the head of Christ, and Christ willingly and joyfully obeyed the Father, fulfilling the mission the Father gave the Son.  Throughout the Gospels the focus is on the willing submission of Jesus to the will and work of the Father.  The mutual loving relationship between the Father and the Son is the model Paul uses to illustrate the Christ/male and the male/female idea of headship.  Lest we men distort our submission to Christ into a servile duty, and then we impose that expectation on our relationship with our wives,[3] Paul shows us the Father/Son relationship as the model.

Immediately after this three-fold theological description of head relationships, Paul launches into what seem to be cultural details.  He is emphatic about distinctions between the genders, particularly in matters of appearance (head coverings and hair length, vv. 4-7, 10, 13-15).

The “However” in verse 11 seems to mark a transition.  The clear distinctions Paul makes between the genders are not the ultimate characteristic of how men and women are to relate.  Because God is the common source, there is a shared dependence on Him and a mutual interdependence on each other.  The apostle takes it for granted that women (as well as men) will be praying and prophesying as they participate in worship together.  He affirms their equal standing before the Lord and equal participation in church gatherings.  His initial concern seems to be about confusion between the genders.  A woman with unusually short hair v. 6b) could be mistaken for a man.  A man with long hair (v. 14) could be mistaken for a woman.  In addition, a woman with uncovered hair, in that culture, would be a potential distraction.  Uncovered, loose hair was often an indication of “undisciplined sexuality”[5] or questionable morals.

Paul seems to be describing cultural norms (maybe even the current styles) as shorter hair for men and long hair for women, usually covered for the sake of modesty or propriety.  Church members following those standards are less likely to cause either distraction or gender confusion in a worship service.  The distraction and confusion would take the attention away from the intended focus of worshipping God.  The “timeless truth” seems to be just that:  Even in your freedom in Christ, don’t do anything that will distract or interfere with another believer’s worship.  That sounds like another application of a principle Paul has stressed earlier in this letter:  Don’t do anything that would cause a brother to stumble (8:13).  The “time bound” truths about specific hair length and head coverings are not the main point.  It is unfortunate that they have caused so much turmoil in churches over the years.  (I wonder if the turmoil in some modern churches is more of a distracting stumbling block than the hairstyles.)

One member of our group pointed out a current example of head coverings for men.  We are expected to remove hats during the Pledge of Allegiance or the Star Spangle Banner.  Even today, somehow that tradition has survived as a sign of respect or loyalty.  Perhaps that is similar to what Paul exhorted the men of Corinth to recognize as a display of their submission to Christ the Head.

Our discussion certainly did not exhaust everything in this passage (not that we ever do).  In our brief time together we didn’t even answer all the questions that were brought up:  How do traditions fit into what Paul is saying (v. 2), and exactly what traditions are involved?  What does he mean about angels (v. 10)?  Why does he say that man is the image and glory of God (v. 7) when Genesis describes the image as “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27), implying that both genders are needed to reflect God’s image?  How does nature teach us about appropriate hair length (v. 14-15)?  (Not answering all the questions is not a bad thing.  With the inductive study method, if you have answered all your questions by the end of the study, you probably didn’t ask enough questions.)

Perhaps one of the most helpful parts of our discussion was back to the question, “How do we distinguish timeless truth from cultural issues?”  That may seem like an academic question, but it is as timely as recent trends about gender in our own culture.  The support of same-sex behavior is not limited to liberal churches that have long ignored the Bible.  There are seemingly sincere evangelical believers who want to follow the Scriptures, but who see commands against homosexuality as part of ancient cultures.  If we have grown in our knowledge of sexuality and gender, they would say, then we can recognize the time-bound nature of those commands in Leviticus and Romans and elsewhere.  If we can disregard commands about hair length, can we also ignore commands about homosexuality?  If we adhere to prohibitions about same-sex behavior, must we also enforce hair length standards?  Recognizing timeless truth and time-bound truth in the Bible is very relevant for today.  Efforts within churches to approve same-sex behavior cannot be dismissed simply by saying that they don’t believe the Bible.  Instead, we need diligent Bible study (like the inductive method) and a clear understanding of how to recognize timeless truth in order to engage that debate.

Our group suggested several criteria for distinguishing timeless truth – truth that applies to our day just as much as it did millennia in the past.

• Other Scripture – Is the issue mentioned in other parts of the Bible? How is it handled in different passages?  What common threads are there when the topic is considered in Scripture?
• Church Teaching – Paul starts this passage with an affirmation of “tradition” – a word we usually minimize or even belittle. We have another two-thousand years of tradition and accepted practice to consider.  Reading what Irenaeus or Augustine or Calvin or John Owen (my favorite Puritan) said about any topic can be instructive.  Church history is by no means equivalent in authority to the Bible.  However, most of those believers (pre-internet and pre-television) spent a lot more time studying and thinking about a variety of topics.  Their conclusions might be worth considering.
• Theological Perspective – In the midst of his practical instruction about first-century hair length, Paul alludes to both the Trinity (v. 3c) and the order of Creation (vv. 8, 9, 12). Generally, when an argument is tied to theologically central truths such as those, we need to pay attention.  The affirmation of gender equality and the rejection of gender equivalence both flow from Paul’s theology.  The more we understand of the theology supporting the truth, the better we will understand its timeless nature.
• God’s Story – The Bible is not a rule book, or an instruction book, or a self-help book; it is a story book. God’s self-revelation is the story He is telling about Himself and His work and His plans.  The story is about Creation and the Fall and Redemption and Glorification.  How does the part of the story in a particular passage (like a discussion of gender and hair length) fit into and form a part of God’s larger story?   S. Lewis describes a similar process with the analogy of a segment of a novel or a symphony.[6]  How does it match the rest of the book or music?  Does it fit with the themes of the work?  Does it help us understand other parts better?  Those kinds of questions can help us see how timeless truths form a part of God’s story, while cultural or time-bound details are not the core of the story.  This is the most subjective criterion and should be subordinate to Scripture, church tradition, and theology.  But recognizing the story God is telling can be an important part of seeing how the various truths fit together.

 

[1] The image is unforgettable.  Unfortunately the source is not.  If I could I would cite the reference.  If you know it, please send it to me.

[2] One question that came up in our discussion that should be clarified.  Throughout this passage when the English translation refers to “man” or “men” the word used is “male” (aner, ἀνὴρ) not the more general word that can be used of “person” or “mankind” or “men and women” (antrhopos, ἄνθρωπος).  That term is used later in the passage (v. 28) regarding self-examination related to Communion which applies to all Christians, regardless of gender.  In the current passage, Paul is clearly making the distinction between males and females.

[3] The second part of the three-fold sequence (“the head of a woman is the man”) is referring to “the man” (singular) and “a woman” (also singular).  This statement is not some general authority of all men relative to all women, but the relationship between a man and one woman, presumably his wife.

[4] The punishment for an adulteress or prostitute.  See Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 829.
cf. Numbers 5:18 relating a woman’s hair to public disgrace.  See Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 509.

[5] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 829.

[6] C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York:  The Macmillan Company, 1968), 113.