This study on the symbol of power is the first major article that I produced as a Christian. The first half of 1 Corinthians 11 so arrested me with its order and subject matter that I was driven to focus on it for some months, which impulse I gladly surrendered to. The glory of this passage made me glad to overflowing; and this gladness was induced by the Lord, I think, because I was grieved that the principles in the passage, and the passage itself, were being neglected and abused. This part of sacred Scripture continues to be passed over or deceitfully treated since the first time that the Lord loved me through it. There is no portion of God’s word that I see more clearly than this one. No portion dazzles me by the arrangement of its revelation more than this one does.
“For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels” (1 Corinthians 11.10.)
The Corinthian letters are epistles of correction that the apostle Paul sent to a carnal, contentious church. Frequently an exasperated tone is noticeable in these letters, as in, “This is the third time I am coming to you…I told you before….” (2 Corinthians 13.1, 2.) There are three easy ways to get a sense of what was going on in this church when it received its letters of correction. We can read the letters. We can read Romans 1, which was written from Corinth, and which is revealing of the sins that were practiced there. Or we can visit a sign-seeking church. The church at Corinth was quarrelsome and disorderly, and allowed licentious behavior to go unpunished.
The disorder addressed in the first half of chapter 11 has to do with disobedience to God’s appointed authority structure. The rule that was being disobeyed is encapsulated by the phrase, ‘power on her head,’ in verse 10. While the KJV’s ‘power on her head’ is the more eloquent way of stating the injunction, the NKJV better conveys the sense with, ‘symbol of authority on her head.’ The matter is best understood, however, as a ‘symbol of subjection.’ The terminology makes little difference because the rest of the passage throws abundant light on the subject. The idea is that the woman should have a token to symbolize that she is under power— under authority. The symbol is the mark by which we may observe that the woman is under power; that is, in subjection to man. Therefore, to state that she needs a ‘symbol of power on her head’ is perhaps the best way to say it, after all. The sense is that the woman should have her head covered in church in order to symbolize her subordination to man. The tradition has to do with church order, which order points to the salvation that Christians have in common. Therefore, it is something that ‘angels desire to look into’ (1 Peter 1.12.) Angels observe what goes on in the world (Job 1.) Especially do they concern themselves with what goes on in God’s Church. The apostles were ‘made a spectacle,’ not only to the world, but ‘to angels’ (1 Corinthians 4.9.) In verse 10 of chapter 11, the power on the head of woman is said to be necessary ‘because of the angels.’ It is one argument out of many that the apostle posits for the continuance of the tradition, which tradition may be simply stated as: Women should cover their heads during church services.
The passage of Scripture that 1 Corinthians 11.10 is in the center of may seem, at first glance, ambiguous. But stare into it for a few months, and a simple message and sublime revelation manifest. The passage begins at verse 2 with, ‘Now I praise you, brethren.’ This is similar to how the next passage begins: ‘Now in this that I declare unto you’ (verse 17.) So the message of correction concerning the symbol of power begins with ‘now,’ which is the same way that the word of correction regarding the Lord’s Supper begins. The correction that comes after that, the one concerning spiritual gifts in chapter 12, begins in like manner.
The passage in question begins with three statements: the tradition is an ‘ordinance’ that we should ‘keep’ (verse 2); it is based on an authority structure that includes Christ and God (verse 3); and it involves every praying man and praying woman (verses 4 and 5.) The statements are followed by a series of arguments in support of the ordinance: the uncovered head of woman is a shame that is comparable to a woman’s hair being shorn (verses 5, 6); God’s glory (the man) is displayed without rival when the woman’s head is covered (verse 7), which argument is bolstered by the creative order of man and woman and the purpose of woman for the man (verses 8, 9); and these facts are important to exemplify because angels are looking on (verse 10.) At this point, in verses 11 and 12, the apostle perceives the need to safeguard against the oppression of woman by teaching her codependence with man ‘in the Lord.’ Then he closes with two arguments more: the symbol of power is consonant with nature (verses 13-15); and the churches of God should not be in the habit of being contentious about what has just been taught (verse 16.)
It has become chic to scoff at any interpretation of Scripture that obliges an act of submission on the part of women, especially since women are so broadly permitted to officiate as ministers these days. What the Scriptures teach, however, is what we should go by, not what fashionable churches do. If the interpretation that is scoffed at is a faithful unfolding of the text in question, what does the scoffer scoff at but what the word of God teaches? And what is that but making fun of God’s word and of God himself? The importance of this passage should be obvious from its placement before, and connection with, the passage on Holy Communion. Respect for the authority structure established by God should precede an orderly Communication of Christ’s Body and Blood. And this is why the tradition is enforced in this place by God’s apostle. Is it not pitiful that some secular women are wearing veils in public to signal their virtue to Muslims, while Christian women will not veil themselves in church for the Saviour of their souls?
The opening statements may be summed up in three points. These are: there is a custom to keep; there is a canon of authority to observe; there is contemptuous worship to avoid or repent of. Each point needs to be remarked on before coming to the arguments, which arguments demonstrate that disobedience to the tradition involves a comparable shame; that man and woman are creatures of glory; that they are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses; that the tradition is consonant with nature; and that the tradition is contested by no other church but the one in Corinth.
No comments:
Post a Comment