LESSON 16
(11:2-16)

AUTHORITY

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.  3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man in Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.  4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven.  6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but it if is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear veil.  7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.  8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.  9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)  10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.  11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman.  And all things are from God.)  13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to god with her head uncovered?  14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride?  For her hair is given to her for a covering.  16 If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

God, the home and authority– these form the main topic of our lesson text.  It is an interesting but difficult text, for several reasons, such as 10 husband/wife relationships, 2) cultural standards and 3) woman’s place in the local assembly.
Since the situation is as stated above, perhaps a bit of Biblical review would be good in respect to God, the husband, and the wife.  Beginning in Gen. 3:16, God placed the husband as the head of the home.  That principle can be seen throughout the Old Testament record.  It was so with Noah, who served as head of his home, Abraham and his household (Note I Peter 3:6, Sarah called Abraham lord); and throughout the generations unto Moses.  When the Mosaic law was given, the same principle was established, as many texts show (see Deut. Ch. 6 for example).  hence, the principle in our test that the husband is the head of the home has been God’s plan from the beginning; it is not something new or different.  That there is lots of latitude shown in the exercise of this principle throughout the Bible record is true (Proverbs 31:10ff. shows the wife could do lots of things, even “outside” the home).  However, the husband/wife worked it out though, the principle was still there insofar as God’s will was concerned.
From the epistles in the New Testament we can see that God’s will is yet the same.  The texts in Eph. 5:22 and Col. 3:18 are clear.  Regardless of what one does with the contexts in each case, the verses read just the same, and no exegesis is sound that explains them away.  It is true that the husband ought to be so busy trying to love his wife as Christ loved the church that the has no concern about here obedience.  It is still true that the wife is plainly commanded to obey her husband even if he is too busy trying to express his live to her to worry about it.  Obedience is not replaced by love in the home anymore than it is in the rest of the Christian life.  Love is one facet of obedience.  the Ephesian’s text is a beautiful presentation of Christ and the church as a model for the husband and wife.  However, don’t miss this point: Christ is the head of the church and the church is subject to Christ, not the other way around.  In fact, the church is to be totally subject to Christ–there is no 50/50 relationship.  It is true that much latitude in some areas is given the church, but Christ is the one who gave the latitude (i.e., freedom).  So it evidently is to be in the home.  If God has willed the principle under discussion to be so since the home began, He must think it best or it would have been changed (as many other things have been).  If He so wills it, then it is folly to disobey.  It is to our good to be what god desires, whatever that may be, isn’t it?
Having said the above, and even granting it to be so, there are many questions yet unanswered, and some that have no answer at all.  The text in 7:12-16 discussed the problem of “mixed” marriages.  Paul does not discuss how a wife is to react to an unbelieving husband who does not wish her to “do” many things a Christian normally would do, or how to answer such a husband who leads her and/or the children in non-Christian ways.  The questions could be multiplied at length.  I Peter 3 addresses the issue generally, but still leaves some issues unsolved.  Our text in Ch. 11 was written to Christians, and thus within the realm of the possible.  It expresses the will of God.  Hence it is from this perspective that the discussion of the text will be made.  We do not know for sure if it was written in answer to a question from Corinth or because Paul had heard something that prompted the instruction given.
11:2 – I commend you – This may be from Paul, and in contrast to v. 17, or a quote from their letter to him.
the traditions – This term often has a poor connotation in English.  In Greek, the term is paradosis, and primarily meant what had been taught, such as instruction, etc.  In v. 23 and 15:3 the verb form is used.  Consider Mt. 15:2 and II Thess. 2:15.  Anything from a n apostle would fit into the general meaning of the term.
V. 3 – Naturally if Jesus be accepted as one’s lord, then whatever He wills must be obeyed.  He is Master, the Christian is slave.  In respect to the husband and the wife, both should submit with a gladness of heart, in this matter or any other matter.  This verse states the general principle of God for the Christian home.  Note that this principle was taught in every congregation, v. 16.
head – From a word kephal_.  In the Greek literature of the time, the general ideas of chief, supreme, first, prominent were “spin offs” of its primary meaning of one’s physical head (as in v. 4, 5, 10), which “crowns” the physical body and directs its movements, etc.  Jesus is head of the church, Eph. 1:22, and lord of the body.  For other scripture texts containing the word which occurs some seventy-five times in the N.T. see such texts as Mt. 5:36; 14:8; 21:42; Lk. 12:7; Jn. 20:7; Acts 4:11; 18:6; Rom. 12:20; I Cor. 12:21; Eph. 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:10; I Pet. 2:7; Rev. 1:14; 9:17; 13:1, 3; 17:7, 9. 
V. 4 – This verse through v. 14 illustrated the principle Paul wanted them to know, v. 2.  While we may have some difficulty deciding what is an acceptable cultural expression of the principle, our inability to agree does not diminish the intent of God for the Christian home or the church as a whole.  The “line of submission” is clearly stated.  As pointed out above, God simply expressed through Paul what has been true since mankind began.
In respect to the husband/wife relationship, it is not a question of worth or equality that is in issue; it is simply God’s design for the best in the home.
dishonors  – The Greek term is kataischun_, meaning to shame or to humiliate.  Check Lk. 13:17; Rom. 5:5; 9:33; 10:11; I Cor. 1:27; 11:22; II Cor. 7:14; 9:4; I Pet. 2:6; 3:16.  The reason was in Corinth that the covered head meant subjection of some sort.  The Christian man, in the assembly, was not to cover his head, thus giving evidence of the fact that he was “head” of his home, which honored (see v. 7) God’s will for him.
V. 5 – The Christians wife, in the assembly, must reflect submission to Christ in many ways as head of the body.  One of those ways was to have her head covered in some way.
pray or prophesies – Note her activity in the assembly.  This should be kept in mind when 14:34-35 is discussed.
shaven – This evidently represented something to the Corinthians that isn’t explained to us.  Hence, we can suppose it was known to them without further comment given, except that in v. 6.
V. 6 – Not only was the Christian wife to have her head covered, she was also to have hair comparatively longer than her husband.
disgraceful – Akin to the idea in v. 4 about dishonor, this term, aischun_ has the thrust of disgraceful, or immodesty.  It is used in the N.T. with a number or prefixes which intensify the root idea of shame.  For some of the various uses, see Lk. 14:9; 16:3; Rom. 1:16; 5:5; 6:21; I Cor. 1:27; II Cor. 4:2; 7:14; Phil. 1:20; 3:19; II Tim. 1:8; Heb. 2:11; 11;16; I Pet. 2:6; 4:16; I Jn. 2:28; Jude v. 13.
V. 7 – The comparative positions are here expressed in reference to the line of “submission” (God-Christ-man-woman).  Again, the Christians in assembly is in Paul’s mind.
image – From eik_n, as in Mt. 22:20; Rom. 1:23; 8:29; I Cor. 15:49; II Cor. 3:18; 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 10:1.  The idea is that of representation of something or someone.  As God is the supreme being in the universe and Christ in the church, so man is to be in the home.
glory – From doksa.  Used almost 200 time in the N.T., it is often translated with the words honor, ;raise, fame, radiance, splendor, magnificence.  Consider Mt. 4:8; 5:16; 6:2; Lk. 2:4; 5:25; 9:31; Jn. 5:41, 44; 8:54; 12:18, 43; 17:1, 4; Acts 7:2; 11:18; 12:23; Rom. 1:23; 3:23; 11:13; I Cor. 2:8; 10:31; 12:26; 15:40ff.; II Cor. 3:10, 11, 13, 18; Phil. 2:11; 3:21; Col. 1:11, 27; I Thess. 2:6, 20; Heb. 1:3; I Pet. 1:8, 18; 4:16; II Pet. 2:10; Jude v. 8.  In general, the idea is that which should be given to someone (as proper honor, etc.) or a facet of an object or being.  In our text, the Corinthian husbands in the gathered assembly were to be attired without a head covering due reverence to their lord and creator, the woman attired with a head covering in due respect to their lord and creator, and to their husband.
V. 8 – This reference to the account in Genesis one shows the historicity and authenticity to the Genesis record.  The N.T. writers, and Jesus as well, always uphold the Genesis accounts, especially in Chs. 1-11, as having happened just as it is written.  They do not treat them as myths or anything of such nature.
V. 9 – A second point picked up from Gen. 1.  These two verses, viewed in context, reflect the ideas that should be drawn from Gen. 1.
V. 10 – veil – This word is representative of an interpretation of the Greek term, which is eksousia.  NIV has “sign of authority”; N.A.S.B. has “symbol of authority” with “symbol of” in italics to show that there are no words in the Greek text for those two words.  The King James has “have power” to represent the idea.  K.J.V. used “power” an “authority” to translate the same Greek term.  The Greek term was discussed under 6:12.
The woman has the freedom to be herself insofar as the Lord Jesus will allow.  In our context, she is free to do many things as a Christian, but must be veiled (or her head covered in some fashion) to reflect a specific relationship both to Christ and to her husband.  combining v. 7 and v. 10, the husband must show his submission to Christ by not covering his head; the woman must show her submission to Christ and to her husband by covering her head.  In vv. 13-15, the issue of the amount (i.e., length) of hair itself will be discussed, adding information about the acceptable manner to keep the principle in v. 3.
because of angels – This is a problem phrase that has had any number of suggested interpretations.  No one knows for sure what Paul meant about the angels (anymore than what was meant in 6:3).  This much is certain: as angels know who is in authority in the universe and act accordingly, so ought the husband and wife.
V. 11 – This verse (coupled with v. 12) shows that while a certain relationship should exist within the home in respect to authority, that both the Christian man and woman are of God and , as such, are both dependant upon Him.  All that they are or hope to be will be traceable to God.  He created both as Genesis 1 shows, and thus is responsible for both.  From this fact, then, both man and woman should feel that God knows and desires what is best for tem.  Neither should feel independent of the other, but rather both should feel a “oneness” in the home relationships.
V. 13 – Appealing to their own judgment and culture, they are put on the spot to decide how the particular point in question should be handled.  Paul expects them to answer in the affirmative to the questions posed in vv. 13-15.
The problem that is most prominent is the issue of cultural mores in respect to length of hair.  Most cultures then and now have varying hair lengths.  It is doubtful if any general nor could be cited that would establish the fact that men have shorter hair than women show authority/submission.  Hence, the issue was centered around Corinth or Greece and what was considered “proper” there.  If the shorter/longer hair (plus covering) displayed a certain fact in Corinth, then Paul says it should be observed.
V. 16 – Concluding the subject, and referring back to v. 3, the apostle makes the point that the basic principle had been and was being taught as the will of the Lord in every congregation.  Hence, it was to be true in Corinth also.
We draw this conclusion for our own day: the authority/submission line must be known and practiced in every Christian home.  Exactly how it is to be done in today’s society is a moot question.  Just make certain that God’s will is obeyed in this area as in all other areas of Christian life.

	LESSON 16 QUESTIONS

1. 	State in your own terms the principle in v. 3.

2. 	Do a bit of study on your own in regard to this principle throughout Bible history.

3. 	What illustrations or pointers does Paul give to help Christian husbands and wives in Corinth understand and obey the will of God?

4. 	How does the submission of Christ to God parallel the submission of church to Christ and wife to husband?  (Check John 5:19-30; 12:49-50; 14:28; I Cor. 15:24-28).

5. 	In what respect(s) is the submission of the church to Christ an example for the Christian family?

6. 	What “equality” of husband and wife does Paul bring out?

7. 	How are both husband and wife related to God in respect to 1) authority and 2) origin?

8. 	Can the basic principle of God’s will be expressed in every culture despite difference among cultures?

9. 	What point does Paul make in v. 16 in regard to Corinth and other Christian assemblies?