|
|
|
|
1 CORINTHIANS 11:10 -- "...AUTHORITY ON HER HEAD..."
1 Cor. 11:10, fits into a general context of headship established in v. 3 -- "But
I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;and the head
of christ is God." The point pursued by Paul is the relationship between male and female as God designed
it and as it applies specifically to a lack of respect, in some form, to male, spiritual leadership in Corinth.
Whether one takes the position that the covering in this context is artificial (some kind of veil) or natural (hair),
all agree that the specific application to that problem is drawn from a general truth about headship -- man is
head of the woman. Spiritual leadership is clearly ascribed to man.
In harmony with the general theme, v.10, follows specific statements which deal with needed respect for the way
God made things. Verse 8, illustrates the SOURCE of woman's
creation -- "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." Having created man first,
God then took a part of man and from that made woman (cf. Gen. 2:21-23). The very word "woman"
means "of man." Verse 9, then addresses PURPOSE
in that order of creation -- "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
When Adam viewed all of God's creation, there was not found a help suitable for him. Woman was a special
creation as a suitable companion for man.
Then, verses 11-12, follow the thought in v. 10, and demonstrate the interdependence of male and female.
In the original creation woman came from man but the natural process of "procreation" makes
man dependent upon woman, for he gets his existence "through" (dia - Gr.) the woman. The interpretation of v. 10, must fit into the immediate setting (vv. 8-9 & 11-12)
and agree with the general context established in v. 3.
Now look at v. 10 -- "For this cause" (KJV), is a translation of the Greek words "dia touto" which literally mean "therefore." The word
"therefore" connects back to the preceding statements that established that woman was created FROM man and FOR man.
From those endowed truths, Paul affirms that the woman should have "authority" (KJV, "power"
from the Greek word "exousia") on her head.
If one takes the position that the covering is an artificial covering, then the wearing of that head attire was
a recognition of man's headship and authority over the woman. If, on the other hand, the woman's covering
is "long hair," then the male-female distinction is maintained naturally and she shows by her long hair
a recognition of man's headship over her.
I believe that the natural covering is under consideration in the context because of v. 15 -- "...her hair
is given her for (Gr. "instead of") a covering (Gr. "peribolaiou" -- "an artificial covering). But if, as some affirm, an artificial covering was worn in that
time as a sign of woman's recognition of man's manhood and leadership, then the hair still signifies something.
According to Paul's statement men are to wear short hair and women are to wear long hair. Why? It is a natural
demonstration of male-female distinction and a recognition of proper headship. You might ask why, in our
culture at this time, mannish haircuts are so popular among women? To a great degree, style merely mirrors
cultural concepts and attitudes.
The last part of v. 10, is a little more difficult. Paul says that a woman is to have authority on her head
"because of the angels." Why? What do angels have to do with a woman's demonstration of man's
spiritual headship? One must conclude that there was something about the angels from which Paul draws a comparison
about position or rank -- the point being made must conform to both the general context and the immediate context.
Two conclusions are plausible. Either this is a negative example -- some angels did not keep their proper place;
hence, experienced serious consequences for being out of place. Or, there is a positive reinforcement of
headship illustrated in angels who conduct themselves according to God's order of their creation. Since Paul
seems to be addressing a problem about woman's lack of respect for male-female distinction in God's order, it appears
to be more sensible to me that Paul is seeking to impress the seriousness of women not recognizing male spiritual
leadership.
If that is the thought pursued, then Jude 6 gives us some insight -- "And the angels which kept not their
first estate (Gr. "arke" - "rule"),
but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great
day." God created angels with some form of order and rank -- Michael is called an "arch" angel
(Jude 9). These angels did not keep that order, hence were cast down into "tartarosas" ("hell"
KJV). They, therefore, serve as a warning to women who do not keep a proper submission to and distinction
from the man.
If an artificial covering is under consideration in this context, the mere adornment itself would not prove woman's
recognition of headship. Or if the covering is a woman's hair and she wore it properly in distinction from
man, it could be merely a facade. However, in either case, the absence thereof would clearly demonstrate
a disregard for God's distinction between male and female and His choice of male, spiritual leadership.
|
