fbpx

Navigate / search

Who has the Exousia (Authority) in 1 Cor 11:10? The Man or the Woman?

Head Covering Questions

In 1 Cor 11:10 Paul says that “the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head”. The Greek word behind “authority” is “exousia” and it’s used 103 times in the New Testament. There are two differing views on how to understand “authority” in this passage. The traditional interpretation sees “authority” as belonging to the woman’s husband, which she submits to. The head covering then is a symbol of her place in creation as being subject to man. The modern interpretation sees “authority” as belonging to the woman. The head covering therefore is a symbol of her right to pray & prophesy in the assembly. It is the purpose of this article to help familiarize yourself with both positions, by giving a strong positive case for each view. We will then conclude by sharing which position we hold to. Read more

Share via

What Did Thomas Aquinas Believe About Head Covering?

Head Covering: Church History Profiles

[Series introduction: This post is part of a series that examines what certain leaders in church history believed about head covering. Their arguments, choice of language and conclusions should not be misconstrued as an endorsement from us. The purpose of this series is to faithfully show what they believed about covering rather than only selectively quoting the parts we agree with.]

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was an Italian Dominican friar and priest and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian. He is considered by the Catholic Church to be its greatest theologian and one of the thirty-three Doctors of the Church.
Thomas Aquinas

In the 1200’s Thomas Aquinas published a commentary on the book of Corinthians. It’s a thorough treatment that shows us how he understood head covering and how it was practiced in the middle ages.

To set the stage, Aquinas believed the focus of 1 Corinthians 11 was issues related to the Eucharist, and head covering related to proper dress during this practice. He said “[the Corinthians] erred in clothing, namely, because the women gathered for the sacred mysteries with heads uncovered”. So for Aquinas, head covering was a church issue.

He gave us two reasons to explain what it was that head covering symbolized. The first reason was “because a veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. The second reason he gave was, “to show that the glory of God should not be concealed but revealed; but man’s glory is to be concealed.” So head covering was a symbol that you were subject to another in nature and it was also meant to conceal the glory of man. Read more

Share via

Can Head Covering be limited to Church if the arguments Paul uses apply at all times?

Head Covering Objections
The Objection: Head covering cannot be limited to the local church gathering since the reasons that Paul gives for wearing it apply at all times. He says the the head of woman is the man (1 Cor 11:3) and that women are the glory of man (1 Cor 11:7). These are true all the time, not just during church. Also the angels (1 Cor 11:10b) observe us outside of church as well. Since that is the case, head covering should not be limited to when the church gathers together.

The reasons that Paul uses for head covering (ie. creation order, nature) are permanent and perpetual facts. They apply at all times, to all believers and are not limited to any covenant (new or old). Why then do we believe that during the corporate worship meeting women must cover their heads but afterwards they don’t have to? Some object by asking: “Did the angels stop watching? Are they no longer under male authority outside of church?”

This type of argumentation presupposes that the covering (or lack thereof) symbolizes divine truths at all times. It does not recognize a distinction between its common use 1) ie. protection from the weather, fashion and its symbolic use. They see head covering as applicable whenever and wherever the facts about creation, nature and angels are true.

When we look at head covering in the Scriptures we see two “limitations” that show it is not a perpetual symbol. There are times when a covering is symbolic and there are times when it is not. It is because of this that head covering doesn’t have to be practiced in all situations, even while the permanent facts that Paul appealed to remain true. Let’s take a look at what those limitations are right now. Read more

References

1.
↑ ie. protection from the weather, fashion
Share via

Is the Lord’s Supper the first time Paul dealt with Church Issues?

Head Covering Objections
The Objection: Paul’s teaching on head covering (1 Cor 11:2-16) is not written as instructions for corporate worship. When Paul is done teaching on head covering, he starts speaking of the Lord’s Supper and he says “in the first place, when you come together as a church” (1 Cor 11:18). When he says “in the first place” that informs us that what he dealt with previously (head covering) was not a church issue.

If head covering is for today, in what type of setting should this symbol be practiced? We made the case here that because of the structure of 1 Corinthians 11 and because of how Paul sees prophecy functioning, that corporate worship meetings are in mind. Some argue that when Paul says “in the first place” (1 Cor 11:18), the word “first” indicates a new setting (the local church). Head covering therefore, shouldn’t be understood as a church issue since it was dealt with before he said that.

Let’s take a look at the verses in question together.

But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. (1 Cor 11:17-18) Read more

Share via

Sources, Sources…What are your Sources?

Sources, Sources…Where are your Sources?
bible-transparent

Our Bible is a historical book. It was written thousands of years ago, by many different people who lived in many different regions. Since there are thousands of years that separate us from the Biblical events, Christians will always have a need to understand the past. Though it can be abused, understanding historical settings, cultures and geography can be immensely helpful to us in understanding our Bibles.

When a historical claim is made, biblical commentators usually add a footnote to alert the reader to where they found that information. After all, the commentator didn’t live in Biblical times so the ONLY way they can know about a past time or culture is if they have a historical source (written or archaeological). Sources help us determine what is true about the past and they help us to reject mere speculation and conjecture. Read more

Share via

What Did Ambrosiaster Believe About Head Covering?

Head Covering: Church History Profiles

[Series introduction: This post is part of a series that examines what certain leaders in church history believed about head covering. Their arguments, choice of language and conclusions should not be misconstrued as an endorsement from us. The purpose of this series is to faithfully show what they believed about covering rather than only selectively quoting the parts we agree with.]

Ambrosiaster (4th century) is the name given to the anonymous author of the earliest complete Latin commentary on the thirteen epistles of Paul. The commentaries were thought to have been written by Ambrose throughout the Middle Ages, but their authorship was challenged by Erasmus, whose arguments have proved decisive. Writing during the pontificate of Damasus (366-384), he is a witness to Nicene orthodoxy and often offers comments that reflect his knowledge of how the church had changed from the time of the apostles to his own day. His commentaries offer us insight into the thinking of a pre-Reformation church leader.
Ambrosiaster

Though we don’t know the identity of Ambrosiaster, his commentary gives us access into the mind and beliefs of a 4th century Christian theologian. We’re able to see that head covering had adherents and defenders from the early church and we can see how someone from that era understood Paul’s reasoning in the text. Since Ambrosiaster provides a line-by-line commentary of 1 Corinthians 11, we have a more complete picture of how he understood this doctrine.

First we see that Ambrosiaster was a complementarian. He understood that the structure of authority given in 1 Cor 11:3 did not indicate value or worth, but function. He said “Man is greater than she is by cause and order, not by substance”. The woman should not “be upset because of her state of subjection” and the man should not think “that he has some exalted position”. Read more

Share via

What About Men Like Samson Who Had Long Hair?

Head Covering Objections
The Objection: When Paul said that long hair on a man is disgraceful he must have being speaking about how it was viewed through the eyes of Corinthian culture. He couldn’t have been speaking about all men as those who took the Nazirite vow (like Samson) had long hair and that was approved by God.
Samson

Some object to the view that long hair should be worn only by women due to the fact that some men in the Bible had long hair too. Samson, a “Nazirite to God from the womb” (Judg 13:5) is one such example. His mother was told by an Angel of the LORD that “no razor shall come upon his head” (Judg 13:5). So if the Angel of the LORD told Samson’s mother that he was never to cut his hair, how can Paul say long hair on a man is disgraceful (1 Cor 11:14)? It’s a really good question. I believe this tension can be relieved by understanding that if God commands an exception for a specific purpose, it does not nullify the normal natural order. We can safely arrive at this harmonization by seeing God do this other times in the Scriptures. He has many times, for a specific purpose, told his people to do something that He is against. Let’s take a look at two such examples right now. Read more

Share via
Send this to a friend