Women (Part 7) - Head-coverings 9/25/08

To be perfectly clear, we must continue the discussion of the questionable doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son – that doctrine which patriarchal complementarians insist upon.

(By the way, I am changing my reference to positions. Rather than traditionalists, I will now refer to those who claim male headship as patriarchal complementarians. Those who find that God does not promote hierarchical order in the Bible I will call biblical egalitarians. I am indebted to Rebecca Merrill Groothuis for these designations. They are more descriptive, and, more importantly, they may be abbreviated more easily as PC and BE.)

The Trinity is always a difficult subject because we will never really get our heads around it, at least, not while we’re here. One essence (being) and three persons is just too much to understand fully. But the reason we hold the doctrine is that the Bible does present certain elements of that Trinitarian construct that we can understand. And those elements begin even in the OT.

I like Benjamin Warfield’s comment about the OT. He says it is like “a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended, and enlarged.”

Although not perfectly revealed in the OT, we find hints of the Trinity. Right at the beginning, in the creation of humanity, God says, “Let us make man in our image” (Gen. 1:26). Though some claim this as an example of the majestic plural, I would disagree. The majestic plural is normally used to speak from a position or office to those outside that office who nonetheless venerate that position. But God, in this passage, was speaking to himself. No others were yet created. The verse, therefore, hints at the unity of the Trinity in operation.

Additionally, the Hebrew OT uses plurals several times in speaking of God (though their translation is usually singular).

Psalm 149:2 – Let Israel be glad in his Maker. (In Hebrew, “Makers”)
Ecclesiastes 12:1 – Remember also your Creator (“Creators”) in the days of your youth.
Isaiah 54:5 – For your Maker (Makers) is your husband (husbands).

And distinction is also provided in such passages as Psalm 45:6-7. “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” Notice that God is the noun of direct address; yet God is said to have anointed this person. Therefore, the verse mentions two that are referred to as God.

The point in this review is that we may discover some things about the Trinity even from the OT, but when forming doctrine, we must be careful not to add in some understanding that is forced on Scripture rather than comes from it. The doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son seems to be a forced doctrine. The doctrine held by PCs today argues that Christ and the Father are equal, but the Son has forever assumed a subordinate position to the Father, who is, therefore, the supreme authority. Its scriptural support is limited to I Corinthians 11:3 and those NT passages that speak of Christ’s earthly ministry attitude of obedience and deference to the Father. Two good examples of this deference are John 5:30 and John 14:28, the latter of which quotes Jesus as specifically stating, “The Father is greater than I.”

Besides this scriptural support, PCs insist that the very names—Father and Son—include an authority/subordination implication.

My arguments against the eternal subordination of the Son include two ontological arguments (arguments of being) and one biblical argument. The first ontological argument is that if Christ has from eternity past functioned in subordination and will also function to eternity future in subordination, there is no real sense in which one can say that he is equal to the Father. The PCs say that he is equal but merely acts in a manner that indicates subordination. But if the Son eternally acts in subordination, subordination is what defines him. He would, therefore, be subordinate. And, therefore, he could not be equal. That does violence to the orthodox understanding of the Trinity as equal in essence.

Secondly, an authority/subordination concept implies two wills—one that submits to another. But by moving the will of God from the one essence to the three persons, you lose the definition of the one essence. Tritheism (the belief in three gods) is that which posits three persons each with a separate will, who yet share common attributes. This is not Trinitarianism. I would think that to maintain the oneness of God’s essence in our thinking, we must maintain the oneness of his will.

The biblical argument against the subordination of the Son is simply this: nowhere does Scripture ever point to eternal subordination of the deity of Christ. Every scriptural reference used by the PCs to promote eternal subordination speaks of Christ in his humanity, not his deity. Even the designations of Father and Son do not appear in relation to each other except in referring to the incarnation. Psalm 2:7 and II Samuel 7:14 refer to David and Solomon respectively, but Hebrews 1 tells us that both these references are prophecies of Christ in his relationship to God in Christ's humanity. And the only reference to God as Everlasting (or Eternal) Father is in Isaiah 9:6, which actually is speaking of Christ!

Philippians 2:5-11 helps us understand the emphasis on the humanity of Christ in the NT. In this passage we see that Christ was in the form of God. That means he was God in all essential qualities of sovereignty, almighty power, and omniscience (among other things). Verse 6 tells us that Christ did not have to hold on to these things as he (v.7) took the form of a servant (became a man). But because he did this—because he limited himself in human form (while still remaining fully God)—he was able to fulfill the old covenant obligation through his perfect life. God, therefore, exalted him (as perfect man and covenant fulfiller) above every other man (all of whom broke the covenant). This is the Christ upon whom focus and attention and emphasis is placed throughout the NT—Christ as the second Adam, the covenant completer. Because of his sinlessness, he is capable of being the pure sacrifice for our sin so that he may apply his righteousness to us who believe—that, of course, is why he must be God as well.

The picture provided in I Corinthians 15:20-28 closes the loop. Verses 20 through 23 review the work of Christ as perfect man. Verses 24-28, however, point to the final completion of this work of the perfect man, Christ. Ever since his resurrection and ascension, he has ruled. All enemies are being place under his feet. Death will finally be subdued as well. At that time, Christ the exalted perfect man and covenant-fulfiller will bring himself (as perfect man) with all that he has subdued to the Father in subjection to him. Notice the reasoning in verse 28—“that God may be all in all.” Understand this concept. Christ is God. Christ is the perfect man. The exaltation and emphasis on the perfect man, Christ, is what will be subjected to God (Father, Son, and Spirit) that the deity of God may be all in all (one and supreme). This is not a picture of eternal subjection of the Son by any stretch. This is the consummation of the work of restoration. The first advent of Christ resulted in the work of redemption. The second advent will end with perfection—our pure relationship with God and God (Father, Son, and Spirit) in His full and complete glory.

Returning to I Corinthians 11, then, we find that verse 3 cannot be seen to designate eternal subordination. But God is the head of Christ in relation to Christ’s humanity. The care relationship metaphor of head and body holds firm in each specified relationship. And the vulnerable party in each relationship is vulnerable precisely because of the sin curse of the world. Christ is vulnerable as he becomes man and goes to the cross to pay for the world’s sin. Man is vulnerable in his subjection to death from sin. The woman is more vulnerable because of the combination of her gender distinctive and the dangers in the sin-cursed world. Paul then uses this tri-part analogy as foundation for the rest of the passage.

The first point we must realize about this passage is that Paul’s purpose is to discuss formal worship. That’s the subject of his next several chapters. One thing that seems to have caused a disturbance to the orderliness and focus of worship involved the issue of head-coverings. Head-coverings were part of the cultures of both Jews and Greeks. Normally, women had long hair, and normally, women wore head-coverings which most likely included veils. But, there does not seem to be much definitive description of what exactly these head-coverings entailed even in secular sources. The purpose for them, however, is fairly certain—they are meant to cover or hide. The wife belonged to her husband in most patriarchal societies. Her beauty or femininity or form, therefore, belonged to him. The head-covering hid it from others. That’s why prostitutes in that day did not wear head-coverings. They wanted to show their feminine allure to attract.

But cultures change and the Greek culture was changing in this regard as well. With the hints of change and with the greater freedom women already experienced through Christianity, the Corinth women reasoned that freedom in Christ meant they were free to rid themselves of these head-coverings. And in doing so, they also came to their worship service in like manner. But although culture was changing, the standard of norm of society still involved head-coverings. We could think of it as the early 20th century when dress lengths were moving up from floor-length to mid-calf. Some people started the trend, more joined, society slowly changed, and finally mid-calf was the accepted norm. Once the accepted norm, few paid close attention to the newly-revealed ankles because every woman showed them. However, back when the change was first occurring, attention was immediately drawn to those once-covered, now-exposed ankles.

The same type of situation happened in Corinth with head-coverings. Paul doesn’t seem much concerned with whether women were wearing head-coverings in normal, daily life. But in worship services it was a concern. Why? Because of the distraction element. And that is Paul’s argument in this passage.

He begins with the absurdity of men wearing coverings. It’s dishonorable, Paul says, for a man to cover his head in worship. The reason, he argues, is because God made man for God’s glory. The man was in a worship service giving glory to God. Head-coverings were things worn to hide something. It would make no sense for man to hide his image, since that image was the very thing that brought glory to God as evidenced by the purpose in creation.

But the woman (specifically Eve) was made from and for the man (Adam). Therefore, her form is the glory of the man. (Look back to Adam’s reaction in Genesis 2 after God presents Eve to him. He is overcome by the glory.) Even though they are equal, Paul argues in verses 11 and 12, the woman’s beauty and form is for him. In a society that practices hiding that form, not to cover it became an attraction. It attracted attention to the woman, and (since the cultural point was that the woman’s form was for her husband) it attracted attention to her husband. And that was disgraceful. Why? Not because it was disgraceful for her head to be seen. Rather, it was disgraceful to attract attention away from God during worship. Paul ends the passage in verse 16 arguing that they don’t have a separate cultural custom in church from that of society. This is the way it is in society, and therefore, women should wear head-coverings so as not to disturb the worship service.

The wearing of head-coverings is not a cultural practice in 21st century America. It does not disturb the worship service sending an anti-cultural message as it did in those days. Therefore, wearing head-coverings now serves no purpose.

That explanation covers all of the passage except verse 10. Verse 10 is difficult because its translation seems faulty. The Greek word exousia in the verse is translated in the ESV as “symbol of authority.” However, the word carries the meaning of power of choice; physical and mental power; the power of authority and right; or the power of rule or government. The translation including “symbol” has been added in order to conform the meaning to an authority by another over the woman’s head. This just can’t be justified in the context of the passage. Contextually, the power of choice or rule seems to be associated with the woman’s government of what she will wear. A better translation, I believe, would be “That is why a woman (or wife) should govern her head….” The last phrase, usually translated “because of the angels” has traditionally been a puzzle. Why must she do so because of the angels? In other passages discussing worship disturbances, Paul never appeals to a purpose of satisfying angels. The Greek word for angels is translated sometimes elsewhere as messenger. I think the sense is that a woman should exercise her power of choice (govern her head) in this regard because by her actions she is a messenger sending a message—through her wearing or not wearing a head-covering—of her concern for the proper focus in worship—a focus on God.

Thus, this reading of the passage incorporates all elements well in concern for limiting distraction and focusing on God within the worship service. Culturally, there is no practice by the church that must violate society’s cultural norm, so the contentious (v.16) cannot insist that freedom means that the woman should shed the head-covering. Paul says to be mindful of cultural practice if its disregard will disturb the purpose of their meeting. But nowhere from beginning to end does this passage argue for the authority of the man over the woman somehow linking it to a presumed authority of God over Christ. Surely, there is a sense in which God has authority over Christ in his humanity and Christ in his humanity has authority over mankind. But that authority—an authority of spiritual requirement in belief and obedience—is not an authority that can be analogized to any child of God having authority over another child of God whether in the relationship of man and woman or husband and wife.