Combs, Role of Women in the Church - Detroit Baptist Theological ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12“woman” (gunē, γυνή) can mean “man/husband” or “woman/wife,” it is not clear if Paulis setting forth a principle that involves all men and women generally or just husbandsand wives. For example, the ESV translates the second clause: “the head of the wife is herhusband.” Fung is probably correct to suggest that Paul is “announcing the generalprinciple of headship of man in relation to woman, a principle which finds its primaryapplication and obvious illustration in the specific husband-wife relationship.” 67G. As we have noted, most egalitarians argue that kephalē should be translated “source” inv. 3. They insist that to speak of God the Father as the authority over Christ in hisresurrected state is to speak heretically. For example Payne says:Under the interpretation that ‘head’ mean ‘authority,’ the present tense of estin [“is”] requires thatChrist now in the present time after his resurrection and ascension is under the authority of God. Sucha view has been condemned throughout most of church history as subordinationist Christology. TheArians use this “head as authority” interpretation as a favorite proof that Christ is inferior to theFather. 68It is true that Arianism taught a subordinationist Christology that advocated asubordination of the essence or being of the Son, meaning that Christ was not of the sameessence (homoousios, ὀµοούσιος) as the Father. 69 But most orthodox theologians haveconsistently upheld a proper subordination of the role or function of the Son to theFather, commonly called the economic Trinity. For instance A. H Strong says:Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order ofpersonality, office, and operation….The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an orderof personality, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, andthe Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority….We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the sametime that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination ofessence. 70Kovach notes:Until recently, the doctrine of eternal subordination was questioned by few. From the secondcentury A.D. until today, the orthodox church has held that Scripture teaches the Son’s eternalsubordination to the Father. Almost all recent systematic theology texts that discuss the issue reflectthis reality, including works written by Baptists (A. H. Strong, Gordon R. Lewis, Bruce Demarest),Lutherans (John Theodore Mueller), Anglicans (Edward A. Litton), Arminians (John Miley, ThomasOden), Reformed theologians (Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, Benjamin B. Warfield, William G.67 Ronald Y. K. Fung, “Ministry in the New Testament,” in The Church in the Bible and the World, ed.D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 186.68 Philip B. Payne, “Response” to “What Does KEPHALĒ Mean in the New Testament?” in WomenAuthority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), pp. 126–27.69 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), pp. 244–45.70 Systematic Theology (reprint of 1907 ed.; Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1974), p. 342. See alsoStephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr., “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son,”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (September 1999): 461–76; Bruce A. Ware, “Equal in Essence,Distinct in Roles: Eternal Functional Authority and Submission Among the Essentially Equal Divine Persons of theGodhead,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 13 (Fall 2008): 43–58.
13T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem), and charismatics (G. Rodman Williams). 71H. Even if we supposed that kephalē means “source” in 1 Corinthians 11:3, the parallelismwithin the verse is awkward to say the least. 72 One could say that man is the source of thewoman in that Eve was physically taken from Adam and that she had no existence priorto that time. But how is Christ the source of every man? Adam was not physically takenfrom Christ. We could say that Christ is the source of Adam in the he came into existencethrough the creative work of Christ as creator. But Adam is not the source of Eve suchthat she came into existence through the creative work of Adam. And God the Fathercannot be said to be the source of Christ since he was not physically taken from God theFather or created by him. For egalitarians to say that the Father is the source of Christ isexactly what the Arians taught. But if kephalē means “authority over,” then theparallelism drawn by Paul works well. Christ is the authority over every man, and theman is the authority over the woman, and God is the authority over Christ.V. Conclusions for Ministry Based upon Women’s SubordinationA. Since Paul says that man is the authority over the woman, how does that affect the role ofwomen in the ministry of the church? Obviously, since some functions or offices in thechurch involve the exercise of authority, such as pastor/elder, these would be off limits towomen. This would also include the office of deacon, if, as in many churches, the officeinvolves governing authority. Women would also be prohibited from teaching men sinceteachers inherently exercise authority over their students. But egalitarians argue thisunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 11: 3 cannot be correct since just two verses later in v. 5,Paul, it is argued, permits women to engage in gospel proclamation ministry when hespeaks of women as “prophesying.”B. If we continue with the argument of our passage, in vv. 4–6 Paul draws a conclusionbased upon the principle of women’s subordination affirmed in v. 3. Paul continues inv. 4: “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraceshis head.” Paul begins his discussion with the men. He seems to be setting up hisargument with the women in vv. 5–6 by means of a hypothetical situation. 73 If a manwere to have his head covered when praying or prophesying, he would bring shame to hishead—Christ. This is so because a head covering was what women wore to show theirsubordination to men. If a man wore a head covering, he would be shamefully depictinghimself as a woman. By not conforming to the role God intended, the man bringsdishonor on himself and his authority, Jesus Christ.C. By way of contrast in v. 5a, Paul addresses the women with a sentence that is an exactparallel with v. 4: “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying orprophesying, disgraces her head.” The woman brings shame on her “head” if she prays orprophesies with her head uncovered. “Her head” refers to the man. This means that she71 Stephen D. Kovach, “Egalitarians Revamp Doctrine of Trinity,” CBMW News 2 (December 1996), p. 1.72 See Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective, p. 166.73 Fee, Corinthians, p. 504. It is possible that some Corinthian men may have been actually covering theirheads in imitation of pagan priests who were known to have done so. See Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, p. 122and Gregory J. Lockwood, 1 Corinthians, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia, 2000), p. 366.
Page 1 and 2: 1 Corinthians 11:3 and the RoleOf W
Page 3 and 4: 3or free, there is no longer male a
Page 5 and 6: 5example, the Mickelsens (egalitari
Page 7 and 8: 7entitled Recovering Biblical Manho
Page 9 and 10: 9“source” and “authority over
Page 11: 11husband.” 61 Again, all the ava
Page 15 and 16: 15Scripture which involves preparat
Page 17: 17spiritual gifts. As we have seen,

Combs, Role of Women in the Church - Detroit Baptist Theological ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?