1. Prayer: The Ultimate Weapon

Article contributed by Probe Ministries
Visit Probe's website

Abstract

Prayer is exciting, vibrant communication with God. The goal of prayer is intimacy with God. The power of prayer is not found in the feelings, intonations, volume, or vocabulary that we conjure up. The power is not in us; it is in God.

Related Topics: Christian Life, Messages, Prayer, Spiritual Life, Women

11. Are Women Second Class Citizens? (Part IV – Questions Answered)

Related Media

1 The words of King Lemuel, an oracle that his mother taught him: 2 O my son, O son of my womb, O son of my vows, 3 Do not give your strength to women, nor your ways to that which ruins kings. 4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to crave strong drink, 5 lest they drink and forget what is decreed, and remove from all the poor their legal rights. 6 Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those who are bitterly distressed; 7 let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more. 8 Open your mouth on behalf of those unable to speak, for the legal rights of all the dying. 9 Open your mouth, judge in righteousness, and plead the cause of the poor and needy. 10 Who can find a wife of noble character? For her value is far more than rubies. 11 The heart of her husband has confidence in her, and he has no lack of gain. 12 She brings him good and not evil all the days of her life. 13 She obtains wool and flax, and she is pleased to work with her hands. 14 She is like the merchant ships; she brings her food from afar. 15 She also gets up while it is still night, and provides food for her household and a portion to her female servants. 16 She considers a field and buys it; from her own income she plants a vineyard. 17 She begins her work vigorously, and she strengthens her arms. 18 She knows that her merchandise is good, and her lamp does not go out in the night. 19 Her hands take hold of the distaff, and her hands grasp the spindle. 20 She extends her hand to the poor, and reaches out her hand to the needy. 21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household, for all of her household are clothed with scarlet. 22 She makes for herself coverlets; her clothing is fine linen and purple. 23 Her husband is well-known in the city gate when he sits with the elders of the land. 24 She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes. 25 She is clothed with strength and honor, and she can laugh at the time to come. 26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, and loving instruction is on her tongue. 27 She watches over the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness. 28 Her children rise up and call her blessed, her husband also praises her: 29 “Many daughters have done valiantly, but you surpass them all!” 30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who fears the Lord will be praised. 31 Give her credit for what she has accomplished, and let her works praise her in the city gates.¹

Introduction

I was called upon to perform my civic duty by reporting for jury duty. When I was called for a particular panel, questions were asked of panel members both collectively and individually. In the course of the jury selection one of the attorneys asked the panel if any of us had a problem with lawyers (that brought to mind a whole litany of lawyer jokes), or with the trial process. A man in the back responded, “Yes, sir.” The lawyer asked the man to clarify his concerns. The man’s response went something like this:

“Something just seems wrong with the whole process. Here we are, sitting in court all day long, and you give us six bucks. There you are, being paid big bucks. There you are, sitting in your comfortable leather chair. Here we are, sitting on these hard wooden benches. Something just doesn’t seem right about that.”

Needless to say, that man was not selected for duty. (I must remember his words for future reference.) But one can see his point of view. For some (lawyers in particular), trials can be very rewarding. For others, it would seem that they get the short end of the stick. And so jury duty is just that, a duty which we endure. (Even the judge who dismissed the remainder of the jury panel told us we had “dodged the proverbial bullet.”)

My point here is not to protest against lawyers or against the jury system. It is no doubt the best system known to man. I tell this story not only because it is humorous, but because it expresses (to one degree or another) the way some women feel about their circumstances. In the words of the jury panelist, they think they are getting $6 a day and sitting on oak benches while the men get the big bucks and sit in cushy seats.²

When I say “some women” feel they have gotten the “short end of the stick” I must quickly follow up by making it clear that I have not heard this from any of the women in our church. The response to these messages (as well as to our practice over the past 31 years) has been consistently and enthusiastically positive. There has been no debate regarding the interpretation of Scripture on these issues, only a desire on the part of the women to understand the Scriptures so that they might fully obey them. Some have wondered where to draw the lines, and a few have even inquired as to whether or not we have gone far enough in our application of Scripture. What a wonderful spirit I have seen among our women and I praise God for this, and for each of them.

The Necessity for This Lesson

There are a number of reasons for this lesson, in which I will attempt to answer some of the questions that have been raised as a result of my teaching on the ministry of women in the church. There are many who strongly oppose the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the ministry of women in the church. Most would not consider themselves evangelical Christians. But some would. In this lesson I’m not concerning myself with those who oppose the teaching of Scripture. I do greatly respect those who have a personal faith in Christ, a high view of Scripture, and a commitment to obey God’s Word in regard to the ministry of women. Some of them hold to a somewhat different interpretation of the texts we have considered, or they have reached the conclusion that these texts should be applied differently. In other words, there are legitimate questions which should both be asked and answered.

Furthermore, the elders have determined not to make matters like “head coverings” a test of piety or of submission (either to husbands, or to the elders of our church). Indeed, we should make it clear that some of the elders and their wives have reached conclusions different than mine, or other elders. Because I greatly respect the wisdom and spiritual commitment of my fellow elders and their wives I must take their positions into account, and I need to try to convey those things which we all agree upon, and those where there is disagreement. What we are most concerned about it the heart attitudes of people in our church. We do not want mere compliance; we desire heartfelt obedience to God’s Word, realizing that this may take somewhat different forms within or outside our church.

If I have not said it clearly enough before this, one of the reasons that there are questions to be answered is that some decisions are necessary, but also arbitrary. Whether or not a woman wears a head covering in church is really a personal decision that doesn’t have a significant impact on others (unless, of course, the woman decides to wear a large hat, which obscures the view of those sitting behind her). But there are decisions that the elders must make that impact nearly everyone. Can there be women elders? Can a woman preach? Can a woman sing a solo? Can the women call out a hymn, share a prayer request, or pray in the church meeting? These are decisions that will have to be made, and some of them (Can a woman sing a solo, or share a prayer request?) can be arbitrary. With these things in mind, let us press on to deal with some questions that have been raised.

Questions and Answers

Questions About Head Coverings

The most frequently asked questions have been about head coverings. In our congregation the issue of the submission and silence of women is not hotly debated, but graciously and gratefully embraced. Questions about head coverings do not originate out of a spirit of debate, but rather from a sincere desire to understand the interpretation and application of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Questions also arise about head coverings because the elders have chosen not to make this the focus of our teaching or practice regarding the ministry of women in the church. In short, we have not told our members what to believe or what they should do regarding head coverings. Thus, questions abound.

Let me observe as a kind of footnote that I find it fascinating to observe how much interest egalitarians have in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Really their interest is only in one verse, verse 5:

But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head (1 Corinthians 11:5).

This is because they hope that verse 5 will give them some support regarding the public ministry of women in the church, and this is spite of the clear teaching of Paul, especially in chapter 14. And while they make much of verse 5, they quickly turn away from what follows in verses 6-16. I would simply say that if you are going to build a case on the basis of one verse in chapter 11, you have been not cast aside the rest of the paragraph. You can’t have it both ways.

Question one: Why have the elders not made head covering a matter of policy (i.e. a requirement)?

Submission is the substance, silence (in the public meeting) is the application, and head covering, at best, is a symbol. As I mentioned earlier, whether or not a woman covers her head has very little impact on the church. Whether or not a woman is silent has many more implications. Submission and silence is at the heart of the New Testament teaching and practice; head coverings are more peripheral. This is not to say that Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 should be ignored. It should be taken seriously, but we should also expect that women may apply it differently. When they do so for good reasons, and with a proper spirit, we find that sufficient. Those who brush this text or the subject aside without giving it due thought are not taking Scripture seriously enough.

Question two: Why don’t all of the elders’ wives wear a head covering?

The answer to this question is simple: because not all elders or their wives interpret or apply 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 in the same way. This is an important point. I have previously indicated that verses 1-16 may not refer to the church gathered – something that is clear in the next paragraph.³ Some who I respect greatly believe that in the church meeting a woman demonstrates her submission by her silence. They believe that a head covering may be more appropriate when a woman is teaching (children or women), and thus she is not silent. There are also those who are reluctant to wear a head covering in church because they fear that it will produce the opposite effect than what Paul was teaching. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul taught that a woman was to cover her head (including her hair) to veil her glory. She was to do this to avoid drawing attention to herself and to keep the focus on her husband. But in our society women don’t wear a head covering. In some churches if a woman wore a head covering she would actually be drawing attention to herself.

While I am still personally persuaded that a woman should wear a head covering in church, I would not impose my convictions on others, including my wife. She does wear a head covering because that is her personal conviction. But when others do not wear a head covering, or wear it in some other context, I respect their decision and understand that there are other factors to consider.

Question three: What would a proper head covering be? Could this be a hat, or a veil? Does a woman’s own hair serve as a sufficient covering?

I believe that Paul teaches women to veil that which is their glory, so that they are not the focus of attention. In 1 Corinthians 11 it is a woman’s hair that is in focus, and this is one source of glory for a woman.⁴ Paul says that a woman’s hair is a covering, and this is true in the sense that it covers what would otherwise be a bald (and thus shameful)⁵ head. When Paul speaks of a woman’s hair as a covering he does so to make a point of her need for a covering. But he is not arguing that her hair is a sufficient covering because he argues that it is a part of her glory.⁶ Thus, long hair doesn’t suffice, in my opinion.

So what does suffice? In short I would say “something that covers a woman’s hair that does not, in and of itself, draw attention to her. A gaudy hat, for example, would not be an adequate “covering.” It would circumvent the purpose of the covering. The women in our church who cover their heads usually do so with some kind of scarf, and a few may wear a hat.

Question four: How long should a woman’s hair be? Can a woman cut her hair?

It think that it is quite clear in 1 Corinthians chapter 11that Paul is talking about long hair. It is shameful, Paul says, for a man to wear long hair.⁷ It is a woman’s glory to have long hair.⁸ So how long is long enough? I would let this text in Deuteronomy serve as a clue:

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man dress up in women’s clothing, for anyone who does this is offensive to the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Trust me, I’m not eager to get into the issue of women’s clothing here. But it seems to me that this text in Deuteronomy is instructing Israelite women to look like women in the way that they dress. So, too, with the men – they are to dress like men. When you see a person walking down the street, you should be able to tell whether they are male or female. I would apply this same principle to one’s hair. One’s hair should distinguish a woman as a woman, or a man as a man.

O.K., I’m going out on a limb here. I believe that we live in a day when our culture is seeking to obliterate the distinctions between men and women, between male and female. I think this is wrong, and contrary to God’s Word. And thus, I likewise oppose the translation of the Bible in a way that seeks to do away with gender distinctions. I realize that there are impressive advocates of this approach, but I disagree.

Question five: When should a woman cover her head?

Assuming that a woman is convinced that she should cover her head, when would this be? Those women in our church who wear a head covering usually do so during the Lord’s Supper meeting. Most do not seem to cover their heads during the Sunday school or elective classes, or during the preaching. Some women have asked if we are not going far enough. They wonder if they should wear a covering for the entire morning. I think that I’m inclined to agree with those who cover their heads for the entire morning.

Part of this has to do with how we define Sunday Morning. The church from which Community Bible Chapel was birthed (Believers Chapel) had four preaching services on Sunday morning. The Lord’s Supper was observed on Sunday evenings. This evening meeting was viewed as the “meeting of the church” where the men who were led of the Holy Spirit took leadership in the meeting (by calling out a hymn, passing out the elements, teaching, etc.).

The problem (as we saw it) was that only a small percentage of those who attended on Sunday mornings came on Sunday night. We believed that the “meeting of the church” – the open worship meeting during which we partook of the Lord’s Supper – was the most important meeting of the week. When we started Community Bible Chapel we moved the “meeting of the church” to Sunday mornings, alongside the preaching and teaching service. Frankly, we tried to make it hard for folks not to attend the Lord’s Supper. And it has worked! But we never meant it to be assumed that the Lord’s Table portion of the morning was the entire “meeting of the church,” and thus that the preaching and teaching was a separate function. I consider the entire Sunday morning gathering to be the “meeting of the church,” and thus wearing a head covering for only a portion of the morning does not seem sufficient. Once again, I express my point of view and leave it to the women to decide when (or if) they will cover their heads.

Question six: Are the restrictions we find in the New Testament for married women only, or do they apply equally to single women (whether unmarried, widowed, or divorced)?

As I understand the matter, the fundamental principle is that of submission. In a number of biblical texts (1 Corinthians 14:35; Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Peter 3:1-7) the issue of submission is dealt with specifically in the context of marriage. Thus, we see that a good deal of Paul’s teaching about the ministry of women in the church is addressed to wives. But there are also a number of texts (1 Corinthians 11:1-16; 1 Timothy 2:8-15; Titus 2:3-5) where the focus is more related to gender, and thus we see that the application is to single women as well as to married women.⁹ It would be silly to say that a married woman could not preach but a single woman could. So, too, with being an elder. Thus I believe that the submission and silence of women in the church is that of all women, and not just married women.

Question seven: Then how can a single woman share their needs with the church?

My answer would be, “The same way married women do; by sharing it with a man (in the case of the married woman, this would almost certainly be her husband).” Women who have special needs for prayer simply convey these to a man before the service and they (at the man’s discretion) are shared with the church body. I know that some women have asked their husbands (or a man nearby) to call out a particular hymn. It is, of course, the man’s decision as to whether or not he will do so. But I must confess that I believe women should trust God to lead through the men, without prompting by the women.

Question eight: What about asking questions in church?

Paul’s words are quite clear in 1 Corinthians 14:35. He says that a woman’s silence includes questions. She is to wait and ask her own husband at home. The purpose, I believe, is clear. By asking questions of her husband at home the wife is encouraging her husband to lead. Bypassing her husband is thus counter-productive. I am not overly paranoid about answering a question or two after my sermon. Often the husband and the wife are together at the time. But the wife should always strive to keep her husband in the lead.

Question nine: Are there deaconesses in the church?

Egalitarians are more eager to try to prove that there are women elders in the New Testament, but some will settle for an office of deaconess. The Greek noun diakonos is found quite often in the New Testament, but only three times is it rendered “deacon.”¹⁰ The term is found in a feminine form in reference to Phoebe in Romans 16:1:

Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1, emphasis mine).

This rendering “servant” or “minister” (in a non-clerical sense) is the most common way of translating the Greek term diakonos. There is no reason to assume that in Romans 16:1 it is a technical term for “deaconess.” And remember that in 1 Timothy chapter 3 the qualifications for a deacon assume that deacons are men:

11 Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect. 12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households (1 Timothy 3:11-12).

It therefore strikes me as most unlikely that there is an office of “deaconess,” and if there were it would be a function where women submitted to men, and not the reverse.

Question ten: What about hymns and books authored by women?

I just so happens that today in our services we have sung at least two songs written by women. The fact that most of you did not note that the author was a woman is probably significant. Personally I have no problem singing a song written by a woman, or reading a book authored by a woman. Anyone who has seen the books I have read knows that I don’t assume the writer is an authority. I often cross out statements I disagree with, or write a note of dissent in the margin. Thus I do not see this as a position of authority over men.

Comments

(1) Remember that most of the ministry of a church takes place outside of Sunday morning, and outside of the walls of the church building.

It would be wrong to assume that most of the ministry occurs within the walls of the church on Sunday (or Sunday and Wednesday). God has gifted certain men (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers) to build up the body so that it can carry out the “work of ministry” (Ephesians 4:11-12). Very few people have a prominent leadership role in the church, men included. The ministry takes place outside the church, as the church takes Christ to the world. (Strangely, in our day it is expected that the world will come to the church.) Thus, some restrictions on the public ministry of women in the church is not a great hindrance to real ministry outside the church.

(2) There have been – and sadly will continue to be – abuses of the biblical teaching on the submission and silence of women in the church, but this does not justify setting aside God’s instructions.

Any truth can be distorted, in principle or in practice, but the truth doesn’t cease to be truth (only its distortions). Here, I want to go on record that I recognize that the truths of Scripture pertaining to women and ministry have been distorted. I should probably go on to say that our practice of the truth is never perfect. Let us continually seek to understand and more accurately practice the truth of God’s Word.

(3) While women should not teach or exercise authority over women, men should be humble enough to learn from them.

A number of years ago my father asked a godly older woman to open the adult Sunday school class in prayer. (This was before my father had come to embrace the teaching of Scripture regarding the ministry of women in the church.) This woman, Mrs. Mell, softly responded to my father, “I’d rather not, if you don’t mind.” I’m sure some folks wondered what that was all about. Had she had an argument with her husband that morning, or was there some sin that kept her from praying publicly? No. She believed it was not her place to lead men and women in prayer. She did not explain her reason for declining, for to do so would have been to teach men (and women). And so she avoided praying in public as graciously as she could, and in a way that was completely consistent with Scripture. My point here is that I believe my dad (and perhaps others) learned from her actions, although she did not teach or exercise authority. Teaching does not only flow from men to women. Godly men are eager to learn from others, including their children.

(4) How do women worship at Community Bible Chapel?

I’m sharing with you what some of the godly women in our church have shared with me, at my request. The women begin preparing for Sunday the week before. Each week we send out a study guide for the following week’s sermon, which includes the Scripture text(s) as well as study questions. In addition to this we send out the Scripture texts and topic for the next meeting of the church (the Lord’s Supper and open worship meeting, led by the men). The women study these texts and meditate upon them in preparation for the coming Sunday. The women also pray for the men who will be leading us in teaching and worship, ahead of time and during our gathering on Sunday. They pray that God will lead the right men to participate and that their contribution will edify the church and glorify Christ. Because we observe the Lord’s Table every week they meditate upon our Lord and His sacrifice at Calvary. They listen to what the men have to say and worship our Lord privately, silently speaking expressions of worship to the Lord. I have never heard a woman in our church complain that they were short-changed in their worship on Sunday.

(5) We should not overlook husband-wife ministry as a “team ministry.”

I am thinking in particular of the ministry of Aquila and Priscilla, as seen in Acts and Romans.¹¹ It seems fairly clear that both Aquila and his wife were instrumental in enhancing Apollos’ understanding of the gospel:

24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus. He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately. 27 When Apollos wanted to cross over to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he assisted greatly those who had believed by grace, 28 for he refuted the Jews vigorously in public debate, demonstrating from the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus (Acts 18:24-28).

It may be significant that the order in which this couple is named is reversed from verses 1 and 2 of the same chapter; and so also in Romans 16:3. Priscilla may have been a gifted teacher, perhaps even better than her husband. She is free to exercise her gift outside the church meeting, and in conjunction with her husband. I am thus inclined to grant that women have more freedom to minister outside the church meeting than within it. But she still does not function independently of her husband. She functions under his authority.

(6) Many of the principles that apply to women also apply to men.

In the final analysis it is not men who are to receive the glory in the church but Christ.

20 Now to him who by the power that is working within us is able to do far beyond all that we ask or think, 21 to him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen (Ephesians 3:20-21).

As my friend Carey Dula put it, “we all have a place on the chain, but the goal is to bring glory to the Lord Jesus Christ.” Women are not to seek glory for themselves, but to glorify Christ by giving their husbands greater prominence. Men are not to seek glory for themselves, but are to lead in such a way that Christ is glorified.

As I mentioned in a previous lesson, the same truths which encourage women to joyfully remain silent in the church meeting also encourage men who may also need to remain quiet. We do not need an audience larger than God alone. We can always speak to Him privately, without taking the floor and addressing the church. The application of biblical principles may differ somewhat between men and women, but the principles remain the same.

Conclusion

You may have wondered why this lesson began with a citation of Proverbs 31. I wanted to call your attention to this chapter because I believe that it is pertinent to this message. I want you to notice the first nine verses. Usually we begin with the “godly woman” in verses 10-31, but I would like us to begin at the first verse of chapter 31. It, too, deals with the ministry of a woman to her son. We know that Proverbs has a lot to say about the ministry of fathers and mothers to their children, but these first nine verses of chapter 31 describe the ministry of a mother to her son, who is destined to be a king. She has taught her son in a way that will prepare him to rule a nation. We might say that she taught her son about wine, women, and song.

She warned her son not to become a victim of moral impurity. A king will have many opportunities to pursue women, but this is really destructive. In our own times we have witnessed those in positions of political power fall into moral depravity. The common notion is that this is normal, and that it has no impact on the way a man rules a nation. This king’s mother taught him otherwise. She also warned of the dangers of alcohol. Strong drink clouds a man’s reasoning, rendering him incompetent to fulfill his responsibilities. Finally, his mother reminds him that he is not to abuse his power, but rather he is to defend the rights of the poor and the powerless.

These first nine verses remind me of the last verses of 1 Timothy chapter two:

9 Likewise the women are to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, 10 but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control (1 Timothy 2:9-15, emphasis mine).

I realize that there are many different interpretations of verse 15, but doesn’t Proverbs 31:1-9 help us to understand what Paul is saying? A mother has a very powerful and influential place of ministry. Her ministry helps to shape the lives of her children, and who knows what God may have in store for some of them? Lemuel’s mother taught her son how to rule. A whole nation profited from the counsel she gave to her son. How many women have played a crucial role in the lives of their children? Her leadership ¹² in the home is priceless.

Now when we come to verses 10-31 we have another perspective of the value of a woman’s ministry. This woman is not only a very gifted person; her husband has complete confidence in her abilities and he facilitates her ministry.¹³ The hub of her activities is the home, but it is clear that she has a broad range of functions. She not only prepares meals and provides clothing; she also considers a field and buys it. She adds to the family income, not to mention the ways in which she economizes, thereby saving money. She does a fair bit of what we would call administration, and she also teaches (mainly children and other women, I would suppose).¹⁴ In all of this she brings honor and status to her husband.

The thing I wish to emphasize is that even in the Old Testament women had a very important role to play, though it was largely within the context of the home. And as we conclude may I also call your attention to the fact that the “godly woman” does receive public recognition:

28 Her children rise up and call her blessed,
her husband also praises her:

29 “Many daughters have done valiantly,
but you surpass them all!”

30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is fleeting,
but a woman who fears the Lord will be praised.

31 Give her credit for what she has accomplished,
and let her works praise her in the city gates.

The godly woman is not only praised by her children; she is praised by her husband at the city gates. She may have a more private ministry, but her praise is public.

As I conclude this message I would like to end by publicly expressing my appreciation for the godly women in this church. While their ministry is not as public as that of the men it is a vital ministry they perform and they do it exceedingly well. I praise God for the women He has given to this church!

Copyright © 2008 by Robert L. Deffinbaugh. This is the edited manuscript of Lesson 11 in the series, Can We Serve Church Cafeteria Style?, prepared by Robert L. Deffinbaugh on April 20, 2008. Anyone is at liberty to use this lesson for educational purposes only, with or without credit.

¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the NET Bible. The NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION, also known as THE NET BIBLE, is a completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a previous English version. It was completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation project originally started as an attempt to provide an electronic version of a modern translation for electronic distribution over the Internet and on CD (compact disk). Anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection will be able to use and print out the NET Bible without cost for personal study. In addition, anyone who wants to share the Bible with others can print unlimited copies and give them away free to others. It is available on the Internet at: www.netbible.org.

² It is sad to say that women do seem to have been short-changed in the workplace, but that is not the subject of these messages.

³ Notice how the paragraph begins at verse 17.

⁴ Elsewhere, both Paul (1 Timothy 2:9-10) and Peter (1 Peter 3:3-4) instruct women to avoid hair styles and jewelry which draw attention to themselves. I would hasten to add that looking overly “plain” may actually call attention to oneself. Dressing in good taste and in a way that conforms to Scripture is not something to be taken lightly.

⁵ I realize that many lose their hair when undergoing treatments for cancer, but it is they who most often choose to wear a wig. In Paul’s day a woman who shaved off her head was assumed to be a woman of loose morals. See 1 Corinthians 11:5-7.

⁶ I will repeat, as tactfully as I can, what I have said at other times. In our culture there are other parts of a woman’s body that are considered to be her glory. She would do well to cover those as well.

⁷ 1 Corinthians 11:14.

⁸ 1 Corinthians 11:15.

⁹ I think we must be careful to distinguish between a wife’s submission to her husband and the submission of women (in general) to the men. There are a number of texts in which wives are to be subject to their own husbands. Wives are to be subject to their husbands in a way that is different from their submission to other men. Some serious errors (sins) have been made by excesses in the area of the submission of women to men.

¹⁰ Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8, 12.

¹¹ See Acts 18:1-4, 24-28; Romans 16:3-5.

¹² I am not denying the primary leadership role of the father; I am simply underscoring the influence of the mother in the home. We will see this in the remaining verses of chapter 31.

¹³ See Proverbs 31:11.

¹⁴ See Proverbs 31:26.

Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Women

10. Are Women Second Class Citizens? (Part III: The Benefits of Silence and Submission)

Related Media

1 Certainly God is good to Israel,
and to those whose motives are pure!

2 But as for me, my feet almost slipped;
my feet almost slid out from under me.

3 For I envied those who are proud,
as I observed the prosperity of the wicked.

4 For they suffer no pain;
their bodies are strong and well-fed.

5 They are immune to the trouble common to men;
they do not suffer as other men do.

6 Arrogance is their necklace,
and violence their clothing.

7 Their prosperity causes them to do wrong;
their thoughts are sinful.

8 They mock and say evil things;
they proudly threaten violence.

9 They speak as if they rule in heaven,
and lay claim to the earth.

10 Therefore they have more than enough food to eat,
and even suck up the water of the sea.

11 They say, “How does God know what we do?
Is the sovereign one aware of what goes on?”

12 Take a good look! This is what the wicked are like,
those who always have it so easy and get richer and richer.

13 I concluded, “Surely in vain I have kept my motives pure
and maintained a pure lifestyle.

14 I suffer all day long,
and am punished every morning.”

15 If I had publicized these thoughts,
I would have betrayed your loyal followers.

16 When I tried to make sense of this,
it was troubling to me.

17 Then I entered the precincts of God’s temple,
and understood the destiny of the wicked.

18 Surely you put them in slippery places;
you bring them down to ruin.

19 How desolate they become in a mere moment!
Terrifying judgments make their demise complete!

20 They are like a dream after one wakes up.
O Lord, when you awake you will despise them.

21 Yes, my spirit was bitter,
and my insides felt sharp pain.

22 I was ignorant and lacked insight;
I was as senseless as an animal before you.

23 But I am continually with you;
you hold my right hand.

24 You guide me by your wise advice,
and then you will lead me to a position of honor.

25 Whom do I have in heaven but you?
I desire no one but you on earth.

26 My flesh and my heart may grow weak,
but God always protects my heart and gives me stability.

27 Yes, look! Those far from you die;
you destroy everyone who is unfaithful to you.

28 But as for me, God’s presence is all I need.
I have made the sovereign Lord my shelter,
as I declare all the things you have done.

A well-written song by Asaph (Psalm 73:1-28).¹

Introduction

Years ago I was about to speak at an in-prison seminar. An older lady sitting behind me sensed my eagerness, leaned forward, and whispered in my ear, “You’re chomping at the bit, aren’t you?” I confessed to her that I was indeed “chomping at the bit.” That’s the way I feel about this message as well. We’ve been talking about the ministry of women in the church for the past two weeks and both of those lessons have, of necessity, focused primarily on those things that women are prohibited from doing in the church – namely teaching and exercising authority over men.²

What makes me uneasy about my approach is that so much emphasis has been placed on what women can’t do that one might wrongly conclude that women have gotten “the short end of the stick” (so to speak). It is for this reason that I am eager to present this lesson, because we will now begin to direct our attention to the positive aspects of the ministry God has given to women in the church. I will seek to demonstrate that in the things that matter most God has dealt most graciously with those women who trust in Him and who seek to know Him intimately.

You might very well wonder why this lesson begins with Psalm 73.³ Actually, it is a very fitting text, which gets to the heart of the subject of this message. The psalmist is Asaph, who was one of David’s choir directors.⁴ He was also a “seer” or prophet.⁵ In this psalm Asaph comes to terms with his anger toward God for not blessing him in the manner he had come to expect, and even demand. The lessons he learns are applicable to virtually every Christian, as well as to those outside the faith.

Complaints from the Choir Loft
Psalm 73:1-12

The psalm begins with Asaph’s affirmation of faith: “Certainly God is good to Israel, and to those whose motives are pure!” (Psalm 73:1). The verses that follow tell us just what Asaph assumed this meant. Asaph reasoned that God was obliged to bless pious Israelites for their piety, and that these blessings took the form of physical and material well-being. Believing himself to be one of the pious, Asaph expected material prosperity, long life, good health, and freedom from the calamities which he believed should fall on the wicked.

As Asaph looked out from the choir loft (so to speak) what he saw did not conform to his expectations.⁶ Those he knew to be ungodly were doing very well. They seemed clothed with prosperity of all kinds. No doubt he could discern this by their clothing, jewelry, and transportation (which could be observed in the temple parking lot). These folks who fared so well were wicked. They not only spurned God’s law, they arrogantly shook their proverbial fists in God’s face, daring Him to do anything about their sin. They felt untouchable and safe in their sin. Meanwhile, the pious were those who seemed to be pursued by problems, not prosperity. It looked to Asaph as though God had forgotten the rules of the game; or, worse yet, that God simply did not care what men did. In Asaph’s mind God was giving away his blessings to the bad guys, while he, himself, was reaping the painful consequences of their sins. Had God forgotten how things were supposed to work or, worse yet, did He not know or care?

A Change of Heart
Psalm 73:13-17

Asaph confesses that he was tempted to throw in the towel. It seemed to him that there was no benefit to faithfully following God. His reward for piety was trouble, while the wicked seemed to enjoy the good life.⁷ Fortunately Asaph realized that because he was a leader in Israel his sin would adversely impact many – his entire generation. When his perspective changed, he saw these same circumstances in a very different light. From here on in this psalm, Asaph’s thinking is from an eternal, God-centered, point of view.⁸ Now Asaph contemplates the events that take place in time in the light of eternity.

A Revised Definition of “Good”
Psalm 73:18-28

Asaph now looks on the wicked in a radically different way. Do the wicked seem to “have it made”? Is life going smoothly for them, with no bumps in the road? It won’t last long. Their good times are going to be short-lived. Their physical ease has not drawn them to God; quite the contrary, they feel independent of God. In their minds, they neither need nor want God. They arrogantly speak against God, and assume their prosperity is a validation of their rejection of God. Because of this their eternal torment awaits them in the not-too-distant future. After death comes the judgment, and it is then that the wicked will face the eternal wrath of God.

Asaph sees himself in a different light as well. He realizes that he is not nearly as pious as he thought. He was bitter toward God, pointing a finger of accusation in His direction. He was ignorant and acting like a mere animal (pursuing his appetites, and not thinking clearly). Did Asaph think God was distant and removed from his plight? Did he assume that God did not care? He is now aware of God’s presence. God had not left him; He had a firm grip on his right hand, guiding him with wisdom toward true honor and glory. True, his flesh may fail, and death will come, but God is always with him, in this life and will be throughout all eternity. The wicked are hastening to their destruction; Asaph is now overwhelmed with the joy of God’s presence. God is all that He needs, and Asaph is now eager to share this with others.

I love the translation of verse 28 that reads: “But as for me, the nearness of God is my good.”⁹ Here is a new and very different definition of “good.” Good is the nearness of God, and not the mere absence of pain or physical need. Whatever draws me near to God is good, while that which draws me from God is evil. Asaph’s troubles had ultimately drawn him to God. More accurately, God had drawn Asaph near to Himself through his adversities (see Psalm 119:71, 75). The prosperity of the wicked only made them more arrogant in their rebellion against Him. God was “good” to Asaph in the midst of his afflictions, and now, at last, he knows it.

So what is the connection to our subject? It is possible that some women may feel the way Asaph did. They may feel that their piety has not been rewarded as they would wish. They may conclude that men (perhaps men who are not as godly as themselves) have gotten the limelight and the most prominent positions in the church, while they are left with the mere scraps of Christian service. The whole matter hinges on one’s definition of “good.” What is the “good” that both men and women should seek, and what does leadership have to do with it? If it is prominence and visibility that is the “good” that is sought, there will be disappointment. But if we recognize, like Asaph, that “the nearness of God (spiritual intimacy with God) is our good,” then we will never be disappointed. We see this not only in this Old Testament text, but also in the New. Let us next consider Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians chapter 11.

Satan’s Schemes are Still the Same
2 Corinthians 11:1-4

1 I wish that you would be patient with me in a little foolishness, but indeed you are being patient with me! 2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy, because I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough! (2 Corinthians 11:1-4, emphasis mine)

The Corinthian saints were all too eager to follow new leaders and their teaching, teaching which turned them away from Christ to pursue so-called “wisdom.”¹⁰ Paul likens the situation to that which we find in Genesis chapter 3 and the fall of humanity. In the fall of mankind Satan deceived Eve,¹¹ offering her wisdom (the knowledge of good and evil) that was to be achieved by disobedience to God’s command. While Satan promised Eve that they would be “like God” (in knowing good and evil) he did not inform her that this act of disobedience would disrupt their relationship with God. The intimacy they had known initially in the Garden of Eden would be lost. We knew that as soon as Eve and her husband ate of the forbidden fruit they sought to hide themselves from God. And very soon they would be cast out of the garden, never to return in their lifetime.

In 2 Corinthians chapter 11 Paul will go on to say that Satan is now speaking through his spokesmen in the Corinthians church, seeking to turn them away from their pure and simple devotion to Christ.¹² The sophistication and worldly wisdom of these false apostles had deceived some, seducing them from a pure devotion to Christ to following (worshipping?) mere men. The point to which I am seeking to call your attention is that the highest “good” is a pure and sincere devotion to Christ, the same “good” of which Asaph spoke in Psalm 73. Satan is seeking to draw us away from this pure and sincere devotion. God blesses us by facilitating this devotion. And so the question arises, “Does the role God has appointed for women in the church contribute to or hinder a woman’s (and a man’s as well) highest good – enjoying intimacy with God?” That is the question we will seek to answer in this lesson.

Is Public Egalitarian Ministry Necessary for Intimacy with God?

There are other goals that are essential for Christians,¹³ but the one I would like to deal with is that of sincere and simple devotion to God (as 2 Corinthians 11:3 puts it), or as the nearness of God (as Asaph expressed it in Psalm 73:28). And so in this lesson we are faced with this question: IS PUBLIC ¹⁴ “EGALITARIAN”¹⁵ MINISTRY NECESSARY FOR INTIMATE FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD. Put differently, Does the prohibition of leading men in the church hinder women from enjoying intimacy with God? I believe we will find that the answer to both questions is a resounding “No!” Allow me to document my understanding from the Scriptures.

Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 6:1-18 warns of the danger of seeking to practice one’s religion in a way that gains public attention and approval. It is the nature of our flesh to desire man’s praise. The Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day had developed their attention-getting ministry techniques to a fine art. Our Lord sets the stage for His teaching with these words:

1 “Be careful not to display your righteousness merely to be seen by people. Otherwise you have no reward with your Father in heaven. 2 Thus whenever you do charitable giving, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in synagogues and on streets so that people will praise them. I tell you the truth, they have their reward” (Matthew 6:1-2).

Jesus warns against purposefully public demonstrations of religious devotion, in order to gain the praise of men. Instead, He teaches us to perform our acts of worship as privately as possible, knowing that God sees what we do in secret, and will reward us accordingly. Jesus identifies three particular religious practices: (1) charitable contributions in verses 2-4; (2) prayer in verses 3-15; and, (3) fasting in verses 16-18. Men are commanded to take the spiritual leadership in the church, and thus their roles are, of necessity, more public and visible. Women are restricted from much that is prominent and visible when the church gathers, and our Lord’s words in Matthew chapter 6 should make a woman reluctant to assume this visible role. (Needless to say, men should not perform their responsibilities in a manner intended to attract attention to themselves, and thus encroach on the preeminence of Christ.) I believe it is safe to conclude from our Lord’s words in Matthew chapter 6 that public ministry is no proof of piety; indeed, it can even be contrary to true piety.

A comparison of the spiritual insight of men and women in the gospels does not support the contention that the restrictions imposed on women regarding spiritual leadership limit them to a second class relationship with the Lord. I hate to admit it, but when I read the New Testament it seems that men – specifically the disciples – are spiritually less perceptive than women. This is in spite of their more dominant role in the life and ministry of our Lord.

The Dullness of the Disciples

On numerous occasions Jesus informed His disciples that He was going to be rejected in Jerusalem, crucified, and then rise from the dead on the third day. In spite of the directness of our Lord concerning His death, it either went over the disciples’ heads and they missed it completely, or they actually sought to compel our Lord to avoid such a course.¹⁶ More than once we find the disciples discussing (or debating) who was (or would be) the greatest in the kingdom, and amazingly this often took place in close proximity to our Lord’s prediction of His upcoming death.

30 They went out from there and passed through Galilee. But Jesus did not want anyone to know, 31 for he was teaching his disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” 32 But they did not understand this statement and were afraid to ask him. 33 Then they came to Capernaum. After Jesus was inside the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” 34 But they were silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest (Mark 9:30-34, emphasis mine; see also Luke 9:44-46; 22:20-24).

I am inclined to conclude that one of the reasons why the disciples failed to grasp our Lord’s predictions of His rejection, suffering, and death was because they were too caught up in their expectations related to His success. His success (being recognized as Israel’s king) seemed to mean their glory as well.¹⁷ His death seemed to put an end to it all, as we can see from the despair of the disciples after His death and before His resurrection.¹⁸

When Jesus indicated to His disciples that He was to be betrayed by one of them, they once again missed what should have been clear. In John 13:21 Jesus told His disciples that one of them would betray Him. In John 13:26 He indicated that His betrayer would be the one for whom He dipped a morsel and then gave it to him. In Matthew 26:25 Judas asks Jesus if he is the one, to which Jesus answers in the affirmative. And yet the disciples had no clue as to what Judas was about to do.¹⁹ I believe it is because they were too intent on debating who among them was regarded as the greatest.²⁰

In John 12:1-8 we read an account of Mary anointing the feet of our Lord with very expensive ointment. We are informed that Judas protested, insisting that this was a needless waste. After all, he complained, the ointment could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. But we know that his real motive was to have more money from which to pilfer (see verses 4-6). When we go to Mark’s account of this same incident (Mark 14:3-9) we are told that “some” of the disciples were complaining to each other about this “waste.” In other words, the disciples found it easier to agree with Judas than with Jesus. I would probably have been among them, but I must confess that this is pretty dull. In contrast, women like Mary were far more in tune with what Jesus said and did, and where this was leading.

I am fascinated to observe the way in which Matthew dealt with the subject of “bread” in chapters 14-16. In chapter 14 Jesus feed the 5,000 (men) with “bread” and fish. In chapter 15 the Pharisees and scribes protested because Jesus’ disciples ate their “bread” with (ceremonially) unwashed hands.²¹ Later in this chapter we read of the Canaanite woman who begged our Lord to deliver her demon-possessed daughter. Listen to this interchange between Jesus and this woman:

26 “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs,” he said. 27 “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, your faith is great! Let what you want be done for you.” And her daughter was healed from that hour” (Matthew 15:26-28).

This woman understood “bread” as a symbol, and she got it right! So also received what she requested, and was praised for her faith.

Moving on in chapter 15 we come to the feeding of the 4,000 in verses 32-39. When Jesus expressed His compassion on the hungry crowd the disciples respond as though they have never experienced such a situation. Didn’t they learn from the first feeding? Following Jesus’ instructions, the crowd was fed. But when we come to chapter 16 and the subject of “bread” we find the disciples as dull as ever:

5 When the disciples went to the other side, they forgot to take bread. 6 “Watch out,” Jesus said to them, “beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 So they began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “It is because we brought no bread.” 8 When Jesus learned of this, he said, “You who have such little faith! Why are you arguing among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand and how many baskets you took up? 11 How could you not understand that I was not speaking to you about bread? But beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!” 12 Then they understood that he had not told them to be on guard against the yeast in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 16:5-12).

Unlike the Canaanite woman (who did not have the advantage of spending much time with Jesus), the disciples could only think of bread in literal terms. They did not understand that Jesus was using bread (and leaven) as a symbol. The disciples don’t score very high in this section of Matthew, but the Canaanite woman does.

How many times had the disciples heard Jesus speak of His death, burial, and resurrection? Even His enemies understood that Jesus had foretold His resurrection.²² And yet when the women reported to the disciples that Jesus had been raised, they thought the women were out of their minds.²³ Once again, the women are ahead of the men in spiritual insight. While it is unclear as to who among the male followers of Jesus was present at His crucifixion, it is clear that the women who followed Jesus were present.²⁴

I’m not quite sure how to word my next observation, but let’s just call it the “affection quotient.” When you think of all the men (especially the 12 disciples) who were closely associated with Jesus, how many of them do you find expressing their deep love and devotion to Him during His earthly ministry? Aside from John, whom we assume to be the beloved disciple,²⁵ the one who reclined on Jesus’ breast,²⁶ I do not find many instances of pure and simple love and adoration expressed by men. My sense is that women at least as frequently and likely more fervently and freely demonstrated their love for the Savior.²⁷ In short, women worshipped Jesus just as much, or more so, than the men who followed Him.

I would conclude from what we see in the Gospels that while women were not given a public and prominent role in the preaching of the gospel, they were not deprived of intimate fellowship with Jesus, nor from a spiritual grasp of what Jesus’ ministry was all about. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the women who were near Jesus may have had a better grasp of His ministry and message than did the male disciples.

Spiritual Intimacy and Spiritual Gifts

It should be very obvious that one’s spirituality cannot be discerned by one’s spiritual gifts. Spiritual gifts are not bestowed on the basis of one’s personal piety, but they are sovereignly bestowed by God.²⁸ Paul indicates that it is not only the gifts that are sovereignly bestowed, but also the ministries through which these gifts will be deployed, and also the outcome of these ministries.²⁹ Thus, one’s ministry is divinely directed, and if one is discontent with it, their complaint is with God.

Beyond this, Paul turns things upside-down when he challenges the Corinthians’ thinking regarding the greatest gifts. He teaches that those gifts which get the greatest honor are those which need a measure of compensation:

22 On the contrary, those members that seem to be weaker are essential, 23 and those members we consider less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our unpresentable members are clothed with dignity, 24 but our presentable members do not need this. Instead, God has blended together the body, giving greater honor to the lesser member, 25 so that there may be no division in the body, but the members may have mutual concern for one another (1 Corinthians 12:22-25).

The Corinthians sought the more public and spectacular gifts, specifically tongues. But Paul seems to indicate that more honor is given to this gift because it is a lesser member. The unseen (less visible) gifts are actually the most important members of the body. In our human body we refer to our hidden members as “vital organs,” and rightly so. I believe that to seek a public, visible, gift and ministry may be to seek a lesser gift.

There is yet another important lesson to be learned from Paul’s teaching on spiritual gifts. Consider the implications these words:

27 If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God (1 Corinthians 14:27-28).

Think about what Paul is saying here. One with the gift of tongues must use that gift publicly (that is, when the church has gathered) within certain boundaries. In general, his ³⁰ participation must be edifying to those gathered.³¹ But more specifically, if two or three have already spoken in tongues, or if there is no one to interpret, then the tongues-speaker is to be silent publicly. He may, however, “speak to himself and to God” (verse 28). The tongues-speaker is not deprived of the benefit of his gift. The only restriction is its public manifestation.

Does this same principle (of personal benefit, even if there is no public manifestation of the gift) not apply to the participation of women in the church? In this case there is no question but what the women cannot speak publicly.³² And yet they can “speak to themselves and to God.” They have complete freedom to worship God privately. Their opportunity for personal intimacy is unlimited; it is only occasions for public ministry that have been restricted.

And so to put Paul’s teaching on spiritual gifts into the context of our message, are women seeking the visible manifestation of their spiritual gifts.³³ God has placed certain limitations on them in this regard. But God has in no way hindered their opportunities for fellowship and the enjoyment of intimacy with Him.

Distinguishing Between Heaven and Earth

In Psalm 73 it was not until Asaph viewed his circumstances from a heavenly perspective that he understood his circumstances correctly. Asaph felt that God had given him “the short end of the stick” because He had withheld what he perceived to be “the good life” – a life of physical peace and prosperity. But then he came to God’s sanctuary and he began to see things from an eternal (heavenly) perspective. The wicked will not spend eternity in the presence of God. They will spend eternity suffering the consequences of their sin. On the other hand, the righteous may draw near to God now, as well as for all eternity. Seeing things from an eternal perspective gives us the proper vantage point for understanding life.

I believe the same principle applies in the New Testament as well as in the Old. Paul says this in the concluding verse of 1 Corinthians chapter 13:

And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love (1 Corinthians 13:13).

Why was love the greatest of these three things? I believe that the answer is clear in the context of chapter 13. Both faith and hope are for this life, while love is for this life and for all eternity. Faith deals with that which is unseen.³⁴ Faith is not needed in heaven because we will see it all (1 Corinthians 13:12; 1 John 3:2). Hope also has to do with that which is yet future, that for which we wait. It also deals with that which is not yet seen.³⁵ That for which we now hope will be fully ours in heaven. Thus, our present afflictions, suffering, and groaning will end when our Lord returns.³⁶ Love, however, is not just for this life; it is for all eternity.

So, the principle is that the best things are those which last forever, while the lesser things are those which last only in this life. Assuming this principle, let us ponder the implications of these words of our Lord regarding marriage:

29 Jesus answered them, “You are deceived, because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:29-30).

There will not be marriage in heaven. It is an earthly institution. Thus, there will not be a husband/wife relationship. Wives will not submit to their husbands in heaven, only on earth. Will all man-female distinctions disappear in heaven? I’m not sure, but it does seem possible.

Furthermore, the visible leadership roles to which some seem to aspire do not appear to exist in heaven:

33 “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the Lord. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people. 34 “People³⁷ will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me. For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the Lord. “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done” (Jeremiah 31:33-34, emphasis mine).

11 It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature (Ephesians 4:11-13, emphasis mine).³⁸

Think of it, as a Bible teacher I am a dinosaur, a dying breed. What good will teachers and preachers be in heaven, when all is known and we are sitting at the Savior’s feet? What need will there be for leaders, when He is there to Shepherd His flock? What need will there be for evangelists or pastor-teachers? The public, visible, prominent gifts and functions that some so strongly desire on earth will not exist in heaven.³⁹ Should this not serve as a clue to us as to what is eternally important?

A Lesson from Mary and Martha

38 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed him as a guest. 39 She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he said. 40 But Martha was distracted with all the preparations she had to make, so she came up to him and said, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do all the work alone? Tell her to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things, 42 but one thing is needed. Mary has chosen the best part; it will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:38-42).⁴⁰

Martha is working in the kitchen, preparing the meal. This was her place, was it not? This was no doubt where Martha received expressions of gratitude and appreciation: “Martha, that soufflé was incredible. Be sure to get that recipe to my wife.” Martha is irritated that Mary is in the other room with Jesus, perhaps with other guests. Martha is simmering: “Why isn’t Mary in her with me, pealing the potatoes?” Rather than complain to Mary, Martha complains to Jesus. Doesn’t the Master care about her, slaving away in the kitchen? Why doesn’t He make Mary join her, so that she can help? Jesus is very clear. One thing is needed. One thing is really important, and Mary has chosen it. That one important thing is not fixing dinner; it is enjoying intimate fellowship with Jesus. Once again it is the nearness of God which is our ultimate good. Mary chose the best thing and Jesus will not take it from her. Our Lord did not keep Mary, a woman, from that which was the ultimate good.

And so I am forced to conclude that while our Lord has clearly instructed us that the ministry of women is quite different from the ministry of men (especially in the public meeting of the church), this in no way hinders or restricts them from what is the greatest good by far – intimate fellowship with the Lord. Conversely, I believe it is safe to say that the public ministry of men in the church does not give them any greater opportunity than women to enjoy this same experience with God.

Conclusion

After what we have seen in this lesson I must ask this question: “Just what is it that God is allegedly withholding from women that egalitarians are so desperately seeking to gain?” Look at what the psalmist says in Psalm 84:

11 For the Lord God is our sovereign protector.
The Lord bestows favor and honor;
he withholds no good thing from those who have integrity (Psalm 84:11).

I am forced to conclude that God has not withheld anything “good” from godly women. Thus, whatever they feel God has kept from them is not really good at all. Is this not the lesson which Asaph had to learn? He was angry with God for withholding earthly peace and prosperity. But he came to understand that it was not the ultimate good – the nearness of God was his good. And for him this nearness came through adversity, rather than through worldly success.

I fear that what some women really want is to have what men have, just as Asaph wanted what the wicked possessed. I have no alternative but to conclude that they are seeking that which is not God’s best.

I believe that the submission and silence of women in the church are not a hindrance to their worship. Indeed, I believe that they may even facilitate worship. Let me attempt to illustrate what I mean. In the church meeting the men are to lead as the Spirit leads them. When there is a period of silence, I sometimes find myself getting too concerned about the silence. I wonder if I should stand and speak, or if one of the other elders should do so. And if I am prepared to speak, I find that I may be waiting for that moment of silence, so that I can do so. I find that I may be thinking more about what I will say than about our Lord and His marvelous work at Calvary.

A woman does not need to worry about what she is to say, or when she should say it. She is free to listen to what is being said. And when there is a period of silence, she can worship. She can pray for those whom God has prepared to speak. She has more opportunity for “undistracted devotion” to our Lord. Silence and submission need not be a curse for her, but rather a blessing.

These texts which we have been considering in terms of their implications for women also apply to us as men. There are times when a man’s silence is sin. Adam’s silence in the Garden of Eden was certainly sin. He listened to his wife and obeyed her, but he did not speak up, even though he was “with her” at the time of the temptation.⁴¹

But there are also times when the silence of men can be golden. In 1 Corinthians chapter 14 we read that when two or three prophets have spoken that is enough. Any more prophecy can be shared another time.⁴² The same is true of the tongues-speaker. If two or three have already spoken in tongues (or if there is no interpreter present), the tongues-speaker should be silent. He can speak to himself and to God.

What I am trying to say is that some of us are inclined not to speak up. I am not one of those. There are others among us (me included) who are inclined to speak, perhaps too much so. The very truths which encourage women in their silence can serve as encouragement to men to be silent, even though they could speak. It may be that a very inspiring thought comes to mind, or that someone is eager to share what he has seen from a particular text of Scripture. That person does not have to speak, especially if doing so usurps time that was to be dedicated to other important tasks such as prayer. If women can experience God intimately without speaking, so can men. We should speak when others will be edified, and not just when we feel inclined to speak.⁴³

Satan’s scheme is to keep people from what is best by tempting them with some lesser thing which appears to be good and desirable, but which is a forbidden fruit. When we think of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden we tend to think of the “one tree” – the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – and less of all the other trees, from which Adam and Eve could freely eat. But we should remember that there were two trees ⁴⁴ in the center of the garden: (1) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and (2) the tree of life. By focusing Adam and Eve’s attention on the forbidden tree and its fruit, they lost sight of the most important tree of all – the tree of life. Satan seeks to keep our eyes off what is best, what is most important, and to distract us with something inferior, something forbidden.

In the first verses of 2 Corinthians chapter 11 Paul teaches that Satan is still employing his same tactics. He is still seeking to get us to desire what God has forbidden, and to neglect the truly good thing(s) He has provided. Satan wants to keep us from that which is truly life to us, and to tempt us with that which leads to death. I would venture to say that for each and every person hearing (or reading) me there is some particular forbidden fruit that Satan keeps dangling before us. It might be pornography, or an illicit relationship, or bitterness. These things can easily turn our attention from what is most important – a devotion to Christ which is pure and simple.

The “tree of life” is before us in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is He and He alone who can forgive our sins and save us from an eternity in hell. It is He alone who is the way to God the Father. It is He alone who gives eternal life. I fear that there are some who reject the offer of salvation because they fear that trusting in Jesus will mean the end of our worldly pleasures. We fear that if we follow Him God will take away the “good things” of this life. All I can say is that God never takes away what is truly good. God takes away that which is not truly good in order that He may replace it with something better. Whatever you give up to follow Jesus (and there will be things to give up), you will not give up what is good, and you will gain that which is truly good.

Women, as I conclude my hope and prayer is that you will respond by praising God for what He has withheld, and for the vastly superior good that He has given – intimate fellowship with Himself.

Copyright © 2008 by Robert L. Deffinbaugh. This is the edited manuscript of Lesson 10 in the series, Can We Serve Church Cafeteria Style?, prepared by Robert L. Deffinbaugh on April 13, 2008. Anyone is at liberty to use this lesson for educational purposes only, with or without credit.

² 1 Timothy 2:11-12; also 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35.

³ A more thorough exposition of Psalm 73 can be found on bible.org: http://bible.org/page.php?page_id=518

⁴ 1 Chronicles 6:39; 2 Chronicles 29:30.

⁵ 2 Chronicles 29:30.

⁶ This is not to say that Asaph’s perception of things was accurate. His view is a rather distorted one. It is difficult to see clearly with the tears of self pity in one’s eyes.

⁷ My friend, Don Grimm, reminded me that the Hebrew term rendered “prosperity” in verse 3 is shalom. This word conveys the whole spectrum of blessings, of well-being. It is not just material wealth that the wicked enjoy. They had “the good life” in every sense.

⁸ That is how I understand Asaph’s reference to the temple. It wasn’t just being in the temple that changed his thinking, but viewing life from an eternal, God-centered, perspective.

⁹ NASB.

¹⁰ See 1 Corinthians 1:18—3:4.

¹¹ In 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul makes it clear that Adam was not deceived, as Eve was. His sin was more deliberate.

¹² By their proud claims: “I am of . . .” (1:12; 3:4), we can see where their devotion has shifted.

¹³ Other crucial goals are: the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31); and (2) the edification of others (1 Corinthians 14:26). I believe that if time permitted we could demonstrate that the biblical directives regarding the ministry of women in the church would satisfy both of these goals.

¹⁴ “Public” refers to the conduct of women when the church is gathered, or at least when men are present.

¹⁵ By “egalitarian” I mean the belief that women can do the same things that men can in the church, thus setting aside divine distinctions so clearly evident in the Scriptures.

¹⁶ Peter is a case in point in Matthew 16:21-23.

¹⁷ See Matthew 20:21.

¹⁸ See Luke 24:10-24.

¹⁹ See John 13:28-29.

²⁰ See Luke 22:33-24.

²¹ Matthew 15:1-2.

²² See Matthew 27:63.

²³ Luke 24:4-11.

²⁴ See Matthew 27:55f; Mark 15:40f; John 19:25.

²⁵ See John 20:2; 21:7, 19.

²⁶ John 13:23.

²⁷ See Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8.

²⁸ 1 Corinthians 12:11, 18.

²⁹ 1 Corinthians 12:4-6.

³⁰ I use the masculine pronoun “his” here because throughout verses 27 and 28 Paul uses the term “him.” This is because it is assumed that only men will be speaking in tongues publicly in the church meeting.

³¹ See verse 26.

³² Verses 33-36; also 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

³³ I am not suggesting that women cannot possess more public gifts such as teaching, leadership, and exhortation. I would only challenge the context in which these gifts can be used.

³⁴ Hebrews 11:1-3.

³⁵ See Romans 8:24-25.

³⁶ See Romans 8:18-25.

³⁷ It is unfortunate in my opinion that the masculine gender, expressed in the original text, is set aside for a kind of neutered rendering (“people”).

³⁸ See also 1 Corinthians 13:9-12.

³⁹ One might very well ask whether any of the spiritual gifts will be needed in heaven.

⁴⁰ I find it of interest that in John 12 (where Mary is anointing our Lord with precious ointment) Martha is also said to be serving. Either this is the same incident, or Mary is once again at Jesus’ feet while Martha is in the kitchen.

⁴¹ This is my understanding of Genesis 3:6.

⁴² 1 Corinthians 14:29-33.

⁴³ I am dealing with a very delicate subject here, but it is one we must consider. Some people feel that an impulse (or, worse yet, a compulsion to speak) is the Spirit’s leading. Sometimes our desire to speak or to lead is not really God’s leading, but an impulse of the flesh. (I confess, I struggle with this matter personally.) Even when our impulse is from the Spirit (e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:26-33), it may not be the time for us to speak.

⁴⁴ Genesis 2:9.

Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Women

9. Are Women Second Class Citizens in the Church? (Part II – Arguments Against the Submission of Women in the Church)

Related Media

This is the ninth audio message for the Can We Serve Church "Cafeteria Style?" series.

Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Women

8. Are Women Second Class Citizens? (Part I: Overview)

Related Media

Introduction¹

Perhaps I should begin with a confession. Looking back, I regret at least two of those times when I taught on the subject of the submission of women in the church. In both instances, I was preaching in a church where I had never spoken before. And I was speaking in a church where women played a significant (if not dominant) public role. If I were to do it over again I would, in these two situations at least, preach on something else.

This is not to say that I think what I taught was wrong, but it is to say that there is a place and a time for teaching on certain topics. Having made my confession, I believe that this is the place and the time for me to address the question, “Are Women ‘Second Class Citizens’ in the church?” Why now, but not then?

First of all, we are in the middle of a series on the church. The ministry of women in the church plays a vital role in the spiritual health and life of the church. Second, there are a number of people who are relatively new to our church, some of whom have never experienced the way we “do church” as it pertains to the ministry of women. This is my opportunity to explain how and why we practice our ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). Third, the biblical teaching concerning the ministry of women in the church is strongly opposed by those outside the church (our culture), as well as by all too many who profess to be in the church through faith in Jesus. This is very disturbing and needs to be challenged from the Scriptures. Fourth, in order to reach a culturally and politically correct view of the role of women in the church, one must either ignore or deny clear biblical commands and instructions. Either that or these clear texts must be interpreted in a way that is frightening in its implications. If clear teaching on the ministry of women can be cast aside by mishandling Scripture, what other “unacceptable” doctrines will follow?

I approach this subject with a greater than normal sense of uneasiness. It is not an uneasiness based upon doubt, for I am confident that what I am about to teach is the clear and consistent teaching of God’s Word.² Neither am I uneasy because I fear that someone will come along who will cast this message aside as sloppy scholarship or as the ranting of a chauvinist (which is what some would say about Paul). I am uneasy that my confidence will come across as arrogance (or, worse yet, actually be arrogance). I am uneasy that speaking so directly will cause someone to turn me off before they have actually considered whether or not what I am saying is true to God’s Word.

It is only fair for me to inform you that a number of my colleagues in ministry (outside our church) will likely strongly disagree with my conclusions. Thus, I am apprehensive because I do not wish to show disrespect or disregard for a number of my good friends and colleagues who strongly disagree with me on this issue. Nevertheless, I believe that what I am about to say needs saying. I only ask that you persevere with me through the next several lessons and consider whether or not this teaching is true to God’s Word. I trust that the Word of God through the ministry of the Spirit of God will speak to you. I don’t expect all to agree, nor do I believe that those who do agree will necessarily apply the Scriptures as I would. But I do hope and pray that these texts of Scripture will cause you to reflect on these important matters, and perhaps encourage you to make whatever adjustments are necessary and appropriate in both doctrine and practice.

Our Approach

I have concluded that the subject of the ministry of women in the church will require several lessons. This first lesson will concentrate on the teaching of the Scriptures regarding women in the church. I will begin by calling attention to biblical practice, in both the Old Testament and the New. I will next turn to the biblical and doctrinal foundations of the teaching of the New Testament regarding women in the church. Then we will focus on the biblical principles and commands regarding women in the church. Finally, in this lesson we will attempt to draw some conclusions and suggest some practical applications.

In the lesson which follows this message, I will attempt to respond to those biblical texts and logical arguments which some find so compelling that they believe they overrule and overturn the commands of the New Testament. The final lesson will be a kind of “Alfred Hitchcock” conclusion to this mini-series within our series on the local church. Instead of calling attention to what women are instructed to give up, I will seek to show how much more they gain when they embrace and experience the teaching of the New Testament regarding the ministry of women in the church. Please bear with me through this most crucial message.

Old Testament Precedent: Divine Distinctions Based Upon Gender

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says (1 Corinthians 14:33b-34, emphasis mine).

In this New Testament text, Paul indicates that what he is teaching is consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament. It is therefore appropriate that we begin in the Old Testament, not only for chronological purposes, but because the teaching of the New Testament is based upon the teaching of the Old. It is also interesting to observe that when Paul makes this statement regarding the Old Testament, he does not cite any particular text. I think this is because Paul has more than just one incident or text in mind; instead, he refers to the tenor of the Old Testament as a whole. Let’s take a moment to consider some teachings or practices which Paul may have had in mind.

Family leadership (rights of the first-born) was passed down from one generation to another through the males. The Abrahamic Covenant passed from Abraham to Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob, and then through his sons. In the Book of Numbers, we find provisions made for the rare instances in which there were no males through which the inheritance would pass down.3 But it is clear that such instances are rare, and are the exception, rather than the rule.

When a census was taken, it was of males only. Of course, we should remember that a census was taken for military purposes, and thus only males 20 years old and older were counted.⁴

Circumcision was a male ritual. It was the male Israelites who identified with the Abrahamic Covenant⁵ by means of circumcision. (Here is one male “privilege” that is not highly sought by women.)

The laws regarding ceremonial uncleanness after the birth of a child made distinctions on the basis of gender. A woman who bore a male child was declared unclean for seven days, while a woman who bore a female child was declared unclean for fourteen days.⁶My experience is that girls are cleaner than boys,⁷ so the distinction must be made on some other basis.

Only the male Israelites were required to appear in Jerusalem three times a year for the three great religious feasts.⁸ In some instances, at least, this must have meant leaving the family behind in order to attend some of these feasts.

Contrary to popular representations, angels appear only in masculine form. O.K., I admit that this may be only a “for what it’s worth” observation, but it is interesting. In Genesis 6, the “sons of God” (whom I understand to be angels) were having sex with “the daughters of men” and producing children.⁹ The homosexuals of Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels who came to visit Lot.¹⁰The “Angel of the Lord” always appeared as a male as well. It would hardly be appropriate for Jacob to wrestle with a female angel.¹¹And this being was none other than our Lord (who is also represented in masculine terms).

The regulations of the law regarding vows assume the subordination of women to men. A man was bound to his vows. When a single woman made a vow, it could be nullified by her father, and when a woman who had made a vow married, her husband had the right to set aside her vow (at the time he first learned of it, but not later on).¹²

The laws pertaining to jealousy and divorce also distinguished on the basis of gender. If a man doubted the purity of his wife, there was a process whereby his suspicions could be verified or shown to be false.¹³Regulations regarding divorce seemed to pertain only to the men, but not to the women. In other words, there were provisions for a man to divorce his wife, but not reciprocal provisions for a woman to divorce her husband.¹⁴

Women were not allowed to assume positions of leadership over men. There were no women priests,¹⁵ no women kings,¹⁶ and only a few women prophets.¹⁷ Indeed, it was an indication of divine judgment when women ruled over men:

My people--infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths (Isaiah 3:12, ESV).

The bottom line is that with a very few exceptions (and these served to prove a point), women did not lead men in the Old Testament. Instances where women did lead will be dealt with in our next lesson.

The Old Testament evidence is beyond dispute: God distinguished between males and females, on the basis of gender alone. This mountain of evidence sufficiently explains Paul’s concluding words in 1 Corinthians 14:

As in all the churches of the saints, 34the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says (1 Corinthians 14:33b-34, emphasis mine).

Students of the Scriptures have wondered just where in the law Paul’s words can be documented. The most reasonable explanation is that Paul is not speaking of any one text at all, but at the mountain of evidence we find in the Old Testament, some of which I have summarized above.

New Testament Practice

I believe it is safe to say that in the Old Testament men were the leaders and the women were expected to follow. Some would begrudgingly acknowledge this, but only because they expect this pattern will be overturned in the New Testament. Those with such expectations are destined for disappointment because the New Testament simply continues the pattern of the Old Testament, with a few modifications. Jesus elevated women beyond anything women had experienced in the culture of those days. He was not afraid to contradict His culture and to violate its rules when they were wrong.¹⁸ But when Jesus chose the twelve, He selected only men to accompany Him as His disciples and to carry on His ministry when He ascended to the Father. Women did accompany Jesus and His disciples during His earthly ministry, but their ministry was that of service, not leadership:

1 Some time afterward he went on through towns and villages, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and disabilities: Mary (called Magdalene), from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna the wife of Cuza (Herod’s household manager), Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their own resources (Luke 8:1-3).¹⁹

Women did minister to Jesus and His disciples, but they did not minister in the same way that His male disciples did. Theirs was a vital ministry, but a different one. They were not serving in a leadership role, nor were they being groomed for future leadership.

Though it may not be of great significance, it is at least a point of interest to note that when we are told the size of a crowd to which our Lord ministered, the numbers were based upon the adult males (“men”) who were present:

Not counting women and children, there were about five thousand men who ate (Matthew 14:21).

Not counting children and women, there were four thousand men who ate (Matthew 15:38).

After the death and resurrection of Jesus (and the birth of the church), the same pattern continues. Judas is replaced as the twelfth disciple by a man. When churches were founded and leaders were appointed, they were led by a group of elders – all men. Even oversight of the care and feeding of widows was given to men – seven of them.²⁰ So we see that the practice of male leadership is consistent, from the Old Testament to the New.

Doctrinal Foundations

The Trinity

One of the objections to the teaching of the Bible regarding the submission of women in marriage and in the church is the mistaken assumption that submission is incompatible with equality. The argument goes like this, “If women are equal with men, then they cannot be subordinate to men.” If there was ever a case of equality, it is the equality of each of the three members of the Godhead – the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally God, and yet the Son, though equal with the Father, is in submission to the Father:

Going a little farther, he threw himself down with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if possible, let this cup pass from me! Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Matthew 26:39).

48 The one who rejects me and does not accept my words has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day. 49 For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the Father has told me” (John 12:48-52).

But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3).²¹

Likewise, the Holy Spirit, though fully and equally God, is in submission to the Son:

12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is mine; that is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you” (John 16:12-15).

Since the submission of the Spirit and the Son in no way nullifies their equality with the Father in the Trinity, then surely the submission of women in no way nullifies their equality with men in Christ.

Submission and the Sovereignty of God

All of his life, Jacob had been striving with God and with men. It was not until the final episode of his life that he finally figured out that his blessings came from the sovereign hand of God and not through his manipulations. We see his recognition of, and submission to, the sovereignty of God in the blessing of Joseph’s two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (by birth order):

8 When Israel saw Joseph’s sons, he asked, “Who are these?” 9 Joseph said to his father, “They are the sons God has given me in this place.” His father said, “Bring them to me so I may bless them.” 10 Now Israel’s eyes were failing because of his age; he was not able to see well. So Joseph brought his sons near to him, and his father kissed them and embraced them. 11 Israel said to Joseph, “I never expected to see you again, but now God has allowed me to see your children too.” 12 So Joseph moved them from Israel’s knees and bowed down with his face to the ground. 13 Joseph positioned them; he put Ephraim on his right hand across from Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh on his left hand across from Israel’s right hand. Then Joseph brought them closer to his father. 14 Israel stretched out his right hand and placed it on Ephraim’s head, although he was the younger. Crossing his hands, he put his left hand on Manasseh’s head, for Manasseh was the firstborn. 15 Then he blessed Joseph and said, “May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked - the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, 16 the Angel who has protected me from all harm - bless these boys. May my name be named in them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac. May they grow into a multitude on the earth.” 17 When Joseph saw that his father placed his right hand on Ephraim’s head, it displeased him. So he took his father’s hand to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 18 Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this is the firstborn. Put your right hand on his head.” 19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He too will become a nation and he too will become great. In spite of this, his younger brother will be even greater and his descendants will become a multitude of nations.” 20 So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you will Israel bless, saying, ‘May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.’” So he put Ephraim before Manasseh (Genesis 48:8-20).

By birth order, Manasseh should have come under Jacob’s right hand and should have received the headship of the family. But Jacob blessed these two sons in a way that gave priority to Ephraim, the second born, and this had great symbolic meaning. Jacob chose to bless the younger above the older, just as God had chosen to bless him above his brother Esau. It took Jacob all of his life to surrender to the sovereignty of God, but he finally submits. It is God who raises men up and who puts men down.

Listen to these words of warning God spoke to Nebuchadnezzar through the prophet Daniel:

16 Let his mind be altered from that of a human being, and let an animal’s mind be given to him, and let seven periods of time go by for him. 17 This announcement is by the decree of the sentinels; this decision is by the pronouncement of the holy ones, so that those who are alive may understand that the Most High has authority over human kingdoms, and he bestows them on whomever he wishes. He establishes over them even the lowliest of human beings’” (Daniel 4:16-17).

Nebuchadnezzar had to learn this lesson the hard way, but he came to understand the sovereignty of God through the humbling process God designed for him. Having been truly humbled, his definition of God’s sovereignty is about as good as it gets:

34 But at the end of the appointed time I, Nebuchadnezzar, looked up toward heaven, and my sanity returned to me. I extolled the Most High, and I praised and glorified the one who lives forever. For his authority is an everlasting authority, and his kingdom extends from one generation to the next. 35 All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he wishes with the army of heaven and with those who inhabit the earth. No one slaps his hand and says to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:34-35)²²

In other words, God alone is sovereign, and thus He can choose one and reject another, as we find in Romans 9:6-29. He can raise one up to a position of power and put another down. And we would do well not to protest.²³ The same can be said of God’s sovereign distribution of spiritual gifts.²⁴

Now let’s go back to some of those apparently arbitrary distinctions based on gender. If God’s sovereignty entitles Him to choose some and to reject others,²⁵ to elevate some and demote others, then does He not also have the right to distinguish between males and females? And is it not our responsibility as those who profess to have surrendered to our sovereign God to accept these divine distinctions? My point is this, even if we were to conclude that the distinctions God has drawn between men and women are arbitrary, our response should be submission to His sovereign will. As Nebuchadnezzar put it, we don’t have the right to slap God’s hand or demand that He justify to us what He has done.

The Events Surrounding Creation and the Fall of Mankind

12 Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O conqueror of the nations! 13 You said to yourself, “I will climb up to the sky. Above the stars of El I will set up my throne. I will rule on the mountain of assembly on the remote slopes of Zaphon. 14 I will climb up to the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High!” (Isaiah 14:12-14)

This text, along with Ezekiel 28:1-20, seems to describe the arrogance of certain earthly kings in terms that also depict the arrogance, rebellion, and downfall of Satan. Satan had a position of prominence as one of God’s angels, but he was not content with being subordinate to God. He wanted more. He wanted to be like God. He wanted to be equal with God. No doubt He would have gladly seized the opportunity to overthrow God, if it were possible (which it is not). And so Satan was cast down for his rebellion.

When we come to the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, we find Satan seeking to entice Eve to embrace and to replicate his rebellion against God’s authority. He persuaded Eve to become discontent with God’s goodness, and with His authority. He made it appear that God was withholding something good from her (and her husband, Adam) – the knowledge of good and evil. Eve took the bait and disobeyed God’s command. More than this, she took the fruit and gave it to her husband, “leading” him to rebel along with her.²⁶ Among other things, Satan persuaded Eve to become the leader in her marriage. And what was so great about the forbidden fruit? It was the “knowledge of good and evil.” She would become “like God,” Satan promised. She would attain forbidden glory. Personally, I believe that God intended to reveal knowledge to Adam and Eve through intimate fellowship and communion with them, rather than through obtaining knowledge by stealing it.

Satan does not give up. He continues to take the same approach in the temptation of our Lord.²⁷ He seeks to induce Jesus to act independently of the Father by satisfying His own needs and desires. He seeks to tempt Jesus to make the Father His servant, rather than to serve the Father. He seeks to persuade the Lord to cast aside His submission to the Father in the pursuit of His own agenda. After all, it worked with Eve. And so, it would seem, Satan continues to employ the same strategy:

1 I wish that you would be patient with me in a little foolishness, but indeed you are being patient with me! 2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy, because I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough! (2 Corinthians 11:1-4, emphasis mine)

This is not to lay the fall and its consequences entirely on Satan and Eve. We must also recognize Adam’s role in this matter. His role is passivity and silence, rather than assuming the leadership, which was his responsibility. Adam was there with Eve while all this was going on,²⁸ and yet he is strangely silent. And when Eve led, Adam followed. This was the basis for his judgment:

17 But to Adam he said, “Because you obeyed your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return” (Genesis 3:17-19, emphasis mine).

We can hardly brush these Old Testament events aside because when Paul gives specific commands and instructions regarding the ministry of women in the church, he bases his instruction on these very texts:

3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. 5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. 6 For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head. 7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God (1 Corinthians 11:3-12).

11 A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression (1 Timothy 2:11-14).

And so I must ask the question, “Doesn’t the aggressive feminist agenda of our day have the same basic elements?” Shouldn’t this be a source of concern to every Christian? Doesn’t this bear on our understanding of how we are to “do church”? I don’t see how we can cast this matter aside or minimize it as irrelevant.

The Church and Angelic Instruction

In Ephesians 3 and elsewhere, Paul indicates that God uses the church to instruct the angelic beings.

10 The purpose of this enlightenment is that through the church the multifaceted wisdom of God should now be disclosed to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 3:10).

For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (1 Corinthians 11:10).

10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who predicted the grace that would come to you searched and investigated carefully. 11 They probed into what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when he testified beforehand about the sufferings appointed for Christ and his subsequent glory. 12 They were shown that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things now announced to you through those who proclaimed the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven - things angels long to catch a glimpse of (1 Peter 1:10-12).

What we do in the church is being watched by heavenly creatures.²⁹ Since some of the angels seem to have fallen with Satan, the submission of women in the church is not a trivial matter. The conduct of women in the church is not merely a matter of culture; it is a much larger issue than that! Those who would cast off subordination as a divine command are not only setting a bad example, they are following a bad example.

The Principle of Male Headship

But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3).

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church - he himself being the savior of the body (Ephesians 5:22-23).

Words can hardly be more clear than this. The principle of male headship is rooted in the relationships within the Trinity. As God the Father is the Head of Christ, so the husband is the head of his wife. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so the wife is to be subordinate to her husband.

New Testament Commands

Let’s begin by looking at some of the very specific commands pertaining to the ministry of women in the church:

(1) Women are instructed to cover their heads when praying or prophesying.³⁰

(2) Women are to quietly receive instruction, but are forbidden to teach or to lead men in the church.

(3) Women are commanded to be silent in the church, which includes asking questions (which should be addressed to their own husbands at home).

33 for God is not characterized by disorder but by peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. 35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone? 37 If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If someone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1 Corinthians 14:33-38).

We should be very clear on the fact that these are commands, not suggestions. And to press this matter even further, these are the commands of our Lord, not just the edicts of a “cranky bachelor” (as some would think of Paul).

The commands of our Lord cannot be easily brushed aside, as our Lord Himself indicated:

18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).

Finally, the commands of our Lord and His apostles are universal and are not restricted to a particular time or culture.

16 I encourage you, then, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason, I have sent Timothy to you, who is my dear and faithful son in the Lord. He will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church (1 Corinthians 4:16-17, emphasis mine).

17 Nevertheless, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each person, so must he live. I give this sort of direction in all the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17, emphasis mine).

If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God (1 Corinthians 11:16, emphasis mine).

Paul does not teach one practice for one church and another practice for another. The truth is universal and does not vary from place to place or from time to time. We renounce situational ethics, and yet when it comes to church principles and practices, some seek to prove “situational commands.” That is serving church cafeteria style.

Application: There’s the Rub

In what I have been saying, I do not wish to give the impression that everything we do as a church can be defended from a text of Scripture. When it comes to application, some things are clear (like the prohibition of immorality), but other areas of application may be matters of conviction. The leaders of a church have to draw certain lines, and not everyone may agree with them.

Let me illustrate. Paul teaches that women are to remain silent in the church. We know that this means women cannot teach the men, and that they are not even to ask a question. But what does it mean to be “silent”? Some may conclude that this means absolute silence. Thus, a woman could not even sing with the congregation, or lean over to tell one of her children to be quiet. We have drawn the line elsewhere. We believe that the woman’s silence is directly related to the leadership and authority of men in the church. Thus, we believe that a woman should not “lead in prayer,” “teach the congregation,” or exercise authority when the church is gathered.

Do all the same rules apply in the home, or when a ministry group meets? Some might think so. We don’t allow women to teach men, even in small groups and in the context of the home. We do allow women to share observations and to ask questions in these smaller and less formal settings. Could our “lines” be challenged? No doubt, but wherever we do draw the line, someone is sure to disagree.

To press on, we know that Paul has forbidden women to teach men. But we also know that women can teach their children in the context of the home.³¹ Can a woman teach a Sunday school class? We believe so, but we draw the line at the junior high level. Women can teach children, and they can teach women,³² but we don’t allow them to teach young men. Where these lines are to be drawn is somewhat arbitrary. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and so we try to make these distinctions wisely, realizing that others may draw them elsewhere.

We know that women are not to lead men because that is to exercise authority over them.³³ But is allowing a woman to serve on a committee exercising authority? In some cases I would think so, but not in all cases. And, if I were to be totally honest, I would have to say that some women would pose no problem at all in many situations where other women would be a problem. A truly submissive spirit is what makes the difference.

I have told this story before, but it bears repeating. Years ago my father was leading an adult Sunday school class in the church where he was a leader. (This was before he was convinced that men should assume the leadership roles in the church.) Without thinking, he asked a godly older woman to open the class in prayer. This woman (Mrs. Mell, who is now with the Lord) simply replied quietly, “Byron, I’d rather not if you don’t mind.” She did not explain that she felt it would be wrong for her to “lead” in this way. If she had explained her actions, she would have been teaching men, and so she chose to respond in a way that may have caused some to wonder if she was “out of fellowship” or something similar. Her response was an example of submission.

My point in all of this is that while the commands and principles may be clear and indisputable, the application is sometimes a bit harder to pin down.

Conclusion

Here is what I have been trying to say. Both the Old and New Testaments teach and exemplify male leadership, whether that be leadership over the nation Israel in the Old Testament (prophet, priest, king), or leadership in the church in the New. Put differently, with only rare exceptions, God does not appoint women to lead men. It is not just the Old Testament that teaches male leadership; the New Testament does the same, with some modifications.³⁴ The teaching of the New Testament is consistent regarding male leadership, particularly in the church. Paul’s instructions regarding this matter are commands, not suggestions. Indeed, Paul claims that they are the commands of Christ. We dare not cast them aside as the hang-ups of a chauvinistic bachelor. We are to obey the New Testament instructions concerning the ministry of women in the church as the command of Christ.

I want it to be very clear that I am not teaching on the ministry of women because I believe that the women of Community Bible Chapel need correcting. So far, I have received only comments of affirmation from the women of our church. Their concerns have to do with points of clarification or application. The women in our church rejoice in the role God has given them in the church. I only wish that we men were doing as well at leading as the women are in following.

Furthermore, I likewise reject two reasons that some have suggested as an explanation of the biblical teaching on the role of women:

(1) Women are more gullible than men. I’ve seen a lot of gullible men, and a lot of very wise and discerning women. Some may seek support from Paul’s statement that Eve was thoroughly deceived, while Adam was not.³⁵ While this is true, the reasons may not be related to gender.³⁶ Eve was apparently not present when God gave this prohibition to Adam, and Adam may not have communicated well with her regarding God’s instruction. (Some women will likely think, “So what’s new?”) The larger question in my mind, is “Why did Adam disobey if he was not deceived?” He disobeyed willfully.

(2) Men are better at teaching and leading than women. I see no indication that spiritual gifts are gender related or restricted. Thus, I believe that women as well as men may possess any spiritual gift, including the gifts of teaching, pastoring, and leading. I believe that some women may be better teachers or leaders than men. If the gifting of women were inferior to the gifting of men, it would not be a sacrifice or an act of obedience for them to refrain from assuming leadership roles in the church.

Paul based much of his teaching on the ministry of women on the early events of the Book of Genesis – the order of creation and the events of the fall. When Paul writes to the Corinthians, he likens their situation to the fall:

1 I wish that you would be patient with me in a little foolishness, but indeed you are being patient with me! 2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy, because I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough! (2 Corinthians 11:1-4)

I believe that the arguments employed against a simple and straightforward interpretation of Scripture regarding the ministry of women are weak and without substance. They fly in the face of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. They set aside the commandments of our Lord. They seek to restrict these commands to a distant time and culture, thereby opening the door to the demands of a pagan culture.

That is a very frightening path to take. As I said before, I do not undertake this teaching as an effort to straighten people out here at Community Bible Chapel. So far as I know, most all of you are pretty much in agreement with what I have been saying. But I have to tell you that this is rare and is considered strange to those accustomed to “doing church” in a typical fashion. Our belief and practice are not the going things in evangelical circles. It is not the way to make churches grow, and we’ll likely never be a mega church if we continue to do things as we are. It is likely that some may walk in our doors, realize how different we are, and walk right back out. That is the price for following your beliefs.

If I were to attempt to summarize the source of the animosity toward the biblical teaching on the ministry of women in the church, it would be to attribute it to “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” The world – that is, our culture – is saying to us, “We will have none of that!” The world will not stand for this kind of teaching. Then there is the flesh. Is it not true, my brothers and sisters, that we all want to be number one? Think about the disciples. Jesus is sitting with them at the Last Supper and is saying to Judas in the full hearing of his other disciples, “Yes, Judas, you’re the one who will betray Me,” and yet none of them heard it. Why? Because they had their own conversation going about who was the greatest in the Kingdom. Everybody wants first chair. That’s our flesh, seeking position and prominence and power.

Finally, this is high on the devil’s agenda. He’s been undermining authority because it is the theme of his heart. Look at what Paul says to the Corinthians who are seeking teachers who are wise, but are setting aside the gospel of Jesus Christ and His cross. Paul says, “But I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” It’s just that simple, just that simple. Trust and obey. Take Jesus at His word, and accept it, and embrace it. But there will always be those who say that this is a much more complex issue. Claiming complexity won’t make these commands disappear. It really is simple, that’s what I’m saying. It really is simple. The issue is…our heart rebels against submission to authority.

Now, it may sound like I’m railing only at the women. Far from it! We men are failing to obey our Lord in taking leadership in our homes and in the church. We love that easy chair, that wide screen TV, sitting back and doing nothing. We are just as culpable. Our flesh is just as disinclined to do what God told us to do as women may be to what God has commanded them to do. We’re all rebels. We need God’s grace working in our lives to cause us to desire and to do God’s Word teaches.

Now, this is stealing on my thunder for the third lesson, but I want to say here that when God withholds something good, or apparently good, it is because He has something better for us. I’m going to give you this thought, knowing that it’s out on the exegetical limb a bit. Nevertheless, here it is. God said to Adam and Eve, “You may not partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” God forbade them knowledge through eating the forbidden fruit. I would like to suggest to you that it was not that God wanted to keep them ignorant. It’s that God wanted to teach them the truth in intimacy and fellowship with Him. Isn’t that what they did in the garden? They walked with our Lord in the garden. What do you want to do, pick an apple and eat it, or do you want to say to the Living God, “Tell me more”? God wasn’t withholding anything excellent from Adam and Eve. He was withholding something so that they could have something better. And so I want to say to you, if you have gotten a negative feeling from this message, God is not keeping you from something truly good. He is leading you to something really good, and that is to Himself, because more important than anything else is that we know Him, and that we have intimate fellowship and satisfaction in Him.

If you have not trusted in the Lord Jesus as your Savior, I hope you won’t be offended unduly, but that you will understand that God did not come here to enhance our egos. He came to show us our sin and to provide a solution for our sin in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Acknowledge your sin and the perfection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Believe that He died for sinners and trust in Him, for the only way we can get to Heaven is through His Son. This, too, is repugnant to sinful, self-sufficient men, but it is the only way God has provided for sinners to be cleansed and for men to gain eternal life. We must submit to God’s provision for salvation if we would enter His heaven.

Father, thank You for these texts and this marvelous truth about your church. Thank You for the way in which You have orchestrated the life and ministry of the local church. And Father, just as we need to urge the women in our body to be submissive, we also want to urge the men in our body to be leaders. Help us Father to be obedient to You, and to follow Your commands to Your glory and for our good. In Jesus name. Amen.

² Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, now with the Lord, was the head of the Greek department at Dallas Theological Seminary for many years. He was also a very gifted preacher, whom I had the privilege to sit under, and later minister with, at Believers Chapel. He once stated that the teaching of the New Testament regarding the church was as clear as its teaching on salvation. http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/a/Johnson/slj-15_Ecclesiology/7_SLJ_15_32K.m3u

³ See Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-13.

⁴ See Numbers 1:2; 26:1-2.

⁵ See Genesis 17:9-14; Exodus 4:24-26. Later Judaism tended to associate circumcision with the Mosaic Covenant, rather than the Abrahamic Covenant.

⁶ See Numbers 30:1-15.

⁷ My wife and I raised five girls.

⁸ See Deuteronomy 16:16.

⁹ Genesis 6:4.

¹⁰ See Genesis 19.

¹¹ Genesis 32:24-32.

¹² Numbers 30:1-15.

¹³ See Numbers 5:11-31.

¹⁴ See, for example, Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

¹⁵ Indeed, only Levites could be priests. Saul forfeited his kingdom when he assumed the role of the priest (1 Samuel 13).

¹⁶ Wicked Athaliah (the granddaughter of Omri) did usurp the kingdom when her son Ahaziah was killed, but that did not last long. See 2 Kings 11; 2 Chronicles 22-23.

¹⁷ We’ll address this matter in a subsequent message.

¹⁸ See John 4:9, 29; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 7:34, 39.

¹⁹ See also Matthew 27:55; Luke 23:55.

²⁰ Acts 6:1-6.

²¹ See also Philippians 2:5-8.

²² See also Romans 9:14-26.

²³ See Romans 9:19-21.

²⁴ See 1 Corinthians 12:11, 18.

²⁵ See Romans 9:6-13.

²⁶ His rebellion was different, for although Eve was thoroughly deceived, Adam was not. He knew what he was doing (see 1 Timothy 2:14).

²⁷ Matthew 4:1-12; Luke 4:1-13.

²⁸ Genesis 3:6.

²⁹ See also Job 1 and 2.

³⁰ 1 Corinthians 11:4-16.

³¹ See Proverbs 6:20; 31:26.

³² See Titus 2:3-5.

³³ 1 Timothy 2:12.

³⁴ I’m thinking here of matters like divorce. When we look in the Old Testament, it would seem that only men had the option of divorcing their wives, and not the reverse. But when we come to the New Testament, we find much more mutuality in these matters in Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7. What is true for the husband is likewise true for the wife.

³⁵ 1 Timothy 2:14.

³⁶ Some might cite Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 3:6, where Paul speaks of false teachers who “captivate weak women who are overwhelmed with sins and led along by various passions.” This is talking about a certain kind of woman, not women in general. Further, whether male or female, people who are burdened with guilt and who are governed by their passions are an easy mark for deceivers.

Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Women

11. Sex and the Spiritual Christian (1 Cor. 7:1-7)

Introduction

When my friend Craig Nelson and I were in India, we decided to speak from the Book of Genesis, alternating messages between us. We first spoke on Jacob and his wives (his two wives, Leah and Rachel, and their two handmaids, Zilpah and Bilhah—see Genesis 29 and 30), entitling that message, “The Battle of the Brides.” After teaching the story of Joseph’s betrayal by his brothers from chapter 37, we came to chapter 38 and the story of how Judah unknowingly becomes a father through Tamar, his daughter-in-law. We then came to chapter 39 and the story of the temptation of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife, who eventually falsely accuses Joseph of rape.

After the second or third message, a friend informed us that one of the men had walked out during the meeting in protest. Craig and I were shocked. What had we said that was so offensive? We were told that we were talking too much about sex. This man did not want us to meddle with his sex life. We simply spoke about sex as often as the subject came up in the Book of Genesis.

If you think about it, you will have to agree that sex is a subject frequently addressed in the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New. Though the Bible handles this subject matter much differently than the secular world, it does have much to say on the subject. I can only think of one reason for matters pertaining to sex to be so frequently discussed in the Bible—sexuality must be very closely related to spirituality.

The beliefs and practices of the Corinthian saints seem to vary greatly when it comes to matters of sexual values and conduct. We have already been introduced to the liberal extreme in chapters 5 and 6. In chapter 5, Paul rebukes the church at Corinth for failing to exercise church discipline on a man living in an incestuous relationship with his father’s wife. In the second half of chapter 6 (verses 12-20), Paul confronts those who feel that having sex with a prostitute is not contrary or detrimental to one’s spiritual life. There are those in Corinth whose sexual values are shocking, even to the pagan Corinthians (see 5:1).

In our text, it seems that for some believers spirituality is a pretext for sexual immorality, while for others spirituality means abstaining from sex altogether. In chapter 7, Paul turns his attention to those who seem to regard all sex as dirty, and who therefore advocated celibacy. For those who are single, it means staying single and, unlike today, celibate as well. For those who are married, it seems to mean that these couples should also refrain from sexual relations.

The Corinthian Error and the Culture of that Day

In the matter of sexual conduct, the Corinthians live in a very troubled world, not unlike the world of our own day. The ancient world of Paul’s day has a very distorted view of women, sex, and marriage. A. W. Verrall, the great classical scholar, once said that one of the chief diseases of which ancient civilization died was a low view of women.⁶⁴ The Greeks were not known for sexual purity:

Prostitution was an essential part of Greek life. Demosthenes had laid it down as the common and accepted rule of life: “We have courtesans for the sake of pleasure; we have concubines for the sake of daily cohabitation; we have wives for the purpose of having children legitimately, and having a faithful guardian for all our household affairs.”⁶⁵

The Roman sexual ethic was no better:

But at the time of Paul, Roman family life was wrecked. Seneca writes that women were married to be divorced and divorced to be married. In Rome the Romans did not commonly date their years by numbers; they called them by the names of their husbands. Martial the Roman poet tells of a woman who had ten husbands; Juvenal tells us of one who had had eight husbands in five years; Jerome declares it to be true that in Rome there was a woman who was married to her twenty-third husband and she herself was his twenty-first wife. We find even a Roman Emperor Augustus demanding that her husband should divorce the lady Livia when she was with child that he might himself marry her. We find even Cicero, in his old age, putting away his wife Terentia that he might marry a young heiress, whose trustee he was, that he might enter into her estate, in order to pay his debts.⁶⁶

One would hope the Jews would be exemplary in matters of sex and marriage, but this simply is not the case.

In Paul’s day Judaism reverenced neither women nor marriage. “It was Josephus who wrote, ‘The woman is worse than the man in everything’ (Josephus, Contra Apionem, 2, 201). No wonder, in the light of such harsh attitudes, that the Synagogue prayer book has the man offer the daily prayer, ‘I thank Thee, O Lord, that Thou hast not made me a Gentile dog nor a woman.’”⁶⁷ In the age of the coming of Christianity, even with Judaism the marriage bond was in peril. So great was its peril that the very institution of marriage was threatened. Jewish girls were refusing to marry at all because the position of the wife was so uncertain.⁶⁸

Even in our own time, the ancient ritual of “female circumcision” is practiced. This surgical procedure (if one dares to dignify it by such terms) is of no benefit to the woman, but imposed upon the female so that she may never have the enjoyment of sex. It seems that in the minds of those men who impose this on women, it is the woman’s place to give pleasure to the man, but never the woman’s place to receive pleasure from the man. Sadly, among pagans and Christians alike, there is a similar (if less brutal) belief strongly held by some today. The man expects his wife to give him sexual pleasure at any time, but he feels little or no obligation toward fulfilling his wife sexually.

Paul’s words concerning sex and marriage were desperately needed in his day and no less needed in our own day. Let us listen to the finest sex education available to men—a word from God on sex and marriage, through the Apostle Paul.

An Overview of the Teaching
of the Bible on Sex and Marriage

Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 are in response to a question asked by some of the Corinthian saints who correspond with him. Paul is required to address a group of Corinthian saints who have adopted an extreme view of sex and marriage. Paul’s words in the first seven verses of chapter 7 should be understood in light of the broader teaching of the Bible concerning sex and marriage. Before devoting our attention to the distorted views of sex and marriage which some of the Corinthians hold, let us remind ourselves of what the Bible as a whole says on the subject.

In Genesis 2:18, we read that God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone: I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Being alone, that is, being single, was not good, and so God created a helper suitable for Adam, a wife to be his companion and counterpart. From the Book of Proverbs, we know that God designed marriage and sex not only as a means for bringing children into this world, but also as God’s appointed means for a man to find pleasure in his wife:

15 Drink water from your own cistern, And fresh water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be yours alone, And not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love (Proverbs 5:15-19).

In the New Testament, we are told that Jesus attended a wedding and then miraculously provided wine when their supplies were exhausted (John 2:1-11). The Apostle Paul assumed that elders and deacons would be married, with children (1 Timothy 3:2, 12). Paul also encouraged younger widows to marry (1 Timothy 5:14). He claimed the right as an apostle to “lead about a wife” (1 Corinthians 9:5). The writer to the Hebrews also held marriage in high esteem, and the proper realm for sexual enjoyment between husband and wife. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).

In the Bible, marriage is viewed as the norm, and the single life as the exception. Marriage is viewed as holy, righteous, and good. Those who seek to prohibit marriage as something evil are identified as false teachers by Paul (1 Timothy 4:1-5). When we approach 1 Corinthians 7, we must do so confident that marriage is a good gift from God, a gift many Christians gratefully receive and enjoy.

A Touchy Issue
(7:1)

Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman (NASB).

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry (NIV).

It is generally assumed that the Corinthians wrote a letter to Paul asking his advice on certain matters. Beginning with the statement, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote…” in 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul continues to go back to their questions (not necessarily in the order they raised them) and to give his answer. It seems good to ask our own question, like the little lady in the TV commercial who asks, “Where’s the beef?” Where’s the question? Paul does not say, “Now concerning the things you have asked,” but rather, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote….” There is a considerable difference here.

Some people ask a question which is not meant to be enlightening. Many questions are asked in a way which cleverly “teaches” the one who is asked or others who are listening. Some seek to undermine the teaching or authority of the one asked. This is surely the purpose of the questions the scribes and Pharisees asked our Lord. But here, we should recognize that we are assuming something not specifically stated. Were the Corinthians really asking Paul questions? And, if so, were their questions sincere?

I raise this issue because of what Paul has already told us in his letter to the Corinthians. There are divisions in the Corinthian church. Various little groups have their own leaders and their own doctrines. Each group takes pride in itself, in its leader, and in the “wisdom” it possesses. Those in one group look down on those in another, because they are not so wise nor so persuasive and powerful, nor well esteemed by the pagan world of that day. One thing many Corinthians share is their disdain for the Apostle Paul. They believe they are wise, and Paul is foolish:

8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and I would indeed that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now (1 Corinthians 4:8-13).

In the light of Paul’s assessment of his standing in the hearts and minds of the Corinthians given here, it seems we should be very careful about assuming too much when we come to those things the Corinthians have written to Paul. Are they—wise as they are—trying to enlighten Paul? It is indeed possible.⁶⁹ Are they writing to Paul as their spiritual father and mentor, wanting to hear and to heed his wisdom? It is not very likely. I am therefore inclined to view their communication with Paul with some suspicion. Paul may very graciously avoid giving us any greater detail than to specify the issues raised by their communication with him, whether rightly motivated or not.

We know from Paul’s words in chapter 5 that when a man is found to be living with his father’s wife, the church does not mournfully exercise church discipline; rather, they become proud (5:2). Some Corinthians are proud as a result of sin and their response to it. When Paul raises the issue of sex and marriage in chapter 7, he is dealing with the opposite extreme in the church … those who have overreacted to fleshly lusts, seeking to overcome them by asceticism. These folks are just as proud of their asceticism as the others named in chapter 5 are of their fleshly indulgence.⁷⁰ Perhaps these ascetics have become so smug they assume Paul will applaud them. After all, when it comes to sexual abstinence and remaining single, Paul stands out among the apostles, and among those in the churches (see 1 Corinthians 9:4-5). They may not agree with Paul on many matters, but these ascetics seem to want Paul’s endorsement here. Paul’s words in response to their communication will shock them. They will not get what they expect nor what they want. They will get much more than they asked.

Before attempting to interpret Paul’s words in verse 1, we must pause to point out that the translation of the NIV is inaccurate. The expression, “not to touch a woman,” is a reference to sexual intercourse, not marriage, and thus the NIV is in error when it translates as it does.

The idiom ‘to touch a woman’ occurs nine times in Greek antiquity, ranging across six centuries and a variety of writers, and in every other instance, without ambiguity it refers to having sexual intercourse. There is no evidence of any kind that it can be extended or watered down to mean, ‘It is good for a man not to marry.’⁷¹

The Corinthian ascetics would not sanction sexual immorality. Indeed, they would not sanction sex. They feel that sex is dirty, whether within marriage or without. This tells us more about the ascetics than it does about biblical morality: “To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled” (Titus 1:15). Having concluded that all sex is evil, these folks follow out the implications of their false doctrine. If all sex is evil, then it is evil to enjoy sex in marriage. Husbands and wives should abstain from sex, unless for the bearing of children (if that). And those who are single should avoid the “temptation to have sex” by avoiding and abstaining from marriage. Paul cannot and will not endorse such a view.

What is most impressive in chapter 7 is the gentleness of the Apostle Paul. He is certainly practicing what he preaches. Remember these words Paul wrote to Timothy about dealing with those who are in error:

23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (2 Timothy 2:23-26).

How easy it would have been for Paul to come on strong with these Corinthians. Instead, he gently seeks to show them the error of their thinking and conduct. He clearly distinguishes between his personal convictions, his counsel (advice), and his authoritative apostolic commands (see 7:6-7, 40). His approach is to introduce the issue at hand and then gently correct the errors. In later chapters (e.g. 8-10), Paul’s initial gentleness leads to a very clear and forceful conclusion.

The ascetics of the Corinthian church have over-reacted to the immorality of that day, concluding that all sex is dirty and should be avoided, even within marriage. When Paul says, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” I think he is repeating the position held by the Corinthian ascetics. This was their slogan. Paul repeats the statement, not because he agrees with it in its entirety, but because he agrees with it in part. He will shortly set out to clarify the circumstances in which celibacy could serve a beneficial purpose. I am going to advance to verses 6-9 at this point to suggest just how sexual abstinence could be beneficial. I do this because the main thrust of verses 1-7 is to address the role of sex within marriage. Later verses will expand upon the benefits a celibate lifestyle can produce.

The Benefits of Staying Single
(7:6-9)

6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 Yet⁷² I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.

The first thing we should observe is that celibacy does have its benefits. When celibacy (abstaining from sex, and thus from marriage) contributes to the cause of Christ, it is depicted positively in the Bible. Our Lord spoke positively of celibacy:

11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it” (Matthew 19:11-12).

Paul speaks positively of it as well in 1 Corinthians 9 in reference to his choice and to that of Barnabas also to remain single (1 Corinthians 9:4-6). Finally, in the Book of Revelation we are told that the 144,00 will be celibates:

3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. 4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb (Revelation 14:3-4).

When Paul speaks of sexual abstinence and celibacy, he does so in a very carefully defined manner. Notice the qualifications Paul sets down regarding sexual abstinence:

(1) Paul does wish that all of the Corinthians could be single (and thus sexually celibate). Paul indicates his “wish” that all men were as he. It is clear that this could not and should not be. Paul simply desires that men might be free from distractions in order to devote themselves to serving God (see also 1 Corinthians 7:34-35).

(2) Paul does not seek to impose this on the Corinthians; he indicates this is his wish, stated by concession and not as a command (oh, that we might be so honest). The ascetics seem to have imposed their view of spirituality upon all. Paul does not represent his preference as a biblical imperative, but as a personal preference which God has allowed him to express as such. Unlike many of us, Paul carefully distinguishes between those commands which are from Christ, and must not be ignored, and the counsel he offers which men can (and perhaps should) disregard. I am reminded of Paul’s advice to Apollos, which Apollos declined to accept and apply:

12 But concerning Apollos our brother, I encouraged him greatly to come to you with the brethren; and it was not at all his desire to come now, but he will come when he has opportunity (1 Corinthians 16:12).

(3) This distinction between concession and command is not an indictment against the inspiration of the Scriptures, but an affirmation of them. Some might question why anything we find in the Scriptures is less than a command, but this is the very nature of convictions. When Paul indicates that a certain view or preference of his is not by divine revelation, and therefore not binding on his readers, he is demonstrating personal integrity by not trying to give the impression that his desires are God’s desires. By doing so, he also underscores the fact that the rest of the Scriptures are inspired and authoritative:

14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:14-17).

If any of Paul’s statements are less than a “thus saith the Lord,” we can count on Paul to tell us so.

(4) Paul does not speak of celibacy as a spiritually superior state but as a less distracted state, a way of serving our Lord with greater focus and consistency. The Corinthian celibates surely thought of themselves as more spiritual and were proud of their celibacy. They must have looked down on those who were married. But it doesn’t take a Harvard graduate to recognize that many singles today who know Jesus Christ as Savior are not serving God with the intensity and focus of some who are married and have families.

(5) Paul sees this singleness and celibacy as a matter related to one’s gift and calling. Unlike most students of the Scriptures, I am not saying that celibacy is a spiritual gift. I am saying that celibacy is related to one’s gift and calling. If one were to conclude that there were such a thing as “the gift of celibacy,” it would have to be from this passage, and quite frankly, this passage does not compel one to reach this conclusion. Consider the reasons that there does not seem to be such a thing as a gift of celibacy:

Nowhere else in the Bible is celibacy identified as a spiritual gift. There are several texts in Scripture where various spiritual gifts are enumerated. In none of these texts is celibacy listed as a spiritual gift.
In 1 Corinthians 7:7, Paul does not call celibacy a gift. Paul simply says each one has his gift, “one in this manner, and another in that.” The expression, “one in this manner, and another in that” is unusual, if Paul means for us to conclude that celibacy is a spiritual gift. One would have expected him to say, “one has this gift, and another that,”⁷³ or something to this effect. Paul seems to be speaking about the manner in which different gifts are exercised and not what the particular gift may be.
If celibacy were a spiritual gift, it differs from all the other spiritual gifts. Every other gift is related to a function. Every other gift can be converted to a verb. The gift of helps entails helping. The gift of teaching entails teaching. The gift of exhortation entails exhorting. Just exactly what does the gift of celibacy do? So far as I can tell, it does nothing other than to prevent one from having sex.
If I correctly understand those who believe celibacy is a gift, then the gift of celibacy is the absence of sexual desire. If not the absence of desire, celibacy is an added measure of self-control. Those whom I have heard speak of celibacy as a gift do not define it very carefully. Usually it would seem as though the one who is celibate is the person who does not desire sex or marriage. I have never met such a person, at least as far as the absence of sexual desire is concerned. There are many people who may not wish to marry, but few of them claim to lack sexual desire. How does the absence of sexual desire (if there is such a thing) minister to the body of Christ? If there were a gift of celibacy, I know of a number of people who are widowed or divorced who would welcome such a gift, but I have never seen it.
I understand celibacy to be the conscious choice to control one’s sexual desires and to remain single so that one’s gifts and calling may be more effectively utilized. Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ. Apostleship, along with other gifts, was bestowed upon Paul at the time of his conversion. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for Paul to carry out his calling if he had been married and the father of a number of children. Can you imagine a family man going from city to city, living in one home and then another, sometimes being self-supporting, and other times living on the gifts of others? Can you see Paul’s wife and family being cast into prison with him, or being left alone without any support? Celibacy was the ideal state for a man like Paul, who had his gifts and calling. I think that is what Paul means when he says, “… each man has his own gift, one in this manner, and another in that.” We might paraphrase Paul’s words in this way: “Each man has his own gifts and calling, which are carried out in one manner or another, some serving God through marriage, and some serving Him through remaining single.” Some ministries are conducted much better in the context of marriage and the family. Paul would have trouble, for example, showing hospitality. Whether one chooses to marry or to remain single should be determined on how that person’s gift and calling can best be fulfilled. For some, this will mean marriage (and all that comes with it, like the pleasures and responsibilities of sex); for some it may mean celibacy (with the freedom and undistracted life that comes with it).

Staying single (and thus sexually inactive) may be the calling of some. If it is your calling, it is for the glory of God and for the promotion of the gospel. But the single life and sexual abstinence is not the rule, as Paul knows. And so in verses 2-5, we find Paul speaking of the role of sex in marriage.

Sex and Spirituality in Marriage
(7:2-4)

2 But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Notice the three-fold parallel structure in verses 2-4 which stress the mutuality of sexual pleasure and sexual duty:

Let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband (verse 2).
Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband (verse 3)
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (verse 4).

Paul does not stress the submission of the wife to her husband here, as though it is his role to get pleasure from his wife, and her role to give pleasure to her husband. There is mutual submission here,⁷⁴ so that both the husband and the wife are to subordinate their interest (pleasure in sex) to the interest of their mate. Consider the guiding principles for what we might call “Spirit-filled marital sex.”

(1) The norm is that Christians will marry and that as a Christian couple, the husband and wife will enjoy regular sexual relations. The ascetics are absolutely wrong in thinking and teaching that sex is unspiritual and thus inappropriate even within the bonds of matrimony. Consistently abstaining from sex in marriage is not only unnatural, it is unholy.

(2) A healthy sex life is a preventative for immorality. A healthy and pleasurable sex life between a husband and wife is a normal and natural release of sexual tension, and thus it is helpful in the prevention of sexual immorality. Good sex in marriage is not a guarantee that there will be marital fidelity. If one mate is unfaithful to the other, it does not necessarily mean that the offended spouse has failed to satisfy the other. David certainly had enough wives to satisfy his sexual appetites, but he committed adultery anyway. The lusting eye is never satisfied. Nevertheless, Paul speaks of sexual relations in marriage as a preventative for sexual immorality outside of marriage: “Because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.” The ascetics are wrong. To abstain from marital sex proves to be a temptation; to enjoy marital sex promotes edification.

(3) Both husband and wife should eagerly engage in the sexual act as their duty, both to God and to their mate. It is not just the wife who is commanded to give herself to her husband; the husband is likewise commanded to give himself to his wife. In fact, the husband is first commanded to give himself to his wife, and then the wife to her husband (see verse 3).

(4) Both husband and wife should not only give themselves for sex, but each should seek to produce the ultimate pleasure for their partner. Reaching the ultimate pleasure in the sexual union is what best insures against immorality. Frustratingly unfulfilling sex to one partner or the other will also tempt one to be immoral. The “use me” mindset in sexual intimacy falls far short of the mark which Paul sets for us here. The duty of the husband is to satisfy his wife sexually, just as the duty of the wife is to satisfy her husband. This is the best one can do to stay sexually pure and to encourage one’s mate to do likewise.

(5) Neither the husband nor the wife has the authority to deprive⁷⁵ their mate sexually. If I have not said it clearly enough, I will say it bluntly here: it is wrong to deprive one’s mate of the pleasures of sexual intimacy. There is nothing spiritual about avoiding sex. I think I should also say that there is nothing particularly spiritual about demanding sex either.

(6) Those Christians who have been forcibly making a celibate of their mate by withholding sex are commanded to stop sinning in this fashion. Paul’s command to “stop depriving one another” in verse 5 strongly implies that a number of Corinthian Christians are already withholding sex from their mates. Paul tells us that withholding sex from your mate is sin, a sin which must be repented of, and a sin which we must correct by obeying our Lord’s command through Paul. Paul spoke of the benefits of staying single by concession, rather than by command. But the instruction to husbands and wives to sexually fulfill each other is a command, not a wish or a suggestion. To refuse to change in this area is to willfully disobey one of God’s commands.

(7) Sexual abstinence is to be a rare and temporary exception to the norm of regular sexual union. There are obviously times when normal sexual relations are temporarily interrupted. In the Old Testament, a man was not to have sex with his wife during her monthly period (see Leviticus 15:19, 24; 18:19). Here, Paul speaks of the temporary interruption of a couple’s marital sex life to facilitate prayer. The reason should be obvious, especially for parents with children in the home. Bedtime seems to be the only “private” time two parents have. This means that besides sleep, closing the bedroom door affords the opportunity to enjoy sexual intimacy; it also affords the opportunity for prayer. Frankly, it is difficult to have both prayer and sex on the same agenda, especially if the prayer is urgent and extended. For a bachelor, Paul seems to understand married life very well.⁷⁶

Paul sets down some very stringent requirements regarding the cessation of normal sexual relations in marriage. First, the decision to abstain from sex must be mutually reached by the husband and the wife. There must not be a unilateral decision made by one spouse. Second, a cessation of normal sexual relations should only take place for matters of great urgency. I understand Paul’s words in verse 5 to refer to specific, urgent matters of prayer, and not normal prayers. The King James Version may well be the original text, and it includes fasting with prayer.

Third, normal sexual relations should be resumed quickly, so that Satan may not take advantage of their lack of self-control. This statement should have really irritated the Corinthian ascetics, who thought of their sexual abstinence as the epitome of self-control. Not according to Paul! Sexual abstinence did not strengthen these saints in their battle with the flesh and with Satan; it weakened them, and it made them vulnerable.

Unfortunately, I have known of situations in which “prayer” was the excuse of one mate for avoiding sex with the other. Who can be more pious than one who gives up sex for prayer? And who can be so unspiritual as to criticize anyone for neglecting their sex life to enhance their prayer life? It is the ultimate spiritual “lion in the road” (to use an expression from the Book of Proverbs). A “lion in the road” is a compelling reason (excuse) for avoiding what one really doesn’t want to do. If the truth were known, a healthy sexual relationship between a man and his wife may facilitate a richer prayer life. I say this on the basis of Peter’s words in 1 Peter 3:7 “You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” Surely “living with one’s wife in an understanding way” includes the sexual relationship. A sexually frustrated and irritated mate is not a good prayer partner.

Conclusion

The church at Corinth did not write to Paul about divisions and factions, about false wisdom or pride, about leaders who looked down on Paul and his gospel. They wrote to Paul about sex, and specifically, about abstaining from sex. They do not want advice from Paul on their sex lives; they only want his endorsement. But if they had wanted advice on matters of sex, do you think they would have expected wise counsel from Paul? How can a man who is both a bachelor and a preacher teach these “worldly wise” folks anything about sex? They must believe they know it all. They may have been the Dr. Ruth’s of their day. But, wonder of wonders, God chose to give the finest sex education available, the best counsel on sex in marriage, through Paul. Once again, the wisdom of God is vastly other than the wisdom of men!

I wish I could have seen the looks on the faces of the Corinthian ascetics as they heard Paul’s response to what they have written. These folks must be so puffed up with pride at their self-control and victory over fleshly desires. While they differ with Paul in many matters, surely they think Paul will applaud them for maintaining that sex is dirty and should be avoided, even in marriage. They do not want Paul’s advice or instruction, only his endorsement. What they receive is something entirely different. Paul agrees that abstaining from sex can be beneficial, but only in the most restricted applications. Instead of applauding them for abstaining from sex in marriage, Paul instructs them to engage in sex with their spouses as a duty. This must not be done with gritted teeth, and the goal of each mate should be to satisfy the other.

The Corinthian ascetics think that spirituality is antithetical to the enjoyment of sex within marriage. Paul wants his readers (which includes us) to understand that spirituality encompasses every aspect of one’s life, including sex. If you are married, have you ever thought of whether your sex life is Spirit-filled or not? You should. Paul is teaching husbands and wives that servanthood is the fundamental ingredient to satisfying sexual intimacy in marriage. How many times have you read these words penned by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians:

1 If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:1-8).

How often have you considered Paul’s teaching here as governing your sexual relationship with your spouse? If marriage is a reflection of the union Christ has with His church, then how would we think the physical union of a man and his wife is not of great importance to God? True, this is a “private” matter, between man and wife, but why would we think the angels would not be watching and learning (see 1 Corinthians 11:10)? Sex is not “dirty;” it is a gift of God, which is to be enjoyed in the confines of marriage and to portray the most precious “union” of all, the union of God and His church.

God has uniquely fashioned the man and the woman so that they are very different. I do not mean different in the biological sense, but different in their makeup. Husbands tend to respond very quickly; wives are not as quickly stimulated and not by the same kinds of things. I have heard it said by some that men and women are mismatched, sexually speaking. And so they are, by divine design. Sex cannot be mutually satisfying without real love. In this sense, biblical sex is “making love.” And love is manifested in sacrifice. Only as both the husband and the wife sacrifice their own interests (sexually speaking) is the other satisfied. Sacrificial servanthood is the key to Spirit-filled sex.

I want to be very clear here that we are not just talking about some kind of technique, which, if followed, brings maximum pleasure to the one who employs it. The husband should be sensitively attuned to his wife, seeking to bring her fulfillment. But this is not just because it is the way he will find his own fulfillment. Love-making in marriage seeks to bring pleasure to one’s spouse at one’s own expense. There is a lot of talk about “maximum sex,” but sex should never be approached selfishly as the means to the ultimate goal of self-satisfaction. “Taking up one’s cross” applies in the board room and in the bedroom.

In his Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul specifically deals with sex as a part of the believer’s sanctification:

3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. 8 Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).

Sanctification includes the avoidance of sexual immorality (verse 3). It also involves the Christian relating to his or her spouse sexually in a way that is distinctly Christian and not pagan (verses 4-5). It is clear that we may sin in the matter of sex, and that God is the avenger is such cases (verse 7). God has not called us to impurity but to holiness, and this holiness will be evident in the way we sexually relate to our spouse (verse 7). To reject Paul’s “sex education” is to reject the Spirit of God (verse 8).

I am not amazed that the unbelieving world, sex-and self-crazed as it is, finds frustration more than fulfillment in the bedroom. I am deeply distressed that many Christians are living defeated lives in relation to sex. Some are simply not having sex, usually due to the disobedience of one of the two partners, and sometimes due to the apathy of both. Some are engaging in illicit sex, either by means of pornography or illicit sexual unions outside of marriage. Others find sexual stimulation in the workplace by telling off-color stories and by suggestive dress and talk. The newest temptation is “cyber sex,” illicit sex by means of the computer. I don’t think I will tell you all of the ways this can be done. Hopefully, I do not know them. Here is a definite area of danger, and I hope that you can see that it is totally self-serving.

Paul’s teaching in verses 1-7 present us with two apparent problems. First, Paul speaks of marriage and sex as a preventative to immorality: “But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (verse 2). These words seem to suggest that Paul views sex and marriage in a less than noble way. Is sex only a preventative and not a pleasure for the Christian? Paul’s second statement raises similar questions: “Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband” (verse 3). Is sex only a duty and not a delight?

I would say first that in our fallen world and culture, sex is viewed primarily in terms of selfish pleasure. Sex, apart from biblical servanthood, is self-centered pleasure seeking. I would like you to consider sex in the light of the “great commandment” of the Bible:

34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they gathered themselves together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 “This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:34-40).

The whole Law can be summed up by two commandments: (1) love God with all of one’s being, and (2) love your neighbor.

How does one love God? Peter tells us how we are to conduct ourselves in relation to God:

14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each man’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers (1 Peter 1:14-18).

Loving God requires being holy. Being holy means not being conformed to those lusts which once dominated us as unbelievers. Immorality is one of the sins which characterizes the Corinthians (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Thus, the Christian should fervently desire to avoid immorality. And so when Paul speaks of marriage and sex as a preventative for immoralities, why should we think Paul is taking sex lightly? Righteousness is the higher goal, and marriage (and sex) are a means to this goal. Paul does not think little of sex; he thinks more highly of righteousness. Isn’t being godly a higher goal than being sexually fulfilled? The problem is not with Paul; it is with us. We value sex more highly than pleasing God.

The second dimension of the great commandment is that we should love our neighbor as ourself. How does this relate to the subject of sex within marriage? Our wife (or our husband) is our neighbor. We are to love our spouse as we love ourself (see also Ephesians 5:28-32). To do so, we must put the (sexual) interests of our mate above our own. Living by the law of love makes it my duty to sexually fulfill my spouse. Is my duty demeaning, something for which I should apologize? It is my duty to keep the commandments of my Lord. Is this demeaning? Not at all! The goal for which I should strive is to see my duty as my delight. This is the way David and other godly men approached God’s law (see Psalm 40:6-8; see also 119:9-16, 24, 137-144).

I would like to suggest to you that sex is similar to worship. Indeed, in the pagan cultures (such as with the Canaanites in the Old Testament and the Corinthians in the New) sex was a part of worship (see also Exodus 32:1-6 and 1 Corinthians 10:6-8). And no wonder, for making sex a part of worship assured the “worshippers” of instant satisfaction.

I fear that we approach worship in a way that is all too similar to the way many approach sex. Some, who feel like worship does not satisfy or fulfill them, are inclined to avoid it. We evaluate worship more in terms of what we have gained than in what we have given. I would remind you that the operative term when it comes to worship is sacrifice, not fulfillment. I would further say that worship (like sex) is not so much about seeking pleasure for ourselves as it is about giving pleasure to God.

Sexuality and spirituality are very closely related. Paul calls for each of us who knows God through Jesus Christ to elevate our sexuality to the standard God has set, to make sexuality an expression of our spirituality to the glory of God, and ultimately for our good.

64 William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958), p. 199.

65 Barclay, p. 201.

66 Barclay, p. 202.

67 Cited by Gary Inrig, Life in His Body (Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975), p. 156.

68 Barclay, pp. 200-201.

69 “Rather than a friendly exchange, in which the new believers in Corinth are asking spiritual advice of their mentor in the Lord, their letter was probably a response to Paul’s previous Letter mentioned in 5:9, in which they were taking exception to his position on point after point.” Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprint, 1993]), pp. 266-267.

70 Is it possible that some who were proud in chapter 5 are proud because the immorality of this man living in an incestuous relationship made their asceticism look pious? Maybe they do not put out sinners so that the pseudo-righteous look pious.

71 Gordon D. Fee, p. 275. Fee goes on to say of verse 2, “Second, there is no known evidence that the idiom ‘to have a wife’ means ‘to take a wife.’ In fact this idiom is common in biblical Greek and usually means either to ‘have sexually’ (Exod. 2:1; Deut. 28:30; Isa. 13:16) or simply to be married or to be in continuing sexual relations with a man or woman (see esp. 5:1 and 7:29; cf. mark 6;18; John 4:18).” Fee, p. 278.

72 I have ^serious doubts about the choice made by the translators of the NASB here. The King James Version (and the Greek texts which underlie it) seem to give the correct rendering of “For” and not “Yet.” Verse 7 is thus an explanation of Paul’s statement in verse 6.

73 Thus, the New English Bible actually paraphrases, “I should like you all to be as I am myself; but everyone has the gift God has granted him, one this gift and another that.”

74 Compare Ephesians 5:21 with 5:22-33.

75 “The use of the verb ‘deprive’ is especially striking. This is the same verb used in 6:7-8 for the man who had defrauded another. It is a pejorative word for taking away what rightfully belongs to another…” Fee, p. 281.

76 There are some, of course, who argue that Paul had once been married. This conclusion is the result of several inferences. It begins with Paul’s statement in Acts 26:10 that he “cast his vote” against some saints who were on trial for being Christians. The first assumption is that Paul must have been a member of the Sanhedrin to be able to “cast his vote.” The next assumption is that all those on the Sanhedrin had to be married (this does not come from the Scriptures). Therefore, it is concluded that Paul was once married and was either divorced or widowed. This is possible, but in no way is it a fact which the Scriptures compel us to assume. One way or the other, it really isn’t important.

20. Spirituality and Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor. 11:1-3)

Introduction

A Roman Catholic priest told this story in Readers Digest a few years ago. He was serving at the cathedral at Notre Dame and at the end of his day was making his way out to his car, apparently through a rather dark alley. From the shadows, a man approached, sticking a gun in the priest’s ribs and demanding that the priest hand over his wallet. As the priest reached into his coat pocket, the robber saw his clothing and realized he was a clergyman. Shaken, the once confident robber asked incredulously, “Are you a priest?” “Yes, yes I am,” replied the priest. “I don’t rob priests!” the man quickly assured him. “Well, thanks, thanks a lot!” the priest responded with relief. His hand still in his pocket where he had reached for his wallet, the priest said, “Here, have a cigar,” offering a cigar to the robber. “Oh no, I couldn’t do that,” the penitent thief replied, “you see, I’m a Catholic too, and I’ve given them up for lent.”

In the words of our Lord, this thief was “straining gnats and swallowing camels”:

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. 27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:23-28).

The thief who would not consider robbing a priest would readily rob anyone else. He might even have been taking drugs, but he would not think of having a smoke, at least for a little while. Here we find a classic example of “straining gnats and swallowing camels.” The scribes and Pharisees did the same thing. They were meticulous in attending to the details of the Law, but they missed the main point of it all. This is why the prophets were sent, one after the other, to keep pointing out the essence of the Law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23; see Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8).

All of us tend to get into a rut, doing the same old things and hardly remembering why we do them. I believe this is what had happened to the Corinthian saints. They were still doing the things they had first done—conducting baptisms, meeting weekly as a gathered assembly, observing communion, and the women were still covering their heads. But already these saints were beginning to lose sight of the big picture. In our text, Paul sets down one of the guiding principles for the traditions he had established during his time with them, and perhaps in the letter he had previously written to them (1 Corinthians 5:9).

The verses we are about to consider are among the most troublesome in this epistle. For everyone who is honest, this is a difficult text to interpret. I can well remember when one of my most respected professors (the head of the Old Testament department) published an article on this chapter, which some hoped would be the definitive work. As it turned out, there was not only a strong resistance to his position, but even he renounced his work. Lest you think I am poking fun at this godly scholar, let me also confess I have taught this passage several times over the past 20 years, and I usually come to a different conclusion each time I teach it!

For many today, this text is the cornerstone in their theology of the role of women in ministry in the church. This should be a foundational text, but those who are most inclined to turn here for a validation of their theology turn to the wrong place, for the wrong reasons, and with the wrong conclusions. Because this text is a battleground for evangelicals, we need to spend a little time laying the groundwork for our study in this exposition and in those texts which follow. Several introductory comments will help the reader to understand where I am coming from.

Introductory Comments Concerning Paul and His Teaching

(1) Chapters 11-14 flow easily from what Paul has already written in chapters 1-10. There is no abrupt shifting of gears when moving from chapter 10 to chapter 11. At chapter 11, Paul makes his transition from the subject of participating in illicit idol worship to the conduct of the church at worship in chapters 11-14. If chapters 8-10 had to do with suppers where idol-meats were eaten, chapters 11-14 deal with the meeting of the church and its celebration of the Lord’s Table.

One could probably sum up the problems of the Corinthian Christians with one word: self. Seeking status for themselves, the Corinthians had divided into factions, each of which prided themselves on the status of their leader and the sophistication of his style. The Corinthians were into self-satisfaction so that all kinds of evils were practiced and tolerated. These included what appears to be incest in chapter 5 and immorality with prostitutes in chapter 6. These self-serving Corinthians were so into fulfilling their own desires that they fought for their rights in secular law courts, before unbelieving judges, and before the unbelieving world which looked on with wonder. Those who sought to correct the problem of rampant immorality did so by teaching the opposite extreme. They advocated the avoidance of marriage and of sex within marriage. These saints were so caught up in self-indulgence they did not have the discipline to say no to their fleshly lusts. They would eat idol-meats and even participate in their heathen idol worship ceremonies. They would insist on going to idol temples, even though this caused other Christians to stumble.

By and large, the self-indulgence Paul has exposed in chapters 1-10 has been outside the church. Now, at chapter 11, Paul turns to the evidences of self-seeking when the saints gathered as a church for worship and edification. Much of this self-seeking had some kind of spiritual label, which gave a semblance of spirituality. But it does not take a biblical scholar to conclude from Paul’s words in chapters 11-14 that it was mere selfism with a very thin spiritual veneer. The saints who gathered to observe the Lord’s Table did not wait for those who could only come late nor did they share their food with those in need. They indulged themselves so that they became drunk, and the celebration of the Lord’s Table was shamefully observed. When it came time for teaching and singing and edification, it seems as though every Corinthian, man or woman, was determined to speak or to perform, and much of their participation seems to be grandstanding. The sins formerly exposed outside the church meeting earlier in this first epistle of Paul’s to the Corinthians are now exposed in the context of the church meeting in chapters 11-14.

(2) Paul’s teaching here is consistent with his teaching elsewhere, with that of the Old Testament, the apostle Peter, and with the practice of our Lord. Too many professing Christians look down upon Paul and his teaching concerning women as though he were a hillbilly from the Ozarks, a narrow-minded chauvinist who sought to pass off his prejudices as apostolic instruction. Paul claims that his teaching and practice are consistent with the Old Testament “law” (14:34), and with his teaching and practice elsewhere (1:2; 4:14-17; 11:16; 14:34). Peter’s words in 1 Peter 3:1-6 mirror what Paul has written here and elsewhere.

There is little new or unique about Paul’s teaching on the roles of men and women except for one thing–the possibility that women might be able to pray or prophesy publicly in the church meeting. Nowhere else is this possibility mentioned, and so we must seek to explain Paul’s words in verse 4 in light of his teaching to the contrary everywhere else the subject of the woman’s role in ministry and worship is discussed. The wonder to me is how so many professing Christians can think of Paul’s words concerning women praying or prophesying in verse 4 as the rule, rather than as the exception.

(3) Paul’s words here concerning women and worship are not merely his own opinion but are his apostolic instruction, concluding in instructions from Paul which he calls the “Lord’s commandment” (14:37). It is amazing how many wish to be “Pauline” in their theology when it comes to justification by faith or the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but who suddenly look down upon Paul as a narrow-minded chauvinist when it comes to the role of women. We cannot pick and choose from Paul’s teaching. It is true that Paul does give his opinions elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, which are not binding on us (see 7:6-7, 25, 40). He clearly informs us when this is the case. But when Paul comes to the role of men and women and the principle of headship in our text, it is not opinion which he offers, but principles which culminate in clear-cut imperatives. If one is inclined to take Paul lightly here, let him remember Paul’s concluding words in chapter 14:

34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. 40 But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner (1 Corinthians 14:34-40).

(4) Paul’s teaching in this passage is not just restricted to the Corinthians living in that place and time; it is for all Christians. Those who cannot deny the clear teaching of the apostle, but who do not wish to abide by that teaching, find an escape by restricting Paul’s teaching on sexual roles to that time and place, and not our own. Paul is writing to the Corinthians, but in his introductory words in chapter 1, verse 2, Paul indicates he is writing to all the saints, to those “who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul repeatedly emphasizes the global nature of his instruction and its universal implications (see 4:16-17; 11:16; 14:34). Paul’s principles and precepts are therefore as much for our benefit as they were for the Corinthian saints so long ago.

Introductory Comments About Hermeneutics

Many of the errors made in interpreting this passage (and others) are the result of two problems: (1) preconceived notions as to what Paul can and cannot teach on the roles of men and women in the church; and (2) the use of an improper method of interpreting the Scriptures.¹²⁵ The first error is the result of presuppositions (“My mind is already made up, so don’t confuse me with the facts.”), and the second has to do with hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a fancy, five-dollar word for the science of interpretation. The text we are expounding is one of the most debated passages in the New Testament. Unbelievers reject Paul’s teaching here immediately. But believers too are very reluctant to take Paul’s words at face value. Some parts of this passage are simply hard to understand even though we desire to do so; others are hard to understand because we can see where Paul’s teaching is leading, and we do not really wish to go there. As we begin our study of chapter 11, I want you to know the guiding principles of interpretation I will seek to follow in this exposition.

(1) We must always interpret the “unclear” texts of Scripture in light of those which are “clear.” I must stress here that this principle of interpretation is held by virtually all conservative evangelical Christians, as well as others. The real question is: “Which texts are clear and which are unclear?” Too often our presuppositions prevail here, and we decide the “unclear” texts are those that teach something with which we disagree. The clear texts are those which appear to be proof texts for our own preferences. If we are honest, I think we would have to acknowledge that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is one of those passages which is unclear in some of its particulars. This is precisely why so many scholars have differed over its interpretation, even in those days when there was not strong cultural pressure to reject much of Paul’s teaching in this text.

(2) Paul’s teaching in this passage must be interpreted in light of Scripture and not in light of the culture of that day. A number of the commentaries assume we must understand, interpret, and apply Paul’s words in our text in light of the culture of his day. The simple fact is no one really knows the culture of that day that well. Furthermore, any number of cultures were represented in that cosmopolitan city, not just one. If the student of Scripture can only understand what he reads in light of the culture of that day and time, derived from some source other than Scripture, we are of all men most to be pitied. Historical background and cultural insight gained outside the Bible may be helpful and illustrative, but it is not crucial to interpreting and applying the Scriptures. If so, those jungle peoples who are given a copy of the Bible translated by Wycliffe missionaries cannot be expected to rely upon their Bibles alone, because they must have other facts to understand the message of any text.

I believe the Scriptures give us all the information we need to be able to read, understand, interpret, and apply any passage in the Bible. I am not advocating we ban or burn our Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias or that we cease archaeological excavations. I am simply saying that if all we have in our hands is a Bible, that is enough. A concordance can be of help, too. Enlightened by other texts and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, we can interpret and apply the Bible to ourselves and to our times.

(3) Chapters 11-14 are a unit, and every passage in this segment must be interpreted and applied as a part of this unit. Paul is a very logical thinker and writer. Paul is developing an argument for the entire book as each chapter unfolds. Each of the sub-sections (like chapters 8-10 and 11-14) also has an argument that is progressively developed. If we are to understand Paul’s teaching, we must do so by interpreting each portion in the light of the larger argument. Beyond this, if Paul’s epistles are the inspired Word of God, then what Paul teaches on the roles of men and women in ministry must be consistent with what he has written elsewhere in other epistles.

(4) We should interpret Paul’s words in chapter 11 (and elsewhere) in the light of Paul’s style of developing his argument. In the most general terms, the first 16 verses of 1 Corinthians 11 are Paul’s “introduction,” and the final verses of chapter 14 are the “conclusion” to his teaching on the conduct of men and women in the church meeting. One would hardly do justice to Paul’s argument by drawing too many conclusions from Paul’s introduction, and yet this is precisely what happens. Let Paul merely mention the possibility of a woman praying or prophesying in church, and many are willing to conclude that this is acceptable, even though Paul prohibits women to speak in the church meeting (even to ask a question) in chapter 14. Let introductions be introductions, and let Paul’s conclusions be our conclusions.

Having made these introductory comments, we need to understand the unique way in which Paul deals with the Corinthian problems. We need to understand the way Paul develops his arguments so we can interpret his teaching clearly. I am suggesting we now apply what we should have already learned about the way Paul develops his argument in 1 Corinthians 1-10, so that we can rightly discern his argument in chapters 11-14.

Paul does not deal with the Corinthian errors head-on as he does the heresy he confronts in his Epistle to the Galatians. In chapter 7, Paul begins with a statement that would have been on the lips of some of the ascetics in the church: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (verse 1). It would seem, on the face of it, that Paul is agreeing with the ascetics by referring to the celibate lifestyle as ideal. But as he develops his argument, we can see that marital sex is, for some, a preventative for immorality, and abstinence (in marriage) a cause of immorality. While the ascetics seem to have prohibited sex and marriage altogether (see 1 Timothy 4:1-3), Paul does not prohibit marriage and sexual intimacy in marriage. He does, however, encourage those who are single to consider the single and celibate lifestyle in order to serve the Lord without distraction (7:25-35).

In chapter 8, Paul appears to accept the position and practice of some Corinthians, who not only ate meats offered to idols but did so in a pagan idol worship ceremony (8:10). These idol-meat eaters not only indulged themselves in this meal, they did so knowing they would be a stumbling block to weaker brothers in so doing. And all the while these idol-meat eaters thought they were “strong” and more “spiritual” than those who refrained from such meats. By the time we reach the end of chapter 10, Paul has brought the whole matter to its conclusion, forbidding any believer to act in a way that hindered another, that became a sharer in demonic things, and which was contrary to the glory of God and the proclamation of the gospel. The appearance of chapter 8 (that idol-meat eating is permissible, and even preferable, for the Christian) is blown away by the reality of chapter 10. No one would think of casting aside the apostolic command not to eat idol-meats (Acts 15:28-29; 1 Corinthians 10:14-22) by claiming that Paul’s words in chapter 8 contradicted this command. And, likewise, no one should dare to cast aside clear apostolic commands to women based upon the fact that Paul speaks of the hypothetical possibility that a woman might pray or prophesy with her head uncovered. Paul’s conclusions on such matters are clearly recorded in his conclusion of chapter 14.

(5) The commands of Scripture always take precedence over our inferences drawn from the Scriptures (see Matthew 28:20; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Corinthians 10:5). In Matthew 23, Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees of “straining gnats and swallowing camels”; that is, they were knit pickers on little trivial details while they missed the main point of it all. The number one “camel” for me is a command from God. After all, the whole law was first summed up by Ten Commandments and then by just two. When Jesus commands me to love my enemy, my task is not to try to reason my way out of it, but to do it. No matter how many “justifications” I find in the Bible for not taking this command seriously, the command stands, and I obey or disobey. The first command which was given to Adam and Eve did not make sense to Eve, and both she and her husband disobeyed. No set of reasons was an adequate excuse. I am not saying there is never any exception to any command, but I am saying I must take commands most seriously of all. Paul put it this way:

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, 6 and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete (2 Corinthians 10:4-6).

To somewhat paraphrase what I understand Paul to be saying, we are in a spiritual conflict, and one of our chief weapons is the Word of God (the sword of the Spirit). While we can reason our way to nearly any conclusion (sprinkling that conclusion with an ample portion of biblical references), we are to take every thought, every doctrine, every theory, and subject it to Christ, specifically to obeying Christ’s commands. Jesus’ great final command is about obedience to His commands:

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20, emphasis mine).

If my reasoning and exegesis bring me to the point where I must choose to follow my reasoning (and thus disobey Christ’s command), or to obey Christ’s command, I should have little doubt as to which prevails.

Notice then that there are no commands in verses 1-6. The commands will be found later in chapters 11-14, with Paul’s final words in chapter 14 packed with them. Commands are the bottom line of Scripture, and Paul will not get to the bottom line in this introductory text in 11:1-16, but in chapters 13 and 14.

As we shall soon seek to demonstrate, those efforts to interpret our text in light of the culture of Corinth are destined to fail. Not one of Paul’s arguments is based upon the culture of his day, but upon the principles and traditions laid down by the holy prophets, including Paul.

An Invitation to Imitation
(11:1)

1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

Paul has already given the Corinthians much to imitate. In the immediately preceding context, Paul calls on everyone to willingly surrender any right or liberty which does not edify (10:23), and specifically he claims that he seeks to please all men in all things, refraining from seeking his own profit in order to pursue that which is profitable to others (10:33). Here is something worth imitating, but there is yet more to come. In chapter 11, Paul will praise the Corinthians for remembering him in everything. They are to imitate and to obey Paul by following those things he teaches and practices in regard to the church (see also 4:14-17).

Unexpected Praise
(11:2)

2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

We must admit that praise is not something we expect from Paul when writing to the Corinthians. After all, they are doing so many things wrong! Yet, in spite of this, Paul starts off in a very positive manner, commending the Corinthians for remembering him in everything and by holding firmly to the traditions which he taught them. Just what are these traditions? Some commentators believe we cannot know what they were. I think the Bible gives us a pretty clear idea as to what some of these were. Consider the following texts in which these same terms, “tradition” or “traditions,”¹²⁶ are employed:

15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us (2 Thessalonians 3:6).

The verb form of this word is frequently found in the New Testament, and it is informative as well:

4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees, which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe (Acts 16:4).

2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you (1 Corinthians 11:2).

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread (1 Corinthians 11:23).

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3).

21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them (2 Peter 2:21).

What are the “traditions” Paul delivered to these Corinthians which they remember and persistently observe? They are the inspired, apostolic instructions, which were handed down to the churches regarding doctrine and practice. The traditions are the gospel message and the commandments which accompany it. In the context of chapter 11, the “traditions” are the head covering of women, the observance of communion, and the regular meeting of the church, all of which are discussed in chapters 11-14.

The Guiding Principle
(11:3)

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

The “but” of verse 3 is significant. Paul did sincerely praise the Corinthians for remembering him in all things by keeping the traditions he had given them. They were going through the right rituals and practices, and this was commendable. But they were not doing so in the right spirit; they did not keep the traditions with an understanding mind, with a firm grasp of why they were doing what they were so faithfully doing. And so Paul sets out to remind them of a principle which gives meaning to the traditions they were so faithfully observing. That principle is the principle of headship. In verse 3, Paul applies the principle of headship to three relationships: (1) God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son; (2) Jesus Christ and all mankind; and, (3) the man as the head of a woman.

Before we look at these three examples of headship, let us first pause to reflect upon what headship means. I will restrict the meanings of the term “head” to those which can be found in the Scriptures. To begin, let me summarize the scope of the meaning of this term “head”:

(1) To be the “head” is to be the source. We speak of the “headwaters” of a river, and we mean the place where the river begins, its source.

(2) To be the “head” is to be the one with ultimate authority. The head man is the man in charge, the man with final authority. The head waiter or the head of the household is the one in charge.

(3) To be the “head” is to be preeminent above others. To be preeminent is to get the glory. To be the head is to be the one who is most prominent, the one who has the preeminence. Anyone knows that in an organization, the underlings dare not upstage the one in charge, the head of the organization.

Christ is the head of the church because He brought it into existence. He is the head of the church because He sustains the church. He is the head because the church serves Him. He is the head in that He is preeminent in the church and in all creation. Paul includes all these elements in his Epistle to the Colossians:

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything (Colossians 1:16-18).

The man, Paul writes, is the head of a woman. Paul does not say men are the head of women, but he speaks of a one-to-one between a certain man and a woman. In effect, Paul is saying that the husband is the head of his wife (Ephesians 5:23). The expression, “the man” singles out one man, and then states that he is the head of “a woman,” a particular woman, namely, his wife. I believe the reason Paul states the principle in more general terms is because both in the creation of Adam and Eve, and in their fall and the curses, Adam and Eve both represent mankind as a whole; Adam represents both husbands and males, while Eve represents both females and wives. No woman, married or not, is to exercise headship over men. On the other hand, a particular man should be careful about taking headship too far, as though all women were subject to him. You will recall that Paul instructs wives to be subject “to their own husbands,” and not to men in general. In the church meeting, however, I believe that men are to exercise headship in the church (see 1 Timothy 2:8-15).

Finally, God is the head of our Lord Jesus Christ. When Satan tempted our Lord, he sought to persuade Him to act independently of His Father (see Matthew 4:1-11). Jesus repeatedly emphasized that He was not acting independently of the Father, but that He was doing the will of the Father (John 5:19, 30). Everything our Lord claimed as His own was that which He had been granted by His Father (Luke 10:22, 29; John 5:26-27; 6:27; Revelation 2:27). It was the Father’s will that the Son die on the cross of Calvary, and the Son of God submitted to the Father in His incarnation and in His atoning death (see Matthew 26:39; Acts 2:23; Philippians 2:8). In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul indicates that after all of the enemies of our Lord have been defeated (the last being death), then the Lord Jesus will hand over authority and dominion to the Father:

25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:25-28).

Conclusion

While we have only made our way through the first three verses of chapter 11, we have already come to the “camel” of this chapter. For many, verses 4-6 are the focal point for their study, because it is here that some find a proof text for women exercising leadership in the meeting of the church. But the structure of this chapter should indicate that verse 3 lays the foundational principle (the “camel,” as it were), and verses 4-16 deal with the “gnats.” I do not mean to say these “gnats” are unimportant; I simply mean that verse 3 contains the guiding principle which governs all of the particulars, such as head coverings.

To those who would major on the minors by ignoring verse 3 and rushing on to verses 4-6, I would say you have failed to let Paul’s reasoning guide your own. And to those who throw their hands up in despair, so perplexed by verses 4-16 that they doubt anyone can ever understand them, do not miss what is patently clear here because of what is not clear. The principle of headship is the “camel” of chapter 11. It is clear, and it guides us in dealing with the particulars of verses 4-16. Even though we may not all agree on these later verses as to their meaning and their application, let us all agree on the principle.

The principle of headship is a unifying principle. It explains and encompasses all of the particular instructions Paul and Peter give to men and women regarding their dress, demeanor, and deeds in the church meeting. Let me illustrate. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul implies that women should not pray publicly, and he clearly forbids women to teach or to exercise authority over men in the church gathering. He also instructs women about their dress. They are to dress modestly and to avoid certain elaborate hair styles or jewelry.

The principle of headship makes sense of all these instructions. Paul forbids public teaching and leadership over men because men are to exercise headship, and thus men are to be those who exercise authority over the church. For a woman to teach or to lead the church is to usurp that headship which has been delegated to men. But what does a woman’s dress have to do with headship? Everything. Headship is not just about authority, but about preeminence—glory. A woman does not need to speak to have preeminence. All she needs to do is to dress in a way that is striking, that draws attention to her “assets.” In Paul’s day, it would seem that very little of a woman was exposed other than her head, and thus Paul and Peter warn about fancy hair styles and jewelry because these accentuated the woman’s beauty with reference to her head. In our day, there is much more to be seen by all, and in accentuating these the woman can attract attention to herself and thus gain preeminence. If everyone’s eyes turn to a woman as she enters the room, it is likely she has done something to attract that attention. So it is not just by a woman’s silence, but by her spirit and by her attire that she submits to the headship of her husband, and of her Lord.

The principle of headship guides us in our application of particular commands. Throughout the Scriptures, pleasing God is not just a matter of “keeping the rules” but of obeying God’s commandments in the light of His principles. Thus, the scribes and Pharisees received a rebuke from our Lord for their meticulous obedience in regard to some commands, but in a way that neglected “the weightier provisions of the law, [the principles of] justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). This is what our Lord was seeking to show in His teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The scribes and Pharisees were into the rules but had lost the reasons, and thus they were willing to obey only the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. When the scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing, Jesus pointed out the principle that the Sabbath was for man’s benefit and not man for the Sabbath. Jesus did not violate the spirit of the law by healing on the Sabbath. The psalmist of 119 exemplifies the right spirit, for he diligently seeks to discover the reasons behind the rules. We should do likewise. The principle of headship is the reason behind the rules which Paul and Peter set down regarding the ministry of men and women in the church.

There are few diseases as deadly as the disease of legalism. This disease occurs when we dutifully observe the rules as mere traditions but forget the principles, the reasons, which lie behind them. This obviously happened to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day. It seems to have been happening to the Corinthian saints of Paul’s day, which necessitated these chapters (11-14) we are studying. And reluctant though I am to admit it, this legalism also is evident in us today. When we “follow the rules” (the “gnats”) but forget the “reasons” (the principles, the “camels”), we have become legalists, and we must repent. The principle of headship should put many of our practices in a whole new light.

The teaching of Paul on headship is most interesting when considered in the light of his previous instruction concerning idolatry in chapters 8-10. Idolatry is man seeking to reshape God into an image with which man is familiar and comfortable and over which man has control. Biblical Christianity is exactly the opposite. Christianity is about God reshaping man into His image:

17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17-18).

11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-13).

God is shaping us into conformity with His image, and this is so that we may reflect His glory to both men and angels (1 Peter 2:9; 1 Corinthians 11:10; Ephesians 3:8-11). If our duty and privilege is to reflect God as He is to men, then obedience to His commandments and instructions related to His headship is no small matter. To ignore, disregard, or disobey His Word in the matters about which Paul is writing is to distort the image of God; it is another form of idolatry.

Our submission to His headship by understanding and obeying His instructions regarding the proper functions of men and women in the church is vitally important in yet another way. Submission to the headship of our Lord is not just an issue, not even just an important issue; submission to our Lord’s headship is the ultimate issue. It was the issue when Satan rebelled against the headship of God (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:11-15). It was the issue when Satan orchestrated the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God’s headship. It was also a mechanism of the fall, because Eve rebelled against Adam’s headship. When Satan tempted our Lord, he sought to entice Him to act independently of His Father and thus to rebel against His headship.

The establishment of the kingdom of God is about our Lord’s headship, about our Lord’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven (see Matthew 6:10; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28). It is an inexplicable part of the gospel which the apostles preached (see Acts 2:14-40). Sad to say, it is often excluded from the gospel we preach and apparently from the “gospel” which the Corinthians preached. The gospel is not the message of a weak and powerless God, who needs our cooperation and who desperately pleads for our obedience. The gospel is the announcement that Jesus Christ is God’s Messiah, the King. It is our duty to fall before Him in humble worship and obedience. When we preach the gospel, it must be as an ambassador who represents the One who is the “head of every man.” This headship of Christ includes all mankind, believers and unbelievers. Those who do not submit to His headship now must ultimately do so when He comes to subdue His enemies:

32 “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.”’
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:32-36).

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

The question is not if you will submit to our Lord’s headship and bow the knee to Him, but when and how. You may submit to His headship now by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s Messiah, as the King of Israel, who took your sins upon Himself, who suffered and died in your place, and who was raised from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father. You may gratefully and joyfully submit to His headship as a child of God, reborn through faith in His Son. Or, you may reject His headship now, only to reluctantly bow the knee to Him when He returns as your adversary, when He comes to punish His enemies. He is Lord of all, a fact which brings comfort and joy to every believer, and one which will strike terror into His enemies.

May each of us submit to His headship by trusting in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation. And may each of us who has trusted in Jesus Christ as our “Head” submit to His headship by practicing the principle of headship through the roles which He has assigned to us.

125 Or it may be improperly using a proper method of interpreting the Scriptures. I would be using the wrong tool if I attempted to tighten the wheel lugs on my car with a pair of pliers. I would be misusing the right tool if I used a torque wrench, but set it at twice the suggested number of foot pounds, thus breaking the wheel stud.

126 The verb form of this term is often used to refer to the betrayal of our Lord. In the Gospels, traditions are the dearly held beliefs of the Jews, which they hold in opposition to the Scriptures. Paul also used this term in the same negative sense (Galatians 1:14).

Related Topics: Men's Articles, Spiritual Gifts, Women

22. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 - Its Issues and Implications

Introduction

Before we seek to consider some specific issues regarding the application of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, let us first sum up what Paul has taught. To sum up verses 1-16, Paul is instructing women to cover their heads in order to demonstrate to the angels and celestial powers their submission to God’s appointed authority. Paul does not present head coverings as a matter of his opinion, but as an apostolic tradition. He does not describe this as a matter of Christian liberty, or as a personal conviction, but as a matter of obedience. (“Let her cover her head” in verse 6 is an imperative, buttressed by the “ought” of verse 10.) Paul mentions no other alternative symbol nor does he imply there may be some other way to symbolize submission to male headship. He also speaks of the head covering of women as the consistent practice of every church and not just that of the Corinthian church. Anyone who would wish to debate with Paul over his teaching in these verses seeks to reject a tradition held and practiced in every church.

Nothing is clearer in verses 3-9 than that Paul wants the woman to wear a head covering because such adornment appropriately distinguishes women from men. Indeed, the focus on male headship over women in verse 3 shows that Paul wants women to wear a head covering in order to show that they are submissive to male headship.¹⁵⁴

Those who hold to the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and who consistently employ sound methods of interpretation, find it difficult to come to any other conclusions than those stated above. We must ask the question: “Do Paul’s words apply to us just as they did to the Corinthians, and if so, how?” As we seek to reach the bottom line of our text, we must answer the following questions:

DO VERSES 1-16 DEAL SPECIFICALLY (ONLY) WITH THE MEETING OF THE CHURCH?

Some sincerely believe verses 1-16 refer to the church meeting. I believe Paul is speaking more generally so that his words apply both to the church meeting and elsewhere. My reasons for this view, and for rejecting the “church meeting only” position, are as follows:

(1) The conclusion that the church meeting is in view is inferential at best.

(2) It is clear, to me at least, that all of chapters 11-14 are not devoted to the church meeting. First Corinthians 11:1-16, along with chapters 12 and 13, deal with more general issues. This does not mean that what Paul teaches in these more general texts does not apply to the church meeting; it simply means his teaching is not to be restricted to the context of the church meeting.

(3) When Paul does refer specifically to the church meeting, he clearly indicates this fact as we can see in 11:17, 18, 20, 33; 14:4, 23, 26.

(4) The fact that women are not allowed to function in the church meeting in the way Paul describes in verses 4 and 5 certainly calls the “church meeting only” view into question. If Paul prohibits women to pray, or teach, or prophesy, or speak publicly in the church meeting, then how can we conclude that the teaching of this passage, which speaks of a woman taking a public verbal role, should be understood as applying specifically to the church meeting? This is about as logical as a maximum security prison passing out instruction booklets for the use of hand guns to inmates.

(5) Some think verses 17 and 18 imply that the previous 16 verses are a reference to conduct in the church meeting:

17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 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 Corinthians 11:17-18).

I think these verses strongly argue in the opposite direction. Paul is now turning from his instructions on head coverings, which apply beyond the church meeting, to his instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper, which is a more specific context. His words, “in the first place,” in verse 18 do not make sense if Paul has been talking about the church meeting all along. He should now be saying, “in the second place,” because the first error was regarding head coverings. When he says, “in the first place,” he indicates this is his first correction under his instructions regarding the church meeting. I do not know how else to understand his words.

TO WHAT DEGREE SHOULD CULTURE INFLUENCE OUR INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THESE VERSES?

The assumption is often made that we must first understand the cultural setting of a particular passage before we can understand or apply it. Knowing the cultural background of any text is helpful, but it is not mandatory. If it is vitally important, the biblical text (in the context or elsewhere in the Bible) will supply what we have to know. If this were not so, we could have no confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture—that it contains all that is necessary for life and godliness (see 2 Peter 1:2-4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). It would also mean that some book, or books other than Scripture, are necessary for us to understand and apply the Word of God. Corinth appears not to have one given culture; rather Corinth was a cosmopolitan city with a wide diversity of cultures. In 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, 4:14-17, 11:16, and 14:33-34, Paul indicates that his teaching in this epistle is for every Christian in every culture. These truths are not culture-bound; thus, we need not know all we might wish to know about the cultural setting in Corinth. We simply do not know as much about the cultural setting of that day, as some commentators indicate:

In this case, even if we were sure of prevailing customs, we would need to be able to distinguish between Greek, Roman, and Jewish customs as well as differences in geography, how one dressed at home, outside the home, and in worship, and the differences between the rich and poor. This diversity is well illustrated in the various samplings in Goodenough.¹⁵⁵

Paul applies his teaching to all of the saints in all of the churches. A look at a map of Paul’s missionary journeys, and noting 1 Peter 1:1 and Revelation 2 and 3, should remind us of the many cultures represented in the churches of Paul’s day.

Even if interesting and enlightening, there is a reason why a knowledge of the culture of Corinth is not necessary. Head covering is a symbol, a symbol designed to convey a message both to men and to angels. The symbol of head covering does not derive from the culture of Corinth, or our own culture, but from the nature of the Godhead and the divine distinctions God has determined and defined. These symbols have a message for culture, but they do not gain their message from culture. It is Scripture—not society—which provides us with the meanings of divine symbols.

Christians talk a great deal about culture, especially in reference to interpreting and applying Scripture. As popular as the word “culture” is today, I decided to see how often it could be found in the Bible. The term “culture” is foreign to the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB translations of the Bible—it never occurs in the Bible. Is there a biblical term which is a synonym for “culture” in the Bible? Yes, there is. That biblical term is “the world” or “this world.” What then does the Bible have to say about “the world”?

(1) The unbelieving world (culture) of Jesus’ day was opposed to Him, and He warns that our culture (the world) will be hostile to us as well (John 17:13-21; 1 Peter 4:12-19; 1 John 3:13).

13 Do not marvel, brethren, if the world hates you (1 John 3:13).

(2) We once walked in accordance with our culture, but through the cross of Christ, the world has been crucified to us and us to it.

14 But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14).

1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2, see also 4:17ff.).

(3) Our culture (“this world”) is seeking to squeeze us into its mold, and we are instructed to resist and to be transformed into conformity with Christ. We are not to walk according to fleshly wisdom, but in holiness and godly sincerity (2 Corinthians 1:12). We are strangers and pilgrims, whose conduct is governed by the kingdom which is yet to come with the return of our Lord (see 1 Peter 2:11ff.). We are to submit ourselves to earthly authorities (1 Peter 2:13ff.) but not to earthly values and standards (1 Peter 2:13ff.).

1 I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:1-2).

(4) Our calling as Christians is to live a holy life and to keep ourselves from being stained by the world. To be a friend of the world is to be in hostility toward God. If we return to living in accordance with the culture in which we live, we have been led captive.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8, see vss. 20-21).

27 This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world (James 1:27).

4 You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).

Paul employs the same term for the traditions of men as he does for apostolic traditions in 1 Corinthians 11, producing a most interesting contrast. When we live in accordance with the culture, we are living contrary to the traditions of Christ.

As we read through the Bible, do we ever find any instance where godly men or women set aside or modified a commandment of God in order not to accommodate their culture? I cannot think of any. I can think of instances where men made concessions to their culture, but never compromises. Joseph was a man who made a concession to his (Egyptian) culture when he shaved off his beard (the custom in the Hebrew culture) and changed his clothes before appearing in the presence of Pharaoh (Genesis 41:14). There was no compromise here of principle or of command. Indeed, by shaving off his beard, Joseph was identifying himself with the Egyptian culture and certainly symbolizing his acceptance of his circumstances as the will of God. Doing this made it possible for Joseph to conceal his identity from his brothers and thus bring about their repentance and ultimate reconciliation. But when Mrs. Potiphar propositioned Joseph, he did not give in to this sin, but chose to obey God and to accept the consequences.

Daniel and his three friends also made concessions to the culture of the Babylonian Empire when they were forcibly taken from their homeland and relocated in Babylon. They were willing to study in Babylonian schools and to engage in the service of the king. These concessions they were willing to make, but when Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone in his kingdom to bow down to his golden image, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego refused. Doing so would have been to disobey God’s commands against idolatry. God’s commandments were not to be set aside because they came into conflict with culture, even when taking a stand would likely cost these men their lives (see Daniel 3).

When Daniel’s enemies realized they could not find any grounds for accusing him of wrong-doing with regard to his job, they also concluded he was a man who would not violate the “law of his God” (Daniel 6:5). They knew Daniel would not make compromises concerning God’s commandments. And so they tricked the king into signing a law which forbade anyone to pray to anyone other than the king for 30 days. Daniel could have ceased praying for 30 days, or he could have closed his windows and prayed privately. But Daniel refused to make any concessions or compromises because this was a matter of obedience to God’s commands. Daniel, like his three friends, would rather die in obedience to God’s commandments than live because of compromises made in these things to comply with their culture.

Paul was a man willing to make concessions to his culture. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul sets down his guiding principles regarding his willingness to surrender his liberties for the sake of the gospel:

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

Paul was willing to give up any of his personal liberties if it might enhance the gospel. For this reason, Paul was willing to have Timothy circumcised (see Acts 16:1-3). But Paul would not budge when it came to divine principles or divine commands. And for this reason he refused to have Titus circumcised, and he rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in his associations with Jews and Gentiles (Galatians 2:1-5, 11-21).

Nowhere in the Scriptures do we ever find concessions or compromises made to culture when it requires disobedience to God’s commands. Head covering is a command, a tradition which was to be followed by every woman in every church. There is no reason and no room for compromise or change, and Paul does not so much as hint that there is. Why then are we so quick to make such changes, and why are we so bold to speak of doing so because of culture?

WHAT ABOUT THE EXPRESSION, “WHILE PRAYING OR PROPHESYING” IN VERSES 4 AND 5?

First and foremost, let us be clear that the main point of the passage is not the possibility of whether a woman can pray or prophesy in the church meeting. In this text, Paul is not as concerned with when and where a woman can pray or prophesy, but with how she would do so—with her head covered. Do we have problems with why Paul may have employed these terms and referred to these activities? That is understandable because Paul does not explain why these terms and activities have been chosen or what the implications of his words are. This is because whether or not a woman can pray or prophesy in the church meeting is not his primary concern in this passage. His concern is that which he consistently comes back to in verses 1-16—women wearing a head covering as a symbol of their submission.

Second, concluding that a woman can publicly pray or prophesy in the church meeting can only be done on the basis of several inferences. First, one must infer (without any clear indication of this possibility as seen above) that Paul’s words in verse 1-16 apply solely to the church meeting. Second, one must infer that because Paul mentions the possibility of a woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered in the Corinthian church, this means any woman could and should do so anywhere. But the inferences do not stop here. Some go on to reason that if prophecy is the greatest gift (see 12:31; 14:39), if Paul allows women to do the greatest thing (prophecy), he must allow women to do anything less, like teaching, or leading.

Third, it is only possible to conclude that a woman can pray or prophesy in the church meeting if one’s conclusion is based on a chain of inferences, which then allow this inferred conclusion to overrule the clear commands of the apostle elsewhere (see 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-38). Unclear texts should not override clear texts, and inferences must never take precedence over commands.

Fourth, if Paul is speaking more generally than just the meeting of the church (as I contend), then women could and did pray and prophesy, only not in the church meeting. And when they did so, they were to have their heads covered.

Why did Paul pick these two activities, one of which (prayer) is not a gift, and the other (prophecy) which is a gift? We can only conjecture. These two activities are not represented as the only things a woman could do, but as things which a woman should not do with an uncovered head. Why should a woman’s head be covered when praying or prophesying? For one thing, prayer and prophecy are functions which both have a strong element of authority. In both cases, the one who performs these functions is in direct contact with God. The one who prays speaks directly to God; the one who prophesies speaks directly from God. The prayer or prophecy of 1 Corinthians 11:5 is not all that different from the “prayer and the ministry of the word” to which the apostles devoted themselves (Acts 6:4). If there ever was a time when a woman seemed to be in authority, it would be when she was praying or prophesying. At these times, Paul insists, a woman should be thought to be acting shamefully if she does not cover her head.

One thing we can see from verses 4 and 5 is that by using the expression “while praying or prophesying” in relation to both men and women, Paul may be emphasizing that both men and women are doing the same thing—praying or prophesying. If they are doing the same thing, how then is the woman distinguished from the man? The answer: by wearing a head covering.

Here is a somewhat radical thought on this matter of prayer and prophecy related to the relationship between angels and women. Prayer is man approaching God, while prophecy involves man going forth, as it were, from God with a message and ministry from Him. Satan, the fallen angel, seems to lack the reverence he should have toward God. His interaction with God in Job 1 and 2 seems to lack any sense of reverence. In Luke 22:31, Satan is described by our Lord as “demanding permission to sift Simon like wheat.” The false teachers are referred to as “angels of light,” sent from Satan (2 Corinthians 11:13-14). One of the dominant characteristics of false teachers is their disdain for those in authority who “do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties” (2 Peter 2:10). If one of the first appearances of angels in the Bible is Jacob’s vision of the angels “ascending and descending” to heaven (Genesis 28:12), then is it not safe to say that angels are constantly going to and from God? If they watch godly women, who cover their heads as they approach God in prayer and as they go forth from God in prophecy, should they not learn to reverence God as described in Isaiah?

1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” 4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. 5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty” (Isaiah 6:1-5).

Will the angels not be instructed as to their proper response to God by what they see women doing as they approach God? Will they not be reminded that God is holy—distinct from and vastly above all others. And will they not realize that glory belongs to Him?

One thing more should be noted on this matter of prayer and prophecy. Jesus was a master teacher. When He taught, neither the crowds nor the disciples went away saying, “That was really clear; I understood everything He said.” Just the reverse was true. They went away shaking their heads, wondering what He meant. The disciples did not fully grasp what our Lord was saying until after He had risen from the grave and ascended to the Father. I believe God does not over-simplify those truths He wants us to ponder. His wisdom must be mined, not picked up like lost coins. The enigmatic expression of “praying or prophesying” may be by divine design. We are not supposed to get it immediately, but we are to think about it a lot. And until (and after) we do get it, we are to obey anyway because we do understand that the command is for the women to cover their heads.

DOES THE WOMAN’S SILENCE SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEAD COVERING?

Some contend that the woman’s silence is sufficient evidence of her submission. Thus, in the meeting of the church, if a woman is silent, a head covering is not required. But if silence is sufficient, then why does Paul not start with chapter 14 rather than conclude with it, for it is in chapter 14 that he calls for silence? Why would Paul make such a point of having your head covered in chapter 11 if it were not necessary in the first place due to the woman’s silence? In chapter 14, when Paul speaks about silence, it is not just the women who are to be silent, but some of the men as well. The problem in Corinth was not too much silence but too much speaking. If only one person is to speak at a time (see 14:27, 30-31), then everyone else is to be silent. If both men and women are silently worshiping, as some reason, then a woman will distinguish herself from a man not by her silence but by her head covering.

DOES THE WOMAN’S “LONG HAIR” SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEAD COVERING?

The fact that all women wear their hair longer than men (as a rule) is used as the premise on which Paul builds to show another reason why women should have their heads covered. In verse 6, Paul argues that if a woman will not cover her head, she should shave it. Thus, a woman’s long hair is not sufficient. Furthermore, a woman’s long hair is her glory, and her head covering veils this glory so that her husband is preeminent. One final observation: if all women in general wear long hair, then long hair does not distinguish the submissive Christian woman from the rest, but a head covering does.

WOULD SOME OTHER SYMBOL SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEAD COVERING?

I do not think so. The basis of the symbol is the divine order. Headship is symbolized by a head covering, which represents a woman’s submission to her (metaphorical) head. There is a clear and direct relationship between “headship” and “head coverings.” Paul does not mention any alternate symbols and seems to prohibit any practice other than head coverings (verse 16). I think there is significance to the fact that every woman testifies to her submission to male headship by the same symbol. If every woman was free to express her submission in any way she chose, how would the angels or anyone else understand what they were seeing? A wedding ring is a universally accepted symbol of marriage, at least in this part of the world. What if every person decided to symbolize their marriage by a symbol of their own choosing? Finally, how can a woman signify submission to male authority, as Paul has instructed, by setting aside the very instructions (for a head covering) that Paul has given? If submission to male headship starts anywhere, it starts by submitting to the authority of the apostle Paul. If we submit to God’s headship, surely this is by submitting to His commands and not by modifying them according to our preferences and judgments. In all too many ways, we function like the Supreme Court in relation to Congress. The Supreme Court passes judgment on the laws of Congress, rejecting those which it deems unconstitutional. We pass judgment on God’s commands, rejecting those which seem unreasonable.

25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25).

WHEN AND WHERE SHOULD A WOMAN COVER HER HEAD?

The question in our minds should not be if a woman should have her head covered, or “Why?” The questions we ask should be: “When?” and “Where?” Let us seek to establish some general guidelines for the answers to these questions. I would point out at the outset that Paul’s words imply that head coverings are not the exception, but the norm. I would also point out that Paul does not give precise “if … then” formulas for when a covering is required. It would seem that individual judgment is required here.

(1) Women should cover their heads when the angels are watching. When are the angels watching?

9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men (1 Corinthians 4:9).

8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; 10 in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places (Ephesians 3:8-10).

10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look (1 Peter 1:10-12).

The angels seem to be watching all the time. I do not say this to suggest that women should cover their heads all the time, but to indicate that Paul is speaking more broadly than just the time when the church gathers. Other guidelines will help to narrow down the application of head coverings.

(2) Women should cover their heads when they are praying or prophesying. It should be self-evident that these two activities—prayer or prophecy—are an occasion for a head covering, because Paul specifies these two activities as such. If prophecy ceased with the apostolic age, then prayer alone remains. Is Paul speaking of verbal, public prayer? I would definitely think so. Is he speaking of public, unspoken prayer (as in the church meeting)? He may well be, especially since the angels would be observing. Is he speaking of private prayer at home? If it is the kind of regular prayer we see in Daniel 6:10, this would certainly be evident to the angels, and so a head covering would be appropriate. Of course, we are to “pray without ceasing,” and in this sense we are constantly in prayer. I think Paul is speaking more of covering the head when it is obvious (to men and/or to angels) that we are praying.

(3) Women should cover their heads when they are engaged in exercising their priesthood as believers. I do not think that we should consider “praying” or “prophesying” the only occasions in which a head covering is necessary. It seems that Paul has chosen these as two of the more self-evident instances in which a head covering is appropriate for women. Remember that Paul is dealing with those who seem to want to debate this matter (see verse 16). Praying and prophesying are the engagement of the believer in what we might call a person’s priestly activity. We are a “kingdom of priests” (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6), and we exercise our priesthood by ministering for men to God (by intercessory prayer) and, in apostolic time, by prophets who ministered to men for God. Paul does not speak about wearing a head covering to work, or around the house all day, but specifically when we engage in those ministries which we have as priests.

(4) Women should cover their heads when the spiritual ministry in which they are engaged has a leadership or authoritative function or appearance. Headship is about authority and preeminence. Prayer and prophecy certainly have a “leadership dimension” as we can see in Acts 6:4. When women function with some measure of authority, the head covering seems required.

(5) Women should cover their heads when their submission to male headship is not apparent. This whole passage is based upon our observance of divine distinctions between men and women, between male and female. When men and women are engaged in the same activities, then the head covering visibly symbolizes the distinction which might not otherwise be apparent. When a woman (or a man) prays, she approaches God directly. There is no clear evidence of her submission to male headship, unless it is by her head being covered. When a woman once prophesied, she spoke to others directly for God. Again, a sign of her submission is necessary. When the distinctions between men and women are not evident, head coverings distinguish the women by symbolizing their submission to male headship.

(6) While Paul’s words in our text indicate that there are times when no head covering is shameful, Paul mentions no time when a head covering would be inappropriate. What I mean by this is not that a women should always have her head covered, but that one who is intent upon obeying Paul’s command and does not know for certain whether a covering is “required” would always be safer to lean to the “covered” side than to the “uncovered” side.

WHAT ABOUT MINISTRY GROUPS?

As elsewhere in this message, I speak only for myself, and it is an opinion with less conviction on my part than much of what I have said above. When there is the normal interchange (discussion, sharing, etc.) between men and women where the element of authority is not prominent, I do not see the need for head coverings. During the prayer time, when women would join in, I think it is appropriate for the woman to cover her head.

WHAT ABOUT A COVERING WHEN WOMEN TEACH OR LEAD WOMEN OR CHILDREN?

The element of authority is very evident in such cases. When men are not present, the need for a distinction may not be as great as when men are present. In His earthly ministry, Jesus frequently spoke of His submission to the Father’s authority (see John 5:17-26, 36-37; 6:37, 40, 57, 65; 8:27, 38, 49; 10:17-18, 29; 12:49-50; 13:3; 14:13, 16, 28, 31). It certainly does not hurt to remind others that we are under authority.

WHAT IF A HEAD COVERING ATTRACTS ATTENTION?

Jesus made it very clear that men should not perform their acts of obedience in such a way as to draw attention to themselves so as to obtain man’s praise rather than God’s (Matthew 6:1-18). As we identify ourselves with Christ by our obedience to His commands, we will become a “spectacle” to men and angels (1 Corinthians 4:9). Daniel and his three friends drew attention to themselves when they chose to obey God rather than men. We will do likewise, if we live obediently to God in a culture that hates Him (1 Peter 4). We are to obey God’s commands in order to publicly proclaim His excellencies to the world (1 Peter 2:9; Philippians 2:15) and to the celestial beings (1 Corinthians 11:10; Ephesians 3:10).

WHAT KIND OF HEAD COVERING IS REQUIRED BY PAUL?

The Greek expressions used of the woman’s head covering seem to indicate that something more than a piece of cloth (or a hat) resting on the head is required. Not only should something be on the head, but something should hang down from the head to cover the hair:

… what Paul had in mind is a veil which covers the whole head and in particular conceals all the hair; something worn on top of the head like a present-day cap or hat does not really come within the scope of his argument.¹⁵⁶

… it is probable that Paul is speaking of wearing a head covering of some kind, such as a shawl. That a shawl rather than a full veil is in Paul’s mind is indicated by the word covering (peribolaios) in 11:15, which is not the usual word for veil but probably refers to a wrap-around. The evidence in favor of this position is as follows: (1) The verb translated as “cover” in the NIV (katakalypto) occurs three times in verses 6-7, and related cognate words occur in verses 5 and 13. These words most often refer to a covering of some kind. For example, the angels who saw the glory of Yahweh in the temple covered their faces (Isaiah 6:2). Judah thought Tamar, his daughter-in-law, was a harlot because she covered her face (Genesis 38:15). Since the word almost universally means “to cover” or “to hide,” the text is probably referring to a hair covering of some kind. … Esther 6:12 (LXX) employs the same expression found in verse four, kata kephales, of Haman, who hurried home mourning, covering his head in shame. He probably used part of his garment to do this. … To sum up: the custom recommended here is a head covering of some kind, probably a shawl.¹⁵⁷

IS WEARING A HEAD COVERING “LEGALISM?”

I am hearing the word “legalism” a lot lately, and I do not like what it implies. Legalism, of course, is wrong and ought to be avoided. But the solution is not to throw out all the rules or commands of Scripture. A legalist is one who has a “fatal attraction” to rules. The rules become primary, and the principles get lost in the shuffle. A legalist gets lost in the details, the “gnats,” and loses sight of the “camels,” the underlying principles and motives. A legalist does not keep the commands of God because he loves God; he keeps the rules because he thinks that doing so makes him better than others, and because rule-keeping is the way to earn God’s favor and blessings. A legalist sticks to the rules because they deal with outward, external standards. Legalism is wrong.

The solution to legalism is not the absence of all rules and commands in the name of Christian liberty. This kind of liberation is unacceptable:

16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God (1 Peter 2:16).

In Matthew 23, Jesus does not teach that throwing out the rules is the solution to legalism.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. 27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:23-28, emphasis mine).

The solution to legalism is to continue to obey the rules, to keep God’s commands, but to always do so in the light of the principles which underlie them. Women should cover their heads because Paul commands them to, and because of the principles of headship and of God’s sovereign distinctions. Legalism is keeping the rules for the rules’ sake. Christian liberty is keeping the rules for God’s sake, and with a heart and mind which seeks most of all to be pleasing to Him by obeying His commandments.

THERE IS YET ONE MORE QUESTION WHICH SOME MAY BE ASKING: “WHY AM I MAKING SUCH A BIG ISSUE OF HEAD COVERINGS?”

First, Paul commands women to wear a head covering. We do not do well to ignore any command of God. To set one command aside is not only wrong, it sets a precedent. Can we now set aside any command we do not fully understand or which we dislike and with which we disagree? Second, the head covering of the woman is a symbol, a symbol of one of the great truths of the Bible. A woman’s head covering symbolizes her submission to the principle of headship. The headship of the man over a woman is important because it reflects the headship of Christ over His church and of God over Christ. When Adam and Eve sinned, they acted against the headship of God, following the precedent set by their tempter, Satan. All men are sinners, subject to the eternal wrath of God. The message of the gospel is not only that Jesus died for sinners, but that Jesus is Lord of all. Those who will be saved are to acknowledge Him as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:22-26; Romans 10:9-10). Those who will not acknowledge this now must ultimately acknowledge it when they bow the knee to Christ as His defeated foes (Philippians 2:9-11). God does not reveal Himself to men through idols, but He does reveal Himself through His church. As we acknowledge and practice our submission to His headship, we announce to the world that He is Head of all. To the degree that we fail to obey this command (and others), we distort the image of God which we are privileged to symbolically display.

It is now time for me to turn the question around. Why is this simple act such a problem to so many today? Is it really that Paul’s meaning is so hard to grasp? We should read this text repeatedly. For me, the more I read it, the more clear his message is. (Conversely, the more one reads most commentators on this text, the cloudier its message becomes.) Is it because we, individually or as a church, have not done it this way before? Then let us change our practice if we now understand this as our duty and privilege. If we as individuals and as a church are growing in Christ, our grasp of God’s Word should grow too, and we should be constantly changing our lives to conform to what we now understand. That is what “walking in the light” means. Is our disproportionate reaction due to the fact that the world is not wearing head coverings and neither is the church? Standing up for God’s Word may mean standing alone. Daniel and his three friends were four men living in foreign captivity along with thousands of other Jews. They stood alone against the sins of that culture, as aliens and strangers. We should do likewise:

13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:13-16).

For some, the symbol of wearing a head covering may be a big thing because it is. If the symbol of head covering is to reflect our submission, not only to male headship but to God’s distinctions and His ways of doing things, we may need to ask ourselves whether we are truly submissive to God.

Perhaps some woman is thinking, “That’s all right for you; you’re a man. It’s easy for you to tell us to obey because it doesn’t affect you.” But you see, it does. It means that I am obliged to lead, and not just to lead in a way that pleases me. I must lead in a way that reflects Christ’s headship. I must lead in a way that is sacrificial to my own interests and which seeks to bless those under my leadership. And, beyond the matter of headship, I assure you that there are other commands which also strike me between the eyes. Obedience to God’s commands is not easy for any of us, but disobedience is not a viable option, if we wish to please God and to reflect His glories to the world, and to celestial beings as well.

15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).

I think that while I have not answered every question you may have on this passage, I have answered some, and that my understanding of this text is clear. You may very well disagree with it. And if you do, I hope and pray it is for good and biblical reasons. If my message has caused you who differ with me to rethink your position, and to be more convinced about your conclusions than mine, I think I have done my job. The interpretations and opinions expressed here are my own. They do not necessarily represent the individual interpretations of the other elders, and they certainly do not represent the collective decision and policy of the elders of our church.

While my interpretation of this text has changed since I last taught publicly on 1 Corinthians 11 in 1982, I think some of my concluding words from that lesson years ago (cited below) are appropriate as we close. First, these words will remind you that I have changed my mind and will at least raise the possibility that I might change it again. Second, I hope that while my interpretation of these verses has changed, the spirit which I called for in these concluding words of my previous message might still be evident among us, as we each attempt to understand and obey this portion of God’s Word:

I urge you not to confuse form with function. To merely place a covering upon one’s head does not make one submissive. I have observed some very unsubmissive women who would not think of going to church without their head coverings. The scribes and Pharisees had an obsession about keeping certain forms, but in function they completely missed the point of the Law. These discrepancies between form and function, between practice and principle, were a major bone of contention between the religious leaders of Israel and our Lord Jesus. May I add that they were meticulous about crucifying Jesus according to the rules (cf. Matthew 26:57-66, 27:3-6; John 18:31-32), but it was a sinful and damnable act (cf. Acts 2:23).

I also ask you not to make head covering the touchstone of submission and spirituality. It is so easy for the one who believes head covering is a biblical requirement to pass judgment on the submissiveness of a woman solely on the basis of whether or not she has a covering on her head. No external act, no matter how meritorious, is proof of one’s spirituality. Neither is the absence of a head covering proof that a woman is unsubmissive. While we might desire to be made (or at least considered) spiritual by the observance of some specific practice such as head covering, the spiritual life is simply not like that. Many godly women may cover their heads as an act of submission; many submissive wives may not do so, convinced that it is not required or even beneficial. In and of itself, head covering, or the absence of it, will not determine and may not reflect one’s spiritual state.¹⁵⁸

What I would hate to see from these lessons on headship and head coverings is hasty, ill-conceived action. I would be disappointed to see a woman covering her head, simply because I have taught the text as I have, or because other women are covering their heads. I would also be greatly disappointed to see a woman refuse to cover her head without giving this text serious consideration. I would also be somewhat disappointed to see a man “instruct” his wife to wear a head covering, so that she does so without being convinced this is what God requires. If the symbol is to be meaningful, it should be voluntarily worn, for submission is voluntary. Let me urge each one who reads this lesson to now leave my words behind and to turn to the text of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 itself, reading it repeatedly over the next weeks until you are convinced of what Paul and God require of you.

154 Thomas R. Schreiner, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991), p. 135.

155 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprint, 1993], pp. 508-509. In two footnotes, Fee adds: These kinds of problems render generally useless a large amount of the literary evidence that is often cited in reference to this text. This is especially true of the large collection of otherwise helpful texts, both Greek and Jewish, in Conzelmann, 185 nn. 39-40, since they deal for the most part with “going out in public.” The question is whether women in Christian worship in Corinth would be thought of as “going out in public,” or whether, in light of their gathering in homes and calling themselves “brothers and sisters,” the wearing of ordinary home “attire” would be proper—not to mention all the difficulties that may obtain from the fact that the gathering is also “religious” and that the women are prophesying. See n. 61. Cf. fig. 99 (where a priestess of Isis is uncovered) and 101 (another Isis example, where one woman is covered while the other is not). With this compare the literary evidence from Apuleius, Met. regarding the Isis festival in Corinth: “The women had their hair anointed, and their heads covered with light linen [cf. fig. 101 in Goodenough]; but the men had their crowns shaven and shining bright” (Loeb, 555). See also the two frescoes from Pompeii (nos. 117 and 118), where in scenes that “unquestionably represent religious ceremonies” (Goodenough, IX, 137) the central figures (women) are covered with the himation, while in fig. 117 the flute girl is not. The same ambiguity prevails in fig. 218, where the woman “crowning the dead” is covered while the (apparently slave) woman holding the umbrella is not.

156 F. F. Bruce, The New Century Bible Commentary: I & II Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1971), p. 104.

157 Schreiner, p. 126.

158 Bob Deffinbaugh, “How to Be Pious in a Pagan World, A Study of 1 Corinthians, When Women Worship,” Lesson 16.

15. Taking a Second Look at Submission (1 Peter 2:13-3:7)

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution [creature],¹¹⁰ whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this [finds] favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer [for it] you patiently endure it, this [finds] favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting [Himself] to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any [of them] are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 And let not your adornment be [merely] external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but [let it be] the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. 6 Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

7 You husbands likewise, live with [your wives] in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

Introduction

Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship, commented on legislation recently passed by the Florida State legislature. The bill did not deal with violence on the streets or racial injustice, nor did it address the economy or the many pressing problems of crisis proportions in that state. Although unable to pass any significant legislation on these matters, the legislature did manage to pass a law with almost no opposition. The new law requires that all legislation in Florida be purged of any sexist language. The legislature has demanded that the laws of the land be emasculated, so to speak. This means that countless hours of labor and a considerable amount of money must be spent to expunge male words from the laws of that state.

One does not have to wonder what that legislature would do to Peter’s words about submission in his first epistle. They would hardly be content with rewording these divinely inspired commands; they would ban them altogether. The tragedy is that the Florida law will do absolutely nothing to solve the incredible problems facing the state nor will it benefit its citizens or tourists in any tangible way. Conversely, Peter’s instructions could radically transform relationships, the church, and even benefit society in general.

Beginning at verse 13 of chapter 2, Peter has been dealing with submission. He has instructed believers to submit themselves not only to the governing authorities of the day and to one another, but even to submit to all men. Submission has been required in general and in very specific terms. He has particularly addressed citizens, slaves, wives, and husbands. From his instructions, we see that every Christian is to submit to others on a variety of levels. We also see how submission works itself out in a broad range of circumstances and settings. Further, Peter speaks of submission in the context of suffering. It is clear to Peter, as it should be to his readers, that submission to others should particularly be practiced in times of innocent suffering.

The saying, “the whole is greater than the sum of all its parts,” is certainly true of submission. We have considered submission in the last several lessons piece by piece. We have looked at the submission of citizens (2:13-17), of slaves (2:18-25), of wives (3:1-6) and of husbands (3:7). Before pressing on, we should pause to consider the broader context of what Peter has said. We generally think of Paul as the apostle who most emphasized submission, but Peter contributes some very important insights on submission which are unique and important.

The Importance of the Subject of Submission

I want to reflect further on the subject of submission because I am convinced it is a vitally important part of the Christian life. Consider some of the reasons submission warrants such careful consideration:

(1) Submission is the key to unity and harmony in human relationships. In the Godhead, in the church, in marriage, and in any relationship, submission is the basis for unity.

(2) Satan’s fall and his on-going rebellion is a manifestation of his refusal to submit to God; he likewise tempts men to follow in his footsteps. This same spirit of rebellion is evident in Satan’s spokesmen, the false prophets, even to this day:

9b … and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in [its] corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, 11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord (2 Peter 2:9b-11).

Satan abused his power and position, acting independently of God (see Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:11-15). When Satan tempted Adam and Eve, he sought to get them to act independently of God, seeking what appeared to be their own self-interest in disobedience to God’s command (Genesis 3:1-7). In the temptation of our Lord, Satan once again sought to induce our Lord to act independently of the Father, seeking His own interests instead (see Matthew 4:1-11).

(3) Submission is at the core of man’s relationship with God. In the Garden of Eden, man was to submit to God, trusting in His Word and keeping His commandment. Adam and Eve’s sin was a revolt against God, a refusal to submit to Him. Jesus represented the sin of Israel’s religious leaders as the sin of “insubmission” (see Matthew 21:33-46). They continually challenged Jesus to prove His authority (see Matthew 21:23). They refused to submit to Him, mocking His authority at the foot of His cross (see Matthew 27:37-44).

Submission and sin are almost antithetical. Each is almost the exact opposite of the other. Salvation is the solution to man’s sin. When we are born again by faith in Christ, it is a submission to God, to the authority of His Word, and to Christ as His means of salvation. As man’s refusal to submit to God brought about the fall of man, so man’s submission to God brings about salvation (see Acts 2:36; Romans 10:9-10).

Submission is also at the heart of discipleship. Jesus called men not only to believe in Him but to follow Him. A disciple is a learner and a follower, a student who has submitted himself to his teacher. Submission is therefore one of the prominent themes in the epistles, whether the technical term for submission occurs or not.¹¹¹

(4) Submission is the will and command of God. It is the good which God requires of Christians to imitate and emulate Christ and to silence some of the accusations of foolish men (1 Peter 2:15).

(5) Submission is the cure for legalism. Think of this in terms of your children. If they really do not want to obey but only comply to the degree they must, they are not submissive. In such a case, very minute and meticulous rules must be set down to cover every conceivable situation. If, however, your child is submissive, he or she really wants to do what they believe you want, then you only need a few guiding principles. No wonder Judaism had (and still has) such a mountain of legislation. No wonder our nation and every other nation has laws without number. People really do not want to obey; they are not truly submissive. Where true submission exists, legalism disappears. To teach about submission, and then embrace it, prevents a multitude of legalistic rules. Submission is a fundamental ingredient of the believer’s spiritual life.

Submission Defined

Not only do unbelievers fail to understand submission, even among the saints the concept of submission is poorly understood. We typically think submission is required only in relation to those in a position of authority over us. We are told the origin of the meaning of the underlying Greek word for submission is derived from military imagery of one “ranked under” the one in authority over him.¹¹² This is true, but only partially. Christian submission goes far beyond obedience to those in authority over us. To understand biblical submission, we must go much further, which we will do by exploring the biblical definition of submission. To define biblical submission, we will contrast secular submission with scriptural submission.

(1) Secular submission is as limited as men can make it; biblical submission is as broad as mankind. The natural man tends to measure his worth by his status. His status is determined by the ratio of those who are over him compared to those under him. The goal is therefore to reduce those in authority above you and to increase the number under you. We see this in the disciples who continually argued with one another as to who was the greatest. In the eyes of the world, the greatest is the one who has no one over him. But in the kingdom of God, the greatest is the one who has everyone over him:

33 And they came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, “What were you discussing on the way?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which [of them was] the greatest. 35 And sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all.” 36 And taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, 37 “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me” (Mark 9:33-37).

42 And calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45).

Biblical submission is universal submission. The Christian is first subject to God (Ephesians 5:21, 22; 6:1, 5, 9; 1 Peter 1:17; 2:17); then Christians are mutually subject to each other (Ephesians 5:21; Romans 12:10; Philippians 2:1-8). Husbands and wives are to be mutually in submission to each other (1 Corinthians 7:3-5; 11:11; Ephesians 5:21-22; 1 Peter 3:1-7). And finally, Christians are to be subject to all (1 Peter 2:13-17).¹¹³

(2) Secular submission is compulsory, imposed from without; biblical submission is voluntary, from the heart. Why do people have radar detectors in their cars? They are not truly submissive to the speed laws or the police whose job is to enforce them. They “submit” when supervised but not when no one is watching. Christian submission comes from the heart. Whether a policeman is around or whether we are supervised, our obed-ience should be from the heart, seeking to please Him who saved us and knowing that He will reward us.

(3) Secular submission is motivated by self-interest; biblical submission is motivated by faith, hope, and love, resulting in self-sacrifice. The world submits to speed laws because they do not wish to pay a fine. Men keep other laws because they do not want to go to jail. Still other “submission” is practiced as an assurance that it is best for us to do so. Secular submission seeks to avoid pain and suffering. Christian submission willingly endures suffering, motivated not so much by present benefits and rewards as by our heavenly hope and by the love God generates within us. And because these future benefits are not seen at present, we must submit in faith, trusting in God and in His word (see Hebrews 11:1-6).

(4) Secular submission is given to those in authority who expect (and sometimes demand) that we act in a way that benefits them; biblical submission is given to Him who gave up His rights and privileges in order to bring blessings to us. In the major texts which deal with submission, Christ is the model, the means, and the standard for submission. In Ephesians 5, the husband and wife relationship is patterned after the relationship of Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:21-33). In Philippians 2, the submission we are to have one to another is to imitate Christ’s submission (Philippians 2:1-8). Peter also makes Christ the model for those who submit themselves to those who cause them suffering (1 Peter 2:21-25).

(5) Secular submission is mainly a matter of authority; biblical submission is more a matter of priority, putting the interests of others ahead of our own. Secular submission is granted, albeit reluctantly, only to those who have authority over us. Biblical submission is granted to our peers and to those under our authority because submission is not simply a matter of authority but of priority. It is not just a question of who has power over us but who has priority over us. It is a question of whether our own interests are subordinate to the interests of others. Biblical submission requires that we place the interests of others above our own personal interests, that we serve others sacrificially:

1 Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not [just] please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification (Romans 15:1-2; see also Philippians 2:3-8).

Pressing further, biblical submission gives others priority by seeking to enhance their glory rather than our own. Submission enables us to give up our drivenness to be preeminent. This preeminence can be a matter of status, of power, of position, of proclamation (speech), but there are other ways to be preeminent. For a woman, her clothing, her adornment, and even her demeanor can cause her to be on “center stage” with the attention of all. This is why both Peter (1 Peter 3:1-6) and Paul (1 Timothy 2:9-12) address a woman’s appearance and apparel, as well as the taking on of roles of authority. When a woman uses that which is to bring glory to her husband in such a way as to bring glory to herself, she has spurned the principle of submission (see 1 Corinthians 11:1-17).

(6) Secular submission seeks to minimize dependence on others and to maximize our own independence; biblical submission recognizes our dependence on others and surrenders independence. Satan acted independently of God and urged Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1-7) as well as the Lord Himself (Matthew 4:1-11) to do likewise. Biblical submission emphasizes our inter-dependence on one another (see Romans 14:7; 1 Corinthians 11:11; 12:1ff.). Submission makes us a servant to others; thus submission is the surrendering of our independence.

(7) Secular submission is legalistic, outward compliance with the letter of the law when observed; biblical submission is inward agreement with the spirit of the law. Because secular submission is not a voluntary matter of the heart, it results only in a legalistic kind of obedience to the letter of the law. Biblical submission goes much further as it seeks to fulfill the spirit of the matter.

To illustrate, let’s assume one of my children is not submissive. The child asks if she can go next door to play with Sarah. I tell her no. I later find my child is next door, and when I begin to punish her for her disobedience, she insists she did not go next door to play with Sarah; she went next door to play with Stephanie, Sarah’s sister. The letter of the law may not have been violated, since I did not specifically forbid going next door or playing with Stephanie. But if my child were submissive, I would only have to express to her that I did not want her going out today, and she would apply that general principle to every specific question based upon what she knew I wanted rather than upon the exact words I chose.

Is it any wonder that the Judaism of Jesus’ day was so legalistic? Not at all, because God’s people were not submissive to Him. They rejected His authority and even His own Son. They challenged His authority, and finally nailed Him to a cross. Those who have the “law written on their hearts” need not be given a long, detailed list of rules. They need only be told, in general principles, what pleases and displeases God. Legalism is evidence of a lack of submission. Submission seeks to please God.

(8) Secular submission may act in the way one authority demands but seldom silently; biblical submission is often evident in the silence which accompanies innocent suffering. Do you notice how much emphasis Peter places on silence in these verses on submission? Slaves are urged to suffer silently as Jesus did (2:18-25). Wives are to suffer in silence as Jesus did (3:1-6). Peter’s quote from Psalm 34:10-12 again emphasizes silence.

Our culture does not agree with Scripture here. In our day, silence is not golden. Indeed, silence is often disparaged as though it were a weakness, even a “sin.” Our culture says we are to communicate; we are to express our feelings, to let it all out, to ventilate. Husbands are criticized for not being more open (sometimes rightly so, sometimes not). In Scripture, if not in “Dear Abby,” silence is more often commended than condemned. There are times to speak out, and sometimes we fail to speak when we should. But most of my regrets are not for what I have failed to say but what I have failed to refrain from saying.

The speech we should express should edify the other, even at the cost of some pain to us (see Ephesians 4:25, 29; Colossians 3:8; 4:6). We should not “confess” a fault to someone other than the one we have offended, and we should not confess to the one offended just to make us feel better. Not saying something when we have been wronged is not wrong, unless we have failed to forgive the one who has wronged us. The command to “Not let the sun go down on our wrath” (Ephesians 4:26) does not give license to vent our anger; it is an exhortation to grant forgiveness and deal with our anger in a way that edifies the offending party and promotes unity and harmony.

Problems With Submission

The biblical principle of submission is not always simple nor easy. When we endeavor to obey our Lord’s command to live in submission to others, several problem areas confront us.

The first might be called “misplaced submission.” Sometimes we are submissive to the wrong people. The wife, for example, is commanded to be submissive to her own husband. She is not to submit to any other man as she does to her husband. Worldliness is submitting to the wrong people, to the wrong system of values and standard of conduct. Submission is an act of love, and we are commanded not to love the world (1 John 2:15). The world hates us because of our identification with Jesus Christ (John 15:18-19). We are no longer to be conformed to the world’s thinking, values, or actions (Romans 12:1-2). Nevertheless, “peer pressure,” regardless of age, is a very powerful force, one to which we all too often submit. The Bible clearly warns us against submitting to it (see Proverbs 1:8-19).

The second problem area could be called “conflicts in submission” because of the multiple levels of submission. We are to be subject to more than one person, to more than one level of authority. Because of our multiple obligations in submission, we may become confused about how we can submit in a way that pleases God.

We need to recognize that when submission to one authority conflicts with submission to another, we are obliged to submit to the highest authority. The highest authority is God. And so when political or religious authorities seek to compel us to act contrary to the Word of God, we, like Peter, must say, “We must obey God, rather than men” (Acts 4:18-20; 5:27-29).

Some years ago, a well-known seminar speaker seemed to teach that a wife’s submission to her husband was to be without exception. He used the example of Sarah’s obedience to Abraham as assurance that God would protect the wife from adverse consequences when she submitted to her husband’s instructions, even when doing so was wrong. I believe this is wrong on several counts. Submission is not synonymous with obedience. One can still be in submission to one’s authority without always blindly obeying every command. In other words, one can submissively disobey. Daniel and his three friends illustrate this. Also, we need to recognize that submission recognizes levels of authority, so that a wife renders submission to her husband in ways that she will not do for any other.

The exception arises when we cannot obey the one to whom we are in submission because of a higher authority. The norm is that we can work out submission so that we submit on several levels, without conflict. The scribes and Pharisees seemed to assume that submission could not be carried out on more than one level at a time. They challenged Jesus with the question, “Should we pay taxes to Caesar or not?” (Matthew 22:17). The assumption was that one could not submit to Caesar (or to civil government) and God at the same time. Jesus’ answer was that one could submit to God and Caesar at the same time. The solution was that you must submit to Caesar what is rightfully his, and submit to God what is His. This means that the obligations of our submission depend upon to whom we are submitting.

The Bible gives examples of multiple levels of submission. Daniel submitted to the authorities over him in Babylon, while at the same time he maintained his submission to God and to His Law (Daniel 1). Perhaps the most difficult situation was faced by Abigail in 1 Samuel 25. She was obliged to submit to God, to her husband, and to David, who had already been indicated as Israel’s future king. Both David and her husband were acting foolishly, and yet she wisely demonstrated submission to both. She spared her husband’s life in spite of his foolishness, and she spared David from acting in a way that would be detrimental to his reign as Israel’s king. In both cases, she turned both men from their intended course of action in a way that did not violate the principle of submission to either of them or to God.

These examples show how occasionally it may become necessary to disobey those in authority over us. It is never necessary to sin (1 Corinthians 10:13). We must disobey only to be submissive to a higher authority. And we must do so in a way that shows a submissive spirit. Generally, we should be able to submit to a level of authority without conflict with others. To do so takes wisdom, which God promises to grant (James 1:5), and the wise man loves to seek it out (see Proverbs 10:23; 14:6, 8; 19:8; 23:23; 24:13; 29:3).

The third problem area is reconciling or harmonizing our duty to submit with other biblical commands. I cannot tell you how common it is for Christians to think that the command to submit overrides all other commands. For example, the Christian wife may believe that since she is obligated to submit to her husband she must never speak in a way that seeks to correct him if he is wrong. It is my conviction that the biblical commands related to discipline in the church (Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; Galatians 6:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15) apply as much to marriage partners as to anyone else. If all of us are to submit to one another, we must somehow carry out the discipline commands in a way that does not violate the principle of submission. As citizens, the Old Testament prophets were subject to the kings under which they served. They also were sometimes required to speak a word of rebuke to them, which they did in a submissive way. Submission and rebuke are not incompatible.

The fourth problem area is how those in a position of authority should deal with those who refuse to submit as they should. Here much of what falls in the category of “abuse” might arise. What does a parent do when a child fails to “submit”? What does a husband do when his wife won’t submit? Some resort to physical force. A certain measure of force might be appropriate, such as when dealing with children (especially smaller ones). But all too often, parents feel that they must prevail over the child, that they must obtain precisely what they want. And so, when the child persists in crying, even when told to stop, even when punished, some parents, unwilling to suffer defeat, beat, scald, injure, or even kill. Some husbands deal similarly with their wives, resorting to physical force and violence to obtain the result they think they must. Something is dreadfully wrong when this happens.

Several principles should guide us in cases where the submission we desire is not obtained.

First, biblical submission comes from within a person, as a voluntary act of obedience and faith. We can no more force one to truly submit than we can force one to convert to faith in Christ. Every command which calls for submission requires it of the person who is to submit. Never are those in authority commanded to forcefully bring about the submission of those under them. A parent may be obligated to require a child to obey, but one can only encourage a child to submit. We are to lead in a way that is faithful to our task.

Second, Christ is the model for our leadership. How does He deal with our failure to submit? Does He immediately use force to compel submission? I think we can see He usually does not deal with us this way. He has placed His Spirit within us, and He works patiently to bring us to what we should be. When a wife refuses to submit to her husband, the husband should turn in faith to Him who can change hearts. We should not seek to bring our wife to her knees in submission, but should fall to our knees in prayer. Christ brought about our submission through His own sacrifice on the cross; we should seek to bring others to submission by faithfully serving them, by God’s power and grace.

Misconceptions and Misrepresentations of Submission

Submission is not a natural response. People do not naturally respond by submitting, even to those in authority over them. It should come as no surprise then that many will resist and oppose the biblical teaching on submission. Some opposition will be direct; other opposition will be more subtle and indirect. We need to look for it in a variety of forms and stand for biblical submission in both theory and practice.

The concept of submission is directly opposed by those who hold to women’s lib, self-assertion, and popular movements like EST. We should not apologize or shrink back from the teaching of Scripture on submission, whether welcomed by others or not.

More subtle forms of resistance are now appearing, and often these arise within the church. Submission may be embraced in theory but rejected and denied in practice. Often, those who submit are labeled as “enablers” or as “co-dependent.” It is possible that some Christians might be such in error, because of a dis-torted understanding of true submission. But in the process, true submission may be attacked and disdained because it is not “in” in this age of addictions, therapy and support groups. Far fewer Christians are struggling to understand and apply the biblical teaching on submission than those who are trying to cast it aside like an old, unwanted shoe.

True submission is undermined by sincere, well-meaning Christians who practice stereotypical submission, a submission defined by very precise rules and practices rather than a matter of the heart. True submission thrives best on principles and is not helped by endless rules. True submission is not always making the one we submit to happy, but seeking his or her best interest at our own expense. True submission is not building up the ego of another with flattery, but building up another with truth, truth that is proclaimed and practiced in love. True submission is not a guarantee that we will thereby avoid pain and suffering, but an attitude and outlook which can govern our attitudes and actions when we are suffering innocently for Christ’s sake.

Conclusion

I must say to those who have chosen not to submit to God, to the provision of Christ for our salvation, and to the Word of God that while God presently allows men to rebel against Him, He is going to subject all creation when He comes again. We can submit now or be subjected by force later. Either way, we will bow the knee to Him who is over all. The difference is that Christians willingly and joyfully do so now and in heaven, while unbelievers only reluctantly do so in the future as they prepare to enter into eternal doom:

9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9-11).

11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul. 12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe [them,] glorify God in the day of visitation (1 Peter 2:11-12).

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man [came] death, by a man also [came] the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then [comes] the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:20-28).

Now, my friend, is the day for submission, submission to God through faith in Jesus Christ for eternal salvation, faith that Jesus Christ died for your sins, bore your eternal punishment, and has provided the righteousness which enables you to stand justified before God.

1 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away [from it.] 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard (Hebrews 2:1-3; see also 3:1-19).

Submission is the attitude with which men and women turn to God in faith for eternal salvation. It is also the attitude which underlies servanthood and thus the ministry of believers to outsiders and to one another in the church. We hear much more about servanthood than submission, but submission is the basis for servanthood.

Submission is the basis for servant leadership. J. Oswald Sanders wrote an excellent little book on spiritual leadership in which he speaks of three key elements in leadership: suffering, servanthood, and the sovereignty of God. He is absolutely right. I would also suggest that the one word “submission” is fundamental and foundational to these three concepts. Peter speaks of submission as the proper response to suffering. We have already seen that submission is foundational to servanthood. We should also see that we submit first to God and then to others because we know God is sovereign, He is in control, and He will fulfill all of His purposes and promises.

I submit to you that a man cannot truly be a spiritual leader until he has come to submit himself to those whom he leads. He does not follow those whom he leads, but he does subordinate his interests to the interests of those whom he leads. When he seeks to further his own interests, he will do so at the expense of others. When he subordinates his interests to those of the ones he leads, he sacrifices his own selfish interests for the interests of others. And here the paradox of Christianity becomes evident. When we die to self, we live; when we give up our lives, we find them; when we abandon our pursuit of fulfillment, we are fulfilled. And so submission is the path to blessing as Peter is about to demonstrate in verses 8-12.

Let us commit ourselves to further study and meditation on this vitally important subject of submission. And may we, by God’s grace, practice true submission from the heart to His glory.

110 I am more convinced than ever that the meaning of the term Peter used here is “creature,” not “institution” (NASB) or “ordinance” (KJV). The term is found 19 times in the King James Version of the New Testament. It is rendered “creature” 11 times, 6 times it is rendered “creation,” “building” once in Hebrews 9:11 (which the NASB changes to “creation”), and “ordinance” one time here in 1 Peter 2:13. The normal translation would thus be either “creation” or “creature.” “But why,” someone might ask, “does Peter use this expression for people?” In that day, as in our own (I speak of the unborn), not all human beings are considered as such. Just as the unborn fetus has been judged to be a non-person by the Supreme Court, so slaves and others (such as the outcasts in India) are considered non-persons. Since Peter requires us to submit to every human being, he must carefully choose his words to include every divinely created human being. His expression, “human creation” does this, perhaps better than any other.

111 The words used of submission occur in these texts: 1 Chronicles 29:24; Psalm 62:1 [61:2, LXX]; Luke 2:51; 10:17, 20; Romans 8:7, 20; 10:3; 13:1, 5; 1 Corinthians 14:32, 34; 15:27, 28; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 9:13; Galatians 2:5; Ephesians 1:22; 5:21, 22, 24; Philippians 3:21; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11; 3:4; Titus 2:5, 9; 3:1; Hebrews 2:5, 8; 12:9; James 4:7; 1 Peter 2:13, 18; 3:1, 4, 22; 5:5; The theme of submission is also prominent in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and Philippians 2:1-8.

112 The same term was also used in secular Greek of a literary work which was appended to another.

113 See footnote 1.

Related Topics: Christian Home, Men's Articles, Women

26. Spiritual Warfare (Ephesians 6:10-20)

Related Media

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.

14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, 19 and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Introduction

As Hitler’s appetite for power and territory grew, his army began to march across Europe. In some cases, the fight could hardly be called a battle. The German army advanced, with its tanks and with technologically advanced weapons. In some of the underdeveloped nations, their armies made a futile effort to resist Hitler’s aggression, fighting back with spears and even rocks. It was no contest at all, because these nations were not equipped for the battle.

The same could be said of Satan, and those whom he opposes. Many of his victims do not even know there is a war going on. They make easy prey. Christians should know that we are in the midst of a great spiritual struggle, although many seem not to believe it. And even more distressing is the fact that many who consider themselves “in the war” do not understand the nature of Satan’s schemes, of the weapons which he employs, or of the weapons which God has provided for our defense.

Ephesians 6:10-20 is perhaps the clearest definition of the spiritual war which we find from the pen of the Apostle Paul. It not only assures us that there is a spiritual war, but it warns us that apart from utilizing the weapons which God has provided for us, we are hopelessly underpowered. This passage informs us as to what our divinely weapons are. Beyond this, these weapons imply the nature of the struggle which we are in. The weapons which God has provided for us are those weapons which best repel the attacks of Satan, and thus we can learn a great deal about the nature of Satan’s opposition from simply considering each of the weapons at our disposal.

In this first lesson, we will concentrate on verses 10-13, which direct our attention to the war itself, and to our grasp of its gravity. After a consideration of the war in general, we will then proceed to examine in more detail each of the weapons Paul mentions, and the offensive strategy of Satan which they imply. May God give us open hearts and minds to understand the spiritual war, and the means which He has provided for our defense.

The Spiritual War in the Old Testament

It should come as no surprise to the Christian to read here that we are engaged in a great spiritual battle. From the early chapters of the Old Testament it is apparent that Satan is the enemy of God, and that he actively seeks to oppose God, His purposes, and His people. Let us consider the evidence for the spiritual war in the Old Testament, and then to further pursue this matter in the New Testament.

We would probably turn first to the third chapter of the Book of Genesis to find Satan striking what appears to be the first blow of the spiritual war. Actually, the battle began long before the creation of Adam and Eve. Satan’s rebellion against God is described in two Old Testament prophecies:

12 “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13 “But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’ (Isa. 14:12-14).

12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 “You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 “You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created, Until unrighteousness was found in you (Ezek. 28:12-15).

It is clear from these verses that the prophets are not speaking only of an earthly ruler, but of someone possessing much greater power. They are speaking of none other than Satan. He was the angel who was created by God (Ezekiel 28:13), given the highest authority under God, but who was not content with this. He was the one who was in Eden, the garden of God (Ezekiel 28:13). He was once blameless at the time of his creation, but then was found with sin (Ezekiel 28:15). He possessed great beauty, power, and authority, but he had to have more. He wanted to exalt himself further; he wanted to become like God (Isaiah 14:14).

When Satan rebelled against God, others joined him in opposing God and His purposes. And so we find Satan making his first public appearance in Genesis chapter 3, not as Satan, but as a creature which God has made. Satan comes to Adam and Eve as a fellow-creature, under God’s authority and that of the man and his wife. His temptation is heeded, and God’s Word disobeyed, leading not only to the downfall of Adam and his wife, but of all their offspring.

In Genesis chapter 6, we are told that the “sons of God” took wives from among the “daughters of men.” In the Old Testament the expression, “sons of God,” is used of angels rather than in reference to men. It would therefore seem that Satan was seeking to employ fallen angels to corrupt the “seed of the woman” who was promised to defeat Satan and to bring about man’s salvation from sin (Genesis 3:15).¹⁴⁴

The events of the Book of Job are believed to have occurred in patriarchal times, and thus Satan’s appearance in Job 1 and 2 would have taken place after Genesis chapters 3 and 6. Satan was gathered around the throne of God, along with the other “sons of God” (Job 1:6). He contended that Job would only serve God as long as God blessed him. God then granted Satan the authority to afflict Job, but always within strict limits. In the case of Job’s adversities, they came first from Satan, but ultimately from God, whose sovereign control over the events of His servant’s life never wavered. An important thing to note here is not only that the suffering of Job, which appeared to be of very natural causes, was of satanic origins. Furthermore, we are led to see beyond the earthly drama to its more celestial purpose of instructing not only Satan, but all the “sons of God,” to God’s glory, if not to Satan’s fuller grasp of the issues.

In 2 Kings chapter 6, the king of Syria was waging war against Israel. God informed Elisha the prophet of all the Syrian king’s battle plans in advance, and the prophet conveyed them to the king of Israel, so that all of Syria’s attacks were nullified. When the king of Syria learned that Elisha was the source of his troubles, he sent out his army to seize him. In the morning, the Syrian troops surrounded the city of Dothan, where Elisha was staying. When Elisha’s servant arose early and went out, perhaps to draw water, he saw the Syrian army as it was surrounding the city. The panic-stricken servant rushed to his master and told him what he had seen.

While the servant was terrified by what he had seen, Elisha remained calm. He knew something that his servant did not. He knew that earthly armies were no threat when the host of heaven was on his side. And so he prayed that the eyes of his servant might be opened, to see the “invisible army” which was on duty to protect the people of God:

15 Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” 16 So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” 17 Then Elisha prayed and said, “O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the LORD opened the servant’s eyes, and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. 18 And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed to the LORD and said,” Strike this people with blindness, I pray. “So He struck them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. 19 Then Elisha said to them, “This is not the way, nor is this the city; follow me and I will bring you to the man whom you seek.” And he brought them to Samaria (2 Kings 6:15-19).

This heavenly army descended to Elisha, who prayed that they might strike the enemy with blindness. As a result, Elisha was able, singlehandedly, to lead the entire Syrian army into the hands of the Israelite army’s hand. He would not allow them to be killed, but instead sent them all home after giving them food and water. The heavenly army is ever-present, and it responds to the prayers of the saints.

In 1 Chronicles, we see another glimpse of Satan’s opposition to God and to His people. A glimpse which is not mentioned in the parallel account in 2 Samuel chapter 24: “Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel” (1 Chr. 21:1). Unless we had been given the revelation of this verse, no one would ever have attributed David’s actions here to anything other than bad judgment. But behind his foolish and sinful decision we find Satan, ever seeking to oppose God through His people.

Finally, in the Book of Daniel we come to one of the most dramatic examples of the spiritual warfare:

24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astounded and stood up in haste; he responded and said to his high officials, “Was it not three men we cast bound into the midst of the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “Certainly, O king.” 25 He answered and said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!” (Daniel 3:24-25).

10 Then behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 And he said to me, “O Daniel, man of high esteem, understand the words that I am about to tell you and stand upright, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling. 12 Then he said to me, “Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. 13 “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.… 20 Then he said, “Do you understand why I came to you? But I shall now return to fight against the prince of Persia; so I am going forth, and behold, the prince of Greece is about to come. 21 “However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth. Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince (Daniel 10:10-13, 20-21).

In Daniel chapter three, Daniel’s three companions are thrown into the fiery furnace, because they will not bow down before the golden image which king Nebuchadnezzar had set up. But when these three were cast into the furnace, the king looked in and was shocked to see not three, but four men inside, and they were not writhing in pain or being consumed by the flames, they were walking around inside that furnace. If not our Lord Himself, this fourth person was surely an angelic being, sent there to save the lives of these faithful men.

In chapter 10 an angel was sent to Daniel, in answer to his prayers (note verse 12). This angel informed Daniel that he had set out to come to him much sooner, but that he encountered opposition from the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” who withstood him, delaying him for 21 days. Having been left there with the kings of Persia, Michael came to his rescue. After he finished speaking with Daniel, the angel would encounter the “prince of Persia” and the “prince of Greece” (verse 20). The important thing to notice here is that angels are very much involved in the affairs of men and of nations. The godly angel came in response to Daniel’s prayers and the ungodly celestial beings opposed this angel. More than this, the unholy angels seem to have a link with political kingdoms and their kings.

The Spiritual War in the Gospels

In the Gospels of the New Testament the spiritual war is again evident. In Matthew (4:1-11) and Luke (4:1-13), the account of our Lord’s temptation by Satan is recorded. Satan sought to tempt our Lord to renounce His submission to the Father by acting independently for His own selfish gain. He was, of course, unsuccessful, for which we all may be grateful. What worked on Adam and on others, would not work on this King.

Three of the Gospels record the exorcism which our Lord performed on the Gerasene demoniac.¹⁴⁵ Note the unique contribution of each account, which adds to our understanding of the spiritual war:

And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs; they were so exceedingly violent that no one could pass by that road. And behold, they cried out, saying, “What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?” (Matthew 8:28-29).

And seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him; and crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What do I have to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!” For He had been saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” And He was asking him, “What is your name?” And he said to Him, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” And he began to entreat Him earnestly not to send them out of the country (Mark 5:6-10).

And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion”; for many demons had entered him. And they were entreating Him not to command them to depart into the abyss” (Luke 8:30-31).

From Matthew’s account we learn that these demons which possessed these men knew that their days were numbered. They expected the Lord Jesus to come and to engage them in war. What they did not understand was why He had come at that time. He had arrived early by their way of thinking. They, like all others, were not looking for two comings of the Messiah, but only one.

In Mark chapter 5 we are told that the demons begged Jesus not to be sent “out of the country” (verse 10). And in the parallel account in Luke chapter 8 we find that the demons entreated Jesus not to “send them into the abyss” (verse 31). From these two texts we would conclude that for a demon to be sent “out of the country” was also to be confined “in the abyss.” Here again, as in the Book of Daniel, it seems that fallen angelic beings have certain geographical boundaries for their activities. If a demon was sent “out of the country” he understood this to mean that he was no longer free to oppose God and His people on the earth, but would thereafter be confined in chains in the abyss.

In Matthew’s Gospel we learn that the church which is soon to be established is going to withstand the attacks of hell itself (16:23). Luke tells us that Satan had the audacity to demand that our Lord allow him to “sift Peter like wheat” (Luke 22:31). It was Satan who entered into Judas, using him to betray his Lord and to hand Him over to those who would arrest Him (John 13:27). In spite of his efforts to the contrary, Satan, the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), was soon to be defeated on the cross of Calvary.

The Spiritual War in the Church

Early in the Book of Acts, Satan is found opposing the people and the purposes of God. In Acts chapter 5 we read of Ananias and his wife Sapphira, who had given a certain amount of money to the work of the Lord, but who had lied about the amount. When Peter rebuked Ananias for his deception, he attributed the source of the lie to Satan: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land?” (Acts 5:3).

In Acts 13:10, Paul rebuked Elymas the magician for opposing the gospel, calling him a “son of the devil.” In 2 Corinthians chapter 2, Paul spoke of the church’s reticence to forgive a repentant brother as giving Satan the opportunity to take advantage, adding that we are not ignorant of his schemes (2:10-11). Later in this same epistle, Paul speaks of Satan as the “god of this world” who has “blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (4:4). And near the end of this epistle Paul warns that Satan and his subordinates disguise themselves as true believers, thereby seeking to lead some astray by their authoritarian leadership:

13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 Paul speaks of a future day of evil, when “the man of lawlessness” is revealed, whose working is in accordance with the activity of Satan, and is accompanied by power, signs and false wonders (2:9). In 1 Timothy 3:6 Paul warns about laying hands too quickly on leaders, lest they become conceited and fall into the same condemnation incurred by the devil. In chapter 4, he warns of those who will fall away from the faith and pay attention to “deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (4:1). In chapter 5 of 1 Timothy Paul urges younger widows to get married and not to become idle gossips and busybodies. This sounds very “human,” but Paul links it to satanic activity: “Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan” (1 Timothy 5:14-15). Imagine this. Paul refers to gossiping as turning aside to follow Satan. Now who would have ever considered gossip to be satanic? Paul does.

In his epistle, James condemns the quarrels and strife which were taking place among the saints. He first links such sins to the pursuit of fleshly pleasures (4:1-3). He then indicates that such sin is rebellion against God which grieves His Holy Spirit (4:3-4). Next, James links quarrelling and strife with Satan:

6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 7 Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you (James 4:6-7).

Peter had come to learn about Satan the hard way (see Matthew 16:21-23; Luke 22:31). And so we find him warning others of the threat which Satan poses as our adversary. Note that Peter’s warning comes in the context of leadership and of submission (5:1-7):

8 Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world (1 Peter 5:8-9).

In the letters to the seven churches, recorded in Revelation 2 and 3, the Lord Jesus frequently mentions Satan as the source of temptation and trials in the church (see 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9). The remainder of the Book of Revelation describes the coming final conflict with Satan, and his ultimate demise (see especially chapters 12 and 20).

I have a theory about the intensity of Satan’s opposition against the church. He knows, as we do, that the church is being watched by the angels, and that they are being instructed by what they see.

10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (1 Corinthians 11:10).

I understand that a significant number of angelic beings joined with Satan during or after his rebellion against God, as described in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. I am also inclined to believe that Revelation 12:4 may be speaking of a time yet to come (the “evil day” of Ephesians 6:13) when other angels might also join with Satan in his rebellion against God. If this is so, then it gives even greater significance to the “lessons” which the angels are learning from their observation of the church. As the angels observe the women in submission to their own husbands (1 Corinthians 11:10), they are reminded of the importance of their submission to God. It may well be that in Job 1, Satan was not only trying to make a point with God, but with his fellow-angels, when he suggested that the only reason why any creature worships God is a selfish one. No wonder, then, that Satan would work so hard to corrupt the church and its message to the angels.

From these texts and many others, I believe that it is safe to say that Satan is the arch-enemy of the church. He is ever seeking to cause the saints to stumble and attempting to thwart the plans and purposes of God for His church.

The Spiritual War As Depicted In Ephesians

The spiritual war which Paul describes in chapter 6 should come to us as no surprise in our study of Ephesians. Paul has already paved the way for his teaching on the Christian’s conduct in the spiritual war by what he has taught us previously in the epistle.

Imagine for a moment that you are a slave, and that Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus is being read to the whole church as it gathers for worship. As a slave, your world is a small one. You have severe limitations in terms of personal freedom, and in your exposure to the world. As you hear Ephesians chapter 1, you realize that your salvation is a part of God’s plan, decreed before the earth was created and time even began. You also come to learn that while God’s purpose was to save you from your sin, His ultimate purpose is to sum up all things in Christ. You may be a slave, but you are a part of an eternal plan, and privileged to take part in bringing glory to God. You also learn from this chapter that Christ’s power is beyond our human grasp, a power which was evidenced in the raising of Christ from the dead, and of exalting Him above all other powers. The entire celestial host is under His power, and that power is exercised toward “us who believe” (see 1:18-23).

In chapter 2, Paul reminds you that you were once dead in your sins, and alienated from God. You lived according to the lusts of your flesh, but in reality you were a pawn of Satan, unwittingly carrying out his plans and purposes, even as he is at work in all the “sons of disobedience” (2:1-3). Because of His great mercy, you have been saved from your sins, and reconciled to God in Christ. You have been forgiven your sins and saved unto good works through the grace of God in Christ (2:4-10). You were also a pagan Gentile, separated from the people of God. In fact, you were adversaries with God’s people. But now, in Christ, you have not only been reconciled to God, you have been reconciled with His people.

In being saved, you did not merely become a Jewish proselyte. God did not reconcile Gentiles to himself by making them Jews, He reconciled both Jews and Gentiles as one new man to Himself. This means that Gentiles are not second-class citizens of heaven, nor are Jewish Christians somehow superior to Gentile believers. All are joined in one body, the church, through the Spirit of God to become a dwelling place of God.

Chapter 2 provides a significant reason for the spiritual war. As unbelievers, we were under the power and control of Satan, even though we did not know it. But when we came to faith in Christ by His grace, we were delivered from his “kingdom of darkness” and made citizens in the “kingdom of light.” Our salvation caused us no longer to be the enemies of God, but at the same time resulted in us becoming the enemies of Satan. No wonder he so aggressively attacks Christians. They were once his subjects.

In chapter 3, the slave is given and even more complete picture of the eternal plans and purposes of God. Here, Paul speaks of the “mystery” which God purposed to reveal through him. The mystery is an expansion of Paul’s words in chapter 2, verses 11-22. They mystery is the church, and that God would reconcile both Jews and Gentiles to Himself and to each other, so that they would become fellow-heirs and fellow-partakers of the promise of Christ in the gospel. And this mystery is now been revealed through the church, even as Paul has revealed it to the church. This mystery is for the instruction of the angelic hosts:

To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him (Ephesians 3:8-12).

If the church is the classroom of angels, then the conduct of Christians in the church must surely be consistent with the “lesson” which God is teaching. Because of this, Paul exhorts Christians to “walk in a manner worthy of our calling” (4:1). The Christian’s walk is then described in Ephesians 4:1–6:9. That walk is to be a walk …

worthy of our calling (4:1)¹⁴⁶
which contrasts with our former walk, and that of the Gentiles (4:17)
in love (5:1-2)
in wisdom (5:15)

The walk of the wise is characterized, in part, by the filling or control of the Holy Spirit (5:18), which, in turn is evident in our mutual submission one to another (5:21–6:9). It should come as no surprise that Paul would turn to the subject of our spiritual warfare immediately following his instructions on submission and obedience. This area is one in which Satan’s own rebellion is most evident, and also an area in which his attacks can be expected.

Does our slave, listening to Paul’s letter for the first time, think that his world is a small one, and that his obedience has little significance? If he does, Paul’s letter should teach him otherwise. He is engaged in a great struggle, the spiritual war. He is called upon to take up the full armor of God, and is thereby assured that he will not be defeated. If chapters 1-3 have taken our salvation and its blessings back to its roots in the eternal plan and purpose of God, then chapter 6 takes our struggle with sin back to its source—Satan. Many of the sins which seem completely human in origin, actually have a satanic source. And so Paul concludes this epistle with a lifting of the veil, so that we may see the broader implications of our struggles with sin, and so that we may be reminded that Satan’s final and complete destruction, while yet future, is certain. And so Paul has taken our salvation from its origins, in eternity past, to its consummation, in eternity future. Our lives are thus to be lived in the light of the big picture of what God is doing—the will of God. We are to adapt our lives to His will for His creation, rather than to seek to persuade God to conform to our wills.

One more thing should be said about the relationship between Paul’s teaching on submission and obedience in 5:21–6:9 and his teaching on the spiritual war in 6:10-20. Submission is the giving up of our rights and the pursuit of our self-interest. The spiritual war is about not giving way, but standing fast. How often we tend to reverse these two. We are all too inclined to give up or to give in in matters where we should stand fast, and too eager to stand fast where we should give ground. We need to learn to stand where we are commanded to stand, and to submit where we are instructed to submit.

What Our Text Tells Us About The Spiritual War
(6:10-13)

(1) Coming to faith in Jesus Christ is to be understood as entering into every spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 1:3), but it is also the commencement of a great struggle with Satan and his forces. Let those who would dwell on the blessings of our faith also take note of the battle which we have entered into by faith in Jesus Christ, and which we must wage in His strength.

(2) The church is engaged in a spiritual war, and its enemy is Satan and a host of unseen angelic and celestial enemies whose power vastly exceeds our own. With a few exceptions, our enemies remain invisible to our eyes, but they nevertheless are real, and so is their opposition. These celestial enemies seem to have various forms, as is suggested by the variety of terms used by Paul to identify them: “rulers,” “powers,” “world forces of this darkness,” “spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (verse 12). I doubt that we can fully grasp the variety and the number of those forces which oppose us. I would simply remind you that there seem to be various rankings of angelic beings, and that the description of heaven in Revelation speaks of creatures which will probably not be understood by us until we are in God’s presence (see Revelation 5:6, 8, 11).

The angelic beings have great power. Satan would seem to possess the greatest power. One dare not underestimate this power. Some time ago I heard a fine preacher speak of Satan as a “wimp.” I was shocked. How could one ever come to this conclusion from our text, or from any other? To underestimate his power is to underestimate the immensity of the spiritual struggle, and the corresponding need which we have for divine enablement, if we are to withstand Satan’s attacks. I would remind you that those who speak lightly of the celestial powers should be taken back by these verses:

9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, 11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed (2 Peter 2:9-12).

8 Yet in the same manner these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed (Jude 8-10).

We dare not underestimate our enemy, “who prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). From these words in 1 Peter, it take it that Satan does not have false teeth. He not only desires to devour, he will devour those who do not take up the “whole armor of God.”

(3) Paul’s focus in our text is not on every aspect of Satan’s opposition to God and man, but on his war with the saints. Satan carries on his warfare on various fronts. He seeks to keep unbelievers from the truth, and he may use his demons to possess men, but in Ephesians chapter 6 Paul’s concern is with Satan’s war against the church, and with the defenses which God has provided the Christian.

(4) In the spiritual war Satan employs a variety of strategies to oppose and to defeat the Christian. Paul does not speak of the “scheme” of the devil, but of his “schemes” (plural). When Satan tempted our Lord, as recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4, he gave up, for the moment. But Luke makes it clear that it was only for a time, only until he could regroup: “And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time” (Luke 4:13). Not only did Satan tempt our Lord with several different lines of approach, he purposed to continue to tempt Him, when the opportunity presented itself. Satan is an opportunist, with an almost endless variety of “schemes.”

(5) At the present, Satan’s opposition against the church is not a frontal attack, but a subversive attack through intrigue, deception, and trickery. The demons were shocked to discover that Jesus had come. They were expecting Him to come later, for their final confrontation (see Matthew 8:28-29). Satan’s strategy for the present time (until the final conflict) is that of subversive activity. He is presently employing deception and intrigue to trip up the Christian. This is a time of guerilla warfare, of snipers and booby traps, not of frontal attack.

(6) There is a coming, “evil day,” when the spiritual war will intensify, and when the dangers for believers will increase. It is true, in one sense, that the days are evil: “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:15-16). But Paul does not seem to be speaking of “evil days” in general but of a coming “evil day.” I understand this day to be that future day when satanic opposition will intensify, leading to the second coming of our Lord and the final destruction of Satan and his hosts (see 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Revelation 12, 20). The Christian warrior is to be characterized by vigilance, so that he will not be caught off guard by Satan’s schemes, and so that he will be able to stand in the final days of confrontation.

(7) The Christian’s weapons have been divinely provided, in Christ. Putting on the “full armor of God” is putting on the armor which our Lord girded Himself, when He set out to bring about the salvation of His own in an evil day:

1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. 2 And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. 3 And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, And He will not judge by what His eyes see, Nor make a decision by what His ears hear; 4 But with righteousness He will judge the poor, And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. 5 Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, And faithfulness the belt about His waist (Isaiah 11:1-5).

16 And He saw that there was no man, And was astonished that there was no one to intercede; Then His own arm brought salvation to Him; And His righteousness upheld Him. 17 And He put on righteousness like a breastplate, And a helmet of salvation on His head; And He put on garments of vengeance for clothing, And wrapped Himself with zeal as a mantle. 18 According to their deeds, so He will repay, Wrath to His adversaries, recompense to His enemies; To the coastlands He will make recompense. 19 So they will fear the name of the LORD from the west And His glory from the rising of the sun, For He will come like a rushing stream, Which the wind of the LORD drives. 20 “And a Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the LORD (Isaiah 59:16-20).

When we put on the “full armor of God” we are actually putting on Christ:

11 And this do, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. 12 The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts (Romans 13:11-14).

All too often, when men write about the spiritual warfare, too much prominence is given to Satan and his demons. Not so in Scripture, and certainly not so in our text. Paul sees to it that it is Christ who is preeminent. The enemy is Satan and his subordinates, but the victory is in Christ, and in the armor which He provides the saints.

(8) Paul’s instruction to put on the full armor of God is a command. During the Second World War, my father and many other men received a letter in the mail, that began something like this: “Greetings from the President of the United States.” That letter, as you may know, was notification of having been drafted into the military. The President’s “greeting” was not an invitation, it was a summons. One did not dare to ignore this letter, without expecting serious consequences.

Paul’s instructions concerning the spiritual war are similar, in that Paul is informing every Christian that they have been drafted, not to fight a physical war, but to fight a spiritual war. We are not encouraged to take up the “full armor of God,” we are commanded to do so. These verses are our marching orders, and we dare not ignore them, or fail to carry them out to the letter.

(9) Our protection against Satan’s attacks is assured only if and when we take up the full armor of God. Satan’s schemes are many, and he attacks us at any point he considers vulnerable. Thus, our armor must be complete. We cannot pick and choose our armor, but rather we must put all of it on. We must be completely equipped, or we are vulnerable to his attacks.

Paul’s emphasis on the “full” or “complete” armor of God in Ephesians chapter 6 teaches us something else, by implication. If we must put on the “full armor of God” in order to stand, then the armor of Ephesians chapter 6 must be the full or complete armor that we need. Why would Paul be so emphatic about putting on the full armor of God and then not tell us what all of that armor is. I would therefore conclude that we do not need any armor other than that found in Ephesians 6:10-20. I would also conclude that any “armor” which men might suggest in addition to God’s full armor is not necessary, and is indeed unnecessary.

(10) Our duty is not to attack Satan, or to defeat him, but rather to withstand his attacks. Our task is defensive, not offensive. Those who would attack Satan do not understand Satan’s power, or God’s plan. It is not we who will defeat Satan, but Christ. Our duty is to resist Satan, not to remove him. I hear Christians speak of “binding Satan” and I now hear Christians sing as though we can “run Satan out of town.” The Bible says nothing of these kinds of warfare, but only of our standing fast in the face of his attacks.

We are to stand (in effect, to stand still), because God is the One who wins the battle. In the Book of Revelation the saints who are “overcomers” do not defeat Satan. Indeed, many of them actually die at his hand (12:11). Satan’s final defeat (20:7-10) comes not at the hand of the saints, but from the hand of God, who sends fire from heaven (20:9).

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them before our God day and night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even to death” (Revelation 12:10-11).

And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever (Revelation 20:9-10).

In spiritual warfare the battle is the Lord’s. At times, God simply commanded the people to “stand still” and watch the Lord win the battle, without any human help:

10 And as Pharaoh drew near, the sons of Israel looked, and behold, the Egyptians were marching after them, and they became very frightened; so the sons of Israel cried out to the Lord. 11 Then they said to Moses, “Is it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? Why have you dealt with us in this way, bringing us out of Egypt? 12 “Is this not the word that we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, ‘Leave us alone that we may serve the Egyptians’? For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness.” 13 But Moses said to the people, “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the Lord which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. 14 “The Lord will fight for you while you keep silent” (Exodus 14:10-14).

When the Christian is actively engaged in the battle, it is the Lord who wins the victory (see Joshua 5:13–6:27). When David fought Goliath, he did not even have a sword, but only a sling. While David fought, it was the Lord who gave the victory. Even Goliath’s words to David made it clear that this young man could not prevail on his own. And David’s words made it clear that the battle, and the victory was the Lord’s:

41 Then the Philistine came on and approached David, with the shield-bearer in front of him. 42 When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, with a handsome appearance. 43 And the Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44 The Philistine also said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field.” 45 Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. 46 “This day the Lord will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47 and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hands.” 48 Then it happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David, that David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. 49 And David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead, so that he fell on his face to the ground. 50 Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand. 51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled (1 Samuel 17:41-51).

(11) Satan’s defeat and our defense is spoken of in terms of the gospel. Jesus spoke of Satan’s defeat a number of times in the Gospels. In every instance, His defeat is viewed as accomplished at the cross of Calvary. Our salvation and Satan’s defeat has already been accomplished by our Lord, when He died on the cross of Calvary and then rose from the dead, triumphing over His foes, foremost of whom is Satan himself.

“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out” (John 12:31).

“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged” (John 16:8-11).

The Christian’s defenses are also directly tied to the gospel. They are truth, righteousness, the preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the word of God. Our deliverance from Satan’s power and our defense from his subsequent attacks are found in Christ and in the gospel which His death and resurrection have made a reality.

(12) The nature of our weapons tells us a great deal about the nature of the war we are in, and of the methods which Satan will employ in his efforts to destroy us. As we proceed with our study of each element of our armor, we will see that the armor which God has provided corresponds precisely to the schemes of Satan, and his methods of waging war with the saints. Thus, to know the armor which God has provided is to know the ways in which Satan will seek our downfall.

The Spiritual War From A Broad Biblical Perspective

Ephesians chapter 6 is one of the most thorough treatments of the spiritual war in the New Testament, it is but one of many texts which sheds light on this subject. In addition to the contribution of Ephesians chapter 6, we may add several other observations concerning the spiritual war which will help us in our study of Ephesians 6:10-20.

(1) Our victory over Satan’s attacks is not always evident in terms of his defeat and our success, but is sometimes won in what looks like our defeat and his success. When Jesus died on the cross of Calvary, it looked very much like he had won. But in our Lord’s apparent defeat (and Satan’s apparent victory) the Savior brought about our salvation and Satan’s defeat. So it will be for some saints. The Book of Revelation informs us that there will be a time when Satan and his subordinates will appear to triumph over the saints, but this should be viewed as a momentary defeat which accomplishes the purposes of God, and which serves as a prelude to Satan’s final destruction:

9 And when He broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; 10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also (Revelation 6:9-11).

(2) Satan’s opposition is not to be found so much in the bizarre and the supernatural as it is in that which seems natural and even human. You will notice that the subject of demonization is not raised in our text. Neither is any emphasis given here to lying wonders and signs, although these are a part of Satan’s arsenal of weapons. Satan tempted Adam and Eve to doubt God’s goodness and to disobey His Word. His opposition to Job was evident in the form of natural disaster and human illness. The same appears to be the case with his affliction of Paul (see 2 Corinthians 12:7). His temptation of David seems to be in terms of an appeal to his pride (1 Chronicles 21:1). So, too, his temptation of our Lord was an appeal to what we would think of as natural ambitions and desires (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13).

(3) Satan’s opposition to the believer is seldom direct, and is most often through other means, which we might not recognize as being satanically inspired. In very few instances does Satan directly involve himself in his attack against men. He did directly tempt our Lord, but this is certainly the exception. Usually, he prefers to “speak” through other instruments, so that we don’t recognize that it is he who is opposing us. He spoke through a serpent in the garden of Eden, and he spoke through Peter when he resisted Christ’s plan to die on the cross (Matthew 16:23). More often, Satan employs his demons to do his bidding (see 2 Corinthians 12:7).

We are all familiar with these three forces, all of which are hostile to the believer: the world, the flesh, and the devil. I would like to suggest that Satan most often employs the world and the flesh to attack the believer. And so it is that Satan is sometimes identified as the ultimate culprit, when it would appear that the world or the flesh were the source of one’s temptation. Who would have seen Satan behind David’s numbering of the Israelites (1 Chronicles 21:1)? Who would have imagined that Judas’ temptation arose from anything other than his own greed? Who would have thought that the deception of Ananias and Sapphira was motivated by anything more than their own greed and desire for man’s praise? When the Scriptures inform us that Satan is behind a particular temptation, it is because the forces seem so natural we would not have expected any deeper, more sinister, source.

Satan is more than willing to accept men’s adoration and obedience indirectly. If we become his servants by serving our own interests and seeking the satisfaction of our fleshly desires, Satan gladly accepts our indirect submission to him. In fact, I think he even delights in it, because he is the great deceiver. How he must find pleasure in letting men think they are free, when they are really his slaves!

It does not seem advisable to give Satan credit for every evil deed, or to blame him for every instance of opposition, difficulty, or temptation. Job did not know the Satan was behind the tragedies which came into his life. It does not seem that he needed to know. What he needed to know what that an all-wise, all-powerful God was in control of the universe, and of his life. What Job needed to do more than to “bind Satan” was to believe and obey God. Satan’s fingerprints may often be found on much of the evil and suffering which takes place in this world, but some of the evil comes from our own flesh (James 1:13-15), and from living in a sinful and fallen world (Romans 8:18-25).

(4) Satan’s opposition is the outworking of his own rebellion and distorted perception. To put it simply, Satan’s opposition is guided by his own warped perception of reality. He cannot believe that anyone would worship God on the basis of Who He is, rather than on the basis of what He gives. Satan cannot think of God as our Reward, but only as the Rewarder of those who do His bidding. And so it is that Satan sought to afflict Job, thinking that his submission and obedience would immediately cease.

Satan tempts those in power by appealing to their pride and ambition, because that is the way he responded to his position of power. He appeals to those under authority to act independently, rather than to submit to those over us. He appeals to self-interest and he urges us to shun self-sacrifice. He knows nothing of grace, and he delights in the downfall of others.

Satan’s perception is warped. He is not all-knowing, nor is he all-powerful. He operates on the basis of his own distorted perception of reality. Sinful men easily and readily identify with his mindset and motivation, but Christians must reject it for the evil it is. And when Christians act like their Master, Satan is mystified and angered. He cannot fathom why anyone would submit to God and worship him.

(5) Satan is a defeated foe, but his complete demise is yet future. We have already alluded to Satan’s defeat at the cross of Calvary. Nevertheless, we shall say it once again. Satan’s demise is certain.

(6) Satan’s present opposition to the people and purposes of God appears to be detrimental to the church, but in reality Satan is actually furthering God’s purpose and plan for creation. God has purposed to delay casting Satan into the lake of fire because in his freedom to operate as the “god of this world” he is unwittingly fulfilling God’s purposes. He is thus bringing glory to God and producing that which God uses for our good. While Satan inspired Judas to betray our Lord, this was necessary to accomplish our salvation. And although Satan’s messenger may have afflicted Paul with a thorn in the flesh, this was for Paul’s good (see 2 Corinthians 12:7-10). Satan is always on a chain, God’s chain. While he carries on his work with evil intent, God uses him for our good, and for His glory. There is not one thing which Satan is allowed to do which does not promote God’s purposes, His glory, and our good. The outcome of the spiritual war between Satan and God is certain. The struggle is a part of God’s eternal plan. And standing against his attacks in the strength of the full armor of God is our duty.

Conclusion

There is a war going on. It is not a war that is like the wars which are currently going on between nations today (although such wars may be a part of the bigger war). It is a spiritual war. It is a war between Satan and his fallen celestial allies and Christ and His church. It is an invisible war in that we fight against unseen forces. It is therefore a war which must be waged by faith, and not by sight. It is a war that we cannot fight in our own strength, but only in the strength which God Himself supplies.

The war is not being waged to see which side will win. God has already won the war by the death of His Son on the cross of Calvary (see John 12:31; 16:11). The war is for our good, and for God’s glory. The war is a part of God’s instruction to the angelic hosts (see Ephesians 3:8-11). The war is a part of God’s eternal plan and purpose for his creation.

The great question is not, “Who will win?,” but “Who will stand?” The question is not whether God is on our side as much as whether or not we are on His side. I remember this fascinating event in the Old Testament:

13 Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” 14 And he said, “No, rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, “What has my lord to say to his servant?” 15 And the captain of the LORD’s host said to Joshua, “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so (Joshua 5:13-15).

Joshua initially failed to recognize the captain of the Lord’s host. And so, when he approached him, Joshua asked this “man” if he was for or against Israel. The angel identified himself as the captain of the Lord’s host, making it clear that Israel was to follow him. We are sometimes too interested in getting God on our side, rather than getting on His side. He is the commander. His is the battle. David understood this even as he single-handedly opposed Goliath in the name of the Lord:

44 The Philistine also said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field.” 45 Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. 46 “This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47 and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD’s and He will give you into our hands” (1 Samuel 17:44-47).

And so I must ask you this simple question, my friend. In this great spiritual war, whose side are you on? If you are still “dead in your transgressions and sins,” you are unknowingly under Satan’s control, serving him and in rebellion against God (Ephesians 2;1-3). You are at war with God. If, by faith in Jesus Christ, you acknowledge your sin and trust in the victory which Jesus has already won on the cross, then you shall be saved, in which case you shall wage war for God. How great is the difference between those who fight with God and those who fight for Him. Whose side are you on in the spiritual war?

We are in great danger, not when the enemy is great and powerful, but when we think that we can stand in our own strength, rather than in the strength which God provides. Peter learned this lesson the hard way (see Luke 22:31-34). Paul warns every Christian about the danger of self-confidence: “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12). When God delivered the Israelites out of their Egyptian captivity and brought them into the land of Canaan, He purposely did not drive out all of the Canaanites. He purposed that they would have to possess the land by waging war against the Canaanites:

29 “I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become desolate, and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. 30 I will drive them out before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land. 31 And I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you” (Exodus 23:29-31).

God did not give the Israelites an immediate and total victory over their adversaries the Canaanites. They were to wage war against them and drive them out, but it was the Lord who would give them the victory, and to this end He sent His angel to defeat the enemy (Exodus 23:20-23; 32:34; 33:2). We are in a spiritual war and we must put on God’s armor and stand against the enemy. But the victory will be the Lord’s, for it is only in His strength that we stand.

When we fail to enter into the war as God has commanded us, the consequences are most serious. I wish to remind you of two of the great sins in David’s life, which had devastating consequences for himself and for his nation. I want you to note that both of these sins were directly related to his failure to go to war, as was his duty as the king of Israel. Two times we read that David stayed in Jerusalem “at the time when kings go to war”:

Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and her servants with him and all Israel, and they destroyed the sons of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem (2 Samuel 11:1).

Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle, that Joab led out the army and ravaged the land of the sons of Ammon, and came and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem. And Joab struck Rabbah and over threw it (1 Chronicles 20:1).

In the Book of 2 Samuel, David’s decision to stay at Jerusalem, rather than to go to war, resulted in a great moral disaster. Not only did David sin by sleeping with Bathsheba, he then attempted to cover up his sin by having Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, killed in battle. David was not killing the enemy, but was killing his trusted soldier.

In the account recorded in 1 Chronicles, David’s decision to stay at home (perhaps the same one recorded in 2 Samuel 11) was followed shortly by his sinful decision to number the Israelites, which led to divine judgment. Now, instead of waging war against the enemy, Satan is waging war against David, and God brings judgment on the nation. When we fail to wage war, we are really losing the war.

One final thing should be said as we conclude this study of the spiritual war. As I understand Paul’s words about spiritual warfare in chapter 6 in the context of the entire epistle to the Ephesians, I am inclined to say that at this moment in time we wage the spiritual war, not in terms of grand battles and heroic actions, but in terms of simple faith in the teachings of Paul in chapters 1-3 and in terms of our obedience to the commands of Paul as found in chapters 4-6.

Where are the battle lines drawn for children in Ephesians? In terms of their obedience to their parents, as to the Lord. Slaves stand firm in the faith as they obey their masters. Fathers stand fast as they love their wives and as they teach their children the “discipline and instruction of the Lord.” Wives stand fast when they submit to their husbands as to the Lord. We all stand fast as we cease to walk as we once did as Gentiles (4:17-32), and as we walk in love (5:1-6), in light (5:7-13), and in wisdom (5:15ff.) and in submission one to another (5:22–6:9). The war is a matter of trusting and obeying our Lord. As we do so now, in these evil days, we prepare ourselves for the great “evil day” which is yet to come.

When our life comes to an end, I pray that we will be able, like Paul, to say, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7).

144 Some understand Jude 1:6 to refer to these “sons of God.” If this is so (as I am inclined to believe), then these angelic beings were confined to the abyss because they crossed over a forbidden boundary between men and angels, in addition to the fact that they sought to overturn the plan and the promise of God.

145 Matthew’s account informs us that there were actually two demoniacs, while both Mark and Luke focus on just one of these two men.

146 Note that when Paul speaks of the spiritual gifts which our Lord bestows on His church, they are said to be the fruit of His victory over “a host of captives” which He has “led captive.” These “captives” must certainly be those opposing Him, and if not directly, then he must at least indirectly be speaking of the angelic forces which have allied themselves with Satan in opposing God.

Appendix: Discussion Questions for Spiritual Warfare

MEN 7/52 is a men's ministry of bible.org. Our desire is to see all men become true followers of Jesus Christ 7 days a week/52 weeks a year.

In this great spiritual war, whose side are you on? If you are still “dead in your transgressions and sins,” you are unknowingly under Satan’s control, serving him and in rebellion against God (Ephesians 2;1-3). You are at war with God. If, by faith in Jesus Christ, you acknowledge your sin and trust in the victory which Jesus has already won on the cross, then you shall be saved, in which case you shall wage war for God. How great is the difference between those who fight with God and those who fight for Him. Whose side are you on in the spiritual war?

Session 1

The church is engaged in a spiritual war, and its enemy is Satan and a host of unseen angelic and celestial enemies whose power vastly exceeds our own.

1.Where do you see and experience spiritual warfare in your church?

2.How is it affecting your spiritual growth?

3.Describe the impact is it having on your family?

4.What steps are you taking to stand firm?

At the present, Satan’s opposition against the church is not a frontal attack, but a subversive attack through intrigue, deception, and trickery.

5.Where do you see intrigue impacting your church negatively?

6.What doctrinal or behavioral deceptions exist in your church?

7.Describe how Satan can use trickery in your church to create spiritual warfare.

8.Share with the group an incident where you have been tricked or deceived.

Session 2

Our victory over Satan’s attacks is not always evident in terms of his defeat and our success, but is sometimes won in what looks like our defeat and his success.

1.Describe a time when you have stood firm in the power of the Holy Spirit against an attack by Satan.

2.Have you experienced what seemed to be defeat, but was really a victory? Please describe

Satan’s opposition to the believer is seldom direct, and is most often through other means, which we might not recognize as being satanically inspired.

3.What are some of the ways in which Satan attacks you indirectly?

4.How is Satan attacking your family indirectly?

5.What “disguise” is he using?

6.How is Satan indirectly attacking your church?

7.What steps are you taking to stand firm against his attacks against you, your family, and your church?

Session 3

Ephesians 4:1-16. Men are to be one in Christ, practice their spiritual gifts, avoid deceit, and live like Christ. God’s men know the spiritual gifts Christ gave them, and use them for the sole purpose of building Christ’s church.

1.As followers of Christ, what are the character traits that govern your behavior?

2.What is the hope of our calling?

3.Paul lists several gifts men receive from Christ. Which ones describe you? Please explain.

4.What is the sole purpose of your gifts?

5.How do you use your gifts in the following areas:

Home
Family
Church

6.Group Discussion: What character traits in Ephesians 4:1-5 do you need to improve and will commit to do so immediately? Ask someone in the group to help you.

Session 4

Ephesians 4:17-5:8. Men must live in holiness, purity, honesty, and obedience. God’s men are pure, obedient, truthful, and sacrificial at all times.

1.In Ephesians 4:17-19, Paul gives specific ways in which a man is not to live. What are they?

2.What does it mean to become “new”?

3.In what areas does Satan gain an advantage (or foothold) in a man’s behavior?

4.What is the result of a man’s wholesome speech?

5.What areas of your speech do you need to clean up?

6.In Ephesians 5:1-2, how is a man who follows Christ expected to live?

7.What specific behavior is explicitly forbidden in Ephesians 5:3-4?

8.With which of these areas are you now struggling? Be honest and be specific.

9.What happens to those who are immoral, impure, or greedy?

10.How will God deal with those who are disobedient and deceitful?

11.Group Discussion: What specific thought or behavior in your life is the biggest obstacle to you living the life Paul outlines in Ephesians 4:17-5:8?

Session 5

Ephesians 5:9-6:9. Men must be wise, sober, submissive to the created order, exposers of deceit, and have gratitude to God for the calling they are given. God’s men love their wives sacrificially, instruct their children in disciplined truth, serve their masters enthusiastically, and treat all others with dignity.

1.What is the fruit of obedience?

2.Why are we to expose deceivers?

3.In Ephesians 5:15-21, Paul continues with the character traits a follower of Christ must have. What are they?

4.How is a man commanded to love his wife?

5.Describe how you practice this kind of love to your wife.

6.According to Ephesians 6:4, what kind of father are you expected to be?

7.What do you do on a daily basis to instruct your children in the Lord?

8.Describe what it means to discipline your children without provoking them.

9.What are some of the tough decisions you need to make in disciplining and instructing your children in the Lord?

10.Group Discussion: What personal risks will you have to take in loving your wife sacrificially and being more intentional in disciplining your children?

Session 6

Ephesians 6:10-20. Men must be armed with God’s power to be able to stand against spiritual warfare. God’s men stand firm in spiritual warfare against all immorality, deceit, and disobedience, armed with God’s power.

1.In spiritual warfare, who is the enemy?

2.Where do we find the truth with which we are to be girded?

3.Why is righteousness to be worn as a breastplate?

4.What are Satan’s flaming arrows?

5.How does faith shield us from them?

6.Why is salvation described as a helmet for the head?

7.How does the Bible serve as a sword?

8.What must we do at all times?

9.Group Discussion: In what areas in your life do you experience the greatest spiritual warfare? Please be specific.

Session 7
Spiritual Warfare in Your Family
The Internet

1.What rules do you maintain for Internet use in your home?

2.Are your computers in a public area? If not, where are they?

3.Are they filtered? If not, why?

4.Do your children have Internet access in their bedrooms? Why?

5.Have your children asked for web accounts?

6.Do they have them? Why?

7.What are you looking at on the Internet?

8.Group Discussion: Share with the group the steps you are taking to make Internet use safe for everyone in your family.

Session 8
Television

1.Do you have cable or satellite television?

2.What programs do you allow your children to watch?

3.Do you check out programs for unwholesome or impure content?

Language?
Plot lines?
Sexuality?
Violence?

4.How do you filter commercials that are inappropriate?

5.What do you watch on TV?

6.Group Discussion: What specific TV programs to you not allow your children to view, and why? Regarding the programs they are permitted to view, is there anything morally or spiritually objectionable? What programs do you and your wife view that are inappropriate for your children?

Session 9
Dress

1. Do your daughters dress modestly and tastefully?

In school?
At church?
In public?
Associating with friends?

2. Are their clothes:

Too tight?
Revealing?
Suggestive?

3. Do your sons dress modestly and tastefully?

In school?
At church?
In public?
Associating with friends?

4. Are their clothes:

Too baggy?
Offensive?

5. Where do you allow them to shop?

6. Who shops with them?

7. Group Discussion: What are some of the battles you are fighting regarding the clothing your children wear, or want to wear? How do you resolve conflicts?

Session 10
Lifestyle

1.When your children come home from school, who is there to care for them?

2.Are your children allowed to visit the mall with their friends?

3.Do you know your children’s friends’ parents?

4.Are your children permitted to attend sleepovers?

5.Who helps them with their homework?

6.Does your family have daily prayer and Scripture reading together?

7.What kind of music do your children listen to?

8.Do they have iPods?

9.Who downloads their music?

10.Do they have cell phones?

11.Who are they talking to?

12.Do their cell phones have cameras?

13.What pictures are they taking?

14.Group Discussion: What cultural influences represent the greatest danger to the spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being of your family?

Session 11
Personal

Please describe, in detail, what you will be doing to guard your family against the deceit, immorality, and disobedience in the culture, media, and entertainment that is attacking them today. Include steps you will take that may risk your relationship with your wife or your children.

You are here

From the series: On Prayer PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

1. Prayer: The Ultimate Weapon

Abstract

From the series: On Prayer PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Can We Serve Church "Cafeteria Style?" PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

11. Are Women Second Class Citizens? (Part IV – Questions Answered)

Introduction

The Necessity for This Lesson

Questions and Answers

Questions About Head Coverings

Question one: Why have the elders not made head covering a matter of policy (i.e. a requirement)?

Question two: Why don’t all of the elders’ wives wear a head covering?

Question three: What would a proper head covering be? Could this be a hat, or a veil? Does a woman’s own hair serve as a sufficient covering?

Question four: How long should a woman’s hair be? Can a woman cut her hair?

Question five: When should a woman cover her head?

Question six: Are the restrictions we find in the New Testament for married women only, or do they apply equally to single women (whether unmarried, widowed, or divorced)?

Question seven: Then how can a single woman share their needs with the church?

Question eight: What about asking questions in church?

Question nine: Are there deaconesses in the church?

Question ten: What about hymns and books authored by women?

Comments

(1) Remember that most of the ministry of a church takes place outside of Sunday morning, and outside of the walls of the church building.

(2) There have been – and sadly will continue to be – abuses of the biblical teaching on the submission and silence of women in the church, but this does not justify setting aside God’s instructions.

(3) While women should not teach or exercise authority over women, men should be humble enough to learn from them.

(4) How do women worship at Community Bible Chapel?

(5) We should not overlook husband-wife ministry as a “team ministry.”

(6) Many of the principles that apply to women also apply to men.

Conclusion

From the series: Can We Serve Church "Cafeteria Style?" PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Can We Serve Church "Cafeteria Style?" PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

10. Are Women Second Class Citizens? (Part III: The Benefits of Silence and Submission)

Introduction

Complaints from the Choir LoftPsalm 73:1-12

A Change of HeartPsalm 73:13-17

A Revised Definition of “Good”Psalm 73:18-28

Satan’s Schemes are Still the Same 2 Corinthians 11:1-4

Is Public Egalitarian Ministry Necessary for Intimacy with God?

The Dullness of the Disciples

Spiritual Intimacy and Spiritual Gifts

Distinguishing Between Heaven and Earth

A Lesson from Mary and Martha

Conclusion

From the series: Can We Serve Church "Cafeteria Style?" PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Can We Serve Church "Cafeteria Style?" PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

9. Are Women Second Class Citizens in the Church? (Part II – Arguments Against the Submission of Women in the Church)

From the series: Can We Serve Church "Cafeteria Style?" PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Can We Serve Church "Cafeteria Style?" PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

8. Are Women Second Class Citizens? (Part I: Overview)

Introduction1

Our Approach

Old Testament Precedent: Divine Distinctions Based Upon Gender

New Testament Practice

Doctrinal Foundations

The Trinity

Submission and the Sovereignty of God

The Events Surrounding Creation and the Fall of Mankind

The Church and Angelic Instruction

The Principle of Male Headship

New Testament Commands

Application: There’s the Rub

Conclusion

From the series: Can We Serve Church "Cafeteria Style?" PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: True Spirituality: A Study in 1 Corinthians PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

11. Sex and the Spiritual Christian (1 Cor. 7:1-7)

Introduction

The Corinthian Error and the Culture of that Day

An Overview of the Teaching of the Bible on Sex and Marriage

A Touchy Issue (7:1)

The Benefits of Staying Single (7:6-9)

Sex and Spirituality in Marriage (7:2-4)

Conclusion

From the series: True Spirituality: A Study in 1 Corinthians PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: True Spirituality: A Study in 1 Corinthians PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

20. Spirituality and Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor. 11:1-3)

Introduction

Introductory Comments Concerning Paul and His Teaching

Introductory Comments About Hermeneutics

An Invitation to Imitation (11:1)

Unexpected Praise (11:2)

Complaints from the Choir Loft
Psalm 73:1-12

A Change of Heart
Psalm 73:13-17

A Revised Definition of “Good”
Psalm 73:18-28

Satan’s Schemes are Still the Same
2 Corinthians 11:1-4

Introduction¹

An Overview of the Teaching
of the Bible on Sex and Marriage

A Touchy Issue
(7:1)

The Benefits of Staying Single
(7:6-9)

Sex and Spirituality in Marriage
(7:2-4)

An Invitation to Imitation
(11:1)

Unexpected Praise
(11:2)

The Guiding Principle
(11:3)

What Our Text Tells Us About The Spiritual War
(6:10-13)