The Grace-Full Woman



Abigail is a true hero of faith, a woman, full of womanly grace and wisdom, who saved the day as only a woman could.


1 SAMUEL #24

To listen to the sermon, click the play button:


To download, right click on the link (or do whatever you do on a Mac) and save it to your computer: Download 1 Samuel Part 24


This is another one of those delightful incidents recorded in 1 Samuel. One of the reasons I love it is because once more, this is not a story that anyone near that time in history would make up. It shows up the champion David as an impulsive hothead, and the real hero of this incident is a woman.

As we know, David and his six hundred men were hiding out in wilderness areas. Saul had been shamed into leaving him alone, since David refused to kill him when he had the chance. Even so, David did not settle in a town or with others. Obviously, things with Saul were not completely resolved, and he did not want to endanger any town or family by living with them. Though David was living in wild areas, he and his men did have some contact with others. Shepherds took flocks into the wilderness to graze, sometimes for months at a time. When David and his men encountered them, they protected them and their flocks from wild animals and robbers.

It takes a lot of food to keep six hundred men on their feet, and it doesn’t seem likely that they could have hunted and gathered enough. It is almost certain that David’s men had to rely upon the generosity and kindness of others to keep them supplied. Even so, they never took what wasn’t theirs, but protected the property of those they encountered.

I like knowing this about David. Here was the man who would become the greatest king known to Israel, and not only is he in hiding, but he is barely holding on, dependent upon donations from kind friends and strangers. David wasn’t just a lucky guy who had everything fall into place for him. He spent a significant portion of time in real need, and he never would have made it without help. This is humbling, but the fact that David lived this way encourages me when I feel humbled by my own needs.

After they had been protecting the shepherds and flocks of a wealthy man named Nabal for some time, David sent messengers, asking if Nabal could help him. The messengers pointed out that not only had David never taken anything from him, but had protected his property from bandits and other dangers. At the time, Nabal was cashing in by selling fleeces from sheep that David had protected, and also slaughtering many sheep and feasting. It was a time of great plenty for Nabal, who had a small empire of flocks, herds and servants.

Now it says that Nabal was a harsh man, evil in his dealings. His response shows that this bad reputation was justified. Not only did he refuse to give anything to David, he deliberately and provocatively insulted him and his men. In short, he was a jerk.

David’s response was understandable. Even so, it was not righteous. He left 200 men to guard their hideout, and took 400 men to destroy all that Nabal owned, and to kill him. Nabal’s behavior was despicable. It’s easy to see why David flew into a rage. But that does not justify David’s intent to destroy the man.

At that point, we meet the heroine, Abigail. She is Nabal’s wife. Some of Nabal’s men come to her, and explain what has happened. She makes some immediate emergency decisions, and goes out to meet David with plenty of food and supplies for his men.

Now, some of you have heard me preach through New Testament passages that teach us about biblical roles for women and for men. I think of Abigail as an amazing example of a woman who was used by God as a woman – not as a man. This is how it might look sometimes as we engage in the gender dance the Lord has designed for us. Abigail is smarter than everyone around her at this point in time. She is wiser. For a while, she is the only one who is truly committed to doing what is righteous, and she had to deal with two men in leadership who both wanted to do wrong. But she approaches the situation with an amazing womanly grace and uniquely feminine strength.

She offers David gifts for himself and his men, which was the right thing to do. She also apologized for her husband. There is a play on words here. His name, Nabal, would have been pronounced “nu-bawl.” A Hebrew word for foolish or worthless is pronounced “nu-bawl-uh.” It’s a little like saying “Stu is just like his name: stupid.” (Deepest apologies to anyone named Stu who might be reading this).

Throughout the narrative it is clear that Abigail places herself in David’s hands, and under his authority. However, while she is clearly submissive, she is not subservient. She does not hold back from exhorting David to do what is right. She reminds him of God’s promises to him. She reminds him that he himself knew it was wrong to take things into his own hands by killing Saul. This is a similar situation. She encourages him to trust the Lord, not his own strength, and to trust the Lord’s promises to him. She points out gently that destroying Nabal is something he will probably regret later, and would be a shameful blemish on his record of trusting the Lord. She does it all with womanly grace and attractiveness.

There is no doubt that Abigail was in the right, while both David and her husband were wrong. Even so, there is no sense in this narrative that Abigail has somehow taken on the role of a man, or acted out of a sense of authority or leadership over either one of them. This is one example of what biblical submission can look like. You can see it is not subservience, or rolling over and accepting whatever men want to say or do. In her submission, her grace and wisdom were powerful and attractive. Abigail is a beautiful example of a woman who plays a significant role in God’s kingdom without violating what the Holy Spirit says elsewhere in scripture about gender roles.

And here is something significant: she really got David’s attention. I suspect that David, being in the foul mood he was in, would have reacted angrily to a man who came and told him he was being stupid and making a mistake. But Abigail, with her womanly grace, completely disarmed him. He repented, and freely confessed that she was right and he was wrong.

32 Then David said to Abigail, “Praise to the LORD God of Israel, who sent you to meet me today! 33 Your discernment is blessed, and you are blessed. Today you kept me from participating in bloodshed and avenging myself by my own hand. (1Sam 25:32-33, HCSB)

They parted, but obviously, David never forgot the exchange. Abigail went home. She was in a tough place, because now that she had dealt with one angry man, she had to deal with another. We have to read between the lines, but everything I see here suggests that Abigail was trusting the Lord to work out that conversation also. The next morning she told her husband straight out, what she had done. He had a seizure from which he never recovered. The Lord took care of it for her.

When David heard Nabal was dead, presumably after the period of mourning, he asked Abigail to be his wife, and she consented. I think it is obvious that David was deeply impressed by her grace and wisdom.

Now, since it comes up at the end of this passage, I’ll comment briefly on polygamy (having multiple wives). David was married to Michal, Saul’s daughter, but after David fled, Saul married her off to someone else. So when David married Abigail, he was technically unmarried. However, he also married another woman during this same general period of time, Ahinoam.

The Bible does record many men, some of them heroes of the faith like David, having more than one wife. Sometimes, no comment is made upon whether this is a good thing or bad thing. However, the majority of the time, the Bible records that polygamy generally leads to bad results. Jacob had two wives, and the bible records that as a result, there was a huge amount of family strife. Samuel’s father had two wives, and the bible records that it led to family strife. Solomon had nine-hundred wives, and it destroyed his faith, and led the whole country astray. The result of David’s several wives was also ultimately strife between the half-brothers that were his sons. So it is true that the bible doesn’t specifically condemn polygamy – but it certainly doesn’t endorse it either. It happened, and the bible records things that really happened.

One final thought: Jesus clearly taught that marriage was originally intended by God to be between a single man and a single woman. The rest of the New Testament also affirms that in marriage, two are to become one. That idea doesn’t fit at all with polygamy.

So what do we do with all this? If you are a man considering having more than one wife, forget it. But seriously, what does the Lord say to us here?

I do think Abigail can be a great example for girls and women to aspire to. She had beauty, wisdom and courage and she used them all graciously as only a woman could.

For both men and women, perhaps you find yourself between a rock and a hard place like Abigail was. She didn’t waste time trying to figure it all out. She trusted the Lord, and did the first thing that needed to be done. In the end, the Lord took care of it all.

Maybe like me, you are encouraged by David’s humble life at this point. If God’s chosen instrument had to ask for help, it must be OK for us to also ask for help at times. True, it is humbling, but that isn’t usually a bad thing.

Perhaps like David, you might be tricked into responding to someone or some event with rage and anger and hasty action. Maybe the Lord is telling you to slow down and take a step back and ask him what true wisdom is in this situation.

As him now, what he wants to say to you


1 CORINTHIANS #26 (1 Corinthians 14:35-15:11)


There is something 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that I want to deal with briefly. Paul writes:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

We have already covered the overall topic of gender relationships in depth when we looked for two weeks at the first part of chapter 11. If you missed that, please go back and read or listen to those two messages. You won’t get the full understanding by only reading this sermon. Even so, I want to cover this passage briefly, because it causes trouble for many modern readers of the bible, especially in Western culture. It also gives us a good practical example of how to interpret the bible, especially when you don’t understand something, or when the bible appears to contradict itself.

Paul has already acknowledged that is appropriate for women to pray and prophesy in church (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). Now he says they should keep silent. What is going on here? First, when we interpret the bible, we give the Holy Spirit the benefit of the doubt. In any other book we read, we start with the assumption that the author will try not to contradict himself. So in general, if a statement appears contradictory, in order to understand it, we try first to see if there is a way to interpret it that is not at odds with what has already been said. Not only should we give the Holy Spirit a chance, but we ought to also give Paul (the human instrument of the Spirit in this case), some credit for being the obviously intelligent person he is. Is he likely to contradict himself so blatantly just a page or so later in the same letter?

Therefore, plain common sense shows us that “women must keep silent” does not apply to absolutely every situation in church. We already know it doesn’t apply to women prophesying and praying. So there must be some specific context that Paul is talking about here, where women should keep silent. What would that context be? (Men, insert the joke of your choice here, but you laugh at your own risk…)

In all seriousness, the context of this statement is Paul’s description of an orderly worship service. We already know that women can pray and prophesy, so it isn’t the worship service in general where women must keep silent. Paul describes a few different people speaking, and then he says: “let the others evaluate what is said.” Remember, at that time, there was no New Testament yet. So it was a more difficult thing to determine if a prophecy or word was really from the Holy Spirit or not. Therefore, after someone spoke, Paul wanted the Corinthians to discuss what was said, and evaluate whether or not it seemed to really come from the Lord.

Reading this statement in context, it seems that this “evaluation discussion” is where Paul would like the women to keep quiet. From chapter 11 we learned that God created men and women to fulfill different roles: like dancers have different parts in a couples’ dance, or players have different positions on a football team. Paul describes those roles in terms of submission (for women) and headship (for men). We already covered what this means in our study of 1 Corinthians 11, but I simply want to remind us that biblical submission doesn’t mean subservience or devaluation, and biblical headship does not mean domination or control.

Paul connects this idea of women being quiet during the “evaluation discussion” to biblical submission. If you remember from chapter 11, God holds men uniquely accountable for the spiritual direction of their churches and families. Even though Eve was the one who took the apple and committed the first sin, Adam was the one who was held responsible for leading the human race into sin. So, when the church was basically deciding theology, it made sense that the ones who would be held responsible (the men) were the ones who ought to make the decision, and provide the final evaluation. When we also consider the word “to keep silent” might also be translated “hold your peace” our picture is more complete. Women indeed may have something to say about doctrine, but men are the ones who will be held responsible. So when it comes to a discussion of doctrine, women should hold their peace. Paul adds that if they have questions or concerns, they should share them with their husband at home. Once again the picture here is of a gender-dance, or a team. Everyone has something to contribute, but it is all done in order and with a recognition of how God made us to be, and what our roles are.


Let’s move on now, to chapter fifteen. This is one of the longest sections in the whole letter, and Paul devotes it all to discussing the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Apparently, some of the Christians at Corinth were suggesting that there was no resurrection from the dead. Paul says this in verse 12:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

It isn’t clear exactly what these skeptics were saying. They may not have been denying that Jesus rose – but at the very least they were claiming that there was no resurrection for anyone else. And it is possible that they even scoffed at the idea of Jesus rising from the dead. Remember, these are people who claim to be Christians. Paul spent more time with this church than any other church he started, except in Ephesus. Sometimes when I read his letters to them, I wonder what went wrong.

By the way, this kind of weird heresy has been repeated at various times in history by those who claimed to be Christians. Karl Baarth, one of the most influential Lutheran Theologians of the 20th Century, believed in the resurrection, but claimed it didn’t matter whether or not Jesus was actually raised. His protege, Rudolf Bultman, went the whole way, and claimed that Jesus was not. I always wanted to meet them and ask them, “So why do you call yourself a Christian and what is the point of your faith?”

So Paul goes back to basic Christian doctrine. This is it in a nutshell – Jesus Christ died for our sins. He was buried. And then he was raised from the dead. This is the message given by Paul and all the apostles. It is the bedrock of the Christian faith. Without the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, there is no such thing as Christianity. So he writes to the Corinthians, that this is:

…the gospel I proclaimed to you; you received it and have taken your stand on it. You are also saved by it, if you hold to the message I proclaimed to you — unless you believed for no purpose. (verse 1-2)

Paul is writing to them maybe twenty-five or thirty years after Jesus was raised from the dead. Today (in 2011) it would be as if I wrote to you about the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981. Many of us were alive, and we remember hearing about it right after it happened. We could certainly still find and talk to many of the people who were there when it occurred. The man who shot Reagan is still alive. Many of the secret service agents and other government workers who were there, are still alive.

At the time of Paul’s letter, the resurrection of Jesus was similarly recent. Paul says, besides himself, there were more than five hundred people who saw Jesus alive after his death, burial and resurrection. Most of those eye-witnesses to the resurrection were still alive when Paul wrote. The Corinthians had apparently met Peter, who was one of the witnesses.

I think we forget that we have this kind of evidence for the resurrection. Yes, it was a long time ago. But so was Julius Caesar, and Cleopatra, and Alexander the Great – and we believe the events we are told about in their lives.

Jesus’ resurrection changed everything – for us, as well as for those first-century Christians. There is a real hope beyond this world. Our entire faith is based upon it. Any meaning in life depends upon it.


The Gender Dance, Part II. 1 Corinthians #17

Download 1 Corinthians Part 17

Last week we found that 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 contains both universal truths, and cultural applications. We spent most of our time looking at the universal truths. Here is a summary of what we have learned so far:

  • Men and women are created in the image of God to be equal

  • Men and women are created in the image of God to be different and have different roles. The spiritual role of men is “head” and the spiritual role of woman is “helper companion.” (*We did consider how to apply this).

  • Men and women are created to function as a team.

It seems that one of the most controversial things I said last week is that I sometimes watch “Dancing with the Stars.” I stand by decision, and I stand by my analogy that God created the genders to relate in a way that is something like a dance. The dance can be a beautiful, attractive thing to watch. In the dance, men and women don’t have the same steps. Sometimes their steps mirror each other. I have heard it said, more than once, that Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, only backwards and in high heels. I get the sentiment, but the truth is more subtle than that. She didn’t do the same thing – her steps were different from his A backwards step is not the same thing as a forward step. Rogers’ role may certainly have been more difficult. But she could not have done it without Astaire. It certainly would not have been a dance without both of them. Imagine Ginger had said, “I want to do your steps” and Fred said, “OK, we’ll both do them.” We would not be talking about them today, because the result would not be a beautiful dance.

Now, I heard some jibes about “Dancing with the Stars” from some of you male Neanderthal types who are no doubt insecure in your masculinity (I’m just kidding – I enjoyed the ribbing I got). So, to satisfy everyone, I want include another analogy – gender relationships are like a football game. Ladies, bear with me – apparently your husbands need this.

In a professional football team (apologies to my international friends – I mean American NFL football) the coaches discuss and plan the plays for the upcoming game. During the game, the Offensive Coordinator calls the plays, occasionally checking with the head coach. The quarterback gets the play-call through a radio in his helmet, and then he tells the rest of the team, and they run the play.

On the field, the other players listen to the quarterback. It isn’t that the quarterback is always the best, smartest or most experienced player on the team. But his position or role means that he is responsible to get the team into the right formation, and then get the ball to the right person.

A wide receiver would not technically have to run the route the quarterback tells him to. But if he doesn’t, he ends up hurting the team. In recent memory there have been incredibly talented wide receivers who ended up as liabilities to the teams on which they played. Terrell Owens and Randy Moss are both very able receivers. But they generally choose to act as if the purpose of the game was about their own individual performance. They have both jumped from team to team, not because of lack of talent, but rather the lack of ability to work with others.

Every year some teams lose their starting quarterback, and have to replace him with someone younger and less experienced. Some teams start off with young inexperienced quarterbacks. Undoubtedly, some of the centers, wide-receivers or running backs on these teams know more about the game, and are more talented than their own quarterback. Even so, the quarterback is called on to lead the team, and tell the others the plays given by the coaches. When the other players respect this, they have a greater chance of success.

The quarterback does not have to make all the plays. In fact, usually, teams don’t do well unless everyone is doing what the coaches ask, and working together. The quarterback’s job, in fact, is usually to get the ball into the hands of someone else who will make the play.

The rest of the team has relationships with the coaches also. They don’t have to go through the quarterback to talk to the coach. It isn’t a hierarchy like that. Even so, when they are on the field, the quarterback is the one who is responsible to communicate the play and lead the team so that everyone is on the same page.

Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 that men hold a spiritual position, just like quarterbacks hold a team position. The spiritual position of men is called by the bible, “the head.” This doesn’t mean that men are better than women. But it means that men are responsible before God to lead both men and women in accomplishing God’s purposes. If a quarterback allows a wide receiver to determine which play the team will execute, the coach will still blame the quarterback if it goes wrong. Adam allowed Eve to direct their spiritual choices in the Garden of Eden. The Bible is clear that Eve made the choice, and she took the fruit, and she gave it to Adam, who followed her leadership. Even so, both the Old and New Testament blame Adam, not Eve, for what happened. This because Adam was the head – the player on the field who was spiritually responsible for the team.

It isn’t a hierarchical situation. Women have the same direct relationship with the Lord that men do. But here on the field of life, men will be held spiritually responsible for the care of their families and churches in a way that women will not.

Women are definitely called to be involved. Just like on a sports team, things don’t work unless well everyone is playing hard, and people are paying attention to the role they have on the team. God did hold Eve accountable for what happened, but in a different way than Adam. So also, He will hold women responsible for supporting and assisting and helping their husbands and church leadership.

Male Leadership/headship does not mean domination. It has nothing to do with that. It means responsibility. It means that when God calls us to account, he is going to hold men responsible for the spiritual direction taken by their churches and families.

Male headship does not give men the right to control women in any way. In fact, it is about men caring and taking responsibility. If a woman chooses not to respond to male headship, that is between her and the Lord. A leader shows the way, but never forces. So men cannot force women to follow or to submit.

The best leaders exemplify a combination of being personally involved, and delegating. The quarterback on a football team does touch the ball on every play. He calls the plays. But he doesn’t make the plays. Almost always, he hands the ball off, or throws it to someone else. In the same way, male leadership doesn’t mean that men are supposed to do everything while women must sit quietly and do nothing. It just means that men must be responsible and involved while also welcoming and inviting the involvement of women.

To put it another way, male headship does not mean that women need to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. In fact, this very passage contains one of the most clear affirmations of public female ministry – that of prophesy.

New Testament prophesy comes in three variations. There is predictive prophesy – that is the Holy Spirit, through the prophet/ess tells His people about events that are coming in the future (Acts 11:28-29; Acts 21:10-11). There is present prophesy: when the Holy Spirit, through the prophet/ess reveals His will for His people in the present, as He did when He told the church at Antioch to send Barnabas and Saul as missionaries (Acts 13:1-3). There is also a prophesy of exhortation, where the prophet/ess gives a message of encouragement to the people of God (1 Corinthians 14:3).

There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 11, or anywhere else in the Bible, that restricts women from any of these three forms of prophesy. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul assumes that women will prophesy. He also assumes that they will pray out loud in church meetings.

Prophesy and prayer are powerful gifts in God’s kingdom. According to this passage, it is good and appropriate for women to speak out to encourage other believers. It is good and appropriate for women who have the gift of prophesy to say what they believe the Lord wants to do among his people.

When it comes to the application of these things, what Paul is saying is that the Corinthians should conduct their church meetings in such a way that others can tell that men and women are involved in the spiritual gender dance. He wants their public conduct to reflect the image of God, to demonstrate the headship role of men, and the helper-companion role of women – in whatever ministries the church has. In 1st Century Corinth, apparently you could show all this, at least in some measure, through head coverings.

You may think it’s crazy that head coverings could communicate anything like that. And I certainly believe that head covering do not communicate such things in modern Western Society. Even so, I have a young single Muslim friend from South America. We were eating together once, and he remarked that he had seen some ladies at the bank with little white hats on. As he described them further, I realized he had seen some Mennonites. He was very impressed with them. He said, “I want to meet some young ladies like them. It shows that they have good character.” If you know anything about Mennonites, they dress very conservatively. But he was instantly attracted to these young Mennonites because they wore head coverings. It communicated something to him that it does not communicate to most Americans or Western Europeans. So I think it is certainly possible that head coverings did indeed communicate some significant things in 1st Century Corinth.

So what about now? Since in our society, head coverings generally don’t mean the same thing, what do we do?

First I think we should consciously engage in the dance. Some women have the gift of speaking out publicly to encourage others (that is, the gift of prophesy). They should use it. We should all welcome it. Women who have it should use that gift as women, and not try to imitate male pastors or leaders as they share. In addition, they should somehow offer recognition of the spiritual dance, and that the male leadership of church and family will be held accountable – even partially for what they (the women) say and do. In the dance of the Trinity, the Father honors and Son, and the So honors the Father and so on. So, even in public ministry, women can honor men.

Men need to recognize the dance (or the football team, if you prefer) and engage. We are not called to dominate or control. But we are called to take responsibility for the spiritual state of our families and our church. This means we need to be more involved, more relational. We too, need to lift up and honor women, and not relegate them to the kitchen and nursery, unless they feel called to those places.

As with everything, we need to pray and rely on the Holy Spirit as we implement these truths.

The Dance. 1 Corinthians 11:3-16

Download 1 Corinthians Part 16

There are seven passage in the New Testament which teach clearly and openly about the roles of men and women in the church and in the family. This is one of them. There is a great deal to explore in this passage. Too much for a single, ½ hour sermon. So I will break this up over two weeks. Please understand, if you only read this message, you are missing out on half of the message, and your understanding of what I am saying will be incomplete. Please do not quote me or assume you know what I am saying until you have heard or read both messages.

There are typically two responses to passages like this one. The first is to simply accept it without any real study. This usually results in rules that say women should wear hats or head-coverings, and women should “keep in their place” (meaning they have very little real input in church or family). I call this approach Traditionalism. I don’t think it does justice to what the bible really says.

The second reaction is to recognize how different this teaching is from our culture today, and find some way to interpret it that ends up either being meaningless, or even meaning the opposite of what it actually says. I call this approach Evangelical Feminism, and I think this also ends up failing to really appreciate what the Bible says. In fact, I think Evangelical Feminism lays the foundation that ends up in plain old heresy.

I am not saying that my parents taught me this, but I grew up basically thinking along Evangelical Feminist lines. In my teen years I heard some ways to dismiss the teaching of this passage and others like it. Basically, I accepted the argument that this passage is specifically and only for the culture of Corinth in the 1st Century, and it really doesn’t apply to us anymore. I categorically rejected any notion that there were some roles that should be held only by men or some that should be held only by women.

I was in college before I heard anyone seriously argue that these passages actually mean something in today’s world. I didn’t like the person who made the argument, and I dismissed it out of hand. A few years later, some people that I truly respected told me that they believed there was something to this, and the six other passages which teach about gender-roles. I began to be a bit more open, but I still maintained Evangelical Feminism.

Finally in seminary I looked into it for myself, and I was humbled to find out that I had been careless in my approach to the Bible about this subject.

The fact is, I think most Christians end up at either extreme. Traditionalists use passages like this to repress and even oppress women. Evangelical Feminists do theological gymnastics to make the same passages meaningless, and end up re-writing the Bible to say whatever suits them. But there is a middle road, the way of Truth.

It is true, part of this passage is just cultural application. But part of it is the teaching of important eternal truths. And we should bear in mind that this is just one of seven passages, all of which teach the same eternal truths about men and women.

The cultural aspects have to do with hairstyle. Paul says:

If it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

The question is, what if it is not a disgrace for a woman to have short hair? The fact is, Paul seems to be basing his application instructions upon the hairstyles of his time. Again he writes:

14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?

The question arises again – is long hair a disgrace to men? That appears to be a fairly superficial thing that changes with the times.

However, we make a grave mistake if we say that this entire passage is merely a discussion of how Christians should wear their hair in 1st Century Corinth. In fact, if we dismiss the whole passage as cultural, we have greatly weakened the biblical case for two vital ministry roles that are open to women.

Paul’s teaching here is quite clear: women can and should pray in public, and women can and should prophesy in public. This is the only New Testament passage that explicitly endorses women in these ministries. So if we say the whole thing is cultural, then the idea of women prophesying and praying is also only a cultural accommodation to the 1st Century.

The fact is, we have two things going on this passage:

  • First, there is the teaching of a universal truth about men and women

  • Second, there is an application of that truth to 1st Century Corinth.

The specific application (in this case, hairstyles during worship) may or may not be relevant today, but we still need to seek to apply the universal truth to our situation.

The universal truths expressed here are basically this:

  • The male gender is the spiritual head of the female gender, just as Christ is the spiritual head of the church and the Father is the spiritual head of Christ (v. 3).

    • This is a result of how we are created (Genesis 1:27). It is demonstrated in Genesis 2, by the fact that Eve was created to be a helper-companion to Adam, to fulfill him and to join with him in caring for the world (v. 8-10).

  • Even so, men and women are not independent of each other – they need to work as a team (v. 11).

  • In worship and in the conduct women’s ministries, these truths should be reflected in some appropriate way (v. 10).

This is exactly the same basic message that we find in the other six New Testament teaching passages which deal explicitly with gender roles. For example, Ephesians 5:22-23:

Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body.

This idea of “headship” is troubling to us in the Western World in the 21st century. But it is an often repeated idea in the Bible. Here, Paul connects the idea both to the nature of God (v.3) and also to how we were created(v.8). If we look at these two things, we might gain a better understanding of what exactly this relationship means.

The bible describes God as a Trinity: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is one God. There are not three Gods, but only one. The bible also teaches that he exists as three persons at the same time. So the Father is God, but he is not the Son or the Spirit. The Son, Jesus Christ, is God, but he is not the Father or the Spirit. The Spirit is God, but he is not the Son or the Father.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal to each other. We worship all three persons as one God. We pray to all three. There is not one that is “better” than another one – they have the same God-nature.

Even so, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have different roles. It was Jesus Christ, the Son who took on human flesh and walked physically in this world. It was he who died for us, not the Father or the Spirit. It is the Spirit who lives in our hearts and imparts the power and life of God to us, not the Father or the Son. It was the Father, who sent the Son, not the Son who sent himself. It was the Father who said “this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

The fact that the Son has the role of the Son does not make him less important than the Father. The Spirit’s role does not make him more important than the Son. They are equal, but different.

So when Paul says, “and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God,” it does not mean inequality. What it means is that men and women have different roles. Like the Trinity, Men and women are equal. Like the Trinity, men and women are different. Men and women were made for different roles.

Paul makes reference to Genesis in 1 Cor 11:8. There are two passages from the first part of Genesis that I want to briefly consider. The first is Genesis 1:27

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (emphasis mine).

We were made in the image of God. We have just seen that God exists equally and the same in nature, but different in personality and role. It seems clear that Paul is referencing this exact idea. The fact that “God is the head of Christ” has nothing to do with equality – it is about role. In the same way “man is the head of woman” is not about equality. It is about role.

In addition, we see that the different roles of the Trinity give the Father, Son and Spirit opportunities to give each other honor and glory. The Son gives honor and glory to the uniqueness of the Father. The Father lifts up the Son above all things. The Spirit gives glory to both. This giving of honor and glory to the each other does not erase the distinctions between the three Persons. Even though the Father glorifies the Son, and they are equal, they are still different, and live out of their different roles. In fact, they could not honor each other in this way unless they really did have different roles. Their different roles provide an opportunity for them to honor, bless and love one another. The Father does not relinquish his Fatherhood, or change the Son into the Father. He gives him glory as the Son. The Son does not glorify the Father for coming to earth, but for being the Father. All three Persons, acting out their different roles, complete the Trinity, and they work together as a team for a common purpose.

In the same way, because men and women are different, and have different roles, we have the opportunity to honor and love one another in special ways. When we erase those differences and those roles, we also erase the opportunity for men to honor women as women and for women to honor men as men. There is unique glory and honor in being female. There is unique glory and honor in being male. But if we say that men and women must be not only equal, but also the same, we are eliminating those honors.

Paul also references Genesis chapter 2, which describes Adam being created first, and getting lonely, and being unfulfilled, even in sinless paradise. Eve is then created, to fulfill Adam, and to assist him in the mission of humanity, which at that time was to manage God’s creation. The Bible uses the term “helper-companion” to describe Eve’s role.

If Eve had nothing unique to bring, why was Adam lonely? If Eve had nothing unique to bring, then why did God make her? It wasn’t just about reproduction. God certainly could have designed that differently. So woman was created to fulfill a unique role, one that man could not fulfill, the role of helper-companion. In the same way, woman was not created to fulfill man’s role. That would imply that either man or woman is redundant. But woman is not a redundancy, nor is man.

We have a situation today where there is great confusion about this. In many places, Eve, instead of seeking her unique created purpose, is trying to do Adam’s job. Meanwhile, Adam, for the most part, is happy to let Eve do it, because he is too cowardly to risk a fight, and he is prone to be passive anyway. I believe that is the reason that New Testament teaches explicitly about this subject no less than seven times.

The other thing we have done is to separate the genders. We act as if we have a whole bunch of independent missions in life which are not necessarily connected. A man has his ministry, and a woman has her ministry. But Paul disagrees. He writes:

11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

The teaching of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is a correction to the independence we try to have from each other. Here is a summary of what we have learned so far:

  • Men and women are created in the image of God to be equal

  • Men and women are created in the image of God to be different and have different roles. The spiritual role of men is “head” and the spiritual role of woman is “helper companion.” (*We have not yet considered how to apply this).

  • Men and women are created to function as a team.

A few months ago, as I was praying about this whole topic, I felt like the Holy Spirit gave a me word. The word was “dance.” After that, I watched “Dancing with the Stars” a few times, to try and understand what He might be getting at. I think “Dance” describes very well the Lord’s plan for relationships and roles between men and women.

  • First, a couple’s dance is usually more appealing and attractive than just one person dancing by himself or herself. This goes along with Paul’s insistence that men and women are not independent from each other. Both are necessary in this spiritual dance.

  • Second, them and women have different steps in a dance. If the woman did the same steps as the man (or vice versa) the dance would not be beautiful. It would chaotic. In the same way, this reflects that fact that men and women have different roles. The steps each one takes, complements the actions of the other.

  • The man leads the dance. And yet, one of his primary goals in leading is to show off the beauty and grace his partner, the woman. His leadership does not make him better, or even necessarily draw attention to himself. We found this same principle at work in the Trinity. The Father does not glorify himself, but glorifies the Son. The Son glorifies the Father. So in the gender-dance, leadership is a role, but it does not mean that the leader is better or more valuable.

Please check back next week for the second part of our study of this passage.