Women In The Church
By Andy Zoppelt
Part 1: Head Covering
There has been a rapid move away from the requirement to use head covering and the silencing of women in services because God Himself has taken the initiative in many third world nations. He is not asking for our permission, He is demonstrating His will in these matters if we are open to it. Many women in those nations are being sent out and are raising up new assemblies… what we call apostolic work.
More saints are finding they can do the research into the original language and background and are no longer bound to what previous biased translators wanted us to believe. The internet has become a vast source of information.
The head covering issue mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is a highly controversial and is a complex one in the body of Christ today as it was in the early believers at Corinth.
Old practices are hard to change and old wine skins are hard to throw away. The Head covering issue along with women being silent in the church and women not being permitted to teach are such teachings. These teachings have had an enormous impact on the function and liberty of Jesus’ body. The silencing and stopping over half of the body would have a major effect on the ministry throughout the world. Those who believe in such teachings are of a very small minority, so the effect has been minimal. . In the institutional church, Satan has silenced both men and women for the sake of one man --- the pastor.
I have researched this issue off and on for the past 40 plus years; and more consistently in the past 10 years.
At one time I preached on the silencing of women and their role in teaching. Whenever we had a woman teach other women, we always had an elder present to oversee the teaching. When a friend I knew ordained a woman as an elder, I broke fellowship. I just trusted the translators of our scriptures. Later, I became suspicious when I heard of the women throughout the world healing the sick and raising up churches and teaching. I was already becoming more aware of the bias of the translators in using words like “church,” “baptism” and the creating of an ecclesiastical hierarchy in their translation. They knew: no building, no bishop; no king.
I have also struggled with the placing of something on a woman’s head to establish some unknown spiritual point for her and the angels? It seemed so unlike scriptures to do this, since scripture dealt more with the inner man rather than outward ritual. It was the religious who tended to focus on outward ritual.
Though the outward practices such as circumcision, the feasts and the sabbaths were discontinued under the new covenant, there were countless others who continued to try to persuade the body of Christ to practice them --- even to this day..
There are those today who are convinced that a woman wearing a veil on her head is a biblical mandate. If such was an apostolic mandate, why was such an apostolic tradition so silent in all the epistles, if in fact it was foundational in all the churches?
I am convinced that the groups who fall into this category are the most sincere. The seek purity in obedience to the scriptures. Their research into these scriptures becomes tainted and they keep reading into what they already believe. If the historical setting is revealed that points to these “suspect” scriptures, they ignore them. They ignore the translator’s bias and alternate readings.
Head covering, women silence in the assembly and keeping women out of ministry is for them a three stranded cord. Once they fall for one, they are forced to except the others.
Lately, with the advancement of computers, the internet and bible programs, we are all able to better understanding these suspect Greek words and there usage for ourselves. We are no longer bound to man’s interpretation and translations.
In all honesty, I have had to ask myself the question: “is the evidence compelling for a woman to have a head covering other than her God-given hair?” The answer was an overwhelming no!
We all understand the if we understood the question Paul was addressing, we would have a better understanding of Paul’s answer in 1 Corinthians 11, 14 and 1 Timothy 2. In these letters we have an answer without a question.
Investigating the scriptures.
I would like to begin by looking at some of the initial facts concerning these scriptures:
First, there were certain traditions and practices that Paul previously set up in the Corinthian assembly and other assemblies.
Second, there was a contentious group challenging those tradition based on some principle. Now what was the tradition and who was the contentious group is where I would like to go?
Third, I am convinced that verse 11 is the pivotal point and verse 15 is Paul’s summation drawing the conclusion, not from creation but “in the Lord” (v11.)
It is clear and without question that Paul states that a woman should have a head covering, whether the covering is a man-made veil or a natural one coming from God based on nature.
First, I believe the covering for the woman is her hair and was given to her by the Lord and was thusly recognized from creation on (nature).
Second, I believe the tradition set down by Paul was that women did not need a covering on her head other than her hair.
Third, I believe the contentious group was those who demanded a woman should have a man-made veil on her head as a covering.
Fourth, I believe the woman’s hair, as a covering, provides her (even at creation) with authority in her union in the body of Christ, through redemption, making her equal with her male counterpart. The Women could, “in the Lord”, pray and prophecy in the assembly.
I also believe the question sent to Paul went something like this: “Paul we have a group stating a woman should wear a veil on her head. This is causing some problems. You never taught such a doctrine and we have not made the women to cover their heads. Please tell us what we should do?”
As we go through these verses I will be injecting and making points in brackets [ ].
Let us now go into the subject piece by piece.
1 Cor 11:2-16, “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”
[Notice they were keeping his tradition as he delivered (past tense) them. Also, these traditions were being challenged by a group introducing something other than what Paul had taught them. This establishes our contentious group.]
3 “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
[The word head (Gr. kephale) is not necessarily “authority over,” as used commonly by the Romans and Greeks. we may find a kind of mixture of words such as source, servant and leader more fitting. I am basing this on the biblical definition and usage of leadership as used by Jesus and the apostles. Leadership in the bible leads by serving; something totally foreign to pagan authorities. In Christ the greatest is the servant of all. In the new covenant there is neither king nor authority over the people as found in the old covenant ( kingdom of Israel). In the new kingdom, Jesus is building His glorious bride made up of kings and priests (both male and female) (Rev 1:5-6).
What we find in the new covenant is equality and function within the body and not a hierarchy.
“But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them [we see this in the pagan definition of head], and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave —just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Matt 20:25-28, NKJV
So if we see a head as having authority over others, we are agreeing with the Gentiles lords and not Jesus’ definition of leadership expressed in Matthew 20 above. Anything other than this is giving into a paganistic form of leadership.
I see no need to extrapolate the Greek word for head kephale from the minds of the pagans. Headship is servanthood not “lord over.” As Jesus is our head through redemption, He is our source for salvation. He is the vine (Jn 15), He is the head that nourishes His body and causes it to grow. (Eph 4) As the Father was the life source for Jesus while He was on this earth, so now Jesus is the life source for His body. He came that we might have life.
Headship is a servant leadership and those appointed to lead must be the “servants.” The husband is not the lord over and master over his wife. She already has a Lord and Master…Jesus!
Peter in speaking to the leaders says, “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples (of who?) to the flock;” 1 Peter 5:2-3, NKJV
The leadership or shepherds are to watch (overseer), feed (lead them into green pastures) and protect the sheep from the wolves. Husbands lead as a shepherd and not as a generals or Emperor.
Kephale (head) is the person who leads by going first into the battle. They are not the generals, but the spearheads into conflict.
What does the New Testament mean when it says that "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church?" Ephesians 5:23
“As” is the operative word.
Glyn Evens in his “Daily with the King” a daily inspirational (September 7) puts it very well.
“…He [Jesus] pleads for my submission, not on the basis of His rights, but on His suffering . ”
Should the husband, who is the head of the wife, be any different? He, as the head, is to lay down his life for his wife. And as he does thus, she voluntarily, and not by compulsion, subjects herself to him as “unto the Lord.”
It is clear from Scripture that the husband’s being the head of his wife does not dominate his wife no more that Christ dominates the body of believers. Being the "head" means he gives his wife respect and loving leadership. As head, the husband provides for and cares for his wife. He bears the primary overall responsibility for the family. The husband goes first by example and in obedience to the Lord, and the wife follows as unto the Lord. On that basis Paul tells the woman to submit, not as an authority, but in respect to his lead.
In order for a man to be a true head (spiritual and natural) of the wife, he must himself be submitted to Jesus Christ and lead by example. Too often the woman is the godly example for the family.
I find no one word to describe head other than the contextual usage found in scripture. I believe when Jesus defined Himself as the head of man, He himself was the definition of the word head… He was a servant.
I am convinced that the word “authority over” doesn’t fit in any way in light of who Jesus is and the way He led His disciples and the body of Christ. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples giving them an example of all to follow.
The word servant is the overwhelming operative word for all ministries in scripture. The Greek words diakonos and doulos are translated as servant, slave, bond slave and minister, thus adding tremendous weight to our understanding of leadership and the meaning of the word head. These words appear 162 times in scriptures. In Titus and in other scriptures, Paul frequently addresses himself as a bondslave. In 2 Peter, peter identifies himself as a bondslave. In Jude and James, they both identify themselves as bondslaves. These great men of God have chosen the lowest kind of a servant to describe their ministry: a bondslave. They set the stage and the standard for all ministry and leadership. Even the ministry of the Holy Spirit is a helper, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” John 14:26, NKJV.
The Spirit leads us, fills us, directs us, makes us one, etc., etc.. The Holy Spirit is not the boss, the authority pounding principles in us; He is gentle and guides us. In Ephesians 5 the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church… it is that kind of head that the scriptures talks about. If we go by the Roman and Greek models and usage of head, we will have little Caesars running around telling people what to do.
If “authority over” was a true representative of head, a man could literally dictate to the wife and she would have no choice but to obey. He would in a sense share the government with Jesus over his wife. No such absolute authority exists. So let’s quit pretending that men have authority over women, it isn’t there.
Also we must note that no person has authority over another person within Christ’s body.
There is one life we received at creation and another life we received from Christ’s death on the cross. Hence we are born again; we are a new creation in Christ and we no longer live by the “creation” which we inherited from Adam. A born again woman is no longer from Adam, she is from Christ, and so is the man. Together we are one “in the Lord” and not in Adam. To those who love to remind us that we are no longer under the curse, we need also to remember that the woman is no longer under the curse also. We are seated with Christ in heavenly places.]
4 “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies [she does pray and prophesy in the meetings] with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.”
[They all agree, based on what Paul is saying, the woman should have some kind of a covering on her head. With this, both groups at Corinth could agree. The option of the woman’s hair as a covering at this point has not been described.]
7 “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”
[May I just say, there is something we find in creation that makes it unacceptable for a man to cover his head. We will talk about that later in dealing with “nature” as later presented]
8 “For man is not from woman [“from” speaks of source], but woman from man [source]. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.”
[Clearly originally the woman (singular) came out of or from the man. Second, since man had no companion, as did all the animals, the woman was created “for” the man. Let’s make sure that we understand that the word “for” does not establish authority over the woman. It was for the benefit of man to have a woman if later on man was to “fill and replenish earth.” Man could not fill the earth without the woman regardless that the woman came from the man… that happened only once. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with authority; it has to do with man being one with the woman. Adam and Eve became one flesh. Not one flesh over the other. She was not a servant; she was a necessity and integral part of the continuation of life. In fact, in the new covenant the man was to be the servant in loving his wife as Christ loved the church and “ gave himself for” it.
If we see a hierarchy in the order of creation, we are seeing something that is not there unless we are trying to promote our personal doctrinal view. There’s an old Jewish saying: “If man is tempted to think too much of himself, then he should remember that the gnats were created before him.”]
10 “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
[“for this reason.” Paul agrees that a head covering is an acceptable teaching. The translators added “a symbol of” in the above text. Thus the translators using the “symbol of,” sounds like something placed on her head as a “symbol” and not something real that is already on her head. The man-made veil comes from the man-made doctrines and interpretation.
It should thus read: “ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels.” If a veil was intended, what could the woman do if a veil was not available and she needed to pray or prophecy? Would God thus withhold a prophecy because her head was not veiled? Did God give the woman a veil at creation? This is all nonsense!
At creation, the woman did not have a veil on her head, but her hair was her covering representing her relationship to her husband.
Would her praying or prophesying create some undisclosed mystical problem in heaven with the angels? But “ in the Lord” the woman has a covering 24/7 with her hair, something the angels recognized from the day she was created --- and not a veil.
Let’s look at the long-hair/short-hair issue for a moment. If it is a shame for a man to have long hair, then long hair would be a covering ignoring his head: Jesus. Long hair for the man would represent a covering. At this point we have a problem with determining what is long hair.
Certainly the issue Paul is presenting here is far more important than a measly placement of a piece of cloth on a woman’s head. Paul is describing the whole issue of redemption starting from the origin of creation.
Later in verses 14 and 15, Paul, is clearly talking about literal hair on a literal head. This ain’t no symbol! It is given by God for her glory at creation in her relation to her husband.
The woman’s hair was to her glory because God intended it to be so from creation on.
There is no evidence outside of this passage for using the veil as a symbol of authority. Even these verses don’t define a veil for the woman. The context makes it clear that Paul intends some kind of connection between the head covering, authority, and angels. I submit it was an established distinction at creation that marked her authority with man and not under man. “Let THEM [the man and woman] have dominion.”]
We are all aware of the hair issues that take up a big part of our society and how much hair plays in our lives. Most men would agree that a man with excessively long hair is inappropriate. Where did we get such a built-in compass in our sub-conscious?
A lot of men today have what is believed long hair, is that a spiritual problem with the angels also? So what is long hair: Over the ears? Touching the shoulders? Down to the middle of the back?
During bible times, men had long hair (by some of our standards)… down to their shoulders. The women’s hair was even longer… down their backs. Women are normally recognized as having longer hair then men, distinguishing them; this has been true since the time of creation when God created them male and female. In fact in the 60s’, when men starting letting their hair grow longer, we had a public outcry from many in our society. Why? Because we thought it was unacceptable. Where did we get that conviction from? Often such “natural” convections are built into us, like the conviction to worship.
At creation I am convinced that when God created man and woman their hair was appropriate for their sexual difference, something recognized by the angels in distinguishing them. It took a man and a woman to be one and to have dominion. I am also convinced that the difference is maintained somewhat to this day.
“Among the Hebrews the natural distinction between the sexes was preserved by the women wearing long hair (Luke 7:38; John 11:2; 1 Cor 11:6), while the men preserved theirs as a rule at a moderate length by frequent clipping.” ( Easton's Bible Dictionary) Scripture often uses hair as representing the person’s life. Gen 42:38. In the Nazirite vow of separation, the man was to let his hair grow and latter he would shave it and offer it to the priest as a sacrifice. Nu 6:5-19
Hair was the seat of strength and power with God for Sampson. (Jug 16:17-20)
“In New Testament times, especially in the Diaspora, the Jews frequently adopted the fashion of the Romans in cropping the hair closely (1 Cor 11:14); still the fear of being tainted by the idolatrous practice of the heathen, which is specially forbidden in Lev 21:5, was so great that the side locks remained untouched and were permitted to grow ad libitum. (at their leisure) This is still the custom among the Jews of Eastern Europe and the Orient.” (International Standard.)
There is no command for a woman to have a head covering in the Old Testament. This was a custom instituted later among the Jews and rabbis.
We see a similar example in Song 7:5, “the bridegroom says to his bride the “hair of your head is like purple (royalty or authority); a king is held captive by your tresses.” NKJV
Paul refers to such a tradition as “nature” later on. Man was created first with short hair and the woman was created second out of the man with long hair. The angels saw such distinction in God’s creation and recognized it as her covering and significance in her coming out of the man. Such is a matter of distinction and recognition of creation and not a matter of authority. Sexual plumbing and hair is not what God is looking at, He is looking at the heart. God’s basis for ministry and maturity is on the heart, not hair.]
11 “Nevertheless [beside the point just stated above] neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, [Where?] in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man [originally, stated above], even so man also comes through woman [new covenant principle]; but all things [both man and woman] are from God.”
[“Nevertheless.” This is the pivotal point in Paul’s discussion. We might ask “Nevertheless what?” Never-the-less that the woman comes from the man but the man comes from the woman also. They both are dependant on one another and they both originate from one another “in the Lord” and are from God in the new creation. So “all things [both male and female] are from God.” God, and not man, is the source of all things. Can it be any plainer?
So the argument that the woman needs a covering on her head to honor her husband and her coming from man is not the complete truth. Why? Because in the Lord, they both have come from one another and all come from the God. This is the new creation! Her hair represents the authority given to her with her oneness with her husband at creation.
Nevertheless comes from the Greek word: “plen (plane); from NT:4119; moreover (besides), i.e. albeit, save that, rather, yet:” Strong's Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary.
Plen means: more than, over and above, hence, besides.
“Nevertheless (TEV's ‘however’) implies that there is a contrast between the category of creation (Gen 1-2), about which Paul has been speaking until now, and the new order established by Christ, to which Paul now turns….This same interpretation is conveyed in various ways by modern translations; for example, REB has ‘Yet in the Lord's fellowship woman is as essential to man as man to woman” UBS New Testament Handbook Series.
In the present verse Paul is saying, “now let me tell you one more thing". Plen is a word that is often used at the end of a paragraph to express a final thought, and that is what we have here… a final thought or summation.
This statement made by Paul adds to the “woman from man” which was previously stated, the truth that they both are interdependent on one another. What Paul is showing in the New Covenant that there is equality “in the Lord” and all are from God where “There is neither male nor female” in the kingdom of God. We are all baptized into one Spirit and are all one in the Lord. It is union, unity and equality. We can all function and be used according to the condition of our heart and not our sexual makeup. This equality of male and female is established “in the Lord.”
Words like “nevertheless”, “in the Lord,” “Even so” and “from God” puts everything in a new covenant context in our relationship based on Jesus’ death and resurrection. Establishing a man-made head covering from the position of creation will not stand, because all are “from God” and “in he Lord.” Eve was not created with a veil; she was created with long hair.
We (male and female) are His one bride… female! Even the male is a female in the bride and so is the female a male in the body.
Let’s look at the word “Nevertheless” in Matt 26:39 using the same Greek word plen, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” KJV Jesus in putting away the first part commits Himself to the second part.
The “creation order” argument is an extreme one forcing a point that is not “in the Lord.” The notion that one being born first or second gives one superior mental virtue or capabilities, is not a realistic or biblical argument.]
13 “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [Answer is obviously not. of course this does not mean she should have a veil as a covering.]
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?”
[Paul here makes a plea to nature and stating something like this: “Look around, you can see it in nature: men have short hair and women have long hair.”
The word nature comes from the Greek word phusis. “Natural production (lineal descent); by extension, a genus or sort; figuratively, native disposition, constitution or usage. Strong's Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary)
a) the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature
b) as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse
c) as opposed what has been produced by the art of man: the natural branches, i.e. branches by the operation of nature
d) birth, physical origin
From New Testament Greek Lexicon
KJV (14) - kind, 1; mankind + 442, 1; natural + 2596), 2; nature, 10;
Refers to something innate
Phusis is used in Romans 1:26, 27, when men and women participated in homosexual relationships, Paul state such relationships are “ against nature (phusis)” It is against the original intent and design for man and woman. God’s design for plants, animals and humans were to maintain their nature and reproduce after their kind.
Man and woman were by nature one, they were distinct by nature in sex and hair. Their unity was maintained in their diversity, much as we see in body ministry in the body of Christ (1 cor 12-14.) Their authority together over creation was in their union. The authority of the body of Christ will come about in our union. There was no male authority over the woman at creation; there is nothing in scriptures to indicate anything different than that. It took two in union to have dominion and replenish the earth: male and female. Unity between husband and wife, unity between Jesus and His bride are prerequisites for blessing and power. A truth we could well learn from today.
The uniqueness of hair length was given originally by God with the angels looking over His shoulder. Angels recognize the importance of nature as it relates to the purpose in God’s design, what He created was good. When angels recognize a woman without a covering (long hair) they recognize something out of order (nature) or creation (God’s original design).
Men and women have basically maintained their hair in accordance to God’s creation (nature); much even till this day. Men with exceptionally long hair are given a second look, just as much as a woman with extremely short hair
In Gen 1:26-28, the woman certainly was not given a veil at creation, she had long hair from the beginning; even “nature” indicates that. Clearly nature teaches that long hair for the man “is a dishonor to him” and long hair for the woman “is a glory to her”]
15 “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her [why?] for her hair is given [not a veil, by God at creation] to her for a covering.”
[The words “ for a covering” can also be translated “ instead of a covering.” the Greek word there is “anti.” Anti - like in antichrist. “Against” or “instead of” Christ. So whether the word is “for” or “instead of” in this text, the outcome is the same: the woman’s hair is her covering given only to her for her glory instead of a covering. The angels recognized her from the point of God’s creation: They wouldn’t recognize a man made veil…the longer hair being one of the things that distinguished her from her male counterpart. The angels saw both the male and female being different yet being one, something we learn in the body of Christ. God’s purpose was to create a man and a woman and to give them (plural) distinguishing physical attributes and a different function in replenishing the earth. They enjoyed a difference in function and not in degrees of authority.
If the women’s hair is her glory, why would God want it covered?
The word here in verse 15 for “covering” is different than the word for covering in the previous verses. After Paul says that the women’s hair is her glory he then says her hair is her covering ( peribolaion).
The word for covering here is peribolaion. Peri means “around” and ballo means “to throw.” Something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle, veil (Strong's concordance”
So for a woman to have hair, it would have to be long for her to throw it around her head. The other word for covering is katakalupto, and it is used as a verb in verses 6 and 7; while peribolaion is used as a noun in verse 15 (it was used one other time in Hebrews 1:12.)
Her hair is the covering (verb) that goes around her head (noun).
How often people will turn when they see a woman with long thick hair, it is to her glory. Like the mane on a male lion is admired for his majestic look.]
16 “But if anyone seems to be contentious we have no such custom, nor do the churches (communities) of God.”
[So who is this “anyone” who “seems to be contentious”? It is the group that is trying to establish a principle outside of God creation and nature? Of course!]
In all of Paul’s letters he had at various times established his teachings to the assemblies. Paul never made a point that a woman should wear a veil for a head covering. Such a belief is out of context and never had roots in the traditions of the early body of Christ.
If we understand the importance which some groups have placed on head covering, just going to their assembly where head covering is practiced, we will find abundant expressions making head covering apostolically fundamental… Something not found in scripture.
As Christianity began to sweep throughout the Gentile world, the Jewish believers attempted in many instances to bring the Gentiles into the importance of their Jewish traditions, which lead to many of the Gentiles being told that they should be circumcised, honor certain days, keep the women silent, women to wear head coverings, etc.. The Jewish believers were accustomed to these traditions and felt they were important, but the Gentiles had freedoms compelling them to follow the traditions of the apostles and not the Jewish traditions laid out in the Old Covenant. Much of this effort in getting the Gentiles to follow Jewish customs is with us to this day. I have heard many Jewish Christians tell me we need to go back to our Jewish roots if we are to understand the Gospels…. Hence we have messianic Congregations converting gentiles to the feast, circumcision, Jewish rituals, etc..
The humorous part of this is that later on after the first century the Jews developed a tradition that men should have a head covering. So today you will find Gentile men attending messianic congregations with a head covering. Does this make sense?
The woman’s hair is for her glory and is provided to her from God. Her authority is in her hair as the counterpart to the man with his short hair. If there is division between husband and wife, there is no authority or dominion in their marriage. Let us get back to “let them have dominion.”
“Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, (Why men?) that your (us husbands) prayers may not be hindered.” 1 Peter 3:7, NKJV
Likewise, with "unveiled face [men and women could behold] as in a mirror the glory of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18, NASB,
Paul urges Christians to hold fast "to the head [kephale], from (source) whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God" (2:19). Christ's Lordship is not organizational as God's CEO, but organic and dynamic as a vine that gives life to the branches (John 15:1-13). The life Christ gives to "the whole body" was derived from His willingness to "lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13, NASB)
Part 2: Should A Woman Be Silent In The Assembly?
<< back to
articles back to the top