GODLY WOMEN AND SCRIPTURE

By ASHBY PARVA

Our first passage (1 Cor. 11: 1-16) deals with brethren being uncovered, and with sisters being covered, when in prayer to God. Our second passage (1 Tim. 2: 1-15) is with regard to sisters being silent in the assembly. Whatever the right teaching, striking parallels will be noted. In verse 3 of chapter 11, the apostle “would have us know” these things.

Firstly we have in both passages a reference to “all the churches,” implying that the due order was recognised. “We have no such custom (i.e., sister without a covering) neither the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11: 16). “As in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14: 33) (i.e., with regard to the gifts and their exercise in the assembly). It was not left to the individual to decide as to what he or she thought or felt. If any thought that they were spiritual (v. 37), they were to acknowledge that the things written by the apostle were the commandments of the Lord.

Secondly. The offending against the teaching of the apostle implied shame (deserved reproach) in both passages.

“If it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven (the very thing Rome does) let her be covered” (v. 6, ch. 11).

“If a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him” (v. 14)

“For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church” (v. 35, ch. 14).

The strong wording will give us earnest desires to seek to know the Lord’s will lest we unwittingly offend.

Thirdly. Both passages end with a similar affirmation.

“If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom neither the churches of God” (ch. 11, v. 16) (i.e., the contending one would not affect the due godly order).

“If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” (ch. 14, v. 38) (i.e., if wilfully ignorant, and would not harken, he would be left in his ignorance).

With regard to the teaching itself, the case of the brother seems clear. In prayer, or when prophesying, if his head is covered he dishonoureth his head. “A man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God” (ch. 11, v. 7). The implication is, that if wearing a covering, this would be removed in prayer to God.

With regard to sisters the parallel is, that in prayer to God she ought to be covered (the reasons are stated). If uncovered, she dishonoureth her head, and it is as if she were shorn, but if it is a shame (and it is, v. 6) for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

A difficulty is felt by some because v. 15 states that a woman’s long hair is given her for a covering, and therefore it is thought that an additional covering is not necessary. In effect the thought is - if I have long hair I am covered sufficiently in God’s sight. Only if I am shorn am I uncovered.

Is this, however, the teaching of the whole passage? Firstly, if this was so, would we not have to acknowledge that it would suffice for the due order if a brother had short hair even though his head covering was not removed? Secondly, an additional covering to the sister’s head of long hair must be implied in verses 5 and 6. If a sister being shorn or shaven was the only state of being uncovered when in prayer to God, the apostle could not say – “If a woman be not covered let her also, i.e., in addition thereto, be shorn,” for she would already be in that state.

Thus the apostle labours at length to give the right order in the assemblies; that which is fitting and decorous in the sight of God, .and before angels, and he refers to nature itself as also witnessing to this relative distinction between the sexes. As sisters were prohibited from prophesying in the assembly, the injunction as to covering the head would extend to other spheres of service and worship besides the assembly. As we know the covering of the head has in a great measure been observed in Christian assemblies throughout the ages, although modern thought and fashion (and sometimes falsely suggested, “1iberty of the Spirit”), would seek to set the Lord’s will aside, or minimise its importance.

With regard to the silence of sisters in the assembly. – “Let your women keep silence in the churches” (ch. 14, v. 34), the word silence is the same word as in verse 28. “If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church,” i.e., the one concerned was not to deliver his message in tongues. Verse 34 also adds, “It is not permitted into them, i.e., the women, to speak.”

Does not 1 Tim. 2, give like instruction? Here prayer is enjoined when saints meet together, and after specifying those for whom prayer is to be made to God, the apostle continues (v. 8) – “I will therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting”. He then instructs the women as to their part in like piety - their quiet behaviour and modest apparel; and says that they are to learn in silence with all subjection. He would not suffer a woman to teach, but to be in silence (the reasons are stated).**

The relative spheres of duty and privilege well pleasing to God, of brethren and sisters, are thus emphasised for our true dignity and glad obedience.

-------

[* The reasons for covering and for silence refer back to creation – from the beginning, 1 Tim. 2. It was no arbitary arrangement, or merely local.

[* Wilful sin and disobedience to God’s word must have its consequences: see The Nephilim, etc.]