From Bondage to Blessing

Chapter 10 - A New Look at 1 Corinthians 11

"Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." (1 Corinthians 10:32-33)

With these words in 1 Corinthians 10:32-33, the apostle Paul leads into one of the most difficult passages for scholars and those seeking to understand the function of women in the Church. This difficult passage is found in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 as follows:

"Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head -- it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice -- nor do the churches of God. " (NIV)

Putting it in context

The general context for this passage is a letter written by Paul to the church at Corinth, which he established around A.D. 50-51 on his second missionary journey. Corinth was a large Greek city, a trade center infamous for its sensuality and sacred prostitution. Its name became a notorious proverb: "to Corinthianize" meant to practice prostitution. It was dedicated to the goddess Aphrodite, the goddess of love and the temple dedicated to her worship utilized the services of a thousand professional prostitutes. The spiritual climate in the city began to affect the church, which helps to explain the kind of problems the church there was facing.1 Paul had begun to receive disturbing reports about what was going on in the Corinthian church, concerning morality, divisive factions, idolatry, etc. Paul sent Timothy to Corinth to try to correct some of the problems there. In addition, he also sent a letter, the epistle we know as 1 Corinthians!

The more specific context of the letter includes the chapters on either side. It is important to realize that the chapter divisions were not part of the original Greek manuscript. They were added by the translators and were meant to be helpful. Frequently, however, one chapter begins in the middle of a thought that was begun in the previous chapter. That is certainly the case here. In Chapter 10, he discusses idolatry, then moves on to the propriety of eating meat sacrificed to idols and the need to be sensitive to what will cause offense to the people around us. He says this in a number of different ways just before he gets to our difficult passage:

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify" (1 Corinthians 10:23).

"Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being" (10:24). "...whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).

"Give no offense, either to the Jews or the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved" (1 Corinthians 10:32-33).

Paul then flows right into the first verse of chapter 11, saying "follow my example" or "have this same attitude yourselves" and goes on to talk about the propriety of how men and women wear their hair and cover their heads for public worship. His concern is still about giving offense to Jews and conservative Greeks! This is clear because at the end of our difficult passage he is still talking about what is proper (11:13), what is honorable or virtuous (11:14), and what is customary (11:15). Whatever Paul is saying in the difficult verses in between, we know it has something to do with propriety, cultural conventions and not giving offense, so that people might be saved. It is just a specific application of Paul's same theme from a few chapters back: "to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22).

The problem

The primary problem with this passage is that some have tried to spiritualize it into something it was never meant to be - a treatise on the authority that men should have over women. The two texts most often used by those who believe the Bible teaches a hierarchy of authority, with men over women, are Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3. In referring to the Ten Curses of Eve in the Babylonian Talumd, Bushnell points out the meaning of this passage has been partially perverted by the teaching of the rabbis. Curse number seven, that she is to be "wrapped like a mourner" and curse number eight, that "she dares not appear in public with her head uncovered" cast a shadow forward into the New Testament to influence interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, according to Bushnell.2

Another problem with this passage is that it references a cultural decorum that is unfamiliar to us. Some legalists have read it as a prescription or rule for modern church life by requiring women to wear a covering on their heads or by forbidding women to cut their hair. When my husband Dave and I ministered in Mexico in an area that had been evangelized quite heavily by a leading denomination, all the women wore little handkerchief-like pieces of cloth pinned to the top of their heads. Our hearts went out to these precious women who we observed had many burdens of legalism placed upon them. Even in the area in which we now live in northern England, many churches still required women to wear hats inside the building up until only ten or fifteen years ago. These are just a few examples which illustrate how emphatically we need the revelation of the Holy Spirit as we read and study the Scriptures.

A final difficulty with this passage is that there are a few verses which are terribly unclear, and they have left not a few scholars scratching their heads in puzzlement. We like to have everything spelled out for us nice and neatly, but it does not always work out that way, especially in translation work.

Analysis of the passage

First, it is widely accepted that Paul is dealing with the practical problem of hairstyle and head covering for public worship in this passage. Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible tells us that Greek women and men prayed bareheaded. But Roman and Jewish men and women prayed with their heads covered. Since Corinth was such a cultural mixture, it is not surprising that the church needed some guidance on this matter of propriety in public worship.3 Liefeld says that when one looks at Paul's words about order, glory and honor, shame and dishonor, a clear picture emerges. "Paul is urging a sensitivity to contemporary moral conventions..." Paul is concerned with avoiding any appearance of evil, that the gospel might not be hindered.4 Bristow agrees, advocating there is a transcultural "principle" behind Paul's argument, which is "being sensitive to what message our dress code and styles convey to others."5

Principle is important here. In this case, the principle revealed in this passage is that our liberty in Christ is tempered by the need to avoid offending others and bring glory to God, that we might be honorable witnesses to the culture around us. Some have great difficulty with the thought that Paul might have been dealing with something culturally specific to that time and place, and feel that it somehow cheapens the Word of God or makes it less relevant to us today. We must realize, however, that the principle remains intact, even though the specifics may change. Recognizing this fact will actually strengthen our confidence that the Word of God is relevant to every age and every society.

A closer look at the difficult verses

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

At first glance, it appears that Paul is promoting a hierarchical order here: God - then Christ - then man - then woman. But, as Berkeley and Alvera Mickelson point out, Paul's word order confirms that he was not teaching a chain of command. He refers to Christ, the head of man, then man the head of woman; then lastly God, the head of Christ.6 This conclusion is echoed by Payne7 and Liefeld.8

Upon casual reading it might appear that Paul is speaking of authority in this verse. When we say someone is the "head" of someone else, we mean they have authority over them and can tell them what to do. Payne notes that if we try to interpret "head" here as "authority", we run into a problem. The present tense of the Greek estin in this verse "requires that Christ now in the present time after his resurrection and ascension is under the authority of God." This is something called "subordinationist Christology", which the Arians tried to use to prove that Jesus was inferior to the Father.9 A look at the Greek word that Paul used, however, reveals that He was speaking of something rather different. The word is kephale. Some scholars have assumed this word to mean something like "chief". But many have come to understand that it means "source", as in the headwaters of a river or a fountainhead.10 In other words, kephale represents origin and source of life. With this understanding, we see that Paul was saying that Christ is the head or source of life for man. As Christ gave life to Adam, so He gives life to every man (1 Corinthians 8:6b). He is the head of His body the Church - our source of life. Then Paul says man is the head, or source of life for woman. She was brought out of 'adam's side and he is to lay his life down for her even as Christ laid His down for the Church (Ephesians 5). John Garr, writing from a Hebraic foundation, comments that, "Man was to be her head only in the sense that he was her source, that from which she was extracted."11 Finally, Paul says, God is the head or source of Christ (which was Jesus' title on the earth and means "Anointed One"). Since the eternal second person of the Trinity came forth from the Godhead in the Incarnation, it is theologically sound to speak of His source as being God (John 8:42).12 The understanding of kephale as meaning "source" here is underscored by Paul's reference in verses 8 and 12 to woman being "from" or "of" the man. The Greek word used is a primary preposition denoting origin.

Verses 4-6

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 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, then let her be covered." (1 Corinthians 11:4-6).

Paul admonished the men to keep their heads uncovered because it would dishonor their head (Christ) to have it covered. Bushnell contends that the real purpose of this passage was to stop the practice of men veiling in worship. What she refers to as veiling is the wearing of the tallith. She describes it as a head covering worn by male Jews at morning prayer on week days, Sabbaths, holy days, and on other special occasions.13 Bristow says it is also called a prayer shawl and was the head covering worn by the men in Paul's day.14 The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, the instruction for men to appear bareheaded was "diametrically opposed to the Jewish custom, according to which men wore the head covered by the tallith or prayer shawl..."15

This head covering was worn as a sign of subjection by a man, to "show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold Him" according to Adam Clarke's Commentary.16 It signified a man's unworthiness to look upon the face of the king.17 It was also worn as a sign of man's guilt and condemnation before God and His law, according to Bushnell. She argues quite strongly that Paul is calling the men of Jewish background to dispense with this head covering since it is a symbol which "dishonors Christ" by nullifying His atoning work on the cross.18 We are reminded that according to Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." Her argument is given credibility by several Old Testament accounts. When Haman was condemned by the king, his faced was then covered (Esther 7:8). Male head covering was also a sign of mourning.19 David covered his head as a sign of mourning (2 Samuel 15:30), as did Haman when he found out he was in trouble (Esther 6:12). The plowmen who mourned over the severe drought also covered their heads (Jeremiah 14:4). As a sign of mourning, the male head covering would be dishonoring to Christ in terms of denying the inheritance of resurrection life and joy which He died to purchase for us. Payne considers a different aspect and argues that the man's head covering was also a dishonor because it "symbolizes a denial of the direct access to God that Christ has provided".20 In 2 Corinthians 3:12-18, Paul wrote to the same group of believers in Corinth, saying,

"...the veil is taken away in Christ...when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 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 by the Spirit of the Lord."

Even Moses would take his veil off when he went before the Lord (Exodus 34:34-35). This was under the old covenant. Perhaps Moses had a clearer understanding of God's mind and heart than the rabbis, since the Scriptures tell us he understood God's ways in a way that others did not (Psalm 103:7).

Regarding the women, however, the situation was more complicated because of the implications to the women and their husbands. Bushnell comments that not wearing a covering could be dishonoring to a woman's head, her husband, because she would open herself to the charge of being an adulteress. Bushnell cites a passage from the oral law which identifies a woman as a "sinner" if she goes about with head uncovered. She also cites the Kethuboth and Sotah portions of the Talmud which state that a woman can be divorced, with loss of everything she brought with her into the marriage, if she is seen with her head uncovered. The Sotah goes even further to insist that it is a man's duty to get rid of a wife on the grounds of adultery if she were seen with her hair uncovered. Bushnell goes on to say, "A Jew, even if favorably disposed towards his wife's profession of Christianity, and towards the practice of unveiling in worship, might be compelled by his relatives or the synagogue authorities, much to his regret, to divorce his wife if she unveiled." She further notes that it was the custom in the case of a woman accused of adultery to have her hair shorn or shaven.21

Longnecker says that some women in the Corinthian church, in expressing their newly found Christian freedom, were dispensing with cultural conventions and subsequently causing the gospel to be confused with paganism. He comments, "Perhaps their enthusiastic praying and prophesying with hair hanging loose was reminiscent of the pagan prophetesses giving voice to their oracles in disheveled frenzy. Or perhaps their appearance in the congregation with hair cut short and heads uncovered suggested the styles of the city's prostitutes."22 He feels that Paul's primary concern is that a Christian woman would be mistaken for a heathen or confused with a prostitute.23 The Jewish prostitutes wore their hair flowing loose and the Greek prostitutes wore theirs cut short or "shorn".24

Finally, Paul's comments about cutting or shaving the hair if she is not covered and if that is a shame or disgrace, to cover it, are extremely difficult to interpret in a way that make sense. No respectable woman in either culture, Greek or Jewish, would cut or shave her hair. And it was always a shame or disgrace at that time, in both cultures, because it denoted a woman who was sexually loose in one way or another. Various scholars have made an attempt at making sense out of this verse, usually coming up with something rather different, but I have not found any interpretation of verse 6 that is satisfactory. Certainly, further study is needed regarding this particular statement.

Verses 7-12

"A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." (1 Corinthians 11:7-12).

When Paul says man is the glory of God and woman (or the wife) is the glory of the man (or her husband), he is using the Greek word doxa. It means praise, splendor, brightness, or outshining. The context in which he is speaking is that of kephale. As man was made in the image and likeness of God and Christ is his source of life, so man is the glory of God. As woman was taken out of Adam and her husband is also her head or source of life in that he is to lay his life down for her, she is the glory of her husband. She is not the distraction of men as the Stoics claimed, nor the downfall of men, nor an object or possession to be owned and used. Rather, she is his glory! It reminds me of Proverbs 12:4 which says, "An excellent wife is the crown of her husband." The word translated as "excellent" here is a Hebrew word more specifically meaning one who is strong, efficient and forceful like an army. Man did not come from or originate in the woman, but she was taken out of and originated in the man. Therefore, she is his glory, the bejeweled crown upon his head. She was created for him as 'ezer kenegdo (see Chapter 3), a help equal in terms of adequacy and fit together, one corresponding to him as a mirror image, and who would be strong and powerful on his behalf.

For this reason, "and because of the angels," Paul says, "the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head," or so it has been translated in English (1 Corinthians 11:10, NIV). But what Paul says in the Greek is that the woman has "exousia" on her head. It means "power, authority, right to choose, liberty". Liefeld points out that recent scholarship on this passage has resulted in this verse being understood to mean that the woman possesses authority rather than being forced to have a symbol of her husband's authority on her head. He says that in 1907 W.M. Ramsay called this passive sense "a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the New Testament, where (as they seem to think) Greek words may mean anything that commentators choose."25 Bushnell traces the concept that it was a veil worn on her head to Valentinus, a second century gnostic. She says Clement of Alexandria and Origen passed on the teaching.26 Bristow echoes the nonsense of this by commenting that exousia is not a piece of clothing! He notes that the use of the word epi with exousia means "authority over someone or something" such as "authority on earth" and "authority over demons". He understands Paul to be saying that since woman is the glory or splendor of man, she has been given spiritual authority, right and liberty over herself. She is no longer the property of her father or husband. And that this spiritual authority was witnessed and affirmed by the angels and they announced the resurrection of Jesus to the women first and commissioned them to be witnesses of this to the other disciples.27 Bushnell thinks Paul mentions angels here because Jesus talked about the angels beholding the face of the Father in heaven (Matthew 18:10). She said if they can stand before the Father with no intervening veil and behold His face, then Paul is arguing that women should be able to as well.28

Paul then proceeds to counter balance his earlier statement about the woman coming from the man with a statement that the man also comes out of the woman [through birth] and that men and women are really interdependent and all have their origin in God. Richards says of this verse, "Neither sex is adequate or whole without the other, and so neither can be more important than the other."29 Payne notes that these statements of man/woman interdependence "tell strongly against the 'authority' interpretation" of this passage.30 It also removes the whole "secondary creation" argument which people try to use from this passage to justify the domination of women - that since Eve was created second, she is inferior to Adam and he has authority over her. Paul makes a point of saying that not only did woman come out of man, but man also comes out of woman. If Eve were inferior to Adam because she was brought forth from him, then every man is inferior to his mother for the same reason!31 Finally, he says, all have their origin in God. He is the Creator, the Designer, the Source for both man and woman.

Verses 13-16

"Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." (1 Corinthians 11:13-16).

Bushnell asserts that the apostle is making a statement here, not asking a rhetorical question. She says this should read: "It is proper [or fitting or OK] for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered." She notes that Greek does not alter the word order between a statement and a question like the English does. What makes the difference in this case is the punctuation. The original Greek text had no punctuation, as we know. It was supplied and placed by the translators.32

The normal English rendering of the next sentence as a question is "an absurdity," according to Bushnell. She asserts that it should read, "There is nothing in the nature of hair itself to teach that if man has long hair it is a dishonor to him." She notes that no artist would paint a picture of Jesus with short hair and asks if Jesus' hair is dishonorable or shameful to Him?33 Also, the Nazirite vows dictated that a man not cut his hair (Numbers 6:5-6; Judges 13:5). Since this was a consecration to God of one's life in a special way, it is doubtful that long hair on a Jewish man was considered dishorable or disgraceful. Further, with respect to the Greeks, we find that the people of Achaia, where Corinth was located, were noted for their long hair.34 Bearing in mind that Paul was writing to a mixed congregation of Jews and Greeks, the evidence would support Bushnell's translation here.

Paul goes on to say that a woman's long hair is a glory or doxa to her - her praise, glory, splendor, outshining and that it is her covering (or veil). It seems that he is striking a blow to the whole concept of a special covering or veil, saying that a woman's hair provides that for her naturally. There is evidence that the Greek matrons wore no special covering or veil, but wore their long hair bound up in braids or with pins on top of their heads.35 Payne says Hurley argued convincingly that the head covering Paul was recommending was hair modestly done up over the head.36 Finally, the apostle concludes that if anyone wants to be contentious about it, there is no official custom or rule regarding veiling or head coverings among the Christian churches. The New American Standard Bible reads, "no other custom", but there is a footnote advising the reader that it could also read, "no such custom", which is how the NKJV and NAB translate it. The Greek word toioutos translated "other" by the NASB, but as "such" in the other versions never means "other" anywhere else in the New Testament. It always means "such." Therefore, "we have no such custom" appears to be a more accurate translation of the apostle Paul's words concerning head coverings.

Final considerations - impact on Christian life and practice

By using the same phrase and words ("praying or prophesying") for both men and women, Paul defined the ministry of both men and women in a balanced and equal way. He dismantles the argument which people use to justify the restriction of women from preaching or teaching. Some have used this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 to argue that Paul allowed women to pray or prophesy, but not to preach or teach. Yet, Jamison, Fausset and Brown describe "prophesying" here as "preaching in the Spirit."37 Adam Clarke allows that prophesying involves edification, exhortation and comfort according to 1 Corinthians 14:3. He goes on to say that this involves all aspects of exhortation, even preaching.38 Finally, even the Puritans recognized "prophesying" as inclusive of preaching. According to William Perkins in his 16th century work, The Art of Prophesying, "There are two parts to prophecy: preaching the Word and public prayer. For the prophet has only two duties. One is preaching the Word and the other is praying to God in the name of people ... preaching the Word is prophesying ..."39

Another interesting thing about this passage is that it illustrates the practical outworking of the paradigm shifts in thinking towards women that were initiated by Jesus. Whereas Jewish women from the Intertestamentary period onward were allowed little or no part in the services, we see here that Christian women were taking an active part! It gives us greater insight into the daily life of the first century Church, and the liberty accorded women in public ministry.

Finally, Paul unknowingly exposed the faulty reasoning of the "traditional" interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34, which is another passage often used to support the traditional view of women's participation in the life of the Church. Because 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 conveys the usual practice for women to be actively involved in public worship, prayer and prophecy, the injunction in 1 Corinthians 14:34 cannot be interpreted to mean that women are supposed to keep silent in church and are not permitted to speak!

Summary

The meaning of the 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 passage is not nearly as obvious as it might appear or as simple as what has often been taught. Contextually, it appears in a letter sent by Paul to bring some guidelines to the church in Corinth, which was multicultural and filled with people coming out of paganism. The discussion that Paul began in chapter 10, deals with how the Church was to operate in sensitivity to cultural conventions, so as to not give offense to the people around them. It is a passage specifically dealing with propriety in public worship, on the part of both men and women, and shows clearly that women were involved in public prayer and prophecy in first century services or gatherings.

In looking more closely at the difficult verses, we concluded that the husband is the head of the wife, in the sense that he is her origin (Eve was taken from Adam's side) and the one who is to lay down his life for her. Men were encouraged to refrain from head coverings because of the significance of these coverings in Judaism. Wearing them denied the atoning work of Jesus on the Cross. Women, however, were encouraged to wear a head covering, even if it was long hair neatly wound up on top of their heads, so as to appear chaste and not be mistaken for prostitutes or cultists. Women were told they were the glory or splendor of man - the crown over and around him in an interdependent relationship where woman comes from man, man comes from woman, but both "come from God." Thus, God is the ultimate source of both. The concept that woman is inferior to man or subject to him because of her secondary creation is dispelled in these verses. Similarly, the authority on the woman's head is not her husband's authority over her, but is understood to mean that she possesses authority.

In the final verses of the passage, it has been proposed that Paul was not asking a question, but making the statement that it is acceptable for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. The sentence structure in the Greek would not have changed, the only difference being the punctuation supplied by the translators. Either way, the verses in question deal with first century propriety. It's a moot point! God's truth is timeless and unchanging, and applicable to any culture. The important principle in this passage is our liberty in Christ should be tempered in such a way that we bring glory to God, avoid offense, and be honorable witnesses to the culture around us. This principle is found over and over again in the writings of the New Testament. In no way does this passage promote a hierarchical order, the authority of the husband over the wife, or the inferiority of the woman or subjugation to man because she was created second, as has been so often taught.

top

Chapter 10 notes

  1. The Spirit-Filled Life Bible, Jack Hayford, General Ed. (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1991), p. 1717-1718.
  2. Katherine C. Bushnell, God's Word to Women (1923, reprinted by Ray Munson, N. Collins NY), par. 106.
  3. Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible (Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids; Lion Publishing, Hertfordshire, 1973), p. 593.
  4. Walter Liefeld, "Women, Submission and Ministry in 1 Corinthians" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 141-142.
  5. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women (HarperCollins, San Franciso, 1988), p. 86.
  6. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kefale Mean in the New Testament?" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 107.
  7. Philip Barton Payne, "Response" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 128.
  8. Walter Liefeld, "Women, Submission and Ministry in 1 Corinthians" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 137.
  9. Philip Barton Payne, "Response" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 127.
  10. Marianne MeyeThompson, "Response" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 91.
  11. John D. Garr, "The Biblical Woman", Restore! (Winter 1999), p. 7
  12. Philip Barton Payne, "Response" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 126.
  13. Katherine C. Bushnell, God's Word to Women (1923, reprinted by Ray Munson, N. Collins NY), par. 240.
  14. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women (HarperCollins, San Franciso, 1988), p. 85.
  15. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol II (Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1939, 1956), p. 1348.
  16. Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1967), p. 1109.
  17. James M. Freeman, Manners and Customs of the Bible (Whitaker House, Springdale, PA, 1996), p. 206.
  18. Katherine C. Bushnell, God's Word to Women (1923, reprinted by Ray Munson, N. Collins NY), par. 240-241.
  19. James M. Freeman, Manners and Customs of the Bible (Whitaker House, Springdale, PA, 1996), p. 145.
  20. Philip Barton Payne, "Response", in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 127.
  21. Katherine C. Bushnell, God's Word to Women (1923, reprinted by Ray Munson, N. Collins NY), par. 242-243.
  22. Richard N. Longenecker, "Authority, Hierarchy and Leadership Patterns in the Bible" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 72.
  23. Richard N. Longenecker, "Authority, Hierarchy and Leadership Patterns in the Bible" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 78.
  24. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women (HarperCollins, San Franciso, 1988), p. 86.
  25. Walter Liefeld, "Women, Submission and Ministry in 1 Corinthians" in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 145.
  26. Katherine C. Bushnell, God's Word to Women (1923, reprinted by Ray Munson, N. Collins NY), par. 251-259.
  27. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women (HarperCollins, San Franciso, 1988), p. 87-88, 111.
  28. Katherine C. Bushnell, God's Word to Women (1923, reprinted by Ray Munson, N. Collins NY), par. 248.
  29. Lawrence O. Richards, The Word Bible Handbook (Word books, Waco, 1982), p. 644-645.
  30. Philip Barton Payne, "Response", in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 128.
  31. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women (HarperCollins, San Franciso, 1988), p. 59-60.
  32. Katherine C. Bushnell, God's Word to Women (1923, reprinted by Ray Munson, N. Collins NY), par. 249.
  33. Katherine C. Bushnell, God's Word to Women (1923, reprinted by Ray Munson, N. Collins NY), par. 249.
  34. Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1967), p. 1110.
  35. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women (HarperCollins, San Franciso, 1988), p. 81.
  36. Philip Barton Payne, "Response", in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelsen, Ed. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, 1986), p. 128.
  37. Jamison, Fausset and Brown, Vol. III (Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Reprinted 1993), p. 313-314.
  38. Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1967), p. 1109.
  39. William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (First published in Latin 1592; in English 1606; Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1996).

top