UNPUBLISHED BOOK: GOOD ORDER IN THE CHURCH

CONTENTS

PART ONE: THE THEOLOGICAL CASE FOR HEADSHIP

1. THE TERMS "HEAD" AND "SUBJECTION/SUBMISSION"

1.1. THE HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD

1.2. THE HEAD OF MAN IS CHRIST

1.2.1. THE "IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD"

1.3. THE HEAD OF WOMAN IS MAN

1.3.1. WOMEN'S VOWS AND MAN'S HEADSHIP

1.3.2. WOMEN'S SILENT PARTICIPATION IN WORSHIP

1.3.3. CONTAMINATION AND WORSHIP

PART ONE: THE THEOLOGICAL CASE FOR HEADSHIP

There are two crucial questions that need to be answered from Scripture if we are to understand the role of men and women in the Christian Church. The two questions are:

1. What authority has God given to men and women?

2. What function has He given men and women within His world?

The answers cannot be found in inherited knowledge. We are all born cultureless and lacking in knowledge. We acquire knowledge gradually as we grow up. There is true and false knowledge about the Creator and the purpose of our existence here on earth. Because of the consequences of the Fall we need special revelation to restore the true knowledge that our first parents had before they sinned. True knowledge is contained in the Word of God (both Old and New Testaments). When we become new creatures in Christ we receive the Holy Spirit to enable us to recognise truth, and to guide us into a deeper understanding of the Word of God and the world and mind of God.

Men need to know why God created them and what authority God has given to him. Women, likewise, need to know why God created them and what authority He has given them, and how this relates to the authority and role He has given to men. This knowledge has to be acquired through revelation. It is not inherited.

According to Genesis 2:15 Adam had been given his reason for living before God created Eve. Consequently his reason for living could not have included Eve in it. He was placed on earth to take control of it under the Creator's delegated authority and headship. He was to serve the Creator in a direct headship relation. God was his head. Adam had to bear in mind at all times that he was under authority and answerable to God for the way he fulfilled the purpose of his creation. He was not given a free hand to do whatever he liked with the creation.

Before Eve existed God exercised His headship by placing Adam under a single restriction&emdash;not to eat of the Tree (Gen 2:16-17). But there was love in this headship relation. God was not simply Adam's Maker, like a watchmaker might make a watch and love the object he has made. Adam was a person; he was God's son (Lk 3:38) and God was his Father. Adam's service was thus a service of love and done to please his Father God. His relation to God was not one of servant to master, or of robot to its creator, or of citizen to king (though God was his Master, Maker and Monarch), but that of a loving son to a loving Father. As a created son he was in an obedience relationship. Jesus, the second Adam, was the Son of God, and God was his Head only when he became man (1 Cor 11:3). The first Adam failed to obey his Father; the second Adam obeyed Him perfectly. The first Adam was a type of the second Adam (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:21-22).

Some time after Adam had been on this earth, and had contemplated the cycle of animal life, mating, (producing young?) and showing affection for their offspring, he became aware of his singleness, his solitariness, his lack of a human companion. The Lord God took the initiative once His son had arrived at this "sense of need." In His wisdom God did not create Eve until this "sense of need" had matured in Adam, until Adam was "ready" and eager to share his world with another of like being. The impression given by Genesis 1:26-27 is that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, but Genesis 2-3 takes us closer &emdash; into the exact sequence of events.

God created Eve for Adam. Her origin arose from a "sense of need" that originated in Adam, not in God. God's need was for a man to till the ground (Gen 2:5b) and rule over His creation, mastering it and bringing out the best in it. The fashioning of Eve's body, mind, and soul was carried out with the sole intention of providing Adam with the most perfect companion he could wish for. The result was a perfect mate. The Father brought His first daughter and gave her away to His son in marriage, and such was the perfect match that Adam instinctively recognised in her the "helpmeet" he had sought. It was love-acceptance at first sight. Adam was now her husband. She entered into a permanent love-headship from the moment they became "one flesh."

Eve's purpose for living was determined by the preexistence of Adam. She was to be a loving companion, wife and mother. She was designed to remove Adam's sense of need for a like companion. The original sense of need was seen by the Lord God as something that was "not good" in His perfect creation. Her purpose for living was different from that given to Adam. The purpose of Adam's creation was not altered by the gift of a perfect companion. His primary purpose was still to "rule . . . over all the earth" (Gen 1:26) under the loving care of the Lord God, in a permanent love-headship relation.

Eve, on the other hand, coming later, entered into a world already committed into Adam's hands, and who was also in a permanent love-headship relation with his Father God. But being his wife, and by virtue of the two becoming one flesh, she shared in his God-given status. This was a loving relationship and no doubt Eve accepted with joy the reason for her existence. Not a thought of rejecting Eve passed through Adam's mind, or vice versa. It was a perfect relationship, and as harmonious as that between the Lord God and Adam. Both Adam and Eve accepted the different status relation that God originated for each of them. The head of Adam was God: the head of Eve was Adam. Each knew the other's and their own position within the totality of relations. Common to both headships was love. Without love these two headships would have degenerated into a master-servant, or employer-employee relationship. Adam and Eve differed in status because headship was gender-specific. We learn from Genesis 1:28 that male and female have a joint-responsibility to look after God's world under His direction. And what they have jointly cannot constitute the difference between them.

If we define love as an outgoing concern for another's good, then Adam's love for the Lord God expressed itself continually in the thought "not my will but yours be done." Likewise Eve's desire was to carry out Adam's will as fully, and to the same degree of commitment, as Adam carried out God's will. Love, not force or compulsion, motivated all they did for each other. But all was done for the glory of God. Both looked to please God by fulfilling the specific gender roles He allocated to them.

There are two elements that characterise the love-headships of God and Adam. First, the relationship is a love relationship. There was no element of compulsion in it. Second, this love expressed itself continually in the desire of one to do the will of the other. Adam delighted to do God's will, and Eve delighted to do Adam's will. The supreme example of a love-relationship is that of the Lord Jesus to his Father. Continually he is found expressing his sole purpose for living was to do the Father's will. He was fully human and had a will of his own, but he rejected every attempt by Satan to get him to follow it.

God's headship was expressed in His right to govern Adam's life. Before Eve was created He defined Adam's liberty and imposed one restriction on his freedom, namely, he could not eat of one Tree in the Garden.

This small restraint it was fit to lay upon Adam to make him sensible, that though he had dominion over all things, yet he was not their lord; but a servant of the Most High: who required this abstinence in token of his subjection, and to prove his obedience to Him. . . . For as, in observing this law, he had testified his unspotted love and obedience to God; so, in violating it he threw off the divine government, and opposed his own will to God's.

Adam accepted the Lord God's right to make any decision He wanted regarding his life. He accepted the one restriction until, later on, his wife persuaded him to rebel, to choose not to do the Lord God's will but to do his own will. Man's first sin was against God's headship of him. Love should have prevented Adam from doing his own will and doing the will of his Head. But his love for his wife clouded his first love, and he deliberately chose to follow her suggestion, and ate the fruit she offered him.

The sin of Adam and Eve had catastrophic consequences. Punishment followed rebellion. In the expulsion from the Garden the focus is on Adam. No mention is made of Eve's expulsion. In his expulsion hers is included, just as in his governance of the earth she is included by virtue of her "one flesh" relationship with him. When the Lord God came to communicate with adam He called for Adam by name (not for Eve, or for both) as the one who was directly responsible to Him. And Adam is held responsible for sin entering the world, not Eve, even though she was the first to sin. "Sin entered the world through one man . . . and . . . death came to all men" through Adam, not through Eve (Rom 5:12). The command not to eat of the Tree was laid on Adam before Eve was created. Unless Yahweh repeated His prohibition to Eve personally it would appear that Adam was responsible for putting Eve under the same prohibition that he was put under by a loving God, unless at their marriage Yahweh restated His prohibition to them both. However, her addition of the words, "and you [plural] must not touch it" (3:3) was not included in the original stipulation given to Adam in Genesis 2:16-17, and could conceivably be Adam's own addition to ensure that Eve kept well away from the temptation to follow her own will, and not Adam's, which should have been her heart's desire.

The entrance of sin brought about irreversible alterations to the whole of creation. Pure, unadulterated love, so essential in the two love-headships died within the Human soul as an inherited characteristic of being Human. It was replaced by a fallen human nature which was characterised by self-interest, self-assertion, self-importance, and every form of self-centredness imaginable, and this fallen nature has been transmitted to all men. Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, in his own image," not in the image in which he had been created. That first, perfect "image of God" was permanently lost as an inherited characteristic of what constituted man's once perfect Human nature. Although a vestige of that original Human nature is a characteristic of every human being since Adam's time, man is not truly "Human." Man is a fallen, incomplete version of the Human nature that left God's hands. In Jesus can be seen what that original Human nature looked like in all its perfection. He was perfect man.

Also, as a perfect man, we see in Jesus' headship relation to his Father the perfect obedience that Adam (and all his descendants) should have given to God. Jesus, as the second Adam, lived a life of perfect obedience to the will of his Father, and as a result his righteous life and death can be offered to all who will accept him as their head. To those who accept Jesus as their head he has begun the task of restoring them to the original Human nature, that is, Christians are being changed into his likeness. In Jesus Christians see what the restoration of the image should look like in them. Through this union with the Lord Jesus they are being transformed into His likeness and nature, but it is a sanctification process that is never fully accomplished in this life. But it is something which some human beings have and others do not have, and consequently it divides humanity into the "haves" and the "have nots," into Christians and non-Christians, into sheep and goats, into sons of light and sons of darkness. That likeness to Christ, however, will involve the restoration of the love-headships that characterised mankind in the beginning.

If the first casualty of sin was the death of pure love, its corollary was the emergence of a loveless creation. Sin penetrated deeply and permanently into the entire creation. Nothing in the present world is as it left the hand of a perfect Creator. Everything has the mark of imperfection about it. Imperfect human beings were born. In place of a natural love-headship being an inherited characteristic of every male born into the world we find a force-headship emerging: "he shall rule over you." Out of the ground emerge thorns and thistles. Accompanying the birth of humans comes pain so great as to extinguish the life of the mother in the act of giving birth. Of these catastrophic changes that now grip and engulf the whole of creation only the reversal of some of the damage done to the original moral image of God is possible. All the other side-effects of the Fall will not be reversed before the "restoration of all things."

This means that force-headship will be the natural inherited condition for the post-Fall world, and will characterise all societies, peoples and nations which do not have Christ as their head. Christ alone can transform and lessen the manifestation of force-headship with his love-headship. Man cannot regain the original love-headship with Woman until he first has a love-headship with Christ, because "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9).

No non-Christian married couple can ever experience the original love-headship relation that Adam and Eve experienced. Only in Christ can fallen nature be crucified and transformed by his new Nature, and pure love can only be found in his new Nature. Without this pure love a love-headship cannot be formed between human beings. The default or inherited human headship is a force-headship in the post-Fall world. To accept this fallen condition as "human" and something to be proud of is to undermine the completed work of God in redeeming fallen, human nature. When Christians aspire to be Human they do not think in terms of the best that fallen human nature is capable of , but they aspire to the pre-Fall Human nature that Adam and Eve enjoyed, and which Christ alone had as perfect man. Christians only become truly Human again in Christ: "No one in the flesh can please God." That is, every human being is born a sinner and cannot help sinning from birth. It follows that nothing that comes out of such a human being will ever please God. All their "good works" are as filthy rags in His pure sight. Unless mankind becomes truly Human they shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

For the purpose of redeeming mankind God made Jesus Christ the head of every man, and Jesus took on a new relation to his Father which he never knew before&emdash;the Father became his Head. The original, pre-Fall headship of Man and Woman was unchanged by this new arrangement because the New Kingdom was to restore the original love-headships between Man and Woman, and between Man and God through Christ as Man's new head.

If we take God's headship, as expressed in His relation to Adam, as our definition of "headship" then we see that headship involves God's right to govern Adam's life totally. He was created for God. Woman was created for Man, therefore Man must likewise be fully in control of his delegated sphere of authority and responsibility. He has this God-given status for all time. "There is no denying that the word kefalh& denotes 'head' and connotes 'authority and supremacy over'."

The second characteristic we see in God's headship is that He is a loving God. Everything He does for Man is out of love for him. He planted a perfect Garden for him to live in, not a disorderly jungle with the parting command, "Go, and subdue it." We see then that in a world of perfect love there is perfect care and thoughtfulness and preparation for another's happiness and welfare.

Thirdly, as a God of love He is also characterised as being a God of order. Disorder is a direct challenge to His headship over everything. Perfect love manifests itself in perfect obedience to the Head of creation. In God's world, order and obedience are inseparable. Disorder and disobedience are two sides of one coin. Jesus said: "If you love me keep my commands." He showed perfect love to the Father because he obeyed Him perfectly&emdash;in everything. In all love-headships perfect obedience is at the core of the relationship. Without it disorder takes its place and the headship breaks down. When this happens, if the head wants to restore order, that is, wants the relationship to continue, then we learn from God's example with disobedient Israel that He reasons with her and pleads with her ("Come now and let us reason together," says the Lord), and is very patient ("He is slow to anger and of great patience"), and only as a last resort does He exercise force (having exhausted every other avenue of persuasion) to restore His position. In other words, the love-headship is temporarily turned into a force-headship in order to restore the love-headship. It is for Israel's good that force has to be used because He will not give her up: He loves her and will not let her go. His patience ran out with her stubborn refusal to return to Him and His anger against her culminated in the horrors of the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon in 586 BC. But behind the force-headship lay the goal of restoration. The tragedy of Hoshea's marriage to Gomar illustrates Yahweh's relationship to Israel.

In the case of Jesus' headship of each man, and the Church collectively, where disorder and disobedience rears its ugly head he, too, resorts to warning followed by the threat of discipline (or exercising his force-headship) by imposing his will on the disobedient members. He even threatens to cut off whole churches unless they repent and return to their first love (Rev. 2:4, 16). The exercise of his righteous anger is always for the good of his Bride to restore her first love for him only.

In the case of Man's headship of Woman, we can be sure that in the perfect setting of the Garden of Eden, the mutual love Adam and Eve showed to each other was perfect and channelled through the knowledge they had of each other's purpose for existing. He, as directly responsible for all of God's creation (having given names to all, including Eve) was to care for it and her in particular ("Husbands, love your wives"); and she, as set in the Garden alongside Adam, expressed her perfect love by obeying him in everything ("Wives, obey your husbands in everything"). Given this pre-Fall perfection of love and obedience among Human beings it is not surprising to find that Jesus goes back to the pre-Fall status of humanity to find his doctrine of marriage. Hence it is that Christ tells his followers to look to that period of human history, and not to the post-Fall period, for their standards and status that he has restored to fallen human beings who become his followers. This explains why the apostles urge men to love their wives and urge wives to be obedient to their husbands because "it was so from the beginning."

Women are expressly commanded to obey their husbands in everything after the pattern of the Church obeying Christ, and of Jesus obeying his Father. Man is to love after the pattern of the Lord's love for the Church.

Both God and Christ were forced to resort to discipline in order to retain their headship positions. Similarly Man must not permit disorder to reign in his home, any more than Christ will permit it to reign in his Church, or God will permit it to reign in His creation. The latter point might appear to be contradicted by history. The whole of human history is one long night of misrule and disorder, but that does not mean that God is not in control and about to bring it back to order. This might be seen as a long-term example of what we see happening in the short-term in the case of Jesus' headship of the Church. Between the moment disorder first makes its presence felt in his Church and the moment good order is re-established, he still continues to be head during the period of disorder. It is just a matter of time before he imposes his headship on the disobedient. Likewise between the Fall in Eden and the Restoration (still future) God is still Head of all things through Christ, and good order will be restored to His creation once the work of gathering in all the elect has been completed. The Book of Revelation shows that the end has already been written and history will follow its script.

Likewise in the home, when disorder/disobedience appears to get its way, the head can reason and plead but in the end he has authority to impose his will on the disobedient, otherwise they lose his fatherly love and care, and may, as a last resort, be sent out of his house, if they cannot accept his God-given authority to lead his own house in the way that pleases the Lord Jesus.

Because God is a God of order He has set Man as head over Woman, just as He has set Christ as head over every man. In view of this analogy it would be against good order for man not to obey Christ, his head, in everything, and for Woman not to obey her husband in everything. The two go together. If perfect love casts out fear, then lack of love results in fear (1 Jn 4:18). The former results in a love-headship, the latter in a force-headship. Force-headship was not an original part of Adam's constitution. It could not exist in his pure Human nature because he had perfect love for his wife. It did not exist until sin entered his perfect world and produced fear. And fear became a permanent feature of human relationships. When the Lord God said to the woman, "and he shall rule over you," He was only pointing out the consequences of her action. As long as she remained away from her proper headship relation to her husband she would experience his "force" to remain in control of his own life and the world he was given to rule. Her sin produced a force-headship in Adam, and sin, unfortunately produced a force-headship in God (toward Adam and Israel), and in Jesus (toward disobedient churches). Because force-headship is the final means, the last resort, to counter disobedience and disorder, in itself it cannot be an evil thing. God and Christ both resort to using it to retain/regain control of their worlds. God used it before the Fall of Adam to defeat Satan.

From a study of the character of God's headship and that of the Lord Jesus it is clear that headship involves three things. It involves (1) control of the one over whom one is set. In the case of God He is in control of His world and He had the right to control Adam's world. He exercised this right by laying down restrictions and granting freedoms. Adam was made acutely aware that he was not free to do as he pleased. He was in a loving relationship with his Creator from the moment of his creation. It involves (2) love of the one over whom one is set. Again, the love of God and Christ are legendary and unquestionable. Love is the engine of the headship relation. And it involves (3) the right to use force or discipline for the good of the one over whom one is set. We see this demonstrated in God's care and discipline of Israel, and in Jesus' care and discipline of us as individuals and as whole churches (cf. seven churches of Asia in the Book of Revelation). This aspect of God's nature we have called force-headship to distinguish it from His love-headship.

However, although God and the Lord Jesus will always use their force-headship correctly because of their God-natures, this cannot be said of fallen human males. Not until the fallen human male accepts the headship of Christ and receives Christ's new Nature can he use his force-headship correctly to create good order in his home. "Good order in the home" cannot be an end in itself. It must be achieved in order that the whole household can come under the headship of Christ. Any use of authority derived from man's headship which does not contribute directly to maintaining the headship of Christ over his family, through his headship, is exploitation. But misuse does not demand disuse. There is a right and a wrong use of force-headship.

The man who does not have Christ as his living head is bound to exploit his position. Consequently exploitation will predominate where Christ is not recognised as head. We see it in force in all societies, tribes and nations of the world not only today but in the whole history of humanity. It bears out God's words to Eve, "he shall rule over you." Likewise a Christian man who does not adopt a loving, submissive attitude toward his Saviour's will can manipulate the force-headship to his selfish advantage within his own family. The door of opportunity to exploit his wife and family never closes until the day of his death. It is a constant source of temptation to him and it will require wisdom, maturity, and vigilance to prevent its wrong use. Likewise in the case of a Christian woman, the door of opportunity to disobey her husband never closes until the day of her death. She, too, must be vigilant over her actions and never usurp her husband's right to lead his family.

There is a right use of the force-headship (e.g., discipline) and a wrong use (exploitation). Force-headship is as much a part of human nature as it is of the God-nature. It is, like "power" and "authority," open to abuse or right use, but cannot be abolished. Like thorns and thistles, force-headship is here to stay, but the more men and women come closer to being like the Lord Jesus the less likely will they experience force-headship to maintain good order. The following table summarises the above section.

HEADSHIP

HEADS LOVE-HEADSHIP FORCE-HEADSHIP

GOD CANNOT EXPLOIT IT CANNOT EXPLOIT IT

CHRIST CANNOT EXPLOIT IT CANNOT EXPLOIT IT

CHRISTIAN MAN INCONSISTENT USE CAN EXPLOIT IT

NON-CHRISTIAN MAN DOES NOT EXIST CONSISTENTLY EXPLOITS

When the Lord God brought Eve to Adam, neither of them could have known what force-headship was. Adam could only experience love-headship because force-headship requires disobedience to manifest itself. So up until Eve sinned she never experienced force-headship or knew of its existence. But as soon as she sinned Yahweh was able to inform her that she had brought force-headship into existence for the very first time, and that, like the thorns and thistles and child-birth pains, it would be part of her experience to the end of time.

Even as a Christian woman force-headship can never be completely abolished from her world any more than sin can be completely abolished from her new life in Christ, or birth-pains, or thistles from her physical world. The reason for this is that she remains capable of sin after her conversion to Christ, and in addition to this her Christian husband remains capable of sin after his conversion to Christ. But just as the Christian man should never disobey Christ in anything (and so avoid experiencing the Lord's force-headship over him), so neither should a Christian woman disobey her husband in anything (and so avoid experiencing her husband's force-headship over her). Self-control has to be acquired and exercised for as long as the headship relation exists.

As soon as Adam sinned Yahweh used His force-headship to retain control of him. Part of that control involved loss of privilege: he was expelled from the Garden lest he commit further acts of disobedience. The opportunity to disobey the command not to eat of the Tree was removed from him. No further "law" was laid down it would appear. But Yahweh did not withdraw His presence from Adam and his growing family. Worship involving sacrifice arose but whether instituted by Yahweh or Adam we are not informed. It was not until Adam's grandson was born that we learn of men beginning to "call on the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26). The next indication of worship is the statement that "Enoch walked with God" (Gen 5:24). If Genesis 6:1-2 is a picture of the merging of God's followers (His elect, the Church) with the world then we have an explanation for the Flood. God begins His fellowship again with Noah and his family. Although we read of no external law Noah is said to be a "righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God" (Gen 6:9). On account of his personal righteousness his family was saved with him (Gen 7:1). After the Flood "God blessed Noah and his sons" and made a covenant with the menfolk (9:1, 8). Up until this time the focus is always on the men. It is taken for granted that what is bestowed on the men is bestowed on the women.

The next major event is the covenant made with Abraham in which all the males were to have the mark of the covenant in their bodies. The women were included in the covenant by virtue of their relationship with the males. The next major event is the Exodus and the setting up of a distinct Hebrew culture which was to be the envy of the world. Again the focus is on the men throughout. When Yahweh set up His tabernacle, the priesthood, and the service to go with it, the focus is always on the men. Throughout the rest of Israel's history the focus is always on the men. The reason for this can be found in the headship that God had with the men, not with the women. Their head was man and they were answerable to men directly and to God indirectly through their menfolk.

Since God and Man are in a direct headship relation all of God's dealings govern his life. Man is expected to govern the life of the woman hence the silence of the Old Testament on her relation to God. She was given no special part of her own in anything to do with the worship of God. She served Yahweh through her head.

When we come to the New Testament nothing has changed because there has been no change in the headship of Man to Woman. Here again she is told to play a silent, supporting role, consequently only the male members are to represent the women and children in the worship of God. All the New Testament epistles which were written to churches are addressed to the men directly and to the women through their menfolk.

Throughout the entire history of Yahweh's dealings with Man He never reneged on the position He appointed Adam to in relation to Eve. He has always given Man his place when he followed Him, and when He set up His religion. The headship of Man can be seen throughout the Old Testament. It is there before Moses, before Abraham, before Noah, before Eve.

Only when God's people became apostate does He take away their natural male leaders&emdash;their heads&emdash;and permit women to rule over them. When God threatened to punish Jerusalem and Judah Isaiah says (3:1-5, 12):

See now . . . the Lord Almighty is about to take from Jerusalem and Judah . . . hero and warrior, the judge and prophet, the soothsayer and elder . . . . I will make boys their officials; mere children will govern them. . . . The young will rise up against the old. . . . Youths oppress my people, women rule over them.

Nowhere in the Old Testament does Yahweh appoint a woman to lead His people when they are in a right relation to Him. This would be contrary to the position He gave Adam and violate His own order. So clearly the normal order is for men to rule; the abnormal order (or disorder) is when women, youths or children rule His people. God's order is turned upside down when Woman is made the head of Man. This is so whether it happens at the national level, the church level, or in the home. Wherever a woman rules a man, that is, where he is in the position of having to carry out her will, then this is an abnormal state of things.

Since Yahweh nowhere appointed a woman to have a leadership role over a man as a "normal" thing throughout recorded history going back to Adam for the reason that the head of Woman is Man, it should be no surprise to find that He is consistent in the period from the sending of His Son to the present day, and for the same reason. He is a God of order and a consistent God. Paul clearly understood the consistent principle that governed all of God's dealings with His people as regards leadership when he stated: "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Patriarchy, not matriarchy, is His creation order.

Given this unambiguous blueprint for good order in His creation, in His Church, and in the family unit, one would expect consistency in His dealings with mankind over the whole course of human life here on earth, from the moment He created the earth to the moment He will destroy it by fire. Anything not consistent with this blueprint is a period of disorder. The cosmological principle is that in all human relations Man is given the position of leader, and Woman is given the position of being his helpmeet. This applies to all relations between men and women outside and inside the Church: since there is no change in the creation principle in any department of their relations. There is no equality of status in God's eyes. There is no equality of roles in God's eyes. Indeed, because of these distinct positions and roles, God has commanded that they be given physical expression in the culture He created for His people.

When God's people came before Him in worship, He placed the women together in one court ("the Court of the Women") and placed the men apart in a separate court ("the Court of Israel"). This reflects the different powers and responsibilities He has given to each gender. This is in keeping with the headship of Adam over Eve. Adam was "the glory of God"&emdash;the finest thing He ever created. Adam was the apple of His eye: the one to whom He could delegate power and authority to rule the earth on His behalf and for His glory. That was his function; that was why he was made.

Eve, on the other hand, was created, not to fulfil Adam's role directly but indirectly, through the specific task of being his helpmeet. She had a different glory: she was created to be "the glory of man"&emdash;the finest thing he could possess. She was made specifically for him and derived her origin from him. So they differed in glory and they differed in function or role. Gender determines their glory and gender determines their role. This explains why Yahweh separated His people according to gender when they appeared before Him in worship, both in the period before the sending of His Son and after it. This explains why He absolutely forbids any confusion between the genders. They must not wear each others clothes or look like each other. This explains why God retained a visible distinction between the genders in His Son's Church when they come into His presence: He separated the genders because of the different authority He gave to each. Man's authority is to act as God's representative and so it is different from that given to women. They do not have the same authority because they do not have the same function or role in God's creation or order. Authority is gender specific. There are many and different powers and authorities in God's creation, but God has distributed these according to the counsel of His own will, and Christians should be content with the station He has placed each gender in. He has revealed that authority is gender specific, and this was so from the beginning, before any culture existed.

The women are to cover their heads because they are female, and men are not to cover their heads because they are male. The reason give is based on gender not on prevailing culture: "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman [is to cover her head because she] is the glory of man" (1 Cor 11:7, 10). To remove the visible distinction put there by God Himself between the genders is to throw His order into confusion; and it is to introduce disorder into His Kingdom.

Paul is in no doubt regarding the reasons why God has given different authorities to men and women, and he was in no doubt how He wanted the genders to appear before Him: the men are not to cover their heads and the women are to cover their heads. In the actual worship, again Paul is in no doubt what part each gender is to play in the worship service. The women are to be silent and the men are to offer the worship to God acting as heads of their families, or in their own right as males.

A feminist, then, is a man or woman who believes that the gender distinction has been done away with in Christ; that there is no distinctive way in which Christian men and women should dress or behave in His Presence; that Scripture is no longer authoritative in man-woman relationships; that parts of its teachings are out-of-date and out-of-place in the twenty-first century; that it is for the Church to decide in every age what parts of Scripture it can choose to obey and what parts to ignore.

In the sections that follow the nature of "feminism" will be explained and how its many facets and subtle approaches can be recognised and refuted.

SUMMARY DIAGRAM

1. THE TERMS "HEAD" AND "SUBJECTION/ SUBMISSION"

In the modern fallen world the words "obedience" and "being submissive" indicate servility or weakness, and are an affront to human pride&emdash;the same pride that brought about the present ungovernable world, and is the cause of all strife. The reason for this is because these words mistakenly convey the unfavourable connotation of one thing or person being inferior to another.

It would not be helpful to change the terms as these are the ones used in Scripture. Also if these terms are given their biblical connotation, rather than allow the popular meaning to predominate, this will facilitate the understanding of those passages in which the terms appear.

The biblical writings show that the concept of "being under authority" pervades the whole of God's universe. Nothing lies outside God's authority structure even the Son is subject to God the Father (1 Cor 15:28); Christians are subject to God (Heb 12:9; Jas 4:7); angels are subject to archangels. Everything in the world is subject to some higher authority (1 Cor 11:3; 15:27-28; Rom 13:1-7; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13-17). Animal life is subject to human authority (Gen 1:27-30); the universe is subject to Christ (1 Cor 15:27; Eph 1:22). Unseen spiritual powers are subject to Christ (1 Pet 3:22). Demons are subject to Jesus' disciples (Lk 10:17). Within the human family children are subject to the parents' authority (Exod 20:12; Eph 6:2; Lk 2:51; Col 2:20; 1 Tim 3:4 ). Young men are subject to older men (1 Pet 5:5; Heb 13:17); servants are subject to their masters (Tit 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18); citizens are to obey every authority instituted among men (1 Pet 2:13); the Church is to be subject to Christ (Eph 5:24); Church members are to be subject to church leaders (1 Cor 16:15-16 [cf. 1 Clement 42:4]; 1 Pet 5:5); and one to another (1 Pet 5:5; Eph 5:21). The wife is subject to her husband's authority (1 Cor 11:3-12; Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Tim 2:11-12; Tit 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1, 5-6), who, in turn, is subject to Christ's authority (1 Cor 11:3; Phil 3:21; Eph 1:23), who, in turn, is subject to God's authority (1 Cor 15:27-28; Heb 2:8), who is Head over all. It is interesting that, "When God divided up the world among the nations, He gave each of them a supervising angel" (Deut 32:8, Living Bible). Even today He places a supervising angel with each child of His (Mt 18:10).

Since all creation is subject to God, and He has set in place subordinate authorities in creation it is not surprising to find the same concept of "being under authority" in the government of His Church. The government of the Church is structured in such a way that it is founded on Man's headship. All the elders of all the churches were men.

The term submission (or subjection) is used where there is a natural hierarchical authority structure. From the cradle to the grave all men are in subjection to powers and authorities that God has ordained. There is no man who is free from the duty of subjecting himself to a higher power. The natural man's reaction is to reject authority; he is born that way inclined.

The term head, however, has a more specialised application. While there are many authority structures, principalities and powers in the world, there are only three headships in the whole of creation. These belong to God, Christ and Man (1 Cor 11:3). While there may be subjection between same gender pairs ("submit to another" &emdash;1 Pet 5:5 [younger men to elders]; Eph 5:24 [men to Christ]), there cannot be headship between equals. The term implies that there is only one authority. Delobel concedes that "head" in 1 Corinthians 11:4 can indeed indicate the person as a whole. Woman was made for Man, therefore her head is Man. Christ, as mediator between God and man, was made a little lower than the angels (Heb 2:9 and note Mt 24:36), therefore his head is God.

As the body cannot function as it should unless it is completely united to its head, so neither can the Church function unless it is completely united, and totally submissive, by a voluntary act of its own will, to the will of its Head in everything. Likewise in the union of man and wife: "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit [themselves] to their husbands in everything" (Eph 5:22-24). The best example of this total commitment of oneself to one's head can be seen in Christ:

"By myself I can do nothing . . . for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me" (Jn 5:30).

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me" (Jn 6:38).

"My food . . . is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work" (Lk 2:42).

". . . the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me" (Jn 14:31).

"Not my will but yours be done" (Lk 22:42).

Jesus taught his disciples to say: "Your [i.e., the Father's] will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Mt 6:10). The pattern of love-headship is Jesus' obedience to His Father (1 Cor 15:28; Gal 4:4; Heb 5:5, 8, etc.). Headship, then, involves the total commitment of the body to the head. Jesus had a will but he sought to use it to do someone else's will. At the heart of headship is the loving desire to see another person's will achieved. Submission in function, whether of woman to man or Christ to God, is consistent with equality of moral nature.

In conclusion there are two terms which we need to distinguish very carefully: "headship" and "obedience." Not all obedience relationships are headship relationships, but all headship relationships are obedience relationships. If love-headship relationships are vertical (e.g., Christ to God; Man to Christ; and Woman to Man), then obedience relationships are diagonal (e.g., son to father, citizen to ruler, employees to employers).

1.1 THE HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD

It would be a theological blunder to substitute "Son of God" for "Christ" in 1 Corinthians 11:3. "Christ" here refers to his mediatorial office. "Soteriological in its connotation, the title focuses on the human Jesus who is the object of God's saving activity." In order to carry out this work Jesus needed to become a man. We cannot say that the head of the "Son of God" is God. The theological reason for this is that there in no headship relation between a father and son, either at the human or the divine level. The Father-Son relationship can only be a love-obedience relationship. Likewise on the human level, the human son does not have his earthly father as his head, though he is to obey his father. The son's head is Christ, not his earthly father. On the other hand, the wife is not only lovingly to obey her husband, but he is also her head.

I prefer not to use the term "subordination" to describe the relation between Jesus and God even though the Early Church Fathers were extremely careful to distinguish between subordination of function and subordination of being. If we must safeguard Jesus' full humanity, we must also safeguard his full deity. Jesus was equal in nature with the Father, yet he did not have the same role as his Father. There is a hierarchy of function not a hierarchy of being. There is equality of nature but not identity of roles: the Father sends the Son, not vice versa. The Son delights to do the Father's will, not vice versa.

Digression

It is necessary to hold both the equality of Jesus' nature: he was God the Son, and also his obedience to the Father as Leatham, Dahms and Grudem have shown. J. O. F. Murray comments: "We find it very hard to realize that it is no less divine to obey than to command: that there must be Sonship in the Godhead as well as Fatherhood, a principle of subordination as well as a principle of authority."

The other danger to watch out for is the idea that Jesus' maleness was nominal or irrelevant; that His true gender comes from His divine nature, which includes both male and female: "that the person of Christ is the individuality of the Logos and not that of a man . . . the human existence of Christ was, is, and continues to be that of the gender-inclusive Logos." Some then identify the Logos with Wisdom/Sophia and claim that "Jesus is Lady Sophia incarnate." This is a heresy hardly distinguishable from Apollinarianism (Chalcedon refuted the idea that the Logos took possession of an existing male person called Jesus). Feminism denies that Jesus had a complete human male nature. All attempts, therefore, to degenderise Jesus and eliminate His maleness and so turn Him into a sexless or unisex being, is a heresy. This is a danger inherent in all feminist works. If Jesus warned His disciples to beware of the "leaven of the Pharisees," the Church ought to be warning all its teachers to beware of the "leaven of feminism." Cottrell sums up the danger well:

A fully male (or female) individual possesses the common human nature but also possesses something in addition to it: maleness (or femaleness). Being male, as was Jesus, in no way subtracts from the fullness of the humanity shared by males and females alike. Eliminating his maleness does not make him more human; it makes him less than human.

The "addition" or difference between male and female is spelled out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Man "is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." The sin of Eve did not bring about the Fall of mankind: it was the sin of Adam, the first man, that ruined mankind, even though she sinned first. Adam, not Eve, acted for the whole race of human beings when he sinned in the Garden of Eden even though he was last to sin. Eve could not act for the whole of mankind, because she was not a man, but created "for the man." The male encompasses the female; but the female does not encompass the male as the first sin demonstrates.

Now, as in Adam all (male and female) die, so in Christ shall all (male and female) be made alive. Consequently to say that a male Lord Jesus could not redeem the whole race (male and female) denies the validity of the parallel Paul draws between Adam and the Lord Jesus (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22). A female Messiah could only have redeemed females, because the female does not include the male in her actions (as the first sin demonstrates); nor does she have the representative role that man has (as Adam's sin demonstrates); whereas a male Messiah could redeem both male and female, because the male involves the female in his actions.

End of digression

It is necessary to hold both the divinity and the maleness of Jesus as He came to fulfil the Father's will. The father/son language of respectful and willing obedience best sums up the beautiful and harmonious relationship that existed, and continues to exist, between Jesus and his Father. Each of the three headship relationships are love-relationships and consequently the term "subordination" today carries too much of a dominant, military connotation to capture the delicate and truly beautiful voluntary submission of Jesus to his Father, which is the perfect model for the headship between Man and Christ, and between Woman and Man. The term "love-headship" best captures this unique relationship between men and women, Christ and the Church, and Jesus and the Father.

For the purposes of man's redemption the Father put the Son over "everything" except Himself. As a result of this the Son took on a new relation to his Father which he did not have before, and also a new relation to Man which he did not have before. In relation to his Father, God became his head at the moment of his incarnation, that is, when he became a Man. The previous relation being one of Father and Son which is an obedience but not a headship relation. In relation to Man, Christ became his head, whereas before the incarnation God the Father was Man's head. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given [or transferred] to me" (Mt 28:18); "Father . . . glorify your Son . . . . For you granted him authority over all men that he might give eternal life to all those you have given to him" (Jn 17:2; cf. 5:27); "For in Christ all the fulness of the deity lives in bodily form, and you have this fulness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority" (Col 2:9-10; cf. 1:16); "For God has put everything under his feet . . . . this does not include God himself" (1 Cor 15:27; cf. Eph 1:10; Heb 2:7-8; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 12:10).

Under the Old Covenant, then, the head of Man was God the Father. But Man could not enter into His immediate presence with an uncovered head. The high-priest and all the priests had to cover their heads when engaged in their mediatorial work. All of them had to wear an artificial covering on their heads, "Then they made the tunics of finely woven linen for Aaron and his sons, the turban of fine linen, the head-dresses of fine linen" (Ex 39:27 Jerusalem Bible). In Ezekiel's vision of the priesthood, the priests have their heads covered: "Linen turbans shall be on their heads" (Ezk 44:18, NAS). We are not told how the ordinary male worshippers were dressed when they came to worship at the Temple. However, it is significant that all their worship was directed to God through a priesthood that had to be covered in the presence of God. This was particularly so in the case of the high-priest, who alone could enter the Holy of Holies. Note the men did not wear veils in the presence of God, but something on their heads.

We might consider for a moment the theological implications behind the suggestion that Christ could have been a woman just as easily as being a man. First, the female Jesus could not have been an ordinary priest, never mind high-priest; so there could be no intercessory work between God and man performed by a female priest. Unlike all other contemporary religions, Israel did not have priestesses throughout its entire history. Only as a man could a male Jesus fulfil the Law for men. He came to fulfil the Law not to abolish it as it would have been the mission of a female Messiah.

Second, the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world had to be a male "lamb" without blemish. Much of the symbolism of the Old Testament would be inappropriate if the one who was to fulfil them was female.

Third, if Jesus had come as a woman "she" could not have had God as "her" head but Man, since it is written: "the head of man is Christ, and the head of woman is man." If Christ were born a woman "she" would be in a headship relationship to man and perfect obedience would mean that "she" would carry out man's will perfectly. Also if Christ were born a woman&emdash;and since Christ is the head of every man&emdash;then the head of every man would be a woman, which makes a mockery of the cosmological statement in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Instead, the male Christ came to do his Father's will, and in order to do this God had to be his Head, therefore he had to be born a man, if mankind was to be redeemed.

In order, then, to bring in the new and better Covenant Christ was born a man; for only man under the Old Covenant had God the Father as his head. He became "a great high priest" (Heb 4:15&emdash;5:10), the only "mediator between God and men" (1 Tim 2:5) to offer "for all time one sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:12), enabling mankind "to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way" (Heb 10:19-20). For this reason the old priesthood, which had its head covered in the presence of God, has been superseded in Christ, because the ministry Jesus has received is superior to theirs (Heb 8:6). We now have access to the Holy of Holies through a High-priest who is the perfect "image and glory of God," and who, therefore, ought not to have his head covered. He is also perfect man and worships God with an uncovered head, therefore his brothers are encouraged not to cover their heads when they worship in the presence of God (1 Cor 11:4, 7; cf. Heb 2:11).

The mystery of God, namely, "to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ" (Eph 1:9-10), was unknown to the Old Testament saints. Paul tells the Ephesian Christians (3:4-6):

In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the secret of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are joint-heirs [with Israel], joint-body [with Israel], and joint-sharers [with Israel] in the promise in Christ Jesus.

God has placed Christ Jesus at His right hand (Eph 1:22; 1 Cor 15:24-28). Christ, then, is the person God has placed between Himself and mankind to whom all men are directly responsible in the first place for their actions. To overthrow, despise, or turn upside down, the authority God has given to the Head of the Church would be to rebel against His rule and to cast scorn on His system of government.

The rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram is instructive. A group of Levites and non-Levites became insolent and opposed Moses their leader. Their argument was the old one of equality. They all wanted to be priests even though God had specifically designated only Aaron's family to be priests. They were so persuasive in their arguments that they won over 250 "well-known community leaders" to their cause. They came as a group and confronted Moses and Aaron with their objection to God's order with the words: "You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord's assembly" (Num 16:1-3). Moses' reply was, "the Lord will show who belongs to him and who is holy." He pointed out to the Levites that they had been privileged to be allowed to come nearer to Yahweh than the other eleven tribes, but he knew they had a hidden agenda. They were not satisfied with the permanent position God had allocated to them for all time. Moses saw through their use of the 250 non-Levites to challenge the permanent position the priestly family of Aaron had been allocated, "you are trying to get the priesthood too" (16:10), Moses said. Yahweh told Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from the rebels so that "I can put an end to them at once" (16:21). God did not immediately punish the 250 community leaders, the non-Levite contingent. He reserved the full force of his anger for the rebellious Levites. In a defiant gesture they came out of their tents and stood there with their wives, children and infants. The ground under them split apart and Korah, Dathan and Abiram and their families went down live into the fissure with everything they owned (cf. Deut 11:6). The fissure closed burying them. Fire then came out from God and burned the 250 community leaders alive. The Levites never again attempted to reach for authority that God had not allocated to them. In Numbers 18:1-7 Aaron is told in no uncertain terms that he was responsible to see that the Levites did not do duties that belonged to the priests. "They [the Levites] are to be responsible to you and are to perform all the duties of the Tent, but they must not go near the furnishings of the sanctuary or the altar, or both they and you will die. They are to join you and be responsible for the care of the Tent of Meeting." Here we have a union not unlike the union of Adam and Eve. Adam was given dominion over the earth before Eve was created, but after their union she was joined to him to be his helpmeet, and to join in the task of having dominion over the earth (Gen 1:28). She was not to try to take the lead from Adam.

In Jude 6 we read: "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home&emdash;these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day" (cf. 2 Pet 2:4). It is clear that God has established a hierarchy among His myriads of angels and hell awaits any angel who would try to usurp another angel's power or position, or challenge God's authority structure.

1.2 THE HEAD OF MAN IS CHRIST

Since Christ is the head of the Church it follows that he is the head of all its members through the heads of families. Because man has been given leadership over his own family he will direct his own house in the way that Christ tells him to, so in this way Christ has control over every family through the husband/father.

"And he [God] has put all things under his [Christ's] feet and has made him the head of all things for the church" (Eph 1:22).

"But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph 4:15-16).

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man" (1 Cor 11:3).

"He is the head of the body, the church" (Col 1:18).

". . . and you have come to fulness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority. . . . and not holding fast to the head" (Col 2:10, 19 NRSV).

We noted above that the Old Testament saints, and those who lived under the Law, were completely ignorant of the role Christ was to play in man's redemption (Eph 3:4-6). They did not know that God had a Son. They did know, however, that God would raise up a prophet for them like Moses, and they were to obey him (Deut 18:15). But so far as they knew they had only one God: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:4). God was head over his people Israel. They served him at a sanctuary that was a copy and shadow of what was in heaven (Heb 8:5; 9:7-9, 23; 10:1).

God has placed Christ between Himself and all men, therefore all men should "honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him" (Jn 5:23). In Paul's theology Christ now represents all men in matters related to God. Men must go through the Lord Jesus Christ in all their spiritual worship. Only in that way will we be accepted before God. For a man to think that he can by-pass his Head, and come before God on his own authority, would be like an Israelite by-passing the priests and walking into the Holy of Holies on his own authority. It would not matter if he were carrying in a ton of pure gold as a gift to God, he would die for not coming through the appointed means (Num 3:10; 4:20, 38; 8:9; 16:40; 17:13; 18:7). The fact that they were carrying in a ton of pure gold is irrelevant. "To obey is better than sacrifice" (1 Sam 15:22). Similarly, if the priests had encouraged their womenfolk to become priestesses against the command of God they also would have died.

We noted above that when God was the direct head of man under the Old Covenant, man had to come before Him with his head covered (i.e., through priests whose heads were covered). The Mishnah embodies a tradition going back to Exod 28:4, 37-38 and Ezek 44:18: "The high priest ministers in eight pieces of raiment, and the common priest in four&emdash;in tunic, drawers, turban and girdle" (m. Yoma 7:5). This has been used to argue against Paul: "In consequence no Jew of the period would have entertained the notion that to pray with covered head was to obscure the image of God, or that it was in any way shameful." But this only shows that the introduction of bare-headed worship was distinctively Christian. And, theologically, it points to man having a new head&emdash;Christ Jesus, the only Mediator between God and all men in the future. All Jews and Gentiles have been given a new head by God Himself, whether they recognise Christ or not, and that is to be acknowledged in the male worshippers coming before God with uncovered heads. So it was a denial of the new relationship that God had placed all men in, in relation to Himself, if men refused to uncover their heads when they appeared before Him in worship. Consequently, it was crucial in Paul's theology that every Christian man uncover his head. By doing so they were honouring Christ as the new Head of mankind. By not doing so they were dishonouring the position given to Him by His Father. This explains the vehemence with which Paul denounces anyone who wants to throw out the universal Church tradition handed down from the Apostles.

If Christ is the head of every man it also follows that there is no other priesthood that is legitimate in God's eyes. No other religion can bring a man into the presence of God, for God will accept no one if they do not come through the great High Priest&emdash;Jesus Christ the Righteous One (Acts 4:12).

The submissive attitude in everything that Man should adopt toward his Head is beautifully expressed and captured by the Psalmist:

Nothing is perfect except your words. Oh, how I love them. I think about them all day long . . . they are my constant guide . . . I am ever thinking of your rules . . . . I will remain obedient to your Word . . . your words are sweeter than honey. And since only your rules can give me wisdom and understanding, no wonder I hate every false teaching . . . . I'll say it again and again: I will obey these wonderful laws of yours. . . . I will not give up obedience to your laws . . . I will not turn aside. Your laws are my joyous treasure forever. I am determined to obey you until I die (Ps 119:96-112, The Living Bible).

We can hear the heartfelt, beautiful, and expressive submissiveness in his words. A man overcome with such a beautiful, submissive spirit must be a joy both to the Lord, and his wife, and family, and community. Yet this spirit should characterise every man who claims to be a Christian.

Under the Old Covenant when God was the head of man, he stipulated how he wanted the total devotion of every man. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deut 6:5); "And now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the Lord's commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?" (Moses to Israel, Deut 10:12-13); "if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today&emdash;to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul&emdash;then I will send rain, etc. . . . Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship others gods . . . . Then the Lord's anger will burn against you . . . . Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds. . . . Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up" (Deut 11:13-19). There is no room here for the modern fallacy of "time to relax." This spiritual exercise is the litmus test for spotting the fake lover from the genuine lover of God. The exercise is a delight to the one and a total bore to the other: that is how to tell a born again believer from an unborn believer.

Israel is not to be enticed away by false prophets and visionaries who are there because, "The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut 13:3). The Psalmists show that what God required of every man was attainable. The Psalms reveals fallen human beings in whom is this spirit of total submission to God; compare Psalms 63:1, 8; 84:2; 119:167; 143:6. If they could experience this tremendous yearning to serve God in everything, how much more intense must this yearning be in Christ's followers as they contemplate the sacrifice of love he made for them on the Cross. Nothing less than "all your heart and all your soul" is the Christian's response.

Man has the paradigm or example of the relationship between Christ and God by which to understand what it means by "the head of man is Christ." He does not need to go to a Greek dictionary or a computer data base and look up the word "head" to come to an understanding of what is involved in the three headships of 1 Corinthians 11:3. The "Head" became flesh and dwelt among men, setting them an example how they should relate to him, through his own example of total obedience to the Father in everything.

If we take the model of the Lord Jesus and how He related to His Father this would provide every man and woman with an attainable standard of commitment to their head. In the case of woman, she would serve her husband to the same extent of complete devotion ("in everything") that Jesus showed toward His Father; and man would have two examples&emdash;Christ and his wife&emdash;to help him serve Christ Jesus with all his soul, with all his mind and with all his strength.

1.2.1 THE "IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD"

Man is said to be "the image and glory of God," and this resides in his maleness&emdash;in his creation to be God's helpmeet ("because there was no man to till the ground" Gen 2:5). Woman is said to be the "glory of man" and this resides in her femaleness&emdash;in her creation to be man's helpmeet ("I will make a helpmeet for him" Gen 2:18). There were two very distinct goals in their creation. If both fulfil their divinely-appointed functions then they will fulfil God's design for both. If they try to switch functions then disorder ensues and God receives no glory from His creation. Every cell in each of their bodies is designed to enable them to fulfil their respective callings.

If man is the "image" and "glory" of God , then in his "image" he bears a special relation to God which woman does not, and in his "glory" he bears a special relation to God which woman does not. These terms are not interchangeable, one is not a gloss on the other.

Taking the term "glory" (do&ca) first, this is explained by the context. In 1 Cor 11:15 Paul describes the woman's hair as "her glory," meaning something she takes tremendous pride and joy in; something that she values very highly. This captures what Man means to God: Man is God's pride and joy because of the direct, creational relationship that Man enjoys in God's world. Woman, on the other hand, is Man's pride and joy because of the direct, creational relationship that she enjoys in Man's world. Man was created to relate directly to his Creator. Woman, on the other hand, was created to relate to Him through being related directly to Man. She brings glory to God by fulfilling her very specific Manward function. Man brings glory to God by fulfilling his very specific Godward function. He must be clear why he is here on the earth, and likewise she must be clear why she is here on the earth. Their roles are completely different yet complementary.

Paul uses the term "glory" elsewhere with the same meaning of pride and joy when he describes the Thessalonians as "our glory and joy" (1 Thess 2:20). He can also note that what others take pride in ("their glory") turns out to be their shame (Phil 3:19). So that "glory" is the object of a person's joy, love and devotion.

Taking the term "image" (ei0kwn), this is explained by the term "glory" which we have seen is creational. The two terms are like two sides of the one coin. Man is "God's glory" precisely because he was created with a specific task in mind&emdash;to rule over the earth (Gen 2:15; 9:1-7)&emdash;to act as God in the place of God. He was given a subordinate role under God's direct control. He was not made answerable to angels or archangels placed between him and God. The relation was direct and personal. The whole design of his body and mind was such as would make the task possible. God did not build in a design flaw that would frustrate man's ability to carry out what he was commanded to do. This design, and the abilities that went with it, reflected God's own design and abilities. Man could stand in the place of God and do what God could have done. This role that Man was called into being to fulfil, is what is meant by Man being "in the image of God." It distinguished him from Woman whose design was different. Man had his purpose for existing given to him before Woman was created. His purpose for existing does not presuppose the existence of Woman&emdash;it presupposes the existence of God. Her purpose for existing presupposes the existence of Man, but not necessarily the existence of God (although it does so ultimately). He derives his origin directly from God Himself, who breathed into his nostrils the "breath of life." She derives her origin (body and breath of life) directly from Man himself, but ultimately from God.

Paul captures this creational and functional design difference in summarising Man as being "in the image and glory of God"; and in summarising Woman as being "the glory of Man."

1.3 THE HEAD OF WOMAN IS MAN

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

". . . submitting [u(potasso&menoi] one to the other in the fear of Christ, the wives to their own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. But as the church submits [u(pota&ssetai] to Christ, so also the wives to the husbands in everything . . . . and the wife must respect [fobh~taii ] her husband" (Eph 5:21-24, 33 ).

"Wives, submit [u(pota&ssesqe] to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord" (Col 3:18).

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women professing godly piety. A woman should learn in quietness [h(suxi/a| ] and full submission [u(potagh~| ]. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (1 Tim 2:9-14).

"Wives, in the same way be submissive [u(potasso&menai ] to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without talk by the behaviour of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewellery and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive (u(potasso&menai) to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him "Master." You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear" (1 Pet 3:1-6).

Because Woman is the "glory of Man" and was created out of his body and purpose-made for him, she therefore naturally relates to man as man does to Christ, and as Christ does to God. It is in helping Man that Woman should find her truest expression of fulfilment. There is no suggestion in Scripture that in order to be a true helper of man she must be married. That would be to set one aspect of her help above another, and reduce virginity to an undesirable state. Woman was made for Man and she can find fulfilment in helping him without being married (cf. 1 Cor 7). The woman is not "directionless" until she is married, no more than a man is "directionless" until he becomes a Christian. All men&emdash;Christian and non-Christian&emdash;came into physical being through Christ, and have him as their head whether they acknowledge him or not. All women&emdash;married and unmarried&emdash;were created from the body of Man, and have him as their goal whether they acknowledge him or not. Naturally, when a woman marries a man, that man becomes her immediate head and so the help she can give to mankind in general is now channelled through one man in particular without, of course, cutting her off from helping the community in the course of her calling.

1.3.1. WOMEN'S VOWS AND MAN'S HEADSHIP

Under the Old Covenant God recognised Man's headship in that when a man made a vow to God he had to keep it (Lev 5:5; cf. ch. 27; Deut 23:21), but when his wife made a vow to Him the husband could cancel it if he disapproved of it, and Yahweh respected his authority to do so. Likewise if a man's daughter made a vow to God, her father could cancel it if he disapproved of it. If a woman made a vow to God before she married, her husband could cancel it if he disapproved of it, and God accepted the husband's power to cancel it (Num 30:3-15). When a widow or divorced woman made a vow to God then she had to keep it (Num 30:9). Presumably a single woman not living under her father's roof would come into the same category. But once she married then her husband could cancel her vow if he disapproved of it.

If wives or daughters could make vows to God, which husbands or fathers could do nothing about, they would cease to be in control of the family: chaos could soon set it. In His wisdom God placed the husband/father between the womenfolk and Himself, so that their vows to Him must come through the head of the house.

A wife or daughter could not overrule the husband's or father's authority in the home by claiming she made a vow to the Lord, a higher authority than her male attachment, which she was obliged to fulfil A direct vow to the Lord could not overrule their earthly authority. The Lord stands behind the authority of a husband or father. This is not because women are inferior but to protect the male leadership of the home. That the ruling is based on male leadership, not on male superiority, can be seen in the provision that the vow of a woman who was without male attachment was as binding upon her as that upon a man ([Num] 30:9).

Although it never explicitly states in the Old Testament, as it does in the New Testament, that "the head of woman is man," yet underlying all the Old Testament laws is this creation fixture. God's marriage laws for His people are dominated by the principle of patriarchy. Marriage was certainly not "egalitarian" in the modern sense of the word. At the same time it was not the hierarchy of master and servant, but a covenant bond between loving intimates. Although the husband had authority over his wife, this did not exclude a relationship of mutual help, love and trust. When a woman became the wife of an Israelite man she passed from the authority of her father into that of her husband (1 Sam 18:17, 19, 27). Before marriage, the will and the inclination of the girl were, however, taken into account (Gen 24:39, 58). The right of divorce belonged to the husband alone (Deut 24:1-4; cf. 22:13). The highest happiness an Israelite woman could achieve was that of motherhood (Gen 24:60; 30:1; 1 Sam 1:6f; Ps 113:9). As a fruitful mother she constituted the focal point of family life, and as such was the object of honour on all sides and was highly praised and prized. Her love became the symbol of divine love, "As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you" (Isa 66:13).

Under the New Covenant this creation fixture remains in place because Christ places the husband/father between the womenfolk and Himself. Man's headship has not be abolished with the coming of Christ, it has been safeguarded in the formula, the head of woman is man; the head of man is Christ.

In the Old Testament the sign of entry into the community of God's people was circumcision. Women did not have a separate initiation ceremony. They entered the Covenant because their husbands, their heads, were in it. If the head of the house was not circumcised then his whole household, including the women, were debarred from entry into the Old Testament Church. No foreigner could eat the Passover until he and the male members of his family were circumcised (Exod 12:43, 48), then his womenfolk could eat it with the circumcised males.

Under the Old Covenant only males could inherit the Promised Land but if a man had no sons, only daughters, these daughters had to marry a blood-related relative in order for the family land to remain within the possession of their father's clan (Num 27:5-7; 36:4; Josh 17:3). The land then passed down to the daughters' male offspring, and never to the female line. Once again, by ensuring that man should be head of the household, God gave him control of the economics of the family. If land had passed down through the female line she would have ruled the household economically. God, in His wisdom, built in safeguards to the headship of man. "It is hard," writes David Wenham, "to avoid the conclusion that Paul believed the husband to have a position of God-given leadership in the family."

1.3.2. WOMEN'S SILENT PARTICIPATION IN WORSHIP

Under the Old Covenant only the men directly participated in the worship of God. "With regard to religion, the woman contributes in a silent yet active, supporting role to the man, to the extent that she is excluded from all official acts of the cult. Israel, unlike other ancient peoples, had no priestesses." In a comprehensive study of female and male cultic personnel in the Bible and the Ancient Near East the author concluded: "It is seen, then, that there were no women inside the temple as personnel, but immediately outside the temple, and, indeed, in a special area, we find "ministering women," Ex 38.8, and we recall that during the wilderness wanderings, some rites were carried out at the door. Ex 40.6.12."

It is possible that these rites included the woman's gift of a lamb and a young pigeon or turtle-dove "to make atonement for herself" after the birth of a child (Lev 12:6).

The females of priests and Levites benefited to the extent that they could eat of the meat and other food that was offered to God. But even in this area some parts of the sacrifices could only be eaten by males; these parts were forbidden to their wives and families. There was no circumstance where the son of a priest could lose his privileged status (apart from some gross violation). He could marry a non-Levite girl (but not a divorcee). But the privileged status of a daughter of a priest depended on her continuing relationship with her father or a husband who was a priest. If she married an ordinary Israelite man she lost her right to eat of the sacrifices offered to God at the temple because she passed under the headship of a man who was not a priest. Her rights were derived rights coming through her father or through her priestly husband (Lev 22:13). The prospective wife of a priest must reflect his holiness (Lev 21:7). He could not marry a divorced woman, because the priestly semen could not enter a "vessel" previously "used" by another man. Ezekiel (44:22) warns priests to marry only virgins or priests' widows. The High Priest could only marry a virgin of his own people (Lev 21:4).

No woman could become a priest, or enter the Temple precincts except to a court specially set apart for them. In general, the worship of God by each family was conducted by the menfolk, who alone had to appear three times a year before God. The women were exempt from all religious taxes (Ex 30:12; 38:26). There were moral laws and laws that directly affected them as females (menstruation, etc., the laws of leprosy in Lev 13; Deut 13:6). ) which they must keep.

Tal Ilan noted that a Jewish woman's position in the whole system of religious commandments was exactly the reverse of her position in the Jewish legal system. In the latter, the operating assumption was that women are included in every verdict or punishment described in halakhah unless specifically excluded, while in the former, the commandments connected to divine service are assumed to exclude women unless otherwise stated. A baraita reads: "R. Judah says: A person must say three blessings every day: Blessed be He who did not make me a gentile, Blessed be He who did not make me a woman, Blessed be He who did not make me an ignoramus [or slave] . . . who did not make me a woman, because women are not obligated to fulfil commandments" (tBer. 7.18; cf. bMen. 43b).

Because of the corporateness or solidarity of the family, what the husband did he did on behalf of the whole household. God's laws assume the solidarity of the family and that the husband/father is in total control of his own household. This control carries with it total responsibility if anything goes wrong. The idea of corporate responsibility for the actions of a rogue tribe (cf. Deut 13:12; Josh 22:18) is just an extension of the family principle to the larger grouping.

Women definitely took up a silent, supporting role when it came to participation in the worship in the Temple at Jerusalem. The women remained silent in the worship of God throughout the Old Testament Church period. This was the way Yahweh wanted it. He gave them no individual part in the service of His Temple. It was not as if men kept them at arm's length from participating directly, in their own right, in the worship of God. The Scriptures make it plain that Yahweh was in charge of setting up His own worship in all its minute detail and He gave them no right to participate directly in the worship service. He gave detailed instructions and patterns to Moses to follow.

Even the stitching and sewing and repair of the Tent of Meeting (work which might be considered best done by women) was done by men between the ages of 20 and 50. Men were given the responsibility of making all the priestly garments, including the very ornate High Priestly garments (Ex 28:3, 5-6, 15; 35:10; 39:1). God could have given the necessary skills and gifts to women, just as easily as to men, but He deliberately chose an all-male workforce to do everything belonging to the Tent of Meeting (Ex 31:1-11; 35:30; 36:1&emdash;38:23). Where women do participate they do so along with the ordinary Israelite men in a supporting role, by providing materials for the Tabernacle (Ex 35:25), which Moses then gave to the workmen (Ex 36:3, 8-9). Yahweh expected the men to carry the full contribution and responsibility for His worship. Only men were permitted to construct the Tabernacle; only men could sew the curtains together; only men could make the priestly garments, tunics and turbans, and only men could make the perfume. The whole worship of God was placed squarely on man's shoulders. Even the job of creating the special perfume of the anointing oil was a man's job (Ex 30:23). Women were excluded by God Himself from having a direct input into any aspect of His worship. He dictated to Moses every single rule on how men were to carry out His worship. The women were silent, but present, as the Law reveals.

1.3.3. CONTAMINATION AND WORSHIP

When God made man and woman He made them male and female, with different bodily discharges. The discharges of the woman meant that for a period of a few days each month God regarded them as unclean and they could not come before the door of His Tent of Meeting. The exclusion order covered the period of the discharge itself and the next seven days after it stopped. In effect she was excluded from worship for about one-third of every month, or one-third of the year. While in a state of impurity her uncleanness was contagious. Anything she touched (including her husband), or sat on, or slept on, became unclean and had to be ritually washed with water. On the birth of a son she was excluded from worship for 33 days, and in the case of a girl, for 66 days.

The discharge of the man could be a medical condition, or just simply sleeping with his wife. In the latter case he was unclean until the following nightfall (Lev 12:1-8; 15:18). A priest who slept with his wife could not re-enter God's service until he was clean again. If he did God's service in an unclean state he was permanently disqualified from His service (Lev 22:3).

Strict rules governed the lives of men and women. The need to avoid contamination dominated everyone's life. Husbands and sons needed to know when menstruation occurred among their females. Women and girls needed to be able to seclude themselves in women's quarters during these periods of impurity, so as not to cause unnecessary disruption to the lives of their menfolk, particularly the priests and Levites who were not allowed into the Temple to do their work if they were unclean. Safrai has suggested that the reason for separate men's and women's quarters in Jewish houses was not moral but halakhic, i.e., the menstruant woman had to be secluded so as not to contaminate the utensils in the house or the other people who lived there. Safrai found evidence for separate quarters in an Amoraic source (b.Qidd. 81a).

Yahweh created a culture for His own people in which every minute of their lives was governed by at least one of 613 laws. Religion dominated every minute whether waking or sleeping. Everything was either "clean" or "unclean," "holy" or "common." It is hard for modern Westerners to enter into the culture that Hebrew men and women took for granted in the Mosaic Law. Mixing with women generally, or touching them in crowded market-places, could unwittingly make a man unclean. If in doubt he washed himself when he came home and waited until the evening (when he became ritually "clean") before performing any religious duty.

When Yahweh called out the men for a special task, they had to be in a ritually clean state, hence the command not to sleep with their wives in the day(s) leading up to the call out (Exod 19:15; 1 Sam 21:4-5; cf. 1 Cor 7:5).

The New Testament view of the place of women within the Christian community is that her natural vocation is the bearing of children (increasing the "sons of God"). It is through this that woman finds her rightful place in the divine order, provided she has faith and love (1 Tim 2:15).

It was noted above that when priests worshipped before their Head (God, not Christ) under the Old Covenant they did so with covered heads. The Head of Christ is God, but Christ does not have a covering on his head when he appears before God on man's behalf. Under the New Covenant all male worshippers have been instructed to change their approach to God because Christ now represents them with his head uncovered. Christ and all male worshippers are now brothers (Jn 20:17; Heb 2:11 ). He is the only High Priest without a head covering because he is the exact image of God, which should not be hidden with a covering. The same reason is now given why men should not have a covering on their heads, "because he is the image and glory of God" (1 Cor 11:7). If man has permission to appear before God without a head covering it is very unlikely that Christ has to cover His head in the presence of God.

END OF SECTION