Exegetical Fallacies in D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," Pt. 2: Reconciling 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14

For those who desire to see Pt. 1 of this series, please go to my other blog, The Center for Theological Studies (CTS).

“In this case, however, there is no need for such a procedure of last resort. The passage can be and has been adequately explained in its context. There are ample parallels to this way of looking to the Old Testament for a principle, not a quotation (and the principle in question is doubtless Gen. 2:20b-24, referred to by Paul both in 1 Cor. 11:8-9 and in 1 Tim. 2:13); and the demand for silence on the part of women does not bring on irreconcilable conflict with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where under certain conditions women are permitted to pray and prophesy, because the silence of 14:33b-36 is limited by context: women are to keep silent in connection with the evaluation of prophecies, to which the context refers, for otherwise they would be assuming a role of doctrinal authority in the congregation (contra 1 Tim. 2:11-15)” (D.A. Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, pages 40-41).

In the last post, I critiqued Dr. Carson’s idea of a tense fallacy regarding I. Howard Marshall’s interpretation of Hebrews 3. I made it clear there that Carson simply takes the perfect tense, looks to the end of the human life, and concludes that those who are true believers are only those who endure to the end. You may not have caught on to it, but what Carson is saying is, “Only those who endure to the end ever believed to begin with.” The sad part about such a statement is, that if one does not endure to the end, according to Carson, such an individual was “never saved to begin with.” But, if the individual was never saved, then how about you and me? How about those who love God in the present, who serve Him, worship Him, and do His work? If believers in the here and now must endure to even know if they are saved, how can they know they are saved “now”? How can they know if they are saved “today”? See, Dr. Carson’s words sound believable until we start to question the believer’s salvation---then, things turn ugly. But Carson’s question is a good one for those who insist that the apostate “was never saved.” If the apostate can do what he did, how do you and I know that we will not end up like him? To know the end in the here and now takes a special omniscience, one that you and I do not possess whatsoever. Therefore, when we question that the apostate was ever saved, we are questioning if even we ourselves are saved...and I doubt the believer wants to take that treacherous step.

In today’s post, however, I will not discuss the doctrine of apostasy...instead, I will tackle another fallacy of Carson’s: “Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings.” In the quote above, we find Carson critiquing an assessment of Walter Kaiser Jr.’s regarding the word “nomos” (Grk. “law”) in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36. Kaiser argues that the word “nomos” there refers to rabbinical law. Carson insists that this is highly unlikely, and then goes on to give his own assessment of what “law” Paul may have referred to: “the silence of 14:33b-36 is limited by context: women are to keep silent in connection with the evaluation of prophecies, to which the context refers, for otherwise they would be assuming a role of doctrinal authority in the congregation (contra 1 Tim. 2:11-15).”

In the sentence before the one I just quoted (see quote above at the top of the post), Carson feels the need to reconcile 1 Corinthians 14 with the permission of women to prophecy before the congregation in 1 Corinthians 11. His solution? Women can pray and prophesy (as 1 Cor. 11 allows), but they cannot “evaluate prophecies.”

Now, whenever a solution or remedy is proposed to texts that seem to conflict with one another, the solution always has to be tested against the context. If there is a solution proposed that may sound believable but does not fit the context, then believers must toss the theory out and look for another proposal that will adhere to sound hermeneutics.

Since Dr. Carson has proposed the prohibition of women from prophecy evaluation, it’s now time to check that view against the context of 1 Corinthians (before we can decide whether or not it would even adhere to 1 Timothy 2).

First, let’s note that the background to 1 Corinthians 14:33 is concerned with bringing understanding to the body of Christ (as well as unbelievers). At the beginning of chapter 14, Paul tells the Corinthians that their focus on tongues as a spiritual gift is lopsidedly misguided: that is, they should desire to prophesy above all. Why? Because “he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him...but he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men...edifies the church” (1 Cor. 14:2-4, NKJV).

This theme is continued in his discussion of speaking in tongues: “I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19). The goal of speaking in the church is to edify the body of Christ, to encourage, to push forward into the things of God. How can that be done if the person does not understand the language in which someone is speaking? How can one put something into action that he or she does not understand? Paul uses this logic to argue that speaking in tongues is a good gift and fit for use before God...but it is not to be publicly proclaimed amongst believers, especially when there is no interpreter to bridge communication between the unknown language and confused believers (1 Cor. 14:28).

In verses 29-32, Paul begins to turn the discussion towards prophets and prophecy: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.” What Paul is doing here is exactly what he is doing in all of chapter 14--- providing instructions on how to maintain order and harmony in the body of Christ. Things are out of place, as the Corinthians themselves desire to speak in tongues and are so doing, despite the presence/absence of an interpreter. Paul is aware that worship serves are becoming places where confusion runs rampant, so he feels the need to address the issues. With the prophets, each is to have his/her turn in prophesying, while each is to judge in turn. Paul’s emphasis on “ALL may learn and ALL may be encouraged” (v.31) is his way of saying, “everyone has a moment to act in church. No one person has to “bull-doze” the others in order to get a moment to prophesy and judge. There is enough room in God’s House (the church) for everyone to be given their opportunity to exercise their gifts.” In essence, “Corinthians, what are you fighting about?”

When we get to the prohibition against women speaking in church, the tendency is to do what Carson does: to claim that women are prohibited from evaluating prophecy, and tie it in with 1 Timothy 2 (which is Carson’s prooftext for everything women can and cannot do. What about the other texts regarding women?). However, the context does not point out that women cannot evaluate prophecy. After all, look at Paul’s words:

“And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32).

If this follows with verses 31 and before, then Paul is saying that judging prophecy is to be left to those who are prophets in the house of God. And this contradicts Carson’s idea that women cannot judge prophecy because women themselves are prophets. As Carson himself says in the quote above, “...under certain conditions women are permitted to pray and prophesy” (Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies,” page 40). If women are allowed to pray “and prophesy,” then why would women be automatically forbidden from evaluation prophecy? I’ll set up a syllogism:

Premise #1: Only prophets can judge prophecy.

Premise #2: Some women are prophets.

Conclusion: Therefore, female prophets (prophetesses) cannot judge prophecy.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If women are prophets, and prophets are the ones to judge prophecy, then why would women be prohibited from judging prophecy? Carson’s thought here does not follow, considering his own admission that women were allowed to prophesy in the Corinthian congregation. He is only left, in the end, to appeal to 1 Timothy 2 to make his case.

By so arguing, Carson has forgotten the principal rule of hermeneutics: that is, that one must first assessment a statement made in the context in which the statement was written. One cannot make a case to link the prohibition of 1 Corinthians 14:34 with 1 Timothy 2 unless he or she knows what the statement meant to the Corinthian congregation in 1 Corinthians 14 (and the larger context of 1 Corinthians). Then and only then, can Carson appeal to 1 Timothy 2. As is seen here, Carson claims that he is calling Walt Kaiser, Jr. on a fallacy--- but instead, he fumbles and commits one of his own. See? “I told ya” that it’s ironic Carson commits exegetical fallacies in a book written against committing exegetical fallacies...

Old Testament Theology...and Women?, Part II: Assessing Waltke's Use of 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

In my last post on Bruce Waltke, I made the point that he seemed to affirm that men and women are on equal terms in the Old Testament regarding spiritual gifts (such as the case of Huldah the prophetess). However, Waltke decides to separate gifts and offices not for the purpose of demonstrating the will of God, but for the purposes of arguing against women in leadership:

“Paul gives governmental priority to the many BY THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION of man and woman and by the purpose for which the woman was created” (Waltke, “An Old Testament Theology,” page 242).

Since he cites 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 as his argument, let’s take a look at that here:

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:8-9, NKJV).

This is Waltke’s proof text for why women should not be in leadership. However, what Waltke forgets is that there is a text after this passage. Let’s look at the following verses:

“Nevertheless, NEITHER IS MAN INDEPENDENT OF WOMAN, nor woman independent of man, IN THE LORD. For as woman came from man, EVEN SO MAN ALSO COMES THROUGH THE WOMAN; but all things are from God” (1 Cor. 11:11-12, NKJV).

Funny how Waltke’s interpretation looks skewed now, doesn’t it? What Waltke fails to do (as well as most complementarians) is read through the rest of Paul’s argument. If he had done so, he would see that Paul sets up the Genesis origin account, but nullifies it when he says, “nevertheless,” and “man also comes through the woman.” When he states that “neither is independent of each other in the Lord,” he states that there is an even keel in spiritual authority that does not mandate that a woman wear a “sign” or “symbol of authority.” Notice in the text, as I stated it in the last post, that both men (v.4) and women (v.5) are praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11.

One could easily think that this would be the end of the post, right? Well...think again!! Our dear friend Waltke has a response to my interpretation (egalitarian):

“According to 1 Corinthians 11:11-12, THE MAN AND WOMAN ARE DEPENDENT ON ONE ANOTHER FOR THEIR EXISTENCE. Their interdependence, however, does not rule out male priority in government. Likewise, the United States Supreme Court does not exist independently from the people, but the people are subordinate to its rulings” (“An Old Testament Theology,” page 243).

I have two responses to Waltke’s argument. First, notice that he affirms what I did above. However, what he does next, though, is he uses an argument from logic that nullifies the context and Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11. What he attempts to do is say, “even though man and woman are dependent on one another in the Lord, men can still be over women in the church.” However, if this was the intention of Paul’s letter, why would he tell us that both men and women are praying and prophesying (same activities and gifts, 1 Cor. 11:4,5), as well as use the word “nevertheless”? The word “nevertheless” used here is the Greek word “plen” (pronounced “plain”), which means “moreover, besides, but, except,” etc.

I looked up the word “moreover” in The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, and I found this definition:

“further; besides. Furthermore, not only that, MORE THAN THAT, WHAT IS MORE; to boot, into the bargain, IN ADDITION.” (The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, “moreover”)

The words in the definition of “moreover,” tell you that what Paul says after “nevertheless” (as the NKJV translates it) outweighs what Paul said in his previous argument. The word “plen” (“plain”) also means “however,” or “but,” which is a contrast with the material just before it. The word is a Greek conjunction; and conjunctions are “connective words,” which bridge sentences together. So if Paul is saying “however” or “moreover” here, he must be saying, “Listen up; what I am about to say contrasts with what I just said.” And if Paul is giving a contrast with his prior discussion of the man being above the woman, then he is not affirming such a hierarchy here---which puts Waltke’s interpretation on the sidelines.


Secondly, Waltke does not provide us with support from Scripture. All he does is give us a rational argument. When it comes to showing why women should not be in leadership, complementarians spend time “making inferences” instead of showing Scripture for what it is. Waltke’s argument breaks down, and all he can say is, “this still does not rule out my presupposition.” How does it not, when the text explicitly places man and woman in an equal balance in spiritual authority, when Paul does not mandate women to wear head coverings (which would have been the sign of a man’s authority over the woman, a sign of the husband-wife relationship)? Waltke doesn’t have an answer for this. Instead, he attempts to resort to logic. But that seems to be what the complementarians do these days...instead of finding explicit references from Scripture to support their points.

Anyone can read the English words like “nevertheless” and conclude that Paul is contrasting his next statement with his last statement. And this is the problem with Waltke and the complementarians: they make a mountain out of a mole hill. Why do this if the process of reading Scripture is so simple? Because they desire to uphold tradition...and they will do it at all costs.

Old Testament Theology...and Women?, Part I: Bruce Waltke's Argument

I’m taking a seminary course this semester titled “Old Testament Theology.” And for the last several weeks, my class has been going through the basic features of OT theology, like poetry, prose, narrative, etc. We’ve been looking at all the types of writing in Scripture and how the writers of Scripture crafted the writing the way they did to give us a certain message. Paying attention to the message involves paying attention to form of the text, that the form helps shape the interpretation.

But I never thought that this course would also involve an entire chapter on women and their “prescribed” roles in the home and the church.

Now, before I continue, let me first say that I count myself to be a conservative theologian. What this means is that I believe that when Scripture tells the wives to submit to their husbands, I believe Scripture to be true. However, I believe that husbands are called to be like the “Lord” (uppercase L); and by serving as the ‘lord’ (lowercase L) of their homes, men are to “love their wives as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for her” (Eph. 5:25). Men leading in their homes can lead with love, concern, and the utmost care for their spouses and children. In the same way that humanity is to have a God-given, benevolent rule over the earth (Gen. 1:26-28), so men are to be benevolent leaders in their homes.

But I disagree with the assumption made in most conservative circles today, which says that men are to lead in the home and, therefore ARE CALLED TO LEAD IN THE CHURCH. I don’t see that labeled in Scripture. Rather, I see both men and women called, and both genders provided for in terms of work in the church. More specifically, I don’t see where men are told that only THEY can be the elders, pastors, and leaders. And it is my whole-hearted belief that such passages like 1 Timothy 2 have been twisted in the name of “old Southern tradition.” In reality, the “stretched metaphor” of the men ruling in the churches because they rule in the home is an inference drawn from Scripture (or so believed)---but where is the cold hard proof? In the end, if there are no explicit texts that give men full leadership in the church, then men ruling in the churches becomes about as necessary as the color of the carpet, or the style of worship. And if these things just mentioned have no explicit texts to uphold a certain belief, then I think it’s wrong to say that the carpet MUST be red, or the worship style MUST be traditional...or that men MUST rule in the churches. Paul gave a loud declaration when he said that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 4:15; 5:23-24). If Christ is the head of the church, then no matter how powerful the male leader, he is still not the head. No deacon, preacher, elder, or otherwise will ever be the head of the church. That is reserved for Christ alone. All the pastor will ever be is the “undershepherd,” or “overseer,” which is a position that lies beneath the Lord, who is “the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls” (1 Peter 2:25, NKJV).


Bruce Waltke, author of “An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach,” writes the following regarding 1 Corinthians 11:

“God establishes this pattern (the order of creation) by creating Adam first and the woman to help the man (Gen. 2:18). As Paul notes in a passage dealing with the role of men and women, one that demands its own study, ‘man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man’ (1 Cor. 11:8-9). In other words, Paul GIVES GOVERNMENTAL PRIORITY TO THE MAN BY THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION OF MAN AND WOMAN AND BY THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE WOMAN WAS CREATED. Is it not plausible to assume that if God intended equality in government, he would have formed Eve and Adam at the same time and made them helpers suitable to each other? If he had wanted a matriarchy, would God not have formed Eve first and created the husband to be a suitable helper to his wife?” (Bruce Waltke, “An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007, page 242)


There is no doubt where Waltke stands on this one: he is a conservative...and a die-hard complementarian. His argument is not surprising, but I will examine it nonetheless.

Let’s look at the passage that he quotes. In 1 Cor. 11:8-9, the discussion in the church involves the issue of women wearing head coverings. Notice in verses 4 and 5 that the men AND women are doing the same things: “every man PRAYING OR PROPHESYING” (v.4), and “every woman who PRAYS OR PROPHESIES” (v.5). The only difference is that the men should not cover their heads (in this verse), while the women should (v.5). Both men and women are equally acknowledged in the ministries of prayer and prophecy.

Waltke actually acknowledges equal gifts among men and women, and emphasizes that even the Old Testament testifies to this very fact:

“Huldah is a most remarkable prophetess with regard to the question of women’s roles in worship and ministry...Josiah directs five leaders to inquire of I AM (God) about the book. INSTEAD OF GOING TO JEREMIAH AND ZEPHANIAH, they go to their contemporary, Huldah, to verify the book (2 Kings 22:8-20)” (caps mine) (Waltke, 240).

Waltke’s comment about Huldah and prophetesses? “In the Old Testament, women are called to be ‘prophetesses’ ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE PROPHETS” (Waltke, 240).

It looks as if Waltke understands that the gifting of the Spirit places women on an equal footing with men. He actually titles five sections around the theme of equality: “Equality in Creation, Equality in Parenting, Equality in Charisma (Gifts), Equality in Prayer, Equality in Worship” (Waltke, 239-240).

But then, Waltke gets to leadership in the church...and he blows it entirely! Waltke’s first mistake after the above equality affirmations is to separate gifts and offices:

“Here we need to distinguish clearly between call to ministry and appointment to an office since they are not the same thing” (Waltke, 241).

I agree with Waltke. For instance, being a helper in the church is not the same as being a deacon. While a deacon has the “ministry of helps,” every person who possesses this gift does not end up serving in the office of deacon. A deacon can possess the gift, but possessing the gift does not guarantee the office. In this manner, I affirm what Waltke says. But I disagree when Waltke tries to show why women should not serve in the offices of pastor and elder:

“Male authority in the home and in the church is founded on the order of creation and reinforced in the order of redemption as presented in both the Old and New Testaments” (242).

In response to Waltke, I’d like to say two things: first, male authority in the home is not founded on the creation order, but in the very words of God Himself as a punishment to Eve for her sin in the Garden(Genesis 3:16). If God had clearly intended to appoint Adam as the head of his wife in the home, then why is it that we only find God saying these words to Eve in Genesis 3 with the fall and not earlier?

Complementarians such as Waltke like to play with vague generalities and draw inferences. But when are conservatives gonna get back to finding EXPLICIT references in Scripture---and when are we gonna stop using vague references to emphasize our points? If God says it in Scripture, there will be some place within the canon of the text where the concept will be as clear as day. Every text in the Bible is not a vague generality; and I despise this sort of technique used by complementarians to attempt to validate their personal belief.

Secondly, there are no texts that give men the right to be the head of the church (not even 1 Timothy 2 does this). I have interpreted this text dozens of times here at the site. For all those who desire to read my thoughts, go to the blog sections on the right of the main page and click on the section “1 Timothy 2.” Respond to this post or the others if you have comments, questions, observations, etc.


The point being made here is that the order of creation does not place the man over the woman in the churches. And 1 Corinthians 11 works against the complementarian position. What does it say? Well, I’ll get to that in my next post.

Going to the Source: The Central Meaning of 1 Corinthians 11.3

I am still here in the Trinity series, talking today about 1 Corinthians 11:3 and its implications for women in ministry.

I’ve made it clear here at the site that one cannot give Christ an “eternal” functional subordination without also giving Him an eternal “ontological” subordination—a subordination in essence, which now makes Him “less God” than the Father, the Spirit being “less God” than the Son.

Today I’m back to deal with this passage and some comments from Erickson’s book.
In his chapter on “The Gradational Authority View,” Erickson quotes from the work of George Knight III regarding the role of women. In 1977, Knight published a book titled “The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women,” in which he claims to “set the record straight” about men and women and how they should relate to each other. Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3, Knight writes,

“For the basis of man’s headship and woman’s submission, the apostle Paul appeals to the analogy of God the Father’s headship over Jesus Christ, His incarnate Son (1 Cor. 11:3);...with full authority and with absolute and permanent reasons, Paul argues for the form of this relationship between man and woman...one would have to deny Paul’s argument or his explanation and application of Genesis 2 to overturn the fact that this is the teaching of the apostles which they intended to be believed and obeyed” (George Knight III, cited by Millard Erickson, “The Gradational View”; from “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 34).

Now that we know how Knight feels about women, let’s look at Scripture itself, 1 Corinthians 11—

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 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, let her be covered. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. FOR MAN IS NOT FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN. NOR WAS MAN CREATED FOR THE WOMAN, BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN” (1 Corinthians 11:2-9, NKJV).

As you can see, the issue here is clearly “origin” or source, for we are told that “woman is from man” and woman was created for the man, both pieces of information supplied in verses 8 and 9. The “symbol of authority” found in verse 10 is to be worn because the origin of the woman is the man. The woman comes from the man, in the same way that Eve came from Adam’s rib in Genesis.

But look at verses 11 and 12:

“Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as WOMAN CAME FROM MAN, even so MAN ALSO COMES THROUGH WOMAN; BUT ALL THINGS ARE FROM GOD” (1 Cor. 11:11-12, NKJV).

Look at Paul’s argument. It is easy to look at verses 8 and 9 and get lost in that portion of the argument without looking to Paul’s conclusion in verses 11 and 12. In these two verses, though, Paul is arguing that, whereas the EARLIER ORIGIN of mankind is the man, the MODERN ORIGIN of man is the woman, since man is born of a woman. This is why Paul writes in verse 11 that “neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.” The man comes from the woman just like the woman comes from the man. In Genesis, Eve needed Adam to be created; however, Adam needed Eve to bring children into the world, as all men need women to bear children today (for only women can do so).

And notice what Paul says about Christ and God?

“but all things are from God” (1 Cor. 11:12b).

As we’ve seen in verses 11 and 12, Paul trumps the argument of women wearing head coverings because they came from “man.” Paul argues instead that if men should not wear head coverings, there is also an argument that women shouldn’t either—because they are the origin of new life today that comes into the world.

If he claims that man and woman are not “independent in the Lord” (v.11), then he would be making the same statement about Christ and God—neither is independent of the other. The Father needs the Son and the Son needs the Father. According to Giles, Athanasius made the same argument:

“To put it succinctly, for Athanasius the Father and the Son are eternally correlated. The Father never stands alone or works alone. Pannenberg states that ‘Athanasius’ most important argument [was] that THE FATHER WOULD NOT BE THE FATHER WITHOUT THE SON (Contra Arian 1.29).’ The words ‘begotten’ and ‘offspring’ are for Athanasius helpful terms to use of the Father-Son relationship because they ‘signify a Son...and beholding the Son we see the Father’” (Kevin Giles, “Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, page 136).

I’ll state it again: Athanasius’ greatest argument was that “the Father would not be the Father without the Son.” And I think this matches Paul’s point regarding the origin of men and women in 1 Corinthians 11. Without Adam, there would never have been an “Eve.” But today, without the “woman,” no “man” would exist. Thus, we see a dependence of the woman on the man, and a dependence of the man on the woman. In the same way, we see the mutual dependence of God and Christ on one another. And both relationships, whether divine or human, are both based on interdependence and trust. This, then, is the meaning of relationship; and until subordinationists figure out what “relationship” is, they’ll continue to get it wrong.

Reversal of Order

Today I am gonna start a new section on my blog covering 1 Corinthians 11. It occurred to me last night working on a blog post that I have yet to really get deep into 1 Corinthians. I have covered this issue in regards to an article from “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” However, I am gonna spend some time on the chapter, showing what Paul meant when he wrote this chapter. It is pivotal to the discussion on women in ministry because this chapter is also used to argue AGAINST women in ministry.

Just so you, the reader, can follow along with me in the analysis of the text, I will print the passage here:

2Now I commend you(B) because you remember me in everything and(C) maintain the traditions(D) even as I delivered them to you. 3But I want you to understand that(E) the head of every man is Christ,(F) the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and(G) the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wife[b] who prays or(H) prophesies(I) with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same(J) as if her head were shaven. 6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since(K) he is the image and glory of God, but(L) woman is the glory of man. 8For(M) man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but(N) woman for man. 10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.[c] 11Nevertheless,(O) in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And(P) all things are from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16(Q) If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do(R) the churches of God.

Initially, Paul says that he is proud of the Corinthians because “you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” Paul applauds the church for how they have carried out the practices he set in place.
Next, Paul then contrasts what they have done with a new tradition, using the word “de” (but). He then states that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Here we can see a hierarchy: God-Christ-husband-wife-(children). Although children are not included here, they are included in Paul’s instructions in Ephesians 6.

This is the point where Paul then goes into why the man should not cover his head, but the woman should. In verse 7, Paul states that “a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” The man was created in the Garden for God’s glory (Genesis 1), so he should not cover his head when prophesying or praying. The woman, however, while made in the image of God, is the GLORY OF MAN; for this reason, she should cover her head when doing such activities.

What is another reason Paul gives for why women should cover their heads? Because the man was not made from the woman, but the woman from the man. Because the man is the human origin of human life (Christ being the divine), he does not have to wear a covering. In addition, the woman was also made to help man (not the other way around).

But what does Paul do in 11:11-12? He goes into a new part of his argument, using the Greek word “plen,” meaning “however.” Paul takes the previous statements and provides an argument for the opposing view: “11Nevertheless,(O) in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And(P) all things are from God” (1 Corinthians 11:11-12, ESV).

In the Greek, the word for “independent” here is “co-ris,” meaning “apart from” or “without.” In verse 12, Paul tells us that there has been a REVERSAL OF THE CREATED ORDER: “for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman…” Today, women come first in the created order (they give birth to sons), whereas Adam was the first human and from his side came Eve.

I want us to look at the wording in this passage. At the beginning, Paul tells us the traditional thought regarding women wearing head coverings-- but then presents another view. Then, in verse 13, Paul tells the church to "judge for yourselves." I don't know about you, but it didn't hit me as to why Paul gave two opposing arguments until tonight-- because, chances are, the church at Corinth was in deep discussion regarding this "new" tradition that some were for and others were against. This had to be a new issue discussed to Paul that hadn't been instituted before, because first, Paul discusses the traditions he handed down and THEN writes on this issue; and secondly, because just four chapters prior (1 Corinthians 7), Paul starts his words with "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote." The church wrote Paul on this issue because they didn't know what to do; and, since he had given them all their traditions while he was with them, they wanted to know whether or not they should institute this "new" tradition into the church. Paul eventually tells them that it is a decision that the church must make-- but there was no custom that would MANDATE women having to have their heads covered.

Most people like to use the phrase “reversal of fortunes”; but here, Paul discusses a REVERSAL OF ORDERS—the created order of Genesis 1 and 2 has been supplanted with an entirely different creation order. This, then, becomes the dilemma of the complementarian—for the only way they can hold on to their view of 1 Timothy 2 regarding created order is to abandon proper exegesis of this passage. It seems then, for the complementarian, they will continue to hang on to the last piece of the exegetical Titanic—even if it means dying in the process…