Scripture:

I Corinthians 11:2–16 Ephesians 5:28–31

Background:

For many years people in the United States had their fun with the popular comic strip “Bringing up Father.” Daily they laughed loud and long at poor Jiggs who could hardly call his soul his own. Maggie as his wife forbade him to eat corned beef and cabbage and associate with his friends. The daughter, interested in making herself attractive to numerous boy friends, saw her father in terms of his check-book.

By this time the laugh is on us.

We seem to be reaping what so long has been sown in this nation. Family ties are languishing. Juvenile and adult delinquency run rampant. Discipline has become a naughty word. Authority in every sphere of life has been undermined. As goes the family, so the nation according to the old adage. No community or country is stronger than its homes. And if there is no strength and stability and serenity within the family, we dare not expect such in SOciety. Here the roots of human life are being cut.

If we still believe the plain teaching of Scripture, we can trace many of our present social and political ills to the decline of authority within the homes. To all practical purposes the place of husband and father has been perverted. He has become little more than the provider whose wages are still welcome but whose words carry little weight. And many warnings are sounded, especially by implication, against such a conception in God’s Word.

                 

Outline:

1–The fact of the husband’s headship

Paul seemed to have deep concern for the Corinthian church. Not a few of its ills he traced to the inordinate liberties which some of the women, especially the married women, seemed to take. The question dealt with in this chapter concerns wearing of a head-dress in public worship. Apparently the apostle isn’t concerned just with that custom but with the underlying reason for overthrowing it. Thus he deals with the basic principle of the relationship of a married woman to her husband.

Notice how he makes a sharp distinction between the man and the woman in their public appearance. This is to reflect basic convictions concerning the headship of the husband under Christ over the woman.

Meanwhile he asserts a basic equality of them as individuals before God. Note also that there is a mutual dependence of the one on the other (vss. 11, 12). Yet in official position the husband is head over the wife.

Why was Paul so concerned about women covering their heads at prayers? May women today attend church with uncovered heads? Does this passage militate against bobbed hair? Is there a sense in which outward customs can change while the principle is truly maintained? What does Paul mean by the husband as “the image and glory of Cod?” Is the woman less than the husband? Show how this passage does not allow for tyrannical exercise of authority by the husband.

2–The quality of the husband’s headship

What is stated in I Corinthians 11 is elaborated in Ephesians 5. Here once again “headship” is stressed. Note that this is a figure borrowed from life, organic life. What is the relation of head to members of the body? What is the function of a head in this sense? How far does such directive authority and power go? Should women promise to “obey”? What does this mean in practice?

Such headship is described further. It is exercised in love. Note how intimate is the relation between husband and wife—a husband in loving his wife loves himself. Is this a selfish motive? How can the wife’s individuality be expressed in such a context? What is involved in the duty to love? Why do you suppose Paul mentions that husbands must love their wives, while he doesn’t say that wives must love their husbands? Isn’t this demanded?

The safeguard against the twin perversions of tyranny and laxity in exercising authority Paul finds in Christ Jesus. This he states in both passages. In which sense does a Christian marriage differ from that between non-Christians? Can a believer be happy when married to a non-Christian? Must she still obey such a husband? What if he refuses to allow her to go to church?

3–The purpose of the husband’s headship

Paul has much to say about this. It is of importance to the angels. Just what does this mean? How are they related to the life of the believing church on earth? He also talks about that which “is seemly.” Christians must avoid the giving of offense not only to fellow believers but also to the non-Christian world. Note how a woman’s lack of respect for her husband actually involves a lack of respect for God and his revealed will. Thus by willful flouting of authority instituted by God she brings discredit not just on herself and her husband but on the church and especially on the Lord of the church. How are our families (also husband-wife relations) to reflect the relation between Christ and his church? For Paul all this is bound up with the purpose that “the two shall become one flesh.” Once again this stresses true oneness in marriage. What kind of oneness is this actually?

Scripture:

I Corinthians 11:2–16 Ephesians 5:28–31

Background:

For many years people in the United States had their fun with the popular comic strip “Bringing up Father.” Daily they laughed loud and long at poor Jiggs who could hardly call his soul his own. Maggie as his wife forbade him to eat corned beef and cabbage and associate with his friends. The daughter, interested in making herself attractive to numerous boy friends, saw her father in terms of his check-book.

By this time the laugh is on us.

We seem to be reaping what so long has been sown in this nation. Family ties are languishing. Juvenile and adult delinquency run rampant. Discipline has become a naughty word. Authority in every sphere of life has been undermined. As goes the family, so the nation according to the old adage. No community or country is stronger than its homes. And if there is no strength and stability and serenity within the family, we dare not expect such in SOciety. Here the roots of human life are being cut.

If we still believe the plain teaching of Scripture, we can trace many of our present social and political ills to the decline of authority within the homes. To all practical purposes the place of husband and father has been perverted. He has become little more than the provider whose wages are still welcome but whose words carry little weight. And many warnings are sounded, especially by implication, against such a conception in God’s Word.

Outline:

1–The fact of the husband’s headship

Paul seemed to have deep concern for the Corinthian church. Not a few of its ills he traced to the inordinate liberties which some of the women, especially the married women, seemed to take. The question dealt with in this chapter concerns wearing of a head-dress in public worship. Apparently the apostle isn’t concerned just with that custom but with the underlying reason for overthrowing it. Thus he deals with the basic principle of the relationship of a married woman to her husband.

Notice how he makes a sharp distinction between the man and the woman in their public appearance. This is to reflect basic convictions concerning the headship of the husband under Christ over the woman.

Meanwhile he asserts a basic equality of them as individuals before God. Note also that there is a mutual dependence of the one on the other (vss. 11, 12). Yet in official position the husband is head over the wife.

Why was Paul so concerned about women covering their heads at prayers? May women today attend church with uncovered heads? Does this passage militate against bobbed hair? Is there a sense in which outward customs can change while the principle is truly maintained? What does Paul mean by the husband as “the image and glory of Cod?” Is the woman less than the husband? Show how this passage does not allow for tyrannical exercise of authority by the husband.

2–The quality of the husband’s headship

What is stated in I Corinthians 11 is elaborated in Ephesians 5. Here once again “headship” is stressed. Note that this is a figure borrowed from life, organic life. What is the relation of head to members of the body? What is the function of a head in this sense? How far does such directive authority and power go? Should women promise to “obey”? What does this mean in practice?

Such headship is described further. It is exercised in love. Note how intimate is the relation between husband and wife—a husband in loving his wife loves himself. Is this a selfish motive? How can the wife’s individuality be expressed in such a context? What is involved in the duty to love? Why do you suppose Paul mentions that husbands must love their wives, while he doesn’t say that wives must love their husbands? Isn’t this demanded?

The safeguard against the twin perversions of tyranny and laxity in exercising authority Paul finds in Christ Jesus. This he states in both passages. In which sense does a Christian marriage differ from that between non-Christians? Can a believer be happy when married to a non-Christian? Must she still obey such a husband? What if he refuses to allow her to go to church?

3–The purpose of the husband’s headship

Paul has much to say about this. It is of importance to the angels. Just what does this mean? How are they related to the life of the believing church on earth? He also talks about that which “is seemly.” Christians must avoid the giving of offense not only to fellow believers but also to the non-Christian world. Note how a woman’s lack of respect for her husband actually involves a lack of respect for God and his revealed will. Thus by willful flouting of authority instituted by God she brings discredit not just on herself and her husband but on the church and especially on the Lord of the church. How are our families (also husband-wife relations) to reflect the relation between Christ and his church? For Paul all this is bound up with the purpose that “the two shall become one flesh.” Once again this stresses true oneness in marriage. What kind of oneness is this actually?