February 9, 2025|Headship, Head-coverings, and Humanity|1 Corinthians 11:2-16
John-Daniel Cutler
Click here for the sermon audio
Today is an interesting portion of Corinthians 11, because it is sandwiched in between Paul’s commendation of the church for keeping the traditions he delivered to them and his comment in verse 17 that we looked at last week concerning the Lord’s Supper, ‘but in the following instructions I do not commend you.’
If we take the contextual clues from the remainder of chapter 11 through 14, as we noted last week, Paul’s attention has turned in his letter to the public gathering, when the church comes together. So then, I believe, what Paul has in mind here in verses 2-16, wherever we land on our understanding of it, has to do with the public gathering of the saints and what is happening in those gatherings. Interestingly it seems that overall, Paul commends them on the issue he addresses today. Accordingly then what we do not find here is Paul introducing a new teaching or even arguing for one that had been mostly abandoned. It would seem that for the most part, the Corinthians were keeping the traditions he had taught them, but there may have been some, on this issue at least, that were abandoning the practices he had delivered. So Paul does what I think any preacher or teacher would do when there are a few who have begun to abandon right, good, and orderly worship in the gathering, he goes back and reminds them of the truths behind why these things are to be done and why they are important. Paul is using this letter as a way to instruct the Corinthians not only in their actions, but in their thinking. One could argue, that he is primarily concerned about their thinking, and I don’t think Paul is unique in this, we have often heard the expression, right thinking produces right action.
This is pretty consistent with Paul’s writing so far. For example. (not exhaustive)
(ESV) 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: (takes them back to the truth of who they were when they came to Christ) (ESV) 3:16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? (reminds them of how they ought to think of themselves, which has an application in the way they are living) (ESV) 4:1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. (addresses how they should think about Paul and others so that they will live accordingly and stop being divisive) (ESV) 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? (reminding them of a fundamental truth and how it should affect their lives) (ESV) 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? (again) (ESV) 7:25 Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. (here is how to think about the betrothed) (ESV) 8:1 Now concerning food offered to idols: (addresses how they think about the issue so they will conform their behavior) (ESV) 9:24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? (offers them a metaphor to help them think about how they are living the Christian life) (ESV) 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, (reminding them of Israel’s past so that they will live differently in light of the truth) So again, Paul begins our section with right thinking, I want you to understand, then he addresses the actions that reflect that truth, and the actions that reject it, or at least unnecessarily and possibly harmfully minimize it.
Before we even get into our text, we must acknowledge that we have made our interpretation and application of this passage unnecessarily difficult in a way that would not have been present when it was read aloud in the Corinthian church. Of all the things I have studied from scripture, I have seen more confusion on this passage than any other, and I am not talking about confusion from non-christian or cult influences, but confusion within what we would normally call orthodox Christianity.
Which leads me to ask the sincere question? What has led to this level of confusion concerning this topic? Is there really that much of a lack of clarity on what Paul teaches within these verses, or is it something else? My prayer is that from our time together you will be able to see that the controversy and confusion does not all come from within the text but much of it from without.
Are there difficult things for us to understand in this text? Yes.
Do they affect Paul’s teaching so much that we can’t understand it? I don’t think they do.
I think if we approach this scripture like we consistently approach the scriptures here, using good hermeneutics, seeking an exegetical understanding of the text, seeking God’s truth from God’s word through the power of His Spirit, it will open before us clearly. My further prayer is that whether you agree with me or not, we will have spent our time together seeking to rightly understand God’s word for mutual edification and the glory of God. Amen?
Let’s dig into our text this morning, and try and stay as close to it as we can. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. As we read it, I encourage you to grab ahold of whatever questions come to mind, maybe even jot them down, so that if any of them are left unanswered, we can continue the conversation.
1 Corinthians 11:2–16 (ESV)
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For 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. 7 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. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
We’re going to hang our treatment of our text on five divisions today. Don’t let that alarm you, two of them are brief. The principle of headship, the problem of culture, the pattern of creation, the profession of nature, and finally the proposition of value.
I. The Principle of Headship
Let’s take a closer look at verses 3 through 6.
1 Corinthians 11:2–16 (ESV)
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For 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.
I want you (plural) to understand. From this statement, what does he feel like those that are misunderstanding about the head covering issue, both male and female are missing? The principle of headship. Paul uses the term ‘the head of’ three times here. Whatever he means, we have to be sure to apply it consistently across all three examples if we are going to be faithful to the text. The word is the Greek word kephalē (kef-al-ay'). It can refer to the physical head or as it often is, it can be used metaphorically to denote something about position.
We still use this metaphorical linguistic when we talk about the head of state, or the head of the FBI. When we look elsewhere for Paul’s use of this term, we see he consistently uses it metaphorically to indicate authority or prominence. Frequently Paul talks about Christ being the head of the church. In Ephesians 5 Paul specifically uses Christ being the head of the church to illustrate how the husband is the head of the wife. He says Ephesians 5:22–24 “22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”
Now, do I even need to say, how radically unpopular and opposed this is in the public square? By and large, we as a society have rejected that there is any fundamental difference between men and women. Even within the church it is either largely ignored or used to sanctify abusive treatment of women, which is, by the way, a complete misunderstanding of headship from scripture. In that same passage in Ephesians, Paul, through divine inspiration, calls men to a self-sacrificial, healthy and nourishing love towards their wives. He calls men to pattern and model their love of their spouse with Christ’s love for his body, the church. The principle of Headship is not about value, or equality, or worth in anyway. How do we know that? Because Paul says God is the head of Christ talking about the father-son relationship within the mystery of the triune Godhead. The Bible certainly does not treat Christ as inferior to the Father.
Now while we have to understand each use of ‘the head of’ as denoting something similar, we acknowledge that Paul does not fully flesh out the metaphor here for us. For no human relationship could ever fully reflect the divine one between God the Father and God the Son. So we have to let the rest of the passage help us understand what Paul is communicating. In the immediate context, Paul seems to have the idea of honor and dishonor. This is certainly consistent with Christ’s own words about his relationship to the Father. Jesus repeatedly taught that he had come to do the Father’s will, to carry out the Father’s works, and that he had been sent by the Father. He was perfectly in line with the Father’s will and through his life, work, and ministry sought to honor the Father. How did he honor the Father? By humbling himself. In his letter to the Philippians, we find Paul’s understanding of this honor through the way Christ submitted to the Father’s will.
Philippians 2:5–8 “5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
Even within the triune Godhead, where equality is present, there exists a willing embracing of order and honor. The Father sends the Son, the Son honors the Father, and the Spirit honors and declares the Son.
How does this relate to the marriage relationship?
Ephesians tells us that husbands are to love and cherish their wives in such a way that they are led towards holiness, and wives are to submit to their husbands leadership, embracing the God given design for human flourishing. Men, this has as many if not more implications for you than for our wives. Are you leading your wife towards holiness? Are you loving, cherishing, and supporting her in such a way that helps her grow in sanctification?
In the home, men honor Christ their head by modeling his servant-leadership towards their wives. women honor Christ through honoring their head by modeling his submissive obedience towards their husbands. In this we see most clearly, God’s purposes of conforming us into the image of His Son (complementary aspects of Christ)
So the question is, how does this pertain to our worship, what are the implications of this doctrine for our corporate gathering?
In verses 4 and 5 Paul addresses the primary elements of worship. Prayer and Prophesy. I’ve heard it described this way, Prayer is talking to God about man and Prophesy is talking to man about God. There is then in worship a vertical expression and a horizontal expression. I don’t think Paul is giving an exhaustive list. For instance can a man cover his head in the Corinthian church when he is speaking in tongues? Can a woman uncover when she is?
Rather, I think Paul is addressing everything that happens within the gathering of the church for the worship of God. By the way, Paul indicates that both men and women are involved in these expressions of worship in the Corinthian church. We will get into the Spiritual gift of prophecy in the coming portions of Corinthians, but I think it is important for us to note that prophecy does not always relate to foretelling the future or receiving revelation from God, although in the first century church, before the scriptures had been delivered, God certainly used men and women in this way. But it can also refer to simply speaking forth the truth.
Paul indicates that men and women have similar roles in worship, but the way they are expressed are different because of the headship principle in verse 3. Let’s go back to verse 4 and 5. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, If Paul’s primary emphasis in this section is the embracing the God given roles that are displayed in headship, which I think it is, then this is his primary application of that doctrine as it pertains to worship. Paul says, when a man participates in the gathered worship through things like praying or prophesying, and he has his head covered, he dishonors his head. I think Paul is using this word in two ways. His physical head is dishonored and his spiritual head, Christ, is dishonored. Paul says, when a woman participates in the gather worship through things like praying or prophesying, and she has her head uncovered, she dishonors her head, both her physical head and her spiritual head, her husband. He says that it is the same as if she were to shave her head.
since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful (same root word for dishonor) for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
Paul uses two words with similar meanings, hair short is what we would call getting your hair buzzed, while shaving involves a razor and the removal of all the hair. Either way, Paul says since you recognize that those things would be disgraceful and you don’t practice it, you should realize that you should also cover your head. This, by the way, is one of the strongest arguments of why a woman’s hair is not her covering, but we will deal with that more fully towards the end of Paul’s teaching.
That a woman should cover here head in worship with some form of cloth covering is the plainest reading of Paul’s argument and this is widely accepted as what Paul means by scholars on most sides of the debate. The central argument is not whether Paul is arguing for a covering, it seems that he is, but whether it is a principle all churches need to follow or a custom confined to 1st century.
So let’s look at the culture under our second division this morning…
II. The Problem of Culture
If we are going to dismiss it as cultural, we have to acknowledge that in the Corinthian church we know that they were not all from one homogenous culture. Corinth was destroyed and rebuilt as a Roman city, so it would have been heavily influenced by Roman culture. We know from Acts chapter 18 that there was a large population of Jews in the city as well as Greeks. So we have at least three cultures coming together in the city of Corinth and can safely assume that men and women from all three cultures had come to Christ and were gathering together in houses across Corinth to worship regularly.
So what do we know about each culture’s worship practices? It is well established that in Roman culture through writings, artwork, and archeological evidence that during this time that the Romans practiced head coverings in worship. When a man or woman would enter into a time of prayer, prophecy, or sacrifice, they would pull the extra cloth of their togas if they were men and stolas if they were women over the back of their head. In this case Paul would have been accepting the Roman culture that pertained to woman and rejecting the culture that pertained to men in worship. What about the greeks? Neither men or woman covered their head. In fact, the Romans called sacrificing without a covering, greek-style. So Paul would have been accepting the Greek culture that pertained to men and rejecting the culture that pertained to women in worship. What about the Jews? At this point, Jewish women wore head coverings in public most of the time, and it is unclear whether men were covering at this point, although it is possible that some had began the practice that would become the norm later in history. The problem for arguing that this was cultural, is that each culture seemed to have its own reason for head covering, and it is not easy to untangle the cultures that would have been present in Corinth and argue that Paul has one in mind over another. Furthermore, Paul, in all of his arguments, never makes a direct appeal to culture for the practice of head coverings. All of his cultural arguments center around hair length between the sexes and support his headship argument displayed through head covering practice.
I would argue that Paul is not addressing the cultural norms of the Roman, Greek, or Jewish culture, but rather encouraging that the church understand that it has its own culture, founded in the truth of God rather than cultural norms. If anything, Paul is arguing that they should not bring their cultural normative patterns of worship into the church if they do not conform to God’s design and truths, which is where he turns now. Let’s continue looking at our text under…
III. The Pattern of Creation
Let’s reread verses 7-12
1 Corinthians 11:7–12 (ESV)
7 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. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
Paul begins verse 7 with what men ought to do, and concludes in verse 10 what a wife, or woman, ought to do. He offers his support for his instruction by appealing to creation in the middle of these two oughts.
Why ought a man not to cover his head? Since he is the image and glory of God. Is Paul saying that woman are not the image of God? Absolutely not. We are told in the very beginning that God made man, both male and female in His image.
Genesis 1:27 (ESV) 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Paul in no way diminishes the truth that man and woman are uniquely made in God’s image as the crown of his creation. If you notice, Paul does not say that at all. He does not say man is the image and glory of God, and woman is the image and glory of man. He indicates no difference in image, but rather he highlights the difference in glory.
I don’t think we need to see more into this than what Paul’s point is. Paul is pointing to the difference in the created order of men and women. Man was not made from woman, but woman from man. In Genesis 2 we are told that God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Then he formed woman from Adam’s rib, leading him to cry out.
(ESV) “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives us a divinely inspired interpretive understanding of Genesis 2. Man made God and then from man, God made woman. The created order is shown to illustrate that while man is uniquely the glory of God, woman is both uniquely the glory of God and the glory of man. He presses on beyond the creation of woman to the purpose of it. Verse 9, neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. God created the man and gave him a responsibility, to tend the garden, then God created woman as the perfect help-meet that would partner with him in fulfilling all that God has created him to do. In this way, woman is uniquely the glory of both God and man, created from and for man, leading to that great declaration in Genesis 2:24. Genesis 2:24 (ESV) 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
So Paul argues, that is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. Why? Because it recognizes the God given distinctions of gender and gender roles in His created order. It says something about our acceptance and embracing of God’s design. Which actually helps us understand one of the vaguer and more difficult thoughts in 1 Corinthians 11. Because of the angels. Because Paul does not give a lot of information here, not even a modifier on what angels, this has led to lots of speculation, some worse than others. But, for the most part, your understanding of this particular sentence doesn’t largely impact the understanding of the passage as a whole The word angel in the greek means messenger, and although all of the other uses of this word in 1 Corinthians means angels in the sense we normally think of it, Paul does use it elsewhere to refer to human messengers.
One line of thought is Paul’s concern is for human messengers and visitors from other churches that see the rejection of God’s created order and are offended by it. Possible, but doubtful.
A second line of thought is Paul is concerned that uncovered hair will cause fallen angels to lust after woman. This is largely a ridiculous understanding and we won’t spend much time on it.
A third line of thought is Paul is bringing back up a thought from a previous portion of 1 Corinthians where he addressed lawsuits.
1 Corinthians 6:1–3 “1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!”
It is highly unlikely that Paul has waited 5 chapters to bring back up this idea, that seems to have nothing to do with head-coverings.
The fourth line of thought, and one that I personally hold to, is that the angels of God, the heavenly messengers and ministers of God look on in our worship. That is, there are Holy Angelic observers present in the worship of God. One of the places that seems to support this idea is, among others, Ephesians 3:10 “10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.”
When we worship according to God’s design and for his glory it says something about the manifold wisdom of God to all of creation, particularly, Paul says in Ephesians the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. Like I said, your understanding of this passage doesn’t hinge on your understanding of this statement. But I knew if I did not address it, there would be lots of questions.
Let’s continue with Paul’s argument. Man ought not cover his head in worship, but a wife, or woman, should, because the created order shows us distinct differences in roles and purposes between men and women. But, or nevertheless. If Paul left it there, there would be sinful men who twisted this idea that woman’s only purpose was to serve men and abuse would and has resulted from this. Paul wants to make sure that no one misunderstands his argument and applies as the superiority of men over women in a way that he is not teaching. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
From that first creation of Adam and Eve, God has designed that no man or woman can be independent of one another. Yes, woman was made from man, but now man is born of woman. And all things are from God. No one can say they do not need one another, God has made mankind mutual dependent on one another, both male and female in unique ways that honor God. I think this is important, because in some religious circles, woman are demeaned and treated as less than men. This does not come from a biblical view of headship, it does not come from a biblical understanding of creation, it comes from sin. For a woman to cover her head in worship indicates nothing about her value, her worth, or her dignity, it is simply an acknowledgement that God has in his infinite wisdom created men and women differently and assigned them different roles in his created order. Something I think the church must not only defend, but celebrate as the world descends into madness, completely blurring the line between male and female. Amen?
Let’s trace Paul’s presentation so far. God has established headship in marriage that reflects headship in the Godhead, that headship is either honored or dishonored in the way that we worship as men and women. Then Paul offers the created order as evidence of why we should embrace this teaching as Christians. Paul is now going to transition to the evidence that God has given us in nature. Let’s look at..
IV. The Profession of nature
Let’s pick up in verse 13.
1 Corinthians 11:13–15 (ESV)
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
The first things we need to deal with is the erroneous view that what Paul is saying here is that we get to decide for ourselves whether we should wear head coverings or not. Some people say, see, Paul says right here for us to judge for ourselves, so head-coverings are an area like meat offered to idols where if I am convicted I don’t eat, but if I am free, I can. If that is you, I want to look at two passages with you real quick.
Acts 4:19 “19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge,”
Do you think the disciples where saying that whether it is right to listen to men or God are equally viable and good options? Of course not. Judge for yourselves is an invitation to think deeply about what has been presented and see that it is evidently true.
Let me give you another example.
1 Corinthians 10:15 “15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.” What’s the context there? 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (ESV) 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
The judge for yourselves there is not a liberty to either view the cup and bread as participating in the blood and body of Christ or not, it is to take all the evidence Paul has presented and agree with him in the truth. Similarly, when Paul says judge for yourselves, it is not a license to go either way, but Paul’s way of calling us to look at the evidence and understand that he is teaching the truth. What does he want us to consider?
Does not nature itself teach you…? What does Paul mean by nature here? We have other writers from Paul’s day that use the same wording to describe, the natural order of the world without human intervention and what lessons can be learned that dictate moral activity. In other words, what can you observe in the natural order. The other way nature is sometimes used, is cultural. That is what is the normal accepted practices around you and what do they teach you. I lean towards the first. Corinthians, when you look around at the hair of men and women, what do you see?
For most of human history and in most places of the world, men have always had shorter hair than women. Additionally, in the natural course of life, men will often lose hair. We call it male pattern baldness. Furthermore, we now know biologically, there is a difference in the way men’s and women’s hair grows because of the affect of testosterone on the hair growth cycle. Listen, as someone who has had longer hair for much of my teenage years on into early adulthood, I can attest to as long as I could get my hair to grow was feet shorter than my moms hair growing up. It just wouldn’t grow as long as my sister’s or my mom’s. Women’s hair naturally and usually grows longer than men’s.
Paul says, that ought to teach us that if a man grows his hair out to appear feminine, it is a disgrace for him, but if a women grows her hair long, it is her glory. It is the epitome of the distinction between men and women. Now, before anyone gets mad, Paul does not define what is long and what is short. I think, by and large that is cultural. Paul is arguing that we ought to cultivate hairstyles that accentuate the God given differences in gender and not seek to erase them, which supports his teaching that women ought to have something on their head in worship that further embraces that God given distinction in a way that honors her head. What about the remainder of verse 15, For her hair is given to her for a covering?
This is often treated as a gotcha verse. ‘See Paul says hair is the covering so no further covering is necessary.’ But is that what he says? Let me give you the reasons I don’t think it is.
First, he uses a completely different word here than what he has used so far. Five times he use the greek word or some tense of the word kalyptō (kal-oop'-to), which is a verb to hide the head, and is usually interpreted as the use of a veil to cover the head. Here in 15 he uses the noun peribolaion (per-ib-ol'-ah-yon). If he intended for his audience to make the connection between a woman’s long hair and the veil, he could have very easily said, for her hair is given to her to cover herself, using the same greek word he has been all along. Now, the greek usage alone does completely rule out that Paul may mean that.
Second, if we simply take the idea of long hair being a covering and replace it in his previous arguments, they begin to make little sense.
1 Corinthians 11:5-6 (ESV) 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (hair not long) dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not (have her hair long) 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 (have her hair long).
It confuses the passage.
Third, why would Paul spend so much time arguing for cloth coverings in worship only to abandon it in his final analysis? It doesn’t make sense and to make it make sense, I think you have to do violence to the text in a way that is not consistent with how we interpret and understand scripture. Paul’s argument seems to be since God gave woman the ability to grow long hair that reflects her distinct role in creation then isn’t that even more reason to honor God by covering it in worship? Some of the scholars I respect take this view, but I disagree for the previous reasons.
Which brings us to our last division, which will be much shorter. Let’s look at…
V. The Proposition of Value
I just want to give you some closing thoughts and some possible applications as we close.
One, is this for us today? let’s look at Paul’s closing words before we wrap up.
1 Corinthians 11:16 (ESV)
16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
This again, is sometimes used to say, see this was a Corinthian issue. But again, that really doesn’t seem to be what Paul is saying. The most natural reading and one that respects the greek would be that they, the apostles, have no such practice, the practice being men praying or prophesying with covered heads and women praying or prophesying with uncovered heads, neither do the churches of God. This is what all of the churches practiced. I think we have good reason to believe this. Why?
One, we have evidence from the writing of Tertullian, some 200 years after Paul who ministered in Northern Africa, where he references the Corinthian church’s practice as head-coverings as an example of obedience to scripture. He says what the apostle Paul taught, his disciples affirm and keep to this day. What is interesting is that Tertullian is not arguing for women to wear head-coverings in worship, it is assumed that they do, everywhere and in every church, his argument is about whether all women should wear them or only married women. See they were wrestling with the right application, not the practice.
Two, for almost 1900 years, it seems this was the practice of the majority of churches, and still is in many places of the world. Only in the last 150 or so years has it been abandoned by North American churches.
If we are going to reject it, I think we need a stronger reason than, I think it was cultural. While we should never treat something in the bible that is customary or cultural as necessary, we should be equally careful not to treat something God commands as necessary as customary or cultural. Ultimately you are going to have to decide for yourself if you think this applies to you today or not, because ultimately, you will stand before Christ and give an account. Certainly, husbands and wives should take some time to look back over it and discuss it together.
Let’s ask three questions about the value of it as we close. What value did the practice have in the Corinthian church? Both men uncovering and women covering. According to what we have seen, it would reenforce God’s created order in worship, it would bring honor to Christ, and it would be a testament to all, even the angels that they were concerned with the glory of God being on display in worship.
What value might it have in the kingdom of God for us? I think it would follow then that it would reenforce our acceptance and embracing of God’s created order and headship and therefore would honor Christ and testify to all that we are concerned with the glory of God.
What value might it have in the culture around us? As the world moves to erase almost every distinction between man and woman, as it tries to redefine not only roles and distinctions but gender itself, what a testament the church could have by embracing something that so radically displays God’s purposes in creation?
Now, look up here. Don’t misunderstand me this morning. I am not standing here saying that every woman needs to wear a head covering, I am not even saying that any of you should. I am not even saying that I have gotten this 100% right.
The primary issue Paul is addressing is the principle of headship and God’s created order. If we agree there, we can differ on how best to express that principle in practice.
What I am saying is, as much as I can understand it, this is what God’s word says, and I am asking you to take it seriously, to study it, to pray about it, and then make a decision about what you should or shouldn’t do, not simply to brush it off because you don’t like it or someone convinced you that it says what it doesn’t say.
Furthermore, if we are going to honor everything Paul has told us before, then this issue must not become a focus issue in our church or a divisive issue, rather we must keep the main thing the main thing. Here’s where I want to land.
If you are convinced from scripture, convicted by the Spirit, and inclined to cover, you should be free to do that here in our worship in faith before God, if you are unconvinced by scripture, your conscious is unburdened by not covering, and you are inclined not to cover, you should be free to do that here, in faith before God. All of us are at different places in our journey of obeying Christ with our whole lives, and we are to bear with one another in love, seeking mutual edification through loving one another in truth. Amen?
Let us pray.
Comentarios