Listen in MP3 Play 32K MP3 audio format	Download MP3 Right-click and 'Save As...' -- Alternate Download (USA) -- Alternate Download (Europe) -- 64K High-Quality MP3 (~20Mb)
Download WMA Right-click and 'Save As...'

<<Previous Part -- [This sermon is number 27 in a series of 46] -- Next part>>

1 Corinthians - Part 27

"Questions And Considerations On Coverings"

Copyright 2003
by Pastor David Legge
All Rights Reserved

First Corinthians chapter 11, 1 Corinthians chapter 11, and let me say while you're turning to that portion of Scripture that, as I've already said, sadly this portion of Corinthians has become very controversial, particularly in local churches throughout our land here in Ulster. That's a pity, but nevertheless it's a reality, and I just want to say that although you've gathered in here tonight, I'm not looking whether you've a headcovering on or not - that doesn't really concern me in one sense - but I don't want you to be singled out if you haven't got a headcovering on. I want you to listen to what the Scriptures are teaching. We're not here to make you feel guilty, we're here to instruct you in the things of God and the word of God, so don't feel uncomfortable. I will try not to make you uncomfortable to any more extent than the word of God does that. Also, because it's controversial, you're bound to disagree with me on some points - I'm sure I'll be surprised if all of you agree with everything I'm going to say here this evening. I'll promise not to fall out with you, if you promise not to fall out with me. We want to learn, and my chief job before God is to interpret and expound the word of God as honestly before God as I can, and I will seek to do that tonight - and I hope you appreciate that in what I bring to you this evening.

We're taking up our reading at verse 2, because you'll remember that we saw last week that the translators really should have finished chapter 10 where our chapter 11 begins in verse 1. So verse 1 of chapter 11 really belongs to the end of chapter 10, because Paul has now finished with this section concerning meat sacrificed and offered to idols, and now he's beginning the conduct in local church, the worship conduct of the church.

Verse 2: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances", that would be better translated 'traditions', "as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely", is it fitting, "that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God".

The role of women has become a battleground in our society during the past decades of our history, and that has filtered into the church of Jesus Christ. Like many of the other attitudes and philosophies that are in the world, we find that what is taught in our halls of universities often filters down to the Joe Bloggs, the ordinary 5'8" man on the street without realising it - and often what comes out of the world filters inevitably into the church, and as one man put it: the church so often catches the world's diseases. When the world sneezes the church can catch the cold. Often what we find happening, especially in today's society and Western church is that the church is adopting many of the attitudes that are found in the world, we're starting to imbibe the spirit of the age - perhaps slowly, but surely. Because of that some leaders and even theological writers have gone so far as to teach principles that attempt to redefine the principles that God has revealed within the Scriptures. Some would go as far to say that not only do they attempt to redefine those principles, but even alter them to the extent where they make biblical truth accommodate the standards of contemporary thinking in our society within our world.

The problem with that is, to do that they often have to decide that Paul, Peter, and all the rest of the apostles and New Testament writers to some extent added their own opinions to God's revealed truth. Perhaps, they may conclude, sometimes they taught culturally determined customs rather than simply divinely revealed standards from God. In other words, they had their own taint and their own bias to the things that they write within the epistles. Because of that many modern day women feel that Paul the apostle was the greatest chauvinist that ever walked upon the face of God's earth. When that approach is taken it is left up to man to decide what part of Scripture is revealed and of God, or even what part of Scripture is to be adhered to as revealed from God, and that which is not revealed of God. What man has done within a lot of Western Christendom is, he has set himself up as judge and jury as to what is God's word, and what is the word of God that ought to be adhered to in our society today, and what can be relegated as cultural and customary to a New Testament age which is now past.

Let me say tonight that that is something that I am not going to do, and that is something that I urge you not to do as we come to the word of God this evening - and I hope that you've found this consistently through my exposition throughout the whole of this book so far, that although we've been looking at the contextual contemporary application of the truth of God, that all those principles that were applied to the Corinthians we have sought to apply them, jot and tittle, to our lives today. As we come to the word of God tonight, we are not called upon to evaluate whether the word of God is applicable to us today or not, but as Christians we have to come to the word of God absolutely convinced that this is God's revealed sovereign will for us - and we're not called upon to see whether it weighs up with our minds or not, that's what the Corinthians did in their false pride and wisdom, but we are called to obey what God has said.

Just as the role of women has become a battleground in our society over the last 10, 20, 30, 40, even 50 years; the Corinthians, it would seem from the reading of this chapter, faced a somewhat similar situation. Apparently, you remember that this epistle is written in reply to another letter where the Corinthians asked several questions of the apostle Paul, so obviously we have to assume that they had asked questions on the submission of women. Now in chapter 7, if you turn back with me, you remember that there were already questions that had been asked concerning women - chapter 7 and verse 1: 'Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman'. Now that was in regards to the sexual relationships, and marriage, and singleness, and divorce and all the rest. But we see that the question of the woman's role was also in the mind of the Corinthian believers, they wanted Paul to give them a word: 'What is the teaching revealed to you by God on submission of women?'.

It should be no big surprise to us that they were asking a question concerning that, because we just finished a section addressing meat that was offered to idols, and really the liberty that we have in Christ as Christians - and we saw how their liberty in Corinth had often veered over into licence. They were taking their freedom in Christ to a wrong extreme. It wouldn't be unbelievable to think that this happened in the realm of the women in the assembly as well. We will find out later that this is exactly what they were doing, they were throwing off their headcoverings and trying to behave in the same way as the men behaved. They felt that their liberty and freedom in Christ allowed them do as they pleased.

So they asked this question about this abuse of their liberty. Now the remarkable thing to me is, despite their immaturity that we've already seen in all of the problems that Paul has addressed in this epistle, where this was concerned they respected Paul's apostolic authority and divine wisdom. We see in verse 2 he commends them - he hasn't done much commending so far, but he commends them in this: 'Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances', or traditions, 'as I delivered them to you'. Let me say before we go on any further - I'm aware that people may be getting the tape of this and giving it to people who maybe don't believe in what we're going to hear tonight - can I ask you as we come to this study of the word of God: could that be said of you? That you've come here, and you've come to the Scriptures with an open mind to the extent that your mind is not already made up? Now I don't care what your position is, whether you believe in the headcovering or don't believe in the headcovering, but when you come to the Scriptures are you coming and imposing on the word of God some preconceived ideas of your own? I don't know what it may be, but usually it is the standard of the crowd - now the standard of the crowd here in the Iron Hall would be an adherence to the headcovering, but maybe where you come from it is a non-adherence to the headcovering. What I want you to do tonight is to forget about what your church or your assembly, just for the moment, study now; what they believe; what your preconceived ideas have been; or what the crowd believes that you have come from - and for the majority of people in Northern Ireland tonight, sadly, the majority teaches that the headcovering is no longer needed.

I don't think it's too harsh to say that many who count this teaching as irrelevant have never studied in-depth this portion - not all of them now, but many of them I have found, even if you ask them where the teaching on headship is found in the Scriptures, couldn't tell you what portion it is found in. Most of them are going with the crowd, what everybody else believes in. Even those who know where to find it haven't really studied in-depth. But on the other side of the coin, many who believe and practice the headcovering, I fear, also do not know the reasons why they adhere to it. My biggest fear in this assembly, and indeed in those that teach the headcovering, is that we can go to another extreme where we exalt the symbol over the spiritual reality of the headship and the lordship of Jesus Christ in our lives.

So remembering all these things, let's come to the Scriptures balanced, without any prejudiced, preconceived ideas, and not allowing anyone or any system, church, or tradition to push us into their mould - and just come to the word of God and ask: 'What saith the Scriptures?'. In doing this I want to address this subject in three ways. I want to first of all, as it says on your sheet, answer some questions along the way. Now we're not going through these one by one straightaway, but as we go through this study in the Scriptures verse by verse we will stop and pause, and when we come to the relevant Scriptures we will answer these questions - I hope - to your satisfaction. Then what I want to do is give the reasons that Paul gives, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the reasons why we ought to completely obey what he teaches with regard to headship and headcovering. Then I want to suggest some corrections for today, the age in which we live.

Now some of the common questions that you have, numbers 1 to 5 there under the first point of your bulletin, are these: is it not cultural? Is not trivial? Should women not pray and prophesy? Many people that believe in the headcovering don't allow their women to pray, and don't allow them to prophesy or preach - so you're inconsistent, many people say. Another question is: does Galatians 3 verse 28 that says there's no longer difference between male and female, bond and free, Jew and Greek - does that not negate and dissolve the distinctions of the sexes within God's eyes and within the church? Then later on as we get down this chapter 11, the question is often asked: well, does Paul not say - and he does say - that the hair is a covering? Is that not the covering that he is exhorting the sisters to put on when they go out to worship God? I want to answer all these as we go through the reasons to completely obey.

Now let's look at these reasons. Paul appeals to several of them, reasons why the women should cover their heads. The first one, I believe, is often overlooked, and it's found in verse 2. Most people just delve into verse 3 and look at the redemptive reasons, and the head of the man being Christ, and head of the woman being the man, and head of Christ being God - the governmental authority for this truth. But there is the apostolic reason, and it is vital that we do not overlook this. Verse 2: 'I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, as I delivered them to you'. Then he says, and this is a very telling phrase at the start of verse 3: 'But I would have you know'. Then in verse 16 he says: 'But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God'.

Now the tradition of the apostles within the Scriptures is what we now have as the New Testament, the epistles inspired of God, written through the apostles - and that is the apostle's doctrine that we adhere to as a New Testament church. When Paul says in verse 2, talking of these traditions, ordinances the AV says, verse 3 he says: 'I would have you to know' - that is asserting his apostolic authority, laying down what God has told him to teach in the church. Then in verse 16 he tells us that what he's teaching here in Corinth is no different than any of the other customs that are in the churches of God everywhere else, there's no difference. In fact he says: 'we have no such custom', and I believe that that is the apostolic 'we' that he often uses. So he's not just saying 'I as Paul the apostle', but he's using the collective term of all the apostles - so what Paul is laying down here in Corinth all of the apostles laid down within the churches of Jesus Christ across the whole world.

This is deeply important, that there is apostolic authority for this, there's an apostolic reason. No other assembly was allowing their sisters to come and worship without their headcovering, and it was in danger that in Corinth they were moving away from what was uniform practice in the church of Jesus Christ. Now from this we can answer the first question on your sheet: is it not Corinthian culture? Is this not custom that was only in Corinth? To answer this let me say one thing: the headcovering is not the only symbol that is in this passage. The head is used as a symbol in verse 3 physically and spiritually, but if you look further on in the later passage at the end of the chapter, as we'll look at it maybe next week, the Lord's Supper - there's another symbol of bread, and then there's a symbol of the cup; the bread symbolising the body of Christ, the cup the blood of the new covenant. We have to ask the question, in these symbols in the same chapter, are the symbol of bread and the symbol of the cup, are they Corinthian? Are they customary? Are they cultural? And the answer comes back very categorically: no they're not, they're Christian! So to make the equation that something that is symbolic equals cultural or customary is erroneous, and we find in our exposition of this chapter, with the hermeneutics that we must apply to all of the chapter - that is the method of interpretation - we must interpret the symbol in the same way as we interpret the other two symbols, the bread and the cup, and we interpret them literally and we practice them literally.

Let me just use, if you'll forgive me, a personal illustration for a moment. When I was going through the Bible College and University, I'd been exposed - having been brought up in this Assembly - for the first time to that teaching which espoused the cultural viewpoint. It wasn't taught in the College, but it was in much of the literature that was found in the library. I availed myself of the opportunity to see where many of these scholars were coming from, and I have to say that the cultural argument is a very very convincing one. It almost won me over! But the problem that I have, and the chief thing that convinced me that this cannot be seen as cultural, is the fact that the Lord's supper is dealt with in the same portion of Scripture where Paul is addressing the conduct of the church of Jesus Christ - and the Lord's Supper, essentially, is a cultural meal. What do I mean? The Lord Jesus was in the Upper Room when He instituted the Lord's Supper, and what was He doing? He wasn't having communion service, He was practising the Jewish Passover.

Now turn with me for a moment to chapter 10 verse 16, we didn't deal with this, we hadn't time, but in verse 16 in chapter 10 - remember, dealing with meat offered to idols - he says, speaking of the cup of the new covenant of the communion of the blood of Christ, as he says here: 'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?'. The cup of blessing, now that is lost on us because we are Gentile people, but the cup of blessing was the third cup of the Passover feast - and the Lord Jesus went to that cup specifically and used it as an illustration of the new covenant in His blood, but it was cultural! It was part of the Passover feast. Now we don't reason that - there's no argument, I don't think, I'm not aware of it within the church of Jesus Christ - 'Well, it doesn't really matter that you use bread and that you use wine, as long as the sentiment is there. As long as the spirit of the message is there and the principle is left intact, the symbol doesn't really matter' - we don't argue that with the Lord's Table. We don't argue with baptism, in fact many who have thrown off the headcovering would go to the stake to die for believer's baptism by immersion - because we believe that not only the sentiment but the symbol ordained of God is important. Just as the Lord's Table and baptism were symbols ordained by the Lord, Paul says in verse 2 that the headship/headcovering symbol is ordained of God by the tradition of apostolic authority.

This word 'ordinance' in the Authorised Version is a bit misleading, it could be translated better 'traditions' - 'paradosis' (sp?) is the Greek word - but even 'traditions' might lead us astray, because we would think 'Well, we don't follow tradition, we follow the word of God'. This word means 'tradition', that which is passed along by teaching. Now it's used negatively in the New Testament on occasions for that which is man-made tradition or man-made practices, but here it is used and often is used in the New Testament for divinely revealed teaching which God has put His divine seal of authority on. Let me show you one other passage where it's used, 2 Thessalonians 2 and verse 15: 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions', it's the same word 'paradosis', 'which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle'. Paul has now, by inspired apostolic teaching and authority, he has commended the Corinthian believers that they have held firmly, as he exhorted the Thessalonian believers, the traditions that have been taught to them by epistle and by his apostolic word.

You see, this is more than something cultural or something customary, and I hope that that answers the question 'Is it not Corinthian culture?', and we'll answer that a little bit later as we go through this study we'll get more reasons why that cannot be so. But we're finding ourselves now answering the second question as well: 'Is this not just trivial?'. Are you not making a mountain out of a molehill? Are you not really emphasising the non-necessities? Why don't you keep the main thing as the main thing, and all these secondary issues don't get too annoyed about? Well, we're asking the question really to you, if that's the question you're posing to the Scriptures: can anything that comprises God's revealed truth from heaven be called trivial? If it's in the word of God, can you just set it aside and say 'Well it doesn't really matter, it's only one portion of Scripture'? We see that that would not be in keeping with the apostle Paul's spirit because he commends the Corinthians for not thinking of this thing as trivial, but for adhering to his teaching.

It may be a small thing - just a headcovering - but the small things are not necessarily trivial things. The widow's mite in the eyes of the Lord was not a trivial thing. The word of God tells us to despise not the day of small things, and as our brother Gordon MacIlmeel said in his study on this on one occasion: Eve, when she took of that fruit, it may have been seen to be one of the most trivial things in the world just to pluck a bit of fruit off a tree, but it brought eternal damnation and death on the whole of human race for all of history. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because it's a small thing that we do that it is trivial. That is the apostolic reason why we do this: God has ordained it through the inspiration of the apostle Paul, not only in the writing here but in the tradition of the church at Corinth and all the other churches where there was no different tradition.

The second reason is the redemptive reason, verses 3 to 6, and it could also be maybe better called the governmental reason. It's interesting that, and some of you more deep men of God will be able to pick this one up, but it's interesting that brothers and sisters are not mentioned in this passage, but men and women are mentioned. Because the reasons for this institution is going far further back than Pentecost, or even further back than Moses, it's going right to the very beginning to the first man and woman. There's governmental dealings of God here, and that's why grace just can't wipe it all out because we're saved, we're one in Christ, neither male nor female - the governmental dealings of God are never ever wiped out because of grace. We don't cease to be men and women because we are saved, isn't that right? Distinctions are still there, but God is wanting to redeem all of humanity and bring His government into line with His grace by one day having a whole planet in sync with His divine and eternal will, and in that sense it's redemptive as we have been brought into that out of time as the Gentiles.

You would know that behind every institution and every stable society it's built on two pillars - the pillar of authority and the pillar of subjection to that authority. It is impossible to have a well-functioning community where those two principles are not observed and adhered to. Paul mentions three great relationships involving authority and subjection, and this is God's government. Verse 3: 'the head of every man is Christ' - now, it says the head of every man. I'm not espousing to the fatherhood of all men, but this is God's governmental dealings - and there's a day going to come when every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. God is bringing the whole of creation, eventually, into line with His governmental purpose. But of course it only really applies to us as believers, 'the head of every man is Christ; the head of the woman is the man' - that goes right back to creation. We'll see it later, that the man was not made for the woman, but the woman was made for the man, and the man was made first. 'And the head of Christ is God' - the head of Christ is God.

Now let me say before we go any further analysing this: whenever we talk about subjection we're not talking about inferiority. The man and the woman are equal in the sight of God as creatures, and equal in the sight of God in His redemptive salvatory plan, but there are roles, there are responsibilities - and there has to be in any society, any organisation, even your own work there is authority and there is subjection to that authority. It has to be the same in the home and in the assembly. It's seen in God, it says that God is the head of Christ, the head of Christ is God. Now often when men are preaching on this they right away launch in and say: 'This is the Godhead, this is the subjection and the subordinancy that there is in the Godhead', that in some way the Son has to obey the Father - that is incorrect. What is mentioned here, and never just glaze over the Scriptures as if different differentiations don't mean anything, it says that God is the head not of the Son - it doesn't say the Father is the head of the Son - it says God is the head of Christ. Christ is the name that was given, it just means in Hebrew 'Messiah', so you could read it that God is the head of Messiah - and Messiah in the book of Isaiah is the servant of Jehovah. It speaks of the earthly Christ in absolute submission and subjection to God. It doesn't mean that in some way the Son is inferior to the Father, or anything like that. It doesn't mean that the Word in eternity past before creation was inferior to God, it doesn't mean anything like that. But what it does tell us is that the Lord Jesus on the earth said: 'I do the will of Him that sent me'. He submitted to God's authority here on earth.

Now as another point this shows us again that this - what we have just read here that the head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God - it's nothing to do with local custom. People say, the custom argument is: 'Well, the women in Corinth wore a shawl. Paul's just telling them, it's like a wedding ring in our day, that if you're not going to usurp and buck God's authority don't throw your veil off. It's like throwing the wedding ring off today and saying to your husband, 'I'm no longer under your authority'' - that's the customary view, that these veils were on the women's heads, and they just all in Corinth decided to throw them off. Now if you went up to a man in Corinth, a Greek man who did pray to his gods without a headcovering on - just like the Christians are exhorted to - he wasn't doing it for the same reasons. The reasons given here are in the eternal plan of God, the Greek man would have been ignorant to those reasons. Incidentally, although Greek women may have ran around with headcoverings on every day of their lives, when they went into their temple to worship their false gods they didn't wear the veil - both of them went in unveiled, and the temple prostitutes had their heads shaved, nothing, not even a hair on their head. The unconverted Greek would never have guessed the significance of the Christian practice of headcovering unless he was told. So to say that it was just keeping with custom and adopting the custom that they had - the custom that they had wasn't the headship that God teaches in the word of God, in fact it was pagan idolatry! Even ancient Jews, both male and female covered their heads when they went into the synagogue. That means that the only group that had a man with his head uncovered and a woman with her head covered, worshipping God, the only group were the Christians! It couldn't have been customary! It was exclusively Christian. Even if you go into the synagogue in Belfast today, there will be men will have their heads covered out of reverence.

But let me tell you the significance, for the Gentile saved by grace, of not covering his head. The Jew covers his head, but in Paul's day for a person to uncover their head in the eyes of God, Paul is saying that it meant that your head was Christ, your head was Messiah. To the Jew with the head covered, to uncover the head was to testify that Messiah had come, that your head was Messiah - and for a Gentile to testify that Messiah was yours was an abomination! I hope you're seeing the connection here: that is why no Christian man would knowingly put a covering on his head as he went in to worship God. It may have been that Paul is addressing, I mean the implication is that if he's telling the women to put the head covering on, that some of the men may have been trying to put it on as well - because he tells them: 'Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head'. It may well be, and I believe there was a large contingent of Jews in Corinth, that those Jewish men were still having their heads covered - and Paul is saying: 'That's done away in the law, your head is Christ, show Christ off!'.

If you cover your head it's a dishonour, and in verse 5, women, if you pray or prophesy with your head uncovered you dishonour your head which is the man, and you ought to be like one that is shaven - it's a shame to be shaven. Paul is saying if you throw your headcovering off, you might as well be shaven, as a woman that has rebelled in society - because what you're saying by throwing your headcovering off is that you reject the role that God has given to you. That is a God-given identifier to the world and to all around, to the angels even later on, that you're under His authority - and we know from history that only a prostitute or an extreme feminist would have shaved her head. Now the apostle is not commanding them to go down to the barbers and get their heads shaved if they don't agree with the headcovering, but what he's saying is that this requires moral consistency - this isn't about custom, this is about morals and God's government. Go the whole way! If you're not going to wear the headcovering and be under subjection, go the whole way and open up your rebellion to all of society!

Watchman Nee said: 'This is disobedience, women today neither cover their head nor, if they don't want to cover their head, go and get their heads shaved'. For men to be covered it's a disgrace, for women to be uncovered, for it was for a man to be like a woman, and a woman to be like the man to do that, Paul says. Not in custom, the custom was different, but in the eyes of God! I think that this could be what is happening today in the church - even in churches that adhere to the headcovering - that the men are becoming more like women, and the women are becoming more like men - and I'm not talking about dress, I'm talking about the role in the assembly. It may account for the silence at times around the Lord's Table, or at the prayer meeting - and if we let the women speak, perhaps we would hear more speaking, that doesn't make it right but perhaps we're seeing today a similar situation where the roles are being reversed.

Verse 3, praying or prophesying, is sometimes used to prove that Paul acknowledged the right of ladies teaching and preaching and leading the church in worship. That comes to the third question that you have: 'Should women not then pray and prophesy?'. This is one that's often overlooked because it's not really in keeping with the whole theme, but people often ask me this question - I'm taking this opportunity to answer it, the only pity is some of them that ask me all the time aren't here, but nevertheless maybe they'll get the tape. It says that 'every woman that prayeth or prophesieth', in verse 5, dishonoureth her head if it is not covered. Now let me say this: in mentioning this, praying and prophesying, it doesn't mean that Paul necessarily agrees with the women praying or preaching in the assembly. You might say: 'Well, that's stupid, sure why would he mention it he didn't agree with it?'. Well that's not the case, because the women in Corinth, remember, obviously are presuming that because they're free in Christ, because they were equal with the men in the eyes of God by grace, that they could act in the same way as the men. 'The men spoke in the gathering, so why can't I? The men pray, they prophesy, why shouldn't the women? The men appear uncovered, so why can't we as women do that?'.

Now watch this: Paul answers the first question about praying and prophesying that the women were doing in this epistle, and he tells them that they ought not to do it. Chapter 14, turn with me, Paul tends to deal with one thing at a time, and he's coming later to gifts and the exercise of those gifts. He says in verse 34 of chapter 14: 'Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law'. He dealt with the question of praying and prophesying of women later on in the epistle, and he deals with the second question about doing it with her heads uncovered because that's the theme of what he's addressing now in chapter 11 where we are. Each inquiry is answered in the proper place, and he adopted - if you remember - the same approach when he was looking at the meat offered to idols. Look back at chapter 8 verse 10, maybe you were a wee bit confused as we went through this - because it felt as if, perhaps, Paul was contradicting himself. In verse 10 he says: 'For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols'. What he's saying? 'Look, if somebody sees you - you know the way you go up there and eat in the idol's temple - and somebody sees you doing that and they have a weak conscience' - does that mean that he legislating going up to eat in an idol's temple? Does it? It clearly doesn't, because as you go to chapter 10 and verses 20 to 22 that we looked at last week, he says: 'I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils'. Don't go to the temple and eat! But if you just read chapter 8 you'd think he was espousing to it, but he wasn't - he wasn't dealing with that at that moment. In chapter 11 and verse 5 he's not dealing with women praying and prophesying, but when he comes to deal with it he prohibits it.

Hodge said, and said well: 'It was Paul's manner to attend to one thing at a time. He is here speaking of the propriety of women speaking in public unveiled, and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public in itself - when that subject comes up he expresses his judgment in the clearest terms'. John Calvin said: 'In him disapproving of the one, he does not approve the other'. And all you have to do is turn to 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12 to see that the women were to keep silence, and certainly not teach or usurp authority over the male in the assembly. Today the church of Jesus Christ is disregarding entirely the teaching of God's word, because it's not fashionable! To such an extent that the other Sunday in a Baptist church in this country there was a 'Women's Day' and the women did everything!

The redemptive reasons are very clear, then there's the creative reasons, verses 7 to 10. Verse 7 teaches the subordination of the woman to the man, and what does he go back to? Does he go back to culture? Now, he goes back to creation - the man was created before the woman. That should lay to rest forever the idea that this teaching about women's covering was culturally suitable in his day and isn't applicable today. It means the man was placed on earth as God's representative, as God's Vice Regent to exercise dominion over it. Man's uncovered head testifies that God put him in that responsibility, it's a silent witness to that fact. A woman was never given a place of headship in society, it was given to the man! The man was to be the glory of God, and these verses tell us that the woman was to be the glory of the man. That's why God said, as he alludes to in verses 8 and 9, in Genesis: 'It is not good for a man to be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'.

Now don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. One scholar put it like this: 'Helper or helpmeet is the first descriptive term in the Bible used for a woman, and it doesn't come from the Hebrew word or root 'doormat''. That's not what it means, it's not inferiority, it's submission and subjection. It's a different order of things than this world knows, to such an extent that in verse 10 Paul says that this headcovering is a sign of authority: 'For this cause ought the woman to have', authority is the word, 'on her head because of the angels'. Could I put it like this, and this may astound much of the church of Jesus Christ, and maybe you: it is a privilege to have your head covered in the presence of Almighty God - a privilege!

Now we come to the fourth question, because I think it eats into where we've got to. These distinctions in creation, man and woman, Galatians 3:28 we quoted already - neither male nor female - is it not set aside by grace? It's not set aside. Although Paul says you're all one in Christ, that refers to our standing in grace, but we're talking here not about grace but about God's governmental dealings with men and also the practice in the church. Galatians 3 hasn't got anything to do with that! Verses 11 and 12 counterbalances it so that we realise, and it's a bit obscure in the Authorised Version, but the man is not independent of the woman - verse 8: 'For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head...Nevertheless neither is the man without', he's not independent of, 'the woman,  neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man given birth from the woman through all time; but all things of God'. There is an equality in this, but there is also a subordination.

Then there's the angelic reasons, we've touched on them in verse 10: she's to have authority on her head because of the angels, and that means that the angels pay attention to what's going on in the local assembly. Now listen, I'm going to finish this tonight, so bear with me. That means that angels are looking down on this assembly at this moment, angels are observing. Now let me give you a number of reasons, and if you've a pen jot these down, why the angels are looking at the assembly. One: they too cover themselves in the presence of God. Isaiah 6, that famous passage says: 'In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple'. He talked about the Cherubim and Seraphim worshipping God, and they covered their face with two wings, they covered their feet with two wings, and with two wings they did fly. They covered themselves in the presence of God.

Secondly, they too are engaged in carrying out the will of God as the church of God is today. They can learn how to do that when they see subjection within the assembly. Thirdly, they too are guardians of the divine order in the sphere of their administration. We are guardians down here in the worldly realm, but they are guardians in the heavenly spiritual realm. They can learn from how we administer order in the church. Fourthly, they were present at creation and they observed the divine order of the sexes. They saw that God made them male and female and He did not confuse them, and therefore they see now that it ought not to be confused in the church. Fifthly, they're learning the manifold wisdom of God as Ephesians says in chapter 3 verse 10 - they're learning the wonderful grace of God in the church, and so they're interested in how it is manifested in our lives. Sixthly and probably most importantly, they're representative, these angels, of the elect angels that kept their place of subordination. Do you remember Isaiah 14, the rebellion that there was in heaven, and one-third of the angels of heaven were cast down - Jesus saw it - as lightning from heaven, and those angels became fallen because they would not keep their heads covered before God! Subjection! They wanted to be like God! So the elect angels can look down and see that what the devil failed to do in heaven we are succeeding to do on earth in the church of Jesus Christ through headship.

The fifth reason is the natural reason, verses 13 to 16, and he simply says is it not meet, is it not fitting, is it not obvious, is it not common sense that there is a difference between a man and a woman? Then in verses 14 and 15, does nature not tell you that? Men really don't have too long hair, women normally should have long hair is what Paul is saying - really what he is saying is there should be a distinction when you look at someone from behind that you can tell whether they're a man or a woman by the length of their hair. Is it not natural that this is so as God has ordained? Then he finally comes to the custom, what was the customs of the church, verse 16, that there was no other custom and we ought not to be contentious.

Verse 13, just look at it, I'll outline it like this for you: he indicates the demand of the presence of God. Judge for yourselves: is it fitting that you should come as a lady whose head represents the man, should man's glory be seen in the presence of God? There's a symbolism here: the man's head represents Christ, that's why it shouldn't be covered - Christ should be seen! The woman's head represents man, and her head should be covered, man glory should not be seen. Is it fitting that when you come into the presence of God, sisters, that man's glory should be shown in the presence of God? God says He will not have his glory to be seen, He will not share it with another.

Then in verses 14 and 15 the distinctiveness of the provision of hair. Hair tells us, a symbol of nature, that this is the way it should be. Verse 16, the consistency of the practice of the churches. Now here's the final question: is hair not the covering? Verse 15, now this is a real confusion, and it's made worse by some of the translations. Verse 15: 'But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering'. Well, there are you have it - you've just wasted 45 minutes, and you haven't gone to the end of the chapter, and there you have it David, the hair is the covering! In the NIV, and I'm not saying that every part of this translation is incorrect, it has some good translations in that version, but the footnote is extremely misleading with regards to this. It makes a nonsense out of the whole passage, because if you look back at verse 6 Paul said: 'For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn'. So if the woman has no hair, she should shave the hair off - does that make sense? If the hair is the covering, and Paul's saying in verse 6, if she is not covered - that is, if she has no hair - she ought to be shaven? The implication for the man is - and this is good for some of you! - that only bald men can get in to worship the Lord - no Amen's? It seems ridiculous, doesn't it?

My friends, the actual argument of verse 15 is that there is a real analogy in the physical realm, between nature and the spiritual significance of this teaching. Even nature in the unbelieving world tells us that this is the way it should be, and what Paul is exhorting the sisters to do, God has put this sign on you with the hair and the glory He has given you, now you put that sign on yourself as you come into the presence of God as a symbol of your subjection to the man's authority and the authority of God.

Well, let's close off, and give me five or ten minutes - we'll forget about our last hymn - but this is so important. After everything that I have said to you there are some, I believe, corrections to consider today - and those corrections have to be made. Not that we throw out the headcovering, we will never do that - I hope! But I hope also that we will not go into a camp of extremism, to such an extent that we cannot correct some misconceptions and errors that we have in our assumptions.

The first time there needs to be corrections here is if the symbol is without the submission. If someone, sister, is wearing her headcovering, and she is not submissive - one, to her husband; and secondly and most importantly to God Himself - can I tell you this categorically: the symbol is worthless, worthless! You might say: 'Oh, you can't say that!'. I only can't say if you've elevated the headcovering above the Lord's Table, because Paul said later on in this passage that if you drink and eat of the Lord's Table unworthily, we eat and drink damnation to ourselves - what does that mean if it doesn't mean worthless? It's worthless to us! The symbol is never to be elevated over the spirit of the teaching within it, and if the spirit of the teaching is missing, if the submission is missing from your life to God or to your husband, it's like eating the table and eating and drinking damnation to yourself - and it can even go to an extent where the actual headcovering becomes a veil for your own rebellion in your life! If you have the outward sign and the inward life is not right, what else is it but a mask?

Let me say that the headcovering easily lends itself to hypocrisy, to ostentation, and to pride. Immediately you're going to think: 'Oh, where are you going now?'. Listen: prayer, fasting and alms in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, easily lends itself to ostentation. There's a fine line between doing it for God and doing it for yourself, and this is no different. How do you put that head covering on? It easy to police, isn't it? It easy to see whether you've got it there, and everybody thinks everything is rosy in the garden - but what is in your heart is more important! If we ever get to the stage where the symbol comes superior to the spirit, it is legalism! We're not throwing it out - I'll never do that, and I've fought for it - but let us never exalt the symbol above the spirit and the sentiment.

What comes out of this, wives, is the question: are you strong on the headcovering, but you're weak on submission? It's like the woman with the wardrobe full of 100 pound hats for Ascot, and the wee husband is in the corner skinny, not fed, henpecked, hammered into the ground into submission - that's nonsense, isn't it? Some of you men that are so strong on the headcovering, what about the headship of Christ in your life? If the symbol is without the submission there needs to be correction, secondly if the glory of the hat has replaced the glory of the hair there needs to be correction. The head had to be covered also, of the lady, because her glory was her hair; and when she came into the presence of God her glory should not be shown, the glory of the man which was her head should not be shown, but God's glory alone which is represented by the head of the man. What I think is happening in our circles of late, and I know I'll get shot down by many for saying this but I don't care, the glory of the hat has replaced the glory of the hair - 'I can't show off my braid, so I'll show off my ribbon'.

I hate the use of the word 'hat' with regards to the headcovering, because it's got nothing to do with hats but it's got everything to do with headship. If you are putting on a ten gallon hat on a Sunday morning so that people notice it, it's like playing hide and seek in a greenhouse! 'I'm covering over my hair, but I'm covering over with maybe a more superior glory'. A preacher friend of mine, I was talking to him this week about what I was preaching on tonight, and he said that on one occasion he was away on holiday, and he was so far away in a remote place that the only place he could go was a wee Hall - it was an extremely 'tight' Hall. He came to the door with this lady, and the lady had a scarf round her head, so much so that only her face was showing - there wasn't one hair on her head that was showing - and the man at the door said: 'You can't get in here without a hat'! Now friends, if we have got to that stage we need to be very careful, because that is not biblical. The word for 'headcovering' here is 'to hang down', it literally means 'a veil' - and I tell you, if I could exchange all your hats for veils overnight I'd do it, because I believe we would restore some of the real spiritual meaning behind headcovering. What is it? Humility, modesty, and selfless worship.

Thirdly: if it in anyway restricts us from rescuing the lost. Please do not apply assembly principles to the world or to lost souls. Don't ever use church principles as restrictions to the gospel. We wouldn't dream of saying to someone: 'You have to be baptised before you're saved', would we? Friends, this is no different. Now don't misunderstand what I'm saying: I believe that the church at large, for the last of its modern history, has made what we have called the Gospel meeting into an assembly meeting - and I'm quite happy with that, I've no problem, and I therefore require from the Scriptures, if it's an assembly meeting, that the headcovering is adhered to. But in the Scriptures there is nothing known with regards to evangelism that when the church came together it was for the apostles doctrine, fellowship, the Breaking of Bread and prayer and when we meet together like that - but whenever we're going out to win the lost, what do we find even in this portion? They went out to the environment where the lost were, and they, in their liberty, brought themselves to the level of the lost without sin in order that they might win some.

Could it be that we somehow have strayed into error by trying to bring them into our territory and conforming them to our standards before the life of God can change them? Paul said in chapter 10 and 32, look at it: 'Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things'. We're not talking about church practice here, we're talking about winning the lost. The headcovering is more to do with the attitude you wear than the garment you've got on, and the Lord does look at the heart before He looks at the head - but the angels and men and the church, and God, is looking to the head as well - but if you practise the symbol without the submissiveness to the Lord or your husband, do you even know why you practise it? It's all got to do with the lordship of Jesus Christ!

On one occasion somebody came to me and said: 'Why do I have to wear this covering?'. The question I answered with was: 'If the Lord Jesus asked you to stand on your head every Sunday morning for half an hour for the rest of your life, would you not do it?'. Do you remember at the marriage feast at Cana what Jesus' mother said to the servants? 'Whatsoever He saith to thee, do it'. That's submission.

Let's bow our heads: Our Father, help us to always tread the biblical line of obedience, obeying Thy word with every jot and tittle - God help us never ever, our Father, to lose the spirit of it all. Let us not become 'head Christians' and lose the heart, and Lord let us be submissive to Christ's lordship at all times, help our wives to be submissive to their husbands, children submissive to their parents, servants submissive to their masters, citizens submissive to the government, that all the glory should be shown. Did we not hear at the end of last week's study: whatever you do, eat or drink, do all to the glory of God? Lord, help us to live, worship and exist for Thy glory, Amen.

Don't miss Part 28 of '1 Corinthians': "Celebrating The Supper Of The Lord"

------------------------
Transcribed by:
Andrew Watkins
Preach The Word.
May 2003
www.preachtheword.com

This sermon was delivered at The Iron Hall Assembly in Belfast, Northern Ireland, by Pastor David Legge. It was transcribed from the twenty-seventh tape in his 1 Corinthians series, titled "Questions And Considerations On Coverings" - Transcribed by Andrew Watkins, Preach The Word.

All material by David Legge is copyrighted. However, these materials may be freely copied and distributed unaltered for the purpose of study and teaching, so long as they are made available to others free of charge, and this copyright is included. This does not include hosting or broadcasting the materials on another website, however linking to the resources on preachtheword.com is permitted. These materials may not, in any manner, be sold or used to solicit 'donations' from others, nor may they be included in anything you intend to copyright, sell, or offer for a fee. This copyright is exercised to keep these materials freely available to all. Any exceptions to these conditions must be explicitly approved by Preach The Word.