Heads and Head-Coverings

So this is one of those passages that terrify pastors and make them wish they weren't in the Bible so that they don't have to preach it and then make all their congregation flee the church.

But that's the benefit of doing expository preaching where we just go through a book is that it forces us to submit to God's Word and not the other way around.

And we have to preach because it's God's Word and it teaches us.

And let me start by telling you about Carol Gilligan.

She is a psychologist and ethicist and she was a pioneer in the feminist movement.

She teaches full-time at New York University now and part-time at University of Cambridge, a busy woman.

But for 35 years, she was a professor at our very own Harvard University.

Many of you studied there or have studied there.

And while teaching there, she wrote a groundbreaking book called In a Different Voice, Psychological Theory in Women's Development.

Unlike her strident feminist contemporaries who argued that gender differences are superficial and that they are social constructs that need to be erased,

Gilligan pressionally argued that gender differences are irreducible.

And she criticized Lauren Kohlberg, her colleague at Harvard, who argued that women do not reach the highest levels of moral reasoning as men do.

And she disputed his claim and pointed out the fact that he reached his conclusion only because he was favoring the exact kind of moral reasoning that privileged males.

For example, he focused on men's moral reasoning centers around abstract principles of rights and rules.

But women's moral reasoning generally centers around contextual responsibilities and relationships.

Gilligan also argued that while men associate maturity with independence, which has an initiatory outward orientation,

that women associate maturity with interdependence, which has a receptive inward orientation.

So some people called Gilligan's brand of feminism the difference feminism,

which calls for the equal recognition of women in their distinctively feminine attributes.

Though many feminists today still try to minimize gender distinction,

it's Gilligan's voice that has proven to be more oppression and enduring.

And there is a reason for this.

There's a reason why, despite loud protests to the contrary,

most people intuitively believe that men and women are very different.

There's a reason why men and women find each other utterly incomprehensible,

yet strangely irresistible.

And that's because God created one and the same humanity, but with two different genders.

That's because God created men and women to be equal in dignity,

but different and distinct in their duties.

Men and women are so alike, yet so different,

because they are intended to reflect the diversity and unity within the triune God himself.

God designed men and women, to put it shortly,

to complement each other, to complete each other.

1 Corinthians 11, 2-16 speaks of this reality,

and it teaches us this, this is the main point,

that Christians ought to worship in a way that displays the complementarian relationship between men and women.

And Paul proves this by appealing to three different things.

First, he appeals to culture in verses 2-6.

Second, he appeals to creation in verses 7-12.

And third, he appeals to consciousness in verses 13-16.

In verses 2-6, Paul first argues on the basis of culture that Christians ought to worship

in a manner that honors the complementarian relationship between men and women.

Having just concluded his previous passage by telling the Corinthians to imitate him,

to be imitators of me as I am of Christ,

and knowing that he is about to launch into another series of corrections in chapters 11-14 of the Corinthians' misbehavior,

he kind of encourages them and stops to win their goodwill here in verse 2.

He says,

So they are remembering and imitating Paul in some things,

and they are maintaining at least some of the traditions that Paul delivered to them.

So he's acknowledging this,

but he must quickly turn to the way in which Corinthians have been deviating from the traditions that he delivered to them.

So he says in verse 3,

Note that Paul's not trying to prove this point.

Rather, he takes it for granted that there are three levels of heads.

The head of a man is Christ,

the head of a woman is her husband,

and the head of Christ is God.

So Paul could have put this in a logical ascending order.

For example, he could have said,

The head of woman is her man,

and the head of man is Christ,

and the head of Christ is God.

That ordering would have made more sense to us,

but Paul opts for instead a chiastic ordering.

So this is literally a device that ancient writers used,

where they have two similar elements on the outside,

and they have a middle element that's different,

and that sandwich structure is intended to bring attention to what's in the middle.

Like a sandwich, right?

What's the thing you need to focus on in a sandwich?

It's not the bread, it's the meat, right?

So that's the idea.

So it's a sandwich structure.

So for Paul here, the central issue is not that God the Father is the head of Christ,

or that Christ is the head of man,

but the main concern here is that of the husband's headship over his wife.

And so he says, that's why he puts this in the middle to bring it to our attention.

But if that's Paul's main concern,

that what does Paul mean that the head of a wife is her husband?

What does Paul mean by head?

In the English, we use the word head metaphorically to suggest authority and source.

First, for example, when the newspaper says that the heads of state gather for a summit,

it means that the leaders of the various states and governments met together.

So the word head, in this sense, means those in positions of authority.

And this meaning is confirmed by the actual appearance of the word authority in verse 10,

which says, that is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.

Just as the literal physical head directs the body and is in turn supported by the body,

the metaphorical head functions similarly with authority and responsibility

and is in turn supported and helped by the metaphorical body.

Second, we use the word head to mean source.

So for example, when we say head of the river, we mean the source of the river,

the point from which the rest of the river flows.

This meaning is confirmed by verse 8, which says,

for man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

So the word head combines the concept of both authority and source.

Now at this point, of course, people might balk and say,

why can't women be heads?

Why are men heads?

Because women are not in fear to men in any way.

And the fact that women are not in fear to men is, I think,

and I would argue is an empirically verifiable and indisputable fact.

But that's why it is significant that scripture roots the man's headship

and the woman's helpership in the context of the Trinitarian relationship within the Godhead.

Paul surrounds the statement that the head of a wife is her husband with these statements.

The head of every man is Christ and the head of Christ is God.

Paul said something very similar earlier in 1 Corinthians 3, verse 23.

1 Corinthians 3:23

He said, you are Christ's and Christ is God's.

And by God, Paul means God the Father.

And by this, of course, Paul doesn't mean, you know,

that Christ is not God and that only God the Father is God.

Paul clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity,

which says that there is one God but three persons within that one deity.

And so in 1 Corinthians 12, 4-6, he teaches the Trinity clearly.

He says, now there are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit.

And there are varieties of service but the same Lord.

And there are varieties of activities but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

So Paul identifies the three persons of the Trinity as the Spirit and the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father.

And they all belong to the one Godhead, which is what accounts for the unity and diversity within the gifts of the church.

So while there is equality and oneness in the divine essence,

there is distinction and diversity and order in their employment.

Even though the three persons of the Trinity share the same dignity,

they have different duties.

For instance, the Father sends the Son and the Son sends the Holy Spirit

and the Spirit glorifies the Son and the Son glorifies the Father.

The Father is the originator, the Son is the mediator,

and the Spirit is the effector, the fulfiller.

The Father is the giver, the Son is the deliverer,

and the Spirit is the gift.

The persons of the Trinity are inseparable yet distinguishable.

They are distinct yet the same, same Godhead.

This is crucial to understand because unless we understand this relationship within the triune Godhead,

we cannot make sense of the relationship between man and woman.

Because analogically, in a similar way as within the Trinity itself,

men and women are inseparable yet distinguishable.

They share the same humanity but have different genders.

They have the same essence, the humanity, but different employment.

They have the same dignity but have different duties.

Same worth, but different works to do in God's kingdom.

So the fact that God the Father is the head of Christ

does not mean that Christ is in any sense less God than the Father.

And I will return to this verse later,

but for now it's sufficient to recognize that this serves as the theological foundation

for Paul's following arguments.

So having established this, Paul appeals to culture

to argue that Christians opt to worship in a way

that displays the complementarian relationship between man and woman.

And there's a particular manner in which the Corinthian church was worshiping that concerned Paul,

and he makes that explicit in verses 4 to 5.

Read it with me.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

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.

So first, Paul addresses the man.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.

Now the context in view is that of public worship.

Chapters 11 to 14 all deal with issues that surround the corporate worship of the church.

And we know that Paul has public worship context in mind

because he mentions prophecy, right?

Because we know from 1 Corinthians 14.3

that one who prophesies speaks for people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.

So even though prayer can be private, it can be directed privately to God,

prophecy is by its very nature oriented toward others.

It's public gift.

For that reason, because Paul specifies praying and prophesying,

we can know that he's speaking of, thinking of the corporate worship context.

And in the Greek, it says literally for the man,

every man who prays or prophesies with down from the head dishonors his head.

What does down from the head mean?

And I think the translation gets it right here

because that exact expression is used in Esther 6.12

to say that Haman, after being shamed by the king,

purred to his house mourning and with down from the head.

And that down from the head, that Greek expression translates the Hebrew word that means to cover one's head.

And all 59 of the English translations that I had access to translates this phrase as referring to some kind of external covering over the head.

And I think that's the most likely interpretation.

And Paul is saying that if a man were to cover his head while prophesying or praying,

this would bring dishonor to his head.

But which head exactly will he dishonor?

Because that's not exactly clear, right?

Would the man dishonor his own head?

Or will he dishonor Christ, who is his head?

According to verse 3.

On the one hand, it makes sense that he will dishonor his own head

because in verse 14, Paul uses the illustration of hair to argue that

just as it is disgraceful for a man to wear long hair,

since his head is not supposed to be covered,

so it is dishonorable for him to wear a head covering.

There he says,

If a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him.

And the word disgrace is a synonym of the word dishonor that's used in verse 4.

So in verse 14, the man is clearly disgracing himself,

so it makes sense to think that by wearing a covering

during this context of praying and prophesying in corporate worship,

the man will dishonor his own head.

But on the other hand, it also makes sense,

given the immediately preceding context in verse 3,

which tells us explicitly that the head of every man is Christ.

So it seems likely that every man who prophesies or prays with his head covered

dishonors his metaphorical head, that he dishonors Christ.

And in the end, I don't think these two options are mutually exclusive.

I think both of them are intended here.

There is contextual warrant for both.

The man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors both his own head

and Christ, who is his head.

Men were forbidden from covering their heads in public when they were praying and prophesying

because this was considered irreverent behavior that dishonored Christ,

similar to wearing a baseball cap, you know, in a wedding

or during the national anthem.

With all that said, even though Paul mentions this for the sake of fairness and completeness,

this doesn't seem to be the main issue that he's getting at in the context of the Corinthian church.

Because if you look at verse 10, the command to cover the head is directed specifically

toward the women of the church.

And the emphasis of this passage falls on the woman's conduct.

And I think the reason for that is because the men weren't necessarily doing this.

They weren't covering their heads, but the women were uncovering their heads.

And so I think Paul is addressing a specific issue.

So in a similar way, in chapter 6, Paul specifically addressed men

because they were the ones committing sexual immorality by going to prostitutes.

So here he's addressing a particular issue that pertains to women.

Even though it does pertain to men, it just wasn't an issue for them

because they weren't trying to cover their heads during worship.

So Paul continues in verse 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.

The ESV, if you have the ESV translation, which is the one we're using,

it translates this as every wife.

But there's a footnote next to the word wife if you check it.

And if you go down to the footnote to check it,

it tells you that the wife could also mean woman

because the Greek word for wife is exactly the same as the Greek word for woman.

And I think NIV translates this as every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.

I think that's more likely the intended meaning, the translation,

as the following verses make clear,

because there's a general principle here that applies to all women,

not just to married women.

And of course, only a married woman could dishonor her husband, who is her head.

So it makes sense to understand particular parts of this passage referring to wives specifically.

But there is a general principle by which women who do not do this would dishonor herself

and dishonor Christ, who is her bridegroom and lord.

And we'll see that more clearly as we go.

And a woman, interestingly enough, in contrast to a man,

brings dishonor to her head not by covering her head like the man,

but by uncovering her head, the exact opposite of a man.

And what exactly is meant by an uncovered head is somewhat disputed,

mainly because, as archaeologists and historians have found out,

there are a lot of images and statues of women from Paul's time.

And some of them depict women as wearing veils or some kind of head coverings,

but a lot of them also depict them as not wearing anything on their heads,

just with their heads tied up over their head.

And so because of that, people argue that Paul cannot possibly be talking about covering a woman's head,

and he must be talking about loosed hair,

because there was stigma against having loosed hair,

because it was associated with adulterous women,

or culturally, basically, inappropriate behavior.

I think that's plausible, possible,

and I've spent a lot of time studying this,

but I do think that the way the ESV has a translator as uncovered head,

I think is more likely, and for this reason.

And the main reason, really, is that the word uncovered

is simply the negative form of the Greek verb that means to cover or veil.

And whenever the word occurs in Greek literature,

it almost always refers to covering something or hiding something.

So, for example, in Isaiah 6.2,

when the angels encounter the glory of God in the temple,

he says that they cover their faces.

Genesis 38.15, Tamar covers her face like a prostitute.

And so the evidence suggests,

and other ancient Greek literature as well,

suggests that this is referring to some kind of head covering.

But if that's the case,

then why are there so many images of women in this culture

that are not wearing anything?

It seems to have been perfectly normal for them.

And why is Paul concerned about this?

And I think there's a simple answer to that,

and it's that Paul lived in a time

when the head covering conventions were in a state of flux.

And more and more women were beginning to reject head coverings.

And also the women that are depicted on coins

and memorialized on statues,

which archaeologists have found,

are generally prominent noble women and empresses.

And they're given to far more progressive

and elaborate adornments and styles,

kind of like the Hollywood actresses of our time.

And so the fact that these rich and famous women

were not covering their heads in public

does not mean that this was uncontroversial.

And I think an illustration might be helpful

to understand what's going on in this time.

It's when the French engineer, Louis Rear,

he designed the bikini in 1946.

It was so controversial that it was banned

in some parts of France,

as well as all of Spain, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Australia,

as well as some parts of some of the states in the United States.

Only the most avant-garde woman,

only the most radically progressive woman,

mostly, it turns out, upper-class European woman,

became early adopters of the bikini.

And it didn't become a common swimwear

until two decades later in the mid-1960s.

But nevertheless, if archaeologists and historians from the future

were to study the 20th century,

and they would look at pictures and movies

and drawings of women from those times,

they would conclude that as early as the 1950s

or early 1960s,

that the bikinis were commonly accepted and popular.

And the reason why they would say that

is because prominent actresses of the time,

like Bridgette Bardot, Ursula Andress,

Raquel Welch,

they're so old, I don't know who any of these people are,

but they wore them and popularized them, right?

And so because of them,

their images of them,

these iconic so-called images of them in bikinis

proliferate all over the world.

And so I think that's kind of similar

to what's happening in Paul's time.

So because this was a convention that was in cultural flux,

we see a lot of counter-examples of women not wearing it,

but there still seems to have been a general convention

where women were expected to wear veils,

especially in a traditional modest context.

And I think this may explain Paul's lenient stance here too.

Notice that Paul doesn't require that women wear head coverings

at all times in public, right?

But only when they are publicly praying or prophesying

in the context of corporate worship, right?

And so this is why similar exhortations about women's attire

in 1 Timothy 2.9 and 1 Peter 2.3,

they assume that women's hairstyles would be visible

in the corporate worship context.

So that tells us that Paul wasn't trying to say

every woman should be doing this at all times,

but rather, especially in a context that requires

particular modesty and presentability,

and when you're presenting something,

sharing something in a context of corporate worship,

that they should cover their heads.

Still, you might wonder why Paul required head coverings

for women at any point of the worship service,

since we live in a society where women generally

do not cover their heads.

This is difficult for us to understand.

But in Paul's cultural context,

head coverings for women were a function,

like I said, of modesty and privacy,

and I think it's helpful for us to understand this,

because women's hair in this era,

this is really fascinating,

was considered one of the most seductive parts

of the woman's body.

So because of,

so you can look at this from a second century Christian writing

called the Apocalypse of Peter.

So the Apocalypse of Peter is not Christian scripture,

rather it's more like an imaginative writing,

and it's written in a framework

where basically Peter receives a vision from Christ,

and Christ takes Peter to heaven and hell

and tells him about the different aspects of heaven and hell.

This is fictional writing, it's not scripture.

It's similar to Dante's Inferno,

or a divine comedy,

where Dante is taken by Virgil

through hell and purgatory in heaven,

and is told about the different aspects of it.

And what's fascinating is in Apocalypse of Peter,

chapter 7, 22,

Peter is told that the wicked people

are punished eternally by being hung by their offending parts.

And those who blaspheme are hung by their tongues,

and the men who committed adultery

are hung by their genitals,

and interestingly, adulterous women

are hung by their hair.

Now, this is why head coverings,

especially for married women

who are no longer available to men,

were considered essential in this culture.

Judith Sebesta,

who's a professor of classics and history

at University of South Dakota,

she specializes in Roman women

and wrote a book,

or contributed to a book

called The World of Roman Costume,

and she writes this,

quote,

The Roman matron signified her modesty and chastity

with the traditional costume.

It consisted of her distinctive dress,

the woolen stola,

which was worn over a tunic,

the protective woolen bands,

which dressed her hair,

and the woolen pala,

or mantle,

which was used to veil her head

when she went out in public.

And then she makes this insightful observation.

He says,

To modern women of Western countries,

the Middle Eastern custom of veiling women

seems to signify social inequality

and even inferiority.

To modern women of the East,

it is a symbol of their honor

and of the sanctity and privacy

of their family life.

For a married woman,

to uncover her head in public

was traditionally understood

as a sign of her withdrawing herself

from her patronage.

It's basically,

her uncovering herself in public

was seen as indecent exposure

that signaled her sexual availability.

And that's why it's considered so inappropriate.

And for this reason,

culturally,

it was considered appropriate

and seemingly for women

to cover their heads in public.

But Paul's primary concern

is not women's head covering per se,

but that they wear head coverings

as a way of distinguishing themselves from men.

And so that's an important idea to get,

that Paul is enjoining head coverings

not because of the merits

of head coverings themselves,

in and of themselves,

but because Christian men and women

should keep the cultural markers

that distinguish men from women

and women from men.

That's why it says in verses 5 to 6,

read with me,

every wife who prays or prophesies

with her head uncovered

dishonors her head,

since it is the same

as if her head were shaven.

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.

Once again,

I think woman is a better translation

than wife here,

because in Paul's day

and even in our time

to a lesser degree,

it was considered shameful

for a woman to have her hair

cut short or shaven,

because to do so

is to blur the distinctions

between genders.

So Paul appeals

to a more widely accepted example

in order to argue his point.

It's shameful for a woman

to cut her hair short

or shave her head

because it does violence

to her sense of womanhood

and femininity.

In the same way,

when a woman refuses

to cover her head,

when publicly praying

or prophesying,

she defies the cultural conventions

of womanhood

and thereby distorts

the male and female relationship.

For this reason,

Paul argues,

let her cover her head.

He's appealing

to the culture of his time

to argue that Christians

ought to worship

in a way that displays

the complementarian relationship

between man and woman.

In this case,

of course,

the all-important question,

should Christian women today

cover their heads publicly

when they're publicly praying

or prophesying

in the context

of public worship?

That's a difficult question

to answer.

I've studied this in the past,

this passage in the past,

and I studied it

for another 25 hours or so

just this past week,

and frankly,

when I started out

my studies this week,

I was sure that

head covering

is an outdated practice

that the Bible

does not require,

and I began the study

even with a dismissive attitude

toward Christians

and Christian denominations

who believe that

head covering is required.

But as I studied further,

I see that

they have good reason

for what they believe,

even though I still

don't agree with them.

I see that they have

good reason

for what they believe.

And all the early church fathers

as well as the

Protestant reformers

like Martin Luther,

John Calvin,

as well as many faithful

pastors of more recent memory

like Charles Spurgeon,

John Murray,

and R.C. Sproul

believe that men

uncovering their heads

and women covering their heads

during public worship

was a practice

that should continue

to be observed.

And I believe there is

a distinct possibility

that they are right.

And if they are right

and this practice

is an abiding principle,

then it would only apply

in the context

of public worship,

not just public worship

in general,

but when you're sharing

in front of a whole congregation

during worship.

On balance,

I'm still of the belief

that the custom

of head covering

is culturally relative

and no longer binding on us.

But I do not,

I hold that view now

much more tentatively

and humbly

than I have in the past

and I want all of you

to wrestle with this

and do what you think

scripture teaches.

And the reason why

this practice of head covering

I think doesn't apply

to us today

is because Paul

was not championing

head covering

in and of itself.

As you can see,

if that were the case,

maybe he would require

women to wear it

at all times

when they were in public,

but he requires it

only specifically

in the context

of public worship

when they are sharing,

praying, praying,

or prophesying.

But he seems to be

advocating this custom

for the sake of maintaining

the complementary relationship

between men and women

in the context

of public worship.

And this is why,

you know,

so Paul is basically

affirming a changing custom

for the sake of preserving

an unchanging principle.

And since in our cultural context

the complementary relationship

between men and women

is not displayed

in the uncovering

and covering of our heads,

we need to consider

how we can preserve

that same unchanging principle

in our cultural context.

So there is no need

to perpetuate

a culturally,

basically,

an inculturated practice

that no longer communicates

the same principle

that Paul intended

to communicate.

An example might be helpful here.

So look at John 13.

You don't have to go there.

It's the Last Supper.

And Jesus washes the feet

of his disciples.

And then he says

to his disciples,

Do you understand

what I have done to you?

You call me teacher and Lord

and you are right

for so I am.

If I then,

your Lord and teacher,

have washed your feet,

you also ought to wash

one another's feet.

For I have given you

an example

that you also should do

just as I have done to you.

So if Jesus said

to his disciples,

You also should do

just as I have done to you,

does that mean

we should wash

one another's feet?

Then how come Christians

don't wash

one another's feet anymore?

Jesus and his disciples

lived in a desert climate

and a culture

where people wore

shoddy sandals.

So walking around

the dusty roads

in their times

inevitably made one's feet

filthy by the end

of the day.

So it was customary

for hosts to arrange

for the foot washing

of their guests.

Of course the foot washing

was considered

a demeaning task

so only slaves

were thought worthy

to do such a task.

But Jesus does it himself

and washes his disciples' feet

as a gesture

of humility and love.

And that is the abiding principle

that lies behind

the practice

of the cultural practice

of washing

one another's feet.

And so foot washing

was symbolic

and we know that

because Jesus didn't do this

all the time.

This is the only time

he did it

and to show

to teach

as a way of teaching

his disciples.

And so the foot washing

in and of itself

is not what is required

of Christians

but the posture

of humble service

that is required

of Christians.

So likewise

because this context

that we're looking at

here in 1 Corinthians 11

suggests that Paul's

commending a practice

for the sake

of the principle

so even if we don't

go out to buy

headscarves today

we need to think about

how we can

worship in a way

that displays

that complementing

relationship

between men and women.

How we can preserve

the unchanging principle.

I thought about this

a little bit

and at the very least

I think that means

men should not

wear a dress

and that women

should not wear

a suit and tie

when they lead prayers

of the people

during the service.

I think it may also

mean that a man

should not wear

his hair long

like a woman

and that a woman

should not sport

a crew cut

when they read

scripture publicly

during the service

and vice versa.

I understand that

this is a difficult

message to accept

for our time.

Just please stay with me

because I know that

it's hard for you to hear

but if it's hard for you

to hear it

it's probably harder

for me to say it

because I mean

I don't want to

you know

just scare everybody

away in church

but I teach it

nevertheless

because I know

that God's word

is true

and that his vision

for us is better

and more beautiful

than our own visions

of how life should be.

So in verses 2-6

Paul appealed

to the culture

to teach that

Christians ought to

worship in a way

that displays

a complementary relationship

between man and woman.

That's the longest point

so stay with me.

Now in verses 7-12

Paul roots

the complementary relationship

between man and woman

in creation.

He writes in verse 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.

Now

at first glance

this appears

incredibly offensive

and misogynistic

but if we consider

the verse more carefully

that is not at all

the case.

First

Paul is certainly

not saying

that only man

and not a woman

is created

in the image of God.

Genesis 1-27

teaches very clearly

so God created man

in his own image

in the image of God

he created him

male and female

he created them.

All of humanity

male and female

is created

in the image

of God

and that's why

Paul's very careful

not to say

here in this verse

that woman

is the image

and glory of man.

He just says

that woman

is the glory of man

because the woman

is not made

in the image of man.

Man and woman

are both made

in the image of God.

And then secondly

Paul does not mean

by the statement

that only man

brings glory to God

and that woman

can only bring glory

to man

and not to God.

What Paul has in view

is the ordering

of the relationship.

Certainly both man

and woman

are accountable to God

and both man

and woman

bring glory to God.

He just told

all men and women

in the previous

at the end of chapter 10

that we should do

all things

to the glory of God

that includes

both men and women.

But what he's referring to

is the fact

that God created

the woman

to help the man

in his mission.

Genesis 2-18

God says

it is not good

that the man

should be alone.

I will make him

a helper fit for him.

In Genesis 1

God saw

that all of his creation

was good.

The only thing

in the creation narrative

that he's called

not good

is the man

being alone.

So that man

was lonesome

and incomplete

on his own.

So God creates

a woman.

And when the first man

meets the first woman

in Genesis 2-23

the man erupts

in poetic praise

and he says

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.

For this reason

the very existence

of the woman

is to the man's glory.

It's like Proverbs 12-4

which says

that an excellent wife

is the crown

of her husband.

In a more general way

the woman brings

honor and glory

to the man.

Man glories

in what a woman is.

And then Paul

unpacks this creation

order further

in verses 8-9.

I mentioned earlier

that the word head

means both

has the both nuances

of source

and authority.

We see that

in verses 8-9.

First in verse 8

it says

for man was not

made from woman

but woman from man

that captures

the idea of source

and according to

Genesis 2-7

and 22

God created man

from the dust

of the earth

but then he created

woman from

the man's rib.

And so in that sense

the woman was from man.

And then in verse 9

it says

neither was man

created for woman

but woman for man.

The woman was created

as man's helper

and is oriented

toward him.

And this is where

the idea of the man's

headship and the woman's

helpership comes from.

It goes all the way

back to creation.

And the fact that

woman was created

for man

conveys the idea

of man's leadership

and authority.

So just as

in a thoughtfully

packaged furniture

when you buy it

and it comes

there's a rationale

for the way

in which it is

ordered and packaged

because certain things

have to come out first

and be organized

and assembled first

for the other parts

to fit.

So in a similar way

Paul sees a divine

rationale

and design

in the fact

that man is the

head of the woman

that man was created

first and the woman

was created from

the woman

that he was the source.

And this creation

order is why

as Paul says

in verse 10

a wife ought to have

a symbol of authority

on her head

because of the angels.

And the verse

literally says

a wife ought to have

authority on her head.

That parallels

verse 7

which says

a man ought not

to cover his head.

That parallel structure

as well as

all of verses 8 to 9

which gave the reason

for why a woman

should cover her head

during praying

or prophesying

shows us that

this is what

verse 10 means

that it's referring

to the sign

of the man's authority

over the woman

his headship

over the woman.

And so then

this head covering

by woman wearing it

and by man

not wearing it

is intended

to display

the complementarian

relationship

between them

in the context

of corporate worship.

And the fact

that Paul appeals

to God's creation

is so significant

because that means

that this complementarian

relationship

between man and woman

is not the result

of the fall.

It's not a result

of human sin

and corruption.

It's part of God's

original design

and creation.

So even though

a head covering

might be culturally relative

what the head covering

represents

is not culturally relative.

So Christians

ought to worship

in a way

that displays

the complementarian

relationship

in our own

culturally appropriate way.

And then at the end

of verse 10

for added emphasis

Paul adds

a surprising reason

for why men and women

should observe

these customs.

He says

because of the angels.

Because this mention

is so brief

and the context

doesn't provide

too many clues

it's difficult

to ascertain

what it means.

But earlier

in chapter 4

verse 9

Paul mentioned

that he and the apostles

in their suffering

witness to Christ

they're exhibited

to the world

and to angels

and to men.

And then similarly

in 1 Timothy 6.21

Paul writes

to Timothy

in the presence

of God

and of Christ Jesus

and of the elect angels

I charge you

to keep these rules

without prejudging

doing nothing

from partiality.

So Paul

I think is simply

saying here

that even

the angels

of God

are watching

to ensure

that we honor

this God

given order

by upholding

the creational order

when we are

worshipping him

when worshipping God.

And because of this

reason

Paul says

Christians ought to

worship in a way

that displays

that complementarian

relationship

between man and woman.

But as Paul

continues to hammer

home this point

he is aware

very aware

that his teaching

can be easily

misunderstood

distorted

and abused

as it has been

countless times

throughout human history.

And so he issues

a very strong

qualification

in verses 11 to 12.

He says

Nevertheless

in the Lord

woman is not

independent of man

nor man of woman

for as woman

was made from man

so man is now

born of woman

and all things

are from God.

So if

you're a woman

and you've been

cringing up to this point

this is your vindication.

Men should not

entertain themselves

with vain

and false notions

of superiority

just because

man is the head

of the woman

and the source

of the woman.

Yes it is true

that the woman

came from man

but ever since Adam

every single man

was born

into this world

through a woman.

Though man

had priority

in creation

woman has priority

in procreation.

Men and women

are not

independent

of each other

rather they are

interdependent.

Their differentiated

roles and duties

work together

for good

and neither

can boast

in their status

or position

because ultimately

all things

are from God.

The idea

that women

are equal to men

which we take

for granted

in our culture

the idea

that men

need women

just as much

as women

need men

it's not

a feminist idea.

It's a Christian idea.

And Paul says it here

2,000 years before

any woman's rights

activists.

And only those

who follow Christ's

example of sacrifice

and service

can live out

this ideal

which is why

Paul says

in the Lord

woman is not

independent of man

nor man of woman.

The phrase

is important

in the Lord.

It's similar to

what Paul says

in Galatians 3, 28

that there is

neither Jew

nor Greek

there is neither

slave nor free

there is no male

and female

for you are all

one in Christ

Jesus.

It's not the case

that only Christian

men are created

by God

to fulfill

their role

as heads

and it's not

the case

that only Christian

men are born

of woman.

Every man

Christian or not

is born of woman

but the reason

why Paul adds

specifically

in the Lord

is because

this kind

of unity

and diversity

equality

and distinction

can only be

achieved

among those

who are in

the Lord.

This is

objectively

verifiable

you can check

this through

history

the culture

that is not

converted

a culture

that does not

embody

Christ's

servant-like

sacrifice

and humility

always abuses

their woman.

That's why

in scripture

it doesn't

directly address

how men and

women opt to

relate in society

in general.

It never speaks

to that.

Instead

it focuses

on how

Christian men

and women

should relate

in the context

of marriage

and in the

context

of the church.

Why?

Because

it's only

possible to do

it's so hard

it's only

possible to do

when you know

Christ

when you embody

Christ's

sacrificial leadership

as men

when women

embody Christ's

humble submission

unless that

happens

this is not

possible.

So then

having appeal

to culture

and then

to creation

finally in

verse 13-15

Paul appeals

to our

consciousness

to teach

that Christians

ought to

worship

in a way

that displays

that

complementary

relationship.

Read with

me.

He writes

verse 13

and following

judge for

yourselves.

Is it

proper for

a wife

to pray

to God

with her

head

uncovered?

Does

not nature

itself

teach you

that if

a man

wears

long hair

it is a

disgrace

for him

but if

a woman

has long

hair

it is

her glory

for her

hair is

given to

her for

a cover.

By

nature

Paul does

not mean

here

biology

or natural

law

because

biology

doesn't

teach us

that if

a man

wears

long

hair

that it's

disgraceful.

Rather

Paul is

speaking of

natural

knowledge

our intuitive

understanding

of the

natural

way of

things.

He's

referring to

our

consciousness

of the

way

things

ought

to

be.

Our

common

sense

we might

call it.

Paul argues

that we

intuitively

know in

our

consciousness

that it

is appropriate

for women

to cover

their

head

and he

uses the

analogy

of hair

to prove

it.

He says

having long

hair brings

glory and

honor to

the woman

but it

brings shame

and disgrace

to the

woman.

So this

I know

some of

you guys

have

supported

some of

the men

have

supported

long

hairs

in the

past

so I'm

not trying

to condemn

you here

but thankfully

none of you

guys have

it now.

But this

is historically

verifiable.

So for

example

Kurt Sten

he is a

former

professor of

pathology and

dermatology at

Yale University

School of

Medicine and

he authored a

book entitled

Hair, A

Human History

and in it he

writes that it

is almost

universally

culturally found

that women have

longer hair than

men.

Even in cultures

where it was

acceptable for men

to have long

hair, women

generally had

longer hair than

men.

So Paul is

appealing to this

kind of universal

kind of consciousness,

awareness, common

sense of what is

appropriate for men

and women.

And the word

covering here

literally means

wraparound.

So Paul is

again making a

connection to why

women should cover

their heads during

worship.

That God gave

naturally a hair

for a covering.

So in a way,

since that's the

way, it's the

natural way of

things, since that

is the natural way

of things, the

woman should also

cover her head when

she's praying or

prophesying in public

worship.

That's Paul's

argument by

analogy.

Now at this

point, of course,

some people would

object that this

consciousness is

subjective and

that it can vary

from person to

person and from

culture to

culture.

Although that

study shows that

it doesn't vary

too much, but I

suppose it's

possible and it

is true that it

is in some degree

subjective.

But that's why

it's important that

Paul doesn't merely

appeal to our

consciousness, but he

also appeals to the

culture and most

importantly to

creation.

These three

criteria together

bear witness to

the fact that

Christians ought to

worship in a way

that displays that

complementary relation

between man and

woman.

Consciousness,

culture, creation,

three things.

We could also call

those things gender

identity, gender, and

sex.

Or we could call it

the psychological,

sociological, and

theological conceptions

of gender.

Of the three, it is

the unchanging

theological reality

rooted in God's

creation order that

is decisive.

And we must strive

to conform our

sociological and

psychological realities

to that unchanging

reality.

Unfortunately,

nowadays, the

precise opposite is

happening.

The backward thing is

happening where people

consider their own

subjective psychological

perception of

themselves and their

gender to be supreme.

And so their own

gender identity is

supreme.

So because of that,

they fight to make

society accept their

confused gender

identity, and then

they undergo even

sex reassignment

surgery to make

their biological sex

conform to their

gender identity.

instead of flailing

against God's

creative design, we

should seek to

bring our psychological

and sociological

realities into

conformity with the

theological reality

reflected in our

biology.

This issue was

contentious in Paul's

day, and it remains

contentious in our

day.

And so Paul concludes

this passage with

verse 16.

If anyone is

inclined to be

contentious, we have

no such practice, nor

do the churches of

God.

Four times throughout

this letter, Paul

corrects the

Corinthian behavior by

appealing to the

common practice of

the universal church.

And this is because

the Corinthian church

thought themselves

superior, and they

deviated from the

established practices

of the universal

church in a number of

significant ways.

And this appeal

remains forceful to

us today, because for

two millennia of

church history, every

major stream of

Christian denominations,

Catholic, Orthodox, and

Protestant, have

taught this

differentiated,

complementary roles

of men and women.

And we don't see a

major deviation from

this until the 20th

century.

If we choose to be

contentious about this

issue, then we stand

against 1,900 years of

church history and

consistent church

teaching across

cultures and

geographies.

As English writer G.K.

Chesterton puts it,

quote,

fallacies do not cease

to be fallacies because

they become fashions.

Let me ask you,

brothers and sisters,

men and women,

do you fit snugly into

God's creative design?

Do you live as a man?

Do you live as a woman?

Or do you protest it?

Do you resist it?

Do you seek to erase it?

God's plan for us is good.

And this complementary

relationship between man

and woman is not

something that we should

accept begrudgingly,

reluctantly, but it's

something that we should

celebrate and thank God

for.

I think about it this way.

I don't know if, I love

music, and I don't know if

you have ever listened to

songs where the melody and

harmony that is being

sung are so beautiful that

it gives you the shivers

or makes you want to cry.

Have you guys ever

listened to songs like

that?

I have, I think of, you

know, Simon and Garfunkel's

Sound of Silence.

Or our Boston native band

Extreme, although I don't

like any of their other

songs, More Than Words.

Or the male and female

indie folk duo, the Civil

Wars number entitled

Poison and Wine.

Listen to these.

All of these songs have

fantastic melodies, but

these songs would not have

their haunting, transcendent

beauty without the sublime

harmonies.

In a similar way, men and

women were created to be

interdependent, not

interchangeable.

And it is their unique

manhood and womanhood,

masculinity and

femininity that the truly,

in those things that the

truly transcendent beauty of

God and His creative design

comes to the fore.

For a woman who may struggle

with this, let me conclude with

a quote from Elizabeth Elliot.

She was a Christian missionary who

authored a book called Let Me Be

a Woman.

And she says this in the book.

It is a naive sort of

feminism that insists that

women prove their ability to do

all the things that men do.

This is a distortion and a

travesty.

Men have never sought to prove

that they can do all the things

women do.

Why subject women to purely

masculine criteria?

Women can and ought to be judged

by the criteria of femininity.

For it is in their femininity

that they participate in the

human race.

And femininity has its

limitations.

So has masculinity.

That is what we've been

talking about.

To do this is not to do that.

To be this is not to be that.

To be a woman is not to be a

man.

To be married is not to be

single.

To marry this man is not to

marry all the others.

A choice is a limitation.

This is difficult to accept

because of our sinfulness.

We don't like any kinds of

limitations placed on us.

And that's why we have to look

to Christ and his example to be

able to live in this way.

Philippians 2, 5-7 says,

Christ Jesus, who though he was

in the form of God, did not

count equality with God a thing

to be grasped, but emptied

himself by taking the form of a

servant, being born in the

likeness of man.

Let me address my sisters

briefly, directly.

I know this is hard for you

because a lot of men are very

immature.

They don't deserve the

respect and that you accord,

that you're being called to

accord to them.

I include myself in that.

But the sacrifice that you make

is like compared to the sacrifice

Christ himself made when he left

his divine throne to become a

human being, take on the frailty

of human flesh so that he could die

for our sins and save us.

And men, we are called to

exemplify, to follow Christ's

sacrificial leadership.

And women, we're called to

exemplify Christ's humble

submission.

It's for every Christian, it's

humility, pride that is the pathway

to glory.

And I pray that we'll be able to do

that.

So let's take a moment of silence to

reflect on this.

Ask yourself in what ways you can

fit more snugly into God's design.