Today we continue in our series through the book of 1st Corinthians and we continue where we left off last week in the middle of chapter 11, 1st Corinthians 11 verses 2 through 16. So I invite you to turn there with me if you have a Bible. Today is part two of what we began last week, working through what I believe is one of the most difficult passages in all of the New Testament. I will breathe a very sincere sigh of relief when this sermon is over with. This passage is extremely difficult and I have wrestled and wrestled and wrestled with it for many months. But we began last week by looking at the theological foundation that underlies this issue of head covering. And what we saw last week was that God cares about our worship, that our corporate worship is to aim for his glory and to build one another up. And also in our corporate worship, we are to show honor and not dishonor to our head. and who is our head, that is defined in verse three, that is the center of the entire argument here, the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, the head of Christ is God. We see that there is a God-given order in our world and that corporate worship is to reflect who God is and what he has done in creation and in redemption. That's the theological foundation. If you missed last week, I will try to recap some of what we said throughout the sermon today, but you might want to go back and listen to it on our sermon audio page. But let's turn now from the theological to the practical. How do we apply this? Brethren, this is God speaking through His Word. 1 Corinthians 11. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything. Maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you, but I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of wife is her husband, the head of Christ is God. 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. 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. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 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. 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 covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. Amen. Let's pray. Father, we pray that you would give us humble minds, excuse me, open minds and humble hearts. We pray, Father, as we know that you have the words of eternal life, that even words that are difficult to understand, Lord, where else do we go? We look to You, we wait upon You. We ask that You would pour out Your Holy Spirit, that we might behold wondrous things from Your Word. Lord, we pray and ask for Your blessing through Jesus, our Savior and Lord. Amen. Well, if you're familiar with this chapter and the next three chapters here in 1 Corinthians, I hope you realize that the so-called worship wars are not just challenges that the church faces in our day. It's clear that division over worship style and worship order and worship preferences have plagued the church since the very beginning. That was a major issue in the first century church of Corinth. Of course, in our day, when we think of worship wars, we typically immediately think about music, right? Music style, and what songs to sing, and such things like that in our day. But, of course, things are different in Corinth. Here it's clear that the worship wars, the tension, really, of course, later in the chapter it changes, but in this chapter, the tension was really between men and women and their role and place and order in the worship service. As I've studied first century culture, it's noteworthy, outside of the church, it was practically unheard of for men and women to gather together for anything. You just didn't have any sort of mixed assembly back then. Men and women were segregated in basically every other activity of first century life. And the early church struggled with this. Because in the New Testament church, this radically new paradigm emerged where men and women, young and old, slave and free, rich and poor, all gathered together for worship. And all you gotta do is read the New Testament and see some of the tension with each one of those groups. that arises when they're all thrown together into the church and into the worship service. It was unheard of in that culture. So there was tension. They needed instruction, which is why Paul writes this chapter. But as I thought about this, I realized, you know, things really aren't that much different in our day. Aren't we kind of battling the gender wars in our day? Don't we also face a lot of discussion, and tension, and disagreement regarding men and women's roles in the church and in worship? You know, right now, just about every major denomination has or is wrestling with the role of women in the church. Even the PCA, a reformed and conservative denomination that's very closely aligned with us doctrinally, even there, the issue of women leading worship, or publicly praying, or teaching and preaching, or women deacons, or leadership, even eldership, those are issues in which they have debated recently, or they're currently wrestling or struggling with. It's a major issue in our day. Now, I do want to say, I think a lot of this is good. Personally, I think that the headship card, the authority women submitting in that sense, I think it has been emphasized to such an extent that previous generations have gone beyond what Scripture says. I think the church has largely in previous generations downplayed or overlooked or distorted the very important or neglected, the very important contributions that women make in the church. They have a vital and indispensable role. And I think that's been neglected. So I don't think all of this gender kind of war or rethinking of these things is necessarily bad. At the same time, though, we must admit that when it comes to the church, the Lord Jesus Christ is the true and proper head of the church. And we need to be sober-minded about the fact that as head and Lord of His church, Jesus has not left us to ourselves as to how the church should be ordered. He speaks to these issues. The question is, are we willing to accept what He has to say? And that really lies at the heart of this passage today. God cares about how we worship. He has not left himself without a witness. He has given the scriptures to us as a sufficient guide for ordering the church and ordering our worship. And that's what we see here today. The point of the passage is how the Lord directs us into the proper roles of men and women in worship. Because ultimately, through His instruction, Jesus, as the head of the church, is honored and exalted in His church. And that's our ultimate desire, isn't it? Isn't that our ultimate goal? Don't you want God to be glorified in our church? Don't you want Christ to be honored and kept central to our worship? Don't you want to know what the Scriptures teach so that we might obey it for the good and growth of the gospel? I trust that you do. Even if the particulars sometimes are confusing or difficult to accept, I trust that you agree that the glory of God ought to be our aim in everything. That's what we see from this passage today. So I wanna dive into this, and I said last week this is gonna be a very unique approach. It's not gonna be like a normal sermon. It's gonna feel more like a Bible study. But there's just so many details that I wanna make sure that you grasp. I don't want you to walk away kinda confused on what this passage is saying or what it means. And so I'm gonna do something a little bit differently today. I'm gonna give you a brief overview of the four most common ways this passage has been understood. And I'm gonna explain them to you and then explain why I don't adopt any of those four views. Before then, I'll break down for you what I believe this passage does teach. Look again at verses four and five. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every wife, or more specifically, I argue, like I said last week, this should read woman, but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head was shaven. As we saw last week, this passage has to do with public corporate worship. That's his focus. That's his goal. That's clear from the context. It's clear from this idea of prophesying, which is a corporate activity. Furthermore, I hope it's clear as well that the roles of men and women are the point, the roles of men and women in worship. That's the point. He instructs men, he instructs women. How then do we understand what he means when he talks about the head of woman being covered and the head of men being uncovered in worship? Well, the first view is what we might call the traditional view. The traditional view. The traditional view reads these words and holds that women are commanded to place a physical covering over their head in worship. Some extreme conservatives take this very literally and that to cover the head requires a veil. And so like a Roman Catholic nun, that's where it comes from, with their head fully covered, everything has to be covered. That would be the most literal and the most culturally literal as well if you looked at the first century interpretation of this passage. Others in our day have adapted it. They look down in verse 10 and it says a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head and so they place a symbol on their head like a hat or a bonnet or a scarf of some sort. Just a side note, the word symbol in verse 10 is not in the original language. That word is added by the translators who are trying to make sense of the passage. They are interpreting it for you. I do not believe the word symbol should be there, and we will come back to that. Regardless, this traditional view sees women instructing, Paul instructing women to play some sort of physical covering on their head in worship. And the strengths of this view, of course, is that it seems to be very straightforward reading of the text, at least in English. It also comports well with first century Middle Eastern culture, which is still culture in our day in the Middle East. Another strength of it is also that it's been the dominant view in church history. It hasn't been the only view, but it's certainly been the dominant view up until recent generations. So you will often hear people say, well, the church has been doing it for 2,000 years, and now all of a sudden, with the rise of feminism, the church now changes. And that is not true. That is a very oversimplification of the diversity of views down through history. But it is partly true, because that has been the dominant view. Well, what are the weaknesses of this position? Why do I reject this position? Why do I believe that this position ought to be rejected? For one thing, the text does not make clear what exactly the covering ought to be. Nowhere is a covering defined or given any detail. If it's a veil, why isn't this term used? There's a Greek word for veil. It's used all throughout the scriptures. Why doesn't Paul use the term veil? So what exactly are we talking about here? Is it a hat? Is it a shawl? Is it a burka? Is it a cloth? Is it a hair bow? Is it a bonnet? Is it a doily? We have no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't describe it. He doesn't say anything. He never even says, cover your head with something in that language. In fact, even if we acknowledge that the physical covering is the dominant view in church history, every single age of church history has practiced this differently according to cultural norms. So if the passage requires women to cover their heads, then I think we ought to be very clear about what does and does not constitute a hair covering, head covering. I mean, to point, you know, to go to the point of absurdity here, is it a hair bow? Is it a hair covering? Is it like a head coloring, I should say? You color your hair? Like what constitutes a head covering and what doesn't? That's not described, we don't know. And I think this is important to understand the text. Another reason this view ought to be rejected is that if it's calling for a covering over the head, then why does verse 5 say that having her head uncovered is the same as if her head were shaven? How does the lack of a piece of clothing the same as having a shaved head? Paul is appealing to creation here and to natural law, but that's not naturally obvious. That's not natural law. Clothing came post fall, but Paul appeals to creation. Not only that, but what does it have to do with headship? How does a physical garment communicate that the man is the head of the woman? And why must it be in worship as opposed to all other times? That doesn't make sense either, if the context is worship. Because if it's a physical covering, and it describes headship, then it should be on all the time. It's not like a wife or the woman is not, or the head of, it's not like the man is not the head of the woman at any other time. Paul's talking about worship. See, I fail to see how a veil communicates headship. And if you say, well, it communicates headship because the scriptures and God's instructions say that it communicates headship, then it's no longer on the basis of creation and natural law, which is exactly what Paul appeals to here. He would just say, by apostolic command, you need to show your headship in this physical way. Added to this is the fact that in the Old Testament, it's silent regarding physical covering for women. The rest of the New Testament is silent as well. If this was something that was tied to creation and headship and nature and to the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son, verse three, then we would find something else in Scripture about it. I think it's noteworthy that in 1 Timothy 2, the very same apostle Paul deals with what women are to wear and how they are to dress and worship. But he doesn't mention head coverings there. He does make mention to this cultural practice of women wearing braided hair with gold and pearls weaved into it. He says, don't do that, which is, again, a principle that's a way they flaunted their wealth and distinguished class in that day. He's like, don't dress in a way that would alienate you from your poor neighbor sitting next to you in worship. But think about that, if he instructs women on how not to flaunt their wealth and how they wear their hair, what sense does that make if their hair was to be covered by a physical garment? It doesn't align. The pearls and stuff wouldn't be visible if they were wearing a head covering. But he doesn't say that. So he makes no mention of head covering in that place, in that context as well, we're gonna turn to in a few minutes, that context also discusses corporate worship. So there's no other scriptural support for this position. Finally, I'd also argue that it isn't in line with the New Testament emphasis on the heart. It'd be so easy to put on a physical garment and yet neglect the real heart issue that Paul is driving at here. And when you look at the New Testament, there are only two outward visible signs that communicate spiritual realities, baptism and the Lord's Supper. If we say that a physical covering is instructed here, we are creating a third sacrament. Sacrament being a sign that points to something And something that communicates a spiritual reality or even seals a spiritual reality, well, grace must be necessary, obedience must be necessary by the one covering their head. And I believe that does not align with the New Testament nature on signs, seals, and obedience. So, I could give you many other reasons, but those are the most prominent ones that I believe that the traditional view of putting a physical covering over the head does not make sense with the theology of this passage and with the heart of this passage. But another view, secondly, is that Paul, another view holds that Paul's talking about hair. They build this view off of verse 15 because Paul says that a woman's hair is given to her as a covering. But this is actually a very weak position if you really get into the exegesis. Because if the covering was merely long hair, then verse 5 would make no sense. There would be no reason to say in verse 5 that being uncovered is the same as being shaven. He says, a woman being uncovered is the same as if her head is shaven. If the hair was the covering, then the argument would make no sense because the head would already be shaved. See what I'm saying? It doesn't logically follow with verse five. Not only this, but if you really get into the details of this position, more problems arise. How long must the hair be? We aren't told. How short is too short? We aren't told. What about men? In the Old Testament, it was common for men to have long hair. Were they in the wrong? Did they not understand headship? Did they not understand creation? Did they not understand the nature of God? Is it wrong for a man with long hair to participate in worship or for a woman with short hair or a shaved head to participate in worship? No, that's ridiculous. So the wording, the grammar, the argument makes no sense. if Paul's talking about long hair. The third view is related to this, is this passage refers to loosed or hanging hair. Have you ever seen Orthodox Jews at the Wailing Wall? You know, they wear the funny hats, they have the book, they have the tassels, their hair hanging down, and they do that based upon a very strict interpretation of the Old Testament law. Well, in this view, uncovered refers to unkept hair. And covered hair would mean hair that's tidy and orderly and bound up in some sort of hair bun. You've seen conservative women do that in worship. It's like a little hair bun. This also suffers from some of the same problems as the previous one. What does it have to do with headship? What does it have to do with nature? What does it have to do with the Trinity? Why doesn't this appear in the Old Testament where men are actually instructed to let their hair hang down? How does verse 15 square with this, where it seems to say that hair in general is her covering, not just tidy hair or pulled up hair. If hair or hairstyles was the point, not only would there be a theological reason for this, but there would be specifics about what he's talking about, and those specifics aren't there. I think it's quite a stretch to suggest that the scripture instructs us on hairstyles. I'm sorry, but that too sounds a little ridiculous. I don't believe long hair or unkept hair is the point at all. Lastly, fourthly, the most common view among modern interpreters is that Paul is describing a cultural practice that was unique to that day but is no longer required of us. And I must say, this is a very attractive position. I was persuaded by this position for a long time. Most modern commentators and theologians adopt this view. I think there is certainly an element of truth to it, and we'll consider that in a moment. But the view essentially is that Paul is describing a cultural norm that we no longer have to follow. A parallel example here would be when the New Testament commands us to greet one another with a holy kiss. That's five times I counted that in the New Testament. Both Peter and Paul command the church, it's imperative, greet one another with a holy kiss. That was the common greeting in that day. But in our day, we don't, and you kissed each other on the mouth, right? Everyone. But in our day, we don't do that. I love you, but I'm not gonna kiss you, okay? In our day, a simple handshake, a hug, or a fist bump, even, is the way in which we obey that passage, essentially. And so they use the same type of argument here. And they argue that that was cultural. And so the principle really is just that men are to dress like men and women are to dress like women. And that's all that Paul is saying. But I have several concerns with this view too, as persuasive as it is. The first is very simple. If Paul is talking about dressing like men and dressing like women, or men dressing like men, women dressing like women, then why does it only come in the context of corporate worship? Clearly the only time there's covering and uncovering when it matters is when praying or prophesying. But men dressing like men and women dressing like women is a principle that applies to all of life, not just worship. So I don't see how it fits the context. Another view, more concerning, is that Paul argues in verse 3, the theological basis of his argument rests in the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the relationship between man and woman in creation. Not only that, but verse 7 appeals to creation, so does 11 and 12. Verse 14 appeals to natural law. When the scriptures are talking about the nature of God and natural law and creation, it's talking about principles that are perpetual and abiding and eternal. I don't find it plausible that Paul would defend a cultural practice based upon eternal, unchanging realities. And the concern of this is because this is a popular approach taken by theological liberalism. It's all cultural. That's the argument they use to say that women can be pastors. It was just cultural back then. Things have changed. That's the argument they use to say that homosexuality is not a sin. That was just cultural back then. Paul's just talking about what was prominent in that day, but in our day, we know things have changed. I believe it's nothing like greet one another with a holy kiss. Because that commandment is not rooted in the Trinity. And it's not rooted in creation. We need to be very, very careful when we take something and say, that's just cultural. We've moved beyond that. We don't have to obey that because sometimes that can turn into a wax nose. With all that out of the way then, those are the four most common views and those are why I believe each one fails to make proper sense of the word. So with our time remaining here, let me try to show you what this means and draw some application. I've kept you in suspense long enough. I wanna be honest and say that what's always baffled me about this passage is not the issue of what the head covering is. What's always bothered me about this passage is the apparent contradiction of Paul's words here. Verse five, every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. If you keep reading in First Corinthians 14, you eventually come, and that's continuing to the very same topic, Corporate worship. If you keep reading into 1 Corinthians 14, you eventually come to verse 33 and 34. And there we read, as in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission as the law also says. In chapter 11, praying and prophesying in worship. In chapter 14, women are to be silent. What's going on? Why the contradiction? That's what's always bothered me. Some have tried to explain this by saying chapter 11 is like a prayer meeting, informal worship. Chapter 14 is corporate worship, so those are different contexts. I find that absurd. There's nothing in the context that suggests this. The entirety of 11 through 14 deals with corporate worship. Others have said in chapter 14 the issue is women interrupting the service, while in chapter 11 they are acting orderly. Again, I find nothing in the context to suggest this. Not to mention the fact that women being silent, as we'll see in a moment, is also commanded in 1 Timothy chapter 2. Others have said, like I mentioned before, that's just cultural. Women being silent was the norm back then, and that's why Paul says it. We don't have to do that anymore. Things have changed. We're more enlightened. We don't have to follow this cultural phenomenon back then. You get the point. What is the answer to this seemingly contradiction in Paul's words? Well, what do you do when you come to a passage that is difficult and confusing and seemingly contradictory? What do you do besides pray? You always look for another clearer passage that addresses the same thing. clearer passages give us insight into the more difficult passages. And so with this, turn with me briefly to 1 Timothy chapter 2. We're not going to read it, but I want to point out a few things from that passage. I want you to notice in 1 Timothy 2, Paul is talking of the same context, corporate worship, he uses the same wording, and he argues the same theological truths. He begins the chapter by urging supplications and prayers and thanksgivings be made in verse one. He defines that then in verse eight, I desire that in every place the men should pray. That is specific, the men should pray. Then those in verse nine, women should adorn themselves. This talks about what women wear in worship, as I mentioned a few moments ago. But then look in verse 11 and 12. Let a woman learn quietly, with all submissiveness I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, rather she is to remain quiet. The same thing as was said in 1 Corinthians 14. What's the theological reason for this? For Adam was formed first, then Eve. That's the same theological reasoning that Paul says in verse eight and verse 12 of our passage in 1 Corinthians 11. So think about it this way. 1 Timothy 2 teaches that in corporate worship, men are to pray, women are to keep silent, and one reason for that is because of the order of creation. Same thing. So turn back now to 1 Corinthians 11, and here's what I believe we can conclude. I believe that Paul is speaking about the cultural practice of head covering in that day, but he does so not to enforce that cultural practice upon the church, but rather he uses it as an illustration to make a greater point. In that day, women wore veils, men did not. In that day, well, if we were to change like that into our day, women wear dresses and lipstick and makeup and high heels, but men do not. Otherwise, it's shameful. This is a culture that Paul is speaking to. Women wear veils, men do not. He isn't commanding it, but he's speaking to his audience. They would have known what he was talking about. But he uses this to illustrate a greater point. And his point is that for a woman to pray or prophesy in public worship, that is, for a woman to lead in corporate worship, is to act like a man. To place yourself in the same position of a man and thus to dishonor the order of creation and headship as woven into creation. In other words, doing What men ought to do in worship is to exercise headship over a man which reverses the created order. That's what he means by head covered and head uncovered. And you say, well, what are the reasons for this? Well, I'll get into more of them in just a moment, but just think about the fact how verse 3 uses the word head. How do we define the word head in verse 3? It's metaphorical. Don't change then, think about a cranium, a skull in the very next verse when he has already defined what he means by head. You dishonor your spiritual head. And then verse four is not prescriptive, but it's descriptive. He's not saying women, when you pray and prophesy, do this. He is describing a situation. Descriptive, not prescriptive. So to reverse the created order would be for a woman to lead in worship rather than remain silent, or a man to sit under the leadership of a woman in worship. That is to cover his head. That is to cover his head as if he was a female, as if he was cross-dressing. And to cover his head ultimately is to bring shame upon the Lord Jesus Christ. So what he's saying is that when men and women reverse their proper roles in worship, it's the same as if they were cross-dressing. That's his argument. Cross-dressing isn't the point. Cross-dressing illustrates the point that he's trying to make. Paul is using culture, he's using a rhetorical flair to argue that the role of women is not to lead in corporate worship. and that the role of men in corporate worship is not to sit under the leadership of women. Now, on what basis do I say this? I know you defend some of this. Well, I'm going to walk you through the passage, verse by verse here. The basis for which I say this, though, is the theology. Whatever the passage means, it must mean what verse 3 ultimately lays the foundation of. It must all flow out of verse 3. And so the flow of the argument is, in verse 3, if we are to honor our head, or the call is to honor our head, When men dishonor their head, who is Christ, Christ is dishonored, God is dishonored. And when women dishonor their head, man, Christ is dishonored and God is dishonored. In verse five, for a woman to act like a man in worship by leading in prayer or prophesying is the same as if her head were shaven. That is, acting like a man is as shameful as trying to look like a man. The point isn't looking like a man, it's like it is acting like a man. And that's why he says in verse 6, if she will not cover her head, that is, honor her head, the man, in that sense, follow the lead of the man in worship, if she's going to act like a man, she might as well just cut off her hair. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut her hair, woman that is, let her cover her head. It's basically saying, look, if there's really no difference between men and women in worship, if all the roles are just the same, then why don't you just shave your head and look like a man? And the response, of course, would be like, never. That's disgraceful, my hair is part of my glory. My hair is part of what distinguishes me from a man. I would never try to intentionally look like a man, so Paul's gonna turn back and say, well then stop acting like a man. If you would never look like a man, then why would you act like a man? Following this then, after going to creation in verse eight and nine, which we considered last week, he gets to the crux of the matter, and this is, I wanna pause here for a second, because this is really important. That is why a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. I said this before that the word symbol is not in the text. He's not calling for a woman to place a symbol of authority on her head. The ESV adds that because they are trying to make sense of the passage. At this point, we would expect Paul to say veil or give some sort of instruction, if you were, because he's kind of summing up things here. That is why a woman ought to wear a veil on her head, but he doesn't say that. Instead, he flips it around. And the Greek here is really difficult and it's interesting. It literally says that woman ought to have authority on or over her own head. Think about this. This is a unique Greek construction. Every other time in the New Testament this exact phrase is used, it always means to have authority over. That is, Paul is saying that the authority that the woman has is over her own head. She is the one with authority. You get that, right? Because it's important. That is why a woman ought to have authority over her head. The woman possesses the authority. I believe this is the best way to understand it. Paul is switching things up here and emphasizing the woman's authority, not her submission. If his point was to say a woman ought to have authority over her head, he would use a submissive type term. A woman ought to be submissive to her authority. But he doesn't. He says, you have the authority. What is he trying to say? How does this make sense? Well, I believe that Paul's words here make it clear that he's not calling upon men to exercise authority and put women in their place, as it were. He's actually affirming their proper role in worship that when they order themselves a right, they are exercising their own authority for the ultimate goal of glorifying God in Christ. She is intentionally not acting in a submissive way, but she's acting of her own authority intentionally to glorify God. And I think that's why Paul says because of the angels. Look, there's two dozen possible explanations for this phrase and nobody ever agrees with anybody. Nobody knows what it means, ultimately. I'm not even exactly sure what it means. Most people take the view that it's because angels are present in worship, which is why we sang the hymns that we did and why we had the call to worship as we did, which speaks to that, that it's true. I don't take that view, but it's possible. Whatever it is, a Corinthian certainly would have understood it immediately. That's why Paul doesn't explain it. My best guess though, Paul says this because of what he just said about a woman exercising her own authority. Because angels also exercise their own authority. They have authority and power from God, but how do they use that authority and power? Hebrews 1 and 2. Their ultimate goal is to glorify and point to the Lord Jesus Christ. Fallen angels are described in Jude as leaving their proper abode. That is, they use their power and authority in opposition to the glory of God, which led to their destruction. So I think Paul is both encouraging and warning the women in the church. A woman ought to, she has an obligation to exercise authority over herself because that's what holy angels do and because fallen angels have abused their authority for the wrong purposes. I think this view of women having their own authority in this respect is affirmed by verses 11 and 12 where Paul's point is that men and women are independent. They complement one another because all things are from God. They each have an authority that is to be exercised in their proper order and roles in a complimentary way. And I think that's what Paul then draws to a conclusion in verse 14 and 15 where he says, does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it's a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory for her hair is given to her as a covering. Is it disgraceful for a man to have long hair? Is it disgraceful for a woman to have short hair? Samson had long hair. It was His glory. In the Old Testament, if you took a Nazareth vow, you could not cut your hair. Paul took a Nazareth vow in the book of Acts. Was it disgraceful for him? No, Paul is speaking in generalities. Long hair on a man is not disgraceful. But it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair dressed up in an attempt to look like a woman. And the same is true for a woman in short hair. Short hair... th th Appears to be a door slamming. Apologize about that. I guess that tells me I should wrap up. Take a deep breath. God is good. We live in a day and age where, yes, shootings and violence and other things are serious matters. And so I don't blame you all for being a little jumpy. God is good. The point I was wrapping up, I promise. Long hair on a man is not disgraceful, but it is disgraceful for him to wear it in a way to try to look like a woman. We've seen that in our day. Short hair is not disgraceful on a woman, but it is, maybe we would call it a butch cut, trying to look like a man. That is disgraceful. Paul's point is that nature teaches us these things. There are distinctives between men and women. There are distinctives between how men and women exercise the authority that God has given them. Paul takes it for granted that a man to try to look like a woman or a woman to try to look like a man is shameful and dishonoring to God, and he uses that to say in the same way, for a man to act like a woman in worship, which would be to sit under her leadership, or for a woman to act like a man in worship and to lead over him, is likewise shameful. It blurs gender distinctions and the purposes of God. What this looks like then is that women are called to be silent in worship in the sense of leadership, not silence in general, obviously. Men are called to take the lead in worship. And I want to conclude at this point in just some closing application in this. I do believe that Paul uses the cultural context to teach us that women ought not to lead in worship. because it is an exercise of authority, it is a function of authority, and it goes against God's order and creation. But here's the point. Before you tighten up about that, here's the point. Here's what really matters. It's not about masculinity or femininity. It has nothing to do ultimately with the strengths and weaknesses of men and women or their skills and different skills and giftedness. I will be the first to say that I've heard countless women who can teach or even preach better than many men, including myself. Let me also say that just because women are not to lead in worship does not mean that they don't have other gifts of wisdom of learning and teaching that are very valuable to the church. I wish you knew how often prior to my sermon in the week like my over the years that my wife has helped me understand or apply a passage. I've learned from her. I wish you knew how often I've learned from you, women in our church, through conversations, through emails, through the Bible studies we have. Things and insights that I've learned about the text, about the Lord, about the Christian life. Only a fool would neglect the spiritual gifts that God has given women in the church, including gifts of teaching. Not in a leadership sense, but in general. But men and women have different roles. And you might ask, okay, if this isn't rooted in femininity or masculinity, why does God instruct this? And the answer is very simple, because of Jesus Christ. That's what it all comes down to. Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, the office of a prophet, priest, and king were limited to men. Why? Were there not women prophets like Deborah in the book of Judges? Absolutely. She had greater gifts than anybody of that generation, but she didn't hold the office of a prophet. Weren't there women in the Old Testament like Hannah, who far more devout and godly, faithful and priestly intercession of prayer? Didn't she have greater gifts than men? Yes. But you could say the same thing about why weren't any prophet, priest, or kings open to the Gentiles? Weren't there Gentiles in the Old Testament that were more gifted and godly than some Israelites? Absolutely. But only a Jew, only an Israelite could point to the ultimate Israelite, Jesus Christ. Only a male prophet, priest, and king could point to the ultimate prophet, priest, and king, the Lord Jesus Christ. In the very same way, the reason why men lead in worship is really for no other reason except the fact that Jesus Christ is a man. and a woman up here leading the singing or leading the praying or leading the preaching obscures ever so slightly the reality that Jesus is our worship leader. Jesus is the head of the church. Jesus is present and active when his people gather. It's all about Christ. It's not about me as a male. It's about what represents and reminds us that Jesus is a man, the greater Adam, our prophet, priest, and king, the head of the church, the center of our worship, the center of the Christian life. It's very simple. The question just comes down to that. Do we love Jesus? Do we want To glorify Jesus, do we want to honor Jesus? I will say that Paul in this instruction, he doesn't throw out condemnations as if a woman leading worship is now a false church or a heretic. He just appeals from nature and says, isn't this kind of just natural what we should be doing? Yes, it is, because we want to honor Christ who honors God. So at the end of the day, I end this the same way in every single sermon. Look to Jesus Christ. You'll find the answer to this passage in looking into Jesus Christ, just like you will find the answer to every other question or struggle or sin or sorrow or grief or confusion that you have in any part of life. Look to our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and let us honor and glorify Him. Amen. Let's pray.