Question two. When Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11.5 that every Christian woman in the Corinthian church who prays or prophesies in the public worship of God with an uncovered head dishonors the man, i.e., her head, and that to do so is one and the same with the woman who either shaves or shears her head in order to look like a man, 1 Corinthians 11.5-6, does Paul state or imply that this woman in the church of Corinth, who appears with an uncovered head in public worship, would, quote, would naturally be shamed in any culture, unquote, per your third argument stated above. What this question implies, due to the universality stated in the question, quote, in any culture, is that the uncovered head of a woman, in and of itself, in public worship, is either a violation of the regulative principle of worship binding in all churches throughout the whole world in all ages, or a violation of the moral law of God binding all societies of men and women in all generations throughout history. These would seem to be the only two viable alternatives available if one seeks to impute a universal shame to all women in all cultures and at all times who appear in the public worship of God with an uncovered head. For only the regulative principle of worship and God's moral law can universally transcend all cultures and all times to bind the consciences of human beings. I submit that Paul neither states nor implies that the uncovered head of a woman, in and of itself, within the public worship of God was a violation of the regulative principle of worship, nor that it was, in and of itself, a violation of the moral law of God. Thus, if there is neither a violation of the regulative principle of worship nor a violation of the moral law of God in the uncovered head of a woman in and of itself in public worship, there can be no universal shame caused by all Christian women in every culture and at all times who appear in the public worship of God with an uncovered head. There may be a local shame caused by Christian women, in certain cultural contexts, who appear in the public worship of God with an uncovered head, but not a universal shame. Let's begin by considering the reasons why the uncovered head of a woman in the public worship of God is not a violation of the regulative principle of worship, and therefore not a cause for universal shame. First, we would want to know when God instituted this alleged regulated practice of worship, the covered head of a woman, in His Word. Eve did not wear a head covering when she worshipped God there in the Garden of Eden, for while they were in the Garden both Adam and Eve were naked, Genesis 2.25. In fact, there is nothing stated in the Old Testament about women being required by scriptural regulation to be covered in worship, or for that matter, for men to be uncovered in worship. Since Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11 verses 4-6 that men are to be uncovered at the precise same time that women are to be covered, if the uncovered head is not scripturally regulated in regard to all men in public worship in the Old Testament, then the covered head is likewise not scripturally regulated in regard to all women in public worship in the Old Testament. But clearly men, at least the priests, were required by God in Scripture to cover their heads in worship. See Exodus 28, verses 4, 37, and 40. Did the covered head for men in Old Testament worship bring universal shame and dishonor upon Christ, the head of all men in all cultures and in all generations? Obviously not, since God commanded men to be covered in public worship, at least the priests. Then the uncovered head of women in worship could not bring universal shame and dishonor upon men, who are the head of women, in all cultures and in all generations. In other words, if the uncovered head for men was not regulated in Old Testament worship, how could the necessary counterpart, i.e., the covered head for women, be regulated in Old Testament worship? If Paul was simply continuing a regulated part of worship in the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women from the Old Testament to the New Testament, why do Paul's statements contradict the divine regulation found in the Old Testament? Second, there is complete silence in the New Testament with regard to the head covering being a regulated practice in worship, unless, of course, that is Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 11. Jesus did not address the issue at all in requiring a head covering for women in the public worship of God, nor did the other apostles do so in any of their epistles. If the veiling of women in worship and the non-veiling of men in worship is specifically regulated by Scripture, it seems odd, to say the least, that this alleged regulated ordinance in worship was first introduced by Paul. Is there any other regulated practice in worship that is not found as to essence in Old Testament worship? All regulated parts and practices of New Covenant worship clearly had their origin in the Old Testament and were continued into the New Testament, such as prayer, the reading of Scripture, exposition of Scripture, psalm singing, the benediction, the sacraments, oaths, vows, covenants, and even the Sabbath. And although the outward administration of the sacraments and the Sabbath has changed, they are in essence the same as that which was instituted in the Old Testament. However, if one changes the use of the covered head so that men, at least the priests, if not all men, are required to be covered in worship in the Old Testament but required to be uncovered in the New Testament, one has altered the very essence of the meaning of the head covering as taught by Paul, which is that the covered head is a sign of female submission and the uncovered head is a sign of male headship. Is the veiling of women and the non-veiling of men in worship the only regulated act or practice in New Covenant worship that does not have its origin in the Old Testament? If there is one, what would it be? I do not believe the Scripture warrants such a position. Third, if one might seek to argue that Paul was the first one to institute, as a regulated practice in worship, the uncovered head for men and the covered head for women, how then was the Church of the Old Testament not commanded to do that in worship, which is alleged by many to be a creation ordinance, appealing to 1 Corinthians 11, 7-9? If Paul's exhortation in 1 Corinthians 11 is a part of regulated worship, it should have bound not only the New Testament saints, but Old Testament saints as well. But it is demonstrable that such was not the case. Since there is no other command found in Scripture which requires men to be universally uncovered in worship and for women to be universally covered in worship, and since there are places in Scripture where men did not keep Paul's alleged command in worship and did not do so with God's approval, how can we interpret Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 11 to be applied universally in all ecclesiastical circumstances? For the above three reasons, I submit that there cannot be universal shame in all cultural contexts due to every woman who does not wear a head covering in the public worship of God, for the wearing of the head covering in worship is not warranted by the regulative principle of worship, which is clearly universal in scope and application in regard to worship. And until the uncovered head for men and the covered head for women are clearly proven from scripture to be governed by the regulative principle of worship, we have no scriptural warrant to apply universal shame in all cultural contexts when women in worship pray and prophesy with an uncovered head. Having considered the reasons why the uncovered head of a woman in the public worship of God is not a violation of the regulative principle of worship, let's now consider the reasons why the uncovered head of a woman in and of itself in the public worship of God is not a violation of the moral law of God. For if there is a universal shame upon a woman who prays and prophesies with an uncovered head, and if that universal shame is not due to a violation of the regulative principle of worship, which is universal in its scope to all Christians in all cultural contexts when they gather for worship, as noted above, then the alleged universal shame of a woman who prays and prophesies with an uncovered head must be due to the moral law of God, which is universal in its scope to all men, women, and children, in all cultural contexts, in all generations, and the only other possible reason why there would be universal shame for the uncovered woman in worship. It should be observed that if, for the sake of argument, God required by His moral law for all women, Christian and non-Christian alike, to cover their heads, such a requirement would not be limited to the public worship of God alone, but rather it would apply to all women, without exception, in all cultural contexts, whenever they appear in public, or at least in all public meetings. And if this were the case, Christian women who removed their head covering when entering into the public assembly of the saints would be in violation of God's moral law, which would in such a case bind all women whether in civil society or in ecclesiastical society. The first reason why the covered head of women, in and of itself, in all public contexts, is not required by the moral law of God, is that the covered head for women was certainly not a creation ordinance that bound Eve as a woman, even though the moral principle of submission to Adam did bind her, and even though the moral law of God clearly bound her. For Adam and Eve were created naked, Genesis 2.25, and lived and worshipped in their nakedness without any garment upon their body, which includes the head, there in the Garden of Eden, even though the moral principle of male headship and female submission are inferred from the Genesis account, first by the order of creation, first man, then woman, and second by the origin of woman, she was taken from man, see 1 Corinthians 11, verses 7 to 10. All of God's moral law bound Adam and Eve there in the Garden of Eden, and yet Eve did not cover her head. Thus I submit that the covered head for women or the uncovered head for men is not comprehended under the moral law of God. Neither is there any indication that God required Eve to cover her head when appearing in public after the fall, or for Adam to always appear in public with an uncovered head after the fall. For carefully note that God made a coat of skins for both Adam and Eve after the fall, Genesis 3.21. He did not make a head covering for Eve. If, for the sake of argument, it was a universal moral requirement for women to be covered at all times in public and in all cultural contexts, God would have surely made a distinct article of clothing, i.e., the head covering for Eve, as the representative for all women throughout the whole world. The Hebrew word for coat in Genesis 3.21 means a tunic, which was the ordinary garment for both men and women worn about the body. If the coat here refers to or includes a veil for a woman, it is the only place in Scripture where that Hebrew word for coat would bear that meaning. Furthermore, what God made for Eve, a coat, He also made for Adam, a coat. Thus if God clothed Eve with a coat, and if that means God also made her a head covering, then He also clothed Adam with a coat, and that also means God made him a head covering as well. For what God made for the one, He made for the other, namely a coat. One cannot distinguish here a difference in the clothing which God prepared for Eve as opposed to the clothing which God prepared for Adam. Thus the Scripture knows nothing of God's moral law requiring all men to be uncovered when in public, both civilly and ecclesiastically, and requiring all women to be covered when in public, both civilly and ecclesiastically, at the creation of man and woman, or at the fall of man and woman. Thus the head covering, in and of itself, does not fall under authority and regulation of God's moral law. Second, moving from the time of creation and the Fall, we consider next the rest of the period of the Old Testament to see if warrant may be found from God's moral law for all men to be uncovered in public, both civilly and ecclesiastically, and all women to be covered in public, both civilly and ecclesiastically. Rebekah was uncovered in the presence of the men who traveled with her until she saw Isaac, her future husband, at which time she covered herself with a veil, Genesis 24, 65. How does this practice of Rebekah comport with what Paul says? Are women only to veil themselves when they are in the presence of their husbands or future husbands? If Rebecca's action here in veiling herself in the presence of her future husband is based upon the moral law of God, we might then conclude that when a woman's husband is not present, she is not required to veil herself, even if she is in a public meeting, whether civil or ecclesiastical. And if that is the case, then Paul is only addressing women in the congregation whose husbands were present in worship, but is neither addressing the women who were single nor the women whose husbands were not present in the public worship of God. But clearly Paul makes no such distinction with regard to women in the Corinthian Church, but is quite inclusive of all women in the Corinthian Church, whether married or single, whether her husband was present or not present in worship. 1 Corinthians 11.5 says, quote, but every woman that prayeth and prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head, unquote. Thus the example of Rebecca in covering herself in the presence of her future husband may certainly have conveyed in that cultural context a respect for and submission to her future husband, but it cannot be maintained with any consistency that Paul was teaching that women are only required to wear a head covering, according to the moral law of God, when their husbands or future husbands were present. Again, the fact that Ruth had a veil, Ruth 3.15, and that the beloved one of the king had a veil, Song of Solomon 5.7, does not prove that such was required by God's moral law. It may just as well indicate a cultural practice at that time. For if it was required by God's moral law for a woman to be covered whenever in public, both civilly and ecclesiastically, then it was likewise required by God's moral law for men to be uncovered, whatever in public, both civilly and ecclesiastically, according to Paul's teaching, which clearly states that at the precise same time that women are to be covered, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 5, men are likewise to be uncovered, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 4, due to the moral principles of headship and submission, stated in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3. But do we find men covered in the Old Testament in both civil and ecclesiastical settings? Yes, we do. For example, David covered himself as he fled from Absalom, 2 Samuel 15, 30. In so doing, was David taking upon himself the sign of female submission and violating the moral law of God? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego wore turbans in their civil life, Daniel 3.21. In so doing, were they taking upon themselves the sign of female submission and violating the moral law of God? The bridegroom wore a headdress of some kind at his wedding, Isaiah 61.10. for the phrase, quote, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, unquote, literally means as a bridegroom adorns himself with a headdress like a priest. The same word translated ornament in Isaiah 61.10 is translated as turban in Ezekiel 24 verses 17 and 23. In so doing was the bridegroom taking upon himself the sign of female submission and violating the moral law of God? And the priests of God covered themselves with miters or bonnets as they worshipped the Lord. See Exodus 28, verses 4 and 40, as we have already noted above. These few examples illustrate that Paul's words to men to be uncovered and to women to be covered in the church of Corinth could not be based upon the moral law of God. Otherwise, there is a contradiction in God's moral law as applied to the Old Testament and as applied to the New Testament. which we know is impossible, for it is impossible for God to lie or to deny himself." 2 Timothy 2, 13, and Titus 1, verse 2. Thus, since the words of Paul in requiring men to be uncovered in public worship at the exact same time that women are required to be covered in public worship neither fall under the regulative principle of worship, which is universal in the public worship of all Christian churches in all ages, nor fall under the moral law of God, which is universal in all civil and ecclesiastical contexts for all people in all ages, we may conclude that there was no universal shame that resulted in all cultural contexts for women to pray and prophesy with their heads uncovered. It was not a universal shame that Paul addresses here in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 5, but rather a local shame that resulted from women in the Church of Corinth appearing in public worship with the customary uncultural sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head. Third, and finally, Paul moves from declaring that a woman who appears in the Corinthian assembly with the customary sign of male headship, the uncovered head, shames her head, i.e., all men in general, and her father and or husband specifically, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 5a, to now providing support in 1 Corinthians 11, 5b-6, for what he has just declared. The conjunction for begins the introduction of Paul's supporting statement. Quote, 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 be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 1 Corinthians 11, 5-6. Paul states that when a woman removes her head covering upon entering the Corinthian assembly, thus appearing with the customary sign of male headship, she might as well have her head shaven with a razor or shorn in a closely cut style, which were the distinctive hairstyles of a man in the Corinthian society. The shaven or shorn styles for men were not unique to the Christian men in Corinth when they appeared in worship, but were the cultural style of men in the Corinthian society in general. Thus Paul is really declaring that Christian women who want to appear in the assembly of the Corinthian church looking like a man, which was true of the uncovered head in the Corinthian society, ought in all consistency to go all the way in shaming and disgracing all men, and their fathers and or husbands in particular, not only within the Corinthian assembly specifically, but also to cut their hair to look like a man's shaven or shorn head, in shaming and disgracing all men in general, and their fathers and or husbands in particular. Paul is simply showing the Christian women in Corinth where their uncovered head in public worship logically and consistently leads them, to a shaven or shorn head that is not limited to public worship, but is seen by everyone in public society in general. Paul says, in effect, if you do not want to bring shame upon all men, including your fathers or husbands, by shaving or shearing your head to look like a man in public at all times, then stop uncovering your head in public worship and appearing in the customary sign of male headship. Continue to cover your head when you come into public worship as it was covered before you entered worship. This is the emphasis of the present imperative, quote, let her continue to be covered, unquote, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 5, i.e., don't remove the head covering once you've entered into the Church of Corinth, but continue to wear it when worshiping God. Still Waters Revival Books is now located at PuritanDownloads.com. It's your worldwide online Reformation home for the very best in free and discounted classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books, mp3s, and videos. For much more information on the Puritans and Reformers, including the best free and discounted classic and contemporary books, mp3s, digital downloads and videos, please visit Still Waters Revival Books at PuritanDownloads.com Stillwater's Revival Books also publishes The Puritan Hard Drive, the most powerful and practical Christian study tool ever produced. All thanks and glory be to the mercy, grace, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ for this remarkable and wonderful new Christian study tool. The Puritan hard drive contains over 12,500 of the best Reformation books, MP3s, and videos ever gathered onto one portable Christian study tool. An extraordinary collection of Puritan, Protestant, Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Covenanter, and Reformed Baptist resources, it's fully upgradable and it's small enough to fit in your pocket. The Puritan hard drive combines an embedded database containing many millions of records with the most amazing and extraordinary custom Christian search and research software ever created. The Puritan Hard Drive has been produced to assist you in the fascinating and exhilarating spiritual, intellectual, familial, ecclesiastical, and societal adventure that is living the Christian life. It has been specifically designed so that you might more faithfully know, serve, and love the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as to help you to do all you can to bring glory to His great name. If you want to love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, then the Puritan Hard Drive is for you. Visit PuritanDownloads.com today for much more information on the Puritan Hard Drive and to take advantage of all the free and discounted Reformation and Puritan books, mp3s, and videos that we offer at Still Waters Revival Books.