Moreover, I submit that there is inferred in the supporting argument of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, 5-6, an analogy between the uncovered head of a man and the shaven or shorn head of a man that should not escape our notice, just as a shaven or shorn head of a man in Corinth did not apply only to public worship, but was the customary style for men in Corinthian society in general. In other words, a Corinthian man who was shaven or shorn was not only shaven or shorn after he entered into public worship, but would also have that same shaven or shorn head both before coming into public worship, during public worship, and after leaving public worship. So also the uncovered head of a man should be parallel to that. For the uncovered head of a man in Corinth did not apply only to public worship, but was the customary sign for men in Corinthian society in general. In other words, a Corinthian man who was uncovered was not only uncovered when he entered into public worship, but would also have the same uncovered head both before coming into public worship, during public worship, and after leaving public worship. Now let us fill out the analogy by applying what was just said about the man to the woman. Just as the long hair of a woman in Corinth did not apply only to public worship, but was the customary style of women in Corinthian society in general, In other words, a Corinthian woman with long hair not only had her long hair after she entered into public worship, but would also have had that same long hair both before coming into public worship, during public worship, and after leaving public worship. So also the covered head of a woman should be parallel to that. For the covered head of a woman in Corinth did not apply only to public worship, but was the customary sign for women in Corinthian society in general. In other words, a Corinthian woman who was covered was not only covered when she entered into public worship, but would also have the same covered head both before coming into public worship, during public worship, and after leaving public worship. Paul's analogy here in Corinthian society between the uncovered head of a man and the shaved or shorn head of a man And between the covered head of a woman and the long hair of a woman further substantiates the fact that the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women were not limited to the public worship of God, i.e., the regulative principle of worship, any more than the shaved or shorn head of a man and the long hair of a woman were limited to the public worship of God, i.e., the regulative principle of worship. These were all applicable to the Corinthian society in general. But the reason why Paul addresses the issue in 1 Corinthians 11 is because it was specifically in the ecclesiastical arena, and not in the civil arena, that the uncovering of the Christian women in Corinth was occurring. It was in the public worship of God that the women were laying aside their distinctive customary sign for the customary sign of the man. This brought confusion, schism, and disruption into the very place, the public worship of God, where peace, purity, and unity should reign. Before ending this response to your third argument, I think it is worth observing that the covered head of a woman was a fabric covering, distinct and separate from her hair, rather than a reference to her hair, i.e., your long hair that was bound up upon her head. I know you understand this to be the case as well, though there are scholars who specifically identify the covered head of a woman as the long hair of a woman. In other words, the covered head of a woman is the very same thing as the long hair of a woman. First, I submit Paul makes this distinction between the fabric covering of a woman and the long hair of a woman abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 5b, when he declares, quote, for that is even all one as if she were shaven, unquote. In other words, the shameful uncovered head of a woman in 1 Corinthians 11, 5a is, quote, all one as if she were shaven, unquote, in 1 Corinthians 11, 5b. This only makes sense if Paul is comparing a woman who has removed her head covering to a woman who has shaved her head. If the uncovered head of a woman does not refer to removing a veil, but rather means a shaven head, then this nonsensical statement would follow. Quote, the shameful, shaven head of a woman, 1 Corinthians 11, 5a, is, quote, all one as if she were shaven, 1 Corinthians 11, 5b. The same absurd reasoning would likewise be unjustly imputed to the inspired pen of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, 6, where the uncovered head means Once again, a shaved or shorn head, Paul would be declaring, quote, for if the woman be not covered, i.e., if the woman be shaved or shorn, let her also be shorn, unquote. In other words, if a woman have her hair shorn, let her have her hair shorn. Only when one understands that Paul is comparing not identifying an uncovered head with a shaved or shorn head can any sense be made out of what Paul is declaring. Thus Paul addresses the Corinthian women in 1 Corinthians 11, 5, and 6 who were removing a fabric head covering when they entered into the public worship of God and commands them to continue to wear the same fabric head covering in public worship that they had been wearing before entering into the Christian assembly in Corinth. Thank you once again, my brother, for allowing me the opportunity to submit to you my response to the third argument you submitted to me. I await, as you are able, your response. Greg L. Price. A letter responding to argument number four, 1 Corinthians 11, verses 7 to 9. May 7, 2011. The fourth argument from 1 Corinthians 11, 7 to 9. Thank you for your continued encouragement and responses in working through the eight arguments which you submitted to me at the outset of our study through 1 Corinthians 11, 2-16. I move now to your fourth argument, which is taken from 1 Corinthians 11, 7-9, wherein you state, 4. Paul's instructions that a man not cover his head because he is made in the image of God cannot be cultural, for man is always in the image of God. and that is from your email dated January 20, 2011. Before continuing with my response, I want to make it clear that when addressing male headship, the scripture, nor myself, intends to communicate a headship devoid of love and care for the women under that headship. In fact, the supreme example of loving and caring headship is that of Christ, who laid down His own life to save and rescue His bride. See Ephesians 5, 25-28. Any other kind of headship than a self-sacrificial headship that mirrors, though imperfectly, the headship of Christ is not a biblical concept of headship. Though headship communicates the idea of superior rank, it does not communicate the idea of cruel and abusive treatment of those who hold an inferior rank. In fact, men who hold a superior rank are especially to give honor to women who hold the inferior rank. See 1 Peter 3.7. Rather than beating women down, men are to prize, protect, and exalt women as serving the very purpose of God, just as men serve the purpose of God, each in their respective roles. Therefore, all that has been said and all that shall be said in respect of the headship of men and the submission of women should be continually understood within these biblical parameters. Up to this point, that is 1 Corinthians 11.3-6, Paul has argued for the headship of man and the submission of woman from the moral theological principles of headship and submission found in 1 Corinthians 11.3. He then applies these moral theological principles of headship and submission to a very specific instance of abuse in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 4 to 6, because, quote, the head of the woman is the man. 1 Corinthians 11, 3, Christians in Corinth who met together for worship were to appear in the cultural and customary signs recognized within Corinth of man's headship, namely the uncovered head, and of woman's submission, namely the covered head. When a Christian woman in Corinth removed the outward customary sign of submission, the covered head, as she entered the Christian assembly, she usurped the role of man, and generically all men, and particularly the role of her own father and or husband. She brought shame upon man, generically upon all men, and particularly upon her own father and or husband, as the divinely appointed head over the woman. which likewise was an indirect attack upon God himself, who established the headship of man and the submission of woman from the beginning of creation. Having laid one piece of the foundation of his argument, and having applied it as well to a specific case in the Church of Corinth, Paul is now ready to lay another piece of the foundation of his argument in addressing the problem in the Church of Corinth. Moving from the moral theological principles of headship and submission found in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, Paul now lays the next piece of the foundation of his argument in addressing the confusion and schism brought into the Church of Corinth by men possibly covering themselves and by women actually uncovering themselves. Man is the image and glory of God, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7. First, Paul begins this verse with the word for, gar, in Greek, so as to provide a supporting argument to that of 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, in explaining, on the one hand, why Christian men in Corinth ought not to cover their heads when they assemble for worship, and, on the other hand, why Christian women ought to keep their heads covered when they assemble for worship. Just as Paul began with the men in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 4, and then proceeded to the women in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 5 and 6, so likewise Paul follows the same course here in laying the second piece of his foundation. First, he specifically mentions the men in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, quote, for a man indeed ought not to cover his head, unquote. Second, he specifically mentions the women in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, quote, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, unquote. Second, whereas in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 3 to 6, Paul began by laying the foundation in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, and then proceeded to the cultural application within the Christian assembly in 1 Corinthians 11, 4 to 6, here in 1 Corinthians 11, 7, part A, Paul reverses that order and begins with the cultural application to men within the Christian assembly. Quote, for a man indeed ought not to cover his head, unquote. and then lays the foundation afterward in 1 Corinthians 11, 7b-9, after which he returns with the cultural application to women within the Christian assembly, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10. Third, the cultural application of men within the Christian assembly is simply stated that, quote, a man indeed ought not to cover his head, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, which is, in essence, restating what Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 11, However, there is a certain oughtness stated by Paul in this application to men, quote, a man indeed ought not to cover his head, unquote. Does this imply that an uncovered head for men is a universal moral duty in all cultural and or ecclesiastical contexts? I submit that such is neither a good nor a necessary inference to draw from Paul's words. For there is likewise an oughtness by way of command associated with other cultural practices in Scripture that are not universal moral duties to all subsequent generations, nations, or churches on earth. 1. The divine prohibition against cutting the corner of the beard was a cultural practice forbidden to the Israelites because it mimicked the practices of Canaanite religions, see Leviticus chapter 19, verse 27, and therefore not a universal moral prohibition. 2. The divine command to shave the head so as to become bald was a cultural practice of ancient times, signifying grief and shame. See Micah 1.16. But it is not a universal moral duty. 3. The divine charge to put on a sackcloth was a cultural practice of ancient times, also signifying grief and shame. See Jeremiah 6.26. But it is not a universal moral duty. 4. The authorization by Christ for His disciples to wash the feet of one another. Using the same Greek word for ought, as is used in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, was a cultural practice of ancient times signifying loving service. See John 13, verse 14. But it is not a universal moral duty. 5. The apostolic imperative to greet one another with a holy kiss was a cultural practice of ancient times signifying friendship and fellowship. See Romans 16.16, 1 Corinthians 16.20, 2 Corinthians 13.12, 1 Thessalonians 5.26. But is not a universal moral duty. Thus we see that a divine prohibition, a divine command, or a divine oughtness does not a universal moral duty necessarily make. For if the oughtness of Christ in regard to washing the feet of one another, John 13, verse 14, quote, if then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought to wash one another's feet, unquote, does not necessarily infer a universal moral duty binding all Christians and all churches and all ages of the world. I assume at this point I will not argue further that you do not believe that washing is a universal moral command binding all Christians in all churches in all ages. Then the oughtness of Paul in regard to men not covering their heads in public worship, 1 Corinthians 11.7, quote, for a man indeed ought not to cover his head, unquote, does not necessarily infer a universal moral duty binding all Christians in all churches in all ages of the world. Therefore, I submit the oughtness of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, quote, for a man indeed ought not to cover his head, unquote, is not a moral oughtness, but rather a cultural oughtness, demanded by Paul so as to avoid shame, gender confusion, and ecclesiastical schism within the Church of Corinth. Fourth, the reason given why the man in that cultural context of Corinth was not to put on a head covering when he gathered for the public worship of God is stated by Paul as follows. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, quote, for as much as he is the image and glory of God, unquote. Two questions now arise. Number one, how is man the image of God in distinction to woman? 2. How is man the glory of God in distinction to woman? 1. How is man the image of God in distinction to woman? According to the biblical account found in Genesis 1, verses 26 and 27, both male and female were created in the image of God. So why did Paul apply image only to the man here in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7? just as Paul previously focused narrowly on Christ being the head of every man in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, even though it is generally true that Christ is the head of every woman as well. So Paul likewise here in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, focuses narrowly on man being the image of God, even though it is generally true that woman is the image of God as well. The reason it would appear, for Paul narrowing the focus upon man in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 3 and in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 7, is due to the headship that is unique to man in relation to the woman in reflecting the sovereignty of Christ and God over all creation. Although both man and woman are made in the image of God in knowledge, in righteousness, in holiness, and in dominion over the creatures, man, in distinction to woman, more narrowly reflects Christ's and God's lordship and headship in that man is the head of the woman by God's appointment. As already stated in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 3, quote, the head of the woman is the man, and as will be further demonstrated in what follows in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9. Thus the image of God as to role, not nature, is manifested in the man by way of God's appointment from the time of creation that the head of the woman is the man. When addressing the nature of man and woman, both are made in the image of God. When addressing the role of man and woman, man is the image of God because man is divinely ordained to be the head of the woman, as Paul will make clear in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9. Second, how is man the glory of God in distinction to woman? Once again, it would be perfectly appropriate and biblical to speak of both man and woman being the glory of God when speaking of them as to their nature and essence. Since both were made in the image of God, both are meant to reflect the glory of God. But since Paul is not here addressing man and woman as to nature, but is rather addressing man and woman as to role, what was said above in regard to man being in a narrow sense, quote, the image of God, unquote, in relationship to his headship over woman, so likewise it is said here in regard to man being in a narrow sense, quote, the glory of God, unquote, in relationship to his headship over woman. Man is the glory of God, in distinction to woman, because he has been divinely ordained to reflect God's headship in his headship over the woman. Man's headship is intended to bring honor to God as the sovereign of all creation. In other words, the headship of man is intended to reflect the glory that supremely belongs to the Most High God, who created all things for his own glory. This truth lays a great responsibility upon every man, for every man is duty-bound to exercise his headship not to please himself, but rather to please God, who appointed to man the rank of head over the woman. Because man is responsible to exercise his headship in honor, in love, and to the glory of God, man will also be judged accordingly on the last day. Headship is, therefore, not to be treated lightly or to engender pride, but rather ought to humble every man in reverently reflecting to women the just and benevolent headship of God. Fifth, Paul lays the second piece of his foundation in declaring that a man ought not to cover his head, a cultural and customary sign of female submission, since man is particularly the image and glory of God in distinction to woman. The first piece of Paul's foundation having been laid, i.e., the moral theological principle that, quote, the head of the woman is the man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, the second piece of Paul's foundation is now laid, i.e., the creation ordinance that man, quote, is the image and glory of God, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7. It must once again be noted that it is neither the uncovered head itself nor the covered head itself that is the creation ordinance established by God, but rather the creation ordinance established by God is that man, quote, is the image and glory of God, unquote 1 Corinthians 11 verse 7. in his headship over woman, and, as we shall next observe, that, quote, woman is the glory of man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, in her submission to man. Confusing the cultural and customary sign with the creation ordinance will inevitably lead to the wrong conclusion. Paul identifies the creation ordinance established by God, man as the image and glory of God, and woman as the glory of man, so as to instruct the Corinthian Christians that those cultural and customary signs, like the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women, which reflect the creation ordinance, ought not to be disregarded or cast off when assembling within the Church of Corinth to worship the Lord. Sixth, we will return to the woman being the glory of the man as we consider your fifth argument. But for the present, as we are considering your fourth argument, let us briefly consider how Paul proves from Scripture that man is, quote, the image and glory of God, unquote. Paul uses two arguments from the creation account to confirm that, quote, man is the image and glory of God, unquote. First, man was created first, i.e., before woman, by God from the dust of the ground. Quote, for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 8. Man did not have his origin from woman, but woman had her origin from man. 1. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. 2. And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 2. Man and woman were not created simultaneously, as if they were equal in headship. Nor was woman created before man, and man created from woman, as if woman was the head of man. Thus, because man was created first by God, and was created by God independent of the woman, and because woman was created from the man, Paul argues that man is, quote, the image and glory of God, unquote, reflecting the headship of God over his creation. Second, Man was not created for the woman, since the woman did not exist when man was created by God. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. After the man was created by God, it became apparent to the man that he did not have a mate corresponding to him as did the animals that he had named. God declares, quote, it is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him a help meet for him, unquote, Genesis chapter 2, verse 18. Thus, because the man was not created by God to be a woman's helper, but the woman to be the man's helper, man was created to be the head of the woman. Paul, therefore, argues that man is, quote, the image and glory of God, unquote, reflecting the headship of God over his creation. These two arguments in 1 Corinthians 11, 8, and 9 thus provide Paul biblical warrant for why man, in distinction to woman, is, quote, the image and glory of God, unquote. Seventh, thus when you state, quote, Paul's instructions that a man not cover his head because he is made in the, quote, image of God, unquote, cannot be cultural, for man is always in the image of God, unquote. You are absolutely right. Man being, quote, the image and glory of God, is not cultural. It is a creation ordinance that applies to all men in all cultures, in all churches, and in all ages, as Paul demonstrates in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9. However, the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women in the society of Corinth or in the church of Corinth was cultural and not a creation ordinance. For it is clear from the scriptural account of creation and of the fall that both the man and the woman were created with uncovered heads, worshipped in the garden with uncovered heads, and fell with uncovered heads. 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.