A letter responding to argument number two from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3. March 26, 2011. The second argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3. Having completed our discussion of your first argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2, I now proceed to your second argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, wherein you state the following, quote, number 2, the argument in verse 3 is rooted in nature, which does not change with culture. Christ is always the head of man, God the head of Christ, and man the head of woman, unquote. That is from your email dated January 20, 2011. Paul lays the foundation of headship and submission in 1 Corinthians 11, 3, which forms the moral principle for what he will be addressing in regard to the custom, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, of women retaining the covered head when they leave the public secular arena and enter into the public sacred arena. 1 Corinthians 11.3 is, quote, but I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God, unquote. First note that 1 Corinthians 11.3 begins with the adversative word but, quote, but, which is in Greek day, I would have you know, but I would have you know, unquote. This indicates that what Paul is about to say by way of correction is in contrast to the praise he just gave them for remembering him and keeping the unstated, quote, ordinances, unquote, that he had previously delivered to them from 1 Corinthians 11 verse 2. This is just another indication that Paul's rebuke and correction in regard to the head covering in first Corinthians chapter 11 verses three to 16 was not included among the ordinances which they were keeping and for which he praised them. First Corinthians 11 to second is it is a metaphorical use of the word head that is in view here. in 1 Corinthians 11.3 when Paul states, quote, the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11.3, emphasized in the word head. Just as the head is literally positioned above the other members of the physical body, so the head is figuratively superior in rank in the three relationships described in 1 Corinthians 11.3. Christ is the head of every man, the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ. Jesus Christ, as Mediatorial King, has been granted by the Father a headship over all things, and that is found in Ephesians 1, verse 22, which certainly includes a headship over all men. Just as God is not the head of Christ as Christ is the Son of God, For the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are, quote, one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory, unquote, as summarized by the answer given to question six in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. But as Christ is the Son of Man, i.e., as Christ is Mediator, So Christ, as the Son of Man and as Mediatorial King, is the head of, quote, every man, unquote, i.e., every man is under the Lordship of Christ as he is Mediatorial King appointed by God, just as every nation is under the Lordship of Christ as he is Mediatorial King, according to Revelation chapter 1, verse 5. I submit that the headship of Christ over, quote, every man, unquote, in 1 Corinthians 11, 3, is not a spiritual or an ecclesiastical headship, but rather a universal headship over every man without exception. When we find the use of every man in 1 Corinthians 11, 4, that is, quote, every man praying or prophesying, unquote, every man is qualified by those who are praying or prophesying. However, here in 1 Corinthians 11.3, every man is unqualified, and therefore I submit it refers to the mediatorial headship of Christ over every man without exception, whether Christian, Jew, or heathen. And likewise, I submit that the headship of man over woman refers to men and women without qualification, whether Christian, Jew, or heathen. This point is very significant and needs to be understood because it demonstrates that Paul is not immediately concerned in 1 Corinthians 11.3 with relationships within the church or within church meetings, but is rather immediately concerned to formulate universal moral slash theological principles that relate to all men and women, whether they are Christians or not, whether they are in the church or outside the church. In other words, these universal moral principles of headship-slash-submission among men and women relate to cultural society as well as to ecclesiastical society. Moreover, these examples of headship-slash-submission cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.3 would also likely have encouraged the Corinthian women to understand that they were not the only ones who were under the headship of another. Yes, women are under the headship of men, but men are under the headship of Christ as Mediatorial King, and Christ as Mediatorial King is under the headship of God. Thus headship does not mean superiority in regard to essence, but rather superiority in regard to rank. Just as Christ is not inferior to God in regard to the divine nature, so women are not inferior to men in regard to their human nature. There is simply a divine order which God has established in His moral universe from the time of creation as it relates to the headship of men and the submission of women. Carefully note that from the very outset of Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11, the moral principles of headship-slash-submission among men and women relate not simply to the church, but to all society at large. Therefore, I propose at this point that if the moral principles of headship-slash-submission among men and women relate to the whole Corinthian society rather than simply to the Corinthian Church, the outward sign of that headship-slash-submission, namely the uncovered head for men and the covered head for women, also relates to the cultural context of the whole Corinthian society rather than solely to the Corinthian Church. Which would mean that if one believes that a covered head is now required for a Christian woman in the public meetings of the Church, due to the moral principle of submission, and an uncovered head is now required for a Christian man in the public meetings of the Church, due to the moral principle of headship, then it would also mean that a covered head is now required for all women in public society, due to the universal moral principle of submission, and an uncovered head is now required for all men in public society, due to the universal moral principle of headship. For clearly, the moral principles of headship-slash-submission are not based upon the regulative principle of worship. Otherwise, they would not apply outside the assembly of the Church or outside the realm of Christians. But clearly, the moral principles of headship-submission do relate to the divine order that God has established in secular society as well as in sacred society. Thus, to limit universal moral principles of headship slash submission that relate to all men and women, and their corresponding outward signs of the uncovered head and covered head to only ecclesiastical meetings, is, in my opinion, unwarranted and unreasonable to suppose. I would submit that the only reason why Paul brings the matter of the uncovered head for men and the covered head for women to the attention of the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 was because the women were taking off their head covering when they entered into the assembly of the church. Likely, this was an ancient feminist movement on the part of women who perhaps sought to erroneously portray the truth that there was neither male nor female in Christ. That is from, of course, Galatians 3 verse 28. It would seem to me that one can only establish that the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women relate only to ecclesiastical meetings by first establishing that the universal moral principles of headship slash submission are based upon the regulative principle of worship, which relates only to ecclesiastical society, which obviously cannot be done, because the headship of man and the submission of women go all the way back to creation. see 1 Corinthians 11, verses 7-9, and relate to all nations, cultures, and societies. Third, The headship of the man over the woman goes back to creation, as was just stated above. But Paul is not teaching that the head covering itself is a creation ordinance, but that the universal moral principles of headship in men and of submission in women are moral principles founded in the law of nature, stretching back to creation, and taught by the light of nature within man to varying degrees, even if sin has greatly distorted the light of nature within man. For Eve was not created wearing a head covering, and Eve did not wear a head covering and worship there in the Garden of Eden, even though the universal moral principles of headship slash submission were clearly established at the point of their creation, as we see in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 7 to 9. For both Adam and Eve were created naked, and were naked the entire time while in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 2.25. Thus there is no dispute as far as I am concerned with your statement, quote, the argument in verse three is rooted in nature, which does not change with culture. Christ is always the head of man, God, the head of Christ and the man, the head of woman, unquote. What I do dispute is that this argument that Paul uses in first Corinthians 11, three proves that the head covering itself is quote, rooted in nature, unquote, rather than rooted in custom. The universal moral principle of male headship and of female submission is indeed rooted in nature, but not the head covering itself. Otherwise Eve would have been created with a head covering upon her head, or commanded to place a head covering upon her head when she worshipped there in the Garden of Eden. Thus, because Eve was not created with a head covering or commanded to wear a head covering when she worshipped, we may conclude that it is the universal moral principle of headship slash submission, which relates to all cultures, all societies, and all churches, rather than the head covering itself, which relates to only particular cultures, societies, and churches. That's what Paul specifically has in view in 1 Corinthians 11. Fourth, it has already been argued in the first letter, dated February 4, 2011, from a contrast of 1 Corinthians 11.2 in the use of the word ordinances, i.e. apostolic traditions, with 1 Corinthians 11.16 in the use of the word custom, i.e. customary signs, that the head covering fell under the category of a customary sign according to Paul, not under the category of an ordinance, whether a creation ordinance or a regulative principle ordinance. Thus Paul is not teaching that the use of the uncovered head for men and the covered head for women is universal and unalterable, but that the moral principles of headship slash submission are universal and unalterable. When we confuse this most important distinction at the very outset of Paul's discussion, we will inevitably fail to distinguish an unalterable universal moral principle revealed within man by the light of nature from an alterable, non-universal cultural sign outwardly practiced by society at large. just as the unalterable moral principle of loving service to the brethren is to be distinguished from the alterable cultural practice of washing the feet of Christ's disciples. John chapter 13 verses 14 and 15. So the unalterable moral principles of headship slash submission are to be distinguished from the alterable cultural signs of the uncovered head or covered head. Fifth, let me elaborate on this point by using a different outward cultural sign. If, within a cultural context, it is customary to have gender-segregated seating in public meetings so that a clear distinction between men and women, and the headship of men and the submission of women is outwardly demonstrated in public meetings, then that cultural practice should not be overturned when the Church of Jesus Christ gathers for public worship. Incidentally, gender-segregated seating was the ordinary practice in Christian churches from ancient days to at least the early 18th century, even as it was generally the case in civil, secular public meetings from ancient times. No doubt, In a culture where there is gender-segregated seating in public meetings, in both civil and ecclesiastical meetings, it would become a scandalous matter that would need to be addressed by the appropriate church court if a congregation decided to practice mixed seating, i.e., gender-integrated seating, thus removing such cultural practices intended to distinguish between men and women and intended to portray the headship of men and the submission of women. not because gender-segregated seating itself is a creation ordinance or a regulative principle ordinance, but because the moral principles of maintaining male-female distinctions and maintaining the headship of men and the submission of women is taught by the light of nature and displayed in that cultural practice of gender-segregated seating. The same is true in regard to the customary practice of 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16 of head coverings. The reason it was a matter that Paul needed to address in 1 Corinthians 11 is not because the head covering itself was a creation ordinance or a regulative principle ordinance, but because in that cultural setting in Corinth, for a woman to remove the customary sign of her submission to man when she entered into the public church meetings was to undermine the moral principle of male headship and female submission, which was taught by the light of nature and portrayed by the customary sign of the head covering within the Corinthian society at large. Thus, we must be clear at the outset that we are properly distinguishing the alterable customary sign from the unalterable moral principle, or we will end up with the wrong conclusions as to what Paul is saying. Even of greater significance, as shepherds of Christ's sheep, we would be imposing an alterable, customary sign, as if it were an unalterable sacred sign, upon the consciences of the sheep when there is no warrant for doing so, no matter how well-intentioned we may be. I will stop there in responding to your second argument from 1 Corinthians 11. I look forward to your responses, as you have the time. Yours for the cause of Christ, Greg L. Price A letter responding to argument number 3, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 5. April 17, 2011. The third argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 5. I move now to your third argument, which is taken from 1 Corinthians 11.5, wherein you state, quote, number three, Paul says that a woman is shamed by, in verse five, by failing to wear a head covering as if she were shaven. Paul seems to indicate she would naturally be shamed in any culture, unquote, from your email dated January 20, 2011. First, Paul moves now from having just set forth a universal moral-slash-theological principle of headship that addresses, quote, every man, unquote, in every culture without qualification, whether he be Christian, Jew, or heathen. In 1 Corinthians 11.3, quote, the head of every man is Christ, unquote. to applying that universal moral slash theological principle of headship to a specific case within the public assemblies of the Church of Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 11, 4, which says, quote, every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. For surely if the universal moral-slash-theological principle of headship applies to every man in every culture without qualification, whether he be Christian, Jew, or heathen, in 1 Corinthians 11, 3, quote, the head of every man is Christ, unquote, then certainly that universal moral-slash-theological principle must necessarily apply to Christian men meeting in the public assemblies of the Church of Corinth. 1 Corinthians 11, 4, quote, every man praying or prophesying, unquote. Specifically, every Christian man who gathers for worship in the Church of Corinth with a veil hanging down from his head, thus mimicking the cultural dress of Corinthian women in that society, dishonors his head, Christ. That comes from 1 Corinthians 11, 3, and brings gender confusion into the house of God. For a man to cover his head with a veil in the Corinthian society was, in effect, to take upon himself the customary sign of female submission. And for a man to bring that customary sign of female submission into the Church of Christ was to further aggravate his sin by dishonoring Christ and by disrupting and confusing the divine order and the very worship of God, who established that order of male headship and female submission from the very creation of man and woman. Whether some men in the Corinthian church were actually wearing a veil in worship is not clear, though it is possible that such was the case since Paul addresses the men first and the women second. Or whether Paul proposes this scenario as a hypothetical case with regard to men before directly addressing the actual case of abuse by women, in either case the respective apostolic applications to men and women in the Corinthian church is clear. Christian men ought not to take upon themselves the customary sign of female submission, the veiled head within the Corinthian society, nor ought Christian women to take upon themselves the customary sign of male headship, the unveiled head within the Corinthian society. Whether, quote, every man praying or prophesying, unquote, refers only to the ministers who alone prayed and prophesied publicly, or whether every man praying or prophesying refers to all the men in the congregation who prayed and prophesied representatively through the minister, the point of Paul remains the same. men ought not to take upon themselves the customary sign of female submission, the veiled head within the Corinthian society. Clearly, the scripture does teach that the minister serves in a representative capacity when he leads in worship as the voice of many, rather than merely as the voice of one. Hebrews 5.1, quote, for every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men, i.e., on behalf of men, as men's representative before God. in things pertaining to God." Likewise, Paul infers later on, in 1 Corinthians chapter 14, that the whole congregation was represented in the praying and prophesying of the minister as the voice of many. For it was necessary for the minister, who spoke in tongues publicly, by way of a miraculous gift from the Holy Spirit, to also interpret what he spoke in a foreign language, so that all, even the unlearned, could say Amen at the conclusion of the giving of thanks to the Lord in the foreign language. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 16 says, quote, Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? unquote. Thus the whole congregation could be said to be praying or prophesying when the minister was praying or prophesying. And thus Paul's instruction in regard to men in 1 Corinthians 11.4 may not only apply to the minister who is praying and prophesying publicly, but also to all the men in the congregation who representatively pray and prophesy through the minister. Paul states that the man who prays and prophesies in the public worship of God with his head covered, quote, dishonoreth his head, unquote. That is 1 Corinthians 11.4. Paul now ties together the specific ecclesiastical case of headship found in 1 Corinthians 11.4 to the general moral slash theological principle of headship found in 1 Corinthians 11.3. For the head that was dishonored or shamed by a Christian man who appeared in the Corinthian church wearing the customary sign of female submission within the Corinthian society, i.e., the head covering, was his head, Christ, rather than his own literal head. It is a far more egregious aggravation of sin to dishonor and shame Christ, the mediatorial king of all creation, than it is to simply dishonor and shame one's own head. The fact that 1 Corinthians 11.3 has specifically used the term head three times in a figurative sense should guide our interpretation of the word head in 1 Corinthians 11.4 when Paul states that a man who appears in the public meetings of the church wearing the customary sign of female submission, quote, dishonoreth his head, unquote. Why make such a significant moral slash theological point in 1 Corinthians 11.3 about headship and in particular, quote, the head of every man is Christ, unquote, and then entirely disregard this very moral slash theological principle in the very next verse, 1 Corinthians 11.4? It may very well be true that a Christian man appearing in the public of worship of God wearing the customary sign within the Corinthian society of female submission, i.e. the covered head, would bring dishonor and shame upon his own head, i.e. upon himself, but that is not the primary point that Paul is seeking to make here in 1 Corinthians 11. However, the point Paul seeks to make is that dishonor and shame are brought upon the name of Christ, who is the head of every man, 1 Corinthians 11.3, by such actions on the part of Christian men in the public worship of God. Why would Christ be put to shame by a Christian man who appeared in the public worship of God in Corinth wearing the customary sign within the Corinthian society of female submission? because when a man who is under the headship of Christ, according to 1 Corinthians 11, 3, disappeared in the public worship of God with the customary sign of female submission, he mocked and disgraced Christ, his head, who, as mediatorial king, was given lordship over men, that men might likewise reflect the image and glory of God in their loving headship over women. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7. When the inferior does what is shameful in public, does it not likewise bring the greatest shame upon the superior? When children act shamefully and disrespectfully in public, does it not bring the greatest public shame upon the parents? In fact, the whole divine order of headship revealed in 1 Corinthians 11.3 might as well be overthrown. For if one link of the divine order of headship may be broken, the man's headship over the woman, why not the other links as well, Christ's headship over every man, and God's headship over Christ? Thus, I submit, it is the shame brought upon Christ as a far more aggravated offense than merely the shame brought upon His own literal head that is distinctly in view in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 4. Second, Paul then moves from addressing Christian men to addressing Christian women as they appear in the public worship of God in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 5 and 6. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head. For that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. It is from these verses that you have specifically drawn your third argument. Allow me to ask a couple of questions and provide answers based on what you have stated in your third argument. Question 1. Who does Paul infer is shamed by the Christian woman who removes her head covering when she assembles for the public worship of God in Corinth? The woman herself or men? In other words, who is the head that Paul has in view when he states in 1 Corinthians 11.5, ìBut every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head.î The womanís own literal head? Or men as the divinely ordained head of women? From your third argument, you have taken the view that Paul infers in 1 Corinthians 11.5 that shame falls merely upon the Christian woman's own head, i.e. upon herself, if she removes her head covering upon entering the assembly of the Corinthian church for public worship, and thus appears in the public worship of God in the customary sign of male headship, i.e. the uncovered head. You say from your email dated January 20, 2011, quote, Paul says that a woman is shamed, verse 5, by failing to wear a head covering as if she were shaven. I would submit that just as his head in 1 Corinthians 11.4 has primary reference to Christ, who is man's figurative head according to the moral slash theological principle found in 1 Corinthians 11.3, quote, the head of every man is Christ, unquote. So likewise, her head in 1 Corinthians 11.5 has primary reference to man in a general sense and to the fathers and husbands in a particular sense. who is woman's figurative head, according to the moral slash theological principle found in 1 Corinthians 11 3, the head of the woman is the man, unquote. Once again, this is not to deny that when Christian women gathered for the public worship of God in Corinth, appearing in the customary sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head, that they brought shame upon their own heads for portraying themselves as men. But I would submit that the shame brought upon their own heads was not the most significant shame involved, nor the point that Paul was making in 1 Corinthians 11.5. On the contrary, the most aggravated shame was directed toward men in a general sense and to fathers and husbands in a particular sense. For the divine order of headship related in 1 Corinthians 11.3, quote, the head of the woman is the man, unquote, should likewise govern who the woman's head is in 1 Corinthians 11.5, quote, but every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head, unquote. Just as 1 Corinthians 11.3, quote, the head of every man is Christ, unquote, governs who is man's head in 1 Corinthians 11.4, quote, every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonoreth his head, quote, unquote. It is one thing for an inferior to bring shame upon oneself by one's own actions, but it is another thing, and a greatly aggravated offense, to bring shame upon one's lawful superior appointed by God from the creation of the world. As Calvin has observed from this text, this is from Men, Women, and Order in the Church, Three Sermons by John Calvin, Presbyterian Heritage Publications, page 26, quote, now then, when a woman acts this way, she dishonors every man on earth, unquote. To bring shame upon the man by her appearing in public worship in the customary sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head, was also to strike at God, who ordained male headship from the very beginning, as Paul will next make clear in 1 Corinthians 11, 7-10. Once again, remember that Paul introduces in 1 Corinthians 11, 3 the matter of headship with three separate cases where this moral-slash-theological truth applies. the headship of Christ over every man, the headship of the man over the woman, and the headship of God over Christ. But if Paul never applies this general moral-slash-theological truth to a specific case, as in 1 Corinthians 11, 4-6, then one wonders for what purpose were these moral-slash-theological truths concerning headship-slash-submission introduced at the very beginning of this section. Surely the Holy Spirit did not intend to introduce general moral slash theological principles in 1 Corinthians 11 3 without specific application to the particular ecclesiastical cases at issue in 1 Corinthians 11 4 to 6. Under the first question, perhaps it would also be appropriate at this time to indicate that whether or not the Christian men in the Corinthian Church were guilty of wearing the customary sign of female submission, i.e., the covered head, it ought not to be doubted that Christian women in the Corinthian Church were actually guilty, and so was the Corinthian Church court for tolerating it, of appearing in the public worship of God in the customary sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head. For after 1 Corinthians 11.4, nothing more is specifically stated by Paul about the shame of the covered head of Christian men in the public assembly of the Church of Corinth, but the remainder of this section in 1 Corinthians 11.5-16 is directed toward the uncovered head of Christian women in the public assembly of the Church of Corinth. Likewise, under this first question, it is important to note that whether the Christian women in the Church of Corinth were specifically assuming the role of the minister in praying or prophesying publicly with an uncovered head, or whether the Christian women in the Church of Corinth were praying or prophesying representatively through the minister as the voice of many with an uncovered head, It is an egregious violation of divine order for the woman, let alone a Christian woman, to appear in the Corinthian society at large in the customary sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head, but especially for the Christian woman to appear in the public worship of God in the customary sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head. If indeed Christian women were actually assuming the role of the minister by praying and prophesying publicly as a voice of one, and were doing so using the customary sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head, the women who did so, and the ministers and elders that tolerated it, were guilty of an even more aggravated sin, which Paul later forbids in 1 Corinthians 14.34, quote, let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak. but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." This is to take the perversion of God's creation ordinance of male headship and female submission and to tempt God himself by flaunting the inversion of women's submission with man's headship in the very face of God within his public worship. End page 58. 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.