For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers that they should make them known to their children." The various topics that we have been looking at in the afternoons have been touched on, several of them, over the years. but many of them not in any great length, and some of them not at all in the 12 years that I have served in this congregation. And the particular topic that we're going to look at this afternoon is one that, as far as I can recall, we haven't touched on at all, but is a part of the practice that our presbytery has adopted, and that is that in the public worship of God, women have their heads covered. Now, the passage, naturally, that we go to is one that is not exactly easy to understand. I myself, for many years, read it and struggled with it. But I do think that the position that we have come to as a presbytery is the right one as far as we think. God has given us light and we would like to set that before you humbly for your prayerful consideration. Not holding it forth as what is called a term of communion that is a requirement to be a member in good standing of the church. We've not seen fit to go that far. As we also recognize that it is a challenging passage, and many other godly believers in the Lord Jesus Christ have seen things differently than we have. Nevertheless, we set forth this position. So if you have your Bibles, open them to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. 1 Corinthians chapter 11, we're going to read through with comment through this passage, noticing the structure of the argument that the apostle outlines, and then closing with several objections. So again, the thesis here, position is that in the public worship of God, women ought to worship God with their heads covered. Beginning at verse 2, now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered to you. It's always a good thing to encourage folks when they are doing a good job. But now he turns to an area in which they need some guidance, even correction. Verses three through six, he lays out an argument, specifically an argument from authority. Verse three, 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. The conjunction but here is pointing us to An issue. Though you have done many things that are praiseworthy, he says to the Corinthians, there's an issue that we need to talk about. And he begins by talking about the relationship of men and women and the Lord Jesus Christ. He's laying a theological foundation. Doctrine precedes practice. The relationship in particular that he speaks of, the relationship of husbands and wives or men and women, the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God. There is a male headship, a headship over the woman. Now this headship is not absolute, it is under the Lord Jesus Christ. Every man answers to Jesus, but he does have an authority over his wife. Verse 4, every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 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. So here's the problem. There is not a reflection, an outward reflection of this reality that the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God. And that can be seen in the congregation in that the women are not covering their heads. Whatever has motivated them to do that, this is an issue. And it's an issue that goes against that authority structure that God has ordained. Aquinas writes that a veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. The woman should wear a covering to show that besides God, she is naturally subject to another. Now, this runs counter to the thinking in our society. The thinking is that in the marriage relationship, there is an absolute equality. Now, there is in the sense of humanness. But nevertheless, there is a difference of roles and responsibilities. And there is a headship. of the man over the woman as God has ordained it. Now, what exactly is meant by praying or prophesying? Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head, but every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head. Does this mean that she is praying or prophesying in the church? Well, we'll get to that in a moment. Verse 6, 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. Paul is saying, here's the consequence. The consequence is that she should be covered. If what I am saying is true, if there is an order of authority If the wife is to be subject unto the husband in the Lord in all things lawful, then the consequence is let her show that forth in the public assembly with the head covered. Unless, of course, she would be shorn or shaven, which is, of course, unthinkable. Paul continues in verses seven through nine an argument from creation, an argument from creation. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, why? For as much as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for So what the Apostle is doing here to support this particular practice that the Corinthians had cast aside, what the Apostle is doing is that he is expanding, he is explaining further this order of authority, he is further supporting his argument, pointing back at the history of creation. Remember the story. God made mankind with two genders. He made man male and female. Now, did he make them both simultaneously? He did not. He made man first, the very gender of the male first. And he looked and he saw that it was not good that man should be alone. So he put Adam to sleep and he opened up his side and took out a rib and from that he fashioned and formed a woman. He woke him up and presented the woman to the man that she might be a helper for him. So you see the Apostle Paul is again setting forth the distinctions of gender from the very order of creation. The man was not created for the woman, but the woman was created for the man. Now there's an argument from the angels, verse 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." Some think that angels here might refer to ministers as Revelation 2-3 and various places might suggest. Then the reading here would mean that, lest ministers should be offended at this indecency, let the women be covered. I think it's more natural to take angels as those spiritual beings which are present in the gathered assembly in a special way. The Apostle Peter says in 1 Peter that the angels desire to look into those things that concern the salvation of human beings. And so, What Paul would be saying in this case is that the indecency of the woman not wearing a head covering would be grieving to these holy beings. Prosostom writes, the angels are present here. Open the eyes of faith and look upon this site. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the church? Hear the apostle teaching this when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels, lest they be grieved at the indecency, who are greater and higher beings. Now, in verses 11 to 12, there is a qualification. Lest it should discourage the woman that somehow Paul is teaching that women are absolutely inferior to men, the wives to their husbands. He indicates that there is, in another sense, a great equality. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. They need each other. They complement each other, lest the man should think, ah, God made me first and you were made to serve me. Paul would say to that man, you need the woman. You need each other. You can't do without each other. And then he goes on to say, for as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman, but all things of God. Every man after Adam is by the woman. None of us men came forth into this world except by the womb of our mothers. So Paul isn't a male chauvinist here. Paul isn't despising women by any means. Now an argument from nature, verses 13 through 15. Judge in yourselves, is it comely or is it appropriate or is it decent that women pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering. So now Paul challenges the Corinthians with respect to this issue of doing what is decent in worship in the church. We might as well speak about this praying or prophesying. At this point, as Paul brings it up once again in verse 13, is it comely, is it decent that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Now this cannot mean, this praying or prophesying by the women, that women could exercise these functions in the church because they imply authority. We know that because in only two chapters later in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 34, And 35, we read, 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. And if they will learn anything, then let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. So whatever the women praying or prophesying means, it certainly cannot mean that within the church these women are given or allowed to have certain official teaching roles. This is against the practice of many other churches within Christendom. It is not proper for a woman to teach, as Paul says, to exercise authority over a man. It goes against nature. It goes against the authority that God has ordained. That doesn't demean the woman, because woman is created with the greatest of dignity. And in Christ, there is an absolute equality. There is neither male nor female. There is neither bond nor free. But Christ is all in all. Men may prophesy. or pray in the church but when they do so they must not be covered according to verse 4. Professor Murray understands this as follows, if a woman will pray or prophesy publicly they might as well take off their head covering for this is none other than the refusal of the sign of subjection. Now he supports all of this now by pointing to nature. Doth not even nature teach you? He moves from special revelation to general revelation and specifically he points to the general difference that there is between the hair that men and women maintain. There's a distinction of sexes naturally. Men tend to have shorter hair. Women tend to have longer hair. And this supports, from nature, the argument that he is making. Finally, the argument from the church. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. It's thought that what is meant here is that the Apostle Paul is reproving the Corinthians' self-sufficiency and disputatiousness. That is, if you still want to fight, you need to realize that there has never been an alternate custom within our churches. And the churches since that time have kept the ordinance as Paul delivered it, or should have. Now, let's deal with several objections. Admittedly, this is a challenging passage and an issue that not all Christians see eye to eye on, but we want to deal with natural objections that have come and might come in a way that we would trust would be God-honoring and charitable. The first objection one could raise is that this custom of women having their heads covered in the public worship of God was proper to the culture of that time and therefore doesn't oblige us today. It's a cultural issue. For example, there are clearly some very distinct cultural features of the New Testament churches that I don't think many or any of us would think that we should practice, for example, the holy kiss. At the end of several letters of the apostles, we read, greet one another with a holy kiss. Now there are some who may still do that, but for many Northern Europeans, that is not necessarily something to which we might gravitate. It's done in some cultures, but we wouldn't necessarily suggest that it is a law that we all must hold to. It's a reflection of love that expresses itself in the Mediterranean world with a holy kiss. So, is the women wearing the head coverings, the veils, in the same category as the holy kiss? It's a natural question. Well, we want to be sensitive to that question. We would respond and ask, in response, why would the apostle with a long-term view for the church quibble about indifferent customs? This is 14 verses that we have just read in a letter that is filled with many doctrines and instructions, why would the apostle be so very concerned about something that really is just indifferent? I say potato, you say potatoe. It doesn't really matter. We also might ask, Why would the apostle heft such theological weight to prove his point? Fourteen verses and he delves into some very deep theological issues. God, Christ, the relationship of man and woman and angels. Does he do that kind of thing with a holy kiss? Does he say, now, I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered to you. But you really should resume the practice of the holy kiss, and here's why. And let me give you this theological reason, and that theological reason, and that theological reason. Just wouldn't make sense. Further, why would he include this, if it were merely cultural, in a section where he is correcting abuses in worship and setting matters for the future practice of God's people straight? You know what follows this passage is the passage in which he corrects their abuses of the Lord's Supper. And why do we feel it necessary to resort to a cultural argument when the argument as we have made it seems to make sense? Another objection comes from the understanding of Paul's use of the word ordinances in verse two. Technically, in the original, the word could be translated traditions. It could be read, now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you. So, is this just a tradition? Implying that the tradition is relative. You have all different kinds of traditions. When you go home, you probably have a certain traditions as to what you're going to eat or what you're going to do or who you're going to call. Or when you get together over Thanksgiving, you've got certain Thanksgiving traditions. Well, they're nice things, but you wouldn't absolutize them. You wouldn't say that everyone has to conform to the way that I go about doing this. Well, we admit there are indeed traditions of men, and these do not bind us. And we trust that we would be humble enough if there ever was a practice or a tradition that we observed that you did not think was biblical, that if you came to us respectfully and said it at our feet, that we would hopefully take the matter seriously. Because we don't want to be doing things in the Church of God simply because it's something we've always done. And we like it. That's the way it is in way too many churches. People don't have a biblical reason for why they do this or why they do that. It's just something we've always done, and we like it, and we're rather fond of it, so don't take it away from us. But just because there are traditions of men that do not hold authority over us, there are also divine traditions. 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 15 uses the same word as follows. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. Hold on to them. He also, observe, praises the Corinthians for keeping them. If you praise somebody for doing a good job, you're doing it because they're doing a good job. They're working hard. They should be commended. He uses the language, as I delivered them to you. Now, if the other view was correct, this would be like me praising you for holding on to polyester and bell bottoms. But I should neither praise you nor scold you for your fashion choices. It's an indifferent thing. He also uses the same formula later with respect to the Lord's Supper. What I have received of the Lord, I have delivered unto you. And he cannot praise them in that case because they had not faithfully kept the traditions that the Apostle Paul had given. So he can't make it a relative cultural thing by reading too much into the word ordinances or traditions. Next, one might object, we're not throwing off the principles of headship. Rather, we're saying that we should maintain the principles and follow that custom that is proper to our culture that best honors those principles. Let me try to say that again in different words. We share the same principles you do. We're not like this egalitarian world that says there's no difference between the sexes. And that there's no such thing or ought not to be any such thing as a woman submitting to her husband. That's what our culture says. It's a culture that's been influenced not by the word of God but by feminism. Now, we share these principles with you, but we would simply say that we would express and maintain those principles and express them in a different cultural shape than wearing the head covering. Well, we would admit that there may be aspects of head coverings that are what we call positive. They're neither right nor wrong. If you go to a church meeting in Iraq, you will see women wearing certain kinds of head coverings that are rather different from the head coverings of women in Sudan. Personally, I prefer my wife to wear a brimmed woman's hat as I think it raises fewer eyebrows within the United States than others would. But what would that custom be on the alternate view unless it is simply to come with an uncovered head, the very thing that Paul appears to be arguing against? And if one says that the woman's long hair serves as a covering, then that's a different argument altogether, which we'll address now. That objection says that the custom was never, in fact, the practice of the early church, but that women were to maintain long hair. That covering, therefore, is a woman's long hair. And at first glance it might seem as though a reading of verses 14 and 15 support that very position. Let's read it again. Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him, but if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her for her hair is given her for a covering. Well, I suppose reading this passage through 20th and 21st century eyes, that might make sense. But we respond, why then does Paul introduce the issue of hair length as a supporting argument? Because that's what he's doing. He's earlier said, based upon these considerations, the relationship between male and female, and God, and Christ, and the angels, and the order of creation, let the woman have her head covered. And here's another argument that supports everything I've just said. Look at nature, look at how God made men, and look at how societies generally Follow this pattern, men have short hair, women have relatively longer hair. A supporting argument is distinct from the argument itself. You don't support what you are trying to prove with what you are trying to prove. Rather, Paul is proving that women should cover their heads in public worship with some type of cloth covering, and he is supporting this by pointing to nature's witness to the distinction that exists between men and women in the length of their hair. But I think the response here that I'm about to give is even more forceful than that. And it goes back to verse 6. 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. If the covering of verse 15, the long hair of the woman, is the exact same thing as the head covering that he's earlier been speaking about, then verse 6 makes no sense. It's redundant. It's like saying this, if she has short hair, then let her have short hair. Or if she has been shaven, then let her be shaven. It doesn't make sense. But verse six makes perfect sense if we read it with the sense that we have adopted. That is, if a woman will not cover her head, then she might as well be shorn. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, then let her cover her head. Last. Shouldn't women then always have their heads covered? Well, we'll say this. This passage seems to be, and it seems rather clear to me, referring in the context to the public gathering of God's people. He's been talking about praying and prophesying. It's not appropriate. for a man to pray and prophesy with his head covered. And Paul speaks about prophesying in the church in 1 Corinthians 14 and verse 4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Also, verses 2 and 17, are very, very similar, and they seem to link the two passages. Verse two reads, now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I deliver them to you. And verse 17, now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. So it seems to support the idea that what it's referring to is the gathering of God's people in public worship. Second, the supporting argument from nature, the long hair, seems to point to its limited mandate in verses 14 to 15. But if any women wish to wear a covering outside worship, there certainly is no prohibition. I want to conclude with a few quotes. We've mentioned already the opinion of Chrysostom, an early church father, and Aquinas. But let me conclude with the opinions of others, which is not equal to scripture, but we would suggest echoes its teaching. who was one of the great church fathers, wrote at approximately 200 AD a treatise called The Veiling of Virgins. And apparently the reason why he wrote this was because virgins, that is unmarried women, were taking off their veils or their head coverings in church. And they didn't think that they needed to because they weren't married. That was the situation. So Tertullian writes, so too do the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day, the Corinthians do veil their virgins. Of course, that includes the married women, but at this point, the issue in dispute is virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approved. So Tertullian tells us that at 200 AD, if you went to the church in Corinth, unmarried women and the virgins would have their heads covered in worship. Augustine writes that it is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair since the apostle commands women to keep their heads covered. Luther writes the wife has not been created out of the head so that she shall not rule over her husband but be subject and obedient to him. For that reason, the wife wears a headdress that is the veil on her head as St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that she is not free but under obedience to her husband. Last, R.C. Sproul writes, the wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the 20th century. And I remember talking with my mother. She told me when she was a girl, when she went to church, she and her sister wore hats to church. She wasn't Presbyterian. That was the case across all American Christianity. What happened, Sproul asks, did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical use of views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ, which is the pillar and ground of the truth? What is a good question? I leave you with this exhortation from Paul, judge in yourselves. Resolve the matter in your own conscience. I encourage you also for those of you, young ladies, women who do wear hats, make sure that you're doing it for the right reasons. But let us also be gracious towards others who may not agree with us, and win the day through charity. Amen. Let us close in prayer. Please rise. Lord, we pray that thy grace may rest upon us Show us thy favor, O Lord, and lead us in thy way. Forgive us our many sins. Cover us over in the blood of Jesus Christ. We ask it in his name. Amen. We'll sing now from Psalm 123. Psalm 123, all stanzas to the tune Peterborough. Tune number 88. O thou that dwellest in the heavens, I lift mine eyes to thee. Behold, as servants' eyes do look, their masters' hand to see. O Thou that dwellest in the heavens, I lift mine eyes to Thee. Behold, as servant's eyes do look, their master's hand to see. As handmaid's eyes her mistress' hand, so do our eyes attend. Love of the Lord God, until to us he mercy send. O Lord, be gracious to us, unto us gracious be. Because they plenished with contempt exceedingly are we. Our soul is filled with scorn of those that at their ease abide. and with the insolent contempt of those that swell in pride. Please rise, receive the benediction. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.