We pray this in Jesus name. Amen All right. So going over to uh, first corinthians chapter 11 This is part of our verse by verse series going through first corinthians answering the question Uh, how do we walk in the spirit? We are now entering into kind of a new section in chapters 11 through uh, 14 It's it's really a section that deals with how to walk in the spirit in the context of a local body of believers Okay, that's going to go all the way from 11 to 14. There's a special emphasis on that. You know, if the Bible does teach that women are to wear head coverings, whether when they prophesy, when they pray, or whether in general, if we're not willing to do what God says, there's an issue with our hearts. If we don't delight in God's will, there's an issue. You know, if God tells us that we need to wear head coverings or any other thing we need to do, we've got to have, first of all, a willingness and not start initially from a prejudice, right? And I'll tell you that I think we're in the best position to get a right understanding of Paul's discussion of head coverings because we've been going through 1 Corinthians and we've been going verse by verse and we're getting the context. So many things are lawful in themselves, God permits them, but they're not all expedient. That's the context we're coming out of. That's what was repeated again and again in the passage. These things that are not expedient are not spiritually profitable for others. And now we're gonna get into the head coverings. Let's read the passage with this context in mind. This is the context. This is the backdrop. Let's read the passage down to verse, what is it, 16? Let's read it down to 16. Uh, and, uh, we'll start at verse 2. I already covered verse 1. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2. I'm in the wrong place. Alright. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I deliver them to you. 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. 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 the one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. Cut her hair short. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of 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 the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power or authority. Either way, it's translated power or authority. Power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman, but all things of God. Judge in yourselves. Is it comely that a woman 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 recovery but if any man seem to be contentious we have no such custom neither the churches of god so there it is there it is and uh it presents several different perplexing ideas when you read it especially for the first time you read it maybe for the first hundred times you read it um And so we've got the context here. We're looking at the previous context leading up to it, dealing with Paul has just been describing liberty, okay? And how that liberty needs to be curbed because your desire is to do all things to the glory of God. Now he's rolling into changing into teaching about the corporate setting, okay? And he's going to bring these ideas to bear on the corporate setting because these are building blocks he's building up. and so we're getting into the head covering debate alright i think it's going to bring clarity when we see uh... it first of all i wanna i want to deal with a certain interpretation right off the bat so very common interpretation uh... i have to say a very tempting one i i i think it's quite tempting for many to say that the uh... the covering is the woman's hair alright anybody ever heard that one the covering is the woman's hair many uh... if you look at a verse fifteen right They suppose that the covering is the woman's hair, because you'll read there in verse 15. Let me get it. If a woman have long hair, it is a glory for her, for her hair is given her for a covering. Her hair is given her for a covering. So they'll take that verse to mean that, hey, maybe some were coverings as cloths that cover their head. By the way, there's no debate about what the covering is described here. The word, it's pretty much non-debatable. We know it was a cloth covering. It covered the head. You can dig into the Greek if you want, but that's what it is. It was a cloth covering. Could the hair be for the covering? Could the long hair be for the covering? This idea that the hair is the woman's covering does not stand up under scrutiny in light of verse 6. Verse 6 is, I think, an insurmountable problem for the hair as a covering view. It says, 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." And this would create quite a strange statement, quite a strange statement if the hair is in fact the woman's covering. It would read kind of like this in verse 6, for if the woman have short hair, let her also have short hair. It would be totally redundant. See what I'm saying? So, it seems irrefutable to me the hair cannot be the covering And there's some discussion of the fact that the hair is given to the woman and it's her glory, whereas the covering is a sign of authority. So that's some things for you to think about. What is the covering described here? As I said, it's talking about a cloth covering, okay? It's talking about a cloth covering. If you look at culture, You can look it up very easier. It's easier to find than ever now. Culture back in that day. If you look at Corinth, there was really three different cultures that kind of came together, primary cultures that came together at Corinth. There was the Greeks, of course, right? That's where it was. But then it was a Roman colony. So you have the whole Roman culture and their domination of their culture coming in, but also then you'll have the Jews. You have the Jewish culture, kind of all three of those. And amongst those, You did have some women that would cover out in public for modesty's sake and so forth, but not all. It wasn't kind of a universal thing that all women would cover themselves and so forth. You have some rumors that prostitutes, women prostitutes, would shave their heads and so forth. I don't think that one is a well-established fact, but I do not think that I don't think it's escapable the fact, the basic fact, that the covering is a cloth covering that was put over the head, okay? But if we remember back, okay, to the previous context coming into this, we've got to remember what Paul said about externals. He says all things are lawful, okay? Not all things are expedient. And a cloth covering, once you know what it is, you gotta admit a cloth covering is an external practice. Right? Now God can command something external. He does that with communion. That's an external practice. That's New Covenant. He does that with baptism. That's an external practice. So we can't say that under the New Covenant God doesn't command any external practices and thereby throw out head coverings on that basis alone. If God commands head coverings under the New Testament, we obey it just like we practice. baptism and communion. But we know that basic principle of outward things being indifferent, a cloth covering certainly fits that category. So we know at least that head coverings are indifferent in themselves. That means in themselves as a physical external thing, like Paul refers to as just the rudiments or the elements of the world, something physical. It has no intrinsic power in itself to make you more spiritual. It's like some people want to wear a cross. There's nothing wrong with wearing a cross, but if you think that wearing a cross around your neck is going to somehow make you more spiritual, that somehow it's going to communicate some kind of grace or power to you, well, there's a problem. It's a problem with any kind of idea that our external objects have some kind of... We deal with that with communion, false ideas about communion, that the bread and the wine have some kind of intrinsic, inherent power to communicate grace. And of course they had the idea that the food, the food offered idols, was somehow communicating defilement to them. No, it's just food. So it's an outward thing, it fits this category, okay? And so there's no intrinsic moral weight attached to wearing or not wearing a cloth covering. Of course, if God commands it, we obey. But an inflexible mandate for head coverings would seem to undermine the liberty and flexibility of the New Covenant, which Paul has just described in the previous chapters. And instead of Christianity being incredibly adaptable to all contexts, now we would have to interpret Paul to mean that missionaries must insist that converts wear their hair a certain way and women cover their heads regardless of the context. Granted, you might have some cultural adaptation if you implemented this. Different cultures could have different kinds of head coverings and so forth. There's a certain amount of adaptability there, I admit. But still, you have to grant that this is a step away from the kind of liberty that we've been learning about in our things. That the gospel is so adaptable to so many different cultures. Now some say, Even though it's an external thing. Even though it's indifferent in itself. Like communion and like baptism. Right here in chapter 11 they say it's undeniable. Don't try to get around it. The text is very clear. Head coverings are required. It's a disgrace. For the woman, especially to pray or to prophesy without a head covering, that's based on Paul the Apostle, right? Apostolic authority giving us this. There's no way around it, they say. Now, if we're trying to get around it, there's a problem. But hold that thought for one minute. We have to discern whether this advice, counsel on head coverings is localized or timeless directed. Now that might sound abrasive, what do you mean a localized directive? If God says it in his word, it's for all time, it's for the church for all time. Now hang on a second. Hang on a second. Paul, back in chapter seven, if you look back, you flip back to 27, 727. He directed the single Corinthian Christians not to seek a spouse. Let me read that verse. 727. This is apostolic authority. This is a command by the apostle in 727. Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. So single folks, apostolic command says do not seek to be married if you're not married. Now we have to remember something about that command, don't we? Because we just studied it. That command was not grounded in an eternal principle which would run contrary to the creative norm of marriage, right? And, of course, to marriage all through the Old Testament as well. That command was grounded as an expedient choice in the light of something he said in verse 26. It was localized in verse 26 of chapter 7. Paul had said, I suppose therefore that this is good or expedient for the present distress. There was a present distress. It means the command not to seek to be married was localized. It was based and grounded not in an eternal law. It was grounded in circumstances. See that? I can prove that very easily. In 1 Timothy 5.14, Paul says, I will, therefore, I desire, therefore, the younger women married. Bear children. Guide the house. Is Paul contradicting himself? Telling, if you're not married, don't seek a spouse. And now he's saying, women, seek to get married. Is he contradicting himself? No. No. It's a localized command. It's not grounded in the eternal. It's timeless. It's grounded as an expedient course of action in the circumstances. And guess what? Circumstances change. Therefore, in a different circumstances, his counsel changes. Even though he's an apostle, he makes distinctions and judgments based on different circumstances. You have to admit this is a reality of the New Testament. You have to take it into account when you're studying the Bible. And so it goes back to the present distress. Consider another example. There was a localized command from the Council of Jerusalem, all the churches met together, and not only by apostolic authority, but the apostles said the Holy Spirit was on board with this in Acts 15. that the non-Jewish Christians were directed to abstain from foods offered to idols. That's Acts 15, 29. That's a command to the non-Jewish Christians not to eat food offered to idols. Yet, we just saw Paul in 1 Corinthians allows for them to purchase it from the public market and to eat it. Are they contradicting? Are we having apostles go against apostles here? No. It was an expedient course of action at that present hour Paul shows he holds up, upholds our liberty in the gospel. So we need to realize sometimes you could have a messed up interpretation based on a localized command, not understanding the context that this was localized to a certain set of circumstances or context. We need to recognize that when we're studying the Bible, when we're doing Bible interpretation, we need to take it into account. It is not subverting the authority of God's Word. It is reading it and studying it and learning the plain sense of the Bible. So sometimes apostolic commands in the New Testament are localized to a specific time or period, circumstances. And when it comes to Paul's directive about these head coverings, how do we determine? Now we have the question, okay? We know this, there are some localized commands. How do we determine it? Because you might be saying, yeah, I see it with the command, the prohibition against the food offered idols. I see it when you talk about this other command over here. I don't see this in chapter 11. I don't see that this was a localized command. I don't see any evidence here that this was localized. Some will contend, because of Paul's words here in 1 Corinthians 11, these are required for the entire church age, the wearing of head coverings for the entire church age for all Christian women. Such an argument is indeed plausible, and if it's a sincere conviction, it's commendable. It's commendable. I think, though, until you look at that context, So are the head coverings mandated as a requirement which transcends the Corinthian church, the circumstances at Corinth, the circumstances of the Greco-Roman churches in that age? I think it's a fairly easy question to answer when these things are taken into account. The key is determining Where is this command grounded? We learned that the localized command not to marry was grounded what? It was grounded in temporary circumstances. There was no eternal command. It wasn't like the Ten Commandments says, those who are not married shall not seek a spouse. He doesn't ground it in creation. He doesn't go back and say, you know, God telling Adam, don't seek a spouse. He grounds it in present circumstances. All we have to do is study the text and see where is Paul grounding the command? What is he grounding it in? Okay? Some people say he's an apostle. He's just grounding it in his own authority. I would argue that's not what he's doing here. I would argue that's not what he's doing, because he does make appeals here. What is he appealing to? What is he grounding it in? Okay? Now, when Paul issues an unchangeable, timeless command, an unchangeable command, he always grounds it in something timeless and unchangeable. He's not going to ground a timeless command in circumcision. He's going to ground it in something that holds fast forever. Right? We see this through the whole book. I'll just run you through several of these. We've been studying the book. He commands that the Corinthians in chapter 1 verse 10 to be perfectly joined together, to be united, right? He grounds that call for unity on the indivisibility of Christ. He says, is Christ divided? Chapter 1 verse 13. Is that an eternal fact or is that something that changes? No, it's eternal, it's timeless, it's grounded in the very nature of Christ Himself. So He bases the command for unity on Christ Himself. Chapter 5, verse 7, you remember Paul commanded them, Purge out therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump as you are unleavened. For even Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us in that context. Paul had explained how there was fornication, sexual immorality among them, that presupposes categories of sin. Defined by God's moral law. This brings us all the way back to the grounding in God's eternal, timeless moral law. Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, the holiness code. A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman. All these commands. Sexual immorality. It's grounded on the moral law of God. And all that sexual immorality stuff falls under the general command, thou shall not commit adultery. First Corinthians 5.11, you see another command. He says, I've written unto you not to keep company of any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, a covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such know not to eat. Again, Paul grounds the command for separation in the Mosaic law, even in the passage quoting Deuteronomy, where the Israelites are commanded to put away the wicked person from among them. He grounds it in the law. 1 Corinthians 6, 1, we saw the command. It's an implied command, but he says, dare any of you having a matter against one another go to law before the unjust and not before the saints, implying that there should be some arbitration between the saints. He shows they ought to have settled these matters among themselves, and he grounds this logic in that which will not change based on circumstances or where your local church is in time or location. What is he grounded in? 1 Corinthians 6, 2. Do ye not know the saints shall judge the world? Is that truth going to change tomorrow? Is that truth different whether I'm in Russia or if I'm in the United States? No. It's the saints shall judge the world. The logic is grounded in something that is timeless, or at least for the church age. He grounds it in that. 1 Corinthians 6.18, flee fornication, another apostolic command. Again, here, clearly grounded in God's unchanging moral law. 1 Corinthians 7, 4-5, he gives some counsel to husbands and wives. The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband. Likewise also, the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. Here Paul grounds the command This idea that the, uh, not to defraud one another, accept your consent for a time, he grounds it on the danger of the temptations of Satan. Okay? Is that something that's going to change based on what church I'm in, where, and any time in the church age? No, it's grounded on something you can see is lasting. 7.10, under the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband. He says, yet not I but the Lord. He's referring back to the words of Jesus himself. which were timeless because they themselves were based on God's initial design of marriage, right? Don't separate what God has joined. Jesus even quotes, back to the garden, right? Man shall leave his father and mother, be joined to his wife. The two shall be one flesh, grounded by Jesus and then double grounded in creation. Grounded. 1 Corinthians 10.14, wherefore my beloved, flee from idolatry. Here's another command the apostle gives in our letter. Clearly grounded in God's moral law, you shall have no other gods beside me, eternal, timeless, no problem. Applies at every church, everywhere, for the whole course of church history in the new covenant. 10.25, we just saw this, whatever is sold in the shambles that eat, asking no question for sakes, grounds it on principles of Christian liberty, which of course apply throughout the church age. He qualifies it later. If anyone says to you, this meat has been sacrificed to idols, eat not for his sake that showed it. We talked about that verse, that liberty is grounded. The liberty is grounded in the lawfulness of all foods, but Paul's exception is grounded in the law of Christian love. That's where he grounds it. Both are transcendent and enduring principles. Liberty is going to be around till the end of the church age, any church you go to. Love is going to be around till the end of the church age, anywhere you go to. That's an eternal, timeless grounding. Now we come to Paul's guidance about head coverings, and we ask the question, on what does he ground the head coverings? Now we often hear, if you look down at 1 Corinthians 11, and get down to verse 7, we often hear that Paul is here grounding head covering, the head covering requirement, in the very creation order. Let's read verses 7 through 9 again with this in mind. This is the claim. 1 Corinthians 11, 7-9, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head forasmuch 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 the man. And then look at verse 10, For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, context, authority on her head, a symbol of authority, a head covering. Saying, look, it's undeniable that Paul is grounding the head covering rule on creation norms itself. It's inescapable, they say. I don't think so. I don't think so. Because, if you look, every time that Paul grounds something in a creation norm, he always will quote and refer back to the beginning. He'll go back and quote Genesis. That's the beginning. and he'll show you that it was there in the beginning. I can give you examples. Anytime he does it. In Ephesians 5, 31-32, Paul grounds marriage in creation norms. And he quotes back to Genesis 2, 24 to prove that this was there from the beginning. See? He grounds marriage in creation. In 1 Timothy 2, 13-14, Paul grounds male headship in creation, again showing how this role, Adam, right, as the head of the woman, it's grounded in creation from the beginning. Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 11 does Paul ground head coverings in creation norms because it was not there in the beginning. It was not there. Eve did not wear a head covering. There's nowhere you can go back and quote and show Eve wearing a head covering. She did not. And we know that for a fact. Paul is not grounding head coverings in creation, which is impossible. It wasn't there. He's grounding male headship in creation. Right? It was when Adam ate the fruit that their eyes were opened. Eve ate first. Why weren't hers? He was the representative. He had a role. He had a responsibility as a leader, as a head. Right? He named the animals. He named Eve. God, that's a symbol that shows you there was authority even before the fall. There was a role. There was a headship role. No, this egalitarian idea that the male and female, the roles came in after the fall as a consequence of sin, that the man has a headship role in the home. No. We see it was there prior to the fall. Paul is not grounding head coverings in creation. He's grounding the underlying principle of headship in creation. Notice the third verse of chapter 11. Go back to verse 3. Verse 3. 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. Headship. Headship. And that's really what we're going to be talking about as we get past the head coverings idea here, is going to be headship. And the idea of male and female roles in the church. So he's grounding headship. This is the same thing he does over in Timothy. And you won't see any discussion of head coverings in Timothy, even though that was explicitly written so that Timothy would know how to conduct himself in the church of God. And in 1 Timothy 2, right at the end there, he grounds headship in creation. Nothing to say about head coverings there. He's grounding headship in creation. He is establishing the timeless truth of headship and he's grounding it in creation norms. If it is conceded though that Paul is appealing to creation for headship and not directly for coverings, some will still argue that the proper acknowledgement for this headship requires the practice of head coverings even today in the church. They'll grant it. Okay, clearly he's not establishing head coverings, they weren't there, but at least he's saying that if you're going to acknowledge rightly headship, you've got to have the women who are prophesying and praying at the very least wearing these head coverings. They might cite verse 10, if you look down at verse 10, and say, there's a mention here of angels, which It seems like it's saying that for some reason the angels need to look upon the church and see the good order of the church and the women wearing their head coverings, acknowledging the headship and that, you know, the church is walking in right fellowship and subordination to God and his roles for men and women and so forth. It says in verse 10, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. We look at that we're like what now we know if you compare verse with verse if you compare scripture with scripture Probably the best we can get at this idea is the idea that the church The Bible says is a manifestation of the wisdom of God to the principalities and power So there are spirits there angels watching Paul talks even in uh earlier in the letter. We read about how he's a fool for christ's sake He's a spectacle a spectacle for men and for angels, right? clearly the Clearly the angels are watching but here's the here's the issue here Excuse me. The angels were there in the Old Testament, folks. They were always there in the Old Testament. They were always watching in the Old Testament. Headship was in the Old Testament. When the New Testament talks about submission, like wives submitting their husbands, and it gives you the examples of Sarah and so forth, it's drawing from the Old Testament. There was headship in the Old Testament, there were angels watching the Old Testament, but missing from the Old Testament were this requirement for head coverings. It wasn't there. Wasn't there? No requirement. You can go through the law and look for it. There's no requirement mandate for head coverings, and if it's so important that the angels see these head coverings, it would have been required under the old covenant. I don't think that proves a timeless anything more than the creation argument. I think it proves the angels are not looking for the head coverings per se. They're looking for the underlying principle, which they would have seen in the Old Testament, and that is Headship. Not head coverings, headship. That's what the angels would be looking for if they're looking for a manifestation of divine order. Okay? And by the way, you could wear a head covering and be totally out of divine order. You could wear a head covering and be totally a usurper of God's roles and God's design. Right? So it would be clear that the angels who are spiritual creatures looking upon the church or the believers in the Old Testament would be looking for the reality, not the symbol necessarily. Paul doesn't ground the wearing of head coverings in the creation order. All right, we saw that. We saw how he grounds these things. When he grounds them, he grounds them in timeless things, if they're gonna be timeless for the church. He doesn't ground the head coverings themselves in anything timeless. Rather, I would argue he's justifying it as a good practice, or in other words, a expedient practice for ensuring that proper headship is reflected in the church. Okay? Now, here comes the question though. Why not continue to practice it today? Why not continue to practice head coverings today? If it was a valuable expression of the idea of headship and male and female roles back then, why not today? Because while the underlying principle of headship is grounded in creation, and while it's always good for that reality to be reflected in the local church, the grounds Paul uses for the head covering itself are not unchanging. Look at verse four. Verse 4-6, What is he talking about? Referring to dishonor and shame. What is this? You can see that he's grounding this idea that there needs to be head coverings in something, but what is he trying to ground it in? You can see something here that he's trying to ground this in. Now, he grounded headship in creation. He never grounds head coverings in creation. What is he trying to ground the actual cloth covering in here? Is it something eternal? Is it something immutable? Something timeless? What is this? Notice in verses 5 and 6, Paul is appealing to a truth with which the Corinthians obviously took for granted. The power of his argument, the effect of his argument demands that the Corinthians people understood what he's saying right here. That for a woman to have short hair or shaved head was shameful. He takes for granted that this is just a, yeah, no doubt, common sense to the Corinthians. Right? Everybody agrees. Now, we might first assume that Paul is grounding the shame of a shaved head in the Old Testament, where, of course, texts abound that speak of shaving the head as a sign of grief or shame, but the continuing context proves that that is not where Paul is grounding. It's not what the appeal is to here. It's not to the Old Testament and various references about shaving the head. Look at verse 14 and 15. Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, another reference to the hair length, it is a shame unto him. Another reference to this dishonor or shame thing going on. It's the same. It's parallel giving us further insight into what he's trying to ground this covering in. It's a shame to him. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her for her hair is given to her for a covering. Notice Paul's appeal here is to what? Nature. Nature is the appeal. Nature. But we have to be careful what he's arguing for here. The Greek word translated to nature means what occurs naturally by God's design without any intervention from man or man's sin. But does nature teach us that long hair on men is shameful? Actually, without human intervention, it's clear that male hair will grow just as long as female hair. I understand women's hair grows a little thicker and so forth and men bald earlier. But the bottom line is they both will grow their hair out long, naturally. if not cut. Now Paul is getting at something deeper than that here. If long hair was a shame, a kind of sin against nature that the Bible describes sins against nature, God would never have commanded the Nazarites not to cut their hair. You can see how if there's an actual moral issue with God, he has a moral issue with long hair on men, he would never have commanded the Nazarites as an act of consecration to violate, to commit a sin against nature. Rather than being ashamed, long hair on Jewish men was a mark of honor and consecration to God. In fact, there is nothing in the New Testament, in Jewish teaching, you will not find them talking about the shame of long hair. Most Jewish men, they had their hair cut either short or medium length, and the Nazarites had long hair, Absalom had long hair, and he wasn't ashamed about his long hair at all. It wasn't an issue. In fact, if anything was a mark of consecration, you'd think you're a Nazarite. The guy has long hair. He doesn't cut it. He must have a vow. It was only in places dominated by Roman culture that long hair on men was considered shameful. In Roman culture, that's the culture. There was a Roman colony in Corinth. The men had short hair and women had long hair and it was considered shameful. for you to go vice versa. You were considered effeminate. Maybe philosopher or something, but maybe a lot of effeminacy was connected with this. But how can Paul say that nature teaches the Corinthians that long hair on men is shameful if that shame was specific to a certain culture and God himself commanded men to have long hair under certain circumstances. Again, I think Paul is getting at something deeper. Nature teaches a man to be repulsed at putting on things which are symbols of femininity in the surrounding culture. In western cultures, consider that skirts are distinctly feminine. Yet in Scottish culture, the kilt is associated with masculinity, right? High heels today are associated with women's fashion. In 17th century Europe, high heels were worn by aristocratic men and were considered masculine. Can you believe that? Makeup is often associated with femininity, with few exceptions, such as filming. But in ancient Egypt, men wore eyeliner, which was in part a symbol of masculinity. They didn't think of it as feminine. In Western culture, women wear dresses in the Middle East, by the way, and throughout the whole Bible, really. Men wore long robes, which seem similar to dresses in Western eyes. Again, looking at verse 14. Doc, not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it's a shame unto him. The Greek word translated to nature is used by Paul in Romans 1. Flip over to Romans 1. Look at this. Same word. Romans 1 26. It says in verse 26, "...for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections, for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meat." Now notice that these homosexual relationships are said to be against nature. Same word. Nature teaches a man that he ought to be with a woman, but these vile affections lead them to go contrary to nature in the same way nature teaches men to align their appearance and their dress with that which connotes masculinity. And that to go against nature is shameful. It's a shame. A woman to put on a dress and put on some lipstick and high heels, right? Doesn't nature teach you that as a man you shouldn't be dressed up in women's clothing? Right? And yet in other cultures it could be different fashion. But nature teaches us to have a sense of masculinity or femininity. And whatever the culture has assigned is that which associates with our sex. We align with. And it shouldn't be repulsive. It should be considered against nature to go uncontrary to that. Right? Deuteronomy 22, 5, the woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy God. Granted, fashions change, but by nature as designed by God, healthy men and women identify with fashions and hairstyles which are seen by the culture as consistent with their own sex. The Greco-Roman culture in which the Corinthians lived long hair on a man was considered shameful. Shameful. Paul is not grounding the head coverings on something unchangeable and timeless. He's grounding it on a transient shame of the culture that they dwelled in. It's a matter of expedience. We have liberty, but it was expedient in the culture. You see this? All this to say Paul is not grounding it on creation. He's not grounding it on creation. He's not grounding on God's law. You won't find it in God's law. It's not there. He's grounding it in present circumstances in the culture in which they lived. Male headship is grounded in creation, head coverings, he grounds in culture. So we see what Paul is teaching here. I don't think, and if you disagree, God bless you. I mean, be faithful to your conscience. But I don't think that Paul is arguing here that women in the United States in 2025 should start wearing the head coverings. Head coverings were a symbol of modesty in the Greco-Roman culture of that time. That's clear. You can go look it up. In that time, that was a fitting symbol of modesty. However, he would have women adorn themselves in that which best connotes the underlying principles of modesty and submission. That's what I meant. So I don't think he's arguing for a timeless moral law. He says, long hair is shameful for men and short hair for women, yet Nazirite men are commanded to grow long hair as a symbol. It clearly proves that his discussion of hair was a localized context. Hair length will vary by context. It's not a moral absolute. Long hair was honorable for the Nazirite, shameful in Corinth. Again, he appeals to nature, our sense of propriety according to our own gender, our sex. And so I think that head coverings and hair length are matters of expedience, depending on the culture, the circumstance. They're indifferent in themselves, though they're guided by personal conviction and context. Now look at verse 16, we gotta deal with this real quick. I'm gonna come to a close here. Verse 16, chapter 11, verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Now, the idea here is you can interpret this different ways. Everybody grabs this verse and throws it around their own way to support their own side. But it's very common to take this verse as saying, look, if you're contentious, if you want to fight back against this head covering thing, all right, look, this is the custom of all the churches. This is the way we do things, all right? But again, we saw that the head coverings were not grounded in timeless realities. In verse 16, Paul's not saying that head coverings are a custom of all Christian churches for the entire church age. These early churches, all of them were in the midst of the Greco-Roman culture. And Paul's appeal is to that culture, the cultural norms. His argument would not work in a modern American culture because we live in a different culture. And folks, you've got to understand, You could have guessed that at some point, Paul's gonna have to address culture. In a book about walking in the spirit, in a book about sanctification, you figure somewhere along the line, Paul's got to address our relationship with culture. Well, here it is, folks. This is it. This is the place, and we can glean more principles and applications out of this verse, but this is pregnant with a lot of principles for how the church interacts with the surrounding culture. And so this was a custom of the early churches, all right? In summary, we need to divide the word by distinguishing between timeless principles and what is a localized outward expression of a timeless principle. We're repeatedly told in the New Testament to greet one another with a holy kiss, aren't we? Like five or six times we're told to greet each other with a holy kiss. We understand that the timeless principle is to give culturally appropriate signs of Christian love and fellowship. Right? We don't sit around fighting over trying to, you know, insist that we all kiss each other when we come in here. We understand that. It's almost inherently easy to understand, is it not? Jesus instructed his disciples to follow his example of washing feet. They were commanded to keep and to pass on the commands he commanded them. We understand the timeless principles serving one another when the woman, the widow in 1 Timothy It's required that she's washed the feet of the saints. We understand it's service, right? And so that's the idea here is that When it comes to the idea of headship, it needs to have an appropriate, the authority of God is to be visible among God's people. It's to be very clear to the surrounding culture that we are in line with God's principles and His program for male and female roles. Not only for that, but roles of authority in the church in good order and decency as a testimony to people. And apparently, to principalities and powers, right? And that may have different expressions if you're in this church or if you're in a church over in China. But the bottom line is, it must be expressed. That's what God is after. The inward heart of surrender and submission to God and his authority and the roles and the ways God's designed things to function, right? Which the world tries to pervert or to be a contrast in culture in line with God. And what we do is to express those eternal truths, right? Maybe a little bit different based on where you're at and when you live, right? But the underlying principle is there. Can I just remind you that Jesus himself is given here as the example? The head of Christ is God. Can I just remind you that there's nothing evil inherently about the idea of submission? Right? Yeah, there's abuse. But Jesus was surrendered. His whole life he was submitted. Feminism gets this idea that there's something inherently wrong about submission. Right? But Jesus obeyed. He humbled himself and obeyed. He went even to the death of the cross. It's the most glorious thing. We got to get on God's program. Right? It's not just, it's not women. It's not, it's not masculinity trying to keep women down. Right? Men have to submit too. We have to love our wives in Christ, love the church. We got to submit too. It's every one of us submitting, surrendering and reflecting. Amen. So let's put on those head coverings, right? Father in heaven, we thank you, Lord, for this time. Thank you for your word. Father, I pray, Lord God, that you would just give us wisdom and grace to reflect your design, to reflect your order, Lord, to do that which is expedient, that which is fitting, Lord, to best reflect to men and angels, Lord, the glory of God and the wisdom of God. We pray, Lord, that even in this local church, Lord, all things will be done to the glory of God. In Jesus' name I pray, amen. All right, well, let's close together. We could stand and sing.