Turn with me in your Bibles please to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. We'll continue on our study in male and female roles and headdress. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 1, hear now the inerrant, infallible, and inspired Word of God. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered 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 one, as if she were shaven. For if a 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. 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 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. For this cause ought the woman to have 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, does 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. But if any man seemed to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. May God add his blessing to the reading and to the hearing of his most holy word. Well, last week we had a bit of an introduction. There are several implications from that introduction I'd like to just kind of summarize as we move into the handling of verse 4 and beyond. First of all, we looked at the good example of the Apostle as he followed Christ. And we talked about how that example is continued on into chapter 11 as the example of our Lord Jesus Christ is indeed an example of submission to his Father. And so men should submit to Christ as their head, and women should submit to the men as their head, or to their husband as their head. In other words, there is a proper chain, a proper authority structure, and in following the example of Christ, we will abide within that structure. Secondly, we noted that In that we have an order, an order of authority and submission, we do not have a statement pertaining to essential nature. That it is not denigrating to someone's essentiality, to their being, to be under authority or in submission. Christ does so to his Father, and yet they are the same in substance, equal in power and glory. And so this passage here is not a statement of, you know, the term head here is not used as origin or source. It is not used as better than or essentially more worthy than. It is simply used within the confines of that there is an order of authority here. Somebody has a final decision. Somebody has authority. We noted also that the apostle is speaking of the public worship assembly. That when we talk about head coverings, as we said last week, there's no neutral head covering, right? This is binary. It's either you have it on or you don't. And there are certain ones that ought to have it on and certain ones that ought not to have it on. People ask me about clerical garb. Why do you wear a robe? When you shouldn't shouldn't you wear a suit that's neutral and I always tell them a suit is not neutral Right. There's no such thing as neutral clerical wear That if you have a suit on you're you're making a statement just as assuredly as if you have a Geneva gown a robot That they're all making a statement All right, and then we also said that that it is in the public worship assembly that the apostle here is not addressing private worship at all. Notice in keeping with that, I like John Murray here in verse two, he says, now I praise you, brethren. And then down in verse 17, now I praise you not. Right? So in other words, both are introduced with this same kind of of instruction, and both have to do with public worship. Obviously, in the second portion, we're looking at the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. All right. We also noted that it is our natural bent to react negatively to any kind of authority structure. It matters not what our relation is. We have a tendency inherited from our first parents to rebel against our head. That our natural tendency is to equate authority with greater essential or essentiality, if you will. And so we think I'm not going to be a second class citizen by being under authority. That's erroneous thinking. It is not being a second class citizen to be under authority. Otherwise Christ would not have undertaken such submission to his father. The other principle that we spoke about is the distinction between what Paul says here and what he says in Galatians chapter three, verse 28, where there is neither male nor female in Christ. Paul is not undoing here what he said in Galatians, or he's not undoing in Galatians what he says here. We do stand before Christ as individuals. We all must believe. Fathers, you cannot believe for your wife or for your children. Children, your fathers cannot believe for you. You all must believe in Christ and come to Christ, and you will do so, of course, by His grace. But it is something that you must do. You must believe in Christ. I remember, I don't know, 30 years ago, I read Redemption Accomplished and Applied. And John Murray was talking in that book about faith. And he said, nobody believes for you. You have to believe. You yourself must believe in Christ. 30 years ago, it was a revelation to me. It's not now, but it was then. And in that sense, there is no male nor female. There's not even in that sense, child or adult. Right. But that does not speak of a structure of authority. And then the final principle we looked at last week was that the woman was created for the man to be a helper to him and that this understanding of her role is essential to interpreting this passage. And again, in our egalitarian society, we react, you know, we have kind of a visceral reaction against that there's not absolute egalitarianism between males and females. Well, that's not the way the Lord has created us. If you remember last week we talked about that the Lord created Adam and set Adam about his dominion work. He set him about his work as Christ's commander-in-chief of the earth, if you will. And the first thing that he did was he named the animals. And he did that before his wife was present, before she had been created. And then After he had named all the animals, it became readily apparent to him, obviously it was already apparent to God, but it became readily apparent to him that he needed a helper. That all of this labor that he was to set on, that this task, this wide task of subduing and tilling and managing the earth, I'm in trouble. I need help. I can't get it done. And so the Lord made a helper Suitable for him. He didn't make a help me Help me. Oh, it's an invented word the word help helper meet suitable So he made him a helper that responder or corresponded to him. That was one of his own one of his kind She also created in the image of God as Adam himself is created in the image of God. She part of his race She corresponding to him And her role primarily is that helper to him. Now, that doesn't mean that there can't be women who are heads of households or anything like that, that a woman is sinning if she doesn't get married and so on. That's silly. We know better than that. But it means that the natural order of things, the God-given design as stated in scripture, and again, sometimes God states things in scripture and then in his providence works in a different direction. That's his prerogative. but that the general design of mankind that the Lord has given is for man and woman to marry, to bear children, to populate the church and the world, to work their callings together as a family unit, and as such, to subdue the earth, to obey Christ, to further advance the interests of His kingdom in their callings, and so on and so on. That's the natural order of things. And God has created men to take the forefront in that and woman and woman to come alongside that man and to help him and to facilitate him and as probably won't get there this week, but we will see later on in our study of this passage that there is. That woman is just as essential to the mission as man is. Men. Let's not take a passage like this and misuse it. to say that our wives are something other than necessary to the mission. Ladies, let's not take this passage and say, if I can't have it all, I want nothing at all. Or if my role is to be subservient to my husband, I'm not sure I like that. Your husband is also necessary to the mission. as well as are you. So let's consider the mission together. That's what the apostle is telling us here. All right, so we looked at verses one through three last week, and those are some of the principles that we that we looked at when we when we talked through that last week. 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. And we looked at just a couple of other verses last week where the apostle uses the word head, not to mean, you know, that, you know, 10 pounds of waste above your shoulders, but that authority figure, that anchor of authority, if you will. And we say things like that all the time, just as in Greek, so also in English. We say, our president is the head of our nation. Right? We say that. I mean, that's a very colloquial phrase, and we understand what Paul means. What's interesting about it, though, is that Paul equivocates here. He uses the word head in two different ways, and I think he does so to attract our attention to make a point. So if we move on then to verse four, Every man praying or prophesying, having his head uncovered, dishonor his head. It's going to work slowly through this verse. Then we'll do the same with verse five and then we'll do the same with verse six. And then we'll we'll we'll pull up and we'll and we'll kind of try to get a theme going. So moving on to verse four. The Apostle has moved farther down the argument regarding headship, but he is still speaking of headship. And the equivocation on the word head is an interesting turn of phrase. The Apostle seems to be drawing our attention by use of a purposeful equivocation to the principle of headship and how it affects our headship, how we dress our heads. Headship affects headdress. That's what the Apostle is saying in the passage. Headship affects headdress. I looked up in a few different places all the different kinds of headdress that people wear through the various religions across the world. That is a varied lot of head attire, I must say. I'll read you some of the names of some of them in a few moments. But that this concept that headship and headdress have an interplay with one another, that is a very common concept across the world. It is only within the last generation in America where we've lost that concept. It's especially important in that he might have used another word to make his point. He's drawing our attention to the tie between headship and headdress. Instead of headship, he didn't have to say head. He could have said leader. And there's a perfectly good Greek word for that. Right? That the leader of every man is Christ. He could have used... He could have used all kinds of different Greek words, but he used head. And I believe he used had purposely in that equivocation. You know what equivocation is children? I know, you know, I just used a big word and I know what it means, but sometimes I just forget that we don't, we, we may not all know what that means. And equivocation is when we use a word to mean one thing in one part of a sentence. And then a little bit later on in that sentence, we use the same word, but it means something else. Okay, so in this passage, the word head is used in two different ways. The first way it's used is every man praying or prophesied, prophesying, having his head uncovered. And in the first use, children, he means this, your noggin, right? Your capito. You're kephali in Greek. Kephali, you hear encephalitis, right? That's where the Greek word is, that's the Greek root. Kephali, that's the word he uses. Kephali, head. So every man praying or prophesying, having his head, noggin, uncovered, dishonors his head, the Lord Jesus Christ. Because the head of every man is what? Christ. That's an equivocation. He uses the word head twice in very close connection in the sentence, but they mean two different things. Each use means a different thing. And it is my opinion in this passage that the apostle uses that to teach us that there is a relationship between headgear and headship. that he's going to show us in this passage that what we wear or don't wear on our head speaks of who our head really is and how we display that by what we wear upon our heads. You see, I think the equivocation is purposeful. He could have used any number of Greek words to teach what he's going to teach here, but he used the word kephali. The word head is used by the Apostle quite often for the sake of authority. Take these verses down Ephesians 1.22, 4.15, 5.23 and the parallel book Colossians 1.18, 2.10 and 2.19. Ephesians 1.22, 4.15, 5.23, Colossians 1.18, 2.10 and 2.19. He could have used the Greek word exousia or exousia, which means authority. He could have used the word hegeome. Hegeome, you know the word hegemony or hegemony? Some people say hegemony. Dictionary online says you should say hegemony. That's the first time I'd heard it that way. I had always heard hegemony because the Greek word is hegeome. And that means what? Rule. rule, normally over generations, extended rule. Like, for instance, one country's rule over another country, like the British hegemony over the state of, I don't know, Fiji or something like that, right? The South Pacific. And then he also could have used pro-istemi, which means to stand before. That's the word that he uses in 1 Timothy chapter 5, the elders that rule well. In other words, Paul had quite a catalog of words that he could have used, but he used the word kephali, head. The second way the apostle shows he's continuing the argument about headship is by the honor we all owe to our heads under the fifth commandment. And when we fail to comply with his direction here, we dishonor who we should be honoring. He's talking about headship, right? And so he says, every man praying or prophesying, having his head uncovered instead of honoring his head, dishonors his head. And he uses a very strong word there, which means to shame, to bring shame upon his head. So every man praying or prophesying with something upon his head, having something that comes down upon his head. That's the force of the Greek word. A literal translation would be either something pressed down upon his head or something hanging down from his head. Either way works in the Greek language. And I think Paul is specifically in specific here. I know that's an equivocation. He is specifically in specific. Here's why I believe that. because this is the only place in this passage where he uses this particular Greek construction. Later on, he's going to be very specific. He's going to use the word that is used typically for a veil, but he purposefully does not use that for the man because he wants to make sure that it's not just women's headdress that was common in those days of veil that hung down from the head. He wanted to make sure that nothing was on the head of the man. And so instead of saying katakalupto, which is the word for to veil, he just abbreviates that and says kata, which is the word for downward. And so he says men ought to bring nothing down upon their heads in worship. Not to cover their heads at all. Not with a hat, not with a veil, not with anything. And if they do so, they are dishonoring their head. And so he is in specific here, but he is in specific only in this verse. And I think that's a subtlety that most commentators miss here. Alright, notice also that there are no exceptions. It is every man. Although then the primary context is the family relationship, there are many implications that include more than just married men. First, dependent sons, who are learning to become men, should imitate their fathers here by leaving their heads uncovered. Males, heads of households, who are yet unmarried, bachelors living together. Let's see, do we have some of those? Oh yeah, we do. They also should have their heads uncovered. Let's see. So it is the same that every man that Christ is head over must not cover his head. Of course, that's every man. Every man in the church who professes faith in Christ ought not to cover his head because Christ is his head. There is. There is not a conditional understanding here. In other words, OK, well, I don't have a wife, so Head covering doesn't apply to me or doesn't apply. I mean, I can do, you know, I can wear a hat or I can not wear a hat. No, that's not what the apostle is saying. There is no conditionality based on whether or not you have a wife. If a man has a wife, he is her head. If he has none, Christ is still his head and his gender requires that he uncover his head when appearing before the Lord. Thirdly, praying or prophesying here does not necessarily mean authoritative or official function. This is important. If we're talking about an official function only, praying or prophesying, then what the Apostle Paul would be saying is this, those instructors, those teachers in the church who pray and prophesy, they can't have their heads covered, the rest of you can do whatever you want. That's not what he's saying. Praying and prophesying here is not an official function. You say, Pastor, how do you know that? Because women are doing it too. That's why. So in verse 5, as we move on to verse 5, we'll see that women are also praying and prophesying. And there are, indeed, a variety of interpretations for that. But you know what mine is. We've discussed it before. And we'll talk about those when we get there. So it's not an official function, although not having his head covered in itself is a statement of authority, isn't it? It is a statement of gender-based authority, not office-based authority. We need to make that distinction between a gender-based authority and an official authority, or one that comes from office. It's the authority of gender. This is clear from the citation of creation and our solidarity, our communion, our being in common with that created order. So it is clear that if officers are appeared to without hats, the rest of men are as well because we're not talking about official functions here. All right, then having his head covered in this under the understanding of this phrase is that the man has something placed down upon his head or hanging down from his head. And we talked about Paul's in specificity here. And then the fifth point, the fifth phrase, he dishonors his head. If a man appears in the public worship of God with something upon his head, he dishonors his authoritative head, not his own pate, but he dishonors that authority. And we'll see why as we go forward in the passage. So it is a man's duty, a man, by virtue of his gender, to glorify Christ, to proclaim His glory and excellency. But when he covers his head, when he is publicly worshiping the Lord, instead of honoring and bringing him glory, he casts shame upon him. And this is one of those instances in Scripture where he's casting shame because he's not giving glory. It is his duty to glorify his head in the way that his head has prescribed here in this passage. And if he fails to do that, it is tantamount to casting shame. It's like Jacob and Rachel and Leah. Okay? So, Jacob says to Laban, that's the one I want. Laban says, no problem. And so he goes in the tent, it's dark, he wakes up in the morning and bink, it's Leah, right? And then later on, you know, he serves seven years and then seven years, he gets Rachel as his wife. And it says that he loved Rachel more than he loved Leah. And the very next verse says what? And when Leah saw that she was hated. Now, did Jacob hate Leah? Well, not in the sense that we think, you know, not in that sense, not in the sense I can't stand to look at her, not like that. He hated her in that he didn't love her like he should have loved her. This is what's being said here. It's that kind of comparison. When the man covers his head, it is not that he is actively casting shame upon Christ. It is that he's not glorify him as he should. He is not giving him glory as he ought. He is not he is not displaying that glory as he should display it. And hence. As a result of that, he is dishonoring, shaming his head. Understand? So it's that kind of comparison that the apostle is drawing here. This is not to say that it's wicked or evil. And I might just pull up the stakes here for a moment and make a use. We may look back in our history as reformed folk. And we may take note of some of the great teachers of old. that donned a hat during the worship service. Many of them taught wearing a hat. Many of them wore two hats, actually. First thing they did was they wore this tight little skull cap to keep their heads warm. Many of these men were, you know, bald. And then they wore a hat over that and they would come to church and they would mount the pulpit and they would take off the one hat and leave the other one on. If you read Calvin's comments on this passage, Calvin defends his own practice, and he defends it in what we might call making just general statements, you know, that we need not to be too specific about this passage. Let's generally understand what Paul is saying here. You know, there are very few times in the history of my own learning and writing that I must disagree with the master from Geneva, but this is one of them. There's another, right, the master from St. Andrews, John Knox. I must disagree with him also. And we've talked before about how that we must indeed continue to reform and to press ahead. There are churches out there that look back upon those men and they say, well, if they practice it, we have to practice it too. Well, brothers and sisters, that's not what we do. We don't make men the lords of our faith and conscience. We dig into the scriptures and Christ speaking in his word is what gives us our direction. And if our beloved and revered reformed fathers made errors. You know, if they were standing here today. And we're convinced of those errors, they would want nothing else than for us to say that we disagreed with them. That's what they would want. So the passage is pretty clear. I know that there are some that are going to want to make a cultural argument, and it's going to take us a little bit to get there. So I'm going to have to beg your patience. We're working through the passage. We'll look at some themes that take place in the passage after we get some of these foundations and tracks laid down. OK. Very clear, then we have we have identified all the phraseology. We've we've talked about what the apostles saying, every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonor of his head. We know who every man is. We know what praying or prophesying is. We know what it means to have his head covered, that indiscriminate kind of hat or covering. And then we know what the apostle means when he says dishonor of his head. So thus far, the argument for the man, the apostle will explain his reasoning as we go on in the passage. The statement of the apostle thus far is clear, however, that for a man to cover his head, his head with a hat, a veil, a hood, a turban, a keffiyeh, a yarmulke, a kufi, a pakol, a zuketo, a fez. And all of these are hats that men have traditionally in some cultures or others worn during their worship services. You know what a keffiyeh is, right? Have you ever watched Yasser Arafat speak? That thing that he wears on his head that kind of comes down and goes over his shoulder, right? That's a keffiyeh. You know what a fez is? Looks like a barrel got a little tassel on it, right? Yeah, and all of these have religious significance in one way or another in various religions, some Christian religions and other non-Christian religions. You know what a yarmulke is? I had to look it up. I didn't know how to spell it. I thought it was Y-A-M-I-K-A. It's Y-A-R-M-U-L-K-E. There you go. But that's what the Jews wear, right? Those small little caps that go, you know, right here on the top of the head, just enough to cover the bald spot right there. Right? I think I'm getting one. All right, so a pakol, that's something Afghanis wear, a zuketo. And all of these are hats that are worn in various religious significance across religions, some Christian, some non-Christian, throughout the world. But the Apostle Paul says that if a man is praying or prophesying in the church, that if he's participating in the public worship assembly and he has something down on his head, whether that's hanging down from his head or down on the top of his head, He says he dishonors his head and the words allow of no equivocation. Now, either we're going to say that it is what it says and that's binding for all time or we're going to make some, we're going to, we're going to try to, um, come up with some understanding of the passage. Um, not necessarily a nefarious understanding, but some understanding that says this is a cultural reference and we need to see if there are cues and clues in the passage that would drive us in this cultural direction. So let's move on to verse five. Then we have the converse of verse four. Every woman, once again, the assumption is made that a woman is under authority, either of her husband or of her father. This has raised the question in some interpretations of this passage. What of a woman that is a head of household whose father perhaps has passed away? She's on her own. She has no no familial head. Once again, it is larger than just the familial relation. This is a gender based distinction. And so the apostle appeals not only to man and wife, but men and women generally, according to the original creation. So the answer lies in that her gender and the purpose for her creation. Um, it's not only a question of being under authority, but the purpose of her creation as woman who was taken out of man. So in other words, while her personal estate may differ from other women, her estate as a woman and the purpose for womankind as enumerated by the apostle in this chapter has not changed. So she's still a woman. And even though unmarried and without a visible earthly head, she still has a head in in that her head may be may be considered variously. Some sessions have said if a woman is the member of our church, we're her head. Some sessions have taken that that that kind of responsibility. Others have said that she is she is beholden to her family name. Right? Because of her birthright in that family and so on. But because of her gender and the purpose for the creation of womankind, it still applies to her. All right, the act of praying and prophesying in this passage has been variously understood. That's an understatement. Let's make a few general observations. First, there is the view set forth by Professor John Murray. Now, I will say that Dr. Murray's view is not my view, but if I had a view other than my view, it would be John Murray's view. It's a very good understanding of the passage, I just don't think he's right. But it is, as you would expect from Dr. Murray, just plain brilliant, good. He says that the practice of women here praying or prophesying is set forth as an argument ad absurdum. You know what that is, children? Let's make something ridiculous to disprove it. OK, that in order for a woman to pray or prophesy, that would mean that she is exercising an authoritative position in the worshiping assembly. However, this is not possible because her very headdress speaks of her submission. OK, so that in order for her to exercise praying or prophesying, she'd have to go like this, but then when she went like this, she'd have to do this again. It's it doesn't follow. It can't obtain every woman praying or prophesying, having her head uncovered. It's an argument ad absurdum. There's no way she could ever take it off. And so the apostle is using praying or prophesying with regard to the woman as a as a as as an authoritative function that could never obtain because she has to have her head covered. She would have to take her headdress off in order to exhibit that authoritative function. But as soon as she takes it off, she would be violating the demands of the apostle. And so she must put it back on. And so she could never pray or prophesy. In other words, it's a situation that never obtains because it is in decorous, if you will. Well, it's a difficult view, but it is interesting nonetheless. Calvin's view is that the Apostle reserves his condemnation for women speaking in the public assembly of the church to a later chapter. He's not even addressing it here. This is just a hypothetical. Everyone prayer prophesying. It's in other words, it's to make the passage parallel with what he's just told the men, but he's going to roundly condemn that in Chapter 14. So we'll wait to chapter till Chapter 14 to get the condemnation. OK, that's Calvin's view. It's also the view JP Lang. Matthew pool is of the understanding that while ordinary women were not permitted to speak that there were extraordinary women prophetesses such as Huldah and Josiah's time Anna mentioned in the gospel of Luke chapter 2 and also the daughters of Philip acts 21 9 and Which did have leave to pray and prophesy in the church and these women? constituted an exception to the apostolic prohibition of first Corinthians 1434 and and first Timothy chapter 2 1 through 15 or so What do those two passages say what does first Corinthians chapter 14 verse 34 say turn with me there? Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted under them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also set the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. And then in first Timothy, Chapter two. The Apostle Paul says. Oh, let's skip down to verse nine in like manner also that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with a broided hair or gold or pearls or costly array, but which becometh women professing godliness with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." So it is clear from those two passages that the apostle Paul Did not permit women to speak in the churches that is to to take on that role of authoritative speech Either by praying or prophesying by leading forth that that was not Paul's view at all and so Commentators have tried to wrestle with what that means and of course, you know my view on this we talked about this when we went through first Corinthians chapter 14 and that is that the praying and prophesying that is taking place here is the praying in the public worship service with everyone else and the prophesying that is the singing of psalms together with everyone else and that when women partake of those activities, they should do so, they should appear in the public worship service with their heads covered, because they are praying and prophesying in those extents, or to that extent, as they participate in those activities. Those activities are indeed what the Apostle describes here, praying and prophesying. So, that's my own view, and I do disagree with some folks in that, and I have been, you know, people of You know, oh, they've kind of tried to shuttle me off there. But that's my view. You know, and I think that when we were going through that section, we looked at those Old Testament passages about what prophecy consisted. And if you need those verses again, 1st Samuel 10, 6, 1st Samuel 18, 10, 2nd Kings 3, 15 and 1st Chronicles 25, 1 through 3. Those passages speak of prophesying as the singing of songs. OK. All right, so every woman praying or prophesying, we've got that far, with her head uncovered. Once again, the apostle's term here is clear. The word is unveiled or uncovered. Now, there's only one commentator I found in my research that disputes this. He's a good guy. We like him, Matthew Poole. Matthew Poole is distinguished here from other commentators in that after he approves of artificial coverings, such as our quaffs, hats, hoods, and veils, he then adds, or with her own hair not hanging loose, but artificially used so as to be a covering. And then in his explanation, he cites verse 15 in support. Okay. What does verse 15 say? Why would he cite verse 15? Well, notice, but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her for her hair is given her for a covering. And so it is an honest reading of the passage to look at verse 15 and say, OK, well, then the woman's hair is her covering, is it not? It's not. I'm sorry. It's just it's a disclarity in the English. And as much as I hate to say that we just really have to read the original language to get it here, we do. Because all the way through the passage, the apostle is using, as far as the word covering is concerned, that word that speaks of an artificial covering. Kata kalupto, either in the verb form or in the noun form. katakaluma for the noun form and katakalupto for the verb form. And it has to do with That word, I mean, you look it up in any decent lexicon, you know, Liddell and Scott, Bower, Arndt, Danker and Ginrich, A.T. Robertson, any of them. What they will tell you, what those lexicographers will tell you is that it speaks of the act of applying a veil, applying a covering to the head, or in the noun form, the veil itself, right? So veil and veiling. to wear a veil or the veil itself. But here in verse 15, the Apostle does something entirely different. He uses the word katabalo. Now, I know, katabalo, what does that mean? Well, it's an interesting Greek word in that it is the word kata, which in this case means around, and balo means what? to throw, so something that is thrown around. In other words, her hair is given to her like a cloak. It's a completely different Greek word in that sense. It's a completely different action, a completely different idea. But there's another reason why in the passage here that is very clear that the hair cannot be the covering, and that is because it pertains to the glory of the woman. And let me just kind of show you the cards here. This is where we're going to go. OK, who is the man? What is his duty? Who is he? He is the image and glory of God. And so the apostle will tell us that the man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. Right. OK, so then he's going to say, who is the woman? Who is the woman? What does he say? Notice for seven for the man indeed ought not to cover his head for as much as he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is what was to say the glory of the man. Right. She's the glory of the man. And down in first 15, there's a third glory. Notice that when we're gathered for worship, there are three glories. Three glories, there's the glory of God. There's the glory of the man. And then what is what is the glory that we see in verse 15? If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her for her hair is given to her for a cloak, a covering. There's the glory of the woman. There's the glory of God. There's the glory of man, and there's the glory of the woman. Hopefully you know where I'm going by now. In the worship of God, Whose glory are we to open? Are we to uncover? And whose glory are we to cover? We're to open, we're to uncover the glory of God represented in the head of the man. The kephali of the man. We're to cover the glory of man represented in the head of the woman. And we're to cover the glory of the woman represented in the hair of the woman. The glory of God? Uncovered glory of man and woman covered Now I'm gonna put it to you and we're not gonna get there today We're just about to wrap up, but I'm going to assert here that unless you understand that it is impossible to determine What the Apostle means when he says for this woman for this reason ought a woman to have power on her head because of the angels Can't understand it unless you understand that it's the glory of God uncovered, the glory of man and woman covered. I'm gonna leave that for you to ponder. Next week we'll open that up. So let's continue on in our study here. All right, so with the head uncovered, right, every woman praying or prophesying, we've gotten that far, with her head uncovered. And again, Matthew Poole is the only reformed commentator I've found that would argue against the other guys. Now, that's not to say that every reformed commentator that I have found says women ought to cover their heads, but their argument comes around the block as far as culture is concerned, that this is a cultural thing that Paul is talking about. Calvin, not so. Calvin is of the opinion that women ought to cover their heads in public worship. But there are others who would say that they don't have to. But it's not because the hair is the covering, it's because that was cultural for the Corinthian church. All right, so then apart from Mr. Poole and that interpretation, the apostle here uses a word that speaks of some kind of headdress and the lack of its application. A good translation here in your King James Version uncovered. Another good translation would be apart from a veil or unveiled. So every woman praying or prophesying unveiled. Uncovered good translation good understanding notice dishonors her head Same phrase as before That we saw in the in the last verse in verse 4 She dishonors her head as before we have the dishonoring of the authority Under which she is arrayed in the case of a married woman her husband in the case of an unmarried head of household by refusing to acknowledge her place in the economy of nature She is then dishonoring mankind, or perhaps her father, or her brother, her uncle, her family, so on. Decession. Again, we reiterate that the apostle is arguing from the natural order of creation, and as such, his arguments require something broader than simply a familial relationship. It's not just husband and wife. It's wider than husband and wife, although that's its primary application. Even when we remain unmarried or are bereft of a mate, the natural order yet obtains. If it was to be otherwise, we would need an exception in the passage. His basis from argument is that women should generally be covered in worship because of their order in the creation and their gender according to that order. And then he says, for this is all one as if she were shaven. You know, just when you thought you were going along in the passage and you had a good understanding on it, then the apostle throws what seems like a wrench in it. This is all one as if she were shaven. And as you examine the various good commentaries on this passage, what you'll find is you'll have almost as many views as you have commentaries with regard to this comment on what it means for a woman to be shaved. Because the apostle is not consistent. Number one in his terms. And I'd like to consider five B and verse six together. So five B and verse six and then we'll be done for today. Notice for this 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. All right. Notice in verse 6 that we have some imprecision in the Apostle's terms. He's widening out the semantic range of what it means that he's talking about for the woman to undergo here. He uses the term in verse 5, to shave, and that is a Greek word that means, oh, I don't know, to shave. I mean, that's really what it means. It means, you know, it is used sometimes of scraping even, or, you know, scrape, you know, like scraping off, right? But then he changes the word and he uses a different word in conjunction with that word and he uses the word shorn Now shorn means well shorn comes from the english word sheer To sheer which doesn't mean to shave at all doesn't mean to scrape it means simply to cut closely So here's what the apostle is saying he says If a woman prays or prophesies having her head uncovered, it's the very same thing. That's what the Greek means there. It is the very same thing as if she were either shorn or shaven. It's the same thing. And then he says, so if she's going to do that, let her be shorn or shaven, or if it's a shame for her to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. Notice that verse six, Yeah, six is a chiasm. You know what a chiasm is, right? A-B-B-A. Okay, notice. For if the woman be not covered, let her be shorn, but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. Right? Covered. Well, actually, it's not covered, shorn, shorn, covered. A, B, B, A. In other words, the apostle is really staying in the heart of his argument here. He's not just kind of flipping out. He's still very organized in his thinking. As a matter of fact, in verse 6, in verse 8, in verse 9, and then verse 11 and verse 12, each one of those verses contain a chiasm. The Apostle Paul goes chiastic crazy here. He's showing us the organization of his argument. He's not flipped out. You know, some commentators say Paul is incoherent here. We can't get it. He's not incoherent at all. He has one chiasm after another, one logical structure after another. He's showing us that he is in command of his argument. So he says. If a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn, but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, then let her be covered. Now, I got to tell you, I thought about this verse for a long time. And I think it really is a lot simpler than what we make it out to be. Some would go back to the Old Testament, right? Deuteronomy, it was at 21, where if an Israelite soldier goes out and they're conquering and they destroy a city, And there is one damsel, a foreigness, in that city that finds favor in his eyes, that he's supposed to bring her back with him if he wants to marry her. And he brings her into his own household, and he sets her apart, and what do they do to her? They cut off her nails, and they shear off her hair for 30 days. And then he can take her to be his wife. Some commentators have tried to relate this to that passage. I don't think so. I don't think so. The Apostle Paul here is speaking of the shame that accrues to a woman who is bald, shaved, or has her hair shorn. And he's going to go on in Verse 14, to show us that this is a kind of light of nature argument. Now, you know me, I'm a pretty strong Clarkian. I don't go really in deep for light of nature arguments, although our Puritan forefathers believed them, and I do too. There are light of nature arguments. I'm not against the light of nature arguments. Light of nature does teach us certain things. However, we also understand that the light of nature that we receive is affected by the noetic effects of sin, that sin has an effect upon our minds. And so we have a tendency to twist and to pervert those light of nature arguments. Although if we look hard enough, we can still see them. That's what I believe. Now take a look today, look around you in this assembly, or look at the society in general around us. What does the apostle say about the light of nature argument with regard to hair? 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. that there is a particular light of nature argument that pertains to hairstyles between men and women. And if you look around this assembly, you see that generally speaking, ladies hair is longer than women's hair. And if you look out in our society, you'll see the same thing, except for certain perverse sections of our society who have purposely sought in their fallen noetic effects of sin to reverse the gender. And so men have long hair and women have butch haircuts, right? In that particular part of our society, we understand that they are suffering and bound under the noetic effects of sin. And so those light-of-nature arguments don't obtain with them. That they have purposely decided to overturn the natural order of things. And so here in verse 14, the apostle teaches us that there is a nature argument pertaining to hair length with regard to the genders, that God has made a distinction in the genders. And so instead of Deuteronomy 21, I think it is, I'd like to go to Deuteronomy 22, where the prophet there says, Moses, he says, you men, you don't wear ladies' stuff. And you ladies, you don't wear men's stuff. We have gender distinction. in Christian society because God made us male and female and we want to preserve, not destroy, those distinctions. Isn't that what the Apostle Paul is doing in this passage? He is preserving, not destroying, gender distinctions before him in worship. Now watch. This is the basis, I believe, for a very simple argument In verse six, for if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it's a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. If she's going to take her head covering off and act like a man, then let her cut her hair like a man. But if it's a shame for a woman to cut her hair like a man, then let her do what she should do and put a head covering on. I really believe it's that simple. And all the other Old Testament, you know, Deuteronomy 21, well, you see, that woman was shamed and that's why they cut her nails and her hair. No, no, her nails were cut and her hair was cut because she was overturning her life. It's a completely different thing. It doesn't apply here, in my opinion. And I know, you know, every Lord's Day, Pastor Rudolph gets up and he gets to give his opinions. Well, I hope you have your own. I hope you let my opinions help you to form your own. I don't want you to believe what I say simply on implicit faith because I say it, but I do want you to use what I say, use the benefit of my study as I bring it forth to you so that you can form your own opinions about this passage as well. But I believe it really is that simple, that the Apostle is saying that if a woman will not cover her head then let her be shorn, that is, cut close or shaved." Notice he uses either one, because either one pertains to the short hair that nature teaches us a man ought to have. And so if she won't abide under that, if she won't abide under the head covering that she should wear, then what she ought to do would be to cut her hair and make herself look like a man entirely. But if it's a shame for her to cross gender like that in her hairstyle, then let her put a head covering on. A-B-B-A. That's what I think Paul's saying, and I think it really is that simple. I think that there are a lot of convoluted interpretations out there, but I think it really is just like that. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man and the hair then being the glory of the woman. God's glory is revealed in the worship service. Man and woman's glory is covered in the worship service. So as we close up, let me just give me 30 seconds here to remind you of one thing in this passage so far that we have not seen. We have not seen one argument from the culture of the Corinthian society. Not one. The Apostle Paul has cited creation. He has cited the natural order of things. He is cited gender distinctions. But he is not cited what obtains within the culture of the Corinthian church. And once we begin to bring all of those other convoluted and cultural arguments in, well, you know, there was this town in Cyprus, okay, Cyprus, you know, where Cyprus was way long ways away from Corinth, where if women were unfaithful, they were shaved. And so what Paul is saying here is he's bringing. Come on. You know, there is a point at which we have to put up our hand and say, sorry, that's isogenics. That's not exogenics. That's importing something upon the passage rather than lifting out of the passage what is there. So I really believe that in that verse six is that simple, that there is male hairstyle and female hairstyle. And that if a woman will uncover her head in worship, if she refuses to wear a head covering, that, um, that it would be fitting for her then to go ahead and crop her hair like a man, because she's acting like a man. But if it's a shame for her to act like a man in that way, and to have her hair cut like that, then she ought to wear a head covering. A, B, B, A. It's like that. Now, remember that Paul can speak a lot stronger about this than we are used to hearing, because there is indeed, like I told you last week, there are cultural elements in this passage. And we can see that in that the apostle Paul speaks very forcefully here, because that was indeed a common occurrence that women would wear head coverings in the worship service. And so when one would not wear a head covering in the worship service, What's that? She stuck out like a sore thumb, right? She did, because the practice was for women to cover their heads in worship, and that had obtained for a very, very long time by the time we get to Corinth here. that was practiced in the synagogue. There is a passage in the Old Testament that does pertain to the head covering of the woman, but I'm going to save it for later. It's in Numbers chapter 5, and it's the ordeal of the unfaithful wife, when the husband believes that his wife has been unfaithful to him, and he brings her to the priest. And there's something there that happens with the head covering that is highly symbolic and highly important for us to understand this passage, but it belongs later in the argument, not just yet. But you can read it if you want. It's in Numbers chapter 5. All right, thus far, the passage then, we're all the way down to, well, we got four, five, six, and seven. We got four verses done today. We still have not gotten to the angels. I want to spend a lot of time on the interpretation of the passages that pertains to the angels. So just keep these things in mind, keep building up your understanding, and then hopefully we can put a nice ribbon, a nice bow on it within a week or two. All right? Let's stand and call upon the Lord in prayer. Our Heavenly Father, we pray that as we study these gender distinctions and headdress with regard to the worship assembly, we ask our Father that we would not be so caught up in how we look like and what we wear that we would let our inner man fail us. That we would not be so concerned with the inner man that we let our outer man fail us. That we might consider what it is to appear before thee rightly in body and in soul, in body and in mind, in material and immaterial appearance, that we might come prepared not only in our clothing, but that we might come prepared in our hearts to glorify thee in our place, in our station, according to our gender, according to who it is that we are as men, women, children, boys, girls, and everyone else. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.