Turn with me in your Bibles, please, to 1 Corinthians 11. We'll read verses 1 through 16. 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 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. 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. 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 to God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her. for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem 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. A brief review of where we've been. In verses one through seven, the apostle speaks of the created order and headship. He argues that there is something that we can know. I would have you know this, he says. This is not an informed opinion. There's something he says that I would have you to know. There is a relationship of authority and submission that exists. Christ to the man, man to the woman, and God to Christ. Further, he argues that headship and headgear have a relationship one to another. Headdress and headship. have a relation. We looked last week at the deliberate equivocation that the apostle uses to show that relationship. There is a dishonor that one can do to his authoritative head by behaving improperly adorning his physical head. And that works for both males and females. Right? So if a man wears a hat, he dishonors his head. If the woman does not wear hat or a covering on her head she dishonors her head Paul exhibits there a relationship between headship and headdress further he does not and this is a very interesting point this is something as I was thinking this week I thought you know I really haven't neglected haven't neglect I have neglected to say this let me just set something out for your consideration. Not once in this passage, as we read it through in 1 Corinthians 11, does the apostle talk about the attitude. He's not talking about the mindset of the man, the mindset of the woman. He talks simply about their behavior, or if I could even say it farther than that, merely about their behavior. He doesn't say if a man covers his head and has a disrespectful attitude, he dishonors his head. He also doesn't say if a woman uncovers her head and has a disrespectful attitude, attitude doesn't figure into this at all. The apostle never mentions attitude, state of mind. He mentions simply merely the outward act of either having something on the head or not, depending on one's gender. Now I found that interesting as I was thinking through the passage, because there are many today that would say to us that this is a cultural thing. That whether you wear a hat or not, now try to follow me here, this is maybe a little subtle, but I think you'll get it. Wearing a hat or not is really not what's important. It's the heart that's important. Have you heard that in this argument? That ladies really don't need to wear a head covering as long as they have submissive attitudes. As long as they are in submission to their husbands. And men, if they want to wear a hat, it's okay. As long as in wearing of their hat, they're still acknowledging their submission to Christ in the order that Paul sets out here. You realize what that is, right? It's eisegetics. We're freighting the passage with something that we want it to say that it doesn't really say. The apostle is not talking about attitude here. And so if he is not talking about attitude, and this becomes really important to the argument that I'm putting forward, if he's not talking about attitude, then how can we have a cultural argument? If he never mentions the attitude of the heart, but only the activity of whether or not you have something on your head, how can that argument then be cultural? Because it transcends culture in that we have a particular behavior that is prescribed. And we're not talking about something that can be common to all cultures, which would be what? Some kind of attitude. The apostle never mentions attitude. He mentions whether or not you have something on your head. And that's because it's not just us. There's something objective going on here that is important that he's talking about. All right, so we also noted that, in addition to what we just said, that we cannot have a cultural argument here because this argument of headship is supracultural. This is the reason men and women were created, the purpose that they have before God in the original creation, which God has never changed, augmented, or overturned. made a distinction between the genders, and that is a timeless distinction that the Lord has made between the genders. We hinted at it last week. Turn with me to Deuteronomy chapter 22. Verse 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 abomination unto the Lord thy God." Now see, there are certain practices in the Old Testament that the Lord describes as abominable to him. These things are timeless. They're not something that change with the whims of fashion. And so if a society wants to become unisex in its clothing, genderless in its clothing, in hairstyles, in who wears makeup, whatever. The Lord says, what? I abominate that. The Lord declares that that's abominable to him when we mix genders, when we cross those lines, those boundaries that the Lord has set. The Lord declares that that is an abomination to Him. Actually, it's not that thing that is an abomination to Him. He says that those who do such things are an abomination to Him. Those who cross those lines, even stronger. So crossing gender lines is not something that we as Christians are allowed to do. All mankind is not allowed to do it, but we especially, as those who claim to have the true and living God for our God, when he says that he abominates something, well, that is a great discouragement to us to do that thing, to stay away from it. It encourages us to stay away from it. It discourages us from participating in it. And so we wear men's clothing, if we're men, and women's clothing if we're women. And ladies, you know my view on this, but, you know, we got a sermon that goes out over the internet, I may as well get on record. Ladies, feel free to wear ladies' pants. It's okay. As long as they're ladies' pants. Don't wear men's pants. Because those pertain to a man. And men, don't wear dresses. Don't do it, just say no. And if you go to Burma, it's all right to wear whatever they call them over there. In India, they're called a sarong, right? And in Fiji, they're called a sula. And I don't remember what they're called in Burma. But I remember the last time I was there and I was wearing one, And I learned a new word in Burmese. Whenever a Burmese puts his hand over his mouth, points and chuckles, that means white guy wearing the skirt thing. Longie, thank you. That's what they call them in Burma. They call them a longie. But that's not women's wear in Burma. That's men's wear. And they wear them completely differently. And there is a natural distinction that is made between men and women. in the way they wear their hair, in the way they wear their lingerie, in the way they dress, and so on. So ladies, in this country, you want to wear pants, wear ladies' pants. No problem. Password L says it's fine. Live it up. Just make sure they're ladies' pants. All right, so finally, we mentioned last week also that the woman was created as the helper for the man, that her role was a ministerial and supportive one, and that it was indispensable to the success of our race. and of the family generally. Ladies, you don't feel like since your role is ministerial and supportive, a helping role, that it is somehow less important. It is indispensable. It is not good, the Lord said, that the man should be alone. He needs somebody to be successful. And so the Lord made him a helper suitable to him. That is a position of honor, ladies. Don't you ever let anybody tell you differently. You're indispensable to the success of our race generally. All right, verse 7 then. We can move on to verse 7. Verse 7 reads, 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. Now what's interesting about this is that the Apostle Paul, and it's hard to see here, so I'm going to have to retreat back into a grammar. thing with regard to the Greek language, the Apostle Paul uses a present participle of the word being. So literally translated, a man indeed ought not to cover his head, being and continually being the image and glory of God. Notice the timelessness of that statement. The man continues in his being as the image and glory of God. So he ought not to cover his head. When? ever, because he uses the Greek word huparko. I know, huparko the car. That's how we used to remember that one when we're learning that one. Huparko is a verb of being, and it means to continue in the estate of being as such. And Paul even strengthens it by using it in a present participial phrase. So it's that ing continuous kind of understanding that we have in English. So he says, the man, his being, he is continually being, his existence is, or he is existing in the image and glory of God. Continually so. Man since the beginning, in other words. He doesn't change, and so he will always not cover his head in worship. That's the implication there of the present participle. But notice that he doesn't use the verb with regard to the woman, But that's because, in Greek, you can use that ellipsis, but it's the same idea. And so the woman is always and consistently being the glory of the man. Remember why she was created. She was created to be that helper to her husband, so that she could magnify what he's doing. She could augment it. She was that necessary part for his success. And she continually exists in that estate as that helper. And so Paul, again, temporally flattens it out. This is not cultural. He has flattened it out temporally. And if I could read it in a way that would interpret it rightly, notice. For the man indeed ought not to cover his head for as much as he is being the image and glory of God, but the woman is continually being the glory of the man. It's that kind of parallelism that he's drawing up here, although he does it by way of an ellipsis in the text. He doesn't have to say the verb twice. If he says it only once, it applies to them both equally. All right, so then we have in verses eight and nine, and 11 and 12, four chiasms. And those are supposed to be understood in rapid fire, but then we have in verse 10, a parenthesis. And that parenthesis is very important to Paul's argument, and I wanna talk to you about it, but first I wanna handle eight and nine, and then 11 and 12, okay? So eight and nine, 11 and 12, and then we'll come back to verse 10. So what does verse 8 say? The man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Okay, A-B-B-A. You see that? The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. A-B-B-A. And so what Paul is referring to here is the original creation. Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, but the woman was created out of the man. God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, he opened up his side, he took a rib, and from that he took a bone, and from that he made Eve. So the woman comes from the man. That's what he's saying. Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. A-B-B-A. Notice verse 9. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." Another A-B-B-A, but now he goes to purpose. First it's creation, now it's created purpose. Man was not created for the woman, the woman was created for the man. You see what he's doing here. He is explaining the statement, the man 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 he's explaining how that's true. All right, then in verse 10, we have a parenthesis, for this cause ought a woman to have power on her head because of the angels. And then we pivot. Nevertheless, verse 11, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. And so notice the equality before the Lord that they possess. They come to him together. And then in verse 12, for as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman, but all things of God. And did you notice in verses 11 and 12, ABBA, ABBA. So those four verses, I believe, because of their structure, are to be considered together. They are a contiguous argument with verse 10 occurring as a parenthesis. And we'll spend a little bit of time on verse 10, because it's roundly misunderstood, in my opinion. So here we have, then, The statement, first of all, in verses eight and nine, that the woman came out of the man originally and that she was created for the man, to help him with his calling, that indispensable part of him that speaks to his success. And then in verses 11 and 12, the apostle Paul turns that argument around and says, ladies, now I don't want you to feel left out here. Remember that you both come before the Lord. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman neither the woman without the man in the Lord So you both come together and then in verse 12 for as the woman is of the man in other words. She was taken from his side So is the man also by the woman I? Don't know about you gentlemen, but it was a woman that gave birth to me. I Think that's the same of all of us guys here today and so What Paul is saying to men and women is, let's not take this to an extreme where we end up denigrating one another sinfully, erroneously. We need each other. And so while there is an order, there is a structure, there is a purpose, for the way we were created and why we were created and how we were created, there is also a communion and a commonality and a mutual interdependence. And he sets that up in those four ABBA propositions in verses 8 and 9 and then in verses 11 and 12. Now I think that's very clear and I think that is, that that speaks not to Paul's chaotic argument here, but his well thought out argument. He's speaking very clearly, very coherently. All right, so then in verse 10. Before we go to verse 10, however, I'd like to take you to Numbers chapter five. Turn with me to Numbers chapter five. This is a difficult passage of scripture, but it is one that I believe speaks to our occasion here. We'll begin in verse 11, Numbers 5, verse 11. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If a man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manor. and the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled, or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled, then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, a tenth part of an ephah of barley meal, He shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon, for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. And the priest shall take the holy water in an earthen vessel, and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle, and the priest shall take it and put it into the water. And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and uncover the woman's head. and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering, and the priest shall have his hand have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse. And the priest shall charge her by an oath and say unto the woman, if no man have lain with thee, if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse. But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband, then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath cursing. an oath of cursing. And the priest shall say unto the woman, the Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels and make thy belly to swell and thy thigh to rot. And the woman shall say, Amen, Amen. And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water. And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse. The water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord and offer it upon the altar. And the priest shall take a handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar. And afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. And when he hath made her to drink the water, it shall come to pass, that if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thighs shall rot, and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive seed. This is the law of jealousies. When a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband and is defiled, or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law, then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and the woman shall bear her iniquity. Well, like I said, it's a difficult passage, but it's interesting. This is one of those things that the Lord did for his people, that if there was indeed a husband that believed his wife to have been unfaithful to him, he could bring her before the priest. Now, there's a lot going on in this passage that we don't have time to cover, but there's one particular instance that I hope you saw as we were reading through it. She appears, notice, before the Lord. And how does she appear? What is her Habitual way of appearing before the Lord, being a woman under the authority of her husband. Her head is covered. What does the priest do in this instance that would never ever otherwise be done? He removes her covering. You know why? He removes her covering in testimony that she is no longer under the protection, the care of her husband because she has gone aside if she has committed this trespass. He removes her covering in testimony that she is no longer her husband's helper. She's moved out of that. In ancient Israel, what did they practice? It appears that they practiced head covering, and they practiced it for the same reason that the Apostle Paul brings it forth here in 1 Corinthians 11, in testimony that she is indeed the glory of her husband, but she ceases to be the glory of her husband if she has been unfaithful to him. And in testimony of that, her covering is removed. You see that? That make sense? I mean, there's a lot of other stuff going on in that passage. But that, I believe, to our topic is pretty clear. All right, turn back with me then to 1 Corinthians 11. And now we'll dive into verse 10. We've seen the A, B, B, A of verses 8 and 9 and 11 and 12. Verse 10, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Some translations insert in parentheses a sign of power or a sign of authority on her head in this verse, verse 10. And I think that's a good insertion. That's how we should understand it. She ought to have power on her head in keeping with the context of the passage when Paul is talking about that sign of headship upon her head. I don't think we can interpret it any other way when the apostle says the woman ought to have authority on her head. That doesn't mean, generically, she should be under someone's authority, whether or not she's wearing a head covering, as some people would have us understand. I think the context and flow of the passage demands that the authority that's spoken of in verse 10 is a sign of authority. There is something that visibly witnesses to that authority that she is under. Now, what cause for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head? What cause? because of the angels. And I got to tell you, you want to get out about a dozen commentaries and you'll have maybe 18 different views as to what that means. It's really interesting. There are all kinds of different views on what that means. So let's just take a look at a couple of those. Let me find them in my notes here so I can read them to you. Some would have the angels as messengers. You know, the word angelos in the Greek means messenger. Even in the Old Testament, the word for angels, malach, means one who carries a message, a messenger. And so, some would have the angels as messengers, that is, the ministers of the gospel. That there is some reason women should cover their heads having to do with the ministers of the gospel in the worship service. I don't know what that would be. Where some of the divines go, and we have to understand that we read divines. I read a lot of divines that are 16th century, 17th century, 18th century. And the standards of modesty in those days were quite a bit different than they are today. And so for some men to see a woman's hair in those days, remember I told you that there were some cultural aspects. Well, some of the interpretations bear those cultural aspects. Matthew Poole is one, where Matthew Poole says, well, don't you see how distracting it would be for a woman's hair to be tousled all about her shoulders? That's Matthew Poole's interpretation. And then some of the others would say, well, if a woman's hair is hanging loose and not covered, ministers are going to be distracted. And so that's what it means. No. I don't think that's the right interpretation. I don't think they've got the sense of the passage. And we'll talk about what we think it is here in a few moments. Calvin. believes that the angels are present in our worship services and therefore witness the outrage of women not covering their heads. They are witnesses. Of course, J.P. Lange also holds that view, that the angels are present in our worship services. Now, to go that far, I would say that's true. We read in, for instance, Psalm 138 verse one, that God stands in the congregation of the gods. In other words, that the worshiping assembly is broader than just the people that show up. In Hebrews chapter 12, when the apostle tells us there that we have come to Mount Zion, one of the things that he says in coming to Mount Zion is that we've come to an innumerable company of angels. I think the understanding that we're not the only ones that attend our worship services, that there are spirit beings, angels, and by angels I mean good angels, I mean the elect angels, that they also attend with us when we worship the Lord. I think that's a scriptural principle. I think we could say that. And I think that's necessary for a right interpretation of verse 10. That is certainly Calvin's view. It's certainly the view of J.P. Lange. Matthew Poole also says that he believes that angels witness with us in our worship services. And I think that's a good view. I believe that's right. So that's another view, that the angels, because they worship the Lord as well, that they're outraged, that they are rightly offended because they witness women not taking up the natural order by not covering their heads. I think it's beyond that. I think that's a part of, I think it's way beyond that. I think that has something to commend it as a good interpretation, but I think we can go beyond that. There are other less worthy interpretations centering on evil or fallen angels. And some of you have heard those interpretations as well, that come out of that warped view of Genesis chapter 6, that fallen angels cohabited with earth women, and so on. And of course, those interpretations are not worthy of Christian scholarship. They are sub-Christian in approach, and speak more of animistic tones, no matter how much our beloved teachers tell us otherwise. All right, so I want to talk with you about angels for a minute and why the apostle would bring them up here. Turn with me, please, in your Bibles to Hebrews chapter 1. We have to understand what the role of women is. What is the role of women? The role of women is what? A ministerial, a supportive role. They are not to contribute to the glory of the worship service. They are to cover that glory because they are the glory of the man and their hair is their own glory. And so in that worship service where it is the glory of God that is to be seen, God's glory is to be seen, and so the man is to leave his head uncovered because he's the image and glory of God. And the woman, being the glory of the man, is to be herself covered, that is her head, and her hair, witnessing to her own glory, is also to be covered. But notice also something about angels in Hebrews chapter 1. Verse 13, but to which of the angels said he at any time, sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? What kind of role do the angels have? You see, they have a similar kind of role. Their role is not a role where they are to be out front getting glory. Their role is a role where they are to be covering their glory so that the glory of God might be seen. This is exactly what we see in Isaiah chapter 6, right? And so when Isaiah appears before the Lord in this visionary state in Isaiah chapter 6, begins in verse 1, in the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple. Above Him stood the seraphim, each of them having six wings. With twain He did cover His feet, and with twain He did cover His face, and with twain He did fly. and they cried unto one another, holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, the whole earth is full of His glory. Then said I, woe is me, I am undone because I have seen the glorious angels. Not at all. The angels were covering themselves so that Isaiah would be clear to behold the glory of God and it was that that undid him. And so he says, Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." But what happens if the angels are not covered in that scene? Well, I mean, we don't have any real hard statement, but an implication is, from their covering themselves, is that they would have detracted from the glory of God. They would have attracted Isaiah's attention away from God to themselves. And so, what do the angels do within the confines of appearing before the Lord? How do they manifest themselves? As covered. They are covered. And because they have a ministerial and supportive role to the elect, they are not to glorify themselves, and so they cover themselves. and they are given wings to do that very thing. They cover their feet, they cover their face, and they fly so as not to equate themselves with God by landing on that same footing upon which His throne exists. It's a very interesting concept to think about, but if we can expand our prior talk about the glories that are present in the worship service, we might say at the mention of angels then there are four glories that are seen in the worship service. Or may I say four glories present and one that is seen. There is the glory of God which is seen in the uncovered head of the man. There's the glory of man that is covered upon the head of the woman. There's the glory of the woman that is covered when her hair is covered. And there's the glory of the angels that is covered. You say, how is it covered? Let me ask you, do you see them? They're covered. They're hidden. What would happen? Brothers and sisters, just think with me. What would happen if the angels that are present with us in the worship service would reveal themselves? What would happen? They would instantly be worshipped. We'd do what John did. We'd fall down at their feet and they'd have to say, get up! I'm a fellow servant like you! So when the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, for this cause ought a woman to have power on her head because of the angels, It is because there is that same kind, that parity of role, that parity of role within the worshiping assembly, that all glory goes to God. You remember Acts chapter 10? Turn with me to Acts chapter 10. This is a very interesting passage in keeping with what we're talking about here. Acts 10, verse 1, there was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian Band, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming unto him and saying unto him, Cornelius, And when he looked on him, he was afraid and said, what is it, Lord? And he said unto him, thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God and now. send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter. He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the seaside, and he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually. And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa." Have you ever thought about that passage about how come the angel just didn't tell him about the gospel? Why didn't the angel just tell him what he needed to know? What did the angel tell him that day? He said, wait here, call for a guy and he'll come and he'll tell you the things you need to hear. What did he do? What did that angel do? He did exactly what He was supposed to do. As that ministering Spirit, He set the table and then got out of the way. He set the table and then He got out of the way. He got everything prepared. He got everything ready. He used that ministerial and supportive function that He has been given as an elect angel in support of those who are inheriting salvation. And he said, now wait right here and call this guy Peter, and he'll come and tell you what you need to do. And then he got out of the way. Now what happened? Well, we know the story. Cornelius calls for Peter. In the meantime, the Lord is working on the other end, on the heart of Peter, sending down a sheet with unclean animals, because had Peter received that call from a Gentile, he wouldn't have gone. But Cornelius was an elect man. And the Lord knew Cornelius, his name, from the foundation of the world. And so the Lord sends down a vision to Peter and teaches him that what God calls clean, don't you dare call unclean. And so when Peter walks into Cornelius' house, there is no angel present there. You don't see an angel. You think the angels are there? Hmm. Come on. I believe that that very angel that set the table is there. And I don't believe that anybody cheered louder than that angel. When Peter began speaking the gospel and the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his brethren, and they spoke in tongues, received the Holy Ghost, and became believers in Jesus Christ, what did the angel do? He set it up and then stepped aside and left the way for the glory of God and the preaching of the gospel as Peter came with uncovered head and preached the glory of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I don't think anybody cheered any louder than that angel that day. But he did so from the position of the side of being covered, veiled. That's why, ladies, you must cover your heads because of the angels. Because they're witnessing to you and you're witnessing to them. that it is God's glory alone that is to be seen when He is worshipped. It is God's glory that is to be extolled. And the Lord has symbolically placed that upon the head of the man. That's what He's done. And so, the glory of God is seen in the uncovered head of the man. The glory of the man is covered upon the head of the woman. The glory of the woman is covered. upon her hair, and the glory of the angels is covered, in that they are not seen." They also have that same kind of ministerial and supporting role. And brothers and sisters, it's taken me a long time thinking about this passage to get to this interpretation, but it's the only one that makes sense to me. All the others just fall short. Why are the angels mentioned? I think it's very instructive to us that we see those angels in the presence of the glory of God in Isaiah chapter 6 doing what? Covering themselves. And I believe Paul has that passage in mind when he says, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. So, let me ask you this about those angels. Do they move in and out of culture? They're not cultural. They are eternal beings. Notice that I said, well, they're everlasting beings. They're not eternal beings. Sorry, misspoke. They are everlasting beings. That once created, those souls of theirs are indestructible. that they will always be there to witness to that kind of role. They will always be those ministering spirits. All right, I told you at the outset that I thought there was an element of culturality in this passage. And that's in verse 13. Judge in yourselves, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Here, the word that he uses in Greek is the Greek word prepos, which means, is it proper? Comely, we understand sometimes comely, is it beautiful, right? But that's not what Paul means by comely here. The word he means, is it proper? Is it fitting? Is it right? Does it keep with our ideas of proper decorum? That's what he means here. And so there is an element of culturality in that verse there, in verse 13, but he immediately follows that with an argument from nature. And we talked about that argument last week, right? The argument from, does not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is what? A shame to him. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering. Let's handle the light of nature argument, and then we'll handle the hair as a covering. We may even get done a little bit early today. The light of nature argument that the apostle Paul brings here is easily seen. We understand this light of nature argument because it witnesses to what we see and what we believe to be proper in that, naturally speaking, we think it fitting for a woman to have a longer hairstyle than a man. And that really is all that's required there in verse 14. Now we know that there are elements of our society that have taken those light of nature arguments and for nefarious purposes, evil purposes, have turned that upon its head. And so they desire for men to have womanly haircuts and women to have manly haircuts. But we know that that is against nature. That's against nature. And that is very clearly seen when such things are set before our eyes. Oh, it's bracing, isn't it? It's bracing to see nature turned on its head in that way. It is. It's simply bracing. And that our culture in today's America would have us accept such things as natural only speaks to the depravity of those who would have us believe such. They know that what they're doing is against nature. They know that. And so when the apostle Paul says, doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him. Now, I remember growing up in churches that this passage was used against us teenagers not to have long hair. I remember that. And, you know, particularly myself, I never really had long hair. I did have longer hair than I have today, but it wasn't long. Yeah, some of you are saying, ah, bro. Yeah, well, I did, I did. I had a fuzzy net of hair. And it was longer than it is today. But it was never girly. Oh yeah, that's right. Because I knew the difference. And we do know the difference, don't we? We do know the difference. When we look even at men such as George Gillespie, who had hair down to his shoulders, and we look at the women of the day, we also see that his hair was quite a bit different from the hairstyles of the women that they wore in that day. And he was witnessing to that nature. Now, the way that natural argument is set forth from culture to culture may look a little bit differently. But the light of nature argument that the apostle Paul here uses is true. It is generally accepted that men's hairstyles are shorter than ladies' hairstyles. And that's true all the time and everywhere, even in indigenous cultures without any Christian influence. The missionaries find them, and they can tell the women. They have longer hair. So that's the light of nature argument. And please, let's just not devolve into arguments like, well, and the way men's hair and women's hair grows. That's not the point. The point is that the hairstyles for men and ladies have had one thing in common consistently throughout the history of our race. And that is that men's hairstyles are shorter than ladies, generally speaking. And when we see that overturned, we understand that that is against nature. All right, but if a woman have long hair, verse 15, it is a glory to her. Notice, her glory, and so, because it's her glory, it is to be covered in the worship service. Her hair is given to her for a covering, and here, everybody hits the brakes. Er, er, er, er, er. Well, you see, you don't need an artificial head covering, because the hair is the covering. The Apostle Paul says so, and if it's good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me. Right? Have you ever heard that argument? Absolutely. Here's the difficulty with that argument. Some of you will have a note, a footnote for the word, right next to the word covering. In this Bible here that I have, this is a TBS King James Bible. It says covering or veil in verse 15. That is regrettable, because it's not veil at all. It's not the word for veil. It's not even close to the word for veil. Throughout the passage, from the beginning up to this point, the Apostle Paul, when talking about the covering of the woman, has used a word that could rightly be translated veil. And when he used it in the verb form, he used it as veiling. Okay? Over and over again, it has the word kata, kalupto, something that is put down upon the head to cover. Could be a hat, could be a veil, all kinds of different understandings there. It's specifically in specific, in my opinion. But here he changes the Greek word entirely. It's the Greek word peribalo. It's not the Greek word katakalupto. It's the Greek word peribalo. Peribalo. What does peribalo mean? is that parenthesis from which we get our word perimeter, right? Perimeter. Perimeter. That is the measure around. Peri means around. And balo, you remember the word parable? Parable, right? The word parable is made up of two Greek words, para, which is a different preposition, balo, which means to throw or to cast. So the Greek word paribalo is a word that means to throw around, like a cloak. Completely different from a veil. You see, the hair cannot be the covering because it is given as a covering for something else, not the covering that pertains to the covering of the woman's head and the hair. And if we think about the dress of women in the apostles' day, we remember that they didn't show a lot of skin. They didn't have a lot of form that they showed. They wore large, loose-fitting outfits. But there was one particular portion of the women's skin that was seen, right? from about here to here, the neck and the nape of the neck. And so that hair was given to her for a cloak to cover up that portion that would otherwise be uncovered as an adornment to her modesty. but not in any way having to do with that covering that is to hide her glory or the man's glory. Her hair itself is the glory, so it must be covered. It cannot be the covering. It's something that must be covered because it is her glory. And so that's why the apostle changes the word to a peribalo instead of a katakalupto. Does that make sense? It's a completely different concept. All right, so then, verse 16, here's the apostle's parting shot. Notice he says, but if any man seem to be contentious, now what does he mean if any man seem to be contentious at this point? In other words, if you're not going to abide by what we have said here, if these arguments don't convince you and you remain contentious, keep this in mind, we have no such custom, neither do any of the other churches. So if you're going to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with 1 Corinthians 11, one through 15, keep in mind that you do so on your own. We have no such custom, neither the churches of God. And remember how the apostle began and how he ends? The apostle begins with that you keep the ordinances, the deliverances, the paradosis. those ordinances that I delivered to you, and then he says at the end here, we have no such custom, that is of men covering their heads and women uncovering their heads in worship, and neither do any of the other churches. So you'll be on your own if you're doing that. That's the argument. I want you to notice then, as we close up here, that there's very little here that speaks to culture. Very little. Just this one particular word in verse 13. Is it comely? Is it fitting? Is it right? Does it seem good to you? So he appeals to the sensibilities of the Corinthians, but then immediately he follows that up with an argument from nature, which is what? Timeless. Angels, which are timeless. The created order, which is timeless. The purpose for which we were created, which remains. And the apostle makes that clear by using the Greek word uparko in the present active participle. It's an ongoing thing. We exist as men, created as the image and glory of God, and we exist as ladies, as that supporting role, the image or the glory of the man. All these things are very clear then, that they transcend culture. They are supracultural. or arguments that do not pertain to any particular culture. And I know we can pull out commentaries. There's one by Susan Foe and others, other ladies that say, no, no, no, no, no. You don't understand what's going on in Corinth. What's going on in Corinth is there was a particular class of ladies. And I just want to say stop at that point. Where does that enter into the text? And where is the Apostle Paul referencing those one or two women in all of Corinthian society that walked around rebelliously bald? If they did, and it's questionable whether or not they did. Now, we do have reports of it taking place in Cyprus, which is an island nation far removed from Corinth. So when we begin entering into those kinds of eisegetical arguments, eisegetical, that we foist upon the text rather than drawing out of the text, right? Exegesis, we draw it out of the text. Eisegesis, we put it on the text. When we begin with those kinds of eisegetical arguments, we must look, if we're going to do so, we have to understand that that's a dangerous procedure and we better have good reason for doing it. And it's just not here. not in the passage. I appreciate you ladies that you cover your heads in worship. I believe that's what the Apostle Paul requires of us. And since there is no such thing as a neutral kind of position with regard to headdress, I also appreciate you men that you do not wear hats in the worship service. I believe that's exactly what the Apostle Paul is commanding here. And so as we continue then with that order, we might ask this question. Why is it so important? Why is it so important? Brother, Pastor Riddell, it just seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. How is this so important? Whether or not ladies cover their heads in worship, is that a hill you're willing to die on? No, it's not. Is it something that you'll want to bring somebody under discipline for? Listen, I don't ever want to bring anybody under discipline. That's the last thing I want to do. But let me just tell you this. Let me just reason with you for a moment. If our Lord commands us to do something, and we don't quite understand all the whys, does that release us from our duty? Well, you see, I don't think it does. Would we also say that if our Lord commands us to do something, that He does so for His glory, which is tantamount to our good? Is that true? I believe it is. And so, there may be many things in Scripture. For instance, the Israelites of old, when they were told, you know, the cow, because he chews his food right and because he has a cloven hoof, you can eat him. or her if it's a cow, right? But the rabbit, because he chews his cud but he doesn't divide the hoof, you can't eat him. Now that may seem pretty arbitrary, and yet obedience was defined by how they responded to such commands. They didn't need to understand every particular of the whys and wherefores. And so often we drive off, I think, the cliff of exegesis in trying to come up with whys and wherefores of particular things so that we can reason ourselves into doing them rather than simply obeying. There is a whole movement founded on how the Lord prescribed these dietary laws in the Old Testament because He cared about the Israelites' health. Please, no. Now the Lord did care about the Israelites' health, but not in that way. He was teaching them something entirely different. And we know from the New Testament perspective that we have, that He was teaching them to be a separated people unto Himself, including every day when they fixed a meal, they remembered, I belong to the Lord. Why did the Lord choose circumcision as a sign? Seems like a difficult ordeal, especially for a grown man to go through. And yet, several times a day when that man relieved himself, he remembered he was the Lord's. Sometimes we may not understand the why until after years of reflection, it comes crashing down on us and a great realization. Let's not put our own inability to understand in the way of our obedience, no matter what it is. And so I get asked about this from time to time. Some of you know that I was even, you know, I was taken off the list for consideration to pastor a church over this very issue. That's fine. The Lord had other plans. It was disappointing to me at the time, but the Lord had other plans. Here we are. But in the final analysis, at the end of the day, brothers and sisters, we must have our obedience coming from the right place, not because we have reasoned it out and we're now convinced. Who knows what God has for us in obeying this precept? Who knows what subtle machinations he is working upon our mind as we obey this very precept. Guys, you show up without hats. Women, you show up with them. At very least, he's teaching us some gender distinctions that are a strong dose of nature to this society. And we are witnessing to those things where our society would have us leveled out into one monad, genderless, At very least, it's that. But how many other things too subtle for us to realize is the Lord working upon our minds as we obey? And I put it to you that every one of those little things that work upon our minds because they're founded out of obedience work for our good. That we're not doing ourselves any bit of harm by obedience. Everything we gain from obedience is good. It is gain. So, while we may not be able to articulate every particular reason God has for saying, guys, when you show up for worship, since you're the image and glory of God, you come without hats. And ladies, because you're the glory of the man and your hair is your own glory, you come covered up. And angels, you hide yourselves entirely, but you go ahead and worship with my people. so that the glory of God will be magnified among us. And in our obedience, those subtle things that the Lord works that are psychologically imperceptible to us, he is working in us a kind of obedience and he's doing what we read about earlier. He is casting down imaginations and he's building up the knowledge of God in our thoughts. Let's stand and call upon the Lord in prayer. Heavenly Father, we do thank Thee for what Thou has taught us in Scripture, not just here in 1 Corinthians 11, but in many, many places. And as Thou has chosen certain base things to teach and instruct and save Thy people, help us to receive them. As Thou has chosen plain water for baptism and sprinkling, as Thou has chosen bread and wine for the Holy Supper, as Thou hast chosen the covering of the head for some and the uncovering for others, as Thou hast chosen through the foolishness of preaching to save those whom Thou hast loved from the foundation of the world. We pray, our Father, that we might not be wiser than Thee, but that we might be obedient to all these things. For we ask in Christ's name, amen.