1 Corinthians 11 verses 2 through 16. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man The man is the head of a woman. God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying shames his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying shames her head, for she is one in the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut short. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut short or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. For a man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. For indeed, man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman, but all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor? to him. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. My message today is on the subject of Paul's argument for the head covering, Paul's argument for the head covering. We began to approach this text last week with a look into the subject of headship. I believe no matter what your position is on the head covering itself, you've got to get the headship correct. You've got to understand that there is a teaching about headship in this text, and if you get that wrong, you've got some serious issues within the home and within the church. Within many circles, including within some of the churches that I grew up around, when you think of 1 Corinthians, you automatically think of the head covering, because this is a text that is taught on quite frequently. It is a text that is debated. It is a text that is talked about and preached on quite often. There will be folks who differ with me on this subject. No doubt, I know that I have some friends who differ with me on this subject, and I'm okay with that. There are, it won't be the first time that I've had friends differ with me on a subject within the scriptures. And I'll say right off the bat, I take the literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of this text. If you're not sure what that means, you will soon. But it's the same approach that I take on Genesis. For those who were with us on our studies in Genesis, there's a reason. that I don't find millions of years in that text. There's a reason why that I take Genesis chapter one, chapter two, literal. There's a reason why I believe that this world was created in six literal days. And so by that same approach, I'm gonna take this the same way. But here's the deal, as we wade into this, I've got no axis to grind, I've got no debates to win. But as a woman, if you're listening to this, as a woman listening to this, you may have the most elaborate veil on your head. You may have the biggest hat covering your head. But if your heart ain't right with the Lord, You ain't right. If all you think about as you think about this text is I've got to get something to cover my head and that's all I need, check box, and I'm done, you've missed the point. I think this text is important. But I don't think it's important enough that churches ought to divide over it. And I don't think it's important enough that brethren ought to cut fellowship over it. For decades, I watched my grandfather pastor a church. For those who don't know, my grandfather was James Hobbs. The church was King's Edition Baptist Church in South Shore, Kentucky. I don't always mention his name or that church because I don't think lineage or that sort of thing ought to be thrown around lightly. But I mention it here because I think it's relevant. For decades, I watched him pastor church. in which it was split as far as some people within the church practiced it, some people didn't. And yet that church was united. Nobody fought or argued over it. And I saw him teach on the subject, but never get ugly about it. I saw him fellowship with good and godly brothers and sisters who differed with him on the subject. And I never saw them become arrogant about it. And I appreciate his example on the subject. It wasn't until, I guess I was in high school, I began hearing about churches who began to divide over the subject, and they weren't American churches. They were churches in the Philippines. And they began to divide over this subject, and I think some of that spilled over here in the United States, but I don't think that that's right. I don't think that this is a text of division. I don't think it was intended to be. There are pastors in this country who preach on this text once a year, who make it a text of division, and there are churches who make it a test of membership, who make it a test of fellowship, and that sort of thing. I've even heard churches and pastors who make it or talk about it as if you're not gonna be in the bride unless you practice it the way that they teach it. I don't believe that sort of thing. In fact, in fact, like I said, you know, it's a heart issue. A meek and quiet spirit about a woman who's submissive to her husband is not indicative by a veil on her head. The most rebellious woman in the church house might be the one with a veil on her head. The most submissive woman in the building may be the one who's not wearing a veil. That's between God, her, and her husband. But I am going to teach what the text teaches. If this subject leads you to pride, arrogance, and division, you've read it all wrong. And I'm hoping, I'm hoping while we're hearing this text, that we'll come to, we'll come to the proper understanding here in this. The difference of opinion between brothers, between churches, it's not a difference of manuscript traditions. It's not a difference between Bible translations. So, I've read it in King James. I've read it in the New King James. I've read it in English Standard Version. I've read it in Legacy Standard and New American Standard. I've read it in different Bible translations, and I've talked to brothers, seen churches. It's not differences in Bible translations or manuscripts. So that's not the problem. The problem isn't there. The problem, the differences have to do with differences of interpretation. Some interpret this text as being part of Paul's argument for Christian liberty. Others interpret this as some kind of a cultural issue that was going on with Corinth in that particular time and place. And then that's what Paul was dealing with in that day. Those were the two most common, or are the two most common interpretations besides the interpretation that I take. There's a third interpretation, which isn't as popular these days, but we'll touch on that later. Again, I know some good and godly folks who hold to these. They're sincere in what they believe, and they've preached it. Their sermons are online. They've written articles. I've had discussions with some of these brethren, but I disagree with them. That disagreement is not enough for me to break fellowship with them. I can sit side by side with them in church services, conferences, fellowship meetings, preach with them in conferences, and it really doesn't affect our worship. Sometimes I'll come back from a church meeting, Bible conference, and someone will say, well, how was the conference? And I'll talk about it. And sometimes there's some people who really want to know. They say, well, were the people there wearing head coverings? And I really don't know because I'm not looking for that sort of thing. The only time I really know about whether or not people are wearing head coverings is every once in a while someone will come up to my wife or daughter and make comment to them for the covering on their head. But that's usually it. I don't pay attention to that sort of thing. So here's Paul's argumentation for this approach. Why we take this literal, why I teach the head covering still in 2025. You might could even say why I believe it's not a cultural issue limited to Corinth or why it's not part of the Christian liberty argument. Verse two, now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you. So as we approach the text, we read it, and we read it straight through. I've read this through multiple times, start to finish, this text. Paul is praising the church for keeping the traditions which he's taught. This is quite different tone, very different tone than what he had with the subject of meat sacrifice to idols. That was liberty, but now he's shifting. This is him praising them for a tradition, for traditions that he had delivered. This is apostolic tradition, apostolic doctrine. During the New Testament times, there were folks who held to the position that Paul's teachings were non-binding. Certainly, there are those who take that position today. How many times have you heard somebody say, well, women can preach because what we read in the Bible about women keeping silent, that was just Paul's speech. Paul was just a woman hater. You see, there are those out there today who don't believe that the writings of Paul are binding. And so it was in that day. But all of this is the Word of God. And over 2,000 years of church history, volumes upon volumes of commentaries being written on the text, I can't find anybody who held that this was an issue of Christian liberty until very recently. But let's just put all of that aside. the naysayers and so on and so forth, those who look at Paul's writings and say, no, this is not binding. And let's just take the text, pure as it is, the inspired word of God, and examine it for what it is. His argument is much different. It's not like it was in chapters eight, nine, and 10. This isn't about meat sacrifice to idols. This is something very different. This is about apostolic doctrine. And so if you've got pen and paper, you might want to take some notes. The first argument he's giving, once he transitions to this, as he praises them for remembering him and everything to hold firmly to these traditions as he delivered them. Verses three through five, the subject that we considered last week, the argument of universal headship. Notice there, but I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man. The man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while he is praying or prophesying shames his head, but every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying shames her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. The headship issue is not an issue of liberty. It's not an issue of a cultural debate. And as we see here, as he ties this in, the head of, the Christ is the head of every man. The man is the head of a woman. God is the head of Christ. He lays this groundwork out And then he takes this and says the fact that the covered head of a man in worship, the covered head of a man in worship, disgraces his greater head Christ. You see, it's the reason I don't get up here in a pulpit or come into the church service with a hat on my head. It'd be dishonor to my head, Jesus Christ. And this discussion that Paul is having, this argument that Paul is having about the head covering, this puts it outside of the realm of culture. The head of every man is Christ. I'm not Corinthian. You see, this isn't an issue of liberty. And so we have this argument of universal headship. No matter what tribe, culture, where you're at, it doesn't matter. Universal headship. Second argument that's given. By the way, we'll come back and we'll look at these verses more in depth like we normally do, but I want to just lay some groundwork here, lay some foundation. why we believe, why we practice the head covering still. Number two argument is the argument of the order of creation, verses seven through nine. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but the woman from man. For indeed, man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Excuse me. So again, just like the headship argument, there's the creation argument or the creative order argument. It's not an argument that's ordered in liberty or in culture. This goes all the way back to creation, a universal argument, an argument that spans all the sons and daughters of Adam. You can't wiggle out of this. Man is unique, uniquely the image bearer. You see, the argument can go, well, man and woman are the image of God. Yes, but uniquely man is because he was created first. Paul is arguing this way because it was man who was made first. And from man was woman created. And so we have this order, this creative order that has happened. Reflection of God's nature and His role of loving leadership. And we see this here. And woman is the man's glory in this. She was created from the very substance of man. We read about this not too many weeks ago in Genesis chapter 2. Genesis chapter 2 and verse 7. Then Yahweh God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. So man became a living being. So he made man from the dust of the ground, but where did woman come from? Well, in verse 18, then Yahweh God said, it is not good for the man to be alone or make him an helper suitable for him. Verse 21, so Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept. Then he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. And Yahweh God fashioned the rib which he had taken from the man into a woman and he brought her to the man. Then the man said, this one finally is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. one shall be called woman because this one was taken out of man. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." And so, this head covering issue, in worship speaks of one being under the authority of an earthly head, as the woman is veiled. But why is the man not veiled? Why am I not veiled? That speaks of the man not being under the authority of an earthly head, but under Christ. This is the second argument, the creative order argument. Again, not going to some cultural argument. He's not presenting this in some fashion like neat sacrifice to idols of liberty type of an argument. He's rooting this all the way back to creation. The third argument, verse 10, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10. Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels Again he's not arguing like as if it's Liberty He's arguing From apostolic authority he's arguing this as in a different way. Not telling them to follow the culture for culture's sake. He's telling them because of, in this third argument, because of the angels. And it's not just Paul speaking, shooting from the hip. This is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is God-breathed text, same as the rest of Scripture. I love his logic as he throws out these arguments. You need to do this because, one, two, three. I can almost imagine if Paul were in the modern era, sending an email, he'd have bullet points. This is why. This is why you ought to do this. He walked into a church building. He'd utilize the screen and put up the PowerPoint and bring up the slides and say, here's why you ought to be doing this church. This third slide would be about the angels. Why the angels? Why? Well, Well, he has that word therefore there. So that ties it in with the previous text, the previous reason. The woman is from the man. She used to be man's helper. Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. It's interesting, he doesn't use the same Greek word here as what he used in other places. In the other places, he used the veil. We can sense that it's different in the text, even though he was writing in the Greek, we can sense it's different in our English because it's worded different. I mean, in verse five. but every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying shames her head. Verse six, for if a woman does not cover her head, let her cover her head, the ending of verse six. Verse seven, for a man ought not to have his head covered, This word is a word for a veil or a fabric veil, something that can be taken on or off, covered, uncovered. By the way, there goes the argument for it being the hair only. But in this text, in verse 10, he doesn't use that word. He uses a different word, and he refers to it not as a veil, but according to what the veil represents, a symbol of authority. Symbol of authority. Because of the angels. Because of the angels. We don't think of it often enough, but we are in the presence of angels. Hebrews chapter one, Hebrews chapter one in verse 14. Are they not all ministering spirits sent to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation? We're in the presence of angels now. in this worship service. There are angels present. Over in 1 Peter 1, in verse 12, It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you in these things, which now have been declared to you through those who proclaim the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. And so, there are angels present in the worship service. Why does Paul mention angels in referring to the covering of women? Well, if we gather ourselves to worship, And the teaching is for the women to cover themselves. I believe there is a principle that ties back to the Old Testament teaching and a vision of Isaiah that we find about the angels in Isaiah chapter six. Verses one through three. And it says here, in the year of King Uzziah, Isaiah chapter six, begin in verse one. In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up with the train of his robe. filling the temple. Seraphim stood above him, each having six wings. With two he covered his face. In other words, with two he veiled his face. With two he covered his feet. In other words, he veiled his feet. With two he flew, and one called out to another and said, Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of hosts. The whole earth is full of his glory. I mentioned that this is a subject that I don't think we ought to divide over. However, I do think there is a line. We ought to take it serious enough to consider that it is interesting that the Holy Spirit references the angels here. How offensive it must be that the angels observe the worship service of humans as we gather to worship our God, knowing that in God's word, women are told to cover, to veil. And in this vision, the angels who are before Almighty God, they cry out, holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of hosts. They see what's going on. we don't take God serious enough. You see, this argument that's being used here of angels is beyond the scope of liberty or Corinthian culture. Our problem is that we don't stop and think just how serious our worship ought to be. Back to our text here in 1 Corinthians 11, our fourth argument, we consider And Paul's laying down here as he writes to the church of Corinth, praising them. The fourth argument that he lays down here in verses 14 and 15 does not even nature itself teach you. Verse 14, does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. Again, hardly limited to culture and certainly not having anything to do with liberty, Paul points out that there is a natural argument here. And he brings in an argument from nature, and that is that there is a natural order of things insofar as the natural covering goes. That there is a natural covering that all men and women have, and that is hair. This is not a replacement of the veil. We must not think of this as being a replacement of the veil or being an answer to it, but rather this is an argument for it. Nature is God's established design and order in creation. And it says the same thing to all creatures, all the sons and daughters of Adam. It's a sign of male headship and female submission. If these have been given by nature, how much more God-ordained signs in worship, that there should be women with coverings and men without coverings. In other words, nature does indeed teach a difference between a man and a woman in dress. Let's put it another way. Nature does not teach a unisex type of fashion and clothing. Nature does not teach a unisex way of wearing the hair. Why should there be a unisex style in the covering when we gather to worship the living God, you see? And so this is Paul's fourth argument, the argument from nature. And so now the fifth argument. As Paul, as it were, clicks the slide of the PowerPoint onto the final slide, of his presentation as to why there needs to be the women's head covering and why men ought not to wear coverings in the church service. And here it is, this is the final slide, the fifth argument, and that is, apostolic authority, and common practice in all New Testament churches. Look with me, if you will, to verse 16. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. Paul had been around the block a time or two. He knew how people were. He knew this church. the Church of Corinth, there were some people who didn't like Paul. Remember, they were divided. Some said they were of Paul, some said they were of Apollos, some said they were of Cephas. He knew that there'd be some pushback. So he ends this section authoritatively declaring that we, the apostles, that's what he means there, we have no other practice. We, the apostles, have no other practice and neither do the churches of God. Neither he nor the other apostles nor the churches, regardless of culture, language, nationality, or location, had a practice of women worshiping with uncovered heads. Neither the apostles nor the churches, regardless of culture, language, nationality, or location, had a practice of men worshiping with covered heads. You see, Indeed, even as I mentioned at the beginning, this was the common practice among churches all across the spectrum, whether you're talking about Baptist churches, Catholic churches, Protestant churches, all across And you can find it in all the commentaries. Probably up until the 1960s, it was common practice. I challenge anybody to prove me wrong. It was the common practice among the churches. to take a straightforward view and reading of this text and come to the conclusion that men are to worship with their heads uncovered and women are to worship with their heads covered. And I maintain that over the last hundred years, nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. There's no expiration date on this text. It's still as relevant as it ever was. And I'll still continue to preach this and believe it. May God give us the glory, may God get the glory and give us the grace to be able to preach and teach this in love as we seek to obey Him in all things. I trust this has been a blessing to you. Thank you for your attention.