There was no distinction between the outward appearance of the man and the outward appearance of the woman with regard to the head covering. Thus the creation ordinance was not the uncovered head of man versus the covered head of woman, but was rather the headship of man as, quote, the image and glory of God, unquote, versus the submission of woman as, quote, the glory of man, unquote. A letter responding to argument number 5, 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 7-9. May 7, 2011. The fifth argument from 1 Corinthians 11, 7-9. I now consider your fifth argument, which you have stated as follows. Number five, similarly, the woman perpetually wears a head covering because she is always in the quote, image of man, unquote, verse seven. Parents see also at this point that a woman ought to have her head covered because of the angels, verse 10, close parents. That is from your email dated January 20, 2011. This summary of where we are in Paul's argument is the same summary provided under the fourth argument. Up to this point, 1 Corinthians 11, 3-6, Paul has argued for the headship of man and the submission of woman from the moral slash theological principles of headship and submission found in 1 Corinthians 11, 3. He then applies these moral slash theological principles of headship and submission to a very specific instance of abuse in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 4-6. because, quote, the head of the woman is the man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, Christians in Corinth who met together for worship were to appear in the cultural and customary signs recognized within Corinth of man's headship, namely the uncovered head, and of woman's submission, namely the covered head. When a Christian woman in Corinth removed the outward customary sign of submission, the covered head, as she entered the Christian assembly, she usurped the role of man, generically all men, and particularly the role of her own father and or husband. She brought shame upon man, generically upon all men, and particularly upon her own father and or husband, as the divinely appointed head over the woman which likewise was an indirect attack upon God himself, who established the headship of man and the submission of woman from the beginning of creation. Having laid one piece of the foundation of his argument, and having applied it as well to a specific case in the Church of Corinth, Paul is now ready to lay another piece of the foundation of his argument in addressing the problem in the Church of Corinth. Moving from the moral slash theological principles of headship and submission found in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, and the cultural application of those principles in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 4-6, Paul now lays the next piece of the foundation of his argument. in addressing the confusion and schism brought into the Church of Corinth by men possibly covering themselves and by women actually uncovering themselves. This is the opposite side of the same coin in laying the foundation of his second argument, an argument taken from a creation ordinance. Whereas this creation ordinance demonstrates, on the one hand, that man is, quote, the image and glory of God, unquote, which is 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, this same creation ordinance also demonstrates, on the other hand, that woman is, quote, the glory of the man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, 7. First, whereas Paul began with the specific cultural application to men within the Christian assembly, quote, for a man indeed ought not to cover his head, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, and then proceeded to lay the second piece of the foundation, namely that of a creation ordinance, to his argument, quote, for as much as he is the image and glory of God, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, Paul now reverses that order as he addresses women and begins with the second piece of the foundation, namely that of a creation ordinance, to his argument, quote, but the woman is the glory of the man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, and then proceeds to the cultural application to women within the Christian assembly, quote, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10. This I submit by way of an overview of how Paul presents his argument. Second, the quote, but, unquote, day in Greek that begins this part of the sentence, quote, but the woman is the glory of the man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11.7, conveys a contrast with what was just stated by Paul. On the one hand, quote, man is the image and glory of God, unquote, quote, but, unquote, on the other hand, quote, woman is the glory of man, unquote. Since the reason that Paul uses the word, quote, image of God, unquote, in regard to man is in order to convey the idea that man, in distinction to women, bears God's image of headship and authority as to role, not nature. It would be inappropriate, if not incorrect, to speak of woman being the, quote, image, unquote, of man in as much as image, in this context, relates to the role of headship bestowed upon man as a creation ordinance. Thus, it is important to note that Paul does not state that woman is the image of man, contrary to what you have stated in your fifth argument, quote, the woman perpetually wears a head covering because she is always in the image of man, unquote. But rather that she is the glory of man. Moreover, when you state in your fifth argument that, quote, the woman perpetually wears a head covering because she is always in the image of man, unquote, the inference that I draw from such a statement is that a woman ought to wear a head covering in all public contexts, not simply ecclesiastical contexts, because she is the glory of man, not only when she assembles for the public worship of God, but also whenever she appears in public. I would submit that your fifth argument does not and cannot argue for a woman wearing a head covering only in public worship and not in public society in general. Thus, your fifth argument actually proves too much and argues that women ought to be covered in public at all times, both in civil society and ecclesiastical society. Third, how is woman the glory of man, as stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. As I stated earlier in my response to the fourth argument, when discussing how man is the glory of God, it would be perfectly appropriate and biblical to speak of both man and woman being the glory of God when speaking of them as to their nature and essence. Since both were made in the image of God as to nature, Genesis 1, verses 26 and 27, both are meant to reflect the glory of God. But since Paul, in the context of 1 Corinthians 11, verses 7-9, is not here addressing man and woman as to nature, but is rather addressing man and woman as to role, just as we must understand man as the glory of God to relate to the role of man in distinction to that of the role of women, so we must likewise understand woman as the glory of man to relate to the role of woman in distinction to that of the role of man. Woman is, quote, the glory of man, unquote, in distinction to man being, quote, the glory of God, unquote, because she has been divinely ordained to reflect the glory of the man in submitting to man's headship over her. Woman is, as Calvin puts it, quote, a distinguished ornament of the man, for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life and a helper to him and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head, unquote. See Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, Baker Bookhouse, page 357. Woman is the most brilliant jewel in a man's crown, and for that reason she is to be loved, cherished, and honored in her role of submission to the man, and not despised, demeaned, or dishonored. Woman as, quote, the glory of man, unquote, is not to be trodden underfoot, but rather is to be exalted as a helper to the very side and heart of man. Not only will man stand before God on the last day to answer for how he honored woman as a fit helper to him ordained by God, but woman will also stand before God on the last day to answer for how she brought glory to man in his role as head over her. Some women, no doubt, have ground a complaint of the abuse and tyranny exercised by men in their lives. But the abuse and tyranny of some does not alter the universal creation ordinance established by God. The response of a faithful woman in such a case of physical abuse and tyranny is not to cast off the creation ordinance, namely that she is, quote, the glory of the man, unquote, established by God. but is rather to flee, if necessary for physical safety, the physical abuse of particular men, as required by the sixth commandment to preserve both our own life and the life of others, while still acknowledging the creation ordinance, namely that she as a woman is still intended by God to be the glory of man. Both the church and state ought to deal with physical abuse in a marriage, whether it comes from the man or whether it comes from the woman. Fourth, Paul next, in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9, sets out to prove from the Scripture not only that, quote, man is the image and glory of God, unquote, but also that, quote, the woman is the glory of man, unquote. We previously had opportunity to review Paul's biblical proof as referenced in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9, that, quote, man is the image and glory of God, unquote. Now we will observe Paul's biblical warrant, as likewise referenced in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9, that, quote, woman is the glory of man, unquote. For the same biblical references alluded to in 1 Corinthians 11, 8, and 9 both prove that, quote, man is the image and glory of God, unquote, and that, quote, woman is the glory of man, unquote, as we shall see. There are two biblical proofs from the creation account alluded to by Paul that demonstrate that, quote, woman is the glory of man, unquote. First, woman was created by God after man and had her origin from the rib of man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man." 1 Corinthians 11. The Old Testament passage that Paul alludes to is the following, and the rib which the Lord God had taken from man made he a woman and brought her unto the man. Genesis 2. Thus, because woman was created after man and was created from man, dependent upon man for her creation as ordained by God, Paul argues that, quote, woman is the glory of man, unquote, and should reflect man's glory as her head by means of her willing submission. Number two, woman was created by God to be a helper to man. Quote, neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11 9. As man was first created by God, he did not have a mate who could help him propagate the race and help him in his calling. God saw the condition of man being alone as, quote, not good. Quote, it is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a help, meet for him. Unquote, Genesis chapter 2 verse 18. Thus, for this reason, was woman created by God, to be man's helper, to submit to him, not to rule over him, and in that role, quote, woman is the glory of man, unquote, the most brilliant jewel in his crown. These two arguments in 1 Corinthians 11 verses 8 and 9 thus provide Paul biblical warrant for why woman, as to her God-ordained role, not as to her nature or essence, is, quote, the glory of man. Fifth, once again it bears repeating that Paul does not argue that the head covering is a creation ordinance for woman, for nothing alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9 indicates that Eve was given a head covering to wear in the Garden of Eden for worship or otherwise. What Paul argues to be a creation ordinance established by God in regard to the woman is that she was created by God to be, quote, the glory of man, unquote. Thus the creation ordinance established by God and argued by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 7-9, is not the head covering, but rather is woman created to be, quote, the glory of man, unquote, as to her role. The head covering is the cultural and customary sign. Woman created to be, quote, the glory of man, unquote, is the creation ordinance. The cultural and customary sign may vary from culture to culture, from church to church, or from age to age, but the creation ordinance can never vary from culture to culture, from church to church, nor from age to age. Sixth, Paul now proceeds to give the cultural application within the Christian assembly of this creation ordinance, namely that, quote, woman is the glory of man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, 7. In 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, quote, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels, unquote. Does the prepositional phrase, for this cause, that introduces this sentence refer back to the creation ordinance? namely, that woman is the glory of man in 1 Corinthians 11, 7, and to the biblical proofs alluded to in the creation account in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9? Or does the prepositional phrase, quote, for this cause, unquote, that introduces this sentence refer forward to the prepositional phrase at the end of 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, quote, because of the angels, unquote? In other words, is Paul teaching that the reason for a woman to have power on her head is because she is, quote, the glory of man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, 7-9, or, quote, because of the angels, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, 10? I would submit that it is unnecessary to make this an either-or exegetical decision, i.e., the reason for a woman to have power on her head is either because she is the glory of man or because of the angels, but rather one may make this a both-and exegetical decision, i.e., the reason for a woman to have power on her head is both because she is the glory of man and because of the angels. Thus I submit that the prepositional phrase, quote, for this cause, unquote, that introduces this sentence, refers both backward and forward. Thus, the first cause and reason why the woman ought to have power on her head, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, is because she is, quote, the glory of man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, in reflecting, by means of her submission, his headship. Once again, Paul uses the word ought in regard to the Christian woman in Corinth having power on her head, which is the same Greek word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, in regard to the man being uncovered. The aughtness referenced here by Paul in regard to the Christian woman within the Corinthian church having power on her head, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, is parallel to the aughtness referenced earlier by Paul in regard to the Christian man within the Corinthian church being uncovered, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7. I would suggest that what was said above under the fourth argument be reviewed. but especially it should be remembered that if the oughtness of Christ in regard to washing the feet of one another, quote, if then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought to wash one another's feet, unquote, John 13, 14, does not necessarily infer a universal moral duty binding all Christians in all churches in all ages of the world, then the oughtness of Paul in regard to women having power on their heads in public worship, quote, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11.10, does not necessarily infer a universal moral duty binding all Christian women in all churches in all ages of the world. Therefore, the oughtness of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11.10, quote, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, unquote, is not a moral oughtness, but is rather a cultural oughtness, which is demanded by Paul so as to avoid shame, gender confusion, and ecclesiastical schism within the Church of Corinth. But what does Paul mean when he demands that, quote, the woman ought to have power on her head, unquote? What is the power that the woman is to have on her head? Since the whole context of 1 Corinthians 11 verses 3 to 16 has in view a particular ecclesiastical case wherein women in the church of Corinth were removing their head coverings when they assembled for the public worship of God, it would be most natural to the context to identify the power on the head of a woman as the fabric head covering. Note Paul's disapproval of a woman being uncovered in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 5. Paul's command given to the woman to have her head covered in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 6, and the uncomeliness Paul associated with a woman who prays with her head uncovered in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13. Thus, if anything is to be placed on the head of the Christian woman in Corinth when she assembled for the public worship of God, the entire context of this passage expects that the reader would understand that is a fabric head covering. Hence, the context of this passage should naturally guide us to interpret the, quote, power, unquote, on the head of the Christian woman in Corinth to be a fabric head covering. But didn't the head covering signify in Corinth at that time a woman's submission rather than her power or her authority? Yes, this is true. However, what Paul means in this instance is not that the head covering on the head of the Christian woman in Corinth is her own power and authority to exercise over herself or over the man, but rather that the head covering on the head of the Christian woman in Corinth is a token of her submission to the power and authority of the man. To introduce at this point a woman's power, authority, and headship would be completely contrary to all that Paul has stated, especially in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Thus the context demands that the power, authority, and headship belong to the man, and that, quote, the woman ought to have power on her head, unquote, in showing, by the cultural token of a head covering, her willing submission to the power, authority, and headship of man. This use of the word power as representing the cultural token of female submission, i.e. the head covering, to a man's power is an instance of a figure of speech called metonymy. Metonymy is used often in scripture when either an object is used to represent an idea, e.g. key, which is an object, represents power to open and close, which is an idea, in Isaiah 22, verse 22, and in Matthew 16, verse 19. Or, vice versa, an idea is used to represent an object, e.g. covenant, which is a theological idea, represents circumcision, which is an object, in Genesis 17, verse 13. Or, as in the present case, power, which is an idea, is used to represent the head covering, which is an object and token of submission to power. Thus, in summary, Paul first states there is a cultural oughtness for a Christian woman in Corinth to have power, i.e., a head covering on her head, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, namely because she is, quote, the glory of the man, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7. But there is a second reason given by Paul. Second, the second cause and reason why the Christian woman within the Corinthian church ought to have power on her head 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10 is, quote, because of the angels, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10. Although you did not spell it out as a separate and distinct argument, you imply that the prepositional phrase, quote, because of the angels, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, 10, provides another argument for the non-cultural nature of the head covering in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. You say, quote, see also at this point that a woman ought to have her head covered because of the angels, verse 10, unquote. I agree that Paul uses the angels here as another reason why the Christian women in Corinth ought to cover their heads in the public worship of God. However, I do not agree that the angels proves or implies that Christian women in all churches and in all ages throughout the world, without exception, ought to cover their heads in the public worship of God. I understand the angels to refer to the elect angels of God. The elect angels of God are sent as ministering spirits to minister to the heirs of salvation." Hebrews 1. Moreover, the Lord Jesus implies in Matthew 18.10 that all of God's children have holy angels who particularly care for them as their angels. Finally, I would mention that the holy angels of God witness our religious acts of worship in oaths, as indicated by Paul in 1 Timothy 3, verse 16. Because the holy angels of God are sent to minister to God's people, to protect them, and to witness their acts of worship, it stands to reason that the holy angels of God can also be grieved by the sin of God's people, by their errors, and by their bringing confusion and schism into the public worship of God. In the particular case addressed by Paul here in 1 Corinthians 11, since the uncovered head of the man was a cultural token of male headship and the covered head of the woman was a cultural token of female submission, when the Christian woman entered the public worship of God and removed the cultural token of her submission to man, she brought shame upon man who was her head. and ultimately upon God, who ordained the headship of man over woman. But such gender confusion and schism in the Christian assembly also greed the holy angels of God, who witnessed such perversion of the role of women by Christian women in Corinth. Thus, the second cause and reason why the Christian woman in Corinth ought to continue to have a head covering on her head, rather than removing it, when passing from civil society into the public worship of God, was on account of the sorrow brought to God's ministering spirits, the holy angels of God. It should be observed that if, quote, the angels, unquote, provide a just reason why Christian women in the Church of Corinth ought to be covered in the public worship of God, then, quote, the angels, unquote, also provide a just reason why Christian women in the Church of Corinth ought to be covered in public civil society as well. For, quote, the angels, unquote, not only were aggrieved by gender confusion and role reversal in Christian women when they gathered for public worship in Corinth, but also were aggrieved by gender confusion and role reversal in Christian women when they gathered for any public meeting in civil society. For, quote, the angels, unquote, were not limited or confined to ministering to Christian women, protecting Christian women, and witnessing the acts of Christian women in Corinth only when they gathered for the public worship of God, Their ministry, protection, and bearing witness extended to all occasions in public society. Thus Paul's reason, quote, because of the angels, unquote, for a Christian woman in Corinth to be covered, both infers that the head covering was worn in Corinth by Christian women not only in the public worship of God, but was also generally worn in Corinth by Christian women in public civil society as well. and also infers that the head covering that was worn in Corinth by Christian women in public society was being removed when they entered into the public worship of God, thus bringing shame, gender confusion, and schism into the ecclesiastical society and providing the specific occasion for Paul addressing the problem within the church of Corinth. The prepositional phrase, quote, because of the angels, unquote, does not infer that the covered head of a woman is a universal moral requirement. It only infers that, quote, the angels, unquote, are always grieved by disorder and confusion, i.e., when the general moral principles of order and decorum are violated in the respective roles of men and women, particularly among Christians in the public worship of God. Since the headship of men and the submission of women are a creation ordinance, quote, the angels, unquote, would always be grieved by a Christian woman who exchanges the cultural and customary sign of her female submission for the cultural and customary sign of male headship. Such perverse actions on the part of Christian men or Christian women disrupt the order and decorum established by God. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." 1 Corinthians 14, verse 33. Let all things be done decently and in order. 1 Corinthians 14, verse 40. Thus there is no inconsistency or contradiction in Paul maintaining that the head covering was a cultural and customary sign of female submission, and yet maintaining that the angels of God, who are not limited to a particular culture or age, are grieved by Christian women who lay aside the cultural and customary sign of female submission in Corinth, i.e., the covered head, and take upon themselves the cultural and customary sign of male headship in Corinth, i.e., the uncovered head. Seventh, Paul takes occasion in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 11 and 12, before closing this part of his argument, to provide a proper balance to what he had just said in regard to the woman being the glory of the man. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, having her origin from man, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 8, and being created in order to be a man's helper, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 9. Paul has duly corrected those Christian women in Corinth who had assumed the cultural role of a man in the public worship of God. But now he points out that there is also a sense in which the man is not independent of the woman or the woman independent of the man in the Lord, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 11. As to Christian grace and the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, Christian men and Christian women are dependent upon one another, for they are, quote, heirs together of the grace of life, unquote, 1 Peter 3, verse 7. Paul provides a further explanation of how men and women are dependent upon one another in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 12, when he teaches that just as the woman was originally created from the man, so now the man is born of the woman. all by the will of God and to the glory of God. I have now covered in this installment your fourth and fifth arguments. Please feel free to follow up with any questions or comments that might arise from my responses. Yours for the cause of Christ, Greg L. Price. A letter responding to argument number six, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, June 10, 2011. The Sixth Argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13. Although this has been a long process in addressing the arguments you have presented for the perpetual ecclesiastical use of head coverings for women in the public worship of God, it has allowed us to think, meditate, study, and pray as we have considered what the Holy Spirit is saying through His inspired Apostle in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. The time we have spent over the past few months has been most helpful to me in preparing my exegetical theological remarks to each of your arguments. Thank you for your willingness and desire to take this journey with me. I do appreciate it very much. We come now to your sixth argument, which you have stated as follows, quote, number six, in verse 13, he appeals to the conscience governed by the perpetual moral law of the Corinthians as a reason to persist in the ordinance of verse two, verses 13, unquote, from your email dated January 20, 2011. We have previously noted that Paul has now laid two distinct pieces of the foundation to his argument in addressing the particular abuse reported to him within the Corinthian church. 1. The first piece of the foundation of Paul's argument is the argument from moral-slash-theological principles of headship and submission found in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3. These moral-slash-theological principles of headship and submission are then applied to the confusion and schism within the Corinthian Church in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 4-6. 2. The second piece of the foundation of Paul's argument is the argument from creation ordinances in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7. He, i.e., man, is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. These creation ordinances are further demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 8 and 9, and then are applied to the confusion and schism within the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 7, quote, for a man indeed ought not to cover his head, unquote, and in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10, quote, for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, unquote. This now brings us to the third piece of the foundation of Paul's argument, an argument from propriety and decorum, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, quote, Judge in yourselves, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered, unquote. First, Paul begins with a command to the members of the Corinthian church, quote, Judge in yourselves, unquote, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13. I take Paul's command here not as an appeal to each member's conscience in Corinth, as if he were saying, each one of you judge for yourself within your own individual conscience. Rather, I submit that Paul's appeal in this command is an appeal to the Church collectively in Corinth to come together and decide. The Greek word krino may be translated here in this verse as decide. according to the standard Greek lexicon entitled, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer Art Gingrich, page 452. So, I submit that Paul's appeal in this command is an appeal to the Church collectively in Corinth to come together and decide among yourselves what is fitting in this case of a woman praying uncovered in the public worship of God. In other words, I would submit that the following literal translation makes clearer the inspired intention of Paul. Quote, decide among you yourselves, unquote. The use of yourselves here is the intensive use of the Greek pronoun autois. Paul uses a propositional phrase after the command, quote, judge, unquote, which the authorized version translates as, quote, in yourselves, unquote, and human in the Greek text. Does this prepositional phrase, quote, in yourselves, unquote, mean that the Corinthian Christians are to personally judge within their own individual consciences? Or does it mean that they are to judge or decide among themselves collectively when the Church of Corinth comes together? The instances of Paul's use of the Greek prepositional phrase enhumen, to mean among you collectively as a group or as a church, rather than in you individually as distinctive persons, in the letter of 1 Corinthians are numerous. 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verse 6, The only instances of the Greek prepositional phrase inhuman in the entire letter of 1 Corinthians, in which the context makes it clear that it could not mean among you collectively as a group or as a church, are found in 1 Corinthians 6, verse 2, where inhuman means by you, and in 1 Corinthians 6, verse 19, where inhuman means in you individually, that is, within your individual physical body. Thus it seems far more likely that when Paul issues his command in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, quote, judge in yourselves, unquote, he means to say, in effect, decide among you yourselves when you come together. Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Thus, if the translation above reflects accurately the intention of the Holy Spirit, which the common use of the prepositional phrase in question decidedly favors in 1 Corinthians, there is not a direct appeal by Paul to the individual conscience of each person in the Church of Corinth to personally judge for himself or herself whether a woman praying with an uncovered head violates the moral law of God. On the contrary, the evidence would support the view that Paul's command is an appeal to the Church of Corinth to come together collectively in order to discuss and to decide whether it is fitting and proper for a woman to remove the cultural and customary sign of female submission when she assembles with the Church to worship the Lord. Second, in the second part of 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13, Paul reveals in the form of a question what it is that the Corinthian church collectively is to decide among itself when it comes together. Quote, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Unquote. Carefully note that Paul does not ask, quote, is it morally lawful? Or is it lawful according to the regulative principle of worship that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chooses a Greek participle, prepon, that means be fitting, be seemly, or suitable, according to a Greek-English lexicon in the New Testament and other early Christian literature by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, page 706. Thus Paul is not asking the Church of Corinth to decide whether a woman who prays unto God uncovered has violated the moral law of God, or the regulative principle of worship, but rather Paul appeals to the Church of Corinth to decide whether it is fitting and suitable for a Christian woman in Corinth to exchange the cultural and customary sign of female submission, i.e. the covered head, for the cultural and customary sign of male headship, i.e. the uncovered head. Moreover, the standard of whether it was fitting and suitable for a Christian woman in Corinth to remove her head covering, which she was wearing in civil society prior to entering worship, is not stated to be the moral law of God, but rather nature. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14. Paul declares that nature teaches the Corinthians whether it is fitting or suitable for a Christian woman to pray with the cultural and customary sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head. For nature itself teaches there are to be distinctive roles and appearances between men and women. As we shall see, nature neither teaches that all men in all cultures, in all nations, and in all ages ought to be uncovered when assembled in the church to worship the Lord, nor that all women in all cultures, in all nations, and in all ages ought to be covered when assembled in the church to worship the Lord. For nature did not teach Eve to cover her head in the Garden of Eden before the fall, either when worshipping or not worshipping. where Adam and Eve were both naked according to Genesis 2 verse 25, which means Eve did not wear a head covering while in the garden. Or after the fall, for the Lord clothed both Adam and Eve in coats, but did not make a head covering for Eve and place it upon her head, Genesis 3 chapter 21. Nature certainly did not teach the priests to uncover their heads in worship in the Old Testament as a sign of male headship in the worship of God, for they were specifically commanded by God to cover their heads with a mitre and bonnets. See Exodus 28.4 and Leviticus 8.13. Thus, once again, we must not confuse the cultural and customary sign with what nature teaches. What nature teaches is not that a Christian man ought to be uncovered and a Christian woman ought to be covered in public worship in all churches and in all ages or in public society at all times and in all ages. Nature teaches that there is a distinction to be maintained between the distinctive roles and appearances between men and women. However, culture specifically identifies the various outward signs and customs in which the respective roles and appearances of men and women, as taught by nature, are to be distinguished. We will delay a more full discussion as to what Paul means by nature until we address your seventh argument in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15. Third, just as Paul previously argued from the moral-slash-theological principles of male headship and female submission in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, and applied it to the cultural and customary sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head, and the cultural and customary sign of female submission, i.e., the covered head, in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 4-6, And just as Paul previously argued from the creation ordinances of man being the image and glory of God, but woman being the glory of the man in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 7, and applied these creation ordinances to the cultural and customary sign of male headship, i.e. the uncovered head in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 7, and to the cultural and customary sign of female submission, i.e., the covered head, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 10. So likewise, Paul now argues from propriety and decorum, asking whether it is culturally fitting and suitable for a woman to pray to God in public worship with her head uncovered, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13. Fourth, as I have already mentioned in a previous letter, specifically the first letter dated February 4, 2011, The question that Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, quote, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered, unquote, is specifically answered by Paul after his parenthetical remarks in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15, wherein he presents his argument from nature when he states in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, quote, we have no such custom, unquote. In other words, when Paul states that, quote, we have no such custom, unquote, of women praying unto God in Corinth with the cultural and customary sign of male headship, i.e., the uncovered head, he is also inferring that it was, in fact, a, quote, custom, unquote, for women to pray unto God with the cultural and customary sign of female submission, i.e., the covered head. The word custom in Greek sunithia is a, quote, habit custom usage, unquote, from a Greek English lexicon of the New Testament, Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, page 797. The only other usage of this Greek word for custom, sunnethia, in the received text of the New Testament, is found in John chapter 18, verse 39, where it refers to the, quote, custom, unquote, of the Jews to release one prisoner at the time of the Passover, which was obviously a national custom for the nation of the Jews and not for other nations in all ages, just as the cupboard head for women was a national custom among the nations and societies of the Greeks and not a custom for all nations in all ages. In 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, Paul refers to the veiling of women as a, quote, custom, which is precisely what the reformers called it as well, a custom or customary sign. But a custom or customary sign is not the same thing as the moral law of God, or the same thing as the regulative principle, or the same thing as a moral slash theological principle, or the same thing as a creation ordinance, or the same thing as nature. a customary sign first becomes a custom in the society or culture at large, and is then carried over into worship when a church is planted in that cultural society, because to dismiss such a customary sign in worship would introduce confusion, disorder, and schism into the church, especially when that customary sign is agreeable to the moral-slash-theological principles of male headship and female submission. See 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3. is agreeable to the creation ordinances of man, being the image and glory of God, and woman being the glory of man, see 1 Corinthians 11.9, is agreeable to propriety and decorum as to what is seemly and fitting, see 1 Corinthians 11.13, and is agreeable to nature, which teaches a distinction in the respective roles and appearances of men and women. See 1 Corinthians 11, verse 14. However, when in a society, nation, or culture there is no such general or universal custom of women covering their heads when they are in public, or for men to uncover their heads when they are in public, I submit there is no sound reason for the covering of the head in the case of women and the uncovering of the head in the case of men to be practiced in the public worship of God. The Corinthians are here rebuked by Paul because the women removed the cultural and customary sign of female submission, i.e., a covered head, and appeared in public worship with the cultural and customary sign of male headship, i.e., the covered head. And in so doing, they completely inverted their role and appearance as women with that of men within the cultural setting of Corinth. Instead of doing what was culturally fitting and what was agreeable to what nature teaches, i.e. distinction in the roles and appearances of men and women, the Corinthians did and tolerated what was unfitting, and they confused and blurred what nature teaches by way of gender distinctions. Fifth, I would note that Paul is not appealing to the Corinthians, in the words of your argument, quote, to persist in the ordinance of verse 2, per your sixth argument, In verse 13, he appeals to the conscience covered by the perpetual moral law of the Corinthians as a reason to persist in the ordinance of verse 2, verses 13. As we have already noted in this letter, Paul is not appealing to the conscience of each individual member of the Church of Corinth, but rather to a sense of propriety and decorum among the whole Church collectively. Nor is Paul looking in this case specifically to the moral law of God, but rather to the general principles of gender distinction taught by nature. And the quote ordinances unquote of 1 Corinthians 11 verse 2, which Paul commends the Corinthians for keeping, are neither the uncovered head of men nor the covered head of women. For if the Corinthian men were uncovered in worship, and if the Corinthian women were covered in worship, i.e., if they were faithfully keeping these practices in worship as ordinances, there would have been no reason at all for Paul to rebuke and correct them for not doing so in 1 Corinthians 11 verses 3-16. As I previously argued, I believe these, quote, ordinances, unquote, were left unnamed by Paul so that we are not able to specifically identify them, though no doubt the Corinthians themselves knew which apostolic ordinances they were keeping and those to which Paul referred. Sixth, in conclusion and in summary, I submit that Paul does not appeal to the conscience of each individual member of the Corinthian Church to follow the moral law of God or the regulative principle of worship in judging whether it is comely or fitting for a woman to pray unto God uncovered. To the contrary, Paul commands the Corinthians to decide among themselves, collectively, whether it is fitting and suitable for a woman to pray unto God uncovered, as they consider that nature itself teaches there ought to be distinctive roles and appearances maintained between men and women. Please feel free to follow up with any questions or comments you might have from my response to your sixth argument. Yours for the cause of Christ, Greg L. Price. Still Waters Revival Books is now located at PuritanDownloads.com. It's your worldwide online Reformation home for the very best in free and discounted classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books, mp3s, and videos. For much more information on the Puritans and Reformers, including the best free and discounted classic and contemporary books, mp3s, digital downloads and videos, please visit Still Waters Revival Books at PuritanDownloads.com. Stillwater's Revival Books also publishes the Puritan Hard Drive, the most powerful and practical Christian study tool ever produced. All thanks and glory be to the mercy, grace, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ for this remarkable and wonderful new Christian study tool. The Puritan hard drive contains over 12,500 of the best Reformation books, MP3s, and videos ever gathered onto one portable Christian study tool. An extraordinary collection of Puritan, Protestant, Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Covenanter, and Reformed Baptist resources, it's fully upgradable and it's small enough to fit in your pocket. The Puritan hard drive combines an embedded database containing many millions of records with the most amazing and extraordinary custom Christian search and research software ever created. The Puritan Hard Drive has been produced to assist you in the fascinating and exhilarating spiritual, intellectual, familial, ecclesiastical, and societal adventure that is living the Christian life. It has been specifically designed so that you might more faithfully know, serve, and love the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as to help you to do all you can to bring glory to His great name. If you want to love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, then the Puritan Hard Drive is for you. Visit PuritanDownloads.com today for much more information on the Puritan Hard Drive and to take advantage of all the free and discounted Reformation and Puritan books, mp3s, and videos that we offer at Still Waters Revival Books.