To Cover or Not to Cover?

When the apostle Paul commands women to cover their head in church is he speaking about a local custom or something more. Paul does not leave us without a rationale or for a defense of covering that. And the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation, not the courts, as it seems that Paul is saying that women must wear head coverings and that it transcends local custom today of Renewing Your Mind.

We continued on Jersey's World Series the hard sayings of the apostles and today's passage certainly qualifies as RCL with a message titled the cover or not to cover as we continue now with our study of the hard things. Again, we turn to the epistles of the New Testament and the one that we have today is important for several reasons. And frankly, for reasons far beyond the particular matter that is addressed in the text and I'm referring now to this question of women wearing head coverings in church.

I know that there are some churches that get into great controversy about this, but for the most part in the church today, at least in the American church that tradition of women covering their heads in worship on Sunday morning has been abandoned. If you would go to the church that I attend. For example, in Sunday morning.

I can think of only two or three women who come to church, wearing a hat, whereas when I was a child when I came to church every woman was wearing a hat and that custom in that tradition as I said, has changed radically. And if you would come to my church and see two hats on Sunday morning. You could guess immediately that one of them was being worn by my wife and the element by my daughter-in-law auntie took my family out of the church, there would be any ads in church on Sunday morning because I'm one of the last diehards on this particular tradition, but let's look at the text that has provoked this particular question is in the 11th chapter of first Corinthians were Paul begins by saying in verse two. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you a quick word on that.

The word tradition in the New Testament is the Greek word Parada assists and it is a brooch with the prefix attached to it and it simply means that which is given across or given over and we know that Jesus was in frequent controversy with the Pharisees over the subject of tradition, but the tradition that Jesus rebuked and admonished was the tradition of men now. Be careful here because when the apostles speak of tradition and the tradition the gospel tradition. They're not talking about human tradition, but they're talking about that which is been handed over from the apostles to the church from the Old Testament to the New Testament to that treasury of divine truth that had been passed on from generation to generation. These were not traditions that were to be negotiated. This is God's tradition, but now Paul is speaking here about keeping the traditions as he had delivered them to you so he speaking of an apostolic tradition and he said I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head, but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head for that is one and the same as if her head were Shay for for woman is not covered letter. Also be sure, but if it is a shameful thing for a woman to be sworn or shaved B covered for man indeed ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man for man is not from woman, but woman for man, nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the Angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman nor woman independent of man in the Lord.

For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman but all things are from God judge among yourselves. Is it proper for woman to pray to God with her head uncovered, does not even nature itself teaches that if a man has long hair. It is a dishonor to him that if a woman has long hair. It is a glory to her for her hair is given to her for recovering but if anyone seems to be contentious. We have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Now this passage is replete with difficulties for us living in the 20th century outside of the local situation of the Corinthian congregation.

And it raises a bigger question than the immediate question of head covering, and the question is this what is the Christian's obligation with respect to keeping customs that were kept in biblical, virtually every biblical scholar recognizes the distinction between principal and custom principles are those commands of God that apply to all people at all time in every culture and every life situation customs are those things which are very into local applications of principal. For example, in the New Testament the principle of tithing is there and in those days it was done through the denarius or the shekel or whatever does that mean that the only way we can please God. Today is by paying our ties in shackles or deny. Of course, not the monetary unit was customary, the clothing styles those of the things that are subject to change from culture to culture. From place to place. The principle of modesty applies to all generations.

But how that modesty is manifested will differ from one country to another and from one time to another. We understand that those things are customary so many times, distinguishing between custom in principle is a relatively easy matter, but not always. Sometimes it's excruciatingly difficult to make that distinction. Let me give you a principal to apply. If you can't decide if something is a custom or principal in the biblical principle would be whatever is not of faith is sin.

And so the burden of proof is always going to be on those who argue that such and such a command is custom and not principal. If you're not sure then the principle that applies is treated as a principal because if you treated custom as a principal. The only guilt new bearers for being overly scrupulous, but if you take a principal of God and treated as a local custom and don't observe it. You have sinned against God, so that I think you can see is a good practical principal to apply when you can't determine why in this text about the head covering there been different positions taken by scholars and theologians on the text. There are four distinct elements here.

One is that the text seems to suggest that Paul is saying that women ought to cover their head in some translations to cover their hair with a veil as a sign of the woman's submission for subordination to her husband now let's take those three women are supposed cover their heads covered with a veil and cover it as a sign of submissiveness to their husband. How can we treat these teachings. Well here the different options we could come to this text and say all of those things are customs. That's all that in the early church. It was part of the culture and part of the custom for women to be in submission to their husband.

But the idea of wives being submissive to their husbands is not Prince Scipio and is not applied to all Christians of all times of all cultures but the whole thing is culture and their vast number of people today who take that approach, and since the basic thing that is being symbolized is a custom than obviously the symbol is a custom, and the means by which the symbols demonstrated as a custom so that I will all be a matter of custom and so none of it would be binding upon us today now the second possibility is all of it is Prince Scipio the Christians of all time. And of all ages. Christian women should always be willing to show submissiveness and subordination to their husbands in church and they should always and everywhere do it by covering their hair and they should always and everywhere do it by covering their hair with a veil. That's why there are cultures today that insists that women wear veils in obedience. This passage in the same all of its Prince Scipio.

None of its custom and we have to bail. Now there are two positions that are middleground positions. The most common one among evangelicals and laced is this that what is Prince Scipio in this passage is the perennial responsibility of wives to be in submission to their husband that principles articulated again and again in Scripture, and that that principal abides in the Old Testament and the new Testaments. In the future is always but that the symbol to indicate that submission is customary so that if one culture does it by covering the air. Another culture can do it some other way. And so it's not necessary to cover the hair because the covering of the hair is as I say customary the argument that you read in almost every commentary on first Corinthians that supports that position. Is this a fact I can't remember reading a commentary on first Corinthians didn't bring this up that we know that in Corinth, which was a commercial center of the ancient world and it was quite a racy environment and open city with brothels and prostitution being widespread similar to modern-day Amsterdam. If you will that one of the signs of the prostitute was not a red light over her door and it was the sign of the uncovered head and Paul is saying he's telling the Corinthian ladies for heaven sakes don't come to church looking like prostitutes for heaven sakes. In this environment it's a scandal to be in a public place with your head uncovered, so Christians ought to be careful here to observe that and not give the appearance of evil. And so as I said I've read countless commentaries on first Corinthians that say the reason why Paul tells women to cover their hair is because of the problem with prostitutes in Corinth. Here's a problem with that. I don't doubt for a minute that there was a problem with prostitutes and courts, and I think that it's very helpful to go and examine the cultural situation. The life setting in which that Scripture comes to try to gain clues for understanding the wise and the wherefores of certain admonition. I think that's a very appropriate thing I think on the other hand it's totally inappropriate to assigned to Paul a reason for his saying something that is different from the one he himself gets Paul does not leave us without a rationale or for a defense of covering that. And the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation, not to Corinth, where he appeals to man and woman as man and woman and if anything transcends local custom. It is those things that are rooted and ordered in creation.

That's why I'm very frightened to be loose with this passage because the apostle doesn't say keep your heads covered, because you will anything to be thinking that your prostitute, but he appeals again to creation and he says that a woman is given her hair as a covering as part of her glory.

Now there's anything the floor into our environment as this, as well as his statement that he sort of taxon and there doesn't nature itself teach you. It's a shame for men to have long hair.

Modern American youth is not going to be happy without passage but I noticed that in the 60s when we had that phenomenon of the radical change of hairstyles for men started wearing their hair down to their shoulders and even beyond that, what happened women styles the girls at that time were wearing their hair down their waist. It's almost like there was a subliminal or unconscious battle to retain their sexual identity and is funny to watch and I want to make too much out of this but it's interesting to watch how hairstyles change and how there's this give-and-take between the sexes when I was in high school. The thing to do was to wear crewcut people think that's funny nowadays but for years war crewcut and the girls wore the Audrey Hepburn in that short cropped hair do as women's hair grew shorter as the styles became shorter men's hair got shorter yet. And vice versa. When men's hair grew longer because in pulses is a shame for a man to have long hair.

Yet that is the obvious question along as long long as a relative term is going to be related to some norm or some standard. The only one that makes sense to me is the length of women's hair so that when he says that it's a shame for men to have long hair.

He saying in comparison with web.

Obviously, but now what's this business about the woman's hair being her glory. Paul appeals to creation and in creation. Man is given the superordinate role is not superior to woman. But he's given the position of leadership in the woman is given the position of subordination. Is there any compensation for that. Yes she gets her glory.

She gets a special glory that the men don't get in that glory strangely to our ears is related to her hair that her hair becomes a symbol of the added glory that God adorns the woman with that may sound as I say absolutely silly to our culture today and primitive, simplistic and unsophisticated, but it's no small thing to recognize the universal among the human race and in history. It's been a persistent thing that culture after culture after culture has regarded the female gender of the human species as the fairer sex than interesting. If you look in the animal kingdom, which is usually the more brightly and colorfully adorned the male or the female, the male line of the female line, the male line. The pheasant which the Cardinal hummingbirds animals that is.

Traditionally, it's the male that gets all the special adornment but not with Homo sapiens with us. The beauty is focused on the woman that's her glory and it symbolized by her hair which identifies her as a woman, one of the ways we historically and classically have been able to identify a woman coming from a distances are air and so Paul says when you come in the church cover that glory, cover it as a sign of submission. Then he says of course and do this for the angel sake. Now some of grade bizarre interpretations of that saying that lest we attempt the Angels and that if the women don't have their beautiful glory covered that the angels are to be tempted to come down and seduce them or rape them. This is nonsense, but the point is that for the sake of the Angels is the were talking about the host of heaven, and that when we come together in solemn worship and in the assembly of the saints, we come before the very presence of Christ and before the throne of God and the whole host of heaven and in that heavenly sphere. There is an order that is established, the Angels subordinate themselves to Christ. Christ subordinates himself to his head.

The father in heaven itself, and man, who was made in the image of God's call to subordinate himself to the heavenly powers and the wife is supposed to show her submission to this whole cosmic order of the authority of God, of Christ and of the host of heaven. Now I realize that when styles and fashion chain and that the people today are not particularly scrupulous about this business of covering their head that women today who come to church with their heads uncovered are not coming as an act of protest against the order of the universe were against the authority of Christ, or even of their submission to their husbands. I don't think that's what's behind all of this, but it does disturb me that the custom for the tradition of the woman covering her head in America did not pass away until we saw a cultural revolt against the authority of the husband over the wife not just in the home or in the church, but in the whole of culture and it frightens me that were taking our cue, not from the Scriptures, but from the culture or the fashions where we live now. Again, I know scholars that I have the utmost respect for who disagree with me completely on this text. I don't want to be dogmatic about it. My own particular view is that Paul is appealing to creation and the Paul is saying that women are to cover their heads. It's a small thing.

This is not the article upon which the church stands or fall, but I think that we should seek to be faithful in small things that we may be prepared to be faithful in many things at least as important enough for the apostle Paul to included in his instructions to the church that such an important way to frame this argument. It seems that Paul is making the point that women throughout church history should follow yet is sparsely indicated this is not a primary doctrine is not something that should divide the church. We've earned a compelling message from Dr. RC Sproul from his series, the hard sayings of the apostles, listening to Renewing Your Mind. I'm Lee Webb in the I'm glad you could be with us today. Throughout the series. RC enters puzzling questions that arise will reread parts of Scripture that questions like do all of Paul's words have apostolic authority or are there exceptions does Paul teach that we can reach moral perfection in this life. Dr. Stroh's commitment to biblical inerrancy guides the answers we receive in this five message series, you can request a digital download of the full series when you call 800-435-4343 and securely give a gift of any amount to litigator ministries or you can make a request online at Renewing Your Mind.work and we are grateful for your generosity to look in her ministries and all before we go. Here's RC with a final thought for us. If you are a woman who has listened to this message today. Let me ask you please not to simply react to me or to Paul in this passage, but to think of the deeper question involved here that which is far beyond issues of head covering, and all the rest.

Do you not, and I certainly should include the men in this to do we not understand that to come into the presence of God is a sacred thing that is holy ground and we have done all kinds of things in our culture to D sacral lies worship. Now I realize that we can worship God anywhere outside no in a barroom if we have to.

But there is a certain attitude or demeanor that we ought to bring with us when we come into the presence of God, particularly for the purpose of corporate worship. I'm afraid that our worship is become more and more casual, more and more cavalier and what happens when that takes place is our adoration for the one we have come to worship our submission to his authority and to his will, begins to be compromised and so I urge you to understand this particularly difficult text in light of that higher question next week. Dr. scroll begins another series of hard sayings, this time looking at the difficult things that Jesus said we hope you'll join us next Saturday for Renewing Your Mind