Head-Coverings in Worship Part 7 — Milton Vincent

Well, good morning. Is there anybody who did not receive a packet for this morning. If you did not receive one and you need one go ahead and raise your hand. We got a couple. We need some ushers to but while those are being distributed.

The Passage and the Scope of the Study

Let me go ahead and invite you to turn in your Bibles to First Corinthians chapter 11. First Corinthians chapter 11 and and for those of you that are visiting with us, we're doing a verse-by-verse study through the book of 1st Corinthians and as we Continue in our study of this book.

We come this morning to 1st Corinthians. Are we find ourselves once again in 1st Corinthians chapter 11? verses 2 through 16 and the title of the message this morning is head coverings in worship part 7 and Tonight we'll be on this topic and then tonight we are this morning.

We'll be on this topic and then tonight we will pick up where we leave off this morning and for those of you that may be getting weary of This subject. Let me give you a word of encouragement. You'll notice that the page number for the material today is page 14 and it goes all the way through page 20.

My goal tonight is to give you up to page like 32 or 33 and What I want to deal with this morning is the question of our head coverings for today and then tonight. Begin to get into the issue of if head coverings are for today then why do so many people say that they're not and We'll tonight begin to deal with what some of those concerns and issues are that people bring up.

To say that this passage is not for today. And my thinking is that we're going to try to cover as much as we can tonight. But if we don't cover everything that's in the packet, then that's fine with me.

I I'm thinking right now that even if we don't cover all the material from the pulpit at least you're going to have that in writing and then next Sunday We'll get to the issue that I know that many of you Are wanting to to study and that is the practical issues if you do Accept the fact that head coverings are for today and that the covering that Paul is Advocating is some kind of covering other than the hair.

Then you're then beset with a number of practical questions. Who wears them married women or single women and and where in the church or outside of the church or just when you're ministering? Publicly or all the time.

What should the covering look like? How big should it be? We'll begin to deal with what some of those issues are Next Sunday, and I I may be naive here. But I would like it if somehow by the end of next Sunday night We can say that we're done with this matter.

All right, just know that's in my heart and that's my goal. We may not be able to do that, but I'm sure going to shoot for that so that we can continue in our study of 1st Corinthians verse 17 and beyond but anyway Over the last a few weeks over the last month. We've tried to deal with the exegetical issues of the passage and when I say that I just mean the interpretive issues we've tried to walk through the passage and turn over just about every stone and discern what it is that Paul is teaching in the passage and Even last Sunday morning and evening we dealt with the issue of what is the covering that Paul is advocating in the passage?

Is it hair bound up on top the head? Is it long hair or is it some kind of other covering other than the hair? I e a cloth covering of some sort and we tried to narrow it down. Just looking at the information that's in the text and following Paul's train of thought.

We attempted to narrow it down to the fact that Paul in this passage is Advocating some other kind of covering other than The hair. Well having done that. What we always do when we study a passage of scriptures after we've done our work of of interpreting the passage.

We always want to back away from that passage and say all right. Here's what the passage says. But what does this mean for me today? And With this passage we need to do that and that's what we're going to be doing from this point on as we deal with this issue and the question we're going to ask today is our head coverings for today is Paul's Specific teaching in this passage.

Telling men do not have a head covering on women do have a head covering on when you pray and prophesy is Paul's explicit teaching in this passage applicable To us today. Do we need to heed? Paul's instructions regarding head coverings as he tells us about it in this passage now just by way of very quick review.

We have seen how Paul gives what amounts to five arguments or five explanations. Telling us why it is that we need to heed his instructions on head coverings in verses three through six. He says you need to heed my instruction on head coverings because of the structure of relationships in God's economy.

God the Father is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. The man or the husband is the head of the wife and therefore Paul says because of these realities. If a man has something on his head While praying or prophesying he disgraces his head.

If a woman does not have something on her head while praying or prophesying. She disgraces her head. That is clearly what Paul is teaching in this passage. And then Paul beginning in verse 7 through the first half of verse 10 moves to a second argument.

Telling us why we need to heed his instruction on head coverings and that is because of the order the manner and the purpose of God's creation of man and woman. Man was created in the image and glory of God.

The woman is the glory of man in the sense that she was created from Adam and was also created for Adam or for the man. He then gives a third argument at the end of verse 10 and that is because of the angels.

It is because of the angels. Paul says that you need to heed my instruction that I'm giving you on Head coverings and we have looked in detail at what that probably means. And then in verses 13 through 15 Paul uses the analogy of the hair and He says you need to heed my instruction on head coverings because nature also teaches this and we have seen how this is actually another creation argument he's arguing from the way that God created men and women to be.

And he uses that as an argument for the need to wear head coverings. For women and for men not to wear a head covering that he is teaching in this passage and then in verse 16 He gives a fifth and a final argument and that is because this is the practice in all of the churches.

So that's an overview of what we find in this text. Having looked at all of that. The question we're going to ask today is our head coverings for today now folks before we get into Walking you through some of this material.

Let me just say this and I know I've said this before. But I have come myself to the decision that Paul's explicit teaching on head coverings is for today. And I want you to know I have not arrived at that conclusion quickly or easily.

I Would say that in ten and a half years of preaching. It's been the most traumatic Decision for me an interpretive decision the most traumatic Interpretive decision for me to arrive at in ten and a half years and I may even be saying this thirty years from now that This has been the most difficult decision to arrive at.

I have almost Come to this conclusion kicking and screaming the whole way. I've resisted it at Every turn and I have tried very hard to come to another decision. And as I told you when I would read a commentator who says here's what Paul's teaching It's a cloth head covering, but it's not for today.

My heart would leap and I would go. Okay What's his arguments because I hope they're good and then I would read what he would say. Sometimes they wouldn't say anything at all. They would just state it as a fact.

But other times they would give an explanation and I was always Disappointed very disappointed because if there was anything in my heart when I began to study this issue a month and a half ago. My bias was to try to come to some kind of way of being able to say in good conscience that this is not for today.

I have to admit that to you that I had that bias and for me to come to the conclusion that I am Articulating to you over the last few weeks and also and especially this morning I'm coming to a decision about this that is different than what my belief has been over the last 37 years.

It's different than what I've been taught. It's different than anything that I practiced in our home And in our family and I get no special thrill trust me out of arriving at a conclusion That basically admits that my thinking has been wrong for 37 years.

That's not an easy conclusion To arrive at and I have tried to find every way around this. Because my heart at times has been resistant to this and yet I've not been able to do so I'm also aware of just the can of worms that this opens up and coming to this conclusion and Just as a pastor being concerned about that and the potential division that could be caused.

That's made me all the more as a shepherd want to try to find a way to say this is not for today. But folks I've got to look at myself in the mirror in the morning and I've got to know that I've been faithful to preach God's Word and as I've honestly looked at the text of Scripture as Objectively as I could make myself to be by the grace of God and as I've honestly tried to look at historical and cultural Information I have found this conclusion Irresistible though, I've gone kicking and screaming to this conclusion that I'm explaining to you this morning.

It's not been an easy one, but I have found it nonetheless Irresistible and so I'm going to arrive at this conclusion. At least this is where I am right now. And I'm going to leave the rest to the Lord to just guide us and to show us where to go from here.

But my present thinking on the matter by way of answering the question of our head coverings for today. Just stated in brief I would say there is nothing in the text of Scripture that gives me any indication that Paul's instructions on head coverings only applied to Christians living in his own day and Or to Christians living in a similar culture to the first century Roman world.

That's my thinking as of right now, and I want to share with you at least my thinking process as I have Come to this conclusion. There are reasons that I've arrived at this point of view that my heart many times has been Resistant to and I want to explain those reasons to you and folks.

Let me say something I said about a month ago just to kind of put this into into perspective. When you're reading a passage in an epistle Such as 1st Corinthians, and there's something that is clearly being taught.

And if somebody says wow this thing that Paul teaches in this epistle. I think this is for today. But then there's someone else who reads that same passage and says I don't believe this is for today. Between those two people upon whom does the burden of proof rest.

We would all agree. I think that the burden of proof would rest upon the one who says this teaching in this epistle is not for today, right? Looking at what Paul says later in this chapter about the Lord's table and other symbolic practice if I said wow.

This is what it teaches. I think we ought to celebrate the Lord's table, but Christian Joe Christian over here looks at the Lord's Supper teaching in 1st Corinthians 11 and says man This was for the first century.

This is not for today and If I were talking to that person and he says what do you think of this teaching on the Lord's Supper? I would say well, this is what it says and I think we ought to practice this today and he says no.

I disagree. I think it was just for the first century and it's not for today. And then I say why disagree. I think it is for today. And then this guy says you prove to me show me why this is for today.

Well, I would try to do that, but I would also say to this guy wait a minute I think the burden of proof is on you. To explain to me why you would take this clear teaching in 1st Corinthians 11 on the Lord's Supper and just write it off As not being for today.

So the burden of proof is really upon those who would say that Paul's teaching on head coverings is not for today. And if you hold that point of view, I want you to know that I respect your right to hold that point of view.

But I just I want to put on you that burden if you're going to hold that point of view I would ask you to talk to me and show me give me an explanation from Scripture from culture and from history. Explain to me why this passage is not for today because you're the one who really has that burden of proof.

Five Arguments for the Continuing Force of Paul’s Teaching

Nonetheless, though. I don't feel that the burden of proof Necessarily has to be on me. I understand practically speaking that because so many people say that this passage is not for today. Because of that it's kind of been turned around and now the burden of proof is on those who say that it is for today.

I'll go ahead and accept that burden and And it just at least explain to you what my thinking has been and arriving at the conclusion that Paul's explicit teaching on head coverings. And 1st Corinthians 11 2 through 16 is indeed for today.

Look at number one. This is something that's been compelling to me and that is that none of Paul's arguments in 1st Corinthians 11 2 through 16 are drawn from cultural practices in the pagan world of his day if Paul wanted to give a cultural argument or if cultural considerations were the real motive behind his instructions on head coverings Paul was perfectly Capable of saying so but nonetheless there are many people who would say well, you know.

Yeah, Paul gives all of these arguments and stuff and none of them are cultural. But his real motive is to simply tell ladies. Hey all ladies in our culture today. We're head coverings when they go out in public so go ahead and conform to what the cultural practice is so as not to offend people and Just conform to the cultural norm.

There are people who would say that that's really what Paul's heart is. But my response to that is that if that is what Paul was thinking all along. Why didn't he say so? Instead he gives all of these theological arguments.

Why didn't he just say ladies? Hey, this is just what everyone does. Go ahead and do it. So as not to offend people I think the notion that Paul is only being guided by cultural considerations here doesn't Give Paul the respect that he deserves as an eloquent and inspired writer of Scripture.

Paul if even just one time in this passage Paul would have said hey. This is what people do in the culture and if you do this You're not going to cause any offense. If he would have just said that that would have been very compelling to me.

But he never says that in this passage not a single one of his arguments are drawn From cultural practices in the pagan world of his day. Number two. Paul's arguments rather are all based on realities that transcend at temporary cultural norms.

He argues from the structure of relationships in God's economy talking about the Trinity. I mean God the Father's the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. The man is the head of the woman. This is just the way that it is.

Paul says he argues and reasons from that in verse 7. He begins to bring the glory of God into this discussion and into his argumentation. He draws from creation truths talking about Adam and Eve. He even brings the angelic beings into the picture.

He argues from nature and if in any point he argues from custom. He argues from church custom in verse 16. And he says hey. This is just what the churches do. And if you're going to advocate something different than what I'm teaching in this passage I'm just going to dismiss you by saying it's just not what we do in the church.

And the reason the church had these practices in the first century were because of all of the significant theological explanations that Paul gives in this passage. So all of Paul's arguments basically are they're drawn From locations and from theology that transcends temporary cultural norms.

Creation, Authority, and Consistency in Interpretation

Number three if I and this is a challenge that I would give and it applies this. Perhaps some of you but not all of you. Here's a quandary that I have if I'm going to say that Paul's specific instructions on head coverings Which are backed up by significant theological explanations are not for today.

Then how would I go about making my case that Paul's prohibition of women exercising teaching authority over men is for today? Without at the same time being inconsistent. Let me have you guys turn to first Timothy chapter 2.

First Timothy chapter 2 and verse 11. Now there are some of you. I would imagine that that would say that what Paul is going to instruct Regarding women here doesn't apply today. And so what I'm about to say doesn't really apply to you.

Just for the sake of argumentation look at verse 11. Paul says a woman must quietly receive instruction. With entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.

But to remain quiet and you say Milton, what is this passage saying? Well that goes beyond the scope of what I want to accomplish this morning. What I want to pose to you is this whatever these instructions mean.

Do these instructions apply today? Do you believe that they apply today? Whatever he's saying here. Do you believe that these specific instructions apply today? Do you realize that there are many Christians?

I've spoken with some of them. They're godly people who would say that these instructions don't apply today and you know what they say. They say and they're accurate to a point. They say in the first century.

It would have been a disgraceful thing for a woman even in pagan society to get up in front of men and to try to teach Men in a mixed audience and so that was the culture of Paul's day. And so Paul is merely being guided by the cultural norm and he's simply telling ladies.

You know what? Just go along with the cultural norm so as not to make waves however, because we live in a more egalitarian Society today and our culture is different than the first century culture. Because our culture is different.

Paul's instruction in verse 11 and in verse 12 Don't apply today in our culture. There are actually people who would say that they use the same line of argumentation that many people use in 1st Corinthians chapter 11.

However, if if you and I were talking and I said to you I don't think verse 11 and 12 are for today at all I think it was just a cultural thing. What would you say in response to what I just said? Well what you probably would say if you've studied this passage at all is you would say no Milton.

This is not a cultural thing at all. Because look at verse 13 Paul argues for his instruction and he doesn't give any cultural arguments. In fact, he goes back to creation pastor Milton and reasons from creation to make his point.

He says in verse 13 for it was Adam who was first created and then Eve and it was not Adam who was deceived. But the woman being deceived fell into transgression you would say Milton. He's not talking about culture.

Here he goes all the way back to creation truths back to Adam and Eve. To say that this is the way it needs to be in the church. And so you would look at this passage and say this does apply today and your reason for that would be because Paul's Argumentation has nothing to do with culture.

He goes all the way back to creation truths. Now. I'm only talking right now to those Who would handle first Timothy 2 in this way and say this does apply today because Paul reasons from creation truths.

If that's what you believe and yet you come over to first Corinthians 11 and say well, this is not for today. It's a cultural thing. My question to you is How would you explain that to me without being inconsistent?

How would you explain to me that first Timothy 2 is for today without at the same time shooting yourself in the foot? With regard to first Corinthians 11, let me show you one example of this inconsistency.

And this is from John MacArthur a man that I just have mountain loads of respect for. And in letter a and letter B. I totally agree with what he does. In fact, look at what he says in letter a he criticizes those who say that scripture writers were merely teaching culturally determined customs.

He says some leaders and writers in the name of Christianity have gone so far as to teach principles that attempt to redefine or Even alter biblical truths to accommodate the standards of contemporary thinking in the world.

To do that, of course. They have to believe that the Apostles sometimes taught culturally determined customs rather than divinely revealed standards. And and John MacArthur is so right on that folks. This is happening in more and more areas of Scripture.

There are people who say yeah when Paul condemns homosexuality. He's doing that because of the cultural thinking in the day with regard to homosexuality today. We have more understanding about it. It's more acceptable.

And so Paul would not speak the same way to Christians today living in these great United States. And there are other examples of this women. Exercising teaching authority of men there are people who say that's just a cultural thing and MacArthur rightly Criticizes those who take a clear teaching in Scripture and just say well, it's just a cultural thing.

He disagrees with those who do that and I applaud John MacArthur for saying that. Look at what John does look in letter B with regard to first Timothy to John MacArthur believes that Paul's Prohibition of women exercising teaching authority over men still applies today.

And if you said pastor John MacArthur, tell me why prove to me why that this prohibition applies today in first Timothy chapter 2. Listen to what he would say. Paul's argument was not based on cultural standards, but on two historic and foundational facts.

Number one Adam was first created and then Eve and number two. It was not Adam who was deceived but the woman MacArthur would tell you listen Paul's not arguing from cultural facts here in first Timothy chapter 2.

He's arguing from creation realities going back to Adam and Eve and so obviously that transcends cultural practices. This does apply today and I totally agree with the way that MacArthur argues that however.

Look at letter C. Observe what he says now about first 1st Corinthians 11. For in verse 4 of chapter 11 Paul says every man who has something on his Head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

MacArthur says generally it was regarded as a disgrace for a man to worship with his head covered. It seems therefore that Paul is not stating a divine universal requirement, but simply acknowledging a local custom.

MacArthur comes to this conclusion. Without seeming to notice that he's done the very thing that he criticized others for doing three pages earlier in the same Commentator and by the way, look at the first statement there.

He says generally it was regarded as a disgrace for a man to worship with his head covered. I'm quoting from his commentary that was published in 1984 in his study Bible and I'll show you this tonight in the MacArthur study Bible.

He actually retracts that and says the exact opposite of that first statement that you see there in the quote but nonetheless, I think that this is an example of Inconsistency and the handling of the passages.

And for me if I'm going to say that first Corinthians is not for today. Then I would have a lot of trouble convincingly arguing with someone that first Timothy to 11 through 14 is for today and I would merely suggest to you guys that if you're going to say first Corinthians 11 2 through 16 is not for Today then at least be consistent and say that Paul's prohibition of women exercising teaching authority over men is not for today as well.

Because I would see that as an example of inconsistency. But nonetheless go to page 15. This is another consideration that went through my mind as I was trying to Determine is Paul's explicit teaching here for today and that is technically speaking Paul is only requiring that women wear a head covering while praying or prophesying and I don't say this.

But Paul is also only requiring that men not wear a head covering when doing the two things of praying or prophesying. That's the only two activities that he's talking about here and he's only telling women you need to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying and to my way of thinking this is a pretty narrow instruction to give that he was being guided by the cultural practices of the pagan world of his day the feeling you get from the text and also from first Corinthians 14 for is That even the prayer and the prophecy that he's talking about is happening in an assembly and a gathering in an audience of fellow believers, so Paul's regulating behavior.

Not necessarily just for those who attend a certain assembly of believers who are gathered together. But he's only regulating a woman's attire when she prays or prophesies in that assembly and to me It would be strange that he would limit it to that if indeed all the while He's only being guided by pagan practices of the world of his day.

There are people who say well all women back in this day wore head coverings when they went out in public when they went to The grocery store and and whatever and so that's really what's guiding Paul here.

If that's really what was guiding Paul here Paul would not have limited it to just prayer and prophecy, right? He would have said just wear a head covering wherever you go. So as not to offend people instead.

He's only requiring this certain behavior when someone prays and when they prophesy. And to me. That's a pretty narrow instruction to give if after all Paul is only being guided by the cultural practices Of the pagan world of his day.

Church Practice and the Burden of Proof

A fifth consideration and this is drawn from verse 16. Paul says in verse 16, but if one is inclined to be contentious with me about this We have no other practice nor have the churches of God and what I would say here is without fear of rebuttal.

And when I say rebuttal I mean without fear of argument of someone saying no. I disagree Paul and here's proof that you're wrong. Without any fear of rebuttal Paul is able to say that the customs he was advocating in 1st Corinthians 11 were the practices of the churches of God.

Paul could only say this if all the churches from Jerusalem to Rome were doing this. The widespread and universal teaching and practice of the church in this matter in spite of the various cultural settings in which these Churches found themselves makes it evident that Paul cannot be advocating customs that were merely local to Corinth folks.

Whatever Paul is teaching the Corinthians to do here in 1st Corinthians 11 It's the same thing that all of the churches had been taught to do Throughout the Roman Empire if there were some churches for example The Jerusalem Church and the Antioch Church or the Northern African Church if there were some churches where women did not cover their heads.

Then Paul knows there could have been people in the Corinthian Church who say no Paul. You're wrong. Not all of the churches have this practice. Some churches that have been founded by Peter The women don't cover their heads.

Paul would only be able to say what he says in verse 16 if all of the churches Universally taught and practice what he is saying here and These churches have a wide range of cultural environments in which they would have found themselves.

And to me this indicates that Paul is not advocating customs that were merely local to Corinth. But that they were widespread throughout all of the churches in the Roman Empire. Also folks I and this is the next two points are kind of an accurate accuracy check.

Historical Evidence About Women’s Head Coverings

Number six here while historical evidence Indicates that head coverings on women were more usual in Paul's day than they may be in ours. Evidence also indicates that it was not unusual for a respectable woman to appear in public without a head covering.

Such evidence dispels the notion of some who suggested for a woman to appear in public without a head covering Would have been scandalous to the culture and that Paul's real motive is simply to prevent cultural scruples from being violated.

And and let me just give you a little bit of evidence for this and you can read this at your leisure. But David Gill one scholar he wrote an article back in 1990 entitled the importance of Roman portraiture for head coverings in first Corinthians 11 2 through 16 and Listen to what he says Public marble portraits of women at Corinth.

And by the way, I'm going to show you some of these portraits tonight. Public marble portraits of women at Corinth are most frequently shown bareheaded. This would suggest that it was socially acceptable in a Roman colony for women to be seen bareheaded in public.

And one other example women with veils drawn over their heads are shown in The frieze of the era passes these women appear to be the Vestal Virgins who are fulfilling a religious role. However, most of the other women in the frieze do not seem to have their heads covered.

A frieze is basically Like the wall along here just before it reaches the ceiling. If we had like Some wallpaper to kind of border the upper part of the wall. That would be a modern-day equivalent of a frieze in the first century.

But what they often did in some of their buildings in the first century and before then is they had sculpted images that would border the upper wall just before it reached the ceiling and historians look at those sculpted images that are inlaid into the wall and They're able to learn a lot about cultural practices in this day.

And this is actually a religious Frieze that is shown and there are women in this religious setting who don't even have their heads covered. However there are some that do and then the next paragraph one of the best known examples of a woman without a head covering is the Painting of a couple from a house in Pompeii dating in the middle years of the first century.

This image of the middle years of the first century AD shows that women could be presented with uncovered hair. Alongside an image of their husbands. And I don't want to go through all of this. But let her be just from the research that I've been able to do.

I've tried to catalog everything that I've seen. And and this is chronicled in the book women in Greece and Rome Grecian women and Roman women and as you look at this evidence that I'm not going to read word-for-word.

What you find is that in the majority of cases women do not have a head covering On their heads in the various depictions of them both Grecian women and Roman women dating from centuries prior to Paul's day and even a little bit after Paul's day.

So folks if you're going to say well women just all the time wore head coverings wherever they went. I would just say you know what you need to investigate that a little further because the evidence if there is evidence at all.

The evidence is that it was not uncommon whatsoever For a woman to appear in public without a head covering. In fact most of the images of women That we still have in existence today dating back to the first century and before Shows them actually bareheaded even married women sometimes.

They're in a sculpted image right by their husbands, and there's the woman without a head covering on dating in the first century AD. So at least keep that in mind and then number seven. This is one of the things that really proved to be pretty compelling to me as I was trying to wrestle through this issue and That is this guys go to verse 4 and we'll look at verse 7 to look at what Paul says in verse 4.

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying Disgraces his head look at verse 7 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.

Paul in verses 4 and 7 is explicitly telling men not to wear a head covering When they pray and when they prophesy. Now look at page 16 number 7 in verses 4 and 7 Paul is actually advocating the precise Opposite of the cultural practice for men in the Roman world.

Paul tells men they ought not to cover their heads when in fact the custom for Roman men was to cover their heads. Just as women did when praying or engaging in a religious exercise. Especially when doing so in some sort of leadership capacity the overwhelming evidence folks is That Roman men would cover their heads just as Roman women would do When they prayed to a god or when they prophesied or when they were involved in a very active way in a religious Exercise and you say well that was the Roman custom.

But hey Corinth was in Greece and so Corinth was probably more Grecian in their customs, right? Well Keep in mind folks. And this is what I try to explain in letter a here Corinth yes, it was in Greece, but Corinth folks was a Roman colony.

Don't forget that around 150 BC the Romans wiped out the Grecian city of Corinth in a battle and then it kind of lay in ruins and not a lot was going on in that city. For about a hundred years, but then around 45 to 50 BC the Romans came in and they rebuilt the city according to their own Designs and when Rome would establish a colony a lot of times They would move their own people into that city and they would make that colony and outposts for Roman culture they would try to make it a copy of Rome and as a center for Roman learning Roman culture and Roman religious practices as well.