(The Head Covering) 09 - 1 Corinthians 11:16 and Answers to the Cultural Argument — Tom Chaplin

Well, we'll begin today by returning to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. This is our ninth study on the subject of the head covering, the whole Bible approach. I believe this is the next to the last. I think next week will be our final lesson on this subject.

But today we want to accomplish two things. We've looked at 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 1 through verse 15. We have only one verse left, verse 16, to actually finish up the section in this chapter dealing with the head covering.

Completing the Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:16

So we want to do that first and finish our exposition of the text. And then we want to go and look at a subject that really is broader and encompasses the whole issue. We want to return again to the cultural argument.

We addressed that issue in broad terms, in general terms. I think it was in our second lesson. But now we want to look at the cultural argument tonight as it specifically relates to 1 Corinthians chapter 11.

And we have a lot to say about that. And I think you'll find it very interesting. So that'll be our subject matter for today. But before we do get into it again, let's ask the Lord's blessing on our time.

Father, once again, we come before you acknowledging our weakness and our inability. We know, Lord, that all truth is spiritually discerned. And we know, Father, how easy it is for the flesh to grip our minds and cloud our thinking.

And I would just pray that you would help us all, Lord, to have true spiritual thoughts today as we look at this passage. Lord, may the teaching that's given be truly by thy spirit. May it not originate from any fleshly desires or tendencies in my own life or heart.

Just pray that what is said and what is given to be received will truly be a reflection of your word and what it has for us. And that you would just open all our hearts to receive it. Lord, direct us where we're in error and establish us in your truth.

We'd ask this in Jesus' name and for his sake. Amen. Okay. 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 16 will be the first verse we'll look at. First subject. But before we do, let me go ahead and once again read the passage in its entirety, beginning in verse 1.

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head, for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.

But the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman, but all things of God. Judging yourselves, is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering. And here's our verse for today.

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Now he's finished his exposition, he's given his arguments, when he comes to verse 16, he is addressing the possibility that perhaps somebody that is listening to him or reading this letter might not agree with him.

And so he finishes up addressing that possibility in verse 16. And basically, I believe there are three interpretations. At least there are three interpretations that as I have studied this passage and as I've talked to others that I have run across.

And so we'll look at these three possible interpretations and what I'll do is I'll start with what at least I consider the least likely and then we'll work our way down to the third interpretation which I consider to be the proper interpretation, the most likely understanding of the passage.

As I said, there are three possibilities. And in the first one, a lot in this interpretation depends on how you interpret the word custom in this verse. Paul says, but if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom.

Well, what is this custom he's referring to? Now in this first interpretation, people interpret it as referring to the custom of wearing the head covering. Okay? And if I could paraphrase how it is understood, this verse that is, it would be this way.

If you don't have the head covering. Now, I've actually, in discussing with a very solid pastor, I mean that was the interpretation that he took of this verse. That when it says we have no such custom, he literally meant that if you're inclined to be contentious, if you don't agree with it, then we don't have the custom of wearing the head covering.

And they understood it as being in that way. And I guess you could say, well Paul's just saying this isn't an issue worth fighting over. And so if you're going to disagree with me, just forget it. You know, don't, let's don't even, this issue really isn't worth fighting over, just forget the whole matter.

If we're going to have contention over it. And that is a, that's a possible way of understanding this verse. Well, let me give you some of my thoughts on that as to why I have struggles with that understanding.

Because it seems to me that if this is the proper way to understand this verse, then Paul, at least to me, would seem to have somewhat of a split personality. Because when you look at what he said before this verse, he speaks in very strong terms.

Consider verses four through six. Let's look at them just for a second. And consider how forcefully he's speaking. He says, but every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head.

For that is even all one as if she were shaven. But if the woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. I mean, Paul here is speaking very emphatically, isn't he?

Very forcefully. He's not wishy-washy. He's saying whatever this is, it's very important that we're right on it. And he gives some very strong directives. If you're not covered and you refuse to be covered, then you need to have your head shaved.

That's not wishy-washy. I mean, that's a very forceful argument. Now, how can we reconcile that with the idea that now that he's made all these forceful comments, these very strong directives, then we come to this last verse and he says, oh, well, if you disagree with me, it really doesn't matter.

Let's just drop the issue, basically. Does that seem reasonable to you? To me, it's like the first 15 verses are pitted against the last verse, and we've got Scripture pitted against Scripture. How can we have Paul very forceful in 1 -3 -15 and then suddenly become wishy-washy and he says it doesn't matter, when clearly up to that point, it does.

So at least from my perspective, if you start from the presupposition that Scripture doesn't contradict Scripture and Paul didn't have a split personality, then that interpretation is very unsatisfying.

And from my perspective, I don't think it really is the proper way to understand this verse. And we don't have to understand it that way. The second understanding of this verse is much better and much more plausible.

Now, in this understanding of the verse, the word custom is not used to refer to, or seemed to refer to, the head covering. It seemed to refer to being contentious. In other words, he's looking at contentiousness and saying, we don't have that custom.

We don't have the custom of being contentious. So he says, if you understand it that way, if I can paraphrase it, give my own understanding, he is saying, if you're inclined to be contentious, that's not acceptable behavior.

We don't have that custom. Either with Paul, with me, or the other churches, we just are not contentious over matters. Now, that's a much more satisfying and reasonable interpretation of this passage, in my opinion.

But I still have some difficulties with it. And it's based on the Greek meaning of the word custom and how it's used in other scriptures. Look for a second at John chapter 18, in verse 39. This will give you an example of how this word is used in other instances in the Bible.

I'll start in verse 38. Pilate saith unto him, What is true? And when he had said that, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no fault at all. I find in him no fault at all. So this is at the time right before Christ is going to be given over to be crucified to the crown.

In verse 39, Pilate says, But ye have a custom. And it's the same word used in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the Passover. Will ye therefore that I release unto you the king of the Jews.

And so you see that the usage of this word custom, to my knowledge, because there's no place in scripture where it's referred to just what we would call a moral flaw. It's literally a tradition that people practice, like a festival.

In this case, the governor every year let a prisoner go. That was what type of custom is being referred to in the usage of that word. But we got to kind of use the word in a different way than it normally is in this passage, if we refer to contentiousness, because there Paul is saying a moral flaw is a custom.

And it doesn't exactly fit the meaning of the word custom. So that's one difficulty, though I don't totally rule out the possibility of that. I mean, maybe. But to me, the best understanding and the most likely, the most satisfying understanding is the third one.

And in this interpretation, again, we use the same understanding as in the first interpretation, namely that the custom being referred to is the custom of wearing the head covering. So when Paul says, but if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

What he is saying is this. If you have a different custom than what we have been teaching and are inclined to be contentious, we don't recognize your custom, nor do the churches of God. And that would be the sense of the verse with that understanding.

So he's looking at this man and seeing him as having a contentious spirit and realizing he's being contentious because he's holding to some custom that is different from the one Paul is teaching. And considering that and understanding that, he says, if you're inclined to be contentious, we don't have your custom, nor do the churches of God.

Whatever your different custom is concerning wearing the head covering. The reason I prefer this understanding of the verse is because it fits best with the normal meaning of the word custom. Because how you wear a head covering was a custom.

The Greeks had a custom. Paul speaks in the first few verses here. He says, now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances. Well, that word can also be legitimately translated traditions or the customs even.

So when you look at the passage and you see the meaning of the word, and that's what it means, and you see that the only tradition or custom that Paul is speaking of in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 is the tradition of the head covering.

And if you see that this understanding of the verse doesn't give Paul a schizophrenic personality, that allows him to be totally consistent in his approach to this verse or this issue of the head covering from verses 1 through the end of the section, to me, this is the most reasonable understanding of that verse.

And that's the way I understand it. Any questions on that? All right, well, let's go ahead then and look at what the bulk of our teaching today will be concerned with. Namely, the cultural argument. I think I left one of my overheads downstairs.

Scripture, Culture, and the Binding Force of God's Commands

To begin with, though, let's review. I believe it was the second lesson that we looked at this subject in general terms, and I'm not going to really recapitulate or rehash everything that we looked at in the second lesson, but let's just briefly list the points that we tried to make, I think, in the second lesson.

Number one, in regards to the cultural argument, the view that we can choose not to obey one of God's commands because it was given in a different cultural setting than our own. We noted that that was contrary to Matthew 5 .17 and other scriptures which teach the usefulness and binding character of all God's commands throughout all ages.

I believe very firmly that in light of scriptures like 2 Timothy 3 .16, all scripture is given by inspiration of God. And where Jesus himself said that not one jot or tittle shall pass until all be fulfilled, and he commands even obedience to the very least of his commandments in that very same context, to me tells me the frame of mind I need to have when I come to scripture.

I need to have the frame of mind that what this scripture contains is for me, that God put it there for me. Even though he gave it to Moses or he gave it to Jesus or he gave it to Paul or he gave it to Abraham, it's there to teach me.

Now that's not to say there isn't discontinuity, but in light of the principles we just considered, we need to be looking for God to tell us where that discontinuity is. And when he tells us there is differences, that things have changed, yes, we need to take heed of that.

But if he doesn't tell us things have changed, we really don't have a right to change them or to say we don't have to do these things or to nullify these things on our own. We need some type of biblical direction from the Holy Spirit before we start setting aside God's commandments.

And I think that's a real problem in modern day 20th century. There is not a, especially in America and in the West, there is a tendency to want to say, and it has to do with dispensational theology and I don't know if that's a familiar term to you, but, and it's very prominent, especially even in Dallas, because we have a seminary that is a leading seminary on that issue, but very common to try and want to pit the Old Testament against the New or to say things have changed and so certain scriptures don't have anything to say to us anymore.

And so there is a mentality that rather than looking for continuity, is expecting discontinuity. And I think that is a wrong approach to scripture. I think we should anticipate and expect continuity and let God tell us where to see the discontinuity.

It's a whole different, it's kind of an attitude you have towards scripture. And if you're looking for reasons not to obey, then the easiest way to do it is to say, well that's not for us today. And we don't want to have that type of attitude.

And if you take our Lord's approach and Paul's approach, that all scripture is given to us by God to help us, then that will keep you from that type of mentality. And keep us from making some mistakes in biblical interpretation.

So anyway, that's one principle we discussed. Another thing that we saw by way of review is that since all scriptural commands are culturally abound, this method of interpretation must inevitably lead one to the conclusion that we can know nothing or practically nothing of ethics with any degree of certainty.

Instead of giving life, the scriptures become a hazy uncertain beacon and unable to guide us through the difficulties of life. This also is contrary to scripture's testimony of itself in 2 Timothy 3, 16 -17.

But do you see how that could be? Every single scripture was given in a cultural context. I mean, every single one of them. The commandments regarding an issue like marriage, homosexuality, you name it.

They're all given to a certain people at a certain time and a certain place. And we can easily, and it's been done to just about every commandment in scripture, somebody has said that's cultural, it doesn't apply to me today.

And if that's the case, and we are willing to accept that approach to scripture, we really can't know for certain what anything means. Because we always have this doubt in the back of our minds that maybe this is cultural.

And maybe it doesn't apply to me. And we can always find some theologian that'll give us a reason for that, believe me. Especially if there's something you don't want to do. You can always find a theologian that will give you a reason culturally why you don't have to do it.

And that's very dangerous. And again, I think, as I'm pointing out, culture in and of itself cannot be used to set aside God's commandments. Only a clear word from God can do that. I believe if we take that as an anchor, it'll keep us from much error.

If we ask God to give us those exceptions, if we ask him to show us where the discontinuities are, and if that's all we'll accept, is those things that we can actually see something in scripture where God says, this is changed.

And if we restrict ourselves to that, then we'll be saved from many errors in biblical interpretation, I believe. I mean, does this make sense? Otherwise, if you're determining where it's cultural, and if you're determining where it's changed, then who then becomes the judge of right and wrong?

Is it God and his Holy Spirit anymore? No, it's you. You suddenly become God in a real sense. But I don't think that's the way it should be. I think God needs to be over us, telling us what's right and wrong.

Not us, the other direction. And the final point that we made was that the burden of proof always rests upon the one wishing to set aside the commandment, not the one who would assert its relevance. In other words, if I stand before you and I say, this commandment is for today, the burden of proof is not on me to convince you of that.

If you disagree with me, you've got to have a very strong case to say you're wrong, Tom. Okay? I mean, if all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and it says all scripture, and somebody wants to set aside part of that all scripture, well, obviously the burden of proof rests upon him to justify why he wants to do that.

I just believe the scripture says all scripture, and that's how I take it. I just believe what the Bible says. And if you want to assert an exception, you need to have a good case for that. Okay? Okay, those are some of the things we talked about in lesson two.

The Head Covering as a Distinctively Detailed Command

Well, now we want to come back to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Now, everything we've said so far can apply to any issue. But, you know, some issues are harder than others. Because if you have a commandment in scripture, and it's just a commandment, and there's no explanation given, there's more room for debate as to whether or not it's for today or not for today, or if it's culturally bound or whatever.

But, interestingly enough, when you come to a passage in an issue like the head covering in 1 Corinthians 11, you've got an awful lot of information. You've got an awful lot of added detail to help us to know how we should take it.

And that's why I think I said last week something to the effect that I just couldn't understand how anybody could explain this passage away culturally. And I want to be open to correction. But I am still of that mind, and I might as well tell you that I told my wife, I said, you need to pray for me that I don't get too exuberant on this subject.

Because I will tell you right off the bat that I do not understand how anybody can explain this away culturally. I really don't. But now I'm going to show you why, or tell you why. Number one reason, or first reason, as I've looked at this passage, it's very hard to understand the amount of instruction that is given to us by the Apostle Paul on this issue in relation to the amount of instruction he gives on other issues of clothing if, in fact, we're just dealing with a cultural issue.

For instance, concerning the covering of your body proper, how much scripture is there in the New Testament related to that that you can think of? Okay? Two places, in Timothy and Peter, basically the same statements, that a woman is not to dress with broided hair or gold or pearls or costly array.

That is the total amount of instruction in the New Testament that I'm aware of, unless I perhaps missed something, that has anything to tell you about how the covering of your body proper is to be. A few words, that's it.

Yet I don't know of any conservative Christians, anyway, that would say that is a cultural issue. They would say that is something that's for us today. Very little information. But because it's concerning an issue that we all agree on, we don't challenge it.

But now you take an issue like that and compare it to the amount of time and exposition that is given to the head covering, and how can you explain that in terms of the head covering being cultural? There is no item of women's apparel in scripture for which there is more time devoted in discussion than the head covering.

That, to me, is somewhat inconsistent with the idea that the issue is inherently a matter of indifference to God. It's a matter of culture. I would think if something was inherently a matter of indifference to God, that it would get very little billing, very little discussion, whereas compared to other items of clothing, the head covering is the most extensively discussed.

That's my first concern. Let's go on down here to the second reason. We need to note that the same argument that's used in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 to justify the head covering, now what is that? You remember?

He says, God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. Now, if we were to go, and we've already done this exercise once before, but look in 1 Peter chapter 3 for just a second.

1 Peter chapter 3,. Likewise, now look how this passage starts, Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if they obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of their wives, while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair or of wearing of gold or of putting on of apparel, but let it be the hidden man of the heart in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit which is in the sight of God of great price.

For after this manner in the old time, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves being in subjection unto their own husbands. What is the same principle in Peter that we find in Corinthians?

It's the chain of command. Now I don't know of any conservative Christians that would say that the passage we just read in Peter and where Peter says you shouldn't wear fancy array and whatever was cultural.

Now they might disagree on how we should understand that, but they would still say that that instruction concerning women's modesty is for today. Likewise, when we went back to Timothy, we'd have the same type of instruction, and I think all conservative Christians would say, no, that's not cultural, that's for today.

Now we might disagree on what it means, but we'll still say that those passages are for today. But you'll notice that in both those instances, the underlying principle is God's chain of command. Now, how can we look at Timothy and Peter and say that's for today, realizing that the principle is God's chain of command, then come to Corinthians, where the same principle is God's chain of command, and then say the head covering is cultural?

How can we do that? To me, if we're going to take that approach, we've got to say that Timothy and Peter are also cultural, in which case there's no instruction in the New Testament regarding modesty.

Now, to some liberals, they would like that conclusion, but I trust that my audience here today would have a lot of struggles with that just like I do. Okay? So, it proves too much. If Corinthians is cultural, so are these other passages, because the same principles underlie them both, underlie them all.

Okay, that's my second concern. Now let's go to the third concern that I have, and it's this. The overall structure of Paul's argument is hard to understand if he is dealing with a cultural issue. And what I'm saying here is that what the structure should be, it isn't, if Paul is dealing with a cultural issue.

Paul’s Argument from Moral, Celestial, and Natural Order

Now let me explain what I mean by that. The first thing we need to know is that, when you think about this, follow me, if something is being explained away on the basis of culture, isn't the underlying assumption that that issue is itself a matter of indifference?

Right? In other words, if something is a cultural issue, say the head covering, then God really doesn't care whether or not a woman's head is covered. That's a matter of indifference. It just happens that in the Greek culture, that they had an understanding that it was necessary, and that's why it's significant, and that's why it was significant in the first and second centuries.

But we're not in the Greek culture, and we know better, we know that the head covering really doesn't mean anything to God. And it just had a meaning because the Greeks gave it a meaning, but now we're in the 20th century, all that's changed, and we don't even wear long hair anymore, we cut it short, and we certainly don't wear anything on our heads normally.

So we're in a different culture, and so it doesn't have the same meaning, and it doesn't relate to us. Isn't that basically the way you would argue? So, fundamental to the cultural argument is the society that whatever issue you're dealing with is a matter of indifference.

God really doesn't care whether you have something on your head. Well, okay, let's start out with the assumption. Surely, wouldn't Paul have known that? He would have known that as far as God was concerned, the head covering was a matter of indifference to God.

Wouldn't he? Don't you think? You know, in Corinthians, Paul deals with some other issues that truly are matters of indifference. See how he deals with those matters. Look in 1 Corinthians 8, just turn back a couple of pages.

This is where he gives instruction between virgins and marriage, beginning in verse 25. Oops, maybe it's 7. Yeah, chapter 7. As now concerning virgins, I know commandment of the Lord. Now, notice he's saying, I don't have any moral principle with which to guide me.

He acknowledges it. He doesn't have a commandment. Yet I judgment as one that hath obtained the mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose, therefore, that this is the present distress. I say that it is good for a man so to be.

Art thou bound unto a wife not to be loosed? Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But, and if thou marry, thou hast not a virgin married, she hath sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh, but I spare you.

Now, see, here in this is where Paul is dealing with a matter that he knows is a matter of indifference. God, it's no issue whether you marry or not. So he's giving wisdom instruction here, just practical instruction guidance, but he's not telling his Corinthians on this issue that this is a matter of ethics, this is a matter of right and wrong.

And he makes that pretty clear. So they have no doubt in their minds that it's not wrong for me not to marry, but it might be wise for me not to marry under certain conditions. But they know it's a matter of with, a matter of command.

He makes that plain. Paul's a careful theologian. He doesn't want to marry people. Well, let's look at one other instance. Look at how he deals with meat sacrificed to idols just right over in 1 Corinthians 8.

He says, Now, as things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up the charity ever. And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing, yet as he ought to know, he love God the same as know him.

As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one. Tom, we know that this doesn't have any real significance to God.

He's making it plain. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, and as there be many gods, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

How is not in every man that knowledge? For some with conscience of the idol, and to this hour eat it as they think of an idol, and their conscience being weak, is defiled. But meat is not to God. Neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse.

But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee, which hath knowledge, sit at meat in the idol, shall the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are idols.

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died. When ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. And verse 13 says,. Therefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no world's standard, lest I make my brother to offend.

I hope reading that was not too tedious for you, but I hope you noticed that, and what I want you to see is how Paul, really with an issue he knows is a matter of indifference. Meat offered the idol, who thought it was really important, or thought it was really being done, he knows it's not.

He had wisdom to know that this was truly a matter of indifference to God. And in his exposition, he makes that perfectly plain. But he says, Even so, if meat makes me offend, I'll not eat any meat. Okay?

It's plain that it's a matter of liberty, but other forces, such as the conscience of a weak brother, tell you not to engage in this practice for his sake. See how Paul deals with this matter. There's no doubt that it's a matter of liberty.

Now, this is a similar situation, and in fact, issue of the head covering this rule. If that's true, then Paul, unless he was not aware of that fact, knew that to God, the head cover had no significance.

And that it only had significance because you had these weak people who had given it significance that it didn't really have in God's mind. And they had weak conscience. But what I would suggest really was the case, Paul would have written 1 Corinthians 11 something like that.

Put up here on the overhead. He said, Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. I praise you, brethren, that you remain in all things and keep the ordinances as I deliver them to you. Know that the covering of the head is inherently a matter of indifference to God.

But because the man counts it to be a symbol of affection, you should respect what is right in the sight of all men. Be uncovered, the women covered. It is particularly good to observe local customs on the teaching of God as the system does.

You get this. In light of the way we see Paul dealing with cultural issues, that in fact, covering is just cultural and has an inherent indifference to it, Paul would have written 1 Corinthians 11 something like that.

Okay? Any comments on that? Does that seem reasonable? Plausible? The kind of thinking I can tell. Okay, well. If you have any questions later, don't hesitate to ask me. But it's just not really what you would expect.

Unless you think Paul didn't realize himself that he himself thought it was moral principle and didn't know it was just... But I can't accept that myself. Okay. The overall structure just isn't what you would expect if the issue in 11 is cultural.