Head-Coverings in Worship Part 5 — Milton Vincent

Wow, that was quick. It's the way everyone got quiet really quickly. That means you're ready for the word this morning. If you have not received like a 10-page handout Go ahead and raise your hand if you didn't receive that during the greeting time and we'll Got some helpers that will be distributing that and while those are being distributed Let me invite you guys to turn in your Bibles to 1st Corinthians chapter 11 to the passage that was read Earlier in our service this morning 1st Corinthians chapter 11 and for those of you that are visiting with us We are doing a verse-by-verse Study through the book of 1st Corinthians and as we continue in our study of this book we find ourselves once again in 1st Corinthians chapter 11 verses 2 through 16 and Especially I feel like I want to say this each Sunday that we're in this section for those of you that are visiting.

Faithfully Teaching Difficult Passages

Please know that the kinds of things that we're talking about right right now are not the things that we normally are dealing with but we've Committed ourselves a little about a year and a half ago to work our way through the entirety of 1st Corinthians.

And and as we have been following through in our commitment on that we are in chapter 11. Not because it's an easy section of Scripture. In fact if I could do what I wanted I would run from this passage as quickly as I could or just skip over it.

But we we need to deal with this passage and we need to deal with it as thoroughly as possible. Couple. Things come to mind as far as dealing with this passage. First of all, you guys remember back a year and a half ago when we began our series on 1st Corinthians I shared with you about a pastor on the East Coast.

My brother was working as an associate pastor at this church and he had decided to do a series through the book of 1st Corinthians and He worked his way Through chapters 1 through 10 and then when he finished chapter 10 the next Sunday He started a series in another book.

He just totally bailed out of 1st Corinthians started a series in another book and never said a word of explanation. For why he wasn't dealing with chapter 11 and I also shared with you In that same message a year and a half ago.

That one of the things that encouraged me to do a study through 1st Corinthians was that one of my favorite preachers of the word? Was doing a study through that book as well and he was in chapter 3 and I told you how I was home.

On that vacation a year and a half ago. And I was really wrestling with doing a series on 1st Corinthians. And there were a lot of things about the book that were intimidating to me. One of those things that was intimidating to me was this passage here in 1st Corinthians chapter 11.

But nonetheless as I was wrestling with that I attended a church pastored by one of my favorite preachers and he was in 1st Corinthians chapter 3 and I thought that's it. That's all I need to know. I'm going to do a study on 1st Corinthians.

And I'll get the guys tapes and hear how he handles passages like 1st Corinthians chapter 11 so I went up to him afterwards and I gave him a hug and It had been a while since we had seen each other and I said, you know what?

I've been wrestling with doing a series on 1st Corinthians. But now I know that that's what I'm going to do and I'm going to get your sermon tapes and I'll be three chapters behind you the whole way and.

Anyway, so over the last year I've been getting sermon tapes from this guy and I got him all the way up through 1st Corinthians chapter 10 and then I started getting sermon tapes on the Sermon on the Mount and And Matthew chapter 5 through 7 and he called me up about something.

Sometime around then and I said so how's your 1st Corinthians series going and he said well We stopped at the end of chapter 10 and I lost it. I yelled at him. I said you're killing me man. You can't do this to me.

And I said, why did you stop after chapter 10 and he gave me some reasons, but they weren't the real reasons. I know. He just said the people's morale was kind of low and he just felt really burdened to preach on the Sermon on the Mount.

So he decided to do that anyway, and I respect that choice. But when that happened, I just felt like man, I'm going to be more alone Than I want to be because he's bailed out on this this passage as well.

At least for the time being. I share that folks to say that there is something spooky about this passage that that does scare people away from it and And I'm also guilty of that. This is a very spooky passage for me As well, and I almost feel a little defensive in the fact that we're dealing with it and that we're dealing with it as thoroughly As we have chosen to do so.

So, please understand if you're visiting with us that we're trying to be faithful to all of Scripture all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and all Scripture is Profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction and for training and righteousness and already there has been so much that we have drawn From this passage and hopefully that we will continue To draw from it.

So this is head coverings in worship part five. This will be the fifth sermon on this particular passage and there will be more to come as well in fact the first page on your handout Kind of gives you an overview of where we're going to be going from this Sunday on.

Attitudes Toward Disagreement and Responsibility in Marriage

First of all, let me just remind you of the attitudes that we need to be careful to avoid and I gave you five of Those last week that as we approach this issue We need to be careful to avoid five attitudes and that is a closed and defiant attitude.

Secondly a lazy and overly submissive attitude thirdly an impatient attitude fourthly a conformist attitude and Fifthly a judgmental attitude on whichever side you may end up landing on wearing a head covering or not.

There's going to be temptations to judge those who disagree and who behave differently. There's a sixth attitude that I won't want to warn some in our church against and this is for the men. I tried to think of a simple name for it and I couldn't come up with one.

So let's call it and I'm glad I'm not a woman. Good luck figuring this one out, honey type of attitude Man. And I want to say this very carefully. You need to be very careful that you Do not allow your wife to be feeling a hundred percent of the weight of this.

Amen. You want to be careful to avoid that now I Want it to be such that all of the women listen carefully as we try to handle this passage and that they think through the Issues and they're asking questions and and really earnestly seeking to know the Lord's mind in this passage.

But I'm telling you men you husbands in the home if anyone ought to be listening to these messages. It ought to be you you are the head of your household you are the head in the marriage relationship that God has placed you in by his divine design and You need to think through this issue and you need to sort it through as thoroughly as you can so that you as the head In your home can provide leadership For your wife and in saying that I'm not saying you do all the thinking and tell your wife.

Hey when I'm done I'll just tell you what to do. No you need to be thinking it through and loving and earnest conversations with your wife as you're talking it through and Spending much time doing that.

But you're the one who needs to feel the weight of responsibility On your shoulders to try to sort through this passage as fully as you can. So that you can provide loving leadership for your wife in this way and those of you ladies Who are here who are married?

Again, I encourage you to listen up and to think carefully and thoroughly through this issue. But even as you are doing that you need to lay this at the feet of your husband and say this is your baby.

You work this out. Let's try to talk it through. But ultimately I want you to make the call as to what it is that you feel The Lord wants me to do in this area. So, please don't have that attitude man.

You're the one who actually needs to be feeling the greatest burden to really sort through this issue. Well having said that just as you look on this first page an overview of what we're going to cover I got a little bit ahead of myself last Sunday and Jumping to the issue of our head coverings for today.

This has been so humbling for me. I mean, there's so many things already that I would do differently If we could start all of this over again I want to just jump back just a little bit and what we're going to be dealing with today in the morning service and then also At least much through the evening service is this look at item number one.

What is the covering that Paul is advocating in 1st Corinthians 11 2 through 16? We're going to try to sort through that. There's actually three views of what the covering is that Paul is Instructing women to wear and men not to wear in this passage and we'll try to figure that out this morning.

But then when we're done with that We will begin asking the question once again our head coverings for today. And I will share with you my viewpoint at the present time and the reasons why and then after we've done that We're going to ask the question.

Well, then why do so many people say that Paul's specific instructions are not for today? And I will share with you 12 reasons or concerns that people express and Then we will respond and interact to those concerns and then having done that We will then look at some suggested thoughts for consideration of a few or several practical Questions and you see the questions that are listed there.

I'm not going to walk you through there through these questions. But you can read through them at your leisure and at least have some idea of where we're going to be going. There's not a Sunday that has gone by over the last few weeks where someone hasn't come up to me and said well Milton if you're Going to deal with this thoroughly then you really ought to deal with this or deal with that and I find myself frequently saying well That's on page 20 of my notes or page 25.

We will get to To that and so I thought maybe it would be helpful If at least you had a simple overview of all that we're going to try to cover before We wash our hands of this material and move on to the later section of 1st Corinthians chapter 11 verses 17 and following but anyway go ahead and flip the page to what says page 4 and it's page 4 because I've already given you the first three pages of The packet which right now is about 36 pages.

And it's probably going to grow longer and we're not going to go through all of those notes word-for-word. But I do want to provide that for you guys so that you can have a written resource to use as your own guide or as one of your guides as you're sorting through the.

The issue of that is taught here in 1st Corinthians chapter 11. But anyway, what we're going to do today is what is the covering? That Paul is advocating in this passage all of us would agree. I am sure that Paul is telling women in this passage.

You need to have a head covering on. At least when praying and prophesying and men you should not have a kept head covering on. When you are praying and prophesying we're all agreed on that. I am sure.

However, there may be disagreements at this point or questions at this point over exactly what is the covering that Paul is advocating? In this section of 1st Corinthians chapter 11 and This is a very important question trying to narrow this down and to figure out exactly what the right covering is that Paul is advocating.

The Hair-Bound-Up View

As I was studying through this this week. I kept thinking of something that happened to me when I was 19 years old. I worked the Late afternoon and evening shift. I went to work at 2 in the afternoon.

I would come home at 11 at night and so everyone would always be in bed when I came home and I remember coming home one night when I was 19 and My mom apparently hadn't done the dishes she just went to bed and so there were dishes all over the sink and on the dining room table and and When I came home and I saw that I did just I didn't normally do this kind of thing.

Don't think I did this all the time, but it just hit me. You know what? I'm going to show my mom some love and I'm going to do this for her and wash the dishes and clean up the kitchen and dining room for her and so I did that and I I rinsed all the dishes off and I put them all in the dishwasher and Then I knew okay, I'm going to run the dishwasher, but I got to put soap in the dishwasher.

So I looked inside the dishwasher and saw where the reservoir for the soap was and I thought okay, it's calling for soap. So I took normal dishwashing soap and I filled up the reservoirs as full as I could and then I sealed it up and closed the door of the dishwasher turned it on and then I went in the other room to like watch a little bit of television before I went to bed.

I was just about ready to go to bed and I thought I'll just check and see if the dishes are done so I can put them away and I walk in the kitchen and There are soap suds everywhere. And I'm not exaggerating they it was covering the kitchen floor and it had moved out of the kitchen.

It was going into our dining room and getting under our dining room table. Just soap suds and bubbles everywhere. The lesson I learned from that is yes, it called for soap. But only a certain kind of soap and it would have been Important for me to ask that question.

Well, it does say put soap in here. But what kind of soap is being called for? Here and I thought about that several times as I've been working through this issue that we're going to deal with today. And that is all of us agree that Paul is calling for a head covering.

But what is the covering that he is calling for and we're going to try to narrow that down This morning and sort through this question and let me say this before we dive right in. I I'm very Concerned that I maintain your attention this morning.

And I'm going to try to even reformat things a little differently than even what's in the notes because I was getting bored listening to myself Last night as I was talking through some of this material I really want you guys to gird up the loins of your mind and really be prepared to pay attention.

I'll try to make everything as clear as I can as we go along, but it's going to take some work on your part. To really listen up and get as much out of this as the Lord will want you to. But anyway, there are three views.

I've studied 64 commentaries on this passage and when I say that I'm not including about the 40 other Articles and stuff that I've read from the Internet. I'm talking about hard copy Commentators that I've read on this subject and out of the 64 of them.

I've been able to discern three views and the first view. As you see here at the beginning of page four is that the covering that Paul is advocating is hair. That is bound up and arranged in an orderly fashion on top of the head.

There are actually people who say that this is what Paul is teaching in this passage. And there are probably more commentators than this but out of the 64 that I have read I located three who held to this particular point of view now according to this view Paul is correcting those women who were letting their hair hang down and Especially let letting their hair hang down in an unkempt manner.

They weren't taking care of themselves or taking care of their hair. And so they were just letting it hang down and it wasn't in an orderly fashion. And Paul's point in this passage is to tell them to cover up and what he means by that is take the time To dress your hair and to bind it up in an orderly fashion on top of your head.

Now there are three advocates for this view that I found out of all the of those that I read and one of the guys Is Jerome Murphy O 'Connor who is actually a Roman Catholic? scholar and Actually, I hesitated to even put him in here because he has a very low view of the Apostle Paul.

And Paul's handling of this issue. He even calls some of Paul's arguments Legalistic and says Paul seems embarrassed throughout. Seems like he's shifting from one foot to the other in Embarrassment and it just doesn't seem like he's really saying what's really on his mind.

And then he says later in his article that what's really on Paul's mind is a fear of homosexuality. And so it's homophobia that is guiding Paul as he's writing this passage. And so with the way that he seemed to treat Paul's arguments with a little bit of contempt I kind of didn't even want to give his viewpoint the respect that he fails to give to Paul.

But nonetheless, I thought I would include him because he is one of the few that do advocate This viewpoint as far as the covering that Paul is advocating and listen to what he says letter a the only covering he Paul had in mind was feminine hair well-dressed in the Conventional manner a woman who failed to give such attention to her hair would be uncovered.

You see what he's saying there. Look at that letter B here. The evidence is not as clear as one might wish. But it seems that at this time well-dressed feminine hair incorporated some form of head covering however small in this perspective a Covered head would be the equivalent of carefully tended well-ordered hair and Paul's objection would be to loose Untidy hair so what he's saying is we don't have a lot of evidence for this and it's not as much as I would love To see but it seems like in Paul's day when a woman Dressed her hair properly and involved the use of ribbons and bows and other forms of partial coverings and so Paul goes ahead and uses the word covering but the spirit of his point is to tell them that they need to tie their hair up in an orderly and a feminine fashion rather than letting their hair hang down in an unkempt manner.

There's another author that I found that advocates this view and his name is FW gross hide and He believes that the problem in the Corinthian Church was not that women were cutting their hair short But rather that they were letting their hair down.

He also believes that Paul is not requiring a veil in this passage, but rather an orderly hairdress. Which distinguishes a woman from a man a hairdress that may have involved either the use of a veil or of ribbons?

Which bound the hair? Now that's essentially the viewpoint that he advocates and then the third guy Fritz Reinecker Hesitated to even include him but nonetheless He basically almost word-for-word quotes from gross hides viewpoint and says what is required by these verses is an orderly hairdress which Distinguishes a woman from a man and then he gives gross hide the credit for that.

So anyway These are three advocates who say that what Paul is telling women to do is not to so much wear a cloth head covering. That's not what we ought to draw from this and he's not even telling women that they need to have long hair.

When he tells women to cover up and to wear a head covering what he's telling them to do is to take the time to Dress their hair tie it up in an orderly fashion and in a feminine fashion. We will end up responding a little bit to this viewpoint a little bit later.

But just for the for the present. Just three quick responses to this viewpoint. And the first one is the most compelling to me and to other commentators. And that is if Paul was wanting to instruct women to draw their hair up and arrange it in an orderly manner.

Why didn't he just say so in? Verses 3 through 14 Paul could have easily just said so but instead what he talks about is the covering. Basically to hold to this point of view. What you got to say is Paul really is not fully saying what he's really thinking.

He only uses the word covering, but he's really thinking more of just having an orderly Fashion of hair on top of their head and while he doesn't say that and he just says covering we understand that he's trying to Say more than what he literally Says here this view kind of does not give Paul the credit that Paul Deserves as an eloquent and as an inspired writer of scripture.

I believe in fact Just a little bit of history a guy named Plutarch who was a writer a Greek writer during the first century. I found a reference this week where he speaks of females whose heads were uncovered and whose hair was unbound and he uses a completely different expression to convey the idea of unbound hair and The the Greek words that I have there literally means loose hair loosened hair.

That's the Greek expression that he uses. An expression that you don't find Paul using in 1st Corinthians chapter 11. All he says is covered and uncovered. And he never says anything about hair being loosened or bound up.

So that's a major problem that I have with that this viewpoint and then secondly if you're going to take the view that. Well, what Paul is telling women to do is to have their hair bound up in an orderly and feminine fashion.

It raises the question of what then is Paul criticizing the men for what would be the Converse or the opposite of that that Paul is trying to correct with the men. Look what I say here in number two on page five.

What then is the contrast between men and women in the passage when Paul says any man praying or prophesying with something on his head? Dishonors his head. What is he talking about when he speaks of something on his head when Paul says in verse 7 that a man Ought not to have his head covered.

What is the covering that he's talking about that? A man should not wear. Is Paul really trying to tell men that they're not allowed to gather their hair up in an orderly fashion on top of their heads.

That would be the expected contrast. Well, listen to what Murphy O 'Connor says. Murphy O 'Connor understands Paul to be teaching that a covered head for a man is a feminine hairdo. All right. So he's saying what Paul is doing in his passages.

Telling Men don't gather your hair up on top of your head and don't have a feminine hairdo. My response to that is do you really think that Paul is trying to tell men? Not to pray or prophesy with a feminine hairdo if so Why would Paul limit his criticism of a feminine hairstyle on a man only to those occasions when a man prays or prophesies?

Does that make sense? If I'm trying to tell if I'm talking to man and and I've noticed that there are men Who are up front on the worship team and they have their hair in a feminine fashion. I Would not preach a sermon and say the point of my message this morning.

Is that a man should not pray and prophesy in front of the church and a feminine hairdo. I wouldn't limit my point to just praying and prophesying. I would tell the man don't have a feminine hairstyle at any time and it would be more generic.

Why would Paul only criticize men for having a feminine hairdo when they are ministering publicly through prayer or prophecy almost as if to say By implication that it's okay as long as you're not praying or prophesying.

But nonetheless the third response that I had to this is why did no one in the early church understand Paul to be teaching this? Why did the Corinthians themselves and we have evidence back in 210 AD from Tertullian?

That even the Corinthians understood Paul to be speaking of a cloth head covering and my question is why did the Corinthians themselves? Along with everyone else and recorded early church history Understand Paul to be speaking of a cloth head covering.

Is it possible that all of them? Misunderstood Paul, that's my question and I understand that church history only has limited value and helping us to interpret Scripture. I understand that but my question is is it possible?

I mean to hold this first view is to say that everybody everybody in the early church in recorded early church history and Everybody in the church up until the 20th century got it wrong and they misunderstood Paul.

We'll come back to that point later In this packet that I've given to you, but nonetheless. This is the first view that some have out of 64 commentators. I found three that advocated this viewpoint a second view.

The Long-Hair View

Is that the covering that Paul is advocating is long hair? Paul is telling women you need to have long hair and it kind of overlaps with the first view in the sense that it's not Just long hair but feminine women need to be more feminine in their hairstyle and they need to have Longer hair and according to this view Paul is correcting those women who were cutting their hair Too short and making their hair because of its shortness.

Look like that of a man's and I found three who advocated this point of view. The first is mr. Dahan. Familiar name to some of you and he says this and by the way those who hold this view They they spend a lot of time in verse 15 First Corinthians chapter 11.

In fact, go ahead and look at verse 15. Paul says in verse 15, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. For her hair is given to her for a covering and what they do is they see that I mean This is a clear statement.

The hair is the covering and therefore this is the covering that Paul is advocating throughout the entirety of this section. So Paul is telling women you need to wear a head covering and I'm now telling you in verse 15 That the head covering you need to wear is long hair.

Okay, listen to mr. Dahan. He says now it seems that in light of verse 15, there should be no difficulty. Paul says plainly here. But if a woman have long hair It's a glory to her for her hair is given her for a covering.

The covering which Paul speaks of in this verse is long hair in its primary implication. Another writer Alan Padgett says the point Paul wants to make in verse 15 is obvious. Paul asserts that women already have the equivalent of a covering namely hair.

So surely women don't need another covering on top of the one nature has provided exclamation point. This is just one more reason the Corinthians should not insist on women wearing a covering in worship now.

It's interesting what Padgett does with this and taking the hair view. He then says Paul's point in this passage is to argue against some people in the Corinthian Church who were telling women they needed to Wear a head covering a cloth covering.

Paul is correcting those people and saying no, they don't they have long hair. That's all the covering that they need. At least that's how Alan Padgett handles this. And then a third commentator Gordon Clark In his commentary on verse 15 says.

And I quote it now becomes evident that hair not hats is the important matter. God has given women long hair instead of veils the subject in other words the subject of this whole passage. Then is hair and then he says surprisingly and the Christian Church doesn't care how anyone wears his or her hair.

So he takes the long hair view but then turns around and says. And so Paul's point is we just don't care how you wear your hair go figure I. This guy may be a fantastic commentator, but at least in his handling of this passage as I read through it.

It just seemed confusing. Contradictory and a little bit careless in fact. But nonetheless here are three Commentators that take the long hair view that Paul is telling women you need to wear a head covering and the head covering is Longer hair that should be on women longer than the hair on men now.

There is a fourth guy Spyros Zodiatis Who Has written essentially a word study work that is just fantastic in a number of ways. And in his explanation of one of the words that is in first Corinthians 11 He pretty much gives expression to an either-or type of view and he's the only one I found who takes this view.

But let me read it to you. He says the covering here Involves either the hair go ahead and underline the word hair Of a woman hanging down or in case that may not be possible the veil. Now by the way, notice that Zodiatis says that the covering is hair hanging down.

Which is the opposite of what the first view says it's hair that's bound up and gathered up on top the head. Zodiatis says no. It's long hair hair that is hanging down or in case case that may not be possible The veil and underline the word veil.

So he's saying it's either hair or the veil and that Paul's point in this passage. It's simply that women need to be covered When they come to worship or when they pray or prophesy and it doesn't matter whether that covering is the hair or the veil.

As long as they're covered. All right. He then goes on to say folks and I want to spend a little bit of time on this. He then says it must be remembered now underline the word must. Whatever he's about to say Zodiatis feels that this is pretty important to his point of view and while he would say it's not maybe totally Necessary to his point of view.

He does obviously view this as important to the view that he's advocating here. He says it must be remembered in this connection that women of loose morals. Especially the prostitute priestesses of the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth now.

He's giving very specific historical information here the prostitute priestesses of the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth. He tells us they kept their hair very short in order to be distinguished for what they were.

This was strictly forbidden for Christian women in order that no one would mistake them as women of loose morals. And now with that historical information he's given you he's now going to present what a problem must have been in the Corinthian Church.

He says what happened? However, when one of these prostitute priestesses was saved in Corinth since she could not grow her hair immediately. She used a veil to cover her head to show that she no longer belonged to the prostitute class.

All right. So he's saying that what no doubt would have happened is a woman who was a prostitute at the temple of Aphrodite. She becomes a Christian and now she's got a bald head or very short hair. She can't grow her hair overnight so when she comes to worship or ministers in any kind of public capacity a Woman who has short hair for that reason would go ahead and wear a cloth covering until her hair grew out.

Okay, and Zodiates tells you it must be remembered this information. I've just given you must be remembered and connection with the viewpoint I've just shared. Well, let's do a little bit of an accuracy check here.

Look at number two. On page six the truth is there is no historical evidence that supports Zodiates claim That the prostitutes of Aphrodite wore their hair short. Numerous commentators teach this as a historical fact yet No one gives any historical evidence to support this claim.

If you ever see a commentator Ever making this statement look for footnotes look for him to give some kind of proof of this and you're not going to find it. The earliest look at the next paragraph the earliest commentator I have found who suggests the possibility that Corinthian prostitutes wore their hair short was FW gross height in 1953 and his commentary he says now listen to what he says probably Prostitutes used to or were compelled to cut their hair short.

To cut their hair and keep it very short. Now look what I say. He cites no evidence for this that merely theorizes that this may have been the case. However, what has happened since then is that other commentators picked up the suggestion and included it in their commentaries as if it were a Historical fact and by the way folks commentators do this a lot and you need to be aware of that that a lot of times.

They rely upon each other and that's a good thing. But a lot of times you're reading a commentary and you can tell Who they've been reading because sometimes they steal each other's words and expressions and here is a guy gross height in 1953 who says probably this was the case and he's theorizing here and he gives no evidence to back this up.

He just says perhaps this is what was happening. But other commentators who have a lot of respect for this guy. They Grab hold of that and say well, it must have been a historical fact and Gordon Fee who is a more recent Commentator, I think his commentary was written back in 80 1987 look at what he says at the bottom of page 6 speaking of what has happened since 1953 Gordon Fee says it was commonly suggested that short hair or a shaved head was the mark of the Corinthian prostitutes.

But there is no contemporary evidence to support this view. It seems to be a case of one scholars guess becoming a second scholars footnote and a third scholars assumption and He says because he's interacting at this point with another commentator even Martin for whose interpretation this possibility would be especially Helpful admits the lack of evidence.