(The Head Covering) 10 - Final Questions and Comments — Tom Chaplin

Well, we've come, it looks like, to our last lesson on the subject we're considering now. This is our 10th week, and of course, as I know you all are aware, the subject has been the head covering, the whole Bible approach.

And we do plan to finish up this evening. And basically, tonight is kind of an odds and ends night for me. I'm attempting to deal with some issues that I just didn't get to during the regular teaching lessons and also to answer a few questions that have been posed to me either from individuals that have been attending the study or those that have listened to the tapes but haven't been able to attend.

And so that's what we're going to do. I've got basically four different questions that I want to address this evening, and I've got them up here on the overhead. Let's see if I can get that a little clearer.

Whether Old Testament Teaching Places Christians Under the Law

We want to first look at, does this teaching on the Old Testament that we presented to you, does it put a Christian back under the law? That question was raised, and I want to briefly address it today.

We also want to look at the second question, if in fact Christians are to wear a head covering, just how extensive is that head covering to be? Also, two questions that usually arise when you're considering this passage.

The last two things we want to look at are, well, it does speak about hair, and it says a woman's hair should be long. Well, how long is long enough, and how short is short enough? If you look at the other side of the question concerning the man.

So we'll look at those questions to finish out our study and then make a few concluding comments, and then we'll be done. But before we actually begin and look at that first question, let's once again have a word of prayer.

Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you, Lord, for giving us this time, these ten weeks, to study your word, to look at this issue. And once again, as it has been our cry unto you all along, we would just ask for your wisdom and your mind.

Lord, just show us what your word has to say, and keep us from the traditions of men or the eras of prejudice. Give us clear minds, clear views on 1 Corinthians 11 and the other passages in the scriptures that deal with the issue of the head covering.

Help us to know what your word really has to say to us. Make it relevant to us today. Just lead us into your truth. And bless our time here with the presence of your Holy Spirit. For we ask it in Jesus' name and for his sake.

Amen. Okay, the first thing we want to consider is this issue of the Old Testament. And frankly, we've been very superficial, I admit. If you've done any study on this matter at all, the Christian in the Old Testament or the Christian in the law, you find out real quick that volumes have been written on this issue.

Thick volumes. And in fact, if we were to really do it justice, we'd probably have a year's study on it, perhaps. Because to really do it justice, it would take a good bit of time. And all, really, I can do in this study is hit some of the high points, some of the most important principles that I believe apply to this whole subject of the head covering.

But because I'm being so broad and not really going into detail, I realize that that leaves people with the possibility to draw some conclusions that would not be really what I believe or what I think the scriptures teach.

And one question that always comes up when we start talking about Christians having to debate anything in the Old Testament is, well, isn't that legalism? Because the Bible talks about how we've been freed from the law.

We're not under law anymore, we're under grace. And does that mean, then, therefore, that the Old Testament law has nothing to say to us today? Well, again, I can't spend weeks on this subject, so I'm just going to give you some of the key thoughts, key beliefs that I have on this subject, talk a little bit about them, and hopefully it'll clarify some issues if there was any question.

Maybe I'll raise more issues than I clarify, I don't know, I hope not. But let me just say a little bit on that so you'll fully understand what I believe if I haven't made that clear. The first point that I would share with you is this.

And when I think of legalism, the primary thing I think of, and the primary thing I think that scripture is concerned with, is this issue of how is a person actually saved? And the central error of a New Testament legalist, the Pharisees, the Judaizers, was that they taught that to be saved, you had to keep the law of Moses.

And by that, they meant every aspect, every jot and tittle, right down to circumcision. To be saved, you had to obey commandments. And those commandments were the whole aspect of Old Testament law. Well, let me say right off the bat that I have never believed that, nor have I ever taught it.

I believe with all my heart that salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm not standing up here trusting in any system of law keeping to save my soul. And I believe that anybody here is doing that, that they have not understood the scriptures, and they have missed the great truths of salvation as they are presented in the gospel.

That man is not saved by his own efforts, he's saved by Christ Jesus and his efforts in fulfilling every detail of the law and in going to Calvary and laying down his life and shedding his blood that we who cannot keep the law might be justified and saved from our sins of breaking that law.

And I believe with all my heart that salvation is only by faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. That and that alone will save a man. Please, have I given anybody the impression that I thought anything else?

May this lay that to rest. You do not know the Lord, you are not a Christian, unless your hope is only in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and you put your faith and trust in him as your Lord and Savior.

No system of law keeping will get you into heaven or make you righteous before a holy God. Now this whole truth of salvation by grace, by the way, is the whole subject matter of my next series. So hopefully we'll look at this a little bit in that series, or quite a bit.

And a lot of things I believe on this matter will become even plainer, I think, as we go through that subject. But anyway, that's the first and foremost thing I would have you to understand about where I am in relation to my teaching on obedience to law.

The second thing I want you to understand is that I do not believe that Christians are obligated to keep the Old Testament ceremonial law. It says in Colossians 2 .16, Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of the holy day or the new moon or the Sabbath days.

There are many laws in the Old Testament which are ceremonial in nature, but they're part of that system which the people of God were under before Christ came. They had to obey those things. Since Christ has come, he has fulfilled those types and shadows, and they no longer speak to us in terms of requirements on how we live our life.

We do not keep or have to keep the ceremonial law. But I think if you look in these passages such as Colossians, which are pointed to teach that we don't have to keep the law, and you look at the specific things that they say, the examples they give out of the law that we don't have to keep, you'll see that they're all ceremonial in nature.

It says you don't have to keep days, months, seasons, and years, such things. It never says you don't have to not obey your parents. In fact, in another passage of Scripture, we're said, children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right, for this is the first commandment with a promise.

So you'll never find an Old Testament moral law which the apostles of New Testament prophets tell us we don't have to keep. But when you come to issues like days and months and seasons and years, these typological things, we're said to not have to obey them.

They don't bind us today. The third thing I do believe, however, is this, that Christians are bound to obey God's moral law, no matter where it is found. And unlike some today, I would say that God's moral law for Christians is found not only in the New Testament, but it's found in the Old Testament, too.

And we've looked at several Scriptures. It says in 2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17, all Scripture is given by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Now, the Scriptures that he was referring to there had to be the Old Testament, because Paul, in context, said that Timothy had known these Scriptures from his youth. Well, in Timothy's youth, the only Scriptures he had were the Old Testament Scriptures.

And Paul said, all these things were given that we might be made perfect. And he's referring to the Old Testament. And we could look at some other Scriptures than we did earlier. So I think, when you consider the way the Apostle used the Old Testament Scriptures and the very doctrinal statements, such as what he says in 2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17, I think, unless Paul, again, is schizophrenic and he doesn't know what he believes, and he believes one thing in one book of the Bible, and he believes another thing in another book of the Bible, we've got to put these things together and see them as being harmonious.

Paul's not contradicting himself in Colossians and Timothy. And the way I put them together so they don't contradict is I understand that Paul recognizes that the moral principles of God never change.

And that law is for us today. Ceremonial law, that has changed down through history, depending on what place in God's plan of redemption you happen to live. For instance, Abraham could offer a sacrifice wherever he wanted.

But once they built the temple, there was only one place you could offer a sacrifice, and that was at Jerusalem in the temple. So you see, ceremonial law has undergone change depending on when you happen to live.

But moral law has never changed. And wherever moral law is found, old or new, it's still for us. Because God doesn't change. He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. So I do believe that God's moral law, wherever it is found, binds us today.

And unless you want to contradict Scripture and make it fight against itself, I don't see how you're going to come to any other conclusion because that statement is accurate. Now the one Scripture or statement that probably most would have problems with is the last one.

Let me read it. We see clearly from the New Testament that God's moral law is found not only in the New Testament or even in the Ten Commandments. Because a lot of Christians would say, yes, we believe we obey the New Testament law, but we also keep the Ten Commandments.

And they wouldn't have a lot of problems with that. But I would have to say even more than that and say that the immoral law of God is found not only in the Ten Commandments, but also even in the case laws of the Old Testament.

And to the extent that the case laws of the Old Testament are concerned with moral law, they are still binding today. And the case that we dealt with earlier was the case in 1 Corinthians 9, verse 9, where Paul took the Old Testament case law, thou shalt not muzzle the ox, but tradeth out the corn.

And he appealed to that case law of the Old Testament as the principle upon which he based his commandment to the churches to pay their pastors. Now that wasn't one of the Ten Commandments, that was an Old Testament case law.

And so again, I think if we're going to do justice to even how the apostles used Scripture, that this statement is an accurate statement. And I'll point this out too. A person is really faced with some difficult moral dilemmas if he adopts any other understanding of this issue.

Let me give you a case in point. What if you were a pastor, and somebody was to come to you and ask you this question, Pastor, can I marry my sister? Now what would you tell that individual? Well, you'd probably say, no, you can't marry your sister, that's perverse, that's incest.

Pastor, where in the Bible does it say that? What would you tell him? If you believe that the only law, or there was no law to govern Christian conduct, or if you believe that it's only the New Testament, how would you deal with him?

You couldn't. Because there's nothing in the New Testament that addresses in any depth the issue of a subject like incest. The closest you can get to it is in Corinthians, where Paul talks about the man who had his father's wife.

That's the only instance that you could say was incest that is dealt with in the New Testament. The only place that you could help this man from, and correct him, would be to take him to Leviticus 18, where it clearly defines what constitutes incestuous relationships, improper marriage relationships.

It's only to be found in the Old Testament. And that is not the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments say thou shalt not commit adultery. It does not tell you what constitutes a lot of other sexual impropriety is, specifically.

The only way you can get that is to go to the case laws. So, just to help you understand where I'm coming from, I believe what I believe is biblical. Now, I realize that some questions arise. How do we know what is moral and what is ceremonial?

And I'm going to tell you right off the bat, that is a difficult issue in some cases. And again, we need a whole long series to deal with some of these issues that arise. And we can't do it here tonight.

I can't do it. But I'll say this. The Bible recognizes that that is a legitimate distinction. You can look for just a second in Romans chapter 2. Romans 2, beginning in verse 17. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent being instructed out of the law.

And art confident that thou thyself art a God of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which has the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law.

Thou therefore which teacheth another, teachest thou not thyself. Thou that preachest, a man should not steal, dost thou steal. Thou that sayest, a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery.

Thou that abhors idols, dost thou commit sacrilege. Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

For circumcision is verily profited if thou keep the law. But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

And shall not uncircumcision, which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee who by the letter in circumcision doth transgress the law. Now, as you look at Paul's argument, you see something very interesting.

He looks at circumcision as though it was separate from God's law. But that's not correct. Circumcision itself was a commandment of the law. You see where I'm driving at that. He's saying that this moral, this ceremonial act of circumcision is in some sense distinct from all these moral commandments like not stealing, not killing and whatever.

And he says, if the Gentiles will do those things, even though they're not circumcised, I'm going to say they're keeping the law. Whereas even though you've got this ceremonial law, if you steal and kill, you're not keeping the law.

Well, he's making a distinction. He's saying that law keeping is distinct in some sense from being circumcised. But wait a second. Circumcision itself is part of the law. How could you keep the law and not be circumcised?

Only if there's a distinction. That God is making a distinction between a ceremonial aspect of the law, which is not near as important as it is keeping the moral aspects of the law. There's a ceremonial law and a moral law.

Even though both are found in the law of Moses together, we're only bound to the moral law. Now, that doesn't help us as far as fully understanding how to decide what is and isn't moral law versus ceremonial law.

But it shows that that is a legitimate distinction that God himself through Paul and the Holy Spirit makes. But if I was to just give a little general help in that direction, again, I can't go into it in great detail, but the ceremonial law in the Old Testament is the law that is primarily concerned with the outworking of God's plan of redemption.

In other words, this is the law regarding sacrifice and offering. These holy days and feast days were typical and pointed to the work of Christ on the cross and the great acts of redemption that were yet to come, like Pentecost, foretelling and pointing to that point of the Holy Spirit.

The aspects of God's law that were redemptive in nature, that's the primary focus as we look for ceremonial law. Whereas the moral law is just the law of God that related to general conduct, how we would live each day.

And that to me is, again, that's very broad and we'd have to look at everything real close, but those are, I believe, two general guidelines to help us make a distinction as we look at Old Testament scripture.

But anyway, that in a very broad sense is where I'm coming from and in a very tertiary sense why I'm there. If this makes me a legalist, then that's what I am. I don't think it does. Because I certainly don't believe you're saved by keeping the law, nor do I believe that you have to, as a matter of obligation, keep the ceremonial law.

All I believe is that as a Christian, we have to obey God's moral law wherever it's found, whether it's New Testament or Old Testament. And there is much instruction in the Old Testament that can be of benefit to us today.

That's what I believe. Do you have any questions on that, Chris? Okay. In what sense have we died to the law? As I understand that verse, I understand it to be referring to looking to the law for the sake of establishing my righteousness.

In other words, if I'm looking to a system of law to justify myself, then I am alive to the law and the law is alive to me. The only problem is the law will slay me. But now if I am tied, if I am related to Christ, if I am trusting in Christ and Him alone, now the standard is still there, but in a sense I'm dead to it in that it does not any longer condemn me.

And it is no longer a principle by which I am seeking to establish my righteousness. And in that sense, because I'm no longer doing that, it has no power over me any longer. My trust now in the righteousness I'm looking to is to be found in Christ and in Him alone.

So the condemnatory ministry of the law, I am dead to it. But now do you think Paul is meaning to say by that, that now it's okay to be covetous? That that has ceased to be a standard? Or that it's no longer a sin if I am a Christian and covetous?

Doesn't the law still tell us that as a Christian, I covet somebody else's wife or his home, that at that point I'm still committing a sin? That's correct. Never. That's true. And his moral laws are just embodied in that law.

Is that necessarily saying, okay, you need to obey all these things? If somebody else said that and you thought you should obey these things, I think you can use those in a category. I think it's kind of a line to draw and a hard interpretation to make of it.

Where do you stand on that? Well, just consider this, Chris, as you think about the issue. If I reprove you, I'm asking you to change your conduct. If I instruct you in righteousness, I'm telling you this is the conduct you should be doing.

And if I'm using the Old Testament and I'm doing it authoritatively, I have to be looking at something that is still binding on you today or on me and my conduct. And another thing to consider again is, okay, Paul said that.

What did he mean? Well, how did he use the Old Testament? How did he specifically use the Old Testament? And look in the New Testament and see the usages he made of the Old Testament, and that gives you specific, not hazy, understanding of what he meant when he said that in 2 Timothy 3 .16.

What did he mean when he said that? Well, he turned right around and he took the passage that said, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox or trade without the corn, and he said, This Old Testament case law teaches you that you should pay your pastors.

Now, that kind of tells me what he must have meant when he said, All scripture of this Old Testament scripture is good for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. So we're not totally left in the dark as to what he meant because Paul himself gives us illustrations of how he uses the Old Testament to kind of give us specific illustrations of what he meant in applying the general principles.

But anyway, let's leave it there. We can discuss it maybe some more after we're done here. So a good comment. Well, anyway, we'll leave the issue of the law for the time being. The next thing I would like to look at is this question of how extensive a covering is required.

Whether the Head Covering Must Cover the Hair

They say that a woman's head is to be covered. What does that mean practically? So let's look at that for a second. And for me to answer that question, we've got to actually go back to this whole issue of the hair once again and talk about it a little bit more because the issue in my mind anyway of the extent of the covering is tied in to the issue of the hair.

Well, what do I mean? Well, Paul notes in this passage that nature teaches what? It teaches that long hair on a woman is glorious. Now, again, I think we noted that the way nature does this is accomplished by giving to men and women just a natural attraction and even an allure to long hair on a woman.

Whereas long hair on a man, I mean, for me, I'll give you the word that I use. It's disgusting. I mean, I look at a man with long hair and it just looks terrible to me. I mean, it doesn't look right. It just looks disgusting.

That's the weakest word I would use. I could use some stronger words. On the other hand, if I look at a woman that has long, beautiful long hair, it's very attractive, very appealing to me as a man. And I would note that women instinctively know this.

In fact, many, many women spend hours primping their hair. Many spend big money at beauty parlors month after month, year after year, making their hair attractive. They perm it, they curl it, they tease it, and they do this maybe weekly.

I don't know. But certainly on a regular basis throughout the year. And I don't know. You know, I go up to Walmart and Sherman and they have a little hair studio there that does both men and women's hair.

And I noticed that a man's hair costs like $7. Women start it at $20, $20 to $30. I mean, that's where you start. And I don't think that's not even including the perm. That's just to go in there and get something done to your hair.

And they do it. I mean, these shops could not stay in business if women were not going back regularly over and over again, spending that type of money on their hair. Now, many women, and I'm just going to be perfectly blatantly honest here, and I don't mean to offend, but many women premeditatedly use their hair to draw the attention of men.

They're out to use all their charms to make an impression, and hair is one of the charms that they use to make that impression. It's one of their weapons in their arsenal. Now, frankly, other women, though, they're in innocence.

They adorn their hair in various styles and whatever. They don't really realize what they're doing and they're not even thinking about what effect they might be having on, say, a man. They just do it because they want to look pretty.

But frankly, there are many women who premeditatedly dress provocatively, and that provocative dress includes not only what they wear or don't wear, it includes the way they fix their hair. And they're doing that to make a statement and to draw the attention of men.

And we need to note that hair, long hair, is particularly attractive because God designed it to be that way. He said, does not even nature itself teach you that if a woman has long hair, it's a glory.

I mean, how does nature teach us that? It's because what I'm just saying. I look at a woman with long hair and it's appealing to me. Draws my attention. Draws my notice. And there was a time when my wife, she didn't wear a head covering that covered all her hair.

For a long time, she wore it down. She wore a head covering, but her hair was hanging down loose and uncovered. And she can tell you, in one account, just a stranger walked up to her and commented on the beauty of her long hair.

You know, just out of the blue. Some man walks up and starts commenting on my wife's hair. And I know, when I was a child, I wasn't even a Christian at the time, when my mother cut off her hair, she'll tell you that it upset me.

You know, I wasn't at all happy that she did that. Maybe that's just me, but since Paul says nature teaches this, I think it's more than me. I think it's a characteristic of men. God has made us to appreciate long hair, and to be drawn in our heart and in our minds to give attention to long hair when we see it.

Modesty, Beauty, and Drawing Attention

But now, what does the Bible say about this? Does the Bible teach us that women should be presenting themselves in public so as to draw the gaze of men based on the physical charms God has given them?

Is that something that godly women should do? What do you think? Well, let's look once again at 1 Timothy 2, beginning in verse 8. I will, therefore, that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting, in like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety.

Now, notice the contrast, that shamefacedness is the exact opposite of dressing with broided hair. There's a dress with shamefacedness and sobriety not with broided hair or gold or pearl or costly array.

So you see a direct, two things are put in opposition, one to another. The shamefaced character, appearance, and this fancy hair appearance. They're not compatible. But he goes on, they're not to wear gold and pearls and costly array.

And it would seem to me as I consider that passage that what Paul is saying is that the proper attire for a woman is to be of such a nature that it's concealing of her beauty and not displaying it or drawing attention to it, the attention of men.

She's to be shamefaced. Not seeking the limelight, but rather being withdrawn. Because men are to be in the limelight. They're to be the ones praying with their hands uplifted. Women are to be meek and quiet.

And their dress is to reflect that spirit. And so as I look at a passage like that, and we're not even in 1 Corinthians, it seems to me that it is not according to biblical principle for women in particular to dress in such a way that they are using their physical charms to draw the attention of others, particularly of men.

Yes, I think that's what it's saying. Well, you might raise an objection to that. Namely this, well, you know, Tom, if I wear a head covering, as you seem to think I should, I'm going to be drawing all sorts of attention to myself.

So, you know, what am I accomplishing? And to be honest with you, most likely you're right. Any woman who wears a head covering, people are going to look at her. But I would note this. Even if you didn't put on a head covering, you'd also draw attention to yourself if you were in Africa and you walked out among a bunch of natives there that wore no clothes at all.

Wouldn't you? But I know that none of us here would say that, well, I don't want to draw attention to myself, so I'm going to, for the sake of fitting in with the natives of Africa, I will not wear any clothes.

I mean, that's, you know, that's crazy. You have to consider what, there's two different ways you can draw attention to yourself. One is okay, the other isn't. If you're using your natural beauty and physical charms to draw improper attention to yourself, the eyes of men, that's not appropriate.

But if, because you're a godly person and you're living a godly life and a godly character, with a godly character in an ungodly world that's so far gone that they've lost all standards of modesty and decency, and because you are determined to live that way, that makes you so different that there's no way people can escape your appearance.

Well, God expects you to draw that type of attention to yourself because we're to be salt and light in this world. And when our culture goes off the deep end in a certain direction, sometimes Christians will be starkly different from the world, not only in the way they dress, perhaps, but a godly man in business who will not be corrupted, who will deal honestly with integrity, he's going to stand out too.

The fact of the matter is, anybody that's going to live godly for Christ's sake will stand out in one way or the other. But that type of standing out is what God expects us to do, if we have to. I'm not saying we go out of our way to make ourselves different, but if for the cause of righteousness' sake we must be different, God expects us to.

But we should never be different for fleshly, lustly reasons. Drawing attention to ourself through fleshly, lustly means. That's never right for a Christian. And that's what Paul says you should never do as a woman, be drawing that type of attention to yourself.

Rather, he says, to be shame-faced. Now, if you do that and you draw attention to yourself, maybe you'll convict some sinner and he'll repent. And that's the type of attention we need. Okay, well, that's what Timothy says.

We could also look at Peter, but they both are kind of in the same line. Does 1 Corinthians have anything to say about this as well? Let's look back in 1 Corinthians. Now, this passage speaks a lot about glory.

Glory, Hair, and the Meaning of the Covering

And there are three glories spoken of in this passage. One is the glory of God. One is the glory of man. And one is the glory of the woman. Now, the glory of God, the image and glory of God is man himself in this passage.

Man's glory is what? It's the woman. Woman's glory is what? It's her hair. Verse 7 says, 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.

Verse 7 teaches us that the reason a man shouldn't have anything covering himself is because he is the glory of God. And what this is saying is that it's proper, it's right for God's glory to be seen.

We don't want to cover up God's glory. And so man doesn't need to be covered because that's what he is. And now it goes on, and my implication is telling us that the reason a woman needs to be covered is because she's a natural glory.

She's the glory of the man. And that's the reason she has to be covered. Because we don't want to see this human glory. That's got to be covered. It's not appropriate in God's presence to display our glory.

And you know, it's really grievous to me. There are men who actually want to have their wife's beauty, their wife's glory displayed. It's interesting, we have an account of this even in the scriptures.

Vashti's Displayed Beauty in Esther

You might look with me for a few moments in the book of Esther. There's a very interesting account in the first chapter. In the first chapter you have the case where King Ahasuerus was given a banquet, and his wife's name was Vashti.

And King Ahasuerus made a very interesting request. Let me read, starting in chapter 1, verse 10. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was married with wine, he commanded Mahuman, Vista, Harbona, Bigtha, Anabagtha, Zephyr, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of King Ahasuerus the king, to bring Vashti, the queen before the king with the crown royal, to show the people and the princes her beauty, for she was fair to look upon.

So here you have a case. Here's this king, and he knows he's got a good thing. He's got a very pretty wife, and he wants everybody to see her. He wants her glory displayed, his glory, because she's his wife.

He wants that glory displayed to this great big audience. And it caused some problems, but we won't go on. But if you read further in the passage, you'll see that it caused some problems for him and for her.

But anyway, there are men, and he's not an exceptional case, I don't think, by any means. They're actually men who really desire to have their wife's beauty displayed. Some men are really happy to have their wife even dressed in a modest way, for the same reason that Ahasuerus wanted Vashti to appear in all her beauty, the same type of thinking.

And I think, as I consider this, that this really must be a great grief to God. And it really is quite improper if we understand all the teaching that we've had on this whole subject of the head covering, and what we've covered on the subject of modesty.

Because we've learned that we are to promote God's glory and not our own. And what's the proper thing for my glory? Is it to be displayed before all men? Is it to be promoted? No. According to everything we've learned, it's what?