1 Cor No.19 Praying Acceptably

I praise you for remembering me in everything, and for holding to the teachings just as I pass them on to you. Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man. And the head of Christ is God.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. It is just as though her head was shaved.

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God.

But the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

For this reason and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.

But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him? But that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. For long hair is given to her as a covering.

If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God. Well, that's a very stimulating reading, and we'll see what that holds in store for us in the hour to come. It's perhaps with a degree of reluctance on two accounts that I approach this passage of scripture this morning.

The first is not obvious to you, but the second one probably is. The first being that I know every Sunday morning, and evening for that matter, there are always new friends in the tabernacle, and we're very glad to have visitors with us. And they may not realize our practice of working our way through one of these books of the New or the Old Testament, and sometimes looking at incidents and subject matter, which at first glance, perhaps seems to be quite unrelated to modern life.

All we can ask for on their part is for patience, and for a realization that ultimately we will discover, as we have in past occasions, that there are principles that can be located in God's word, even in these perhaps unusual topics, which have an abiding relevance. And then secondly, I'm a little reluctant to come to this passage because for some people, it has become a passage of controversy. Almost the acme of a woman's spirituality, whether she is judged mature or immature, obedient or disobedient to the New Testament, comes from her response to these injunctions, and to her manner of behavior in God's house, her department, and her dress.

Now, believe it or not, I'm not a man of contention. I'm a man of peace, sometimes referred to as one who always sits on the wall in controversial areas. Well, at least you keep balanced when you sit on a wall.

So perhaps I wouldn't even deny that accusation. But what I have to share with you this morning, I share humbly and lovingly as the results of my own understanding of God's word. And it is to God that ultimately, I am responsible for the teaching that I give either here or in other places.

Now, let me say, just to set the whole thing into perspective, that basically what the apostle Paul is asking of Christian people in this passage of scripture is to test themself in the whole area of submission. If there's one word that encapsules, that praises these 16 or so verses, it surely must be that word submission. Let me tell you what that means.

Submission in the Christian context is an acknowledgement of who Jesus Christ is. You cannot be a believer. You cannot be embraced by the Christian faith until you come to a point in your life where you kneel before the foot of the Lord Jesus Christ, before his cross at Calvary.

You acknowledge who he is and you believe that your sins have been transferred from your account to his account. But there are certain consequences that flow from that. Being a Christian is not just a mental agreement with doctrinal principles.

Being a Christian is an agreement as to what Jesus has done and the offering of one's life to the Savior. So that there are certain things that you will no longer do because you are a Christian. And there are certain things that you will now do that you didn't do before.

Becoming a Christian then is a submission, a submission to the claims of Jesus Christ and the reaction to those claims in the part of your lifestyle. Now, in the third verse of this particular letter, of this particular chapter, the Apostle Paul makes reference to the supremacy of Christ. He says that at the head of every man is Christ.

And he tells us in the 12th verse that everything, towards the end of the 12th verse, that everything comes from God. Why do I underline those two statements? Because it seems to me that they are pivotal. Here is the Apostle before he develops his argument about submission and so forth, making two fundamental propositions.

The first is the head of every man that is of every believer is the Lord Jesus Christ. And it is from God that every blessing comes. So you can hardly be a Christian without an acknowledgement of that, without a submission to this truth.

So what the Apostle now does is he elaborates upon the principle and then he illustrates it. And so I want to follow what he has to say in these 16 or so verses. The elaboration of the principle of submitting to the rule of God in your life.

And then an illustration of what that meant for certain people in one of the churches which the Apostle Paul under God founded. Let's take up the first thing that comes out in these verses then. An elaboration of the principle of submission.

Look at the third verse. Listen to what Paul says. I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is man and the head of Christ is God.

Here are four categories of individuals and three of them are dependent upon the other. There is God, there is Christ, there is man, there is woman. And the Apostle really is suggesting that at the head, or if you please, a better translation from the original, the source of everything is the Lord God.

The source of the Lord Jesus Christ is God himself. Jesus Christ proceeds from the Father. The language here is very, very daring but scripture does not hesitate in making this pronouncement on several occasions.

Now, the source of every man is Jesus Christ. He is the agent of creation. The Bible says that it's by the Lord Jesus that the world came into existence.

Spiritually speaking, our salvation is dependent on the Lord Jesus Christ. So here is the Savior who in one sense is dependent upon God the Father. Here is man who in two very real areas, physical and spiritual, is dependent upon the Lord Jesus.

And then the Apostle makes reference to woman. And instead of saying that woman is directly dependent upon the Lord Jesus Christ, he says that woman is dependent on man who is her head. Well, what does he mean? Immediately in the 20th century, there are those who point their finger at the Apostle Paul and say in this whole matter of subjection or submission, you're suggesting that woman is inferior to man.

But that's not his argument as I shall seek to show you in a moment or so. Let's go back to our Lord Jesus Christ for a moment. Did I shock you by saying that in some senses he is subservient to his Father? And yet you could rightly quote me verses from the New Testament which you may have used in respect to the Jehovah's Witnesses, where Jesus says, I and my Father are one.

We are of the same essence. What Jesus is, the Father is. What the Father is, Jesus is.

And of course, in one very real sense, that is true. But as far as the work of salvation here on this earth is concerned, our Lord Jesus subjected himself voluntarily to the will of the Father. So he says, I came not to do my will, but I came to do the will of the one who sent me.

A voluntary subjection. You remember I read at the commencement of our prayer from the authorized version of the Bible, Paul's comment in Philippians when he speaks of Jesus. And he says that Jesus counted not equality with God, a thing to be grasped onto, a thing to be seized on at all costs, but rather he made himself lower than not only the angels, but he subjected himself to the terror of crucifixion so that the will of the Father might be done.

And in that sense, our Lord is submissive to the Father God. Now, when the apostle makes reference to man and women and their relationship to one another, he tells us in the seventh verse, going back to God's original work of creation, that man is in the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. Look at the eighth verse.

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. What does Paul have in mind? Well, most of you are knowledgeable of the contents of Genesis 1 and 2. And in the second chapter of the first book of the Bible, you discover that man is first made, and then a help meet is tailor made for him.

Woman comes second. She comes from man. Someone has put it like this.

God made, when God made woman, he took her from the side of man. Not from the head in case she should dominate him, nor from the feet in case he should trample on her. God took her from his side, close to his heart, that she might be his companion, his comfort, his love.

In the Old Testament account of creation, woman comes second to man. She comes as his help meet. Man is the source of her life.

It was from him that God took the rib and ultimately sculptured woman. So, the apostle Paul, having in mind the Corinthian women and the fact that many of them are riding roughshod over this scriptural principle, knowing that pagan women don't behave as biblical people ought to do, the apostle sets this in order. And he says, look, you women folk, as the Lord Jesus Christ did not count equality with God a thing to be clung onto at all costs, but in the interest of salvation, he subjected himself to the Father.

So, in this passing world, you too are subjected to the leadership of your husbands. Now, just in case the women's lib group in Corinth feel that Paul is dealing in a lopsided view with all this subject, the apostle quickly comes in and says in the 11th verse, in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. And then he riley adds, and maybe there's a smile on his mouth as he puts up the biological point, for as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.

Women folk at Corinth, at Worthing Tabernacle, we can't really do without you. Men are utterly dependent on you in one sense as you are dependent on them. What Paul is here arguing for is an interdependence, a reliance of women on men, on men on women in a biblical context.

But basically speaking, in a Christian marriage and in a Christian community, such as the church here, then men will tend towards the public ministries. Men will tend in the public eye at any rate to show that they are leaders in the home, having the complimentary support and advice of their women folk. Now, this doesn't, of course, apply only to those who are married.

In a Christian context, single women folk will look to the spiritual leaders of the church to be of help to them. There will be a measure of dependence, but there will also be a tremendous amount of input that they can make in their general wellbeing and the testimony of the fellowship. So what is the Apostle Paul doing? Remember, his basic proposition is this.

We are all dependent on God. If you're a Christian, you can't declare UDI. Quite the contrary is the case.

You acknowledge that you submit to the claims of God upon your life. You kneel before the cross and you commend your life to the Lord Jesus. And as a result of that, certain consequences will flow, certain aspects of your lifestyle will be different, and you will acknowledge the basic structures that God has built into family life and also into the church life.

The Apostle Paul elaborates, I say, upon his basic principle. But then, and here we move into a fascinating area, he illustrates this principle and he gives us a tantalizing glimpse of the way that this is worked out in Corinth in respect to men, but more particularly to women engaging in public and maybe even private worship. He tells us how women are to submit to certain principles that he enunciates.

Now, let it be said that the Apostle Paul isn't the first writer, or not the last writer at any rate in the New Testament to dare to tell women what to do in certain instances. You take his colleague Peter. He's writing to Jewish Christians and he happens to make reference to women and their dress.

And he tells us in the third chapter, the first letter that bears his name, wives in the same way be submissive to your husband so that if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without talk by the behavior of their wives when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Now, particularly your beauty, this is 1 Peter 3 verse 3, your beauty should not come from outward adornment such as plaiting or braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.

Now, those words are putting even more forcefully in the authorized version of the Bible. So here is the Apostle Peter and when he speaks to women folk, he seems to debar them from wearing any expensive clothing. And he suggests to them that it's not compatible, at least at the time that he is writing, for women folk to wear gold, jewelry, and that sort of thing to be forfeited in terms of adornment generally worn by women, but not apparently by Christian women.

Well, I say that just to bring the Apostle Peter into the firing line, as well as the Apostle Paul here, as he, and we continue with his argument, sets down certain stipulations about women and their behavior in church and maybe also in private worship. What does he say? Well, if I can just summarize those verses from the fifth down to the 10th, he is more or less expressing this particular teaching. When women pray or for that matter prophesy, and incidentally, Paul is not objecting to them doing either, at least in this passage of scripture, when women pray or prophesy, they are to cover their heads, unlike men.

If not, they should have their hair cut off. Man reflects the glory of God. Women, the glory of man.

For this reason, and because of the angels, women ought to have a sign of authority on their heads. Now, whatever your viewpoint happens to be on Paul's teaching, I think you would agree that that prophecy is reasonably an accurate reflection of what is encapsuled within those four or five verses. Let's examine his teaching and open it out a little more.

First of all, what does he mean by women covering their heads? What is the term head covering? Veil, I think it is in the AV, cover here in the NIV version of the Bible. What exactly does it denote? Well, it denotes a sort of square or rectangular piece of cloth, which hides the hairline from the forehead right down to the back and also drapes down on the top part of the body. The best way perhaps to illustrate this is by you having in mind, shall we say, a Catholic nun and the general headgear that such people in one of the several women's orders in the Roman Catholic Church might adopt.

Another illustration could well be the Indian lady with the sari who puts it over her head when she engages, or some of them do, when they engage in prayer. So the whole of the hair is covered up. Another example might be that of the Muslim woman, the Orthodox Muslim, with the exception that the face isn't covered, but nonetheless, everything else as far as the hair is concerned, according to Paul, is to be covered.

So that needs to be borne in mind. And I'm afraid that it must be argued against the notion that the modern headgear of most ladies approximates to what the apostle here is describing. It may be a token covering, but it is not a complete covering as the apostle here is suggesting.

The second thing that I think is perhaps interesting, though often overlooked, is that the apostle here is not only arguing for the covering of the hair, but for the fact that women should not expose their hair to the scissors of the hairdresser. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved, she should cover her head.

The argument is more than just an implied one, that the apostle here is speaking of the uncut hair of a woman as being something that he wants to see evidence in Corinth. Another thing that needs to be brought out here is the apostle's rather interesting reference to the angels. Why is it that angels are concerned about the way women cover or don't cover their hair? Verse 10, for this reason and because of the angels, the women ought to have a sign of authority, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

We'll perhaps come back to that in a moment or two. But let it be said that when you have any account in scripture, and I'm thinking of Isaiah's prophecy in particular, of angels in the presence of God, they veil their faces. They indicate by their posture, by their demeanor, that they recognize that God is a holy God and one cannot lightly come into his presence.

And so here is the concept of angels being offended by women who carelessly enter God's presence without having taken due preparation. Well, I mentioned these three things just to open up what Paul is saying within these verses. So now we come to the crux of the matter.

How are we to interpret the apostle? Are we to do so by suggesting that this teaching is to be taken literally and applies for all time? Are we to do so by suggesting that it has certain cultural references which no longer exist? Are we to interpret it culturally? Or are we to interpret it symbolically? That there are certain things in the 20th century that really equal what Paul is referring to in the first century and that God is satisfied if these aspects of indicating due reverence in his presence are made. Let's take for a moment then the sort of person, and I respect this argument, who claims that the apostle Paul is here to be understood absolutely literally. Now, if that is so, then presumably logic demands that not only is Paul to be obeyed in regard to the covering of the head, but the actual type of headgear too.

One must ensure that the whole of what Paul has in mind is accepted and practiced and the whole of the head, the whole of the hair is covered. What is more, it would seem quite logical to suggest if one is going to apply this literally, that women folk do not expose their head to the razor or to the scissors of a hairdresser. It seems to me that you can't argue for the hair covering and yet expose yourself to the snipping of the hair and still claim to be biblical and literally understanding Paul.

You can't take one of his injunctions and say, I believe in that and reject the other injunction. The third and fourth things that I would argue in this area is that if Paul is to be accepted with wooden literal approach, so also is the apostle Peter when he debars the wearing of expensive coats and the placing on the finger or on any part of the body jewelry that is expensive. You cannot, I repeat, come to scripture and distinguish yourself as to what is culturally to be accepted through every generation and what is not.

Either you literally apply it all and one would appreciate the sincerity of a person who endeavors to do this or one must perhaps look elsewhere for the possibility of making sense of something that for us in the 20th century seems to be a little unusual to say the least. There's one more thing I think that I want to argue in respect to the literal interpretation of Paul in this area. And it's the problem that I've got in regard to the Old Testament and certain happenings or at least one happening in the new.

In the book of Numbers, and I think it's chapter six, reference is made to the Nazarite. The Nazarite is a man, a man who engages in a particular vow to the Lord and his vow is that his hair is never uncut. You remember Samson is a classic illustration of this and it was because of the impropriety of Samson getting involved with Delilah and revealing his spiritual secrets that that man finished in spiritual shipwreck.

So in Old Testament times, it would not be true to say as the Apostle Paul here suggests to the Greeks that it was wrong for a man to have long hair. The second thing that I'd like to say in this area is that I have problems with the Apostle Paul himself if I'm to take this with a wooden literal approach. And I say that because later on in the Acts of the Apostles you will find that he shaves the whole of his head as a result of a Jewish vow that he has taken.

The third thing that creates problems for me is, and I admit that the argument is not terribly important, but nonetheless I mention it for what it's worth, is the argument of Christian art. Whenever you see our Lord Jesus represented, you see him as a long-haired individual. I have never yet seen a picture that depicts our Lord Jesus Christ as anything else.

And that seems to tie in with a common practice in the medieval world in the East, in the Middle East. So with those problems in mind, when one interprets this just in a literal fashion, let's just mention the culture of Paul's day for a moment or so. You know what Corinth was like.

I mentioned this earlier in my Bible readings. Corinth was a cesspit of immorality. How does a woman indicate that she is offering herself to the men on the street? Well, she does so by having her hair relatively close cropped and her head absolutely uncovered.

The immorality in Corinth is such that to call someone out of Corinth a Corinthian was to insult them. And this, it seems to me, is basic behind the Apostle Paul's teaching. He has in mind that being imported into the church are certain habits which to an outsider would indicate that the church itself is not making a clear line of demarcation between the way the street women behave and the way Christian people are to behave.

There are cultural practices which we have to bear in mind. And even though we are free in Christ Jesus, we are not free in every circumstance just to please ourselves. When I'm in India, perhaps this sounds ridiculous, when I'm in India, I rarely preach with my shoes on.

Why is that? Because it would be considered improper for me to enter into most of the pulpits where I was preaching during the last three weeks with my shoes on my feet. The pulpit is a holy ground. Therefore, you take your shoes off.

And not, I trust, being a boorish fellow and realizing that there was no basic principle that was going to collapse as a result of this, I adhered to the Indian Christian practice. And it seems to me that this is what the Apostle Paul has in mind. Christians have no right to flout social conventions.

You women folk in Corinth, you may be free in the sense that Christ has set you free, but you are never to show by your example any indication that your sexuality is up for purchase, that your morality is less than Jesus would have wanted you to live up to. So let me say one more thing. Is there a way today in which symbolically what was denoted by the head covering at Corinth is indicated by, shall we say, married women? Look, in the 10th verse here, the Apostle Paul says that the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

He uses those words obviously advisedly. The sign of authority, the wearing of the veil denoted the protection that the married woman would have on the part of her husband. You insult my wife and you insult me because she is part of me.

She complements my ministry. What does the ring do in the Western world in the 20th century? You insult Rowena, you insult me. I'm tied to her by a cord that only death could break.

Does it not seem to be the case that when you push these cultural things through into the 20th century and I could give you other instances of this, that you make sense of what the Apostle Paul in principle is endeavoring to teach. What was that? That in the sight of God we submit to him and to his authority in our lives. And in our behavior patterns, we submit women folk to the leadership of the men in the church.

And that in no way do I, by adopting any particular habit in this 20th century, indicate to others that I am living in a profligate way or my sexuality is in any sense under that of what the Bible declares to be a norm. Here's some earth shattering news. I will not wear earrings.

The reason why I would not wear an earring, well, there are two. One, I think I would look rather stupid. And secondly, because it is in our society today for a man to wear such an indication in some circles of him being effeminate and homosexual.

And in no way, even if I was inclined to wearing jewelry about my face, would I want anyone to say that of me. Now look, you're intelligent people. There are certain things which we as Christians in the 20th century shun.

There are certain cultural practices from the first century which have changed. You have to transmute them. You have to put them into the language of the 20th century.

And the Bible, it seems to me, by a variety of lifestyles and dress habits that it records, examples I've given you, agrees to the fact that in certain circumstances there are changes. But the principles, the principles remain the same. And what are they? That I submit myself to the authority of God, to the claims of Jesus Christ on my life.

And the way that I behave, the manner of my dress and my relationships are to honor and to glorify him. That, my friend, I put to you humbly and lovingly, is the way that I understand the Apostle Paul and his teaching in this whole area of submission. Amen.

I'd like for our last hymn to be number 66, please, in the hymns of faith. 66, eternal light, eternal light, how pure the soul must be when placed within thy searching sight. It shrinks not, but with calm delight can live and look on thee.

♪ Amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen ♪ Father, we read in your word that of great value in your sight is the unfading beauty of a gentle and a quiet spirit. And however we show our submission to you and to the moral demands of Christianity, we pray, Father, that we shall merit the smile of your approval. Deliver us from an unthinking adherence to a tradition that we don't really understand.

And enable us from your word to lift out those great life-controlling principles which help men and women, whether they worship in China, the Middle East, or here in the Western world. And may your church in these days be a bearer of that holiness which causes God's name to be glorified for the sake of the Savior. Amen.