A Proper Order: Part 2

I stated last week this passage is difficult to piece together from a contextual and historical perspective, but what we can understand, is that the Greco Roman world, most predominantly practiced a distinctive appearance between men and women. There appears to be a movement in Paul’s day where liberalism pushed against that distinctiveness of men and women. Evidence shows some women would refuse to veil themselves, some would even cut their hair short and dress like men. Before we get to the explanation of what the veil was, it is clear from Paul’s argument that veils represented three things:

1.Application in the church: Men and Women must remain distinct in appearance and function

1 Corinthians 11:4–6 NASB95

4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

After Paul explains his theological position about the order that God designed the roles of men and women, he now begins to apply that theological truth to the situation at Corinth.

To begin today, we need to understand the significance of the meaning of the veil. Are these physical veils, symbolic veils?

I stated last week this passage is difficult to piece together from a contextual and historical perspective, but what we can understand, is that the Greco Roman world, most predominantly practiced a distinctive appearance between men and women. There appears to be a movement in Paul’s day where liberalism pushed against that distinctiveness of men and women. Evidence shows some women would refuse to veil themselves, some would even cut their hair short and dress like men. Before we get to the explanation of what the veil was, it is clear from Paul’s arguemnt that veils represented three things:

1. Submission

The veiling that Paul is advocating for with women and not men is a personal statement of submission to the God given roles that God had established. For men to remain unveiled and women to be veiled in the public gathering of the church is Paul’s application to the order that God designed at Creation.

2. Modesty

A second point is that it appears that woman that was veiled reflected, submission and modesty. The veiled woman commiunicated that she was not flaunting her privacy in the public square, trying to be attracted to men, but instead covering that which was designed for her current or future husband.

Ladies, there is the same battle cry for modesty in our day as well. The church must stand against a culture that says you have to dress this certain way to fit in. Instead, godly women must adore themselves in such a way where they can enjoy what they wear and yet protect the things that were designed for their current or future husbands. Your bodies are just one of the rewards for your husband to receive and enjoy and it is not intended for others. This goes back to the Christian liberty argument versus loving your neighbor. Is it an act of love towards your brothers in Christ to flaunt yourself immodestly? Are you protecting that which you may present to your future husband or are you offering it for the world to see?

What are the Veils?

One of the difficulties of this passage is understanding what Paul means by veil. Is it a physical cloth covering the hair and head or is it simply the way the hair is arranged. Let me give you both arguments.

View 1: hair as covering: There are some who would argue that this passage describes veiling as a way that a woman fixes her hair neatly and orderly on her head, instead of letting it falls down on her neck. Evidence does show that a woman's hair was a feature of her appearance that was attractive to men. In this culture, a woman's hair, being unloosed, or let down in public, was often seen as a sign of a promiscuous and immoral woman who was flaunting herself in public.

Lucius says in the work by Apuleius about the hair of women, ‘my exclusive concern has always been with a person’s head and hair, to examine it intently first in public and enjoy it later at home’

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Eckhard J. Schnabel, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018), 230–231.

Hair then was a sensual thing to enjoy Those who hold this position, also point to v 15, as further evidence that veiling of the head is accomplished by the way the hair is arranged on top of the head as v 15 states,

1 Corinthians 11:15 NASB95

15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

While this argument does have some strength, we must also ask then what Paul would be forbidding from men in v 4-6? If women veiling their head was about they way they arrange the hair on their head, then Paul warning men to not veil their head, would logically mean for them to let their hair down. But Paul makes the point in v 6 that a woman with short or shaved hair is a disgrace. Paul is connecting the short hair of a woman as equal to the short hair of man, which is a disgrace to the woman and not the man. Secondly, Paul actually states in verse 14 that a man with long hair disgraced himself. So then culturally a man disgraced himself with long hair, and a woman disgraced herself with short hair. Taking the view of the veiling as arranging the hair up on the heard, how would a man veiled himself if his hair was short, which Paul prohibits a man to do?

The arranging of hair on the head cannot be used as a veil because just doesn’t make sense in Paul’s argument.

View #2: the veil as a physical cloth

The second view is that the veil was something worn over the head and hair to cover the head. The Gk term literally means to cover the head with something other than the hair. For example, in Esther 6:12, we read that Mordecai was in morning ands covered his head, which would have been with a cloth of some kind. Roman historians spoke of women covering their heads with veils and archeology has backed up those statements. This evidence in conjunction with the strong questions against the opposing view, it seems more logical to me that Paul is referencing an actual veil of some kind.

Now that we know the meaning of the veil and what it represented, we must conclude then with Paul’s purpose in this application. Paul’s purpose is to solidify the proper order and roles of men and women. For a man to pray or prophesy in the church with a veil on his head, Paul states that he was disgracing his head. This very sentence in v 4 follows Pauls theological statement that Christ is the head of every man inverse three. Therefore, Paul is stating that for a man to Vail himself. He is dishonoring Christ his head because he is functioning outside of the role in which God ordained for him. Similarly a woman who prays for prophesies with her head

uncovered, disgraces the man, because again she is operating outside of the ordained roles that God had designed for her. Paul's purpose, then is to distinguish those roles for men and women in the church, which was counter active to the culture which was trying to destroy such distinctions.

There can be no greater example of this in our culture today than the trans movement. In the trans movement, we see a blending of gender function, we see biological women dressing like men, and we see biological men dressing like women. In addition they are attempting to blend these blend these distinctions, so that a bearded man dressed like a woman wearing a dress and high heels is acceptable in society. This is a step further from the previous on the homosexual movement where two men function in such a way, where one man operators as the masculine authority, while the other man operators as the feminine, submissive counterpart. This, of course, is a perversion of the god order design. These homosexual substitute, or only actors they are playing their role in the dramatic section of their relationship, but it is counter active to the natural ways they were made by God.

This leads us to our second point: Paul gives his first reason for view:

2. Justification #1: Creation Demands It

7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Paul justifies his exhortation to the Corinthians by looking back at creation again. He has already done so in verse three in stating the proper order of creation but now Paul expounds on that order in verses seven through 10. Notice two statements in verse seven and 10 are the proper commands in verse seven it deals with man and what he should not do in verse 10 it is a parallel statement to what woman should do. Versus a non-then structurally are the proof or justification of these pastor all commands.

First, Paul says that man should not cover his head because in creation, God made man. The glory of God while woman is the glory of man. God first created man in his own image, and therefore man was created to honor God, according to the roles and functions that he gave men. As a man leads in this world with the authority given to him by God, he brings honor and glory to God in his proper leader ship. If he abdicates that leadership or he leads in an improper way, from how God designed him to lead, then man dishonors God.

Adam disgraced himself in the lord, when he did not protect Eve from the temptation of Satan. The absence of Adam, in that scenario is a telling reminder of Adam's fall into sin and his failure to lead his family well. Secondly, Adam disgrace the Lord when he blamed the Lord for the actions of his life, instead of taking responsibility for his failures as the leader.

Therefore, it dishonors the Lord for husbands to submit to the wife as the head of the home. It is honors the Lord for men to be cowardly and act lazily, and their lives. Men are called to lead, protect, provide, and work hard in this world because God equipped them to do so and it is for their good that they carry out that function.

Secondly, Paul, here states that women are the glory of men which means that women were created in such a way that they would honor men as they fulfilled their own function. As we read back in the Genesis account, God brought women into the world because there was "no suitable helper sound for men.” What this means is that women serve such a key function in God's design that men reach the pinnacle of fulfilling God's design with the partnership of the woman fulfilling her role. If a woman is submissive, she honors the man in a way that brings glory to the Lord. If she seeks to usrup the authority of the man, she actually defies God himself and his good design. But when their is proper function of roles, there is unity and successes in the relationship. This, of course, is most clearly seen in the confines of marriage, where a man, man and woman work together in conjunction with God's good design, bringing about the glory of God in this world.

Paul then moves to tackle an objection:

3. Clarification: Men and Women are Equally Valued and Necessary

11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Paul knows that he might have step on some toes in his previous statement so he tries to preclude any arguments and he wants to clarify his statement. Paul does not mean that woman is not made for the glory of God. He simply is trying to state that as she seeks to be the submissive helper to the man, she honors the man. Converse 11 and 12, pulled in reminds the Corinthians that neither man nor woman work independently of the other. Instead they both need one another, and are this both valuable to the Lord equally God has not created man as inferior to women or women as inferior to men. Instead, they are both equal image, bearers with value and worth, and the way in which God brought the human race, both men and women are needed and important to God's plan. Procreation is a great example because both parties are necessary for procreation to happen. Each role is different in the process and they God uses both to bring about human life.

1 Peter 3:7 NASB95

7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Peter tells the church that husbands are to live with their wives in understanding way. He notes that they are created with a biological difference as the weaker vessel and yet he acknowledges that they are to be honored as a fellow heir of the grace of life. This is a beautiful verse to show the equality and worse that men and women share equally before God, even though God created their physiology different and gave them different functions. He even acknowledges that if the men dishonors his wife, it would lead to a broken fellowship with the Lord himself as his prayers would be hindered. This shows the seriousness of the respect of God's good order and design, and for men and women to carry out that function obediently as he planned.

4. Justification #2: Nature Reflects it

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

Paul concludes his argument in verses, 13 through 16 with a final reason or justification; observable nature. Paul states that either nature itself, the natural order of things show the distinction of men and women. Paul uses the same word, nature here that he uses in Romans chapter 1 in his condemnation of homosexuality. Paul is acknowledging that was God ordained in creation is carried out in observable nature. God did not design men to marry other men, or to be intimate with them. That not only goes against God's design, but it naturally does it work either.

Romans 1:26–27 NASB95

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

In the same way, Paul says that nature itself shows a distinction of men and women and he uses their hair as an example. Men don’t naturally have long hair and women naturally don’t wear their hair short. We could take Paul's argument a step further, and say, the human body reflects a distinction of male and female. On the cellular level, on the reproductive level, on the hormonal level, on the muscular and skeletal level. The current LGBTQ movement goes to great links to mutilate the body just to conform it in such a way that goes against gods creation. What they have failed to do is re-create the human body to function the way it is designed. In other words, women who want to be men, desire, and attempt to create functioning male organs, only to fail miserably at it and submit themselves to a lifetime of suffering. Men dressed as women want to have children only to fail at having the correct biology to do so.

To conclude, then Paul warns that the church of Corinth deal with those contentious against such a practice. This head coverings as a sign of a women's acceptance to her God ordained roles was the only practice of the churches of that day. There was “no other practice.”

The question then remains how do we apply this today to the church. Are veils necessary in this day to show submission and acceptance of women’s roles? I think the principle is necessary wihtout the culture context applied to today. We grasped the principle of Christian liberty in chapters 8-10 but the context was different. Paul is not mandating women wearing head coverings, although you are free to wear them if you life. American culture does not mandate that practice as some other cultures around the world might. But ladies, if you went to serve in the Middle East, it would be recommended in the church because it is traditional in that culture.

What is necessary is that men and women accept and practice their God-ordained roles and that they pass on that truth to younger generations. All of this is done in such a way to honor Christ. None of these roles can be respected and done well without the power of the Holy Spirit, so renewal in Christ is the key.

Ephesians 5:22 NASB95

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:25 NASB95

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

Both of these statements are built upon the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the transforming power of his work in your life.