Headship and Honor

Are we being inconsistent by affirming that the Bible is the word of God, inspired down to its every word, even while most of the women gathered here are not wearing head coverings? Many think we're being inconsistent. On one side, you have people like Matthew Vines, who's the author of a book called God and the Gay Christian, and he is an LGBTQ, LGBT activist, and yet claims to affirm the full authority of the Bible. And how does he justify this? You know, when Romans 1, for example, offers such sweeping condemnation of homosexuality, well, he points to 1 Corinthians 11. And he basically argues that this passage and Romans 1 have a lot in common. And if you conservatives aren't going to wear head coverings because you say 1 Corinthians 11 is cultural, why can't I do the same with Romans 1? So he's charging us with inconsistency. On the other side, there's actually a website called The Head Covering Movement, which exists for the express purpose of recovering the lost practice of women wearing head coverings in church. And they're quick to point out that there's a long and extensive history of this practice. And indeed, you find it in the Church Fathers, you find it in the Eastern Church, you find it in the Catholic Church, and you find it among Protestants, including Martin Luther and John Calvin. In fact, the head covering movement features a quote by R.C. Sproul on the front page of their website, which says, the wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the 20th century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the church? So they're concerned that we're capitulating to the culture and failing to recognize that head coverings were intended as an abiding command. And therefore the implication, again, is that we're guilty of hermeneutical inconsistency. Well, I press that point to show that there's a lot more writing on this text than merely whether or not women should wear head coverings. This is the word of God. And our attitude toward this passage will necessarily reflect our attitude toward God's word itself. So if God is telling us to do something, No matter how strange or unpopular it may seem to us, we must be willing to obey. We can't just obey God when it's culturally acceptable. But on the other hand, this passage also presses us to consider the question, how should God's word be interpreted? And how do we distinguish abiding principles from culturally contextual commands? For example, later in this same book, Paul says, greet one another with a holy kiss. And so it's the right application of that for us today in America to try to kiss one another in church. Or do we need to understand that a kiss was the customary family greeting in the first century? And so Paul wants the church to be clear about something about the reality of the church by even masters and slaves welcoming one another in a way analogous to the way that families would do so. So we need to apply that, not by the kiss per se, but by that kind of warm family greeting among all people. Well, in a similar way, I think as we unpack Paul's argument here concerning head coverings, it becomes clear that there are some abiding principles that undergird what Paul is saying, but the head coverings themselves are actually a culturally conditioned application. And contrary to what others may say, I think hermeneutical consistency actually leads us to that conclusion. So, let's dive in. And the first thing I want you to notice is that verse two introduces a whole new section to the letter. As we've seen, 1 Corinthians can be roughly divided into two sections. So chapters one through six, Paul is responding to reports. He's heard about what's going on in the church. And then in chapters 7 through 16, he's responding to a letter that he received from the Corinthians. And in both sections, he's basically just going through one issue after another. The church clearly has a lot of issues. In chapters 1 through 6, he deals with issues of disunity in the church. He deals with issues of sexual morality and lawsuits. In chapter 7, he deals with a couple of issues pertaining to sex, marriage, and singleness. And then in chapters eight through 10, he deals with the issue of food sacrificed to idols. But now in chapters 11 through 14, Paul is gonna deal with some matters pertaining to the corporate gatherings of the church. And there's three main issues here. The first is head coverings, and then there's the Lord's Supper, and then there's the use of spiritual gifts. And here in chapter 11 verse two, Paul introduces that whole section by saying, Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. So even though Paul has a lot of critique coming, he begins with a word of encouragement. I think that's a good example for us. And he's saying that in many ways, the Corinthians were faithfully maintaining their traditions Paul had given them. And by traditions, I think Paul has in mind particularly things pertaining to the church gathering. So it's some sort of liturgy or way in which the church gathers and worships. And by the way, we Protestants are sometimes a little allergic to the word tradition, right? And rightly so to the degree that that would actually take us away from or compromise obeying scripture. But this is a good reminder that maintaining traditions is often good. There's something wonderful about having centuries worth of continuity with other churches in the hymns we sing, the words we confess, and the way we worship. And so we should be cautious about deviating from old paths. And we also shouldn't try to distinguish ourselves from other churches, but wherever possible, we want to display our unity with every other church that preaches the same gospel we do. So tradition is often good. Now, in verses three and following, Paul transitions into his discussion of head coverings. And unfortunately, once again, we only have Paul's response to a situation. So we don't know what exactly the Corinthians were doing or thinking or why. But it sounds like some Corinthian women were removing the customary head covering during worship, particularly while praying or prophesying in church. Now we don't know what that covering was, perhaps some kind of shawl or scarf. But by removing it, they were deviating from the traditions as delivered by Paul. In fact, if you look down to the end in verse 16, you'll see that wearing head coverings was customary in all the churches. Paul says, if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. Now, he's not saying we have no such practice of being contentious. He's saying we have no such practice or custom of removing head coverings, and neither do any other churches. So this was traditional or customary throughout the New Testament churches. But this wasn't just a Christian thing. From what we can gather historically, this was simply common practice in the first century. And I think that makes sense of why this is never mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, because no one ever had to convince new believers that they needed to start wearing head coverings. It only becomes an issue here when the Corinthians start taking them off. Now, of course, we want to know why are they taking them off and what did that symbolize? And scholars have all sorts of ideas based on historical research and they typically come back to something to do with modesty or authority or some combination of both. But there's no clear consensus and the details differ. So rather than trying to reconstruct the historical situation, I just want to concentrate as much as possible on what Paul actually says and how his argument works. And while that may not answer all our questions, I think it will actually provide the greatest confidence and clarity in terms of understanding how this passage should relate to us today. And I think Paul's argument here has three main sections. And it's a little tricky because they're all very intertwined, but I think each section builds on and further explains what went before. And I think the first point Paul is trying to get across, so point one is this, your actions redound to the honor or dishonor of your head. That's verses three through six. Your actions redound to the honor or dishonor of your head. And by head, I don't mean your physical head, but your metaphorical head. And look at how Paul explains this. He says, but I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, right, the metaphorical head. The head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, and he means metaphorical head. But every wife who prays or prophesied with her head uncovered dishonors her metaphorical head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. Now Paul's gonna explain why wearing a head covering would bring honor or dishonor more fully later. But for now, we just need to see that we all have metaphorical heads and our actions either bring honor or dishonor to them. So we need to evaluate our actions in that light. And that's why Paul says in verse three, but I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. He's saying we're all in relationships with a head. So what you do doesn't just affect you. It's not just about your individual honor. It's about honoring your head. Now to be clear, Paul's list here in verse three isn't comprehensive. He's not saying the head of every man is Christ, but the head of a Christian woman isn't Christ. He's just saying that a married woman also has a headship relationship with her husband. Now, what does Paul mean by head? Well, he also uses head metaphorically in Ephesians and Colossians. And there he says that Christ is the head of his body, the church, and that a husband is the head of his wife. And we see there that the term conveys authority because he says wives submit to your own husbands as to the Lord for the husband is head of the wife. But it can also convey source. Colossians 2 19 says that Christ is the head from whom the whole body nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments grows with a growth that is from God. And similarly here in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul's gonna subsequently unpack headship in terms of Adam as the source from which Eve came. But I actually think the best way to sum up what headship is all about, particularly as Paul uses it here, is with the idea of prominence or out-frontness. We often speak of the head of a line, or the head of an organization, who's not just in charge, but he's often the face of that organization. And here, Paul's clearly making the point that the actions of the body redound either to the honor or the dishonor of the head. So just as Christ does everything for the glory and honor of his Father, And just as we as believers should do everything, whether we eat or drink or whatever we do, we should do everything for the glory of Christ. So he's trying to tell these Corinthian women that they need to be mindful to bring honor to their husbands rather than dishonoring them by removing their head coverings. And notice how Paul further explains this in verses five and six. He says, every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. Now Paul's going to return to and further explain this connection between head coverings and hair in verses 13 through 15. But here he's still focused on this idea of honoring your head. So he points to an example that he knows they're going to agree with him is shameful. He's saying, look, you would never shave your hair. Right? You'd be careful to honor your physical head and honor yourself by not shaving your head and or cutting your hair like a man. So why would you remove your head covering and dishonor your husband? Right? If you're going to do that and bring shame on him, why not just be consistent and shave your head as well? And I think an implication of this is that we are often quicker to recognize and more keen to protect our own sense of honor than the honor of others, or specifically the honor of our head. But the reality is our honor is tied to the way we honor our heads. And bringing dishonor to our heads is just as dishonorable as a woman shaving her head. which was probably a sign of being an adulteress or divorcee. So do you think about your honor in independence from or in conjunction with honoring Christ? And wives, do you think of honoring, do you think of your honor in independence from or in conjunction with the way you honor your husband? Because what Paul is saying is we should be even more zealous to bring honor to our head than to ourselves. Now, one other thing to note here is that Paul takes for granted that women are praying and prophesying in the public worship service. The issue is that they're doing so uncovered, not that they're doing so in the first place. Now, we'll talk more about prophecy in a couple of weeks, but for now, I just want to say that basically what prophecy is, is declaring the word of God based on a special revelation of the spirit. It's not the same as preaching or teaching, which 1 Timothy 2 limits to men, but it's at least analogous to reading scripture, because that's simply declaring what God says, which is why we do have women read scripture publicly in our services. And the New Testament elsewhere makes clear that the Spirit did gift women to prophesy. For example, Acts chapter 21 verse 9 mentions that Philip had four daughters who prophesied. And then when Paul mentions praying, I think he probably has in mind voicing public prayers. Perhaps like we do on Wednesday nights when we have our corporate prayer service and both men and women participate and voice prayers publicly. So we're trying to involve women in the ways mentioned here. But the point is, God gifts women and God intends for women to be deeply involved in the life and ministry of the church. And while male headship seems to undergird the rationale for why women are not permitted to be pastors or to preach or teach, male headship evidently doesn't preclude women from praying or prophesying or exercising that kind of public leadership in the church. The issue, though, is that especially when women are leading in that way, I think Paul finds it all the more important to be clear that male headship is being respected. That God's design is being honored and that's probably why he's so concerned about head coverings here. In some way that is actually going against that and bringing dishonor instead of honor. But the overarching point is simply that we need to understand that our actions redound either to the honor or dishonor of our head. In some way, not wearing this head covering would have brought dishonor to a woman's husband. But I think the question that maybe we're asking is, well, then why would a man not wearing a head covering not bring dishonor to Christ? Why is there this difference? Okay, we're supposed to live for the honor of our head, but why the distinction? Well, that brings us to, I think, the second part of the argument, which is this, so point two, men and women honor their heads differently because they were created to fulfill different roles. Men and women honor their heads differently because they were created to fulfill different roles. And this is verses seven through 12. Paul continues, for a man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. Now Paul's clearly reflecting here on the creation account in Genesis. And I think you could really misunderstand him if you think he's saying man is the image and glory of God, but woman's just the glory of man. You know, as if the point were to say that the way that God is ontologically superior to man, well that's the way that man is sort of superior to woman. But we know that Paul doesn't mean that for the following reasons. First, Genesis 1 makes clear that God created both men and women equally in his image. Second, notice that Paul recognizes that because he doesn't say that man was made in the image of God and woman in the image of man. Instead, what he's trying to do is draw a parallel between the way that man is God's glory and woman is the glory of man. Third, it's clear that Paul doesn't think this is a perfect parallel. Because if you look ahead to verses 11 and 12, you'll see that Paul feels the need to qualify what he just said. He says in verse 11, nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman. For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. and all things are from God. So I think what Paul's saying is, look, lest any man begin to think that he's superior to woman, that that's what his headship means, he better remember that he was born of one. And if not for woman, he would not even exist. And I think Paul's saying that God has wisely created this interdependence between us to show us that we need one another, and ultimately we all need God. So male headship has its limits. No man will ever be the head of his wife in exactly the same way that Christ is the head of his people. Now fourth, whatever it means for woman to be man's glory, it's not an insult. You don't say to someone, you are my glory as a way of lowering someone or putting them in their place. You call someone your glory to exalt them and give them the highest praise you can give. It's a way of saying you are my treasure and my very reputation is tied to you. This term glory carries the idea of splendor and radiance. So it's like saying the light is the glory of the sun or the moon is the glory of the night. Right, and this idea of glory is actually very closely associated with the idea of beauty. And of course that's fitting because we all know that women are beautiful in a way that men are not. You know, and women tend to sort of know how to make things beautiful in a way that men don't. So what Paul's saying here is that in a similar way to which God made all creation and he fills it with his glory, And yet he chooses mankind alone on whom to stamp his image that we might reflect and represent him as the very pinnacle of it all. You know, on us, he sets his glory that we would be his glory. Paul's saying in a similar way, woman is that pinnacle of the glory of man. Or perhaps we could even say it like this, in a similar way to which the perfect man, Jesus Christ, whom the author of Hebrews describes as the very brightness of the glory of God. In a similar way, woman is the very brightness of the glory of man. And I think as Paul writes this, he probably has in mind the very first words of man recorded in scripture. When God presents Eve to Adam and he breaks forth in this hymn of praise saying this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called women for she was taken out of man. He glories in her because she is his glory. So the picture of Paul's painting here is man as the head and woman as his glory. And look at how he further supports this in verses 8 and 9. He says, for man was not made from woman, but woman from man. God could have made Eve first, or God could have made Adam and Eve at the same time, but instead God chose to make Adam first, and then he puts Adam to sleep and he makes woman from man's side out of his rib. And Paul's saying that's important. There's an order there, a divinely intended order. Then in verse nine, Paul says, and neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. Right, so not only did God make Adam first, but God put Adam in the garden to tend and keep it. God gave him the command not to eat from the tree, And then God said, it's not good for man to be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him. And so Paul's saying Eve was created for Adam to help him, not the other way around. Now this doesn't mean that Eve is less capable. or that Eve has some fundamentally different purpose than Adam, because both Adam and Eve have the same mandate, right? They're both commanded to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it, and to exercise dominion. And both of them are equally dependent on the other to be able to fulfill that. But what it means is that there's a particular way or order in which that partnership is meant to function. There's a difference in role as to how they're supposed to work together to fulfill the mandate. And Paul's saying Adam is supposed to have a headship, a firstness, a leadership. And he is supposed to cherish Eve as his glory and as his body. And Eve, is supposed to help Adam. She's supposed to support him and enable him and to do so as his glory, bringing honor to him as her head. Now in verses seven and 10, Paul connects all this to head coverings. And he says, a man ought not to cover his head, but a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. And again, I think Paul is going to sort of further connect the dots and explain this in the coming section. But here, the fundamental thing to recognize is that men and women don't bring honor to their heads in exactly the same way because they weren't created to fulfill exactly the same role. Right? There can be things that are honoring for a man that would be shameful for a woman. And there are things that would be honoring for a woman that would be shameful for a man. And that's grounded in the creation order. And evidently, at least in this context, a head covering is an example of that. And it does sound from verse 10 like head coverings had some sort of symbolic significance connected to a husband's headship and authority. So for a wife to remove that was to symbolically reject that headship. and therefore disregard God's created order itself. Now, of course, Paul adds that perplexing little phrase at the end, because of the angels. And I think that's meant to function as an additional reason, so perhaps you could read it, and because of the angels. And it's possible that Paul has in mind human messengers, because the word angel in Greek is actually the same as the word messenger. So Paul could be meaning to just warn the church of how their behavior might scandalize visiting messengers from sister churches, or perhaps even the government was sending messengers to investigate these Christian services, and Paul is concerned about the impression this could give. But I actually lean toward taking it as angels, since Paul does mention angels three other times in 1 Corinthians. And also because when the Bible talks about the goodness of good angels, it often seems to reference their right regard for authority and whatever role or position God has placed them in. And it even talks about how angels veil their faces in the presence of God. So that would seem to be an example that Paul is pointing to in contrast with the evil angels that scripture talks about not staying in their proper position, but actually rebelling against that. Also, we've noted as we've gone that the Corinthian pride. And in chapter 13, Paul mentions speaking in the tongues of angels. So some even think that the Corinthians kind of prided themselves in being angelic, thinking we have these spiritual gifts that make us like the angels, and therefore, we're above these earthly customs, like head coverings and gender distinctions. So Paul may also be hinting here that, look, if you really want to be like the angels, Don't think you're above gender distinctions and you're sort of above whatever position or role God has given you, but embrace the goodness of God's created order just like the angels do. Now, before we move on to the final section in Paul's argument, let's pause for a moment and consider some application of this, particularly in the context of marriage. And husbands, do you treasure your wife as your glory? Verse seven says, woman is the glory of man. So do you love her in the sense of cherishing her as your glory? That's what the Bible says she is. She is to be the very light of your sun, the moon of your night. So how could you treat her that way? How could you speak to her and about her that way? How could you encourage her that you cherish her like that? Also, husbands, are you embracing your responsibility as the head of your home? Or are you just sort of passively disengaged in the spiritual wellbeing of your family, kind of like Adam was when Satan approached Eve? You know, are you the one encouraging and leading the spiritual growth of your wife and your children? Is it you that says, we're gonna make sure everybody's up and ready to go to church in the morning, or do you just leave that to your wife to be responsible for? Is it you that says, let's open up the Bible as a family and study God's word together and pray for one another, or do you just kind of put that on your wife to take charge of? Are you the one that says, how can we as a family make sure our schedule and our priorities are aligned with God's word? Or do you just put that on your wife's shoulders? You see, headship requires taking spiritual responsibility. And remember, when Adam and Eve sinned, even though it was, in one sense, Eve's idea, God comes to Adam first, and God holds him chiefly responsible. Now, wives, how could you bring honor to your husband and encourage his spiritual leadership in your family? How could you be a help meet to him such that the two of you together could be more faithful in fulfilling God's calling on your lives? And remember, when he's falling short, the solution isn't to try to play his role. The solution is to try to fulfill your role so well that you actually encourage him to grow into the man he's called to be. And what exactly that looks like, I would encourage you to talk to other women, especially those who have been married for some time, have those conversations. But just one thing I'll say now, as a leader, I have had a lot of bad ideas. Your husband will have bad ideas sometimes too. And when people I'm trying to lead roll their eyes or make clear that their following is conditional on how things turn out, it's very deflating as a leader. But when someone says, I want to help you, I want to share with you my wisdom and my gifts, I'm going to be with you through this, but I want you to lead. I want you to take the first step and I want you to make these decisions and I'm going to be with you every step of the way. That has an incredible way of inspiring leadership and growth. So just as one practical application, I would consider you to consider how you could be that kind of help meat to your husband. So, so far we've seen number one, we're all in headship relationships and our actions redound either to the honor or dishonor of our head. And then number two, men and women honor their heads differently because they were created to fulfill different roles. And this brings us to point three, These differences include matters of appearance as nature itself teaches. Verses 13 through 16. These differences include matters of appearance as nature itself teaches. Paul says, judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him? But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, for her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. Now I think what Paul's doing here is this. He's just established that there are gender role differences stretching back to creation itself. But even if you agree with that, why should wearing some piece of fabric on your head matter? You know, don't these role differences have to do with the way we act, not the way we look? And I think Paul is saying here, no, actually appearance matters. And he points to an obvious example of this, and something else that has to do with the head, and that's hair. Verse 14, does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? Now I don't think the point here is fundamentally the length of the hair. I think length here is really just a shorthand way of speaking of masculine versus feminine hairstyles. And Paul's just saying look around at the way things naturally are. Across virtually every single culture there is, men and women are always different in the way they wear their hair. Now usually women's hair is longer, but it's always different. And the very same hairstyle that would be glorious and bring glory to a woman would be shameful for a man. And the hairstyle that would be appropriate for a man would actually be shameful for a woman. And so hair is a visible reflection of the gender differences that God created. And Paul's just making the connection and how you dress often is as well. In fact, even to this day, how do you know the difference between a men's bathroom and a woman's bathroom? Well, there's a little symbol on front. And what distinguishes the man from the woman? Well, the length of the hair and an article of clothing. It's just how we see, we tell that the genders are different. And I think Paul's point is that these head coverings are a symbol of femininity that should not be done away with any more than differences in hair. Now interestingly, in verse 15, Paul says that a woman's hair is given to her for a covering. And this has created a lot of confusion because some try to argue that Paul's saying, well, if you have long hair, then you don't need to wear a head covering because your hair is your covering. But the problem with that is that it makes no sense in light of what he said in verse five. Right, so I think what Paul's saying here is that he sees a certain fittingness to the custom of wearing a head covering because a woman's hair is sort of like a covering already. He said that woman is the glory of man, and now he's just said that her hair is her glory. So just as her hair covers her, her head covering, as a symbol of her husband's headship, should cover her hair. And it's not that wearing a head covering is a law, it's that Paul sees this certain fittingness or appropriateness to this custom. So he's telling the Corinthians, this is not a custom you should discontinue. Now there's plenty of times when Christians should make a statement by going against the customs of the day. In fact, as a hypothetical example, some Islamic states have sort of taken this head covering thing to an extreme by requiring women to wear something called a niqab. This is often black, and it just sort of covers everything except the woman's eyes. And I actually think you could point to this passage as a strong reason why that is unbiblical. And it's wrong, because this passage says that woman is the glory of man. and how does this sort of covering woman in this black shroud respect that, right? So there are plenty of customs that we should change, but I think what Paul's saying here is that in the Corinthian context, these head coverings are actually good because they're functioning to actually reinforce God's creation order and symbolize male headship appropriately. Now, in light of all that, what does this mean for us today? You know, does this mean that women in our context should wear head coverings? Or at least when they're praying publicly? And I think the answer is no. And let me give you six reasons why in light of everything we've just gone through. First, we should keep in mind that the Corinthians were moving away from what was customary and thereby making a statement by taking head coverings off. Whereas that's just not the case in our American context. Second, If God meant for head coverings to be a transcultural principle for all times and all ages, why aren't they ever commanded in the Mosaic law or elsewhere in scripture? Because if they're transcultural, then all women everywhere should wear head coverings, at least when they're praying or prophesying publicly. But that's nowhere in the Mosaic law or elsewhere in scripture. And by the way, speaking of hermeneutical consistency, this is one way in which there's one obvious difference between head coverings and that issue of homosexuality we mentioned before. Third, if on the other hand, head coverings are meant to be an ordinance for the new covenant and the church specifically, well, that might explain why they're not commanded in the Old Testament, but that makes no sense of Paul's argument here. Because Paul's whole argument has nothing to do with the new covenant or the gospel. It's based on creation and nature. So it just doesn't make any sense to say, well, head coverings are sort of a church-specific ordinance. Fourth, Paul actually doesn't argue directly from creation to head coverings. He argues directly from creation to say that woman is the glory of man. So head coverings are just a particular application of that, but they themselves are not the principle itself. Fifth, throughout this section, Paul never appeals to a divine command. Instead, he frames everything in terms of what is customary or traditional and challenges the propriety of the Corinthians changing that custom. So there's no sense here that they're violating the law of God. The sense you get is that they're doing something improper and Paul is trying to apply abiding biblical principle to help them see why their particular action is improper in their particular context. And then number six, throughout his argument, Paul assumes that a number of things should be obvious to the Corinthians that simply aren't obvious to us. That's probably why it's hard to interpret. And whenever you have that in the Bible, there's really one of two options. It can signify one of two things. First, we could be lost because we're just out of touch with God and we don't know our Bibles very well. And a lot of times, I think, you know, when people come to things they don't like in scripture, they either just ignore it or they just try to explain it away with, well, that's just cultural. You know, and really the problem is they don't know scripture well enough. And so I think that's also why, you know, we see that in others and we come to a passage like this, we're like, well, I don't wanna be like that. But there's another possibility. You know, sometimes things just aren't obvious to us because it really is a cultural thing. And part of the reason why there's so much diversity among conservative scholars in trying to explain this chapter is because the rest of the Bible just doesn't grant much illumination here. And in this case, I think it's an indication that the head coverings themselves are a cultural norm and not an abiding principle. So I don't think this obligates women to wear head coverings any more than chapter 16 obligates us to greet one another with a holy kiss. But it does obligate us to uphold appropriate distinctions between men and women in dress and appearance, It does obligate us to dress in a modest way. We should not try to draw attention to ourselves in the way we dress or dress in a way that could be distracting to others in worship. It also challenges us to present ourselves in an honorable way. Not seeking to make a statement or claim a certain position for ourselves, but humbly seeking the honor of our head, especially Jesus Christ. Now, if you're here and you feel conscientiously convicted that you should wear a head covering, I also want to affirm that you're certainly welcome to. As we saw in chapters eight through 10 in matters of conscience, obey your conscience and know that if you choose to wear a head covering in an effort to honor Christ and honor your husband, it's godly and right. On the other hand, if you're convinced you don't need to wear a head covering and you see someone else who is, don't think how strange, how legalistic. Don't assume, well, she must be judging me. But rather, praise God that this sister desires to honor Christ in the way she presents herself. Let that encourage you. Now, finally, as we close, I do want to consider what does all this have to do with the gospel? Because as I already mentioned, Paul really doesn't directly mention that here. Well, if you're here today and you're not a believer, I hope you see in all this how seriously we take the Bible. We believe that the Bible is the word of God. and that every word of it is inspired by him. So we don't want to just turn a blind eye to things that are hard to understand or don't sit well with us. As Augustine said, if you believe what you like in the Bible, and you disbelieve what you like, it's not the Bible you believe, but yourself. So we want to submit ourselves to God's word. But at the same time, we believe that rightly interpreting the Bible takes effort. It takes work. We need to be students of the word to really wrestle to understand it rightly. And we believe that as we do that often, even things that at first seem sort of strange to us, we actually come to appreciate how good and right and beautiful God's truth really is. And I hope you see that to some extent today as we've talked about relationships between men and women and marriage. But but I just want to tell you that the place we see that the most clearly of all is in Jesus Christ. You know, earlier in first Corinthians, Paul says the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. And friends, at first glance, what could be more foolish than a man who claimed to be God hanging naked, tortured and dying on a cross? You know, what could be more offensive to us than the claim that, by the way, and that man hanging naked, suffering on that cross, you deserve that. He did that for you because that's what you deserve. Friends, that offends our sensibilities. That seems like utter folly. And yet, when you submit yourself to God's word and you really come to understand what God was saying all along, and you begin to realize that God is right about what our sin deserves and that that really is how sinful I am. And I really do need a savior. And yet that this God who is so high and holy, he condescended and he lowered himself to suffer and die on the cross. Then you begin to see the true glory and power and love and grace of God displayed through Christ on the cross. And you see that Christ died so that sinners like us, just by coming to him in repentance and faith, can be freely forgiven and saved. There's a wonderful beauty. And we see that in this apparent folly, the very wisdom of God shines forth. And not only that, but we begin to see that Christ is at the center of it all. That he is at the center of God's word, that he is at the center of the way God designed everything in life. And so even as we talk about something like head coverings, we talk about something like the roles of men and women, you begin to appreciate that even that is really about Christ. Because God, even from the beginning, the whole reason He made men and women different, the whole reason He designed marriage in the first place, was so that through that relationship and so that through our differences, we might come together and be like a living picture of the relationship of Christ and His Bride, the Church. And so we see that even in honoring something like headship in human relationships. It's really all about honoring Christ. And it's about displaying his glory because he who sacrificed for our salvation is worthy of our honor. So may God give us grace to do so. Amen. Let's pray.