" and that's right. They were the initial
recipients of it. Does that mean, then, that it was exclusively for them?
Does that mean that what was enjoined upon them is not binding upon us? Have
the teachings of the epistles been generally understood in that way? Among
Christian people, is the Bible usually viewed as "out of date"? No! The
Bible has been studied and applied because it is believed to be relevant for
today.

If 1 Corinthians was intended only for the Corinthians, then we might as
well close our doors and go out of business. A very few would take so
radical a stand as that. The continued observance of the communion ordinance
is evidence of the widespread conviction that not the Corinthians only, but
we, too, are being addressed in this epistle. But, as was pointed out
earlier, it's unfortunate that, in that larger group, there are those who,
at certain points, draw back from that position in order to escape the
reproach of Christ. And so you have this practice of teaching one part of
the chapter, but not the part of the chapter that might make you unpopular.

In answer to this question, there are yet other lines of evidence that ought
to be looked at. The book of Revelation, in chapters 2 and 3, records
individual messages sent by the ascended Christ to seven churches. At the
conclusion of each of those letters, this familiar refrain is repeated: "He
that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches" -
plural. Each of those letters, in addition to being for one particular
church, was to be heeded also by all the churches. "Let him hear what the
Spirit sayeth unto the churches". And so it is, too, with the Corinthian
epistle. It's for us, too, even though it was for them initially.

To further reinforce this fact, let's go to the very beginning of this
epistle, 1 Corinthians chapter 1, and listen to verses 1 and 2 for a
possible clue to this answer, for a possible answer to the question: " (1)
Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and
Sosthenes our brother, (2) unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to
them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that
in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." There you have
it again. The writer, God's chosen servant, declares himself that he's
addressing not only the Corinthians, but also ALL that in EVERY place call
upon the Lord.

There is, however, still more that ought to be added to this answer.
Remember the question is: "To whom is this command addressed?"

Was this portion of the letter for sisters only? They very much are in focus
here. It surely relates to them. But, are they being addressed directly, or
indirectly? Well, back again in chapter 11, I find in verses 2 and 3 a clue
to that answer. "Now I praise you, BRETHREN, that YE remember me in all
things and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to YOU. But I would have
YOU know that the head of every man is Christ" and so on. Let's not overlook
this! Obviously, brethren are to be in charge - both in the church and in
the home. It's their responsibility to teach God's headship order, and to
see that that order is maintained. Even though it may have been the
Corinthian women who were pushing at the fence, God viewed it as a problem
that rested on the shoulders of the brethren -- fathers, husbands, church
leaders. I, myself, very much need to face up to this fact. And so do you,
brethren. When wrong trends appear in covering styles or covering sizes,
brethren, let's not blame one another. Let's work TOGETHER at correcting the
problem, for this is addressed to US. Let's be willing to admit that an
irregularity in relation to the headcovering is seldom a sister's problem
only. It usually involves more than just the sister.

I think we're ready now to move to another question. That question, number
2, is this: "With what is this practice associated?"

Some persons make much of the fact that, among the women of that day, this
was the then-existing practice. And they immediately jump to the conclusion
that on that basis it's not obligatory today. But that line of reasoning
ignores completely verse 3 and the obvious link between verse 3 and all that
follows, for I am of the opinion that verse 3 is the KEY to the whole
passage. Notice now again how verse 3 brings into focus something far more
authoritative than a local practice: "I would have you know that the head of
every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of
Christ is God."

God wants it to be known that there is a divinely established arrangement
for working relations within the divine human economy. This is otherwise
known as God's headship order. Better than anyone else, God knows that in
every sphere of life there needs to be leadership and respect for
leadership. God wants this fact known. He wants it known that on the human
level God has assigned that leadership to the man. "I would have you know
that the head of the woman is the man." God wants that fact KNOWN. Wherever
a church or a family departs from this arrangement, it steps outside of the
will of God, and it exchanges the best arrangement for an inferior
arrangement. which will inevitably lead to confusion.

We have now our answer to question number 2: "With what is this practice
associated?" It's associated with God's permanently existing headship order.
Those verses that I read, verses 4-6, follow immediately upon the disclosure
of this headship arrangement. Those verses 4-6 outline the God-prescribed
way of preserving an awareness of this God-established headship order. The
fact that the women of that day and place veiled their heads is to their
credit, but it's simply an incidental factor. It's by no means the
foundation on which this teaching is built.

Incidentally, for the Jewish men of that day, the embracing of Christianity
did require breaking their custom. It may not have required a breaking of
their custom on the part of the women, but on the part of the Jewish men
they had to discontinue what they had been doing. So, please don't allow
anyone to ever convince you that this passage is merely a call to fit in
with their culture.

I'm moving now to question number 3: "But doesn't this practice destroy the
woman's equality with man in Christ? Doesn't it do that?"

It is true that, more than anything else, Christianity elevated the status
of womanhood. In Christ, the Christian woman stands before God on a footing
equal to that of man. That is the input of a verse like Galatians 3:28, in
which it is declared that "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all
one in Christ Jesus."

In relation to salvation, man and woman are equal. It may be, however, that
in Corinth especially, this newfound liberty may have been interpreted too
broadly. So broadly as to obliterate the headship order. Perhaps it's in
order to correct any such thinking that Paul is led to include in this
passage evidence of the fact that the headship arrangement dates back, not
only to the fall, but beyond the fall. It dates back to the time of the
creation. That shows that it was meant to be a permanently existing thing in
the earthly order.

Verses 8 and 9 speak to that point. Let's listen now to verse 8: "For the
man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." That speaks of man's
priority in the sequence of creation. The fact that man was created first
was not simply incidental, that was by divine design. Now verse 9: "Neither
was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." This brings
into focus the Creator's purpose. Eve was created for the purpose of being
Adam's helper.

Now, the evident purpose for the inclusion of these facts is to emphasize
that redemption does not cancel out headship. Headship remains intact in the
reckoning of God. And so, the answer to our question is "NO", this practice
does NOT destroy woman's equality with man in Christ. In the reckoning of
God, man's continuing to function as the administrative head of the race is
altogether compatible with woman's spiritual equality with the man in
matters pertaining to Christian experience. Both concepts need to be
promoted. There is no conflict between them. The man and the woman are equal
in spiritual privilege, but they are not equal in authority.

Now, let's recall again the text: "Let her be covered." That is God's
decree.

All right, let who be covered? That is question number 4. "Who is to be
covered?" If this is for Mennonites only, as some wrongly suppose, then it
ought to read "let every Mennonite sister be covered." But the text has in
it no such limitation. This is not a denominational teaching. This is a
Bible teaching.

Already in verse 3 we are being prepared to think in a much broader scope,
for there, where the principle is in focus, it is stated that the head of
EVERY man is Christ. No exception is made. Christ is the authority figure
for every man, whether or not he obeys Him, Christ is his head. And, by
the same token, man remains woman's God-appointed head, whether or not she
submits. And then when we come to the application, verses 4-6, again it's
EVERY woman and EVERY man, indicating the widest possible application,
conveying the idea that this practice is intended to be universal. There's
also no reference here to marriage, which eliminates the idea that this is
applicable only to women who are married. You may sometime be confronted
with that idea. Really, the headship of man over woman is an aspect of
God's government in this world. And, as such, it is not limited only to life
in the Kingdom of God. But, since judgment begins at the house of God, Paul
is here singling out an instance that would constitute a violation in the
context of church life.

I'm driven to the conclusion that EVERY woman who wants to take her
God-assigned place under man is duty-bound to signify that purpose of heart
by being covered. "Who is to be covered?" SHE is to be covered -- the woman
who recognizes and submits to her God-ordained place in God's arrangement.

Growing out of this is a fifth question: "With what shall she be covered?"

An increasing number of voices are responding to this question with this
easy answer: "With her hair. Let her be covered with her hair." But this
answer simply cannot survive close scrutiny. To begin with, at the time of
this writing [of 1 Corinthians 11] there was practically no need in
Christian circles for a plea to retain the hair covering. Long hair had been
the long-accepted practice, and to my knowledge was not even being
challenged.

Furthermore, those who claim that this passage has in view no other covering
but the hair are knowingly discrediting about 1900 years of Christian
practice and Biblical scholarship. For that long of time, the wearing of an
additional covering was taught and practiced on a very wide scope. Those
who argue for the hair only are thereby implying that in respect to this
issue the Christian church started out wrong and has been wrong for most of
her history. I'm not ready to believe that.

Verse 15 does speak of long hair as "A" covering, nature's covering, but
it's not "THE" covering called for in verses 5-6. And that conclusion is
substantiated by the fact that, in the Greek, the word for covering in
verses 5-6 is not the same word as is used in verse 15. And this difference
comes to light in a number of the more reliable modern versions. They
actually use the term "veil" in verses 5-6.

But a careful reading of verse 6, even in the King James Version, should
convince anyone that another covering beside the hair is in view. Let's
right now take a moment to look at that verse. Verse 6: "For if the woman be
not covered". Let's stop right there. If, as some claim, the hair is the
only covering in view, than this clause would envision a woman whose hair
has been removed, right? "For if the woman be not covered." That envisions a
case where the hair has been removed, if the hair is the covering called
for. Now, look at the next clause: "Let her also be shorn." Now you have a
problem on your hands, for how can you remove something that has already
been removed? How can there be two successive removals of the same thing?
What the statement really means is this: a woman ought to wear both the hair
covering and the sign covering, or none at all. If she refuses to be veiled,
she deserves a second mark of disgrace: that of being shorn.

And here is a still further consideration: If the only covering in view is
the hair, the Christian man would need to remove his hair in order to comply
with God's will.

Now remember the question was "With what shall she be covered?" Here are
possible ways of stating the simple answer. She is to voluntarily cover her
head with a material covering. It ought to be distinguishable from
protection coverings. It ought to be identifiable as one that carries
religious significance. To think of it only as a symbol allows for it to
become too small. The terminology employed here requires that it be also a
covering, that which "covers". Although it is a symbol, it must be a symbol
that covers.

And now I raise question number 6: "When is she to be covered?" And in
response to this, I can imagine someone saying, "Well that's an easy one,
your answer's right there in the text. 'Every woman that prayeth or
prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head'. There's your
answer - she's to be covered when she prays or prophesies." As far as it
goes that's an acceptable answer, but I don't think the evidence is
conclusive that this practice is to be limited to such times. That would
reduce it to a "devotional covering" or a "worship covering", when actually
the larger context supports the view that it's primarily a "headship
covering". And, since the headship of man extends to all of life, and since
the world so much needs the awareness that the covering creates, isn't it
logical to conclude that the wearing of the covering should be constant?

But why does Paul single out times of praying and prophesying? That is a
valid question. Although we can't know for sure, it may be that those were
the occasions when the Corinthian women were beginning to think that they
would be justified in throwing off their veil in the name of their newfound
Christian liberty. I'm simply suggesting that Paul might have received
reports of violations occurring at such times. If so, that would explain why
he would name these specific times.

Students of the Greek language have pointed out that the words of my text,
"Let her be covered," are in the present active imperative form, so that, by
grammatical structure, it really means "let her continue to be covered."

In relation to this question, I would conclude with these remarks. The
veiled head does not necessarily signify that "here is a soul that is
presently praying or prophesying." Rather, it signifies that "here is a
woman who seeks to honor God in all of life." So, it's not really a prayer
veiling, but a woman's veiling, worn to show that the wearer is in God's
order. Let's think of it in those terms. Not a "devotional covering". Not a
"worship covering". But a "woman's covering". A "headship covering". That, I
think, is the main thrust of the passage as a whole.

Again, let's call attention to our text: "Let her be covered."

One more question: "Why?"

Well, I hope that some answers have already gotten through to you. To all
that, I would add this: Wear the headcovering because you know God wants you
to! I cannot supply you with a more valid reason for the performance of any
deed than simply to know that God wants you to do it. Can you? Can you think
of a more valid reason to motivate any action? For every pliable saint,
what God has written right here should be enough to settle the matter.

It is here made apparent that God wants to preserve an awareness of His
divinely established order. That is urgently needed in today's society.
Furthermore, he wants YOU to have a part in that, not only the sisters, but
also the brethren. He wants both Christian men and Christian women to give
visible evidence of their pledge to abide by that order. For the man, that
visible witness is given by the non-wearing of a religiously significant
covering. For the woman that witness is given by the wearing of a
religiously significant covering. The God-supplied long hair will not
suffice for this because it is not a personally supplied witness. It doesn't
necessarily reflect a personal endorsement of God's arrangement. It doesn't
convey the clear signal that "I'm voluntarily submitting to man's
leadership." The humanly supplied covering should be worn to convey that
signal. To all who see it, it proclaims this message: "I will not attempt to
dominate, I will not attempt to manipulate my head. I submit to God's plan."

Now, to all of this, the response of the critic might be: "So what? There is
no salvation in it!" That is as much beside the point as to say that
there's no salvation in baptism or in any other of the ordinances. We don't
keep the ordinances to become saved, rather being saved we gladly keep those
commandments. "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that
loveth me."

It's very obvious that some portions of this passage have not been touched
on in this message. Perhaps they can be touched on some other occasion.

Before I close, I wish to add some remarks bearing on the more practical
side of this practice. We as church leaders try to monitor changes in
covering styles and covering sizes, but changes can be made so gradually
that we may not always be abreast of what is happening. Little by little,
you can make your covering smaller and smaller, and you may suppose that no
one else notices it, but God knows it, and you know it, and very likely more
people take notice of that than you realize. You may never know. If you take
that course, you may never know how many other sisters are influenced to do
likewise. Now you may take that course if you choose, but that will not
build the kind of church life that I think you want. It will not build the
kind of church life that you want for your children.

I'm glad for the healthy signs among us. It's a healthy sign when daughters
appear with coverings as large as their mother's. That's something to
rejoice over and thank God for. Really, anything less than that will lead
in the wrong direction. If, in successive generations, the daughter's
covering every time is just a little smaller than the mother's, it will only
be a few generations until the covering is lost. I don't think you want that
to happen here, so I plead with you to help to keep it from happening.

Shall we come before the Lord in prayer?