a chapter of scripture that you all know everybody agrees on and thinks the same thing on, and it's not gonna cause any problems or concerns at all. So 1 Corinthians chapter 11. It can be found on page 958 of the Pew Bibles. So I wanna say if after the service or later in the week, you would wanna talk more about 1 Corinthians 11, I'm available and willing to talk about it. Obviously, I won't be trying to present everything that I think about 1 Corinthians 11, but rather what is Paul's burden? How does he reason for it? And then what does that mean for us? So before I read, would you please join me in seeking the Lord's blessing in prayer? Lord, your word is good, makes the simple wise. It is sweet, something we should desire. It is more precious than gold. As we heard this morning in Sunday school, it is a treasure, something to be valued. And so thank you, Lord, that you have provided this time, this day out of seven to hear the word preached. I pray, Lord, that you would bless us with your spirit so as to be able to hear and understand. Would you allow this time, Lord, to be profitable for us? Would you give us ears to hear the voice of our good shepherd? I pray this in Jesus' name, amen. 1 Corinthians chapter 11, I'm gonna read starting at verse one. And reading to verse 16, please give your attention to God's word. Be imitators of me as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me and everything and maintain the traditions even as I deliver them to you. 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. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. 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. For a man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of man, 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. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman, For as woman was made for man, so man is now born of woman, and all things are from God. 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? 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." Well, I want to start this sermon in a couple of different ways. One, I would like to start it the way John started the sermon last Lord's Day. He had us all recite the first question to the Shredder Catechism and then noted that 1 Corinthians 10 verse 31 is one of the proof texts that the assembly used for the catechism. 1 Corinthians 11 is used in our confession And it is a proof text used for circumstances of worship. Here is chapter one, paragraph six in our confession. There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. So again, circumstances within worship are contrasted to elements. These are things that you cannot have a proper worship service without this, without prayer, without the preaching and reading of God's word. Here in the first chapter of the confession, what is being focused on is circumstances. These are things that are informed by what is common to the society or the groups that you are around, things that are arrived at by Christian prudence or the light of nature. But 1 Corinthians 11 is not used as a proof text in the Confessions chapter on marriage or the Confessions chapter on religious worship, but it is used as a proof text for circumstances of worship. The second thing that I want to do in the beginning of the sermon is emphasize continuity with the rest of the letter, particularly chapters 8 through 10, but for the whole letter as a whole. There are certainly things that we just read that could make it seem as if Paul is getting ready to go into a different direction. He's talking about matters in worship. He's focusing on the differences between male and female. He's even given a word of commendation to the Corinthian Christians, which is a bit of a change. So why, even with these different topics in view, do I want to say that we want to understand chapter 11 as Paul hammering the same nail that he's been doing the whole letter so far? Paul's aim is unity. And it is a unity that is practiced where there is no contention or fighting involved. I'm going to read verse 16. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, We know that the Corinthian church is inclined to be contentious. If anyone is inclined to fight about things, to argue, to cause division, to quarrel, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. And so as we, you know, we start at verse one, we know that what Paul is reaching for in verse 16 is something that will bring an end to contentions. His aim is Unity, unity is that practice that all the churches of God must do. And so I'd like to give certain verses that I think highlight that central concern, that one nail of bringing a divided contentious church into a unified whole. This is from chapter one, verses 10 through 11. I appeal to you brothers by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree that there be no divisions among you. but that you be united in the same mind, in the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers." Again, listen to his emphasis on being of the same mind, the same judgment. He wants unity. Chapter three, verses two to three. "'I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? Again, Paul identifying that there is jealousy and strife. And now here's a few verses from that immediate context of eight through 10. But take care that this right of yours, the right referring to, of course we can eat idle meat, does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. And so by your knowledge, this weak person is destroyed, the brother from whom Christ died. Thus sinning against your brothers, wounding their conscience, when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. It's chapter 9, nevertheless, we have not made use of this right. Remember chapter 9, Paul goes through all of the rights that he can make use of as an apostle, but he hasn't made use of any of them for the benefit of the church. We endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel that I may share with them in its blessing. And from chapter 10, let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of the many that they may be saved. The Corinthian church is a collective. They are a group, but they are a group of individuals who do not base their actions or ethics based on what will build. What will build up my brother and sister? What will strengthen this recent convert out of paganism? They are not making their ethical choices based off of what will protect the unity and purity of the church. You remember earlier in the letter, Paul says, listen, you guys are celebrating this man who has taken his father's wife. Don't you know that's affecting the whole lump? His individual actions that you guys are boasting about is affecting everyone. They are not making actions that build up or that win, win others to Christ, win those outside of the church to want to know the Lord Jesus. In making decisions, they are basing it off of their individual understanding of wisdom, knowledge, and freedoms. And as a result, they are being contentious. They are straying from the practice of Christ's church. This is not the way of Christ, and this is not the way of their Apostle Paul. And this is why I think the bridge between chapter 10 and 11 is very important. Be imitators of me as I am of Christ. which means whatever we understand to be the teaching in chapter 11, there has to be some sort of pattern or some demonstration that we see in the life of Paul and in the life of Christ that can be practiced, that can be imitated. For there to be this bridge of a charge to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ and then to proceed to say something that would prevent imitation does not make sense. We wanna focus that, as we're going into chapter 11, we don't wanna lose that leading up to this, Paul has made this emphasis that your individual actions, or even what you might perceive to be a right or freedom of yours, must not be an obstacle for the gospel, must not do damage to your brother or sister, and must not put unnecessary barriers in the way of the gospel. The first part of chapter 11 that I want to look at with you is Paul's analogy in verse 3. 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. I wanna make some quick and important points about verse three, and then show how it goes with Paul's argument. The first quick point is I agree with the ESV translators here, and it's also present in other English translations, that Paul is talking to wives. He has the language of male and female. We get it in Galatians three, that in Christ there is neither male or female, but here this isn't the word words that he uses, I think he is after specifically the husband and wife relationship. And so I think the three relationships that are being presented in verse three would be that Christ is the head of man, which I understand to be every Christian, whether it be male or female, Christ is your head. And then it moves to a wife, a Christian wife, whose head is her husband. and then Christ, his head is God. The relationships are not to demonstrate inferiority or superiority, but rather I wanna say that these relationships communicate distinction within a union. I'm gonna say that again, distinction within a union. Or to put it another way, he is not trying to give pictures of a submission that is built in, but rather voluntary submission. The reason why this is very important is that we would diminish the divinity and character of the Eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, if we are to say that what is essential to the Eternal Son is submission to the Father. This would mean that in the Godhead, outside of space, time, and redemption, there is an undivided will. This is not Trinitarian orthodoxy. What Paul is doing here, I think quite intentionally, by naming Christ, he is highlighting both the divinity and the humanity of the Son. How is it that there is a bit of a ranking here with Christ and God? Well, Christ assumes human nature. So again, there is a perfect shared essence of will and power within the Godhead. And within that unified will, in essence, the second person of the Trinity voluntarily took on flesh to accomplish our redemption. Here's Calvin. God then occupies the first place. Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, For apart from this being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal." Again, Calvin is saying that outside of space, time, or the history of redemption, in the essential Trinity, there is a shared will and power that is not different among the persons of the Trinity. But then Calvin goes on. But let us bear it in mind that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father inasmuch as he assumed our nature that he might be firstborn among many brethren. These three relationships feature unity. A wife and her husband are united. They are one flesh. Every Christian is united to Christ and there is a union that the son has with the father and with the spirit. And yet each one of these relationships, excuse me, features a distinct or differentiated service. And Paul's concern is that the differentiated service of men in the congregation who are praying and prophesying, or wives in the congregation who are praying and prophesying, is bringing disgrace and dishonor on their head. This is verses four through five. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. It is the same as if her head were shaven." Again, notice here that Paul isn't zeroing in on authority or submission, but rather honor and dishonor. He gives examples of a specific action and an attire that would either honor their head or dishonor their head. And we know that the actions of Christ always honors the Father. And it's not just that what Jesus, his teaching or his miracles that brings honor to the Lord, but Christ honors the Father in a sexed body. That is, the God-man is that, truly man. It is with a sexed body in which Christ offers his distinct particular service as our mediator, and that always brings honor to the Father. However, it's not the case then that every Christian always, by their actions and choices, brings honor to Christ. Or that a Christian wife, by her actions and ethics, always brings honor to her husband. In fact, I think there's a reason why we have Proverbs 12.4. What does Proverbs 12.4 say? An excellent wife is a crown, but a wife who shames her husband. is like rottenness in his bones. What is Proverbs 12, 4 saying? In this union of man and wife, there is distinct actions that can reflect negatively on your head. And so if there is a woman, a wife, excuse me, whose actions or ethics brings shame to her husband, for him it is like rottenness in his bones. Again, what I'm really trying to... I guess kind of pin into our minds here, is that the distinct act or service of one individual is negatively impacting a union that they participated. Just that fact alone, we see that over and over again in Corinthians. Let's think about some of the problems in the Corinthian church with that kind of grid of the individual action affecting a larger union that they participated. Again, I mentioned earlier that when that man is taking his father's wife, what does Paul say? He doesn't say this is just an individual gross thing on the side. But no, this action and your response to it ruins the whole lump. He needs to be put out because he is connected to you. When he's talking about idle meat, he doesn't just say idle meat is terrible, why would you do it, don't eat it, but rather your distinct action of eating idle meat, which you believe you are free and have a right to do, would bring destruction to those who Christ died for. When someone is utilizing their rights or freedoms to bring a brother to court, What does Paul say? The fact that two brothers of the same church are battling out in a court of law shows that the entire church is defeated. Again, all throughout the Corinthian letter, we see that this individual action or service or right or freedom can ruin a union that someone participates in, bring dishonor where there should be honor. I'm using the language of distinct service because I think this is what the Apostle Paul uses, particularly in verse Four, so every man who prays or prophesies, every wife who prays or prophesies, there is a distinct activity, praying and prophesying, with a distinct attire or the lack thereof. The distinct attire of some sort of head covering or the lack thereof. when John Chrysostom read this text to his congregation in the fourth century. I'm reading this because here's one of our earlier interpreters. As soon as he reads about praying and prophesying, what does he say to the congregation that he's preaching to? For there were, as I said, both men who prophesied and women who had this gift at that time. You guys hear how Christosthenes is not only zoning in that this is a particular activity of praying and prophesying, but makes this something particular to the ancient church. Both men and women at this time were prophesying as the daughters of Philip. Acts 21 verse 9, as others before them and after them concerning whom also the prophets spoke of old, Your sons shall prophesy and your daughters shall see visions. I'm following in this line of interpretation that this praying and prophesying is not something practiced today. But Paul's instructions are about a very public practice, a gift that belongs to the ancient church. This is usually called a cessationist position. That is that today, because we have complete Bibles and ongoing revelation has ceased, we do not have someone coming up before us all under the inspiration of the Spirit to speak a word of wisdom, correction, reproof. We have the Scriptures, and so it is a minister who pronounces that. But the Pauline churches did not have a complete Bible. They have maybe the Old Testament, a gospel or two, a letter or two from Paul, And so the Spirit gave men and women, at this time, words of wisdom, knowledge, and exhortation to give to the assembly. Chapter 12, the Spirit gives to some the gift of prophecy. Chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians, Paul calls prophecy a gift and then proceeds to say that this prophetic gift is worthless if it is not practiced in love. In chapter 14, Paul urges the entire congregation to seek the gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. He makes this contrast with tongues, that tongues is a language that not everyone would be able to understand. But if you were to all have the gift of prophecy, it would be clear, intelligible words communicated to the assembly by the Spirit for the benefit of the church. This would be a public act. And when one is prophesying, they should have the assembly's attention. Again, I'm going to read from 1 Corinthians 14. Here is Paul's instructions. Two or three prophets should speak. Again, Paul is assuming there's going to be at least two or three prophets who have a word. The others should weigh carefully what is said. Well, you can't weigh carefully what someone has said unless now everyone is paying attention to listen to what that prophet or what that person who is practicing the gift of prophecy is saying. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirit of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets. For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the congregations of the Lord's people." Again, if I could note, for God is not a God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the congregations of the Lord's people. This goes back to verse 16. Remember, the practice of all the churches is not contentiousness, but unity, or shalom. There is peace in all the congregation of the Lord's people. Why give that attention to that specific activity of praying and prophesying? And I'm understanding those together, not picking one over the other. And the specific attire, a man who would be wrongly, if this is what Paul is saying, covered, or a woman or wife, excuse me, who does not have a head covering, why am I trying to focus on that? Because again, Paul is not saying that there are women teaching or being pastors in the church. If that was the case, 1 Corinthians 11 would be condemning that activity. We will get in the same letter, women should not teach, but should learn in silence. And if they have questions, ask their husbands at home, right? So if this distinct gift of prophecy, it would be synonymous with teaching, It would make no sense for Paul to give specific instructions about how wives may exercise this gift, and then towards the end, just tell them not to talk at all. So I want to say that this is something distinct. And the issue that Paul takes is not that there are wives praying and prophesying, but they are doing it in a way that dishonors their head by not wearing a covering. It is a disrupting piece rather than ensuring it. This gets us to verse seven, verse seven. 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." What does Eve and Adam have to do with any of this? This is my understanding. Eve's difference, that is her sexual and biological difference, was not to be used in a way that would dishonor her head, Adam. Eve is not independent of Adam. And so Paul says to these praying and prophesying wives, your spiritual gift cannot be practiced in a way that would violate or bring confusion to the meaningful distinctions of sex. All that Eve gave to Adam and gave to mankind, she did certainly by the power of the spirit, but as a woman. Her usefulness, her spiritual gift was not to be practiced at the expense of her distinct sex. Eve's difference and distinction enables Adam to be what God calls Adam to be. This is how I understand that Eve is Adam's glory. I don't take glory to mean like, you know, she was like a trophy wife, you know, like, yeah, look who I'm with. I think it's more so, to use the Greek, it's telos. Adam was given a particular call and he could not be the father of the human race without the distinct gifts that Eve has. She enables him to be what he is called to be. Again, I remember Proverbs 12, 4. Eve is Adam's crown. And with Eve as his crown, he is enabled then to be the father of the human race. She is Adam's glory. Eve is from the first Adam, but the last Adam Christ comes from the last Eve, the Virgin Mary. Now, what I haven't examined so far is how the covered head of a man or the uncovered head of wives while praying and prophesying would be bringing dishonor or disgrace on their head, because the man would be bringing disgrace on Christ and the wife disgrace on her husband. I am going to examine that now. And I will say, Paul gives a very simple answer, but it is not an easy answer, as there is just wide opinions as to what this means. If we were to ask Paul, Why is it that for the Corinthian wives who are praying and prophesying, they need their head covered or that the Corinthian men who are praying and prophesying must do so uncovered? He gives an answer in verse 13. Nature, 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 disgrace for him? So here's me going back to my comment. The answer is easy. Why Paul? Nature. Here is then the difficulty. What does Paul mean by nature? Does Paul mean by nature as we understand it, that is, you know, the self-evident laws within the created order, the natural order? biological order, or does he mean this as the Corinthians would understand this? Nature, which I was gonna try and pronounce the Greek word, but I'm not gonna do that anymore. Nature, for the Corinthians, is a loaded philosophical term. I think these are the choices that we have. When Paul is saying, judge according to nature, Is that word nature our common ground with Paul? Or is nature here the common ground that he has with the Corinthian Christians? I'm gonna start by saying why I do not believe that Paul's use of nature is as we understand it, or simply the way God has created and established the world. Anytime we pit Paul against the Old Testament, we are making a mistake. If you read church history, you usually run into a heresy as soon as you find someone saying, here is a New Testament apostle, author, writer, who is completely getting rid of, you know, something in the Old Testament. Now, obviously, I'm not talking about the replacement of sacrifice, those kind of things, but essentially saying this no longer speaks to the people of God because this is in the Old Testament. Why am I making that claim that if we understand nature as God's created order, we are pitting Paul against the Old Testament? First example, the Nazarites. The Nazarite vow was a voluntary vow that God offered his people and in some instances commanded an expecting mother to raise her son according to. And so in this Nazarite vow, your long hair, long hair on a man, did not indicate disgrace upon God or dishonor to him, but a particular period of devotion. Again, the long hair was not seen as a disgrace or recognized as a disgrace, but it was seen as someone who is committed and devoted to the Lord in a special way. There is even some indication that the Apostle Paul may have taken a Nazarite oath during his ministry travels, as when he returns, we see him cutting his hair, returning to the temple to do that as well. So, the Nazarite, bow, second, the high priest. The high priest is the holiest man in the Old Testament. And he performed his distinct and saving work in the presence of God with his head covered. He wore a turban. Now, someone may say, yeah, but that's the Old Testament. The Old Testament is always inferior. Yes, the Old Testament does feature rites, vows, sacrifices that did give way to the perfection of the New Covenant. However, God would never institute a rite or a ceremony that would violate his created order. He would never go against the nature that he has established and commanded. And we know this because we get verses like Deuteronomy 22. A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. And so if the same God, commands His people, there can be no blending of the distinction of sex by clothing or any other kind of things. If this is an abomination to Him, why then would He violate His own created order to tell men, if you want to dedicate yourself to Me in a special way, grow your hair? the way in which the people will be brought into my presence, to obviously picture the Christ who will come and be our last and final high priest, you must be covered. You must wear a turban. Again, I want to say that if we take nature as meaning some all-encompassing law built into the created order, we would be pitting Paul against the Old Testament. And I don't think that's any direction to take in Bible interpretation. So what I'd like to present then is that Paul's use of nature is better understood by examining the Corinthian understanding of it. Again, I started this sermon by citing the circumstances of worship common to societies and peoples. I'd like to say that nature, as Paul is using it, is not an all-encompassing term for all men and all women at all times, but rather something that is distinct to the circumstances of Corinthian culture and ministering in that culture. But in order to do so, I have to give a brief but focused background on Stoicism and its understanding of nature. I promise you it will be brief. Corinth starts as a Greek city. Greeks love philosophy. Paul starts the letter this way. Greeks desire wisdom. Rome takes over, and there's tons of Greek beliefs, ideas, practices that get lost in Romanization. The schools of philosophy that remain after Romanization are the schools that the Romans adopted, agreed, and said, this is good. Stoicism is that major school of philosophy. Many of the Roman emperors, many of Roman leaders take to Stoicism and of course then Corinth is no exception. How could a single philosophy, this is the claim that I'm making, be the common point for all the Corinthian problems? So I'm saying that someone taking their father's wife, idle meat, bringing a fellow brother to a secular court, denying the bodily resurrection, visiting prostitutes, abstaining from intimacy within marriage, what I'm suggesting is that Stoicism is underneath all of that. To defend that, let me explain to you Stoicism's understanding of the body with some quotes from Stoic philosophers. You are a little soul carrying around a corpse. Does that sound like a biblical view of the body? You are a little soul carrying around a corpse. To continue, Epictetus, the body is a mere husk. The soul is the self. Showing contempt or lack of regard for the physical and sexual was improvement in Stoicism. as you were living a life that was detached from physical and sexual realities, you were showing that your soul was transcending these weak and fundamental principles and moving towards deeper wisdom. So what happens then if you are practicing a philosophy where you devalue the body? Well, what you get is not only sleeping with your father's wife, because why not, but Corinthian Christians supporting that idea. Why would they be boasting about that if not to say we have transcended? Yes, others are offended by this scandal, but we have knowledge. We know that bodily matters and sexual matters are indifferent. A marriage where the physical act of sex is seen as a hindrance to having a wise soul. Again, this is a devaluing of what is physical and sexual. Who cares where the meat comes from? It's just food. It goes into the stomach and it's gone. The denial of the resurrection, chapter 15. Some of you are denying the resurrection. And chapter six, which is often quoted as Pauline, but I think it's the church, the Corinthian church. They refer to God will destroy both one and the other, food and the body. But then Paul counters that, but says, nevertheless, as the Lord was raised, the body will be raised. And this also downplays the sex differences between male and female and those who are married. Zeno, who's kind of like a stoic poster boy, part of his utopian vision is this, men and women wear the same dress and keep no part of the body entirely uncovered. I'm gonna read that again. Men and women wear the same dress and keep no part of the body entirely covered. If you wanna hear a lot more about this, come and talk to me after the service, but for this time, you're just gonna have to believe me on this. As far back as Aristotle and Hippocrates, male hair and female hair is seen as an integral part of the reproductive system. In fact, you actually just see, again, these would be medical professionals at this time, theorizing that semen for men starts with the hair. That's where it's coming from. Again, if you want to hear more about it, because I've read so much about it, come and talk to me after the service. But as Zeno is talking about keeping no part of the body entirely covered, in his understanding would be because hair, whether male or female, was sexual. It wasn't just, oh, that's just coming out, or it's on top of your head. It was seen as sexual. Yet, the Stoics also emphasize that nature had given clues to the genders and their differences. Has not nature, the Greek word that Paul's using, exact same word, used even the hairs on the chin in the most suitable way possible. And so there is this acceptance to blur and remove these clear distinctions in goal of like a utopian society, but yet many of the Stoics acknowledge that the goal of wisdom is to live according to nature. Another thing that I think is pretty convincing about this is that Paul says to the Corinthian church, judge for yourselves. Okay, considering everything else up to this point that Paul has said about the Corinthian church, why should we believe the Corinthians know how to judge rightly? Why, as Paul has just been upbraiding their convictions and the application of theology, this whole letter, you were in the flesh, you were infants, you're not ready for real teaching. Would he now say, you can judge on this one, unless he was catering to something that is found already, or excuse me, already found in one of their theological or philosophical commitments. And I think this is what he is doing. Paul says, judge for yourselves. Is life according to nature, women becoming manly when they exercise spiritual gifts? Or is it living according to nature for men to become womanly while they exercise gifts? The answer goes, no. So then women who pray or prophesy must look like women who pray or prophesy. And men who pray or prophesy must look like men. Christ not only brings honor to the father by his true teaching, his miracles, his life and his death, but Christ honors the father as man. Jesus still has a male body. Paul not only honors Christ by faithfully performing his calling as an apostle and seeking the good of the church, but he honors Christ as a man. Your actions and service, even the use of spiritual gifts, must make it clear that Christianity does not blend or blur the sexual distinction, but sanctifies and honors it. Here is where I think there is an invitation to imitate Paul and Christ. Because everything that Paul is doing so as to build up the church, denying rights and freedoms that are his for the good of the church, he does as a man, making it very clear that he is a man, without giving any kind of obstacle to the surrounding culture that he is trying to win, that he is anything but a man. For Paul, blurring sexual distinctions and raising suspicion over the exposure of what in a real way would be seen as private parts, again, exposed hair was sexual. This would be an obstacle to orderly worship in the advance of the gospel. Paul wants to win all. And so he is willing to be all things to all people. Even if they are in that group of the weak, he is willing to become the weak to win them. And so I believe what Paul is saying is if someone was to look in the assembly and see everyone surrounding and looking at a woman who is prophesying, a wife, and there is nothing about her attire or uniform, maybe if I could say it this way, that preaches she is united to a husband, this would raise suspicion. This would be scandalous and be an obstacle to the gospel. I'd like to quickly give three applications. And thank you very much for your patience. Three quick ones. Here we go. First one. Anybody like being contentious? That's a trick, right? If you like to fight, which is kind of funny. No one's going to raise their hand, but that's how it is. If you like to fight, thank you, Nathaniel. And Nathaniel raised his hand. I think he tried to do it quick because he didn't think I was going to see him. Anyway. Do you like to fight? And it's interesting, if you actually ask someone who does like to fight, do you like to fight? They would probably say, no, no, I don't like to fight. But when somebody is wrong, they're wrong. Or if you're not doing it the right way, somebody needs to tell you the right way. Or I don't, it's just people mess things up or they don't go about it the right way. Paul says, if you are going to follow the practice of all the churches, don't be ready to fight. But what is in 1 Corinthians 13? Be ready to endure, to bear. At my graduation at Westminster, a minister preached 1 Corinthians 13. It was a great sermon. And when he was talking about patience, instead of saying patience, he would say long-suffering. And he was an older man, so it was very powerful when he said it. You don't want to go to a church to argue theology, to be hard on people, to force your way. No, you are a minister, so you must suffer long, because that's love. If you are inclined to be contentious, you are breaking with Christ, breaking with the practice of the churches, and you need to reach for a long-suffering love, one that is not self-seeking, but one that endures and bears. Second quick application. Wives, you are the crown of your husband. That's just very strong language, both here and in Proverbs 12. So what does that mean? One, husbands cherish your wives. She is your crown. And if she is placed on your head, make sure your head is respectable, gentle, patient, kind. Don't be a grumpy head, if I could say it that way. but also wives, pay attention to your actions. The Proverbs is not exaggerating, but the wife who brings shame to her husband is like rottenness in his bones. So Paul says, don't be contentious, because this isn't to be practiced in God's church. Husbands, be that right kind of head, and wives, do not bring shame to your husbands. When you make decisions, when you speak, when you act, when you dress, consider, what kind of a crown am I being for my husband, if I could put it that way? Last quick application, then I'll close. One of the things that I was trying to figure out here is there is obvious implications for First Corinthians with our dress. Obviously, I don't think the application is for all women to be wearing head coverings in church, because I believe if you were not praying or prophesying, you would not be doing that specific activity that Paul has envisioned. However, I certainly think 1 Corinthians 11 calls us to think about, does our dress cause an offense? Is it some sort of obstacle? And also think deeply if our clothing choices are mirroring the culture that we're trying to save. Let me give an example. Young women, I don't think that someone should look at your clothing and think, oh, if I'm gonna be a Christian woman, that means I gotta be like frumpy and look bummy. That's not what I think should happen. But I also don't think that when someone outside, who you would be trying to win, should look at your outfit and see a mirror, an exact replica. You have exposed what we all expose. You have the length that we all have selected. You have this that we all do. The clothing, I don't think, should say, hey, I'm just like you except, you know, I follow Jesus. But I don't think it should also be an obstacle. That if someone was to think that if I were to be a young woman and become a Christian, that I'd have to look goofy or silly or bummy. And so I think this kind of, maybe if I could put it as a paradigm, we need to dress in such a way that is not, you know, giving offense, but also not giving approval. This applies to young men as well. Young men, do not act in such a way or dress in such a way that mirrors the other young men that you are around. I remember, oh, and you'll have to forgive your pastor for being so foolish at this point in my life. I remember I had this, this t-shirt during that had this super deep V cut on it. And I was like, oh, this is so great. I've been working out. People are going to look at me wearing this super deep V cut. And someone asked me a fantastic question. How could you be a Christian and wear that shirt? It was one of those questions that like, you just know the Lord loves you. Send in the right person to ask you, how are you going to bring honor to Christ wearing that kind of a shirt? And so again, if I were to continue to wear such clothing, what would I be doing but mirroring what all my friends and other males in my group were wearing? Again, I think we are called not to give a mirror with our words, our actions, our clothing. but also not to give offense because our desire is to win others to the gospel and to Christ in a way that does not, again, as I was saying, blur or diminish sexual distinctions. Let's pray. Lord, your word is so dense and yet so accessible. We are thankful that you have made it abundantly clear all the things we need for salvation in Christ. And I pray, Lord, that you would give us charity and understanding as we wrestle with some of those things. As our confession says, it's not altogether plain. But Lord, above all, it is clear that you want us to glorify you in whatever we do, whatever we speak or drink or eat or wear, everything must bring you glory. It should also be done in a way that builds up our brothers and sisters. Give us this commitment, Lord, by your spirit. Give us the skill and wisdom to do so.