Play

“Questions and Answers 130”

Allen Dvorak
05/11/25 - Sun PM

The following transcription is computer-generated and may not accurately reflect the contents of the audio. Please verify the content before quoting.

(Transcribed by Congregate. Always check document for possible errors and inaccuracies in automated transcriptions.)

Good evening.

I'll be reading from Hebrews chapter 11.

Beginning in verse 13.

And I'll be reading from the ESV, which is also on the screen behind me.

Throughout the chapter, the writer has spoken of many Old Testament characters.

Who Accomplish great things by displaying their faith.

So beginning in verse 32.

And what more shall I say, for time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Bayrak, Samson, Jephtha, of David, and Samuel and the prophets who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire.

Escaped the edge of the sword were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

Women received back their dead by resurrection.

Some were tortured, refusing to accept release so that they might rise again to a better life.

Others suffered mocking and flogging and even chains and imprisonment.

They were stoned.

They were sawn in two.

They were killed with a sword.

They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated, of whom the world was not worthy, wandering about in deserts and mountains and in dens and caves of the earth, and all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

Well, good evening.

When you attend a funeral, What's the question that sometimes comes to mind about the person who has passed away?

The question that comes to my mind sometimes and maybe yours as well, is what is that person's eternal destiny.

It is not uncommon at funerals, especially if you go to funerals where the officiant, uh, who does the uh elegy, uh eulogy or, or speaks uh about the deceased, it's not uncommon for them to say, well now so and so is in heaven.

So and so's with the Lord, so and so's in glory.

Even though in some cases, that person was not known to have any interest in religion or serving God.

But when that person dies, then we want to say the nicest things we can about them.

With faithful Christians who fall asleep.

We can have some confidence as we observe that they seem to be following the Lord's commands, serving God to the best of their ability.

But even in those cases, We are somewhat hindered in our judgment about their future by the fact that we don't know their heart.

Paul would say to the Corinthians, and I'm going to take this, uh, a little bit out of the context of Paul's original application.

He was talking about his relationship with uh the brethren at Corinth.

But I want you to notice in particular the highlighted text in 1 Corinthians chapter 4 and verse 1193, he says, but with me, it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court.

In fact, I do not even judge myself, for I'm not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted.

It is the Lord who judges me.

Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.

We can see the outward behavior of people sometimes if we're acquainted with them.

But we don't know the heart of an individual.

God will bring out the secrets of men as he says Paul does in Romans 1183 in that great day of judgment.

Although we don't know with certainty about the future of those who die now, the scriptures actually do tell us about some individuals who are definitely in the saved category.

Our study this evening is a question and answer study.

If you're visiting with us this evening, uh, let me explain very quickly that occasionally I will receive questions, some verbatim and others just ideas about some, uh, biblical question, and occasionally I will devote a sermon to answering those questions.

The questions are not necessarily related to one another and in fact this evening, I'm gonna deal with two questions.

Two questions And they're not related to one another.

The answers that I'm going to give to these questions are my answers.

They don't represent some sort of a congregational creed.

They may not even represent the thinking of the other elders.

They are my answers as best as I understand the scriptures with respect to the questions asked.

Two questions this evening and here they are, and I mentioned this morning that one of the questions this evening had actually been submitted by the 1173th and 1163th grade class, the students here in that Bible class.

That's the second question we'll talk about married women and the artificial covering that uh is worn in worship, but the first question has to do with the destiny of Gentiles before the cross.

And so we'll start with that question and.

This is not a question that I received in so many words and so it's not in quotation marks.

I've simply worded the question in my own way to convey the the thing that was being asked Could Gentiles who lived before the cross be saved?

Well, we need to spend a little bit of time with some background information.

In the beginning of mankind's history, divine revelation was handed down by word of mouth from one generation to the next generation.

It was an unwritten law that the patriarchs, men like Noah and Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob, that they lived under, uh, a law that Very surely was not as specific as the law that would be given to the Israelites later on.

But that law was what we sometimes call patriarchal law, and it was an unwritten law.

The book of Genesis follows Abraham and his descendants once we have been introduced to the problem, the problem, the promise in Genesis the 1153th chapter, which essentially is the theme of the Bible.

The rest of the Bible is the fulfillment of that promise in Genesis 1143.

From Jacob's family, the 1133 sons came the nation of Israel.

And God at Sinai, once the people of Israel, once this family of Jacob that had expanded into a mighty nation, when they came out of Egypt, God led them to Mount Sinai and he covenanted with them, giving.

The the law of Moses.

It's important for us to understand that that law was only given to Israel.

Israelites and Gentiles lived under different laws.

The term gentile.

is a word that we use to describe anybody who is not a Jew, not an Israelite.

In the New Testament, the word Gentile is a translation of the word nations.

And so here's Israel, the family of Jacob and all the rest of the nations, the nations, those are the Gentiles.

And so we had two laws, the patriarchal law and unwritten law and the law of Moses running concurrently.

Israel under the law of Moses, the patriarchs under this unwritten law.

Paul talks about those individuals in Romans the 1123nd chapter in verse 1113.

He says for all who have sinned without the law, he means apart from the law of Moses, he's contrasting the patriarchal law.

which was an unwritten law with the law of Moses.

Those who lived without the law of Moses will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Now, when we begin reading in verse 1103, do not hasten to conclude that Paul's saying that everybody who sinned without law under patriarchal law, that they will perish because he goes on to say in verse 2116, for when Gentiles, those are the ones that would have been under the patriarchal law.

When Gentiles who do not have the law by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law.

And Paul would comment in Romans 216:215 to 215, as we noted this morning that Gentiles were seeking righteousness by faith, while Israel was seeking it by means of the works of the law and Israel failed, whereas Gentiles, some Gentiles, succeeded.

However, both laws, the law of Moses and the unwritten patriarchal law ended at the cross.

I want you to listen carefully to this passage in Ephesians 211, because what Paul is doing is he's talking about two groups of people.

Jews and Gentiles.

But notice what he says about them in terms of their getting together in one body.

For he, Jesus himself is our peace, who has made us both Jew and Gentile one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.

By abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.

The dividing wall was the law of Moses.

It separated Jacob's family and the nation that came from it, from the rest of the nations.

But notice that even as the Jews would be saved by faith, Jew and Gentile would both be brought together in the same body that is in the church.

He goes on to say, and might reconcile us both Jew and Gentile to God in one body through the cross.

What does that say about Gentiles?

Well, they're part of God's plan for salvation.

Thereby killing the hostility, and he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near For through him we both have access in one spirit to the Father.

Now that passage doesn't say that Jesus took away the patriarchal law, but what it does say is that Jew and Gentile are both saved in this one body and it's through the cross.

The implication there if you're uh listen carefully, the implication there is that Gentiles are no longer under the patriarchal law, they're going to be saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and that sacrifice pertains to the new covenant, to the law of Christ, not to patriarchal law.

In Colossians, the 211nd chapter in verse 2111, Paul specifically says that the law of Moses was taken out of the way.

It was nailed to the cross.

It ended at the cross so that now both Jew and Gentile can be reconciled to God in the one body known as the church.

All of them, all of us are under the law of Christ.

So the blood of Christ was responsible for the forgiveness of sins committed under the law of Moses.

Did you hear what I said?

The blood that was shed on the cross.

Not only comes this way to forgive our sins, but it also went back to forgave, to forgive the sins of those who lived under that first covenant, the law of Moses.

Hebrews verse 211 and verse 2111 is a chapter 2111, verse 15 is an important passage.

It says that Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

Since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant, that'd be the law of Moses.

So, Jews who lived under the law of Moses could be forgiven of their sins by the blood of Jesus Christ.

We could spend a lot of time, I suppose, talking about when that took place, whether they were forgiven at the point that they offered the animal sacrifice or forgiven at the point that Jesus offered his blood on the cross.

That's kind of irrelevant for our purposes this evening, but it is enough to say that Hebrews 9:15 says that that blood went back and forgave those who lived under the law of Moses, but that's not the question this evening.

The question is what about the people who lived under the unwritten patriarchal law?

Well, let's look at some relevant passages to that question.

And I wanna read from the book of Hebrews, we could uh read all the way through verse 16, but I, I'm gonna start in the beginning here with verse 4 because in the beginning of Hebrews 11, we're dealing with some individuals, patriarchs who lived prior to the giving of the law of Moses.

They're the very people that this question is asking about.

Notice what's said in verse 163.

By faith, Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous.

God testifying of his gifts and through it, he being dead still speaks.

Now look at verse 5.

By faith, Enoch, another patriarch, was taken away so that he did not see death and was not found because God had taken him.

For before he was taken, he had this testimony.

That he pleased God.

So Abel and Enoch are both described as individuals who pleased God or were considered to be righteous.

Drop down to verse 7, another patriarch, Noah.

By faith, Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an art for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

All three of these individuals, though they lived before the law of Moses, before they lived before the cross, all three of them, there are statements made to the effect that they are righteous.

Noah in particular, it is said, he's heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Take a look if you will, a little bit farther down in the chapter at verses 13 through 16.

We're kind of skipping down in the list of patriarchs.

Abraham and Sarah will be discussed in the interim, but now there's a sort of a summary statement made here about the patriarch.

Archs who have already been listed and particularly Abraham and Isaac and Esau.

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.

If they've been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return, but as it is, they desire a better country that is a heavenly one.

Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

I think that passage is pretty definitive as far as speaking about men like Abel and Noah, and Abraham and Sarah as well.

Moving along to another passage, in the days of Ezekiel, a prophet to the exiles uh during the Babylonian captivity.

Ezekiel would say in verse 14 of chapter 14, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness declares the Lord God.

Ezekiel is saying, the city of Jerusalem can't be saved by even these three men who would only deliver themselves.

What does that say about these three men?

Job incidentally.

was probably someone who lived in the same approximate time as Abraham perhaps a little bit earlier, but definitely in the patriarchal age, and he repeats the same thing essentially in verse 20 mentioning again, Noah, Daniel, and Job.

Daniel's the exception because Daniel was a contemporary of Ezekiel, but Noah and Job, they lived prior to the law of Moses.

They were patriarchs, and yet God says of them through the prophet Ezekiel that they were righteous individuals.

In the New Testament, Jesus in Matthew chapter 8 and verse 11 says, I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline that table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

The metaphor of a feast is sometimes used to describe the blessings of heaven.

And Jesus says, uh, what would have probably shocked the Jews, they're gonna be people who come from the east and the west.

In other words, people outside of the nation of Israel who are going to come and they're going to sit with whom?

Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, these three patriarchs.

Mind you, Jacob wasn't under the law of Moses.

He was still on the patriarchal side of that family.

A similar passage in Luke 13:28.

In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

When you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves, cast out.

I've said before that when God says of Job in the beginning of that book, he says to Satan, have you considered my servant Job, that there's no one like him on the earth?

That's high praise.

That tells me something about Job's standing with God.

And of course, Job's faith is going to be tested and will grow through the things that he suffers.

But there's no indication that he was lost at the end of that book.

In fact, God blesses him with more than he had in the beginning.

And so we look at these passages.

And what they tell us is that there are some people that we know have been saved.

There's some people we know are going to be in heaven.

Jesus calls them, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets.

And of course, Job would be included from the passages that we already looked at.

Do you remember the story that Jesus told of two men in Luke 16th chapter, beginning in verse 19 and running through verse 31, Whether it's a parable or whether it's actual history, but Jesus describes A rich man and a poor beggar.

By the name of Lazarus.

And both of them pass away and then we're given some idea of what happens to their spirits after they've left the bodies.

The rich man, he's in torment.

But where is Lazarus?

Well, in the text there, Jesus says he's in the bosom of Abraham.

And I'm not so much interested in Lazarus's destiny as I am in the description of where he is.

He's with Abraham.

That tells me that Abraham is on the side of comfort.

He's not being tormented like the rich man in the story that Jesus tells.

Abraham I think is definitively described as righteous by faith.

In the book of Romans in chapter 4 verses 1 through 3, Paul says, what then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

For what does the scripture say?

Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

So the question again.

Could Gentiles who lived before the cross be saved?

Someone says, well, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, they weren't Gentiles.

They weren't Jews.

The Jewish nation didn't come about until after all of these men had died.

So here's my answer.

The Gentiles, and by that I'm talking about the patriarchs, Gentiles prior to the cross, who lived before the cross could be saved by obedient faith.

Which is the way God saves in every dispensation.

Whether you're talking about people who lived under the patriarchal law prior to the death of Christ, or whether you're talking about Jewish people who lived under the law of Moses, a law system, salvation always came, justification always came.

By obedient faith, that's always been God's plan, and that's emphasized as uh Daniel pointed out well, uh, in Hebrews the 11th chapter.

Their sins would be forgiven by the blood of Jesus just as Jews who lived under the law of Moses could be forgiven by that same blood.

So that's the answer to the first question.

And I can tell now that I could have at least prepared another 2 or 163 questions.

But we'll just move on to the second question, the only other one that I prepared.

This question is in quotes because this is exactly how I got it from 4th and 5th grade class.

Should married women still wear a head covering today?

Uh, and the scripture cited there is 1 Corinthians 11th chapter verses 2 through 16.

It probably wouldn't hurt us to go back and to reread that passage.

just so that the language of the text is firmly in our minds.

I'm gonna read beginning in verse 21 Corinthians 11:2.

Verse 63, if you look at uh the relationship of chapter 10 and chapter 11 verse 1 really belongs with the previous chapter.

So we begin in verse 2.

Paul writes, now, I praise you, brethren.

I'm reading from the New King James version.

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn.

But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man, for man is not from woman, but woman from man.

Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels.

Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman nor woman independent of man in the Lord.

For as women came from, as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman, but all things are from God.

Judge among yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.

But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

And so I want to begin by looking at some of the divisions of the text.

There are 3 relationships that involve submission that are described here in verses 2 and 3.

This is the ESV.

Now I commend you because you remember me and everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered 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.

Now, if you listen carefully, as I read from the New King James version, or perhaps if you're still reading from that version, you'll notice that it reads different than the ESV.

The new King James version says, but I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

The ESV does something unfortunate here and I'm going to Describe it.

I don't know that you can read much of that and, and even the uh the, the font colors don't really show up very well.

So I'm gonna describe what you're seeing and hopefully it'll make sense.

The word that is translatedwoman is the Greek word go.

It's the same word that is translated in some contexts, wife.

We have two English words, woman and wife, but the Greeks would use one word, this word go, and it could be translated woman or it could be translated wife depending on the context.

What the ESV does is they jump from one translation to the other in this text.

For instance, and you may want to follow along in these verses, uh, particularly if you're reading in the ESV you'll notice what I'm saying.

In verse 3, Uh, and, and I've, uh, I've tried to indicate, uh, where the word go, uh, occurs.

And I've got something up there twice, it should only be there once.

Where the word Goe occurs, and it's in green text when it's translated wife.

Look at verse 3.

The same word is translated wife in verse 53.

It's translated wife 2 times in verse 6.

It's translated wife again in verse 10.

This chart is Not the finished product.

I have a feeling.

Because it's missing some things that I Did different on uh oh, now we've done it.

It's missing some information on it.

But if you look at verse 10, That is why a wife, it's the word Ge, same word that's been translated wife before.

And then in verse 13, is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?

But the word Ge appears in other places in this text.

For instance, in verse 7, it's translated woman.

In verse 8, it's translated woman twice.

In verse 9, it's twice translated woman.

In verse 11, it's twice translated woman.

Verse 53, twice translated woman, and in verse 15, it's translated woman.

It is the same Greek word all the way through, whether it is wife or woman.

So the obvious question is, why did the ESV decide to translate it wife sometimes and woman other times?

Well, I'm not privy to the thinking or the rationale of the translators of the ESV, but I will tell you this.

What they did suggests that submission of the woman is just to her husband and not to every man, not to men in general.

And I wonder if they didn't do that.

Because of Ephesians 5, where there's a specific relationship described there, husband and wife, and wives are to be in submission to their husbands.

And I think they implanted that same idea here in this text.

That talks about men and women in general, at least as the New King James version translates.

New King James is consistent and translates woman all the way through.

Every time Goune appears, it's translated woman.

Now, as I said before, that word can be translated wife or woman depending on the context.

What is there in this context that would demand a change in meaning from woman to wife.

And my answer is I don't see anything.

I don't see anything in the context.

Well Let me see if I have messed up my slides.

I sure have.

So they did the same thing with man.

We have a similar situation.

The word for man, there's actually more than Greek word, one Greek word for man, but the word that's used here in this text is the word anna.

And it can be translated man, or depending on the context, it can be translated husband.

So what did the ESV do?

Well, you can see in verse 3, they translated husband, the head of a wife is her husband instead of translating man, and then everywhere else in that passage where that Greek word in there appears, they translated it man.

Why the change?

What in the context demands that the, the meaning of verse three is husband, where it's man everywhere else?

I do not believe that this passage is restricted to husbands and wives.

Now, the reason I've dragged you down the lane of tedious Greek words is because if you remember, the question was, should married women Still wear a head covering today.

But I don't think there's a distinction being made between married women and just women in general in this passage.

I think the new King James version has the more consistent.

Translation, not just from a grammatical standpoint.

But from the standpoint of what the context is, I believe they have the right.

Uh, the right idea.

And so those three relationships in verses 2 and 3, that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman, according to the New King James Version translation, which I think is accurate.

In verses 4 through 6, Paul gives some specific instructions to both men and women with respect to the covering of the head.

When men are praying and prophesying, they should leave their head uncovered.

When women are praying and prophesy, they should cover their heads.

And then in verses 7 through 12, In verses 13 through 12, Paul explains the rationale behind these instructions to either cover or not cover one's head while praying and prophesying.

But he also notes in those verses 7 to 12, the mutual dependence of the man and the woman, and that seems very clearly to be men and women in general, not simply married individuals.

And then finally.

In verses 13 to 16, Paul appeals to the Corinthians' own understanding by drawing an illustration from nature and here nature does not appear to be nature as we talk about going out into the woods or into the jungle and seeing nature, but by established tradition or practice of mankind, that's I think the meaning of nature here.

Well, I'm gonna try to get back on track here.

All right, so this is, this is the, the breakdown of the division of the text.

Now when we read the text, maybe you noticed something that I think is a key verse and it's verse 10.

This is in the new King James version again.

For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, symbol.

is italicized.

But I think it's an accurate translation in the sense that what she has on her head is this covering, and the covering is a symbol of authority.

That's its function.

Now, the expression because of the angels is kind of cryptic.

Paul doesn't go into any explanation of what he means by that, but I would suggest to you that there are a couple of passages in the New Testament that might help us.

I think probably because of the angels is a reference to the angels who sin by Not keeping their as one version says, proper dwelling, those passages, the first one in 2 Peter 2 and verse 4, for if God did not spare angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept unto the judgment, not a particularly great translation.

Uh, the ESV then in Jude 13, the second passage.

Jude and 2 Peter have some passages that seem to be fairly similar, and I think these two passages are talking about the same angels.

The angels who did not stay within their own position of authority but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains and the gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.

I want to show you one other translation, and it comes from uh the new living translation, always a paragon of translational accuracy, but I think they get the sense of this passage, and I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place.

where they belong.

God has kept them securely chained in prisons of darkness, waiting for the great day of judgment.

It seems to me that these angels, the problem with them, that the nature of their sin was that they didn't observe the authority of those above him, God.

And so they are going to be punished.

A woman should have a symbol of authority on her head indicating that she recognizes her relationship to her head, the man that's identified in verses 2 and 3.

And so the significance of the woman's covering seems to be that it is a symbol of authority.

This passage is not just about miraculous spiritual gifts.

It's not just about worship.

It's about the relationship between men and women.

It's not the only passage that deals with it, but we'll confine our comments to this passage.

I do want to share with you uh some other information that I think is likewise relevant.

And that is that Paul gave instructions in this passage regarding men and women who were praying or prophesying.

That's a mixed bag.

And by that, what I mean is, when you see the word prophecy, it is always inspired teaching.

I preach and I teach, but I don't prophesy.

The very word itself implies inspired God-given information.

Prayer on the other hand, could be inspired as 1 Corinthians 14 suggests in the middle of the chapter.

But not necessarily.

We pray all the time in this assembly and as individuals and with our families, but our prayers are not inspired, that is not guided by or delivered to us by the Holy Spirit.

And so prayer was not necessarily inspired, but prophecy certainly was.

So we've got those two words together.

And they represent the condition for when a woman should cover her head.

She should cover her head when she's praying or prophesying.

I would suggest that it's likely that both activities were the result of miraculous spiritual gifts.

Prophecy certainly was.

Prayer that we can't say with 100% certainty.

In the New Testament, what we understand is that both males and females, Christians, were given miraculous spiritual gifts.

Well, for one thing, Paul's giving instructions here regarding women who are praying or prophesying.

Those are women who are exercising a miraculous spiritual gift.

If no women could do that, then this seems kind of an odd passage and not very useful at all.

But we know from other passages, uh, for instance, in Acts chapter 21, there's the mention of Philip the evangelist, the same Philip that we read about in Acts chapter 8, and he had 4 daughters who prophesized.

These were women who were exercising miraculous spiritual gifts.

Secondly, Even though female Christians, women were exercising the same kind of gifts, miraculous spiritual gifts that men were exercising.

Paul's point to them is they needed to indicate their submission by this symbol of authority, this covering and artificial uh material covering on their heads.

When they prayed or prophesized.

I suspect, although Paul doesn't come out and say this directly, I suspect what was happening.

was that there were some women at Carin who were perhaps reasoning that since they were exercising the same gifts as men were exercising, that they were no longer to be under under submission or in submission to the men.

And Paul is saying that's not the case.

That's not the truth.

And so when you're exercising these gifts, You go ahead and show your submission by wearing this symbol of authority that he speaks of and verse 113.

I'm gonna make 3 brief observations.

Shouldn't take me more than 30 minutes to do each one.

And then we'll be done for this particular question.

The first one is that although we don't have miraculous spiritual gifts today, those have ceased long ago, the relationship between men and women continues.

And the reason I say that is there are other passages that deal with the relationship between men and women.

1 Timothy 216, for example, 26 Corinthians 25:25, etc.

And so there are other passages, well, even Ephesians 21.

There are other passages that deal with the relationship of men and women.

The principle that's driving this passage.

Is the submission of women to men.

And the peculiar or specific application of it has to do with the wearing of a covering, but the principle.

Of headship in this text still applies.

My next observation is that the significance of a covering as a sign of submission was culturally based.

That is in the culture of the first century, in particular, a woman who wasn't wearing a covering.

would not necessarily be considered to show herself submissive, whereas a covering was essentially a, Paul says it, a symbol of authority.

I am assuming in verse 21 that he is talking about the covering, that's the context.

The wearing of a covering in today's culture is not generally recognized as having the same significance.

Did you hear what I just said?

In our Western culture.

The wearing of a covering doesn't have the same cultural significance as it did in the first century.

By then, I simply mean that if you were to go out and ask the general public, what does it mean when a woman's wearing something on her head to cover her head when she's at church?

And I don't know that you'll get very many people say, well, that's a sign of authority.

That's a sign of her submission to men in general.

They might say, well, maybe she's got an Easter hat.

Or women wear hats to be fashionable to church in in church worship.

That's a lot of people wore hats in the past, a lot of women did, not the men, but the, but the women.

But I don't think you're generally going to find people who are going to say, yes, I understand that covering means that she's being submissive to the man.

And someone says, well, you can't just throw things out of uh out of any kind of current modern day application by saying that they're, they're culturally based.

We need to be careful with that argument.

Because we do that.

And let me give you a couple of examples.

There are other culturally based behaviors that we don't imitate, even though the commands are just as direct as they are in 13 Corinthians 21 regarding the covering.

You may be thinking about foot washing.

Here are two passages, John 211 verses 211-15.

This is the occasion where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, and he says to them afterwards, if I then your Lord and teacher have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.

But we don't do that, do we?

Why not?

Well, someone says that passage is clearly simply teaching that we ought to serve one another.

That's not what the passage says.

If you want to argue that because the passage says clearly in 1 Corinthians 11, a woman should cover her head when praying or prophesying, which incidentally no women prophesy today.

If you're going to argue that that's a command, then why don't we obey this command?

Well, we understand it to be culturally oriented.

That was one of the ways that you serve one another was you wash their feet.

You performed the act of a servant and Jesus did that to show his disciples that they ought to serve one another, but don't lose sight of the fact that there's a command there, you ought to wash one another's feet.

Now listen to me carefully.

I believe it is correct to say that the point of this passage is to say that we ought to serve one another.

I'm not suggesting that you need to wash my feet before you leave.

be a very unpleasant thing.

But what I'm saying is we just say, well, not that, that command to wash feet, we don't do that because that was 1st century cultural service to one another and we have other ways that we can serve one another today and fulfill the lesson, the principle that Jesus is teaching here and not just in John 13.

In 1 Timothy 113, and stand when Paul's talking about uh continual er uh uh help, benevolence toward widows.

One of the things he talks about is having a reputation for good works.

If she's brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints.

Is that one of the questions we would ask if we were wanting to support a widow on a continual basis?

Have you washed saints' feet?

Saint's feet Feats in case they have more than 2.

You see the point I'm making?

Well, how about the holy Kids?

Holy kiss was likewise a cultural way of greeting individuals, of showing affection.

Uh, in the first century.

Greet one another with a holy kiss, Romans 16.

Greet one another with a holy kiss, 1 Corinthians 16.

Greet one, those are commands.

And frankly, there are at least 6 of them, 5 of them, if I can count right.

5 different passages that tell us to greet one another with a holy kiss.

When was the last time you greeted anybody with a holy kiss in this assembly?

Why don't we do that?

Well, we would argue that was a uh an act of affection or greeting that was peculiar to first century culture and even Later, but certainly 1st century culture and I think that's the point.

And mind you, I'm not suggesting that you need to give me a holy kiss before you leave tonight.

So don't be afraid.

That's not the point.

I think we are correct in saying that the point of that command is that we need to show affection for one another.

We need to greet one another and that was a culturally.

Based way of doing it in the first century.

So here's my point.

Before we begin to say, well, now you're just throwing this covering thing out because it's a culturally based behavior.

Mind you, we do that with both foot washing and the holy kiss.

And I know we do that.

Widespread Why is it that we can see that with those things?

But then with the covering, we say, well, now that's that's different.

Well, let me give you my answer.

I don't believe that Paul's instructions were applicable only to married women.

We've talked about that.

I think he's talking about women in general, but I do believe that Paul commanded women to acknowledge their submission to men even while exercising miraculous spiritual gifts, and I based that on the word prophesying.

The way they were to do this was by wearing an artificial covering on their heads that covered their hair and in some cases may be part of their face by wearing a artificial covering on their heads, a cultural behavior that does not have the same significance in our modern Western culture.

In some eastern cultures it has the same significance.

And I might preach a different sermon there.

My conclusion is that women who are Christians are not obligated by scripture to wear a covering during worship.

But I also don't believe that a woman sins if she decides I'm going to wear a covering during worship because I believe 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that it's necessary.

And in fact, I would encourage women, if you feel that that's the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11, that it mandates a covering when you're sitting in worship or worshiping wherever.

Then don't violate your conscience.

Don't act contrary to your understanding of what's required of you by the scriptures.

Wear the covering.

But I'm trying to give you at least a taste of my reasoning for why I don't believe that it is something that is demanded by God.

Well, I appreciate your patience tonight.

Uh, this, uh, presentation, slide presentation has been somewhat of a catastrophe, but these things happen, mama said, and uh hopefully we recovered enough that you could follow the arguments that are being made.

I'll tell you one thing about the Gentiles before the cross.

They didn't have the information that we have.

They didn't have the understanding of God's plan that we have.

And in fact, neither did the Jews who lived under the law of Moses up until the time of the cross.

And then the gospel began to be preached.

And men like Paul and others.

taught Jew and Gentile alike that Jesus Jesus is the Christ.

The Christ, the king who had been prophesized as coming in the future, prophesized in the Old Testament that Jesus is that individual.

And we have so much more to be thankful for.

than those who only got pieces of truth, whereas God has filled out the gospel for us.

In the end of Hebrews 11, the passage that Daniel read.

All those individuals talked about in the, in the chapter and, and others who were not named, just described in a general way as having suffered for their faithfulness to God.

All those people.

We're not made perfect apart from what you and I can enjoy in Jesus Christ.

What a wonderful blessing we have.

And the sad part is that there are some who will turn that away.

And will not respond to the gospel invitation.

But this evening, if you want to become a Christian and enjoy the blessings that God has provided in the gospel through Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sins, hope of eternal life, the fellowship of brethren, peace between you and God and others.

And we want to encourage you to respond to the gospel as the scriptures describe that invitation.

If we can help you, please come to the front as we stand in sing.