10-1-9 Head Coverings
Eve was ashamed for what she had done, both before God and before Adam. As the seed of the woman, we too are ashamed of our sinfulness when in the presence of Christ. Because women are asked to typify Eve, they must deport themselves “with shamefacedness and sobriety”, “in modest apparel”, as Eve’s fig leaf and lambskin dresses certainly were- covering as much of her “nakedness” as possible, we can infer (1 Tim.2:9). There is a connection between hat-covered heads and shame (Esther 6:12; 2 Sam. 15:30; Jer. 14:3,4). The context of 1 Tim. 2:9 is the giving of Jesus on the cross “as a ransom for all”. “Therefore…” men and women respond in ecclesial meetings, particularly for the remembrance of His sacrifice, in this way. The woman as representing the ecclesia stands and sits shamed before that cross. Men are required to correspond to Adam in his role as a type of Christ- which runs equally against the grain of the twentieth century male. It must be noted that the wearing of a hat by women is not symbolic of their servitude to men just because they are males, but represents the covering of our sin by the blood of Christ. It is therefore a symbol of our spiritual freedom, the joy and peace which comes from our covering by the blood of Christ. Surely there should be an enthusiasm to wear it, in order to demonstrate our appreciation of these things. The woman is wearing the hat on behalf of the whole church, to demonstrate our collective appreciation of the covering work of Christ. The idea of head coverings is not, therefore, a male invention to assert the supremacy of their male gender over the female sex.
Conscious Covering
Women are asked to consciously imitate Eve’s “shamefacedness” on account of her sin. But if they teach men or refuse to wear a head covering, then this is a “shame” to them (1 Cor.11:6) in God’s sight. Because they refuse to be like Eve in her subsequent penitence and acceptability with God, God will treat those women as if they are Eve in her role as a sinner, who brought the shame of sin upon mankind. There are many allusions to the record of the fall in 1 Cor.11 (24). One of these is the connection between Adam and Eve being given a covering of skins, and the woman wearing a head covering. To trust in a natural head covering (of hair) and refuse to put on a covering, is to proclaim oneself as an Eve who refused the covering of skins, and therefore still walks in the shame of sin. That covering had to be consciously put on, as we consciously put on Christ. Women represent the church- their behaviour is therefore a matter of church concern. If they refuse to consciously cover their heads in the presence of men (in their representation of God and Christ), then in terms of typology they are denying the basic Gospel- of salvation through choosing to be covered by Christ. Because it is a “shame” both for women to teach men and also a “shame” to have their heads uncovered (1 Cor.14:35; 11:6), it follows that one is related to the other. Church experience in the twentieth century has borne this out- a refusal to wear hats at formal Bible studies has led to women speaking at them. Belief that women need not wear hats at the communion service has resulted in the view that women could give the sermon.
By contrast, if a man wears a hat, he “dishonours” his head, i.e. Christ (1 Cor.11:3,4). Christ did not need a covering for personal sin, because he was perfect. Therefore if a man, who represents Christ, covers his head, this would “dishonour” Christ by implying he was a sinner. The Greek word translated “dishonour” is elsewhere used concerning dishonour as a result of sin: Rom.5:5; 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet.2:6.
When And Where?
In practice, many have difficulty defining when a woman would “learn in silence” and wear a hat- i.e. when she should imitate Eve in terms of outward appearance. We must appreciate that in some ways, women should fulfil the typology of Eve at all times. But obviously the commands to be “in silence” and wear hats only apply to certain situations. Likewise, men should fulfil the typology of Adam/ Jesus all the time- but sometimes this will be shown in terms of outward, public actions.
When men teach and lead the church, they are publicly in Christ’s role. In teaching the church from God’s word, they describe and inculcate the moral characteristics of God, which is His glory (Ex.33:18; 34:5-7). On these occasions they particularly show forth the glory of God (1 Cor.11:7), in the presence of which the church must have a covering for sin. It must immediately be pointed out that few men appreciate this as they ought to. They need to sit up and take seriously their spiritual responsibilities in living out this ideal. With a similar sense of conforming to this lofty typology, women ought to cover their heads to typify how the church is able to sit before the glory of God, at one with Him, as there is “neither male nor female” in Christ. This spiritual equality between man and woman reflects that between Christ and his church. In church meetings, women should show that they are in the role of the church by their outward appearance (e.g. hats), and submissive, silent ‘learning’ from the Christ/ men. In this lies the difference between a family discussion of the Bible, and an occasion when a man presents prepared teaching to the church, having a teacher : pupil relationship with them. Women writing articles in magazines is a difficult area, but it could be argued that when a man reads that journal in his armchair, he is not formally representing Christ, and therefore no violence is done to the typology.
It must be said that Paul saw the issue of head coverings as vital. He ordered the church at Corinth to come into line with consistent church practice about this throughout the whole body of Christ (1 Cor.11:16). The reason for this insistence is that it is based in the events of Genesis 1-3. The principles established there do not change with time and culture.
