Below are examples from various Christadelphian writers of their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11. We have quoted only a short extract from each, and have not indicated the sources, as we are concerned only in looking at the actual content. If anyone would like details of the sources we will be happy to provide them. It may well be that the writers have subsequently changed their understanding, as we have done when presented with new evidence or what seems like a better interpretation. However, these views are in print, and comments based on these kinds of interpretations continue to be reproduced and circulated, so it is worth doing a brief analysis. These comments by us should in no way be construed as a personal attack on anyone: we are seeking to make a fair, biblical analysis.

 As indicated after each, we consider that the following extracts make assumptions which are not supported by Bible teaching.

EXTRACT (A) Date 1980

... the man who recognises Christ to be his head and who sees in his own head a symbol of Christ, removes his covering when praying or prophesying so that in symbol Christ is uncovered and exalted in the church, while the woman, knowing “the head of the woman is the man” and who sees in her own head a symbol of the man, covers that symbol while praying or prophesying that he be not exalted to rival Christ in the church. Verse 7 restates the principle: “For a man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man.”

... the symbolism is in two parts and, therefore, for it to be complete both parts must be observed – in the man that Christ may be exalted and in the woman that the man may be covered. The woman’s covering, then, is not a symbol of servitude to men but of her freedom in Christ!  Any rebellion on the part of the woman against wearing a suitable covering is in fact to accomplish the opposite of that intended – to remove her freedom in Christ.

Assumptions made in this passage are:

(1) The man “sees in his own head the symbol of Christ”. (Where does the text say this?)

(2) “... removes his covering”. (The text says nothing about removing any covering.)

(3) “so that in symbol Christ is uncovered and exalted in the church”. (Nothing in the text has been said about any symbol, nor about Christ being uncovered, nor about Christ being exalted in the church. There is indeed some metaphor in 1 Corinthians 11, and perhaps even a pun on the word “head”, but to use the word “symbol” is adding more than is written.)

(4) “who sees in her own head a symbol of the man”. (Again, the text does not say this. It says “the head of the woman is the man” (verse 3) and “woman is the glory of man” (verse 7).)

(5) “that he be not exalted to rival Christ in the church”. (Where does the text say or even imply anything about the man rivalling Christ in the church. What it says is that “any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head”.)

(6) “in the woman that the man may be covered”. (A strange reversal of the text which had said that the man should not be covered! The assumption here is that the woman represents sinful mankind, and therefore should be covered up.)

(7) “not a symbol of servitude to men but of her freedom in Christ”. (Where does the text say or imply this? She is to be covered because by not being covered she “dishonours her head” – which presumably means her husband or perhaps her own self – “it is the same as if she were shaven”.)

(8) “Any rebellion on the part of the woman”. (Note the heavy pressure put on anyone who finds these assumptions unconvincing. It is assumed that anyone who disagrees with this interpretation does not do so out of a genuine regard for the teaching of Scripture but from a desire to rebel against it. No allowance, here, is made for any alternative view, no matter how genuinely and spiritually it is held.)

EXTRACT (B) Date 1989

The woman’s head represented the man, so the action of these sisters dishonoured the brothers in the ecclesia....

Assumptions made in this passage are:

(1) “The woman’s head represented the man”. (This is the same as assumption (4) above. Again, the text does not say this. It says “the head of the woman is the man” (verse 3) and “woman is the glory of man” (verse 7).)

(2) “the action of these sisters dishonoured the brothers in the ecclesia”. (Note the switch to the plural, although the text is always singular. Thus the assumption is inserted that all sisters are subject to all brothers.)

EXTRACT (C) Date 1989

Perhaps the root cause of this problem (and others in the ecclesial world) is a lack of appreciation of Scripture teaching on God manifestation. As has already been considered, the opening verses of this section teach that each brother in the ecclesia should be a manifestation of Christ. Since Christ perfectly manifested his Father (John 14:8-11), and man was created in God’s image, each brother should be an individual manifestation of the divine glory (v.7). Because it is God’s purpose to manifest this glory throughout the earth (Num. 14:22), it is fitting that the manifestation of it within the ecclesia should be uncovered. By contrast, each sister in the ecclesia manifests the glory of man, and that glory should be covered. Thus the man who covers his head and the woman who uncovers hers are declaring in symbol that they oppose the divine purpose to manifest his glory and change these vile bodies to make them like his glorious body.

Assumptions in this passage are:

(1) “lack of appreciation of Scripture teaching on God manifestation”. (It is implied that those who disagree with this interpretation do so not on genuine grounds but because they lack appreciation of Scripture teaching.)

(2) “each brother in the ecclesia should be a manifestation of Christ”. (The text simply says that man is the “image and glory of God”. It does not say anything about “should be”. The reference is to creation and to the woman’s creation from man, and therefore in this context she should respect him, not act in a manner which dishonours the man/husband. If by “manifestation” it is meant that each brother shows the nature of Christ in how he behaves, the same applies to sisters, and sisters in Christ, like brothers, are in the process of being changed into a new nature (2 Corinthians 3:18-19):

And we all [male and female], with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

(3) “Because it is God’s purpose to manifest this glory throughout the earth (Num. 14:22), it is fitting that the manifestation of it within the ecclesia should be uncovered”. (The text has not said anything about God’s glory being uncovered. This is an assumed interpretation. Verse 7 does not explain why, because man is the image and glory of God, he should not cover his head. It is legitimate to suggest an interpretation, and the idea that the man must not cover his head because he does not wish to cover God’s glory is one possible suggestion: but it is only a suggestion; the text does not say it. It is also an assumption to connect the use of the word “glory” in 1 Corinthians with the use of “glory” in Numbers.)

(4) “each sister in the ecclesia manifests the glory of man, and that glory should be covered”. (The text does not say anything about “manifesting” the glory of man; nor does it say that the glory of man should be covered. These are deductions which can be suggested, but they are deductions and only deductions. The phrase “the glory of man” suggests that “man” is understood in the sense of “human”, but to indicate “human” the word anthropos would have been required, not aner.)

(5) “are declaring in symbol that they oppose the divine purpose”. (Note once more the heavy pressure put on anyone who dares to disagree with this interpretation. No one, to our knowledge, who considers 1 Corinthians 11 should be understood differently, has any wish to oppose the divine purpose. On the contrary, the reason for opposing this type of interpretation is that it seems to many to be contrary to the general and widespread teaching in the Bible as a whole.)

EXTRACT (D) 1990

In verse 3 Paul gave the simple reasons for a man’s head being left uncovered and the woman’s being covered. He now expands the principles involved. Verse 7 takes us to Psalm 8, which is the Divine commentary on the Creation record of Genesis 1:26-28. In wondering at God’s grace in elevating man to the highest position in creation the psalmist records that man was “crowned” (v. 5). But with what? There is no account in Genesis of Adam being given any kind of headcovering, whether a circle of gold or the turban of the high priest. But this is precisely the point the Apostle Paul is making. Man does not need any kind of headcovering because God “crowned him with glory and honour”. ... There is a hierarchy in the heavens beginning with the Lord God and descending through the angels who are able to come close to man on the earth. ... the angels ... radiate God’s glory. Since man is only just below them he catches this glory and reflects it. In this situation it would be folly indeed for the man to cover his head since he would be putting a barrier between himself and the Divine glory which the Lord intended to be his crown. ...

A man should not cover his head, because he is the “glory of God” ... By contrast, a woman who does not cover her head is dishonouring her head (the man) by allowing human glory symbolised by her hair to compete with God’s glory being reflected from him. ...

... To be in Christ both must put away the natural self through baptism, and the woman through the headcovering as well.

Assumptions in this passage are:

(1) “Verse 7 takes us to Psalm 8”. (Both mention the word “glory” but there is no other reason to think that Psalm 8 is in the apostle’s mind.)

(2) “Man does not need any kind of headcovering because God “crowned him with glory and honour”.” (This assumption arises from a misunderstanding of the word “man” in Psalm 8. It does not mean “man” (masculine alone) but “mankind”, “men and women”. It is normal in English also to use “man” in this sense of “mankind” and comparison with Genesis 1:26 confirms this: both have dominion; both men and women are crowned with glory and honour:                

...what is man that thou art mindful of him,

and the son of man that thou dost care for him?

Yet thou hast made him little less than God,

and dost crown him with glory and honour.

Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands;

thou hast put all things under his feet.   (Psalm 8:4-6)

 Psalm 8 is given a second application in Hebrews. It points out that in fact all things are not in subjection to mankind, presumably meaning in harmonious subjection as will be the case in the Kingdom. But one human being has fulfilled the original intention: the man Jesus. Jesus has been “crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death” (Hebrews 2:9). The application of this verse to Jesus as being the only member of the human race to fulfil the ideal does not justify restricting it to a masculine meaning in Psalm 8. This psalm, therefore, if used in connection with headcovering, suggests that headcovering is inappropriate for either sex, which again points to a local meaning for 1 Corinthians 11 in first century society.

(3) “Since man is only just below them [the angels] he catches this glory and reflects it.” (An oddly literal assumption. It is metaphorical language to say that man has been “crowned with glory and honour”. It means that God has given mankind supreme place in this world’s creation. Glory is not something which is “caught”.)

(4) “it would be folly indeed for the man to cover his head”. (A strange statement, since the priests were told to cover their heads, and for the specific reason of looking impressive:

“And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats and girdle and caps; you shall make them for glory and beauty”                             (Exodus 28:40)

There is no contradiction between this and 1 Corinthians 11 if local practice is involved. If it were a universal divine principle that men should not pray to God with heads covered, why the practice in the tabernacle and temple? The explanation sometimes suggested is that it was only in the coming of Jesus that men were enabled to reflect the glory of God. This does not resolve the problem between Psalm 8 as interpreted above and Exodus 28:40, and suggests in any case an over-literal application.)

(5) “human glory ... to compete with God’s glory”. (It is an assumption that there is a contrast in 1 Corinthians 11 between human glory and God’s glory, as if human glory were bad. Should we not rather see the usage of glory in this passage as always favourable? It is given by God as something good and desirable for which we should give Him our thanks.)

(6) “human glory symbolised by her hair to compete with God’s glory” (The text says “If a woman has long hair it is a glory to her”. It is an assumption to say that the explanation of the covering is that her hair represents human glory or that it competes with God’s glory, especially as the text continues to say that her long hair is given to her [by God] as a covering.)

(7) “put away the natural self through baptism, and the woman through the headcovering as well”. (Baptism is a once-and-for-all act in which we receive forgiveness for our sins. There is no suggestion in 1 Corinthians that head covering is anything to do with putting away a woman’s natural self. If anything it is the reverse: it is the way by which she expresses her natural self in relation to her husband. But lying behind this comment is a long tradition which blames all women for the sin of Eve and whereas men in Christ are apparently free from the sin of Adam, women in Christ are not so.)[1]

EXTRACT (E) Date (c. 1970?)

As with much of the symbolism of the Law of Moses, the reason why the priests were required to cover their heads is not explained within the Law itself. Elsewhere in Scripture, however, the head covering is identified with humiliation, servitude and wretchedness of spirit (e.g. 2 Sam. 15:30; Esther 6:12; Jer. 14:3,4). In Christ Jesus, man attains in measure to the creative design – in “the image and glory of God” (11:7). In the new creation, although still blighted by sin, he is no longer a slave to sin (Rom. 6:5-7). This new status for man makes it inappropriate for him to cover his head – a token of servitude to sin and the Law. It is for this reason that man in Christ is forbidden to cover his head in worship...     

Assumptions in this passage are:

(1) “ is not explained within the Law itself”. (Yes it is. Exodus 28:2-4 & 28:40 say “you shall make them for glory and beauty”.)

(2) “Elsewhere in Scripture, however, the head covering is identified with humiliation, servitude and wretchedness of spirit.” (Going barefoot and covering the head can be a sign of sadness, as in the passages quoted. But, as with the priests, the opposite can apply: wearing a crown is a sign of approval, the opposite to humiliation and wretchedness, e.g. Zechariah 3:1-5. In Ezekiel 24:23 wearing a turban is the opposite to mourning. It is only sometimes true, therefore, that wearing something on the head is a sign of wretchedness.)

(3) “In Christ Jesus, man attains in measure to the creative design – in ‘the image and glory of God’ (11:7)”. (According to 1 Corinthians 11 this is part of creation, not the new creation in Christ Jesus. Man does not “attain” to the image and glory of God: man is the image and glory of God.)

(4) “In the new creation, although still blighted by sin, he is no longer a slave to sin (Rom. 6:5-7). This new status for man makes it inappropriate for him to cover his head – a token of servitude to sin and the Law.” (This assumes that Romans 6:5-7 is referring only to brothers, not sisters. But Paul says: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus ... so that ... we too might walk in newness of life.” “All” and “we” refer to both brothers and sisters.)

(5) “a token of servitude to sin and the Law”. (Nowhere does the Bible suggest this explanation for wearing a headcovering.)

(1)   “It is for this reason that man in Christ is forbidden to cover his head in worship”. (This is not the reason given in 1 Corinthians 11 – see verse 7).

EXTRACT (F) Date 1990s

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. ... The woman is wearing the hat on behalf of the whole church, to demonstrate our collective appreciation of the covering work of Christ.             

(1) “servitude to men”. (Where does 1 Corinthians 11 suggest servitude to men?)

(2) “represents the covering of our sin by the blood of Christ”. (Where does 1 Corinthians 11 suggest this?)

(3) “wearing the hat”. (It is assumed that a modern hat can be considered a covering in accordance with the New Testament rather than the contrary to it.)

It is worth noting the contradiction between the first quote given above and this one. “The woman’s covering, then, is not a symbol of servitude to men” and “the wearing of a hat by women is not symbolic of their servitude to men just because they are males...” [i.e. it is symbolic of servitude to men but for other reasons in addition].

 EXTRACT (G) Date 1997

Head-coverings are necessary for sisters at least within the context of the breaking of bread in order to portray the salvation of the bride of Christ. This is particularly appropriate within the memorial feast because this is a type of the marriage supper of the lamb, and in this type the brethren represent Christ, while the sisters represent the bride. Within this setting, their head-covering shows that the bride has been saved from sin by her husband. Accordingly, brethren do not wear a head-covering, because Christ was sinless.    

Assumptions in this passage are:

(1) “Head-coverings are necessary for sisters” (The passage does not say sisters in general but “any woman who prays or prophesies”.)

(2) “ at least within the context of the breaking of bread” (Although the Breaking of Bread is mentioned before and after the section on headcovering, there is no suggestion in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 that this passage is talking about the Breaking of Bread. It refers to meetings where brothers and sisters pray and prophesy; there is no reference to a meal, which the Breaking of Bread was in the New Testament.)

(3)   “brethren represent Christ, while the sisters represent the bride” (Where does the Bible teach this? The church, consisting of brothers and sisters together, are the body of Christ, and in Ephesians husbands are told to care for their wives following the example of how Jesus cares for the church, his body. In this analogy, the church is described as the wife/bride of Christ, but it is not divided up into two groups, one group representing Christ, and the other the bride.)

(4)   “their head-covering shows that the bride has been saved from sin by her husband” (This follows on from the analogy presented in this paragraph, so is presumably intended to mean that by wearing a headcovering sisters acknowledge the salvation the church has received from its Saviour, Jesus. But is there any reason to suppose from 1 Corinthians 11 that this is what headcovering meant?)

(5)  “Accordingly, brethren do not wear a head-covering, because Christ was sinless.” (Likewise, is there any reason to suppose from 1 Corinthians 11 that not wearing a headcovering was a way of proclaiming that Christ was sinless?)