Appendix A Critical Analysis of the Symbolic Interpretation
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.)
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?)
![next chapter next chapter](/theme/7/btn_next.jpg)