(2) Is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
an Exception?
There are a number of practices in the New Testament which we do
not follow today in their literal detail. We do not wash each other’s feet nor
anoint the sick with oil, though we seek to follow the principles behind these
by caring for one another and by visiting the sick and praying for them. There
are only two practices which we generally agree should be carried out today:
baptism to mark entry into the body of Christ, and remembrance of Jesus in
bread and wine. We consider that commandments given by Jesus, such as foot
washing and fasting, were applicable in their literal detail only to the days
in which they were given, though the principles behind them hold good for all
time. The clash between Jesus and the Pharisees and the conflict between the
apostle Paul and those who wished to regard ritual practices as essential both
demonstrate that true Christianity is not a matter of outward practices but of
moral and spiritual behaviour from the heart. This is the normal
Christadelphian approach but it is frequently rejected with respect to 1
Corinthians 11:2-16. Is this section therefore an exception?
Every time we read a passage of the Bible, we approach it with
some prior thoughts. Our understanding is coloured by the way in which the
translators have rendered it into English, by our previous knowledge, and by
the comments upon it made by others. In the case of 1 Corinthians 11 our
thoughts are also influenced by the fact that many sisters wear hats or some
form of headcovering, and we are aware that this passage is used to justify the
practice. An initial reading of 1 Corinthians 11 looks straightforward because
we make assumptions about the meaning of certain phrases and because problems
of interpretation are often obscured in translation.
There are at least four ways of looking at 1 Corinthians 11. None
is simple, which seems regrettable if we feel that a simple answer is
desirable. But Bible teaching is frequently complicated, and if we wish the
truth we need to face up to complicated answers. On the other hand, important
Bible truths are clearly enough expressed in numerous passages, and the fact
that we are faced with many different possibilities in this section of 1
Corinthians, should not be a stumbling block to any of us.
In recent years this passage has been examined in detail by
expositors both within the Christadelphian community and without. Studies into
the text, translation, Paul’s manner of writing in the rest of 1 Corinthians,
and the attitudes to women in the ancient world have produced alternative
approaches which aim to take more account of the complicated nature of this
passage.
Four Ways of Understanding
1 Corinthians 11
Four basic ways of looking at 1 Corinthians 11 can be summarised
as follows.
(1) The “Symbolic” interpretation
According to this interpretation a veil symbolically covers up
human glory (for “the woman is the glory of man”), thus allowing God’s glory
(represented by the man, for he is the “glory of God”) to shine and be on
display when the believers are gathered together for worship. A woman should
have on her head a covering during ecclesial services because this is an
important symbol of her secondary place in creation and of her submission to
her husband.
Within the Christadelphian community it has been assumed that hats
can reasonably be substituted for veils, despite the anomalies of substituting
attention-drawing fashionable clothing for what appears originally to have
indicated the reverse.
(2) The “Context” interpretation
The context is the first-century Graeco-Roman world, including the
immoral atmosphere of Corinth
and the general procedure in Roman temples where a male priest offering
sacrifice wore his toga pulled over his head. Veils for women indicated a
woman’s status as a modest, married woman. For a woman not to wear her veil was
considered tantamount to deserting her husband. The wearing of veils being a
first-century practice is no longer relevant today. The modern application of
the principle is for husbands and wives to respect their marriage vows by the
highly moral conduct they display towards one another as they live their
Christian lives together.
Modern hats are not veils to obscure a wife’s beauty from the gaze
of other men, as was intended by the practice in ancient times; rather they are
the opposite. It is a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 11, therefore, to imply
that hats are specified today by the New Testament.
(3) The “Hairstyle” interpretation
This suggests that the passage is not referring to veils or hats.
The issue concerns length of hair on men and hairstyles on women. The
principles behind 1 Corinthians 11 are still relevant, as indicated in (2)
above, but hairstyles are a cultural matter with specific meaning in the first
century, and it is not appropriate to specify hairstyles today.
(4) The “Answering Questions” interpretation – Alternative
translation
According to this view, it
is not Paul who taught headcovering but some of the members of the ecclesia in Corinth. As elsewhere in
1 Corinthians, Paul quotes part of their letter to him, analyses it, and gives
his answer. Whether about veils or hairstyles, the passage can be translated to
indicate that the apostle Paul is strongly opposed to any rule on the matter.
Headcovering (by veils, long hair, hats or scarves) is no part of Christian
behaviour and insistence on it is contrary to the Gospel.