In view of the large number of difficulties in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 it is unwise to be dogmatic about its meaning. The variety of suggestions as to how to unravel the various problems of translation and interpretation indicates that no one knows with any certainty. This should not give us undue cause for concern for there are a number of other obscure sections in Paul’s letters. Other instances in 1 Corinthians are his reference to virgins in 1 Corinthians 7:25-28, and to baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Presumably all these references were understood by those for whom they were intended. It is not surprising that readers in a different context cannot always understand what was originally meant. The Bible itself recognises the difficulty in some of Paul’s writings:

...our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.                       (2 Peter 3:15-16)

What then do we do? The answer is to rely on basic, clearly established principles. Dr Thomas in Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come printed a number of recommendations (sent in by a brother) on how to understand the Bible. Amongst these were the following:

The truth in relation to any doctrine must be established by those passages which speak of it in positive and unequivocal language, and those texts belonging to the same subject but which only admit of inferential testimony, no inference should be drawn from them at variance with the truths already established by positive texts.

No doctrine should be predicated upon mere inference, neither upon one isolated text of Scripture. Any true doctrine will be found interspersed throughout the whole Bible.

                                                  (Herald 1859, page 179)

1 Corinthians 11 is “one isolated text of Scripture” and every explanation of it inevitably relies on inference. If we had been intended by God to have clear directives on how we should dress, we could reasonably expect these to be explained for us in other parts of the Bible. Instead, we are guided away from ritualistic observances so beloved of the Pharisees and we are given principles. In this case they are that care must be taken not to give impressions of immorality or disrespect for marriage, and that sensitivity must be exercised regarding social custom where disregarding such may damage the preaching of the Gospel. These points are clear in themselves – and it is these which we need to know and practise.

Not a New Problem

In 1895 the question was discussed by Robert Roberts in The Christadelphian. It is interesting to note that he treated the matter entirely as a social issue:

That the question should be raised as a question of propriety in the East in Paul’s day is not to be wondered at considering the extreme seclusion of the female sex in the social customs of those countries.

Brother Roberts was writing at a time when hats were worn almost universally in Britain. In the social climate of Victorian Britain Robert Roberts considered, as would most of his contemporaries,[1] that “the absence of covering seems to indicate a boldness and lightness of character” and he therefore advised that for this reason sisters should cover their heads. Since his day there has been a complete change in society’s understanding of what is acceptable and proper in public. No one today considers the lack of a hat indicates “a boldness and lightness of character”, a description which would be more appropriate to some of today’s dressier fashions. Now that the situation is so different, it is no longer appropriate to express a preference in favour of hats. Indeed, the stress on dressing up for meetings, and the wearing of headcoverings at occasions like public addresses when hats would not normally be thought appropriate by the general public, is likely to give to visitors a misleading impression about the Gospel. The biblical evidence does not support the practice, and we are unlikely to appear committed to the Gospel if we insist on doing something which to most people seems a strange attention to worldly fashion. Brother Roberts considered it a matter of social custom, not a theological issue. It is reasonable to agree with him when he said, “The question of women being covered or uncovered in the exercises of worship is not of very great importance....” He concluded, “...it does not matter much one way or the other” (The Christadelphian, April 1895, page 140).