2. Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11

So what about that passage in Paul's letter? Doesn't it just say “Do it!”? Well, not quite. It has a few things in common with that one from the Mormons, thus:

1. It appears to directly state the false doctrine;

2. People who favour the false doctrine have convoluted reasoning for it beyond the scope of what is actually written in the Bible;

3. No other passage in the Bible directly discusses the issue;

4. The rest of the Bible teaches something quite different; and

5. By examining the context in which it was written, the meanings of the words in the language it was written in, who it was written to, and the customs with which they lived, we can understand what Paul really was trying to tell them and us.

First, let's take a look at the validity of the need to understand customs to be able to understand the context of a passage. We have been told by many well-meaning brethren that there is no validity to the application of custom. If it is true that the customs, and therefore the context, of the society of the time is irrelevant to an understanding of the Bible, why is it that Jesus “cast out devils” instead of “curing neurological dysfunction”? Jesus certainly would have known that he was healing a medical condition rather than evicting an evil deity, so why doesn't he correct the misunderstanding? The answer, of course, is that the cultural background of that society precluded it. Yet if we totally ignore the context of the society he lived in, we end up believing in the existence - and power - of supernatural demons!Again, if custom has no bearing on context and understanding, what of Joseph's coat of many colours? What of the significance of Esau selling his birthright? The Bible is full of happenings that require an understanding of custom in order to appreciate the full meaning of the passage involved.

Before we get into understanding this passage in its context, let's take a look at a few basic facts from the Bible which show that the traditional viewpoint is totally illogical and unscriptural and even createsa few absurdities.

1 Corinthians 11 does not state that the head covering represents subjection. Rather, this inference is drawn from Paul's choice of wording in v. 10, where we read “For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her head. . . ” and of the mention of the creation order - which was not to indicate subjection, but something else which we will discuss further on. (Eve was not in subjection at creation, but afterwards, therefore woman was not created in subjection to man.) It does not state that subjection to God or anyone else is the reason for the head coverings. Rather, the meaning of the covered head becomes clear with a comparison with other places where the symbol is found:

2 Samuel 15:30

David wept, as did all those men who had their heads covered.

Esther 6:12

Haman's covered head is a sign of his grief over having been sent to give great honour to his arch foe, Mordecai.

Jeremiah 14:2-4

Here, the plowmen and nobles cover their heads in mourning by reason of the drought.

Job 1:20

Job shaved his head in mourning the loss of his children and possessions.

Jeremiah 16:6

In telling Jeremiah about the devastation to come, God says that men shall not show signs of mourning - including making their heads bald.

Jeremiah 48:35-38

The lamentation of Moab is graphically portrayed here by, amongst other things, baldness of heads.

Ezekiel 27:29-32

The lamentation for Tyre is also graphically portrayed by the baldness of heads.

Isaiah 22:12-13

Baldness is equated with weeping, mourning, and the wearing of sackcloth.

Amos 8:10

Baldness is again equated with lamentation, mourning, and the wearing of sackcloth.

The symbol of the head being covered or shaved is one and the same, and represents mourning, grief, etc. , whereas the symbol which represents subjection is entirely different, as evidenced in the scriptures:

Genesis 18:2-3

Abraham bowed himself to the ground before those he called My Lord”, and then refers to himself as “thy servant”.

Genesis 19:1-2

Lot does likewise.

Genesis 27:27-29

Being lord over his (Jacob's) brethren is here equated with having them bow down to him.

Genesis 41:40-43

When Joseph was made ruler over Egypt, the Egyptian people were instructed to kneel before him.

Genesis 49:8-10

The blessing on Judah was that from this tribe would come the ruler and lawgiver - before whom all the Israelites would bow down.

Isaiah 45:23

This entire chapter is dedicated to declaring God's dominion over men. And what does the record state in v. 23? unto me every knee shall bow”

Psalm 95:6-9

Here we see the rebellious behaviour of the Israelites in the wilderness, where they refused to be in subjection to their creator, contrasted with a more appropriate behaviour:let us kneel before the LORD”

Clearly, the Scriptural symbol of subjection is to kneel, bow down, or prostrate oneself in the presence of the other - and not to cover the head, which symbolizes grief, sorrow, or mourning. Paul, being well versed in the Old Testament, would have known this and used the same symbology, not needing to “invent” something new in contradiction to it. Furthermore, if symbols and their interpretations are allowed to change this radically, scripture can no longer be used to interpret scripture. What the head covering means in the Old Testament must be the same as what it means in Paul's letter, regardless of how we might wish to think otherwise. This brings us to the conclusion that the traditional teaching of head coverings for sisters representing subjection of woman to man - and hence symbolically, the ecclesia to Christ - is supported by only one passage in scripture, and that by using a symbology foreign to the Bible.

II Peter 3:15-16

The apostle Peter warns us that Paul's letters contain some things which are difficult to understand, and are easily taken the wrong way if not thought through clearly and completely. The fact that there is only this one passage about head coverings should raise eyebrows. Even more so, because it's from a writer who we've been warned writes in ways hard to understand. And yet no one seems willing to dig a little deeper into what Paul was dealing with to discover what he was talking about!

Exodus 28:3-4

The High Priest's garments included a head covering which (vv. 37-38) he was not to remove in the course of his ministrations in the Tabernacle. Verse 40 states that his sons had to wear them, too. And verse 43 clearly states that this statute of the priestly garments was binding on Aaron and his sons forever. In Levitical Law every priest wore a head covering for glory and for beauty (v. 40) but to the Corinthians Paul says it is a shame for a man to pray with his head covered. Were the priests to be shamed publicly for praying on behalf of the people? Was the High Priest ever a woman? Did God whimsically change his mind? Or was Paul (Acts 22:3) unfamiliar with the Levitical Law and Jewish customs? Everybody knows the answer to all of these questions is NO, but for some strange reason few people see the nonsense it makes of the traditional view of head coverings being a symbol of subjection.

But the contradiction evaporates completely when we understand the head covering as a symbol of mourning. It was on the behalf of the children of Israel that the high priest went in to the presence of God, but then he came out to the people on the behalf of God. Who he represented, therefore, was the mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. This parallel is drawn for us in Hebrews 7:22-28. With the work of redemption not yet complete, how appropriate it was that the high priest should grieve for the sins of the people! With Christ's work of redemption having taken place now, it would be very inappropriate for men to cover their heads when praying because they represent Christ to the ecclesia the same way the high priest represented Him to the children of Israel.

I Corinthians. 11:16,17

Paul here is explicitly stating that we are not to adopt this as a custom. Why are we doing it? Although some newer translations such as the NIV render “no such custom” as “no other custom”, this is not how the original Greek text reads. The word used for “such” is Strong's #5108: “truly this, i. e. , of this sort (to denote character or individuality)”. Other passages where this word occurs are:

Matt. 19:14

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 7:8

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

John 8:5

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Nowhere in the KJV does this word get translated as “other”.

Also, Paul is not negating anything with this statement, but rather stating explicitly the purpose of the instruction. Read verse 17:he says it is a tragedy that the Corinthians have not abandoned their former ways, and thus their behaviour at their meetings makes things worse rather than better for the ecclesia as a whole. He is not delivering a custom or a requirement, but is giving specific advice as to a specific cure for a specific problem. Verse 16 cannot be separated from verse 17. Taken together, they may be paraphrased thus:

“If anyone complains about this, remember that neither we (you and I) nor any other ecclesia will be adopting this as a custom, and these instructions I am giving to you at this time are not to praise you, but I give them because your behaviour at meetings makes things worse, not better. ”

“Contentious” does not mean academic disagreement with Paul's teaching, or with his appraisal of the situation in Corinth, but rather an unwillingness to cooperate with the corrective action he advises to remedy the problem of the intrusion of paganism into the ecclesia.