A Study of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Rex Banks

Introduction

Few of us enjoy being out of step with those nearest and dearest to us, and in the case of the Christian this natural desire for harmony and accord is strengthened by the knowledge that the Lord wants His people to strive for like-mindedness in matters of doctrine. This being the case I take no pleasure in the fact that my understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is at odds with the well-nigh universal practice of the Lord’s church today. As I understand Paul’s teaching in these verses, the apostle is issuing certain instructions regulating the conduct of Christian brothers and sisters in a specific situation, and in my view these instructions are permanently binding. The instructions relate to the use of an artificial covering in the setting under discussion, and Paul gives gender specific instructions which, in my view are grounded upon creation order.

Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 leads me to believe that Christian sisters at Corinth were disobeying apostolic teaching in this matter and that he writes to correct this situation. Since I take the position that his instructions concerning the head covering are rooted in creation order I am persuaded that they are binding upon Christian men and Christian women of every generation.

The majority position

Commenting upon this passage, J. W. Mc Garvey and Philip Y. Pendleton wrote:

"The problem in Western assemblies is how best to persuade women to take their hats off, not how to prevail upon them to keep them on" (Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans, Standard Bible Commentary p. 113).

The efforts at persuasion have been largely successful and no such "problem" exists today to any significant degree. Very few brethren believe that Paul's instructions concerning the head covering are binding today.

Some good sincere brethren echo the words of Calvin approvingly: "What? Is religion placed in a woman's bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered?" (Institutes 4:10:31). We could of course also pose the question: "Does religion consist of being dunked in water?" or "Does religion consist in eating a piece of bread each first day of the week?" but of course the real point is that love and gratitude impel us to want to understand and obey all of God's commands. (Incidentally Calvin's next words were: "Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness?")

Some good brethren have expressed the view that time devoted to discussing the head covering would be better spent spreading the gospel, visiting orphans and widows and focusing upon "real issues," but then our denominational friends have often expressed this view about discussions of modes of baptism and suchlike. Clearly however we do not have to choose to do one at the expense of the other. We do not have to choose between diligent study of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Acts 2:38 (baptism) on the one hand, and visiting orphans and widows on the other. Clearly too an informed decision on any subject cannot precede our own study of that subject. To accept any teaching on any subject simply because it conforms to the majority position and without doing our own research is to surrender our mind to others.

The Fellowship question

Some good brethren are quite forthright in expressing their views on the subject of the head covering. For example one brother has written in a popular lectureship book:

“Is there a brother today who will contend that all Christian women since the first century who worship God without the artificial covering or veil have sinned against God, and that all Christian men who permit such are also guilty before God? If they so believe, and are not making an issue of this matter before the church today, they are also guilty of sin and just as lost as all the others (Jas 4:17). While many commentators hesitate to take a stated position on this question, and some brethren waver as to what the passage really teaches, it is either a matter of faith and ought to be so taught or it is a matter of custom and not a permanent ordinance for the New Testament church. The twentieth century church, by our study and practice through the years, has repudiated the doctrine of the artificial covering. We cannot, like the Catholics or others, bind a veil, hat, handkerchief or Kleenex on our women as a matter of faith! Any brother who so contends cannot fellowship the church today without violating his own conscience!” (Dan Billingsly Studies In 1st Corinthians, First Annual Denton Lectures p. 331).

Now I do believe that the teaching concerning the head covering is a matter of faith and that it ought to be so taught, and that is why I have written this paper. I did not write this paper out of choice, but rather, as my brother has pointed out, it is a matter of conscience. I would prefer to ignore the whole subject since I know that my views are disagreeable to those who are closest to me, but this is not an option. I cannot in all good conscience disobey Paul’s instructions in this passage, and I cannot in all good conscience fail to call attention to this matter.

I do not agree with my brother that given my position I “cannot fellowship the church today without violating ... (my) conscience," although other good brethren have felt compelled to make the same suggestion to me personally. I do not believe on the one hand that fellowship is predicated upon 100% doctrinal agreement or correctness, nor do I believe on the other hand that fellowship can remain intact despite all doctrinal errors and disagreements. Nor do I feel qualified to make a decision about who is "lost" due to a misunderstanding of this matter, particularly in view of the fact that for much of my Christian life I took a different position myself. In fact even after having adopted my present position, my understanding of certain details has continued to change. On the other hand failure to obey God in any area is a serious matter.

Consistent application of creation law

Since we all desire to please God it is important to give attention to Paul's instructions concerning the head covering. However there is another reason for studying this matter. In recent years the question of gender and leadership in worship has attracted a great deal of attention. Many today are defending female leadership in the assembly, arguing that Paul’s teaching concerning male leadership in such passages as 1 Timothy 2 simply reflected custom of the day. Unfortunately many who take this position are arguing that there is as much reason for viewing Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 and 1 Timothy 2:8ff as "cultural" as there is for viewing l Corinthian 11:2-16 as "cultural." They are affirming that the same reasoning which permits us to regard the head covering as cultural permits us to treat the silence of women as cultural. Craig S. Keener a leading liberationist puts it this way:

“One passage generally acknowledged to address a specific cultural situation is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Paul presents four basic arguments for why married women should wear head coverings in church worship services ... Although many churches would use arguments like these to demand the subordination of women in all cultures, very few accept Paul's arguments here as valid for covering women's heads. 'Men preaching and teaching is something for all cultures,' they say, 'whereas women wearing head coverings was only an issue back then.’ This seems to me a curious form of reasoning, however: the same argument Paul uses in one passage (i.e. 1 Timothy 2 – Rex) for forbidding women to teach, he uses in another passage to argue that married women...must cover their heads in church. In one passage, Paul does not want the women of a certain congregation to teach; in the other passage, he wants the women of a certain congregation to cover their heads. We take the argument as transculturally applicable in one case, but not so in the other. This seems very strange indeed” (Paul, Women, Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul, Craig S. Keener p. 19).

I believe that Keener is correct that Paul uses “the same argument” in connection with teaching and the head covering. Elsewhere he says:

“Most Christians today agree that women do not need to cover their heads in church, but many do not recognize that Paul used the same kinds of arguments for women covering their heads as for women refraining from congregational speech. In both cases, Paul used some general principles but addressed a specific cultural situation (emphasis mine).

What particularly causes many scholars to question this otherwise logical case (for women leading in the public assembly -Rex) is Paul’s following argument, where he based his case on the roles of Adam and Eve (1 Timothy 2:13,14). Paul’s argument from the creation order, however, was one of the very arguments he earlier used to contend that women should wear head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:7—9). In other words, Paul sometimes cited Scripture to make an ad hoc case for particular circumstances that he would not apply to all circumstances.”

(http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm)

In similar vein, the IVP Bible Background Commentary has the following on 1 Tim 2:13:

“Paul argues for women’s subordination in pastoral roles on the basis of the order of creation, the same way he argued for women wearing head coverings (1Co_11:7-12). Some writers take his argument here as universal, for all circumstances, even though that is not the most natural reading of the Genesis text to which he alludes (Gen_2:18 in Hebrew suggests a complementary partner). Other writers take Paul’s statement here only as an ad hoc comparison (see comment on Gen 2:14), as most writers take his same argument for head coverings in 1Cor_11:1-34” (emphasis mine).

This observation that Paul uses "the same argument" in both 1 Tim 2:8ff and 1 Corinthians 11 is echoed by many today. It has become a standard response to the “conservative” position on 1Timothy 2. We are being told that head covering instruction and instruction concerning the silence of women are grounded upon the same principle. In my view this is correct. I also agree with the observation that it is a "curious form of reasoning" to argue that one is normative for every age while the other is not. This is inconsistent. However I disagree with the conclusion that we are to treat Paul's instructions concerning male leadership in the assembly and the head covering as matters of custom rather than as a matter of apostolic doctrine. In my view consistency demands that we treat both sets of instructions as permanent legislation, since in my view both are grounded upon creation order.

In his Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth Wayne Grudem discusses attacks upon the Biblical doctrine of male leadership. He sums up one egalitarian argument as follows:

“Egalitarian claim 9.2: Head Coverings: Just as the church has now learned that women do not have to wear head coverings as commanded in 1 Corinthians 11, so it needs to learn that women do not have to submit to their husbands or to give up leadership roles in the church to men. All of these were simply traditions Paul was following in that culture” (p. 332).

Grudem does not believe that Paul's head covering instructions are part of the eternal apostolic pattern, but he is correct that feminists are now using our traditional arguments against us. Arguments opposing the head covering are now being invoked to show that male headship in the home and the church are also matters of custom. Consider the following by David M. Scholer :

“The allusion in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 to Genesis 2 … indicates that arguments from the so called creation ordinances can be used by Paul to support an injunction with clear historical-cultural limitations... the majority of evangelicals subscribing to biblical authority (including those who find in 1 Tim 2:9-15 a basis for excluding or limiting women in ministry) understand the specific point of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 to be no longer directly applicable in our culture, at least in practice if not in formal interpretation. Such recognition indicates that Genesis 2 can be used by Paul to argue for a command that is historically and culturally limited” (1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Lord's Church (David M. Scholer in Women Authority and the Bible ed. Alvera Mickelsen p. 209 [emphasis mine]).

So Scholer acknowledges that Paul appeals to “creation ordinances” in 1 Corinthians 11 and points out that “most evangelicals” do not argue on this basis that Paul’s head covering instructions are “directly applicable in our culture.” He offers this as proof that injunctions based upon creation ordinances can be limited to an “historical-cultural” situation. Scholers argument is:

· Paul appeals to “creation ordinances” in 1 Corinthians 11.

· Most evangelicals do not argue on this basis that Paul’s head covering instructions are “directly applicable in our culture.”

· This proves that injunctions based upon creation ordinances can be limited to an “historical-cultural” situation.

· This being the case Paul’s appeal to creation ordinance in 1 Timothy 2 can be limited to an historical-cultural situation.

Sadly there are also many in our brotherhood who use our traditional teaching on the head covering to undermine Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2. Listen to comments made by brother Lynn Mitchell during the 1990 Freed-Hardeman Forum entitled Gender and Ministry:

“When I was young and foolish, I had just started preaching, I attempted to get the women in my congregation to wear something on their head because I believe Paul says what he means and means what he says. Didn't work (p. 134).

And so it took me about five years, once I got on the kick of trying to get my sisters to wear something on their heads, to get over the fact that they weren't going to do it. So I was kind of a hard nut to crack... But it didn't take that long for me to understand some of the implications of that fact, and that is, that if my sisters were not going to give in to a symbol from the first century on that issue, they probably were not going to give in to another symbol from the first century" ( pp. 154, 155 [emphasis mine]).

Now, by “a symbol from the first century" our brother means the head covering, and by "another symbol from the first century" he means male leadership in the assembly. In this brother’s view Paul’s instructions concerning both the head covering and male leadership in the assembly simply reflect first century custom. Speaking of the head covering he states:

“A Christian tradition of more than nineteen hundred years, based on Paul's specific and unquestioned instructions, was scuttled within a generation. Our women followed their Methodist sisters in appearing bare headed at services of the Lord's church. Though consciences were mangled, families were put in turmoil, and churches were disfellowshipped, the culture seems to have finally won out. We suddenly, in the context of history, we very suddenly saw as clear as day that Paul's clear instructions were not clear at all or they represented a historically and culturally limited application of the gospel in light of Jewish or Gentile or Paul's sensitivities” (pp. 132, 133).

He continues:

“Paul does not use the word 'culture' in 1 Corinthians 11. That is the word our brethren use to do away with that specific clear requirement in 1 Corinthians 11. These symbols have no meaning now, we say. Only the principles remain we decided. Women should continue to do those things which symbolize subjection to men in the culture to which they now belong, not what symbolized subjection in the Jewish or Gentile communities of the first century” (ibid [emphasis mine]).

Brother Mitchell then applies that same reasoning to the matter of male leadership in the assembly. He claims:

“In Paul's experience, for a woman to speak freely or assert herself unabashedly was shameful under all circumstances in all known cultures Jewish and pagan” (p. 136).

Thus our brother is urging us to repudiate the practice of male-only leadership in the assembly, and he is arguing that we do so for the same reason that we have repudiated the practice of the head covering: namely the fact that society no longer considers female leadership or the uncovered head shameful. (Brother Mitchell was then Resident Scholar at the University of Houston). Interestingly our brother speaks of our "do(ing) away with that specific clear requirement in 1 Corinthians 11" (emphasis mine) on the basis that "Only the principles remain." Like many others our brother believes that consistency demands that we do the same with 1 Tim 2:8 ff.

Brother Robert M. Randolph was Mitchell's partner in the debate, and he also defends female leadership in the assembly. He comments:

“In chapter 11 Paul plainly tells us that women were to pray and to prophesy with heads covered. The issue in chapter 11 is what their attire is when they participate in worship. He is as clear here as he is about silence in chapter 14, yet we hear 14 but we do not hear 11. Maybe it is that we have given up the veils as cultural and we are afraid that if we admit it, we will have to face the fact that the admonition to silence has contextual meaning that mitigates against its being prescriptive. That is to say, silence in Corinth served a specific need for those women that is not replicated in our churches today" (p. 107 [emphasis mine]).

Brother Randolph is urging us to acknowledge that commands concerning both the silence of women and the head covering served a specific need for those women that is not replicated in our churches today.

Now, here is my point: regardless of what we think of these comments, an increasing number of brethren are repeating them and are urging us to treat Paul's instructions in l Corinthian 14 and 1st Timothy 2 as a reflection of culture, arguing that this is consistent with our treatment of Corinthians 11:2-16. Their position is that Paul "is as clear" in 1 Corinthians 11 as in 1 Corinthians 14 (which I believe is the case) and they are arguing that we should repudiate male leadership for the same reason that we have repudiated the head covering. This alone should encourage us to give serious attention to l Corinthians 11:2-16.

Traditionally in the brotherhood, when discussion of the head covering occurs it is usually lumped in with foot washing and the holy kiss. Discussions are usually framed in such a way as to suggest that all three fall into the same category. Sadly an increasing number of brethren have added male leadership to the list. They now speak of foot washing, the holy kiss, the head coverings and male leadership as if all belong in the same category. We must respond by pointing out that when we focus upon such passages as 1st Tim 2:11-13 it becomes clear that male leadership does not belong in the same category as foot washing and the holy kiss, regardless of how often people link them together. We must base our argument upon the text itself. In my view it is also evident from 1st Corinthians 11:2ff that the head covering does not belong in the same category as foot washing and the holy kiss just as the silence of women does not belong in this category.

Feminist theology

The pervasive influence of feminist theology complicates the study of those scriptural passages containing gender specific commands.

“Feminists of the evangelical persuasion advocate that the analogy of faith principle means the clearer passages should determine the interpretation of the less clear ones. They hold that the 'clear' text on women's roles to be Galatians 3:28 or one of other starting points referred to in the previous section and perceive 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 14:34, 35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to be the obscure passages” (The Master's Perspective on Contemporary Issues, Robert L. Thomas p. 135).

Thus the feminist theologians who produced the best-selling Woman's Bible Commentary dismiss "the words on women's silence" in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 as most likely "a marginal gloss" adding that the "inclusion of these verses in the text of Paul's letter is particularly unfortunate" (p. 418). Turning to 1 Tim 2:8-15 we find that "the command for silence in church is not a command from Paul valid for all time; rather, it is the view of one author (not Paul) or one Christian group on how they would like to see women behave" (p. 447). Commenting upon 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 the authors concede Pauline authorship but go on to describe his argument as “inarticulate, incomprehensible, and inconsistent" (p. 417). Evidently the apostle's comments here are "as obscure as any he makes" (p. 416). His argument is "so convoluted" and his terminology "so enigmatic" that it is "impossible to determine exactly what activity lies behind these comments" in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (ibid). We are told that Paul's "lack of clarity" and "torturous logic" may indicate that "Paul himself is not exactly sure what is going on." Moreover his comments in v 7 are based upon "a misreading of Gen 1:27" and his argument is "developed with discouraging symmetry."

I am not convinced that 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 is an interpolation. I am not convinced that Paul did not write 1 Tim 2:8-15. I am not convinced that the apostle's argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is “inarticulate, incomprehensible, and inconsistent.” Elsewhere I have discussed the first two passages, and in the following pages I will share some thoughts on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

Worthy of attention

I realize that this is a lengthy paper but I believe that 1 Cor 11:2-16 deserves careful consideration. I am convinced that the ultimate purpose of creation is the glorification of God, and as I will explain, I am convinced that Paul’s instructions concerning the head covering are designed to ensure that God’s glory is not compromised in the worship assemblies of the church. Briefly, in my view 1 Cor 11:7 is central to Paul’s argument:

“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”

I will develop this point later, but in my view Paul’s point is this:

"Since the Christian man reflects the glory of Christ, if he were to wear a veil concealing his head, he would rob his own head of its chief function of reflecting the glory of Christ" (Rienecker/Rogers Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament p. 423).

“Man indeed ought not to cover his head in prayer; it would be tantamount to veiling the glory of God, and this would be an insult to the Divine Majesty” (Believers Bible Commentary).

“(T)he glory of God should not be concealed but revealed; but man’s glory is to be concealed" (Thomas Aquinas Commentary on First Corinthians 608).

In my view Paul’s instructions are designed to ensure that God’s glory is not compromised in our worship assemblies, and no topic is more important than the glory of God.

“The astounding fact is that everything that is, and everything that happens, has as its ultimate goal and end the glory of God. God in his power and sovereignty created the universe so that his glory might be displayed (might be “clearly seen,” as Paul puts it in Romans 1:20

……..

God pursues his own glory tirelessly throughout biblical history. So the glory of God is really the greatest of all subjects, and is indeed the subject and the motivation and the goal of worship” (Worship And The glory Of God - Ron Man Reformation and Revival Spring 2000 p. 84).

It is because I believe that 1 Cor 11:2-16 deals with the glorification of God in worship that I find it disappointing to hear brethren speak dismissively of “bind(ing) a veil, hat, handkerchief or Kleenex” upon Christian women. If I am correct these verses deal with “the greatest of all subjects” and deserve careful attention.

Past and present

The position argued in this paper was not always considered unorthodox.

Prior to 1960s few Catholic women attended mass bareheaded. According to The 1917 Code of Canon Law 1262 § 2 “women … shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.” Following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) this practice gradually fell into disuse.

When we turn to the Church of England a similar picture emerges. The North Western Advocate and the Emu Bay Times of 29th August 1905 carried the following item:

"London, August 27. — Several ladies who visited Canterbury Cathedral without head-coverings were excluded from the sacred edifice for disregarding the usual reverent custom. The action has led to a long correspondence in the newspaper, in which opinions have been voiced for and against. The English Church Union is supporting the movement.

A respected clergyman of the Church of England who was asked yesterday for a comment … remarked that the church based its teaching in this respect on the ninth chapter of the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians”

(http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/65143894).

Almost 300 years ago Presbyterian Matthew Henry said:

“It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this or lay it aside.”

However 300 years later in June 2001 the Reformed Presbytery In North America issued a report which began as follows:

“Prior to the formation of the Reformed Presbytery In North America (in August 2000), the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton had for a number of years practiced and taught the unalterable moral use of the headcovering for women in public worship. Approximately three years ago, the Session moved away from the position that headcoverings were an unalterable moral practice to a position of uncertainty while yet practicing the use of the headcovering in public worship.”

In the Augsburg Confession (1530) the “magna carta of Lutheranism“ we have the following:

“What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11, 5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14, 30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc" (Article XV111 53).

Although not considered binding this provision is listed alongside “observance of the Lord's Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and rites" (57).

The 19th century Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon once asked:

“Do you think you and I have sufficiently considered that we are always looked upon by angels, and that they desire to learn by us the wisdom of God?”

He continues:

“The reason why our sisters appear in the House of God with their heads covered is ‘because of the angels’. The apostle says that a woman is to have a covering upon her head, because of the angels, since the angels are present in the assembly and they mark every act of indecorum, and therefore everything is to be conducted with decency and order in the presence of the angelic spirits” (Sermon May 4 Metropolitan Tabernacle Newington).

Although the Westminster Confession does not discuss the matter in detail, various members of the Assembly expressed views on the subject of the head covering including the following:

“Women are to be veiled in the assemblies, because of the angels, 1 Cor. 11:10, to show their reverence and subjection to them being present; and angels are covered, to show their reverence and subjection to Christ. It is an honour to the angels, that in reverence to them the women are to be veiled; and it is a great honour to Christ, that angels reverence and adore him” (Com on Ezekiel [1:23] William Greenhill).

I do not know enough to comment on the practice during the early years of the Restoration Movement but we recall brother Lynn Mitchell’s comment (above) on head covering practices in the past:

Also recall that 100 years ago J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton wrote (above):

So according to brother Mitchell a “Christian tradition of more than nineteen hundred years … was scuttled within a generation” while according to brother McGarvey and brother Pendleton women had to be persuaded to unveil. Susan Foh expresses her view as to why a text “assumed to have a clear and self-evident meaning” since the apostolic period suddenly became controversial:

“The discontinuance of coverings for women, by most denominations only in this century, was not done for theological reasons but for cultural reasons (hats went out of style and became too expensive)" (A Male Leadership View Women in Ministry Four Views).

I do not know if this is correct but it does seem evident that there has indeed been a widespread discontinuance of this practice. In my view this is not due to the fact that we have “greater light” than Aquinas and others. I do know that in keeping with the spirit of our age, there is a widespread attempt to explain away every passage in the NT which has traditionally been understood to place limitations on the role of women. Yes, as we will see, every passage. The headcovering, the silence of women in the churches, the headship of the husband in the marriage relationship – every passage dealing with gender specific instructions have been or are being “revisited.“ This is not hard to understand:

“As Bruce A. Ware has written in this issue: ‘It is fair to say that our culture despises the traditional Christian understanding of gender roles. It is no wonder, therefore, that enormous pressure is placed on Christians, particularly Christian leaders, to make concessions so that the resulting ‘Christian’ stance adapts into one that is less offensive to the modern Weltanschauung’” (Peter R. Schemm Jr Editorial Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 12:2 Fall 2007 p. 3).

In his Exegetical Fallacies D. A. Carson says:

"All of us of course will make some exegetical mistakes. I am painfully aware of some of my own, brought to my attention by increasing years, wider reading and alert colleagues who love me enough to correct me" (p. 12).

Sharing Carson's painful awareness of fallibility, I offer these thoughts in an earnest attempt to deal with the text, but I will of course continue to study the matter, and will (I hope) graciously accept correction if necessary.

A special thanks to brother Dave Bell for his insightful comments and helpful suggestions. Dave has been a diligent student of scripture for many years and it is encouraging to know that we have arrived at the same conclusion independently. NEXT