An Objection Considered

Rex Banks

I have argued that the apostolic pattern contains three symbols which are rooted in transcultural realities. In the case of the head covering, it is my view that instructions are grounded on creation order just as instructions concerning the silence of women (1 Tim 2) and male headship in the family (Eph 5) are grounded upon creation order.

Instructions which are rooted in the very nature of the female and the male are binding in every age. Some who approach 1 Cor 11 having ruled out the very possibility that the head covering instructions are part of the apostolic pattern, argue in the following manner: 

“If Paul's instructions relating to the head covering itself were based upon creation law, or upon the very nature of the male and female, why were these instructions not given at creation?”

 As one good brother puts it:

 "Veils were not tied to creation. Nothing is said about Eve wearing the veil..." (Mc Whorter Gender and Ministry p. 155).

Brother McWhorter does not base his argument upon grammar or syntax but upon the fact that Eve did not wear the veil.

On June 4 2001 the Reformed Presbytery in North America issued The Practice of Headcoverings In Public Worship in which the following statement is made:

“If, however, the headcovering is not cultural, but is rather (as some claim) a divine regulation required in public worship for all time, based upon the law of nature and the order of creation, we would expect to find evidence of this in the Old Testament. We would expect to find the headcovering instituted in the Garden of Eden as a creation ordinance. The evidence, however, is to the contrary. For Genesis 2:25 teaches that Eve did not wear a headcovering, but was rather naked. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.  Nor do we find the Corinthian headcovering regulation taught as an ordinance in the public worship of God in the Old Testament. Indeed for certain men in ecclesiastical office we find the exact opposite required. High priests were required to cover their heads in Leviticus 8:9 in contrast to Paul’s instruction that men uncover their heads in public worship.”

This is a very common argument but I am convinced that it does not work. By way of explanation we cannot affirm that if X possesses characteristic Y under conditions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, it follows that X will possess characteristic Y under conditions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K.

By way of a whimsical illustration, suppose that several of the molecules making up the earth’s atmosphere were suddenly replaced with different molecules. These new molecules have an impact upon human chromosomes. Females possessing two X chromosomes suddenly turn pink and males possessing X and Y chromosomes suddenly turn blue. The chromosomal makeup of Eve Sarah and Miriam was indistinguishable from that of the modern woman and the chromosomal makeup of Adam, Abraham and Moses was indistinguishable from that of the modern man.  It is the exposure of the male and female to the new environment which accounts for the changes in skin colour. We may never know for sure which new molecule or molecules account for the phenomenon, but it is linked to the very nature of the male and the female. Given the new environment the statement “Any woman exposed to the atmosphere will turn pink because the woman possesses two X chromosomes” is correct. The fact that women possessed two X chromosomes in the past and did not turn pink when exposed to the atmosphere does not prove that the phenomenon is not linked to the very nature of the female.

This brings us to the problem with the “Eve argument”. True, the nature of the male and the female has not changed since creation, but because of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood the situation of the Christian brother and the Christian sister is fundamentally different in many respects from that of Adam and Eve and Abraham and Sarah. It is true that “nothing is said about Eve wearing the veil” but we cannot argue on this basis that given the nature of the male and the female   the head covering does not carry a divinely ordained significance under the conditions of the New Covenant. This would be to affirm that  if X possesses characteristic Y under conditions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, it follows that X will possess characteristic Y under conditions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K.

To counter the “Eve argument” we need only point out that spiritual conditions under the new covenant are not identical to those under preceding covenants. And we know that this is the case.

Heb 12:18 – 24   For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind,  and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them.  For they could not bear the command, "IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED."  And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling."  But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,   to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

What are the conditions unique to the New Covenant which account for the new head covering instructions? We do not have to know the answer to this question to know that the “Eve argument” cannot work but in my view the following is worthy of consideration.  During the Patriarchal age, family heads performed priestly functions and later during the Mosaic era, a separate priesthood was established. All priests were male. Israel's worship in the “holy convocation” was conducted by priests, all of whom were male. True there were prophetesses (female prophets) but never female priests. Not a single woman functioned as a priest in a public setting with divine authority during the Patriarchal and Mosaic eras. However in the Christian age the situation is fundamentally different. For the first time both males and females function as priests (1 Pet 2:5, 9) and when men and women come together in the public assembly today,  female priests stand alongside male priests in public worship. Never, had a female shared this public priesthood role with the male. Never had a woman functioned as a priest in the holy convocations of Israel. Never had she shared this office with her male counterpart. Neither Eve, Sarah, Miriam nor any other Old Testament woman functioned as a priest in worship.

Keep in mind too that before Jesus' ascent God's covenant people did not approach Him in worship through a heavenly High Priest. Neither Adam, nor Abraham nor Moses nor any other worshipper, male or female enjoyed this privilege. The Hebrew epistle explains the superiority of Christ's priesthood.  Male and female priests approach the throne of God through their heavenly high priest Jesus and enjoy an intimacy which was previously impossible. This may account for the fact that in 1 Corinthians 11 a fact is revealed about the nature of the male and female which had never been made known before. This piece of information about the nature of the male and the female was not disclosed in Genesis or any other Old Testament book, but it is revealed here for the first time in connection with Christian worship. This may be significant.

In 1 Cor 11:7 Paul says:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man." 

Of course Gen 1:26, 27 reveals that the male and female are created in the image of God but this fact about male and female glory was not revealed prior to the new covenant, and when it was revealed it was in connection with the attire of male and female worshippers. Note carefully just why the man ought not to have his head covered. He ought not to have his head covered (lit) "being the image and glory of God." Perhaps 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).

The woman on the other hand is "the glory of man." Perhaps Paul's point is that by covering her head in worship the woman ensures that God's glory alone is manifested in that setting and that human glory is hidden. Perhaps under the conditions of the New Covenant it is inappropriate for the male worshipper to cover the glory of God given his new standing before God in Christ. In other words it is possible that male and female glory take on a new significance when the woman functions as priest and when both males and females approach the throne of God through a heavenly High Priest. Obviously these are merely suggestions. What is certain however is that the “Eve argument” does not work. Those who argue that "Veils were not tied to creation” and that “Nothing is said about Eve wearing the veil” have failed to take into account the fact that the new covenant has certain unique characteristics, any one of which may explain why, for the first time male worshippers (God’s gory) and female worshippers (man’s glory) are to adopt this practice.

By way of explication consider animal sacrifices in the Old Testament period. During the Old Testament period animal sacrifices functioned as a “shadow” (Heb 10:1) but “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb 10:4). Only Christ’s blood generates the power to remove sin (1 Pet 1:18). It was Christ’s blood not the blood of animals which generated power to remove sin in the Old Testament period (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:15).

The Lord explains that animal sacrifices were commanded because of the fact that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev 17:11) of the sacrificial beasts. This is an unchanging fact of creation order and it is because of this unchanging fact that animal sacrifices typified the sacrifice of Christ. The life of the flesh has always been in the blood and it is because of this that the prohibition against eating blood (Lev 17:11) applies during the Christian era as well (Acts 15:29). However despite this unchanging fact of creation, Christians do not offer animal sacrifices today. Why? Because the blood of animals was typical of the blood of Christ which was shed once for all (Heb 9:26). Creation order remains unchanged, but certain unchanging realities carry different implications from covenant to covenant because the death burial and resurrection of Jesus ushered in a unique set of circumstances.

The point is that Paul’s head covering instructions and Moses’ instructions concerning animal sacrifices are both expressly grounded upon creation order and that order does not change. Man is the glory of God as he has been since creation, the woman is the glory of man as she has been since creation and the life of the flesh is in the blood as it has been since creation. However while these facts do not change the significance of these facts varies from covenant to covenant because the death burial and resurrection of Jesus ushered in an era which is unique in many ways.