Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:1ff.
by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Friday, October 2, 2009 at 2:29pm
AN INQUIRER ASKS for a word or two about women wearing head coverings, especially in light of 1 Corinthians 11:5-6.
FIRST OF ALL, I refer everyone to my book, “Headship, Submission and the Bible: Gender Roles in the Home” (College Press, 2008). See especially ch. 20. The main point of this section of Paul’s letter is male headship, with the principle stated in v. 3: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” The verses that follow show the OT support for this principle, as grounded in creation.
In reference to head coverings, there is a distinction between the unchanging fact of male headship, and the changing or relative cultural expressions of it. I.e., in different cultures male headship is symbolized by different practices. To engage in these practices shows acceptance of the principle; to violate these practices shows a rebellion against the principle. In Paul’s day the practice that showed acceptance of male headship was that women covered their heads in worship, and men did not.
This is seen in verses 7-10, which say: on the one hand, a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but on the other hand, because the woman is the glory of man, she ought to wear a symbol of male authority on her head.
Most agree that the head covering was what symbolized male headship in that culture. In other cultures, other practices may symbolize the unchanging principle and should be followed. In the U.S. today head coverings mean nothing one way or the other. The one practice that has over the years symbolized male headship seems to be the woman’s taking on her husband’s last name after marriage. The fact that many married women today are keeping their own last name or are forming hyphenated last names may be indicative of a growing rejection of this Biblical principle.
Again I refer my readers to the web site of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, i.e., www.cbmw.org : click on Resources, and type “head coverings” into the search block near the top right corner of that screen. Quite a few references will appear.
So, some of the Bible is only relevant to certain time periods? Besides His Covenants, God is unchanging. How can 1 Cor 11 be from the mouth of God if, in our culture and time period, it’s irrelevant?
Your use of the word “relevant” is not appropriate. ALL the Bible is “relevant” for SOMETHING, in all time periods. But not every command or instruction contained everywhere in the Bible is intended to be obeyed by all people in all times, even though it all does indeed “come from the mouth of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). For example, the instructions about animal sacrifices in the Law of Moses are “from the mouth of God,” but they are not intended to be put into practice in our era. They are still relevant for our learning, though. In the New Testament writings, instructions about miraculous spiritual gifts do not apply today, since that type of gift ceased when the New Testament writings were completed (1 Cor. 13:8-13). But the teaching about them is still relevant for our learning. Also, today most Christians understand that certain social conventions mentioned in the New Testament were to be obeyed in that culture where these practices were the normal way to live by certain moral rules, but would not be required where such practices are not a part of the culture. The main examples of this are the head coverings and footwashing, both of which were practiced in New Testament times with certain specific meanings. They would not have these same meanings today. This teaching is still relevant, though, because it shows us that we should be alert to what the social conventions of today mean, and should follow or avoid them insofar as they reflect Biblical morality (or immorality).