Articles
The Woman's Covering of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16
When embarking on such a divisive issue as 1 Cor. 11, one potentially will not experience a complete sense of ease that they have presented a solid case for their point of view. Unfortunately, there are instances where no amount of study of the context, contemporary culture, or any other relatable facts will dissuade someone from their own beliefs in what a passage means to convey. In 2 Pet. 3:15-16, the apostle acknowledges that Scripture will be difficult at times; however, this passage does not say that the Word of God is impossible to understand. Biblical texts, such as 1 Cor. 11, present great challenges in not only comprehending, but will potentially cause individuals to be emotionally charged. Jesus, in John 17 right before his arrest, prayed for future believers to be united as He and the Father are One. Unfortunately, there are times that people will not agree, and this can cause separation between brethren.
The goal of this presentation is to explain the differing positions on the head covering in 1 Cor. 11. There are those that believe the passage was purely speaking of a custom at that specific time. Others take the stance that the veil is still in effect today. The former is the majority viewpoint taken within the church of Christ. Scripture speaks that each person is to pursue peace with one another (Rom. 12:18, Heb. 12:14), and that will be the intention in the following discussion of this most contentious topic.
There are individuals that believe the text is still applicable and binding today. As a representative of this viewpoint, let us consider Hiram Hutto’s argumentation in “The Woman’s Covering of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16” from Phillips Publications. He focuses on two main points: 1) Is the head covering still applicable today, and 2) what type of covering is meant. Hutto says, “He who denies this denies the word of God” (Phillips, 35). He presents the case that a woman must wear a covering and that this principle did not only apply to the church in Corinth, but everywhere, including today. Also, the apostle Paul is giving a judgment by God’s authority and not leaving it open for the Corinthians or anyone else to challenge. Additionally, the use of “nature” in v. 14, lends to the necessity of a covering. Granted that women “naturally” have the ability to grow out their hair longer than men, by no means does this necessarily make a strong case for Hutto. Furthermore, during Biblical times there were those that took a Nazirite vow, which prevented them from cutting their hair (e.g. Samson). It would appear that Hutto cites Rom. 1:26 to support his point of the term “nature” has been corrupted. The verse is not contextually valid to the point of what Hutto’s position is trying to make. One other issue that presents a problem for Hutto is that he is presumptuous regarding what a preacher should or should not look like when it comes to his hair (e.g. one who is a preacher would be ashamed to have that particular look). Ultimately, Paul argues for a covering because of the differences between the hairs of a woman versus that of a man, in Hutto’s eyes. Hutto explains that there is no clear, decisive meaning to the word in the text, and to conclude otherwise would be illogical. One of the main reasons for the covering was due to the custom of the time. Hutto declares that if it were a custom then it was contrary to both the Jew and Greek. In Jewish culture, men and women were to cover their heads, however in 1 Cor. 11, only the man was to be uncovered. For the Greeks, the custom was that both sexes remained unveiled during prayer, which contradicted Paul’s instruction that woman was to be covered and man was not. Also, there is no indication Paul is instructing the Corinthians to do this as a mere custom. Paul regards one as being “contentious,” if they do not follow this direction, as Hutto describes. Another reason Hutto affirms the covering, “Since prayer has not passed away, the rules given in 1 Cor. 11-16 still apply today” (Phillips, 45). There is no definitive indication that this was mandated during the time of spiritual gifts either, Hutto points out. The Greek word “katakalupto” does not have a clear meaning and should not be restricted to refer only as a veil. The last point made by Hutto, was that the hair of a woman is not to refer as the covering. Two things in consideration with Hutto’s argument: 1) the passage refers to prayer or prophesy, and 2) Paul puts limits on the covering and therefore it does not refer to hair. Hutto explains that the passage does not concern itself with normal daily activities outside of prayer or prophesy. There are instances when the head does not need to be covered and there are times when it does. Since a person’s hair is not something that can be cut off and grown right back, then the covering is not being referenced here. In regards to v.6, “How can a woman without any hair, get her hair cut off” (Phillips, 51)?
James Needham is representative of the opposing stance, i.e. that the covering is not binding and the main point of 1 Cor. 11 is headship or authority. Even before stating his position on the text and its meaning, Needham goes in great detail and articulates what the passage is not saying—“It is always best to approach a subject from the negative standpoint first” (Phillips, 15). A brief description of what Needham declares that the passage does not say is that the woman is to wear a hat in the assembly. He puts forth the various reasons including: the lack of mention for the acts of worship, the modern hat, and the assembly. Throughout the text, the examples given are presented to show the subordination of woman to man, and how in that specific time and culture the use of a veil was appropriate. Needham indicates the meaning of “katakalupto” as “hanging down from the head,” “from the higher to the lower part,” and “cover fully” (Phillips, 20). This covering would likewise require that the face be covered as well. Another point Needham puts forth is that Paul in v. 13 tells the Corinthians to take up this matter in the way of the current society. Further in v. 16, Paul states that this was a custom and not something done throughout the churches of God. The church of Corinth was bound not by Divine Law, but of the current custom of the day. Needham answers the uestion, “Does the artificial veil apply today?” with a yes. One would be surprised if he ended there because of what he had already presented, but he followed it up with a valid point. He explains, “If the woman’s wearing a veil which hangs down from the higher to the lower part of her head and fully covers her head means the same thing now that it did then. To attach first century significance to the veil is to establish first century regulations of it. If the regulations are the same now, so is the veil (Phillips, 28).” The natural or proper thing, at that time in Corinth, was for a woman to veil herself in public and in the assembly. In regards to a covering of a woman in today’s society, her hair has been given to distinguish her from a man. There are some cultures in the world today that still do require a woman to veil themselves, which includes their hair and face, such as countries in the Middle East.
When looking at the two different viewpoints, there are takeaways that can be discerned. Needham stresses the differences of masculinity and femininity, whereas Hutto does not directly address this issue. Unlike Hutto, Needham addresses “the impactful role of” spiritual gifts in the context of this topic. Many take the stance the passage was in context of when spiritual gifts were still in effect and once they were obsolete, then the binding of the head covering was no longer valid because it was adjoined with prophesying. Needham is silent on this particular aspect, but one could possibly infer from his writing that he would take this stance, whereas Hutto does not. Needham expresses clearly that if it is in the conscience of an individual to wear a covering then they must do so, cf. Rom. 14. Conscience is not up for discussion in regards to Hutto’s point of view. Hutto dismisses the connection of a kiss greeting and foot-washing to the head covering. Needham declares that if one binds the veil, then in the like manner, each must bind the holy-kiss and foot-washing. In the end, when it comes to interpreting 1 Cor. 11, Needham holds the views of the majority, whereas Hutto is in the minority.
Under the Old Law, the priests and prophets were to wear head coverings (Lev. 8, Eze. 24). To not do this would have been direct violation of God’s command. Men today generally remove their hats, if they are wearing one, at sporting events when the national anthem is being performed. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the tipping of one’s hat, was a custom between men to show respect and acknowledgement. Another interesting point to consider would be that in the Roman World, male pagan worshippers would have covered their heads. When addressing this particular passage, an individual who affirms that a veil other than a woman’s natural hair is required, will have a difficult time persuading most, because Paul clearly states that a woman has been provided with a covering—their hair. And if a veil were to be required today, then for what particular purposes? There is no current American custom, which Needham points out. Would it be just for the assembly or for out in public as well? If one is to consider the position of Hutto, and if he would be honest, then he does not present a full case for covering. Meaning, if a woman is to cover her head as he says, then why is not everything else binding that once was during Paul’s time?
There is no doubt that this text can cause great debates, though the ultimate problem lies within what will be the end result of said discussion. Will it be done with leveled heads and sensibility, or will civil disagreement not be possible due to individuals becoming overwhelmed with their passion for the subject? The Word of God is not opened to man’s “private” interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20-21); however, there will always be people that will believe one way and others that will see a passage with a completely different view. Danger comes when someone uses eisegesis instead of exegesis for any biblical verse. An individual’s pride can cloud one’s ability to truly see what has been written. And lastly, when someone’s convictions are such that no alternatives matter and further discussions are not possible, the only solution to them is that all must accept their conclusions. Sadly, divisions can occur and the possibility of reconciliation is unlikely. God desires no division (1 Cor. 1:10), but that does not mean that disagreements will not arise between brethren. May any who have separated themselves over this issue, or any other, find restoration and true understanding of God’s Word.
