1 Cor. 11: What the Commentators Had to Say

In the week following the initial conversation about 1 Corinthians 11, I had many conversations with a dear friend regarding her research into this topic. Her research led her to many commentaries on this subject, most (if not all) supported the notion that this passage has been utterly neglected in our modern, Western church for decades. One in particular(Brian Schwertley) had the following to say:

Although the use of head coverings in public worship is obviously not as important as the doctrines of the trinity, the two natures of Christ or justification by faith alone, nevertheless, it is important for a number of reasons. (1) It is required by Scripture and thus cannot be set aside like a bad recipe. When God has spoken on an issue, our job is to trust and obey whether we like it or not. (2) In our day when marriage and family life is at an all time low, any teaching and practice that supports the covenant headship of the man and the submission of the wife needs our utmost adherence. Head coverings represent what God teaches about marriage. Therefore, we should not mock or hate this biblical practice but embrace it wholeheartedly. (3) Culture at the present time in America is becoming increasingly pagan, hedonistic and anti-Christian. Any biblical practice that sets God’s people apart from our culture and sets an example for it ought to be embraced by believers. We certainly do not act as a salt and light to our heathen culture when we reject biblical imperatives relating to covenant headship but instead imitate the world. (4) A recurring problem for churches in the last one hundred years has been the intrusion of egalitarian and feminist principles into their beliefs and practices. An excellent way to stop such dangerous syncretism is to obey biblical teachings that feminists hate such as head coverings. The best defense is a good offense. May God enable us to return to the teaching of the apostles on this issue so that families will be strengthened and the angels properly instructed. (bold emphasis added)

This entire passage spoke to me, however, in the next three postings I will focus on the sections in bold, as they truly leapt from the page and smacked me right upside the head. Before I do so, below are the two most common arguments I found against the literal application of this passage.

1. Interpreting the "head covering" to mean "long hair."
Recently some authors have maintained that when Paul says "her hair is given to her for a covering" he is saying that the hair suffices as a covering, and this interpretation has enjoyed some popular currency, but it cannot be the Apostle's meaning... It is simply taken for granted in verses 5 and 6 that such cropped hair would be disgraceful, and so everyone agrees that a woman's head should be covered. And if there is something especially suitable about a woman's head being covered, then she should be glad to wear a headcovering in addition to the long hair. But if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also! ... These verses make no sense otherwise. If by "uncovered" Paul means only a shorn head in the first place, as some would have it, then his argument in verses 5 and 6 amounts to the nonsensical "if a woman will not refrain from cutting off her hair, then let her cut off her hair also." by Michael Marlowe

2. Head coverings have no symbolic significance in our culture
In today's culture, we no longer view a woman's wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission. In most modern societies, scarves and hats are fashion accessories. A woman has the choice to wear a head covering if she views it as a sign of her submission to the authority of her husband. However, it is a personal choice and not something that should be used to judge spirituality. Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html
Rebuttal:
Instead, [Paul] explains that the headcovering practiced in the churches is emblematic of womanly submission; and he also indicates that this is a symbol which even the angels (who are not subject to changing fashions) take a real interest in. So the practice cannot be dismissed as being merely cultural. And when we consider that the bare-headed fashion of our times came into vogue at the same time that the "women's liberation" movement began, along with the wearing of pants and the cutting of hair, we ought to pause before we say that these things are really so devoid of symbolism in the culture at large...What if, after careful consideration of a biblical mandate, we remain uncertain as to its character as principle or custom? If we must decide to treat it one way or the other but have no conclusive means to make the decision, what can we do? Here the biblical principle of humility can be helpful. The issue is simple. Would it be better to treat a possible custom as a principle and be guilty of being overscrupulous in our design to obey God? Or would it be better to treat a possible principle as a custom and be guilty of being unscrupulous in demoting a transcendent requirement of God to the level of a mere human convention? I hope the answer is obvious." Unfortunately it seems that Sproul's hope is out of place in the easy-going churches of our day. We are quite willing to be guilty of being unscrupulous. We would rather dismiss the apostle's reproof as "cultually conditioned" and emulate the easy-going Corinthians, who represent the Christian liberty which is so precious to the modern church. But this only shows that we are creatures of a like culture. By Michael Marlowe

I would love to hear YOUR initial reactions to these commentaries! Add your comments below!