Paul Williams makes an interesting case for requiring women to wear a head covering during the entire worship assembly. However, I think he misses a key difference. He characterizes or limits the matter of a custom being involved as just the part about a covering being put on the head. He writes, “The position that the brethren at Corinth were required to cover or uncover heads when praying or prophesying because of local custom ..” (page 105). In other words, if you maintain that it’s just a custom that doesn’t have to be followed today since our customs are different now, then you are referring to putting a veil on the head. Yet, there is another custom in this 1 Cor. 11 text that is easy to miss and more general than just putting cloth on the head. It’s something about the cloth itself. Williams doesn’t seem to notice the broader custom in the text of using a head garment as a symbol of subjection to another authority. We would generally not use that custom today. When we think of head garments today it’s normally for decoration (baseball cap), fashion style (cowboy hat), or trying to keep warm (winter wear); we’re not thinking of a symbol of subjection. Williams does not address this other custom in his book.
He agrees there is no pre-existing command in Mosaic law for a worship veil that was inherited into the New Testament: “This was not so under the Old Testament Law. There was nothing which said a man had to pray or prophesy with his head uncovered … the high priests wore turbans and the priests wore caps (Exodus 28:4, 37, 40)” (page 8). So, why would this issue be brought up at Corinth? It’s interesting this was not brought up with the Jewish christians, but rather with an area of gentile converts. Notice in chapters 8 and 10 of 1 Corinthians apostle Paul addresses polytheism in regards to eating meat offered to idols. I suspect this is what he is addressing in chapter 11, as well – polytheism also used head garments. This is why apostle Paul brought up the subject; he is correcting a polytheistic religious practice. Williams also agrees polytheistic head garments were used, he writes: “Corinth was a Roman colony where Roman practices were common. It is quite likely that there were men in the church in Corinth who were covering their heads just as they had been accustomed to doing when worshiping their heathen gods before they became believers … heathen priestesses did not wear head coverings” (page 102; cf. pages 110, 143); and “Roman men worshiped their gods with heads covered” (page 12). Again, this sounds like apostle Paul uses nature and Genesis in 1 Cor. 11 to address an ancient cultural-religious custom we do not recognize today (cloth symbol of subjection).
This ties in with verse 10 and “because of the angels.” Williams defines angels here as the divine beings and points to Jude 6 for an explanation (pages 13-15, 26, 58, 105, 129). But, strangely, while Williams mentions and explains the Greek words for other terms in his book (pages 76, 114-6), he does not do so here with “angels.” I’m thinking there’s a translation issue. The Greek term here for “angels” means messengers. It’s the same Greek term used in Luke 9:52 for human messengers, and is translated as “messengers” there in Luke (also James 2:25; similarly Luke 7:24). What human messengers would that be for verse 10 of 1 Cor. 11? Notice a few chapters later at 14:23-25 of 1 Corinthians apostle Paul actually mentions concern for visitors, non-members at the assembly watching what goes on, observing, and getting the wrong idea and reporting it to others; sounds like messengers. This suggests the 11:10 “angels” actually refers to “messengers” – concern about visitors at the assembly getting the wrong idea about what they observe there and telling others about it elsewhere. (Your women don’t cover? Oh, so your polytheists, too!)
Williams has an interesting reply to the commands of foot washing (John 13:14-15) and greeting with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16a): “The washing of feet was commanded to show that we are to serve one another … The kiss of greeting was made into a ‘holy’ kiss .. a sincere sign of the love Christians are to have for one another … we know these practices are not in themselves important. When customs change, we can follow the customs for greeting or for hospitality. But the principles taught by the commands concerning those customs are always to be followed” (page 109). So, the commands of foot washing and greeting with a holy kiss do not apply today because it was a cultural practice/custom we do not have today? We simply use the general meaning attached to those customs (serve each other, be sincere in brotherhood). Wouldn’t this also apply to their cultural practice of assigning a symbol of subjection to a piece of cloth? (man is in a leadership position, do not show honor to false religions) This whole controversy seems like it’s overblown and simply a misunderstanding of custom application.
Space limit.
