The other day we had our weekly community group. Nothing unusual about that. It is our practice to take the sermon preached on Sunday and press into any questions we might have as well as reflect a bit more on the relevant applications. This most recent Sunday, our passage was 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Unsurprisingly, there were lots of questions.

This one, that I blogged about last week, came up. What is Paul going on about when he says ‘because of the angels?’ In all honesty, I think I understand the first part. At least, I understand it better than the bit I just quoted. Clearly wearing a head covering was deemed to be a symbol of authority. I can discern that much from 1 Corinthians 11:10. What it has to do with angels and how they’re meaningfully involved is anybody’s guess. My post last week talked at more length about that.

We also got to speak a bit about 1 Corinthians 11:14. What exactly does Paul mean when he says, ‘does not nature itself teach…’? Again, we’re dealing with significantly contested verses. There is no consensus and few of the suggested interpretive options are without their issues. I wasn’t preaching on Sunday, but I admitted in our group that I had a conversation about this verse with the preacher myself. Not, I should add, because I thought he got anything wrong; in fact, he brought it up with me. More because the verse is contested and it isn’t immediately clear.

I am (broadly) with Calvin on this one and don’t take ‘nature’ to refer to biological fact and ontology here. Rather, he is in effect using ‘nature’ to refer to widespread custom and cultural understanding. Something close to ‘isn’t is natural to think…’ or ‘isn’t it naturally evident…’ captures the meaning. Albert Barnes takes a similar line, stating ‘The word nature (φύσις phusis) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among people.’ John Gill also reckons it is something close to what he calls common sense or ‘second nature’, as evidenced by it being a widespread custom.

One thing we shouldn’t overlook in the passage is the fact that the practice of women’s head covering – probably with a full veil – was specifically the custom established. Not only that, but one established by the Apostles and seeming (v16) taught in every church in every place. We cannot dismiss it as cultural in the sense that it didn’t exist only in one place and it was so widely practiced, Paul reckons nobody should be able to argue abut it at all. It is the only custom of all the churches.

Where we may take a step back is concerning the broader principles at play. To be honest, on hotly contested passages like this it tends to be best to stick with the clearer and broader principles than get bogged down in the details (we all know who lives there!) And the broad outlines seem to be these (to my eye):

1. Propriety & order are linked
2. Order does not imply inequality or value
3. Practice ought to reflect order

The details are more contested, but there some bits of meat we can put on those bones:

1. God has designed order within human relationships that ought to be honoured and expressed within the church.
2. Order within the Godhead necessarily means human order is not a matter of equality or value i.e. “God is the head of Christ” neither diminishes nor harms Christ.
3. What is deemed proper will impact how we communicate human order. What we do and how we appear communicates something about God’s design.
4. Human order must not be used to claim higher value or no need of others i.e. God is not independent of Christ and both are equal in the Godhead cf. “woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman”.
5. Our practice will communicate our understanding of proper order so we ought to do that which honours God’s designed order in worship.

Those are, I think, the broad brush lines. The contested parts are (as you’d imagine) more debatable. The key questions are:

1. What is the nature of the order God has established? How does it operate?
2. Is this referring to all men and all women or husbands and wives more specifically?
3. Are head coverings demanded today as an Apostolic custom or were they a cultural application of the principle concerning symbolic expression of God’s designed order?
   • If ‘yes’, in what way does this custom convey these things today?
   • If ‘no’, how then is the principle to be applied in modern worship?

Of course, I have views on these questions. Some of those views I hold more strongly and feel are clearer than others. I don’t intend to answer any of these questions here. You can do your own exegesis, reading and satisfy yourself. It bears saying, some of the more contested verses – like v10 for example – have been argued about since the 2nd century (Tertullian gets a mention in a few of the modern, and not so modern, commentaries). We may want to treat lightly and cautiously with that in mind.

The real reason I raise all this is just to highlight a couple of things. Sometimes the bible is difficult and I don’t think it hurts at all to admit it (even Peter admits it about some of Paul’s writing; maybe he was thinking of these verses in 2 Peter 3:16!) Second, when things are tough and particularly when individual verses are hotly contested by reasonable, godly people whom we otherwise agree with on almost everything, we tend to do better pulling out a little bit and focusing on the clearer, broader outline of what is being said rather than failing to see the wood for the trees. Third, and finally, we want to be a little cautious before staking a claim for a definitive and authoritative position. There may well be things that are clear; but we have to also admit there are evidently things that really aren’t all that clear to us. Camping out on what is not altogether clear is rarely a good idea.