In this study of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, we explore one of the most common views held today: the idea that the head covering was a cultural custom specific to Corinth and does not apply to Christians in modern, Western societies.
Is the command for a woman to cover her head (and a man to remain uncovered) tied strictly to the social norms of the first century, or is it a permanent tradition based on the eternal principles of headship and creation?
In this video, we discuss:
- The "Culture" Argument: An overview of the belief that the covering only applied because it was already a symbol of authority in Corinthian society.
- Translation Deep-Dive: Looking at the "New English Translation" and the "New American Standard" regarding verse 16. What does "no such practice" really mean in the Greek?.
- Shame vs. Sin: Evaluating the argument by James Sheer that "shame" is a cultural feeling rather than a label for sin.
- Shameful to Speak: Comparing the "shame" of being uncovered with the "shame" of a woman speaking in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 14.
- Does Headship Change?: If the covering is cultural, does the principle of headship (God - Christ - Man - Woman) also change with the times?.
- The "No Such Custom" Debate: A look at various commentaries and why the "contentious person" in verse 16 is likely the one arguing against the covering, not for it.
Key Verses:
- 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
- 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
About this Series:
This series aims to honestly examine the different positions on the head covering. Whether you believe it is a required practice today or a localized cultural tradition, this study will help you look closer at the text and the logic used to support each view.