‘Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.’

Paul opens this section by giving them praise for remembering so much of what he has taught them and for holding fast the ideas that he had delivered to them. To that extent they held firmly to the truth, and to that extent he is satisfied, and he wants them to know it before he mentions something about which he is not so content. He wants to be conciliatory.

Paul was a wise man. He knew that to constantly belabour men and women without some praise could only lead to bitterness. It was necessary that they recognise that he saw the good in them as well as the bad. And so for a moment he relaxes and commends them. For not all were caught up in the things that he has condemned.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Status of Men and Women in Ministry When Prophesying and Praying Is To Be Expressed In The Covering or Uncovering of the Head (11:2-16).

This question is of great importance in the church, because it deals with the matter of authority, and especially authority in ministry. It is usually misrepresented as though it somehow demeaned women. In fact it exalts women. But in spite of all attempts to modernise it and all attempts to tone down its message, its message does remain inviolable, once correctly interpreted.

It certainly declares that there is in the present order of things a grading in authority from God to Christ, from Christ to man and from man to woman. Yet this is not in order to degrade the woman, but in order to raise her to her rightful place as man’s helpmeet in the things of the Spirit as well as in the things of the flesh. Woman is seen as not to be excluded from the whole. Just as God being the head of Christ does not demean Christ, it means that He operates at a lower level as a necessary part of God’s plan of salvation, neither is it demeaning to a woman that man is her head. (It may, of course be unpalatable because she lacks Christ’s humility).

Fallen men and women tend to look on this question of a covering wrongly. Fallen man tends to look on it as a sign that women are inferior and should be submissive, while they should rather see it as an indication of the important position which God has given to women in Christ. (They should also look on it as a reminder that each man should treat his wife as Christ treats the church (Eph 5:24-33) because of how important she is. As under his authority he should care for her and nurture her). Fallen women see it as an imposition. They see it as humiliating. They dare not tell God to move over, so they tell man to move over. They have lost the heart of a servant which is at the very centre of Christian behaviour. Rather than gladly pick up the towel which Christ offers them they insist that Christ should still carry it and use it. They do not want to be thought of as towel-bearers. But a woman should rather see the covering required here as a vizier’s crown, declaring her important status before God, next only to the man. It is the proclamation of her important status to angels and to the world.

Rather, however, than do this modern woman spends much of her time arguing about her own status over against man and so overlooks Christ’s command to be the servant of all (Mar 9:35; Mar 10:34). In the Upper Room there was only One who was fitted to take the basin and wash the feet of the guests at the Last Supper for only He was qualified by not being concerned about His own status. The remainder were too big and important to serve. But Jesus said, ‘I am among you as He Who serves’. He alone was therefore fit to serve. The woman who cavils at covering her head is simply demonstrating her total unfitness for the service of Christ.

Women in the modern day may be intensely annoyed at the suggestion that they should cover their heads when praying or prophesying in church (and cover them properly, not just with an eye catching hat). But apart from what has been said above they should bear two things in mind. Firstly that the idea is God appointed, and that while it might be annoying, perhaps we should recognise that God knows that it will finally be for the good of all. And secondly, that they should approach the question as a test of their true love for God. Love does not push itself forward, and puff itself up (1Co 13:4-5). Rather it submits to what God knows to be best. It is just possible that He knows more than we do, and that is that while there are exceptions to be accommodated (like Deborah (Judges 4-5) and Huldah the prophetess, who would both keep themselves covered) the overall authority of man is for the best, as long as man uses it in love and submission to God.

Paul actually had a high view of the woman’s position, contrary to that held by many in his day. He recognised that at creation God had created the woman to share with man in the exercising of man’s God-given authority on earth. He could declare us all one in Christ Jesus. And yet he recognised at the same time that womankind as a whole functions best when observing man’s God-given headship.

His message here had also especial importance for women in those days because the whole of society would judge them in terms of it. One question that could always arise for women was, were they in danger of depicting themselves as loose or rebellious women, especially in lascivious Corinth, because of how they behaved when praying and prophesying? Would they thereby bring discredit on the name of Christ? He wanted the proper order of things to be maintained, and the world to see that it was so.

But that it goes further than that comes out in 1Ti 2:12. There the final authority, especially in authoriatative teaching, was to be with the man. This probably has to do with the fact that on the whole men are more steadily rational than women, while women are more intuitive. (Of course there are exceptions to be accommodated or be warned about). And also to do with the fact that the revelation of God when used authoritatively needs dealing with rationally rather than intuitively. Intuition goes beyond what is there and can therefore in such matters lead astray. It is indeed interesting to note what part women have played since then in the spreading the kind of heresy that goes beyond the rational.

However, it would be unreasonable not to recognise also that women on the missionfield have played a huge part in the spreading of the true Gospel, and the building up of the body of Christ, and the training of men to serve the churches. And yet to their credit for the most part, even while they were thrust into having authority, they recognised the importance of the principles outlined above. They believed God’s word and lived in accordance with it. They acknowledged the headship of man because had God declared it.

It should perhaps be noted that there is no mention in the passage of being ‘in the church’. That comes later. Thus this is not necessarily dealing primarily with the question of how a woman should dress in church. It is dealing with the question of how she should dress when ministering by praying and prophesying. For a woman to pray and prophesy (and thus lead worship), wherever it took place, without wearing a head covering, was to usurp man’s authority as king and priest before God, and this was not to be allowed. On the other hand the covering was not to be seen as demeaning, for the same covering indicated the authority that she did have in these things as man’s appointed helpmeet (1Co 11:10).

(The question is not so much one of wearing something on the head, as of what it indicated to all. The point is that she should give an indication that she is man’s helpmeet, not his lord, nor his slave. She should not express total independence and lack of submission to man’s authority under God. The church has no place for unisex, or power-mad women’s movements which seek to displace men, but it does have a place for woman’s participation in the work of God, under Christ and under man. The world today will disagree. But then the world disagrees with Christ on many things. And in so far as the church does so it has ceased to be the church, for the church is united with Christ and cannot disagree with Him and remain the church).

The lack of reference to being in church does not necessarily deny that much praying and prophesying would take place within the church as a whole. But it recognises that often it would also take place in women’s gatherings (Tit 2:3-4, compare Act 16:13 where it was in the open air), or in the open air, or even in private worship in people’s homes. The point we are making is that it is not a woman’s presence in the church that is primarily in Paul’s mind in this section, but that of her praying and prophesying, and that wherever it was engaged in.

In chapter 14 we will learn of the great emphasis that Paul lays on prophesying for the edification of God’s people. Such ministry was especially important when there was no New Testament. It was a gift of the Spirit (1Co 12:28-29) through which the church could be ministered to (1Co 14:31), although it had to be accompanied by safeguards to ensure its soundness (1Co 12:3; 1Co 14:29). Here we learn that women prophesied as well as men, and thus it was necessary for the place of women in such ministry to be both safeguarded and controlled.

It may be that one problem for us as we consider the particular passage is that we are still not really aware of what the dress and other customs of the ancient world were. We have clues here and there, but in the end we have to interpret this passage without being exactly certain what the background of some of the illustrations is. Some commentaries give various examples, and come to differing conclusions, but none of the customs described can be said to be universally applicable. Our knowledge is limited. Thus we have to approach the matter cautiously. However, we need to recognise that possibly that is irrelevant and that Paul is expressing an eternal principle.

Another problem we have, of course, is that we tend to look at things from a modern viewpoint and we thus tend to make Paul say what we think he should have said.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Approach to Worship (11:2-14:40).

We now move on to a section which deals with the Christian approach to worship in the light of the particular problems of the Corinthian church. Chapter 11 covers the question of the covering or uncovering of the head in praying and prophesying, and its significance, followed by problems arising at the Christian love feasts and the Lord’s Table, including the divisions caused by those problems. Note that it is all about problems arising from un-Christian behaviour and attitudes. Chapters 12-14 then go on to deal with the question of the church as one body with Christ, and with that of spiritual gifts for the edifying of that one body, and warns again against un-Christian behaviour and attitudes by misuse of the gifts. And embedded within the whole is the great chapter on Christian love (chapter 13) which should underlie all worship. All worship is to be founded on love, and what we do in worship should have in mind how it will affect others. Worship is never to be selfish. It is to be participating together for the good of all.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Order of Divine Authority In 1Co 11:2-16 Paul attempts to set in order the roles of men and women in the church. He first explains the order of divine authority that God has placed within the body of Christ (1Co 11:2-3). Paul then explained this order by using an example from their culture (1Co 11:4-6). He then uses examples of creation to further this argument (1Co 11:7-16).

In this passage Paul seems make more comments in this passage on public assembly about the woman than the man. We can imagine a city with a thousand temple prostitutes where Paul saw the need to make a clear distinction between heathen prostitutes and God-fearing women in church. We can also see these small congregations meeting in house churches. This would cause the believers to ask if the women should dress as they would in their private houses, or should they dress as in public. In the Jewish culture women did not join the men in public worship; rather, it was conducted by men and boys. In Herod’s Temple the women had a separate court apart from the men. But in Greek culture, the women had greater freedom. In Corinth, the women were a part of temple worship. Thus, Paul deals with this issue immediately after his discussion on heathen worship that involved fornication and foods offered to idols.

1Co 11:2  Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

1Co 11:2 “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things” Comments – Paul first gives praise before he gives correction. This is a wise procedure for managing anyone, in church or in business. Often, I have sat down with an employee and told him the good things that he is doing. Then, I go into some areas that need correcting.

Paul is praising them because they were keeping the ordinances regarding public worship. He will begin his next topic on the abuse of the Lord’s Supper in 1Co 11:7 by saying, “I praise you not.”

1Co 11:2 “and keep the ordinances” – Word Study on “keep” Strong says the Greek word “keep” ( ) (G2722) means, “to hold down (fast).” The Enhanced Strong says this word is used 19 times in the New Testament.

Word Study on “ordinances” – Strong says the Greek word “ordinances” ( ) (G3862) literally means, “transmission, a precept, the Jewish traditionary law.” The Enhanced Strong says this word is used 13 times in the New Testament, being translated in the KJV as, “tradition 12, ordinance 1.”

Comments – Ordinances refer to the teachings that Paul handed down to the believers a Corinth. These teachings included the ordinances that the apostles and elders agreed upon at the Council of Jerusalem found in Act 15:22-31.

Paul used this same Greek word in his second epistle to the church at Thessalonica:

2Th 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

2Th 3:6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

Paul gave these same ordinances to each church that he established. Therefore, Paul is not using this word in its narrow sense that we do today to refer to only the two “ordinances” of water baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It has a broader application to refer to an ethical code of conduct, which Paul will discuss in chapters 11-14.

1Co 11:2 “as I delivered them to you” Word Study on “delivered” Strong says the Greek word “delivered” ( ) (G3860) means, “to surrender, yield up, intrust, transmit.” The Enhanced Strong says this word is used 121 times in the New Testament, being translated in the KJV as, “deliver 53, betray 40, deliver up 10, give 4, give up 4, give over 2, commit 2, misc 6.”

Comments – These ordinances that Paul delivered unto the Corinthians on an earlier occasion deal with the order of public worship. In fact, Paul will conclude this lengthy discuss in 1Co 14:40 by saying, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” These “ordinances” are codes of conduct to be used as guidelines in public worship.

1Co 11:3  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1Co 11:3 Comments – Jesus came in the name and authority of His Heavenly Father (Joh 5:43). We come in the name of Jesus, with His authority. A man’s wife comes in her husband’s name.

Illustration – When a wife comes of the bank to sign a check, she signs it in the husband’s name, because that name has been given to her to use his authority any time she needs it.

Joh 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”

1Co 11:4  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

1Co 11:4 Comments – For the man, his head, or authority, is Christ.

1Co 11:5  But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

1Co 11:5 “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head” – Comments – That is, the man is in authority, or the head, over the woman (see 1Co 11:3).

1Co 11:5 “for that is even all one as if she were shaven” – Here Paul is comparing natural laws in order to illustrate spiritual laws. For a woman to be uncovered in spiritual worship is like being shaven in the natural. For it is a shame for a woman to be bald in public life.

1Co 11:5 Comments – The veil for covering the women would have been of Oriental usage, something unfamiliar with the Greek women of Corinth. It was a sign of modest and submission. In contrast, we can imagine the independent woman of the Greek culture adapting herself to the modest customs of public assembly in the Corinthian church. Thus, Paul is establishing some guidelines in this area of dress and conduct for women.

1Co 11:6  For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

1Co 11:5-6 Comments – In African culture, young girls have to keep their hair cut short during their school years. This is because most children attend boarding school away from home, and since young girls do not know how to manage and keep long hair, they have to keep it short for hygiene and appearance. As they graduate and later marry, they will grow their hair longer, often at the request of their husbands, in order to enhance their beauty. In such a society, long hair symbolizes a lady who is subject to a husband, while short hair symbolizes a young, unmarried lady. Thus, the married woman’s hair serves as a covering to honor her husband.

From these two verses, we conclude that a woman’s hairstyle in the first century subjected her to certain images in her society. For example, an adult lady with a shaven head may have meant that she was single, independent or possibly one of the many temple prostitutes that lived in the city of Corinth.

Of course, with the influence of western cultures into African societies through the media, the issue of hairstyle begins to lose its significance. In the same way, it is apparent that Paul was addressing a Greek society with mixed views on the length of a woman’s hair, and this due to the influence of outside cultures. Thus, Paul gives the Corinthians some options in how to manage their hairstyle in a godly fashion without compromising their Christian values.

Paul seems to be saying that in a similar way it is a shame for a woman to be bald in public life, it is a shame for a woman to be uncovered in worship.

1Co 11:7 “but the woman is the glory of the man” Comments – The woman was created for man’s glory.

1Co 11:8 Comments – This is not like the question of which came first: the chicken or the egg; because man definitely came first.

1Co 11:10 “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head” Comments – A woman’s hair serves as a covering to show submission to her husband, which is her sign of having a man in authority over her.

1Co 11:10 “because of the angels” – Comments – Some scholars have suggested that this covering of the head of women kept the angels from admiring their beauty. Clement of Alexandria commented that the word “angels” is being used figuratively in this verse and actually refers to the righteous men in the church. [137]

[137] Clement of Alexandria writes, “‘Because of the angels.’ By the angels he means righteous and virtuous men. Let her be veiled then, that she may not lead them to stumble into fornication. For the real angels in heaven see her though veiled.” ( Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus: IV – From the Books of the Hypotyposes: Oecumenius from Book III. On 1 Corinthians 11:10) ( ANF 2)

However, we do see in Gen 6:2 that angels did in fact admire women, came down and married them, and bore children by them.

Gen 6:2, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

E. W. Bullinger notes that these giants existed after the Flood because there are references to giants after the time of Noah. He asks how this could be if they were all destroyed by the Flood? It was just this perverted event that brought upon man the destruction of the earth. He finds the answer in Gen 6:4 in the phrase “and also after that”. The Scriptures are telling us that these giants walked the earth during the time of Noah and “afterwards”, or after the Flood. [138] Evidently, these angelic “sons of God” came back down to earth sometime after the Flood and again came in unto the daughters of men. We know that this took place before the time of Abraham since the Rephaim, or giants, are found among the peoples who were defeated by the king of Elam (Genesis 14). The context of the Old Testament suggests that this time it was not in such a great measure of wickedness.

[138] E. W. Bullinger, Appendix 23: “The Sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 , 4 , in The Companion Bible Being The Authorized Version of 1611 With The Structures And Notes, Critical, Explanatory and Suggestive And With 198 Appendixes (London: Oxford University Press, c1909-22), 26-7.

We see them spoken of again in Num 13:33 as the children of Anak when the children of Israel spied out the land of the Canaanites.

Num 13:33, “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

Deu 9:2, “A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!”

The Scriptures give us the names of three of the children of Anak who were defeated by Caleb.

Num 13:22, “And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)”

Jos 15:14, “And Caleb drove thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak.”

We find a reference to other descendents of these giants, called the Emims and the Zamzummims, in Deuteronomy. Moses records for us that the sons of Esau, the Ammonites, destroyed them before possessing their land.

Deu 2:10-11, “The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.”

Deu 2:20-21, “(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead:”

In addition, we find eighteen references to the Rephaim, or giants, in the Old Testament, of whom were born Goliath the Gittite and his brothers. These giants are called “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” in Gen 6:4. This is the way the Philistines viewed Goliath and his brothers in battle. Finally, we find such creatures in Greek and Roman mythology.

God sent the sword of the Israelites into the land of Canaan this time as His form of divine judgment, but it took several hundred years before a man like David and his fighting men were able to wipe out this race of creatures.

Within the context of this discussion, we may have found insight into Paul’s comment to the Corinthian church when he said, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” (1Co 11:10) In other words, we must ask the question if it is possible for such angels to be attracted to the daughters of men today.

1Co 11:8-10 Comments – The Woman is Under Man’s Authority Paul takes a few verses in 1Co 11:8-10 to explain that a woman is to be in submission under the authority of her husband; for this is the reason for her having long hair.

1Co 11:11  Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

1Co 11:12  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

1Co 11:11-12 Comments The Proper Relationship of Man and Woman – Paul has just stated that the woman is to be in submission to the man (1Co 11:8-10). Man is prone to take a statement and take it to an extreme. We find women treated like property in the Oriental cultures like Islam. Thus, Paul wants to keep the Church balanced on this issue of the relationship between a man and his wife. Within the bonds of holy matrimony they were created to serve one another.

1Co 11:13  Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

1Co 11:14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

1Co 11:14 Comments A man cuts his hair short as a sign of submission to God, in as much as he is the image and glory of God. Paul has just said, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” (1Co 11:4) Thus, a man is to keep his head uncovered in order to reflect the image of God, in which he was fashioned.

1Co 11:15  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1Co 11:15 Comments In contrast to a man uncovering his head by cutting his hair, a woman has long hair as an expression of submission to her husband; for Paul has just stated, “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head.” (1Co 11:5)

1Co 11:16  But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

1Co 11:16 Comments When a man insists on wearing long hair, it is often for contentious reasons. A man with long hair in the body of Christ stands out differently.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Public Worship Paul now turns his attention to issues regarding public worship in 1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40. These directives on public worship in the Church will stand in direct contrast to the heathen forms of public worship in their pagan temples, which has been dealt with in the previous passages of this Epistle. Remember in the Old Testament how the priests and Levites had to sanctify themselves before entering into the service of the Tabernacle and Temple. Therefore, Paul uses this same approach for the New Testament Church. He first discusses the order of divine authority within the church, with most of his emphasis upon the role of women (1Co 11:2-16). Paul then deals with the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper by correcting some abuses in order to bring unity among the believers at Corinth (1Co 11:17-34). With these two areas of public worship set in order, the gifts of the Spirit are able to operate among the believers. Therefore, Paul takes a great deal of time to discuss the operation of the gifts of the Spirit during public worship (1Co 12:1 to 1Co 14:40).

Outline – Note the proposed outline:

1. The Order of Divine Authority 1Co 11:2-16

2. The Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper 1Co 11:17-34

3. Spiritual Gifts 1Co 12:1 to 1Co 14:40

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

1Co 11:2. St. Paul commends the Corinthians for observing the orders he had left with them, and uses arguments to justify the rule he had given them, that women should not pray or prophesy in their assemblies uncovered; concerning which, it seems, there was some contention, for the resolution whereof they had appealed to St. Paul, 1Co 11:2-16.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 11:2 . Conciliatory preamble to the sharp correction which follows.

] is simply the autem leading on to a new subject; hence we are not to seek any set purpose in the similarity of sound between and .

] because you are in all respects mindful of me. Rckert’s explanation: “you think on everything that comes from me ” (1Co 16:14 ), is needlessly far-fetched, seeing that with the accusative, very frequent in Greek writers, does not occur in the N. T., and the absolute is common enough (1Co 9:25 , 1Co 10:32 ).

. . [1750] ] and because you hold fast the traditions in the way in which I delivered them to you . This is the practical result of what was stated in the foregoing clause. might refer to doctrine as well as to usages and discipline (comp Gal 1:14 ; Col 2:8 ; 2Th 2:15 ; 2Th 3:6 ; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 803 A; Polyb. xi. 8. 2); but the tenor of the following context shows that Paul means here directions of the latter sort, which he had given to the Corinthians orally (and also perhaps in his lost letter, v. 2). He had, at the foundation of the church and afterwards, made various external regulations, and rejoices that, on the whole, they had not set these aside, but were holding them fast in accordance with his directions ( , comp 1Co 15:2 ; 1Th 5:21 ; Heb 3:6 ; Heb 10:23 ). As to the connection of , see Winer, p. 210 [E. T. 281].

[1750] . . . .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

XV
APOSTOLIC INSTRUCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE CONDUCT BECOMING CHURCH ASSEMBLIES

1Co 11:2-34

A. In respect of apparel; in the covering of the head by the women, and the uncovering of it by the men

(1Co 11:2-16)

2 Now [But, ]1 I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep [firmly hold, ] the ordinances [traditions, ]2, as I delivered them to you. 3But I would have you [I wish you to, ]3 know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the [om. the] woman is the man; and the head of Christ Isaiah 4 God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered [anything down, depending from his head, ],5 dishonoureth his head. 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her [own, ]6 head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn [let her hair be cut off, ]: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn7 or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: 8but the woman is the glory of the [om. the] man. For the [om. the] man is not [out] of the [om. the] woman; but the [om. the] woman [out] of the [om. the] man. 9Neither was the man [For man was not] created for the woman; but the [om. the] woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man [neither is woman without man, nor man without woman], in the Lord. 12For as the woman is [out] of the man, even so is the man also by 13[means of] the woman; but all things of [are from, ] God. Judge in yourselves [among your own selves, ]: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering [an envelopment, ]. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such [established, ] custom, neither the churches of God.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[Having corrected the more private abuses that prevailed among the Corinthians, the Apostle begins in this chapter to consider those which relate to the mode of conducting public worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing in public without a veil. Dress is in a great degree conventional. A costume which would be proper in our country, would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress to all those usages which the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The veil in all eastern countries was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of modesty and. subjection. For a woman, therefore, in Corinth to discard the veil, was to renounce her claim to modesty, and to refuse to recognize her subordination to her husband. It is on the assumption of this significancy in the use of the veil that the Apostles whole argument in this paragraph is founded. Hodge.]

1Co 11:2. He begins the new lesson he was about to impart with a conciliatory introduction.Now I praise you.This might be attached directly to the previous injunction be ye followers of me, just as what follows might be subsumed under the one in the 32d verse, give none offence, although neither of these connections is by any means certain. At any rate the first clause is not to be taken in the way of a strong contrast with what precedes [taking the in an adversative instead of transitional sense], q. d., though I exhort you to imitate me, yet, nevertheless, I praise you. [Hodge is inclined to adopt this method of interpreting the connection, and adds: the Corinthians, although backward in following the self-denying and conciliatory conduct of the Apostle, were, nevertheless, in general mindful of the ordinances or rules which he had delivered to them.]That ye remember me in all things.The is not dependent on , so that the latter becomes the direct object of , making the rendering (that ye remember all things which proceed from me). Such construction were inadmissible, if for no other reason but this, that the verb in the New Testament never takes the accusative.This remembrance he designates as one that proved itself in worthy deeds.That ye keep the traditions even as I delivered (them) to you.The personal and the official characters are here inseparably united. The traditions () he here speaks of, were both of an oral and written kind (2Th 2:15), and embraced doctrinal, as well as ritual and practical matters. Here, indeed, he refers primarily to such instructions and ordinances as concerned the order of the church, and of divine worship. The dispute respecting Scripture and tradition obtains no hold here, inasmuch as the distinction between that which was fixed in writing, and that not so fixed did not as yet appear. [The word translated traditions is never used in the New Testament in reference to the rule of faith, except for the immediate instructions of inspired men. When used in the modern sense of the word tradition, it is always in reference to what is human and untrustworthy, Gal 1:14; Col 2:8, and frequently in the gospels of the traditions of the elders. Hodge.] That the particular point alluded to cannot be that mentioned in 1Co 11:3 ff. (Olsh.), is plain from the formula of introduction there used which hints at something new (comp. Osiander). , to hold fast, so as to submit to it as authority, and to conduct ones self accordingly (Meyer: by faith and obedience; Osiander: usu tenere).

1Co 11:3. But I wish you to know that the head of every man is Christ.He here assigns the doctrinal ground for the practical instruction which follows. In the Corinthian Church there was a departure from the prevailing custom of the East (according to which women went veiled), especially on the part of heathen converts, who, even in other respects, rather overstretched the idea of Christian liberty. Since Paul is here discussing a question of merely outward custom, it is interesting to observe how characteristically he surveys the smallest matters in connection with the greatest, and understands how to penetrate to the remotest particulars from the fundamental principles of the Christian life. He begins, not with the custom itself, but with the leading idea that ought to govern it. Neander. By the opening words of the verse he indicates the importance of the instruction he is about to communicate. What he particularly inculcates, is the subordination of woman to the man; but this he directly connects with higher relations. Before he declares the relation which the wife sustains to the husband as her head, he points to that which the man sustains to Christ as his Head, and concludes with referring all back to God as the Head of Christ. By the term head he expresses the next immediate relation sustained. The man, that is the Christian man, has Christ for his Head to whom he is alone subordinate, while the woman who, as a member of the Church, has indeed Christ in like manner for her Head, is yet primarily subject to her husband, and in him has her support, her destiny, and her dignity.To extend this relation to men generally, is opposed by the fact that the Apostle is here addressing the Christian Church. Nor yet is he indicating the relation of the two sexes in general, but only as it is definitely realized in marriage. But even here we are to distinguish between the inner life of faith, or in other words, the personal relation to Christ where all other distinctions are entirely swallowed up and lost (Gal 3:28), and the social position held in the family and in the church where the wife is dependent on the man, is represented by him, and put under his care. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that this power and dignity of the husband is founded on the position he holds toward Christ as his Head, and so the dependence of the wife on him appears as a mediated dependence on Christ.And the head of Christ is God.Compare the remarks on 1Co 3:23; 1Co 8:6. Although the economic relation is primarily meant, wherein Christ even in His exaltation is dependent on God (1Co 15:28; Col 1:15; Eph 3:9); yet this dependence presupposes a sort of dependence also in the immanent relations of the Trinity, which, however, is perfectly consistent with essential equality of being.[Here, then, we have a view of the unity of the heavenly kingdom in its gradual subordination to the Supreme AuthorityGodChristManWoman. The dependence and submission is one of love yielding to the divinely appointed guardianship and control; the authority is that of love exercised in wisdom, and directed towards the good of the lowest and the glory of the highest. These are the conditions of the divine order in which the relations sustained between the parties are typical of each other. And on this fact is the argument of the Apostle founded. As God is the head of Christ, and as Christ is the head of the Church, so is the man the head of the woman. For a fuller development of this analogy see Eph 5:23-33. Let it be here understood that the subordination thus expressed involves no degradation. As the Church is not dishonored by being subject to Christ, so neither is woman dishonored by being subject to man].

1Co 11:4. From the doctrine established in 1Co 11:3, he first draws an inference for the man in the matter of his apparel while at Church.Every man praying or prophesying,i. e., speaking in public. And by the former is meant, not exactly the speaking with tongues which certainly occurred while in prayer, but the simple offering of supplication in general; by the latter, such a discourse as set forth the mysteries of the divine counsels or of the human life, under a divine inspiration. (Comp. 1Co 13:2; 1Co 14:24 ff.). These were the two main parts of primitive Christian worship. In the first the speaker is the organ of the congregation presenting itself before God in thanksgiving, petition, and intercession; in the second, the organ of the Divine Spirit communicating His lessons to the Church.Having his head covered. , here is understoodlit. having aught upon his head. According to the usage of the Greeks, men appeared in public religious service with face and head uncovered. The case was otherwise with the Romans, and from later times with the Jews. In the Old Testament period such covering was employed only as a token of deep mourning (2Sa 15:30; Jer 14:13).dishonoreth his head.Suitably with the context we must here understand, not mans own head literally, but Christ who is dishonored when the man denying his independence seems to subordinate himself in this way to the dependent wife, or even allows the tokens of human dependence to be seen upon him. 8 Although in 1Co 11:5, we are to take the expression her head literally, yet nothing can be deduced from this as to the meaning of 1Co 11:4, because there the meaning is established by , and the explanation which follows. On the contrary, the relation to 1Co 11:3 is decisive as to its meaning here. Such was Meyers view in ed. 2. On the contrary, in ed. 3 he understands it as in 1Co 11:5-6; 1Co 11:14 of the natural head, on which the evidence must be seen that no human person but Christ, and through Christ God is the head of the man, and this evidence is its uncovered state. At any rate the chief stress lies upon the rebuke administered to womans wish to become emancipated in this particular, and that said of the man might also serve for illustrating the opposite.

1Co 11:5-6. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth.The propriety of womens praying or prophesying in the Church, is here passed over without comment since he is only treating of apparel; while it is rebuked and interdicted in 1Co 14:34 ff. Hence the arbitrary assumption that prophesying here means simply chiming in with inspired song is superfluous. [In here disapproving of the one, says Calvin, he does not approve of the other. Paul attends to one thing at a time].with her head unveiled.The unveiling of the head was an abuse originating in female vanity under the pretexts of Christian freedom and of equality with man; and it was so much the more disturbing to devotion as it was contrary to custom to see women unveiled out of the house.dishonoreth her own head.This referred to the man, would yield a good sense even in connection with what follows, inasmuch as the woman by appearing abroad so shamelessly and exposing herself to the gaze of other men might bring a blot upon her husband. But the use of the reflexive pronoun shows clearly that it means the natural head; and this accords with what he says further, inasmuch as a shorn head was with women disgracefula symbol of female dishonora token of shamelessness,and, indeed, was made the punishment of an adulteressat least among the Germans (see Tac., Germ. 19; also see Wetstein in hoc loco), and, indeed, also among the Jews, Num 5:18. It was also a token of sorrow. Deu 21:12. [Stanley again finds in the word head a double allusion both to her own head and her husbands as represented by it. See Smiths Classical Dictionary, Coma and Vestalis],for that is one and the same thing;the neuter is here used because it treats not of personal, but generic identity.with her being shaven.That is, she assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman.This identity he goes on to explain.Let her be shorn.This is not said permissively, but it expresses a command setting forth the legitimate consequence of the unsuitableness of her being unveiled, q. d., if she will do the one thing, let her also do the other. If she will be so shameless as to appear with her head bare, let her act consistently, and give such a token of her shamelessness as will be seen in stripping her head entirely of its hair.He then argues.But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven., to be shaveda stronger expression than , , to be cropped short. , shameful, can hardly be taken here to denote the sthetic view of the matter as if the meaning were if it, displease her, so that we should have here but a sarcastic thrust at womans vanity, as Calvin thinks [who says that the conjecture has some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair, were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of displaying their beauty, and that Paul here hints to them that so far from appearing the more beautiful by taking off their veils, they looked as badly as if they were all shaven and shorn.] The Apostle is rather looking at the subject from a moral point of view throughout.

1Co 11:7-10. He here resumes the argument for the womans veiling her head, presented in 1Co 11:3. Only he drops the relation to Christ, and presents that of the man to the woman, illustrating his point antithetically.For a man indeed ought not to veil his head.The expression means more than he is not obliged, it denotes he should not, it is unbecoming for him. The reason of this is, thathe is the image and glory of God.By this he indicates the godlike rule and lordly majesty (comp. Gen 1:26) which the position of the man as the head of the wife involves, or which is in a peculiar manner exhibited in it. By the expression the glory of God he means that man carries in himself a likeness to the greatness and majesty of God in so far as he rules in his own sphere with Godlike power and freedom. [He is created in the image of God, and therefore is the reflex of the divine glory, being crowned with glory and honor, and having, therefore, dominion over the works of God. He, therefore, ought to have nothing on a head which represents so Divine a majesty, nothing on a countenance which reflects so Divine a glory. Stanley].Such is obviously the point brought out: not that he is set to show forth Gods glory, a thing which does not appertain to man exclusively; not that He is the glory of God in so far that the woman has to veil herself before him, just as the seraphim do before the majesty of Jehovah; nor is = for then Paul would have used the term ; nor least of all is it to be understood as Fritzsche does on Rom 3:23. Ornamentum Dei quippe quo fingendo Deus, quantum posset, manifestaverit.But the woman is the glory of man.This she is in so far as she could be fashioned entirely out of his riban evidence quanti vir sit [!] Now, the wife is the glory of the man inasmuch as in her, in her management as a housewife, the exalted position of the man is made manifest; or inasmuch as she develops an independent activity only in subordination to him, and by virtue of his plenary power, or only in connection with him attains to her proper dignity and worth. [She always assumes his station; becomes a queen, if he is a king; and manifests to others the wealth and honor which belong to her husband. Hodge.] Paul does not add the word image, since it would be unsuitable on account of the diversity of sex; others say because it would otherwise appear as if the Divine image in her were ignored. But Paul is not speaking here in a religious or ethical sense.The higher position of the man and the dependence of the woman are still further proved from the history of their creation, (their genetic relation. Meyer.).For man is not from woman, but woman from man.[Here the emphasis rests on is which is equivalent to takes his being. The reference is to Gen 2:23. .].But this derivation rests again upon the fact that the object of the creation of the woman is in the mannot the reverse. In other words, the dependence of existence rests on the dependence of destination.For neither was man created on account of the woman, but woman on account of the man.That the for in this clause is to be taken as parallel with the previous one is improbable, because unnecessary. [Alford however disputes the subordination of the latter for to the former, and makes the two parallel; but without reason. Certainly the view given above, which is Meyers and Stanleys also, is in better accord with the Greek, , q. d., and that for this reason, for, etc.].From this relation of woman to man thus proven, he now draws his inferences in regard to her true mode of apparel.For this cause ought the woman to have power upon her head.[There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators as this. Hodge. In the difficulty of its several portions it stands alone in the New Testament, unless, perhaps, we except Rev 13:18; or Gal 3:20. Each part has its own particular obscurity. Stanley]. In the first place, the term power () is a very remarkable one. Interpreted by the context, this can only mean the veiling of the head, standing by metonymy for that, which was the token of power or authority. So Neander, who adds: The wife should have upon her head a symbol of the power which the man has over her, i. e., the veil.9 The word itself, however, nowhere else occurs in this sense. As somewhat analogous to it, we have the word , which literally means kingdom, used evidently for diadem in Diod. Sic. I. 47 ( : they have three kingdoms on the head, meaning three crowns). A number of conjectural readings, and also varied attempts at explanation,some strange, some arbitrary, may here be passed over. For an account of them, see Meyer, Osiander [and Stanley, whose note on this word is quite elaborate].As an additional reason why the women should have the symbol of power on their heads, the Apostle subjoins.on account of the angels.Here, too, there has been a great elaboration of opinions, partly in the way of conjectural readings, and partly in attempts at explanation. The former deserve no mention [as the present reading is supported by all good authorities; although Neander can hardly help the persuasion that it was a gloss introduced anterior to all the existing manuscripts, and so perpetuated]. As far as the latter are concerned, owing to a disinclination to assume that supernatural existences were meant, it has been thought that the angels here spoken of were of a human kindwhether it be officers of the church,10 which can hardly be the case, from the lack of all qualifying terms (comp. Rev 1:20 : unto the angel of the church, etc.; Mal 2:7 : The priestis the messenger () of the Lord of Hosts); or prophets, of which the same remark holds good; or messengers from other churches, which by no means follows from Jam 2:25, where Rahab is spoken of as receiving the messengers: or whether it be unconverted husbands, or others not Christians, who might come into the congregations to make report. If, however, supernatural beings are understood to be meant, then the question arises whether these are good or bad spirits. If we suppose the latter, then the reference here would be to the danger of temptation through such evil spirits, either through the womens being betrayed into unhallowed thoughts, or through their tempting men to indulge the same by showing themselves unveiled. But from the lack of any definite limitation of the meaning of the term, or of any hint of the kind in the context, we can hardly suppose this class of spirits to be intended. He must mean therefore the good and holy angels. Yet the phrase is not to be construed as expressing an oath which would be contrary to the usage of the language. Nor yet does it mean that women should veil their faces in presence of men, who are here declared to be the image and glory of God, because angels do this in the Divine presence (Isaiah 6). Nor yet does the phrase denote the purpose not to give offence to their guardian angels by an indecorous appearance; for then would he have added the pronoun their to imply this. The most probable opinion is, that he means angels in general, who are regarded as being invisibly present with Christ in the assemblies of the church, and whose displeasure would be awakened by the violation of decency. The first trace of such an idea, which appears also to have been advocated by the early fathers, is to be found in Psa 138:1. Also before the angels will I sing praise to Thee. Traces of the same belief may be found also among the Jews of a later period. (Comp. Grotius on this text). Reverentia geniorum, qui formationis hominum testes et spectatores fuerunt. The origin of the idea that angels were present at the creation of men, may be proved to have come from the rabbinical interpretations of Gen 1:26. [The view just given Hodge declares to be the common and only satisfactory interpretation of the passage which answers all the demands of the context]. And Alford expresses his belief in it, and adds that the reason of Pauls thus speaking of the angels was, that he had before his mind the order of the universal church, and prefers, when speaking of the assemblies of Christians, to adduce those beings who, as not entering into the gradation which he has here described, are conceived [of] as spectators of the whole, delighted with the decency and order of the servants of God. Such also is Calvins view, who says that this was added by way of amplifying, q. d. If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels, too, will be witnesses of the outrage. And this interpretation suits with the Apostles design, as he is here treating of different ranks. Stanleys note, which is full of interesting information, is too long to be quoted here, and the curious reader can only be referred to it.

1Co 11:11-12. All proud depreciation of women on the part of men, as well as all disposition to retire on the part of women, Paul now opposes by qualifying his previous expressions and bringing to view the mutual connections of the sexes in the sphere of Christian life. And these he then refers back to their relations grounded in nature.Nevertheless neither is woman without man, nor man without woman in the Lord.To explain the word Lord of God, as if the phrase in the Lord meant on account of Gods will and ordinance, would be contrary to Pauls use of language, and is by no means required by the relation of the two verses [11, 12], by which the harmony of the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of nature is indicated, or that the order of life obligatory in the sphere of redemption is grounded on that which preceded it in the sphere of creation according to the Divinely ordained development of things therein.But the question still arises whether the expression in the Lord is to be taken as a predicate with is understood, as if he meant to say that the one is not without the other in communion with the Lord; or as an adverbial expression qualifying the two clauses so as to imply that in the sphere of Christ both are inseparable. The sense is essentially the same in both constructions, and both are logically admissible. But the former better expresses Pauls thought. He means that while the woman ought in the public assembly to show herself as one subordinated to the man in a dependence which is indicated both in her origin and in her destiny, nevertheless Christianity requires no separation of the sexes. Neither party stands for itself alone. Both belong essentially together, and point to one another. And even in relation to the Christian life there is a mutual dependence, so that the one serves to supplement the other. As Burger says: In their relation to Christ, in that communion where both alike have the ground and aim of their spiritual life, the distinction of the sexes is resolved into a mutual dependence of love.In what follows, Paul points to the fact that this relation in Christ corresponds to the natural relation existing between the sexes, and is demanded by the essential harmony which prevails between the kingdom of nature and the kingdom of grace. For were this not so, then would Christianity be opposed to the natural order of things. Meyer.In contrast with what is said in 1Co 11:8, and here re-stated, thatthe woman is from the manhe saysso also is the man through the womanAs the former declaration refers to the origin of the woman, so does the latter refer to the progressive reproduction of the race, which even in the case of the man is effected through the woman.And lastly, he sets this natural relation under a religious point of view.but all things of Godi. e., God is the first principle of all things, of the existence of woman from the man, and of man through the woman. But the logical relation of the two verses does not require that we refer this to what was said in 1Co 11:11 by the expression in the Lord. From this brief digression he returns to his immediate subject.

1Co 11:13-15. He here appeals once more to their natural sense of propriety.Judge in yourselves.i. e., without reference to any external authorities by which their judgment might be biased. We are not to suppose that Paul is here accommodating himself to the fondness for philosophic proof prevalent among the Greeks, as Rckert imagines. He intends only to bring the matter closer home to their own consciousness, both softening and sharpening his reproof at the same time. [The Apostle often recognizes the intuitive judgments of the mind as authoritative, Rom 1:32; Rom 3:8. The constitution of our nature being derived from God, the laws which He has impressed upon it, are as much a revelation from Him, as any other possible communications of His will. And to deny this, is to deny the possibility of all knowledge, Hodge].Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?By praying unto God, he does not mean silent participation in public worship, but as in 1Co 11:5, taking the lead in audible prayer.If the women, while they were thus putting themselves upon an equality with men, deemed themselves at liberty on this account to appear like the men unveiled, it is so much the more remarkable, that Paul should refer them simply to the uncomeliness of their behavior while holding public intercourse with God, whose ordinance they were violating in so doing. Hence he here says nothing about prophesying.That the sense of propriety required a woman to be veiled, is shown from the spontaneous teachings of nature.Doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him, but that if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her?The had best be translated not even, which imparts to the whole question a greater emphasis. In regard to nature, the question arises whether the word is to be taken in the objective sense, as denoting the order and laws of nature, or in the subjective sense, as denoting the instinctive feelings and sentiments, the native sense of propriety existing in every individual, and which may have been more or less affected by custom and habit. The latter interpretation cannot be altogether established from the meaning of the word. But the former yields good sense, as we understand by it here to denote the natural constitution of the sexes, and the richer growth of hair in the woman. In observing these constitutional tendencies, a significant hint is derived as to what is befitting in the premises. Accordingly, in contrast with the practices of a cruder heathenism of the earlier time, when long hair prevailed, there has grown up among the most civilized nations, that good taste which declares itself in favor of short hair for men and long hair for women. Among men, the wearing of long hair is now reprobated as a mark of effeminacy and dishonoring to them, inasmuch as it prevents the free exposure of the countenance. [The Nazarites, as a distinction, allowed their hair to grow]. The main stress of the Apostles instruction, however, bears upon the duty of woman, and he assigns as one reason for her wearing her hair long, thather hair is given to her instead of a covering.From this it follows that the artificial veiling which he has spoken of above, is also an honor to the woman, while going unveiled disgraces her, since nature itself seems to have insisted upon the veiling of her head. [Chardin writes respecting the ladies of Persia: The head-dress of the women is simple: their hair is drawn behind the head, and divided into several tresses: the beauty of this head-dress consists in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall even down to the heels, in default of which, they lengthen them with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver.(Barnes). This method of wearing the hair, is common among all Eastern nations, and it shows how womans hair was regarded as a covering. But the Apostle, it will be observed, makes no allusion to the customs of nations in the matter, nor is even the mention of them relevant. This, it will be important to observe, since many are inclined to construe his instructions as applicable only to those early times, being fashioned in accordance with customs then prevalent. So far is this, however, from being the case, that he appeals for support, solely to the Divine ordinances in nature, and therefore imparts a lesson which is applicable alike for all times].

1Co 11:16. He concludes by asserting his own custom and the custom of other Churches, as an answer to those contentious people who might refuse to concede the validity of his arguments.But if any man seem to be contentious. does not mean incline, for this idea is expressed by . It may be explained as denoting either thinks he is at liberty to be, or as a delicate turn after the fashion of the Latin videtur: hence essentially the same as . In the apodosis the expression is elliptical, and we must supply some such phrase as let him understand that,we,that is, himself and his fellow-Apostles, and those of like sentiment.have no such custom.It is questionable whether he means here the custom of womens appearing unveiled, just animadverted upon, or the contentiousness he is anticipating. The latter interpretation suits with the use of the word we, which otherwise would suggest the thought of some Jewish custom had in mind, a thing that does not suit here; and also of the Churches of God, he could very properly say that contentious disputing was not allowed among them, and was not their custom. [Such is the view given by Chrysostom, Calvin, Meyer, de Wette, and many of the best modern commentators. But in regard to it Alford well says: Surely it would be very unlikely that after so long a treatment of a particular subject, the Apostle should wind up all by merely censuring a fault common to their behavior on this and on all the other matters of dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify the conclusion. But for the weighty names on the other side, it would seem hardly to admit of a question, that the custom which he here disavows, was the practice of women praying uncovered. He thus cuts off all further disputation on the matter, by appealing to universal Christian usage. With this view agree Grot., Billroth, Olsh., Hodge, and others]. The allusion to the Churches of God carries great emphasis, as decisive of the point in question, and shutting up all strife. It might be said that here was a genuine Catholic element set in opposition to a self-opinionated particularism.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The unity amid diversity in the Divine economy. The Sovereign of the heavenly kingdom is the Son who is one with the Father, and yet has God for His Head. Yea, as the One who is of the Father, and derives all things from the Father, so as to be able to say, All Thine are mine, is He dependent on the Father, and distinguishable from Him both in His unity and in His equality.The same law reappears in the human sphere. Here man is the chief power, and woman is dependent on him. There is the same humanity in both, and the same Divine life in both. But as the woman originally derived her life from the man, and so is subordinate to him in all the relations of life, being created for him and designed to be his helper; so likewise in the spiritual sphere, in the domain of Gods Church is woman subordinate to man. Here, too, is it the life of the man through which the Lord primarily acts. Men are the bearers of the Divine message; they proclaim the Divine truth, and by virtue of it beget a spiritual life in others; and they are the shepherds who foster the life thus begotten in its onward development. And as in his doings and management the majesty of God is reflected, so is the glory of man reflected in woman, and in her activities in so far as she acts by the authority and power of the man moulding, informing and training the life received from him, and ruling in the household set up by him, to order, counsel and educate within her own sphere. This is a genuine womanliness, which manifests itself in the constant consciousness of such a dependence which every where follows the man, which regards his mind and will as the ground and rule of her action, which is never obtrusive, arrogates no functions belonging to the man, and always wears the appearance of modesty and decorum whatever may be the prevailing fashion of the times.

But as in the natural sphere, man with all his freedom and independence, is in turn conditioned upon the woman, deriving his existence through her; and as the man with all his freedom cannot isolate himself from the woman, but is obliged to find in her the complement of his whole being and existence, so is it likewise in the sphere of his Christian life. As the woman ordinarily imparts a salutary and refining influence to mans moral and social life, tempering his strength with her mildness, and adding her plastic power to his, in the whole business of education; so is it likewise in the spiritual life. As an evidence of what she is and can do here, we can point to the lives of many distinguished men in the kingdom of God, who have owed their greatness to wise and pious mothers. If on the one hand woman, in fellowship with man, obtains through his influence energy and boldness, power and independence, freedom and breadth of character, by means of which she is raised above her natural state without injury to her feminine qualities, and is brought to share in his being without altering, but rather ennobling her womanliness; so on the other hand, through the influence of woman, the angularity and sharpness, the harshness and strength of the masculine nature become softened, and acquire a gentleness and grace, which without injuring his true manliness, adorns and ennobles his whole life. And both these effects are seen in their purest and highest forms within the sphere of Christianity. And in this sphere alone is man able to assert and realize in a truly moral way his proper position and influence, for here he has Christ as his Head. By this means, also, are the relations of the divine and the human spheres properly mediated. In a certain sense, Christ, the Son of God, the First-born of all creatures, in and through whom all things were made, the original image of God after which man was fashioned, the primeval glory of God of which human glory is but a ray, must be considered as the Head of the man, in all the spheres of earthly life, from the beginning to the end; and all true manliness, with its elevating influence upon the character of woman, must be referred back to Him:just as in like manner the receptivity and formative activity of the woman, and the identity of the two-fold life in marriage, is grounded upon the divine act that made them partakers of one common nature. And both these are truly realized in their mutual influences in Christianity in that sphere of redemption which has been wrought out and perfected by the incarnate Son of God. Here the man depends on Christ by faith, and derives from His fulness power, wisdom and love, which enable him to prove a true support for the woman who has been redeemed by the same Christ, is united with him in faith, and is taken into personal communion with him, imparting to her what he has received from Christ, and in the love of Christ, who gave Himself for them, devotes his strength and all his qualities, and so leads her on under his influence that she is daily strengthened through the divine grace derived through him, and so becomes, in turn for him, just what she, according to her own way and destiny, can be, and ought to be by virtue of this same divine lifea true Christian wife, a veritable helpmeet for him in God.
[2. Dress is not only an article of comfort and convenience, but also, in its original design and use, is a symbol: 1, Of our fallen statebetokening sin and shame. 2, Of sexdistinguishing between man and woman. 3, Of rank and stationdesignating by its specific differences the positions which persons hold in life. 4, Of character and sentimentexpressing in its style thepeculiarities, good or bad, of the wearer. In consequence of this, its symbolic character, it becomes every Christian to be particular as to the manner of his dress, and see to it that it properly expresses the position which he occupies in society, and in the Church of God, and that it indicates those qualities of character which it becomes him always to cherish and manifest. This rule applies alike to both sexes, and ought to be fully considered by Christians at this day, when the propensity is so strong for complying with the fashions of a world, which, in forgetting God, is too apt also to ignore and violate the just relations held by men and women in society. Above all things ought women professing godliness to adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame-facedness and sobriety, resisting firmly every fashion that may prove either a dishonor to themselves or a temptation to man].

[3. Nature and Christianity. Both originating in the same God, appear in perfect harmony. The laws of nature confirm the dictates of Christianity, and Christianity accepts, authenticates and sanctifies the teachings of nature. In this mutual support we find one evidence of the truth of revelation].

[4. The New Testament confirms the truth of the Old Testament, even in those particulars which it has been too much the fashion to discredit as a mere myth or allegory. In referring for proof to the facts of the history of the creation, Paul here establishes the credibility of the Mosaic narrative in all its literalness. It is impossible, therefore, for any Christian who believes in the inspiration of the Apostles, to doubt the divine authority of the Pentateuch, or to confine the inspiration of the ancient writers to their doctrinal and preceptive statements].
[5. The authority of the Apostles is the end of controversy. To argue against what they have established is, therefore, to show a contentious and rebellious spirit, that, instead of being reasoned with, had best be let alone].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Starke:

1Co 11:2. As a father toward his child, so does a faithful minister toward his Church use all meanspraise and censurefor urging his hearers to goodness and piety (1Co 4:14; 1Th 2:11 ff.).As faithful ministers remember their people, to pray for, love and serve them, so should the people remember their ministers, to pray for, assist and give heed to their lessons.

1Co 11:3. For a happy marriage, it is essential, 1, that the husband acknowledge Christ as his head, and rule in his spirit; 2, that he prove the head of the wife in fact, yet not in such a way as to destroy her courage and confidence; 3, that the wife acknowledge her husband as her headnot undertaking to act as master.

1Co 11:4. In public worship, as also everywhere else, Christians ought to preserve decorum according to established usages (Exo 19:10-11).Spener: It is incumbent on Christians in all their religious services to indicate by their appearance and demeanor a reverence for the presence of Godman and woman conducting themselves according to the divine intent in their creation.Hedinger: As God and nature have distinguished offices and sexes, so have they also appointed distinctions in apparel and demeanor, which should be observed according to public custom, and so as to avoid offence (Deu 22:5).

1Co 11:6. None should allow themselves to be forced to do that which is good. Willing obedience is what pleases God.

1Co 11:8. Behold the wisdom of God in fitting man and woman to the position designed for them severally in marriage.

1Co 11:9. It is a perversion of Gods ordinance, when a woman usurps authority over her husband, or when a man, from fond affection, becomes the slave of his wife.Hed.: As the lord of the household, man must keep his place, and he commits a great mistake when from any side considerations he forms a marriage contract that requires him to yield his position. Yet dwell with your wives according to knowledge (1Pe 3:7), and tenderness as fellow heirs of the grace of life, on whom God has enjoined obedience as a praiseworthy dutywhich has, however, since the fall proved a cross to the weak and a vexation to the unregenerate.

1Co 11:10. A dress designed for the ball-room is un-suited to the house of God, where it becometh women to assume a modest attire, if not for the sake of man, yet at least for the sake of the angels present there, and for the sake of God, who has promised there to come and bless His people (Exo 20:24).

1Co 11:11. Man and woman have an equal right to the kingdom of God; they have been redeemed at an equal cost, and may obtain like blessedness; therefore let not man plume himself on his supremacy, nor woman feel disgraced on account of her subjection.

1Co 11:12. Christ Himself was born of woman; hence men should honor and love their wives, and wives not begrudge their husbands their lordship. All things are of Godman and woman and the ordinances regulating their relations; hence, to Him belongs the honor due, in all humility and obedience. What is comely should be cultivated, because well pleasing to God no less than to man (Php 4:8).

1Co 11:15. Long hair is an honor to a woman; but she should not proudly parade it; rather it should be to her a sign of subjection, and serve for a covering.

1Co 11:16. True church members will never compel others to adopt their own opinions, however well grounded, nor wrangle about them; but will quietly let wranglers pass and leave them to their own responsibility.

Berlenb. Bible:

1Co 11:2. He who will maintain the spirit of Christianity in its integrity, will show it even in little things.

1Co 11:3. All true order has its foundations above.The distinctions which God has made between the sexes cannot be arbitrarily overridden.Man must conduct himself according to the type set by Christ. If he prides himself on his authority, and is not at the same time obedient to his Lord, nor abides in His Spirit, he is guilty of flagrant folly. His example encourages the wife to be disobedient too. As Christ is submissive to God, and is intimately united to Him, so must man be related to Christ. He must be as a Christian, and act consistently with his profession.Vv. 79. These first principles sound like old tales; but let us keep them fresh by constant application. The order of nature must be held close with the order of creation and Providence, and with the history of Moses.

1Co 11:10. Christianity consists in a life of subjection; but it is by this means that Satan is overcome.Vv. 11, 12. Man and wife are united as head and bodythe one cannot exist without the other; therefore, each should consent to unite with the other in one understanding, purpose and head. In the kingdom of grace there must be no infraction upon the kingdom of nature. They concur, and have their lesson from the Lord, and their blessing through the seed of the woman.The man, however, cannot abide in the Lord unless he be condescending to his wife. It is a valuable exercise in Christianity to be referring all matters, even the least, to the Lord, whence all things come. God is the source of all things, and if we do not go back to the origin of things as revealed we shall not discover their true law and order.

1Co 11:13. God has given woman certain signatures, which shall indicate to her how she is to conduct herself outwardly. Prayer begets reverence and docility.Vv. 14, 15. Nature must not be abandoned in common life, much less in holy services.

Rieger:

1Co 11:2 ff. There is something very delicate about our good standing in the kingdom of God, far more than about the most refined court-fashion in the world. If we hesitate to offend against the latter in the slightest particular of dress or deportment, how much more should we hesitate in the case of the former.The man finds his Head in Christ, from whom he derives grace and gifts not only for himself, but also for his house; but woman is to find her head in man, even aside from the marriage relation, because in the constitution and management of the Church ail depends on men. And this should not appear hard, since in the work of redemption there exists just such a mutual relation between Christ and God. He derives everything from the fulness of the Father, and refers back to Him what He, as the Mediator, brings to us.

Heubner:

1Co 11:3. Every regulation should be so referred back to our religious instincts and to fundamental principles, as to be made the standard of decorum for every age.

1Co 11:7. Man is the Lord of the housethe image and representative of Godthe one from whom the majesty of God should be reflected. The wife represents at home the absent man, and should exhibit his image in herself; she has authority only from him [even as she bears his name]. Hence both should so carry themselves in deportment and attire, that the supremacy of the man and the subordination of the woman shall be recognized.

1Co 11:9. It is a sad perversion of Gods ordinance, when women regard men simply as the means of their convenience, honor, or comfort.A wife who fails to further the just interests of her husband, contravenes the appointment of God.Christianity is innocent of that silly worship of ladies which has often been observed in Christian nations. Yet woman is not on this account to be regarded as the mere instrument of the man.

1Co 11:11. Christianity balances the inequality through the equality, secured in Christ, in whom both ought to be regarded as one. Before God all stand on one footing.

1Co 11:13. Our moral sentiments often decide a question more correctly than the understanding. Most of all, in our devotions should modesty rule and protect the heart. Can the bold, the shameless, the restless pray?

W. F. Besser:

1Co 11:11. The Greeks excluded woman from certain solemnities of their idol-worship; on the contrary, in Christianity married couples walk together to the house of God, sit side by side at the table of the Lord, unite at the morning and evening blessing, and are together in all the observances where life in the Lord is fostered. In Thee, O Lord! the man is not without the woman, and woman is not without the man; but in order that both may remain in Thee, keep Thou them steadfast in obedience to Thy will, that the woman may serve Thee in subjection to the man, and the man may be the head of the house in Thee!

1Co 11:16. A praiseworthy ordinance which has in it a sound Christian sense, should not be mutilated, deranged, and perverted, through mere love of change or selfish cunning, if for no other reason than this, that unedifying and useless strife is thereby evoked, in which each one deems his own was the best.

[Wordsworth:415. St. Paul here teaches the Christian women, who more than any women in the world, needed such instruction, that by obtrusive boldness and wanton effrontery, and by presumptuous shamelessness and flaunting immodesty in public, in the House of God, they gained nothing, but forfeited that dignity, power, and grace, which God had given to women, especially under the Gospel.Thus the Divine Apostle has left a lesson to women in every age, a lesson which in the present age deserves special attention, when the attire of some among them seems to expose them to that reproof which was spoken through him by the Holy Spirit to the women of Corinth.Let them learn from him, that the true power of woman is in gentle submission; her most attractive grace and genuine beauty are in modest retirement and delicate reserve; her best ornament, that of a meek and quiet spirit, which, in the sight of God, is of great price (1Pe 3:4)].

Footnotes:

[1]1Co 11:2.In many good MSS, etc., is found after , but it is doubtful; it is not in A. B, C. [Sinait., 4 cursives, the Copt., Sahid., Athan. (Romaned.), Arm., Athan.,Cyr., Bas., Chrys.]. Its insertion would have been very natural. If this verse were the beginning of a new section, transcribers and commentators would have expected the word, and if it had been in the original, it would not have been easily omitted. It is found in D. E. F. G. K. L., et al., the Ital., Vulg., Goth., Syr. (which, with some others, adds ), Athan., Theodt., Damasc, Ambrst., Rel. Lachm., Alford, Stanley and Wordsw. cancel it, while Bloomf. And Tisch. (after cancelling it in his 3d edit.) insert it.C. P. W.].

[2]1Co 11:3.The article before is not very certain. [Lachm., Tisch, and Alford admit it on the authority of A. B. D. Sin. and some Fathers. Bloomfield suggests that in these MSS, the word, written abbreviatim, may have arisen from the preceding . It may, however, have been removed to match the absence of the article before .C. P. W.].

[3]1Co 11:5.Lachm. has adopted on very considerable authority [A. C. D. (1st cor.) F. G, L. Sinait., and about a dozen cursives, with Chrys., Theodt., et al.]. This form might have arisen from an attempt to make it conform to the of 1Co 11:4. [Bloomfield thinks the true word may have been , winch in Hellenistic Greek was often equivalent to (Fritzsche). Tischendorf, in his early edit., had , but in his 3rd, and later, he has . The latter word would have been needful, if the Apostle had wished to prevent his readers from confounding the with , as they would have been likely to do after what he had said in 1Co 11:3.C. P. W.].

[4]1Co 11:7.The Rec. omits before , but the authority for the article is very strong. It was removed so that tho phrase might conform with similar preceding and following phrases. [A. B. D.(lst cor.) F. G. Sinait. (3d cor.) 73,118, Dial., Isador., Theodt. insert it. So Lachm., Tisch., Alford, Meyer and Stanley. Bloomfield receives it, but expresses it in small print. It seems required in the same sense as in 1Co 11:10, where it is certainly genuine.C. P. W.].

[5]1Co 11:11.The Rec. has an inverted order for these words, but it is not well sustained. Meyer thinks that it was more natural to mention the man first, and that this occasioned the change. [Lachm,, Tisch., Bloomfield and Alford, with A. B. C. D. (1James , 3 d cor.) E. F. G. H. and Sinait., with several cursives, versions and Fathers, have . .C. P. W.].

[6]1Co 11:14.The Rec. has , but in opposition to decisive authorities. The was an addition to determine the connection with 1Co 11:13. [It is wanting in A. B. C. D. (1st cor.) F. G. H. Sinait., et al. Ital., Vnlg.. Copt., Syr., Arm., Tert., Ambr., Ambrst., and has been suspected to be an attempt to point the interrogation. F. G. Arm., Tert., have without the , but against better authorities; but many of the best MSS put after .C. P. W.].

[7]1Co 11:15. Lachmann, with the Rec., adds after , on some good but not sufficient manuscripts. It is easy to see how it may have been added. [A. B. Sinait., et al., have ; C. H., with some cursives, the Vulg. and Syr. versions, and Damasc. and Ambr. have and D. E. F. G. K. L., and many others, with Chrys., Theodt., cum. and Tert. entirely omit .C. P. W.].

[8][Stanley says that both the literal and the metaphorical sense of the term head are here included. The man dishonors his head by an unseemly effeminate practice, and thereby Christ, who is his spiritual head. Here the head, as being the symbol of Christ, is treated with the same religious reverence as is the body in 1Co 6:19, as being the temple of the Spirit! Hodge, on the contrary, prefers to take the word head in its literal sense. 1. Because in the immediately preceding clause the word is used literally. 2. Because in 1Co 11:5 the woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonor her own head, i. e., as what follows shows herself and not her husband. 3. It is more obviously true that a man who acts inconsistently with his station disgraces himself, than that he disgraces him who placed him in that station. The force of the last argument Stanley does not allow, as will be seen above. Stanleys view seems, all things considered, to merit the preference].

[9][Wordsworth says, rather an emblem of authority which she derives through man from God; and by throwing off her covering she throws away her , or the mark of her own authority, which consists in the essential derivation of her being through man from God. She forfeits her own claim to reverence by breaking that link of connection which binds her through man even to the throne of God. But in opposition to this statement we need but cite a quotation made by Barnes from Chardin. Speaking of the head-covering used by the ladies of Persia, this author says, only married women wear it; and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection].

[10][In support of this opinion, see some interesting statements in Thomsons The Land and the Book, Vol. 1, pp. 3437].

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

XXII

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

1Co 7:1-40 ; 1Co 11:2-16 ; 1Co 14:33-40 .

It will be recalled that we have been treating 1 Corinthians topically, and hence when we take hold of a subject we take in everything bearing on that subject and pass over some things. Heretofore we have left untouched 1Co 7:1-40 ; 1Co 11:2-16 ; 1Co 14:34-40 . So that the scope of the present discussion is the three passages all of 1Co 7 ; 1Co 11:2-16 , and 1Co 14:33-40 . The general topics embraced in these parts of the first letter are Marriage, Divorce, and the Position of Women in the Public Assemblies, all exceedingly delicate questions, and therefore my reserve in treating the matter. I don’t suppose there is much help in studying this letter in the commentaries. I myself had never reached a very satisfactory conclusion on some points involved until recently.

Before we take up the serious matter of marriage, divorce, and the whole question of sexual relation, there are certain antecedent matters to consider, and the first is, that whatever is here said by the apostle Paul is an answer to a letter that the Corinthian church wrote him. He commences 1Co 7 with a reference to that letter. He says, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote.” So we see that he answers questions propounded to him. The next antecedent thing is that we must never forget the mixed, ethnic composition of this church. “Ethnic” means of many nationalities. The mixed, ethnic composition of this church and the particular distressed conditions existing at the time that he wrote, are matters of great importance. This church was composed of Greeks, Romans, and other Orientals, besides Jews.

Upon the subject of marriage, divorce, and the position of women, the Jews, Romans, and Greeks widely differed. Each nation had its own fixed custom or customs upon all of these points, and they were all converted in this big meeting, some from all these peoples. And they naturally wanted to know what was the bearing of the new religion upon this subject of marriage, divorce, and the position of women, slavery, and things of that kind.

Among the Jews divorce was granted for a very slight cause. Moses did permit divorce in this form, viz.: that no man could put away his wife without giving her a bill of divorcement; he could not put her away and leave her as goods and chattels that he was not responsible for. He must give her a bill showing that he claimed nothing from her in the future. Christ explained, that on account of the hardness of their hearts, divorce was allowed by Moses, who did ameliorate it, but didn’t give the highest law on divorce, because they were not in condition to hear it. Following that custom, Josephus tells us frankly that he put away his wife because she didn’t please him, and he assigned no other reason, and went before no court. It would be very hard to please some men, even some of the time, and very hard to please them all the time; and it wouldn’t be best to please them all the time, for much of the time they would be wrong. Among the Greeks and Romans divorce could be had for almost any reason. Moreover, the Orientals believed in the seclusion of women. They kept them in harems guarded by a eunuch; but the Romans had much broader views than the Greeks, and the Greeks were much in advance of the Orientals. A lady at Rome had great liberty without being subjected to invidious criticisms. This is the mixed ethnic condition of this church.

But another thing must be considered which is expressed in 1Co 7 . Paul says, “I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us.” There was a particular distress bearing upon the people at that time that modified the answers that he gave to some of their questions, and we can’t understand this 1Co 7 and the other paragraphs in 1Co 2 and 1Co 14 without keeping in mind that broad statement “the distress that is upon us.” That refers to the condition of the church at that time when all Christians were persecuted. No Christian knew one day what would be his financial status the next, for everything of his might be confiscated. He could not know one day whether he would be out of prison the next; he couldn’t know one day whether he would be banished the next. Day by day they were practically taking their lives in their own hands. If a man is living in a prosperous time ‘it wouldn’t be proper to answer him on the question of marriage as if he were living in unsettled conditions. In other words, what would be expedient in prosperous times, would be inexpedient in unprosperous times.

The third important antecedent thought in the understanding of those passages is the people’s misconception of the results of regeneration. Paul had said to them, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold they are become new.” They did not know how far to carry this thought. For instance, if a married man was not converted yesterday, but became a convert today, did his marriage pass away? I will show how that this is a very practical question before we get through with this discussion. A man was a slave yesterday and unconverted; he hears the gospel of freedom preached to him, that is, that if the Son makes him free he is free indeed. He hears that in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free, therefore today he, being a new creature, what conclusion shall he draw from this new relation as to his slavery?

Again, the gospel was preached to them as individuals, without regard to age, sex or previous condition of servitude, and it was distinctly stated that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, free, Jew, nor Gentiles. If that be true, has not every Christian precisely the same privileges in the public assembly, whether man or woman? If there be neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, may not a woman preach as well as a man? If they stand on the same footing when they join the church, what effect does it have on the old commandment that a child should obey his parents, or that the wife is subject to her husband? It may seem that this is all a little overstrained, but the history of the world shows that these are intensely important questions.

Take the case of the “mad men of Munster,” who argued from the fact that Jesus had come to establish a kingdom upon the earth, and that that kingdom was to overcome all other kingdoms of the earth. They said, “Therefore, if I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus, that absolves me from my allegiance to any kingdom of this earth.” There were no subordinates in the land where they lived, as they were free from the law of the nation. They reasoned that if they had the liberty of a Christian, might they not take two or three wives? Hence the leader of the Munsterites did not stop until he got fourteen, but that was not quite so far as Brigham Young went. They went on, “Do we, being the children of Jesus Christ, have to pay tribute or taxes? If I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus Christ that absolves me from any kingdom of this earth, why not set up a purely religious kingdom?” One of these men was made king, and the whole power of the German Empire had to be invoked to put down this movement. Yet a great many people were converted people enthusiasts misconstruing the teaching of God upon the results that would follow our becoming new creatures.

Yet again, this gospel taught that the citizenship of a Christian is up yonder, not down here, and that up yonder neither marrying nor giving in marriage takes place. Upon this they reasoned thus: “Does not that obligate me to lay down the work of this world? Why talk about farming, merchandising, and the dull, heavy round of earthly occupations?” Just so the Thessalonians went wild, because they expected Christ to come “day-after-tomorrow,” and therefore there could be nothing for them to do except prepare their ascension robes. In other words, “Up there they don’t marry, and what effect does that have on me, since I am married? I have become a citizen of heaven, where they do not marry. Ought I not to abjure this marriage? Ought I not to go and live in a monastery and leave my wife and children on the care of the world? If I have never married, should I not become a sister, and enter into the nunnery?” Such were their reasonings.

The last great things that we are to consider in chapter 7 is the point that we have just presented: “If I contracted marriage before I was converted, was it dissolved when I became a new creature, and old things passed away? If I have not contracted a marriage, shall I avoid it?” The apostle answers it, first, from the viewpoint of the present distress that he refers to, i.e., in view of the present condition, when their property might be swept away in a day, when they must be silent or be in banishment. He takes the position that in this particular stress and under these conditions it was well not to marry. But we must not forget the old-time law that God instituted marriage as the only way to carry out the commandment of God to multiply and replenish the earth. Therefore, Paul says, “My advice to you is to let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.” It was impossible for him to take a position against the necessity of marriage, but he said that in view of that distress it might be best not to marry, but if they did marry notwithstanding the distress, they committed no sin, and if governed by the distress not to marry this was no sin, but as long as we are in this world and the sexual distinction exists, we cannot get away from that primeval law of God that marriage is honorable in all.

We know that another question was presented because of the answer given. Suppose one is already married when converted? In the middle ages this question became one of the biggest that ever occupied man’s mind. It was a common thing for a man at his conversion to say, “In view of the fact that I am now under a higher law of God, I will give up my wife and children, go from home and shut myself up in a monastery.” Hundreds and thousands of men and women took the vow never to marry. There are many cases where the men took the vows of celibacy, trying to live a life like the angels. That is the most seductive form of temptation that ever came to men, and it led to the building of monasteries and nunneries all over Europe and a greater part of Asia and North Africa, where women would seclude themselves and vow not to marry, and even married men would abandon wives and children and shut themselves up in monasteries. Paul says, “If a man is married let him not put away his wife, and let not the woman put away her husband. Your being converted does not change the law of God in regard to marriage.” So the question comes in another and different form. Under the old law of the Jews, a Jew could not marry a heathen, unless a proselyte, without the penalty of excommunication, and the ground was, that to marry a heathen puts him in danger of becoming an idolater. In Nehemiah we learn that when some of the Jews had violated that law, he put before them the alternative of either keeping the Jewish law or being excluded from the Jewish communion. Knowing what the law was on that subject, they put the question, “Here is a man who is converted and his wife is a heathen; shall the Christian put away his heathen wife?” That is very different from the original question, “Ought a Christian to marry a heathen?” which law holds now that it is best for believers to marry believers, but Paul answers that question emphatically, “No; the marriage relation is a divine institution and there is nothing in such a case to justify that man to put away his wife.”

Then the question comes in another form: “Suppose when a woman joins the church that the heathen husband makes it a ground of disfellowship and refuses to live with her, what then?” Paul said, “In such a case, if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. You have done nothing wrong and are willing to stand by your marriage contract.” But what does he mean by saying, “The husband or wife is not in bondage in such a case?” Does it mean that a voluntary separation totally abrogates the marriage tie so that the one left is at liberty to marry somebody else? That question comes up in our own civil law. Blackstone comments on it, saying, “You may grant divorce ‘ Amensa et toro,’ ” which means, “Divorce from bed and board.” In other words, people can separate; the man doesn’t have to live with that woman, and the woman doesn’t have to live with that man. But the law is emphatic that such separation is not breaking the marriage bond. It permits a possible separation. That is intensely practicable.

When I was a young preacher I was called into a council. A preacher’s wife had left him. She refused to live with him, left him, and went back to her father, and he afterwards married again, and his plea was that abandonment justified remarriage. He quoted that passage, “A husband and wife are not in bondage in such cases.” The question for that council to decide was, “Would it be a wise thing to put a man into the ministry who lived under a cloud of that kind?” One of the oldest and most distinguished Baptists that ever lived took the position that such a one was free to marry again, but I, a young preacher, dissented from him, and do still. It does not break the marriage tie so as to permit one to marry again. I quoted the declaration of Paul where he says, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives,” and he certainly couldn’t contradict himself in the same chapter. Then he says, “If her husband be dead, she shall be permitted to marry again.” That settles that question.

Paul does not discuss the only cause that does thoroughly break the marriage bond, if one is disposed to plead it, which is the case of infidelity to the marriage vow discussed by our Lord. Hence my contention is that what is here said does not discuss all of the law on the subject of marriage and divorce.

Let us take up the question, “Ought widowers and widows to remarry?” There he states that a widower under the law of Christ may marry again, though it is not mandatory. There was at one time the question raised of putting a special tax on bachelors. The Greeks and Romans had a law to that effect. It is nothing to smile at; it comes from the idea that the state is more important than the individual. They carried that law further, and forbade a bachelor to Inherit; if he remained unmarried he must turn over his property to the state.

When I was a little boy we had a kangaroo court, and a candidate for the legislature was telling what he would do if he were elected. He said, “I would change the pronoun ‘them’ for the word ‘um,’ so all the common people could say grammatically, ‘I love um,’ and I would have a law passed that would draw a tooth from an old bachelor’s head for every year he remained unmarried.”

But how does Paul answer that question? He says, “If you take this present distress into consideration, it is not favorable for contracting marriage. If you want to marry, do so, but you will have trouble in view of this distress.” But he says that it is lawful for a widow to marry again, and in the case of young widows, as in the letter to Timothy, he makes it a very urgent recommendation.

Let us take the next question: Does regeneration change the natural subordination of woman to the man, and the sphere in which each moves? The gospel preached was that in Christ Jesus there was neither male nor female. So in chapter II he answers, “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man. . . . Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled, dishonoreth her head; it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven [that was a sign of an infamous life]. . .. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” The angels of God were hovering round watching over the assemblies of God’s people, and it grieved them to see the law of God violated. Paul goes on; he ‘is not only arguing from that old law, but he is arguing from nature: “Is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” I once knew a young fellow who was really pretty. He had great long curls that he spent a long time each day in combing and twisting and anointing with oil, and brushing. And I took the New Testament, marked this passage, and sent it to him. It made him very indignant.

Paul’s answer is that becoming a new creature, so that “old things are passed away and all things become new,” does not mean that all old things, viz.: that God’s law of order has passed away. When we get to heaven we will live as the angels live, but while we live on earth the laws of order instituted in paradise must stand.

That question comes up in a little different form in 1Co 14:33 : “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also sayeth the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” Now they are meeting that by saying that the word of God had come to women. And it is unquestionable that the spirit of prophecy did come to women. But Paul teaches that that spirit of prophecy was subject to the person that had it; that it was not given him to violate order; and that if the spirit of prophecy did come to them, let them remember that it came to other people also.

North of the Mason and Dixon’s line we occasionally come upon a church with a woman for a pastor a Baptist church at that. I was both cheered and hissed for a statement I made when I preached in Chicago. I don’t know which was the louder, the cheering or the hissing. I started out expounding this passage of Scripture,. 1Ti 2:8 : “I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” Adam saw Eve and said, “Issha,” woman; it means that woman is derived from man; that she got her soul and her body from Adam. She is as much a descendant of Adam as we are. I read the scripture, and took the position that there are two distinct spheres, the man’s sphere and the woman’s sphere; that the man’s is more public; that the woman shall live in her children. When a worldly woman came to visit Cornelia and paraded her fine jewels that blazed on her head and arms and her ankles before her, Cornelia, drawing forward her two sons, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus (the Gracchi), said, “These are my jewels, and I am going to live in these. My sphere is my home and my boys.”

There is one other question that of the slave. They said, “If I am a freedman of Christ, shall I be a slave to man?” But Paul answers that Christianity does not propose to unsettle the established order of things. Its object is to develop the inner life: “Let each one of you abide in the law you were in when God called you.” In other words, if he was circumcised, let him not try to efface his circumcision. If he was a slave when God called him, let him be satisfied with being Christ’s freedman, and with knowing that his master if Christ’s servant, and let him in his position of slavery illustrate that the truth and the power of the Christian religion is in serving, not with eye service, but showing that Christianity can come to any form of life and glorify ‘it. In yet other words, being converted and becoming a new creature, we should not disregard the established order of things which God has appointed for this world. When we get up into the other world we can adapt ourselves to conditions there.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the scope of this chapter, and what are the several topics?

2. What is the first important antecedent matter in 1Co 7 ?

3. What is the second antecedent matter, and of whom was the church at Corinth composed?

4. What is the position of Jews, Romans, and Greeks, respectively, on marriage and divorce, and the woman question in general?

5. What is the difference between the Orientals, on the one hand, and the Greeks and Romans, on the other hand, with respect to this question?

6. What condition at the time Paul wrote this letter greatly modified his answers to some of their questions?

7. What is the third antecedent thought essential to an understanding of these scriptures?

8. How did their application of this thought affect their earthly relations? Illustrate fully.

9. What was Paul’s answer to their inquiry as to whether one who was not married should marry, and what its bearing on the primal law of marriage?

10. What question arose about those who were converted after marriage, what Paul’s answer to it, and what the results of this misconception of the Corinthians as practiced in the Middle Ages?

11. Ought a Christian to marry an unbeliever?

12. What is the Christian wife or husband to do in case the unregenerated husband or wife makes it a ground of disfellowship, and refuses to live ill the marriage relation?

13. What does Paul mean by saying, “The husband or wife is not is bondage in such a case”?

14. What illustration of the author’s interpretation from his own experience?

15. What is the only cause which breaks the marriage bond, and where do we find the statement of it?

16. What is the law of marriage in the case of widowers and widows, and what legislation against bachelors?

17. What is the bearing of this subject on the relation between man and woman in the sphere in which each moves, what Paul’s teaching on this, and what his arguments for it?

18. What is the form of this question as treated in 1Co 14 , how do some people meet Paul’s argument here, and what does Paul teach that settles the question beyond all dispute?

19. What is the author’s experience on this line in Chicago, and what is his interpretation of 1Ti 2:8-15 ? Illustrate.

20, How did this subject affect the relation, of the slave and his master, and what Paul’s answer to their reasoning on the subject?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Ver. 2. And keep the ordinances ] Gr. the traditions or doctrines by word of mouth. These are, 1. Dogmatic, concerning faith and practice, 2Th 2:15 ; 2Th 2:1-17 . Ritual; and these again are, 1. Perpetual, as that of the manner of administering the two sacraments. 2. Temporary, as that of abstaining from certain meats, Act 15:28-29 . And those other pertaining to the observing of external order and decency in Church assemblies. And of these the apostle here speaketh. (Sclater.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1Co 11:2-34 . ] REPROOFS AND DIRECTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DISORDERS WHICH HAD ARISEN IN THEIR ASSEMBLIES: viz. (1) THE NOT VEILING OF THEIR WOMEN IN PUBLIC PRAYER ( 1Co 11:2-16 ): (2) THE ABUSE OF THE (17 34).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

2 16. ] The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2 12), and natural decency itself (13 16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

2. ] , implying a distinction from the spirit of the last passage, which was one of blame , and exhortation to imitate him. He praises them for the degree in which they did this already, and expresses it by the slighter word .

, see above, on ch. 1Co 10:33 .

And ye keep (continue to believe and practise) the traditions (apostolic maxims of faith and practice, delivered either orally or in writing, 2Th 2:15 ), according as (according to the words in which) I delivered (them) to you . This was their general practice : the exceptions to it, or departures at all events from the spirit of those , now follow .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 11:2-6 . 35. THE WOMAN’S VEIL. P. is glad to believe that the Church at Cor [1593] is loyal to his instructions (2); he interrupts his censures by a word of praise. This commendation, however, he proceeds to qualify. First, in respect of a matter whose underlying principles his readers had not grasped: he hears that some women speak in Church-meetings, and that bareheaded! For a woman to discard the veil means to cast off masculine authority, which is a fixed part of the Divine order, like man’s subordination to Christ (1Co 11:3 f.). She who so acts disgraces her own head, and only needs to go a step further to rank herself with the degraded of her sex (1Co 11:5 f.).

[1593] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Co 11:2 . The praise here given is so little suggested by the context, and to little accords with the tone of the Ep., esp. with what was said in the like connexion in 1Co 4:16 f., that one conjectures the Ap. to be quoting professions made in the Letter from Cor . rather than writing simply out of his own mind: “Now I praise you that [as you say] ‘in all things you remember me, and hold fast the instructions as I delivered them to you’ ”. For such adoption by P. of the words of his readers, see notes on 1Co 8:1 ff. Self-esteem characterised this Church (1Co 4:8 ff., 1Co 5:2 ); the declaration was sincere, and contained a measure of truth; P. accepts it for what it is worth. , introducing the new topic, marks also the connexion between 1Co 11:1-2 : “I bid you imitate me but I am glad to know (from your letter) that you do”. , acc [1594] of definition (not obj [1595] ), as in 1Co 9:25 , 1Co 10:33 ; the vb [1596] regularly governs a gen [1597] in N.T.: , like memini , a pf. pres. “you have been kept in remembrance of me”. – , a “givingover” (without the associations of our tradition ), applies to historical fact, teaching, or rules of practice delivered, through whatever means, to the keeping of others: for reference to fact and usage , see 1Co 11:23 ; to fact and doctrine , 1Co 15:1 ; to the three combined, as here, 2Th 2:15 ; for its currency in Jewish Schools, Mat 15:2 ff., etc. , as in 1Co 15:2 = , 2Th 2:15 . . . . implies maintenance in form as well as substance, observance of the (Rom 6:17 ).

[1594] accusative case.

[1595] grammatical object.

[1596] verb

[1597] genitive case.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 11:2-16

2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of Man 1:8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from Man 1:9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

1Co 11:2 In light of the previous chapters, one wonders if this verse is irony or sarcasm. This church was not remembering Paul’s words and was not following his teaching (cf. 1Co 11:17; 1Co 11:22). It is possible that this is another question that the church wrote to Paul about.

NASB”hold firmly to the traditions”

NKJV”keep the traditions”

NRSV”maintain the traditions”

TEV”follow the teachings”

NJB”maintaining the traditions”

This is a present active indicative. Believers are to continue to cling to the truths that Paul preached (cf. 2Th 2:15). This is the covenantal balance to election.

The term “traditions” (pardosis) is used in several senses:

1. in 1Co 11:2; 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3 for gospel truths

2. in Mat 15:6; Mat 23:1 ff; Mar 7:8; Gal 1:14 of Jewish traditions

3. in Col 2:6-8 of Gnostic speculations

4. Roman Catholics (Eastern and Russian Orthodox) use this verse as a biblical proof-text for Scripture and church traditions being equal in authority

5. in this context it refers to Apostolic truth, either spoken or written (cf. 2Th 3:6)

“to the traditions” Much of the information about Jesus was passed orally from individual to individual until it was written down some 30 to 60 years after His death.

“just as I delivered them to you” There is a Greek wordplay between “traditions” (paradoseis) and “delivered” (paredka), which are both forms of paradidmi. Paul was not the originator, but simply a link in the chain of revelation. The term “traditions” was used of Christian truths being passed from one person to another (cf. 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3).

Paul received information about the gospel from several sources.

1. Stephen’s sermon (cf. Acts 7)

2. Christians he persecuted (cf. Act 8:1-3; Act 9:1-2; Act 22:4; Act 22:19)

3. Ananias (cf. Act 9:10-18)

4. His time in Arabia with Christ (cf. Gal 1:11-17)

5. His time in Jerusalem with Peter and James (cf. Gal 1:18-19)

6. Barnabas (cf. Act 9:20-27; Act 11:25-26)

1Co 11:3 “Christ is the head” In his commentary 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 103, F. F. Bruce asserts that in this context kephal follows the Hebrew rosh in the sense of origin or source. This meaning of kephal is not documented in the Greek Lexicons by:

1. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker

2. Moulton, Milligan

3. Louw, Nida

4. Moulton

This shows how the context (i.e., 1 Corinthians 11) determines the definition, not a dictionary. In this context “source” or “origin” fits best in 1Co 11:3 in relation to Gen 1:26-27; Gen 2:18 (cf. Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, and Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp. 599-602).

Jesus was the Father’s agent in creation (cf. Joh 1:3; Joh 1:10; 1Co 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). Humans, male and female, were created by Him, in His image. However, the Son is submissive to the Father (cf. 1Co 3:23; 1Co 11:2; 1Co 15:28). This appropriate submission extends to men and women. They are both created in the image of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27), but there is an order, man first, then woman (cf. Gen 2:18) related to function (at least in a patriarchal system), but not inequality! See Special Topic following.

SPECIAL TOPIC: HEAD (KEPHAL)

“man is the head of a woman” The terms “man” and “woman” can mean husband and wife (cf. NRSV, TEV). In this context this is not the intended emphasis, but the order of creation reflected in Genesis 2.

“and God is the head of Christ” This is a repeated truth in 1 Corinthians (cf. 1Co 3:23; 1Co 11:3; 1Co 15:28). The order within the Trinity has nothing to do with inequality, but is a division of function. This truth can also be implied from the discussion of male and female. Mutuality was surely the model before the Fall in Genesis 3. This mutuality is reinstated in believers’ restored relationship with the Father through the Son (i.e., Jesus has restored the image in both male and female believers).

1Co 11:4

NASB”Every man who has something on his head while praying. . .disgraces his head”

NKJV”Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head”

NRSV”Any man who prays or prophecies with something on his head disgraces his head”

TEV”So a man who prays or proclaims God’s message in public worship with his head covered disgraces Christ”

NJB”For any man to pray or prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head”

This is a word play on “head.” The second use of the word “head” refers to Christ (cf. TEV). Paul is dealing with a Roman culture whose forms and symbols are exactly opposite of Jewish culture (i.e., men cover their heads). The real issue is not who covers whose head, but the symbol of (1) origin or (2) submission, which are both theologically significant.

It has been suggested that the historical situation in Corinth:

1. the social, political, and financial leaders led worship with a head covering to differentiate themselves from the common man

2. that Jews in the synagogue in Corinth had women wear a veil and believing Jews expected the same in the church

There is a theological tension between this verse, which seems to affirm women in leadership roles in public worship with the socially acceptable covering compared to 1Co 14:34-35, where women (or at least “wives,” 1Co 14:35) are forbidden to speak in church.

Some groups prooftext chapter 11, while others use chapter 14. It must be admitted that the key to this passage is the first century cultural setting of Corinth, but which specific aspect is not clear to us today. The first century church knew of women’s leadership in the OT and was aware of Paul’s use of women in his ministry (cf. Romans 16). They understood the issue in Corinth and the Roman culture as we do not. Dogmatism is inappropriate!

A recent book, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change, by Bruce W. Winter, pp. 121-141, offers some very helpful insights from Roman literature and art. This and other articles (i.e., E. Fantham, “The ‘New Woman’: Representation and Reality,” in Women in the Classical World, chapter 10, and P. W. J. Gill, “The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head Coverings in 1Co 11:2-16,” TynB 41.2 (1990): pp. 245-260 and “In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church,” TynB 44.2 (1993): pp. 323-337), shows modern interpreters how first century Corinth was Roman, not Greek, in culture.

With these new documented insights from first century Roman Corinth, it is possible to begin to see the cultural issues Paul faced in this book.

1. Paul is not addressing Jewish culture nor Greek culture at all in this context.

2. Paul is addressing two groups with elite social status.

a. Wealthy, socially elite, male believers were showing off their positions by covering their heads while leading public worship, as was customary for this social class, while leading civic Greco-Roman religious worship. They were flaunting themselves.

b. The wealthy, elite wives were removing their culturally expected veil to flaunt their equality, not only in Christ, but also as a social statement, as were other Roman women of the period.

3. The citizens of Roman Corinth, who were curious about the Christian faith and worship practices, would send a “messenger” (i.e., angels of 1Co 11:10 may refer to servants or representatives sent on behalf of masters) to check out the meeting.

This historical/cultural/social information makes good sense of a very difficult and disputed text. It also fits other texts in 1 Corinthians, which obviously reflects a unique first century, Corinthian setting!

SPECIAL TOPIC: WOMEN IN THE BIBLE

1Co 11:5 “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying” This implies strongly that with her head covered she may pray and prophesy in public meetings. The term “prophesying” in this book means “sharing the gospel” or “preaching publicly” (cf. 1Co 14:39). 1Co 11:4-5 are parallel relating to what men and women do while participating in group worship. See SPECIAL TOPIC: NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECY at 1Co 14:1.

“disgraces her head” Corinth was a Roman colony and reflected Roman culture. Roman women were marriageable in their early teens. The veil was a cultural aspect of the marriage service. It was expected to be worn outside the home by Roman women. Its absence would be seen as

1. a shamed woman

2. a prostitute

3. a dominant lesbian partner

4. a “new” woman (i.e., a social movement of equality and freedom active among Roman society in the first century)

A woman flaunting herself in this manner would have publicly shamed her husband and given the wrong impression about the church to visitors and the community. Christ makes males and females free, but each has an obligation to limit freedom for the cause of Christ. Women and men, wives and husbands who are believers are called on to live for the health and growth of the Kingdom! This is the theme of 1 Corinthians 8-10 and is continued in chapter 11.

“she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved” This is a Perfect passive participle. There are several possibilities for understanding this phrase.

1. it refers to the common attire of local prostitutes

2. it is a cultural act of an adulterous woman’s public shaming

3. it showed that shamed women were characteristic in the Mediterranean world for followers of the “Mystery Religions”

4. it refers to the culturally unexpected act of Christian women cutting their hair extremely short to show their new freedom (i.e., a cultural trend in first century Rome and its colonies)

In many commentaries option #1 is stressed. It is asserted that this must refer to the temple prostitutes of Diana. However, this temple on the Acropolis was destroyed by an earthquake 150 years before Paul’s time and there is no historical evidence that it still functioned. There is also no evidence that prostitutes in Greece shaved their heads.

The key question is “What topic is Paul is addressing?”

1. appropriate or culturally expected worship attire and actions

2. abuse of personal freedoms

3. the appropriate relationship between

a. men and women

b. husbands and wives

c. angels and women (1Co 11:10)

d. culture and women (1Co 11:13)

I have come to understand #1 as the best option, addressing both husbands and wives not being led by their new freedom in Christ, but by their dogged refusal to put aside their cultural privileges and work toward the unity and growth of the church.

1Co 11:6 “if. . .if” There are two first class conditional phrases in this verse which are assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purpose. There were Christian women in the church who refused to cover their heads, but still wanted to be active in gathered worship. It was socially unacceptable. Believers must limit their new freedoms in Christ for

1. the weaker ones within the church (cf. Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13)

2. the cultural expectation of the society the church is seeking to evangelize and incorporate

NASB”does not cover her head”

NKJV”is not covered”

NRSV”will not veil herself”

TEV”does not cover her head”

NJB”go without a veil”

Historical data on the use of face coverings (i.e., veils) or shoulder-length head coverings by ancient Mediterranean people is very helpful. I have documented the latest evidence in the notes at 1Co 11:4. Roman women who were married, not widowed, and not a prostitute, were culturally expected to wear a veil in public as a sign that they were married. There were very few single women in the ancient Mediterranean world.

In Jewish culture the facial veil was used as a sign of

1. leprosy, Lev 13:45

2. mourning for the dead, Eze 24:17; Eze 24:22

3. embarrassment, Mic 3:7

4. marriage, Gen 24:65

5. prostitution, Gen 38:14-15

However, remember Paul is not referring to Jewish culture at all because in that culture men cover their heads in worship.

“let her also have her hair cut off” This is an aorist middle imperative. This is not meant to be taken literally. Paul is not advocating a public shaming of Christian women, but he is asserting the cultural consequences for inappropriate activity!

“let her cover her head” This is a Present middle imperative. Christian women for Christ’s sake conform to the expected culture in order to reach people for salvation and church membership. The forms will change from culture to culture and age to age! The goal remains the same (cf. Mat 28:18-20; Luk 24:47; Act 1:8).

1Co 11:7 “he is the image and glory of God” This refers to Gen 1:26-27, yet in the context of this verse Gen 1:26 the word “man” is generic. Theologically it is uncertain exactly to what “image and likeness” in Gen 1:26-27 refers. Most scholars would relate them to personality, self-consciousness, moral perspective, ability to choose, ability to relate to other “selves.” There is an obvious mutuality between men and women in both Gen 1:26-27; Gen 2:18. The problem comes in Gen 3:16! See SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (DOXA) at 1Co 2:7.

1Co 11:8

NASB”For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man”

NKJV”For man is not from woman, but woman from man”

NRSV”indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man”

TEV”for man was not created from woman, but woman from man”

NJB”for man did not come from woman; no woman came from man”

The term “originate” is not in the Greek text. It is only the preposition ek (i.e., out of), as is 1Co 11:12. Paul is asserting the order of creation in 1Co 11:7; 1Co 11:9 from Genesis 2 (i.e., Adam first, then Eve). However in 1Co 11:8-9; 1Co 11:11, Paul asserts their mutual dependance (which alludes to Gen 1:27; Gen 2:18).

1Co 11:9 “man was not created for the woman’s sake” We must remember that Paul’s statement in Gal 3:28 on the equality of women does not minimize the created distinctions between the sexes, at least in this age. The full equality of men and women in Christ does not automatically remove all cultural/traditional role expectations. Believers (male and female) do not flaunt personal freedoms, which may damage the reputation of the church among the unbelieving culture. Mature believers limit their freedom in Christ for the sake of His Kingdom. Believers have a corporate responsibility to (1) the body of Christ and (2) the unbelieving community!

1Co 11:10 “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” This text, as all the others in this context, can be understood in several ways. The key issue is what does “authority” (i.e., exousia) represent?

First, it should be noted that exousia is often related to dunamis. Otto Betz has an interesting article on exousia in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, pp. 606-611. Here are five examples.

“It is characteristic for the NT that exousia and dunamis are both related to the work of Christ, the consequent new ordering of cosmic power-structures and the empowering of believers” (p. 609).

“The exousia of believers. The authority of a Christian believer is founded on the rule of Christ and on the disarming of all powers. It implies both freedom and service” (p. 611).

“He is free to do anything (1Co 6:12; 1Co 10:23 exestin); this assertion, which was made initially by the sectarian enthusiasts at Corinth, was taken up by Paul who acknowledged it to be correct” (p. 611).

“In practice, however, this theoretically unrestricted freedom is governed by consideration of what is helpful to other individual Christians and the congregation as a whole in view of the fact that complete redemption is still to come (1Co 6:12; 1Co 10:23)” (p. 611).

“‘All things are lawful [exestin] for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful [exestin],’ but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor” (1Co 10:23 ff). The quotation within these quotations are probably the slogans of the libertines at Corinth. Paul counters them by admitting their truth, but by showing that it is not the whole truth” (p. 611).

Paul uses these two terms often in his letters to the church at Corinth.

1. exousia, 1Co 7:37; 1Co 9:4-6; 1Co 9:12 (twice),18; 1Co 11:10; 2Co 13:10

2. dunamis, 1Co 1:18; 1Co 2:4-5; 1Co 4:19-20; 1Co 5:4; 1Co 15:24; 1Co 15:43; 2Co 4:7; 2Co 6:7; 2Co 8:3 (twice); 1Co 12:9; 1Co 13:4 (twice)

Rights and power were major issues for both the legalists and the libertines. Paul tries to walk a fine line between both extremes. In this context Christian women are encouraged to accept the God-given order of creation (i.e., Christ-man-woman) for the purpose of the furtherance of the Kingdom. Paul asserts the original mutuality (cf. Gen 1:26-27; Gen 2:18) in 1Co 11:11-12. It is very theologically dangerous to

1. isolate one verse in this context

2. apply a rigid systematic denominational grid on the issue of the relationship of men and women/husbands and wives of the first century to every culture in every century

3. to miss Paul’s balance between Christian freedom and Christian corporate covenant responsibility

Where did Christian women get the freedom to participate as a leader in gathered (i.e., house-church) worship? Surely not from the synagogue. Was it a cultural trend from first century Roman society? This is surely possible and in my opinion helps explain many aspects of this chapter. However, it is also possible that the power of the gospel, the restoration of the original “image of God” lost in the Fall, is the source. There is a shocking new equality in all areas of human life and society. But this equality can be turned into a license for personal abuse. This inappropriate extension is what Paul is addressing.

F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, has really helped me think through many of the controversial issues related to the church traditions of modern western Christianity. As an exegete I had always thought that women’s covering was meant to show God’s giftedness (or the co-equality of Gen 1:26-27), not her husband’s authority. However, I could not find this interpretation among the biblical resources that I use, therefore, I was reluctant to put it in the commentaries or preach/teach it. I still remember the excitement and freedom I felt when f. F. Bruce thought the same thing (see Answers to Questions, p. 95). I think all believers are called, full-time, gifted ministers of Christ!

“because of the angels” There are three lines of interpretation of this passage that relate to angels.

1. that the reference is to angels as representatives of God that are present in our worship services as observers, 1Co 4:9; 1Ti 5:21; Psa 138:1; and also the Dead Sea Scrolls

2. that these are evil angels with sexual desires similar to the angels in Gen 6:2; 2Pe 2:4; and Jud 1:6; angels are mentioned often in 1 Corinthians (cf. 1Co 4:9; 1Co 6:3; 1Co 11:10; 1Co 13:1)

3. translate agelous as “messengers” instead of “angels”

The terms for messenger and angel are the same in both Hebrew (i.e., malak) and Greek (i.e., agelos). This theory is based on first century social customs (cf. Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, pp. 133-138). A person of status would not visit a house church without sending someone to check out the meeting first. This makes more sense than trying to link 1Co 11:10 to lustful angels or angels concerned with appropriate decorum (cf. Psa 138:1) in gathered worship.

1Co 11:11-12 “in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman” These verses emphasize the mutuality between men and women (cf. Gen 1:26-27; Gen 2:18; Gal 3:26-29).

This freedom (i.e., return to the initial creation model of Gen 1:26-27) must be expressed in appropriate ways within one’s fallen culture. There is no doubting Paul’s affirmation of Jesus’ redemption totally changing every believer’s status! We are all one in Christ. Our goal now is helping our fallen neighbors and citizens find this same redemption. There are still societal issues in every culture. Because believers can, does not mean believers should!

The use of “from” (i.e., ek, literally “out of”) in this context (twice) seems to reinforce the use of “head” as “origin.” Woman is out of man; man is out of God. The Genesis narrative also provides the basis for “head” as a proper order of creation. Both freedom in Christ and submission (cf. Eph 5:21) are appropriate when the good of the church is the ultimate goal.

1Co 11:13-15 Paul uses this same approach in 1Co 10:15 where it could be sarcastic, based on his use of “wise men” (cf. 1Co 4:10; 2Co 11:10), but here it does not seem sarcastic rather in the sense of “thinking culturally.” Paul uses Corinthian/Greco-Roman/first century etiquette.

1. Married women should be veiled in public or in worship acts (1Co 11:13).

2. Young men in Corinth cut their long hair at the transition to manhood (i.e., at ten years old). To keep the long hair was a cultural sign of femininity or homosexuality (1Co 11:14).

3. Women with short hair were identified as either

a. one who had been publicly shamed

b. a prostitute (1Co 11:15).

These are not spiritual insights nor biblical insights (i.e., they do not fit Jewish customs), but cultural insights.

1Co 11:13 “yourselves” This is emphatic.

1Co 11:14-15 “if. . .if” These are both third class conditional sentences, which speak of potential action.

Different English translations punctuate these verses as question(s) (i.e., NRSV, NJB); statements (i.e., NASB, TEV); or one question and one statement (i.e., NKJV). The particle denoting a question in 1Co 11:14 indicates a question that expects a “yes” answer.

1Co 11:16 “if” This is a first class conditional which is assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes. There were contentious Christians in the church at Corinth.

NASB”one is inclined to be contentious”

NKJV”anyone seems to be contentious”

NRSV”anyone is disposed to be contentious”

TEV”anyone wants to argue about it”

NJB”anyone wants to be contentious”

The verb is a present active indicative, which implies continual action. This contentiousness is a continuing attitude for them. They love strife and contention!

The term “contentious” is a compound of philos (i.e., love) and veikos (i.e., strife). It is used of the Apostles at the Last Supper in Luk 22:24.

“we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God” (cf. 1Co 11:17). Paul is not giving them something special (cf. 1Co 4:17; 1Co 7:17; 1Co 11:16; 1Co 14:33). This church was glorying in its wisdom and freedom. They thought they had the right to live differently from other Christian churches. Paul asserts they do not!

“church” See Special Topic: Church (ekklesia) at 1Co 1:2.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

praise. Greek. epaineo. Elsewhere, verses: 1Co 11:17, 1Co 11:22. Luk 16:8 (commend). Rom 15:11 (laud).

keep = hold fast. Greek. katecho, as in 1Th 5:21 Heb 3:6, Heb 3:14; Heb 10:23.

ordinances. Greek. paradosis. Elsewhere, twelve times, always translated “tradition”.

delivered. Greek. paradidomi. See Joh 19:30.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1Co 11:2-34.] REPROOFS AND DIRECTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DISORDERS WHICH HAD ARISEN IN THEIR ASSEMBLIES: viz. (1) THE NOT VEILING OF THEIR WOMEN IN PUBLIC PRAYER (1Co 11:2-16): (2) THE ABUSE OF THE (17-34).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 11:2. , I praise) [This verse is the proper commencement of the chapter.-Not. Crit.] Nowhere else does Paul so directly praise any of those, to whom he writes. But here he resolves to write about anything, which does not properly fall under his , admonition, to them, 1Co 11:17; in which, however, if they will follow the reasons, which he has set before them, and comply with the custom of the saints, 1Co 11:16, which he finally lays down as somewhat stringent, he assures the Corinthians, that they will be worthy of praise, and declares, that they will incur neither Peters indignation, nor his.-) .-, me) construed with you remember, or with all things, 1Co 16:14.–, I delivered-traditions [ordinances]) This is applied to doctrines, whether imparted to them by word of mouth, or by letters, whether they relate to mysteries, or ceremonies, 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3; 2Th 2:15 : they have a greater relation however to ceremonies. In 1Co 11:23, he says respecting the Lords Supper, that he both received and delivered; but here, he says, that he delivered, he does not say that he had received.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 11:2

1Co 11:2

Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things,-[This verse is introductory to the whole of this section of the letter which treats of worship. With his usual tact and generosity, Paul before reproving them mentions things which he could honestly and heartily approve.]

and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.-By traditions is meant the precepts, ordinances, and doctrine he had taught them orally, and had been given orally from one to another. When Paul was with them he had taught them orally concerning the ordinance of the Supper, and they had kept it up as he had commanded them. They continued the meetings on the first day of the week (1Co 16:1), but corruption had crept in.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Covering the Head

1Co 11:2-10

No soul is complete in itself. The man is not complete apart from Christ, as the woman is not complete apart from man. As God is the head of the nature of Jesus on its human side, so must Jesus be head of man, and man of woman. But in each case the headship is not one of authority and rule, but of the impartation of resources of love, wisdom, and strength, without which the best cannot be realized. The covered head of woman in our sanctuaries as contrasted with the uncovered head of man is a sign and symbol of this interdependence.

But it is very interesting to notice that while the Gospel so clearly insists on the divine order, it has elevated woman to be mans true helpmeet, and has caused her to be honored and loved as the glory of man. Neither society, nor family life, nor woman herself, can be happy unless she attains her true position. On the one hand she finds her completion in man; on the other she is his queen and he ministers to her in all gentleness and tenderness and strength.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

ordinances

things delivered; often trans. traditions.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

I praise: 1Co 11:17, 1Co 11:22, Pro 31:28-31

that: 1Co 4:17, 1Co 15:2

keep: 1Co 7:17, Luk 1:6, 1Th 4:1, 1Th 4:2, 2Th 2:15, 2Th 3:6

ordinances: or, traditions

Reciprocal: Num 4:27 – appointment 1Ch 15:13 – for that 2Ch 30:5 – for they Eze 11:20 – they may Eze 37:24 – they shall Eze 43:11 – all the ordinances Mat 25:1 – ten Mat 28:20 – them Act 2:42 – they 1Co 15:3 – I delivered Gal 4:17 – zealously 1Th 3:6 – and that

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 11:2. In all things is said in the sense of a general statement. The Corinthian brethren were generally favorable to the apostle’s teaching, and for that he praises them. But there were some particulars in which they were at fault, and Paul is dealing with them in this chapter.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 11:2. Now I praise you[1] that ye remember me in all thingsall the instructions I gave you, and hold fast the traditions. The word means things delivered in any way, whether orally or in writing, as is plain from what follows.

[1] Though the word brethren occurs at the opening of chap. 10 and chap. 12 with no counter evidence, it is wanting here in the four oldest MSS.

even as I delivered them to you. Even the Rhemish Version renders it precepts, the Authorised Version ordinances, that is, the directions which he gave them for their guidance.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

This commendation is to be restrained to the sounder part of the church at Corinth, who were mindful of his precepts and instructions which he had delivered to them concerning matters appertaining to the public worship of God; which precepts and rules for the worship of God he calls traditions, because they were immediately delivered to the church, either from the apostle’s mouth, or by writing. This place, though produced, yet makes nothing for the unwritten traditions of the Romish church. Let them prove by authentic testimony, that their fardels of traditions were delivered to the church from the mouth of the apostles, and we will receive them.

Now I praise you, brethren. Here it deserves a remark, that the apostle, being about to reprove certain disorders in the church at Corinth, ushers in his reproof for what was amiss, with a commendation for what was praise-worthy among them; I praise you, brethren.

Like the physician, who wraps his bitter pill in honey or sugar before he gives it into his patient’s mouth. It is wisdom to intermix commendations with our reproofs, that the latter may take more place when accompanied with the former.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

God’s Order of Authority

Traditions can be those formed by men and handed down from generation to generation. However, when Paul spoke of them in 1Co 11:2 , he was speaking of the doctrine passed from Christ to the apostle to the Corinthians. Notice, Paul did not create the traditions but “delivered” them. Much of the New Testament had not been written when Paul was penning this letter. The truth they knew came from the words of inspired men, whether spoken or written. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” ( 2Th 2:15 ).

Man was given dominion over woman in Gen 3:16 . He was to love her as Christ loved the church ( Eph 5:2-5 ). Man, in turn, was directed to submit himself to Christ as Lord. This was first accomplished when a man obeyed Christ in baptism and was to continue as he walked in the light of God’s love and instructions ( Act 2:38 ; 1Jn 1:7 ; Joh 14:15 ). The God-given order is: God-Christ-man-woman. Notice, in the garden Jesus prayed, “not as I will, but as thou wilt” ( 1Co 11:3 ; Mat 26:39 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

1Co 11:2-3. Now I praise you, brethren That is, the greater part of you; that you remember me That you bear in mind all my directions; and keep the ordinances Observe the rules of public worship in most points; as I delivered them to you Formerly. But I would have you know As if he had said, Yet I must further inform you respecting some things wherein you are defective in your attention to these rules. Consider, in particular, the subordination of persons appointed by God to be observed; That the head of every man is Christ Who was the Creator, and is the immediate Supreme Governor of all mankind, especially of such as believe in him, being, in a peculiar sense, the head of his body the church, Col 1:18. So that every Christian should often recollect the relation in which he hath the honour to stand to Christ, as an engagement to observe the most respectful decorum in his whole behaviour toward him. And comparing the different sexes, it must be observed, the head of the woman is the man To whom therefore she ought to be in subjection, and to pay a reverent respect, as in the Lord. And the head of Christ As Mediator and man; is God The Father, from whom he derives all his dignity and authority. Christ, in his mediatorial character, even considered in his whole person, acts in subordination to his Father, who rules by him, and hath constituted him sovereign of all worlds, visible and invisible. And, as the Fathers glory is interested in the administration of Christ, so is the glory of Christ, in some measure, interested in the conduct and behaviour of those men, whose more immediate head he is; and it may be added, of those women, whose heads such men are.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

VII. The Demeanour of Women in Public Worship. Chap. 11:2-16.

The apostle has just treated a series of subjects belonging to the domain of the Church’s moral life, especially in connection with Christian liberty (chaps. 6-10). He now passes to various subjects relating to public worship, beginning with that which lies nearest the domain of liberty: the external demeanour of women in public worship. Then will follow the disorders which have crept into the celebration of the Holy Supper and into the administration of spiritual gifts. Such are the three subjects Paul conjoins in the closely connected chaps. 11-14.

The ancients in general laid down a difference between the bearing of men and that of women in their appearances in public. Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. xiv.) relates that at the funeral ceremony of parents, the sons appeared with their heads covered, the daughters with their heads uncovered and their hair flowing. This author adds by way of explanation: To mourning belongs the extraordinary, that is to say, what is done on this occasion, is the opposite of what is done in general. What would be improper at an ordinary time becomes proper then. Plutarch also relates that among the Greeks it was customary for the women in circumstances of distress to cut off their hair, whereas the men allowed it to grow; why so? Because the custom of the latter is to cut it, and of the former to let it grow (see Heinrici, pp. 300, 301). According to several passages from ancient authors, while the long hair of the woman was regarded as her best ornament, the man who, by the care he bestowed on his hair, effaced the difference of the sexes, was despised as a voluptuary. The Greek slave had her head shaved in token of her servitude; the same was done among the Hebrews to the adulteress (Num 5:18; comp. Isa 3:17). In regard to acts of public worship there existed a remarkable difference between the Greeks and the Romans. The Greek prayed with his head uncovered, whereas the Roman veiled his head. The ancients explain these opposite usages in various ways. Probably in the Roman rite there was expressed the idea of the scrupulous reverence which should be brought into the service of the deity, while the Greek rite bespoke the feeling of liberty with which man should appear before the gods of Olympus. The Jewish high priest officiated with his mitre on his head, and the Jew of the present day prays with his head covered, no doubt in token of reverence and submission. It appears from all these facts what an intimate relation the feeling of the ancients established between the worshipper’s demeanour, as regards the noblest part of his being, the head, and his moral and social position. The point here was not only, as Heinrici well says, a matter of decorum. His conduct in this respect corresponded to a profound religious feeling.

This is the point of view at which we must place ourselves to understand the following discussion. St. Paul was accustomed to say: In Christ all things are made new; there is neither male nor female, neither bond nor free, neither Greek nor Jew. How easy was it from this to jump to the conclusion: Then there is no longer any difference, especially in worship, where we are all before God, between the demeanour of the male and that of the female. If the male speaks to his brethren or to God with his head uncovered, why should not the female do so also? And with the spirit of freedom which animated the Church of Corinth, it is not probable that they had stopped short at theory. They had already gone the length of practice; this seems to be implied by 1Co 11:15-16. The apostle had learned it, not from the letter of the Corinthians, to which he does not here make any allusion (as in 1Co 8:1), but probably from the deputies of the Church.

He begins with a general commendation in regard to the manner in which the Church remains faithful to the ecclesiastical institutions he had established among them.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

[Paul has been discussing the disorderly conduct of individual Christians. He now proceeds to discuss more general disorders; i. e., those which took place in the meetings of the congregation, and in which the whole church participated. We may conceive him as answering the question, “Ought men to have their heads covered, or may women have their heads uncovered when they are prophesying in public?”] Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. [By “traditions” Paul means the precepts, ordinances and doctrines which he had taught them orally. The traditions of God, given through inspired men, are to be accepted without addition or alteration (1Co 15:3; 2Th 2:15; Rev 22:18), but the traditions of men should be weighed carefully, and summarily rejected if they conflict with the teaching of God (Mat 15:1-9). Since Paul has already censured the Corinthians for departing from his teaching, and since, in the next breath, he points out further departures on their part from his teaching, it is evident that what he says here is a quotation taken from a part of their letter where they were expressing their loyalty to him. Having thus quoted their words in which they committed themselves to his teaching, he points out what the teaching really was, that they may make good their boast by obeying it.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

2. I praise you because you imitate me in all things, and hold fast the instructions as I delivered them to you. The original word here is not ordinances, as in E.V., but traditions, which really means everything transmitted to the people by the Savior and apostles, both written and unwritten. I use the word instructions as the more comprehensive and the freer from ambiguity.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

1Co 11:2-16. Women must be Veiled in the Christian Assemblies.It is not clear whether this subject was discussed in the church letter.

Paul begins, in a way that surprises us after his grave censures, with praise for their steadfast adherence to his teaching and traditions. But he must inform them that the head of every man (as distinguished from woman) is Christ, the head of the woman is man, the head of Christ, God. Woman, Man, Christ, God, form an ascending climax in which the second stands to the first, as the third to the second, and the fourth to the third. The precise meaning is not clear. Headship suggests lordship, but Christ is lord of woman as well as man. Perhaps the thought is rather that of archetype and origin. Christ is the image of God and derives His being from Him, so man is related to Christ, and woman to man. In each case there is, of course, a differentiating element. Man has a primary, woman a secondary, relation to Christ, man a secondary, woman a tertiary, relation to God. We are reminded of Miltons similar depreciation, He for God only, she for God in him. 1Co 11:4 f. connects rather badly with 1Co 11:3 since we naturally interpret dishonoureth his (her) head to mean dishonours Christ (or the man). But what follows forbids this. The meaning must be that the man who veils his head for prayer or prophesying, dishonours it, and the woman who unveils it dishonours hers. The man dishonours it by suggesting that he is under authority, whereas he is supreme of created beings. The woman, because to dispense with a veil is no better than to cut off the hair altogether. The latter was the punishment of an adulteress; the absence of the veil would suggest that the woman was of easy virtue. Mans high dignity as the image and glory of God forbids his wearing it, womans subordinate position as the glory of man requires her to do so. The use of glory is strange. It can hardly bear its ordinary sense in a context emphasizing womans inferiority. Some such sense as reflection seems to be required. Man is original, woman derivative, she was created for him, not he for her. The next verse (1Co 11:10) is very difficult. Usually it is taken to mean that on account of her inferior position the woman should wear a veil on her head as the sign of the mans authority over her, on account of the angels. But to have authority must mean to possess authority not to wear a token of subjection. Ramsay (Cities of St. Paul, pp. 202205; Luke the Physician, p. 175) points out that in the East the veil isolates a woman from the crowd and secures her from interference and even observation. It is her authority, without it she is defenceless. This gives the right sense to authority, it is a womans own authority, but it is not so clear how it links into the general argument and in particular how it is related to the last clause. This clause has been regarded as an interpolation by Baur and others. The sentence seems complete without it, and for this cause suggests that the reason is fully contained in what has gone before, whereas because of the angels seems to give a new reason which receives no development. The clause is nevertheless probably genuine. It does not mean, lest the angels who are at the worship should be shocked. The general meaning is that the unveiled woman is in danger from the angels as the daughters of men from the sons of the Elohim (Gen 6:1-4*). That story played a large part in Jewish speculations; what the modern mind might regard as fanciful, was for Paul a grave moral peril. Just as participation in the idol sacrifice may involve ruinous fellowship with demons, so the unveiling of women implied danger from and to the angels.[105] The significance of the veil is not merely that concealment would prevent angelic lust from being aroused. As Dibelius points out, it is a widespread belief that the veil has magical power. Its function is therefore to ward off dangers. The danger is specially present when the woman prays or prophesies (cf. Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, ch. vii.). Apparently in the ecstatic condition, pressing into the spiritual realm, she is more exposed to the advances of the angels than in her normal condition. Hence she needs a means of protection. She needs it and man does not, just because she is inferior, further removed than he from the heavenly state; he is free to enter Gods presence with head uncovered, she can safely do it only with a veil Dr. Grieve suggests talisman as an equivalent to authority. We must not set views aside because they are quite foreign to our world of thought, or because we are unwilling to attribute them to Paul, nor must we carry back to his time our popular angelology. Paul now guards what he has been saying. Man and woman are indispensable to each other, and if the woman was originally formed from the man, the man comes into the world through her, and both really, like all other things, have their source in God. He resumes with an appeal to their own sense of the fitness of things, which must show the unseemliness of a womans praying to God unveiled. And nature teaches that woman needs a covering by giving long hair to a woman, but short hair to a man. He closes the discussion with the curt remark (cf. 1Co 14:38) that if anyone intends to be disputatious about it, he is in opposition to the custom of Paul and his colleagues and the other churches. The principle is that local idiosyncrasies should be controlled by general Church custom.

[105] Ramsay has recently (Teaching of Paul, p. 214) recognised that Paul regards women as in danger from the angels, but through obedience to the social conventions they gained authority and immunity from the power of demons or angels. The veil was their strength and protection. But are we to assume that the veil would have the same significance for the angels as for human beings? And what on this interpretation is the point of the emphasis on the necessity of the veil when the woman is praying of prophesying?

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

DIVISION V ABOUT THE ABUSES IN CHURCH MEETINGS CHAPTERS 11:2-34

SECTION 20 WOMEN MUST NOT LAY ASIDE THEIR APPROPRIATE AND DISTINCTIVE DRESS CH. 11:2-16

I praise you that in all things you remember me, and that, according as I delivered to you the traditions, you hold them fast. But I wish you to know that of every man Christ is the head: and head of woman, the man is; and head of Christ, God is. Every man praying or prophesying with covered head puts to shame his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled puts to shame her head. For she is one and the same thing as the shaven woman. For, if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is a shameful thing to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For indeed a man ought not to have his head veiled, being an image and glory of God. But the woman is man’s glory. For not the man is from the woman, but the woman from the man: for also man was not created because of the woman, but woman because of the man. For this cause the woman ought to have authority upon her head, because of the angels. Except neither is woman without man nor man without woman. For, just as the woman is from the man, so also is the man by means of the woman. And all things are from God.

Judge in yourselves. Is it fitting that to God a woman pray unveiled? Does not Nature itself teach you? Because indeed a man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonor to him. But a woman if she have long hair, it is a glory to her. Because the hair is given to her instead of a covering. But if anyone thinks to be fond of strife, we for our part have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.

By a commendation (1Co 11:2) and a broad general principle (1Co 11:3) Paul opens the way to a new matter; on which in 1Co 11:4-5 a he at once pronounces sentence. This sentence he justifies in 1Co 11:5-15; and in 1Co 11:16 concludes 20 with a warning.

1Co 11:2. In all things: limited (see under Rom 5:18) by Paul’s mental horizon at the moment of writing. It refers probably to church-meetings only: for only of these does 1 Corinthians 11 treat. In all their conduct of public worship they think of Paul and of the directions he gave. This is a mark that underneath the disaffection implied in the factions there lay a genuine loyalty to the apostle. Of this loyalty, the mission of Stephanas and others (1Co 16:17) was a mark: and an enthusiastic outburst of it was evoked (2Co 7:11 f) by this Epistle.

Delivered: cognate with tradition: 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3; Jud 1:3; Luk 1:2; Act 6:14; Act 16:4; Rom 1:24; Rom 4:25.

Traditions: instructions about doctrine or practice (here probably the latter: for of this 20 treats) handed on from one to another: 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8; Mat 15:2.

The traditions: probably the more or less definite instructions given by Christ to the apostles for the church. Samples are found in 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3. These instructions Paul had, when present with them or by his former letter, given to his readers: and he now commends their careful remembrance of them. This does not contradict what follows: for 20, 21 refer, not to omissions or alterations, but to new practices which had crept in. And Paul does not say, I praise you all.

To these words, Estius appeals in proof that there is an unwritten, but binding, apostolic tradition. If we, like Paul’s readers, had proof that certain instructions came actually from him, we should accept them as authoritative, even though unwritten. But I do not know of any unwritten tradition which can be confidently traced to an apostle.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

11:2 {1} Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

(1) The fifth treatise of this epistle concerning the right ordering of public assemblies, containing three points, that is of the comely apparel of men and women, of the order of the Lord’s supper, and of the right use of spiritual gifts. But going about to reprehend certain things, he begins nonetheless with a general praise of them, calling those particular laws of comeliness and honesty, which belong to the ecclesiastical policy, traditions: which afterward they called cannons.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

C. Propriety in worship 11:2-16

This section and the next (1Co 11:17-34) deal with subjects different from meat offered to idols, but Paul did not introduce them with the phrase "now concerning." These were additional subjects about which he wanted to give the Corinthians guidance. He had evidently learned of the Corinthians’ need for instruction in these matters either through their letter to him, from the messengers that brought that letter to him, or from other sources.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. The argument from culture 11:2-6

Paul introduced the first of the two subjects he dealt with in this chapter, the Corinthian women’s participation in church worship, with praise. He did not introduce the second subject this way (1Co 11:17; 1Co 11:22). As with the other sections of this epistle, we can see the influence of Corinthian culture and worldview in this one, particularly in the behavior of the women in the church.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Paul commended his original readers for remembering his teaching and example. This chapter deals with things that were going on in the meetings of the church primarily, as the context shows (cf. 1Co 11:16). The "traditions" (NASB) were "teachings" (NIV; Gr. paradoseis) the Corinthians had received from the apostle. Some of these involved divinely inspired revelations and others just prudent advice (cf. 2Th 3:6-10). They may have been following his instructions, but not in the proper ways, as his following discussion makes clear.

"The traditions (as the other references show) were the central truths of the Christian faith, handed on at this stage (before the emergence of Christian literature) orally from evangelist and teacher to convert." [Note: Barrett, p. 247.]

Of course, there were already a few inspired New Testament documents circulating among the churches.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)