1 Corinthians Chapter 11.

1 Corinthians Chapter 11.

This chapter corrects certain disorders in the church meetings at Corinth.  Such as the right attire of women, fitting and brotherly behaviour at the Lord's Supper and the proper manner of its celebration, 11:2-16.  Women must wear a covering on their heads at church meetings.

           

Some scholars argue that the abiding lesson of this passage is that conventions and customary practices must be respected and not despised.  This is, of course, an important lesson but, if we recognize Paul's instructions as the commandments of the Lord, we can scarcely treat the matter as a mere human convention.

           

Paul begins his little sermon on the matter by commending them.  This is the right way to begin pastoral counseling.  People respond better when they feel that they are respected and appreciated.  Paul praises them for their loyalty to his oral teaching.  This was the instruction he gave in the various churches.

           

Paul is disturbed that women were discarding the veil at church meetings for, in doing this, they ignored an order or arrangement that proceeded from God.  The veil is distinguished from the hair and was probably a covering from the head and not the face.  The reference to the hair suggests that Paul is concerned with the covering of the head rather than the face.

           

Paul's sermon has a number of arguments or points :

1/  The Divine Order  in Creation.  There are recognized headships.

a.  The head of every man or human male is Christ.  This presupposes the activity of Christ in Creation and is not to be confused with His Headship to the Church. (Col.1:18).

b.  The head of the woman is man.

c.  The head of Christ is God.   This is the ultimate source of all order and headship.  Paul begins the discussion with a statement of the Divine Order.  It forms the central core of his argument.

If a man prays or prophecies with his own head covered, he dishonours his head, for it is a symbol of the Headship of Christ.  Likewise, the woman who prays or prophecies with an uncovered head dishonours her head which is a symbol for the headship of the man.  The man does not cover his head since he is the image of God and is the mirror of His glory, whereas the woman reflects the glory of man.  This lesson Paul emphasizes by an appeal to social custom and feeling.

Paul felt very strongly that a woman should have a veil.  He declares with indignation that if a woman is not veiled, then let her also be shorn or shaven as an adulterous woman was shaven.  Social custom was unfavourable to women being shorn. 11:6.

Paul confirms his teaching concerning the headship of the man by an appeal to Scripture.  In 11:7 he refers to Genesis 1:26, which is strictly speaking of male and female, both were made in God's likeness and image.  But Paul perceives in the Creation story the priority of the man and the woman's dignity as derived from him and for him.  The woman is the glory of the man, his "better half."  It follows that he who degrades a woman sullies his manhood and is the worse enemy of the race and the respect shown to woman is the measure and safeguard of human dignity. (Findlay).

           

In the order of Creation the woman has a subordinate place to man, but Paul agrees that, in the Lord, neither is one without the other, 11:11.  They are equal in the new order in the Lord.  However, as long as we live here, we retain much that belongs to the old order, for though we are in the Lord, our lives are lived under the shadow of the old order.  In Christ there is neither male nor female. Gal.3:28.

           

2/  Because of the angels, i.e. because of reverence for the holy angels.  Paul finds here another reason why some women should cover their heads in church gatherings.  It is closely linked with the argument of the Divine order of headship.  The angels are associated with Creation and the maintenance of Divine order.  As the guardians of the Divine order in Creation, they shall be offended if women do not recognize it.  The Church, then, must continue to recognize the Divine order on Creation.  Admittedly Paul's thought is here difficult to follow, but the above interpretation seems the most probable.

           

3/  Argument from nature.

a.  Physiological difference.  Women grow hair on the head more readily than men, while men grow more hair on the face and body.  Baldness may be associated with masculinity.

b.   Natural Law.  There is a natural hunch among most races that long hair less becomes a man than a woman.  It is true some exceptions can be named, the soldiers of Sparta and the Maoris.  Such instances are exceptional and transitory, for men instinctively feel that long hair dishonours them.  Nature seems to give them a hunch this is so.  This may have a biological origin.  But women rightly feel that hair enhances their femininity.  Paul is not insisting that women have long hair, his appeal to nature's covering a woman's head with long hair is a supporting argument rather than a further demand.  Note the "Doth not" in 11:14.

           

That nature provides women with long hair on the head - that they instinctively feel long hair becomes them and that men instinctively feel that long hair degrades them, is used by Paul as another argument that women wear a head covering at church meetings.  Paul's reference to the hair is by way of an illustrative argument rather than a further demand.

4/   The uniform practice of the Churches.

The contentious man must give way for neither the apostles nor the churches of God have any such custom as women coming into church meetings with no covering on their heads.  This seems the likely meaning of 11:16.  The apostle favours a general uniformity of custom and practice among the churches.  It is desirable that nothing be at variance with propriety and respected custom.

An exegetical problem is proposed by 11:10.  What is the meaning of `exousia' or authority on the head?  The following interpretations appear unlikely:

a. The veil is a charm possessing magical power to protect from evil spirits.

b. The veil is a symbol of the authority of the husband.

c. That an Aramaic word for veil and another for power, both being derived from the same root. The Jewish element at Corinth would understand and explain Paul's use of veil and power.

See R.S.V.

The meaning of the words, "have authority on her head" is difficult.  Do they mean that man had the active role in worshipping but only a woman has authority to pray and prophecy, provided her head was covered?  Miss Hooker writes, "The head - covering, which is symbolized in the effacement of man's glory in the presence of God, also serves as a sign of the authority which is given to the woman; with the glory of the man hidden she too, may reflect the glory of God."  This interpretation means that the order and different ranks of creation remain and are reflected in the head covering, but the same head covering is a sign that in relation to God, "there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  However, in 14:34-36 Paul clearly forbids the use in the church of the woman's authority to take an active, public life.

           

11:17-22.  The Lord's Supper must not be eaten in a disorderly manner.  Some consider these verses refer to a communal meal, known as the `Agape' or "love feast"; at the close of which was celebrated the Eucharist.  This explanation may not be necessary, and the Lord's Supper be the Eucharist rather than the `Agape".  Others consider that the primitive Eucharist was a simple supper which the Corinthians changed to an elaborate banquet.

           

Paul deals with abuses at the Eucharist which had become an occasion for banqueting.  In this matter he is unable to praise them.  Firstly, Paul was hearing that, when they met as a congregation, they fell into sharply divided groups and he fears there is some grounds for believing these reports.  If there were divisions or groups, there would almost certainly be heresies or factions, that is, groups following their different leaders.  Such things must happen but the approved shall be distinguished by avoiding such things.  See R.S.V. in 11:19.  "To have religious zeal without becoming a religious partisan is a great proof of true devotion."

           

11:20-22.  The Corinthians perverted the true purpose of the Lord's Supper.  Paul declares the moral impossibility of their eating the Dominical Supper. It could not be eaten, for each was in a hurry to eat his own without regard to the hungry and spoilt its solemn character by eating and drinking too much.  The apostates of Jude v.12 and 2.Pet.2:13 used the love-feast or `agape' as an occasion for carousing.

           

11:23-26.  The earliest account of the institution of the Eucharist.  Paul states the origin, meaning and order of the Lord's Supper.  The Corinthians had not correctly obeyed the tradition that Paul had delivered to them. 

           

Firstly he declares the authority from which he received it, for he had received it from the Lord.  It came as a revelation.  Obviously, he must also have known it from oral tradition but the Lordship of the risen Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit completely transformed the concept of tradition for the early church.  The tradition became revelation, being charged with a new significance, in the fellowship of the risen Lord, who communicates to us His Spirit.  That which was also known by tradition gained a new character and authority when revealed to the apostle by the Lord.

           

Specific details are given and he informs us how the Lord's Supper was observed.  Paul enhances its solemnity by noting the occasion of its institution, the night of the betrayal.  Its commemoration is a pledged of our loyalty.

           

"My Body."  This cannot mean the bread was the same material as the hand which broke it.  The disciples knew it was not His actual body, for He sat in their midst.  It represented his body.

           

The Cup.  This signified the new covenant sealed by His shed blood N.E.B.  The new covenant effectively brings to us the forgiveness of sins.  It is blood, not bleeding, for blood here signifies His sacrificial death.

           

Covenant.  It is new as opposed to the old. Exodus 24.

           

Remembrance.  The idea of remembrance, or of reminding, is central and expressed separately of each element.  That it is a reminder in the sense of an evocation implies it is to be continued.  It is also suggested that the Lord in bodily person is absent.  But we remember Him as associated with the great saving events.

           

"As oft as."  `Proclaim'  R.V.  This word is used of preaching the gospel.  "No gospel like this feast."  We remember the Lord, proclaiming His death.  The symbolism of the Eucharist sets forth the centrality of His death.

           

"Till He come."  Then it will be continued no more, for the Supper of remembrance will be superseded by his own Presence.  The words may suggest that the Eucharist has a forward look of hope as well as a backward look of remembrance.

           

11:27-32.  Self-examination is necessary lest we eat and drink unworthily.  The A.S.V. and R.S.V have, "in an unworthy manner."  Moffatt has "carelessly."  The careless participant profanes the body and blood of the Lord.  Those who become drunk at the Eucharist did not discern the true meaning of Christ's Sacrifice at Calvary, nor did they appreciate what was fitting at the rite in which the Lord was remembered.  Men can participate unworthily in various ways.

           

`Prove himself.'  This means let a man inwardly probe himself and put himself to the test.  The proving has not in view the giving up of one's right to eat and drink.  Rather, it has in view one's obligation to eat and drink.  Self-examination is a necessary preparation to sharing the remembrance Supper.  It is concerned with proving the adequacy of one's spiritual state to solemnly partake of the supper.  There is no reason to think it means giving proof to others, but rather to prepare one's own religious frame of mind.

           

Does this mean that if an outsider comes along the onus is wholly on himself whether he participates or not?  Paul writes to those in the Church.  He is not leaving it an open question whether unbelievers be allowed to participate.  They have no capacity to remember the Lord and His Saving work.  It is the privilege and duty of every Christian to partake of the Lord's Supper.  But to deny to the Church the right and responsibility to supervise who shall participate is to take from the Church its autonomy.  While the principle is sound that all Christians be welcomed to the Lord's Supper, in some cases it may be injurious to the Church and we must not think of the Church as having its hands tied in any matter that concerns its welfare.

           

11:33-34.  The Lord's Supper is a simple and solemn rite of remembrance, but to change it into an occasion of improper feasting is to fall under judgment.  It is important that a man examine himself.