1 Corinthians 11:1-16

Applebury's Comments

When praying or Prophesying (1-16)

Text

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. 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. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn; but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, for as much as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: 10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. 13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Commentary

Be ye imitators of me.This verse is, in all probability, the apostle's concluding statement about limiting Christian liberty. He had said in the beginning of the discussion of the subject that if meat caused his brother to stumble he would eat no flesh for evermore. Now he urges his readers to follow his example and refrain from anything that would cause offense to anyone whether Jew or Greek or the church of God, for he was following the example of Christ. The object of such conduct was to save some. See Philippians 2:5-11 for his explanation of what Christ did in order to save sinners.

Now I praise you.In this letter, the purpose of which was to rebuke those practicing sin and offer corrective measures to overcome such practices, the apostle is careful to praise his readers whenever possible. He had addressed them as the church of God and reminded them that they were his brethren and that he was their spiritual father. But when he did rebuke them, it was for the purpose of rescuing them from their sinful practices in the hope that they would follow Christ and be saved through obedience to Him. He seems at this point to be glad to say, I praise you.

ye remember me in all things.That the Corinthians did remember Paul and think of his instructions when questions arose among them is indicated by the fact that they wrote to him for further information about such matters as marriage, meats and other things that had to do with their, worship of the Lord.

He commended them for holding to the instruction which he had given them even though they may have failed to remember all that he had said. There seemed to be a disposition on their part to abide by his teaching. Otherwise, why would they have written to him? Of course, he wouldn-'t commend them on all things, for in matters such as the Lord's supper they were not acting in accord with Christian principles. In this, he didn-'t hesitate to say, I commend you not.
It is evident that his praise was not mere flattery, for it was freely given when merited. It seems that in doing so he was helping them to see that it was with equal sincerity and concern for their welfare that he rebuked them when had to do so.

the traditions.Traditions, as they are mentioned in the New Testament, are in two classes. First, there are the traditions of the Jews which, Jesus said, were causing them to transgress the commandment of God (Matthew 15:3). These were customs that had grown up without divine sanction and transmitted from generation to generation. They became an evil thing since people soon put these traditions above the word of God. Second, the word as used by Paul simply means the oral instructions he had delivered to them as an inspired apostle. They were, of course, on a par with the written instructions he had given to them. It is this orally transmitted message that they were observing that called forth his expression of praise.

But I would have you to know.When it came to the problem of a man or a woman praying or prophesying, he wanted them to know the principle that governed this matter. This was the principle of headship. As it applied to their situation it was given in a three-fold relationship: The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Failure to grasp the significance of this principle led some of them, it would seem, to faulty conclusions.

the head of every man is Christ.The word head is used both literally and figuratively in this context. Literally, it means the head of the human body. But what does it mean figuratively? There is no question that in some instances it means supremacy and authority. But is that what it means here? While I do not find any other clear cut example except this one in the New Testament, it is possible that in this context it refers to source or origin. There is abundant evidence to support this meaning when used with reference to things. For example, the head of a river is its source or point of origin. The origin of man and woman is the basis of Paul's argument in this context. See 1 Corinthians 11:7-9. Verse twelve also clearly refers to the Genesis account of the origin of man and woman. And, Paul adds, all things are from God.

The lesson of the paragraph is clear enough: man is to dress in a manner that marks him, according to the culture of Paul's day, as a man. To do otherwise is to disregard the fact that God created him a man. Woman also is to maintain her position as a woman and not attempt to become a man by forsaking the customary dress that marked her as a woman according to the culture of that day.
There is nothing in the context, as I see it, that suggests that man is superior to woman or has authority over her. Headship as it relates to man and woman is explained by the fact that man is the image and glory of God, but woman is man's glory. Origin or source makes good sense in this context.

The head of every man is Christ. Some would limit this to the man who is a Christian, but the facts are that Christ is the creator of all. God said, Let us make man in our image (Genesis 1:26). John says of the Word that all things were made through him (John 1:1-2). Paul, speaking of Christ, says that in him were all things created (Colossians 1:15-16).

the head of woman is the man.This is a reference to the creation of man and woman, not to husband and wife. The latter relationship is discussed by Paul in Ephesians 5:23. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. The church is the body of Christ, and without it He would be incomplete (Ephesians 1:22). There can-'t be such a relationship as wife without husband. Subjection implies the necessity of faithfulness to her own husband, that is, a proper relationship between husband and wife just as the members of the church are to be in subjection one to another (Ephesians 5:21).

Christ's authority over His church is clearly indicated in many passages. See Matthew 28:18-20 for His own statement as to His authority. But there is a serious question about implying it in the figure of headship.

The problem that Paul is discussing in this context is that of distinctive dress that marks man and woman while praying or prophesying. It is true that the word translated man may also be rendered husband. But in this context there is no reason to do so. The fact that Paul uses the definite article with man in the statement, the head of woman is the man does not make it signify husband. It is logical to suppose that whatever head means in one of these three statements, it means in the others: Of every man, the head is Christ; and head of woman is the man; and head of Christ, God. The origin of man is Christ; of woman is the man; of Christ is God. Man was created by Christ; woman created from man; Christ sent from God.

Every man praying or prophesying.Praying is speaking to God; prophesying is speaking for God. In the early church, much of the prophesying (preaching) was done of necessity under the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit. See discussion on this point in chapter twelve. The issue is just this: Man speaking to God or speaking for God is to dress as a man, for he was created in the image of God and is the glory of God. To do otherwise is to dishonor his head. If he covers his head he appears to be a womanaccording to the culture of that day.

every woman praying or prophesying.Not wife, but woman. The activity is the same as in the case of man: praying or preaching. This does not overlook the fact that there are limitations placed on the activity of women. Woman is not to teach, nor have dominion over man, but to be in quietness (1 Timothy 2:12). This regulation stems from the facts of creation of woman and the entrance of sin into the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). It seems quite evident that the men did the preaching in the general assembly where both men and women were present. Most godly women agree that this is proper in our society today. But it will be remembered that Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:19). Priscilla, as well as her husband Aquila, was instrumental in instructing Apollos in the way of God (Acts 18:24-28). Women, it will be generally agreed, are superior teachers of children. Note also Paul's statement about aged women who are to be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed (Titus 2:3-5). There is work for man and there is work for woman to do in the church; and, when it comes to the matter of salvation in the Lord, there is no distinction as to male and female, bond and free, since all are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28).

her head unveiled.Man was not to have his head covered, but woman was to have her head veiled while praying or prophesying. Why? If a woman assumes the position of man by dressing like a man and thus losing her womanly dignity, she disgraces her head by denying that God created man first and then woman to be his counterpart (Genesis 2:18-24). It dishonors God for either man or woman to attempt to remove this distinction. At no time is it more true than when one is praying to God or prophesying for God. To inject the thought of authority of husband over wife into this context is to forget that Paul is speaking about maintaining the relationship of man and woman as seen in the order of their creation; but priority is not superiority.

if a woman is not veiled.Cutting the hair and shaving were marks by which to identify a man. If a woman left off the veil which was a distinctive mark of a woman, she had just as well go farther and cut her hair and be shaved. If it was disgraceful to cut the hairassumed as true, since this was the distinctive mark of manlet her keep the recognized mark of womanly dignity, the veil.

Should this custom be observed today? Without doubt, the principle of maintaining womanly and manly dignity is to be observed. Since the use of the veil would not necessarily show respect for the principle, it would seem that its use is not called for where custom does not require it. It would be artificial to create the custom to support the principle. The principle can be supported by the distinctive marks of our culture just as it was by the requirements of Paul's day.

the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.What are we to understand about this verse in the light of the foregoing discussion? In the first place, let it be observed that the words sign of are in italics which means that they are not in the Greek text. They are inserted by translators in order to make the text clear. They become, in fact, matters of interpretation, not translation. This is often necessary in bringing thought from one language into another.

For the meaning of the word authority see notes on 1 Corinthians 8:9 and 1 Corinthians 9:4. Should it be translated authority in this context? There is no good reason to do so since the apostle is speaking of the issue of honor which man is to show toward his head and woman toward hers. This amounts to respect for the fact that God created man and that He created woman for man. This distinction is to be maintained when a man or a woman is praying or prophesying. Right is a better term to express this thought in this context. The veil was the distinctive mark of the right and dignity of woman. There is no reference in this context to husband and wife, nor a suggestion that a wife should wear a sign of the authority of her husband on her head. The wife, by divine injunction, is to be faithful to her own husband and to respect her husband. By the same divine instruction, the husband is to love and cherish his wife even as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:22-23). But in this context, Paul is speaking of the necessity of woman maintaining her honor and dignity as a woman. She is not, therefore, to give the impression that she is a man.

because of the angels.Woman is to keep the place for which God created her just as man is to keep his place. Angels who left their proper place were punished. This is a warning to women who try to be men or to men who try to pose as women. It is thought by some that the reference is to angels who do service for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation (Hebrews 1:14). If this is so, the question is: How could they assist in the worship of those who dishonor God by disregarding the facts of creation?

neither is the woman without the man.Lest what Paul has been saying should cause difficulty between man and woman in the church, the apostle reminds each that he is dependent on the other. It is true that God made woman from man; but it is also true that in His divine providence and wisdom He decreed that man should be born into this world through woman. No man who properly respects his God and who honors his mother would be likely to mistreat the woman who is to be the mother of his children. For some men, however, there is neither respect for God nor honor for his mother or the mother of his children.

all things are of God.Both man and woman are reminded that God in His wisdom provided for the human race in every way. Neither man nor woman should seek to change His plan, and that is especially true of those who pray to God or who speak for Him.

Judge ye in yourselves.Paul puts the question up to the good judgment of his readers. Most people who understand the divine arrangement will gladly agree with it.

even nature itself.Paul has appealed to the facts of creation and to the good judgment of his readers. His last appeal is to nature. The long hair which woman has by nature proves his point. God gave her this covering as a sign of her womanly right and dignity. To cut it or to try to make it appear that she is a man is to dishonor God and nature. Most modern hair styles do not, it seems to me, violate the principle involved in the apostle's directive. Some will disagree on his point. Long hair on a man makes him appear effeminate and is contrary to the divine principle under consideration.

we have no such custom.Apparently there were those in Corinth who were contending that the natural distinction between man and woman was removed by baptism into the church. It is true that there is no such thing as male and female when it comes to the matter of personal salvation, but this does not say that all such distinctions are to be disregarded for the facts of creation and of nature are not thus removed. The apostles had no such custom, neither did the churches of God. Since he has based his argument on the fact that God in creation and nature made this distinction, it is fitting that he should remind them that the church is the church of God.