1 Corinthians 11:3-16

Butler's Comments

SECTION 2

Order, a Requirement for Godly Worship (1 Corinthians 11:3-16)

3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her headit is the same as if her head were shaven. 6For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8(For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 11(Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) 13Judge for yourselves is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:3 The Issue: The eleventh chapter of this letter very evidently deals with problems reported to the apostle Paul about public worship in the Corinthian congregational assemblies. Actually, Chapter s 12, 13 and 14 also deal with the problem of disorderly worship. But, since these Chapter s treat problems distinctly different than those of chapter 11, we will treat them separately.

The Hebrew word shakhah is the most usual word translated worship in the Old Testament. It means, literally, to bow down, to prostrate oneself. The Greek word in the New Testament most often translated worship is the word proskuneo and also means, to bow down, to prostrate oneself, and to do obeisance. The English word worship is a contraction of the early English word worthship. The old English worthship gives us an exact idea of what our modern word worship means. The one to whom we give worship must be worthy of absolute homage, honor, reverence and obedience.

Worship is essentially an attitude instead of an act! First, the performance of certain rituals of worship without the proper attitude is condemned by the Scriptures as an abomination before God. On the other hand, a false emotion that discounts as irrelevant clear commands about definite acts of worship betrays a disobedient attitude and makes a mockery of worship.

Attitude in worship is the fundamental issue Paul deals with in chapter eleven. It is the issue of obedience to the revealed will of God as spoken and written by the apostles. The problem has manifested itself by two symptomatic actions in the public worship of the Corinthians; they are (1) the man-woman relationship; (2) the Christian-brother relationship.

In worship the outward man is bound up in the inward man. Worship is an outward act or acts springing from, and under the control of, inward attitudes and impulses of love and obedience. It is said, To worship God is to make Him the supreme object of our esteem and delight, both in public, private and secret. It is apparent from Chapter s eleven through fourteen, the primary problem of the worship of the Corinthian church was that it was directed toward themselves. They were so interested in calling attention to themselves and to their supposed superiorities over others, they were not making God the supreme object of their esteem. The key verse to this huge context of four Chapter s (1 Corinthians 11:11-14) is probably, For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodyJews or Greeks, slaves or freeand all were made to drink of one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).

While it is true regarding salvation and grace that men and women are of equal worth to God, it is also true that God has ordered certain hierarchies of authority within this world and his kingdom so long as it is in the world. In the church there are elders, evangelists and deacons to lead and shepherd the congregation. In the home the husband is the authoritative head. Evidently some of the Corinthian women misunderstood the teaching, In Christ there is neither male nor female. (Galatians 3:28). Some of them had cast off the cultural modes of ancient dress which particularly stressed and emphasized their femininity, hence their subordination to their husbands. While the primary focus of the apostle's discussion is on woman's subordination to man, the issue is not simply a wife's obedience to her husband's loving authority. It is much broader than that and covers attitudes of all women and menmarried or unmarried. The broader issue is that women (and men too) must not rebel against the divine order of femininity and masculinity!

Paul discusses the divine order by declaring that the head of every male person (Greek andros instead of anthropos) is Christ. No man should wear a sign of subordination to other men when he prays (or worships). There is only one mediator between man and God, himself man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). In the same divine order, the head of a female person is a male person. This does not deny that Christ is the head of the woman also, nor does it mean that a female person is inferior or of less importance than the male. Paul is reinforcing God's order as it was ordained from the beginning (Genesis 2:18) when the woman was created as a helper for man. The divine order of masculinity and femininity involves differing functions which require hierarchies of authority. Man functions as leader, protector, provider; woman functions as mother, helper, supporter. This in no way means one is superior and the other inferior. It does not mean that the male person makes all the decisions arbitrarily and without consulting the wisdom of the female person. But Paul's teaching (in harmony with the rest of scripture) does mean that the husband is the final authority and the leader in the home.

1 Corinthians 11:4-12 The Illustration: Lenski says the general custom among Greeks was that slaves should cover their heads while free men went bareheaded. If a man wore a covering over his head in Paul's day it signified he was acknowledging final loyalty to a human being. It is wrong for a man to dishonor his masculinity in any way. God made man masculine. God made man to lead and be the final authority in the human order. On the other hand, the general custom among Greeks was that women, who desired the honor and protection femininity afforded them, wore veils in the public presence of men. Some of the Corinthian Christian women were apparently praying and attending public worship without being veiled. They were declaring their rejection of the divine order of human hierarchy by casting aside the first century symbols of this divine order.

In Paul's day the veil worn by women probably covered the whole head with openings for the eyes and reached clear down to the feet. No respectable woman would go without a veil in public for if she did she would be in danger of being misjudged. The woman's veil in those days was an important part of feminine dignity and gave her security and protection. Sir William Ramsay explains: In Oriental lands the veil is the power and honor and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen and therefore not subject to male familiarities and crudities. It is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to become familiar with a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd.. But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom anyone may insult.. A woman's authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards.
The veil was the woman's badge of honor and respect. It showed that she had a definite place as a person in God's order. Woman was not created to be simply a thing or an object to be exploited by any and all men. She is to be honored, protected, cherished, loved, served, and led by her husband because she is a female.
Any man who prayed or prophesied with his head covered dishonored Christ (his head). A man worshiping in those days with his head covered symbolized he acknowledged some other human authority before Christ. The male Christian who worshiped with uncovered head signified he was accountable only to Christ. But the woman who prayed or prophesied with her head unveiled dishonored her husband (her head). She would dishonor her husband unveiled just as if she had her head shaved. Shaving of the head in ancient times (as even now in most cultures) was a sign of disgraceful and shameful conduct. At the end of World War II, those French women who had fraternized with Nazi soldiers were caught and their heads were shaved in public. Any woman in the civilized world of the apostle Paul, Greek, Roman, Jew or Syrian, would have felt terribly ashamed to have had her head shaved. Since that was the case, says Paul, the women of Corinth should have covered their heads in publicespecially in the worship services of the church. For the Christian woman of Corinth to go with her head uncovered was to act the part of a shamed woman whether she was one or not. And that, in turn, brought shame upon her husband, and upon the church.

In 1 Corinthians 11:7 through 1 Corinthians 11:9 Paul gives us clear scriptural proof of the divinely ordained human hierarchy. Woman was made from man, not man from woman. Man was made first and then the woman was made from his body (see Genesis 2:21-22). Man is first in the divine order. Furthermore, woman was made for man, not man for woman (see Genesis 2:18). Man is first in divine purpose. Both the origin of woman and the reason for her being is found in man. There is no room for human speculations or rationalizations when we have both the creation account and the apostolic reiteration. No matter how much political and philosophical rhetoric and no matter how practical and appropriate it may sound when some activists demand that females have, not only the right, but the obligation to reject the customary, biblically-taught, function of femininity, and step into the world of maleness and function as any man, it is clearly not the revealed will of God! The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 11:10 reads, dia touto opheilei he gune exousian exein epi tes kephales dia tous angelous. Translated, literally, On account of this, she ought, the woman, authority, to be having, upon the head, on account of the angels. The New American Standard Version translates this sentence, Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. The NASV has supplied the words, a symbol of since they are not in the Greek text. The New International Version supplies the same words. The Revised Standard Version supplies, a veil where there are no words in the Greek text. These versions are supplying words to give the sentence the usual interpretation.

This interpretation is the usual one, but some commentators have differed. They have taken authority as referring to the woman's authority over her own natural head. There is justification for this interpretation in the Greek words (i.e., authority upon). This combination of words is found three times in the book of Revelation with the meaning have control of (Revelation 11:6, over the waters; Revelation 14:18, over fire; Revelation 20:6; over such, meaning the saints). In each case the combination of authority plus the preposition (Greek, epi) is the same. If this translation is taken, it is possible that the expression means that the woman should maintain control over her head so that it would not expose her to indignity. The woman's veil then became her willing subjection to her husband, her refusal to expose herself to others. However, the ultimate significance of the two interpretations is the same. Willing subjection to her husband's authority was a recognition of that authority, and this is the meaning of the clause. Even so, it would seem that the usual interpretation has the best claim to validity (Fred Fisher, op. cit., p. 177).

We are not so sure the words a symbol of or a veil should be supplied here. We are sure the woman (and the man) should acknowledge that she is to be having authority upon the head. There are women today who have all the symbols (hats, dresses, cosmetics) of womanhood but verbally and vehemently declare their rejection of the subordination of femaleness to maleness in the divine order of creation. It is more than a mere sign of authority the woman is to put on. She is to be mentally, emotionally and physically subordinate to the man. This does not degrade the woman! In subordinating herself to man she is actually taking her God-ordained place. She is filling the place of honor God created for her. Strange as it may seem to modern female activists, the woman's place of dignity is in her femininity. By God's word it is the woman's right to have the protection, dignity and honor that she alone can have in femininity. If she forfeits her femininity, she forfeits her rights! That is diametrically opposite to much modern feminist philosophy.

The reference, on account of the angels. simply reinforces the idea that all God's creatures have their place. The angels who left their assigned place in the created order of God forfeited their rights, dishonored God and themselves, and were cast into the abyss (cf. 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6).

Just because woman's divinely ordered place is in subordination to man does not mean that man can exist independently of woman. For as the woman was made out of the man (Gr. ek tou andros), now the man is born through woman (Gr. dia tes gunaikos). Men and women are equally dependent upon one anotherbut each in their own God-ordered place!

1 Corinthians 11:13-16 The Indictment: The woman must not arrogate to herself the man's place (pray with her head uncovered in cultures where it is a shameless usurpation of maleness to do so). The man is not to arrogantly defy God and take the woman's place (wear long hair in cultures where it is not masculine to do so). Rebels and fanatics defy God's created order; Christians obey it. It is unnatural and rebellious for men to wear their hair long like women. Nature itself shows that man, being short-haired, is intended by the God of nature to be unveiled; woman, being long-haired, is intended by the same God to be veiled. Generally speaking, in the more refined and advanced civilizations, men have always worn their hair short and women have worn theirs long. Plummer writes in the International Critical Commentary on I Corinthians, At this period, civilized men, whether Jews, Greeks, or Romans, wore their hair short (p. 235).

The long hair of the Greek fop or of the English cavalier was accepted by the people as an indication of effeminate and luxurious living. Suitable for women; it is unsuitable for men. (The Expositor's Greek New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:14). Homer's warriors, it is true, wore long hair, a fashion retained at Sparta, but the Athenian youth cropped his head at eighteen, and it was a mark of foppery or effeminacy except for the aristocratic knights to let the hair afterwards grow long. This feeling prevailed in ancient times as it does in modern times. (Expositor's Greek New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:14).

According to Philip Vollmer's Modern Student's Life of Christ, archaeologists object to the conventional pictures of Christ with long hair because they are not true to history. A German painter, L. Fahremkrog, says Christ certainly never wore a beard and his hair was beyond doubt closely cut. For this we have historical, archaeological proofs. The oldest representations, going back to the first Christian centuries, and found chiefly in the catacombs of Rome, all picture Christ without a beard. All the pictures of Christ down to the beginning of the fourth century at least, and even later, are like this. The further fact that Christ must have, in his day, worn short hair can be proved by the scripture. Among the Jews none but the Nazarites wore long hair. Christ was indeed a Nazarene, but not a Nazarite. Then, like the rest of the Jews, he wore his hair short. Further evidence is furnished by Paul here in 1 Corinthians 11:14, where he expressly declares that it is a dishonor for a man to wear his hair without having it cut, something that no apostle would have said had his Master worn it thus. One thing Jesus did not do was dress in such a bizarre way as to attract undue attention to himself. He was so much a conformist in his appearance, apparently, the soldiers had to ask which one he was when they went to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane!

Some have tried to equivocate over this passage about the prohibition of long hair on a man. They ask, How long is long? or, How long should a woman'S hair be? The point of this discussion is that the man is not to have what the woman is to have. Actually, the expression long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 is from the Greek word komao which means let the hair grow. The idea of length is not one of relativity here. It is not how long some woman's hair is in proportion to how short some man's hair is. Every man or woman with respect to their hair falls into one of two categories. Their hair is either natural length or it is not natural length. We either let our hair grow or we do not let it grow. We either cut it or we do not cut it. Paul's instruction might be translated, If a man let his hair grow, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman let her hair grow, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. The Greek word translated nature is phusis and could be translated, instinctively. Instinctively, creation expects men to have short hair and women long hair. It is disgraceful in a man to be like a woman, and in a woman to be like a man.

God expects those who trust him to keep the distinctions between maleness and femaleness, both outwardly and inwardly, clear and unequivocal. Deliberate effeminacy in men and masculinity in women has always been an abomination to God. Israelite men were not to wear women's clothing, nor were women to wear men's clothing (Deuteronomy 22:5). Homosexual behavior was a sin punishable by death in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17-18). Effeminacy is prohibited in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) along with homosexuality by either male or female (Romans 1:24-27).

Many of the heathen poets and philosophers of the Greek and Roman civilizations considered long hair in men a mark of effeminacy. Livy, Roman poet and historian, spoke strongly against the effeminacy of his age. Juvenal, disgusted by the sexual excesses and perversions of his day, spoke loathingly of the dandies whose manners, perfumes, and desire make them indistinguishable from women; and by the women who think that emancipation means that they should be indistinguishable from men.

In Zephaniah 1:8 God said that he would punish the officials and the king's sons and all who array themselves in foreign attire. It has been thoroughly documented that the world-wide mania for long hair on men and hierarchical equality of women with men is fundamentally a rebellion against the divinely created and revealed order of God for the human race. When God's people, by their modes of dress, indicate they are more in harmony with the foreign (heathen) culture than they are with God's standards, it is time to apply the teachings of the apostle here in this eleventh chapter.

Notice the words used by the apostle in this context: dishonors, disgraceful, improper, is it proper? and degrading. For women (or men) to rebel against the place God has decreed for femininity or masculinity is serious sin. One cannot give acceptable worship to God in such rebellion. We repeat, the place God has ordered for femininity and masculinity is the basis of Paul's instruction here. Man praying with his head covered, dishonors his masculinity which is from God; woman praying with her head uncovered, dishonors her femininity which is from God. Man's dignity, or place, is to lead in society, to protect the weaker sex (female), to provide for the basic unit of society (the family) and to discipline. Woman's dignity is to be a mother, to be a helper in many things (see Proverbs 31:1-31); to give sexual intimacy to her husband (see 1 Corinthians 7:1-40), to help rear children (Ephesians 6:1-4)in essence, woman's dignity is to be feminine!

The apostle is not here advocating a dictatorship of the husband over the wife. In fact, as some see it, the husband as dictator and tyrant, and the wife as some non-thinking, non-speaking, non-human slave is not taught in the Bible at all. Many womenmarried women, tooin the Bible made decisions, spoke as individuals, and made crucial contributions to history. What the Bible does teach is that man has certain functions and woman has certain functionsneither is to replace the other. There are things women are not supposed to do and things men are not supposed to do (see Luke 8:1-3; Acts 9:36; Acts 18:24-28; Acts 21:19; Romans 1:1-16; 1 Timothy 2:12-14; 1 Timothy 5:9-16; Titus 2:3-5).

In 1 Corinthians 11:16 Paul makes the matter of subverting masculinity and femininity as God has revealed it, a matter of disobedience to apostolic practice and that is disobedience to God. Paul does not mean by 1 Corinthians 11:16, If anyone objects or wants to argue against what I have said, just forget about it because I didn-'t mean it anyway. Paul is saying that if any man, after this clear statement from me, is disposed to dispute the divine order of masculinity and femininity, and appears to be contentious, we simply say that we (the apostles) disapprove of the disordering of the places of male and female, and so do the churches of God. With any person who would dispute Paul's instruction here, argument is useless. Authority is the only solution to the controversy. Apostolic authority is unquestionable. And no man is justified, except on clearly scriptural grounds to reject the accepted and practiced customs of the local congregation of believers, (see I Cor. ch. 8-10).