1 Corinthians 11:8-16 - Praying Men & Women

1 Corinthians 11:8-16

8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

Introduction:

This is a continuation of the discussion above. This section of the letter is an explanation of the statement started in verse 3. Paul has instructed them, “Do not dishonor God. Do not dishonor your husband.” Now I understand that we are to honor God in all things, especially our behavior in church, our prayers in church. (I don’t think these ‘rules’ Paul puts forth apply to personal, private prayer. When we are alone talking with Jesus, no one will see to be able to judge or condemn for violating community standards.) (See Notes 1 through 4 below.)

Men and Women in Prayer

V. 8 - “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” - Look back to the statement in verse 3, above: “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.” Chuck Smith stated in his commentary, “Christ is the authority over the husband. And God is the authority over Christ. Bible has never taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman.” (Note 2)

V. 9 - “for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” - Paul’s basis for saying this is found in Genesis “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.’ The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family. The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.” (Gen 2:18-25)

God brought every creature to Adam, who gave each animal a name to identify it. God knew Adam was alone, and not ‘complete’. After this exercise, Adam still was in need of companionship. So God created Eve from Adam’s rib. So, woman (Eve) came from man (Adam). Man and woman have a relationship that is much closer than man with animal. Man has identified every type of animal, fish, bird, or insect. But man (husband) does not have a personal, intimate relationship with these as he does with his wife (woman).

Chuck Smith stated, “Bible has never taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman. God saw that man by himself could never make it, and thus, the woman created, as God said, ‘for the man.’ “ (Note 2) It might not be stated in scripture, but man is also created for woman - the symbiotic relationship between man and woman is deeper and more meaningful than any other except our relationship with the Lord. The differences in our mental, emotional, and physical make-up are such that the two melded together makes each of us more complete than we can be individually. We bring balance to each other that is attained in no other way.

V. 10 - “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” - The covering of the woman’s head when in public, in church services, when praying in church shows she accepts that her husband has the authority assigned by God (not by men’s laws, but by God’s). What about single, unmarried, women? Do they pray with veils when in church? Perhaps that is implied - the woman accepts the authority of Jesus Christ over herself. Again, I note that we do not have such customs in the United States (we did many years ago - most women wore hats in church).

V. 11 - “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.” - God has created man and woman to be His children through Christ Jesus our Lord. There is no distinction - neither is superior to the other. We all come to God by grace and the sacrifice of His Son on the cross. Christ’s resurrection confirmed that death for us was defeated. We can live in eternity with Him, without fear, with great joy. “In worship men should follow dress and hair codes which proclaim them to be male, etc. (woman show to be woman). Make sure our worship is ordered appropriately to honor God’s creation and anticipate its fulfillment in the new creation - this is still a priority in our services.” (Note 4)

V. 12 - “For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God” - Paul wrote God considers men and women equally, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female - for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28) From one of the commentaries, “Men and women are not independent, but a partnership. They cannot live without each other. Much respect for mothers (we all have one!) Therefore, love and respect must be shown (especially in the home). If we cannot respect women (mothers) we are not following God’s will. “ (Note 1)

V. 13 - “is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” - Community standards indicated that married women were to show their respect for their husbands by having a head covering. In some, if not most instances, an adult woman without a head covering was a sign to the community she was not married. A married woman was to be respected by all in the community - she was ‘not available’. N.T. Wright said, “In that day, only prostitutes did not cover their heads when in public. So, if people see the women with their hair down and uncovered, they might jump to the conclusions about what was going on in the ‘church’ “. (Note 4)

V. 14 - “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him” - There are few doctrinal mandates in Christianity. Hair length is not one of the doctrinal statements from the Lord. However, faith and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, confession that you believe in Him; remembering His sacrifice by taking communion; publicly acknowledging your faith in Christ by word and deed - that is: confession and baptism are ‘must haves’. Long hair on a man is not a violation of God’s commands, but it does reflect on us as believers.

As David Guzik said, “Long hair (for a man) is a shame, not a sin. It is distracting. Similarly - a woman’s short hair is also a shame and distracting. (It is so distracting they might as well shave their heads!)” (Note 1)

Also, N.T. Wright wrote, “So Paul, then, speaking of the woman is saying it is dishonoring in a sense to her husband, her head, if she would go unveiled. Paul said that it was dishonoring to your husbands, because living there in Corinth they were living in the center of pagan licentiousness. not wanting to wear their veils, not being understood by the world, were opening themselves to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus, dishonoring their husbands.” (Note 4)

V. 15 - “but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” - I am not sure this is a rhetorical question answered by “Yes. Long hair on a woman is to her glory.” Perhaps it is more of a statement that women have long hair styles, and in essence is part of the visible differentiation between men (short hair) and women. If Paul was insisting that women’s long hair was vital, then the question would have been a statement (“Women’s long hair is for His glory, and is a covering.) N. T. Wright says that “Paul does not congratulate the women on their expressions of freedom (hair and clothing changes - he is advocating maintaining gender differentiation during worship.” (Note 4) This is echoed by Guzik, “Women’s long hair is “nature’s veil”, therefore a covering.” (Note 1)

V. 16 - “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” - Chuck Smith put it this way: “Thus, it was not intended to be a universal rule for the church as some of the churches sought to make it a universal rule. For years the women have had to wear hats and all when they went to church. But Paul said that we don't have any such custom in all the churches. If you want to argue about it and all, there is no such custom in all the churches. It was something that did relate more to the church in Corinth.” (Note 2)

Men and women do not need to be picking on each other about this. See: “Men and women are for mutual comfort and blessing, not as slave and tyrant. God said we are ‘one flesh’, therefore each should know their place. Man should not abuse his ‘position’ or ‘power’. There should be no breaches in natural decency.” (Note 3)

Also - “Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.” (Note 3) Finally, from Wright’s commentary I’ll add: “In worship men should follow dress and hair codes which proclaim them to be male, etc. (woman show to be woman). Make sure our worship is ordered appropriately to honor God’s creation and anticipate its fulfillment in the new creation - this is still a priority in our services. Paul does not congratulate the women on their expressions of freedom (hair and clothing changes) - he is advocating maintaining gender differentiation during worship.” (Note 4)

***

A little side note here on my observations: Part of how we view this is because almost every movie, TV show, or painting of 'Biblical' times has the men with long(ish) hair. Since there are no photographs of the people of those eras, we assume that men had long hair because there probably no barber shops. Note there are a couple a couple of instances in scripture, particularly in the OT, where men do not cut their hair on purpose because they are fulfilling a vow (Num 6:5; Acts 18:18) - couple of these are 'positive': if the men took a 'Nazarite' oath they did not cut hair or beard until the oath was fulfilled; the judge Samson (Jdg 13:24, 19:19-21) did not have his hair cut as commanded by the Lord. (There may be other examples) On the other hand, David's son, Absalom had long hair which led to his demise. (2 Sam 18:9ff) There are instances of 'crazy' men who did not have their hair cut. Also, men would shave their heads when in deep mourning. (Jer 7:29) This is not to claim evidence, but an observation that maybe a man with long hair was little unusual. I’m not saying they wore ‘buzz cuts’, but long hair down to their shoulders may not have been standard, Also, it seems implied that women's hair styling included long hair. 

(This passage is difficult, and I did not feel competent to comment with assurance. I have consulted several commentaries, three of which were included in my “Blue Letter Bible” application on my iPad, and one other. See Notes 1 through 4 below.)
Note 1: David Guzik; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 2: Chuck Smith; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 3: Matthew Henry; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 4: N.T. Wright; “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians”; Westminster John Knox Press; 2004

***

1 Corinthians 11:3-7 - Spiritual Hierarchy

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.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But 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.
6 For 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.
7 For 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.

***

This passage does not denigrate women, as is noted “Paul has no problem with women, having pointed out we are all one in Christ - Jew, Gentile, Greek, slave or free, male or female." (Note 4) (See notes at the end of this section.)

Christ is Head

Women play a prominent role in the New Testament - in Jesus’ ministry: Mary and Martha (Lk 10:38ff; 11:1-39); Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:7-42); Mary Magdalene (Matt 6:7-10; Ml 14:3f; Lk 7:37ff); Woman with bloody discharge (Matt 9:20-22; Mk 5:25ff; Lk 8:43ff); and the Crippled Woman (Lk 13:11ff).
Women were also prominent in the apostolic church - see a sampling: Lydia (Acts16:14ff); and Damarius (Acts 17:34). Women were mentioned in the letters to the churches - Priscilla & Aquila, Mary (Rom. 16:3, 6); Julia, Nereus’ sister (Rom 16:15); Nympha (Col 4:16); Claudia (2 Tim 4:21).

V. 3 - “Christ is the head of every man” - Okay, let’s be honest. We have no problem with this statement. Also, “God is the head of Christ.” - we have no problem with this statement.
But, “man is the head of a woman” - we have a problem with this statement. It is Biblical, and your objections are secular in opposition to the Bible. This is a modern cultural issue.

It is fully understood that there are men who are cruel and abusers of women. Abusing women is not a Biblical concept, but from societies and cultures where domination is accepted and encouraged. How does "Love your wife as you love yourself" equal domination? Which normal man abuses his own body, is cruel to himself? A culture based on love and forgiveness does not ban women talking in public, nor does it force women to completely cloak themselves in floor-length clothes, nor does it approve of beating women who may disagree with a man, not to mention killing a woman who commits adultery. The Bible teaches the man is the leader, not the tyrant or dictator.

From a commentary: “The word head here being the idea of authority. And so the husband is the designated authority over the wife. Christ is the authority over the husband. And God is the authority over Christ… Bible has never taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman... He is establishing the chain of command. However, I do think that there is something worth noting here. The authority over the man is Christ, even as the authority over the woman is the man. And I believe that if the man, the husband, is not under the authority of Christ, then the woman has to jump the missing link. I do not believe that God intends that a godly woman be under the authority of an ungodly man. Under the authority of man only as he is under the authority of Jesus Christ. God never meant marriage to be a slavery kind of a situation, or a tyranny kind of a situation, where some big oaf rules over his wife with force, or whatever. ” (Note 2) Also: “Our problem is the sequence of God as the ‘head’ of Christ; Christ as the ‘head’ of man; and man as the ‘head’ of woman. We see hints of superiority. (Or, from the woman’s point of view - inferiority to men). However, Paul is referring to the creation account in Genesis, (See Gen 1:26-28, 2:7-25, and Psa 8:4-8)” (Note 4)

V. 4 - “Every man who has something on his head while praying disgraces his head” - Again, this is a concept that is difficult to grasp (for Americans). From Chuck Smith’s commentary: “The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied.” (See Note 2) Perhaps we can see this concept in our western culture in that when we ‘tip’ our hats or salute another person we are showing respect. We no longer remove our hats when talking to a boss or a political leader (people used to do that). As far as I know, women never removed their hats in church or when speaking with a boss or leader, but men did. Is it possible to say that ‘men with hats’ were a sign of authority?

"The idea is that if a man is talking to God, especially in church, with a hat on his head - he is showing disrespect to God. God is in ultimate authority, and deserves (demands) respect.

"In some cultures, especially in Europe or Great Britain, one could almost determine a man’s station in life by the hat he wore. I think that in the United States, with our emphasis on personal freedoms and equality, hats became less of an indicator of rank or station in life. 'The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied.’ ” (Note 2)

V. 5 - “every woman who has her head uncovered while praying disgraces her head” - Again, part of this is referring to local, cultural etiquette. It is hard to draw this statement into our modern culture. In that culture (maybe even  now in the Middle East) the woman’s head covering (a scarf or a veil) indicated that woman is “attached”. By this I mean she is engaged or is married (by definition to a man), or possibly a daughter who is not yet betrothed. (I don’t think this applies to girls, i.e., too young to be married.) In that culture, married women always wore a scarf or veil on their heads when in public. It was a sign to all other men that she was ‘untouchable’. It was a crime, a sin, to make sexual advances to a married woman. “For a woman to go out without a veil was an open invitation for the men. It was sort of a declaration, ‘I am available.’ But for a veiled woman, no man would dare to approach her. Thus, it was a covering. “ (note 2)

“for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved” - N. T. Wright notes, “In that day, only prostitutes did not cover their heads when in public. So, if people see the women with their hair down and uncovered, they might jump to the conclusions about what was going on in the ‘church’.” (Note 4) Or, we read,  “So Paul, then, speaking of the woman is saying it is dishonoring in a sense to her husband, her head, if she would go unveiled. Paul said that it was dishonoring to your husbands, because living there in Corinth they were living in the center of pagan licentiousness. not wanting to wear their veils, not being understood by the world, were opening themselves to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus, dishonoring their husbands.” (Note 2)

V. 6 - “let her cover her head” - I don’t quite understand how talking to God without a head covering disgraces her husband. How could a woman be ‘wanton’ when talking with God? So if a married woman without a head covering goes into public and talks to men is a disgrace to her husband; does talking to God without a head covering indicate she is ‘bypassing’ her husband (somehow) and therefore diminishes him in God’s estimation? That seems to be the implied message. This is not saying women are not allowed to talk to God (I think…).

V. 7 - “man ought not to have his head covered” - Let us go with this idea, and say it makes sense that, “The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied.” (Note 2) I hate not understanding why women praying without a covering is dishonors God, and a man with a head covering also dishonors God. Especially since “Paul has no problem with women, having pointed out we are all one in Christ - Jew, Gentile, Greek, slave or free, male or female.” (Note 4) It must be a cultural thing, not a doctrinal thing.

It seems to me this discussion is not completely doctrinal, but is mostly cultural. The commentaries often mentioned that men had short hair and women wore their hair long. I bristled at that (no pun intended). When contemplating this I realized that indeed most countries/cultures in the world indeed do have different ‘looks’ for men and women. Even in these times, men around the world generally have much shorter hair styles than do women.

There are some distinctions between men and women that cannot be denied - men are generally bigger and stronger than women; men have whiskers or beards, women do not (e.g., the circus freak shows used to have ‘bearded ladies’ for people to ogle). Women do not have penises; men do not have breasts. Admittedly, men can grow their hair long (e.g., when Jewish men took a ‘Nazarite’ vow, like Samson), but it is not common nor the majority.

While I don’t completely understand the covering or uncovering of the head and the relation to dishonoring the husband or God, I think I can see that the way we dress reflects on our family and church and our Savior. If we show up at church in swim trunks, or women in a bikini, eyebrows will be arched, people will “Tsk, tsk, tsk” whilst shaking their heads. A woman in a negligee would raise a ruckus - people would be “shocked, shocked I tell you”.

Conclusion:

Don’t dress, act, or behave in a manner that would bring embarrassment or shame. I know that some people have a very high embarrassment thresholds (i.e., they aren’t easily shamed), and then there are those who blush at almost anything. Consider where you are, and who you are with. Consider that the non-Christian world is always watching.

***

(This passage is difficult, and I did not feel competent to comment with assurance. I have consulted several commentaries, three of which were included in my “Blue Letter Bible” application on my iPad, and one other. See Notes 1 through 4 below.)
Note 1: David Guzik; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 2: Chuck Smith; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 3: Matthew Henry; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 4: N.T. Wright; “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians”; Westminster John Knox Press; 2004

1 Corinthians 11:1-2 - Imitators of Christ

1 Corinthians 11:1-2 - Imitators of Christ

1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Remember and Hold Firmly

V. 1 - “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” - Many of the commentaries claim that these two verses really belong at the end of chapter 10. Almost half of the letter to this point has been instructional in how the disciples should live together and in their communities to be witnesses for Christ - Morality vs. Adultery; Marriage vs. staying single so as to serve the Lord; Dealing with idols; dealing with the communion service; Freedom of worship vs. Idolatry.

Since that day on the road to Damascus, Paul has committed and devoted his life and activities to doing what God and Christ want him to do. He is teaching “Do what I do - obey and follow Christ.” Remember, Christ Jesus obeyed the Lord - He came to earth to live and die, giving His life as a sacrifice that saves us from sin. Christ was obedient. Paul follows His lead and is obedient to the calling of Christ. He urges us to do likewise - follow Christ, and like Paul be obedient to Christ’s commands and leading.

V. 2 - “you remember me in everything” - Remember that Paul turned from following Judaism to Christianity. He now follows and obeys Christ Jesus our Lord. “Do as I do. Do as I say.” Paul could say that since there is no conflict or hypocrisy in Paul’s life and teaching. Paul is confident enough in his faithfulness to Christ that he can tell them to follow his example.

“hold firmly to the traditions,  just as I delivered them to you.” - What traditions did Paul bring with him on his missionary journeys and to Corinth? Corinth was not a Jewish city, but a fabulously wealthy Greek city, a commercial city on a major trade route situated on a narrow isthmus. Southeast of this isthmus is the NE Mediterranean Sea (or perhaps the western Aegean Sea). Crossing the four-mile wide isthmus brings you to the Ionian Sea which is almost directly east of the 'boot heel' of Italy. Corinth had been around for centuries. Rome had conquered it, destroyed it, and then rebuilt it. This was an important Greek city. I do not suspect that any Jewish traditions that might have been introduced would be significant. The Jewish presence was not important enough to demand their traditions be followed in Corinth.

Paul brought new traditions (which seems to be an oxymoron). Sometimes traditions do not need to be handed down for generations. For example: My wife’s parents bought a cabin near Lincoln City, Oregon. We went there and stayed with our kids on a weekend. The first meal we fixed there was tacos, beans, chips, burritos, salsa, etc. Some time later, we again went to stay. The kids wanted to know why we weren’t having Mexican food since it was a tradition! (Note: the second time we stayed there, and it already was a tradition!)

This is one of those cases where a Greek word can have more than one English equivalent. The word here can be read either “traditions, or ‘ordinances”. For me, personally, these two English words have different connotations. One is something you do, because you have always done it this way - “tradition”. Think of ‘communion’, and of how many ways this is observed - bread or wafers, wine or grape juice, each element served to you by a deacon or you pick up the elements from a tray, or the elements come pre-packaged. Does your church offer a prayer for each element alone, or one prayer for both? Or is communion an ordinance - a part of the worship service commanded by the Lord? Is it both and ordinance and a tradition? I believe it is both - Jesus said that when we remember Him, to remember His body broken for us - the bread, and His blood shed for out sins - the wine/juice. (See: Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20) It is the doing and remembering that is important, and perhaps not so much the how the act is done.

Paul delivered to the churches he planted ordinances and traditions they were to use to preach and remember Christ’s sacrifice for our salvation.

Preaching Christ and Him crucified.
Believe in Christ and you shall be saved.
Baptism, Communion.
Fellowship.
Teaching.
Caring for each other.
Witnessing to non-believers.

These are the traditions (ordinances) Paul brought with him and gave to them. See: “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim 2:2)

These principles were not to stop when Paul stopped teaching, but were to be handed to others so they could know and grow in Jesus. See: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” (Heb 5:12) Also: “As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” (1 John 2:27)

Paul taught with a purpose so they could listen, learn, apply the truths of the Gospel, and then go out to teach others also. You are saved and remain here on earth so others might hear and learn and receive Christ as Savior.

***