Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Can anyone explain the 1st 16 verses of 1 Cor 11?
I get confused every time I read these verses. I am not sure about why he gives these instructions about the covering and why they do or don't apply today. Also, he goes right in to conduct at the Lord's Supper which does indeed apply today. Perhaps he was talking about how a woman should behave when exercising spiritual gifts? I really don't know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here is a good article by Brent Kercheville I just found that helped me understand it a little better. Also, he has a lot of great resources and indepth studies on books of the bible on his website. It is a good place to go when getting prepared for a lesson.
ReplyDeletehttp://westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/topical/diff_quest/head_covering.html
I'm going to try to break this passage down to the best of my ability.
ReplyDeletePaul starts off the passage the way he starts many of the other letters he has written. Verses 1 and 2 are a praise of the congregation for doing things that Paul had told them to do (comparatively, in other letters, Paul praises the congregation in the beginning chapter/chapters for their good works). After Paul makes the praise, he then comments on the areas they can improve on. Verse 3 talks about the ‘position on the tetem pole’ so to speak. Christ is on the top of the pole, then man, then woman. In verses 4 and 5, Paul speaks of the man and woman having/not having their head covered in the following sense. “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (e.g. his physical head on his shoulders), dishonors his head (as in Christ).” “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (e.g. her physical head on her shoulders) dishonors her head (as in man), for that is one and the same as if her head (physical head) were shaved. The perplexing part of verse 5 isn’t necessarily the covering here, it’s the fact that women were “praying and prophesying” in the first place when chapter 14:34 says women are to keep silent. However, 14:34 is just talking about women keeping silent “in the churches (or in the assembly is the better translation).” So it was perfectly fine for women to teach (prophesy) and/or pray outside of the assembly, just as it is ok for a woman to pray or teach outside of the assembly today. Again, however, the women must remain covered showing the man’s authority over her (showing humility). Verse 6 is a comparative statement comparing the woman’s head not being covered to having her head shaved. The people of the day certainly saw a woman’s head being shaven as shameful, which is what made the comparison easy for the people of the day to comprehend. Verses 7-9 again go back to the ‘position on the totem pole’ type of thing, making clear distinction on why the man does not cover his head and why the woman does. Verse 10 is the verse that makes me baffled. “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” I’ve attempted to look at this verse from different perspectives (for example: “on account of the angels” “as a consequence of the angels” “as a result of the messengers”) but at this time, I haven’t been successful in reaching a good conclusion. Possibly the angels need to distinguish between the authority given to man and the authority given to women (possibly having to deal with spiritual gifts??)? I really don’t know.
Moving on, verses 11 and 12 speak of the bond that man and woman have in the Lord. Woman could not exist without man (being created from Adam), and man could not exist without women (in childbirth). However, both could not exist without being created by God. Verses 13-16 give Paul’s conclusion on the matter. He poses the question, “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” just as he has posed other questions in the other letter such as “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Then, as he does in his other questions, he gives the logical response. In this case, the answer is presented in the form of a question: “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” I disagree with Mr. Kercheville in his thinking that head coverings were a cultural issue because of this verse. “Nature” as in human nature is not a culture. Human nature does not change as culture changes, so therefore, human nature should still tell us that a man having long hair should still be a dishonor to him. I also disagree with his statement that the hair does not act as the covering. Hair in and of itself is not the covering (because man has hair as well), but it is the long hair that acts as the covering. Notice the wording of verse 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 think long hair is the key to being the covering in this verse, just as it is the key to a man not having his head covered in verse 14. Verse 16: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” My thinking is that there was a problem going on that had to do with a man having his head covered or a woman not having her head covered. There may have been a huge quarrel about this…so Paul is saying if anyone still is contentious (arguing, causing strife, etc.) there is no custom because the humility (the main reason for the covering at all) is all but gone.
ReplyDeleteHope this helps some!
Thanks, Mark for your research. This is a tough passage that I probably will never understand fully but I'm sure the church at Corinth knew exactly what Paul was talking about and how it applies.
ReplyDeleteI guess it come down to whether the prayer actually goes along with propesying. That would make it refer to a spiritual gift given to certain men and women in the 1st century but the women would only be allowed to prophesy (exercise that gift) outside of the assembly and by showing proper authority to man (with their head covered in some way). If that is the case then it wouldn't apply today at all because the gift of prophesy is gone.
If it is applies to prophesy and to prayer (seperate and apart) then it gets a little more confusing. But it seems like it would apply to both together because why would a woman be leading a prayer in the presence of christian men (see 1 Tim 2), even if it was outside the assembly, if she didn't have a spiritual gift?
Also, I would assume that it only applies to a woman exercising her gift of prophesy along with prayer outside the assembly. I don't think the ladies in Corinth were being fussed at by Paul simply by following along with their head uncovered but by leading the prophesy and prayer with her head uncovered.
Again I want to stress that it all seems like it is going on outside the assembly because Paul is quick to say that these women should not be exercising the spiritual gift in the assembly (chp 14).