Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 11

First Corinthians Chapter 11

The first verse in this chapter properly belongs with the preceding chapter and is the conclusion of the discussion which the apostle had been carrying on in that and the previous chapters. It has been improperly separated from that chapter, and in reading, should be read in connection with it. The remainder of the chapter is properly divided into two parts:

1. A discussion respecting the impropriety of a woman's praying or prophesying with her head uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:2–16);

2. A reproof of their irregularities in the observance of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17–34).

In regard to the first, it seems probable that some of the women who, on the pretense of being inspired, had prayed or prophesied in the Corinthian church, had cast off their veils after the manner of the heathen priestesses. The apostle reproves this indecent and improper custom.

He observes, therefore, that pre-eminence belongs to man over the woman, just as pre-eminence belonged to Christ over the man. It was a dishonour to Christ when a man prayed or prophesied with his head covered; and in like manner, it was regarded everywhere as dishonourable and improper for a woman to lay aside the appropriate symbol of her sex and the emblem of subordination, and to be uncovered in the presence of the man (1 Corinthians 11:3–6).

He continues that if a woman was not veiled—if she laid aside the appropriate emblem of her sex and of her subordinate condition—she might as well part with her hair, which, as all knew, would be dishonourable and improper (1 Corinthians 11:6).

Furthermore, he states that the woman had been created for a subordinate station and should observe it (1 Corinthians 11:7–9).

He adds that she should have power on her head because of the angels (1 Corinthians 11:10).

Yet, lest this should depress her and seem to convey the idea of her utter inferiority and unimportance, he also adds that in the plan of salvation they are in many respects on an equal footing with the man. The same plan was adapted to both; the same blessings are appointed for both sexes, and the same high hopes are held out to both (1 Corinthians 11:11–12).

Finally, he argues that nature on this subject was a good instructor, showing that it was unseemly for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. Her hair had been given to her for an ornament and for beauty; and, as it would be as improper for her to remove her veil as to cut off her hair, nature itself required that this symbol of her subordination should not be laid aside in public (1 Corinthians 11:13–16).

Next, as to the irregularities in the observance of the Lord's Supper, the apostle observes (1 Corinthians 11:17) that he could not commend them for what he was about to say. There had been, and there were, irregularities among them, which it was his duty to reprove.

In 1 Corinthians 11:18–22, he states what those irregularities were.

He then (1 Corinthians 11:23–26) states the true nature and design of the Lord's Supper, as it was very evident that they had not understood it but supposed it was a common feast, such as they had been accustomed to observe in honour of idols.

In 1 Corinthians 11:27–29, he states the consequences of observing this ordinance in an improper manner and the proper way of approaching it; and in 1 Corinthians 11:30–32, he observes that their improper mode of observing it was the cause of the punishment which many of them had experienced.

He then concludes by directing them to celebrate the Lord's Supper together; to eat at home when they were hungry; and not to abuse the Lord's Supper by making it an occasion of feasting. He also assures them that the other matters of irregularity he would set in order when he should come among them.

Be ye followers of me. Imitate my example in the matter now under discussion. As I deny myself, as I seek to cause no offence to anyone, as I endeavor not to alarm the prejudices of others, but in all things to seek their salvation, so do you. This verse belongs to the previous chapter and should not have been separated from it. It is the close of the discussion there.

Even as I also am of Christ. I make Christ my example. He is my model in all things; and if you follow him, and follow me as far as I follow him, you will not err. This is the only safe example; and if we follow this, we can never go astray.

Now I praise you, brethren. Paul always chose to commend Christians when it could be done, and never seemed to suppose that such praise would be injurious to them (see my comments on 1 Corinthians 1:4 and 1 Corinthians 1:5).

On this occasion, he was all the more ready to praise them, as far as it could be done, because there were some things regarding them for which he would need to reprove them.

That ye remember me in all things: that you are disposed to regard my authority and seek my direction in all matters pertaining to the good order of the church.

There can be little doubt that they had consulted him in their letter (1 Corinthians 7:1) about the proper manner in which a woman ought to conduct herself if she was called, under the influence of Divine inspiration, to utter anything in public.

The question seems to have been whether, since she was inspired, it was proper for her to retain the marks of her inferiority of rank and remain covered. Or, did the fact of her inspiration release her from that obligation, making it proper that she should lay aside her veil and appear as public speakers did among men? The apostle probably refers to this in the phrase "all things"—that even in matters of this kind, pertaining to the good order of the church, they were disposed to regard his authority.

And keep the ordinances. (In the margin: Traditions, tav paradoseiv). The word does not refer to anything that had been handed down from a former generation or from former times, as the word tradition now usually signifies. Instead, it means that which had been delivered to them (paradidwmi), that is, by the apostles.

The apostles had delivered to them certain doctrines or rules respecting the good order and government of the church; and they had, in general, observed them and were still disposed to do so.

For this disposition to regard his authority and to keep what he had enjoined, he commends them. He then proceeds to specify what would be proper regarding the particular subject on which they had inquired.

But I would have you know. "I invite your attention particularly to the following considerations, to form a correct opinion on this subject." Paul does not at once answer the inquiry and determine what ought to be done; but he invites their attention to a series of remarks on the subject, which led them to draw the conclusion he wished to establish. The phrase here is designed to call attention to the subject, like that used so often in the New Testament, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

That the head, etc. The word head, in the Scriptures, is often designed to denote master, ruler, chief. The word is often so used in the Old Testament. See Numbers 17:3; Numbers 25:15; Deuteronomy 28:13, 44;

Judges 10:18; Judges 11:8, 11; 1 Samuel 15:17; 2 Samuel 22:44.

In the New Testament the word is used in the sense of lord, ruler, chief, in Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 4:15; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 2:10. Here it means that Christ is the Ruler, Director, or Lord of the Christian man. This truth was to be regarded in all their feelings and arrangements, and was never to be forgotten. Every Christian should recollect the relation in which he stands to him, as one that is fitted to produce the strictest decorum and a steady sense of subordination.

Of every man. Every Christian. All acknowledge Christ as their Ruler and Master. They are subject to him; and in all proper ways recognize their subordination to him.

And the head of the woman is the man. The sense is, she is subordinate to him; and in all circumstances—in her demeanor, her dress, her conversation, in public and in the family circle—should recognize her subordination to him. The particular thing here referred to is, that if the woman is inspired, and speaks or prays in public, she should by no means lay aside the usual and proper symbols of her subordination. The danger was, that those who were under the influence of inspiration would regard themselves as freed from the necessity of recognizing that, and would lay aside the veil, the usual and appropriate symbol of their occupying a rank inferior to the man. This was often done in the temples of the heathen deities by the priestesses, and it would appear also that it had been done by Christian females in the churches.

And the head of Christ is God. Christ, as Mediator, has consented to assume a subordinate rank, and to recognize God the Father as superior in office. Hence he was obedient in all things as a Son; he submitted to the arrangement required in redemption; he always recognized his subordinate rank as Mediator, and always regarded God as the Supreme Ruler, even in the matter of redemption. The sense is, that Christ, throughout his entire work, regarded himself as occupying a subordinate station to the Father; and that it was proper from his example to recognize the propriety of rank and station everywhere.

"the man"John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27–28

Every man praying or prophesying. The word prophesying here evidently means teaching, or publicly speaking to the people on the subject of religion (See Barnes on Acts 2:17).

See also the subject considered more at length in the notes on chapter 14. Whether these persons who are said here to prophesy were all inspired, or claimed to be inspired, is open to question. The simple idea here is that they spoke in the public assemblies and professed to be the expounders of the Divine will.

Having his head covered. With a veil, turban, cap, or whatever else is worn on the head. To remove the hat, turban, or the covering of the head is a mark of respect for a superior when in his presence.

Dishonoureth his head. This means he dishonors Christ as his head (1 Corinthians 11:2); that is, in Christ’s presence and service, he does not observe the usual and proper custom that recognizes a subordinate station and indicates respect for a superior.

In the presence of a prince or a nobleman, it would be considered a mark of disrespect if the head were covered. Similarly, in the presence of Christ, in whose name he ministers, it is a mark of disrespect if the head is covered. This illustration is drawn from the customs of all times and countries, where respect for a superior is indicated by removing the covering from the head.

This is one reason why a man should not cover his head in public worship. Another reason is given in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Other interpretations of the passage may be seen in Bloomfield's Critical Digest.

But every woman that prays or prophesies. In the Old Testament, prophetesses are not infrequently mentioned. For example, Miriam is mentioned (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14). Also, in the New Testament, Anna is mentioned as a prophetess (Luke 2:36). It cannot be doubted that there were women in the early Christian church who, in some measure, corresponded to those known among the Jews as endowed with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. However, their precise office and the nature of the public services in which they were engaged are not known. That they prayed is clear, and that they publicly expounded the will of God is also apparent. See the comments on Acts 2:17.

However, since the presumption is that they were inspired, their example does not now provide authorization for women to take part in public worship services, unless they also give evidence that they are under the influence of inspiration. This is especially true as the apostle Paul has expressly forbidden them from becoming public teachers (1 Timothy 2:12).

If it is now argued from this example that women should speak and pray in public, it should still be only as this example goes, and only when they have the qualifications that the early prophetesses had in the Christian church. If there are any such women—if any are directly inspired by God—then it will be evidently proper for them to publicly proclaim His will, and not until then.

It may be further observed, however, that the fact that Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in the church does not prove that it was right or proper. His immediate object now was not to consider whether the practice itself was right, but to condemn the manner of its performance as a violation of all the proper rules of modesty and subordination. On another occasion, in this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form and enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public (1 Corinthians 14:34).

With her head uncovered. That is, with the veil removed which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed their veils and wore their hair disheveled when they pretended to be under the influence of divine inspiration. This was the case with pagan priestesses; and in doing so, the Christian women imitated them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient women, and one that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a woman should not appear in public unless she was veiled. See this proved by Lightfoot in loco.

Dishonors her head. This shows a lack of proper respect for man—for her husband, her father, and for the male sex in general. The veil is a token of modesty and subordination. It is regarded among Jews, and everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she shows her modesty and sense of subordination.

To remove that veil is to remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act by which she thus shows dishonor to the man. And just as it is proper that the grades and ranks of life should be recognized in a suitable manner, so it is improper that these marks should be laid aside, even on the pretense of religion and of being engaged in the service of God.

For that is the very same as if she were shaven. It is as if her long hair, which nature teaches her she should wear for a veil (1 Corinthians 11:15, margin), should be cut off. Long hair is, by the custom of the times and of nearly all countries, a mark of the sex, an ornament of the woman, and judged to be beautiful and comely.

To remove that is to appear, in this respect, like the other sex, and to lay aside the badge of her own. This, Paul says, all would judge to be improper. You yourselves would not allow it. And yet to lay aside the veil—the appropriate badge of the sex and of her sense of subordination—would be an act of the same kind.

It would indicate the same feeling, the same forgetfulness of the proper sense of subordination; and if that is laid aside, ALL the usual indications of modesty and subordination might be removed also. Therefore, not even under religious pretenses are the usual marks of sex, and of propriety of place and rank, to be laid aside.

Due respect is to be shown, in dress, speech, and deportment, to those whom God has placed above us. Neither in language, attire, nor habit are we to depart from what all judge to be proprieties of life, or from what God has judged and ordained to be the proper indications of the regular gradations in society.