Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Corinthians 11

Be ye followers of me.—See concluding Note on 1 Corinthians 10:0.

Now I praise you.—A new subject is here introduced, and extends to 1 Corinthians 11:16. The exhortation of the previous verse probably recalled to the Apostle’s mind that to a certain extent the Corinthians did follow his teaching and example, and had possibly in their letter, to which he was now replying, boasted of their obedience. The rebuke which he is about to administer is, with characteristic courtesy, introduced with words of commendation.

While there is a likeness in form in the original in the words “imitators” and “remember,” the latter is weaker in its significance. He exhorts them to be “imitators.” He praises them only for bearing him in mind in all things to the extent of obeying certain practical directions which he had given them. The word “ordinances,” or traditions, here refers to matters of Christian discipline (2 Thessalonians 3:6).

But I would have you know.—After the general commendation in the previous verse, the reproof for neglecting, or desiring to neglect, His precepts in one particular case, is thus introduced. The subject addressed, namely, women uncovering their heads in assemblies for worship, was of fleeting importance and, as we all would now regard it, of trivial significance. Every circumstance, however, which could in the least degree cause the principles of Christianity to be perverted or misunderstood by the heathen world was of vital importance in those early days of the Church. For this reason, we find the Apostle, who most fearlessly taught the principles of Christian liberty, condemning most earnestly every application of those principles which might be detrimental to the best interests of the Christian faith. To feel bound to assert your liberty in every detail of social and political life is to cease to be free—the very liberty becomes a bondage.

The head of every man is Christ.—The Apostle does not merely address the outward practice about which his advice was sought. Instead, he proceeds to set forth the principles that oppose the concept of absolute and essential equality—a concept that found its expression and assertion in the practice of women uncovering their heads in public assemblies.

The allusion here is not to Christ as the Head of the whole human race and of all things (Colossians 1:16; Colossians 2:10), but as the Head of “the Body,” the Christian Church. This thought introduces the general argument regarding the practical subordination of woman by reminding the Corinthians that, although perfect spiritual equality exists in the Church (as taught in Galatians 3:28), it is an equality of order, not of disorder. It is an equality that can only be preserved by remembering that each member is not an isolated, irresponsible atom, but a part of an organic whole.

There is a Head to the Church; therefore, it is not a machine composed of various parts, but a body consisting of various members. As there is a subordination of the whole body to Christ, so there is in that body a subordination of woman to man. The last clause, the Head of Christ is God, gives (as is St. Paul’s custom, see 1 Corinthians 3:23; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians 15:25) completeness to the thought. As the Head of the Church—that is, as the man Christ Jesus—Christ is subordinate to the Father. Indeed, perhaps the idea is carried further into the mystery of the divine nature itself, which consists of three Persons who are co-eternal and co-equal, yet are designated with an unvarying sequence as “first,” “second,” and “third.”

Every man praying or prophesying.—The reference here is to public prayer and teaching (the word “prophesying” is used in its less restricted sense). The Apostle probably does not allude to any case in Corinth where a man had actually taken part in a religious meeting with covered head. The Greek practice was for men to have their heads uncovered when joining in religious ceremonies (Grotius on this passage). To this practice Saint Paul would incline, as being the national custom of the country, and as also being typical of the distinction between the sexes which he has just laid down.

The Apostle’s teaching on this subject is a remarkable illustration of how completely he had overcome his old Jewish prejudice, and how the whole of his nature had become leavened with the freedom of the gospel—for it was the custom among the Jews for the man to pray with covered head, and the face veiled with the Tallith, as an expression of his unworthiness to speak face to face with God. It was a profound insight into human nature which enabled the Apostle to realise how an external symbol would infallibly tend to modify doctrine, and how thus the perpetuating of such a custom in the Christian Church might have hindered the full recognition of the great truth of the personal and direct communication of every individual soul with the Father.

Dishonoureth his head.—He dishonours his own head since it is the part of his body from which Christ has taken His title as “Head of the Body,” the Church—and thus he dishonours his Spiritual Head—even Christ.

But every woman that prayeth . . . From the hypothetical case of the man praying or preaching with covered head (which was mentioned first for the sake of introducing the antithesis), the Apostle now comes to the actual case he has to address, namely, the woman uncovering her head.

At first sight, the permission implied here for a woman to pray and teach in public may seem at variance with the teaching in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where she is commanded to observe silence, and the instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12, that women should not teach. In these passages, however, it is the public meeting of the whole Church that is referred to, and in such meetings the women were to be silent—but the meetings spoken of here, though public as distinct from the private devotions of individuals, were probably only smaller gatherings such as are indicated in Romans 14:5; Colossians 4:5; Philemon 1:2.

It has been suggested by some writers that the command in 1 Corinthians 14:34 does forbid the practice which is here assumed to be allowable only for the sake of argument. But surely St. Paul would not have occupied himself and his readers here with the elaborate and merely forensic discussion of the conditions under which certain functions were to be performed, which he would subsequently condemn as not allowable under any restriction whatever?

Dishonoureth her head. Both among Jews and Greeks, a woman's long tresses were her glory. Only in times of mourning (Deuteronomy 21:12), or when convicted of shameful sin, was a woman to have her hair cut short.

Here, again, the word head must be taken in its double significance. A woman with an uncovered head dishonors her own head by making it thus, in the sight of others, the symbol of a shame that is not truly hers; and as her husband is typically her head, she dishonors him also.