John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 11

Imitators of me. From this, it appears how absurdly chapters are divided, since this sentence is separated from what precedes it—to which it ought to have been connected—and is joined to what follows, with which it has no connection. Let us, therefore, view this as the end of the preceding chapter. Paul had there presented his own example to confirm his doctrine. Now, so that the Corinthians might understand that this would be fitting for them, he exhorts them to imitate what he had done, even as he had imitated Christ.

Here, two things are to be observed: first, that he prescribes nothing to others that he had not first practiced himself; and second, that he directs himself and others to Christ as the only pattern of right action. For while it is the role of a good teacher to instruct nothing in words that he is not prepared to practice in action, he must not, at the same time, be so austere as to immediately require from others everything that he does himself, as is the way of the superstitious.

For they also impose upon others everything that they favor, and want their own example to be considered an absolute rule. The world is also, naturally, inclined to misguided imitation (κακοζηλίαν) and, like apes, strives to copy whatever it sees done by influential people.

We see, however, how many evils have been introduced into the Church by this absurd desire to imitate all the actions of the saints, without exception. Let us, therefore, maintain all the more carefully this doctrine of Paul: that we are to follow people, provided they take Christ as their primary model (πρωτότυπον), so that the examples of the saints may not tend to lead us away from Christ, but rather to direct us to Him.

Now I praise you. He passes on now to another subject—to instruct the Corinthians about what decorum should be observed in the sacred assemblies. For as a person’s dress or gesture can in some cases disfigure, and in others adorn them, so all actions are enhanced by decorum and spoiled by the lack of it.

Much, therefore, depends upon decorum (τὸ πρεπον), and that not merely for securing gracefulness and beauty for our actions, but also to accustom our minds to propriety. While this is generally true for everything, it holds especially true for sacred things. For what contempt, and eventually, what barbarism will result, if we do not preserve dignity in the Church by conducting ourselves honorably and becomingly?

Hence, he prescribes some things connected with public order, by which sacred assemblies are made honorable. But to prepare them further for obedience, he initially commends their past obedience, since they observed his ordinances. For since he had begotten that Church to the Lord (1 Corinthians 4:15), he had delivered to them a certain system by which it was to be governed. By retaining this, the Corinthians gave reason to hope that they would also be teachable in the future.

It is surprising, however, that while he now gives them this commendation, he had previously blamed them for many things. Indeed, if we consider the state of the Church as previously described, they were far from deserving this praise. I answer that some were infected with those vices he had previously reproved—indeed, some with one vice, others with another—but, in the meantime, the form which he had prescribed to them had been retained by the entire body.

For there is no inconsistency in saying that very many sins of various kinds are prevalent among a particular people—some cheating, others plundering, some envying, others quarrelling, and another class guilty of fornication—while, at the same time, regarding the public form of the Church, the institutions of Christ and his Apostles are maintained.

This will appear more clearly when we come to see what Paul means by παραδόσεις (traditions), and independently of this, it is necessary to speak of this word to reply to Papists, who arm themselves with this passage to defend their traditions. It is a common maxim among them that the doctrine of the Apostles consists partly of writings and partly of traditions. Under this second department, they include not merely certain foolish superstitions and puerile ceremonies with which they are stuffed, but also all kinds of gross abominations, directly contrary to the plain word of God, and their tyrannical laws, which are mere torments to people's consciences.

In this way, there is nothing so foolish, nothing so absurd—in short, nothing so monstrous—as not to find shelter under this pretext and be painted over with this varnish. Therefore, when Paul mentions traditions here, they seize upon this little word, as they are accustomed to do, with the aim of making Paul the author of all those abominations, which we refute by plain declarations of Scripture.

I do not deny that there were certain traditions of the Apostles that were not written down, but I do not admit that they were parts of doctrine or related to things necessary for salvation. What then? They were connected with order and government. For we know that every Church has liberty to establish for itself a form of government that is suitable and beneficial for it, because the Lord has not prescribed anything specific.

Thus Paul, the first founder of the Corinthian Church, had also established for its regulation pious and fitting enactments—that all things might be done decently and in order, as he afterwards enjoins (1 Corinthians 14:40).

But what has this to do with those silly, trivial ceremonies seen in Popery? What has it to do with a worse-than-Jewish superstition? What has it to do with a tyranny worthy of Phalaris, by which they torture miserable consciences? What has it to do with so many monstrous rites of idolatry?

For the foundation of all proper enactment was this: to observe the moderation that Paul used—not to compel people to follow their enactments while, in the meantime, contriving everything that might strike their fancy, but to require that they should be imitated, insofar as they are imitators of Christ.

But now, after having had the audacity to critique everything according to their own whim, to demand obedience from all is exceedingly absurd. Furthermore, we must know that Paul commends their past obedience to make them teachable also for the future.

But I would have you know. It is an old proverb: “Evil manners beget good laws.” As the rite discussed here had not been previously questioned, Paul had given no ruling concerning it. The error of the Corinthians was the occasion for him to show how it was fitting to act in this matter. With the view of proving that it is an improper thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he begins by noting the arrangements that are divinely established.

He says that as Christ is subject to God as His head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man. We shall later see how he comes to infer from this that women should have their heads covered. Let us, for now, note those four gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Because He has in our flesh made Himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, He is His equal. Let us, therefore, remember that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, because He assumed our nature, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

There is some more difficulty in what follows. Here the man is placed in an intermediate position between Christ and the woman, so that Christ is not the head of the woman. Yet the same Apostle teaches us elsewhere (Galatians 3:28) that in Christ there is neither male nor female.

Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he removes? I answer that the solution to this depends on the context in which the passages occur.

When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is discussing Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions are not regarded or taken into account. For it has nothing to do with the body, and nothing to do with the outward relationships of humankind, but has to do solely with the mind—for this reason he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free.

In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which are indispensable in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons concerning outward propriety and decorum—which is a part of ecclesiastical polity.

Hence, regarding spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, in that respect, no distinction is made between male or female. But regarding external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not on the same level; on the contrary, this inequality exists.

Should anyone ask what connection marriage has with Christ, I answer that Paul speaks here of that sacred union of pious persons, of which Christ is the officiating priest, and He in whose name it is consecrated.

Every man praying. Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman. He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why is this so? Because he is subject to Christ, with the understanding that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house—for the father of the family is like a king in his own house.

Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon.

For example, if the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant does not know how to maintain his proper station, and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt from persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station—if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority—he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well-regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see before long, is an emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.

Prophesying I take here to mean—declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers (as later in 1 Corinthians 14), just as praying means preparing a form of prayer and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people—which is the part of the public teacher; for Paul is not arguing here concerning every kind of prayer, but concerning solemn prayer in public.

Let us, however, bear in mind that in this matter the error is merely insofar as decorum is violated and the distinction of rank, which God has established, is infringed upon.

For we must not be so scrupulous as to consider it a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this: that it should be apparent that the man has authority and that the woman is in subjection.

This is secured when the man uncovers his head before the Church, even if he should later put his cap back on for fear of catching a cold. In short, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον—decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing further.

Every woman praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5). Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head. For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Therefore, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church (1 Timothy 2:12).

It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering on their head, and thus it follows that it is pointless for him to argue here about a covering.

It may be replied that the Apostle, by condemning the one here, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he does not at the same time give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14.

In this reply, there is nothing wrong. However, it might also be quite appropriate to say that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place where the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.

For it is all one as if she were shaven (1 Corinthians 11:6). He now maintains from other considerations that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, he says, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Therefore, we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering (1 Corinthians 11:15).

If anyone should now object that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be used for covering it.

Thus, a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust.