RESPECT DURING PUBLIC WORSHIP, 1 COR 11

  Women’s head coverings (11:2-16)

What has given rise to this passage is most likely that the Corinthians mentioned in their letter to him about women prophesying with their heads uncovered (11:5). Before you all get upset, please note that in v5 Paul has no problem with women prophesying during a meeting/Eucharist. When some people read 11:3 they get upset because Paul says man is the head of woman but that is misunderstanding what Paul wrote. Paul is not referring to authority. He is referring to Gen 2 where man was created before woman and woman created from man. He is not referring to authority and this will become clearer below in my comments on v11.

What is at stake in 11:2-16 is not bringing shame on the community. It seems that what Paul advised here was being practiced in other Christian Churches (see v16) and Paul wished for uniformity among the Churches and was asking the Corinthians to do the same as other Churches.

In v3 Paul says the head of Christ is God. At the time Paul was writing there was not yet a developed theology of the Trinity. In the Trinity the three persons are equal. In v4 Paul is referring to the fact that in Roman prayer to the gods men had their heads covered and the Jewish priests also had their heads covered (Exod 28:36-40; Ezek 44:18). Paul wants Christian men to be distinguished from these. If a woman prays or prophecies without her head covered it is bringing shame on her husband (v5), according to Paul, in much the same way as we would dishonor the wedding couple if we attended their wedding in poor dress.

Many suggest that what Paul means by a woman having her head covered is having her hair tied up in a bun and not left hanging loose about her head, that it has nothing to do with wearing a veil. The main reason for this argument is that in v15 Paul said a woman’s hair was her covering. Those who argue in this way also use Num 5:18 as support where the word for the adulteress leaving her hair down in the Greek LXX version is the same as that used by Paul here in 1 Cor 11. If commentators are correct in stating this, you may then ask why does your Bible have the word ‘veil’ explicitly mentioned. Where you see the word ‘veil’ in your English Bible, the word in Greek is a form of the verb katakaluptomai which means ‘cover one’s head’. The verb in Greek does not explicitly refer to a veil. Therefore when you read ‘veil’ in your English translation it is an interpretation more than a translation, you might want to say it is a mistranslation.

Why does Paul make a fuss out of hairstyles for men and women? At creation God divided us into genders and Paul is afraid that the differences between the genders are not being distinguished. If the differences between men and women are not maintained it would be seen by Paul as a movement away from God’s plan for creation. While he does not state it explicitly his fear is homosexuality and lesbianism.

It is difficult to make sense out of vv7-9. Paul seems to be interpreting Gen incorrectly. Gen 1:7 makes it clear that both man and woman are made in the image of God but Paul uses Gen 2 about the creation of man first. But Gen 2 says nothing about man being in the image of God. To date commentators have failed to make sense out of v10. Hayes 190 says the following “It will not do, however, to say that the text does not apply to us because it is “culturally conditioned,” for all texts are culturally conditioned. The aim of Paul’s letters is to reshape his churches into cultural patterns that he takes to be consistent with the gospel.”

A Jewish argument was the superiority of men to women because of Gen 2 saying man was formed first but in v11 Paul turns that argument on its head, reminding us of his statement about the equality of men and women earlier in 7:2-4. As I keep saying to you Paul is not anti-woman. This is the balance in v11

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor in Paul: a Critical Life page 290 says “1 Corinthians 11:11-12 is the first and only explicit defence of the complete equality of women in the New Testament. Paul overturned the traditional argument from the chronological priority of the male in the creation narrative by pointing out that the chronological priority of woman in the birth of a male is just as much part of God’s plan for the order of his creation (1 Cor 11:12).”

How did patriarchy return to the Church so quickly as we see in 1 & 2 Tim? Paul made a mistake when he was desperate to find a house church for the community. Those who ran house churches e.g. Gaius or Phoebe, had a gift that was hard-cash and not just spiritual, they had the sort of house that could receive the community once a week. That is where Paul made a bad mistake. He permitted a worldly element to enter in, once you had a crowd that were opposed to the freedom that women exercised in the Church, it doesn’t take much to organise it so that the meeting is in a man’s house. Paul is really one of the great promoters of the ministry of women in the NT.

The Lord’s Supper (11:17-34)

To understand this passage correctly we need to remember that when the early Christians met for the Eucharist they met in their own homes as I already stated (see Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Philemon 2). The gathering began with a meal followed by the Eucharist. The problem is caused by the gathering for the meal prior to the Eucharist.

The dining room and courtyard were the only parts of a Greek house open to the public. We know 14 of the community in Corinth by name from the greetings in Paul’s letters as we will see, so with their spouses and families there were probably at least 50 people. This house was build for 9 maximum reclining on couches, at a crush you could get 15 in, the rest had to stay in the courtyard. Who got into the dining room (triclinium)? People of the same social class as the host. Those who could not control their time and come early, i.e. those who were slaves, ended up out in the cold. V21 implies that those who cannot afford their own food go without. Paul is saying they should be given food. Paul is saying the celebration of the Eucharist in such circumstances is a sham because of their behaviour prior to the meal. It was a case of ‘the haves’ and ‘the have-nots.’ Paul says you can’t have a Eucharist in such circumstances.

Paul’s account of the Last Supper in vv23-26 is the oldest that we have in the NT. We have three other accounts, in the three Synoptic Gospels of Matt, Mark and Luke. Paul’s account here is closest to Luke 22:19-20 while Matt’s and Mark’s accounts are close to each other (Matt 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26). Like Luke, Paul mentions that Jesus said after the cup “Do this in remembrance of me” but unlike Luke, Paul said that Jesus did the same after the bread (11:24). The four actions of the Last Supper are Jesus taking, blessing, breaking and giving, the same four actions of Jesus during the feeding miracles and on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:30). Also Jesus interpreted what he did. Jesus said the cup was the cup of a new covenant (11:25). Unfortunately the Corinthians’ behaviour does not reflect living a new covenant which is why Paul said earlier in 11:20 that they are not eating the Lord’s Supper.

In v26 Paul says “When you eat this bread and drink this cup you are proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes.” We know this as one of our Eucharistic acclamations. The eating and drinking was to be an act of love. The eating and drinking was to be a proclamation to the world of the meaning of the death of Christ. In the sharing in Corinth there was no love.

In vv27-34 Paul warns about eating the bread or drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily. That is why he asks them to discern before the Eucharist (v28). You see the importance of community in Paul. Without a genuine community you cannot have a genuine Eucharist. Can you have a valid Mass on Sunday when people do not really care about or love one another?

We find v30 disturbing where Paul says some became sick because of their disrespect for the Lord’s Supper. However it was common at that time to think that sickness was punishment for sin. For example, see John 9:2. It is also good to remember that the OT points out that if the people do not keep their part of the covenant they can expect judgment from God. If the Corinthians had not abused the Lord’s Supper we would never know that the Eucharist was celebrated in the churches Paul established because he does not write about it in his other letters.