Comments on 1 Corinthians 11 This chapter addresses two matters of Church policy that Paul sees as being abused in the Church at Corinth. First, women and the Priesthood (v. 1-16), and second, the sacrament (v. 17- 34). v1-16 I am a little surprised that this chapter was included in the reading assignment. It is not uncommon for the reading assignments to avoid potentially controversial texts, but here that is not the case. The reason this text is controversial is because it can be, and often is, read as a proof text for male dominance in ecclesiastical as well personal life. A common cross reference for v. 3 is Eph. 5:22-23, both of which are used in an attempt to justify male authoritarianism. The context and Paul's logical rationale does not substantiate such usage of these passages. Why? First, Paul makes reference to the Genesis Creation account both in the present text (v. 11-12) and in the Eph. 5 account (cf. Eph 5:31). In doing so, Paul is making it perfectly clear that man and wife are to be completely united and equal as one body, cf. Gen. 2:23-24. Second, the discussion at hand, as well as that in Eph. 5:22-33, is clearly one addressing authority in the Church, or the Priesthood (see also the IV/JST on 14:34-35, and 1 Tim. 2:11-12). The Priesthood is a ministry of service and sacrifice, not a ministry of authoritarianism and unrighteous dominion, cf. D&C 121:36-46. Note Paul uses the example of Christ in both the present text and in Eph. 5. He states the man is to be the head of the women even as Christ is the head of the man and the head of the Church. How was Christ the head of the Church? By serving it and laying his life down for it. Thus are the men to serve and lay their lives down for their wives and children. This is not advocating authoritarianism. What then is Paul advocating? Paul is stating that within the Church the women ought to wear a hat, and perhaps a veil as well, as a symbol of acknowledging the authority of the Priesthood of their husbands, cf. v. 10. Wearing such a symbol is to acknowledges that males minister in Priesthood and females do not. Is this discrimination? No more than is God granting women the right and responsibilities of motherhood. For as women are to provide a physical birth to children via motherhood so are men to provide a spiritual birth to their children via the Priesthood. Both the physical and spiritual births are essential to inherit the Celestial Kingdom, and thus are motherhood and the Priesthood complimentary in marriage in serving the children. Is one more important than the other? No, both are essential. Does one grant the right of one spouse to dominate the other? No. The man is to defer to the wife in laboring by the sweat of his brow to provide for the physical needs of the physical offspring his wife has borne. The wife is to defer to the husband in matters regarding administering salvation to the family via the Priesthood. What of Paul's admonitions in a contemporary setting? Throughout the letter he gives a blends of commands from the Lord, and saying of himself that are not of the Lord, cf. 7:6, 7:25. Here we have Paul citing an apparently generally observed custom (cf. v. 2) that has fallen out of favor in the Corinthian Church. Paul encourages them to observe it and makes a series of "common sense" arguments (v. 5-10, 13-15) for observing the practice. At no point does Paul suggest the matter is by commandment, rather he consistently appeals to logic. And the matter of covering one's head is symbolic, and therefore accessory to Paul's primary intent. What is Paul's primary intent? Why does Paul bother to push a superficial custom such as this when he is willing to buck tradition on major traditions like circumcision? As the underlying subject is that of the Priesthood, I would assume the fledgling Corinthian Church did not adequately perceive or respect its role in the Church. Verses 4-5 suggest both men and women were praying and "prophesying" in the ecclesia. That the females were praying and prophesying like the males apparently led them to question matters of Priesthood authority (cf. the IV/JST on 14:34-35), thus abandoning the practice of covering their heads. Perhaps it was out of naivety on the parts of both the men and women. Perhaps it was an attempt to usurp by the women. Perhaps it was an effort on the part of the men to foist their responsibilities onto their wives. We are left to speculate. Regardless, it is clear the Corinthians had lost respect for the Priesthood. As such, Paul emphasized to the Corinthian converts the significance of males officiating in the Priesthood within the ecclesia. Had the people recognized the proper role of the Priesthood within the ecclesia, such a custom would have been unnecessary. v1 Paul is careful to defer Christ's as the authority figure so as to avoid any appearance of self-promotion, as well as identify where the source of authority is. v2 He praises them for following in general the precepts and traditions he gave them before moving into some specific points of admonition. v4-5 Note Paul is permitting women to pray and "prophesy" as the men do within the ecclesia (cf. Alma 32:23), he simply wants them to cover their heads as a symbol of acknowledging the Priesthood. By "prophesying" the text means to testify, and inspiration by the Holy Spirit is usually implicit but not required. There are plenty of female prophets, or prophetesses, throughout the Scriptures, e.g., Emma Smith, Miriam, Deborah and Huldah. It is important to note that the colloquial usage of the term "prophet" or "prophecy" does not entirely conform with the scriptural usage of these terms. The Greek "propheteuo", translated to "prophesy" in the KJV, most literally translates to "before-aver". It means the person is a vicarious witness, or a spokesman in the place of another. Predicting events beforehand was incidental to the testimony the witness bore. Thus, a prophet/prophetess is an inspired witness who bears testimony of the Lord. Also, among LDS communities, the term "prophet" has come to represent the President of the Church in specific, and at times this term is capitalized as "Prophet". Other are recognized as "prophets" as is the case with the Quorum of Twelve and so on, but in the strictest scriptural sense of the word, anyone who is inspired to testify is a prophet, cp. D&C 68:2-4. Recall that Moses wished all of Israel were prophets, cf. Num. 11:29. v4 This would seem to indicate the Jewish tradition of studying the Torah, or Law of Moses, while wearing the talith, or woven shawl, over the head was discontinued among the Christians. Or, Paul may be alluding to the incident with the prophet Elijah wherein he wraps his face when being censured by the Lord in 1 Kings 19:13. "having his head covered, dishonoureth his head", according to the formula in v. 3 the first head is referring to the man's head, the second head is referring to Christ, who in the preceding verse is identified as the man's head. v5-6 Having her head uncovered among the ecclesia is like having her head shaved, it is a shame to her. The symbolism Paul is drawing on is that expressed in Isa. 3:24, Isa. 7:20, Jer. 16:6, Jer. 48:37, Ezek. 27:31, Micah 1:16. Baldness was a symbol of mourning, lamentation, and humiliation. "her head uncovered dishonoureth her head", as is the case with v. 4 the first head is the woman's head, and the second head is her husband. She dishonors her husband by praying or prophesying without acknowledging his Priesthood by having her head covered. Paul does not say she may not pray or prophesy. v7-9 can read like sexist diatribe to the Western reader. But, taken in context to a Semitic reader it is plain Paul is paraphrasing the Genesis Creation account of Adam and Eve. It is therefore no more sexist than the Creation account. Paul is pointing out there are intentional gender differences in God's plan, a theme he picks up again in v. 14-15. v10 The KJV is a poor translation. The NAS follows: Therefore the woman ought to have [a symbol] of authority on her head, because of the angels. The bracketed "a symbol" is an insertion by the NAS to clarify Paul's intent. Paul is referring to the covering on the head mentioned in the preceding verses. "because of the angels", an obscurity. If we compare with 4:9 we see that Paul characterizes all the world, angels and men, as seeing the public witness of the apostles. Here, the world will not observe what occurs within the ecclesia, but the angels will. Thus, what Paul is saying is "...because Heaven is watching". v14-15 Paul appeals to the generally observed difference that women can grow longer hair than men, thus God intended it by nature. If God intended it by nature, then He gave it to her for a covering. v14 Men having long hair was considered a mark of being a heathen, cf. Deut. 32:42 (the KJV on this verse is bad, see a modern translation such as the New American Standard or the Jewish Publication Society TANAKH), Ezek. 44:20, Rev. 9:8. v16 The KJV is a poor translation. The New American Standard (NAS) renders it: But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. In other words, Paul is saying this is the standard practice of the churches of God and anyone who doesn't accept it is contentious. v17-34 Paul censures the ecclesia for not taking the sacrament seriously. People are coming to partake of it when drunk or are doing it for free eats (v. 20-22). He tells them the sacrament is a solemn token of Christ's sacrifice (v. 23-26), and people ought to be introspecting on their spirituality when they partake (v. 28-29). Those who take it unworthily curse themselves (v. 27, 30-32). Copyright © 2002 by S. Kurt Neumiller . All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the express written consent of the author. Digital or printed copies may be freely made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use.