Chapter 11

Looks like 11:1 should be 10:34.

(The 2024 version just below I think says things better than the two other attempts from earlier years down below.  They all say about the same thing, but each version gets a little bit easier to understand.  That's how Bible study ought to be.)

2024 - What to say about this verse?:

3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [1Co 11:3 ESV].

This translation is quite different than NASB95:

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [1Co 11:3 NASB95].

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. [1Co 11:3 KJV].

So we get some variation.  The first thing that jumps out at me is that the relationship of Christ and the Church and of man and woman are in the same breath, so to speak, as Christ and God.  We know that God does not order Christ around.  We also know that Christ IS God in all respects.  We know that Christ submits to God as a son to his father.  It is the natural way.  It is the God-ordained way.  We should note that Christ's submission to the Father DOES NOT make Christ less, inferior, dumber, less authoritative...none of these things.  They are equal, but Christ submits because this is necessary for things to operate as they should.  Roles.  I would also point out here that one of things God asked of the Son is that the Son die for enemies and strangers, not just for those who loved them.  Note also that Jesus prayed to NOT have to do this.  Note that the Father did not demand it, He determined it was the best course, and recognizing the authority of the Father, and despite the cost to himself, the Son submitted to the Father's will.  Let that be one point.

We can surely apply ALL THESE STATEMENTS to the relationship of individual men to Christ.  We do not tell Christ what he ought to do.  When we do according to our own will, according to our own desires, according to our own "wisdom", it is called rebellion, falling away, sin.  So in these two mentioned relationships, we see that one is authority, the other is VOLUNTARY submission. 

Now look at the one that modern feminism picks out to take issue with.  This man/woman relationship also ought to have the same characteristics as we named in the other two.  Man and woman are THE  SAME in God's eyes.  God did not make man smarter or dumber than woman.  Man does not FORCE his will on the woman.  Man decides on the course, woman submits to that will, and does so voluntarily.  There's no arguing with this up to this point.

The part that we might actually quibble with has to do with how the verse is translated.  In Greek, the words EVERY (pantos) and MAN (andros) are present.  Every single man is subject to Christ.  It is not that Jesus picks out one man and in that particular specific relationship, Christ is head of A man.  Then it says the head of woman is THE man.  So that word pantos, meaning all, isn't there in the Greek for this second phrase.  Furthermore, it isn't there for man in this phrase. There is a definite article for MAN though, so it means THE MAN. From this we can be sure then that what it does NOT say is ALL, or ANY MAN is head of ALL women.  Closer would be THE MAN is head of woman.  To make it clear that this is not all inclusive as to women, the translators SUPPLY the indefinite article, the word "a".  Now, it is pretty easy to get from "the man is the head of a woman" to an understanding that this is about marriage, where there is ONE, that is there is THE man, and woman, his wife.  By this time in the NT monogamy was the rule in the culture.  So A woman means the woman associated with THAT particular "THE MAN".  Some translations, even in this day and age, bravely translate it in that way.  The ESV does this, and I think correctly so, but we should understand that the ESV is going beyond simple translation and into interpretation.   NASB95 stops before that leap of translation.  KJV does a good job of making the meaning clear without going all the way to interpretation.

2024 - Later the same morning, I found this in Grudem's Systematic Theology in reference to the relationship between Father and Son: Grudem, p. 304: "I would caution those who object to the terms authority and submission to realize that we live in an age where unbelievers deeply despise any kind of authority, even the legitimated authority of parents or governments - and most of all the authority of God.  I wonder how much of the resistance people have to the idea of authority is due to accepting some of the assumptions of modern culture." and I would add INSTEAD OF the clear teaching of Scripture.

And it looks like more very specific questions about how a church service should be run are addressed here.  Head coverings come first.  Specific things that were controversial in this church, but not necessarily universal concerns.  I would apply the principles universally, if we can discern them and pull them out, but I would be careful of saying these are specific.  If they cannot be shown to be in contradiction to specific prohibitions - as against sexual immorality - then we open the door to legalism without basis.  We get Pharisaical.

2024 - The principle, perhaps, is that a woman should not be "in your face" about  how unsubmissive she is in a church service.  A woman should not defy the authority of her husband in a church service. A woman should not dress in a way that gives the impression that she is immoral in a church service.  These are the principles.  The specifics, which I think are specific to Corinth, have to do with shaved heads and hats.  I think those were cultural things that have little or no bearing today.  But the principles still apply!

2021 - Time grows short...going to have to read through this pretty quickly.  I have 6 minutes.

Lord's supper.  Get it right, because it can be fatal to get it wrong.

There's much more in this chapter, and it looks like I've run out of time the last two years.  So next time, move on through 9 and 10, and focus more on 11.  There sure seems to be a lot of difficulty here if you don't slow down and think...and I haven't time today for it.

2021-2, I have the time today, finally, with this different reading plan, and I got here on a Monday morning with nothing pressing.  So slowing down here.

This gets controversial - at least to the USA in 2021 - real quick, with this verse:

3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [1Co 11:3 ESV]

So.  What do the words mean in Greek?  There is a note in the TCR that says the word translated "wife" here, phonetically "goo-nay'" can mean either woman or wife, and it depends on context.  Also, the word translated "man" at the beginning of the verse and husband at the end of the verse, transliterated on-a'-uh, is exactly the same Greek word, and it can also be translated either man or husband, depending on the context.  I can see how in the first part of the verse there is little doubt that "man" instead of "husband" is the correct translation, though you could say the head of every husband is Christ.  We are, after all, talking about hierarchies here.  Christ over man, man over woman in the hierarchy.  I think the Bible is clear in many places already that the husband is above the wife in the hierarchy.  This verse, also written by Paul, makes this pretty certain:  23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. [Eph 5:23 ESV]...it does, except that the same two Greek words used in 1 Cor 11:3 are used in Eph 5:23.  So 5:23 could be read "the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church.  So that little side trip made things more complicated, at least in my mind, instead of less!  So if we limit the context to just this verse, the translation is saying that the first part of 1Co 11:3 is the Christ over mankind hierarchy, and then making the second part, the husband over wife hierarchy, an analogous hierarchy.  (2023 - Because it is EITHER husband over wife or it is MEN over WOMEN.  Now which of those do you like the best???  I see no third choice.)  Christ is to mankind what husband is to wife.  If we go with the more general translation in the second part of the verse, it would be Christ is to man as man is to woman.  This would make each man universally the head of every woman.  So.  That I think gives us our context.  I am not aware of anywhere else in the Bible where each individual man should be considered head of every woman on the planet.  This would truly place women in a subservient role on the planet.  The Bible DOES NOT teach that.  So what is being said here is that as a man who is dedicated to Christ has chosen to make Christ the whole point of his life, so a wife has, of her own free will, chosen to make her husband the point of her life.  In our day and age, this would still be a controversial position, but having worked through this whole thing, this is what I think Paul is saying.  It's a hierarchy, but it is a voluntary hierarchy.

2023 - Looking at verse 3 in the BLB, I see that the word "every" in front of man is "pantos", as in panorama.  There is also a definite article before Christ.  So it might read the Christ is over EVERY man.  The relationship is one over many.  In the next phrase, it is more like and over a woman, the man.  I think the implication is that a woman is either a daughter, and subject to her father, or a wife and subject to her husband.  If we want this verse to be universal - and not about man and wife - that's as close as it gets.  So in the second phrase, depending on the woman, she is either a woman OR a wife, and the word does not specifically mean either.  One over many, one under one, and then the last phrase.  The head of Christ is God.  The God is the head of The Christ.  One to one.  Look how much more involved this is than at first glance!  It is not written about women's rights or husband's authority.  Neither of those is in view here.  The nature of the relationships is in view.  Christ over all mankind.  Women subject always to a man.  God and Christ one to one, yet Christ doing God's will.  Now if Christ doesn't have a problem being subject to God, and men don't have a problem with being subject to Christ, then why in the world - indeed in what universe - does that third phrase NOT mean that each woman is subject always to A man?  There is simply no ground on which to stand.

Then vs 4:  4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [1Co 11:4 ESV]

First thing to notice:  The Greek word translated "head" two times in vs 4 is exactly the same word translated "head" two times in vs 3.  In KJV, the word appears 76 times, and is translated "head" every...single...time.  In the ESV, in English, in these two verses, though, it has been translated to have two very different meanings - one has to do with hierarchy and relationship, the other has to do with what sits on our shoulders.  If you read on through vs 5, at least in ESV as translated, vss 4 and 5 are referring to the physical head, not the hierarchical head.  You just cannot read it the other way.

So.  Paul has established a hierarchy of relationship with Christ, and of spousal relationships, and then he uses the same word for head to talk about how to dress in church - actually no, it's more specific than that.  He turns to how to dress if you are praying or prophesying.  Hmm.  And the clear implication is that either a man OR a woman could be doing either of those things in church in Corinth! Note also that in vss 4, 5 the translators have maintained the mankind/Christ translation and the husband/wife translation from vs 3 on into these verses.  So I think that's consistent and holds up.  To do it otherwise would be to inject interpretation into the translation.  So how are we to connect head in vs 3 with head in vss 4. 5.  Interesting that we have the same problem in English as Paul had in 1Co.  We also use the same word, head, with both those meanings.  And we automatically know which is meant, from context.  Surely we can apply that to the Greek word.  Vss 4, 5 have to mean physical head.  So what is the connection.  Best to keep reading I think and see if it becomes clear.

After reading to the end of this section in vs. 16, no, it is not any more clear.  If anything it is still less clear.  Further, in his conclusion of the section, Paul does not say he has these orders from God - about who should cover their head and who shouldn't.  He also states plainly that there is no hard and fast rule about it in the churches extant at the time.  So if you disagree with him, he says, more power to you.  I think, therefore, that Paul received some questions about this and he gave his own personal opinion, but it was just not enough of an issue for anyone to get bent out of shape about.  That implies that I have spent far too much time on it this morning, also!  So I'm going to make that worse by checking the MSB on this.

Glad I looked at MSB.  Here is what John MacArthur says:

MacArthur sets up by saying that Corinthian were at that time wearing head coverings.  It was local to Corinth.  Men in other places and other churches, at that time, were not doing that - so there did not need to be any "rule" about in ALL the churches.  It was exclusively a Corinthian thing.  Jews started wearing their yamakas in the 4th century AD.  So.  What the Corinthian men are doing, in covering their heads, is completely out of step and antagonistic to what men in churches everywhere else are doing.  It is a cultural matter, not a spiritual matter, and Paul does not like what the men of Corinth are doing.  From MSB:  "Paul is not stating a universal law from God, but acknowledging a local custom, which did reflect divine principle.  In that society, a man's uncovered head was a sign of his authority over women, who were to have their heads covered.  For a man to cover his head was to suggest a reversal of proper roles."  Ok.  So think about the hijab in Muslim countries today.  Women are required to wear them as a sign of their subservience to men.  (This is an example of a non-Biblical interpretation going too far, but it is a good example for understanding this passage!).  IF a man in the mosque were to come in wearing a hijab, they  would throw him out for it.  In the same manner, a woman entering a mosque without her hijab would face severe consequences.  In Paul's eyes at least, it is this kind of "sneer" at tradition that makes him call a man wearing a hat in church a disgrace.

MSB also corroborates that women can pray and prophesy in church.  It is teaching that has some limitations.  Furthermore, when women do these things, they should not also be making a political statement about their defiance of the created order and hierarchy by the clothes they are wearing when they pray.  Today, at Quail Springs Baptist Church, a woman should not be allowed to pray aloud while wearing a clearly masculine suit, tie, and wingtip shoes.  BUT, and this is also from MSB, whether your head is covered or uncovered is just like food offered to idols.  Doesn't really  mean anything at all.  Doesn't matter.  AND, it depends on why you're doing it, just as what you think about that food offered to idols determines whether you should or should not.  Same thing here.  Would we think a man in drag leading the offertory prayer was ok?  Not in my church it wouldn't be!  Or would it?  We just say it doesn't really matter...  I think that is about as far as we can go with this passage, and I am moving on!

Paul moves on to the Lord's supper and the errors of the way they were observing it at Corinth.  It has been a long morning, so next year, I will focus on the last part of the chapter.  It seems a lot less controversial than the first part anyway!

2023 - As for the Lord's supper, there were "factions".  Somehow, like was associating with like.  Paul says specifically that some had all they wanted and others went hungry.  Some were drinking to excess with the meal, presumably others were not.  I think we see that they were viewing the Lord's supper as a regular evening meal but eaten at church rather than at home.  They were making the QSBC Wednesday meal the Lord's Supper.  At QSBC, we see it just as a meal, with no religious significance.  Corinth was doing the same thing - with some excesses - and labeling it Lord's Supper.  But there was no remembrance of body and blood, no remembrance of suffering and death and then resurrection, no honor paid to Jesus at all.  Just a meal.  And on top of this demeaning of the Lord's Supper, add cliques and groups and rich and poor and tailors and shoemakers....all kinds of man made "exclusivity" as to the Lord's Supper.  And the result is that each group judged the others for their actions.  Oh look how much they're drinking at table 4!  Oh look, they're having King Crab at Table 6 and those three deaf people at the table next to them only have that tiny piece of molded bread.  Paul says each table ought to keep ITSELF in order, so that others do NOT judge them, and he says EAT AT HOME, because the Lord's supper is not about hunger and thirst but about how we "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes".