A verse-by-verse explanation of this section.
An overview of the principles and applications from this section.
Tying the section to life with God.
Historical, geographical, and grammatical enrichment of the commentary.
Suggested step-by-step group study of the section.
Zeroing the section in on daily life.
“Worship is a time to care for one another, to build up the unity of our fellowship in Christ.”
John Frame
Paul began a long discussion about worship in this chapter by focusing first on the importance of men and women honoring Christ and each other in worship.
I stood there behind the pulpit in a small town in Tasmania, Australia. It was the middle of July, but it was their winter—a very cold winter. As I stood there shivering in the pulpit, I could not believe what happened. It was just an innocent comment, a general application of the Bible. I think I simply said, “We should all be careful to be patient with one another.”
But suddenly a woman in the congregation jumped up and shouted. “Don't tell me that until you have told my husband to get a job!”
She sat down as quickly as she stood up, but I remember everyone in the church turning around to look at her husband. His face turned bright red, and he hid his face in his hands. He did not look up again for the entire worship service.
I was only a guest, so I do not know what family dynamics were displayed at that moment. But one thing was sure. The woman did not feel the least obligation to honor her husband during their public worship.
Less extreme examples of such dishonor take place in worship all the time. A husband elbows his wife as the preacher says something that touches on an argument they had earlier in the week. A parent threatens a child with severe punishment in front of the congregation.
Put simply, we do not seem to realize that worship is a time to honor other people. We come to worship Christ, but we could care less about the others who join us in worship. But the fact is that we cannot honor Christ in worship while we dishonor our fellow worshipers.
Honoring Others in Worship
MAIN IDEA: Paul began a discussion of yet another area of controversy and problems among the Corinthians: worship. He addressed three important subjects: the question of head coverings for women in public worship, the observance of the Lord's Supper, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit in worship.
SUPPORTING IDEA: Paul began on a positive note. He knew the value of congratulating believers when they were doing well.
11:2. One can only imagine the relief that came to the Corinthians when they heard the opening words, I praise you for remembering me in everything. “Everything” in this sense means “all kinds of things.” As Paul's mind moved toward matters of worship, he apparently was satisfied that many of his teachings were being followed by a majority of the Corinthian believers. So he praised the church for holding to the teachings he had passed on to them. “Pass on” was technical rabbinical terminology for the official, sacred transmission of religious traditions (cf. 11:23). Paul probably hoped this positive word would help them attend to the corrections he was about to offer.
Paul was dealing with a somewhat controversial matter (11:16). Apparently, some people in the Corinthian church had rejected the common practice of the church that wives should cover their heads in public worship. Paul was satisfied that many understood and practiced this policy, but he still felt the need to explain the reasons that everyone should continue it.
Paul was particularly concerned with how men and women treated each other in public worship. Although having implications for everyday life, his words focused on prayer and prophecy (the teaching and preaching of God's Word) (11:4–5), which would have taken place primarily when believers gathered.
Paul's instructions derived from three basic concerns. First, he was committed to honoring God by applying the principles of Scripture to worship. Second, he was concerned that believers show due regard for one another in their worship times. Third, he was concerned with the testimony of the Corinthian worship meetings before unbelievers. This chapter focuses on how the practice of head coverings for women reflects these three concerns. Why were women to cover their heads in worship? Paul's answer was threefold: (1) it was true to divine commands; (2) it honored husbands in worship; and (3) it reflected the cultural expectations of decency in their day.
In this passage Paul shifted without notice between the relationships of men and women in general, and husbands and wives in particular. In Greek the terms usually translated “man” and “woman” are flexible enough to be used in both senses. We must remember that Paul's words at any moment may apply generally to men and women, to husbands and wives, or to both. But his central focus was on the behavior of husbands and wives in worship.
SUPPORTING IDEA: Paul asserted that three parallel relationships exist: (1) Christ in relation to every man; (2) man in relation to woman; and (3) God (the Father) in relation to Christ.
11:3. Much disagreement arises because Paul did not explicitly complete these metaphors. He described all three forms of headship: Christ is the head; husbands are heads; God is the head. Yet, he did not state the roles of the corresponding analogues (men, wives, and Christ). If one member of each pair is the head, what roles do the others play? Most interpreters have sought to answer this question in the same way for all three relationships. As a result, two major interpretations have risen.
First, some have argued that head in this passage means “source,” as the “head” of a river is the source from which the river flows. In this view, Christ is the source of males in the sense that Christ created Adam from the dust (Gen. 2:7). In a similar fashion, males are the source of females in the sense that Eve was taken from Adam (Gen. 2:22). God the Father is the head of Christ because Christ “came from the Father” (John 16:27–28).
In support of this view: (1) ancient Greeks frequently used the term head metaphorically to indicate the source from which something came; and (2) in this passage, Paul specifically mentioned that “man did not come from woman, but woman from man” (11:8).
Second, others have argued that head implies that a chain of authority extends from God the Father, to Christ, to husbands, and to their wives. This interpretation gains support primarily from the Hebrew term head in the Old Testament (Josh. 11:10; 1 Sam. 9:22; Isa. 7:8–9; only in Hab. 3:13–14 does the Greek word head appear in the Septuagint. Here it clearly refers to the literal head of a body in a metaphor). It is also supported by Paul's uses of “head” in Colossians 2:10 and Ephesians 5:23. This is also the meaning behind “head” as a metaphor in Ephesians 1:22. In addition, several New Testament authors quoted Psalm 118:22 which uses “head” to mean “main” or “chief” (Matt. 21:42; 1 Pet. 2:7).
An alternate interpretation suggests that Paul purposefully did not complete the metaphors because the parallels among Christ, husbands, and God are not precisely the same. Recognizing that these analogies could easily be stretched too far by treating the parallels too strictly, Paul himself qualified these metaphors in the next portion of this chapter (11:11–12). Christ, husbands, and God are all sources and/or authorities in different ways. The term head has a variety of connotations, including “source” and “authority.” In some respects the connotations of “source” should be emphasized, and in other respects “authority” appears more clearly in view.
This variation should be self-evident. Husbands are never the heads of their wives in precisely the same way that Christ is the head of men. After all, Christ created human beings and is the perfect and absolute authority. No man could or should be that for a woman. Nor is Christ the head of men precisely in the same way that God is the head of Christ. The Father did not create the Son, nor is Christ simply the subordinate of the Father. The differences among the various members of these analogies make precise comparisons impossible.
What then was Paul telling the Corinthians in 11:3? To know more precisely what headship means in these various relationships, we must look beyond the mere term head and understand the unique features of each relationship.
On the other hand, we must remember that Paul's chief concern here was not to specify what he meant by headship. He commended the Corinthians for understanding this doctrine (11:2), and apparently felt little need to explain himself. His primary concern was much more practical. In this passage, the headships of Christ, husbands, and God had one thing in common to which he drew attention: each head should be honored. This practical concern comes to the foreground in the repetition of the word dishonor (11:4–5). By their actions in public worship, men are expected to honor Christ (11:4), and wives are expected to honor their husbands (11:5), just as Christ brings honor and glory to his heavenly Father (15:24).
Responsibilities to Heads (11:4–12)
SUPPORTING IDEA: In Corinthian society, male head coverings dishonored God, and female head coverings honored husbands. Therefore, wives were to wear head coverings in worship, and men were not to wear head coverings in worship.
11:4. Paul addressed men first, saying that every man who prays or prophesies while his head is covered dishonors Christ, his head. Perhaps Paul had in mind that men dishonor their own physical heads, but this interpretation seems unlikely from the context. In the Roman Empire, men commonly covered their heads with their togas as they performed pagan worship rituals. It is not known for certain that this practice had reached Corinthian pagan worship. But it seems likely that Paul at least warned against adopting this practice in the church.
In a word, for a man to cover his head in the worship of Christ was to worship in the same way pagan men worshiped their gods. Imitating this practice mixed false religion into the worship of Christ, and therefore dishonored him. It is not possible that Paul intended this as an absolute statement rather than a culturally specific statement because God himself commanded Aaron the high priest always to wear a turban when ministering. This would have included prophecy and prayer (Exod. 29:6). Moreover, throughout church history Christian men have covered their heads in worship for the sake of warmth and decoration. Paul's teaching responded to the particular pagan influence in Corinth.
11:5–6. Turning to women, or more specifically to wives, Paul affirmed that sometimes a woman prays or prophesies in public worship. The practice of public prayer would certainly include congregational and silent prayer, but Paul did not limit women to these kinds of prayer. Moreover, prophecy in the New Testament included the expression and explication of God's word to his people. Although Paul forbade women to serve in the ordained positions of pastor, elder, and teacher (1 Tim. 2:12), he did not restrict women from more informal forms of speaking the truth of God's word, even in worship.
Nevertheless, Paul insisted that any wife praying or prophesying in public worship should do so with her head covered. If she spoke in worship with her head uncovered, then she dishonor[ed] her head. Once again, Paul may have had in mind a woman's own physical head, but this seems unlikely. He almost certainly meant that she dishonored her husband. Many commentators have suggested that, in the Mediterranean world of Paul's day, it was customary in some circles for women of good repute to wear a veil or head covering in public, and that this practice honored husbands. While this was certainly true in some areas, there is some reason to doubt that this was the case in secular Corinth. It was, however, for reasons not entirely clear, a practice which honored husbands in the church, and which the churches of God universally practiced (11:16).
To convince dissenters of his view, Paul drew a connection between women having their heads uncovered and having their heads shaved. Wives who did not cover their heads in worship brought shame to their husbands as though their head[s] were shaved. Here Paul may have referred to the custom in the Mediterranean world of the first century that adulterous women were punished by having their heads shaved in disgrace. One can only imagine the shame this practice brought to women. If these women were married, it would also have brought dishonor to their husbands.
Consequently, Paul argued that if it is a disgrace to her husband for a woman to have her head shaved, then she should cover her head in public worship. In a culture that did not see any shame in women with uncovered heads, this would have been an ineffective argument. Paul probably felt confident arguing this way only because the church's subculture differed from the secular world on this point.
11:7a. Paul supported his views with Scripture. First, he argued that a man should not imitate a pagan head covering because he is the image and glory of God. According to Genesis, both Adam and Even were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). What then did Paul mean by saying that man is the image … of God in contrast with woman? He probably meant that Adam held a special status (glory) as God's image because he was created first. God made Adam directly from the dust, but he made Eve from Adam's body. This gave Adam and his male descendants a unique role on earth that could not be held in the same way by women (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12–13).
This perspective seems even more likely because Paul not only described man as the image of God, but also as the glory of God. Adam was not designed for his own glory, but for God's. Before making Eve, God placed Adam in the garden of God and commissioned him to work the land in his service (Gen. 2:15). In this sense, therefore, the male descendants of Adam have a more direct responsibility to serve God in the fulfillment of his creation mandate.
This special role for males does not diminish in the least the responsibilities of females. They are also made in God's image and render service to him. Even so, males are in the unique position of being the same gender as the one who first stood before God and served him. They have the serious responsibility to bring honor to God in all things, but especially in worship.
11:7b. Whereas husbands are the “glory of God,” woman is the glory of man. Paul did not mean that woman is not the glory of God, for all of creation is for the glory of God (Rom. 11:36). More likely, he meant that woman is the glory of both man and of God, and not just of God. Therefore, determining whether wives should wear head coverings was more complicated than it was for men. In fact, this was exactly the point he was trying to prove: women should wear head coverings even though men should not.
Paul called women the glory of their husbands because this is one of their unique roles in the creation order. According to Genesis 2:18,20, God created Eve to make it possible for the human race to fulfill the task originally given to Adam. For this reason Moses called Eve “a helper suitable for [Adam].” The Hebrew word helper does not mean “inferior,” but “aid” or “assistant.” It can even be used of social superiors. Moreover, the term “suitable for” means “corresponding to” or “the mirror image of.” Eve was the glory of Adam in a special way. With her joining Adam, the human race would become all God had intended it to be. Both she and Adam would receive honor as a result.
This unique role held by Eve and her married female descendants gives wives a responsibility to bring honor or glory to their husbands. As followers of Christ, all Christians must seek the good of others above their own (1 Cor. 10:24). The special relationship between wives and husbands intensifies this responsibility (for husbands too, Eph. 5:25–31). Because of this responsibility, wives must honor their husbands in public worship.
11:8–9. Paul further supported his argument that woman is the glory of man by appealing to another aspect of the creation account. He reminded his readers that man did not come from woman and that man was not created for woman. He thereby implied that husbands are not the glory of women. Instead, the woman came from man and was created for man. Because she was created from and for man, a wife is to bring glory to her husband.
11:10. At this point in Paul's argument, one might expect him to have concluded that wives ought to cover their heads in public worship. In fact, this is what the majority of the translations suggest, but it may not be precisely what he said. Paul concluded that women ought to have … authority over their heads.
This passage presents a number of difficulties. Most major translations add to the original text the words “a sign of” or “a symbol of” so that the verse reads “a sign of authority.” If this approach is correct, then it probably means that women ought to wear head coverings as symbols that they are under their husbands' authority. Generally, most interpreters prefer this option. Even if this option is correct, we must remember that head coverings were a culturally specific symbol of man's authority. Modern Christians cannot simply put veils on their wives and believe they have fulfilled the intention of Paul's teaching.
It is possible, however, that the major translations have erred by inserting the words “a sign/symbol of.” It is more in keeping with the Greek original to translate the verse “the woman ought to have authority over her head,” meaning that women ought to exercise authority over their physical heads. This understanding indicates that Paul wanted women to act responsibly and on their own in the matter of head coverings. This more literal reading is confirmed by the next statement, “However, woman is not independent of man” (11:11). This clause appears to qualify an assertion of the women's authority encouraged in 11:10.
Paul also argued that women should have a sign of authority over or on their heads because of the angels. Two interpretations of this expression are widespread. First, “angels” could refer to actual celestial creatures. The New Testament hints that churches have angels who attend to the church and represent the church to God (Rev. 2:1; 3:14). Even individuals may have such angels (Matt. 18:10). If Paul referred to these angels, then he meant that supernatural angels watched the worship in the church at Corinth to make sure this was acceptable.
Alternatively, the term angels may be translated “messengers,” referring to human messengers (Luke 9:52; Acts 12:15). If this is the correct understanding of this passage, then Paul may have referred to human messengers who reported to him. In this case, Paul warned the Corinthians to remember that their behavior in worship was monitored by people who would report to him, and that he would hold them accountable.
Paul may also have referred to messengers from other churches. Some of the churches who held to the practice of head coverings for women did so on the basis that their societies required such attire for reputable women. Paul may have been worried that the messengers would be offended, and would carry bad reports about Corinth back to their own churches. This might have become an opportunity for stumbling. The Corinthian women might have negatively influenced the behavior of other churches.
11:11–12. Paul's statements about men and women were easily misunderstood in his day, even as they are today. Thus, having affirmed the responsibilities of husbands and wives to honor their heads in worship, he feared his instructions might be taken as a complete statement on the relations of men and women. Therefore, Paul qualified what he had said.
His qualification began with the expression in the Lord, a phrase he used elsewhere to identify people in the body of Christ (Rom. 16:8; 1 Cor. 4:17). In other words, the qualifications he was about to express should always be remembered by those who serve Christ.
Without the rest of Christian teaching, some interpreters might conclude from the preceding passage that men bear no responsibility to honor their wives in worship. Others might think that wives bear no direct relationship to the Lord. Paul wanted to make clear that such assumptions had no basis in his teaching. In the Christian church, men's and women's different roles in worship must be guarded by other considerations.
Paul brought two considerations to the foreground. First, neither husbands nor wives are independent from each other. Paul restated that woman (a wife) is not independent of man (a husband), a principle evident from 11:3–10. Her authority was always meant to complement man's, so she must not think herself autonomous. Next, Paul added the corollary that man (a husband) is not independent of woman (a wife). Husbands must not think that their headship implies independence from or superiority over their wives. Their dependence on their wives qualifies their roles as heads.
To support this claim, Paul referred to the biological interdependence of men and women. To be sure, woman came from man when Eve was made from Adam's rib (see Gen. 2:22), but it is also true that man is born of woman. Every male has a mother, and this biological fact mitigates against any man's temptation to think himself free from the obligation to honor women. The principle of honoring mothers (Deut. 5:16) implies that husbands ought to have high regard and honor for their wives.
Second, lest anyone mistake his description of headship in 11:3, Paul made it clear that wives also have a relationship with God. He reminded the Corinthians that everything comes from God. In other words, the fact that Eve came from Adam's rib does not contradict the fact that God himself fashioned the first woman. To be sure, husbands have a headship role, but this role does not eliminate the need for wives to cultivate their own relationships with Christ. Wives worship and honor God directly because “there is neither … male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Moreover, this common origin implies a commonality of worship; the distinctions between the sexes in their worship roles do not imply complete separation. Both men and women must fulfill their proper roles together if worship is to be acceptable.
Cultural Considerations (11:13–16)
SUPPORTING IDEA: Paul returned to the issue of head coverings, but used a new strategy. He appealed to nature and to the common practices of the church.
11:13. This section begins with an unusual expression: judge for yourselves. By these words Paul did not encourage the Corinthians to ignore his instructions. Rather, he meant that they should not blindly obey his directives. They were to think through the issue. Paul said this because he was convinced the believers in Corinth had the ability to think properly on this issue. He hoped they would reason through issues with him and see how he came to his conclusions. In fact, since this was an area in which he knew the church was following his instructions, he probably expected the majority of his readers to agree with his position.
His direction that they judge for themselves may have been a rhetorical nudge to get the Corinthians to compare notes with one another. Paul may have wanted this statement to begin a dialogue between the Corinthians so the majority would influence the dissenters in a positive way.
Paul put the matter to them plainly, asking if it were proper for women to pray in public worship with their heads uncovered. By stating the question in terms of propriety, Paul avoided speaking directly of sin. Though some improprieties are also sin, the two are not so closely related that one absolutely must refrain from all impropriety (cf. Eph. 5:3; Heb. 2:10). Paul consciously chose to argue from what was appropriate rather than from what was righteous. He appealed to the Corinthian's own notions. Knowing their worldview, he expected strong agreement with his position.
11:14–15. This portion of Paul's argument is difficult to discern. He clearly led the Corinthians to the correct answer by posing another question, asking them to consider if it were not true that the very nature of things taught his particular view on the matter. The meaning of this question, however, is puzzling. Several explanations have been advanced, but none seems adequate.
The expression “the very nature of things” may also be translated “nature itself.” On this basis, some interpreters have argued that Paul's question was an appeal to creation ordinances. They have assumed either that Paul thought the created order demonstrated that men should have short hair and women long hair, or that he believed that God actually created men with shorter hair than women. Some have suggested (though wrongly) the latter view to have been the opinion of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, and thereby have suspected that this might have been the Corinthians' view. Given that the Old Testament says nothing about the length of hair, however, it is unlikely that Paul endorsed a particular view of hair length at the time of human origins.
Paul expected the Corinthians to recognize that men should have short hair and women long hair. He also expected them to see that the glory of women's long hair implied the propriety of women's head coverings in worship.
11:16. Paul anticipated resistance to his argument, admitting that some Corinthian believers may have wanted to be contentious about this. The term contentious means “eager to argue or fight.” Contentions could come from anyone—from men or women. Paul sought to settle the matter by appealing to the widespread practice of the church, saying, we have no other practice. This phrase may also be translated “we have no such custom.”
Some interpreters have understood Paul to say that no approved custom of arguing or contention existed in the church. It is better, however, to understand Paul as the NIV suggests. Paul meant that he and other church leaders, and the churches of God had no other practice than having women cover their heads in public worship. The widespread practice of the church should have caused dissenters at least to hesitate over their objections.
MAIN IDEA REVIEW: Paul began a discussion of yet another area of controversy and problems among the Corinthians: worship. He addressed three important subjects: the question of head coverings for women in public worship, the observance of the Lord's Supper, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit in worship.
Many details of this passage remain obscure for modern readers, but some aspects are clear. Paul instructed the Corinthian men and women to honor each other in worship. To do otherwise was to present unacceptable worship before God.
APPLICATIONS
Have you ever met someone who was just looking for an excuse to ignore the Bible? Well, here is one of the most overlooked chapters in the New Testament. “That's just a cultural thing,” we tell ourselves. “We don't have to take this part of the New Testament seriously.”
As we have seen in the comments above, this chapter speaks from deep within the framework of Corinthian culture. As a result, its specific teachings are oriented toward the Corinthian situation. Nevertheless, when we dismiss this chapter as merely cultural, we lose sight of its abiding and universal principles.
It is important for modern Christians to distinguish between the principles Paul espoused here and the applications of those principles to the Mediterranean culture. The apostle was concerned that men honor Christ and that wives honor their husbands by their behavior in public worship. We should follow that principle in all places and times. Yet, Paul chose this particular application of the principle because head coverings had specific significance in the culture he addressed.
Paul sought to apply the gospel to each culture (1 Cor. 9:19–23). In imitating Paul, we should not mimic precisely what he or the Corinthians were supposed to do in their cultural settings. Rather, the Christian must find ways to express in his behavior the principles Paul endorsed here. Men must avoid the practices of other religions in Christian public worship today and always, for they will dishonor Christ if they do not. Similarly, women must find ways to express honor for their husbands as they worship.
Beyond the specific issues Paul addressed, we can learn several things about the roles of men and women from this passage. First, Paul did not introduce the issue of headship in order to tell women that they should submit to their husbands. Some have interpreted this passage as teaching that a man's authority over his wife is equal to Christ's authority over the church: absolute. Obviously, similarities exist between Christ's headship over the church and husbands' headship over their wives. But Paul did not teach that the similarities ran so deeply. Rather, he taught that “in the Lord” husbands and wives are interdependent. In fact, he did not introduce the subject to give husbands confidence to assert power over their wives, but to encourage both men and women to honor Christ, husbands, and the church in their worship.
We should also recognize that women are not second-class citizens in the church. They have certain God-given authority to govern themselves in worship. Just like single women, wives have direct relationships with Christ, not relationships mediated through their husbands. Women also have the freedom to pray and prophesy in church. While Paul taught that women should not hold ordained positions (1 Tim. 2:11–12), he expected them to take active roles in public worship. He required that they do it in ways that honored their Lord, their husbands, and the church's reputation.
Lord Jesus, we are people who love to worship you while we ignore the needs and honor of other people. Grant us grace to see how you want all of us, men and women, young and old, to worship you in ways that honor you and those around us. Amen.
A. Women with Uncovered Heads (11:5)
Many artifacts recovered from the Corinth of Paul's day—including figurines, statues, and coins—present women without veils or head coverings. One may speculate on this basis that bareheadedness was not a sign of a socially disapproved lifestyle in Corinth. None of these artifacts, however, shows women engaged in religious activity.
In contrast to this, Dio Chrysostom (A.D. 40–about 120), writing to Paul's hometown Tarsus shortly after Paul's day, suggested that in public women veiled themselves completely, such that they could not see. It may be that Paul came from a culture (Tarsus) in which dishonor attached to women who did not veil themselves in public, but wrote to a church in a culture that did not share this view. While many women may have worn veils in public worship according to the custom of the church, some preferring Corinth's practices may have stopped wearing veils.
B. Women with Shaved Heads (11:5)
Dio Chrysostom indicated that a woman's shaved head might indicate adultery and prostitution prior to Paul's time, while Lucian indicated that after Paul's time it may have been a mark of lesbianism. Lucian also associated short hair with a potentially adulterous woman. Beyond this, the Bible seems to indicate that shaving a woman's head was dishonorable or humbling (Deut. 21:12–14), though without reference to adultery or prostitution.
C. A Sign of Authority (11:10)
The Greek text literally says that a woman ought to have “authority (exousia) on/over (epi) her head.” The NIV inserts the words “a sign of” because it assumes Paul is speaking about a head covering that represents authority. While epi often means “on” or “upon,” the evidence from Greek usage elsewhere in the Bible suggests that epi when used after exousia refers to the realm in which authority is possessed (i.e., “authority on earth,” Luke 5:24), or to the thing over which authority is possessed (Rev. 2:26). The grammatical evidence suggests that Paul meant that women ought to exercise authority over their own heads.
D. Long Hair on Men (11:14)
Contrary to popular myth, the evidence from Greek philosophy of Paul's day is that nature did not teach that long hair on men was disgraceful. Epictetus is often cited as proof that nature distinguished men from women by giving men beards (Epictetus 1.16.9–14). In fact, Epictetus himself probably wore long hair (Epictetus 4.8.5). Evidence from Dio Chyrsostom concurs that no stigmas attached to men with long hair, whether from culture, religion, philosophy, or the natural world.
A. INTRODUCTION
B. COMMENTARY
C. CONCLUSION: LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE
Words of Praise (11:2)
The Divine Order (11:3)