Veiling the Head (11:2–16)

After talking about the way Christians relate to the pagan festivals and cult practices of the Roman colony, Paul now turns to how Christian fellowship operates; in particular, he emphasizes points that will make it distinctive as a community.

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you (11:2). Praise was a feature of elite society, and so Paul is using language to which the Corinthians can respond. He refers to teachings that have been “passed … on” (lit., “handed down”), that is to say, “traditions.” They are, of course, traditions that carry the weight of an apostle. Presumably some of the issues Paul goes on to address in chapter 11 are ones that had not arisen during his time in the colony.

The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God (11:3). The words “man” and “woman” can also be translated as “husband” and “wife.” The choice of the word “head” (kephalē) seems to indicate that Paul has a hierarchical structure in mind. Although the Liddell, Scott, and Jones’ Greek Lexicon allows the possibility of the translation “source,” this has been disputed.108 The thinking behind Paul’s metaphor is not obvious.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head (11:4). The covering of the man’s head—called the capite velato—was commonplace in a Roman religious cult. One explanation was that it helped to reduce the noise of the animals being sacrificed (see “Roman Portraits”). The statue of Augustus displayed at Corinth showed the emperor with his head covered; similar iconography is found on the frieze of the Ara Pacis (“Altar of Peace”) that he dedicated at Rome. The social elite took an active part in the religious cults of the city by serving as priests, and thus those who had joined the church may have introduced this Roman cultural norm into Christian worship. Thus, Christian worship was expressing not that all were one in Christ but the social divisions of secular society. Praying with a covered head drew attention to the man’s place in Roman society, whereas in Christian worship the focus should be on Christ.

ARA PACIS IN ROME

Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head (11:5). Notice that Paul clearly envisages that women should be involved in prayer and prophecy in the fellowship. The hairstyles of the women in the imperial family at Rome tended to set the trends for women in the rest of the empire. It is clear from portraits on coins and in sculpture that women’s hair in the middle of the first century A.D. tended to be worn longer than under Augustus. Agrippina the Younger, the wife of the emperor Claudius, and the mother of the future emperor Nero (from a previous marriage), adopted a hairstyle where “the hair is braided and gathered into a long loop; two long strands of curled hair fall at either side of the neck.”109 The covering of the head is an emblem found in sculptural representation in the late republic and under Augustus, where the palla is pulled up over the top of the head. This became an emblem for modesty and chastity.110 Presumably women who felt able to uncover their heads were considered immodest, unchaste, and therefore by definition un-Roman.

It is just as though her head were shaved (11:5). A shaved head could be equated with shame for a women. There is some evidence that shaving was a punishment for adultery.111

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head (11:6). Failing to cover a woman’s head was dishonoring to her husband. A woman would cover her head when she was married.112 Thus if “woman” is translated as “wife” (see comments on 11:3), immodest dress would reflect badly on her marriage and therefore her husband.

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man (11:7). Paul uses an illustration from creation to discuss the role of the man (or husband): “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him” (Gen. 1:27a). The woman’s role is seen in relation to her husband: “A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown” (Prov. 12:4a).

CAESAR AUGUSTUS

A bust of the emperor from the Corinth museum.

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man (11:8–9). Paul follows the order of creation in Genesis 2:23b: “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” Paul has moved away from social conventions to a theological reason for the wife to reflect respect for her husband.

Because of the angels (11:10). It is not immediately clear what Paul means here. He may be developing an idea, noted at Qumran, that angels participated in worship. Perhaps Paul has in mind that Christians, men and women, will one day “judge angels” (6:3).

The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head (11:10). The sign of authority may be an allusion to the veil a Roman woman might use to cover her head.

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman (11:11). This develops the idea in Christian marriage that there is mutual respect (see comments on 7:4). This is in contrast with the status of a Roman wife, whose identity was entirely bound up with that of her husband.

As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God (11:12). Paul states an important principle that both men and women ultimately come from God.

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him (11:14). Nature (physis) was thought to be the determining factor in the way society expressed itself. Long hair for men was unusual in ancient society. It was common in the representation of the deities Apollo and Dionysos (Bacchus), but not for other gods. Men were expected to wear their hair short.

If a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering (11:15). Portraits of women, and in particular female members of the imperial family, show that their hair was carefully braided and arranged.113

Divisions at the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34)

Paul moves from issues of dress and status in the gatherings of the people of God at Corinth to issues of much more pressing importance.

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good (11:17). Paul contrasts the praise for the Corinthian Christians over holding onto the teaching he has communicated to them (11:2) with a refusal to praise them for their actions at the Lord’s Supper.

When you come together as a church, there are divisions among you (11:18). Paul has already noted the divisions within the church (1:10), but here they are manifest when the church comes together. The word Paul uses to describe the church (ekklēsia) is the same one that was commonly used in Greek cities for describing the political body.114 The political assembly was where oratorical skills could be displayed, sometimes with the goal of creating factions and divisions to further civic or political ends. Perhaps the Corinthian Christians thought that the politicking of the citizen body in Corinth was a role model for their own assembly. The church met as a body in a house of one of its members, such as the house of Gaius (Rom. 16:23).

To some extent I believe it (11:18). Earlier in the letter Paul made it clear that he knows about the divisions because of the reports he received from “Chloe’s household” (1:11). Now it appears that Paul is only partially informed. The clause can in fact also be translated as “and I believe a certain report.”115 This “report” (translating the Greek word meros) would be the one from Chloe’s household.

There have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval (11:19). Those who wave “God’s approval” are in fact those who have passed the “examination” or “test.” Such a “test” reappears in 2 Corinthians 2:9: “The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything.” The “test,” and thereby “God’s approval,” is adherence to Paul’s teaching as an apostle. The implication is that within the Corinthian church there are some who do not accept Paul’s apostolic authority. It has been argued that the group separating themselves from the rest may in fact be the social elite.116

When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else (11:20–21). The Greek phrase implies that either some at the Lord’s Supper start eating before anybody has had a chance, or that some have brought their own meals along and do not share them. The implication for the Lord’s Supper is that while some members of the Christian community dine rather well—some even get drunk—others have nothing to eat. Clearly there are some who have brought food and others who have none to bring.

The “Lord’s Supper” refers to the meal that commemorates the supper Jesus ate with his disciples in the Upper Room in Jerusalem before his arrest. Luke refers to the Christians at Troas (Troy) in northwestern Turkey coming together “to break bread” on the first day of the week (i.e., Sunday) (Acts 20:7). The fact that Jesus asked his disciples to have such a meal “in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19) seems to have led to the creation of a regular gathering of Christian disciples that included a meal known as “the Lord’s Supper,” where the events and significance of Christ’s death on the cross could be recalled.117

Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! (11:22). Paul now asks some searching questions of the Corinthian Christians. Those bringing their own food (and wine) to the Lord’s Supper and treating it like one of the banquets common in the city118 have their own homes. The Greek word oikia (“house, home”) can be translated “household”; it may reflect the fact that those abusing the Lord’s Supper are part of the social elite of the colony who are accustomed to hosting lavish banquets in their villas. Paul is critical of those who have been despising those who “have nothing” (lit., the “have nots”). These “have nots” may represent the urban poor of the Roman colony who had not fallen under the patronage of the leading families of the city. Such patronage was a common feature of Roman society. If Paul was writing at a time of food shortage in the colony—“the present crisis” (7:26)—some in the church may have been facing starvation. In contrast, some of the wealthy may have had estates across Greece—some of the wealthy Corinthians came from Sparta, and another is recorded as having grazing rights on the Methana peninsula in the Saronic gulf—and would have been cushioned from crop failures or drought in a specific area.

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you (11:23). Paul now recounts the story of the Last Supper on the night of Jesus’ arrest in Jerusalem. It affirms that at this early stage the Christian church had formulated an account of the events of that night as it gave meaning to the act of holding a Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of that event. Paul’s version of the events is similar to that which appears in Luke’s account:

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor. 11:23–25)

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Luke 22:19–20)

The covenant recalls the Exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt, marked by the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood of the lambs (Ex. 12), but it also looks back to the original covenant made with Abraham, who would be a blessing for all people (Gen. 12:2–3). The “new covenant” picks up on the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer. 31:31), when the Lord says that he “will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts” (31:33). This “new covenant” was important to the early church as seen by the discussion in the letter to the Hebrews (Heb. 8:8).

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you (11:23). Paul is alluding either to receiving this teaching as part of the revelation of Jesus Christ as he made his way to Damascus, or through subsequent teaching (by the apostles) at Jerusalem.

The Lord Jesus … took bread, when he had given thanks (11:23–24). The common Jewish form of blessing was, “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.”119

This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me (11:24). During the Passover meal, the person presiding at the meal would take up the unleavened bread—the “bread of affliction” (Deut. 16:3)—and make a statement about it, recalling the Exodus from Egypt. Although the words used at the Passover in the first century A.D. are not known, a later common formula was, “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt; let all who are hungry come and eat.”120 Jesus as president of this Passover meal thus transformed the words and applied them to himself. The act of remembrance at the Passover of the Exodus was now applied to the exodus of Jesus, “which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31).

This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me (11:25). The cup referred to here is likely the “cup of blessing” that came in the Passover meal. The words used evoked the words of Moses: “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you” (Ex. 24:8).

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (11:26). Christ’s death on the cross was a selfless act. Those members of the Corinthian church who abuse the Lord’s Supper by bringing their own food and allow fellow Christians to starve in their very presence can be considered as selfish.

Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord (11:27). Paul places the focus of the actions of the Lord’s Supper on our attitudes toward those who share the meal together. The wealthy elite, who place such an emphasis on worth and status, are being accused of having the unenviable attribute of being “unworthy.”

A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup (11:28). The examination looks back to attitudes toward divisions within the church and toward those less well off in the Christian community.

Anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself (11:29). The “judgment” is in fact the (guilty) verdict passed down by a judge at a trial. This emphasizes the seriousness with which believers should treat the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep (11:30). Illness in the Christian community is seen here as perhaps a consequence of wrongdoing, in the way that the Jews were judged during their exodus from Egypt. This may indicate the presence of a number of people familiar with the Old Testament in the Christian community at Corinth. “Fallen asleep” refers to the death of believing Christians (cf. 1 Thess. 4:14–15).

But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world (11:31–32). The gods of the pagan world had to be appeased in order to avert evil; the Roman writer Pausanias noted a temple in the agora at Athens dedicated to Apollo Alexikakos (“Averter of Evil”), the god perceived as bringing the late fifth-century B.C. plague in the city under control (Pausanias, Descr. 1.3.4). Piety toward the gods was a possible route to an untroubled life; Paul presents the Lord’s judgement in contrast to that generally accepted in the ancient world.

When you come together to eat, wait for each other (11:33). The phrase “wait for each other” can also mean that the Corinthian Christians should share their food together, thus avoiding the situation of some who eat well and some who have no food at all.

If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment (11:34). Food shortages, not famines, were a major feature of the ancient world.121 This was especially true of large urban populations, and a number of riots are known at Rome. Emperor Claudius is even said to have been pelted with hunks of bread in the Forum at Rome.122 Such a food shortage may lie behind the “present crisis” mentioned in 7:26.

CORINTH

The Propylaia in the Roman forum with the Acrocorinth in the background.

When I come I will give further directions (11:34). Paul anticipates his own visit, which is briefly described in Acts 20:2–3. His stay in “Greece” (i.e., the province of Achaia as opposed to Macedonia) lasted three months, and Corinth is likely to have been one of the main centers.