1 Corinthians 11:1

1 COR. 11

This and the following three chapters are usually construed as Paul's corrective admonition regarding the "worship services"; but since the first paragraph (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) undoubtedly refers to social customs, there being even some doubt of its application to any worship service whatever, there is no need for adherence to such an outline. Throughout this epistle, the apostle Paul dealt with miscellaneous church conditions and disorders, making it nearly impossible to fit the epistle into any form of classical outline.

The first paragraph regards the veiling of women (1 Corinthians 11:1-16), and the second teaches concerning the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34).

REGARDING THE VEILING OF WOMEN

Paul's teaching here is the basis of diametrically opposed views, Lipscomb holding that "Whether the woman prays in the closet at home, or in the assembly, she should approach God with the tokens of her subjection to man on her head."[1] Johnson limited the ruling to the worship meeting, saying, "This alone is in view."[2] He interpreted the words here as "Paul's ruling that women must cover their heads during the meeting."[3] This writer admires and respects the immortal Lipscomb; but, in his comment above, the words "tokens of her subjection to man" betray a basic misunderstanding of this difficult passage. If Paul really meant that women should be veiled, then no fancy little hat will do it. This student of the Scriptures is adamantly opposed to tokenism and would just as soon accept "token baptism" as a "token veil." As Marsh said:

One thing is certain; within the context of our contemporary culture, the modern western hat - decorative, attractive, and often obstructive - cannot be said to compare with the veil, either in appearance, function or purpose.[4]

As McGarvey said, "In western countries a woman's hat has never had any symbolism whatever."[5] The notion that any kind of hat, in the modern sense of that word, can in any manner be construed as a "token veil" is founded in neither reason nor Scripture; and to get that simple fact in focus is to go a long way to understanding this subject.

Eldred Echols, Professor of Bible, South Africa Bible School, Benoni, South Africa, summed up an extensive study of this problem by the Bible faculty with the following conclusion:

The dogmatic position that 1 Corinthians 11 requires a woman to wear a hat at a religious service is linguistically and historically impossible. To enjoin it as an obligation upon Christian women is dangerously presumptive, since it is not based upon Biblical authority. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason why any Christian woman should not wear a hat at church or elsewhere if she wishes to do so. Nevertheless, she should not be deceived into imagining that her hat has any bearing upon first century doctrine or practice.[6]

References to key words in the exegesis below will further elaborate the facts supporting Echols' conclusion. This writer wholeheartedly concurs in this conclusion and also with that of McGarvey who wrote: "The problem in western assemblies is how best to persuade women to take their hats off, not how to prevail upon them to keep them on!"[7]

"Drawings in the catacombs do not bear out the assumption that Christian women wore veils at services in the early church."[8] The extensive art of the Middle Ages, however, invariably portrays the women as fully veiled; but, of course, this was derived largely from the Roman Catholic culture of that era. In fact that culture may be viewed as the source of the custom of wearing hats (by women) in church services in the present times, the same having been accepted in Reformation and post-Reformation times without critical reappraisal because more urgent issues commanded the attention of scholars.

Despite the conclusion accepted by this commentator to the effect that Paul does not here require women to wear hats at church, it is felt that Barclay went much too far in saying that "This is one of these passages which have a purely local and temporary significance."[9] On the contrary, Paul's teaching here is invaluable and relevant to all generations with regard to the Christian's relation to the culture in which he lives.

Before proceeding to a line-by-line study of this paragraph, one other colossal fact should be noted, that being the word "custom" which appears in 1 Corinthians 11:16, at the end of the paragraph. Paul did a similar thing in Romans 8:1, where the word "now" flies like a banner, demanding that the antithesis "then" be understood as a description of what he treated in Romans 7. See my Commentary on Romans, pp. 262,263, 278. The word "custom" as used in 1 Corinthians 11:16 clearly identifies the subject under consideration in this paragraph as the customs of the times, and not as an apostolic treatise on what either men or women should wear in religious services, except in the degree that the one had a bearing upon the other. Sex differentiation as indicated by hair-length is outlined; and it is hair, not clothes, of which Paul spoke:

[1] David Lipscomb, Commentary on 1Corinthians (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1935), p. 167.

[2] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 622.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Paul W. Marsh, A New Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 397.

[5] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on 1Corinthians (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 113.

[6] Eldred Echols, a private manuscript circulated throughout the area of Benoni, South Africa by the faculty of the Bible School. Other references to this will be attributed to Eldred Echols. This writer is indebted to John H. Banister, Dallas, Texas, for this manuscript.

[7] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 113.

[8] Eldred Echols

[9] William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), p. 107.

1 Corinthians 11:1 was discussed at the end of 1 Corinthians 10.