1 Coríntios 11
J. Vernon McGee · Citado em PreceptAustin
1 Coríntios 11
Vernon McGee - Someone is probably saying, “Do you mean to say that God is giving instructions regarding trivialities like a woman’s dress? Certainly God cannot be concerned with what a woman wears or whether a man gets a hair cut!” Well, the Bible makes it clear that God is interested in what we are wearing and how we fix our hair. God says, “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matt. 10:30). This idea that only your hairdresser knows is not true; God knows, my friend. He has a great deal to say about these and related subjects. The most intimate details of our lives are under His inspection. There is probably no single item that takes up more space in newspapers, magazines, radio time, and television time than what men and women wear. The Word of God has some things to say about that, too. Paul offers praise here but in 1 Cor 11:17 says "But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together (LORD'S SUPPER) not for the better but for the worse."because the principles of Christian liberty and brotherhood had been unsatisfactorily put into practice! Now I praise you because you remember me in everything - Remember is perfect tense indicating they heard in the past and were still in a state or condition of remembering what he had taught them (cf. 1 Cor 4:17; 1 Cor 15:1–4). "Perfect indicates that the Corinthians remembered continually" (Grosheide) It is surprising Paul would encourage them in this way as earlier he said he "could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ." (1 Cor 3:1-3+) Some writers think he was being sarcastic (cf 1 Cor 4:8), but I think he was sincere and seeking to be encouraging (before he "lowered the boom"). Affirming words (if one can find something to affirm and praise) are always good to prepared for disciplining words. It is one thing to remember, but it is another thing to put into practice what you remember. I have many "memory verses" but sadly many times I fail to practice the truth of those verses! (which always painfully recalls Jesus' warning in Lk 12:48b+!) These Corinthians apparently knew doctrine, but failed to live out the truth they knew! Orthodoxy without orthopraxy so to speak! (THOUGHT - Do we see this in the evangelical church in America? Just asking!) In everything would include his instruction about the Lord's Supper, truth he had "delivered" to them (1 Cor 11:23+). There the context is he did not praise them, for although they had been taught, they failed to practice what Paul had delivered to them! Schreiner - The introduction represents captatio benevolentiae which was a typical way of gaining the goodwill of hearers or readers in the Graeco-Roman world. Thus, the word everything is clearly hyperbolic, particularly because Paul specifically says he cannot praise them when it comes to their behaviour at the Lord’s Supper (11:17, 22). (TNTC-1 Cor) Praise (1867)(epaineo from epí = upon or intensifies meaning of + aínos = praise) is literally to bestow "praise upon" -- to commend, to praise, or approbate (formally or officially approve). In classical Greek the verb epaineō means to approve, sanction, to praise, give a public mark of esteem. To praise in a fitting (apt) manner as appropriate or adequate to the situation. In the spirit of the OT, this word for praise involves commending God for himself, his qualities, and his works. This word is also used in commending people. Excitingly, we learn that God will commend believers for faithful service. Now in this context God is clearly not commending the man's dishonesty. It is a man (the master) who knows business commending the slick acumen of his manager. Epaineo - 6x in 5v - praise(5), praised(1). - Lk. 16:8; Ro 15:11; 1 Co. 11:2; 1 Co. 11:17; 1 Co. 11:22. Note that of these verses the verb appears only once in relation to God (Romans 15:11). In the other four verses it refers to man’s praise or commendation of man. Remember (3403)(mimnesko) means to bring to mind or think of again. It means to keep in mind for attention or consideration. Most of the NT uses convey this sense of recalling information from memory. In Acts 10:31+ (Rev 16:19+) the idea of mimnesko is to think of and call attention to someone or some thing and to make mention of. The dying thief asked Jesus to keep him in mind when He came into His Kingdom (So what did the thief believe? That Jesus would die but would rise again and live to rule. He believed Jesus was the King!). (Lk 23:42+) He was asking Jesus to be concerned about him or to think of him. This is the only use of mimnesko in the Corinthian letters. And (present tense - continually) hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you - The traditions which Paul and the apostles delivered to the church were not the traditions of men (Mt. 15:2–6; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8), rather they were the doctrines which were inspired of God (cf 2 Th 2:15). The idea of delivered is to deliver over with a sense of close personal involvement and concern which is how Paul "delivered" the precepts to the Corinthians! Paul had a similar use of paradidomi in 1 Cor 15:3+ referring to his personal transmission or passing on of traditional instruction to the saints at Corinth. Paul is saying that he brought authoritative teaching, not something of his own origination. He did not design it, he only delivered what God had authored. Paul will use this same verb again in 1 Cor 11:23+ writing "also delivered to (paradidomi) you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread." Writing to the Galatians Paul explained that these "traditions" were not the traditions of men but of God writing that "For I neither received (paralambano) it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12+) As Paul wrote earlier "it is required of stewards (oikonomos) that one be found trustworthy (pistos)" (1 Cor 4:2+) and Paul was a faithful steward who had delivered these traditions to the saints at Corinth. Hold firmly is used by Jesus in those who hold the seed of the Gospel declaring "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." (Luke 8:15+) Later in this letter Paul uses katecho again referring to the Gospel "by which also you are saved, if you (present tense - continually) hold fast (katecho ) the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain," (1 Cor 15:2+) and there refers to adhering firmly to traditions, convictions, or beliefs (in context the Gospel). Note that our salvation is kept by Christ’s holding us fast, not primarily by our holding Him fast. Our holding onto Him is evidence that He is holding onto us (cf Heb 3:6+, Heb 3:14+)!
1 Coríntios 11
Vernon McGee - I realize full well that there are people today who like to emphasize the middle statement: “the head of the woman is the man.” But, my friend, when you put all these statements together, you don’t come up with a lopsided viewpoint. Paul is putting down another great principle here: This is authority for the sake of order, to eliminate confusion. This principle is important in the church as well as the home. Several years ago a pastor was having trouble in his church, and I asked him what the problem was. He said it was that he had too many chiefs and not enough Indians—everyone wanted to be a leader. Today we find churches which have courses in leadership training. I’d like to know where you find that in the Bible. There are organizations which exist solely for the purpose of training young people to be public speakers. Paul says we are to “study to be quiet” (1 Thess. 4:11). I wish we could put the emphasis where the Bible puts it. We don’t need all this leadership training. We need folk who will act and live like Christians. That is the important thing. The important word here is head. “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” The head is that portion of the body that gives the direction. This verse does not say that the head of every Christian man is Christ. The word man is generic—it is a general item. It says the head of every man is Christ. It is the normal and correct order for Christ to be the head of every man. Until a man is mastered by Christ, he is not a normal man. Some men are mastered by drink; some are mastered by passion; most are mastered by the flesh. Every man should be mastered by Christ. Augustine said, “The heart of man is restless until it finds its rest in thee” (Confessions, Bk. 1, sec. 1). The heart of man is restless until he makes Christ the head. Men who have accomplished great things for God have done this. I think of Martin Luther and Wilberforce and Augustine who were profligate until they were mastered by Christ. I hear it said of a man today, “He is a Christian man.” Is he mastered by Christ? That is the important thing, and that is what Paul is saying. “The head of the woman is man”—there is no article in the Greek, it is not the man. Notice it is not every woman; it is not an absolute. It refers to marriage where the woman is to respond to the man. It is normal for the woman to be subject to the man in marriage. If a woman cannot look up to a man and respect him, she ought not to follow him and surely ought not to marry him. But a real woman responds with every fiber of her being to the man she loves. He, in turn, must be the man who is willing to die for her—“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). Dr. G. Campbell Morgan told about a friend of his and his wife’s who was a very brilliant woman. She had a strong personality, was an outstanding person, and was not married. He asked her one day the pointed question, “Why have you never married?” Her answer was, “I have never found a man who could master me.” So she never married. May I say that until a woman finds that man, she would make a mistake to get married. If she marries a Mr. Milquetoast, she will be in trouble from that day on. “The head of Christ is God.” There is a great mystery here. Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), but He also said, “… for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). In the work of redemption, He voluntarily took a lower place and was made lower than the angels. He walked a lowly path down here. We are admonished, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:5–7). Now Paul is going to apply this principle of headship to the situation in Corinth. An unveiled woman in Corinth was a prostitute. The situation in your church or in your community may be different than it was in Corinth, but there is a principle here and it still applies today. Question: "How can there be subordination / hierarchy in the Trinity?" Answer: It may sound strange to speak of subordination within the Trinity. After all, Jesus and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Subordination makes us think of a lower rank or a subservient position. To understand how there can be subordination in the Trinity, it is important to understand that there are different types of subordination. The biblical or orthodox view of the triune nature of God acknowledges an economic subordination in the Trinity but denies the heretical view of an ontological subordination. What does this mean? Simply that all three Persons of the Godhead are equal in nature. God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit all have the same divine nature and divine attributes. Contrary to the teaching of many cults, there is no ontological subordination (no difference in the nature of the three Persons of the Godhead). This means that the Trinity is not comprised of greater and lesser gods; rather, there is one God existing eternally in three co-equal Persons. What the Bible does teach is an economic (or relational) subordination within the Trinity. The three Persons of the triune Godhead voluntarily submit to each other respecting the roles They perform in creation and salvation. So, the Father sent the Son into the world (1 John 4:10). These roles are never reversed in Scripture: the Son never sends the Father. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus and “proceeds from the Father” to testify of Christ (John 14:26; 15:26). And Jesus perfectly submitted His will to the Father’s (Luke 22:42; Hebrews 10:7). Economic or relational subordination is simply a term to describe the relationship that exists among God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Essentially, economic subordination within the Trinity refers to what God does while ontological subordination refers to who God is. Biblically, all three Persons of the Trinity have the same essence, nature, and glory, but each One has different roles or activities when it comes to how God relates to the world. For example, our salvation is based on the Father’s power and love (John 3:16; 10:29), the Son’s death and resurrection (1 John 2:2; Ephesians 2:6), and the Spirit’s regeneration and seal (Ephesians 4:30; Titus 3:5). The different tasks that we see the Father, Son, and Spirit perform are the result of the eternal relationship that exists among the Persons of the Trinity. The issue of subordination within the Trinity is nuanced, and the distinction between ontological and economic subordination is fine indeed. Theologians within Christian orthodoxy continue to debate the limits of subordination and its relation to the Incarnation of Christ. Such discussions are profitable as we study the Scriptures and think through the truth about the nature of God. GotQuestions.org 1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. ICC (Robertson) ‘Every man, whether married or unmarried, who has any covering on his head when he publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours his head: Amplified Any man who prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, and comforts) with his head covered dishonors his Head (Christ).
1 Coríntios 11
Vernon McGee - The rabbis of that day taught that a man was to cover his head. Paul says that they actually misinterpreted Moses and the reason for the veil. “And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished” (2 Cor. 3:13). This refers to an experience Moses had when he came down from the mount where he had communed with God. When he first came down, the skin of his face shone, but after awhile that glory began to disappear. Therefore, he covered his face so they wouldn’t discover the glory was disappearing (see Exod. 34:33–35). Paul is saying to the men that they ought not to cover their heads. A man created in the image of God, who is in Christ by redemption, is to have his head uncovered as a symbol of dignity and of liberty. He is not to be covered when he prays or when he prophesies. When he is praying, he is speaking for man to God, making intercession. When he is prophesying, he is speaking for God to man. Whenever he is standing in these two sacred, holy positions he is to have his head uncovered. Disgraces (puts to shame) (2617)(kataischuno from kata = down but here intensifies meaning of verb aischuno = to shame) means primarily to put to shame, to humiliate, to disgrace. In Greek culture, the focus was not on the objective consequences of actions but on the feeling of shame that might come with exposure of shameful deeds to others. NIDNTT writes that "The root aisch- refers originally to that which is ugly and disgraceful. Aischuno (Homer onwards) thus meant originally to disfigure, make ugly. Kataischuno - 12v - Lk. 13:17; Rom. 5:5; Rom. 9:33; Rom. 10:11; 1 Co. 1:27; 1 Co. 11:4; 1 Co. 11:5; 1 Co. 11:22; 2 Co. 7:14; 2 Co. 9:4; 1 Pet. 2:6; 1 Pet. 3:16 1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. Amplified And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved.
1 Coríntios 11
Vernon McGee - They had a women’s liberation movement going in Corinth centuries ago, and it was going in the wrong direction. Paul says that the man should have his head uncovered but that the woman should have her head covered. I want you to note that it says “every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,” which means that a woman can pray in public and it means she can speak in public. Folk who maintain that the Bible says a woman cannot do these things are entirely wrong. The woman has the right to do these things if God has given her that gift. Some women have the gift. I know several women today who are outstanding Bible teachers. They can out-teach any man. One preacher told me this very candidly, “My wife is a much better Bible teacher than I am.” An officer of the church said they would much rather hear her speak than hear him speak. She had the gift of teaching. Keith Krell - For a woman to have her head uncovered in mixed company could catch the eyes of men; as it were, she was offering innuendoes of attraction, which in a worship setting could easily distract some from true worship. Can that happen today? Most certainly, for just as in the ancient world, so today women can dress provocatively. But worship is not the time to dwell on male-female attractiveness; worship is the time to focus on God and His Word.26 Thus, women have a responsibility before both God and men to dress modestly and not attract unnecessary attention to themselves. Practically speaking, this responsibility is to be shared in the family unit. A husband needs to inform his wife if her attire is immodest. A wife needs to seek her husband’s opinion. Any father worth his salt should be able to tell his daughter to go back in and change her clothes. A godly daughter should want to dress in such a way that her father is pleased. (I know I’m being idealistic.) Older women in the church should help younger women dress with modesty and discretion (Titus 2:3-5). Women need to be reminded to dress with respect at all times, but especially when they come to worship the Lord. Now, men, I can’t let you off the hook either. We are responsible to vigilantly guard our minds during worship and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:5). We all attend church to worship God not to eyeball the opposite sex. Therefore, we all need to do our part and seek to honor one another. Keith Krell The question that begs to be answered is: Must a Christian woman cover her head in church meetings today? I do not believe this is how Paul would have us understand this passage. What is normative and what is cultural? Well, when women go out in public today in Olympia without wearing a head covering, is that a sign of rebellion against their husbands? Hardly, except for the strictest Muslims. I suggest that the head covering is merely cultural, while honor and submission is the normative principle. Believer's Study Bible - Paul insists that women who pray or prophesy in the church do so with covered heads. The rationale is as follows: (1) The covered head was the symbol of a woman's submission to her own husband. (2) To fail to acknowledge publicly this headship was a disgrace of such magnitude as to be equal to having a shorn head, which in antiquity was the symbol of a shameless, dishonored woman (1 Cor 11:6). In the presence of ministering angels, who were attendant upon gatherings of the church, women were to demonstrate their submission to their respective husbands by wearing "authority," which was symbolized by a head-covering (1 Cor 11:10). (3) This practice was based upon the prior creation of man, who then is in the image of God in terms of authority. On the other hand, the woman was created for the man (1 Cor 11:8). The passage reflects no antagonism toward women. This text, and indeed the entire corpus of Scripture, affirms the essential equality of men and women. Subordination on the woman's part is of a functional nature in her divinely assigned role. Her example in this functional submission is none other than Christ Himself (1 Cor 11:4). Paul is making every attempt to protect the status of women in their relationship to their own husbands as God intended. Charles Hodge - The veils worn by Grecian women were of different kinds. One, and perhaps the most common, was the peplum, or mantle, which in public was thrown over the head, and enveloped the whole person. The other was more in the fashion of the common eastern veil which covered the face, with the exception of the eyes. In one form or other, the custom was universal for all respectable women to appear veiled in public.—The apostle therefore says, that a woman who speaks in public with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head. Here ἑαυτῆς is used, her own head; not her husband, but herself. This is plain, not only from the force of the words, but from the next clause, for that is even all one as if she were shaven. This is the reason why she disgraces herself. She puts herself in the same class with women whose hair has been cut off. Cutting off the hair, which is the principal natural ornament of women, was either a sign of grief, Deut. 21:12, or a disgraceful punishment. The literal translation of this clause is: she is one and the same thing with one who is shaven. She assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman. Uncovered (177)(akatakaluptos from a + katakalupto - covered) unconvered, unveiled. Only in 1 Cor 11:5, 13. Gilbrant has a lengthy note - Classical usage is varied. For example, Polybius described how some individuals took a certain woman named Danae, dragging her akatakalupton from the temple (15.27.2). Here the word means “unveiled,” and implies an element of shame (Walbank, Historical Commentary, 2:489), an idea clearly found in 1 Corinthians 11. Furthermore, in its single appearance in the Septuagint the word akatakaluptos can mean “uncovered,” i.e., with a bare head (Leviticus 13:45). In addition, Philo uses akatakaluptos to describe a woman being tested for adultery (De Specialibus Legibus 3.60). Here, the word must mean bareheaded since earlier in the account her head covering had been removed (3.56). Akatakaluptos is rarely used in Scripture. First Corinthians 11:5,13 are the only occurrences of akatakaluptos in the New Testament. Here it is in connection with the issue of women’s veils or coverings. It is found within a context that is very difficult to explain. Since this is so, it would obviously be quite impossible to determine the exact meaning of akatakaluptos from such a context. What is clear, however, is that Paul stated as a definite rule for worship services, that women should cover their heads, while men should leave their heads uncovered. What is the “covering” referred to here? Essentially two divergent views exist: (1) that it is a veil or shawl upon the head; (2) that it refers to a hair style and acceptable hair length. The first view holds to the traditional concept, going back to the early church fathers. As far back as Tertullian and Cyprian (ca. A.D. 200 –250), the teaching prevailed that all Christian women in many parts of the Church in the East were to be veiled, and that married women in the West were also to be veiled. During the entire Christian Era the accepted view has been that Paul was commanding women to cover their heads with a veil or shawl in worship services. The context of 1 Corinthians 11 explains that it is shameful for a man to wear long hair and for a woman to wear it short. Paul dramatically reinforced this idea saying that for a woman not to wear a veil was as degrading as having her hair shaved off! Contrary to what some have said, Paul did not enjoin believers in Corinth to adapt themselves to the custom of the day by wearing (or not wearing) a headcovering. There is no evidence that such a practice was common in the Greek-Roman culture at that time. Likewise, there is little support for the teaching which asserts that an unveiled woman in Corinth would be mistaken for a prostitute. Instead, it seems probable that Paul based this rule of wearing a covering on Jewish customs which do offer a close parallel. Clark states that during Paul’s time Jewish women in Palestine “always covered their heads and faces when in public . . . They would have definitely covered their heads in the temple and synagogue” (Man and Woman in Christ, p.168). This custom of wearing a headcovering is still followed in some European countries. Many present-day theologians also hold this view, regardless of whether or not they consider it valid for our own time. Some modern interpreters hold that Paul was not referring to a covering like a shawl or a veil but to a question concerning hairstyle and an acceptable hair length for men and women. This was an actual problem because of heathen customs in Corinth, usually in a religious context (that is, pagan festivals) and in homosexual practices. (See Howard, “Neither Male nor Female,” p.35; Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Once Again,” p.269.) The Septuagint appearance of akatakaluptos (Leviticus 13:45) is used as proof that this word can mean “disheveled” or “let down.” This view contends, therefore, that excessively long hair on a man constituted a covering and violated the general principle (verse 7) and that for women, long hair sufficed for a covering (verse 15—antiperibolaion). The peribolaion was a garment similar to a shawl. So since the long hair was a covering, a veil was unnecessary. Whatever the view, this is what Paul was saying: A man who would cover his head in a worship service would be dishonoring his head, and a woman who would pray or prophesy with her head uncovered would also be dishonoring her head (verse 5). He also appears to have been teaching about certain role differences within the husband and wife relationship. Paul regarded the headcovering as a fitting expression that a wife was under the authority or headship of the husband. And just as it was not degrading for Christ to have God the Father as His “head,” neither should it be degrading for a woman to have her husband as her head. A wife “honors” her husband by being covered. Because of the difficulties involved in interpreting the context of 1 Corinthians 11, dogmatism must be avoided. The following statement by Stephan Clark (p.166) seems to be an appropriate conclusion: “The sections of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are beyond our ability to interpret confidently. We can offer plausible interpretations, but we cannot justify them so clearly that alternative plausible interpretations are ruled out.” (Complete Biblical Library) Praying (4336) proseuchomai from pros = toward, facing, before [emphasizing the direct approach of the one who prays in seeking God’s face] + euchomai = originally to speak out, utter aloud, express a wish, then to pray or to vow. Greek technical term for invoking a deity) in the NT is always used of prayer addressed to God (to Him as the object of faith and the One who will answer one’s prayer) and means to speak consciously (with or without vocalization) to Him, with a definite aim (See study of noun proseuche). Proseuchomai encompasses all the aspects of prayer -- submission, confession, petition, supplication (may concern one's own need), intercession (concerned with the needs of others), praise, and thanksgiving.
1 Coríntios 11
Vernon McGee - This had a peculiar and particular application to Corinth. The unveiled woman in Corinth was a prostitute. Many of them had their heads shaved. The vestal virgins in the temple of Aphrodite who were really prostitutes had their heads shaved. The women who had their heads uncovered were the prostitutes. Apparently some of the women in the church at Corinth were saying, “All things are lawful for me, therefore, I won’t cover my head.” Paul says this should not be done because the veil is a mark of subjection, not to man, but to God. Now this had a local application; it was given to the women in Corinth. Does it apply to our day and society? Well, I have heard that a new hat is a morale builder for women. A wife said to her husband, “Every time I get down in the dumps, I go and buy a new hat.” His response was, “I have been wondering where you got those hats!” Seriously, regulations for a woman’s dress are in regard to her ministry. If she is to lead, she ought to have her head covered. Other passages will give us more information about this. “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (1 Tim. 2:8–10). This states that if the woman is to lift up holy hands in the service in leading, she is not to adorn herself to draw attention to herself. Very candidly, it means that the woman is not to use sex appeal in the service of God. That is exactly what it means, my friend. She is not to use sex appeal at—all it will not win her husband to Christ either.The Bible has more to say on this subject. “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives …. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (1 Pet. 3:1, 3–4). God is saying that a wife cannot win her husband to Christ by sex appeal. This does not mean that she is not to be appealing to her husband, but it does mean that a woman never wins her husband to Christ by sex appeal. There are women in the Bible who had sex appeal: Jezebel, Esther, Salome. Then there are some who stand out in Scripture as being wonderful, marvelous, godly women whom God used: Sarah, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, and Mary the mother of Jesus. Then there is also something said to the husbands. “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7). Many a family today have their prayers hindered because the husband and wife are not getting along as they should. Cut off (2751)(keiro) means to shear (sheep - Acts 8:32+; Lxx - Ge 31:19, 38:12, 13) and in middle voice to cut one's hair or have it cut off (1 Cor 11:6). Gilbrant - From the time of Homer, classical Greek writings use this verb to mean cutting of hair, the shearing of sheep, and even the ravaging of a country by cutting down its trees, especially its fruit trees. The Septuagint uses it in the classic prophecy about Christ going as an innocent sheep to be shorn (Isaiah 53:7+ ). In the New Testament Philip explained the Isaiah passage to the eunuch who was reading it (Acts 8:27-35+). As a result the eunuch asked for a personal relationship with Jesus. Luke employed the word when he explained about Paul having his hair cut at Cenchreae because of a vow he made (Acts 18:18+). Paul used the term to explain the disgrace involved in a woman having her hair shorn (1 Corinthians 11:6). Keiro in NT - Acts 8:32; Acts 18:18; 1 Co. 11:6 and in Septuagint - Gen. 31:19; Gen. 38:12; Gen. 38:13; Deut. 15:19; 1 Sam. 25:2; 1 Sam. 25:4; 1 Sam. 25:7; 1 Sam. 25:11; 2 Sam. 13:23; 2 Sam. 13:24; 2 Sam. 14:26; Job 1:20; Prov. 27:25; Song. 4:2; Song. 6:6; Isa. 53:7; Jer. 7:29; Jer. 49:32; Mic. 1:16 Isaiah 53:7+ He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers (keiro), So He did not open His mouth. Disgraceful (150)(aischros from aischos = baseness, disgrace) refers that which is indecent, dishonorable, "ugly", socially or morally unacceptable, shameful or base. (See related combined word aischrokerdos) Aischros was a term especially significant in an honor-shame oriented society (a trait that did not characterize Crete!) and was used generally in reference to that which fails to meet expected moral and cultural standards. NIDNTT - The root aisch- refers originally to that which is ugly and disgraceful. aischuno (the verb form) (Homer onwards) thus meant originally to disfigure, make ugly. The verb is found in Greek literature almost exclusively in the middle or passive with the meaning to feel shame, be ashamed, or to be confounded, be disconcerted. (New International Dictionary of NT Theology) Aischros - 4x - 1 Co. 11:6; 1 Co. 14:35; Eph. 5:12; Titus 1:11 Septuagint uses ("ugly") - Ge 41:3; Ge 41:4; Gen. 41:19; Gen. 41:20; Gen. 41:21; Cover (2619)(katakalupto from katá = an intensifier + kalupto = to cover) means to cover up, to cover oneself (middle voice). To cover with a veil or something which hangs down. Passive means to be covered, veiled, to wear a veil (1 Cor. 11:6, 7 - only NT uses). . See also akatakáluptos (G177), uncovered, which (in 1 Cor. 11:5, 13) is equivalent to being shaven. In the classical period (cf. Homer) it frequently occurs in the middle voice and means “to cover oneself.” Septuagint - In the Septuagint katakaluptō continues to have the same meaning. On the way through Moab to the east side of the Jordan, Israel’s enemies perceived her threat and said, “Behold, they cover the face of the earth” (Numbers 22:5). In addition, the term takes on “sacral” significance, for instance, in the sacrificial instructions of Exodus 29:22 and in reference to the awesome presence of God in Exodus 26:34 and Isaiah 6:2 (Oepke, “katakaluptō,” Kittel, 3:561). In Numbers 4:5 and Exodus 26:34 the ark of the covenant is “covered” with a curtain. (Complete Biblical Library) Gilbrant - In all three instances the verb is in the middle voice meaning “to cover or veil oneself.” In the context of the gathered community a man who prayed or prophesied was not to “cover his head,” whereas a woman exercising the same functions was shamed if her head was not “covered.” The covering Paul had in mind cannot be spiritualized, for the practice of women veiling themselves was common among the Semitic people (though sometimes perhaps for less than honorable reasons, as Genesis 38:15 shows). But in a Gentile-Christian context Paul did not advocate such veiling for every sphere of life. For women to cover their head could not possibly have meant “to put up the hair,” since its opposite would not have made good sense either, namely, that the men were not to put up their hair (Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary) 1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ICC (Robertson) ‘ A man has no right to cover his head; he is by constitution the image of God and reflects God’s glory: whereas the woman reflects man’s glory. Amplified For a man ought not to wear anything on his head [in church], for he is the image and [reflected] glory of God his function of government reflects the majesty of the divine Rule]; but woman is [the expression of] man’s glory (majesty, preeminence).
1 Coríntios 11
Vernon McGee - They are inseparable. Man is not a sphere but a hemisphere; woman is not a sphere but a hemisphere. It is nonsense for either men or women to talk about liberation. The man needs the woman, and the woman needs the man. This is true liberty in the glorious relationship of marriage. Vine on all things are of God.—all is by His counsels, His ordinance and His act. That is the great truth which pervades the whole Volume of the Scriptures. This statement occurs elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 5:18. Both in the old and in the new creation, all is in essential harmony with the very nature of God, and only what makes for man’s true happiness.
1 Coríntios 11
Vernon McGee - A woman ought not to call attention to herself when she is speaking for the Lord or teaching a Bible class or praying. There should be no sex appeal. Also, she needs to remember that her sex appeal is a tremendous thing which has the power to either lift a man up or drag him down. Proper (fitting) (4241) prepo has the basic meaning to be prominent or conspicuous. It came to be used of a distinguishing characteristic, that which conspicuously stands out, and then especially what is suitable. Thus a "distinguishing characteristic" of saints should be a lifestyle of love and absence of these vices so common and "beloved" to the Gentiles. This is the standard of that which is fitting to their position as those set apart from the profane things of the world and to the pure and holy things of God and His high and holy purpose for their lives. (Eph 2:10-note) Prepō refers to acting appropriately in a particular situation, i.e. as it is seemly to God – and therefore "conspicuous amongst others; hence eminent, distinguished. . . seemly fit". Gilbrant - In classical Greek prepō is used to describe something as being fit, suitable to, or worthy of. It may point to something that is clearly seen or heard. Prepō also means “be very much like” or “clearly resemble” someone or something (Liddell-Scott). The papyri use the word in much the same sense, for example, in describing a wife whose conduct “becomes” (prepō) the married life (Moulton-Milligan). Prepō occurs seven times in the New Testament. Jesus said it was appropriate (prepō) that He should be baptized to “fulfil all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). Paul wrote that a woman’s hair gives dignity that becomes (prepō) womanhood (1 Corinthians 11:13). Sins of the flesh are not appropriate or befitting to the Christian (Ephesians 5:3), while good works are an appropriate adornment for the Christian woman (1 Timothy 2:10). The suffering of Christ was suitable to make Him “the captain of (our) salvation” (Hebrews 2:10). So it is fitting or appropriate (prepō) that for the needs of weak humanity we have a great high priest like this, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:26). (Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary – Pi-Rho) 1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, ICC (Robertson) Surely even nature itself teaches you that for a man to wear his hair long is degrading to him; Lenski Does not even nature itself teach you that, if a man wear long hair, it is a dishonor to him while, Amplified Does not the native sense of propriety (experience, common sense, reason) itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is a dishonor [humiliating and degrading] to him,
1 Coríntios 11
Vernon McGee - Now it is true that today we have liberty in Christ. The length of the hair is really not so much the issue as the motive behind it. Many men wear long hair as a sign of rebellion, and many women cut their hair as a sign of rebellion. Our moral values get turned upside down, and there is a danger of being an extremist in either direction. Extremism leads to strange behavior like the lady who went to the psychiatrist because her family had urged her to go. The psychiatrist asked her, “What really seems to be your trouble?” She said, “They think it is strange that I like pancakes.” He answered, “There is nothing wrong in liking pancakes. I like pancakes myself.” So she said, “You do? Well, come over sometime; I have trunks filled with them!” You see, my friend, you can be an extremist in that which is a normal thing. Question: What does the Bible say about hair length? Answer: A passage that mentions hair length in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 11:3-15. The Corinthian church was in the middle of a controversy about the roles of men and women and the proper order of authority within the church. In the Corinthian society, women showed submission to their husbands by wearing a veil. It seems that some of the women in the church were discarding their veils, something that only pagan temple prostitutes or other rebellious women would do. For a woman to come to church without her veil would be dishonoring to her husband, as well as culturally confusing. By the same token, for a man to wear a veil or to somehow have his head covered during worship was not culturally acceptable in Corinth. Paul appeals to biology to illustrate the appropriateness of following the cultural standards: women naturally have longer hair than men, and men are much more prone to baldness. That is, God created women with a “natural veil” and men with an “uncovered head.” If a woman spurns the mark of her submission (the veil), she may as well shave her head (verse 6). His point is that if the culture says a woman should not be bald (going without her natural covering), then why would she reject that same culture’s standard of wearing a veil (going without her cultural covering)? For the man’s part, it is unnatural for him to have “long hair” (verse 14). His hair is naturally shorter (and thinner) than the woman’s. This corresponds to the Corinthian tradition of men not wearing a head covering during worship. Paul urges the church to conform to the generally held ideas of male and female appearance. While hair length is not the main point of this passage of Scripture, we glean the following applications from it: 1) We should adhere to the culturally accepted indicators of gender. Men should look like men, and women should look like women. God is not interested in, nor does He accept, “unisex.” 2) We should not rebel against the culture just for the sake of rebelling, in the name of some sort of Christian “liberty.” It does matter how we present ourselves. 3) Women are to voluntarily place themselves under the authority of the male leadership of the church. 4) We should not reverse the God-ordained roles of men and women. Our culture today does not use veils or head coverings to indicate submission to authority. The roles of men and women have not changed, but the way we symbolize those roles changes with the culture. Rather than establish legalistic standards of hair length, we must remember that the real issue is our heart condition, our individual response to the authority of God, His ordained order, and our choice to walk in submission to that authority. Men and women have different, God-ordained roles, and part of that difference is shown by their hair. A man’s hair should look masculine. A woman’s hair should look feminine. GotQuestions.org Related Resources (from Gotquestions.org): What does the Bible say about dyeing hair? What does the Bible say about shaving? Why does the Bible speak against braided hair? Who had red hair in the Bible? Did Jesus have long hair? 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. ICC (Robertson) Yet, if any one is so contentious as to dispute this conclusion, it will suffice to say that both Christian authority and Christian usage are against him. Amplified Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally.
1 Coríntios 11
Vernon McGee - Paul concludes by saying that the church ought not to make rules in connection with the matter of women’s dress or men’s hair. The really important issue is the inner man. It is the old nature which needs a haircut and the robe of righteousness. My friend, if we are clothed with the robe of Christ’s righteousness and if our old nature is under the control of the Holy Spirit, that will take care of the outer man. The haircut and the style of clothes won’t make much difference. Paul is saying that he is not giving a rule to the churches. He just states what is best in his opinion. We should remember that in all our Christian liberty we are to think of others and of our testimony to others. We should be guided by the principles he has laid down: to glorify God, and not to offend others. Reformation Study Bible - Paul does not use exactly this kind of argument elsewhere in any of his letters. Such a conclusion to a difficult passage may give some support to the view that the apostle was not prescribing permanent forms of worship, but dealing with questions of cultural appropriateness. To be sure, such questions have theological implications (1 Cor 11:5 note).