I Corinthians 11: Headcovering and Lord's Supper

DEDICATION
This exposition is dedicated to Dr. Bruce Lackey, for his “New Testament Survey” course at Tennessee Temple Bible School; to Dr. Alva J. McClain, for his book, “The Greatness of the Kingdom”; to Dr. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, for his book, “Romans 6”; and to Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Th.M., Ph.D. for his book “Footsteps of the Messiah”.

WOMEN MENTIONED IN THIS EXPOSITION
Anna, Deborah, Elizabeth, Eve, Jezebel, Joanna, Lydia, Mary Magdalene, Mary (of Bethany), Mary (of Rome), Mary (wife of Joseph), Persis, Phebe, Philip’s Four Daughters, Priscilla, Sarah, Shulamit, Susanna, Tabitha (Dorcas), Vashti


PART I - THE HEADCOVERING ORDINANCE

OUTLINE
1) The Ordinances - ICor11:2
2) The Authority of Man - ICor11:3
3) Symbolizing the Authority of Man - ICor11:4-6
4) The Witness of Creation - ICor11:7-11
5) The Witness of Nature - ICor11:12-15
6) Contention - ICor11:16

SECTION 1 - THE ORDINANCES
“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you,” ICor11:2. Paul begins, as usual, by stating his topic, “the ordinances,” ICor11:2. Whenever you study a passage of scripture, give special attention and emphasis to the first few verses, because having a clear understanding about the general topic will help you interpret the specifics in the rest of the passage.

“NOW ... BRETHREN,” ICOR11:2. Chapter 11 should start in verse 2. In I Corinthians, Paul used the key phrases “Now concerning” and “Now, brethren” (or their equivalents) to introduce new topics. ICor7:1, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me”. ICor8:1, “Now as touching (Greek, ‘concerning’) things offered unto idols”. ICor12:1, “Now concerning spiritual gifts”. ICor15:1, “Moreover (Greek, ‘Now’), brethren, I declare unto you the gospel”. ICor16:1, “Now concerning the collection for the saints”. And here, in ICor11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ... you keep the ordinances”. I Corinthians 11 is about “the ordinances,” ICor11:2.

“I PRAISE YOU,” ICOR11:2. I Corinthians 11 is divided into two parts by the phrases, “I praise you” in verse 2, and “I praise you not” in verse 17. The first part of the chapter is about the headcovering ordinance, “having his head covered,” ICor11:4; and the second part is about the Lord’s supper ordinance, “when ye come together ... to eat the Lord’s supper,” ICor11:20. Paul praised the Corinthian church that they kept both ordinances; but when he came to verse 17, he began to scold them for the manner in which they kept the Lord’s supper. Paul didn’t stop praising the Corinthians until verse 17. The church at Corinth was doing a good job keeping the headcovering ordinance. Many interpretations of the first half of the chapter don't make sense when you realize Paul isn't scolding the Corinthians about anything in the first half of the chapter.

Since the two halves of chapter 11 are joined together by the phases “I praise you” (v. 2) and “I praise you not” (v. 16), we can assume the headcovering ordinance, like the Lord’s supper ordinance, is to be observed “when ye come together in the church,” ICor11:18. Chapters 12-14 are also about church meeting issues as can be seen from ICor12:1, “Now concerning spiritual gifts,” and ICor14:23, “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues ...”. Thus, I Corinthians 11:2 begins a larger section about church meeting issues that includes 1) Chapter 11 about “The Ordinances” and 2) Chapters 12-14 about “Spiritual Gifts”. We cannot connect I Corinthians 11:2-16 with the preceding non-church meeting topics of chapter 10, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast,” ICor10:27, and then connect I Corinthians 11:17-34 with the church meeting topics of chapters 12-14, because chapter 11 is one unit. Also, the first half of chapter 11 closes with the phrase “the churches of God,” ICor11:16, which implies the headcovering ordinance is a church issue, rather than an individual Christian issue.

“THAT YE REMEMBER ME IN ALL THINGS,” ICOR11:2. The ordinances of I Corinthians 11 were part of the “all things” that Paul had taught the Corinthians. They were probably also part of his standard teaching in every church. “For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, ... who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church,” ICor4:17. If so, neither the headcovering ordinance nor the Lord’s supper could have been of only local significance or applicable only to the church at Corinth. And if they were important enough for Paul to teach in every church at that time, they must be important for churches today, too.

“AND KEEP THE ORDINANCES, AS I DELIVERED THEM TO YOU,” ICOR11:2. The Greek word translated ‘ordinances’ in verse 2, is usually translated as ‘traditions’ in the KJV New Testament. We often think of traditions in a negative sense, as in Mk7:8, "ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition". However, Mark 7 does not imply that traditions are less important than commandments. Traditions are commandments that have been transmitted. Mark 7 teaches that commandments and traditions of men are less important than commandments and traditions of God. As for traditions from God, we are to told to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle", IIThes2:15.

The words “ordinances” and “delivered” in verse 2 are the noun and verb forms of the same Greek word, meaning to ‘hand over’ or ‘transmit’. Verse 2 could be translated “ye ... keep the deliveries, as I delivered them to you,” or “ye ... keep the transmittals, as I transmitted them to you.” The verb form is also found in verse 23, "for I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered (transmitted) unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread ...”. The verb form is also used of the gospel in chapter 15, “I declare unto you the gospel ... for I delivered (transmitted) unto you first of all that which I also received,” ICor15:1-3. So the headcovering observance, the Lord’s supper, and the gospel are all apostolic ordinances given to the apostles from Jesus and transmitted from the apostles to the church.

One of the main duties of the apostles of Jesus Christ, was to receive commands directly from Jesus Christ and deliver them to the church. Paul received the gospel directly, “the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ,” Gal1:12. Paul probably received the gospel, the headcovering ordinance, and the Lord’s supper ordinance from the Lord shortly after his conversion in Acts 9 when he “went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus,” Gal1:17. He transmitted them to the Corinthians when he founded the church as recorded in Acts 18, “After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; ... and he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them,” Acts18:1,11. The other apostles received instruction about the gospel and the Lord's supper before Christ died, and they probably received the headcovering ordinance right after Jesus’ resurrection when he “through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen, ... being seen of them forty days,” Acts1:2-3.

Since it is important to realize that the headcovering and Lord's supper ordinances were apostolic transmittals, I will touch briefly on the subject of apostleship. The word ‘apostle’ is a transliteration of the Greek word ‘apostolos’, meaning ‘sent one’, ‘messenger’, or ‘representative’. Churches sent out apostles, “they are the messengers (‘apostolos’) of the churches,” IICor8:23. The church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas, "when they had ... laid their hands on them, they sent them,” Acts13:2-3, which is why they were both called apostles, “the apostles Barnabas and Paul,” Acts14:14. But Paul was also “an apostle of Jesus Christ,” ICor1:1, IICor1:1, Eph1:1, Col1:1, ITim1:1, IITim1:1, Titus1:1; “an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,” Gal1:1. Paul had to spend a lot of time defending his apostleship (ICor9:1-6, IICor11:1-12:12, Gal1:1-2:14, 6:17) because shortly after Jesus' ascension, Peter and the others had appointed Mathias to take Judas's place, and "he was numbered with the eleven,” Acts1:26. However, the apostles had no right to choose a personal representative of Jesus Christ. It is appropriate that the book of the Acts of the Apostles begins by showing us the limits of even their authority. Jesus returned much later to personally appoint Paul, “and last of all, he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time,” ICor15:8.



SECTION 2 - THE AUTHORITY OF MAN
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,” ICor11:3. In general, verse 3 is describing the chain-of-command from God - to Christ - to Man - to Woman. But Paul begins his discussion of the chain-of-command with man, “the head of every man is Christ,” because man’s position is the focus of this section.

“BUT I WOULD HAVE YOU KNOW,” ICOR11:3. The word “but” in verse 3 does not indicate that Paul is ceasing to praise the Corinthians at this point, because he does not stop praising them until verse 17 when he says, “Now ... I praise you not”. What Paul is saying here is that he wants them to “know,” ICor11:3, more about the headcovering ordinance, so they gain the full benefit of its observance. Nowadays, many churches share a brief meditation about the meaning of the Lord’s supper before or during its observance, so that it doesn’t become an empty ritual. Occasional meditations on the meaning of the headcovering ordinance would are important for the same reason. The rest of the first half of this chapter is about the underlying meaning and significance of the headcovering ordinance.

1) THE OFFICE OF MAN. “THE HEAD OF EVERY MAN IS CHRIST,” ICOR11:3. God has placed man into a position of authority directly under Christ in the chain-of-command: God - Christ - Man - Woman. Authority comes from above, "For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it,” Matt8:9. Man has authority because Christ is his immediate supervisor. All positions of authority, leadership, ruling, and teaching are to be filled by males, and not females. Although man is in the middle of the chain-of-command (God-Christ-man-woman), man's office is dealt with first in verse 3, because the headcovering ordinance primarily symbolizes the authority of man.

The Greek word translated ‘man’ in verse 3 can mean either ‘male’ or ‘husband’. In this passage, we know it means ‘male’ because if it were consistently translated as ‘husband’ throughout the passage, some verses would not make sense. Verse 12, “for as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman” means all ‘males’ are born of ‘females’, not that all ‘husbands’ are born of ‘wives’. Even bachelors are born of women. And “if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him,” ICor11:14, does not mean that husbands cannot have long hair, but bachelors can.

But the startling word of verse 3 is the word “every”. Christ is the head of every male, even unsaved males. And he is not the head of any females, even saved females. We know that this headship of Christ over males exists only in the physical realm, because in the spiritual realm, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female,” Gal3:28. In Israel, even ungodly males, like Caiaphas Matt26:57-65, could be priests; but not even godly females could be priests. And in the church, even ungodly males, like Judas, Matt10:4, could be apostles; but not even godly females could be apostles.
Men are to rule in the home, the church, and society.

HOME: "The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, ... therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing," Eph5:23-24. It is true we are to be "submitting yourselves to one another," Eph5:21, but the way we submit must differ according to our office. The husband sacrifices his own welfare, the wife sacrifices her will. "Wives, submit ... husbands, love," Eph5:22,25. The husband should not submit to his wife anymore than Christ should submit to the church, and wives are not responsible to love their husbands, but only to "be 'affectionate' (Greek) to their husbands,” Titus2:4.

CHURCH: Only males can be pastors and deacons. “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ... that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" ITim3:1-5. "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well," ITim3:8-12. The KJV is correct to 'translate' Romans 16:1 to read “Phebe our sister, which is a ‘servant’ of the church” instead of 'transliterating' it to read ’deaconess’.

SOCIETY: Deborah was a prophetess that judged Israel, but she made her judgments in private under a palm tree, and Barak lead the armies, Judg4:4-5:31. God says that when women teach or rule, society suffers. "The LORD of hosts doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah ... the mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, the captain of fifty, and the honorable man, and the counselor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator. And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another ... As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths," Is3:1-12.

Even a good woman in public office would do more harm than good for society because of the example it would set. ”Queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command by his chamberlains, therefore was the king very wroth, ... then the king said to the wise men, which knew the times ... what shall we do ... and Memucan answered ... this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not. Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king's princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath. If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, ... that Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, for it is great, all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small. And the saying pleased the king and ... he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house ... After these things, when the wrath of king Ahasuerus was appeased, he remembered Vashti," Esth1:16-2:1. The king acted hastily in his “wrath” and was wrong in his treatment of Vashti, but I think the Bible shows support for the underlying philosophy of the “wise men” by recording it in so much detail.

2) THE OFFICE OF WOMAN. “AND THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN IS THE MAN,” ICOR11:3. There is a layer of authority between Christ and woman in the chain-of-command: God - Christ - Man - Woman. How can this be when we know "there is one mediator between God and men ('people' in Greek), the man ('person' in Greek) Christ Jesus,” ITim2:5? I Timothy 2:5 is talking about salvation and spiritual things, “God our Savior desires all men ('people' in Greek) to be saved ... for there is one mediator ...,” ITim2:5. But the chain-of-command of verse 3 is not talking about salvation or spiritual things. It is about the offices that man, woman, and Christ hold in the physical realm. Again, in the spiritual realm, "there is neither male nor female,” Gal3:28.

The Greek word translated 'woman' in verse 3 can mean either ‘female’ or ‘wife’. In this passage, the it means ‘female’ rather than ‘wife’. If we consistently translated the word as ‘wife’ throughout this passage, some verses would not make sense. "As the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman,” ICor11:12, means all men are born of women, not that all men are born of wives, for some men are born of women who are not wives. ‘Male’ is the head of ‘female’ whether a woman ever marries or not, because all women have 3 special ministries to fulfill in their roles as women: modest dress, quietness, and submission.

HOME: Peter covered the 3 ministries of women as they relate to the home in I Peter 3. "Likewise, ye wives ... (Modest Dress:) 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, (Quietness:) even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, (Submission:) being in subjection to their own husbands: Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord," IPet3:1-6.

Sarah thought of her husband as her lord. Her thoughts are recorded in Gen18:12, "Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?". The condemnation of “plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel” doesn’t mean that these things cannot be done at all, for God certainly wants women to wear some apparel. However, women should keep these things as simple and modest as possible. God speaks despairingly of showiness and excess in women’s’ dress. “In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, the rings, and nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails,” Is3:18-23.

The quietness and submission aspects in this I Peter passage also mean that wives are not allowed to teach their husbands. "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; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear," IPet3:1-2. The word "conversation," IPet3:1, is from the French word "conversari,” meaning "to live"; and in KJV English it referred to conduct, not speech. It is translated from a Greek word meaning "a way of life". The wife is limited to her manner of life in influencing her husband. It would be improper for her to teach her husband, and so he must be won "without the word," IPet3:1, while he ‘beholds’, not ‘hears’ his wife. Some Catholic monks so valued the virtue of quietness that they took vows of silence. They were wrong to do so however, because this ministry (in a less extreme form) belongs to women, not men.

CHURCH: Paul covered the 3 ministries of women as they relate to the church in I Corinthians. "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth (Modest Dress:) with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head ... let her be covered," ICor11:5-6. "Let your women (Quietness:) keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; (Submission:) but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law," ICor14:34.

The quietness and submission aspects also prohibit women from teaching in the church. God has appointed no women as Bible teachers, even for other women. Titus 2:4-5 is the only reference to teaching responsibilities for women. "The aged women," Titus2:3, all of them, are to "teach the young women," Titus2:4. But if every older woman should teach, then no older woman has an office of teaching. And the older women are not to be Bible teachers, per se, but "teachers of good things," Titus2:3; specifically, of the special ministries of women "to be sober, to be affectionate (Greek) towards their husbands, to be affectionate (Greek) towards their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands," Titus2:4-5. Priscilla had a part, along with her husband Aquilla, in clarifying some things to Apollos, but “they took him unto them,” Acts18:26, probably conversing with him in the privacy of their home. Women are an invaluable asset in private discussions about even the heaviest topics even in mixed groups, but they are not to be Bible teachers of even all-female groups.

SOCIETY: Paul covered the 3 ministries of women as they relate to society in I Timothy 2. All of I Timothy 2 describes how we should behave in society, not in the church. The chapter has 3 parts. 1) ALL PEOPLE - ITIM2:1-7. God's desires that, "prayers ... be made for all people (Greek), ... who will have all people (Greek) to be saved," ITim2:1,4. Salvation is God's desire for people everywhere, not just in church. 2) MEN - ITIM2:8: "I will therefore that men (‘males’ in Greek) pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands," ITim2:8. Public prayer is God's will for males, but not females everywhere, not just in church. 3) WOMEN - ITIM2:9-15: "In like manner also, (Modest Dress:) 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. (Quietness:) Let the woman learn in silence (Submission:) with all subjection,” ITim2:9-11. God desires modesty, quietness, and submission for women everywhere, not just in church. The quietness and submission aspects also mean that a women cannot teach men in society, “but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence," ITim2:12.

If this passage were only about how women should behave in church, then it would be ok for women to dress immodestly and wear a lot of jewelry outside of church. But in fact, women are to wear modest apparel and avoid ostentatious jewelry everywhere, not just in church. "Broided hair," ITim2:9, is a problem in society, not in church, since women's heads are covered in church. Women are to do "good works," ITim2:10, everywhere, not just in church. And women are not permitted to "teach, nor to usurp authority over the man," ITim2:12, anywhere, not just not in church. Paul does not change from talking about our roles in society to talking about our roles in church until ITim3:1, "If a man desire the office of a bishop ...".

3) THE OFFICE OF CHRIST. “AND THE HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD,” ICOR11:3. The office of Christ shows that authority structures are good, because they exist even within the Godhead. This is the ultimate argument against any egalitarian opposition to authority structures. Authority structures are always comprised of one superior and one or more inferiors (inferior in position, not value), whether we are talking about God and Christ, Christ and the church, man and woman, husbands and wives, parents and children, masters (employers) and servants (employees), or government and governed (Eph5:22-9, Col3:18-4:1, IPet2:13-5:5). The basic duties are the same for all superiors and all inferiors. A superior is responsible to lead, love, give, speak, teach, command, and send; while an inferior is responsible to follow, submit, receive, listen, learn, obey, and go, for example.

In value and essence, Christ is equal to God the Father in every way. Jesus, "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," Phil2:6. But externally, and in position, Jesus functions in the role that a son does to a father. The Father gives, the Son receives, "so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself," John5:26. The Father teaches; the Son learns, "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me," John8:28. The Father sends; the Son goes, "he that sent me is with me,” John8:28. The Father commands; the Son obeys, “I do always those things that please him," John8:29.

From eternity past, Christ functioned as the Son of God. Rom1:3,4, “his Son ... which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness”. Who was it that was made flesh? It was “his Son”. He had to be “made,” Rom1:4, flesh, but he only had to be “declared,” Rom1:4, to be the Son he already was. And for eternity future, Christ will remain in an inferior position to the Father. “And when all things shall be subdued unto him (the Son), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him (the Son), that God may be all in all,” ICor15:28.

Likewise, woman’s subordination to man did not begin at the fall when God said “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,” Gen3:16, any more than man’s labor began at the fall when God said “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” Gen3:19. Man started laboring when God first created him and “put him in the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it,” Gen2:8; and woman was created as “an help,” Gen2:18, for Adam. What changed at the fall was that man's labor and woman’s subordination to man became wearisome instead of always easy and delightful.

And woman’s submission to man, like Christ's submission to the Father, will not end at Christ’s return. That's why only males will be in leadership positions in the millennial kingdom. The 12 apostles (all males) will “sit upon twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel,” Matt19:28; Israel will “serve ... David (a male) their king, whom I will raise up (resurrect) unto them,” Jer30:9; the priests in the millennial temple, “the sons (male) of Zadok ... shall enter into my sanctuary ... to minister unto me,” Ezek44:15-16. Women will not receive any cities to rule as rewards, as some men will, “thou good servant ... have thou authority over ten cities,” Luke19:17. This is not to say that specific relationships like marriage, will continue forever because, “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,” Matt22:23-33. A husband’s authority ends at death, “for the woman which hath an husband is bound by (“under” in Greek) the law to her husband so long as he liveth,” Rom7:2.

Women will receive eternal rewards like glory just as men will. The word ‘glory’ often means ‘brightness’ in the Bible. When Paul saw Jesus after his glorification, Jesus was shining so brightly that Paul said “I could not see for the glory of that light, being led of the hand of them that were with me,” Acts22:11. When John later saw Jesus in a vision "his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength,” Rev1:14-16. When Jesus returns, he will destroy the antichrist “with the brightness of his coming,” IIThess2:8. Through all eternity, the New Jerusalem will have “no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof,” Rev21:23. At the resurrection, God will “change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,” Phil3:21, which is why we "rejoice in hope of the glory of God," Rom5:2. Moses already experienced a little of this, "when Moses came down from mount Sinai ... the skin of his face shone,” Ex34:29. But we will not all shine with the same brightness, “for one star differeth from another star in glory,” ICor15:41. The differing degrees of brightness are part of our eternal rewards. A man may rule a city in the millenial kingdom, but in the presence of a woman who shines brighter, it will be evident who had been more faithful in this life, and who has more honor for eternity.

Inequality is essential for unity. Without inequality, there can be no unity, for each person would wander his own way, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" Amos3:3. Before the creation of all created things, “The Word was with God,” John1:1, in perfect harmony and union. "I and my Father are one," John10:30. The Son is always metaphorically "in the bosom of the Father," John1:18. Perfect unity can exist only where there is a superior who loves with perfect unselfishness and self-sacrifice, and an inferior who submits in perfect obedience, as within the Godhead. Vertical relationships, not horizontal ones, bind people together. We are one with each other in the church only because we are all in Christ our Lord. Until the Lord returns, authority relationships will be susceptible to abuse; but the problem is not with authority relationships, but rather with our sin and weakness. Authority relationships will not be removed in the future, but rather the sin and weakness will be taken away, and then such inequalities will be blessed indeed, as they are now within the Godhead.

Authority relationships exist in the physical or external realm, not the spiritual. God said a husband and wife are "one flesh," Eph5:31; not ‘one spirit’. Physical things are important; but are of no importance in comparison to spiritual things. "The time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not," ICor7:30. There is no spiritual advantage to being placed into one office or another. More authority means more responsibility. It is how we use the offices we have been placed in that is important and that determines rewards. “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it,” ICor7:20-21. Paul did not deserve to be an apostle; God picked him by grace (ITim1:15; ICor15:10). Are we envious of the Apostle Paul because he is an apostle and we are not?

Most things in this life, like washing a pot, are neither moral nor immoral, but amoral and neutral. However, when we perform a work like washing a pot in submission to authority, we are not only washing a pot but also obeying the word of God to submit to authority. We receive no reward for washing the pot because it will just get dirty again, but at the same time, obeying the word of God is a spiritual act that has eternal reward. So being under authority gives us a chance to turn amoral, neutral works that would pass away into spiritual works that last forever, and “he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose”.

Women can “rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, in all things give thanks,” IThess5:16-18, as well as men, and these are the kinds of things that really matter. Women have performed some of the greatest spiritual works that have ever been done. Only a woman believed Jesus when he said he was going to die, and she anointed him for his burial. “For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her,” Matt26:12-13. And only a woman was given the privilege of, not merely being the first to see Jesus after his resurrection, but to see him even before he ascended to the Father to offer his blood in the heavenly tabernacle. “Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her,” John20:16-18.



SECTION 3 - SYMBOLIZING THE AUTHORITY OF MAN
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered,” ICor11:4-6. The purpose of the headcovering ordinance is to help us remember that God has placed man in authority. What makes the headcovering observance important, is that many church meeting activities involve authority. The headcovering ordinance symbolizes the positions of man and woman in the chain-of-command of verse 3, and it would be especially bad to symbolize something contrary to that chain-of-command during those kinds of activities.

“EVERY MAN PRAYING OR PROPHESYING,” ICOR11:4. Prayer is man talking to God; prophecy is God talking to man. Or we could say, prayer is man representing man to God, and prophecy is man representing God to man. Both prayer and prophecy require authority. Christ granted all Christians authority to pray in his name. “In that day ye shall ask me nothing ... whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you; hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name,” John16:23-24. Here we see that we pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. We do not pray to Christ. I cannot find a single instance in the New Testament of anyone praying to Christ. Jesus taught us to say “Our Father ...,” Matt6:9. “Seeing that we have a great high priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, ... let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace,” Heb4:16. We don't pray to, but rather through, a high priest.

Christ granted some Christians authority to prophesy. “When he ascended up on high, he ... gave gifts unto men, ... and he gave some ... prophets,” Eph4:8-11. Prophecy is always direct divine revelation, and is equally authoritative with scripture. Mere “forthtelling” is not prophecy. We are not talking about mere preaching or teaching here. People that preach or teach are called “evangelists, ... pastors and teachers,” Eph4:11, not prophets. We are not talking about merely expounding on scripture, but of speaking with authority equal to scripture, “He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes,” Matt7:29.

Prayer is the humblest of authorities given to people, because it has been given to all. Prophecy is the greatest of authorities given to people (except for the 12 apostles), and it was given to only a few, “God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, ... diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? ... do all speak with tongues? ... but covet earnestly the best gifts,” ICor12:30. The phrase “praying or prophesying” is meant to include all church meeting activities that require authority, whether prophesying, teaching, speaking in tongues, leading, singing, or praying, to name a few. We cannot limit the requirements of the headcovering ordinance to times of prayer or prophecy.

“HAVING HIS HEAD COVERED,” ICOR11:4. The word “covered” is not in the Greek of verse 4, though the word “uncovered” is in the Greek of verse 5. Verse 4 only has the Greek word “kata,” meaning “down upon,” whereas verse 5 has the Greek word “a-kata-kalupto,” meaning “not - down upon - covered”. “Kata” is used in the passage where a woman came to Jesus with an alabaster box of ointment and “poured it on (“kata”) his head,” Mark14:3, in anticipation of his death and burial. A literal translation of verse 4 would be “having upon his head,” but we need to add the word “anything” or “something” to make it proper English: “having anything upon his head,” or as the NASV translates it, having “something on his head”. According to verse 4, a man must not have anything on his head; merely ‘not covering’ his head would still be a violation. Wearing even a small kippa or skullcap is prohibited. On the other hand, men can have their own hair on their heads, because hair is part of the head. Some monks went so far as to shave a circle of hair off the top of their heads. If verse 4 was talking about hair, then men would be required to shave all the hair off their heads.

“DISHONOURETH HIS HEAD,” ICOR11:4. There is a certain amount of glory and honor that rightly accompanies authority, “thou ... hast crowned him with glory and honour, thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands: thou hast put all things under his feet,” Ps8:5-6. But if Christ has appointed you to a position of authority, it is not humility, but rather shame, to maintain that he has not so appointed you. If a man were to have anything on his head during the headcovering observance, he would be symbolizing that there was a layer of authority between him and Christ. If he performed any act requiring authority during the church meeting, and his head was not bare, then he would not merely be failing to observe the headcovering ordinance, but also shaming himself.

Men are to be the leaders in the church. The burden of the ministry rests on them. Some of them may not want to step forward and "pray everywhere lifting up holy hands,” ITim2:8, but they must do it anyway. Some may wish they had the ministry of silence that women have, but they must speak out. God has given them authority, and authority always carries responsibility. Men cannot avoid responsibility by pretending they don't have authority. “He which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant,” Matt25:24-26. We’ve all heard it said that women have to take on church ministries, because the men aren’t doing them. This does more harm than good, because then the men feel even less compelled to step forward and do the work. The bare heads of the men during the headcovering ordinance proclaims to all: the buck stops here, these are the ones responsible to make sure all the tasks Christ assigned the church are being done.

There is nothing inherently dishonorable about a man praying with something on his head. Before the headcovering ordinance was delivered to the church, the high priest, a male, had to wear a miter and all the other priests, also males, had to wear bonnets when they ministered in the tabernacle and temple. “Thou shalt make the mitre of fine linen” (for Aaron the high priest) “ ... and for Aaron’s sons thou shalt make ... bonnets,” Ex28:39-40. The 24 elders of Revelation 4 may indicate raptured church men who continue to remove their crowns whenever there is a worship service in heaven. "When those beasts (Cherubim) give glory and honor and thanks to him ... the four and twenty elders fall down before him ... and worship him ... and cast their crowns before the throne," Rev4:9-11. But when the Lord returns, the headcovering ordinance, like the Lord’s supper ordinance, will end, “ye do show the Lord’s death, till he come,” ICor11:26. In the millennial kingdom, the priests will again cover their heads when they minister. “But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, ... they shall enter into my sanctuary, ... they shall have linen bonnets upon their heads,” Ezek44:15-18.

Things that are inherently wrong, like pride and theft, are wrong in every time and place. Other things, which are external in nature, like dietary regulations, are wrong only during the period and for the people that God prohibits them. God told Adam that mankind could eat only plants, "I have given you every herb ... for meat (KJV for ‘food’)," Gen1:29; then he told Noah that mankind could eat meat, "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you," Gen9:3; then he told Moses that Israel could eat only some meats, "these are the beasts which ye shall eat," Lev11; then he said Israel can eat any meat, "thus he declared all foods clean," Mark7:19ASV; then he told the church there are some things we can’t eat, "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled," Acts15:29; 21:25. If these things were inherently wrong in and of themselves, the commands couldn’t change. The headcovering ordinance is an external requirement that had a definite starting point at the creation of the church, that will have a definite ending point at the Lord’s return, and that is applicable only to the church.

“BUT EVERY WOMAN THAT PRAYETH OR PROPHESIETH WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED DISHONOURETH HER HEAD,” ICOR11:5. When verse 5 says that a woman’s head must not be “uncovered,” the word “uncovered” actually is in the Greek. If a woman’s head (“kephalee” in Greek, not face “prosopon”) is anything less than covered, the commandment is violated: wearing a little hat or something will not qualify.

Women did not lead in prayer publicly, in church or anywhere else, “I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, ... in like manner also, that women ... be in silence,” ITim1:8-12. But women do pray along silently with the other men who are not leading in prayer at the moment. And women did not prophesy aloud in church, “for ye may all prophesy one by one, ... let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak,” ICor14:31,34. But some women probably prophesied silently to themselves during church meetings just as the men did when speaking was inappropriate, “if any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace ... The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets,” ICor14:32.

Women only prophesied in private. Elizabeth prophesied with a loud voice, but it was in the privacy of her home. "Mary ... entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elizabeth, and ... Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost, and she spake out with a loud voice," Luke2:39-42. Anna was "a prophetess," Luke2:36, that spent her time in the temple, but there is no record she prophesied publicly. The words of the her prophecy when she saw the child Jesus were not even recorded, but Simeon’s were recorded, and even his may have been heard by only Joseph and Mary (Luke2:25-35). Philip the evangelist had four daughters "which did prophesy," Acts21:9, but we have no record of their prophesies or any indication that they prophesied publicly. While Paul and his fellow travelers were staying at Philip’s house, Agabus came down from Judea to prophesy Paul’s capture in Jerusalem, when it seems it would have been more convenient to have one of the host’s four daughters do it if it had been appropriate (Acts21:10-11).

Most women were not prophetesses, but Paul used the phrase “that prays or prophesies” to indicate the whole range of activities that women participate in during church meetings that require authority, including things like partaking of the Lord’s supper, singing, and prayer. Women have just as much authority as men to come boldly to the throne of grace in prayer and to prophesy if they are prophetesses (although not to lead in prayer or prophecy aloud in public). During activities like prayer and prophecy, woman skips man, and functions directly under Christ. Women’s covered heads allow the church to acknowledge the additional layer of authority between Christ and woman, while at the same time performing actions that appear to violate the chain-of-command of verse 3. It would not accomplish the purpose of the headcovering if only the man actually leading in prayer or speaking in prophesy kept his head bare, and the rest of the congregation ignored the headcovering regulations, because the purpose of the headcovering observance is to recognize the different positions of man and woman, not to differentiate between prophets and non-prophets.

If a woman has an uncovered head while praying along silently during a church meeting, she fails to acknowledge the authority of the men, and the layer of authority between her and Christ as described in verse 3. It is certainly a shame for any person to portray themselves as holding a higher office than they actually hold. “When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; and he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room,” Luke14:8-9. It is shameful for a person to think they have a higher office than they have. “How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, ... for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow,” Rev18:7. When women cover their heads in church, they put the men on the spot, “You men are the ones that must lead the church into the work. Look at our covered heads: you are responsible for our welfare, too. You must ‘stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong’, ICor16:13. ‘Awake out of sleep ... the night is far spent, the day is at hand’, Rom14:11-12.” Men need to be exercised by such responsibilities in order to mature into what God created men to be.

Some brethren believe the phrase “prayer or prophesy” means that those are the only times the headcovering regulations apply, and only for those actually doing the prayer or prophecy, and even for prayer or prophesy outside of church meetings. That is not an impossible interpretation, and I feel uncomfortable praying with a hat on even during private times of prayer, though not during instantaneous prayer like while walking along; but my feelings may have a cultural source. I think we can distinguish between instantaneous prayer and times of prayer, because although Jesus probably communed with God always in his heart, his times of prayer were distinct, “he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God, ... and when it was day ... he chose twelve, whom he also named apostles,” Luke6:13. Some brethren believe that sisters need to wear headcoverings all the time, perhaps even when showering and sleeping, so they can speak to the Lord in their hearts at any time. While it might be more modest for women to wear headcoverings all the time, I think if the New Testament required it, they would specifically have been mentioned in the I Peter 3:1-2 passage on women’s dress in the home and the I Timothy 2:9-15 passage on women’s dress in society.

It is common to interpret the word “uncovered” in verse 5 as meaning to have short hair. The Greek word translated ‘uncovered’ is ‘a - kata - kalupto’ from “not - down upon - covered/hidden”. The noun form of “kalupto,” is “kaluma”. A “kaluma” (“covering”) is a veil according to II Corinthians 3:13-18, an “epi - kaluma” (“over - covering”) is a cloak according to I Peter 2:16, a “peri - kalupto,” (“around - covering”) is a blindfold according to Luke 22:64, and I think a “kata - kalupto” (“down upon - covering”) is a pretty good description of a headcovering garment.

I suppose we might be able to say a head is ‘covered’ with hair, but natural usage rules against it. If I said to you, “Please uncover your head” would you think that I wanted you to get a haircut? Besides, if we talk about hair covering a head, even a head with short hair is ‘covered’. Short hair covers a head as well as long hair, although long hair may cover the shoulders and back better. However, the New Testament seems to consider hair as part of our heads, since it always talks about the hair ‘of’ our heads, rather than the hair ‘on’ our heads, “the very hairs 'of' your head are numbered,” Matt10:30. If we only have hair on our head, our head is still uncovered no matter how much hair we have, since our hair is part of our head. There is a better word Paul could have used in verses 4-6 if he wanted to talk about whether or not a person has long hair. It’s the Greek word “komao,” meaning “long hair,” and he uses it in verses 14 and 15. Also, as we said when discussing verse 4, if this passage were about hair length, men could not have any hair on their heads at all.

One of the main problems with the hair-length interpretation, though, is that it doesn’t match up with the time periods of prayer or prophesy (or other authoritative church activities) which are at the heart of these verses. Proper hair length is required all the time. You can’t change it just for times of prayer and prophesy. A related problem is that wearing your hair the proper length during times of prayer and prophesy would not accomplish the purpose of the headcovering ordinance. How can the church symbolize anything during prayer or prophecy if everyone just continues wearing their hair the way they always do?

“FOR THAT IS EVEN ALL ONE AS IF SHE WERE SHAVEN. FOR IF THE WOMAN BE NOT COVERED, LET HER ALSO BE SHORN: BUT IF IT BE A SHAME FOR A WOMAN TO BE SHORN OR SHAVEN, LET HER BE COVERED,” ICOR11:5B-6. Paul adds an extra part on to verse 5 about the shame an uncovered woman would experience, that he didn’t add on to verse 4 about the shame a covered man would experience, because it is the women that actually perform the headcovering ordinance. The men are only supposed to ‘not’ do something. It is the covered heads of the women that give significance to bare heads of the men. If the women of the church are not wearing headcoverings, the men of the congregation are the ones to blame, “for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God,” ITim3:5. A church can only perform the headcovering ordinance by putting into practice the principles the ordinance teaches. The men of the church must learn to lead in love so the women of the congregation will be willing to cover their own heads, so the church can perform this ceremony unto the Lord.

If a woman doesn’t wear a headcovering, it’s the same, “even all one,” as if she were bald. This verse is an encouragement to see things from a spiritual perspective. Women are often concerned about their appearance, and naturally so, since modest dress is one of their three special ministries. But what good is it for a woman to spend time fixing her hair and getting dressed up for church, if she looks bald to God anyway? When some women sing praises at church, they picture themselves as standing before the throne in God’s presence, but if the headcovering is absent, let them add their own baldness to the picture. Instead of worrying about how conspicuous the sisters might feel in front of other people when they cover their heads, it is more important to worry about how conspicuous they are to God when they look bald. “God looketh on the heart,” ISam16:7; but God also sees the outward appearance, especially when it represents obedience or disobedience of the heart.

Verse 6 is another indication that Paul is not referring to hair length by the words “covered” and “uncovered”. The word “shorn,” which is used of shearing sheep in Acts 8:32, can mean ‘shear so close as to make bald’ as in Acts 18:18, “Paul ... sailed thence into Syria ... having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow”. But it probably means ‘to cut short’ in I Corinthians 11, because the phrase “shorn or shaven” in verse 6 would be redundant if the two words were used to mean the same thing here. And since ‘shorn’ means ‘to cut short’ here, 'be not covered' cannot mean 'have short hair' or verse 6 would say "if the woman 'has short hair', let her also 'have her hair cut short’.



SECTION 4 - THE WITNESS OF CREATION
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman: but all things of God,” ICor11:7-12. The creation account testifies 3 times that there is a layer of authority between Christ and woman. The creation account reflects the indirect relationship that woman has to Christ in the outward realm, and witnesses to the appropriateness of the headcovering garment as a symbol of the authority of man.

TESTIMONY #1 - GEN1:26-28 - THE PATTERN OF WOMAN'S CREATION: WOMAN WAS CREATED IN THE GLORY OF MAN. "FOR A MAN INDEED OUGHT NOT TO COVER HIS HEAD, FORASMUCH AS HE IS THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD: BUT THE WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN,” ICOR11:7. Man is made in the image of God; woman is not. I Corinthians 11:7 refers back to the sixth day of creation in Genesis 1:26-28, where a careful distinction is made between the singular and the plural. “And God said, Let us make man (singular) in our image, after our likeness: and let them (plural) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle ... So God created man (singular) in his own image, in the image of God created he him (singular), male and female created he them (plural). And God blessed them (plural), and God said unto them (plural), ... replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing”.

God is always male in the Bible. He is our heavenly Father, not our heavenly mother. Christ is male. He is the Son of God, the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David. The angels are all male. They were often mistaken for young men when they appeared, never for young women. The word translated ‘image’ has to do with outward appearance. “They brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, “Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s,” Matt22:20-21. Woman is not even made in the image of man. She isn’t male. This means nothing in the spiritual realm, where things matter most. Spiritually, men and women are identical. But it does matter in the realm where both “male and female,” Gal3:28, do exist.

Although, woman is not created in even man's image, she is created in man's glory. After being careful to point out that only man was created in God’s image in Genesis 1:26-28, the scripture goes on to say that woman shares in man’s dominion over the rest of the earth. And this dominion is man’s glory. “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? ... For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: ... the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea,” Ps8:4-8.

TESTIMONY #2 - GEN2:21-23 - THE MANNER OF WOMAN’S CREATION: WOMAN IS OF MAN. “FOR THE MAN IS NOT OF THE WOMAN, BUT THE WOMAN OF THE MAN,” ICOR11:8. Man was created directly; woman's creation was indirect. The key word in this verse is the word “of” or “out of” in Greek. I Corinthians 11:8 refers back to Genesis 2:21-23 concerning the manner of woman’s creation. "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken ‘out of’ Man,” Gen2:23. Woman's creation was unique of all that God created. The animals were formed out of the ground. "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air," Gen2:19. Adam's body was formed of the dust of the ground, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground," Gen2:7. But, Mrs. Adam ("he ... called their name Adam,” Gen5:2), was made completely of a piece of Adam. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man," Gen2:21-22.

God could have made Eve directly from the dust of the ground as he had made Adam, or he could have created each person directly as he did the myriad of angels. God made woman out of man so that additional authority structures would be created, because inequalities are essential for unity and “it is not good that man should be alone,” Gen2:18. This doesn’t mean that everyone should marry, but rather that God saw the need for everyone to be born into authority structures in families, extended families, churches, neighborhoods, countries, etc.

Philosophically, the source of something is greater than that which comes from it; the whole is greater than the part taken from it; that which is existed earlier is greater than that which comes after. John pointed to the preexistence of Jesus as proof of his superiority, “after me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me,” John1:30. Jesus is lower in rank than the Father, because he is of the Father; the Father is not of him, "I came forth from the Father," John16:28. The Bible says that "we are of God," IJohn4:6; but it would not be correct to say that God is of us. If Jesus had really been of David, instead of being the preexistent Son of God, he could not have authority over David. "If David then call him Lord (in Ps110:1), how is he his son," Matt22:45.

TESTIMONY #3 - GEN2:20 - THE PURPOSE OF WOMAN’S CREATION: WOMAN IS FOR MAN. “NEITHER WAS THE MAN CREATED FOR THE WOMAN, BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN,” ICOR11:9. Man was created for a purpose, and then woman was created to help man fulfill man’s purpose. The key word in this verse is the word “for”. I Corinthians 11:9 refers back to Genesis 2:20, “there was not found an help meet for him”. Woman was made to be man’s helper, not his leader or teacher. This word “help” is the best description of woman’s role in the home, the church, and society. Purpose has always been important in determining rank. "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath," Mark2:27-28.

Genesis 2:20, “there was not found an help meet for him,” does not mean that unmarried women do not fulfill the purpose of Eve’s creation. Paul said that if a person has enough self-control to avoid fornication, he can serve the Lord better by remaining single. “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ... But every man hath his proper gift of God, ... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I; but if they cannot contain, let them marry. ... The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak ... that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction,” ICor7:1-40. If a woman remains single, she can even better fulfill her role as helper in her extended family, in the church, and in society at large.

There are many Biblical examples of women fulfilling this role admirably. Women helped Jesus. "Certain women ... Mary called Magdalene, ... and Joanna ... and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him (Jesus) of their substance," Luke8:2-3. Paul’s first convert in Macedonia was a woman named Lydia, who then gave lodging to the missionaries, “when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us,” Acts16:15. In Corinth, Priscilla provided Paul lodging while he started the church. "After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; and found a certain Jew named Aquila ... with his wife Priscilla, ... and because he was of the same craft, he abode with them," Acts18:1-3. It can be a lot of work and an interruption of family routine for a woman to have guests stay in her house; but it can also be a great spiritual service to God. (Of course, women should not jeopardize safety or propriety to do this service.)

In Rome, many women helped with the ministry. Priscilla and her husband helped Paul by risking their lives for him, and helped the church at Rome by hosting church meetings. “Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus, who have for my life laid down their own necks, unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise, greet the church that is in their house,” Rom16:3-5. Hosting church gatherings can involve a lot of sacrifice by the hostess and her family. Paul asked the church to help Phebe with the secular business she had in Rome, and described her as “a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea (Corinth's eastern seaport), ... for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself,”Rom16:1-2. Also, in Rome was “Mary, who bestowed much labour on us,” Rom16:6, and “the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord,” Rom16:12.

In Joppa, there was "a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did”. When she became sick and died, the disciples sent for Peter to come and raise her from the dead, and “when he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them,” Acts9:36-42. In I Timothy 5:9-10, Paul said, “Let not a widow be taken into the number (to receive financial support from the church) under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work”.

“FOR THIS CAUSE OUGHT THE WOMAN TO HAVE POWER ON HER HEAD BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS,” ICOR11:10. The word “power” in King James English has the meaning of our word “authority” today. The word is used in place of the word ‘headcovering’ here, because the headcovering symbolizes the authority of man as a layer between Christ and woman in the chain-of-command of verse 3. The headcovering garment is the physical emblem of the headcovering ordinance, just as the bread and wine are the physical emblems of the Lord’s supper. Both ordinances require a physical symbol that people can exercise their wills to use during a specific period of time to participate in the observances and to symbolize their spiritual truths. A garment that can be put on or taken off at will meets these criteria as well as the bread and cup do, but proper hair length does not. As the bread and cup at the Lord’s supper help us to remember the Lord, the headcovering garments remind us of man's authority and resulting responsibilities.

But it is not only people who learn from the headcovering observance. Angels learn about God by watching the church. “God, who created all things by Jesus Christ, to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God”. What a testimony to angels that frail men could be so transformed by the work of Christ that the Bride of Christ would regularly signify her hearty acceptance of authority, while the painted-faced Jezebel of the world mimics the prideful rebellion of Satan himself. Physical things can be significant symbols to angels, like the blood on the Israelites’ doorways was when the Lord passed through Egypt to smite the firstborn sons (Ex12:21-23).

Angels’ are certainly interested in authority and the chain-of-command. They were created for service. “Who maketh his angels spirits, his ministers a flame of fire,” Heb1:7. The “principalities and powers (authorities) in high places,” Eph6:12, that we wrestle against are fallen angels. And angels are probably interested in things relating to the creation of man and woman. They were there when God “laid the foundations of the earth ... when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God (the angels, which are all male) shouted for joy,” Job38:4,7.

Angels aren’t tempted by the kinds of things men are, but rather by things having to do with authority. When Satan and his angels fell, their sin was that of rebellion against God. Angels are interested in promoting false doctrine and warring against God’s authority, not in fleshly sins. Some day Satan will impregnate a Roman (Dan9:26) woman who will give birth to the Anti-Christ, “the LORD God said unto the serpent, ... I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed,” Gen3:15. Children are born of the seed of males, not of females, with the exception of the virgin-born Jesus. The seed of the woman prophesy was fulfilled by a literal birth, so we can expect the seed of the serpent prophecy to be fulfilled by a literal birth. But Satan will do this to produce an imitation of Christ to deceive mankind, not because of any lust for woman. Women do not wear headcoverings to keep angels from lusting at their hair, as some have speculated, because angels aren’t interested in such things. And women do not wear headcoverings to notify good angels they can minister to them, as others have speculated. How would headcoverings provide identification in cultures where all women wear them, and could angels identify a man as a Christian because he doesn’t wear a hat?

Angels are present at church meetings during the headcovering observance. Nations have both good angels and bad angels assigned to them, which war against each other. “Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel ... thy words were heard ... but the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me ... there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince,” Dan10:12-13, 21. Churches also have angels assigned to them, “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write ...,” Rev2:1. And every child in church meeting has a guardian angel, “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven,” Matt18:10. And since angels are “ministering spirits, sent forth to minister unto them who shall be heirs of salvation,” Heb1:14, don’t you think some might be around during the meeting of the church?

Angels watched the Lord's ministry. "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory," ITim3:16. Angels watched the apostles' ministries. "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men," ICor4:9. Angels watch pastors' ministries. "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another," ITim5:21. And angels watch women's ministries, "... because of the angels," ICor11:9. Women should remember that their special ministries in the physical realm are important in the plan of God like the ministries of the Lord, the apostles, and pastors.

Notices that verses 7-9 all refer back to the account of the creation of woman on the sixth day. The Sabbath was given to Israel, and only Israel, to commemorate God’s rest on the seventh day of creation. "The children of Israel shall keep the sabbath ... for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed," Ex31:16-17. The headcovering ordinance seems to have been given to the church, and only the church, to commemorate the creation of woman on the sixth day of creation (ICor11:7-10).

The Sabbath ordinance was given to Israel around the time of the nations birth to commemorate its rest from Egyptian slavery. "Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out ... therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day," Deut5:15. Likewise, the headcovering ordinance was given to the church around the time of its creation at Pentecost, possibly to commemorate its creation as the Bride of Christ out of the death of the body of Christ. Adam said Eve was, "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," Gen2:23. Paul said "we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," Eph5:30. Just as the Lord’s supper is a memorial to the historical event of the Lord’s death and resurrection and looks forward to his return; so the headcovering may be a memorial to the creation of his bride, the church, out of his own body which he gave for her on the cross, and it looks forward to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Notice also in these verses especially, but also in the chapter as a whole, that Paul does not give a single cultural reason as to why the church should keep the headcovering ordinance. Man’s headship over woman is like the eternal headship of God the Father over God the Son in verse 3. Verses 7 to 9, which say that woman is the glory of man, was taken out of man, and was created for man, are based on the historical event of woman’s creation - and this historical event does not change no matter which culture or time period you live in. There are all kinds of different stories about female Corinthian temple prostitutes that had short hair, or didn’t wear hoods, or didn’t wear veils. However, the admonitions of this chapter are first of all to men, “every man praying or prophesying,” ICor11:4. Were there also male Corinthian temple prostitutes that had long hair, or wore hoods, or wore veils? If an accurate understanding of Corinthian secular history is necessary to understand this passage then we have the responsibility to translate and disseminate the source documents of that history into every language, along with the Bible - but God inspired and preserved only his word. “His truth endureth unto all generations,” Ps100:5.

“NEVERTHELESS NEITHER IS THE MAN WITHOUT THE WOMAN, NEITHER THE WOMAN WITHOUT THE MAN, IN THE LORD. FOR AS THE WOMAN IS OF THE MAN, EVEN SO IS THE MAN ALSO BY THE WOMAN: BUT ALL THINGS OF GOD,” ICOR11:11-12. Paul is still talking about the physical realm in verses 11-12. There is no question that men and women are equal in the spiritual realm. Paul says that even in the physical realm, God created interdependencies along with inequalities. Every person except Adam and Eve have been dependent on both man and woman for their existence. Eve came into existence by means of Adam’s rib, but since that time, every man including the Saviour, has come into the world through woman. The role of childbearing is the salvation; not spiritually, but physically, of women in the world. “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith, and charity and holiness with sobriety,” ITim2:13-15. This is not to say that any particular woman must give birth in order to obtain this benefit. God has ordained that we come into the world through mothers so that the status of all women is improved. This way men are taught to treat all women with respect, “the elder women as mothers; the younger women as sisters, with all purity,” ITim4:2.

God did not create man or woman to be overly dependant on each other, because our real dependence is in God, even in the physical realm. Adam merely slept, but God made Eve. Women suffer through labor, but God fashions the bones, and veins, and ligaments of the children in the womb. “Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb, ... I am fearfully and wonderfully made,” Ps139:14. “It is he that made us, and not we ourselves,” Ps100:3.



SECTION 5 - THE WITNESS OF NATURE
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering,” ICor11:13-15. Both long hair and headcovering garments on women are not merely right, but also beautiful. Nature witnesses to the appropriateness of the headcovering garment as an emblem of the headcovering ordinance by giving women long hair that looks like they are already wearing headcovering garments.

“JUDGE IN YOURSELVES: IS IT COMELY THAT A WOMAN PRAY UNTO GOD UNCOVERED?” ICOR11:13. Before the headcovering ordinance was given to the church, it was not a shame for a woman to pray unto God uncovered, but there was never anything particularly comely about it either. Now during the headcovering observance, the best a man can do is merely avoid shame by removing his hat, but a woman can accomplish something comely by covering her head. These verses also show that the headcovering ordinance is not about hair length. According to these verses, proper hair length has been understood naturally by even unsaved people through all times; but according to verse 2, the headcovering ordinance is an apostolic commandment given to the church.

“DOTH NOT EVEN NATURE ITSELF TEACH YOU, THAT IF A MAN HAVE LONG HAIR, IT IS A SHAME UNTO HIM?,” ICOR11:14. Even though the headcovering ordinance is not about hair length, this part of the passage is authoritative for all who would go against nature in regards to hair length. Long hair is a shame to men. David’s son Absalom cut his hair only “at every year’s end” IISam14:26; and his attempt to overthrow his father ended ignominiously when he was caught in battle as his “mule went under the thick boughs of a great oak, and his head caught hold of the oak” IISam18:9. Men, like Samson, who took the Nazarite vow had long hair, but they were exceptions and were not allowed to drink wine, or eat grapes, or go to funerals either (Num6:1-8). The priests in the millennial temple will not be permitted to “shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads (trim their hair short), Ezek44:20.

“BUT IF A WOMAN HAVE LONG HAIR, IT IS A GLORY TO HER,” ICOR11:15. Long hair is a glory to women. In the Song of Solomon, the King compares looking at his wife's hair to the beauty of watching a flock of goats, lazily wending their way down the side of distant Mount Gilead in the evening. "Thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead," Song4:1, Song6:5. He also compared burying his fingers in her hair to being in a palace gallery surrounded by luxurious, flowing, purple curtains. "And the hair of thine head like purple; the king is held in the galleries. How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights," Song7:5-6.

How long is long? Mary’s hair was long enough that she could anoint the feet of Jesus with costly spikenard for his burial, and wipe “his feet with her hair,” John12:3. Also, notice that once the text mentions that woman’s hair is a glory to her, it never mentions anything about covering it. It is not one of the purposes of the headcovering ordinance, for women to cover their hair to hide their glory so as not to detract from the glory of the men in the church. And it is not a purpose of the headcovering for the women to cover their hair so as not to distract others by their beauty, or they would also have to cover their faces, hands, etc.

In nature, the best a man can do is merely avoid shame by having short hair, but a woman can gain glory by having long hair. Likewise, during the headcovering observance, the best a man can do is merely avoid shame by removing his hat, but a woman can accomplish something comely by covering her head. It is a beautiful sight to those who value submission and obedience, to see the women of the congregation in humbleness with covered heads, and in lowliness of mind, like the Lord, “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 himself the form of a servant,” Phil3:6-7. It is hard for a husband to be bitter against a wife he sees wearing the symbol of her submission, “husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them,” Col3:19. It is hard for the men not to feel the weight of their responsibility or fail to rededicate themselves to honor, protect, and rightly lead the women of the church, when they see them so adorned.

“FOR HER HAIR IS GIVEN HER FOR A COVERING,” ICOR11:15. A woman’s long hair is like a beautiful garment. The word ‘covering’ (‘periboleo’ in Greek) is translated ‘vesture’ in Hebrews 1:12. Women with long hair look like they are wearing headcovering garments, and most women have naturally looked this way through all ages and all cultures. This is a witness to the appropriateness of the headcovering garment as a symbol of the headcovering observance. It also means that a headcovering garment should look like long hair. It should be a shawl or a scarf; not a hat.



SECTION 6 - CONTENTION
“But if any man seem (or ‘think this’) to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God,” ICor11:16. Some people may think the headcovering observance puts men into a position to lord it over women and subjugate them. Certainly the potential for misuse exists, but that is not the kind of observance the apostles advocated nor the the churches practised.

“BUT IF ANY MAN SEEM (OR ‘THINK THIS’) TO BE CONTENTIOUS,” ICOR11:16. The word translated as “contentious” is the Greek word ‘philo-neikos’. ‘Philo’ means ‘love of’; “neikos” means strife and is akin to “nekos” meaning ‘conquest’. I think it may also carry our concept of ‘love of power’. The only other place this word appears in the New Testament is in Luke 22. “And there was also a strife (‘philoneikos’) among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” Luke22:24-30. As much as ungodly men may try to overthrow God’s chain-of-command, his authority structures will endure. The twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, but they will be some of the most unselfish leaders the world has ever seen. In Luke 22, the apostles were behaving in a power-hungry way, because they didn’t yet understand authority.

The headcovering observance helps us understand authority, and those who oppose it do so because they do not understand authority. Those who rightfully serve in positions of authority under Christ have to suffer more and make greater sacrifices than those who are under them. Godly leaders serve in their positions to take care of those under their charge, not to exploit them. Everyone except God the Father is under the authority of someone, and a good heart is glad to serve without envy of others’ positions. I believe most women really like their place in God’s order. They like to help; but they like to be loved and appreciated and respected as well. It bothers me when I hear people criticize or ridicule ‘women libbers’. It is the apostate church and the male philosophers of this world that have led women into what is called the women’s liberation movement. Women will follow if men lead them in the right direction in love.

The world claims the church doesn’t think highly of women. Actually, the church values women as women. The church understands that there is no stigma to subordinate positions; otherwise we could not be content in our subordinate positions to God. The world does not value women as they naturally are, but wants to change them. It despises their natural role, and esteems the subordinate position they were created for as being worthless. The world doesn’t want women to make sacrifices for their families or to enjoy being a help in all areas of society.

“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,” IPet3:7. Is it really kind to give those who are weaker the right to compete on an equal footing with those who are stronger; no more restrictions on one hand, but no more protection or preference on the other? If its ‘every person for himself’ then men will no longer open doors for women or give them other courtesies. Much suffering has resulted from society's disregard of the role of women. Many men today give their wives the 'right' to be separated from their children all day, to work all day at the office or factory, to do most of the housework at night, and then feel no obligation to stay married to them when they get older because everything’s 50-50. “Let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth, for the LORD God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away (i.e. divorce),” Mal2:15-16. Men do not push equality for women because they care about women, but because they want to escape their obligations to care for their mothers, sisters, and wives and to escape from being under authority themselves.

“WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM, NEITHER THE CHURCHES OF GOD,” ICOR11:16. The headcovering observance is certainly open to risk of abuse. But the weakness and sinfulness of man is to blame, not the observance itself. It is important that we not only keep the observance, but also instruct the saints as to its meaning, as Paul did starting in verse 3. “I praise you that you ... keep the ordinances ... but I would have you know ... ,” ICor11:3. If men walk away from the headcovering ceremony remembering only the parts that say woman has a subordinate position, instead of gaining a better understanding of their own responsibilities and of authority as Jesus taught it, then more harm than good will probably be done, just as with the Lord’s supper, as we’ll see in the next section. Paul said that neither the apostles nor the other churches of his time practiced the headcovering observance in a way that would lord it over woman. This also means that all the churches at that time were keeping the headcovering ordinance, and so should we today.



PART II - THE LORD’S SUPPER ORDINANCE

OUTLINE
1) Divisions - ICor11:17-19.
2) Supper - ICor11:20-22.
3) Bread and Cup - ICor11:23-26.
4) Unworthily - ICor11:27-32.
5) Tarry - ICor11:33-34.
6) The Rest - ICor11:34.

SECTION 1 - DIVISIONS
“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be manifest among you,” ICor11:17-19.

The Corinthians were worse off for going to church. First of all, there were the divisions Paul said he heard about in chapters 1 - 4. “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them of the house of Cloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?,” ICor1:11-13. Secondly, there were heresies because of men wanted to be “approved, ” ICor11:19 by their own group of followers. If these men had learned the lessons of the headcovering ordinance they would not have been seeking preeminence.



SECTION 2 - SUPPER
“When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not," ICor11:20-22.

The early church ate a full meal when they observed the Lord’s supper. The word translated ‘supper’ in I Corinthians 11 means the chief meal of the day, usually taken in the evening. It is sometimes translated as ‘feast’ in the New Testament. The same Greek word is used to refer to the “marriage 'supper' of the Lamb,” Rev19:17. We know the early church ate a full meal when they observed the Lord's supper from this I Corinthians 11 passage, and other passages may also indicate this.

The phrase 'breaking of bread' may refer to the Lord's supper in Acts 2, "they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers ... and they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," Acts2:42,46. In verse 46, "breaking bread from house to house" would indicate the observance of the Lord's supper, and "did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart" would indicate the observance included a full meal. Likewise in Acts 20, "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ... when he therefore ... had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed," Acts20:7,11. "Had broken bread" would indicate the observance of the Lord's supper, and "and eaten" would indicate its observance included a full meal.

(The phrase 'break bread' is found in only 12 passages in the New Testament. In 10 of the 12, it is used to refer to breaking a literal loaf of bread (by Jesus not at the last supper: Matt14:19, 15:36; Mark8:6,19; Luke24:30,35; by Jesus at the last supper: Matt26:26; Mark14:22; Luke22:19; ICor11:24; by Paul not in observance of the Lord’s supper: Acts27:35; by churches in observance of the Lord’s supper: ICor10:16). In the other two passages, Acts 2 and Acts 20, we are not sure if the phrase is used as a euphemism for observing the Lord’s supper or a euphamism for simply eating a regular meal. There is not a single reference where we can be sure the phrase ‘break bread’ is a euphemism for simply eating a meal, unlike the phrases ‘eat bread’ (Mark3:20; Luke14:1,15; 2Thess3:8,12), ‘eat meat’ (Acts2:46), and ‘sit at meat’ (Matt9:10; 14:9; 26:7; Mark2:15; 14:3; 16:14; Luke7:36,37,49; 11:37; 14:10,15; 17:7; 22:27; 24:30; ICor8:10). Therefore, since the phrase 'break bread' was especially characteristic of Jesus and had special significance to the Lord’s supper, it seems better to understand the phrase as a euphemism representing the Lord’s supper in Acts 2 and Acts 20, than a euphamism for simply eating a meal.)

Other verses may also indicate the early church feasted together, possibly in connection with the Lord’s supper. “For there are certain men crept in unawares ... these are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear,” Jude1:4,12; and, “spots they are and blemishes ... while they feast with you,” IIPet2:13.

The problem with the Corinthian's observance of the Lord's supper, was not that they ate a full meal during its observance, but that they misbehaved at the meal. Instead of promoting unity, their supper fostered division. Some were gluttoneous, and even drunken. Those that brought in abundance shared only with others in their own clicque. The poor brethren went hungry. Individuals were so focused on eating their own suppers that the time didn't even count as eating the Lord's supper. “This is not to eat the Lord’s supper, for in eating, everyone taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” ICor11:21-22.

We are not to show favoritism. Paul charged Timothy to lead and serve the church without, "preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality, ITim5:21. James said it is wrong to treat people “with respect of persons” James2:1-13. Jesus taught a lot about sharing meals. In Luke 14, while sitting at a meal he was invited to, Jesus gave 3 differant parables about meals. One of them talked about our attitudes towards those of low estate. "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just," Luke14:12-14. We are not to prefer one person before another, but we are to prefer others before ourselves. "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another," Rom12:10. "In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves," Phil2:3. In the next chapter, Paul will teach that , “there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another,” ICor12:25.
The Corinthians showed partiality and respect of persons at the Lord's supper, "despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?,” ICor11:21-22. They did not merely despise the brethren of low estate; they even used the Lord’s supper that Jesus gave as a means of remembering Him, as the means of despising the brethren of low estate. Their suppers which should have been "feasts of charity (KJV for 'love'),” Jude1:12, and unity were tools of devisivness. Paul said, “Shall I praise you in this” kind of keeping of the Lord’s supper? “I praise you not,” vs22.



SECTION 3 - BREAD AND CUP
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come,” ICor11:23-26.

The main point, mentioned twice, is that the purpose of the observance is to remember the Lord Jesus. We use to use the symbols of the bread and cup to remember him. It does not say so in this passage, but I believe the bread we use to symbolize his body should be unleavened. Spiritual things are more important than physical things, but if God tells the church to symbolize something spiritual through a physical item, then the physical item we use for the symbolism is important. Leaven is consistently used as a symbol of sin and false doctrine in the Bible. We know that the bread Jesus held up when he said, “this is my body,” was unleavened bread because the last supper was a Passover meal. “Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?,” Matt26:17.

Even though Paul did not say, "as often as ye eat this ‘unleavened’ bread" in verse 26, we know he explained the Jewish feasts and the symbolism of them to the Corinthians while he was with them in Corinth, because he refers to them in I Corinthians. God gave 7 feasts to Israel in two groups; the 4 spring feasts represent the first coming of Christ, and the 3 fall feasts represent the second coming of Christ. The first 4 feasts representing Christ's first coming all have leaven as a key symbol, and all 4 were mentioned in I Corinthians.

First comes Passover on the 14th day of the first month of the Jewish calendar. "Your lamb shall be without blemish ... and they shall eat the flesh that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread ...,” Ex12:5,8. "Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the feast of the passover be left unto the morning,” Ex34:25. Jesus fulfilled this feast to the letter, dying on the cross the very hour that the passover lamb was offered by the priests in the temple (which is different from the lamb eaten in homes the night before). Passover was mentioned in ICor5:7, "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us."

Then comes the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the 15th through the 22nd. "And on the fifteenth day of the same month at even is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days must ye eat unleavened bread,” Lev23:6. "Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses,” Ex12:19. This feast was a symbol of Christ's offering his sinless blood in the heavenly tabernacle. That is why Mary could not touch him. "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father,” Jn20:17. Moses patterned the tabernacle on earth after the real tabernacle in heaven which God showed him. The tabernacle Moses made was purified with animal blood, but Jesus purified the "true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched," Heb8:2, in heaven with own blood. "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these (the blood of calves and goats); but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands ...,” Heb9:23-24. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was mentioned in I Corinthians 5:8, "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

The third feast is the Feast of Firstfruits. The day of the month changed from year to year, but the day of the week was essential. It had to be observed on the Sunday after Passover. "And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it,” Lev23:11. This feast was fulfilled by the resurrection of Christ, the firstfruits from the dead, on the day it was being celebrated. The Feast of Firstfruits was mentioned in I Corinthians 15:20-23, "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept, ... but every man in his own order, Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.”

The fourth feast is the Feast of Weeks, also called Pentecost. It occurred fifty days after firstfruits. Leaven was also conspicuous in this feast, not by its absence, but because it's presence was required. "Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD,” Lev23:17. This feast symbolized the birth of the church which is made up of sinful men redeemed from among Jews and Gentiles. The Feast of Weeks was mentioned in ICor16:8, "But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost".

Leaven consistently represents sin and false doctrine in the Bible. Three groups opposed Jesus and eventually delivered him to Pilate: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians. In Matt16:6, Jesus said, "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees"; and in Mark8:15 he warns of the "leaven of Herod". "Then understood they how that he bade them not beware the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” Matt16:12.

Two characteristics make leaven an excellent symbol of sin and false doctrine. First, leaven is pervasive. If you put a little leaven in one part of some dough, pretty soon the thing the whole thing becomes leavened. Sin in a group is pervasive. "that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you ... know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?,” ICor5:2,6. False doctrine is also pervasive. Matthew 13 says that false doctrine will dominate by the time Christ returns to set up the millenial kingdom, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened," Matt13:33.

Secondly, leaven is old. "Purge out the old leaven that ye may be a new lump,” ICor5:7. Yeast is comprised of one-celled plants that reproduce by budding or splitting, rather than by dying and germinating. The yeast in the bread you eat came from other living yeast in an unbroken line back to Eden. In contrast, the wheat in the bread got here by a life and death cycle. "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit,” John12:24. For Christ to qualify to be a sacrifice for sin he could not himself inherit the sin of Adam as we did (Rom5:12). He had to be the virgin-born seed of the woman (Gen3:15), not of man.

Leavened bread is a very poor symbol to use for Christ, “who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God,” Heb9:14. Christ was the fulfillment of Old Testament sacrifices, but Old Testament sacrifices couldn’t include leaven. "No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire,” Lev3:11. The church has been given few symbols, compared to Israel, but we should be meticulous in the few we have been given. In symbols, the external details really matter because symbols are externals. We should never symbolize the Lord Jesus as having sin, and I believe that is what we do if we use leavened bread at the Lord's supper.



SECTION 4 - UNWORTHILY
“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.,” ICor11:27-32.

Most churches today use these verses to say that Christians should confess their sins before they partake of the Lord's supper. However, wrote this section of I Corinthians because of the Corrinthians were using the Lord's supper to show disrespect to other brethren. In context, the phrase about eating and drinking “unworthily” means to eat and drink ‘in an unworthy manner’, not to eat and drink with unconfessed sin.

The only other passage I am familiar with that could imply Christians ought to confess their sins to God is I John 1, but that book is about how to know we’re Christians. “These things have I written unto you ... that ye may know that ye have eternal life,” IJohn5:13. John states that “God is light,” in IJohn1:5. If a person has fellowship with God; ie., if a person has union with God, then of logical necessity, that person is also in the light. Anyone can claim to have fellowship with God, but only those walking in the light are telling the truth when they say they have fellowship with God. I John is about how to test a person’s talk by their walk. IJohn1:6, “(since God is light, then) if we (talk:) say we have fellowship with him, and (walk:) walk in darkness, (that proves:) we lie, and do not the truth (we are not Christians); but if we (walk:) walk in the light ..., (that proves:) we have fellowship ..., and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin (we are Christians)”. Walking in the light does not result in being cleansed from sin; that would be salvation by works. Walking in the light proves that we are Christians and that we are cleansed from sin. According to John, our ‘walk’ is comprised of three areas: doctrine, obedience, and love. John applies the talk/walk test of I John1:6-7 to nine cases in I John 1:8 - 2:11: three for doctrine, three for obedience, and three for love.

DOCTRINE: When it comes to doctrine, our talk is our walk. IJohn1:8, “if we say that we have no sin (doctrine of self-righteousness), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (we are not Christians)”. IJohn1:9, “if we confess our sins, (doctrine of not trusting in self) he is faithful to ... cleanse us from all unrighteousness (we are Christians)”. IJohn1:10, “if we say we have not sinned, (doctrine of self-righteousness) we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (we are not Christians)”. Unbelievers might admit they sin, but they don’t think its a big deal because they are not as bad as some other people. I John 1:7-9 is not about how Christians should confess individual sins to God after salvation. It is about how unbelievers are self-righteous, but believers confess they are sinners and trust in God’s righteousness for their salvation. “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican, ... and the publican ... smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you this man went down to his house justified rather than the other,” Luke18:14.

OBEDIENCE: IJohn2:4, “he that (talk:) saith I know him, and (walk) keepeth not his commandments, (proves he) is a liar, and the truth is not in him (he is not a Christian)”.

LOVE: IJohn2:9, “(since God is light, then) he that (talk:) saith he is in the light, and (walk) hateth his brother, (proves he) is in darkness even until now (is not a Christian)”.

John also deals with the case where the walk seems to change, “they went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us,” IJohn2:19. I John was not only written so that we might know we have eternal life, but “these things write we unto you, that your joy might be full,” IJohn1:4. If a person’s walk is an infallible test of whether or not they are a Christian, then every Christian must be guaranteed a certain walk. Every step will not be right, but our walk is guaranteed to be different because God is in us, and knowing that is a tremendous source of joy. All Christians are guaranteed fruit, though the amount is up to us, “some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty,” Matt13:23. (Only the good ground represents Christians, because it is the only one that “understandeth,” Matt13:23, the gospel, and you have to understand it to become a Christian.) Oh, there is one other option, “there is a sin unto death,” IJohn5:16. The Lord may have to take us home via physical judgment to ensure we walk in the light.

All our sins were future to Christ when he died for them, and all were forgiven when we believed on him. We counted perfectly righteous in Christ. If we have to confess our sins to be clean enough to observe the Lord's supper, we can never be clean enough, because we can’t even confess all the sins we are aware of.

The word “damnation” in verse 29, should be translated “judgment,” because it refers to the physical judgment described in the next verse, "for this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep", ICor11:30. Many Christians were weak and many died in Corinth because of physical judgment they experienced because of the manner in which they kept the Lord’s supper.

But how is our manner of keeping the Lord’s supper? We should call it the Lord’s breakfast, because we eat it in the morning. We should call it the Lord’s snack, because it’s smaller than hors d’oeuvres. We don’t have problems of gluttony and drunkenness at our Lord’s suppers! We can’t even be tempted because we have gotten rid of both the supper and the wine. Paul could write to us, “When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For a crumb of bread and a thimble of wine are no supper”. Can you imagine sitting down at the marriage supper of the Lamb and receiving only a fragment of cracker and a thimble of juice? And if the Corinthians experienced physical judgments of weakness and sickness for the way they kept the Lord’s supper, could we be experiencing the same thing today for the way we are keeping it? And if improper observance of the Lord’s supper ordinance exposes a congregation to physical judgment, how about non-observance of the headcovering ordinance?



SECTION 5 - TARRY
“Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.

Paul is simply telling them to fix the one specific problem this passage is about: that “in eating every one taketh before other his own supper,” vs21. To fix that they should “tarry one for another,” vs33. One way they could do this could be to have the prayer and prophecy portion of their assembly first, like Paul did in Troas, “when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ... and continued his speech unto midnight, ... and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed,” Acts20:7-12. If it would be difficult for people to come straight from work and “tarry” until a later part of the gathering before eating, then they should eat something before they come, “if any man hunger, let him eat at home,” vs34.

The Corinthian church was under physical judgment because, although they kept the headcovering ordinance perfectly, they kept the Lord’s supper ordinance in an improper manner. Many assemblies today have completely ceased to keep the headcovering ordinance, and have completely thrown out the “supper” portion of the Lord’s supper. The Corinthians did much better in these areas. It could be that “for this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and some sleep,” vs30. I urge you to restore the obedience of these ordinances to your assembly, “that ye come not together unto condemnation,” vs34.



SECTION 6 - THE REST
And the rest will I set in order when I come,” ICor11:33-34.

The last sentence of verse 34 not only ends the second half of the chapter on the Lord’s supper, but it also ends the whole passage on the ordinances. Paul told the Corinthians they were doing a good job keeping the headcovering ordinance, and he pointed out their sin in how they were abusing the Lord’s supper ordinance, and then he closed by telling them there were more things he would need to correct when he returned to them.