Is God a God of order or disorder? One of the biggest problems in the Corinthian church was disorder in the public meetings. Some of the women were assuming more freedom than they should have, there was selfishness at their gatherings and there was disorder at the Lord’s Supper.
Paul could have tried to solve these problems by issuing apostolic edicts, but instead he patiently explained the spiritual principles that supported the teachings he had given the church. He founded his arguments on the Word of God.
Paul dealt with three particular areas of confusion in their public worship.
- Women Praying and Prophesying (1 Cor. 11:3-16)
The Christian faith brought freedom and hope to women, children, and slaves. It taught that all people, regardless of race or sex, were equal before their Creator, and that all believers were “one in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:28). The local church was perhaps the only fellowship in the Roman Empire that welcomed all people, regardless of nationality, social status, sex, or economic position.
It was to be expected that there would be some who would carry this newfound freedom to excess. A new movement always suffers more from its disciples than from its enemies, and this was true in Corinth. Some of the women flaunted their “freedom” in the public meetings by refusing to cover their heads when they participated.
Paul did not forbid the women to pray or to prophesy. (Prophesying is not quite the same as our “preaching” or “expounding the Word.” A person with the gift of prophecy proclaimed God’s message as it was given to him immediately by the Spirit. The modern preacher studies the Word and prepares his message.) While the New Testament does not seem to permit women elders (1 Tim. 3:2), women in the early church who had the gift of prophecy were allowed to exercise it. They were also permitted to pray in the public meetings. However, they were not permitted to usurp authority over the men (1 Tim. 2:11-15) or to judge the messages of the other prophets (1 Cor. 14:27-35). If they had any questions, they were to ask their husbands (or other men) outside of the church meeting.
Eastern society at that time was very jealous over its women. Except for the temple prostitutes, the women wore long hair and, in public, wore a covering over their heads. (Paul did not use the word veil, i.e., a covering over the face. The woman put the regular shawl over her head, and this covering symbolized her submission and purity.) For the Christian women in the church to appear in public without the covering, let alone to pray and share the Word, was both daring and blasphemous.
Paul sought to restore order by reminding the Corinthians that God had made a difference between men and women, that each had a proper place in God’s economy. There were also appropriate customs that symbolized these relationships and reminded both men and women of their correct places in the divine scheme. Paul did not say, or even hint, that difference meant inequality or inferiority. If there is to be peace in the church (1 Cor. 15:33), then there must be some kind of order; and order of necessity involves rank. However, rank and quality are two different things. The captain has a higher rank than the private, but the private may be a better man.
God’s order in the church is based on three fundamentals that Paul considered to be self-evident.
Redemption (vv. 3-7). There is a definite order of “headship” in the church: the Father is the Head over Christ, Christ is the Head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman. Some interpret head to mean “origin,” but this would mean that the Father originated Christ—something we cannot accept. In His redemptive ministry, the Son was subject to the Father even though He is equal to the Father (John 10:30; 14:28). Likewise, the woman is subject to the man even though in Christ she is equal to the man (1 Cor. 3:21-23; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 5:21-33).
Keep in mind that Paul was writing about the relationship within the local assembly, not in the world at large. It is God’s plan that in the home and in the local church, the men should exercise headship under the authority of Jesus Christ.
The important fact is this: both women and men must honor the Lord by respecting the symbols of this headship—hair and the head-covering. Whenever a woman prays or prophesies in the assembly, she must have long hair and must wear a covering. The man should have short hair and not wear any covering. (This would be a change for Paul, for devout Jewish men always wore a cap when they prayed.) The man honors his Head (Christ) by being uncovered, while the woman honors her head (the man) by being covered. She is showing her submission both to God and to the man.
The Corinthian women who appeared in the assembly without the head-covering were actually putting themselves on the low level of the temple prostitutes. The prostitutes wore their hair very short, and they did not wear a head-covering in public. Their hairstyle and manner announced to others just what they were and what they were offering. “If you are going to abandon the covering,” wrote Paul, “then why not go all the way and cut your hair?”
In Jewish law, a woman proved guilty of adultery had her hair cut off (Num. 5:11-31). Paul used two different words in 1 Corinthians 11:5-6: shaved means exactly that, all the hair shaved off; shorn means “cut short.” Either one would be a disgrace to a woman.
Both man and woman are made in the image of God and for the glory of God; but since the woman was made from the man (Gen. 2:18-25), she is also the “glory of the man.” She glorifies God and brings glory to the man by submitting to God’s order and keeping her head covered in public worship. Thus, Paul tied together both local custom and biblical truth, the one pointing to the other.
Creation (vv. 8-12). We have already touched briefly on this truth. God’s order is based on the fact that man was created first (1 Tim. 2:13), and that the woman was created for the man. Again, priority does not imply inferiority; for Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 that there is partnership as well as headship in God’s creation. The man and the woman are spiritually one in the Lord (Gal. 3:28) and one cannot do without the other. Furthermore, the woman may have come from the man at the beginning, but today, it is the man who is born of the woman. Man and woman belong to each other and need each other.
Why did Paul bring up the angels in 1 Corinthians 11:10? He was arguing from the facts of Creation, and the angels were a part of that Creation. The angels also know their place and show respect when they worship God, for they cover their faces (Isa. 6:2). Finally, in some special way, the angels share in the public worship of the church and learn from the church (Eph. 3:10; 1 Peter 1:12). Public worship is a serious thing, for the angels are present; and we ought to conduct ourselves as if we were in heaven.
*The main point is that these Christian women had an equal status with men because of their union with Christ. They were free in Christ, equal before God, and able to pray and prophesy in the worship services. They were no longer to be regarded as inferior, which would have been their previous status in both Greek and Jewish cultures The head covering at Corinth was not a sign of subjection but a sign of women’s willingness to be under the authority of God, just as men were under the authority of God.
Nature (vv. 13-16). In a general way, it is true that nature gives women longer hair and men shorter hair. The Romans, Greeks, and Jews (except for the Nazarites) pretty much followed this custom. Nowhere does the Bible tell us how long our hair should be. It simply states that there ought to be a noticeable difference between the length of the men’s hair and the women’s hair so that there be no confusion of the sexes. (This principle eliminates the so-called “unisex” styles.) It is shameful for the man to look like a woman or the woman to look like a man.
The woman’s long hair is her glory, and it is given to her “instead of a covering” (literal translation). In other words, if local custom does not dictate a head-covering, her long hair can be that covering. I do not think that Paul meant for all women in every culture to wear a shawl for a head-covering; but he did expect them to use their long hair as a covering and as a symbol of their submission to God’s order. This is something that every woman can do.
As I have done mission work in different parts of the world, I have noticed that the basic principle of headship applies in every culture; but the means of demonstrating it differs from place to place. The important thing is the submission of the heart to the Lord and the public manifestation of obedience to God’s order.
- Selfishness at the “Love Feasts” (1 Cor. 11:17-22)
Since the beginning of the church, it was customary for the believers to eat together (Acts 2:42, 46). It was an opportunity for fellowship and for sharing with those who were less privileged. No doubt they ended this meal by observing the Lord’s Supper. They called this meal “the love feast” since its main emphasis was showing love for the saints by snaring with one another.
The “agape feast” (from the Greek word for “love”) was part of the worship at Corinth, but some serious abuses had crept in. As a result, the love feasts were doing more harm than good to the church. For one thing, there were various cliques in the church and people ate with their own “crowd” instead of fellowshipping with the whole church family. While Paul condemned this selfish practice, he did take a positive view of the results: at least God would use this to reveal those who were true believers.
Another fault was selfishness: the rich people brought a great deal of food for themselves while the poorer members went hungry. The original idea of the “agape feast” was sharing, but that idea had been lost Some of the members were even getting drunk. It is likely that the weekly “agape feast” was the only decent meal some of the poorer members regularly had; and to be treated so scornfully by the richer members not only hurt their stomachs, but also their pride.
Of course, the divisions at the dinner were but evidence of the deeper problems in the church. The Corinthians thought they were advanced believers, when in reality they were but little children. Paul did not suggest that they abandon the feast, but rather that they restore its proper meaning. “Let the rich eat at home if they are hungry. When you abuse believers who are less fortunate than you are, then you are actually despising the church!” The “agape feast” should have been an opportunity for edification, but they were using it as a time for embarrassment.
A drinking party is hardly the best way to prepare for the Lord’s Supper. Scorning others is certainly not the way to remember the Saviour who died for all sinners, rich and poor. How important it is that we prepare our hearts when we come to the Lord’s Table!
- Abuses at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-34)
Evangelical churches recognize two ordinances established by Jesus Christ for His people to observe: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. (The Supper is also called The Communion as in 1 Corinthians 10:16, and The Eucharist which means “the giving of thanks.”) Jesus Christ took the cup and the loaf—the ingredients of a common meal in that day—and transformed them into a meaningful spiritual experience for believers. However, the value of the experience depends on the condition of the hearts of those who participate; and this was the problem at Corinth.
It is a serious thing to come to the Communion with an unprepared heart. It is also a serious thing to receive the Supper in a careless manner. Because the Corinthians had been sinning in their observing of the Lord’s Supper, God had disciplined them. “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep [have died]” (1 Cor. 11:30).
The Lord’s Supper gives us an opportunity for spiritual growth and blessings if we approach it in the right attitude. What, then, must we do if the Supper is to bring blessing and not chastening?
First, we should look back (vv. 23-26a). The broken bread reminds us of Christ’s body, given for us; and the cup reminds us of His shed blood. It is a remarkable thing that Jesus wants His followers to remember His death. Most of us try to forget how those we love died, but Jesus wants us to remember how He died. Why? Because everything we have as Christians centers in that death.
We must remember that He died, because this is a part of the Gospel message: “Christ died… and was buried” (1 Cor. 15:3-4). It is not the life of our Lord, or His teachings, that will save sinners—but His death. Therefore, we also remember why He died: Christ died for our sins; He was our substitute (Isa. 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24), paying the debt that we could not pay.
We should also remember how He died: willingly, meekly, showing forth His love for us (Rom. 5:8). He gave His body into the hands of wicked men, and He bore on His body the sins of the world.
However, this “remembering” is not simply the recalling of historical facts. It is a participation in spiritual realities. At the Lord’s Table, we do not walk around a monument and admire it. We have fellowship with a living Saviour as our hearts reach out by faith.
Second, we should look ahead (v. 26b). We observe the Supper “till He comes.” The return of Jesus Christ is the blessed hope of the church and the individual Christian. Jesus not only died for us, but He arose again and ascended to heaven; and one day He shall return to take us to heaven. Today, we are not all that we should be; but when we see Him, “we shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2).
Third, we should look within (vv. 27-28, 31-32). Paul did not say that we had to be worthy to partake of the Supper, but only that we should partake in a worthy manner.
If we are to participate in a worthy manner, we must examine our own hearts, judge our sins, and confess them to the Lord. To come to the table with unconfessed sin in our lives is to be guilty of Christ’s body and blood, for it was sin that nailed Him to the cross. If we will not judge our own sins, then God will judge us and chasten us until we do confess and forsake our sins.
The Corinthians neglected to examine themselves, but they were experts at examining everybody else. When the church gathers together, we must be careful not to become “religious detectives” who watch others, but who fail to acknowledge our own sins. If we eat and drink in an unworthy manner, we eat and drink judgment (chastening) to ourselves, and that is nothing to take lightly.
Chastening is God’s loving way of dealing with His sons and daughters to encourage them to mature (Heb. 12:1-11). It is not a judge condemning a criminal, but a loving Father punishing His disobedient (and perhaps stubborn) children. Chastening proves God’s love for us, and chastening can, if we cooperate, perfect God’s life in us.
Finally, we should look around (vv. 33-34). We should not look around in order to criticize other believers, but in order to discern the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:29). This perhaps has a dual meaning: we should discern His body in the loaf, but also in the church around us—for the church is the body of Christ. “For we being many are one bread, and one body” (1 Cor. 10:17). The Supper should be a demonstration of the unity of the church—but there was not much unity in the Corinthian church. In fact, their celebration of the Lord’s Supper was only a demonstration of their disunity.
The Lord’s Supper is a family meal, and the Lord of the family desires that His children love one another and care for one another. It is impossible for a true Christian to get closer to his Lord while at the same time he is separated from his fellow believers. How can we remember the Lord’s death and not love one another? “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another” (1 John 4:11).
No one ought to come to the table who is not a true believer. Nor should a true believer come to the table if his heart is not right with God and with his fellow Christians. This is why many churches have a time of spiritual preparation before they observe the Lord’s Supper, so that none of the participants bring chastening on themselves.
The Communion is time of personal reflection, but it is also a time of thanksgiving and joyful anticipation of seeing the Lord! Jesus gave thanks, even though He was about to suffer and die. Let us give thanks also.
Message Audio/Video and Outline: https://upwards.church/watch-now/leander-campus-videos
Watch Messages: YouTube-Upwards Church
Sources:
Upwards Church 
Pingback: Division Over What Happens in Church Services – 1 Corinthians 14 | Upwards Church
My personal belief is that Paul is quoting a faction of men from Corinth who wrote him in 1 Corinthians 11:4-6. I believe that it is a faction of men who want women to be veiled while praying or prophesying. The men are making a “literal” head argument saying:
4″Every man who has [anything] down over his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his [own] head. 5But every woman who has her head unveiled while praying or prophesying disgraces her [own] head, for it is one and the same thing as having been shaved. 6For if a woman is not veiled, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be veiled.”
Because the men made a “literal” head argument, Paul gives his model (v.3) with the “figurative” meaning of “head/kephale” which means “source/origin/first/beginning.”
Then, in verses 7-16, Paul gives his rebuttal where he refers back to his model. He starts off by saying, 7″For a man indeed ought not to veil his [figurative] head, since He [Christ] is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.” Here, Paul is using Jesus Christ as a correlation as to why women should not be veiled. “Hyparchon” (V-PPA-NMS) is not referring to “aner” (N-NMS) in verse 7; it is referring to “Christos” (N-NMS) in verse 3. Indeed, it is Jesus Christ (not man) who is the image and glory of God. (Please see 2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, John 1:14, Heb. 1:3, Phil. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:23 for confirmation of this.) Male and female are created IN the image of God, but only Jesus Christ IS the image of God because He is the Word made flesh.
So, Paul is saying that just as a man ought not to veil his head, Christ, since He is the image and glory of God, so also the man ought not to veil the woman since she is his glory. Then, in verses 8-10, Paul goes on to give the reasons as to why a woman is a man’s glory.
Also, verses 13-15 should be translated as statements, not questions. Paul is continuing to refute their argument by saying:
13″Judge for yourselves that it is proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled. 14For not even nature itself teaches you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her because the long hair has been given [to us all] instead of a covering.”
In verse 15, the pronoun “aute” (to her) is omitted by Papyrus 46, D, F, G, and also by the majority of later Greek manuscripts. Therefore, I do not believe it was original to Paul. Paul is saying that nature (which God has created) does not teach us that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him. God had commanded that men such as Samson and Samuel have long hair. If God did not want men to have long hair, then He would have disallowed it through nature just as He has disallowed women from growing mustaches or beards through nature. Also, Paul is saying that nature does not teach us that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory (as many women have undesirable hair). God did not give long hair to men to shame them, nor did He give long hair to women for vain beauty purposes. He gave long hair to both men and women for protection (as a covering) from weather extremes so that they do not have to wear an additional covering every time they step outside.
Paul ends the debate by saying, 16″But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice [of requiring women to veil their heads], nor have the people of God.”
Anyway, this is just what I believe from my study of Scripture. Thank you for allowing me to share.
Thanks for sharing this.