4. Every man. In 4-16 Paul discusses the subject of the covering of the head, particularly in relation to religious services. It should be stated clearly at the outset that this is one of those Pauline passages to which Peter’s words may have applied, that Paul wrote “some things hard to be understood” (2 Peter 3:16). Commentators, in general, confess to perplexity in their endeavors to follow Paul’s argument, and in their attempts to discover the breadth of application of his pronouncements. There seems to be agreement among them that Paul is here dealing with the basic principle of propriety, religious decorum, and good taste, in the context of the customs and manners of the time in which he wrote and the people to whom he wrote.
Unquestionably, certain aspects of this prime principle find different expression in different lands, even changing with the centuries in the various lands. The provides a choice illustration of this. When Moses came to the burning bush the Lord commanded him: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Ex. 3:5). It was evidently the custom in that area of the worldââ¬âand is, indeed, still the customââ¬âto show respect for holy places by removing the shoes. The Lord, therefore, was calling upon Moses to show the usual reverence for a holy place. Yet no expositor of the Scriptures has ever concluded that the explicit command of God to Moses sets a precedent for religious worship the world over, certainly not in Occidental countries. The principle of proper reverence still stands inviolate, but the method of expressing such reverence may vary greatly with countries and times.
Similarly, we may understand Paul, in 1 Cor. 11:4-16, to be reasoning with the Corinthians as to the principle of propriety and religious decorum in terms of the particular customs of the day. Though ancient sources fail to give us unequivocal testimony as to custom in headdress in Corinth or elsewhere, it seems evident that custom must have considered an uncovered head as proper for a man but improper for a woman. We say “evident,” for if this were not so, it would be impossible to make sense out of Paul’s argument. Proceeding, then, on the reasonable assumption that Paul is here dealing with the application of a principle to the custom of the country and the times, we are able to take literally and meaningfully his words without following on to conclude that his specific application of the principle then, requires the same specific application today. Thus to conclude would require the illogical procedure of surrendering the premise on which much of his argument restsââ¬âthe custom of the timesââ¬âwhile holding to the conclusion that depends on the premise. That would be equivalent to removing the foundation of a building while seeking to salvage and use the superstructure suspended in mid-air.
There is a further point that may be relevant to the consideration of this whole passage. Paul proclaimed a new and glorious freedom in the gospel. That proclamation had in it the seeds of the Christian principle of the dignity of womankind and her release from the low estate in which all women were held in pagan lands. He declared: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). It would be easy to see how some women converts to Christianity might distort and misuse their liberty in the gospel to bring discredit on the church. One of the libelous, unfounded charges that took shape against Christianity as it spread abroad and aroused the hatred of men was that the Christians were immoral. Indeed, the charge may already have been whispered abroad in Paul’s day. How needful, then, that Christians “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22), how needful that they remember the further counsel of Paul that though a certain course may be lawful it may not be expedient (1 Cor. 6:12).
All that follows in comment on 11:4-16 should be understood in the light of this general, introductory statement, lest on the one hand we bind women in many lands today with grievous burdens that they should not have to bear, or on the other make Paul appear as out of date and as having no message for the twentieth-century reader.
Praying or prophesying. These were important aspects of public worship. In prayer the worshiper is the representative of the congregation, presenting them to God in thanksgiving, petition, and intercession; in prophesying, he is the agent of the Holy Spirit, conveying God’s message to His church. The prophesying here mentioned doubtless refers to public preaching and teaching by inspired men, for a prophet is one who speaks for God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 12:10, 29; 14:1, 4, 22; 1 Thess. 5:20; 2 Peter 1:21).
Having his head covered. kata kephalÃâs echÃ
Ân, literally, “having [something] down from the head.” Some think there is a reference here to the practice the Jews had of wearing a four-cornered shawl over the head when praying or speaking in worship. This shawl, or tallith, was placed on the worshiper’s head when he entered the synagogue. However, it is doubtful that this custom was already established in the time of Paul. The apostle does not necessarily imply that the men in the Corinthian church covered their heads during prayer or prophesying. He seems to refer to such a situation merely as a background to his rebuke for the women who apparently thought it proper to participate, unveiled, in the public spiritual functions here mentioned.
His head. This may refer either to Christ, who is the head of “every man” ( 3), or to the man’s literal head, which would be dishonored by being covered. The man who, as the servant of his Lord, refuses publicly to show respect to Christ, brings dishonor both upon his Lord and upon his own head. Corinth was a Grecian city, and out of consideration for Grecian custom, Paul taught that in worshiping God in that city men should follow the usual manner of showing respect by removing the head covering in the presence of a superior. Men were not to act like women.