1 Corinthians 11- Roles in Worship and the Lord's Supper

1 You should follow me, as I follow the Anointed One. 

2 I am so glad that you always keep me in your thoughts, and that you are following the teachings I passed on to you. -NLT

3 But I want you to understand, that the head of every man is the Anointed One, and the head of every woman is the man, and the head of the Anointed One is God. 

There is an order of authority and responsibility; a pecking order, if you will. All organizations have one. Someone is the boss. Someone fills in when the boss is gone. Someone is at the bottom with no more responsibility than to just do their own job. It doesn't necessarily mean anyone is more valuable, or smarter, or better, or even more important, just that different people have different jobs. 

The President is boss of the Vice President.

The Owner is boss of the Plant Manager.

The CEO is boss of the Secretary.

God is the boss of Christ, who is boss of the man of the family, who is boss of the woman, who is boss of the children (not mentioned in this verse, but there and important none the less). 

This doesn't mean men are smarter or more valuable, just that they have a different job than women do. The job that God has assigned of building a God-honoring family can't possible be done without both. 

I already hear the many voices saying that single moms can do it. 

No, they can't. They may be able to do a pretty good job of raising their kids, producing children who love God, but they can't accomplish all that God has designed for the family alone. A single mom doesn't exemplify the Christ/Church relationship and its results.

Besides, kids actually NEED fathers. They don't grow up quite right without them.

You know what else? Kids NEED a mother. Not just 2 parents, but a Mother; someone with a different role than the father. Someone with a different life. Women are NOT just men with bumps in different places. They are a unique creation of God, just as much a Masterpiece, but with a very different job to do. 

(and can we as a society quit deifying single moms now? Yes, its a hard job, and I have great compassion for the widow or "grace widow" [woman whose husband left against her will, or who cheated on her]. who was thrust into this role against her will. But too many women choose this life for themselves. They intentionally get pregnant knowing their child will not have a father in the home, or they kick a man out just because they are tired of him. This is sin, not just against God, but against the child they are condemning to a life of fatherlessness.)

We will note that this does not say ALL men are the boss of ALL women. Only that the husband is the boss of HIS wife. Women do not have to submit to men who are not their husbands. (If he is not worth submitting to, don't marry him.)

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered, dishonors his head. 

Jewish, Greek, and Roman men all prayed with their heads covered as a sign of shame and humility. Christians are no longer servants but sons, free to look at God with no shame in their hearts.

5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, because  that is the same thing as having her head shaved. 

6 For if the woman is not covered, let her also be shaved, but if it is a shame for a woman to be  shaved, let her be covered. 

A shaved head in the first century in Corinth was a sign of mourning, slavery, or prostitution. But it isn't today. It isn't a shame for a woman to have a shaved head today in our culture at all. In fact, I have seen many godly women of African decent who have quite shaved heads solely to make hair care easier. There is no shame here.

7 For a man really shouldn't cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. 

I'll admit, I don't understand this scripture. Or more clearly, what part was intended for all time and what parts were only for the church at Corinth in the first century. 

A plain reading says men should have bare heads when they pray and women should have some sort of head covering, or else just cut all their hair off. This makes no sense in our culture.

I could (and like to to ministers just for the fun of it) read this as "No man should cover up Christ (man's head) while he prays, and every woman needs to make sure her husband (woman's head) is wearing clothes when she prays, because Greek and Roman art tells us their men had a problem with wearing clothes."

Ok, that isn't really what it says. lol. 

8 Because the man didn't come from the woman, but the woman from the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman was created for the man. 

10 This is why a wife should have a sign of authority on her head because of the
angels.

The word "angels" here means "a messenger; especially an 'angel'; by implication, a pastor." (Strong's Concordance) So, it's not likely talking about angelic beings, but the pastor of the local church. 

This is a hard scripture for us to understand, since our culture doesn't use headdress as a symbol of marital status. In Corinth, married women kept their heads veiled. Prostitutes shaved their heads or wore their hair in a short bob with no veils. 

The phrase "because of the angels" would be because pastors face a lot of temptations because of their positions of power and the extreme trust people place in them. A woman who is obviously not "taken" would be a tremendous temptation for him to pursue (it took two people for a household to simply survive before our modern appliances, so unmarried people, and especially women, were relatively rare). So, "wives should make sure they don't appear available, that it is obvious they are married."

The trickiest part of this scripture is knowing how to apply it to us today. In our culture, a woman who wants to appear married wears a wedding ring, not a head veil. So, would the proper interpretation of this be that married women should wear wedding rings so men, especially pastors, are not tempted to pursue them? 

The problem with this interpretation is the dangerous precedent of declaring certain passages are too outdated for us, that they apply only to past cultures and not us. This is a dangerous slippery slope.

I, personally, don't wear a head covering. My Hubby doesn't want me to, so I obey him. I also don't wear a wedding ring since I "outgrew" mine years ago and we have had other priorities for our money than to replace the wedding ring. I do take our children with me everywhere I go, which makes it pretty obvious I am not available, though. :-D

11 As far as the Master is concerned, however, men and women are not independent from each other. 

Let me note here that Christianity has been the single strongest voice for the ending of oppression of women on planet earth. Paul's teaching that there is no difference of value in the eyes of God between men and women, rich and poor, Jew and non Jew, has brought equality and dignity to people all over the planet. One researcher in Africa found that those countries that had had the most Protestant Missionaries had the most equality for women, as well as the most financial prosperity. He ended his study for a call for more Protestant Missionaries to come to Africa- even though he himself was an atheist. 

12 Because, exactly like the first woman came out of a man, all men since then have been born of a woman. But, really, everything came from God.

13 Decide for yourselves: is it proper for a woman (wife) to worship God with her head unveiled? 

14 Doesn't even nature itself teach you that it is a shame to a man to have long hair? 

15 But a woman's long hair is a glory to her, because her hair is given as a covering for her. 

I have a problem with these two verses. I see no difference in nature between a man's long hair and a woman's long hair, and in many cultures, especially before the invention of scissors, men always had long hair just like women. 

I have known men with long hair I could easily envy, it was so beautiful. 

I have known women with hair that was scraggly and ugly no matter what they did. 

I have also known (am related to!) women who never cut their hair, but it never grew longer than their shoulders. So, do these women not need to be veiled because God did not bother to give them a natural head covering? 

This scripture just doesn't make sense with what I see in the natural world.

I have read one commentary that claims these were questions asked of Paul in a letter from the Corinthians, and he is quoting them here so they know what he is talking about in his answer. I don't know that I buy that, though.

16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other practice, and neither do the churches of god.

Observing the Lord's Supper

17 Now in the next subject I can't praise, that your meetings do more harm than good. 

18 For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 

19 You are bound to argue with each other, but it is easy to see which of you have God's approval. -CEV

20 When you come together in a meeting, you are not really eating the Lord's Supper.

21 Because some hurry to eat before anyone else gets a chance to get food. One person goes hungry while another gets drunk.

22 Don't you have your homes to eat and drink in? Or do you just despise the church of God, and shame those that don't have as much as you do? What should I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Of course not!

23 Because I have passed on to you what I received of the Master; That the Master Jesus the same night that He was betrayed took bread: 

24 And when He had given thanks, He broke it in pieces, and said, "This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of Me."

Older translations (i.e. The King James) say "Take, eat. This is my body...." ALL the newer translations leave the "Take, eat" out, as does my sample from Strong's Concordance. 

25 In the same way, after supper, He also took the cup [of wine], saying, "This cup is the new covenant [ratified with] My bloodshed. Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. 

The Old Covenant with Israel was ratified by the blood of sheep, goats, and bulls.
The New Covenant with the Christian Church was ratified with the blood of Christ.

I read this (after looking at the whole verse in Strong's) as "as often as you drink (possibly, "drink wine" which they did at every meal), remember My sacrifice and the blood shed for you.

26 Because as often as you eat this bread (loaf, food), and drink this cup (wine, portion God allows), you proclaim the Master's death till He comes (again).

27 And so whoever eats this bread, and drinks this cup of the Master irreverently is guilty of sinning against the body (church) and blood (kindred) of the Master. 

When you have a potluck meal and use that to show off how rich you are, or gorge yourself with food to the extent that others have to go hungry, you are sinning against fellow believers. 

The word "body" here can mean the fleshly person or the church of Christ.

The word "blood" can mean the red stuff in the veins or the kindred, relatives (brothers) of Christ. 

28 So everyone must examine themselves before he eats of that bread, or drink of that cup. 

29 Because anyone who eats or drinks without honoring the Body (of Jesus, the Church) eats and drinks his way into condemnation for himself. 

30 This is why many of you are weak and sickly, and some have even died. 

31 Because if we would examine ourselves, we would not be punished. 

32 But when we are punished, we are being trained by the Master, so that we won't be condemned with the world.

33 And so, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.

34 And if anyone is hungry, he should eat at home so your gatherings don't bring punishment. The rest I'll straighten out when I get there.