# 1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11 is the eleventh chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It was authored by Paul the Apostle and Sosthenes in Ephesus. In this chapter, Paul writes on the conduct of Christians while worshiping together and enjoins the ordinances of headcovering and the Eucharist.

## Text

The original text was written in Koine Greek. This chapter is divided into 34 verses.

### Textual witnesses

Some early manuscripts containing the text of this chapter are:
* Codex Vaticanus (AD 325–350)
* Codex Sinaiticus (330–360)
* Codex Alexandrinus (400–440)
* Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (~450; complete).
* Codex Freerianus (~450; extant verses 9–10, 18–19, 26–27)
* Codex Claromontanus (~550)
* Codex Coislinianus (~550; extant verses 9–16)

## Imitator of Christ (11:1)

   Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
   Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Theologian John Gill suggests that these words "more properly close the preceding chapter, than begin a new one", and many commentators agree. Paul concludes his argument in 1 Corinthians 4 in a similar way: "Therefore I urge you, imitate me." The Pulpit Commentary restricts Paul's call to imitation: "I only ask you to imitate me in points in which I imitate Christ".
According to Gill, these words refer to the rules which Paul would have the Corinthians follow him in, as he did Christ: to do all things to the glory of God, and not for his own gain, just as Christ, who does not seek his own glory, but the glory of God who sent him, so all what they did would be in the name of Christ, and to the glory of God.

## Woman's headcovering (11:2–16)

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul enjoins the observance of certain ordinances, including the headcovering and the Eucharist. The passage delivers the teaching that men are to "pray or prophesy" without a cap on the head, while women are to are wear a veil; the practice of headcovering by Christian women was countercultural as the surrounding pagan Greek women prayed unveiled and Jewish men prayed with their heads covered.
Ezra Palmer Gould, a professor at the Episcopal Divinity School, noted Paul's use of rhetoric to highlight the importance of the subject: "The long hair and the veil were both intended as a covering of the head, and as a sign of true womanliness, and of the right relation of woman to man; and hence the absence of one had the same significance as that of the other." This is reflected in the patristic homilies of the Early Church Father John Chrysostom, who explained the two coverings—the veil and the natural hair—discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:
   For he said not merely covered, but covered over, meaning that she be with all care sheltered from view on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn. As if he had said, "If thou cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature."
Michael Marlowe, a scholar of biblical languages, explicates this reductio ad absurdum that Paul the Apostle used in verse 14 and verse 15, in which he relates the propriety of a woman's natural hair to the necessity of a cloth headcovering:
   In the appeal to "nature" (φύσις) here Paul makes contact with another philosophy of ancient times, known as Stoicism. The Stoics believed that intelligent men could discern what is best in life by examining the laws of nature, without relying on the changeable customs and divers laws made by human rulers. If we consult Nature, we find that it constantly puts visible differences between the male and the female of every species, and it also gives us certain natural inclinations when judging what is proper to each sex. So Paul uses an analogy, comparing the woman's headcovering to her long hair, which is thought to be more natural for a woman. Though long hair on men is possible, and in some cultures it has been customary for men to have long hair, it is justly regarded as effeminate. It requires much grooming, it interferes with vigorous physical work, and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight. It is therefore unmanly by nature. But a woman's long hair is her glory. Here again is the word δόξα, used opposite ἀτιμία "disgrace," in the sense of "something bringing honor." Long and well-kept hair brings praise to a woman because it contributes to her feminine beauty. The headcovering, which covers the head like a woman's hair, may be seen in the same way. Our natural sense of propriety regarding the hair may therefore be carried over to the headcovering.
This ordinance continued to be handed down after the apostolic era to the next generations of Christians; writing 150 years after Paul, the early Christian apologist Tertullian stated that the women of the church in Corinth—both virgins and married—practiced veiling, given that Paul the Apostle delivered the teaching to them: "the Corinthians themselves understood him in this manner. In fact, at this very day, the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve."
From the period of the early Church to the late modern period, 1 Corinthians 11 was universally understood to enjoin the wearing of the headcovering throughout the day—a practice that has since waned in Western Europe but has continued in certain parts of the world, such as in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Northern Africa and the Indian subcontinent, as well as everywhere by Conservative Anabaptists (such as the Conservative Mennonite Churches and the Dunkard Brethren Church), who count veiling as being one of the ordinances of the Church. The early Church Father John Chrysostom explicates that 1 Corinthians 11 enjoins the continual wearing the headcovering by referencing Paul the Apostle's view that being shaven is always dishonourable and his pointing to the angels:
   Well then: the man he compelleth not to be always uncovered, but only when he prays. "For every man," saith he, "praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." But the woman he commands to be at all times covered. Wherefore also having said, "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head unveiled, dishonoureth her head," he stayed not at this point only, but also proceeded to say, "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven." But if to be shaven is always dishonourable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach. And not even with this only was he content, but he added again, saying, "The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels." He signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered. But with regard to the man, it is no longer about covering but about wearing long hair, that he so forms his discourse. To be covered he then only forbids, when a man is praying; but the wearing of long hair he discourages at all times.
Verse 10, in many early biblical manuscripts (such as certain vg, cop$^{bo}$, and arm), is rendered with the word "veil" (κάλυμμα, kalumma) rather than the word "authority" (ἐξουσία, exousia); the Revised Standard Version reflects this, displaying 1 Corinthians 11:10 as follows: "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels." Similarly, a scholarly footnote in the New American Bible notes that presence of the word "authority (exousia) may possibly be due to mistranslation of an Aramaic word for veil". This mistranslation may be due to "the fact that in Aramaic the roots of the word power and veil are spelled the same." The last-known living connection to the apostles, Irenaeus, penned verse 10 using the word "veil" (κάλυμμα, kalumma) instead of "authority" (ἐξουσία, exousia) in Against Heresies, as did other Church Fathers in their writings, including Hippolytus, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Epiphanius, Augustine, and Bede.
After the 1960s, the practice of headcovering started to wane in the Western World, giving rise to an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 by Abel Isaakson that a woman's natural long hair is the sole covering being discussed in the passage. Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) John W. Keddie contended that verse 6, if a covering was simply any sort of hair, would then read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical. Michael Marlowe, a scholar of the Greek language, states that the novel view of labelling the hair as the sole covering in 1 Corinthians 11 is "indefensible" and suggests that it is an attempt "harmonize this passage with modern habits of dress".
Additionally, verses five through seven, as well as verse thirteen, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled"/"covered", κατακαλύπτω, katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον, peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around"/"a covering". Verse four of 1 Corinthians 11 uses the Greek words kata kephalēs (κατάIn κεφαλῆς) for "head covered", the same Greek words used in Esther 6:12 in the Septuagint where "because he [Haman] had been humiliated, he headed home, draping an external covering over his head" (additionally certain manuscripts of the Septuagint in Esther 6:12 use the Greek words κατακεκαλυμμένος κεφαλήν, which is the "perfect passive participle of the key verb used in 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 7 for both a man's and a woman's covering his or her head [κατακαλύπτω]")—facts that New Testament scholar Rajesh Gandhi uses to conclude that the passage enjoins the wearing of a cloth veil by Christian women. Biblical scholar Christopher R. Hutson contextualizes the verse citing Greek texts of the same era, such as Moralia:
   Plutarch's phrase, "covering his head" is literally "having down from the head" (kata tes kephales echon). This is the same phrase Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11:4. It refers to the Roman practice of pulling one's toga up over the head like a hood. […] Romans also wore their togas "down from the head" when they offered sacrifices. This is the practice to which Paul refers.
In the same manner as Paul the Apostle, Philo (30 BC–45 AD) in Special Laws 3:60, uses "head uncovered" (akatakalyptō tē kephalē, ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ) and "it is clear that Philo is speaking of a head covering being removed because the priest had just removed her kerchief"; additionally, akatakalyptos (ἀκατακάλυπτος) likewise "means 'uncovered' in Philo, Allegorical Interpretation II,29, and in Polybius 15,27.2 (second century BC)." In 1 Corinthians 11:16, Paul concludes the teaching about the ordinance of Christian headcovering: "But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God's other churches." Michael Marlowe, a scholar of biblical languages, states that Paul's inclusion of this statement was to affirm that the "headcovering practice is a matter of apostolic authority and tradition, and not open to debate", evidenced by repeating a similar sentence with which he starts the passage: "maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you".

## The Lord's Supper (11:17–34)

In verses 17 through 33, Paul chastises the Corinthians for their behaviour when they come together "as a church" (literally ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, en ekklēsia, "in church" or "in the assembly") to share what appears to be an agape feast.
Paul describes his understanding of Jesus' actions at the Last Supper as having been "received from the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:23), not received from the apostles who were present or from the tradition of the church. Teignmouth Shore argues that "the whole structure of the passage seems to imply that what follows had been received by St. Paul directly from Christ" but Heinrich Meyer argues, with reference to Paul's use of the words ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, apo tou kuriou, 'forth from the Lord' rather than παρά τοῦ Κυρίου, para tou kuriou, 'coming from the Lord', that "we are warranted in assuming that he means a reception, which issued indeed from Christ as originator, but reached him only mediately through another channel".
Meyer notes the close similarity between Paul's account of the Last Supper and Luke's in Luke 22:19–20.