The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Chapter 11
The Apostle proceeds to deal with the third point put before him, that of the veiling of women ; for the Corinthians had asked of S. Paul whether or no women ought to be veiled. He replies that they ought, and especially at the time of public prayer, and he supports his decision by five reasons: (1.) that womanly honour and modesty demand it (vers. 5 and 14); (2.) that they are subject to men (vers. 7 et seq .) ; (3.) that if they go forth with uncovered head they offend the angels (ver. 10); (4.) that nature has given them hair for a covering (ver. 15) ; (5.) that this is the custom of the Church (ver. 16).
The second part of the chapter (ver. 17) treats of the Eucharist, and in this he censures as an abuse that in the agapae, or common meal, the rich excluded the poor, and sat apart by themselves, giving themselves to self-indulgence and drunkenness. Then (ver. 23) he gives an account of the institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and declares the guilt and punishment of those who approach it unworthily, and bids each one examine himself before he approach to it.
Ver. 1. — Be ye followers of me, even as also I am of Christ. This is a continuation of the preceding chapter. Imitate me, O Corinthians, in that, as I said, I do not seek my own advantage but that of many, that they may be saved ; and in this I imitate the zeal of Christ, who sought not His own good but our salvation, and to gain it descended from heaven to earth, took our flesh, toiled, and gave Himself to the death of the Cross.
Ver. 2. — Now I praise you, brethren , that ye remember me in all things . He here passes on and paves the way for a fresh question . In the following verses he proceeds to censure the abuses of the Corinthians in suffering their women to go unveiled, and in approaching the Eucharist when full of wine and mutual discords, and according to his custom he softens his rebuke that the Corinthians may take it the more readily and kindly, in the same way that physicians sugar their pills. He says, therefore, “I praise you that ye remember me in all things,” which, as Erasmus says, means “that ye keep in memory all my things,” or, as Euthymius says, “that ye are mindful of everything that belongs to me.” Supply “precepts, teachings, or exhortations ” after “ all.” All these precepts, &c., must be understood with some limitation, and must mean that most of them were kept by the better sort of the Corinthians, for in other parts of this Epistle he censures some faults of the Corinthians, and especially in this chapter their abuse of the Eucharist, as a departure from the ordinance of Christ and His own precepts.
As I delivered them to you. — The Greek gives, when translated literally, as even Beza admits, “Ye keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.” Hence, since these traditions were not committed to writing by the Apostles, for no previous letter to the Corinthians containing a record of them is extant, it plainly follows that not everything which concerns faith and morals has been written down in Holy Scripture, and that S. Paul and the other Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth. This is even more clearly stated in vers. 23 and 34. It is evident, moreover, from the fact that before that had been written which S. Paul here writes about the Eucharist, &c., the Corinthians were bound to obey the precepts respecting them given by Christ and S. Paul, as he says himself in ver. 23. The law preserved in tradition binds equally with the written law. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others.
Ver. 3 . — But I would have you know, that . . . the head of Christ is God. S. Paul here lays the foundation for his precepts about the veiling of women. We must bear in mind that the Corinthian women were greatly given, not only to lust, but also to the worship of Venus, so much so that a thousand maidens were every day exposed as prostitutes at her temple and in her honour. (Cf. notes to chap. vi. at the end.) Moreover, they thought this to be to their own honour and an act of piety, and they hoped to conciliate the goddess in this way to bestow upon them and their daughters, or to continue to them, a happy marriage. They were consequently wanton, and forward to attract lovers by exposing their features and displaying their form ; and this was regarded at Corinth as a custom honourable, becoming, and elegant, and Christian women thought that they ought to retain the custom of their fathers. Some of the Corinthians whose minds were of a higher cast advised S. Paul of this fact, and put to him the question whether it was lawful or becoming for Christian women to go about with uncovered head, and especially in the Church. Paul replies that it is neither becoming nor lawful, and he begins here to give his reasons. The first is that the woman is subject to the man as her head, therefore she ought to be veiled ; again, man is subject to God as His image, and therefore he is not to be veiled. In vers. 7 and 10 he proves both conclusions.
Head here has the meaning of lord, superior, or ruler. So God, as being of a higher nature, is the head and ruler of Christ as man ; while Christ, as being of the same nature with the Church, is her Head, and that, as S. Thomas says, in four ways : (1.) by reason of conformity of nature with other men, for Christ as man is the Head of the Church; (2.) by reason of the perfection of His graces; (3.) by reason of His exaltation above every creature; (4.) by reason of His power over all, and especially over the Church. So the man, S. Thomas says, is head of the woman in four ways :
(1.) He is more perfect than the woman, not only physically, inasmuch as woman is but man with a difference, but also in regard to mental vigour, according to Eccles. vii. 28: “One man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.” (2.) Man is naturally superior to woman, according to Eph. v. 22, 23 : “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife.” (3.) The man has power to govern the woman, according to Gen. iii. 16: “ Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (4.) The man and the woman enjoy conformity of nature, according to Gen. ii. 18 : “I will make him an help meet for him.”
Vers. 4 and 5 . — Every man praying, &c. This is the second
reason : It is disgraceful for a man to be veiled, and, therefore, the honour, freedom, and manliness of man require that he veil not his head, but leave it free and unconstrained. On the other hand, it is disgraceful for a woman not to be veiled, for womanly honour and modesty require a woman to veil her head ; therefore the woman ought to be veiled, the man ought not. The phrase, “ Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,” does not use “ prophesieth ” in its strict and proper meaning of uttering a prophecy or an exposition, but in the improper sense of singing hymns or psalms to the praise of God. For S. Paul is here speaking of the public assembly, in which he does not allow a woman to speak or to teach, but only to sing her part well when the whole congregation sings. Prophet means singer in 1 Chron. xxv. 1, and in 1 Sam. x. 10. So Saul is said to have been among the prophets, that is among the singers of praises to God. So in the Books of Kings those are called prophets who served God with praises.
Some explain “ that prophesieth ” to mean “ that hears prophecy ; ” but “prophecy” has never this passive meaning. Moreover, the Apostle here means any woman, whether unmarried, virgin, married, or unchaste. He bids all alike to go veiled. So Tertullian (de Vel. Virg . c. 4 and 5) lays down, and adds that the Corinthians understood this to be S. Paul’s meaning, for up to that time, he says, they follow S. Paul’s injunction, and veil their wives and daughters.
Ver. 6. — For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. For here is not causal, but an emphatic continuative. It is as disgraceful for a woman to have her head uncovered as to have her hair cut short or cut off. Heretics infer from this that it is wrong for religious virgins to be shorn ; but I deny that it follows ; for the Apostle is speaking in general of women living in the world, especially of married women, who are seen in public in the temple : he is not speaking of religious who have left the world. These latter rightly despoil themselves of their hair, to show (1.) that they contemn all the pomp of the world, (2.) that they have no husband but Christ. This was the custom at the time of S. Jerome, as he says (Ep. 48 ad Sabin.). The Nazarites did the same (Num. vi. 5).
It may be urged that the Council of Gangra (can. 17) forbids virgins to be shorn under pretext of religion. I reply from Sozomen (lib. iii. c. 13) that this canon does not refer to religious, but to heretical women, who left their husbands and against their will cut off their hair, in the name of religion, and donned man's dress.
It is these that the Council excommunicates, as Baronius rightly points out ( Annals , vol. iv.). Add to this that religious virgins wear a sacred veil instead of their hair.