1 Corinthians chapter 11

vs 1

Paul lays it down here, and I think it is verses like this that scare people into thinking "Oh, I have to do exactly what it says, or else I'm not following the example of Jesus!" But such a literal response without taking into account cultural factors is irresponsible reading of Scripture. We are not Muslims, who think the closer you get to Mohammed's life, the better a Muslim you are. We live by Christ's example, not his exact life.

vs 2

"The teachings" is a technical term. Paradosis is a collective term for the traditions of the church that Paul and the other apostles were building up. But take heed - they were not building a tradition of words of men like the Pharisees that Jesus berated them for.

vs 3

Seems like an odd order to put them in. if you're curious, the word for "head" is kephale, and is just like the word for head in english - it is used literally and metaphorically (like head of a human, head of the table, head of the class, head of a corporation). So don't take it literally.

vs 4

Yes, it's still the same word. Why is covering your head while you pray disgraceful? I'm sorry, but I have no idea. Jewish men of the time were very strict about covering their heads when they prayed, and I'm sure Jesus would have too (to be a good Jew). So why does Paul flip the situation? Either it is to show a delineation between Christianity and Judaism (which might be, but seems odd because the church was treated in its early years as a subsect of Judaism), or because it was culturally inappropriate in Corinth (and I don't know how we could find that out). Whatever Paul is saying, it completely contradicts Jewish practice at the time.

vs 5

This is another troublesome verse. Later on, Paul will say that God gave women long hair as a covering, but here he says that a woman with a shaved head is bad, but a woman with an oncovered head is also bad.

vs 6

This verse sounds mean in the NIV, but in the NASB it sounds much more prescriptive, like "if a woman is going to pray with her head uncovered, then she should cut her hair off. But, if having your hair cut off is shameful (ie marks you as a prostitute or something) then you're better off covering your head".

vs 7

These next two verses are teaching that the order in which God created men and women was purposeful. They point to an idea that man is the "original" image of God, and women are the "proxy" image of God or something. And for this reason (and I guess because our literal "heads" symbolise our figurative "head"?) this head covering thing is important.

vs 8

Here's the bit about woman coming from man (the whole rib thing from Genesis).

vs 9

And woman's purpose was for man (whereas man's purpose was for God). This of course does not mean that woman's purpose is any less for God. It doesn't redefine the relationship between God and woman, only woman and man.

vs 10

Oh yes, the angels, silly me! There are so many, SO MANY stupid ideas about what this means. Let me just say that there's no point in bickering about this verse, in the same way that there's no reason to bicker about this whole passage. I'll say it now, although I'm sure I'll say it again tomorrow - this verse is so culturally bound that it is 100% meaningless in our society. The only reason that there are still old people who think that men with long hair is bad is because this was falsely imposed on our society. How long is long? Jesus' hair was probably pretty long. Was it too long? But the oldies' standards, yes! But that brings a clash between imposed culture and historical reality. And which one wins? Stupidly, imposed created culture!

This whole passage, and yes it continues, is so useless to us in the West. At best, you can take from it: 1) Don't dress as if you're a prostitute 2) there are some elements of the relationship between men and women that were instituted by God.

In the non-West, this verse is heaps more applicable, but even then not literally unless head coverings are already meaningful.

I'll get onto this more I'm sure.