Bible Commentaries
1 Corinthians 11

Summing Up (10:14-11:1)

With 10:14 Paul takes a new line, though still on the same problem. Some who read chapter 8 might think that Paul took idolatry lightly, so he makes it quite clear that he sees this as a serious sin. Sacrificing to idols is in fact sacrificing to demons. Some Bible students think Paul meant that each separate idol was actually one personal demon or devil, who seduced human beings to worship him. A more likely meaning is twofold: (1) Few if any of the "gods" worshiped in a pagan city at that era would be thought of, even by the worshipers, as the High God, the God of gods; indeed, the Greek word for demon was sometimes used for these imaginary creatures. (2) Whatever demons there be are surely delighted when men worship anything but the true God. To worship at any idol’s shrine is to contribute to the Devil’s delight. So the idols represent demons in general, rather than each idol be­ing really one particular demon.

At any rate, it is clear that Paul teaches, on the one hand, that idolatry is a serious sin, totally inconsistent with being a Christian at all; but on the other hand, that meat in the market is simply meat, just the same wherever it came from. The sensible thing to do is to buy it and not ask where it was killed. If you know it came from a heathen temple, and you know that other Christians know it and are disturbed by it, then remember what has already been said: You are not your own, you have others to consider. Paul sums it all up in one noble sentence: "I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved" (10:33).

1 Corinthians 10:16-22 is a little confusing, but the general meaning should be clear: Christianity and pagan religion are rep­resented here by the Communion on the one side, the pagan sacri­fices on the other. Paul does not mean that the Communion is a sacrifice. He is drawing a contrast, not a parallel, between pagan and Christian faith and worship. You simply cannot be both pagan and Christian.

"Be imitators of me" (11:1) sounds egotistic, and it is true that Paul was no shrinking violet. But what else could Paul recom­mend? He could not say, "Read your Gospels and imitate Christ," because the Gospels had not been written. He, Paul, was the best sample of Christianity the Corinthians knew, and it was a practical way of saying to those very simple Corinthians, Be Christian.

PUBLIC WORSHIP: BAD AND GOOD WAYS

Verses 2-34

I Corinthians 11:2-34

The next section of this letter, which was written by Paul to settle matters, has turned out to be one of the hotbeds of argu­ment in the Church. This short commentary cannot even begin to say what the arguments are. Whatever can be said about almost any verse in chapter 11 is and has been vigorously disputed some­where in the Christian Church. With due respect for different views, what follows comes from a point of view not peculiar to your commentator but one which is a growing view in the Church.

Women’s Place in the Church (11:2-16)

This chapter (see also 14:34-36) gives a striking example of the difference between temporary and permanent elements in the teaching of Paul. Two opposite views can be discarded: one, that everything Paul wrote is everlastingly binding on the Christian Church; two, that all of Paul’s writing is of historic interest but no longer authoritative any more than are utterances of any early Christian missionary or bishop. The middle view is that some things Paul said concerned local conditions and do not hold in our changed situation. Other things he said are universal, irre­placeable, and for all Christians the last word. Even in the tem­porary and local directives of Paul there are basic principles which are as sound now as they ever were.

What Paul says about women, a great deal of it, comes under the head of advice which is not for us today. We shall go through the paragraph (11:2-16) briefly, simply pointing out what Paul actually says, letting the reader make his own comments if he (or she) will. (1) Woman is definitely subordinate to man. The order is, from bottom to top: woman, man, Christ, God. (2) It is only man, not woman, who is the "glory" of God. (3) Woman was created for the benefit of man, not the other way around. (As we would express it, this is a man’s world and God meant it to be so.) (4) Any woman who prays or "prophesies," that is, "preaches," without a veil is acting in a disgraceful manner. Please note that Paul is speaking of veils, not hats. (5) Nature teaches that long hair is a disgrace to a man but a matter of pride for a woman. This suggests that women should be veiled.

In 14:34-36, Paul forbids women to speak in church, abso­lutely. It has always been a puzzle to commentators to know whether chapter 11 or chapter 14 is what Paul meant: Should women speak only when veiled, or not at all?

At any rate, the Protestant Church today, in practice, has departed from these regulations of Paul, and indeed from this view of women in general. Paul has the point of view of first-century Judaism, which he did not leave behind when he became a Christian. Nevertheless, for Corinth in the first century, this was first-class practical advice; we should not go wrong in calling it inspired. Corinth was a place where a woman had to be very careful to maintain a good reputation. The place was crawling with slimy "religions" which were no better than nests of vice. Christianity had a reputation to make. If it was known that in meetings of Christians women sat around without veils, and that they even talked—two things no respectable first-century lady would do outside her own family circle—the Christian religion would have been labeled at once as an outfit no dignified and decent person would want to join.

So, not everything that can be wisely done today could wisely be done in Corinth. Yet we can think of this now outmoded advice as part of the "Word of God." Your mother told you, when you were small, "Don’t touch matches." When you went to college, or when you got married, your mother did not repeat that order about the matches. Yet it was your mother’s word to you. So God’s word to Corinth, through the mind and pen of Paul, may not be his word to Chicago Or Toronto today. It is not that God has changed his mind, but that the Church has grown up.

Verses 17-22

Disunity (11:17-22)

We may be almost thankful for the quarrels and conceit and disorderliness with which the Corinthian church observed Com­munion, for it was in dealing with their disgraceful behavior that one of the most vital and best-loved passages of the New Testa­ment was written.

First we have what is to us a shocking and almost incredible picture (11:17-22) of a church meeting which, Paul says, actually made the "worshipers" worse and not better. The congregation was, as we already know, split up into factions. Perhaps those he mentions in chapter 1 are the same as those of this paragraph in chapter 11, perhaps not. But anyhow the picture here reminds us more of a badly organized Sunday school picnic than of a Communion service.

Indeed, it was not entirely a Communion service. Besides that, for a long time in the early Christian Church there was observed a ceremony known as the "love feast." When they finally got it regulated, it was more solemn and formal than a picnic by far, yet it was not the same as the Communion.

But at the time Paul was writing, there had been no regulations. All the Corinthians knew about the feast was that it was a good thing to express the idea of the Church as a family by having a meal together. Only they did not have it together. They gathered in little knots, rich people by themselves with fancy dishes, poor people and even slaves by themselves, without enough for a good sandwich. Some rich people would even make a cocktail party out of it and go home drunk (Paul spares no words), while others afterwards would go to bed hungry.

Probably these Corinthians mixed up the love feast with the Communion, for Paul goes on at once to speak of that.

Verses 23-34

The Lord’s Supper (11:23-34)

The next paragraph (11:23-26) is among the most cherished and familiar passages of the entire Bible. There are four stories of the Last Supper in the Upper Room in the New Testament, the other three being in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But Paul wrote before any of the others. This is the very first story ever written of the first Lord’s Supper. It is familiar to all of us, for it is Paul’s story rather than any other which is usually read at the Communion service. Since the reader has probably heard many sermons based on it, no long comment is needed here. It is for meditation rather than analysis. A few points may be underscored.

This observance is not yet called a sacrament. The thing itself is older than all names for it except simply "the Lord’s Supper."

It is not called a "sacrifice." It is a remembrance and a proclamation. (3) Nothing is said about a presiding officer. Em­phasis is on the participants as a group. (4) There is no support here, except by the most bald literal interpretation, for the notion that the bread and wine were, or ever are, actually changed into the body and blood of our Lord. (5) Nevertheless, the symbols are those of violent death—a broken body, blood poured out upon the ground. (6) Yet this is not a mere recollection of a tragedy; it is an expression of a glorious hope. In this observance, memory and hope mingle in a common glory—memory of the Lord’s life freely given for us; hope of the Lord’s return, of his final reign.

Paul warns against eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord "in an unworthy manner" (11:27). Strictly speaking, no human being is "worthy" of what Christ has done for him; none is worthy to take part in the Communion. What Paul means is shown by his previous condemnation of the way the Corinthian church "observed" or rather defamed this sacra­ment. We take Communion in an unworthy manner—that is, in a manner that degrades it and does not lift us any nearer God—when we enter into it thoughtlessly, or with thoughts and attitudes which we know are not Christlike and yet we cling to them. Pride, selfishness, scorn of those we ought to help—in short, the loveless heart—all this is part of the sin from which Communion should turn us. That we have these sins may be true. If we cling to them, Communion is not for us. If we turn from them with genuine grief, this is for us.

Here is also a warning against not "discerning the body" (11:29). The traditional interpretation of this is that "body" re­fers to the broken body of Christ. In other words, if anyone takes part in the Communion seeing in it only something we have to do because Jesus said do it, or making it into just another ceremony of the Church, or a rededication, without realizing that it is Christ’s death we here celebrate, he misses the point, he really does not celebrate Communion. On the other hand, there is another explanation of this warning. Not discerning the body, to some Bible scholars, means not perceiving the Body of Christ, that is, the Church. On this interpretation, an individualistic attitude to the Lord’s Supper violates an essential principle of it, namely, that it is something shared. Taking Communion is not a matter between the soul and God alone; it is between Christian brother and Christian brother. If you try to see God without looking at your brother, you are not celebrating Communion even if you call it by that name.

Incidentally, verse 30 can be taken literally, but it seems better to take it spiritually. Some of the Corinthians are weak in soul and ill in spirit; they have taken "Communion" in a spirit of selfish meanness, and so they have not only profaned what God has given them, they have also denied the very spirit and meaning of it all. No wonder their souls are shriveled.