Bible Commentaries
1 Corinthians 11

Verse 1

1Co 11:1

IMITATORS OF CHRIST

1 Corinthians 11:1

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, - Be ye imitators of me (ASV). Or as Moffatt renders it, "Copy me." This obviously connects to the closing words of the previous chapter rather than to the opening of this. The instructions are to follow Paul’s example of doing all things to the glory of God (1Co 9:31), which in this case resulted in surrendering his liberty (in indifferent things) for the good of others. What he did (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) they were to do. even as I also am of Christ. - As I am following Christ (Goodspeed) or as I copy Christ (Moffatt). No man, in and of himself, not even an apostle, is to be the copy from which we are to pattern our faith and practice. Christ alone is our example in this (1 Peter 2:21). But we may copy any man, apostle or otherwise, insofar as he copies Christ. Paul’s point is not "imitate me as the pattern," but imitate me as I imitate Christ (Philippians 2:5-11). It is God’s eternal will, predetermined from the beginning, that we be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:28-30). But in order to be so conformed, we must deny self (that is, step out of self and let Christ step in and take control), take up our cross, and follow Him (Matthew 16:24; Romans 15:3; 2 Corinthians 8:9).

Verse 2

1Co 11:2

1 Corinthians 11:2

Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things,—[This verse is introductory to the whole of this section of the letter which treats of worship. With his usual tact and gener­osity, Paul before reproving them mentions things which he could honestly and heartily approve.]

and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.—By traditions is meant the precepts, ordinances, and doctrine he had taught them orally, and had been given orally from one to another. When Paul was with them he had taught them orally concerning the ordinance of the Supper, and they had kept it up as he had commanded them. They continued the meetings on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1), but corruption had crept in.

Verses 2-3

1Co 11:2-3

HEADSHIP

1 Corinthians 11:2-3

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, - Paul here begins a new section of his epistle (which extends through 1 Corinthians 14:40) by commending the Corinthian Christians for two things: remembering him and standing fast in the tradition (teaching) which he had delivered to them. Contrast this with v. 17 where he praises them not because they were abusing the Lord’s Supper. that ye remember me in all things, - For always remembering me (Williams). They had not forgotten his labor among them (Acts 18:1-18) nor the instructions he had given them. And because they remembered him in this manner they sought his help in finding solutions to their problems. and keep the ordinances, -- And hold fast the traditions (ASV). They were standing firmly in the divine message (the fundamental teaching of the gospel) which he had delivered to them under the power and inspiration of the HS (1 Corinthians 14:37; Ephesians 3:1-7). This could not mean that they had perfectly kept the teaching (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:17-34) but that they had done so generally and held it in high regards as the expressed will of God. Thus tradition here has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of tradition (in contrast to the written word) passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation, which later became so vital to the existence of Catholicism. The later use of all such traditions were human efforts to justify that for which there was no divine revelation. It was the following of human rather than divine authority in religious matters, a thing prohibited everywhere in the Scriptures. Paul has reference to the divine teaching delivered by Spirit to men, first orally and then in the written word. The teaching (ordinances or traditions) comes to us now in the NT Scriptures ... and from no other source. as I delivered them to you. Just as I passed them on to you (NIV). They had (in general) been faithful to the body of teaching which had been delivered to him (v. 23) and which he had in turn transmitted to them (2 Thessalonians 3:6-14). That which he had delivered to them was the unchangeable word of God, which he preached everywhere and at all times (1 Corinthians 9:16; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Timothy 4:2).

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, - But I want you to understand (Goodspeed). A proper understanding of the contents of this v. is imperative to a proper understanding of this whole section (11:2-14:40), especially vv. 4-16, because it involves the understanding of the relationship of Christ to God, of man to Christ, and of woman to man. that the head Head means the one above, authority, ruler, or governor, but here it undoubtedly has specific reference to one’s God-given role or position over another. No body or system (not even Christianity) can function properly without the principle of authority and subordination. The principle in practice is not a system of superiors and in­ feriors but rather of authority and submission. of every man is Christ; ­ Christ is the head of every man (Moffett). In God’s divine scheme the role of Christ is that of authority over the man. In matters of religion He has all authority (Matthew 28:18-20), judicial, legislative, and executive. No man, of how high or powerful or how much authority he may presume for himself, can replace Christ in God’s order of things. Man must forever remain in a subordinate position to Christ that is, no one can rightly presume the authority of Christ over man. and the head of the woman is the man; ­Man’s role is over the woman; she is to be in subjection to him (Ephesians 5:22-24; 2 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Peter 3:1-6). Just as man can never presume the role of Christ, woman can never presume to herself the role of man. She may find herself in a situation where she will have to serve in the of a man, at least to some a widow with young children may have to act as both father and mother, but in doing so, she is not acting as a man over the man), but her role does not thrust her into a position where she is over the man. Man’s role is over the woman (and this seems to be especially true in the public worship assemblies, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). This does not mean that she is inferi0r to man; it means that she is subordinate to him that she can never assume the role of man over man. Let me illustrate: the role of a father (though not in view here) is over his children. If a father dies (or for some other reason is absent from the home) a mature child might fill the role of a father over the remainder of the family. But he could never rightly fill the role of a father over the father. Only the father can fill that role. But this does not mean the son is inferior to the father (in fact, he may be superior in many ways, such as mentally, educationally, socially, etc.). It simply means that God has placed him in a subordinate position as the son. But even further, while he is always subordinate as a son, there are times when a father may find himself in a subordinate position to his son. My son is a deputy sheriff. He is always and under all circumstances in subjection to me as a father. But if there arose a situation where I was involved with the law and he was assigned to my case, I would then be in subordination to him as a law enforcement officer. Without being commissioned, I can never, even as a father, presume authority over him in this role. Nor can he, without a commission from heaven, ever presume the role of a father over me. In this sphere we must always be father and son, him being subordinate to me. So it is with the woman. She can never presume man’s role over the man. This may be true everywhere and at all times, but Paul’s point in this section seems to be limited to the public assemblies of the church. Of course this is not to say that the principle does not apply elsewhere (for in some cases it must), but in this context Paul seems to have in view the public gatherings of the church. Furthermore, this certainly does not mean that Christ is not the head of the woman also. He is (Ephesians 1:22-23). Paul’s point here is with headship (role) in the divine scheme, God over Christ, Christ over man, man over the woman. and the head of Christ is God. - The Father’s role is over the Son. That is, Christ, in His role as Son, is subordinate to the Father (John 14:28; Hebrews 5:8-9). This subordination is not in His essence - in that He is co-equal with God (John 1:1-3; Philippians 2:5-11), but in His role as Son (1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28). His subordination as a Son does not mean that He is subordinate in all respects. But in the Father/Son relationship, how could it be otherwise?

Verse 3

1Co 11:3

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I would have you know,—-He turns now to properly direct the behavior of women in the worship and in their man­ner of appearing before God, and defines the relationship of man and woman.

that the head of every man is Christ;—Jesus Christ is the head of the man, and man cannot approach God save in sub­jection to his head, Christ.

and the head of the woman is the man;—Woman cannot ap­proach God save in subjection to her head, man. The duties and bearing of women and men grow out of their respective relations to each other and to God. The same relationship of husband and wife is presented in another place in these words: “Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22 -­24). In the Lord is here implied, as all are to obey him above every one else. [Let it here be distinctly understood that the subordination thus expressed involves no degradation. As the church is not dishonored by being subject to Christ, so neither is woman dishonored by being subject to man.]

and the head of Christ is God.—Considered as the Father’s servant (Isaiah 42:1; Isaiah 52:13), in which capacity he spoke when he said: “I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do” (John 17:4). “Though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8), “becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). It is in this aspect of mutual relation in the work of redemption that “the head of Christ is God.”

Verse 4

1Co 11:4

1 Corinthians 11:4

Every man praying or prophesying,—Praying and proph­esying are the two exercises in which the churches engage in the assembly. All pray, or should pray; one leads, the oth­ers pray as sincerely as does the leader. The purpose is to show how the women should appear before God in the assem­bly, not that she should lead in the service. Most assuredly the apostle does not here tell the women how to lead in the prayer and teaching in the assembly, and in chapter 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, gives specific directions for her to keep silent. The very fact that in all the history of Christ and the apostles no example is found of women speaking publicly or leading in public prayer, although they were endowed with miraculous gifts, and did prophesy and teach in private and in the family circle, ought to satisfy all as to the will of God in that matter.

having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.—Then a man must not have his head covered when he comes before God, either with long hair or with hat, veil, or cloth of any kind. This would be a shame to him. He may have it cov­ered at other times, but not when he approaches God to pray or prophesy in his name. [Such conduct dishonors his head because covering it is a usage which symbolizes subjection to some visible superior, and in the worship man has none. Those who are visibly present are either his equals or his infe­riors. Every man, therefore, who in praying or prophesying covers his head, thereby acknowledges himself dependent on some earthly head other than his heavenly head, and thereby takes from the latter the honor which is due to him as the head of man.]

Verses 4-16

1Co 11:4-16

WOMEN’S SUBJECTION

1 Corinthians 11:4-16

1 Corinthians 11:4-16 There are many views and many variations in each of them of this difficult section. To go to commentators seeking help on it is usually a shattering experience. One comes away from them with his head spinning as from riding a merry-go-round. And what I say may simply add more fuel to the already overheated controversy. Certainly I know in advance that I cannot satisfy everyone, and in places may not be able to satisfy myself. I believe the basic lesson to be learned is that of women’s subjection (recognizing her role under man) to the man (v. 3). In Corinth that subjection was symbolized by long hair and a veil.

Paul clearly has in view two coverings, one artificial (the veil) and the other natural (the hair). Both were of grave significance in that city at that time. The prostitutes had thrown off their outer covering and cut their hair (and in some cases shaved their heads) until both had become the symbol of sexual looseness, prostitution, or independence from any man (that is, the unveiled and short-haired woman was saying that she was free, tied to no man, and thus available for immoral purposes). Or as DeHoff puts it, "The unveiled woman was the careless woman, the immoral woman; the veiled woman was the careful wife or mother who was concerned about her reputation."

It must be remembered that Corinth was a city of prostitution. It was even practiced as a part of the worship in the temple of idols, and hundreds of beautiful young women paraded its spacious corridors day and night peddling their wares, their trademark being unveiled faces and short hair or shaven heads. A custom had therefore grown up from this practice that forced decent women (those who recognized their role as being under the man) to wear veils (face coverings) and long hair. Paul is here not binding the custom, but regulating it when and where it is in force (as he does the holy kiss; see my note on Romans 16:16). The principle of subjection is bound, but not the custom. The custom was already being practiced and he simply regulates it. Customs can and do change, but principles do not. And to regulate a custom bearing upon a principle neither binds the custom nor changes the principle.

In this section, the principle is subjection or subordination; the custom (by which one showed that she recognized the principle) was long hair and the veil. For the Christian woman to cut her hair and throw off her veil in Corinth would have been an advertisement of immorality. But even further, it would have, in addition to causing her to appear as a prostitute, identified (at least in the minds of some) the worship of God with paganism. From the appearance of unveiled women in the public worship the uninformed could have concluded that immoral sexual conduct was as much a part of the Christian system as it was idolatry. While this conclusion would have been an absolute error, it would have been wrong for Christian women to leave such impressions when it could have been prevented.

There seems to have been at least three reasons why it was necessary for the Corinthian women to have long hair and remain veiled in public: (1) Modes­ ty. This was the adorning characteristic of women (both then and now). They were to be modest and discreet in appearance, in apparel, in disposition, and in demeanor (1 Timothy 2:9-11; Titus 2:3-5; 1 Peter 3:16; Ephesians 5:22-24). For a woman to appear in Corinth uncovered was considered immodest. (2) Submission or subordination (showing the recognition of the headship of man). I have already observed that this is the principle of this section. The veil had come to symbolize subjection. That is obviously why it was mandated at Corinth. An un­ veiled woman was one who had renounced the principle of subordination and presumed a role equal to or superior to man. (3) Immorality. As I have already said, short hair and the unveiled face was a symbol of an immoral life. No Chris­ tian woman had a divine right to leave that impression on others, even if it meant that she must surrender her personal liberty in such matters and thus be bound by a local custom.

Thus as I see it, this section deals with a local custom (widespread then, but is rarely known now), one that was bound on Christian women because of the implications when it was discarded. While the principle of subjection is bound for all time, the custom was never meant for other people in other places who might practice the principle apart from the custom. The principle remains the same for us today but the custom has changed. It is not now immodest for a woman to appear in public unveiled; nor does headwear (I have never seen a woman veiled in the sense the Corinthians were) have any symbolism of subjection; and certainly there is now no connotation of immorality attached to an unveiled woman. While women still must recognize that their role is under the man, the veil is no longer a symbol of that recognition. The custom has changed.

1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man Any man (RSV). praying - Addressing God in a public place (cf. 1 Timothy 2:1-8). or prophesying, - Communicating the divine will by inspiration. A prophet is one who receives God’s word and speaks for Him. Prophecy is the word spoken by a prophet. While in apostolic times (before the miraculous ceased) one might be both a prophet and a preacher, the two functions are distinct. While both are pro claimers of revelation, the prophet receives his message directly from God; the preacher proclaims the message received and delivered by the prophet. The prophet was the one through whom God spoke - that is, revealed His will; the preacher is the one who carries that revealed will to the masses. The prophet was always inspired; the preacher pro­ claimed the inspired message. Prophecy was always miraculous (1 Corinthians 12:10); preaching was not. Prophecy would cease (it would pass away with the miraculous) (1 Corinthians 13:8-9); preaching would remain (2 Timothy 2:2; 2 Timothy 4:2). To call a modern preacher a prophet (after prophecy has ceased) would be to confuse Biblical terms - confuse the miraculous with the natural. having his head covered,--Having a veil on his head. This means, according to Vincent (WS), "Having something hanging down from his head." Hence a head piece that extends down over the face. The head covering was a sign of subordination (in this context, to man). Man was not, however, subordinate to man, as was the woman, but to Christ alone. dishonoureth his head. - Brings shame or disgrace to Christ, who is his head (v. 3). Because of the symbolic meaning of the covering, if a man covered his head it would mean that he did not recognize his own head­ ship or role over the woman. And not to recognize his role would dishonor Christ. Hence man could not veil his head while praying or prophesying (and this would be true of any act of public worship), but this does not prohibit him from doing so at other times.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth - See note on v. 4. Whatever may be concluded from this, Paul is not here approving what he elsewhere prohibits (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-12). Thus the meaning must be any woman praying or prophesying within the limitations placed upon her. There were certainly circumstances under which a woman could teach (Acts 18:24-26; Titus 2:3-5), pray (Matthew 15:22-28; Acts 16:13), and prophesy (Acts 2:17; Acts 21:8-9), but such was always done with the recognition of her role of subordination. She could neither teach nor usurp authority over the man (1 Timothy 2:11-12), that is teach or usurp authority in such a way as to replace man in God’s divine order (v. 3). There is a strong implication here that under whatever conditions the woman could pray she could also prophesy. Would it also follow that when she could not prophesy she could not openly pray or lead men in prayer? At any rate, when she prayed and prophesied her activities did not violate the restrictions under which she was elsewhere placed. with her head uncovered --Unveiled, the opposite of man (v. 4). dishonoureth her head: - She shames the role of man by appearing immodest, insubordinate, or immoral. for that is even all one - Because of custom, it has the same symbolic significance. as if she were shaven. - That is, if the woman throws aside her outer veil, she might as well go all the way and shave her head. Both acts were considered a sign of disgrace or immorality.

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered. - If a woman will not veil herself (Moffett). let her also be shorn: - then she should cut off her hair (RSV). If she was going to violate the custom why compromise at the halfway point? Why not go all the way and cut the hair too? but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. - If custom dictated that it was a disgrace for a woman to cut her hair short or to shave her head (and custom did so dictate in Corinth) then women were not at liberty to discard custom and thus bring reproach upon themselves, upon their head (man), and upon the church. let her be covered. - Let her wear a veil (Williams). Paul’s point is that to appear unveiled had as serious symbolic significance as short hair or shaved heads. For Christian women to appear pure, to display recognition of their role of subordination, they had no choice but to be veiled, both by the artificial and the natural coverings. Custom did not permit them to dispense with either. But if they were to cast off the former, they might as well practice the latter also.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, - See note on v. 4. forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: - God’s glory is for man to fill the role in life for which he was made, and that role places him (in rank) under Christ and over the woman. When man fills his role, he reflects God’s glory. But to appear in public worship (pray or prophesy) with his head covered (probably either with long hair or a veil, since both are under consideration in the context), would, because of the custom, signify the abandonment of that role. but the woman is the glory of the man. - Woman glorifies man (her head) by filling her creative role as help meet (Genesis 2:18). In her proper role, she reflects the glory of man. The covering (both the hair and the head wear) signified her recognition and acceptance of her role.

1 Corinthians 11:8-9 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. - For man did not originate from the woman, but woman did from the man (Williams). God made man from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) but He made woman from the rib of man (Genesis 2:21-24). Hence man was the source from which God made the woman. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. - Man was formed first (1 Timothy 2:13) and God saw that it was not good for him to be alone (Genesis 2:18). He therefore made woman as the help meet of man. Paul’s point (limited by the context to the proper roles of both male and female) seems to be that man was created for God; woman was created for man. This is concerned with more than the order of creation (although there is significance in the order, 1 Timothy 2:13), it is the creative purpose. God made man for His own glory (v. 7; Revelation 4:11). He made woman for the glory of man. This is not to say that woman is not also a glory to God. She is (as is all of creation when it serves its creative purpose). But she is a glory to God only when she fills her divine role, which involves her subjection to man.

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause - For the creative purpose as stated in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9. ought the woman to have power on her head - To have a sign of authority on her head (ASV). That is, she ought to have on her head that which gives her the authority to pray and prophesy (see v. 5), or (my view) she ought to have on her head the symbol of man’s authority over her. This gives two possible senses the expression may have. The former seems to be more in harmony with the meaning of the word authority (which nowhere else means a covering) but the latter with the context. And since context governs the meaning of words, rather than vice versa, I conclude that the latter is the correct view. While woman must always show her subjection to man (the principle which is here bound), the custom of showing it by a head covering has long ceased in most countries. I once had a preacher friend (in later years he ceased this practice) who insisted that his wife wear a hat or a small headpiece in worship, He was under the impression that this custom was still bound and that a small hat (often all but hidden by the hair) would meet the demands of the veil. But he was wrong on both counts. Paul never intended to bind the custom, only the principle; and by no stretch of the imagination could a small hat substitute for the ancient veil, which covered the whole head and face. In fact, the veil was probably designed more to cover the face than the head, since the hair covered the head (see v. 15). It seems that the uncovered face may have had the same sexual connotation then as the uncovered breast does now. Thus to be uncovered in public was an act of immodesty. It should be understood by all that Christianity does not bind custom because they change, and sometimes radically so. For example, in the time of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, it was customary for a harlot (or prostitute) to appear veiled. When Tamar wanted to entice Judah (to remind him that he had not kept his word to give her Shelah as her husband, as the law provided), she covered (veiled) herself and sat in an open place. This was a sign to Judah that she was for sale sexually (Genesis 38:14-16). The purpose of the covering then may have been to conceal the identity of the woman from the man with whom she committed fornication. At any rate, the identity of Tamar was not known to Judah until her pregnancy was revealed to him (Genesis 38:16; Genesis 38:24-26). Had this custom prevailed in any country or city where Christianity had established a beachhead, then Christian women would have been prohibited from wearing a veil, not because the wearing of the veil itself was wrong but because of what it signified. This would have been the exact opposite of the custom in Corinth. There the lewd women were uncovered; the pure covered. Paul instructs them to remain covered, not because there is virtue in a veil per se, but because of the connotation custom dictated, namely, to be uncovered meant the advertisement of one’s availability sexually. because of the angels. A most difficult expression to explain, as is evidenced by the varied views given by the commentators (some learned, some foolish, and some both). It appears that the Corinthians may have had some knowledge or concept (known to them but unknown to us) that made it unnecessary for Paul to elaborate upon its significance. But in the absence of that elaboration our present knowledge is extremely limited. Our understanding of it will be colored by whether we see them as earthly or heavenly beings and whether, if heavenly, they are the good or bad angels. While there is some reason to conclude that they are messengers of the church and thus earthly beings, in all likelihood heavenly beings are meant. And a probable meaning is that woman should cover her head (show subjection) out of respect for the good angels who continue to serve their creative role (in contrast to the wicked ones who fell by abandoning theirs, 2 Peter 2:4; Judges 1:6). That is, the good angels fill their role by continuing in subjection to God (they did not rebel and thus set the right example). Thus woman, out of regard for them, should display their subjection by having on their head the sign which showed the authority of man over her. If this is not the meaning, then I must confess, along with Barnes, "I do not know what it means."

1 Corinthians 11:11-12 Nevertheless - To prevent man from thinking too highly of himself because of his role over woman, Paul calls attention to another point of view. While woman is subordinate in her role, she is not inferior in God’s creative design or appointment. neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man,--They are interdependent. Neither is complete (in the reproduction process) without the other. in the Lord. - In the sphere of the Lord, that is, in His appointment and in His total scheme of things. While each has his independent role, they complement each other. This interdependence can best be illustrated by the process of reproduction. In the beginning the woman was taken out of man, but since then all men have come by the woman (by the process of birth). No human being, since Adam and Eve, has ever existed without both a father and a mother (in the case of Christ, He had a heavenly Father and an earthly mother, Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18-23). The BV brings this out forcefully: "In the Lord there is no woman without a man, nor a man without a woman." For as the woman is of the man, - See v. 8. even so is the man also by the woman; - So man is now born of woman (RSV). Without the woman there would be no reproduction of man (Job 14:1). but all things of God. - They all have their origin from God (BV), in His creative act and divine plan (Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 3:4). In God’s plan of reproduction the male and female are interdependent and equally involved. Neither can continue to exist without the other.

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: - Judge for yourselves (NIV). Proper public attire was determined for them by custom, and they were wise enough to make the judgment for themselves. is it comely - Seemly (ASV), proper (RSV), becoming (BV), fitting, or in keeping with the established custom. that a woman pray unto God uncovered? - For an unveiled woman to pray to God (Moffett)? To them the question would require a negative reply. Because of the custom, it was not proper for women to publicly worship unveiled. But of course when the custom changed the answer changed also.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, - Crucial to a proper understanding of this v. is a proper definition of "nature" as here used. Does it mean that which is innately built into the constitution of man by birth - that is, the law of creation? Alford and many others think so, and it certainly does have that meaning elsewhere (e.g., Galatians 2:15). Or does the word mean a sense of propriety formed by custom, habit, or experience? It seems to me that the context mandates this meaning. If so, then it is not innate but acquired nature. As an example, only a short while ago I was in a funeral. As we traveled from the chapel (where the funeral was conducted) to the cemetery, we passed several busy intersections, at which the sheriff’s department had placed deputies to direct traffic. As we passed, each one removed his hat and stood at attention. In our society, does not nature (custom or habit) itself teach a man to remove his hat out of respect for the dead? Indeed it does. And that seems to be precisely the way Paul uses the word here. that, if a man have long hair, - Does not your sense of propriety (developed by long years of habit and experience and because of the custom which makes long hair a symbol of subjection to man) teach you that it is a shame unto him? - That it is degrading for a man to wear long hair (Williams). The prevailing custom made it so. Paul, because of their training and experience with the custom, appeals to their own judgment in this matter. While many commentators explain this in such a way as to bind short hair for men and long hair for women today, the length of the hair is no more bound by this v. on all societies than is the wearing of the artificial veil by women. I believe that God meant for the sexes to always have distinguishing characteristics, and in most societies one of these is short hair for the man and long hair for the women. Christians should not disregard this custom without sufficient reason. In one decade in my lifetime (the late 1960’s and early 1970’s) there was a youth rebellion against what they termed "the establishment" ­ the home, the church, the government, the police department, etc. Those in rebellion had two distinct marks, namely, shabby dress and long hair (on the male). As the movement spread, nearly all young males let their hair grow long, not out of rebellion but because they liked the style. Eventually long hair became an acceptable style, but when it did it lost its symbolism of rebellion. Now (in the mid-1980’s) nearly all young males have gone back to the old style of short hair. When it was a mark of rebellion, I advised youth to keep their hair cut (admittedly though very few listened) because of what long hair symbolized, but when it became an accepted style my argument was all but weightless (even though in my own heart I still attach a degree of shame to a male with long hair, and I suspect that this is the sentiments of the vast majority in nearly all modern cultures). In my judgment to try to bind the length of hair, whether long or short, on all societies today (beyond the binding nature of custom itself) as a religious act (an act necessary to please God) would be to confuse custom with what the law of creation demands. All such interpretations are the results of a futile effort to read into this passage our own cultural preference.

1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: - What is a dishonor to man (long hair, v. 14) is a glory to woman. Since long hair was a glory to woman, we must conclude that short hair (that which characterized the man) would be a shame to her (see note on v. 14). It was a shame because it signified immorality and, more to the point here, deprived her of her natural covering. for her hair is given her for a covering. It is granted her as a natural covering in addition to but not under all circumstances a substitute for the artificial covering of vv. 5-7, 10. Robertson (WP) says the word for covering here is "Old word from periballo, to fling around, as a mantle (Hebrews 1:12) or covering or veil as here. It is not in the place of a veil, but answering to “...as a permanent endowment...." Paul’s point may well be that if a woman should be caught, for one reason or another, in public without her veil, her long hair could be used to wrap around and cover her face as a veil. The hair covered her head; the veil was designed to cover the face. But just in case no veil was accessible, the hair could serve as a temporary covering - that is, she could fling it around from the back of her head (where it naturally hung down) and use it to cover her face. If this is the point, and I believe it is, then it settles the argument as to how long long hair should be. It should be long enough to wrap around and cover the face.

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, - If any man is disposed to argue about it or to raise objections on the grounds that Christianity does not bind custom and to thus force men to wear short hair and women long hair and a veil would severely limit or destroy altogether their freedom in Christ. we have no such custom, - No such custom as recklessly throwing aside the established customs of a city or country. There are some customs which have little or no significance. They may be ignored with no reflections on a divine principle. But in the case of the hair and veil in Corinth, the custom involved the principle, and thus to cast aside the custom symbolized the rejection of the principle. The practice of the principle was, therefore, inevitably linked with the keeping of the custom. To abandon the custom, in their case, would have been to deny the principle and that would have brought reproach on both the woman and the church. Christian liberty cannot be so abused with impunity. neither the churches of God. - The churches made up of the people of God. Paul knew no church which had the custom of abandoning the customs of the community in which it met, especially when the custom involved a principle. The custom of observing customs which involved principles was the established practice of all the churches known by Paul. It was not just something he was binding on the Corinthians alone.

Verse 5

1Co 11:5

1 Corinthians 11:5

But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonored her head;—The woman is under subjec­tion to the man. Because of this, any approach to God with head uncovered is not permitted. It is a dishonor to her head. Man cannot come to God save through and in the name of Christ his head, so woman cannot come to Christ save with the tokens of subjection to man on her head.

for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.—To have her head uncovered is the same as to have her head shaven.

Verse 6

1Co 11:6

1 Corinthians 11:6

For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn:—[The word “also” in this verse plainly shows that the two veils— the natural hair and the veil with which the head was covered —are under consideration. If her head be not covered with a veil, let her hair be shorn. Let her be consistent by laying aside all the usual and proper indications of her sex. If it be done in one respect, it might with the same propriety be done in all. In verse 13, he says: “Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?” The impro­priety of it, he seems to take for granted as apparent to all.]

but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.—[It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven because it fashions her, to that extent, as a man, and it is God’s will, distinctly revealed in the Scriptures, to keep the sexes distinguishable. For a woman to remove her hair is in part to obliterate this outward distinction, and is therefore a trampling under foot God’s will. And as further defense of womanly modesty and morality, God forbids the sexes wear­ing each other’s clothes: “A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5).]

Verse 7

1Co 11:7

1 Corinthians 11:7

For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, foras­much as he is the image and glory of God:—The man is the image of his maker, was created for him, and to add to his glory. [Man is the glory of God as the crown of creation and as endowed with sovereignty like God himself, naming all creatures and having dominion over all the earth, and over ev­erything that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26-28). He is also the glory of God as showing forth the glory of his Crea­tor, and being his masterwork. The man existing in this dou­ble character, as the image and glory of God, must not have his head covered when he comes before God, either with long hair, or with hat, veil, or cloth of any kind. This would be a shame to him. He may have it covered at other times, but not when he approaches God to pray or prophesy in his name.]

but the woman is the glory of the man.—The woman was created of and for the man. [That God provided for man a companion and helper so noble as woman proves the worth of man in God’s sight, and thus adds dignity to him; she shares and manifests his superiority; reflects it, as the moon does the light of the sun.]

Verse 8

1Co 11:8

1 Corinthians 11:8

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:—The woman was not first, but the man, and out of the man was the woman made. She was taken out of him, and was created as a separate being for the good and happiness of man. “And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Genesis 2:18-23). What was in woman was taken out of man. It takes both man and woman to make one reproductive being. Both sets of organs necessary to re­production were originally in man. God separated them into two beings, counterparts and complements of each other, but the woman was taken out of and from man, and for his good. The twain are one, but one in man. Hence the world over she takes his name.

Verse 9

1Co 11:9

1 Corinthians 11:9

for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:—The man was first and the woman was created for him. Man’s priority and consequent leadership over woman are here affirmed.

Verse 10

1Co 11:10

1 Corinthians 11:10

for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of author­ity on her head,—On account of this priority and supremacy of man, woman, as subject to man, should always approach God with the tokens of her subjection on her head. The sign of authority means the sign or token on her head that she ac­knowledges the authority of man over her.

because of the angels.—Much diversity exists as to who the angels are. Many think they were the messengers of the churches. But the apostle nowhere presents a thought as to how woman shall appear before men; the question is, How shall she appear before God? How shall she approach God in prophecy or prayer? The direction applies to her, whether in public or private. It is necessary for a woman to approach God with the tokens of her subjection to man in secret prayer, or private teaching as in public, just as it is necessary for man to approach God as a servant of Christ in private or in public. Not a word is said here as to how woman should appear before man when she prayed or taught. The presence or absence of men, friends or strangers, has nothing to do with how she shall appear before God. Neither does the question whether she leads in public prayer or in prayer follows others who lead. These questions are not here touched. I think the angels in heaven who see and rejoice or sorrow over what men do here will rejoice or sorrow over her coming properly or improperly before God, or in the place to which God assigned her. Whether the woman prays in the closet at home, or in the as­sembly, she should approach God with the tokens of her sub­jection to man on her head. The reason of this we may not know. That God requires it, the Bible plainly teaches, and that should suffice. The meaning is, when she comes to wor­ship in prayer or praise, no matter whether she leads or not, she should be veiled.

Verse 11

1Co 11:11

1 Corinthians 11:11

Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman,—Although by original constitu­tion woman is dependent upon man, they are mutually depen­dent upon each other—the one cannot exist without the other.

in the Lord.—By divine arrangement and direction the twain are one in the Lord.

Verse 12

1Co 11:12

1 Corinthians 11:12

For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman;—Since the woman was taken from the man, she is of him, yet man is born, or comes into the world through the woman. That man had the priority in time and position, yet no man can be born without woman. They mutually de­pend for existence upon each other. So the two constitute but one real self-propagating being.

but all things are of God.—The twain are one, and both are of God, and live, move, and have their being in him. [This expression seems designed to suppress any spirit of complaint or dissatisfaction with this arrangement; to make the woman contented in her subordinate station, and to make the man humble by the consideration that it is all owing to the ap­pointment of God. The woman should therefore be contented and the man should not assume any important superiority since the whole arrangement is of God.]

Verse 13

1Co 11:13

1 Corinthians 11:13

Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?—The impropriety of it he takes for granted as apparent to all. How should she approach God is the question. Man should do it with uncovered head, woman with covered head; and all distinction between public or pri­vate prayer is man’s imagination. It is as wrong for a man to approach God with covered head in the closet as it is to do it in the public assembly. So also of woman, God makes no dif­ference as to how he shall be approached in public or in pri­vate.

Verse 14

1Co 11:14

1 Corinthians 11:14

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?—While in all nations in the world, women wear long hair, and men short hair, is it nature that suggests it? It does not mean custom. The fact so uni­versal, and the declaration of the apostle, seems to settle this. Sometimes nature suggests a custom. A practice prompted by nature becomes a custom, and is said to be from or by na­ture. How came the custom to be universal among all na­tions and in all parts of the world, if there is not something in nature to suggest it?

Verse 15

1Co 11:15

1 Corinthians 11:15

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.—[From the creation God intended that woman should wear a veil as a symbol of her subjection to man, but instead of an artificial covering he gave her a covering of long hair, a covering of glory, in which she could take pride. When woman sinned he gave her a second veil of covering, which is a sign of authority to which she must submit as a memorial of her transgression. The reason for the two veils or coverings becomes apparent when we get before us woman’s relation to man and God’s will concerning them. Paul directed woman to “learn in quietness with all subjection” for two reasons: (1) “Adam was first formed, then Eve”; (2) “Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression” (1 Timothy 2:11-14); that is, when woman was created, she was created for man (1 Corinthians 11:8-9), and was subjected to him (Ephesians 5:22-24), not as a slave, but as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). Then when Eve transgressed, God placed her under a curse and said: “I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy hus­band, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16). Thus twice was woman subjected to man. Hence the argument is: Since it is a glory for woman to wear a covering of hair which God gave her at creation instead of an artificial covering, she should wear also an artificial covering when she approaches God in prayer.]

Verse 16

1Co 11:16

1 Corinthians 11:16

But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.—The custom re­ferred to must be women wearing short hair and approaching God in prayer with uncovered heads. He reasoned on the subject to show the impropriety, but adds in an authoritative manner, if any are disposed to be contentious over it, neither we nor the churches of God have any such custom. [With such disturbers of the peace of the church all argument is useless. Authority is the only thing that will silence them. The author­ity here adduced is that of the inspired apostles, which was decisive, because they were invested with the authority not only to preach the gospel, but to instruct the church and to decide everything relating to the worship.]

Verse 17

1Co 11:17

1 Corinthians 11:17

But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse.—The object of the weekly meeting was to unite them more closely to the Lord, and in doing this, to draw them into closer union with each other; but their services were so perverted that they produced strife and separation instead of unity.

Verses 17-22

1Co 11:17-22

ABUSE PERTAINING TO THE

LORD’S SUPPER REBUKED

1 Corinthians 11:17-22

1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you--- But in giving you this charge (ASV). In the instructions he is now to give them pertaining to their abuse of the Lord’s Supper. Seemingly they had substituted a common meal for the memorial communion. And to make matters worse, they had excluded some who were hungry from the meal (v. 21). I praise you not, - That is, he could not approve or commend their actions. In v. 2 he had highly praised them for following the truth he had delivered to them. Here the opposite is true. He has blame, not praise, for them because they had perverted their assemblies into factories of division rather than periods to bind themselves together in unity. that ye come together The early church had a regular meeting time - the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1-2; Acts 20:7). The divine purpose of the assembly was to worship God and edify one another (Acts 2:41; Hebrews 10:25). But they had so perverted the purpose that they were coming together not for the better, but for the worse. - They were doing more harm than good. Coming together for better would edify and build up the body, binding it together in love and fellowship; instead they were coming together for worse, that harming the cause by forming cliques and thus causing division and strife. What they were doing was the reverse of what they should have been doing.

1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, - The first thing to be called to their attention that caused their assemblies to be more harmful than helpful. While no second point is identified by Paul, it is probably the abuse of spiritual gifts, the discussion of which starts in 1 Corinthians 12:1. when ye come together in the church, - When you meet as a congregation (Goodspeed). That is, when they assembled to worship and edify. I hear that there be divisions among you; - This may have reference to the type of division discussed in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, but more likely (based on the context) the dividing into small groups (cliques) to eat the meal they had confused with and substituted for the Lord’s Supper. And seemingly when the groups so separated they excluded all those not approved by the group for the meal (1 Corinthians 11:19-21). The rich were thus feasting while the poor were starving. The division had thus not resulted in the establishment of new churches but was of a partisan nature. and I partly believe it. - And to some extent I believe it (BV). He believed part, not all, of what he had heard. The extent of their clique meetings may have been exaggerated by those reporting it (1 Corinthians 1:11) but Paul was certain that the report was rooted in fact.

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. - I am torn between two interpretations: first, the usual one, which says the meaning is that the nature of the world, and men who follow their worldly nature rather than the revealed will of God, makes it certain that there will ever be factions and parties in the church. Such heresies, of course, are wrong (Galatians 5:20). Nevertheless churches will always be faced with them. But because this is necessarily the case, it does not follow that we must be partisans. Heresies can serve a useful purpose, namely, to manifest the approved. Or as Beck says, "To clearly show which of you can stand the test." Second, the context seems (at least to my mind) to favor another view, namely, that Paul (evidently, though not stated) had been told that they were defending their exclusive groups or clique meetings (1 Corinthians 11:18) on the grounds that the ones approved (by the group) could be easily identified - that is, there must be division so that each group can know its own. The divisions of v. 18 and the heresies here refer to the same thing, that is, their class meetings. This way the rich would not be identified with the poor, nor the poor with the rich. If this is the case, then they were using the basic defense of all party divisions. They were fencing some in while fencing all others out. This is precisely what modern denominationalism does with its human creeds, names, doctrines, and organizations. While this seems to me to be the correct meaning, there is nothing in the v. to indicate that it is a statement of their defense (as related to Paul by others) rather than Paul’s own statement.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, - When you assemble for the same purpose. The primary purpose in the assembly was to worship God and build each other up in the faith. But when they divided (1 Corinthians 11:18-19) into exclusive groups (for a common meal which they evidently considered the Lord’s Supper) they defeated both the purpose of the assembly and the design of the Lord’s Supper. this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. ­ You do not come to eat the Lord’s Supper (BV). That is, the character and circumstance of their meeting made it impossible for them to eat the Lord’s memorial supper. Two Christian duties are in view here: (1) Saints are to assemble themselves together (Hebrews 10:25); (2) When they assemble on the first day of the week they are to partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). The problem with them was that they were assembling (in exclusive groups) and they were breaking bread (in a common meal), but their assembly was not the one body and their eating was not the Lord’s Supper. Paul’s point is that the manner and character of their coming together made it impossible for them to properly observe the Lord’s Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:21 For - Connects the following with v. 20, showing why what they were doing made it impossible for them to be eating the Lord’s Supper it was their supper, not the Lord’s. in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper: - In eating each one goes ahead with his own meal (RSV). Those not approved by a group (v. 19) were excluded from eating, either by the rich eating beforehand (and thus leaving nothing for the poor) or by eliminating the poor by exclusion. Their meetings were supposed to be for the purpose of taking the communion, which would bind them together as one (1 Corinthians 10:16-17), but instead they were having feasts for their exclusive groups. and one is hungry, and another is drunken. - So that this one stays hungry and that one imbibes too freely (BV). This expresses two extremes - one is empty while the other is filled to overflow. While Paul’s rebuke would condemn rather than approve such use of strong drink, I doubt that he means to say that one is hungry and the other is intoxicated (although the word can certainly mean that, e.g., Matthew 24:49; Acts 2:15). He is contrasting two opposite states. The opposite of hunger is not intoxication but gluttony. Thus (or so it seems to me) some were left without food while others were filled to satiety.

1 Corinthians 11:22 What? What! (Moffett). An exclamation designed to shock them into attention. have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Have you not proper places to pursue your social functions? The problem was not their eating and drinking, but with their corrupting the public worship into private social feasts. Paul is not condemning their eating together, not even eating together in the same place they met to worship. His point is that they were substituting their private meetings for the public assembly, that is, replacing the Lord’s Supper with a common meal. They were thus corrupting (and replacing) the worship assembly with their exclusive meetings. To keep from confusing their own meetings (to eat a common meal) with the meetings of the church (to eat the Lord’s Supper) they should eat their meals at home. The private house is set in contrast with the assembly, not with the church building. One might eat at the church building without disrupting the assembly, but he should not disrupt the assembly in order to eat at the church building. or despise ye the church of God, - Or is it your design to set at naught the assembly and destroy its divine purpose? The church here does not mean the meeting place (the Bible nowhere calls a material building the church) but the assembly of God’s people. The contrast is thus not in eating in the church building or at their houses, but in substituting that which should be done elsewhere for the public assembly - perverting the worship into private festivals. and shame them that have not? - And humiliate the poor, who are excluded from your feasts. Men often have their social clubs, and practice social snobbery in them, but such exclusiveness has absolutely no place in the worship of God. In the church of Christ all are equal - no inferiors or superiors; no rich or poor; nor learned or illiterate; no male or female (Galatians 3:26-29). All are one in Christ. Jesus said, "All ye are brethren" (Matthew 23:8). Paul added, "There is no respect of person with God" (Romans 2:11). The Corinthians were ignoring this divine principle. What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. - Should I commend your conduct or approve your actions? Absolutely not. See v. 17.

Verse 18

1Co 11:18

1 Corinthians 11:18

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you;—The parties, in follow­ing the different leaders, which had been reported to him by the house of Chloe, were accompanied by divisions when they met for worship.

and I partly believe it.—The facts had possibly been exag­gerated by others, [but he was forced to believe enough to excite his strong disapproval.]

Verse 19

1Co 11:19

1 Corinthians 11:19

For there must be also factions among you,—It is a part of the policy of God in governing the world to test those serving him, and to that end he allows evil men to come into their midst.

that they that are approved may be made manifest among you.—The church of God, like the Jewish nation, will continu­ally fall away from steadfastness in the faith. Those who cannot be faithful to God under temptations to disobey him are not worthy of his kingdom. So God allows evil men to come among his people who would lead away from God and his order, to try and test who among them are faithful and true to him. Paul said to the elders of the Ephesian church: “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disci­ples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30). This was permitted to prove and to show who could stand firm and steadfast under temptations to turn away from God.

God tests them on the points of fidelity to him in faith and doctrine as well as love of the world, lusts of the flesh, and pleasures of life. One who cannot resist these and give them up for the Lord is rejected by him as unworthy to be his disci­ple; so every one who cannot stand fast for the truth despite the divisions and the popular currents that sweep through the churches to carry them away from their steadfastness is unworthy of Christ. These are God’s tests to purify the churches. He desires only true and tried and faithful subjects in his kingdom. Those who cannot stand the test must be purged out. So divisions come to every church to make mani­fest those who are approved. It is God bringing the churches to judgment in this world, that those who are approved and true may be made manifest. All we have to do is to stand true and firm to God and his word, and leave the results with him.

Verse 20

1Co 11:20

1 Corinthians 11:20

When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper:—Their meeting to­gether did not result in their eating the Lord’s Supper. That was the occasion of their coming together, but they so per­verted it that it made it impossible for them to do so.

Verse 21

1Co 11:21

1 Corinthians 11:21

for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.—The eat­ing of a feast with its attendant gluttony and drinking led many to attend. Each family brought its own portion and each partook of his own. The rich eating and drinking to sa­tiety of their abundance. The poor were shamed by the scantiness of their food and went hungry. This was all wrong. It is thought by some that this feasting preceded the Lord’s Supper, so that some were filled to satiety, while oth­ers were hungry when they partook of the emblems of the Lord’s body and blood.

Verse 22

1Co 11:22

1 Corinthians 11:22

What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or de­spise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you?—He shames them with these questions. If they had a feast in public, brotherly love for each other would have suggested a common table at which all would have fared alike, and as a consequence those without food at home would have had their wants supplied. The course pursued caused shame to the poor and left them hungry.

In this I praise you not.—He had told them (verse 1) that he praised them for remembering him and holding fast the traditions, but here was such a perversion that he could not praise them for doing it.

Verse 23

1Co 11:23

1 Corinthians 11:23

For I received of the Lord—[The information of which he treats was what he himself had received from the immedi­ate and personal communication of the Lord himself, and ac­cording to the express injunction therein contained was ap­pointed for their observance. It was not therefore of his own devising, not that of any man, but divinely instituted, and consequently imperatively binding on all Christians.]

that which also I delivered unto you,—[He transmitted to them the very thing which he had received from the Lord, so that they were well aware of what ought to have made these disorders impossible.]

that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed —[The delivery of Jesus to his enemies had already begun and was going on at the very time when the Lord instituted the Supper. The marginal reading, “delivered up,” is better than “was betrayed,” which confines the meaning to the ac­tion of Judas; whereas the Father’s surrender of the Son (John 19:11) and Jesus’ self-surrender (John 10:17-18) are also included.] Paul mentions the sad solemnity of the occa­sion in contrast to the irreverent revelry of the Corinthians, to show how they perverted the Supper.

took bread;—The bread used was the unleavened bread of the Passover week. (See Exodus 12:15; Exodus 13:3; Exodus 13:7; Deuteronomy 16:3).

Verses 23-34

1Co 11:23-34

THE LORD’S SUPPER

1 Corinthians 11:23-34

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, - What he had received from the Lord he had delivered to them. This, while limited by the context to the subject matter at hand, namely, the Lord’s Supper, states the work of apostles and other inspired men - to receive from the Lord His divine will and deliver that revealed will to man. It would have been possible for Paul to have received this information from the Lord in one of three ways: (1) By oral tradition (word of mouth) or from uninspired writers, the HS selecting for him that which was true and rejecting all else; (2) he could have been told this by inspired eye witnesses or learned it from inspired documents (Matthew, Mark, or Luke, if either of them had been written by this time); or (3) by divine revelation (2 Corinthians 12:1-7; Ephesians 3:1-7). Here he seems to specify the third, that is, immediate revelation communicated to him personally. He had first delivered the message to them orally but now he is passing it on to them in written form, Today we have only the written word (2 Peter 2:19-21). That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed The very night in which Judas betrayed Him into the hands of His enemies (Matthew 26:23-50) to be subjected to a mock trial and sentenced to a cruel He was instituting this memorial which would bind His followers as one (1 Corinthians 10:16-17) and keep His memory alive as long as the world stands. took bread: Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19. Since at this time was observing the Jewish Passover with His disciple, the bread was undoubtedly unleavened. Nothing else would have been available to them because no leaven was permitted during the feast (Exodus 12:15; Exodus 12:19; Exodus 13:7). In my judgment, this is reason enough to use only unleavened bread today. The bread is symbolically the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:24).

1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, - Blessed it (Matthew 26:26; Mark-- or recognized God as its giver. Matthew and Mark say that He blessed it while Luke (Luke 22:19) and Paul say that He gave thanks. The expressions are thus used interchangably. he brake it, - He broke the bread. This may mean that Himself partook of the bread (breaking bread equals eating) but more likely that He broke it in view of distributing it to all of them. and said, Take, eat: Eat it as representing His sacrificed body. this - The bread which He had broken and was now giving them to eat. is my body,--This signifies my body and the cause for which it is sacrificed. Paul obviously meant this to be taken as a figure of speech. The bread symbolized or represented the body of Christ. Such usage is common throughout the Bible. For example, 1 Corinthians 10:4 says "that Rock was Christ." Who could possibly understand that to mean that Christ was literally the rock? In Galatians 4:24 it is said of Sarah and Hagar, "These are two covenants." They were not literally two covenants but they did represent the old and the new in the allegory. Jesus said, "I am the vine, ye are the branches" (John 15:5). Did He mean that He was a literal vine and that His disciples were literal branches? No reasonable person could so conclude. Just so, no one would have ever understood "this is my body" to be the literal body of Christ had it not been for the foolish and humanly invented doctrine of transubstantiation. which is broken for you: - Which is for you (ASV). The word broken is in the Textus Receptus (the text upon which the KJV is based) but the evidence is against it being from Paul’s hand. As the sentence it leaves something to be supplied, but I think it best to let inspiration itself settle the matter. Luke says, "This is my body which is given for you"

The point is that Jesus gave His body as a sacrifice for His people He died on their behalf (Isaiah 53:5-6). this do in remembrance of me.--Do this to remember Me (Beck). The fundamental purpose of the communion is a memorial of Christ’s sacrificial death for sins. As long as it is properly done, Christians can never forget the necessity of His death in the scheme of human redemption - that it is absolutely indispensable to our salvation, past, present, and future. Thus to do this in His memory is to refresh our minds as to the purpose for which He died.

1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner - In the same way in which He had taken the bread (1 Corinthians 11:23-24). also he took the cup, The fruit of the vine (Mark 14:25), which had to be contained in a cup. They were to drink the fruit of the vine which was contained in the cup, not the literal cup itself. While the word wine in the Bible means fruit of the vine (the context determines whether it is fermented or unfermented), it is interesting to note that no writer of the Bible ever used the word wine in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper. It is always the fruit of the vine. Is there significance in this? Could it be that the Lord and His apostles purposely made this distinction to avoid the use of an intoxicant in that which commemorates His death? I know of no positive way to prove it, but the evidence is sufficient to my own mind so that I personally do not wish to use fermented wine on the Lord’s table, especially the modern distilled kind. when he had supped, - After supper (ASV). After they had eaten the feast. This distinguishes between the eating of the feast and the institution of the Lord’s Supper. They were not the same. Nor was the feast engaged in by some of the Corinthians the communion. The conclusion: the Lord’s Supper is not a common meal. saying, This cup is the new testament - This cup is the new covenant (ASV). That is, the cup represents the new covenant, which was foretold by the prophets (Jeremiah 31:31-34) and fulfilled in the Christian system (Hebrews 8:6-13). in my blood: - The covenant sealed with His blood (Hebrews 9:22-26) or as Matthew expresses it, "This is my blood of the covenant" (Matthew 26:28, ASV). Cf. Exodus 24:8. this do ye, Drink the cup. as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. - Whenever you drink it (NIV). The frequency is not stated here. But the early church met on the first day of the week, each week, every week (1 Corinthians 16:1-2), to break bread (Acts 20:7). This establishes a precedent for us - the early church showed us by example how often we should partake. Why not do it as they did? Surely it is not too much for us to remember the death of our Lord weekly.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, Every time you take the Lord’s Supper. See v. 25 for the note on frequency. ye do shew the Lord’s death - You proclaim His death (Goodspeed) or openly publish it (MacKnight). You proclaim to yourself and to all others His death and its purpose. He gave His body and shed His blood to atone for man’s sins. We must never forget this fact. Although as Christians we are redeemed sinners, sinners who have been washed in the blood (Revelation 1:5), we have not reached moral perfection (1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:10). Every minute of every hour we stand in need of the cleansing power of the blood (1 John 1:7) to keep on washing our sins away. This we proclaim (and renew the memory in our hearts) each time we take the communion. till he come. - Until His second coming (Hebrews 9:28). This shows that He was not building a passing memorial, one that would perish with time, but one that would stand proclaiming His death until the end of the world.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore - Therefore (RSV). It follows from the design of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of the death of Christ and as a constant proclamation of its purpose (v. 26). whosoever - Anyone, regardless of who he is or where he may be. shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, - Anyone who takes the communion. unworthily, In an unworthy manner (ASV). The point is not that one must be worthy to take it, but that those who do must do so in a manner befitting the body and blood of the Lord. Because it memorializes the death of Christ, it is a solemn occasion. To tum it into a social festivity, as the Corinthians had done (1 Corinthians 11:20-22), was to profane the holy - that is, observe it in a way not fitting the occasion (v. 29). shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. - Guilty of sinning against the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. A frivolous observance of the Lord’s Supper is a sin against the very thing that makes salvation possible. Thus to desecrate it is to profane the divine purpose of the sacrificed body and shed blood. This is equivalent to crucifying Christ afresh, to putting Him to open shame, to trampling underfoot the Son of God, to counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and to doing despite to the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 6:6; Hebrews 10:29). The death of Christ is no light matter in the scheme of human redemption - in fact, it is the foundation upon which everything else is built, and the memorial of that death must be fit­ ting to its proclamation and purpose.

1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, - Let him prove himself (by putting himself to the test) that he has the proper attitude toward the body and blood of Christ, and that his manner of partaking is suitable to the solemnity and purpose of the occasion. Had the Corinthians done this, they never would have turned it into a feast for their exclusive groups (1 Corinthians 11:17-22). While in my judgment this is the primary thrust of the v., one may conclude from it that each one is to examine himself, not another. The communion is for all saints, and it is not the function of the church or individual Christians to either include or exclude that is, it is not our duty to examine others before partaking ourselves. and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. --After one has examined himself, and ascertained that his attitude and actions are such as to properly proclaim the death of Christ (v. 26), let him partake of the bread and cup, which equals eating the Lord’s Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,--He who eats and drinks without properly discerning the body (unworthily should probably be dropped from the text because it is not supported by the best manuscripts). eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, --Eats and drinks to his own condemnation (By) or eats and drinks judgment on himself (NIV). To neglect or abuse the Lord’s Supper puts one’s faith in jeopardy that is, it incurs judgment, probably such as is seen in v. 30. not discerning the Lord’s body. - If he discerns not the body (ASV). The Corinthians were guilty of not distinguishing the Lord’s Supper from a common meal. Thus they were not discerning the purpose of the sacrificed body. Because of this, what they were doing was not eating the Lord’s Supper (v. 20), but engaging in a feast for themselves. Does the body here mean the church (as in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18) or the sacrificed body of Christ? Standing alone, the former would be easier to explain (it would mean taking the communion without regard to or respect for the church and its unity, as appears to be the case in 1 Corinthians 11:19-22), but in context I do not see how it can be understood in any sense but the latter. In vv. 25 and 27 it is His sacrificed body which is in view, and, in the absence of some reason to think that Paul changed the way he was using the word when he reaches this point, it seems highly unlikely that it has a different meaning here.

1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause Because they had desecrated the Lord’s Supper by not discerning the body (v. 29). many are weak and sickly among you,--That is, they were languishing with spiritual infirmities (d. the lukewarm, Revelation 3:15-16, and those who had left their first love, Revelation 2:4). Because they had failed to discern the body (to properly remember the sacrificial death of Christ and its necessity in their salvation) they had grown negligent and lost interest in the higher values of life and eternity. Many today are in the same condition. They are jeopardizing their souls by neglecting the communion or by taking it in a flippant manner. But it is highly unlikely that this could ever happen as long as the bread is broken in a proper way - as long as one calls to memory week after week the fact that Jesus died to make his salvation possible. Surely one who recognizes this (as everyone should in this memorial) he can never turn back to the beggarly elements of sin (d. Hebrews 6:1-6; Hebrews 10:26-29). and many sleep.--And a number even dead (Moffett). This is undoubtedly spiritual death. Many commentators (and all who do not believe that it is possible for a Christian to die spiritually) see this as physical sickness and death, that is, peo­ ple literally getting sick and dying as a result of abusing the Lord’s Supper. But this is hardly conceivable. The penalty of sin is not physical death though that may be a consequence, but spiritual (Romans 6:23). Thus Paul’s point is that by abusing the communion many of them had suffered a decline in spiritual health (3 John 1:2) and a number had completely fallen away - they had turned back and again polluted their souls with unpardoned sins.

11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, But if we discern ourselves (ASV). That is, if we examine ourselves carefully and critically, with a view to recognizing our failures (to observe the communion in a proper manner), it will lead us to correct our shortcomings and motivate us into proper conduct (v. 28; 2 Corinthians 13:5). With proper conduct on our part, God will not condemn us. we should not be judged. We will not be condemned by God’s judgment as weak, sickly, and dead (v. 30). The thought seems to be that if we would be more discerning ourselves then God would not be placed in the position of condemning us by disapproving our actions. Moffett renders it, "If we only judged our own lives truly, we would not come under the Lord’s judgment." This has no reference to the general judgment in the last day, but to the present situation at Corinth.

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged, - But since we do bring down upon us this judgment (Williams). The judgment that is pronounced by God upon our shortcomings. That is, when we do violate His will and suffer the consequences of it (as in v. 30), the Lord has a higher aim in it all than condemnation per se. we are chastened of the Lord, - We are corrected or disciplined by the Lord. The aim of His judgment is to bring us to repentance and thus to a correction of our practices. that we should not be condemned with the world. - Not lost along with the wicked and unbelieving in that final day of judgment. What a marvelous concept there is here! Is Paul not saying that if one is weak, sickly, or dead in the faith that he should recognize his condition as a disciplinary action (judgment) brought upon him by God for his abuse and neglect of the Lord’s Supper with the purpose in view of awakening him to the danger of his way, to bring him to repentance and correction. and thus to pre­ vent his soul from being lost eternally? But how many members of the body of Christ who are now living in this weak, sickly, and dead state recognize it as a disciplinary measure with the aim of preventing their eternal destruction, which is sure if they do not heed the warning and make the necessary corrections? What a fearful thing it is to trifle with the faith and treat the holy as pro­ fane, to have tasted the good word of God and the power of the world to come and then turn away from that which is high and holy to again become entangled in the wickedness of the world (Hebrews 6:1-6; 2 Peter 2:20-22). May we learn to so conduct ourselves that God will deliver us from such a chastisement; if we do not, may the eyes of our understanding be opened so we can see that the consequences are the divine judgment brought upon us for our sins for the purpose of warning us to escape the wrath to come. May we be able to see that it is far, far better to be judged now (with an opportunity to repent) than on that day when all decisions are final and forever.

1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, - So then, my brethren (RSV). The conclusion is that you should take the Supper in such a manner so as not to bring upon you the judgment of God (vv. 30-32). when ye come together to eat, - When you meet to take the Lord’s Supper. tarry one for another.--Wait for one another (Williams). They had desecrated the Lord’s Supper by confusing it with a common meal and they had abused the meal by forming themselves into exclusive groups (v. 21), thus eliminating some who were hungry. But from the Lord’s table no Christian can properly be excluded. All, rich and poor, slave and free, learned and illiterate, male and female, are to meet on a common level. no one before or above another. All have been redeemed by the same blood. All are brethren (Matthew 23:8). All are one (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). All distinctions, racial, social, mental, and physical, are obliterated and all the redeemed stand as the united body of the exalted Son of God (Mark 16:20; Philippians 2:5-11). Another point: it seems to me that this offers a strong implication that the communion belongs to the assembly. Brethren are to take it together (that is the significance of "wait for one another"). If for some reason one cannot assemble with the saints, it seems to me that he is excused from breaking bread. There is something vital missing when the communion is separated either from the Lord’s day or from the Lord’s assembly. I would not go so far as to say that it is wrong to carry it to the sick and infirm, but it does seem to me that if they are excused from the assembly, then they are on the same grounds excused from the communion.

1 Corinthians 11:34 And if any man hunger, - The Lord’s Supper is not a feast to satisfy physical hunger: it is a memorial of the body and the blood. let him eat at home; - The issue as to where to eat is not between the home and the church building (the place where they met for worship) but between the home and the worship assembly. The assembly is not designed for festivities, but for worship. Taking the Lord’s Supper is worship and it belongs to the assembly; eating a common meal is not worship: it thus belongs to the home. See note on v. 22. that ye come not together unto condemnation. - So that your meetings may not bring down a judgment upon you (Goodspeed). A proper observance of the Lord’s Supper would prevent the visitation of God’s judgment upon them (1 Corinthians 11:29-32 and the notes). And the rest - Detailed matters pertaining to the Lord’s Supper not covered here. will I set in order--Give proper instruction or command concerning. when I come.--When he could again visit the church and preach the gospel in Corinth.

Verse 24

1Co 11:24

1 Corinthians 11:24

and when he had given thanks,—In Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22, it is “blessed.” In Luke 22:19, it is “had given thanks.” The two expressions, being used interchangeably, mean the same thing. Both express the act of consecration, by a grateful acknowledgment of God’s mercy and a prayer that God will make it a means of blessing to those who par­take. (See note on 10:16).

he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you:— [That we may understand what the Lord meant when he spoke these words, we should place ourselves in the position of the apostles to whom they were first addressed. If, as Jesus spoke these words, he had suddenly disappeared, and they had seen nothing but the bread, they would have understood that the body had been miraculously transformed into the bread. But when his body was still there; and the bread which he held in his hand was also there; and as his body still remained there after the bread had been broken and eaten, it is impossi­ble that the apostles could have understood him as meaning that the bread was literally his body, and impossible that he could have intended to be so understood. They could not, therefore, have understood it otherwise than as a representa­tion or symbol of his body to them.]

this do in remembrance of me.—This solemn sacrifice and thanksgiving was so little in harmony with their selfish greed and lightness that to report it was to reprove them. To do it in remembrance of his sacrifice for them was to do it in a wholly different spirit from the way in which they acted.

Verse 25

1Co 11:25

1 Corinthians 11:25

In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood.—The covenant re­ferred to was the one mentioned by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and quoted with comments in Hebrews (1 Corinthians 8:7-13). It was the new covenant or will of God set forth in his blood, shown in shedding it for the sins of the world. God, through Jesus Christ, made a new covenant, as that made through Moses is called the old covenant. This is the memorial of that blood to seal and confirm this new covenant. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of animals; this was sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ shed for the remission of sins.

this do, as often as ye drink it,—That it was the common custom of the disciples to meet together upon the first day of the week to break bread is clearly indicated by the following: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intend­ing to depart on the morrow.” (Acts 20:7). [In the original institution of the Supper nothing is said of the frequency with which it was to be observed. Had nothing more been said, every congregation of believers would have been left to its own judgment as to the frequency of the observance. But the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit in this, and their ex­ample is our guide. Here it is represented as furnishing the purpose of the meeting on the first day of the week. Such being the purpose of the meeting, as surely as the disciples met every Lord’s day, they broke bread on that day.]

in remembrance of me.—It was to be done in memory of him, to commemorate the shedding of his blood for the sins of the world, not as a feast to gratify the appetite.

Verse 26

1Co 11:26

1 Corinthians 11:26

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.—-From this we learn that it was a memorial institution to keep in memory the he­roic deeds of Jesus in dying to redeem man. Monuments are designed to commemorate the worthy deeds of those in whose memory they were built, with the hope that future genera­tions, when they learn the deeds commemorated by the monu­ment, will be inspired with the same spirit, and be led to emu­late those worthy deeds. Just so this memorial institution was ordained to perpetuate the memory of the self-denying spirit and heroic deeds of Jesus Christ for the good of man. It is done with the view that those who see these memorials of the deeds and death of Jesus will drink into the same spirit, and be led to emulate his life and deeds of self-sacrifice for the good of others. Man builds monuments of marble and gran­ite; he seeks the imperishable; but despite all his precautions they molder and crumble. God, through Jesus, selected the perishable bread and volatile fruit of the vine as the material out of which he would build a monument that would endure with perennial freshness through all time. No mortal would ever seek to build an imperishable monument out of material so perishable as bread and the fruit of the vine. God only could breathe into it a spirit that would render it immortal, that would cause it to continue in its freshness till Jesus comes again.

Verse 27

1Co 11:27

1 Corinthians 11:27

Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner,—[To eat or drink in an unworthy manner is in general to come to the Lord’s table in a careless, irreverent spirit, without the intention or desire to commemorate the death of Christ as the sacrifice for sins, and without the purpose of complying with the obligations thereby assumed. The way in which the Corinthians ate un­worthily was that they treated the Lord’s table as though it were their own; making no distinction between it and an ordi­nary meal; coming together to satisfy their hunger, and not to feed on the blessings of the body and blood of Christ.]

shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.—In­asmuch as the eating and drinking were intended to proclaim and keep in memory the death of Jesus Christ, whoever should eat of this memorial in a light and frivolous manner, in forget­fulness of the spirit of sacrifice that led to the death of Christ, is guilty of profaning the body and blood of Christ. He in­curs the guilt of treating lightly the slain body of the Lord Jesus.

Verse 28

1Co 11:28

1 Corinthians 11:28

But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.— [Let him ascertain by earnest consideration whether he is in a proper state of mind for com­memorating and proclaiming the Lord’s death; whether he feels a suitable gratitude for the sacrifice it commemorates, and is firmly resolved to observe the injunction of its founders.] On this verse Macknight says: “First, whether he comes to this service to keep up the memory of Christ; secondly, whether he is moved to do so by a grateful sense of Christ’s love in dying for man; thirdly, whether he comes with a firm purpose of doing honor to Christ, by living in all respects conformably to his precepts and example.” To this I add, whether he comes in a submissive and worthy manner, drinking into the same spirit of self-sacrifice for others that Christ manifested. [Such examination of one’s motive would have made impossi­ble the shameful scenes here described.]

Verse 29

1Co 11:29

1 Corinthians 11:29

For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.—He who comes to it not remembering the Lord’s crucified body and shed blood, not drinking into the true spirit of Christ, not striving to walk worthy of his goodness and love, as shown in his sufferings and death, eateth unto condemnation rather than justification. Observing the body of Christ as a pledge of sanctification and justification and redemption to him who comes to it in a proper spirit, but of wrath and condemnation to him who comes not observing this spirit.

Verse 30

1Co 11:30

1 Corinthians 11:30

For this cause many among you are weak and sickly,— Because so many come to it unworthily, not discerning his body and blood, not in the true spirit of Christ, many among them were weak and sickly as Christians.

and not a few sleep.—Many are spiritually asleep—dead. Some commentators have applied the expression to physical disease and death; but spiritual neglect must bring spiritual penalties. Many had grown indifferent and some had lost in­terest in Christ and their duties to him.

Verse 31

1Co 11:31

1 Corinthians 11:31

But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. —If they watched themselves to see that they waited upon the Lord in the proper spirit, with a true sense of their obliga­tions to him, and kept themselves in a condition to be blessed in his service, then they would not be condemned by the Lord.

Verse 32

1Co 11:32

1 Corinthians 11:32

But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.—When God judged and chastened them, as he did when they began to ne­glect their duties to him, he afflicted them to cause them to turn away from their ways, that they might be saved and not be condemned with the world that forgets God.

Verse 33

1Co 11:33

1 Corinthians 11:33

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat,— [The eating referred to is, of course, the Lord’s Supper, and he enjoins perfect order, respect, and sobriety. The table is common for the rich and poor, and the rich have no claim of priority over the poor.]

wait one for another.—By their indecent haste, each eating his own meal without waiting for the rest, they had turned the Supper from the memorial purpose into an ordinary and insignificant meal, a mere eating and drinking. He therefore exhorts them to wait for one another, and make their coming together a joint service in commemoration of the Lord’s suf­fering and death.]

Every congregation should have a definite time for meeting and should never begin the service before that time without due notice. While the apostle says, “Wait one for another,” he also says, “In diligence not slothful; fervent in spirit; serv­ing the Lord.” (Romans 12:11). No man can be diligent and fervent in spirit and be lazy and laggard in assembling for re­ligious service. Not only does he who is slow lack diligence and fervor in spirit, but there is nothing that destroys the zeal and fervor of others like having to sit and wear out their pa­tience, waiting for the slothful and indifferent.

Verse 34

1Co 11:34

1 Corinthians 11:34

If any man is hungry, let him eat at home;—He should take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of the body before he comes to the assembly, where he should have the feeding of the spiritual man alone in view.

that your coming together be not unto judgment.— [That they may avoid the curse that must fall on such worthless communicants as those mentioned; and that they may get that special blessing which every one who discerns the Lord’s body and blood must receive.]

And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.— [There were other irregularities which the apostle leaves to be corrected until he should again visit Corinth, but when that would be was certainly regarded by him as uncertain.]