Bible Commentaries
1 Corinthians 11

Verse 1

1Co 11:1. Followers is from MIMETES, which Thayer defines, "an imitator." The word does not require the presence of authority, although an apostle would have that: it may be said of any Christian when the proviso that Paul names is observed, namely, that the person who is imitated is himself an imitator of Christ.

Verse 2

1Co 11:2. In all things is said in the sense of a general statement. The Corinthian brethren were generally favorable to the apostle's teaching, and for that he praises them. But there were some particulars in which they were at fault, and Paul is dealing with them in this chapter.

Verse 3

1Co 11:3. This verse presents four persons: God, Christ, man and woman, named in the order of their rank. The last two are on earth and are visible to others, which accounts for some regulations of customs that are discussed in this chapter.

Verse 4

1Co 11:4. Praying does not require spiritual gifts, hence the prophesying need be no more specific than the description given in chapter 14:3. The original Greek word for covered means to be veiled so as to hide the face. If a man covers his head he dishonors it, because it should be exposed to view due to his position of authority in the social world.

Verse 5

1Co 11:5. Praying and prophesying have the same meaning as explained in the preceding verse. The word shaven shows Paul is considering the hair as the veil or covering. It was customary for women to veil or cover their face with their hair when praying in the presence of men. To neglect this was a dishonor to her head, because it exposed it and put her in the class of men who are the rulers in the social rank. If she thus keeps her hair away from her face, she is as much exposed to shame as if her hair had been cut.

Verse 6

1Co 11:6. If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. This does not endorse a woman's shearing her hair but rather condemns it, for Paul compares it to something else that we know he condemns because it is a dishonor to her. If it be a shame is a phrase that takes it for granted that the thing named is commonly thought to be a shame, namely, for a woman to have her hair cut.

Verse 7

1Co 11:7. God, Christ and man are all rulers in their respective ranks, hence a man should not cover his head and thus put himself in the same subject class as the woman. A woman can be a glory to man only by maintaining an attitude of submission to him.

Verse 8

1Co 11:8. This verse refers to the fact recorded in Gen 2:21-23, which shows the woman was made from a part of the man.

Verse 9

1Co 11:9. The woman was created for the man because God said it was not good for the man to be alone (Gen 2:18).

Verse 10

1Co 11:10. Submission to authority is the outstanding thought which Paul has been discussing. We have seen that an unveiled head indicates authority, for which reason a woman should be veiled as a sign that she is under authority. Angels are ministering spirits under the authority of God, and are invisible persons in the assemblies of Christians. Some of their class have been rebellious in times past (2Pe 2:4; Jud 1:6), and Paul wishes the woman to show to the faithful angels who are present in the assembly, that they are submitting to the authority that is over them.

Verse 11

1Co 11:11-12. Lest the foregoing teaching might make a wrong impression as to the importance of the woman, Paul adds these verses to show that both man and woman are necessary in the general plans of God; the same is taught in verses 8, 9.

Verse 13

1Co 11:13. Judge in yourselves has about the same force as "nature" in the next verse. Comely is from PREPO, which Thayer defines, "to be becoming, seemly, fit."

Verse 14

1Co 11:14. Nature is from PHUSIS, which Thayer defines at this place, "nature, i.e., natural sense, native conviction or knowledge," and he adds the explanation, "as opposed to that which is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law." Robinson gives virtually the same definition. The explanation given of the definition is an exact description of the customs discussed in the preceding verses as to what use a woman should make of her hair, and he says it is opposed to (different from) that which nature teaches. Customs change because they are the product of man, while nature never changes because it is the creation of God. As long as nature exists it will be a shame for a man to have long hair, and, as a necessary conclusion, it will be a shame for a woman to cut her hair. Sometimes a quibble is made by asking just what it takes to constitute long hair. In the first place, the statement of Paul remains in the text, and it is as much the obligation of the quibbler to answer the question and prove his answer, as It is that of the one who insists on observing the teaching of the apostle. However, for the benefit of the sincere inquirer, I will state that the Lord has given us a clear-cut definition of what constitutes, long hair, in the stipulations for a Nazarite which included Tong hair. The passages that state the law on it are Num 6:5; Jdg 13:5; 1Sa 1:11. These all require that no razor is to be used on the head, hence by long hair the Lord means hair that is as long as nature makes it. If a man cuts any of it off he ceases to have long hair, and exposes his head to shame. By the same token, if a woman cuts any of her hair she also ceases to have long hair in the sense the apostle is using the term, and thus she does that which is a shame.

Verse 15

1Co 11:15. This verse is virtually explained in the preceding paragraph. It has the added thought that by having long hair, which nature teaches her that she should have, she is in a condition to observe also what custom has established in the time of the epistle, namely, using that long hair as a veil when praying in man's presence.

Verse 16

1Co 11:16. This verse is often pounced upon by the quibblers, like a "drowning man grasping at a straw," in their desperate attempt to find some justification of women in their unnatural and unfeminine act of cutting their hair. I have never yet heard anyone who made a serious effort to show this passage to be related in the remotest degree to the issue at hand. Any man is from the one Greek word TIS, which means any person or thing, indefinitely, and would apply to a woman as well as a man. Contentious is from PHILO-NEIKOS, which Thayer defines at this place, "fond of strife, contentious." No one would be contentious over anything that was not objectionable to another. It would have to be over something he wished to do that some other one did not want him to do. In the present case it could not be over short hair for women, for nobody was wanting that. Instead, verse 6 shows that there was common objection to that, which was a basis for one of Paul's arguments. The only thing in dispute was whether a woman should cover her face with her hair, or keep it away in a manner that would look as if it were shorn, a condition which Paul states would be a shame. Since no person was contending for short hair with women, the contention could not be over that. The point the apostle is making in this verse, is that the custom of all the other churches was for the women to veil their faces with their hair when praying in the presence of men.

Verse 17

1Co 11:17. In verse 2 the apostle told the brethren there were some things for which he would praise (commend) them. In the present verse there were some things for which he would not praise them, one of which was that their coming together was not for the better but for the worse.

Verse 18

Verse 18. The divisions in the church were over several subjects, but Paul is writing of a particular one in the rest of this chapter; and one that is very important because it pertains to the Lord's Supper. A report of the divisions in the church had come to Paul in some manner not stated. Partly believe it cannot apply to the degree of his belief, for a man either believes a report or he does not. The idea is that Paul believed the report to be true in regard to a part of the congregation, but that some of them dis approved of the divisions. The argument in the next verse justifies this conclusion.

Verse 19

Verse 19. Must is from DEI, which Thayer defines, "it is necessary," and explains it to mean at this place, "necessity in reference to what is required to attain some end." Robinson's definition and explanation give virtually the same thought as Thayer's. It is clear the word means that heresies are necessary for a certain purpose, and that is stated to be, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. This agrees with the conclusion expressed in the preceding paragraph, namely, that a part only of the congregation was guilty of the divisions among them, the faithful ones being "approved" by their opposition to the heresies. But this necessity for heresies should not encourage anyone to promote evil doctrines, for Jesus pronounces a woe on those who cause offences, even though He had just declared that it was impossible for them not to come (Luk 17:1).

Verse 20

Verse 20. Having set forth some general principles concerning heresies in the foregoing verses, Paul comes to the special subject at hand, namely, the Lord's Supper in the course of their coming together. The Englishman's Greek New Testament renders the last clause, "it is not to eat the Lord's Supper." Of course Paul does not deny the Corinthians professed to come together for that purpose, but he means that under the circumstances what they did could not be rightly called so for reasons soon to be stated.

Verse 21

1Co 11:21. Taketh before means that such persons were so eager to eat that they did so before the others were ready. In the first years of the church it was a custom for the disciples to partake of a common meal before attending to the Lord's Supper. This was somewhat after the order of events occurring at the time Jesus established the Lord's Supper, namely, they had the Passover first, then Jesus set forth his memorial supper next. These common meals are referred to in the New Testament as "feasts of charity" (Jud 1:12; 2Pe 2:13). In some way the Corinthians tried to blend the common meal with the Lord's Supper. That corrupted it and caused Paul to say they were not eating the Lord's Supper when they came together. Drunken is from METHUO, and primarily means to be intoxicated with drink. But it is used here as the opposite of hungry, hence it is in the sense of being filled. Groves defines the word, "to be filled, plentifully fed," and it has that meaning in our verse. Those who look before their own supper would be filled, while the ones who waited--the "approved" ones whom Paul's word "partly" in verse 18 included would still be hungry.

Verse 22

Verse 22. Some might claim they would become too hungry to wait until the rest were ready to eat. Paul tells all such that they should eat at home before coming to the assembly if their appetites were thus demanding gratification. But instead of doing that, they were abusing the purpose of the feasts of charity by their disorderly conduct. By such practices they despised (belittled or put to shame) the the public assembling place, and also embarrassed the poor, who are meant by the phrase them that have not. I shall quote Thayer's remarks about the feasts as they were related to the poor of the congregation: "AGAPAI, agapae, love-feasts, feasts expressing and fostering mutual love which used to be held by Christians before the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and at which the poorer Christians mingled with the wealthier and partook in common with the rest of the food provided at the expense of the wealthy." Such disorderly conduct of the more prosperous brethren as Paul describes, would confuse the poorer ones and make them feel that they were not welcome to the public feasts of the congregation. This is one of the things for which the apostle said he would not praise them. The poorer sort of the brethren would not appreciate these free meals (feasts of charity) when they saw the corruption practiced by the wealthier classes, and the whole procedure thus made a mockery of the institution of the Lord's Supper, which is why Paul said when they came together they would not eat the supper.

Verse 23

Verse 23. The Corinthians had so corrupted the divine institution that the apostle thought it necessary to describe it to them again, Just as he had delivered it to them when he was with them for so long (Act 18:1-11). The simple phrase took bread states all we need to know as to the article to be eaten in the Lord's Supper. In every place where it is referred to after the church was set up, it is mentioned by the simple word "bread" (Act 2:42 Act 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:23; 27, 28). In all of these places except our present chapter, the word is used independently of any consideration for the Jewish passover. Therefore, to insist on any particular kind of bread for the Lord's Supper is to be more specific, than the Lord is.

Verse 24

Verse 24. Brake it. The term is from the same original Greek word as "brake" in Mat 14:19 and it has no more spiritual significance in one place than in the other. The only reason for breaking the bread is that more than one person may partake of it in decency. I have known instances where a group of disciples was so few in number that only one attendant (commonly but erroneously called "deacon") was used. Then if the one presiding at the table happened to forget about "breaking" the loaf in two pieces, it was thought a terrible mistake was made. Such a tradition shows that the real significance of the institution is overlooked almost as much as the Corinthians did it. Whether the one presiding breaks the bread (so as to place it on a number of plates), or the attendants break off a piece to serve to each participant, or he breaks it off himself, the bread is sure to be "broken," and that is all that is required. My body, which is broken for you is another expression that is misapplied. It is a common thing to hear the one "presiding" to quote this, then refer to the Roman spear that "broke" the body of Jesus after his death. The mechanical act of piercing His side, or even that of driving the nails through his hands and feet, was only a means to an end, namely, "to be shattered, as it were, by a violent death"--Thayer. Robinson says virtually the same thing. Had it been the Lord's will that Jesus be killed by a violent blow on the head but leaving the surface of the body intact, it would still have been true that his body was broken for us, in the sense the apostle uses the term. When Christians eat of this bread, they are to do so in remembrance of the "violent" death of Christ. It is significant that in Luk 22:19 where the supper is being instituted, it is stated that the body of Jesus was "given" for his people, which agrees with the idea that the mechanical fact of the spear and nails was not necessary to the word "broken."

Verse 25

Verse 25. After the same manner is not a comparison to the form or performance in the procedure, for the phrase is from the same word as "likewise" in Luk 13:3, and we know Jesus did not mean that all impentitent sinners would perish just as the Galilean did. It means as if it said, "for the same purpose," etc. Supped is from the same Greek word as "supper" in Luk 22:20; it means He took the cup after the passover supper was ended. New testament in my blood. In Heb 9:16 Paul says that a testament requires the death of the testator. The beasts that were slain under the Mosaic system constituted the testator for that covenant, which is the reason they were slain. The New Testament (or covenant) also required the shedding of the blood of the Testator (who was Christ), hence we have the phrase italicized here. The expression is my body in the preceding verse, and in my blood in the present verse, are used with the meaning that they represent the body and blood of Christ. Partaking of the cup, like that of the bread, is for the same purpose, namely, to be in remembrance (a memorial) of Christ.

Verse 26

1Co 11:26. Often is not used in view of the frequency of the observance of the Lord's Supper, for Act 20:7 and 1Co 16:1-2 settles that question, and shows it is to be done once each week. The term means that each time the institution is observed it is for the one purpose, namely, to show ("proclaim publicly" Thayer) the Lord's death. A common speech that may be heard at the table is as follows: "We now come to the Lord's Supper in which we will commemorate the death, burial and resurrection of Christ." Such a statement is not only unscrip-tural but is foolish. It is evident that anything that represents the death of Christ could not also represent his life. The life of all creatures is in the blood, and when the body and blood are separated, that body is bound to be dead. Likewise, when the guests see the fruit of the vine in one vessel, and the bread in another place on the table, it represents the separation of the body and blood, and in such a condition it "shows" or represents the death of Christ. Till he come signifies that the Lord's Supper is to be perpetuated until the end of the world.

Verse 27

1Co 11:27. The general character of the persons eating and drinking is not under consideration, but the manner or purpose of the act is the subject. (This will be enlarged upon in verse 29.) Guilty of the body and blood means to be guilty of sin against the body and blood of Christ.

Verse 28

1Co 11:28. Examine himself; this phrase is perverted many times. The speaker will say, "I cannot examine you nor you me, for I do not know how you have been living." The way a brother "has been living" is not in this text, and such a remark shows that the one making it is in danger of condemnation himself. The manner or purpose of eating and drinking is the point. If a man asks himself why or for what purpose he is about to partake, he will be examining himself in the sense the apostle means. When he does this, and concludes it is for the purpose of showing the death of Christ, he is then ready to eat and drink worthiLY (an adverb and not an adjective).

Verse 29

1Co 11:29. Discerning is from DIA-KRINO, which Thayer defines at this place, "to separate, make a distinction, discriminate." The thought is that the participant should eat and drink with his mind on the body and blood of Christ, remembering that the two parts were separated and that He died for us. Unless this is done, the person partaking will bring condemnation upon himself. The Corinthians did not distinguish between the body of Christ and food for natural hunger. The same guilt may be brought upon us today without eating to satisfy our hunger. If we partake of the "emblems" while our mind is on some other subject instead of the death of Christ, such as our plans for the day, etc., we will be just as guilty as were the ones at Corinth. Sometimes disciples will be engaged in conversation at the time, and will partake of the bread and/or cup mechanically or as a habit only. When they do so they eat and drink damnation to themselves.

Verse 30

1Co 11:30. The question is asked at this verse whether it means physical or spiritual sickness, and my answer is that it includes both. In the first years of the church God sometimes inflicted physical punishment upon disciples, even to the extent of putting them to sleep (in death). (See the case of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5.) But the days of such demonstrations are over, while the guilt of corrupting the Lord's Supper is just as possible, and also just as deserving of being judged (condemned) as ever. Therefore, when disciples corrupt the holy ordinance, or commit any other violation of the Lord's spiritual law, it brings unon them the serious condition mentioned here unless they repent.

Verse 31

1Co 11:31. This verse states a principle that may have an application to other subjects besides the one at hand with the Corinthians. Had they examined themselves as directed in verse 28, and then brought themselves under the necessary correction (judgment), it would not have been necessary for the Lord to judge them. Likewise, the New Testament today gives very positive instructions about the conduct of disciples, and they should be able even in themselves to decide between right and wrong. However, if they will not do so, it then becomes the duty of the rulers of the church to make the application for them, and administer such corrective discipline as needed.

Verse 32

1Co 11:32. In the days of miracles the judgment or punishment was administered directly by the Lord (verse 30). Today the correction has to be delivered by the church, and when it is done it is counted as coming from the Lord (chapter 5:3, 4; 2Co 2:10 2Co 7:11-12).

Verse 33

1Co 11:33. Tarry one for another. This is another statement that is often perverted and made to mean that public services should not start until others arrive. Not only does such an application miss the thought intended by the apostle to be conveyed, but it violates other scripture. Rom 12:11 forbids Christians being slothful or lazy in coming to the services. A soldier who fails to appear at the time he is told to receives the stain of AWOL, and the disciple who is late in arriving at the place of services deserves the same blot. The tarrying of our verse was to be done after the congregation was assembled, and it means not to take before other (verse 21) his supper, but to wait (tarry) until the others were ready to eat.

Verse 34

1Co 11:34. If any man hunger is explained by the comments on verse 22. It does not mean to rule out the observance of the feasts of charity, but only to correct the abuses of it by those who claimed to be too hungry to wait. Come together to condemnation is the same subject that is considered in verse 17. There were other items that needed to be set forth for their instruction, but the apostle thought it well to do that when he made his next journey to them (chapter 4:18, 19).