Text -- 1 Corinthians 11:1-23 (NET)

11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

Women’s Head Coverings

11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. 11:5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. 11:6 For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head. 11:7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 11:9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man. 11:10 For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11:11 In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 11:12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God. 11:13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 11:16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

The Lord’s Supper

11:17 Now in giving the following instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 11:18 For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 11:19 For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident. 11:20 Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper. 11:21 For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another becomes drunk. 11:22 Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink? Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this! 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread,

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 1Co 11:1

Imitators of me ( mimētai mou ).

In the principle of considerate love as so clearly shown in chapters 1 Corinthians 8-10 and in so far as (kathōs ) Paul is himself an imitator of Christ. The preacher is a leader and is bound to set an example or pattern (tupos ) for others (Tit 2:7). This verse clearly belongs to the preceding chapter and not to chapter 11.

Robertson: 1Co 11:2

Hold fast the traditions ( tas paradoseis katechete ).

Hold down as in 1Co 15:2. Paradosis (tradition) from paradidōmi (paredōka , first aorist active indicative) is an old word and merely something handed on from one to another. The thing handed on may be bad as in Mat 15:2. (which see) and contrary to the will of God (Mar 7:8.) or it may be wholly good as here. There is a constant conflict between the new and the old in science, medicine, law, theology. The obscurantist rejects all the new and holds to the old both true and untrue. New truth must rest upon old truth and is in harmony with it.

Robertson: 1Co 11:3

But I would have you know ( thelō de humas eidenai ).

But I wish you to know, censure in contrast to the praise in 1Co 11:2.

Robertson: 1Co 11:3

The head of Christ is God ( kephalē tou Christou ho theos ).

Rather, God is the head of Christ, since kephalē is anarthrous and predicate.

Robertson: 1Co 11:4

Having his head covered ( kata kephalēs echōn ).

Literally, having a veil (kalumma understood) down from the head (kephalēs ablative after kata as with kata in Mar 5:13; Act 27:14). It is not certain whether the Jews at this time used the tallith , "a four-corned shawl having fringes consisting of eight threads, each knotted five times"(Vincent) as they did later. Virgil ( Aeneid iii., 545) says: "And our heads are shrouded before the altar with a Phrygian vestment."The Greeks (both men and women) remained bareheaded in public prayer and this usage Paul commends for the men.

Robertson: 1Co 11:5

With her head unveiled ( akatakaluptōi tēi kephalēi ).

Associative instrumental case of manner and the predicative adjective (compound adjective and feminine form same as masculine), "with the head unveiled."Probably some of the women had violated this custom. "Amongst Greeks only the hetairai , so numerous in Corinth, went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head - also a punishment of the adulteress"(Findlay). Cf. Num 5:18.

Robertson: 1Co 11:5

One and the same thing as if she were shaven ( hen kai to auto tēi exurēmenēi ).

Literally, "One and the same thing with the one shaven"(associative instrumental case again, Robertson, Grammar , p. 530). Perfect passive articular participle of the verb xuraō , later form for the old xureō . It is public praying and prophesying that the Apostle here has in mind. He does not here condemn the act, but the breach of custom which would bring reproach. A woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn (Isa 7:20). The Justinian code prescribed shaving the head for an adulteress whom the husband refused to receive after two years. Paul does not tell Corinthian Christian women to put themselves on a level with courtesans.

Robertson: 1Co 11:6

Let her also be shorn ( kai keirasthō ).

Aorist middle imperative of keirō , to shear (as sheep). Let her cut her hair close. A single act by the woman.

Robertson: 1Co 11:6

If it is a shame ( ei de aischron ).

Condition of first class assumed to be true. Aischron is old adjective from aischos , bareness, disgrace. Clearly Paul uses such strong language because of the effect on a woman’ s reputation in Corinth by such conduct that proclaimed her a lewd woman. Social custom varied in the world then as now, but there was no alternative in Corinth.

Robertson: 1Co 11:6

To be shorn or shaven ( to keirasthai kai xurasthai ).

Articular infinitives subject of copula estin understood, keirasthai first aorist middle, xurasthai present middle. Note change in tense.

Robertson: 1Co 11:6

Let her be veiled ( katakaluptesthō ).

Present middle imperative of old compound katȧkaluptō , here alone in N.T. Let her cover up herself with the veil (down, kata , the Greek says, the veil hanging down from the head).

Robertson: 1Co 11:7

The image and glory of God ( eikōn kai doxa theou ).

Anarthrous substantives, but definite. Reference to Gen 1:27 whereby man is made directly in the image (eikōn ) of God. It is the moral likeness of God, not any bodily resemblance. Ellicott notes that man is the glory (doxa ) of God as the crown of creation and as endowed with sovereignty like God himself.

Robertson: 1Co 11:7

The glory of the man ( doxa andros ).

Anarthrous also, man’ s glory. In Genesis 2:26 the lxx has anthrōpos (Greek word for both male and female), not anēr (male) as here. But the woman (gunē ) was formed from the man (anēr ) and this priority of the male (1Co 11:8) gives a certain superiority to the male. On the other hand, it is equally logical to argue that woman is the crown and climax of all creation, being the last.

Robertson: 1Co 11:9

For the woman ( dia tēn gunaika ).

Because of (dia with accusative case) the woman. The record in Genesis gives the man (anēr ) as the origin (ek ) of the woman and the reason for (dia ) the creation (ektisthē , first aorist passive of ktizō , old verb to found, to create, to form) of woman.

Robertson: 1Co 11:10

Ought ( opheilei ).

Moral obligation therefore (dia touto , rests on woman in the matter of dress that does not (ouk opheilei in 1Co 11:7) rest on the man.

Robertson: 1Co 11:10

To have a sign of authority ( exousian echein ).

He means sēmeion exousias (symbol of authority) by exousian , but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman’ s head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her. It is, as we see it, more a sign of subjection (hypotagēs , 1Ti 2:10) than of authority (exousias ).

Robertson: 1Co 11:10

Because of the angels ( dia tous aggelous ).

This startling phrase has caused all kinds of conjecture which may be dismissed. It is not preachers that Paul has in mind, nor evil angels who could be tempted (Gen 6:1.), but angels present in worship (cf. 1Co 4:9; Psa 138:1) who would be shocked at the conduct of the women since the angels themselves veil their faces before Jehovah (Isa 6:2).

Robertson: 1Co 11:11

Howbeit ( plēn ).

This adversative clause limits the preceding statement. Each sex is incomplete without (chōris , apart from, with the ablative case) the other.

Robertson: 1Co 11:11

In the Lord ( en Kuriōi ).

In the sphere of the Lord, where Paul finds the solution of all problems.

Robertson: 1Co 11:12

Of ( ek )

Robertson: 1Co 11:12

- by ( dia ).

Ever since the first creation man has come into existence by means of (dia with genitive) the woman. The glory and dignity of motherhood. Cf. The Fine Art of Motherhood by Ella Broadus Robertson.

Robertson: 1Co 11:13

Is it seemly? ( prepon estiṉ ).

Periphrastic present indicative rather than prepei . See note on Mat 3:15. Paul appeals to the sense of propriety among the Corinthians.

Robertson: 1Co 11:14

Nature itself ( hē phusis autē ).

He reenforces the appeal to custom by the appeal to nature in a question that expects the affirmative answer (oude ). Phusis , from old verb phuō , to produce, like our word nature (Latin natura ), is difficult to define. Here it means native sense of propriety (cf. Rom 2:14) in addition to mere custom, but one that rests on the objective difference in the constitution of things.

Robertson: 1Co 11:15

Have long hair ( komāi ).

Present active subjunctive of komaō (from komē , hair), old verb, same contraction (̇aēîāi ) as the indicative (aei ̂ āi ), but subjunctive here with ean in third class condition. Long hair is a glory to a woman and a disgrace to a man (as we still feel). The long-haired man! There is a papyrus example of a priest accused of letting his hair grow long and of wearing woollen garments.

Robertson: 1Co 11:15

For a covering ( anti peribolaiou ).

Old word from periballō to fling around, as a mantle (Heb 1:12) or a covering or veil as here. It is not in the place of a veil, but answering to (anti , in the sense of anti in Joh 1:16), as a permanent endowment (dedotai , perfect passive indicative).

Robertson: 1Co 11:16

Contentious ( philoneikos ).

Old adjective (philos , neikos ), fond of strife. Only here in N.T. If he only existed in this instance, the disputatious brother.

Robertson: 1Co 11:16

Custom ( sunētheian ).

Old word from sunēthēs (sun , ēthos ), like Latin consuetudo , intercourse, intimacy. In N.T. only here and 1Co 8:7 which see. "In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short"(Vincent).

Robertson: 1Co 11:17

This ( touto ).

Probably the preceding one about the head-dress of women, and transition to what follows.

Robertson: 1Co 11:17

I praise you not ( ouk epainō ).

In contrast to the praise in 1Co 11:2.

Robertson: 1Co 11:17

For the better ( eis to kreisson ).

Neuter articular comparative of kratus , but used as comparative of kalos , good. Attic form kreitton .

Robertson: 1Co 11:17

For the worse ( eis to hēsson ).

Old comparative from hēka , softly, used as comparative of kakos , bad. In N.T. only here and 2Co 12:15.

Robertson: 1Co 11:18

First of all ( prōton men ).

There is no antithesis (deuteron de , secondly, or epeita de , in the next place) expressed. This is the primary reason for Paul’ s condemnation and the only one given.

Robertson: 1Co 11:18

When ye come together in the church ( sunerchomenōn hēmōn en ekklēsiāi ).

Genitive absolute. Here ekklēsia has the literal meaning of assembly.

Robertson: 1Co 11:18

Divisions ( schismata ).

Accusative of general reference with the infinitive huparchein in indirect discourse. Old word for cleft, rent, from schizō . Example in papyri for splinter of wood. See note on 1Co 1:10. Not yet formal cleavages into two or more organizations, but partisan divisions that showed in the love-feasts and at the Lord’ s Supper.

Robertson: 1Co 11:18

Partly ( meros ti ).

Accusative of extent (to some part) like panta in 1Co 10:33. He could have said ek merous as in 1Co 13:9. The rumours of strife were so constant (I keep on hearing, akouō ).

Robertson: 1Co 11:19

Must be ( dei einai ).

Since moral conditions are so bad among you (cf. chapters 1 to 6). Cf. Mat 18:7.

Robertson: 1Co 11:19

Heresies ( haireseis ).

The schisms naturally become factions or parties. Cf. strifes (erides ) in 1Co 1:11. See Act 15:5 for haireseis , a choosing, taking sides, holding views of one party, heresy (our word). "Heresy is theoretical schism, schism practical heresy."Cf. Tit 3:10; 2Pe 2:1. In Paul only here and Gal 5:20.

Robertson: 1Co 11:19

That ( hina ).

God’ s purpose in these factions makes the proved ones (hoi dokimoi ) become manifest (phaneroi ). "These haireseis are a magnet attracting unsound and unsettled minds"(Findlay). It has always been so. Instance so-called Christian Science, Russellism, New Thought, etc., today.

Robertson: 1Co 11:20

To eat the Lord’ s Supper ( Kuriakon deipnon phagein ).

Kuriakos , adjective from Kurios , belonging to or pertaining to the Lord, is not just a biblical or ecclesiastical word, for it is found in the inscriptions and papyri in the sense of imperial (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East , p. 358), as imperial finance, imperial treasury. It is possible that here the term applies both to the Agapē or Love-feast (a sort of church supper or club supper held in connection with, before or after, the Lord’ s Supper) and the Eucharist or Lord’ s Supper. Deipnon , so common in the Gospels, only here in Paul. The selfish conduct of the Corinthians made it impossible to eat a Lord’ s Supper at all.

Robertson: 1Co 11:21

Taketh before ( prolambanei ).

Before others. Old verb to take before others. It was conduct like this that led to the complete separation between the Love-feast and the Lord’ s Supper. It was not even a common meal together (Koinéon deipnon ), not to say a Lord’ s deipnon . It was a mere grab-game.

Robertson: 1Co 11:21

This one is hungry ( hos de peināi ).

Demonstrative hos . Nothing is left for him at the love-feast.

Robertson: 1Co 11:21

Another is drunken ( hos de methuei ).

Such disgusting conduct was considered shameful in heathen club suppers. "Hungry poor meeting intoxicated rich, at what was supposed to be a supper of the Lord"(Robertson and Plummer). On methuō , to be drunk, see Mat 24:49; Act 2:15.

Robertson: 1Co 11:22

What? Have ye not houses? ( Mē gar oikias ouk echete̱ )

The double negative (mē̇̇ouk ) in the single question is like the idiom in 1Co 9:4. which see. Mē expects a negative answer while ouk negatives the verb echete . "For do you fail to have houses?"Paul is not approving gluttony and drunkenness but only expressing horror at their sacrilege (despising, kataphroneite ) of the church of God.

Robertson: 1Co 11:22

That have not ( tous mē echontas ).

Not those without houses, but those who have nothing, "the have-nots"(Findlay) like 2Co 8:12, in contrast with hoi echontes "the haves"(the men of property).

Robertson: 1Co 11:22

What shall I say to you? ( ti eipō humiṉ )

Deliberative subjunctive that well expresses Paul’ s bewilderment.

Robertson: 1Co 11:23

For I received of the Lord ( ego gar parelabon apo tou Kuriou ).

Direct claim to revelation from the Lord Jesus on the origin of the Lord’ s Supper. Luke’ s account (Luk 22:17-20) is almost identical with this one. He could easily have read 1 Corinthians before he wrote his Gospel. See note on 1Co 15:3 for use of both parelabon and paredōka . Note para in both verbs. Paul received the account from (parȧ̇apo ) the Lord and passed it on from himself to them, a true paradosis (tradition) as in 1Co 11:2.

Robertson: 1Co 11:23

He was betrayed ( paredideto ).

Imperfect passive indicative (irregular form for paredidoto , Robertson, Grammar , p. 340). Same verb as paredōka (first aorist active indicative just used for "I delivered").

Vincent: 1Co 11:1

Followers ( μιμηταί )

Lit., imitators , as Rev. This verse belongs to the closing section of ch. 10.

Vincent: 1Co 11:2

Ordinances - delivered ( παραδόσεις - παρέδωκα )

There is a play of two hundred words, both being derived from παραδίδωμι to give over . Ordinances is a faulty rendering. Better, Rev., traditions . By these words Paul avoids any possible charge of imposing his own notions upon the Church. He delivers to them what had been delivered to him. Compare 1Ti 1:11; 2Th 2:15.

Vincent: 1Co 11:4

Having his head covered ( κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων )

Lit., having something hanging down from his head . Referring to the tallith , a four-cornered shawl having fringes consisting of eight threads, each knotted five times, and worn over the head in prayer. It was placed upon the worshipper's head at his entrance into the synagogue. The Romans, like the Jews, prayed with the head veiled. So Aeneas: " And our heads are shrouded before the altar with a Phrygian vestment" (Virgil, " Aeneid," iii., 545). The Greeks remained bareheaded during prayer or sacrifice, as indeed they did in their ordinary outdoor life. The Grecian usage, which had become prevalent in the Grecian churches, seems to have commended itself to Paul as more becoming the superior position of the man.

Vincent: 1Co 11:5

Her head uncovered

Rev., unveiled . The Greek women rarely appeared in public, but lived in strict seclusion. Unmarried women never quitted their apartments, except on occasions of festal processions, either as spectators or participants. Even after marriage they were largely confined to the gynaeconitis or women's rooms . Thus Euripides: " As to that which brings the reproach of a bad reputation upon her who remains not at home, giving up the desire of this, I tarried in my dwelling" (" Troades," 649). And Menander: " The door of the court is the boundary fixed for the free woman." The head-dress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair-bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A shawl which enveloped the body was also often thrown over the head, especially at marriages or funerals. This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the christian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. This custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man. Among the Jews, in ancient times, both married and unmarried women appeared in public unveiled. The later Jewish authorities insisted on the use of the veil.

Vincent: 1Co 11:5

All one as if she were shaven

Which would be a sign either of grief or of disgrace. The cutting off of the hair is used by Isaiah as a figure of the entire destruction of a people by divine retribution. Isa 7:20 Among the Jews a woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn, with the formula: " Because thou hast departed from the manner of the daughters of Israel, who go with their head covered, therefore that has befallen thee which thou hast chosen." According to Tacitus, among the Germans an adulteress was driven from her husband's house with her head shaved; and the Justinian code prescribed this penalty for an adulteress, whom, at the expiration of two years, her husband refused to receive again. Paul means that a woman praying or prophesying uncovered puts herself in public opinion on a level with a courtesan.

Vincent: 1Co 11:6

Shorn or shaven ( κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι )

To have the hair cut close, or to be entirely shaved as with a razor.

Vincent: 1Co 11:7

Image and glory ( εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα )

For image , see on Rev 13:14. Man represents God's authority by his position as the ruler of the woman. In the case of the woman, the word image is omitted, although she, like the man, is the image of God. Paul is expounding the relation of the woman, not to God, but to man.

Vincent: 1Co 11:10

Power on her head ( ἐξουσίαν )

Not in the primary sense of liberty or permission , but authority . Used here of the symbol of power, i.e., the covering upon the head as a sign of her husband's authority. So Rev., a sign of authority .

Vincent: 1Co 11:10

Because of the angels

The holy angels, who were supposed by both the Jewish and the early Christian Church to be present in worshipping assemblies. More, however, seems to be meant than " to avoid exciting disapproval among them." The key-note of Paul's thought is subordination according to the original divine order. Woman best asserts her spiritual equality before God, not by unsexing herself, but by recognizing her true position and fulfilling its claims, even as do the angels, who are ministering as well as worshipping spirits (Heb 1:4). She is to fall in obediently with that divine economy of which she forms a part with the angels, and not to break the divine harmony, which especially asserts itself in worship, where the angelic ministers mingle with the earthly worshippers; nor to ignore the example of the holy ones who keep their first estate, and serve in the heavenly sanctuary.

Vincent: 1Co 11:14

Nature ( φύσις )

The recognized constitution of things. In this case the natural distinction of the woman's long hair.

Vincent: 1Co 11:16

Custom

Not the custom of contentiousness, but that of women speaking unveiled. The testimonies of Tertullian and Chrysostom show that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches. In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short.

Vincent: 1Co 11:17

I declare ( παραγγέλλω )

Wrong. It means in the New Testament only command . See on Luk 5:14; see on Act 1:4.

Vincent: 1Co 11:18

In the church ( ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ )

See on Mat 16:18. Not the church edifice , a meaning which the word never has in the New Testament, and which appears first in patristic writings. The marginal rendering of the Rev. is better: in congregation .

Vincent: 1Co 11:19

Heresies ( αἱρἐσεις )

See on 2Pe 2:1. In Paul only here and Gal 5:20. Better, parties or factions , as the result of the divisions.

Vincent: 1Co 11:20

This is not ( οὐκ ἔστιν )

Rev., correctly, it is not possible .

Vincent: 1Co 11:20

The Lord's Supper ( κυριακὸν δεῖπνον )

The emphasis is on Lord's . Δεῖπνον supper , represented the principal meal of the day, answering to the late dinner. The Eucharist proper was originally celebrated as a private expression of devotion, and in connection with a common, daily meal, an agape or love-feast . In the apostolic period it was celebrated daily. The social and festive character of the meal grew largely out of the gentile institution of clubs or fraternities, which served as savings-banks, mutual-help societies, insurance offices, and which expressed and fostered the spirit of good-fellowship by common festive meals, usually in gardens, round an altar of sacrifice. The communion-meal of the first and second centuries exhibited this character in being a feast of contribution, to which each brought his own provision. It also perpetuated the Jewish practice of the college of priests for the temple-service dining at a common table on festivals or Sabbaths, and of the schools of the Pharisees in their ordinary life.

Indications of the blending of the eucharistic celebration with a common meal are found here, Act 2:42; Act 20:7, and more obscurely, Act 27:35.

Vincent: 1Co 11:21

Taketh before other

Not waiting for the coming of the poor to participate.

Vincent: 1Co 11:22

Them that have not

Not, that have not houses , but absolutely, the poor . In thus shaming their poorer comrades they imitated the heathen. Xenophon relates of Socrates that, at feasts of contribution, where some brought much and others little, Socrates bade his attendant either to place each small contribution on the table for the common use, or else to distribute his share of the same to each. And so those who had brought much were ashamed not to partake of that which was placed for general use, and not, in return, to place their own stock on the table (" Memorabilia," iii., 14, 1).

Vincent: 1Co 11:23

I received ( ἐγὼ παρέλαβον )

I is emphatic, giving the weight of personal authority to the statement. The question whether Paul means that he received directly from Christ, or mediately through the apostles or tradition, turns on a difference between two prepositions. Strictly, ἀπὸ from or of , with the Lord , would imply the more remote source, from the Lord, through the apostles; but Paul does not always observe the distinction between this and παρά , from the preposition of the nearer source (see Greek, Col 1:7; Col 3:24); and this latter preposition compounded with the verb received , the emphatic I , and the mention of the fact itself, are decisive of the sense of an immediate communication from Christ to Paul.

Vincent: 1Co 11:23

Also ( καὶ )

Important as expressing the identity of the account of Jesus with his own.

Vincent: 1Co 11:23

He was betrayed ( παρεδίδετο )

Imperfect tense, and very graphic. He was being betrayed . He instituted the Eucharist while His betrayal was going on .

Wesley: 1Co 11:2

The greater part of you.

Wesley: 1Co 11:3

He does not seem to have given them any order before concerning this.

Wesley: 1Co 11:3

Particularly every believer. Is Christ, and the head of Christ is God - Christ, as he is Mediator, acts in all things subordinately to his Father. But we can no more infer that they are not of the same divine nature, because God is said to be the head of Christ, than that man and woman are not of the same human nature, because the man is said to be the head of the woman.

Wesley: 1Co 11:4

Speaking by the immediate power of God.

Wesley: 1Co 11:4

And face.

Wesley: 1Co 11:4

Either with a veil or with long hair.

Wesley: 1Co 11:4

St. Paul seems to mean, As in these eastern nations veiling the head is a badge of subjection, so a man who prays or prophesies with a veil on his head, reflects a dishonour on Christ, whose representative he is.

Wesley: 1Co 11:5

Who, under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, (for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church,) prays or prophesies without a veil on her face, as it were disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head. For it is the same, in effect, as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages, men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures.

Wesley: 1Co 11:6

If she will throw off the badge of subjection, let her appear with her hair cut like a man's. But if it be shameful far a woman to appear thus in public, especially in a religious assembly, let her, for the same reason, keep on her veil.

Wesley: 1Co 11:7

In the dominion he bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion of God, which is his glory. But the woman is only matter of glory to the man, who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore she ought not to appear, but with her head veiled, as a tacit acknowledgment of it.

Wesley: 1Co 11:8

In the first production of nature.

Wesley: 1Co 11:10

Who attend there, and before whom they should be careful not to do anything indecent or irregular.

Wesley: 1Co 11:11

Neither is excluded; neither is preferred before the other in his kingdom.

Wesley: 1Co 11:12

The man, the woman, and their dependence on each other.

Wesley: 1Co 11:13

For what need of more arguments if so plain a case? Is it decent for a woman to pray to God - The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have, when, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered?

Wesley: 1Co 11:14

For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him.

Wesley: 1Co 11:15

Originally, before the arts of dress were in being.

Wesley: 1Co 11:16

The several churches that were in the apostles' time had different customs in things that were not essential; and that under one and the same apostle, as circumstances, in different places, made it convenient. And in all things merely indifferent the custom of each place was of sufficient weight to determine prudent and peaceable men. Yet even this cannot overrule a scrupulous conscience, which really doubts whether the thing be indifferent or no. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious, persons.

Wesley: 1Co 11:18

In the public assembly.

Wesley: 1Co 11:18

That is, I believe it of some of you. It is plain that by schisms is not meant any separation from the church, but uncharitable divisions in it; for the Corinthians continued to be one church; and, notwithstanding all their strife and contention, there was no separation of any one party from the rest, with regard to external communion. And it is in the same sense that the word is used, 1Co 1:10; 1Co 12:25; which are the only places in the New Testament, beside this, where church schisms are mentioned. Therefore, the indulging any temper contrary to this tender care of each other is the true scriptural schism. This is, therefore, a quite different thing from that orderly separation from corrupt churches which later ages have stigmatized as schisms; and have made a pretence for the vilest cruelties, oppressions, and murders, that have troubled the Christian world. Both heresies and schisms are here mentioned in very near the same sense; unless by schisms be meant, rather, those inward animosities which occasion heresies; that is, outward divisions or parties: so that whilst one said, "I am of Paul," another, "I am of Apollos," this implied both schism and heresy. So wonderfully have later ages distorted the words heresy and schism from their scriptural meaning. Heresy is not, in all the Bible, taken for "an error in fundamentals," or in anything else; nor schism, for any separation made from the outward communion of others. Therefore, both heresy and schism, in the modern sense of the words, are sins that the scripture knows nothing of; but were invented merely to deprive mankind of the benefit of private judgment, and liberty of conscience.

Wesley: 1Co 11:19

Divisions.

Wesley: 1Co 11:19

In the ordinary course of things; and God permits them, that it may appear who among you are, and who are not, upright of heart.

Wesley: 1Co 11:20

That is, in consequence of those schisms.

Wesley: 1Co 11:20

That solemn memorial of his death; but quite another thing.

Wesley: 1Co 11:21

For in eating what ye call the Lord's supper, instead of all partaking of one bread, each person brings his own supper, and eats it without staying for the rest. And hereby the poor, who cannot provide for themselves, have nothing; while the rich eat and drink to the full just as the heathens use to do at the feasts on their sacrifices.

Wesley: 1Co 11:22

Of which the poor are both the larger and the better part. Do ye act thus in designed contempt of them?

Wesley: 1Co 11:23

By an immediate revelation.

JFB: 1Co 11:1

Greek, "imitators."

JFB: 1Co 11:1

Who did not please Himself (Rom 15:3); but gave Himself, at the cost of laying aside His divine glory, and dying as man, for us (Eph 5:2; Phi 2:4-5). We are to follow Christ first, and earthly teachers only so far as they follow Christ.

JFB: 1Co 11:2

Here the chapter ought to begin.

JFB: 1Co 11:2

In your general practice, though in the particular instances which follow ye fail.

JFB: 1Co 11:2

Greek, "traditions," that is, apostolic directions given by word of mouth or in writing (1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3; 2Th 2:15). The reference here is mainly to ceremonies: for in 1Co 11:23, as to the LORD'S SUPPER, which is not a mere ceremony, he says, not merely, "I delivered unto you," but also, "I received of the Lord"; here he says only, "I delivered to you." Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is to know what is a genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can be proved to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected (Rev 22:18). Those preserved in the written word alone can be proved to be such.

JFB: 1Co 11:3

The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary head-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (Gal 3:28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in 1Co 14:34, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation.

JFB: 1Co 11:3

An appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman's appropriate headdress in public.

JFB: 1Co 11:3

(Eph 5:23).

JFB: 1Co 11:3

(1Co 11:8; Gen 3:16; 1Ti 2:11-12; 1Pe 3:1, 1Pe 3:5-6).

JFB: 1Co 11:3

(1Co 3:23; 1Co 15:27-28; Luk 3:22, Luk 3:38; Joh 14:28; Joh 20:17; Eph 3:9). "Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of the same essence as the Father" [CHRYSOSTOM]. "The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father" [THEODORET, t. 3, p. 171].

JFB: 1Co 11:4

In public (1Co 11:17).

JFB: 1Co 11:4

Preaching in the Spirit (1Co 12:10).

JFB: 1Co 11:4

That is, if he were to have: a supposed case to illustrate the impropriety in the woman's case. It was the Greek custom (and so that at Corinth) for men in worship to be uncovered; whereas the Jews wore the Talith, or veil, to show reverence before God, and their unworthiness to look on Him (Isa 6:2); however, MAIMONIDES [Mishna] excepts cases where (as in Greece) the custom of the place was different.

JFB: 1Co 11:4

Not as ALFORD, "Christ" (1Co 11:3); but literally, as "his head" is used in the beginning of the verse. He dishonoreth his head (the principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a mark of subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards to his Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman wears it in token of her subjection to man? "Because Christ is not seen: the man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ is not seen; of her who is under the man, is seen" [BENGEL]. (Compare 1Co 11:7).

JFB: 1Co 11:5

This instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so Act 2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (1Co 14:34-35; 1Ti 2:11-12). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as most accordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till 1Co 14:34-35. Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public congregation.

JFB: 1Co 11:5

In that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Gen 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Gen 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Num 5:18). ALFORD takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one.

JFB: 1Co 11:5

As woman's hair is given her by nature, as her covering (1Co 11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous: therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head-covering) to show that she does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.

JFB: 1Co 11:6

A woman would not like to be "shorn" or (what is worse) "shaven"; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, "shorn."

JFB: 1Co 11:6

An unbecoming thing (compare 1Co 11:13-15). Thus the shaving of nuns is "a shame."

JFB: 1Co 11:7-9

Argument, also, from man's more immediate relation to God, and the woman's to man.

JFB: 1Co 11:7-9

Being created in God's "image," first and directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God's "glory" this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man (Psa 8:4-5; compare 2Co 8:23). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare Jam 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare Heb 1:3). "Express image," Greek, "the impress." The Divine Son is not merely "like" God, He is God of God, "being of one substance (essence) with the Father." [Nicene Creed].

JFB: 1Co 11:7-9

He does not say, also, "the image of the man." For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image of God, as well as the man (Gen 1:26-27). But as the moon in relation to the sun (Gen 37:9), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light derived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not that she does not in grace come individually into direct communion with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent.

JFB: 1Co 11:8

Takes his being from ("out of") . . . from: referring to woman's original creation, "taken out of man" (compare Gen 2:23). The woman was made by God mediately through the man, who was, as it were, a veil or medium placed between her and God, and therefore, should wear the veil or head-covering in public worship, in acknowledgement of this subordination to man in the order of creation. The man being made immediately by God as His glory, has no veil between himself and God [FABER STAPULENSIS in BENGEL].

JFB: 1Co 11:9

Rather, "For also"; Another argument: The immediate object of woman's creation. "The man was not created for the sake of the woman; but the woman for the sake of the man" (Gen 2:18, Gen 2:21-22). Just as the Church, the bride, is made for Christ; and yet in both the natural and the spiritual creations, the bride, while made for the bridegroom, in fulfilling that end, attains her own true "glory," and brings "shame" and "dishonor" on herself by any departure from it (1Co 11:4, 1Co 11:6).

JFB: 1Co 11:10

The kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had before his mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for "veil" (radid), and "subjection" (radad).

JFB: 1Co 11:10

Who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare Psa 138:1, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (1Co 4:9; Eph 3:10; Ecc 5:6). HAMMOND quotes CHRYSOSTOM, "Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?" BENGEL explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Isa 6:2). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mat 18:10, Mat 18:31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them."

JFB: 1Co 11:11

Yet neither sex is insulated and independent of the other in the Christian life [ALFORD]. The one needs the other in the sexual relation; and in respect to Christ ("in the Lord"), the man and the woman together (for neither can be dispensed with) realize the ideal of redeemed humanity represented by the bride, the Church.

JFB: 1Co 11:12

As the woman was formed out of (from) the man, even so is man born by means of woman; but all things (including both man and woman) are from God as their source (Rom 11:36; 2Co 5:18). They depend mutually each on the other, and both on him.

JFB: 1Co 11:13

Appeal to their own sense of decorum.

JFB: 1Co 11:13

By rejecting the emblem of subjection (the head-covering), she passes at one leap in praying publicly beyond both the man and angels [BENGEL].

JFB: 1Co 11:14

The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Num 6:5). Compare as to Absalom, 2Sa 14:26, and Act 18:18.

JFB: 1Co 11:15

Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [BENGEL].

JFB: 1Co 11:16

A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches.

JFB: 1Co 11:16

The Greek also means "thinks" (fit) (compare Mat 3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians' self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (1Co 1:20).

JFB: 1Co 11:16

Apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to TERTULLIAN [ESTIUS]. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context: but he often refers to himself and his fellow apostles, by the expression, "we--us" (1Co 4:9-10).

JFB: 1Co 11:16

As that of women praying uncovered. Not as CHRYSOSTOM, "that of being contentious." The Greek term implies a usage, rather than a mental habit (Joh 18:39). The usage of true "churches (plural: not, as Rome uses it, 'the Church,' as an abstract entity; but 'the churches,' as a number of independent witnesses) of God" (the churches which God Himself recognizes), is a valid argument in the case of external rites, especially, negatively, for example, Such rites were not received among them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine, or the essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [SCLATER] (1Co 7:17; 1Co 14:33).

JFB: 1Co 11:16

Nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but a general test of decency.

JFB: 1Co 11:17

Which follows.

JFB: 1Co 11:17

Rather, "I enjoin"; as the Greek is always so used. The oldest manuscripts read literally "This I enjoin (you) not praising (you)."

JFB: 1Co 11:17

Inasmuch as; in that you, &c. Here he qualifies his praise (1Co 11:2). "I said that I praised you for keeping the ordinances delivered to you; but I must now give injunction in the name of the Lord, on a matter in which I praise you not; namely, as to the Lord's Supper (1Co 11:23; 1Co 14:37).

JFB: 1Co 11:17

Not so as to progress to what is better.

JFB: 1Co 11:17

So as to retrograde to what is worse. The result of such "coming together" must be "condemnation" (1Co 11:34).

JFB: 1Co 11:18

In the first place. The "divisions" (Greek, "schisms") meant, are not merely those of opinion (1Co 1:10), but in outward acts at the love-feasts (Agapæ), (1Co 11:21). He does not follow up the expression, "in the first place," by "in the second place." But though not expressed, a second abuse was in his mind when he said, "In the first place," namely, THE ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, which also created disorder in their assemblies [ALFORD], (1Co 12:1; 1Co 14:23, 1Co 14:26, 1Co 14:33, 1Co 14:40).

JFB: 1Co 11:18

Not the place of worship; for ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM denies that there were such places specially set apart for worship in the apostles' times [Epistle, 246.2]. But, "in the assembly" or "congregation"; in convocation for worship, where especially love, order, and harmony should prevail. The very ordinance instituted for uniting together believers in one body, was made an occasion of "divisions" (schisms).

JFB: 1Co 11:18

He hereby excepts the innocent. "I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I cannot help believing" [ALFORD]: while my love is unaffected by it [BENGEL].

JFB: 1Co 11:19

Not merely "schisms" or "divisions" (1Co 11:18), which are "recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion" [AUGUSTINE, Con. Crescon. Don. 2.7, quoted by TRENCH, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament], but also "heresies," that is, "schisms which have now become inveterate"; "Sects" [CAMPBELL, vol. 2, pp. 126, 127]: so Act 5:17; Act 15:5 translate the same Greek. At present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus' words (Mat 18:7; Mat 24:10, Mat 24:12; Luk 17:1) foresees "there must be (come) also" matured separations, and established parties in secession, as separatists. The "must be" arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly, and to the discipline of the former for glory. "Heresies" had not yet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms. ST. AUGUSTINE'S rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: "In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity."

JFB: 1Co 11:19

Through the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (Luk 2:35; 1Jo 2:19).

JFB: 1Co 11:20

Resuming the thread of discourse from 1Co 11:18.

JFB: 1Co 11:20

Rather, "there is no such thing as eating the LORD'S Supper"; it is not possible where each is greedily intent only on devouring "HIS OWN supper," and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (1Co 11:33), where some are "drunken," while others are "hungry" (1Co 11:21). The love-feast usually preceded the Lord's Supper (as eating the Passover came before the Lord's Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord's Supper during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the question.

JFB: 1Co 11:21

The rich "before" the poor, who had no supper of their own. Instead of "tarrying for one another" (1Co 11:33); hence the precept (1Co 12:21, 1Co 12:25).

JFB: 1Co 11:21

"His own" belly is his God (Phi 3:19); "the Lord's Supper," the spiritual feast, never enters his thoughts.

JFB: 1Co 11:21

The one has more than is good for him, the other less [BENGEL].

JFB: 1Co 11:22

Greek, "For."

JFB: 1Co 11:22

(compare 1Co 11:34) --"at home." That is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren [ALFORD].

JFB: 1Co 11:22

The congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom "God hath chosen," however ye show contempt for them (Jam 2:5); compare "of God" here, marking the true honor of the Church.

JFB: 1Co 11:22

Namely, houses to eat and drink in, and who, therefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feasts from their wealthier brethren.

JFB: 1Co 11:22

Resuming the words (1Co 11:17).

JFB: 1Co 11:23

His object is to show the unworthiness of such conduct from the dignity of the holy supper.

JFB: 1Co 11:23

Emphatic in the Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord's institution.

JFB: 1Co 11:23

By immediate revelation (Gal 1:12; compare Act 22:17-18; 2Co 12:1-4). The renewal of the institution of the Lord's Supper by special revelation to Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity between Luke's and Paul's account of the institution, favors the supposition that the former drew his information from the apostle, whose companion in travel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness.

JFB: 1Co 11:23

The time fixed for the Passover (Exo 12:6): though the time for the Lord's Supper is not fixed.

JFB: 1Co 11:23

With the traitor at the table, and death present before His eyes, He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Though about to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of His amazing love to man.

Clarke: 1Co 11:1

Be ye followers of me - This verse certainly belongs to the preceding chapter, and is here out of all proper place and connection.

Clarke: 1Co 11:2

That ye remember me in all things - It appears that the apostle had previously given them a variety of directions relative to the matters mentioned here; that some had paid strict attention to them, and that others had not; and that contentions and divisions were the consequences, which he here reproves and endeavors to rectify. While Paul and Apollos had preached among them, they had undoubtedly prescribed every thing that was necessary to be observed in the Christian worship: but it is likely that those who joined in idol festivals wished also to introduce something relative to the mode of conducting the idol worship into the Christian assembly, which they might think was an improvement on the apostle’ s plan.

Clarke: 1Co 11:3

The head of every man is Christ - The apostle is speaking particularly of Christianity and its ordinances: Christ is the Head or Author of this religion; and is the creator, preserver, and Lord of every man. The man also is the lord or head of the woman; and the Head or Lord of Christ, as Mediator between God and man, is God the Father. Here is the order - God sends his Son Jesus Christ to redeem man; Christ comes and lays down his life for the world; every man who receives Christianity confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father; and every believing woman will acknowledge, according to Gen 3:16, that God has placed her in a dependence on and subjection to the man. So far there is no difficulty in this passage.

Clarke: 1Co 11:4

Praying, or prophesying - Any person who engages in public acts in the worship of God, whether prayer, singing, or exhortation: for we learn, from the apostle himself, that προφητευειν, to prophesy, signifies to speak unto men to edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1Co 14:3. And this comprehends all that we understand by exhortation, or even preaching

Clarke: 1Co 11:4

Having his head covered - With his cap or turban on, dishonoreth his head; because the head being covered was a sign of subjection; and while he was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be considered as a representative of Christ, and on this account his being veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason. "He should veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold him."See much in Lightfoot on this point.

Clarke: 1Co 11:5

But every woman that prayeth, etc. - Whatever may be the meaning of praying and prophesying, in respect to the man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman. So that some women at least, as well as some men, might speak to others to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. And this kind of prophesying or teaching was predicted by Joel, Joe 2:28, and referred to by Peter, Act 2:17. And had there not been such gifts bestowed on women, the prophecy could not have had its fulfillment. The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonor her head - her husband. And she must appear like to those women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or adultery

Tacitus informs us, Germ. 19, that, considering the greatness of the population, adulteries were very rare among the Germans; and when any woman was found guilty she was punished in the following way: accisis crinibus, nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus ; "having cut off her hair, and stripped her before her relatives, her husband turned her out of doors."And we know that the woman suspected of adultery was ordered by the law of Moses to be stripped of her veil, Num 5:18. Women reduced to a state of servitude, or slavery, had their hair cut off: so we learn from Achilles Tatius. Clitophon says, concerning Leucippe, who was reduced to a state of slavery: πεπραται, δεδουλεὺºεν, γην εσκαψεν, σεσυληται της κεφαλης το καλλος, την κουραν ὁρᾳς· lib. viii. cap. 6, "she was sold for a slave, she dug in the ground, and her hair being shorn off, her head was deprived of its ornament,"etc. It was also the custom among the Greeks to cut off their hair in time of mourning. See Euripides in Alcest., ver. 426. Admetus, ordering a common mourning for his wife Alcestis, says: πενθος γυναικος της δε κοινουσθαι λεγω, κουρᾳ ξυρηκει και μελαμπεπλῳ στολῃ· "I order a general mourning for this woman! let the hair be shorn off, and a black garment put on."Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the apostle seems to have more especially in view. As a woman who dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals; so in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be considered in the same light.

Clarke: 1Co 11:6

For if the woman be not covered - If she will not wear a veil in the public assemblies, let her be shorn - let her carry a public badge of infamy: but if it be a shame - if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered - let her by all means wear a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says: ειδετε παρ ’ ακρας ὡς απεθρισεν τριχας, σωζουσα καλλος, εστι δε ἡ παλαι γυνη : "see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before."See the note on 1Co 11:5

In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they appear in the streets. - Ward’ s Customs.

Clarke: 1Co 11:7

A man indeed ought not to cover his head - He should not wear his cap or turban in the public congregation, for this was a badge of servitude, or an indication that he had a conscience overwhelmed with guilt; and besides, it was contrary to the custom that prevailed, both among the Greeks and Romans

Clarke: 1Co 11:7

He is the image and glory of God - He is God’ s vicegerent in this lower world; and, by the authority which he has received from his Master, he is his representative among the creatures, and exhibits, more than any other part of the creation, the glory and perfections of the Creator

Clarke: 1Co 11:7

But the woman is the glory of the man - As the man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that the fear of him and the dread of him are on every beast of the field, etc.; so the woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man. I believe this to be the meaning of the apostle; and that he is speaking here principally concerning power and authority, and skill to use them. It is certainly not the moral image of God, nor his celestial glory, of which he speaks in this verse.

Clarke: 1Co 11:8

For, the man is not of the woman - Bishop Pearce translates ου γαρ εστιν ανηρ εκ γυναικος, αλλα γυνη εξ ανδρος, thus: "For the man doth not Belong to the woman, but the woman to the man."And vindicates this sense of εκ, by its use in 1Co 12:15. If the foot shall say, ουκ ειμι εκ του σωματος, I am not of the body, i.e. I do not belong to the body. He observes that as the verb εστιν is in the present tense, and will not allow that we should understand this verse of something that is past, γαρ, for, in the following verse, which is unnoticed by our translators, will have its full propriety and meaning, because it introduces a reason why the woman belongs to the man and not the man to the woman. His meaning is, that the man does not belong to the woman, as if she was the principal; but the woman belongs to the man in that view.

Clarke: 1Co 11:9

Neither was the man created, etc. - Και γαρ ουκ εκτισθη· for the man was not created upon the woman’ s account. The reason is plain from what is mentioned above; and from the original creation of woman she was made for the man, to be his proper or suitable helper.

Clarke: 1Co 11:10

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels - There are few portions in the sacred writings that have given rise to such a variety of conjectures and explanations, and are less understood, than this verse, and 1Co 15:29. Our translators were puzzled with it; and have inserted here one of the largest marginal readings found any where in their work; but this is only on the words power on her head, which they interpret thus: that is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband. But, admitting this marginal reading to be a satisfactory solution so far as it goes, it by no means removes all the difficulty. Mr. Locke ingenuously acknowledged that he did not understand the meaning of the words; and almost every critic and learned man has a different explanation. Some have endeavored to force out a meaning by altering the text. The emendation of Mr. Toup, of Cornwall, is the most remarkable: he reads εξιουσα, going out, instead of εξουσιαν, power; wherefore the woman, when she goes out, should have a veil on her head. Whatever ingenuity there may appear in this emendation, the consideration that it is not acknowledged by any MS., or version, or primitive writer, is sufficient proof against it. Dr. Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Bishop Pearce, have written best on the subject, in which they allow that there are many difficulties. The latter contends

1.    That the original should be read, Wherefore the woman ought to have A power upon her head, that is, the power of the husband over the wife; the word power standing for the sign or token of that power which was a covering or veil. Theophylact explains the word, το του εξουσιαζεσθαι συμβολον, τουτεστι, το καλυμμα, "the symbol of being under power, that is, a veil, or covering."And Photius explains it thus: της υποταγης συμβολον το επι της κεφαλης καλυμμα φερειν ; to wear a veil on the head is a symbol of subjection. It is no unusual thing, in the Old and New Testament, for the signs and tokens of things to be called by the names of the things themselves, for thus circumcision is called the covenant, in Gen 17:10, Gen 17:13, though it was only the sign of it

2.    The word angels presents another difficulty. Some suppose that by these the apostle means the fallen angels, or devils; others, the governors of the Church; and others, those who were deputed among the Jews to espouse a virgin in the name of a lover. All these senses the learned bishop rejects, and believes that the apostle uses the word angels, in its most obvious sense, for the heavenly angels; and that he speaks according to the notion which then prevailed among Jews, that the holy angels interested themselves in the affairs of men, and particularly were present in their religious assemblies, as the cherubim, their representation, were present in their temple. Thus we read in Ecc 5:6 : Neither say thou before the Angel, it was an error; and in 1Ti 5:21 : I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect Angels, etc. Parallel to these is what Agrippa says in his oration to the Jews, Josephus, War, b. ii. chap. 16: I protest before God, your holy temple, and all the Angels of heaven, etc. All which passages suppose, or were spoken to those who supposed, that the angels know what passes here upon earth. The notion, whether just or not, prevailed among the Jews; and if so, St. Paul might speak according to the common opinion

3.    Another difficulty lies in the phrase δια τουτο, wherefore, which shows that this verse is a conclusion from what the apostle was arguing before; which we may understand thus: that his conclusion, from the foregoing argument, ought to have the more weight, upon account of the presence, real or supposed, of the holy angels, at their religious meetings. See Bishop Pearce, in loc

The learned bishop is not very willing to allow that the doctrine of the presence of angelic beings in religious assemblies is legitimate; but what difficulty can there be in this, if we take the words of the apostle in another place: Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? Heb 1:14. And perhaps there is no time in which they can render more essential services to the followers of God than when they are engaged in Divine ordinances. On the whole, the bishop’ s sense of the passage and paraphrase stands thus: "And because of this superiority in the man, I conclude that the woman should have on her head a veil, the mark of her husband’ s power over her, especially in the religious assemblies, where the angels are supposed to be invisibly present.

The ancient versions make little alteration in the common reading, and the MSS. leave the verse nearly as it stands in the common printed editions. The Armenian has a word that answers to umbram , a shade or covering. The Ethiopic, her head should be veiled. The common editions of the Vulgate have potestatem , power; but in an ancient edition of the Vulgate, perhaps one of the first, if not the first, ever printed, 2 vols. fol., sine ulla nota anni, etc.: the verse stands thus: Ideo debet mulier velamen habere super caput suum: et propter angelos . My old MS. translation seems to have been taken from a MS. which had the same reading: Wherefore the woman schal haue a veyl on her heuyd; and for aungels . Some copies of the Itala have also velamen , a veil

In his view of this text, Kypke differs from all others; and nothing that so judicious a critic advances should be lightly regarded

1.    He contends that εξουσιαν occurs nowhere in the sense of veil, and yet he supposes that the word καλυμμα, veil is understood, and must in the translation of the passage be supplied

2.    He directs that a comma be placed after εξουσιαν, and that it be construed with οφειλει, ought; after which he translates the verse thus: Propterea mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut velamen in capite habeat propter angelos ; On this account the woman is subject to power, so that she should have a veil on her head, because of the angels

3.    He contends that both the Latins and Greeks use debere and οφειλειν elegantly to express that to which one is obnoxious or liable. So Horace: -

Tu, nisi venti

Debes ludibrium, cave

Carm. lib. i. Od. xiv. ver. 15

Take heed lest thou owe a laughing stock to the winds; i.e. lest thou become the sport of the winds; for to these thou art now exposing thyself

So Dionys. Hal. Ant. lib. iii., page 205: Και πολλην οφειλοντες αισχυνην απηλθον εκ της αγορας· They departed from the market, exposed to great dishonor. So Euripides, Οφειλω σοι βλαβην· I am exposed to thy injury

4.    He contends that the words taken in this sense agree perfectly with the context, and with δια τουτο, wherefore, in this verse, "Because the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man, therefore she is subject to his authority, and should have a veil on her head as a token of that subjection; and particularly before the holy angels, who are present in the congregations of the saints.

For Dr. Lightfoot’ s opinion, that by angels we are to understand the paranymphs, or messengers who came on the part of others, to look out for proper spouses for their friends, I must refer to his works, vol. ii. fol., p. 772. The reader has now before him every thing that is likely to cast light on this difficult subject, and he must either adopt what he judges to be best, or else think for himself

After all, the custom of the Nazarite may cast some light upon this place. As Nazarite means one who has separated himself by vow to some religious austerity, wearing his own hair, etc.; so a married woman was considered a Nazarite for life; i.e. separated from all others, and joined to one husband, who is her lord: and hence the apostle, alluding to this circumstance, says, The woman ought to have power on her head, i.e. wear her hair and veil, for her hair is a proof of her being a Nazarite, and of her subjection to her husband, as the Nazarite was under subjection to the Lord, according to the rule or law of his order. See notes on Num 6:5-7 (note).

Clarke: 1Co 11:11

Neither is the man without the woman - The apostle seems to say: I do not intimate any disparagement of the female sex, by insisting on the necessity of her being under the power or authority of the man; for they are both equally dependent on each other, in the Lord, εν Κυριῳ : but instead of this reading, Theodoret has εν τῳ κοσμῳ, in the world. Probably the apostle means that the human race is continued by an especial providence of God. Others think that he means that men and women equally make a Christian society, and in it have equal rights and privileges.

Clarke: 1Co 11:12

For as the woman is of the man - For as the woman was first formed out of the side of man, man has ever since been formed out of the womb of the woman; but they, as all other created things, are of God.

Clarke: 1Co 11:13

Judge in yourselves - Consider the subject in your own common sense, and then say whether it be decent for a woman to pray in public without a veil on her head? The heathen priestesses prayed or delivered their oracles bare-headed or with dishevelled hair, non comptae mansere comae , as in the case of the Cumaean Sibyl, Aen. vi., ver. 48, and otherwise in great disorder: to be conformed to them would be very disgraceful to Christian women. And in reference to such things as these, the apostle appeals to their sense of honor and decency.

Clarke: 1Co 11:14

Doth not - nature - teach you, that, if a man have long hair - Nature certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for women to have long hair; and it is not so with men. The hair of the male rarely grows like that of a female, unless art is used, and even then it bears but a scanty proportion to the former. Hence it is truly womanish to have long hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it. In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great variety of places, καρηκομοωντες Αχαιοι, the long-haired Greeks, or Achaeans. Soldiers, in different countries, have been distinguished for their long hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or blame, or whether Homer uses it always as a term of respect, when he applies it to the Greeks, I shall not wait here to inquire. Long hair was certainly not in repute among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was as a token of humiliation; and it is possible that St. Paul had this in view. There were consequently two reasons why the apostle should condemn this practice: -

1.    Because it was a sign of humiliation

2.    Because it was womanish

After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to dressed, frizzled and curled hair, which shallow and effeminate men might have affected in that time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.

Clarke: 1Co 11:15

But if a woman have long hair - The Author of their being has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases serve as a veil

It is a certain fact that a man’ s long hair renders him contemptible, and a woman’ s long hair renders her more amiable. Nature and the apostle speak the same language; we may account for it as we please.

Clarke: 1Co 11:16

But if any man seem to be contentious - Ει δε τις δοκει φιλονεικος ειναι· If any person sets himself up as a wrangler - puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have already seen that the verb δοκειν, which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.

Clarke: 1Co 11:17

Now in this - I praise you not - In the beginning of this epistle the apostle did praise them for their attention in general to the rules he had laid down, see 1Co 11:2; but here he is obliged to condemn certain irregularities which had crept in among them, particularly relative to the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper. Through some false teaching which they had received, in the absence of the apostle, they appear to have celebrated it precisely in the same way the Jews did their passover. That, we know, was a regular meal, only accompanied with certain peculiar circumstances and ceremonies: two of these ceremonies were, eating bread, solemnly broken, and drinking a cup of wine called the cup of blessing. Now, it is certain that our Lord has taken these two things, and made them expressive of the crucifixion of his body, and the shedding of his blood, as an atonement for the sins of mankind. The teachers which had crept into the Corinthian Church appear to have perverted the whole of this Divine institution; for the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper appears to have been made among them a part of an ordinary meal. The people came together, and it appears brought their provisions with them; some had much, others had less; some ate to excess, others had scarcely enough to suffice nature. One was hungry, and the other was drunken, μεθυει, was filled to the full; this is the sense of the word in many places of Scripture. At the conclusion of this irregular meal they appear to have done something in reference to our Lord’ s institution, but more resembling the Jewish passover. These irregularities, connected with so many indecencies, the apostle reproves; for, instead of being benefited by the Divine ordinance, they were injured; they came together not for the better, but for the worse.

Clarke: 1Co 11:18

There be divisions among you - They had σχισματα, schisms, among them: the old parties were kept up, even in the place where they assembled to eat the Lord’ s Supper. The Paulians, the Kephites, and the Apollonians, continued to be distinct parties; and ate their meals separately, even in the same house.

Clarke: 1Co 11:19

There must be also heresies - Αἱρεσεις· Not a common consent of the members of the Church, either in the doctrines of the Gospel, or in the ceremonies of the Christian religion. Their difference in religious opinion led to a difference in their religious practice, and thus the Church of God, that should have been one body, was split into sects and parties. The divisions and the heresies sprung out of each other. I have spoken largely on the word heresy in Act 5:17 (note), to which place I beg leave to refer the reader.

Clarke: 1Co 11:20

This is not to eat the Lord’ s Supper - They did not come together to eat the Lord’ s Supper exclusively, which they should have done, and not have made it a part of an ordinary meal.

Clarke: 1Co 11:21

Every one taketh before - his own supper - They had a grand feast, though the different sects kept in parties by themselves; but all took as ample a supper as they could provide, (each bringing his own provisions with him), before they took what was called the Lord’ s Supper. See on 1Co 11:17 (note).

Clarke: 1Co 11:22

Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? - They should have taken their ordinary meal at home, and have come together in the church to celebrate the Lord’ s Supper

Clarke: 1Co 11:22

Despise ye the church of God - Ye render the sacred assembly and the place contemptible by your conduct, and ye show yourselves destitute of that respect which ye owe to the place set apart for Divine worship

Clarke: 1Co 11:22

And shame them that have not? - Τους μη εχοντας, Them that are poor; not them who had not victuals at that time, but those who are so poor as to be incapable of furnishing themselves as others had done. See the note on Mat 13:12.

Clarke: 1Co 11:23

I have received of the Lord - It is possible that several of the people at Corinth did receive the bread and wine of the eucharist as they did the paschal bread and wine, as a mere commemoration of an event. And as our Lord had by this institution consecrated that bread and wine, not to be the means of commemorating the deliverance from Egypt, and their joy on the account, but their deliverance from sin and death by his passion and cross; therefore the apostle states that he had received from the Lord what he delivered; viz. that the eucharistic bread and wine were to be understood of the accomplishment of that of which the paschal lamb was the type - the body broken for them, the blood shed for them

Clarke: 1Co 11:23

The Lord Jesus - took bread - See the whole of this account, collated with the parallel passages in the four Gospels, amply explained in my Discourse on the Eucharist, and in the notes on Matthew 26.

Calvin: 1Co 11:1

1.Imitators of me From this it appears, how absurdly chapters are divided, inasmuch as this sentence is disjoined from what goes before, with which it ought to have been connected, and is joined to what follows, with which it has no connection. Let us view this, then, as the close of the preceding chapter. Paul had there brought forward his own example in confirmation of his doctrine. Now, in order that the Corinthians may understand that this would be becoming in them, he exhorts them to imitate what he had done, even as he had imitated Christ

Here there are two things to be observed — first, that he prescribes nothing to others that he had not first practiced himself; and, secondly, that he directs himself and others to Christ as the only pattern of right acting. For while it is the part of a good teacher to enjoin nothing in words but what he is prepared to practice in action, he must not, at the same time, be so austere, as straightway to require from others everything that he does himself, as is the manner of the superstitious. For everything that they contract a liking for they impose also upon others, and would have their own example to be held absolutely as a rule. The world is also, of its own accord, inclined to a misdirected imitation, (κακοζηλίαν) ⁶¹⁰ and, after the manner of apes, strive to copy whatever they see done by persons of great influence. We see, however how many evils have been introduced into the Church by this absurd desire of imitating all the actions of the saints, without exception. Let us, therefore, maintain so much the more carefully this doctrine of Paul — that we are to follow men, provided they take Christ as their grand model, (πρωτότυπον,) that the examples of the saints may not tend to lead us away from Christ, but rather to direct us to him.

Calvin: 1Co 11:2

2.=== Now I praise you === He passes on now to another subject-to instruct the Corinthians, what decorum ought to be observed in the sacred assemblies. For as a man’s dress or gesture has in some cases the effect of disfiguring, and in others of adorning him, so all actions are set off to advantage by decorum, and are vitiated by the want of it. Much, therefore, depends upon decorum (τὸ πρεπον,) ⁶¹¹ and that not merely for securing for our actions gracefulness and beauty, but also to accustom our minds to propriety. While this is true in a general way as to everything, it holds especially as to sacred things; ⁶¹² for what contempt, and, eventually, what barbarism will be incurred, if we do not preserve dignity in the Church, by conducting ourselves honorably and becomingly? Hence he prescribes some things that are connected with public order, by which sacred assemblies are rendered honorable. But in order to prepare them the more for obedience, he commends, in the outset, their obedience in the past, inasmuch as they observed his ordinances; for inasmuch as he had begotten that Church to the Lord, (1Co 4:15,) he had delivered to them a certain system, by which it was to be governed. By retaining this, the Corinthians gave reason to hope, that they would also in future be docile.

It is surprising, however, that, while he now bestows upon them this commendation, he had previously blamed them for many things. Nay more, if we consider the state of the Church, such as has been previously described, they were far from deserving this praise. I answer, that there were some that were infected with those vices which he had previously reproved, and indeed, some with one, others with another; but, in the meantime, the form which he had prescribed to them had been retained by the entire body. For there is nothing of inconsistency in saying, that very many sins, and of various kinds, prevail among a particular people — some cheating, others plundering — some envying, others quarrelling, and another class guilty of fornication — while, at the same time, in respect of the public form of the Church, the institutions of Christ and his Apostles are maintained.

This will appear more clearly when we come to see what Paul means by παραδόσεις; (traditions;) ⁶¹³ and independently of this, it is necessary to speak of this word, for the purpose of replying to Papists, who arm themselves with this passage for the purpose of defending their traditions. It is a common maxim among them, that the doctrine of the Apostles consists partly of writings and partly of traditions. Under this second department they include not merely certain foolish superstitions, and puerile ceremonies, with which they are stuffed, but also all kinds of gross abomination, directly contrary to the plain word of God, and their tyrannical laws, which are mere torments to men’s consciences. In this way there is nothing that is so foolish, nothing so absurd — in fine, nothing so monstrous, as not to have shelter under this pretext, and to be painted over with this varnish. As Paul, therefore, makes mention here of traditions, they seize, as they are accustomed to do, upon this little word, with the view of making Paul the author of all those abominations, which we set aside by plain declaration of Scripture.

I do not deny, that there were certain traditions ⁶¹⁴ of the Apostles that were not committed to writing, but I do not admit that they were parts of doctrine, or related to things necessary for salvation. What then? They were connected with order and government. For we know that every Church has liberty to frame for itself a form of government that is suitable and profitable for it, because the Lord has not prescribed anything definite. Thus Paul, the first founder of the Corinthian Church, had also framed for its regulation pious and seemly enactments — that all things might be done decently and in order, as he afterwards enjoins. (1Co 14:40.) But what has this to do with those silly trifles of ceremonies, which are to be seen in Popery? ⁶¹⁵ What has it to do with a worse than Jewish superstition? What has it to do with a tyranny worthy of Phalaris, ⁶¹⁶ by which they torture miserable consciences? What has it to do with so many monstrous rites of idolatry? For the foundation of all right enactment was this: to observe the moderation that Paul made use of — not to compel persons to follow their enactments, ⁶¹⁷ while, in the meantime, contriving everything that might strike their fancy, but to require that they should be imitated, in so far as they are imitators of Christ But now, after having had the audacity to criticize everything agreeably to their own humor, to demand obedience from all is exceedingly absurd. Farther, we must know that Paul commends their obedience in the past, in order that he may render them docile also for the time to come.

Calvin: 1Co 11:3

3.But I would have you know It is an old proverb: “Evil manners beget good laws.” ⁶¹⁸ As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. ⁶¹⁹ The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.

He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man We shall afterwards see, how he comes to infer from this, that women ought to have their heads covered. Let us, for the present, take notice of those four gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

There is somewhat more of difficulty in what follows. Here the man is placed in an intermediate position between Christ and the woman, so that Christ is not the head of the woman. Yet the same Apostle teaches us elsewhere, (Gal 3:28,) that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he does away with? I answer, that the solution of this depends on the connection in which the passages occur. When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions ⁶²⁰ are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind — on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum — which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists. Should any one ask, what connection marriage has with Christ, I answer, that Paul speaks here of that sacred union of pious persons, of which Christ is the officiating priest, ⁶²¹ and He in whose name it is consecrated.

Calvin: 1Co 11:4

4.Every man praying Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house — for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example, ⁶²² If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not know how to maintain his proper station, ⁶²³ and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station — if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is an emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.

Prophesying I take here to mean — declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1Co 14:3,) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people — which is the part of the public teacher, ⁶²⁴ for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public. Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.

Calvin: 1Co 11:5

5.Every woman praying or prophesying Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly

prohibits women from speaking in the Church.
(1Ti 2:12.)

It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1Co 14:34. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.

For it is all one as if she were shaven He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust. ⁶²⁵

Calvin: 1Co 11:7

7.The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image The same question may now be proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed anew, according to that image. The image, however, of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with conscience. The simple solution is this — that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.

The woman is the glory of the man There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, ⁶²⁶ and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife — that she is a crown to her husband, (Pro 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose — that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.

Calvin: 1Co 11:8

8.For the man is not from the woman He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence, which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause. ⁶²⁷ That the man is the beginning of the woman and the end for which she was made, is evident from the law. (Gen 2:18.)

It is not good for a man to be alone. Let us make for him, etc.

Farther,

God took one of Adam’s ribs and formed Eve.
(Gen 2:21.)

Calvin: 1Co 11:10

10.For this cause ought the woman to have power ⁶²⁸ From that authority he draws an argument ⁶²⁹ in favor of outward decorum. “She is subject,” says he, “let her then wear a token of subjection.” In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy, ⁶³⁰ for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, ⁶³¹ or any other kind of covering. ⁶³²

It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul here teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this — to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. Otherwise it were an inconclusive argument that Paul has drawn from nature, in saying that it were not one whit more seemly for a woman to have her head uncovered than to be shaven — this being applicable to virgins also.

Because of the angels This passage is explained in various ways. As the Prophet Mal 2:7 calls priests angels of God, some are of opinion that Paul speaks of them; but the ministers of the word have nowhere that term applied to them by itself — that is, without something being added; and the meaning would be too forced. I understand it, therefore, in its proper signification. But it is asked, why it is that he would have women have their heads covered because of the angels — for what has this to do with them? Some answer: “Because they are present on occasion of the prayers of believers, and on this account are spectators of unseemliness, should there be any on such occasions.” But what need is there for philosophizing with such refinement? We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him. ⁶³³ When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, “If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage.” And this interpretation suits well with the Apostle’s design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it — that they discover their impudence in the view of the angels of heaven.

Calvin: 1Co 11:11

11.But neither is the man without the woman This is added partly as a check upon men, that they may not insult over women; ⁶³⁴ and partly as a consolation to women, that they may not feel dissatisfied with being under subjection. “The male sex (says he) has a distinction over the female sex, with this understanding, that they ought to be connected together by mutual benevolence, for the one cannot do without the other. If they be separated, they are like the mutilated members of a mangled body. Let them, therefore, be connected with each other by the bond of mutual duty.” ⁶³⁵

When he says, in the Lord, he by this expression calls the attention of believers to the appointment of the Lord, while the wicked look to nothing beyond pressing necessity. ⁶³⁶ For profane men, if they can conveniently live unmarried, despise the whole sex, and do not consider that they are under obligations to it by the appointment and decree of God. The pious, on the other hand, acknowledge that the male sex is but the half of the human race. They ponder the meaning of that statement — God created man: male and female created he them (Gen 1:27, and Gen 5:2.) Thus they, of their own accord, acknowledge themselves to be debtors to the weaker sex. Pious women, in like manner, reflect upon their obligation. ⁶³⁷ Thus the man has no standing without the woman, for that would be the head severed from the body; nor has the woman without the man, for that were a body without a head. “Let, therefore, the man perform to the woman the office of the head in respect of ruling her, and let the woman perform to the man the office of the body in respect of assisting him, and that not merely in the married state, but also in celibacy; for I do not speak of cohabitation merely, but also of civil offices, for which there is occasion even in the unmarried state.” If you are inclined rather to refer this to the whole sex in general, I do not object to this, though, as Paul directs his discourse to individuals, he appears to point out the particular duty of each.

Calvin: 1Co 11:12

12.As the woman is of the man If this is one of the reasons, why the man has superiority — that the woman was taken out of him, there will be, in like manner, this motive to friendly connection — that the male sex cannot maintain and preserve itself without the aid of women. For this remains a settled point — that it is not good for man to be alone (Gen 2:18.) This statement of Paul may, it is true, be viewed as referring to propagation, because human beings are propagated not by men alone, but by men and women; but I understand it as meaning this also — that the woman is a needful help to the man, inasmuch as a solitary life is not expedient for man. This decree of God exhorts us to cultivate mutual intercourse.

But all things of God God is the Source of both sexes, and hence both of them ought with humility to accept and maintain the condition which the Lord has assigned to them. Let the man exercise his authority with moderation, and not insult over the woman who has been given him as his partner. Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex. Otherwise they will both of them throw off the yoke of God, who has not without good reason appointed this distinction of ranks. Farther, when it is said that the man and the woman, when they are wanting in their duty to each other, are rebels against the authority of God, the statement is a more serious one than if Paul had said, that they do injury to one another.

Doth not even nature itself He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom — even among the Greeks — he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. ⁶³⁸ Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn ⁶³⁹ It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome — about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned all unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed. ⁶⁴⁰

Calvin: 1Co 11:16

16.But if any man seem A contentious person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs — raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful — who do not yield to reasonings — who cannot endure that any one should be above them. Of this description, also, are those (ἀκοινώνητοι) would be singular persons ⁶⁴¹ who, from a foolish affectation, ⁶⁴² aim at some new and unusual way of acting. Such persons Paul does not reckon worthy of being replied to, inasmuch as contention is a pernicious thing, and ought, therefore, to be banished from the Churches. By this he teaches us, that those that are obstinate and fond of quarrelling, should rather be restrained by authority than confuted by lengthened disputations. For you will never have an end of contentions, if you are disposed to contend with a combative person until you have vanquished him; for though vanquished a hundred times, he would argue still. Let us therefore carefully mark this passage, that we may not allow ourselves to be carried away with needless disputations, provided at the same time we know how to distinguish contentious persons. For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church ⁶⁴³

Calvin: 1Co 11:17

His reproof of the fault previously noticed was but a mild and gentle admonition, because the Corinthians sinned in ignorance, so that it was proper that they should readily be forgiven. Paul, too, had praised them in the outset, because they had faithfully kept his enactments. (1Co 11:2.) Now he begins to reprove them more sharply, because they offended more grievously in some things, and not through ignorance.

17. But, in warning you as to this, I do not praise. ⁶⁴⁴ For I translate it in this way, because Paul appears to have made the participle and the verb change places. ⁶⁴⁵ I am also not satisfied with the interpretation of Erasmus, who takes παραγγέλλειν as meaning to command The verb to warn would suit better, but as to this I do not contend. There is an antithesis between this clause and the beginning of this chapter. “While I have praised you, do not think that it is unqualified commendation; for I have something to find fault with, as it is worthy of severe reproof.” This, however, in my opinion, does not refer exclusively to the Lord’s Supper, but also to other faults of which he makes mention. Let this then be taken as a general statement, that the Corinthians are reproved, because they came together not for the better but for the worse. Particular effects of this evil will be brought forward afterwards.

He finds fault with them, then, in the first place, because they come not together for the better, — and secondly, that they come together for the worse The second, it is true, is the more serious, but even the first is not to be endured, for if we consider what is transacted in the Church, there ought never to be a coming together without some fruit. There the doctrine of God is listened to, prayers are offered up, the Sacraments are administered. The fruit of the Word is, when confidence in God and fear of him are increased in us — when progress is made in holiness of life — when we put off more and more the old man, (Col 3:9) — when we advance in newness of life, etc. (Rom 6:4.) The Sacraments have a tendency to exercise us in piety and love. The prayers, too, ought to be of use for promoting all these purposes. In addition to this, the Lord works efficaciously by his Spirit, because he wills not that his ordinances should be vain. Hence if the sacred assemblies are of no benefit to us, and we are not made better by them, it is our ingratitude that is to blame, and therefore we deserve to be reproved. For the effect of our conduct is, that those things, which, from their own nature, and from God’s appointment, ought to have been salutary, become unprofitable.

Then follows the second fault — that they come together for the worse. This is much more criminal, and yet it almost always follows the other, for if we derive no advantage from God’s benefits, he employs this method of punishing our carelessness — that we are made worse by them. It usually happens, too, that negligence gives birth to many corruptions, especially on this account, that those who do not observe the natural use of things usually fall erelong into hurtful inventions. ⁶⁴⁶

Calvin: 1Co 11:18

18.When ye come together in the Church, I hear there are divisions Some take the words divisions and heresies, as referring to that disorder (ἀταξίαν) of which he speaks soon afterwards. I consider them as having a more extensive signification, and certainly it is not likely that he would employ terms so improper and unsuitable for the purpose of exposing that abuse. ⁶⁴⁷ For as to their alleging that he has expressed himself in more severe terms, with the view of exposing more fully the heinousness of the offense, I would readily grant this, if the meaning corresponded. It is, then, a reproof of a general kind — that they were not of one accord as becomes Christians, but every one was so much taken up with his own interests, that he was not prepared to accommodate himself to others. Hence arose that abuse, as to which we shall see in a little — hence sprung ambition and pride, so that every one exalted himself and despised others — hence sprung carelessness as to edification — hence sprung profanation of the gifts of God.

He says that he partly believes it, that they might not think that he charged them all with this heinous crime, and might accordingly complain, that they were groundlessly accused. In the meantime, however, he intimates that this had been brought to him not by mere vague rumor, but by credible information, such as he could not altogether discredit.

Calvin: 1Co 11:19

19.For there must be also heresies He had previously spoken of divisions (1Co 11:18.) Now he uses the term heresies, with the view of amplifying the more, as we may infer, too, from the word also, for it is added for the sake of amplification. (προς αὔξησιν.) It is well known in what sense the ancients used those two terms, ⁶⁴⁸ and what distinction they made between Heretics and Schismatics. ⁶⁴⁹ Heresy they made to consist in disagreement as to doctrine, and schism, on the contrary, in alienation of affection, as when any one withdrew from the Church from envy, or from dislike of the pastors, or from ill nature. It is true, that the Church cannot but be torn asunder by false doctrine, and thus heresy is the root and origin of schism, and it is also true that envy or pride is the mother of almost all heresies, but at the same time it is of advantage to distinguish in this way between these two terms.

But let us see in what sense Paul employs them. I have already expressed my disapprobation of those who explain heresy as meaning the setting up of a separate table, inasmuch as the rich did not partake of their Supper along with the poor; for he had it in view to point out something more hateful. But without mentioning the opinions of others, I take schism and heresy here in the way of less and greater. Schisms, then, are either secret grudges — when we do not see that agreement which ought to subsist among the pious — when inclinations at variance with each other are at work — when every one is mightily pleased with his own way, and finds fault with everything that is done by others. Heresies are when the evil proceeds to such a pitch that open hostility is discovered, and persons deliberately divide themselves into opposite parties. Hence, in order that believers might not feel discouraged on seeing the Corinthians torn with divisions, the Apostle turns round this occasion of offense in an opposite direction, intimating that the Lord does rather by such trials make proof of his people’s constancy. A lovely consolation! “So far, says he, should we be from being troubled, or cast down, when we do not see complete unity in the Church, but on the contrary some threatenings of separation from want of proper agreement, that even if sects should start up, ⁶⁵⁰ we ought to remain firm and constant. For in this way hypocrites are detected — in this way, on the other hand, the sincerity of believers is tried. For as this gives occasion for discovering the fickleness of those who were not rooted in the Lord’s Word, and the wickedness of those who had assumed the appearance of good men, so the good afford a more signal manifestation of their constancy and sincerity.”

But observe what Paul says — there must be, for he intimates by this expression, that this state of matters does not happen by chance, but by the sure providence of God, because he has it in view to try his people, as gold in the furnace, and if it is agreeable to the mind of God, it is, consequently, expedient. At the same time, however, we must not enter into thorny disputes, or rather into labyrinths as to a fatal necessity. We know that there never will be a time when there will not be many reprobates. We know that they are governed by the spirit of Satan, and are effectually drawn away to what is evil. We know that Satan, in his activity, leaves no stone unturned with the view of breaking up the unity of the Church. From this — not from fate — comes that necessity of which Paul makes mention. ⁶⁵¹ We know, also, that the Lord, by his admirable wisdom, turns Satan’s deadly machinations so as to promote the salvation of believers. ⁶⁵² Hence comes that design of which he speaks — that the good may shine forth more conspicuously; for we ought not to ascribe this advantage to heresies, which, being evil, can produce nothing but what is evil, but to God, who, by his infinite goodness, changes the nature of things, so that those things are salutary to the elect, which Satan had contrived for their ruin. As to Chrysostom’s contending that the particle that (ἴνα) denotes not the cause, but the event, it is of no great moment. For the cause is the secret counsel of God, ⁶⁵³ by which things that are evil are overruled in such a manner, as to have a good issue. We know, in fine, that the wicked are impelled by Satan in such a manner, that they both act and are acted upon with the consent of their wills. ⁶⁵⁴ Hence they are without excuse.

Calvin: 1Co 11:20

20.This is not to eat the Lord’s supper He now reproves the abuse that had crept in among the Corinthians as to the Lord’s Supper, in respect of their mixing up profane banquets with the sacred and spiritual feast, and that too with contempt of the poor. Paul says, that in this way it is not the Lord’s supper that is partaken of — not that a single abuse altogether set aside the sacred institution of Christ, and reduced it to nothing, but that they polluted the sacrament by observing it in a wrong way. For we are accustomed to say, in common conversation, that a thing is not done at all, if it is not done aright. Now this was no trivial abuse, as we shall afterwards see. If you understand the words is not as meaning, is not allowable, ⁶⁵⁵ the meaning will amount to the same thing — that the Corinthians were not in a state of preparation for partaking of the Lord’s supper, as being in so divided a state. What I stated a little ago, however, is more simple — that he condemns that profane admixture, which had nothing in it akin to the Lord’s Supper.

Calvin: 1Co 11:21

21.For every one of you taketh before others his own supper It is truly wonderful, and next to a miracle, ⁶⁵⁶ that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time. We are, however, admonished by this instance, how much antiquity, without reason on its side, can effect, or, in other words, how much influence a long continued custom has, while not sanctioned by a single declaration of the word of God. This, having become customary, was looked upon as lawful. Paul was then at hand to interfere. What then must have been the state of matters after the death of the Apostles? With what liberty Satan must have sported himself. ⁶⁵⁷ Yet here is the great strength of Papists: “The thing is ancient — it was done long ago — let it, therefore, have the weight of a revelation from heaven.”

It is uncertain, however, what was the origin of this abuse, or what was the occasion of its springing up so soon. Chrysostom is of opinion, that it originated in the love-feasts, ⁶⁵⁸ (ἀπὸ τῶν ἀγαπῶν) and that, while the rich had been accustomed ⁶⁵⁹ to bring with them from their houses the means of feasting with the poor indiscriminately and in common, they afterwards began to exclude the poor, and to guzzle over their delicacies by themselves. And, certainly, it appears from Tertullian, that that custom was a very ancient one. ⁶⁶⁰ Now they gave the name of Agapae ⁶⁶¹ to those common entertainments, which they contrived among themselves, as being tokens of fraternal affection, and consisted of alms. Nor have I any doubt, that it took its rise from sacrificial rites commonly observed both by Jews and Gentiles. For I observe that Christians, for the most part, corrected the faults connected with those rites, in such a manner, as to retain at the same time some resemblance. Hence it is probable, that, on observing that both Jews and Gentiles added a feast to their sacrifice, as an appendage to it, but that both of them sinned in respect of ambition, luxury, and intemperance, they instituted ⁶⁶² a kind of banquet, which might accustom them rather to sobriety and frugality, ⁶⁶³ and might, at the same time, be in accordance with a spiritual entertainment in respect of mutual fellowship. For in it the poor were entertained at the expense of the rich, and the table was open to all. But, whether they had from the very first fallen into this profane abuse, or whether an institution, otherwise not so objectionable, had in this way degenerated in process of time, Paul would have them in no way mix up this spiritual banquet with common feasts. “This, indeed, looks well — that the poor along with the rich partake in common of the provisions that have been brought, and that the rich share of their abundance along with the needy, but nothing ought to have such weight with us as to lead us to profane the holy sacrament.” ⁶⁶⁴

And one is hungry This was one evil in the case, that while the rich indulged themselves sumptuously, they appeared, in a manner, to reproach the poor for their poverty. The inequality he describes hyperbolically, when he says, that some are drunken and others are hungry, for some had the means of stuffing themselves well, while others had slender fare. Thus the poor were exposed to the derision of the rich, or at least they were exposed to shame. It was, therefore, an unseemly spectacle, and not in accordance with the Lord ’ s supper

Calvin: 1Co 11:22

22.Have ye not houses ? From this we see that the Apostle was utterly dissatisfied with this custom of feasting, even though the abuse formerly mentioned had not existed. For, though it seems allowable for the whole Church to partake at one common table, yet this, on the other hand, is wrong — to convert a sacred assembly to purposes foreign to its nature. We know for what exercises a Church should assemble — to hear doctrine, to pour forth prayers, and sing hymns to God, to observe the sacraments, ⁶⁶⁵ to make confession of their faith, and to engage in pious observances, and other exercises of piety. If anything else is done there, it is out of place. Every one has his own house appointed him for eating and drinking, and hence that is an unseemly thing in a sacred assembly.

What shall I say to you? Having fitly stated the case, he now calls them to consider, whether they are worthy to be praised, for they could not defend an abuse that was so manifest. He presses them still further, by asking — “What else could I do? Will you say that you are unjustly reproved?” Some manuscripts connect the words in this with the verb that follows — in this way: Shall I praise you ? In this I do not praise you ⁶⁶⁶ The other reading, however, is the more generally received among the Greeks, and it suits better.

Calvin: 1Co 11:23

Hitherto he has been exposing the abuse; ⁶⁶⁷ now he proceeds to show what is the proper method of rectifying it. For the institution of Christ is a sure rule, so that if you turn aside from it but a very little, you are out of the right course. Hence, as the Corinthians had deviated from this rule, he calls them back to it. It is a passage that ought to be carefully observed, as showing that there is no remedy for correcting and purging out abuses, short of a return to God’s pure institution. Thus the Lord himself — when he was discoursing respecting marriage, (Mat 19:3,) and the Scribes brought forward custom, and also the permission given by Moses — simply brings forward his Father’s institution, as being an inviolable law. When we do this at the present day, the Papists cry out, that we are leaving nothing untouched. ⁶⁶⁸ We openly demonstrate, that it is not in one point merely that they have degenerated from our Lord’s first institution, but that they have corrupted it in a thousand ways. Nothing is more manifest than that their Mass is diametrically opposed to the sacred Supper of our Lord. I go farther — we show in the plainest manner, that it is full of wicked abominations: hence there is need of reformation. We demand — what it appears Paul had recourse to — that our Lord’s institution be the common rule, to which we agree on both sides to make our appeal. This they oppose with all their might. Mark then the nature of the controversy at this day in reference to the Lord’s Supper.

23.I received from the Lord In these words he intimates, that there is no authority that is of any avail in the Church, but that of the Lord alone. “ I have not delivered to you an invention of my own: I had not, when I came to you, contrived a new kind of Supper, according to my own humor, but have Christ as my authority, from whom I received what I have delivered unto you, in the way of handing it over.” ⁶⁶⁹ Return, then, to the original source. Thus, bidding adieu to human laws, the authority of Christ will be maintained in its stability.

That night in which he was betrayed This circumstance as to time instructs us as to the design of the sacrament — that the benefit of Christ’s death may be ratified in us. For the Lord might have some time previously committed to the Apostles this covenant-seal, ⁶⁷⁰ but he waited until the time of his oblation, that the Apostles might see soon after accomplished in reality in his body, what he had represented to them in the bread and the wine Should any one infer from this, that the Supper ought, therefore, to be celebrated at night and after a bodily repast, I answer, that, in what our Lord did, we must consider what there is that he would have to be done by us. It is certain, that he did not mean to institute a kind of nightly festival, like that in honor of Ceres, ⁶⁷¹ and farther, that it was not his design to invite his people to come to this spiritual banquet with a well-filled stomach. Such actions of Christ as are not intended for our imitation, should not be reckoned as belonging to his institution. ⁶⁷² In this way, there is no difficulty in setting aside that subtilty of Papists, by which they shift off ⁶⁷³ what I have already stated as to the duty of maintaining and preserving Christ’s institution in its simplicity. “We will, therefore,” say they, “ not receive the Lord’s Supper except at night, and we will therefore take it — not when fasting, but after having dined.” All this, I say, is mere trifling; for it is easy to distinguish what our Lord did, in order that we might imitate it, or rather what he did with the view of commanding us to do the like.

Defender: 1Co 11:2

This word can also be translated "traditions." Before the New Testament Scriptures were written down, the apostles had to provide instructions for guidance of the churches and church order."

Defender: 1Co 11:3

The man is not superior to the woman, as God is not superior to Christ, being of the same essence. However, as there is divine order in the relative functions of the three persons of the Trinity, so it was appropriate for God to ordain a divine order in the functions of the family (husband, wife, children). God established this pattern in the very beginning when Adam was first formed, then Eve (1Ti 2:13), and then the children (Gen 1:28)."

Defender: 1Co 11:7

This section (1Co 11:2-16) has to do with church order as an extension of the divine order in the basic institution of the family. Women, in keeping with their divinely established subordinate role (subordinate in role, not in importance or essence), appropriately should indicate this by a covering on their heads - the most suitable covering being long hair (1Co 11:15). An additional shawl, hat or other covering, while appropriate, is not necessary. Men, however, in their leadership role, are to leave their heads uncovered in the church (short hair, no hat), as symbolic of their direct openness to their own head, which is Christ. Both men and women are created in God's image (Gen 1:27), but that image is especially transmitted, as it were, from father to son (Gen 5:3). The woman shares the divine image in her father and in her husband, as reflected from the formation of the body of the first woman from that of the first man."

Defender: 1Co 11:8

Ever since Adam, men (and women) have been born of women. But the first woman was made from man (Gen 2:21-24). Here (as in Rom 5:12-19 and other passages) the New Testament draws important doctrinal inferences from a literal acceptance of the creation record in Genesis. The standard evolutionary scenario for the origin of men and women makes no sense in this context. The man and the woman were uniquely created by God, not evolved by chance from ape-like progenitors (1Co 11:9)."

Defender: 1Co 11:10

Angels are "sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb 1:14) and are intensely interested in the progress of the gospel and the people in the churches (1Pe 1:12; Eph 3:10). Evidently every true church has been assigned one or more angels to try to guard and guide it (note the seven letters from Christ to the churches, recorded in Revelation 2 and 3, each addressed to "the angel of the church" - Rev 2:1). Paul was reminding the women in the Corinthian church to keep the sign of "power" (or "authority") on their heads, in view of the invisible presence of angels observing the church and its congregation."

Defender: 1Co 11:14

Although there is no specific definition here of how long is "long," the context indicates that there should be a clear distinction between the long, beautiful hair of women and the short hair of men. The modern unisex fad, with men wearing long hair, earrings and other traditionally feminine accoutrements - especially when taken up by professedly Christian men - seems to be one more sign of rebellion against our Creator."

TSK: 1Co 11:1

Be ye : 1Co 4:16, 1Co 10:33; Phi 3:17; 1Th 1:6; 2Th 3:9; Heb 6:12

even : Rom 15:2, Rom 15:3; Eph 5:1, Eph 5:2; Phi 2:4, Phi 2:5

TSK: 1Co 11:2

I praise : 1Co 11:17, 1Co 11:22; Pro 31:28-31

that : 1Co 4:17, 1Co 15:2

keep : 1Co 7:17; Luk 1:6; 1Th 4:1, 1Th 4:2; 2Th 2:15, 2Th 3:6

ordinances : or, traditions

TSK: 1Co 11:3

the head of every : Eph 1:22, Eph 1:23, Eph 4:15, Eph 5:23; Phi 2:10,Phi 2:11; Col 1:18, Col 2:10,Col 2:19

and the head of the : Gen 3:16; Eph 5:22, Eph 5:24; Col 3:18; 1Ti 2:11, 1Ti 2:12; 1Pe 3:1, 1Pe 3:5, 1Pe 3:6

and the head of Christ : 1Co 3:23, 1Co 15:27, 1Co 15:28; Isa 49:3-6, Isa 52:13, Isa 55:4, Isa 61:1-4; Mat 28:18; Joh 3:34-36, Joh 5:20-30, Joh 14:28, Joh 17:2-5; Eph 1:20-22; Phi 2:7-11

TSK: 1Co 11:4

or : 1Co 12:10,1Co 12:28, 14:1-25

having : 1Co 11:14; 2Sa 15:30, 2Sa 19:4

TSK: 1Co 11:5

or : Luk 2:36; Act 2:17, Act 21:9

shaven : Deu 21:12

TSK: 1Co 11:6

but : Num 5:18; Deu 22:5

TSK: 1Co 11:7

he is : Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27, Gen 5:1, Gen 9:6; Psa 8:6; Jam 3:9

but : 1Co 11:3; Gen 3:16

TSK: 1Co 11:8

Gen 2:21, Gen 2:22; 1Ti 2:13

TSK: 1Co 11:9

the man : Gen 2:18, Gen 2:20,Gen 2:23, Gen 2:24

TSK: 1Co 11:10

power : That is, a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband. Εξουσια [Strong’ s G1849], appears here to be used for the sign or token of being under power or authority, that is, a veil, as Theophylact (Ecumenius, and Photius) explain; and so one manuscript of the Vulgate, the Sixtine edition, and some copies of the Itala, have velamen . Gen 20:16, Gen 24:64, Gen 24:65

because : Ecc 5:6; Mat 18:10; Heb 1:14

TSK: 1Co 11:11

1Co 7:10-14, 1Co 12:12-22; Gal 3:28

TSK: 1Co 11:12

but : 1Co 8:6; Pro 16:4; Rom 11:36; Heb 1:2, Heb 1:3

TSK: 1Co 11:13

1Co 10:15; Luk 12:57; Joh 7:24

TSK: 1Co 11:14

if : 2Sa 14:26

it is : 1Co 14:35

TSK: 1Co 11:15

covering : or, veil, 1Co 11:15

TSK: 1Co 11:16

seem : 1Ti 6:3, 1Ti 6:4

such : Act 21:21, Act 21:24

the churches : 1Co 7:17, 1Co 14:33, 1Co 14:34, 1Co 16:1; 1Th 2:14

TSK: 1Co 11:17

I praise : 1Co 11:2, 1Co 11:22; Lev 19:17; Pro 27:5; Rom 13:3; 1Pe 2:14

that ye : 1Co 11:20,1Co 11:34, 1Co 14:23, 1Co 14:26; Isa 1:13, Isa 1:14, Isa 58:1-4; Jer 7:9, Jer 7:10; Heb 10:25

TSK: 1Co 11:18

I hear : 1Co 1:10-12, 1Co 3:3, 1Co 5:1, 1Co 6:1

divisions : or, schisms, 1Co 1:10, 1Co 3:3

TSK: 1Co 11:19

there : Mat 18:7; Luk 17:1; Act 20:30; 1Ti 4:1, 1Ti 4:2; 2Pe 2:1, 2Pe 2:2

heresies : or, sects, Act 5:17, Act 15:5, Act 24:5, Act 24:14, Act 26:5, Act 28:22; Gal 5:20; Tit 3:10 *Gr.

which : Deu 13:3; Luk 2:35; 2Co 13:5-7 *Gr: 1Jo 2:19

TSK: 1Co 11:20

this is not to eat : or, ye cannot eat, 1Co 11:20

TSK: 1Co 11:21

in : 1Co 11:23-25, 1Co 10:16-18

and one : 2Pe 2:13; Jud 1:12

TSK: 1Co 11:22

have : 1Co 11:34

or : 1Co 10:32, 1Co 15:9; Act 20:28; 1Ti 3:5, 1Ti 3:15

that have not : or, that are poor, Pro 17:5; Jam 2:5, Jam 2:6

TSK: 1Co 11:23

I have : 1Co 15:3; Deu 4:5; Mat 28:20; Gal 1:1, Gal 1:11, Gal 1:12; 1Th 4:2

the same : Mat 26:2, Mat 26:17, Mat 26:34

took : Mat 26:26-28; Mar 14:22-24; Luk 22:19, Luk 22:20; Act 20:7

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Co 11:1

Be ye followers of me - Imitate my example in the matter now under discussion. As I deny myself; as I seek to give no offence to anyone; as I endeavor not to alarm the prejudices of others, but in all things to seek their salvation, so do you. This verse belongs to the previous chapter, and should not have been separated from it. It is the close of the discussion there.

Even as I also am of Christ - I make Christ my example. He is my model in all things; and if you follow him, and follow me as far as I follow him, you will not err. This is the only safe example; and if we follow this, we can never go astray.

Barnes: 1Co 11:2

Now I praise you, brethren - Paul always chose to commend Christians when it could be done, and never seemed to suppose that such praise would be injurious to them. See the note at 1Co 1:4-5. On this occasion he was the more ready to praise them as far as it could be done, because there were some things in regard to them in which he would have occasion to reprove them.

That ye remember me in all things - That you are disposed to regard my authority and seek my direction in all matters pertaining to the good order of the church. There can be little doubt that they had consulted him in their letter (1Co 7:1) about the proper manner in which a woman ought to demean herself if she was called upon, under the influence of divine inspiration, to utter anything in public. The question seems to have been, whether, since she was inspired, it was proper for her to retain the marks ef her inferiority of rank, and remain covered; or whether the fact of her inspiration did not release her from that obligation, and make it proper that she should lay aside her veil, and appear as public speakers did among people. To this the apostle refers, probably, in the phrase "all things,"that even in matters of this kind, pertaining to the good order of the church, they were disposed to regard his authority.

And keep the ordinances - Margin, "Traditions"( τὰς παραδώσεις tas paradōseis ). The word does not refer to anything that had been delivered down from a former generation, or from former times, as the word "tradition"now usually signifies; but it means that which had been "delivered to them ( παραδίδωμι paradidōmi ); that is, by the apostles."The apostles had "delivered"to them certain doctrines, or rules, respecting the good order and the government of the church; and they had in general observed them, and were disposed still to do it. For this disposition to regard his authority, and to keep what he had enjoined, he commends them. He proceeds to specify what would be proper in regard to the particular subject on which they had made inquiry.

Barnes: 1Co 11:3

But I would have you know - "I invite your attention particularly to the following considerations, in order to form a correct opinion on this subject."Paul does not at once answer the inquiry, and determine what ought to be done; but he invites their attention to a series of remarks on the subject, which led them to draw the conclusion which he wished to establish. The phrase here is designed to call the attention to the subject, like that used so often in the New Testament, "he that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

That the head ... - The word "head,"in the Scriptures, is designed often to denote "master, ruler, chief."The word ראשׁ ro'sh is often thus used in the Old Testament; see Num 17:3; Num 25:15; Deu 28:13, Deu 28:44; Jdg 10:18; Jdg 11:8, Jdg 11:11; 1Sa 15:17; 2Sa 22:44. In the New Testament the word is used in the sense of Lord, ruler, chief, in Eph 1:22; Eph 4:15; Eph 5:23; Col 2:10. Here it means that Christ is the ruler, director, or Lord of the Christian man. This truth was to be regarded in all their feelings and arrangements, and was never to be forgotten. Every Christian should recollect the relation in which he stands to him, as one that is suited to produce the strictest decorum, and a steady sense of subordination.

Of every man - Every Christian. All acknowledge Christ as their Ruler and Master. They are subject to him; and in all proper ways recognize their subordination to him.

And the head of the woman is the man - The sense is, she is subordinate to him, and in all circumstances - in her demeanor, her dress, her conversation, in public and in the family circle - should recognize her subordination to him. The particular thing here referred to is, that if the woman is inspired, and speaks or prays in public, she should by no means lay aside the usual and proper symbols of her subordination. The danger was, that those who were under the influence of inspiration would regard themselves as freed from the necessity of recognising that, and would lay aside the "veil,"the usual and appropriate symbol of their occupying a rank inferior to the man. This was often done in the temples of the pagan deities by the priestesses, and it would appear also that it had been done by Christian females in the churches.

And the head of Christ is God - Christ, as Mediator, has consented to assume a subordinate rank, and to recognize God the Father as superior in office. Hence, he was obedient in all things as a Son; he submitted to the arrangement required in redemption; he always recognized his subordinate rank as Mediator, and always regarded God as the supreme Ruler, even in the matter of redemption. The sense is, that Christ, throughout his entire work, regarded himself as occupying a subordinate station to the Father; and that it was proper from his example to recognize the propriety of rank and station everywhere.

Barnes: 1Co 11:4

Every man praying or prophesying - The word "prophesying"here means, evidently, "teaching;"or publicly speaking to the people on the subject of religion; see the note at Act 2:17. See also the subject considered more at length in the notes on 1 Cor. 14. Whether these persons who are here said to prophesy were all inspired, or claimed to be inspired, may admit of a question. The simple idea here is, that they spoke in the public assemblies, and professed to be the expounders of the divine will.

Having his head covered - With a veil, or turban, or cap, or whatever else is worn on the head. To remove the hat, the turban, or the covering of the head, is a mark of respect for a superior when in his presence.

Dishonoreth his head - Does dishonor to Christ as his head 1Co 11:2; that is, he does not, in his presence and in his service, observe the usual and proper custom by which a subordinate station is recognized, and which indicates respect for a superior. In the presence of a prince or a nobleman, it would be considered as a mark of disrespect should the head be covered. So in the presence of Christ, in whose name he ministers, it is a mark of disrespect if the head is covered. This illustration is drawn from the customs of all times and countries by which respect for a superior is indicated by removing the covering from the head. This is one reason why a man should not cover his head in public worship. Another is given in 1Co 11:7. Other interpretations of the passage may be seen in Bloomfield’ s Critical Digest.

Barnes: 1Co 11:5

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth - In the Old Testament prophetesses are not unfrequently mentioned. Thus, Miriam is mentioned Exo 15:20; Deborah Jdg 4:4; Huldah 2Ki 22:14; Noadiah Neh 6:14. So also in the New Testament Anna is mentioned as a prophetess; Luk 2:36. That there were females in the early Christian church who corresponded to those known among the Jews in some measure as endowed with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cannot be doubted. What was their precise office, and what was the nature of the public services in which they were engaged, is not however known. That they prayed is clear; and that they publicly expounded the will of God is apparent also; see the note on Act 2:17. As the presumption is, however, that they were inspired, their example is no warrant now for females to take part in the public services of worship, unless they also give evidence that they are under the influence of inspiration, and the more especially as the apostle Paul has expressly forbidden their becoming public teachers; 1Ti 2:12.

If it is now pled, from this example, that women should speak and pray in public, yet it should be just so far only as this example goes, and it should be only when they have the qualifications that the early "prophetesses"had in the Christian church. If there are any such; if any are directly inspired by God, there then will be an evident propriety that they should publicly proclaim the will, and not till then. It may be further observed, however, that the fact that Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in the church, does not prove that it was right or proper. His immediate object now was not to consider whether the practice was itself right, but to condemn the manner of its performance as a violation of all the proper rules of modesty and of subordination. On another occasion, in this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form, and enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public; 1Co 14:34.

With her head uncovered - That is, with the veil removed which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed their veils, and wore their hair disheveled, when they pretended to be under the influence of divine inspiration. This was the case with the pagan priestesses; and in so doing, the Christian women imitated them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient females, and one that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a woman should not appear in public unless she were veiled. See this proved by Lightfoot in loco.

Dishonoureth her head - Shows a lack of proper respect to man, to her husband, to her father, to the sex in general. The veil is a token of modesty and of subordinaion. It is regarded among Jews, and everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she evinces her modesty and sense of subordination. To remove that, is to remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act by which she thus shows dishonor to the man. And as it is proper that the grades and ranks of life should be recognized in a suitable manner, so it is improper that, even on pretence of religion, and of being engaged in the service of God, these marks should be laid aside.

For that is even all one as if she were shaven - As if her long hair, which nature teaches her she should wear for a veil (1Co 11:15, margin,) should be cut off. Long hair is, by the custom of the times, and of nearly all countries, a mark of the sex, an ornament of the female, and judged to be beautiful and comely. To remove that is to appear, in this respect, like the other sex, and to lay aside the badge of her own. This, says Paul, all would judge to be improper. You yourselves would not allow it. And yet to lay aside the veil - the appropriate badge of the sex, and of her sense of subordination - would be an act of the same kind. It would indicate the same feeling, the same forgetfulness of the proper sense of subordination; and if that is laid aside, all the usual indications of modesty and subordination might be removed also. Not even under religious pretences, therefore, are the usual marks of sex, and of propriety of place and rank, to be laid aside. Due respect is to be shown, in dress, and speech, and deportment, to those whom God has placed above us; and neither in language, in attire nor in habit are we to depart from what all judge to he proprieties of life, or from what God has judged and ordained to be the proper indications of the regular gradations in society.

Barnes: 1Co 11:6

For if the woman be not covered - If her head be not covered with a veil.

Let her also be shorn - Let her long hair be cut off. Let her lay aside all the usual and proper indications of her sex and rank in life. If it is done in one respect, it may with the same propriety be done in all.

But if it be a shame ... - If custom, nature, and habit; if the common and usual feelings and views among people would pronounce this to be a shame, the other would be pronounced to be a shame also by the same custom and common sense of people.

Let her be covered - With a veil. Let her wear the customary attire indicative of modesty and a sense of subordination. Let her not lay this aside even on any pretence of religion.

Barnes: 1Co 11:7

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head - That is, with a veil; or in public worship; when he approaches God, or when in His name he addresses his fellow man. It is not fit and proper that he should be covered. The reason why it is not proper, the apostle immediately states.

Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God - The phrase "the image of God"refers to the fact that man was made in the likeness of his Maker Gen 1:27; and proves that, though fallen, there is a sense in which he is still the image of God. It is not because man is truly or pure, and thus resembles his Creator; but it evidently is because he was invested by his Maker with authority and dominion; he was superior to all other creatures; Gen 1:28. This is still retained; and this the apostle evidently refers to in the passage before us, and this he says should be recognized and regarded. If he wore a veil or turban, it would be a mark of servitude or inferiority. It was therefore improper that he should appear in this manner; but he should he so clad as not to obscure or hide the great truth that he was the direct representative of God on the earth, and had a superiority to all other creatures.

And glory of God - The word "glory"in the classic writers means:

(1)    Opinion, sentiment, etc.;

(2)\caps1     f\caps0 ame, reputation.

Here it means, as it often does, splendor, brightness, or that which stands forth to "represent"God, or by which the glory of God is known. Man was created first; he had dominion given him; by him, therefore, the divine authority and wisdom first shone forth; and this fact should be recognized in the due subordination of rank, and even in the apparel and attire which shall be worn. The impression of his rank and superiority should be everywhere retained.

But the woman is the glory of the man - The honor, the ornament, etc. She was made for him; she was made after he was; she was taken from him, and was "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh."All her comeliness, loveliness, and purity are therefore an expression of his honor and dignity, since all that comeliness and loveliness were made of him and for him. This, therefore, ought to be acknowledged by a suitable manner of attire; and in his presence this sense of her inferiority of rank and subordination should be acknowledged by the customary use of the veil. She should appear with the symbol of modesty and subjection, which are implied by the head being covered This sense is distinctly expressed in the following verse.

Barnes: 1Co 11:8

For the man is not of the woman - The man was not formed from the woman.

But the woman of the man - From his side; Gen 2:18, Gen 2:22-23.

Barnes: 1Co 11:9

Neither was the man created for the woman ... - This is a simple statement of what is expressed in Genesis. The woman was made for the comfort and happiness of the man. Not to be a slave, but a help-meet; not to be the minister of his pleasures, but to be his aid and comforter in life; not to be regarded as of inferior nature and rank, but to be his friend, to divide his sorrows, and to multiply and extend his joys; yet still to be in a station subordinate to him. He is to be the head: the ruler; the presider in the family circle; and she was created to aid him in his duties, to comfort him in his afflictions, to partake with him of his pleasures. Her rank is therefore honorable, though it is subordinate. It is, in some respects, the more honorable because it is subordinate and as her happiness is dependent on him, she has the higher claim to his protection and his tender care. The whole of Paul’ s idea here is, that her situation and rank as subordinate should be recognized by her at all times, and that in his presence it was proper that she should wear the usual symbol of modesty and subordination, the veil.

Barnes: 1Co 11:10

For this cause ... - There is scarcely any passage in the Scriptures which has more exercised the ingenuity of commentators than this verse. The various attempts which have been made to explain it may be seen in Pool, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, etc. After all the explanations which have been given of it, I confess, I do not understand it. It is not difficult to see what the connection requires us to suppose in the explanation. The obvious interpretation would be, that a woman should have a veil on her head because of the angels who were supposed to be present, observing them in their public worship; and it is generally agreed that the word "power"( ἐξουσίαν exousian ) denotes a veil, or a covering for the head. But the word power does not occur in this sense in any classic writer. Bretschneider understands it of a veil, as being a defense or guard to the face, lest it should be seen by others. Some have supposed that it was the name of a female ornament that was worn on the head, formed of braids of hair set with jewels. Most commentators agree that it means a "veil,"though some think (see Bloomfield) that it is called power to denote the veil which was worn by married women, which indicated the superiority of the married woman to the maiden. But it is sufficient to say in reply to this, that the apostle is not referring to married women in contradistinction from those who are unmarried, but is showing that all women who prophecy or pray in public should be veiled. There can, perhaps, be no doubt that the word "power"has reference to a veil, or to a covering for the head; but why it is called power I confess I do not understand; and most of the comments on the word are, in my view, egregious trifling.

Because of the angels - Some have explained this of good angels, who were supposed to be present in their assemblies (see Doddridge); others refer it to evil angels; and others to messengers or spies who, it has been supposed, were present in their public assemblies, and who would report greatly to the disadvantage of the Christian assemblies if the women were seen to be unveiled. I do not know what it means; and I regard it as one of the very few pass ages in the Bible whose meaning as yet is wholly inexplicable. The most natural interpretation seems to me to be this: "A woman in the public assemblies, and in speaking in the presence of people, should wear a veil - the usual symbol of modesty and subordination - because the angels of God are witnesses of your public worship Heb 1:13, and because they know and appreciate the propriety of subordination and order in public assemblies."

According to this, it would mean that the simple reason would be that the angels were witnesses of their worship; and that they were the friends of propriety, due subordination, and order; and that they ought to observe these in all assemblies convened for the worship of God - I do not know that this sense has been proposed by any commentator; but it is one which strikes me as the most obvious and natural, and consistent with the context. The following remarks respecting the ladies of Persia may throw some light on this subject - "The head-dress of the women is simple; their hair is drawn behind the head, and divided into several tresses; the beauty of this head-dress consists in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall even down to the heels, in default of which, they lengthen them with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver. The head is covered, "under"the veil or kerchief "(course chef),"only by the end of a small "bandeau,"shaped into a triangle; this "bandeau,"which is of various colors, is thin and light.

The "bandalette"is embroidered by the needle, or covered with jewelry, according to the quality of the wearer. This is, in, my opinion, the ancient "tiara,"or "diadem,"of the queens of Persia. Only married women wear it; and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection "( o c’ est la la marque a laquelle on reconnoit qu’ elles sont sous puissance o - power)."The girls have little "caps,"instead of this kerchief or tiara; they wear no veil at home, but let two tresses of their hair fall under their cheeks. The caps of girls of superior rank are tied with a row of pearls. Girls are not shut up in Persia till they attain the age of six or seven years; before that age they go out of the seraglio, sometimes with their father, so that they may then be seen. I have seen some wonderfully pretty girls. They show the neck and bosom; and more beautiful cannot be seen"- Chardin. "The wearing of a veil by a married woman was a token of her being under power. The Hebrew name of the veil signifies dependence. Great importance was attached to this part of the dress in the East. All the women of Persia are pleasantly apparelled. When they are abroad in the streets, all, both rich and poor, are covered with a great veil, or sheet of very fine white cloth, of which one half, like a forehead cloth, comes down to the eyes, and, going over the head, reaches down to the heels; and the other half muffles up the face below the eyes, and being fastened with a pin to the left side of the head, falls down to their very shoes, even covering their hands, with which they hold that cloth by the two sides, so that, except the eyes, they are covered all over with it. Within doors they have their faces and breasts uncovered; but the Armenian women in their houses have always one half of their faces covered with a cloth, that goes athwart their noses, and hangs over their chin and breasts, except the maids of that nation, who, within doors, cover only the chin until they are married"- Thevenot.

Barnes: 1Co 11:11

Nevertheless - Lest the man should assume to himself too much superiority, and lest he should regard the woman as made solely for his pleasure, and should treat her as in all respects inferior, and withhold the respect that is due to her. The design of this verse and the following is to show, that the man and woman are united in the most tender interests; that the one cannot live comfortably without the other; that one is necessary to the happiness of the other; and that though the woman was formed from the man, yet it is also to be remembered that the man is descended from the woman. She should therefore be treated with proper respect, tenderness, and regard.

Neither is the man without the woman ... - The man and the woman were formed for union and society. They are not in any respect independent of each other. One is necessary to the comfort of the other; and this fact should be recognized in all their contact.

In the Lord - By the arrangements or direction of the Lord. It is the appointment and command of the Lord that they should be mutual helps, and should each regard and promote the welfare of the other.

Barnes: 1Co 11:12

As the woman is of the man - In the original creation, she was formed from the man.

So is the man also by the woman - Is born of the woman, or descended from her. The sexes are dependent on each other, and should therefore cultivate an indissoluble union.

But all things of God - All things were created and arranged by 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 improper superiority, since the whole arrangement and appointment is of God.

Barnes: 1Co 11:13

Judge in yourselves - Or, "Judge among yourselves."I appeal to you. I appeal to your natural sense of what is proper and right. Paul had used various arguments to show them the impropriety of their females speaking unveiled in public. He now appeals to their natural sense of what was decent and right, according to established and acknowledged customs and habits.

Is it comely ... - Is it decent, or becoming? The Grecian women, except their priestesses, were accustomed to appear in public with a veil - Doddridge. Paul alludes to that established and proper habit, and asks whether it does not accord with their own views of propriety that women in Christian assemblies should also wear the same symbol of modesty.

Barnes: 1Co 11:14

Doth not even nature itself - The word nature ( φύσις phusis ) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among people. Thus, we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war - the duties of office, of government and of professional life, should be discharged by people. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it. The word in this place, therefore, does not mean the constitution of the sexes, as Locke, Whitby, and Pierce maintain; nor reason and experience, as Macknight supposes; nor simple use and custom, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, and most recent expositors suppose; but it refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right; a sense which is expressed extensively in all nations. showing what that sense is.

No reason can be given, in the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the man not; but the custom prevails extensively everywhere, and nature, in all nations, has prompted to the same course. "Use is second nature;"but the usage in this case is not arbitrary, but is founded in an anterior universal sense of what is proper and right. A few, and only a few, have regarded it as comely for a man to wear his hair long. Aristotle tells us, indeed (Rhet. 1: - see Rosenmuller), that among the Lacedemonians, freemen wore their hair long. In the time of Homer, also, the Greeks were called by him καρηκομόωντες Ἀχαῖοι karēkomoōntes Achaioi , long-haired Greeks; and some of the Asiatic nations adopted the same custom. But the general habit among people has been different. Among the Hebrews, it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his hair long, except he had a vow as a Nazarite, Num 6:1-5; Jdg 13:5; Jdg 16:17; 1Sa 1:11. Occasionally, for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow, as was the case with Absalom 2Sa 14:26; but the traditional law of the Jews on the subject was strict. The same rule existed among the Greeks; and it was regarded as disgraceful to wear long hair in the time of Aelian; Hist. lib. 9:c. 14. Eustath. on Hom. 2:v.

It is a shame unto him? - It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the female sex.

Barnes: 1Co 11:15

It is a glory unto her - It is an ornament, and adorning. The same instinctive promptings of nature which make it proper for a man to wear short hair, make it proper that the woman should suffer hers to grow long.

For a covering - Margin, "veil."It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil. It answered the purposes of a veil when it was allowed to grow long, and to spread over the shoulders and ever parts of the face, before the arts of dress were invented or needed. There may also be an allusion here to the fact that the hair of women naturally grows longer than that of men. See Rosenmuller. The value which eastern females put on their long hair may be learned from the fact that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his queen Berenice vowed, as the most precious sacrifice which she could make, to cut off and consecrate her hair if he returned in safety. "The eastern ladies,"says Harmer, "are remarkable for the length and the great number of the tresses of their hair. The men there, on the contrary, wear very little hair on their heads."Lady M. W. Montague thus speaks concerning the hair of the women:"Their hair hangs at full length behind, divided into tresses, braided with pearl or riband, which is always in great quantity. I never saw in my life so many fine heads of hair. In one lady’ s I have counted one hundred and ten of these tresses, all natural; but it must be owned that every kind of beauty is more common here than with us."The men there, on the contrary, shave all the hair off their heads, excepting one lock; and those that wear hair are thought effeminate. Both these particulars are mentioned by Chardin, who says they are agreeable to the custom of the East: "the men are shaved; the women nourish their hair with great fondness, which they lengthen, by tresses and tufts of silk, down to the heels. The young men who wear their hair in the East are looked upon as effeminate and infamous."

Barnes: 1Co 11:16

But if any man seem to be contentious - The sense of this passage is probably this: "If any man, any teacher, or others, "is disposed"to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in public, I would add that in Judea we have no such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the churches. This, therefore, would be a sufficient reason why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would offend the prejudices of many and should, therefore, be avoided."

We have no such custom - We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.

Neither the churches of God - The churches elsewhere. It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.

Barnes: 1Co 11:17

Now in this that I declare - In this that I am about to state to you; to wit, your conduct in regard to the Lord’ s Supper. Why this subject is introduced here is not very apparent. The connection may be this. In the subjects immediately preceding he had seen much to commend, and he was desirous of commending them as far as it could be done. In 1Co 11:2 of this chapter he commends them in general for their regard to the ordinances which he had appointed when he was with them. But while he thus commended them, he takes occasion to observe that there was one subject on which he could not employ the language of approval or praise. Of their irregularities in regard to the Lord’ s supper he had probably heard by rumor, and as the subject was of great importance, and their irregularities gross and deplorable, he takes occasion to state to them again more fully the nature of that ordinance, and to reprove them for the manner in which they had celebrated it.

That ye come together - You assemble for public worship.

Not for the better, but for the worse - Your meetings, and your observance of the ordinances of the gospel, do not promote your edification, your piety, spirituality, and harmony; but tend to division, alienation, and disorder. You should assemble to worship God, and promote harmony, love, and piety; the actual effect of your assembling is just the reverse. In what way this was done he states in the following verses. These evil consequences were chiefly two, first, divisions and contentions; and, secondly, the abuse and profanation of the Lord’ s Supper.

Barnes: 1Co 11:18

For first of all - That is, I mention as the first thing to be reproved.

When ye come together in the church - When you come together in a religious assembly; when you convene for public worship. The word "church"here does not mean, as it frequently does with us, a "building."No instance of such a use of the word occurs in the New Testament; but it means when they came together as a Christian assembly; when they convened for the worship of God. These divisions took place then; and from some cause which it seems then operated to produce alienations and strifes.

I hear - I have learned through some members of the family of Chloe; 1Co 1:11.

That there be divisions among you - Greek, as in the margin, Schisms. The word properly means a rent, such as is made in cloth Mat 9:16; Mar 2:21, and then a division, a split, a faction among people; Joh 7:43; Joh 9:10; Joh 10:19. It does not mean here that they had proceeded so far as to form separate churches, but that there was discord and division in the church itself; see the notes on 1Co 1:10-11.

And I partly believe it - I credit a part of the reports; I have reason to think, that, though the evil may have been exaggerated, yet that it is true at least in part. I believe that there are dissensions in the church that should be reproved.

Barnes: 1Co 11:19

For there must be - It is necessary ( δεῖ dei ); it is to he expected; there are reasons why there should be. What these reasons are he states in the close of the verse; compare Mat 18:7; 2Pe 2:1; 2Pe 2:2. The meaning is, not that divisions are inseparable from the nature of the Christian religion, not that it is the design and wish of the Author of Christianity that they should exist, and not that they are physically impossible, for then they could not be the subject of blame; but that such is human nature, such are the corrupt passions of men, the propensity to ambition and strifes, that they are to be expected, and they serve the purpose of showing who are, and who are not, the true friends of God.

Heresies - Margin, "Sects."Greek Αἱρεσεις Haireseis see the note at Act 24:14. The words "heresy"and "heresies"occur only in these places, and in Gal 5:20; 2Pe 2:1. The Greek word occurs also in Act 5:17 (translated "sect"); Act 15:5; Act 24:5; Act 26:5; Act 28:22, in all which places it denotes, and is translated, "sect."We now attach to the word usually the idea of a fundamental error in religion, or some "doctrine"the holding of which will exclude from salvation. But there is no evidence that the word is used in this signification in the New Testament. The only place where it can be supposed to be so used, unless this is one, is in Gal 5:20, where, however, the word "contentions"or "divisions,"would be quite as much in accordance with the connection. That the word here does not denote error in doctrine, but schism, division, or "sects,"as it is translated in the margin, is evident from two considerations:

(1) It is the proper philological meaning of the word, and its established and common signification in the Bible.

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 t is the sense which the connection here demands. The apostle had made no reference to error of doctrine, but is discoursing solely of "irregularity"in "conduct;"and the first thing which he mentions, is, that there were schisms, divisions, strifes. The idea that the word here refers to "doctrines"would by no means suit the connection, and would indeed make nonsense. It would then read, "I hear that there are divisions or parties among you, and this I cannot commend you for. For it must he expected that there would be "fundamental errors of doctrine"in the church."But Paul did not reason in this manner. The sense is, "There are divisions among you. It is to be expected: there are causes for it; and it cannot he avoided that there should be, in the present state of human nature, divisions and sects formed in the church; and this is to be expected in order that those who are true Christians should be separated from those who are not."The foundation of this necessity is not in the Christian religion itself, for that is pure, and contemplates and requires union; but the existence of sects, and denominations, and contentious may be traced to the following causes:

(1) The love of power and popularity. Religion may be made the means of power; and they who have the control of the consciences of people, and of their religious feelings and opinions, can control them altogether.

\caps1 (2) s\caps0 howing more respect to a religious teacher than to Christ; see Notes on 1Co 1:12.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 he multiplication of tests, and the enlargement of creeds and confessions of faith. The consequence is, that every new doctrine that is incorporated into a creed gives occasion for those to separate who cannot accord with it.

\caps1 (4) t\caps0 he passions of people - their pride, and ambition, and bigotry, and unenlightened zeal. Christ evidently meant that his church should be one; and that all who were his true followers should be admitted to her communion, and acknowledged everywhere as his own friends. And the time may yet come when this union shall be restored to his long distracted church, and that while there may be an honest difference of opinion maintained and allowed, still the bonds of Christian love shall secure union of "heart"in all who love the Lord Jesus, and union of "effort"in the grand enterprise in which all can unite - that of making war upon sin, and securing the conversion of the whole world to God.

That they which are approved - That they who are approved of God, or who are his true friends, and who are disposed to abide by his laws.

May be made manifest - May be known; recognized; seen. The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God. The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in all divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held, and where the corruption of the mass does not require separation, such divisions show who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are indisposed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation; see Rom 16:17, "Mark them which cause divisions, and avoid them."

Barnes: 1Co 11:20

When ye come together therefore ... - When you are assembled as a church, compare Heb 10:25, and see the note on Act 2:1. Christians were constantly in the habit of assembling for public worship. It is probable that at this early period all the Christians in Corinth were accustomed to meet in the same place. The apostle here particularly refers to their "assembling"to observe the ordinance of the Lord’ s Supper. At that early period it is probable that this was done on every Lord’ s Day.

This is not ... - Margin, "Ye cannot eat."The meaning of this expression seems to be this. "Though you come together professedly to worship God, and to partake of the Lord’ s Supper, yet this cannot be the real design which you have in view. It cannot be that such practices as are allowed among you can be a part of the celebration of that supper, or consistent with it. Your greediness 1Co 11:21; your intemperance 1Co 11:21; your partaking of the food separately and not in common, cannot be a celebration of the Lord’ s Supper. Whatever, therefore, you may profess to be engaged in, yet really and truly you are not celebrating the Lord’ s Supper."

The Lord’ s supper - That which the Lord Jesus instituted to commemorate his death. It is called "the Lord’ s,"because it is his appointment, and is in honor of him; it is called "supper"( δεῖπνον deipnon ), because the word denotes the evening repast; it was instituted in the evening; and it is evidently most proper that it should be observed in the after part of the day. With most churches the time is improperly changed to the morning - a custom which has no sanction in the New Testament; and which is a departure from the very idea of a supper.

Barnes: 1Co 11:21

For in eating - When you eat, having professedly come together to observe this ordinance. In order to understand this, it seems necessary to suppose that they had in some way made the Lord’ s supper either connected with a common feast, or that they regarded it as a mere common festival to be observed in a way similar to the festivals among the Greeks. Many have supposed that this was done by making the observance of the supper follow a festival, or what were afterward called "love feasts" ἀγάπαι agapai - "Agapae"). Many have supposed that that custom was derived from the fact that the Saviour instituted the supper after a festival, a feast in which he had been engaged with his disciples, and that thence the early Christians derived the custom of observing such a festival, or common meal, before they celebrated the Lord’ s Supper. But it may be observed, that the passover was not a mere preliminary festival, or feast.

It had no resemblance to the so called love feasts. It was itself a religious ordinance; a direct appointment of God; and was never regarded as designed to be preliminary to the observance of the Lord’ s Supper, but was always understood as designed to be superseded by that. Besides, I know not that there is the slightest evidence, as has been often supposed, that the observance of the Lord’ s Supper was preceded, in the times of the apostles, by such a festival as a love feast. There is no evidence in the passage before us; nor is any adduced from any other part of the New Testament. To my mind it seems altogether improbable that the disorders in Corinth would assume this form - that they would first observe a common feast, and then the Lord’ s Supper in the regular manner. The statement before us leads to the belief that all was irregular and improper; that they had entirely mistaken the nature of the ordinance, and had converted it into an occasion of ordinary festivity, and even intemperance; that they had come to regard it as a feast in honor of the Saviour on some such principles as they observed feasts in honor of idols, and that they observed it in some such manner; and that all that was supposed to make it unlike those festivals was, that it was in honor of Jesus rather than an idol, and was to be observed with some reference to his authority and name.

Everyone taketh before other his own supper - That is, each one is regardless of the needs of the others; instead of making even a meal in common, and when all could partake together, each one ate by himself, and ate that which he had himself brought. They had not only erred, therefore, by misunderstanding altogether the nature of the Lord’ s supper, and by supposing that it was a common festival like those which they had been accustomed to celebrate; but they had also entirely departed from the idea that it was a festival to be partaken of in common, and at a common table. It had become a scene where every man ate by himself; and where the very idea that there was anything like a "common"celebration, or a celebration "together,"was abandoned. There is allusion here, doubtless, to what was a custom among the Greeks, that when a festival was celebrated, or a feast made, it was common for each person to provide, and carry a part of the things necessary for the entertainment. These were usually placed in common, and were partaken of alike by all the company. Thus, Xenophon (Mem. lib. 3:cap. xiv.) says of Socrates, that he was much offended with the Athenians for their conduct at their common suppers, where some prepared for themselves in a delicate and sumptuous manner, while others were poorly provided for. Socrates endeavored, he adds, to shame them out of this indecent custom by offering his provisions to all the company.

And one is hungry - Is deprived of food. It is all monopolized by others.

And another is drunken - The word used here ( μεθύω methuō ) means properly to become inebriated, or intoxicated; and there is no reason for understanding it here in any other sense. There can be no doubt that the apostle meant to say, that they ate and drank to excess; and that their professed celebration of the Lord’ s Supper became a mere revel. It may seem remarkable that such scenes should ever have occurred in a Christian church, or that there could have been such an entire perversion of the nature and design of the Lord’ s Supper. But we are to remember the following things:

(1) These persons had recently been pagans, and were grossly ignorant of the nature of true religion when the gospel was first preached among them.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hey had been accustomed to such revels in honor of idols under their former modes of worship, and it is the less surprising that they transferred their views to Christianity.

\caps1 (3) w\caps0 hen they had once so far misunderstood the nature of Christianity as to suppose the Lord’ s Supper to be like the feasts which they had formerly celebrated, all the rest followed as a matter of course. The festival would be observed in the same manner as the festivals in honor of idolaters; and similar scenes of gluttony and intemperance would naturally follow.

\caps1 (4) w\caps0 e are to bear in mind, also, that they do not seem to have been favored with pious, wise, and prudent teachers.

There were false teachers; and there were those who prided themselves on their wisdom, and who were self-confident, and who doubtless endeavored to model the Christian institutions according to their own views; and they thus brought them, as far as they could, to a conformity with pagan customs and idolatrous rites, We may remark here:

(1) We are not to expect perfection at once among a people recently converted from paganism.

\caps1 (2) w\caps0 e see how prone people are to abuse even the most holy rites of religion, and hence, how corrupt is human nature.

\caps1 (3) w\caps0 e see that even Christians, recently converted, need constant guidance and superintendence; and that if left to themselves they soon, like others, fall into gross and scandalous offences.

Barnes: 1Co 11:22

What! - This whole verse is designed to convey the language of severe rebuke for their having so grossly perverted the design of the Lord’ s Supper.

Have ye not houses ... - Do you not know that the church of God is not designed to be a place of feasting and revelry; nor even a place where to partake of your ordinary meals? Can it be, that you will come to the places of public worship, and make them the scenes of feasting and riot? Even on the supposition that there had been no disorder; no revelry; no intemperance; yet on every account it was grossly irregular and disorderly to make the place of public worship a place for a festival entertainment.

Or despise ye the church of God - The phrase "church of God"Grotius understands of the place. But the word church ( ἐκκλησία ekklēsia ) is believed not to be used in that sense in the New Testament; and it is not necessary to suppose it here. The sense is, that their conduct was such as if they had held in contempt the whole church of God, in all places, with all their views of the sacredness and purity of the Lord’ s supper.

And shame them that have not - Margin, "Are poor."Something must here be understood in order to make out the sense. Probably it meant something like "possessions, property, conveniences, accomodations."The connection would make it most natural to understand "houses to eat and drink in;"and the sense then would be, "Do you thus expose to public shame those who have no accommodations at home; who are destitute and poor? You thus reflect publicly upon their poverty and want, while you bring your own provisions and fare sumptuously, and while those who are thus unable to provide for themselves are thus seen to be poor and needy."It is hard enough, the idea is, to be poor, and to be destitute of a home. But it greatly aggravates the matter to be "publicly treated"in that manner; to be exposed publicly to the contempt which such a situation implies. Their treatment of the poor in this manner would be a public exposing them to shame; and the apostle regarded this as particularly dishonorable, and especially in a Christian church, where all were professedly on an equality.

What shall I say to you? ... - How shall I sufficiently express my surprise at this, and my disapprobation at this course? It cannot be possible that this is right. It is not possible to conceal surprise and amazement that this custom exists, and is tolerated in a Christian church.

Barnes: 1Co 11:23

For ... - In order most effectually to check the evils which existed, and to bring them to a proper mode of observing the Lord’ s Supper, the apostle proceeds to state distinctly and particularly its design. They had mistaken its nature. They supposed it might be a common festival. They had made it the occasion of great disorder. He therefore adverts to the solemn circumstances in which it was instituted; the particular object which it had in view - the commemoration of the death of the Redeemer, and the purpose which it was designed to subserve, which was not that of a festival, but to keep before the church and the world a constant remembrance of the Lord Jesus until he should again return, 1Co 11:26. By this means the apostle evidently hoped to recall them from their irregularities, and to bring them to a just mode of celebrating this holy ordinance. He did not, therefore, denounce them even for their irregularity and gross disorder; he did not use harsh, violent, vituperative language, but he expected to reform the evil by a mild and tender statement of the truth, and by an appeal to their consciences as the followers of the Lord Jesus.

I have received of the Lord - This cannot refer to tradition, or mean that it had been communicated to him through the medium of the other apostles; but the whole spirit and scope of the passage seems to mean that he had derived the knowledge of the institution of the Lord’ s supper "directly"from the Lord himself. This might have been when on the road to Damascus, though that does not seem probable, or it may have been among the numerous revelations which at various times had been made to him; compare 2Co 12:7. The reason why he here says that he had received it directly from the Lord is, doubtless, that he might show them that it was of divine authority. "The institution to which I refer is what I myself received an account of "from personal and direct communication with the Lord Jesus himself, who appointed it."It is not, therefore, of human authority. It is not of my devising, but is of divine warrant, and is holy in its nature, and is to be observed in the exact manner prescribed by the Lord himself."

That which also I delivered ... - Paul founded the church at Corinth; and of course he first instituted the observance of the Lord’ s Supper there.

The same night in which he was betrayed - By Judas; see Mat 26:23-25, Mat 26:48-50. Paul seems to have mentioned the fact that it was on the very night on which he was betrayed, in order to throw around it the idea of greater solemnity. He wished evidently to bring before their minds the deeply affecting circumstances of his death; and thus to show them the utter impropriety of their celebrating the ordinance with riot and disorder, The idea is, that in order to celebrate it in a proper manner, it was needful "to throw themselves as much as possible into the very circumstances in which it was instituted;"and one of these circumstances most suited to affect the mind deeply was the fact that he was betrayed by a professed friend and follower. It is also a circumstance the memory of which is eminently suited to prepare the mind for a proper celebration of the ordinance now.

Took bread - Evidently the bread which was used at the celebration of the paschal supper. He took the bread which happened to be before him - such as was commonly used. It was not a "wafer"such as the papists now use; but was the ordinary bread which was eaten on such occasions; see the note on Mat 26:26.

Poole: 1Co 11:1

1Co 11:3-16 Paul exhorteth the Corinthians to follow him, as he

did Christ:

1. He praiseth them for observing the rules he had

given them.

2. And forbiddeth men to pray or prophesy with heads

covered, and women with heads uncovered; the

covering of the head being a token of subjection.

1Co 11:17-19 He blameth them for abuses in their religious

assemblies, particularly for their divisions,

1Co 11:20-22 and profanation of the Lord’ s supper.

1Co 11:23-34 He remindeth them of the first institution thereof,

and showeth the danger of partaking of it unworthily.

Interpreters judge, that these words do properly belong to the foregoing chapter, in the last verse of which he had propounded his own example to them; but whether they be applied to that chapter or this, is not much material. They teach us, that the examples of the apostles are part of our rule; yet the modesty of the apostle is remarkable, who requires of his people no further to follow him than as he followed Christ: nor indeed ought any man to require more of those that are under his charge, than to follow him so far forth as he imitates the Lord Jesus Christ.

Poole: 1Co 11:2

That ye remember me in all things that you remember my doctrine, the precepts and instructions that I gave you;

and keep the ordinances: so we translate it; the Greek word is paradoseiv . The word signifieth any thing that is doctrinally delivered, or taught men, whether it concerns faith or manners. It is thought, that in this text it doth not signify what the apostle had delivered to them with respect to faith, or their moral conversation, but with respect to matters of order, because such is the next instance which the apostle mentioneth, about praying or prophesying with the head covered, or uncovered; and undoubtedly any precepts of that nature from one guided by an infallible Spirit ought to be observed. The apostle doth not command them to keep any traditions, which others should to the end of the world deliver to them, he only praiseth them for keeping those which he had delivered. There is a great question between us and the papists, about the obligation that lieth upon Christians to observe unwritten traditions; that is, such rites and observances as they tell us were apostolical, and the traditions of the primitive church, though they can show us no Scripture for them; but no Christian disputes his obligation to keep apostolical traditions; only we are at a loss to know how to prove those traditions apostolical, of which we find nothing in the writings of the apostles: it is praiseworthy to keep apostolical traditions; but for others, or such as do not appear to us to be so, it is but a work of supererogation: where hath God required any such thing at people’ s hands?

Poole: 1Co 11:3

The abuse which the apostle is reflecting upon in this and the following verses, is women’ s praying or prophesying with their heads uncovered, against which the apostle strongly argues. His argument seems to be this: That the woman in religious services ought to behave herself as a person in subjection to her husband, and accordingly to use such a gesture, as, according to the guise and custom of that country, testified such a subjection; to this purpose he tells us in this verse,

that the head of every man is Christ Christ, considered as God according to his Divine nature, is the Head of all men and women too in the world; but the text seemeth rather to speak of Christ as Mediator: so the apostle tells us, Eph 5:23 , he is

the Head of the church and the New Testament often speaks of Christ in that notion, and of believers as his members: in this sense, by every man, we must understand no more than every Christian, every member of the church.

The head of the woman is the man the man is called the head of the woman, because by God’ s ordinance he is to rule over her, Gen 3:16 ; he hath an excellency above the woman, and a power over her.

The head of Christ is God and God is the Head of Christ, not in respect of his essence and Divine nature, but in respect of his office as Mediator; as the man is the head of the woman, not in respect of a different and more excellent essence and nature, (for they are both of the same nature), but in respect of office and place, as God hath set him over the woman. Nor indeed could those who deny the Divine nature of Christ, easily have brought a text more against their own assertion, than this, which rather proveth, that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are equal in nature and essence, than different; for surely the head is not of a different, but the same nature and essence with the members. Nor doth Christ’ s subjection to his Father at all argue an inequality, or difference from him in nature and essence, more than the subjection of subjects to a prince argue any such thing. The apostle then determines this to be the order which God hath set: God is the Head of Christ; Christ is the Head of his church, and every one that is a member of it; and man is the head of the woman, he to whom the woman ought to be subject. as the church is subject to Christ, and Christ is subject to his Father; and from hence he argues as follows.

Poole: 1Co 11:4

By every man praying or prophesying some (amongst whom the learned Beza) understand not only he that ministereth in prayer, or in opening and applying the Scriptures, whether from a previous meditation and study of them, or from the extraordinary revelation of the Holy Spirit, which they had in those primitive times; but also all those that were present at those actions. The reason they give is: Because the reason given by the apostle for his assertion, is such as is common to the people, as well as to him that ministereth; and the woman was forbidden to speak in the church, 1Ti 2:12 . But our learned Bishop Hall assures us, he cannot agree with those of this mind. And indeed it is an unreasonable interpretation; for though those who join with others in prayer may be said to pray, yet those that hear one preaching or expounding Scripture, can in no propriety of speech be said to prophesy. Nor is any such usage of the term to be paralleled, neither are the reasons they bring cogent; for though the reason of the precept may concern the people as well as the minister, yet it doth not follow that the rule or precept must necessarily do so too. And although the woman be forbidden to teach in ordinary cases, yet it did not concern those who were immediately and extraordinarily inspired, according to the prophecy, Joe 2:28 , applied, Act 2:17 .

Having his head covered i.e. with a hat or cap, or such covering of the head as is in use in the country wherein he liveth. It is not to be understood of the natural covering of the head, which is our hair; nor yet of any other covering which is necessary for the preservation of life and health; but such a covering as he might spare, and is ornamental to him according to the fashion of the country.

Dishonoureth his head either dishonoureth Christ who is his Head, and whom he ought to represent, and doth as it were make the church the head to Christ, which is subject to him, while by covering his head he declares a subjection in his ministration. Or he dishonoureth his own head, (so many interpret it), to wit, he betrayeth his superiority, lesseneth himself as to that power and dignity which God hath clothed him with, by using a posture which is a token of inferiority and subjection. Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses are to be interpreted from the customs of countries; and all that can be concluded from this verse is, that it is the duty of men employed in Divine ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, behaving themselves with a just authority and gravity that becometh his ambassadors, which decent gravity is to be judged from the common opinion and account of the country wherein they live. So as all which this text requires of Christian ministers, is authority and gravity, and what are external ludications of it. Our learned Dr. Lightfoot observeth, that the Jewish priests were wont in the worship of God to veil their heads; so that Christian ministers praying or prophesying with their heads covered, Judaized, which he judgeth the reason of the apostle’ s assertion. The heathens also, both Romans and Grecians, were wont to minister in their sacred things with their heads covered. Some think this was the reason why the Christians used the contrary gesture; but the apostle’ s arguing from the man’ s headship, seemeth to import that the reason of this assertion of the apostle was, because in Corinth the uncovered head was a sign of authority. At this day the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The custom with us in these western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: hence ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ: but yet this custom is not uniform, for in France the Reformed ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered, to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered, as representing Christ, the great Teacher, from whom they derive, and whom they represent. Nothing in this is a further rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only the general observation of decency (which cannot by any be created, but ariseth either from nature, or custom, and prescription) which this text of the apostle maketh to be the duty of all Christians; though as to the Corinthians, he particularly required the man’ s ministering in sacred things with his head uncovered, either to avoid the habit or posture used by Jews and pagans; or for the showing of his dignity and superiority over the woman, (whom we shall by and by find commanded to pray or prophesy covered), or that he represented Christ who was the Head of the church. The uncovering of the head being with them as much a sign of subjection, as it is with us of superiority and pre-eminence.

Poole: 1Co 11:5

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth: though the woman be forbidden to teach, and commanded to be in silence, 1Ti 2:12 ; yet that text must be understood of ordinary women, and in ordinary cases, not concerning such as prophesied from an extraordinary impulse or motion of the Spirit. We read of women prophetesses both in the Old and New Testament; such was Huldah in Josiah’ s time, and Anna, of whom we read Luk 2:36 ; and we read that Philip

had four daughters that did prophesy Act 21:9 .

With her head uncovered: the uncovered head here (as before) must signify not covered with some artificial covering, such as our quoifs, hats, hoods, or veils, &c., or with her own hair, not hanging loose, but artificially used so as to be a covering.

Dishonoureth her head dishonoureth either her husband, who is her political or economical head, for by that habit she behaveth herself as if she were not one in subjection, and seemeth to usurp an undue authority over the man; or her natural head, it being in those places accounted an immodest thing for a woman to appear in public uncovered. It is observed of Rebekah, when she met Isaac, Gen 24:65 : She took a veil, and covered herself. For that is even all one as if she were shaven; for, saith the apostle, yourselves would judge it an uncomely thing for a woman to be shaven; now to pray or to prophesy with the head uncovered, is all one. This last clause will incline us to think, that by the uncovered head in this verse, is not only to be understood uncovered with some other covering besides her hair, but with her hair dishevelled, hanging loose at its length, for else it is not all one to have the head uncovered with a hat, or hood, or quoif, and to be shaven; for the apostle afterward saith, 1Co 11:15 , her hair is given to her for a covering or a veil: so that possibly that which the apostle here reflecteth upon, is women’ s coming into the public assemblies with their hair hanging loosely down, and not decently wound up so as to make a covering for the head; which, we are told, was the practice of those beastly she-priests of Bacchus, who, like frantic persons, performed those pretendedly religious rites with their hair so hanging loose, and were called manades, because they behaved themselves more like mad persons than such as were in the actual use of their reason: something like which, it is most probable, some women in the Christian church at Corinth affected, against which the apostle here argueth.

Poole: 1Co 11:6

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: nature itself teacheth, that it is a shameful sight to see a woman revealing the mind and will of God, by an extraordinary pretended revelation, in so indecent a manner, as with her hair all hanging down; let her hair be either shaven off, or at least cut after the manner of men’ s hair, if she will neither tie it up artificially, so as to make it a covering for her head, nor put on a veil to cover her: for though a woman prophesying from an extraordinary impulse, be not under the common law of women not speaking in the public assembly, but keeping silence; yet she is under the law of nature to do no such grave and solemn actions in such a rude manner, that from the light of nature, or the common account of all that live in that place, she should be judged to be irreverent and brutish in her religious action. From this text a question hath been started: Whether Christian women may lawfully go without any other covering upon their heads than their hair? I must confess, I see not how such a question can have any bottom in this text, where the apostle is not speaking of women’ s ordinary habiting themselves, but only when they prayed and prophesied, and (if I mistake not) when they ministered in prayer and prophecy (as was said before). We now have no such prophetesses; so as I think that question about the lawfulness of women’ s going without any other covering upon their heads than their hair, must be determined from other texts, not this, and is best determined from circumstances; for God having given to the woman her hair for a covering and an ornament, I cannot see how it should be simply unlawful; accidentally it may, from the circumstances of pride in her heart that so dresseth herself, or lust and wantonness in others’ hearts; or other circumstances of ill designs and intentions in the woman so dressing herself.

But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered if nature teacheth us that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, it also teacheth us that it is a shame for her to be uncovered, either with her hair, or some artificial covering; which latter seemeth rather to be meant in this place, because divines think, that the face is that part of the head which the apostle here intendeth should be covered in their religious actions, which is not covered with the hair, but with a veil, &c.

Poole: 1Co 11:7

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head covering the head being in those countries a token of subjection, a man ought to uphold the power, pre-eminence, and authority with which God hath invested him, and not to cover his head, further than it is naturally covered with hair.

Forasmuch as he is the image and glory, of God because he hath a peculiar cause of glorying in God, as he to whom alone he is subject, and therefore ought by no habits or postures to show himself in subjection to others: or because God glorieth in him, as a most excellent piece of his workmanship: God is represented in man. Paul useth to call that one’ s glory wherein he glorieth, 2Co 1:12,14 1Th 2:20 . So David ealleth God his glory and Solomon tells us, Pro 17:6 , that the glory of children are their fathers. So as the apostle here useth a double argument for the man’ s not covering of his head:

1. Because the man is immediately subject to God, and therefore ought not by any habits, or civil rites, to show his natural subjection to men, that are not by nature his superiors (for we must not think, that the apostle by this argument forbiddeth subjection to natural, economical, or political superiors).

2. Because God glorieth in man.

But the woman is the glory of the man created for the honour of the man, and for his help and assistance, and originally made out of man, so as man may glory of her, as Adam did of Eve, Gen 2:23 ,

This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh The glory of God ought to be revealed and uncovered, manifested to all: the glory of the man ought to be hidden and concealed.

Poole: 1Co 11:8

Here the apostle openeth or proveth what he had before said of the woman’ s being the glory of the man; the woman was made of the man; the man was not made of a rib taken out of the woman, but the woman was made of a rib taken out of the man; we have the history, Gen 2:21,22 ; and from hence the apostle argueth her subjection to the man.

Poole: 1Co 11:9

We have this expounded, Gen 2:18 , where God said: It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him God did not first create the woman, and then make man a meet help for her; but he first made the man, and then the woman, that she might be a meet help for him. Now it is a rule in reason: That whosoever or whatsoever is made for another person or thing, is less excellent than that person or thing for which the other is made.

For the man signifies to serve and help the man.

Poole: 1Co 11:10

By power on her head is here to be understood (as some think) a covering on her head, in sign that she is under the power of her husband: the thing signified is here put for the sign, as the sign is often put for the thing signified. Thus the ark, which is called, the ark of God’ s strength, Psa 132:8 , is itself called his strength, 1Ch 16:11 . But others here by head do not understand the woman’ s natural head, but her husband, or the man, who is the political head of the woman; and by having power on him, understand her exercising of her power in him, testifying it by covering her head; and think this text well expounded by 1Ti 2:12 , where the apostle forbiddeth the woman to usurp authority over the man. He addeth another reason,

because of the angels By angels here some understand God himself, who by the ministry of angels created man and woman in this order, and put this law upon the woman. Others understand those messengers which the man sent sometimes, by whom the woman was betrothed (but this was a custom only in use amongst the Jews). Others here by angels understand the ministers and officers of the church, who are sometimes in holy writ called angels. Others understand the evil angels, who watch to take advantage to tempt men from objects appearing beautiful to unchaste thoughts, &c. But the most and best interpreters understand here by angels, the good angels; for the apostle would hardly have spoken of devils under the notion of angels, especially speaking to deter persons from actions; and so it teaches us, that the good angels, who are ministering spirits for the good of God’ s elect, at all times have a special minstration, or at least are more particularly present, in the assemblies of people for religious worship, observing the persons, carriage, and demeanour; the sense of which ought to awe all persons attending those services, from any indecent and unworthy behaviour.

Poole: 1Co 11:11

Lest the man, upon the apostle’ s discourse of his pre-eminence and dignity over the woman, should wax proud and insolent, and carry himself too imperiously, the apostle addeth this, that they both stand in need of each other’ s help, so as neither of them could well be without the other, either as to matters that concern God, or that concern the world; the Lord so ordering and disposing it, that they should be mutual helps one to another. Or else the sense is, they are equal in the Lord as to a state of grace, in Christ there is neither male nor female: though there be a difference between a man and woman in other things, and the man hath the priority and superiority; yet when we come to consider them as to their spiritual state, and in their spiritual reference, there is no difference.

Poole: 1Co 11:12

The man hath a priority to the woman, being first created, and a superiority over her upon that account, she being made for him, not he for her, this is indeed the man’ s advantage; but on the other side, since the creation of the first man, all men are by the woman, who conceives them in her womb, suckles them at her breasts, is concerned in their education while children, and dandled upon her knees; the man therefore hath no reason to despise and too much to trample upon the woman: and all these things are of God by the wise ordering and disposing of God; so as neither hath the man, by reason of his prerogative, in being first created, and the end for which the woman was created, any cause to insult and triumph over the woman; neither hath the woman any cause, by reason of her prerogative, that the man is by her, any cause to triumph over the man; but both of them ought to look upon themselves as having their prerogatives from God, and in the use of them to behave themselves according to the will of God, behaving themselves in their respective stations as it is the will of God they should behave themselves, the woman being subject to the man, and testifying such subjection by all the signs of it, and the man carrying himself towards the woman as he who is the image and glory of God.

Poole: 1Co 11:13

No man is truly and thoroughly convinced of an error, till he be convicted by his own conscience. It is therefore very usual in holy writ for God, by his sacred penmen, to make appeals unto men’ s own consciences, and put them to judge within themselves, to examine a thing by their own reason, and according to the dictates of that to give sentence for or against themselves. The thing as to which he would have them judge within themselves, and accordingly pronounce sentence, was, whether it were a decent thing for women to pray to God with their hair all hanging loose about their shoulders, or without any veil, or covering for their head and face.

Poole: 1Co 11:14

He tells them, that they could not judge this as a thing comely, for nature itself taught them, that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair. By

nature here some understand the law of nature, according to which it would have an intrinsic evil in it, which it is plain it hath not; for then neither must the Nazarites have used it, (as they did), neither would it be lawful for the sake of men’ s health or life. Others understand by nature the law of nations; but neither is this true, for in many nations men wear hair at the utmost length. Others understand common sense, or the light and judgment of that natural reason which since the fall is left in man; but this must be the same in all men, and we know that all men do not judge this shameful. Others therefore by nature here understand a common custom, which (as they say) maketh as it were a second nature; so the term is taken, Rom 11:24 : but it cannot so signify here; for there neither is, nor ever was, such a universal custom in any place, that none in it wore long hair. Others by nature here understand natural inclination; but neither can this be the sense, for there is in some men, as well as in women, a natural propension and inclination to wear their hair at excessive lengths. Others here by nature understand the difference of the sex, as they take this word to be used, Rom 1:26 ; the distinction of the sexes teacheth us this: and this seemath to be the most probable sense of this text. The apostle arguing, that as the male and female sex are artificially distinguished by garments, and it was the will of God they should be so, so they should also be distinguished by the wearing of their hair; and it was no less shame for a man to wear his hair like a woman, than to wear garments like a woman.

Poole: 1Co 11:15

But he saith, if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her Long hair is comely for the woman, and accounted to her for a beauty or ornament, for God hath

given her her hair for a covering There have been books written about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of men’ s wearing long hair, and the due or undue lengths of men’ s hair, the substance of which were too much to transcribe here. That which in these verses seemeth to be commended to us, as the will of God in this matter, is:

1. That men and women should so order their hair, as by it to preserve the distinction of sexes.

2. That men should not wear their hair after the manner of women, either dishevelled, or curled, and tricked up about their heads, which speaks too much of an unmanly and effeminate temper, much more was what became not Christians. And if this be forbidden men, as to the use of their own hair, they stand concerned to consider whether it be lawful for them thus to wear and adorn themselves with the hair of other men and women.

Poole: 1Co 11:16

If any man seem to be contentious if any man hath a mind to quarrel out of a love to show his wit in discoursing what may be said on the other side, or out of a desire to hold up a party, and contradict us.

We have no such custom of women’ s praying or prophesying with their heads uncovered, or men’ s praying or prophesying with their heads covered; or we have no such custom of contending for these little frivolous things;

neither any of the churches of God and good Christians, in their practices, ought, in things of this nature, to have an eye and regard to the custom of their own church, and also of other Christian churches. Thus the apostle closeth this discourse, and proceedeth in the next verses to tax other abuses which were crept into this famous church.

Poole: 1Co 11:17

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not I come now to another thing of greater consequence, as to which I must much blame you; I am so far from being able to commend or approve of what you do, that I must for it smartly reflect upon you.

That ye come together not for the better, but for the worse that when you meet in your church assemblies, for the performance of your religious duties, to pray, preach, hear, or receive the holy sacrament, you so meet and behave yourselves, as your meeting tends to the increase of your sin, rather than to the increase of your grace, and the promoting the work of God in yourselves and the souls of others.

Poole: 1Co 11:18

In the church here, must signify the religious assembly; for at this time there were no temples built for Christians, but they met in private houses, as the iniquity of those times would bear: yet others think the place is here meant where the church was wont to meet, and say, that the Christians had a certain stated place, though in a private house, where they used to meet. But it is not very probable that they should, in the midst of heathens, be so quiet and secure as to meet either constantly, or ordinarily, in any one certain and stated place, so denominated. What schisms, or divisions, the apostle meaneth, he expoundeth in the following verses; either they quarrelled about meats, or drinks, or their order in sitting down, or the time when they should begin, or did not stay till they were all met.

Poole: 1Co 11:19

There must be it is not simply and absolutely necessary that there should be such divisions amongst you, (they are caused from the free acts of men’ s corrupt wills), but yet these things do not fall out by chance, but through the providence of God, who hath so immutably ordered and decreed, to suffer Satan to show his malice, and men to discover the lusts and corruptions of their own hearts.

Heresies: though heresy be a term that, by ecclesiastical usage, is restrained to signify perverse opinions in matter of doctrine, as to which men are stubborn and tenacious; yet it is manifest, that the word is not natively so to be restrained, neither can it reasonably be here so interpreted, but signifies the same thing with schisms and divisions before mentioned: for though (as will appear from 1Co 15:1-58 ) there were corrupt opinions amongst them in matters of doctrine, yet it is unreasonable to understand the apostle here, as speaking with reference to them, these words being brought as a reason why he was inclined to believe that there were such schisms or divisions amongst them, because there must be heresies.

That they which are approved may be made manifest among you: God hath his wise end in suffering breaches and divisions, that such as are true and sincere Christians, opposing themselves to such violations of charity, might appear to you to be true and sincere, and to have the love of God dwelling, working, and prevailing in them.

Poole: 1Co 11:20

The Greek words do not necessarily signify into one place, they may as well be translated, for the same thing, and possibly that were the better translation of them in this place; divisions appearing the worse amongst persons that met as one and the same body, and for one and the same grave action, and that such an action as declared them one body, and laid upon them the highest obligation to brotherly love imaginable.

This is not to eat the Lord’ s supper: some words must be here supplied to complete the sense.

This is not to eat; that is, as you do it is indeed not to do it; to eat the Lord’ s supper in an unlawful manner, is not to eat it. It is called the Lord’ s supper, either because he ordained and instituted it, or because it was instituted for the remembrance of his death, 1Co 11:26 Luk 22:19 . Some think that the sacrament of the Lord’ s supper is here meant, and so one would think, by comparing what is here with 1Co 11:23,24 . Others say, that the love feast is here intended, which ordinarily preceded the Lord’ s supper; the reason they give is, because the abuses here mentioned, viz. not staying one for another till the whole church were met, one eating plentifully, another sparingly, some being hungry while others had ate and drank enough, could not be at the Lord’ s supper, where the minister beginneth not till the whole church be assembled, and where there is no such liberal eating and drinking. To this purpose we are told, that by an ancient custom in Greece (within which Corinth was) the rich men offered some things to their idols, (which after that action the poor had for their relief), and made feasts in the idol’ s temples, of which all had a liberty to eat. That the Christians imitated this practice of theirs, and the rich amongst them upon the Lord’ s days made feasts, at which both poor and rich Christians might be, and the poor carried away what was left. But this church growing corrupt every way, and having got teachers to their humours, they at these feasts neglected the poor, inviting only the rich to them, and also exceeding in their provision for their rich guests. These feasts were called feasts of love, or love feasts, either because:

1. Love to God was that which (pretendedly at least) caused them.

2. Or because they were representations of our Lord’ s last supper, in which he first ate the paschal lamb, then instituted what we call the Lord’ s supper; or because they immediately preceded or followed the administration of the Lord’ s supper, from whence the love feast, being immediately before or after it, had also the same name. But if we allow this, we must make the love feasts also Christ’ s institution, and instituted in remembrance of him, neither of which can be proved. The meaning must be: You cannot rightly communicate at the Lord’ s table, when immediately before or after that table, at your love feast, you are guilty of such disorderly actions. In the mean time, only what Christ instituted for remembrance of his death is what the apostle calls the Lord’ s supper.

Poole: 1Co 11:21

There was at this time in most of the Christian church a Jewish party, viz. such as were converted from Judaism to Christianity, and had a tang of the old cask, being too tenacious of some Jewish rites. These looked upon the Lord’ s supper as an appurtenance to the passover, immediately after which we know that Christ at first instituted his supper. As therefore Christ did eat the paschal supper before the Lord’ s supper; so they, in imitation of him, though they forbore the paschal lamb, yet would have a supper of their own to precede the Lord’ s supper, and having provided it at home, would bring it to the place where the church was to meet; and their poor brethren contributing nothing to the charge of that supper, they would not stay for them, but took this their own supper: so it came to pass, that the poorer Christians were hungry, had none or very little share in their feast, while others, the richer part of the church, had too much; for I take our translation of this word, meyuei , to be very hard and uncharitable. Hard, because the word doth not necessarily so signify, only drinking beyond what is strictly necessary, and our translators themselves, Joh 2:10 , render it well drunk. Uncharitable, because it certainly must be very uncharitably presumed of this church of Corinth, that they should suffer persons, at that time actually drunk, to come to the Lord’ s table.

Poole: 1Co 11:22

What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Hence evidently appears, that these love feasts were kept in the place where the assembly met for the public worship of God; for the apostle would have them (if they would continue them) kept in their private houses: and he doth not only blame the abuses of these feasts, but the feasts themselves as kept in the place where the church met, or as having in them any pretence to any thing of religion: meet they might, friendly to eat and to drink, but their private houses were the fittest places for that.

Or despise ye the church of God? Or do you despise the place (as some think) where the church of God meeteth, or the people met in that place, by carrying yourselves so disorderly in such a grave assembly; or the poorer part of the church, who, though poorer, are a part of the church, redeemed by the blood of Christ? The next words would incline us to think that the sense; for it followeth,

and shame them that have not that is, that have not estates to contribute to such feasts, and so are forced to go away without any due refreshment.

Poole: 1Co 11:23

About these love feasts preceding the Lord’ s supper, I have received nothing from the Lord, you have taken the practice up from the Jews or heathens: I do not know that it is unlawful for you civilly to feast, and eat and drink in your private houses; but to come to make such feasts immediately before you religiously eat and drink at the Lord’ s table, I have received no order from the Lord for any such practice. I have told you what I received from the Lord, which is no more than:

That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: see this in the evangelists, Mat 26:26 Mar 14:22 Luk 22:19 ; where all these words are opened. Some think that Paul received this from the Lord by immediate revelation (as it is thought Moses received the history we have in Genesis and part of Exodus, which relates to a time before he was born, or arrived at man’ s estate). Others think that he received it from St. Luke’ s writings (for the words are quoted according to his Gospel). Others think he received it from some other of the apostles. Certain it is, that he did receive it from the Lord; how, is uncertain.

Haydock: 1Co 11:2

I praise you. That is, a great many of you. (Witham)

Haydock: 1Co 11:3

The head of a woman is the man, &c. To have the head covered at public meetings, is, according to St. Paul, a mark of subjection: The man was created to be head over the woman, who was made subject to the man, being made of him, of his rib, and the woman made for him, not he for the woman. The man in a special manner, is the image of God, not only by his immortal soul, in which sense also the woman was made to God's image, and likeness, but inasmuch as God gave him a power over all creatures, and so he is called, the glory of God. For these reasons, as well as from a received custom, St. Paul tells every woman, that in prayer or prophesying in public meetings, she must have her head veiled, and covered in testimony of her subjection to man, her head, otherwise she dishonours herself, and her head. This is what he tells her, (ver. 10.) that she ought to have a power over her head, [1] that is, to have a veil or covering, as a mark of man's power over her: and because of the angels, that is, out of a respect to the angels there present. Some understand the priests and ministers of God, called angels, particularly in the Apocalypse. St. Paul adds, that nature [2] having given to women long hair, designed it to be as a natural veil. In fine, he appeals to them, to be judges, whether it be not unbecoming in women to pray without a veil. But he will have men to be uncovered, and not to bear such a mark of subjection, as a veil is, by which a man would dishonour his head, that is, himself, and Christ, who is his head, and who appointed him, when he created him, to be head over the woman. He looks upon it as a dishonour and a disgrace for men to nourish their hair, as women should do. He also calls God the head of Christ, that is, of Christ, as man. Lest he should seem to lessen the condition of women more than necessary, he adds, that the propagation of mankind now depends on the woman, as well as on the man, seeing every man is by the woman. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Debet mulier potestatem habere super caput suum, Greek: exousian, but some Greek copies have Greek: peribolaion, cinctorium, velum.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Nec ipsa natura docet vos. I do not find an interrogation in the Latin copies, as it is marked in the Greek, Greek: oude didaskei umas. The rest of the text seems to be better connected, if we read it with an interrogation.

Haydock: 1Co 11:4

Praying or prophesying. By prophesying, in this place is meant, reading publicly in the Church, or singing, or explaining some part of the Scripture. To have the head covered, or uncovered, is in itself a thing very indifferent. Amongst the Greeks it was the custom always to sacrifice to their idols with heads uncovered; amongst the Romans, the opposite was the fashion, and among the Jews, as well formerly as at present, they always appear in their synagogues with heads covered. (Calmet)

Haydock: 1Co 11:10

A power: That is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful. (Challoner)

Haydock: 1Co 11:16

In this chapter are three instructions: 1. That women must have a veil on their heads at public prayers, to ver. 17. ---

2ndly, he corrects the abuses in their banquets of charity, called Agape, to ver. 23. ---

3rdly, he teaches that in the sacrament of the holy Eucharist, is the body and blood of Christ. (Witham)

If any man seem to be contentious about this matter, or any other, we have no such custom, nor hath the Church; that is, says St. John Chrysostom, to have such quarrels and divisions. Or, as others understand it, we have no such custom for women to be in the Church uncovered. (Witham)

Haydock: 1Co 11:17

Now this I ordain, &c. St. Paul found that several abuses had crept in among the Corinthians at their Church meetings, where before the holy mysteries (though St. John Chrysostom thinks after them) they used to have those charitable suppers, called the Agape. For as our Saviour eat first a common supper with his apostles, before he instituted the holy sacrament, so the Christians in may places brought meats with them, and eat a supper together, in token of that friendship and union, which they had with all their brethren, before they began to celebrate the holy mysteries. It is this supper, which according to the common interpretation St. Paul here (ver. 20.) calls the Lord's supper, [3] (though St. Augustine and some others by the Lord's supper, understand the holy sacrament itself of Christ's body and blood.) The apostle tells them, he hears there are divisions among them at their meetings, which he says will happen, as there must be also heresies, which God permits, that they who are approved, may be made manifest, that is, that on such occasions, the just may shew their fidelity and constancy in their duty to God. The apostle tells them, that it is not now to eat the Lord's supper, that is, there were such abuses among them, that it was not now to imitate the supper, which Christ made with his apostles, or, according to the exposition of St. Augustine, this was not becoming persons, who, before the end of their meetings, were to partake of the divine mysteries. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Jam non est dominicam cænam manducare, Greek: kuriakon deipnon. This expression is used no where else in the New Testament, and it is much more probable, that by it St. Paul signifies those charitable [Agape] suppers, which the Christians had together, in imitation of Christ's supper with his disciples before he instituted the holy mysteries, which was after supper, as St. Paul here says, ver. 25. and St. Luke xxii. The sacrament of the Lord's body and blood has been called the Eucharist, even from the first ages of the Christians religion, as appears by the epistles of St. Ignatius, by St. Irenæus, Tertullian, &c. The late pretended reformers found it called by this name in the Catholic Church. Why then should they, who pretend to nothing but Scripture, affect to give it no name but the Lord's supper, when these words in the Scripture signify a different supper?

====================

Haydock: 1Co 11:19

There must be also heresies: By reason of the pride and perversity of man's heart; not by God's will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, and making their faith more remarkable. (Challoner) ---

Not that God hath directly so appointed, as necessary: this originates in man's malice, and his sole pride, and great abuse of free-will. The providence of God draweth good out of evil, but wo to the man, says the Scripture, by whom scandal cometh, such as sects and heresies. Hence St. Augustine, chap. viii. de vera relig. says: "Let us use heretics not so as to approve their errors, but to make us more wary and vigilant, and more strenuous in defending Catholic doctrine against their deceits."

Haydock: 1Co 11:20

The Lord's supper. So the apostle here calls the charity [Agape] feasts observed by the primitive Christians; and reprehends the abuses of the Corinthians on these occasions: which were the more criminal, because these feasts were accompanied with the celebrating the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament. (Challoner)

Haydock: 1Co 11:21

Every one taketh before his own supper to eat. The sense seems to be, that he took and brought with him, what he designed to eat with others, and give at that supper: but as soon as some were met (without staying for others, as he orders them, ver. 33. when he again speaks of these suppers) the rich placing themselves together, began this supper, and did not take with them their poor brethren, who had brought nothing, or had nothing to bring; by this means, one indeed is hungry, and another is drunk, that is, had at least drunk plentifully, while the poor had nothing but shame, and confusion. By this means of eating and drinking without temperance and moderation, they were by no means disposed to receive afterwards the holy Eucharist. He tells such persons that committed these disorders, that if they be so hungry that they cannot fast, they should eat (ver. 34.) before they come from home. We find these Agape forbidden to be made in the Churches, in the 28th canon of the council of Laodicea, a little before the general council of Nice. In St. John Chrysostom's time, and from the first ages, every one received the sacrament of the holy eucharist fasting, as it is probable this was one of the things which St. Paul gave orders about, (ver. 34.) when he came to Corinth. We must not imagine, that because Christ instituted the holy sacrament, and gave it to his apostles after he had supped with them, that the apostles, or the pastors of the Church, their successors, could not order it to be received fasting, and kneeling, for greater reverence and devotion. See St. Augustine on this same subject, in his letter to Januarius, liv. tom. 2. part 2. p. 126. Nov. edit. He says, that though it is evident that apostles did not receive the body and blood of Christ fasting, yet we must not on that account calumniate, or blame the universal Church, in which it is received only by those who are fasting. He says, it is most insolent madness to dispute against what is a custom in the universal Church. (Witham)

Haydock: 1Co 11:23

I have received from the Lord. That is, by revelation from Christ, as well as from others, who were present with him, that which also I delivered to you by word of mouth, &c. Here he speaks of the holy sacrament itself, of the words of consecration, as the evangelists had done, and of the real presence of Christ's body and blood. ---

Which shall be delivered for you. In the common Greek copies, which is broken for you, to wit, on the cross. ---

You shall shew the death of the Lord. As often as you receive, it shall be with a devout and grateful remembrance of his sufferings and death for your sake. He puts every one in mind, that whosoever shall eat this bread, (ver. 27.) so called from the outward appearances, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall, by such a sacrilege, be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. And (ver. 29.) that he eateth, and drinketh judgment, or condemnation to himself, not discerning the difference betwixt celestial food and other meats, and not considering it to be truly the body of the Lord. See St. John Chrysostom, hom. xxvii. If the words of our Saviour, this is my body, &c. were to be understood in a metaphorical and figurative sense only, is it probable that St. Paul, writing twenty-four years afterwards, to the new converted Gentiles at Corinth, would have used words, which full as clearly express a true and real presence of Christ's body in the eucharist, without one word to signify that this was to be understood in a figurative sense only? (Witham)

Gill: 1Co 11:1

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. &c. These words more properly close the preceding chapter, than begin a new one, and refer to the rules therein laid down, and which the apostle would have the Corinthians follow him in, as he did Christ: that as he sought, both in private and public, and more especially in his ministerial service, to do all things to the glory of God, and not for his own popular applause, in which he imitated Christ, who sought not his own glory, but the glory of him that sent him; so he would have them do all they did in the name of Christ, and to the glory of God by him: and that as he studied to exercise a conscience void of offence to God and man, in doing which he was a follower of Christ, who was holy in his nature, and harmless and inoffensive in his conversation; so he was desirous that they should likewise be blameless, harmless, and without offence until the day of Christ: and that whereas he endeavoured to please men in all things lawful and indifferent, wherein he copied after Christ, who by his affable and courteous behaviour, and humble deportment, sought to please and gratify all with whom he conversed; so he would have them not to mind high things, but condescend to men of low estates, and become all things to all, that they might gain some as he did: and once more, that as he sought not his own pleasure and advantage, but the salvation of others, in imitation of Christ, who pleased not himself, but took upon him, and bore cheerfully, the reproaches of men, that he might procure good for them; so the apostle suggests, that it would be right in them not to seek to have their own wills in every thing, but rather to please their neighbour for good to edification.

Gill: 1Co 11:2

Now I praise you, brethren,.... The apostle prefaces what he had to say by way of commendation of them; though some think that this is said in an ironical way, because there are many things both in this chapter, and in the following part of this epistle, delivered in a way of reproof; but whoever considers the change of style in 1Co 11:17 will easily see, that this must be spoken seriously here, and is designed to raise the attention to what he was about to say, and to prepare their minds to receive, and take in good part, what he should say by way of rebuke; who could not well be angry when he praised them for what was praiseworthy in them, and reproved them for that which was blamable. The things he commends them for are as follow,

that ye remember me in all things; that is, either that they were mindful of him, though at a distance from them, and had such a veneration for him, and paid such respect to him, and to his judgment, as to write to him to have his sense about any point of doctrine, or case of conscience which had any difficulty in them; or that they bore in memory the doctrines of the Gospel which he had delivered among them; see 1Co 15:2 The Arabic version reads, "that ye remember my sayings and deeds"; the doctrines he preached among them, and the examples he set them:

and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you; meaning, among the rest, if not principally, baptism and the Lord's supper, which he received from Christ, and delivered unto them; see 1Co 11:23 and which they, at least many of them, kept and observed in the faith of Christ, from a principle of love to him, and with a view to his glory, and that as to the form and manner in which they were delivered to them by the apostle, agreeably to the mind of Christ; but was the apostle alive now, would, or could he praise the generality of those that are called Christians on this account? no; neither of these ordinances in common are kept as they were delivered: as to baptism, it is not attended to either as to subject or mode, both are altered, and are different from the original institution; and the Lord's supper is prostituted to the vilest of men; and, what is "monstrum horrendum", is made a test and qualification for employment in civil and military offices under the government.

Gill: 1Co 11:3

But I would have you to know,.... Though they were mindful of him, and retained in memory many things he had declared among them, and kept the ordinances as delivered to them; yet there were some things in which they were either ignorant, or at least did not so well advert to, and needed to be put in mind of, and better informed about: and as the apostle was very communicative of his knowledge in every point, he fails not to acquaint them with whatsoever might be instructive to their faith, and a direction to their practice:

that the head of every man is Christ; Christ is the head of every individual human nature, as he is the Creator and Preserver of all men, and the donor of all the gifts of nature to them; of the light of nature, of reason, and of all the rational powers and faculties; he is the head of nature to all men, as he is of grace to his own people: and so he is as the Governor of all the nations of the earth, who whether they will or no are subject to him; and one day every knee shall bow to him, and every tongue confess that he is the Lord of all. Moreover, Christ is the head of every believing man; he is generally said to be the head of the church, and so of every man that is a member of it: he is a common public head, a representative one to all his elect; so he was in election, and in the covenant of grace; so he was in time, in his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to, and entrance into heaven; and so he is now as an advocate and intercessor there: he is the political head of his people, or an head in such sense, as a king is the head of his nation: he is also an economical head, or in such sense an head as an husband is the head of his wife, and as a parent is the head of his family, and as a master is the head of his servants; for all these relations Christ sustains: yea, he is a natural head, or is that to his church, as an human head is to an human body: he is a true and proper head, is of the same nature with his body, is in union to it, communicates life to it, is superior to it, and more excellent than it. He is a perfect head, nothing is wanting in him; he knows all his people, and is sensible of their wants, and does supply them; his eye of love is always on them; his ears are open to their cries; he has a tongue to speak to them, and for them, which he uses; and he smells a sweet savour in them, in their graces and garments, though they are all his own, and perfumed by himself: there are no vicious humours in this head, flowing from thence to the body to its detriment, as from Adam to his posterity, whose head he was; but in Christ is no sin, nothing but grace, righteousness, and holiness, spring from him. There's no deformity nor deficiency in him; all fulness of grace dwells in him to supply the members of his body; he is an one, and only head, and an ever living and everlasting one.

And the head of the woman is the man, The man is first in order in being, was first formed, and the woman out of him, who was made for him, and not he for the woman, and therefore must be head and chief; as he is also with respect to his superior gifts and excellencies, as strength of body, and endowments of mind, whence the woman is called the weaker vessel; likewise with regard to pre-eminence or government, the man is the head; and as Christ is the head of the church, and the church is subject to him, so the husband is the head of the wife, and she is to be subject to him in everything natural, civil, and religious. Moreover, the man is the head of the woman to provide and care for her, to nourish and cherish her, and to protect and defend her against all insults and injuries.

And the head of Christ is God; that is, the Father, not as to his divine nature, for in respect to that they are one: Christ, as God, is equal to his Father, and is possessed of the same divine perfections with him; nor is his Father the head of him, in that sense; but as to his human nature, which he formed, prepared, anointed, upheld, and glorified; and in which nature Christ exercised grace on him, he hoped in him, he believed and trusted in him, and loved him, and yielded obedience to him; he always did the things that pleased him in life; he prayed to him; he was obedient to him, even unto death, and committed his soul or spirit into his hands: and all this he did as to his superior, considered in the human nature, and also in his office capacity as Mediator, who as such was his servant; and whose service he diligently and faithfully performed, and had the character from him of a righteous one; so that God is the head of Christ, as he is man and Mediator, and as such only.

Gill: 1Co 11:4

Every man praying or prophesying,.... This is to be understood of praying and prophesying in public, and not in private; and not to be restrained to the person that is the mouth of the congregation to God in prayer, or who preaches to the people in the name of God; but to be applied to every individual person that attends public worship, that joins in prayer with the minister, and hears the word preached by him, which is meant by prophesying; for not foretelling future events is here meant, but explaining the word of God, the prophecies of the Old Testament, or any part of Scripture, unless singing of psalms should rather be designed, since that is sometimes expressed by prophesying: so in 1Sa 10:5 "thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them, and they shall prophesy". The Targum renders it thus, ואנון משבחין, "and they shall sing praise"; upon which Kimchi observes, that it is as if it was said, their prophecy shall be שירות, "songs" and praises to God, spoken by the Holy Ghost. So in 1Sa 19:23 it is said of Saul, that he "went on and prophesied". The Targum is, he went on, ומשבח, "and praised". And again, "he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied". Targum, ושבח, "and praised", or sung praise. Once more, in 1Ch 25:1 it is said of Asaph, and others, that they "should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals"; which Kimchi explains of Asaph's singing vocally, and of his sons playing upon musical instruments.

Having his head covered; which, it seems, was the custom of some of them so to do in attendance on public worship: this they either did in imitation of the Heathens ^r, who worshipped their deities with their heads covered, excepting Saturn and Hercules, whose solemnities were celebrated with heads unveiled, contrary to the prevailing customs and usages in the worship of others; or rather in imitation of the Jews, who used to veil themselves in public worship, through a spirit of bondage unto fear, under which they were, and do to this day; and with whom it is a rule ^s, that

"a man might not stand and pray, neither with his girdle on, ולא בראש מגולה, nor with his head uncovered; nor with his feet uncovered.''

Accordingly it is said ^t of Nicodemus ben Gorion,

"that he went into the school grieved, and נתעטף, "veiled himself", and stood in prayer;''

and a little after that

"that he went into the sanctuary and "veiled" himself, and stood and prayed;''

though the Targum on Jdg 5:2 suggests,

"that the wise men sit in the synagogues, בריש גלי, "with the head uncovered", to teach the people the words of the law;''

and on Jdg 5:9 has these words,

"Deborah in prophecy said, I am sent to praise the Scribes of Israel, who when they were in tribulation did not cease from expounding the law; and so it was beautiful for them to sit in the synagogues, "with the head uncovered", and teach the people the words of the law, and bless and confess before the Lord;''

but it seems that a different custom had now prevailed; now from this Gentile or judaizing practice, the apostle would dissuade them by observing, that such an one that uses it, "dishonoureth his head"; meaning either in a figurative, spiritual, and mystical sense, his head Christ, in token of the liberty received from him, and because he is above in heaven, and clear of all sin, the head must be uncovered in public worship; or otherwise the reverse is suggested of him, which is highly to dishonour him, and is the sense many interpreters give into: rather the reason should be, because Christ, the believer's head, appears for him in heaven, opens a way of access for him, gives him audience and acceptance in his person, and through his blood and righteousness; and therefore should appear with open face and head uncovered, as a token of freedom and boldness; otherwise he dishonours his head as if his blood and sacrifice were not effectual, and his intercession not prevalent: but the natural head, taken in a literal sense, is rather meant; and the sense is, that by covering it, it looks as if he was guilty and ashamed, and in subjection; whereas to appear uncovered expresses freedom, boldness, and superiority, like himself, who is the head of the woman; whereas to be covered, as with a woman's veil or hood, is effeminate, unmanly, and dishonourable.

Gill: 1Co 11:5

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,.... Not that a woman was allowed to pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to preach or explain the word, for these things were not permitted them: see 1Co 14:34 but it designs any woman that joins in public worship with the minister in prayer, and attends on the hearing of the word preached, or sings the praises of God with the congregation, as we have seen, the word prophesying signifies,

with her head uncovered. It may seem strange from whom the Corinthian women should take up this custom, since the Jewish women were not allowed to go into the streets, or into any open and public place, unveiled ^u. It was a Jewish law, that they should go out no where bare headed ^w: yea, it was reckoned scandalous and ignominious to do so. Hence it is said, ^x שגלוי הראש גנאי להם, "that uncovering of the head is a reproach" to the daughters of Israel: and concerning the adulterous woman, it is represented as said by the priest ^y,

"thou hast separated from the way of the daughters of Israel; for the way or custom of the daughters of Israel is להיות מכוסות ראשיהן, "to have their heads covered"; but thou hast gone "in the ways of the Gentiles", who walk with head bare.''

So that their it should seem that these Corinthians followed the examples of the Heathens: but then, though it might be the custom of some nations for women to go abroad bare headed; yet at their solemnities, where and when they were admitted, for they were not everywhere and always, they used to attend with their heads veiled and covered ^z. Mr. Mede takes notice indeed of some Heathen priestesses, who used to perform their religious rites and sacrifices with open face, and their hair hanging down, and locks spreading, in imitation of whom these women at Corinth are thought to act. However, whoever behaved in this uncomely manner, whose example soever she followed, the apostle says,

dishonoureth her head; not her husband, who is her head in a figurative sense, and is dishonoured by her not being covered; as if she was not subject to him, or because more beautiful than he, and therefore shows herself; but her natural head, as appears from the reason given:

for that is even all one as if she were shaven; to be without a veil, or some sort of covering on her head, according to the custom of the country, is the same thing as if her head was shaved; and everyone knows how dishonourable and scandalous it is for a woman to have her head shaved; and if this is the same, then it is dishonourable and scandalous to her to be without covering in public worship. And this shows, that the natural head of the man is meant in the preceding verse, since the natural head of the woman is meant in this.

Gill: 1Co 11:6

For if the woman be not covered,.... That is, if her head is not covered with some sort of covering, as is the custom of the place where she lives,

let her also be shorn; let her hair be cut short; let her wear it as men do theirs; and let her see how she will look, and how she will like that, and how she will be looked upon, and liked by others; everybody will laugh at her, and she will be ashamed of herself:

but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven: as it is accounted in all civilized nations: the very Heathens ^a speak of it as a thing abominable, and of which there should not be one single dreadful example: then let her be covered; with a veil, or any sort of covering in common use.

Gill: 1Co 11:7

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,.... The Ethiopic version adds, "whilst he prays"; which is a proper interpretation of the words, though a wrong version; for the apostle's meaning is not, that a man should not have his head covered at any time, but whilst he is in public worship, praying, prophesying, or singing of psalms: the reason is,

forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. The apostle speaks of man here as in his first creation, in his state of innocence before his fall; but now he has sinned and defaced this image, and come short of this glory; which lay partly in his body being made after the exemplar of the body of Christ, the idea of which God had in his eternal mind, and according to which he shaped the body of Adam: and partly in his soul, in that righteousness and holiness, wisdom and knowledge, and all other excellent gifts in which it was formed. So the Jews ^b say, the understanding is כבוד השם "the glory of God". And it chiefly lay in the power and dominion he had over all the creatures, and even over the woman when made; at least this is principally respected here, in which there is such a shine and representation of the glory and majesty, power and dominion of God; and therefore man ought to worship him with his head uncovered, where this image and glory of God is most illustriously displayed: not but that the woman, is the image and glory of God also, and was made as man, after his image and likeness, with respect to internal qualities, as righteousness, holiness, knowledge, &c. and with regard to her power over the other creatures, though in subjection to man; but yet man was first originally and immediately the image and glory of God, the woman only secondarily and mediately through man. The man is more perfectly and conspicuously the image and glory of God, on account of his more extensive dominion and authority:

but the woman is the glory of the man; being made out of him, and for his help and assistance, and to be a crown of honour and glory to him. The apostle speaks the sense, and in the language of the Jews. The words in Isa 44:13. "After the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man", are by the Targum rendered, "after the likeness of a man, after the glory of a woman"; and the note of a famous ^c interpreter of theirs upon the last clause is, "this is the woman", שהיא תפארת בעלה "who is the glory of her husband"; but why is she to be covered for this reason, when the man is to be uncovered? it is to be observed, that it is in the presence and worship of God that the one is to be uncovered, and the other covered; the one being the glory of God, and therefore to be uncovered before him; and the other the glory of man, and therefore to be covered before God; and especially, since being first in the transgression, she who is man's glory has been the means of his shame and disgrace. The Jews seem to make this the reason of the difference; they ask ^d,

"why does a man go out with his head uncovered, and a woman with her head covered? it is answered, it is like to one that has committed a sin, and he is ashamed of the children of men, therefore she goes וראשה מכוסה, "with her head covered".''

Gill: 1Co 11:8

For the man is not of the woman,.... In the present state of things, and according to the ordinary course of generation and propagation of mankind, man is of the woman, though not without the means of man; he is conceived in her, bore by her, and born of her; but the apostle respects the original formation of man, as he was immediately made by God out of the dust of the earth, before the woman was in being, and so not of her:

but the woman of the man; she was made out of his rib, and took both her name and nature from him; God was the author, and man the matter of her being; her original under God, is owing to him; and therefore as he was first in being, he must be superior to her: this serves to prove all that has been as yet said; as that man is the head of the woman, the woman is the glory of man, what he may glory in as being from him; and therefore there should be this difference in their appearance at public worship.

Gill: 1Co 11:9

Neither was the man created for the woman,.... To be subservient to her; for she was not in being when he was created; and though it is the proper business of man to provide for, take care of, and defend the woman, as the weaker vessel, yet these were not the original ends of his creation; he was made for God, for his service and glory:

but the woman for the man; to be an help meet for him, who was already created; to be a companion and associate of his, both in religious worship and in civil life; and for the procreation and education of children.

Gill: 1Co 11:10

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head,.... The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman's head, as a sign of the man's power over her, and her subjection to him; which Dr. Hammond endeavours to confirm, by observing that the Hebrew word רדיד, which signifies a woman's veil, or hood, comes from a root which signifies power and dominion; but in that he is mistaken, for the word is derived not from רדה, to rule, govern, or exercise power and authority, but from רדד, to expand, stretch out, or draw over, as a woman's veil is drawn over her head and face. The Greek word εξουσια more properly signifies the power she had of putting on and off her covering as she pleased, according as times, places, and persons; made it necessary:

because of the angels; various are the senses given of these words, some taking them in a proper, others in a figurative sense: some in a proper sense of angels, and these either good or bad. Tertullian ^e understands them of evil angels, and that a woman should cover her head in time of worship, lest they should lust after her; though much rather the reason should be, lest they should irritate and provoke lust in others: but it is better to understand them of good angels, who attend the assemblies of the saints, and observe the air and behaviour of the worshippers; wherefore women should cover their heads with respect to them, and not give offence to those pure spirits, by an indecent appearance: it is agreeable to the notions of the Jews, that angels attend public prayers, and at the expounding of the word; they often speak ^f of an angel, הממונה על התפלות "that is appointed over prayers"; hence ^g Tertullian seems to have took his notion of an angel of prayer: and of angels being present at expounding of the Scriptures, take the following story ^h;

"it happened to Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, that he was riding upon an ass, and as he was journeying, R. Eleazar ben Arach was leading an ass after him; he said to him, Rabbi, teach me one chapter in the work of Mercavah (Ezekiel's vision); he replied to him, not so have I taught you, nor in the Mercavah a single man, unless he was a wise man by his own industry; he answered him, Rabbi, give me leave to say one thing before thee, which thou hast taught me; immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai alighted from his ass and "veiled himself", and sat upon a stone under an olive tree; he said to him, Rabbi, why dost thou alight off from the ass? he replied, is it possible that thou shouldst expound in the work of Mercavah, and the Shekinah be with us, ומלאכי השרת מלוין אותנו, "and the ministering angels join us", and I ride upon an ass?''

And a little after,

"R. Joshua and R. Jose the priest were walking on the road, they said, yea, let us expound in the work of Mercavah; R. Joshua opened and expounded, and that day was the solstice of Tammuz, and the heavens were thickened with clouds, and there appeared the form of a bow in the cloud, "and the ministering angels gathered together", ובאין לשמוע, "and came to hear": as the children of men gather together, and come to see the rejoicings of the bridegroom and bride.''

Moreover, this veiling of the woman in public worship because of angels, may be an imitation of the good angels, who when they sung the praises of God, and adored and glorified his perfections, covered their faces and their feet with their wings, Isa 6:1. Many understanding these words in a figurative sense, and in this also they are not agreed; some by angels think young men are meant, who, for their gracefulness and comeliness, are compared to angels; others good men in general, that attend religious worship; others ministers of the word, called angels often in the book of the Revelations; which last seems to be most agreeable of any of these senses; and the women were to cover their heads, that they might not offend either of these, or stir up any impure desires in them; see Ecc 5:6 but as these words follow the account given of the creation of the woman from the man, and for his sake; this may have no reference to her conduct in public worship, but to the power she had of using her covering, or taking it off, or putting it on, at the time of her espousals to a man; which was sometimes done by proxy, or messengers, whom the Jews call שלוחים, "angels" ⁱ; their canon is,

"a man may espouse (a wife) by himself, ובשלוחו, "or by his angel", or messenger; and a woman may be espoused by herself, or by her angel, or messenger:''

wherefore because of these angels, or messengers, that came to espouse her to such, she had power over her head to take off her veil, and show herself, if she thought fit; or to keep it on, as expressing her modesty; or just as she pleased, when she by them was espoused to a man, for whose sake she was made; which sense, after Dr. Lightfoot, many learned men have given into, and seems probable.

Gill: 1Co 11:11

Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman,.... This is said, partly to repress the pride and insolence of man, that he might not be too much elated with himself, and his superiority over the woman, and look with any degree of disdain and contempt upon her, and treat her with indifference and neglect; and partly to comfort the woman, that she might not be dejected with the condition and circumstances in which she was, since the one is not without the other; nor can they be so truly comfortable and happy, as not the man without the woman, who was made for an help meet for him,

so neither the woman without the man in the Lord. The phrase "in the Lord" is added, to show that it is the will of God, and according to his ordination and appointment, that the one should not be without the other; or it may design that lawful conjunction and copulation, of one man and one woman together, according to the will of the Lord, which distinguishes it from all other impure mixtures and copulations. The Arabic version reads it, "in the religion of the Lord"; and the sense is, that the one is not without the other in religious worship, and in the enjoyment of religious privileges; that though the woman may not pray publicly and expound the Scriptures, yet she may join in prayer, and hear the word preached, sing the praises of God, and enjoy all ordinances; for in Christ no distinction of sex is regarded, men and women are all one in him, and equally regenerated, justified, and pardoned, and will be glorified together.

Gill: 1Co 11:12

For as the woman is of the man,.... Originally; so Eve was of Adam, made out of one of his ribs:

even so is the man also by the woman; now man is born of a woman, he is conceived of one, and brought into the world by one. This is the way in which mankind is propagated, the species preserved, continued, and increased; and therefore there is no reason why the woman should be despised, or the man should be lifted up with himself above her, since they are so dependent upon, and so useful to each other:

but all things of God. The Arabic version reads it, "all creatures are of God"; which is true, but not the truth of these words, which are to be restrained to the subject of the discourse; as that both the man and the woman are of God; they are made by him, and after his image and likeness; that the man is the glory of God, and the woman the glory of the man; the authority of the man over the woman, and the subjection of the woman to the man, are of God, and according to his constitution and appointment; as also that the woman should be of the man, and for his sake, and that the man should be by the woman, and neither should be without the other: these are not things of human constitution, but are settled by the wise counsel of God, and therefore to be cheerfully submitted to, as the best order of things.

Gill: 1Co 11:13

Judge in yourselves,.... The apostle having gone through a variety of reasoning and arguments, showing the superiority of the man to the woman, by which he would prove, that the one should be covered, and the other uncovered, returns to his subject again, and appeals to the common sense and understanding of the Corinthians, and makes them themselves judges of the matter; suggesting that the thing was so clear, and he so certain of what he had advanced being right, that he leaves it with them, not doubting but that they would, upon a little reflection within themselves, join with him in this point:

is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? in you judgment you can never think so, however pleasing and gratifying such a sight may be, to the lust of the flesh, and to the lust of the eye; he does not mention prophesying, only instances in praying; but it is to be understood of one, as of another; and his meaning is, that it is an uncomely thing in a woman to appear in public service with her head uncovered, whether it be in joining in the public prayers, or in singing of psalms, or in hearing the word expounded; and though the apostle does not put the case of the man's praying to God, or prophesying in his name with his head covered, yet his sense is the same of that, as of the woman's.

Gill: 1Co 11:14

Doth not even nature itself teach you,.... By nature is either meant, the law and light of nature, reason in man, common sense, or rather custom, which is second nature; and which, in this case, must be restrained to the Greeks and Jews; for though among the Grecians the men cut their hair, and did not suffer it to grow long, as also did the Jews, yet there were many nations ^k who did not, even at that time, observe such a rule or custom; but as the Jews and Greeks were the persons chiefly, if not solely, known to the Corinthians, the apostle signifies, that the usages of these people might direct and inform them in this matter:

that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him; he looks unmanly and womanish, and exposes himself to ridicule and contempt.

Gill: 1Co 11:15

But if a woman have long hair,.... And wears it, without cutting it, as men do:

it is a glory to her; it is comely and beautiful; it is agreeable to her sex, she looks like herself; it becomes and adorns her:

for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other: we read indeed of the daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion, that she was obliged to make use of her hair for a covering in such a sense ^l;

"it happened to R. Jochanan ben Zaccai that he rode upon an ass, and went out of Jerusalem, and his disciples went after him; he saw a young woman gathering barley corns out of the dung of the Arabian cattle; when she saw him, נתעטפה בשערה, "she covered herself with her hair", and stood before him:''

but this covering was made use of, not of choice, but by force, through her poverty, she having no other; this was not the custom of the nation, nor was the hair given to women for a covering in this sense, nor used by them as such, unless by Eve before the fall; but is rather an indication that they want another covering for their head, it not being so decent that their long hair should be seen. The Jewish women used to esteem it an immodest thing for their hair to be seen, and therefore they took care, as much as possible, to hide it under another covering;

"one woman, whose name was Kimchith, had seven sons, and they all ministered in the high priesthood; the wise men said unto her, what hast thou done, that thou art so worthy? she replied to them, all my days the beams of my house never saw קלעי שערי, "the plaits of my hair" ^m;''

that is, they were never seen by any person, even within her house.

Gill: 1Co 11:16

But if any man seem to be contentious,.... That is, if anyone will not be satisfied with reasons given, for men's praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered, and women's praying and prophesying with their heads covered; but will go on to raise objections, and continue carping and cavilling, showing that they contend not for truth, but victory, can they but obtain it any way; for my part, as if the apostle should say, I shall not think it worth my while to continue the dispute any longer; enough has been said to satisfy any wise and good man, anyone that is serious, thoughtful, and modest; and shall only add,

we have no such custom, nor the churches of God; meaning, either that men should appear covered, and women uncovered in public service, and which should have some weight with all those that have any regard to churches and their examples; or that men should be indulged in a captious and contentious spirit; a man that is always contending for contention sake, and is continually cavilling and carping at everything that is said and done in churches, and is always quarrelling with one person or another, or on account of one thing or another, and is constantly giving uneasiness, is not fit to be a church member; nor ought he to be suffered to continue in the communion of the church, to the disturbance of the peace of it. This puts me in mind of a passage in the Talmud ⁿ.

"The Rabbans teach, that after the departure of R. Meir, R. Judah said to his disciples, do not let the disciples of R. Meir enter here, מפני שקנתרנין הן, "because they are contentious".''

Gill: 1Co 11:17

Now in this that I declare unto you,.... The Syriac version reads, "this is what I command"; which some refer to what he had been discoursing of, adding to his arguments, and the examples of the church, his own orders and command, that men should worship God publicly, uncovered, and women covered; though it seems rather to respect what follows, what the apostle was about to declare unto them; concerning which he says,

I praise you not; as he did in 1Co 11:2 that they were mindful of him, remembered his doctrines, and kept the ordinances in the manner he had delivered them to them: and it should seem by this, that the greater part of them were not to be blamed, though some few were, for their irregular and indecent appearance in public worship, men with a covering on their heads, and women without one; but in what he was about to say, he could not praise them at all:

that you come together; to the house of God, to pray unto him, to sing his praises, to hear his word, and attend his ordinances, particularly the Lord's supper:

not for the better; for edification and instruction, for the quickening and comforting of your souls; that you may grow in grace and knowledge, become more holy, zealous, fruitful, and useful:

but for the worse; to indulge luxury and intemperance, to encourage heresies, schisms, and divisions, and so grow more carnal, scandalous, and useless.

Gill: 1Co 11:18

For first of all, when ye come together in the church,.... The place where the church met together to perform divine service, called "one place". 1Co 11:20 and is distinguished from their own "houses", 1Co 11:22 and the first thing he took notice of as worthy of dispraise and reproof, in their religious assemblies, were their animosities and factions:

I hear that there be divisions among you: schisms and parties, either about their ministers, one being for Paul, another for Apollos, and another for Cephas; or in the celebration of the Lord's supper, and that which went before it, they going into separate bodies, and partook by themselves, and each took his own supper before another, one ate, and another did not. This the apostle had heard from the house of Chloe:

and I partly believe it; meaning, either that this was the practice of a part of the church to do so, though not of them all; or that part of the report that had been made to him was true; though he hoped in that charity which hopeth all things, that it was not quite so bad as was feared or represented, since things are generally heightened and increased by fame; but yet he had it from such good hands, that he could not but believe there was something in it. So the Syriac version renders it, ומדם מדם, "and something, something I believe".

Gill: 1Co 11:19

For there must be also heresies among you.... This is a reason why he was ready to believe there might be something of truth in the report he had received of the divisions among them; for if there were heresies, false doctrines, and bad principles, among them, such as were subversive of the fundamentals of Christianity, as the denial of the resurrection of the dead, &c. it was no wonder that there were schisms and factions among them, since heresies generally issue in them. These, the apostle says, "must be"; because God has decreed they shall, whose counsel is immutable, and his purpose unalterable; and since this always was the case, that there were false prophets under the former dispensation, it must be expected that false teachers will arise in the churches now, bringing in damnable heresies; and since Satan is always busy to sow the tares of false doctrine; and human nature, being both weak and wicked, is so susceptible thereof, and so easily imposed upon and deceived, it cannot be thought that it should be otherwise; which, by the goodness and wisdom of God, are overruled to a very good purpose:

that they which are approved: who sincerely believe in Christ, are sound in the faith, and have a well grounded experience of it; who have themselves tried things that differ, and approve of them that are excellent, and have been tried by others, and found to be sincere, upright, and faithful, and are approved of God and good men:

may be made manifest among you; by their steadfastness in the faith, their zealous attachment to it, earnest contention for it, and warm and honest vindication of it; and by the departure of those from them who oppose it, and go on the side of error and heresy; by which means it is known who are the sincere followers of the Lamb, in doctrine, discipline, and conversation, and who not.

Gill: 1Co 11:20

When ye come together therefore into one place,.... Though επι το αυτο does not signify so much the unity of the place, as of the persons meeting together, and their conjunction; so the phrase is used by the Septuagint, in Deu 25:11, yet it supposes a place where the church were wont to assemble for divine worship;

this is not to eat the Lord's supper: their view in coming together was not so much to celebrate the supper of the Lord, as to partake of their own supper, which was either the paschal supper, or something like it; which many of them "judaizing" observed before the Lord's supper, in imitation of Christ, as they pretended, who first ate the passover, and then instituted the supper. Now there being a great deal of good eating and drinking in this ante-supper, many of them came together for no other end but to partake of that, at least this was their chief view, and not the Lord's supper; or when they did meet together on this account, it was in such an irregular and disorderly manner, and they confounded these suppers together, and behaved so ill at them, and ate the Lord's supper so unworthily, that it could not be rightly called eating of it; or when they had eaten their ante-supper in such an indecent way, neither staying for one another, nor keeping within the bounds of temperance and sobriety; at least having indulged their carnal appetites to such a degree, and raised themselves to such a pitch of gaiety and cheerfulness; it was not fit for them to eat the Lord's supper, to go from such a full meal to the table of the Lord. This was called the Lord's supper, because he was the author of it; and he is the subject of it; and for him, the remembrance of him, it is appointed, kept up, and continued. The Syriac version understands it of the Lord's day, and reads it thus, "when therefore ye meet together, not as is fit for", or becomes, ליומה דמרן, "the day of our Lord, do ye eat and drink".

Gill: 1Co 11:21

For in eating,.... Not at the Lord's table, but at tables spread for them in the place of divine worship, where everyone brought his own food, under a pretence that others, particularly the poor, should eat with him; but instead of that, he sat down and ate it himself, and would not stay till the rest came, to eat together:

but everyone taketh before other his own supper; that is, without tarrying till all came together, in order to eat a friendly meal with each other, to encourage and increase brotherly love, one would sit down and fill himself before another came; so that some went without, whilst others had too much; and thus the designed end was not answered, and the whole was a piece of confusion and disorder:

and one is hungry, and another drunken; he that came late had nothing to eat, and so was hungry; when he that was first either eat and drank to excess, or at least very plentifully, so that he was very cheerful, and more disposed to carnal mirth, than in a serious and solemn manner to partake of the Lord's supper; and who is thought to be the rich man, who brought his own provisions, and ate them himself when he had done; as the poor may be meant by the hungry, who having no food to bring with them, and none being communicated to them by the rich, were in want, and starving; so that here were many abuses justly chargeable on them. Dr. Lightfoot is of opinion, that by him that was "drunken" meant the Jew that ate the paschal supper, of which he ate and drank freely; and by him that was "hungry", the Gentile, who was so not out of poverty and necessity, but because he refused and avoided eating of the ante-supper, as savouring of Judaism; and so here was a schism and division among them.

Gill: 1Co 11:22

What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in?.... This shows that one taking his supper before another, was not in their own houses, before they came to the place of divine worship, but in the house of God; and the apostle suggests, that if they must have their ante-suppers, and were disposed to eat and drink freely, before they partook of the Lord's supper, it was more decent and orderly, and less reflected upon the honour of religion and the ordinances of Christ, to eat and drink in their own houses; in which they were not only more private and retired, but which they had for such purposes; whereas the house of God was not for any such use, nor should they meet together there on such an account; at least, such disorderly, unequal, and intemperate feasts there, were very scandalous and reproachful: and it was contrary to a Jewish canon to eat and drink in the synagogues, which runs thus ^o,

"in the synagogues they do not use a light behaviour, nor do they eat and drink in them;''

though they sometimes speak of travellers eating and drinking and lodging in the synagogues ^p, yet they interpret these of places adjoining to them:

or despise ye the church of God; that is, expose it to contempt and scorn; meaning either the community, the people of God gathered together in a Gospel church state; or the place where they met for public worship, which the Ethiopic version calls, "the house of God"; which was rendered very contemptible by such disorderly practices;

and shame them that have not; no houses to eat in, or supper to eat, or any of this world's goods, or money to purchase food for themselves; who must be confounded and put to shame, when, coming in expectation of being fed, the provisions were eaten up by the rich before they came, or, however, were not allowed to partake when they did come; this was such a respecting of persons, as was justly culpable in them by the apostle.

Gill: 1Co 11:23

For I have received of the Lord,.... The apostle observes unto them the rule, use, and end of the Lord's supper; his view in it is, to correct the disorders among them, and to bring them to a strict regard to the rule which had such a divine authority stamped upon it; and to observe to them, that in that supper all equally ate and drank; and that the end of it was not a paschal commemoration, but a remembrance of Christ, and a declaration of his sufferings and death. The divine authority of the Lord's supper is here expressed; it was not only instituted by him as Lord, having all power and authority in and over his churches, to appoint what ordinances he pleases; but the plan and form of administration of it were received from him by the apostle. This was not a device of his, nor an invention of any man's, nor did he receive the account from men, no not from the apostles; but he had it by revelation from Christ, either when he appeared to him at his first conversion, and made him a minister of the Gospel; or when he was caught up into the third heaven, and heard things unspeakable and unutterable:

that which also I delivered unto you; for whatever he received from Christ, whether a doctrine or an ordinance, he faithfully delivered to the churches, from whom he kept back nothing that was profitable, but declared the whole counsel of God unto them: now this he refers the Corinthians to, as a sure rule to go by, and from which they should never swerve; and whatever stands on divine record as received from Christ, and delivered by his apostles, should be the rule of our faith and practice, and such only;

that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed; or delivered; as he was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God the Father, and as he was by himself, who voluntarily gave himself up into the hands of men, justice and death, for our offences; and so the Arabic version reads it here, "in the night in which he delivered up himself"; as he did in the garden to Judas and his company: it was in the night when he came in search of him with officers, and a band of soldiers, and when he betrayed him and delivered him into their hands; and that same night, a little before, our Lord instituted and celebrated the ordinance of the supper with his disciples. The time is mentioned partly with regard to the passover it followed, which was killed in the evening and ate the same night in commemoration of God's sparing the firstborn of Israel, when at midnight he destroyed all the firstborn of Egypt, and so was a night to be observed in all generations; and because this feast was to be a supper, and therefore it is best to observe it in the evening, or decline of the day. The circumstance of Judas's betraying him is mentioned, not only because it was in the night, and a work of darkness; but being in the same night he instituted the supper, shows the knowledge he had of his death by the means of the betrayer, and his great love to his disciples, his church and people, in appointing such an ordinance in remembrance of him, and his death, when he was just about to leave them:

took bread; from off the table, out of the dish, or from the hands of the master of the house; an emblem of his body, and of his assumption of human nature; of his taking upon him the nature of the seed of Abraham, of that body which his Father prepared for him, in order to its being broken; or that he might in it endure sufferings and death for his people.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Co 11:2

¹ tc The Western and Byzantine texts, as well as one or two Alexandrian mss (D F G Ψ 33 Ï latt sy), combine in reading ἀδελφοί (adelfoi, “brothers”) here, while the Alexandrian witnesses (Ì⁴⁶ א A B C P 81 630 1175 1739 1881 2464 co) largely lack the address. The addition of ἀδελφοί is apparently a motivated reading, however, for scribes would have naturally wanted to add it to ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς (epainw de Juma", “now I praise you”), especially as this begins a new section. On the other hand, it is difficult to explain how the shorter reading could have arisen from the longer one. Thus, on both internal and external grounds, the shorter reading is strongly preferred.

NET Notes: 1Co 11:3

¹ tn Or “the husband is the head of his wife.” The same Greek words translated “man” and “woman” can mean, as determined by context, “husband” and “wife” respectively. Such an approach is followed by NAB, TEV, NRSV, and NLT (with some variations).

NET Notes: 1Co 11:10

¹ sn Paul does not use a word specifying what type of “covering” is meant (veil, hat, etc.). The Greek word he uses here (ἐξουσία exousia; translated symbol of authority) could be (1) a figure of speech that may substitute the result (the right to participate in worship) for the appropriate appearance that makes it possible (the covered head). Or (2) it refers to the outward symbol (having the head covered) as representing the inward attitude the woman is to possess (deference to male leadership in the church).

² sn Paul does not explain this reference to the angels, and its point is not entirely clear. It seems to reflect an awareness that angels are witnesses to church life (cf. Eph 3:10) and would be particularly sensitive to resistance against God’s created order.

NET Notes: 1Co 11:14

¹ sn Paul does not mean nature in the sense of “the natural world” or “Mother Nature.” It denotes “the way things are” because of God’s design.

NET Notes: 1Co 11:15

¹ sn No word for veil or head covering occurs in vv. 3-14 (see the note on authority in v. 10). That the hair is regarded by Paul as a covering in v. 15 is not necessarily an argument that the hair is the same as the head covering that he is describing in the earlier verses (esp. v. 10). Throughout this unit of material, Paul points out the similarities of long hair with a head covering. But his doing so seems to suggest that the two are not to be identified with each other. Precisely because they are similar they do not appear to be identical (cf. vv. 5, 6, 7, 10, 13). If head covering = long hair, then what does v. 6 mean (“For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair”)? This suggests that the covering is not the same as the hair itself.

NET Notes: 1Co 11:19

¹ tn Grk “those approved may be evident among you.”

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:2

^{( 1 )} Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

^{( 1 )} The fifth treatise of this epistle concerning the right ordering of public assemblies, containing three points, that is of the comely apparel of men and women, of the order of the Lord's supper, and of the right use of spiritual gifts. But going about to reprehend certain things, he begins nonetheless with a general praise of them, calling those particular laws of comeliness and honesty, which belong to the ecclesiastical policy, traditions: which afterward they called cannons.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:3

^{( 2 )} But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the ^{( a )} head of Christ [is] God.

^{( 2 )} He sets down God, in Christ our mediator, as the end and mark not only of doctrine, but also of ecclesiastical comeliness. Then applying it to the question proposed, touching the comely apparel both of men and women in public assemblies, he declares that the woman is one degree beneath the man by the ordinance of God, and that the man is so subject to Christ, that the glory of God ought to appear in him for the preeminence of the sex.

^{( a )} In that Christ is our mediator.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:4

^{( 3 )} Every ^{( b )} man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.

^{( 3 )} By this he gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God's ordinance.

^{( b )} It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:5

^{( 4 )} But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: ^{( 5 )} for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

^{( 4 )} And in like manner he concludes that women who show themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves. ^{( 5 )} The first argument taken from the common sense of man, for so much as nature teaches women that it is dishonest for them to go abroad bareheaded, seeing that they have given to them thick and long hair which they do so diligently trim and deck, that they can in no way abide to have it shaved.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:7

^{( 6 )} For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

^{( 6 )} The taking away of an objection: have not men also hair given to them? "I grant that", says the apostle, "but there is another matter in it. For man was made to this end and purpose, that the glory of God should appear in his rule and authority. But the woman was made so that by profession of her obedience, she might more honour her husband."

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:8

^{( 7 )} For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

^{( 7 )} He proves the inequality of the woman by the fact that from the man is the substance of which woman was first made.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:9

^{( 8 )} Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

^{( 8 )} Secondly, by the fact that the woman was made for man, and not the man for the woman's sake.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:10

^{( 9 )} For this cause ought the woman to have ^{( c )} power on [her] head because of the ^{( 10 )} angels.

^{( 9 )} The conclusion: women must be covered, to show by this external sign their subjection.

^{( c )} A covering which is a token of subjection.

^{( 10 )} What this means, I do not yet understand.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:11

^{( 11 )} Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, ^{( d )} in the Lord.

^{( 11 )} A digression which the apostle uses, lest that which he spoke of the superiority of men, and the lower degree of women, in consideration of the policy of the Church, should be so taken as though there were no measure of this inequality. Therefore he teaches that men have in such sort the preeminence, that God made them not alone, but women also. And woman was so made of man, that men also are born by the means of women, and this ought to put them in mind to observe the degree of every sex in such sort, that the marriage relationship may be cherished.

^{( d )} By the Lord.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:13

^{( 12 )} Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

^{( 12 )} He urges the argument taken from the common sense of nature.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:15

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a ^{( e )} covering.

^{( e )} To be a covering for her, and such a covering as should procure another.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:16

^{( 13 )} But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

^{( 13 )} Against those who are stubbornly contentious we have to oppose this, that the churches of God are not contentious.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:17

^{( 14 )} Now in this that I declare [unto you] I praise [you] not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

^{( 14 )} He passes now to the next treatise concerning the right administration of the Lord's supper. And the apostle uses this harsher preface, that the Corinthians might understand that whereas they generally observed the apostle's commandments, yet they badly neglected them in a matter of greatest importance.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:18

^{( 15 )} For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

^{( 15 )} To celebrate the Lord's supper correctly, it is required that there is not only consent of doctrine, but also of affections, so that it is not profaned.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:19

^{( 16 )} For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are ^{( f )} approved may be made manifest among you.

^{( 16 )} Although schisms and heresies proceed from the devil, and are evil, yet they come not by chance, nor without cause, and they turn to the profit of the elect.

^{( f )} Whom experience has taught to be of sound religion and godliness.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:20

When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is ^{( g )} not to eat the Lord's supper.

^{( g )} This is a usual metaphor by which the apostle flatly denies that which many did not do well.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:21

For in eating every one taketh ^{( h )} before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

^{( h )} Eats his food and does not wait until others come.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:22

^{( 17 )} What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not.

^{( 17 )} The apostle thinks it good to take away the love feasts because of their abuse, although they had been practised a long time, and with commendation used in churches, and were appointed and instituted by the apostles.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 11:23

^{( 18 )} For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:

^{( 18 )} We must take a true form of keeping the Lord's supper, out of the institution of it, the parts of which are these: touching the pastors, to show forth the Lord's death by preaching his word, to bless the bread and the wine by calling upon the name of God, and together with prayers to declare the institution of it, and finally to deliver the bread broken to be eaten, and the cup received to be drunk with thanksgiving. And touching the flock, that every man examine himself, that is to say, to prove both his knowledge, and also faith, and repentance: to show forth the Lord's death, that is, in true faith to yield to his word and institution: and last of all, to take the bread from the minister's hand, and to eat it and to drink the wine, and give God thanks. This was Paul's and the apostles' manner of ministering.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Co 11:1-34

1 He reproves them, because in holy assemblies,

4 their men prayed with their heads covered,

6 and women with their heads uncovered;

17 and because generally their meetings were not for the better, but for the worse;

21 as, namely, in profaning with their own feast the Lord's supper.

25 Lastly, he calls them to the first institution thereof.

Maclaren: 1Co 11:21

In Remembrance Of Me'

This do in remembrance of Me.'--1 Cor. 11:21.

THE account of the institution of the Lord's Supper, contained in this context, is very much the oldest extant narrative of that event. It dates long before any of the Gospels, and goes up, probably, to somewhere about five and twenty years after the Crucifixion. It presupposes a previous narrative which had been orally delivered to the Corinthians, and, as the Apostle alleges, was derived by him from Christ Himself. It is intended to correct corruptions in the administration of the rite which must have taken some time to develop themselves. And so we are carried back to a period very close indeed to the first institution of the rite, by the words before us.

No reasonable doubt can exist, then, that within a very few years of our Lord's death, the whole body of Christian people believed that Jesus Christ Himself appointed the Lord's Supper. I do not stay to dwell upon the value of a rite contemporaneous with the fact which it commemorates, and continuously lasting throughout the ages, as a witness of the historical veracity of the alleged fact; but I want to fix upon this thought, that Jesus Christ, who cared very little for rites, who came to establish a religion singularly independent of any outward form, did establish two rites, one of them to be done once in a Christian lifetime, one of them to be repeated with indefinite frequency, and, as it appears, at first repeated daily by the early believers. The reason why these two, and only these two, external ordinances were appointed by Jesus Christ was, that, taken together, they cover the whole ground of revealed fact, and they also cover the whole ground of Christian experience. There is no room for any other rites, because these two, the rite of initiation, which is baptism, and the rite of commemoration, which is the Lord's Supper, say everything about Christianity as a revelation, and about Christianity as a living experience.

Not only so, but in the simple primitive form of the Lord's Supper there is contained a reference to the past, the present and the future. It covers all time as well as all revelation and all Christian experience. For the past, as the text shows us, it is a memorial of one Person, and one fact in that Person's life. For the present, it is the symbol of the Christian life, as that great sixth chapter in John's gospel sets forth; and for the future, it is a prophecy, as our Lord Himself said on that night in the upper chamber, Till I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom,' and as the Apostle in this context says, Till He come.' It is to these three aspects of this ordinance, as the embodiment of all essential Christian truth, and as the embodiment of all deep Christian experience, covering the past, the present, and the future, that I wish to turn now. I do not deal so much with the mere words of my text as with this threefold significance of the rite which it appoints.

I. So Then, First, We Have To Think Of It As A Memorial Of The Past.

Do this,' is the true meaning of the words, not in remembrance of Me,' but something far more sweet and pathetic--do this for the remembering of Me.' The former expression is equal to Do this because you remember.' The real meaning of the words is, Do this in case you forget'; do this in order that you may recall to memory what the slippery memory is so apt to lose--the impression of even the sweetest sweetness, of the most loving love, and the most self-abnegating sacrifice, which He offered for us.

There is something to me infinitely pathetic and beautiful in looking at the words not only as the commandment of the Lord, but as the appeal of the Friend, who wished, as we all do, not to be utterly forgotten by those whom He cared for and loved; and who, not only because their remembrance was their salvation, but because their forgetfulness pained His human heart, brings to their hearts the plaintive appeal: Do not forget Me when I am gone away from you; and even if you have no better way of remembering Me, take these poor symbols, to which I am not too proud to entrust the care of My memory, and do this, lest you forget Me.'

But, dear brethren, there are deeper thoughts than this, on which I must dwell briefly. In remembrance of Me'--Jesus Christ, then, takes up an altogether unique and solitary position here, and into the sacredest hours of devotion and the loftiest moments of communion with God, intrudes His personality, and says, When you are most religious, remember Me; and let the highest act of your devout life be a thought turned to Myself.'

Now, I want you to ask, is that thought diverted from God? And if it is not, how comes it not to be? I want you honestly to ask yourselves this question--what did Ye think about Himself who, at that moment, when all illusions were vanishing, and life was almost at its last ebb, took the most solemn rite of His nation and laid it solemnly aside and said: A greater than Moses is here; a greater deliverance is being wrought': Remember Me.' Is that insisting on His own personality, and making the remembrance of it the very apex and shining summit of all religious aspiration--is that the work of one about whom all that we have to say is, He was the noblest of men? If so, then I want to know how Jesus Christ, in that upper chamber, founding the sole continuous rite of the religion which He established, and making its heart and centre the remembrance of His own personality, can be cleared from the charge of diverting to Himself what belongs to God only, and how you and I, if we obey His commands, escape the crime of idolatry and man-worship? Do this in remembrance,'--not of God--in remembrance of Me,' and let memory, with all its tendrils, clasp and cleave to My person.' What an extraordinary demand!

It is obscuring God, unless the' Me' is God manifest in the flesh.

Then, still further, let me remind you that in the appointment of this solitary rite as His memorial to all generations, Jesus Christ Himself designates one part of His whole manifestation as the part into which all its pathos, significance, and power are concentrated. We who believe that the death of Christ is the life of the world, are told that one formidable objection to our belief is that Jesus Christ Himself said so little during His life about His death. I believe His reticence upon that question is much exaggerated, but apart altogether from that, I believe also that there was a necessity in the order of the evolution of divine truth, for the reticence, such as it is, because, whatsoever might be possible to Moses and Elias, on the Mount of Transfiguration, His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem,' could not be much spoken about in the plain till it had been accomplished. But, apart from both of these considerations, reflect, that whether He said much about His death or not, He said something very much to the purpose about it when He said Do this in remembrance of Me.'

It is not His personality only that we are to remember. The whole of the language of the institution of the ritual, as well as the form of the rite, and its connection with the ancient passover, and its connection with the new covenant into connection with which Christ Himself brings it, all point to the significance in His eyes of His death as the Sacrifice for the world's sin. Wherefore the body' and the blood' separately remembered, except to indicate death by violence? Wherefore the language the body broken for you'; the blood shed for many for the remission of sins?'

Wherefore the association with the Passover sacrifice? Wherefore the declaration that this is the blood of the Covenant,' unless all tended to the one thought--His death is the foundation of all loving relationships possible to us with God; and the condition of the remission of sins--the Sacrifice for the whole world?'

This is the point that He desires us to remember; this is that which He would have live for ever in our grateful hearts.

I say nothing about the absolute exclusion of any other purpose of this memorial rite. If it was the mysterious thing that the superstition of later ages has made of it, how, in the name of common-sense, does it come that not one syllable, looking in that direction, dropped from His lips when He established it? Surely He, in that upper chamber, knew best what He meant, and what He was doing when He established the rite; and I, for my part, am contented to be told that I believe in a poor, bald Zwinglianism, when I say with my Master, that the purpose of the Lord's Supper is simply the commemoration, and therein the proclamation, of His death. There is no magic, no mystery, no sacrament' about it. It blesses us when it makes us remember Him. It does the same thing for us which any other means of bringing Him to mind does. It does that through a different vehicle. A sermon does it by words, the Communion does it by symbols. That is the difference to be found between them. And away goes the whole fabric of superstitious Christianity, and all its mischiefs and evils, when once you accept the simple Remember.' Christ told us what He meant by the rite when He said Do this in remembrance of Me.'

II. And Now One Word Or Two More About The Other Particulars Which I Have Suggested.

The past, however sweet and precious, is not enough for any soul to live upon. And so this memorial rite, just because it is memorial, is a symbol for the present.

That is taught us in the great chapter--the sixth of John's Gospel--which was spoken long before the institution of the Lord's Supper, but expresses in words the same ideas which it expresses by material forms. The Christ who died is the Christ who lives, and must be lived upon by the Christian. If our relation to Jesus Christ were only that Once in the end of the ages He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself'; and if we had to look back through lengthening vistas of distance and thickening folds of oblivion, simply to a historical past, in which He was once offered, the retrospect would not have the sweetness in it which it now has. But when we come to this thought that the Christ who was for us is also the Christ in us, and that He is not the Christ for us unless He is the Christ in us; and His death will never wash away our sins unless we feed upon Him, here and now, by faith and meditation, then the retrospect becomes blessedness. The Christian life is not merely the remembrance of a historical Christ in the past, but it is the present participation in a living Christ, with us now.

He is near each of us that we may make Him the very food of our spirits. We are to live upon Him. He is to be incorporated within us by our own act. This is no mysticism, it is a piece of simple reality. There is no Christian life without it. The true life of the believer is just the feeding of our souls upon Him, --our minds accepting, meditating upon, digesting the truths which are incarnated in Jesus; our hearts feeding upon the love which is so tender, warm, stooping, and close; our wills feeding upon and nourished by the utterance of His will in commandments which to know is joy and to keep is liberty; our hopes feeding upon Him who is our Hope, and in whom they find no chaff and husks of peradventures, but the pure wheat of Verily! verily I say unto you'; the whole nature thus finding its nourishment in Jesus Christ. You are Christians in the measure in which the very strength of your spirits, and sustenance of all your faculties, are found in loving communion with the living Lord.

Remember, too, that all this communion, intimate, sweet, sacred, is possible only, or at all events is in its highest forms and most blessed reality, possible only, to those who approach Him through the gate of His death. The feeding upon the living Christ which will be the strength of our hearts and our portion for ever, must be a feeding upon the whole Christ. We must not only nourish our spirits on the fact that He was incarnated for our salvation, but also on the truth that He was crucified for our acceptance with God. He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me,' has for its deepest explanation, He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life.'

My friends, what about the hunger of your souls? Where is it satisfied? With the swine's husks, or with the Bread of God which came down from Heaven?'

III. Now, Lastly, That Rite Which Is A Memorial And A Symbol Is Also A Prophecy.

In the original words of the institution our Lord Himself makes reference to the future; till I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.' And in the context here, the Apostle provides for the perpetual continuance, and emphasises the prophetic aspect, of the rite, by that word, till He come.' His death necessarily implies His coming again. The Cross and the Throne are linked together by an indissoluble bond. Being what it is, the death cannot be the end. Being what He is, if He has once been offered to bear the sins of many, so He must come the second time without sin unto salvation. The rite, just because it is a rite, is the prophecy of a time when the need for it, arising from weak flesh and an intrusive world, shall cease. They shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord; at that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord.' There shall be no temple in that great city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple thereof. So all external worship is a prophecy of the coming of the perfect time, when that which is perfect being come, the external helps and ladders to climb to the loftiest shall be done away.

But more than that, the memorial and symbol is a prophecy. That upper chamber, with its troubled thoughts, its unbidden tears, starting to the eyes of the half-understanding listeners, who only felt that He was going away and the sweet companionship was dissolved, may seem to be but a blurred and a poor image of the better communion of heaven. But though on that sad night the Master bore a burdened heart, and the servants had but partial apprehension and a more partial love; though He went forth to agonise and to die, and they went forth to deny and to betray, and to leave Him alone, still it was a prophecy of Christ's table in His kingdom. Heaven is to be a feast. That representation promises society to the solitary, rest to the toilers, the oil of joy for mourning, and the full satisfaction of all desires. That heavenly feast surpasses indeed the antitype in the upper chamber, in that there the Master Himself partook not, and yonder we shall sup with Him and He with us, but is prophetic in that, as there He took a towel and girded Himself and washed the disciples' feet, so yonder He will come forth Himself and serve them. The future is unlike the prophetic past in that we shall go no more out'; there shall be no sequences of sorrow, and struggle, and distance and ignorance; but like it in that we shall feast on Christ, for through eternity the glorified Jesus will be the Bread of our spirits, and the fact of His past sacrifice the foundation of our hopes.

So, dear brethren, though our external celebration of this rite be dashed, as it always is, with much ignorance and with feeble faith; and though we gather round this table as the first generation of Israelites did round the passover, of which it is the successor, with staff in hand and loins girded, and have to eat it often with bitter herbs mingled, and though there be at our sides empty places, yet even in our clouded and partial apprehension, and in the imperfections of this outward type, we may see a gracious shadow of what is waiting for us when we shall go no more out, and all empty places shall be filled, and the bitter herbs shall be changed for the asphodel of Heaven and the sweet flowerage round the throne of God, and we shall feast upon the Christ, and in the loftiest experience of the utmost glories of the Heavens, shall remember the bitter Cross and agony as that which has bought it all. This do in remembrance of Me.' May it be a symbol of our inmost life, and the prophecy of the Heaven to which we each shall come!

MHCC: 1Co 11:1

The first verse of this chapter seems properly to be the close to the last. The apostle not only preached such doctrine as they ought to believe, but led such a life as they ought to live. Yet Christ being our perfect example, the actions and conduct of men, as related in the Scriptures, should be followed only so far as they are like to his.

MHCC: 1Co 11:2-16

Here begin particulars respecting the public assemblies, 1 Corinthians 14. In the abundance of spiritual gifts bestowed on the Corinthians, some abuses had crept in; but as Christ did the will, and sought the honour of God, so the Christian should avow his subjection to Christ, doing his will and seeking his glory. We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have " power," that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.

MHCC: 1Co 11:17-22

The apostle rebukes the disorders in their partaking of the Lord's supper. The ordinances of Christ, if they do not make us better, will be apt to make us worse. If the use of them does not mend, it will harden. Upon coming together, they fell into divisions, schisms. Christians may separate from each other's communion, yet be charitable one towards another; they may continue in the same communion, yet be uncharitable. This last is schism, rather than the former. There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord's supper, which adds to guilt. Many rich Corinthians seem to have acted very wrong at the Lord's table, or at the love-feasts, which took place at the same time as the supper. The rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. What should have been a bond of mutual love and affection, was made an instrument of discord and disunion. We should be careful that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord's table, appears to make light of that sacred institution. The Lord's supper is not now made an occasion for gluttony or revelling, but is it not often made the support of self-righteous pride, or a cloak for hypocrisy? Let us never rest in the outward forms of worship; but look to our hearts.

MHCC: 1Co 11:23-34

The apostle describes the sacred ordinance, of which he had the knowledge by revelation from Christ. As to the visible signs, these are the bread and wine. What is eaten is called bread, though at the same time it is said to be the body of the Lord, plainly showing that the apostle did not mean that the bread was changed into flesh. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bid them all drink of the cup, ch. Mat 26:27, as if he would, by this expression, provide against any believer being deprived of the cup. The things signified by these outward signs, are Christ's body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice. Our Saviour's actions were, taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving both the one and the other. The actions of the communicants were, to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and to do both in remembrance of Christ. But the outward acts are not the whole, or the principal part, of what is to be done at this holy ordinance. Those who partake of it, are to take him as their Lord and Life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. Here is an account of the ends of this ordinance. It is to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds his dying for us, as well as to remember Christ pleading for us, in virtue of his death, at God's right hand. It is not merely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered; but to celebrate his grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and plead it as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. The Lord's supper is not an ordinance to be observed merely for a time, but to be continued. The apostle lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving it with an unsuitable temper of mind; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while professing to renew and confirm the covenant with God. No doubt such incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to spiritual judgements. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance. The Holy Spirit never caused this scripture to be written to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this use of it. The apostle was addressing Christians, and warning them to beware of the temporal judgements with which God chastised his offending servants. And in the midst of judgement, God remembers mercy: he many times punishes those whom he loves. It is better to bear trouble in this world, than to be miserable for ever. The apostle points our the duty of those who come to the Lord's table. Self-examination is necessary to right attendance at this holy ordinance. If we would thoroughly search ourselves, to condemn and set right what we find wrong, we should stop Divine judgements. The apostle closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which the Corinthians were guilty at the Lord's table. Let all look to it, that they do not come together to God's worship, so as to provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves.

Matthew Henry: 1Co 11:1-16

Paul, having answered the cases put to him, proceeds in this chapter to the redress of grievances. The first verse of the chapter is put, by those who divided the epistle into chapters, as a preface to the rest of the epistle, but seems to have been a more proper close to the last, in which he had enforced the cautions he had given against the abuse of liberty, by his own example: Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ (1Co 11:1), fitly closes his argument; and the way of speaking in the next verse looks like a transition to another. But, whether it more properly belong to this or the last chapter, it is plain from it that Paul not only preached such doctrine as they ought to believe, but led such a life as they ought to imitate. "Be ye followers of me,"that is, "Be imitators of me; live as you see me live."Note, Ministers are likely to preach most to the purpose when they can press their hearers to follow their example. Yet would not Paul be followed blindly neither. He encourages neither implicit faith nor obedience. He would be followed himself no further than he followed Christ. Christ's pattern is a copy without a blot; so is no man's else. Note, We should follow no leader further than he follows Christ. Apostles should be left by us when they deviate from the example of their Master. He passes next to reprehend and reform an indecency among them, of which the women were more especially guilty, concerning which observe,

I. How he prefaces it. He begins with a commendation of what was praiseworthy in them (1Co 11:2): I praise you, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. Many of them, it is probable, did this in the strictest sense of the expression: and he takes occasion thence to address the body of the church under this good character; and the body might, in the main, have continued to observe the ordinances and institutions of Christ, though in some things they deviated fRom. and corrupted, them. Note, When we reprove what is amiss in any, it is very prudent and fit to commend what is good in them; it will show that the reproof is not from ill-will, and a humour of censuring and finding fault; and it will therefore procure the more regard to it.

II. How he lays the foundation for his reprehension by asserting the superiority of the man over the woman: I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Christ, in his mediatorial character and glorified humanity, is at the head of mankind. He is not only first of the kind, but Lord and Sovereign. He has a name above every name: though in this high office and authority he has a superior, God being his head. And as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the whole human kind, so the man is the head of the tow sexes: not indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the kind or God has over the man Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he has, and the woman should be in subjection and not assume or usurp the man's place. This is the situation in which God has placed her; and for that reason she should have a mind suited to her rank, and not do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing places. Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, 1Co 11:5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (1Co 14:34; 1Ti 2:12), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle's discourse, ch. 14. Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.

III. The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, 1Co 11:4, 1Co 11:5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,

IV. The reasons on which he grounds his reprehension. 1. The man that prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, namely, Christ, the head of every man (1Co 11:3), by appearing in a habit unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should, even in our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, 1Co 11:3. She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on the other sex. And this was probably the fault of these prophetesses in the church of Corinth. It was doing a thing which, in that age of the world, betokened superiority, and therefore a tacit claim of what did not belong to them but the other sex. Note, The sexes should not affect to change places. The order in which divine wisdom has placed persons and things is best and fittest: to endeavour to amend it is to destroy all order, and introduce confusion. The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her, and not dishonour her head; for this, in the result, is to dishonour God. If she was made out of the man, and for the man, and made to be the glory of the man, she should do nothing, especially in public, that looks like a wish of having this order inverted. 2. Another reason against this conduct is that the man is the image and glory of God, the representative of that glorious dominion and headship which God has over the world. It is the man who is set at the head of this lower creation, and therein he bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man (1Co 11:7): she is his representative. Not but she has dominion over the inferior creatures, as she is a partaker of human nature, and so far is God's representative too, but it is at second-hand. She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man: For the man was not made out of the woman, but the woman out of the man, 1Co 11:8. The man was first made, and made head of the creation here below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving that honour from him out of whom she was made. 3. The woman was made for the man, to be his help-meet, and not the man for the woman. She was naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because made for him, for his use, and help, and comfort. And she who was intended to be always in subjection to the man should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, that looks like an affectation of equality. 4. She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to him, and inferior to the other sex. Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, put on her veil, in token of her subjection, Gen 24:65. Thus would the apostle have the women appear In Christian assemblies, even though they spoke there by inspiration, because of the angels, that is, say some, because of the evil angels. The woman was first in the transgression, being deceived by the devil (1Ti 2:14), which increased her subjection to man, Gen 3:16. Now, believe evil angels will be sure to mix in all Christian assemblies, therefore should women wear the token of their shamefacedness and subjection, which in that age and country, was a veil. Others say because of the good angels. Jews and Christians have had an opinion that these ministering spirits are many of them present in their assemblies. Their presence should restrain Christians from all indecencies in the worship of God. Note, We should learn from all to behave in the public assemblies of divine worship so as to express a reverence for God, and a content and satisfaction with that rank in which he has placed us.

V. He thinks fit to guard his argument with a caution lest the inference be carried too far (1Co 11:11, 1Co 11:12): Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord. They were made for one another. It is not good for him to be alone (Gen 2:18), and therefore was a woman made, and made for the man; and the man was intended to be a comfort, and help, and defence, to the woman, though not so directly and immediately made for her. They were made to be a mutual comfort and blessing, not one a slave and the other a tyrant. Both were to be one flesh (Gen 2:24), and this for the propagation of a race of mankind. They are reciprocal instruments of each other's production. As the woman was first formed out of the man, the man is ever since propagated by the woman (1Co 11:12), all by the divine wisdom and power of the First Cause so ordaining it. The authority and subjection should be no greater than are suitable to two in such near relation and close union to each other. Note, As it is the will of God that the woman know her place, so it is his will also that the man abuse not his power.

VI. He enforces his argument from the natural covering provided for the woman (1Co 11:13-15): " Judge in yourselves - consult your own reason, hearken to what nature suggests - is it comely for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy."Note, It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies, to make no breach upon the rules of natural decency.

VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, 1Co 11:16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.

Matthew Henry: 1Co 11:17-22

In this passage the apostle sharply rebukes them for much greater disorders than the former, in their partaking of the Lord's supper, which was commonly done in the first ages, as the ancients tell us, with a love-feast annexed, which gave occasion to the scandalous disorders which the apostle here reprehends, concerning which observe,

I. The manner in which he introduces his charge: " Now in this that I declare to you I praise you not, 1Co 11:17. I cannot commend, but must blame and condemn you."It is plain, from the beginning of the chapter, that he was willing and pleased to commend as far as he could. But such scandalous disorders, in so sacred an institution, as they were guilty of, called for a sharp reprehension. They quite turned the institution against itself. It was intended to make them better, to promote their spiritual interests; but it really made them worse. They came together, not for the better, but for the worse. Note, The ordinances of Christ, if they do not make us better, will be very apt to make us worse; if they do not do our souls good, they do us harm; if they do not melt and mend, they will harden. Corruptions will be confirmed in us, if the proper means do not work a cure of them.

II. He enters upon his charge against them in more particulars than one. 1. He tells them that, upon coming together, they fell into divisions, schisms - schismata . Instead of concurring unanimously in celebrating the ordinance, they fell a quarrelling with one another. Note, There may be schism where there is no separation of communion. Persons may come together in the same church, and sit down at the same table of the Lord, and yet be schismatics. Uncharitableness, alienation of affection, especially if it grows up to discord, and feuds, and contentions, constitute schism. Christians may separate from each other's communion, and yet be uncharitable one towards another; they may continue in the same communion, and yet be uncharitable. This latter is schism, rather than the former. The apostle had heard a report of the Corinthians' divisions, and he tells them he had too much reason to believe it. For, adds he, there must be heresies also; not only quarrels, but factions, and perhaps such corrupt opinions as strike at the foundation of Christianity, and all sound religion. Note, No marvel there should be breaches of Christian love in the churches, when such offences will come as shall make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Such offences must come. Note that men are necessitated to be guilty of them; but the event is certain, and God permits them, that those who are approved (such honest hearts as will bear the trial) may be set to view, and appear faithful by their constant adherence to the truths and ways of God, notwithstanding the temptations of seducers. Note, The wisdom of God can make the wickedness and errors of others a foil to the piety and integrity of the saints. 2. He charges them not only with discord and division, but with scandalous disorder: For in eating every one taketh before the other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken, 1Co 11:21. Heathens used to drink plentifully at their feasts upon their sacrifices. Many of the wealthier Corinthians seem to have taken the same liberty at the Lord's table, or at least at their Agapai , or love-feasts, that were annexed to the supper. They would not stay for one another; the rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they themselves brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; and thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. This was profaning a sacred institution, and corrupting a divine ordinance, to the last degree. What was appointed to feed the soul was employed to feed their lusts and passions. What should have been a bond of mutual amity and affection was made an instrument of discord and disunion. The poor were deprived of the food prepared for them, and the rich turned a feast of charity into a debauch. This was scandalous irregularity.

III. The apostle lays the blame of this conduct closely on them, 1. By telling them that their conduct perfectly destroyed the purpose and use of such an institution: This is not to eat the Lord's supper, 1Co 11:20. It was coming to the Lord's table, and not coming. They might as well have staid away. Thus to eat the outward elements was not to eat Christ's body. Note, There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord's supper which is as none at all; it will turn to no account, but to increase guilt. Such an eating was that of the Corinthians; their practices were a direct contradiction to the purposes of this sacred institution. 2. Their conduct carried in it a contempt of God's house, or of the church, 1Co 11:22. If they had a mind to feast, they might do it at home in their own houses; but to come to the Lord's table, and cabal and quarrel, and keep the poor from their share of the provision there made for them as well as rich, was such an abuse of the ordinance, and such a contempt of the poorer members of the church more especially, as merited a very sharp rebuke. Such a behaviour tended much to the shame and discouragement of the poor, whose souls were as dear to Christ, and cost him as much, as those of the rich. Note, Common meals may be managed after a common manner, but religious feasts should be attended religiously. Note, also, It is a heinous evil, and severely to be censured, for Christians to treat their fellow-christians with contempt and insolence, but especially at the Lord's table. This is doing what they can to pour contempt on divine ordinances. And we should look carefully to it that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord's table have the appearance of contemning so sacred an institution.

Matthew Henry: 1Co 11:23-34

To rectify these gross corruptions and irregularities, the apostle sets the sacred institution here to view. This should be the rule in the reformation of all abuses.

I. He tells us how he came by the knowledge of it. He was not among the apostles at the first institution; but he had received from the Lord what he delivered to them, 1Co 11:23. He had the knowledge of this matter by revelation from Christ: and what he had received he communicated, without varying from the truth a tittle, without adding or diminishing.

II. He gives us a more particular account of the institution than we meet with elsewhere. We have here an account,

1. Of the author - our Lord Jesus Christ. The king of the church only has power to institute sacraments.

2. The time of the institution: It was the very night wherein he was betrayed; just as he was entering on his sufferings which are therein to be commemorated.

3. The institution itself. Our Saviour took bread, and when he had given thanks, or blessed (as it is in Mat 26:26), he broke, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. And in like manner he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me, 1Co 11:24, 1Co 11:25. Here observe,

(1.) The materials of this sacrament; both, [1.] As to the visible signs; these are bread and the cup, the former of which is called bread many times over in this passage, even after what the papists call consecration. What is eaten is called bread, though it be at the same time said to be the body of the Lord, a plain argument that the apostle knew nothing of their monstrous and absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. The latter is as plainly a part of this institution as words can make it. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bade them all drink of it (Mat 26:27), as if he would, by this expression, lay in a caveat against the papists' depriving the laity of the cup. Bread and the cup are both made use of, because it is a holy feast. Nor is it here, or any where, made necessary, that any particular liquor should be in the cup. In one evangelist, indeed, it is plain that wine was the liquor used by our Saviour, though it was, perhaps, mingled with water, according to the Jewish custom; vide Lightfoot on Mt. 26. But this by no means renders it unlawful to have a sacrament where persons cannot come at wine. In every place of scripture in which we have an account of this part of the institution it is always expressed by a figure. The cup is put for what was in it, without once specifying what the liquor was, in the words of the institution. [2.] The things signified by these outward signs; they are Christ's body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice: it is the New Testament in his blood. His blood is the seal and sanction of all the privileges of the new covenant; and worthy receivers take it as such, at this holy ordinance. They have the New Testament, and their own title to all the blessings of the new covenant, confirmed to them by his blood.

(2.) We have here the sacramental actions, the manner in which the materials of the sacrament are to be used. [1.] Our Saviour's actions, which are taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving about both the one and the other. [2.] The actions of the communicants, which were to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and both in remembrance of Christ. But the external acts are not the whole nor the principal part of what is to be done at this holy ordinance; each of them has a significancy. Our Saviour, having undertaken to make an offering of himself to God, and procure, by his death, the remission of sins, with all other gospel benefits, for true believers, did, at the institution, deliver his body and blood, with all the benefits procured by his death, to his disciples, and continues to do the same every time the ordinance is administered to the true believers. This is here exhibited, or set forth, as the food of souls. And as food, though ever so wholesome or rich, will yield no nourishment without being eaten, here the communicants are to take and eat, or to receive Christ and feed upon him, his grace and benefits, and by faith convert them into nourishment to their souls. They are to take him as their Lord and life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. He is our life, Col 3:4.

(3.) We have here an account of the ends of this institution. [1.] It was appointed to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds an ancient favour, his dying for us, as well as to remember an absent friend, even Christ interceding for us, in virtue of his death, at God's right hand. The best of friends, and the greatest acts of kindness, are here to be remembered, with the exercise of suitable affections and graces. The motto on this ordinance, and the very meaning of it, is, When this you see, remember me. [2.] It was to show forth Christ's death, to declare and publish it. It is not barely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered, that this ordinance was instituted; but to commemorate, to celebrate, his glorious condescension and grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and spread it before God, as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. We set it in view of our own faith, for our own comfort and quickening; and we own before the world, by this very service, that we are the disciples of Christ, who trust in him alone for salvation and acceptance with God.

(4.) It is moreover hinted here, concerning this ordinance, [1.] That it should be frequent: As often as you eat this bread, etc. Our bodily meals return often; we cannot maintain life and health without this. And it is fit that this spiritual diet should be taken often tool The ancient churches celebrated this ordinance every Lord's day, if not every day when they assembled for worship. [2.] That it must be perpetual. It is to be celebrated till the Lord shall come; till he shall come the second time, without sin, for the salvation of those that believe, and to judge the world. This is our warrant for keeping this feast. It was our Lord's will that we should thus celebrate the memorials of his death and passion, till he come in his own glory, and the Father's glory, with his holy angels, and put an end to the present state of things, and his own mediatorial administration, by passing the final sentence. Note, The Lord's supper is not a temporary, but a standing and perpetual ordinance.

III. He lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving unworthily, of prostituting this institution as they did, and using it to the purposes of feasting and faction, with intentions opposite to its design, or a temper of mind altogether unsuitable to it; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while they are there professedly renewing and confirming their covenant with God. 1. It is great guilt which such contract. They shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1Co 11:27), of violating this sacred institution, of despising his body and blood. They act as if they counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith they are sanctified, an unholy thing, Heb 10:29. They profane the institution, and in a manner crucify their Saviour over again. Instead of being cleansed by his blood, they are guilty of his blood. 2. It is a great hazard which they run: They eat and drink judgment to themselves, 1Co 11:29. They provoke God, and are likely to bring down punishment on themselves. No doubt but they incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to damnation, to spiritual judgments and eternal misery. Every sin is in its own nature damning; and therefore surely so heinous a sin as profaning such a holy ordinance is so. And it is profaned in the grossest sense by such irreverence and rudeness as the Corinthians were guilty of. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance by the sound of these words, as if they bound upon themselves the sentence of damnation by coming to the table of the Lord unprepared. Thus sin, as well as all others, leaves room for forgiveness upon repentance; and the Holy Spirit never indited this passage of scripture to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this advantage of it, and robbed good Christians of their choicest comforts. The Corinthians came to the Lord's table as to a common feast, not discerning the Lord's body - not making a difference or distinction between that and common food, but setting both on a level: nay, they used much more indecency at this sacred feast than they would have done at a civil one. This was very sinful in them, and very displeasing to God, and brought down his judgments on them: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. Some were punished with sickness, and some with death. Note, A careless and irreverent receiving of the Lord's supper may bring temporal punishments. Yet the connection seems to imply that even those who were thus punished were in a state of favour with God, at least many of them: They were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world, 1Co 11:32. Now divine chastening is a sign of divine love: Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth (Heb 12:6), especially with so merciful a purpose, to prevent their final condemnation. In the midst of judgment, God remembers mercy: he frequently punishes those whom he tenderly loves. It is kindness to use the rod to prevent the child's ruin. He will visit such iniquity as this under consideration with stripes, and yet make those stripes the evidence of his lovingkindness. Those were in the favour of God who yet so highly offended him in this instance, and brought down judgments on themselves; at least many of them were; for they were punished by him out of fatherly good-will, punished now that they might not perish for ever. Note, It is better to bear trouble in this world than to be miserable to eternity. And God punishes his people now, to prevent their eternal woe.

IV. He points out the duty of those who would come to the Lord's table. 1. In general: Let a man examine himself (1Co 11:28), try and approve himself. Let him consider the sacred intention of this holy ordinance, its nature, and use, and compare his own views in attending on it and his disposition of mind for it; and, when he has approved himself to his own conscience in the sight of God, then let him attend. Such self-examination is necessary to a right attendance at this holy ordinance. Note, Those who, through weakness of understanding, cannot try themselves, are by no means fit to eat of this bread and drink of this cup; nor those who, upon a fair trial, have just ground to charge themselves with impenitency, unbelief, and alienation from the life of God. Those should have the wedding-garment on who would be welcome at this marriage-feast-grace in habit, and grace in exercise. 2. The duty of those who were yet unpunished for their profanation of this ordinance: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, 1Co 11:31. If we would thoroughly search and explore ourselves, and condemn and correct what we find amiss, we should prevent divine judgments. Note, To be exact and severe on ourselves and our own conduct is the most proper way in the world not to fall under the just severity of our heavenly Father. We must not judge others, lest we be judged (Mat 7:1); but we must judge ourselves, to prevent our being judged and condemned by God. We may be critical as to ourselves, but should be very candid in judging others.

V. He closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which they were guilty (1Co 11:33, 1Co 11:34), charging them to avoid all indecency at the Lord's table. They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and not to change the holy supper to a common feast; and much less eat up the provisions before those who could bring none did partake of them, lest they should come together for condemnation. Note, Our holy duties, through our own abuse, may prove matter of condemnation. Christians may keep Sabbaths, hear sermons, attend at sacraments, and only aggravate guilt, and bring on a heavier doom. A sad but serious truth! O! let all look to it that they do not come together at any time to God's worship, and all the while provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves. Holy things are to be used in a holy manner, or else they are profaned. What else was amiss in this matter, he tells them, he would rectify when he came to them.

Barclay: 1Co 11:1

See Comments for 1 Cor 10:23-33

Barclay: 1Co 11:2-16

This is one of these passages which have a purely local and temporary significance; they look at first sight as if they had only an antiquarian interest because they deal with a situation which has long since ceased to have any relevance for us; and yet such passages have a very great interest because they shed a flood of light on the domestic affairs and problems of the early Church; and, for him who has eyes to see, they have a very great importance, because Paul solves the problems by principles which are eternal.

The problem was whether or not in the Christian Church a woman had the right to take part in the service unveiled. Paul's answer was bluntly this--the veil is always a sign of subjection, worn by an inferior in the presence of a superior; now woman is inferior to man, in the sense that man is head of the household; therefore it is wrong for a man to appear at public worship veiled and equally wrong for a woman to appear unveiled. It is very improbable that in the twentieth century we are likely to accept this view of the inferiority and subordination of women. But we must read this chapter in the light not of the twentieth century but of the first, and as we read it we must remember three things.

(i) We must remember the place of the veil in the East. To this day eastern women wear the yashmak which is a long veil leaving the forehead and the eyes uncovered but reaching down almost to the feet. In Paul's time the eastern veil was even more concealing. It came right over the head with only an opening for the eyes and reached right down to the feet. A respectable eastern woman would never have dreamed of appearing without it. Writing in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, T. W. Davies says, "No. respectable woman in an eastern village or city goes out without it, and, if she does, she is in danger of being misjudged. Indeed English and American missionaries in Egypt told the present writer that their own wives and daughters when going about find it often best to wear the veil."

The veil was two things. (a) It was a sign of inferiority. (b) But it was also a great protection. 1Co 11:10is very difficult to translate. We have translated it: "For this reason a woman ought to retain upon her head the sign that she is under someone else's authority," but the Greek literally means that a woman ought to retain "her authority upon her head." Sir William Ramsay explains it this way--"In Oriental lands the veil is the power and honour and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen; it is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to observe a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd.... But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom anyone may insult.... A woman's authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards."

In the East, then, the veil is all-important. It does not only mark the inferior status of a woman; it is the inviolable protection of her modesty and chastity.

(ii) We must remember the status of women in Jewish eyes. Under Jewish law woman was vastly inferior to man. She had been created out of Adam's rib (Gen 2:22-23) and she had been created to be the helpmeet of man (Gen 2:18). There was a Rabbinic piece of fanciful exegesis which said, "God did not form woman out of the head lest she should become proud; nor out of the eye lest she should lust; nor out of the ear lest she should be curious; nor out of the mouth lest she should be talkative; nor out of the heart lest she should be jealous; nor out of the hand lest she should be covetous; nor out of the foot lest she should be a wandering busybody; but out of a rib which was always covered; therefore modesty should be her primary quality."

It is the unfortunate truth that in Jewish law a woman was a thing and was part of the property of her husband over which he had complete rights of disposal. It was true that in the synagogue, for instance, women had no share whatever in the worship but were segregated completely from the men in a shut-off gallery or other part of the building. In Jewish law and custom it was unthinkable that women should claim any kind of equality with men.

In 1Co 11:10there is the curious phrase that women should be veiled "for the sake of the angels." It is not certain what this means, but probably it goes back to the strange old story in Gen 6:1-2which tells how the angels fell a prey to the charms of mortal women and so sinned; it may well be that the idea is that the unveiled woman is a temptation even to the angels, for an old Rabbinic tradition said that it was the beauty of women's long hair which tempted the angels.

(iii) It must always be remembered that this situation arose in Corinth, probably the most licentious city in the world. Paul's point of view was that in such a situation it was far better to err on the side of being too modest and too strict rather than to do anything which might either give the heathen a chance to criticize the Christians as being too lax or be a cause of temptation to the Christians themselves.

It would be quite wrong to make this passage of universal application; it was intensely relevant to the Church of Corinth but it has nothing to do with whether or not women should wear hats in church at the present day. But for all its local significance it has three great permanent truths in it.

(i) It is always better to err on the side of being too strict than on the side of being too lax. It is far better to abandon rights which may be a stumbling-block to some than to insist on them. It is the fashion to decry convention; but a man should always think twice before he defies it and shocks others. True, he must never be the slave of convention, but conventions do not usually come into being for nothing.

(ii) Even after he has stressed the subordination of women, Paul goes on to stress even more directly the essential partnership of man and woman. Neither can live without the other. If there be subordination, it is in order that the partnership may be more fruitful and more lovely for both.

(iii) Paul finishes the passage with a rebuke to the man who argues for the sake of argument. Whatever the differences that may arise between men, there is no place in the Church for the deliberately contentious man or woman. There is a time to stand on principle; but there is never a time to be contentiously argumentative. There is no reason why people should not differ and yet remain at peace.

Barclay: 1Co 11:17-22

The ancient world was in many ways much more social than ours is. It was the regular custom for groups of people to meet together for meals. There was, in particular, a certain kind of feast called an eranos to which each participant brought his own share of the food, and in which all the contributions were pooled to make a common meal. The early Church had such a custom, a feast called the Agape (26) or Love Feast. To it all the Christians came, bringing what they could, the resources were pooled and they sat down to a common meal. It was a lovely custom; and it is to our loss that the custom has vanished. It was a way of producing and nourishing real Christian fellowship.

But in the Church at Corinth things had gone sadly wrong with the Love Feast. In the Church there were rich and poor; there were those who could bring plenty, and there were slaves who could bring hardly anything at all. In fact for many a poor slave the Love Feast must have been the only decent meal in the whole week. But in Corinth the art of sharing had got lost. The rich did not share their food but ate it in little exclusive groups by themselves, hurrying through it in case they had to share, while the poor had next to nothing. The result was that the meal at which the social differences between members of the Church should have been obliterated only succeeded in aggravating these same differences. Unhesitatingly and unsparingly Paul rebukes this.

(i) It may well be that the different groups were composed of those who held different opinions. A great scholar has said, "To have religious zeal, without becoming a religious partisan, is a great proof of true devotion." When we think differently from a man, we may in time come to understand him and even to sympathize with him, if we remain in fellowship with him and talk things over with him; but, if we shut ourselves off from him and form our own little group while he remains in his, there is never any hope of mutual understanding.

He drew a circle that shut me out--

Rebel, heretic, thing to flout--

But love and I had the wit to win--

We drew a circle that took him in.

(ii) The early Church was the one place in all the ancient world where the barriers were down. That world was very rigidly divided; there were the free men and the slaves; there were the Greeks and the barbarians--the people who did not speak Greek; there were the Jews and the Gentiles; there were the Roman citizens and the lesser breeds without the law; there were the cultured and the ignorant. The Church was the one place where all men could and did come together. A great Church historian has written about these early Christian congregations, "Within their own limits they had solved almost by the way the social problem which baffled Rome and baffles Europe still. They had lifted woman to her rightful place, restored the dignity of labour, abolished beggary, and drawn the sting of slavery. The secret of the revolution is that the selfishness of race and class was forgotten in the Supper of the Lord, and a new basis for society found in love of the visible image of God in men for whom Christ died."

A church where social and class distinctions exist is no true church at all. A real church is a body of men and women united to each other because all are united to Christ. Even the word used to describe the sacrament is suggestive. We call it the Lord's Supper; but supper is to some extent misleading. Usually to us it is not the main meal of the day. But the Greek word is deipnon (1173). For the Greek the breakfast was a meal where all that was eaten was a little bread dipped in wine; the midday meal was eaten anywhere, even on the street or in a city square; the deipnon (1173) was the main meal of the day, where people sat down with no sense of hurry and not only satisfied their hunger but lingered long together. The very word shows that the Christian meal ought to be a meal where people linger long in each other's company.

(iii) A church is no true church if the art of sharing is forgotten. When people wish to keep things to themselves and to their own circle they are not even beginning to be Christian. The true Christian cannot bear to have too much while others have too little; he finds his greatest privilege not in jealously guarding his privileges but in giving them away.

Barclay: 1Co 11:23-34

No passage in the whole New Testament is of greater interest than this. For one thing, it gives us our warrant for the most sacred act of worship in the Church, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; and, for another since the letter to the Corinthians is earlier than the earliest of the gospels, this is actually the first recorded account we possess of any word of Jesus.

The Sacrament can never mean the same for every person; but we do not need fully to understand it to benefit from it. As someone has said, "We do not need to understand the chemistry of bread in order to digest it and to be nourished by it." For all that we do well to try at least to understand something of what Jesus meant when he spoke of the bread and the wine as he did.

"This is my body," he said of the bread. One simple fact precludes us from taking this with a crude literalism. When Jesus spoke, he was still in the body; and there was nothing clearer than that his body and the bread were at that moment quite different things. Nor did he simply mean, "This stands for my body." In a sense that is true. The broken bread of the Sacrament does stand for the body of Christ; but it does more. To him who takes it into his hands and upon his lips with faith and love, it is a means not only of memory but of living contact with Jesus Christ. To an unbeliever it would be nothing; to a lover of Christ it is the way to his presence.

"This cup," said Jesus, in the usual version, "is the new covenant in my blood." We have translated it slightly differently, "This cup is the new covenant and it cost my blood." The Greek preposition en most commonly means in; but it can, and regularly does, mean at the cost or price of, especially when it translates the Hebrew preposition be. Now a covenant is a relationship entered into between two people. There was an old covenant between God and man and that old relationship was based on law. In it God chose and approached the people of Israel and became in a special sense their God; but there was a condition, that, if this relationship was going to last, they must keep his law. (compare Exo 24:1-8). With Jesus a new relationship is opened to man, dependent not on law but on love, dependent not on man's ability to keep the law--for no man can do that--but on the free grace of God's love offered to men.

Under the old covenant a man could do nothing other than fear God for he was ever in default since he could never perfectly keep the law; under the new covenant he comes to God as a child to a father. However you look at things, it cost the life of Jesus to make this new relationship possible. "The blood is the life," says the law (Deu 12:23); it cost Jesus' life, his blood, as the Jew would put it. And so the scarlet wine of the sacrament stands for the very life-blood of Christ without which the new covenant, the new relationship of man to God, could never have been possible.

This passage goes on to talk about eating and drinking this bread and wine unworthily. The unworthiness consisted in the fact that the man who did so did "not discern the Lord's body." That phrase can equally well mean two things; and each is so real and so important that it is quite likely that both are intended.

(i) It may mean that the man who eats and drinks unworthily does not realize what the sacred symbols mean. It may mean that he eats and drinks with no reverence and no sense of the love that these symbols stand for or the obligation that is laid upon him.

(ii) It may also mean this. The phrase the body of Christ again and again stands for the Church; it does so, as we shall see, in 1Cor 12 . Paul has just been rebuking those who with their divisions and their class distinctions divide the Church; so this may mean that he eats and drinks unworthily who has never realized that the whole Church is the body of Christ but is at variance with his brother. Every man in whose heart there is hatred, bitterness, contempt against his brother man, as he comes to the Table of our Lord, eats and drinks unworthily. So then to eat and drink unworthily is to do so with no sense of the greatness of the thing we do, and to do so while we are at variance with the brother for whom also Christ died.

Paul goes on to say that the misfortunes which have fallen upon the Church at Corinth may be due to nothing else than the fact that they come to this sacrament while they are divided among themselves; but these misfortunes are sent not to destroy them but to discipline them and to bring them back to the right way.

We must be clear about one thing. The phrase which forbids a man to eat and drink unworthily does not shut out the man who is a sinner and knows it. An old highland minister seeing an old woman hesitate to receive the cup, stretched it out to her, saying, "Take it, woman; it's for sinners; it's for you." If the Table of Christ were only for perfect people none might ever approach it. The way is never closed to the penitent sinner. To the man who loves God and his fellow men the way is ever open, and his sins, though they be as scarlet, shall be white as snow.

Constable: 1Co 7:1--16:13

III. Questions asked of Paul 7:1--16:12

The remainder of the body of this epistle deals with questions the Corinthians had put to Paul in a letter. Paul introduced each of these with the phrase peri de ("now concerning," 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12).

"Rather than a friendly exchange, in which the new believers in Corinth are asking spiritual advice of their mentor in the Lord, their letter was probably a response to Paul's Previous Letter mentioned in 5:9, in which they were taking exception to his position on point after point. In light of their own theology of spirit, with heavy emphasis on wisdom' and knowledge,' they have answered Paul with a kind of Why can't we?' attitude, in which they are looking for his response."¹⁶⁰

Constable: 1Co 8:1--11:2

B. Food offered to idols 8:1-11:1

The Corinthians had asked Paul another question, evidently in a combative spirit judging by the apostle's response. It involved a practice common in their culture.

The commentators understand the situation that Paul addressed in two different ways. Some of them believe that the eating of marketplace food that pagans had previously offered to idols was amoral in itself, but it was controversial enough to cause division among the church members. If this was indeed the issue that Paul addressed, it is only one of many similar "doubtful things." Advocates of this view believe that the apostle's directions to his readers here give us guidance in dealing with contemporary doubtful (amoral) matters.

Other interpreters believe that eating food sacrificed to idols involved a specific form of idolatry and was, therefore, not amoral but sinful (cf. 5:10-11). They assume that Paul was responding to the Corinthians' objection to his prohibition of this practice that he had written in his former letter to them. This view sees 8:10 and 10:1-22 as expressing the basic problem to which Paul was responding. I believe the text supports this interpretation of the facts better than the former one.

"That going to the temples is the real issue is supported by the fact that the eating of cultic meals was a regular part of worship in antiquity. This is true not only of the nations that surrounded Israel, but of Israel itself. In the Corinth of Paul's time, such meals were still the regular practice both at state festivals and private celebrations of various kinds. There were three parts to these meals: the preparation, the sacrifice proper, and the feast. The meat of the sacrifices apparently was divided into three portions: that burned before the god, that apportioned to the worshipers, and that placed on the table of the god,' which was tended by cultic ministrants but also eaten by the worshipers. The significance of these meals has been much debated, but most likely they involved a combination of religious and social factors. The gods were thought to be present since the meals were held in their honor and sacrifices were made; nonetheless, they were also intensely social occasions for the participants. For the most part the Gentiles who had become believers in Corinth had probably attended such meals all their lives; this was the basic restaurant' in antiquity, and every kind of occasion was celebrated in this fashion.

"The problem, then, is best reconstructed along the following lines. After their conversion--and most likely after the departure of Paul--some of them returned to the practice of attending the cultic meals. In his earlier letter Paul forbade such idolatry'; but they have taken exception to that prohibition and in their letter have made four points:

"(1) They argue that all have knowledge' about idols [i.e., that there are no such things, so participation in these meals is not an issue, cf. vv. 1, 4]. . . .

"(2) They also have knowledge about food, that it is a matter of indifference to God (8:8) . . .

"(3) They seem to have a somewhat magical' view of the sacraments; those who have had Christian baptism and who partake of the Lord's Table are not in any danger of falling (10:1-4).

"(4) Besides, there is considerable question in the minds of many whether Paul has the proper apostolic authority to forbid them on this matter. In their minds this has been substantiated by two factors: first, his failure to accept support while with them; and second, his own apparently compromising stance on idol food sold in the marketplace (he abstained when eating with Jews, but ate when eating with Gentiles; cf. 9:19-23)."¹⁹⁷

Constable: 1Co 10:23--11:2

4. The issue of marketplace food 10:23-11:1

As with the issue of marriage, however, Paul granted that there are some matters connected with idolatry that are not wrong. He next gave his readers some help in making the tough choices needed in view of the amoral nature of some practices connected with pagan worship and the immoral nature of others. He suggested applying the test of what is edifying to these decisions. He proceeded to explain that food formerly offered to idols but sold in the marketplace was all right for Christians to eat at home. He himself had eaten such food (9:19-23), and the Corinthians had challenged him for doing so (10:29).

"But the real issues seem to lie deeper than the mere question of eating food. Both the nature of their argument for eating at the temples (8:1, 4, 8) and their criticism of Paul (9:1-3, 19-23) have revealed a basic confusion between absolutes and adiaphora (nonessentials). They had tried to make temple attendance an adiaphoron; for Paul it was an absolute because it was idolatry. At the same time they had confused the true basis for Christian behavior. For them it was a question of knowledge and rights (gnosis and exousia). For Paul it is a question of love and freedom (agape and eleutheria).²²⁶

This section's chiastic structure reflects Paul's alternating concern for personal freedom and love for others.

A The criterion stated: the good of others (10:23-24)

B Personal freedom explained (10:25-27)

C The criterion illustrated: love governing liberty (10:28-29a)

B' Personal freedom defended (10:29b-30)

A' The criterion generalized: that all may be saved (10:33-11:1)

10:23 Earlier Paul had addressed the issue of Christian liberty and had said that all things were lawful for him, but all things were not beneficial (6:12). Now he went further and clarified that beneficial means beneficial for others, not just self. Thus he sought to bring the rights-conscious Corinthians to their knees.

10:24 The well-being of one's neighbor is of primary importance. The exercise of all one's liberties is of secondary importance (cf. Rom. 15:2; Phil. 2:4). The Corinthians viewed their freedom as an opportunity to pursue their own interests. Paul viewed it as an opportunity to benefit and build up another person.

10:25-26 It was not wrong to eat meat that pagans had offered in sacrifice to an idol. Any food for which one thanks God thereby becomes acceptable for human consumption assuming it is wholesome (v. 30; cf. 1 Tim. 4:3-5). This was a very un-Jewish viewpoint coming from a Jew. As earlier in this epistle and elsewhere in his writings, Paul appealed to Scripture for a supporting summary statement (Ps. 24:1; 50:12).

Remember Paul was talking about distinctions based on spiritual issues. In Christianity there is no distinction between kosher and non-kosher food (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15). Paul was not talking about distinctions in food based on physical factors such as fat content, calories, and nutritional value. The issue was whether certain foods commend us to or condemn us before God. They do not.

10:27 The invitation in view must be to the home of an unbeliever for a meal rather than to a pagan temple for participation in a religious feast. This seems clear from the next verse. This freedom may have been hard for many Jewish Christians to accept (cf. Acts 10:28; 11:2-3). Nevertheless it belonged to them. It was wise not to ask if someone had offered the meat to an idol. A Christian might pose this question in the home of a pagan host or in the marketplace (v. 25). Not inquiring would obviate the possibility of unnecessary guilt arising in the mind of a scrupulous believer.

10:28-29a A pagan host might warn his Christian guest that the food before him had been offered in an idol temple.²²⁷ The pagan's conscience is not a reference to his convictions about what is right and wrong for himself but his moral consciousness.²²⁸ He does not want his Christian guest to be unaware that he is being served food that the Christian might object to and might what to abstain from eating.²²⁹ Pagans often associated Christians with Jews at this stage of church history, and many pagans would have assumed that Christians observed the same dietary restrictions as the Jews.

We might think that in such a situation Paul would have advocated exercising Christian liberty to eat the meat, but he did not. He advocated abstaining, not because such meat was out of bounds for believers. It was not out of bounds; Christians could eat such meat. He advocated abstaining for the sake of the pagan's moral consciousness. Specifically, if the Christian ate the meat, the pagan might conclude that his guest was doing something Christians should not do. He would be wrong, of course. Yet Paul advocated not violating the pagan's understanding of what Christians should or should not do rather than instructing him about Christian freedom at the table.

"A present-day analogy may be imagined if someone with strong principles on total abstention from alcohol were the guest of friends who did not share these principles. He would be well advised not to enquire too carefully about the ingredients of some specially palatable sauce or trifle, but if someone said to him pointedly, There is alcohol in this, you know', he might feel that he was being put on the spot and could reasonably ask to be excused from having any of it."²³⁰

10:29b This question resumes the thought of verses 26 and 27. Verses 28-29a are somewhat parenthetical being an illustration. We could restate Paul's thought this way. Why should another person's scruples determine my liberty? The answer is, they should because his spiritual welfare is more important than our Christian freedom.

10:30 Paul brought his own conduct in similar situations into the picture. He had eaten non-kosher food with Gentiles, but in the argument preceding this verse he advocated abstaining from such food when eating with pagans. The key, of course, is that sacrificial meat was only off limits for Paul when it offended the moral consciousness of the pagans he was with, not all the time.

"The blessing offered at one's meal, predicated on God's prior ownership of all things, means that no fellow Christian may condemn another on this question."²³¹

The Christian can give thanks to God for whatever he or she eats, but we should limit our own liberty out of consideration for what other people think is proper. We do not need to alter our convictions for the sake of others even though they speak evil of us, as the Corinthians did of Paul (cf. 9:19-23). Nevertheless we should be willing to change our behavior for the sake of unbelievers.

10:31 What glorifies God? Consideration for the consciences of other people and promotion of their well-being does. This contrasts with the observance of distinctions between foods, the satisfaction of one's personal preferences, and insistence on one's own rights. What glorifies God is what puts His preferences, plans, and program first (cf. Col. 3:17).

". . . God's own glory is the ultimate foundation of Pauline ethics (10:31)."²³²

10:32 Giving no offense means putting no obstacle in the path of a person be he Jew (cf. 9:20) or Gentile (cf. 9:21) so that he might come to faith in Christ. If he is already a believer, it means putting nothing in his way that would hinder his growth in Christ (cf. 9:22). It is not a matter of simply "hurting someone's feelings."

Paul regarded these three groups as equal in this verse. Therefore he was probably thinking of three religious groups rather than two racial groups and one religious group. If so, he distinguished between Israel and the church in this verse. This distinction is basic to dispensationalism.

10:33 If we took the first part of this verse out of context, we might conclude that Paul was a "man pleaser" (cf. Gal. 1:10). Obviously he meant he did not allow any of his own attitudes or activities in amoral areas to create barriers between himself and those he sought to help spiritually.

He tried to practice what he preached about putting the welfare of others first (cf. v. 24). "Saved" in this context probably includes Christians and means saved in the wide sense of delivered from anything that keeps someone from advancing spiritually (cf. Rom. 15:1-3).

"Christian freedom is not given to us for our own sake but for the sake of others."²³³

11:1 Paul recommended that his readers follow his example of exercising and limiting their Christian liberty, glorifying God, and giving no offense, as well as in other areas of their lives (cf. 4:16).

All of chapters 8, 9, and 10, including 11:1, deal with the subject of the Christian's relationship to food sacrificed to idols. In summary, Paul forbad going to pagan temples for cultic meals. However, he permitted the eating of marketplace meat under normal circumstances. If something is not sinful it is permissible for the believer, but even so it may be wise to avoid it for the sake of the spiritual welfare of others. The Christian should be willing to limit his or her exercise of his or her Christian liberty because of love for others.

Constable: 1Co 11:2-16

C. Propriety in worship 11:2-16

This section and the next (11:17-34) deal with subjects different from meat offered to idols, but Paul did not introduce them with the phrase "now concerning." These were additional subjects about which he wanted to give the Corinthians guidance. He had evidently learned of the Corinthians' need for instruction in these matters either through their letter to him, from the messengers that brought that letter to Paul, or from other sources.

Constable: 1Co 11:2-6

1. The argument from culture 11:2-6

Paul introduced the first of the two subjects he dealt with in this chapter, the Corinthian women's participation in church worship, with praise. He did not introduce the second subject this way (vv. 17, 22). As with the other sections of this epistle, we can see the influence of Corinthian culture and world view in this one, particularly in the behavior of the women in the church.

11:2 Paul commended his original readers for remembering his teaching and example. This chapter deals with things that were going on in the meetings of the church primarily, as the context shows. The "traditions" (NASB) were "teachings" (NIV; Gr. paradoseis) the Corinthians had received from the apostle. Some of these involved divinely inspired revelations and others just prudent advice (cf. 2 Thess. 3:6-10). They may have been following his instructions, but not in the proper ways, as his following discussion makes clear.

"The traditions (as the other references show) were the central truths of the Christian faith, handed on at this stage (before the emergence of Christian literature) orally from evangelist and teacher to convert."²³⁴

11:3 "But" indicates that things were not quite as Paul thought they should be. He began dealing with his subject by reminding the Corinthians again (cf. 3:23; 8:6) of God's administrative order. This is the order through which He has chosen to conduct His dealings with humans.

Jesus Christ is the head of every male human being (Gr. aner). Second, the male is the head of woman (Gr. gune). This Greek word for woman is very broad and covers women of any age, virgins, married women, or widows. Paul used it earlier in this epistle of a wife (7:3-4, 10-12, 14, 16). In this chapter it evidently refers to any woman who was in a dependent relationship to a man such as a wife to a husband or a daughter to a father. Paul probably did not mean every woman universally since he said the male is the head of woman, or a woman, but not the woman. He was evidently not talking about every relationship involving men and women, for example the relationship between men and women in the workplace. Third, God the Father is the head of God the Son. This shows that headship exists even within the Godhead.

The New Testament uses the term "head" (Gr. kephale) to describe headship in two ways. Sometimes it describes origin (source), and other times it describes authority (leader). Some scholars favor one interpretation and others the other.²³⁵ Both meanings are true to reality, so it is difficult to decide what Paul meant here.

In favor of the origin view, it is true that Christ created mankind, Eve came from Adam, and Christ came from the Father in the Incarnation to provide redemption. In favor of the authority view, humanity is under Christ's authority, God created woman under man's authority, and the Son is under the Father's authority. The idea of origin is more fundamental than that of authority. Also "head" occurs later in this passage with the idea of source (vv. 8, 12), so origin may be the preferable idea here too.²³⁶

11:4 Here Paul used the word "head" twice. Clearly in the first instance he meant the man's physical skull. What did he mean the second time he referred to the man's head? He could have meant his physical skull again. However, in view of what he just said (v. 3) and would say, he probably meant his spiritual head, Jesus Christ. In Judaism when a man prayed with his physical head covered, as was common, he did not thereby dishonor himself. In Christian worship the men did not wear head coverings.

Paul's reference to praying and prophesying sets his instructions in the context of the church at public worship.²³⁷ Praying involves expressing one's thoughts and feelings to God. Prophesying might involve any of three things. Prophets foretold future events pertaining especially to the kingdom of God (Matt. 11:13; Acts 2:17-18; 21:9). They also declared new revelation from God (Matt. 26:68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64; cf. 7:39; John 4:19). Third, they could under divine impulse utter some lofty statement or message that would glorify God (Luke 1:67; Acts 9:6), or a word of instruction, refutation, reproof, admonition, or comfort for others (1 Cor. 13:9; 14:1, 3-5, 24, 31, 39). This last type of prophecy did not contain a new revelation or a prediction involving the future.²³⁸ The last activity is what seems to be in view in other references to prophesying in this epistle, and it suits the context here as well. Praying and prophesying were two major features of Christian worship services (cf. Acts 2:42).

11:5a The opposite condition existed when women prayed or prophesied in the church meetings. Every woman who had her physical skull uncovered thereby dishonored her metaphorical head, namely her husband or father (v. 3).

What did Paul mean when he described a woman's head as "uncovered?" There have been three major explanations. He may have meant that her head lacked some type of external cover, such as a shawl. Second, he could have meant that she had short hair that did not cover her head as completely as long hair. Third, he may have meant that she had let her hair down rather than leaving it piled up on her head. It was customary for women to wear their hair up when they went out in public. Probably he meant that she did not have an external covering on her head (view one).²³⁹ The woman would dishonor her man by participating in public worship as he did, namely with head uncovered.

Christian women typically wore a head covering in the church meetings. This was not a stylish hat, skull cap, or inconspicuous doily, as some western women do today, but a shawl that covered her entire head and concealed her hair.²⁴⁰

"Her face was hidden by an arrangement of two head veils, a head-band on the forehead with bands to the chin, and a hairnet [sic] with ribbons and knots, so that her features could not be recognized."²⁴¹

In Paul's culture most women, Christians and non-Christians alike, wore such a covering whenever they went out in public. Conservative Islamic women still veil themselves when they go out in public.

Probably the issue in the Corinthian church that Paul was addressing was that certain "wise," "spiritual," liberated women had stopped wearing this covering in the church meetings. Paul had previously written that in Christ males and females are equal before God (in many respects; Gal. 3:28). This teaching, combined with the Corinthians' carnal tendencies, were evidently the root of the problem.

11:5b-6 A woman who shaved her head in Greco-Roman culture did so to appear as a man. This resulted in the blurring of the relationship between men and women, particularly the sexual distinctions. Men typically wore their hair short, and women wore theirs long. If a woman cut her hair short, it indicated that she wanted to take the place of a man. Not covering her head made the same statement in that society.

It was a shameful thing for a woman not to cover her head in the early New Testament churches. Such an act made a statement that she was repudiating her position as a woman. It was not so much a repudiation of her submission to her male authority as it was a repudiation of her origin as being a woman who had come from man (v. 3). The issue is origin throughout the passage, not primarily authority. Obviously a woman who repudiated her origin as a woman might also repudiate her authority to function under her male head. However in this passage Paul seems to have been dealing with the more fundamental issue of origin.

Today it is not shameful for a woman to have short hair, but it was in Paul's day. There are many short hair styles that no one regards as disgraceful. However in Paul's culture short hair for a woman represented rebellion against authority, and people considered it shameful. Paul used the common reaction to women's short hair in his day to urge his female readers to wear a head covering. His point was that since it was shameful for a woman to have short hair it was also shameful for her to have her head uncovered when she prayed or prophesied.

Must a Christian woman cover her head in church meetings today? I think not. Covering the head and wearing short hair do not normally mean the same thing in modern times, at least in the West, as they did in Paul's culture. If he were writing to a western church today, for example, I do not believe Paul would have said it is a shameful thing for a woman to have short hair. Therefore I do not think he would have said she ought to cover her head. Covering the head was a sign of acknowledgement of origin in Paul's day, which implied some acknowledgement of authority, but it is not today typically. Today there is no item of clothing that makes such a statement nor does the length of a woman's hair. A woman's whole personal demeanor, especially how she views herself as a woman, reveals this about her.²⁴²

"Although various Christian groups have fostered the practice of some sort of head covering for women in the assembled church, the difficulties with the practice are obvious. For Paul the issue was directly tied to a cultural shame that scarcely prevails in most cultures today. Furthermore, we simply do not know what the practice was that they were abusing. Thus literal obedience' to the text is often merely symbolic. Unfortunately, the symbol that tends to be reinforced is the subordination of women, which is hardly Paul's point. Furthermore, it would seem that in cultures where women's heads are seldom covered, the enforcement of such in the church turns Paul's point on its head."²⁴³

Constable: 1Co 11:7-12

2. The argument from creation 11:7-12

Paul proceeded with a second supporting argument to correct the Corinthians' perversion regarding women's head coverings.

11:7 Men should not cover their heads in Christian worship because they are the glory of God. Whereas Paul referred to man being the image and glory of God, his primary point was that man is the glory of God. His reference to man as the image of God clearly goes back to Genesis 1:26-28, but there "glory" does not appear. "Glory" is Paul's word, his reflection on the creation of man. This is the word that he proceeded to use to contrast man and woman.

Notice that Paul did not say that the woman is to cover her head because she is the glory of man. Instead he proceeded to describe what her being his glory means. A subordinate glorifies the one in authority over him or her just by being in a subordinate position.

". . . he [Paul] says that woman is the glory of man--not his image, for she too shares the image of God, and is not (as some commentators have thought) more remote from God than is man."²⁴⁴

11:8 Woman is the glory of man, first, because she came from him in creation. As Adam glorified God by being the product of His creation, so Eve glorified Adam because she came from him. The female sex did not produce the male sex, but the first woman came from the first man. God formed Eve out of a part of Adam whom He created first (Gen. 2:18, 20).

11:9 Furthermore woman is the glory of man because God created Eve to complete Adam. God did not create the man as a companion for the woman but the woman for man's sake (Gen. 2:21-22). When Adam saw Eve for the first time, he "gloried" in her (Gen. 2:23). Neither of these verses (vv. 8-9) refer to the subordination of woman under man, though many interpreters have read this into the text. Rather they refer to her origin as being in man.

11:10 Paul drew a conclusion from what he had already said (vv. 7-9) and gave a supporting reason for his conclusion.

Unfortunately the NASB translators have added "a symbol of" to the original text thus implying that the head covering is what women ought to wear on their heads. The Greek text simply says "the woman ought to have authority on her head." In the preceding verses the reason is that she is the man's glory. In light of verse 7, we might have expected Paul to say that because the woman is the glory of the man she should cover her head. Yet that is not what Paul said.

What is this "authority" that women ought to have on their heads? Some interpreters believe it refers to the man in her life who is in authority over her. The covering is the sign that she recognizes him in this role.²⁴⁵ This view lacks support in the passive use of exousia ("authority"). Furthermore the idiom "to have authority over" never refers to an external authority different from the subject of the sentence elsewhere.

Other interpreters view "authority" as a metonym for "veil."²⁴⁶ This view is unlikely because "authority" is a strange word to use if Paul really meant "veil." It would have been more natural for him to say "veil" or "covering."

A third view is to take "to have authority" as meaning "a sign of authority, namely as a means of exercising authority." Advocates believe Paul meant that women were to have authority to do things in worship previously forbidden, such as praying and prophesying along with men. Her covering would serve as a sign of her new liberty in Christ.²⁴⁷ There does not seem to be adequate basis of support for this view in the passage.

The fourth major view takes having "authority" in its usual meaning of having the freedom or right to choose. The meaning in this case would be that the woman has authority over her head (man) to do as she pleases.²⁴⁸ Obviously this seems to run contrary to what Paul taught in the passage and elsewhere. I think perhaps Paul meant that women have freedom to decide how they will pray and prophesy within the constraint that Paul had imposed, namely with heads covered. The head covering, then, symbolized both the woman's subordinate position under the man and the authority that she had to pray and prophesy in public.²⁴⁹

The other major interpretive problem in this verse is "because of the angels." Why did Paul introduce angels into this discussion? Perhaps the Corinthian women needed to wear a head covering because angels view what is taking place among God's people (cf. 4:9; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21). Angels are the guardians of God's created order. For other people to see Christian women unveiled was bad enough because it was a sign of insubordination, but for angels to see it would be worse.²⁵⁰

There may also be something to the suggestion that these Corinthian women, and some of the men as well, may have been exalting themselves to the position of angels (cf. 7:1; 13:1).²⁵¹ Paul may have mentioned the angels to remind them that they were still under angelic scrutiny.

Other less acceptable interpretations of "because of the angels" are these. Women should cover their heads because evil angels lusted after women in the church (cf. Gen. 6:2). If this were the reason, should not all women wear veils at all times since angels apparently view humans in other than church meetings? They should do so because the word angels (lit. messengers) refers to pastors of the churches who might lust after them. They should wear head coverings because good angels learn to be submissive to authority from the women's example. They need to cover themselves because good angels are an example of subordination and would take offense if they viewed insubordinate women. Finally they should wear head coverings because a woman's insubordination would tempt good angels to be insubordinate.

Is observance by angels not a reason Christian women should cover their heads in church meetings today? Again I think not. In that culture a woman's appearance in public unveiled was a declaration of her rejection of her God-given place in creation. The angels would have recognized it as such, and it would have offended them. However today a woman's decision to appear unveiled does not usually make that statement. Consequently her unveiled condition does not offend the angels.

11:11 Even though the positions of man and woman differ in God's administrative order, this does not mean they can get along without each other. They are mutually dependent on each other. They complement one another. They are interdependent, even as the Son and the Father are. Paul's main point was that woman is not independent of man. This is further evidence that he was countering an illegitimate spirit of independence among some Corinthian women.

In a family, companionship should replace isolation and loneliness. There must be oneness in marriage for a husband and a wife to complete one another. Self-centered individuality destroys unity in marriage. If you are married, you need your husband or wife. Your spouse is necessary for you to be a well-rounded person.

11:12 Even though God created Eve from Adam, now every male comes from a female. This fact illustrates male female interdependence and balances Paul's emphasis in verse 11. Together verses 11 and 12 form a chiasm structurally. Husbands and wives have equal worth. Still God originates both of them, and both are subordinate to Him.

The apostle's emphasis in this section was on the authority that a woman has in her own right by virtue of creation. She must not leave her divinely appointed place in creation by seeking to function exactly as a man in church worship. Furthermore she should express her submission to this aspect of God's will in a culturally approved way. At the same time she must maintain a healthy appreciation for the opposite sex.

Constable: 1Co 11:13-16

3. The argument from propriety 11:13-16

Paul now returned to the main argument (vv. 4-6), but now he appealed to the Corinthians' own judgment and sense of propriety. He raised two more rhetorical questions. The first (v. 13b) expects a negative answer and the second (vv. 14-15) a positive response. The apostle appealed to the nature of things. His points were that "nature" itself distinguishes between the sexes, and that a woman's naturally longer hair reinforces the propriety of covering her head in worship.

11:13 In Paul's culture it was not proper for a woman to act as a spokesman for people with God by praying publicly with her head uncovered. To do so would be tantamount to claiming the position of a man in God's order. The apostle did not think it wise for Christian women to exercise their liberty in a way that would go against socially accepted behavior even though they were personally submissive. Today what is socially accepted is different. Again her attitude is crucial.

11:14-15 Women's hair naturally grows longer than men's hair. Paul reasoned from this fact that God intended for women to have more head covering than men. People generally regard the reverse of what is natural as dishonorable. In the man's case this would be long hair and in the woman's case short hair. By "nature" Paul evidently meant how his culture felt about what was natural.²⁵² "Glory" means "honor."

This is a very general observation. The fact that some acceptable men's hair styles are longer than some women's does not mean these styles are perversions of the natural order. Men are usually taller than women, but this does not mean that a short man or a tall woman is dishonorable.

11:16 If any of his readers still did not feel inclined to accept Paul's reasoning, he informed them that the other churches followed what he had just explained. This is one of four similar statements in this epistle that served to inform the Corinthians that they were out of step with the other churches in their conduct (cf. 3:18; 8:2; 14:37). Some women were evidently discarding their head covering in public worship.

As with the issues of eating in idol temples and meat offered to idols, Paul dealt with a cultural practice when he dealt with head coverings. As should be clear from his argumentation, he did not feel that this was a major issue. He argued for maintaining a custom, not for obeying God, and he used shame, propriety, and custom to urge the Corinthians to cooperate. However, important issues lay behind the practices. In the case of head coverings, the issue is women's position in the life of the church, in particular their relationship to the men. Today no item of clothing consistently identifies a woman's acceptance or rejection of her role in God's administrative order. At least none does in western culture. It is usually her speech and her behavior that do. The important thing is her attitude toward her womanhood and how she expresses it, not whether she wears a particular item of clothing.²⁵³ Rather than teaching women to be submissive to men this passage glorifies womanhood.

Constable: 1Co 11:17-34

D. The Lord's Supper 11:17-34

Most of the Corinthians had been following Paul's instructions regarding women's head coverings so he commended them (v. 2), but he could not approve their practice at the Lord's Supper. They needed to make some major changes there. What they were doing cut at the heart of both the gospel and the church. This is the one certain situation in the Corinthian church that Paul addressed in chapters 7-16 that the Corinthians themselves had not asked him about. He wrote that he had heard about it (v. 18).

By way of background, we need to remember that in antiquity meals typically accompanied public worship in the early church, in Judaism, and in the pagan world. The early Christians observed the Lord's Supper as part of such a meal, often called the love feast.

Constable: 1Co 11:17-26

1. The abuses 11:17-26

The first abuse reflects a problem on the horizontal level, between believers in the church. The second more serious abuse was vertical, involving the church and its Lord.

Constable: 1Co 11:17-22

Abuse of the poor 11:17-22

This aspect of the problem involved showing disregard for the poorer members of the church.

11:17 The Corinthians' behavior at the Lord's Supper was so bad that Paul could say they were worse off for observing it as they did rather than better off. Their failure was not that they failed to observe the Lord's Supper. It was that when they gathered they did not behave as the church, in which there is no distinction between "Jews or Greeks," "slaves or free" (12:13).

11:18 "In the first place" evidently refers to all that follows in verses 18-34. Paul decided to wait to deal with other similar matters until he arrived in Corinth (v. 34).

The context of the occasion in view was the assembling of the whole church family (cf. 14:23). When Paul later wrote his epistle to the Romans from Corinth, the Corinthian church was meeting in the home of Gaius (Rom. 16:23).

The divisions (Gr. schismata) to which Paul referred here were social groupings within the church, not differences involving loyalty to leaders (1:12).

Evidently those who had reported this abuse in the Corinthian church to Paul had given him much detail about what was happening. Paul said he believed enough of this to conclude that there was a serious problem.

11:19 Divisions or factions (Gr. haireseis) of this type have a positive side. They clarify whom God approves as faithful and trustworthy and who are not (cf. Matt. 10:34-37; 18:7; 24:9-13).

11:20 In the Christian church's early years the Lord's Supper occupied a more central position in the life of local assemblies than it does in most churches today. The early believers often celebrated it daily or weekly (cf. Acts 2:42-46; 20:7). However, it was just as impossible to observe this feast properly in an atmosphere of social discrimination as it was to do so while also attending feasts that honored idols (10:21).

11:21 The Lord's Supper was usually part of a meal the Christians shared together, the so-called "love feast." In Corinth instead of sharing their food and drinks, each family was bringing its own and eating what it had brought. The result was that the rich had plenty but the poor had little and suffered embarrassment as well. This was hardly the picture of Christian love and unity (cf. Acts 2:44-46; 4:32, 34-35). Furthermore some with plenty of wine to drink were evidently drinking too heavily. They were eating their own private meals rather than sharing a meal consecrated to the Lord.

11:22 This verse contains some of the apostle's most critical statements in this epistle. If his original readers chose to behave in such a selfish way, they should stay home and eat rather than humiliating their less fortunate brethren. Such conduct showed disrespect for the church as the temple of God (cf. 3:17).

"The early Church was the one place in all the ancient world where the barriers which divided the world were down. The ancient world was very rigidly divided; there were the free men and the slaves; there were the Greeks and the barbarians--the people who did not speak Greek; there were the Jews and the Gentiles; there were the Roman citizens an the lesser breeds without the law; there were the cultured and the ignorant. The Church was the one place where all men could and did come together. . . . A Church where social and class distinctions exist is no true Church at all. A real Church is a body of men and women united to each other because all are united to Christ.

"A Church is not true Church where the art of sharing is forgotten."²⁵⁴

Constable: 1Co 11:23-26

Abuse of the Lord 11:23-26

There was an even more serious dimension to this problem. The Corinthians were sinning against the Lord as well as one another.

11:23 What Paul taught here came ultimately from the Lord Jesus Himself. This reminder stresses the importance of this revelation.

"The verbs received' and passed on,' which occur again in combination in 15:3, are technical terms from Paul's Jewish heritage for the transmission of religious instruction. His present concern is to establish that the tradition about the Supper they had received from him came from Jesus himself: I received [it] from the Lord.'"²⁵⁵

The terminology used here does not require us to understand that the Lord Jesus communicated this information to Paul personally. Paul's wording suggests that he may have been repeating exactly what others had taught him. This is not a verbatim quotation from one of the Gospel accounts.

Paul described the night Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper as the night in which He was betrayed. This draws attention to the Savior's great love for His own. The Lord was graciously providing for His disciples when one of them was plotting to do away with Him.

11:24 The Greek word eucharisteo, "to give thanks," accounts for the fact that another name for the Lord's Supper is the Eucharist. Likewise some Christians call it "the breaking of bread" because Jesus broke the bread as Paul stated here.

There have been various interpretations of what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body." There are four main views. Roman Catholics take it as a literal statement meaning the bread really becomes the body of Christ and the contents of the cup become the blood of Christ. They believe this is true when duly authorized representatives of the church conduct the service properly. This is the transubstantiation view. Adherents believe God transfers the body and blood of Christ into the substance of the elements. The bread and wine really become the physical body and blood of Christ.

A second view is not quite so literal. It is the consubstantiation view and, as the word implies, its advocates see the body and blood of Christ as present "in, with, and under" the elements. Christ is "really" present, though not physically present, in this Lutheran view.

The third major view is the spiritual presence view that Presbyterians and other followers of Calvin hold. For them the spiritual presence of Christ is in the elements and, as in the former views, God ministers grace to the communicant in a concrete way through participation.

The fourth view is the memorial view. Advocates believe that when Jesus said, "This is my body," he meant, "This represents my body." In other words, they understand His statement as completely metaphorical. They view the elements as pictures or emblems of the body and blood of Christ. In contrast to the preceding views this one does not see Christ present in any special sense in the elements. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, promoted this view. Today most of the churches from the Anabaptist branch of Protestantism (i.e., Baptists, Methodists, independent Bible churches, et al.) follow this interpretation.²⁵⁶

"The identification of the bread with the body is semitic imagery in its heightened form. As in all such identifications, he means this signifies/represents my body.' It lies quite beyond both Jesus' intent and the framework within which he and the disciples lived to imagine that some actual change took place, or was intended to take place, in the bread itself. Such a view could only have arisen in the church at a much later stage when Greek modes of thinking had rather thoroughly replaced semitic ones."²⁵⁷

Jesus invited his disciples to take the bread that represented His body. He thus gave them a share in His body and invited them to participate in the meaning and benefits of His death. His body was "for" them in a double sense. It was what secured atonement on their behalf (cf. 15:3; Rom. 5:6, 8), and it was a body offered in their place (e.g., Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21).

The Lord's request that His disciples remember Him by partaking of bread and the fruit of the vine is rich with significance. Many followers remember their leaders by erecting stone monuments to their memories and making pilgrimages to these sites. In contrast the Lord Jesus made remembering Him easy yet profound. Eating the elements helps us appreciate the fact that Christ is really within us. Eating together reminds us of our unity with other believers in Christ's body.

Remembering in biblical terminology does not mean just calling to memory. It includes realizing what the event remembered involved (cf. Exod. 13:3; 20:8; Deut. 5:15; 7:18; et al.). The Lord's Supper is not just something Christians do to bring the memory of Jesus back into fresh view. It is a memorial of the salvation that He accomplished by His death and resurrection. First Corinthians 11:24 contains the Lord's command to observe the Eucharist as do the Gospel accounts of the institution of this ordinance.²⁵⁸ It is impossible to be an obedient Christian without observing the Lord's Supper.

Some Christian groups refer to the Lord's Supper as one of the "sacraments." They mean the elements minister grace to the participant in a more direct and physical way than those who speak of it as an "ordinance," assuming they are using these terms properly. An ordinance or sacrament is a rite the Lord commanded His followers to observe.

Most Protestants believe there are two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper. A few Protestant groups include foot washing as an ordinance on the basis of John 13:12-17 (e.g., the Grace Brethren, some Mennonites, et al.).

11:25 As Jesus had taken the bread and given thanks for it, so He also took the cup and gave thanks for it (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 20:25).

When Jesus shed His blood on Calvary, that blood ratified (gave formal sanction to) the New Covenant that Jeremiah had predicted (Jer. 31:31-34, cf. Exod. 24:8). The New Covenant replaced the old Mosaic Covenant (Heb. 8:8-13; 9:18-28). Even though the Jews will be the major beneficiaries of the benefits of this covenant in the Millennium, all believers began to benefit from the death of Christ when He died.²⁵⁹

This arrangement resembles one that is possible to set up in a Charitable Lead Unit Trust under the Internal Revenue Code of the United States. Suppose there was a vastly wealthy and generous philanthropist of the magnitude of a Rockefeller or Vanderbilt. As he prepared his will he bequeathed millions of dollars to various charitable causes that would benefit millions of people all over the world when he died. He also wrote into his will that when his only son reached the age of 21 he would inherit billions of dollars. When this man died, his son was only five years old, so for 16 years he did not enter into his father's inheritance. However as soon as the philanthropist died the millions of dollars he had bequeathed to charity went to work immediately to help many people.

This illustration shows how the church enters into the blessings of the New Covenant. When Christ established the Lord's Supper it was as though He notarized His will; it became official then. The will is the New Covenant. When He died His "estate" became available to those He chose to profit from it. Soon many people around the world, Jews and Gentiles in the church, began to benefit from the blessings of His death. However His chosen people, His son Israel, will not enter into their inheritance until the appointed time, namely the Millennium. Blessings for the church began almost immediately after Christ's death. Blessings for Israel will not begin until Christ's appointed time arrives.

Whenever the Jews celebrated the Passover the father who was conducting the service would explain the significance of each part to the rest of the family (cf. Deut. 16:3). Jesus did the same for His disciples when He instituted the Lord's Supper.

11:26 Paul continued Jesus' explanation. Participation in the Lord's Supper dramatizes the gospel. The service becomes a visual as well as an audible setting forth of the death of Christ and its significance.

"The Eucharist is an acted sermon, an acted proclamation of the death which it commemorates; but it is possible that there is reference to some expression of belief in the atoning death of Christ as being a usual element in the service."²⁶⁰

Paul may have referred to "the cup" rather than "the wine," which would have been parallel to "the bread," to avoid the direct identification of the wine in the cup with blood. The idea of drinking blood was revolting to most people in the ancient world, particularly the Jews.²⁶¹ On the other hand, he may have viewed both elements symbolically, the cup being a symbol of one's lot in life and the bread a symbol of what sustains life.

The Lord's Supper is not only a memorial celebration looking back to Jesus Christ's first advent. It is also an anticipatory celebration looking forward to His second advent. Evidently when the Lord returns to set up His earthly kingdom He will establish a new form of worship that will include the offering of certain animal sacrifices (Ezek. 40-48). These will be similar to the animal sacrifices the Jews offered under the Old Covenant. However since Jesus Christ has made a final sacrifice these animal offerings will evidently be memorial and entirely for worship, not for the expiation of sin. Another possibility is that they will be for the purpose of restoring fellowship with God then.²⁶²

In this section Paul reviewed and expounded the significance of the Lord's Supper so his readers would value and celebrate it appropriately.

"In short, Paul is doing one thing and one thing alone. He is impressing on the Corinthians the tremendous importance of doing just this: eating this bread and drinking this cup. It is, after all, a matter of celebrating the Lord's death."²⁶³

College: 1Co 11:1-34

1 CORINTHIANS 11

VI. LITURGICAL ABERRATIONS (11:2-34)

A few comments about the literary structure and themes of this new section of 1 Corinthians are in order. First, there is no occurrence of the "now about" (periÉ dev, peri de ) introductory phrase which many interpreters believe signal topics raised by the Corinthians that the apostle is answering (see Introduction; cf. 1 Cor 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Regardless of whether Paul is responding to inquiries in chapter 11, he clearly has two major issues before his readership, each of which begins with a form of verbal parallelism. The first section, 11:2-16, begins with the phrase "I praise you" while the second unit, 11:17-34, states "I have no praise for you." Another feature of both topics in this chapter is that they deal with matters related to the liturgical and devotional practices of the Corinthian believers. With the primary focus of 11:2-16 being on prayer and prophecy (see notes on 11:4-5), and the focus of 11:17-34 being on the Lord's Supper (11:20), one is constrained to see worship as the common denominator between these two blocks of Pauline instruction.

A. PROPRIETY IN WORSHIP (11:2-16)

1. Head Coverings in Worship (11:2-10)

² I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, ^a just as I passed them on to you.

³ Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ⁵ And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. ⁶ If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. ⁷ A man ought not to cover his head, ^b since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹ neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

^a 2 Or traditions ^b 4-7 Or ⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. ⁵ And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering õ of hairÕ on her head dishonors her head-she is just like one of the "shorn women." ⁶ If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. ⁷ A man ought not to have long hair

11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

Consistent with Paul's words of praise in this first section, the reader notices the mild tone, relative to 11:17-34, in Paul's teaching. The apostle mentions two matters which serve as the basis (o{ti, hoti ) of his praise. They are the facts that the Corinthians remember him and that they embrace the religious traditions (paradovsei", paradoseis ) with which he had instructed them in the past. All of this is to prepare them for additional religious tradition with which he hopes to correct the impropriety of their worship practices. This strategy of praising his readers prior to correction is not an uncommon rhetorical feature in Paul's letters or ancient Greco-Roman moral philosophers. The pagan author Plutarch encouraged this pattern of behavior in his philosophy. He wrote,

We ought to keep close watch upon our friends not only when they go wrong but also when they are right, and indeed the first step should be commendation cheerfully bestowed. Then later . . . we should give them an application of frankness."

11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Current literature on the issue of the Christian faith and its view(s) regarding the role, status, and function of men and women can easily be overwhelming and befuddling, particularly to the nonspecialist. With the inundation of publications, all with differing agendas, scholars have found it helpful to categorize major schools of thought on the topic of the Bible and its view(s) about women. From the perspectives of a nonfeminist (i.e., "believes hierarchical relationships based upon gender are still normative within the church,") Jack Cottrell has categorized feminist interpretations into four groups:

1. Secular Feminism. These "have abandoned all religious belief as having any positive relation to feminist philosophy" and base their views "on human philosophy and humanistic theories of social justice" (p. 13).

2. Goddess Feminism. This approach believes "that Goddess worship was the original nearly-universal religion and that it fostered a matriarchal culture [and that] feminist goals can best be achieved through a 'return to the Goddess,' [a return that means becoming] an active part of the current revival of neo-pagan religions and witchcraft" (p. 15).

3. Liberal Feminism. This approach "shares the same general goals of secular and Goddess feminism, but it pursues these goals from within the Christian framework. . . .While granting that the Bible is mostly androcentric and patriarchal, they decline to abandon it altogether and to give up their connection with Jesus Christ. . . . Liberal Christian feminism does not accept the Bible as the revealed and inspired Word of God nor as any kind of canonical authority [but rather believes that] women's experience is the ultimate criterion of all truth" (pp. 16-17).

4. Biblical Feminism. This perspective accepts "the final authority of the Bible and . . . believes that feminism is the Bible's authentic teaching . . . [and] interprets the Bible as consistently teaching an egalitarian view of women" (pp. 18-19).

In light of the assumptions of a historical-exegetical method and the numerous exegetical abuses set forth both by feminists and anti-feminists, a few general observations are in order. First, when interpreters go beyond asking solely historical questions and attempt to isolate the differences between the temporary and the eternal in the teachings and affirmations of Paul, they must keep in mind that the apostle himself left no explicit guidelines for this task. That is, Paul did not employ some system of annotation, such as asterisks, to inform his original readers which instructions he thought were "only temporary." A historically honest interpretation ought at least acknowledge what the apostle thought his own doctrines, and their foundations, were.

Second, one needs to be cautious about the dangers of feminist alchemy, whereby the feminist interpreter attempts to transmute, based upon ill-informed historical reconstructions and tendentious philology, Pauline words and theology into something deemed to be more desirable and precious than the original. There are far too many examples in current publications where ideology is paraded about masquerading as exegesis.

Finally, in its more egregious forms, current feminist theories disregard any part of the Scripture that does not conform to their own cultural, philosophical, psychological, and social agendas. It is no coincidence that feminist interpretations are often mere echos of whatever the currently popular social or political views happen to be.

Irrespective of what one chooses to do with the issue of feminism in the current setting, the intention of Paul can be more judiciously encountered and interpreted when his ideas are not jerked from the soil of his response to a first generation urban church in the Roman colony of Corinth.

The word "head" dominates in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The frequency of the term "head" (kefalhv, kephalç) in this chapter (9Χ) is a significant indicator of the issue under discussion in 11:2-16. Specifically, Paul explains his position in this section on the basis of the alternation between the literal and the metaphorical use of the term. He does this in order to deal with two head-related ideas, namely, the liturgical head covering and the significance of hair (or lack of it) on one's head.

The occasional and contextual nature of Paul's choice of wording in this verse is important to notice. It is evident that the meaning of the term "head" in the paired formulations of 11:3 seems to be created for this particular section since it is found in this connection nowhere else in Paul's writings. Specifically, Paul nowhere else uses this term "head" (kephalç) to denote the relationship between Christ and every male. Nor is there corroborating evidence elsewhere in Paul for his use of this word to depict the relationship between men and women. Most significantly, in all the christological formulas and texts in Paul there are none which use the terminology of head to talk about the relationship between God and Christ. What stands before the interpreter, then, is another instance in which the apostle responds to a problematic situation with terminology and rhetoric which both arises from the ad hoc problem and corresponds to the occasional nature of the situation.

An important and detailed philological debate has arisen in the past few decades over the connotations of the Greek term kephalç as it is used metaphorically in this section of 1 Corinthians. The two basic interpretations are that the term should be understood as meaning either (1) source or (2) leader (=in authority over). The fact that the forceful impetus for promoting interpretation no. 1 typically comes from New Testament scholars (e.g., Gordon Fee) with strong feminist perspectives explains why this theory is still somewhat novel. Those interpreters who endorse the second view represent both scholars who support the ordination of women as well as those with no interest in supporting the ordination of women. English translations, as one would expect, merely translate the word kephalç as "head" and leave it to the reader to interpret its metaphorical connotations. The evaluation of Witherington seems correct on this point when he reasons that, "since the context has to do with authority, authorization, and order in worship, it would seem more probable that kephale has the metaphorical sense" of leader.

While the term "hierarchy" or "chain of command" will hardly do as a metaphor for the linking together of the three paired relationships (i.e., God-Christ; Christ-man; man-woman) in 11:3, one is not within earshot of this text if he cannot see that Paul, particularly in light of the following arguments of 11:2-16, is primarily focused on (re)affirming a certain liturgical propriety (see 11:13, "is it proper?" prevpon ejstivn, prepon estin ) that employs a gender criterion.

In light of the fact that some of the Corinthian saints are not disposed to acquiesce to Paul's judgments in this matter, as he himself acknowledges (11:16), Paul attempts in 11:3 to prove the validity of his position by making an appeal to "the arrangements which God has appointed" or, in more modern terms, "Paul's view is that the creation order should be properly manifested, not obliterated, in Christian worship. . . ."

Due to the fact that Paul makes a correlation between "divine order" (i.e., God is the kephalç of Christ) and male "headship" (i.e., man is the kephalç of woman) at Corinth, some interpreters with feminist-egalitarian commitments end up promoting an egalitarian view of the Trinity in its depiction of the relationship between God and Christ. This view is obviously non-Pauline! (See 1 Cor 15:28.)

In order to keep the implications of Paul's argument clear, it is crucial to translate the pairing man/woman (ajnhvr/gunhv, ançr/gynç) consistently in this particular rhetorical section. Accordingly, not only is it poor translation technique, but it also confuses the historical issues at Corinth to vacillate between man-woman and husband-wife in this section, or to interpret this section through the situation addressed in Eph 5:21ff where marriage is clearly meant.

11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.

The history of the interpretation of 1 Cor 11:4 manifests a wide diversity of methodologies and corresponding conclusions. Two major methodological problems explain most of the incorrect interpretations of this section. Either the interpreter is:

1. remiss in understanding and using the appropriate sources from ancient cultures or

2. preoccupied with demonstrating that Paul's principal complaint is with Christian women at Corinth.

1. John C. Hurd, for example, questions the necessity of knowing the historical information about the background to this situation when he writes, "It is not necessary to decide the difficult historical problem of the actual social mores which were current at that time." Others, such as Gordon Fee, have misjudged the availability of the pertinent evidence. Contrary to the evidence of a plethora of literary and archaeological evidence Fee concluded, "There is almost no evidence (paintings, reliefs, statuary, etc.) that men in any of the cultures (Greek, Roman, Jew) covered their heads." After abandoning the hope of finding a historical and cultural matrix that would provide insight into the Corinthian situation, he is drawn inevitably to conclude, "In the final analysis, however, we simply have to admit that we do not know. In any case, it is hypothetical, whatever it was."

These conclusions by Fee and others simply do not acknowledge the relevant archaeological and literary evidence from antiquity. Notwithstanding this neglect, the ancient evidence is incontestible and widespread. Plutarch, a Greek writing author who lived during the early Roman Empire, wrote that the Romans, as opposed to Greeks, "thus worshipped the gods, either humbling themselves by concealing the head, or rather by pulling the toga over their ears." The later author Dionysus of Halicarnassus likewise observed that this use of the devotional head covering was an important Roman religious practice used when participating in prayer, prophecy, or sacrifice. The Latin author Valerius Flaccus, writing in the late first century A.D., mentions the pagan prophet Mopsus who "veiling his head" worships by offering a libation. Virgil, the famous Latin author who wrote shortly after the time of the refounding of Corinth as a Roman colony, also sheds light on this significant Roman liturgical practice. In the epic story of Rome's beginnings recorded in the Aeneid , one learns that it was sacred law for the Romans to veil their heads when worshiping and sacrificing to their gods and goddesses. Regarding this custom and tradition the prophet Helenus proclaims that "This mode of sacrifice do thou keep, thou and thy company; by this observance let thy children's children in purity stand fast." Both the frequency and the significance of this pietistic head covering gesture is attested by the Latin author Lucretius who ridicules Roman piety with these words,

It is no piety to show oneself often with head covered, turning towards a stone and approaching every altar, none to fall prostrate upon the ground and to spread open the palms before shrines of the gods, none to sprinkle altars with the blood of beasts in shows and to link vow to vow.

In addition to an enormous amount of literary data that depicts this Roman devotional head-covering, it is also attested by visual evidence on ancient Roman coins, Roman statues, and Roman altar reliefs from around the Mediterranean world. Even though some interpreters of this Corinthian text are yet unconvinced that this widespread Roman practice should be seen as the backdrop for this verse, other scholars are now convinced that this provides the most plausible explanation for the situation assumed by this opening section of 1 Cor 11:2ff. All things considered, it is not a radical conclusion to affirm that a congregation in a large Roman colony would have some Roman members who would have been converted from Roman paganism and would have brought some of their devotional and liturgical traditions with them into the worship assemblies of the church of God.

2. Probably because of the gender of most interpreters of 1 Corinthians, many have thought that the only aberrant believers whom the apostle was addressing in this section were women. As Jerome Murphy-O'Connor has shown, it is a masculine bias that has focused on Paul's injunctions in 11:2-16 and concluded that no men were at fault. Typical of the history of this sexist exegesis were comments by:

a. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer: "There is no reason for supposing that men at Corinth had been making this mistake in the congregation. The conduct which would be improper for men is mentioned in order to give point to the censure on women, who in this matter had been acting as men."

b. Charles Hodge: "The thing to be corrected was women appearing in public assemblies unveiled . . . . Men are mentioned only for the sake of illustrating the principle."

c. Hans Conzelmann: "The parallelism between vv 4 and 5 expresses the fundamental equality of rights although it is only the woman's conduct that is at issue."

d. F.F. Bruce: "It is improbable that Christian men were actually veiling their heads in Corinth; the reference to their (hypothetically) doing so is necessary to complete the argument."

An overview of 11:2-16 makes it clear that Paul is quite evenhanded in his directives and arguments about both men (ajnhvr, ançr) and women (gunhv, gynç) in this chapter:

Verses mentions of ançr mentions of gynç 11:3 2 1 11:4 1 0 11:5 0 1 11:6 0 2 11:7 2 1 11:8 2 2 11:9 2 2 11:10 0 1 11:11 2 2 11:12 2 2 11:13 0 1 11:14 1 0 11:15 0 1 TOTAL 14 16 Another clear implication of this statistical evidence is that in Paul's mind gender is the controlling issue of the paradigm with which he is operating. This means that social status issues were not what the apostle was striving to counter.

There are three exegetical points in the text that need to be mentioned. First, in light of the Greek words used by Paul for the phrase "with his head covered," (katav kefalh'" e[cwn, kata kephalçs echôn) there is no need to question whether he had the idea of a head covering in mind. In light of the ancient philological evidence, the words and idioms used by Paul most naturally refer to the Roman toga which would have covered the head of someone worshiping. Second, given the Roman cultural setting of this custom, it is extremely doubtful whether the acts of praying and prophesying mentioned here ought to be identifed with the "charismatic" praying and prophesying recounted in 1 Cor 14. Finally, the second reference to the head (i.e., the dishonored head) in this verse is the literal head of the man who prays and prophesies and not Christ as the head.

11:5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved.

Since the apostle specifies the exact circumstance he has in mind and this is participation in liturgy (i.e., praying and prophesying), one has clearly left Paul's agenda to take this text to refer to what a believing woman should wear when she goes outside her home. Admittedly there were ancient dress codes of modesty that were concerned about the modesty of a woman's attire in public. A pagan philosophical document coming from a time generally contemporary with early Christianity asserts that,

The temperate, freeborn woman must live with her legal husband adorned with modesty, clad in neat, simple, white dress without extravagance or excess. She must avoid clothing that is either entirely purple or is streaked with purple and gold.

Paul has no interest in the issue mentioned in the above quotation. Moreover, he is not even addressing a situation concerning what women should wear "to the assembly."

Several preposterous suggestions have been offered about the background of Paul's concern here. One such idea states that Paul is combating a situation where the women believers were appearing like prostitutes since they were unveiled. Another perspective states that there were women running around unclothed in the assembly in some orgiastic like demeanor. These types of suggestions and reconstructions stem from a fertile imagination rather than any exegetical or historical evidence.

The apostle's observations in this verse are solely about women's devotional attire in the presence of men during periods of worship in which some woman participated. Since women prophets are also attested in the Acts of the Apostles, a reference here to women prophesying should come as little surprise. Since prophecy was a gift for corporate worship (1 Cor 14), he can hardly have in mind at 11:5 some worship that is performed alone or without the presence of men. In fact, had there been no men present (1 Cor 11:4) when these sisters were praying and prophesying, this issue would not have even arisen for Paul to correct.

Interpreters differ over the various possible connotations of the threefold use of the word "head" in this verse. While all take the first and third occurrences to be literal, many view the second occurrence (dishonors her head) to be a metaphorical reference. This use of head does not likely refer metaphorically to the woman's husband as Kistemaker and Gill believe since in this section ançr refers to man and not to a husband. Another metaphorical view interprets the reference back to head in 11:3 and takes 11:5 as a reference to the woman's man "in terms of male/ female relationships." This view is likewise not without problems. In my judgment Paul uses this term kephalç in the literal sense all three times in 11:5. As Robertson and Plummer noted, "The unveiled woman dishonours her head, because that is the part in which the indecency is manifested." The connecting Greek word gar (for; omitted in the NIV translation) between the second and third occurrences of the word "head" reveals the connection in Paul's mind between dishonoring one's literal head and the similar meaning manifested when the literal head is shaved. Barrett sees the same connection and notes about the meaning of the phrase "dishonors her head" that "the subsequent reference to shaving suggests that her physical head is meant."

11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

The interpreter finds himself, somewhat unexpectedly, in the midst of references to hair, or its absence, on women's heads. In light of the dual references in this section to bald women and men with long hair, scholars have wondered exactly what Paul is referring to. There are two main schools of thought regarding Paul's intent in introducing issues of hair and hair length.

One school of thought believes that some of the Corinthians are manifesting concrete problems with the length of their hair. Interpreters mention the ancient phenomenon of men, either homosexuals or disheveled cynic philosophers, having long, stringy, and unkempt locks, and the phenomenon of women, usually prostitutes, adulteresses, or priestesses in pagan cults, with shorn heads. In light of this perspective, Paul is admonishing the men and women believers to abandon these unacceptable hair styles because of their dishonorable reputation.

A second understanding views the arguments about the respective hair lengths as not directed to any concrete problems that the Corinthian saints have, but as arguments used to buttress Paul's contention that head coverings, hair or otherwise, do make a difference. This second interpretive approach seems more cogent to me. It does not have the liability of having Paul introduce an issue which has nothing essential to do with the topic of worship, a topic which is the focus of the entirety of the rest of chapter 11.

Moreover, at the rhetorical level this second understanding makes the best sense of Paul's strategy of connecting the issue of artificial head coverings with the issue of the natural covering provided by human hair, especially in 11:13-15. Paul anticipates the problems that some of his readers will have with his admonitions on the head veils (11:16) and he intends to persuade them on the basis of an appeal to commonly held values. That is, Paul's thesis that liturgical head coverings should differ according to gender will not appear cogent to Roman believers for whom the devotional head covering was never a gender-related practice. In this situation Paul wants to argue, based upon the authority of the everyday perceptions and values of his readers, that everyone knows that shame and dishonor can be attributed to a person's literal head based upon the presence or lack of a natural covering.

In light of the premise at the end of the preceding verse (a woman's uncovered head is like a shaved head), Paul argues that the logic of the situation demands that the sisters at Corinth who are uncovered during their participation in praying and prophesying in worship should be consistent and have their "hair cut off." Conversely, if it is a correct premise (and Paul's audience would have certainly consented to this premise) that a woman with a shaven head is a disgrace, then, Paul concludes the argument, the women at Corinth who wish to avoid a disgraceful demeanor must cover their heads during the liturgical circumstances set forth in 11:5.

11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

In this verse Paul cannot employ an argument against men's improprieties that is identical with the one that he used against women in the preceding verse. Given the realities of human genetics (men have a greater propensity for balding) and the fact that the cultural image of a man with a shaven head did not engender concepts of disgrace, the apostle's reasoning turns at this point to other arguments and resources.

As mentioned above, the Greek author Plutarch reports important information about this Roman practice of head covering. In his discussion he makes it clear that there were several distinct and at times conflicting interpretations about the meaning and significance of the wearing of the liturgical veil. One of the stronger interpretations was that the wearing of the devotional head covering was a sign of giving honors to the gods (timhv, timç). The apostle himself will reveal more than one reason about the divine necessity (ojfeivlw, opheilô) involved in his instruction.

The justification, indeed demand, that male participants in worship keep heads uncovered is first argued on the basis of the terms "image" (eijkwvn, eikôn) and "glory" (dovxa, doxa ). In light of the explicit reference to the creation account of Genesis in 1 Cor 11:8-9, there is no justification for denying the implicit reference to it in 11:7. In fact, if one were looking for Scripture attestation to issues related to men and women one would be hard pressed to find a more natural place to begin than Genesis.

The internal "logic" of Paul's argumentation has not always been readily apparent. This is understandable since the attribute of glory in the case of the man requires unveiling while praying and prophesying though in the case of the woman it requires veiling. The upshot of the apostle's reasoning seems to be that man can worship God without a head covering since he is the glory ( doxa ) of God's creation. Woman on the other hand is the glory ( doxa ) of man and not of God. Therefore, she must pray and prophesy in the presence of men with head covered.

Most interpreters rightly observe that the apostle did not say that woman was the image (eikôn) of man, but only his glory. It is surely, however, a trivialization of Paul's thought to suggest no more than that, "Perhaps he means that women's uncovered heads are drawing men's attention to humanity instead of to God; as one would say today, they were turning men's heads."

11:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;

By his use of the term "for" (gavr, gar ) he offers 11:8 as an explanation of how woman is the glory of man. Specifically, Paul has in mind limiting this perspective of glory to the priority of man's creation to woman's. This is an obvious allusion to Gen 2:22-23 which states, "Then the Lord God made woman from the rib he had taken out of man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called "woman," for she was taken out of man.'"

11:9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Having given an argument in 11:8 based upon the relative origin of the female species (from man), Paul now turns to an argument based upon the cause (diav, dia plus the accusative case) for the creation of the woman. Paul again draws his theological perspectives from the Genesis narrative, this time from Gen 2:18-20. God observed the loneliness of the man and decided to create an appropriate helper for him to remedy this problem, a helper whose role in this regard, according to the narrative of Gen 2:18-24, is completed in marital union.

Since Adam and Eve are presented in Genesis as both the first married couple and the first man and woman, it is crucial to keep in mind which perspective Paul is focused on in 1 Cor 11. As Witherington correctly concluded, Paul's "argument [in this section] is not about family relations but about praying and prophesying in Christian worship." It is especially difficult to follow Paul's argument if we read husband and wife rather than man and woman into 11:8.

11:10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

This one brief sentence is replete with grammatical, philological, and exegetical difficulties. One of the less significant of these problems is how to understand the opening words "for this reason" (diaÉ tou'to, dia touto ). Does this prepositional phrase point back to the preceding sentence or to the following thoughts or to both? Fee is of the opinion that the meaning of this phrase functions "in both directions at once," which means that "the woman ought to have authority over her head because she is man's glory" and also "because of the angels."

A more difficult and significant issue is the proper understanding of the Greek wording behind the NIV's translation "have a sign of authority" (ejxousivan e[cein, exousian echein ). At the most rudimentary level the Greek merely says "have authority" on her head. The difficulty is that Paul's general contextual view seems to point in the direction of women wearing head coverings. Since Paul has established (11:3) that man is the head of woman, how does the woman's wearing of the head covering signify her authority? If it is man's authority that he wishes to advocate (as the context clearly indicates), then why use the word "authority" ( exousia ), which has implied to certain interpreters that Paul is acknowledging that the woman does "wear authority"? A host of explanations for this irregularity have been offered. In a famous article by Morna Hooker she advocates that the woman does have new authority in the Christian faith to pray and prophesy in public worship when wearing the head covering. Many interpreters and most translations take "authority" to mean "sign of authority" or "sign of submission" and correlate that with the veil as such a sign. Robertson and Plummer take Paul to be saying that the woman does in fact have authority over what is on her head. Since she is in charge of what she wears on her head, she should not expose it so as to put herself to shame. Fee surveys the several possibilities that have been advocated over the years, and opts for the meaning "The woman ought to have the freedom over her head to do as she wishes," and then confesses "what that means in this context remains a mystery."

The third troublesome part of this verse is the final prepositional phrase "because of the angels." The older concept that Paul's reference to angels is an adaptation of the Gen 6:2 text ("the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful"), understood in ancient Judaism as a saga where heavenly beings were sexually attracted to women, is highly problematic since the head covering provided by the Roman toga did not particularly cover up erogenous areas. A very interesting theory is one found in, among others, Robertson and Plummer, who comment that the apostle is reminding women that "she must remember that she will also be shocking the angels, who of course are present at public worship." The investigation of the archaeological materials from the Dead Sea Scrolls has yielded a similar motif of angelic presence at worship.

While certitude hardly seems possible at this juncture in research, the function of this text seems discoverable. The purpose of this verse is to keep the heads of the women participants covered and to base that appeal upon certain divine realities.

2. Hair in the Nature of Things (11:11-16)

¹¹ In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹² For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. ¹³ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵ but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God.

11:11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

In spite of all the differences between man and woman and notwithstanding the "headship" relationship that exists between them, Paul will not allow this to promote a gender-based sense of autonomy and gender self-sufficiency. Since there is no historical evidence that Paul is attempting in this section of Corinthians to suppress "uppity women" or first century "women libbers" there is no need to see Paul's plea for interdependence as a constraint on some woman's radical misunderstanding of her new freedom in Christ. Though it is assumed with some regularity in current interpretation, there is no historical evidence that some of the Corinthian sisters were taking the affirmation of Gal 3:28 - In Christ there is neither male nor female - to some aberrant extreme.

Calvin was of the opinion that Paul wrote this verse "partly to restrain men from treating women badly, partly to give encouragement to women, so that their subjection may not be a source of annoyance to them." Some interperters see these thoughts as representing "an about-face" from the preceding Pauline ideas since "if taken at face value, [they] controvert his remarks immediately preceding." Accordingly, Holladay concludes that if they are taken as the words of "an imaginary opponent, expressing the views of the 'enlightened' within the church, they are more comprehensible." Fee, on the other hand, suggests that this verse is designed to qualify the woman's understanding of her own authority ( exousia ) mentioned in 11:10 as well as "to keep the earlier argument from being read in a subordinationist way."

One's understanding of the prepositional phrase "in the Lord" should impact one's interpretation of the apostle's statement here. While it is almost universally believed that Paul is talking about gender relationships between fellow believers (because of the phrase "in the Lord"), this view is not without problems. First, is Paul setting up a double standard whereby the benefits of the suggested abolition of the male hierarchy in 1 Cor 11:11-12 is only for believing women? Must a woman or a man be "in the new age" in order to receive such treatment from a follower of Christ? Second, if this prepositional phrase refers to Christian relationships, why is Paul's explanation (gavr, gar , 11:12) and illustration taken from the creation account of Genesis and the natural world of human reproduction?

11:12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Paul now demonstrates by an argument from Scripture and an argument from nature that there does exist a divinely directed mutuality between men and women. The fact that a woman is not independent of man (11:11) is shown by the fact that in the creation of mankind woman was taken from man (identical to the observation made in 11:8). Moreover, man's dependence on woman is manifested, Paul argues, in the fact that men are conceived in and born of women.

Paul's concluding phrase in this verse is typically theocentric. It certainly removes any misplaced emphasis upon the man or woman isolated and removed from his or her theocentric origin. This may be his way of restating in summary form the headship paradigm of 1 Cor 11:3 in which God clearly stood at the zenith of headship over Christ as well as men and women.

11:13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Paul had earlier challenged the readers to judge for themselves what he was saying (see 1 Cor 10:15). The fact that he mentions only the woman at this juncture does not negate the entirety of the preceding eleven verses in which he also focused attention on men. In fact, this verse is parallel to 11:5 except that here Paul's argument shifts to an argument based upon propriety (prevpon, prepon , cf. Eph 5:3; 1 Tim 2:10). With his reference to a woman praying Paul obviously has in mind the liturgical setting assumed in 1 Cor 11:4-5 and not just any setting of personal devotion and piety.

11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

Here the apostle shifts to yet another form of argumentation, namely an argument from nature (hJ fuvsi", hç physis; cf. Rom 1:26). This type of argumentation was relatively well known and popular at Paul's time. In fact, the important Stoic author Epictetus appeals to the fact that God had given men and women different amounts of hair to distinguish the two sexes from each other. But what did Paul mean with this mention of the didactic character of "the very nature of things"? According to Calvin, with this reference to nature, Paul is pointing to "what was accepted by common consent and usage at that time." Thus, one learns from both the literary and archaeological evidence of that period that acceptable men, indeed, men of propriety, used barbers and typically had short hair. In the routine experience of an urbane Corinthian believer, it would be disgraceful (ajtimiva, atimia ) men such as the male homosexual or the unkempt Cynic philosophers who "typically" might have long hair.

11:15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

Paul's explicit point here is not to get the Corinthian sisters to let their hair grow longer, but to reinforce his argument upon the basis of a pre-existing conviction and experience of the Corinthians about "natural" head-coverings on women. It is a glory to a woman to have long hair because it serves as a covering (ajntiÉ peribolaivou, anti peribolaiou ) for her. Paul is not saying, as is sometimes suggested, that the woman can have long hair in place of the liturgical head-covering. Rather, since natural hair is a glory and serves as a covering, they ought to embrace Paul's emphasis upon a liturgical head-covering.

11:16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God.

Paul's concern about contentiousness (filovneiko", philoneikos ) is focused upon the original issues raised in 11:4-5. If some of the Corinthian readers are still at loggerheads with Paul's position and instruction about devotional head-coverings they should know how out-of-step they are with both Paul and the rest of the churches. The designation "churches of God" fits well with this widespread designation used by Paul in the Corinthian letters (e.g., 1 Cor 1:1; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9). By the nature of this appeal, Sampley states, "Paul recognizes a nascent sense of collectivity of his congregations. Insofar as individual churches are supposed to be swayed by practices that prevail 'in all the churches.'"

The translation "no other practice" is infamously imprecise since the word translated "other" (toiauvthn, toiautçn) never means that except in the translation of this verse. Paul stated that we have no such practice (sunhvqeian, synçtheian), referring to the head-covering practices corrected in 11:2-15, though some interpreters believe that Paul refers to the practice of being contentious.

B. THE LORD'S SUPPER (11:17-34)

1. The Corinthians' Practice (11:17-22)

¹⁷ In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. ¹⁸ In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. ¹⁹ No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. ²⁰ When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, ²¹ for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. ²² Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

11:17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.

The first century A.D. philosopher and moralist Musonius Rufus noted that Greco-Roman meal times provided the opportunity for not one but for many sins (aJmavrthma, hamartçma). This acknowledgment sets the stage for the modern interpreter's understanding of how such flagrant misbehavior could have taken place at the communal meal of believers in ancient Corinth. It required no special effort on the part of the Corinthian church of God to conduct the Lord's Supper in the way Paul describes it in 11:17-34. In fact, as the ancient literary and archaeological record makes abundantly clear, the very abuses which the apostle Paul addressed and censured in this section were widespread in Greco-Roman culture and practice.

In contrast to the praise given by Paul in 11:2, he has no praise for their attitudes and actions at the Lord's meal. Paul's statement that their meetings do more harm than good reveals the depth of his displeasure with the Corinthians' behavior. Paul's doctrinal understanding of the assembly does not include a belief in the virtue of assembling for its own sake. As a student of Scripture he knew well God's hatred of religious assemblies and ceremonies when those in attendance had lives and hearts out of step with God's will (cf. Isa 1:10-15; Mal 1:10; Matt 5:23-24).

11:18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

In this verse Paul spells out the harmful actions which he referred to in 11:17. In particular, their assembly at the time of the communal meal is characterized by divisions (scivsmata, schismata , cf. 1:10;12:25). Since the Greek term which is translated "church" (ekklçsia) was also used in Greek literature, inscriptions, and papyri for non-Christian gatherings and assemblies (cf. the use of ekklçsia in Acts 19:32, 39, 40), it is not surprising to find that the Pauline expression of "coming together as a church" (sunercomevnwn ejn ejkklhsiva/, synerchomenôn en ekklçsia) is a well documented Greek phrase.

The potentially divisive character of Greek and Roman meal time gatherings is well documented in ancient literary testimony, from authors such as Plato, Plutarch, Juvenal, Pliny, and Lucian. We also have a handful of archaeological artifacts that mention the need for religious and nonreligious assemblies and guilds to regulate the problems associated with meal times. As one Latin inscription from Pompeii stated it, "Be sociable and put aside, if you can, annoying quarrels. If you can't, go back to your own home."

Given the lack of internal evidence in 1 Corinthians that there was any Jew-Gentile division in the Corinthian fellowship, it is only speculation to suggest that "a meal may also have provided Jewish Christians, if they insisted on kosher food, with an occasion for separating themselves from their Gentile brothers."

Because of Paul's use of the words "I hear" and "I believe" in this verse, it seems improbable that he learned about this issue from the letter the Corinthians had written to him (cf. 7:1).

11:19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.

In light of Paul's intense dissatisfaction with some of the Corinthians in this section, it is best to understand this verse as reflecting mild irony (and perhaps sarcasm). The very carnal disposition that characterizes some of these Corinthians serves as the catalyst for making evident those who are pleasing to God.

11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat,

The opening words of this verse make it clear that Paul has in mind the occasion at which all the believers come together at one place (ejpiÉ toÉ aujtov, epi to auto , omitted in the NIV translation). Due to the aberrant Corinthian behavior which Paul is about to highlight in 11:21ff, he is compelled to inform the Corinthians that the meal they are conducting is not the Lord's meal (kuriakoÉn dei'pnon, kyriakon deipnon ). This Pauline evaluation would surely have startled his readers since they thought that this was the very meal they were conducting.

11:21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.

The apostle now spells out just why this corporate meal is not at all what they think it is. The problem is not with inappropriate believers participating in the meal or officiating at it. Nor is the difficulty that Paul has with a deviation by the Corinthians from some predetermined liturgical pattern for the Lord's supper.

The specific problem, according to Paul, is that this meal that is supposed to engender and reflect corporate unity (10:16-17) has become completely individualistic. If it were a true meal of the Lord the participants would partake in a way that manifested their fellowship in the Body of Christ. As it is being practiced by the Corinthians, they have allowed the typical Greco-Roman mores of social class distinctions and inebriation at meals to prevail. These types of problems were so prevalent at large meals in Greco-Roman antiquity that pagan philosophers and moralists complained about them.

Some of the Corinthian believers have so lost any sense of the Lord's meal as having a horizontal or communal dimension that they are not waiting for anyone else when they partake of this Lord's meal.

One of the reasons that there has been and will continue to be debate over whether the Corinthians partook of the Lord's meal in the context of a larger fellowship meal (the agapç banquet) is that the text itself is ambiguous. My own judgment is that the Lord's meal was originally eaten in conjunction with other food, as was the case when it was instituted (note the phrase "after supper," metaÉ toÉ dei'pnhsai, meta to deipnçai in 11:25.). Since the bread and wine together were called a meal (11:20, dei'pnon, deipnon ) the quantity of these two elements consumed probably exceeded what is contemporary practice in churches.

Paul is not specifically concerned in this setting whether the Lord's supper is eaten at the same time of day and at the same gathering with other foods. Rather, the apostle is agitated about the individualistic attitude of some believers which allows them to eat their own food (toÉ i[dion dei'pnon, to idion deipnon ) and not be concerned about those who do not have food (see esp. 11:22). Because of differing economic and social status some of the believers, Paul observes, remain hungry. In this setting the economic and social class distinctions which characterized the various members of the church of God in their work-a-day world were being maintained during the Lord's meal in the assembly. To the apostle this situation is unacceptable!

Moreover, drunkenness was a problem for some of the believers. Paul had already indicated to his readers that drunkards cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:10). The excessive volume of wine often consumed at Greco-Roman banquets and meals was even commented upon by pagan moralists. One of the jobs of banquet organizers and supervisors in antiquity was to regulate the amount of wine consumed (cf. John 2:9, the master of the banquet).

11:22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

Paul's reference to houses has led some interpreters to think that it is the wealthy in church who are causing some of these problems. After all, the argument goes, the slaves and poor of the church would not have houses. Moreover, it is the "have nots" who are the victims of humiliation in this situation according to this verse.

Paul is stating that if those who are guilty of the major offenses in the preceding verse cannot wait for other believers and share their food with others, then they should eat and drink at home. By his contrasting use of homes (oijkiva", oikias ) and church of God (ejkklhsiva" tou' qeou', ekklçsias tou theou), Paul is acknowledging the rightful distinction between the public and private spheres of life (cf. 14:34-35) in this regard.

With his explicit reference to those who have nothing (touÉ" mhÉ e[conta", tous mç echontas) Paul reveals the socio-economic nature of this problem.

Paul reaffirms his previous judgment (11:17) that he cannot possibly praise the Corinthians for their type and style of banqueting and participation in the Lord's meal.

2. The Lord's Supper As Instituted (11:23-26)

²³ For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, ²⁴ and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." ²⁵ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." ²⁶ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,

Even though pagan banquets and meals often had serious religious overtones, the Corinthians' model of the Lord's meal was void of religious perspectives from their Lord. Consequently, Paul turns to the setting and the theology of the institution of the Lord's supper to remind and inform the Corinthians what the supper of the Lord Jesus was all about. By doing this he hopes to once again "Christianize" their meal, since evidently its practice had fallen under the influence of Greco-Roman practices and attitudes.

Paul claims that this instructional material came from the Lord and states that at some past time he had given it to the church of God at Corinth. It is immediately apparent that Paul is taking the Corinthians back to the setting of the Last Supper (cf. Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20) shortly before Jesus' trial and execution.

With his reference to the bread (a[rton, arton ) Paul is introducing the first of the two elements of the Lord's meal (cf. 10:16-17).

11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Paul cites Jesus' statement which associates the bread of the Lord's meal with Jesus' personal body that was vicariously sacrificed for believers (toÉ sw'ma toÉ uJpeÉr uJmw'n, to sôma to hyper hymôn). The apostle includes within the quotation of Jesus' words Jesus' imperative to perpetuate this meal. These words about remembrance arise from Jesus' own understanding of the role of remembrance in the Passover Feast, though as C.K. Barrett points out, there would be nothing strange about a meal of remembrance for pagans. Even though the theme of remembrance is central in Paul's teaching in 11:23-25, there is no justification for elevating this understanding over the participation theme (koinwniva, koinônia) found earlier in 10:15-17.

11:25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Next Paul moves to the second element of the Lord's meal, namely the beverage. The place of the cup (cf. 10:16) needs to be seen in the setting of Jesus' celebration of the Passover according to contemporary Jewish custom (cf. Luke 22:17-20). In that historical context Jesus associates the cup with the New Covenant (cf. Jer 31:31; Heb 8:8-13; 2 Cor 3:1-18). Jesus specifically associates the cup (in which there was wine) with the blood he was about to shed. When believers drink of this cup at the Lord's meal, they should do so in remembrance of Jesus whose life and ministry culminated in his redemptive death. This perspective which is rooted in the words of Jesus and passed on by the apostle Paul was obviously totally forgotten (hence the need to remember) by Corinthian believers whose experience of the cup of wine was as a source of inebriation (see 11:21).

11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

In this verse Paul forcefully jerks the Corinthians' current practice of the Lord's meal from the damning perspectives of Greco-Roman meal customs and firmly replants it in the soil of redemptive history. Whenever believers participate in the Lord's supper (not just any supper), it is a proclamation of the death of the Lord. The supper as a whole points to Jesus' death since the two essential elements commanded by Jesus (bread and cup) both are interpreted in terms of his redemptive work at his death. The centrality of this meal to the life of the church is seen in the fact that the church is commanded to eat and drink of the Lord's meal until the Lord's return.

3. Self-examination to Avoid Judgment (11:27-34)

²⁷ Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. ²⁹ For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. ³⁰ That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. ³¹ But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. ³² When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

³³ So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. ³⁴ If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

And when I come I will give further directions.

11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Having made clear to the Corinthians the cross-centered nature of the Lord's meal, Paul then begins to draw out the punitive consequences when believers participate in the meal in an unworthy manner. Since for Paul the elements of the bread and cup are undeniably and inextricably tied to the death of Jesus as manifested in his broken body and shed blood, to handle these elements as the Corinthians have is to place oneself "under the same liability as those responsible for that death in the first place."

11:28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

As Robertson and Plummer point out, the grammar and wording of this verse "shows that the individual Christian can do it [examination] for himself and perhaps implies that this is the normal condition of things." Paul is calling for each believer to evaluate his behavior at the supper (not his behavior throughout the week) to discern if it is appropriate to the doctrine of the Lord's meal that Paul has given.

11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The apostle here specifies the concrete sin an individual Corinthian should think about. If a believer partakes of the Lord's dinner (eats and drinks) he will ensure his own condemnation if he has not properly recognized the body (toÉ sw'ma, to sôma).

According to Fee, there have been at least three major interpretations of what Paul means by not recognizing the body. One view takes this to mean that Paul is concerned that the Corinthians are not properly discerning the difference between the sacred elements of the Lord's supper and the common food. A second perspective proposes that the Corinthians are guilty of not appropriately meditating on the death of Jesus, particularly his body on the cross, when they take the elements of his meal. A third major understanding is to take body as the congregation (= Body of Christ) and to view Paul continuing his critique of Corinthian neglect of one another during the Lord's dinner.

This third perspective has more evidence in its favor. This includes the fact that contextually the focus of Paul's criticism has been about mistreatment of fellow believers at the meal (11:21, 22, 33). In addition, Paul's readers have already been introduced to the terminology of body = fellow believers in the context of the Lord's meal at 10:17. Finally since Paul shifts from his previous idiom of body and blood (= bread and cup, 11:27) to only one body, one cannot cogently argue that body must mean the same thing in 11:27 and 11:29. Since Paul did not write "without recognizing the body and the blood of the Lord" but rather "not recognizing the body" one must be very cautious in turning Paul's criticism into an attack upon the lack of devotional focus during the Lord's supper. Lack of devotional focus may or may not be grounds for contemporary concerns, but this hardly seems to me to be the issue that Paul is attacking in the congregation at Corinth.

11:30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Paul's earlier warnings about receiving punitive judgment because of actions such as despising the church of God and humiliating the "have nots" were no idle threats. In this verse Paul specifically mentions three manifestations of the self-engendered judgment of 11:29. Many of the Corinthian believers (ejn uJmi'n polloiv, en hymin polloi ), Paul asserts, have become weak and sick and another group has fallen asleep.

It is impossible to know the details of the events to which Paul refers. Calvin noted, "We do not know if a plague was raging there at the time, or whether they were afflicted by other kinds of diseases," while Fee takes the contrary position that, "In any case, Paul is not saying that sickness among Christians is to be viewed as present judgment, nor that such sickness is necessarily related to an abuse of the Supper."

Since both the Old Testament and New Testament recognize the role of punitive miracles, there is certainly no reason to conclude that Paul's words should or cannot be taken at face value.

11:31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.

Paul is here encouraging the readers to participate in continued self-evaluation so that they will mend their ways and no longer be recipients of the judgment of God as described in 11:30.

11:32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

This verse makes it clear that God intends there to be a therapeutic consequence for his judgment. The purpose of this stern discipline of the church of God is to spare believers from God's eschatological judgment of the world (mhÉ suÉn tw/' kovsmw/, mç syn tô kosmô). The implication is that if these Corinthians do not repent and receive the discipline of God, then they will be judged with the world.

11:33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.

Paul here begins to bring his thoughts to a conclusion. When the saints at Corinth assemble to eat (eij" toÉ fagei'n, eis to phagein ), presumably both a communal meal and Lord's dinner, they must wait for one another. Since the New Testament does not acknowledge clergy ordination in the modern sense, "Paul does not say, Wait for so-and-so, or for such-and-such an official, to preside over your gathering." Rather, the apostle urges them to wait until all who have assembled have food to eat.

11:34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

Paul gives here an alternative for the believer who would dispute his apostolic counsel in 11:33. If, without concern for others, someone argues on the basis of hunger that they need to eat, Paul grants them permission as long as it is done in the privacy of their home (ejn oi[kw/ ejsqievtw, en oikô esthietô) and not at the public assembly of the church. If hungry church members reject Paul's warning and eat selfishly when they have assembled (sunevrcesqe, synerchesthe ), then they will experience the judgment of God.

Although the apostle has more directives and instructions to give (on the issue treated in 11:17-34?), he informs the Corinthians that he must wait until he can see them face-to-face. On his next visit to Corinth they will take care of the remaining matters (taÉ deÉ loipav, ta de loipa ), whatever they were.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: 1Co 11:1

Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ . [In all matters that were indifferent Paul pleased others, rather than himself (1Co 9:19; 1 Cor 9:22 ; Rom 15:2). He did not needlessly trample upon the prejudices of any, whether in the church or out, and he counseled the Corinthians to follow his example in this, as he himself followed the example of Christ in thus showing mercy and consideration -- Rom 15:1-3]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:2

[Paul has been discussing the disorderly conduct of individual Christians. He now proceeds to discuss more general disorders; i. e., those which took place in the meetings of the congregation, and in which the whole church participated. We may conceive him as answering the question, "Ought men to have their heads covered, or may women have their heads uncovered when they are prophesying in public?"] Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you . [By "traditions" Paul means the precepts, ordinances and doctrines which he had taught them orally. The traditions of God, given through inspired men, are to be accepted without addition or alteration (1Co 15:3 ; 2Th 2:15 ; Rev 22:18), but the traditions of men should be weighed carefully, and summarily rejected if they conflict with the teaching of God (Mat 15:1-9). Since Paul has already censured the Corinthians for departing from his teaching, and since, in the next breath, he points out further departures on their part from his teaching, it is evident that what he says here is a quotation taken from a part of their letter where they were expressing their loyalty to him. Having thus quoted their words in which they committed themselves to his teaching, he points out what the teaching really was, that they may make good their boast by obeying it.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:3

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God . [Paul settles the humblest difficulties by appealing to the loftiest principles: thus he makes the headship of Christ over man the basis, or principle, on which he decides that the man has headship over the woman, and as we shall see further on, he makes the headship of the man over the woman the principle by which he determines the question as to whether men should worship with uncovered, and women with covered heads; for the uncovered head was the symbol of royalty and dominion, and the covered head of subjection and submission. The order in which he states the several headships is peculiar. We would expect him to begin with God and descend by the regular steps, thus: God, Christ, man, woman. But the order is thus: Christ, man; man, woman; God, Christ. Subtle distinctions are to be made with caution, but it is not improbable that Paul's order in this case is determined by the delicate nature of the subject which he handles. Dominion is fruitful of tyranny, and so it is well, before giving man dominion, to remind him that he also is a servant (Mat 18:21-35 ; Mat 5:7). Again, the arrangement makes the headship of the man over the woman parallel to the headship of God over Christ, and suggests that there should be between husband and wife a unity of will and purpose similar to that which exists between the Father and the Son. The unquestioned, immediate and absolute submission and concurrence of the Son leave no room for the exercise of authority on the part of the Father, and the infinite and unsearchable wisdom, love, benevolence and good-will on the part of the Father take from the Son every occasion of unwillingness or even hesitation. All Christian husbands and wives should mutually remember this parallel. Jesus the Incarnate, the Son of man and the Son of God, is subject to the Father, by reason of his humanity and his mediatorial kingdom (1Co 3:23 ; 1Co 15:24-28 ; Joh 14:28). As to the subjection of the Logos or the eternal Word to the Father we are not informed -- comp. Phi 2:6]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:4

Every man praying or prophesying [speaking by divine inspiration], having his head covered, dishonoreth his head .

McGarvey: 1Co 11:5

But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head [Corinth was made up of Greeks, Romans and Jews, and all these three elements of her population were found in the church to which Paul wrote. The Jew and the Roman worshipped with covered, and the Greek with uncovered, head. Naturally a dispute would arise as to which custom was right. Moreover, as the women were beyond all doubt acquainted with the principle that there is neither male nor female in the spiritual realm (Gal 3:28), they seem to have added to the confusion by taking sides in the controversy, so that some of them asserted the right to worship with uncovered heads after the fashion of the Greeks. Now, in the East in Paul's day, all women went into public assemblies with their heads veiled, and this peplum, or veil, was regarded as a badge of subordination, a sign that the woman was under the power of the man. Thus Chardin, the traveler, says that the women of Persia wear a veil in sign that they are "under subjection," a fact which Paul also asserts in this chapter. Now, the symbolic significance of a woman's head-dress became the determining factor in this dispute. For a man to worship with a covered head was an act of effeminacy, a disgrace to his head, and for a woman to worship with uncovered head was likewise disgraceful, for it would at once be looked upon as a bold assertion of unwarranted independence, a sign that she had laid aside her modesty and removed from her sphere. From this passage it is plain that it was not intended that Christianity should needlessly vary from the national customs of the day. For Christians to introduce needless innovations would be to add to the misconceptions which already subjected them to persecution. One who follows Christ will find himself conspicuously different from the world, without practicing any tricks of singularity]; or it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven .

McGarvey: 1Co 11:6

For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn [with shears] or shaven [with a razor], let her be veiled . [Paul does not command that unveiled women be shorn, but he demands it as a logical consistency, as a scornful reductio ad absurdum. For a woman to want only to lay aside her veil was an open repudiation of the authority of her husband, and such a repudiation lowered her to the level of the courtesan, who, according to Elsner, showed her shamelessness by her shorn head, and likewise to the level of the adulteress, whose penalty, according to Wetstein and Meyer, was to have her head shaved. Paul, therefore, demands that those who voluntarily seek a low level, consent to wear all the signs and badges of that level that they may be shamed into rising above it. Having thus deduced a law from human custom, Paul now shows that the same law rests upon divine and creative relationships.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:7

For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God [Man has no created superior (Gen 1:27 ; Psa 8:6), and, in addition to the glory which is his by reason of the nature of his creation, his estate has been further dignified and glorified by the incarnation of the Son of God (Heb 1:2-3), so that, because of his fellowship with Christ, he may stand unveiled in the presence of the Father. Therefore, by covering his head while at worship, man symbolically forfeits his right to share in the glory of Christ, and thus dishonors himself. We are no longer slaves, but sons (Gal 4:7). "We Christians," says Tertullian, "pray with outspread hands, as harmless; with uncovered heads, as unashamed; without a prompter, as from the heart"]: but the woman is the glory of the man .

McGarvey: 1Co 11:8

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man :

McGarvey: 1Co 11:9

for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man [Gen 2:18 ; Gen 2:21-22]:

McGarvey: 1Co 11:10

for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels . [The argument here runs thus: The rule which I have given you rests upon symbolism -- the symbol of the wife's subjection. But this symbolism is correct, for, as man proceeded from God, being fashioned as a minor representative of God, so also woman proceeded from man as a minor representative of man, and her minor state is apparent from the fact that she was created for the man, and not the man for her. Hence, women ought not to do away with the veil while in places of worship, because of the symbolism; and they can not do away with the subordination which it symbolizes, because it rests on the unalterable facts of creation. To abandon this justifiable and well-established symbol of subordination would be a shock to the submissive and obedient spirit of the ministering angels (Isa 6:2) who, though unseen, are always present with you in your places of worship" (Mat 18:10-31 ; Psa 138:1 ; 1Ti 5:21 ; 1Co 4:9 ; Ecc 5:6). Here we find Paul not only vindicating the religious truths of the Old Testament, but authenticating its historical facts as well.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:11

Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord ["In the Lord" means by divine appointment.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:12

For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God . [Lest any man should be inflated with pride by the statement in 1Co 11:7 ; fancying that there was some degree of proportion between the exaltation of God over man and of man over woman, Paul adds these words to show that men and women are mutually dependent, and hence nearly equals, but that God, as Creator, is exalted over all. The idea of proportion, therefore, is utterly misleading. To the two reasons already given for the covering of a woman's and the uncovering of a man's head, Paul adds two more.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:13

Judge ye in yourselves [he appealed to their own sense of propriety, as governed by the light of nature]: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?

McGarvey: 1Co 11:14

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

McGarvey: 1Co 11:15

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering . [Instinct should teach us that the head of a woman is more properly covered than that of a man, for nature grants it a greater abundance of hair. In Paul's time the hair of a man, unless he was under some vow, such as that of the Nazarite, was uniformly cut short. Long hair in a man betokened base and lewd effeminacy, and we find those who wore it ridiculed by Juvenile. Since nature gives a woman more covering than man, her will should accord with nature, and vice versa. Masculine women and effeminate men are alike objectionable. Let each sex keep its place. And in point of attire it is still disgraceful for men and women to appear in public in each other's garments.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:16

But if any man seemeth to be [a mild way of saying, "if any man is"] contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God . [Knowing the argumentative spirit of the Greeks, and being conscious that it was likely that some would even yet want to dispute the matter, despite his three reasons to the contrary, Paul takes it entirely out of the realm of discussion into that of precedent. The settled and established practice of the church had from the beginning followed the course outlined by Paul, which showed that other apostles besides himself had either established it by rule, or endorsed it in practice. In this appeal for uniformity Paul makes it clear that all churches should strive to make their practices uniform, not variant. Paul is here discussing how men and women should be attired when they take a leading part in public worship. He will speak later as to whether or not women should take any such part at all in public worship (1Co 14:34-35 ; 1Ti 2:12). We to-day as males worship with uncovered heads in consequence of Paul's instruction; but not for his reasons. It is now an expression of reverence, which the Jew then expressed by taking off his sandals. "Holland," says Stanley, "is the only exception. In Dutch congregations, men uncover their heads during the psalmody only." In Western countries a woman's hat has never had any symbolism whatever. We see nothing in Paul's argument which requires us to make it symbolic. The problem in Western assemblies is how best to persuade women to take their hats off, not how to prevail upon them to keep them on. The principle, however, still holds good that the woman is subordinate to the man, and should not make any unseemly, immodest, vaunting display of an independence which she does not possess.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:17

But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse . [Their church services, which were intended for their development, had become so corrupted that they tended to retard and to dwarf their natural growth. Farrar makes the words "this charge" refer back to 1Co 11:2 ; but it is more natural and easy to refer them to what he is about to say.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:18

For first of all [Paul was not careful as to his divisions, and so his "secondly" is not clearly stated. Olshausen, Ewald, Winer and others think it begins at 1Co 11:20 ; and thus the apostle first censures the factions, and next the evils which resulted from the factions. But as Paul includes both these in one rebuke, it is best with Meyer, Fausset and others to find the "secondly" beginning at 1Co 12:1 ; so that the first rebuke is directed at their misbehavior at the love-feast and the Lord's Supper, and the second at their misapplication of the gifts of the Spirit], when ye come together in the church [i. e., in the congregation, for as yet they doubtless had no building (Act 18:7), and in this latter sense the word is nowhere used in the New Testament], I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it . [Evidently the divisions rebuked in chapter 1 manifested themselves in the meetings of the congregation, and the Pauline, Petrine and other parties gathered in separate groups. Paul was distressed to hear this, and Alford interprets him thus: "I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I can not help believing."]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:19

For there must be [Luk 17:1 ; Mat 18:7 ; Mat 10:11] also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you . [A carnal spirit tends to division (1Co 3:1-4 ; 1Jo 2:18-19). The divisive spirit in the perverse and carnal, manifests, by contrast, the loving, united spirit of the obedient and spiritual, which is approved. "Approved" is the cognate opposite of "rejected" found at 1Co 9:27 . The word "division" used in the verse above was a milder term than "factions" found here. The former represented parties separated by present or at least very recent dissensions, while the latter described matured separations and looked toward permanent organizations. If the former might be regarded as a war of secession, the latter would describe that condition when the war was practically ended, and the two parties were almost ready to establish themselves as separate, independent and rival governments. But factions did not thus mature in Paul's time, nor does Clement's epistle written forty years later indicate that they had matured in his time. No doubt, this epistle of Paul's had much to do in checking their development.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:20

When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper [The Lord's Supper is a spiritual feast. It is a feast of love, union and communion in and with Christ, and so can not be eaten by those who have already glutted themselves with hatred, factiousness and partyism]:

McGarvey: 1Co 11:21

for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken . [This verse is an indictment with three counts. There could be no communion supper when: 1. The parties did not eat at the same time, but some before and some after; 2. when each ate his own meal, instead of sharing in "the one bread" (1Co 10:17); 3. when some ate to the full and others ate nothing at all, because there was nothing left. It is likely that "drunken" indicates a state of partial intoxication. Grotius gives "drunken" the milder, and Meyer the stronger, sense. But the context suggests that one had more than was good for him, and the other less, and there is a subtle innuendo in the crossing of the terms, so that overdrinking stands in contrast to undereating, for overdrinking is greater debauchery than overeating.]

McGarvey: 1Co 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? In this I praise you not . [Litotes for "I condemn you." The context here makes it evident that the abuses of the Lord's Supper grew out of the Agapæ, or love-feast, which was associated with it. As the feast of the Passover immediately preceded the Lord's Supper, the early church thought it expedient to have a preliminary feast as a substitute for the Passover, thinking that the Lord's Supper would thus have its proper setting. They called this preliminary meal a "love-feast" (Greek, Agapai -- Jud 1:12). This Agapæ was a club-feast; i. e., one to which each was supposed to contribute his share. But the factious spirit in Corinth caused the church to eat in different parties and at different times; and may have, to a large degree, caused each to selfishly eat what he himself had brought. Hence, the apostle declares that a feast so devoid of all spirit of communion might just as well be eaten at home. They were mere carnal feasts of appetite and not spiritual feasts of love. Paul does not, however, mention the Agapæ, for, being a human and not a sacred feast, it could not be profaned. But the things which were a disgrace to it became a profanation and a sin when they passed from it into the Lord's Supper. Paul shows his sense of astonishment at the unseemly conduct of the Corinthians by "lively succession of questions." His meaning may be paraphrased thus: "Private feasts should be eaten in your own private houses, or is it possible that you do not own any houses? Surely you do. Why, then, do you meet in a public assembly to eat your private meal? Is it because you despise the church of God, and wish to show your contempt for it by exposing the poverty of those who have no houses (nor anything else), making a parade of your wealth before them, and publishing the fact that you do not consider them fit to eat with you?" The evil spirit of which Paul speaks still exists; but it shows itself to-day by a parade of dress, and not of victuals. From the perverted feast of the Corinthians Paul now turns to show the nature of the true Lord's Supper.]

McGarvey: 1Co 11:23

For I received of the Lord [Paul did not receive his knowledge as to the supper from the apostles or other witnesses (comp. Gal 1:11-12). To be truly an apostle and witness (Act 1:8), it was fitting that Paul should have his knowledge from the fountain source. For a comparison of Paul's account with the three others, and comments upon 1Co 11:23-26 ; see "Fourfold Gospel," p. 657] that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed [the solemn and affecting circumstances under which the supper was instituted, as well as the sacred nature of the ordinance itself, should have impressed upon the Corinthians how unbecoming it was to celebrate the memorial of it in a spirit of pride, revelry and disorder] took bread ;

Lapide: 1Co 11:1-34

CHAPTER 11

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

The Apostle proceeds to deal with the third point put before him, that of the veiling of women; for the Corinthians had asked of S. Paul whether or no women ought to be veiled. He replies that they ought, and especially at the time of public prayer, and he supports his decision by five reasons. (I.) that womanly honour and modesty demand it (vers. 5 and 14); (2.) that they are subject to men (vers. 7 et seq.); (3.) that if they go forth with uncovered head they offend the angels (ver. 10); (4.) that nature has given them hair for a )covering (ver. 15); (5.) that this is the custom of the Church (ver. 16).

The second part of the chapter (ver. 17) treats of the Eucharist, and in this he censures as an abuse that in the agape, or common meal, the rich excluded the poor, and sat apart by themselves, giving themselves to self-indulgence and drunkenness. Then (ver. 23) he gives an account of the institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and declares the guilt and punishment of those who approach unworthily, and bids each one examine himself before he approach to it.

Ver. 1 . — Be ye followers of me, even as also I am of Christ. This is a continuation of the preceding chapter. Imitate me, 0 Corinthians, in that, as I said, I do not seek my own advantage but that of many, that they may be saved; and in this I imitate the zeal of Christ, who sought not His own good but our salvation, and to gain it descended from heaven to earth, took our flesh, toiled, and gave Himself to the death of the Cross.

Ver. 2.— Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things. He here passes on and paves the way for a fresh question. In the following verses he proceeds to censure the abuses of the Corinthians in suffering their women to go unveiled, and in approaching the Eucharist when full of wine and mutual discords, and according to his custom he softens his rebuke that the Corinthians may take it the more readily and kindly, in the same way that physicians sugar their pills. He says, therefore, "I praise you that ye remember me in all things," which, as Erasmus says, means "that ye keep in memory all my things," or, as Euthymius says, "that ye are mindful of everything that belongs to me" Supply "precepts, teachings, or exhortations" after "all." All these precepts, &c., must be understood with some limitation, and must mean that most of them were kept by the better sort of the Corinthians, for in other parts of this Epistle he censures some faults of the Corinthians, and especially in this chapter their abuse of the Eucharist, as a departure from the ordinance of Christ and His own precepts.

As I delivered them to you.— The Greek gives, when translated literally, as even Beza admits, "Ye keep the traditions as I delivered them to you." Hence, since these traditions were not committed to writing by the Apostles, for no previous letter to the Corinthians containing a record of them is extant, it plainly follows that not everything which concerns faith and morals has been written down in Holy Scripture, and that S. Paul and the other Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth. This is even more clearly stated in vers. 23 and 34. It is evident, moreover, from the fact that before that had been written which S. Paul here writes about the Eucharist, &c, the Corinthians were bound to obey the precepts respecting them given by Christ and S. Paul, as he says himself in ver. 23. The law preserved in tradition binds equally with the written law. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others.

Ver. 3. — But I would have you know, that . . . the head of Christ is God. S. Paul here lays the foundation for his precepts about the veiling of women. We must bear in mind that the Corinthian women were greatly given, not only to lust, but also to the worship of Venus, so much so that a thousand maidens were every day exposed as prostitutes at her temple and in her honour. (Cf. notes to chap. vi. at the end.) Moreover, they thought this to be to their own honour and an act of piety, and they hoped to conciliate the goddess in this way to bestow upon them and their daughters, or to continue to them, a happy marriage. They were consequently wanton, and forward to attract lovers by exposing their features and displaying their form; and this was regarded at Corinth as a custom honourable, becoming and elegant, and Christian women thought that they ought to retain the custom of their fathers. Some of the Corinthians whose minds were of a higher cast advised S. Paul of this fact, and put to him the question whether it was lawful or becoming, for Christian women to go about with uncovered head, and especially in the Church. Paul replies that it is neither becoming nor lawful, and he begins here to give his reasons. The first is that the woman is subject to the man as her head, therefore she ought to be veiled; again, man is subject to God as His image, and therefore he is not to be veiled. In vers. 7 and 10 he proves both conclusions.

Head here has the meaning of lord, superior, or ruler. So God, as being of a higher nature, is the head and ruler of Christ as man; while Christ, as being of the same nature with the Church, is her Head, and that, as S. Thomas says, in four ways: (1.) by reason of conformity of nature with other men, for Christ as man is the Head of the Church; (2.) by reason of the perfection of His graces; (3.) by reason of His exaltation above every creature; (4.) by reason of His power over all, and especially over the Church. So the man, S. Thomas says, is head of the woman in four ways: (1.) He is more perfect than the woman, not only physically, inasmuch as woman is but man with a difference, but also in regard to mental vigour, according to Ecc 7:28: "One man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found." (2.) Man is naturally superior to woman, according to Eph 5:22-23: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife." (3.) The man has power to govern the woman, according to Gen 3:16: "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (4.) The man and the woman enjoy conformity of nature, according to Gen 2:18: "I will make him an help meet for him."

Vers. 4 and 5. — Every man praying, &c. This is the second reason: It is disgraceful for a man to be veiled, and, therefore, the honour, freedom, and manliness of man require that he veil not his head, but leave it free and unconstrained. On the other hand, it is disgraceful for a woman not to be veiled, for womanly honour and modesty require a woman to veil her head; therefore the woman ought to be veiled, the man ought not. The phrase, "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth," does not use "prophesieth" in its strict, and proper meaning of uttering a prophecy or an exposition, but in the improper sense of singing hymns or psalms to the praise of God. For S. Paul is here speaking of the public assembly, in which he does not allow a woman to speak or to teach, but only to sing her part well when the whole congregation sings. Prophet means singer in 1Ch 25:1, and in 1Sa 10:10. So Saul is said to have been among the prophets, that is among the singers of praises to God. So in the Books of Kings those are called prophets who served God with praises.

Some explain "that prophesieth" to mean "that hears prophecy;" but "prophecy" has never this passive meaning. Moreover, the Apostle here means any woman, whether unmarried, virgin, married, or unchaste. He bids all alike to go veiled. So Tertullian ( de Vel. Virg. c. 4 and 5) lays down, and adds that the Corinthians understood this to be S. Paul's meaning, for up to that time, he says, they follow S., Paul's injunction, and veil their wives and daughters.

Ver. 6. — For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. For here is not causal, but an emphatic continuative. It is as disgraceful for a woman to have her head uncovered as to have her hair cut short or cut off. Heretics infer from this that it is wrong for religious virgins to be shorn; but I deny that it follows; for the Apostle is speaking in general of women living in the world, especially of married women, who are seen in public in the temple: he is not speaking of religious who have left the world. These latter rightly despoil themselves of their hair, to show (i.) that they contemn all the pomp of the world, (2.) that they have no husband but Christ. This was the custom at the time of S. Jerome, as he says ( Ep. 48 ad Sabin.). The Nazarites did the same (Num. vi. 5).

It may be urged that the Council of Gangra (can. 17) forbids virgins to be shorn under pretext of religion. I reply from Sozomen ( lib. iii. c. 13) that this canon does not refer to religious, but to heretical women, who left their husbands and against their will cut off their hair, in the name of religion, and donned man's dress.

It is these that the Council excommunicates, as Baronius rightly points out ( Annals, vol. iv.). Add to this that religious virgins wear a sacred veil instead of their hair.

It should be noticed that, although Theodosius ( Codex Theod. lib. 27, de Epis. et Cler.) forbade virgins to be shorn in the West, that is to say, younger women not living within the walls of a monastery, but wishing to profess a religious life of chastity in the world, his reason was to prevent scandal, which would be caused if, as sometimes was the case, they happened to fall away into the ordinary secular life. This actually happened in the very same year that this law was passed by Theodosius, as Baronius has well pointed out ( Annals, A.D. 390). Sozomen, too ( lib. vii . c. 26), gives the same reason for its being passed. A young matron at Constantinople, and of noble birth, and a deaconness, had been, it would seem, seduced by a deacon; and when, according to custom, by the order of her confessor she was making a public confession of certain sins, she proceeded to confess also this sin of fornication to the great scandal of the people; and because of this Nectarius abolished public confession and the office of public penitentiary. Still it has ever been the common practice of the Church that virgins, when taking vows of religion, should be shorn.  S. Jerome ( Ep. 48) says that in Egypt and Syria women who had dedicated themselves to God were accustomed to cut off their hair. He says: " It is the custom of the monasteries in Egypt and Syria, that both virgin and widow who have vowed themselves to God, and have renounced and trodden underfoot all the delights of the world, should offer their hair to be cut off, and afterwards live, not with head uncovered, which, is forbidden by the Apostle, but with their heads both tied round and veiled." Palladius ( in Lausiaca ) is our authority for saying that the Tabeunesiotæ, an order of sacred virgins founded by S. Pachomius in obedience to the command of an angel, did the same. Moreover, S. Basil ( in Reg. Monach.) prescribes, that at the very beginning of the monastic life the head should be shaven, for he says that this well becomes him who is mourning for his sins.

Ver. 7.— For a man indeed ought two to cover his head, inasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. This is a hendiadys, for man is the image of the glory of God, or the glorious image of God, in whom the majesty and power of God shine forth most clearly. He is placed on the topmost step in nature, and is as it were God's vicegerent, ruling everything This is the major of a syllogism of which the minor is: but the glory of God must be manifested, the glory of man hidden. Therefore, since woman is the glory of the man, the man of God, it follows that woman should be veiled, that the man should not.  S. Anicetus ( Ep. ad. Episc. Galliæ ) takes this verse of the Apostle chiefly of men in the ranks of the clergy, and of priests in particular, who, in obedience to S. Paul, ought not only to have their heads uncovered, but also a tonsure in the shape of a crown, as S. Peter had (Bede, Hist. Ang. lib . v. c. 23, and Greg. of Tours, de Glor. Conf. c. xxvii.), to represent Christ's crown of thorns and the contumely endured by S. Peter and his fellow Apostles, from which they expect a crown of glory in the heavens.

It should be remarked that in the Old Testament the high-priest offered sacrifices with bare feet and covered head, i.e., wearing his mitre (Exod. xxviii. 37), but in the New Testament the priests offer the sacrifice of the Mass with their feet shod and with uncovered head. Epiphanius says ( Hæres. 8o) that, in the New Testament, Christ, who is our Head, is conspicuous and manifest to us, but was veiled and hidden from the Jews in the Old Law. However, the Apostle is evidently referring here to all men in general, not to the clergy only.

It is not contrary to this precept of the Apostle for our priests, when they celebrate, to use the amice among the other vestments, for they do not cover the head with it while sacrificing, but only use it round the opening in the chasuble (Rupert, de Div. Off. lib. i. c. 10). The amice is not used, then, to cover the head, but to represent the ephod of the high-priest under the Old Law, as Alcuin and Rabanus say, or to signify the veil with which the Jews bound the eyes of Christ (S. Mat 26:67). Cf. Dom. Soto, lib. iv. dist. 13, qu. 2, art. 4, and Hugh Vict. de Sacr. lib. ii. c. 4.

But S. Paul wishes to abolish the heathen custom, first instituted, say Plutarch and Servius, by Æneas, of sacrificing and making supplication to their gods with veiled head. Tertullian ( in Apol.) remarked this distinction between Christians and heathen, and Varro ( de Ling. Lat. lib. iv.) records that the Roman women, when sacrificing, had their heads veiled in the same way.

But the woman is the glory of the man. Woman was made of man to his glory, as his workmanship and image; therefore she is subject to him, and should be veiled, in token of her subordination.

The woman, that is the wife, is the glory of the man, his glorious image, because God formed Eve out of the man, in his likeness, so that the image might represent the man, as a copy the model. This image is seen in the mind and reason, inasmuch as the woman, like the man, is endowed with a rational soul, with intellect, will, memory, liberty, and is, equally with the man, capable of every degree of wisdom, grace, and glory. The woman, therefore, is the image of the man, but only improperly; for the woman, as regards the rational soul, is man's equal, and both man and woman have been made in the image of God; but the woman was made from the man, after him, and is inferior to him, and created like him merely. Hence the Apostle does not say that "the woman is the image of the man," but only "the woman is the glory of the man." The reason is no doubt the one that Salmeron has pointed out, that woman is a notable ornament of man, as given to him for a means to propagate children and govern his family, and as the material over which he may exercise his jurisdiction and dominion. For man's dominion not only extends to inanimate things and brute animals, but also to rational beings, viz., to women and wives.

Vers. 8, 9. — For the man is not of the woman . . . but the woman for the man. By two reasons he proves that the woman is the glory of man as her head—(1.) that woman is of later date than man, produced from him, and consequently man is the source and principle from which woman sprang. (2.) She was created to be a help to the man, the sharer of his life, and the mother of his children. As, then, man is the beginning from which, so is he the end for which woman was made. Hence the woman is the glory of the man, and not vice versâ.

Ver. 10— For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. There is no good authority for reading "veil" instead of "power," as some do. We should observe: (1.) Power denotes here the authority, right, or rule of the man over the woman, not of the woman herself. The reference is to Gen. iii. 16. (2.) Power, by metonymy, signifies here the symbol of the man's power, the veil which the woman wears on her head to signify her subjection to her husband's power, and to denote that the man, as it were, is enthroned upon and holds dominion over her head. Power here, then, is used with an active meaning with regard to the man, with a passive in regard to the woman; for a veil is worn by one who reverences the power of another. As a bare and unconstrained head is a sign of power and dominion, so when veiled it is a sign that this power of his is as it were veiled, fettered, and subdued to another. Hence Tertullian ( de Cor. Mil, c. xiv.) calls this covering worn by women, "The burden of their humility," and ( de Vel. Virg. c. xvii.) "their yoke."  S. Chrysostom calls it "The sign of subjection;" the Council of Gangra (sess. xvii.), "The memorial of subjection." (3.) From this covering it was that, by the Latins, women are said nubere, that is, caput obnubere, when they pass into the power of a husband. On the other hand, in the case of a man, a cap was the badge of the freedman, as Livy says at the end of lib. 45. Hence slaves who were to be enrolled as liable to military service, were said to be called "to the cap," that is, to liberty.

Because of the angels. 1. The literal sense is that women ought to have a covering on the head out of reverence to the angels; not because angels have a body, and can be provoked to lust, as Justin, Clement, and Tertullian thought—this is an error I exposed in the notes to Gen. vi.—but because angels are witnesses of the honest modesty or the immodesty of women, as also of their obedience or disobedience. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, S. Thomas, Anselm.

2. Clement (Hypotypos, lib. ii.) understands by "angels," good and holy men.

3. Ambrose, Anselm, and S. Thomas take it to mean priests and Bishops, who, in Rev. ii., are called angels, and who might be provoked to lust by the beauty of women with uncovered heads. Hence Clement of Alexandria (Pæd. lib. ii. c. 10) thinks that this bids them cover, not merely their heads, but also their forehead and face, as we see the more honourable do in church. But the first meaning is the most literal and pertinent.

This reverence that is due to the angels is the third reason given by S. Paul why women should cover their heads. It is especially to be shown in church, for angels fill the church, and take notice of the gestures, prayers, and dress of every one present. Hear what S. Nilus relates happened to his master, S. Chrysostom, not once or twice (Ep. ad Anast.). He says: "John, the most reverend priest of the Church at Constantinople, and the light of the whole world, a man of great discernment, saw almost always the house of the Lord filled with a great company of angels, and especially whilst he was offering the holy and unbloody sacrifice; and it was soon after this that he, full of amazement and joy, related what he had seen to his chief friends. 'When the priest had begun,' he said, 'the most holy sacrifice, many of these Powers immediately descended, clad in the most beautiful robes, barefooted, and with rapt look, and with great reverence silently prostrated themselves around the altar, until the dread mystery was fulfilled. Then they dispersed hither and thither through the whole building, and kept close to the bishops, priests, and deacons, as they distibuted the precious body and blood, doing all they could to help them.'"

S. Chrysostom himself (Hom. de Sac. Mensa ) says in amazement: " At the altar cherubim stand; to it descend the seraphim, endowed with six wings and hiding their faces. There the whole host of angels joins the priest in his work of ambassador for you." S. Ambrose, commenting on the first chapter of S. Luke, speaks of the angel who appeared to Zacharias, and says: " May the angel be present with us as we continually serve at the altar, and bring down the sacrifice; nay, would that he would show himself to our bodily eyes. Doubt not that the angel is present when Christ comes down and is immolated." S. Gregory ( Dial. lib. iv. c 58) says: " Which of the faithful doubts that at the moment of immolation, the heavens are opened at the voice of the priest, that the choirs of angels are present in this mystery of Jesus Christ; that the lowest are joined to the highest, things earthly with divine, that things visible and invisible become one?" S. Dionysius Areopagites ( Cælest. Hierarch. c. v. and ix.), says that angels of the highest order preside over the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the administration of the sacraments. Tertullian ( de Orat. c. xiii.), censuring the custom of sitting during the Mass, says: " If indeed it is a mark of irreverence to sit down under the very eyes of one whom you fear and reverence, how much more impious is it to do so in the sight of the living God, while the angel of prayer is still standing? What else is it but to insult God because we are tired of praying?" John Moschus ( in Prato Spir. c. 50) relates that a Roumelian Bishop, when celebrating Mass in the presence of Pope Agapitus, suddenly stopped, because he did not see as usual the descent of the Holy Spirit; and when the Pope asked him why he stopped, he said, "Remove the deacon from the altar who holds the fly-flap." When this had been done, the wonted sign was given, and he finished the sacrifice. Metaphrastes ( Vitâ S. Chrys. ) says that the same thing happened to S. Chrysostom, through a deacon casting his eyes on a woman.

We should note (1.), that out of modesty and dignified reserve head-coverings were worn in the time before Christ by the women of Judæa, Troy, Rome, Arabia, and Sparta. Valerius Maximus ( lib. vi . c..3) relates the severe punishment inflicted by C. Sulpicius on his wife: he divorced her because he had found her out of doors with uncovered head. Tertullian ( de Vel. Virg. c. xiii). says: " The Gentile women of Arabia will rise up and judge us, for they cover, not only the head, but also the whole face, leaving only one eye to serve for both, rather than sell the whole face to every wanton gaze. " And again ( de Cor. Milit. c. iv.) he says: " Among the Jewish women, so customary is it to wear a head-covering that they may be known by it." As to the Spartan women, Plutarch ( Apophth. Lacon.) records that it was the custom for their maidens to go out in public unveiled, but married women veiled. The reason was that the one might so find husbands, while those who already had husbands might not seek to attract the attention of other men. But, as Clement of Alexandria says ( Pædag. lib. ii. c. i. c), that it is a reproach to the Spartans that they wore their dress down to the knee only, so neither are their maidens to be praised for going forth in public with unveiled face, for in that way maiden modesty was lost by being put up for sale.

2. Tertullian ( de Vel. Virg. c. ii.) blames those women who used a thin veil, because it was a provocation to lust rather than a protection to modesty, and was borrowed more from the custom of Gentile women than of believers in Christ. In chapter xii. he calls those women who consulted their mirrors for evidence of their beauty, sellers of their chastity. Moreover, S. Justin, writing to Severus ( de Vitâ Christ.), hints plainly enough that Christians at that time abhorred mirrors. In short, Tertullian wrote a treatise ( de Vel. Virg.) on this very point, to prove that all women, married or unmarried, religious or secular, should be veiled, any custom to the contrary notwithstanding, because so the Apostle enjoins. The Corinthians he says, (cap. 4), so understood S. Paul, and up to that time kept their maidens veiled. Moreover, the reasons given by the Apostle apply to all women alike, so that any breach of the precept ought to be censured and corrected. In some places, e.g., maidens go abroad with the head wholly uncovered, to show their beauty and attract a husband, when all that they really do is to peril the chastity of themselves and others, and to expose themselves daily to the wiles of panders, and hence we see and hear of so many shipwrecks to chastity.

Let, then, a maiden be veiled, and go abroad covered, lest she see herself what she ought not, or others be too much attracted by her features. For those who have ruined themselves, or slain others through the eye, are not to be numbered, and therefore the greatest watch should be kept over the eyes. Hence Tertullian ( de Vel. Virg. c. 15), says: " Every public display of a maiden is a violation of her chastity," no doubt meaning that any one who walks about freely with roving eyes and exposed face, to see and be seen, is easily robbed of the purity of her mind. This very want of control is an index that the mind is not sufficiently chaste. Hence Tertullian goes on to say: " Put on the armour of shame, throw around thee the rampart of modesty, raise a wall about thy sex which will suffer neither thy eyes to go out nor those of others to come in."

3. The head-dress of sacred virgins formerly consisted of a bridal-veil, of which Tertullian ( de Vel. Virg. c. 15) says: " Pure virginity is ever timid, and flies from the sight of men, flees for protection to its head-covering as its helmet against the attacks of temptation, the darts of scandal, against suspicions and back-bitings." He adds that it was usual to solemnly bless these veils, whence the virgins were said to be wedded to God. Innocent I. ( ad Victric. Ep. ii. c. 12) says too: " These virgins are united to Christ in spiritual wedlock, and are veiled by priests." These virgins lastly were clad in a dark-coloured dress, and covered with a long cloak. On the other hand Lucian, ( Philopater ) thus satirises the first dress of Christian men: "A sorry cloak, bare head, hair cut short, no shoes." They went then bare-footed, or at all events like the Capuchins, wearing only sandals.

Ver. 11.— Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. This is to be referred to ver. 9, not to the words immediately preceding, which by some Bibles are rightly put in a parenthesis. Having said, in ver. 9, that the woman was created for the man, the Apostle, lest he might seem to have given to men an occasion for pride, to women of indignation, here softens the force of it by adding that in marriage neither can man be without woman, nor woman without man. Each needs the other's help, and that "in the Lord," that is, by the will and disposition of the Lord. Cf. S. Ambrose and the following verse.

"In the Lord" may also be understood "in Christ, by Christian truth and law." The rule of Christian law and of God's ordinance is that the husband and wife give mutual help, procreate children, and educate them piously. This seems to be a reminder to married people of their duty to each other, and of Christian piety.

Ver. 12.— As the woman is of the man, &c. The first woman, Eve, was formed from, man; man is conceived, formed, born, propagated through woman: all is done, ordered, and disposed by God.

Ver. 14.— Doth not even nature itself teach you? The Latin Version reads, "Neither doth nature itself teach you," i.e., Nature doth not teach that women should be veiled, but it does teach that if a man grow long hair, it is a disgrace to him; if a woman, it is her glory.

Ver. 15.— But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her. To let the hair grow long is contrary to what becomes man, is the mark of a weak and effeminate mind, unless it is done because of ill-health or intense cold. Hence S. Augustine reproves some monks who wore their hair down to their shoulders, to gain the appearance and reputation of holiness ( de 0p. Monach.). Again, it seems fitting for a man to pray with uncovered head, for a woman with covered, as the Apostle has proved here. The woman ought, therefore, to let her hair grow long, but not the man, for her hair was given her for her covering.

Take note, however, that it is not absolutely enjoined, either by natural, Divine, or ecclesiastical law, that a woman should let her hair grow long and man should not. Hence, as was said in the notes to ver. 6, religious women cut off their hair. On the other hand, the men of some tribes, like the Gauls, used to let their hair grow long for an ornament. Hence we get the name of Gallia Comata. Homer, too, frequently speaks of the "long-haired Achæans." The Romans, also, in ancient times, grew their hair long, and did not apply the scissors till the time of Scipio Africanus. Pliny says ( lib. vii . c. 59) that the first barbers came into Italy from Sicily, A.U.C. 454. Lycurgus also enacted that the Lacedæmonians should retain their hair.  S. Paul, therefore, is not laying down any rule, but merely points to the teaching of nature, that it is fitting for a woman, when she goes out in public, to go with bonnet and veil, but not for a man. Still, he here adopts the decency taught by nature, and wishes the Corinthians to observe it as if it were a precept, hence he adds—

Ver. 16.— But if any man seem to be contentious. To be contentious is to contend for renown and victory, not for truth; and here it is to contend that Christian women should not be veiled when they pray in Church, but should be bareheaded, according to the ancient custom of the heathen.

Ver. 17 . — Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, &c. This is the fourth reason why women should be veiled, drawn from nature itself, which has given woman hair for a covering, to teach her that she ought to cover herself. The Apostle says, "In giving you this precept about the veiling of women, I do not at the same time, praise you for coming together, not for the better but for the worse." What this means is explained in the next verse.

Ver. 18 . — For first of all. .. I hear that there be divisions among you. Observe the word "Church," which shows that, in the time of S. Paul, there were places set apart for worship. For the early form of churches, their paintings, use of the Cross, the separation of the sexes, &c., see Baronius in his commentary on this verse.

The Apostle here passes from the subject of the veiling of women to correct the abuses of the Corinthians in the Eucharist.

For there must also be heresies among you. Looking at the fickleness, pride, newness in the faith, and quarrelsomeness of the Corinthians, who were saying, "I am of Paul, I of Apollos," which God permitted to prove them, it was necessary that there should he heresies. So Cajetan, Ambrose, Chrysostom. "Heresies" here denotes the divisions on points of faith and manners, which existed among the Corinthians about the Eucharist, e.g., where they should sit, when the Supper should begin, about the food and drink, about the persons they should sit down with. In the Lord's Supper and the agapæ, the rich Corinthians excluded the poor and had their meat by themselves.

That they which are approved may be made manifest among you. In the time of heresy and schism, we see who are built on the foundation of faith and piety, as here amongst the Corinthians was seen the patient constancy of the poor, who were scorned by the rich, and also the modesty and charity of the rich who hated divisions, and invited the poor to their feasts and their agapæ. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius.

Ver. 20.— When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. When you come together in this way to the Eucharist and the supper of the Lord, your supper is no longer that of the Lord, as it once was; and your eating is no longer an eating of the Lord's Supper. You do not institute a supper of the Lord, who admitted to His sober and holy meal all the Apostles, including even Judas, but a supper to Bacchus or Mars; for you come together to get drunk, and to exclude the poor, and so each one fills himself with wine, and the poor with violence. So Anselm, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Vatablus, and Erasmus read for "it is not," "it is not lawful," i.e., "it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord's Supper, and for this reason." But the first meaning is more thorough, more forcible, and better reproves the Corinthians.

Ver. 21.— For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper. (1.) S. Augustine ( Ep. 118) understands this to mean that they took their supper before they came to the Eucharist, and that ver. 33 orders them to wait for one another at the supper before the Eucharist; because at the Eucharist itself or after it there was no need of waiting, since it was not celebrated till all had assembled, when the poor would receive it mingled indiscriminately with the rich.

We must remark that, at the time of S. Paul, in imitation of Christ, who, after the common meal on the Passover lamb, instituted the Eucharist, the Christians instituted before the Eucharist a meal common to all, rich and poor alike, in token of their mutual Christian charity. This custom lasted in some Churches for several centuries. As late as the time of Sozomen, as he relates ( Hist. lib. vii. c. 29), it was the custom in many towns and villages of Egypt, first to take a meal in common, and then, following Christ's example, celebrate and partake of the Holy Eucharist. The Third Council of Carthage (can. 29) points to the same custom as prevailing in several other Churches. The Apostle does not here censure this custom wherever or whenever it was allowed, but only the abuse of it by those who got drunk in this supper, and allowed others who were poor to go hungry. Hence he says, "0ne is hungry and another is drunken;" and again he says, that a man will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord who eats unworthily, i.e., in the mortal sin of drunkenness and contempt of the poor. He therefore, in ver. 33, bids them wait for one another when they eat the Lord's Supper. He speaks, therefore, of the assembly which took place before, not after the Eucharist.

2. Others, however, think that "the supper taken before" is the agape after the Eucharist. In the primitive Church, in imitation of Christ, the richer members were in the habit of spreading a feast for rich and poor alike after the Holy Communion, in token of love, whence it was called the "agape;" but as charity grew cold and the number of the faithful increased, the practice became abused; for the rich would spread their own table sumptuously, even getting intoxicated, and would sit apart by themselves, the poor being excluded or not expected, far less invited, as ver. 33 implies, and it is this that the Apostle here censures. Cf. Chrysostom ( Hom. xxiii. Moral.), Tertullian ( Apol. 29), and Baronius in loco. It was for this reason that the Council of Laodicea (can. 28) abolished the agape.

But the former explanation seems the better for the reasons given above; for the agape in S. Paul's time was held, not after but before the Eucharist; although shortly after these early days, when the Church laid down that, out of reverence, the Eucharist should be received fasting only, the agape was kept after the Eucharist, as will be seen by reference to the passages of Tertullian and Chrysostom, quoted above, and to S. Augustine ( Ep. 118). By parity of reasoning this passage of S. Paul can be applied to those of the rich who celebrated the agape after the Eucharist; for he censures drunkenness and pride in the agape, whether before or after the Eucharist. Wherefore some Protestants are wrong in twisting this verse into an argument against private Masses, in which the priest alone communicates, merely because no one else wishes to communicate; for others are not excluded, nay, the Church wishes (Council of Trent, sess. xxii. can. 6 and 8) those who hear Mass to communicate. For the Apostle is not referring to this, nor is he speaking of the Eucharist at all, but of the common meal called the agape, as I have shown.

Ver. 22 .— What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? &c. Why do you put to shame the poor who have not your wealth, and cannot contribute the delicacies which you can to the common meal? If you wish to feast and enjoy yourselves, do it at home among your equals, not in the church. For if you do it in church you sin in two ways: (1.) because you defile the church by your self-indulgence; (2.) because, by neglecting and despising the poor, you rend the Christian Church, which is common to rich and poor.

Ver. 23 . — That which also I delivered unto you. Not by writing, as I said before, but by word of mouth. This is one authority for the traditions which, orthodox divines teach, should be added to the written word of God.

Vers. 23, 24. — That the Lord Jesus the same night, &c. Five actions of Christ are here described: (1.) He took bread; (2.) He gave thanks to the Father; (3.) He blessed the bread, as S. Matthew also says (Mat 26:26); (4.) He brake it; (5.) He gave it to His disciples, and in giving it, He said, "Take, eat; this is My body." These are the words of one who gives as well as of one who consecrates.

Hence there is no foundation for the argument of Calvin, who says that all these words "took," "blessed," "brake," "gave," refer to bread only, and that therefore it was bread that the Apostles took and ate, not the body of Christ. My answer is that these words refer to the bread, not as it remained bread, but as it was changed into the body of Christ while being given, by the force of the words of consecration used by Christ. In the same way Christ might have said at Cana of Galilee, "Take, drink; this is wine," if He had wished by these words to change the water into wine. So we are in the habit of saying, Herod imprisoned, slew, buried, or permitted to be buried, S. John, when what he buried was not what he imprisoned: he imprisoned a man; he buried a corpse. Like this, and consequently just as common, is this way of speaking about the Eucharist, which is used by the Evangelists and S. Paul.

Notice too from Christ's words, "Take, for this is," &c. that He seems to have taken one loaf, and in the act of consecration to have broken it into twelve parts, and to have given one part to each Apostle, and that each one seems to have received it into his hand. Hence the custom existed for a long time in the Church of giving the Eucharist into the hands of the faithful, as appears from Tertullian ( de Spectac.), from Cyril of Jerusalem ( Myst. Catech. 5), from S. Augustine ( Serm. 44). Afterwards, however, it was put into the mouth to prevent accidents, and out of reverence.

This is My body. Heretics say that this is a figure of speech, a metonymy, or something of the sort, and that the meaning is, "This is a figure of My body," "This represents My body."

But that this is no mere figure of speech is evident (1.) from the emphasis on the word " This," and from the words, "My body and My blood," as well as from the whole sentence, which is so clearly expressed that it could not have been put more plainly. Add to this that the words were used on the last day of Christ's life, at the time that He left His testament, instituted a new and everlasting covenant with His unlettered and beloved disciples, and also instituted this most sublime sacrament, at once a dogma and a Christian mystery, all which things men generally express as they ought to do in the clearest terms possible. Who can believe that the great wisdom and goodness of Christ would have given in His last words an inevitable occasion for false doctrine and never-ending idolatry?—which He surely did if these so clear words, "This is My body," were meant to be understood merely as a figure of speech. If this is indeed true, then the whole Church, for the last 1500 years, has been living in the most grievous error and idolatry, and that too through Christ's own words, which Luther thought so clear that he wrote to the men of Argentum: " If Carlstad could have persuaded me that in the sacrament there is nothing but bread and wine, he would have conferred a great kindness upon me; for so I should have been most utterly opposed to the Papacy. But I am held fast: there is no way of escape open; for the text of the Gospel is too apparent and too convincing, its force cannot well be evaded, much less can it be destroyed by words or glosses forged in some brain-sick head." And Melancthon ( ad. Fred. Myconium ) says: " If you understand 'My body' to mean 'a figure of My body,' what difficulty is there that you will not be able to explain away? It will then be easy to transform the whole form of religion." With Servetus, you will be able to say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but three names of the one God, not Three Persons; that Christ took flesh, but only in appearance; that He died and suffered, but only as a phantasm, as the Manichæans teach. In short, in this way who will not be able to say that the Gospel is the Gospel, Christ is Christ, God is God figuratively, and so come, as many do, to believe nothing at all? Observe how the Sacramentaries open here a door to atheism. Cardinal Hosius most truly prophesied that heretics would in course of time become atheists, and that the end of all heresy is atheism. When they fall away from Catholic truth into heresy, and find in that nothing fixed, or firm, or durable, what remains for them but to abjure their heretical opinions and believe nothing, and become that of which the Psalmist sings (Psa 14:1), "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God?" Would that we did not daily see the truth of this.

Again, not only Paul, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the institution in the same way and in the same words: "This is My body; this is My blood." Not one, then, can say it is a figure of speech, or maintain that one explains the other where he is obscure. Erasmus was convinced by this argument, and replied to the attempts of Conrad Pellican to convert him to Zwinglianism: " I have always said that I could never bring my mind to believe that the true body of Christ was not in the Eucharist, especially when the writings of the Evangelists and S. Paul expressly speak of the body as given and of the blood as shed. . . . If you have persuaded yourself that in Holy Communion you receive nothing but bread and wine, I would rather under go all kinds of suffering, and be torn limb from limb, than profess what you do; nor will I suffer you to make me a supporter or associate of your doctrine; and so may it be my portion never to be separated from Christ. Amen."

2. If in the Eucharist bread remains bread, then the figure of bread has succeeded to the figure of the lamb. Who is there that does not see that it is wrong to say that that can be? The lamb slain under the Old Law was a plainer representation of Christ suffering than the bread in the New Law. Again, the lamb would have been a poor type of the Eucharist if it is, as Calvin says, bread and nothing else. Any one would rather have the lamb, both for itself and as a figure of Christ, than the bread.

3. This is still more evident in the consecration of the cup. "This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for you"—words which are clearest of all in S. Luk 22:20—"This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you." The relative in this verse undoubtedly refers to "cup."  S. Luke, therefore, says that the cup, or the chalice of the blood of Christ, was poured out for us; therefore, in this chalice there was truly the blood of Christ, so that, when this chalice was drunk from, there was poured out, not wine, which was before consecration, and, as heretics say, remains after consecration also, but the blood of Christ, which was contained in it after consecration; for this is the meaning of "the cup of My blood which is poured out for you." Otherwise it was a cup of wine, not of blood, that was poured out for us, and Christ would have redeemed us with a cup of wine, which is most absurd. This will still more plainly appear from the next verse. Nor can it be said, as Beza does, that the text is corrupt, for all copies and commentators read it as we do, and always have so read it.

4. All the Evangelists and S. Paul explain what "this body" means by adding, "which is given for you," or, as S. Paul says, "which is broken for you." But it was not the figure of the body, but the true body of Christ that was given and "broken for us;" therefore it was the true body of Christ that Christ gave to His Apostles. Moreover, S. Paul says: "Whosoever shall eat this bread . . . unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Therefore there is here really "the body and blood of the Lord," and he who handles and takes it unworthily does it an injury.

In short, the Greek and Latin Fathers of all ages explain these words of consecration literally. This was how the Church understood them for 1050 years, till the time of Berengarius. He was the first who publicly taught the contrary, being a man untaught indeed, but ambitious of obtaining the name of a new teacher. For J. Scotus and Bertram, who, at an earlier date, held the same views as Berengarius, were but little known, and were at once refuted and silenced by Paschasius Radbert, and others. This opinion of Berengarius was at once opposed as a dogma that had seen light for the first time by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, Guidmund, Alger, and the whole Catholic Church. The error of Berengarius was condemned at a council held at Versailles, under Leo IX., and at another held at Tours, under Victor II., at which Berengarius was present, and being convicted, he at once abjured his heresy, but having relapsed, he was once more convicted in a Roman council of 113 bishops, under Nicholas II., and his books were burnt. Having again lapsed, he condemned his error in a third Roman council, under Gregory VII., and uttered the following confession of faith given by Thomas Wald. ( de Sacram. vol. ii. c. 43): " I, Berengarius, believe with my heart and profess with my mouth that the bread and wine are charged into the true and real and lifegiving flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that, after consecration, there is His true body which he took of the Virgin, and that there is the very blood which flowed from His side, not merely by way of sign, but in its natural properties, and in reality of substance." Would that those who follow Berengarius now in his error would follow him also in his repentance. The heresy of Berengarius has been renewed in the present century by Andrew Carlstadt, who was at once opposed by Luther. Carlstadt was followed by Zwingli, he by Calvin; and yet there is no single article of faith which has such firm support of all the Fathers and of the whole Church as this of the reality of the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

The same truth has been defined in eight General Councils—the First and Second Nicene, the Roman under Nicholas II., the Lateran, those of Vienne, of Constance, Florence, and Trent, as well as by many provincial synods. If any one doubts this, let him read John Garetius, who gives in order the testimonies of the Fathers for sixteen centuries after Christ, and of the Councils of each century, who alike unanimously and clearly confess this truth. He also brings forward the profession of the same faith given by the Churches of Syria, Ethiopia, Armenia, and India. Let him read also Bellarmine ( de Eucharistiâ ), who gives and comments on the words of each. Whoever reads them will see that this has been the faith of the Church in all ages, so that Erasmus might well say to Louis Beer: " You will never persuade me that Christ, who is Truth and Love, would so long suffer His beloved bride to remain in so abominable an error as to worship a piece of bread instead of Himself."

And here appears the art and ingenuity of Zwingli, Calvin, and their friends. They bring forward a new view of the Eucharist, and teach that in it there is not really the body of Christ, but merely a figure of the body. How do they prove it? From the Scriptures. Well, then, let the words be studied, let all the Evangelists be read, let Paul too be read, and let it be said whether they support them or us and the received teaching of the Church. What else do all clearly proclaim but a body, and that a body given for us? What else but blood shed for us? Where here is room for shadow, or figure, or type? But they say these words must be explained figuratively. Admit, then, that the words of Scripture, do not favour you, for you say that the mind of Scripture is to be ascertained elsewhere than from the words of Scripture. How, then, do you prove that these words ought to be explained figuratively? If they are ambiguous, whence is the exposition to be sought? Who is to end the strife save the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth handed down to her from the Fathers? What save the primitive authority of the Fathers, the tradition of our forefathers, and the consent of the first ages of the Church? We quote and allege the Fathers of every century, all our forefathers, the national and General Councils of each century: all take the words of Christ as they stand, and condemn the figurative interpretation. What remains, then, but to follow the plain words of Scripture, and the clear exposition of the Fathers and of the whole Church in all ages? And yet you obstinately adhere to your figurative explanation. What Scripture supports you—whose authority—what reason? You can only say that your heresy has so determined, and that you follow the trumpet of Luther. So I think, so I choose, so I will, so I determine: let my will do instead of reason. This is the only ground you have for all your beliefs.

Melancthon wrote far more truly and more soundly about this ( de Ver. Corp. et Sang. Dom.): " If, relying on human reason, you deny that Christ is in the Eucharist, what will your conscience say in time of trial? What reason will it bring forward for departing from the doctrine received in the Church? Then will the words, 'This is My body,' be thunderbolts. What will your panic-stricken mind oppose to them? By what words of Scripture, by what promises of God will she fortify herself, and persuade herself that these words must necessarily be taken metaphorically, when the Word of God ought to be listened to before the judgment of reason? " At all events in the hour of death, and in that terrible day when we stand before the tribunal of Christ, to be examined of our life and faith, if Christ ask me, "Why didst thou believe that My body was in the Eucharist?" I can confidently answer, "I believed it, 0 Lord, because Thou saidst it, because Thou didst teach it me. Thou didst not explain Thy words as a figure, nor did I dare to explain them so. The Church took them in their simple meaning, and I took them as the Church did. I was persuaded that this faith and this reverence were due from me to Thy words and to Thy Church."

If Christ ask the Calvinist, "Why didst thou wrest My words from their proper meaning into a figure of speech?" what answer will he make? "I thought that I must do so, for my reason could not understand how they could or ought to be true."—"But," He will reply, "which ought you to have listened to—your reason, which has human infirmity, or My word, which is all-powerful, than which nothing can be truer? Reason dictated to the Gentiles that to believe in Me as God, when born, suffering, and crucified, was folly. Yet you thought and believed that you should believe all this about Me, and you were persuaded of it from the words of Scripture only, which say this simply. Why, then, in this one article of the Eucharist did you presume to interpret what I expressly said, by the rule of your reason, according to the measure of your brain? Why did you not bow to the authoritative exposition of the Church of all ages? Why desire to be wiser than it?" What answer will he give—how excuse himself—whither turn? Let each one think earnestly of this ere it be too late, let him submit himself to God's word and the Church with humble and loyal obedience, lest he be confounded in that day of the Lord, and receive his lot with the unbelievers in the lake of fire that burneth with fire and brimstone, lest he hear the words of thunder, "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." Nor let him marvel at such a wonderful mystery in the Eucharist, when Christ, throughout His whole life, was wonderful for His mysteries (Isa 9:6) ; and when Isaiah also says of Him (Isa 45:15): "Verily Thou art a God that hidest Thyself, 0 God of Israel, the Saviour." If an angel should conceal himself under the form of the Host, he would be really there though hidden; you would see, touch, and taste bread only, not an angel; yet you would believe that an angel was hidden beneath it if an angel or a prophet had said so. Why, then, in like manner, do you not believe that Christ is concealed under the Host, when Christ Himself, who cannot lie, says so? For God, who is Almighty, can supernaturally give this mode of existence—spiritual, invisible, indivisible—to the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Let no one then faithlessly say: "How can Christ be in so small a Host?" Let him think that Christ is there, as an angel might be; let him not inquire as to the mode, but embrace instead the wonderful love of Christ, whose delights are with the sons of men, who went about to pass from the world to the Father; as S. John says (Joh 13:1), "having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end;" and of whom says the verse of S. Thomas—

"By birth their Fellow-man was He,

 Their meat when sitting at the board;

 He died their Ransomer to be;

 He ever reigns, their great Reward."—

that by His love He might compel our love in return, that as often as we see and take our part in these mysteries we might think of Him as addressing us in the words: "So Christ gives Himself here wholly to thee; give, nay give again thyself wholly to Him."

You will perhaps object that the Eucharist is called "bread and fruit of' the vine," i.e., wine, in S. Joh 6:57, S. Mat 26:29. I answer that in the account of the institution of the Eucharist it is called bread by no one, if it is elsewhere, and also that "bread" there denotes any kind of food. (See note on x. 17). So wine might signify any kind of drink, as being the common drink among the Jews, as it is now in Spain, Italy, France, and Germany.

But the better answer is that Christ applied the name "fruit of the vine," not to what was in the Eucharistic chalice, but to that in the cup of the Passover Supper. For, as He said of the lamb (S. Luk 22:16), "I will not eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God," so of the cup of the lamb, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God shall come." For S. Luke plainly makes a distinction, not observed by S. Matthew and S. Mark, between the lamb and the cup of the Passover supper, and relates that Christ spoke of both before the Eucharist (Luk 22:17). Christ simply meant to say that He would not afterwards live with them, or take part in the common supper, as He had hitherto done, because He was going to His death, as Jerome, Theophylact and others say in their comments on the passage.

You may perhaps object, secondly, that the words, "This is My body" are a sacramental mode of speech, and are, therefore, typical and figurative.

But I deny that this follows; for this is a sacramental mode of speech, because, by these words, a true sacrament is worked, viz., because, under the species of bread and wine as the visible signs, there is present the very body of Christ. The words are not sacramental in the sense of being typical or figurative, for sacraments properly speaking signify what they contain and effect. For a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality which it causes and effects, as, e.g., when we say, "I baptize thee," i.e., "wash thee," the meaning is not, "I give thee a sign or figure of washing," but strictly, "By this sacrament I wash thy body, and by this I wash thy soul from the stains of thy sins." So when we say, "I absolve thee," "I confirm thee," "I anoint thee," there is signified, not a figurative but a real and proper absolution, confirmation, and anointing of the body and soul.

If Christ, therefore, when He said "body," had meant "figure of My body," He ought to have explained Himself, and said, "I am speaking, not only sacramentally, but figuratively," otherwise He would have given to the Apostles and to the whole Church an evident occasion for the most grievous error. The conclusion then has no basis that Christ is in the Eucharist as in a sacrament, that is, figuratively or typically, as the commentary ascribed to S. Ambrose says, in which it is followed by some of the Fathers, and that therefore He is not really there, but only figuratively; the contrary should be inferred. Christ is not, therefore, there figuratively, but truly and properly; for a sacrament signifies what is really present, not what is falsely absent. As, then, the conclusion is valid that where there is smoke there is fire, because smoke is the sign of the presence of fire; and again this body breathes, therefore life is present in it, because breathing is a sign of life, so also it rightly follows that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist as in a Sacrament; therefore, He is really there, because the Sacrament and the sacramental species signify that they as the true sacraments of Christ's body, truly contain it.

You will object perhaps, thirdly, that Christ said (S. Joh 6:63): "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing;" therefore the flesh of Christ is not present, and is not eaten in the Eucharist.

3. I answer that it cannot be said without impiety that the flesh of Christ, suffering and crucified for us, profits us nothing. Indeed, the very opposite of this is taught by Christ Himself throughout S. Joh 6:35-65. He says in so many words that His flesh greatly profits us. His meaning therefore is, as S. Cyril points out, (1.) that the flesh of Christ has not its quickening power in the Eucharist from itself, but from the Spirit, that is from the Godhead of the Word, to which it is hypostatically united. (2.) That this manducation, as S. Chrysostom says, of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist is not carnal: that we do not press it with our teeth, as we might bull's flesh, but that we eat it after a spiritual manner, one suited to the nature of spirit, viz., mysteriously sacramentally, invisibly. For you here eat the flesh of Christ in exactly the same way as you would feed on and appropriate the substance of an angel, if he lay concealed in the sacrament. The opposite of this was what was understood by the unspiritual people of Capernaum, and it is against them only that Christ says these words. Hence He proceeds to say: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." In other words, "They are spiritual, and must be understood spiritually: you will not eat My flesh in the carnal sense of being bloody, cut into pieces and chewed, but only in a spiritual way, as though it were a spirit couched invisibly and indivisibly beneath the Blessed Sacrament." In the same way, "My words are life," that is full of life, giving life to him that heareth, believeth, and eateth My flesh.

4. You will perhaps again urge that it seems impossible that Christ, being so great, should be in so small a Host and at so many different altars, and that it seems incredible that Christ should be there, subject to the chance of being eaten by mice or vomited, &c.

I reply to the first, "With God all things are possible." Hence we say, "I believe in God the Father Almighty." God can do more than a miserable man, nay, more than all the hosts of angels and men can conceive, else He would not be God. Moreover, faith transcends human capacity: these mysteries are matters for faith, not for reason. "Faith," says S. Augustine ( in Joan. Tract. 27 and 40), "is believing what you see not." And S. Gregory ( in Evang. Hom. xxvi.) says: "Faith has no merit where human reason supplies proof." S. Thomas, therefore, well sings of this sacrament—

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: 1Co 11:5

1 CORINTHIANS 11:5 —Should women wear veils when they pray?

PROBLEM: Paul insisted here that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (v. 5 ). Does this mean that women should wear veils in church today, or is this purely cultural? And if it is cultural, then how do we know what is cultural and what is not?

SOLUTION: Several considerations will cast light on this difficult problem.

First, a distinction should be made between the meaning of the text and its significance. The meaning is what it says to people in that culture, and the significance is how it applies to our cultural situation today. There is little doubt about its meaning. It means exactly what it says. When the women of Corinth threw back their veils and prayed in church, they dishonored their head (husband, 11:3 , 7 , 9 , 11 ). In that day, the veil was a symbol of a woman’s respect for her husband. In such a cultural context, it was imperative that a woman wear a veil in church while praying or prophesying.

Second, there is a difference between command and culture. The commands of Scripture are absolute—culture is relative. For example, few believe that Jesus’ command to His disciples not to have an extra pair of sandals with them while on an evangelistic tour applies today. And most Christians do not literally “Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss” anymore ( 1 Thes. 5:26 ). Nor do they believe that “lifting up holy hands in prayer” is essential to public prayer ( 1 Tim. 2:8 ). There is a principle behind all these commands that is absolute, but thepractice is not. What Christians must do is absolute, but how they do it is culturally relative. For example, Christians must greet one another (the what ) , but how they greet each other will be relative to their respective cultures. In some cultures, as in the NT, it will be with a kiss, in others with a hug, and in still others with a handshake. Many Bible scholars believe that this principle is also true of the practice of wearing a veil. That is, women in all cultures at all times must show respect for their husbands (the what ), but how this respect is manifest may not always be with a veil. For example, it might be with a wedding ring or some other cultural symbol.   

Critics Ask: 1Co 11:14

1 CORINTHIANS 11:14 —How can nature teach that long hair is wrong for a man when length of hair is culturally relative?

PROBLEM: Paul asked, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” But, the length of a man’s hair is relative to the culture and time in which he lives. It is not something that is known by nature.

SOLUTION: This is a difficult passage, and commentators are not in agreement on it. But, there are two general kinds of answers.

Nature Understood Subjectively. In this sense, “nature” denotes the instinctive feelings or intuitive sense of what is proper. This, of course, may be affected by habits and practices unique to the culture. If this is the sense of the passage, then Paul’s statement means something like this: “Do not your own customs teach you that long hair is a shame for a man to have?” This interpretation is difficult to justify in terms of the normal meaning of the word “nature” (phusis ) which has a much stronger sense than “custom” in the NT (cf. Rom. 1:26 ; 2:14 ).

Nature Understood Objectively. In this sense, “nature” means the order of natural laws. Paul speaks of homosexuality as being “against nature” ( Rom. 1:26 ) and of Gentiles knowing “by nature”—that is, by the “law written in their hearts” ( Rom. 2:15 )—what is right and what is wrong. In this sense, Paul is saying something like this: “Even heathen, who have no special revelation, still have a natural inclination to distinguish the sexes by the length of their hair, women generally having fuller and longer hair.” Human beings instinctively distinguish between the sexes in different ways, one of which is the length of hair. There were exceptions arising out of necessity (health, safety), perversity (homosexuality), or special sanctity (the vow of the Nazarite). But, these only serve to prove the general rule based on the natural tendency to differentiate the sexes based on length of hair.

Of course, no absolute standard of what is “long” was in mind. This would vary with the culture. The main point was to aid in distinguishing the sexes. It was for this reason that the OT also forbade a man to dress like a woman ( Deut. 22:5 ), a practice that would have given rise to all sorts of improprieties, both social and moral.   

Evidence: 1Co 11:5

If any man’s life at home is unworthy, he should go several miles away before he stands up to preach. When he stands up, he should say nothing. CHARLES SPURGEON

Evidence: 1Co 11:8

It has been well said that woman was made from Adam’s rib—close to his heart, under his protective arm (Genesis 2:21-22).

Evidence: 1Co 11:9

Earth’s population refutes evolution . " The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family...The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions × trillions × trillions × trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe. If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

One common ancestor . " Researchers suggest that virtually all modern men—99% of them, says one scientist—are closely related genetically and share genes with one male ancestor, dubbed ‘Ychromosome Adam.’

We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor…That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe, and then it spread out from there." U.S. News & World Report, December 4, 1995

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

First Corinthians

From Ephesus a.d. 54 Or 55

By Way of Introduction

It would be a hard-boiled critic today who would dare deny the genuineness of I Corinthians. The Dutch wild man, Van Manen, did indeed argue that Paul wrote no epistles if indeed he ever lived. Such intellectual banality is well answered by Whateley’s Historic Doubts about Napolean Bonaparte which was so cleverly done that some readers were actually convinced that no such man ever existed, but is the product of myth and legend. Even Baur was compelled to acknowledge the genuineness of I and II Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (the Big Four of Pauline criticism). It is a waste of time now to prove what all admit to be true. Paul of Tarsus, the Apostle to the Gentiles, wrote I Corinthians.

We know where Paul was when he wrote the letter for he tells us in 1Co_16:8 : " But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost." That was, indeed, his plan, but the uproar in Ephesus at the hands of Demetrius caused his departure sooner than he expected (Acts 18:21-20:1; 2Co_2:12.). But he is in Ephesus when he writes.

We know also the time of the year when he writes, in the spring before pentecost. Unfortunately we do not know the precise year, though it was at the close of his stay of three years (in round numbers) at Ephesus (Act_20:31). Like all the years in Paul’s ministry we have to allow a sliding scale in relation to his other engagements. One may guess the early spring of a.d. 54 or 55.

The occasion of the Epistle is made plain by numerous allusions personal and otherwise. Paul had arrived in Ephesus from Antioch shortly after the departure of Apollos for Corinth with letters of commendation from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:28-19:1). It is not clear how long Apollos remained in Corinth, but he is back in Ephesus when Paul writes the letter and he has declined Paul’s request to go back to Corinth (1Co_16:12). Some of the household of Chloe had heard or come from Corinth with full details of the factions in the church over Apollos and Paul, clearly the reason why Apollos left (1Co_1:10-12). Even Cephas nominally was drawn into it, though there is no evidence that Peter himself had come to Corinth. Paul had sent Timothy over to Corinth to put an end to the factions (1Co_4:17), though he was uneasy over the outcome (1Co_16:10.). This disturbance was enough of itself to call forth a letter from Paul. But it was by no means the whole story. Paul had already written a letter, now lost to us, concerning a peculiarly disgusting case of incest in the membership (1Co_5:9). They were having lawsuits with one another before heathen judges. Members of the church had written Paul a letter about marriage whether any or all should marry (1Co_7:1). They were troubled also whether it was right to eat meat that had been offered to idols in the heathen temples (1Co_8:1). Spiritual gifts of an unusual nature were manifested in Corinth and these were the occasion of a deal of trouble (1Co_12:1). The doctrine of the resurrection gave much trouble in Corinth (1Co_15:12). Paul was interested in the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Co_16:1) and in their share in it. The church in Corinth had sent a committee (Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus) to Paul in Ephesus. He hopes to come himself after passing through Macedonia (1Co_16:5.). It is possible that he had made a short visit before this letter (2Co_13:1), though not certain as he may have intended to go one time without going as he certainly once changed his plans on the subject (2Co_1:15-22). Whether Titus took the letter on his visit or it was sent on after the return of Timothy is not perfectly clear. Probably Timothy returned to Ephesus from Corinth shortly after the epistle was sent on, possibly by the committee who returned to Corinth (1Co_16:17), for Timothy and Erastus were sent on from Ephesus to Macedonia before the outbreak at the hands of Demetrius (Act_19:22). Apparently Timothy had not fully succeeded in reconciling the factions in Corinth for Paul dispatched Titus who was to meet him at Troas as he went on to Macedonia. Paul’s hurried departure from Ephesus (Act_20:1) took him to Troas before Titus arrived and Paul’s impatience there brought him to Macedonia where he did meet Titus on his return from Corinth (2Co_2:12.).

It is clear therefore that Paul wrote what we call I Corinthians in a disturbed state of mind. He had founded the church there, had spent two years there (Acts 18), and took pardonable pride in his work there as a wise architect (1Co_3:10) for he had built the church on Christ as the foundation. He was anxious that his work should abide. It is plain that the disturbances in the church in Corinth were fomented from without by the Judaizers whom Paul had defeated at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:1-35; Gal_2:1-10). They were overwhelmed there, but renewed their attacks in Antioch (Gal_2:11-21). Henceforth throughout the second mission tour they are a disturbing element in Galatia, in Corinth, in Jerusalem. While Paul is winning the Gentiles in the Roman Empire to Christ, these Judaizers are trying to win Paul’s converts to Judaism. Nowhere do we see the conflict at so white a heat as in Corinth. Paul finally will expose them with withering sarcasm (2 Corinthians 10-13) as Jesus did the Pharisees in Matthew 23 on that last day in the temple. Factional strife, immorality, perverted ideas about marriage, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection, these complicated problems are a vivid picture of church life in our cities today. The discussion of them shows Paul’s many-sidedness and also the powerful grasp that he has upon the realities of the gospel. Questions of casuistry are faced fairly and serious ethical issues are met squarely. But along with the treatment of these vexed matters Paul sings the noblest song of the ages on love (chapter 1Co_13:1-13) and writes the classic discussion on the resurrection (chapter 1 Corinthians 15). If one knows clearly and fully the Corinthian Epistles and Paul’s dealings with Corinth, he has an understanding of a large section of his life and ministry. No church caused him more anxiety than did Corinth (2Co_11:28).

JFB: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

The AUTHENTICITY of this Epistle is attested by CLEMENT OF ROME [First Epistle to the Corinthians, 47], POLYCARP [Epistle to the Philippians, 11], and IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 4.27.3]. The city to which it was sent was famed for its wealth and commerce, which were chiefly due to its situation between the Ionian and Ægean Seas on the isthmus connecting the Peloponese with Greece. In Paul's time it was the capital of the province Achaia and the seat of the Roman proconsul (Act 18:12). The state of morals in it was notorious for debauchery, even in the profligate heathen world; so much so that "to Corinthianize" was a proverbial phrase for "to play the wanton"; hence arose dangers to the purity of the Christian Church at Corinth. That Church was founded by Paul on his first visit (Acts 18:1-17).

He had been the instrument of converting many Gentiles (1Co 12:2), and some Jews (Act 18:8), notwithstanding the vehement opposition of the countrymen of the latter (Act 18:5), during the year and a half in which he sojourned there. The converts were chiefly of the humbler classes (1Co 1:26, &c.). Crispus (1Co 1:14; Act 18:8), Erastus, and Gaius (Caius) were, however, men of rank (Rom 16:23). A variety of classes is also implied in 1Co 11:22. The risk of contamination by contact with the surrounding corruptions, and the temptation to a craving for Greek philosophy and rhetoric (which Apollos' eloquent style rather tended to foster, Act 18:24, &c.) in contrast to Paul's simple preaching of Christ crucified (1Co 2:1, &c.), as well as the opposition of certain teachers to him, naturally caused him anxiety. Emissaries from the Judaizers of Palestine boasted of "letters of commendation" from Jerusalem, the metropolis of the faith. They did not, it is true, insist on circumcision in refined Corinth, where the attempt would have been hopeless, as they did among the simpler people of Galatia; but they attacked the apostolic authority of Paul (1Co 9:1-2; 2Co 10:1, 2Co 10:7-8), some of them declaring themselves followers of Cephas, the chief apostle, others boasting that they belonged to Christ Himself (1Co 1:12; 2Co 10:7), while they haughtily repudiated all subordinate teaching. Those persons gave out themselves for apostles (2Co 11:5, 2Co 11:13). The ground taken by them was that Paul was not one of the Twelve, and not an eye-witness of the Gospel facts, and durst not prove his apostleship by claiming sustenance from the Christian Church. Another section avowed themselves followers of Paul himself, but did so in a party spirit, exalting the minister rather than Christ. The followers of Apollos, again, unduly prized his Alexandrian learning and eloquence, to the disparagement of the apostle, who studiously avoided any deviation from Christian simplicity (1Co 2:1-5). In some of this last philosophizing party there may have arisen the Antinomian tendency which tried to defend theoretically their own practical immorality: hence their denial of the future resurrection, and their adoption of the Epicurean motto, prevalent in heathen Corinth, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die" (1Co 15:32). Hence, perhaps, arose their connivance at the incestuous intercourse kept up by one of the so-called Christian body with his stepmother during his father's life. The household of Chloe informed Paul of many other evils: such as contentions, divisions, and lawsuits brought against brethren in heathen law courts by professing Christians; the abuse of their spiritual gifts into occasions of display and fanaticism; the interruption of public worship by simultaneous and disorderly ministrations, and decorum violated by women speaking unveiled (contrary to Oriental usage), and so usurping the office of men, and even the holy communion desecrated by greediness and revelling on the part of the communicants. Other messengers, also, came from Corinth, consulting him on the subject of (1) the controversy about meats offered to idols; (2) the disputes about celibacy and marriage; (3) the due exercise of spiritual gifts in public worship; (4) the best mode of making the collection which he had requested for the saints at Jerusalem (1Co 16:1, &c.). Such were the circumstances which called forth the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the most varied in its topics of all the Epistles.

In 1Co 5:9, "I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators," it is implied that Paul had written a previous letter to the Corinthians (now lost). Probably in it he had also enjoined them to make a contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem, whereupon they seem to have asked directions as to the mode of doing so, to which he now replies (1Co 16:2). It also probably announced his intention of visiting them on way to Macedonia, and again on his return from Macedonia (2Co 1:15-16), which purpose he changed hearing the unfavorable report from Chloe's household (1Co 16:5-7), for which he was charged with (2Co 1:17). In the first Epistle which we have, the subject of fornication is alluded to only in a way, as if he were rather replying to an excuse set up after rebuke in the matter, than introducing for the first time [ALFORD]. Preceding this former letter, he seems to have paid a second visit to Corinth. For in 2Co 12:4; 2Co 13:1, he speaks of his intention of paying them a third visit, implying he had already twice visited them. See on 2Co 2:1; 2Co 13:2; also see on 2Co 1:15; 2Co 1:16. It is hardly likely that during his three years' sojourn at Ephesus he would have failed to revisit his Corinthian converts, which he could so readily do by sea, there being constant maritime intercourse between the two cities. This second visit was probably a short one (compare 1Co 16:7); and attended with pain and humiliation (2Co 2:1; 2Co 12:21), occasioned by the scandalous conduct of so many of his own converts. His milder censures having then failed to produce reformation, he wrote briefly directing them "not to company with fornicators." On their misapprehending this injunction, he explained it more fully in the Epistle, the first of the two extant (1Co 5:9, 1Co 5:12). That the second visit is not mentioned in Acts is no objection to its having really taken place, as that book is fragmentary and omits other leading incidents in Paul's life; for example, his visit to Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia (Gal 1:17-21).

The PLACE OF WRITING is fixed to be Ephesus (1Co 16:8). The subscription in English Version, "From Philippi," has no authority whatever, and probably arose from a mistaken translation of 1Co 16:5, "For I am passing through Macedonia." At the time of writing Paul implies (1Co 16:8) that he intended to leave Ephesus after Pentecost of that year. He really did leave it about Pentecost (A.D. 57). Compare Act 19:20. The allusion to Passover imagery in connection with our Christian Passover, Easter (1Co 5:7), makes it likely that the season was about Easter. Thus the date of the Epistle is fixed with tolerable accuracy, about Easter, certainly before Pentecost, in the third year of his residence at Ephesus, A.D. 57. For other arguments, see CONYBEARE and HOWSON'S Life and Epistles of St. Paul.

The Epistle is written in the name of Sosthenes "[our] brother." BIRKS supposes he is the same as the Sosthenes, Act 18:17, who, he thinks, was converted subsequently to that occurrence. He bears no part in the Epistle itself, the apostle in the very next verses (1Co 1:4, &c.) using the first person: so Timothy is introduced, 2Co 1:1. The bearers of the Epistle were probably Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (see the subscription, 1Co 16:24), whom he mentions (1Co 16:17-18) as with him then, but who he implies are about to return back to Corinth; and therefore he commends them to the regard of the Corinthians.

JFB: 1 Corinthians (Outline)

• THE INSCRIPTION; THANKSGIVING FOR THE SPIRITUAL STATE OF THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH; REPROOF OF PARTY DIVISIONS: HIS OWN METHOD OF PREACHING ONLY CHRIST. (1Co. 1:1-31)
• PAUL'S SUBJECT OF PREACHING, CHRIST CRUCIFIED, NOT IN WORLDLY, BUT IN HEAVENLY, WISDOM AMONG THE PERFECT. (1Co. 2:1-16)
• PAUL COULD NOT SPEAK TO THEM OF DEEP SPIRITUAL TRUTHS, AS THEY WERE CARNAL, CONTENDING FOR THEIR SEVERAL TEACHERS; THESE ARE NOTHING BUT WORKERS FOR GOD, TO WHOM THEY MUST GIVE ACCOUNT IN THE DAY OF FIERY JUDGMENT. THE HEARERS ARE GOD'S TEMPLE, WHICH THEY MUST NOT DEFILE BY CONTENTIONS FOR TEACHERS, WHO, AS WELL AS ALL THINGS, ARE THEIRS, BEING CHRIST'S. (1Co. 3:1-23)
• TRUE VIEW OF MINISTERS: THE JUDGMENT IS NOT TO BE FORESTALLED; MEANWHILE THE APOSTLES' LOW STATE CONTRASTS WITH THE CORINTHIANS' PARTY PRIDE, NOT THAT PAUL WOULD SHAME THEM, BUT AS A FATHER WARN THEM; FOR WHICH END HE SENT TIMOTHY, AND WILL SOON COME HIMSELF. (1Co. 4:1-21)
• THE INCESTUOUS PERSON AT CORINTH: THE CORINTHIANS REPROVED FOR CONNIVANCE, AND WARNED TO PURGE OUT THE BAD LEAVEN. QUALIFICATION OF HIS FORMER COMMAND AS TO ASSOCIATION WITH SINNERS OF THE WORLD. (1Co 5:1-13)
• LITIGATION OF CHRISTIANS IN HEATHEN COURTS CENSURED: ITS VERY EXISTENCE BETRAYS A WRONG SPIRIT: BETTER TO BEAR WRONG NOW, AND HEREAFTER THE DOERS OF WRONG SHALL BE SHUT OUT OF HEAVEN. (1Co 6:1-11)
• REFUTATION OF THE ANTINOMIAN DEFENSE OF FORNICATION AS IF IT WAS LAWFUL BECAUSE MEATS ARE SO. (1Co 6:12-20)
• REPLY TO THEIR INQUIRIES AS TO MARRIAGE; THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IN OTHER THINGS IS, ABIDE IN YOUR STATION, FOR THE TIME IS SHORT. (1Co. 7:1-40) The Corinthians in their letter had probably asked questions which tended to disparage marriage, and had implied that it was better to break it off when contracted with an unbeliever.
• ON PARTAKING OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS. (1Co 8:1-13) Though to those knowing that an idol has no existence, the question of eating meats offered to idols (referred to in the letter of the Corinthians, compare 1Co 7:1) might seem unimportant, it is not so with some, and the infirmities of such should be respected. The portions of the victims not offered on the altars belonged partly to the priests, partly to the offerers; and were eaten at feasts in the temples and in private houses and were often sold in the markets; so that Christians were constantly exposed to the temptation of receiving them, which was forbidden (Num 25:2; Psa 106:28). The apostles forbade it in their decree issued from Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29; Act 21:25); but Paul does not allude here to that decree, as he rests his precepts rather on his own independent apostolic authority.
• HE CONFIRMS HIS TEACHING AS TO NOT PUTTING A STUMBLING-BLOCK IN A BROTHER'S WAY (1Co 8:13) BY HIS OWN EXAMPLE IN NOT USING HIS UNDOUBTED RIGHTS AS AN APOSTLE, SO AS TO WIN MEN TO CHRIST. (1Co. 9:1-27)
• DANGER OF FELLOWSHIP WITH IDOLATRY ILLUSTRATED IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL: SUCH FELLOWSHIP INCOMPATIBLE WITH FELLOWSHIP IN THE LORD'S SUPPER. EVEN LAWFUL THINGS ARE TO BE FORBORNE, SO AS NOT TO HURT WEAK BRETHREN. (1Co. 10:1-33)
• CENSURE ON DISORDERS IN THEIR ASSEMBLIES: THEIR WOMEN NOT BEING VEILED, AND ABUSES AT THE LOVE-FEASTS. (1Co. 11:1-34) Rather belonging to the end of the tenth chapter, than to this chapter.
• THE USE AND THE ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, ESPECIALLY PROPHESYING AND TONGUES. (1Co. 12:1-31)
• CHARITY OR LOVE SUPERIOR TO ALL GIFTS. (1Co 13:1-13)
• SUPERIORITY OF PROPHECY OVER TONGUES. (1Co. 14:1-25)
• RULES FOR THE EXERCISE OF GIFTS IN THE CONGREGATION. (1Co 14:26-40)
• THE RESURRECTION PROVED AGAINST THE DENIERS OF IT AT CORINTH. (1Co. 15:1-58)
• DIRECTIONS AS TO THE COLLECTION FOR THE JUDEAN CHRISTIANS: PAUL'S FUTURE PLANS: HE COMMENDS TO THEM TIMOTHY, APOLLOS, &C. SALUTATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. (1Co. 16:1-24)

TSK: 1 Corinthians 11 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Co 11:1, He reproves them, because in holy assemblies, 1Co 11:4, their men prayed with their heads covered, 1Co 11:6, and women with their heads uncovered; 1Co 11:17, and because generally their meetings were not for the better, but for the worse; 1Co 11:21, as, namely, in profaning with their own feast the Lord’s supper; 1Co 11:25, Lastly, he calls them to the first institution thereof.

Poole: 1 Corinthians 11 (Chapter Introduction)

CORINTHAINS CHAPTER 11

MHCC: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

The Corinthian church contained some Jews, but more Gentiles, and the apostle had to contend with the superstition of the one, and the sinful conduct of the other. The peace of this church was disturbed by false teachers, who undermined the influence of the apostle. Two parties were the result; one contending earnestly for the Jewish ceremonies, the other indulging in excesses contrary to the gospel, to which they were especially led by the luxury and the sins which prevailed around them. This epistle was written to rebuke some disorderly conduct, of which the apostle had been apprized, and to give advice as to some points whereon his judgment was requested by the Corinthians. Thus the scope was twofold. 1. To apply suitable remedies to the disorders and abuses which prevailed among them. 2. To give satisfactory answers on all the points upon which his advice had been desired. The address, and Christian mildness, yet firmness, with which the apostle writes, and goes on from general truths directly to oppose the errors and evil conduct of the Corinthians, is very remarkable. He states the truth and the will of God, as to various matters, with great force of argument and animation of style.

MHCC: 1 Corinthians 11 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Co 11:1) The apostle, after an exhortation to follow him.

(1Co 11:2-16) Corrects some abuses.

(1Co 11:17-22) Also contentions, divisions, and disorderly celebrations of the Lord's supper.

(1Co 11:23-26) He reminds them of the nature and design of its institution.

(1Co 11:27-34) And directs how to attend upon it in a due manner.

Matthew Henry: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians

Corinth was a principal city of Greece, in that particular division of it which was called Achaia. It was situated on the isthmus (or neck of land) that joined Peloponnesus to the rest of Greece, on the southern side, and had two ports adjoining, one at the bottom of the Corinthian Gulf, called Lechaeum, not far from the city, whence they traded to Italy and the west, the other at the bottom of the Sinus Saronicus, called Cenchrea, at a more remote distance, whence they traded to Asia. From this situation, it is no wonder that Corinth should be a place of great trade and wealth; and, as affluence is apt to produce luxury of all kinds, neither is it to be wondered at if a place so famous for wealth and arts should be infamous for vice. It was in a particular manner noted for fornication, insomuch that a Corinthian woman was a proverbial phrase for a strumpet, and korinthiazein , korinthiasesthai - to play the Corinthian, is to play the whore, or indulge whorish inclinations. Yet in this lewd city did Paul, by the blessing of God on his labours, plant and raise a Christian church, chiefly among the Gentiles, as seems very probable from the history of this matter, Acts 18:1-18, compared with some passages in this epistle, particularly 1Co 12:2, where the apostle tells them, You know that you wee Gentiles, carried away to those dumb idols even as you were led, though it is not improbable that many Jewish converts might be also among them, for we are told that Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house, Act 18:8. He continued in this city nearly two years, as is plain from Act 18:11 and Act 18:18 compared, and laboured with great success, being encouraged by a divine vision assuring him God had much people in that city, Act 18:9, Act 18:10. Nor did he use to stay long in a place where his ministry met not with acceptance and success.

Some time after he left them he wrote this epistle to them, to water what he had planted and rectify some gross disorders which during his absence had been introduced, partly from the interest some false teacher or teachers had obtained amongst them, and partly from the leaven of their old maxims and manners, that had not been thoroughly purged out by the Christian principles they had entertained. And it is but too visible how much their wealth had helped to corrupt their manners, from the several faults for which the apostle reprehends them. Pride, avarice, luxury, lust (the natural offspring of a carnal and corrupt mind), are all fed and prompted by outward affluence. And with all these either the body of this people or some particular persons among them are here charged by the apostle. Their pride discovered itself in their parties and factions, and the notorious disorders they committed in the exercise of their spiritual gifts. And this vice was not wholly fed by their wealth, but by the insight they had into the Greek learning and philosophy. Some of the ancients tell us that the city abounded with rhetoricians and philosophers. And these were men naturally vain, full of self-conceit, and apt to despise the plain doctrine of the gospel, because it did not feed the curiosity of an inquisitive and disputing temper, nor please the ear with artful speeches and a flow of fine words. Their avarice was manifest in their law-suits and litigations about meum - mine, and tuum - thine, before heathen judges. Their luxury appeared in more instances than one, in their dress, in their debauching themselves even at the Lord's table, when the rich, who were most faulty on this account, were guilty also of a very proud and criminal contempt of their poor brethren. Their lust broke out in a most flagrant and infamous instance, such as had not been named among the Gentiles, not spoken of without detestation - that a man should have his father's wife, either as his wife, or so as to commit fornication with her. This indeed seems to be the fault of a particular person; but the whole church were to blame that they had his crime in no greater abhorrence, that they could endure one of such very corrupt morals and of so flagitious a behaviour among them. But their participation in his sin was yet greater, if, as some of the ancients tell us, they were puffed up on behalf of the great learning and eloquence of this incestuous person. And it is plain from other passages of the epistle that they were not so entirely free from their former lewd inclinations as not to need very strict cautions and strong arguments against fornication: see 1Co 6:9-20. The pride of their learning had also carried many of them so far as to disbelieve or dispute against the doctrine of the resurrection. It is not improbable that they treated this question problematically, as they did many questions in philosophy, and tried their skill by arguing it pro and con.

It is manifest from this state of things that there was much that deserved reprehension, and needed correction, in this church. And the apostle, under the direction and influence of the Holy Spirit, sets himself to do both with all wisdom and faithfulness, and with a due mixture of tenderness and authority, as became one in so elevated and important a station in the church. After a short introduction at the beginning of the epistle, he first blames them for their discord and factions, enters into the origin and source of them, shows them how much pride and vanity, and the affectation of science, and learning, and eloquence, flattered by false teachers, contributed to the scandalous schism; and prescribes humility, and submission to divine instruction, the teaching of God by his Spirit, both by external revelation and internal illumination, as a remedy for the evils that abounded amongst them. He shows them the vanity of their pretended science and eloquence on many accounts. This he does through the first four chapters. In the fifth he treats of the case of the incestuous person, and orders him to be put out from among them. Nor is what the ancients say improbable, that this incestuous person was a man in great esteem, and head of one party at least among them. The apostle seems to tax them with being puffed up on his account, 1Co 5:2. In the sixth chapter he blames them for their law-suits, carried on before heathen judges, when their disputes about property should have been amicably determined amongst themselves, and in the close of the chapter warns them against the sin of fornication, and urges his caution with a variety of arguments. In the seventh chapter he gives advice upon a case of conscience, which some of that church had proposed to him in an epistle, about marriage, and shows it to be appointed of God as a remedy against fornication, that the ties of it were not dissolved, though a husband or wife continued a heathen, when the other became a Christian; and, in short, that Christianity made no change in men's civil states and relations. He gives also some directions here about virgins, in answer, as is probable, to the Corinthians' enquiries. In the eighth he directs them about meats offered to idols, and cautions them against abusing their Christian liberty. From this he also takes occasion, in the ninth chapter, to expatiate a little on his own conduct upon this head of liberty. For, though he might have insisted on a maintenance from the churches where he ministered, he waived this demand, that he might make the gospel of Christ without charge, and did in other things comply with and suit himself to the tempers and circumstances of those among whom he laboured, for their good. In the tenth chapter he dissuades them, from the example of the Jews, against having communion with idolaters, by eating of their sacrifices, inasmuch as they could not be at once partakers of the Lord's table and the table of devils, though they were not bound to enquire concerning meat sold in the shambles, or set before them at a feast made by unbelievers, whether it were a part of the idol-sacrifices or no, but were at liberty to eat without asking questions. In the eleventh chapter he gives direction about their habit in public worship, blames them for their gross irregularities and scandalous disorders in receiving the Lord's supper, and solemnly warns them against the abuse of so sacred an institution. In the twelfth chapter he enters on the consideration of spiritual gifts, which were poured forth in great abundance on this church, upon which they were not a little elated. He tells them, in this chapter, that all came from the same original, and were all directed to the same end. They issued from one Spirit, and were intended for the good of the church, and must be abused when they were not made to minister to this purpose. Towards the close he informs them that they were indeed valuable gifts, but he could recommend to them something far more excellent, upon which he breaks out, in the thirteenth chapter, into the commendation and characteristics of charity. And them, in the fourteenth, he directs them how to keep up decency and order in the churches in the use of their spiritual gifts, in which they seem to have been exceedingly irregular, through pride of their gifts and a vanity of showing them. The fifteenth chapter is taken up in confirming and explaining the great doctrine of the resurrection. The last chapter consists of some particular advices and salutations; and thus the epistle closes.

Matthew Henry: 1 Corinthians 11 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter the apostle blames, and endeavours to rectify, some great indecencies and manifest disorders in the church of Corinth; as, I. The misconduct of their women (some of whom seem to have been inspired) in the public assembly, who laid by their veils, the common token of subjection to their husbands in that part of the world. This behaviour he reprehends, requires them to keep veiled, asserts the superiority of the husband, yet so as to remind the husband that both were made for mutual help and comfort (v. 1-16). II. He blames them for their discord and neglect and contempt of the poor, at the Lord's supper (1Co 11:17-22). III. To rectify these scandalous disorders, he sets before them the nature and intentions of this holy institution, directs them how they should attend on it, and warns them of the danger of a conduct to indecent as theirs, and of all unworthy receiving (1Co 11:23 to the end).

Barclay: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writercharacter, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.

The Difficulty Of Letters

At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.

The Ancient Letters

It is a great pity that Paulletters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paulletters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.

"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.

I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are

going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.

I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was

in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey

money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine

with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to

let me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly,

that I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and

because of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give

Capito my heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and

my friends. I sent you a little picture of myself painted by

Euctemon. My military name is Antonius Maximus, I pray for your

good health. Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and

Turbo, Galloniuson." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek

Papyri, 36).

Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paulletters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.

(i) The Greeting: Rom_1:1 ; 1Co_1:1 ; 2Co_1:1 ; Gal_1:1 ; Eph_1:1 ; Phi_1:1 ; Col_1:1-2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:1 .

(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: Rom_1:7 ; 1Co_1:3 ; 2Co_1:2 ; Gal_1:3 ; Eph_1:2 ; Phi_1:3 ; Col_1:2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:2 .

(iii) The Thanksgiving: Rom_1:8 ; 1Co_1:4 ; 2Co_1:3 ; Eph_1:3 ; Phi_1:3 ; 1Th_1:3 ; 2Th_1:3 .

(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.

(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: Rom 16 ; 1Co_16:19 ; 2Co_13:13 ; Phi_4:21-22 ; Col_4:12-15 ; 1Th_5:26 .

When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paulletters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.

The Immediate Situation

With a very few exceptions, all Paulletters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paulletters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.

The Spoken Word

One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In Rom_16:22 Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In 1Co_16:21 Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare Col_4:18 ; 2Th_3:17 .

This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mindeye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS

The Greatness Of Corinth

A glance at the map will show that Corinth was made for greatness. The southern part of Greece is very nearly an island. On the west the Corinthian Gulf deeply indents the land and on the east the Saronic Gulf. All that is left to join the two parts of Greece together is a little isthmus only four miles across. On that narrow neck of land Corinth stands. Such a position made it inevitable that it should be one of the greatest trading and commercial centres of the ancient world. All traffic from Athens and the north of Greece to Sparta and the Peloponnese had to be routed through Corinth, because it stood on the little neck of land that connected the two.

Not only did the north to south traffic of Greece pass through Corinth of necessity, by far the greater part of the east to west traffic of the Mediterranean passed through her from choice. The extreme southern tip of Greece was known as Cape Malea (now called Cape Matapan). It was dangerous, and to round Cape Malea had much the same sound as to round Cape Horn had in later times. The Greeks had two sayings which showed what they thought of it--"Let him who sails round Malea forget his home," and, "Let him who sails round Malea first make his will."

The consequence was that mariners followed one of two courses. They sailed up the Saronic Gulf, and, if their ships were small enough, dragged them out of the water, set them on rollers, hauled them across the isthmus, and re-launched them on the other side. The isthmus was actually called the Diolkos, the place of dragging across. The idea is the same as that which is contained in the Scottish place name Tarbert, which means a place where the land is so narrow that a boat can be dragged from loch to loch. If that course was not possible because the ship was too large, the cargo was disembarked, carried by porters across the isthmus, and re-embarked on another ship at the other side. This four mile journey across the isthmus, where the Corinth Canal now runs, saved a journey of two hundred and two miles round Cape Malea, the most dangerous cape in the Mediterranean.

It is easy to see how great a commercial city Corinth must have been. The north to south traffic of Greece had no alternative but to pass through her; by far the greater part of the east to west trade of the Mediterranean world chose to pass through her. Round Corinth there clustered three other towns, Lechaeum at the west end of the isthmus, Cenchrea at the east end and Schoenus just a short distance away. Farrar writes, "Objects of luxury soon found their way to the markets which were visited by every nation in the civilized world--Arabian balsam, Phoenician dates, Libyan ivory, Babylonian carpets, Cilician goatsair, Lycaonian wool, Phrygian slaves."

Corinth, as Farrar calls her, was the Vanity Fair of the ancient world. Men called her The Bridge of Greece; one called her The Lounge of Greece. It has been said that if a man stands long enough in Piccadilly Circus he will in the end meet everyone in the country. Corinth was the Piccadilly Circus of the Mediterranean. To add to the concourse which came to it, Corinth was the place where the Isthmian Games were held, which were second only to the Olympics. Corinth was a rich and populous city with one of the greatest commercial trades in the ancient world.

The Wickedness Of Corinth

There was another side to Corinth. She had a reputation for commercial prosperity, but she was also a byword for evil living. The very word korinthiazesthai, to live like a Corinthian, had become a part of the Greek language, and meant to live with drunken and immoral debauchery. The word actually penetrated to the English language, and, in Regency times, a Corinthian was one of the wealthy young bucks who lived in reckless and riotous living. Aelian, the late Greek writer, tells us that if ever a Corinthian was shown upon the stage in a Greek play he was shown drunk. The very name Corinth was synonymous with debauchery and there was one source of evil in the city which was known all over the civilized world. Above the isthmus towered the hill of the Acropolis, and on it stood the great temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love. To that temple there were attached one thousand priestesses who were sacred prostitutes, and in the evenings they descended from the Acropolis and plied their trade upon the streets of Corinth, until it became a Greek proverb, "It is not every man who can afford a journey to Corinth." In addition to these cruder sins, there flourished far more recondite vices, which had come in with the traders and the sailors from the ends of the earth, until Corinth became not only a synonym for wealth and luxury, drunkenness and debauchery, but also for filth.

The History Of Corinth

The history of Corinth falls into two parts. She was a very ancient city. Thucydides, the Greek historian, claims that it was in Corinth that the first triremes, the Greek battleships, were built. Legend has it that it was in Corinth that the Argo was built, the ship in which Jason sailed the seas, searching for the golden fleece. But in 146 B.C. disaster befell her. The Romans were engaged in conquering the world. When they sought to reduce Greece, Corinth was the leader of the opposition. But the Greeks could not stand against the disciplined Romans, and in 146 B.C. Lucius Mummius, the Roman general, captured Corinth and left her a desolate heap of ruins.

But any place with the geographical situation of Corinth could not remain a devastation. Almost exactly one hundred years later, in 46 B.C. Julius Caesar rebuilt her and she arose from her ruins. Now she became a Roman colony. More, she became a capital city, the metropolis of the Roman province of Achaea, which included practically all Greece.

In those days, which were the days of Paul, her population was very mixed. (i) There were the Roman veterans whom Julius Caesar had settled there. When a Roman soldier had served his time, he was granted the citizenship and was then sent out to some newly-founded city and given a grant of land so that he might become a settler there. These Roman colonies were planted all over the world, and always the backbone of them was the contingent of veteran regular soldiers whose faithful service had won them the citizenship. (ii) When Corinth was rebuilt the merchants came back, for her situation still gave her commercial supremacy. (iii) There were many Jews among the population. The rebuilt city offered them commercial opportunities which they were not slow to take. (iv) There was a sprinkling of Phoenicians and Phrygians and people from the east, with their exotic customs and their hysterical ways. Farrar speaks of "this mongrel and heterogeneous population of Greek adventurers and Roman bourgeois, with a tainting infusion of Phoenicians; this mass of Jews, ex-soldiers, philosophers, merchants, sailors, freedmen, slaves, trades-people, hucksters and agents of every form of vice." He characterizes her as a colony "without aristocracy, without traditions and without well-established citizens."

Remember the background of Corinth, remember its name for wealth and luxury, for drunkenness and immorality and vice, and then read 1Co_6:9-10 .

Are you not aware that the unrighteous will not inherit the

Kingdom of God? Make no mistake--neither fornicators, nor

idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sensualists, nor homosexuals, nor

thieves, nor rapacious men, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor

robbers shall inherit the Kingdom of God--and such were some of

you.

In this hotbed of vice, in the most unlikely place in all the Greek world, some of Paulgreatest work was done, and some of the mightiest triumphs of Christianity were won.

Paul In Corinth

Paul stayed longer in Corinth than in any other city, with the single exception of Ephesus. He had left Macedonia with his life in peril and had crossed over to Athens. There he had had little success and had gone on to Corinth, and he remained there for eighteen months. We realize how little we really know of his work when we see that the whole story of that eighteen months is compressed by Luke into 17 verses (Act_18:1-17 ).

When Paul arrived in Corinth he took up residence with Aquila and Prisca. He preached in the synagogue with great success. With the arrival of Timothy and Silas from Macedonia, he redoubled his efforts, but the Jews were so stubbornly hostile that he had to leave the synagogue. He took up his residence with one Justus who lived next door to the synagogue. His most notable convert was Crispus, who was actually the ruler of the synagogue, and amongst the general public he had good success.

In the year A.D. 52 there came to Corinth as its new governor a Roman called Gallio. He was famous for his charm and gentleness. The Jews tried to take advantage of his newness and good nature and brought Paul to trial before him on a charge of teaching contrary to their law. But Gallio, with impartial Roman justice, refused to have anything to do with the case or to take any action. So Paul completed his work in Corinth and moved on to Syria.

The Correspondence With Corinth

It was when he was in Ephesus in the year A.D. 55 that Paul, learning that things were not all well in Corinth, wrote to the church there. There is every possibility that the Corinthian correspondence as we have it is out of order. We must remember that it was not until A.D. 90 or thereby that Paulcorrespondence was collected. In many churches it must have existed only on scraps of papyrus and the putting it together would be a problem: and it seems that, when the Corinthian letters were collected, they were not all discovered and were not arranged in the right order. Let us see if we can reconstruct what happened.

(i) There was a letter which preceded 1 Corinthians. In 1Co_5:9 Paul writes, "I wrote you a letter not to associate with immoral men." This obviously refers to some previous letter. Some scholars believe that letter is lost without trace. Others think it is contained in 2Co_6:14-18 and 2Co_7:1 . Certainly that passage suits what Paul said he wrote about. It occurs rather awkwardly in its context, and, if we take it out and read straight on from 2Co_6:13 to 2Co_7:2 , we get excellent sense and connection. Scholars call this letter The Previous Letter. (In the original letters there were no chapter or verse divisions. The chapters were not divided up until the thirteenth century and the verses not till the sixteenth, and because of that the arranging of the collection of letters would be much more difficult).

(ii) News came to Paul from various sources of trouble at Corinth. (a) News came from those who were of the household of Chloe (1Co_1:11 ). They brought news of the contentions with which the church was torn. (b) News came with the visit of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus to Ephesus. (1Co_16:17 ). By personal contact they were able to fill up the gaps in Paulinformation. (c) News came in a letter in which the Corinthian Church had asked Paul guidance on various problems. In 1Co_7:1 Paul begins, "Concerning the matters about which you wrote..." In answer to all this information Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and despatched it to Corinth apparently by the hand of Timothy (1Co_4:17 ).

(iii) The result of the letter was that things became worse than ever, and, although we have no direct record of it, we can deduce that Paul paid a personal visit to Corinth. In 2Co_12:14 he writes, "The third time I am ready to come to you." In 2Co_13:1-2 , he says again that he is coming to them for the third time. Now, if there was a third time, there must have been a second time. We have the record of only one visit, whose story is told in Act_18:1-17 . We have no record at all of the second, but Corinth was only two or three daysailing from Ephesus.

(iv) The visit did no good at all. Matters were only exacerbated and the result was an exceedingly severe letter. We learn about that letter from certain passages in 2 Corinthians. In 2Co_2:4 Paul writes, "I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears." In 2Co_7:8 he writes, "For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it though I did regret it; for I see that that letter has grieved you, though only for a while." It was a letter which was the product of anguish of mind, a letter so severe that Paul was almost sorry that he ever sent it.

Scholars call this The Severe Letter. Have we got it? It obviously cannot be I Corinthians, because it is not a tear-stained and anguished letter. When Paul wrote it, it is clear enough that things were under control. Now if we read through 2 Corinthians we find an odd circumstance. In 2Cor 1-9 everything is made up, there is complete reconciliation and all are friends again; but at 2Cor 10 comes the strangest break. 2Cor 10-13 are the most heartbroken cry Paul ever wrote. They show that he has been hurt and insulted as he never was before or afterwards by any church. His appearance, his speech, his apostleship, his honesty have all been under attack.

Most scholars believe that 2Cor 10-13 are the severe letter, and that they have become misplaced when Paulletters were put together. If we want the real chronological course of Paulcorrespondence with Corinth, we really ought to read 2Cor 10-13 before 2Cor 1-9. We do know that this letter was sent off with Titus. (2Co_2:13 ; 2Co_7:13 ).

(v) Paul was worried about this letter. He could not wait until Titus came back with an answer, so he set out to meet him (2Co_2:13 ; 2Co_7:5 , 2Co_7:13 ). Somewhere in Macedonia he met him and learned that all was well, and, probably at Philippi, he sat down and wrote 2Cor 1-9, the letter of reconciliation.

Stalker has said that the letters of Paul take the roof off the early churches and let us see what went on inside. Of none of them is that truer than the letters to Corinth. Here we see what "the care of all the churches" must have meant to Paul. Here we see the heart-breaks and the joys. Here we see Paul, the shepherd of his flock, bearing the sorrows and the problems of his people on his heart.

The Corinthian Correspondence

Before we read the letters in detail let us set down the progress of the Corinthian correspondence in tabular form.

(i) The Previous Letter, which may be contained in 2Co_6:14-18 and 2Co_7:1 .

(ii) The arrival of Chloepeople, of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, and of the letter to Paul from the Corinthian Church.

(iii) 1 Corinthians is written in reply and is despatched with Timothy.

(iv) The situation grows worse and Paul pays a personal visit to Corinth, which is so complete a failure that it almost breaks his heart.

(v) The consequence is The Severe Letter, which is almost certainly contained in 2Cor 10-13, and which was despatched with Titus.

(vi) Unable to wait for an answer, Paul sets out to meet Titus. He meets him in Macedonia, learns that all is well and, probably from Philippi, writes 2Cor 1-9, The Letter of Reconciliation.

The first four chapters of 1 Corinthians deal with the divided state of the Church of God at Corinth. Instead of being a unity in Christ it was split into sects and parties, who had attached themselves to the names of various leaders and teachers. It is Paulteaching that these divisions had emerged because the Corinthians thought too much about human wisdom and knowledge and too little about the sheer grace of God. In fact, for all their so-called wisdom, they are really in a state of immaturity. They think that they are wise men, but really they are no better than babies.

FURTHER READING

1 Corinthians

F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (NCB; E)

J. Hering, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (translated by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock)

J. Moffatt, 1 Corinthians (MC; E)

A. Robertson and A. Plummer, 1 Corinthians (ICC; G)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

NCB: New Century Bible

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: 1 Corinthians 11 (Chapter Introduction)

The Necessary Modesty (1Co_11:2-16)

The Wrong Kind Of Feast (1Co_11:17-22)

The Lord's Supper (1Co_11:23-34)

Constable: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

Corinth had a long history stretching back into the Bronze Age (before 1200 B.C.).¹ In Paul's day it was a Roman colony and the capital of the province of Achaia. The population consisted of Roman citizens who had migrated from Italy, native Greeks, Jews (Acts 18:4), and other people from various places who chose to settle there.

The ancient city of Corinth enjoyed an ideal situation as a commercial center. It stood just southwest of the Isthmus of Corinth, the land bridge that connected Northern Greece and Southern Greece, the Peloponnesus. This site made Corinth a crossroads for trade by land, north and south, as well as by sea, east and west. In Paul's day large ships would transfer their cargoes to land vehicles that would cart them from the Corinthian Gulf to the Saronic Gulf, or vice versa. There stevedores would reload them onto other ships. If a ship was small enough, they would drag the whole vessel across the four and a half mile isthmus from one gulf to the other. This did away with the long voyage around the Peloponnesus. Later the Greeks cut a canal linking these two gulfs.²

Corinth's strategic location brought commerce and all that goes with it to its populace: wealth, a steady stream of travelers and merchants, and vice. In Paul's day many of the pagan religions included prostitution as part of the worship of their god or goddess. Consequently fornication flourished in Corinth.

"Old Corinth had gained such a reputation for sexual vice that Aristophanes (ca. 450-385 B.C.) coined the verb korinthiazo (= to act like a Corinthian, i.e., to commit fornication)."³

"The old city had been the most licentious city in Greece, and perhaps the most licentious city in the Empire."⁴

The most notorious shrine was the temple of Aphrodite that stood on top of an approximately 1,900 foot high mountain just south of the city, the Acrocorinthus. Hundreds of female slaves served the men who "worshipped" there.⁵ Other major deities honored in Corinth included Melicertes, the patron of seafarers, and Poseidon, the sea god.

"All of this evidence together suggests that Paul's Corinth was at once the New York, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas of the ancient world."⁶

There were several other local sites of importance to the student of 1 Corinthians. These included the bema (judgment seat or platform), the place where judges tried important cases including Paul's (Acts 18:12).⁷ Cenchrea, the port of Corinth on the Saronic Gulf of the Aegean Sea, was the town from which Paul set sail for Ephesus during his second missionary journey (Acts 18:18). Isthmia was another little town east of Corinth, just north of Cenchrea, that hosted the Isthmian Games every two or three years. These athletic contests were important in the life of the Greeks, and Paul referred to them in this epistle (9:24-27).

Paul had arrived in Corinth first from Athens, which lay to the east. There he preached the gospel and planted a church. There, too, he met Priscilla and Aquila, Jews who had recently left Rome. After local Jewish officials expelled the church from the synagogue, it met in a large house next door that Titius Justus owned. Paul ministered in Corinth for 18 months, probably in 51 and 52 A.D. He left taking Priscilla and Aquila with him to Ephesus. Paul then proceeded on to Syrian Antioch by way of Caesarea.

Returning to Ephesus on his third journey Paul made that city his base of operations for almost three years (53-56 A.D.). There he heard disquieting news about immorality in the Corinthian church. Therefore he wrote a letter urging the believers not to tolerate such conduct in their midst. Paul referred to this letter as his "former letter" (1 Cor. 5:9). It is not extant today.

Then he heard from "Chloe's people" that factions had developed in the church. He also received a letter from the church in Corinth requesting his guidance in certain matters. These matters were marriage, divorce, food offered to idols, the exercise of spiritual gifts in the church, and the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Those who carried this letter also reported other disturbing conditions in the church. These conditions were the condoning rather than disciplining of immorality, Christians suing one another in the pagan courts, and disorders in their church meetings. These factors led Paul to compose another letter, "1 Corinthians." In it he dealt with the problem of factions, promised to visit them soon, and said he was sending Timothy to Corinth (chs. 1-4). Paul added his responses to the Corinthians' questions to what he had already written. He dealt next with the oral reports (chs. 5-6) and then with the questions that the Corinthian believers had written to him (chs. 7-16). He evidently sent this epistle from Ephesus by trusted messengers in the late winter or early spring of 56 A.D. (cf. 16:8).

It seems that a conflict had developed between the Corinthian church and its founder. There was internal strife in the church, as the epistle makes clear. However the larger problem seems to have been that some in the community were leading the church into a view of things that was contrary to that of Paul. This resulted in a questioning of Paul's authority and his gospel. The key issue between Paul and the Corinthians was what it means to be "spiritual."⁸

"It [1 Corinthians] is not the fullest and clearest statement of Paul's Gospel; for this we must turn to Romans. Nor is it the letter that shows Paul's own heart most clearly, for in this respect it is surpassed by 2 Corinthians, and perhaps by other epistles too. But it has the great value of showing theology at work, theology being used as it was intended to be used, in the criticism and establishing of persons, institutions, practices, and ideas."⁹

Paul's Corinthian Contacts
Paul's founding visit	His "former letter"	The Corin-thians' letter to him	First Corin-thians	Paul's "painful visit"	His "severe letter"	Second Corin-thians	Paul's antici-pated visit

Message¹⁰

A phrase in 1:2 suggests the theme of this great epistle. That phrase is "the church of God which is at Corinth." Two entities are in view in this phrase and these are the two entities with which the whole epistle deals. They are the church of God and the city of Corinth. The church of God is a community of people who share the life of God, are under the governing will of God, and cooperate in the work of God. The city of Corinth was ignorant of the life of God, governed by self-will, and antagonistic to the purposes of God. These two entities stand in vivid contrast to one another and account for the conflict we find in this epistle.

The church of God in view in this epistle is not the universal church but the local church. These two churches are really not that different from one another. The local church is the micro form of the universal church. Moreover the universal church is the macro form of the local church. What is true of one is true of the other. Whatever we find in a local church exists on a larger scale in the universal church. Whatever we find in one local church exists in many local churches. Remember that the New Testament consistently speaks of the church as people, not buildings. The Apostle Paul addressed these people as believers because that is what they were. Today there may be quite a few unsaved people in a local church's membership. This was not the case in the first century. Believers composed local churches. They shared the life of God because the Holy Spirit indwelt them. They had submitted to God's rule over them to some extent. They were people whom God had commissioned to carry the gospel to every creature. We need to bear these things in mind as we read about the church of God in Corinth.

The city of Corinth is the other entity of primary importance in our grasping the major significance of this epistle. What characterizes the world generally marked Corinth. In the first century when other people described a person as a Corinthian they were implying that lust, lasciviousness, and luxury characterized that one. These were the marks of Corinth. Corinth as a city was ignorant of the true God, entirely self-governing as a Roman colony, and self-centered in her world. These traits marked the lives of individual unbelievers in Corinth as well. The city was going in the opposite direction from the direction God had called the church to go.

The atmosphere of this epistle is Paul's concept of the responsibilities of the church in the city. The apostle articulated this underlying emphasis in 1:9. Fellowship involves both privilege and responsibility. On the one hand, all God's resources are at our disposal. On the other hand, all our resources should be at His disposal as well. The church in any place has a debt to the people who live there to proclaim the gospel to them (Rom. 1:14-16). Paul wrote this whole letter out of an underlying sense of the church's responsibility for the city where it existed.

The church in Corinth was struggling to discharge its debt. It was failing in some very important areas: in readiness, in courage, and in conviction to declare the gospel. The Corinthian church was a carnal church. However, its carnality, as big a problem as that was, was only part of a larger problem. The bigger problem was its failure to carry out its God-given purpose in the city, namely to proclaim a powerful spiritual message to the city. The Christians could not fulfill their purpose unless they dealt with their carnality. Why is carnality wrong? It is wrong because it keeps us from fulfilling the purpose for which God has left us on this planet.

In this letter we discover the causes of the church's failure. Another major emphasis is the secrets of the church's success. On the one hand, we find correctives of carnality. On the other, we have construction of spirituality. Let's consider the causes of failure first.

The first cause of failure was the fact that the spirit of the city had invaded the church as a virus. Every evil thing in the church to which Paul referred was prevalent in Corinth. Three things merit particular mention.

One of the symptoms of Corinthian cultural influence was intellectual freedom. There was much interest in intellectual speculation in Corinth as there was in its neighbor city of Athens. The phrase "Corinthian words" was a synonym for rhetoric in Paul's day. Corinth glorified human wisdom. The Corinthians discussed and debated all sorts of opinions. Each intellectual leader had his group of disciples. Discussion of every subject under the sun prevailed with great diversity of opinion. Unfortunately this spirit had invaded the church. There was a veneration of human wisdom among the Christians. They had chosen their own Christian leaders whom they followed as disciples (ch. 1). Intellectual restlessness prevailed in the church as well as in the city. The believers sampled Christian teaching as the general populace dabbled in philosophical argumentation. This extended to such fundamental doctrines as the Resurrection (ch. 15).

Another evidence that the city had invaded the church was the moral laxity that prevailed. Intellectual permissiveness led to the lowering of moral standards. When people view any idea as legitimate, there are few moral absolutes. The worship of Aphrodite on the hill behind the city was extremely immoral, but the unsaved citizens viewed this worship as perfectly acceptable. "Live and let live" was their motto. Regrettably some Corinthians in the church were viewing morals in the same way (ch. 5).

A third mark of the city's effect on the church was personal selfishness. In the city every person did what was right in his own eyes. The result was there was very little concern for other people and their welfare. One of the evidences of this attitude in the church was the Christians' behavior in their meetings. They were not sharing their food with one another (ch. 11). They were also interrupting speakers in the meetings rather than waiting for the speaker to finish what he had to say (ch. 14). Where edification and order should have prevailed, self-glorification and chaos reigned.

These were only symptoms of a deeper problem. The real root issue was that the church had failed to recognize its uniqueness. The Christians had not grasped and retained some central truths the apostles had taught them that identified the essence of their Christianity. Paul reminded them of these things in this epistle.

They had forgotten the central importance of the message of the Cross of Christ. This was a message not subject to debate. It rested on eyewitness testimony and divine revelation, not human speculation. Christians should unite around this message, share a common commitment to it, and make it the subject of their proclamation. We should appreciate the unity of the body of Christ while at the same time glorying in the diversity of its leaders.

The Corinthians had also forgotten the central importance of the power of the resurrection of Christ. The same power that raised Christ from the dead is at work in Christians to enable us to live morally pure lives. Immorality is not an option for the believer. One of the most outstanding marks of a Christian should be purity. Because Jesus Christ was pure, we should be pure. Because He was pure, we can be pure.

The Corinthians had also forgotten the importance of Christ's command that we love one another. Selfishness had invaded the church. The believers needed to put the welfare of others, their fellow believers and their unsaved neighbors, before their own personal inclinations and preferences.

One of the central revelations of this epistle then is that the church fails to fulfill her function in the city (i.e., culture) when the spirit of the city invades her. The church allows the spirit of the city to invade her when she forgets that God wants her to be unique. The church fails when it adopts the ideas and activities of its environment rather than those revealed for it in God's Word. In view of this, Paul constantly appealed to his readers to be what they were in reality. We are not the people we were. We are saints (1:2). We need to remember that and act accordingly. We do not need to catch the spirit of our age. We need to correct the spirit of our age. When the church catches the spirit of its age, it catches a disease and becomes anemic, weak, and sickly. We avoid catching this spirit by staying spiritually healthy and by constantly imbibing the message of the Cross. We do it by exercising the power of the Resurrection and by keeping others rather than self primary.

I have already begun to hint at the secrets of the church's success, the second major revelation in this epistle.

The church must realize what it is to fulfill its function in the city. We must appreciate our life in Christ.

The life of the church is the life of an organism (ch. 12). It has one Lord whose life we share. It has one Spirit who governs it distributing abilities, assigning positions, and determining results as He sees fit in view of God's overall purpose. The church has one God--not many as in Corinth--whose glory it should determine to promote. To the extent a church realizes these truths, it will be ready to be successful in the sight of God. If it shares the spiritual life of her Lord, submits to the Spirit's leading, and seeks to glorify God, it will succeed. By separating from the spirit of the city, it can help and lift the city.

The law of the church must be the law of love. This is the opposite of the selfish outlook. Paul emphasized the importance of love in chapter 13.

The power of the church is the Resurrection life of Christ (ch. 15). We presently live between two resurrections, the resurrection of Christ and our own resurrection. These resurrections are facts of history. One has already taken place, and the other is yet to come. Between these resurrections the church must fulfill its function in the world. The life that God has given to every believer is life that has power over death. One who overcame death has given it to us. This life is essentially different from what unbelievers possess. It is eternal divine life. With such life we can face any enemy as we serve God. Even the final enemy, death, cannot hold us. It could not hold Him who gave us His life.

Not only must we appreciate the uniqueness of our life as a church to fulfill our function, but we must also fulfill our function by invading the city. Rather than allowing it to invade us, we must invade it to be successful.

We do this by proclaiming that Jesus is Lord. He is the only Lord. The proof of this is His resurrection.

We also do this by rebuking the immorality of the city, not just by decrying it but, what is more important, by overcoming it in our own lives. We do it by demonstrating the power of Christ's life within us by living morally pure lives.

Third, we do this by counteracting the selfishness of our culture by practicing genuine Christian love. This means living for the glory of God and the good of others rather than putting self first.

The church always fails when it becomes conformed to the maxims, methods, and manners of the city--the world in which it lives. It always succeeds when it stands separate from the city and touches it with its supernatural healing life.

This epistle calls the church in every age to recognize its responsibility to its city. The church is responsible for the intellectual, moral, and social conditions in its city. Unfortunately many churches believe they exist merely to conserve the life of their members. We live in a cultural climate very similar to the one in which the Corinthian Christians lived. It is a culture characterized by intellectual pluralism, situation ethics, and personal selfishness. We face the same challenge the Corinthian believers did. Consequently what this epistle reveals is extremely relevant for us. We have responsibility for how people in our city think, how they behave, and whom they glorify. What they need is the message of the Cross delivered in the power of the Resurrection.

This letter is also a call to separation.

First, we must separate from absolute intellectual freedom and willingly submit our understanding and thinking to the revelation that God has given us in Scripture (chs. 1-4). There is a growing notion that all religions lead to God. Increasingly we hear that it does not matter too much what someone believes because we will all end up in the same place eventually. We need to counter that view with the revelation of the exclusive way of salvation that God has provided for people who are hopelessly lost and dead in their sins.

God has also called us to separation from moral laxity. Our culture is playing down personal morality and marital morality today. We need to proclaim the standards of God in these areas even though we may face strong opposition for doing so. Paul held these standards up in chapters 5-7.

Likewise we need to separate from selfish living. We need to make a break with goals and plans designed to glorify ourselves. Instead we need to evaluate all of our activities by the standard of chapter 13.

By way of application we can conclude several things from these observations about the emphases in this epistle.

First, the influence of the church is the influence of its individual members. The sum of its individual members' influence is the church's influence. Everything that is true of the church, therefore, is true of the individual believer in it to some extent.

Second, there should be perpetual conflict between the church and the city. If there is no conflict, the church is not having its proper influence. It may be that the city has invaded the church.

Third, the message of the church must ever be the message of the Cross and the Resurrection. It is a message of failure and success, of success out of failure. That is the message of hope the city needs to hear. Consequently we need to "be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord," because we know that our labor is not in vain in the Lord (15:58).

Constable: 1 Corinthians (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-9

A. Salutation 1:1-3

B. Thanksgiving 1:4-9

II. Conditions reported to Paul 1:10-6:20

A. Divisions in the church 1:10-4:21

1. The manifestation of the problem 1:10-17

2. The gospel as a contradiction to human wisdom 1:18-2:5

3. The Spirit's ministry of revealing God's wisdom 2:6-16

4. The spiritual yet carnal condition 3:1-4

5. The role of God's servants 3:5-17

6. Human wisdom and limited blessing 3:18-23

7. The Corinthians' relationship with Paul 4:1-21

B. Lack of discipline in the church chs. 5-6

1. Incest in the church ch. 5

2. Litigation in the church 6:1-11

3. Prostitution in the church 6:12-20

III. Questions asked of Paul 7:1-16:12

A. Marriage and related matters ch. 7

1. Advice to the married or formerly married 7:1-16

2. Basic principles 7:17-24

3. Advice concerning virgins 7:25-40

B. Food offered to idols 8:1-11:1

1. The priority of love over knowledge in Christian conduct ch. 8

2. Paul's apostolic defense ch. 9

3. The sinfulness of idolatry 10:1-22

4. The issue of marketplace food 10:23-11:1

C. Propriety in worship 11:2-16

1. The argument from culture 11:2-6

2. The argument from creation 11:7-12

3. The argument from propriety 11:13-16

D. The Lord's Supper 11:17-34

1. The abuses 11:17-26

2. The correctives 11:27-34

E. Spiritual gifts and spiritual people chs. 12-14

1. The test of Spirit control 12:1-3

2. The need for varieties of spiritual gifts 12:4-31

3. The supremacy of love ch. 13

4. The need for intelligibility 14:1-25

5. The need for order 14:26-40

F. The resurrection of believers ch. 15

l. The resurrection of Jesus Christ 15:1-11

2. The certainty of resurrection 15:12-34

3. The resurrection body 15:35-49

4. The assurance of victory over death 15:50-58

G. The collection for the Jerusalem believers 16:1-12

1. Arrangements for the collection 16:1-4

2. The travel plans of Paul and his fellow apostles 16:5-12

IV. Conclusion 16:13-24

A. Final exhortations 16:13-18

B. Final greetings and benediction 16:19-24

Constable: 1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians

Bibliography

Adams, Jay. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980.

Andrews, J. N. "May Women Speak in Meeting?" Review and Herald. January 2, 1879. Reprinted in Adventist Review 165:5 (February 4, 1988):17.

Barclay, William. By What Authority? Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1974.

_____. The Letters to the Corinthians. Daily Study Bible series. Second ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1956.

Barrett, Charles Kingsley. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper's New Testament Commentaries series. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

Bassler, Jouette M. "Paul's Theology: Whence and Whither?" In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 3-17. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Batey, Richard. "Paul's Interaction with the Corinthians." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):139-46.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Bedale, Stephen. "The Meaning of kephale in the Pauline Epistles." Journal of Theological Studies NS5 (1954):211-15.

Beet, J. Agar. A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. 6th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895.

Berding, Kenneth. "Confusing Word and Concept in Spiritual Gifts': Have We Forgotten James Barr's Exhortations?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 200):37-51.

Bilezikian, Gilbert G. Beyond Sex Roles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.

Blampied, Anne B. "Paul and Silence for The Women' in I Corinthians 14:34-35." Studia Biblica et Theologica 18:2 (October 1983):143-65.

Blomquist, Jean M. "The Effect of the Divorce Experience on Spiritual Growth." Pastoral Psychology 34:2 (Winter 1985):82-91.

Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.

Bruce, F. F., ed. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible series. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, Oliphants, 1971.

_____. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1982.

Buckley, Jack. "Paul, Women, and the Church." Eternity 31:11 (December 1980):30-35.

Burns, J. Lanier. "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (July-September 1975):242-49.

Caird, George Bradford. Principalities and Powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.

Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians. Translated by John W. Fraser. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Calvin's Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics series. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Reprint ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Campbell, Barth. "Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September 1993):331-42.

Carson, D. A. The Cross & Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Chadwick, H. "All Things to All Men' (I Cor. IX. 22)." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-55):261-75.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. He That Is Spiritual. 1918; revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1967.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Ok.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

Clagett, John Y. "The Concept of Conscience and Its Relation to the Christian Ethic in the Corinthian Epistles." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1971.

Clark, Stephen B. Man and Woman in Christ. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Servant Books, 1980.

Cole, Sherwood A. "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.

Constable, Robert L. Called Saints: Studies in I Corinthians 1-3 Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1962.

_____. Live Saints: Studies in I Corinthians 4-16. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1966.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Conzelmann, H. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Cousar, Charles B. "Expository Articles: I Corinthians 2:1-13." Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):169-73.

_____. "The Theological Task of 1 Corinthians." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 90-102. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Dahms, John V. "The Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):351-64.

Darby, John Nelson. Notes of Readings on the Epistles to the Corinthians. London: Moorish, n.d.

_____. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305.

Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Deluz, Gaston. A Companion to I Corinthians. Edited and translated by Grace E. Watt. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963.

A Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S. v. "Corinthians, Epistles to the," by G. H. Clayton.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S. v. "Corinthians, First Epistle to the," by A. Robertson.

_____. S. v. "Lord's Day," by N. J. D. White.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

_____. Speaking in Tongues: Seven Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.

Dobbins, Richard. "Two Sinister Forces Undermining Clergy Marriages." Ministries 4:1 (Winter 1985-86):31-32, 39.

Dods, Marcus. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889.

Dollar, George W. "Church History and the Tongues Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):316-21.

Donfried, K. P. "Justification and Last Judgment in Paul." Interpretation 30:2 (April 1976):140-52.

Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):371-86.

_____. Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1983.

Ellicott, Charles T. St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Longmans, Green, 1887.

Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. "Proclaiming the Lord's Death." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 103-32. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Fairbairn, Patrick. The Typology of Scripture. 2 vols. Sixth ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876.

Farnell, F. David. "Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?" Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):277-303; 596 (October-December 1992):387-410; 150:597 (January-March 1993):62-88; and 598 (April-June 1993):171-202.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987.

_____. "Tongues--Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 12-14." Pneuma 2 (1980):3-14.

_____. "Toward a Theology of 1 Corinthians." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 37-58. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Fiddes, Paul S. "Woman's Head Is Man:' A Doctrinal Reflection upon a Pauline Text." Baptist Quarterly 31:8 (October 1986):370-83.

Fishbane, Michael, "Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Ezek 43:3, Num 12:8 and 1 Cor 13:8." Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986):63-74.

Fisk, Bruce K. "Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians 8-10 (A Response to Gordon Fee)," Trinity Journal 10 NS:1 (Spring 1989):49-70.

Foh, Susan T. Women and the Word of God. Philipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. "The Nature of the Ministry according to Paul," Evangelical Quarterly 54 (1982):129-46.

Furnish, Victor Paul. "Theology in 1 Corinthians." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 59-89. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. "Life-Giving Spirit': Probing the Center of Paul's Pneumatology." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:4 (December 1998):573-89.

Gangel, Kenneth O. "Biblical Feminism and Church Leadership." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):55-63.

Geisler, Norman L. "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):148-70.

Geldard, Mark. "Jesus' Teaching on Divorce: Thoughts on the Meaning of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9." Churchman 92:2 (1978):134-43.

Gilmour, S. M. "Pastoral Care in the New Testament Church." New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64):393-98.

Glenn, Donald R. "Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 39-51. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Godet, F. Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. 2 vols. Translated by A. Cusin. Classic Commentary Library series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1886; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert Glenn. The Modern Tongues Movement. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1967.

Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistles to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953.

Grudem, Wayne. "Does kephale (Head') Mean Source' or Authority Over' in Greek Literature? A survey of 2,336 Examples." Trinity Journal 6NS (1985):38-59.

_____. The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982.

_____. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988.

_____ "The Meaning of kephale: A Response to Recent Studies." Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):3-72.

_____. "The Meaning of kephale (head'): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):25-65.

_____. "Prophecy--Yes, But Teaching--No: Paul's Consistent Advocacy of Women's Participation Without Governing Authority." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):11-23.

_____. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

_____. "Why Christians Can Still Prophesy." Christianity Today, September 16, 1988, pp.29-31, 34-35.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Heth, William A. and Wenham, Gordon J. Jesus and Divorce. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Evidence from 1 Corinthians 15." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 225-34. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Hill, C. E. "Paul's Understanding of Christ's Kingdom in I Corinthians 15:20-28." Novum Testamentum 30:4 (October 1988):297-320.

Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians. 1857 and 1859; reprint ed. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983.

Hodges, Zane C. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. The Hungry Inherit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

_____. "The Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September 1963):226-33.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Purpose of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 53-66. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Holmyard, Harold R., III. "Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church?" Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):461-72.

Hooker, Morna D. "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI. 10." New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64):410-16.

Houghton, Myron J. "A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):344-56.

House, H. Wayne. "Caught in the Middle," Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):12-14.

_____. "The Ministry of Women in the Apostolic and Postapostolic Periods." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):387-99.

_____. "Resurrection, Reincarnation, and Humanness." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):131-50.

_____. "Should a Woman Prophesy or Preach before Men?" Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):141-61.

_____. "The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:579 (July-September 1988):301-18.

_____. "Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558 (April-June 1983):134-50.

Howell, Timothy D. "The Church and the AIDS Crisis." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):74-82.

Hoyt, Samuel L. "The Judgment Seat of Christ and Unconfessed Sins." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:545 (January-March 1980):32-40.

_____. "The Negative Aspects of the Christian's Judgment." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:546 (April-June 1980):125-32.

Hullinger, Jerry M. "The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):279-89.

Hurd, J. C., Jr., The Origin of I Corinthians. New York: Seabury Press, 1965.

Hurley, James B. Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S. v. "Corinthians, First Epistle to the," by R. Dykes Shaw.

Ironside, Harry A. Addresses on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1938.

Irvin, Dorothy. "The Ministry of Women in the Early Church: The Archaeological Evidence." Touchstone 4:1 (January 1986):24-33.

Isaksson, Abel. "Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple." Translated by Neil Tomkinson. Th.D. dissertation, University of Uppsala, 1965.

Jackson, Thomas A. "Concerning Spiritual Gifts: A Study of I Corinthians 12." Faith and Mission 7:1 (Fall 1989):61-69.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jeremias, Joachim. "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God." New Testament Studies 2 (1955-56):151-59.

_____. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1969.

Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Johnson, Elliott E. Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1990.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "1 Corinthians." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1227-60. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

_____. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):309-11.

Justice, Sam. "Clergy Divorce: A Perplexing Problem." Ministries 4:1 (Winter 1985-86):24-25, 29-30.

Keil, C. F. and Delitzsch, Franz. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Knight, George W., III. The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

Lacey, W. K. The Family in Classical Greece. London: Thames and Hudson, 1968.

Lampe, W. H. "Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistles to the Corinthians." In Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64.

_____. The Divorce Myth. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1981.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 10: Romans and Corinthians, by J. P. Lange, F. R. Fay, and Christian Friedrich Kling. Translated by J. F. Hurst, Daniel W. Poor, and Conway P. Wing.

Lampe, Peter. "Theological Wisdom and the Word About the Cross:' The Rhetorical Scheme in I Corinthians 1-4." Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):117-31.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. 1937. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lester, Andrew D. "Some Observations on the Psychological Effects of Women in Ministry." Review and Expositor 83:1 (Winter 1986):63-70.

Lias, J. J. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1888.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St Paul. Reprint ed. Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, n.d.

Lightner, Robert P. Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

_____. Speaking in Tongues and Divine Healing. Second ed. Schaumburg, Il.: Regular Baptist Press, 1978.

Lindars, Barnabas. "The Sound of the Trumpet: Paul and Eschatology." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):766-82.

Litfin, A. Duane. "Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):259-71.

Lowery, David K. "1 Corinthians." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament pp. 505-49. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

_____. "The Head Covering and the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:2-34." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:570 (April-June 1986):155-63.

_____. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Malick, David E. "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:600 (October-December 1993):479-92.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. 1 Corinthians. MacArthur New Testament Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.

_____. Charismatic Chaos. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

_____. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Mare, W. Harold. "1 Corinthians." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

McRae, William. Dynamics of Spiritual Gifts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Mollenkott, Virginia. Women, Men and the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1977.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Corinthian Letters of Paul. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1946.

_____. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.

Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972.

New Scofield Reference Bible. Edited by E. Schuyler English, et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Oldham, Roger Singleton. "Positional and Functional Equality: An Appraisal of the Major Arguments for the Ordination of Women." Mid-America Theological Journal 9:2 (Fall 1985):1-29.

Olshausen, H. Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1851.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Poythress, Vern Sheridan. "Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):71-101.

Proctor, John. "Fire in God's House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):9-14.

Pyne, Robert A. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

Quine, Jay A. "Court Involvement in Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):60-73, and 594 (April-June 1992):223-36.

Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Revised ed. Boston: W. A. Wilde Co., 1956.

Ramsay, William M. The Cities of St. Paul. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907.

Reaume, John D. "Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, Baptized for the Dead'." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):457-75.

Reese, Alexander. The Approaching Advent of Christ. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1937; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

Rhyne, C. Thomas. "Expository Articles: I Corinthians 3:1-9." Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):174-78.

Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Robertson, Archibald, and Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. International Critical Commentary series. Second ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rosner, Brian S. "Temple and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 5." Tyndale Bulletin 42 (1991):137-45.

Rosscup, James E. "A New Look at 1 Corinthians 3:12--'Gold, Silver, Precious Stones.'" Master's Seminary Journal 1:1 (Spring (1990):33-51.

Ryrie, Charles C. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1986.

_____. "Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage." By the Author, 1981.

_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.

_____. The Holy Spirit. Handbook of Bible Doctrine series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

_____. The Place of Women in the Church. New York: Macmillan, 1958; reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968. (A 1978 edition, also published by Moody Press, was titled The Role of Women in the Church.)

_____. The Ryrie Study Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.

_____. "What Is Spirituality?" Bibliotheca Sacra 126:503 (July-September 1969):204-13.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . .. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or Saints' Who Sin?" Biblitheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):400-12.

Savage, Paula A. "Greek Women's Dress." Biblical Illustrator 12:2 (Winter 1986):17-23.

Scanzoni, Letha and Hardesty, Nancy. All We're Meant to Be. Waco: Word Books, 1975.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. 1910. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Sellers, C. Norman. Biblical Conclusions Concerning Tongues. Miami: By the author, n.d.

Simon, W. G. H. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: Introduction and Commentary. London: SCM, 1959.

Smith, Jay E. "Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership? Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):455-80.

Smith, Wilbur. "Inheritance and Reward in Heaven." Eternity, March 1977, p. 79.

Smith, William Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. 3rd ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1969.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Sweeting, George. Love Is the Greatest. 1968; revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. Second ed. Reprinted. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1964.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "erchomai," by Johannes Schneider.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, Robert L. "1 Cor 13:11 Revisited: an Exegetical Update." Master's Seminary Journal 4:2 (Fall 1993):187-201.

_____. "Tongues . . . Will Cease'." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17:2 (Spring 1974):81-89.

_____. "Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):83-96.

_____. Understanding Spiritual Gifts: An exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.

Thrall, M. E. The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "First Corinthians Thirteen and The Tongues Question," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):311-16.

_____. "The Spiritual Man." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):139-46.

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):350-58.

Unger, Merrill F. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971.

Vine, W. E. 1 Corinthians. London: Oliphants, 1951.

von Campenhausen, H. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries. Stanford: Stanford University, 1969.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Waltke, Bruce K. "1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March 1978):46-57.

Walvoord, John F. The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

_____. "Contemporary Issues in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Part IV: Spiritual Gifts Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:520 (October-December 1973):315-28. Reprinted as "The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:570 (April-June 1986):109-21.

_____. The Holy Spirit. 1954. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. The Rapture Question. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1957.

White, Joel R. "Baptized on Account of the Dead": The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context." Journal of Biblical Literature 116:3 (1997):487-99.

White, R. Fowler. "Does God Speak Today Apart from the Bible? In The Coming Evangelical Crisis, pp. 77-90. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Are All Things Lawful for Believers?" Grace Evangelical Society Newsletter 4:7 (July 1989):2.

_____. "The So-Called So-Called Brother." Grace Evangelical Society News 6:10 (October 1991):2-3.

Wilson, Kenneth T. "Should Women Wear Headcoverings?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 (October-December 1991):442-62.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

INTRODUCTION.

Corinth was the capital of Achaia, a very rich and populous city, where St. Paul had preached a year and a half, and converted a great many. See Acts xviii. 10. Now having received a letter from them, (chap. vii. 1.) and being informed of divers disputes and divisions among them, (chap. i. ver. 11.) he wrote this letter to them, and sent it by the same persons, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who had brought him their letter, chap. xvi. 17. It was written about the year 56, not from Philippi, as it is commonly marked at the end of the Greek copies, but rather from Ephesus. The subject and main design of this Epistle was to take away the divisions among them about the talents and merits of those who had baptized and preached to them, and to settle divers matters of ecclesiastical discipline. The apostle justifieth his mission, and his manner of preaching, chap. i, ii, iii, and iv. He teacheth them what was to be done with the man guilty of a scandalous sin of incest, chap. v. He speaks of sins against chastity; of matrimony; and of the state of continency, chap. vi and vii. Of meats offered to idols, chap. viii. Of his manner of conversing with them, and what their conversation ought to be, chap. ix and x. Of the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, chap. xi. Of the different gifts of the Holy Ghost, and how to employ them, chap. xii, xiii, and xiv. Of the faith of the resurrection, chap. xv. Of charitable contributions, and of his design of coming again to them, chap. xvi. (Witham) --- St. Paul having planted the faith in Corinth, where he had preached a year and a half, and converted a great many, went to Ephesus. After being there three years, he wrote this first Epistle to the Corinthians, and sent it by the same persons, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who had brought their letter to him. It was written about twenty-four years after our Lord's ascension, and contains several matters appertaining to faith and morals, and also to ecclesiastical discipline. (Challoner)

====================

Gill: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 CORINTHIANS

This was not the first epistle that was written by the apostle to the Corinthians, for we read in this of his having written an epistle to them before, 1Co 5:9, but this is the first epistle of his unto them, that is now extant; and has been received by the churches, as of divine authority, being written by the inspiration of God, of which there has been no doubt in any age. The apostle himself was nearly two years at Corinth; where he preached with great success; and was the instrument of converting many persons, who by him were formed into a church state, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, as is clear from many passages in this epistle, and whom be left in good order, and in great peace and harmony; but quickly after his departure, false teachers got in among them, and bad principles were imbibed by many of them, and evil practices prevailed among them, and they fell into factions and parties, which occasioned the apostle to write this epistle to them, as well as their writing to him concerning certain things, they desired to have his judgment and opinion of, 1Co 7:1, It is thought to be written about the year of Christ 55, and in the first year of Nero, though some place it in the year 59. It was written not from Philippi, as the subscription added to it affirms, but from Ephesus, as appears from 1Co 16:8, and, it may be, after the uproar raised there by Demetrius, as should seem from a passage in 1Co 15:32. The matter of it is various. The apostle first rebukes them for their schisms and divisions; suggests that their regard to the wisdom of men, and the philosophy of the Gentiles, had brought the simplicity of the Gospel into contempt with them; blames them for their conduct in the case of the incestuous person, and urges them to put him away from them; reproves them for going to law with one another before Heathen magistrates, and warmly inveighs against fornication; and then answers several questions, and resolves several cases concerning marriage; treats of things offered to idols, and of the maintenance of ministers; and dissuades from idolatry, and all appearance of it; takes notice of the unbecoming conduct of the members of the church at the Lord's supper; and discourses concerning the nature and use of spiritual gifts, and commends charity above them; observes and corrects some irregularities in the use of their gifts; proves by various arguments the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which some of them denied; exhorts to a collection for the poor saints, and to several other things, and concludes the epistle with the salutations of others, and of himself.

Gill: 1 Corinthians 11 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 CORINTHIANS 11

In this chapter the apostle blames both men and women for their indecent appearance in public worship, and admonishes them how they should behave with the reasons of it; and also corrects some abuses and irregularities among them, at, or before, the Lord's supper; which leads him to give a particular account of that ordinance, of the nature, use, and design of it, and some directions about the performance of it, and attendance on it. He begins with an exhortation suitable to what he had said in the latter part of the preceding chapter, to follow him, as he followed Christ, 1Co 11:1 and praises them for their remembrance of him, and for the keeping the ordinances as they were delivered to them; that is, as many of them, and as far as they did so, 1Co 11:2. And in order to make way for what he had on his mind to reprove them for, and admonish them about, he observes, that as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of every man, so the man is the head of the woman, 1Co 11:3 wherefore for him to appear, and join in public worship, with his head covered, is to dishonour his head, 1Co 11:4 as, on the other hand, for a woman to have her head uncovered in divine service, is to dishonour her head, it being all one as if her head was shaved, 1Co 11:5 wherefore it is concluded, that if it is a shame for her to be shaved or shorn, she ought to be covered when attending the worship of God, 1Co 11:6. The reason why a man should be uncovered at such a time is, because he is the image and glory of God; and the reason why the woman should be covered is, because she is the glory of the man, is made for his glory, and to be in subjection to him, of which the covering is a token, 1Co 11:7 and that she is so, is argued from the order of the creation, man being not of the woman, but the woman of the man, 1Co 11:8 and from the end of the creation, man being not for the woman, but the woman for the man, 1Co 11:9. Another reason why the woman should be covered at the time of public worship is, because of the angels then present, 1Co 11:10 but lest on this account the woman should be treated with contempt by the man, the apostle observes, that they are not, and cannot be without one another; and that they are from each other in different senses, and both from the Lord, 1Co 11:11, and then proceeds to other arguments, showing that women should not appear uncovered in the house of God: one is taken from the uncomeliness of it, which must be so judged by everyone, 1Co 11:13 and another is taken from nature and custom, and the contrary in men, which is disagreeable and shameful; for, if, the dictates of nature, it is shameful in men to wear long hair, it must be comely and decent in women, and what is for their glory, to wear such hair, since it is their covering, 1Co 11:14. But if, after all the apostle had said on this subject, there should be any contentious persons disposed to wrangle about it, he observes, that they were not proper persons to be continued in the church, 1Co 11:16 and then proceeds to take notice of some ill conduct of many in the Corinthian church, at, or before, the eating of the Lord's supper; partly through schisms and factions, they meeting in parties for that purpose; which he had heard of, and had reason to believe, and could not praise them for; their coming together in such a manner, being for the worse, and not the better, 1Co 11:18 and the rather he gave credit to this report, since there were heresies among them, which issue in schisms and divisions, and which must be expected, that hereby Christ's faithful ones might be distinguished from others, 1Co 11:19 when he goes on to show how they abused the ordinance of the supper, not only by meeting together in parties, but by indulging their sensual appetites in eating and drinking, which was the principal end in coming together, and not the Lord's supper, 1Co 11:20 for they stayed not one for another, but one took his supper before the other, and so the one was full, and the other hungry, 1Co 11:21 the evil of which the apostle exposes by observing the indecency of such a conduct, when they had houses of their own to feast in; the contempt which they cast upon the church of God, and the shame they exposed the poor and hungry unto, all which was far from being praiseworthy, 1Co 11:22 upon which he gives a particular account of the Lord's supper, as he had it from Christ himself, the time when, the manner in which it was instituted and celebrated by him, the significance of its several parts, its use, and end, and the continuance of it until the second coming of Christ, 1Co 11:23 and then he proceeds to show the evil of an unworthy partaking of this ordinance, how that such are guilty of, and vilify and reproach the body and blood of Christ, 1Co 11:27 wherefore previous to a participation of it a man should examine himself as to his repentance towards God, and faith in Christ, 1Co 11:28 seeing such that are unworthy communicants bring condemnation on themselves, not having spiritual judgment to discern the Lord's body in the ordinance, 1Co 11:29 and so become liable to diseases and death itself, which was the case of several in the Corinthian church, 1Co 11:30 whereas, if persons would but examine and judge of themselves before hand, they would not be exposed to such judgments, 1Co 11:31 though the people of God, when they are afflicted, should look upon their afflictions, not as punishments, but as chastisements inflicted on them, for this end, that they might not be condemned with the world of the ungodly hereafter, 1Co 11:32. Wherefore the apostle's advice is, that when they came to the Lord's table they would not form themselves into factions and parties, and one part of them eat before, and separate from the rest, but that they would tarry till they all come together, and then join as one body and one bread, 1Co 11:33 and that if any man was an hungry, he should eat at home, and not have an ante-supper in the house of God, indulging his appetite there to his condemnation, and those that joined with him, 1Co 11:34 and the chapter is concluded with an intimation, that besides these irregularities, there were others in this church which the apostle signifies he would correct, when he should be in person with them.

College: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

Since the past few decades have seen an explosion in the number of books, articles, and commentaries on First Corinthians, a brief word to the readers might help them know what to expect or not to expect from this commentary. This commentary is intended for use by studious lay people, Bible teachers, and seminary students. Most scholars and specialists in the area of New Testament will probably find this commentary's treatment of 1 Corinthians and its problems too elementary. Because of the intended audience for this work and the constraints of length, the user should be aware of certain acknowledged limitations. There are at least four of these:

1. This commentary does not pretend to look at every problem, real or imaginary, which has caught the eye of previous scholarship.

2. The commentary does not attempt to cite continuously the interpretations of leading Christian thinkers as they have written on this Pauline letter.

3. Interpretations are given on individual passages without always citing the full evidence and without working through the attendant arguments, either for or against particular views.

4. Only a moderate number of footnotes have been used. In addition, the vast majority of the secondary literature cited will be English language and will, when possible, be in book form. The nonspecialist for whom this commentary is intended has little interest in or access to technical materials, journal literature, or foreign language materials.

Those who wish to study this letter of Paul in more detail should look to some of the more technical commentaries (e.g., Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians ).

I owe a special word of thanks to two individuals. My friend Gail Brady graciously typed the entire manuscript of this commentary for me. My friend and colleague Prof. Allen Black read the entire manuscript for me and saved me and my readers from more than one instance of an inappropriate choice of words as well as an occasional overstatement.

I dedicate this volume to my parents who shared with me over the years their own faith, hope, and love.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

The text of Scripture known as 1 Corinthians has provided a well from which believers have drunk for almost two millennia. This portion of Scripture has served the church as a resource for theology, for homiletical exposition, for pastoral issues, and more recently as a source for reconstructing social dimensions and dynamics of early Pauline Christianity. Whatever else one wants to say about 1 Corinthians, it cannot be doubted that it has had a significant impact on the Christian church.

Notwithstanding the necessity and value of this diversity of perspectives and interpretive methodologies which have come across the stage of Christian history, this present work is more narrowly focused in its approach. This work is primarily a historical-exegetical commentary, the goal of which is to understand and set forth the ideas, doctrines, and feelings Paul communicated in the letter of 1 Corinthians. The phrase "ideas, doctrines, and feelings" is not intended to describe an "intellectual history" of the great Apostle. Rather, Paul's ideas, doctrines, and feelings, as recorded in 1 Corinthians, are engendered and evoked by a series of practices and beliefs, diverse in themselves, coming from individuals and groups in the church of God at Corinth.

A decision to write a historical-exegetical commentary brings with it several assumptions and commitments.

1. This means in the first instance that the feelings, doctrines, and ideas of Paul must, as far as possible, be understood in the historical framework, both in which he wrote them and in which the first readers lived. A historical-exegetical approach has little in common with simplistic attempts to modernize Paul, to re-create him after the image of western Christianity. To be sure, every practicing believer knows firsthand the need to bring forward, with God's help and wisdom, the meaning of the ancient text into the modern world. How strange it appears, however, when those who wish to contextualize the Gospel in the modern setting have not invested the time and effort to first learn what it meant in its original context. Just as a good translation of Russian literature into French requires that one be familiar with both languages, so a good translation of the ideas of Paul's letter to the Corinthians into modern idiom requires a competent grasp of the original meaning of this letter as well as the modern world.

2. A commitment to a historical-exegetical methodology means that one must always recognize that Paul's letter to the Corinthians is an occasional document, arising in the first instance as direct responses to ad hoc issues and problems in the lives of believers living in a certain region of the Roman Empire, at a specific time, and under particular historical and cultural circumstances. Since the historical method infers that Paul's commands, arguments, and instructions were given in direct response to the issues raised by the lives and ideas of the Corinthians, one must openly acknowledge that 1 Corinthians may not address every issue that we, living two millennia later, hope it would. In fact, 1 Corinthians was not even adequate or appropriate for addressing the problem in all the Pauline churches. I am certain, for example, that the churches of Galatia would have been perplexed to receive 1 Corinthians as a solution to their specific problems. Indeed, even at Corinth it had to be supplemented by 2 Corinthians.

Not only does the historical method help restrain us from foisting our own agendas and ecclesiastical problems upon that small group of believers who lived at a particular time in Roman Achaia almost 2000 years ago, it also serves as a restraint for those who would twist the Scriptures and put forth their own ideology masquerading as exegesis. Time and again commentators have found a theology or doctrinal imprimatur in the text of 1 Corinthians which, even if generally true, has little in common with Paul's own intention and goals for this letter. Throughout the centuries preachers and theologians have strolled through the cafeteria of 1 Corinthians, appetite whetted, looking for some word, idea, or verse to place upon the plate from which they feed the church. At some point this kind of pragmatism in handling Scripture, which is driven by a variety of appetites, must be labeled as malpractice, and the student of Scripture needs to obey again the pastoral admonition to become "a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15).

Even though a historical-exegetical method is the underpinning of this commentary, it is in no way the final task for the church in the interpretation of 1 Corinthians. Rather, the historical-exegetical approach should be the first step, and a necessary one, which is followed by many other steps taken by believers who, through the course of their journey, translate the manifold and variegated message of 1 Corinthians for the contemporary and global church of Jesus Christ. The individual tools and methods used in this process of contextualization would hopefully come from the guidance of God as well as study in the traditional theological disciplines of homiletics, systematic theology, pastoral theology, ethnotheology, and the like.

THE LETTER OF 1 CORINTHIANS

DESTINATION

The letter of 1 Corinthians was sent by Paul and Sosthenes to the congregation of believers in the city of Corinth. This is in contrast to 2 Corinthians, which was written not only to believers in Corinth but also to believers in the province of Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital (2 Cor 1:1). The content of 1 Cor 5:9 "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people" makes it evident that the letter of 1 Corinthians is not Paul's first written communication with the church at Corinth since he here refers to a previous letter he had already sent them and which they apparently misunderstood (5:9-11).

DATE

Even though the Acts of the Apostles was not written for the purpose of providing a historical framework for the Pauline Corpus, there are instances where Acts and facts from ancient historical records do supplement the letters of Paul. One very important way in which Acts supplements the less specific material in the Pauline letters is in regard to chronology. Without the chronological framework of Acts, it would be much harder to know how to arrange in sequence materials from Paul's letters and to assign dates to them. It is our good fortune to be able to assign dates to about five episodes mentioned in Acts, and thereby, assign relative dates to parts of Paul's correspondence. One of these instances is the case of Acts 18 where Luke narrates the beginning of the Pauline mission in Corinth. At that point we have firm evidence for the date of the Christian mission based upon supplemental historical data. In particular, Acts indicates that Paul's work at Corinth took place while Gallio was the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12). This Roman official, who was the brother of the Roman philosopher Seneca, is known from ancient Roman literature as well as archaeological data. It is this latter realm of evidence which helps specify the time of his career when he was proconsul in Corinth. This would put Paul's work at Corinth and his appearance before Gallio in the early 50s. Acts 18:11 indicates that Paul worked in Corinth for 18 months; this means that Paul's correspondence in 1 Corinthians would have occurred in approximately A.D. 55. While some interpreters have attempted to get even more precise with the dating, it seems that A.D. 55 is as specific as the evidence can support.

PROVENANCE

Paul was actually not far from Corinth when he wrote 1 Corinthians. First Corinthians 16:8 points decisively to a site on the eastern side of the Aegean Sea, in Ephesus, on the western coast of the Roman province of Asia. Travel between large port cities such as Corinth and Ephesus was frequent and relatively easy in the Roman world. Consequently, it is no surprise to find Corinthians visiting Paul, and Paul and his co-workers making visits from Asia to Corinth.

ROMAN CORINTH

The Greek city of Corinth had suffered defeat at the hands of the expanding Roman Republic in 146 B.C. The archaeological evidence does not support, however, the idea that in the ensuing years all life and Greek influence vanished from this conquered and partially desolate site. While the Greek Corinth was clearly defeated, it was not totally deserted in the decades following 146 B.C. When Julius Caesar, shortly before his assassination in 44 B.C., reestablished the city as a Roman colony, it would have quickly become a city which was dominantly, but not exclusively, Roman. Consequently, any study of Paul's letter to the church of God at Corinth must take seriously the fact that Paul was addressing a city which had been, since 44 B.C., a Roman colony ( Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis ). Roman colonies were typically established as outposts for promoting Roman culture, religion, language, and political systems as well as providing lands for retired Roman soldiers. And even though Corinth was located geographically in Greece, there is no doubt that Roman mores and ideas impacted the local populace since, as Aulus Gellius noted (2nd cent. A.D.), Roman colonies "seemed to be miniatures, as it were, and in a way copies" of the Roman people. Therefore, Corinth possessed all the appropriate Roman laws, magistrates and officials.

Because of Corinth's mercantile character and important geographical location, it quickly attracted new residents from throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Consequently, by the time of Paul's arrival in Corinth, almost one century after its reestablishment as a city, the population would have included not only Romans, but also Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, Syrians, etc.

ORIGIN, STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF 1 CORINTHIANS

Even though there is not a consensus among interpreters regarding the exact nature and causes of the problems which Paul treats in 1 Corinthians, there is general agreement that the letter is organized around the cluster of problems which Paul is striving to remedy by his apostolic instruction. The letter is basically a series of smaller units of thought, each of which seems to be directed to a particular aberration in the beliefs and/or practices of the Corinthians. Paul's style in the letter is to acknowledge the existence of a sin or problem, address the sin or problem, and then move on to the next one.

Paul's information about these various problems at Corinth did not come from firsthand knowledge of his own nor through inspiration. The majority, if not all, of Paul's information about the various issues with which he dealt in the letter came most likely from two distinct human sources. The information and problems treated in 1 Cor 1-6 came from those from the house of Chloe. First Corinthians 1:11 states that "some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you," thereby identifying Paul's source of information for the problem he treats in 1 Cor 1-4. The wording of 1 Cor 5:1 "It is actually reported" points probably to additional information in 1 Cor 5-6 which was also supplied by those from Chloe's house. If this is not the case, then we have no idea who provided this report of immorality among the Corinthians.

A second major source for Paul's information is mentioned in 1 Cor 7:1 when he wrote, " Now for the matters you wrote about ." Paul is expressly acknowledging here that the list of issues and problems that he is going to respond to came from a document authored and sent by Corinthian believers to him. Numerous modern interpreters believe, rightly so in my opinion, that this Corinthian document informed Paul not only about the issue discussed in 1 Cor 7:1ff, but also the matters discussed at 8:1ff ( Now about food sacrificed to idols), 12:1ff ( Now about spiritual gifts), and 16:1ff ( Now about the collection for God's people).

At least two points can be drawn from this information. The first is that the Corinthians themselves should receive credit for the broad outline of what was discussed and treated in 1 Corinthians. In addition, one ought not overlook the fact that Paul's treatment of the Corinthians' problems is a treatment of the problems as communicated to him through an unnamed informant of one of the women members of the congregation and through a letter (authors unknown) sent to Paul which already had, regardless of its tone, an agenda for which Paul was not responsible. It is obvious, then, that even though no one seriously doubts the Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, it is important for the interpreter to appreciate the complex role of the Corinthians in their contribution to the content and structure of the epistle.

PROBLEMS AT CORINTH

The task of identifying and reconstructing the multiple problems within the church of God at Corinth on the basis of Paul's letter to them is not a simple one. Writing decades ago on this very problem Prof. Kirsopp Lake commented,

The difficulty which undoubtedly attends any attempt to understand the Epistles of St. Paul is largely due to the fact that they are letters; for the writer of letters assumes the knowledge of a whole series of facts, which are, as he is quite aware, equally familiar to his correspondent and to himself. But as time goes on this knowledge is gradually forgotten and what was originally quite plain becomes difficult and obscure; it has to be recovered from stray hints and from other documents by a process of laborious research, before it is possible for the letters to be read with anything approaching to the ease and intelligence possessed by those to whom they were originally sent.

There are some scholars who wish to interpret most, if not all, of the problems in 1 Corinthians as arising from one group of individuals at Corinth. The evidence of 1 Corinthians does not, in my judgment, support such a theory. There are, admittedly, aspects of this approach which are attractive. Common traits, to be sure, can be found among some of the problems. For example, Paul refers to the sin of boasting as an ingredient in more than one of the problems within the Corinthians fellowship. Likewise, the terms "division" ( , schisma ) (1 Cor 1:10; 11:18) and "dissension" (also schisma ) (1 Cor 12:25) are used by Paul in describing more than one problem situation among the letter's recipients. This common denominator of schisma does not require the conclusion that the problems of "party loyalty" in 1 Cor 1-4, abuse of the Lord's Meal in 11:17-22, and misunderstanding and misuse of spiritual gifts in 12-14 must all be traced back to a common theological aberration, to the same social stratum in the church, or to a particular house church in Corinth.

Since the goal in this commentary is to interpret 1 Corinthians as Paul's coherent letter, we must respect Paul's own categorization of the issues at Corinth if we want to understand the intent of his instruction and flow of thought as he responded and gave directions to the church of God at Corinth. If direct and explicit social links between the organizational subunits within 1 Corinthians can be isolated, so much the better for exegesis. However, to this point in time many of the rhetorical, sociological and anthropological reconstructions of the Christian community(ies) at Corinth resemble, at times, a Procrustean Bed rather than a picture put together on the basis of an exegetical-historical model.

Throughout the modern period of Pauline interpretation scholars have regularly commented on the issue of Paul's opponents at Corinth. In this interpretive context, the term opponent has become almost synonymous with those who promoted or participated in the spiritual aberrations opposed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. More recently, however, other scholars have rightly attempted to both refine and redefine the term opponent. From this ongoing discussion two points are relevant to this study of 1 Corinthians. First, one must not automatically equate the personalities, groups and aberrations behind 2 Corinthians with those behind 1 Corinthians. There is no compelling reason to believe that the two letters were written to address the exact same problems. In fact, the internal evidence leads away from such a position. (1) 1 Corinthians was written only to the church in Corinth, while 2 Corinthians was written not only to the church in Corinth but also to all believers in all the Roman province of Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital. (2) Most of the key terms and ideas of each letter are not found in the other. (3) The tenor and literary characteristics of each letter are distinctive.

The second observation from the contemporary discussion of Pauline opponents is the question of whether every spiritual aberration within a Pauline church should be interpreted as intentional and direct opposition to Paul himself. It is not a question of whether Paul ever had opponents (e.g., 2 Corinthians, Galatians), but whether the term opponent is the appropriate term for everyone who was guilty of spiritual perceptions and doctrines different than Paul's or whose lifestyle was not in harmony with Paul's ethical teachings. John Calvin touched on this point in his commentary on 1 Corinthians when he wrote, "Now, I have good reason for thinking that those worthless fellows, who had caused trouble in the Corinthian church, were not open enemies of the truth." Calvin's point is well taken and his caution in using the term opponent will be followed in this work. More explicit and extended discussions on the topic of opponents will be found at the appropriate junctures in the commentary itself.

OUTLINE OF 1 CORINTHIANS

The recognition of literary units in 1 Corinthians is part and parcel of the task of exegesis. The opening and closing of units of thought are not merely arbitrary literary embellishments nor are they just convenient ways to structure Paul's thought and feelings. These units put linguistic and semantic limits on the words and thoughts of Paul. The recognition of these demarcations in 1 Corinthians is mandated, since it helps ensure that the flow of Paul's rhetorical argument remains within the limits set by the Apostle himself. Moreover, a respect for the conceptual units and subunits of Paul's letter will greatly reduce the tendency to make his words mean more than he intended them to mean. This tendency to generalize Paul's thought and words beyond the immediate rhetorical setting comes at a high price, since it can only be maintained by denying the occasional nature of the Pauline correspondence as well as the universally recognized fact that meaning emerges from rhetorical and contextual usage.

Introduction etc. 1:1-9

Issue 1 Disunity and Community Fragmentation 1:10-4:20

Issue 2 Reports of Immorality 5:1-6:20

Issue 3 Sexuality/Celibacy/Marriage 7:1-40

Issue 4 Foods Offered to Idols 8:1-11:1

Issue 5 Liturgical Aberrations 11:2-34

Issue 6 Misunderstanding of Spiritual Gifts 12:1-14:40

Issue 7 Misunderstanding of Believers' Resurrection 15:1-58

Issue 8 Instruction for the Collection 16:1-11

Concluding topics 16:12-24

HISTORICAL MATRIX FOR THE CORINTHIAN PROBLEMS

Without going into the multifaceted issues about the historical evidence from Acts for Paul's churches and how this relates to the evidence for Paul and his churches from his own letters, it seems prudent to rely initially and primarily upon the evidence of 1 Corinthians itself rather than Luke's material in Acts to understand the nature and extent of the problems in the church at Corinth. To be specific, one must not falsely conclude, on the basis of the Lukan picture of a predominant Jewish matrix of the church in Corinth, that Jewish beliefs and practices provide the matrix for most of the aberrations within the Corinthian church. In this regard, Gordon Fee is correct when he points out that many of the problems at Corinth are explicitly traced by Paul to the converts' pagan heritage. It can be argued, furthermore, that even those issues not explicitly traced to pagan heritage by Paul can be best understood by seeing them against the backdrop of Greco-Roman rather than Jewish mores and values.

The issues depicted in 1 Corinthians arose directly from the lives of that first generation Christian community, most of whom had been believers no more than 48 months. Since Paul nowhere implies in 1 Corinthians that the Corinthian problems were introduced by outsiders, the most reasonable course to follow in evaluating the origin of the Corinthian issues is to investigate the urban setting of Roman Corinth from which the converts came. This means that the religious and cultural perspectives which shaped the beliefs and practices of those whom Paul addressed in this letter provide the best circumstantial evidence and clues for the interpretation of 1 Corinthians.

While the need to recognize the Greco-Roman matrix of the Corinthian problems might seem self-evident, the history of the interpretation of 1 Corinthians clearly reveals that not all interpreters have shared this methodological concern. In practice this approach to 1 Corinthians means that:

1. One must not attribute the Jewishness of Paul and the Scriptural basis of his own theology to those recent converts whom he was correcting. To extract texts and vocabulary from Jewish sources (e.g., Mishnah, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gospels, etc.) to understand the matrix of the Corinthians' problems is highly suspect. The fact that Paul often cites Scripture to remedy the problems at Corinth speaks more of his own Jewish heritage, his apostolic ministry, and his convictions that all Christians are to be guided by Scripture than it does that there was some significant Jewish background to the Corinthian problems.

2. The mores, patterns of culture and specific religious institutions of Greco-Roman paganism must be seen as the soil in which the Corinthian problems were germinated and grew.

3. The specific condition of the Corinth of Paul's day should be taken as the immediate setting for the converts. One must exercise caution in using information about an earlier Greek Corinth which had been destroyed in the second century B.C. and no longer existed in Paul's day in order to describe the Corinth of Paul's day.

4. One must recognize the multicultural nature of Corinth at Paul's time. It was geographically Greek, it was administratively and politically Roman, and its denizens came from throughout the central and eastern parts of the Mediterranean Basin. Consequently, one must reckon with ethnic influences in Paul's Corinth which reflect Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Syrian, Jewish, and Anatolian influences.

5. Vague and anachronistic labels such as gnosticism should be avoided until appropriate historical evidence and documentation can be discovered and shown to be relevant to the issues at Corinth addressed by Paul. A commitment to the notion of a gnostic background to 1 Corinthians still has advocates, though their numbers are surely down from that of the 19th and earlier part of the 20th century. Quite recently, for example, Pheme Perkins argued that

. . . gnostic mythologizing does form part of the horizon within which the New Testament should be interpreted. Students of Christian origins have become accustomed to comparing the New Testament material with a wide variety of Jewish and Greco-Roman sources. The same efforts of analysis and comparison should be applied to the gnostic material.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, L.C.A. "Chronology of Paul." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters . Ed. G.F. Hawthorne et al. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993, pp. 115-123.

Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment . Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.

________________ . Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Banks, R. "Church Order and Government." DPL , pp. 131-137.

Barnett, P.W. "Apostle." DPL, pp. 45-51.

________________ . "Opponents of Paul." DPL , pp. 644-653.

________________ . "Revolutionary Movements." DPL , pp. 812-819.

________________ . "Tentmaking." DPL , pp. 925-927.

Barrett, C.K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians . New York: Harper, 1968.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. "Baptism." DPL , pp. 60-66.

Beker, J.C. Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Phliadelphia: Fortress, 1980 .

Belleville, L.L. "Moses." DPL , pp. 620-21.

Black, M. "1 Cor. 11:2-16-A Re-investigation." Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity , Vol. 1. Ed. Carroll D. Osburn. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co., 1993, pp. 191-218.

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987 .

Blue, B.B. "Food Offered to Idols and Jewish Food Laws." DPL , pp. 306-310.

________________ . "Apollos." DPL , pp. 37-39.

Bruce, F.F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. London: Butler & Tanner Ltd., 1971.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament . 2 vols. Trans. by K. Grobel. New York: Charles Scribners, 1951, 1955.

Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. Trans. J.W. Fraser, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Cantarella, Eva. Pandora's Daughters. The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity . Trans. M.B. Fant; Foreword by M.R. Lefkowitz. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.

Carson, D.A. Showing the Spirit. A Theological Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14 . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Carson, D.A., Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Casson, Lionel. Travel in the Ancient World . Toronto: Hakkert, 1974.

Chamblin, J.K. "Freedom/Liberty." DPL , pp. 313-316.

Chrysostom, Dio. The Eighth Discourse, on Virtue , 9-10. Vol. 1. Trans. by J.W. Cohoon. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949.

Clarke, Andrew D. Secular & Christian Leadership in Corinth. A Socio-Historical & Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 , Vol. 18. Arbeiten zur Geshichte des Antiken Judentums & des Urchristentums. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993.

Comfort, P.W. "Idolatry." DPL , pp. 424-426.

Conzelmann, Hans. I Corinthians . Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Cottrell, Jack . Feminism and the Bible: An Introduction to Feminism for Christians. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co.,1992.

________________ . Gender Roles and the Bible: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co.,1994.

de Lacey, D.R. "Holy Days." DPL , pp. 402-404.

Donfried, Karl. "Chronology: New Testament." In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Ed. D.N. Freedman, et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992-1994, pp. 1011 & 1022.

Dover, K.J. "Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behaviour." In Women in the Ancient World. The Arethusa Papers . Ed. John Peradotto and J.P. Sullivan. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984.

Ellis, E.E. "Coworkers, Paul and His." DPL , pp. 183-189.

Engels, Donald. Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City . Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1990.

Everts, J.M. "Conversion and Call of Paul." DPL , pp. 156-160.

________________ . "Financial Support." DPL , pp. 295-300.

Fee, Gordon. First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987 .

________________ . God's Empowering Presence. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994 .

________________ . "Gifts of the Spirit." DPL , pp. 339-347.

________________ . New Testament Exegesis . Rev. ed. Louisville: Westminster Press, 1993.

Ferguson, E. Demonology of the Early Christian World . Lewiston, NY: E. Mellin Press, 1984.

________________ . Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 .

Fitzmyer, J. "A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor. xi.10." New Testament Studies 4 (1957-1958): 48-58.

________________ . "Another Look at KEFALH in 1 Cor. 11.3." NTS 35 (1989): 503-511.

________________ . Paul and His Theology. A Brief Sketch . 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1989.

Fuller, R.M. "Rewards." DPL , pp. 819-820.

Fung, R.Y.K. "Body of Christ." DPL , pp. 76-82.

________________ . "Cursing, Accursed, Anathema." DPL , pp. 199-200.

Furnish, Victor P. "Corinth in Paul's Time - What Can Archaeology Tell Us?" Biblical Archaeology Review 15 (1988): 16-17.

________________ . II Corinthians . Anchor Bible. Vol. 32A. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

________________ . "Theology in First Corinthians." In Pauline Theology . Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians. Ed. David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991 .

Gellius, Aulus. Noctes Atticae 16.13.9. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius . Vol. 3. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961.

Gill, D.W.J. "The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head-Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16." Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 245-260 .

Gillespie, Thomas W. The First Theologians. A Study in Early Christian Prophecy . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Green, J.B. "Death of Christ." DPL , pp. 201-209.

Green, Michael. I Believe in the Holy Spirit . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Guthrie, Donald and Ralph Martin. "God." DPL , pp. 354-369.

Gundry-Volf, Judith M. "Apostasy, Falling Away, Perseverance." DPL , pp. 42-43.

Haacker, Klaus. "Gallio." In ABD. Vol. 2, pp. 901-903.

Hafemann, S.J. "Corinthians, Letters to." DPL , pp. 164-179.

Hansen, G.W. "Rhetorical Criticism." DPL , pp. 822-826.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977 .

Hock, Ronald F. The Social Context of Paul's Ministry. Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

Hodge, Charles. An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Holladay, Carl. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians. Living Word Commentaries . Vol. 8. Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Company, 1979 .

Hooker, M.D. "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor. XI.10." New Testament Studies. Vol 10 (1963-1964): 410-416.

Horsley, G.H.R. "Invitation to the Kline of Sarapis." New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol.1, 1981, pp. 5-9.

Hurd, John C. The Origin of 1 Corinthians. New York: Seabury Press, 1965.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary. New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Kent, John H. Corinth . Vol. VIII, Pt. III. The Inscriptions 1926-1950. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1966.

Kim, S. "Jesus, Sayings of." DPL , pp. 474-492.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Klein, W.M., C.L. Blomberg, and R.L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation . Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Kraemer, Ross S. "Non-literary Evidence for Jewish Women in Rome and Egypt." In Rescuing Creusa. New Methodological Approaches to Women in Antiquity . Ed. M. Skinner. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press, 1987.

Kümmel, W.G. Introduction to the New Testament . Rev. ed. Trans. H.C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975.

Lake, Kirsopp. The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul: Their Motive and Origin , p. vii. Cited by John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians . New York: Seabury Press, 1965.

Luter, A. B., Jr. "Grace." DPL , pp. 372-374.

MacMullen, Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.

McKnight, S. "Collection for the Saints." DPL , pp. 143-147.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Malherbe, A.J. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook . Ed. W.A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.

Malick, D.E. "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27." Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (1993) 327-340.

________________ . "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9." Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (1993): 479-492.

Marshall, I.H. "Lord's Supper." DPL , pp. 569-575.

Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians . Word Biblical Commentary, 40. Waco: Word, 1986.

________________ . The Spirit and the Congregation . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Michaels, J.R. "Peter." DPL , pp. 701-703.

Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993 .

Mohrlang, R. "Love." DPL , pp. 575-578.

Morris, Leon. "Sacrifice Offering." DPL , pp. 856-858.

________________ . "Faith." DPL , pp. 285-291.

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. St. Paul's Corinth . Text and Archaeology . Good News Studies, 6. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1983.

Nepos, Cornelius. Great General of Foreign Nations. Preface 4. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Nock, Arthur Darby. "The Vocabulary of the New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 131-139.

Noll, S.F. "Qumran and Paul." DPL , pp. 777-783.

O'Brien, Peter T. "Church." DPL , pp. 123-131.

________________ . Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul . Supplements to Novum Testamentum 49. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (1977): 107-137.

________________ . "Letters, Letter Form." DPL , pp. 550-553.

Osburn, Carroll D., Ed. "The Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35." Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity . Vol. 1. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Oster, Richard E., Jr. "Christianity in Asia Minor." In ABD . Vol. 1. Ed. D.N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992, pp. 948-949.

________________ . "Use, Misuse and Neglect of Archaeological Evidence in Some Modern Works on 1 Corinthians." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1992): 58-67.

________________ . "When Men Wore Veils to Worship." New Testament Studies . Vol. 34. (1988): 481-505.

Osiek, Carolyn. "The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives." In Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship . Ed. Adela Y. Collins. Chino, CA: Scholars Press, 1985.

Perkins, Pheme. Gnosticism and the New Testament . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Plass, Ewald M., Ed. What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian . St. Louis: Concordia, 1991.

Plautus. Curculio 37-38. Trans. by P. Nixon. Loeb Classical Library, 5 vols. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Pliny the Elder. Natural History 28.2(3).10, 11. Translation taken from Jo-Ann Shelton, As the Romans Did: A Source Book in Roman Social History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Plutarch. Bravery of Women 249E. Cited by K.O. Wicker. Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978 .

Pomeroy, S.B. Women in Hellenistic Egypt from Alexander to Cleopatra . Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990.

Porter, Stanley. "Holiness, Sanctification." DPL, pp. 397-402.

Reasoner, M. "Citizenship, Roman and Heavenly." DPL , pp. 139-141.

Reese, D.G. "Demons, New Testament." ABD . Vol. 2., 140-142.

Ridderbbos, Herman N. Paul: An Outline of His Theology . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Robeck, C.M., Jr. "Tongues." DPL , pp. 939-943.

Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. The International Critical Commentary. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914.

Sampley, J. Paul. Walking Between the Times. Paul's Moral Reasoning. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Sanders, E. P. Judaism. Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE . Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

Schmithals, Walther. Gnosticism in Corinth; an investigation of the letters to the Corinthians . Trans. J.E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971.

Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

________________ . "Paul and the Eschatological Women." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press (1972): 283-303.

Silva, M. "Old Testament in Paul." DPL , pp. 630-642.

Smith, D. "The Egyptian Cults at Corinth." Harvard Theological Review 70. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press (1977): 201-231.

South, James T. "A Critique of the 'Curse/Death' Interpretation of I Corinthians 5.1-8." New Testament Studies. 39 (1993): 539-561.

Spittler, R.P. Testament of Job. In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha . Vol.1. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Ed. J.H. Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983.

Stein, R.H. "Jerusalem." DPL , pp. 463-474.

Stuart, Douglas. "Exegesis." ABD . Ed. D.N. Freeman, et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Sumney, Jerry. Identifying Paul's Opponents . Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 40. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990.

Theissen, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity . Trans. H. Schütz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Towner, P.H. "Household and Household Codes." DPL , pp. 417-419.

Trebilco, P. "Itineraries, Travel Plans, Journeys, Apostolic Parousia." DPL , pp. 446-456.

Vermes, G., Trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English . Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968.

Walters, James. Ethnic Issues in Paul's Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity . Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993.

West, Allen B. Corinth . Vol. VIII. Pt. II. Latin Inscriptions 1896-1926. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931.

Winter, Bruce. "Rhetoric." DPL , pp. 820-822.

Wiseman, James. "Corinth and Rome I:228 B.C.-A.D. 267." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt . Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (1979) II.7.1: 491-496.

Witherington, Ben III. Conflict and Community in Corinth. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Yamauchi, Edwin. Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD . . . Anchor Bible Dictionary

AUSS . . . Andrews University Seminary Studies

BA . . . Biblical Archaeology

BAGD . . . Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker

BAR . . . Biblical Archaeology Review

BiblThecSac . . . Bibliotheca Sacra

BJRL . . . Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BTr . . . Bible Translator

CMM . . . Introduction to the New Testament by Carson, Moo, L. Morris

ChrSt . . . Christian Standard

DPL . . . Dictionary of Paul and His Letters

ed. . . . edited by

EQ . . . Evangelical Quarterly

ExpT . . . Expository Times

HTR . . . Harvard Theological Review

JBL . . . Journal of Biblical Literature

JSNT . . . Journal of Studies in the New Testament

JETS . . . Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JTS . . . Journal of Theological Studies

n. . . . note

NovT . . . Novum Testamentum

NTS . . . New Testament Studies

RevEx . . . Review and Expositor

TB . . . Tyndale Bulletin

TDNT . . . Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TS . . . Theological Studies

trans . . . translated by

WThJ . . . Westminster Theological Journal

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: 1 Corinthians (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - 1:1-9

A. Salutation - 1:1-3

B. Thanksgiving - 1:4-9

II. DISUNITY AND COMMUNITY FRAGMENTATION - 1:10-4:21

A. Divisions in the Church - 1:10-17

1. Report Received by Paul - 1:10-12

2. Christ Undivided - 1:13-17

B. Christ the Wisdom and Power of God - 1:18-2:5

1. The Message of the Cross - 1:18-19

2. Both Jews and Gentiles Offended - 1:20-25

3. God's Choice of Foolish Things - 1:26-31

4. Paul's Message Not Based on Eloquence - 2:1-5

C. Wisdom and Spiritual Maturity - 2:6-3:4

1. God's Secret Wisdom - 2:6-9

2. The Teaching of the Spirit - 2:10-16

3. Divisions a Sign of Worldliness - 3:1-4

D. God the Master Builder - 3:5-23

1. Paul and Apollos Merely Servants - 3:5-9

2. Building on the Foundation Laid by Paul - 3:10-17

3. God's View of Wisdom - 3:18-23

E. Apostles of Christ - 4:1-21

1. The Apostles as Servants of Christ - 4:1-5

2. Overcoming Human Pride - 4:6-7

3. Honor and Dishonor - 4:8-13

4. Paul's Warning as Father - 4:14-17

5. Arrogance to Be Confronted - 4:18-21

III. REPORTS OF IMMORALITY - 5:1-6:20

A. Discipline for the Immoral Brother - 5:1-13

1. The Corinthians' Pride in Tolerance - 5:1-5

2. Getting Rid of the Old Yeast - 5:6-8

3. Separating From Evil - 5:9-13

B. Lawsuits among Believers - 6:1-11

1. Settling Disputes in the Church - 6:1-8

2. The Inheritance of the Wicked - 6:9-11

C. Sexual Immorality - 6:12-20

1. The Body As a Member of Christ- 6:12-17

2. The Body As the Temple of the Holy Spirit - 6:18-20

IV. SEXUALITY, CELIBACY, AND MARRIAGE - 7:1-40

A. Godly Use of Sexuality - 7:1-7

B. Celibacy vs. Marriage - 7:8-11

C. Divorce and Separation - 7:12-16

D. Remaining as You Were Called - 7:17-28

E. Freedom from Concern - 7:29-40

V. DEALING WITH IDOLATRY - 8:1-11:1

A. Food Sacrificed to Idols - 8:1-13

1. The General Principle - 8:1-3

2. The Nonreality of Idols - 8:4-6

3. The Weak Brother's Dilemma - 8:7-8

4. The Proper Use of Freedom - 8:9-13

B. The Rights of an Apostle - 9:1-27

1. Paul's Rights as Apostle - 9:1-6

2. General Principle Stated - 9:7-14

3. Paul's Deferment of Rights - 9:15-18

4. To the Jew as a Jew - 9:19-23

5. Looking Forward to the Prize - 9:24-27

C. Warnings From Israel's History - 10:1-13

1. Wandering in the Desert - 10:1-5

2. Punishment for Sins - 10:6-10

3. Examples for Us - 10:11-13

D. Idol Feasts and the Lord's Supper - 10:14-22

1. The Lord's Supper a Participation - 10:14-17

2. The Lord's Table and the Table of Demons - 10:18-22

3. The Christian's Freedom - 10:23-11:1

VI. LITURGICAL ABERRATIONS - 11:2-34

A. Propriety in Worship - 11:2-16

1. Head Coverings in Worship - 11:2-10

2. Hair in the Nature of Things - 11:11-16

B. The Lord's Supper - 11:17-34

1. The Corinthians' Practice - 11:17-22

2. The Lord's Supper As Instituted - 11:23-26

3. Self-examination to Avoid Judgment - 11:27-34

VII. MISUNDERSTANDING OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS - 12:1-14:40

A. Spiritual Gifts - 12:1-11

1. Influence of the Spirit - 12:1-3

2. Different Gifts for a Common Good - 12:4-11

B. One Body, Many Parts - 12:12-31a

1. One Body in Christ - 12:12-13

2. Body Members Not Independent - 12:14-20

3. Special Honor for Weaker Parts - 12:21-26

4. Application to the Body of Christ - 12:27-31a

C. Love - 12:31b-13:13

1. Gifts Without Love Pointless - 12:31b-13:3

2. The Virtues of Love - 13:4-7

3. The Permanence of Love - 13:8-13

D. Gifts of Prophecy and Tongues - 14:1-25

1. Tongues and Prophecy Compared - 14:1-5

2. Tongues and Clarity - 14:6-12

3. The Spirit and the Mind - 14:13-19

4. Maturity and Spiritual Gifts - 14:20-25

E. Orderly Worship - 14:26-40

1. Control of Tongues and Prophecy - 14:26-33

2. Submission of Women - 14:34-35

3. Everything Fitting and Orderly - 14:36-40

VIII. MISUNDERSTANDING OF BELIEVERS' RESURRECTION - 15:1-58

A. The Gospel Paul Preached - 15:1-11

1. Relation of the Corinthians to the Gospel - 15:1-2

2. Basic Issues of the Gospel - 15:3-4

3. Appearances and Apostleship - 15:5-11

B. Christ's Resurrection and the Resurrection

of the Dead - 15:12-34

1. Consequences of Denying the Resurrection - 15:12-19

2. The Fact of Christ's Resurrection - 15:20-28

3. Baptism, Suffering, and the Resurrection - 15:29-34

C. Answers to Some Problems about the

Resurrection - 15: 35-58

1. A Twofold Question - 15:35-41

2. An Explanation of the Resurrection of the Dead - 15:42-50

3. The Secret Revealed - 15:51-58

IX. INSTRUCTION FOR THE COLLECTION - 16:1-11

A. The Collection for God's People - 16:1-4

B. Paul's Travel Plans - 16:5-9

C. Assisting Timothy - 16:10-11

X. CONCLUSION - 16:12-24

A. Personal Requests - 16:12-18

B. Final Greetings - 16:19-24

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV