1 Corinthians 11

Woman proves her equality with man, not by rebelling against her subordinate position in the social order, but by cheerfully accepting it as God’s ordinance for her, and by discharging its duties with an ability equal or superior to that shown by her husband in his different sphere. The Corinthian women, or some of them, did not see that. They thought to assert the equality of the sexes by thrusting themselves into the habits and duties of the masculine sex to the neglect of their own, by praying and prophesying in church instead of ruling their households. As a sign of their enfranchisement from the degrading bonds of heathenism, as a proof that they were the equals of men, they appeared in public unveiled, and so violated the decorum of their sex as then understood; in short, they became bad as women that they might prove themselves as good as men. The honor of the Christian community was at stake. Only women convicted of adultery had their hair shorn; only women of notoriously abandoned life dispensed with a veil. The Greek women, the honorable women, invariably put on a veil, or drew their peplum or shawl over head and face when they left their homes. The heathen were quick to misconceive any departure from custom, any innovation on rule on the part of the Church. And had the Christian women gone unveiled, when the absence of the veil was the open stamp of harlotry, we can easily conceive what their neighbors would have thought of them, what a fatal obstacle would have been thrown in the path of the infant Church. It was no mere question of maxims and rules, therefore, with which Paul had to deal; it was a question of principle—of principles vital and profound. And hence it is that he argues so gravely and weightily on what might seem a matter of small moment. Hence he appeals to nature, to Scripture, to Christian doctrine, for arguments on points which seem so trivial as whether a man should or should not have his hair cut, whether a woman should or should not wear a veil. Take the simplest of his arguments—his appeal to nature. Man is by nature unveiled, has short hair; woman is veiled with her long hair. The divine intention is thus revealed. In handling and attiring the body we are to take the suggestions of nature as ordinances of God; we are to carry out the divine intentions indicated by our physical structure: man is to go unveiled; woman is to use or to imitate the natural veil which God has given her. The Greeks and Romans did thus interpret and obey the voice of nature. And therefore the apostle might well appeal to what “nature taught.” His Scriptural appeal is to the verses in Genesis which describe the creation of man and woman, and the relation in which they were appointed to stand (vs. 7-9). Man, said Moses, was made “in the image of God”; therefore, adds Paul, man is a “glory” of God. Hence he ought not to veil the head which bears an impress so divine, the face which reflects so excellent a glory. But “the woman is the glory of the man”; she was taken out of his side—not from the rude clay, but from clay already attempered by human life and heat; not from any remote or uncomely member of man’s body, but from his very heart, from the very seat of life. Therefore she is his “glory”; she represents what is finest in him and most exquisite, what is highest and best. Nevertheless, the apostle insists (v. 8) she was taken from man, not man from woman; she was (v. 9) created for man, not he for her. And this derived origin indicates her dependent condition. Although she is his glory, because she is his glory she is to defer and minister to him from whom she sprang, just as the highest spirits are those who serve most and best. Cox.

5. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though professing miraculous gifts; he simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion upon it, reserving the censure of it till chapter 14 : 34, 35. Fausset.

10. To the Hebrews, unshorn hair was the sign of strength or power. And the unshorn hair of the woman is “the power,” or the symbol of the power, which her service requires. This I take to be the apostle’s thought. And does not nature itself confirm his thought? Is not a woman’s hair a strength to her as well as a glory? Cox.—“Power” would be more intelligently expressed “the token of power,” i. e., the covering, implying that she is under subjection, and thus preserving comeliness in the sight of the holy angels who are present in the Christian assemblies. A.

16. “But if any one thinks to be contentious in defense of such a custom, let him know that it is disallowed by me, and by all the churches of God.” C.—In closing his argument, besides asserting his own decision, he appeals to the universal custom prevalent among the churches; confirming all by apostolic authority and established order. B.

17. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the 18 better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear 19 that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies 20 among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye 21 come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 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. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord 24 Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do 25 in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in 26 remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the 27 Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup 28 of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man 29 examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning 30 the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are 32 chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my 33 brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, 34 let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.—

THE sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, when the Church is kept pure by a faithful preaching of Christ crucified—the full and uncorrupt gospel—and when her ministrations are blessed with the influences of the overshadowing and life-giving Spirit, is an ordinance in which the Christian comes into closest communion with his Saviour, and feels his love for him kindling into its intensest glow; in which, too, he comes into holiest communion with his fellow-Christians of all ages and nations, and feels himself most inseparably knit to them in “the communion of saints,” in the union of the great mystical body of Christ; and in which he realizes a peculiar strengthening and refreshing of his soul in all her divine and heavenly graces of faith and courage, humility and purity, deadness to the world, and desires after heaven. Through the divinely ordained symbol of the sacrifice on the cross, faith feeds on all the benefits of Christ’s passion, enters into the depths of that union which subsists between each member of the body and its head, and draws a happy immortality from the Fountain of Life. J. S. S.

The Lord’s Supper is a scene of solemn and affecting remembrance, and a source of most impressive thought and feeling. It is the place of renewed vows, renewed mercies, renewed and renewing grace, compassion and forgiving love on Christ’s part, and renewed penitence and faith on ours. It is a landing-place of rest, refreshment, survey, and setting forth again upon the Christian journey. It is an ordinance for gratitude and love enkindled and increased, and strength administered, as well as sins deplored. It is a mount of vision, where the glass is held to the eye of faith, and we may take a view of our fair and bright inheritance in heaven. G. B. C.

18. Divisions.** Whatever alienates the affections of Christians from one another constitutes schism in the sense of the apostle; for this strikes directly at the vitals of Christianity, since it is in the union of affection among Christians that the spirit, the life, and the power of religion are principally placed. Schism, then, is the sin of doing anything to alienate men’s hearts from each other, whatever be the occasion or the means of the estrangement. And a sin it is of a magnitude and enormity which few can estimate. It is the very opposite of charity; and in saying this we arraign it upon the most solemn and the most capital charge which any indictment can prefer. J. A. J.—During the present disjointed state of things nothing remains but for every one to whom the care of any part of the Church of Christ is intrusted to exert himself to the utmost in the promotion of vital religion, in cementing the friendship of the good, and repressing, with a firm and steady hand, the heats and eruptions of party spirit. Were our efforts uniformly to take this direction, there would be an identity in the imimpression made by religious instruction; the distortion of party features would gradually disappear, and Christians would everywhere approach toward that ideal beauty spoken of by painters, which is combined of the finest lines and traits conspicuous in individual forms. Since they have all drunk into the same spirit, it is manifest nothing is wanting but a larger portion of that spirit, to lay the foundation of a solid, cordial union. It is to the immoderate attachment to secular interest, the love of power, and the want of reverence for truth, not to the obscurities of revelation, we must impute the unhappy contentions among Christians—maladies which nothing can correct but deep and genuine piety. The true schismatic is not so properly the person who declines a compliance with what he judges to be wrong, though he may be mistaken in that judgment, as the man who, like the author before us, sedulously employs every artifice to alienate the affections of good men from each other. R. Hall.

19. Heresies.** The term heresy signifies primarily choice, then party, sect. It is commonly used in the bad sense, implying willfulness on the side of the individual, a spirit of arrogant innovation and party zeal. In the New Testament the term frequently occurs, and in various connections, but almost always involving some bad sense. It is used of the religious parties among the Jews, as the Sadducees (Acts 5 : 17), the Pharisees (15 : 5 ; 26 : 5) ; of the Christians in general, who were for a long time called by the Jews in contempt “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24 : 5, 14 ; 28 : 22) ; and of parties within the Christian Church (1 Cor. 11 : 19 ; Gal. 5 : 20). P. S.

20. The Lord’s Supper was evidently to be a solemn commemoration and recognition of the redemption and deliverance of mankind by the death of Christ, as the Feast of the Passover was of the deliverance of the Israelites from the destroying angel. Nor is this all ; for as the Jews were accustomed in their peace-offerings to eat a part of the victim, and thus partook of the sacrifice, so they would perceive that in this new institution the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine was a mark and symbol of their participating in the effects of this new peace-offering, the death of Christ, whose body was broken and whose blood was shed for them on the cross. They would also see that this supper of our Lord was from that time to be substituted in the room of the Passover. P.

The Lord’s Supper is called a sacrament, that is, a sign and an oath. An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace ; an oath by which we bind our souls with a bond unto the Lord. It is called the Lord’s Supper, because it was first instituted in the evening, and at the close of the Passover Supper, and because we therein feed upon Christ, the Bread of Life. It is called the Communion, as herein we commune with Christ and with his people. It is called the Eucharist, a thanksgiving, because Christ, in the institution of it, gave thanks, and because we, in the participation of it, must give thanks likewise. It is called a feast, and by some a feast upon sacrifice (though not a sacrifice itself), in allusion to the custom of the Jews feasting upon their sacrifices. Buck.

21,22. The Church of Corinth had introduced what was called a love-feast, in which the churches met together, previous to the reception of the Lord’s Supper, to partake of a common meal, rich and poor bringing their own provisions. Beautiful as the idea was, it was liable to great abuse. In order to rectify the abuses which had grown out of these love-feasts, the apostle recalls to their remembrance the reasons for the original institution of the Lord’s Supper, and from them deduces the guilt and responsibility of their desecration of that ordinance. He says that it was meant as a memorial of the Redeemer’s sacrifice. F. W. R.

23-26. Three of the writers of the Gospels record the facts of its first institution, and of its being enjoined on the disciples as a memorial of Christ, and as a sacred symbol of his atoning sacrifice. Paul here records the special revelation to him of the same facts. These records show that its Institutor, and his first ministers, considered it an ordinance in which true Christians only are to commune happily together in love, and profitably together by faith, upon the consecrated symbols of their Saviour’s body and blood ; that, having previously, by “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” become participants in the pardon of sin, and in the hope of eternal life, as revealed in the gospel, such Christians come together at the Lord’s Supper to express their love for Christ and their faith in him ; and, in the exercise of these graces, to be refreshed and strengthened in the new life mightily, feeding in spirit on “the true bread which came down from heaven.” J. S. S.

Looking at this ordinance we may distinguish four leading ideas : The memorial idea. “Do this in remembrance of me.” The love which brought salvation, and the way by which salvation came, are to be kept fresh in our minds by the periodic observance of the ordinance which commemorates Christ’s death. The symbolical idea. As baptism teaches by symbol the doctrine of depravity and the necessity of regeneration, so the impressive ordinance of the supper speaks to us of guilt and of the atonement. The social idea. It is the “Lord’s table” which is spread, the “Lord’s Supper” of which we partake. It is a communion of Christians with their Lord and with one another. The sacramental idea. This ordinance, besides being a memorial service and symbolical of precious truth, is really a means of grace to those who receive it in faith ; in a real though not in a bodily sense Christ is present, and in a spiritual though not in a corporeal manner believers do feed upon him to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. F. L. P.

Christ is really present to his people in this sacrament, not bodily, but in spirit ; not in the sense of local nearness, but of efficacious operation. They receive him not with the mouth, but by faith ; they receive his flesh and blood, not as flesh, not as material particles, not as human life, not the supernatural influence of his glorified body in heaven, but his body as broken and his blood as shed. The union thus signified and effected is not a corporeal union, not a mixture of substances, but a spiritual and mystical union due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The efficacy of this sacrament as a means of grace is not in the sign, nor in the service, nor in the minister, nor in the word, but in the attending influence of the Holy Ghost. C. H.—The holy Communion was meant to be an abiding sign of Christ’s love to us, that as we received into our bodies the bread and wine, which are the signs of his body and blood, so he would enter into our spirits by his Spirit, and so become partaker in us, that we might become partakers in him. T. A.—We come to Christ for life, and to the holy Communion with life. We come to Christ for forgiveness, and to the holy Communion with forgiveness, if we come to it aright, for the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine. Food and strength are for the living and not for the dead. A dead thing can not get strength and refreshment. It must first have life. The sinner, by grace, gets life in Christ and from Christ, and has Christ for his life; and in the blessed sacrament obtains by the same grace, from Christ, and not from the sacrament, strength and refreshment for the soul. The God of all grace works in the hearts of his believing people, in this and all his other ordinances, richly, to their souls’ good. Gregg.

We feel what a tie there is to bind each of us to his brother when we come to the table of our common Lord. So far, the Lord’s Supper is but a type of what every Christian meeting should be. Never should any of us be gathered together on any occasion of common life, in our families or with our neighbors, we should sit down to no meal, we should meet in no company, without having Christ also in the midst of us, without remembering what we all are to him, and what we each therefore are to our brethren. T. A.

These hands which take the body and blood of Christ, how holy they ought to be. They shall not withhold anything from Christ which he requires of us, nor be shut against the needy; they shall work no ill to a neighbor, keep back no just due; they shall be diligent in business, as the hands of Christ must have been when he worked at his trade and dignified our labor; they shall strike no passionate blow; they shall use severity at proper times, sustained by divine authority; they shall shed kindness and blessings on others; they shall write no letters which the eye of Christ might not be permitted to read; they shall receive no gains on which we can not ask his blessing. N. A.

26. Till he come.** The rite was not a memorial of death simply, but of death conquered by life. The seal of the efficacy of the death of Christ was given in the resurrection, and the limit of the commemoration of his passion was looked for in his return. B. F. W.—The memorial of the cross is also the promise of the glory; and they who at the Lord’s table on earth love to show forth their Lord’s death till he come, are surely more likely than others to be looking forward to the glorious moment when they will be called to sit down to the marriage supper of the Lamb. A. W. T.

Notice here the many words which are connected with “the Lord” by the apostle: The Lord’s body, verse 29; the Lord’s blood, verse 27; the Lord’s bread, verse 27; the Lord’s cup, verse 27; the Lord’s death, verse 26; the Lord’s supper, verse 20. For in this ordinance Christ is all and in all; everything here speaks of Jesus, and he speaks in everything; he is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Bonar.

Christ instituted two outward rites. There could not have been fewer, and they could not have been simpler; and look at the portentous outgrowth of superstition, and the unnumbered evils, religious, moral, social, and even political, which have come from the invincible tendency of human nature to corrupt forms, even when the forms are the sweet and simple ones of Christ’s own appointment. What a lesson the history of the Lord’s Supper, and its gradual change from the domestic memorial of the dying love of our Lord to the “tremendous sacrifice,” reads us as to the dangerous ally which spiritual religion—and there is no other religion than spiritual—enlists when it seeks the help of external rites! A. M.

27-30. The occasion on which he spake is well known. The grossly “carnal” Corinthians had fallen into the practice of making the Lord’s Supper a common meal, or, something worse, an occasion of excessive sensual indulgence. They paid no attention to it as a divinely ordained commemoration of the death and passion of the Lord Jesus Christ. They “distinguished” not between this and an ordinary feast: they ate, drank, and were drunken. They “discerned not the Lord’s body,” in that they treated the consecrated bread and wine, which were its symbols, as though they were a profane feast. They had lost sight of the true character and design of the sacrament, and had gone to such “excess of rioting,” that, as a special judgment, some of them were seized with “weakness and sickness,” and many of them were fallen “asleep,” either in literal death or in awful spiritual insensibility. They were “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” by heaping contempt on that sacred ordinance in which they were represented. Contempt of the symbol is contempt of the thing symbolized. Contempt of the representative is contempt of the being represented. Thus the body of Christ was dishonored by the abuse heaped on its memorial. Thus “the King of Saints” himself was insulted by the slight cast on his divinely appointed representative. This, plainly, is the whole of the apostle’s meaning. J. S. S.

In verse 29, “damnation” should be “judgment”; and in verse 34, “condemnation” should be written “judgment.” In verse 31, “if we would judge ourselves” should be “if we duly discerned ourselves.” The verb is the same as in “discern

not” in verse 29, and should have been carefully kept identical. A.