1 Corinthians 11

Chap. XI. Ver. 1—34. St. Paul corrects sundry irregularities and indecencies, into which he hears that the Corinthians had fallen.—The first relates to the manner in which the different sexes had exercised their prophetic gifts, for it is most certain that the extraordinary gifts bestowed on the day of Pentecost were not confined to the male sex, for we read of prophetesses as well as prophets, ((Acts 2:17-18); xxi. 9, &c.,) and the apostle does not censure the exercise of these gifts, but only some indecorous circumstances in the dress and manner of the prophetesses. To understand St. Paul’s reproofs, it is necessary to recur to the use of veils both among the Jews and Greeks.

These were evidently worn by the women as a token of modesty and subjection, and to show that they were under the power of their husbands. On the other hand, men, for the contrary reason, prayed, preached, or prophesied, with their heads uncovered, to show that they were under no such subjection; and the ground of this distinction is founded in nature and in general custom: for a woman veiled was under coverture, that is, under the protection of her husband, or (if single) of her father. But this practice in men was effeminate, and at the same time dishonoured God, whom they represented; while the women, by an opposite conduct, dishonoured the men. These improper customs, it should seem, had been introduced by some of the false teachers who had opposed Paul, and had endeavoured probably to bring into contempt the regulations he had estab[lished] and their inconsistency with the practice of all the Christian [churches]. What the apostle says of divisions (or schisms) among them is repetition, (see (1 Corinthians 1:10), &c.:) and into the nature of heresies we shall have a farther occasion to inquire. See (Galatians 5:20). A more serious abuse than any of the preceding, appears to have taken place relative to the Lord’s Supper, which they seem, in some degree, to have assimilated to the feasts in the idol-temples, mingling with the sacred elements the provisions for their own suppers, forming convivial parties in the church; and while the poor were unprovided for, the rich indulge themselves to great excess. Shocked at the idea, the apostle expresses himself with more than his usual severity. “What! (says he) have ye not houses to eat and drink in,” that ye come to the Lord’s table to take your meals; and instead of being united as the disciples of Christ should be, ye fall into little parties with your favourite leaders, and such of [persons] as have provisions eat and drink even to excess; while the poor, who are guests equally welcome at the Lord’s table with the rich, are neglected and despised.

“This is not [the way] to eat the Lord’s Supper:” and then he proceeds to repeat what he had before delivered to them; namely, “That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread”—that is, took one of the unleavened cakes that had been provided for the Passover, and brake and distributed it to his [disciples] as we find related by the Evangelists. ((Matthew 26:26-28). (Luke 22:19-20).) Now in this way of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, believers show (or exhibit) the emblems of his sufferings and death in a most striking manner, as thus represented by an eminent divine of the present day:—breaking of the bread represents the sufferings of his body; the pouring out of the wine, the shedding of his blood.

And while we contemplate these, shall not penitential sorrow rend our hearts? Shall not we pour out our hearts before him, in the language of devotional feeling?…. In eating of this bread, and drinking of this cup, we profess our interest in the blessings of Christ’s death,”—show our affectionate remembrance of his love and kindness, and our inviolable attachment to the doctrine of the cross. But this is not a feast to be partaken of with levity or indifference: “Let a man examine himself” with what temper and disposition he is prepared to receive it, and if he discerns therein the emblems of our Lord’s death, and feels a proper sense of his obligations to his love—“So let him eat.” But “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,”

that is, as Dr. Doddridge explains it, “in an irreverent, profane, and unworthy manner,” is guilty of [profaning] the body and blood of Christ, and thereby eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself. For this cause many are weak and sickly, and many sleep in religious indifference, if not in death.

Notes on the verses

Ver. 24. Another’s wealth.—Doddridge, “Welfare;” the old English term “weal” seems more exact and appropriate in this place. Ver. 25. In the shambles.—Doddridge remarks, that the Grecian priests having often more animal sacrifices than could be eaten, took this method to dispose of the surplus. Ver. 31. Whether therefore, &c.—[The apostle concludes the subject by giving them a general rule, sufficient to regulate every man’s conscience and practice,—that whether they eat or drink, or whatsoever they do, to do it all with an habitual aim to the glory of God; by considering his precepts, and the propriety, expediency, appearance, and tendency of their actions.]—Bagster. Ver. 33. As I please all men.—See (1 Corinthians 9:19-22). Chap. XI. Ver. 1. Be ye followers of me.—[This verse should not have been separated from the preceding chapter, with which it is intimately connected, and to which it forms an appropriate conclusion.]—Bagster. So Doddridge, Macknight, Boothroyd, and Townsend. Ver. 2. Keep the ordinances.—Doddridge, “charges; which word here means the doctrines of Christ and his apostles, whether delivered by preaching, or in writing; but doctrines or precepts delivered from hand to hand, for a succession of ages, before they were committed to writing, as were those of the Pharisees and the Papists, can command neither obedience nor respect. Ver. 4. Every man… having his head covered.—Macknight, “Having a veil upon his head.”

This seems to be the sense of the passage, though not literally so expressed. It is probable that the Pharisees had introduced the custom of men’s wearing veils, in imitation of the heathen; it had a tendency, however, to confound the distinct character of the sexes, and is therefore here. Ver. 5. Woman with head uncovered.—(In the East, if a woman appear in public unveiled, she is immediately supposed to be deficient in modesty; and consequently she would dishonour her head, her husband, not only by apparently throwing off the sign of her subjection, but by appearing like those women who had their hair shorn off, or shaven, as the punishment of adultery; a custom which Tacitus informs us prevailed among the Germans.)—Bagster. Ver.

6. Shorn or shaven.—The first word, as distinguished from the second, means to have the hair cut close, or cropped. Macknight says, the Jews and ancient Germans used to punish adulteresses by shaving their heads. Ver. 10. Power on her head—Meaning a veil, as intimating her being under coverture, or subject to the power of her husband. Because of the angels.—This is very perplexing. 1. Some say, human angels; i.e. the angels of the churches, ((Revelation 1:20).) But if the thing were itself indecent, it must surely be as indecorous before laymen as before the clergy. 2. Others say, evil angels, demons, who are no doubt often present in our churches; but there seems no reverence due to them, nor reason in the precept so understood.

7. Hammond, Doddridge, &c. interpret it of holy angels, who certainly attend our assemblies, and demand respect. See (Hebrews 1:14, 1) Peter i. 12. Ver. 14. If a man have long hair.—In the East, the men wear their hair very short, and the women very long. Long hair in the men is a mark of effeminacy.—It is a shame.—[Because a proof of effeminacy and folly; and because it was considered as a mark of inferiority. It may also be remarked that there were a set of wretched despicable beings, both at Rome and Corinth, called Pathics, who are said to have imitated the dress and manners of women.]—Bagster. re Ver. 15. A glory—[Or, an honour or credit to her; as indicating that she had done nothing to deprive her of it; and also showing that she did not object to wear it as a natural veil, and as an emblem of subjection.]—Bagster. Ver. 16. But if, &c.—[But if any person puts himself forward as a defender of the Jews or the churches of Christ.]—Bagster. of these potter let him know that we have no such custom either among