1 Corinthians 11

2 the ordinances (traditions). The apostolic injunctions.

3 the head of the woman is the man. It seems that some women in the Corinthian church claimed equality with the men (ep. Gal. iii. 28); and hence neglected the rules of propriety prevailing among the Greeks and Orientals, by appearing without their veils. “In ch. xiv. 34 silence is imposed on women, but there in the full congregation; here in less formal meetings for devotion, e.g., in a church held in a house, xvi. 19, they are allowed to pray aloud and to utter inspirational discourses: no contradiction between the two texts” (Speaker’s Commentary).

the head of Christ is God. Christ is subordinate to the Father both as man and as Mediator: see John xiv. 28; Phil. ii. 7. Subordination pervades the whole universe, and especially the Christian system; and it is the glory of each part to keep the place assigned to it.

4 prophesying. See note on Rom. xii. 6.

dishonourth his head. Among the Greeks (but not the Jews) a man was required to uncover his head in worship; but a woman (5) was required, among both Greeks and Asiatics, to cover hers both in worship and in public. Hence Paul calls it a dishonouring (i.e., an unseemly treatment) of the head, when either man or woman departed from the custom.

5 uncovered. “Unveiled.”

shaven. A shaven head was a mark of infamy, or of mourning, both in Greece and in Judæa.

7 a man indeed ought not to cover his head. As covering the head was a sign of subjection, the woman, and not the man, should practise it; for the man is the superior, being made to be the reflection, as it were, of God’s glorious image; whereas the woman is rather the reflection of the man (Gen. ii. 18-20), being made from him and for him (8, 9).

10 power. The arguments of so many commentators that this refers to the man’s power or authority over the woman do not seem convincing. No clear case has been given to show that the word ἐξονοία means the power of some one else, and not one’s own power. Stanley, however, who favours the former explanation, admits that to regard the veil or covering as “the sign of the power or dignity of the woman over herself” is the sense most agreeable to the usage of the word ἐξονοία. See also Ramsay (The Cities of St. Paul, p. 200) and Robertson, Bishop of Exeter (International Critical Commentary). R.V., “[a sign of] authority.”

because of the angels. Holy angels, regarded as present in the assembly, and observant of the deportment of its members; perhaps also with a reference to their humility in God’s presence: see Isa. vi. 2.

11 in the Lord. God, from whom all things are (12), has appointed that, as in nature, so in grace (“in the Lord”), man and woman should both have their place, and should both, in their place, be essential to the completeness of the redeemed race.

16. But if any man seem to be contentious, etc.** As if he said, “I have given the reasons why women should remain covered, but if any one is not convinced, at any rate it is not our custom for women to uncover the head in worship.”

17. Now in this that I declare [unto you] I praise you not.** Or, as R.V., “In giving you the above charge, I praise you not”; the dispraise referring to the following charge, respecting the Lord’s Supper. The former series of injunctions was attended with words of praise (2), not so this present one: ep. ver. 2.

18 in the church (ecclesia). Rather, “in assembly”; without any reference to the particular place or building where they met. Of recent accounts of the word “Church” and its meanings, special mention may be made of Hort’s The Christian Ecclesia (1897), Professor Gwatkin’s article “Church” in Hastings’ Dict. Bible (9th ed., 1910), and Canon Mason’s “Conceptions of the Church in Early Times,” in Essays on the Early History of the Church and Ministry, edited by Professor H. B. Swete (1918).

I partly believe it. “The apostle excepts the innocent, and uses a gentle form of speech” (Bengal).

19 heresies. Rather, “factions”; not doctrinal errors, but party divisions, which seem to have exhibited themselves even at the Lord’s Supper. In the present imperfect state of the church such things must occur (ep. Matt. xviii. 7), and God permits them in order that the genuine Christian may be tested and manifested (19).

20 the Lord’s supper. The first Christians appear to have made the Lord’s Supper part of a social meal or love-feast (like the Lord’s last supper with His disciples, Luke xxii. 14-20); see Acts ii. 42-46. The communicants brought with them the supplies of the table, which were regarded as common to the whole company. But at Corinth the observance was so disorderly that it could scarcely be called “eating the Lord’s Supper”; for one took the provisions before another could share (21); and the poor man who brought nothing with him got no refreshment, while the rich man with his abundant supply indulged to excess (21, 22).

21 drunken. This does not necessarily mean “intoxicated” (see John ii. 10); but at least having drunk to excess.

22. What? have ye not houses, etc.?** Satisfy your appetite at home, and do not treat the church with contempt, putting the poor to shame by the display of abundance which you do not let them share. For an instructive contrast, separated by only a few years, see Acts ii. 44-46; iv. 32-35.

23. For I (have) received of the Lord, etc.** These disorders were inexcusable, for Paul had taught them the original mode of celebrating this ordinance, as it had been specially revealed to him by the Lord Himself (Gal. i. 12). The striking verbal likeness between this, the earliest account, and that in Luke xxii. 19, 20, favours the supposition that the evangelist derived his narrative from the apostle.

In which He was betrayed. “In which He was being betrayed”: at that very hour.

24 this is my body. That is, this represents my body (see note on Matt. xxvi. 26): and so in ver. 25. Cp. John x. 9; xv. 1. The word “broken,” does not appear to have originally formed part of this verse: see R.V.

25 the New Testament. Which was ratified by the “blood” of Christ, here represented by the wine in the “cup”: cp. Exod. xxiv. 8; and see note on Matt. xxvi. 28. It is noteworthy that Deissmann prefers the translation “the New Testament” to that of “the New Covenant.” He says, “There is ample material to back me in the statement that no one in the Mediterranean world in the first century A.D. would have thought of finding in the word διαθήκη the idea of “covenant” (Light from the Ancient East, p. 341).

as oft as ye drink [R]. How often is not prescribed. It seems to have been observed daily in Acts ii. 46; weekly, in Acts xx. 7.

26 ye do show. Rather, as R.V., “ye proclaim”: to one another and to the world.

27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, etc. As the true purpose of the observance is to commemorate and declare the Lord’s death, and not to satisfy bodily appetites; so whoever partakes “unworthily,” i.e., without a devout remembrance of the works and claims of our crucified Redeemer, sins against His “body and blood,” the only sacrifice for sin. Therefore every communicant should “test” his state of heart respecting Christ, partaking only if he can “discern the (Lord’s) body,” or discriminate between it and ordinary food, appreciating His death as represented in the ordinance. Otherwise he brings upon himself “judgement”; which he would have escaped had he judged himself. Of this “judgement” (the Divine disapproval of their conduct) the frequent sickness and death in the church at Corinth was a token; these afflictions being sent to “chasten” them, that they might not be “condemned.”

33 tarry one for another. That ye may all partake together, and alike: see note on ver. 20.