1 Corinthians 11

CHAPTER XI

The Fifth Part of the Letter

Women Covering the Head, 11:2–16

1 Corinthians 11:2

2 It is unwarranted to say that Paul could not begin one of the main parts of his letter with a word of praise to the Corinthians. Certain interpreters conclude that this word of praise is the beginning of an independent letter which they surmise is Paul’s lost letter. Some unknown redactor wove the two letters into one. Following this clue, they delete other parts of this composite letter and thus reconstruct both the lost letter (or a good part of it) and what they deem the canonical letter which is called the first to the Corinthians in the New Testament. Some go still farther and reconstruct three or even four distinct letters by applying this selective process. These different hypotheses, however, contradict and thus rather annihilate each other.

The question with reference to women covering their heads or leaving them uncovered was of recent origin in Corinth. It is safe to conclude that the subject was broached in the letter which the Corinthians had sent to Paul. The absence of a περί phrase at the beginning of Paul’s reply on this matter may indicate that the Corinthians had made no formal inquiry. So Paul does not begin: “Concerning the covering of the head for women.” As the tenor of Paul’s instruction shows, this question regarding women had in all likelihood as yet not become so acute in Corinth as to prompt a direct inquiry to the apostle.

Those who think that a strong emancipation movement was in full progress among the Corinthian women draw rather strongly on their imagination. There is nothing in Paul’s instructions which might justify this supposition. Quite the contrary. The Corinthians are in accord with Paul in regard to this question. What he has taught them regarding the position and the conduct of women is still in force among them. In their reference to the veiling of the women during worship the Corinthians seem to have said as much, perhaps in words that were similar to those which Paul uses, about their readiness to “hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them to you,” v. 2.

Such an attitude pleases Paul. Ever ready to praise wherever he can, he praises the Corinthians in this connection. Then he sends them his instruction on the subject, which is couched altogether in an objective form. Only at the end, in v. 16, we note a subjective turn: “if any man seems contentious.” A fair deduction from this admonition is the thought that a few contentious voices had been raised in Corinth which either merely questioned the necessity of the women covering their heads or advocated that they leave them uncovered. The congregation and the body of the women in it were not yet disturbed. As far as Paul’s words reflect the situation, this appears to have been the state of affairs.

Now I praise you that in all things you are remembering me, and as I delivered to you the traditions are holding them fast.

The connective δέ merely turns to the new subject. The apparent paronomasia between μιμηταί in v. 1 and μέμνησθε in v. 2 is quite unintentional; the perfect tense of the latter verb is always used as a durative present. “In all things” is not the accusative object of “remember” since in the New Testament this verb is not construed with an object in this case; πάντα is the ordinary adverbial accusative: “as regards all matters,” R. 479, 482. Nor is μου in the least emphatic as though Paul praises the Corinthians for following him in preference to other leaders. He praises the Corinthians because, in regard to every question that arises, they think of him and ask what he taught them on the subject.

The addition with καί intends to specify and to explain what Paul means by saying that the Corinthians thus remember him: “and as I delivered to you the traditions are holding them fast.” Just to remember Paul is still indefinite, for they might remember him and his teaching and still not follow that teaching. Paul intends to say that the Corinthians remember him in a spirit of loyalty. They are not rebelling against the instructions which Paul had given them, not disregarding them and following contrary teachings. Had they not recently written a letter to Paul in which they asked him a number of important questions, which he is answering in his present letter? Disputes arose as to how much some of Paul’s regulations really included, and differences of opinion on various points were voiced. New questions sprang up regarding which even the most loyal of Paul’s friends were in doubt.

They did not know just how to apply his principles. For this reason they wrote to Paul. Even the parties in Corinth should not be regarded as factions that repudiated Paul and his gospel; they only venerated other leaders higher than Paul. The congregation as such “is holding fast” (note the present tense) to Paul’s traditions. Some of the members may question this or that point, may in their pride seek to improve on Paul, may be contentious because of their ignorance and inclined to be wayward; but the congregation as such is not disaffected.

Note the cognate terms παρέδωκα and παραδόσεις, “I delivered” and “deliverances” (traditions), the former helping to explain the latter. A “tradition” is any deliverance, any bit of instruction, any principle, and any rule of conduct which Paul handed over to the Corinthians when he was in their midst. The term is quite general and without technical ecclesiastical limitations. It includes points of doctrine as well as points of practice; moreover, these always go together, the latter growing out of the former. The connection decides whether the word in a special way, as in this instance, pertains to practice or to doctrine.

The question as to where Paul originally obtained what he thus handed on to the Corinthians can be answered only in one way: from the Lord, Gal. 1:12. Paul was a true apostle who was on a par with the Twelve. All were directed by the same Lord and the same Spirit. There were no clashes and no contradictions between them. The contention that Paul obtained these traditions or deliverances at secondhand from the other apostles or from other parts of the church is without warrant. If evidence is needed on this point, Gal. 2:9 more than suffices.

1 Corinthians 11:3

3 All indications point to an agreement between the Corinthians and Paul that women should cover their heads in public worship. We have no intimation to the effect that the women of the congregation are defying this custom. The only question is why this should be so; or more precisely why Christian women should adhere to this custom. Here we may remember that it is important not only to do certain things but to do them intelligently, for the right reason. So Paul’s entire discussion intends to furnish the right reason and thus to confirm the Corinthians in their laudable practice.

Paul first lays down the great basic fact that must be noted and never be forgotten in this connection. Now I want you to know that of every man the head is Christ while the woman’s head is the man, and Christ’s head God.

We must take “of every man” as it stands. The fact that only Christian men accept Christ as their head while others do not does not change the truth “that of every man the head is Christ.” This statement is placed forward because Christian women may forget that every man is under a head, and that it is therefore not at all strange that women, too, are under a head. It is entirely contrary to fact that women should seek to be like men on the supposition that men are independent. The men are not at all independent—their head is Christ. Yet “of every man the head is Christ” does not express the entire relation of Christ to a man but only the relation of subjection in his being and his life. Here one alone is head, “the head” (note the article); all men have one unit head.

The figure suggested by “head” is the idea of superiority. In other words, the man is not independent, Christ is his head to whom he is subject.

In the next two statements the word “head” is without the article. R. 781 is right, this omission means that the man is not the head of the woman in the same sense as Christ is the head of the man. This is true also with reference to God as Christ’s head. Each case is marked by a peculiar and a unique relation: 1) of God to our Mediator Christ; 2) of Christ to the man; 3) of the man to the woman. Specifically all three are different. No two correspond in all points. But in one respect they do most decidedly correspond. In all three cases we see a head and a subject to that head who acknowledges that head.

In all his mediatorial work Christ did not do his own will but that of his great Sender, ὁπέμψαςμε (regularly used in John’s Gospel). Thus God was “a head” for him. Because of creation the man was not independent but under his Creator. But Paul adds the fact of redemption to creation, for he speaks of the man, not as originally created, but as now also redeemed. For this reason he does not say that the man’s head is God but names the Redeemer, “Christ.” Christ may in a general way be called the Redeemer of the woman as well as of the man. Paul calls him so in Gal. 3:28: “There can be no male and female, for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus,” R.

V. Yet the difference of sex remains as far as headship is concerned. The man has only Christ as his head, the woman has another head in addition to Christ, namely the man. She is not the man’s head, nor is she under Christ only as her head.

Thus a number of questions are cleared up. Does Paul go back to the order of creation? He does, but in conjunction with redemption. Does Paul refer only to Christ’s human nature when he is speaking of God as Christ’s head? Paul refers to Christ in his redemptive work in which both natures of Christ were employed. In this work Christ carried out God’s will with both natures.

Yet this in no way subordinates the Son, who, in his essence as the Son, remains co-equal with the Father and the Spirit even as the Spirit, who is sent by the Father and the Son, remains co-equal with both. Is Paul using “head” as he does in Eph. 5:23, 32; 4:16? No; in Ephesians “head” is correlated with “body.” Paul is not even, as some think, using the Old Testament figure of “head” in the sense of ruler over a body of people as is done in Judges 11:11; 2 Sam. 5:17; 22:44; 2 Chron. 19:11. Paul’s tertium comparationis in the use of “head” is here restricted to the one feature of being over another according to an arrangement made by God.

1 Corinthians 11:4

4 Paul now applies the facts which he has stated concerning headship to the customs as they existed in Corinth and elsewhere.

Generally speaking, among the Greeks only slaves were covered, and the uncovered head was a sign of freedom. The Romans reversed this. The free man wore the pileus, the slave went bareheaded. When the latter was emancipated he was said vocari ad pileum. Yet the Romans, and we must add the Germans, were accustomed to pray while they were veiled. The Jews had the same custom, and we should not forget that Paul was originally a Jew. This veiling expressed reverence, the proper feeling of unworthiness to appear before God with an open face. Maimonides says: “Let not the Wise Men, nor the scholars of the Wise Men, pray unless they be covered.” The Jewish covering was called the tallith.

All of this shows us that Paul is not laying down an absolute rule that is to be observed by Christians of all times in regard to covering the head or leaving it uncovered during worship. Not the custom as a custom is vital but the significance of a custom. If Paul were writing to Jews or to Romans or to Germans, all of whom covered the head during worship because of reverence and shame in God’s presence, he would have to tell them that any man among them who violated this custom thereby showed lack of reverence and shame. But to write this to Greeks would be incomprehensible to them. They had an entirely different custom which had an entirely different significance. This significance is sound and good.

Hence Paul explains it to the Corinthians at length and bids them to abide by their custom. For to abrogate it and to fly in the face of it means, in their case, not only to violate that significance but at the same time to disavow that significance. The fact that Paul sees this significance with a Christian’s eye as pertaining to the true God and not with a pagan’s eye as pertaining to idol gods should cause no confusion. The fact that he would use the Christian’s eye if he were dealing with the opposite custom of other nationalities and not the pagan’s eye is again beyond question. By so doing Paul is not introducing into these national customs something that is foreign and unjustifiable but is unveiling to Christians the full and the true significance of these customs which non-Christians grasped or felt only partially because the glory of the true God was hidden from them.

The Greek custom that was followed in Corinth brought to view the facts which all Christians should know, that Christ is the head of the man, and that the man is the head of the woman. Because it did this for Christian minds and Christian eyes the Greek custom was good and proper and should be preserved by those concerned. Violating it means to those who have this custom a clash with the divine facts reflected in this custom.

Paul first considers the man and then the woman: Every man engaged in praying or prophesying; and in v. 5: and every woman engaged in praying and prophesying. The man and the woman are described in exactly the same terms. The two activities naturally go together in the case of each. It is quite essential to note that no modifier is attached to the participles to denote a place where these activities were exercised. So we on our part should not introduce one, either the same one for both the man and the woman, for instance, “worshipping or prophesying in church,” or different ones, for the man “in church” and for the woman “at home.” By omitting reference to a place Paul says this: “Wherever and whenever it is proper and right for a man or for a woman to pray or to prophesy, the difference of sex should be marked as I indicate.” Whether men are present or absent when a woman prays or prophesies makes no difference; also vice versa. Each remains what he is or what she is apart from the other.

An issue has been made of the point that Paul speaks of a woman as prophesying as though it were a matter of course that she should prophesy just as she also prays, and just as the man, too, prays and prophesies. Paul is said to contradict himself when he forbids the women to prophesy in 14:34–36. The matter becomes clear when we observe that from 11:17 onward until the end of chapter 14 Paul deals with the gatherings of the congregation for public worship and with regulations pertaining to public assemblies. The transition is decidedly marked: “that ye come together,” i.e., for public worship, v. 17; “when ye come together in church” (ἐκκλησίᾳ, no article), v. 18; and again: “when ye assemble together,” i.e., for public worship, v. 20. In these public assemblies Paul forbids the women, not only to prophesy, but to speak at all, 14:34–36 and assigns the reason for this prohibition just as he does in 1 Tim. 2:11, etc.

It is evident, then, that women, too, were granted the gift of prophecy even as some still have this gift, namely the ability to present and properly to apply the Word of God by teaching others. And they are to exercise this valuable gift in the ample opportunities that offer themselves. So Paul writes “praying and prophesying” with reference to the woman just as he does with reference to the man. The public assemblies of the congregation are, however, not among these opportunities—note ἐνταῖςἐκκλησίαις, “in the assemblies,” 14:34. At other places and at other times women are free to exercise their gift of prophecy. In the present connection Paul has no occasion whatever to specify regarding this point.

We may, however, think of Lois and Eunice who instructed Timothy, 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15; of Priscilla, who was more able than her husband, who taught Apollos, Acts 18:24–26; and of other cases. The teaching ability of Christian women today has a wide range of opportunity without in the least intruding itself into the public congregational assemblies.

Every man who is engaged in praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head, i.e., “having something down from his head.” Paul says this, not because some man in Corinth is liable to do such a thing, but in order to bring out the contrast with the woman. He shames or disgraces “his head,” the Greek has the article of previous reference. We cannot refer “his head” to Christ and disregard the phrase “down from his head.” Christ is not shamed by this man; the shame is on the man himself. By covering his head he makes a woman of himself. He acts as though he has a human head over him besides the divine head Christ, like the woman—which is not true. By thus discarding the honor that is his he puts shame on his own head. We may, of course, also say that this act of his reflects on Christ, but Paul does not follow out this thought.

1 Corinthians 11:5

5 And every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is one and the same thing with her head shaven.

Since the entire question concerns women, Paul speaks at length about them. The woman brings shame upon her head when she appears in public to pray or to prophesy “with her head uncovered,” dative of manner, R. 530, 789. Here, too, it is her own head and not the man as her head. Paul might write regarding the man that he brings shame on “himself” and regarding the woman on “herself.” Since it is the covered or uncovered head that brings shame, Paul very properly speaks about the shame resting on the head. The shame that results for the woman lies in her attempt to appear as a man, to arrogate to herself an honor that is not hers, which must be taken from her. This means disgrace for her.

Every act on the part of a woman which denies her position as a woman under the headship of man is an arrogation that brings her dishonor. R. 530 reports that ὁαὑτός (here the neuter τὸαὑτό) is only here construed with the instrumental dative: one and “the same thing with her head shaven,” i.e., with a razor. The perfect participle has the usual present implication. Paul at once states the drastic extreme which he proceeds to explain with γάρ.

1 Corinthians 11:6

6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also have herself shorn; but if it is a shame for a woman to have herself shorn or shaven, let her have herself covered.

“Not covered” is a case in which the negative practically coalesces with the verb: “not covered” = “uncovered,” R. 1012, although in conditions of reality the protasis regularly has οὑ. We translate the two imperatives, which are probably hortatory, R. 948, with the permissive middle: “let her have herself shorn,” “let her have herself covered,” R. 809. The form ξυρᾶσθαι is the present infinitive and thus corresponds with κείρασθαι; both are again the permissive middle and are substantivized by the neuter article: “this thing of having herself shorn or shaven” is shameful. The form ξύρασθαι would be the first aorist middle infinitive, R. 1218.

As far as prostitutes are concerned, all the evidence that has been discovered proves that only a few of the very lowest type had shorn or shaven heads. As a class these women endeavored to make themselves as attractive as possible and did their utmost to beautify also their hair. We cannot, therefore, accept the idea that is advanced by not a few of our best commentators that in our passage Paul refers to the practice of prostitutes and intends to tell the Corinthian women that, if they pray or prophesy with uncovered heads, they act the part of lewd women.

Paul presents two alternatives regarding women to the Corinthians: either shorn or covered. Or, to carry it to its climax in both directions: either both covering and hair completely removed or a covering over the hair. The key to these alternatives is the conditional clause: “now if it is a shame for a woman to have herself shorn or shaven.” This condition of reality, which implies that it would certainly be a shame, expresses a universal feeling and conviction regarding women (with a corresponding conviction regarding men, v. 14). We may express it in this way: It is the intent of nature that woman should wear long hair. Back of nature is the Creator. A beautiful head of hair is the natural crown which God has given to a woman.

Made for man, she is to be attractive to him, and one of her great attractions is her beautiful hair. Hence to discard it is shameful for her. This explains the two alternatives. The first is negative, the other positive. The one extends in one direction and goes to the limit in that direction, the other extends in the opposite direction and also goes to the limit.

Thus the first: “If a woman is not covered, let her also have herself shorn.” This matter of being merely uncovered is in reality only an inconsistency. She stops halfway. She only compromises. Halfway positions and compromises are untenable. Hence, let her carry out the idea to its legitimate and logical conclusion: “let her also have herself shorn.” This will bring fully to view what she does only partially when she appears with an uncovered head for prayer or for prophesying.

Now the opposite deduction. If it cannot be denied that leaving the head uncovered is a grave step in the wrong direction, the outrageous nature of which appears fully when it is carried to its consistent limit by discarding also the hair, having it shorn, or by going to the absolute limit in this wrong direction, having all of it shaved off with a razor—then let the woman do the complete and the consistent thing in the right direction: “let her have herself covered.” Then there will be no question in regard to shame or honor, in regard to her position as a woman having a man as her head according to the Creator’s design.

This is a sample of Paul’s consistent thinking. We have seen that he always goes to the bottom of a question, to the plain and decisive principle that is the key to that question and therefore to all others of the same kind. He never stops only on the surface, never goes only halfway, but always thinks a subject through. He does so in this case.

1 Corinthians 11:7

7 But why all these considerations about honoring and dishonoring the head? Why take the matter regarding the hair and the covering of the head so seriously? Paul has pointed to the answer already in v. 3, where he presented the relation of the man to Christ and the relation of the woman to the man. This he now restates and expands. Note the contrasting touches in μέν and δέ. For a man ought not to have his head covered since he is God’s image and glory while the woman is man’s glory. “Ought” expresses obligation, here the one growing out of the relation indicated. A man, as distinguished from a woman, is “God’s image and glory.” The term “image” is taken from Gen. 1:26, 27: “in our image, after our likeness.”

These two phrases are usually regarded as a hendiadys, as expressing only one idea, that of likeness or resemblance; and it is said that there is no real distinction between tselem, εἰκών, “image,” and demuth, ὁμοίωσις, “likeness.” This identification of the two terms is, however, superficial. Trench shows that, while in some connections “image” and “likeness” may be used with the same general significance, this is not the case in the account of man’s creation. “Image” is the German Abbild which invariably presupposes a Vorbild; this is not the case with “likeness.” “Image” always implies derivation, “likeness” does not. The monarch’s head on a coin is an image; likewise the sun’s reflection in the water, a statue of stone or of other material, a child in relation to his parent. “Likeness” may be accidental; one egg is like another, one man may resemble another. Augustine points out that image always involves likeness, but that likeness does not always involve image. Trench follows this idea through the Arian and other controversies of the church and through the history of man from his creation to his restoration; his discussion deserves close study.

Thus Adam was “God’s image,” God’s Abbild, who bore the impress and stamp of God as his Vorbild. Paul does not refer to the second term which is employed in Genesis, namely God’s “likeness,” when he here describes man. He passes by this lesser term. He substitutes a term of his own which brings out the full greatness that is contained in God’s image: man is God’s image “and glory.”

Paul’s use of δόξα has been faulted as being “highly exceptional” by calling one person the “glory” of another person, yet this is the very term that presents Paul’s thought most clearly. When we ordinarily speak of God’s glory we mean the shining forth of the radiance of his attributes. Paul has in mind the reflexion of God’s attributes in his highest visible creature. Being, indeed, God’s image, man is also God’s glory, a mirror that reflects some of God’s glorious attributes.

We now see why Paul is right when he denies that a man is obliged to cover his head when he serves God, when he, for instance, prays or prophesies. He may or may not cover his head for other reasons that have nothing to do with his relation to God and with a proper expression of that relation. He may even, like the Jews, cover his head in God’s presence when he desires to express his humbleness and his reverence before God. But as God’s image and glory his head should be uncovered—his head because it is the noblest part of his body and most expressive of his personality. When the act of covering his head appears in any way to be a denial of his being God’s image and glory, it would certainly be improper, even wrong to cover his head.

In the case of a woman this is quite otherwise: “the woman is man’s glory.” Eve was not “God’s image and glory” in the same sense as Adam was. Strictly speaking, according to her creation, which also redemption has not altered, she must be called “man’s glory.” Paul does not add the other term “man’s image” although he could do so. The higher and the more elucidating term “glory” includes “image.” Her entire creation places her in direct and immediate relation to man. She was made for man; she was to be his “helpmeet.” The reverse cannot be said. Adam expressed the truth exactly: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.” Before Paul adds the obligation that rests upon her as far as expressing this relation to man is concerned he adds further explanations.

1 Corinthians 11:8

8 For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man. These are, of course, the facts. Adam was not in any way derived from (ἐκ) a woman; he was created directly by God. The opposite is the fact regarding woman. Eve was derived from (ἐκ) Adam: “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” This involves another difference.

1 Corinthians 11:9

9 For also man was not created on account of the woman, on the contrary, woman on account of the man. “Man,” without the article, any man whoever he may be; “on account of the woman,” with the article, hence Eve. “Woman,” without the article, some woman; “on account of the man,” with the article, hence Adam. God made “a woman” for Adam, but not “a man” for Eve. God could, indeed, have created both man and woman, Adam and Eve, in one undivided act. Today many think and act as though God had really done so. But the fact is otherwise. Nor should we think and say that at this late date God’s creative act, which lies far back in time, makes no difference. The facts of creation abide forever. They can be ignored without resultant loss or harm as little as can other facts of nature.

1 Corinthians 11:10

10 Because these indisputable facts remain, all customs that truly symbolize these facts will meet approval on the part of all who bow fully to God, and all customs that contravene and deny this symbolism will meet with disapproval. On this account the woman ought to have a power over her head on account of the angels. In view of these unchangeable facts of creation a double obligation results when it comes to a custom like this and to the significance which it involves. One obligation rests upon the man, v. 7, and the other upon the woman. His head should be bare, hers covered.

Paul uses the same verb regarding both the man and the woman, ὀφείλει, “ought,” which expresses obligation and no more. He is not laying down an unalterable law that shall be in effect for the church of all ages and of all nations. While the facts of creation to which Paul goes back are in their very nature unalterable, they cannot be made an equally unalterable law regarding customs for the simple reason that customs vary endlessly for reasons that are not at all concerned with these facts. Only under certain circumstances an obligation may arise in which these facts play a part as was the case here at Corinth and among the Greeks. Established customs that beautifully symbolize these facts “ought” not to be changed arbitrarily but intelligently retained until, without prejudice to these facts, in due course, customs change of their own accord.

Why does Paul call the covering on the woman’s head an ἐξουσία? The apparent difficulty, which is sometimes unduly stressed, lies in the fact that “right,” “authority,” or “power” is ordinarily used in a subjective sense; here it would be the woman’s own power or authority. This, however, clashes with the context which evidently speaks about the covering on the woman’s head as being a symbol of another’s, namely the man’s power and authority over her. We should, then, take the term in that sense. Whether we construe “a power over her head,” C.-K. 403, or “to have over her head,” makes practically no difference. To call the head covering “a power” is figurative whether we call it a symbol of the power, C.-K., or specify the figure as a metonomy: “power” signifying “sign of power.”

Paul adds the final phrase, “on account of the angels,” as a matter that needs no elucidation whatever and as one that will be at once understood by the Corinthians. This fact is sufficient to dispose of a number of fanciful interpretations which have been given this simple phrase. The Analogy of Scripture decides the point that an unqualified mention of “the angels” refers to good angels. The simple manner in which this final phrase is added indicates that no new point is being introduced into the discussion. This brief mention of angels is thus involved in all that precedes.

“On account of the angels” implies that God’s good angels are present when God’s people come together to pray and to prophesy. Paul’s view of God’s creation in general and of God’s people in particular always includes God’s good angels. So the phrase simply means that, when we worship, we must not offend them by an impropriety. Such an offense would occur if women prayed and prophesied with uncovered heads and thereby displayed the fact that they had disregarded the station that has been assigned them by their creation. In regard to the nearness of the angels and their interest in us compare 4:9 where Paul speaks about the suffering apostles as being a spectacle also for the angels.

We thus reject the interpretation which refers this expression to evil angels who may be aroused to lasciviousness by seeing the uncovered hair of women at worship. Why should this arouse them any more than the uncovered hair of women when they are not at worship? Paul’s phrase has no connection with Gen. 6:1–4; the interpretation of this passage which regards the sons of God as angels is unacceptable. With Meyer we exclaim: Welche fleischerne Eindeutungen! And some of these women were matrons and old women. C.-K.’s idea of angels as guardians over God’s creative order is an invention to find an explanation for Paul’s phrase.

1 Corinthians 11:11

11 With πλήν Paul draws attention to one vital point that should not be overlooked. This connective does not intend to point out the main thought with which Paul closes the discussion as B.-D. and R. 1187 assert. Only, neither is woman without man, nor man without woman in the Lord. “Only” means: let this not be overlooked. The predicate is “in the Lord.” Whatever God arranged at creation when he made man the head, as far as being “in the Lord” is concerned, both are altogether equal. The man is not “in the Lord” in such a way that the woman is excluded, nor, of course, vice versa. Gal. 3:28 stands: “Ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

1 Corinthians 11:12

12 This equality of spiritual connection with Christ has even a natural background. Although God made man woman’s head he also arranged an interdependence between the sexes. For even as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman; and this all is of God.

“Even as … so also” makes plain this equality. Eve was taken out of (ἐκ) Adam. In this manner the sexes began. On the other hand, “the man is by the woman,” διά, by or through the medium of natural birth. All men, just as all women, are γεννητοὶγυναικῶν, “born of women,” Matt. 11:11, not excepting even him who became incarnate by the virgin birth, Gal. 4:4. Both Adam and Eve are exceptional, for neither was born.

Yet Eve and all of her descendants are classed together since they are all “of” (ἐκ) Adam; he alone came immediately from the hand of God. All other men have come through the medium (διά) of the woman, i.e., Eve and her daughters. In other words, the sexes are so interlocked that, when their connection with Christ is considered, neither sex is dependent on the other, neither sex has an advantage.

This is by divine arrangement. For τὰπάντα is specific: “this all” regarding the two sexes; not general, “all things” (our versions), which would have to be πάντα without the article. And ἐκ is again the proper preposition since it denotes the direct source. It is not due to an arrangement that was inaugurated by men or women, nor to what we might call the nature of humanity alone.

1 Corinthians 11:13

13 One additional point must be considered in order to complete the discussion regarding the head covering for women during worship. The obligation which Paul points out in v. 7 and v. 10 rests, as he has shown, on the facts of creation. It amounts to this: customs that symbolize and reflect these facts are proper. The Corinthians may judge this as far as it applies to them. They need to do no more than to ask the question regarding the propriety of the custom in vogue in their midst and in regard to what nature teaches them in support of this their custom. This alone will suffice.

Decide in regard to your own selves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that, if a man wear long hair, it is a dishonor to him while, if a woman wear long hair, it is a glory for her? because her long hair is given her instead of a covering.

Paul refers the matter to the good sense of the Corinthians themselves. The aorist imperative calls upon them to make a decision. The ἐν phrase is decidedly emphatic because of its position, and it does not mean that the Corinthians are to decide “in themselves,” i.e., in their own minds, for nobody decides anything except in his own mind. Paul says: decide “in regard to your own selves,” i.e., think of yourselves as you assemble for your public worship and as you engage in worship at home and then in a sensible manner decide what is proper for you. This is the ἐν with persons which Robertson translates “in your own case.”

The question which Paul wants them to decide is this: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered?” Paul adds no interrogative particle to indicate that he expects either a positive or a negative answer. The simple question is enough. He leaves out prophesying (v. 5), apparently only in order to shorten the question, for this is the original question with which this entire section deals.

The point of the question turns on πρέπον, whether it is “proper” for a woman to pray or to worship with her head uncovered. The verb πρέπω means “to shine forth,” “to be distinguished”; hence the adjective = excellent, worthy, fitting, or “proper.” We thus see that the obligation mentioned in v. 7 and v. 10 is one of propriety. This is general propriety since the next question turns on the teaching of nature; yet as far as the Christian is concerned, who does everything to the glory of God (10:31), even general propriety carries a Christian influence with it. Paul is quite certain what the answer will be, v. 2. When the Corinthians consider the custom they have they will certainly not call it improper.

1 Corinthians 11:14

14 The second question supports the first. This time Paul indicates by the form of the question that he expects it to be answered affirmatively: “Does not even nature itself teach you?” etc. It certainly does. When Paul writes “nature itself,” we understand, in view of what he has already said, that he has in mind nature as God has formed nature. Thus nature is here placed over against mere taste or transient fashion or faulty ideas. Certain things comport with nature and with the way in which God has made us; they are proper for that reason. Certain things are unnatural and for that reason lack propriety.

Thus, when a man wears long hair, this is really not in accord with the nature of a man. Some men may do that as Paul’s condition of expectancy intimates, but that will be exceptional. In Corinth such long hair will make a man seem much like a woman and will thus bring a corresponding “dishonor” upon him. When Paul writes ἐὰνκομᾷ he has in mind long hair like that of a woman; we cannot say that he is thinking of men cutting their hair closely as the custom is now.

1 Corinthians 11:15

15 The case is quite the reverse and even more so in the case of a woman. If she wears long hair, this is not only an honor for her, but her long hair is “a glory for her.” It gives her that womanly distinction: “because her long hair is given her instead of a covering.” The preposition ἀντί has the idea of exchange, R. 574. The agent suggested by the passive perfect “has been and thus is still given” her is “nature itself.” Paul’s thought is this: if nature itself provides a covering for a woman, it is highly proper that she follow this hint of nature and cover her head during acts of public worship.

A περιβόλαιον is something that is thrown around one and “a covering” in that sense. One might argue that a woman’s hair is covering enough since nature provides no other for her. But this is specious. The fact that woman’s hair grows quite long by nature, much longer than a man’s even if he never cuts it, and that thus there is bestowed on woman the gift of a περιβόλαιον, is nature’s own indication that, when it comes to significant customs, she and not the man is to have her head covered in the presence of God during worship. “It is given her instead of a covering” means: in place of a covering, to take the place of a covering, and this establishes the decorum or propriety of wearing a covering over the head. For if long hair is an honor for a woman because it is given her in place of a covering, then any proper custom which accentuates this honor must be prized accordingly. This is the correct deduction which Paul has in mind.

What may we gather from Paul’s discussion regarding the head covering of women at Corinth?

First, that the facts of creation and of nature stand unchanged. They should be recognized and accepted for what they are. To ignore them or to set them aside is always a mistake. In the end these facts as well as all the others are bound to assert themselves. One of the most fundamental natural facts is this that the sexes differ profoundly, far more so than is generally recognized. A basic feature of this fact is that God gave the headship to the man and not to the woman. All attempts to abolish this headship and to place the sexes on the same level must fail. Another, although a far lesser, feature of this difference is the fact that woman and not man has received a περιβόλαιον from God and from God’s nature!

Secondly, many customs have sprung up that have no deeper basis than transient fashion. With these the Scriptures do not concern themselves. Some of them may be in what we are pleased to call good taste, others may by comparison be in bad taste. De gustibus non disputandum. Christians incline toward the former and away from the latter, but only for non-religious reasons.

Thirdly, some customs have a deeper basis. In their way they reflect creative or natural facts, lend a sort of expression to these facts, at least harmonize with them. These customs, not merely as customs, but as being significant in their character are seemly, proper, and worthy of retention. Hence the obligation to retain them with a mind that understands and appreciates why they are “proper.” Yet obligation and propriety are not absolute and not necessary for all time and for all nations.

Fourthly, customs may be entirely different and even opposite among different people. Customs may also change more or less decidedly. Where these differences exist, or where these changes occur without a conscious intention to antagonize the facts of creation or of nature, no religious issue results regarding even the point of propriety. Only where changes are sought that are in contravention of the facts of creation and of nature must we proceed as Paul did when he was writing to the congregation at Corinth.

1 Corinthians 11:16

16 Paul breaks off the discussion with some abruptness. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we for our part have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The condition of reality leads one to think that Paul expects some in Corinth “to be contentious,” φιλόνεικος, “loving contention” as people who always insist that they are in the right, rechthaberisch. Paul refuses to be concerned with people of this kind. It is not his way to argue back and forth; ἡμεῖς is quite emphatic: “we for our part,” Paul and his fellow workers. All of these were men so that the statement: “we for our part have no such custom,” does not mean: “we Christians have no such custom as having women go bareheaded at worship.” While συνήθεια is a mild term to apply to contentiousness, it is finely chosen by Paul as being one who is himself wholly averse to contentions and to all forms of Rechthaberei. If he were contentious he would have chosen a harsh word; the choice of this mild term proves his own mildness.

In fact, this custom of mildness is characteristic of “the churches of God.” Even regarding graver matters than those of Christian propriety they want no contentiousness, no love of strife, although they earnestly contend for the faith, Jude 3. The Augsburg Confession writes in the same spirit: “It is proper [the very term used by Paul in v. 13] that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14:40; compare Phil. 2:14; but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered, provided only that no offense be given.” C. Tr., 91.

The Sixth Part of the Letter

Disorders connected with the Lord’s Supper, 11:17–34

1 Corinthians 11:17

17 Yet in transmitting this I am not praising that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse.

From a consideration of the covering of the head for women Paul turns to the disorders that are connected with the Lord’s Supper. This manner of connecting a brief participial clause concerning a preceding subject with a main clause concerning a matter that follows has been called awkward and disjointed. But this criticism is unwarranted. When Paul begins to speak about the head covering for women in v. 2 he has a word of praise for the Corinthians, namely that in all respects they remember him and hold fast the directions which he originally gave them. He acknowledges their obedient attitude and then proceeds to instruct them in regard to the women by transmitting pertinent further directions to them. No women had as yet tried to dispense with a covering for the head while they were at worship; Paul is thus able to insert his word of praise.

When he comes to the new subject, the truth is quite different. Abuses had actually crept in, and nobody in Corinth had asked what Paul had originally told them concerning the Lord’s Supper. Thus, while he transmits his directions regarding women with a word of praise, this praise must be omitted when he comes to speak about the assemblies for the purpose of celebrating the Sacrament. Instead of criticizing Paul for the manner in which he combines the references to the two subjects we have reason to admire the masterly way in which he links together the praise mentioned in v. 2 with the non-praise spoken of in v. 17.

Paul omits the pronoun; he does not write: “In transmitting this to you I am not praising you.” Because of this omission of the pronouns Paul’s words become more objective. The verb παραγγέλλω is frequently used with reference to military commands; hence the R. V.’s translation “in giving you this charge.” This is a rather strong translation in the present connection since the matter regarding the covering of the head is not one that calls for such decisive commands. The original meaning of the verb is to pass along directions or orders from one person to another; hence we translate “in transmitting this,” etc.

Paul is entirely frank when he tells the Corinthians that he is now not praising them. The litotes “I am not praising” is a mild way of expressing blame as if to say: “I should like to praise but I cannot, I am compelled to blame.” The fault that excludes praise is promptly stated: “that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse.” The negative phrase is re-enforced by the appositional positive phrase. The case is deplorable in every way. The Corinthians should come together “for the better,” so that their coming together results in spiritual improvement; instead of that their coming together results in spiritual detriment, and, as the present tense shows, this is a regular occurrence, it is not an exceptional thing. The comparatives contrast two results, one that should be and one that should not be. In addition to this contrast a relation is expressed: “better” when compared with “worse,” and “worse” when compared with “better.” Gegensatz (contrast) and Steigerung (comparison) are thus combined, R. 663.

We should note that Paul now writes: “you come together.” This coming together or assembling for public worship is mentioned again in v. 18 and a third time in v. 20; in each instance the same verb is employed. It is repeated twice at the end of this section regarding the Lord’s Supper in v. 33, 34; and again in 14:23, 26, near the close of the section regarding spiritual gifts. Paul thus marks with great plainness that the disorders of which he now speaks occur in the public assemblies of the congregation. In the section regarding the head covering for women no mention is made of public assemblies. This leads some to conclude that the women are also to cover their heads when they are praying in private at home whereas the correct deduction is only this, that as yet no woman had ventured to appear in public worship with a bare head, that some only raised the question whether it would be proper to do so. The point of private worship is quite minor; it is the appearance of women in public worship that is important.

1 Corinthians 11:18

18 Paul’s preliminary charge that the Corinthians come together, not for the better, but for the worse, really extends from 11:17 to 14:40, for it pertains to the Lord’s Supper and to the charismata or spiritual gifts. Grave improprieties had crept into the Corinthian assemblies in connection with the Sacrament and also in connection with the exercise of these gifts. Paul first takes up the disorders pertaining to the Sacrament; then in 12:1, etc., he deals with the charismata. For when you come together in assembly, I am told that cliques exist among you; and in part I believe it.

The term ἐκκλησία is here used in its original meaning of an assembly that is called together for a specific purpose. The Corinthians come together in an assembly for congregational purposes. The verb ἀκούω is used in the classic sense: “I am told,” R. 803. The tense is an “‘effective’ aoristic present, close akin to a perfect,” R. 893. The action is durative only in the sense of indicating a state, it does not express a linear activity; hence does not mean: “I keep hearing,” but: “I hear” and thus know, R. 881.

When Paul reports what has come to his ears he only summarizes the evil as it appears to his mind: “that cliques exist among you,” σχίσματα, schisms or splits. We shall see presently just what Paul means. When he adds: “and in part I believe it,” we see that he discounts even credible reports, he is loath to believe the worst even on testimony that is good. His is the true Christian attitude. Only too few follow it.

1 Corinthians 11:19

19 Paul is to some extent surprised and grieved because of what he is told, yet in the last analysis he is neither. This latter he explains with γάρ. For there must even be divisions among you in order that those approved may become manifest among you.

If we translate καί “also” and not “even” we, nevertheless, feel that αἱρέσεις is a graver term than σχίσματα. This would, of course, not prevent one from using the terms side by side and regarding them as mere synonyms. This has, in fact, been done quite frequently. A σχίσμα is a rent or a split. In the following verses Paul uses the term as denoting a clique, namely a division which does not as yet tear the congregation asunder. On the other hand, αἵρεσις, from αἱρέω, denotes something that one selects or chooses, thus a peculiar doctrine or opinion.

In the New Testament it is used with reference to actual divisions, Acts 24:14; Gal. 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:1: “damnable heresies.” The fathers applied it to heresy, the philosophers to philosophical tendencies, schools, or sects. Our versions translate “heresies”; the A. V. margin “sects”; the R. V. margin “factions.” Both give the term a tinge of a rather grave meaning. Paul uses it here with reference to actual divisions which are disrupting the congregation.

With δεῖ Paul indicates the necessitas consequentiae, the necessary outcome of an evil course after it has been chosen. God lets the evil result of such a course become manifest but does so for purposes of his own. One of these purposes is to punish the wicked although Paul does not touch upon this. Another purpose is “that those approved may become manifest among you,” i.e., that those approved of God as sound, true, and faithful may appear openly as such. When evil factions actually separate themselves from a congregation they help to show who the true members are.

The texts that read ἵνακαί connect the divine purpose closely with the idea of necessity. Paul thus tells the Corinthians that the cliques which have already been formed among them may grow more serious and result in actual divisions. Because so many practical, moral, and personal issues have already started in their midst, because they show so much disinclination and disability to eradicate these incipient differences, actual heretical views and teachings may develop and tear the congregation apart. That would be deplorable, but such results must appear in this sinful world; when they do come to pass they have one good feature: they reveal who the true members are.

The cliques of which Paul speaks cannot be identified with the parties described in 1:12; for these Paul calls “factions,” ἔριδες, 1:11. As he describes the real nature of the latter, so he also reveals the true nature of the former. The “cliques” and the “divisions” are not identical. The former already exist in Corinth, the latter threaten to occur. The effort to establish the identity of the two terms by letting δεῖεἶναι mean: “it is necessary that there are,” is misdirected, for we should translate: “it is necessary that there be,” i.e., if certain evil beginnings run their course as they may and will here and there.

1 Corinthians 11:20

20 With the resumptive οὗν Paul returns to the evils he touches upon briefly in v. 18. When, therefore, you come together in one place, it is impossible to eat the Lord’s Supper, for each in the eating consumes his own supper in advance, and one remains hungry, and the other is drunken.

The genitive absolute states that this abuse occurs in connection with the gathering of the congregation; and the idiom ἐπὶτὸαὑτό adds the idea that all assemble “in the same place.” Then, indeed, when all are gathered together in the same place they ought to show that they are also one body, but their disorderly actions make this impossible.

“It is impossible to eat the Lord’s Supper” shows the gravity of the abuse that has crept in. It was the very purpose of these congregational gatherings to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. But if anyone came to the meeting and expected this purpose to be carried cut he found himself completely disappointed. The action of the members made a celebration of the Holy Supper impossible. The A. V.’s translation is incorrect: “this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper”; for οὑκἔστι with the infinitive means “it is impossible” to eat, and “this” cannot be supplied since coming together and eating are not identical.

Κυριακὸνδεῖπνον refers to the Sacrament itself. The adjective Κυριακόν, from Κύριος or Lord, seems to have been used as early as the time of our epistle in conscious opposition to the pagan use of the title “Lord” as applied to heathen divinities and emperors, see Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 353, etc., where the subject is interestingly discussed at length. First came the Agape or Love Feast, a joint meal of which all the members partook. At the conclusion of this meal the Sacrament was celebrated. No evidence has been discovered to substantiate the view that the Sacrament was ever divided so that the Agape was placed between the eating of the sacramental bread and the drinking of the sacramental cup. Regarding the question itself consult Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon, “Abendmahl,” concerning the words of the institution μετὰτὸδειπνῆσαι consult the author’s interpretation of Luke 22:20.

Paul now explains why it is impossible to eat the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian assemblies: “for each one in the eating consumes his own supper in advance, and one remains hungry, and the other is drunken.” The present tenses are iterative; this has come to be a regular practice in Corinth. The food for the Agape, from which some of the bread and the wine was reserved for the Sacrament, was brought by the members who came to the meeting. Some were poor and could bring little or nothing (“them that have not.” v. 22). Now instead of taking all the food that was brought and apportioning it to all who were present so that each should receive a proper share, cliques were formed, and relatives, friends, those of one clique sat together, probably at private tables, the rich and prosperous separated from the poor, letting those who could bring little or nothing sit by themselves. Then each person consumed what he had brought irrespective of the poorer members, some of whom were slaves.

The expression προλαμβάνειἐντῷφαγεῖν does not mean: “taketh before other,” R. V., i.e., eats hastily what be has brought before all have gathered; but: “in the eating consumes in advance,” paying no attention to the rest. In other words, the Agape ceased to be an Agape and degenerated into just ordinary eating, each clique eating by itself. This virtual abolition of the Agape made the celebration of the Holy Supper itself an impossibility. For at this time the two were still one celebration, the Agape leading up to the Sacrament. When the Agape ceased to be an Agape, the Sacrament was also virtually impossible. Perhaps an attempt was still made to celebrate the Sacrament, but the poor especially felt themselves excluded and ceased to commune.

The one sat there and hungered since he had brought nothing or had brought too little and received nothing from the rest who consumed their own. The other was drunken with wine, he consumed more of this than he should have done from the plenty which he and his friends had brought. And this “even at the Lord’s table,” R. 854. The last two clauses show drastically that under these circumstances the Sacrament quite naturally became an impossibility.

1 Corinthians 11:22

22 The pointed questions which now follow dramatically expose the gravity of this abuse. What? do you mean you have not houses for eating and drinking? or do you despise the church of God and put to shame those that have nothing? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not.

Here we have an instance of the conclusive γάρ used in a question as is the case in Matt. 27:23; John 9:30; Acts 19:30. The question thus has the nature of a justified conclusion which is drawn from the preceding, which may be a statement that someone has made, or, as here, a situation that someone has created. We render its force with “what?” Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 6. Auflage, 396; Robertson does not treat this subject.

By using μή Paul expects a negative answer; οὑκ merely denies ἔχετε. Paul intends to say: “You surely do not mean that you have no houses for eating and drinking? And yet this is what your actions imply.” The outrageous character of the actions of the Corinthians is thus exposed. They had houses where they could eat and drink their fill, but by eating and drinking their fill during the meeting of the congregation and by disregarding the poor they acted as though they had no houses. The εἰςτό has the dative idea here, R. 1072.

In the question: “Why do you not use your houses?” there lies the graver one: “Why do you so use the church?” This is graver, for to use the church in this manner is to degrade it, hence to look down on it, to despise it, καταφρονεῖν used with the genitive, literally, “to think down.” Here ἐκκλησία again has the original sense of assembly as it did in v. 18. The gravity of thus despising the church is strenghtened by the genitive the church “of God.” Has the congregation forgotten so completely that this is “God’s” gathering?

This genitive, too, lends force to the addition “and put to shame those that have nothing.” For in “the church of God” God looks especially upon the poor. He does not put them to shame, nor will he have them put to shame by others, James 1:9, 10; 2:2–9. God is no respecter of persons.

Paul stands as a person who is nonplussed and shocked and asks himself: “What shall I say?” Then he remembers that in 11:2 he had praised the Corinthians; with grim irony he now asks: “Shall I praise you?” or, if we wish to include the next phrase in this question: “Shall I praise you in this?” The question itself cuts deeply. Its answer is decisive: “I praise you not,” a strong litotes for: “I blame you.” Both εἴπω, R. 928, and ἐπαινέσω are deliberative subjunctives although the latter might be regarded as a future indicative, R. 934. Both are aorists and denote one act of saying and of praising. In “I praise you not” the durative present refuses this praise continuously. Here in one of the most important matters of their faith that deals with the Sacred Supper itself the Corinthians, who in all things wanted to adhere to what they had received from Paul (v. 2), had allowed themselves to drift so far from his teaching. Paul restrains himself so as not to use strong terms of rebuke. He seems to ask himself: “Do these people really realize what they are doing?”

1 Corinthians 11:23

23 With calm patience Paul sets to work to repeat his original instruction to these disorderly Corinthians and thus to correct this flagrant abuse. For I received from the Lord, what also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread and, after having given thanks, broke it and said: This is my body which is for you. This do in remembrance of me!

With the emphatic ἐγώ: “I did receive … I did deliver to you,” Paul contrasts himself with the Corinthians. What they had received from him is different from what they are now practicing in Corinth. Thus by a reference to Christ’s own institution of the Holy Supper γάρ also substantiates why Paul can only reproach the Corinthians for the abuse which rendered its celebration impossible.

The first and the most important corrective, then, is that the Corinthians remember what Paul had delivered to them from the Lord concerning the Sacrament. The Agape is not a divine institution. Therefore Paul lays down no regulations concerning it. His concern is the Sacrament. What he has mentioned in regard to the improper conduct of the Agape has its point in the Sacrament because it makes its celebration impossible. The abuses current in the Agape would as such call for serious correction, but this correction is included in Paul’s statement regarding the graver matter, regarding the Sacrament proper. If the proper celebration of the Sacrament is attended to, all else will be corrected.

Paul Writes παρέλαβονἀπὸτοῦΚυρίου and not παρά which only a few texts have. A verb that is compounded with παρά is generally followed by a phrase that begins with the same preposition. The conclusion is, therefore, drawn that Paul’s use of ἀπό instead of παρά in the appended phrase means that he did not originally receive the words of the institution immediately, by a direct revelation from the Lord, but only mediately, through the Twelve or through some of the original members of the church. R. 579, however, warns us against such a radical distinction between the two prepositions save as etymology throws light on them. What he means we see on page 561: παρά calls attention to the fact that one is beside the person or place when he starts; ἀπό merely notes the point of departure; and ἐκ asserts that one has been within the place or circle before departing. So in Paul’s phrase the preposition ἀπό conveys the idea that what he delivered to the Corinthians came “from” the Lord (point of departure). That is sufficient for his present purpose.

But while this explains the preposition found in the phrase, the force of παρά in the compound verb itself remains unchanged. Moreover, we frequently find ἀπό used where we know that the reception is immediate although the preposition itself does not stress this idea of immediacy as in Col. 1:7; 1 John 1:5; 3 John 7, and in other instances where some exclude the idea of immediacy as in Col. 3:24; Gal. 3:2. Therefore Paul’s immediate reception of this revelation cannot be excluded on the basis of the preposition he uses. Paul himself tells us plainly how he received his gospel, which certainly includes the Lord’s Supper as a vital part of it. It was “through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” Gal. 1:11, 12, and not through an agency of men.

What Paul received, that he transmitted to the Corinthians. The two aorists “I received” and “I delivered” state the facts. Paul was not presumptuous enough to make a change in the transmission; the Corinthians were, however, making a change in retaining what was transmitted to them, a change that actually lost them the Sacrament. So Paul records the sacred words of the Lord’s institution even as he originally delivered them to the Corinthians. Let them keep the Sacrament according to these words, and all will be well.

Because Paul’s record of the words so clearly resembles the other three records which we possess, some conclude that Paul, who was not present at the institution itself, must have obtained them from the Twelve or at least through them although many years had passed before he came in touch with any of them. But if the Lord revealed the institution to Paul, the same exact agreement with the other three records follows as the only natural conclusion.

It was in the night in which Jesus was in the act of being betrayed, παρεδίδοτο, the imperfect to express an act in progress, that he instituted the Holy Supper. Paul may well have intended this preamble, which states the solemn hour of the institution, as a rebuke of the sort of assemblies at which the Corinthians were trying to celebrate the Sacrament. But in Paul’s letter this preamble is necessary for the proper understanding of the entire institution of Christ, in particular also for the vital words “for you” and “in my blood” (v. 25). The three Evangelists need no such preamble because they record the actual history of the events as they occurred.

“He took bread” states the fact, hence Paul writes the aorist. This aorist is used throughout the record whenever the acts are mentioned. In general, in regard to the interpretation “we are certainly in duty bound not to interpret and explain these words of the eternal, true, and almighty Son of God, our Lord, Creator, and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, differently, as allegorical, figurative, tropical expressions, according as it seems agreeable to our reason, but with simple faith and due obedience to receive the words as they read, in their proper and plain sense, and allow ourselves to be diverted therefrom by no objectives or human contradictions spun from human reason, however charming they may appear to human reason.” Abraham’s example is mentioned in this connection when he received God’s command to offer up Isaac, which seemed against both divine and human law and even in conflict with God’s own promise concerning Isaac. “He understands and believes God’s Word and command plainly and simply, as they read according to the letter, and commits the matter to God’s omnipotence and wisdom, which, he knows, has many more modes and ways to fulfill the promise of the Seed from Isaac than he can comprehend with his blind reason.” C. Tr. 987, etc.

1 Corinthians 11:24

24 “And after having given thanks broke it and said, This is my body which is for you.” Some important texts add κλώμενον: “which is in the act of being broken for you,” although the weight of evidence is against this addition. Matthew and Mark read: “After having blessed,” instead of: “After having given thanks.” The thought is quite the same.

The disciples who were present at the institution could plainly see that Jesus was beginning a new act, one that was similar to the Passover, but one that was of far greater import. The words of thanks evidently referred to the bread in Jesus’ hands and to the heavenly gift it was to convey. These words thus also prepared the disciples for the reception of the bread and the heavenly gift, for they were to receive both intelligently and not by way of surprise and in a state of wonder as to what Jesus was giving them. Christ’s words of thanks, unknown to us though they are, remain efficacious for all time wherever the Sacrament is celebrated. Because of their nature they could not be efficaciously repeated. This same efficacious power resides, however, also in the words of Christ which are recorded. “Where his institution is observed and his words are spoken over the bread and cup, and the consecrated bread and cup are distributed, Christ himself, through the spoken words, is still efficacious by virtue of the first institution through his word, which he wishes there to be repeated,” C. Tr. 999.

“He broke” the bread means that he did this for the purpose of distribution only. No parallel such as spilling or pouring occurs in the case of the wine. The breaking is incidental to the Sacrament. It has no symbolical significance, for the body of the Lord was not broken on the cross. “A bone of him shall not be broken,” John 19:36. The R. V. is inaccurate when in the marginal translation to the four accounts it offers the rendering “loaf” instead of “bread.” Loaves could not be baked from unleavened dough.

Jesus had no “loaf,” he had only a thin, flat cake of bread such as are still baked and eaten in the Holy Land quite generally; pieces of these were broken off when eating. The author saw this baking and ate such bread during a visit to Syria and Palestine. “Bread is an inanimate thing: how can breaking it be like the putting of a human being to death? Breaking bread is the very symbol of quietness and peace, who would dream of it as an appropriate symbol of the most cruel and ignominious death? Bread is the representative food, and used in metaphor is the symbol of spiritual and supernatural food. The breaking of bread is the means of giving it as food, and as a symbol, the symbol of giving and taking a higher food. No one would dream of the breaking of bread as the symbol of killing a human body; and if so extraordinary a symbolic use of it were made, it would require the most explicit statement on the part of the person so using it that such was his intent; and when he had made it, the world would be amazed at so lame a figure.” Krauth, Conservative Reformation, 723.

The Evangelists mention the giving to the disciples. Paul only implies this and proceeds with “and said” and follows with the words which the Lord then spoke: “This is my body which is for you.” Matthew writes: “Take, eat; this is my body.” Mark omits “eat.” Luke omits both imperatives but adds to “my body” the modifier “being given for you,” i.e., as a sacrifice on the cross. The essential point is that the consecrated bread be received and eaten.

The demonstrative τοῦτο means: what I now give you, hoc quod vos sumere jubeo. We should note that τοῦτο is neuter and hence cannot, grammatically or in thought, refer to ἄρτος which is masculine. The English “this” and “bread” obscure this distinction in gender, yet no student passes it by. “This” = the gift which Christ extends to his disciples. “It is no longer mere bread of the oven but bread of flesh or bread of body, that is, bread which is sacramentally one with Christ’s body.” Luther.

Much has been said regarding ἐστίν which is merely the copula that connects the subject and the predicate. Jesus spoke Aramaic and used no copula when he was speaking that language, for he needed none; but this fact does not remove or in the least alter the inspired ἐστίν that is found in the Greek records. It cannot mean “represents” as Zwingli contended. The characters $1.00 “represent” a dollar; no man would mistake them for a real dollar.

“My body” means exactly what the words say: in truth and reality my body. The addition “which is for you,” τὸὑπὲρὑμῶν, “in your behalf,” or according to Luke’s fuller rendition: ὑπὲρὑμῶνδιδόμενον, “in the act of being given for you” as a sacrifice on the cross, doubles the certainty as to the reality of the body, for Christ’s own body and not the symbol of bread was being given for our redemption on the cross.

The rationalizing question: “How could the Lord by means of bread give his true and real body to his disciples?” has caused all the trouble that centers about these simple words. Some say that he does it by means of a transsubstantiation of the bread into the body so that he does not give the bread but only the body. Others say that he does not give his body, which is impossible, he gives only the bread, the symbol of his body.

We refuse to answer the question regarding the how because the Lord withholds the answer. We could probably not have understood the real answer if it had been given because the giving of his body in the Sacrament is a divine act of omnipotence and of grace which is beyond mortal comprehension. The Lord declares the fact: “This is my body,” and we take him at his word. He knows the mystery of this giving, we do not. All rationalizing objection that this involves a gross, carnal, Capernaitic eating of raw flesh is unwarranted; the first disciples who had the body of Christ’s humiliation before their very eyes when Christ’s hand in a supernatural way gave them the gift of his sacrificial body never dreamed of such an eating. “My body” does not mean “a piece of my body.”

Among the Evangelists only Luke also has the command: “This do in remembrance of me.” Yet this command makes the first celebration an institution. The imperative is a durative present tense and denotes indefinite repetition: “This do again and again.” The τοῦτο, “this,” includes what Christ has just done, namely two essential acts which we usually term the consecration and the distribution. The phrase “in (or for) my remembrance” is an echo of the Passover rite: “And this day shall be unto you for a memorial.” A new and greater memorial is to take the place of the old. But this phrase does not mean that this Sacrament is only to remind us of Christ or of his death. “In remembrance of me” is to be the content of the entire sacramental act. And this remembrance is the oral reception of Christ’s body that was sacrificed for us on the cross. When R. 595 says that εἰς does not mean “for” in the phrase “for my remembrance,” which we usually translate “in my remembrance,” he does not note the true force of the preposition, which points to a purpose and a result.

1 Corinthians 11:25

25 In the same manner also the cup after having eaten, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me!

Luke’s record is much like Paul’s. To the phrase “in my blood” he adds “which is in the act of being poured out for you” or “in your behalf,” and omits the command: “This do,” etc. The other two records mention the taking, the blessing, and the giving of the cup with the command that all are to drink. Matthew and Mark have: “For this is my blood,” an exact parallel to the words regarding the bread. The latter adds to blood: “of the testament, which is being poured out for many”; to which the former adds: “for the forgiveness of sins.” The remarkable fact is the perfect agreement of the four records in every essential point although the wording is diverse. Yet this very diversity is an aid in interpretation.

“In the same manner” includes everything that is now done with the cup: Christ took, blessed, gave it, and spoke words to parallel those regarding the bread. But nothing comparable to the breaking of the bread is recorded. Regarding μετὰτό with the infinitive see R. 612; this is a common method for abbreviating a temporal clause: “after having eaten,” i.e., the bread. Keil, however, regards the expression as a reference to the Passover meal; it thus indicates that this cup is not connected with the Passover cup; an entirely new act is now taking place.

“The cup,” with its article, points to the one that was used during the Passover celebration. “The word ‘cup’ may mean, without metaphor: 1) the vessel meant to contain liquids, whether they be in it or not; 2) the liquid which is contained in such a vessel, or is imparted by it; 3) the vessel and liquid together… In the words: ‘He took the cup,’ Luke 22:17, the word ‘cup’ is used in the third of these senses—he took the cup containing, and through it the contents. In the words: ‘Divide it among yourselves,’ the cup is conceived in the second sense—divide the contained cup by passing from one to another the containing cup, with its contents. In the words of the institution: ‘This cup is the new testament,’ the contained cup, in the second sense, is understood—the contained as mediated through the containing—that which this cup contains is the new testament in my blood. In such a use of the word ‘cup’ there is no metaphor, no rhetorical figure whatever. It is a grammatical form of speech; and if it be called a ‘figure,’ the word ‘figure’ is used in a sense different from that in which it is denied that there is a ‘figure’ in the first words of the Supper. We deny that there is a rhetorical figure in any part of the words of the institution.” Krauth, Conservative Reformation 778, etc.

The cup contained wine diluted with water; on this all are agreed save some special pleaders. Matt. 26:29: “of this fruit of the vine,” i.e., that which the Passover cup contained, excludes any and all other products of the vine such as unfermented grape juice, raisin tea, or grape syrup. The expression itself is derived from the Hebrew pheri hagiphen, a choice liturgical formula that denotes wine. Since a testament cannot be altered without invalidation, the use of any other liquid than actual wine made from grapes renders the Sacrament invalid so that it ceases to be a sacrament. Christ’s testament stands only as he made it and not as we may change it.

Only Luke omits ἐστί in the Lord’s word regarding the cup. Paul and the others have it in the same sense in which it was used with reference to the bread. “This cup” is not merely “this wine” but “this wine consecrated by the Lord to be the bearer of his sacrificial blood.” The predicate is “the new testament in my blood,” and the ἐν phrase modifies “testament” and not “this cup.” The Lord’s testament is forever linked with his sacrificial blood. Mark, therefore, writes “my blood of the testament”; and Matthew even makes the genitive attributive by placing the Greek article before the genitive. When the Lord gave “this cup” to the disciples, they received his blood as connected with “the new testament”; not the blood without the testament, nor the testament without the blood.

Monographs have been written on the term διαθήκη, “testament,” and its connection with the Hebrew berith, “covenant.” We see that the translators of our versions waver, the A. V. using “testament” in our passage, the R. V. “covenant” with “testament” in the margin. On this subjest compare C.-K. 1062, etc. We here indicate the sum of the matter. The Old Testament dealt with the promises of God to his chosen people. Thus God placed himself in “covenant” relation to Israel. The heart of this relation, like the promises and the gifts of God to Israel, is always one-sided. It is always God’s covenant and not Israel’s, and it is not a mutual agreement. This covenant obligates Israel, and Israel assumes these obligations, but the covenant itself emanates entirely from God.

The LXX translated berith, “covenant,” διαθήκη, “testament,” since this term has the same one-sided connotation; a will and testament emanates only from the testator. Christ, however, brought the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. The result of his act is the fact that God’s people now have the inheritance and are God’s heirs: “If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ,” Rom. 8:17. Thus we find the term διαθήκη used in the New Testament in the sense of “will and testament” by which God bequeathes to us all the blessings that Christ has brought. Hence also, as here in Christ’s institution of the Supper, this is called “the new testament,” “new,” however, not as a second testament, but as one that supersedes the old covenant, καινή, in contradistinction to something old, not νέα, something that never existed before.

Both the old berith or covenant and “the new testament” were connected with blood. The former was sealed with the blood of animal sacrifice: “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words,” Exod. 24:4–8. This blood typified and promised the blood of Christ, God’s own Son, the seal of “the new testament” by which we inherit all that this blood has purchased and won for us. The old covenant could be written in animal blood because it consisted of promise; the new testament could be written only in the blood of the Son because it conveys the complete fulfillment of the promise, the actual purchase of our redemption. This is stressed by the strong possessive adjective which we may render: “in connection with my own (ἐμῷ) blood.” This very blood together with the very body from which it flowed are now given us in the Sacrament to certify us as heirs of this “new testament” in Christ Jesus.

The word is “blood” and not merely “death” because a sacrifice and a specific death, namely a sacrificial death, are referred to. No other type of death could be connected with “the new testament,” i.e., could establish it. While the Sacrament consists of two acts and two elements, “body” and “blood,” these two are one and inseparable. There is no sacrificial body without sacrificial blood, and vice versa. If one should remark that the sacrifice had not as yet been made when the Lord instituted the Sacrament he is answered by the records which add the words which “is being shed for many,” Mark; “being shed for many unto remission of sins,” Matthew; “being given for you … even that which is being poured out for you,” Luke, where the present participles are so significant. In that solemn night the Lord was in the act of making his sacrifice.

To him it was present as though it had already been made. Nor do the Scriptures ever speak of the glorified body or the glorified blood when they mention the Sacrament; it is always the body given, the blood shed or poured out.

Paul records the institutional command in connection with the cup: “This do in remembrance of me,” but he inserts the temporal clause of expectancy: “as often as you drink it.” Every time the disciples drink the sacramental cup, this cup itself, just like the eating of the sacramental bread, is to constitute their remembrance of the Lord.

A still fuller exposition of the words of the institution is offered in the author’s Eisenach Gospel Selections in connection with the text for Maundy Thursday, first and second edition (omitted in the third).

1 Corinthians 11:26

26 In v. 23 Paul introduces the account of the institution of the Sacrament with γάρ, “for,” in order to substantiate his rebuke of the disorderly proceedings current among the Corinthians. Now he continues with a second γάρ and draws attention to the point in this account which especially calls attention to the gravity of the Corinthian disorders. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you are proclaiming the death of the Lord till he shall come.

“For” intends to say: “This is what you must consider when you assemble for the Sacrament.” Even if we did not have the other three accounts of the institution we see that Paul’s account of the institution is completed in v. 25, for both γάρ and the reference to “the death of the Lord” show that Paul is now offering an explanation of his own, and that he does not continue reporting what the Lord said when he was instituting the Sacrament. Paul connects his explanation with the clause which Christ used: “as often as you drink it,” but mentions both elements: “as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup,” and indicates that he refers to the celebration of the entire sacrament.

Now what do we really do when we eat of the sacred bread and drink of the sacred cup and thus properly celebrate the Lord’s sacrament? Paul answers with an iterative present tense, R. 880: “you are proclaiming the death of the Lord.” No less a thing than that. “The death” is placed emphatically forward in the Greek, and Jesus is called “the Lord,” and this title has the same grave significance it had in v. 23. Now, Paul would say, compare this proper way of eating and drinking the sacred bread and the cup with the way in which you Corinthians proceed when you conduct your preliminary Agape with the result that at times you cannot eat and drink the sacrament at all. Instead of proclaiming the Lord’s death with all the solemnity this proclamation deserves you are proclaiming your own unworthiness.

There is no need to quibble about this proclaiming and to state that it means a special proclamation in words of our own. Every proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the Lord’s death. The words of the institution alone, when they are spoken over the bread and the cup, do not proclaim that Christ died for us; the entire action of the sacrament does that, especially our receiving his body and his blood given and shed for us. For the entire sacrament is based on the death of the Lord. Our reception of his body and his blood through the earthly elements is our remembrance of him and at the same time our proclamation of him, in particular of his death.

The fact that Paul is speaking generally about every proper celebration of the sacrament we see from the clause: “till he shall come,” i.e., at the Parousia. With ἄχριςοὗ we may or may not have ἄν, R. 975, the sense being the same. From the night in which Jesus was betrayed onward until his return in glory at the last day this proclamation is to be made. The aorist subjunctive ἔλθῃ denotes a single future act and an actual coming. When Paul writes to the Corinthians that by properly celebrating the sacrament they proclaim Christ’s death “till he shall come” he says nothing whatever about the time of Christ’s coming. Paul does not know either the hour (period) or the day (date) of that coming; we know no more.

1 Corinthians 11:27

27 After thus explaining with two γάρ (v. 23 and 26) the major reason that Paul reproaches the Corinthians for their serious disorders he draws the grave conclusions that follow from the very explanations he has made. Wherefore, whoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

The stress is on the adverb “unworthily,” and we should note the juxtaposition of “unworthily” and “guilty” in the Greek, the latter word also forms the pivot of the clause in which it appears: unworthily—guilty! As the first genitive “of the Lord” modifies both the bread and the cup and places them into sacramental connection with the Lord, so also the second genitive “of the Lord” includes both the body and the blood.

The little connective “or,” which is placed between the bread and the cup, has quite a history. Some Protestants want this “or” changed into “and,” as some codices also have it, because the Catholics justify their doctrine sub una specie by stressing the force of this “or.” In order to escape the apparent correctness of the Catholic contention Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 6. Auflage, 391, and a number of commentators resort to the explanation that the first half of the Sacrament preceded the Agape, and the second half followed it, and that there was quite an interval between the two acts. Thus, it is thought, a person might receive the bread worthily and might actually have become unworthy by the time the cup was given. Even the reverse is supposed. R. 1188 writes that “or” “does not mean that some partook of one and some of the other, but that, whatever element was taken in this way (unworthily), there was guilt.” We certainly know of no case in which only one element was received.

If this is Paul’s meaning, his remark is pointless. If both elements were received, then Robertson, too, leaves us with the thought that one element may be received worthily while the other is received unworthily—a matter that Paul is not discussing.

As to the Sacrament, the fact is that the two parts of it were never separated by an interval either originally when Christ made the institution or later when the Corinthians celebrated the Sacrament; compare the remarks on v. 20. The cup always promptly followed the bread.

Regarding the unworthy communicant Paul says that he is guilty of both the body and the blood of the Lord. Here Paul has καί, “and,” which combines the body and the blood. Paul knows about no guilt that pertains only to the body or only to the blood.

In regard to “or” the grammatical answer is exceedingly simple. In some cases “or” connects alternatives, only one of which is taken by the writer, while the other is excluded. But “or” is used also in another sense, to present alternatives (two or more even), both or all of which the writer accepts. In Rom. 1:21 we read: men knew God but did not glorify him as God “or” give thanks. These are not alternatives, only one of which is correct; both are asserted as being true. As men did not glorify God, so also they did not give thanks.

Again, Matt. 21:23 has “and who” gave you this authority, while Luke has “or who” gave it to you. In all instances where “and” can be put in the place of “or” without changing the sense—and our passage is a case in point—the force of “or” is not disjunctive but conjunctive. We are not to choose one of two, both are to be taken equally. “Or” simply makes us look carefully at each of the two as we consider them together. On this conjunctive “or” see also Rom. 2:4; 4:13; 9:25 as explained by the author.

The adverb “unworthily,” ἀναξίως (positive adjective ἄξιος from ἄγω), refers to the drawing up of weights and thus signifies “of unequal weight,” one side of the scales rising high, the other dropping low. In the present connection the communicant’s heart, mind, and conduct do not accord with the sacred elements of the sacrament. The side of the scales which holds the sacrament drops down because of its weight while the side that holds the communicant’s attitude rises upward because of its lack of weight. The nature of the unworthiness in the case of the Corinthians the context has already made plain and will continue to make still plainer. Paul’s statement is general and applies to all forms and all types of unworthiness and therefore should not be restricted to the peculiar type of unworthiness found in Corinth.

He “shall be guilty” of the body and the blood of the Lord reads like the wording of a law, for legal codes employed the future tense in this manner. The term ἔνοχος = ἐνεχόμενος, being held fast in something and thus being “guilty.” In the New Testament the violated object is placed in the genitive: “guilty of the body and of the blood.” Each of the two nouns has its own article although the gender and the number are the same. The articles draw attention to each noun separately although “and” combines the two. The effect of these articles is similar to the effect of “or” in the first clause.

The question is constantly raised as to whether being guilty of the body and of the blood of Christ, as here charged by Paul, indicates the presence of this body and this blood in the Sacrament as one that is received also by the unworthy communicant. This presence is frequently denied. The classic method followed in this denial is to charge the opposite view with maintaining the following syllogism. Major premise: The object against which one sins must be present. Minor premise: In the Sacrament the object sinned against is the body and the blood of Christ. Ergo: These must be present.

If those who do believe in the presence maintain such a faith on the ground of this syllogism, it would be child’s play, indeed, to upset their faith, for the major premise is not invariably true. Take a royal seal or image as an instance. Its violation would certainly be a crime against the royal person, and this would be perpetrated without the royal person being present during the act of violation.

Those who accept the presence have themselves ever repudiated the syllogism imputed to them. Quenstedt is a favorite target for this charge of using a fallacious syllogism in support of the presence. But have those who make the charge read what he says? He subscribes to the observation: “Whoever violates a diploma vel sigillum thereby already insults the ruler himself.” He applies this to the Sacrament: “The irreverent treatment of the symbols alone (meaning the bread and the wine) does not always involve guilt against the body and blood of Christ,” i.e., as if these were present. The Sacrament is of a different type: “But the Eucharistic signa and sigilla do not merely signify but also certainly exhibit the substance itself of the body and of the blood of Christ. Therefore a violation of the Eucharistic signa does not act like a violation of a diploma or of a sigillum of a ruler.” Such alleged analogies are spurious. They posit a quid pro quo, for they beg the question by silently assuming the absence of Christ’s body and blood—that absence which they illustrate and thus prove.

The vital point in Paul’s own words is omitted by those who seek to remove the presence from the Sacrament, especially in the case of those who commune unworthily. Like all other true defenders of the presence, Quenstedt writes: “But whoever in the Lord’s Supper eats this bread, which is the κοινωνία (communion) of the body of Christ, or drinks the Lord’s cup, which is the κοινωνία (communion) of the blood of Christ, unworthily, eo ipso, by this very unworthy eating and drinking, becomes guilty of the body itself and of the blood itself of Christ.” Theologia Didactico-Polemica, IV, 251, etc. Luther emphasizes the same vital point: “St. Paul here joins together the bread and the body of Christ… How is it that the sin against the body of Christ is connected with the eating if that body is not to be present in the eating or bread? He would have had to say: ‘Whoever eats this bread unworthily sins against the Lord’s Supper, or against God, or against the command, or against the Lord’s order.’ Now the nature and the manner of the words compel the conclusion that he who eats unworthily is guilty in regard to what he eats… For the text mightily compels that the sin occurs in the eating and the drinking … and yet it says that the sin is committed against the body and the blood of the Lord.” Walch, XX, 321; Erlangen, 29. 250, etc.

The sin of which Paul speaks is not some derogatory treatment of the bread and the wine as symbols (diploma, sigilla) of Christ’s body and blood. This sin could be committed in various ways, for instance, by just thinking slightingly of the symbols. The sin named by Paul is committed only in one way, by unworthy eating and drinking. Paul is wholly true to his own report of Christ’s words: “This is my body” which the Lord gives us to eat.

1 Corinthians 11:28

28 The fact laid down in v. 27, that the unworthy communicant makes himself guilty of the Lord’s body and blood which he actually receives, leads to the admonition: But let a man test himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup!

This is the proper deduction to be made from the danger of participating unworthily. A wrong deduction would be to remain away from the Sacrament and thus to avoid the danger. The present tenses are iterative to express customary action. The idea of ἐκ, when it is used with verbs of eating and drinking, is that of the ablative, to indicate taking a part of the bread and the wine, while the accusative would denote the mere consuming, R. 519. By δοκιμάζω the action of properly testing is referred to as coins are tested, those of genuine metal and full weight being accepted, the rest being rejected, 9:27. The communicant is to test himself as to his fitness for the Sacrament. He alone can do that. In the command there lies the supposition that the test will result favorably.

Paul does not state directly into what the communicant is to probe when he is testing himself. The context, however, indicates what is in Paul’s mind. It will first be in regard to faith in Christ’s words which are used in the very institution of the Sacrament, v. 23–25. Secondly, it will be in regard to the removal of anything from the heart that would clash with the reception of Christ’s body and blood. This is done by true contrition and repentance.

On this injunction of Paul’s is based the so-called preparatory or confessional service that precedes the Communion service proper. The demonstrative adverb “so” once more emphasizes the preparation which Paul has indicated. Note how the eating and the drinking are repeated throughout v. 27–30 as if the tremendous significance of these simple acts is to be deeply impressed. Luther has caught the full import of these repetitions.

1 Corinthians 11:29

29 “For” fortifies the preceding admonition, yet not by pointing out the benefit of such self-testing but by indicating the harm that results from its absence; “for” = “for otherwise.” For he who eats and drinks eats and drinks a judgment to himself because he does not discern the body.

This is the situation against which to guard. Paul writes only: “He who eats and drinks” and omits renewed mention of the bread and the cup. This is done because these actions are the decisive feature and must thus be stressed as actions. “Unworthily,” which certain texts insert, is not needed because of the added participial clause.

The entire statement deals with the unworthy communicant, namely concerning what he does by his eating and his drinking. He eats and drinks κρῖμα to himself, “judgment” in the sense of “a sentence of judgment”; not κρίσις, the act of judging or of pronouncing a verdict. The word used is not κατάκριμα, “condemnation,” although, since the person is guilty, it would amount to this. Luther’s das Gericht (especially with the article), which is adopted by the A. V.’s “condemnation,” is too strong. Final damnation may result from communing unworthily, especially when it is continued indefinitely, but the “judgment” that is here mentioned by Paul may be removed by repentance. Verse 30 leads us to think that in its preliminary stages this “judgment” results in temporal penalties.

The final participle μὴδιακρίνων should not be construed with the subject: “he who eats and drinks not discerning,” etc.; for if this were intended, the participle would be placed next to the subject. This participle modifies the verbs: he “eats and drinks not discerning.” Greek participles of this kind are subject to a certain indefiniteness since the participial form fails to indicate the specific relation intended by the writer. This relation the reader must determine from the context. The R. V. has: “if he discern not,” etc., with which Robertson agrees 1129, 1023. Yet if the sense is to be conditional, why should Paul reverse the protasis and the apodosis?

To let the condition trail on behind seems to weaken its force whereas the condition would certainly be the vital point. We should note that the statement: “He eats and drinks a judgment to himself,” is a categorical declaration and is complete in itself. We ask: “Why a judgment?” The participle answers: “Because he does not discern the body.” This proves and substantiates the declaration and shows that no question about a judgment can be raised in such a case.

The extended paronomasia should be appreciated: κρῑμα—διακρίνων—διεκρίνομεν—κρινόμενοι—κατακριθῶμεν (v. 29, 31, 32). Since διακρίνων and διεκρίνομεν in v. 31 are so near together they should be translated in the same way. The R. V. uses “discern” for both but has the less appropriate “discriminate” in the margin; Luther has unterscheiden and richten, which the A. V. follows by translating “discern” and “judge.” The translations waver because in the case of the participle the object is “the body” (non-personal) and in that of the finite verb “ourselves” (personal). Even the verb “discern” does not fit “ourselves” very well.

Yet the sense is plain: to discern the Lord’s body means to perceive that in the Sacrament that body is really present and received. In v. 31: to discern ourselves means to perceive ourselves, when we commune, as partakers of the body and the blood of our Lord. Luther’s idea in using unterscheiden to translate the participle is the following: “not distinguishing the body,” i.e., treating it like ordinary food. He has some justification for this conception since in all probability this was the fault that existed in Corinth. Yet what Luther seeks to conserve is taken care of by the translation “discern.” Whoever discerns the Lord’s body in the Sacrament will, as a matter of course, “distinguish” this heavenly food from ordinary earthly food.

Paul writes very briefly “the body” and does not add “of the Lord” and does not mention “the blood.” Both the genitive and the second object are, however, evidently to be supplied. The supposition that the sole mention of “the body” intends to indicate “the breaking of the bread” is a fanciful thought, for neither bread nor its breaking are mentioned but only “the body.” Moreover, just preceding we have the twice repeated eating and drinking. To discern the body cannot mean to perceive and to judge aright that the bread symbolizes and represents the body, i.e., the body that is absent and far away in heaven. It must be the actual body that is present in the Sacrament itself and is given and eaten there.

1 Corinthians 11:30

30 Paul now states what eating and drinking a judgment really means; he does it by pointing to the judgment which has already begun among the Corinthians. For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and a considerable number are sleeping. The Corinthians were perhaps wondering about these inflictions. Paul gives them an explanation. Let us not forget that these cases occurred in spite of the charisma of healing which had been granted to some of the members. The weak and the sickly remained as they were, and some died.

The adjectives ἀσθενεῖς and ἄρρωστοι are practical synonyms, both denote ailments. In the present connection these cannot be spiritual ailments, for κοιμῶνται must mean physical death. The use of this verb “are sleeping” is quite significant in this connection. In the language of the New Testament only those who are saved “are asleep,” and this sleeping, of course, refers to their bodies and not to their souls. The “judgment” which Paul has in mind is at the worst an untimely physical death and not eternal damnation.

This raises the question regarding the physical effect which the Lord’s Supper may have on the communicant. There is no Scriptural warrant that the Sacrament will produce a beneficial physical effect upon the sick, neither that the body and the blood will act as a charm (Adolph Wuttke, Der deutsche Volksaberglaube, 193, 318), or that they will serve as a natural medicine. The body and the blood do not act as a poison which makes an unworthy communicant sick or kills him. It is the sin of communing unworthily which, like other sins, entails the penalty of judgment. Paul does not say that the penalty of this unworthiness is invariably physical sickness or untimely death. The Lord alone decides what the penalty shall be. In Corinth the penalty is as Paul states it.

1 Corinthians 11:31

31 Paul shows how we may escape “judgment” when we are going to the Lord’s Supper. But if we would discern ourselves we would not be judged. We must discern ourselves, form a right conclusion concerning ourselves. See the remarks on v. 28. A protasis with εἰ and the imperfect, and an apodosis with the imperfect and ἄν constitute a regular condition of present unreality, R. 1015.

When Paul says, “If we would discern ourselves we would not be judged,” he implies that the Corinthians are not doing this and are hence receiving judgment. See the notes on v. 29 regarding the verb “discern.” In v. 29 note the close correspondence between “a judgment” and “not discerning”; then the reverse in v. 31: “if we would discern we would not be judged.” In both verses the point of emphasis is finely put, being pivoted on judgment and being judged.

Yet Paul does not emphasize the subject: if “we ourselves” would discern ourselves, for he does not intend to contrast ourselves and the Lord. The incorrect translation of the A. V. introduces this contrast by translating the two verbs in the same manner: “If we would judge ourselves we should not be judged,” i.e., if we did it, the Lord would not need to do it. The contrast lies, not in the subjects, but in the verbs διακρίνειν and κρίνειν and in their voices, the first being active, the second passive. The first verb is compounded with διά, the second is without this preposition. Yet this fact does not make the first mean unterscheiden, “discriminate.” Any right “discernment” which we may make regarding our fitness for the Sacrament is sufficient; we do not need to stress the idea of segregating this “discernment” from ideas that are wrong by a process of discrimination. We escape a penalizing judgment from the Lord simply by properly perceiving that in the Sacrament we eat and drink the Lord’s own body and blood.

When Paul writes “we” he quietly includes himself and thus softens the tone of his words. Apostle though he is, he, too, does not escape judgment if he does not carefully discern his own spiritual condition. The way of safety which he points out is the one and the only way for all.

1 Corinthians 11:32

32 Just as in 10:13 Paul added a word of comfort to the serious warning there expressed, he does here. What about those who have hitherto failed in proper self-examination and self-discernment? Is no way of escape from the penalty which this has brought upon them open to them? In other words, what about the weak and the sickly? Yet in being visited with judgment by the Lord we are being chastened in order that we may not be finally judged adversely together with the world.

All present judging on the part of the Lord has the gracious purpose that we may not at last experience his adverse judgment and be condemned. Thus the Lord’s judgments which he visits upon believers for the serious sins they commit are evidences of fatherly love and not of his damning wrath; in the case of unbelievers the judgments which he visits upon them in this life are advance indications of his final consuming wrath.

We should note the durative present tenses “being visited with judgment” and “are being chastened” in contrast with the punctiliar aorist “may not be finally judged adversely,” i.e., “may not be condemned.” The former two continue in hope of betterment in order that the latter may not set in and once for all destroy us. ‘To chastise” is to treat as a child, i.e., to correct, when necessary, with severity. Such treatment always evinces great concern for the one chastised. While chastisement is painful it still proves that we are children.

To think that Paul has the dead in Corinth especially in mind, and that he intimates that even after death they will receive benefit from the Lord’s chastening, is to charge Paul with a bit of Romanism. Why not frankly say “Purgatory”? Paul commits the dead to God’s gracious hands. He writes for those who are still living, who “are being visited with judgment,” who “are being chastised.” “The world” is the entire body of unbelievers. Luther says that Paul writes thus “because otherwise with our reason we could not well believe and grasp this. For after we learn, and this also is certain, that God punishes sin, our reason concludes nothing but that these punishments are without all mercy on God’s part. Hence it falls from God and despairs of his grace.”

1 Corinthians 11:33

33 The graver deduction is made with ὥστε in v. 27; with another ὥστε Paul now brings the minor regarding the outward conduct of the Corinthians at the Agape. First the heart, then the conduct. Wherefore, my brethren, coming together to eat, wait for each other.

The address brings a brotherly touch at the end but at the same time shows in what spirit Paul was writing throughout. Both the participle “coming together” and the verb used in v. 34, “may not come together, point back to the beginning of the discussion in v. 17, 18, 20 where this same coming together in a congregational assembly is prominently mentioned. “To eat” refers to the Agape which was followed by the Sacrament.

“Wait for each other,” i.e., until all are properly assembled, goes back to the unbrotherly procedure that was rebuked by “each one in the eating consumes his own supper in advance” in v. 21 because so many ate in cliques and disregarded the rest. This wretched conduct, which even made the Sacrament impossible, the Corinthians should by all means avoid.

1 Corinthians 11:34

34 Then the final point: If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home in order that you may not come together unto judgment.

Let no one make of the Agape and the Sacrament that followed an ordinary meal, a feast for satisfying hunger. Do this at home. The Agape is no dole even for the poor, and we should not deduce this from the reference to “those that have not” in v. 21. The arrangement seems to have been after this order: the wealthier members provided everything or nearly everything that was needed, the rest brought what they could, some, like the slaves, brought nothing at all. The Agape did not take the place of an ordinary meal as the modern church suppers do at which people eat to satisfy their hunger. Its purpose was to reveal the congregation as a loving, united body. Thus the fitting climax was the celebration of the Sacrament.

The purpose clause once more reminds the Corinthians of the one thing to be avoided, namely “judgment,” v. 29. What a terrible coming together “unto judgment” instead of unto blessing! Κρῖμα, with the suffix -μα, is a term that expresses result, thus a verdict and also its execution.

Now the rest, when I shall come, I will set in order. Still other points require attention, probably some of the details of the Agape. The supposition that Paul had heard about these other matters but was not sufficiently certain of them to give instructions is scarcely correct; they were matters that could be postponed.

Romanists use Paul’s statement as a proof for their idea of apostolic tradition. We may well suppose that such unwritten traditions were circulated in the churches. But the Romanists are unable to state what these traditions were. For instance here in Corinth, what was it that Paul set in order when he arrived some months later? No one knows. In the New Testament ὡς is often temporal, and with ἄν and the subjunctive it denotes expectancy: “when I shall come” as I expect.

Great changes occurred in the early church. The Agape did not prove to be a permanent success. It was first transferred from the evening to the early morning “before it was light” (Pliny, Epistles 10, 42, 43, about 110 A. D.; antelucanis coetibus, Tertullian, De Corona, 3). Then the Agape was separated from the Sacrament; it was finally abolished altogether. Justin Martyr, about 150 A. D., describes the Holy Communion without mention of the Agape.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.