1 Corinthians 11
OGC**Butler’s Comments
Chapter Eleven THE PROBLEM OF DISORDERLY WORSHIP
IDEAS TO INVESTIGATE:**
Why would order in worship be a problem to Christians?
What do head-coverings have to do with proper worship?
Is it really degrading for a man to have long hair?
Must there be factions in the church in order to find out who the genuine believers are?
Does eating meals in the church building profane the Lord’s house?
What is eating the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner?
What is eating and drinking without discerning the body?
APPLICATIONS:
Have you ever thought about what worship is? Is it all feeling? Do you worship when you attend church services?
Should women wear head coverings today when they go to church? Do you? Why do Jewish men wear head coverings in the synagogue?
What about women cutting their hair in modern society? Shouldn-’t they let it grow to its full, natural length?
As a woman, do you believe you should be subordinate to a husband? As a man, do you believe you should rule over your wife?
If you were asked to make a decision about whether young men should wear long hair or not, what would you decide? Why? How long is long?
Would you compromise Paul’s teaching here on hierarchy or order within the earthly kingdom of God should it become a matter of contention?
What would you answer a member of a denominational church who said 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 teaches there should be denominations in Christianity?
Is it forbidden to have meals and eat in the church building?
Do you think of yourself as being locked into a covenant with God? What is the basis of your covenant? What are its terms?
How often do you think we should observe the Lord’s Supper? Would you object to or appreciate observing it more than once a week?
Have you ever thought of your partaking of the Lord’s Supper as a proclamation by you? To whom do you make your proclamation?
Do you ever feel like you are unworthy to take the Lord’s Supper? When? If you had committed a terrible sin on Saturday, should you partake on Sunday?
Have you ever partaken of the Supper without having discerned the body?
What do you think is necessary for a congregation to be partaking of the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner?
APPREHENSIONS:
What is the apostolic tradition? Why should we obey apostolic tradition if Jesus condemned the traditions of the Pharisees? (See Matthew 15:1-20.)
What is worship?
Why is Paul discussing such insignificant things as veils on women and long hair on men in connection with worship? What is the fundamental issue he is discussing?
What is the proper order of hierarchy in the home? Where is the man’s position? What is the woman’s role?
Why does a man dishonor God by covering his head as he worships?
Why is the Bible so explicit about the feminine and masculine roles?
What does Paul mean when he says, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God?
Why did Paul say, … there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized?
What specific faction is Paul talking about in this context?
Were Christians actually getting drunk just before the worship service?
How often are we to observe the Lord’s Supper?
Is the ritual of the Supper our covenant?
What were these Corinthians doing that Paul accused them of partaking of the Supper in an unworthy manner?
What is discerning the body?
**Applebury’s Comments
CHAPTER ELEVEN**
Analysis
A.
The apostle gives instructions to be observed by man or woman when praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:1-16).
He requests them to imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1). Note: This, in all probability, belongs to the thought of chapter ten. The apostle sets the example of limitation of Christian liberty and urges the Corinthians to follow it as he is following the example of Christ.
He approaches this new problem with words of praise for remembering him and the oral messages he had delivered to them (1 Corinthians 11:2).
He gives additional instruction about covering the head when praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).
a)
He wants them to know the principle that is involved (1 Corinthians 11:3).
(1)
The head of every man is Christ;
(2)
The head of woman is man;
(3)
The head of Christ is God.
b)
He points out the result of failing to observe this principle (1 Corinthians 11:4-6).
(1)
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
(2)
Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.
(a)
It would be the same thing as if she were shaven, for if a woman is not veiled, he says, Let her be shorn.
(b)
But since it a shameful thing for a woman to be shorn or shaven, he says, Let her be veiled.
c)
He then shows why a man ought not to have his head veiled (1 Corinthians 11:7).
(1)
He is the image and glory of God.
(2)
Woman, on the other hand, is the glory of man.
d)
He appeals to the origin of man and woman and God’s purpose in creating them to support his position (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
(1)
Their origin:
(a)
Man is not of woman.
(b)
Woman is of man.
(2)
God’s purpose in creating them:
(a)
Man was not created for woman.
(b)
Woman was created for man.
e)
He presents his conclusion based on this reasoning (1 Corinthians 11:10).
(1)
Woman should have on her head the veil which is a symbol of her right and dignity as woman.
(2)
This is to be observed because of the angels.
He indicates other factors that have to do with the relationship of man and woman in order to avoid misunderstanding of what he had just said (1 Corinthians 11:11-16).
a)
He reminds them that neither man nor woman is independent of the other (1 Corinthians 11:11).
b)
He recalls the facts of creation and birth (1 Corinthians 11:12).
(1)
The woman was created for the man.
(2)
The man is born of the woman.
(3)
All things are of Goda thing to remember as to the distinction between man and woman.
c)
He appeals to their own judgment in the matter: Is it proper for a woman to pray unto God with her head uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:13)?
d)
He appeals to nature to support his position (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).
(1)
If a man has long hair (which makes him appear to be a woman) it dishonors him, does it not?
(2)
On the other hand, if a woman has long hair (which points out her womanly dignity) it is a glory to her, for her hair was given her for a covering.
e)
He indicates to those who might still want to argue the point that what he has said is the custom that is observed by the churches of God (1 Corinthians 11:16).
B.
He turns his attention to the problems which they faced in connection with observing the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34).
He refused to commend them because of these conditions which made it impossible for them to eat the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-22).
a)
Their coming together was not for the better but for the worse (1 Corinthians 11:17).
b)
He points out that divisions existed among them (1 Corinthians 11:18-19).
(1)
He had heard that divisions existed among them when they assembled and had reason to believe that such was true with part of them (1 Corinthians 11:18).
(2)
He pointed out that divisions were accompanied with factions that resulted in the approved among them being manifested (1 Corinthians 11:19).
c)
He indicated the tragic result of this situation: It was not possible for them to eat the Lord’s supper, for each one of them ate his own which resulted in some going hungry while others were drunken (1 Corinthians 11:20-21).
d)
He severely rebuked them for this by asking a series of questions (1 Corinthians 11:22).
(1)
You have houses to eat and drink in, do you not?
(2)
Do you despise the church of God and put to shame those who have nothing?
(3)
As if puzzled about what to do, he asks, What shall I say to you?
(4)
Shall I praise you? His answer: In this I praise you not.
He explained the purpose of the Lord’s supper as he had received it from the Lord and delivered it to them (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).
a)
He points out the source of his information which he had passed on to them.
b)
He points out what the Lord did and said about the loaf and the cup.
(1)
Time: It was on the night of His betrayal.
(2)
The bread: He took bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it and said, This is my body which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
(3)
The cup:
(a)
This was after the supper.
(b)
He said, This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
(c)
He said, This do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
c)
The apostle adds this inspired information: As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till He come.
He points out the penalty for failing to decide correctly the issues involved in the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:27-34 a)
a)
As to eating the bread and drinking the cup.
(1)
Doing it in unworthy manner results in being guilty of mishandling the body and blood of Christ.
(2)
Let a man examine himself and so let him eat.
b)
As to correctly judging the body.
(1)
Failure to do so results in eating judgment to oneself.
(2)
Failure to do so resulted in many of them being weak, sickly, and not a few were dead.
c)
How to avoid such judgment:
(1)
By correctly judging themselves.
(2)
By remembering that the chastening of the Lord keeps His people from being condemned with the world.
(3)
Wait one for another and let the hungry eat at home.
He reminds them that he will attend to the rest of the problems when he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:34 b).
Questions
What is the subject of this chapter?
What did Paul have in mind when he asked the Corinthians to imitate him?
Why could he do this?
What can be said of Paul’s expression of praise for his readers?
What are some of the complimentary things that Paul said about the church at Corinth?
What evidence is there that they remembered what he taught?
What is meant by traditions?
What two classes of traditions may be found in the New Testament?
What is the three-fold statement of the principle of headship which Paul wanted them to understand?
How is the word head used in this context?
What are the possible meanings of the term?
What is the clearly indicated lesson of this paragraph?
Does the Bible say that man is superior to woman?
What lesson does Paul teach in Ephesians as to the relation of husband and wife?
What may be said about the view that he is discussing the same relationship in this context?
What is the difference between praying and prophesying?
Under what influence did men and women prophesy in the early church?
What is the issue involved in the discussion in this chapter?
What limitation is placed on the activity of woman according to Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12?
What was the reason for this limitation?
What evidence is given in the New Testament to show that woman prophesied?
What did Paul say about the task of aged women?
Where is all distinction such as male and female, bond and free removed?
What was wrong about a woman praying with her head uncovered?
What lesson does the apostle draw from the fact that man was created first and then woman?
Why did he say that a woman who left off the veil had just as well cut her hair and be shaved?
Should this custom be observed today?
What are the various view of the expression, for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head?
What did this have to do with the angels?
Why did Paul call attention to the birth of man as well as to the fact of his creation?
Why did he say, All things are of God?
What lesson did nature teach that had a bearing on the subject of this chapter?
Why did he say, we have no such custom?
Why did Paul withhold his praise in the matter of eating the Lord’s supper?
To what does the word church refer?
What was taking place in the assembly that Paul condemned?
What did Paul mean when he said, I partly believe it?
What may also be expected when divisions are present in the church?
Who are the approved in the church?
What caused them to be manifested in the church at Corinth?
When was the church to come together?
What was to be done at that time?
What was the custom at Corinth that led to the neglect of the Lord’s supper?
Is it wrong to eat in the church building?
Why did Paul remind them that he received from the Lord the instructions which he gave them?
What was the old covenant?
Why was it necessary to make a new covenant?
What is the new covenant?
What does the Lord’s supper call upon the worshiper to remember?
What do the Scriptures teach about the coming of Christ?
Should one refrain from taking the Lord’s supper because of a feeling of unworthiness?
To what does unworthy manner refer?
What should be done about the awareness of guilt as one approaches the Lord’s supper?
What is meant by discern the body?
What is meant by discerned ourselves?
What chastisement had befallen the church at Corinth?
Why does the Lord chasten His people?
What would Paul need to do upon his next visit to Corinth?
For Discussion
What effect should the proper observance of the Lord’s supper have on the life of the church?
What effect should the awareness of the coming of Christ have on the life and work of the church?
What can be done to make these great issues effective in the life of the church?
1 Corinthians 11:1-2
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 1
Opening Words** (1 Corinthians 11:1-2)
**11 **Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
1 Corinthians 11:1-2 Commendation: Clearly, the first verse of the eleventh chapter should be the closing verse of the tenth chapter. It belongs to that context. Paul changes the subject to disorder in worship in 1 Corinthians 11:2. He commends the Corinthians for remembering to consult him about their problems, and for maintaining the apostolic teachings (traditions) he had taught them. Paul is using the word traditions to mean Holy-Spirit-inspired-doctrinesnot human traditions. He distinguished clearly between the two. In Galatians 1:14 and Colossians 2:8 he speaks of human traditions. In 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, he refers to apostolic traditions which were delivered and taught by the apostles and received by the Christians as the word of God (see 1 Thessalonians 2:13). This is precisely why Paul could address this church, with all its faults and difficulties, as brethren, and saints. They may seem grossly immature, but they knew where to turn for the truth! The only source for solution for the problems that plague the saints is the apostolic word (traditions).
1 Corinthians 11:1-16
Applebury’s Comments
When praying or Prophesying (1-16)
Text
1 Corinthians 11:1-16 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn; but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, for as much as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: 10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. 13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
*Commentary
Be ye imitators of me.*This verse is, in all probability, the apostle’s concluding statement about limiting Christian liberty. He had said in the beginning of the discussion of the subject that if meat caused his brother to stumble he would eat no flesh for evermore. Now he urges his readers to follow his example and refrain from anything that would cause offense to anyone whether Jew or Greek or the church of God, for he was following the example of Christ. The object of such conduct was to save some. See Philippians 2:5-11 for his explanation of what Christ did in order to save sinners.
*Now I praise you.*In this letter, the purpose of which was to rebuke those practicing sin and offer corrective measures to overcome such practices, the apostle is careful to praise his readers whenever possible. He had addressed them as the church of God and reminded them that they were his brethren and that he was their spiritual father. But when he did rebuke them, it was for the purpose of rescuing them from their sinful practices in the hope that they would follow Christ and be saved through obedience to Him. He seems at this point to be glad to say, I praise you.
*ye remember me in all things.*That the Corinthians did remember Paul and think of his instructions when questions arose among them is indicated by the fact that they wrote to him for further information about such matters as marriage, meats and other things that had to do with their, worship of the Lord.
He commended them for holding to the instruction which he had given them even though they may have failed to remember all that he had said. There seemed to be a disposition on their part to abide by his teaching. Otherwise, why would they have written to him? Of course, he wouldn-’t commend them on all things, for in matters such as the Lord’s supper they were not acting in accord with Christian principles. In this, he didn-’t hesitate to say, I commend you not. It is evident that his praise was not mere flattery, for it was freely given when merited. It seems that in doing so he was helping them to see that it was with equal sincerity and concern for their welfare that he rebuked them when had to do so.
*the traditions.*Traditions, as they are mentioned in the New Testament, are in two classes. First, there are the traditions of the Jews which, Jesus said, were causing them to transgress the commandment of God (Matthew 15:3). These were customs that had grown up without divine sanction and transmitted from generation to generation. They became an evil thing since people soon put these traditions above the word of God. Second, the word as used by Paul simply means the oral instructions he had delivered to them as an inspired apostle. They were, of course, on a par with the written instructions he had given to them. It is this orally transmitted message that they were observing that called forth his expression of praise.
*But I would have you to know.*When it came to the problem of a man or a woman praying or prophesying, he wanted them to know the principle that governed this matter. This was the principle of headship. As it applied to their situation it was given in a three-fold relationship: The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Failure to grasp the significance of this principle led some of them, it would seem, to faulty conclusions.
*the head of every man is Christ.*The word head is used both literally and figuratively in this context. Literally, it means the head of the human body. But what does it mean figuratively? There is no question that in some instances it means supremacy and authority. But is that what it means here? While I do not find any other clear cut example except this one in the New Testament, it is possible that in this context it refers to source or origin. There is abundant evidence to support this meaning when used with reference to things. For example, the head of a river is its source or point of origin. The origin of man and woman is the basis of Paul’s argument in this context. See 1 Corinthians 11:7-9. Verse twelve also clearly refers to the Genesis account of the origin of man and woman. And, Paul adds, all things are from God.
The lesson of the paragraph is clear enough: man is to dress in a manner that marks him, according to the culture of Paul’s day, as a man. To do otherwise is to disregard the fact that God created him a man. Woman also is to maintain her position as a woman and not attempt to become a man by forsaking the customary dress that marked her as a woman according to the culture of that day. There is nothing in the context, as I see it, that suggests that man is superior to woman or has authority over her. Headship as it relates to man and woman is explained by the fact that man is the image and glory of God, but woman is man’s glory. Origin or source makes good sense in this context.
The head of every man is Christ. Some would limit this to the man who is a Christian, but the facts are that Christ is the creator of all. God said, Let us make man in our image (Genesis 1:26). John says of the Word that all things were made through him (John 1:1-2). Paul, speaking of Christ, says that in him were all things created (Colossians 1:15-16).
*the head of woman is the man.*This is a reference to the creation of man and woman, not to husband and wife. The latter relationship is discussed by Paul in Ephesians 5:23. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. The church is the body of Christ, and without it He would be incomplete (Ephesians 1:22). There can-’t be such a relationship as wife without husband. Subjection implies the necessity of faithfulness to her own husband, that is, a proper relationship between husband and wife just as the members of the church are to be in subjection one to another (Ephesians 5:21).
Christ’s authority over His church is clearly indicated in many passages. See Matthew 28:18-20 for His own statement as to His authority. But there is a serious question about implying it in the figure of headship.
The problem that Paul is discussing in this context is that of distinctive dress that marks man and woman while praying or prophesying. It is true that the word translated man may also be rendered husband. But in this context there is no reason to do so. The fact that Paul uses the definite article with man in the statement, the head of woman is the man does not make it signify husband. It is logical to suppose that whatever head means in one of these three statements, it means in the others: Of every man, the head is Christ; and head of woman is the man; and head of Christ, God. The origin of man is Christ; of woman is the man; of Christ is God. Man was created by Christ; woman created from man; Christ sent from God.
*Every man praying or prophesying.*Praying is speaking to God; prophesying is speaking for God. In the early church, much of the prophesying (preaching) was done of necessity under the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit. See discussion on this point in chapter twelve. The issue is just this: Man speaking to God or speaking for God is to dress as a man, for he was created in the image of God and is the glory of God. To do otherwise is to dishonor his head. If he covers his head he appears to be a womanaccording to the culture of that day.
*every woman praying or prophesying.*Not wife, but woman. The activity is the same as in the case of man: praying or preaching. This does not overlook the fact that there are limitations placed on the activity of women. Woman is not to teach, nor have dominion over man, but to be in quietness (1 Timothy 2:12). This regulation stems from the facts of creation of woman and the entrance of sin into the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). It seems quite evident that the men did the preaching in the general assembly where both men and women were present. Most godly women agree that this is proper in our society today. But it will be remembered that Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:19). Priscilla, as well as her husband Aquila, was instrumental in instructing Apollos in the way of God (Acts 18:24-28). Women, it will be generally agreed, are superior teachers of children. Note also Paul’s statement about aged women who are to be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed (Titus 2:3-5). There is work for man and there is work for woman to do in the church; and, when it comes to the matter of salvation in the Lord, there is no distinction as to male and female, bond and free, since all are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28).
*her head unveiled.*Man was not to have his head covered, but woman was to have her head veiled while praying or prophesying. Why? If a woman assumes the position of man by dressing like a man and thus losing her womanly dignity, she disgraces her head by denying that God created man first and then woman to be his counterpart (Genesis 2:18-24). It dishonors God for either man or woman to attempt to remove this distinction. At no time is it more true than when one is praying to God or prophesying for God. To inject the thought of authority of husband over wife into this context is to forget that Paul is speaking about maintaining the relationship of man and woman as seen in the order of their creation; but priority is not superiority.
*if a woman is not veiled.*Cutting the hair and shaving were marks by which to identify a man. If a woman left off the veil which was a distinctive mark of a woman, she had just as well go farther and cut her hair and be shaved. If it was disgraceful to cut the hairassumed as true, since this was the distinctive mark of manlet her keep the recognized mark of womanly dignity, the veil.
Should this custom be observed today? Without doubt, the principle of maintaining womanly and manly dignity is to be observed. Since the use of the veil would not necessarily show respect for the principle, it would seem that its use is not called for where custom does not require it. It would be artificial to create the custom to support the principle. The principle can be supported by the distinctive marks of our culture just as it was by the requirements of Paul’s day.
*the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.*What are we to understand about this verse in the light of the foregoing discussion? In the first place, let it be observed that the words sign of are in italics which means that they are not in the Greek text. They are inserted by translators in order to make the text clear. They become, in fact, matters of interpretation, not translation. This is often necessary in bringing thought from one language into another.
For the meaning of the word authority see notes on 1 Corinthians 8:9 and 1 Corinthians 9:4. Should it be translated authority in this context? There is no good reason to do so since the apostle is speaking of the issue of honor which man is to show toward his head and woman toward hers. This amounts to respect for the fact that God created man and that He created woman for man. This distinction is to be maintained when a man or a woman is praying or prophesying. Right is a better term to express this thought in this context. The veil was the distinctive mark of the right and dignity of woman. There is no reference in this context to husband and wife, nor a suggestion that a wife should wear a sign of the authority of her husband on her head. The wife, by divine injunction, is to be faithful to her own husband and to respect her husband. By the same divine instruction, the husband is to love and cherish his wife even as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:22-23). But in this context, Paul is speaking of the necessity of woman maintaining her honor and dignity as a woman. She is not, therefore, to give the impression that she is a man.
*because of the angels.*Woman is to keep the place for which God created her just as man is to keep his place. Angels who left their proper place were punished. This is a warning to women who try to be men or to men who try to pose as women. It is thought by some that the reference is to angels who do service for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation (Hebrews 1:14). If this is so, the question is: How could they assist in the worship of those who dishonor God by disregarding the facts of creation?
*neither is the woman without the man.*Lest what Paul has been saying should cause difficulty between man and woman in the church, the apostle reminds each that he is dependent on the other. It is true that God made woman from man; but it is also true that in His divine providence and wisdom He decreed that man should be born into this world through woman. No man who properly respects his God and who honors his mother would be likely to mistreat the woman who is to be the mother of his children. For some men, however, there is neither respect for God nor honor for his mother or the mother of his children.
*all things are of God.*Both man and woman are reminded that God in His wisdom provided for the human race in every way. Neither man nor woman should seek to change His plan, and that is especially true of those who pray to God or who speak for Him.
*Judge ye in yourselves.*Paul puts the question up to the good judgment of his readers. Most people who understand the divine arrangement will gladly agree with it.
*even nature itself.*Paul has appealed to the facts of creation and to the good judgment of his readers. His last appeal is to nature. The long hair which woman has by nature proves his point. God gave her this covering as a sign of her womanly right and dignity. To cut it or to try to make it appear that she is a man is to dishonor God and nature. Most modern hair styles do not, it seems to me, violate the principle involved in the apostle’s directive. Some will disagree on his point. Long hair on a man makes him appear effeminate and is contrary to the divine principle under consideration.
*we have no such custom.*Apparently there were those in Corinth who were contending that the natural distinction between man and woman was removed by baptism into the church. It is true that there is no such thing as male and female when it comes to the matter of personal salvation, but this does not say that all such distinctions are to be disregarded for the facts of creation and of nature are not thus removed. The apostles had no such custom, neither did the churches of God. Since he has based his argument on the fact that God in creation and nature made this distinction, it is fitting that he should remind them that the church is the church of God.
1 Corinthians 11:3-16
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 2
Order, a Requirement for Godly Worship **(1 Corinthians 11:3-16)
3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her headit is the same as if her head were shaven. 6For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8(For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 11(Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) 13Judge for yourselves is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 The Issue: The eleventh chapter of this letter very evidently deals with problems reported to the apostle Paul about public worship in the Corinthian congregational assemblies. Actually, Chapter s 12, 13 and 14 also deal with the problem of disorderly worship. But, since these Chapter s treat problems distinctly different than those of chapter 11, we will treat them separately.
The Hebrew word shakhah is the most usual word translated worship in the Old Testament. It means, literally, to bow down, to prostrate oneself. The Greek word in the New Testament most often translated worship is the word proskuneo and also means, to bow down, to prostrate oneself, and to do obeisance. The English word worship is a contraction of the early English word worthship. The old English worthship gives us an exact idea of what our modern word worship means. The one to whom we give worship must be worthy of absolute homage, honor, reverence and obedience.
Worship is essentially an attitude instead of an act! First, the performance of certain rituals of worship without the proper attitude is condemned by the Scriptures as an abomination before God. On the other hand, a false emotion that discounts as irrelevant clear commands about definite acts of worship betrays a disobedient attitude and makes a mockery of worship.
Attitude in worship is the fundamental issue Paul deals with in chapter eleven. It is the issue of obedience to the revealed will of God as spoken and written by the apostles. The problem has manifested itself by two symptomatic actions in the public worship of the Corinthians; they are (1) the man-woman relationship; (2) the Christian-brother relationship.
In worship the outward man is bound up in the inward man. Worship is an outward act or acts springing from, and under the control of, inward attitudes and impulses of love and obedience. It is said, To worship God is to make Him the supreme object of our esteem and delight, both in public, private and secret. It is apparent from Chapter s eleven through fourteen, the primary problem of the worship of the Corinthian church was that it was directed toward themselves. They were so interested in calling attention to themselves and to their supposed superiorities over others, they were not making God the supreme object of their esteem. The key verse to this huge context of four Chapter s (1 Corinthians 11:11-14) is probably, For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodyJews or Greeks, slaves or freeand all were made to drink of one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).
While it is true regarding salvation and grace that men and women are of equal worth to God, it is also true that God has ordered certain hierarchies of authority within this world and his kingdom so long as it is in the world. In the church there are elders, evangelists and deacons to lead and shepherd the congregation. In the home the husband is the authoritative head. Evidently some of the Corinthian women misunderstood the teaching, In Christ there is neither male nor female. (Galatians 3:28). Some of them had cast off the cultural modes of ancient dress which particularly stressed and emphasized their femininity, hence their subordination to their husbands. While the primary focus of the apostle’s discussion is on woman’s subordination to man, the issue is not simply a wife’s obedience to her husband’s loving authority. It is much broader than that and covers attitudes of all women and menmarried or unmarried. The broader issue is that women (and men too) must not rebel against the divine order of femininity and masculinity!
Paul discusses the divine order by declaring that the head of every male person (Greek andros instead of anthropos) is Christ. No man should wear a sign of subordination to other men when he prays (or worships). There is only one mediator between man and God, himself man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). In the same divine order, the head of a female person is a male person. This does not deny that Christ is the head of the woman also, nor does it mean that a female person is inferior or of less importance than the male. Paul is reinforcing God’s order as it was ordained from the beginning (Genesis 2:18) when the woman was created as a helper for man. The divine order of masculinity and femininity involves differing functions which require hierarchies of authority. Man functions as leader, protector, provider; woman functions as mother, helper, supporter. This in no way means one is superior and the other inferior. It does not mean that the male person makes all the decisions arbitrarily and without consulting the wisdom of the female person. But Paul’s teaching (in harmony with the rest of scripture) does mean that the husband is the final authority and the leader in the home.
1 Corinthians 11:4-12 The Illustration: Lenski says the general custom among Greeks was that slaves should cover their heads while free men went bareheaded. If a man wore a covering over his head in Paul’s day it signified he was acknowledging final loyalty to a human being. It is wrong for a man to dishonor his masculinity in any way. God made man masculine. God made man to lead and be the final authority in the human order. On the other hand, the general custom among Greeks was that women, who desired the honor and protection femininity afforded them, wore veils in the public presence of men. Some of the Corinthian Christian women were apparently praying and attending public worship without being veiled. They were declaring their rejection of the divine order of human hierarchy by casting aside the first century symbols of this divine order.
In Paul’s day the veil worn by women probably covered the whole head with openings for the eyes and reached clear down to the feet. No respectable woman would go without a veil in public for if she did she would be in danger of being misjudged. The woman’s veil in those days was an important part of feminine dignity and gave her security and protection. Sir William Ramsay explains: In Oriental lands the veil is the power and honor and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen and therefore not subject to male familiarities and crudities. It is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to become familiar with a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd.. But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom anyone may insult.. A woman’s authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards. The veil was the woman’s badge of honor and respect. It showed that she had a definite place as a person in God’s order. Woman was not created to be simply a thing or an object to be exploited by any and all men. She is to be honored, protected, cherished, loved, served, and led by her husband because she is a female. Any man who prayed or prophesied with his head covered dishonored Christ (his head). A man worshiping in those days with his head covered symbolized he acknowledged some other human authority before Christ. The male Christian who worshiped with uncovered head signified he was accountable only to Christ. But the woman who prayed or prophesied with her head unveiled dishonored her husband (her head). She would dishonor her husband unveiled just as if she had her head shaved. Shaving of the head in ancient times (as even now in most cultures) was a sign of disgraceful and shameful conduct. At the end of World War II, those French women who had fraternized with Nazi soldiers were caught and their heads were shaved in public. Any woman in the civilized world of the apostle Paul, Greek, Roman, Jew or Syrian, would have felt terribly ashamed to have had her head shaved. Since that was the case, says Paul, the women of Corinth should have covered their heads in publicespecially in the worship services of the church. For the Christian woman of Corinth to go with her head uncovered was to act the part of a shamed woman whether she was one or not. And that, in turn, brought shame upon her husband, and upon the church.
In 1 Corinthians 11:7 through 1 Corinthians 11:9 Paul gives us clear scriptural proof of the divinely ordained human hierarchy. Woman was made from man, not man from woman. Man was made first and then the woman was made from his body (see Genesis 2:21-22). Man is* first* in the divine order. Furthermore, woman was made for man, not man for woman (see Genesis 2:18). Man is first in divine purpose. Both the origin of woman and the reason for her being is found in man. There is no room for human speculations or rationalizations when we have both the creation account and the apostolic reiteration. No matter how much political and philosophical rhetoric and no matter how practical and appropriate it may sound when some activists demand that females have, not only the right, but the obligation to reject the customary, biblically-taught, function of femininity, and step into the world of maleness and function as any man, it is clearly not the revealed will of God! The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 11:10 reads, dia touto opheilei he gune exousian exein epi tes kephales dia tous angelous. Translated, literally, On account of this, she ought, the woman, authority, to be having, upon the head, on account of the angels. The New American Standard Version translates this sentence, Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. The NASV has supplied the words, a symbol of since they are not in the Greek text. The New International Version supplies the same words. The Revised Standard Version supplies, a veil where there are no words in the Greek text. These versions are supplying words to give the sentence the usual interpretation.
This interpretation is the usual one, but some commentators have differed. They have taken authority as referring to the woman’s authority over her own natural head. There is justification for this interpretation in the Greek words (i.e., authority upon). This combination of words is found three times in the book of Revelation with the meaning have control of (Revelation 11:6, over the waters; Revelation 14:18, over fire; Revelation 20:6; over such, meaning the saints). In each case the combination of authority plus the preposition (Greek, epi) is the same. If this translation is taken, it is possible that the expression means that the woman should maintain control over her head so that it would not expose her to indignity. The woman’s veil then became her willing subjection to her husband, her refusal to expose herself to others. However, the ultimate significance of the two interpretations is the same. Willing subjection to her husband’s authority was a recognition of that authority, and this is the meaning of the clause. Even so, it would seem that the usual interpretation has the best claim to validity (Fred Fisher, op. cit., p. 177).
We are not so sure the words a symbol of or a veil should be supplied here. We are sure the woman (and the man) should acknowledge that she is to be having authority upon the head. There are women today who have all the symbols (hats, dresses, cosmetics) of womanhood but verbally and vehemently declare their rejection of the subordination of femaleness to maleness in the divine order of creation. It is more than a mere sign of authority the woman is to put on. She is to be mentally, emotionally and physically subordinate to the man. This does not degrade the woman! In subordinating herself to man she is actually taking her God-ordained place. She is filling the place of honor God created for her. Strange as it may seem to modern female activists, the woman’s place of dignity is in her femininity. By God’s word it is the woman’s right to have the protection, dignity and honor that she alone can have in femininity. If she forfeits her femininity, she forfeits her rights! That is diametrically opposite to much modern feminist philosophy.
The reference, on account of the angels. simply reinforces the idea that all God’s creatures have their place. The angels who left their assigned place in the created order of God forfeited their rights, dishonored God and themselves, and were cast into the abyss (cf. 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6).
Just because woman’s divinely ordered place is in subordination to man does not mean that man can exist independently of woman. For as the woman was made out of the man (Gr. ek tou andros), now the man is born through woman (Gr. dia tes gunaikos). Men and women are equally dependent upon one anotherbut each in their own God-ordered place!
1 Corinthians 11:13-16 The Indictment: The woman must not arrogate to herself the man’s place (pray with her head uncovered in cultures where it is a shameless usurpation of maleness to do so). The man is not to arrogantly defy God and take the woman’s place (wear long hair in cultures where it is not masculine to do so). Rebels and fanatics defy God’s created order; Christians obey it. It is unnatural and rebellious for men to wear their hair long like women. Nature itself shows that man, being short-haired, is intended by the God of nature to be unveiled; woman, being long-haired, is intended by the same God to be veiled. Generally speaking, in the more refined and advanced civilizations, men have always worn their hair short and women have worn theirs long. Plummer writes in the International Critical Commentary on I Corinthians, At this period, civilized men, whether Jews, Greeks, or Romans, wore their hair short (p. 235).
The long hair of the Greek fop or of the English cavalier was accepted by the people as an indication of effeminate and luxurious living. Suitable for women; it is unsuitable for men. (The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:14). Homer’s warriors, it is true, wore long hair, a fashion retained at Sparta, but the Athenian youth cropped his head at eighteen, and it was a mark of foppery or effeminacy except for the aristocratic knights to let the hair afterwards grow long. This feeling prevailed in ancient times as it does in modern times. (Expositor’s Greek New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:14).
According to Philip Vollmer’s Modern Student’s Life of Christ, archaeologists object to the conventional pictures of Christ with long hair because they are not true to history. A German painter, L. Fahremkrog, says Christ certainly never wore a beard and his hair was beyond doubt closely cut. For this we have historical, archaeological proofs. The oldest representations, going back to the first Christian centuries, and found chiefly in the catacombs of Rome, all picture Christ without a beard. All the pictures of Christ down to the beginning of the fourth century at least, and even later, are like this. The further fact that Christ must have, in his day, worn short hair can be proved by the scripture. Among the Jews none but the Nazarites wore long hair. Christ was indeed a Nazarene, but not a Nazarite. Then, like the rest of the Jews, he wore his hair short. Further evidence is furnished by Paul here in 1 Corinthians 11:14, where he expressly declares that it is a dishonor for a man to wear his hair without having it cut, something that no apostle would have said had his Master worn it thus. One thing Jesus did not do was dress in such a bizarre way as to attract undue attention to himself. He was so much a conformist in his appearance, apparently, the soldiers had to ask which one he was when they went to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane!
Some have tried to equivocate over this passage about the prohibition of long hair on a man. They ask, How long is long? or, How long should a woman’S hair be? The point of this discussion is that the man is not to have what the woman is to have. Actually, the expression long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 is from the Greek word komao which means let the hair grow. The idea of length is not one of relativity here. It is not how long some woman’s hair is in proportion to how short some man’s hair is. Every man or woman with respect to their hair falls into one of two categories. Their hair is either natural length or it is not natural length. We either let our hair grow or we do not let it grow. We either cut it or we do not cut it. Paul’s instruction might be translated, If a man let his hair grow, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman let her hair grow, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. The Greek word translated nature is phusis and could be translated, instinctively. Instinctively, creation expects men to have short hair and women long hair. It is disgraceful in a man to be like a woman, and in a woman to be like a man.
God expects those who trust him to keep the distinctions between maleness and femaleness, both outwardly and inwardly, clear and unequivocal. Deliberate effeminacy in men and masculinity in women has always been an abomination to God. Israelite men were not to wear women’s clothing, nor were women to wear men’s clothing (Deuteronomy 22:5). Homosexual behavior was a sin punishable by death in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17-18). Effeminacy is prohibited in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) along with homosexuality by either male or female (Romans 1:24-27).
Many of the heathen poets and philosophers of the Greek and Roman civilizations considered long hair in men a mark of effeminacy. Livy, Roman poet and historian, spoke strongly against the effeminacy of his age. Juvenal, disgusted by the sexual excesses and perversions of his day, spoke loathingly of the dandies whose manners, perfumes, and desire make them indistinguishable from women; and by the women who think that emancipation means that they should be indistinguishable from men.
In Zephaniah 1:8 God said that he would punish the officials and the king’s sons and all who array themselves in foreign attire. It has been thoroughly documented that the world-wide mania for long hair on men and hierarchical equality of women with men is fundamentally a rebellion against the divinely created and revealed order of God for the human race. When God’s people, by their modes of dress, indicate they are more in harmony with the foreign (heathen) culture than they are with God’s standards, it is time to apply the teachings of the apostle here in this eleventh chapter.
Notice the words used by the apostle in this context: dishonors, disgraceful, improper, is it proper? and degrading. For women (or men) to rebel against the place God has decreed for femininity or masculinity is serious sin. One cannot give acceptable worship to God in such rebellion. We repeat, the place God has ordered for femininity and masculinity is the basis of Paul’s instruction here. Man praying with his head covered, dishonors his masculinity which is from God; woman praying with her head uncovered, dishonors her femininity which is from God. Man’s dignity, or place, is to lead in society, to protect the weaker sex (female), to provide for the basic unit of society (the family) and to discipline. Woman’s dignity is to be a mother, to be a helper in many things (see Proverbs 31:1-31); to give sexual intimacy to her husband (see 1 Corinthians 7:1-40), to help rear children (Ephesians 6:1-4)in essence, woman’s dignity is to be feminine!
The apostle is not here advocating a dictatorship of the husband over the wife. In fact, as some see it, the husband as dictator and tyrant, and the wife as some non-thinking, non-speaking, non-human slave is not taught in the Bible at all. Many womenmarried women, tooin the Bible made decisions, spoke as individuals, and made crucial contributions to history. What the Bible does teach is that man has certain functions and woman has certain functionsneither is to replace the other. There are things women are not supposed to do and things men are not supposed to do (see Luke 8:1-3; Acts 9:36; Acts 18:24-28; Acts 21:19; Romans 1:1-16; 1 Timothy 2:12-14; 1 Timothy 5:9-16; Titus 2:3-5).
In 1 Corinthians 11:16 Paul makes the matter of subverting masculinity and femininity as God has revealed it, a matter of disobedience to apostolic practice and that is disobedience to God. Paul does not mean by 1 Corinthians 11:16, If anyone objects or wants to argue against what I have said, just forget about it because I didn-’t mean it anyway. Paul is saying that if any man, after this clear statement from me, is disposed to dispute the divine order of masculinity and femininity, and appears to be contentious, we simply say that we (the apostles) disapprove of the disordering of the places of male and female, and so do the churches of God. With any person who would dispute Paul’s instruction here, argument is useless. Authority is the only solution to the controversy. Apostolic authority is unquestionable. And no man is justified, except on clearly scriptural grounds to reject the accepted and practiced customs of the local congregation of believers, (see I Cor. ch. 8-10).
1 Corinthians 11:17-34
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 2
Oneness, a Requirement for Godly Worship** (1 Corinthians 11:17-34)
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. 25In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another34if any one is hungry, let him eat at homelest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
1 Corinthians 11:17-19 Cliques Stated: The church at Corinth was especially troubled by problems of worship. This was in part due to the variety of religious backgrounds among its members. The Jews in the Corinthian church would be accustomed to the simple, subdued, but dignified services of the synagogue. The synagogue would have been male-oriented. The women would have kept silent. Scriptures would be read, a scholarly dissertation of the scriptures would be given, prayers said, and, as the worshipers departed, offerings would be placed in the alms boxes. Most of the Gentiles in the Corinthian church, however, would be accustomed to the idolatrous services associated with Dionysus, god of intoxication and revelrywild orgiastic feasts where food and wine were consumed in great quantities. The cult of Mithras, which was so popular with the Roman troops, initiated its converts in the tauroboliuma pit in the ground over which a bull was slaughtered. As the blood poured over him, the new devotee eagerly let it immerse his eyes, nose, and tongue. This makes it clear there would be difficulty in the Corinthian church about how the worship services should be conducted.
A serious problem had arisen about the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Paul was very distressed over the reports of their conduct. Apparently there were cliques (small, exclusive groups) forming according to social and economic levels and separating from one another. It is clear that the worship service of first century Gentile churches was preceded by a communal meal (a fellowship supper). Paul says in this very chapter that the worship service in Corinth observed such a meal before worship (1 Corinthians 11:20-22). By having this fellowship supper they may have thought they were making progress in their Christian commitment. But Paul says they were coming together not for the better but for the worse! They would have been better off not even to have come together to behave as they were.
Division is abhorred by the Lord whether it is over church leaders, over opinions, or over social and economic status. Paul does not say here (1 Corinthians 11:18-19) that divisions (Gr. Schismata) and factions (Gr. haireseis, or heresies) are necessary in the church in order to prove who belongs to God. He certainly would not advocate that Christians should form denominations and sects and cliques so the world would be able to find the true God. Jesus prayed just the opposite (see John 17:1 ff.). He is pointing out, however, that when people form cliques within the church, those who refuse to join them and refuse to approve of them, are themselves recognized as genuine in their faith. A Christian who is a genuine brother to all Christians will not only refuse to join cliques and factions, but he will resist them with loving admonition.
1 Corinthians 11:20-22 Communal Supper: William Barclay in his commentary writes about the communal meal in the first century church:
The ancient world was in many ways a much more social world than ours. It was the regular custom for groups of people to meet together for common meals. There was, in particular, a certain kind of feast called an eranos in Greek language, to which each participant brought his own share of the food, and in which all the contributions were pooled to make a common feast. The early church had such a custom; they had a feast called the Agape or Love Feast. To it all the Christians came, bringing what they could, and when the resources of all were pooled, they sat down to a common meal. It was a lovely custom; and it is to our loss that the custom vanished.
This meal probably grew out of the fact that when Jesus first instituted the Lord’s Supper it was in connection with the Passover meal he and his disciples had just eaten. It was a way of producing and nourishing real Christian fellowship (Gr. koinonia, sharing, participating). It offered the well-to-do a regular opportunity to share their material blessings with the poor. After this meal, all the Christians would partake of the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, to memorialize his atoning death for the sins of all men.
But in the church at Corinth things had gone sadly wrong with the Love feast (and as a consequence, it had defiled their act of partaking of the Lord’s Supper). Paul treats this problem with one of the angriest outbursts in the whole epistle. He begins with sarcasm, When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. William Barclay again:
In this church there were rich and poor; there were those who could bring much of the finest of foods to the Love Feast and there were slaves and poor who could bring little or nothing. For many a poor slave the Love Feast must have been the only decent meal in the whole week.. The rich did not share their food but ate in little exclusive groups by themselves, hurrying through it in case they had to share. The meal or gathering at which the social differences between members of the church should have been obliterated only succeeded in aggravating these same differences.
Some in the Corinthian church began to eat before the others arrived, gorging themselves, consuming most of the provisions, and letting the others go hungry. The drunken are the wealthy who had the leisure to come early. They fed themselves full, and drank until they became inebriated. How shameful! The hungry were the slaves, common laborers, foundry workers, tired dock hands, and sick and disabled who were poverty stricken. Most of these would of necessity arrive late for the communal meal in the evening because they had to work until the sun set; these needed the most and received the least. It is scandalous to become drunken at the worship service; it is even worse to be drunk with a false sense of superiority and an indifference to the needs of the brethren. What started as a love feast turned out to be an orgy of squabbling, hurt feelings and even drunkenness. This, of course, destroyed all possibility of properly commemorating the Lord’s sacrifice in the Lord’s Supper. Paul insists that this prostitution of Christian fellowship destroys the true meaning and purpose of the Lord’s Supper. They go through the ritual of the Lord’s Supper all right, but it does not glorify Christ. They have hardly turned away from showing their contempt for Christ in their factious gluttony before they are pretending to join their snubbed brethren in communing with the Lord.
Paul is not prohibiting Christians from having fellowship suppers in the church-building in 1 Corinthians 11:22. In the first place, so far as we know historically and archaeologically, there were no buildings built specifically as church-buildings before 200 A.D. The Christians at Corinth were meeting in people’s private homes (see 1 Corinthians 16:19). Furthermore, it is clear that what Paul condemned was the manner in which they were conducting themselves, not the place of the supper. Paul’s suggestion is that if they are going to continue with their insensitive arrogance and gluttony to humiliate their brethren, they should stop the love feast and eat in their own homes. The place had nothing to do with their despising the church of Godit was their carnality.
Once again we behold actions so carnal and shameful in Christians we wonder how Paul could call them brethren. But with only a little soul-searching we all should acknowledge we are ignorant and obstinate brethrenin differing areas of behavior.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 Covenant Shared: This parenthetical sectiona review from Paul concerning the establishment of the Lord’s Supperserves as a reminder of the spiritual purpose of the Lord’s Supper. Paul had not been an eyewitness to the initial institution of the Supper. But that did not matter since the Lord Himself revealed to Paul the historical and spiritual details of itand Paul had taught that to these Christians at Corinth.
In this text the apostle is emphasizing covenant, not ritual. Some would make the ritual the Christian’s covenant. The Lord’s Supper is not our covenantit commemorates our covenant. Isaiah predicted at least twice that God would make the Servant (the Messiah) himself our covenant (Isaiah 42:6 and Isaiah 49:8). Isaiah’s statement Isaiah 42:6, I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, is unquestionably messianic (see Isaiah 42:1-4 and Matthew 12:18-21) in its context. Jesus Christ, himself, is our covenant. When we observe the Lord’s Supper we are remembering that through faith we have appropriated him (Jesus) as our covenant. Of course, observance of the Supper is an act of faith on our part, but neither our faith nor the ritual is our covenant. It is through faith that we have been made partakers of the divine nature (see 2 Peter 1:3-4). Jesus, himself, dying and atoning for our sins and rising from the dead to supply the new creation of his Spirit within us, is our covenant. How does one partake of a person as a covenant? Through assimilating his word (his Spirit, his will). We eat his flesh and drink his blood by believing and obeying his word (see John 6:63). It would be of no profit to us even if we could engage in some ritual where we ate the actual, literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus. It is his will, his personality, his mind, and his actions he wants us to assimilate (to partake of, to have koinonia with).
Our communion (participation) is in his person, his nature, and must not be confined merely to rituals. Participation in the life of Christ may involve observance of clearly revealed ceremonies or actions specified by Christ or the apostles, but the ceremonies are not the covenant. A covenant is an oath. God’s oath in the new dispensation was the Messiah himself (see Hebrews 6:17, where it should be translated, … he interposed himself with an oath; see 2 Corinthians 1:20, where Jesus is said to be God’s oath of confirmation to all his promises). A covenant is a reconciliation. God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). The ceremony of the Lord’s Supper is the weekly reminder that we share in a Divine Personnot a system of rituals.
Do this in remembrance of me, involves more than remembering the crucifixion scene. It involves remembering that … one died, therefore all died. It involves remembering that from now on. we regard no one from a human point of view. (see 2 Corinthians 5:14-21). It involves remembering that we participate in the very life of Jesus Christ, or that he controls, directs, orders our lives. When Jesus died, we diedif we accept his death for us. I no longer direct meJesus does.
Had this been the case in Corinth, the brethren would not have arrogantly and greedily disregarded their brethren. They would have waited at the love feast for the poor, lower-class, late-comers and would have counted them better than themselves for this is the mind of Christ in which Christians are to participate (see Philippians 2:3-8). This is the life we are to have in us, being lived out through us. This is being in covenant with Jesus. The Corinthians were faithfully gathering to observe the ritual, but they were not partaking of the covenant!
Twice in this context the Greek adverb, hosakis, as often as is used to qualify the imperative verb, poieite, Do. There really is no distinct, categorical commandment from the Lord or the apostles as to when the Lord’s Supper must be commemorated. No particular day is commanded and no commandment is made as to frequency. Since no explicit directive is given in the New Testament, our next best guide about time and frequency of observance would be some precedent set by the apostolic (first century) church. We would certainly be on safer ground by seeking apostolic precedent than by trying to guess about the matter some twenty centuries removed from the beginning of the church.
From Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 we observe that the first century church met every first day of every week to do two things: break bread (Acts 20:7) and put something aside (take up an offering) (1 Corinthians 16:2). Even if we assume the phrase break bread in Acts 20:7 refers to the love feast, we are still compelled to acknowledge (from our text here in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26) that the love feast was followed by the observance of the Lord’s Supper. However, we may just as well assume the phrase break bread refers specifically to the Lord’s Supper rather than the love feast. Whatever the case may be, we must admit the church at Troas, in the first century, observed the Lord’s Supper at least every first day of the week.
Since the church at Troas was undoubtedly established and taught by the apostle Paul, we must assume they met every first day of the week to break bread in accordance with apostolic instruction. Alexander Campbell wrote in The Christian System, pp. 274-275:
The Apostles taught the churches to do all the Lord commanded. Whatever, then, the churches did by the appointment or concurrence of the apostles, they did by the commandment of Jesus Christ. Whatever acts of religious worship the apostles taught and sanctioned in one Christian congregation, they taught and sanctioned in all Christian congregations because all are under the same government of the same king. But the church in Troas met upon the first day of the week for religious purposes. Among the acts of worship, or the institutions of the Lord, to which the disciples attended in these meetings, the breaking of the loaf was so conspicuous and important, that the churches are said to meet on the first day of the week for this purpose. We are expressly told that the disciples at Troas met for this purpose; and what one church did by the authority of the Lord, as a part of his instituted worship, they all did.
Many of the early church fathers (Christian leaders of the church in the second century) testify in their writings that the Lord’s Supper was observed on every first day of the week. Justin Martyr, who wrote about 140 A.D., says:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place. when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.
In the compilation of writings called The Teaching of The Twelve, written about 120 A.D. Christians were exhorted to gather every Lord’s Day to break bread and give thanks. The Ante-Nicene fathers confirm this practice of observing the Lord’s Supper every Sunday.
So, while we have no categorical command from the Lord about the frequency of its observance, we surely have clear apostolic precedent for observing it every first day of the week. There may be a number of reasons we have no distinct and dogmatic order about the frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper. First, if the Lord has to spell out in minute detail every spiritual action we are to take, he leaves no room for spiritual growth and character-building. It is in accepting the responsibility for discovering some truths, rather than in having them spelled out in detail, that we come to spiritual maturity. Perhaps that is why the Lord left the matter of frequency merely implied in the New Testament. Further, knowing the tendency of man to be legalistic, the Lord undoubtedly decided not to legislate the Supper’s frequency. He would not want men to use a command about frequency of observance to attack, condemn and destroy ignorant and immature babes in Christ. Jesus would want this very significant and intimate act of worship to be done from love not from legalism. And if the Lord places in his word a veiled hint (or precedent) about its frequency, love will find it! Observance of the Lord’s Supper is not merely a remembrance of the past redemptive deeds of Christit is also a telling-forth (Gr. katangellete, a proclamation, a declaration) of the future redemptive deed of Christ in his Second Coming. The Christian, by observing the Lord’s Supper every week, is declaring to the world around him that he believes the death of Jesus Christ to be efficacious for the forgiveness of sin and participation in the Spirit of God by grace. In observing the Lord’s Supper the Christian is telling the world there is salvation in no other name under heaven than that of Jesus Christ. This testimony will go on, and on, and on, and on, in the world, as often as it is done, until Christ returns. The Lord’s Supper is also a declaration to the world that Christians believe Christ is alive, risen from the dead, ascended to the right hand of God the Father, there making intercession on behalf of those who love him. It is a proclamation that Christians believe Jesus Christ to be living and communing in the Spirit with the church every time the Supper is observed (see Matthew 18:20). If this be the case, let us not argue about frequency of observance. Let us rather rejoice that we have apostolic precedent for observance at least every first day of the week when the church gathers for corporate worship. Consider the possibilities of intensifying the Christian proclamation with more frequent observance. Why not observe the Lord’s Supper on other corporate gatherings of a congregation? Why not on Wednesday night at midweek service? Why not at ladies-’ meetings, men’s meetings, youth meetings? The spiritual oneness, and moral constancy that would permeate a congregation meeting early every morning of every week, before scattering to different places of employment, would soon result in an evangelistic harvest.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Criticism of Self: A primary purpose of the Lord’s Supper is, on the basis of Christ’s loving atonement, to stimulate the participant into an examination of himself and his relationship to the whole body of Christ. This was what Jesus used it for on the very night he instituted it. There, he challenged the apostles to examine their own hearts about betraying him. And each one did, asking, Lord, is it I? All the disciples, at that first Communion, were prodded into thinking of themselves in relation to Jesus and to one another. The Greek word dokimazeto is translated examine himself. It is the same Greek word used in 2 Corinthians 13:5 where the KJV translates the word, prove. To examine is to test or prove. It means, literally, we are to put ourselves on trial.
But what is eating the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner? The Greek word from which we get the English word unworthy is anaxios. Axios is the Greek word from which we get axiom, axiology, and axiomatic. The word in both Greek and English means, value, proper, good, right, and worth. It is, therefore, possible to observe the Eucharist in an improper way. To do so makes a person guilty (Gr. enochos, liable to judgment of law) of the body and blood of the Lord (guilty as if the participant had crucified the Lord). Paul clearly says, For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
To discern the body during observance of the Lord’s Supper is not to be confined simply to a mental image of the crucifixion. To discern the body in this context refers specifically to brotherhood. It means to refresh one’s memory about Jesus dying for all believers, rich or poor, famous or unknown, strong or weak. It means Christians, prompted by the Lord’s Supper, are to discern the body in its membership, in its koinonia (fellowship). Too often, we focus too much on ourselves, even at the Lord’s Supper. It is in keeping with the intent of Paul’s discussion of the Supper here to have the burdens and needs of other members of the church upon our minds and hearts as we observe it. The less we think of ourselves during the Supper, the more likely we are to observe it as Paul wanted the Corinthians to observe it. The one way to drink it in an unworthy manner is to isolate oneself from the rest of the body in attitude and action. No man is unworthy in and of himself to partake. The Supper should be observed by sinners who are repenting. Sin should not keep us away from the Communionit should drive us to it so we may get the right attitude. But the person who, like some of these Corinthians were doing, observes the Lord’s Supper and is insensitive toward any other member of the body, drinks judgment upon himself.
The Lord’s Supper was ordained by Christ to prompt people to love him and his body, the church. It is a love feast. It must be observed in unity. No one should dare observe it if he is not in harmony with his brethren. To observe the Lord’s Supper and at the same time be slandering a brother, or disregarding a brother’s needs, or agitating division within the body, is to profane and make a mockery of it. Such would be to blaspheme the very life he hypocritically professes to be sharingthe Life of Jesus!
1 Corinthians 11:30-34 Consequences of Such a Sham: Having the wrong attitude and still trying to play the role of a worshiper of God can have dire consequences. A separatist, schismatic attitude about the body of Christ while trying to pretend oneness and unity causes spiritual sickness, and, eventually, spiritual death. This is precisely the reason for so much spiritual sickness among Christians today. Too many Christians are going through the motions as they gather about the Lord’s Table, but they haven-’t really surrendered to the mind and will of Jesus Christ as he revealed it once for all in the Scriptures. Too many, even Christians, want to judge the scriptures by their feelings and selfish desires rather than judging their feelings by the scriptures. This is the very point Paul is making here in Corinthians. He reminds these Christians at Corinth they must not judge their fellow church members by their feelings, but by the objective work of Christ documented in the New Testament. That is, all sinners are equally lost; all believers are equally redeemed. All Christians are equally members of Christ’s body, the church. There may be different places of service within the kingdom of God, but every citizen is a servant. There is only one Master, and he is Jesus. Of course, there are specific hierarchical orders God has ordained within human society (even in the church), but still, there are no kings, only servants.
Paul told the Corinthians their spiritual sickness (Gr. arrostoi, feebleness) was directly due (Gr. dia touto, on account of this, therefore) to their profanation of the Lord’s Supper by misdiscerning the body. The Bible speaks of spiritual sickness often (see Isaiah 1:5; Isaiah 33:24; Hosea 5:13; Psalms 30:2; Isaiah 53:5; Jeremiah 6:14; Jeremiah 8:11; etc.). Spiritual sickness, and eventually, death, results from at least two causes: (a) improper ingestion of spiritual foodeither not enough or the wrong food (see John 6:35-65 and Luke 12:1; Hebrews 5:11-14; 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, etc.); (b) exposure to the infectiousness of sin (Ephesians 5:3-14; 2 Peter 3:17). Sin, if not treated by the spiritual healing of faith in Christ, invades our minds and infects them much like viral micro-organisms that cause physical illness and death. Sin, allowed to incubate, grows and develops and when it is fullgrown brings death (James 1:14-15).
Unworthy observance of the Lord’s Supper brings condemnation to the whole body of Christians (1 Corinthians 11:34) when worship is profaned by play-acting. It is contagious. Hypocrisy and division will soon infect an entire congregation so that swift, radical, spiritual-surgery is sometimes called for (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; Romans 16:17-18; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Titus 3:10).
The only worthy way to observe the Lord’s Supper is to discern the body. Thus, from now on regard no one from a human point of view, but be consistently controlled by the love of Christ. At the Lord’s Table concentrate on the fact that because one has died for allall must die to self and live no longer for self but for him who for your sake died and was raised (see 2 Corinthians 5:14-17; Galatians 2:20). Concentrate on viewing every Christian, every member of Christ’s church, as an equal member of the body, a new creature in Christ. If all who meet at his Table will do this, every week, the church will be healthy and alive. Churches may appear to be alive and be dead (Revelation 3:1). Churches may appear to be healthy and be sick (Revelation 3:15-17). The Lord wants the church to be healthy at the very core of its being. This will be true only when the church partakes of the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner.
Applebury’s Comments
Text
1 Corinthians 11:17-34. But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper: 21 for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not. 23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said. This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment upon himself, if he discern not the body. 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. 31 But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. 34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order whensoever I come.
Observing the Lord’s Supper (17-34)
*Commentary
I praise you not.*Paul had praised them for remembering him and for holding fast the traditions he had delivered to them. But there were some things connected with their worship for which he did not praise them. Some may not have been observing his advice about the use of the veil when praying or prophesying. In the matter of eating the Lord’s supper, he could not praise them because of the conditions that prevailed in their assembly for which they were entirely responsible. He severely rebuked them because their coming together was not for the better but for the worse.
*when ye come together in the church.*We tend to identify the building where the church people meet with the church, but church refers to the people who are called out from the general group to be the people of God. It also strongly suggests assembly since the church is to come together for worship. They were not to neglect the assembling of themselves together (Hebrews 10:25). The thing that was happening in their assembly was the object of Paul’s criticism.
*divisions exist among you.*Perhaps at no place did the sectarian spirit of the Corinthians show up in all its sinful nature more clearly than at the assembly when the Lord’s supper was to be eaten. Leaders got together with their own supporters around their own food while others were allowed to go hungry. Paul certainly could not praise them for this.
Neither the splits nor the factions had reached the proportions to which they later developed, but there were cliques in the local congregations. The sin of division is just as real on the local level as it is when it reaches the stage of separate organizations. Paul indicates that he believed this condition was true with part of the church at Corinth.
*I partly believe it.*This does not indicate doubt as to the situation, but rather as to the extent to which it had gone. There were those who were not mixed up in it.
*there must be factions among you.*Some were choosing sides over loyalty to a leader or over some other rallying point. Groups were formed that excluded all others who did not support the particular issue of the group. Such splits were accompanied by the factions that caused them.
*they that are approved.*The apostle is not saying that factions are necessary in order that those who are approved of God may be manifested. Surely God’s people need no such sinful background for them to be known. But cliques in the church do result in the manifestation of the approved who refuse to join the clique.
*when ye come together.*One of the things for which they came together was eating the Lord’s supper. This was by no means the only reason for the assembly nor does the Bible indicate that it was the primary reason. It is true that Acts 20:7 states that they came to break bread, but the expression primary reason does not occur in the text. It would seem that Paul’s preaching was equally important since he was acting under the commission of Christ to preach the word. Collections were made on a weekly basisevidently when they came togetherto obviate the necessity of making the collection at the time of the apostle’s visit (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).
The practice of eating the common meal had defeated this other important matter, eating the Lord’s supper. Cliques that had plenty ate their own food while others who had nothing went hungry. How could the Lord’s supper which taught the lessons of remission of sins and the unity of the body of Christ be eaten in such an atmosphere?
*have ye not houses to eat and drink in?*Since the common meal was the occasion for the cliques to form, it was to be discontinued. This is not to say that churches where such conditions do not exist are forbidden the privilege of coming together in the church buildings to eat. But if Corinth could get into trouble over this matter it might be well for elders to watch the flock lest similar situations develop in congregations today. Sitting at the table with brethren in Christ can be a heavenly experience and it can also lead to things that disgrace the church and her Lord.
*In this I praise you not.*Paul was generous with his praise whenever possible. But he made sure that they understood that he did not praise them for practicing things that made it impossible to eat the Lord’s supper
*I received of the Lord.*The sacredness of the Lord’s supper is indicated in a number of ways. The instruction for its observance came from the Lord Himself. It was delivered to the church by His inspired apostle. It was to be in memory of the Lord’s death. It speaks of His coming again. Since it was a memorial to the fact that the blood of Christ was poured out for the remission of sins, the sins of which the Corinthians were guilty could not be tolerated where the Lord’s supper was to be eaten.
*the new covenant in my blood.*The old covenant was the ten commandments. See. Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13. Although it was unilaterally promulgated it was, -nevertheless, a covenant because the people agreed to its terms and promised to keep them. See Exodus 24:3-4. But the people broke the covenant, and the Lord declared that He would make a new covenant that would be written, not on tables of stone, but on the hearts of the people. See Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-13. God also dictated the terms of this covenant. But what about the pledge of the people to keep it? This is done when one makes the good confession which is an acknowledgement that Jesus is our prophet, priest, and king. Eating the Lord’s supper should remind the worshipper of his covenant with Christ.
*till he come.*One thing that must always be remembered by the Christian is the death of Christ through which he is delivered from the guilt and power of sin. An equally important thing to remember is that He is coming again for those who wait for Him unto salvation (Hebrews 9:27). At the time of His ascension, angels said to the apostles that this Jesus who was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven (Acts 1:11). See also 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10. Behold he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7) He who testifies these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus (Revelation 22:20).
Evidently the Corinthians had forgotten this great hope of the Christian. But are we doing any better than they?
*unworthy manner.*Perhaps no one is really worthy to take the Lord’s supper. People who refrain from eating the Lord’s supper because of a sense of guilt that makes them feel unworthy often use this verse as the basis of their views. But Paul was speaking of the unworthy manner in which the church at Corinth conducted itself that made it impossible to eat the Lord’s supper. The guilt that accompanies the violation of God’s will can be overcome by repentance and confession of the sin to the Lord. See Acts 9:22-24; 1 John 1:6-10; 1 John 2:1-2.
But God has never tolerated careless handling of sacred things. To treat the Lord’s supper as something less than a common meal, as the Corinthians were doing, is to be guilty of mishandling the body and blood of the Lord. The penalty for this was clear: many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.
*But let a man prove himself.*This suggests the process of testing by which the assayer finds the pure gold in the ore. It should be done in the light of the meaning of the loaf and the cup. One should ask himself, Is my life in harmony with the principles of unity of the body of Christ, and the remission of sins which Christ has provided, and of the fact that He is coming again? This makes the Lord’s supper a serious experience for the true worshipper. To do otherwise is to eat and drink judgment to oneself. It is to be involved in the same condemnation that came upon these who crucified the Lord.
*discern the body.*In eating the Lord’s supper, it is necessary to decide correctly the issues involved. It is necessary to distinguish between the splits and factions and the true body of Christ. It is necessary to distinguish between the loaf and the bread of a common meal.
*discerned ourselves.*If the Corinthians had decided correctly the issue of belonging to the Lord as opposed to becoming members of the parties that followed men, they would not have been judged guilty of mishandling the body and blood of the Lord.
*weak, sickly.*It is possible to view this as spiritual sickness and death. But it may be physical, for they were eating and drinking to excess. Some of them had died from the effects of this kind of abuse.
*chastened of the Lord.*God punishes His people as a good parent punishes his child. See. Hebrews 12:3-13. The object is to avoid condemnation with the world. Paul’s advice was to eliminate the custom of eating together since this was the thing that had gotten them into trouble. They could eat at home; then, when they came together, they could eat the Lord’s supper.
*And the rest.*There were other problems that demanded his personal attention. These he would attend to when he visited them the next time. But the great principles set forth in this letter corrected the major ills of the Corinthian church and will, if applied, do so for the church today. First Corinthians is the most up-to-date treatise on church problems available today. The Corinthians church could make use of Paul’s advice while waiting for his personal visit; the church of today must use the same inspired advice while waiting for the coming of the Lord. Dare we pray, Come, Lord Jesus?
Summary
The Corinthians had written to Paul about the perplexing problem of the use of the veil while praying or prophesying in public. Praying is speaking to God; prophesying is speaking for God. In the early church it was done under the immediate direction and power of the Holy Spirit. The ancients had various customs of worship, depending on their backgrounds, some Jewish, some Roman, and some Grecian. To settle the problem, Paul called attention to this basic principle: the head of every man is Christ; the head of woman is man; and the head of Christ is God. A woman dishonored her head by praying or prophesying without a veil. It was the same thing as having the head shaved or the hair cut. These were distinguishing marks of man, not woman. It was a shame for a woman to attempt to be a man; therefore, Paul said, Let a woman wear the veil. She was to dress in a manner that would enable her to be recognized as a woman. Man, on the other hand, is not to have his head covered because he is the image and glory of God. Woman was to wear the veil as a symbol of her womanly right and dignity because of the angels. Neither man nor woman is complete apart from the other. The facts of creation and of birth prove the point. All things are from God, that is, God determined the distinctions between man and woman. They were not to be disregarded in the church. Nature and good judgment support the views of the apostle. By nature, woman’s hair grows long, but man’s short. It was good sense for a woman to dress as a woman and a man as a man. There is no time when this is more appropriate than when praying or prophesying. The apostle reminds anyone who would oppose this view that the churches of God had no other custom. Paul had commended them for keeping the oral instructions which he had transmitted to them, but he could not commend them for their conduct in connection with the Lord’s supper. Division and faction existed among them when they met in the assembly. Not all of them were guilty, but the conduct of the guilty ones resulted in the approved of God being manifested by their refusal to be parties to such conduct. The practice of eating a meal at the assembly was to be discontinued because it resulted in the church being disgraced and these who had nothing being humiliated. Paul faithfully declared to them what the Lord had revealed to him. The Lord said, This is my body. How could men use the assembly of God as a place to practice division and faction? The Lord said, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. He was faithful to His part of the agreement providing remission of sins to the believer. But how could they drink the cup and still practice the sin of division? If they had remembered Him and not their own selfish desires for prominence and power, they would not have split into factions to the disgrace of the body of Christ. Christ died to save man from sin. As often as we eat the bread and drink the cup we proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. His coming suggests a time of reckoning. Paul warned the Corinthians about the unworthy manner in which they were approaching the Lord’s supper. They were guilty of mishandling the body and blood of the Lord. A man should test himself to see that his life is in accord with the principles taught by the loaf and the cup. If it isn-’t, he eats and drinks judgment to himself by failing to decide correctly concerning the body and blood of Christ. Some of the Corinthians did fail and as a result were weak and sick and some of them had died. But if we decide correctly the members of the body of Christ as distinguishing from members of a party or faction, we shall not be condemned. The Lord judges His people for the purpose of chastening them that they may not be condemned with the world. Other things were to be cared for when Paul arrived.