1 Corinthians 11

David Lipscomb Commentary On 1st Corinthians 11 IN WORSHIP IN THE CHURCH 1 Corinthians 11:2-34 OF THE MANNER IN WHICH WOMEN PRAYED AND 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things,—[This verse is introductory to the whole of this section of the letter which treats of worship. With his usual tact and generosity, Paul before reproving them mentions things which he could honestly and heartily approve.] and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.—By traditions is meant the precepts, ordinances, and doctrine he had taught them orally, and had been given orally from one to another. When Paul was with them he had taught them orally concerning the ordinance of the Supper, and they had kept it up as he had commanded them. They continued the meetings on the first day of the week (16: 1), but corruption had crept in.

3 But I would have you know,— -He turns now to properly direct the behavior of women in the worship and in their man¬ner of appearing before God, and defines the relationship of man and woman. that the head of every man is Christ;—Jesus Christ is the head of the man, and man cannot approach God save in sub¬jection to his head, Christ. and the head of the woman is the man;— Woman cannot approach God save in subjection to her head, man. The duties and bearing of women and men grow out of their respective relations to each other and to God. The same relationship of husband and wife is presented in another place in these words: “ Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22¬24.) In the Lord is here implied, as all are to obey him above every one else. [Let it here be distinctly understood that the subordination thus expressed involves no degradation. As the church is not dishonored by being subject to Christ, so neither is woman dishonored by being subject to man.] and the head of Christ is God.—Considered as the Father’ s servant (Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 52:13), in which capacity he spoke when he said: “ I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do” (John 17:4). “ Though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8), “ becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). It is in this aspect of mutual relation in the work of redemption that “ the head of Christ is God.”

4 Every man praying or prophesying,—Praying and prophesying are the two exercises in which the churches engage in the assembly. All pray, or should pray; one.leads, the oth¬ers pray as sincerely as does the leader. The purpose is to show how the women should appear before God in the assem¬bly, not that she should lead in the service. Most assuredly the apostle does not here tell the women how to lead in the prayer and teaching in the assembly, and in chapter 14: 34, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, gives specific directions for her to keep silent. The very fact that in all the history of Christ and the apostles no example is found of women speaking publicly or leading in public prayer, although they were endowed with miraculous gifts, and did prophesy and teach in private and in the family circle, ought to satisfy all as to the will of God in that matter. having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.—Then a man must not have his head covered when he comes before God, either with long hair or with hat, veil, or cloth of any kind. This would be a shame to him. He may have it cov¬ered at other times, but not when he approaches God to pray or prophesy in his name. [Such conduct dishonors his head because covering it is a usage which symbolizes subjection to some visible superior, and in the worship man has none. Those who are visibly present are either his equals or his inferiors. Every man, therefore, who in praying or prophesying covers his head, thereby acknowledges himself dependent on some earthly head other than his heavenly head, and thereby takes from the latter the honor which is due to him as the head of man.]

5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonored her head;—The woman is under subjection to the man. Because of this, any approach to God with head uncovered is not permitted. It is a dishonor to her head. Man cannot come to God save through and in the name of Christ his head, so woman cannot come to Christ save with the tokens of subjection to man on her head. for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.—To have her head uncovered is the same as to have her head shaven.

6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn:—[The word “ also” in this verse plainly shows that the two veils— the natural hair and the veil with which the head was covered —are under consideration. If her head be not covered with a veil, let her hair be shorn. Let her be consistent by laying aside all the usual and proper indications of her sex. If it be done in one respect, it might with the same propriety be done in all. In verse 13, he says: “ Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?” The impro¬priety of it, he seems to take for granted as apparent to all.] but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.—[It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven because it fashions her, to that extent, as a man, and it is God’ s will, distinctly revealed in the Scriptures, to keep the sexes distinguishable. For a woman to remove her hair is in part to obliterate this outward distinction, and is therefore a trampling under foot God’ s will. And as further defense of womanly modesty and morality, God forbids the sexes wearing each other’ s clothes: “ A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’ s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5.) ]

7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, foras¬much as he is the image and glory of God:—The man is the image of his maker, was created for him, and to add to his glory. [Man is the glory of God as the;crown of creation and as endowed with sovereignty like God himself, naming all creatures and .having dominion over all the earth, and over ev-erything that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26-28.) He is also the glory of God as showing forth the glory of his Creator, and being his masterwork. The man existing in this dou¬ble character, as the image and glory of God, must not have his head covered when he comes before God, either with long hair, or with hat, veil, or cloth of any kind. This would be a shame to him. He may have it covered at other times, but not when he approaches God to pray or prophesy in his name.] but the woman is the glory of the man.—The woman was created of and for the man. [That God provided for man a companion and helper so noble as woman proves the worth of man in God’ s sight, and thus adds dignity to him; she shares and manifests his superiority; reflects it, as the moon does the light of the sun.]

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:—The woman was not first, but the man, and out of the man was the woman made. She was taken out of him, and was created as a separate being for the good and happiness of man. “ And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. . . . And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Genesis 2:18-23.) What was in woman was taken out of man. It takes both man and woman to make one reproductive being. Both sets of organs necessary to re¬production were originally in man.

God separated them into two beings, counterparts and complements of each other, but the woman was taken out of and from man, and for his good. The twain are one, but one in man. Hence the world over she takes his name.

9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:—The man was first and the woman was created for him. Man’ s priority and consequent leadership over woman are here affirmed.

10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head,—On account of this priority and supremacy of man, woman, as subject to man, should always approach God with the tokens of her subjection on her head. The sign of authority means the sign or token on her head that she acknowledges the authority of man over her. because of the angels.—Much diversity exists as to who the angels are. Many think they were the messengers of the churches. But the apostle nowhere presents a thought as to how woman shall appear before men; the question is, How shall she appear before God? How shall she approach God in prophecy or prayer? The direction applies to her, whether in public or private. It is necessary for a woman to approach God with the tokens of her subjection to man in secret prayer, or private teaching as in public, just as it is necessary for man to approach God as a servant of Christ in private or in public.

Not a word is said here as to how woman should appear before man when she prayed or taught. The presence or absence of men, friends or strangers, has nothing to do with how she shall appear before God. Neither does the question whether she leads in public prayer or in prayer follows others who lead. These questions are not here touched. I think the angels in heaven who see and rejoice or sorrow over what men do here will rejoice or sorrow over her coming properly or improperly before God, or in the place to which God assigned her. Whether the woman prays in the closet at home, or in the assembly, she should approach God with the tokens of her subjection to man on her head.

The reason of this we may not know. That God requires it, the Bible plainly teaches, and that should suffice. The meaning is, when she comes to worship in prayer or praise, no matter whether she leads or not, she should be veiled.

11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman,—Although by original constitution woman is dependent upon man, they are mutually dependent upon each other— the one cannot exist without the other. in the Lord.—By divine arrangement and direction the twain are one in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman;—Since the woman was taken from the man, she is of him, yet man is born, or comes into the world through the woman. That man had the priority in time and position, yet no man can be born without woman. They mutually de¬pend for existence upon each other. So the two constitute but one real self-propagating being. but all things are of God.—The twain are one, and both are of God, and live, move, and have their being in him. [This expression seems designed to suppress any spirit of complaint or dissatisfaction with this arrangement; to make the woman contented in her subordinate station, and to make the man humble by the consideration that it is all owing to the appointment of God. The woman should therefore be contented and the man should not assume any important superiority since the whole arrangement is of God.]

13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?—The impropriety of it he takes for granted as apparent to all. How should she approach God is the question. Man should do it with uncovered head, woman with covered head; and all distinction between public or private prayer is man’ s imagination. It is as wrong for a man to approach God with covered head in the closet as it is to do it in the public assembly. So also of woman, God makes no difference as to how he shall be approached in public or in private.

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?—While in all nations in the world, women wear long hair, and men short hair, is it nature that suggests it? It does not mean custom. The fact so universal, and the declaration of the apostle, seems to settle this. Sometimes nature suggests a custom. A practice prompted by nature becomes a custom, and is said to be from or by nature. How came the custom to be universal among all nations and in all parts of the world, if there is not something in nature to suggest it?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.—[From the creation God intended that woman should wear a veil as a symbol of her subjection to man, but instead of an artificial covering he gave her a covering of long hair, a covering of glory, in which she could take pride. When woman sinned he gave her a second veil of covering, which is a sign of authority to which she must submit as a memorial of her transgression. The reason for the two veils or coverings becomes apparent when we get before us woman’ s relation to man and God’ s will concerning them. Paul directed woman to “ learn in quietness with all subjection” for two reasons: (1) “ Adam was first formed, then Eve” ; (2) “ Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression” (1 Timothy 2:11-14); that is, when woman was created, she was created for man (11: 8, 9), and was subjected to him (Ephesians 5:22-24), not as a slave, but as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). Then when Eve transgressed, God placed her under a curse and said: “ I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire s’hall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16.) Thus twice was woman subjected to man. Hence the argument is: Since it is a glory for woman to wear a covering of hair which God gave her at creation instead of an artificial covering, she should wear also an artificial covering when she approaches God in prayer.]

16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.—The custom referred to must be women wearing short hair and approaching God in prayer with uncovered heads. He reasoned on the subject to show the impropriety, but adds in an authoritative manner, if any are disposed to be contentious over it, neither we nor the churches of God have any such custom. [With such disturbers of the peace of the church all argument is useless. Authority is the only thing that will silence them. The authority here adduced is that of the inspired apostles, which was decisive, because they were invested with the authority not only to preach the gospel, but to instruct the church and to decide everything relating to the worship.]

REPROOF ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR GROSS OF THE LORD’ S SUPPER1 Corinthians 11:17-34 17 But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse.—The object of the weekly meeting was to unite them more closely to the Lord, and in doing this, to draw them into closer union with each other; but their services were so perverted that they produced strife and separation instead of unity.

18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you;—The parties, in following the different leaders, which had been reported to him by the house of Chloe, were accompanied by divisions when they met for worship. and I partly believe it.—The facts had possibly been exag¬gerated by others, [but he was forced to believe enough to excite his strong disapproval.]

19 For there must be also factions among you,—It is a part of the policy of God in governing the world to test those serving him, and to that end he allows evil men to come into their midst. that they that are approved may be made manifest among you.—The church of God, like the Jewish nation, will continually fall away from steadfastness in the faith. Those who cannot be faithful to God under temptations to disobey him are not worthy of his kingdom. So God allows evil men to come among his people who would lead away from God and his order, to try and test who among them are faithful and true to him. Paul said to the elders of the Ephesian church: “ Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disci¬ples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30.) This was permitted to prove and to show who could stand firm and steadfast under temptations to turn away from God.

God tests them on the points of fidelity to him in faith and doctrine as well as love of the world, lusts of the flesh, and pleasures of life. One who cannot resist these and give them up for the Lord is rejected by him as unworthy to be his disci¬ple ; so every one who cannot stand fast for the truth despite the divisions and the popular currents that sweep through the churches to carry them away from their steadfastness is un¬worthy of Christ. These are God’ s tests to purify the churches. He desires only true and tried and faithful subjects in his kingdom. Those who cannot stand the test must be purged out. So divisions come to every church to make mani¬fest those who are approved.

It is God bringing the churches to judgment in this world, that those who are approved and true may be made manifest. All we have to do is to stand true and firm to God and his word, and leave the results with him.

20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’ s supper:—Their meeting to¬gether did not result in their eating the Lord’ s Supper. That was the occasion of their coming together, but they so per¬verted it that it made it impossible for them to do so.

21 for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.—The eating of a feast with its attendant gluttony and drinking led many to attend. Each family brought its own portion and each partook of his own. The rich eating and drinking to satiety of their abundance. The poor were shamed by the scantiness of their food and went hungry. This was all wrong. It is thought by some that this feasting preceded the Lord’ s Supper, so that some were filled to satiety, while others were hungry when they partook of the emblems of the Lord’ s body and blood.

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?—He shames them with these questions. If they had a feast in public, brotherly love for each other would have suggested a common table at which all would have fared alike, and as a consequence those without food at home would have had their wants supplied. The course pursued caused shame to the poor and left them hungry. In this I praise you not.—He had told them (verse 1) that he praised them for remembering him and holding fast the traditions, but here was such a perversion that he could not praise them for doing it.

23 For I received of the Lord—[The information of which he treats was what he himself had received from the immediate and personal communication of the Lord himself, and according to the express injunction therein contained was ap¬pointed for their observance. It was not therefore of his own devising, not that of any man, but divinely instituted, and consequently imperatively binding on all Christians.] that which also I delivered unto you,—[He transmitted to them the very thing which he had received from the Lord, so that they were well aware of what ought to have made these disorders impossible.] that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed —[The delivery of Jesus to his enemies had already begun and was going on at the very time when the Lord instituted the Supper. The marginal reading, “ delivered up,” is better than “ was betrayed,” which confines the meaning to the action of Judas; whereas the Father’ s surrender of the Son (John 19:11) and Jesus’ self-surrender (John 10:17-18) are also included.] Paul mentions the sad solemnity of the occasion in contrast to the irreverent revelry of the Corinthians, to show how they perverted the Supper. took bread;—The bread used was the unleavened bread of the Passover week. (See Exodus 12:15 Exodus 13:3 Exodus 13:7; Deuteronomy 16:3.)

24 and when he had given thanks,—In Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22, it is “ blessed.” In Luke 22:19, it is “ had given thanks.” The two expressions, being used interchangeably, mean the same thing. Both express the act of consecration, by a grateful acknowledgment of God’ s mercy and a prayer that God will make it a means of blessing to those who partake. (See note on 10:16.) he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you:— [That we may understand what the Lord meant when he spoke these words, we should place ourselves in the position of the apostles to whom they were first addressed. If, as Jesus spoke these words, he had suddenly disappeared, and they had seen nothing but the bread, they would have understood that the body had been miraculously transformed into the bread. p, His body was still there; and the bread which he held in his hand was also there; and as his body still remained there after the bread had been broken and eaten, it is impossible that the apostles could have understood him as meaning that the bread was literally his body, and impossible that he could have intended to be so understood. They could not, therefore, have understood it otherwise than as a representa¬tion or symbol of his body to them.] this do in remembrance of me.—This solemn sacrifice and thanksgiving was so little in harmony with their selfish greed and lightness that to report it was to reprove them. To do it in remembrance of his sacrifice for them was to do it in a wholly different spirit from the way in which they acted.

25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood.—The covenant referred to was the one mentioned by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and quoted with comments in Hebrews (8: 7-13). It was the new covenant or will of God set forth in his blood, shown in shedding it for the sins of the world. God, through Jesus Christ, made a new covenant, as that made through Moses is called the old covenant. This is the memorial of that blood to seal and confirm this new covenant. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of animals; this was sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ shed for the remission of sins. this do, as often as ye drink it,—That it was the common custom of the disciples to meet together upon the first day of the week to break bread is clearly indicated by the following: “ And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intend¬ing to depart on the morrow.” (Acts 20:7.) [In the original institution of the Supper nothing is said of the frequency with which it was to be observed. Had nothing more been said, every congregation of believers would have been left to its own judgment as to the frequency of the observance. But the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit in this, and their example is our guide. Here it is represented as furnishing the purpose of the meeting on the first day of the week. Such being the purpose of the meeting, as surely as the disciples met every Lord’ s day, they broke bread on that day.] in remembrance of me.—It was to be done in memory of him, to commemorate the shedding of his blood for the sins of the world, not as a feast to gratify the appetite.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’ s death till he come.— -From this we learn that it was a memorial institution to keep in memory the heroic deeds of Jesus in dying to redeem man. Monuments are designed to commemorate the worthy deeds of those in whose memory they were built, with the hope that future generations, when they learn the deeds commemorated by the monument, will be inspired with the same spirit, and be led to emulate those worthy deeds. Just so this memorial institution was ordained to perpetuate the memory of the self-denying spirit and heroic deeds of Jesus Christ for the good of man. It is done with the view that those who see these memorials of the deeds and death of Jesus will drink into the same spirit, and be led to emulate his life and deeds of self-sacrifice for the good of others. Man builds monuments of marble and granite; he seeks the imperishable; but despite all his precautions they molder and crumble. God, through Jesus, selected the perishable bread and volatile fruit of the vine as the material out of which he would build a monument that would endure with perennial freshness through all time.

No mortal would ever seek to build an imperishable monument out of material so perishable as bread and the fruit of the vine. God only could breathe into it a spirit that would render it immortal, that would cause it to continue in its freshness till Jesus comes again.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner,—[To eat or drink in an unworthy manner is in general to come to the Lord’ s table in a careless, irreverent spirit, without the intention or desire to commemorate the death of Christ as the sacrifice for sins, and without the purpose of complying with the obligations thereby assumed. The way in which the Corinthians ate unworthily was that they treated the Lord’ s table as though it were their own; making no distinction between it and an ordinary meal; coming together to satisfy their hunger, and not to feed on the blessings of the body and blood of Christ.] shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.—Inasmuch as the eating and drinking were intended to proclaim and keep in memory the death of Jesus Christ, whoever should eat of this memorial in a light and frivolous manner, in forgetfulness of the spirit of sacrifice that led to the death of Christ, is guilty of profaning the body and blood of Christ. He incurs the guilt of treating lightly the slain body of the Lord Jesus.

28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.— [Let him ascertain by earnest consideration whether he is in a proper state of mind for commemorating and proclaiming the Lord’ s death; whether he feels a suitable gratitude for the sacrifice it commemorates, and is firmly resolved to observe the injunction of its founders.] On this verse Macknight says : “ First, whether he comes to this service to keep up the memory of Christ; secondly, whether he is moved to do so by a grateful sense of Christ’ s love in dying for man; thirdly, whether he comes with a firm purpose of doing honor to Christ, by living in all respects conformably to his precepts and example.” To this I add, whether he comes in a submissive and worthy manner, drinking into the same spirit of self-sacrifice for others that Christ manifested. [Such examination of one’ s motive would have made impossi-ble the shameful scenes here described.]

29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.—He who comes to it not remembering the Lord’ s crucified body and shed blood, not drinking into the true spirit of Christ, not striving to walk worthy of his goodness and love, as shown in his sufferings and death, eateth unto condemnation rather than justification. Observing the body of Christ as a pledge of sanctification and justification and redemption to him who comes to it in a proper spirit, but of wrath and condemnation to him who comes not observing this spirit.

30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly,— Because so many come to it unworthily, not discerning his body and blood, not in the true spirit of Christ, many among them were weak and sickly as Christians. and not a few sleep.— Many are spiritually asleep—dead. Some commentators have applied the expression to physical disease and death; but spiritual neglect must bring spiritual penalties. Many had grown indifferent and some had lost interest in Christ and their duties to him.

31 But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. —If they watched themselves to see that they waited upon the Lord in the proper spirit, with a true sense of their obliga¬tions to him, and kept themselves in a condition to be blessed in his service, then they would not be condemned by the Lord.

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.—When God judged and chastened them, as he did when they began to ne¬glect their duties to him, he afflicted them to cause them to turn away from their ways, that they might be saved and not be condemned with the world that forgets God.

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, — [The eating referred to is, of course, the Lord’ s Supper, and he enjoins perfect order, respect, and sobriety. The table is common for the rich and poor, and the rich have no claim of priority over the poor.] wait one for another.—By their indecent haste, each eating his own meal without waiting for the rest, they had turned the Supper from the memorial purpose into an ordinary and insignificant meal, a mere eating and drinking. He therefore exhorts them to wait for one another, and make their coming together a joint service in commemoration of the Lord’ s suffering and death.]

Every congregation should have a definite time for meeting and should never begin the service before that time without due notice. While the apostle says, “ Wait one for another,” he also says, “ In diligence not slothful; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord.” (Romans 12:11.) No man can be diligent and fervent in spirit and be lazy and laggard in assembling for religious service. Not only does he who is slow lack diligence and fervor in spirit, but there is nothing that destroys the zeal and fervor of others like having to sit and wear out their patience, waiting for the slothful and indifferent.

34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home;—He should take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of the body before he comes to the assembly, where he should have the feeding of the spiritual man alone in view. that your coming together be not unto judgment.— [That they may avoid the curse that must fall on such worthless communicants as those mentioned; and that they may get that special blessing which every one who discerns the Lord’ s body and blood must receive.] And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.— [There were other irregularities which the apostle leaves to be corrected until he should again visit Corinth, but when that would be was certainly regarded by him as uncertain.]

Verse 1 1 Corinthians 11This and the following three chapters are usually construed as Paul’s corrective admonition regarding the “worship services”; but since the first paragraph (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) undoubtedly refers to social customs, there being even some doubt of its application to any worship service whatever, there is no need for adherence to such an outline. Throughout this epistle, the apostle Paul dealt with miscellaneous church conditions and disorders, making it nearly impossible to fit the epistle into any form of classical outline. The first paragraph regards the veiling of women (1 Corinthians 11:1-16), and the second teaches concerning the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). THE VEILING OF WOMENPaul’s teaching here is the basis of diametrically opposed views, Lipscomb holding that “Whether the woman prays in the closet at home, or in the assembly, she should approach God with the tokens of her subjection to man on her head."[1] Johnson limited the ruling to the worship meeting, saying, “This alone is in view."[2] He interpreted the words here as “Paul’s ruling that women must cover their heads during the meeting."[3] This writer admires and respects the immortal Lipscomb; but, in his comment above, the words “tokens of her subjection to man” betray a basic misunderstanding of this difficult passage. If Paul really meant that women should be veiled, then no fancy little hat will do it. This student of the Scriptures is adamantly opposed to tokenism and would just as soon accept “token baptism” as a “token veil.” As Marsh said: One thing is certain; within the context of our contemporary culture, the modern western hat - decorative, attractive, and often obstructive - cannot be said to compare with the veil, either in appearance, function or purpose.[4]As McGarvey said, “In western countries a woman’s hat has never had any symbolism whatever."[5] The notion that any kind of hat, in the modern sense of that word, can in any manner be construed as a “token veil” is founded in neither reason nor Scripture; and to get that simple fact in focus is to go a long way to understanding this subject. Eldred Echols, Professor of Bible, South Africa Bible School, Benoni, South Africa, summed up an extensive study of this problem by the Bible faculty with the following conclusion: The dogmatic position that 1 Corinthians 11 requires a woman to wear a hat at a religious service is linguistically and historically impossible. To enjoin it as an obligation upon Christian women is dangerously presumptive, since it is not based upon Biblical authority. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason why any Christian woman should not wear a hat at church or elsewhere if she wishes to do so. Nevertheless, she should not be deceived into imagining that her hat has any bearing upon first century doctrine or practice.[6]References to key words in the exegesis below will further elaborate the facts supporting Echols’ conclusion. This writer wholeheartedly concurs in this conclusion and also with that of McGarvey who wrote: “The problem in western assemblies is how best to persuade women to take their hats off, not how to prevail upon them to keep them on!"[7]“Drawings in the catacombs do not bear out the assumption that Christian women wore veils at services in the early church."[8] The extensive art of the Middle Ages, however, invariably portrays the women as fully veiled; but, of course, this was derived largely from the Roman Catholic culture of that era. In fact that culture may be viewed as the source of the custom of wearing hats (by women) in church services in the present times, the same having been accepted in Reformation and post-Reformation times without critical reappraisal because more urgent issues commanded the attention of scholars. Despite the conclusion accepted by this commentator to the effect that Paul does not here require women to wear hats at church, it is felt that Barclay went much too far in saying that “This is one of these passages which have a purely local and temporary significance."[9] On the contrary, Paul’s teaching here is invaluable and relevant to all generations with regard to the Christian’s relation to the culture in which he lives. Before proceeding to a line-by-line study of this paragraph, one other colossal fact should be noted, that being the word “custom” which appears in 1 Corinthians 11:16, at the end of the paragraph. Paul did a similar thing in Romans 8:1, where the word “now” flies like a banner, demanding that the antithesis “then” be understood as a description of what he treated in Romans 7. See my Commentary on Romans, pp. 262,263, 278. The word “custom” as used in 1 Corinthians 11:16 clearly identifies the subject under consideration in this paragraph as the customs of the times, and not as an apostolic treatise on what either men or women should wear in religious services, except in the degree that the one had a bearing upon the other. Sex differentiation as indicated by hair-length is outlined; and it is hair, not clothes, of which Paul spoke: [1] David Lipscomb, Commentary on 1Corinthians (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1935), p. 167. [2] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 622. [3] Ibid. [4] Paul W. Marsh, A New Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 397. [5] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on 1Corinthians (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 113. [6] Eldred Echols, a private manuscript circulated throughout the area of Benoni, South Africa by the faculty of the Bible School. Other references to this will be attributed to Eldred Echols. This writer is indebted to John H. Banister, Dallas, Texas, for this manuscript. [7] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 113. [8] Eldred Echols [9] William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), p. 107. 1 Corinthians 11:1 was discussed at the end of 1 Corinthians 10. Verse 2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.Traditions of men are not necessarily binding, but the holy traditions delivered by the apostles of Christ were of the highest authority. For a considerable part of the first century, there existed many written documents of the Christian religion (Luke 1:1); but such written documents were extensively supplemented by the word-of-mouth teaching which was promulgated by apostles and eyewitnesses of the inception of Christianity. See my Commentary on Mark, pp. 3,4. Hold fast the traditions … “This ordinarily means `handed down from generation to generation’; but here it refers to the doctrine orally delivered by the apostles to the churches in the first Christian generation."[10] In view of the meaning here, the old KJV rendition of “ordinances” is better than “traditions,” despite the fact of the latter being the literal meaning.[11][10] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 421. [11] F. W. Farrar, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 361. Verse 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.In the threefold step from woman to man to Christ to God, it may appear surprising that Paul began with the center stop; but there seems to have been a design in this. Paul, who was about to speak of the subordination of woman to her husband, would first speak to man with a reminder that he himself is subordinated to Christ the Lord. In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul made it abundantly clear that the subjection of wives to their husbands was coupled with the sternest commandments with regard to the husband’s duty to the wife. In the current era, there are those who would set aside the apostolic authority regarding the question of the subordination of the wife to her husband; but the wisdom of the ages and also the word of God concur in teaching the necessity that every organism must have a head; and there cannot be any denial that in God’s basic unit of all civilization and all progress, which is the family, the head must be either the man or the woman; and God here commanded man to fulfill that function of being the head of the family. If history has demonstrated anything, it is the truism that a matriarchal society is, by definition, inferior. The head of Christ is God … The equality of Christ with the Father is everywhere apparent in Scripture, as Paul himself said in Philippians 2:6; but, even so, the Godhead itself could not function in the project of human redemption without the subordination of the Son “for that purpose.” Just so, the subordination of woman to her husband does not set aside the equality of both male and female “in Christ,” but it is for the purpose of making the family a viable and successful unit. This verse makes the “headship of the man over the woman parallel to the leadership of God over Christ."[12] Thus the same equality, unity of purpose and unity of will, should exist between a man and his wife as exists between the Father and the Son. ENDNOTE: [12] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 109. Verse 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.Having his head covered … Here is where the misunderstanding of this passage begins. This clause, as rendered in the popular versions, is commentary, not Bible. As Echols noted: “Having his head covered” is a commentary, not a translation. Lenski translated the sense correctly: “having something down from his head.” What the “something” is is neither stated nor implied in 1 Corinthians 11:4.[13]The logical understanding of this would refer it to “long hair,” being long enough to hang down from the head, as clearly indicated by the apostles’ words a moment later: “If a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him” (1 Corinthians 11:14). The ancients accepted Paul’s dictum on this and went so far as to define the length of hair that was considered an infraction of Paul’s words. The hair of the head may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the eyes … cropping is to be adopted … let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into womanish ringlets.[14]Significantly, the words “hang far down” strongly resemble Paul’s words “having something down from his head.” The above is from Clement of Alexandria and was written in the second century. The notion that Paul in this place referred to the [~tallith] (shawl), or [~yarmelke] (skull cap) worn by Jewish worshipers is refuted by the fact that the Greek New Testament does not indicate in this verse an artificial covering of any kind.[15] This does not mean, however, that Paul would have approved of the use of either in Christian worship. “For Paul such a covering probably symbolized that the Jewish male continued in spiritual darkness, from which Christians had been liberated."[16] We may therefore interpret this verse as a simple admonition that it was a disgrace for any long-haired Christian male to participate in praying and prophesying; and this interpretation certainly harmonizes with verse 14. History has certainly vindicated this view; because universal human behavior has departed from it only in isolated instances and for relatively very short periods of time. Every man … It is wrong to understand this in the generic sense as “every man or woman.” Russell said: There are two Greek words for “man”; one for man as a human being; the other contrasting man with woman or child; the latter form is used for man in every instance in this chapter (1 Corinthians 11:3-16).[17][13] Eldred Echols [14] Clement of Alexandria, in the Ante Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), Vol. II, p. 286. [15] Eldred Echols [16] Paul W. Marsh, op. cit. p. 397. [17] John William Russell, op. cit., p. 421. Verse 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.Every woman praying or prophesying … As Lipscomb said: In all the history of Christ and the apostles no example is found of women speaking publicly or leading in public prayer, although they were endowed with miraculous gifts, and did prophesy and teach in private and in the family circle.[18]However, McGarvey construed this passage as an example of “women when exercising the prophetic office in the church.” Macknight took another view (see below). For further discussions, see under 1 Corinthians 14:34, below. We may suppose that the Corinthian women affected to perform such offices in the public assemblies on pretence of their being inspired; and, although Paul did not here condemn that practice, it does not follow that he allowed it, or that it was allowed in any church.[19]With her head unveiled … The word here rendered “unveiled” is [@akatakaluptos].[20] “There is no intrinsic meaning in this word which suggests either the covering material or the object covered; it is simply a general word."[21] [@Katakaluptos] means covered completely. [@Akatakaluptos] means not completely covered. Thus again, the passage falls short of mentioning any kind of garment. To suppose that Paul here meant “mantle” or “veil” or any such thing is to import into this text what is not in it. We have seen that he was speaking of “hair” in 1 Corinthians 11:4; and that is exactly what he is speaking of here. “Not completely covered” would then refer to the disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian women in cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes; which, if they did it, was exactly the same kind of disgrace as if they had shaved their heads. It is crystal clear that Paul is not speaking of any kind of garment; because he said in 1 Corinthians 11:15, below, “For her hair is given her instead of a covering."[22] (See under 1 Corinthians 11:15.) Only in 1 Corinthians 11:15 does Paul mention any kind of garment ([@peribolaion]) and even there he stated that the woman’s hair took the place of it. Dishonoreth her head … Understanding the “unveiled” in the preceding clause as a reference to cropping her hair explains this. Any man’s wife adopting the style of the notorious “priestesses” on the Acro Corinthus would bring shame and dishonor upon her “head,” that is, her husband, who would thus be scandalized in the conduct of his wife. Also, from this, it is clear that in 1 Corinthians 11:4, man’s “head,” which is Christ, is the one dishonored there. Thus the thing which concerned Paul here was the arrogant adoption of the hairstyle (by women) of the shameless priestesses of Aphrodite. Is there any lesson for modern Christians in this? Indeed there is. Any time that Christian men or women adopt styles, whether of clothing or hair, which are widely accepted as immoral, anti-social, anti-establishment, or in any manner degrading, such actions constitute a violation of what is taught here. [18] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 163. [19] James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1969), p. 172. [20] W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1940), p. 174. [21] Eldred Echols [22] Eldred Echols Verse 6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.Here again the sense of this place is destroyed by the traditional rendition “veiled.” No artificial covering of any kind has thus far been mentioned by Paul in this chapter, nor will there be any reference to any kind of garment or artificial covering until 1 Corinthians 11:15, below, where it is categorically stated that her hair is given her “instead of” any other covering. Paul is only repeating here the obvious truth that for a woman to adopt the Aphrodite hair style was the same thing as being shaven. The shaving of any woman’s head was considered either a sign of deep mourning, or a fitting punishment for adultery; and the overwhelming inference here is not that the Corinthian women had thrown off the oriental style “veil” that obscured almost all of the female person, there being no evidence at all that first-century Christian women ever wore such a thing, but that they had adopted the chic hair-styles of the women of Aphrodite. Can it be believed that Paul was here pleading for the Corinthian women to put on “veils” in the style of present-day Moslems, when he was about to say in 1 Corinthians 11:15, below, that their hair had been given them “instead of” such a covering? It is the flagrant mistranslation of this passage which has obscured the truth and confused millions of students of it. Verse 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch 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: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.Ought not to have his head veiled … See under 1 Corinthians 11:4 for the true meaning which is that “a man ought not to have anything hanging down from his head,” an obvious reference to long hair, as more thoroughly explained above. Whatever “covered” means in 1 Corinthians 11:4 must also be the meaning of “veiled” in this verse. Moreover, the fact that Paul is speaking of something fundamental and intrinsic in human appearance, and not merely about some kind of clothing, is inherent in the reasons assigned to support his words. In these verses, the big thing in view is the eternal propriety of woman’s submission to her husband, a subject already in Paul’s mind, from the reference to “man as the head of woman” (1 Corinthians 11:3).

The facts of creation reveal that: (1) woman was taken out of man, (2) she was given to man, (3) she was created for man, and (4) she was intended to be the glory of man. The scandalous behavior of the Corinthian women had contravened God’s purpose in all of these things, hence the mention of them here. Charles Hodge stated in connection with these verses: In this way does the New Testament constantly authenticate, not merely the moral and religious truths of the Old Testament, but its historical facts; and makes the facts the grounds or proofs of great moral principles.[23]ENDNOTE: [23] Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 210. Verse 10 For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.This verse should be read without the words “a sign of,” the same being not in Paul’s writings at all, but having been merely added by translators to help out with what they conceived to be the meaning of the passage. As Farrar said, “A great deal of irrelevant guesswork has been written on this verse."[24] We shall not trouble the reader with any of the wild guesses concerning the danger that women without veils might tempt some of the angels attending church and seeing them, or any such speculations. The simplest explanation (since Paul was speaking of the proper subordination of woman) is that this is a reminder that the “angels who kept not their first estate” lost heaven; and it is not far-fetched to draw the analogy that those precious angels called women should not go beyond the limitations imposed upon them by their creation. Authority upon her head … Scholars do not agree on the exact meaning implied by the use of “authority” here; but it is clear that Paul referred to the woman’s head being properly covered; but it is of the utmost importance to note that “the nature of that covering” is not here specified. The opinion of this writer is that the reference means she should not have her hair cropped. Even in such a regulation as that, the implication is that the prohibition is not absolute, but qualified. The sin was not in cutting off hair, but in cutting it off in such a manner as to obscure the sexes or to imitate the shameless prostitutes of the pagan temples. ENDNOTE: [24] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 362. Verse 11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.Despite the fact of Paul’s speaking on the subordination of woman in God’s order of created beings, he was careful here to point out what kind of subordination he was speaking of. Man and woman are mutually dependent upon each other, each enjoying unique prerogatives and blessings under the will of God, as Paul stressed in Ephesians 5:22-33, etc. While true enough that the first woman was made out of man, it has been true of all others since then that they are born of woman. The natural relationship between men and women, like everything else, is ordained of God. Johnson believed that the point of emphasis here is that “The man must always remember that he exists by woman, and that both are of God."[25]ENDNOTE: [25] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., op. cit., p. 623. Verse 13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?As Farrar said, “This is an appeal to the decision of their instinctive sense of propriety."[26] Johnson believed that “seemly” here should be read “proper."[27] It should be noted again that “unveiled” here has no reference at all to what is commonly referred to as a “veil.” The word is exactly the same as the one used in 1 Corinthians 11:5.[28] A covering of some kind is meant; but the Greek text leaves totally out of sight anything that would enable this to be identified as some kind of artificial covering, or man-made garment. See under 1 Corinthians 11:5. The instinctive judgment of men is much more easily associated with their approval of long hair for a woman than with the approval of some kind or style of clothing. The fallibility of human instinct in that whole area of concern is proved by the new styles accepted every spring! [26] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 363. [27] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., op. cit., p. 624. [28] W. E. Vine, op. cit., p. 175. Verse 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?As Johnson observed, “The fact of short hair for men and long hair for women is a divine suggestion in nature itself."[29] It is quite evident throughout this whole paragraph that Paul is talking about “hair,” not clothes! If such is not the case, such a verse as this is totally out of place. The judgment of history as well as the New Testament confirms Paul’s words here are true. People may deny it if they please; but the sacred text and the usage of centuries are against any such denial. ENDNOTE: [29] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., op. cit., p. 624. Verse 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.It is a glory to her … This would have been the ideal place for Paul to have said that a mantle thrown over a woman’s head and shoulders is a glory to her, if he ever had such a thing in mind. On the contrary, it comes out here, as it does in every verse in the whole passage, his subject was “hair”! Her hair is given her for a covering … Here again is an enormous mistranslation; and one may only wonder at the efforts of commentators to make this conform to the misinterpretations they have foisted upon this innocent passage. For example, Johnson declared that “This does not mean that her hair is her covering”;[30] but a glance at any interlinear Greek New Testament will reveal the meaning instantly. Nestle gives it, “instead of a veil."[31] The Emphatic Diaglott has “Her hair is given her instead of a veil."[32] Echols emphatically stressed this expression “instead of” as follows: The idea conveyed by “instead of” is that if the noun preceding this preposition is available, the noun following the preposition is not required. Therefore, the conclusion is quite inescapable that, if a woman’s hair conforms to apostolic standards of propriety, she requires no artificial covering.[33]But of paramount importance in this verse is the noun [@peribolaion], here rendered “veil.” This is the one noun in the whole passage that unmistakably refers to a head covering. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament translates it, “a covering thrown around, a wrapper.” This is the “veil” which has already been imported into the passage five times; but this is Paul’s first reference to anything of the kind; and, significantly, it is mentioned in the same breath with woman’s hair which is given to her “instead of” any such covering. The only conceivable situation in which it may be inferred that Paul expected women to wear the kind of mantle, or veil, spoken of here, would be one in which a woman’s hair had been lost, from disease, accident, or something of that kind. Echols thought that “instead of” in this verse “forces us to accept the alternative that, if a woman’s hair does not fulfill its proper function, then she should wear a mantle or hood."[34]However, this seems to be an unnecessary conclusion, since the natural modesty of almost any person would lead to the wearing of a head covering in such a circumstance. [30] Ibid. [31] Nestle’s Greek text [32] The Emphatic Diaglott [33] Eldred Echols [34] Eldred Echols Verse 16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.If any man seemeth to be contentious … This was Paul’s way of saying, “Look, we do not intend to argue this question endlessly; the whole matter is already solved by the type of behavior which marks God’s churches everywhere.” This is grounds for holding that in this whole passage it is decorous conduct with which Paul is concerned, since it touched on the all-important question of the proper submission of women to their husbands, and was also related to the prevailing opinion of the people in that community. This whole passage affirms the necessity for Christians to have a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, and not to flaunt social customs of any kind merely for the sake of being different. As McGarvey said, “One who follows Christ will find himself conspicuously different from the world, without practicing any tricks of singularity."[35] ON THE VERSES ABOVEIf Paul meant “hair,” why did he use the word “covered”? The answer is that in the vocabulary of the Old Testament “to uncover the head” was to shave off the hair. When Nadab and Abihu sinned (Leviticus 10:1 ff), God commanded Aaron not to “uncover his head” in mourning at their death; and this meant not to cut off his hair (the customary sign of mourning). Job shaved his head when he learned his children were dead (Job 1:20). Many examples of this usage could be cited; but as Echols noted: “Wherever the expression uncover the head' occurs in the Hebrew Old Testament, it means remove the hair.’"[36] The culture of that era as well as the environment at Corinth suggests that some of the Corinthian women (in the church) were violating decent rules of conduct, not by discarding the mantle ([@peribolaion]) which there is no evidence that any of them were wearing, but by adopting the cropped hair of Aphrodite’s priestesses.

It is even likely that some of them had been converted and had neglected to change their hair styles. Furthermore, it must be evident to all who think about it that when Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:4 that a man praying or prophesying with his head “covered” dishonored his head, he simply COULD NOT have referred to any man’s wrapping himself up in the type of mantle that was called a veil in those days. That type of veil (or mantle), as far as history reveals, was never worn by men in any circumstance. Therefore the fault Paul sought to correct in 1 Corinthians 11:4 was not that of men veiling themselves like women, but that of sporting indecently long hair. What was the veil, actually, that was worn in those days? It was a large loose mantle which the woman wrapped around her head and face, leaving only the eyes visible, and sometimes only one eye. The word “veil” used by our translators is extremely misleading. Ruth’s veil, for example, held six measures of barley! (Rth 3:15). Although Hebrew women did not always wear veils, they seem to have done so for harvesting, as in the case of Ruth. Was the mantle (veil) a symbol of modesty and submission? It came in time to be so considered; but there was certainly a time when such a garment (designed to obscure the person) was considered the attire of a harlot. Note the following: And she (Tamar) put her widow’s garments off, and covered her with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife. When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned in unto her by the way (Genesis 38:14-16). Is there any word in this whole passage that unmistakably means the type of veil under consideration? Yes, the word [@peribolaion] in 1 Corinthians 11:15 refers to that type of covering; and this is the only word in the whole passage that does so; but this is also the verse where Paul said the Lord had given woman her hair “instead of” any such garment! What is Paul’s subject in these verses? Whatever it was, it could not have been the type of veil or mantle that obscures the person of women, that having been mentioned only once. On the other hand HAIR is mentioned three times, “shaved” or “shorn” is mentioned four times; and, in this light, it appears certain that Paul’s subject here was HAIR. One could not speak of a mantle’s being shorn or shaved. How could this passage have been so long misunderstood? Echols’ explanation is as good as any. He said: A clear understanding has been obscured by ambiguous English translations, as well as by established custom. There can be little doubt that the custom itself derived largely from Roman Catholic practice during the Middle ages.[37] THE LORD’S SUPPERThe balance of this chapter (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) deals with abuses in the Corinthian congregation with regard to the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper and the “love feast” which usually preceded it in the primitive church. [35] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 110. [36] Eldred Echols [37] Eldred Echols Verse 17 But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it.When ye come together … is a reference to the formal assembly of the congregation for worship as a body, the corporate worship, as it is sometimes called. Not for the better but for the worse … Not merely were their assemblies so disordered and perverted as to deny all benefit to the worshipers, but they were actually productive of harm, so much so that those attending were actually worse off for having participated. When ye come together in the church … divisions … Paul had already discussed the shameful schisms, or parties, that had become prevalent in Corinth; and it seems here that he is referring to the intrusion of this party spirit into the worship itself, but especially to the manifestation of that spirit in the common meal that in those times was held before the Lord’s Supper and in close connection with it. As Alexander Campbell said: There can be no doubt that the Eucharist at this period (shortly after Pentecost) was preceded uniformly by a common repast, as when the ordinance was instituted. Most scholars hold that this was the prevailing usage in the first centuries after Christ; and we have traces of this practice in 1 Corinthians 11:20 ff.[38]ENDNOTE: [38] Alexander Campbell, Acts of the Apostles (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1858), p. 18. Verse 19 For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you.A glimpse of the divine mind is in this. Christians who become upset and discouraged because of schisms, factions and other disorders in the church make a tragic mistake. As God used Satan in the Paradise of Eden to test the progenitors of the human race, he still tests the faith of all Christians. Church difficulties provide an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate that they are genuine followers of the Lord. God never intended that any man should move through life in a constant environment of encouragement and spiritual delight. There is a place in the experience of every Christian where “the rubber meets the road”; and his response to unfavorable, or even tragic, situations will determine whether or not he is “approved” of God. It should always be remembered that “many are called, but few are chosen.” Verse 20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s Supper.It is not possible to eat the Lord’s Supper … This cannot mean that it was physically impossible, but that it was morally impossible. The abuses of the AGAPE, or love feast, which preceded the holy communion were so grave as to contravene any true participation in the sacred supper. The Lord’s Supper … Morris said, “[@Kuriakon], translated “the Lord’s,” is found only here and inRevelation 1:10 in the New Testament."[39] Thus, only here does the expression “The Lord’s Supper” appear in the New Testament. There is no doubt, however, that the expression was, at the date of this epistle, the usual manner of referring to this solemn rite. Farrar observed that “The fact that there is no article in the Greek shows the early prevalence of this name for the Eucharist."[40]It is rather amazing that Barnes made a deduction from this verse to the effect that the Lord’s Supper should be observed in the evenings, not in the mornings of the Lord’s Days. He said: It is called SUPPER, indicating the evening repast; it was instituted in the evening; and it is most proper that it should be observed in the after part of the day. Churches have improperly changed to the morning … a custom which has no sanction in the New Testament; and which is a departure from the very idea of a supper.[41]Barnes’ deduction should be rejected, because there is no hint in the New Testament that the time of day for the observance of this rite was ever the subject of any apostolic decree. “The day” is indicated, but not the time of day. Moreover, Pliny’s letter to the emperor Trajan, shortly after the beginning of the second century, stated that the Christians were “accustomed to meet before daybreak."[42] From these considerations, it is clear that “The Lord’s Supper” has reference to the hour of its institution, and not to the hour of its observance by Christians. [39] Leon Morris, Tyndale Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), p. 158. [40] F. W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 364. [41] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1949), p. 211. [42] Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 6. Verse 21 For in eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.The abuse at Corinth was compound. The AGAPE, or love feast, which in early times preceded the Lord’s Supper, had at Corinth been shamelessly mixed with the sacred rite to the extent of the total corruption of both. The so-called love feast was somewhat like the “dinners on the grounds” which were a feature of rural congregations throughout America in this century. However, at Corinth, the rich who brought bountiful provisions for such affairs were not sharing with the poor who had been able to bring little or nothing. Some were actually having a big feast and then returning home before the others arrived. Drunkenness and gluttony were prevalent, in addition to the pitiless disregard of the poor and needy. It may be presumed that the emblems of the Lord’s Supper might have been distributed by each group to themselves at the conclusion of their feasts; but by so doing they did not eat “one bread” with their brethren, thus having no fellowship with them and totally circumventing the purpose of the Lord’s Supper. An analysis of such disorders shows that:

1. The various groups did not eat at the same time.
2. Each group ate its own provisions, instead of sharing in the “one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17).
3. Some ate too plentifully; some ate nothing at all, for there was nothing left.
4. Some were “drunken”; and there is no need to soften the meaning of this. “Grotius gives `drunken’ the milder, and Meyer the stronger sense."[43]5. The corruption of the Lord’s Supper by such practices was complete; and, according to Farrar, “This abuse led to the separation of the Agape from the Holy Communion,"[44] and to the ultimate discontinuation of the former. [43] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 115. [44] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 364. Verse 22 What, have ye not houses to eat and 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.Have ye not houses to eat and drink in … It should be carefully noted that Paul did not here condemn a congregation’s eating upon the occasion of their formal coming together for worship, nor eating in any building or location where such meetings were held. What he condemned was their intemperance, disregard of the need of others, and their shameless mixing of the Lord’s Supper with a common meal. The kind of eating and drinking they were doing belonged properly at home and not at church.

He condemned their abuse of sacred privilege in the strongest terms. It is also incorrect to infer from this that Paul thought that it was proper for them to eat and be “drunken” at home! Verse 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.This is the fourth time in the New Testament that the institution of the Lord’s Supper is recorded. Some scholars deny that Paul received a direct revelation on this subject; but if he was merely repeating what he had received from other apostles; it is hard to see why he would have said: I received of the Lord … Wuest wrote that: Paul had doubtless heard the account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper from the eleven, but he also had it by revelation from the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23). He received his gospel by direct revelation in Arabia.[45]Leon Morris and F. W. Farrar, with many others, concur in this view. ENDNOTE: [45] Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), Vol. III, p. 224. Verse 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.Had given thanks … In Matthew and Mark, reference to this act says, “Having blessed it”; but Luke has it as here. As Hodge declared: “The two expressions mean the same thing. Both express the act of consecration, by a grateful acknowledgment of God’s mercy and invocation of his blessing."[46]He brake it … From this it is clear that “the breaking of the bread ought not to be abandoned, as in the case when WAFERS are used."[47] Some have supposed that breaking the bread contradicts (by symbolism) the fact that not a bone of Jesus was broken (John 19:36)! but the breaking of a bone is not the same as the breaking of the body. The spear that pierced Jesus’ side certainly broke his “body,” but did not break any bone. The KJV, of course, has “This is my body which is broken”; and the meaning is certainly in the passage, deriving from “he brake it.” Thus the meaning is true, despite the fact of the word “broken” not being in the best manuscripts. This do in remembrance of me … For more explicit comment on the commemorative aspect of the Lord’s Supper, see Nature of the Lord’s Supper, under verse 34. [46] Charles Hodge. op. cit., p. 224. [47] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 365. Verse 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. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lords’ death until he come.After supper … This phrase is invaluable in that it shows why two cups were mentioned, one before the bread and the other afterward, in Luke 22:17-20. The first cup Luke mentioned was the fourth cup of the simulated Passover meal, which Paul here called “supper” with the strongest implications that it was in no sense the Passover itself (except by accommodation), the same being called the “cup of joy.” Both the bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper were given “after supper,” and in that order, the bread first, the cup afterward. See my Commentary on Luke pp. 467,468. This cup is the new covenant in my blood … This means the same thing as “This is my blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:26); and in Paul’s statement here, it is absolutely clear that the meaning in Matthew in no sense favors the crass literalism of such doctrines as transubstantiation or consubstantiation, no semblance of any such thing being suggested here. The student should consult the sacred text and the comments in the other three New Testament reports of this event: my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 429ff; my Commentary on Mark, pp. 306ff; and my Commentary on Luke, pp. 467ff. Regarding the superstition that the emblems of the Lord’s Supper are, in their consecration, literally changed to the body or flesh and blood of Christ, Hodge gave this pertinent comment: It is only by denying all distinctions between, matter and spirit, and confounding all our ideas of substance and qualities, that we can believe that wine is blood, or bread flesh.[48]For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup … Regarding the proper time of observance for the Lord’s Supper, the New Testament teaches that it was observed upon the first day of the week, the first day of EVERY week, and “not upon any other days of the week.” This passage is therefore no permit to take it any time we please. See my Commentary on Acts, pp. 385,386, and 517. Eat this bread and drink this cup … Apostolic practice makes it certain that communion under one kind, that is, taking EITHER the bread or the wine without the other, was never encouraged or allowed in the New Testament. Furthermore, Paul’s use of “or drink this cup” in 1 Corinthians 11:27 is not a denial of this. As Farrar said, “What he meant there was that it was possible to partake in a wrong spirit either of the bread or of the cup."[49]Ye proclaim the Lord’s death until he come … As Dummelow said, the Lord’s Supper is “a living sermon."[50] Thus the instructive nature of this solemn rite is stressed. See Nature of the Lord’s Supper, below.

The word for “proclaim” here is [@katangello]. Morris gave the meaning as “announce” or “proclaim,” saying that “It means that the solemn observance of the service of Holy Communion is a vivid proclamation of the Lord’s death."[51]Till he come … The Lord’s Supper faces in two directions, back to Calvary and forward to the Second Advent, being retrospective in regard to one and prospective with regard to the latter. The Second Advent is a major doctrine of Christianity; and it is fitting that it should be honored in this pivotal ordinance. [48] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 225. [49] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 365. [50] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 912. [51] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 162. Verse 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink of the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.Due to the rendition in the KJV, “eateth and drinketh unworthily,” many Christians have erroneously concluded that their “unworthiness” forbade their observance of the supper; but this is not true at all. The rendition here makes the meaning clear that it is not the “worthiness” of the participant which is in view, but the “worthiness” of his manner of partaking of it. Indeed, who was ever worthy to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God? The moment any man might suppose that he was “worthy” to do such a thing, the presumption itself would deny it. Nevertheless, there is a real danger here. If any person shall partake of this solemn rite without discernment of the event it memorializes, or without regard to the obligations imposed by it, or without any consistent effort to partake of it continually and faithfully throughout his life, or until the Lord comes, or without the due reverence and appreciation due such an ordinance - then such a person becomes guilty of the body and the blood of Jesus, the meaning of this being that he, in a spiritual sense, has become a crucifier of the Lord himself. Or drink of the cup … See under preceding verse. Verse 28 But let a man prove himself, and so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.“Before taking part in such a service, the very least we can do is to conduct a rigorous self-examination."[52]The word used here means “to test” and was used of the testing of metals. The point is that no Christian should observe the Lord’s supper in any casual or flippant manner, treating it as something ordinary. It is the central ordinance of Christianity; and the believer’s fidelity to it, or infidelity, is fraught with eternal consequences. ENDNOTE: [52] Ibid., p. 163. Verse 29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, if he discern not the body.Judgment … may also be rendered “damnation” or “condemnation,” in any event meaning consequences both serious and eternal. Discern not the body … This may be indefinite by purpose on Paul’s part. It would apply either to the precious body of Christ sacrificed upon Calvary for all people, or the church which is his spiritual body, the offense being the same either way the text is read. Significantly, it was the failure of the Corinthians that they disregarded the spiritual body (Despise ye the church of God?); and it is a fact that unfaithfulness at the Lord’s table in all generations has been one of the most prevalent and hurtful means of despising God’s church. Countless souls are continually guilty of this very thing. The apostle here warned of drastic penalties incurred by such negligence. Verse 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.This has usually been interpreted to mean that physical sickness and death had been visited upon the sinful Corinthians, due to their shameful perversion and abuse of the Lord’s Supper; and while it must be allowed that in that age of the church, God did send visitations of divine wrath against wrongdoers, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and perhaps also the incestuous man mentioned earlier in this epistle; nevertheless, the conviction here is that, if that had been in Paul’s mind, he could hardly have said that “some sleep,” sleep being too mild a word to use with reference to victims of divine wrath. The meaning which appears to be most likely is that Paul was speaking of those who had become spiritually weak and sickly, some no doubt having perished spiritually. If that was meant, then the condition of those asleep was terminal and irrevocable, being the same as that evident in Mark 3:29; Hebrews 6:6; 1 Timothy 5:6; 2 Peter 2:20; 1 John 5:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:19. For a dissertation on the unpardonable sin, see my Commentary on Mark, pp. 65-67. The condition of those asleep was no different from that of Ananias and Sapphira; and therefore Paul’s gentle word “sleep” would appear to have been spoken in tenderness and regret. Johnson noted that wherever “sleep” is used of death in the New Testament, it refers to the death of Christians, inferring from this that these “had not lost their salvation, but the privilege of service on earth."[53]Such a conclusion seems precarious to this writer. There is an echo of Calvinism in such a viewpoint. ENDNOTE: [53] S. Lewis Johnson, op. cit., p. 626. Verse 31 But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.In these verses, it seems quite clearly indicated that Paul was still speaking of the weak and sickly Christians and of them that “slept.” Thus, the implications would be that through the scourge of physical illness, resulting in death for some and severe sickness for others, God was chastening the people with an ultimate purpose of their salvation in view. It is therefore quite difficult to support a dogmatic opinion with regard to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:30. One thing may be definitely learned from it; THAT is the dreadful consequences of unfaithfulness at the Lord’s table. Farrar’s paraphrase of this is as follows: If we were in the habit of discriminating between spiritual and common things, we should not be undergoing this sign of God’s displeasure; but the fact that his judgments are abroad among us, is for our further moral education, and to save us from being finally condemned with the world.[54]ENDNOTE: [54] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 366. Verse 33 Whereas, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another.This writer still remembers the occasions in his boyhood, when church never started on time, because “tarry ye one for another” from the KJV was interpreted to mean that church could not begin until all the members were present. Sometimes this resulted in quite sensational delays! What Paul said here, of course, was that the affluent should not bring their provisions and eat them all before the poor arrived, the primary application of this, it seems, being to the AGAPE, and not to the Lord’s Supper which followed it. The relevance of the passage still holds. Considerations of love and helpfulness should always be extended to brothers by brothers in Christ, even to the tardy. Verse 34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.This was the apostolic order that resulted in the separation of the Agape from the Lord’s Supper and the eventual discontinuation of the former. The Lord’s Supper was here elevated to a position higher than that of merely satisfying the appetites. The hungry should eat at home. Nevertheless, the beauty of the [Greek: agape], as practiced in the primitive church, has always enthralled and captivated the imagination; and there can be little doubt that meals served in the present times by churches “on the grounds,” in their buildings, or in parks and public places, are vestigial recurrences of that once glorious custom which perished in the shameful abuses at Corinth. It was the selfishness, greediness and lust of the natural man insufficiently subdued by the indwelling Spirit which perverted, and by that perversion destroyed an age of loving innocence.

The church, it seems has never been able to recapture that lost innocence. Observations of the dinners served by congregations through many years have afforded this writer many occasions to note the ease with which the Corinthian perversions invade and destroy such dinners. THE NATURE OF THE LORD’S SUPPERThe central ordinance of Christianity is the Lord’s Supper, standing in a metaphor as a summary of the whole Christian religion: “Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye have no life in you” (John 6:53). See my Commentary on John, pp. 186-188. The nature of this precious rite is discerned in seven words, as follows:

1. Retrospective. It looks back to Calvary, bringing to the worshiper’s mind the night of betrayal, agony, blood and tears, and the awful scenes of the crucifixion itself. Christians who have been “baptized into his death” (Romans 6:3) find in this solemn ceremony a recurring participation in Christ’s death. Upon that fixed interval recurring every Lord’s Day, the child of God turns his thoughts and meditations back to the cross, in his heart living with the Saviour those awful events of his Passion, reviewing over and over again the scenes and circumstances which marked the Lord’s supreme act of atonement for the sins of the whole world. Christ died for our sins; and it is that historical event which anchors and perpetuates the Lord’s Supper; and thus the historicity of Christ’s death and resurrection is demonstrated and proved throughout all times and places by this sacred rite.
2. Prospective. The ancient pagan god of war was the two-faced Janus (from whence the name of the month January), facing in both directions, forward and backward. In a far more wonderful manner, the Lord’s Supper faces toward Calvary in retrospect, and also toward the Second Advent, prospectively. When the Manhattan Church of Christ constructed a new building in New York City, the custom of writing the words, “Do this in remembrance of me” on the Lord’s table, was expanded by adding the words, “This do ye until I come.” Thus, the essential expectation inherent in the holy supper was Scripturally recognized. Unless Christ is coming again, all true meaning of the Lord’s Supper disappears; for there is in every proper observance of it the conviction of that time when the skies will be bright with the coming of the Son of God the second time apart from sin to reward the righteous and to bring about the summation of all things.
3. Introspective. In Paul’s writings in this chapter, the necessity of every man’s examining himself is affirmed (1 Corinthians 11:28). It is in that rigorous self-examination which should mark every man’s participation in the Lord’s Supper that the introspective nature of it is seen. One’s life, his sincerity, his devotion, dedication and love for the Lord who redeemed him at such awful cost should all appear within the thoughts of the participant. How can any wickedness bear the light of such an introspective searching?
4. Commemorative. “In remembrance of me,” Jesus said (1 Corinthians 11:25). The Lord’s Supper is one of the great memorials to the event of the Dayspring’s visitation from on high, the Lord’s baptism and the Lord’s day being two others. What a memorial is this! No tower of stone or marble palace, no tablet or inscription, no name conferred on cities or places, no granite obelisk or shining monument could ever have a fraction of the effectiveness of this worldwide memorial of the Lord’s Supper. It has now been observed by Christians on more than 100,000 successive Lord’s Days; nor is there any possibility that there will ever be a single Sunday until the end of time when it will not be observed by people who love the Lord and await his Second Advent. Under Judaism, people remembered their sins; in Christ they remember their Redeemer who has forgiven their sins (Jeremiah 31:31-35).
5. Instructive. “Ye proclaim the Lord’s death until he come.” If one wishes to preach a sermon of redemption to a dying world, let him faithfully observe this sacred supper. Jesus himself identified it as a proclamation. If one would instruct dying people to turn their hearts to the cross of Christ, the way to do it is to exhibit unvarying fidelity to this Christian duty. Books are cast aside, sermons forgotten, solicitous words ignored; but no man can ignore the example of a faithful life with regard to the Holy Communion of the body and the blood of Christ. The weakness of churches in this generation may not so much be attributed to weak preaching (although there is plenty of that), but to weak living on the part of her members. The man who neglects or abandons the Lord’s Supper has hidden his light, stifled the message of salvation and denied his Lord.
6. Corrective. Implicit in the self-examination mentioned under 3 above, is the requirement that elements of personal life out of harmony with the high professions of Christianity will be recognized and corrected. This is inherent in the meaning of “Let a man prove himself.” Faithful adherence to the duty of observing the Lord’s Supper will either remove one’s sins, or one’s sins will remove him from frequenting the Lord’s table.
7. Separative. This ordinance, more than any other, reveals who is saved and who is not saved. Here is the spiritual device of the Lord himself which separates the wheat from the chaff. Christ himself said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves” (John 6:53); and men may scream about this if they please, but it is the truth. Go to church.

The saints and the sinners alike sing the hymns; the believer and the infidel alike hear the sermon respectfully; the sons of light and the sons of darkness give of their money; the saved and the lost bow their heads for the prayers; but when the emblems of the Lord’s Supper appear, a separation is made. The New Testament reveals that here is an ordinance so important that the whole world is polarized by it, Christians being quite properly identified as those who faithfully observe it, and non-Christians identified as those who take it not. Oh yes, to be sure, this ordinanceALONE is not the terminator; but the importance of it is such that Christ himself used it as a metaphor of the whole Christian religion. “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). For more on this, see my Commentary on John, pp. 186-188.

“THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE "

Chapter Eleven IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To ascertain if Paul’s instructions concerning the veil were meant to be applied today, or if he was simply admonishing them to abide by what was a social custom of their day

2. To notice the purpose of the Lord’s Supper and the manner in which it is to be observed

SUMMARY Having spent three chapters discussing the issue of eating things sacrificed to idols, Paul now quickly covers two separate matters in this one chapter. The first pertains to women praying and prophesying with heads uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). In view of what we are able to glean about the society of Corinth, and from comments made by Paul in this chapter and elsewhere, I believe that the problem Paul addresses is one that was occurring out in public and not in the assembly. Beginning in verse 17 and continuing through chapter 14, Paul covers issues affecting their assemblies as a church, the first being the manner in which they abused the observance of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34).

OUTLINE I. WOMEN PRAYING AND WITH HEADS (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) A. REMARKS (1 Corinthians 11:2-5 a)1. Commendation for having kept the apostolic traditions delivered to them (1 Corinthians 11:2) 2. A reminder concerning the proper line of authority (1 Corinthians 11:3) 3. Concerning praying and prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:4-5 a) a. Every man who does so with head covered dishonors his head (Christ) b. Every woman who does so with head uncovered dishonors her head (man)

B. (1 Corinthians 11:5-16)1. A woman praying or prophesying uncovered would make her appear as one shorn or shaved (1 Corinthians 11:5 a) a. If a woman is not covered, let her be shorn (1 Corinthians 11:6 a) b. If to be shorn or shaved is shameful, let her be covered (1 Corinthians 11:6 b) 2. It is proper for a man not to cover his head (1 Corinthians 11:7-9) a. Man is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory of man (1 Corinthians 11:7) b. Man did not come from woman, nor was created for woman (1 Corinthians 11:8-9) 3. It is appropriate for a woman to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of angels (1 Corinthians 11:10) 4. This is not to say that man is independent of woman (1 Corinthians 11:11-12) a. Especially in the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:11) b. For as the woman is from the man, so the man is through the woman (1 Corinthians 11:12 a) c. And all things are from God (1 Corinthians 11:12 b) 5. Judge this matter for yourselves (1 Corinthians 11:13-15) a. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with uncovered head? (1 Corinthians 11:13) b. Does not even nature teach you? (1 Corinthians 11:14-15)

1. That long hair on a man is a dishonor to him? (1 Corinthians 11:14)
2. That long hair on a woman is a glory to her, and provides a covering? (1 Corinthians 11:15)

6. But if anyone is contentious about this matter… (1 Corinthians 11:16) a. We have no such custom (i.e., this is not an “apostolic tradition”) b. Nor do the churches of God

II. THE LORD’S SUPPER (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) A. THE CONDUCT AT CORINTH IN REGARDS TO THE LORD’S SUPPER (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)1. He cannot praise them for their conduct in their assemblies (1 Corinthians 11:17-19) a. Their coming together is not for the better, but for the worse (1 Corinthians 11:17) b. He has heard of their divisions, of which the only good thing that could be said is that it does show who is really approved among them (1 Corinthians 11:18-19) 2. Especially in regards to the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20-22) a. Their divisiveness made it impossible to eat properly, and led to severe abuses (1 Corinthians 11:20-21) b. They despised the church and shamed the poor, for which Paul could not praise them (1 Corinthians 11:22)

B. THE AND PROPER OF THE LORD’S SUPPER 1 Corinthians 11:23-341. The institution as received by Paul directly from the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23-25) 2. Properly observed, it is a proclamation of the Lord’s death (1 Corinthians 11:26) 3. Properly observed, it is accompanied by self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:27-32) a. Which enables us to observe it without bringing judgment to ourselves (1 Corinthians 11:27-29) b. Otherwise, we will be judged and chastened by the Lord, that we might not be condemned with the world (1 Corinthians 11:30-32) 4. Concluding instructions (1 Corinthians 11:33-34) a. When you come together to eat the Supper, wait for one another (1 Corinthians 11:33) b. If you are hungry, eat at home (1 Corinthians 11:34 a) c. Paul will have more to say when he comes to Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:34 b)

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. List the main points of this chapter- Women Praying And Prophesying With Head Uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

• Concerning The Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

2. For what does Paul commend the church in Corinth? (1 Corinthians 11:2)- Remembering him and keeping the traditions as he delivered to them

3. What is the proper order of authority? (1 Corinthians 11:3)- God, Christ, Man, Woman

4. What evidence is there that Paul is discussing praying and prophesying out in public, and not in the assembly?- His commendation in verse 2 (they were keeping the apostolic traditions delivered to them)

• His question in verse 13 (they would have answered “yes” if they were being asked concerning women in a religious assembly in Corinth; see The Expositors’ Greek Testament)
• His remarks in verses 17-18 (he at this point begins to address abuses in their assemblies)
• His commandments in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 (concerning women in the assembly)

5. What evidence is there that Paul is encouraging them to act in harmony with the customs of their day?- His comments in verses 5-6 (arguing on the basis of “IF it is shameful…”)

• His appeal to propriety in verse 13 (“is it proper…?”)
• His conclusion in verse 16 (this is not an “apostolic” or “church” custom)

6. How did Paul feel about eating common meals in the assemblies? (1 Corinthians 11:22 1 Corinthians 11:34)- He did not approve, and strongly condemned those who did

7. What is the purpose of the Lord’s Supper? (1 Corinthians 11:24-26)- A memorial in which we proclaim the Lord’s death

8. How should one observe the Lord’s Supper? (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)- In a worthy manner

• With self-examination
• Discerning the Lord’s body

9. How can we avoid the judgement of God? (1 Corinthians 11:31)- By judging ourselves

10. What is God’s purpose in judging His children? (1 Corinthians 11:32)- To chasten, that we not be condemned with the world

11. What appears to be an important element in observing the Lord’s Supper? (1 Corinthians 11:33; Acts 20:7)- That it be done “together”

Questions by E.M. Zerr On 1st Corinthians 111. On what condition may we follow Paul? 2. For what would he praise the brethren? 3. How many heads are mentioned here? 4. Which one is highest ? 5. Who is not considered as a head? 6. How may a man dishonor his head ? 7. Does this also apply to the woman? 8. What is her uncovered head compared to? 9. State what Paul here names as a shame to her. 10. Why ought a man not cover his head? 11. For whose glory is the woman? 12. Which of the two is of the other ? 13. Why was woman created? 14. What should she have on her head ? 15. Because of whom is this? 16. Which of the sexes is independent of the other ? 17. What relationship is common to both? 18. State what is said of all things. 19. Does a woman have the Tight to pray? 20. In so doing what appearance would be uncomely ? 21. What does nature teach about man and long hair ? 22. Is a thing that is shameful right ? 23. Is it a shame for a woman to have long hair? 24. For what is it given her ? 25. What else is it said to be to her? 26. Does Paul have authority for writing all this? 27. Is it right for a man to be contentious over it ? 28. Were other churches acting as Corinth was ? 29. How did their present conduct affect the assembly? 30. What report had come to Paul? 31. How had it affected his conclusions thereon? 32. Why are heresies necessary? 33. Does this justify the heretic? 34. Were they still coming together in one place? 35. When they did, what could they not do? 36. State what fact made this so. 37. What shows they were eating a full meal? 38. Point out evidence they had a public meeting place. 39. What class was shamed by their conduct? 40. Had they been without proper instruction? 41. Who had delivered any information to them? 42. From whom was this received ? 43. Who first used the bread for the body of Christ? 44. How must they do the eating? 45. What next did he take ? 46. After what institution did he do this? 47. State the name Christ gave the cup. 48. For what purpose should this be taken? 49. How did their present conduct differ from this? 50. What were they to show by the communion ? 51. For how long is this ordinance to be kept? 52. Does Paul forbid an unworthy person to commune? 53. What must each man do for himself? 54. On what subject is this to be done ? 55. State what constitutes eating unworthily. 56. In doing so what had come upon some? 57. How may we avoid being judged? 58. State the Lord’ s purpose of this chastening. 59. Are they told to tarry till all had arrived? 60. What is said about eating at home? 61. Otherwise what would their coming together mean?

1 Corinthians 11:1

1 Corinthians 11:1. Followers is from MIMETES, which Thayer defines, “an imitator.” The word does not require the presence of authority, although an apostle would have that: it may be said of any Christian when the proviso that Paul names is observed, namely, that the person who is imitated is himself an imitator of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:2

1 Corinthians 11:2. In all things is said in the sense of a general statement. The Corinthian brethren were generally favorable to the apostle’s teaching, and for that he praises them. But there were some particulars in which they were at fault, and Paul is dealing with them in this chapter.

1 Corinthians 11:3

1 Corinthians 11:3. This verse presents four persons: God, Christ, man and woman, named in the order of their rank. The last two are on earth and are visible to others, which accounts for some regulations of customs that are discussed in this chapter.

1 Corinthians 11:4

1 Corinthians 11:4. Praying does not require spiritual gifts, hence the prophesying need be no more specific than the description given in chapter 14:3. The original Greek word for covered means to be veiled so as to hide the face. If a man covers his head he dishonors it, because it should be exposed to view due to his position of authority in the social world.

1 Corinthians 11:5

1 Corinthians 11:5. Praying and prophesying have the same meaning as explained in the preceding verse. The word shaven shows Paul is considering the hair as the veil or covering. It was customary for women to veil or cover their face with their hair when praying in the presence of men. To neglect this was a dishonor to her head, because it exposed it and put her in the class of men who are the rulers in the social rank. If she thus keeps her hair away from her face, she is as much exposed to shame as if her hair had been cut.

1 Corinthians 11:6

1 Corinthians 11:6. If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. This does not endorse a woman’s shearing her hair but rather condemns it, for Paul compares it to something else that we know he condemns because it is a dishonor to her. If it be a shame is a phrase that takes it for granted that the thing named is commonly thought to be a shame, namely, for a woman to have her hair cut.

1 Corinthians 11:7

1 Corinthians 11:7. God, Christ and man are all rulers in their respective ranks, hence a man should not cover his head and thus put himself in the same subject class as the woman. A woman can be a glory to man only by maintaining an attitude of submission to him.

1 Corinthians 11:8

1 Corinthians 11:8. This verse refers to the fact recorded in Genesis 2:21-23, which shows the woman was made from a part of the man.

1 Corinthians 11:9

1 Corinthians 11:9. The woman was created for the man because God said it was not good for the man to be alone (Genesis 2:18).

1 Corinthians 11:10

1 Corinthians 11:10. Submission to authority is the outstanding thought which Paul has been discussing. We have seen that an unveiled head indicates authority, for which reason a woman should be veiled as a sign that she is under authority. Angels are ministering spirits under the authority of God, and are invisible persons in the assemblies of Christians. Some of their class have been rebellious in times past (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6), and Paul wishes the woman to show to the faithful angels who are present in the assembly, that they are submitting to the authority that is over them.

1 Corinthians 11:11-12

1 Corinthians 11:11-12. Lest the foregoing teaching might make a wrong impression as to the importance of the woman, Paul adds these verses to show that both man and woman are necessary in the general plans of God; the same is taught in verses 8, 9.

1 Corinthians 11:13

1 Corinthians 11:13. Judge in yourselves has about the same force as “nature” in the next verse. Comely is from PREPO, which Thayer defines, “to be becoming, seemly, fit.”

1 Corinthians 11:14

1 Corinthians 11:14. Nature is from PHUSIS, which Thayer defines at this place, “nature, i.e., natural sense, native conviction or knowledge,” and he adds the explanation, “as opposed to that which is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law.” Robinson gives virtually the same definition. The explanation given of the definition is an exact description of the customs discussed in the preceding verses as to what use a woman should make of her hair, and he says it is opposed to (different from) that which nature teaches. Customs change because they are the product of man, while nature never changes because it is the creation of God. As long as nature exists it will be a shame for a man to have long hair, and, as a necessary conclusion, it will be a shame for a woman to cut her hair. Sometimes a quibble is made by asking just what it takes to constitute long hair.

In the first place, the statement of Paul remains in the text, and it is as much the obligation of the quibbler to answer the question and prove his answer, as It is that of the one who insists on observing the teaching of the apostle. However, for the benefit of the sincere inquirer, I will state that the Lord has given us a clear-cut definition of what constitutes, long hair, in the stipulations for a Nazarite which included Tong hair. The passages that state the law on it are Numbers 6:5; Judges 13:5; 1 Samuel 1:11. These all require that no razor is to be used on the head, hence by long hair the Lord means hair that is as long as nature makes it. If a man cuts any of it off he ceases to have long hair, and exposes his head to shame. By the same token, if a woman cuts any of her hair she also ceases to have long hair in the sense the apostle is using the term, and thus she does that which is a shame.

1 Corinthians 11:15

1 Corinthians 11:15. This verse is virtually explained in the preceding paragraph. It has the added thought that by having long hair, which nature teaches her that she should have, she is in a condition to observe also what custom has established in the time of the epistle, namely, using that long hair as a veil when praying in man’s presence.

1 Corinthians 11:16

1 Corinthians 11:16. This verse is often pounced upon by the quibblers, like a “drowning man grasping at a straw,” in their desperate attempt to find some justification of women in their unnatural and unfeminine act of cutting their hair. I have never yet heard anyone who made a serious effort to show this passage to be related in the remotest degree to the issue at hand. Any man is from the one Greek word TIS, which means any person or thing, indefinitely, and would apply to a woman as well as a man. Contentious is from PHILO-NEIKOS, which Thayer defines at this place, “fond of strife, contentious.” No one would be contentious over anything that was not objectionable to another. It would have to be over something he wished to do that some other one did not want him to do.

In the present case it could not be over short hair for women, for nobody was wanting that. Instead, verse 6 shows that there was common objection to that, which was a basis for one of Paul’s arguments. The only thing in dispute was whether a woman should cover her face with her hair, or keep it away in a manner that would look as if it were shorn, a condition which Paul states would be a shame. Since no person was contending for short hair with women, the contention could not be over that. The point the apostle is making in this verse, is that the custom of all the other churches was for the women to veil their faces with their hair when praying in the presence of men.

1 Corinthians 11:17

1 Corinthians 11:17. In verse 2 the apostle told the brethren there were some things for which he would praise (commend) them. In the present verse there were some things for which he would not praise them, one of which was that their coming together was not for the better but for the worse.

1 Corinthians 11:18

Verse 18. The divisions in the church were over several subjects, but Paul is writing of a particular one in the rest of this chapter; and one that is very important because it pertains to the Lord’s Supper. A report of the divisions in the church had come to Paul in some manner not stated. Partly believe it cannot apply to the degree of his belief, for a man either believes a report or he does not. The idea is that Paul believed the report to be true in regard to a part of the congregation, but that some of them dis approved of the divisions. The argument in the next verse justifies this conclusion.

1 Corinthians 11:19

Verse 19. Must is from DEI, which Thayer defines, “it is necessary,” and explains it to mean at this place, “necessity in reference to what is required to attain some end.” Robinson’s definition and explanation give virtually the same thought as Thayer’s. It is clear the word means that heresies are necessary for a certain purpose, and that is stated to be, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. This agrees with the conclusion expressed in the preceding paragraph, namely, that a part only of the congregation was guilty of the divisions among them, the faithful ones being “approved” by their opposition to the heresies. But this necessity for heresies should not encourage anyone to promote evil doctrines, for Jesus pronounces a woe on those who cause offences, even though He had just declared that it was impossible for them not to come (Luke 17:1).

1 Corinthians 11:20

Verse 20. Having set forth some general principles concerning heresies in the foregoing verses, Paul comes to the special subject at hand, namely, the Lord’s Supper in the course of their coming together. The Englishman’s Greek New Testament renders the last clause, “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” Of course Paul does not deny the Corinthians professed to come together for that purpose, but he means that under the circumstances what they did could not be rightly called so for reasons soon to be stated.

1 Corinthians 11:21

1 Corinthians 11:21. Taketh before means that such persons were so eager to eat that they did so before the others were ready. In the first years of the church it was a custom for the disciples to partake of a common meal before attending to the Lord’s Supper. This was somewhat after the order of events occurring at the time Jesus established the Lord’s Supper, namely, they had the Passover first, then Jesus set forth his memorial supper next. These common meals are referred to in the New Testament as “feasts of charity” (Jude 1:12; 2 Peter 2:13). In some way the Corinthians tried to blend the common meal with the Lord’s Supper.

That corrupted it and caused Paul to say they were not eating the Lord’s Supper when they came together. Drunken is from METHUO, and primarily means to be intoxicated with drink. But it is used here as the opposite of hungry, hence it is in the sense of being filled. Groves defines the word, “to be filled, plentifully fed,” and it has that meaning in our verse. Those who look before their own supper would be filled, while the ones who waited–the “approved” ones whom Paul’s word “partly” in verse 18 included would still be hungry.

1 Corinthians 11:22

Verse 22. Some might claim they would become too hungry to wait until the rest were ready to eat. Paul tells all such that they should eat at home before coming to the assembly if their appetites were thus demanding gratification. But instead of doing that, they were abusing the purpose of the feasts of charity by their disorderly conduct. By such practices they despised (belittled or put to shame) the the public assembling place, and also embarrassed the poor, who are meant by the phrase them that have not. I shall quote Thayer’s remarks about the feasts as they were related to the poor of the congregation: “AGAPAI, agapae, love-feasts, feasts expressing and fostering mutual love which used to be held by Christians before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and at which the poorer Christians mingled with the wealthier and partook in common with the rest of the food provided at the expense of the wealthy.” Such disorderly conduct of the more prosperous brethren as Paul describes, would confuse the poorer ones and make them feel that they were not welcome to the public feasts of the congregation.

This is one of the things for which the apostle said he would not praise them. The poorer sort of the brethren would not appreciate these free meals (feasts of charity) when they saw the corruption practiced by the wealthier classes, and the whole procedure thus made a mockery of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which is why Paul said when they came together they would not eat the supper.

1 Corinthians 11:23

Verse 23. The Corinthians had so corrupted the divine institution that the apostle thought it necessary to describe it to them again, Just as he had delivered it to them when he was with them for so long (Acts 18:1-11). The simple phrase took bread states all we need to know as to the article to be eaten in the Lord’s Supper. In every place where it is referred to after the church was set up, it is mentioned by the simple word “bread” (Acts 2:42 Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:23; 27, 28). In all of these places except our present chapter, the word is used independently of any consideration for the Jewish passover. Therefore, to insist on any particular kind of bread for the Lord’s Supper is to be more specific, than the Lord is.

1 Corinthians 11:24

Verse 24. Brake it. The term is from the same original Greek word as “brake” in Matthew 14:19 and it has no more spiritual significance in one place than in the other. The only reason for breaking the bread is that more than one person may partake of it in decency. I have known instances where a group of disciples was so few in number that only one attendant (commonly but erroneously called “deacon”) was used. Then if the one presiding at the table happened to forget about “breaking” the loaf in two pieces, it was thought a terrible mistake was made.

Such a tradition shows that the real significance of the institution is overlooked almost as much as the Corinthians did it. Whether the one presiding breaks the bread (so as to place it on a number of plates), or the attendants break off a piece to serve to each participant, or he breaks it off himself, the bread is sure to be “broken,” and that is all that is required. My body, which is broken for you is another expression that is misapplied. It is a common thing to hear the one “presiding” to quote this, then refer to the Roman spear that “broke” the body of Jesus after his death. The mechanical act of piercing His side, or even that of driving the nails through his hands and feet, was only a means to an end, namely, “to be shattered, as it were, by a violent death”–Thayer. Robinson says virtually the same thing.

Had it been the Lord’s will that Jesus be killed by a violent blow on the head but leaving the surface of the body intact, it would still have been true that his body was broken for us, in the sense the apostle uses the term. When Christians eat of this bread, they are to do so in remembrance of the “violent” death of Christ. It is significant that in Luke 22:19 where the supper is being instituted, it is stated that the body of Jesus was “given” for his people, which agrees with the idea that the mechanical fact of the spear and nails was not necessary to the word “broken.”

1 Corinthians 11:25

Verse 25. After the same manner is not a comparison to the form or performance in the procedure, for the phrase is from the same word as “likewise” in Luke 13:3, and we know Jesus did not mean that all impentitent sinners would perish just as the Galilean did. It means as if it said, “for the same purpose,” etc. Supped is from the same Greek word as “supper” in Luke 22:20; it means He took the cup after the passover supper was ended. New testament in my blood. In Hebrews 9:16 Paul says that a testament requires the death of the testator. The beasts that were slain under the Mosaic system constituted the testator for that covenant, which is the reason they were slain.

The New Testament (or covenant) also required the shedding of the blood of the Testator (who was Christ), hence we have the phrase italicized here. The expression is my body in the preceding verse, and in my blood in the present verse, are used with the meaning that they represent the body and blood of Christ. Partaking of the cup, like that of the bread, is for the same purpose, namely, to be in remembrance (a memorial) of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:26

1 Corinthians 11:26. Often is not used in view of the frequency of the observance of the Lord’s Supper, for Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 settles that question, and shows it is to be done once each week. The term means that each time the institution is observed it is for the one purpose, namely, to show (“proclaim publicly” Thayer) the Lord’s death. A common speech that may be heard at the table is as follows: “We now come to the Lord’s Supper in which we will commemorate the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.” Such a statement is not only unscrip-tural but is foolish. It is evident that anything that represents the death of Christ could not also represent his life. The life of all creatures is in the blood, and when the body and blood are separated, that body is bound to be dead.

Likewise, when the guests see the fruit of the vine in one vessel, and the bread in another place on the table, it represents the separation of the body and blood, and in such a condition it “shows” or represents the death of Christ. Till he come signifies that the Lord’s Supper is to be perpetuated until the end of the world.

1 Corinthians 11:27

1 Corinthians 11:27. The general character of the persons eating and drinking is not under consideration, but the manner or purpose of the act is the subject. (This will be enlarged upon in verse 29.) Guilty of the body and blood means to be guilty of sin against the body and blood of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:28

1 Corinthians 11:28. Examine himself; this phrase is perverted many times. The speaker will say, “I cannot examine you nor you me, for I do not know how you have been living.” The way a brother “has been living” is not in this text, and such a remark shows that the one making it is in danger of condemnation himself. The manner or purpose of eating and drinking is the point. If a man asks himself why or for what purpose he is about to partake, he will be examining himself in the sense the apostle means. When he does this, and concludes it is for the purpose of showing the death of Christ, he is then ready to eat and drink worthiLY (an adverb and not an adjective).

1 Corinthians 11:29

1 Corinthians 11:29. Discerning is from DIA-KRINO, which Thayer defines at this place, “to separate, make a distinction, discriminate.” The thought is that the participant should eat and drink with his mind on the body and blood of Christ, remembering that the two parts were separated and that He died for us. Unless this is done, the person partaking will bring condemnation upon himself. The Corinthians did not distinguish between the body of Christ and food for natural hunger. The same guilt may be brought upon us today without eating to satisfy our hunger. If we partake of the “emblems” while our mind is on some other subject instead of the death of Christ, such as our plans for the day, etc., we will be just as guilty as were the ones at Corinth.

Sometimes disciples will be engaged in conversation at the time, and will partake of the bread and/or cup mechanically or as a habit only. When they do so they eat and drink damnation to themselves.

1 Corinthians 11:30

1 Corinthians 11:30. The question is asked at this verse whether it means physical or spiritual sickness, and my answer is that it includes both. In the first years of the church God sometimes inflicted physical punishment upon disciples, even to the extent of putting them to sleep (in death). (See the case of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5.) But the days of such demonstrations are over, while the guilt of corrupting the Lord’s Supper is just as possible, and also just as deserving of being judged (condemned) as ever. Therefore, when disciples corrupt the holy ordinance, or commit any other violation of the Lord’s spiritual law, it brings unon them the serious condition mentioned here unless they repent.

1 Corinthians 11:31

1 Corinthians 11:31. This verse states a principle that may have an application to other subjects besides the one at hand with the Corinthians. Had they examined themselves as directed in verse 28, and then brought themselves under the necessary correction (judgment), it would not have been necessary for the Lord to judge them. Likewise, the New Testament today gives very positive instructions about the conduct of disciples, and they should be able even in themselves to decide between right and wrong. However, if they will not do so, it then becomes the duty of the rulers of the church to make the application for them, and administer such corrective discipline as needed.

1 Corinthians 11:32

1 Corinthians 11:32. In the days of miracles the judgment or punishment was administered directly by the Lord (verse 30). Today the correction has to be delivered by the church, and when it is done it is counted as coming from the Lord (chapter 5:3, 4; 2 Corinthians 2:10 2 Corinthians 7:11-12).

1 Corinthians 11:33

1 Corinthians 11:33. Tarry one for another. This is another statement that is often perverted and made to mean that public services should not start until others arrive. Not only does such an application miss the thought intended by the apostle to be conveyed, but it violates other scripture. Romans 12:11 forbids Christians being slothful or lazy in coming to the services. A soldier who fails to appear at the time he is told to receives the stain of AWOL, and the disciple who is late in arriving at the place of services deserves the same blot. The tarrying of our verse was to be done after the congregation was assembled, and it means not to take before other (verse 21) his supper, but to wait (tarry) until the others were ready to eat.

1 Corinthians 11:34

1 Corinthians 11:34. If any man hunger is explained by the comments on verse 22. It does not mean to rule out the observance of the feasts of charity, but only to correct the abuses of it by those who claimed to be too hungry to wait. Come together to condemnation is the same subject that is considered in verse 17. There were other items that needed to be set forth for their instruction, but the apostle thought it well to do that when he made his next journey to them (chapter 4:18, 19).