CHAPTER 11
1Co
11:1–34. Censure on Disorders in Their
Assemblies: Their Women Not Being
Veiled, and Abuses at the Love-Feasts.
1. Rather belonging to the end of the tenth chapter, than to
this chapter.
followers—Greek, “imitators.”
of
Christ—who did not please Himself (Ro
15:3); but gave Himself, at the cost of laying aside His divine glory, and
dying as man, for us (Eph 5:2; Php 2:4, 5). We are to follow Christ first, and
earthly teachers only so far as they follow Christ.
2. Here the chapter ought to begin.
ye
remember me in all things—in your general
practice, though in the particular instances which follow ye fail.
ordinances—Greek, “traditions,” that is, apostolic directions
given by word of mouth or in writing (1Co 11:23; 15:3; 2Th 2:15). The reference
here is mainly to ceremonies: for in 1Co 11:23, as to the Lord’s Supper, which is not a mere
ceremony, he says, not merely, “I delivered unto you,” but also, “I
received of the Lord”; here he says only, “I delivered to you.” Romanists argue
hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is to know what is a
genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can be proved
to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected (Rev
22:18). Those preserved in the written word alone can be proved to be such.
3. The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of
distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and,
overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without
the customary head-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women
from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet,
while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace
(Ga 3:28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness,
is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress:
in 1Co 14:34, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them.
He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of
creation.
the
head—an appropriate expression, when he
is about to treat of woman’s appropriate headdress in public.
of
every man … Christ—(Eph 5:23).
of
… woman … man—(1Co 11:8; Ge 3:16; 1Ti 2:11, 12;
1Ti 2:11, 12, 1Pe 3:1, 5, 6).
head
of Christ is God—(1Co 3:23; Lu 3:22, 38; Jn 14:28;
20:17; Eph 3:9). “Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for,
since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same
essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of
the same essence as the Father” [Chrysostom].
“The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the
Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father” [Theodoret, t. 3, p. 171].
4.
praying—in public (1Co 11:17).
prophesying—preaching in the Spirit (1Co 12:10).
having—that is, if he were to have: a supposed case to illustrate
the impropriety in the woman’s case. It was the Greek custom (and so
that at Corinth) for men in worship to be uncovered; whereas the Jews wore the Talith, or veil, to show reverence before God, and their
unworthiness to look on Him (Is 6:2); however, Maimonides
[Mishna] excepts
cases where (as in Greece) the custom of the place was different.
dishonoureth
his head—not as Alford, “Christ” (1Co 11:3); but literally, as “his head” is
used in the beginning of the verse. He dishonoreth his head (the
principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a mark of
subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards to his
Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not
man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman
wears it in token of her subjection to man? “Because Christ is not seen: the
man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ is not seen; of her who
is under the man, is seen” [Bengel].
(Compare 1Co 11:7).
5.
woman … prayeth … prophesieth—This
instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and
justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their
credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so Ac 2:18). The
ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (1Co 14:34, 35; 1Co 14:34, 35, 1Ti
2:11, 12). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in
Christianity, as most accordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does
not necessarily sanction women speaking in public. even though possessing
miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without
expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till 1Co 14:34, 35.
Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercise their gift,
rather in other times and places, than the public congregation.
dishonoureth
… head—in that she acts against the divine
ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil,
she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true “honor”;
for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as
the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Ge
24:65), and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16); so, to uncover the head
indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected
wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Nu 5:18). Alford takes “her head” to be man, her
symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it
must be so in the latter one.
all
one as if … shaven—As woman’s hair is given her by
nature, as her covering (1Co 11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would
be indecorous: therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would
be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her
covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a
head-covering) to show that she does of her own will that which nature
itself teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.
6. A woman would not like to be “shorn” or (what is worse)
“shaven”; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so
also behind, that is, “shorn.”
a
shame—an unbecoming thing (compare 1Co
11:13–15). Thus the shaving of nuns is “a shame.”
7–9. Argument, also, from man’s more immediate relation to God,
and the woman’s to man.
he
is … image … glory of God—being
created in God’s “image,” first and directly: the woman, subsequently,
and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative
of God’s “glory” this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man
(Ps 8:4, 5; compare 2Co 8:23). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the
“image,” and in the “likeness,” of God (compare Jam 3:9). But “image” alone is
applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare Heb 1:3). “Express image,” Greek,
“the impress.” The Divine Son is not merely “like” God, He is God of
God, “being of one substance (essence) with the Father.” [Nicene Creed].
woman
… glory of … man—He does not say, also, “the image
of the man.” For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image
of God, as well as the man (Ge 1:26, 27). But as the moon in relation to
the sun (Ge 37:9), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as
with light derived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not that
she does not in grace come individually into direct communion
with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through
man, on whom she is naturally dependent.
8.
is of … of—takes his being from (“out
of”) … from: referring to woman’s original creation, “taken out of man”
(compare Ge 2:23). The woman was made by God mediately through the man, who
was, as it were, a veil or medium placed between her and God, and therefore,
should wear the veil or head-covering in public worship, in acknowledgement of
this subordination to man in the order of creation. The man being made
immediately by God as His glory, has no veil between himself and God [Faber Stapulensis in Bengel].
9.
Neither—rather, “For also”; Another
argument: The immediate object of woman’s creation. “The man was not
created for the sake of the woman; but the woman for the sake of the man” (Ge
2:18, 21, 22). Just as the Church, the bride, is made for Christ; and yet in
both the natural and the spiritual creations, the bride, while made for the
bridegroom, in fulfilling that end, attains her own true “glory,” and brings
“shame” and “dishonor” on herself by any departure from it (1Co 11:4, 6).
10.
power on her head—the kerchief: French couvre
chef, head-covering, the emblem of “power on her head”; the sign of her
being under man’s power, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had
before his mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for “veil”
(radid), and “subjection” (radad).
because
of the angels—who are present at our Christian
assemblies (compare Ps 138:1, “gods,” that is, angels), and delight in
the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God’s worshippers in their
respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being
indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to
their common Lord (1Co 4:9; Eph 3:10; Ec 5:6). Hammond
quotes Chrysostom, “Thou standest
with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou
stand laughing?” Bengel explains,
“As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man.
God’s face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Is 6:2). Man’s face
is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so,
would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mt 18:10, 31). She, by her
weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more
careful not to offend them.”
11. Yet neither sex is insulated and independent of the other
in the Christian life [Alford].
The one needs the other in the sexual relation; and in respect to Christ (“in
the Lord”), the man and the woman together (for neither can be dispensed with)
realize the ideal of redeemed humanity represented by the bride, the Church.
12. As the woman was formed out of (from) the man, even
so is man born by means of woman; but all things (including both man and
woman) are from God as their source (Ro 11:36; 2Co 5:18). They depend
mutually each on the other, and both on him.
13. Appeal to their own sense of decorum.
a
woman … unto God—By rejecting the emblem of
subjection (the head-covering), she passes at one leap in praying publicly
beyond both the man and angels [Bengel].
14. The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with
long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The
Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned
by God (Nu 6:5). Compare as to Absalom, 2Sa 14:26, and Ac 18:18.
15.
her hair … for a covering—Not that
she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to
cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [Bengel].
16. A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal
custom of the churches.
if
any … seem—The Greek also means “thinks”
(fit) (compare Mt 3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my
arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself right
in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians’ self-sufficiency and
disputatiousness (1Co 1:20).
we—apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have
received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow:
Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to Tertullian [Estius]. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not
referred to in the context: but he often refers to himself and his fellow
apostles, by the expression, “we—us” (1Co 4:9, 10).
no
such custom—as that of women praying uncovered.
Not as Chrysostom, “that of being
contentious.” The Greek term implies a usage, rather than a mental
habit (Jn 18:39). The usage of true “churches (plural: not, as Rome uses
it, ‘the Church,’ as an abstract entity; but ‘the churches,’ as a number
of independent witnesses) of God” (the churches which God Himself
recognizes), is a valid argument in the case of external rites,
especially, negatively, for example, Such rites were not received among
them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine,
or the essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [Sclater] (1Co 7:17; 14:33).
neither—nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth,
but a general test of decency.
17.
in this—which follows.
I
declare—rather, “I enjoin”; as the Greek
is always so used. The oldest manuscripts read literally “This I enjoin (you)
not praising (you).”
that—inasmuch as; in that you, &c. Here he qualifies
his praise (1Co 11:2). “I said that I praised you for keeping. the ordinances
delivered to you; but I must now give injunction in the name of the Lord, on a
matter in which I praise you not; namely, as to the Lord’s Supper (1Co 11:23;
1Co 14:37).
not
for the better—not so as to progress to what is
better.
for
the worse—so as to retrograde to what is
worse. The result of such “coming together” must be “condemnation” (1Co
11:34).
18.
first of all—In the first place. The “divisions”
(Greek, “schisms”) meant, are not merely those of opinion (1Co 1:10), but in
outward acts at the love-feasts (Agapae), (1Co 11:21). He does not follow up the expression, “in
the first place,” by “in the second place.” But though not expressed, a second
abuse was in his mind when he said, “In the first place,” namely, the abuse of spiritual gifts, which
also created disorder in their assemblies [Alford],
(1Co 12:1).
in
the church—not the place of worship; for Isidore of Pelusium denies that there
were such places specially set apart for worship in the apostles’ times [Epistle,
246.2]. But, “in the assembly” or “congregation”; in convocation for worship,
where especially love, order, and harmony should prevail. The very ordinance
instituted for uniting together believers in one body, was made an occasion of
“divisions” (schisms).
partly—He hereby excepts the innocent. “I am unwilling to believe all
I hear, but some I cannot help believing” [Alford]: while my love is unaffected by it [Bengel].
19.
heresies—Not merely “schisms” or “divisions”
(1Co 11:18), which are “recent dissensions of the congregation through
differences of opinion” [Augustine,
Con. Crescon. Don. 2.7, quoted by Trench,
Greek Synonyms of the New Testament], but also “heresies,” that is,
“schisms which have now become inveterate”; “Sects” [Campbell, vol. 2, pp. 126, 127]: so Ac
5:17; 15:5 translate the same Greek. At present there were dissensions
at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus’ words (Mt 18:7; Lu 17:1)
foresees “there must be (come) also” matured separations, and
established parties in secession, as separatists. The “must be” arises from sin
in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by
God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly, and to the
discipline of the former for glory. “Heresies” had not yet its technical sense
ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms.
St. Augustine’s rule is a golden
rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: “In doubtful questions,
liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity.”
that
… approved may be made manifest—through
the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (Lu 2:35; 1Jn 2:19).
20.
When … therefore—Resuming the thread of discourse
from 1Co 11:18.
this is not to—rather,
“there is no such thing as eating the Lord’s
Supper”; it is not possible where each is greedily intent only on
devouring “his own supper,” and
some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (1Co 11:33), where
some are “drunken,” while others are “hungry” (1Co 11:21). The love-feast
usually preceded the Lord’s Supper (as eating the Passover came before the
Lord’s Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast,
where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from
it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the
excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord’s Supper
during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the
question.
21.
one taketh before other—the
rich “before” the poor, who had no supper of their own. Instead of “tarrying
for one another” (1Co 11:33); hence the precept (1Co 12:21, 25).
his
own supper—“His own” belly is his God (Php
3:19); “the Lord’s Supper,” the spiritual feast, never enters his
thoughts.
drunken—The one has more than is good for him, the other less [Bengel].
22.
What!—Greek, “For.”
houses—(compare 1Co 11:34)—“at home.” That is the place to satiate
the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren [Alford].
despise
ye the church of God—the congregation mostly
composed of the poor, whom “God hath chosen,” however ye show contempt for them
(Jam 2:5); compare “of God” here, marking the true honor of the Church.
shame
them that have not—namely, houses to eat and
drink in, and who, therefore, ought to have received their portion at the
love-feasts from their wealthier brethren.
I
praise you not—resuming the words (1Co 11:17).
23. His object is to show the unworthiness of such conduct from
the dignity of the holy supper.
I—Emphatic
in the Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord’s
institution.
received
of the Lord—by immediate revelation (Ga 1:12;
compare Ac 22:17, 18; 2Co 12:1–4). The renewal of the institution of the Lord’s
Supper by special revelation to Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity
between Luke’s and Paul’s account of the institution, favors the supposition
that the former drew his information from the apostle, whose companion in
travel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness.
night—the time fixed for the Passover (Ex 12:6): though the time
for the Lord’s Supper is not fixed.
betrayed—With the traitor at the table, and death present before His
eyes, He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death.
Though about to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of His
amazing love to man.
24.
brake—The breaking of the bread
involves its distribution and reproves the Corinthian mode at the
love-feast, of “every one taking before other his own supper.”
my
body … broken for you—“given” (Lu 22:19) for you (Greek,
“in your behalf”), and “broken,” so as to be distributed among you. The oldest
manuscripts omit “broken,” leaving it to be supplied from “brake.” The two old
versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, read from Luke, “given.” The literal “body”
could not have been meant; for Christ was still sensibly present among His
disciples when He said, “This is My body.” They could only have
understood Him symbolically and analogically: As this bread is to your bodily
health, so My body is to the spiritual health of the believing communicant. The
words, “Take, eat,” are not in the oldest manuscripts.
in
remembrance of me—(See on 1Co 11:25).
25.
when he had supped—Greek, “after the eating of
supper,” namely, the Passover supper which preceded the Lord’s Supper, as the
love-feast did subsequently. Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate
common meals from the Lord’s Supper [Bengel].
the
new testament—or “covenant.” The cup is the
parchment-deed, as it were, on which My new covenant, or last will is written
and sealed, making over to you all blessings here and hereafter.
in
my blood—ratified by my blood: “not by the blood of goats and calves” (Heb 9:12).
as
oft as—Greek, “as many times
soever”: implying that it is an ordinance often to be partaken of.
in
remembrance of me—Luke (Lu 22:19) expresses this,
which is understood by Matthew and Mark. Paul twice records it (1Co 11:24 and
here) as suiting his purpose. The old sacrifices brought sins
continually to remembrance (Heb 10:1, 3). The Lord’s Supper brings to
remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for all for the full and final
remission of sins.
26.
For—in proof that the Lord’s Supper is
“in remembrance” of Him.
show—announce publicly. The Greek does not mean to
dramatically represent, but “ye publicly profess each of you, the Lord
has died for me” [Wahl]. This word, as “is” in Christ’s
institution (1Co 11:24, 25), implies not literal presence, but a vivid
realization, by faith, of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, as a living person,
not a mere abstract dogma, “bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh” (Eph 5:30;
compare Ge 2:23); and ourselves “members of His body, of His flesh, and of His
bones,” “our sinful bodies made clean by His body (once for all offered), and
our souls washed through His most precious blood” [Church of England Prayer
Book]. “Show,” or “announce,” is an expression applicable to new
things; compare “show” as to the Passover (Ex 13:8). So the Lord’s death ought
always to be fresh in our memory; compare in heaven, Rev 5:6. That the Lord’s
Supper is in remembrance of Him, implies that He is bodily absent,
though spiritually present, for we cannot be said to commemorate one absent.
The fact that we not only show the Lord’s death in the supper, but eat
and drink the pledges of it, could only be understood by the Jews,
accustomed to such feasts after propitiatory sacrifices, as implying our personal
appropriation therein of the benefits of that death.
till
he come—when there shall be no longer need
of symbols of His body, the body itself being manifested. The Greek
expresses the certainly of His coming. Rome teaches that we eat Christ
present corporally, “till He come” corporally; a contradiction in terms. The
showbread, literally, “bread of the presence,” was in the sanctuary, but not in
the Holiest Place (Heb 9:1–8); so the Lord’s Supper in heaven, the antitype to
the Holiest Place, shall be superseded by Christ’s own bodily presence; then
the wine shall be drunk “anew” in the Father’s kingdom, by Christ and His
people together, of which heavenly banquet, the Lord’s Supper is a spiritual
foretaste and specimen (Mt 26:29). Meantime, as the showbread was placed anew,
every sabbath, on the table before the Lord (Le 24:5–8); so the Lord’s death
was shown, or announced afresh at the Lord’s table the first day
of every week in the primitive Church. We are now “priests unto God” in the
dispensation of Christ’s spiritual presence, antitypical to the holy place: the perfect and eternal
dispensation, which shall not begin till Christ’s coming, is antitypical to the
holiest place, which Christ our
High Priest alone in the flesh as yet has entered (Heb 9:6, 7); but which, at
His coming, we, too, who are believers, shall enter (Rev 7:15; 21:22). The
supper joins the two closing periods of the Old and the New dispensations. The
first and second comings are considered as one coming, whence the
expression is not “return,” but “come” (compare, however, Jn 14:3).
27.
eat and drink—So one of the oldest manuscripts
reads. But three or four equally old manuscripts, the Vulgate and Cyprian, read, “or.” Romanists quote this
reading in favor of communion in one kind. This consequence does not follow.
Paul says, “Whosoever is guilty of unworthy conduct, either in eating
the bread, or in drinking the cup, is guilty of the body and blood of
Christ.” Impropriety in only one of the two elements, vitiates true
communion in both. Therefore, in the end of the verse, he says, not
“body or blood,” but “body and blood.” Any who takes the bread without
the wine, or the wine without the bread, “unworthily”
communicates, and so “is guilty of Christ’s body and blood”; for he disobeys
Christ’s express command to partake of both. If we do not partake of the
sacramental symbol of the Lord’s death worthily, we share in the guilt of that
death. (Compare “crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,” Heb 6:6). Unworthiness
in the person, is not what ought to exclude any, but unworthily
communicating: However unworthy we be, if we examine ourselves so as to
find that we penitently believe in Christ’s Gospel, we may worthily
communicate.
28.
examine—Greek, “prove” or “test” his
own state of mind in respect to Christ’s death, and his capability of
“discerning the Lord’s body” (1Co 11:29, 31). Not auricular confession to a
priest, but self-examination is necessary.
so—after due self-examination.
of
… of—In 1Co 11:27, where the receiving
was unworthily, the expression was, “eat this bread, drink … cup”
without “of.” Here the “of” implies due circumspection in communicating [Bengel].
let
him eat—His self-examination is not in
order that he may stay away, but that he may eat, that is, communicate.
29.
damnation—A mistranslation which has put a
stumbling-block in the way of many in respect to communicating. The right
translation is “judgment.” The judgment is described (1Co 11:30–32) as
temporal.
not
discerning—not duty judging: not
distinguishing in judgment (so the Greek: the sin and its punishment
thus being marked as corresponding) from common food, the sacramental pledges
of the Lord’s body. Most of the oldest manuscripts omit “Lord’s” (see 1Co
11:27). Omitting also “unworthily,” with most of the oldest manuscripts, we
must translate, “He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to
himself, IF he discern not the body” (Heb 10:29). The Church is “the body of Christ”
(1Co 12:27). The Lord’s body is His literal body appreciated and
discerned by the soul in the faithful receiving, and not present in the
elements themselves.
30.
weak … sickly—He is “weak” who has naturally
no strength: “sickly,” who has lost his strength by disease [Tittmann, Greek Synonyms of the New
Testament].
sleep—are being lulled in death: not a violent death; but one the
result of sickness, sent as the Lord’s chastening for the individual’s
salvation, the mind being brought to a right state on the sick bed (1Co
11:31).
31.
if we would judge ourselves—Most of
the oldest manuscripts, read “But,” not “For.” Translate also literally “If we
duly judged ourselves, we should not be (or not have been) judged,” that
is, we should escape (or have escaped) our present judgments. In order
to duly judge or “discern [appreciate] the Lord’s body,” we need to
“duly judge ourselves.” A prescient warning against the dogma of priestly
absolution after full confession, as the necessary preliminary to receiving the
Lord’s Supper.
32.
chastened—(Rev 3:19).
with
the world—who, being bastards, are without
chastening (Heb 12:8).
33.
tarry one for another—In contrast to 1Co 11:21. The
expression is not, “Give a share to one another,” for all the viands brought to
the feast were common property, and, therefore, they should “tarry” till
all were met to partake together of the common feast of fellowship [Theophylact].
34.
if any … hunger—so as not to be able to “tarry for
others,” let him take off the edge of his hunger at home [Alford] (1Co 11:22).
the
rest—“the other questions you asked me
as to the due celebration of the Lord’s Supper.” Not other questions in general;
for he does subsequently set in order other general questions in this Epistle.
Excerpt from:
A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Visit www.e-sword.net
