1st Corinthians Chapter 11
THE first verse in this chapter properly belongs to the preceding,
and is the conclusion of the discussion which the apostle had been
carrying on in that and the previous chapters. It has been improperly
separated from that chapter, and in reading should be read in
connexion with it. The remainder of the chapter is properly divided
into two parts:
I. A discussion respecting the impropriety of a woman's praying or
prophesying with her head uncovered, (1 Corinthians 11:2-16;) and,
II. A reproof of their irregularities in the observance of the Lord's
Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.
I. In regard to the first, it seems probable that some of the women
who, on pretence of being inspired, had prayed or prophesied in the
Corinthian church, had cast off their veils after the manner Of the
heathen priestesses. This indecent and improper custom, the apostle
reproves. He observes, therefore, that the pre-emmence belongs
to man over the woman, even as pre-eminence belonged to Christ
over the man; that it was a dishonour to Christ when a man
prayed or prophesied with his head covered, and in like manner
it was regarded everywhere as dishonourable and improper for a
woman to lay. aside the appropriate symbol of her sex, and the
emblem of subordination, and to be uncovered in the presence of the
man, (1 Corinthians 11:3-6;) that if a woman was not veiled, if she laid
aside the appropriate emblem of her sex and of her subordinate condition,
she might as well part with her hair, which all knew would be
dishonourable and improper, (1 Corinthians 11:6;) that the woman had been
created for a subordinate station, and should observe it,
(1 Corinthians 11:7-9;) that she should have power on her head because of the
angels, (1 Corinthians 11:10;) and yet, lest this should depress her, and
seem to convey the idea of her utter inferiority and unimportance, he
adds, that in the plan of salvation they are in many respects on an
equality with the man, that the same plan was adapted to both, that the
same blessings are appointed for both sexes, and the same high hopes are
held out to both, (1 Corinthians 11:11,12;) and that nature on this subject
was a good instructor, and showed that it was uncomely for a woman to
pray
with her head uncovered, that her hair had been given her for an
ornament and for beauty, and that, as it would be as improper
for her to remove her veil as to cut off her hair, nature itself required
that this symbol of her subordination should not be laid aside in
public, 1 Corinthians 11:13-16.
II. Next, as to the irregularities in the observance of the Lord's
Supper, the apostle observes, (1 Corinthians 11:17,) that he could not commend
them for what he was about to say. There had been, and there were,
irregularities among them, which it was his duty to reprove. In
1 Corinthians 11:18-22, he states what those irregularities were. He then
(1 Corinthians 11:23-26) states the true nature and design of the Lord's
Supper, as it was very evident that they had not understood it, but
supposed it was a common feast, such as they had been accustomed to
observe in honour of idols. In 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, he states the
consequences of observing this ordinance in an improper manner, and the
proper way of approaching it; and in 1 Corinthians 11:30-32, observes that
their improper mode of observing it was the cause of the punishment which
many of them had experienced. He then concludes by directing them to
celebrate the Lord's Supper together; to eat at home when they were
hungry; and not to abuse the Lord's Supper by making it an occasion of
feasting; and assures them that the other matters of irregularity he
would set in order when he should come among them.
Verse 1. Be ye followers of me. Imitate my example in the matter now
under discussion. As I deny myself; as I seek to give no offence
to any one; as I endeavour not to alarm the prejudices of others,
but in all things to seek their salvation, so do you. This verse
belongs to the previous chapter, and should not have been separated
from it. It is the close of the discussion there.
Even as I also am of Christ. I make Christ my example. He is my
model in all things; and if you follow him, and follow me as far as I
follow him, you will not err. This is the only safe example; and if we
follow this, we can never go astray.
{a} "ye followers" Ephesians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6
{*} "followers" "Imitators"
Verse 2. Now I praise you, brethren. Paul always chose to commend
Christians when it could be done, and never seemed to suppose that
such praise would be injurious to them. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 1:4";
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 1:5". On this occasion he was the more ready to
praise them, as far as it could be done, because there were some things
in regard to them in which he would have occasion to reprove them.
That ye remember me in all things. That you are disposed to regard
my authority and seek my direction in all matters pertaining to the good
order of the church. There can be little doubt that they had consulted
him in their letter (1 Corinthians 7:1) about the proper manner in which a
woman ought to demean herself if she was called upon, under the influence
of Divine inspiration, to utter anything in public. The question
seems to have been, whether, since she was inspired, it was proper
for her to retain the marks of her inferiority of rank, and remain
covered; or whether the fact of her inspiration did not release her
from that obligation, and make it proper that she should lay aside her
veil, and appear as public speakers did among men. To this the
apostle refers, probably, in the phrase "all things," that even in
matters of this kind, pertaining to the good order of the church, they
were disposed to regard his authority.
And keep the ordinances. Margin, Traditions, (\~tav paradoseiv\~). The
word does not refer to anything that had been delivered down from a
former generation, or from former times, as the word tradition now
usually signifies; but it means that which had been delivered to them,
(\~paradidwmi\~;) i.e., by the apostles. The apostles had delivered
to them certain doctrines, or rules, respecting the good order and the
government of the church; and they had in general observed them, and
were disposed still to do it. For this disposition to regard his
authority, and to keep what he had enjoined, he commends them. He
proceeds to specify what would be proper in regard to the particular
subject on which they had made inquiry.
{b} "that ye" 1 Corinthians 4:17
{c} "keep" Luke 1:6
{1} "ordinances" "traditions"
Verse 3. But I would have you know. "I invite your attention
particularly to the following considerations, in order to form a correct
opinion on this subject." Paul does not at once answer the inquiry,
and determine what ought to be done; but he invites their attention
to a series of remarks on the subject, which led them to draw the
conclusion which he wished to establish. The phrase here is designed to
call the attention to the subject, like that used so often in
the New Testament, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
That the head, etc. The word head, in the Scriptures, is designed
often to denote master, ruler, chief, The word \~Greek\~ is often
thus used in the Old Testament. See Numbers 17:3; 25:15; Deuteronomy 28:13,44
Judges 10:18; 11:8,11; 1 Samuel 15:17; 2 Samuel 22:44. In the New Testament the
word is used in the sense of lord, ruler, chief, in Ephesians 1:22; 4:15;
Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 2:10. Here it means that Christ is the Ruler, Director,
or Lord of the Christian man. This truth was to be regarded in all their
feelings and arrangements, and was never to be forgotten. Every Christian
should recollect the relation in which he stands to him, as one that is
fitted to produce the strictest decorum, and a steady sense of
subordination.
Of every man. Every Christian. All acknowledge Christ as their Ruler
and Master. They are subject to him; and in all proper ways recognize
their subordination to him.
And the head of the woman is the man. The sense is, she is
subordinate to him; and in all circumstances-in her demeanour, her dress,
her conversation, in public and in the family circle--should recognize
her subordination to him. The particular thing here referred to is, that
if the woman is inspired, and speaks or prays in public, she should by
no means lay aside the usual and proper symbols of her subordination. The
danger was, that those who were under the influence of inspiration
would regard themselves as freed from the necessity of recognizing
that, and would lay aside the veil, the usual and appropriate symbol
of their occupying a rank inferior to the man. This was often done
in the temples of the heathen deities by the priestesses, and it would
appear also that it had been done by Christian females in the churches.
And the head of Christ is God. Christ, as Mediator, has consented
to assume a subordinate rank, and to recognize God the Father as
superior in office. Hence he was obedient in all things as a Son; he
submitted to the arrangement required in redemption; he always
recognized his subordinate rank as Mediator, and always regarded
God as the Supreme Ruler, even in the matter of redemption. The
sense is, that Christ, throughout his entire work, regarded himself
as occupying a subordinate station to the Father; and that it was
proper from his example to recognize the propriety of rank and
station everywhere.
{d} "head of every man" Ephesians 5:23
{e} "Christ" Genesis 3:16; 1 Peter 3:1,5,6
{f} "the man" John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27,28
Verse 4. Every man praying or prophesying. The word prophesying
here means, evidently, teaching; or publicly speaking to the people
on the subject of religion. See Barnes "Acts 2:17". See also the
subject considered more at length in the Notes on chapter 14. Whether
these persons who are here said to prophesy were all inspired, or
claimed to be inspired, may admit of a question. The simple idea
here is, that they spoke in the public assemblies, and professed to be
the expounders of the Divine will.
Having his head covered. With a veil, or turban, or cap, or whatever
else is worn on the head. To remove the hat, the turban, or the covering
of the head, is a mark of respect for a superior when in his presence.
Dishonoureth his head. Does dishonour to Christ as his head,
(1 Corinthians 11:2;) that is, he does not, in his presence and in his service,
observe the usual and proper custom by which a subordinate station is
recognised, and which indicates respect for a superior. In the presence
of a prince or a nobleman, it would be considered as a mark of disrespect
should the head be covered. So in the presence of Christ, in whose name
he ministers, it is a mark of disrespect if the head is covered. This
illustration is drawn from the customs of all times and countries, by
which respect for a superior is indicated by removing the covering
from the head. This is one reason why a man should not cover his
head in public worship. Another is given in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Other
interpretations of the passage may be seen in Bloomfield's Critical
Digest.
Verse 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth. In the Old
Testament, prophetesses are not unfrequently mentioned. Thus Miriam
is mentioned, (Exodus 15:20;) Deborah, (Judges 4:4;) Huldah,
(2 Kings 22:14;) Nosdish, (Nehemiah 6:14.) So also in the New Testament,
Anna is mentioned as a prophetess, Luke 2:36. That there were females
in the early Christian church who corresponded to those known among the
Jews in some measure as endowed with the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, cannot be doubted. What was their precise office, and what was
the nature of the public services in which they were engaged, is not
however known. That they prayed is clear; and that they publicly
expounded the will of God is apparent also. See Barnes "Acts 2:17".
As the presumption is, however, that they were inspired, their example
is no warrant now for females to take part in the public services of
worship, unless they also give evidence that they are under the
influence of inspiration, and the more especially as the apostle Paul
has expressly forbidden their becoming public teachers, 1 Timothy 2:12.
If it is now pleaded, from this example, that women should speak
and pray in public, yet it should be just so far only as this
example goes, and it should be only when they have the qualifications
that the early prophetesses had in the Christian church. If there are any
such; if any are directly inspired by God, there then will be an
evident propriety that they should publicly proclaim his will, and
not till then. It may be further observed, however, that the fact that
Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in
the church, does not prove that it was right or proper. His immediate
object now was not to consider whether the practice was itself right,
but to condemn the manner of its performance as a violation of all the
proper rules of modesty and of subordination. On another occasion, in
this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form, and
enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public,
1 Corinthians 14:34.
With her head uncovered. That is, with the veil removed
which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed
their veils, and wore their hair dishevelled, when they pretended to be
under the influence of Divine inspiration. This was the case with the
heathen priestesses; and in so doing, the Christian women imitated
them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of
this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient females, and one
that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a
woman should not appear in public unless she was veiled. See this
proved by Lightfoot in loco.
Dishonoureth her head. Shows a want of proper respect to man--to
her husband, to her father, to the sex in general. The veil is a token
of modesty and of subordination. It is regarded among Jews, and
everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and
station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she
evinces her modesty and sense of subordination. To remove that, is to
remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act
by which she thus shows dishonour to the man. And as it is proper
that the grades and ranks of life should be recognised in a suitable
manner, so it is improper that, even on pretence of religion, and of
being engaged in the service of God, these marks should be laid
aside.
For that is even all one as if she were shaven. As if her
long hair, which nature teaches her she should wear for a veil,
(1 Corinthians 11:15, margin,) should be cut off. Long hair is, by the custom
of the times, and of nearly all countries, a mark of the sex, an ornament
of the female, and judged to be beautiful and comely. To remove that is
to appear, in this respect, like the other sex, and to lay aside the
badge of her own. This, says Paul, all would judge to be improper. You
yourselves would not allow it. And yet to lay aside the veil--the
appropriate badge of the sex, and of her sense of subordination--would
be an act of the same kind. It would indicate the same feeling, the
same forgetfulness of the proper sense of subordination; and if that
is laid aside, ALL the usual indications of modesty and subordination
might be removed also. Not even under religious pretences, therefore,
are the usual marks of sex, and of propriety of place and rank, to be
laid aside. Due respect is to be shown, in dress, and speech, and
deportment, to those whom God has placed above us; and neither in
language, in attire, nor in habit, are we to depart from what all judge
to be proprieties of life, or from what God has judged and ordained to
be the proper indications of the regular gradations in society.
{a} "woman" Acts 21:9
Verse 6. For if the woman be not covered. If her head be not covered
with a veil.
Let her also be shorn. Let her long hair be cut off. Let her lay
aside all the usual and proper indications of her sex and rank in life.
If it is done in one respect, it may with the same propriety be done in
all. See Note above.
But if it be a shame, etc. If custom, nature, and habit; if the
common and usual feelings and views among men would pronounce this to be
a shame, the other would be pronounced to be a shame also by the same
custom and common sense of men.
Let her be covered. With a veil. Let her wear the customary attire
indicative of modesty and a sense of subordination. Let her not lay this
aside even on any pretence of religion.
{b} "shorn" Numbers 5:18; Deuteronomy 21:12
Verse 7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head. That is, with
a veil; or in public worship; when he approaches God, or when in
his name he addresses his fellow-men. It is not fit and proper that
he should be covered. The reason why it is not proper, the apostle
immediately states:
Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. The phrase "the image
of God" refers to the fact that man was made in the likeness of his Maker,
(Genesis 1:27;) and proves that, though fallen, there is a sense in which
he is still the image of God. It is not because man is holy or pure, and
thus resembles his Creator; but it evidently is because he was invested
by his Maker with authority and dominion: he was superior to all other
creatures, Genesis 1:28. This is still retained; and this the apostle
evidently refers to in the passage before us, and this he says should be
recognised and regarded. If he wore a veil or turban, it would be a mark
of servitude or inferiority. It was therefore improper that he should
appear in this manner; but he should be so clad as not to obscure
or hide the great truth that he was the direct representative of God
on the earth, and had a superiority to all other creatures.
And glory of God. The word glory in the classic writers means,
(1.) opinion, sentiment, etc.;
(2.) fame, reputation. Here it means, as it often does, splendour,
brightness, or that which stands forth to represent God, or by which
the glory of God is known. Man was created first; he had dominion given
him; by him, therefore, the Divine authority and wisdom first shone
forth; and this fact should be recognised in the due subordination of
rank, and even in the apparel and attire which shall be worn. The
impression of his rank and superiority should be everywhere retained.
But the woman is the glory of the man. The honour, the ornament, etc.
She was made for him; she was made after he was; she was taken from
him, and was "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh." All her
comeliness, loveliness, and purity, are therefore an expression of his
honour and dignity, since all that comeliness and loveliness were made
of him and for him. This, therefore, ought to be acknowledged by a
suitable manner of attire; and in his presence this sense of her
inferiority of rank and subordination should be acknowledged by the
customary use of the veil. She should appear with the symbol of modesty
and subjection, which are implied by the head being covered. This sense
is distinctly expressed in the following verse.
{c} "image" Genesis 5:1
Verse 8. For the man is not of the woman. The man was not formed
from the woman.
But the woman of the man. From his side, Genesis 2:18,22,23.
{d} "For the man" Genesis 2:18.22,23
Verse 9. Neither was the man created for the woman, etc. This is a
simple statement of what is expressed in Genesis. The woman was made
for the comfort and happiness of the man. Not to be a slave, but a
help-meet; not to be the minister of his pleasures, but to be his aid
and comforter in life; not to be regarded as of inferior nature and
rank, but to be his friend, to divide his sorrows, and to multiply
and extend his joys; yet still to be in a station subordinate to him.
He is to be the head; the ruler; the presider in the family circle;
and she was created to aid him in his duties, to comfort him in his
afflictions, to partake with him of his pleasures. Her rank is
therefore honourable, though it is subordinate. It is, in some respects,
the more honourable because it is subordinate; and as her happiness is
dependent on him, she has the higher claim to his protection
and his tender care. The whole of Paul's idea here is, that her
situation and rank as subordinate should be recognised by her at all
times, and that in his presence it was proper that she should wear
the usual symbol of modesty and subordination, the veil.
Verse 10. For this cause, etc. There is scarcely any passage in the
Scriptures which has more exercised the ingenuity of commentators
than this verse. The various attempts which have been made to
explain it may be seen in Pool, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, etc. After
all the explanations which have been given of it, I confess I do not
understand it. It is not difficult to see what the connexion requires
us to suppose in the explanation. The obvious interpretation would
be, that a woman should have a veil on her head because of the
angels who were supposed to be present, observing them in their
public worship; and it is generally agreed that the word power
(\~exousian\~) denotes a veil, or a covering for the head. But the word
power does not occur in this sense in any classic writer.
Bretschneider understands it of a veil, as being a defence or guard to
the face, lest it should be seen by others. Some have supposed that it
was the name of a female ornament that was worn on the head, formed of
braids of hair set with jewels. Most commentators agree that it means a
veil, though some think (see Bloomfield) that it is called power to
denote the veil which was worn by married women, which indicated the
superiority of the married woman to the maiden. But it is sufficient to
say in reply to this, that the apostle is not referring to married women
in contradistinction from those who are unmarried, but is showing that
all women who prophesy or pray in public should be veiled. There can,
perhaps, be no doubt that the word "power" has reference to a veil, or
to a covering for the head; but why it is called power I confess I
do not understand; and most of the comments on the word are, in my view,
egregious trifling.
Because of the angels. Some have explained this of good angels
who were supposed to be present in their assemblies, (see Doddridge;)
others refer it to evil angels; and others to messengers or spies who,
it has been supposed, were present in their public assemblies, and who
would report greatly to the disadvantage of the Christian assemblies if
the women were seen to be unveiled. I do not know what it means; and I
regard it as one of the very few passages in the Bible whose meaning as
yet is wholly inexplicable. The most natural interpretation seems to me
to be this: "A woman in the public assemblies, and in speaking in the
presence of men, should wear a veil--the usual symbol of modesty and
subordination --because the angels of God are witnesses of your public
worship, (Hebrews 1:14,) and because they know and appreciate the
propriety of subordination and order in public assemblies." According to
this, it would mean that the simple reason would be that the angels
were witnesses of their worship; and that they were the friends of
propriety, due subordination, and order; and that they ought to
observe these in all assemblies convened for the worship of God.
I do not know that this sense has been proposed by any commentator;
but it is one which strikes me as the most obvious and natural, and
consistent with the context. The following remarks respecting the
ladies of Persia may throw some light on this subject:-- "The
head-dress of the women is simple: their hair is drawn behind the head,
and divided into several tresses: the beauty of this head-dress consists
in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall
even down to the heels--in default of which, they lengthen them
with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with
pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver. The head is
covered, under the veil or kerchief, (couvre chef), only by the
end of a small bandeau, shaped into a triangle: this bandeau,
which is of various colours, is thin and light. The bandalette is
embroidered by the needle, or covered with jewelry, according to the
quality of the wearer. This is, in my opinion, the ancient tiara, or
diadem, of the queens of Persia: only married women wear it; and it
is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection,
(c'est ld la marque a laquelle on reeonnoit qu'elles sont
Sous PUISSANCE---power.) The girls have little caps,
instead of this kerchief or tiara; they wear no veil at home, but let
two tresses of their hair fall under their cheeks. The caps of girls of
superior rank are tied with a row of pearls. Girls are not shut up in
Persia till they attain the age of six or seven years; before that age
they go out of the seraglio, sometimes with their father, so that they
may then be seen. I have seen some wonderfully pretty. They show the
neck and bosom; and more beautiful cannot be seen.'--Chardin. "The
wearing of a veil by a married woman was a token of her being under
power. The Hebrew name of the veil signifies dependence. Great
importance was attached to this part of the dress in the East. All the
women of Persia are pleasantly apparelled. When they are abroad
in the streets, all, both rich and poor, are covered with a great veil,
or sheet of very fine white cloth, of which one half, like a forehead
cloth, comes down to the eyes, and, going over the head, reaches
down to the heels; and the other half muffles up the face below the
eyes, and being fastened with a pin to the left side of the head, falls
down to their very shoes, even covering their hands, with which
they hold that cloth by the two sides; so that, except the eyes, they
are covered all over with it. Within doors they have their faces
and breasts uncovered; but the Armenian women in their houses
have always one half of their faces covered with a cloth, that goes
athwart their noses, and hangs over their chin and breasts, except
the maids of that nation, who, within doors, cover only the chin
until they are married."--Thevenot.
{1} "power" "a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her"
"husband"; Genesis 24:55
{*} "on" "A veil on"
Verse 11. Nevertheless. Lest the man should assume to himself too
much superiority, and lest he should regard the woman as made
solely for his pleasure, and should treat her as in all respects
inferior, and withhold the respect that is due to her. The design of
this verse and the following is to show that the man and woman are
united in the most tender interests; that the one cannot live
comfortably without the other; that one is necessary to the happiness
of the other; and that though the woman was formed from the man,
yet it is also to be remembered that the man is descended from the
woman. She should therefore be treated with proper respect, tenderness,
and regard.
Neither is the man without the woman, etc. The man and the woman
were formed for union and society. They are not in any respect
independent of each other. One is necessary to the comfort of the other;
and this fact should be recognised in all their intercourse.
In the Lord. By the arrangements or direction of the Lord. It is the
appointment and command of the Lord that they should be mutual helps,
and should each regard and promote the welfare of the other.
Verse 12. As the woman is of the man. In the original creation, she
was formed from the man.
So is the man also by the woman. Is born of the woman, or descended
from her. The sexes are dependent on each other, and should therefore
cultivate an indissoluble union.
But all things of God. All things were created and arranged by
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 improper
superiority, since the whole arrangement and appointment is of God.
{a} "all things" Romans 11:36
Verse 13. Judge in yourselves. Or, "Judge among yourselves." I
appeal to you. I appeal to your natural sense of what is proper and
right. Paul had used various arguments to show them the impropriety of
their females speaking unveiled in public. He now appeals to their
natural sense of what was decent and right, according to established and
acknowledged customs and habits.
Is it comely? etc. Is it decent, or becoming? The Grecian women,
except their priestesses, were accustomed to appear in public with a
veil.--Doddridge. Paul alludes to that established and proper habit,
and asks whether it does not accord with their own views of propriety
that women in Christian assemblies should also wear the same symbol of
modesty.
Verse 14. Doth not even nature itself. The word nature
(\~fusiv\~) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have,
and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which
is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded
by the natural sense of fitness among men. Thus we may say that
nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress;
that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring;
that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war
--the duties of office, of government, and of professional life, should
be discharged by men. Such are in general the customs the world
over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in
society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged
by God, has demanded it. The word in this place, therefore, does
not mean the constitution of the sexes, as Locke, Whitby, and Pierce
maintain: nor reason and experience, as Macknight supposes; nor
simple use and custom, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, and most recent
expositors suppose; but it refers to a deep internal sense of what is
proper and right--a sense which is expressed extensively in all
nations, showing what that sense is. No reason can be given, in
the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the
man not; but the custom prevails extensively everywhere, and
nature, in all nations, has prompted to the same course. "Use is
second nature;" but the usage in this case is not arbitrary, but is
founded ill an anterior universal sense of what is proper and right.
A few, and only a few, have regarded it as comely for a man to
wear his hair long. Aristotle tells us, indeed, (Rhet. i.--see
Rosenmuller,) that among the Lacedemonians, freemen wore their hair
long. In the time of Homer, also, the Greeks were called by him
\~karhkomowntev acaioi\~, long-haired Greeks; and some of the Asiatic nations adopted
the same custom. But the general habit among men has been different.
Among the Hebrews, it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his
hair long, except he had a vow as a Nazarite, Numbers 6:1-6; Judges 13:6;
Judges 16:17; 1 Samuel 1:11. Occasionally, for affectation or singularity,
the hair was suffered to grow, as was the case with Absalom,
(2 Samuel 14:26;) but the traditional law of the Jews on the subject was
strict. The same rule existed among the Greeks; and it was regarded as
disgraceful to wear long hair in the time of AElian, (Hist. lib. ix. c.
14; Eustath. on Hom. ii. v.)
It is a shame unto him. It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing
that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the
female sex.
Verse 15. It is a glory to her. It is an ornament and adorning. The
same instinctive promptings of nature which make it proper for a
man to wear short hair, make it proper that the woman should
suffer hers to grow long.
For a covering. Margin, Veil. It is given to her as a sort of
natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil. It
answered the purposes of a veil when it was suffered to grow long, and
to spread over the shoulders and over parts of the face, before the arts
of dress were invented or needed. There may also be an allusion here to
the fact that the hair of women naturally grows longer than that of
men. See Rosenmuller. The value which eastern females put on their
long hair may be learned from the fact that when Ptolemy Euergetes,
king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his
queen Berenice vowed, as the most precious sacrifice which she could
make, to cut off and consecrate her hair if he returned in safety.
"The eastern ladies," says Harmer, "are remarkable for the length and
the great number of the tresses of their hair. The men there, on the
contrary, wear very little hair on their heads." Lady M. W. Montague
thus speaks concerning the hair of the women: "Their hair hangs at full
length behind, divided into tresses, braided with pearl or riband,
which is always in great quantity. I never saw in my life so many fine
heads of hair. In one lady's I have counted one hundred and ten of
these tresses, all natural; but it must be owned that every kind of
beauty is more common here than with us." The men there, on the
contrary, shave all the hair off their heads, excepting one lock; and
those that wear hair are thought effeminate. Both these particulars are
mentioned by Chardin, who says they are agreeable to the custom of the
East: "The men are shaved; the women nourish their hair with great
fondness, which they lengthen by tresses and tufts of silk, down to the
heels. The young men who wear their hair in the East are looked upon as
effeminate and infamous."
{1} "covering" "veil"
Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious. The sense of this
passage is probably this: "If any man, any teacher, or others, is
disposed to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of
difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to
dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to
maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in
public, I would add, that in Judea we have no such custom, neither
does it prevail among any of the churches. This, therefore, would
be a sufficient reasons why it should not be done in Corinth, even if
the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety.
It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would
offend the prejudices of many; and should, therefore, be avoided."
We have no such custom. We the apostles in the churches which
we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea.
The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear
in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be
allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even
though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.
Neither the churches of God. The churches elsewhere. It is customary
there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is
not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been
regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if
the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts,
yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the
fear of giving offence, should lead you to discountenance and
disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their
veil.
{a} "But if any man" 1 Timothy 6:4
Verse 17. Now in this that I declare. In this that I am about to
state to you; to wit, your conduct in regard to the Lord's Supper. Why
this subject is introduced here is not very apparent. The connexion
may be this. In the subjects immediately preceding he had seen
much to commend, and he was desirous of commending them as far
as it could be done. In 1 Corinthians 11:2 of this chapter he commends them
in general for their regard to the ordinances which he had appointed
when he was with them. But while he thus commended them, he takes
occasion to observe that there was one subject on which he could not
employ the language of approval or praise. Of their irregularities in
regard to the Lord's Supper he had probably heard by rumour, and as the
subject was of great importance, and their irregularities gross and
deplorable, he takes occasion to state to them again more fully the
nature of that ordinance, and to reprove them for the manner in which
they had celebrated it.
That ye come together. You assemble for public worship.
Not for the better, but for the worse. Your meetings, and your
observance of the ordinances of the gospel, do not promote your
edification, your piety, spirituality, and harmony; but tend to division,
alienation, and disorder. You should assemble to worship God, and
promote harmony, love, and piety; the actual effect of your assembling
is just the reverse. In what way this was done he states in the following
verses. These evil consequences were chiefly two: first, divisions
and contentions; and, secondly, the abuse and profanation of the
Lord's Supper.
Verse 18. For first of all. That is, I mention as the first thing to
be reproved.
When ye come together in the church. When you come together in a
religious assembly; when you convene for public worship. The word
church here does not mean, as it frequently does with us, a
building. No instance of such a use of the word occurs in the New
Testament; but it means, when they came together as a Christian assembly;
when they convened for the worship of God. These divisions took place
then; and from some cause which it seems then operated to produce
alienations and strifes.
I hear. I have learned through some members of the family of Chloe,
1 Corinthians 1:11.
That there be divisions among you. Greek, as in the margin, Schisms.
The word properly means a rent, such as is made in cloth,
(Matthew 9:16; Mark 2:21;) and then a division, a split, a faction among
men, John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19. It does not mean here that they had
proceeded so far as to form separate churches, but that there was
discord and division in the church itself. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 1:10",
1 Corinthians 1:11.
And I partly believe it. I credit a part of the reports; I have
reason to think, that, though the evil may have been exaggerated, yet
that it is true at least in part. I believe that there are dissensions
in the church that should be reproved.
{b} "hear" 1 Corinthians 1:11,12
{2} "divisions" "schisms"
Verse 19. For there must be. It is necessary, (\~dei\~;) it is to
be expected; there are reasons why there should be. What these reasons
are he states in the close of the verse. Comp. Matthew 18:7; 2 Peter 2:1,2.
The meaning is not that divisions are inseparable from the nature of
the Christian religion, not that it is the design and wish of the Author
of Christianity that they should exist, and not that they are
physically impossible, for then they could not be the subject of blame;
but that such is human nature, such are the corrupt passions of men, the
propensity to ambition and strifes, that they are to be expected, and
they serve the purpose of showing who are, and who are not, the
true friends of God.
Heresies. Margin, Sects. Greek, \~aireseiv\~.
See Barnes "Acts 24:14". The words heresy and heresies
occur only in these places, and in Galatians 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1. The Greek word
occurs also in Acts 5:17, (translated sect;) Acts 15:6;
Acts 24:5; 26:6; 28:22; in all which places it denotes, and is
translated, sect. We now attach to the word usually the idea of a
fundamental error in religion, or some doctrine, the holding of
which will exclude from salvation. But there is no evidence that the
word is used in this signification in the New Testament. The only place
where it can be supposed to be so used, unless this is one, is in
Galatians 5:20; where, however, the word contentions or divisions
would be quite as much in accordance with the connexion. That the word
here does not denote error in doctrine, but schism, division, or
sects, as it is translated in the margin, is evident from two
considerations.
(1.) It is the proper philological meaning of the word, and its
established and common signification in the Bible.
(2.) It is the sense which the connexion here demands. The apostle had
made no reference to error of doctrine, but is discoursing solely of
irregularity in conduct; and the first thing which he mentions is,
that there were schisms, divisions, strifes. The idea that the word here
refers to doctrines, would by no means suit the connexion, and would
indeed make nonsense. It would then read, "I hear that there are
divisions or parties among you, and this I cannot commend you for. For
it must be expected that there would be fundamental errors of
doctrine in the church." But Paul did not reason in this manner.
The sense is, "There are divisions among you. It is to be expected;
there are causes for it; and it cannot be avoided that there should
be, in the present state of human nature, divisions and sects formed
in the church; and this is to be expected, in order that those who
are true Christians should be separated from those who are not."
The foundation of this necessity is not in the Christian religion
itself, for that is pure, and contemplates and requires union; but the
existence of sects, and denominations, and contentions, may be traced
to the following causes:
(1.) The love of power and popularity. Religion may be made the means
of power; and they who have the control of the consciences of men, and
of their religious feelings and opinions, can control them altogether.
(2.) Showing more respect to a religious teacher than to Christ.
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 1:12".
(3.) The multiplication of tests, and the enlargement of creeds and
confessions of faith. The consequence is, that every new doctrine that
is incorporated into a creed gives occasion for those to separate who
cannot accord with it.
(4.) The passions of men--their pride, and ambition, and bigotry, and
unenlightened zeal. Christ evidently meant that his church should be
one; and that all who were his true followers should be admitted to her
communion, and acknowledged everywhere as his own friends. And the
time may yet come when this union shall be restored to his
long-distracted church; and that while there may be an honest
difference of opinion maintained and allowed, still the bonds of
Christian love shall secure union of heart in all who love the Lord
Jesus, and union of effort in the grand enterprise in which ALL can
unite--that of making war upon sin, and securing the conversion of the
whole world to God.
That they which are approved. That they who are approved of God, or
who are his true friends, and who are disposed to abide by his laws.
May be made manifest. May be known; recognised; seen. The effect of
divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of
order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul,
that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of
order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God.
The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in all
divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of
Christianity are held, and where the corruption of the mass does not
require separation, such divisions show who are the restless,
ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are
indisposed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of
Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and
disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without
contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church;
and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is, to reprove and condemn
such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and
condemnation. See Romans 16:17: "Mark them which cause divisions, and
AVOID THEM.
{a} "must be" Matthew 18:7; 2 Peter 2:1,2
{1} "heresies" "sects"
{b} "that they" Luke 2:35
Verse 20. When ye come together therefore, etc. When you are
assembled as a church. Comp. Hebrews 10:25, and
See Barnes "Acts 2:1". Christians were constantly in the habit of
assembling for public worship. It is probable that at this early period
all the Christians in Corinth were accustomed to meet in the same place.
The apostle here particularly refers to their assembling to observe the
ordinance of the Lord's Supper. At that early period it is probable that
this was done on every Lord's day.
This is not, etc. Margin, "Ye cannot eat." The meaning of this
expression seems to be this: "Though you come together professedly to
worship God, and to partake of the Lord's Supper, yet this cannot be the
real design which you have in view. It cannot be that such practices as
are allowed among you can be a part of the celebration of that supper,
or consistent with it. Your greediness, (1 Corinthians 11:21;) your
intemperance, (1 Corinthians 11:21;) your partaking of the food separately,
and not in common, cannot be a celebration of the Lord's Supper.
Whatever, therefore, you may profess to be engaged in, yet really and
truly you are not celebrating the Lord's Supper."
The Lord's supper. That which the Lord Jesus instituted to
commemorate his death. It is called "the Lord's," because it is his
appointment, and is in honour of him; it is called "supper,"
(\~deipnon\~,) because the word denotes the evening repast.
It was instituted in the evening; and it is evidently most proper that
it should be observed in the after part of the day. With most
churches the time is 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.
{2} "one place" "ye cannot eat"
Verse 21. For in eating. When you eat, having professedly come
together to observe this ordinance. In order to understand this, it
seems necessary to suppose that they had in some way made the
Lord's Supper either connected with a common feast, or that they
regarded it as a mere common festival to be observed in a way similar
to the festivals among the Greeks. Many have supposed that this
was done by making the observance of the Supper follow a festival,
or, what were afterwards called, love-feasts, (\~agapai\~ --Agapae).
Many have supposed that that custom was derived from the fact
that the Saviour instituted the Supper after a festival, a feast in
which he had been engaged with his disciples, and that thence the
early Christians derived the custom of observing such a festival, or
common meal, before they celebrated the Lord's Supper. But it
may be observed, that the passover was not a mere preliminary
festival, or feast. It had no resemblance to the so-called love-feasts,
It was itself a religious ordinance; a direct appointment of God;
and was never regarded as designed to be preliminary to the
observance of the Lords Supper, but was always understood as designed to
be superseded by that. Besides, I know not that there is the
slightest evidence, as has been often supposed, that the observance
of the Lord's Supper was preceded, in the times of the apostles, by
such a festival as a love-feast. There is no evidence in the passage
before us; nor is any adduced from any other part of the New
Testament. To my mind it seems altogether improbable that the
disorders in Corinth would assume this form--that they would first
observe a common feast, and then the Lord's Supper in the regular
manner. The statement before us leads to the belief that all was
irregular and improper; that they had entirely mistaken the nature
of the ordinance, and had converted it into an occasion of ordinary
festivity, and even intemperance; that they had come to regard it as
a feast in honour of the Saviour on some such principles as they
observed feasts in honour of idols, and that they observed it in some
such manner; and that all that was supposed to make it unlike those
festivals was, that it was in honour of Jesus rather than an idol, and
was to be observed with some reference to his authority and name.
Every one taketh before other his own supper. That is, each one is
regardless of the wants of the others; instead of making even a meal
in common, and when all could partake together, each one ate by
himself, and ate that which he had himself brought. They had not
only erred, therefore, by misunderstanding altogether the nature of
the Lord's Supper, and by supposing that it was a common festival
like those which they had been accustomed to celebrate; but they
had also entirely departed from the idea that it was a festival to be
partaken of in common, and at a common table. It had become a
scene where every man ate by himself; and where the very idea
that there was anything like a common celebration, or a celebration
together, was abandoned. There is allusion here, doubtless, to what
was a custom among the Greeks, that when a festival was celebrated,
or a feast made, it was common for each person to provide, and carry
a part of the things necessary for the entertainment. These were
usually placed in common, and were partaken of alike by all the
company. Thus Xenophon (Mem lib. iii. cap. xiv.) says of Socrates,
that he was much offended with the Athenians for their conduct at
their common suppers, where some prepared for themselves in a
delicate and sumptuous manner, while others were poorly provided
for. Socrates endeavoured, he adds, to shame them out of this
indecent custom by offering his provisions to all the company.
And one is hungry. Is deprived of food. It is all monopolized by
others.
And another is drunken. The word here used (\~meyuei\~) means,
properly, to become inebriated, or intoxicated; and there is
no reason for understanding it here in any other sense. There can
be no doubt that the apostle meant to say, that they ate and drank
to excess; and that their professed celebration of the Lord's Supper
became a mere revel. It may seem remarkable that such scenes
should ever have occurred in a Christian church, or that there could
have been such an entire perversion of the nature and design of the
Lord's Supper. But we are to remember the following things:
(1.) These persons had recently been heathens, and were grossly
ignorant of the nature of true religion when the gospel was first
preached among them.
(2.) They had been accustomed to such revels in honour of idols under
their former modes of worship, and it is the less surprising that they
transferred their views to Christianity.
(3.) When they had once so far misunderstood the nature of Christianity
as to suppose the Lord's Supper to be like the feasts which they had
formerly celebrated, all the rest followed as a matter of course. The
festival would be observed in the same manner as the festivals in
honour of idolaters; and similar scenes of gluttony and intemperance
would naturally follow.
(4.) We are to bear in mind, also, that they do not seem to have been
favoured with pious, wise, and prudent teachers. There were false
teachers; and there were those who prided themselves on their wisdom,
and who were self-confident, and who doubtless endeavoured to model the
Christian institutions according to their own views; and they thus
brought them, as far as they could, to a conformity with pagan customs
and idolatrous rites. We may remark here:
(1.) We are not to expect perfection at once among a people recently
converted from paganism,
(2.) We see how prone men are to abuse even the most holy rites of
religion, and hence how corrupt is human nature.
(3.) We see that even Christians, recently converted, need constant
guidance and superintendence; and that if left to themselves, they
soon, like others, fall into gross and scandalous offences.
{c} "another is drunken" 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 1:12
Verse 22. What? This whole verse is designed to convey the language
of severe rebuke for their having so grossly perverted the design of
the Lord's Supper.
Have ye not houses, etc. Do you not know that the church of God is
not designed to be a place of feasting and revelry, nor even a place
where to partake of your ordinary meals? Can it be that you will come to
the places of public worship, and make them the scenes of feasting and
riot? Even on the supposition that there had been no disorder, no revelry,
no intemperance, yet on every account it was grossly irregular and
disorderly to make the place of public worship a place for a festival
entertainment.
Or despise ye the church of God. The phrase, "church of God,"
Grotius understands of the place. But the word church (\~ekklhsia\~)
is believed not to be used in that sense in the New Testament; and
it is not necessary to suppose it here. The sense is, that their
conduct was such as if they had held in contempt the whole church of
God, in all places, with all their views of the sacredness and purity
of the Lord s Supper.
And shame them that have not? Margin, Are poor. Something must
here be understood, in order to make out the sense. Probably it meant
something like possessions, property, conveniences, accommodations.
The connexion would make it most natural to understand "houses to eat
and drink in;" and the sense then would be, "Do you thus expose to public
shame those who have no accommodations at home--who are destitute and
poor? You thus reflect publicly upon their poverty and want, while you
bring your own provisions, and fare sumptuously, and while those
who are thus unable to provide for themselves are thus seen to be
poor and needy." It is hard enough, the idea is, to be poor, and to
be destitute of a home. But it greatly aggravates the matter to be
publicly treated in that manner; to be exposed publicly to the contempt
which such a situation implies. Their treatment of the poor in this
manner would be a public exposing them to shame; and the apostle regarded
this as particularly dishonourable, and especially in a Christian church,
where all were professedly on an equality.
What shall I say to you? etc. How shall I sufficiently express my
surprise at this, and my disapprobation at this course? It cannot
be possible that this is right. It is not possible to conceal surprise
and amazement that this custom exists, and is tolerated in a Christian
church.
{1} "that have not" "are poor"
Verse 23. For, etc. In order most effectually to check the evils which
existed, and to bring them to a proper mode of observing the Lord's
Supper, the apostle proceeds to state distinctly and particularly its
design. They had mistaken its nature. They supposed it might be
a common festival. They had made it the occasion of great disorder.
He therefore adverts to the solemn circumstances in which it was
instituted; the particular object which it had in view--the
commemoration of the death of the Redeemer; and the purpose which it
was designed to subserve--which was not that of a festival, but to
keep before the church and the world a constant remembrance of
the Lord Jesus, until he should again return, 1 Corinthians 11:26. By this
means the apostle evidently hoped to recall them from their
irregularities, and to bring them to a just mode of celebrating this holy
ordinance. He did not, therefore, denounce them even for their
irregularity and gross disorder; he did not use harsh, violent,
vituperative language; but he expected to reform the evil by a mild and
tender statement of the truth, and by an appeal to their consciences as
the followers of the Lord Jesus.
I have received of the Lord. This cannot refer to tradition, or mean
that it had been communicated to him through the medium of the other
apostles; but the whole spirit and scope of the passage seems to mean,
that he had derived the knowledge of the institution of the Lord's Supper
directly from the Lord himself. This might have been when on the
road to Damascus, though that does not seem probable, or it may have been
among the numerous revelations which at various times had been made to
him. Comp. 2 Corinthians 12:7. The reason why he here says that he had
received it directly from the Lord is, doubtless, that he might show them
that it was of Divine authority. "The institution to which I refer is
what I myself received an account of from personal and direct
communication with the Lord Jesus himself, who appointed it. It is
not, therefore, of human authority. It is not of my devising, but is of
Divine warrant, and is holy in its nature, and is to be observed in the
exact manner prescribed by the Lord himself."
That which also I delivered, etc. Paul founded the church at Corinth;
and of course he first instituted the observance of the Lord's Supper
there.
The same night in which he was betrayed. By Judas. See
Matthew 26:23-25,; 48-50. Paul seems to have mentioned the fact that it
was on the very night on which he was betrayed, in order to throw around
it the idea of greater solemnity. He wished evidently to bring before
their minds the deeply affecting circumstances of his death; and
thus to show them the utter impropriety of their celebrating the
ordinance with riot and disorder. The idea is, that in order to
celebrate it in a proper manner, it was needful to throw themselves
as much as possible into the very circumstances in which it was
instituted; and one of these circumstances most fitted to affect the
mind deeply, was the fact that he was betrayed by a professed friend and
follower. It is also a circumstance the memory of which is eminently
fitted to prepare the mind for a proper celebration of the ordinance now,
Took bread. Evidently the bread which was used at the celebration
of the paschal supper. He took the bread which happened to be
before him--such as was commonly used. It was not a wafer, such
as the papists now use; but was the ordinary bread which was eaten
on such occasions. See Barnes "Matthew 26:26".
{a} "I have received" 1 Corinthians 15:3
{b} "the Lord Jesus" Matthew 26:26
{*} "bread" "loaf"
Verse 24. And when he had given thanks. See Barnes "Matthew 26:26".
Matthew reads it, "and blessed it." The words here used are,
however, substantially the same as there; and this fact shows that,
since this was communicated to Paul directly by the Saviour, and in
a manner distinct from that by which Matthew learned the mode of
the institution, the Saviour designed that the exact form of the
words should be used in its observance, and should thus be constantly
borne in mind by his people.
Take, eat, etc. See Barnes "Matthew 26:26".
{2} "do in" "for a"
Verse 25. After the same manner. In like manner; likewise. With the
same circumstances, and ceremonies, and designs. The purpose was
the same.
When he had supped. That is, all this occurred after the
observance of the usual paschal supper. It could not, therefore,
be a part of it, nor could it have been designed to be a festival or
feast merely. The apostle introduces this evidently in order to
show them that it could not be, as they seemed to have supposed,
an occasion of feasting. It was after the supper, and was therefore
to be observed in a distinct manner.
Saying, This cup, etc. See Barnes "Matthew 26:27,28".
Is the new testament. The new covenant which God is about to
establish with men. The word "testament" with us properly denotes
a will--an instrument by which a man disposes of his property after
his death. This is also the proper classic meaning of the Greek word here
used, \~diayhkh\~, (diatheke.) But this is evidently not the sense in
which the word is designed to be used in the New Testament. The idea of a
will or testament, strictly so called, is not that which the sacred
writers intend to convey by the word. The idea is evidently that of a
compact, agreement, COVENANT, to which there is so frequent reference
in the Old Testament, and which is expressed by the word
\^HEBREW\^--Berith--a compact, a covenant. Of that word the proper
translation in Greek would have been \~sunyhkh\~, a covenant, agreement.
But it is remarkable that that word never is used by the Seventy to
denote the covenant made between God and man. That translation uniformly
employs for this purpose the word \~diayhkh\~--a will, or a testament--as a
translation of the Hebrew word, where there is a reference to the
covenant which God is represented as making with men. The word
\~sunyhkh\~ is used by them but three times, Isaiah 28:15; 30:1; Daniel 11:6,
and in neither instance with any reference to the covenant which
God is represented as making with man. The word \~diayhkh\~, as the
translation of \^HEBREW\^ --Berith--occurs more than two hundred
times. (See Trommius' Concord.) Now this must have evidently been of
design. What the reason was which induced them to adopt this can only be
conjectured. It may have been that, as the translation was to be seen by
the Gentiles as well as by the Jews, (if it were not expressly made, as
has been affirmed by Josephus and others, for the use of Ptolemy,) they
were unwilling to represent the eternal and infinite JEHOVAH as entering
into a compact, an agreement, with his creature man. They therefore
adopted a word which would represent him as expressing his will
to them in a book of revelation. The version by the Seventy was
evidently in use by the apostles, and by the Jews everywhere. The
writers of the New Testament, therefore, adopted the word as they found
it; and spoke of the new dispensation as a new testament which God
made with man. The meaning is, that this was the new compact or covenant
which God was to make with man in contradistinction from that made
through Moses.
In my blood. Through my blood; that is, this new compact is to be
sealed with my blood, in allusion to the ancient custom of sealing an
agreement by a sacrifice. See Barnes "Matthew 26:28".
This do ye. Partake of this bread and wine; that is, celebrate this
ordinance.
As oft as ye drink it. Not prescribing any time; and not even
specifying the frequency with which it was to be done; but leaving it to
themselves to determine how often they would partake of it. The time of
the passover had been fixed by positive statute; the more mild and
gentle system of Christianity left it to the followers of the Redeemer
themselves to determine how often they would celebrate his death. It
was commanded them to do it; it was presumed that their love to him
would be so strong as to secure a frequent observance; it was permitted
to them, as in prayer, to celebrate it on any occasion of affliction,
trial, or deep interest, when they would feel their need of it, and
when they would suppose that its observance would be for the
edification of the church.
In remembrance of me. This expresses the whole design of the
ordinance. It is a simple memorial, or remembrancer, designed to recall,
in a striking and impressive manner, the memory of the Redeemer. It
does this by a tender appeal to the senses--by the exhibition of the
broken bread, and by the wine. The Saviour knew how prone men would be
to forget him; and he therefore appointed this ordinance as a means by
which his memory should be kept up in the world. The ordinance is rightly
observed when it recalls the memory of the Saviour; and when its
observance is the means of producing a deep, and lively, and vivid
impression on the mind, of his death for sin. This expression, at the
institution of the Supper, is used by Luke, (Luke 22:19;) though it
does not occur in Matthew, Mark, or John.
Verse 26. For as often. Whenever you do this.
Ye eat this bread. This is a direct and positive refutation of the
doctrine of the papists, that the bread is changed into the real body
of the Lord Jesus. Here it is expressly called bread--bread
still--bread after the consecration. Before the Saviour instituted
the ordinance he took "bread"--it was bread then; it was "bread" which
he "blessed" and "brake;" and it was bread when it was given to them;
and it was bread when Paul here says they ate. How, then, can it be
pretended that it is anything else but bread? And what an amazing and
astonishing absurdity it is to believe that that bread is changed into
the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ!
Ye do shew the Lord's death. You set forth or exhibit, in an
impressive manner, the fact that he was put to death; you exhibit the
emblems of his broken body and shed blood, and your belief of the fact
that he died. This shows that the ordinance was to be so far public as
to be a proper showing forth of their belief in the death of the
Saviour. It should be public. It is one mode of professing attachment
to the Redeemer; and its public observance often has a most impressive
effect on those who witness its observance.
Till he come. Till he return to judge the world. This demonstrates
(1.) that it was the steady belief of the primitive church that the
Lord Jesus would return to judge the world; and
(2.) that it was designed that this ordinance should be perpetuated,
and observed to the end of time. In every generation, therefore, and in
every place where there are Christians, it is to be observed, until the
Son of God shall return; and the necessity of its observance shall
cease only when the whole body of the redeemed shall be permitted to
see their Lord, and there shall be no need of those emblems to remind
them of him, for all shall see him as he is.
{1} "ye do shew" "shew ye"
Verse 27. Wherefore. \~wste\~. So that; or it follows from what
has been said. If this be the origin and intention of the Lord's
Supper, then it follows that whoever partakes of it in an improper
manner is guilty of his body and blood. The design of Paul is to
correct their improper mode of observing this ordinance; and having
showed them the true nature and design of the institution, he now
states the consequences of partaking of it in an improper manner.
Shall eat this bread. 1 Corinthians 11:26. Paul still calls it bread,
and shows thus that he was a stranger to the doctrine that the bread
was changed into the very body of the Lord Jesus. Had the papal
doctrine of transubstantiation been true, Paul could not have called it
bread. The Romanists do not believe that it is bread, nor would they
call it such; and this shows how needful it is for them to keep the
Scriptures from the people, and how impossible to express their dogmas
in the language of the Bible. Let Christians adhere to the simple
language of the Bible, and there is no danger of their falling into the
errors of the papists.
Unworthily. Perhaps there is no expression in the Bible that has
given more trouble to weak and feeble Christians than this. It is
certain that there is no one that has operated to deter so many from
the communion; or that is so often made use of as an excuse for not
making a profession of religion. The excuse is, "I am unworthy to
partake of this holy ordinance. I shall only expose myself to
condemnation. I must therefore wait until I become more worthy, and
better prepared to celebrate it." It is important, therefore, that
there should be a correct understanding of this passage. Most persons
interpret it as if it were unworthy, and not unworthily; and
seem to suppose that it refers to their personal qualifications, to their
unfitness to partake of it, rather than to the manner in which
it is done. It is to be remembered, therefore, that the word here used is
an adverb, and not an adjective, and has reference to the manner
of observing the ordinance, and not to their personal qualifications or
fitness. It is true that in ourselves we are all unworthy of an
approach to the table of the Lord; unworthy to be regarded as his
followers; unworthy of a title to everlasting life: but it does not
follow that we may not partake of this ordinance in a worthy, i.e., a
proper manner, with a deep sense of our sinfulness, our need of a
Saviour, and with some just views of the Lord Jesus as our Redeemer.
Whatever may be our consciousness of personal unworthiness and
unfitness--and that consciousness cannot be too deep--yet we may have
such love to Christ, and such a desire to be saved by him, and such a
sense of his worthiness, as to make it proper for us to approach and
partake of this ordinance. The term unworthily (\~anaxiwv\~) means,
properly, in an unworthy or improper MANNER; in a manner unsuitable
to the purposes for which it was designed or instituted; and may
include the following things, viz.:
(1.) Such an irregular and indecent observance as existed in the church
of Corinth, where even gluttony and intemperance prevailed under
the professed design of celebrating the Supper.
(2.) An observance of the ordinance where there should be no
distinction between it and common meals, See Barnes "1 Corinthians 11:29";
where they did not regard it as designed to show forth the death of the
Lord Jesus. It is evident that where such views prevailed, there could
be no proper qualification for this observance; and it is
equally clear that such ignorance can hardly be supposed to prevail
now in those lands which are illuminated by Christian truth.
(3.) When it is done for the sake of mockery, and when the purpose is
to deride religion, and to show a marked contempt for the ordinances of
the gospel. It is a remarkable fact that many infidels have been so
full of malignity and bitterness against the Christian religion as to
observe a mock celebration of the Lord's Supper. There is no
profounder depth of depravity than this; there is nothing that can more
conclusively or painfully show the hostility of man to the gospel of
God. It is a remarkable fact, also, that not a few such persons have
died a most miserable death. Under the horrors of an accusing
conscience, and the anticipated destiny of final damnation, they have
left the world as frightful monuments of the justice of God. It is
also a fact that not a few infidels who have been engaged in such
unholy celebrations have been converted to that very gospel which they
were thus turning into ridicule and scorn. Their consciences have been
alarmed; they have shuddered at the remembrance of the crime; they
have been overwhelmed with the consciousness of guilt, and have found
no peace until they have found it in that blood whose shedding they
were thus profanely celebrating.
Shall be guilty. \~enocov\~. This word properly means, obnoxious to
punishment for personal crime. It always includes the idea of
ill-desert, and of exposure to punishment on account of crime or
ill-desert, Matthew 5:22; Exodus 22:3; 34:7; Numbers 14:18; 35:27; Leviticus 20:9. See also
Deuteronomy 19:10; Matthew 26:66.
Of the body and blood of the Lord. Commentators have not been
agreed in regard to the meaning of this expression. Doddridge renders
it, "Shall be counted guilty of profaning and affronting, in some
measure, that which is intended to represent the body and blood of the
Lord." Grotius renders it, "He does the same thing as if he should slay
Christ." Bretschneider (Lex.) renders it, "Injuring by crime the body
of the Lord." Locke renders it, "Shall be guilty of a misuse of the
body and blood of the Lord ;" and supposes it means that they should be
liable to the punishment due to one who made a wrong use of the
sacramental body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper.
Rosenmuller renders it, "He shall be punished for such a deed as if
he had affected Christ himself with ignominy." Bloomfield renders it,
"He shall be guilty respecting the body, i.e., guilty of profaning the
symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and consequently shall be
amenable to the punishment due to such an abuse of the highest means of
grace." But it seems to me that this does not convey the fulness of the
meaning of the passage. The obvious and literal sense is, evidently,
that they should by such conduct be involved in the sin of putting the
Lord Jesus to death. The phrase "the body and blood of the Lord," in
this connexion, obviously, I think, refers to his death--to the fact
that his body was broken, and his blood shed, of which the bread and
wine were symbols; and to be guilty of that, means to be guilty of
putting him to death; that is, to be involved in the crime, or to do a
thing which should involve the same criminality as that. To see this,
we are to remember,
(1.) that the bread and wine were symbols or emblems of that event, and
designed to set it forth.
(2.) To treat with irreverence and profaneness the bread which was an
emblem of his broken body, was to treat with irreverence and
profaneness the body itself; and in like manner the wine, the symbol of
his blood.
(3.) Those, therefore, who treated the symbols of his body
and blood with profaneness and contempt were united in spirit with
those who put him to death. They evinced the same feelings towards the
Lord Jesus that his murderers did. They treated him with scorn,
profaneness, and derision; and showed that with the same spirit they
would have joined in the act of murdering the Son of God. They would
evince their hostility to the Saviour himself as far as they could do,
by showing contempt for the memorials of his body and blood. The
apostle does by no means, however, as I understand him, mean to say
that any of the Corinthians had been thus guilty of his body and blood.
He does not charge on them this murderous-intention. But he states what
is the fair and obvious construction which is to be put on a wanton
disrespect for the Lord's Supper. And the design is to guard them, and
all others, against this sin. There can be no doubt that those who
celebrate his death in mockery and derision are held guilty of his body
and blood. They show that they have the spirit of his murderers; they
evince it in the most awful way possible; and they who would thus join
in a profane celebration of the Lord's Supper would have joined in the
cry, "Crucify him, crucify him." For it is a most fearful and solemn act
to trifle with sacred things; and especially to hold up to derision and
scorn, the bitter sorrows by which the Son of God accomplished the
redemption of the world.
{b} "unworthily" John 6:63,64; 1 Corinthians 10:21
Verse 28. But let a man examine himself. Let him search and see if he
have the proper qualifications--if he has knowledge to discern the
Lord's body, (See Barnes "1 Corinthians 11:29";) if he has true repentance for
his sins, true faith in the Lord Jesus, and a sincere desire to live
the life of a Christian, and to be like the Son of God, and be saved by
the merits of his blood. Let him examine himself, and see whether he
have the right feelings of a communicant, and can approach the
table in a proper manner. In regard to this we may observe,
(1.) that this examination should include the great question about his
personal piety, and about his particular and special fitness for this
observance. It should go back into the great inquiry whether he
has ever been born again; and it should also have special reference
to his immediate and direct preparation for the ordinance. He should not
only be able to say in general that he is a Christian, but he should
be able to say that he has then a particular preparation for it. He
should be in a suitable frame of mind for it. He should have personal
evidence that he is a penitent; that he has true faith in the Lord Jesus;
that he is depending on him, and is desirous of being saved by him.
(2.) This examination should be minute and particular. It should extend
to the words, the thoughts, the feelings, the conduct. We should
inquire whether in our family and in our business, whether among
Christians and with the world, we have lived the life of a Christian.
We should examine our private thoughts; our habits of secret prayer and
of searching the Scriptures. Our examination should be directed to the
inquiry whether we are gaining the victory over our easily besetting
sins, and becoming more and more conformed to the Saviour. It should,
in short, extend to all our Christian character; and everything which
goes to make up or to mar that character should be the subject of
faithful and honest examination.
(3.) It should be done, because
(a.) it is well to pause occasionally in life, and take an account of our
standing in the sight of God. Men make advances in business and in
property only when they often examine their accounts, and know just how
they stand.
(b.) Because the observance of the Lord's Supper is a solemn act, and
there will be fearful results if it is celebrated in an improper
manner.
(c.) Because self-examination supposes seriousness and calmness,
and prevents precipitation and rashness--states of mind entirely
unfavourable to a proper observance of the Lord's Supper.
(d.) Because by self-examination one may search out and remove those
things that are offensive to God, and the sins which so easily beset us
may be known and abandoned.
(e.) Because the approach to the table of the Lord is a solemn approach
to the Lord himself; is a solemn profession of attachment to him; is an
act of consecration to his service in the presence of angels and of men;
and this should be done in a calm, deliberate, and sincere manner--such
a manner as may be the result of a prayerful and honest self-examination.
And so let him eat, etc. And as the result of such examination, or
after such an examination; that is, let the act of eating that bread be
always preceded by a solemn self-examination. Bloomfield renders it,
"and then," "then only." The sense is plain, that the communion should
always be preceded by an honest and prayerful self-examination.
{a} "examine himself" 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 John 3:20,21
Verse 29. For he that eateth, etc. In order to excite them to a deeper
reverence for this ordinance, and to a more solemn mode of observing
it, Paul in this verse states another consequence of partaking of it
in an improper and irreverent manner. Comp. 1 Corinthians 11:27.
Eateth and drinketh damnation. This is evidently a figurative
expression, meaning that by eating and drinking improperly he incurs
condemnation-which is here expressed by eating and drinking
condemnation itself. The word damnation we now apply, in common language,
exclusively to the future and final punishment of the wicked in hell.
But the word here used does not of necessity refer to that; and,
according to our use' of the word now, there is a harshness and
severity in our translation which the Greek does not require, and
which probably was not conveyed by the word "damnation" when the
translation was made. In the margin it is correctly rendered
"judgment." The word here used (\~krima\~) properly denotes
judgment; the result of judging, that is, a sentence; then a sentence
by which one is condemned, or condemnation; and then punishment. See
Romans 3:8; 13:2. It has evidently the sense of judgment here; and means
that, by their improper manner of observing this ordinance, they would
expose themselves to the Divine displeasure, and to punishment. And it
refers, I think, to the punishment or judgment which the apostle
immediately specifies, 1 Corinthians 11:30,32. It means a manifestation of
the Divine displeasure which might be evinced in this life; and which,
in the case of the Corinthians, was manifested in the judgments which
God had brought upon them. It cannot be denied, however, that a profane
and intentionally irreverent manner of observing the Lord's Supper
will meet with the Divine displeasure in the eternal world, and
aggravate the doom of those who are guilty of it. But it is clear
that this was not the punishment which the apostle had here in his
eye. This is apparent,
(1.) because the Corinthians did eat unworthily, and yet the
judgments inflicted on them were only temporal-that is, weakness,
sickness, and temporal death, (1 Corinthians 11:30;) and,
(2.) because the reason assigned for these judgments is, that
they might not be condemned with the wicked; i.e., as the wicked
are in hell, 1 Corinthians 11:32.--Whitby. Comp. 1 Peter 4:17.
Not discerning the Lord's body. Not discriminating \~mh diakrinwn\~
between the bread which is used on this occasion, and common and ordinary
food. Not making the proper difference and distinction between
this and common meals. It is evident that this was the leading
offence of the Corinthians, See Barnes "1 Corinthians 11:20,21" and this is
the proper idea which the original conveys. It does not refer to any
intellectual or physical power to perceive that that bread represented
the body of the Lord; not to any spiritual perception which it is
often supposed that piety has to distinguish this; not to any view
which faith may be supposed to have to discern the body of the
Lord through the elements; but to the fact that they did not
distinguish or discriminate between this and common meals. They did
not regard it in a proper manner, but supposed it to be simply an
historical commemoration of an event, such as they were in the
habit of observing in honour of an idol or a hero by a public
celebration. They, therefore, are able to "discern the Lord s body" in
the sense intended here, who with a serious mind regard it as an
institution appointed by the Lord Jesus to commemorate his death;
and who distinguish thus between this and ordinary meals, and all
festivals and feasts designed to commemorate other events. In
other words, who deem it to be designed to show forth the fact that
his body was broken for sill, and who desire to observe it as such.
It is evident that all true Christians may have ability of this kind,
and need not incur condemnation by any error in regard to this.
The humblest and obscurest follower of the Saviour, with the
feeblest faith and love, may regard it as designed to set forth the
death of his Redeemer; and observing it thus, will meet with the
Divine approbation.
{1} "drinketh damnation" "judgment" Romans 13:2
Verse 30. For this cause. On account of the improper manner of
celebrating the Lord's Supper. See 1 Corinthians 11:21.
Many are weak. \~asyeneiv\~. Evidently referring to prevailing bodily
sickness and disease. This is the natural and obvious interpretation of
this passage. The sense clearly is, that God had sent among them
bodily distempers as an expression of the Divine displeasure and
judgment for their improper mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper.
That it was not uncommon in those times for God in an extraordinary
manner to visit men with calamity, sickness, or death, for their sins,
is evident from the New Testament.
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 5:5"; See Barnes "Acts 5:1" and Acts 5:2-10.
See Barnes "Acts 13:11"; See Barnes "1 Timothy 1:20", and, perhaps,
See Barnes "1 John 5:16", and See Barnes "1 John 5:".
It may possibly have been the case, that the intemperance and gluttony
which prevailed on these occasions was the direct cause of no small part
of the bodily disease which prevailed, and which in some cases terminated
in death.
And many sleep. Have died. The death of Christians, in the
Scriptures, is commonly represented under the image of sleep,
Daniel 12:2; John 11:11,12; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 5:10. Perhaps it may be
implied by the use of this mild term here, instead of the harsher word
death, that these were true Christians. This sentiment is in
accordance with all that Paul states in regard to the church at Corinth.
Notwithstanding all their irregularities, he does not deny that they were
sincere Christians, and all his appeals and reasonings proceed on
that supposition, though there was among them much ignorance
and irregularity. God often visits his own people with trial; and
though they are his children, yet this does not exempt them from
affliction and discipline on account of their imperfections, errors, and
sins. The practical lesson taught by this is, that Christians should
serve God with purity; that they should avoid sin in every form;
and that the commission of sin will expose them, as well as others,
to the Divine displeasure. The reason why this judgment was
inflicted on the Corinthians was, that there might be a suitable
impression made of the holy nature of that ordinance, and that
Christians might be led to observe it in a proper manner. If it be asked
whether God ever visits his people now with his displeasure for their
improper manner of observing this ordinance, we may reply,
(1.) that we have no reason to suppose that he inflicts bodily
diseases and corporeal punishments on account of it. But,
(2.) there is no reason to doubt that the improper observance of the
Lord's Supper, like the improper observance of any other religious duty,
will be followed with the expression of God's displeasure, and with a
spiritual blighting on the soul. This may be evinced in the following
modes:
(a.) In hardening the heart by an improper familiarity with the most
sacred and solemn ordinances of religion.
(b.) Increased coldness and deadness in the service of God. If the
ordinances of the gospel are not the means of making us better, they
are the means of making us worse.
(c.) The loss of the favour of God, or of those pure, and spiritual,
and elevated joys which we might have obtained by a proper observance
of the ordinance. There is no reason to doubt that God may make it the
occasion of manifesting his displeasure. It may be followed by a
want of spiritual comfort and peace; by a loss of communion with God;
and by a withholding of those comforts from the soul which might
have been enjoyed, and which are imparted to those who observe it in a
proper manner. The general principle, is, that an improper discharge of
any duty will expose us to his displeasure, and to the certain loss of all
those favours which might have resulted from a proper discharge of the
duty, and to the tokens of the Divine displeasure. And this is as true
of prayer, or of any other religious duty, as of an improper observance
of the Lord's Supper.
{*} "sleep" "are dead"
Verse 31. For if we would judge ourselves. If we would examine
ourselves, (1 Corinthians 11:28;) if we would exercise a strict scrutiny over
our hearts, and feelings, and conduct, and come to the Lord's table with
a proper spirit, we should escape the condemnation to which they
are exposed who observe it in an improper manner. If we would
exercise proper severity and honesty in determining our own
character and fitness for the ordinance, we should not expose ourselves
to the Divine displeasure.
We should not be judged. We should not be exposed to the expression
of God's disapprobation. He refers here to the punishment which had
come upon the Corinthians for their improper manner of observing the
ordinance; and he says that if they had properly examined themselves,
and had understood the nature of the ordinance, that they would have
escaped the judgments that had come upon them. This is as true now as
it was then. If we wish to escape the Divine displeasure; if we wish
the communion to be followed with joy, and peace, and growth in grace,
and not with blighting and spiritual barrenness, we should exercise a
severe judgment on our character, and feelings, and motives; and should
come to it with a sincere desire to honour Christ, and to advance in
the Divine life.
{a} "we would judge" Psalms 32:5; 1 John 1:9
Verse 32. But when we are judged. This is added, evidently, to
console those who had been afflicted on account of their improper manner
of observing the Lord's Supper. The sense is, that though they
were thus afflicted by God; though he had manifested his displeasure at
the manner in which they had observed the ordinance, yet the Divine
judgment in the case was not inexorable. They were not regarded by God
as wholly strangers to piety, and would not be lost for ever. They should
not be alarmed, therefore, as if there was no mercy for them; but they
should rather regard their calamities as the chastening of the Lord on
his own children, and as designed for their salvation.
We are chastened of the Lord. It is his act; and it is not
vengeance and wrath; but it is to be regarded as the chastisement of a
father's hand, in order that We should not be condemned with the
wicked. We are under the discipline (\~paideuomeya\~) of the Lord; we are
dealt with as children, and are corrected as by the hand of a father.
Compare Hebrews 12:5-10; 2 Corinthians 6:9. The design of God's correcting his
children is, that they should be reclaimed, and not destroyed.
That we should not be condemned with the world. It is implied here,
(1.) that the world--those who were not Christians--would be condemned;
(2.) that Paul regarded the Corinthians, whom he addressed, and who had
even been guilty of this improper manner of observing the Lord's Supper,
and who had been punished for it, as true Christians; and,
(3.) that the purpose which God had in view in inflicting these
judgments on them was, that they might be purified, and enlightened,
and recovered from their errors, and saved. This is the design
of God in the calamities and judgments which he brings on his own
children. And so now, if he afflicts us, or leave us to darkness, or
follows the communion with the tokens of his displeasure, it is that we
may be recovered to a deeper sense of our need of him; to juster views
of the ordinance; and to a more earnest wish to obtain his favour.
{b} "we are chastened" Psalms 94:12,13; Hebrews 12:5-11
Verse 33. When ye come together to eat. Professedly to eat the Lord's
Supper.
Tarry one for another. Do not be guilty of disorder, intemperance,
and gluttony. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 11:21". Doddridge understands this of
the feast that he supposes to have preceded the Lord's Supper. But the
more obvious interpretation is, to refer it to the Lord's Supper itself;
and to enjoin perfect order, respect, and sobriety. The idea is, that
the table was common for the rich and the poor; and that the rich should
claim no priority or precedence over the poor.
{*} "tarry" "wait"
Verse 34. And if any man hunger, etc. The Lord's Supper is not a
common feast; it is not designed as a place where a man may gratify his
appetite. It is designed as a simple commemoration, and not as a
feast. This remark was designed to correct their views of the Supper,
and to show them that it was to be distinguished from the ordinary
idea of a feast or festival.
That ye come not together unto condemnation. That the effect of your
coming together for the observance of the Lord's Supper be not to produce
condemnation. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 11:29".
And the rest will I set in order, etc. Probably he refers here to
other matters on which he had been consulted; or other things which he
knew required to be adjusted. The other matters pertaining to the
order and discipline of the church I will defer until I can come among
you, and personally arrange them. It is evident from this, that Paul at
this time purposed soon to go to Corinth. See 2 Corinthians 1:15,16. It was
doubtless true that there might be many things which it was desirable
to adjust in the church there, which could not be so well done by
letter. The main things, therefore, which it was needful to correct
immediately, he had discussed in this letter; the other matters he
reserved to be arranged by himself when he should go among them. Paul
was disappointed in his expectations of returning among them as soon as
he had intended, (see 2 Corinthians 1:17,) and under this disappointment he
forwarded to them another epistle. If all Christians would follow
implicitly his directions here in regard to the Lord's Supper, it would
be an ordinance full of comfort. May all so understand its nature, and
so partake of it, that they shall meet the approbation of their Lord,
and so that it may be the means of saving grace to their souls.
{1} "unto condemnation" "judgment"
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP