Paul, in this chapter, says Calvin, “clears the public assemblies from certain corrupt observances, which were at variance with Christian decorum and propriety, and shows what gravity and modesty ought to be exercised when we stand in the view of God and angels. He takes them to task, however, chiefly for their corrupt administration of the [Lord’s] Supper. He subjoins the method of correcting the abuse that had crept in, which is by calling them back to our Lord’s original institution, as the only sure rule and permanent law of right acting.” In other words, worship time needed to be orderly and holy, and the Corinthians had neglected the importance thereof. This chapter includes some challenging, culturally relevant, Biblical instruction. Let’s take a look.
1Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
Propriety in Worship
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[1] just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[2] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
Paul urges the Corinthians again to follow his example in life (seeking the glory of God), but only so far as he imitates Christ. V1 fits with chapter 12 as an apt conclusion; the idea is that Paul lives out the teaching he issues to his audience. He takes v2 to thank the Corinthians for remembering him and obeying him. Perhaps there were some things they were doing well; maybe he’s thanking them ahead of time for obeying what he’s about to command! Whatever the case, he moves on to talk about orderly worship, which ends in 1 Corinthians 14:40, but begins here with headship (v3).
When Paul speaks of headship, the term is ambiguous and the context doesn’t help; it could mean leadership and authority, or it could mean source and origin (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:10,19). But the reason Paul includes v3 is to serve as the basis for his instruction in v4-10. Much has been made of the apparent bigotry of Paul in this passage, but the answer really is quite simple. Calvin says, “He reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum – which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists.” God has established an order for the roles of male and female to be exhibited in His perfect wisdom, and man in his worldly wisdom will never see the glory of God’s wisdom.
V4 acknowledges that men didn’t cover their heads in Paul’s day, though today, Jewish men do cover their heads. This Jewish tradition doesn’t go back to Biblical times; nonetheless, scholars are uncertain why this practice would dishonor Christ (v7). Calvin suggests that the man “is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house – for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon… Paul means nothing more than this – that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church… Paul requires nothing farther.”
In v5, women did cover their head (or wear their hair up) in Paul’s time. Numbers 5:18 suggests that loosing a woman’s hair reveals promiscuity (think of the effects on men of women’s shampoo commercials today). Likewise a short haircut made differences between the sexes disappear; it may have likened them to prostitutes. Some of the Corinthian women may have done this to show that cultural stereotypes didn’t apply to them in Christ, but Paul doesn’t let it go at that. Calvin notes, “As the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection – involving contempt of her husband.”
All things should be done out of respect for the Lord and out of love for one other – not out of “selfish ambition or vain conceit” (Philippians 2:3). In v7, Paul notes that man is the image of God; while woman is the glory of man. This is a compliment! Yet most haters of Paul claim this statement to be chauvinistic. Paul is noting the created order of man and woman, declaring that God made man in His image as the preeminent part of creation; He made woman out of man as the crowning jewel (Proverbs 12:4). She is the glory of man. In other words, she is the beautiful thing about humanity. She may be called by God to subject herself to man in terms of rank and rule, but she is no less valuable to God!
In v10, Paul adds, “because of the angels,” and many speculative opinions exist. Nevertheless, uncertainty abounds. Calvin thinks it’s simply a way to point out that many witnesses are aware when a woman fails to honor her place in God’s creation. Perhaps it had something to do with Corinthian culture and understanding. The “sign of authority” is basically some form of evidence that the woman is not striving to exalt herself over male leadership in the congregation’s worship service.
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.
Paul adds a bit of clarification for both sexes after his instruction in v1-10. V11-12 are noted to ensure both that man doesn’t abuse his place of authority over woman – remember that a leader in the church is meant to be the chief servant of the Body of Christ! – and that woman doesn’t become upset with her place of subjection and fail her see her great value in the plans of God. Male and female are both crucial, since God, from whom “everything comes” (v12), works in His creation through His creation.
Paul asks the Corinthians to think about the issue at hand in v13 when he says, “Judge for yourselves.” It’s meant to be a rhetorical question, as he elaborates on why your answer ought to be “No” in v14. He uses the word “nature,” meaning either God’s intentions or the common practice of the day for the Greeks; perhaps it wasn’t always the case that hair lengths for men were intended to be short. Calvin notes, “Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair… It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome – about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned all unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate.” A woman’s long hair, like a veil, is, and perhaps always has been, a natural sign of femininity and/or purity.
Some commentators say this is the most difficult part of all of Paul’s writings, and he concludes it with v16. Calvin says, “A ‘contentious’ person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs – raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful – who do not yield to reasonings – who cannot endure that any one should be above them. Of this description, also, are those would be singular persons áêïéíùíôïòwho, from a foolish affectation, aim at some new and unusual way of acting. Such persons Paul does not reckon worthy of being replied to, inasmuch as contention is a pernicious thing, and ought, therefore, to be banished from the Churches. By this he teaches us, that those that are obstinate and fond of quarrelling, should rather be restrained by authority than confuted by lengthened disputations. For you will never have an end of contentions, if you are disposed to contend with a combative person until you have vanquished him; for though vanquished a hundred times, he would argue still. Let us therefore carefully mark this passage, that we may not allow ourselves to be carried away with needless disputations, provided at the same time we know how to distinguish contentious persons. For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church.”
The Lord's Supper
17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Now in v17, compared to v2, Paul rebukes his audience seriously (their “meetings do more harm than good”) regarding their worship patterns; in regards to head coverings (v3-16), they acted in ignorance, but in the case of the Lord’s Supper and unity in worship, they should have known better than to behave as they did. And interestingly but not surprisingly, as Calvin points out, when the children of God fail to produce fruit from that which is intended to produce fruit (community worship, prayer, and the sacraments are means of grace), God “employs this method of punishing our carelessness – that we are made worse by them.” God often punishes sinful behavior with the downward-spiraling effects of sinful behavior.
In v19, Paul is either using sarcasm to show the Corinthians their folly in arguing, or he acknowledges that, ironically and providentially, God uses sin to advance His purposes in the world. Paul uses “divisions” (v18) and “differences” (v19) to point to “disorder,” and he’s speaking of false thinking; it’s likely that silent accusations were being made against one group to advance the pride of another group. But these things were a necessity; the Greek word (dei) speaks of inevitability and compulsion, even for the sake of goodness. For example, in Matthew 16:21, we read that Jesus had to go to Jerusalem and suffer many things. And this seems bad – but it’s good. The same is true in Matthew 24:6, in the Olivet Discourse, when Jesus speaks of terrible things that must come to pass before the end, which is, of course, an ultimate good. Even young Jesus used the word to explain His presence in the Temple when Mary and Joseph didn’t know where He was. “‘Why were you searching for me?’ He asked. ‘Didn’t you know I had to be about my Father’s business?’” It seemed a bad thing to His parents, but it was a really good thing. So back here in this passage, Paul is saying that it was totally necessary that some of the Corinthians engage in false thinking, such that divisions would arise in the congregation, and that the result is a good thing. And that might be hard for you to say; but Paul said it clearly here. He’s thinking right in line with James 1:2-4, “Consider pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” One commentator concludes, “What is being said by the inspiration of the Spirit here is that these schisms will be inevitable because false teachers will infiltrate the church and it will prove those who are My approved, those who have been tried in the fire and come forth as gold.”
In v20, we see that the Corinthians’ Lord’s Supper time had morphed into divisive selfishness rather than unity building communion (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). Paul might say, “It’s better not to do it at all if you’re not going to do it right!” Apparently (v21), the wealthy Corinthians didn’t share with the poorer church community, leaving some humiliated and others appearing selfish and arrogant. It’s much more serious than this. We don’t get the seriousness of the violation, because we don’t celebrate the Lord’s Supper the same way they did. But most likely, the Corinthian culture of “eating when you’re ready” prevailed over the instructions of “eating together” that Paul had given. (There’s probably a tie to the idea of “love feasts” (Jude 1:12). Calvin quotes Chrysostom on this as saying, “While the rich had been accustomed (at first) to bring with them from their houses the means of feasting with the poor indiscriminately and in common, they afterwards began to exclude the poor, and to guzzle over their delicacies by themselves.” Then Calvin continues, “And, certainly, it appears from Tertullian, that that custom was a very ancient one.”)
“Warren Wiersbe in his commentary tells the story of when he was at a Sunday School picnic, they began to play a relay game – you throw eggs to one another, and each time you catch an egg you step back another step, until the further you get away the harder you have to throw the egg, and then inevitably it becomes hilarious as the eggs crack over people. However, as they were playing this in all the hilarity and fun, some of the folk noticed two Sunday School pupils who were standing at the sidelines with their mouths agape and their eyes popping out of their sockets, absolutely fascinated. When they thought about it for a moment they realized that they came from a poor family, and they probably rarely ever ate an egg, let alone threw them at one another. The little girl went over to the lady who was leading the games and asked: ‘If there are any eggs left over, can my brother and I take them home?.’ Wisely, the lady stopped the game before it was really over, and awarded the prizes, and gave all the eggs to the two children, because she knew – this is what we need to know, and the Corinthians needed to know – that it is wrong for some of the saints to have a good time at the expense of others!”
Paul refuses to praise them for this, but rather sets them straight; the Lord’s Supper was not intended to be mixed up with irreverent, common feasting (v23-25; compare Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22;25; Luke 22:17-20). Paul hasn’t, and doesn’t now, create a new method or purpose for celebrating communion; rather, he merely passed on what the Lord instructed – to do this, take and eat bread and drink from the cup, in remembrance of Him, for in the “Eucharist,” which means “thanksgiving,” we are proclaiming His death as our substitutionary atoning sacrifice. We are to keep celebrating the Lord’s Supper, reverently and with thanksgiving, remembering His death for us due to our sinful state, until He comes again; we look backward and forward. In this instruction, Paul connects preaching the gospel (v26) to celebrating the Lord’s Supper, which is a tangible demonstration of our hope in Christ, that He gave Himself up for us, shedding His blood for our sin. Much more could be said here regarding different views of communion (transubstantiation / consubstantiation / frequency, method, etc.), but we’ll move on for now.
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
33So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.
Calvin says of v27, “If the Lord requires gratitude from us in the receiving of this sacrament – if He would have us acknowledge His grace with the heart, and publish it with the mouth – that man will not go unpunished, who has put insult upon Him rather than honor; for the Lord will not allow His commandment to be despised.” In other words, if we partake of this sacrament lacking reverence, humility, and thankfulness, “in an unworthy manner,” without examining ourselves, then we “will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” By renewing the knowledge of your unworthiness, you actually show yourself worthy. Before taking the Eucharist, Catholics will often declare, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” We look inward; this is the right frame of mind.
At the nursing home I visit regularly, I distribute the communion elements to all who want them, but only after explaining what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. Even still, I’ve had a number of people decide not to partake, perhaps recognizing their pride and the danger of partaking in such a state of mind; I’ve also had people partake and then come to me afterwards gravely concerned that they had committed a terrible act by eating and drinking. We usually conclude that if you’re concerned about it, then you probably haven’t proven yourself unworthy in the way Paul notes here. Similar to the sin of blasphemy against the sin, that unforgivable sin, if you are concerned about your guilt and repent, then you assuredly haven’t committed the unforgivable sin. It’s those who show irreverence and lack of concern that reveal their guilt and unworthiness.
We must also look outward and recognize “the body of the Lord” as we partake of the elements. We are part of the Body of Christ, and the rest of our congregation is part of that same Body; we must be truly united, unified, to share communion together. Some of the Corinthian brethren weren’t doing that properly, and their punishment was seen, according to Paul, in their sickness and death. (Sometimes God’s rebuke is seen this way; other times, in other ways, or maybe not in that time or context, but it’s there.) Augustine considered that perhaps they were partaking of the bread of the Lord without partaking of the Bread – the Lord. Another commentator notes, “Because some of the believers in Corinth were celebrating the Supper in a way that destroyed the unity it represents, God had brought judgment upon the community. God’s purpose in judging these believers, however, was to prevent them from being ‘condemned with the world’ (v32).”
Paul closes out the chapter by stating the intent of his impending visit – to “give further directions” (v34). He has laid out important truths regarding the Lord’s Supper, coming, as Calvin declares, “to this conclusion, that equality must be observed in the Lord’s Supper, that there may be a real participation, as there ought to be, and that they may not celebrate every one his own supper; and farther, that this sacrament ought not to be mixed up with common feasts.” But there’s more to say; it will just have to wait for Paul’s personal visit.
Footnotes
- 11:2 Or traditions
- 11:4-7 Or 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering on her head dishonors her head--she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair
Bible text from Gospelcom.net. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.