|  Home  |  New Testament Studies  |  Corinthians Table of Contents  |  Previous Section  |  Next Section  |

÷÷1 CORINTHIANS 11

1 CORINTHIANS 11

PARAGRAPH DIVISIONS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS

READING CYCLE THREE (see "Bible Interpretation Seminar")

FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S INTENT AT PARAGRAPH LEVEL

This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

Read the chapter in one sitting. Identify the subjects (reading cycle #3). Compare your subject divisions with the five translations above. Paragraphing is not inspired, but it is the key to following the original author's intent, which is the heart of interpretation. Every paragraph has one and only one subject.

CONTEXTUAL INSIGHTS TO 11:2-34

1. Chapters 11 through 14 deal with matters of the gathered house churches. These chapters form a unified literary unit on guidelines for gathered worship.
   1. men's and women's attire and actions (1 Cor. 11:2-16)
   2. observance of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34)
   3. the exercise of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12-14)
   
   
2. When I say "gathered worship" there are two possible settings.
   1. small groups meeting regularly in houses throughout Corinth, some in wealthy neighborhoods, some in ethnic quarters, some in slave quarters
   2. periodically (exact time frame uncertain) these small house churches gathered together for a city-wide worship event (i.e., the agapē meal in combination with the celebration of the Eucharist, cf. Jude v. 12)
   3. whether there is a different set of protocols for the house churches vs. the large gathered event is uncertain, but this seems to be the implication when 11:4 is compared to 14:34 (i.e., the participation of women)
   
   
3. There have been several ways to understand 1 Cor. 11:2-16.
   1. This context primarily deals with proper decorum (cf. 1 Cor. 11:13) in gathered worship, not the relationship between men and women (cf. 1 Cor. 11:11-12).
   2. This context deals with the new freedom in Christ which the Roman men and women in the church at Corinth were using to flaunt their social status (men) and independence from tradition and culture (women).
   3. This context deals with the initial creation's relationship between husbands and wives (cf. Eph. 5:22-31; 1 Tim. 2:9-15). The proper relationship is based on Genesis 2-3, which shows
      1. the original mutuality between men and women (Genesis 1-2)
      2. the priority of men because of the rebellion of Eve (Genesis 3)
   4. Paul's discussion of head coverings is not limited to women, but is also addressed to men. As usual in Corinth the problem is from two directions. As a sign of their elite social status some men were covering their heads when they led in gathered worship as they had done in paganism. As a sign of their social emancipation women were removing their marriage veils when they led in gathered worship (see Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, pp. 121-141). This text uniquely suits Roman Corinth. In Jewish life and Greek life women did not normally wear head coverings.
       It seems that this ambiguous context is open to multiple interpretations. These interpretations say more about the interpreter's biases than Paul's intent. A text which has been and can be understood in so many ways by sincere believers must surely not be used in a definitive, dogmatic way to restrict or advocate the place and function of women in the church or the relationship between men and women in all ages and cultures. It amazes me that some believers relegate the chapter 11 discussion of head coverings for men and women to a cultural issue (even though Paul appeals to Genesis 1-3), while at the same time, demanding Paul's limits on women in church as a principle for all ages (i.e., 1 Cor. 14:34). It is this lack of consistency that causes so much trouble in interpretation. The best brief discussion of this complicated and emotional issue is in
      1. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Fee and Stuart, pp. 61-77
      2. Gospel and Spirit, by Gordon Fee, pp. 56-76
      3. My Special Topics:
          (1)  WOMEN IN THE BIBLE
          (2)  WOMEN IN MINISTRY
          (3)  WOMEN KEEP SILENT
          (4)  WOMEN MINISTERS
   
   
4. This chapter helps us see that some theological symbols and privileges must be limited or expanded in relationship to the culture in which the mature Christian finds himself/herself. Books that have helped me in this area are
   1. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read the Bible For All Its Worth, pp. 71-89
   2. F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, pp. 94-96
   3. Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp. 599-608
   
   
5. This is the earliest written account of the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Communion. The Gospel accounts were written decades after Paul's letter.
   
   
6. The purposes of the Lord's Supper
   1. unity and fellowship of the church
   2. expression of Jesus' presence
   3. expression of Jesus' historical sacrifice
   4. expression of our new relationship to God through Christ
   5. an act of proclaiming the past event and the future coming of Christ
   6. a serious act of worship (i.e., vv. 27-30)
   
   
7. This context is turned into a sacrament by many denominations. But, what usually happens is that the words of Jesus from John 6 are read into this context. John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, which was initiated years later.

  SPECIAL TOPIC: THE LORD'S SUPPER IN JOHN 6

WORD AND PHRASE STUDY

÷1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16
  ²Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. ³ But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. ⁴Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. ⁵But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. ⁶For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. ⁷For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ⁸For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; ⁹for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. ¹⁰Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ¹¹However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹²For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. ¹³Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, ¹⁵but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. ¹⁶But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

11:1 This verse should go with chapter 10. Remember that chapter divisions and verse divisions of our modern Bibles were done many centuries later.

11:2 In light of the previous chapters, one wonders if this verse is irony or sarcasm. This church was not remembering Paul's words and was not following his teaching (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17,22).

It is possible that this is another question that the church wrote to Paul about. However, it does not have peri de ("now concerning. . .", cf. 1 Cor. 7:1,25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1,12; and possibly 15:1).

This is a PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE. Believers are to continue to cling to the truths that Paul preached (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). This call to individual, volitional action is the covenantal balance to divine election.

The term "traditions" (pardosis) is used in several senses:

1. in 1 Cor. 11:2,23; 15:3 for gospel truths
2. in Matt. 15:6; 23:1ff; Mark 7:8; Gal. 1:14 of Jewish traditions
3. in Col. 2:6-8 of Gnostic speculations
4. Roman Catholics (Eastern and Russian Orthodox) use this verse as a biblical proof-text for Scripture and church traditions being equal in authority
5. in this context it refers to Apostolic truth, either spoken or written (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6)

SPECIAL TOPIC: KEEP

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT

▣ "to the traditions" Much of the information about Jesus from eyewitness sources was passed orally from individual to individual until it was written down some 30 to 60 years after His death.

The term "traditions" was used of Christian truths being passed from one person to another (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3).

▣ "just as I delivered them to you" There is a Greek wordplay between "traditions" (paradoseis) and "delivered" (paredōka), which are both forms of paradidōmi. Paul was not the originator, but simply a link in the chain of revelation.

Paul received information about the gospel from several sources.

1. Stephen's sermon (cf. Acts 7)
2. Christians he persecuted (cf. Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2; 22:4,19)
3. Ananias (cf. Acts 9:10-18)
4. His time in Arabia with Christ (cf. Gal. 1:11-17)
5. His time in Jerusalem with Peter and James (cf. Gal. 1:18-19)
6. Barnabas (cf. Acts 9:20-27; 11:25-26)

11:3 "Christ is the head" In his commentary 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 103, F. F. Bruce asserts that in this context kephalē follows the Hebrew rosh in the sense of origin or source. This connotation of kephalē is not documented in the Greek Lexicons by:

1. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker
2. Moulton, Milligan
3. Louw, Nida
4. Moulton

This shows how the context (i.e., 1 Corinthians 11) determines the definition, not a dictionary. In this context "source" or "origin" fits best in 1 Cor. 11:3 in relation to Gen. 1:26-27; 2:18 (cf. Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, and Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp. 599-602).

Jesus was the Father's agent in creation (cf. John 1:3,10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). Humans, male and female, were created by Him, in His image (i.e., Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6). However, the Son is submissive to the Father (cf. 1 Cor. 3:23; 11:2; 15:28). This appropriate submission extends to men and women. They are both created in the image of God (cf. Gen. 1:26-27), but there is a chronological order, man first, then woman (cf. Gen. 2:18). This is related to function (at least in a patriarchal system), but not inequality!

SPECIAL TOPIC: HEAD (kephalē)

SPECIAL TOPIC: WOMEN IN THE BIBLE

▣ "man is the head of a woman" The terms "man" and "woman" can mean husband and wife (cf. Peshitta, NRSV, TEV). In this context this is not the intended emphasis, but the order of creation reflected in Genesis 2.

▣ "and God is the head of Christ" This doctrinal affirmation is a repeated truth in 1 Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 3:23; 11:3; 15:28; also note Eph. 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19). The order within the Trinity has nothing to do with inequality, but is a division of function. This truth can also be implied from the discussion of male and female. Mutuality was surely the model before the Fall in Genesis 3. This mutuality is reinstated in believers' restored relationship with the Father through the Son (i.e., Jesus has restored the image in both male and female believers). See Discovering Biblical Equality, IVP, Academic, 2005.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE TRINITY

This is a word play on "head." The second use of the word "head" refers to Christ (cf. TEV). Paul is dealing with a Roman culture whose forms and symbols are exactly opposite of Jewish culture (i.e., men cover their heads). The real issue is not who covers whose head, but the symbol of (1) origin or (2) submission, which are both theologically significant.

It has been suggested that the historical situation in Corinth:

1. the social, political, and financial leaders led worship with a head covering to differentiate themselves from the common man
2. that Jews in the synagogue in Corinth had women wear a veil and believing Jews expected the same in the church

There is a theological tension between this verse, which seems to affirm women in leadership roles in public worship with the socially acceptable covering compared to 1 Cor. 14:34-35, where women (or at least "wives," 1 Cor. 14:35) are forbidden to speak in church.

Some groups prooftext chapter 11, while others use prooftext chapter 14. It must be admitted that the key to this passage is the first century cultural setting of Corinth, but which specific aspect is not clear to us today. The first century church knew of women's leadership in the OT and was aware of Paul's use of women in his ministry (cf. Romans 16). They understood the issue in Corinth and the Roman culture as we do not. Dogmatism is inappropriate!

A recent book, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change, by Bruce W. Winter, pp. 121-141, offers some very helpful insights from Roman literature and art. This and other articles

1. E. Fantham, "The 'New Woman': Representation and Reality," in Women in the Classical World, chapter 10
2. P. W. J. Gill, "The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16," TynB 41.2 (1990): pp. 245-260
3. "In Search of the Social Elite in the Corinthian Church," TynB 44.2 (1993): pp. 323-337)
4. Michael D. Marlowe, Headcovering Customs of the Ancient World, online (i.e., "Bible Research" website). This is a very helpful technical discussion of Jewish, Greek, and Roman customs of the first century Meditarranean world.

show modern interpreters how first century Corinth was Roman, not Greek, in culture.

With these new documented insights from first century Roman Corinth, it is possible to begin to see the cultural issues Paul faced in this book.

1. Paul is not addressing Jewish culture nor Greek culture at all in this context (see Introduction to 1 Corinthians, II).
2. Paul is addressing two groups with elite social status.
   1. Wealthy, socially elite, male believers were showing off their positions by covering their heads while leading public worship, as was customary for this social class, while leading civic Greco-Roman religious worship. They were flaunting themselves.
   2. The wealthy, elite wives were removing their culturally expected veil to flaunt their equality, not only in Christ, but also as a social statement, as were other Roman women of the period.
3. The citizens of Roman Corinth, who were curious about the Christian faith and worship practices, would send a "messenger" (i.e., angels of 1 Cor. 11:10 may refer to servants or representatives sent on behalf of masters) to check out the meeting. The Hebrew and Greek words for angels and messengers are the same.

This historical/cultural/social information makes good sense of a very difficult and disputed text. It also fits other texts in 1 Corinthians, which obviously reflect a unique first century Roman setting!

SPECIAL TOPIC: WOMEN IN THE BIBLE

SPECIAL TOPIC: WOMEN IN MINISTRY

11:5 "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying" This implies strongly that with her head covered she may pray and prophesy in public meetings. The term "prophesying" in the Corinthian letters means "sharing the gospel" or "preaching publicly" (cf. 1 Cor. 14:39). Verses 4 and 5 are parallel relating to what men and women do while participating in group worship (in this context, a large gathered worship setting).

SPECIAL TOPIC: VEIL, SHAWL, COVERING

SPECIAL TOPIC: PROPHECY (NT), II. E., F.

▣ "disgraces her head" Corinth was a Roman colony and reflected Roman culture. Roman women were marriageable in their early teens. The veil was a cultural aspect of the marriage service. It was expected to be worn outside the home by Roman women. Its absence would be seen as

1. a shamed woman
2. a prostitute (see note at Exod. 38:14)
3. a dominant lesbian partner
4. a "new" woman (i.e., a social movement of equality and freedom active among Roman society in the first century)

A woman flaunting herself in this manner would have publicly shamed her husband and given the wrong impression about the church to visitors and the community. Christ makes males and females free, but each has an obligation to limit freedom for the cause of Christ. Women and men, wives and husbands who are believers are called on to live for the health and growth of the Kingdom with the social expectations of the culture in which they live! This is the theme of 1 Corinthians 8-10 (esp. 10:33-11:1) and is continued in chapter 11.

▣ "she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved" This is a PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE. There are several possibilities for understanding this phrase.

1. it refers to the common attire of local prostitutes
2. it is a cultural act of an adulterous woman's public shaming
3. it was a cultural marker in the Mediterranean world for temple followers of the "Mystery Religions"
4. it refers to the culturally unexpected act of Christian women cutting their hair extremely short to show their new freedom (i.e., a cultural trend in first century Rome and its colonies)

In many commentaries option #1 is stressed. It is asserted that this must refer to the temple prostitutes of the temple of Diana. However, this temple on the Acropolis was destroyed by an earthquake 150 years before Paul's time and there is no historical evidence that it still functioned. There is also no evidence that prostitutes in Greece shaved their heads.

The key question is "What topic is Paul is addressing?"

1. appropriate or culturally expected worship attire and actions
2. abuse of personal freedoms
3. the appropriate relationship between
   1. men and women
   2. husbands and wives
   3. angels and women (1 Cor. 11:10)
   4. culture and women (1 Cor. 11:13)

I have come to understand #1 as the best option, addressing both husbands and wives not being led by their new freedom in Christ, but by their dogged refusal to put aside their cultural privileges and work toward the unity, growth, and reputation of the church.

11:6 "if. . .if" There are two FIRST CLASS CONDITIONAL PHRASES in this verse which are assumed to be true from the author's perspective or for his literary purpose. There were Christian women in the church who refused to cover their heads, but still wanted to be active in gathered worship. It was socially unacceptable. Believers must limit their new freedoms in Christ for

1. the weaker ones within the church (cf. Rom. 14:1-15:13)
2. the cultural expectation of the society the church is seeking to evangelize and incorporate

SPECIAL TOPIC: GREEK GRAMMATICAL TERMS, VII.

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHRISTIAN FREEDOM vs. CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY

Historical data on the use of face coverings (i.e., veils) or shoulder-length head coverings by ancient Mediterranean people is very helpful. I have documented the latest evidence in the notes at 1 Cor. 11:4. Roman women who were married, not widowed, and not a prostitute, were culturally expected to wear a veil in public as a sign that they were married. There were very few single women in the ancient Mediterranean world.

In Jewish culture the facial veil was used as a sign of

1. marriage, Gen. 24:65
2. prostitution, Gen. 38:14-15
3. leprosy, Lev. 13:45
4. mourning for the dead, Ezek. 24:17,22
5. embarrassment, Micah 3:7

However, remember Paul is not referring to Jewish culture at all because in that culture men, not women, cover their heads in worship.

SPECIAL TOPIC: VEIL, SHAWL, COVERING

▣ "let her also have her hair cut off" This is an AORIST MIDDLE IMPERATIVE. This is not meant to be taken literally. Paul is not advocating a public shaming of Christian women, but he is asserting the cultural consequences for inappropriate activity!

▣ "let her cover her head" This is a PRESENT MIDDLE IMPERATIVE. Christian women, for Christ's sake, conform to the expected culture in order to reach people for salvation and church membership. The forms will change from culture to culture and age to age! The goal remains the same (evangelism and discipleship, cf. Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; 1 Cor. 9:19-23).

11:7 "he is the image and glory of God" This refers to Gen. 1:26-27, yet in the context the word "man" is generic. Theologically it is uncertain exactly to what "image and likeness" in Gen. 1:26-27 refers. Most scholars would relate them to personality, self-consciousness, moral perspective, ability to choose, ability to relate to other "selves." There is an obvious mutuality between men and women in both Gen. 1:26-27 and 2:18. The problem comes in Gen. 3:16!

Notice Paul exchanges "likeness" in Gen. 1:26-27 with "glory."

SPECIAL TOPIC: WOMEN IN THE BIBLE

SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (doxa)

The term "originate" is not in the Greek text. It is only the PREPOSITION ek (i.e., out of), as is 1 Cor. 11:12. Paul is asserting

1. the order of creation in 1 Cor. 11:7 and 9 from Genesis 2 (i.e., Adam first, then Eve)
2. in 1 Cor. 11:8-9,11, Paul asserts their mutual dependance (which alludes to Gen. 1:27 and 2:18)

11:9 "man was not created for the woman's sake" This is an allusion to Genesis 2. We must remember that Paul's statement in Gal. 3:28 on the equality of women does not minimize the created distinctions between the sexes, at least in this age. The full equality of men and women in Christ does not automatically remove all cultural/traditional role expectations. Believers (male and female) do not flaunt personal freedoms, which may damage the reputation of the church among the unbelieving culture. Mature believers limit their freedom in Christ for the sake of His Kingdom. Believers have a corporate responsibility to

1. the body of Christ (health of the Body)
2. the unbelieving community (growth of the Body)

11:10 "Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head" This text, as all the others in this context, can be understood in several ways. The key issue is what does "authority" (i.e., exousia; see SPECIAL TOPIC: AUTHORITY) represent?

It should be noted that exousia is often related to dunamis. Otto Betz has an interesting article on exousia in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, pp. 606-611. Here are five examples.

"It is characteristic for the NT that exousia and dunamis are both related to the work of Christ, the consequent new ordering of cosmic power-structures and the empowering of believers" (p. 609).

"The exousia of believers. The authority of a Christian believer is founded on the rule of Christ and on the disarming of all powers. It implies both freedom and service" (p. 611).

"He is free to do anything (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23 exestin); this assertion, which was made initially by the sectarian enthusiasts at Corinth, was taken up by Paul who acknowledged it to be correct" (p. 611).

"In practice, however, this theoretically unrestricted freedom is governed by consideration of what is helpful to other individual Christians and the congregation as a whole in view of the fact that complete redemption is still to come (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23)" (p. 611).

"'All things are lawful [exestin] for me,' but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful [exestin],' but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor" (1 Cor. 10:23ff). The quotation within these quotations are probably the slogans of the libertines at Corinth. Paul counters them by admitting their truth, but by showing that it is not the whole truth" (p. 611).

Paul uses these two terms often in his letters to the church at Corinth.

1. exousia, 1 Cor. 7:37; 9:4,5,6,12 (twice),18; 11:10; 2 Cor. 13:10
2. dunamis, 1 Cor. 1:18; 2:4,5; 4:19,20; 5:4; 15:24,43; 2 Cor. 4:7; 6:7; 8:3 (twice); 12:9; 13:4 (twice)

Rights and power were major issues for both the legalists and the libertines. Paul tries to walk a fine line between both extremes. In this context Christian women are encouraged to accept the God-given order of creation (i.e., Christ-man-woman) for the purpose of the furtherance of the Kingdom. Paul asserts the original mutuality (cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 2:18) in verses 11-12. It is very theologically dangerous to

1. isolate one verse in this context
2. apply a rigid systematic denominational grid on the issue of the relationship of men and women/husbands and wives of the first century to every culture in every century
3. to miss Paul's balance between Christian freedom and Christian corporate covenant responsibility (see SPECIAL TOPIC: CHRISTIAN FREEDOM vs. CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY)

Where did Christian women get the freedom to participate as a leader in gathered (i.e., house-church) worship? Surely not from the synagogue. Was it a cultural trend from first century Roman society (see full note at v. 4)? This is surely possible and in my opinion helps explain many aspects of this chapter. However, it is also possible that the power of the gospel, the restoration of the original "image of God" lost in the Fall, is the source. There is a shocking new equality in all areas of human life and society. But this equality can be turned into a license for personal abuse. This inappropriate extension is what Paul is addressing.

F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, has really helped me think through many of the controversial issues related to the church traditions of modern western Christianity. As an exegete I had always thought that women's covering was meant to show God's giftedness (or the co-equality of Gen. 1:26,27), not her husband's authority. However, I could not find this interpretation among the biblical resources that I use, therefore, I was reluctant to put it in the commentaries or preach/teach it. I still remember the excitement and freedom I felt when F. F. Bruce thought the same thing (see Answers to Questions, p. 95). I think all believers are called, full-time, gifted ministers of Christ (i.e., Eph. 4:11-12)!

It is interesting that the early church interpreted this "authority" as a "veil" (i.e., kalumma, see SPECIAL TOPIC: VEIL, SHAWL, COVERING). This imterpretation is given in explanatory notes in the margin of

1. Coptic translation
2. Ethiopian translation
3. the writings of the Letters to Irenaeus
4. Tertullian's writings
5. Augustine's writings

See full notes in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 562.

▣ "because of the angels" There are three lines of interpretation of this passage that relate to angels.

1. that the reference is to angels as representatives of God that are present in Christian worship services as observers, 1 Cor. 4:9; 1 Tim. 5:21; Ps. 138:1; and also the Dead Sea Scrolls
2. that these are evil angels with sexual desires similar to the angels in Gen. 6:2; 2 Pet. 2:4; and Jude 6; angels are mentioned often in 1 Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9; 6:3; 11:10; 13:1)
3. translate aňgelous as "messengers" instead of "angels"

The terms for messenger and angel are the same in both Hebrew (i.e., malak) and Greek (i.e., aňgelos). This theory is based on first century social customs (cf. Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, pp. 133-138). A person of status would not visit a house church without sending someone to check out the meeting first. This makes more sense than trying to link 1 Cor. 11:10 to lustful angels or angels concerned with appropriate decorum (cf. Ps. 138:1) in gathered worship.

SPECIAL TOPIC: "the sons of God" IN GENESIS 6

11:11-12 "in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman" These verses emphasize the mutuality between men and women.

1. male and female both created in the image and likeness of God, Gen. 1:26-27
2. women created as a "help mate" or "helper suitable for him," Gen. 2:18
3. in Christ no racial or gender barriers exist, Gal. 3:27-29

This freedom (i.e., return to the initial creation model of Gen. 1:26-27) must be expressed in appropriate ways within one's fallen culture. There is no doubting Paul's affirmation of Jesus' redemption totally changing every believer's status! We are all one in Christ. Our goal now is helping our fallen family, neighbors, and citizens find this same redemption. There are still societal issues in every culture. Because believers can, does not mean believers should (cf. Rom. 14:1-15:13; 1 Corinthians 8-10; 13)!

11:12 The use of "from" (i.e., ek, literally "out of") in this context (twice) seems to reinforce the use of "head" as "origin." Woman is out of man; man is out of God. The Genesis narrative also provides the basis for "head" as a proper order of creation. Both freedom in Christ and submission (cf. Eph. 5:21) are appropriate when the good of the church is the ultimate goal.

SPECIAL TOPIC: MALE HEADSHIP

SPECIAL TOPIC: SUBMISSION

11:13-15 "Judge for yourselves. . ." Paul uses this same approach in 1 Cor. 10:15 where it could be sarcastic, based on his use of "wise men" (cf. 1 Cor. 4:10; 2 Cor. 11:10). Here, it does not seem sarcastic but rather used in the sense of "thinking culturally." Paul uses Corinthian/Greco-Roman/first century etiquette.

1. Married women should be veiled in public or in worship acts (1 Cor. 11:13; see SPECIAL TOPIC: VEIL, SHAWL, COVERING).
2. Young men in Corinth cut their long hair at the transition to manhood (i.e., at ten years old). To keep the long hair was a cultural sign of femininity or homosexuality (1 Cor. 11:14; see SPECIAL TOPIC: HOMOSEXUALITY).
3. Women with short hair were identified as either
   1. one who had been publicly shamed (i.e., judgment for immoral act)
   2. a prostitute (1 Cor. 11:15)

These are not spiritual insights nor biblical insights (i.e., they do not fit Jewish customs), but cultural insights.

11:13 "yourselves" This is EMPHATIC.

11:14-15 "if. . .if" These are both THIRD CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCES, which speak of potential action.

Different English translations punctuate these verses as

1. question(s) (i.e., NRSV, NJB)
2. statements (i.e., NASB, TEV)
3. or one question and one statement (i.e., NKJV)

The PARTICLE denoting a question in 1 Cor. 11:14 indicates a question that expects a "yes" answer.

11:16 "if" This is a FIRST CLASS CONDITIONAL which is assumed to be true from the author's perspective or for his literary purposes. There were contentious Christians in the church at Corinth.

SPECIAL TOPIC: GREEK GRAMMATICAL TERMS, VII

The VERB is a PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE, which implies continual action. This contentiousness is a continuing attitude for them. They love strife and contention!

The term "contentious" is a compound of philos (i.e., love) and veikos (i.e., strife). It is used of the Apostles at the Last Supper in Luke 22:24.

▣ "we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God"  Paul is not giving this church something special (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33). This church was glorying in its wisdom and freedom. They thought they had the right to live differently from other Pauline churches. Paul asserts they do not!

▣ "church" See SPECIAL TOPIC: CHURCH (ekklēsia)

÷1 CORINTHIANS 11:17-22

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1 CORINTHIANS 11:17-22
  ¹⁷But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. ¹⁸For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. ¹⁹For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. ²⁰Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, ²¹for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. ²²What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

11:17 Paul is starting a new subject, but the prideful attitudes of some Corinthian believers are still in focus. The subject changes, but the basic problem does not change.

1. their elitism
2. their emphasis on personal freedom
3. their assumption of wisdom

All of the subjects Paul addresses (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1,25; 8:1; 16:1), which were sent to him by letter from the church, revolve around these same issues.

Even their collective love feast (cf. Jude 1:12) was turned into a "more for me" feast! Right, ability, and status superceded love, service, and the health of the Body.

▣ "I do not praise you" Paul has affirmed them in 1 Cor. 11:2, but in this area he can only scold them.

▣ "come together" This is the Greek compound term sunerchomai. Paul is very fond of sun compounds. The PREPOSITION basically means "together with." This term expresses the same idea as synagogue, which refers to the collective meeting of believers (cf. Heb. 10:25). 1 Corinthians 11-14 deals with gathered worship (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17,18,20,33,34; 14:23,26).

I wonder how this "coming together" worked. There apparently were several different house churches in Corinth, possibly the source of some of the factious groups. Does Paul imply here that all the house churches met jointly for the Lord's Supper? It seems so.

11:18 "in the first place" This phrase can be understood in two ways.

1. of first importance (NKJV)
2. the first of two or more issues, however, there is no mention of a "second," etc. in the context
3. the same grammatical feature is found in Rom. 1:8

▣ "divisions exist among you" The term, "divisions" (i.e., schisma), is from the English word schism. Its basic etymology is "to split" (cf. Matt. 27:51). It was used of groups dividing over an issue (cf. John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19; Acts 14:4; 23:7; 1 Cor. 1:10; 11:18). These divisions are first mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:10-17 and 3:3-4, but their presence is assumed throughout the book. In this context the division is not over leaders, but is characterized by socio-economic factors. This may define the factions as representing social classes as well as theological issues.

The term is "faction" (1 Cor. 11:19, i.e., hairesis), from which we get the English word heresies. Its basic etymology is "to choose" or "select," but with the added connotation of showing special favor, choosing one and rejecting other choices (cf. Acts 24:14; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). It can be used to describe

1. a person who believes false teaching (cf. Titus 3:10)
2. the false teaching itself (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1)

Paul mentions a theological purpose (i.e., "for," i.e., hina clause) and necessity (i.e., dei) for the presence of these differing groups. They were necessary for the true spiritual leaders to be clearly revealed. Mature leaders will become evident in times of crisis.

The other option is that some groups and their leaders will show by their actions that they are not Christians at all (cf. 1 John 2:19; Mark 4:16-19).

SPECIAL TOPIC: APOSTASY

▣ "that those who are approved" "Approved" is a translation of dokimazō, which implies "to test with a view toward approval."

SPECIAL TOPIC: GREEK TERMS FOR TESTING AND THEIR CONNOTATIONS

11:20 "it is not to eat the Lord's Supper" These privileged socially elite faction(s) were acting in a manner totally alien to the communal, self-giving precedent of Jesus' last meal with His disciples. The verses that follow clarify his point (cf. 1 Cor. 11:22).

▣ "the Lord's Supper" This is the only occurrence of this phrase in the NT. This is another possible example of sarcasm. Nothing about their attitudes and actions compares with Jesus' attitudes and actions in giving Himself for sinful mankind!

The worship event goes by several names.

1. the Lord's Supper
2. "the table of the Lord" (1 Cor. 10:21)
3. "breaking bread" (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24 [cf. Luke 24:30])
4. thanksgiving (i.e., eucharist) or blessing (i.e., eulogia, Matt. 26:26-27; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24)

11:21 "each one takes his own supper first" The early church combined the Lord's Supper and a fellowship meal called "the Agape" (cf. 2 Pet. 2:13; Jude v. 12,).

It is possible to understand this phrase in several ways.

1. The wealthy/educated/influential/high-born came early and ate their meal quickly so that when the poor arrived there was nothing, or hardly anything, left to eat.
2. Each person was to bring his own meal. The elite believers ate theirs quickly in the presence of the poor, or slave members of the church, who brought little or nothing.

The problem was selfishness and gluttony based on social distinctions instead of self-giving love, as Jesus' actions and precedent clearly taught. The Corinthian church did not believe that they were one in Christ. There was a radical dichotomy between

1. social haves vs. have nots
2. wealthy vs. poor
3. men vs. women
4. freedmen vs. slaves
5. Romans vs. all others
6. spiritual elite vs. common believer

These distinctions are clearly spelled out in 1 Cor. 11:21 and 22.

▣ "one is hungry and another is drunk" Whether this was caused by Roman societal distinctions or selfishness, an unacceptable situation is clearly shown. The purpose of the memorial meal and the communal fellowship had been forgotten. This was a serious matter (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23). This verse cannot be used to advocate total abstinence. It is obvious that wine was a part of this experience. It is the selfish abuse that is condemned.

SPECIAL TOPIC: BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOL ABUSE

▣ "Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink" Some legalists and literalists have tried to use this as a proof-text for not eating in the church (i.e., no kitchen). History and context are always crucial in the interpretation of ancient literature. By quoting small parts of Scripture one can make the Bible/God say almost anything! As Gordon Fee says, "A book that can mean anything, means nothing!"

There is a series of rhetorical questions which reveal the emotion with which Paul is writing. He is shocked at the actions of some people associated with the church (cf. James 2:6).

÷1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-26

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-26
  ²³For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." ²⁶For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

11: 23 "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you" Paul was not present at the Lord's Supper. He claims in Gal. 1:11-17 to have received revelation directly from Jesus and in Gal. 1:18-19, not to have received it from other Apostles or Jerusalem leaders. However, his words here reflect a knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels' traditions.

SPECIAL TOPIC: LORD (Adon and Kurios)

▣ "took bread" It is significant that Jesus did not use the Passover lamb as a symbol. It was linked too strongly with the Old Covenant (cf. Exodus 12). The loaf became the new symbol of unity (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

11:24 "and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said" This points toward a specific historical act (i.e., the Passover meal in the upper room the night before Jesus was betrayed). Many Christians call the ordinance the Eucharist, which is from the Greek term for "to thank" (i.e., eucharisteō, cf. Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19).

This is obviously figurative language. Cannibalism would be a horror to any Jewish person. Jesus is using the broken bread as a symbol of His broken body on Calvary. As bread gives physical nourishment and life to those who eat it, so Jesus' actions give spiritual life to those who receive it.

There has been much theological debate about the meaning of Jesus' words. Much of the discussion is based on

1. the nature of the event
2. the way God provides grace

Those who see this as a sacrament rely heavily on John 6, which in context, has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. See SPECIAL TOPIC: THE LORD'S SUPPER IN JOHN 6

There are several Greek manuscript variations in this phrase.

1. the Textus Receptus adds, "take, eat." This is found in the Greek MSS C³, K, L, and P. It is not original.
2. Paul's short phrase "for you" (cf. MSS P⁴⁶, א^*, A, B, C^*) has been expanded by the early scribes in several ways:
   1. "broken for you" (cf. MSS אi², C³, D², F, G; possibly from Matt. 26:26)
   2. "shed for you" (cf. MS D^*)
   3. "given for you" (cf. Luke 22:19)

UBS⁴ rates the shorter text #2 (to huper humōn) as "A" (certain).

11:24-25 "do this in remembrance of Me" This is a either a PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE or a PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE. The IMPERATIVE fits the context best. This symbolic meal is to be repeated regularly until Jesus returns.

It is interesting that in the record of the Lord's Supper in Matthew and Mark's Gospel the phrase "do this in remembrance of Me" is not included. However, it does appear in Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor. 11:24-25. It is so surprising that an obviously significant event in Jesus' life, which was to be repeated, is recorded with such variety in the Gospels and Paul's writings.

The NT does not specify how often this is to be repeated.

1. Some groups of believers never do it (i.e., Quakers), others do it every week.
2. Those Christian groups that have a sacramental view of the Supper obviously make it a recurrent (i.e., weekly) and central event.
3. The early Palestinian believers may have observed it once a year in conjunction with the Passover (i.e., the Ebionites, cf. Origen and Epiphanius).
4. Those Christians who are nervous about repeated rituals losing their impact and significance and do not see it as a channel of grace, usually observe the Supper less often (i.e., Southern Baptists' once a quarter).
5. See note at 1 Cor. 11:26 for "daily."

11:25 "This cup is the new covenant" This New Covenant is specifically mentioned in Jer. 31:31-34 (described in Ezek. 36:22-36). The Greek term for covenant originally meant "a will" or "last testament," but the meaning here reflects the Septuagint's use of the term as "covenant."

The concept of a "new covenant" must have been shocking to Jewish people. They were trusting in the permanency of the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah had to remind them that YHWH's covenants were conditional on a faith-repentant response (see esp. Jeremiah 7).

SPECIAL TOPIC: CUP

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT

SPECIAL TOPIC: FOREVER ('olam)

▣ "in My blood" This refers to the Hebrew concept of Jesus' sacrificial death (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21). Blood is an OT Hebrew idiom referring to a sacrifice given to God (cf. Lev. 17:11,14; Deut. 12:23). The first covenant was also ratified with shed blood (cf. Exod. 24:8).

SPECIAL TOPIC: BLOOD

Notice that there is no specific times given here, or elsewhere, in the NT. In Acts the characteristic phrase to describe the Lord's Supper, "broke bread," is used of

1. a daily experience (Acts 2:42,46)
2. Sunday worship (Acts 20:7,11)

However, the phrase is also used of a regular meal (Acts 27:34-35).

▣ "you proclaim the Lord's death" This clearly shows the sacrificial aspect of Christ's death (cf. Isaiah 53; Mark 10:45; 2 Cor. 5:21). The Lord's Supper is a backwards look at the death of Christ.

▣ "until He comes" The Lord's Supper is a forward look to His Second Coming (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7; 4:5; 11:26; Mark 14:25).

SPECIAL TOPIC: SECOND COMING (terms)

SPECIAL TOPIC: SECOND COMING (chart)

÷1 CORINTHIANS 11:27-32

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1 CORINTHIANS 11:27-32
  ²⁷Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. ²⁸But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. ³⁰For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. ³¹ But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. ³²But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

"And" is not in the original text of 1 Cor. 11:27, but it is in 1 Cor. 11:28 and 29. "Or" is in the Greek text. The King James Version translators were afraid of the Roman Catholic understanding where the priest drinks the wine and the laity eat the bread, and intentionally mistranslated this verse! The NKJV has corrected this intentional mistranslation.

The context implies this refers to the disrupted unity of the church caused by the factious groups' arrogance and pride, but some have understood this to refer to the mandate for a proper spiritual attitude when observing the Lord's Supper (cf. Heb. 10:29).

The phrase "an unworthy manner" is present in this verse, but is repeated in v. 29 by some ancient uncial MSS (i.e., MSS א^c, C³, D, G, K. P). However, the second occurrence is omitted by MSS P⁴⁶, א^*, A, B, C^*, which are by far the better MSS.

11:28 "But a man must examine himself" This is a PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE. The term "examine" (dokimazō) has the connotation of "to test with a view toward approval." In one sense all Christians are unworthy because they all have and continue to sin (i.e., Romans 7). In this context it refers specifically to the disunity and factious spirits of some in the church at Corinth (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5).

SPECIAL TOPIC: GREEK TERMS FOR "TESTING" AND THEIR CONNOTATIONS

"His body" seems not to refer to

1. the physical body of Jesus nor
2. the participants
3. but to the Church as a group (cf. 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:12-13,27)

Disunity is the problem. A spirit of superiority or class distinctions destroys the fellowship of the body of Christ.

▣ "judge" See note at 1 Cor. 4:7 and SPECIAL TOPIC: SHOULD CHRISTIANS JUDGE ONE ANOTHER?

11:30 Paul is asserting in plain language that believers who violate the unity of the church may suffer temporal physical consequences (cf. 1 Cor. 3:17), even death (i.e., "sleep," cf. 1 Cor. 15:20). This is directly connected to a lack of respect for the Body of Christ, the church, the people of God (cf. Acts 5; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20).

11:31 "if" This is a SECOND CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE, which is called "contrary to fact." It should be translated "if we had judged ourselves rightly, which we did not, then we should not be judged, which we are." See note at 1 Cor. 4:7.

SPECIAL TOPIC: GREEK GRAMMATICAL TERMS, VII.

11:32 "disciplined by the Lord" It is difficult to know when Christians are suffering because

1. they live in a fallen world
2. they are reaping the consequences of their sinful acts
3. they are being tested by the Lord for spiritual maturity (cf. Heb. 5:8)

God does test and discipline (cf. Heb. 12:5-11). It is an evidence of His love and our family status.

SPECIAL TOPIC: WHY DO CHRISTIANS SUFFER?

SPECIAL TOPIC: GOD TESTS HIS PEOPLE (OT)

▣ "so that we will not be condemned along with the world" The temporal judgment of believers who are hurting God's church may be an act of love in sparing them a more severe judgment related to destroying the church (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-17).

I like a quote from George Ladd in A Theology of the New Testament.

"The world also has its religion that holds men in a bondage of asceticism and legalism that may have the appearance of wisdom and promote a kind of devotion and self-discipline, but it ultimately fails to provide a solution for the moral dilemma with which man is faced (Col. 2:20ff). Viewed from this point of view the world stands under the judgment of God (1 Cor. 11:32) and is in need of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19; Rom. 11:15" (p. 399).

÷1 CORINTHIANS 11:33-34

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1 CORINTHIANS 11:33-34
  ³³So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. ³⁴If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

11:33 "when you come together to eat, wait for one another" This refers to 1 Cor. 11:21. They were acting like selfish individuals, not a family, a body. They were acting in exactly the opposite way from Jesus' self-giving act of love.

11:34 "If" This is a FIRST CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE which is assumed to be true from the author's perspective or for his literary purposes.

▣ "let him eat at home" This is a PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE. If believers are so hungry that they act in an aggressive, selfish way at the Lord's Supper, then they should satisfy their hunger before they join a fellowship meal.

Notice that God has not seen fit to pass on all the detailed discussions that Paul gave to this church. It is uncertain if this relates only to the Lord's Supper or other matters. The structure of 1 Corinthians (answering many unrelated questions) implies that it does.

The essence of the Lord's Supper is not found in a rule book of liturgy, but in a relationship with Jesus Christ. The details of religious rituals are not as significant as a good heart toward God, which issues in a love for the church.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.

1. Are modern Christians to duplicate all of the rituals and forms of the NT church?
2. What does 1 Cor. 11:2-16 say about female participation in leadership roles in public worship?
3. What does the veil correspond to today?
4. Explain the problem of unveiled women and veiled men in a Roman first century culture.
5. What is Paul's major purpose in discussing the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11?
6. How do you explain 1 Cor. 11:30?

|  Home  |  New Testament Studies  |  Corinthians Table of Contents  |  Previous Section  |  Next Section  |

Copyright © 2014 Bible Lessons International