Introduction
The first sixteen verses of chapter 11 may be one of the toughest passages in Scripture to understand, where Paul deals with the subject of the use of veils.
As we go through this study, we need to ask the following questions, what did the veil represent in that culture? What kind of message were they sending out to others by wearing them? Is there a difference between customs and commands?
In the days of the early church, there were different customs regarding head coverings. For example, Jewish women would wear a head covering but Jewish men didn’t.
Generally speaking, among the Greeks, only slaves were covered, and the uncovered head was a sign of freedom. The Romans reversed this. The Roman freeman wore the pileus, the slave went bareheaded. The Romans were accustomed to praying while they were veiled, but Greek men didn’t. The Greek custom was to pray with the head uncovered.
The Jews had the same custom as the Romans during worship, and we should not forget that Paul was originally a Jew. This veiling expressed reverence, the proper feeling of unworthiness to appear before God with an open face. Maimonides says ‘Let not the wise men, nor the scholars of the wise men, pray unless they be covered.’ The Jewish covering was called the tallith.
Even today the Jews cover the head, as a gesture of respect to God, the head is covered during prayer, either with a hat or a skullcap, ‘kippah’. Pious Jews wear a head covering at all times, recognizing God’s constant presence. In the Corinthian culture, the veil was a sign of submission to another person.
As we can imagine when you’ve got a church full of people from different backgrounds, we can easily begin to understand why the wearing of a veil became an issue for the church in Corinth.
In this chapter of Corinthians, Paul responds to those issues and says the answer is found in orderliness, 1 Corinthians 14:33. He says that their worship should be orderly and they should be guided by the natural order which already exists in creation.
It appears that the real problem wasn’t so much the wearing of veils, but what they thought orderly was.
THE DIVINE ORDER
‘Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.’ 1 Corinthians 11:1
We must remember that there are no chapters and verses within the Scriptures, so the above verse carries on from chapter ten, where Paul speaks about freedom and the responsibility of freedom, that the church should follow his lead in this.
God’s Revelation Regarding The Woman’s Place In The Home And Society
‘I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But 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.’ 1 Corinthians 11:2-3
Paul now begins to deal with the subject of veils, he praises them for their perseverance in his teaching and examples. What he writes here is all about relationships.
The word ‘praise’, ‘epaino’, ‘to praise, commend, applaud’. This Greek word is identified as an active verb in the present tense which indicates ongoing action. As long as the Corinthians would remember all of Paul’s actions, 1 Corinthians 11:1 and ‘hold fast the traditions’ he would praise, commend, and applaud them.
When we get to verse 17 of this chapter he will say, ‘But in giving you this charge, I praise you not.’ Paul could not praise, commend, or applaud the Corinthians because they were in sin.
The word ‘traditions’, ‘paradosis’, ‘what is delivered, the substance of the teaching or instruction’. That which was delivered, 1 Corinthians 11:23 / 1 Corinthians 15:3 is the revelation of God, the Gospel, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 / 2 Timothy 1:13 / 1 John 1:3.
He says that a woman is in subjection to her husband, and his leadership is modified because of his own subordination to Christ, and even Jesus voluntarily submitted His life to God.
Paul’s point is that there is a divinely established order between woman, man, Christ and God. This divine example is the blueprint that he will use to solve the disorder in the church created by the issue of veils.
‘Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head.’ 1 Corinthians 11:4
The ‘veil’, ‘katakalupto’ means to cover up, having covered his head, having veiled oneself. A Christian man, therefore, wasn’t to pray with his head covered because it would disgrace or dishonour his head, that is, Christ.
The reason for this was that only Christ was head over man, no other man or institution. His uncovered head indicated this fact.
‘But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.’ 1 Corinthians 11:5-6
If we examine this passage in comparison to 1 Corinthians 14:34 we find that Paul cannot be referring to their first day of the week assembly here. Women were not permitted to speak in the assembly, they were and are required to keep silent and learn at home, 1 Timothy 2:12.
The point of 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, is that if she were to go against this custom she was resisting the customs of their society and showing a defiant attitude towards the man.
A woman praying and prophesying with her head not covered was as shameful as shaving her head shaved. Paul compares it to being completely shaved, which was a sign of prostitution or unchastity.
Expositor’s Greek says the following.
‘If a woman prefers bare head, she should remove her hair; womanly feeling forbids the latter, then it should forbid the former, for the like shame attaches to both.’
A Christian woman, who publicly prayed, not in an assembly setting, 1 Timothy 2:12, with her head uncovered dishonours her head which is her husband. This means that she was rejecting his leadership and to do this in those days was shocking, that is, being unveiled in public.
McGuiggan, in his commentary, says the following.
‘If a man were to appear publicly wearing a veil, 1 Corinthians 11:4 / 1 Corinthians 11:7, it would be shameful (as shameful as if he wore his hair like a woman), but a female publicly proclaiming or praying having dispensed with what is female dress is bringing dishonour on herself and up the line to God. If a woman saw a man dressing like a woman, she ought to be repelled, he is forsaking his maleness and the position he has been given before God.’
The shaving of a woman’s head is a prime example of the fact that this is a custom Paul is referring to. Nowhere in the Old Testament or New Testament do we find laws forbidding the shaving of a woman’s head yet Paul says it is shameful for her to do so. Why Paul? Because society views a woman with a shaved head as ‘odd or shameful.’ This principle is brought about in Isaiah 3:16-24.
So far, Paul said that there is a natural order, divinely appointed in creation. What we do in our public worship of God ought to reflect that natural order to be considered decent and proper.
In practical terms then, men should pray without head-covering to reflect their leadership, that is, Christ and women ought to publicly pray with their heads covered in order to reflect their leadership, that is, their husbands, or fathers for single women.
PRAYER AND PROPHECY
In regard to women praying and prophesying, please note that Paul doesn’t say the woman is leading in prayer or teaching, the praying and prophesying are used in general terms. The guidance for public worship, that is, mixed assemblies, men and women, will begin later in 1 Corinthians 11:17.
Here Paul is speaking about those times when it is proper for women to prophesy and pray. Women aren’t restricted from prophesying and prayer, only in the public, mixed assembly, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36.
Paul is talking about other occasions where women were to pray and prophesy, they were to wear the head-covering. In the mixed, public assembly, their silence was their sign of submission while the men prayed and prophesied.
However, at home, or women’s gatherings or other instances where they could prophesy or pray, Exodus 15:20 / Acts 16:3 / Acts 21:9, they wore the head-covering to signify their submission and respect.
The point, however, wasn’t about veils, it was about how one did things in order to convey an attitude of respect and submission to God. These aren’t man-made ideas, they are instructions from God.
DIVINE REASONING
Now that Paul has explained what they should do and why, he now goes on to give the divine reasoning behind this teaching.
‘A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.’ 1 Corinthians 11:7-10
Man’s glory is that he is created first, Genesis 2:7, and to pray uncovered is to reflect that glory. Both men and women are created equally in the image of God, Genesis 1:26-27, but man’s glory is that he was created first, not better.
As one who reflects the image of God, man has been given ‘dominion’ over all creation, Genesis 1:26. This authority over God’s creation is a reflection of God and his glory. Psalm 8:5-6 / Hebrews 2:6-8.
Woman’s glory is that the human race continues through her. To recognize their glory is to recognise God and what God has done, not what man has done. Man didn’t create himself nor did he have any say in the order of creation.
Within this creation of things subject to man’s dominion is the woman. She is termed the ‘help meet’ Genesis 2:18. After the fall of man in the garden, the Lord said to the woman, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labour, you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16
The woman is the glory of man as the man is the glory of God. This statement is examined closely in the next two verses. When therefore the woman wears the veil she publicly proclaims her compliance with God’s order of creation.
Paul states that the woman is of the man and not the other way around. God created the man first and then He made the woman for the man and from man, Genesis 2:21ff.
Woman was made as a ‘helper’ for the man. Again, God’s creative order indicates that it would be a shameful thing for a man to veil his head. The man who veils his head has not taken God’s order of creation seriously and likewise, the woman who will not veil her head in subjection has not taken God’s order of creation seriously.
Women publicly praying with their heads uncovered suggested that they should be in man’s place. This is shameful because it rejects God’s order and in that culture, the husband’s position. A woman should recognize her place in creation and reflect her belief and acceptance of this, the veil was that symbol at that time.
The key is that Paul recognised that it was a cultural symbol of his day. Why should she wear a veil? Because of the angels, Jude 6 / 2 Peter 2:4. Paul appears to be reminding the women of the danger they play with when they reject their own domain or proper sphere.
‘Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.’ 1 Corinthians 11:11-12
Paul reminds them that man’s authority doesn’t mean independence. We’re united biologically and submitted to one another spiritually. Man needs the woman and the woman needs the man. Neither one may now exist without the other. This relationship exists “in the Lord,” that is, by the Lord’s will, man needs the woman and the woman needs the man.
This order isn’t meant to create dominance or competition, this order is meant to create mutual dependence and glory to God in reflecting the divine order.
‘Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.’ 1 Corinthians 11:13-15
Again Paul uses the word “judge” as he did in 1 Corinthians 10:15 to mean consider or reason with me. Here Paul uses an example from nature to underline his point. Some things are suggested by nature, for example, long hair on a man is unnatural but considered proper and beautiful on a woman.
McGuiggan, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Nature is the way things can be observed to exist. A horse is a horse, a rock is a rock, a male is a male and a female is a female. Nature is not ‘innate moral instinct’. Nature (in this passage) has nothing directly to do with birth. Nature is not ‘inbuilt knowledge’ or some inner illumination. Nature (in this passage) is the observable make up of reality. What is it that nature teaches them? It teaches them that something is shameful. It teaches that men were not to act like women. Men that wear their hair like women are acting shamefully.’
It’s natural because a woman’s hair will grow longer than a man’s in normal circumstances. Social custom supports and promotes this natural phenomenon.
Long hair on men has always been out of the ordinary, even Jews who did it, did it because of a vow, not because of style, Numbers 6:1-5 / Numbers 6:18-19 / Judges 13:5 / Judges 13:7.
Some have argued from 1 Corinthians 11:15 that the hair is the covering. But that cannot work in this text because if the hair is the covering, then what is the man to do when he wants to pray or prophesy? The man would have to be bald or have his head shaved if the hair is a covering for his head is not to be covered.
McGuiggan, in his commentary, says the following.
‘Who gives the woman her long hair for a covering? The passage doesn’t say. If God gave long hair to the woman as her glory and covering, it would appear that women ought to be hesitant about having their hair cut short as they characteristically do in the west. My own judgment is that the long hair of a female became her trademark rather than being a positive ordinance of God. I don’t think God gave the woman the veil any more than he gave her long hair. So that ‘is given’ is equivalent to saying, ‘is recognised as being peculiarly hers.’
The point there is this, any social custom, such as the veil, which emphasises an idea suggested by nature, must be proper. In other words, social customs are ok if they reflect accurately what is natural and already in the divine order.
‘If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.’ 1 Corinthians 11:16
Paul says all the churches at that time were following this custom and the reasoning behind it. Women don’t publicly pray or prophesy with their heads uncovered.
MODERN APPLICATIONS
Paul says that the Corinthians must respect customs that reflect divine truth and order. The problem for us today is what to do when customs change, especially when we’re caught in the middle of that change.
Some churches, even today, have female members who wear head coverings because they feel that the instructions in this passage are binding for all time. Most don’t because they believe that the teaching here is about custom, not command.
CUSTOM AND COMMAND
Here are a few ideas on this passage that will help us when we have to discern between custom, (that is, cultural) and command, (that is, divine).
Although customs change, commands never change and so, in the case of the Corinthians, it was custom to wear the veil in order to show submission and respect. This wasn’t invented by apostles or commanded by God, it was already a custom that existed in many societies.
This custom wasn’t in itself an eternal truth, it merely reflected an eternal truth in regards to the relationship of men and women before God. Since the custom accurately reflected the divine truth, Paul commanded them not to change or rebel against the custom for fear of creating a bad witness.
With time, this custom changed as societies changed, and it no longer reflects eternal truth in our culture. We see the same thing happening with the ‘holy kiss’, Romans 16:16 / 1 Corinthians 16:20 / 2 Corinthians 13:12 / 1 Thessalonians 5:26, this has been replaced with a handshake.
The command remains to submit, to maintain the order of God, Christ, man, woman, but the customs that reflect this truth change. We need to focus on ways to make sure we’re keeping the command and not maintaining meaningless customs, and that we don’t violate the commands with customs that reflect disobedience.
Paul encouraged the Corinthians to submit to those customs that reflect God’s eternal truth as a way of honouring God and maintaining order in the church.
SUMMARY
I don’t believe the head covering still applies today because the text is referring to women publicly praying and using the spiritual gift of prophesy, 1 Corinthians 11:5, this is directly who Paul is talking to in this text.
As we know from 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, spiritual gifts ceased at the completion of the revealing of the Gospel, the perfect had come, the part will pass away.
This text even names prophesy as one of the things that will pass away. Since spiritual gifts have ceased, then the things contained in this text can’t apply.
But suppose some don’t understand this text to be talking about spiritual gifts, well, in that case, the text still clearly states that these ‘traditions’ were given because of the culture of the day. Consider how many times Paul refers to the ‘customs’ of the day in his arguments for the use of the covering.
1 Corinthians 11:6 argues that being uncovered is like having your hair cut short or shaved, which was a shame in those days. 1 Corinthians 11:13 asks what is proper, 1 Corinthians 11:14 asks about nature, and 1 Corinthians 11:16 is the clearest of all, where Paul flat out calls the wearing of the covering a custom, that is, a practice.
This is clearly a custom that Paul is asking the women to do because it was a custom of the day, and he didn’t want them to go against that custom.
If some Christians are still convinced that the covering is still in force today, then they must fully obey this passage and the practices found concerning the head covering. A covering must be worn at all times, when a woman prays publicly, outside of mixed worship. A covering was something to cover the head and face, not the hair only.
Many who practice the covering don’t do so properly for Paul clearly says in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that the head is to be covered. And so, a covering is that which we see in the Middle East where the women have coverings that you can only see their eyes and nose. A covering isn’t a lace cloth on the top of the head or a hat.
The Purpose Of Coming Together As An Assembly
“In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In 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. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!” 1 Corinthians 11:17-22
Again, the ‘charge’ has been delivered in 1 Corinthians 11:2. Paul could not praise, commend, or applaud the Corinthian brethren for the following reasons. The brethren assembled themselves together on the first day of the week for ‘the worse’ as opposed to ‘for the better.’
For the worse is represented in the factions that existed, 1 Corinthians 11:18, the division between poor and rich, 1 Corinthians 11:21 and perversion of the Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:20ff. To gather for the better would be an atmosphere of edification and glorification of God, Hebrews 10:22-25.
The ‘first of all’ begins the explanation of the Corinthians coming together for the worse in 1 Corinthians 11:17. The word church ‘ekklesia’ is here used as the first day of the week assembly during which the five acts of worship are conducted. Not all assemblies are the same.
Sometimes the brethren assembled during the week for Bible studies, Acts 19:9. As the brethren assembled together, there were ‘divisions’, ‘Schisma’ that existed. Schisma is defined as the division of opinion.
Notice that Paul had ‘heard’ this from other brethren, 1 Corinthians 7:1. Apparently, so much talk was circulating about the church in Corinth that Paul didn’t know what to believe and what not to believe. He concludes by saying, ‘and I partly believe it.’
Later Paul will give us instructions regarding the manner that we communicate about the state of others, 2 Corinthians 13:1. Such revealing of facts is solely out of love (care and concern) for souls.
The Greek word ‘Dei’ for the English ‘must’ is used in 1 Timothy 3:2ff. Paul said the ‘bishop must be’ giving all the qualifications. Dei is defined as needful, binding on one to do a thing.
That which is necessary is that factions occur among brethren. A ‘faction’, ‘hairesis’ is a taking, means for taking a place, a taking for oneself, a choosing, choice.
Within the body of Christ, those approved, ‘dokimos’ which means one who is of tried faith and integrity of God, in fellowship and those out of fellowship with God will be made manifest by their deeds and words.
The apostle John spoke of these saying, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they are all are not of us.” 1 John 2:19
Within the body of Christ, there will always be those who do not follow the doctrine of Christ and those who want to form clicks looking down their nose at others as was occurring in Corinth. These collect together because they share the one mind as do the faithful children of God, Revelation 17:13.
Paul tells us to admonish these disorderly with longsuffering and patience, 1 Thessalonians 5:14, however, if they will not repent we must mark them and turn away from them, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 / 2 Thessalonians 3:14.
Here is an inference to what takes place on the first day of the week assembly, i.e.; the Lord’s Supper is taken. Paul states; however, that at this assembly, “it is not possible to eat the Lord’s Supper.”
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper in Matthew 26:26ff. This supper is to be partaken every first day of the week, Acts 20:7 because each week has a first day, Exodus 20:8.
Why was it not possible? “For in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry, and another drunken.” The entire assembly had been perverted into some sort of feasting time. The picture painted of this church is truly ultra-liberal.
Brethren were bringing food and intoxicating wine and getting ‘drunk’, ‘methuo’. The word methuo is defined as being drunken with wine.
It may be that the more affluent brethren had things to bring to the feast and eat whereas the poorer brethren had not and were therefore hungry. It is difficult to determine whether the Corinthians were physically drunk or drunk with pride over their welfare above others. Either case indicates a heart that is perverted.
Clearly we see here that it was not a function of the church or the assembly to eat and drink. The brethren were to eat and drink in their homes.
The assembly was for singing, Ephesians 5:19, praying, 1 Timothy 2:8, preaching, Acts 20:7ff, partaking of the Lord’s Supper, Matthew 26:26ff / Acts 20:7 / 1 Corinthians 11:23ff and giving as one has been prospered, 1 Corinthians 16:1ff.
To eat and drink at the assembly was to “despise the church of God and put them to shame that have not.” To ‘despise’, ‘kataphroneo’ is to think down upon, i.e., to look down upon, think slightly of… to regard slightly, despise… to be thought little of.
These liberal-minded brethren took the church of God as a mere means of gathering people together for a party and thereby showed their disdain for the church that Jesus purchased with His blood.
Those who had little were belittled and shamed by the rich brethren in this party atmosphere. They brought their abundance of food early, ate it all before the poor arrived and refused to share, 1 Corinthians 11:33. This verse lends strong evidence to the metaphorical use of ‘drunken’. For this conduct, Paul states, “I praise you not.”
1 Corinthians 11:17ff. Christ is in the midst of the church. On the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord himself says, in Matthew 18:20, ‘Where two or three are gathered together into my name, there am I in the midst.’
In the Upper Room, John 20:19, Jesus is central to our worship, as the sacrificial Passover Lamb. Jesus is the Reason for our being present each Lord’s Day. Not once a month, not quarterly, not annually, as with the so-called ‘Witnesses’ but every first day of the week. And Jesus keeps His promise. If we come together in the right spirit and for the right purpose, if we gathered into His Name; He will be here and He will not come without a blessing.
The early Christians recognised this because the central act in their Worship was the breaking the bread and the drinking of the cup which spoke of his Body and His blood. This is the wonderful thing about the Lord’s Supper.
Were it not for the fact that Jesus came and died, we should not be Meeting together. We remember a Jesus who bore our sins. Who suffered the just for the unjust that He might bring us to God.
“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In 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.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” 1 Corinthians 11:23-26
By divine revelation, Paul received instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper and delivered these teachings to the disciples, Galatians 1:11-12. The very night that Judas would betray the Lord with a kiss, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, Matthew 26:26ff. The bread that Jesus took was unleavened, Exodus 12:15ff / Matthew 26:1 / Matthew 26:17.
A prayer was said to God by Jesus on behalf of the unleavened bread, He broke it, and then gave the reason for the disciples partaking of it.
Note that when we partake of the Lord’s Supper today we do not have Christ saying a prayer for us and neither do we have Christ actually breaking the bread for us. The bread was a representation of Christ’s body, not the literal body. The sacrificial body of Jesus was and is “for you,” Hebrews 10:1.
The body and blood of Jesus served as a perfect Passover lamb that would provide a way of God’s wrath to pass over a sinful people, 1 Corinthians 5:7. A memorial of remembrance is to take place each and every first day of the week.
The word ‘remembrance’, ‘anamnesis’ is a calling to mind, recollection. Brethren were to assemble each first day of the week and partake of the Lord’s Supper to recall what Jesus did on the cross.
The content of the cup is a representation of the new covenant in my (Jesus’) blood. The cup itself was not drank and neither does the cup itself equal the new covenant. As the cup represents the blood of Christ so the cup represents the new covenant.
After Jesus broke the bread and passed the loaf around, He passed the cup of wine around stating “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.” Matthew 26:28.
Blood was to be shed that the new covenant, Law of Christ, be made effective, Isaiah 2:3 / Jeremiah 31:31 / Hebrews 9:13-22. As the bread was not the literal body of Christ, even the fruit of the vine was not the literal blood of Jesus.
These emblems were to be taken to “remember” what Christ did on the cross that the new covenant would be effective. “As often” would be every first day of the week until the Lord comes again or we die. To ‘proclaim’, ‘kataggello’ “the Lord’s death” is to make a “proclamation”. When the saint partakes of the Lord’s Supper, he makes a public proclamation of faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. This shall be done until we die or “till he comes.”
We are drawn together because of our belief in his atoning work. And Because He said, ‘Do this in remembrance of me!’ Jesus wants us to remember Him, not as the World professes, every 25th of December, to remember His birth in Bethlehem but rather remember His death for our sins.
Paul says ‘As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim The Lord’s Death, until he comes’. Notice that you proclaim, the Greek text says ‘you tell again’, His death, you repeat the story of His death.
But the World is not really interested in the death of Christ. It would much rather think about his birth. It would prefer to look at a Cradle, rather than at a Cross! Because a birth is a far happier event.
There is joy and happiness when the birth of a child is announced but the sight of a man dying on the Cross is something quite different because it reminds us of the Sin, our sin which made His death necessary. And if there is one thing that we do not care to be reminded of, it is the fact that we are sinners!
Such a message is disturbing and makes us feel uncomfortable, but, as Christians, we meet here this morning to remember the One Who died for us. Our gratitude to the Lord for what He has done for us makes coming here today, not a burden, or a duty, but a privilege and a joy,
Any Christian, or professing Christian who finds it difficult to prepare himself to come and sit at the Lord’s Table in response to the Lord’s request, should take a good look at himself because he is spiritually sick and in real danger of dying spiritually.
But for those who appreciate that the Death of Jesus created the church, the situation is different. They realize that they cannot live without this fellowship, and, they will say with the hymn writer, ‘Remember thee? Thy death, thy Pain, our hearts! Sad load to bear? Ah! Memory, leave no other name, than His recorded there’.
Abuses At The Lord’s Supper
“So then, 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. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.” 1 Corinthians 11:27-32
Something was happening at Corinth that we could not imagine happening in the Church today and certainly, we would not tolerate. The Lord’s Supper was being degraded to the level of a social party at which people were becoming intoxicated.
We might even go so far as to say that things were happening among the Corinthian Christians that no respectable Greek would have tolerated in his own home, and which Paul certainly found shocking, in spite of his statement in 1 Corinthians 11:1.
The Guilds
In Greek cities, there were guilds similar to the Trade Guilds which were known in this country centuries ago, and which babe left us with Guild Halls in some of our major cities. Each guild or society had its patron, one or other of the gods, just as the medieval guilds in this country had their Patron Saints.
Also common in those days was the practice of people joining themselves together in associations or societies in a social way because the Greeks attached great importance to this kind of social life. These guilds and societies used to meet for a feast once a month, or each week, or if circumstances made it possible, even every day.
These occasions were similar to the fellowship meals held in my modern congregations, and, indeed, the idea was good, because the act of eating together was intended to foster the spirit of brotherhood and friendship, and, what was very important, when the members met around the Table they met as equals, with equal privileges.
Obviously, this was commendable, because both rich and poor belonged to these Societies, and, when they met to hold a Feast, the members each contributed food to the common table, according to their ability.
The wealthy were able to bring much, whilst the poor contributed their little, and, as they pooled their resources in this way the poor were able to enjoy a good meal with the rest, without being made to feel they were accepting charity and without being embarrassed.
The Corinthian Christians had taken over this practice, though they gave it another name. Among the Greeks, that meal was known as an Eranos whilst, in the early Church, it was called ‘ho Agape’, the Love Feast.
No doubt it began with the very best of intentions, no doubt also, the first Fellowship Meals, i.e., ‘Love Feasts’, were highly successful and promoted a wonderful spirit of brotherhood and closeness among the early Christians.
However, as so often happens in arrangements that are devised by human wisdom without a direct command from the scriptures to support them, it was probably not very long before the ‘Agape’ was being so greatly abused that it became a mockery to call it a ‘love-feast’, and was doing more harm than good.
The early Christians used to meet on the ‘First Day of the week’ for this meal, and, in some places, they apparently celebrated it as a prelude to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In other words, they had the ‘Agape’ meal first and then stayed together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
If we could have asked them for their reason for doing it this way, they would probably have pointed to the fact that, in the Upper Room, Jesus and his disciples first had a meal together, the Jewish Passover meal, after which Jesus instituted the Christian celebration, the Lord’s Supper. But, things began to go sadly and tragically wrong.
The Fellowship Meal was being so greatly abused, that when it came to celebrating the Supper of the Lord, the memorial meal was turned into a shameful mockery.
Paul mentions three things that had gone wrong
1. Some took food only for themselves which resulted in some eating and drinking to excess, whilst others remained hungry.
In other words, the idea of fellowship was lost, because they had separated themselves into groups, created a chasm between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, the rich with their own meals, eating to excess, whilst the poor were not being allowed to share and were being left hungry, and, no doubt, feeling excluded.
So, the event which was designed to stress unity and promote a sense of brotherhood in the church was actually promoting and emphasizing class distinction.
2. Not only was each eating his own food but, the inference is that the wealthy were beginning their own supper, without waiting for their brethren. Were they afraid of being asked to share it?
3. And, what must be regarded as the most shameful occurrence, some were drinking so heavily at their so-called ‘love feast’ that they were proceeding to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in a drunken state.
Now, against this background it is not surprising that Paul tells the Corinthians, ‘I am not praising you! You do not come together for the better but for the worse.’ He says, ‘In the way in which you are behaving IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EAT THE LORD’S SUPPER!’
Have you ever thought about why we call it the Lord’s SUPPER when we celebrate it on Lord’s Day MORNING? Surely, morning is the time for Breakfast! But this is a SUPPER!
I might point out that some religious groups have taken the word supper, so literally, that they have insisted on an evening celebration of the feast.
But it is called a supper because the word suggests the main meal of the day and that is how the supper was regarded in that age. The main meal. The most important meal. The meal at which you were most likely to meet your friends and relatives in fellowship.
The Greeks knew nothing of the proverbial ‘English Breakfast’. Their breakfast was more like the frugal ‘Continental breakfast’ about which British holiday-makers overseas speak of with such disappointment.
They would ‘breakfast’ on just a piece of bread dipped in wine, and the mid-day meal was a little better. It was more like an office-workers sandwich lunch, eaten in the street, or in a park, or anywhere that happened to be convenient. It was certainly not a formal meal, But the supper was something quite different.
People came together and they sat down intending to enjoy their fellowship at the Table, treating the occasion rather like the French or the Italians treat a main meal today. It was something to be lingered over, not just for the food they ate but also for the fellowship they enjoyed.
You can see then, why the New Testament speaks of this simple meal as the Lord’s SUPPER. The destination not only stresses its importance, but also the fellowship.
Personally, I have been saddened when I have visited congregations where the actual supper is hurried through, sometimes with scarcely a word being spoken, so that the preacher may have more time for the sermon.
It is a sad fact that in some places they have developed this practice because they unthinkingly, perhaps, regard the preaching as the most important event in the service.
Obviously, I am not saying that we should deliberately, extend the time spent around the actual table. Indeed, we should avoid falling into the error of thinking that we should take to take up a long time talking at the table, or should find something to talk about.
This, also, can be distracting and detract from the beauty of the feast. We should never rush through the Feast but proceed with reverence and respect, and allow it to take as much time as is necessary.
It is a fellowship and it is wonderful how, when Christians meet around the Table, race and colour and language and class are irrelevant and forgotten. This is as it ought to be. Any congregation that maintains the sort of class distinction that was seen at Corinth is not a true Church of the Lord Jesus.
A true church, is, after all, a body of men and women who are united to one another because they are individually united to Christ. But, as I have already said, at Corinth, more harm than good was being done, and Paul says, ‘If all you think about is having a good meal, then your congregational LOVE FEASTS should STOP! STAY AT HOME AND EAT’.
Of course, this was directed at the wealthy members, who were guilty of this abuse. They had establishments of their own, houses of their own, where they could conveniently have a meal, without embarrassing anyone. On the other hand, those -poorer brethren, probably from the slave class, had no such convenient facilities available to them.
Paul then finds it necessary to repeat his teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:23, teaching which he has given to them earlier, no doubt during the 18 months during which he stayed with them in Corinth.
I say ‘repeat’, because he speaks of ‘that which I also delivered to you.’ They have evidently forgotten what they have been taught so he reminds them.
Now, the verses which follow are significant for several reasons.
1. This is the earliest New Testament account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
It was written before Matthew Mark or Luke wrote the Gospel narratives which bear their names.
2. In 1 Corinthians 11:24 we have the earliest account of the actual words of Jesus.
That is, this is the first record of anything that Jesus ever said. Notice how Paul attempts to impress these thoughtless and irreverent Corinthians, with the solemnity of the Supper.
1. He tells them that he received it from the Lord Himself, probably during that time of which he speaks in Galatians 1:11-12, ‘For I make known to you brethren as touching the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.’
2. It was in the night in which He was betrayed that He instituted it.
Paul might simply have said that it was before the Lord’s arrest that He instituted it. Or even, that it was before He was crucified. But no! He says ‘in the night in which He was betrayed’, and perhaps implies that, when Christians abuse or neglect the Lord’s Supper as the Corinthians were doing, they also are guilty of Betrayal.
Notice that 1 Corinthians 11:24 stresses that this is A Feast of Remembrance but 1 Corinthians 11:26 also points out that it is a Proclamation. Of Witness and Testimony. ‘You proclaim.’
He uses a word which literally means, according to Professor F. F. Bruce, ‘You tell again’: Or, ‘You show forth the Lord’s death’.
In fact, I heard him say that he believed that at the Lord’s Table, week by week, the early Christians retold the story of the Lord’s Death, burial and Resurrection.
It was a story that they never tired of telling! And they never became used to hearing it! Familiarity did not cheapen it or rob it of its meaning for them. And because it was a Proclamation, they did not do what has sometimes been done in this country; they did not discourage non-Christians from being present to witness the feast.
It is true and there can be no doubt about it that the Lord’s Table is in the Lord’s House and is meant for those who are the Lord’s people, and that unless a man has given his heart to Jesus Christ, the Lord’s Supper can have no real meaning to him.
The result is that sometimes, in the British Isles, we have seen congregations discourage non-Christians from even attending the Lord’s Day morning service, perhaps fearing that these strangers might partake of the supper by mistake.
Well, the intention may be to protect the Table from those who have no proper place there but I think it is a well-meant intention which is a mistake because when Christians meet around this table and the story of his death and resurrection, and His Return is told again, it constitutes a most powerful proclamation of the Gospel.
One lady hymn writer wrote a hymn which says, ‘No gospel like this feast, Spread for thy church by Thee. No teacher nor evangelist, Preach the glad news so free’.
Those brethren in Corinth who turned the Lord’s Supper into a common meal served with drunken pride partook in an ‘unworthy manner’, ‘Anaxios’. Anaxios is defined as unworthy, not deemed or held worthy of, worthless.
The brethren in Corinth treated the Lord’s Supper as though it were “worthless” by the manner in which they partook. Clearly, they were not remembering the Lord’s blood and body sacrifice.
Such a condition of heart makes one “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” The word ‘guilty’, ‘enochos’ is held in, i.e., liable to, subject to, liable to the penalty of death. Clearly, Paul states that to partake of the Lord’s Supper in such a way is sinful, Romans 6:23.
One is spiritually dead while doing so. Christ died for the remission of the sins they were now committing and thereby they are guilty of the Lord’s body and blood. The context so far indicates a perversion of the Lord’s Supper by the Corinthians by treating it as a common meal served with intoxicating pride.
Secondly, such treatment of the serious nature of the LS deemed their efforts as “unworthy”, worthless. Such sinful worship to God is deemed worthless to the Lord, Isaiah 1:11ff.
Thirdly, their efforts are termed sinful and they were guilty before the Lord for such superficial manner in which they partook. Paul’s efforts are directed toward getting the Corinthians to see their error.
One who would partake of the Lord’s Supper is to ‘prove’ himself before he eats and drinks the emblems. To ‘prove’, ‘dokimazo’ is to assay or test metals, to see if they are pure, of persons, to put to the test, make trial of, scrutinize, then, to approve.
One who would partake of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner receives “judgment” upon himself because he is in sin. The word ‘judgment’, ‘krima’ is a sentence of condemnation. Without repentance, Paul’s audience was doomed.
Now Paul clearly states the issue of sin and manner of unworthiness on the part of the partaker. One who does not ‘discern’ the body and blood of Jesus partake in an unworthy manner.
To ‘discern’, ‘diakrino’ is to separate one from another: to part combatants, to part and join different parties, to distinguish.
The brethren who would not make a clear distinction between the body and blood of Jesus and a common meal were guilty! When one partakes of the Lord’s Supper, he is to “remember” the body and blood of Jesus and not treat it as though he were taking a snack, they had their homes to do that in. Whether that remembrance is done with one or two cups matters not. What matters is the remembrance of the body and blood.
“For this cause” undoubtedly points back to the “judgment” of condemnation against the guilty one who partakes of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner by not making a distinction between the body and blood of Jesus and a common meal.
Paul states that the consequence of such action is that many brethren are “weak, sickly and not a few sleep.” By partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner the Corinthians portrayed themselves to be spiritually weak and sick, the end result without prayer and repentance is spiritual death. Physical illness and death have no part in this verse.
Once again Paul admonishes the brethren to ‘discern’, ‘diakrino’ ourselves. 1 Corinthians 11:29 commanded a ‘diakrino’, making a distinction between the body and blood of Jesus and a common meal.
Here, Paul commands a distinction to be made of ourselves before partaking to avoid sin. Making the proper distinction of the body and blood of Jesus avoids the consequential condemnation of sin, to be ‘judged’, ‘krino’.
To be judged is to not discern ourselves and thereby partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy fashion. Such a state of condemnation leads us to the “chastening of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.”
The word ‘chastening’, ‘paideuo’ is to bring up or rear a child, to train, teach, educate, correct, discipline, chastise, punish.
The statement means that the Lord either educates the sinner through the process or the sinner is punished in some manner through the process.
It seems to me that when we sin, the word of God points out to us our sin by our own study or by means of a caring brother and thereby we are “educated.”
We are moved to repent through this knowledge and thereby spared the “condemnation of the world.” 1 John 2:15-17. I see no discipline or punishment in this context.
Where does the word of God say that we are punished or disciplined with each occurrence of our sin? We are not punished or disciplined now but will be without education, confession and repentance, Hebrews 4:11-12.
“So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.” 1 Corinthians 11:33-34
In light of the thought that I can be condemned for my not discerning the body and blood of Jesus and turning the Lord’s Supper into a common meal Paul admonishes all to wait for each other.
Earlier they were partaking of the Lord’s Supper as though it were a common meal and not waiting upon each other to partake. Paul now admonishes the assembly to come together for the purpose of partaking in the Lord’s Supper properly discerning the body and blood of Jesus.
Does this mean that the saints can only serve the Lord’s Supper one time on Sunday (at a time when we have all waited for all else to be present? Clearly the waiting has to do with the wealthy purposely assembling at times unknown to the poor and having their great feast because they felt higher than the poor saints.
This does not address the issue of time or frequency of the Lord’s Supper. Time and frequency served is thereby a liberty of the Christian. The general command to partake is given and we are left at liberty as to what time of day to do so on the first day of the week.
We can conclude by inference that the Corinthian brethren had a place of assembly away from the home. The home was the place for common meals. Brethren were admonished to not partake of common meals at the assembly!
There is purpose in this verse. A purpose for the first day of the week assembly was spiritual, not social. To turn the assembly into a social or recreational atmosphere is to fall under the condemnation of sin.
Apparently, there were other errors associated with the Corinthian’s partaking of the Lord’s Supper because Paul said “when I come I will give further directions.” What these other errors are we are not told.
Summary
1 Corinthians 11:1 ends the discussion of 1 Corinthians 6-10 regarding liberties and matters of expedience. Paul said, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
Paul’s aim was always to bring glory, not shame, to the name of God, 1 Corinthians 10:31. Paul said, “Therefore if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again so that I will not cause them to fall.” 1 Corinthians 8:13.
If the Corinthians and all Christians today would follow the example of Paul we would save our souls and the souls of others.
The apostle now moves to another issue in the church at Corinth, i.e., the role of women in society and the Lord’s Supper. An established fact in the Word of God is man and woman’s standing in the eyes of God.
The man has been designated ‘head’, superior or supreme of God’s creation, 1 Corinthians 11:3 / 1 Corinthians 11:8-9. Any woman who rejects God’s order in His creation is to understand the shame involved, 1 Corinthians 11:5-6.
A woman could have a gift from the Holy Spirit as did a man; however, she was not at liberty to express her gift publicly in such a manner that would indicate her liberation from man and God’s design for her. Both males and females cannot exist without each other, and each part must respect their authorized roles in society, 1 Corinthians 11:11.
Apparently, some of the Corinthian Christian women had lost sight of their role and were liberating themselves from God’s order. It is possible that the stronger Christian women may have believed that they were at liberty to boldly display their gift. Paul reveals God’s mind on the matter.
A custom of this Roman-Greco society was to wear a veil to indicate subjection. Paul recommended that the Christian women wear this veil for propriety’s sake and thereby indicate their submission to men when prophesying and praying. One must understand that the wearing of veils by women was a simple custom of their day, 1 Corinthians 11:16 / John 18:39.
Propriety in our society today does not demand a veil to be worn indicating subjection. This being true, women nonetheless are commanded to illustrate God’s divine role of subjection in His creation. The woman must value the distinction she has from the man that comes from her hair.
The man, too, must recognize God’s distinction between male and female. A man who would want to appear as a woman is an abomination to God, and likewise a woman wanting to appear as a man is an abomination to God.
Moses said, “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wears women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” Deuteronomy 22:5
Though customs change, the Word of God does not regarding the woman’s subjection to the man because of God’s order, 1 Corinthians 11:8-9.
Another problem discussed in 1 Corinthians 11 was that factious parties had formed, 1 Corinthians 11:18. A separation of the brethren occurred on the first day of the week assembly. One set of brethren came early, ate food, and drank in pride for the Lord’s Supper. Another set of brethren came later and had nothing.
The Corinthian brethren were ultraliberal in their worship to Jehovah God. Paul set out to refocus their minds regarding the seriousness of partaking in the Lord’s Supper.
When one partakes of the Lord’s Supper, he is “remembering,” 1 Corinthians 11:24 and “discerning” the body and blood of Christ, 1 Corinthians 11:29.
One who partakes in the Lord’s Supper without remembering and discerning the Lord’s body and blood does so in an “unworthy” manner, 1 Corinthians 11:27 and is guilty of “despising the church of God,” 1 Corinthians 11:22. Such a state of spiritual sickness leads to spiritual death, 1 Corinthians 11:30.
The remedy is repentance through study and understanding of the word of God, “chasten”, 1 Corinthians 11:32.
Paul concluded the chapter by reiterating that the nature of the assembly is spiritual and not social, 1 Corinthians 11:34.
