Chapter 11

1 He reproveth them, because in holy assemblies 4 their men prayed with their heads covered, and 6 women with their heads uncovered, 17 and because generally their meetings were not for the better but for the worse, as 21 namely in profaning with their own feasts the Lord’s supper. 23 Lastly, he calleth them to the first institution thereof.

1. Followers. Gr. mimeµtai, “imitators.” Our word “mimics” comes from this Greek word. This verse more suitably forms the conclusion of ch. 10 than the introduction to ch. 11. In asking the Corinthians to give up their own desires and pleasures for the sake of others who might misunderstand their motives, Paul asks them to do only what he himself did. He had first shown them by his own example how they ought to behave in relation to the will of God, and then, with the words of this verse, he brings to a conclusion his discussion of the matter of eating meat offered to idols and partaking in idol feasts (see Rom. 15:1–3; 1 Cor. 8:13; 1 Cor. 9:12, 19, 22, 23).

As I. Every minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ ought to be able to appeal to his hearers to imitate his example in following the Master. If he cannot, there is every reason for him to search his own heart and to plead with God that he may live for Him in all respects, and not for self in anything. Paul made Christ his pattern, and he could safely exhort the Corinthians to follow his example. Christ is the great example for all men, and Christians should look to Him for guidance, and accept only that which is in complete harmony with His teaching and example (see Matt. 16:24).

2. Praise. Paul always sought to commend the believers wherever possible (see Eph. 1:15, 16; Phil. 1:3–5; Col. 1:3, 4; 1 Thess. 1:2–4, 7, 8; 2:19, 20). There were some things that it was necessary for Paul to say to them that might not be so acceptable, but before dealing with them he gave commendation where he could. Although they were somewhat slow in following the self-denying and conciliatory behavior of the apostle, the Corinthians were, nevertheless, generally careful to observe the rules of Christian conduct that they had been taught. It is possible, however, that Paul is referring to a particular statement in the letter the Corinthians had written, which may have run something like this: Inasmuch as it is our aim to follow your instruction we would like to have your opinion on the subject of the veiling of women in public religious services.

Remember. Differences of opinion had arisen among them regarding certain practices in the church, and they had agreed to consult their teacher.

Ordinances. Gr. paradoseis, “rules,” “principles,” “instructions,” elsewhere translated “traditions” (Gal. 1:14), or, in the singular, “tradition” (Matt. 15:2; etc.). The word means literally, “things handed over.” The idea of being handed down from one generation to another is not necessarily in the word. Paul is referring to the regulations he had given the Corinthians concerning public worship and private conduct. He did not preach the gospel to them and then leave them to formulate their own rules of church order and social life. He did thorough work in the churches that he established, and gave instruction that enabled the new Christians to be confident in their worship and in their daily lives that they were living according to the will of their Lord (see 1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 2 Thess. 2:15). By so doing he left an example for all ministers of the gospel to follow. Converts to the faith should be thoroughly instructed concerning all phases of church activity and the affairs of social and domestic life, in order that they may be sure that they are carrying out the desires of the Lord for their well-being in all respects (see Ev 337–339).

Delivered. Gr. paradidoµmi, the verb form of paradoseis (see above under “ordinances”).

3. But. Before answering the inquiry concerning the veiling of women, Paul calls attention to certain considerations that will help them to form a correct opinion on the matter.

Head. Here meaning “lord,” or “master.”

Man. Gr. aneµr, man as distinguished from woman Three degrees of submission are here introduced. The man is to acknowledge Christ as his Lord and Master; the woman, while recognizing the supremacy of Christ as Lord over all, is required to acknowledge that in domestic life she is placed under the guidance and protection of man; Christ, although equal with the Father (see Additional Note on John 1), is represented as recognizing God as head. Even among equals there may be a head. A committee of men of equal rank still selects its chairman. Some see a reference here to a voluntary submission of Christ in the working out of the plan of salvation. See further on 1 Cor. 15:25–28. The power and dignity of the husband depends on the position he holds toward Christ, his head, therefore the dependence of the wife on her husband is in the true sense dependence on Christ through the husband. The dependence of the wife on her husband was a divinely appointed plan for the good of both spouses (see PP 58, 59). However, the dependence does not in any way imply the slightest degree of degradation. As the church does not experience dishonor by being dependent on Christ (see Eph. 1:18–23; 3:17–19; 4:13, 15, 16), neither does woman by being dependent on man.

4. Every man. In vs. 4–16 Paul discusses the subject of the covering of the head, particularly in relation to religious services. It should be stated clearly at the outset that this is one of those Pauline passages to which Peter’s words may have applied, that Paul wrote “some things hard to be understood” (2 Peter 3:16). Commentators, in general, confess to perplexity in their endeavors to follow Paul’s argument, and in their attempts to discover the breadth of application of his pronouncements. There seems to be agreement among them that Paul is here dealing with the basic principle of propriety, religious decorum, and good taste, in the context of the customs and manners of the time in which he wrote and the people to whom he wrote.

Unquestionably, certain aspects of this prime principle find different expression in different lands, even changing with the centuries in the various lands. The OT provides a choice illustration of this. When Moses came to the burning bush the Lord commanded him: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Ex. 3:5). It was evidently the custom in that area of the world—and is, indeed, still the custom—to show respect for holy places by removing the shoes. The Lord, therefore, was calling upon Moses to show the usual reverence for a holy place. Yet no expositor of the Scriptures has ever concluded that the explicit command of God to Moses sets a precedent for religious worship the world over, certainly not in Occidental countries. The principle of proper reverence still stands inviolate, but the method of expressing such reverence may vary greatly with countries and times.

Similarly, we may understand Paul, in 1 Cor. 11:4–16, to be reasoning with the Corinthians as to the principle of propriety and religious decorum in terms of the particular customs of the day. Though ancient sources fail to give us unequivocal testimony as to custom in headdress in Corinth or elsewhere, it seems evident that custom must have considered an uncovered head as proper for a man but improper for a woman. We say “evident,” for if this were not so, it would be impossible to make sense out of Paul’s argument. Proceeding, then, on the reasonable assumption that Paul is here dealing with the application of a principle to the custom of the country and the times, we are able to take literally and meaningfully his words without following on to conclude that his specific application of the principle then, requires the same specific application today. Thus to conclude would require the illogical procedure of surrendering the premise on which much of his argument rests—the custom of the times—while holding to the conclusion that depends on the premise. That would be equivalent to removing the foundation of a building while seeking to salvage and use the superstructure suspended in mid-air.

There is a further point that may be relevant to the consideration of this whole passage. Paul proclaimed a new and glorious freedom in the gospel. That proclamation had in it the seeds of the Christian principle of the dignity of womankind and her release from the low estate in which all women were held in pagan lands. He declared: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). It would be easy to see how some women converts to Christianity might distort and misuse their liberty in the gospel to bring discredit on the church. One of the libelous, unfounded charges that took shape against Christianity as it spread abroad and aroused the hatred of men was that the Christians were immoral. Indeed, the charge may already have been whispered abroad in Paul’s day. How needful, then, that Christians “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22), how needful that they remember the further counsel of Paul that though a certain course may be lawful it may not be expedient (1 Cor. 6:12).

All that follows in comment on ch. 11:4–16 should be understood in the light of this general, introductory statement, lest on the one hand we bind women in many lands today with grievous burdens that they should not have to bear, or on the other make Paul appear as out of date and as having no message for the twentieth-century reader.

Praying or prophesying. These were important aspects of public worship. In prayer the worshiper is the representative of the congregation, presenting them to God in thanksgiving, petition, and intercession; in prophesying, he is the agent of the Holy Spirit, conveying God’s message to His church. The prophesying here mentioned doubtless refers to public preaching and teaching by inspired men, for a prophet is one who speaks for God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 12:10, 29; 14:1, 4, 22; 1 Thess. 5:20; cf. 2 Peter 1:21).

Having his head covered. Gr. kata kephaleµs echoµn, literally, “having [something] down from the head.” Some think there is a reference here to the practice the Jews had of wearing a four-cornered shawl over the head when praying or speaking in worship. This shawl, or tallith, was placed on the worshiper’s head when he entered the synagogue. However, it is doubtful that this custom was already established in the time of Paul. The apostle does not necessarily imply that the men in the Corinthian church covered their heads during prayer or prophesying. He seems to refer to such a situation merely as a background to his rebuke for the women who apparently thought it proper to participate, unveiled, in the public spiritual functions here mentioned.

His head. This may refer either to Christ, who is the head of “every man” (v. 3), or to the man’s literal head, which would be dishonored by being covered. The man who, as the servant of his Lord, refuses publicly to show respect to Christ, brings dishonor both upon his Lord and upon his own head. Corinth was a Grecian city, and out of consideration for Grecian custom, Paul taught that in worshiping God in that city men should follow the usual manner of showing respect by removing the head covering in the presence of a superior. Men were not to act like women.

5. Woman. This verse brings out the contrast that is to be maintained between the sexes, in the light of current customs, as they take part in church activities.

Prophesieth. There are several instances recorded in the OT where women were endowed with the gift of prophecy, and served the church as prophetesses (Ex. 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Neh. 6:14). Likewise in NT times there were women in the church who prophesied (Luke 2:36, 37; Acts 21:9). It is possible that the Corinthian women argued that in their discharge of spiritual functions such as prayer and prophesying they should appear uncovered as did the men (1 Cor. 11:4). Some may have also reasoned that the liberty of the gospel (see Gal. 3:28) set aside the obligation to observe various marks of distinction between the sexes. Paul exposed the falsity of their reasoning.

Uncovered. Gr. akatakaluptos, literally, “not having a veil hanging down [from the head].” It was customary for women to cover their heads with a veil, as an evidence that they were married, and also as a matter of modesty.

Dishonoureth. In view of the fact that anciently women did not go abroad with uncovered heads, it would be regarded as a disgrace to a woman and to her husband if she should appear publicly without a veil, especially in the capacity of a leader of worship. For a woman at Corinth to take public part in the services of the church with her head uncovered would give the impression that she acted shamelessly and immodestly, without the adorning of shame-facedness and sobriety (see 1 Tim. 2:9). Paul seems to reason that by thus discarding the veil, a recognized emblem of her sex and position, she shows a lack of respect for husband, father, the female sex in general, and Christ.

Shaven. Short hair was sometimes the mark of a woman of poor repute, thus a Corinthian woman who took a part in the public services of the church with her head uncovered might be regarded as having put herself on the same level as a low, perhaps lewd, woman.

6. Let her also be shorn. This is hardly a positive command. The meaning seems to be, “she might as well be shorn.” In other words, if a woman wanted to act like a man, she ought, in order to be consistent, to cut her hair after the fashion of men. But such a course would be regarded as disgraceful. Therefore she should be properly veiled.

7. Image. This is a reference to the condition in which man was created (see Gen. 1:26, 27). If man wore a veil or other head covering, it would be a mark of servitude or inferiority. It would have been inappropriate for him to adopt such a sign. He should be so clothed as not to hide the great fact that he was the appointed representative of God on earth.

Glory. Gr.doxa. This word originally meant “opinion,” “reputation,” “recognition.” Based on its usage in the LXX, the meaning “splendor,” “brightness,” “magnificence,” or “character,” “attributes in manifestation” (cf. on John 1:14; Rom. 3:23), has been given to doxa by NT writers. Here the expression “glory of God” seems to mean that man has in himself a likeness to the splendor, greatness, and character of God in so far as he manages affairs in his assigned sphere in harmony with divine principles. Here we have a glimpse of the high responsibility to which God has called man. God placed him at the head of the newly created earth, and gave him “dominion, … over all the earth” (Gen. 1:26). Thus God intended, through man, to reveal His wise and kind parental care, His protection provision, and guidance, before the universe (see CT 33; PP 45). Even after man’s fall and the loss of dominion resulting from it, God planned that man should have the responsibility of leadership in the affairs of the home (see Gen. 3:16; PP 58, 59). There is no indication in the Bible that this order of things has ever been changed since that time, but it appears that some women in the church at Corinth tried to change it.

Glory of the man. In the case of a woman, only the word “glory” is used. The word “image” is omitted, though she too was fashioned in the image of God (see v. 27). Here the relation of woman to man is dealt with, not her relation to God. By her cheerful acceptance of God’s plan for the human family, woman reflects the glory of her husband, and through him the glory of God, who has made such wise provision for mankind (see 3T 483, 484). Woman was made from man, being bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. Hence, in a certain sense, all her charm, beauty, and purity reflect man’s dignity and honor (see Gen. 2:22, 23). If we rightly understand Paul, this relationship should be maintained, and in the church at Corinth be demonstrated, by the women appearing in public with their head covered by the customary veil.

8. Of the woman. God created Adam first, then Eve to be a suitable companion for him (Gen. 2:20–23). The creation of Adam was an independent one, but this was ot so with the woman. She was made from man, and was recognized by him as a part of himself (see Gen. 2:23). Part of man’s glory is that woman was created out of his very flesh and bones, specially for him, not to be independent of him, not to have authority over him, but to stand by his side as a “help meet.”

9. For the man. This verse is parallel to, and a restatement of, the truth set forth in v. 8. The record of the creation of Adam and Eve shows that the woman was created to be the complement to man. Without Eve, Adam was not provided for adequately; he had no one of his own kind with whom he could converse and share his life experiences, so God met this need by the creation of woman. She was made for man’s happiness and comfort. She was not to be a slave but a companion; not to be regarded as of inferior rank, but as man’s friend and comforter in life; to share his sorrows and increase his joys; yet especially after the Fall, to be subordinate to him (see Gen. 2:18–22; 3:16; Eph. 5:22–25, 33; 1 Peter 3:5–7). The husband is to be the head of the family and the ruler in the home; the wife is to help him in his duties, comfort him in his afflictions, and share with him in his pleasures. Her position is definitely honorable, and in some respects more honorable because of her subordinate position. Because of her dependent status she has prior claim on her husband’s care and protection.

10. Cause. That is, on account of God’s expressed purpose in the creation of woman and His plain command regarding her position in relation to her husband, she should comply with the accepted custom that women wear a veil in public (see Gen. 2:18; 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:22–24; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5, 6).

Power. Gr.exousia, “authority.” This probably refers to the sign of the husband’s authority, the veil, which women wore as a public recognition of their position under the power of their husbands. Willing compliance with this custom was an honorable privilege, indicating that a woman had a position of respect in the community, for she “belonged” to someone, and could claim support and protection from him under whose “power” she lived.

Because of the angels. This phrase has been variously understood. Among the fanciful interpretations are the following: (1) that the angels represent presiding elders or bishops in the church; (2) that the angels represent the spies who were supposed to be present at gatherings of Christians, and who would spread unfavorable reports if women were seen unveiled in such gatherings; (3) that the angels represent evil angels who would be tempted by the beauty of unveiled women. The simplest explanation seems to be that Paul refers to the good angels who are present at public religious exercises and before whom women should conduct themselves with proper decorum. Angels, who have an exalted understanding of the majesty and greatness of God, veil their faces in awe when they speak His name (see GW 178). Not only would any manifestation of irreverence or disrespect in Christian assemblies for worship be insulting to the Creator, it would also offend the angels. It is the pleasure of angels to honor God and do His bidding, with glad acknowledgement of His worthiness and glory (Ps. 103:20; cf. Isa. 6:2, 3; Rev. 4:8). Human beings need to have a much greater sense of the holiness and greatness of God, approaching Him with reverence, and doing all things in strict accordance with His revealed will (see Ps. 29:1, 2). If women should comply with accepted custom concerning the wearing of the sign of their subordinate position for fear of offending the angels, should they not the more fear to give offense to Him to whom all creatures, even the angels, are in subjection?

11. Nevertheless. In vs. 11, 12 Paul guards against a possible misunderstanding of what he has said in vs. 7–10. All attempts of men to exalt themselves over women, and all disposition on the part of women to retire are to be avoided. In the Christian life the sexes are mutually dependent on each other. In asserting the supremacy of man, and the manner in which such supremacy is to be indicated, even in public worship, Paul did not mean that man is independent of woman. Man and woman are counterparts of each other. The church is not a church of males alone, but of females also, who together with males are members of Him in whom “is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). Neither man nor woman stands alone; both stand essentially together and depend on each other. This interdependence of one upon the other is cited lest man should take to himself too much superiority, and regarding woman as made solely for his pleasure, treat her as being inferior, and not entitled to due respect.

In the Lord. This relation of the sexes to each other is according to the design and direction of the Lord. It is God’s intention and command that they should be mutually dependent, and should consider and promote each other’s welfare and happiness. Each is necessary to the well-being of the other, and this fact should be recognized in all their association. Man cannot exist apart from woman, neither can woman exist apart from man, each is incomplete without the other. This fact should be sufficient cause to prevent boasting on the part of man.

12. Of the man. This is a reference to the origin of woman, taken from the side of man to be his helper, his companion, his equal (see Gen. 2:18, 21, 22). Before the fatal departure from obedience to God’s requirements, which resulted in the degradation of the whole earth, it was the plan of God that woman should be on a complete equality with man, but sin made necessary a change in that plan, and woman was placed in subordination to man (see Gen. 3:16; PP 46, 58, 59).

By the woman. The first man, Adam, came into being by a direct act of creation on the part of God, in which woman played no part, but every subsequent male human being has been dependent upon a woman for his entrance into the world. God has chosen to use this method for the reproduction of the race. That fact ought to cause men to regard with awe and reverence the process of human reproduction, in which both man and woman are used by God to bring into existence another being upon whom the Lord may lavish His affection, and who may have the opportunity to qualify to be numbered among those who receive the gift of eternal life (see Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7; John 3:16; 1 John 5:11; 2 Tim. 4:8).

Of God. Everything in the universe was created and planned by God and exists for His pleasure (see Isa. 43:7; Rev. 4:11). Sin has interfered with God’s original plan, and man has lost the beauty and perfection of form and character that he received at his creation (see Gen. 1:26, 27; PP 64, 65). The plan of salvation seeks to restore man to his original perfection (Micah 4:8; PP 68). Knowing that God’s hand is over all, and that He is working out His purpose in the world, both men and women should repress any tendency to give way to an expression of complaint or dissatisfaction with the way God has arranged matters. Woman, recognizing the guiding hand of God, and acknowledging His wisdom and love, will be content with the position assigned her by God. In return, man will humbly confess that the present imperfect condition of things on earth is the result of sin, and will not assume any pose of false superiority. Both will understand that God is the source of all things, of the existence of woman from man, and man through woman. Such intelligent and willing acceptance of God’s ordained plan will help husband and wife to attain to that ideal of an indissoluble union that is illustrated by the union of Christ and the church (see Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:22, 33).

13. Yourselves. Having discussed the divine plan concerning the relation of the sexes, as far as headship is concerned, Paul takes up again the question of the correctness or incorrectness of women taking part in public worship without a veil. The believers are here called to consult their own inner convictions without reference to any external authorities by which their ideas might be influenced.

Comely. Gr. prepon, “fitting,” “becoming,” “proper.” For women to be uncovered when taking part in public worship does not fit in with the solemnity of the occasion, if for no other reason than that, because of the custom of the country, it distracts the attention of other worshipers. Furthermore, it would create a wrong impression on the mind of a pagan who might witness the service.

14. Nature. Here meaning the usual order of things, that which is generally accepted by men, the prevailing custom. In the time of Paul it was customary for Jewish, Greek, and Roman males to wear short hair. Among the Israelites it was looked upon as disgraceful for a man to have long hair, with the exception of one who had taken a vow as a Nazirite (see Num. 6:1–5; Judges 13:5; 16:17; 1 Sam. 1:11; see on Num. 6:2).

15. Glory. Paul reasons that nature (see on v. 14) leads people to recognize that long hair is an ornament and adorning for woman, as short hair is becoming for men.

Covering. Gr. peribolaion, literally, “that which is thrown around.” Paul does not mean that the woman with long hair may dispense with the veil. Verse 6 shows clearly that the uncovered woman still has long hair, which Paul declares may as well be cut if she desires to dispense with the veil. He seems to contend that the long hair itself argues for the propriety of the veil.

16. Seem to be. Rather, “desires to be.”

Contentious. Gr. philoneikos, “fond of strife.” After all that had been said on the subject, it was possible that there still might be someone in the Corinthian church who felt that he had a right to object to the instruction that women ought to be veiled, and might wish to impose his teaching on the church contrary to the counsel Paul had given. Such a person ought to realize that God is leading His church as a whole, He is not leading separate individuals, and personal opinion is to be surrendered to the voice of the church as the body of believers moves in accordance with the inspired instructions of the Lord (see TM 30, 476; 5T 534, 535; 4T 239, 256, 257; 9T 257, 258). This does not rule out the advisability of private, personal, individual study and investigation of truth. On the contrary, believers are urged to “search the scriptures,” and to equip themselves to bear testimony for truth. But if anyone forms an opinion that is not in harmony with the Bible, he should relinquish it, well knowing that there cannot be light in any belief or idea that conflicts with the Word of God (see Isa. 8:20; John 5:39; 2 Tim. 2:15).

We. That is, the apostles, the divinely appointed leaders of the church.

No such custom. The apostles neither taught nor followed the practice of sanctioning the appearance of women in public worship unveiled. The fact that in Christian churches elsewhere, in Judea particularly, the women did not take part in the services with uncovered heads should have decided the matter for the women of Corinth. Failure to comply with the generally accepted rule in the churches elsewhere would be a source of misunderstanding and offense. The opinion and conduct of the large body of believers was to be respected, and not opposed by a few self-opinionated members of the church at Corinth. This principle is always true; one individual or a few individuals should not feel that their ideas are superior to the general opinion of the church whole, and seek to impose those ideas on the majority, irrespective of the teachings of Scripture and the accepted practice of the church (see Acts 15:5, 6, 22–29; 9T 260, 261).

17. This. The pronoun refers to what follows, namely, the correct conduct of the sacred ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.

Praise you not. In view of their obstinate attitude and their failure to maintain proper decorum in worship, especially with regard to the manner of observing the Lord’s Supper, Paul could not speak to them words of commendation. The strife in the church indicated the presence there of a group who wished to assert a greater degree of liberty than that which was possible within the area of the provisions God had made for His people. Contending for the preservation of personal opinion, which often has its roots in pride, savors of the spirit of Satan, who caused war in heaven in order to try to prove that he was right and God was wrong (see Isa. 14:12–15; Rev. 12:7–10).

Not for the better. The regular assemblies of the believers are intended to minister to spiritual uplift and to encourage those participating to face the battle of life with greater faith and hope. Far from commending their deportment and their observance of the ordinance of the Lord’s house, the apostle found it necessary to rebuke them. He first stated categorically that their meetings were not productive of good results, but of bad; then he proceeded to elaborate on that statement and show how they had permitted erroneous practices to deprive the communion service of its sacredness and inspiration.

18. First. Paul had already dealt with quarrels and factions in the church at Corinth that had arisen from differences at Corinth that had risen from differences of belief and practice (see ch. 1:10–12). Here he may be referring to the habit of congregating in several separate groups to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. This separation into cliques is the first thing to be reproved. In chs. 12; 14 he deals with the second matter that needs correction, namely, a misunderstanding as to the nature and purpose of the various spiritual gifts.

Church. Gr. ekkleµsia, “gathering together,” “assembly.” Ekkleµsia does not mean a building, as the word “church” so often does in English, but the church members.

I hear. Literally, “I am hearing,” or “I continue hearing.” Paul was doubtless receiving repeated reports. Paul had a great burden of soul for the churches that he had been instrumental in establishing, and anything that disturbed their orderly functioning was a cause of distress to him (see Gal. 3:1; 4:19; cf. Phil. 1:7, 8; Col. 1:24).

Divisions. Gr. schismata (see on ch. 1:10). The spirit of unity and harmony that should prevail in gatherings of the saints, was absent (see above under “first”).

Partly. The criticism of their behavior in this respect was somewhat softened by this expression, which would indicate that Paul had too high a regard for them to give full credit to everything that had been reported to him about their factious condition.

19. Heresies. Gr. haireseis, singular hairesis. Originally hairesis meant “choosing,” “choice,” then “that which is chosen,” “opinion.” Later it came to signify a group of people holding to a particular opinion, a sect, a party. Here the word is probably used, not in a bad sense, as referring to opinions. When a number of individuals of various backgrounds associate closely in Christian fellowship, there will of necessity be varying degrees of appreciation of truth. These different degrees of understanding of the principles of the gospel give rise to discussion. Discussions may have wholesome effects and need not lead to divisions.

They which are approved. That is, those who are willing to obey God and to cooperate with Him. Divisions in the church have the effect of revealing those who are restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied, those who are not willing to be led by the Holy Spirit, but who seek to do their own will, and are not prepared to abandon their own opinions for the sake of peace and harmony in the church. Individuals of this type are to be avoided (see on Rom. 16:17). On the other hand, there are those who recognize their own natural sinfulness and who are unwilling to place any confidence in their own opinions, realizing the danger of being influenced by the impulses, desires, and inclinations of unconverted flesh. Such church members declare themselves to be in favor of peaceful and happy compliance with all the instruction of God (see Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:16, 17, 19–26). During the world-shaking events that will usher in the close of earth’s history, when all men will be required to demonstrate their allegiance, many whose fidelity to truth has passed almost unnoticed will then shine like brilliant stars on a dark night (see 5T 80, 81).

Made manifest. The presence in the Corinthian church of some who were out of harmony with the mind of Christ, necessitated bringing into the open differences of belief that would stimulate believers to earnest search for a knowledge of God’s will, and that would lead to a disclosure of those who refused to be led by the Holy Spirit (see Luke 2:34, 35; 1 John 2:18, 19). Thus the presence of doctrinal differences, and various opinions relative to correct methods of procedure in the church, served as a means of sifting the church and separating the chaff from the wheat.

20. Come together. That is, for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Not to eat. That is, whatever the intention may be, it is not possible under the circumstances to observe the sacred communion service. They came together for a supper, to be sure, but it was not the Lord’s Super. This was not due to any lack of facilities, but to lack of the necessary spiritual atmosphere and the lack of spiritual discernment that would be conducive to sympathetic appreciation of the significance of the ordinance. The Corinthians were not to think that such practices as were permitted among them at such times were consistent with the celebration of the supper. Greediness, selfishness, and intemperance are wholly at variance with the spirit of Him who left the joys of heaven to give all that He had for the salvation of sinners (see 1 Cor. 11:21, 22; John 3:16; Phil. 2:6–8).

Lord’s supper. Gr. kuriakon deipnon, literally, “a supper pertaining to the Lord,” which may mean a supper consecrated to the Lord or one instituted by Him, or both. The early Christians customarily preceded the Lord’s Supper by what they called a love feast, or agapeµ. Thus the entire proceeding formed a commemoration of the last Passover feast, at which Christ instituted the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper (see Matt. 26:17–21, 26–28; 1 Cor. 11:23–26). The love feast was a meal to which each member made a contribution of food that was enjoyed in common with all the other believers, to demonstrate clearly the fellowship of love in the Christian church, a fellowship that knows no caste or class distinctions, that places on all the same level. This meal, followed by the Lord’s Supper, showed that all shared in the provisions God makes for His people, both material and spiritual, and that there is no partiality manifested toward any. This custom continued in the church to the end of the 4th century, when, on account of the growth of the church and the increased size of the congregations, it was found necessary to separate the love feasts from the Lord’s Supper. See p. 45.

21. Own supper. Owing to the divisions and factions that had developed within the church at Corinth, the spirit of love and brotherly fellowship that characterizes all true followers of Jesus had to some extent disappeared. This unfortunate condition was revealed at the celebration of the feast that was supposed to be the Lord’s Supper, by each participant bringing his own food and eating it himself, without any thought of sharing it with others. The rich had an abundance to eat, and the poor often had nothing. The supper that had been instituted to commemorate the supreme demonstration of love thus became a mere private feast, a proceeding without meaning or significance, which each one might as well have performed at home. This brought the sacred ordinance of the Lord’s Supper into disrepute. The schisms in the church were largely responsible for this state of affairs, and it is possible that members of different parties ate separately because of their pride, refusing to humble themselves by fellowship around the Lord’s table.

Hungry. The poor believer, trusting in the charity of his more fortunate brethren, came to the feast believing that his need would be provided, but he was disappointed by the selfishness and unchristian pride of the rich.

Drunken. Gr. methuoµ, “to be intoxicated.” This word refers definitely to inordinate use of intoxicants to the point of loss of self-control. Paul intimates that the Corinthians ate and drank to excess at these feasts, and as a result their professed celebration of the Lord’s Supper became merely a farcical rite.

It may be considered surprising that Christians who lived in apostolic days, and who had been taught by Paul himself, should so pervert the nature and purpose of the Lord’s Supper as to turn it into a copy of their former heathen entertainments. It must be remembered that the Corinthians had only recently abandoned heathenism. They had been accustomed to engaging in excessive feasting in honor of false gods, and it would be comparatively easy for them to imagine that the Lord’s Supper could be celebrated in a similar manner. The divisions and party strife that marred their spiritual experience would cloud their vision and make it easier for them to corrupt the observance of the ordinance. This experience of the Corinthian believers shows that new Christians need careful and prolonged instruction and wise, sympathetic leadership and supervision until they are firmly rooted in the fundamental truths of the gospel. Compromise with non-Christian beliefs and practices always results in departure from the purity and simplicity of the gospel (see Deut. 7:1–4; 18:9–14; 2 Cor. 6:14–17).

22. Have ye not houses? If they assembled only to partake of their individually provided food and drink, they might well do that in their own homes, and so avoid bringing disgrace on the cause of God.

Despise. Do you think so little of the general practice of the whole body of believers in all places that you will set aside principle in order to satisfy your pride in your factions, and to gratify your selfish appetites?

Have not. That is, the destitute ones whose poverty was emphasized by the unfeeling manner in which many of the church members acted at the communion services. Failure to provide for the poor on such occasions not only drew attention to their unfortunate condition, but also revealed the fact that those who acted in that manner were wholly unprepared to partake in the ordinance.

That believers should so far lose sight of the sacred, exalted nature of the Lord’s Supper as to permit jealousy, envy, gluttony, pride, and neglect of the poor to have a place in their thinking and acting, merited the most severe rebuke. Such things showed clearly that those who acted in that way were absolutely devoid of the spirit of Jesus, who loves all impartially and who has tender regard for the unfortunate members of His flock (see Lev. 19:10; Ps. 41:1; 72:4; 132:15; Prov. 14:21; Isa. 14:32; 58:7; Matt. 26:11; Luke 14:13; James 2:5). To show contempt for the poor, and pass them by on account of their lack of the material blessings of life, is looked on by the Lord as ill-treatment of Him. Those who thus treat the poor show their utter misconception of the principles of the kingdom of God (see Matt. 25:40–46; 2T 24–29, 34–37). Ministry to the poor, sick, and aged is Christianity in action.

Praise you not. However he might seek for it, there was not one thing that the apostle could commend in their manner of observing the ordinance. On the contrary, there was much ground for unqualified censure. The situation called for the exposition of the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, which follows in vs. 23–30.

23. Received of the Lord. Paul was not one of those present when Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless he had learned of it, not merely from other apostles or by tradition, but directly from the Saviour Himself, during one of the revelations given to him by the Lord (see 2 Cor. 12:7; Gal. 1:12).

Delivered. Paul had faithfully delivered to them what the Lord had revealed to him as to the manner in which the Lord’s Supper was to be observed. In view of this lack of perception of the real import of the ordinance, which produced the present abuses, Paul set forth the solemn circumstances in which it was first observed by Jesus and His disciples in the upper room at Jerusalem (see Luke 22:13, 14).

Betrayed. Literally, “was being betrayed.” The plot for Christ’s betrayal was in progress, and had not yet been fulfilled. At the very time Jesus was giving instructions for the memorial ordinance of His death to be observed, His enemies were putting into operation their plan to seize Him. The solemnity and pathos of the holy supper stood in sharp contrast with the careless and flippant attitude of the Corinthians at their love feast. The night of His betrayal confronted Christ with one of the bitterest experiences that mortals can endure. Persecution and trial at the hands of avowed enemies are hard to bear, but they do not inflict the same mental pain that treachery or desertion on the part of friends brings to a trusting heart (see Job 19:21; Ps. 38:11; Zech. 13:6; John 13:21, 26, 27, 30; DA 655). By reminding the Corinthian church of the events of that night of suffering, Paul no doubt sought to impress them with a sense of the solemn nature of the ordinance, and thus teach them that it was altogether improper for them to celebrate it with gluttony, drunkenness, and proud exclusiveness. To appreciate the deep significance of the ordinance, it is necessary to meditate upon the events clustering around its institution; and one of those events, the memory of which is calculated to produce in the mind a feeling of sympathy for the Saviour, was His betrayal by one who had professed to be a friend (see Ps. 41:9).

Took bread. The bread that had been prepared for the Passover supper (see on Matt. 26:26).

24. Had given thanks. Gr. eucharisteoµ, “to give thanks,” from which the word “Eucharist” is derived. The term “Eucharist” is applied by some theologians to the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice of thanksgiving for all the gifts of God. Some of the Fathers of the church in the 2d century applied the word to the bread and wine used in the ordinance. In the account of the institution of the ordinance given by Mark, the word eulogeoµ, “to praise,” or “to bless,” is used; in Matthew textual evidence (cf. p. 10) favors the reading eulogeoµ, but in Luke eucharisteoµ is employed as here (see Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19). Both words have similar meaning and in the context convey the idea of consecrating the bread by a grateful acknowledgment of God’s mercy and love.

He brake. Jesus meaningfully broke that which was to be from that time forward “till he come” (v. 26) the mysterious symbol of all that His substitutionary sufferings mean to the human race. The act of breaking the bread indicated primarily the suffering that He was about to undergo on our behalf.

This is my body. As to the meaning of this figure of speech see on Matt. 26:26. The spiritual significance of the act of partaking of the broken bread must be understood against the background of man’s original state of perfection, his fall, and his redemption through Jesus Christ. Man was originally created in the image of God, both in form and in character; his mind was in harmony with the mind of God (see Gen. 1:26, 27; PP 45). He held open communion with God and the angels and was sustained by the fruit of the tree of life (see Gen. 2:15, 16; PP 47, 50). But when he sinned, all this was changed. He lost the privilege of open communion with God; instead of being in harmony with the mind of God, he was perverted in mind, and fear took the place of love (see Gen. 3:8, 10, 12; Isa. 59:2; Jer. 17:9). Left to himself, man could not find his way back to God and happiness, he could not escape the clutches of Satan, and was doomed to perish eternally (see Jer. 13:23; PP 62). In His incomprehensible mercy God revealed Himself to man in the person of His Son, and made possible the restoration of His image in man (see Ps. 2:7, 12; 40:7; John 14:9–11; 2 Cor. 5:19).

In His wisdom the Father has chosen to speak to mankind through His Son, therefore the Son is called the Word of God (see John 1:1–3, 14; DA 19, 22, 23). It is by the study and assimilation of the Word of God that believers maintain communion with Heaven and are enabled to live spiritually. This assimilation of His words is described by Jesus as eating His body and drinking His blood (see John 6:47, 48, 51, 54–58, 63; DA 660, 661). The broken bread of the communion supper signifies the wonderful truth that as man derives his physical life from God, who is the source of life, so the repentant, believing sinner derives spiritual life from Jesus, the Word of God. Physical food is provided for all men by the power and grace of God. The physical food taken into the body is changed by the processes of digestion into the tissues of brain, muscle, nerve, and bone; and actually becomes man himself. Thus man, physically, is what he eats. In like manner he who by study takes into his mind the Word of God, and brings his life into conformity with it by the power of God, is changed from a rebel, continually living in opposition to God and therefore to his own best interests, to a loving, obedient child of God, whose whole purpose in life is to reflect the image of his Creator (see DA 660). This precious experience has been made possible for man only by the breaking of the body of Jesus.

Is broken. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of this verb.

In remembrance of me. This phrase shows that Christ would be absent when His disciples ate of this supper in the future. In order to impress upon men the awful nature of disobedience, God had required of the Hebrews animal sacrifices. But these sacrifices could not, of themselves, change the character of the sinner who made the sacrifice; they could only point him to the Redeemer to come, who would, in His own body, make the great sacrifice whereby man might be reconciled to God. The Lord’s Supper, which succeeded the Passover memorial of deliverance from Egypt, was given, not as a sacrifice, but vividly to remind the believer of all that has been achieved for him by the one great sacrifice made by the Son of God for the whole human family (see Heb. 9:25–28; 10:3–12, 14).

The sacrifice of Christ was perfect; therefore it could be offered only once. But in order to make it efficacious for all who should seek forgiveness of sin through Him, Jesus became man’s great high priest in heaven after His ascension, there to present the merits of the sacrifice of His own broken body on behalf of repentant sinners “till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26; Heb. 4:14–16; 7:24, 25; 8:1, 6; 9:11, 12, 14, 24). As the Saviour ministers on our behalf in heaven, pleading before the Father the merits of His sacrifice, He calls upon His people on earth to observe the ordinance that keeps before them the mystery of the atonement.

25. Same manner. That is, with the same solemnity and purpose, and to teach the same great truth. These words also indicate that the Lord gave thanks before inviting the disciples to drink the wine (see Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17).

When he had supped.It is impossible to determine at what point in the Passover ritual the new ordinance was introduced (see on John 13:2). It was to be an entirely new ordinance, not a continuance of the paschal feast, the significance of which came to an end when Christ died.

This cup. By a figure of speech the container stands for its contents. The cup contained the Passover wine “untouched by fermentation” (see on Matt. 26:27).

Testament. Gr. diatheµkeµ, “a covenant,” “an agreement,” “an arrangement.” Here diatheµkeµ refers to the agreement God has made with man, whereby, on account of the reconciliation effected by means of the sacrificial death of Christ, God would give everlasting life to all who believe in Christ (see John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 1 John 5:12). That this arrangement for the salvation of man was in effect before Jesus came to the earth is clearly evident, for Abraham, among others, was saved by faith in the promised Redeemer (Rom. 4:3, 16–22; Heb. 11:39, 40). How then could this be called a new covenant? It was not “new” in point of time, but in point of the time of its ratification by the blood of Christ. For the relationship between the old and the new covenant see on Eze. 16:60.

In my blood. It was customary in OT times to ratify, or seal, agreements made between two parties by the slaying of an animal. In some instances the animal was cut in pieces and the parties to the covenant walked between the divided animal, thus signifying their vow of faithfulness to the terms of the covenant (Gen. 15:9–18; Jer. 34:18, 19). The old covenant between God and Israel was confirmed by the blood of animals (Ex. 24:3–8). The new covenant between God and man, based entirely on God’s promises, was ratified by the blood of Jesus (see Heb. 10:12, 14, 16, 20; PP 371). The sinner who repents and accepts the divine plan for his redemption thereby enters into the new covenant. And he testifies to his grateful acceptance of this plan by drinking the communion wine, which speaks of the blood of Christ that ratified the covenant.

As oft. The time and frequency for the observance of the Passover had been definitely prescribed by God (Ex. 12:1–20), but not so for the Lord’s Supper. The frequency of its celebration is left to the choice of the believers. It is natural to think that those who love the Lord, and are conscious of their great need of Him at all times, will be glad to partake in the ordinance often.

In remembrance of me. It is essential that the great fact of Calvary, with all its implications, be never absent from the thinking of all who value eternal life. The study of the science of salvation will occupy the attention of the redeemed throughout eternity. True Christians will desire to give much consideration to this exhaustless theme while waiting for their Lord to come again (see Ed 126; DA 659).

26. As often as. See on v. 25.

Shew. Gr. kataggello, “to proclaim,” “to declare.” By taking part in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, Christians proclaim to the world their faith in the atoning work of Christ and in His second coming. The Saviour’s words, “when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29), encourage His followers to look forward through trial and hardship to the glorious day when He will return to take His people away from this world of sin to the abode of everlasting happiness and peace (see DA 659). This statement concerning showing, or proclaiming, the Lord’s death suggests that the ordinance should not be observed in secret. Its public observance often makes a deep impression on those who witness it.

It should be obvious from this verse that all believers are to eat the bread and drink the wine at the communion service. Neither element is partaken of only by the one officiating. It is by eating and drinking the emblematic bread and wine that believers declare their faith in the full reconciliation effected by the broken body and shed blood of Christ, and in His return to this world to take His people to Himself (John 14:1–3). The ordinance is to be observed as long as time shall last, by all who are believers. The need for its observance will cease only when all believers see Jesus face to face. Then there will be no necessity for anything to remind them of Him, for all will see Him as He is (1 John 3:2; Rev. 22:4). As the sacrifices offered at the tabernacle in Moses’ day, and later at the Temple in Jerusalem, pointed to the death of Jesus all through the centuries until Christ came the first time, so the celebration of the Lord’s Supper declares that He has paid the penalty for the sins of mankind, and will continue to declared it “till he come” the second time.

27. Wherefore. That is, in view of what has been said concerning the purpose of the Lord’s Supper.

And. Rather, “or.”

Unworthily. That is, without due reverence for the Lord, whose suffering and sacrifice are being commemorated. The unworthiness may be said to consist either in unbecoming conduct (see v. 21) or in a lack of vital, active faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Guilty. One who fails to appreciate the incalculable debt he owes to the Saviour, and who treats with indifference the ordinance appointed to keep fresh in the minds of believers the death of Christ, is guilty of disrespect toward Him. Such an attitude is akin to that of those who condemned and crucified the Lord. One who displays such an attitude at the Lord’s Supper might well be considered as rejecting his Lord, and therefore sharing in the guilt of those who put Him to death.

28. Examine himself. Before taking part in the Lord’s Supper the believer should prayerfully and carefully review his experience as a Christian, and make certain that he is ready to receive the blessings that participation in this ordinance provides for all who are in right relationship with God. He may well ask himself whether day by day he has an experience of death to sin and new birth to the Lord, whether he is gaining in the battle against besetting sins, and whether his attitude toward other men is right. Words, thoughts, and deeds should be inspected, as well as habits of personal devotion; indeed, everything that has a bearing on progress toward the attainment of a character that reflects the image of Jesus (see 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 6:4). Whereas self-examination and the putting away of everything that is contrary to the mind of God is an exercise in which the Christian must engage every day (see Luke 9:23; 1 Cor. 15:31; 7T 252), the Lord’s Supper represents a special occasion for public declaration of new resolves. For the function of the ordinance of foot washing in aiding the believer to attain to the requisite experience of preparedness see on John 13:4–17.

So. After having made a careful scrutiny of his life in relationship to the Lord, let the believer approach the table of the Lord with joyful thankfulness for all that the crucified Saviour means to him.

29. Unworthily. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for omitting this word. If omitted, the sense of the passage is, “For the one eating and drinking not discerning the body.”

Damnation. Gr. krima, “judgment,” not necessarily the future and final punishment of the wicked. By improper participation in the Lord’s Supper one is exposed to the displeasure of God and to punishment, such as that mentioned in vs. 30, 32.

Discerning. Gr. diakrinoµ, “to distinguish,” “to discriminate.” Here the meaning may be that the Corinthians did not distinguish between an ordinary meal and the consecrated emblems of the ordinance, that they placed no difference between their regular food and that which had been set apart to remind them of the atoning death of Christ. There is a great difference between memorials of ordinary events in history and the memorial of the transaction by which restoration of the sinner to divine favor became possible. Believers must not treat the ordinance as merely a commemorative ceremony of a happening in history. It is that, and much more; it is a reminder of what sin has cost God and what man owes to the Saviour. It is also a means of keeping fresh in mind the believer’s duty to bear public witness to his faith in the atoning death of the Son of God (see DA 656).

30. Weak and sickly. Commentators generally believe that these adjectives describe physical disease and suffering. It may be that the intemperance and gluttony associated with the love feasts that preceded the ordinance at Corinth were contributing factors to the sickness spoken of here. Sin is disobedience, and produces suffering and death.

Sleep. Gr.koimaomai, a word frequently used in the Scriptures to signify death (John 11:11, 12; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 7:39; 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:13–15). Drunkenness and gluttony bring their own reward, which is sickness and death. The heathenish intemperance manifested by the Corinthian believers at their love feasts may have been of such a nature as to merit this warning, but it is applicable to all instances of like excess. This, however, is not the only application of the statement. It cannot be separated from the matter of careless observance of the Lord’s Supper itself. One who, by a careless manner of conduct at the ordinance, shows a lack of respect for the sufferings of Christ, misses the blessings God desires him to have. He is likely to be careless about other commands of God, and so bring upon himself disease and suffering and even death.

31. Judge. Gr. diakrinoµ “to discern,” “to discriminate.” Diakrinoµ is translated “discerning” in v. 29. The word signifies self-judgment, a diagnosis of one’s own moral condition in the light of God’s standard. If believers would scrutinize strictly their own attitudes and conduct and take part in the ordinance with a proper reverence, they would not come under the condemnation of God.

Be judged. That is, by God. A proper self-examination would save believers from divine judgment. The experience of the Corinthian believers is recorded for our learning. If Christians would remember this experience of the early church at Corinth, and be scrupulous about examining their thoughts and feelings and motives, they would derive much greater blessing from partaking of the ordinance, and would avoid meriting the displeasure of God.

32. Judged. The sufferings that the Lord permitted to come upon the Corinthians because of their careless celebration of the ordinance were a merciful means of dealing with their failures. The disciplining was intended to save them from continuing in such transgression. It is better for us to be “chastened of the Lord” in this life, and be led to change our way from that which is not according to His will to that which He approves of, than to continue in sin and be lost eternally (see 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20). Suffering results in refining and purifying the life of the true believer (see Heb. 12:5–11).

Condemned with the world. This refers to the final condemnatory judgment, from which there is no reprieve. The “world” comprises all who refuse to repent of their sins, to humble themselves before God, and to accept Jesus as their Saviour. These are accounted worthy of eternal death (see Ps. 34:16; Eze. 18:24; Mal. 4:1, 2; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9).

33. Tarry. Two opinions are current concerning this verse, both of which seem to be appropriate. Some commentators think that it refers to proper behavior at the love feasts that preceded the Lord’s Supper (see p. 45) in the church at Corinth. Others think that it refers strictly to the ordinance itself. In either case the caution is against the disorder and selfishness that had been practiced. Some had been drunk, some had neglected the poor. All this was contrary to the spirit of Christ (see vs. 21, 22). God requires order and a heavenly spirit in everything that pertains to His worship (see ch. 14:33, 40). At the most solemn service of the church, the Lord’s Supper, there must be no trace of pride, selfishness, gluttony, or intemperance; the mind must be set upon Christ and His sacrifice, and no thoughts or acts prompted by the natural heart must be allowed a place therein.

34. Hunger. This refers to ordinary physical desire for food, not to spiritual longing for the bread of life. The Lord’s Supper is not intended to be a time when men may satisfy their natural hunger. It is designed to be a memorial of the world’s greatest and most solemn event, and not a banquet. If all believers would follow carefully the instructions concerning the observance of the Lord’s Supper that are given in this chapter, it would be a service full of comfort and of elevating, holy joy (see DA 660, 661).

The rest. Apparently there were other matters on which questions had been raised by the believers in Corinth, questions that Paul felt he could deal with better when he came. This statement shows that he planned to visit Corinth again, which he did, but not before he wrote another epistle (see pp. 102–104, 822).

This chapter stresses the need for exercising great care in all that is connected with the worship of God. Worshipers should approach Him with pure motives and consciences, and with minds intent on glorifying Him and receiving the blessing He waits to bestow (see Ps. 24:3–5; 29:2; 95:2, 3, 6; 100:4; John 4:23, 24).

Ellen G. White comments

1    PP 719

3     DA 414

7     Ed 20

23–26DA 652; EW 101, 217

24   Ev 273

26   DA 149, 659

27–29DA 656

31   DA 314