Section VII The New Faith and
Public Worship
In the first 10 chapters Paul has discussed a series of subjects related to the spiritual and moral life of the Christian believer. He now passes to considerations related to public worship.
A. APPEARANCE OF WOMEN IN PUBLIC WORSHIP, 11:2-16
1. Preliminary Commendation (11:2)
As an introduction to the discussion Paul expresses his appreciation: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. While the church had questioned some of Paul’s instructions, they had not rebelled against him and still regarded him as their spiritual advisor. For this Paul was thankful. Further, the Corinthians, in the main, still retained the ordinances given to them by Paul. An ordinance, as Paul used the term, “is any deliverance, any bit of instruction, any principle, and any rule of conduct which Paul handed over to the Corinthians when he was in their midst.”1
2. A Matter of Practical Priorities (11:3-6)
Ordinarily women who appeared in public wore a veil over their heads to indicate both modesty and subordination. The question of Christian women continuing to observe this Oriental custom is the point at issue in this section. It is not clear how the question arose, though it may have had its origin in the apostle’s own teachings. Paul himself had said that in Christ all things are made new: “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” (Gal. 3:28). With the spirit of freedom prevalent in the church, some may have assumed that the custom of wearing the veil was no longer necessary. Further, if a woman was inspired to speak in public, would not the “fact of her inspiration release her from that obligation, and make it proper that she should lay aside her veil, and appear as public speakers did among men?”2 But Paul felt strongly that women should cover their heads in a public service. He therefore limits freedom in worship by some practical priorities.
a. A threefold hierarchy of relationships (11:3). To support his teaching that women should wear a veil in public worship, Paul suggests three levels of relationship. Lowest in the scale is the completely human relationship of husband and wife—The head of the woman is the man. Next, and higher, is the divine-
human relationship—The head of every man is Christ. Highest in the scale is the divine relationship—The head of Christ is God. Two ideas are involved in this scale: “community of life and in equality within this community.”3 Thus Christ, the Saviour, is also the Master of those who serve Him. The husband is coequal with the wife but is the director of the home. Even in the re demptive relationship, Christ subordinated himself to God and was obedient in all things.
b. The unveiled man (11:4). The Jews always wore a head covering in the Temple or synagogue as a sign of reverence. Among the Greeks only slaves wore a head covering, and the uncovered head was a sign of freedom. Paul at this point simply tells the Corinthian men to follow their custom, which was to appear without a head covering. For them to worship with the head uncovered indicated respect and reverence for God as Ruler and King.
c. The veiled woman (11:5-6). Because the Ruler of the man is Christ, the man can appear in worship with an uncovered head. The opposite is true of the woman. Because the husband is the head of the wife, for a woman to appear without the veil would be an act of rejection or rebellion against the husband. Further, it was a common custom among ancient people that a woman of good character did not appear in public without a veil. On these two grounds, Paul ruled that if a woman prayed or delivered a revelation from God in public, she should keep her head covered.
The apostle was concerned both to retain the proper relationship in the home and to sustain the good reputation of the Christian woman. Thus he compares the woman who appears in public with her head uncovered to one whose head was shaven (5). The shaved head “was never found among the Greeks, except in the case of women who were slaves; among the Jews, only in the case of the woman accused of adultery by her husband (Num. v. 18).”4 To make his teaching even more emphatic Paul makes a ruling in case the woman be not covered (6, veiled). The verb here has a double meaning that is not apparent in our English translation. It is in the present continuous tense, suggesting a habitual attitude of indifference to modesty and custom. It is also in the middle voice, indicating that the act is persistent and deliberate. In this case Paul would apply a severe penalty, Let her also be shorn. Since this would be a disgrace no woman would desire, she would agree to wear the veil.
3. Priorities in Creation (11:7-10)
Man’s appearance in public with his head uncovered reflects a priority of divine origin. By creation he is the image and glory of God (7). The word image means a visible representation. As such, “man was designed to be the representative of his Creator to display the attributes of God.”5 Moreover, because man is the image of God he is sovereign over all creation and thereby “visibly reflects the sovereignty of the invisible Creator over all things.”6 As God’s image and glory, man’s head should be uncovered—“his head because it is the noblest part of his body and most expressive of his personality.”7
In the case of a woman the situation is different, for the woman is the glory of the man. She was created to be a helpmate to the man (8-9). Because of the sequence in the creation of man and woman, all customs which symbolize these facts ought to be followed in the worship of God. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels (10). The term power refers to the veil or covering as “a symbol of authority” (NASB). Because the woman was formed from man and for man, she was obligated to openly wear a symbol of her subordination to her husband. The phrase because of the angels reflects Paul’s belief that all of God’s creation somehow participates in an act of true worship. An act of impropriety would offend these invisible attendants and cast a shadow over the service.
4. The Practical Equality (11:11-12)
The apostle is careful to eliminate any ground for the mistreatment of a woman under the guise of religious teachings. Her role is a subordinate one in the order of creation, and this role is to be indicated by a modest and discreet wearing of the veil in public. In practice and in private, however, man and woman are equal and interdependent. They are one in the Lord (11).
Further, from the natural point of view, man cannot be independent of the woman. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman (12). Vine explains, “Man is the initial cause of her being, she is the instrumental cause of his.”8 On a personal basis man and woman are equal, although for administrative purposes the woman is subordinate to the man. Ultimately all things are of God, so all ranks and all levels disappear in His grace and service.
5. Personal and Natural Lessons (11:13-16)
One additional point is presented to complete the discussion regarding the head covering for women during worship. Paul had presented the matter from the standpoint of divine authority and natural creation. He now appeals to the instinctive good sense of the Corinthians when he says: “Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (13, RSV) In a public meeting, “when the woman’s voice is uttering the deepest impressions and the holiest emotions of adoration and love … a feeling of holy modesty ought to constrain her to secure herself from every indiscreet and profane look.”9
On the other hand, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him (14). Generally, long hair has been regarded as unnatural in man. Especially in Corinth, with its sexual perversion, “such long hair will make a man seem much like a woman and will thus bring a corresponding ‘dishonor’ upon him.”10 The situation is just the opposite with a woman. Long hair … is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering (15). By nature woman is given a covering which is in effect a veil. Godet comments that this long and rich hair “is a natural symbol of reserve and modesty, woman’s most beautiful ornament.”11
An added factor was that in Corinth there was a social custom which supported Paul’s case for Christian modesty. This being the case, the Christian should conform to the custom in order to manifest a Christian character. Paul ends the discussion by a reference to the general practice of the Church. To those who might disagree with him on this matter, he states simply, We have no such custom, neither the churches of God (16). The apostle “means that neither he, nor the Christians formed by him, nor in general any of the Churches of God, either those which he had not founded or those properly his own,”12 have the custom of women worshiping without a veil of some kind. In this matter it should be stated that the exact length of a woman’s hair is not prescribed, and that Paul was sanctioning a custom of the day.
B. DISORDERS AT THE LORD’S SUPPER, 11:17-34
The problem of feminine modesty in relation to public worship was a small matter in comparison with some problems which had developed in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. The rejection of a head covering for women may have arisen from lack of knowledge or from a misunderstanding about the nature of Christian liberty. But the deliberate perversion of the sacred Communion service betrayed a disregard for basic Christian teachings. Thus Paul’s tone is severe as he denounces the gluttony and bickering associated with this symbol of fellowship.
1. A Stern Rebuke (11:17-22)
In v. 2, Paul had praised the Corinthians for their general loyalty to teachings and practices he had given them. Now he writes, I praise you not (17). The situation is serious. The verb declare (parangello) means to level an authoritative charge. He commands them to straighten out the matter. The occasion for Paul’s severe accusation is one of the most shocking developments that can occur in a group holding a worship service: Ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. Instead of building up the spiritual life of the church the Communion was a time of spiritual decline.
a. Divisions in the church (11:18-19). Paul writes, I hear that there be divisions among you (18). The word for divisions (schismata) was used earlier (1:10) to describe the spirit which was tearing the church apart. When the people convened for the worship of God, they revealed this spirit of division and exclusive-ness even at the most sacred of Christian rituals.
The word heresies (19) is derived from a term stressing the idea of choosing between alternatives. In biblical and church language the word usually means a wrong choice, and hence a false doctrine. It can be one of the “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:20). Here the meaning seems to be parallel to the divisions of 18. The RSV translates it, “There must be factions among you.” The meaning of the last part of 19 seems to be in the form of satire: You must keep divisions among you so that those who insist that they are right can prove it by separating themselves from the rest of the church.
b. Misuse of the Lord’s Supper (11:20-21). The divisions at Corinth were so serious that when the people assembled for the service it was not really to eat the Lord’s supper (20). Their carnal divisions had in reality changed the service into a kind of dissipation that made it something other than the Lord’s. At Corinth the Communion service was not simply symbolic with token food and drink. It was an actual meal. Each member apparently brought food to the service. Such sharing of food in religious festivals was common among heathen religions, being called eranio. Also the Early Church apparently shared a common meal on certain occasions, which was called a love feast or agape (II Pet. 2:13; Jude 12). However, at Corinth the meal did not express Christian love or even the goodwill of the heathen feasts. Paul writes concerning it, For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken (21).
At the Corinthian Communion each person apparently placed the food before himself and proceeded to eat his own supper. The picture is that of a greedy scramble to eat the provisions before it became possible “to make a general distribution of them, and without sharing them with your neighbors.”13 As a result the poor who could not bring much, or those who could bring nothing and who were late in arriving, would go hungry. Thus one is hungry, and another is drunken. The verb is drunken (methuein) usually means “to be intoxicated.” But it also means to eat and to drink to one’s complete satisfaction, which could be the meaning here. At any rate, the Corinthians had completely distorted the meaning of the Communion. The Lord’s Supper is the symbol of sacrifice, love, and fellowship. At Corinth it had come to mean selfishness, intemperance, and indifference to the needs of others.
c. Sins in the misuse of the Lord’s Supper (11:22). Paul points out three specific wrongs committed by the Corinthians. First, they had changed a spiritual observance into a kind of holiday feast. The purpose of the Communion was to remind the believers of the death of Christ and of the redemptive results of His suffering. If the people wanted to satisfy their hunger or to have a festive meal, they should do so on another occasion. Second, the Corinthians had shown lack of reverence and respect for the church of God. To make the church a place for holiday celebration “is to degrade it, hence to look down on it, to despise it.”14 Third, by their selfishness the more wealthy members embarrassed and humiliated the poor among the believers. This combination of sins led Paul to the simplest yet most complete statement of condemnation: What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
2. Meaning of the Lord’s Supper (11:23-26)
Paul’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper was a direct revelation from God. The apostle presents “on an immovable foundation the authority of his narrative.”15 As he had received the gospel directly from Christ (Gal. 1:11-12), and not from man, even so he had received the instructions concerning the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, he had carefully and faithfully transmitted this information to the church. Thus he could say with finality and authority, I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you (23).
The Supper represented the establishment of a new covenant of grace and was to be observed as a memorial. Both the “broken body” and the “shed blood” are to be regarded as symbolical rather than actual references to the body of Christ. When Jesus said, This is my body, which is broken for you (24), He was not physically at the table. Any ideas of a miraculous change in either the bread or the wine is contrary to the biblical account. Finally, the Eucharist was to be observed as a memorial or reminder, not as a means of salvation. The statements, This do in remembrance of me, and, Ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (26), both support the idea of the Supper as a spiritual reminder or symbol of the death of Christ.
3. Observance of the Lord’s Supper (11:27-34)
The Lord’s Supper is a spiritual memorial to our Lord’s act of redemption, and a public testimony to our faith in Jesus Christ. It should therefore be celebrated in a solemn, yet thankful fashion.
a. Unworthy participation (11:27). Paul asserts that it is possible to eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, un worthily. The adverb unworthily refers to a balancing of weights and so means “of unequal weight” or “improperly balanced.” The attitude of the person does not balance with the importance of the occasion. If a person partakes of the Lord’s Supper in a light and frivolous manner, without reverence and gratitude, or while indulging in sin, or while manifesting bitterness against a fellow believer, he is partaking unworthily.
To thus partake unworthily is to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. The word guilty (enochos) means to be “liable to the penal effect of a deed; here it … [involves] the guilt of His death.”16 Instead of coming to the table with a wrong or sinful attitude, the believer should come “in faith, and with a due performance of all that is fitting for so solemn a rite.”17
b. Spiritual examination (11:28). Before taking part in this sacred service let a man examine himself with a rugged selfstudy. The word means to test. So the believer should examine his motives and actions. Certainly no one can earn the grace and forgiveness of God. But on the other hand, an honest self-exami nation will indicate whether or not one comes to the sacred table with proper motives and in active obedience to the Lord. Paul’s instruction is wholesomely positive. He does not say to examine oneself and leave the Lord’s table in despair. Rather he counsels a man to search his heart and then in honest faith let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
c. Dangers of irreverence (11:29-30). The RSV renders v. 29, “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” The word krima which the KJV translates damnation means “condemnation.” Paul does not intend to state that a person who comes to the table without the proper spiritual qualifications will be eternally damned. He means that such an act will bring condemnation and guilt. Not discerning the Lord’s body means that the worshipper has failed to distinguish between the sacred memorial of the Lord’s Supper and other kinds of meals.
The apostle indicates that as a result of the misuse of the Lord’s Supper many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (30). It is too strong to state that eternal damnation is the result of a misuse of the Lord’s Supper, but Paul issues a warning that God’s judgment could come, bringing sickness and even physical death. Weak (asthenes) means sickness; the term sickly (arrostos) means infirmity and decay, while the word sleep (koimaomai) is used most frequently in the NT to indicate the “death of those who belong to Christ.”18 Godet says that Paul is writing of “a warning judgment, specifically inflicted by God, such as He sends to awaken a man to salvation.”19
d. Reverent participation (11:31-34).
The way to avoid God’s judgment is to voluntarily and truthfully judge ourselves (31). But even when God sends judgment upon the believer, he is chastened of the Lord (32). God’s judgments in these cases are not harsh punishments, but symbols of His love. “They are sent to bring us back from the wrong way, so that we shall not share in the condemnation of the world.”20
The proper way to observe the sacrament is to tarry one for another (33). They should wait until all are assembled, then considerately and with brotherly affection conduct the love feast. The final injunction of v. 34 is again a warning not to regard the Lord’s Supper as an ordinary meal. If a man is hungry, let him eat at home. The purpose of the Communion is to remind the believers of the redemptive work of Christ and to bring a spirit of unity and love in the church.
Some other points in this matter still required attention. Speaking of these Paul wrote: And the rest will I set in order when I come (34). These matters were not seriously affecting the life of the church and could be postponed. What were the rest of the concerns that Paul had in mind? Perhaps he wanted to separate completely the idea of a love feast from the observance of the Lord’s Supper. We know that about A.D. 150 the custom of eating a meal in connection with the Communion was discontinued.
For the Christian there is “Strength Through Sacraments.” (1) They are given by the Lord, 23a; (2) They are reminders of Christ’s sacrifice, 23b-26; (3) They demand self-examination, 27-29; (4) They produce concern for others, 33-34.