1 Corinthians

Divisions over Corporate Worship. Paul addresses three issues that have come to his attention, either through the Corinthians’ letter to him (7:1; 12:1) or through an oral report (11:18). All three issues relate to the conduct of the Corinthians when they gather for worship.

Was Paul being arrogant when he called for others to imitate him? Not at all. Living in a preliterary age, he was adopting a deliberate teaching strategy—calling on new converts to imitate the patterns of behavior modeled for them. Working to support oneself was one such pattern, and relinquishing liberties for the sake of others was another. In fact, 1Th 2:14 speaks of persecuted Thessalonian believers being imitators of suffering Judean churches—just as they had imitated both Paul and Christ in how they received the gospel (1Th 1:6).

imitators of me. See note on 4:16; see also Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 2 Thess. 3:7–9; 2 Tim. 3:10–12.

Head Coverings and Worship. Paul first comments on whether certain women, probably wives, may continue to pray and prophesy in corporate worship with their heads uncovered (see v. 13). By uncovering their heads in public worship, Paul says, they bring shame instead of glory to their husbands, and this is not proper.

Does calling God the Father the “head” of Christ suggest the Son’s subordination to the Father and deny the doctrine of the Trinity? Indeed not. Rather, Paul was echoing Jesus’s own words that though the Son is equal in substance with the Father (and the Spirit), the Son is (eternally) submissive to the Father’s will (see Jn 5:17-24).

Jesus’s apostles taught that a husband is the family’s “head” and that wives are to acknowledge this (Eph 5:22-33; 1Pt 3:1-7). For their part, Christian men are to love their wives sacrificially as Christ loved the church. Earlier, in the context of sexual purity and conjugal obligations, Paul pointed out that wives have authority over their husbands’ bodies and that spouses should not deprive one another sexually (1Co 7:3-5).

But shows that Paul has quickly moved from commendation (in v. 2) to correction. wife. See esv footnote. Since a woman’s head covering in first-century Roman society was a sign of marriage, Paul’s practical concern in this passage is not with the relationship between women and men generally but with the relationship between husband and wife. head. It is sometimes said that this term (Gk. kephalē) means “source,” but in over 50 examples of the expression “person A is the head of person(s) B” found in ancient Greek literature, person A has authority over person(s) B in every case. Therefore it is best to understand “head” (kephalē) here as referring metaphorically to “authority” (see also Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 2:10). As with the authority of Christ over the church, this is not the self-centered exercise of power but leadership that takes care to serve the spiritual, emotional, and physical needs of the wife. See Mark 10:44–45; Eph. 5:23, 25–30. The head of Christ is God indicates that within the Trinity the Father has a role of authority or leadership with respect to the Son, though they are equal in deity and attributes (see notes on John 5:19; 14:28; 1 Cor. 15:28). Paul applies this truth about the Trinity to the relationship of husband and wife. In marriage, as in the Trinity, there is equality in being and value but difference in roles (see Eph. 5:22–33).

head covered. The Greek phrase (kata kephalēs) literally means “down from the head” and may refer either to long hair that hangs loose (vv. 14–15), or to a veil that covers the face, or to a piece of cloth pulled over the head (like a modern shawl or scarf) that leaves the face revealed. As background for understanding Paul’s point in this verse, Roman men sometimes practiced the custom of pulling the loose folds of their toga over their head as an act of piety in the worship of pagan gods. Paul thus draws on the example of this pagan custom (which everyone in the Corinthian church would have thought absurd) to make the point that men should not dishonor Christ by praying according to pagan custom (8:4). He then uses the idea to prepare the way for his argument that it is equally absurd for wives to pray or prophesy in public with their heads uncovered (11:5, 11).

Paul admonished women prophets for speaking in church without their marriage veils (or neatly arranged hair). Paul also taught that masculinity and femininity should be clearly visible in the self-presentation of men and women, and he used cultural norms of his time in explaining this to his readers. In public worship, women’s voices were heard in both praying and prophesying, although the nature of the latter is somewhat uncertain (see 14:34).

head uncovered. A married woman who uncovered her head in public would have brought shame to her husband. The action may have connoted sexual availability or may simply have been a sign of being unmarried. In cultures where women’s head coverings are not a sign of being married, wives do not need to cover their heads in worship, but they could obey this command by wearing some other physical symbol of being married (such as a wedding ring). While a shaven head or short hair was considered shameful for a woman in first-century Corinth, long hair was considered to be a woman’s “glory” (see v. 15).

See Gen. 1:26–27; 5:1; 9:6. Woman is the glory of man probably uses “glory” in the sense of “one who shows the excellence of.” Paul argues that a woman, by the excellence of her being, also shows how excellent man is, since she was taken out of man at the beginning (1 Cor. 11:8) and also was created as a helper for man at the beginning (v. 9; see also Gen. 2:20–24). Paul does not deny that the woman was also made in God’s image, something that Gen. 1:27 explicitly affirms, nor does he deny that the woman reflects God’s glory. Paul probably continues to think primarily of husband and wife here since the first man and woman were also the first married couple (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:31). Paul’s appeal to the order of creation (cf. also 1 Cor. 11:3, 11–12) shows that his words are not merely directed to the cultural situation of his day. The principle of male headship in marriage continues through all generations, though some cultural expressions of that principle (e.g., that women should wear head coverings) may vary.

wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. More literally, a “wife ought to have authority [Gk. exousia] over her head,” where the word “authority” refers to a head covering, which was a symbol of authority. This probably means, in the context of the Corinthian church, that the wife should wear a covering over her head as a sign that she is under her husband’s authority. Others, however, suggest that a head covering is a sign of the woman’s authority to prophesy in church, or to participate generally in the church assembly. because of the angels. This probably refers to the invisible heavenly beings (6:3; Heb. 1:7) who are present with the Corinthians when they worship (cf. Ps. 138:1) and whose presence makes propriety in worship that much more important. The NT elsewhere uses the fact that angels are watching as one motive for obeying God’s commands (see 1 Tim. 5:21; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 1:12).

nevertheless. Paul does not want what he has just said to be misinterpreted as a diminution of the importance of women. Women and men are both God’s creation and are mutually interdependent at a basic level.

Here the word nature probably means “your natural sense of what is appropriate for men and women”: it would be a disgrace for a man to look like a woman because of his hair style. Although the norms of appropriate hair style (and dress) may vary from culture to culture, Paul’s point is that men should look like men in that culture, and women should look like women in that culture, rather than seeking to deny or disparage the God-given differences between the sexes.

See 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 14:33, 36 for Paul’s appeal to the practice of other churches. no such practice. That is, “no such practice” as that of those who disagree with Paul (therefore some translations render this “no other practice,” giving about the same sense). Paul’s objective is to bring the Corinthians into conformity with generally accepted Christian behavior.

Social Snobbery at the Lord’s Table. The Corinthians were using their gatherings around the Lord’s Table as occasions to make social distinctions between rich and poor. Paul is profoundly troubled by this development and argues strongly against it.

hear. Paul now departs from addressing issues raised in the Corinthians’ letter to him (7:1) and goes back to commenting on what he has heard by word of mouth (1:11; 5:1).

there must be factions among you. In God’s providential direction of the life of the church, he allowed controversy (see evidence of factions in 1:11–12; 3:4; 4:6–7) in order that the genuine spiritual quality of individual believers would be known. Those who are genuine … may be recognized thus refers to those who receive God’s approval for how they act in the midst of controversy (Gk. dokimos, “genuine” in the sense of “tested and approved,” is used several times to refer to approval by God; cf. Rom. 16:10; 2 Cor. 10:18; 2 Tim. 2:15; James 1:2). An alternative interpretation is that Paul is using “genuine” to refer to those who are true believers.

not the Lord’s supper. Because of their selfish elitism, when the Corinthians observe the Lord’s Supper they are not rightly representing the sacrificial death of Christ (vv. 24, 26) and the true character of the Lord.

Goes ahead reflects the Corinthians’ self-centered disregard of others. The few who are wealthy in Corinth (1:26) have no regard for those who are hungry or who have nothing, while others have too much and some even get drunk.

received from the Lord. The traditions about Jesus that Paul delivered to the Corinthians (see also 7:10; 15:3) ultimately went back to Jesus himself, but Paul probably learned them from early followers of Christ such as Peter (Gal. 1:18). (See the other records of the Lord’s Supper in Matt. 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:17–20.) Another possibility is that Paul received this information directly from Christ himself (see 2 Cor. 12:1–4; Gal. 1:12, 17).

The expression This is my body has been subject to widely varying interpretations throughout the history of the church. Roman Catholics understand it literally, and claim that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. Lutherans hold that the literal body and blood of Christ are present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine (something like the way water is present in a sponge). Some Anglicans refer to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. Most other Protestants have argued that the body and blood of Christ are not literally, physically, or “really” present, but that Christ is present “symbolically”; most would also add that Christ is present spiritually, with and in the believing recipients of the bread and wine, strengthening their faith and fellowship in him, and thereby feeding their souls. Christ’s spiritual presence can be supported from Matt. 18:20; 28:20. Do this in remembrance of me. Remembering the significance of Jesus’ death is an important component of observing the Lord’s Supper and of obedience (“do this”) to Christ’s command. Evangelical Protestant Christians have consistently been united on the importance of limiting participation in the Lord’s Supper to those who have made a personal commitment to follow Jesus. Jesus’ emphasis on remembering the significance of his death when observing the Lord’s Supper, and his warnings to those who partake of the bread and the cup in an unworthy manner, both reveal the wisdom of this limitation (cf. notes on 1 Cor. 11:27; 11:28; 11:29).

The Mosaic covenant, made with Israel and constantly broken because of Israel’s sin, was replaced with the new covenant, which provided complete atonement for all the sins of God’s people, past, present, and future (Rom. 3:25–26; 2 Cor. 3:1–4:6; Heb. 8:6–13).

Unworthy manner probably refers to the incompatibility of the Corinthians’ divisive arrogance as compared to the sacrificial, others-oriented nature of Jesus’ death. A broader application of this principle would encourage believers to examine their own lives (see v. 28) and to repent and ask forgiveness for any unconfessed sin before partaking in the Lord’s Supper. guilty concerning the body and blood. Jesus’ body was broken and his blood shed for others. Thus the selfish behavior of the Corinthians is a sin against others, but it also represents a profaning disrespect for Jesus himself.

Whoever partakes of the Lord’s Supper must examine himself to see whether he has properly understood the unselfish, atoning nature of Jesus’ death “for” others, and how that should be imitated in his own life (cf. note on v. 27).

Without discerning the body is usually understood in one of two ways. Some hold that it means “not understanding that the bread represents the body of Christ that was sacrificed for us,” with the result that such people do not act in a Christlike, self-sacrificial way. Others note that Paul does not mention the blood, and because of this they conclude that Paul has moved beyond the meaning of the bread to the idea of the church as a gathering of the body of Christ (see 12:12–27; cf. 10:16–17). According to this second view, “without discerning the body” would mean “not understanding that Christians, since they are the body of Christ, should act like Christ when they assemble.” On either view, these people do not recognize the spiritual reality of what is happening at the Lord’s Supper, and therefore they are acting in a way that dishonors Christ. Eats and drinks judgment on himself is a sober warning that the Lord will discipline those who dishonor the Lord’s Supper (see 11:30), and therefore it should not be entered into lightly.

weak … ill … died. The discipline of the Lord sometimes has consequences in real life. See also 5:5 and note there.

if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. When Christians rightly discern their sins and turn from them and seek forgiveness, then (as a general principle) they will not experience God’s disciplinary judgment. In specific application of this principle to the Corinthian situation, God would cease his discipline of the Corinthians if they would cease their misconduct regarding the Lord’s Supper. This verse thus teaches Christians not to think that God will somehow punish them for their whole lives for sins committed long ago, if they have sincerely asked forgiveness and made right what they can with those whom they have wronged.

disciplined. When suffering alerts a Christian to the presence of sin and leads to repentance, it functions as an act of both disciplinary judgment and mercy. (See also 5:5; 2 Chron. 33:12–13; 1 Pet. 4:17.)