Introductory remarks:
The section on Christian liberty from chapter eight to the first verse of chapter eleven closes. Now Paul is writing about other concerns the Corinthian Church were having. "Paul says a man is subject to Christ but is head of the woman. So when praying or prophesying, they should respect this order by observing the custom of the man having his head uncovered and the woman wearing head covering. Paul condemns their disorderly observance of the Lord's Supper and says that because they aren't reverent many have fallen ill" (A Survey of 1 Corinthians - By Brenda). This chapter may be outlined as follows: The first verse is the last verse of chapter ten. Covering the head in worship vv. 2-16; Abuses at the Lord's Supper vv. 17-22; The institution of the Lord's Supper vv. 23-26; Partaking of the Supper unworthily vv. 27-34.
Verse 1, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."
LGT "Be imitators of me, according as I also [am] of Christ."
Paul is writing of the Love that he has been teaching them in chapters 8-10. Paul is urging them to practice their Christian liberty, but not without true agape love, that is, unconditional love based on their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Calvin notes on this word "imitator" gr. mimatai"
"Here there are two things to be observed - first, that he prescribes nothing to others that he had not first practiced himself; and secondly, that he directs himself and others to Christ as the only pattern of right acting. For while it is the part of a good teacher to enjoin nothing in words but what he is prepared to practice in action, he must not, at the same time, be so austere [stern and strict], as straightway to require from others everything that he does not himself, as is the manner of the superstitious. For everything that they contract a liking for they impose also upon others, and would have their own example to be held absolutely as a rule. The world also, of its own accord, inclined to a misdirected imitation, and, after the manner of apes, strive to copy whatever they see done by persons of great influence. We see, however, how many evils have been introduced into the Church by this absurd desire of imitating all the actions of the saints, without exception. Let us, therefore, maintain so much the more carefully this doctrine of Paul - that we are to follow men, provided they take Christ as their grand model (prototupon), that the examples of the saints may not tend to lead us away from Christ, but rather to direct us to Him."
Covering the Head in Worship
Verse 2, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I have delivered them to you."
LGT "Now I praise you because in all things ye have remembered me, and according as I have delivered to you the traditions ye keep."
Now I praise you: Paul commends the saints in Corinth. Because in all things ye have remembered me: you have remembered the doctrines I taught you. And according as I have delivered to you the traditions ye keep: they were not swayed by new doctrines taught by the Judaizers, but kept the 'old time religion.' New truth being taught must always be in line with the Word of God. "New truth must rest upon old truth and is in harmony with it" (Robertson). Paul delivered to the Corinthians what had been delivered to him.
Verse 3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
LGT "But I wish you to know, that of every man the Christ is the head; and [the] head of woman is the man; and [the] head of Christ, the God."
But I wish you to know: what I am about to reveal to you from the Lord; and he that has an ear to hear, let him hear. That of every man the Christ is the head: Christ is the head of every man, but only the ones who submit to Him will know real joy. And the head of woman is the man: man was given this position in the Garden of Eden, but now Paul is speaking in a spiritual context. Christ is man's spiritual head, and man is the spiritual leader of his wife. No marriage can every possibly be complete where a woman cannot respect her husband's leadership. In no way can we take this middle phrase by itself; it must be connected with the rest of the verse, that is, man takes his leadership from Christ, and Christ from God. And the head of Christ, the God: Christ and God are one essence, but Christ is subordinate to God the Father's leadership by choice; you see, when Christ became man, he deliberately subordinated Himself to the Father, and in His humanity he is subordinate to the Father; if He had not done this, He could not have redeemed mankind, because if He had not become man, He could not have taken our sins, and borne them away 'as far as the East is from the West', never to remember them again, no not ever!
Verse 4, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head."
LGT "Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on [his] head, puts to shame his head."
Every man praying or prophesying: now we must remember that Paul is writing these things to the first apostolic church, that is, the church that were given supernatural gifts by the Holy Spirit. We do not possess these gifts today, so what he is saying only applies to the first church. Paul is speaking of ministers teaching and praying in public. "Whether these persons who are here said to prophesy were all inspired, or claimed to be inspired, may admit of a question. The simple idea here is, that they spoke in the public assemblies, and professed to be the expounders of the divine will" (Barnes). Having anything on his head covered: a sign of respect for the Word of God, by removing the cap or turban, and to show that he is humbly submissive to the Lord. Puts to shame his head: he shows a dishonor to Christ in these religious meetings. I remind you, that these are teachings designed for that day of supernatural gifts, and in no way can they apply to today.
Barnes notes:
"In the presence of a prince or a nobleman, it would be considered as a mark of disrespect should the head be covered. So in the presence of Christ, in whose name he ministers, it is a mark of disrespect if the head is covered. This illustration is drawn from the customs of all times and countries by which respect for a superior is indicated by removing the covering from the head. This is one reason why a man should not cover his head in public worship; another is given in verse 7."
Verse 5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."
LGT "But every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled, puts to shame her head; for it is one and the same with having been shaven."
But every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled: Paul seems to contradict himself here in allowing women to pray and prophesy in public, with (1 Tim. 2:12) where he forbids a woman to teach men; this is not a contradiction, for he is speaking of two different things; (1.) in the early church woman did have the supernatural gift of prophesy, which was also prevalent in the Old Testament among Jewish women, and this was not the gift of teaching, and (2.) after the Bible was complete these gifts were done away. Woman can teach Bible as well as men, but I believe they should confine their teaching to their immediate families, and should never take a pulpit in public before men. Are they qualified? The answer is certainly. Then why does Paul forbid women to teach men? The answer is, because it is not proper for a woman, through her teaching, to usurp her authority over men. Today in our family oriented Bible studies, it is proper for women to take part, but they should not do so with a superior attitude anymore than a man should. Puts to shame her head: in the early church, women wore a veil to show respect for her husband, father, and for her sex in general. For it is one and the same as having been shaven: the woman's hair was a sign of her dignity, and for her to have her hair cut off, was a disgrace to her husband and father. "The cutting off of the hair is used by Isaiah as a figure of the entire destruction of a people by divine retribution (Isa. 7:20). Among the Jews a woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn, with the formula: 'Because thou hast departed from the manner of the daughters of Israel, who go with their head covered, therefore that has befallen thee which thou hast chosen.' According to Tacitus, among the Germans an adulteress was driven from her husband's house with her head shaved; and the Justinian code prescribed this penalty for an adulteress, whom, at the expiration of two years, her husband refused to receive again. Paul means that a woman praying or prophesying uncovered puts herself in public opinion on a level with a courtesan [a prostitute with a wealthy or upper class clientele]" (Vincent). In this age of grace, I realize things have changed for the better; for now there is no difference in God's sight between male and female, but I believe there is a universal law since Eden, that a married woman is under authority of her husband in all things, in the spiritual home. If a wife submits to her husband, the husband should find no difficulty in loving the wife; conversely, if the husband loves the wife as Christ loves the church, she should find no difficulty in submitting to the husband; what is the difficulty then? The difficulty then is, the old sin nature, that is, the world, the flesh, and the Devil. The only way to conquer the old sin nature is by walking in the light of the fellowship of God's Word.
Verse 6, "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
LGT "For if a woman be not veiled, also let her be shorn: but if [it be] shameful to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled."
For if a woman be not veiled, also let her be shorn: to be shorn means to cut the hair close as with a razor. The unveiled woman in Corinth was a prostitute, and so Paul is saying that the women should be veiled. But if it be shameful to a woman: nature and custom speak to the woman that she should be veiled. To be shorn or shaven: to have her head shaved and look like a prostitute. Let her be veiled: "Let her wear the customary attire indicative of modesty and a sense of subordination. Let her not lay this aside even on any pretence of religion" (Barnes).
McGee notes:
"This had a peculiar and particular application to Corinth. The unveiled woman in Corinth was a prostitute. Many of them had their heads shaved. The vestal virgins in the temple of Aphrodite who were really prostitutes had their heads shaved. The women who had their heads uncovered were the prostitutes. Apparently some of the women in the church at Corinth were saying All things are lawful for me, I won't cover my head. Paul says this should not be done because the veil is a mark of subjection, not to man, but to God."
Verse 7, "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man."
LGT "For a man indeed ought not to have the head veiled, being [the] image and glory of God: but the woman is [the] glory of man."
For a man indeed ought not to have the head veiled: as the woman, for the woman is taken from the man, and is under his authority in the Lord. Being the image and glory of God: spiritually only. There is no physical likeness, for God created man is His spiritual image. But the woman is the glory of man: taken from man the woman, being created last, is God's crowning glory for man. Paul is expounding the woman's relationship to man, not God.
Calvin comments:
"The simple solution is this - that Paul does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming men and women, but of the distinction, which God had conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.
There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him [to be a companion to the man, to live with him, and to aid him], and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife - that she is a crown to her husband, (Prov. 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose - that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man."
Verse 8, "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man."
LGT "For man is not of woman, but woman is of man."
Woman was formed from the man and this gives him his advanced rank, certainly not in God's sight, but simply for the happiness and joy of both physically while on earth; for happiness, and for the perpetuation of the human race. Women's liberation movement has tried to undo this creation of God, that is, women being subservient to man, and all that has resulted is a bunch of feminist wretches that are ugly and unhappy.
Verse 9, "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
LGT "For also man was not created on account of woman, but the woman on account of the man."
The woman was created as a help meet to man.
Barnes wrote some wonderful comments on this verse:
"This is a simple statement of what is expressed in Genesis. The woman was made for the comfort and happiness of the man. Not to be a slave, but a help-meet; not to be the minister of his pleasures, but to be his aid and comforter in life; not to be regarded as of inferior nature and rank, but to be his friend, to divide his sorrows, and to multiply and extend his joys; yet still to be in a station subordinate to him. He is to be the head: the ruler; the presider in the family circle; and she was created to aid him in his duties, to comfort him in his afflictions, to partake with him of his pleasures. Her rank is therefore honorable, though it is subordinate. It is, in some respects, the more honorable because it is subordinate; and as her happiness is dependent on him, she has the higher claim to his protection and his tender care. The whole of Paul's idea here is, that her situation and rank as subordinate should be recognized by her at all times, and that in his presence it was proper that she should wear the usual symbol of modesty and subordination, the veil."
Verse 10, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."
LGT "Because of this the woman ought to have authority upon the head, on account of the angels."
Because of this: Because the woman is subject to the authority of the man. The woman ought to have authority upon the head: the veil upon the head of the woman is a sign of her submission to the authority of her husband. The word "ought" gr. opheilei means morally obligated, so the woman is morally obligated to wear the veil. We must keep in mind that this was written for the women in the church at Corinth during the apostolic times; it does not refer to today, other than that the long hair on the woman is very becoming to her sex. So the veil is a sign that she is under the authority of the uncovered man. On account of the angels: this startling phrase has been used and abused by commentators innumerable and wearisome, among which most are fanciful. The best interpretation of this phrase to me is from the pen of Calvin: "Some answer: 'Because they are present on occasion of the prayers of believers, and on this account are spectators of unseemliness [tastelessness], should there be any on such occasions.' But what need is there for philosophizing with such refinement [minor change]? We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him [are always at His command and service]. When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, 'If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witness of the outrage.' And this interpretation suits well with Apostle's design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it - that they discover their impudence [rudeness] in the view of the angels of heaven."
Verse 11, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
LGT "Howbeit neither [is] the woman apart from the man, nor the man apart from the woman, in the Lord:"
Howbeit: this statement limits the previous verse; what Paul is saying is that the Christian woman is nothing without her husband, and that the Christian husband is nothing without the woman; the husband and wife relationship is co-shared and co-beneficial in the Lord. If the woman subjects herself to the authority of her husband, and if the husband gives first place to his wife with his undying, unconditional love, they will share in the joy of the Lord. In the sphere of the Lord is the only place a Christian couple may find true happiness.
Verse 12, "For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."
LGT "For as the woman [is] of the man, so also the man [is] by the woman: but all things out of God."
For as the woman is of the man: in original creation woman was taken from the rib of man. So also the man is by the woman: the glories of motherhood. Ever since original creation man and woman get their existence through pro-creation. But all things out of God: in the Christian marriage there is never any reason for liberation for man or woman. Woman's lib is from the very pit of hell. Nothing good has ever come from liberation of man from the woman, or the woman from the man; man is made for the woman, and woman is made for the man. Today we have a political machine that attempts to dictate to us that we should be tolerant of the homosexual; well, God is not tolerant, and neither should we be. As the saying goes: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". We should not tolerate homosexual sins, nor should we tolerate woman's lib sins.
Verse 13, "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
LGT "In yourselves judge: Is it becoming for a woman to pray to God uncovered?"
In Corinth it was the custom of the women to wear a veil in public; however, only the temple priestesses would go out in public with their heads uncovered, even shaven. The only possible way I can apply this to today is that a married woman should not appear in public dressed inappropriately, or sexually enticing. If a woman is teaching the Bible to a group, she should dress with dignity and self-respect. I believe that a Christian woman should have respect for herself if she expects this from others. The hair on a woman is very feminine when it is long, and very masculine cropped short; however, I do not believe Paul is teaching hairstyle for women here. What Paul is teaching is that the custom of the day was that a woman was to be a woman, and women did not go out in public uncovered.
Verse 14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him:"
LGT "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him:"
The term "nature" is what is universally accepted. It is very obvious, in most cases, among the animals, which is the male and which is the female. Men who wear long hair do so, in most cases, in rebellion. Men who want to look like women have the souls of women, that is, they want to be a woman. It is very disgusting to men, and most women, to see a man wear long hair. When ever I see an older woman with her hair cropped, I say to my wife, 'she looks like a man." My wife tells me that the reason most older women wear short hair is that it is easier to keep. I can accept this, but the short hair I'm speaking of is when it is cut so short that the woman looks as if she has a butch, and then she looks like one, a butch, that is. In the youth, I believe kids wear long hair because they are following the fad; but when a man reaches his thirties and forties, and older, it is most disgusting to say the least. I believe, in most cases, long hair among men, and short hair among women, is a rebellion against nature itself, and among believers, rebellion against God, and His design. Remember, I am not speaking of short hair among women when they wear it short in a feminine style. Women should be women, and men should be men.
Barnes set it straight:
"That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among men. Thus we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war - the duties of office, of government, and of professional life, should be discharged by men. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it."
Verse 15, "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for hair is given her for a covering."
LGT "But if a woman have long hair, is it a glory to her? [Yes], because the long hair instead of a covering is given [to her]."
But if a woman have long hair, is it a glory to her: verse 15 is part two of verse 14, and this first phrase is finishing the question of verse 14, concerning the natural order God has created in men and women; and this question requires the affirmative answer, a resounding Yes! Because the long hair instead of covering is given to her: a woman's hair grows naturally long, and for her to let it grow, it takes an act of her own will; and conversely, for a man to grow his hair long, also takes an act of his will; and this act is against the natural order God has set up. Almost every ancient civilization regarded the long hair on a man as very effeminate.
Verse 16, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."
LGT "But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we have not such custom, nor the assemblies of God."
But if anyone think to be contentious: if anyone is fond of conflict, let him go against nature, man or woman. We have not such custom: it is not customary for women to go out in public unveiled; nor for men to have long hair; but remember, Paul is speaking of what he believes is proper. Nor the assemblies of God: "Not the custom of contentiousness, but that of women speaking unveiled. The testimonies of Tertullian and Chrysostom show that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches. In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short" (Vincent). Paul is saying that contentions have no place in the church, and he is using common sense regarding these doubtful things in Corinth.
Abuses at the Lord's Supper
Verse 17, "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse."
LGT "But commanding [you] [as to] this, I do not praise [you], because not for the better, but for the worse ye come together."
But commanding you as to this: Paul now changes the subject with this command: I do not praise you: in 1Co 11:2 Paul commended the Corinthian believers, but here he changes directions by reproving them of their carelessness regarding the Lord's Supper. Because not for the better: you come together to observe it for the wrong reason. But for the worse you come together: every time they came together to study the Word of God they had this love feast. Today the church's observance of the Lord's Supper is completely misunderstood; as I understand the reason our Lord instituted it. Since we have the completed Word of God, there is no reason for types; you see Christ, the Great Anti-Type, fulfilled all the Old Testament types. To perpetuate symbols that were given to remind the people of who and what Christ was is now fully revealed in the Word of God, and therefore we now do not need signs, wonders and miracles. What happens when we get bogged down with symbols, is that we border on religious superstitions, such as what is happening in the Roman Catholic Church, which is nothing more than a revival of Judaism. Even McGee is not able to explain the reason for the Lord's Supper without getting superstitious in his reasoning. However, he does make this rational observation: "I admit that it is rather difficult to see the connection of what Paul says to the Corinthian church with our celebration of the Lord's Supper. There is no exact parallel, because the situations are not similar [this is because we have the completed Scriptures, and they did not]. In that day the Lord's Supper was preceded by a social meal. It was probably celebrated in the homes and celebrated daily [this should encourage modern day believers who are still meeting in homes]. Acts tells us, And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple [the Jews allowed them to use the temple on Sunday, because the Jews worshipped on Saturday. See the outline in my exposition on these verses], and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved [Acts 2:46-47]"
Verse 18, "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it."
LGT "For first indeed, ye in the assembly coming together, I hear divisions among you to be, and partly I believe [it]."
For first indeed: first and foremost, the glaring problem at hand. Ye in the assembly coming together: the term "church" gr. ekklesiai = assembly, was never used in the New Testament to refer to a church building. Today people say I belong to the Baptist, or Methodist, or Presbyterian, or Catholic church, referring to a building; of course some intend the meaning to be their particular denomination; both of course are misleading and totally wrong as applied to the word "church." Denominations are the result of years of divisions in the first churches. I hear divisions among you to be: everyone was concerned with their own selfish desires at the expense of their brothers and sisters. I remember so well, the cliques, the divisive factions that existed in every church I belonged in my early life. The Pastor's wife was usually the ringleader. Today the churches are nothing more than organizations to allow people to gather and put on their best behavior, and try and out spiritualize the other members with their churchly rhetoric. And partly I believe it: the rumors of party divisions were so numerous that I keep on hearing them. These divisions were the beginning of denominationalism we are faced with at the present. When we meet in the home, we are less likely to be divided, because we are not organized, and we are simply meeting for Bible study, and to fellowship around His Word. We should meet to help one another grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ; the fact that we help one another physically is an outgrowth of fellowshipping in the Word. Even our helping one another can be wrong if it is not motivated by our Love for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Verse 19, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."
LGT "For there must also be factions among you, that the genuine ones may be manifest among you."
For there must also be factions among you: divisions or isms, that is, splinter groups, that are contentious to the true doctrines of God. These groups of rebellious people were seeking to tear apart all that Paul worked so hard to build up. That the genuine ones may be manifest among you: those in the church that were being motivated by Bible Doctrine would shine forth amongst the errors of the factious ones. The heresies could not produce good, but they motivate true believers to stand their ground and "fight the good fight." True believers always shine amidst the errors of the cults; God's Word always makes ridiculous the claims of the unbelievers.
Verse 20, "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper."
LGT "Therefore, ye coming together into one place it is not [the] Lord's Supper to eat."
Because of the divisions in the church, Paul says that their coming together to eat, was not a love feast at all, and that the Lord's Supper, therefore, could not be observed. They had the wrong attitude, and were in a state of rebellion and could not have the right spiritual attitude towards one another.
Verse 21, "For in eating every one taketh before his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken."
LGT "For each one takes first his own supper in eating, and one is hungry and another is drunken."
For each one takes first his own supper in eating: each one was concerned with his own eating; this was surely not a love feast. They were not waiting for the poor to partake; it was a 'me first' type of a meal, that is, grab all you can while you can. And one is hungry and another is drunken: the poor folk went hungry, while the rich folks stuffed themselves and drank until they were drunk; this is 'conspicuous consumption' of the worst kind. Instead of sharing in common, these rich people were stuffing themselves with the food they brought, and were refusing to share with those that had none. The observation of the Lord's Supper became to these members a mere opportunity to revel (to paint the town red, so to speak).
Barnes comments on these recently converted Gentile believers:
"We may remark here, (1.) We are not to expect perfection at once among a people recently converted from paganism. (2.) We see how prone men are to abuse even the most holy rites of religion, and hence how corrupt is human nature. (3.) We see that even Christians, recently converted, need constant guidance and superintendence; and that if left to themselves they soon, like others, fall into gross and scandalous offences."
Verse 22, "What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."
LGT "For have you not houses to eat and drink [in]? Or do you despise the assembly of God, and put to shame the ones who have not? In this I praise you not."
For have you not houses to eat and drink in: Paul says that if they want to behave like this, they should do it their own homes. Or do you despise the assembly of God: this behavior of yours is profaning God's house, which is wherever believers meet, whether two, or two hundred. And put to shame the ones who have not: this shameless gorging themselves without sharing with the poor, was imitating the heathen. In this I praise you not: "If they were not going to share in true fellowship, they should have eaten at home. What they were doing was fracturing and rupturing the church. And some were actually getting drunk during this agape love feast. They were in no condition to remember the death of Christ at all. It would all be fuzzy and hazy to them. Paul says again . . . I praise you not" (McGee).
The Institution of the Lord's Supper
(Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:14-20)
Verse 23, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread."
LGT "For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was being betrayed took up bread:"
For I received from the Lord: Paul claims his apostolic authority in that he received his doctrines directly from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. That which I delivered to you: I am giving to you what I received from the Lord, that is, I did not receive this from the other apostles, and then pass it on to you. That the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was being betrayed took up bread: while the Lord Jesus was instituting the Lord's Supper he was being betrayed by Judas (Matt. 26:23-25, 48-50). "Paul wished evidently to bring before their minds the deeply affecting circumstances of Christ's death; and thus to show them the utter impropriety [offensiveness] of their celebrating the ordinance with riot and disorder. The idea is, that in order to celebrate it in a proper manner, it was needful to throw themselves as much as possible into the very circumstances in which it was instituted; and one of these circumstances most fitted to affect the mind deeply was the fact that He was betrayed by a professional friend and follower" (Barnes).
Verse 24, "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which was broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."
LGT "And having given thanks, He broke [it], and said, This is My body which is for you: this do in remembrance of Me."
And having given thanks: the Greek term eucharistesas is where the early post-apostolic writers used the word Eucharist to describe the Lord's Supper. As I study this portion of God's Word I get a completely different picture of how the Catholic Church, and even the Protestant Churches celebrate the Eucharist. As I said before, I believe in the age of grace we have the completed Scriptures, so there is no reason for these types and symbols. However, from the original Greek I get a different picture of how the Lord's Supper was practiced in apostolic times, and how it is imitated today in the different churches. Read on and see: He broke it, and said: the breaking of the bread was for distribution, as Christ did when he fed the multitude. "This breaking of the bread for distribution refutes the idea of the Corinthians, of every man for himself (1Co 11:21)" (Vincent). This is My body which is for you: this is the correct rendering in the Greek; the KJV has it "which was broken for you", and this is incorrect, for the Lord's Body was never broken; the breaking of bread symbolized something shared. If you check the Gospel accounts, you will see that the phrase 'which was broken for you" is never mentioned. This do in remembrance of Me: Paul is writing to the first apostolic church, and this does not mean that he was teaching something that was to be perpetuated throughout the ages, even after the Bible was complete. Christ taught His disciples to practice the Eucharist, and Paul is teaching the first church to practice it, but it is not a symbol for today.
Verse 25, "After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."
LGT "In like manner also the cup, after the dining, saying, this cup of the New Covenant is in My blood: this do, as often as ye may drink [it], in remembrance of Me."
In like manner also the cup: the cup held the wine which represented Christ's blood, which he shed on the cross. After the dining: the apostle makes this distinction that the Lord's Supper could not have been part of the Pascal Feast; the Lord's Supper was instituted as a remembrance supper. Paul is stating that it could not be an occasion for feasting, as was being done by the Corinthian believers. Saying, this cup of the New Covenant is in My blood: God is instituting a New Dispensation for the church age, or the age of Grace, which was sealed by the Blood Jesus Shed on the Cross. This do, as often as ye drink it: how often the first church would practice the Lord's Supper was not prescribed; it was left entirely up to the group meeting; and of course when the Bible was completed, the type was done away, for we are to study the Word daily. In remembrance of Me: The believers in the first church did not have the New Covenant in a completed form, so this symbol was very significant as a reminder of the Lord's death on the cross for them securing their eternal salvation. We have the entire Word of God, with the shed Blood of Jesus Christ, as a scarlet thread running through the entire content of it. There is no way we can study the Word of God, on a daily basis, and not be reminded of the price the Son of God paid on Calvary's Tree. Just today, I had lunch with a brother, who did not know what the three hours of darkness, when Christ paid the price for all our sins, meant. We had a wonderful time of fellowship discussing the meaning. If we are studying bible Doctrine on a daily basis, it is impossible to avoid remembering what it cost our Dear Savior, to redeem us out of the slave market of sin; it will take us an eternity to learn of the agony Christ went through for us, when He lost fellowship with His Father for those three hours of darkness. All I can say now is, "Hallelujah, what a Savior."
Verse 26, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
LGT "For as often as ye may eat this bread, and may drink this cup, ye announce the death of the Lord until He may come."
The only new thing Paul adds to what we have already studied concerning the Lord's Supper in this verse is, Ye announce the death of the Lord until He may come: in the apostolic church, as they exercised their spiritual gifts, they were not to forget the reason they were meeting, and the Lord's Supper not only reminded them of Christ's death on their behalf, but it was an opportunity for them to announce it to all. The public meetings of the first church concluded with a hymn and the Lord's Supper. They were looking for the second coming of the Lord in their lifetime. I cannot prove that it was done away when "that which was perfect came;" however, I am simply going on grace logic, that when the Bible was completed, symbols were done away with, the same as the supernatural sign gifts. Now, if you desire to observe the Lord's Supper, you will not offend me, so go ahead; but I would say, do it orderly and unto the Lord; for whatever you do in word or deed, do all to the glory of the Lord.
Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
Verse 27, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
LGT "So that whoever should eat this bread or should drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
Unworthily: no one is worthy to partake of the Lord's Supper, even in the early church, however, Paul explains in verse 29 that it means not discerning the meaning of the entire symbolism of the Lord's Supper. Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: the ESV [the English Standard Version] has this correctly: "Shall be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." The word "profane" means in this context, "sacrilegious or Irreverent." We must keep in mind that Paul uses the word "unworthily". And it is an adverb not an adjective, so Paul is speaking of the manner of their observance, and not their character. Now that we have the entire Doctrine of who and what we are, because of Who and What Christ is, we are worthy, for we are fit for God's presence at this very moment; we are seated with Christ at God's right hand now, this very moment. McGee spends some time trying to explain that the Lord's Supper is more than what Zwingli, the Swiss reformer taught, that it was simply a symbol. McGee thinks it is an experience and not just a symbol. I cannot agree because this is too much like the Catholics and their "transubstantiation" and Luther's Consubstantiation. The first is that the wafer and wine actually becomes Christ in you, and Luther's belief that it is through the wafer and wine that you become like Christ. Now Paul teaches us that we become like Christ the moment we believe, and that it is a positional truth and not something we do to become like Christ. The reason we study Bible Doctrine then is "that we may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death" (Phil. 3:10).
Verse 28, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup."
LGT "But let a man prove himself, and thus let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup."
But let a man prove himself: let a man think seriously about his motives for observing the Lord's Supper in order not to commit blasphemy; "Let every one, take heed to himself, that he may not fall into this sacrilege through idleness or carelessness" (Calvin). And thus let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup: after this self-examination, and knowing the good reason for the memorial, let him then partake and not commit an irreverent act.
Verse 29, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
LGT "For the one who eats and drinks, judgment to himself eats and drinks, not discerning the Lord's body."
For the one who eats and drinks: the one who eats and drinks for the eating and the drinking, which is, for gluttony sake, and not for the symbolism of the Eucharist. Judgment to himself eats and drinks: leaves himself open for divine discipline; for this is the reason some were even taken home before their time (1Co 11:30) by the Lord. The KJV has the unfortunate word "damnation" here for judgment gr. krino. This has caused very much confusion in interpreting this verse. Not discerning the Lord's body: this simply means that the ones in the early church were to make the proper distinction concerning the real meaning of the love feast. They were not to come simply to greedily fill their bellies with food and drink.
Verse 30, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."
LGT "Because of this many [are] weak and in poor health, and many are sleeping."
Many of the ones who were not discerning the Lord's Supper, became ill and some were taken home because of their irreligious behavior regarding this service. Now, I ask you, is this happening today? I asks this question, because, I for one, observed the Communion not discerning the Lord's body. I did not even know what I was doing; and when I thought I did understand, I look back and realize I did not have the foggiest notion. I believe this is because it is no longer to be observed. And as I said before, if you want to observe it still, have at it. One of the main reasons the Lord instituted the Eucharist was for the purpose of sharing, and looking back at His feeding the multitudes He did this, and this is all part of remembering Him.
Verse 31, "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."
LGT "And if we inspect ourselves, we should not be judged."
Paul is telling the Christians to inspect themselves, that is, examine their motives, and they would not be open for divine discipline vs. 32, which is never a happy experience, but always-happy results. This verse is where the Roman Catholics get the idea of penance, that is, self-punishment, in order to make atonement for their own sins. The Catholic fathers did not understand, and deliberately so, the words judge ourselves, in this verse, because they use the Latin Vulgate Version by Jerome, who used the allegorical method of interpretation, which spiritualized all the main doctrines, especially regarding salvation, which is why they have no hope. But using the Grammatical, Historical, Literal, interpretation, we see that the word judge means self-inspection, that is to discern self-motives, and this is completely different as we shall see from the contexts of the next verse.
Verse 32, "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."
LGT "But being judged by [the] Lord, we are disciplined, in order that with the world we should be condemned."
But being judged by the Lord: this is divine discipline in time. We are chastened of the Lord: the word chastened in the Greek is paideuometha. In this sense the word Paidueo is from pais, child, and Paul means here to train up a child. Paul wrote explaining divine discipline in time in Hebrews 12:5-11: "And you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons: My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by Him, for those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives. It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness."
We must all take heart to this wonderful teaching of our Lord. For the Lord always makes sure, that through the good times and the bad, "That all things work together for our good, because we love Him, and because we are the called according to His divine purpose" (a paraphrase of Romans 8:28, 29). Now, continuing the verse: In order that with the world we should not be condemned. The word condemn here means to place in a guilty light by contrast, that is, we act as the unbeliever, and we are rushing to the same doom, save the wonderful Arm of the Lord, Who will not allow such a thing. The whole idea of divine discipline is to keep us from falling, and He will present us perfect before the presence of our heavenly Father. Positionally, we are perfect in His presence at this very moment, however, in time; we need His corrective love to keep us from self-destructing, and being called home before His time for us.
Verse 33, "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another."
LGT "So that, my brethren, when coming together to eat, wait for one another."
Paul is saying that when they come to the Lord's Supper, they should take the Supper in common, even with the poor folk. They should not be so caught up in their meal that they refuse to see the needs of the others, and this would detract from the purpose of the Love-Feast altogether.
Verse 34, "And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."
LGT "If anyone be hungry, let him eat at home, in order that ye may not come together for judgment. And the other things I will set in order whenever I may come."
If anyone be hungry: don't come to the Lord's Supper to fill your stomachs, for this will detract from the purpose of meeting together for this wonderful observance. Let him eat at home: if you are so hungry as all that. In order that ye may not come together for judgment: put yourselves in line for divine discipline because you are not discerning the Lord's Body and Blood, the whole purpose for the Love-Feast. Don't let your hunger detract from you spiritual purpose. And the other things I will set in order whenever I may come: there were other problems in the church Paul says he will not write about at the present, but that he will deal with them when he arrives. Paul will deal with any outward circumstance that seems unbecoming to the Brethren; but as for the spiritual problems, these are reserved for the Lord, Who is the only One that is able to see these things. However, the outward signs, are indicators of what is going on inside, For by their fruits ye shall know them (Matt. 7:20).
Share freely but cite the source: http://bbbiblehelps.epizy.com