Chapter Eleven

On the woman’s head covering (1–16). On the disorders at the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist (17–34)

1 Cor 11:1-16. The majority of commentators hold that already in the first half of chapter 11 the Apostle has in mind the public worship service, which was disrupted by women appearing without a head covering. This assumption is based on the fact that in verses 4, 5, and 13 mention is made of prophesying, which supposedly took place only during public worship (cf. 1 Cor 14:3-29). But nothing prevents the assumption that the gift of prophecy was also manifested in private worship, in a close family setting, where women too could appear as those who lead prayer. Certain circumstances even hinder the assumption that the Apostle has in view here prayer and prophesying during public worship. For the foundation of his ruling concerning women, the Apostle does not appeal at all to the special character of public worship; and furthermore in verse 17 he speaks of the circumstances connected with public worship as something new (cf. v. 18 — “in the first place”). Finally, if public worship were in question, the Apostle would have mentioned unmarried women as well, and not wives only.

So the Apostle evidently has in view the domestic life of women. What then drew his attention here? Apparently the Corinthian Christian women were striving for full equality of rights with their husbands. The Apostle’s teaching that in Christ Jesus there is no distinction between male and female (Gal 3:28) was understood by the Corinthian women not only in the sense of equality of their rights to salvation and grace with those of men, but also in the sense of equality in everyday life as well. They expressed this understanding of equality by the fact that during household prayers, where they also sometimes prophesied, they removed their head covering, which in Corinth evidently served as a symbol of the wife’s subordination to her husband. It is against this striving of Corinthian Christian women that the Apostle now speaks, just as earlier he spoke against the striving of Christian slaves toward emancipation (1 Cor 7:21 and following). He exhorts the Corinthian women to remain within the former boundaries that were indicated to them at the very time of their creation. He requires that women wear a covering during prayer and prophesying as a sign of their subordination to their husband. Then, in order to show even more clearly the absurdity of the Corinthian women’s pretensions, the Apostle points to the general Greek custom and to the custom observed in other Christian churches.

1 Corinthians 11:1. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. This verse forms the conclusion of chapter X. The Apostle teaches Christians to imitate him, just as he himself imitates Christ. He can be an example for others only insofar as he himself follows the example of Christ, who was the model of complete self-denial (cf. Rom 15:1-3). Of course, the Apostle does not require servile imitation from Christians: the circumstances of his life and those of the Corinthians were not the same — all the more so, of course, must this be said of present-day circumstances. But the spirit of self-denial Christians must always and everywhere possess in the same measure as the Apostle Paul was imbued with it.

1 Corinthians 11:2. I commend you, brothers, because you remember all my instructions and hold fast to the traditions just as I delivered them to you. “I commend you” — more precisely: “but I commend you for this.” The particle “but” indicates a transition to a new theme. — “Traditions” — that is, instructions pertaining to the church’s life, not to doctrine. The Apostle speaks of the latter in 1 Cor 15:3. — The Apostle wants to say here that in general the conduct of the Corinthians merits praise — they strive to maintain the order established by the Apostle.

1 Corinthians 11:3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. But there is something in the conduct of the Corinthians that does not merit praise. The Corinthians prided themselves on the breadth of their Christian knowledge, and some of them — the most liberal — probably did not consider it necessary to be guided in their lives by the instructions of the Apostle Paul. In view of this, the Apostle says that there is one important matter they still need to learn properly, one to which they evidently paid no attention: everywhere, in the relations of person to person, of person to God, and even in the relations between God and Christ, there exists a certain subordination — something that had never entered the minds of the freedom-loving Corinthians. — “The head of every man is Christ.” The expression “head” carries a twofold meaning: on the one hand it contains the idea of a vital communion (from the head, nerves extend through the whole body), and on the other it indicates that in this communion there exists a certain inequality between the two parties. Such is also the communion between husband and wife in marriage: although it is a close and vital communion, nevertheless one party — the husband — is here the stronger, the ruling party, and the other — the wife — the dependent one, more passive than active. Such also is the relationship between the man (here “husband” means “male”) and Christ. Here too there is an active, sovereign party — Christ — and a weaker party, capable more of receiving than of acting — the man. Finally, this relationship reaches still higher, attaining to the life of the Godhead: the Father and the Son — these too are two parties standing in the closest communion with one another, yet the Son does nothing of himself, “if he does not see the Father doing it” (John 5:19). “The head of a woman is her husband.” The Apostle designates here the natural and social legal relation of the husband to the wife. The husband is the head of the family, and the wife occupies (or occupied) a subordinate position. Christianity did not abolish such an order but sanctified it. Thus, in relation to spiritual salvation, a woman, just as a man, has Christ as her head (the saying “I am the vine, and you are the branches” — John 15:5 — applies to both sexes); nevertheless, in the natural and social relation, a woman must occupy a subordinate position in relation to her husband. “And the head of Christ is God.” Ancient church commentators and some modern ones see here a reference to God’s relation to the incarnate Son of God. In favor of the correctness of this view is also the fact that the Apostle used here the term “Christ” and not “Son of God.” Godet, however, finds it possible to see here an indication of a certain subordination existing between the Son of God before the incarnation and God the Father. This view has long since been recognized as heretical (subordinationism), and moreover the argument that Godet adduces in its support carries no weight. He argues specifically that if we see here only a reference to the relation to the incarnate Son of God, then under this interpretation we must rule out the idea of the unity of life and being between Christ and God. But the Lord Jesus Christ clearly and definitively testifies that the unity between himself and the Father remained perfect also after his incarnation. “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30; cf. John 10:38).

1 Corinthians 11:4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 1 Corinthians 11:5. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved. 1 Corinthians 11:6. For if a woman will not cover her head, let her also cut off her hair; but if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. Between verse 3 and verse 4 one must insert the following thought: “if a woman is indeed subordinate to her husband, she must express this subordination also in her outward appearance, and first of all in covering her head.” — “Every man.” The Apostle mentions the man not because men in Corinth appeared at worship services with covered heads, but because through this mention the abnormality of a woman appearing with uncovered head stands out all the more sharply. — “Prays or prophesies” — explained in ch. XIV. — “His own head,” that is, both himself and Christ, his Head, whose glory he must care for. By covering his head, a man would thereby indicate that he depends on some other head besides his own heavenly one, and would thereby rob Christ of the honor due to him. — “And every woman...” Since, on the contrary, a woman has over her “even on earth” a visible head — her husband — it would be a dishonor to the husband if a woman were to put on the attire that served as a symbol of an independent position. — “Prays or prophesies” — evidently at home, and not during public worship, because the Apostle forbade women to speak at public worship (1 Cor 14:34). — “Her own head” — that is, her husband, from whom she takes away his rightful due when she prays with uncovered head. — “For it is the same...” In verse 15 it is said that long hair is an honor for a woman. Consequently, shaving or cutting the hair is a disgrace. A woman who cuts her hair thereby deprives herself of the honor that lies in the natural custom of growing hair. A woman thus places herself on the level of those women who do not wish to observe the ordinances established in nature. — “Let her also cut off her hair,” that is, it is all the same to her then! She is not constrained by any proprieties... (among the Hebrews a woman’s shaved head served as a sign of disgrace, cf. Isa 3:16-17; among the Greeks this custom did not carry the same meaning).

1 Corinthians 11:7. A man therefore ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but a woman is the glory of her husband. 1 Corinthians 11:8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 1 Corinthians 11:9. and man was not created for woman, but woman for man. Until now the Apostle proved the necessity of a wife’s subordination to her husband with arguments drawn from what may be called the abstract, philosophical-theological sphere. Now he derives this necessity from the history of the creation of woman. — “Image and glory of God.” The first expression (εικών) indicates that the man, by virtue of his dominion over the woman, reflects upon himself the authority of the invisible Creator of the world over all things (cf. Gen 1:26-28; Ps 8). The second (δόξα) — that the man, insofar as he remains faithful to his calling as the reflection of God’s glory, in turn glorifies God himself, laying at his feet the crown that God has placed upon him. In the same sense the representatives of the churches are called “the glory of Christ” in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Cor 8:23): they promote the glorification of Christ in various churches. Such a man — image of God and glory of God — must not conceal this dignity of his under a covering. By doing so he would dim the reflection of divine majesty that has been given to him by the Creator. By the force of this same law, however, a woman must act differently. “A woman is the glory of her husband.” This expression finds its explanation in the two expressions that follow: the woman was taken “from” the man and was created “for” the man. With all the finest qualities of her being, by free inclination, the woman strives to assist her husband in all his undertakings and thereby helps him to acquire glory. — Why, however, did the Apostle not call the woman the “image” of her husband, but only his “glory”? Because with the concept of “image” is associated the representation of lordly dignity, and a woman did not possess such lordly dignity in the home: the counterpart and participant in the governance of the household for the head of the family was not his wife but his eldest son. — “Woman for man” — see Gen 2:18.

1 Corinthians 11:10. Therefore the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her on her head, for the sake of the Angels. Since the woman was created “from” the man and “for” the man, she ought to have on her head a sign of the authority to which she is subject. — “For the sake of the Angels.” This addition apparently does not serve as a ground on which a woman must cover herself in church: the reason and purpose of this covering are already clearly enough expressed above, and for that reason verse 10 begins with the expression “therefore.” Heinrici says that “Angels” are mentioned here because they were present at the creation of the world and of humanity as instruments in God’s hands, and because they feel themselves offended when they see how the normal relations between husband and wife, established at the very creation, are violated. This thought may be accepted, with the proviso, however, that the Angels were only witnesses of the creation of the world (Job 38:7). And that they invisibly attend the worship gatherings of believers — this may be inferred from other passages in the epistles of the Apostle Paul (e.g. Eph 3:10; 1 Tim 5:21; 1 Cor 4:9). This opinion was already expressed by the ancient church commentators (Chrysostom, Augustine), but alongside it there existed another opinion, cited already by Tertullian — that here one must understand “evil” angels, who would be stirred to lust by women who have uncovered their heads. But evil angels are nowhere called simply “angels.” Some have also understood here pagan spies, presiding officers of the church, and so on, but all these opinions cannot be considered in any way well-founded. There is also the opinion that this addition is a later insertion, but this opinion likewise cannot be accepted, because the words “for the sake of the Angels” are found in all the most ancient manuscripts.

1 Corinthians 11:11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:12. For as woman came from man, so also man comes through woman; but all things are from God. The dependent position of woman in Christianity is moderated by virtue of the spiritual communion in Christ (“in the Lord”) that exists between husband and wife: one spouse is always conceived as closely bound with the other in all the circumstances of life — both in prayer and in mutual assistance in the work of spiritual perfection. — “Man through woman.” The fact that every man is born of a woman equalizes to a certain degree the position of both sexes. By this mention the Apostle humbles the husband’s pride, and with the same aim the Apostle adds further: “but all things are from God.” It is not human beings themselves who arranged their relations one way or another, but everything came to be as it is because God so willed it.

1 Corinthians 11:13. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? The Apostle now draws attention to a particular feature in the physical constitution of man and woman. First he appeals to the reasonableness of his readers. They themselves must understand that for a woman to appear before God (“to pray to God”) with uncovered head is not fitting. After all — “all things are from God”; God has established — it is his will — that woman be in subordination to her husband. How then does she dare to appear as a suppliant before God in a manner that shows she does not wish to abide by God’s ordinance?

1 Corinthians 11:14. Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 1 Corinthians 11:15. but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, since hair has been given to her in place of a covering? If this is not enough, let the Corinthians pay attention to what nature itself (φύσις) teaches them — nature which, so to speak, prompts women to wear long hair and men to wear short hair. The long hair of a woman, reaching almost to her feet, indicates that she ought to cover herself from the gaze of men. Conversely, by prompting men to wear short hair, nature thereby says that a man ought to appear with uncovered head, as the king of creation. For him, hair serves as a kind of crown, and for a woman — as a covering. Thus in the very physical structure of woman is revealed the all-good and all-wise will of God the Creator.

1 Corinthians 11:16. But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. The Apostle knew that the Greeks love to argue at all times — even about things that require no discussion. Therefore, to these arguers, who perhaps could not be convinced by any rational proof, he declares that the customs of the Christian church generally do not permit women to appear with uncovered heads: such a custom exists nowhere! And indeed, the images found in the ancient Roman catacombs make it possible to verify that ancient Christian men cut their hair short, while Christian women wore a fairly long covering over their heads that fell to their shoulders and covered their faces as well. — The question is asked: was the conviction expressed by the Apostle conditioned by local and temporary relations? Would the Apostle have reasoned differently if he had lived in our time in western Europe? To this question we must answer in the negative. The grounds that the Apostle adduces are derived not from the relations and customs of his time, but bear on facts that are enduring and unchanging. Indeed, the physical constitution of woman (vv. 13–15) today and in the future will always remain the same as woman had in the days of the Apostle Paul. Furthermore, the history of the creation of man, to which the Apostle appeals (vv. 8–12), even now, as in the Apostle’s days, stands in the eyes of Christians as the principle by which the social order is built. The relationship between God and Christ, Christ and man, man and woman (v. 3) — has not essentially changed. Therefore, either one must recognize the Apostle’s arguments as unfounded, or recognize them as having significance for all times. And since there is no reason to deny the latter, it follows that one must suppose that the Apostle would today say to Christian women the same thing that he says to Christian women in the chapter under consideration. It must be noted, however, that the Apostle is not here entering the sphere of the so-called women’s emancipation in general. He speaks only of married women and their rights in church life. He does not at all prejudge such questions as the question of the right of unmarried women to receive an education, the right to hold positions in state and public service, and the like — though in any case the arguments the Apostle adduces against the striving of Christian wives to become equal to their husbands in the religious sphere, or properly speaking in their rights as members of the church society, are of undoubted significance here as well. “We must never forget” — says Meyer — “the following: women’s emancipation, even Christian emancipation, strives for the complete equation of woman with man; it rests on a misunderstanding of the Gospel; it represents a physical caricature.” 1 Cor 11:17-34. The Apostle was informed about a still more serious disorder that had occurred in the life of the Corinthian Christian community. Namely, the factional spirit that the Apostle had spoken of in the first four chapters of his epistle (17–19) had made itself felt in the worship assemblies of the Christians; and further, at these very assemblies, during the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist — when the love feast that preceded the sacrament was still being observed — each person hastened to eat the food he had brought himself, so that it would not go to others who had nothing. The Apostle points to the abnormality of such a manner of conduct. Great is the significance of the sacrament of holy Eucharist! Here the bloodless sacrifice is offered in memory of the great sacrifice which Christ offered for humanity, and whoever unworthily partakes of the body and blood of the Lord takes upon himself a heavy responsibility before the Lord. For this reason, cases of sudden death among Christians in the Corinthian community had also multiplied: this was God’s punishment for the fact that these Christians approached communion in an improper disposition.

1 Corinthians 11:17. But in giving these instructions, I do not commend you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. “I do not commend you.” The Apostle found it possible to commend the Corinthian Christians (v. 2), although he saw something abnormal in their conduct. But here he does not find it possible. Why? Is there no contradiction here? No, there is no contradiction here, because the question is not about the violation of some apostolic ordinance, but about a lack of reverence in the celebration of the most important of all acts of worship. The commendation for observing the “apostolic traditions” is not taken away from the Corinthians. — “You come together not for the better but for the worse” — that is, your worship assemblies do not lead to an improvement of your mutual relations but only worsen those relations.

1 Corinthians 11:18. For in the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 1 Corinthians 11:19. For there must indeed be factions among you, so that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 1 Corinthians 14:23. “In the first place, I hear.” The second censure corresponding to this first reproach begins in verse 20. This is clearly visible from the fact that both verse 18 and verse 20 begin alike with the expression: “when you come together” (συνερχομένων υμῶν). — “As a church” — more precisely: “as a church” or: “as a church” (ώκκλησία). This designates the manner and mode of assembly, not the place (cf. 1 Cor 14:23). — “Divisions.” The Apostle does not enter into an explanation of what these divisions were, evidently because he explained this in detail in the first four chapters of his epistle. These were, of course, divisions over teachers of the faith. — “And I partly believe it.” The Apostle wants to soften the picture of the state of affairs that was drawn for him by the Christians who had come from Corinth to Ephesus. Perhaps — he wants to say — the situation in Corinth is not as bad as it seemed to these earnest Christians. — “For there must...” — The Apostle speaks here of the inner cause by which such divisions were bound to arise. These divisions appeared by virtue of a special action of divine Providence toward the Church. In the Corinthian Church, as in other churches, there were not a few people who came forward as teachers of the faith not by calling, but carried away by the example of others or wishing to offer resistance to the generally recognized preachers. And so, in the disputes arising from the appearance of new teachers, it was bound to become clear who was the genuine, called teacher of the faith, and who did not merit that name. The Apostle foresees something still worse — that “divisions” (σχίσματα — v. 18), the cause of which lay in personal sympathies and antipathies among those dividing over teachers of the faith, will be followed by “factions” (αιρέσεις — v. 19), in which differing interpretations of Christian doctrine itself will already find expression (cf. Acts 5:17, where the reference is to the “heresies” of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and Acts 24:5, where the same designation “heresy” is given — in the sense of a particular doctrine — to Christianity itself). If “divisions” may be compared to small tears in a covering, then “factions” will be such rents that split the covering into several pieces. — “So that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” By “those who are genuine” (δόκιμοι) one must understand those Christians who, in such commotions of the Church, will display such wisdom and maturity of judgment that everyone will acknowledge them as genuine Christians (cf. 1 Cor 9:27). 1 Corinthians 11:20. Furthermore, when you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Supper; 1 Corinthians 11:21. for each one goes ahead with his own meal when he eats, so that one goes hungry and another gets drunk. The second disorder that caught the Apostle’s attention is the misconduct at the love feasts, or agapes. — “When you come together...” — more precisely: “if you gather together in one place in this manner (επί τό αυτό — indicates an assembly of Christians in one and the same premises; cf. 1 Cor 14:23), that is not really eating the Lord’s Supper.” In the apostolic Church, Christians would gather in the evenings in some suitable premises and there dine together on the food each had brought with him. By this means they sought to keep alive the memory of the Last Supper, at which the Lord Jesus Christ showed special love for the Apostles (John 13:1), and at the conclusion of which he instituted the holy sacrament of the Eucharist. These suppers, at the conclusion of which the sacrament of the Eucharist was celebrated, were called “love feasts” or, briefly, “loves” — agapes (Jude 1:12). This custom was, of course, a very good one: such feasts sustained among Christians the mutual love, because here all — both poor and rich — were supposed to feel themselves equal participants in the supper, although the poor perhaps could bring nothing for the organization of the supper. However, selfishness, vanity, and simple lack of self-restraint in food and drink soon stamped their mark on this fine institution. The agapes in Corinth had been turned into ordinary Greek banquets, at which much wine was habitually drunk. But still worse was the fact that the wealthy hastened to share the food they had brought among their close friends and companions, while the poor remained hungry. Such treatment of the poor presented a vivid contrast to the idea embodied in these suppers and was directly contrary to the idea of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which was celebrated immediately after the supper. For this reason it was established fairly soon that the sacrament of the Eucharist itself be celebrated before the love feast, so as not to give the intemperate an occasion to approach communion after they had eaten and drunk their fill.

1 Corinthians 11:22. What! Do you not have houses for eating and drinking? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you for this? I will not commend you. The Apostle sees in such conduct of the Corinthians toward the love feasts three points that must serve as cause for censure. First, the Corinthians distort the very idea of the supper. The supper is a religious custom and pursues a religious-moral aim, whereas the Corinthians make of it a simple dinner that they could just as well hold at home. This is the first point. Second, by this — namely by drinking and overeating before everyone’s eyes — they show a lack of respect for the whole Church; and third, they humiliate the poor, who must leave the supper hungry.

1 Corinthians 11:23. For I received from the Lord himself what I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was betrayed, took bread, 1 Corinthians 11:24. and after giving thanks he broke it and said: “Take, eat; this is my Body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me. 1 Corinthians 11:25. In the same way also the cup, after the supper, and he said: “This cup is the new covenant in my Blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. In order to awaken in the Corinthians a sense of shame for such conduct at the love feasts, the Apostle recalls for them the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Let the Corinthians understand the difference between this eucharistic sacred celebration and ordinary celebrations and suppers. The Eucharist is a holy sacrament, a definite liturgical act, since it is founded on a specific command of Christ himself. To lend greater authority to his words, the Apostle says that he received information about the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist himself, directly from Christ. That the expression “I received from the Lord himself” must be understood in this way is clear from the fact that the Apostle says with emphasis that he himself received (εγώ). If he were speaking here of what the Apostles who were present at the Last Supper had communicated to him, what would be the point of singling out his “I”? After all, from the Apostles thousands of other believers also learned about the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist, who could consequently say of themselves, as the Apostle Paul does: “I received from the Lord...” — if we were to understand the Apostle’s words simply as an indication of a tradition that had come down to him. It is clear from this that the Apostle could speak in this way only of a revelation that was made to him directly. It is objected: “Revelation has as its subject certain doctrines, not historical events.” But in the Acts of the Apostles there is one revelation of historical content (Acts 9:12). Moreover, one must bear in mind that the Apostle Paul was the founder of churches in the pagan world, and direct knowledge of such important facts as the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist fully corresponded to his high apostolic dignity. Through this he stood in dependence upon Christ alone. “In the night.” The Apostle wants by this to remind his readers that the Eucharist was instituted in those very hours in which the apostolic Church customarily celebrated it. Let Christians relive all that took place on that terrible and sacred night! — “Took bread” (άρτον). According to the tradition of the Orthodox Church, this bread was not unleavened but leavened, different from what was used at the Hebrew Passover. — “And after giving thanks.” The head of the family among the Hebrews gave thanks to God at the blessing of the Passover bread for the creation of the world and for the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt. Christ, however, of course offered thanksgiving to his heavenly Father for the redemption of humanity and for the founding of the New Covenant. “Take, eat.” These words are not found in the most ancient manuscripts of the epistle. — “This is my Body.” “This” (του το) — the bread that was in the Savior’s hands. — On how to understand the expression “is my Body” — see 1 Cor 10:16. Godet asserts that the verb “is” here carries the meaning of “signifies, represents,” and therefore sees in the bread not the body of Christ but only a symbol of the body. But if the words of Christ are interpreted in only a symbolic sense, the Eucharist ceases to be a sacrament before which Christians ought to stand in awe. Moreover, there is no reason to give the verb “is” the meaning “signifies, represents.” — “Broken for you.” This expression points to the abiding character of Christ’s sacrifice: the body of Christ “is broken,” not “will be broken” (Theophan). “Do this in remembrance of me.” These words, found only in Paul and Luke, are very important in that they show the Lord’s desire that the sacrament of the Eucharist be celebrated continuously, throughout all ages. The Lord addresses these words to the Apostles as founders of churches in which they are to introduce the sacred custom of celebrating the Eucharist. But just as in the expression “broken for you” not the Apostles alone are intended but all believers, so here alongside the address to the Apostles one must also see a command for all believers. During the celebration of the Eucharist, believers must remember with reverence not the Old Testament paschal lamb, by whose blood the Israelites were saved from death in Egypt, but Christ and his sacrifice. — “In the same way also the cup, after the supper.” The two actions — the blessing of the bread and the blessing of the wine — were separated from each other by a certain interval. The bread was broken “during the meal,” as the evangelists Matthew and Mark say, while the cup was offered already “after” the supper, or at the conclusion of the eating of the paschal lamb (cf. 1 Cor 10:16). — “This cup” — that is, the wine contained in it. — “New covenant.” Here is an allusion to the covenant concluded between Jehovah and the Israelites at Sinai: there too the blood of sacrifices was shed, with which Moses sprinkled the Israelite people (Exod 24:8). — “In my Blood.” These words constitute a definition of the word “covenant.” Christ the Savior says here that the new covenant is established through the shedding of his blood. (The blood of Christ is the same as the death of Christ — cf. Rom 3:25). Just as the old covenant did, the New Covenant gives on the one hand forgiveness of sins, and on the other demands of a person obedience to the will of God. But the old covenant properly speaking only still promised God’s help or forgiveness of sins, whereas the New Covenant gives this forgiveness in actual fact. — “Do this” — that is, perform the blessing of the cup, offering it to others. “Whenever you drink.” As is apparent from the following, verse 26, the reference here is not to drinking wine in general, but to drinking from the said blessed cup. In verse 22 the sacrament of the Eucharist is clearly distinguished from an ordinary supper. The meaning of this expression, in connection with the following words “in remembrance of me,” is undoubtedly this: “every time you, as members of the New Covenant, hold a religious feast corresponding to the Old Testament Passover supper, you must offer the blessed cup to all and drink from it in remembrance of me.” The expression “whenever” (οσάκις) indicates that believers could celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist — this paschal New Testament supper — not once a year but several times.

1 Corinthians 11:26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. From here to the end of the chapter the Apostle shows what consequences follow from the understanding of the Eucharist established above. First of all, by celebrating the Eucharist, Christians proclaim the death of the Lord. The expression “to proclaim” (καταγγέλλειν) is very reminiscent of the Hebrew expression “haggadah” (to narrate or explain). The latter, among the Hebrews, denoted the explanation that the head of the family would give at the celebration of the Passover, in response to his eldest son’s question about the various rites customarily observed at the Passover supper. By this, every participant in the supper stood in fully conscious relation to all that was done at it. Similar explanations are presupposed by the Apostle Paul also at the celebration of holy Eucharist. These could be given in their inspired speeches by Christians possessing the spirit of prophecy. — “Until he comes.” Holy Eucharist for Christianity constitutes a substitute for the visible presence of Christ. It forms, one might say, the link between his first and second coming: Christ comes even now to believers in this great sacrament, but in time he will come openly and visibly to all.

1 Corinthians 11:27. Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord. From the nature of the Eucharist the Apostle draws the thought of the great responsibility of those Christians who approach the holy sacrament unworthily: in such a case a person becomes guilty of an offense against the very body and the very blood of Christ, which are truly imparted in the sacrament of the Eucharist. — “In an unworthy manner,” that is, without any grateful remembrance of the sufferings of Christ, without proper reverence. — “Will be guilty” (ένοχος) — that is, will be recognized and held bound as a criminal.

1 Corinthians 11:28. Let a person examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 1 Corinthians 11:29. For whoever eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment on himself, without discerning the Body of the Lord. In view of such grave responsibility, a Christian must clarify for himself how he thinks about Christ and whether his heart contains sufficient gratitude and reverence toward the common Savior of all people. Only with such feelings can one go to the love feast — otherwise it is easy to fall into sin there. — “Eats and drinks judgment on himself.” “Judgment” (κρῖμα) — this is some punishment imposed by God. Although this punishment is not in itself “eternal” condemnation, in the case of a person’s persistent impenitence it may lead to his final condemnation (cf. v. 32). — “Without discerning the Body of the Lord,” that is, without distinguishing and discerning that behind the ordinary bread, behind the usual material food, the true body of Christ lies hidden: to the person receiving holy Eucharist it only seems that he is eating bread, whereas in actual fact he is partaking of the body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:30. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and quite a few have died. 1 Corinthians 11:31. But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 1 Corinthians 11:32. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. What was said in verse 29 the Apostle confirms by pointing to those cases of illness and death within the Corinthian Christian community that had become more frequent of late and that testify to the wrath of God against those who partake unworthily. — “Weak” (ασθενής) — more precisely: “ill.” — “Ill” (άρρωστος) — more precisely: “have lost their strength.” — “If we judged ourselves,” that is, if we examined ourselves attentively and condemned ourselves for what is wrong in us. — “But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined.” The Apostle brings the Corinthians back to those judgments that were coming upon them. These judgments, though strict, serve in the Lord’s hands as a means of saving the Corinthians from a still heavier, eternal punishment, because, thanks to these temporal judgments or punishments, the Corinthians may come to their senses and correct their conduct (cf. 1 Cor 5:5). — The Apostle distinguishes in this section (vv. 31–32) three judgments: 1) the person’s judgment upon himself (διακρίνεσθαι — v. 31); 2) God’s temporal judgment, in this life (κρίνεσθαι — v. 32); and 3) judgment leading to eternal destruction, or final condemnation (κατακρίνεσθαι — v. 32) — this is the terrible last judgment. — “The world” — this is humanity lost in sins and depravity (Ecumenius).

1 Corinthians 11:33. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 1 Corinthians 11:34. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come. In conclusion the Apostle gives the Christians the instruction not to begin the love feast until everyone has gathered, so that the food may be divided equally among all. After all, the purpose of the love feast is not satiation, but precisely “communion” in eating. — “Not for judgment” — see v. 30. — “The remaining matters.” Here are meant certain questions connected with the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist — for example, the question of how often to celebrate the Eucharist, at what hours of the day, and so on. * * * Notes On the agapes, see the study by Mr. Sokolov. Agapes, or Love Feasts. Moscow, 1907. In the best manuscripts, however, the word “broken” is absent. The words of Christ spoken at the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist are rendered by the Apostle Paul in a form somewhat modified from the Gospel text. Closest to the text of the Apostle Paul is the text of the Gospel of Luke, who was a companion of the Apostle Paul and therefore must have set forth the history of the institution of the Eucharist in accordance with the epistle to the Corinthians. In Matthew and Mark the expressions “broken for you” and “do this in remembrance of me” are absent, and instead of the expression “the new covenant in my Blood” stands the expression “my Blood of the new covenant.” But these differences are not important: the substance of the matter remains the same in the Apostle Paul as in all the evangelists. Holy Eucharist is genuinely a sacrament in which bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Savior, and which by its very existence must always remind Christians of the great sacrifice offered by Christ the Savior for the sins of humanity, and must prompt Christians to the same self-sacrifice for the benefit of their brothers. The Corinthians evidently did not have a sufficiently clear grasp of this great significance of the sacrament of the Eucharist, looking upon it as an ordinary communal evening gathering, and the Apostle needed to impress upon them that in receiving the holy gifts they are entering into real communion with Christ — just as formerly, through participation in pagan feasts, they had entered into real communion with demons. Catholics find in the expression “eats this bread or drinks the cup...” support for their view that one must receive communion under “one” kind — of bread, or of wine. But here the particle “or” has not a “disjunctive” but a “conjunctive” meaning (cf. v. 26, where in its place stands the particle καί — “and”). The more recent commentators attempt to derive the custom of holding love feasts from the custom of Greek urban guilds of holding communal banquets. But these banquets were organized with money drawn from the guild treasury, whereas agapes consisted of food brought by each believer. — Equally fanciful is the attempt by Bousset to explain the origin of the sacrament of the Eucharist from Greek religious mysteries. We possess a fully reliable history of the origin of this sacrament — namely, the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians and the Gospels. There is no need to seek any other explanations for the origin of this sacrament after what we have learned from these fully authoritative sources...