Bible Groups

Chapter 11

Lack of cultural knowledge leads to many misunderstandings of the first part of this chapter. “Head” meant source or origin to first century Greeks, as in “head of a column” or “head of a river”; its use to imply subservience was unknown at that time. Moreover nowhere in this chapter, except possible v.7, is Paul referring to husbands and wives: the Greek words used mean “man” and “woman” - whether married or not. Paul’s concern is that those joining together for worship should not introduce contentious elements, such as dressing differently from the usual conventions in their culture. The second part of this chapter is the earliest description of the Eucharist we have in the NT - and perhaps we should thank the unruly Corinthians for this - otherwise Paul might never have mentioned the Eucharist and we might have assumed that the Pauline Churches did not have the Eucharist!
1 This conclusion to the previous chapter may also be taken as introducing this chapter: follow my practices, based on love, as I follow Christ’s.
2 Paul starts by complimenting the Corinthians for remembering and doing as he taught them. But he then takes them to task for misunderstanding two important aspects of their Eucharistic worship: contentious ways of behaving, in dress and in eating and drinking, which are not consistent with the spirit of fellowship and koinonia which most certainly ought to be the basis of their worship. Paul uses 3 arguments: from Scripture (Gen), from the surrounding Greek culture, and from logic/convention.
3 Straight from Genesis: the source/origin of man is Christ, whose origin is God; and woman came from man. No implication of subservience, but the common way Jews explained the origin of mankind.
4 Throughout these verses it is not clear whether the Greek words are referring to “head-covering” or to ways of cutting or dressing the hair. It was normal for male Jews and Greeks to cover their heads while at worship - as Moses had to do, and as Moslems do too. Paul seems to be saying that Christians are free to stand uncovered when addressing God, partly because man is the image and “glory” of God - man is God’s most wonderful creation, and so should not cover himself from his creator.
5 Important to note that Paul makes no distinction between men and women praying (ie leading prayers) and prophesying - both are equally entitled and perhaps expected to do so. Men and women are equal. But Paul is saying something about how women should dress when they do so. At the very least they should not flout convention and draw attention to themselves - rather than to God - by their dress, or by their hairstyle (it could mean either). Women by their nature can usually grow their hair longer than men, and they should not try to hide this difference between the genders - God made both man and woman in his image.
6 For women at this time, both Jews and Greeks, their hair (only) was normally covered with a veil, or constrained into plaits or a bun. Only a woman’s husband would normally see her hair flowing freely, so to display it free was to imply sexual licence. It would also be seen as distracting to (poor) males!
7 Man appears without head covering before his God, to display himself as the image of his creator. But in Greek culture a woman’s appearance reflected her husband’s status - she was his “glory”. She should only appear with her head unadorned - whether by coiffure or headdress or veil - in private with her husband.
8 Rounding off the argument from Genesis, man should uncover himself before his maker, but woman should do so only before the source from which she came.
9 Man was created to “love and serve God” - and woman to help him with this work.
10 Man’s symbol of authority is to stand without head covering in the assembly; a woman’s symbol of authority is to keep her hair covered. To remove her hair covering would be to reduce her authority in the Greek culture, and would also do so when she is leading the prayers or prophesying.
11 But then Paul contradicts all his previous arguments - perhaps his heart was not really in them! Men and women are interdependent - in the Lord - neither is superior to the other. Man and woman are equal before the Lord, and must work together.
12 Paul then supports this last statement by a biological argument: woman may have come from man’s rib (Gen), but man is born of physically of woman. So neither takes precedence - all things come from God.
13 The Corinthians should make their own minds up about what is proper - in their own society: for a woman to (lead) pray with her head uncovered would be unseemly, and so would reduce her authority.
14 Similarly for a man to leave his hair to grow long (or to cover his hair - the Greek words could mean either) would also be to appear different from normal, conventional dress, and so would also be unseemly, and would reduce his authority.
15 For a woman to display her - naturally - long hair in public would be to draw attention to her self, rather than to God.
16 To sum up: do not be contentious when at or leading prayers or prophesying. Keep to normal conventions in dress matters, as do the other churches.
17 In vv 17 & 22 Paul strongly says “I do not commend you”, emphasising the reasons for his disapproval in the included verses. Even saying that the manner of their coming together is such that their worship is for the worse, not better.
18 This is because of the divisions there are between you, although Paul only partially believes what he has heard.
19 He asserts that there are bound to be differences within a community of believers: some follow Christ more closely and are seen as more genuine by others - and by God.
20 But he says plainly that their behaviour is such that their feast is NOT a Eucharist, as they think. This is because they act so uncharitably towards each other that they have not realised that the essence of Eucharist is being joined in Christ to each other in love.
21 It appears that they are having a meal in the manner common to Greeks at that time, a meal together such as any club or cultic association might have. At these meals the members would normally bring their own food and drink, and their were often rules to ensure this was shared fairly between all those present. But at some such meals there might often be varying standards of food and drink for guests of different status. In Corinth the Christians appear to be having such meals together, on the basis that they were Eucharistic meals; but the rich citizens, having more control over their time, would arrive first, taking their seats in the dining rooms, and would start to eat and drink immediately, without waiting for the poorer workers and slaves to come when their work allowed them to do so. These latecomers would have to eat outside in the hall or open area, and there might not be any food left.
22 In this way those well off were showing contempt for the poor - and so for God’s Church. They should eat at home.
23 This leads Paul to remind the Corinthians of the tradition he “has received and handed on” - technical words indicating a strict rendering of oral tradition. This is the earliest description of the Eucharist in Scripture, and has all the marks of being both an earlier tradition which Paul is repeating, and of being based in history rather than simply a liturgical formula. Eg the phrases are not symmetric, as a liturgy might be. Paul’s description is similar to Luke’s, but neither is based on the other. They differ from those in Matthew and Mark. Paul does not say how he received these words from the Lord - possibly he received the words when he was instructed in Damascus or Antioch, but he may have understood their meaning directly from the Lord. Twice Paul mentions “Lord”, ie the resurrected Christ who saves us, even though he is repeating what happened just before Christ died. Christ’s death implies Hid resurrection and our salvation. Mentioning that it took place “on the night He was being betrayed” might suggests to the Corinthian that their behaviour is betraying the Lord.
24 The Greek does not have “took”: simply “having given thanks, broke bread and said ....” This would be a normal way of starting any Jewish meal (Paul does not imply it was Passover): give thanks and then share some bread, each taking a piece. What was different was the words Jesus spoke: “This is my body for you”, clearly implying an identity between the bread and Jesus’ body which had been sacrificed “for you”. And they were to go on repeating these action, as a memorial - ie a re-presentation similar to the way the Passover meal made present again to each generation the flight from Egypt.
25 While it appears Jesus broke the bread either at the beginning of or during the meal, He took the cup “after” the meal. This bears similarities to the usual sequence at such Greek association meals: food and drink, then formal libation to a god (Cf our after dinner toasts), followed by entertainment, conversation or even learned discussions. The formal breaking of bread must in Christian celebrations have come after the general meal, otherwise the latecomers would have missed it. But instead of a libation, the cup is shared as “the new covenant in my blood”. Paul has “new” covenant to reflect the Jews’ expectation of a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34), which fulfills the old. Paul does not state that the cup’s contents are now Jesus’ blood, but the understanding is fairly clear that drinking the cup is sharing in Jesus’ death and its fruits. Again Paul has that this is to be done repeatedly as a memorial.
26 To emphasise the connection to Jesus’ death even more, Paul says that eating and drinking in this way is to “proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes”. Celebrating the Eucharist necessarily includes eating and drinking, and in this way Jesus’ death is proclaimed - by us - to the world. And we are to go on doing it “until he comes” - we are to look forward to the second coming, a thought now restored to the Mass at Vatican II. (Note the Eucharist will not be needed in heaven).
27 Paul puts it again in another way: unworthy participation is effectively to participate in crucifying Jesus. Strong words. Of course, we are all unworthy, so Paul goes on to explain himself.
28 Before the Eucharist each person should examine himself, to seek any reasons why he should not take part. Such as the uncharitable behaviour of some of the Corinthians. Such as our lack of charity towards our neighbours, either in speech, or in appearing unwelcoming to visitors to our Church.
29 The important part of this internal judgement is to discern - recognise - the body - sacrament or one Church - of Christ for what it is, and to show due reverence for it.
30 Paul suggests that some of their illnesses may be due to their misbehaviour at the Eucharist - the Jews commonly believed that sins resulted in illness or death.
31 We would not be punished by the Lord if we had examined ourselves adequately before the Eucharist and correctly discerned and understood what we are doing.
32 Being chastised by the Lord saves us from the condemnation the rest of the world will suffer. The Lord punishes us for our sins, and for our own good, but he does not condemn us.
33 So, ever practical, Paul gives clear guidance in loving terms - “my brothers”: when you come together as church, wait for one another before starting the meal.
34 If you are hungry eat at home. In this way there should not any more be this lack of love between you, which leads to judging you in need of punishment by the Lord. Other matters have been raised, but these are less important and can be left until I come and visit you.

Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians

Chapter 11