Grace Team UniversityStudy to shew thyself approved unto God2 Timothy 2:15
SCRIBE’S TREASURECHRISTIAN LIBRARYTHY WORD IS TRUTHKJV BIBLE WITH GREEKPRAISE YE THE LORDWORSHIP MUSIC

1 Corinthians 11

Tap any word to open its Greek or Hebrew word and Strong’s lexicon entry right here, and any name to open its Bible Dictionary entry. Read this chapter with JFB commentary · Search the Bible

Holy Bible seal — the reading lion in a graduation cap over the open Bible: Jesus Christ Is Lord; My Words Shall Not Pass Away
THY WORD IS TRUTH

The Law

History

Poetry & Wisdom

The Prophets

The Gospels & Acts

The Letters

Prophecy

✕ 🔍

“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” — John 5:39

The words of the Lord Jesus are printed in red.
12345678910111213141516
1 Corinthians 11
Following Christ's Example

1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
CHAPTER 11

1Co 11:1-34. Censure on Disorders in Their Assemblies: Their Women Not Being Veiled, and Abuses at the Love-Feasts.

1. Rather belonging to the end of the tenth chapter, than to this chapter.

followers--Greek, "imitators."

of Christ--who did not please Himself (Ro 15:3); but gave Himself, at the cost of laying aside His divine glory, and dying as man, for us (Ep 5:2; Php 2:4, 5). We are to follow Christ first, and earthly teachers only so far as they follow Christ.
The Pulpit Commentary
Followers of me; rather, imitators of me; follow herein my example, as I follow Christ's. What Christ's example was, in that he too "pleased not himself," he sets forth in Rom_15:1-3; and the general principle of self abnegation for the sake of others in Php_2:4-8. This verse ought to be included in ch. 10. It sums up the whole argument, and explains the long digression of ch. 9. As I also am of Christ. This limits the reference to his own example. I only ask you to imitate me in points in which I imitate Christ.
Head Coverings in Worship

2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
2. Here the chapter ought to begin.

ye remember me in all things--in your general practice, though in the particular instances which follow ye fail.

ordinances--Greek, "traditions," that is, apostolic directions given by word of mouth or in writing (1Co 11:23; 15:3; 2Th 2:15). The reference here is mainly to ceremonies: for in 1Co 11:23, as to the Lord's Supper, which is not a mere ceremony, he says, not merely, "I delivered unto you," but also, "I received of the Lord"; here he says only, "I delivered to you." Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is to know what is a genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can be proved to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected (Re 22:18). Those preserved in the written word alone can be proved to be such.
The Pulpit Commentary
Rules and principles respecting the covering of the head by women in Church assemblies.

Now; rather, but, on the other hand. That ye remember me in all things, and keep, etc. This is probably a quotation from their letter. He thanks them for this kind message, but points out one particular in which their practice was not quite commendable. The ordinances. The word literally means traditions, but is here rightly applied to rules which he had delivered to them. The Vulgate has praecepta. The word is used in Mat_15:2 of the rules and precedents laid down by the rabbis.

3But 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.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
3. The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary head-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (Ga 3:28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in 1Co 14:34, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation.

the head--an appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman's appropriate headdress in public.

of every man ... Christ--(Ep 5:23).

of ... woman ... man--(1Co 11:8; Ge 3:16; 1Ti 2:11, 12; 1Pe 3:1, 5, 6).

head of Christ is God--(1Co 3:23; 15:27, 28; Lu 3:22, 38; Joh 14:28; 20:17; Ep 3:9). "Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of the same essence as the Father" [Chrysostom]. "The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father" [Theodoret, t. 3, p. 171].
The Pulpit Commentary
But I would have you know; rather, but I wish you to know. That the head of every man is Christ. St. Paul, as was customary with him, applies the loftiest principles to the solution of the humblest difficulties. Given a question as to what is right or wrong in a particular instance, he always aims at laying down some great eternal fact to which the duty or decision is ultimately referable, and deduces the required rule from that fact. The headship of Christ is stated in Eph_1:22; Eph_4:15; and its application to the superiority of man is laid down also in Eph_5:23. The subordinate position of the woman is also stated in 1Ti_2:11, 1Ti_2:12; 1Pe_3:1, 1Pe_3:5, 1Pe_3:6, etc. This, however, is merely an ordinance of earthly application. In the spiritual realm "there is neither male nor female" (Gal_3:28). The head of the woman is the man. In Christ the distinctions of the sexes are done away. It was, perhaps, an abuse of this principle which had led the Corinthian women to assert themselves and their rights more prominently than decorum warranted. The head of Christ is God. That Christ is "inferior to the Father as touching his manhood," that his mediatorial kingdom involves (so far) a subordination of his coequal Godhead, has been already stated in 1Co_3:23, and is further found in 1Co_15:27, 1Co_15:28. This too is the meaning of Joh_14:28, "My Father is greater than I."

4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
4. praying--in public (1Co 11:17).

prophesying--preaching in the Spirit (1Co 12:10).

having--that is, if he were to have: a supposed case to illustrate the impropriety in the woman's case. It was the Greek custom (and so that at Corinth) for men in worship to be uncovered; whereas the Jews wore the Talith, or veil, to show reverence before God, and their unworthiness to look on Him (Is 6:2); however, Maimonides [Mishna] excepts cases where (as in Greece) the custom of the place was different.

dishonoureth his head--not as Alford, "Christ" (1Co 11:3); but literally, as "his head" is used in the beginning of the verse. He dishonoreth his head (the principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a mark of subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards to his Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman wears it in token of her subjection to man? "Because Christ is not seen: the man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ is not seen; of her who is under the man, is seen" [Bengel]. (Compare 1Co 11:7).
The Pulpit Commentary
Prophesying; that is, preaching. Having his head covered. This was a Jewish custom. The Jewish worshipper in praying always covers his head with his tallith. The Jew (like Orientals generally) uncovered his feet because the place on which he stood was holy ground; but he covered his head by way of humility, even as the angels veil their faces with their wings. AEneas is said by Servius to have introduced this custom into Italy. On the other hand, the Greek custom was to pray with the head uncovered. St. Paul—as some discrepancy of custom seems to have arisen—decided in favour of the Greek custom, on the high ground that Christ, by his incarnation, became man, and therefore the Christian, who is" in Christ," may stand with unveiled head in the presence of his Father. Dishonoureth his head. He dishonoureth his own head, which is as it were a sharer in the glory of Christ, who is Head of the whole Church. "We pray," says Tertullian, "with bare beads because we blush not." The Christian, being no longer a slave, but a son (Gal_4:7), may claim his part in the glory of the eternal Son. The head was covered in mourning (2Sa_15:30; Jer_14:13), and the worship of the Christian is joyous.

5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
5. woman ... prayeth ... prophesieth--This instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so Ac 2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (1Co 14:34, 35; 1Ti 2:11, 12). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as most accordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till 1Co 14:34, 35. Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public congregation.

dishonoureth ... head--in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Ge 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Nu 5:18). Alford takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one.

all one as if ... shaven--As woman's hair is given her by nature, as her covering (1Co 11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous: therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head-covering) to show that she does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.
The Pulpit Commentary
Or prophesieth. Although St. Paul "thinks of one thing at a time," and is not here touching on the question whether women ought to teach in public, it appears from this expression that the rule which he lays down in 1Co_14:34, 1Co_14:35, and 1Ti_2:12 was not meant to be absolute. See the case of Philip's daughters (Act_21:9 and Act_2:17). With her head uncovered. For a woman to do this in a public assembly was against the national custom of all ancient communities, and might lead to the gravest misconceptions. As a rule, modest women covered their heads with the peplum or with a veil when they worshipped or were in public. Christian women at Corinth must have caught something of the "inflation" which was characteristic of their Church before they could have acted with such reprehensible boldness as to adopt a custom identified with the character of immodest women. Dishonoureth her head. Calvin, with terse good sense, observes, "As the man honours his head by proclaiming his liberty, so the woman by acknowledging her subjection."

6For 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.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
6. A woman would not like to be "shorn" or (what is worse) "shaven"; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, "shorn."

a shame--an unbecoming thing (compare 1Co 11:13-15). Thus the shaving of nuns is "a shame."
The Pulpit Commentary
Let her also be shorn. Not a command, but, a sort of scornful inference, or reductio ad absurdum. If it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. When a woman was tried by "the ordeal of the water of jealousy," her head was uncovered by the priest (Num_5:18). To be shorn or shaven was a sign of mourning (Deu_21:12), and was a disgrace inflicted on adulteresses.

7For 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 the man.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
7-9. Argument, also, from man's more immediate relation to God, and the woman's to man.

he is ... image ... glory of God--being created in God's "image," first and directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God's "glory" this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man (Psa 8:4, 5; compare 2Co 8:23). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare Jas 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare He 1:3). "Express image," Greek, "the impress." The Divine Son is not merely "like" God, He is God of God, "being of one substance (essence) with the Father." [Nicene Creed].

woman ... glory of ... man--He does not say, also, "the image of the man." For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image of God, as well as the man (Ge 1:26, 27). But as the moon in relation to the sun (Ge 37:9), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light derived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not that she does not in grace come individually into direct communion with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent.
The Pulpit Commentary
He is the image and glory of God. Because he reflects and partakes in the glory of Christ, who is the effulgence of God and the impress of his substance (Gen_1:27; Psa_8:6; Heb_1:2). The woman is the glory of the man. As moonlight is to sunlight, or as the earthshine is to the moonshine. Man reflects God; woman, in her general nature in this earthly and temporal dispensation, reflects the glory of man.

8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

The Pulpit Commentary
But the woman of the man. An allusion to Gen_2:21, Gen_2:22.

9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

The Pulpit Commentary
But the woman for the man. As is expressly stated in Gen_2:18.

10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
10. power on her head--the kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had before his mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for "veil" (radid), and "subjection" (radad).

because of the angels--who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare Psa 138:1, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (1Co 4:9; Ep 3:10; Ec 5:6). Hammond quotes Chrysostom, "Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?" Bengel explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Is 6:2). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mt 18:10, 31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them."
The Pulpit Commentary
To have power on her head. A great deal of irrelevant guesswork has been written on this verse. Under this head must be classed the idle attempts to twist the word exousia, power, or authority, into some other reading—an attempt which may be set aside, because it is not sanctioned by a single manuscript. We may also dismiss the futile efforts to make exousia have any other primary meaning than "authority." The context shows that the word has here a secondary sense, and implies some kind of covering. The verse, therefore, points the same lessons as Gen_24:64, Gen_24:65. This much may be regarded as certain, and this view is adopted by the steadfast good sense of our English translators, both in the Authorized and Revised Versions. The only question worth asking is why the word exousia had come at Corinth, or in the Corinthian Church, to be used for "a veil," or "covering." The simplest answer is that just as the word "kingdom" in Greek may be used for "a crown" (comp. regno as the name of the pope's tiara), so "authority" may mean "a sign of authority" (Revised Version), or "a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband". The margin of the Revised Version, "authority over her head," is a strange suggestion. Some have explained the word of her own true authority, which consists in accepting the rule of her husband; but it probably moans a sign of her husband's authority over her. Similarly the traveller Chardin says that in Persia the women wear a veil, in sign that they are "under subjection." If so, the best comment on the word may be found in the exquisite lines of Milton, which illustrate the passage in other ways also—

"She, as a vei1, down to the slender waist

Her unadorned golden tresses wore…

As the vine curves her tendrils, which implied

Subjection, but required with gentle sway,

And by her yielded, by him best received."

The fact that Callistratus twice uses exousia of "abundance of hair" is probably a mere coincidence, resembling the Irish expression "a power of hair." Nor can there be any allusion to the isolated fact that Samson's strength lay in his hair. The very brief comment of Luther sums up all the best of the many pages which have been written on the subject. He says that exousia means "the veil or covering, by which one may see that she is under her husband's authority" (Gen_3:16). Because of the angels. In this clause also we must set aside, as idle waste of time, the attempts to alter the text, or to twist the plain words into impossible meanings. The word "angels" cannot mean "Church officials," or "holy men," or "prophets," or "delegates," or "'bridegroom's men," or anything but angels. Nor can the verse mean, as Bengel supposes, that women are to veil themselves because the angels do so (Isa_6:2), or because the angels approve of it. The only question is whether the allusion is to good or bad angels. In favour of the latter view is the universal tradition among the Jews that the angels fell by lust for mortal women, which was the Jewish way of interpreting Gen_6:1, Gen_6:2. This is the view of Tertullian ('De Virg. Vel.,' 7) in writing on this subject. A woman, in the opinion and traditions of Oriental Jews, is liable to injury from the shedim, if she appears in public unveiled; and these evil spirits are supposed to delight in the appearance of unveiled women. The objection to this view, that angeloi alone is never used of evil but always of good angels, is not perhaps decisive (see 1Co_6:3). The verse may, however, mean (in accordance with the Jewish belief of those days) that good angels, being under the possibility of falling from the same cause as their evil brethren, fly away at once from the presence of unveiled women. Thus Khadijah tested that the visitant of her husband Mohammed really was the angel Gabriel, because he disappeared the moment she unveiled her head. On the whole, however, the meaning seems to be, out of respect and reverence for the holy angels, who are always invisibly present in the Christian assemblies.. "Reverence the angels" is St. Chrysostom's remark.

11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
11. Yet neither sex is insulated and independent of the other in the Christian life [Alford]. The one needs the other in the sexual relation; and in respect to Christ ("in the Lord"), the man and the woman together (for neither can be dispensed with) realize the ideal of redeemed humanity represented by the bride, the Church.
The Pulpit Commentary
Nevertheless. The verse is meant to correct any tendency on the part of men to domineer. Man and woman are "all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal_3:28).

"The two-celled heart, beating with one full stroke—Life."

12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
12. As the woman was formed out of (from) the man, even so is man born by means of woman; but all things (including both man and woman) are from God as their source (Ro 11:36; 2Co 5:18). They depend mutually each on the other, and both on him.
The Pulpit Commentary
By the woman; that is, "born of a woman" (Job_14:1). But all things of God. And all things also "through him and to him," made by him, and tending to him as their end (Rom_11:1-36 :56).

13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
13. Appeal to their own sense of decorum.

a woman ... unto God--By rejecting the emblem of subjection (the head-covering), she passes at one leap in praying publicly beyond both the man and angels [Bengel].
The Pulpit Commentary
Is it comely, etc.? An appeal to the decision of their instinctive sense of propriety.

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
14. The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Nu 6:5). Compare as to Absalom, 2Sa 14:26, and Ac 18:18.
The Pulpit Commentary
Doth not even nature itself teach you? "Nature" here has much the lame sense as "instinct."

"His fair large front and eye sublime declared

Absolute rule; and hyacinthine locks

Round from his parted forelock manly hung

Clustering, but not beneath his shoulders broad:

She, as a veil, down to the slender waist

Her unadorned golden tresses wore."

(Milton, 'Paradise Lost,' 4:304.)

15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
15. her hair ... for a covering--Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [Bengel].
The Pulpit Commentary
It is a glory to her. Because it is at once beautiful and natural; and as Bengel says, "Will should follow the guidance of nature."

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
16. A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches.

if any ... seem--The Greek also means "thinks" (fit) (compare Mt 3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians' self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (1Co 1:20).

we--apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to Tertullian [Estius]. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context: but he often refers to himself and his fellow apostles, by the expression, "we--us" (1Co 4:9, 10).

no such custom--as that of women praying uncovered. Not as Chrysostom, "that of being contentious." The Greek term implies a usage, rather than a mental habit (Joh 18:39). The usage of true "churches (plural: not, as Rome uses it, 'the Church,' as an abstract entity; but 'the churches,' as a number of independent witnesses) of God" (the churches which God Himself recognizes), is a valid argument in the case of external rites, especially, negatively, for example, Such rites were not received among them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine, or the essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [Sclater] (1Co 7:17; 14:33).

neither--nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but a general test of decency.
The Pulpit Commentary
But if any man seem to be contentious. St. Paul cuts the question short, as though impatient of any further discussion of a subject already settled by instinctive decorum and by the common sense of universal usage. "Seem to be contentious" is (like the Latin videtur) only a courteous way of saying "is contentious." If any of you wish to be disputatious and quarrelsome about this minor matter of ritual, I must content myself with saying that he must take his own course (for a similar use of the euphemistic "seem," see Php_3:4; Heb_4:1; Jas_1:26). We have no such custom. The emphatic "we" means the apostles and the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem and Antioch. Such custom. Not referring to "contentiousness," but to the women appearing with uncovered heads. Neither the Churches of God. If you Corinthians prefer these abnormal practices in spite of reason, common sense, and my arguments, you must stand alone in your innovations upon universal Christian practice. But catholic custom is against your "self opinionated particularism."
Disorders at the Lord's Supper

17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
17. in this--which follows.

I declare--rather, "I enjoin"; as the Greek is always so used. The oldest manuscripts read literally "This I enjoin (you) not praising (you)."

that--inasmuch as; in that you, &c. Here he qualifies his praise (1Co 11:2). "I said that I praised you for keeping the ordinances delivered to you; but I must now give injunction in the name of the Lord, on a matter in which I praise you not; namely, as to the Lord's Supper (1Co 11:23; 1Co 14:37).

not for the better--not so as to progress to what is better.

for the worse--so as to retrograde to what is worse. The result of such "coming together" must be "condemnation" (1Co 11:34).
The Pulpit Commentary
Discreditable irregularities at the Eucharist and the agapae.

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not; rather, as in the Revised Version, But in giving you this charge, I praise you not. A reference to the "I praise you" of 1Co_11:2. Ye come together. As he advances, his rebukes become more and more serious; for the present reproach does not affect a few, but the Church assembly in general.

18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
18. first of all--In the first place. The "divisions" (Greek, "schisms") meant, are not merely those of opinion (1Co 1:10), but in outward acts at the love-feasts (Agapæ), (1Co 11:21). He does not follow up the expression, "in the first place," by "in the second place." But though not expressed, a second abuse was in his mind when he said, "In the first place," namely, THE ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, which also created disorder in their assemblies [Alford], (1Co 12:1; 14:23, 26, 33, 40).

in the church--not the place of worship; for Isidore of Pelusium denies that there were such places specially set apart for worship in the apostles' times [Epistle, 246.2]. But, "in the assembly" or "congregation"; in convocation for worship, where especially love, order, and harmony should prevail. The very ordinance instituted for uniting together believers in one body, was made an occasion of "divisions" (schisms).

partly--He hereby excepts the innocent. "I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I cannot help believing" [Alford]: while my love is unaffected by it [Bengel].
The Pulpit Commentary
First of all. The "second" rebuke is not clearly stated, but is no doubt meant to refer to the abuses in "speaking with the tongue." In the Church; rather, in congregation, or assembly. The reference is not to a particular building. The Lord's Supper was administered frequently (originally every day, Act_2:46), and often in private houses. Divisions; schisms (1Co_1:10, 1Co_1:12). Here, however, he is referring to cliques and quarrels at the love feasts. Partly! cannot think, he says, in a tone of kindness, that these reports are wholly false. There must be some ground for them, even if the facts have been exaggerated.

19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
19. heresies--Not merely "schisms" or "divisions" (1Co 11:18), which are "recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion" [Augustine, Con. Crescon. Don. 2.7, quoted by Trench, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament], but also "heresies," that is, "schisms which have now become inveterate"; "Sects" [Campbell, vol. 2, pp. 126, 127]: so Ac 5:17; 15:5 translate the same Greek. At present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus' words (Mt 18:7; 24:10, 12; Lu 17:1) foresees "there must be (come) also" matured separations, and established parties in secession, as separatists. The "must be" arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly, and to the discipline of the former for glory. "Heresies" had not yet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms. St. Augustine's rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: "In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity."

that ... approved may be made manifest--through the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (Lu 2:35; 1Jo 2:19).
The Pulpit Commentary
There must be also heresies among you. It results from the inevitable decrees of the Divine providence. "It is impossible but that offences will come" (Luk_17:11). Heresies. The word does not mean "erroneous opinions," but party factions. Originally the word only means "a choice," and is not used in a bad sense; but since the opinionativeness of men pushes "a choice" into a "party," and since it is the invariable tendency of a party to degenerate into a "faction," the word soon acquires a bad sense (see its use in Act_5:17; Act_15:5; Act_24:5, Act_24:14 : Act_28:22; Gal_5:20; Tit_3:10; 2Pe_2:1; and Gieseler, 'Church Hist.,' 1:149). The mutually railing factions, which in their Church newspapers and elsewhere bandy about their false and rival charges of "heresy," are illustrating the virulence of the very sin which they are professing to denounce—the sin of factiousness. That they which are approved may be made manifest among you. Similarly St. John (1Jn_2:19) speaks of the aberrations of false teachers as destined to prove that they did not belong to the true Church. Good is educed out of seeming evil (Jas_1:3; 1Pe_1:6, 1Pe_1:7). Approved; standing the test (dokimoi), the opposite of the "reprobate" (adokimoi) of 1Co_9:27.

20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
20. When ... therefore--Resuming the thread of discourse from 1Co 11:18.

this is not to--rather, "there is no such thing as eating the Lord's Supper"; it is not possible where each is greedily intent only on devouring "HIS OWN supper," and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (1Co 11:33), where some are "drunken," while others are "hungry" (1Co 11:21). The love-feast usually preceded the Lord's Supper (as eating the Passover came before the Lord's Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord's Supper during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the question.
The Pulpit Commentary
Into one place. There were as yet no churches. The Lord's Supper was held in private houses. This is not; or perhaps, it is not possible. The Lord's Supper. The fact that there is no article in the Greek shows the early prevalence of this name for the Eucharist.

21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
21. one taketh before other--the rich "before" the poor, who had no supper of their own. Instead of "tarrying for one another" (1Co 11:33); hence the precept (1Co 12:21, 25).

his own supper--"His own" belly is his God (Php 3:19); "the Lord's Supper," the spiritual feast, never enters his thoughts.

drunken--The one has more than is good for him, the other less [Bengel].
The Pulpit Commentary
For in eating; rather, in your eating. Every one. All who have themselves contributed a share to the common meal. Taketh before other his own supper. It is as if they had come together only to eat, not to partake of a holy sacrament. The abuse rose from the connection of the Lord's Supper with the agapē, or love feast, a social gathering of Christian brothers, to which each, as in the Greek eranoi, or "club feasts," contributed his share. The abuse led to the separation of the agapē from the Holy Communion, and ultimately to the entire disuse of the former at religious gatherings. One is hungry. The poor man, who has been unable to contribute to the meal which was intended to be an exhibition of Christian love, looked on with grudging eyes and craving appetite, while the rich had more than enough. Is drunken. "St. Paul draws the picture in strong colours, and who can say that the reality was less strong?" (Meyer). Calvin says, "It is portentous that Satan should have accomplished so much in so short a time." But the remark was, perhaps, dictated by the wholly mistaken fancy that the Church of the apostolic days was exceptionally pure. On the contrary, many of the heathen converts were unable at once to break the spell of their old habits, and few modern Churches present a spectacle so deplorable as that which we here find in the apostolic Church of Corinth. It is quite obvious that Church discipline must have been almost in abeyance if such grave scandals could exist uncorrected and apparently unreproved.

22What? 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.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
22. What!--Greek, "For."

houses--(compare 1Co 11:34)--"at home." That is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren [Alford].

despise ye the church of God--the congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom "God hath chosen," however ye show contempt for them (Jas 2:5); compare "of God" here, marking the true honor of the Church.

shame them that have not--namely, houses to eat and drink in, and who, therefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feasts from their wealthier brethren.

I praise you not--resuming the words (1Co 11:17).
The Pulpit Commentary
To eat and to drink in. The object of the agapē was something higher than the mere gratification of appetite. Though not a sacrament, it was an accompaniment of the Lord's Supper, and was itself intended to be a symbolical and sacred meal. Despise ye the Church of God! The congregation of your fellow Christians. Shame; rather, disgrace, or put to shame. Them that have not. It would be natural to supply "houses." But the commentators found it difficult to suppose that any of the Corinthians had not "houses to eat and to drink in." Hence most commentators give to the phrase its classic sense, in which "those who have" means the rich, and "those who have not," the poor. They seem, however, to have forgotten that slaves at any rate could hardly be said to have "houses of their own," and it is certain that not a few of the Corinthian Christians were slaves. I praise you not. As in 1Co_11:17, this is an instance of what is called litotēs, a mild expression, suggesting a meaning much stronger than the words themselves. For. He is about to give his reason for thus strongly blaming their irregularities.
The Institution of the Lord's Supper

23For 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:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
23. His object is to show the unworthiness of such conduct from the dignity of the holy supper.

I--Emphatic in the Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord's institution.

received of the Lord--by immediate revelation (Ga 1:12; compare Ac 22:17, 18; 2Co 12:1-4). The renewal of the institution of the Lord's Supper by special revelation to Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity between Luke's and Paul's account of the institution, favors the supposition that the former drew his information from the apostle, whose companion in travel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness.

night--the time fixed for the Passover (Ex 12:6): though the time for the Lord's Supper is not fixed.

betrayed--With the traitor at the table, and death present before His eyes, He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Though about to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of His amazing love to man.
The Pulpit Commentary
I have received; rather, I received. He thus refers the revelation to some special time, and this seems to point to the conclusion that he is not referring to any account of the institution of the Lord's Supper, which may have been given him by St. Peter or one of the twelve, but to some immediate revelation from Christ. The terms in which he describes the institution of the Eucharist resemble most nearly those of St. Luke, who may very probably have derived his information from St. Paul. This passage should be compared with Mat_26:26-29; Mar_14:22-25; Luk_22:19, Luk_22:20. Was betrayed; rather, was being betrayed.

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
24. brake--The breaking of the bread involves its distribution and reproves the Corinthian mode at the love-feast, of "every one taking before other his own supper."

my body ... broken for you--"given" (Lu 22:19) for you (Greek, "in your behalf"), and "broken," so as to be distributed among you. The oldest manuscripts omit "broken," leaving it to be supplied from "brake." The two old versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, read from Luke, "given." The literal "body" could not have been meant; for Christ was still sensibly present among His disciples when He said, "This is My body." They could only have understood Him symbolically and analogically: As this bread is to your bodily health, so My body is to the spiritual health of the believing communicant. The words, "Take, eat," are not in the oldest manuscripts.

in remembrance of me--(See on 1Co 11:25).
The Pulpit Commentary
When he had given thanks. The same word is used in St. Luke εὐχαριστήσας), and is the origin of the name Eucharist. St. Mark and perhaps St. Matthew have "having blessed it" (eulogesas). Hence the Eucharist is "this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." Take, eat. These words are omitted by all the best uncials, Which is broken for you. The word "broken" is of doubtful authenticity. Some manuscripts have "given," and one (D) a milder word for "broken," as though to avoid any contradiction of Joh_19:36, where, however, the word is "shall not be crushed." Since the participle is omitted altogether by א, A, B, C, there can be no doubt that it is a gloss, and accordingly the Revised Version reads, "which is for you." The "broken" is nevertheless involved in the "he brake it," which was a part of the ceremony as originally illustrated. The breaking of the bread ought not, therefore, to be abandoned, as in the case when "wafers" are used. This do. St. Luke also has this clause, which is not found in St. Matthew or St. Mark. The variations show that it was the main fact which was essential, not the exact words spoken. In remembrance of me. The words may also be rendered, for a memorial of me, or to bring me to your remembrance.

25After 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.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
25. when he had supped--Greek, "after the eating of supper," namely, the Passover supper which preceded the Lord's Supper, as the love-feast did subsequently. Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from the Lord's Supper [Bengel].

the new testament--or "covenant." The cup is the parchment-deed, as it were, on which My new covenant, or last will is written and sealed, making over to you all blessings here and hereafter.

in my blood--ratified by MY blood: "not by the blood of goats and calves" (He 9:12).

as oft as--Greek, "as many times soever": implying that it is an ordinance often to be partaken of.

in remembrance of me--Luke (Lu 22:19) expresses this, which is understood by Matthew and Mark. Paul twice records it (1Co 11:24 and here) as suiting his purpose. The old sacrifices brought sins continually to remembrance (He 10:1, 3). The Lord's Supper brings to remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for all for the full and final remission of sins.
The Pulpit Commentary
When he had supped (see Luk_22:27). 'The cup, like the cos haberachah, was given after the meal was ended. The new testament; rather, the new covenant. The Greek word diathēkē is indeed a "will," or "testament;" but in the LXX., on which the Greek of the apostles was formed, it always stands for berith, covenant. The Jews knew nothing of the practice of "making wills" till they learnt it from the Romans. The only passage of the New Testament (an expression derived from this very passage through the Vulgate) in which diathēkē means a "testament" is Heb_9:16, where the writer reverts for a moment only to this signification of the word to introduce a passing illustration. In my blood. The cup was a symbol of the blood of Christ, because the gospel covenant was ratified by the shedding of his blood. The Jews had an absolute horror, at once religious and physical, of tasting blood. This was the reason why the Synod of Jerusalem forbade even to the Gentiles the eating of "things strangled." If the apostles had not fully understood that our Lord was only using the ordinary language of Semitic imagery, and describing only a horror and repulsion.

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
26. For--in proof that the Lord's Supper is "in remembrance" of Him.

show--announce publicly. The Greek does not mean to dramatically represent, but "ye publicly profess each of you, the Lord has died FOR ME" [Wahl]. This word, as "is" in Christ's institution (1Co 11:24, 25), implies not literal presence, but a vivid realization, by faith, of Christ in the Lord's Supper, as a living person, not a mere abstract dogma, "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh" (Ep 5:30; compare Ge 2:23); and ourselves "members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones," "our sinful bodies made clean by His body (once for all offered), and our souls washed through His most precious blood" [Church of England Prayer Book]. "Show," or "announce," is an expression applicable to new things; compare "show" as to the Passover (Ex 13:8). So the Lord's death ought always to be fresh in our memory; compare in heaven, Re 5:6. That the Lord's Supper is in remembrance of Him, implies that He is bodily absent, though spiritually present, for we cannot be said to commemorate one absent. The fact that we not only show the Lord's death in the supper, but eat and drink the pledges of it, could only be understood by the Jews, accustomed to such feasts after propitiatory sacrifices, as implying our personal appropriation therein of the benefits of that death.

till he come--when there shall be no longer need of symbols of His body, the body itself being manifested. The Greek expresses the certainly of His coming. Rome teaches that we eat Christ present corporally, "till He come" corporally; a contradiction in terms. The showbread, literally, "bread of the presence," was in the sanctuary, but not in the Holiest Place (He 9:1-8); so the Lord's Supper in heaven, the antitype to the Holiest Place, shall be superseded by Christ's own bodily presence; then the wine shall be drunk "anew" in the Father's kingdom, by Christ and His people together, of which heavenly banquet, the Lord's Supper is a spiritual foretaste and specimen (Mt 26:29). Meantime, as the showbread was placed anew, every sabbath, on the table before the Lord (Le 24:5-8); so the Lord's death was shown, or announced afresh at the Lord's table the first day of every week in the primitive Church. We are now "priests unto God" in the dispensation of Christ's spiritual presence, antitypical to the HOLY PLACE: the perfect and eternal dispensation, which shall not begin till Christ's coming, is antitypical to the HOLIEST PLACE, which Christ our High Priest alone in the flesh as yet has entered (He 9:6, 7); but which, at His coming, we, too, who are believers, shall enter (Re 7:15; 21:22). The supper joins the two closing periods of the Old and the New dispensations. The first and second comings are considered as one coming, whence the expression is not "return," but "come" (compare, however, Joh 14:3).
The Pulpit Commentary
Ye do show the Lord's death. The word literally means, ye announce, or proclaim, with reference to the repetition of the actual words used by our Lord. It will be seen that St. Paul does not lend the smallest, sanction to the unfathomable superstition" of a material transubstantiation. Till he come. Accordingly the antiquity and unbroken continuance of this holy rite is one of the many strong external evidences of the truth of the gospel history. The ἂν is omitted in the Greek, to indicate the certainty of Christ's coming. The same Greek idiom is hopefully and tenderly used in Gal_4:19.
Examining Oneself Before the Supper

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
27. eat and drink--So one of the oldest manuscripts reads. But three or four equally old manuscripts, the Vulgate and Cyprian, read, "or." Romanists quote this reading in favor of communion in one kind. This consequence does not follow. Paul says, "Whosoever is guilty of unworthy conduct, either in eating the bread, or in drinking the cup, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ." Impropriety in only one of the two elements, vitiates true communion in both. Therefore, in the end of the verse, he says, not "body or blood," but "body and blood." Any who takes the bread without the wine, or the wine without the bread, "unworthily" communicates, and so "is guilty of Christ's body and blood"; for he disobeys Christ's express command to partake of both. If we do not partake of the sacramental symbol of the Lord's death worthily, we share in the guilt of that death. (Compare "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh," He 6:6). Unworthiness in the person, is not what ought to exclude any, but unworthily communicating: However unworthy we be, if we examine ourselves so as to find that we penitently believe in Christ's Gospel, we may worthily communicate.
The Pulpit Commentary
And drink this cup. This ought to be rendered, or drink this cup. It seems to be one of the extremely few instances in which the translators of our Authorized Version were led by bias into unfaithful rendering. They may have persuaded themselves that the apostle must have meant "and;" but their duty as translators was to translate what he said, not what they supposed him to have meant. What he meant was that it was possible to partake in a wrong spirit either of the bread or the cup. King James's translators thought that, by rendering the word or, they might seem to favour communion in one kind only. St. Paul's meaning was that a man might Lake either element of the sacrament unworthily. Unworthily. We are all "unworthy"—" unworthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under Christ's table;" yet not one of us need eat or drink unworthily, that is, in a careless, irreverent, defiant spirit. Guilty of. He draws on himself the penalty due to "crucifying to himself the Son of God afresh," by "putting him to an open shame."

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
28. examine--Greek, "prove" or "test" his own state of mind in respect to Christ's death, and his capability of "discerning the Lord's body" (1Co 11:29, 31). Not auricular confession to a priest, but self-examination is necessary.

so--after due self-examination.

of ... of--In 1Co 11:27, where the receiving was unworthily, the expression was, "eat this bread, drink ... cup" without "of." Here the "of" implies due circumspection in communicating [Bengel].

let him eat--His self-examination is not in order that he may stay away, but that he may eat, that is, communicate.
The Pulpit Commentary
Let a man examine himself. The verb means "let him test his own feelings;" put them to the proof, to see whether they be sincere or not. He must "wash his hands in innocency," and so come to God's altar (see Mat_5:22, Mat_5:23; 2Co_13:5). And so. Soberly, that is; seriously, humbly, and with due reverence.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
29. damnation--A mistranslation which has put a stumbling-block in the way of many in respect to communicating. The right translation is "judgment." The judgment is described (1Co 11:30-32) as temporal.

not discerning--not duty judging: not distinguishing in judgment (so the Greek: the sin and its punishment thus being marked as corresponding) from common food, the sacramental pledges of the Lord's body. Most of the oldest manuscripts omit "Lord's" (see 1Co 11:27). Omitting also "unworthily," with most of the oldest manuscripts, we must translate, "He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, IF he discern not the body" (He 10:29). The Church is "the body of Christ" (1Co 12:27). The Lord's body is His literal body appreciated and discerned by the soul in the faithful receiving, and not present in the elements themselves.
The Pulpit Commentary
Unworthily. The word is not genuine here, being repeated from 1Co_11:27; it is omitted by א, A, B, C. Eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; rather, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself There is reason to believe that the word "damnation" once had a much milder meaning in English than that which it now popularly bears. In King James's time it probably did not of necessity mean more than "an unfavourable verdict." Otherwise this would be the most unfortunate mistranslation in the whole Bible. It has probably kept thousands, as it kept Goethe, from Holy Communion. We see from verse 32 that this "judgment" had a purely merciful and disciplinary character. Not discerning; rather, if he discern not, the Lord's body, Any one who approach? the Lord's Supper in a spirit of levity or defiance, not discriminating between it and common food, draws on himself, by so eating and drinking, a judgment which is defined in the next verse.

30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
30. weak ... sickly--He is "weak" who has naturally no strength: "sickly," who has lost his strength by disease [Tittmann, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament].

sleep--are being lulled in death: not a violent death; but one the result of sickness, sent as the Lord's chastening for the individual's salvation, the mind being brought to a right state on the sick bed (1Co 11:31).
The Pulpit Commentary
Many are weak and sickly among you. St. Paul directly connects this general ill health with the abuse of the Lord's Supper. It is not impossible that the grave intemperance to which he alludes in 1Co_11:21 may have had its share in this result; but apart from this, there is an undoubted connection between sin and sickness in some, though not, of course, in all cases (Joh_5:14). Many. The word is different from the previous word for "many," and means a larger number—" not a few," "a considerable number." Sleep; i.e. are dying.

1Co_11:31, 1Co_11:32

For if we would judge ourselves, etc. These verses are very unfortunately mistranslated in our Authorized Version. They should be rendered (literally), For if we discerned (or, discriminated) ourselves, we should not be undergoing judgment (namely, of physical punishment); but, in being judged by the Lord (by these temporal sufferings), we are under training, that we may not be condemned with the world. The meaning is that "if we" (St. Paul here identities himself with the Corinthians) "were in the habit of self discernment—and in this self discrimination is involved a discrimination between spiritual and common things—we should nut be undergoing this sign of God's displeasure; but the fact that his judgments are abroad among us is intended to further our moral education, and to save us from being finally condemned with the world." Discernment (diakrisis), by saving us from eating unworthily (Psa_32:5; 1Jn_1:9), would have obviated the necessity for penal judgments (krima), but yet the krima is disciplinary (paideuometha, we are being trained as children), to save us from final doom (katakrima). Unworthy eating, then, so far from involving necessary or final "damnation," is mercifully visited by God with temporal chastisement, to help in the saving of our souls. "Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord" (Psa_94:12; Heb_12:5-12).

31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
31. if we would judge ourselves--Most of the oldest manuscripts, read "But," not "For." Translate also literally "If we duly judged ourselves, we should not be (or not have been) judged," that is, we should escape (or have escaped) our present judgments. In order to duly judge or "discern [appreciate] the Lord's body," we need to "duly judge ourselves." A prescient warning against the dogma of priestly absolution after full confession, as the necessary preliminary to receiving the Lord's Supper.

32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
32. chastened--(Re 3:19).

with the world--who, being bastards, are without chastening (He 12:8).

33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
33. tarry one for another--In contrast to 1Co 11:21. The expression is not, "Give a share to one another," for all the viands brought to the feast were common property, and, therefore, they should "tarry" till all were met to partake together of the common feast of fellowship [Theophylact].
The Pulpit Commentary
Wherefore. He now briefly sums up the practical remedies for these discreditable scenes. My brethren. Introduced, as often, into a stern passage to show that the writer is only actuated by the spirit of love. Tarry one for another. This would prevent the scrambling greediness which he has already condemned in 1Co_11:21.

34And 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.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
34. if any ... hunger--so as not to be able to "tarry for others," let him take off the edge of his hunger at home [Alford] (1Co 11:22).

the rest--"the other questions you asked me as to the due celebration of the Lord's Supper." Not other questions in general; for he does subsequently set in order other general questions in this Epistle.
The Pulpit Commentary
And if any man hunger, let him eat at home. A reminder of the sacred character of the agapē as a symbol of Christian love and union. Unto condemnation; rather, judgment. In Greek, the same word (krima) is used which in 1Co_11:29 is so unhappily rendered "damnation." But even "condemnation" is too strong; for that is equivalent to katakrima. The rest; all minor details. It is not improbable that one of these details was the practical dissociation of the agapē from the Lord's Supper altogether. Certainly the custom of uniting the two seems to have disappeared by the close of the first century. When I come; rather, whenever. The Greek phrase (ὡς ἂν) implies uncertainty. The apostle's plans for visiting Corinth immediately had been materially disturbed by the unfavourable tidings as to the conditions of the Church.
← 1 Corinthians 10 1 Corinthians 12 →
Antique brass lamp, unlit — this chapter is not yet in your reading log
“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” — PSALM 119:105