1 Corinthians 11:20-26 - Communion

20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,
21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Communion - The Lord’s Table - Part 1

V. 20 - “Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” - Now we begin to see the problem. In the first part of this section - verses 20-21 - Paul chastises them for their practices. According to several commentaries, the Corinthian church was having ‘potluck dinners’ and calling these dinners “The Lord’s Table.” Apparently, these potlucks were neither like our communion observance nor our typical church potluck. We know from Acts 2:37-47, the first group of believers pooled their resources and shared them.

That does not appear to be what is going on here. The church was coming together for a meal, and calling it the Lord’s Table - named after the Lord’s Last Supper (Matt 26:6-29; Mark 14:-25; Luke 22:17-20). Their meal was not even a potluck, as we know it - each family brings a ‘pot’ of food, it is put on a table, and all the attendees eat from the food laid out there.

V. 21 - “for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.” - It seems that each family or member of the church was bringing their food and drink, and eating or drinking it themselves, without sharing it with others. Otherwise, why would Paul say that some have food, others do not? The members ate what they brought - if they brought nothing, they ate nothing, and were hungry. Some are not even bringing food, only booze! Some commentaries indicated that the richer church members were thereby insulting the poorer members. (I don’t know of any evidence of this in the scriptures, but it is possible. The church of that day had a huge span between the rich and wealthy believers to the poor and slaves who had accepted the Lord.)

Picture this: they were meeting together for church. They were having a meal “together”, except they were not sharing the meal together. It shows a lack of caring about other people in the church. Some had plenty to eat, but didn’t share it with those who did not. Some cared so little about what was going on they used the time together to get drunk - it was not supposed to be a church tailgater!

V. 22 - “What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? ” - Eat at home first before you come to worship the Lord. That is better than either showing disdain for others, or not caring at all about others. Neither their disdain nor their uncaring attitudes promote the faith.

“do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? “ - This is opposite of the church experience in Acts 2. Perhaps the rich were flaunting their wealth in order to make the poor feel bad. Or perhaps they were doing what they always had done, and took no thought or care for the poor and the slaves. The rich did not even notice the humiliation the poor might feel as they sat there with nothing watching the rich eat their fill. Paul instructed them “What is going on with you people???”

“What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.” - There is nothing good that Paul can say about this behavior. This is not to say they do not do other things in Christ’s name that aid and care for the poor. In this instance, they are not demonstrating the love that comes from being saved from their sin by Jesus Christ.

Paul is telling them, “What you are doing is not the Lord’s Table!”

Do not call potluck dinners “The Lord’s Table”. They may be a chance for church fellowship. But - eating a meal, separately together - is not an appropriate observance of the Lord’s Table which is a specific observance instituted by our Lord. (See: Matt 26:6-29; Mark 14:-25; Luke 22:17-20.) Eating and drinking your own personal meal in front of others (some may not have food to eat) - eating and not sharing - is not in keeping with the spirit of the church services first held in Jerusalem. This is the opposite of “caring for one another”; it is flaunting your personal largess.

Listen up! This is the Lord’s Table!

V. 23 - “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you” - This is not a throw-away line from Paul trying to impress. Paul was not present at the Last Supper. Paul was instructed by the Lord after his road-to-Damascus conversion (Acts 9:3-16, Gal 1:11-12, 17). He is not telling them what he heard from Ananias in Damascus. He is not repeating the lessons from Peter, James or John. The Lord took Paul to Arabia for about three years to instruct him.

“the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread” - The Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke recount the Last Supper and the start of the communion ordnance. The Last Supper happened at the Passover meal - one of the most holy days on the Jewish calendar. Jesus’ trial and crucifixion happened on Friday, the day before Feast of Unleavened Bread Sabbath. (The sequence of this holiday season was: Passover; Feast of Unleavened Bread; Sabbath - an eight day observance.) Jesus died on Friday afternoon, was buried (He had to be buried before the Sabbath started, because they could not touch a dead body on the Sabbath.) Jesus was in His grave Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and was resurrected then! Remember, the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus killed before the Sabbath day - probably so they could witness his death. They would not be able if it was done on the Sabbath. (They did not even go into Pilate’s home or palace, because being in a Gentile’s home would ‘defile’ them and they would not have time to go through a purification ritual in time for Sabbath!)

It is called ‘The Passion Week’ - Easter is the celebration of Christ’s resurrection. Jesus went out to pray on the Mount of Olives, after the Passover meal. Some time during that night or early hours of the next day Judas betrayed Him to the officials. He was arrested taken to the High Priest, and to Pilate. The proceedings and trials, with interviews and scourging, with interviews and discussions between Pilate and Jewish leaders took an indeterminate amount of time. The reason I mention this is there is some foreshortening that goes on when we read the accounts, or see movies or TV specials, of the trial and crucifixion. It seems like it happens in a day or less, from the betrayal to the death on the cross. Not a lot of time detail is given in the Gospels - No ‘time stamps’, as it were. It makes sense to me that the ‘Last Supper’ happened just before a Sabbath (Passover - e.g., Matt 26:18). Jesus died before sundown on Friday -  before Passover - the women came to process the body on Sunday (the first day of the week - Matt 28:1ff).

They - Jesus and his followers - finished the meal. As they sat around the table discussing what was about to happen - the apostles-to-be were clueless - which brings us to The Lord’s Table. There was bread on the table, and a drink. (We do not know if it was wine or water. It is not described, so we must extrapolate.) Jesus picked up the bread.

V. 24 - “and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ ” - Some commentaries make comments about the broken bread and broken body of Jesus. The bread was broken apart and given to the disciples as a symbol of Jesus’ body being offered as a sacrifice. John noted in 19:31-37 that Jesus fulfilled the words in Psa 34:20 that none of His bones would be broken. It is important to realize that Jesus’ death was a physical death, not just a spiritual death and separation. He actually died in our place. The bread helps us remember it was not an imaginary death, a fake death, but a real horrible agonizing death.

Jesus said a prayer, ‘gave thanks’, and told us this is how to remember His death.

V. 25 - “In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.‘ “ - He gave thanks again, this time over the cup left from the Passover meal. We do not know whether it was wine or water in the cup (Not that it matters much). Wine was a common drink for meals, I believe, at that time. In some cases wine was used as a disinfectant for wounds (see Good Samaritan story - Lk 10:34). It may have also been mixed with water, again as a germ killer for the water. The liquid in the cup is not important. Like the bread, the cup serves as a concrete reminder of what was done for us.

“the new covenant in My blood” - The sacrifice of the Passover lamb part of the holy day celebration of what God did for Israel to free them from slavery in Egypt. The blood was to be brushed on the door posts of their houses. (See: Exo 12:21-24) That night the Lord passed through the land, every house that had the blood showing on the door posts was spared. (Hence the term “Passover”.) God’s promise to Israel, His covenant and pledge, was to be forever. Note: God will NEVER FORGET what He promised the people of Israel. The people of Israel could easily forget what God had done and what He promised. They did just that!

This ordnance, the Lord’s Table, is physical reminder of the covenant established by God with mankind. We are not an “independent covenanting party” (See note 1) because we can bring nothing to the agreement but our obedience. This is not a mutual compact, but a promise from God (who does not break His promises) to us. God will NEVER FORGET what He promised!

V. 26 - “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” - Do this ceremony - bread to represent Christ’s body and death, the cup to remind us that Christ’s blood was shed. The communion cup is not the covenant. As the blood on the doorpost was not the covenant, but was a reminder to the people of Israel that God’s covenant (promise, or oath) would deliver them. God told them if they would believe and obey He would act for them. If you believed God and put the blood on the doorposts, He woiuld see and death would not enter your house.

When we exercise our belief and faith in Christ, by taking the bread and drinking the cup, we are saying, “Jesus died for me. He took my sin upon Himself. I must live in obedience to Him, beyond this ordnance.”

We need to do this until He comes to take us to be with Him and the Father! Echoing God’s message to Israel (See: Exo 12:26-27), “Why do we do this? What does the Lord’s Table mean?” The answer, “Christ took my place in facing the judgment of the Lord. I am now clean, because He paid for my sin. I can face the Father unafraid. His righteousness has been placed on me.”

Jesus Christ took my place. That is a momentous statement. I think of the movie “Saving Private Ryan”. A squad or platoon is sent across the western front in WWII to get private Ryan to safety - he was the only survivor of four brothers who were serving in various campaigns. At the end of the movie, an aged Ryan stops in a military cemetery at a grave marker. He breaks down saying he hopes his life has been worth the price paid. That should be our approach to our Christian life - are we living up to the cost.

***
Note 1: “Unger’s Bible Dictionary”; Merrill F. Unger; Moody Press; 1966.

1 Corinthians 11:17-19 - Who is Right; Who is Wrong

17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

I See Problems…

Some of the Bible translations interpret verse 17 as a change in focus. Instead of “But in giving this instruction…”, these say “In the following instruction…” So, is this paragraph summing up the discussion about appropriate behavior and dress codes in church, or is it about the way the church is taking communion in the Corinthian church (vss. 20-34)?
Obviously the church was being divided over women praying in the group setting. Some thought they were being disrespectful of their husbands and the Lord, some did not. Did Paul give an instruction on that problem? Well, sort of. In the following verses, he deals with the disagreements they are having over communion. In either area - appropriate dress codes or communion - they are having problems getting along, coming to an agreement.

***

V. 17 - “But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you” - Let’s go with the idea that the next few verses is the problem Paul is dealing with, and not what was said previously. (It makes a nice transition this way.) Paul is not pleased with them. It gives him no pleasure to have to deal with this issue. As we read through to the end of the chapter, we can find no ‘wiggle room’ in which there may be some praise for their conduct.

“because you come together not for the better but for the worse.” - In other words, they are at each others’ throats whenever they meet for church. There is no harmony and spirit of worship. There is anger and arguments.

V. 18 - “I hear that divisions exist among you” - When they meet together as the church to worship Jesus Christ they are not of one mind, one body, and one spirit. The church is divided and the information has reached all the way to Ephesus where Paul is ministering.

V. 19 - “For there must also be factions” - There are ‘divisions’ and ‘factions’ in the church over this issue. What is the difference? Divisions would indicate there is disagreement over the way things are being done. Factions would indicate the divisions have calcified and people are taking sides. It has gone to the point where people are separating themselves based on who they approve. The church is being split apart on this issue. This is deeper than one group liking the modern worship music and another liking the old-style hymns. It is more than an internal squabble - EVERYONE knows the church is being split apart.

This reminds mw of what is going on these days in our politcal and social structure in the U.S.  Many have noted that people used to disagress politically, and yet could be friends, or at least polite with each other. Too often now disagreement spawns HATE. Violence against your opponent is encouraged. (Example: Charlie Kirk’s assassination ellicited laughter and joy on some TV talk shows. Or, an ice cream store is offering free ice cream if President Trump is assassinated.) The death, even the murder, of a political opponent is cheered. Civility is breaking down. That is what Paul was worried about in the Corinthian church.

***

1 Corinthians 11:8-16 - Praying Men & Women

1 Corinthians 11:8-16

8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

Introduction:

This is a continuation of the discussion above. This section of the letter is an explanation of the statement started in verse 3. Paul has instructed them, “Do not dishonor God. Do not dishonor your husband.” Now I understand that we are to honor God in all things, especially our behavior in church, our prayers in church. (I don’t think these ‘rules’ Paul puts forth apply to personal, private prayer. When we are alone talking with Jesus, no one will see to be able to judge or condemn for violating community standards.) (See Notes 1 through 4 below.)

Men and Women in Prayer

V. 8 - “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” - Look back to the statement in verse 3, above: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” Chuck Smith stated in his commentary, “Christ is the authority over the husband. And God is the authority over Christ. Bible has never taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman.” (Note 2)

V. 9 - “for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” - Paul’s basis for saying this is found in Genesis “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.’ The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family. The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.” (Gen 2:18-25)

God brought every creature to Adam, who gave each animal a name to identify it. God knew Adam was alone, and not ‘complete’. After this exercise, Adam still was in need of companionship. So God created Eve from Adam’s rib. So, woman (Eve) came from man (Adam). Man and woman have a relationship that is much closer than man with animal. Man has identified every type of animal, fish, bird, or insect. But man (husband) does not have a personal, intimate relationship with these as he does with his wife (woman).

Chuck Smith stated, “Bible has never taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman. God saw that man by himself could never make it, and thus, the woman created, as God said, ‘for the man.’ “ (Note 2) It might not be stated in scripture, but man is also created for woman - the symbiotic relationship between man and woman is deeper and more meaningful than any other except our relationship with the Lord. The differences in our mental, emotional, and physical make-up are such that the two melded together makes each of us more complete than we can be individually. We bring balance to each other that is attained in no other way.

V. 10 - “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” - The covering of the woman’s head when in public, in church services, when praying in church shows she accepts that her husband has the authority assigned by God (not by men’s laws, but by God’s). What about single, unmarried, women? Do they pray with veils when in church? Perhaps that is implied - the woman accepts the authority of Jesus Christ over herself. Again, I note that we do not have such customs in the United States (we did many years ago - most women wore hats in church).

V. 11 - “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.” - God has created man and woman to be His children through Christ Jesus our Lord. There is no distinction - neither is superior to the other. We all come to God by grace and the sacrifice of His Son on the cross. Christ’s resurrection confirmed that death for us was defeated. We can live in eternity with Him, without fear, with great joy. “In worship men should follow dress and hair codes which proclaim them to be male, etc. (woman show to be woman). Make sure our worship is ordered appropriately to honor God’s creation and anticipate its fulfillment in the new creation - this is still a priority in our services.” (Note 4)

V. 12 - “For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God” - Paul wrote God considers men and women equally, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female - for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28) From one of the commentaries, “Men and women are not independent, but a partnership. They cannot live without each other. Much respect for mothers (we all have one!) Therefore, love and respect must be shown (especially in the home). If we cannot respect women (mothers) we are not following God’s will. “ (Note 1)

V. 13 - “is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” - Community standards indicated that married women were to show their respect for their husbands by having a head covering. In some, if not most instances, an adult woman without a head covering was a sign to the community she was not married. A married woman was to be respected by all in the community - she was ‘not available’. N.T. Wright said, “In that day, only prostitutes did not cover their heads when in public. So, if people see the women with their hair down and uncovered, they might jump to the conclusions about what was going on in the ‘church’ “. (Note 4)

V. 14 - “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him” - There are few doctrinal mandates in Christianity. Hair length is not one of the doctrinal statements from the Lord. However, faith and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, confession that you believe in Him; remembering His sacrifice by taking communion; publicly acknowledging your faith in Christ by word and deed - that is: confession and baptism are ‘must haves’. Long hair on a man is not a violation of God’s commands, but it does reflect on us as believers.

As David Guzik said, “Long hair (for a man) is a shame, not a sin. It is distracting. Similarly - a woman’s short hair is also a shame and distracting. (It is so distracting they might as well shave their heads!)” (Note 1)

Also, N.T. Wright wrote, “So Paul, then, speaking of the woman is saying it is dishonoring in a sense to her husband, her head, if she would go unveiled. Paul said that it was dishonoring to your husbands, because living there in Corinth they were living in the center of pagan licentiousness. not wanting to wear their veils, not being understood by the world, were opening themselves to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus, dishonoring their husbands.” (Note 4)

V. 15 - “but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” - I am not sure this is a rhetorical question answered by “Yes. Long hair on a woman is to her glory.” Perhaps it is more of a statement that women have long hair styles, and in essence is part of the visible differentiation between men (short hair) and women. If Paul was insisting that women’s long hair was vital, then the question would have been a statement (“Women’s long hair is for His glory, and is a covering.) N. T. Wright says that “Paul does not congratulate the women on their expressions of freedom (hair and clothing changes - he is advocating maintaining gender differentiation during worship.” (Note 4) This is echoed by Guzik, “Women’s long hair is “nature’s veil”, therefore a covering.” (Note 1)

V. 16 - “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” - Chuck Smith put it this way: “Thus, it was not intended to be a universal rule for the church as some of the churches sought to make it a universal rule. For years the women have had to wear hats and all when they went to church. But Paul said that we don't have any such custom in all the churches. If you want to argue about it and all, there is no such custom in all the churches. It was something that did relate more to the church in Corinth.” (Note 2)

Men and women do not need to be picking on each other about this. See: “Men and women are for mutual comfort and blessing, not as slave and tyrant. God said we are ‘one flesh’, therefore each should know their place. Man should not abuse his ‘position’ or ‘power’. There should be no breaches in natural decency.” (Note 3)

Also - “Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.” (Note 3) Finally, from Wright’s commentary I’ll add: “In worship men should follow dress and hair codes which proclaim them to be male, etc. (woman show to be woman). Make sure our worship is ordered appropriately to honor God’s creation and anticipate its fulfillment in the new creation - this is still a priority in our services. Paul does not congratulate the women on their expressions of freedom (hair and clothing changes) - he is advocating maintaining gender differentiation during worship.” (Note 4)

***

A little side note here on my observations: Part of how we view this is because almost every movie, TV show, or painting of 'Biblical' times has the men with long(ish) hair. Since there are no photographs of the people of those eras, we assume that men had long hair because there probably no barber shops. Note there are a couple a couple of instances in scripture, particularly in the OT, where men do not cut their hair on purpose because they are fulfilling a vow (Num 6:5; Acts 18:18) - couple of these are 'positive': if the men took a 'Nazarite' oath they did not cut hair or beard until the oath was fulfilled; the judge Samson (Jdg 13:24, 19:19-21) did not have his hair cut as commanded by the Lord. (There may be other examples) On the other hand, David's son, Absalom had long hair which led to his demise. (2 Sam 18:9ff) There are instances of 'crazy' men who did not have their hair cut. Also, men would shave their heads when in deep mourning. (Jer 7:29) This is not to claim evidence, but an observation that maybe a man with long hair was little unusual. I’m not saying they wore ‘buzz cuts’, but long hair down to their shoulders may not have been standard, Also, it seems implied that women's hair styling included long hair. 

(This passage is difficult, and I did not feel competent to comment with assurance. I have consulted several commentaries, three of which were included in my “Blue Letter Bible” application on my iPad, and one other. See Notes 1 through 4 below.)
Note 1: David Guzik; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 2: Chuck Smith; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 3: Matthew Henry; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 4: N.T. Wright; “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians”; Westminster John Knox Press; 2004

***

1 Corinthians 11:3-7 - Spiritual Hierarchy

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

***

This passage does not denigrate women, as is noted “Paul has no problem with women, having pointed out we are all one in Christ - Jew, Gentile, Greek, slave or free, male or female." (Note 4) (See notes at the end of this section.)

Christ is Head

Women play a prominent role in the New Testament - in Jesus’ ministry: Mary and Martha (Lk 10:38ff; 11:1-39); Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:7-42); Mary Magdalene (Matt 6:7-10; Ml 14:3f; Lk 7:37ff); Woman with bloody discharge (Matt 9:20-22; Mk 5:25ff; Lk 8:43ff); and the Crippled Woman (Lk 13:11ff).
Women were also prominent in the apostolic church - see a sampling: Lydia (Acts16:14ff); and Damarius (Acts 17:34). Women were mentioned in the letters to the churches - Priscilla & Aquila, Mary (Rom. 16:3, 6); Julia, Nereus’ sister (Rom 16:15); Nympha (Col 4:16); Claudia (2 Tim 4:21).

V. 3 - “Christ is the head of every man” - Okay, let’s be honest. We have no problem with this statement. Also, “God is the head of Christ.” - we have no problem with this statement.
But, “man is the head of a woman” - we have a problem with this statement. It is Biblical, and your objections are secular in opposition to the Bible. This is a modern cultural issue.

It is fully understood that there are men who are cruel and abusers of women. Abusing women is not a Biblical concept, but from societies and cultures where domination is accepted and encouraged. How does "Love your wife as you love yourself" equal domination? Which normal man abuses his own body, is cruel to himself? A culture based on love and forgiveness does not ban women talking in public, nor does it force women to completely cloak themselves in floor-length clothes, nor does it approve of beating women who may disagree with a man, not to mention killing a woman who commits adultery. The Bible teaches the man is the leader, not the tyrant or dictator.

From a commentary: “The word head here being the idea of authority. And so the husband is the designated authority over the wife. Christ is the authority over the husband. And God is the authority over Christ… Bible has never taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman... He is establishing the chain of command. However, I do think that there is something worth noting here. The authority over the man is Christ, even as the authority over the woman is the man. And I believe that if the man, the husband, is not under the authority of Christ, then the woman has to jump the missing link. I do not believe that God intends that a godly woman be under the authority of an ungodly man. Under the authority of man only as he is under the authority of Jesus Christ. God never meant marriage to be a slavery kind of a situation, or a tyranny kind of a situation, where some big oaf rules over his wife with force, or whatever. ” (Note 2) Also: “Our problem is the sequence of God as the ‘head’ of Christ; Christ as the ‘head’ of man; and man as the ‘head’ of woman. We see hints of superiority. (Or, from the woman’s point of view - inferiority to men). However, Paul is referring to the creation account in Genesis, (See Gen 1:26-28, 2:7-25, and Psa 8:4-8)” (Note 4)

V. 4 - “Every man who has something on his head while praying disgraces his head” - Again, this is a concept that is difficult to grasp (for Americans). From Chuck Smith’s commentary: “The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied.” (See Note 2) Perhaps we can see this concept in our western culture in that when we ‘tip’ our hats or salute another person we are showing respect. We no longer remove our hats when talking to a boss or a political leader (people used to do that). As far as I know, women never removed their hats in church or when speaking with a boss or leader, but men did. Is it possible to say that ‘men with hats’ were a sign of authority?

"The idea is that if a man is talking to God, especially in church, with a hat on his head - he is showing disrespect to God. God is in ultimate authority, and deserves (demands) respect.

"In some cultures, especially in Europe or Great Britain, one could almost determine a man’s station in life by the hat he wore. I think that in the United States, with our emphasis on personal freedoms and equality, hats became less of an indicator of rank or station in life. 'The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied.’ ” (Note 2)

V. 5 - “every woman who has her head uncovered while praying disgraces her head” - Again, part of this is referring to local, cultural etiquette. It is hard to draw this statement into our modern culture. In that culture (maybe even  now in the Middle East) the woman’s head covering (a scarf or a veil) indicated that woman is “attached”. By this I mean she is engaged or is married (by definition to a man), or possibly a daughter who is not yet betrothed. (I don’t think this applies to girls, i.e., too young to be married.) In that culture, married women always wore a scarf or veil on their heads when in public. It was a sign to all other men that she was ‘untouchable’. It was a crime, a sin, to make sexual advances to a married woman. “For a woman to go out without a veil was an open invitation for the men. It was sort of a declaration, ‘I am available.’ But for a veiled woman, no man would dare to approach her. Thus, it was a covering. “ (note 2)

“for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved” - N. T. Wright notes, “In that day, only prostitutes did not cover their heads when in public. So, if people see the women with their hair down and uncovered, they might jump to the conclusions about what was going on in the ‘church’.” (Note 4) Or, we read,  “So Paul, then, speaking of the woman is saying it is dishonoring in a sense to her husband, her head, if she would go unveiled. Paul said that it was dishonoring to your husbands, because living there in Corinth they were living in the center of pagan licentiousness. not wanting to wear their veils, not being understood by the world, were opening themselves to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus, dishonoring their husbands.” (Note 2)

V. 6 - “let her cover her head” - I don’t quite understand how talking to God without a head covering disgraces her husband. How could a woman be ‘wanton’ when talking with God? So if a married woman without a head covering goes into public and talks to men is a disgrace to her husband; does talking to God without a head covering indicate she is ‘bypassing’ her husband (somehow) and therefore diminishes him in God’s estimation? That seems to be the implied message. This is not saying women are not allowed to talk to God (I think…).

V. 7 - “man ought not to have his head covered” - Let us go with this idea, and say it makes sense that, “The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied.” (Note 2) I hate not understanding why women praying without a covering is dishonors God, and a man with a head covering also dishonors God. Especially since “Paul has no problem with women, having pointed out we are all one in Christ - Jew, Gentile, Greek, slave or free, male or female.” (Note 4) It must be a cultural thing, not a doctrinal thing.

It seems to me this discussion is not completely doctrinal, but is mostly cultural. The commentaries often mentioned that men had short hair and women wore their hair long. I bristled at that (no pun intended). When contemplating this I realized that indeed most countries/cultures in the world indeed do have different ‘looks’ for men and women. Even in these times, men around the world generally have much shorter hair styles than do women.

There are some distinctions between men and women that cannot be denied - men are generally bigger and stronger than women; men have whiskers or beards, women do not (e.g., the circus freak shows used to have ‘bearded ladies’ for people to ogle). Women do not have penises; men do not have breasts. Admittedly, men can grow their hair long (e.g., when Jewish men took a ‘Nazarite’ vow, like Samson), but it is not common nor the majority.

While I don’t completely understand the covering or uncovering of the head and the relation to dishonoring the husband or God, I think I can see that the way we dress reflects on our family and church and our Savior. If we show up at church in swim trunks, or women in a bikini, eyebrows will be arched, people will “Tsk, tsk, tsk” whilst shaking their heads. A woman in a negligee would raise a ruckus - people would be “shocked, shocked I tell you”.

Conclusion:

Don’t dress, act, or behave in a manner that would bring embarrassment or shame. I know that some people have a very high embarrassment thresholds (i.e., they aren’t easily shamed), and then there are those who blush at almost anything. Consider where you are, and who you are with. Consider that the non-Christian world is always watching.

***

(This passage is difficult, and I did not feel competent to comment with assurance. I have consulted several commentaries, three of which were included in my “Blue Letter Bible” application on my iPad, and one other. See Notes 1 through 4 below.)
Note 1: David Guzik; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 2: Chuck Smith; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 3: Matthew Henry; “1 Corinthians Commentary”; from “Blue Letter Bible” application on iPad.
Note 4: N.T. Wright; “Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians”; Westminster John Knox Press; 2004

1 Corinthians 11:1-2 - Imitators of Christ

1 Corinthians 11:1-2 - Imitators of Christ

1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Remember and Hold Firmly

V. 1 - “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” - Many of the commentaries claim that these two verses really belong at the end of chapter 10. Almost half of the letter to this point has been instructional in how the disciples should live together and in their communities to be witnesses for Christ - Morality vs. Adultery; Marriage vs. staying single so as to serve the Lord; Dealing with idols; dealing with the communion service; Freedom of worship vs. Idolatry.

Since that day on the road to Damascus, Paul has committed and devoted his life and activities to doing what God and Christ want him to do. He is teaching “Do what I do - obey and follow Christ.” Remember, Christ Jesus obeyed the Lord - He came to earth to live and die, giving His life as a sacrifice that saves us from sin. Christ was obedient. Paul follows His lead and is obedient to the calling of Christ. He urges us to do likewise - follow Christ, and like Paul be obedient to Christ’s commands and leading.

V. 2 - “you remember me in everything” - Remember that Paul turned from following Judaism to Christianity. He now follows and obeys Christ Jesus our Lord. “Do as I do. Do as I say.” Paul could say that since there is no conflict or hypocrisy in Paul’s life and teaching. Paul is confident enough in his faithfulness to Christ that he can tell them to follow his example.

“hold firmly to the traditions,  just as I delivered them to you.” - What traditions did Paul bring with him on his missionary journeys and to Corinth? Corinth was not a Jewish city, but a fabulously wealthy Greek city, a commercial city on a major trade route situated on a narrow isthmus. Southeast of this isthmus is the NE Mediterranean Sea (or perhaps the western Aegean Sea). Crossing the four-mile wide isthmus brings you to the Ionian Sea which is almost directly east of the 'boot heel' of Italy. Corinth had been around for centuries. Rome had conquered it, destroyed it, and then rebuilt it. This was an important Greek city. I do not suspect that any Jewish traditions that might have been introduced would be significant. The Jewish presence was not important enough to demand their traditions be followed in Corinth.

Paul brought new traditions (which seems to be an oxymoron). Sometimes traditions do not need to be handed down for generations. For example: My wife’s parents bought a cabin near Lincoln City, Oregon. We went there and stayed with our kids on a weekend. The first meal we fixed there was tacos, beans, chips, burritos, salsa, etc. Some time later, we again went to stay. The kids wanted to know why we weren’t having Mexican food since it was a tradition! (Note: the second time we stayed there, and it already was a tradition!)

This is one of those cases where a Greek word can have more than one English equivalent. The word here can be read either “traditions, or ‘ordinances”. For me, personally, these two English words have different connotations. One is something you do, because you have always done it this way - “tradition”. Think of ‘communion’, and of how many ways this is observed - bread or wafers, wine or grape juice, each element served to you by a deacon or you pick up the elements from a tray, or the elements come pre-packaged. Does your church offer a prayer for each element alone, or one prayer for both? Or is communion an ordinance - a part of the worship service commanded by the Lord? Is it both and ordinance and a tradition? I believe it is both - Jesus said that when we remember Him, to remember His body broken for us - the bread, and His blood shed for out sins - the wine/juice. (See: Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20) It is the doing and remembering that is important, and perhaps not so much the how the act is done.

Paul delivered to the churches he planted ordinances and traditions they were to use to preach and remember Christ’s sacrifice for our salvation.

Preaching Christ and Him crucified.
Believe in Christ and you shall be saved.
Baptism, Communion.
Fellowship.
Teaching.
Caring for each other.
Witnessing to non-believers.

These are the traditions (ordinances) Paul brought with him and gave to them. See: “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim 2:2)

These principles were not to stop when Paul stopped teaching, but were to be handed to others so they could know and grow in Jesus. See: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” (Heb 5:12) Also: “As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” (1 John 2:27)

Paul taught with a purpose so they could listen, learn, apply the truths of the Gospel, and then go out to teach others also. You are saved and remain here on earth so others might hear and learn and receive Christ as Savior.

***

1 Cor 11 - Introduction

Introduction:
Chap. 11 Outline
11:1-2 - Imitators of Christ
11:3-7 - Spiritual Hierarchy and Prayer
11:8-16 - Praying Men & Women and Authority
11:17-19 - Who is right; who is Wrong
11:20-26 - Communion
11:27-34 - Lord’s Supper
***

Verses 1-2 is Paul urging the Corinthians to copy the way he lives.

Verses 3-16 present is a set of ‘problem verses’ for 21st century Christians, especially those believers in the United States. I am not saying the verses are wrong, nor that Western Christians are wrong about these verses. The concepts presented in these verses are difficult for people who value freedom almost above anything else. Americans are exceptionally proud of our freedoms. We are proud that our country promotes equality of men and women, or of races. Our founding documents, especially the Constitution, have been amended by the people to lock in legal equality for all. We are free to worship as we please, to dress as we please, to talk however we wish, to work wherever we want. “Freedom” trumps all.

So when we come to these verses which discuss who has authority over whom, or who is the ‘head’, or how you must dress when you present yourself to the Lord in prayer, we Americans bristle. We get huffy. Who are you to tell me how I should dress when I pray? Who are you to tell me how I should wear my hair? How dare you tell me that someone has authority over me? I am free and subject to no one! I can almost hear the protest, “Who are you to tell me that I must wear a veil, when praying or teaching? Who are you to tell me that a woman cannot teach or preach in a church service?” Which brings us to cultural norms.

Things that were standard practice Israel and the ‘Middle East’ at that time are not acceptable in the modern Western culture. How do we discover the basic truths here, without demanding compliance with ancient regional customs? I am not sure that the custom of women wearing veils in public was a ‘custom’ anywhere else on earth - Africa, Asia or India, Europe (Greece and Rome), anywhere but the Palestinian environs. (This letter was written to address problems in the Corinthian church. That does not mean there are no principles that apply to us. ) We can clearly see what happens when customs become sclerotic - a woman or a girl wearing a burka, covered head to toe whenever in public. We can also see what happens when standards are thrown away completely - public display of various states of undress in public, in movies, on TV. Neither extreme is good for our society.

Honestly, I have looked up several commentaries on these verses. Very few of them satisfactorily explained what Paul was addressing, and especially how it applies to you and I as modern era Christians. In some cases these commentaries can’t even agree what is meant by ‘veil’ - is it a face covering, or is it a scarf for the hair and head, or is it a hood that covers the head down to the shoulders? And then there is the matter of hair styling: men are to have short hair and women long? If so, how come most movies and videos of the those ancient days show men with long hair, almost to the shoulder. None of them has a buzz cut. The men have long hair cuts, maybe not below shoulder length and not as long as some of the women. I wouldn’t call the men’s hair cut short in any case.

I will cover the introductions to verses 17 to the end of the chapter when we come to them.

So, now that I have whined about how hard it is to read and understand these verse, let’s saddle up and head on out! Excelsior!

***

1 Corinthians 10:23-33 - Do All to His Glory

This paragraph is a continuation of instructions from the previous subject - you cannot worship the gods of idols and the God of the universe at the same time, or waffling back and forth. Paul takes the idea of worship of gods a little bit farther - don’t give people the opportunity to think you may have reverence for a god (that is, any spiritual being who is not Yahweh.)

1 Corinthians 10:23-33

23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.
25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;
26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake.
28 But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake;
29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?
30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God;
33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

Glorify the Lord

V. 23 - “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.” - It should be intuitively obvious, even to the most casual observer, Paul is not condoning sinful activity. That is NOT what is meant by “all things are lawful”. The activities prohibited by the Ten Commandments still hold. This section of the letter is not about worshipping idols, or participating in idol worship, or worshipping gods represented by the idols.

This is about being aware that what you do is being watched by people around you. And a fallout of this is that a seemingly innocent action or behavior might be misinterpreted by the watchers. For whatever reason the response of those watching you is, “Did you see what he did?!” I know this doesn’t seem fair (and probably isn’t fair).

People may have a preconceived notion of how you, a Christian, should behave. For example: a Christian does not worship at an idol, or worship a god represented by an idol - not an unreasonable expectation. We must be aware that what we do may be misinterpreted by others. So we must seek to live and behave in such a way that no questions are raised, no accusations can be leveled. This may seem to be a heavy burden to carry for the sake of the Gospel. It should not be.

V. 24 - “Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.” - Our lives should be lived in such a manner that non-believers will want to know Jesus as Lord and Savior. Jesus said, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Mat 5:16) Paul wrote elsewhere, “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,” (Col 3:23)

V. 25 - “Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake.” - This is not about vegetarians, or whether is right to eat meat. This part of the letter is making you aware that everything you do is the Lord’s “business”. Food purchased in a grocery store is not designated for an offering to a god. It is food to eat. You may purchase and eat without worry that you are participating in worship of Safeway, or Kroger, etc. You do not need to ask the question, “Is this meat ‘legal’ to eat?”

Part of this comes from the laws handed down to the Israelites concerning offerings and sacrifices (See the rules in Leviticus 6, 7, etc.). Some of the animals brought to the altar had to be totally burned up. Some sacrifices involved on parts of the animal, and the rest could be consumed by the priests and Levites. In some cases, this is how the Levites got their food since they did not have secular jobs whereby they could buy meat and grains. Non-Levite Jews could not eat the meats or grains that had been offered, but was solely for the Levites and priests. (Note: Priests were also Levites, anyone who was not a Levite could not be a priest. As Israel became more apostate, especially after Solomon’s death, there may have been non-Levite priests, but they were not so legally. Levites were ‘special’ in that this was the only tribe that was not granted a portion, or a territory, of the promised land to claim as their own. They were given cities and agricultural land within the twelve tribal areas.)

Meat offered at the altar is an indication the person offering believes in the God (or god) represented by the altar. When we take communion - bread and cup - it is an outward and visible confession we believe that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, and is now advocating for us with God the Father.

V. 26 - “FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.” - Quoted from Psa 24:1, 50:12. Does this mean the dietary restrictions we see in the Pentateuch no longer apply? Perhaps it does. There is an incident in Acts where Peter is presented with food in a vision. He refuses to eat because some of the animals are ‘unclean’ or ‘holy’ (in the Levitical sense). Peter is informed that basically those rules no longer apply. (See Acts 10:9-16). The old rules no longer apply for those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

V. 27 - “If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go” - Paul follows up with an another, or second scenario (the 1st example - you go buy meat for your meals at the grocery store) - a unbeliever invites you to dinner. Go! Enjoy your time with them.

This may be a big change for any of the Jewish believers. The impression we have of the Jews is that they did business with Gentiles, but did not socialize with them. That is, a Jew would not go to a Gentile’s home for a meal - how would you know if the food was prepared ‘kosher? How much bigger span of believer vs unbeliever can you get? Jew and Gentile. Perhaps this comes from a stereotypical view of Pharisees and Sadducees - who were extremely strict and rigid. Jews being a minority of the population in almost every country where they reside would have to interact with Gentiles. But it is highly possible that Jews did not socialize with Gentiles by going to dinner in Gentile homes.

V. 28 - “But if anyone says to you, ‘This is meat sacrificed to idols’, do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake” - You do not know where the food being served at the unbeliever’s table came from. You do not ask this kind of question when invited to another’s house. Eat and enjoy your time with them.

However, if you are told that meat was taken from an altar, even an altar for a pagan god, stop and do not eat. You should already know that it is no big deal. Paul said that very thing earlier. “What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.” (1 Cor 10:19-20) Idols are nothing, because the gods the idols represent are nothing. Therefore, food taken from the idol means nothing to you, because the idol/god is inconsequential to you and your well-being.

But that’s not the point of this section of the letter. The point made here is that the person making the comment is bothered by you eating the meat offered to the idol. The question in their mind is, “Does this Christian believe in the idol and god? They must, or they would not be eating this sacrifice!” The person making the comment is still held captive by the power of the god.

V. 29 - “I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s” - You have no moral problem eating the food, even if it has been offered to an idol. Your conscience is clear for this issue. The other person is conflicted. Your witness for Jesus Christ is compromised, the chance to win another person to Him has been blunted.

V. 30 - “If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?” - You don’t have a problem with this issue (eating meat offered to idols) because the idol means nothing to you. The other person does have a problem, and now you are part of it! The ill will or bad impression caused by you eating ‘sacred’ food, even if it is a worthless idol, means that the value of Christ has been diminished in that person’s opinion.

Paul is saying, “I don’t have a problem here. Why does that person have a problem here?” But, he also says, “It doesn’t matter in this case that you are okay with it. The other person thinks less of you.” (That is the ‘slander’, your reputation has taken a hit.) Therefore Christ has also taken a hit. People generally do not see Christ, except as they see Christ living in and through you. Paul is also making the point that why should you be slandered when you don’t need to be? You can bypass the idol’s food without harming yourself, and thereby without harming your witness for Christ.

V. 31 - “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” - This concept has now been extended to your lifestyle! It is no longer just a matter of whether you eat food offered to an idol.

Whatever you do…. Outbursts of anger on the golf course. Not a good witness... Foul language. Not a good witness for Christ… Drinking or living in excess. Christ is slandered… Living immorally, such as adultery, or pornography. Your witness is damaged, as is Christ’s. Lying. You can no longer be trusted. Neither can Christ.

V. 32 - “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” - This is not a command to be milquetoast, namby-pamby, weak and without opinion. Paul said. “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” (Eph 4:32). He also said, “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.” (1 Cor 6:18) Live your life under the control of the Holy Spirit, not on auto-pilot.

V. 33 - “just as I also please all men in all things” - Paul is paraphrasing Jesus. “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 5:16)

“not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many” - Paul said the same thing in verse 24, above.

“so that they may be saved.” - God put us here on earth, leaves us here after we become His children, to lead others to Him.

---

End of Chapter
(25-Oct-2021)