DIVISION IV. DISORDERS IN WORSHIP AND CHURCH LIFE, 11 14. The Ap. returns to the internal affairs of the Church, which occupied him in Div. I., dealing however not as at the outset with the relations of the Cor [2013] Church to its ministry, but with the mutual relations and behaviour of its members... [ Continue Reading ]
to 1 Corinthians 11:1. § 34. LIBERTY AND ITS LIMITS. The maxim “All things are lawful” was pleaded in defence of the use of the idolothyta, as of other Cor [1541] laxities; so the Ap. has to discuss it a second time (_cf._ 1 Corinthians 6:12). In ch. 6. he bade his readers guard the application of t... [ Continue Reading ]
The praise here given is so little suggested by the context, and to little accords with the tone of the Ep., esp. with what was said in the like connexion in 1 Corinthians 4:16 f., that one conjectures the Ap. to be quoting _professions made in the Letter from Cor_. rather than writing simply out of... [ Continue Reading ]
§ 35. THE WOMAN'S VEIL. P. is glad to believe that the Church at Cor [1593] is loyal to his instructions (2); he interrupts his censures by a word of praise. This commendation, however, he proceeds to qualify. First, in respect of a matter whose underlying principles his readers had not grasped: he... [ Continue Reading ]
θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι (= οὐ θέλω κ. τ. λ. of 1 Corinthians 10:1; see note): “But I would have you know” the previous commendation throws into relief the coming censure. The indecorum in question offends against a foundation principle, _viz_., that of _subordination under the Divine government_; this... [ Continue Reading ]
1 Corinthians 11:4-5 : the high doctrine just asserted applied to the matter of feminine attire. Since man _qua_ man has no head but Christ, before whom they worship in common, while woman has man to own for her head, _he must not and she must be veiled_. The regulation is not limited to those of ei... [ Continue Reading ]
1 Corinthians 11:6, with a second γάρ, presses the above identity; the Ap. bids the woman who discards the veil carry her defiance a step further: “For if a woman is not veiled, let her also crop (her head); but if it is a disgrace for a woman to crop (it) or to keep (it) shaven, let her retain the... [ Continue Reading ]
ἀνὴρ (not ὁ ἀνὴρ) μὲν γὰρ κ. τ. λ.: “For _man_ indeed (being man) ought not to have his head veiled” (καλύπτεσθαι, pr [1634] inf [1635] of _custom_), in contrast with woman who _ought_ (1 Corinthians 11:5; 1 Corinthians 11:10) this is as wrong on his part as it is right on hers; οὐκ negatives the wh... [ Continue Reading ]
§ 36. MAN AND WOMAN IN THE LORD. The Ap. has insisted on the woman's retaining the veil in token of the Divine order pervading the universe, which Christ exhibits in His subordination to the Father. But he has some further observations to make on the relative position of the sexes. In the first plac... [ Continue Reading ]
1 Corinthians 11:8-9 add two more to the chain of _for's_ extending from 1 Corinthians 11:6 : a double reason for asserting that woman is man's glory appears in the revelation of the origin of mankind made by Scripture (Genesis 2:18-25 : the _second_ narrative of Creation, J of the critics), where E... [ Continue Reading ]
is the counterstatement to 1 Corinthians 11:7 _a_, undeveloped there: “ _For this reason_ the woman is bound to wear authority upon her head” _sc_., the reason made out in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9; 1 Corinthians 11:7-9; 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, that her nature is derived and auxiliary. The ἐξουσία (= σημεῖ... [ Continue Reading ]
πλὴν κ. τ. λ. modifies and guards the foregoing; this conj. lies between δὲ and ἀλλὰ in its force _but besides, howbeit_. What has been said in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 must not be overpressed: woman is subordinate, not inferior; the sexes are alike, and inseparably necessary to the Christian order (1... [ Continue Reading ]
There is a constitutional feeling which supports the above inference in favour of the woman's veil; it was implied already in the καταισχύνει and αἰσχρὸν of 1 Corinthians 11:5 f., and is now explicitly stated: “Amongst yourselves (_inter_ rather than _intra vos ipsos_) judge ye; is it seemly for a w... [ Continue Reading ]
The question οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ κ. τ. λ.; summons _personal instinct_ to the aid of social sentiment: “Does not even nature of herself teach you that, etc.?” For ἡ φύσις, see Romans 2:14; in this connexion it points to man's _moral constitution_ rather than to external regulations; Hf. and El [1654]... [ Continue Reading ]
closes the discussion sharply, with its appeal to established Christian rule. If, after all that the Ap. has advanced in maintenance of the modest distinction between the sexes, any one is still minded to debate, he must be put down by _authority_ that of P. himself and his colleagues (ἡμεῖς), suppo... [ Continue Reading ]
If the T.R. be correct, τοῦτο (repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:22 _b_) points to the instruction about to be given respecting the Lord's Supper: “Moreover (δέ), in giving you this charge I do not praise (you), seeing that, etc.”: so Cm [1666] and Gr [1667] Ff [1668], Er [1669], Est., Bg [1670], Hf [167... [ Continue Reading ]
§ 37. THE CHURCH MEETING FOR THE WORSE. The Cor [1665] Church had written self-complacently, expecting the Apostle's commendation upon its report (1 Corinthians 11:2). In reply P. has just pointed out one serious irregularity, which might indeed be put down to ignorance (1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corint... [ Continue Reading ]
The severe reproach, εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε, is justified by 1 Corinthians 11:18-22, which lead round to the intended παραγγελία. πρῶτον μὲν requires an ἔπειτα δέ, that is not forthcoming (_cf._ Romans 1:8): the complement appears to lie in 12 14. _viz., the abuse of spiritual gifts_, a further and... [ Continue Reading ]
Paul is prepared to believe what he thus hears; these divisions were inevitable: “For indeed parties must needs exist among you”. δεῖ affirms a necessity lying in the moral conditions of the case (see note on ὀφείλω, 1 Corinthians 11:7). αἵρεσις (see parls., and note on 1 Corinthians 1:11; from αἱρέ... [ Continue Reading ]
1 Corinthians 11:20-21 resume with emphasis the circumstantial clause of 1 Corinthians 11:18 and draw out, by οὖν, the disastrous issue of the σχίσματα : they produce _a visible separation at the common meal of the Church, destroying the reality of the Lord's Supper_. Ch. 1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corin... [ Continue Reading ]
μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε κ. τ. λ.; “For is it that you have not houses to eat and drink in?” See 1 Corinthians 11:34, and note. The γὰρ brings in an ironical excuse: “For I suppose you act thus because you are houseless, and must satisfy your appetite at church!” _cf._ πῶς γάρ; Acts 8:31. If this vor... [ Continue Reading ]
Amongst the things the Ap. had “delivered” to his readers, that they professed to be “holding fast” (1 Corinthians 11:2), was the story of the Last Supper of the Lord Jesus, which the Church perpetuates in its communion-feast. ἐγώ antithetical to ὑμῖν : _I_ the imparter, _you_ the receivers, of thes... [ Continue Reading ]
§ 38. UNWORTHY PARTICIPANTS OF THE LORD'S BREAD AND CUP. The behaviour of the wealthier Cor [1740] at the Church Supper is scandalous in itself; viewed in the light of the institution and meaning of the Eucharistic ordinance, their culpability is extreme (1 Corinthians 11:23-27). The sense of this s... [ Continue Reading ]
ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ πατήριον : “In the same fashion also (He gave) the cup”. The two ritual actions correspond, and form one covenant. μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι (as in Luke) “postquam cœnaverunt” (Cv [1756]), or better “cœnatum est” (Rom. Liturgy) is studiously added to “emphasise the distinction between the Lor... [ Continue Reading ]
_Familiarity_ helped to blunt in the Cor [1762] their reverence for the Eucharist; hence the repeated ὁσάκις ἐάν : “for _so many times as_ you eat this bread and drink the cup, you are proclaiming the Lord's death, until He come”. γὰρ has its proper explicative force: Christ bade His disciples thus... [ Continue Reading ]
draws the practical consequence of 1 Corinthians 11:20-26, stating the judgement upon Cor [1767] behaviour at the Supper that a right estimate of the covenant-cup and bread demands: “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be held guilty (ἔνοχος ἔσται; _reus te... [ Continue Reading ]
“But (in contrast with the guilt described, and in order to escape it) let a man put himself to proof, and so from the bread let him eat and from the cup let him drink.” ἄνθρωπος, replacing ὄς ἄν (1 Corinthians 11:27), is _qualitative_, “containing the ideas of infirmity and responsibility” (Gd [177... [ Continue Reading ]
Participation in the bread and cup is itself a δοκιμασία : “For he that eats and drinks, a judgment for himself (sentence on himself) he eats and drinks”. The single art [1782] of ὁ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων, combining the acts, negatives the R.C [1783] inference from the ἢ of 1 Corinthians 11:27 (see note).... [ Continue Reading ]
In evidence of the “judgment” which profanation of the Lord's Table entails, the Ap. points to the sad fact that “amongst you many are sick and weakly, and not a few are sleeping”. ἀσθενεῖς applies to maladies of any kind, ἄρρωστοι to cases of debility and continued ill-health _ægroti et valetudinar... [ Continue Reading ]
Such chastisements may be averted; when they come, it is for our salvation: “If however we discerned (_or_ discriminated: _dijudicaremus_, Vg [1793]) ourselves, we should not be judged”. διακρίνω is taken up from 1 Corinthians 11:29 (see note); it is distinguished from κρίνω, which in turn is contra... [ Continue Reading ]
1 Corinthians 11:33-34 _a_. The “charge” (1 Corinthians 11:17) proceeds from inward to outward, from _self-examination_ (1 Corinthians 11:28) to _mutual accommodation_ respecting the Lord's Supper. Religious decorum depends on two conditions, _a becoming spirit_ associated with _fitting external arr... [ Continue Reading ]