1 Corinthians 11:25-26

After 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. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (KJV)

Then: The second section of the communion is to remember the New Testament (Hayes, p. 123) while drinking from the cup. Henry organizes his discussion into four sections: the materials, the sacamental actions, remembrance and declaration of Christ's death, and its designation as a frequent, perpetual ordinance. The Corinthians needed all these reminders in order to return their thoughts to Christ and away from wanton fellowship.

Now: In a short exposition about communion, Owen Strachan focuses on the aspect of confession during the sacrament. Having a dedicated time for gathered believers to feel close to God, confess their belief in him and proclaim his act of sacrifice is the central expression of loving Christ. Strachan's point is that evangelistic churches miss out on the sense of sacredness encompassed in quiet order of liturgical churches. Yet, no matter the environment, Christ abides in the hearts of all through the act. Communion confession and participation is ultimately a heart experience.

Extra Source: First Corinthians by Richard B. Hayes (John Knox Press, 1997) on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=M_PC0PAs3VYC&dq=1+Corinthians+and+Richard+B.+Hays&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=2oPcStDCIIvf8Aaq0Ki3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CCMQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=1%20Corinthians%20and%20Richard%20B.%20Hays&f=falseCommentary on the Whole Bible Acts to Revelation Vol VI by Matthew Henry online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.iCor.xii.html
The Strange and Other Worldly Rite of Communion by Owen Strachan, online at http://owenstrachan.com/2009/09/06/the-strange-and-otherworldly-rite-of-communion-thoughts-on-1-corinthians-11-and-john-6/

1 Corinthians 11:23-24

For 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: And 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. (KJV)

Then: What the Corinthians needed was a reorientation as to the tradition of taking communion (Dunn and Rogeson, p. 1339). Remember. Remember the Lord. Remember that the Lord was betrayed by a follower. Remember his body, the body of Christ which was broken and which is now the church. Remember with each bite of bread. Remember.

Now: The words of these verses are often read aloud before and during communion. Believers are called to think again about Christ and his love. They also remember that what the Lord did was planned from the beginning. All humanity can be forgiven because of the Lord's endurance and faithfulness. His act within the tradition of the Passover supper also reminds believers of the history of the Lord's faithfulness. Communion is a quiet moment of reflection and a joyous hope.

Extra source: Eerdmans commentary on the Bible by James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA1353&lpg=PA1353&dq=1+Corinthians+9+commentary&source=bl&ots=5QeQaYWrMS&sig=S5F3KcA_TvNMyywqRiimySoUYtc&hl=en&ei=QqHPSouICIWj8AaZxqyABA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=1%20Corinthians%209%20commentary&f=false

1 Corinthians 11:20-22

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? 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. (KJV)

Then: Early congregations did not have a specified building for meeting. People gathered in the homes of those with the largest houses. Baker (p. 168) describes these villa-style homes with one large room, a triclinium, for nine to ten people to eat while reclining on couches while another room without a table, an atrium, could accomodate thirty or forty people to eat while standing or possibly sitting. Laborers and slaves arriving late would find that all the food was gone, already eaten by the rich, leisurely, early arrivals who had been "grazing" (Magness, class notes, 10-17-09). Obviously, some even became drunk. Henry calls their actions corrupt. By being inconsiderate to the poor, caring only for their own food lusts, and indulging in a desire to drink, they disdained communion between themselves and Christ, let alone communion between themselves and other believers.

Now: For the most part, manner and mode of communion is settled as an event limited to the Lord and a single believer. Rarely does it involve a sense of group worship. A whole meal is not involved - probably a major result of Paul's teaching here. Community meals do occur as potlucks where the Lord is included only while grace is being asked. That part is no longer a problem. However, to the extent that the act of communion involves personal attitudes towards fellow believers, problems can prevail. When rich evaluate the poor as unworthy associates, when laborers disdain the value and decisions of CEO's, when classmates exclude unpopular students according to intellect, clothing, or behavior - fellow believer's all, then the Lord's death is devalued. Spiritual growth requires the setting aside of personal likes and dislikes. Those saved have a new task - that of looking to the lost, to draw them in, and to promote changes in attitudes, behaviors, and wisdom. Communion is the act of relating to other believers and Christ at the same time.

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.
Commentary on the Whole Bible Acts to Revelation Vol VI by Matthew Henry online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.iCor.xii.html

1 Corinthians 11:17-19

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you (KJV)

Then: Before, when Paul first began to talk about women and men's appearances during a worship service, he took time for praise (11:2). Not now. Here he launches into disapproval. The church is supposed to meet for encouragement and spiritual growth of its members. The problems in Corinth distort the purpose. Paul knows heresies exist in the minds of members because there are so many contentious groups. Interestingly, Paul's discussion of divisions makes verse 16, which already referred to contentions, a hinge for moving into his next concern about communion. The door is open and he barges in. Baker (p. 168) says their actions undermined the purposes of meeting together and made belief in Christ seem trivial.

Now: The same thing happens in today's church's no matter the issue, but if concern centers on communion and practices of observing it, then the issue is just as pivotal to the growth and spiritual life of believers. Today's church profits from the many years in which the church sorted through the myriad of controversies surrounding the Lord's Supper. Those issues are mostly settled.

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.

Summary - 1 Corinthians 11:17-30

Passage is often used as basis for communion meditations. It is the second time Paul addresses the topic of communion in this letter. His comments from 10:14-22 addressed inner motivations. This section moves into that again, but from a different problem.

1 Corinthians 11:16

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God (KJV)

Then: Odd placement for this verse. It doesn't seem to relate to what came before, unless Paul is reacting to complaints received about women's dress - which he considered contentious - and is piqued about having to discuss the whole thing in the first place. (I'm rather tired of the topic myself.) Some believe Paul purposefully changed the pattern of covered heads in temple worship to being uncovered in Christian worship. Perhaps some men were objecting to that. Baker (p. 165) supports an understanding that other churches followed Paul's teachings about covered and uncovered heads. Corinthian men should too.

Now: Would that contention were never a part of any church in the Lord's kingdom. Would that peace only reigned even when differences of opinion pop up. Would that contention never led to church splits, but all things were resolved based on the teachings of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the desire and the actuality differ.

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.

1 Corinthians 11:13-15

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

1 Corinthians 11:11-12

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God (KJV)

Then: Paul is moving on in his reasons for distinguishing the sexes in a worship service. He turns from Creation's evidence to the interrelation of men and women. Following the Lord's initial action, the existence of all succeeding generations comes from those which preceded. No man nor woman exsits independently of the other. They serve in unity and community.

Now: The obvious meaning relates to the ongoing reproduction of mankind from generation to generation. Paul calls upon that to support his teaching that men and women should worship together in a seemly, ordered fashion. In short, order in creation requires order in worship. To signify both order and headship, some rely upon an extended meaning of women wearing head coverings. Phillips (p. 241) understands them to be the means by which the woman can assume a man's role of teaching, preaching, reading scripture, praying, or singing - any of the leadership functions - when wearing a head cloth because the cloth signfies her being under authority. That point of view assumes roles in the kingdom are based on sex, and not on individual gifts and talents bestowed by the Spirit. It sidesteps Paul's earlier presentation and does not explain the perception of limited acceptance into the Lord's kingdom. Phillips (p. 239) makes an unsupported assertion that women are not inferior to men. Within all top-to-bottom analyses of herarchies something is always superior to something else. That holds true for an authoritarian church. There is no other logical conclusion. This conclusion conflicts, however, with Paul's later comparison of the church as a single, integral unit (the church or a human body) which operates using reciprocal submission.

Extra source: Exploring 1 Corinthians: an expository commentary by John Phillips. Grand Rapids MI: Kregel Publications, c2002.

I Corinthians 11:10

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels (NKJ)

Then: Paul gives the Corinthians two rationales. The first, a visible symbol reminds worshipers of the Lord's past action in creation. He brought the woman out of man for the sake of man. Unexpectedly though, Paul does not follow up by restating that the woman's head ought to be covered. Instead he moves to a philosophical wording of "power on her head." If he had stayed with the literal, the comparison would have been clear. He didn't. So how is "power" to be understood? Some translate the words as "sign of authority" and some add the word "head covering." Fee (p. 839) says that in some textual use the Greek pronoun means "control of" rather than "power over."

As discussed before, confusion comes from the implications of Paul's analogical detail of covering. It doesn't come from his teachings about conducting worship services in an orderly manner. In the first translation - "authority on" women have no choice - whether they believe or do not believe in Christ. For women, Christ's death did not restore the creation on earth as God originally intended it. On earth, women's sin in the garden is still unforgiven because the effect of the sin stays in place even during worship services. In the second translation, women may choose to subject themselves to the authority of Christ, deny self, put others first and subject themselves to the needs and spiritual good of all co-believers in the kingdom - men and women. They have equal access to the Lord and equal freedom to use gifts given through the Spirit. In the second translation, a head covering is symbolic of the Lord's original creation and reminder of what happened before. Baker's notes (p. 157) present another predominant understanding regarding "power." Because of the Greek grammar, the translation has to have an active, not a passive sense. Therefore, when a woman wore a head covering she was exhibiting and taking personal control over her own head and demonstrating a choice to honor her husband or other male authority. Through here personal action, she was authorized to take part in worship with men. The head covering shows that authorization.

The verse's second rational follows the word "because." The woman needs "power on her head" because of the angels." No one is sure what Paul meant by bringing in the angels. Consequently, the verse's acceptance and understandings for the Corinthians is a matter of conjecture. A few commentators (including Augustine) believed that angels are present in church services. Although personal experience is never a verifiable basis for knowing truth, it is the reason I know angels are present.* Assuming Paul knew angels were present in worship services, some commentators state that women's head covering maintains a sex distinction which bears witness to the angels of the Lord's greatness in his creation. The distinction is necessary because eventually humans will have authority over the angels. That authority needs to be accepted by the angels themselves. Certainly, it is a conclusion of this section of Paul's presentation.

Now: In western societies women do not stick to specific dress codes. Variety and diversity is the mark of the day. Technology advancements allow for limitless production of clothing styles, materials, and appearance. The main goal for Christian women is to be modest, be functional in a work place, and be fairly acceptable to mainstream fashions. Looking wierd erects barriers which can signal disapproval of non-believers. It also precludes initial, friendly contacts wherein the gospel might be taught. Since dress is so varied, saying that women have to wear dresses and men slacks in church is meaningless.** The male/female distinctions of creation are obvious. If the translation of the verb means "self-control," the voluntary submission of personal goals and desires to the good of co-believers, provides no problem in today's services; however, if the translation means the necessity of displaying a literal, physical authority of men over women, then few services are in compliance.

Extra source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians by Gordon D. Fee (Eerdman's 1987) online http://books.google.com/books?id=XlBp10nUTXAC&dq=Gordon+Fee+Bible+commentator&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=SwLNSu3nA4v6Mf2XlDo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.
*(Instance of hearing the angels sing -- Once with my head bowed and singing the doxology during a service, I heard the roof creak, crackle and open. Then I could hear thousands of angels joining in the song.)
**(Second problem here - Paul only talked about head coverings.)

1 Corinthians 11:9

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (KJV)

Then: Still in the account of creation, Paul continues his explanation for 11:7 that women are the glory of men and men the glory of God. N. T. Wright (p. 138) translates "for" as "for the sake of." The Corinthians could understand the comparison and Paul's desire that worship services display the distinctions of gender.

Now: Some commentators (i.e., Hayes, p. 191) separate acts of worship (functions) from the necessity to worship according to one's personality, individuality, sex and spiritual gifts. The corporate body is made of all, with gender as being a prominent distinction. Hayes believes Paul is prohibiting actions which blur gender distinctions because that does not honor God. Hayes also concludes that neither Paul's purpose nor text limits women's use of their gifts and talents in worship. Paul's original intent was to bring order out of disorder and dissension. Women in the first century could teach and preach. It was only later interpretations which imposed restrictions. It would have been helpful to modern readers to know exactly what the original questions inspiring this letter entailed. That could have better focused and specified western twenty-first century understanding of Paul's missive.

Extra Source: First Corinthians by Richard B. Hayes (John Knox Press, 1997) on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=M_PC0PAs3VYC&dq=1+Corinthians+and+Richard+B.+Hays&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=2oPcStDCIIvf8Aaq0Ki3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CCMQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=1%20Corinthians%20and%20Richard%20B.%20Hays&f=false

1 Corinthians 11:8

For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man (KJV)

Then: Paul is justifying and explaining the basis of his reasoning about the concept of glory. For Jewish Christians it would have been obvious. For former gentiles, less so. Their knowledge about the creation would have been spotty.

Now: Those who know the Old Testament have no trouble realizing Paul is talking about the creation. Others might need clarification. The verse is the foremost justification for male authority over women when the understanding of headship is "boss," not "source."

1 Corinthians 11:7

For 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 (KJV)

Then: The verse has been used for so long as a means to deny women an equal place in the Lord's kingdom that it is impossible to discover what the Corinthians thought Paul meant -- although commentators try. Thiselton (p. 802) refers to Pomeroy's presentation which shows that the glorified status of men was displayed and inferred from the clothing worn by their mothers, sisters, and wives. Thiselton finds the meanings of "head" to be "source." Fee (p. 116) discusses the praise and honor which men give God because they are created in his image. The verse in Genesis 2 infers, but does not state that God the Father also created women in his image. Clearly though, the man did not create the woman. The source for both is the Lord, so the point is the glory as it flows out not a glory which returns to the source. Once more, the verse does remind hearers that there were two different stages in the creation of man. Paul's statement relates to his belief that the worship service represent the Lord's work.

Now: More attention is paid to assumed, follow-up requirements. Because of the creation, men honor God with their daily activites, their behavior (including clothing), and their life goals (Baker, p. 163). Women are to do the same in respect to their husbands. The sticky concept here is "worship." For women to worship their husband, fathers, pastor, or other male is unacceptable. The problem comes from not limiting the meaning of the verse to "glory" coming from God and proceeding through others. Respect, honor, obedience and worship of the Lord are natural responses of all believers is undeniable and Paul teaches it - elsewhere. Mutual submission of males and females is also taught - elsewhere.

Extra source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text by Anthony C. Thiselton (Authentic Media, c2000) online at http://books.google.com/books?id=IHG_DNLpmroC&dq=1st+Corinthian+commentaries&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=W9fQSpC1GILplAfHiumoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=falseThe First Epistle to the Corinthians by Gordon D. Fee (Eerdman's 1987) online http://books.google.com/books?id=XlBp10nUTXAC&dq=Gordon+Fee+Bible+commentator&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=SwLNSu3nA4v6Mf2XlDo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.

1 Corinthians 11:6

For 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. (KJV)

Then: Paul resorts to the common everyday culture to reiterate his main desire -- worship must give honor to God. Probably using Islamic practices today, Baker (p. 161) conjectures and explains a possible problem. Women were used to wearing nothing on their heads at home, but now the whole church was coming to worhip there. Hayes (p. 185) discusses Roman/Greek clothing styles in which women never wore veils, but they did wear their hair bound. Women who left their hair loose may have been considered to be "loose" (prostitutes) with lifestyles normally set up to honor temple gods and goddesses. Adding to the confusion was women's new liberty in Christ. Someone needed to give guidance.

Now: Believers keep looking for the principle in the verse. They sense Paul's sarcasm that, of course, women don't want to be bald. Any who deal with the effects of cancer treatment suffer thereby. They also know that western culture no longer uses head coverings as a means of identifying an individual's morality. It is easy to see Paul's greater teaching about shame; however, the principle is difficult to find - especially since verse eleven begins with "nevertheless" and seems to reverse all that he just said.

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.
First Corinthians by Richard B. Hayes (John Knox Press, 1997) on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=M_PC0PAs3VYC&dq=1+Corinthians+and+Richard+B.+Hays&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=2oPcStDCIIvf8Aaq0Ki3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CCMQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=1%20Corinthians%20and%20Richard%20B.%20Hays&f=false

1 Corinthians 11:5

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

Then: The verse follows, parallels and contrasts with the directions to men. Paul states that women need their heads covered in order to honor Christ. That action also signifies recognition of both their identity and their creation as being different from that of men (Baker, p. 160). On the other hand, like men, as women pray and prophesy aloud, Paul still requires a seemly, calm order which brings honor to the Lord. Perhaps another unstated reason was to avoid offending non-believers; however, some archaeological studies show that it was not common practice in Paul's time for women to have heads covered in public. If true, Paul's direction to men who commonly covered their heads in pagan worship or Paul's direction to women who normally did not cover their heads would make a significant statement of "This is different" to non-believers.

Now: The verse is usually interpreted to mean that women can only pray silently when men are present. They are allowed to pray aloud or prophesy when men are not present. The head covering requirement enforces the existence of an authoritarian domination and one-way submission. In traditional venues, church members assume that the Lord's message (prophesy means more than foretelling events) can be clarified by women to women, but not women to men. A strict reading of this verse states that women should never pray or prophesy with uncovered heads. Actually, the corrollary prohibitions that women should not ever speak in church or teach men come from other verses. The implications cause women to feel that they have diminished value in the kingdom of God. The feelings parallel the hopelessness present in rigid caste societies.

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.

1 Corinthians 11:4

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head (KJV)

Then: Looking first towards the male, Paul brings up the question of "What should you wear to church?" Paul believed any Corinthian male wearing a cloth covering on his head during a worship service would be perceived as bringing dishonor to Christ and to the Lord. Men had to wear them at other times; non-believers would not be offended by seeing men wearing head cloths outside temples or other places of worship. Contrarily though, in the pagan temples men's heads were covered. Of significance to commentators also is Paul's specific words, "praying or prophesying." These acts of worship are often audible and, if not performed decorously, can be extremely disruptive (Baker, p. 160) to another's worship experience.

Now: Today it makes no difference whether it is church or not, men customarily remove hats when inside a building. Worship and honor do not apply. A major question does remain regarding dishonor. How does the practice of having a covered head dishonor the Lord when, in actuality, dishonor before the Lord stems from disobedience, lack of gratitude, and ignorance as to the identity and existence of the Creator? Baker (p. 160) refers to a question of male/female identity in the worship of God. Paul seems to teach that when bowing before the Lord, a male should reflect that the process of creation was different for the male and for the female. The opposite appearance of wearing or not wearing head coverings is a way to mirror and symbolize the Lord's work in creation.

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.

Interim

Trying to discuss the meanings and applications of these coming verses in context, as they have been understood across the ages and current understandings makes me want to be an ostrich. What do they mean for women? Should they decide for themselves or just say that it means what a husband- or pastor or culture or government - says it means?

I don't expect Paul meant to cause so much trouble for women. He was not telling women that because God created women first, their acceptance in heaven hinged on the husband's or guardian's will. If the man was cut off, so were they. I'm with Thistelton (p.799). In chapters eleven through fourteen Paul was teaching the Corinthians about order in a worship service. He was presenting practical applications of everything covered in chapters eight to ten.

It also makes sense that Christians living with non-believers had to avoid being offensive. Paul taught them to circumvent and prevent as many inpenetrable barriers to non-believers accepting the gospel as possible. In the church itself, how much the attitudes towards women were cultural and how much they stemmed from Christ is another unknown factor. (The higher teaching is that before God men and women are equally accepted and personally responsible for their individual actions.) Interestingly Augustus and Claudius unknowingly headed that way for they modified Roman law regarding guardianship of freedwomen and freeborn women (Thiselton, p.802). Certainly laws granting equal treatment of men and women evolve slowly.

If "headship" has the restricted meaning of "boss" and Paul delineates a chain of command, then many of Christ's (and Paul's) other teachings are belied. "Thy kingdom come on earth" will never happen. The principles of "There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female" has meaning only in heaven. All distinctions of the law are still in effect. None of what Paul says about being submissive to one another is useful except to men who happen to be on the same cultural plane. That's the bottom line of the trouble: Are women free to be followers of Christ or are they an extension of the headship of particular men? That's why I'd rather be an ostrich running fifty miles per hour in the other direction.

Extra source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text by Anthony C. Thiselton (Authentic Media, c2000) online at http://books.google.com/books?id=IHG_DNLpmroC&dq=1st+Corinthian+commentaries&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=W9fQSpC1GILplAfHiumoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

1 Corinthians 11:3

But 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 (KJV)

Then: Corinthians probably had an easier time understanding both Paul's intent when writing these words and the following sections of his letter. They knew the questions that they had asked and were expecting answers to them. Since everything that follows deals with behavior during worship services, the verse must have related to that. Wallace observes that the Corinthians seemed to be confused about diversity and unity. They practiced diversity in times when they needed unity (or identity), and they practiced unity when they should have looked for diversity. This verse brings everyone together, identified as the Lord's creation and unified in worshipping him.

Now: Modern-day minds are conditioned to understand the word "head" in only one way. It means "boss" or "dictator," and sometimes "tyrant." But there are other meanings for the word "head" and they have priority here. Christ is the apex or crown, the one who is loved and worshipped. And above him is God. We all praise, worship and give glory to the Creator, the one who is the source of our being - just as the source (head) of a river is an underground spring (Magness class notes). Thanksgiving and praise for him who made us is a duty and a joy. The sense of peace which comes from sitting before him has no equal in our lives. Saying that "head" means "boss" is to misunderstand Paul's presentation because women should not worship men.

Extra source: 1 Corinthians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline by Daniel B. Wallace. Online at http://bible.org/seriespage/1-corinthians-introduction-argument-and-outline

1 Corinthians 11:2

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

Then: Corinthians reading could tell something changed. Paul just told them to be like him, and thereby be like Christ. Now he is praising them. Welcome relief - but something's coming.

Now: Praise is always an encourager. We know the person talking to us approves of what we do and believes we are on the right track. It opens our minds to knowing that hope of success lies ahead. As we respond to Paul and pass his teachings along, we also need to pass along an attitude of seeing others as Christ sees them. In the Lord's eyes no one is a lost cause, perhaps a lost sheep, but somewhere deep inside burns the hope of knowing God, of loving and being loved. May we study Paul and follow his examples.

1 Corinthians 11:1

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ (KJV)

Then: The final crux of Paul's teaching and advice to the Corinthians is not a "Do as I say and not as I do" argument. Paul advises them to do what he does -- follow him because he follows Christ. To have this advice along with their memories of what Paul did when he was with them provides a clear path to being useful workers in the body. Baker (p. 154) draws upon Thiselton (p.796) to state that Paul believed all his own suffering corresponded to the sufferings of Christ. Thinking of this, surely the Corinthians were humbled.

Now: Most members of the body of Christ are oblivious to the good of the whole. Believers focus on personal growth and sometimes the care of close friends because "That's what you are supposed to do." They rarely consider the salvation and spiritual growth of others, let alone the spiritual condition of the entire church. A church is judged on what can be gained from it, not what its needs are. Then too, sometimes spiritual needs are recognized and counterbalanced with feelings of inadequacies. "How can I be an evangelist?" The problems are both a product of a culture used to letting the minister do it all and a culture which advertises "You need a break," "Be good to yourself," or "Take care of Number One." In addition to occasional philosophical presentations, the church needs Paul's example.(At the same time churches with trained professional staffs overlook the value and fail to call upon the talents of individual church members. But then, that's another issue.)

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text by Anthony C. Thiselton (Authentic Media, c2000) online at http://books.google.com/books?id=IHG_DNLpmroC&dq=1st+Corinthian+commentaries&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=W9fQSpC1GILplAfHiumoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I Corinthians 10:33

Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved (KJV)

Then: Final goal or objective. When men are saved, when they come to know Christ, the glory and profit goes not to Paul, but to the Lord. The "Even as" part of the verse is a direction for Corinthians to do what Paul does.

Now: Baker (p. 154) adds a little more information about teaching Christ by words and deeds. Those with set-in-stone opinions must back off from expectations and requirements that all other believers behave accordingly. That approach leads to unseemly dissensions, arguments, and unrest which repel rather than attract non-believers to accept Christ as Savior. Following Paul and Christ doesn't necessarily equal following the mandates of contemporary interpreters. It does mean studying Christ, asking his heart to be your heart and giving him glory. It means "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." These are the words of a lawyer speaking to Jesus who subsequently affirmed the statement.

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.

Labels: