King James Version
1 Corinthians 11
34 verses with commentary
Head Coverings
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
View commentary
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ (μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ)—Paul uses mimētai (imitators), calling believers to pattern their lives after his example. This is not arrogance but apostolic authority grounded in his own imitation of Christ. The comparative kathōs kagō (even as I also) shows the chain of discipleship: Christ → Paul → Corinthians.
This verse concludes Paul's discussion of Christian liberty (chapters 8-10), where he modeled self-limitation for others' sake—refusing idol meat (8:13), forgoing apostolic rights (9:12-18), becoming all things to all people (9:19-23). Paul's life embodied the cross-shaped wisdom he preached (1:18-25). His call to imitation is specifically Christological imitation: self-sacrificing love that seeks others' edification over personal freedom. The Corinthians, obsessed with their rights and status, needed a lived model of cruciform discipleship.
This verse concludes Paul's discussion of Christian liberty (chapters 8-10), where he modeled self-limitation for others' sake—refusing idol meat (8:13), forgoing apostolic rights (9:12-18), becoming all things to all people (9:19-23). Paul's life embodied the cross-shaped wisdom he preached (1:18-25). His call to imitation is specifically Christological imitation: self-sacrificing love that seeks others' edification over personal freedom. The Corinthians, obsessed with their rights and status, needed a lived model of cruciform discipleship.
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. ordinances: or, traditions
View commentary
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you—Paul begins with qualified commendation (contrast v. 17: "I praise you not"). The Greek παραδόσεις (paradoseis, ordinances/traditions) refers to authoritative apostolic teaching passed down orally and in writing. Paul uses technical rabbinic terminology: paredōka (I delivered, v. 23) and katechete (ye keep/hold fast). This isn't human tradition but apostolic tradition rooted in Christ's own words and actions.
The commendation is strategic—Paul will immediately correct their practice of these traditions regarding head coverings (vv. 3-16) and the Lord's Supper (vv. 17-34). The Corinthians remembered his teaching intellectually but applied it badly, revealing their underlying problems: gender confusion in worship and class divisions at the Table. Orthodoxy without orthopraxy is deficient discipleship.
The commendation is strategic—Paul will immediately correct their practice of these traditions regarding head coverings (vv. 3-16) and the Lord's Supper (vv. 17-34). The Corinthians remembered his teaching intellectually but applied it badly, revealing their underlying problems: gender confusion in worship and class divisions at the Table. Orthodoxy without orthopraxy is deficient discipleship.
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.
View commentary
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—Paul establishes a theological hierarchy using κεφαλή (kephalē, head), which can mean source, authority, or both. The threefold chain—God → Christ → man → woman—grounds the head-covering practice (vv. 4-16) in created order, not mere cultural convention.
This verse is controversial but crucial. Kephalē likely carries both source (Genesis 2:21-23, woman from man) and authority (Ephesians 5:23-24). Critically, and the head of Christ is God shows this is not about ontological inferiority—Christ is fully divine—but about economic order within the Trinity (1 Corinthians 15:28). Just as Christ submits to the Father without being less divine, wives' submission to husbands doesn't imply inferior worth or dignity (Galatians 3:28). Paul's theology roots gender roles in creation order and Trinitarian relations, not cultural patriarchy.
This verse is controversial but crucial. Kephalē likely carries both source (Genesis 2:21-23, woman from man) and authority (Ephesians 5:23-24). Critically, and the head of Christ is God shows this is not about ontological inferiority—Christ is fully divine—but about economic order within the Trinity (1 Corinthians 15:28). Just as Christ submits to the Father without being less divine, wives' submission to husbands doesn't imply inferior worth or dignity (Galatians 3:28). Paul's theology roots gender roles in creation order and Trinitarian relations, not cultural patriarchy.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
View commentary
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head—Paul addresses male head covering first. In Jewish custom, men covered their heads in prayer (modern practice, though not universal in the first century). But in Greco-Roman culture, men typically prayed with heads uncovered. Paul sides with Greco-Roman custom here, but his reasoning is theological, not cultural.
The wordplay on kephalē (head) is crucial: the physical head represents the metaphorical head (Christ, v. 3). A covered head symbolically obscures the glory of God that man is to display (v. 7). Dishonoureth his head means both shaming his physical head and dishonoring his metaphorical head, Christ. When men pray or prophesy (both require Spirit-inspiration), they function as representatives of Christ's headship and must visibly display that glory, not veil it.
The wordplay on kephalē (head) is crucial: the physical head represents the metaphorical head (Christ, v. 3). A covered head symbolically obscures the glory of God that man is to display (v. 7). Dishonoureth his head means both shaming his physical head and dishonoring his metaphorical head, Christ. When men pray or prophesy (both require Spirit-inspiration), they function as representatives of Christ's headship and must visibly display that glory, not veil it.
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.
View commentary
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head—Crucially, Paul assumes women are praying and prophesying in public worship. This isn't forbidden (contrast 14:34-35, which addresses disruptive questioning, not Spirit-inspired speech). The issue is how women participate, not whether they participate. An uncovered head dishonors both her physical head and her metaphorical head (the man, v. 3).
For that is even all one as if she were shaven (ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ)—A shaved head signaled shame: prostitution, adultery, or mourning in Greco-Roman culture. Paul's shocking comparison means that removing the head covering in worship carried the same shameful connotation as shaving the head. The covering wasn't mere decoration but a symbol of honor, modesty, and submission to created order. For a woman to prophesy (speak God's word!) while symbolically rejecting that order was contradictory—exercising a gift while despising the Giver's design.
For that is even all one as if she were shaven (ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ)—A shaved head signaled shame: prostitution, adultery, or mourning in Greco-Roman culture. Paul's shocking comparison means that removing the head covering in worship carried the same shameful connotation as shaving the head. The covering wasn't mere decoration but a symbol of honor, modesty, and submission to created order. For a woman to prophesy (speak God's word!) while symbolically rejecting that order was contradictory—exercising a gift while despising the Giver's design.
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.
View commentary
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—Paul uses reductio ad absurdum argumentation. If a Corinthian woman insists on praying unveiled, she should go all the way and shave her head—fully embrace the shame her action already implies. The Greek conditional structure (εἰ γάρ + imperative) presses the logic: uncovered = shaven in symbolic meaning.
The second clause assumes universal agreement: if it be a shame (εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν)—and it obviously was in that culture. Since no respectable woman would willingly shave her head, why symbolically do the equivalent by removing the covering? Paul argues from shame to propriety: the cultural revulsion against shaved heads should extend to uncovered heads in worship. The covering preserves a woman's honor and signifies her embrace of created order while exercising spiritual gifts.
The second clause assumes universal agreement: if it be a shame (εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν)—and it obviously was in that culture. Since no respectable woman would willingly shave her head, why symbolically do the equivalent by removing the covering? Paul argues from shame to propriety: the cultural revulsion against shaved heads should extend to uncovered heads in worship. The covering preserves a woman's honor and signifies her embrace of created order while exercising spiritual gifts.
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.
View commentary
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God—Paul grounds his argument in Genesis 1:26-27. Εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ (eikōn kai doxa theou, image and glory of God) echoes the creation account. Man directly images God and displays His glory. Covering the head symbolically obscures this glory-bearing function. The ὀφείλει (opheilei, ought) indicates moral obligation rooted in creation order, not cultural preference.
But the woman is the glory of the man—This is not ontological inferiority but relational derivative. Woman is equally image-bearer (Genesis 1:27) but uniquely displays man's glory as his helper and complement (Genesis 2:18-23). Just as man's glory derives from God, woman's derives from man (her source, vv. 8-9). The covered head acknowledges this derivative glory—not hiding shame but honoring the chain of glory: God → Christ → man → woman. Far from denigrating women, Paul places them in a creation-ordered relationship that honors both sexes' distinct roles.
But the woman is the glory of the man—This is not ontological inferiority but relational derivative. Woman is equally image-bearer (Genesis 1:27) but uniquely displays man's glory as his helper and complement (Genesis 2:18-23). Just as man's glory derives from God, woman's derives from man (her source, vv. 8-9). The covered head acknowledges this derivative glory—not hiding shame but honoring the chain of glory: God → Christ → man → woman. Far from denigrating women, Paul places them in a creation-ordered relationship that honors both sexes' distinct roles.
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
View commentary
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man—Paul continues his Genesis 2 argument. Οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικός, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός—the preposition ek (from, out of) signals source and derivation. This refers to Eve's creation from Adam's rib/side (Genesis 2:21-22), not biological reproduction (which Paul will address in v. 12). Woman's derivative origin establishes a creational priority of man, though not superiority of value.
This verse is unpopular in egalitarian contexts, but Paul isn't making sociological commentary on modern gender roles—he's establishing theological foundations for worship practice. The head covering symbolizes this creational pattern: woman came from man (source) and was made for man (purpose, v. 9). This doesn't diminish women's worth any more than Christ's submission to the Father diminishes His deity (v. 3, 15:28). Order and equality coexist in biblical theology.
This verse is unpopular in egalitarian contexts, but Paul isn't making sociological commentary on modern gender roles—he's establishing theological foundations for worship practice. The head covering symbolizes this creational pattern: woman came from man (source) and was made for man (purpose, v. 9). This doesn't diminish women's worth any more than Christ's submission to the Father diminishes His deity (v. 3, 15:28). Order and equality coexist in biblical theology.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
View commentary
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man—Paul moves from source (v. 8) to purpose. Διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα (for the woman) versus διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα (for the man)—the preposition dia with accusative indicates purpose or goal. This echoes Genesis 2:18: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Woman was created to complete man, to be his counterpart and companion.
This is purpose, not value. A violin was made for music—this doesn't demean the violin but defines its telos. Similarly, woman's creation "for the man" defines her complementary role without implying inferiority. The head covering symbolizes this purpose-driven creation: woman embraces her God-designed role as helper and complement. Significantly, Paul will balance this with mutuality (vv. 11-12), showing that creational order doesn't eliminate interdependence. The feminist objection misconstrues purpose as oppression, but biblical purpose liberates when aligned with God's design.
This is purpose, not value. A violin was made for music—this doesn't demean the violin but defines its telos. Similarly, woman's creation "for the man" defines her complementary role without implying inferiority. The head covering symbolizes this purpose-driven creation: woman embraces her God-designed role as helper and complement. Significantly, Paul will balance this with mutuality (vv. 11-12), showing that creational order doesn't eliminate interdependence. The feminist objection misconstrues purpose as oppression, but biblical purpose liberates when aligned with God's design.
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. power: that is a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband
View commentary
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels—One of Scripture's most enigmatic verses. Ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς (to have authority on the head) likely means the symbol of authority (the covering itself), not autonomous power. The head covering represents a woman's acceptance of her place in the created order—her exousia (authority/right) to participate in worship while honoring God's design.
Because of the angels (διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους)—interpreters propose: (1) angels as guardians of worship order (cf. Isaiah 6, Revelation 4-5), who observe human worship and are offended by disorder; (2) fallen angels who sinned by crossing boundaries (Genesis 6:1-4, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6), making proper boundaries essential; (3) angels as messengers/ministers whom women must not tempt or distract. Most likely, angels as witnesses to worship (Ephesians 3:10, 1 Timothy 5:21) require proper order that reflects heavenly realities. The covering signals submission to cosmic order, not merely social convention.
Because of the angels (διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους)—interpreters propose: (1) angels as guardians of worship order (cf. Isaiah 6, Revelation 4-5), who observe human worship and are offended by disorder; (2) fallen angels who sinned by crossing boundaries (Genesis 6:1-4, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6), making proper boundaries essential; (3) angels as messengers/ministers whom women must not tempt or distract. Most likely, angels as witnesses to worship (Ephesians 3:10, 1 Timothy 5:21) require proper order that reflects heavenly realities. The covering signals submission to cosmic order, not merely social convention.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
View commentary
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord—After nine verses emphasizing male headship and priority, Paul balances with mutuality. Πλὴν (plēn, nevertheless) signals a crucial qualification. Οὔτε... οὔτε (neither... neither) establishes mutual interdependence. In the Lord (ἐν κυρίῳ) is critical—redemptive reality qualifies but doesn't erase creational order.
This verse prevents misapplication of vv. 3-9. Yes, man has creational priority; yes, woman is from and for man—but in the new creation inaugurated by Christ, neither sex is autonomous or self-sufficient. The mutuality of en kyriō doesn't erase the distinctions Paul just established (he doesn't retract his argument!) but enriches them. Men need women; women need men. The body metaphor (12:12-27) applies to gender: diversity in unity, distinction in interdependence. Paul's theology is both complementarian (distinctions matter) and mutualist (both sexes need each other).
This verse prevents misapplication of vv. 3-9. Yes, man has creational priority; yes, woman is from and for man—but in the new creation inaugurated by Christ, neither sex is autonomous or self-sufficient. The mutuality of en kyriō doesn't erase the distinctions Paul just established (he doesn't retract his argument!) but enriches them. Men need women; women need men. The body metaphor (12:12-27) applies to gender: diversity in unity, distinction in interdependence. Paul's theology is both complementarian (distinctions matter) and mutualist (both sexes need each other).
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
View commentary
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God—Paul continues the mutual balance. Ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός (of/from the man) recalls v. 8—Eve from Adam's side. But διὰ τῆς γυναικός (by/through the woman) reminds us that every man since Adam enters the world through a woman's womb. Biological reproduction reverses the creational order: woman from man (Genesis 2), but men through women (every birth).
But all things of God (τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ)—the theological climax. Both creational priority (man first) and reproductive reversal (man through woman) derive from God. Neither sex can boast or claim autonomy. This echoes 8:6: 'one God, the Father, of whom are all things.' The head-covering debate finds resolution not in cultural norms or gender politics but in theological grounding: God is source of both sexes, their differences, and their mutual need. Worship must reflect this God-designed order.
But all things of God (τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ)—the theological climax. Both creational priority (man first) and reproductive reversal (man through woman) derive from God. Neither sex can boast or claim autonomy. This echoes 8:6: 'one God, the Father, of whom are all things.' The head-covering debate finds resolution not in cultural norms or gender politics but in theological grounding: God is source of both sexes, their differences, and their mutual need. Worship must reflect this God-designed order.
Judge in yourselves : is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
View commentary
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?—Paul shifts from theological argument (vv. 3-12) to appeals to propriety and nature (vv. 13-15). Ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς κρίνατε (judge among yourselves)—Paul invokes the Corinthians' own sense of decorum. Πρέπον ἐστίν (is it fitting/proper?) appeals to innate moral intuition and cultural appropriateness.
This isn't relativism but incarnational theology. Biblical truth engages cultural forms without being reducible to them. In Corinthian context, an uncovered woman praying publicly was aprepon (unseemly, improper)—it violated both creational order and social propriety. Paul doesn't separate theological truth from cultural expression; he expects theological truth to shape cultural practice. The Corinthians' own judgment, properly informed by Scripture and creation, should align with Paul's instruction. This rhetorical question expects agreement—surely you see the impropriety?
This isn't relativism but incarnational theology. Biblical truth engages cultural forms without being reducible to them. In Corinthian context, an uncovered woman praying publicly was aprepon (unseemly, improper)—it violated both creational order and social propriety. Paul doesn't separate theological truth from cultural expression; he expects theological truth to shape cultural practice. The Corinthians' own judgment, properly informed by Scripture and creation, should align with Paul's instruction. This rhetorical question expects agreement—surely you see the impropriety?
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
View commentary
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?—Paul's appeal to φύσις (physis, nature) is debated. Does nature mean: (1) created order/biology (men generally have shorter, coarser hair); (2) natural instinct or intuition; (3) customary practice ('what is natural' in a culture)? Likely all three converge—God's creation generates cultural norms that reflect deeper realities.
Κομᾷ (koma, have long hair) means letting hair grow uncut, not merely longer than women's. In Greco-Roman culture, long hair on men was associated with effeminacy, homosexuality, or philosophical eccentricity (Cynics). Jewish Nazirite vows involved long hair (Numbers 6:5), but this was temporary sanctification, not normative. Paul argues that normative male appearance—short hair—reflects masculine identity, just as the head covering reflects gender order in worship. It is a shame unto him (ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν)—dishonor, loss of dignity. Blurring gender distinctions through appearance dishonors God's design.
Κομᾷ (koma, have long hair) means letting hair grow uncut, not merely longer than women's. In Greco-Roman culture, long hair on men was associated with effeminacy, homosexuality, or philosophical eccentricity (Cynics). Jewish Nazirite vows involved long hair (Numbers 6:5), but this was temporary sanctification, not normative. Paul argues that normative male appearance—short hair—reflects masculine identity, just as the head covering reflects gender order in worship. It is a shame unto him (ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν)—dishonor, loss of dignity. Blurring gender distinctions through appearance dishonors God's design.
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. covering: or, veil
View commentary
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering—The contrast: man's long hair is shame (v. 14), woman's long hair is glory (δόξα, doxa). Long hair signifies femininity, beauty, and God's design. The parallel structure (doxa to woman, atimia to man) reinforces gender distinctiveness as divinely ordained, not culturally arbitrary.
For her hair is given her for a covering (ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται αὐτῇ)—anti peribolaiou (instead of/in place of a covering) is crucial. Does this mean: (1) hair replaces the need for a veil (making vv. 5-6 contradictory)? Unlikely. (2) Hair is a natural covering that points to the need for an additional symbolic covering in worship? Most likely. Nature provides a built-in covering (hair), which itself teaches that women should be covered; in worship, an additional covering symbolizes the principle nature already illustrates. Long hair and head covering both signify the same reality: feminine glory under male headship, creational order honored.
For her hair is given her for a covering (ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται αὐτῇ)—anti peribolaiou (instead of/in place of a covering) is crucial. Does this mean: (1) hair replaces the need for a veil (making vv. 5-6 contradictory)? Unlikely. (2) Hair is a natural covering that points to the need for an additional symbolic covering in worship? Most likely. Nature provides a built-in covering (hair), which itself teaches that women should be covered; in worship, an additional covering symbolizes the principle nature already illustrates. Long hair and head covering both signify the same reality: feminine glory under male headship, creational order honored.
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
View commentary
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God—Paul concludes the head-covering section with apostolic authority. Εἰ δέ τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι (if anyone seems contentious/quarrelsome)—Paul anticipates objections. Philoneikos means love of strife, combative disputation. Some Corinthians were philosophically argumentative, enjoying debate more than obedience.
We have no such custom (ἡμεῖς τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν)—what custom? Either (1) no custom of contentiousness—we don't argue endlessly about apostolic teaching; or (2) no custom of women praying unveiled—universal church practice supports Paul's instruction. Context favors interpretation 1: we (apostles) don't tolerate endless quarreling. Neither the churches of God—the catholic (universal) church agrees. This isn't Paul's idiosyncratic opinion but apostolic tradition received by all churches. Appeal to universal practice ends debate—submission to apostolic authority, not individual preference, governs Christian worship.
We have no such custom (ἡμεῖς τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν)—what custom? Either (1) no custom of contentiousness—we don't argue endlessly about apostolic teaching; or (2) no custom of women praying unveiled—universal church practice supports Paul's instruction. Context favors interpretation 1: we (apostles) don't tolerate endless quarreling. Neither the churches of God—the catholic (universal) church agrees. This isn't Paul's idiosyncratic opinion but apostolic tradition received by all churches. Appeal to universal practice ends debate—submission to apostolic authority, not individual preference, governs Christian worship.
Abuses at the Lord's Supper
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
View commentary
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse—Sharp pivot from head coverings to the Lord's Supper. Οὐκ ἐπαινῶ (I praise not) contrasts with 11:2 ("I praise you"). Paul's tone hardens because the Corinthians' abuse of the Table is more severe than head-covering confusion. Συνέρχομαι (synerchomai, come together) repeats five times (vv. 17, 18, 20, 33, 34)—corporate gathering is central to Paul's concern.
Not for the better, but for the worse (οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧττον)—their assemblies were spiritually harmful, not edifying. This is devastating—worship should build up the body (14:26), but Corinthian practice was tearing it down. The comparative (better/worse) implies worship has directionality: it either forms Christlikeness or deforms it. Neutral worship doesn't exist. The Corinthian abuse of the Table—class divisions, drunkenness, gluttony (vv. 21-22)—made gatherings occasions for sin, not sanctification.
Not for the better, but for the worse (οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧττον)—their assemblies were spiritually harmful, not edifying. This is devastating—worship should build up the body (14:26), but Corinthian practice was tearing it down. The comparative (better/worse) implies worship has directionality: it either forms Christlikeness or deforms it. Neutral worship doesn't exist. The Corinthian abuse of the Table—class divisions, drunkenness, gluttony (vv. 21-22)—made gatherings occasions for sin, not sanctification.
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. divisions: or, schisms
View commentary
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it—Πρῶτον μέν (first of all) signals the first of multiple charges. Σχίσματα (schismata, divisions) recalls 1:10—the same word for factions plaguing Corinth. Paul had hoped chapter 1-4's discussion resolved this; apparently it persisted, now manifesting at the Table.
I partly believe it (καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω)—Paul's measured response. He's heard reports (11:18, 1:11) but withholds full judgment. Yet meros ti (in part) suggests the reports are substantially true, even if exaggerated. Paul's pastoral wisdom: believe credible reports enough to address them, but avoid assuming the worst. The divisions were evident in the social stratification at the Table (v. 21)—rich and poor, honored and shamed, divided by economic class rather than united in Christ.
I partly believe it (καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω)—Paul's measured response. He's heard reports (11:18, 1:11) but withholds full judgment. Yet meros ti (in part) suggests the reports are substantially true, even if exaggerated. Paul's pastoral wisdom: believe credible reports enough to address them, but avoid assuming the worst. The divisions were evident in the social stratification at the Table (v. 21)—rich and poor, honored and shamed, divided by economic class rather than united in Christ.
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. heresies: or, sects
View commentary
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you—Controversial verse. Δεῖ γάρ (dei gar, for there must be) suggests divine necessity. Αἱρέσεις (haireseis, heresies) originally meant factions or parties (related to schismata, v. 18), not doctrinal error (later technical meaning). God uses even sinful divisions for His purposes: revealing character.
That they which are approved may be made manifest (ἵνα οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται)—dokimoi (approved/tested) is a metallurgical term for refined gold. Divisions act as fire that tests and reveals genuine faith versus false profession. Those who pursue unity, love, and humility prove themselves genuine; those who foster division for selfish gain expose their carnal nature. Paul doesn't endorse divisions but acknowledges God's sovereignty in using even sin to refine His church. This echoes Jesus's warning: "offenses must come" (Matthew 18:7).
That they which are approved may be made manifest (ἵνα οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται)—dokimoi (approved/tested) is a metallurgical term for refined gold. Divisions act as fire that tests and reveals genuine faith versus false profession. Those who pursue unity, love, and humility prove themselves genuine; those who foster division for selfish gain expose their carnal nature. Paul doesn't endorse divisions but acknowledges God's sovereignty in using even sin to refine His church. This echoes Jesus's warning: "offenses must come" (Matthew 18:7).
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. this: or, ye cannot eat
View commentary
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper—Stinging indictment. Συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (when you come together into one place)—the phrase epi to auto recalls Acts 2:44, 47 (believers gathered 'together'). Church assembly is meant for unity, but Corinthian practice contradicted this.
This is not to eat the Lord's supper (οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν)—kyriakon deipnon (Lord's supper) appears here first in Scripture. Paul coins the term to distinguish the sacred meal from ordinary eating. Their gatherings looked like the Lord's Supper but weren't—divisions, gluttony, and drunkenness evacuated the meal of its covenantal meaning. Form without substance, ritual without reality. This anticipates vv. 27-29: unworthy participation brings judgment. The Lord's Supper belongs to the Lord and must reflect His character (self-giving love) and His body (unity in diversity).
This is not to eat the Lord's supper (οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν)—kyriakon deipnon (Lord's supper) appears here first in Scripture. Paul coins the term to distinguish the sacred meal from ordinary eating. Their gatherings looked like the Lord's Supper but weren't—divisions, gluttony, and drunkenness evacuated the meal of its covenantal meaning. Form without substance, ritual without reality. This anticipates vv. 27-29: unworthy participation brings judgment. The Lord's Supper belongs to the Lord and must reflect His character (self-giving love) and His body (unity in diversity).
For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
View commentary
For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken—Paul specifies the abuse. Ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει (each one takes beforehand his own supper)—prolambanei means to take beforehand, eat ahead of others. Instead of waiting and sharing, the wealthy consumed their private meals immediately, ignoring latecomers.
And one is hungry, and another is drunken (καὶ ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ, ὃς δὲ μεθύει)—the devastating result. Peinao (is hungry) describes literal physical hunger; methyō (is drunken) means intoxication from wine. The contrast is stark: poverty and wealth, deprivation and excess, shame and indulgence—all at the Table meant to proclaim unity in Christ's death. This wasn't merely bad manners but covenant violation. The Lord's Supper signifies Christ's body broken for all equally; Corinthian practice signaled that some mattered more than others. Economic injustice desecrated the gospel.
And one is hungry, and another is drunken (καὶ ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ, ὃς δὲ μεθύει)—the devastating result. Peinao (is hungry) describes literal physical hunger; methyō (is drunken) means intoxication from wine. The contrast is stark: poverty and wealth, deprivation and excess, shame and indulgence—all at the Table meant to proclaim unity in Christ's death. This wasn't merely bad manners but covenant violation. The Lord's Supper signifies Christ's body broken for all equally; Corinthian practice signaled that some mattered more than others. Economic injustice desecrated the gospel.
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. have not: or, are poor?
View commentary
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?—Paul's rhetorical questions intensify. Μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε (have you not houses?)—if you want to gorge yourselves, do it at home! The church gathering is for mutual edification, not private consumption. Ironically, the wealthy do have houses; the poor don't—making the rich's behavior doubly offensive.
Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?—Καταφρονεῖτε (kataphroneite, despise) is strong—treating with contempt. Τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ (the church of God) emphasizes whose assembly this is. To divide the church by class is to despise God Himself. Καταισχύνετε (kataischynete, put to shame) means to humiliate publicly. The poor weren't just hungry; they were shamed before the congregation. Paul's pastoral indignation mirrors Jesus's woes against the Pharisees—religious leaders who 'devour widows' houses' (Mark 12:40). Economic injustice masquerading as worship is hypocrisy.
Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?—Καταφρονεῖτε (kataphroneite, despise) is strong—treating with contempt. Τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ (the church of God) emphasizes whose assembly this is. To divide the church by class is to despise God Himself. Καταισχύνετε (kataischynete, put to shame) means to humiliate publicly. The poor weren't just hungry; they were shamed before the congregation. Paul's pastoral indignation mirrors Jesus's woes against the Pharisees—religious leaders who 'devour widows' houses' (Mark 12:40). Economic injustice masquerading as worship is hypocrisy.
The Institution of the Lord's Supper
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:
View commentary
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—Paul pivots from rebuke to institution narrative. Παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (I received from the Lord)—technical language of apostolic tradition (cf. 15:3). Did Paul receive this directly via revelation or through apostolic testimony? Both: the tradition came through the apostles, but Paul's authority to transmit it came from Christ Himself.
The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed (ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο)—paredideto (was betrayed/handed over) is imperfect tense: the action of betrayal was in process. This solemnizes the meal—instituted at Jesus's darkest hour, surrounded by treachery, abandonment, and impending crucifixion. Yet Jesus didn't cancel the meal or despair; He instituted a sacred ordinance pointing to His death as substitutionary atonement. The Corinthians' abuse of this meal, instituted in such gravity, is especially heinous.
The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed (ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο)—paredideto (was betrayed/handed over) is imperfect tense: the action of betrayal was in process. This solemnizes the meal—instituted at Jesus's darkest hour, surrounded by treachery, abandonment, and impending crucifixion. Yet Jesus didn't cancel the meal or despair; He instituted a sacred ordinance pointing to His death as substitutionary atonement. The Corinthians' abuse of this meal, instituted in such gravity, is especially heinous.
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. in: or, for a remembrance
View commentary
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—Εὐχαριστήσας (eucharistēsas, having given thanks)—the term from which "Eucharist" derives. Jesus thanked the Father for the bread that symbolized His impending death—stunning faith. Ἔκλασεν (eklasen, he broke) is symbolic: breaking bread pictures His body broken on the cross.
This is my body, which is broken for you—Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. The verb "is" has generated centuries of debate (transubstantiation, consubstantiation, memorialism). Paul's focus is hyper hymōn (for you)—substitutionary atonement. Christ's body broken for us, in our place, bearing our judgment. This do in remembrance of me (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν)—anamnēsis (remembrance) is more than mental recall; it's covenant renewal, re-presenting and participating in the reality of Christ's death. The Table makes the past sacrifice present to faith.
This is my body, which is broken for you—Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. The verb "is" has generated centuries of debate (transubstantiation, consubstantiation, memorialism). Paul's focus is hyper hymōn (for you)—substitutionary atonement. Christ's body broken for us, in our place, bearing our judgment. This do in remembrance of me (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν)—anamnēsis (remembrance) is more than mental recall; it's covenant renewal, re-presenting and participating in the reality of Christ's death. The Table makes the past sacrifice present to faith.
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.
View commentary
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—Μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι (after supper)—the cup came after the meal (the third or fourth Passover cup). Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου—this cup is the new covenant in my blood.
Diathēkē (covenant/testament) evokes Jeremiah 31:31-34 (new covenant), Exodus 24:8 (Moses's blood ratification), and Zechariah 9:11 (blood of covenant). The new covenant, promised by the prophets, is ratified by Christ's blood, replacing the Mosaic covenant's animal sacrifices with His once-for-all offering (Hebrews 9:11-28). As oft as ye drink it (ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε)—frequency is unspecified but regularity assumed. Each participation re-proclaims covenant membership in Christ's death and the new exodus from sin.
Diathēkē (covenant/testament) evokes Jeremiah 31:31-34 (new covenant), Exodus 24:8 (Moses's blood ratification), and Zechariah 9:11 (blood of covenant). The new covenant, promised by the prophets, is ratified by Christ's blood, replacing the Mosaic covenant's animal sacrifices with His once-for-all offering (Hebrews 9:11-28). As oft as ye drink it (ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε)—frequency is unspecified but regularity assumed. Each participation re-proclaims covenant membership in Christ's death and the new exodus from sin.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. ye do: or, shew ye
View commentary
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come—Ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε... καὶ πίνητε (as often as you eat... and drink)—Paul emphasizes regularity without mandating frequency. Each celebration is proclamation: καταγγέλλετε (katangellō, you proclaim/announce). The Table is kerygmatic—it preaches the gospel.
Ye do shew the Lord's death—the Table is visual sermon. Τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου (the death of the Lord) is central: not His teachings, not His example, but His substitutionary death. Till he come (ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ)—eschatological orientation. The Table looks backward (remembrance, v. 24) and forward (return, v. 26). Between Christ's first and second comings, the Table sustains the church, proclaiming His death until He returns to consummate the kingdom. Communion is pilgrimage meal—nourishment for the journey home.
Ye do shew the Lord's death—the Table is visual sermon. Τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου (the death of the Lord) is central: not His teachings, not His example, but His substitutionary death. Till he come (ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ)—eschatological orientation. The Table looks backward (remembrance, v. 24) and forward (return, v. 26). Between Christ's first and second comings, the Table sustains the church, proclaiming His death until He returns to consummate the kingdom. Communion is pilgrimage meal—nourishment for the journey home.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
View commentary
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord—Solemn warning. Ὥστε (wherefore) draws conclusion from vv. 23-26. Ἀναξίως (anaxiōs, unworthily) is adverb—it modifies how one eats, not who is worthy (no one is inherently worthy!). Unworthy eating includes divisions, gluttony, drunkenness (vv. 21-22), and failing to discern the Lord's body (v. 29).
Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου)—enochos means guilty, liable to judgment, answerable for. Unworthy participation makes one guilty of sinning against Christ Himself—akin to participation in His crucifixion. This echoes Hebrews 6:6 (crucifying Christ afresh) and 10:29 (trampling the Son of God underfoot). The Table is sacred; treating it casually or divisively profanes Christ's sacrifice. This isn't legalism but reverence—the meal signifies Christ's death and demands heart preparation.
Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου)—enochos means guilty, liable to judgment, answerable for. Unworthy participation makes one guilty of sinning against Christ Himself—akin to participation in His crucifixion. This echoes Hebrews 6:6 (crucifying Christ afresh) and 10:29 (trampling the Son of God underfoot). The Table is sacred; treating it casually or divisively profanes Christ's sacrifice. This isn't legalism but reverence—the meal signifies Christ's death and demands heart preparation.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
View commentary
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup—The solution to unworthy eating: self-examination. Δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτόν (let a man examine himself)—dokimazō means to test, prove, scrutinize (metallurgical term, testing metals for purity). This isn't morbid introspection but honest self-assessment before God. The examination focuses on: attitudes toward others (divisions, v. 18), treatment of the poor (v. 22), and discernment of Christ's body (v. 29).
And so let him eat (καὶ οὕτως... ἐσθιέτω)—after examination, participate. The goal isn't to scare believers away from the Table but to prepare them to approach worthily. Self-examination should produce repentance, reconciliation, and faith—then eat. The Table is for sinners who know they're sinners, not for the self-righteous. Calvin called this "fencing the Table"—protecting it from profanation while welcoming the penitent.
And so let him eat (καὶ οὕτως... ἐσθιέτω)—after examination, participate. The goal isn't to scare believers away from the Table but to prepare them to approach worthily. Self-examination should produce repentance, reconciliation, and faith—then eat. The Table is for sinners who know they're sinners, not for the self-righteous. Calvin called this "fencing the Table"—protecting it from profanation while welcoming the penitent.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. damnation: or, judgment
View commentary
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body—Paul specifies what makes eating unworthy: μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα (not discerning the body). Diakrinō means to distinguish, judge correctly, recognize. What body? (1) Christ's physical body sacrificed on the cross—failing to see the Table as representing Christ's atoning death; (2) the church as Christ's body (12:12-27)—failing to honor unity and diversity within the congregation. Context favors both: Corinthians dishonored Christ's sacrifice and divided His body.
Eateth and drinketh damnation to himself (κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει)—krima means judgment, not necessarily eternal condemnation. Paul clarifies in v. 32: temporal discipline ('chastened') not final damnation. Yet the judgment is real—God doesn't overlook profaning the Table. The same meal that nourishes faith when received worthily brings judgment when received unworthily. This mirrors Israel's wilderness experience: manna sustained the faithful but judgment fell on rebels (1 Corinthians 10:1-12).
Eateth and drinketh damnation to himself (κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει)—krima means judgment, not necessarily eternal condemnation. Paul clarifies in v. 32: temporal discipline ('chastened') not final damnation. Yet the judgment is real—God doesn't overlook profaning the Table. The same meal that nourishes faith when received worthily brings judgment when received unworthily. This mirrors Israel's wilderness experience: manna sustained the faithful but judgment fell on rebels (1 Corinthians 10:1-12).
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
View commentary
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep—Shocking assertion: divine judgment for Table abuse manifested physically. Διὰ τοῦτο (for this cause) links directly to unworthy eating (vv. 27-29). Πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι (many weak and sickly)—physical illness, not spiritual weakness. Κοιμῶνται (sleep) is euphemism for death (John 11:11-14, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-15).
Paul connects sin with sickness and death—a controversial link. Not all sickness is judgment (John 9:3), but some is (Acts 5:1-11, Ananias and Sapphira; Acts 13:11, Elymas struck blind). The Corinthians' flagrant abuse of the Table—dividing the body, despising the poor, profaning Christ's sacrifice—brought covenantal judgment. This echoes Old Testament warnings about covenant violation (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Yet the judgment is disciplinary ('chastened,' v. 32), not retributive—God disciplines His children to prevent final condemnation.
Paul connects sin with sickness and death—a controversial link. Not all sickness is judgment (John 9:3), but some is (Acts 5:1-11, Ananias and Sapphira; Acts 13:11, Elymas struck blind). The Corinthians' flagrant abuse of the Table—dividing the body, despising the poor, profaning Christ's sacrifice—brought covenantal judgment. This echoes Old Testament warnings about covenant violation (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Yet the judgment is disciplinary ('chastened,' v. 32), not retributive—God disciplines His children to prevent final condemnation.
For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
View commentary
For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged—Prevention of divine judgment through self-judgment. Εἰ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν (if we would judge/discern ourselves)—conditional sentence (contrary to fact): if we had judged ourselves (but we didn't). Diakrinomai (same root as 'discerning' in v. 29) means critically evaluate, sift, distinguish. Self-judgment involves recognizing sin, repenting, reconciling, and correcting behavior.
We should not be judged (οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα)—by God. Divine judgment is avoidable through self-examination and repentance. This isn't works-righteousness but covenant faithfulness—those in Christ are called to walk worthy of their calling (Ephesians 4:1). God's fatherly discipline (v. 32) is corrective, not punitive, but it's still real. Proactive self-judgment (v. 28) prevents reactive divine judgment (v. 30). This principle applies beyond the Table: Christians must examine themselves in all areas (2 Corinthians 13:5, Galatians 6:4), confess sin (1 John 1:9), and pursue holiness (Hebrews 12:14).
We should not be judged (οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα)—by God. Divine judgment is avoidable through self-examination and repentance. This isn't works-righteousness but covenant faithfulness—those in Christ are called to walk worthy of their calling (Ephesians 4:1). God's fatherly discipline (v. 32) is corrective, not punitive, but it's still real. Proactive self-judgment (v. 28) prevents reactive divine judgment (v. 30). This principle applies beyond the Table: Christians must examine themselves in all areas (2 Corinthians 13:5, Galatians 6:4), confess sin (1 John 1:9), and pursue holiness (Hebrews 12:14).
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
View commentary
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world—Paul clarifies the nature of divine judgment on believers. Κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου παιδευόμεθα (being judged by the Lord we are disciplined)—paideuō means to train, educate, discipline (like a father disciplines a child, Hebrews 12:5-11). This isn't wrath but fatherly correction.
That we should not be condemned with the world (ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν)—katakrithōmen (condemned) is final judicial verdict. God's children won't face eschatological condemnation (Romans 8:1: 'no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus'). But temporal discipline prevents apostasy and keeps believers on the narrow path. The 'world' (kosmos) represents rebellious humanity under judgment. Believers are distinguished from the world not by sinlessness but by repentance under divine discipline. Judgment on believers is remedial; judgment on the world is final.
That we should not be condemned with the world (ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν)—katakrithōmen (condemned) is final judicial verdict. God's children won't face eschatological condemnation (Romans 8:1: 'no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus'). But temporal discipline prevents apostasy and keeps believers on the narrow path. The 'world' (kosmos) represents rebellious humanity under judgment. Believers are distinguished from the world not by sinlessness but by repentance under divine discipline. Judgment on believers is remedial; judgment on the world is final.
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
View commentary
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another—Paul concludes with practical instruction. Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου (wherefore, my brothers)—affectionate address after stern correction. Συνερχόμενοι φαγεῖν (coming together to eat)—the fifth use of synerchomai in this section (vv. 17, 18, 20, 33, 34), emphasizing corporate dimension.
Tarry one for another (ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε)—ekdechomai means to wait for, receive hospitably. The wealthy shouldn't start eating before the poor arrive. This simple command addresses the root problem: selfishness, class division, and contempt for poorer members. Waiting embodies the gospel: Christ waited for us (Romans 5:6-8, 'while we were still sinners'), so we wait for each other. The Table is communal, not individualistic. Mutual love must characterize the meal, or it's not the Lord's Supper (v. 20). This applies beyond the Table—all Christian community should be marked by patience, preference of others, and mutual love (Philippians 2:3-4).
Tarry one for another (ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε)—ekdechomai means to wait for, receive hospitably. The wealthy shouldn't start eating before the poor arrive. This simple command addresses the root problem: selfishness, class division, and contempt for poorer members. Waiting embodies the gospel: Christ waited for us (Romans 5:6-8, 'while we were still sinners'), so we wait for each other. The Table is communal, not individualistic. Mutual love must characterize the meal, or it's not the Lord's Supper (v. 20). This applies beyond the Table—all Christian community should be marked by patience, preference of others, and mutual love (Philippians 2:3-4).
And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. condemnation: or, judgment
View commentary
And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation—Final instruction. Εἴ τις πεινᾷ (if anyone is hungry)—if your primary purpose is satisfying physical hunger, eat at home. The church gathering isn't for gluttony but worship. This distinguishes agape feast (fellowship meal) from the Lord's Supper proper (sacramental meal). Over time, the church separated these—communion became distinct from common meals.
That ye come not together unto condemnation (ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα συνέρχησθε)—the stakes are high. Church assemblies should edify, not incur judgment (v. 17: 'not for the better, but for the worse'). Paul's concern is pastoral: he wants the Corinthians' gatherings to bless, not curse them. And the rest will I set in order when I come (τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ὡς ἂν ἔλθω διατάξομαι)—other issues await Paul's visit, but these needed immediate written correction. This hints at ongoing problems in Corinth (see 2 Corinthians) and Paul's apostolic authority to set church order.
That ye come not together unto condemnation (ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα συνέρχησθε)—the stakes are high. Church assemblies should edify, not incur judgment (v. 17: 'not for the better, but for the worse'). Paul's concern is pastoral: he wants the Corinthians' gatherings to bless, not curse them. And the rest will I set in order when I come (τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ὡς ἂν ἔλθω διατάξομαι)—other issues await Paul's visit, but these needed immediate written correction. This hints at ongoing problems in Corinth (see 2 Corinthians) and Paul's apostolic authority to set church order.