Verse by Verse

⁴ There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

⁵ There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord.

⁶ And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.

⁷ But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:

⁸ for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit,

⁹ to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit,

¹⁰ to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.

diversities (v.4) — may include the meaning of “distributions”

gifts (v.4) — charisma, gifts of grace

same (vs. 4-6) — Here we see the Trinity present in the administration of the Church. In verse four — “diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.” This is God, the Holy Spirit. In verse five — “differences of administrations but the same Lord.” This is God, the Son. In verse six — “diversities of operations but the same God.” This is God, the Father, Thus, we see many  human capabilities but one divine source.

There is also to be seen here a unity of purpose in the object for which the gifts are given as expressed in verse seven. Here were gifts for human good. Their object was the good and benefit of man. All men were intended to profit from gifts that might have been given to a few men. These gifts were never intended for the monopoly of their possessors. God gave them for the blessing of all. —Laurin, page 206.

activities (v.6) — forms of service

wisdom (v.8) — God-given ability to gauge the true nature and value of things and their relation to one another

knowledge (v.8) — God-given intelligent apprehension of facts and principles

faith (v.9) — not referring to saving faith, but faith manifested by deeds

The three different prepositions in verses 8 and 9 regarding the agency of the Spirit are to be noted: “through” represents the instrumentality, the power to accomplish; “According to,” the standard or measure of accomplishment; “in,” the element in which the accomplishment is effected. — Vine, page 87

prophecy (v.10) — telling forth God’s revelation before the full revelation of Scripture was complete

discerning of spirits (v.10) — ability to determine if another was speaking from God or not

tongues (v.10) — a sign to Jews (1 Corinthians 14:21-22; Isaiah 28:11-13)

The supernatural manifestations such as speaking with tongues and prophesyings all took place within twelve years from Pentecost, as recorded in the Acts, and on all occasions when Jews were present. See Acts 2:22-36; secondly, 8:14-17, in Samaria; Thirdly, 10:45, in the house of Cornelius, where “they of the circumcision were amazed”; fourthly and lastly, 19:2-6, at Ephesus, in the case of “certain disciples” of John the Baptist. There is no further instance of, or even reference to, this kind of demonstration after this in the Acts or anywhere in the epistles. The period was one of transition, marked by God’s testimony to Jews. — Vine, page 88

__________

The gift of tongues, then, was not an emotional gibberish but a genuine linguistic ability imparted to the apostles and disciples of the infant church for the purpose of presenting the gospel in languages they had never learned. — Laurin, page 211.

__________

 “Divers kinds of tongues” refers to the gift of speaking in other languages without having learned them. “The interpretation of tongues” was a gift of the Spirit that gave confirmation through another member that the first did indeed speak in another language. Certain it is that the gibberish often heard at modern “tongues” meetings has nothing to do with the gift of tongues (See Acts 2:4-11; 1 Corinthians 13:1).

It is debatable whether the apostle lists these gifts of the Spirit strictly in the order of their importance, yet the gift of tongues is found last and in all three lists given by Paul (1 Corinthians 12:8-11, 28 and 29-30), very possibly indicating its relative significance. Also, in his main treatment of the subject (14:1-28) he consistently compares tongues unfavorably with prophecy, and adds words of caution with respect to speaking in tongues. Again, 1 Corinthians 12-14 is the only place in all of Paul’s epistles where the gift of tongues is even mentioned, and at the same time this is the only church he labelled “carnal” and “babes,” the very church that made so much of tongues. It appears that the highest word of commendation Paul could find for speaking in tongues was his statement: “Forbid not to speak with tongues” (14:39), for tongues, rightly and scripturally used were a “gift of the spirit.” Finally, the apostle clearly states in 1 Corinthians 13:8-11 that the gift of tongues would pass away like a childhood experience. It was a temporary thing. — Stam, pages 207-208.

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant:

² You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led.

³ Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

I make known to you (v.3) — When they were heathens, the Corinthians knew nothing of spiritual things and were easily led into the worship of idols (and the satanic power behind them), but now that Paul has instructed them, they have a basis for discernment.

Jesus accursed (v.3) — It is by no means unlikely that the Jews would make those who had been friendly toward the Christians either pronounce this curse or be thrown out of the synagogue as is recorded in John 9:22. Paul said to Agrippa when testifying of his former persecution of Christians, “I often punished them in every synagogue and forced them to blaspheme” (Acts 26:11).

Bible history and Bible antiquity tell us that in Paul’s day when the saints were gathered for worship and the gospel was being preached, many times unbelievers or hostile persons would gain admission into the synagogue, and in the midst of the message these men would suddenly spring to their feet and shout out, “Anathema Jesus!” Historians also tell us that the Gnostics demanded that anyone who joined them shout out these words. — Laurin, page 389.

__________

It has often been asked why miraculous signs basically associated with Pentecost and Israel, should now be found among the Gentiles. Our answer is that these signs were bestowed largely though, not only, for the sake of the Jews.

 Acts 18 relates how the Corinthian church got started in a Jewish synagogue, but Paul’s ministry there did not last long, for soon there was a division over Christ, and Paul and the believers had to continue their meetings in the house of a Gentile named Justus. From this point on the church grew by leaps and bounds until now as Paul writes to them they are a large, apparently a very large, church, composed mostly of Gentile believers.

But 1 Corinthians is largely a letter of rebuke for the loose, indifferent lives they lived. What a poor testimony to the Jews, who surely had their eyes on them now!

However, God gave the Jews unimpeachable evidence that the message about Christ, which the Corinthians saints proclaimed, was true: these miraculous signs the Jews must accept (1 Corinthians 1:22) — Stam, page 201

²⁷ Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

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

²⁹ For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

³⁰ For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

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

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

³³ Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.

³⁴ But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

wherefore (v.27) — points back to verse 26

in an unworthy manner (v.27) — We are all unworthy based on our sin natures, but this is referring to the specific sins (gluttony, drunkenness) mentioned in v.21.

Many have taken the adverb [in an unworthy manner] as an adjective so that it would define the partakers as being unworthy, and feeling themselves unworthy, they did not dare partake of it. It is not an adjective but an adverb and defines the unworthy manner of eating and drinking of the Corinthian believers; their gluttony and intoxication. — Bultema, page 95

guilty (v.27) = liable to the penal effect of a deed — in this case, a share in the guilt for the death of the Lord

examine (v.28) = prove, test, with a view to approval — examine as to motives and conduct in participation

examine himself (v.28) — each person is to determine his or her own fitness

sleep (v.30) — always used in Scripture for the death of a believer — from the Greek word from which we get our word “cemetery.”

In that day there was still immediate judgment for sin. It has been said that we should not have the Lord’s table any longer, since the judgments connected with it are not found among us any longer, but according to this reasoning we would not have a gospel since the miracles were also once connected with it. The Lord chastised the Corinthians church in that day by inflicting many with weakness, sickness, and death. This immediate judgment and other signs we find connected with the ecclesia of God during all the Acts period when God still dealt with Israel. Only after He had set aside Israel in Acts 28, and the full and final revelation of the mystery had been given concerning the sussoma [body], did these miraculous signs stop. — Bultema, page 96.

It’s a dangerous thing to interpret Scripture based on personal observation, but when theologians tell us something will happen if … and that thing never happens no matter how often the “if” occurs, it’s fair to ask why.

Three of my commentaries on 1 Corinthians take the hard line on this passage, stating that if anyone should partake of the ordinance of the Lord’s supper with any unconfessed sin, he or she is liable to chastisement by the Lord by means of sickness and death. If this was true, churches would be experiencing a much higher rate of sickness and death than they do. The simple fact is that very few, if any, people in the pews skip the bread and juice as they’re passed down the rows, and I simply cannot believe that none of those people have unconfessed sin. I know for a fact that I’ve taken them during times when I wasn’t walking in my faith as I should be.

So what then? First, I’m not sure what we do in most churches today even qualifies as the Lord’s supper as Paul intended it to happen. Not that we can’t take the time to reflect on the Lord’s death — we can and should. But that doesn’t mean we’re doing it right. I still think it might well refer to a meal shared by the church members in which the breaking of bread at the beginning and drinking of wine at the end were intended to be times of focus on the Lord. But I’m not sure of that.

Second, it would be pretty hard to be a glutton on the minuscule bits of bread we use or get drunk on the eye-dropper of non-alcoholic grape juice, so, technically, it would be impossible to take the bread and wine in an unworthy manner as the Corinthians were doing.

Third, nowhere in the church epistles are we called on to confess in the first place. Paul talks extensively about his own sin nature in Romans 7 and follows it up, not with confession, but with the wonderful truth that there is no condemnation for those in Christ.

This passage was written during the Transition Period between law and grace, when aspects of the kingdom gospel — including the punishments given to Ananias and Sapphira, and tongues (as we will see in the next chapters) — were still in effect but fading out. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, Colossians 2 makes it clear that ordinances and the law were both wiped out.

This isn’t my view alone. Three of my commentaries — Bultema, Stam, and to a lesser extent Laurin — all take this position. As with most every passage, there’s nothing like a consensus among the experts, leaving me with the right, and the responsibility, to study it for myself.

²³ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;

²⁴ and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

²⁵ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

²⁶ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

I (v.23 – 1st use) — strongly emphasized — Paul received this revelation from the Lord, not from the other apostles (Galatians 1:11-12)

I also delivered (v.23) — Paul had given them this revelation in person, but they hadn’t listened, so he was giving it to them in writing.

This was a special revelation for these Gentiles in the flesh (1 Corinthians 12:2). It was not a continuation of the Passover feast; it was not “delivered” to a congregation which was mainly Jewish; he “delivered” these instructions from the glorified Lord to these saved Gentiles.

Further, this is by no means an ordinance; it is a glad celebration. He himself had written with regard to the ordinances of Judaism: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [i.e., the law], that was against us; which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross” (Colossians 2:14).

Again he says in Ephesians 2:15: “having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances ...” 

Ordinances in Scripture are consistently “things ordained,” i.e., for acceptance with God. This is not so with the Lord’s supper. The apostle does not even command his readers to observe it. Rather all is left to grace as he naturally assumes that those so gloriously redeemed will want to celebrate the great sacrifice of their Redeemer. — Stam, pages 194-195.

He was betrayed (v.23) = lit. “He was being betrayed” — The plot by Judas was underway as the Lord spoke. — Emphasizes the seriousness in contrast with the way the Corinthians were behaving.

bread (v.23) — the loaf associated with the Passover meal

given thanks (v.24) = praised, acknowledged the goodness of God

broken (v.24) — in the best manuscripts, this word is the word for “given” — None of His bones was broken.

The idea, which was promulgated early in Church history by an apostate system, that the bread was the actual body of Christ, by transubstantiation, is negatived by the fact that Christ’s human body was present at the table. Moreover, His blood was not yet shed.

Christ had taken a physical body, becoming incarnate, in order that in His atoning sacrifice He might yield His body up to death by crucifixion; this is conveyed in the phrase “which is for you,” and of this bread is the symbol and token.  Had He not done so, there would be no spiritual nourishment for us in and by His Person, of which the bread is the emblem. — Vine, page 80

do this (v.24) — giving thanks and breaking off a piece of the load, each for himself

remembrance  (v.24) = a bringing to mind — not a memorial

in the same manner (v.25) — as with the bread

this cup is (v.25) — represents the new covenant ratified and sealed by His blood

covenant (v.25) — the Greek word is not the word for an agreement between two parties

Does this mean that the Lord’s Supper concerns the new Covenant made “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31)? To answer this question let us ask two others. Does the Old Covenant, the Law, concern us Gentiles? Was it not made, also with Israel alone? Yes, but it concerns us, nevertheless, for it was given “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Romans 3:19), and Paul wrote this to Gentiles.

Then, does not the New Covenant similarly concern Gentile believers? For of a surety, the New Covenant is a replacement of the Old. As Sir Robert Anderson so beautifully put it: “What Israel will one day receive by covenant, we now receive by grace.” It should be noted that the New Covenant, unlike the others, is completely concerned with spiritual blessings, thus it is not Peter, but Paul who, with his co-workers, was an “able minister of the New Covenant” (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Finally, “the blood of the New Covenant” was the only blood our Lord shed, and it is by that blood that we are saved and blessed. Hence the blood which was shed for us was in fact “the blood of the New Covenant,” more significant to us now that it ever could have been to Israel. Thus we gratefully “show the Lord’s death till He come” to a world that goes its way in revelry and sin. — Stam, page 196.

as often (v.25) — every time

till He comes (v.26) — continue doing this until the Lord returns

It’s very difficult to figure out exactly what the “Lord’s supper” is supposed to look like. The commentaries do not agree — one says that we aren’t told to do it but, under grace, want to do it to celebrate what the Lord did for us in His death and resurrection. Another says that if we don’t do it, we will be punished. One says it must be done every week. Others point out that we’re never told how often we should do it. One thinks it should take place in a gathering of believers in a home but never in the church. Others think it must be done in the evening. Most of them seem to be interpreting the passage to support whatever their particular church does with communion.

I’ve tried to pay attention to what Paul is actually instructing the Corinthians to do. It seems to me that it’s a lot less formal that most churches make it — it’s certainly not the tiny piece of stale bread and half a tiny cup of grape juice handed out by ushers  like my church does it. I’m not even sure it’s supposed to be a separate “meal.” It seems like it could be read to mean that whenever believers eat together, they should begin and end the meal with remembering what the Lord has done and thanking Him for it.  But I haven’t reached any final conclusions.

¹⁷ Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse.

¹⁸ For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.

¹⁹ For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

²⁰ Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

²¹ For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

²² What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

I do not praise you (v.17) — Paul found a reason for praising them in verse 2, but not here.

better (v.17) = (spiritually) advantageous

worse (v.17) = (spiritually) deteriorating

as a church (v.18) = as an assembly — not referring to a building

divisions (v.18) = dissensions — wrong living

in part I believe it (v.18) — Paul seems to be indicating that he’s willing to think better of them or believe the reports had been exaggerated.

factions (v.19) — the divisions referred to in verse 18, but with the added idea of conscious choice — wrong thinking

approved (v.19) = have stood the test — individuals who stand out because their refusal to act wrongly is in marked contrast to the behavior of most.

A “heretic” is simply a dissenter. A heretic may rise to dissent from self-will, or he may protest wrong being done or taught. The wrong kind of heresy is that which dissents from the truth of the Word of God; the right kind of heresy, that which dissents from what is wrong. In the case above the apostle says, there must be dissensions, protests, against the disorders at your love feasts, “that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (v.19).

It is important too to observe the meaning of the word “divisions” (v.18). The Greek, schisma is simply our “schism,” an alienation or estrangement. This throws further light on the problem at Corinth. It was not a theological problem; it was that some had “rubbed each other the wrong way.” In 12:25 the apostle declares: That there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another.  Stam, page 193

not to eat the Lord’s supper (v. 20) — they came together to eat, but their behavior prevented it from being the Lord’s supper

one is hungry (v.21) — no sharing

What! (v.22) — “Why bother coming together?”

do you not have houses (v.22) — If you’re simply satisfying your appetites, do it at home.

shame (v.22) — The rich were shaming the poor with their unshared abundance.

There’s a wide range of opinion on this passage (and the verses that follow), mostly, I’m guessing, because of differences of opinion regarding progressive revelation. Here’s what some of my commentaries say:

The statement “in eating” [v.21] points out that actually the occasion was only a simple meal which each of the believers could have eaten anywhere. They were probably  mixing up the “love-feast” (Agape) with the Lord’s supper. The love-feast was a meal of which the early Christians partook in common. Each participant brought his own share of food, and all contributions were pooled to make a common feast. Thus the poor who could bring but little, shared in the plenty of those who had in abundance. The Corinthians, however, had lost this Christian fellowship and had resorted to class distinction. The poor brought of their scant store and went away hungry, while the wealthy brought abundantly of their rich foods (including wines) and became intoxicated as well as making gluttons of themselves. It seems that they did not put their food together, there was no sharing; but rather, each ate what he brought. So in reality it was not a meal in common — they did not share and share alike. Thus the Christian principle was destroyed at the very meal that should have displayed it in practice. To call such a meal “the Lord’s supper” was unscriptural and did grievous abuse to that observance. — Greene, pages 367-368

__________

There was a shameful abuse of the Lord’s table. Baptism was also abused but he did not make a single attempt to reform this. On the other hand, he said that he thanked God that he did not baptize any but two with a family (1:14-15); but here he rebukes the abuses and proceeds to set it right. This was in the year 59. According to Charles Welch, he received the full blaze of the mystery of the Body at 60 A.D. [Acts 28]. If now, as some say, the Lord’s table does not belong to the Body, why then should Paul proceed to reform it for just one year. If it had been a thing to be set aside, he would not have endeavored to reform it for one year at most. — Bultema, page 93

__________

The sin of coming to the table of the Lord without proper preparation and a thorough understanding of its meaning is followed by the most serious and terrible results. If Christians would believe, study and conscientiously practice the admonition of this passage it would spare them untold grief and suffering and save them thousands and ten thousands of dollars in time and doctors’ bills. — DeHaan, page 127

I’ll save my personal conclusions until I’ve studied more.

¹¹ Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.

¹² For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

¹³ Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

¹⁴ Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

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

¹⁶ But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Verse 11 is stating that, where the Lord is in authority, neither sex is inferior — Galatians 3:28

from man (v.12) — made from man originally (Genesis 2:21-13) — The Greek word indicates a single act.

through woman (v.12) — by birth — The Greek word indicates a constant process.

all things are from God (v.12) — God is author of, and sovereign over, all things

Judge among yourselves (v.13) — use your common sense. — This is perhaps asking them whether it is possible for Christian women to honor God when they look like the worldly women seen around Corinth.

Verse 15 is a continuation of the question in verse 14. The question mark should come after “covering.”

As divine principles, these things inflexibly stand, but the grace of God is flexible and pliable enough for allowing different adaptations and applications in connection with the customs of various lands and people as long as these do not run counter to the fundamental expressions of God’s will. — Bultema, page 92.

__________

In the woman, God sets forth the relationship between Christ and the Church. Christ is head of the Church, and we must be in subjection to Him. We are members of His body, bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh. He is the Chief Cornerstone; we are little stones built together into a holy temple.

Woman was taken out of man. God created her to answer to man, and gave her to him to be his helpmate. Nature has given woman a distinction — a natural covering which denotes her subjection to authority, subjection to man — her head, her husband. And IN the woman God sets forth the picture of Christ and the Church, and the relationship between them. It was clearly not the purpose of the Creator that woman should in public adopt the same attitude and boldness of man. — Greene, page 360.

__________

The fact that Paul here discusses only a custom, does not for a moment neutralize the force of the principle he teaches; that of the headship of the man over the woman and her acknowledgment of this fact. — Stam, page 191.

I don’t pretend that I have a definitive answer to the questions this section raises. Certainly God intended the relationship of a man and his wife to be a reflection of a spiritual truth. The man is to be in authority over the woman as an illustration of Christ’s authority over the Church. But this does not make a man superior to a woman. It’s an issue of roles, not of value.

Paul sets this doctrine in the context of the way men and women wear their hair, especially when they are praying. Men should appear to be in authority; women should appear to be under authority. Apparently, in Corinth, this was represented by men having short hair and women having long hair (with perhaps a covering over that when praying in church). This certainly isn’t still the case in our culture, but should it be? Or are we allowed to set our own cultural standards as long as the principle is observed? In addition to the question of culture is the question of dispensational truth — was this instruction for the Transitional period between Law and Grace, or is it still in force.

In 1 Timothy, one of Paul’s last letters, written after the Transitional period had ended, he teaches the same doctrine, but without mention of hair length.

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

I think perhaps I’m most in agreement with Bultema’s quote above.

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

⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

⁶ For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

⁸ For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

⁹ Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

¹⁰ For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Nothing could be more contrary to the whole spirit of this dispensation than to use the casual mention of an ancient custom in a Greek city as fastening a legal and, so to speak, Levitical ceremonial upon Christians in all ages. The point is that “the head of the woman is the man.” It is the divine order. The angels know this. To them any inversion of that order would be disorder. In Corinth a shorn or “uncovered” head in the presence of men was a badge of harlotry, and a harlot is not only a woman who sells her body, but she is a woman who has thrown off the restraints of subordination — of the divine order. In a mixed assembly, therefore, a spiritually minded and biblically taught Christian woman who speaks or prays would do so in a modest and womanly manner, keeping her place in the divine order. — Dr. C.I. Schofield as quoted in Laurin, pages 183-184.

__________

The Spirit of God uses the natural (physical) head of man as the symbol of both headship and authority. Christ is the “head” of the man; therefore man is under the authority of Christ. Man is head of the woman; therefore woman, as the weaker vessel, is to be in subjection to her own husband. Christ is the authority, the final word as having to do with the Church, and a man who prays or prophesies with his head covered “dishonoreth his head.” This injunction was neither Jewish nor Greek, for in Paul’s day, Jewish men always covered their heads in the synagogue, and the Greeks, both men and women, were uncovered. — Greene, pages 351-352.

__________

There was in the church at Corinth a lack of respect for God-given authority, especially as it concerned the headship of the man over the woman. They had sort of a “Women’s Lib” going there, and this evidenced itself by the repudiation of a custom — again, not a Scriptural law, but a significant custom still observed in some parts of the world today — that of the woman’s wearing a covering, or veil, on her head as a testimony to her subjection to her husband. — Stam, page 186-187

prays or prophesies (v.5) — Some commentaries say that this is not referring to church services because 1 Corinthians 14:34 says that women aren’t to speak in church. Others say 1 Corinthians 14:34 is only speaking of tongues, and praying and prophesying in church by women is OK as long as they’re covered. I lean toward the first view.

Originally, in the Old Testament, Jewish worship decreed a head covering for men. That covering was a religious sign. It was a sign of sin, shame, and unworthiness in the presence of God, but the man of verse four is a Christian man. He is “in Christ” and his sin, shame and unworthiness are gone. Its legalism disappeared. Instead, there is a new spiritual order of life without the inhibitions and prohibitions of legal custom. 

As for the woman, her behavior is no more legalistic that is true of the man. She is not treated with a superstitious inferiority, but she is required to observe the dignity and propriety of a matrimonial sign to fit the conditions of the age in which she was then living. When the conditions ceased to exist, the sign ceased to be necessary. — Laurin, page 185.

__________

Among the Greeks, women who were morally clean and upright wore the veil, and only immoral women, those of ill repute, went unveiled. Therefore, every man who saw them knew what they were. The veil served two purposes: 1) It was a sign of inferiority. 2) It was a very great protection. Also, among the Greeks the slave women were shorn — their heads were shaved; and thus any woman seen with her head shaved was known to be a slave. (Deuteronomy 21:10-17). — Greene, page 353.

is not covered (v.6) — verb indicates a habitual behavior

image (v.7) = visible representation

glory (v.7) = manifestation of God’s greatness and majesty

woman is the glory of man (v.7) — adds dignity and completeness to him

woman for the man (v.9) — a help suited for (and from) him (Genesis 2:18)

because of the angels (v.10) — who learn of the wisdom of God by observing men (Ephesians 3:10).

From the quotes from commentaries I’ve included in this post, it’s clear that many aren’t quite sure what to make of this passage. That it represents the headship of Christ over the Church as demonstrated in the headship of a husband over his wife is pretty clear. But whether the specific sign of this headship — a head covering worn by a woman — is strictly cultural and, therefore, not necessary in this age in of some doubt. Women today dress far more immodestly than I’m guessing most women did in Corinth in Paul’s day, yet nobody is making this connection except to say that Christian women should be on the modest end of the scale in any culture.

My guess is that this passage should be considered in light of culture, but also in light of its place in the transition from law to grace. Paul seems to be saying in verse 16 that this isn’t a law but a lesson. I think it might simply be a lesson on the position of Christ over the Church which Paul couches in terms understandable for the church in Corinth (made up of Jews and Greeks from differing cultures) and not applicable in a literal sense now that the transition period is complete. But I’m not entirely sure of that.

 1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.

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

³ But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Verse 1 refers to what Paul was writing at the end of chapter 10 and should be included there (although it also applies to chapter 11). Paul was exhorting the Corinthians to seek to benefit others more than themselves, as he did.

It should be observed that the apostle does not say: “Follow me as I follow Jesus,” but “Follow me as I follow Christ.” Jesus was the God-given name by which our Lord was known when He walked this earth with His twelve apostles. But Paul had not even been saved at that time and surely did not follow Jesus. But Christ is His title as the Anointed of God. As Peter declared in his Pentecostal address, “that same Jesus,” whom Israel had crucified, had now been exalted in heaven and made “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). It was a Lord and Christ, exalted “far above all,” that Paul knew Him and followed Him as, by direct revelation, the Lord committed to him the glorious “mystery — hid from ages and from generations, but now … made manifest to His saints” (Colossians 1:26). — Stam, page 185.

I praise you (v.2) — Paul begins his admonishment of what they are doing wrong by first praising them for what they were doing right.

traditions (v.3) — (here) apostolic teaching about conduct in assemblies. The same word in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, refers to doctrine. So, in general, it means “teachings with apostolic authority.”

The word “ordinances” in verse 2 has nothing to do with ceremonies. The Greek paradoseis (Lit., things handed down), is everywhere else rendered traditions (whether true or false), and here refers to those truths and instructions which Paul had “handed down” to them. — Stam, page 185.

__________

About five years later Paul declared that Christ had blotted out the handwriting of ordinances. To be subject to ordinances now is like living in the world (Colossians 2:14-20), but he is here thinking of his own practical teaching which never will be superseded. — Bultema, page 91.

But I want you to know (v.3) — new teaching

the head of Christ is God (v.3) — Christ was obedient to God’s will — John 5:30; Romans 15:3; Philippians 2:8

Christ is within us to direct us in the ways of righteousness. He is the head of all believers, but He is also the head of each individual believer. Paul is also pointing out the distinction between man and woman by reason of the circumstances of their differing creation. The man is head of the woman, in the same way that Christ is the head of the man. The woman as a believer is certainly under the authority of Christ; yet in relative position to the man as having to do with things of earth and the natural life, he is her head, for “the woman is the glory of the man” (v.7). — Greene, page 350.

²⁸ But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”

²⁹ “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?

³⁰ But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?

³¹ Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

³² Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God,

³³ just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

As far as the Christian believer is concerned, Paul explains that his intelligent spirituality and his Christian liberty would permit him to partake of such food. It is his right since “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” It is his right and no one dare rightfully speak evil of him since his eating is sanctified by his thanks to God.

This particular point which Paul makes here is that while it is the Christian’s conscientious right, it is not always right to act upon his rights if such action will affect his position as a Christian witness. The Christian’s rights are sometimes to be regulated by his responsibilities. — Lauren, page 177.

the other (v.29) — The issue isn’t my conscience, who understands liberty, but the other person’s, who may not.

my liberty judged (v.29) — My conscience isn’t to be controlled by another person’s determination of right and wrong, but my actions should be. Romans 14:13-15; 15:1-3; Philippians 2:4

If that which you do under grace, in the liberty of faith, offends someone else, then it becomes sin, if you, knowing you are offending a brother, continue in it. You may reply, as Paul states it here, “Why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? Why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Why should I deny myself this pleasure just because some narrow-minded legalist finds fault with it? And the answer is this, “No man liveth unto himself.” The question is not my liberty and my rights, but the glory of God. People who are saved by grace should be gracious, and since we are saved by grace, we have renounced our own will and seek now only to do the will of God to please Him and our neighbor, and not ourselves. — DeHann, page 101.

__________

Paul believed in giving thanks: but (even though he gave thanks for his food) if all the while in eating it he was wounding a weaker brother and causing him to stumble or become discouraged, was he then, in reality, truly giving thanks to God? To give thanks for what we are doing does not necessarily make that act innocent on our part. We must keep others in mind at all times, regardless of how innocent we may be, for if we are wounding others, it is still wrong. — Greene, pages 343-344.

Verse 32 lists the only three categories of people that exist.

please (v.33) = benefit — the same meaning as “profit” in the same verse.

²³ All things are lawful for me,but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me,but not all things edify.

²⁴ Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.

²⁵ Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake;

²⁶ for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”

²⁷ If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake.

all things (v.23) — all things not covered in the Mosaic law and all things in the Mosaic law relating to diet, etc. Paul is not referring to the moral law concerning things like murder, fornication, etc.

What Paul says is this; As far as the “law of Moses” goes, I am not under it any longer. But I am now under the law of grace, and my Christian conduct is now motivated by a higher law, the law of love for God and a gracious consideration of my fellow brethren, even those who may disagree with me. Our service under grace is just as punctual as the law ever demanded, and more so, but it is not merely because the law commands it. It is not legal, but the result of gratitude for His great deliverance. The true believer will seek to do God’s will and follow His commandments to be sure, but not … because the law demands it, but because grace expects it. Personally, the believer is not under the law in any sense, but stands in the perfect liberty of grace. But as a member of the body of Christ and of society, his conduct is determined by another rule, and that is, the glory of God and his influence and effect upon other people. — DeHaan, page 100.

__________

1 Corinthians 6:12 is similarly to 1 Corinthians 10:23, but while in 6:12 Paul deals with Christian liberty and his own welfare, in 10:23 he deals with Christian liberty and his brother’s welfare; “All things are lawful unto me … but I will not be brought under the power of any” (6:12); “All things are lawful for me … but all things edify not” i.e. do not build up (10:23). — Stam, page 179.

asking no questions (vs. 25 and 27) — about whether the food had been offered to idols

for conscience sake (vs. 25 and 27) — on the ground of conscience. There is no reason to go looking for reasons to feel guilty.

Verse 26 is a quote from Psalm 24:1 — The Lord created everything, and the fact that people use it for evil doesn’t negate His ownership.