Michael's Abbey Bible Study - 1 Corinthians Chapter 11

1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. This verse is a continuation of 10:31-33. Chapter and verse divisions are not scriptural. They were added centuries later to make it easier to find passages. But in some places like this chapter break they can get in the way of the context.
Paul was offering himself as an example to follow, as he followed the example of Christ. Jesus and Paul's focus was on winning people to salvation, and thus so should we. Jesus' teaching and commandments are the truth, and He lived by them Himself. Paul taught and preached Jesus' teaching and commandments while living by them as well. Thus we should learn Jesus' teaching and commandments, and live by them as authentic Christians. Weak Christians mistake their own thoughts for the truth even if they contradict the truth. Fake Christians try to pass off what they want as if it is truth. But they are wolves in sheep's clothing. The greatest example is that Jesus didn't please himself, but endured all things for the sake of the Father and for us. Likewise, Paul endured hardship and pain for the sake of reaching more for Christ. These are the examples for us to live by.
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. Up to this point in 1 Corinthians there hasn't been anything resembling praise. Following this praise for holding firm to the traditions Paul gave them, he corrected them in several areas where they were getting it wrong. But this verse shows that they were getting some things right, perhaps even most of them. But where they were getting it wrong was corrupting the whole church. It was so bad that even with Paul's attempts at correction the Corinthian church collapsed under the weight of false teaching. Churches today be warned.
There is something that needs to be addressed before moving on to the next verses. The term Christian means one who follows Christ. And we learn how to follow Christ in God-breathed scripture. That is, the Holy Spirit is what is behind all scripture. Thus, if we pick and choose what we accept and what we don't from scripture we are substituting our own gospel for the real one and acting against the Holy Spirit. When done out of ignorance this is problematic but not a salvation issue. However, when it is done deliberately it is rebellion against God. That is a dangerous place to be.
The following verses are problematic for some people. Not accepting what they say doesn't necessarily put someone outside Christianity. It depends on the attitude of the person. Not being able to reconcile them out of a lack of understanding is problematic, but not unchristian. Rejecting what scripture says out of rebellion, insisting on one's own thoughts and ideas is to reject the real God for a fake god. Anyone unwilling to conform to God's way but insisting God conform to their way is not a follower of God. Worse, some try to twist these verses and make up things that aren't true to explain them away. To use deceit to try to change scripture absolutely puts one outside Christianity.
Matthew 7:21-27 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell — and great was its fall.”
Essentially there are two theological perspectives on this chapter of 1st Corinthians and others like it. One is egalitarian theology, which to varying degrees insists that men and women have no gender differences and woman can fulfill any and all rolls in life and the church. This fits with the philosophy of secular America, but is countercultural in many other countries. On the other side is complementarian theology in which men and women are equal in worth and are both made in the image of God, but have different but equal gender roles. Men and women complement or complete each other, especially in marriage and the church. However, complementarian theology has no limits on women's roles in the world. Those that try to impose such limits on secular roles are not complementarian and deny Proverbs 31. We should read what scripture actually says, and not read our own bias into it.
Some falsely accuse Christianity of being misogynistic when the truth is Christianity elevated women. This was counter-cultural at that time. For one thing, women would prophesy in the church, something that was not allowed in nearly every religion on earth in the first century. Most cultures did not let women learn, let alone speak to educate others. In Christian theology all are made in the image of God. All must make their own choice to follow Jesus or not. And all need to learn about Christ. However, there are differences between men and women, and no amount of philosophical twisting or denying reality can change that.
In full disclosure, I was an egalitarian most of my life. And it takes deliberate effort on my part to avoid that bias. Because of my American upbringing I viewed egalitarianism as just the natural order of things. Ironically, it was egalitarian theologians that convinced me to change to a complementarian view. While in seminary I was forced to defend their views, which meant actually reading their arguments myself. Their bad scholarship, deliberately misquoting others to twist their words, making up fake facts about ancient cultures, and inventing meanings in Greek and Hebrew that just weren't there exposed my own bias. I found I didn't have a real reason for my beliefs on this subject. One author in particular really made me angry, not because I disagreed with her as I held the same beliefs before I read her book. I was angry with her because she blew up my worldview by exposing it was based on wrong assumptions, falsehoods, and lies just like her own writing. It was difficult to accept. However, it did cement the lesson not to just accept what someone says but to verify it for myself. This is especially true when someone quotes another person. We should check every quote to see if the quoted author actually said it and meant it as implied by the person quoting.
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. This verse is a preface to verses 4-5. In each of these verses through verse 16 Paul was building a case for his instruction. "Head" in this verse is the literal head on top of the body, kephale in Greek. However it was used as a metaphor for authority or higher rank in Greek like in English. Christ created man and is the head of all men. Woman was created from man. And God the Father is the head of Christ the Son, and of the Spirit.
The fact that this is a metaphor has been misused by some to discount what Paul says in these verses, although it one of the lamest arguments. I can use this metaphor to say that the head of a business is its president. The fact that I use a metaphor does not discount what I said. The reality is the use of the metaphor accurately describes the truth that the president is the leader over everyone in the business.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. Paul was not saying men do this or don't do this. He was using this hypothetical example to make his point. The verbs pray and prophesy make it clear that this is referring to group worship settings, not private settings.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. Setting aside the point Paul is making, this verse explicitly states that women would prophesy and lead prayer in the first century church. To be clear, this would have been in front of the whole church, and not just to the side or only with her husband. These things were counter-cultural as these roles were not allowed to be done by women in the nearly every religion and country at the time. In Christianity women were elevated while other religions and secular society pushed women down.
Paul was equating a woman having her head uncovered to her head being shaved. To be clear, this was not a complete covering. The hair would be visible.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A woman having short hair or a shaved head was shameful in Corinthian society, and Paul again used it as an analogy. It should be noted that Corinth was a nexus of countries and cultures at the time. Thus the secular/pagan Corinthian culture was an amalgamation of cultures around the world at the time. And we get a picture of the universal attitudes of societies at the time from what was universally accepted in Corinth.
In this verse a woman shaving her head was shameful in Corinth. This meant anything from cut short like a man's hair to being shaved bald. However, this verse should not be taken in isolation and out of context. Paul was not making a literal command for women for all time. This is another point in the case he was making in the verses of this passage.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. This is not the image of God in Genesis as Genesis 1:27 is clear that both man and woman are made in the image of God. Paul doesn't say that woman is in man's image.
Paul doesn't directly define what he means by "glory". Nor does he explain why a man having his head uncovered is glory to Christ. However, in verses 14 and 15, dishonor for the man is contrasted with glory for the woman. So glory most likely means honor or distinction. However, the exact definitions are not important as these are arguments in the case Paul was building to make his point. Verse 4 indicates that the root behind this is not bringing shame to Christ.
What is clear is that Paul is making it absolutely clear that there are distinctions between men and women, and to try to blur those lines is wrong. Paul made the comparison to a woman with a shaved head, like a man. That this is shameful is self-evident.
This is subject to some debate. Since the second century to the 1800's many have held that these verses give a hard and fast rule for Christians. But even then there was not a consensus as to whether this is a hard and fast rule about length of hair, covering of the head, or both. Looking at verses 3-15 as a whole and in context of the whole of scripture it becomes clear that a hard and fast rule for head coverings cannot be the issue Paul is addressing.
First, Exodus 28:4, 40 makes it clear that Jewish priests were to wear a head covering in service to God, including when praying and prophesying. There is a Jewish tradition of using head coverings for prayer, especially in public. And in 1 Corinthians 7:17-20 Paul clearly states that Jews who became Christians should continue the practices of Judaism and gentiles should not try to become Jews. If verses 3-15 were a call for a head covering rule for all Christians everywhere then Christian Jews would have to violate the requirement for head coverings by men. Therefore this is cannot be a hard and fast rule on head covering for all Christians at all times.
Second, this cannot be a call for subservience by women as egalitarians falsely accuse complementarians of advocating for. Verses 11-12 make that clear. Not to mention in Proverbs 31 the excellent wife is a business woman, real estate investor, merchant, manufacturer, teacher, mother, and has servants that maintain her home and take care of her children while she is working. And all of that is done publicly on her own. This is counter-cultural to the other nations of the world at that time, but is a good and wonderful thing for a woman in Israel, Judaism and Christianity.
Third, this letter was written to the Corinthians, and is in response to a letter from them to Paul. Thus this may be a response to a question in their letter to Paul. Regardless, while we don't have incontrovertible evidence that this was addressing a cultural issue specific to Corinth or Greek cities at the time, we do have evidence for what the issue Paul was addressing in scripture. What is clear is that this is a direct prohibition against Christians looking like the opposite sex. While there is a possibility that Paul is concerned with deliberate attempts to look like the opposite sex, is almost certain that it doesn't matter if it is deliberate or not. It is the appearance that matters. For one, this brings the church into disrepute. But more importantly, this is disrespectful to God and to how he made us.
8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. These verses are referring to the created order, where woman was made from man in Genesis 2:20-24. This could be wrongly taken to mean that women are subordinate to men. However, verses 11-12, (not to mention Ephesians 5,) make it clear that is not the case. That the woman was created for the man's sake does not mean he has dominion over her. It is Christ that has dominion over both. If anything, Paul's reference to Genesis was that man is incomplete without woman. What is absolutely clear is that God created men and women different by design.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. The Greek word for authority, exousian from exousia, is never used in a passive sense. So this cannot refer to an authority outside this sentence, such as subordinating woman under man.
It is very likely that Paul's choice of words was in direct response to letters from the Corinthians. By process of elimination, 3 out of the 4 possible interpretations of this verse are not supported by the text. Thus, the one remaining is the one that is difficult to follow in English.
Paul is affirming that women do have the authority and freedom to prophesy in the church. This is counter-cultural, but a repeated concept in scripture. But they should exercise this freedom in a proper manner. Thus the argument that women have the freedom and authority to go uncovered as Christians of that time is true, but they should not so as not to bring unnecessary disrepute to the church by appearing as a man in how they clothe themselves.
To be clear, there is absolutely nothing in this passage or any other that requires women to wear dresses or skirts. The clothing at this time for both men and women resembles today's dresses more than anything else. Pants were not worn by either sex. When men needed to protect their legs while working they would tie cloth around their legs. Regardless, the styles of clothing were clearly male or female to any observer in those societies, as were the accessories such as head coverings.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. Here Paul refers to both that woman was made from man in the created order, and by birth every man comes from a woman. But God is the origin of all. This makes it clear that woman is not subordinate to man. Both are from God. Both are dependent on each other. This is not to say marriage is mandatory. Clearly Paul wrote otherwise. But as Christians we live in mutual dependance on each other, regardless of sex, position, or any other characteristic. And specifically, men and women are mutually dependent on each other in the body of Christ regardless of marital status.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Paul rhetorically appeals to their sense of what is proper in their society. For a woman to have her head uncovered in such a setting would be to try to look like a man. The head covering itself was not the issue.
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, Nature here doesn't mean nature itself as some personify it, nor natural law, created order, or some Greek stoic philosophy of what is natural. He is appealing to the way things actually are. The NIV puts it best as "the nature of things". This is the state of the culture they live in as to what is normal appearance for a man. A man with long hair in itself is not the issue. It is a man with hair like a woman.
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. Here we see "glory" used as the opposite of dishonor. Paul was illustrating his point using analogy: Hair as a metaphor for head covering. This is not to say that women who are unable to grow long hair are sinners or dishonored by God. Not even those who can no longer grow hair because of their own overuse of wigs or hair extensions fall under that. It is the deliberate attempt to look like a man that is contrary to God's design. Women should try to look feminine and men should try to look masculine.
16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. Paul is saying maintaining the customary gender forms in clothing is important. Clearly Paul did not mean these specific practices to be a church law for all time. However, there are modes of dress in every culture that are viewed as inappropriate, and using them in the church would bring disrepute on the church.
This is the third time Paul has argued by appealing to what is done in other churches. The other churches aren't dealing with this problem because people aren't making an issue out of it.
The bottom line of verses 3-16 is that distinctions between the sexes ought to be maintained. To try to appear as the opposite sex is to reject how God created us. Just because a person has some personality traits commonly associated with the opposite sex, like a sensitive man or a hard-natured woman, does not mean they were created with the wrong sex by God in the womb. We are created as we were meant to be. To reject that is to reject God's design. And that is to reject God.
To be clear, this is not to say that anyone who violates this is not saved. It is an outward indication of inward rebellion against God. But in itself it is not a salvation issue. Every Christian has some area, and probably many, that they are not fully surrendering to God. However, this issue is different as it is one of the things that brings disrepute to the church and keeps people away from choosing Christ. To try to appear as different from the sex we were born with is to say that rejecting God is okay. It is not. And we should do our best to present ourselves as a willing sacrifice to the will of the Father as Christ did.
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. Here Paul was saying that the instruction of verses 3-16 is just one of the problems that was derailing the church in Corinth. There were other things. Gathering together for corporate worship and learning is a primary function of the church, and we are directed to do so repeatedly throughout scripture. We are to edify each other when we come together. So for Paul to say their gatherings were doing harm rather than good is a severe rebuke.
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. The divisions in this verse are different than the divisions in chapter 1. In that chapter, there were factions aligning with and against leaders, particularly Paul, and the motivations were individual such as jealousy and quarrels.
Here the divisions are between groups and are based on secular group identities that have no place in any church. But the Corinthians were letting these division to happen in their corporate church gatherings. That he believes this report only in part may be because those reporting aren't disinterested parties. However, it is more likely that this is so terrible it is hard to believe a Christian church would be doing it.
19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Paul was not saying there should be divisions in the church between Christians. The necessary divisions are between those who follow Christ and those who are false believers. There cannot be unity between those that follow Christ and those that follow a false teacher or follow their own thoughts and set them above God. Those who are false believers will always reveal themselves as they contradict Christ and scripture in their words and deeds. The proof is found in their theology, reasoning and in their actions and their treatment of scripture. But one has to be willing and able to see past their deceptions. Remember, Satan appears as a angel of light and is the most beautiful of the angels. Something that superficially looks or sounds good is more often false or even evil.
20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. Here Paul identified the specific actions he began rebuking in verse 17, that they were desecrating communion. This was one more symptom of a church that did not fear God and in indulged in self-centered behavior that was obscene to God. But this was so profane Paul had to specifically and emphatically correct it. They made communion the Lord's Supper in name only. Their selfish behavior had no place in the church, let alone in observing communion. This is no small thing. Their misbehavior is so severe Paul rebukes them as despising the church itself. And by desecrating communion they were profaning Christ's sacrifice.
Whether this was supposed to be a communal meal or just a small observance of communion is only speculated about. But that does not matter. What is clear is that some were being selfish and overindulging, leaving nothing for others. This is the opposite of communion which is based on the sharing of Jesus' sacrifice. Those that have the means to eat at home have no excuse for behaving this way. They should satisfy themselves at home before coming and partake of a token so all may share.
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; The observance of communion is so important that Paul began specific instructions on its conduct here. The first communion was at the end of the Passover meal. In a Passover meal, everything on the plate and table is symbolic of something from the Egyptian captivity, slavery or exodus. This is like when the U.S. military sets a table for P.O.W.s and M.I.A.s at functions and chow halls with similar symbols. For example, only unleavened bread is eaten during the week of the Passover festival. Leaven is yeast that causes bread to rise. During this week no leaven can be anywhere in a Jewish home. In the context of the end of a Passover meal, Jesus Christ instituted a new symbolic practice in remembrance of His coming and perfect sacrifice delivering all who follow him from the slavery of sin.
Paul emphasized the importance of communion by stating that he received this directly from the Lord. And it was this knowledge directly from God that Paul shared with the Corinthians. In other words, this is not to be taken lightly or disrespectfully. Paul identified the night of the first communion as the night he was betrayed, paredideto in Greek, which is literally "handed over".
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." A traditional ordinary Jewish meal is begun by the head of the house giving the blessing over the bread, then breaking it and giving it to those at the table. (At a modern Shabat meal this is still done, although it was cut with a knife in my experience.) In like manner, Jesus broke the bread and gave it to the disciples and pronounced a new symbolism that this was his body for them. We are to do this in remembrance of Jesus Christ. Remembrance in Hebrew and in Jewish tradition is not a mere act of memory as it can be in English. It is an action. The actions evoke the reverence with the memory.
Communion was always done by the breaking of bread for the first eight centuries. Wafers began to be used in Europe in the ninth century and eventually became the common practice. However, some churches today do it the original way with the breaking of bread on occasion, or even every time. In my experience, doing it this was very moving and brought home the symbolism better.
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." Then Jesus took the cup of wine and gave a new symbolism for it as well. The spilling of Jesus' blood was the fulfillment of the old covenant and the beginning of the new covenant. It is by His blood that all that truly believe in Him can be saved. As we take the cup we are to remember the sacrifice Jesus made. The only one who was without sin took the punishment for our sin upon Himself.
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. This is the point of communion, to proclaim the gospel that Christ died for our salvation to ourselves and each other. Paul also reminded them that Christ will return, and we should always keep that in mind including during communion.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. When Paul uses therefore, hoste in Greek, we ought to pay attention to what it is there for. Communion is a practice instituted by God Himself while incarnate on earth. We are commanded by the Son to do this in remembrance of Him and the sacrifice He made to save us. Every human being who is saved owes their salvation to this single act of God. Thus this is not a minor thing we can treat casually.
This verse is not merely concerned with that singular offense of overindulging in communion of verses 20-22. "Unworthy" is anaxios in Greek which means careless/unworthy, especially in this context. Thus this is concerned not only with the disgusting behavior, but the attitude of horrible disrespect towards God behind it. Those that show this disrespect are guilty of crucifying the Christ like the priests, Pharisees, and Judas who engineered His murder.
28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. The examination here is not about works, justification, or any other "am I good enough" deep navel gazing. Many have misinterpreted this verse to mean that. The concern is with the attitude of the recipient towards God while taking communion. Each person should be reverential and focused on Christ's sacrifice for them. To be thinking about our own actions and worthiness is the exact opposite of what this verse instructs. That is still narcissistic self-focus just like those that were being gluttons in communion. Communion is not about us. It is about Christ.
This is one of the primary points of failure in today's church. There is a lack of humility and an even worse lack of the proper fear of God. Most churches in the west actually promote this narcissistic self-focus and self-love. God is our sovereign. And like true sovereigns in human history, He can kill us at a whim. While one could be a friend to a human sovereign, it was always with the reverence and respect of one who has the power of life and death over us. But more than any sovereign, God could squish us like a bug or even wipe us from existence. God is not someone we should treat casually or disrespectfully.
29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. There are three possible interpretations of the third clause of this verse. The first two clauses are a parallel of verse 27. The first clause uses "eats and drinks" to mean communion. Thus this applies to any person who takes communion. The second clause states the result, which is they bring judgement on themselves by taking communion. The third clause gives the condition that causes the judgement of the second clause.
The word body here in Greek is the same word for Christ's body in verse 27, except in verse 27 it has the genitive case which expresses possession. Thus in verse 27 it is the metaphorical body of Jesus. Whereas in this verse it is only implied. However, the language in the first two clauses is also by implication rather than absolute statement. And the language in verse 27 is absolute reference rather than implied. Therefore the difference is almost certainly a literary style choice than a theological difference.
The words for judging in this verse are different words in Greek. The judgment in the second clause is krima in Greek, which specifically refers to a judgment, decree, or decision in a legal sense. Whereas the judge in the third clause is diakrinon which is an individual action of evaluation, consideration, or doubt. In this context is it most likely to mean "recognize".
One interpretation of this third clause is a failure to discern Eucharistic food from common food. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the context of this passage and is reading into the text what is not there. Another interpretation is that the third clause refers to judging one's own body rightly, implying a judgement of one's actions. However, this is also not supported by the context and is contrary to Paul's teaching in the rest of this letter.
The interpretation of the third clause that rightly fits the context and wording is that we are to recognize and consider the body of Christ when we take communion. In other words, our focus should be on Him and what He went through for us, and not on ourselves. To be self-focused even in considering one's own sins is just as much a violation of this as to take communion with a casual or disrespectful attitude. It was in eating and drinking for their own pleasure being self-focused that brought condemning judgment on the Corinthians. We ought to be humbly focused entirely on Jesus Christ and His sacrifice when we take communion.
30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. Sleep is a euphemism for death. Paul absolutely did not say that the ones who were taking communion in an unworthy manner are the ones who are getting weak, sick and dying. This was and is a corporate sin and has a corporate result. They should not tolerate this behavior in their church or in their presence. To tolerate this disrespect for God is itself a grievous sin. This is the same as being part of a church that teaches heresy in the worship service.
31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. The same two different kinds of judgement as verse 29 are used in this verse. The first is the diekrinomen of evaluation or consideration. The second is the krina of legal judgement. Thus if we do not evaluate-judge ourselves as a church we will be legal-judged by God. This is not merely individuals judging themselves, which absolutely should happen. An individual judging only their own attitude but doing nothing about the blasphemy occurring in front of them accomplishes nothing. They are guilty of participating in the heresy by allowing it to go unchallenged. Because there is no judgement of bad behavior within the church, the church as a body is being judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. If we do not judge and correct ourselves and each other, the Lord's discipline will happen. Paul is saying it would be better if we do this ourselves, correcting each other in love and as gently as the other's recognition will allow. Some people accept correction from the gentlest word. Others require we virtually grab them by the shirt and shake them out of their crazy to get them to understand the need for correction. It takes a lot of patience and wisdom to do this correctly.
However, It is a good thing that the Lord disciplines us or we would face condemnation along with the rest of the world. God only disciplines those who belong to Him. The rest of the world is left to their rebellion which will be judged at eschaton, the end times. Since everyone is guilty of sin except Jesus, we all should be disciplined by God. If anyone is never disciplined by God that is a very bad sign. The sign is that they do not belong to God.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. Essentially, Paul is saying let our behavior demonstrate our right attitude. Use restraint and wait until everyone has some before partaking of communion.
34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come. In other words, remove the temptation and distractions by dealing with them at home before you come to church, whether it is a large gathering or a house church. The goal of this advice is to have the right attitude and the right behavior when we take communion together. There were other things they were doing wrong in their corporate worship and as a church. But they were not as big of a deal and could wait. This further emphasizes the dire nature of the things Paul did address. These are really serious issues, many insulting or even blasphemous to God. Those who take them lightly show they lack proper respect and fear of God.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB © The Lockman Foundation.

If you have a question, you can find the email address to write to on the FAQ Page under the Questions FAQ.

1 Cor. 10   -   1 Corinthians   -   1 Cor. 12

Bible Study Page   -   Michael's Abbey