Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11.1–11.33

“Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.” What he says is humane: that we should imitate him who was granted to us by God as a teacher. For if he is an imitator of God, why should we not be of a man? For as God the Father sent Christ as the teacher and author of life, so Christ also sent the apostles to us as teachers, so that we might be their imitators, since we cannot be his. For thus the Lord says to the Father: “As you sent me into this world, so I also have sent them into this world” (John 17:18). And since they were worthy imitators of him, he added: “And for them I sanctify myself” (John 17:19).

“Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and hold my traditions as I hand them on everywhere.” After rebuking their morals and conduct, he now wants to correct their traditions. Therefore he does not affirm this, but is angry with them; because, though he was their apostle, they were forgetful of his traditions, nor did they follow from the tradition of other churches what they had not yet learned; and therefore he hands it on to them as if anew, saying:

“I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ.” He referred it to authority; for man is indeed from God, but through Christ. “And the head of the woman is the man.” For although the woman too is through Christ, yet she was made from the man, and therefore is subject to the man. “And the head of Christ is God.” It is fitting that the Father be called the head of the Son, as his begetter. Yet Christ is head of the man in one way, the man of the woman in another, and God is head of Christ in another. God is head of Christ because he was begotten of him or from him. The man is head of the woman because she was formed from his rib by God's power (Gen 2:21). Christ is head of the man because through him he was created when he did not exist. One expression, then, has different meanings, because both persons and substances differ.

“Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head.” By 'praying' he means making petition; by 'prophesying', proclaiming after the prayer, with the words of the creed, that the Lord will come.

“But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head; for it is one and the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her be shorn; but if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her veil her head. For a man ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God.” Although man and woman are of one substance, yet because the man is head of the woman, he is presented as to be preferred, so that he is greater by cause and reason, not by substance. The woman, then, is inferior to the man, for she is a portion of him; for the man is the origin of the woman, since she is from him; and therefore the woman is seen to be bound to the man, so as to be subject to his authority. He says the honour and dignity of the man prevent him from veiling his head; for it is unfitting that the image of God be concealed; it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. “But the woman is the glory of the man.” There is a great difference between the glory of God and the glory of man; for man was made in the image of God, not woman. Now this image of God is in man because one God made one man; so that, just as all things are from one God, so all men might be from one man; so that the one visible man might have on earth the image of the one invisible God, so that the one God might be seen in one man to preserve the authority of the one principle, to the confusion of the devil, who, neglecting the one God, wished to usurp dominion and divinity for himself. This the prophet Ezekiel signifies (Ezek 28:2), and the same Apostle, for he says: “so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (2 Thess 2:4).

“For man is not from woman, but woman from man; for man was not created for the woman, but woman for the man. Therefore the woman ought to have power upon her head, also because of the angels.” By 'power' he signified the veil; by 'angels' he means bishops, as is taught in the Apocalypse of John (Rev 2:1 and following). And because they are certainly men, they are reproved for not correcting the people, and what is right in them is praised. The woman, then, ought to veil her head because she is not the image of God, but so as to show that she is subject. And because transgression began through her, she ought to have this sign; so that in church, out of reverence for the bishop, she does not have her head free but covered with a veil; nor does she have the power to speak, because the bishop represents the person of Christ. As before a judge, then, so before the bishop, since he is the Lord's vicar, she ought to appear subject because of the origin of guilt.

“Nevertheless, neither is woman without man nor man without woman in the Lord.” He says 'in the Lord' because God made both from one and one; for they are one flesh and one body in the Lord, that is, according to the Lord who created them. Indeed, those who do not believe that woman was taken from man believe in the origin of mankind without the Lord, or not according to the Lord.

“For as woman is from man, so also man is through woman.” He confirmed what he said, that both are one in nature and that the man is the origin of the woman, as we read in Genesis was done by the Lord the Creator (Gen 2:22). “But all things are from God.” After setting out each point step by step, so as to subject all things to God, keeping the one principle, he says: “But all things are from God”; so that neither the woman should be saddened because of her subjection, nor the man be proud as though exalted.

“Judge for yourselves: is it fitting for a woman to pray to God unveiled?” This is why above he was angry with them by irony, saying: “I praise you that you remember all my things, and hold my traditions as I hand them on everywhere” (11:2). For since the rule of the tradition was that women should be veiled in church, they on the contrary allowed them to be unveiled in church. And therefore he now tries to persuade them of the truth not by the authority of the tradition, which they had neglected, but by nature itself, saying:

“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him?” He said this according to the law; for it forbids a man to have long hair. “But if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her, since her hair has been given her for a covering.” He wants this to be naturally honourable and almost decreed, so that a woman may give satisfaction by being veiled and give thanks to God. Her hair, then, is an indication of the veil, so that will may be added to nature. Indeed no woman, even unveiled, approaches the authorities.

“But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor does the church of God.” After giving his reasons, so as to overcome the contentious he interposes authority; because neither did Judaism have this, which is why he says “neither we nor the church of God”, meaning that neither Moses nor the Saviour handed it down so. “But in giving this command I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.” As he corrects their conduct point by point by rebuke, so too their traditions, certainly not praising but blaming them.

“For first.” By saying “first” he shows the kind of sin from which the errors he rebukes arose; for where there is dissension, nothing is right. “When you come together in church, I hear that there are dissensions, and in part I believe it. For there must also be heresies, so that those who are approved may become manifest among you.” Knowing that some were corrupt in mind through the devil's cunning, he says: “There must be heresies.” He certainly did not wish or desire it; but he said it because he knew it would be, as the Lord also says: “Offences must come” (Matt 18:7), and: “The Son of Man must suffer” (Luke 9:22), knowing beforehand that Judas would be the betrayer. But when he says “so that those who are approved may become manifest among you”, he means those who, persevering in the tradition received, were an example of the proving of gospel discipline, to the condemnation of the rest. These are those whom he indicates at the head of the letter, since they said: “But we are Christ's”, while others said: “I am of Paul, I of Apollos” (1 Cor 1:12).

“When you come together, then, it is no longer to eat the Lord's supper. For each of you takes his own supper first in eating; and one is hungry, and another is drunk. Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?” He marks those who came together in church in such a way that, offering their gifts, when the presbyters arrived (for rulers had not yet been appointed for the churches in every place), those who had offered claimed it all for themselves, for the sake of schism. For the false apostles had sown dissensions among them, so that they were jealous over their offerings; whereas the offerings of all were blessed with one and the same prayer; so that those who, as usually happens, had not offered, or had nothing to offer, were put to shame, taking no part; and they did it so quickly that latecomers found nothing to eat. And therefore, he says, if you come together in such a way that each takes his own, this should be done at home, not in church, where people come together for unity and the mystery, not for dissension and the belly. For the gift offered should be that of the whole people, because all are signified in one bread. For by the fact that we are one, we must all take from one bread. “What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I do not praise you.” It is plain: the error having been detected and rebuked, so that they might correct themselves for the rest, and know that this is true which they themselves had learned long ago at the beginning, he repeats the form of what was given by the Saviour in such a matter, saying:

“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke it and said: Take and eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” He shows them that the mystery of the Eucharist, celebrated during a supper, is not a supper; for it is a spiritual medicine which, tasted with reverence, purifies the one devoted to it. For it is the memorial of our redemption; so that, mindful of the Redeemer, we may deserve to obtain greater things from him.

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink of the cup, you will proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” For since we have been freed by the Lord's death, mindful of this, in eating and drinking the flesh and blood which were offered for us, we signify that we have obtained in them the new covenant, which is the new law, which hands over to the heavenly kingdom the one who obeys it. For Moses too, having taken the blood of a calf in a bowl, sprinkled the children of Israel, saying: “This is the covenant which God has appointed for you” (Exod 24:8). This was a figure of the covenant which the Lord called new through the prophets, so that that which Moses handed on is the old. The covenant, then, was established by blood, because blood is the witness of the divine benefit. As a type of this we receive the mystical cup of the blood for the protection of our body and soul; for the Lord's blood redeemed our blood, that is, made the whole man safe. For the Saviour's flesh was offered for the salvation of the body, and his blood was shed for our soul, as had been prefigured before by Moses; for he says thus: “Flesh is offered for your body, but blood for the soul” (Lev 17:11); and therefore blood is not to be eaten. If, then, among the ancients there was an image of the truth which has now appeared and been made manifest at the Saviour's coming, how does the old seem contrary to the new to the heretics, since they bear witness to each other?

“Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a manner unworthy of the Lord will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” He says that one is unworthy of the Lord who celebrates the mystery otherwise than it was handed on by him. For one who presumes otherwise than was given by the author cannot be devout. And therefore he warns that the mind of one approaching the Lord's Eucharist should be devout, according to the order handed down; since there will be a judgment, in which each will give account, on the day of the Lord Jesus Christ, of how he approaches; for those who approach without the discipline of the tradition and of conduct are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. What is it to be guilty, if not to pay the penalty for the Lord's death? For he was killed for those who bring his benefit to nothing. “But let a man examine himself, and so eat of that bread and drink of the cup. For whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” He teaches that one must approach communion with a devout mind and with fear, so that the mind may know that it owes reverence to him whose body it approaches to receive. For he ought to judge this within himself: that it is the Lord whose blood he drinks in the mystery, which is the witness of God's benefit. If we receive it with discipline, we will not be unworthy of the body and blood of the Lord; for we will be seen to give thanks to the Redeemer.

“That is why many among you are weak and sick, and many sleep.” To prove that there will truly be an examination of those who receive the Lord's body, he already shows here an image of the judgment on those who had received the Lord's body thoughtlessly, since they were seized by fevers and illnesses, and many died; so that the rest might learn from them, and, frightened by the example of a few, might amend, knowing that to receive the Lord's body carelessly does not go unpunished; and that one whose punishment has been put off here will be dealt with more severely, because he scorned the example.

“But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are rebuked by the Lord, so that we may not be condemned with this world.” He says this because if we ourselves corrected our errors, we would not be judged by the Lord. And because we are rebuked, still it is for our good, so that we may be amended by fear itself. For in a few lies the correction of all. “So that we may not be condemned with this world”, that is, with unbelievers; for one who approaches the Lord's table thoughtlessly differs in nothing from an unbeliever.

“So, brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.” He says to wait for one another so that the offering of many may be celebrated together and served to all; and if anyone is impatient, let him feed on earthly bread at home. “So that you may not come together for judgment”: that is, lest you perform the mystery blameworthily and with offence. “The rest I will set in order when I come.” He shows that the chief thing must be dealt with first in the order of salvation, and he has set out first how both sexes are to come together in church; in which matters, if there is error, it is no light sin. But the rest, which pertains to the building up of the church, he promised to set in order by his presence.