I Corinthians 11 · The Lantern

I commende you

For even Jesus Christ does all things according to the will of the Father, as He Himself declares in a certain place, "I do always those things that please Him." Wherefore it behoves us also to live according to the will of God in Christ, and to imitate Him as Paul did. For, says he, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."

If, indeed, the goal of Christianity is the imitation of Christ according to the measure of his incarnation, insofar as is conformable with the vocation of each individual, they who are entrusted with the guidance of many others are obliged to animate those still weaker than themselves, by their assistance, to the imitation of Christ.

Having eliminated from the believers a practice contrary to the sacrament of the Eucharist, namely, partaking of food offered to idols, the Apostle now instructs them about the sacrament of the Eucharist itself. First, he gives a general admonition; secondly, he develops his proposition (v. 3).

brethren that ye remeber me in all thinges and kepe the ordinaunces even as I delyvered them to you.

And so they upbraid the discipline of monogamy with being a heresy; nor is there any other cause whence they find themselves compelled to deny the Paraclete more than the fact that they esteem Him to be the institutor of a novel discipline, and a discipline which they find most harsh: so that this is already the first ground on which we must join issue in a general handling (of…

Having finished therefore all the discourses concerning all these things, he next proceeds also to another accusation. And what was this?

Then when he says, I commend you, brethren, he shows how the Corinthians were acting in regard to the above admonition. In regard to this it should be observed that subjects follow their prelates in two ways: namely, as to their deeds and words.

I wolde ye knew that Christ is the heed of every man. And the man is the womans heed. And God is Christes heed.

But additions of other people's hair are entirely to be rejected, and it is a most sacrilegious thing for spurious hair to shade the head, covering the skull with dead locks. For on whom does the presbyter lay his hand? Whom does he bless? Not the woman decked out, but another's hair, and through them another head.

"But I would have ye know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." This is his account of the reason of the thing, and he states it to make the weaker more attentive.

Then when he says, But I want you to understand, brethren, he proceeds to his intention of instructing believers in the sacrament of the Eucharist. In regard to this he does three things: first, he reproves their errors regarding the rite of this sacrament; secondly, he shows the dignity of this sacrament (v. 23); thirdly, he teaches the correct rite (v. 27).

Eevery ma prayinge or prophesyinge havynge eny thynge on his heed shameth his heed.

Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; but set aside at once both the Gospel and th…

Paul was complaining because men were fussing about their hair and women were flaunting their locks in church. Not only was this dishonoring to them, but it was also an incitement to fornication.

Having set forth the doctrine, he adds the admonition, the reason for which is taken from the doctrine mentioned. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives the admonition on the man's part; secondly, on the woman's (v. 5).

Every woman that prayeth or prophisieth bare hedded dishonesteth hyr heed. For it is even all one and the very same thinge even as though she were shaven.

And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.

"Seven thunders uttered their voices." The seven thunders uttering their voices signify, the Holy Spirit of sevenfold power, who through the prophets announced all things to come, and by His voice John gave his testimony in the world; but because he says that he was about to write the things which the thunders had uttered, that is, whatever things had been obscure in the announ…

Then when he says, but every woman, he gives an admonition as it applies to women, saying: But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled (which is unbecoming, considering her condition) disgraces her head, i.e., does something unsuitable in regard to covering her hair.

If the woman be not covered lett her also be shoren. If it be shame for a woma to be shorne or shave let her cover her heed.

If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled.

He continues to prove that being uncovered is the same as being shorn; and as the latter is shameful, so too is the former. By all this he expresses that it is always shameful for a woman to be uncovered.

Secondly, he leads to something unacceptable, saying: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair. As if to say: If she throws aside the artificial covering, let her for the same reason cast aside the natural covering; which is unacceptable. But against this seems to be the fact that nuns are shaved.

A man ought not to cover his heed for as moche as he is the image and glory of God. The woman is the glory of the man.

Therefore, too, the Lord demanded that the money should be shown Him, and inquired about the image, whose it was; and when He had heard it was Caesar's, said, "Render to Caesar what are Caesar's, and what are God's to God; "that is, the image of Caesar, which is on the coin, to Caesar, and the image of God, which is on man, to God; so as to render to Caesar indeed money, to God…

From this we learn that man is not the image of God because of his soul or because of his body. If that were the case, woman would be the image of God in exactly the same way as man, because she too has a soul and a body. What we are talking about here is not nature but a relationship.

Then when he says, For a man, he presents the second proof, which is taken from a comparison to God. First, he induces to the proof; secondly, he proves what he had supposed (v. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down the reason for that which is on man's part; secondly, on the woman's part (v. 7).

For the man is not of the woman but the woman of the ma.

Nether was the man created for ye womas sake: but the woma for the mannes sake

For this cause ought the woma to have power on her heed for the angels sakes.

Again, the coming of the Saviour with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle, when he says, "A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels." Now, that Achamoth, when the Saviour came to her, drew a veil over herself through modesty, Moses rendered manifest when he put a veil upon his face.

"For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head" "For this cause:" what cause, tell me? "For all these which have been mentioned," saith he; or rather not for these only, but also "because of the angels." "For although thou despise thine husband," saith he, "yet reverence the angels." It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority.

Then when he says, That is why, he draws the intended conclusion, saying: That is why, namely, because man is the image and glory of God, but woman the glory of man, a woman ought to have a veil on her head, when she places herself before God by praying or prophesying. In this way it is shown that she is not immediately under God, but is also subjected to man under God.

Neverthelesse nether is the ma with oute the woma nether the woma with out the man in the lorde.

Be not ashamed of servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them. Do not hold women in abomination, for they have given thee birth, and brought thee up. It is fitting, therefore, to love those that were the authors of our birth (but only in the Lord), inasmuch as a man can produce no children without a woman.

However, he says this because he gave more preeminence to the husband, having proved that the wife is from him, and for him, and under his authority. Lest he exalt husbands beyond what is proper, and humiliate wives, he says that in the original creation the wife was indeed made from the husband, but now the husband also is not born without the wife.

Then when he says, Nevertheless, he excludes a doubt which could arise from these statements. For because he had said that man is God's glory and the woman man's glory, someone might believe either that the woman was not from God or that she should not have power in grace.

For as the woman is of the man eve so is the man by the woman: but all is of God.

Paul adds that all things are from God so that the woman will not be upset because of her dependent condition nor will the man be proud of his responsible position.

The wife, he says, is from the husband. For until now the husband retains that distinction, that the wife is from him. And "the husband through the wife," that is, the wife serves in the bearing of a person, but the greater action lies in the seed.

Secondly, he assigns the reason, saying: For as in the first condition of things, woman was formed from the man, so in subsequent generations man was produced through woman, as Job says: "Man born of a woman" (Jb 14:1). For the first production of man took place without man or woman, when "God formed man from the dust of the earth" (Gen 2:7).

Iudge in youre selves whether it be coly yt a woman praye vnto god bare heeded.

Here then we see the just judgment of God's providence, that diversity of conduct is taken into account and that each is treated according to the deserts of his departure and defection from goodness.

"Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God veiled?" Again he places them as judges of the things said, which also he did respecting the idol-sacrifices. For as there he saith, "judge ye what I say:" so here, "judge in yourselves:" and he hints something more awful here.

Then when he says, Judge for yourselves, he submits to his bearers' judgment the things he had said. In regard to this he does two things: first, he submits the judgment to his rational hearers; secondly, he subdues the impudent ones.

Or els doth not nature teach you that it is a shame for a man

The Word prohibits us from doing violence to nature by boring the lobes of the ears. For why not the nose too?-so that, what was spoken, may be fulfilled: "As an ear-ring in a swine's nose, so is beauty to a woman without discretion." For, in a word, if one thinks himself made beautiful by gold, he is inferior to gold; and he that is inferior to gold is not lord of it.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him?" "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering." His constant practice of stating commonly received reasons he adopts also in this place, betaking himself to the common custom, and greatly abashing those who waited to be taught these…

Thirdly, he shows whence they should derive their judgment, namely, from nature itself; and this is what he says: Does not nature itself teach you? By "nature" he means the "natural inclination" in women to take care of their hair, which is a natural covering, but not in men. This inclination is shown to be natural, because it is found in the majority.

if he have longe heere: and a prayse to a woman yf she have longe heere? For her heere is geven her to cover her with all.

If there be eny man amonge you yt lusteth to stryve let him knowe that we have no soche custome nether the congregacions of God.

Why do we partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to "every man," without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute with regard to "every woman?

"But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God." It is then contentiousness to oppose these things, and not any exercise of reason. Notwithstanding, even thus it is a measured sort of rebuke which he adopts, to fill them the more with self-reproach; which in truth rendered his saying the more severe.

Then when he says, If anyone, he silences the impudent hearers, saying: If anyone is disposed to be contentious and not acquiesce in the above reason but would attack the truth with confident clamoring, which pertains to contentiousness, as Ambrose says, contrary to Jb (6:29): "Respond, I pray, without contentiousness"; (Pr 20:3): "It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from st…

This I warne you of and commende not that ye come to gedder: not after a better maner but after a worsse.

IT is necessary in considering the present charge to state also first the occasion of it. For thus again will our discourse be more intelligible. What then is this occasion?

As the first believers, having all things in common, ate at a common table, so in imitation of them, though imperfectly, on certain appointed days, perhaps feast days, in Corinth after partaking of the Mysteries a common meal was offered: the wealthy brought provisions, and the poor were invited and treated by them.

After reproaching the Corinthians for their error in covering, namely, because the women came to the sacred mysteries with their head uncovered, the Apostle then argues against their error about factions in the assembly, because while they gathered for the sacred mysteries, they spent their time in contentions.

Fyrst of all when ye come togedder in the cogregacion I heare that ther is dissencion amonge you: and I partly beleve it.

For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended "to make ma…

Not immediately does he begin speaking about the meals, but first reproaches them for the fact that there are divisions among them. For indeed, it was precisely because there were divisions among them that each one ate separately.

Then when he says, For in the first place, he mentions in detail how they assemble for the worse. First, he presents a judgment of guilt, saying: For in the first place, among others, namely, that you come together for the worse, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, namely, through contentions, which they practiced.

For ther must be sectes amonge you that they which are perfecte amonge you myght be knowen.

When ye come to gedder a man cannot eate the lordes supper. For every man begynneth a fore to eate his awne supper.

But always must we conduct ourselves as in the Lord's presence, lest He say to us, as the apostle in indignation said to the Corinthians, "When ye come together, this is not to eat the Lord's supper."

The Lord's Supper is the sacrament of the Lord. Everyone participates equally in it, whether they are poor or rich, slaves or lords, rulers or ruled. Common tables must at all costs be truly common so as to imitate the table of the Lord, which is open to all equally.

Then when he says, when you meet together, he accuses them of a third fault, namely, that they sinned in the way and order in which they took the body of Christ. All that follows can be explained in two ways. According to the first explanation they are accused of taking the body of Christ just after eating.

And one is hongrye and another is dronken. Have ye not houses to eate and to drinke in?

The apostle, checking those who transgress in their conduct at entertainments, says: "For every one taketh beforehand in eating his own supper; and one is hungry, and another drunken. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame those who have not?"

You have turned this Lord's Supper into your own private one. For as long as it was common, it was also called the Lord's Supper; for the Master's goods are common to all servants. But since each one hastens to eat his own supper, not waiting for the poor, but eating by himself, you have dishonored your supper, having made it private instead of the Lord's.

Then when he says, For each one, he mentions the fault: first, insofar as they sinned against God; secondly, insofar as they sinned against their neighbor (v. 21b). He says, therefore, first: The reason I say that it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord's supper is that each one of you goes ahead with his own meal, namely, of common food.

Or els despyse ye the congregacion of god and shame them that have not? What shall I saye vnto you? shall I prayse you: In this prayse I you not.

The false apostles had sown divisions among them so that they were possessive of their offerings. Although they were all blessed with one and the same prayer, those who had not offered or who had nothing to offer were covered with shame and did not take part. Furthermore, it all happened so quickly that those who came later found nothing left to eat.

If you do not intend to eat all together, then why do you not eat at home? For when you turn the Lord's Supper into a private one, eating by yourself, you show contempt both for the church and for the place.

Then when he says, Do you not have houses, he looks into the cause of this sin. First, he excludes a reason, by which they could be excused. For it is not lawful to apply to profane uses the house of God, which is set aside for sacred uses.

That which I delyvered vnto you I receaved of ye lorde. For ye lorde Iesus the same nyght in which he was betrayed toke breed:

Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.

"For I received of the Lord," saith he, "that which also I delivered unto you: how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread: And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." Wherefore doth he here make mention of the Mysteries?

After rebuking the Corinthians for their unbecoming behavior, when they came together to take the Eucharist, the Apostle now deals with the sacrament itself. First, he discusses the dignity of this sacrament; secondly, he urges the faithful to receive it reverently (v. 27).

and thanked and brake and sayde. Take ye and eate ye: this is my body which is broken for you. This do ye in the remembraunce of me.

The teaching of the blessed Paul is of itself sufficient to give you full assurance about the divine mysteries by admission to which you have become one body and blood with Christ.… When the Master himself has explicitly said of the bread, "This is my body," will anyone still dare to doubt?

Daniel the disciple of Arsenius used to talk also about a hermit in Scetis, saying that he was a great man but simple in the faith, and in his ignorance he thought and said that the bread which we receive is not in very truth the Body of Christ, but a symbol of His Body.

Then when he says, he took bread, he shows the manner of the institution: first, he relates what Christ said and did in instituting this sacrament; secondly, he explains (v. 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he deals with the institution of this sacrament as to the body of Christ; secondly, as to His blood (v. 25).

After the same maner he toke the cup when sopper was done sayinge. This cup is the newe testament in my bloude. This do as oft as ye drynke it in the remebraunce of me.

We may not, I say, we may not call into question the truth of the (poor vilified) senses, lest we should even in Christ Himself, bring doubt upon the truth of their sensation; lest perchance it should be said that He did not really "behold Satan as lightning fall from heaven; " that He did not really hear the Father's voice testifying of Himself; or that He was deceived in touc…

The word cup means nothing other than the new covenant in the Lord.… The grace of suffering was intended by the Lord when the word cup is used.

After setting forth the institution of this sacrament as to the consecration of the body, the Apostle now sets forth its institution as to the consecration of the blood. First, he presents the order of institution; secondly, the words (v. 25b).

For as often as ye shall eate this breed and drynke this cup ye shall shewe the lordes deeth tyll he come.

And because we make mention of His passion in all sacrifices (for the Lord's passion is the sacrifice which we offer), we ought to do nothing else than what He did.

Next, having spoken concerning that Supper, he connects the things present with the things of that time, that even as on that very evening and reclining on that very couch and receiving from Christ Himself this sacrifice, so also now might men be affected; and he saith, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till He come." For as Ch…

Then when he says, As often as, he explains the Lord's words, which said: "Do this in memory of me," saying: For as often as you eat this bread. He says bread on account of the appearances that remain. He says this on account of the numerically same body signified and contained.

Wherfore whosoevere shall eate of this bred or drynke of the cup vnworthely shalbe giltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde

Let a ma therfore examen him silfe and so let hi eate of the breed and drynke of the cup.

For he yt eateth or drinketh vnworthely eateth and drynketh his awne damnacion because he maketh no difference of the lordis body.

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." What sayest thou, tell me? Is this Table which is the cause of so many blessings and teeming with life, become judgment? Not from its own nature, saith he, but from the will of him that approaches.

In the species of bread and wine Christ is set before us as food, which whoever receives worthily, not only sacramentally, but also eating spiritually through faith and charity, is more fully incorporated into the mystical body of Christ and is in himself refreshed and purified; but whoever approaches unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the most holy…

Then when he says, anyone who eats, he assigns the reason for the above remedy, saying: A previous examination is required, because anyone who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment, i.e., condemnation, upon himself: "Those who have done evil will rise to the resurrection of judgment" (Jn. 5:29).

For this cause many are weake and sicke amoge you and many slepe.

"For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep." Here he no longer brings his examples from others as he did in the case of the idol-sacrifices, relating the ancient histories and the chastisements in the wilderness, but from the Corinthians themselves; which also made the discourse apt to strike them more keenly.

Take the proof of what has been said from what happens among you. For it is because many partake unworthily that cases of untimely death and prolonged illnesses occur. But do those who reach the deepest old age without experiencing illness no longer sin? They do sin.

Then when he says, That is why, he clarifies the reason he gave with a sign. First, he mentions the sign; secondly, he assigns the cause of that sign (v. 31).

Yf we had truly iudged oure selves we shuld not have bene iudged.

Now the Scripture kindles the living spark of the soul, and directs the eye suitably for contemplation; perchance inserting something, as the husbandman when he ingrafts, but, according to the opinion of the divine apostle, exciting what is in the soul. "For there are certainly among us many weak and sickly, and many sleep. But if we judge ourselves, we shall not be judged."

Indeed, many sins seem to be ignored and go unpunished. But their punishment is reserved for the future. It is not in vain that the day when the Judge of the living and the dead shall come is rightly called the day of judgment. Just so, on the other hand, some sins are punished here, and if they are forgiven will certainly bring no harm upon us in the future age.

Then when he says, But if we judged, he assigns two reasons for the above sign: the first is taken on our part; the second on God's part (v. 32). On our part the cause of divine punishment is from negligence, because we neglect to punish ourselves for sins committed.

But when we are iudged of the lorde we are chastened because we shuld not be daned with the worlde.

"Being judged by the Lord," says the apostle, "we are chastened, that we may not be condemned with the world." For the prophet had said before, "Chastening, the Lord hath chastised me, but hath not given me over unto death." "For in order to teach thee His righteousness," it is said, "He chastised thee and tried thee, and made thee to hunger and thirst in the desert land; that…

"But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord." He said not, we are punished, he said not, we have vengeance taken on us, but, "we are chastened." For what is done belongs rather to admonition than condemnation, to healing than vengeance, to correction than punishment.

Then when he says, But when we, he presents the cause on God's part, saying: But when we are judged by the Lord, i.e., punished in this world, we are chastened, i.e., this is done for our correction, in order, namely, that each one withdraw from sin on account of the punishment he endured: "Happy is the man whom God reproves" (Jb 5:17); "Whom the Lord loves he chastises" (Pr 3:…

Wherfore my brethren when ye come to gedder to eate tary one for another.

The apostle, checking those that transgress in their conduct at entertainments, says: "For every one taketh beforehand in eating his own supper; and one is hungry, and another drunken. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?

"Wherefore when ye come together to eat, wait one for another." Thus, while their fear was yet at its height and the terror of hell remained, he chooses again to bring in also the exhortation in behalf of the poor, on account of which he said all these things; implying that if they do not this they must partake unworthily.

Then when he says, So then, he leads them back to due observance: first, he presents what he now ordains; secondly, he gives a promise of a future ordination (v. 34b).

Yf eny ma hoger let hi eate at home yt ye come not togedder vnto condenacio. Other thinges will I set in order whe I come.

"And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home." By permitting, he hinders it, and more strongly than by an absolute prohibition. For he brings him out of the church and sends him to his house, hereby severely reprimanding and ridiculing them, as slaves to the belly and unable to contain themselves.

A shaming word. For he speaks with them as with children who are irritable from hunger, and condemns their gluttony. Therefore, leading them out of the church, he sends them home, and there shames them considerably. That is, to their own harm and condemnation.

Then a promise is made when he says: About other things, namely, which are not so perilous, when I come home very soon, I will give directions, namely, how to conserve them.

I Corinthians11