The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Ver. 15. — But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her . To let the hair grow long is contrary to what becomes man, is the mark of a weak and effeminate mind, unless it is done because of ill-health or intense cold. Hence S. Augustine reproves some monks who wore their hair down to their shoulders, to gain the appearance and reputation of holiness ( de Op . Monach .). Again, it seems fitting for a man to pray with uncovered head, for a woman with covered, as the Apostle has proved here. The woman ought, therefore, to let her hair grow long, but not the man, for her hair was given her for her covering.
Take note, however, that it is not absolutely enjoined, either by natural, Divine, or ecclesiastical law, that a woman should let her hair grow long and man should not. Hence, as was said in the notes to ver. 6, religious women cut off their hair. On the other hand, the men of some tribes, like the Gauls, used to let their hair grow long for an ornament. Hence we get the name of Gallia Comata. Homer, too, frequently speaks of the “ long-haired Achaeans.” The Romans, also, in ancient times, grew their hair long, and did not apply the scissors till the time of Scipio Africanus. Pliny says (Ibid. vii. c. 59) that the first barbers came into Italy from Sicily, a.u.c. 454. Lycurgus also enacted that the Lacedaemonians should retain their hair. S. Paul, therefore, is not laying down any rule, but merely points to the teaching of nature, that it is fitting for a woman, when she goes out in public, to go with bonnet and veil, but not for a man. Still, he here adopts the decency taught , and wishes the Corinthians to observe it as if it were a precept, hence he adds —
Ver. 16. — But if any man seem to be contentious. To be contentious is to contend for renown and victory, not for truth ; and here it is to contend that Christian women should not be veiled when they pray in Church, but should be bareheaded, according to the ancient custom of the heathen.
Ver. 17 . — Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not , &c. This is the fourth reason why women should be veiled, drawn from nature itself, which has given woman hair for a covering, to teach her that she ought to cover herself. The Apostle says, “In giving you this precept about the veiling of women, I do not, at the same time, praise you for coming together, not for the better but for the worse.” What this means is explained in the next verse.
Ver. 18. — For first of all ... I hear that there be divisions among you. Observe the word “Church,” which shows that, in the time of S. Paul, there were places set apart for worship. For the early form of churches, their paintings, use of the Cross, the separation of the sexes, &c., see Baronius in his commentary on this verse.
The Apostle here passes from the subject of the veiling of women to correct the abuses of the Corinthians in the Eucharist.
For there must also be heresies among you . Looking at the fickleness , pride, newness in the faith, and quarrelsomeness of the Corinthians, who were saying, “ I am of Paul, I of Apollos,” which God permitted to prove them, it was necessary that there should be heresies. So Cajetan, Ambrose, Chrysostom. “ Heresies ” here denotes the divisions on points of faith and manners, which existed among the Corinthians about the Eucharist, e.g., where they should sit, when the Supper should begin, about the food and drink, about the persons they should sit down with. In the Lord’s Supper and the agapae, the rich Corinthians excluded the poor and had their meat by themselves.
That they which are approved may be made manifest among you. In the time of heresy and schism, we see who are built on the foundation of faith and piety, as here amongst the Corinthians was seen the patient constancy of the poor, who were scorned by the rich, and also the modesty and charity of the rich who hated divisions, and invited the poor to their feasts and their agapae. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius.
Ver. 20. — When ye come together , therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. When you come together in this way to the Eucharist and the supper of the Lord, your supper is no longer that of the Lord, as it once was ; and your eating is no longer an eating of the Lord's Supper. You do not institute a supper of the Lord, who admitted to His sober and holy meal all the Apostles, including even Judas, but a supper to Bacchus or Mars; for you come together to get drunk, and to exclude the poor, and so each one fills himself with wine, and the poor with violence. So Anselm, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Vatablus, and Erasmus read for “it is not,” “ it is not lawful,” i.e., “ it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord's Supper, and for this reason.” But the first meaning is more thorough, more forcible, and better reproves the Corinthians.
Ver. 21. — For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper. (1.) S. Augustine ( Ep . 118) understands this to mean that they took their supper before they came to the Eucharist, and that ver. 33 orders them to wait for one another at the supper before the Eucharist ; because at the Eucharist itself or after it there was no need of waiting, since it was not celebrated till all had assembled, when the poor would receive it mingled indiscriminately with the rich.
We must remark that, at the time of S. Paul, in imitation of Christ, who, after the common meal on the Passover lamb, instituted the Eucharist, the Christians instituted before the Eucharist a meal common to all, rich and poor alike, in token of their mutual Christian charity. This custom lasted in some Churches for several centuries. As late as the time of Sozomen, as he relates (Hist. lib. vii. c. 29), it was the custom in many towns and villages of Egypt, first to take a meal in common, and then, following Christ’s example, celebrate and partake of the Holy Eucharist. The Third Council of Carthage (can. 29) points to the same custom as prevailing in several other Churches. The Apostle does not here censure this custom wherever or whenever it was allowed, but only the abuse of it by those who got drunk in this supper, and allowed others who were poor to go hungry. Hence he says, “ One is hungry and another is drunken ; ” and again he says, that a man will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord who eats unworthily, in the mortal sin of drunkenness and contempt of the poor. He therefore, in ver. 33, bids them wait for one another when they eat the Lord’s Supper. He speaks, therefore, of the assembly which took place before, not after the Eucharist.
2. Others, however, think that “ the supper taken before ” is the agape after the Eucharist. In the primitive Church, in imitation of Christ, the richer members were in the habit of spreading a feast for rich and poor alike after the Holy Communion, in token of love, whence it was called the “ agape ; ” but as charity grew cold and the number of the faithful increased, the practice became abused; for the rich would spread their own table sumptuously, even getting intoxicated, and would sit apart by themselves, the poor being excluded or not expected, far less invited, as ver. 33 implies, and it is this that the Apostle here censures. Cf. Chrysostom (Hom. xxiii. Moral.), Tertullian (Apol. 29), and Baronius in loco . It was for this reason that the Council of Laodicea (can. 28) abolished the agape.
But the former explanation seems the better for the reasons given above; for the agape in S. Paul's time was held, not after but before the Eucharist ; although shortly after these early days, when the Church laid down that, out of reverence, the Eucharist should be received fasting only, the agape was kept after the Eucharist, as will be seen by reference to the passages of Tertullian and Chrysostom , quoted above, and to S. Augustine ( Ep . 118). By parity of reasoning this passage of S. Paul can be applied to those of the rich who celebrated the agape after the Eucharist; for he censures drunkenness and pride in the agape, whether before or after the Eucharist. Wherefore some Protestants are wrong in twisting this verse into an argument against private Masses, in which the priest alone communicates, merely because no one else wishes to communicate ; for others are not excluded, nay, the Church wishes (Council of Trent, sess. xxii. can. 6 and 8) those who hear Mass to communicate. For the Apostle is not referring to this, nor is he speaking of the Eucharist at all, but of the common meal called the agape, as I have shown.
Ver. 22. — What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? &c. Why do you put to shame the poor who have not your wealth, and cannot contribute the delicacies which you can to the common meal? If you wish to feast and enjoy yourselves, do it at home among your equals, not in the church. For if you do it in church you sin in two ways: (1.) because you defile the church by your self-indulgence ; (2.) because, by neglecting and despising the poor, you rend the Christian Church, which is common to rich and poor.
Ver. 23. — That which also I delivered unto you. Not by writing, as I said before, but by word of mouth. This is one authority for the traditions which orthodox divines teach, should be added to the written word of God.