1 Corinthians: Exegetical Notes
Chapters 11-13

Return to Index    

Chapters:  11  12  13  

Abbreviations used in the notes:

N1, N2, N3, Ti, T2, T3: Refer to 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of the Nisan and Tishri Cycles, respectively, of the Jewish Synagogue Triennial Lectionary, q.v.
Nisan 1: Read on 1st Sabbath of Nisan in the TC
TC: Triennial Cycle of the Synagogue Lectionary
H: Haphtarah (Prophetic reading from OT)
TS: Torah Seder (Reading from the Pentateuch)
om.: omit(ting)
// Parallel passage
X: Chiasm (details of these are given separately)
OX: Overall chiasm (1 Cor. 1.1-8.6a x 8.6b-16.24)
acc.: according to
ergo: Latin for 'therefore'
2o Paul: Letters by Paul's disciples (Paul as author of Rom, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal & Philemon only)
Chapter 11
OX: 11.3-34 x 5.9-6.11
XX: 10.27-11.10a x 11.10b-11.22b; X: 11.2-12.13a x 12.13b-13.2; X: 11.16-25a x 25a-34 
2-15 A 3-strand argument [probably interpolated by a later hand -
[see 1 Corinthians and Women in Paul] to get women to keep their heads covered in the (public) assembly of the Church when they pray or prophesy (v. 5):
(1) 11.2-5a (-6):
(2) 11.7-12:
(3) 11.13-15:
'Law' of Christ
Law & Prophets
Law of Man
        The fact that we have a fairly lengthy chiasm, 10.27-11.10a x 11.10a-11.22b
centering on 11.10: ';That is why a woman ought to have a veil/authority on her head, because of the angels', suggests (1) the point was fairly important for the interpolator (if not by Paul's hand), and (2) perhaps it is referring to more than simply the veiling of women.  Note that 'the woman/wife', ή γυνή, in the singular is used throughout.
        The above considerations led Gibbs' former student, Donald Scholey,
(at Lichfield Theological College, England) to propose the following:
Since the Song of Songs was read at Passover, and since Jewish interpretation took this love poetry to be about Yahweh and Israel, his bride, therefore 1 Cor 11.2-167 is concerned with the Church as the bride of God, who should behave decorously and in good order under God's authority (ἐξουσία ), not under the domination of other powers such as angels.  A symbol of this good order (which is certainly a major theme in 1 Cor) should be that each woman should have her head covered in public, for otherwise in the first century world she would be judged to be a harlot.
2 'that you remember me', ὅτι ... μου μέμνησθε: i.e., as an example (link back to 11.1).
'and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you',
καὶ καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε (link to 11.16) - note tech. terms, παράδοσις παραδιδόναι, 'to hand on a tradition' (cf. same terms in 153, with παραλαμβάνειν, 'to receive (a tradition)'), & 11.23
παράδοσις is the oral tradition, either on a point of doctrine (as in 15.3), cult (as in 11.23), or ethics (as here in 11.2).
3-12 (1) God is head of Christ, (2) Christ is head of Man, (3) Man is head of woman,
(4) Woman is glory (δόξα ) of Man, (5) Man is glory (δόξα ) of Christ, (6) Christ is glory (δόξα ) of God
(with δόξα = εἰκών , 'image').   (Oepke, ἀνήρ , TWNT i, 363 f; TDNT i, 362.)
cf. 3.22 f. for the same sequence: all things - you - Christ - God.
This sequence is concerned with subordination (and hence good order).
The interpolator appears to feel that he has proved two theses: (1) the inferiority of woman  with regard to authority; (2) the necessity of her subordination.
This does not square with Paul's own view in Gal 3.28 ('there is neither male nor female, for you are one in Christ Jesus').
3 'the head', ἡ κεφαλὴ : used in the sense of one who has authority.
'man', ἀνήρ : masculine man as opposed to ἄνθρωπος, generic man(kind);
This is necessary for the Gen 2-based argument of vv. 8-9.
4 κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων : 'having (something) on (his) head':
 ἔχων, 'having', has no complement (of what it is that he has), and 'something' must be supplied.  κατά + genitive generally means 'coming down from'.  But equally ancient is the sense of 'descending upon', as in Homer, Iliad, V.696 (cf. XX.213): 'Darkness came upon their eyes' (κατὰ ὀφθαλμῶν ), and the sense 'on' may be derived from it, as found in Aristophanes, Clouds, 177: κατὰ τῆς τραπέζης καταπάσις λεπτήν τέφραν, 'after sprinkling a fine layer of ashes on the table'; Plutarch, Apophthegmata regum 200E: κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχων τὸ ἱμάτιον , 'having his cloak over his head'; Esther 6.12: λυπούμενος κατὰ κεφαλῆς , 'observing mourning (by having something) on (his) head', ashes doubtless.
Héring: 'The verse is rather obscure.  We guess that the man, being nearer than the woman to God, has the right to appear bareheaded in God's presence (contrary to Jewish conceptions, which only allow men into the synagogue with their head covered), and that non-observance of this privilege implies a kind of dishonour inflicted by the man upon himself.  For he treats his head as something devoid of honour which should be covered.'
Clarification of this comes in 11.7 (see below).
4-5 'when praying or prophesying' -
both the 'man', ἀνήρ, and the 'woman', γυνή , are defined by this phrase in vv. 4 & 5 respectively, so that one might think that it was only when they were engaged in these activities that the requirements regarding the head applied to the particular charismatics involved.
(14.26, 31) But since such passages as 14.26, 31 indicate that any and all members might be praying or prophesying at some time, Héring is probably correct that the one I deem to be an interpolator intended to apply these restrictions to all the men and women in the Church and not just to a small group.
(14.26-36)   Gibbs: Noting that 14.26-36 (which includes the opportunity for everyone to contribute vocally, but in good order) is followed by 14.34-36 (which I conclude is a further interpolation, about women being silent in the Churches, in subjection, and asking questions of their husbands only at home), it would seem that: (1) the interpolator thought there were some upstart wives, 'women libbers', upsetting the established mores of the social order, both in the Church assembly and in their marital relationships.;  (2) he tries to shame them into obedience and decorous behaviour by wearing a sign of authority on their heads; (3) those who resist this shall not be allowed to pray or prophesy, and shall be held up to ridicule.  If this is correct, then (a) the good order of the Church is involved (and perhaps its public reputation in Corinth), and (b)  the stability of Christian marriages within the mores of Hellenistic society is also involved.  In this second area perhaps the Jewish-Christian marriages are more affected, since Hellenistic women had more rights initially than Jewish women, e.g., the right to divorce their husbands.  Note that in Gal 3.28 the terms used are ἄρσεν and θῆλυ, 'male' and 'female' (from Gen 1.27), not ἀνήρ, 'man/husband', and γυνή, 'woman/wife',
(14.35) Note also that 1 Cor 14.35 appears to assume that all the women (or at least thos deemed to be trouble-makers) are wives.  Note the intensification of subjection of wives to husbands in the next generation, deutero-Pauline, Col 3.18 f.
[On the revolution-by-evolutionary-leavening social ethics in the NT, 
see C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of  the New Testament, 134-142, who notes that it is not the external relationships that are changed, but rather the quality of those relationships from within the existing structrures.]
(Before we too readily castigate the interpolator [or possibly Paul] 
for accommodating the Gospel of freedom to a less than free social order in the first generation of the Christian Church, let us remember the social conservatism of those many Indian Churches, which after many generations, seat man and women separately and which are horrified at the thought of sexually-mixed youth groups.)
5b 'shames her head', καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς:
since her hair is her 'glory', δόξα., v. 15, 'her head' must refer to her husband, whom she dishonours by presenting herself bareheaded.  She is challenging his superiority and authority by seeking to take a privilege reserved for him alone.
5c 'it is the same as if her head were shaven':
(1) among Jews and Greeks it was lacking decency for a woman or girl of good family to appear bareheaded in public, and the assembly of the Church might include unbelievers or outsiders (cf. 14.24); 
(2) Lucian (2nd century CE), Dialogues of the Courtesans, V.13, speaks contemptuously of 'mannish' women; in his Drapetai, sect. 27, he speaks of manly women who shaved their heads; Tacitus (ca. 55-?116 CE), Germania, Ch. 19, says the Germani cut an adulteress' hair;
(3) Num 5.18 requires the priest to unveil a woman and loosen her hair before subjecting her to certain tests; Midrash Numbers, parasha IX, thinks that it is to dishonour her: 'Since she shows no respect for the honour of God, no respect can be shown for her honour'.  In the MIshnah (Baba Quamma 8.9), to unveil a woman's head was a serious offence (fine: 400 pieces of silver).
Thus the passage appears to imply that she is akin t an adulteress, and this would appear to be the hint in v. 10 as well (cf. below).
7a Man as the 'image' and 'glory' of God.
On the inter-relatedness (and basic interchangeability of these terms in Paul, see David S. Cairns, The Image of God in Man (London, 1953).
For Paul 'image', 'glory', 'Body' (of Christ), and 'temple' (νάος ) are used as equivalents.  Note: man is the image, he has not lost it, and he is (or at least intended to be) the 'glory' of God, even though he is 'lacking' in the glory of God (Rom 3.23), which is yet to be (fully) revealed in/to/for him (Rom 8.18-19), where all Christians are meant).
7b 'but woman is the glory of man':
This puzzles Héring, who thinks that δόξα, 'glory', is a copyist's error for δόγμα , which in Aramaic means 'a copy'.  (Aramaic took up the Greek word, δόγμα, and gave it the sense of the Greek, δεῖγμα , 'image'; the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 1.26, 27, uses the Aramaic dogma to explain the Hebrew demûth, 'likeness' (= ὁμοίωσις, 'likeness', in L:XX).  But Héring is wrong on two counts:  (1) δόξα, 'glory', and εἴκων , 'image', are interchangeable in Paul (see above on 7a), and it is a question of authority here: the woman is under the authority of the man, and hence is his image/glory: as his image/glory, she comes under his authority (as mankind as God's image comes under his authority, which is a consequence of being his image in Gen 1.27-28); (2) the 'image and glory' (7a) ... 'glory' (7b) seen as a question of devolving authority then is similar in structure and purpose to the 'head ... head ... head' sequence of v.  3.  There is no need for Héring's δόγμα hypothesis.
7b-8 Prov 12.4: woman as crown of her husband.
8 Gen 2.21 f., Nisan 2 [N1]
9 Gen 2.18: woman as man's helper (βοηθός , Gen 2.18, 20)
10 'Because of this the woman ought to have an authority (ἐξουσία ) on her head:
because of the angels.'  The sign of the ἐξουσία , 'authority', to which she submits is a veil, and several versions and patristic witnesses give the gloss κάλυμμα, 'veil', but, as we have seen, the choice of ἐξουσία is a deliberate one, for it is indeed a question of the woman being 'under authority', both as a wife and as, perhaps, the representative of the Chuirch as the Bride (cf. above on vv. ).
'because of the angels':  probably more than one meaning here. 
(1) Gibbs' conjecture:  The saints, under God's authority, will judge angels (6.3), and thus the woman as the symbol of the Church, should be decorous and clearly as one 'under authority'  before the angels.
(2) It is probably also a snide reference to Gen 6.1-4, NIsan 4 [N1], the story of the angels seduced by the beauty of women: the bareheaded woman, praying or prophesying (and hence in an ecstatic state, perhaps), lays herself open to seduction (i.e. adultery) by angels.  The Gen 6 story is more fully developed in Eth. Enoch , Chapters 6-7, 67-8, 106.13-14; Slav. Enoch, Chapter 7.18; Testament of Reuben 5; Jubilees 5.1; Apoc. of Baruch 56.8-13. 
Nephilim, the mighty offspring of the mating of the angels with women, only at Gen 6.4, TS Nisan 4 [N1] [Gen 6.5-8 in next TS - on sin vs Caleb's report on Promised Land] and Num 13.33 TS Iyyar 1 [N3], which appears to reinforce implied connection between the woman's bareheaded state and the proximity of sin.
(2b) See Ps 138.1 for the idea that praises to God are sung before the angels, which would fit the apparent reference to Gen 6.1-4.
(3) Greek idea: an ecstatic woman was open to demon-possession, due to her weakness in the ecstatic state. 
(4) J. A. Fitzmeyer, 'Features of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11.10', NTS, 4 (1957, indicates that Greek women would be present at religious assemblies bareheaded.  He adduces, on the basis of several Qumran texts, that any defect of physique or dress is offensive to the angels, but this still leavwes the question iof why the lack of a veil would be reprehensible.  Gibbs' answer is that it would be a lack of good order (under God, Christ, and the husband), and hence offensive to the angels.
  (5) Possibly it also means that good angels might themselves be tempted by the woman who exposes the 'glory' (v. 15) of her hair.
Finally, note that v. 10 is the centre of the X: 10.27-11.10a x 11.10b-22b.
11-12 Re-establishes the basic interdependence of man and woman in the Lord. 
cf. Gal 3.28; 1 Cor 7.4 re Christian marriage.
Note that 'Christ'  and 'God' (v. 3) are brought into the picture again:
 'Lord' (v. 11) and 'God' (v. 12).
12 Woman from man: Gen 3.22; man from woman: Gen 3.16
(which includes the rule of the husband over her) and Gen 4.1: 'I have begotten a man....'
12b 'and all things are from God': 8.6; cf. 3.23; 10.31; 11.3; (10.26).
13-15 Appeal to 'human wisdom' of the Graeco-Roman society.
13 'Is  it proper...': Iconography appears to show a distinction: the long veil covering the face and part of the bust was only worn in exceptional circumstances (mourning, marriage, dangerous journeys).  But the short veil concealing the hair, ears and forehead seems to have been obligatory in good Greek families.  If, as Héring thinks, Greek women were normally veiled in the streets, then the argument is: do not come before God in a way considered indecent elsewhere.
14 A long-haired man was viewed as effeminate. 
The appeal here is to Graeco-Roman custom, not to 'natural law'.
15 Héring: Since κομᾶν can only mean 'wear long hair', the only possible meaning is that nature, by endowing woman with abundant hair, has shown the desire that she should be covered.  Civilization should to some extent complete the work of nature by following the direction indicated by nature.
Gibbs: I see a further possibility.  Since 11.15a calls the hair the woman's (ἡ γυνή ) glory (δόξα), it befits her to cover her own 'glory' for the sake of her husband that she may be seen as his 'glory', which she is; but the last part of v. 15 'For her hair is given to her for a covering' would appear to fit Héring's idea better.
16 The writer seems to admit that his idea has been laboured
and not overly convincing, for he appears to admit that he will; not convince everyone.  The unconvinced one he labels 'contentious', φιλόνεικος (= 'lover of strife'; LXX: Ezra 3.7).
As Héring says, v.16 'ends this discussion on a slightly resigned note'.
Gibbs is inclined to see it as 'point weak - shout here!' in the claim
of 'we [apostles] recognize no other practice', to which is added the pressure of: 'nor do the Churches of God!'
2--16 These verses treated a merely culturally -conditioned item,
17-34 but what follows is a serious matter of ethics, cult & theology,
touching the very nature of the life in the Body of Christ, centering on the Church supper(which came to be known as the Agapé, or love-feast) and the Eucharist which followed it.
17-22 // 11.27-34b.
17 vs 11.2
τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι..., 'While making this instruction,
 I cannot praise you because ...'.  τοῦτο looks back to the preceding, not top what follows, for one has to look too far forward to find contents of the παραγγελία, 'instruction/exhortation'.  This also argues for reading the participle, παραγγέλλων.
συνέρχεσθε ,  'when you come together';
on occurrences of συνέρχομαι cf. 5.4 - a tech. term by now?  Paul is using it here as a tech. term or a synonym for a tech. term: συνάγω [συναγωγή , 'synagogue'] (συνάξις , 'a meeting', is term subsequently applied to the first part of the Eucharist, the Ministry iof the Word, in later Christian usage - but συνάγω not used in middle voice, thus συνέρχεσθαι used here.)
εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον , 'for the better' - κρεῖσσον signifies moral good as in 7.9 (& Phil 1.23).
εἰς τὸ ἧσσον , 'for the worse' - cf. ἥττημα (using taus, not sigmas)
as a synonym for moral defect (and lack of well-being) in 6.7.
18 πρῶτον μὲν , 'in the first place', perhaps better: 'above all' as in Rom 3.2,
since it is not followed by δεύτερον δέ , 'in the second place', or any similar expression.  Héring, agreeing with Bachmann, takes πρῶτον as introducing list of abuses which continues through Chaps. 12-14.  Gibbs, taking it as 'above all', thinks the 'divisions' are meant.
ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ : not a locative sense, 'in church',
since there were no 'church buildings'; therefore take it 'as a church' (as in RSV/NRSV); on frequency of ἐκκλησία see notes on 1.2.
'I hear', ἀκούω: Paul has been hearing oral reports
and probably also rumours and gossip about the Corinthians, as is indicated by his only partially believing what he has heard: καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω.
σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν , 'divisions exist among you':
may be σχίσματα as in Chap. 1 or into groups which threaten unity of Eucharist, but in any case, schisms from the cultic angel are envisaged here.
19 δεῖ γὰρ καὶ , 'For it is even necessary...': Necessity and inevitability
of the 'sorting out' by Divine judgement, based on Christians' behaviour (Matt 18.7).
αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι , 'that there are factions among you':
αἱρέσεις might suggest doctrinal disputes, but this isa not very likely here, since Paul is stating a general principle of the necessity of judgement in all the churches, not just in Corinth.
οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν , 'the ones approved [of by God]
may become manifest in your midst': δόκιμοι: cf. 2 Cor 10.18; 13.7; Rom 14.18; Jas 1.3; δόκιμος, 'approved [by test], tried and true, genuine'.
I.e., approved by God - cf.14.25; 3.13 f.  Note that only those approved of
are mentioned, just as Paul only speaks of resurrection of those in Christ, not of a general resurrection.  Paul's basic concern is that men may be saved, not that they be damned (which sets him apart from the author of 1 Thess 2.14-16 & 2 Thess 1.8 f.; 2.11 f.).(There is certainly plenty of judgement in Paul, but it is a judgement which is intended to lead to correction, not a judgement for punishment as such; cf. 5.5.)
'For there will of necessity be factions among you',
 δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι: quoted by the Syriac Didaskalia (6.5) as a saying of Jesus, and also by Justin, Dial. with Trypho, chap. 36, and by Didymus, De Trinitate, III.22 (4th c. CE, Alexandria).  It may well be an ἄγραφον ('unwritten thing'), i.e. an authentic saying of Jesus unrecorded in the gospels.
20 κυριακὸν δεῖπνον , 'Lord's supper/meal': Chaps. 8 &10
make it clear that this is the meal to which the Lord summons us.  Analogy with the expression κυριακὴ ἡμέρα , 'the Lord's Day' (Didache 14) might lead us to believe that the meal was observed on Sundays only.  But is is very possible that in Corinth, as in Judaea acc. to Acts 2.46, the meal was observed more frequently.  κυριακόν: here, Rev 1.10 (& 2 Macc 15.36).
συνέρχεσθαι ... ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ could mean 'to come together in the same place',
i.e. a local sense of place, but ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ could be a synonym for ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ , in the sense of 'to form a single body': tbis is why the Church gathers to make Eucharist, but this is not in fact what the Corinthians show forth when they gather, for they show divisions and factions.
οὐκ οὐκ ἔστιν
Héring: 'The idea of purpose ("it is not to celebrate") is inadmissible; for the Corinthians do intend to observe the Lord's Supper.  The expression might mean: "that is no way to observe the Lord's Supper".  In this case the word ἔστιν could only be the copula.  But then a subject could be expected to be expressed, for instance, by τοῦτο ['this'],. which is omitted.  We prefer therefore to render οὐκ ἔστιν, etc., by "it is not possible that you are eating the Lord's Supper in conditions desired by the Lord".'
Gibbs: (following E. Schweizer, The Church as the Body of Christ) disagrees with Héring in translation, but not ultimately in meaning): 'When you come together as a group. it is not to eat the Lord's Supper'. I.e., emphasis on κυριακὸν, 'Lord's', for their failure to 'discern the Body' (v. 29 - which see) means their corporate unwillingness (like the scoffing son) to be incorporated into Christ's death (vv. 25-26) that they may live for others.  Their actions at the Church supper belie their words at the Eucharist and show their real intention to be something other than what the Eucharist is about, namely, unity, service and self-giving in and as the Body of Christ.
21 Cf. Zech 7.6 on eating and dr4inking for yourselves (and not to the LORD).
When brotherly unity should have been stronger than ever, social inequality was displayed: Instead of waiting  until all were present and food brought by each was fairly shared out the more affluent hurried to eat their own without waiting for the arrival of the poor., who might have been detained longer by their work.
21b The rich ate and drank too much: this scandalous behaviour
ran the risk of stripping the assemblies of their solemn character.
22a If your concern is to eat and drink your fill, do it at home.
In view of the two abuses in v. 21, the Church supper (Agape) eventually was separated from the celebration of the Eucharist.
22b 'Or do you despise the Church of God':
καταφρονεῖν (Paul: Rom 2.4) - cf. Matt 18.10(despising 'little ones', μικροί ) - WISDOM
'and humiliate': καταισχύνειν - cf. 1.27; 11.4, 5. - POWER
'those who have nothing': τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας - WELL-BEING
'Shall I commend/praise you in this?: ἐπαίνειν - 11.2, 17, 22, Rom 15.11 (Luke 16.8).
'In this I do not praise [you].'  ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ.
23 γὰρ , 'For': not, strictly speaking, the justificationof blame (which has
already been given in vv. 17-22).  γὰρ presupposes an unexpressed thought: 'If you had been faithful to the traditions which were passed on to you (11.1), you could not have behaved in this way.  For - I repeat it - this is the tradition, etc....'
ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου , 'which goes back to the Lord':
In Héring's view, along with the majority of critics, Paul has purposely avoided παρά and has used ἀπό instead, for παρά wopuld mean 'from the Lord's mouth' and would suggest a direct revelation.  ἀπό = 'on the Lord's behalf' indicates the source of an item of information, which must have been orally passed along as part of the Jesus-tradition until it reached Paul.
'I received ... what I delivered ...': παρέλαβον ... παρέδωκα (aorists) -
the tech. terms for transmission of a tradition, as we have seen (11.1).
Rom 1C 2C Gal (Eph Phil Col 1Th 2Th 1Tim
παράδοσις= 'tradition' 1 1 (1) (2)
παραδιδόναι= 'transmit' 6 7 1 1 (3) (1)
παραλαμβάνειν= 'receive' 3 2 (1) (2) (2) (1)
παράδοσις: 1 Cor 11.2; GaL 1.14; Col  2.8; 2 Thess 2.15; 3.6
παραδιδόναι: Rom (1.24, 26, 28; 4.25;) 6.17; 8.32) (but only 6.17 is concerned with transmission of tradition); 1 Cor (5.5); 11.2, 23 (23); (13.3); 15.3, (24); (2 Cor 4.11); (Gal 2.20); (Eph 4.19; 5.2, 25); (1 Tim 1.20).
παραλαμβάνειν: 1 Cor 11.23; 15.1, 3; Gal 1.9, 12; Phil 4.9; Col 2.6; 4.17; 1 Thess 2.13, 4.1; 2 Thess 3.6.
(Passages in brackets are not concerned with 'tradition'; passages underlined are the only ones concerned with Christian traditions, as in table below:)
Rom 1C 2C Gal (Eph Phil Col 1Th 2Th 1Tim
παράδοσις: 1 (2)
παραδιδόναι: 1 3
παραλαμβάνειν: 3 2 (1) (2) (2) (1)
παράδοσις: 1 Cor 11.2; GaL 1.14; Col  2.8; 2 Thess 2.15; 3.6
παραδιδόναι: Rom (1.24, 26, 28; 4.25;) 6.17; 8.32) (but only 6.17 is concerned with transmission of tradition); 1 Cor (5.5); 11.2, 23 (23); (13.3); 15.3, (24); (2 Cor 4.11); (Gal 2.20); (Eph 4.19; 5.2, 25); (1 Tim 1.20).
παραλαμβάνειν: 1 Cor 11.23; 15.1, 3; Gal 1.9, 12; Phil 4.9; Col 2.6; 4.17; 1 Thess 2.13, 4.1; 2 Thess 3.6.
This shows us: (1) How central to 1 Cor is Paul's concern to stabilize the Christian community at Corinth in terms of received tradition; and (2) the dangers of doing simple 'word counts' without paying careful attention to contexts of their actual usage.  (The remaining παράδοσις passages are concerned with human traditions; the other παραδιδόναι: passages are concerned with (a) the giving of Christ for us, and (b) the delivering of someone to Satan.)
24-25 The Lord's Supper tradition, 'Words of Institution', so-called, which were modified in transmission, probably in something like the following sequence (ignoring Luke 22.19b-20, as an addition to Luke on Pauline lines - omitted by NEB, bracketed by BFBS, given only a (C) rating by UBSGNT, bracketed by Nestle-Aland23, but not by N-A26, 27):
I. Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μού , 'This is my body'
τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι
, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood'  (NOTE: phrases not parallel)
II. Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μού τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (1 Cor 11.24, with Paul or possibly the church before him, adding τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, 'for you' , to emphasize the crucified body in its for-our-sake-ness; 'my body for you' is probably impossible in Aramaic, and possibly even more awkward in Greek than it is in English [E. Schweizer,  Church as Body..., p. 24]
III. Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά τῆς διαθήκης, 'This is the blood of the covenant' (post-Pauline but pre-Markan) [Héring, p. 115, n. 45]
IV. Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης (basically Mark & Matthew), 'This is the blood of me, of the covenant' - the two genitives , 'of me' & 'of the covenant' are one too many for decent Greek.
V. Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου, 'This is my blood' - Justin Martyr, Apol. 66.3.
In I. the two phrases are not in parallel structure.  In III. they are closer to each other, and in V. they have been made completely parallel: 'This is my body' being matched by 'This is my blood', the kind of assimilation that one would expect with repeated use.
24b 'my Body for you', μού ... τὸ σῶμα [τὸ] ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (see II. above).
The addition of the words 'for you' effectively defines Jesus as the Man-for-others, members of whose Body, the Church, are to people-for others.
'my Body' - the totality of the person,
that which makes him what he is, so that 'This is my Body' = 'This is I'.
'my Body for you' emphasizes the sacrificial mature of Jesus' self-giving,
which is the same way we are to present our 'bodies as a living sacrifice' (Rom 12.1).  In Rom 6.12 ff. 'body' is used in statements about Christ's death and life, but these statements in the imperative mood show that his death and life are o go on in our bodies, meaning the whole of our being (as is shown by the alternation of 'your bodies' in 6.12 with the pronoun 'yourselves' in 6.13).
25a '[after] SUPPER: centre of X: 11.16-25a x 25a-34 (details at end of chapter).  Thus, note the stress on the supper: μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι .  Why the stress on the meal as such?  As E. Schweizer, The Church as the Body of Christ (1965), p. 37, says:
'A practice which separates the sacrament from the brotherhood meal turns the former into a strange, almost heathen rite which totally lacks its "bodily" expression in the context of the whole life of its participants, and it turns the latter into a mere social affair which lacks any real depth and could be found equally in a bowling club.  A Lord's Supper without a church supper is perhaps not quite, but almost, as bad as a church supper without a Lord's Supper.'
24b,25b τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, ‘This do, that God may remember me’:
God remembers the Messiah in that he causes the kingdom to break in by the parousia.  This is Joachim Jeremias’ understanding, based on OT (Palestinian) Jewish usage of εἰς ἀνάμνησιν and its variants (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pp. 237-255).  This interpretation matches v. 26.
Note also Exod 13.9 (Nisan 3 [N2]): ἔσται σοι σημεῖον ... καὶ μνημόσυνον:
‘It [the Passover] is to thee a sign ... and memorial’.  I.e., as the Christian Passover Meal, the Eucharist, is also an effective memorial to and for the Christians, making the effectiveness of Christ’s self-offering operative in their midst in order that in and through Christ, they may themselves be an offering to God through being enabled to offer themselves in service and fellowship.  The Body (the Church) makes eucharistic memorial of the Body (of Christ in his self-offering for others) , which enlivens and energizes the Body (the Church).
25b 'new covenant in my blood’: replacing the covenant in blood of Exod 24.8:
‘This is the blood  of the covenant [Hebrew: berîth = διαθήκη, LXX). Which the LORD has established with you concerning these words.’  Thus the New Covenant replaces the Sinai Covenant, so that we are ἔννομος Χριστοῦ, ‘en-lawed of Christ’ (1 Cor 9.21), with the Law which is Christ written ‘not on tables of stone but in hearts of flesh’, ‘in your hearts’ (2 Cor 3.2-3).  And ‘my blood’ is both the once-for-all offering of Christ’s life on the cross and also his life now flowing in the Body, the Church, as Holy Spirit, God’s present power and powerful presence.  His blood is not only the expiation (remedy for defilement) of our sins (Rom 3.25; cf. 5.9), but also life-giving.
26 γὰρ ... καταγγέλλετε (either indicative: ‘you are proclaiming’, or imperative:
‘you are to proclaim’ – same Greek form.  Two inter-related questions here: (a) what is the force of the particle γάρ, and (b) which way is κατγγέλλετε to be taken?
(1) Héring, noting that γάρ links v. 26 to v. 25 which ends the quotatiionsn taken from tradition, wants to postulate en ellipsis as inm 11.23: ‘If this happens, then beware.  For each time that ...’  This requires that καταγγέλλετε be taken as a present indicative (as in RSV/NRSV, NERB & Héring).
(2) Gibbs: But if we follow E. Schweizer and Gibbs on 11.20 (see above), namely, that their actions at the church supper indicate that they haven’t intended to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, the Héring’s ellipsis is unnecessary, καταγγέλλετε makes more sense as a present imperative, γάρ then refers to the consequence of the preceding, and the translation then becomes:
‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you are to proclaim
the Lord’s death until he come.’ (i.e., really intend to do this!) ..
ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ, ‘until he comes’: until he comes both now in your midst,
In you as the Body, and at the End, both a present and a final Coming (cf. notes on 16.11 on μαραναθα and also notes on 5.3 re the linking  of ‘presence’, ‘judgment’ and ‘eating’ in 1 Cor).
(3) Gibbs: A third thought: perhaps both Héring and Gibbs are correct: the ‘good’ Christians do proclaim, and the ‘bad’ Christians ought to, since some are approved (δόκιμοι, v. 19) and others are not, and since vv. 27 ff. are concerned with effective (i.e. potent) judgement at the Eucharistic assembly.
27-30 Eats and drinks judgement – as per 10.1-7 & Ps 78.30 f.,
where God’s wrath falls on them as they eat.
27 Cf. 8.10; 15.33
27b ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου, ‘will be guilty
of the Body and the Blood of the Lord’: ἔνοχος  in the sense of Jas 2.10, where he who transgresses a single point of the Law is ‘guilty of all’, πάντων ἔνοχος  (i.e., of all the commandments).
28a δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτόν, ‘But let a man assess himself’ 
How and with regard to what?   - See v. 29.  Plus, Héring points out, with regard to whether he has betrayed Christ by fornication [Chap. 5] or by sharing in demonic meals [Chap. 10.].  But Gibbs thinks the primary reference is to the content of 11.29 below.
29 ‘For one who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body
[μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα – at end for emphasis in Greek] eats and drinks judgement [κρίμα] on himself.’  The Body is to be discerned is the Body of Christ, the Church, for which he is to be concerned, and it is also the Body of Christ ‘given for you’, so that his eating and drinking is concerned with dying (to himself) and living for others. – cf. 12.12.
Mal 1.12 (part of H to Num 6.22, Nisan 1 [N3]):  ‘But you profane it [i.e. my Name]
when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.’
‘drinks judgement upon himself’: Mal 4.5 f. (& 3.1-4) says Elijah will come
before the Day of Yahweh.  In the Passover Haggadah (perhaps later than Jesus’ day) the fourth cup of wine is known as ‘the goblet of Elijah’.  The expectation, as seen in the passages read at this point (Pss 79.6; 69.24; Lam 3.6) was that Elijah would bring a cup of reeling for Israel ’s enemies (the Gentile oppressors) and a cup of comfort for Israel .  In the following lists noteworthy passages are underlined: Cup of reeling  (or judgement): (a) in OT: Pss 75.8; 11.6; 60.3; Job 21.20 (Prov 23.30  ff.); Isa 51.17, 22; Jer 25.15; 49.12; 51.7; Obad 16; Lam 4.21.  (b) in NT: Rev 14.10; 1 Cor 11.29; cf. also Mark 10.38 f. (sons-of Zebedee’s request); 14.24 (Cup at Supper), 36 ( Gethsemane ).  See also paralells.  Cup of comfort:  Pss 23.5; 16.5; 116.13 (the cup of salvation).
30 Failure to do this is ‘why many of you are weak and ill, and some have fallen asleep’
i.e. are either spiritually or physically dead.  Many Christians, with a Mystery Religion background, have thought of the sacraments as conferring automatic immortality, and have thought of them only as a matter for the individual partaker, without any element of being related to or concerned for others.  (This is why such Jewish writers as Josephus attacked the Mystery Religions as being asocial, without any concern for the commonweal.
‘ill’, ἄρρωστοι (elsewhere: Matt 14,4; Mark 6.6, 13; (16.18);
III (I) Kingdoms (LXX & Aquila), Ecclus 7.35; Mal 1.8; (Theodotion: Ezek 34.4).
‘fallen asleep’, κοιμῶνται: used of those who have ‘died’,
usually those who have died ‘in the Lord’ – cf. itsuse in 7.39; 11.30; 15.6, 18, 20, 51 (only times in Paul; also in Parousia section of 1 Thess 4.13, 14, 15; plus also Matt, Luke-Acts, John, 2 Pet).
32 ‘But if we assess [διεκρίνομεν, as in v. 29] ourselves (properly),
we should not be judged [ἐκρινόμεθα].’
‘But being judged by the Lord, we are trained,παιδευόμεθα – a euphemism
for ‘chastise for our good’; cf. 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) 12.11, 14, plus many texts in Jewish Wisdom literature; e.g. Prov 3.11-12; cf. Luke 23.16, 22; 2 Cor 6.9; 2 Tim 2.25; Heb 12.6-10; Rev 3.19.
‘in order that we may not be condemned along with the world’ – cf. 5.5.
33-34 Recapitulation of exhortations implicitly contained in 11.21 & 22.
34 ‘give directions’: διατάσσειν: in Paul: 1 Cor 7.17; 9.14; 11.34; 16.1; Gal 3.19
(those underlined are in first person singular and regard ordering churches).
‘when I come’ – Paul expects to visit them at length,
coming to them from Ephesus through Macedonia after Pentecost (176.5-9), when he will settle any outstanding matters by word of mouth.

Centre: 11.25
a: ‘(after) SUPPER’


Body for you; remembrance, cup


cup; New Covenant in blood; remembrance




bread and cup


The Lord Jesus on night when betrayed


Proclaim the Lord’s death


Despise the Church of God , humiliate, not command


Unworthily, profaning Body and blood of the Lord


Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?


Let a man assess himself and so eat of bread and drink of cup


Genuine ... be recognized.


Not discerning (διακρίνειν) the Body; eats and drinks judgement (κρίμα) upon himself.




Why many weak, some sleep.


When you assemble as Church there are divisions


Judge yourselves truly, not be judged.




Judged, chastened – not condemned with world


You come together not for better but for worse.


When come together to eat, wait for one another.


If any man seems strife-lover; We have no such custom.


If any man hungry – eat at home!  Rest I will set-in-order when I come.

Chapter 12

OX: 12.1-13.2 x 4.1-5.8
1-31a Many gifts of the one Spirit.
(Note X: 11.2-12.13a x 12.13b-13.2; centre: 12.13, emphasizes one Spirit –one Body – one Spirit)
1-12 Poetic style and structure in 12.11.
a. Recognition of the Spirit of God  (12.1-3) (OX: //5.1-8)
1 'I do not want you to be unknowing, brothers ...’ – cf.10.1
(Here introduces their former idol-worship – i.e. second beginning of Passover Haggadah  [See 1 Corinthians and the Observance of Passover])
2 Héring opts for  the reading ἀνηγέσθε ἀπαγόμενοι,
‘you were led up [for sacrifice], being seduced’, as in MS B3  (i.e. shifts the verb from ἄγω, ‘lead’, to ὰνάγω, ‘lead up’; Robertson & Plummer, ICC,  reject this out of hand; Gibbs follows Héring because // 5.8: ‘sacrifice of our Passover, Christ’.
τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα (NT: ἄφωνος: 1 Cor 14.10; Acts 8.32; 2 Pet 2.16)
‘the idols, the dumb’ – i.e. they did not produce speech effects in you.
3 cf. 14.24-26 – i.e. glossalalia is a new phenomenon to the Corinthians,
a phenomen they have first experienced as Christians (re cursing – cf. Deut 28.20)
b. The manifold gifts of the Spirit (12.4-11)
  i. 4-7 gifts (v. 4), service (v. 5), working (v, 6) for the common good (v.7)
- cf. vv. 12 ff.  Economic Trinity: Spirit (v. 4), Lord v. 5), God (v. 6)
(Note: Spirit as Giver, Lord as Servant, God as Worker)
4-6 διαιρέσεις - seems to mean both apportioning and varieties in kind (Héring)
4-6 Exod 35.9-36.end (Nisan 4 [T3])
4: gifts                   Exod 36.5’ ‘The people bring much more than enough
5: services (
διακονία)            for the service
6: workings                            of the work
                                       which YHWH commanded to make.’
                                       (re Tabernacle)
3.16: ‘God’s temple = 12.12 Body of Christ, in which God is present, 14.25, and note that Paul compares himself to Bezelel as a ‘masterbuilder’,
ἀρχιτέκτων (3.10; Exod 35.32).
 ii. 8-10 Particular gifts: 12.8-10, 28, 29; 13.1 f., 8; 14.2 (Rom 12.6-8; [Eph 4.11])
a) 8-9a Group 1: Wisdom (= Christ crucified, 1.24) – 12.28 Apostle – Chap. 13: Love
Knowledge – 12.28 Prophet – Chap. 14: Hope
Faith – 12.28 Teacher – Chap. 15: Faith (Faith-Hope-Love: 13.13)
8 σοφία (wisdom) LXX use: moral teaching (Héring) – cf. 2.10-11
γνῶσιος (knowledge) LXX use: theological knowledge (Héring)
9a ἑτέρῳ ‘to a third’ – cf. Arndt-Gingrich  s.v. 1.b.δ and Héring  (i.e., ‘faith’ is intended to be third member of a series)
πίστις (‘faith’) – for this intensity cf. Mark 9.23; Matt 17.20 – cf. 1 Cor 13.2
b) 9b-10a Group 2: gifts of healing), working of miracles, prophecy (parallel to well-being, power [δυνάμεις], & wisdom) – Matt 7.22 re prophesying & deeds of power
10 προφητεία

(‘prophecy’): 12.10; 13.2, 8; 14.6, 22;Rom 12.6; [1 Thess 5.20].
aim of prophecy: cf. 14.3 – to edify, exhort, encourage –

προφητεία = sermon primarily (not mainly fore-telling as in Acts 11.28)

c) 10b Group 3: distinguish spirits, kinds of tongues, interpreting tongues.
’ability to distinguish between spirits’ – cf. 1 John 4.1; 1 Tim 4.1.
γένη γλωσσῶν ‘kinds of tongues’ – cf. 12.28; cp. 14.10: γένη φωνῶν, ‘kinds of sounds’
γλῶσσα (‘tongues’): 21 times in 1 Cor from here to 14.39 (Rom 2x; Phil 1x)  In Hellenistic world γλῶσσα is tech. Term designating archaric language often used in cult & sometimes incomprehensible speech like that of the Pythia of Delphi (Héring)
NOTE: Tongues & interpretation of tongues at very bottom of list here & in 12.28-30 (i.e., being downgraded, it looks like).
iii. 11 'All these are energized...’ (ἐνεργεῖ)
Note stress on unity of Spirit – only one Spirit for all.  (Were some claiming they had a better Spirit? – cf. 12.3, 10b)
'who apportions to each one individually as he wills’
– i.e. they are all received through pure grace & therefore there is no reason to see personal merit in any particular outstanding charism.
c. 12-26 Unity in diversity: The Body and its members
12 Here: church = Body of Christ , or: Church = Body = Christ?
- cf. 11.29 concerning ‘discerning the Body’ at the Eucharist; Rom 12.4-5; [Col 1.18; 2.19].
Body = Image = Temple – cf. 3.16 f. w. Gen 9.6; 2 Cor 6.16:
Temple of God vs images (i.e. here we see Paul shifting from ‘temple’ to ‘Body’ (of Christ) as equivalent of ‘image’; he never uses ‘temple’, ναός again
12-13 Cp. 10.1-4: 'all baptized' // Exodus through Red Sea
'all made to drink' //water from rock, namely, Christ (10.4).
13 καὶ γὰρ ‘For also’ or ‘For even’ (the γὰρ is intensive)
'baptized ... drink’ – cf. 10.1-4: ‘baptized ... ate and drank’
– therefore likely link to both baptism and eucharistic cup (vs Héring).
14-26 Based on the widespread fable of the Belly and the Limbs
  a.  Hans Liezmann says the fable is found in Egypt as early as 12th cent. BCE.
  b.  Livy (Roman historian, 59 BCE-17 CE) attributes it to Menenius Agrippa (594 BCE).
  c.  It is used by the Stoics regarding political life, e.g. Epictetus (cx. 55-135 BCE), Diss. II.x.3).
  d.  A similar fable, given in a dream, form, is found in the (Jewish) Midrash Tehillim  to Ps 39.2.
Originally: inferior members ‘revolting’ from body, but here in Paul it is the superior members separating themselves.
20 'one body' Linked back to 12.14 and forward to 12.27.
21-25 On interdependence of the members on one another, .
and the need for all parts to accept (and honour) the services of the others
21 eye, hand, head, feet – the extremities of the body
22-23a refers to digestive organs (in the fable of Menenius
the belly was the aristocracy; here it is inverted)
23b refers to organs of excretion and reproduction
24b If we take this as a ref. to Gen 3.7 10 (Adam & Eve’s aprons),  then 24b, God giving greater honour may well be ref. to Gen 3.21 (God clothing Adam & Eve),
25b ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων μεριμνῶσιν τὰ μέλη
Héring: 'ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων [‘for-the-sake-of one another’] may seem awkward in conjunction with τὸ αὐτὸ [‘the same thing’]; if each one thinks of the others, all do not think precisely the same thing.  μεριμνῶσιν τὸ αὐτὸ [they may hjave the same care] must therefore be taken in the same way as the expression τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν in 1.10, in the general sense of being agreed, and that in the common interest.' (italics added)
26 suffer ... suffer together ... be glorified ... rejoice together .
Cf. Rom 8.17b-18 (the centre of Romans OX)
27 Cf. Rom 8.17b-18 (the centre of Romans OX) .
28 1st apostles, 2nd prophets, 3rd teachers – then all the rest as charisms .
i.e., the first three are persons with a function, the rest are gifts, not nouns designating individuals.
NOTE: tongues as low on list, interpretation of tongues as the very bottom of the list, as in 12.10, 29.
28-30 Note correspondence of Apostles, Prophets, Teachers to the triads .
29-30 Once again, apostles, prophets, teachers head the list;
tongues and interpretation of tongues at bottom of lit – i.e. downgraded.  It looks like those who ‘tongued’ it were bad enough, but those who professed to give the interpretation of the tongues were, in Paul’s estimation, the greatest threat to the good order of the church assembly.
31 Cf. 14.1 – takes this up again (i.e. 1 Cor 13 is an interruption,
probably a pre-1 Cor unit).  Note that the ‘higher gifts’ are those of faith, hope and love (13.13), of which the greatest is love.  Love as Wisdom encompasses the other two.  See 1 Corinthians & Wisdom, Power and Well-being
Chapters 13-15: Paul  versus gnostic ‘Heavenly Man’ ideas at Corinth
Chapter 13
OX: LOVE brought by the Apostles: 13.1-13 x 3.1-23: WISDOM for beginners
X:  10.23-13.7 x 13.8-14.40, with details OF Chap. 13 as follows:
12.31  // 13.13
13.1-3  // 13.11-12
13.4-7  // 13.8-10
1-13 Except for 13.1 there are no adjectives – all verbs
(i.e. ἀγάπη is active, dynamic and out-going, as in Christ crucified, the Wisdom of God, who gave himself (= his Body) ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ‘for you (11.24)
1a 'tongues of angels’ – cf. Testament of Job 48-50 (Héring, p. 128)
‘of men and of angels’ –see same coupling in 4.9.
Cf. 8.1 & 16.14 on love building up
Therefore, if 1 Cor 13 is an interjection of a previously existing unit, then it was written by Paul himself & purposely added  this point, as is indicated by its complete integration into the letter’s chiastic structures (vs Héring).  See vocabulary connections with rest of letter indicated below.
1b gong & cymbal – struck in Temple (Ps 150.5)
i.e. comparison w. Temple worship of Jews (so says C. T. Craig, Interp. Bible) (Wedding psalm)
χαλκός, ‘gong’ – hung in temples or on trees as in sacred groves at Dodona, centre of Zeus cult in mountains of Epirus (northwest Greece).  κύμβαλον, ‘cymbal’ – these instruments & others used in some mystery religions, notably, cult of Cybele, the Great Mother goddess.
I.e., this verse can be ‘heard’ by both Jewish & Gentile Christians.
2 προφητεία, ‘prophecy’ – in Paul: 12.10; 13.2, 8; 14.6, 22; Rom 12.6; [1 Thess 5.20]. .
(i.e. another indication of link with 1 Cor 13 with rest of epistle).
Elsewhere in NT ‘prophecy’ criticized only in Matt 7.22 (material peculiar to Matthew).
‘mysteries’ – cf. 2.6-16; 15.51 & Rom 11.25;
Matt 13.11; Luke 8.10; singular ‘mystery’ in Mark 4.11.
'knowledge’ – cf. 8.1-13; cf. Luke 1.77 (L), 11.52 (Q-L).
'faith to move mountains’ - cf. 12.9; Matt 17.20; Mark 11.23.
The phrase is not in OT, Jewish apocryphal or Talmudic literature; origin Jesus?
3a Mark 10.21, ‘rich young man’ (// Luke 18.22; cp. Matt 19.21);
cf. Matt 6.2 (alms-giving)
3b Either: burn body in loyalty to God – cf. Dan 3,.28 (3 Holy Children),
2 Macc. 7 (7 brothers)
Or, more likely: since burning to death is not a punishment
used in Graceo-Roman world, ergo probably refers to branding (as a slave) – i.e. sell selves (Preuschen); ergo a step beyond distributing goods of 13.3a.
Or, possibly, both: i.e., ‘heard’ in two ways by Jewish & Gentile Christians.
3c οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι, ‘I gain nothing’ – cf. Mark 8.36 (//s: Matt 16.26; Luke 9.25).
οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι, ‘I gain nothing’ – cf. Mark 8.36 (//s: Matt 16.26; Luke 9.25).
4-7 Gerhard von Rad, ‘The Early History of the Form-Category of 1 Cor 13.4-7’,
(1953), in von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, argues that this is a ‘form’ (as in form-criticism) related to OT & Jewish passages such as 1 Sam 12.3-4 (Samuel’s testimony and vindication before the people that he has not stolen, defrauded, oppressed or taken a bribe).
4 ἀγάπη – as undeserved grace given to man for him to give to men.
patience & kindness – joined also in Rom 2.4; 2 Cor 6.6; Gal 5.22; [Col 3.12].
‘jealous’, ζηλόω, ‘to strive for, be jealous, envy’
‘boastful’, περπερεύομαι – only time in NT, rare in Greek.
5 ‘arrogant’ or ‘puffed up’ - φυσιόω 4.6, 18, 19; 5.2; 8.1.
‘rude’ - ἀσχημονέω, ‘be unseemly, disorderly’ – only here & 7.36 in NT.
(When one checks Paul’s use of σχῆμα, ‘order’, and words built on it, it would appear that he is often building  on (or rejecting) a Stoic base, with its central concern for cosmic order [& man as a microcosmos].)
‘resentful’ (citing Zech 8.17) οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν,
literally, ‘’does not reckon the evil’, i.e. does not keep track of old wrongs anmd grudges.
6 Same contrast in Rom 1.18; 2.8; [2 Thess 2.12].
‘the right’ - ἀληθεία: συγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, ‘but rejoices’with the truth’
7 bears now, believes [God’s past actrion], hopes [for God’s future action],
endures now and to End.
‘bears’: στέγω, ‘bears’ or’covers’ – if ‘covers’, then // 1 Pet 4.8 – covering sins.
‘endures’: ὑπομονέω- Pauline emphasis – cf. Rom 5.23; 8.25; 2 Cor 12.12; [1 Thess 1.3, etc.]
πάντα- Héring (& Gibbs): not as object of verb (as in RSV/NRSV: ‘all things’)
but ‘in all circumstances’ (as in NEB ). Cf. 15.28.
8 Paul hitting γνῶσις hard – cf. 13.13.
καταργέω ‘nullify’, ‘make ineffective’ – 1.28; 2.6; 6.13; 13.8 (bis), 10, 11; 15.24, 26.
9 ‘imperfect’ = ‘partial’, ἐκ μέρους, literally: ‘from members’ (as in the phrase, ‘members of Christ’).
10 τὸ τέλειον, ‘the perfect, entire, complete’ as opposed to τὸ ἐκ μέρους, ‘the partial’
11 3.1; 14.20.
11b ‘When I became a man’, ἀνήρ, masculine man (not ἄνθροωπος, generic man)
Probably one should not see here so much an analogy or reference to new humanity in Christ, The Man.  Instead one should see the ἀνήρ as contrasted to the νήπιος, ‘babe’ (2x here, plus 3.1, which see).
12 Cf. 8.3; 15.49 f.; cp. 14.38; cf. 2 Cor 5.7.
‘mirror’: ancient mirror of polished metal ergo imperfect?
But Héring says this notion of the imperfection of the mirror is unproven, and he sees here instead an allusion to the fairly widespread ancient magical use of mirrors for conjuring up scenes or persons distant in time or space.
‘I know in part’, γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους.
‘I shall understand fully’, ἐπιγνώσομαι – element of certainty
in the knowing imparted by the ἐπι- prefix
‘as I have been known fully’ (same verb) – cf. 8.2 f.: love God , known by him
– This is real knowing (ergo, grow in love!).
13 ‘So now ...’, νυνὶ δὲ - i.e. NOW; Note pairings: faith, not sight (2 Cor 5.7);
hope, not seen (Rom 8.24 f.); ergo 13.12 and 13 go together closely, since in 13.12 sight is ultimately linked to love as the greatest (v. 13).  
‘faith, hope, love’: standardized (pre-Pauline likely),
but the usual order is faith (past), love (present), hope (future), as found in such deutero-Paulines as 1 Thess  1.3; 5.8; Col 1.4 f.   Thus the order here in 13.13 is, in all likelihood, structurally conditioned, so that its order is intended to fit Chaps. 13-15 chiastically:
Love – Chap. 13’s concern, the work of Apostles (Wisdom)
Hope – Chap. 14’s concern, the work of Prophets (Power)
Faith – Chap. 15’s concern, the work of Teachers (Well-being)

Go to 1 Corinthians Exegesis, Chapters 14-16