1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (Men and Women)

(11:1) “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”

Rather than imitating the sophists, Paul calls on them to imitate him and Christ. This passage probably belongs in the thinking of chapter 10—not chapter 11.

(11:2) “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”

Paul taught this group in person (Acts 18), so they were familiar with his “traditions” (NASB). The term “traditions” (paradosis) can also be understood to refer to “teachings” (NIV). BDAG defines the term as “the content of instruction that has been handed down, tradition, of teachings, commandments” (p.763). In this context, clearly Paul has teaching in view. The church in Corinth was only a few years old, and didn’t develop “traditions” in the modern sense, nor did Paul teach them “traditions” in the modern sense. Rather, he is referencing apostolic teaching.

(11:3) “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

(11:4) “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.”

Paul is referring to a literal “head” in the first instance, but a metaphorical “head” (Christ) in the second. For one, Christ is the “head” of the man, but not in a literal sense (v.3).[] Moreover, what is the connection between verses 3 and 4, unless Paul is pointing to Jesus as the “head” (“authority” or “source”) of the man?

(11:5-6) “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. ⁶ For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.”

(11:7-9) “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; ⁹ for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”

(11:10) Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

(11:11-12) “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹² For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.”

Men and women are equal (cf. Gal. 3:28), because (1) they are mutually dependent on one another and (2) they all come from God as the same source.

(11:13) “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?”

This cultural understanding must be so clear that Paul can even call on the people themselves to judge this. This is also an indicator from the text that Paul is making an appeal to their cultural understanding. This principle is universally binding—even if the expression of the principle may change in different contexts.

(11:14) “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?”

(11:15) “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”

Fee writes, “Long hair is the woman’s glory because it has been given in the place of a covering.”[]

(11:16) “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.”

Paul makes a similar appeal in 1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, and 14:33.

Questions for Reflection

Is Paul referring to marriage between a husband and a wife? Or is he referring more generally to men and women? (In Greek, the word “man” (anēr) and “woman” (gynē) can also be translated “husband” and “wife.” The context determines the translation.)

What is Paul’s main concern in this section? Is it really all about hats, veils, and the length of our hair? How does Paul argue for his main concern?

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (Showing up to fellowship to give—not to take)

(11:17) “But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.”

We see a contrast here with verse 2 (“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions”). Up until this point, commentators note that Paul has been using a “Yes, but…” style. That is, first Paul will agree, but then he disagrees. Here, we see that “Paul abandons his ‘Yes, but’ logic” for the first time.[] As D.A. Carson states in one of his lectures, “Paul doesn’t give them another ‘yes, but…’ He just gives them a ‘but’!”

Paul begins a lengthy rebuke based on the divisions that were occurring in the Christian community: Why even bother showing up for fellowship if you are only going to be divisive? It would be hard to hear from Paul that your house church gatherings were doing more harm than good.

(11:18) “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.”

There were “divisions” (schismata) in this group. Earlier, Paul wrote that Chloe’s people had informed him about this (1:10). Those earlier divisions referred to the obsession of leader worship, and the “cult of personality” that resulted in factions. Here, the divisions are of a different kind. In this context, the divisions refer to an obsession over social rank and status. Earlier in chapters 1-4, Paul had no doubt that the church was divided, but here he needs to say “in part I believe it.”

Culturally, dinner parties in Greco-Roman society were highly segregated—based on social rank and class. That is, the rich and important were highly favored, while the poor and lowly were treated like scum. Blomberg writes, “Latecomers (the majority, who probably had to finish work before coming on Saturday or Sunday evening—there was as of yet no legalized day off in the Roman empire) would be seated separately in the adjacent atrium or courtyard.”[] In this culture, it was just assumed that the lower classes would sit in a lower place in the hierarchy during meal times.[] We see various examples of this concept in Roman literature from the time period:

• Juvenal (the 2^nd century AD Roman satirist) wrote a satirical poem about this social institution (Juvenal, Satire 5).

• Martial (1^st century AD Roman poet): “Since I am asked to dinner… why is not the same dinner served to me as to you? You take oysters fattened in the Lucrine lake, I suck a mussel through a hole in the shell; you get mushrooms, I take hog funguses; you tackle turbot, but I brill. Golden with fat, a turtledove gorges you with its bloated rump; there is set before me a magpie that has died in its cage. Why do I dine without you although, Ponticus, I am dining with you? The dole has gone; let us have the benefit of that; let us eat the same fare” (Epigram60).[]

• Pliny the Younger (early 2^nd century AD Roman governor): “It would take too long to go into the details … of how I happened to be dining with a man—though no particular friend of his—whose elegant economy, as he called it, seemed to me a sort of stingy extravagance. The best dishes were set in front of himself and a select few, and cheap scraps of food before the rest of the company. He had even put the wine into tiny little flasks, divided into three categories, not with the idea of giving his guests opportunity of choosing, but to make it impossible for them to refuse what they were given. One lot was intended for himself and for us, another for his lesser friends (all his friends are graded) and his and our freedmen… My freedmen do not drink the sort of wine I do, but I drink theirs” (Pliny, Epistles6).[]

Even the structure of the houses was designed to reinforce classism. Alan Johnson writes, “The wealthier the household, the more status was recognized in the partitioning of space within the home. This was especially the case when meals were served. The better food and service came to the guests of greater status, who occupied the large triclinium dining room, while those who counted less were served in the nearby atrium with scraps of food.”[]

Archaeology indicates that a famine swept through Corinth at this time.[] Johnson observes, “This would intensify the shamefulness of holding a dinner without providing food for all to share… Their unchristian behavior could bring nothing from him but sharp censure.”[]

We know that there were some wealthy and upper-class believers in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:26). Apparently, they were carrying over their class-discrimination into Christian fellowship. In contrast to this, Paul is sharply rebuking these attitudes—especially during times of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. David Garland writes, “The genuine Christian recognizes that there are no class divisions at the Lord’s table. No one is distinguished at this table except One.”[]

(11:19) “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.”

Paul was a realist. He believed that these “factions” (haireseis) were inevitable. Through divisions, God reveals the true followers of Christ in these times of testing. The people who are “approved” will “stand the test, while those who are not will fall away or separate themselves from the community (1 John 2:9).”[]

(11:20-21) “Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, ²¹ for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.”

The Corinthians were meeting for fellowship and celebrating the Lord’s Supper. They must have been reaching for the bread and wine in a frenzy, stepping in front of each other. Paul refers to these people having their “own” supper, when this was supposed to be about the Lord’s Supper! Some weren’t even getting fed, while others gorged themselves, or even got drunk! It looks like the early Christians would have “love feasts” (Jude 12), where they would eat meals together and take the Lord’s Supper at the same time. Earlier, Paul wrote that we shouldn’t eat with hypocritical brothers (1 Cor. 5:11).

(11:22) “What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.”

Obviously, these rich Christians had houses. The problem was that they were abusing this status. Therefore, Paul is arguing that they are using these privileges to “shame” the poor Christians among them. Why come together for the purpose of shaming fellow believers? Later, Paul writes, “So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come” (1 Cor. 11:33-34).

They could’ve eaten at home. But they were rubbing it in the faces of the lower classes. The purpose of the Lord’s Supper was a remembering, proclaiming, and sharing in the death of Christ. They were making this a disgrace by their practice of it.

Paul explains the Lord’s Supper

(11:23) “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread.”

Paul uses the language of passing along sacred teaching (“received… delivered” see comments on 15:3-5). Paul rebukes their selfish attitude during the Lord’s Supper by reminding them of the very first Lord’s Supper. Morris writes, “Paul brings out the poignant truth that that feast of love that was to bring such strength and consolation to Christians was instituted at the very time when human malignancy was engaged in betraying the Saviour to his enemies.”[]

(11:24-25) “And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ ²⁵ In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’”

Jesus tells us that we should remember him through the Lord’s Supper. Morris writes, “This is neuter (touto), not masculine as it should be if it referred to the masculine word for bread (artos). It may refer to the whole action, as the second this does.”[] (For an analysis of transubstantiation, see “Transubstantiation”.)

Christians can focus on many important things, yet lose focus of the main thing. This is why Jesus gave us the Lord’s Supper. He wanted us to focus on the most important thing: his death on the cross for our sins. In his sermon on this passage, Carson says, “In some ways, it is tragic beyond words that Jesus thought we needed something like this.” So-called “church life” preoccupies itself with many ministries, but we are prone to drift away from the centerpiece of our faith if we’re not careful: the death of Christ.

(11:26) “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

How frequently should we celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Paul doesn’t tell us how often we should celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Instead, we should celebrate this “as often as you eat this.”

“You proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” Communion looks forward to the return of Christ. Morris writes, “Until he comes looks forward to the Lord’s return. Holy Communion has an eschatological aspect. It will not be necessary in the new order, but until then it keeps us mindful, not only of Jesus’ first coming, when he suffered for our sins, but also of his second coming, when he will take us to himself.”[] When we practice the Lord’s Supper, we aren’t just looking backwards to his Jesus’ death, but also forwards to when we will “see his face” (Rev. 22:4).

(11:27) “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.”

(11:28) “But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”

The “bread” is still literal bread—not the literal Body of Jesus (e.g. transubstantiation).

“A man must examine himself.” Examining oneself could refer to seeing if you are a true believer (2 Cor. 13:5). In context, however, it refers to showing up to the meal with an others-centered attitude, rather than looking at what we can take from others. Blomberg writes, “‘Examine’ (v. 28) means ‘test and find approved.’ If their behavior towards their fellow-Christians is appropriate, then they qualify to participate themselves.”[] Johnson writes, “To examine (‘test for genuineness’) is not, as often understood, to become either retrospective or introspective concerning our sinfulness, however needed that might be from time to time, but ‘to confirm that [our] understanding, attitude, and conduct are genuine in sharing… in all that the body and blood of Christ proclaims, both in redemptive and in social terms’ (Thiselton 2000:891). We must recognize our part in the crucified-Christ-for-us before we eat the bread and drink the cup.”[] Fee writes, “Before they participate in the meal, they should examine themselves in terms of their attitudes toward the body, how they are treating others, since the meal itself is a place of proclaiming the gospel. Although this does not lay a heavy dose of self-introspection on believers, as v. 29 will make plain, it does raise proper cautions about casual participation at this Table by those who are not themselves ready to come under obedience to the gospel that is here proclaimed.”[]

(11:29) “For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.”

(11:30) “For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.”

God can shortened our lives because of flagrant and unrepentant sin. He can also bring sickness to get us to rely on him more. When we’re sick, we see a greater need for God, rather than having a prideful attitude. It could be that Paul had prophetic insight on this issue for this specific church at this specific time.[] This doesn’t mean that we should claim that believers are dying because of divine discipline.

(11:31) “But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.”

See comments on verse 27 and 29.

(11:32) “But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.”

The purpose of this “judgment” is not hell, but discipline.[] God uses this to get us back on track with him. Fee writes, “This paragraph has had an unfortunate history of understanding in the church. The very Table that is God’s reminder, and therefore his repeated gift, of grace, the Table where we affirm again who and whose we are, has been allowed to become a table of condemnation for the very people who most truly need the assurance of acceptance that this table affords—the sinful, the weak, the weary. One does not have to ‘get rid of the sin in one’s life’ in order to partake. Here by faith one may once again receive the assurance that ‘Christ receiveth sinners.’”[]

Serve others

(11:33-34) “So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. ³⁴ If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.”

Paul returns to the issue he took up at the beginning: these believers were being flagrantly selfish. Fee writes, “In this context ‘If anyone is hungry…’ almost certainly means ‘If anyone wants to gorge.…’ That is, if you want to satisfy your desire for the kinds of meals that the wealthy are accustomed to eat together, do that at home, but not in the context of the gathered assembly, where some ‘have nothing’ and are thereby humiliated (vv. 21-22).”[]

“The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.” Paul has more to say, but he’ll wait until he can come to visit.

Questions for Reflection

People can turn God-ordained spiritual events into an exercise in selfishness. We can’t expect God to bless our time together, if we’re holding onto a selfish attitude. What are ways to prepare yourself to give out during times of fellowship?

The celebration of the Lord’s Supper isn’t as important as remembering what Jesus did for us. We can do the outward action, but lack the inward change. How frequently do you meditate on the Cross? What insights have you received lately about the love of God?