Down to Earth But Heavenly Minded

What does 1st Corinthians Chapter 11 mean?

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul tackles two issues that needed correction in the Corinthian church: head coverings for women and how to observe the Lord’s Supper together. Paul begins by praising the Corinthian believers for remembering his teaching and maintaining the traditions he taught them when he lived among them (1 Corinthians 11:1–2).

What he addresses in this chapter, though, are two traditions about which he has heard negative reports. These are teachings the believers in Corinth were not maintaining well. The first had to do with head coverings for women who were praying and prophesying in the public worship gatherings.

Apparently, nearly all women wore head coverings in public during this era. This included Jewish, pagan, and Christian women. Women seen without head coverings may have been considered morally loose or sexually available. This was a matter of cultural assumptions; people of Paul’s era would have reacted to a woman with an uncovered head much the same way modern people might to a woman wearing extremely revealing clothes. Paul received a report that some of the women in the Corinthian church were not wearing head coverings while praying or prophesying during their gatherings.

To address this, Paul builds a connection between what men and women do with their actual heads and those who are their metaphorical “heads” or representatives. This parallels the cultural concepts of what a woman’s un-covered head meant to the society of the ancient world. He writes that Christ is the head of every man, husbands are the head of their wives, and God is the head of Christ. Paul seems less interested in talking about the authority of these “heads” than about what each of us can do to honor or shame them. A man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, who is Christ. Paul may have had in mind the Roman practice of men pulling a part of their robes over their head during worship of their gods. Christian men must not do the same (1 Corinthians 11:3–4).

Women, on the other hand, dishonor their head, or husband, by praying or prophesying in the worship service with their own head uncovered. The normal covering may have involved a hood built into a woman’s robe or a type of veil. Perhaps these Christian women felt their freedom in Christ entitled them to worship without their heads covered. They might have seen the worship meeting as a private space, so they didn’t need to treat church gatherings as public events. They might even have been deliberately countering the expectations of that culture. We don’t know. Paul insisted they must keep their head coverings on (1 Corinthians 11:5–6).

Man should not cover his head because he is the glory of God, Paul wrote. Woman—or wives—are the glory of man—or husbands—and so they should cover their heads to keep that glory for them alone. The principle here, again, is parallel to the idea of someone wearing sexually-suggestive clothing in a modern setting. Such style sends signals which conflict with the purpose of the worship service. This restriction—so far as literal head coverings go—is unique to cultures where head covering is relevant. These words do not imply that all modern women are obligated to cover their heads. Rather, all believers—male and female—are to apply principles of modesty and common sense in their appearance (1 Corinthians 11:7–16).

The second issue Paul addresses is the Corinthian practice of communion. In short, it was a disaster. The church would gather together, with each person bringing his or her own food and eating it as soon as they arrived. The wealthy would overeat, with some getting drunk. The poor would look on, hungry and feeling humiliated. Rather than treating it as a solemn, reflective, unifying time, the Corinthians were using the Lord’s Supper as a party. Paul expresses his shock with a phrase most commonly translated into English as “What?!” (1 Corinthians 11:17–22)

Paul then explains his understanding of communion, based on knowledge he claims to have “from the Lord.” Many interpreters suggest Paul to mean he obtained this information through a direct revelation from Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23–26).

Scripture then warns the Corinthians that consequences for taking part in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner are incredibly high. To eat the bread that represents Christ’s body and drink the cup that represents His blood without first examining oneself for sinful attitudes toward Christ and other people invites God’s judgment. Those who approach the Lord’s Supper should not treat it like any other meal. It’s a time for sober reflection on Christ’s sacrifice for our sin. It’s also an opportunity to be unified as the body of Christ, the church, while taking in the broken body of Christ, the bread, together (1 Corinthians 11:27–29).

God’s judgment for failing to do this is severe, Paul warns. Some of the Corinthians were weak and sick because of this. Others had already died. God’s judgment of Christians does not bring loss of salvation. Instead, it is the loving discipline of the Father for His children. The better approach is to treat the Lord’s Supper with patience and reflection, “wait[ing] for one another” in a spirit of unity (1 Corinthians 11:30–34).

Chapter Context
After concluding his teaching on meat offered to idols, Paul turns to two issues the church in Corinth was getting wrong. The first was head coverings when praying or prophesying in their meetings. Differences between men and women in that regard are because of both spiritual and social reasons. Paul also corrects the disastrous way in which they were practicing the observance of the Lord’s Supper. They were dishonoring Christ’s sacrifice for sin as well as the poor in the body of Christ, the church. Despite having more to say on communion, Paul will move on to the topic of spiritual gifts in chapter 12.

Verse by Verse

Verse 1. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Scripture was originally written without chapter and verse divisions. Those were added many centuries later, to make it easier for readers to locate specific passages. In some cases, those traditional boundaries are questionable, at best. In this case, verse 1 is best understood to conclude Paul’s teaching in chapter 10, more so than to begin a new thought in chapter 11.

In the previous verse, 1 Corinthians 10:33, Paul described his practice of setting aside his personal freedoms and rights and preferences in order to please everyone in everything he does. Paul did not mean that pleasing other people was his ultimate goal. Rather, he has a responsibility to remove anything possible from his own personal practice that might trip someone up on their way to faith in Christ. Of course, Paul would not set aside his convictions about Christ or his practices of prayer and preaching, for instance. Beyond those core elements of his faith, however, he was willing to set aside anything he had a right to do in order to lead as many people as possible to faith in Christ.

Now he concludes that thought by calling the Corinthians to follow his pattern for living just as he follows Jesus’ pattern for living. Jesus also set aside living for His own advantage while on earth, including refusing to demand His right to be recognized and honored as the Son of God (Philippians 2:6). Paul followed Christ’s example and urged his readers to follow his own.

Verse 2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul has spent much of this letter to the church in Corinth correcting some practices and warning against others. He pauses now, though, to commend or praise his readers. For all their flaws, this group apparently took Paul’s teachings quite seriously.

That is especially true of how they “maintain the traditions” Paul taught them. Comments such as this remind us that the Corinthian believers were sincere and dedicated, but fallible, just as we are today. The specific traditions Paul had in mind likely had to do with how Christians should conduct themselves in their meetings. That is the next topics he covers. Though he has praised them, he will also correct them on key areas where they are not uniformly continuing to follow his teaching.

The Greek term used here is paradoseis, which carries a strong sense of something which is “handed down,” or “passed along.” As used in the Bible, it often comes with context about whose teaching or tradition is being mentioned (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3; Galatians 1:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:15). The English word traditions can be misunderstood as something always invalid or unreliable. The word, as used, simply means a teaching, which can be either good or bad, depending on its own merits. Paul’s praise here is not that the Corinthians are following “tradition” in a general sense; rather, it’s that they are faithful to his specific teachings.

Paul is not speaking about cornerstone truths in this case. What he’s referring to are the specific teachings he has given to the believers in Corinth. These are the instructions passed down from Paul—the “traditions”—of how they are to apply their knowledge of the Word and the gospel.

Context Summary
First Corinthians 11:2–16 describes Paul’s correction of an inappropriate practice of some women in the Corinthian church. Contrary to social norms of that era, they were not wearing head coverings when praying or prophesying before the church. Paul insists that both women and men consider what their chosen appearance implies about their relationship with God. Cultural details may vary, but the principle does not: Christian men and women ought to be ”respectable” in their manners and dress. In parallel, this teaching also touches on the concept of spiritual leadership.

Verse 3. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Paul has just praised the church in Corinth for remembering his teaching and maintaining the traditions he showed them. In this context—as in most—the word translated “traditions” simply means a teaching passed down from someone else. In some cases, those teachings are just preferences (Matthew 15:2). In others, such as this, they are proper applications of truth (2 Thessalonians 2:15). It’s possible that Paul’s specific meaning here refers to how the believers in Corinth conduct themselves in church meetings.

Despite that praise, he launches into a correction of something going on during their times of worship together. The basis for his correction is headship: the idea that every person—man, woman, or Christ Himself—has a head. Through these remarks, Paul also provides guidance about cultural issues such as the physical appearance of men and women.

Bible scholars are divided about what, exactly, Paul means here by the concept of a “head.” This might be an overt reference to authority, meaning each of us is under the authority of someone: our “head,” who is in charge. On the other hand, “head” may be a broader term, meaning one who goes before and represents others. These two meanings are related, but subtly different and have different implications.

Paul writes that the head of every man—meaning every adult male—is Christ. Men answer to Christ and Christ represents us. The head of a wife—of a woman—is her husband—is man. As is so often the case, translation from ancient language creates a challenge. As in all such cases, context and discipleship are meant to tell us what a few words, taken alone, may not fully reveal.

Other New Testament passages reveal the Bible’s view that the husband is the head of the wife, both as spiritual authority and representative. In this instance, though, Paul seems to be speaking more generally. His point here is directed not directly to authority, but to the order of creation.

Finally, Paul adds that God is the head of Christ. This is part of the mystery of the Trinity, in which Christ is both God and is under the authority and direction of God, as Paul writes elsewhere in this letter (1 Corinthians 3:23; 15:28).

In all three cases, then, each of us, including Christ, has a spiritual head in one form or another. This is the design of creation. Paul will use this foundation to talk about what the Corinthians should do with their physical heads—their appearance—during times of worship together.

Verse 4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

Paul has established the principle that every person has a “head.” Christ is the head of men. Husbands are the head of their wives. God is the head of Christ. While this could be a reference to authority, Paul seems more focused on the sense of having a representative. In the verses that follow, Paul does not say much about the authority of the one who is the head. Instead, he is focused on how each of us, men and women, can bring shame on our spiritual “head” by what we do with our physical heads and physical appearance during group worship times.

Honor and shame were fundamental aspects of the Jewish and Roman cultures of Paul’s day. Success in life was thought to bring honor to a person’s family or other group. Women and children, especially, felt the pressure not to dishonor the head of the family in how they behaved in public. More so than in the modern era, physical appearance was tied to honor; those who were “dishonored” were often marked by their clothing or hair. In an era without billboards and neon signs, clothing and hairstyle were also used to signal social and even sexual concepts.

Speaking into that culture, and that context, Paul warns the Corinthian Christians. Every man who publicly prays or prophesies in their meetings together with his physical head covered dishonors his spiritual head, who is Christ. Context, as always, is key to interpreting this statement correctly, as with all of Paul’s comments in this letter (1 Corinthians 10:14–22).

First, this verse implies it was common in the early church for both men and women to “prophesy” during services. Some scholars understand this to mean that they were proclaiming supernatural revelations from God. Others see the word “prophesy” to mean proclaiming more general Christian guidance and instruction. Paul doesn’t give deep details in this passage.

In either case, Paul writes that for a man to pray or prophesy in a certain way brings shame to Christ. The Greek phrase is kata kephalēs echōn. “Having down from the head” is the literal translation, most often rendered in English as “with his head covered.” What, exactly, this means, depends greatly on the context one places on Paul’s references to a “head” in this section.

Some understand this phrase to describe having long hair. Others suggest some men in Corinth had started wearing feminine head coverings. It’s also possible Paul is describing the practice of Roman men in their pagan worship services: pulling their robes over their heads in a sign of humility before their gods. Paul does not directly say any of these are happening in the Corinth church services. He merely states that it would bring shame on Christ if men were to do whatever it is, exactly, he is referring to. Further verses will provide additional information which helps to provide an answer.

In short, Paul has two ideas in mind. First, all Christians need to place Christ at the top of their spiritual authorities. Second, it’s dishonorable for Christians to send “mixed signals” about things like gender, through their choice of clothing and hair styles.

Verse 5. but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

Paul has established that every person has a spiritual or metaphorical “head.” Christ is the head of men. Husbands are the head of their wives. God is the head of Christ. Paul has written, in the context of the believers of Corinth, for a man to pray or prophesy in church services with his head covered brings shame to his spiritual head, Christ.

Now Paul turns to the point of his correction in this section. He states flatly that for a woman to pray or prophesy in church with her own head uncovered brings shame or dishonor on her metaphorical head: her husband—or to man, in general, depending on the translation. We see from this that women praying and prophesy was an accepted part of Corinthian church services. Paul has no objection to that. Instead, he objects to the practice of women doing so with uncovered heads.

Scholars differ on what it means for a woman’s head to be uncovered in this context. Some believe Paul is referring to women with short or messy hair, or with their hair let down instead of put up in some way. Others, more convincingly, believe Paul is describing the traditional head covering worn by most women in that culture when out in public. In keeping with Paul’s earlier concern about sending confusing signals to non-believers in Corinth (1 Corinthians 8:7–13).

Historical records reveal important context for Paul’s concern. Jewish, Greek, and Roman women of that era normally wore head coverings of one kind or another. These may have been hoods formed from a woman’s robe or separate veils. Prostitutes and women engaged in worship of pagan gods would sometimes remove head coverings as an overt statement that they were sexually available. So, in Corinth, a woman’s uncovered head could be considered a sexually suggestive form of dress.

Based on these words from Paul, Christian women in Corinth had begun to remove their head coverings during church services. The text does not say why. Perhaps they saw their freedom in Christ as liberation from cultural norms. Perhaps they felt the meetings in the house churches were not really in public. It might have been a deliberate signal that they rejected what they saw as oppressive expectations. Whatever their reason, Paul calls out the practice as wrong.

More specifically, he says that praying or prophesying with an uncovered head brings shame on a woman’s metaphorical head, likely meaning her husband, father, or the male head of her household. Paul takes it further, comparing it to the shame of having her head shaved in public. Looking again to history, we see women caught in adultery or punished for other reasons sometimes having their heads shaved. The intent was to humiliate and mark them out for shame. Paul compares that state to the shame these Christian women bring on their husbands by having their heads uncovered. No matter how sincere their motives, that choice signified something deeply inappropriate to the larger culture.

Verse 6. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

This verse concludes Paul’s thought from the previous verse. Apparently, some Christian women in Corinth were rejecting the cultural norm to have their heads covered. In that society, women with heads uncovered in public were signaling their sexual availability, or association with idol worship. Apparently, some women of the church in Corinth were failing to cover their heads while praying and prophesying in church. Paul says bluntly that this practice brings shame on their husbands, fathers, or the male head of their household.

The gap between millennia and cultures can make this reasoning unclear. A modern parallel might be a woman attending church services in extremely revealing clothing, or lingerie. Acceptable as those are in the right context, the surrounding culture perceives those as sexually-suggestive choices. While it seems extreme to imagine someone going to church in their underwear, the point Paul makes is exactly that. Sincerity and “freedom” don’t override how others perceive that appearance, which would be an embarrassment to the person’s spouse.

This may be another issue where Paul is commanding the Corinthian Christians to set aside what they perceive as freedom, or a “right.” The higher concern is the spiritual good of others. In some cases, however, even arguments for “freedom” fall short of countering the harm of how certain behaviors are perceived. In this case, Paul does not allow room for them to decide. The dishonor created is too great. The implication of that style choice, in that culture, is too overt for Christian women to brush off or ignore.

Paul compares this to the dishonor for a woman of having her head shaved. This was sometimes used as a humiliating form of public marking on those who’d committed certain offenses. Presumably, even the women comfortable with uncovered heads in a church service would have felt disgraced to have their hair shaved off. Paul tells them, then, to just keep their heads covered during their services, for the sake of their metaphorical heads.

Verse 7. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

Paul has endorsed the fact that both men and women pray and prophesy in the Corinthian church services. That action, itself, is not something Paul addresses here. What he has mentioned is appearances—specifically clothing and head coverings—and what those imply to others in that culture. Based on the overwhelming cultural perception of what covered or uncovered heads meant, Paul gives different guidelines for men and women.

Corinthian men must not have their heads covered, perhaps by pulling their robes over their heads as the Romans did when worshiping pagan gods. Women, though, must keep their heads covered, as was apparently the custom of the day for all women in public. In that era, a woman with a publicly-uncovered head would be viewed in much the same way as a modern woman wearing a revealing bathing suit in church.

Now Paul begins to explain why this matters. Men are said to be the image and glory of God. Paul appears to be referencing Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” Man was formed by God from dust in His own image, to become—at that moment—the glory of God’s creation. Woman, generally speaking, is the glory of man. Paul will explain in the following verse that this is because Eve was taken out of man, fashioned from Adam’s rib, when she was created.

As seen in the context of other Scripture, Paul’s intent here is not to disparage the value of women. His meaning must be drawn from the full range of his remarks. The main point of these is what it means when Christians totally ignore the implications of their “freedoms” and dishonor their “head”—spiritually and socially—in the process.

Verse 8.For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

Paul has written in the previous verse that man is the image and glory of God. This seems to be because the first man, Adam, was formed by God in the image of God. As such, man is different from all the rest of creation. Man is the glory of all God made during creation week.

Paul described woman, though, as the “glory of man.” Now he shows why. Eve, the first woman, was made from one of Adam’s ribs (Genesis 2:18–24). She was literally made from man. In the following verse, he will reference the same passage to show that woman was also made for man, causing her to become the man’s glory.

Much damage has been done by ripping verses and phrases from the Bible out of their context. These words are not meant to be interpreted or understood except in connection with the surrounding passage. Paul’s meaning here has nothing to do with submission, value, or politics between the sexes. Rather, this section deals with the importance of Christians honoring their spiritual impact on others. That includes a respectful approach to conduct, modesty, and behavior.

Verse 9. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Paul is highlighting a subtle difference in the creation of men and women. He is using these differences to support the cultural norm of his era, which interpreted head coverings differently for males and females. In keeping with those understandings, Paul has forbidden men from covering their heads during prayer and prophesying in the church, while requiring women to cover their heads when doing the same thing.

In broad and general terms, man is the glory of God. This is because God formed Adam in His own image as the pinnacle of creation. For that reason, in coordination with Corinthian culture, men must not cover their heads in order to bring honor to their spiritual head, and their creator, who is Christ.

Woman, though, is said to be the glory of man because the first woman was formed from one of Adam’s ribs. She was made out of him. Now Paul adds that woman was made for man, as well. Man, generally speaking, was not made for woman. For this reason, the Corinthian women should cover their heads, their glory, to honor their metaphorical head, their husbands, fathers, or other male head of household. To uncover their glory in public would bring dishonor on him.

Obviously, this raises many questions for the modern reader. First among those is whether all Christian women today must cover their heads when participating in church services. Almost all Bible scholars say no: Paul’s command in this passage is specific to how a woman’s “glory” was represented according to the norms of his own era. In simple language, head coverings do not carry the same symbolism in most modern cultures today; in such instances, this specific command wouldn’t apply.

At the same time, and for exactly the same reasons, these verses reveal a principle which is universal and binding on all believers for all times and cultures. Despite their own personal opinions, believers should not display themselves in a way the culture deems overtly sexual, especially at a “Christian” gathering; this was the implication of a woman having her head uncovered in Paul’s day.

Verse 10. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Translation and context are complex for this verse. As a result, it has been subject to many different interpretations. This statement follows Paul’s teaching that woman is the glory of man—or that a wife is the glory of her husband. Men in the Corinthian church must not cover their heads during prayer and prophesying in public worship. Because of what a covered head signifies in that culture, men should pray without head coverings, because they are the glory of God. Women must cover up their glory, represented by their heads in this era, because it belongs to their husbands.

Now Paul adds this is why a woman, or wife, should have authority on her head when praying or prophesying in a public church service. Some scholars read this to mean that a woman should have a symbol of her husband’s or father’s authority over her. Others understand it to mean that woman should use her own “authority over herself” or self-control to cover her glory—her head, in this case—while in public.

In either case, women should cover their glory while praying or prophesying in a church service because of the angels. That statement from Paul leads to suggestions from Bible scholars that range far and wide. Most conclude that Paul means angels observe our public worship services. Since they are watching, it is important for women to be appropriate in covering their glory and not dishonoring their husbands.

It bears repeating that most interpreters believe the specific issue of a woman covering her head to preserve her glory for her husband was related to the social standards of the time. Paul is relaying specific application of a universal principle: modesty. Christians may live in widely varied cultures, with variant standards of dress and fashion. All believers should appropriately “cover their glory” in public worship services according to conscience and the standards for modesty in their own era.

Verse 11. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

These verses have described subtle differences between men and women. That, in part, results in different applications of spiritual principles for both. In this exact context, that means separate approaches to having their heads covered during worship services. It’s critical to realize that Paul has not taught that women are inferior to men. Both in this letter, and elsewhere, he extols the value and spiritual equality of women (1 Corinthians 7:4; Galatians 3:28). In fact, many women in Corinth came into the church on their own, without their husbands (1 Corinthians 7:13). Early Christianity drew in many women because of the clear teaching that God welcomed everyone, without regard to gender, who received His grace by faith in Jesus.

Paul emphasizes here, again, that women and men are dependent on each other in the Lord. Neither gender is self-existent. Christianity rejects the independence of both men and women from each other, insisting that both need the other and both need the Lord. Neither gender is inferior, and neither is dispensable. In the following verse, Paul will demonstrate that his instructions on head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:3–10) are not grounded in female inferiority.

Verse 12. for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Teaching in this section has focused on differences between men and women. In particular, Paul has explained how the subtle spiritual differences between the sexes imply different applications of the same fundamental principle. The cultural implications of a covered or uncovered head in public, in Corinth, were notable. Therefore, the Corinthians Christians ought to choose wisely, and in consideration of what spiritual message their physical appearance sent.

Though much of this has focused on women—as some Corinthian women were acting inappropriately—Paul has not taught that women are inferior to men. On the contrary, he has said neither gender is self-existent (1 Corinthians 11:11). Both need the other. This is seen in the fact that woman was made from man when Eve was formed from Adam’s rib.

It is also seen in the reality that every man ever born after Adam was born from a woman. While this is a brief remark, compared to what’s come before, it carries tremendous implications. As stated in the prior verse, the sexes are absolutely dependent on one another. Neither is disposable, or secondary. Beyond that, Paul states, everything is from God. Both genders need each other, and both need God to exist and to thrive according to His design.

Verse 13. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Paul has made his case for why Corinthian women should wear a head covering when praying or prophesying at a gathering of the church. He will offer one more argument, but he pauses to ask his readers to judge this for themselves: Is it proper or fitting for a wife—or a woman—to pray at a gathering of the church with her head uncovered? Paul expects their answer to this question to agree with what he has taught so far: “No, obviously not.”

Modern Christians may not judge Paul’s question for themselves in the same way. Most modern churches, especially in the west, do not practice having women publicly cover their heads with hoods or veils. The reason for that is because of the principles Paul has laid out in this very letter. While the fundamental principle of modesty applies to all people and all times; specific applications change based on the standards of the culture. In the era in which Paul wrote, nearly all women covered their heads with something when in public. Women with publicly-uncovered heads were seen by the people of that era much in the same way modern culture might react to a woman wearing purposefully revealing clothing or lingerie. The implication, in that era, is someone advertising their sexuality. In Paul’s words, they were revealing their “glory” and bringing shame on their husbands.

In the culture of Corinth, uncovering a woman’s head was a sign of sexual availability, prostitution, or idol worship. That was the social meaning of that “style” of dress. In many parts of the world today, there is no social implication that a woman’s “glory” is revealed by seeing her uncovered head. The principle still exists, however, even if different markers of modesty and “covering” have become more prominent. The principle of Paul’s teaching would apply to those standards.

Notably, these standards apply to both men and women. Just as Paul instructed women about covering their heads (1 Corinthians 11:5–10), he likewise spoke to men about uncovering theirs (1 Corinthians 11:4). Christians should be careful not to send inappropriate signals through their dress or behavior, especially at a Christian gathering.

Verse 14. Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,

Paul makes one final argument to support his teaching that the women in the Corinthian church should wear a head covering when praying or prophesying in church. This time, he points to the example of nature, not theology. Nature itself teaches, Paul says, that long hair is a disgrace if worn by a man.

Two things should be noted: When Paul says “nature,” he seems to mean how most people naturally wear their hair in society, at large. Hair grows the same rate on the heads of men and women, after all. But throughout time and culture, most men in most places have short hair. Or, at least, shorter hair than women. This was especially true in the Roman empire. The other truth is that the term “short” is relative. The shortest haircuts for men in the modern era involve shaving the head bald or close to it. Men of some Greek cultures often wore hair that modern people would consider “long.” In general, though, men wear their hair shorter than most women, in most cultures, without being forced to do so. For Paul, this was evidence of God’s design for men to leave their heads “uncovered” to better reflect the glory of God.

More generally, the principle Paul speaks to here is the same as that laid out in prior verses. Each culture interprets physical appearances to have certain meanings. In that era, a woman’s uncovered head was something intimate and even sexual. Modern people have drastically different applications of that idea, but based those on the same principle. If society “naturally” interprets something as sexually suggestive, it’s inappropriate for a Christian gathering.

The same applies to gender roles: though the details change by culture, men ought to look “like men” and women ought to look “like women” (1 Corinthians 6:9).

Verse 15. but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul is making one last argument in favor of women covering their heads when praying or prophesying in Corinthian worship services. He pointed out in the previous verse that nature demonstrates the male tendency to keep hair shorter. Relatively speaking, “shorter” hair is typically considered a male trait, and “longer” hair a female trait. Men are disgraced when they violate this standard, as most cultures see this as an expression of femininity.

Now he says that, even from the natural perspective, long hair is glory for a woman. In most cultures and times, women naturally wear their hair “longer,” particularly in comparison to men. In this way, it serves as a natural covering. Paul does not seem to be saying that long hair is a substitute for an additional head covering when the Corinthian women are praying or prophesying in church services. Rather, his point is that the near-universal association of “longer” hair with femininity supports the idea that a covering is needed.

The general principle Paul has revealed in all of this is that of modesty with respect to culture. Christians ought not send “mixed signals” with their behavior, dress, or personal style. In the era when Paul wrote these words, a woman with an uncovered head in public was not unlike a modern-era woman wearing a revealing bathing suit to church. Obviously, specific cultural standards have changed; the principle remains the same. Believers—both male and female (1 Corinthians 11:4–5)—are obligated to consider the social implications of their appearance.

Verse 16. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Paul began this section with a reference to maintaining the “traditions” he taught to the Christians in Corinth. The term used for “traditions” in that case literally refers to a teaching “passed along” or “handed down” from one person to another. That instruction can be good (2 Thessalonians 2:15), or bad (Matthew 15:2), depending on its content. Perhaps those traditions included this practice of having women keep their heads covered when participating in the services through prayer or prophesying.

The overall point being made in this passage is that culture and society interpret behaviors and styles of dress to have certain meanings. That includes what certain clothing styles, and the covering or revealing of certain body parts, “means” in that society. In the case of ancient Corinth, an uncovered woman’s head was interpreted as a sign of sexual availability, prostitution, or idol worship. As such, it was inappropriate for Christian gatherings. So, too, was the opposite: a man sending mixed signals or associations by covering his head in a Christian meeting (1 Corinthians 11:4–5).

These cultural standards were—at that time—almost universal and a matter of common sense. As such, Paul points out that no Christian church of his era has the practice of allowing women to pray or prophesy with uncovered heads. He addresses those who might be inclined to argue with him. Those eager to “be contentious” about this issue are flatly told “I don’t do this, and neither do other churches,” suggesting the matter is decided. Any Corinthian who disagrees should not try to change it.

Verse 17. But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.

Paul began the previous section praising the Corinthian church for maintaining some of his teachings (1 Corinthians 11:2). Now he writes—pointedly—that he does not praise them for the subject he is about to discuss.

The issue is this: When the Christians in Corinth come together to supposedly practice communion (1 Corinthians 11:20), they make things worse than if they had not met. The reports Paul has received about these events make clear how selfishly the Corinthian Christians could treat each other.

To correct this, Paul will first soundly criticize the believers in Corinth for their mishandling of the Lord’s Supper. He will then give a relatively detailed account of Jesus’ institution of communion. This is followed by a dire warning: that those who carelessly or maliciously abuse the Lord’s Supper are subject to judgment and even death!

Context Summary
First Corinthians 11:17–34 contains Paul’s rebuke of the church in Corinth for their application of the Lord’s Supper. They had turned it into a gathering at which the wealthy ate and drank too much, leaving the poorer Christians hungry and humiliated. Paul warns that communion should be a time of sober self-reflection about our sin and Christ’s sacrifice, as well as a time to unite the body of Christ, the church, while taking in representations of the blood and body of Christ. Some in Corinth were sick and others had died as part of God’s judgment for participating in communion in an unworthy manner.

Verse 18. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,

The Christians in Corinth are being called out over a serious issue. Paul received reports of divisions between them when coming together to observe the Lord’s Supper. He states that he believes it, at least in part. He seems to be saying he doesn’t want to believe they are divided even during their practice of communion, but he does believe it.

Paul began this letter by calling out divisions amongst the Corinthians over other issues, including to which apostle or minister each claimed loyalty (1 Corinthians 1:10–17; 3:1–23). Paul made clear that their divisions were evidence of both a misunderstanding of truth, spiritual immaturity, and a lack of loving concern for each other. While these divisions are not a good thing, overall, Paul points out that some “factions” are necessary: they reveal the difference between those on the side of truth, and those on the side of error.

Those same issues will be raised in the following correction from the apostle about how to conduct the Lord’s Supper together.

Verse 19. for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Reports have come to Paul that the church in Corinth is even divided in their practice of the Lord’s Supper. He now says this is believable. Part of that is because the believers in Corinth were separating into cliques based on loyalty to certain teachers (1 Corinthians 1:11–12).

Paul also says he can believe this because factions reveal who is genuine in the practice of their faith in Christ. Put another way, divisions over issues such as these clarify which of them has God’s approval for their faithfulness in doing what is right. If misunderstood, this statement would seem contradictory. Paul has spent much of the letter telling believers to avoid divisions (1 Corinthians 1:10) and to set aside their own “rights” for the good of others (1 Corinthians 8:12–13). To call factions desirable would turn those prior statements upside down.

However, that is neither what Paul has said, nor what he means. He has referred to this type of division as something expected, not something appreciated. Why are factions or divisions necessary to reveal who is approved of by God? Wouldn’t unity among all the people show that all were being genuine in their faith? In practical terms, division, though never desirable, sometimes serves the purpose of showing who has the conviction to stand for what is right even when others are not doing so.

Verse 20. When you come together, it is not the Lord ‘s supper that you eat.

Paul has received a report that the Christians in Corinth are mishandling the Lord’s Supper. In fact, what they do is so off-target that it’s worse than if they were not practicing it, at all (1 Corinthians 11:17)! Instead of coming together to remember the Lord’s sacrifice in harmony, humility, and cooperation, they had turned it into a party. The food is being distributed unequally, and some are even becoming drunk (1 Corinthians 11:21). Rather than being unified by the experience, they were—most likely—dividing between rich and poor, and being raucous in the process.

With that attitude, it doesn’t even make sense to call such a service “the Lord’s Supper”. Paul’s reaction, shown in later verses, demonstrates how ridiculous this behavior is. While the practice of communion allows for wide variety of expression, what’s happening in Corinth defeats the purpose of the sacrament. Their practice is so far off from how God intends a church to practice communion that it’s not even right to call it by that name.

Verse 21. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.

This is part of a running rebuke of the Christians in Corinth for their wild misuse of the Lord’s Supper. The previous verse indicated that what’s happening is so contrary to God’s intent that it doesn’t even make sense to call it the Lord’s Supper! Paul’s criticism is that these believers are misunderstanding the meaning of that sacrament. They are not taking part in it in order to remember Christ’s sacrifice of blood and body to pay for their sins on the cross.

Here, Paul describes what has been reported to him. The early church practiced the celebration of the Lord’s Supper much differently than most churches do today. That, itself, is not a problem. Scripture gives extremely wide latitude in how communion can be practiced. In most cases, in the very early church, the Lord’s Supper involved eating an actual meal together. This was fine when handled with respect and honor towards the Lord and all those in attendance.

Clearly, that’s not what the Corinthians were doing.

Based on what Paul says here, it’s likely each person brought their own separate stock of food. In order to accommodate many people, without involvement in a temple, they likely gathered at the home of a wealthy member of the congregation. Those who were wealthy could bring plenty of food for themselves. The rich could afford to indulge in abundant alcohol. Those living in poverty, however, had little to bring and eat.

The result of that disparity was a “communion” where some participants went hungry, merely watching the wealthier believers eat and drink. In addition, drunkenness was at least common enough for Paul to mention directly. Paul’s exclamation of shock in the next verse seems fitting.

Verse 22. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

Paul has described reports about the Corinthian Christians badly abusing the concept of the Lord’s Supper—the sharing of communion. In short, it’s a mess. The problem is not that the supper is being celebrated in somebody’s house. Personal homes are likely where all the meetings of the early church took place. Nor is the problem that they are engaged in a full-scale meal. That was also a common form of communion in the early church.

The problem is that the church in Corinth had turned it into a party. Not only that, this was a provide-your-own event. That resulted in abundant food and alcohol for some—presumably the wealthy—while those believers living in poverty are forced to watch in hunger. Drunkenness is occurring at least enough for Paul to call it out.

Paul’s appropriate response is, “What!?” This is not a modern projection into the ancient text. Paul opens this statement with the phrase mē gar, an exclamation of disapproval, disbelief, and frustration. One can imagine a modern version of Paul responding with that exact word when told that the Corinthians are calling that “the Lord’s Supper.”

This verse clearly indicates that feasting and drinking are not to be the point of this gathering. There are other times and places for people to arrange a jamboree. As Paul asks, don’t they have homes they can do that in? His next question reveals that the way they are practicing this supper does not show respect for the Lord; it shows that they disrespect and minimize God’s church.

“The church” includes all believers, even those who are poor. Instead of ensuring that everyone is welcomed and fed, wealthy Christians in the Corinthian church were dividing from the poor along class lines. This attitude is no different than what was experienced by all in Roman culture. Paul will insist that the church should be different. Poor people should not be humiliated by the rich and powerful in church. All should be unified in Christ.

Paul goes beyond silently withholding praise to telling the Corinthians bluntly that he will not praise them for this. Instead, he will describe for them the purpose of the Lord’s Supper and give direction about how to practice it together.

Verse 23. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,

Paul has been correcting the Christians in Corinth for the terrible way in which they have been observing the Lord’s Supper. Their abuse of this sacrament, also called communion, is reportedly so bad that it’s not even worth being called by that name (1 Corinthians 11:20). Earlier verses indicated Paul had heard reports of gross inequality, in an event meant to emphasize Christian unity (1 Corinthians 11:21). Likewise, there were incidents of drunkenness during a meeting meant to be reflective and thoughtful.

Given how extensive his reply is, Paul apparently felt these believers didn’t understand the basic concept of communion, even though he had taught it to them when he was with them. Here and in the following verses, he gives a now-classic explanation. Paul says he received this from the Lord. Some suggest this doesn’t necessarily mean Christ spoke this truth directly to Paul. His meaning of “from the Lord” here might be in the same sense as the Corinthians received the gospel “from the Lord,” by way of men like Paul. Most interpreters believe Paul does have some direct revelation in mind, in keeping with statements such as Galatians 1:11–12. Also supporting that idea is the fact that Paul wrote these words before the three synoptic Gospels were in circulation.

What follows in this passage describes part of the night Jesus was betrayed by Judas: the evening before His crucifixion.

Verse 24. 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.”

Paul is reminding the Corinthians of what happened at the Last Supper. His purpose is re-teaching them why and how they should practice the Lord’s Supper, also known as communion. He is telling the story of what happened on the night Jesus was betrayed by Judas. This event happened in a private upper room for the Passover meal (Matthew 26:26–28).

Jesus took a loaf of bread and gave thanks in prayer. He then broke the bread and distributed it to the disciples reclining around the table. Jesus said that the bread was His body, which was “for them.” He commanded the disciples to do the same: to break and consume bread, as a way of remembering Him.

At that moment, the disciples did not grasp how Jesus’ body would be broken for them—for their sin and ours—the very next day and night on the cross. During Christian communion, when bread is broken and distributed, followers of Jesus are meant to remember His sacrifice.

Verse 25. In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Paul is reminding the Christians in Corinth about the purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper. They seemed to have forgotten the point and turned the celebration into a raucous party at which the poor were treated unequally (1 Corinthians 11:17–22). Paul proceeds to relate the institution of communion, in an account he says he “received from the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:23). In that event, the Last Supper, Jesus first broke and distributed bread to the disciples. This was a representation of His broken body (Matthew 26:26–28).

After this, Jesus similarly distributed wine. In Scripture, wine and blood are frequently connected through symbolism (Isaiah 63:3; Revelation 19:15). Deuteronomy even refers to wine as “the blood of the grape” (Deuteronomy 32:14). After the supper ended, Jesus raised the cup and commanded this disciples to remember Him whenever they drank from it, as part of the communion remembrance.

The disciples must have been confused by this, though they were used to hearing Jesus say hard-to-understand things. Jesus would soon shed His blood and die for the sins of all who trust in Christ. He would become the final sacrifice. Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness from sin.

Jesus referred to this as the “cup of the new covenant.” God had made the Old Covenant with His people Israel during the time of Moses. It was also sealed with blood, that of sacrificial animals (Exodus 24:1–8). The new covenant is between God and all those He has called to faith in Christ (Hebrews 9:14–15).

Verse 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord ‘s death until he comes.

Paul is wrapping up his reminder to the Corinthians of the purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper. It’s not meant to be a social event and a cause for division (1 Corinthians 11:17–22). Paul has described how Jesus Himself taught His disciples to break and distribute the bread that represented His broken body, along with the wine that represented His spilled blood (Matthew 26:26–28). Jesus commanded them to be intentional about remembering Him and His sacrifice when they came together to eat and drink for this purpose (1 Corinthians 11:23–25).

Now Paul reveals another purpose for observing this sacrament, also known as communion. It is a proclamation that Christ died for the sins of all who trust in Him. Built into that proclamation is the promise that Christ will one day return. In that way, the Lord’s Supper involves both looking back to the cross and looking forward to Christ’s return to earth. This creates a unique sense in which the gospel imbues meaning into every moment of history. The past—looking back to Christ, the present—partaking in communion, and the future—the imminent return of Jesus are all relevant to the Christian worldview.

Verse 27. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

Scripture often warns us that God’s instructions are not to be taken lightly (Galatians 6:7; Hebrews 2:2–3; Deuteronomy 30:15). Even when the consequences of disobedience aren’t immediate, they can be devastating (Romans 2:5). Here, Paul reveals the high stakes for those participating in the Lord’s Supper in an “unworthy manner.” The Corinthian Christians had been doing exactly that: using the Lord’s Supper gathering as a freewheeling party of sorts, with the wealthy believers treating the poorer believers badly (1 Corinthians 11:17–22).

Paul writes that blatant ungodliness while eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord’s Supper will cause them to be guilty of sinning against the blood and body of Christ. In a sense, Paul is saying that the person who does this becomes liable for the Lord’s death. Symbolically, communion is meant to commemorate the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Those who treat such an event as a party, or take it in a careless way, are not entirely unlike those who stood by and laughed while Jesus died (Matthew 27:38–44). Or the indifferent soldiers who pursued pleasure as He bled to death (John 19:23–24).

Unlike those real-life bystanders, born-again Christians are supposed to know the meaning and importance of the crucifixion. To disrespect communion—the Lord’s Supper—through selfishness or arrogance is not a small charge. The verses that follow show that such disrespect risks paying a heavy price.

Verse 28. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

The Lord’s Supper, also called communion, is a symbolic remembrance of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Jesus instituted this as a time of reflection and unity among His followers (Matthew 26:26–28). Some, like the believers in Corinth, miss those lessons entirely (1 Corinthians 11:17–22).

Paul has just written that to take part in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner makes a person guilty of the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:27). The observance of communion is sacred, with sacred implications. The problem is not in performing the wrong steps or failing to meet some legalistic standard. There is wide freedom in exactly how communion can be observed. What Paul condemns here is to participate without a solemn appreciation for what the sacrament represents. Those who act carelessly risk earning an elevated share in the responsibility for Christ’s death on the cross.

As such, each person should examine themselves before eating the bread that represents Christ’s body and drinking the cup that represents His blood. Then, when confident that they are not doing so in an unworthy way, those present should eat and drink. But not before then.

Obviously, this leads to the question of what, specifically, Christians should search for in themselves before taking part in communion. The most commonly-understood practice is for participants to take a moment to confess to God any un-repented sin and receive His forgiveness in Christ. The taking of the bread and wine is meant to involve “remembrance” of Jesus’ sacrifice (Luke 22:19). Believers should humbly acknowledge the gift of grace given to them through Jesus’ shed blood and broken body before observing the Lord’s Supper. Those who know—or should know—they are blatantly in contrast to that mindset should not partake.

It’s likely Paul had specific sins in mind. In this context, that probably included a lack of love and concern on the part of wealthy believers for the poorer Christians among them.

Verse 29. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

This is a sobering verse, especially for believers who regularly participate in communion. Paul has already warned Christians to examine themselves before taking part in the Lord’s Supper to avoid doing so in an unworthy way (1 Corinthians 11:28).

The cup represents Christ’s blood, and the bread represents His broken body. The purpose of taking communion is to commemorate and reflect on the sacrificial death of Jesus (Matthew 26:26–28). To do so without “discerning the body” brings judgment on the participant.

The first question this raises is the precise meaning of “discerning the body.” Bible scholars primarily suggest two ways of interpreting this, both of which are reasonable, and which can even both be true.

The first suggestion is that this refers to a recognition: that the symbolic parallel to Christ’s body in the elements of the bread and cup causes a Christian to see them as different from other food. In other words, the Lord’s Supper should not be treated like just another meal used to satisfy physical hunger. It must be approached with respect as something much more meaningful and important. This first view of “discerning the body” would fit with Paul’s instructions in the following verses about not coming hungry to the Lord’s Supper gathering. The Corinthians were clearly not doing this (1 Corinthians 11:17–22).

Along with that, partaking in communion is “proclaiming” the death of Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:26). If a person proclaims Jesus’ death, but is disobedient to the gospel, that person is essentially daring God to judge them (Galatians 6:6–7). Whether by ignorance, arrogance, or simple error, insulting the sacrifice of Christ—even symbolically—is something God takes seriously.

The second interpretive view is that “discerning the body” means recognizing the relationship between Christ’s body and the “body of Christ,” known as the church. In other words, we must see Christ in our fellow Christians and treat them as we would treat Jesus when we come together. This view fits with what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17.

Whichever view Paul intended, both are necessary.

This leads to the issue of what precise judgment is invited when someone participates in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy way. Paul gives more detail in the following verse.

Verse 30. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Paul’s sobering words in the previous verse raised a serious question for believers. He said that to participate in communion without “discerning the body” will bring judgment on the one who eats the bread and drinks the cup. That reference seems to refer to those who treat the bread and wine as just like any other meal or snack: to be careless or shallow about it. Or, it might refer to those who fail to recognize how commemorating the death of Christ expresses unity with other believers. Or, it might refer to some combination of both. But what judgment comes from not discerning the body?

Paul’s answer only adds to the seriousness of this passage. He writes that many among the Corinthians were weak and ill for this very reason. Some had even died as a result of failing to participate in the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner. To be even more clear, it is God who has brought weakness, illness, and death to them as discipline for their failure to observe communion with proper respect for Christ’s sacrifice and for each other.

Many people struggle with the idea that God would bring illness or death to a Christian for continuing to participate in sinful practices. Or that He would do the same for those who sinfully mishandle good practices. It fits perfectly, however, with Paul’s earlier warning to the Corinthians about the Israelites who died in the wilderness after escaping from Egypt. Paul clearly implied that God would do similar things to them if they participated in idol worship and other sins (1 Corinthians 10:1–13).

What about God’s love and grace and forgiveness of sin? In verse 32, Paul will clarify that this judgment from God does not include the loss of salvation. Suffering and even death in this life are not eternal judgments. Both may be the discipline of a loving Father for the good of the children whose sin He has forgiven.

Verse 31. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.

In this sobering passage, Paul elevates both the meaning and importance of the Lord’s Supper and the consequences for participating in it in an unworthy manner. Paul has been clear that to eat the bread that represents Christ’s body and drink the cup that represents His blood without proper respect for Christ and each other will bring judgment. In the previous verse, Paul shockingly said that some in Corinth were sick and others had already died for this very reason (1 Corinthians 11:27–30).

In short, God will judge His children for failing to honor Christ’s sacrifice in their observance of the Lord’s Supper. He will not react well if they fail to honor each other while participating in it. The following verse will define that judgment as the discipline of a loving father. This is not about a loss of salvation, or a complete rejection by God. On the contrary, God does this, in part, to keep people from experiencing judgment. Even those Christians He brings to death, in this life, will spend eternity with Him in glory.

Still, Paul now writes, believers can avoid any judgment at all for violating God’s intent for the Lord’s Supper. To do so, they must judge themselves first with sincerity. In other words, we must be brutally honest with ourselves before joining in the Lord’s Supper and change our attitudes toward Christ’s death and all those He died for. Then we will not have to worry about God’s judgment afterwards.

Verse 32. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Though it may shock some of us to hear it, Paul had been clear about the effect of God’s wrath on His own children. God had brought some Corinthian Christians to sickness or death; this was in judgment for their unworthy participation in the Lord’s Supper. How were they unworthy? For one, they treated the observance of communion as if it were any other meal, even eating and drinking too much. For another, the wealthy believers humiliated the poorer Christians at their Lord’s Supper gatherings by not providing them with enough food or treating them respectfully (1 Corinthians 11:17–30).

Nothing in the text suggests that Paul is talking about people who are not legitimately Christians. These are born-again believers God has judged with sickness and death for their sin. Paul clarifies that this judgment does not include a loss of salvation. These believers will share eternity with Christ in glory based on their faith in Him and God’s gracious forgiveness for their sin.

Paul describes judgment on this side of eternity as discipline. God may step into the life of a believer with loving discipline, even to the point of death, to keep us from experiencing the level of condemnation of those who have rejected Christ. The writer of Hebrews describes it this way, “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Hebrews 12:5–6).

This does not mean every illness and death comes as a result of the Lord’s discipline (John 9:1–3). It does, however, mean God may use suffering to discipline the children He loves.

Verse 33. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another —

This passage about how to participate in the Lord’s Supper should have been a serious wake-up call for the Christians in Corinth. Their practice of the communion meal had been disastrously different than Paul’s picture of it. Instead of being a time of sober reflection about their own sinfulness and Christ’s sacrifice, the Corinthians had turned it into a dinner party where some ate too much and got drunk. Instead of acknowledging their unity together as the body of Christ, the wealthy Christians were humiliating the poorer Christians by ignoring their hunger and overeating in front of them (1 Corinthians 11:17–22). As a result, God’s judgment had come upon the believers in the form of sickness and even death (1 Corinthians 11:27–30).

Paul now urges them to do things differently the next time they observe the Lord’s Supper. He tells them to wait for each other. The language behind the phrase “wait for each other” brings several connotations. This is especially clear in the context of Paul’s earlier criticisms.

These words, combined with Paul’s words in verse 21, suggest some Corinthians were not waiting for everyone to arrive before digging into their food. A contrast to this would be sitting down to the meal together and sharing the food each person brought to the table. This would solve the problem of some going hungry and feeling unwelcome. Many modern churches follow this principle by asking participants not to consume the bread or wine until everyone in attendance has been served.

Paul addresses the problem of eating and drinking too much in the following verse.

Verse 34. if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home — so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

Paul wraps up this section about the Lord’s Supper with practical direction on how to participate. This is meant to be a meal shared together as the body of Christ. He wrote in the previous verse that instead of everyone eating their food as they arrive, they should wait for everyone to be there and eat the meal together (1 Corinthians 11:33). This implies that food would be shared, meaning that the poor would be included and likely feel more welcomed. This would also correspond to the sacrament’s sense of unity and equality among all believers.

Now Paul addresses the issue of overeating by encouraging the Corinthians not to come hungry to the Lord’s Supper gathering. This observance of Christ’s death for their sin was not meant to be like other meals. If their appetite is making it difficult to give proper respect to Christ’s sacrifice and each other, they should eat at home before they come, Paul says.

If they do these things, they won’t be coming together for the purpose of judgment. They will be coming together to honor the Lord and each other as the body of Christ.

The other issues Paul feels the need to address are probably also related to communion. Those, it seems, were not important enough to spend time on in the moment he was writing this letter. Instead, he will move on to other topics, starting in chapter 12.

End of Chapter 11.

Please Note:

The material use in this post, video is from BibleRef.com which is from Got Questions Ministries and is posted here to be read by Immersive reader in the Edge Browser. If you copy this material please follow these rules:

•Content from BibleRef.com may not be used for any commercial purposes, or as part of any commercial work, without explicit prior written consent from Got Questions ministries.

•Any use of our material should be properly credited; please make it clear the content is from BibleRef.com.

•BibleRef.com content may not be altered, modified, or otherwise changed unless such changes are specifically noted.