1 Corinthians — Chapter 11

Authorship & Background

Deep Dive

Setting: Paul writes from Ephesus in about AD 53–55. Verse 1, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ," closes the long section on food offered to idols (8:1–10:33), and the ESV places it with chapter 10. Paul does not ask anyone to copy him for his own sake. He follows Christ, who gave up his rights for others, and he asks the Corinthians to follow him only that far (4:16; Phil 3:17). The rest of the chapter turns to the church's gatherings for worship, which run through chapter 14. Corinthian believers met in homes, often a wealthy member's house, where the dining room might hold a dozen guests and the courtyard many more. Two problems had surfaced there: how men and women presented themselves when praying and prophesying, and a Lord's Supper that had become an occasion for the rich to feast while the poor went hungry.

Head Coverings (vv2–16)

• "I commend you because you… maintain the traditions" (v2). "Traditions" (paradoseis) are teachings handed down by word of mouth, the same idea as in v23 and 15:3, where Paul "delivered" what he had "received." Paul begins with praise before he corrects, though some readers hear a dry edge in it, since he is about to show where they had not kept what he taught.
• "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (v3). Paul begins with three relationships, not two, and the third one shapes how the others should be read. The Son is fully God and equal with the Father, yet he gladly does the Father's will (15:28; John 5:19). Order does not mean lesser worth. The Greek word gynē means both "woman" and "wife," and anēr both "man" and "husband," so translations differ. The ESV reads "wife" and "husband," taking the passage to be about married couples. Others read it of men and women generally.
• What "head" means. Kephalē is the ordinary word for the head on a body, and Paul plays on that sense through the whole passage, moving between the literal head and the figurative one. Scholars have argued at length over the figurative sense. Some hold that it means "authority" or "leader," as the Tyndale notes do. Others argue for "source" or "origin," pointing to vv8 and 12, where woman comes from man and man through woman. The standard lexicon lists only the literal head and the use for a husband or for Christ, without settling the debate. Many readers think the word holds both ideas together.
• "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head" (v4). Roman men, including priests, often pulled a fold of the toga over the head when offering sacrifice. A Christian man was not to copy that. (Jewish men covering their heads with a prayer shawl, the tallit, is a later custom, so Paul is probably not addressing it.)
• "Every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered" (v5). Two things stand out. First, women were praying and prophesying aloud in the gathered church, and Paul assumes it (compare Acts 2:17–18; 21:9). Whatever 14:34–35 means, it cannot simply cancel this verse. Second, in that world a respectable married woman covered her head in public, usually by drawing up the edge of her outer garment (himation) or wearing a light shawl, not a full face veil. Leaving it off could signal that she was unmarried or unattached, or that she was flaunting her freedom. Some Corinthian women may have reasoned that in Christ, where "there is no male and female" (Gal 3:28), the old signs no longer applied.
• "It is the same as if her head were shaven" (vv5–6). A shaved head was a public disgrace for a woman. In some places it was a punishment for adultery, and in the Old Testament a woman suspected of adultery had her hair let down before the priest (Num 5:18). Paul's argument is: if you throw off the covering, you might as well go all the way. Since no one would want that, keep the covering.
• "He is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man" (v7). Paul draws on Genesis 1–2. He is not denying that women bear God's image. Genesis 1:27 says plainly that God created "male and female" in his image. His point is about "glory," what honors someone or puts them on display. In worship, God's glory should be seen, not the glory of human beings.
• "Woman from man… woman for man" (vv8–9). This follows Genesis 2:18–23, where Eve is made from Adam's side as "a helper fit for him." "Helper" (ʿezer) is a word used most often of God himself helping Israel (Ps 121:1–2), so it carries no hint of inferiority.
• "A symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (v10). This is one of the hardest verses in Paul. The Greek says only that a woman ought to have "authority" (exousia) on her head. The ESV adds "a symbol of" to make sense of it. Some read it as a sign of the authority she is under. Others, noting that exousia in Paul usually means one's own right or freedom (as in 8:9 and 9:4–6), read it as a sign of her own authority to pray and prophesy. "Because of the angels" is just as debated. The most common views: angels are present in worship and care about its order (compare 4:9; 1 Tim 5:21); or angels themselves cover their faces before God (Isa 6:2); or, less likely, the fallen angels of Genesis 6:1–4 are in mind. The Dead Sea Scrolls also picture angels present in the worshiping community.
• "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman" (vv11–12). Paul immediately balances what he has said. Woman came from man in the beginning, but every man since has come from a woman. "And all things are from God." Whatever order exists, neither sex stands above the other before God.
• "Judge for yourselves… Does not nature itself teach you?" (vv13–15). Paul appeals to their own sense of what is fitting. "Nature" (physis) here likely means the way things naturally are, as people in that culture felt it, the obvious difference between men and women that their hair customs expressed. Greek and Roman men in Paul's day generally wore short hair, and long hair on a man was mocked as effeminate. The Nazirite vow, with uncut hair (Num 6:5), was a known exception, and Paul himself once took a vow involving his hair (Acts 18:18). A woman's long hair is "given to her for a covering" (peribolaion, a wrap or mantle), as if nature itself agreed with the custom.
• "We have no such practice, nor do the churches of God" (v16). Paul's last word is not an argument but an appeal to the shared practice of all the churches. "No such practice" means no practice of women praying uncovered, or no practice of being contentious. Either way, Corinth was not to go its own way.
• Readings differ. Faithful Christians have applied this passage in different ways. Some churches still ask women to cover their heads in worship, holding that Paul's reasons (creation, angels, nature) are not tied to one culture. Most churches today hold that the covering itself was a cultural sign, while the principles behind it remain: honor God in worship, honor one another, and do not use freedom in Christ to blur the difference between men and women. On headship itself, complementarians read v3 as a lasting order of loving leadership in marriage and the church. Egalitarians read it as about origin and mutual honor, and stress vv5 and 11–12. All agree that men and women alike pray and prophesy and that both are wholly dependent on God.
• Commentators: Matthew Henry treats the covering as the custom of the time, "the common token of subjection to their husbands," and says "it was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled." On the angels, he reads them as present in worship: "Their presence should restrain Christians from all indecencies in the worship of God." Like Paul in vv11–12, he warns that the husband's authority must never become tyranny, since "both were made for mutual help and comfort." Guzik argues that Paul's three reasons rest on creation and are not bound to culture, though their outward expression may vary, and he notes that the ancient covering was not the full face veil the word "veil" suggests today. JFB stresses that grace gives men and women equal standing while order and modesty remain, and treats women prophesying as an extraordinary case tied to miraculous gifts, reading 14:34 as the ordinary rule. Guzik, Henry and the Tyndale notes read v5 more naturally as a normal practice. JFB also notes that v16 appeals to church custom for outward practice, not for doctrine.

The Lord's Supper (vv17–34)

• "I do not commend you" (v17). A sharp contrast with v2. "It is not for the better but for the worse": their gatherings were doing more harm than good.
• "When you come together as a church" (v18). The phrase "come together" appears five times in vv17–34 (vv17, 18, 20, 33, 34), and Paul is careful to say "as a church." A church is not a building but the people gathered in Christ's name.
• "There are divisions among you… factions" (vv18–19). "Divisions" is schismata, the word from 1:10. "Factions" is haireseis, which later came to mean "heresies," but here means groups or parties. Verse 19 may be bitterly ironic: "Of course there must be factions, so you can see who the really approved people are!" Or it may be sober: God allows divisions so that the genuine (dokimoi, those tested and approved) become clear. Either way, the word "genuine" sets up the call in v28 to "examine" (dokimazō, the same root) oneself.
• "It is not the Lord's supper that you eat" (v20). In the early church the Lord's Supper was part of a full meal, later called the "love feast" (agapē, Jude 12). Each household brought food. In a Roman house, the host's friends and social equals would recline in the dining room and eat the best food, while lower-status guests, slaves and freedmen ate in the courtyard and got what was left. Slaves and laborers also may not have been free to arrive until later in the evening.
• "Each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk" (v21). The wealthy ate their own food, and plenty of it, before the others arrived. By the time the poor came in, there was nothing left and some of the hosts were drunk. They called it the Lord's Supper, but it had become their own supper. Notice the contrast between "his own" (idion) and "the Lord's" (kyriakon).
• "Do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?" (v22). This is the heart of the problem. Their sin was not only bad manners at a meal but contempt for God's people. To shame a poor brother at the table is to despise the church God bought with his Son's blood (Acts 20:28).
• "I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you" (v23). "Received" and "delivered" are the technical words for passing on a tradition carefully (as in 15:3). Paul may mean that the risen Lord revealed it to him directly, or that the tradition came to him through the apostles and goes back to the Lord himself. Most scholars favor the second. Either way, its authority is Christ's. This is the earliest written account of the Last Supper, written before any of the Gospels, and it is closest to Luke 22:19–20.
• "On the night when he was betrayed" (v23). The verb (paradidōmi) is the same as "delivered" earlier in the verse. Paul delivers the tradition. Jesus was delivered up, by Judas and, behind him, by the Father's plan (Rom 4:25; 8:32). The Supper was born in the same night as the betrayal.
• "When he had given thanks" (v24). The verb is eucharisteō, which is where the name "Eucharist" comes from. Jesus followed the ordinary Jewish custom of blessing God before breaking bread.
• "This is my body, which is for you" (v24). Some later manuscripts add "broken," and the King James follows them. The earlier text says simply "which is for you." John 19:36 notes that not one of Jesus' bones was broken, though his body was given up. How the bread is his body has divided Christians for centuries. Roman Catholics hold that the bread becomes his body in substance. Lutherans hold that Christ's body is truly present "in, with and under" the bread. Reformed believers hold that Christ is spiritually present and truly feeds believers by faith. Many Baptists and others see the bread as a sign that points to him and calls his death to mind. All of these traditions take Jesus' words seriously, and all agree that the Supper centers on his death "for you."
• "Do this in remembrance of me" (v24). "Remembrance" is anamnēsis. In the Greek Old Testament this family of words is used for memorials before God (Lev 24:7; Num 10:10). Biblical remembering is more than recalling a fact. At Passover each generation of Israel was to tell the story as its own: "what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt" (Exod 13:8). In the Supper, Christ's death is brought to mind in a way that calls for trust and thanks now.
• "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (v25). Jeremiah promised a new covenant in which God would write his law on hearts and "remember their sin no more" (Jer 31:31–34). The old covenant at Sinai was sealed with blood when Moses said, "Behold the blood of the covenant" (Exod 24:8). Jesus says his own blood seals the new one. "After supper" fits a cup at the end of the meal, very likely the third Passover cup, the "cup of blessing" of 10:16.
• "You proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (v26). "Proclaim" (katangellō) is a preaching word, used of announcing the gospel (2:1; 9:14). The Supper is a sermon acted out. It looks back to the cross and forward to his return, and it lasts only "until he comes," when the church will eat with him in the kingdom (Luke 22:16, 18; Rev 19:9).
• "In an unworthy manner" (v27). The word describes how someone eats, not who is eating. No one is worthy of Christ's death, and the Supper is for sinners who know it. Paul means eating in a way that makes light of what the meal is, as the Corinthians were doing by feasting while their brothers went hungry. "Guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord" means answerable for sinning against the very death the meal proclaims.
• "Let a person examine himself" (v28). Dokimazō: to test, as metal is tested. Paul does not say "examine yourself, then stay away." He says examine yourself, "and so eat." The aim is to come rightly, not to be kept away by fear.
• "Without discerning the body" (v29). Diakrinō means to distinguish or tell apart. Readers differ on what "the body" is. Some read it as the Lord's body given in the bread, so to discern it is to recognize that this meal is not ordinary food, the view of JFB, Henry and the Tyndale notes. Others note that Paul has just called the church "one body" (10:17) and will spend chapter 12 on it, so to discern the body means recognizing fellow believers at the table, the very thing the Corinthians were failing to do. Guzik favors this second view. Many think Paul means both: one cannot honor Christ's body given for us while despising his body gathered around us. (Some later manuscripts add "unworthily" and "of the Lord" to this verse, as the King James shows. The earlier text has simply "the body.")
• A chain of judgment words (vv29–34). Paul builds the paragraph on one Greek root, krin-: "judgment" (krima, v29), "discerning" (diakrinō, v29), "judged ourselves" (diakrinō, v31), "judged" (krinō, v32), "condemned" (katakrinō, v32), and "for judgment" (krima, v34). The point of the wordplay: those who rightly judge themselves and discern the body will not need to be judged by the Lord. The King James rendered krima in v29 as "damnation," which frightened many sincere believers away from the table. The word simply means "judgment," and v32 shows it is discipline, not hell.
• "Many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (v30). Literally "some have fallen asleep," the usual Christian way of speaking of a believer's death (15:18, 20; 1 Thess 4:13). Paul sees a direct link here between the Corinthians' sin and some of their illnesses and deaths, much as with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11). He knew this by apostolic insight. It does not mean that every illness is punishment for sin (John 9:2–3).
• "We are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world" (v32). "Disciplined" is paideuō, the word for training and correcting a child (Heb 12:5–11). Even this severe judgment is a father's love, keeping his children from final condemnation. That is a word of assurance, not only of warning.
• "Wait for one another… if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home" (vv33–34). The practical fix is simple: eat together, and let no one start before the poor arrive. "Wait for" may also mean "receive" or "welcome," which fits the problem well. "About the other things I will give directions when I come." There were other problems Paul left for his next visit (4:19; 16:5).
• Commentators: All three stress that the Supper comes from the Lord himself and proclaims his death until he returns. Henry: "The Lord's supper is not a temporary, but a standing and perpetual ordinance." All three also read "unworthy" as describing the manner of eating, not a demand that believers make themselves worthy first. Guzik argues that the King James wording "unworthily" led many to stay away from the table, when sinners are exactly the ones it is for. On "discerning the body," JFB reads it as failing to distinguish the Lord's table from common food, and Henry agrees. Guzik and many recent scholars read it of the church as Christ's body. JFB and Guzik both point out that krima means judgment, not "damnation," and Guzik adds that v32 assures the Corinthians they are God's children being corrected. Henry insists that this sin can be forgiven and should not keep sincere believers from the table, and on v32 writes that they "were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world." Guzik gives a fair survey of the main Christian views on Christ's presence in the Supper, and argues that the bread and wine are more than bare symbols. JFB takes the words "this is my body" as symbolic. Guzik also adds that the scorch marks on Passover bread look like piercings, a picture of Christ's wounds. That is true of the matzah Jewish families bake today, but no one knows whether the bread in Jesus' day looked that way.

Pointing to Christ

The chapter is held together by one figure. Christ is the head of every man and the Son who gladly honors his Father, showing that order and equality can live together. He is the host of the Supper, who on the night he was handed over took bread and gave thanks. He gave his body "for you," and in his blood made the new covenant that Jeremiah promised, with sins remembered no more. The Corinthians turned his table into a place where the strong ate first. At his table the Lord of glory served the meal himself, and then gave himself as its substance. To discern his body is to see both the Savior given for us and the brothers and sisters he gave himself to gather. And the meal looks ahead: "until he comes."

Commentary

• Enduring Word (David Guzik): enduringword.com Guzik examines the head covering issue, the principle of headship, the Lord's Supper abuses, and the warning about unworthy participation.
• Jamieson-Fausset-Brown (1871): blueletterbible.org A critical and explanatory commentary on the whole Bible, more concise than Matthew Henry and closer to the Hebrew and Greek, with attention to historical and geographical detail. Public domain.
• Matthew Henry's Exposition (1710): blueletterbible.org A devotional verse-by-verse commentary in the Puritan tradition, still among the most widely read three centuries on. Public domain.

Videos

Articles

• GotQuestions.org: gotquestions.org On the whole book: an overview of the book of 1 Corinthians -- who wrote it, when, why, and how it fits the rest of Scripture.

Links open on the publisher's own site. Nothing here is reproduced on this page.

Reflection

• A Life Worth Imitating (v.1) — Paul tells the Corinthians to imitate him, because he himself is imitating Christ. Could you honestly point someone to your own example and say it reflects Christ?
• Worship Reflecting God's Order, Not Cultural Rebellion (vv.2-16) — Paul's instructions on head coverings, tied to the cultural customs of Corinth, rest on the underlying principle that worship should reflect God's order rather than personal independence. How do you discern which parts of a passage like this are timeless principle and which are cultural application?
• Communion Turned Selfish and Divisive (v.21) — In Corinth, the wealthy ate their fill at the Lord's Supper while the poor went hungry, turning a unifying meal into a display of division. Does the way you approach communion, and church life generally, reflect unity with others or a focus only on yourself?
• Remembering Christ at the Table (v.24) — Jesus instituted the Supper as a remembrance of His body given for His people. Has communion become genuinely meaningful to you as a remembrance of Christ, or has it become routine?
• Examining Yourself Before You Eat (v.28) — Paul instructs believers to examine themselves before participating in the Lord's Supper. What unconfessed sin or unresolved conflict might you need to address before you approach the table?