This entire section deals with problems connected with church worship—matters concerning the veiling of women (11:2–16), observing the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34), and the granting and use of spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40).

11:2–16 In the next major section of the letter (11:2–14:40), Paul addresses a series of problems related to worship in Corinth. In each case, self-promotion, a spirit of independence, and neglect of others’ good are at work. Only through the power of the gospel can such patterns of sin be displaced by love (13:1–13).

Women’s hair was a common object of lust in antiquity, and in much of the eastern Mediterranean women were expected to cover their hair. To fail to cover their hair was thought to provoke male lust as a bathing suit is thought to provoke it in some cultures today. Head covering prevailed in Jewish Palestine (where it extended even to a face veil) and elsewhere, but upper-class women eager to show off their fashionable hairstyles did not practice it. Thus Paul must address a clash of culture in the church between upper-class fashion and lower-class concern that sexual propriety is being violated. (That Greeks bared their heads for worship and Romans covered them might also be significant, given the dual affiliation of Corinth as a Greek and Roman city. But because this custom was not divided along gender lines, it is probably irrelevant here.)

Thus Paul provides a series of brief arguments, each of which relates directly to the culture he addresses. His arguments do not work well in every culture (he is not completely satisfied with all of them himself—11:11–12), but it is the Corinthian women, not modern women, whom he wishes to persuade to cover their heads.

11:5–6. Paul uses the ancient debate principle of reductio ad absurdum: If they are so concerned to bare their heads, why not also remove the natural covering, their hair? Paul thereby reduces their insistence to the absurd: the greatest physical shame for a woman was to be shaved or have her hair cut like a man’s.

Paul here begins an argument from the order of creation. He cannot be denying that women are also the image of God (Gen 1:27 plainly states that both male and female were created in God’s image). Perhaps he means that women’s uncovered heads are drawing men’s attention to humanity instead of to God; as one would say today, they were turning men’s heads.

11:8–9. According to Genesis 2:18 God created woman distinct from man partly so that man would no longer be alone; the phrase there translated “helper suitable” praises woman’s strength rather than subordinates her. (“Helper” is used more often of God than of anyone else in the Old Testament; “suitable” means “corresponding” or “appropriate to,” as an equal in contrast to the animals.) Woman was thus created because man needed her strength, not (as some have wrongly interpreted this verse) to be his servant.

11:10. Here Paul says literally, “she ought to have authority over her own head because of the angels”; Paul means that she should exercise wisely her right to decide whether to cover her head in a way that will honor her husband (11:8–9), given the situation with “the angels.” The “angels” have been interpreted as (1) the angels who (according to ancient Jewish interpretations of Gen 6:1–3) lusted after women and so fell; (2) the angels present in divine worship, who would be offended by a breach of propriety or affront to the husbands (cf. the Dead Sea Scrolls); and (3) the angels who rule the nations but who will ultimately be subordinate to all believers, including these women (6:3; i.e., as a future ruler a Christian woman or man should exercise wise choices in the present, even regarding apparel).

11:11–12. Paul qualifies his preceding argument from

Many Bible students see that for today the principle of subordination (not the command to wear hats) is the key point in this passage. The intent of the custom of women wearing hats today, for fashion, seems far different from the purpose of the custom in the first century.

11:2–16 On Covering the Head in Worship. Paul admonishes Christian men not to wear head coverings and Christian women to wear them (vv. 2–6). He discusses the relationship between husband and wife (vv. 7–12) and appeals to discernment (vv. 13–16). In Roman society (and thus in the city of Corinth), men pulled their togas over their heads when they officiated in religious cults, thus signaling their elevated social status; married women wore head coverings, often a thin head scarf, in public to signal that they were married and to symbolize their chastity and virtue.

11:5 A Christian woman who participates in the church’s worship meetings, which were open to the public, with her head uncovered “dishonors her head,” i.e., her husband, to whom she is responsible. She brings shame on her husband by her appearance; that she is without a head covering may suggest to observers that she withdraws from her marriage, claims independence from her husband, and insults her husband’s honor. Paul tells Christian wives to behave as married wives do in Roman culture: a Christian Corinthian wife is to show respect for her husband by wearing the traditional head covering. A wife’s respect for her husband (and vice versa) is expressed in different ways in different cultures.

11:3–15 There is no distinction between men and women as far as personal worth, intellect, or spirituality are concerned (cf. Gal. 3:28). That women function uniquely in God’s order, however, submitting to men’s authority, Paul affirms by several points: 1) the pattern in the Godhead (v. 3); 2) the divine design of male and female (v. 7); 3) the order of creation (v. 8); 4) the purpose of woman in regard to man (v. 9); 5) the concern of the angels (v. 10); and 6) and the characteristics of natural physiology (vv. 13–15).

In the culture of Corinth, a woman’s covered head while ministering or worshiping was a symbol to signify a subordinate relationship to her husband. The apostle is not laying down an absolute law for women to wear veils or coverings in all churches for all time, but is declaring that the symbols of the divinely-established male and female roles are to be genuinely honored in every culture. As in the case of meat offered to idols (chaps. 8, 9), there is nothing spiritual about wearing or not wearing a covering. But manifesting rebellion against God’s order was wrong. dishonors her head. “Head” may refer to her own self being disgraced by refusing to conform to recognized symbols of submission, or to her husband, who is disgraced by her behavior.

11:11, 12 All believers, male and female, are equal in the Lord and complementary in the Lord’s work. Their roles are different in function and relationships, not in spirituality or importance (cf. Gal. 3:28). See note on 1 Tim. 2:15.

At Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper with His disciples (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20) the bread and cup were part of a meal, with the bread probably broken near the beginning (cf. “when He had given thanks,” 1 Cor. 11:24) and the cup taken at the end (cf. “after supper,” v. 25). By the time Paul wrote, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in two stages which consolidated the partaking of the bread and cup at the end of a communal meal. The worship with the bread and cup came to be called the “Eucharist” (Didache 9:1; Ignatius Letter to the Philadelphians 4), from the Greek word for “thanksgiving” (eucharisteō). The communal meal was called the Agapē (Jude 12; Pliny Letters 10. 96. 7), a Greek word for “love.”

In fact an experience meant to build up the church was actually having the opposite effect: your meetings do more harm than good.

The text reflects patterns of sin that blind us, even in worship. Self-centeredness can turn “the Lord’s” Supper into one that is the worshiper’s “own” (vv. 20–21). And it is easy to humiliate those for whom Christ has died while we should be “proclaiming the Lord’s death” (v. 26). Such sins are so serious that they call forth the Lord’s judgment and discipline (vv. 29–34).

10:21. Pagans spoke of the offering tables of their gods (e.g., the table of Serapis); most ancient Near Eastern temples had been equipped with such tables. The expression “table of the Lord” occurs in the Old Testament as meaning the altar (e.g., Mal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 9:13). Table fellowship connoted intimate relations.

Angels were spectators of the church (4:9; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21; cf. Ps. 103:20–21)

11:19 The events in the church reveal who the authentic Christians are. This is the only positive result of the divisions in the Corinthian church.

11:24 This. The bread that Jesus had just broken into pieces symbolizes Jesus giving his body to die on the cross. Receiving the bread in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper signifies participating in the effects of the self-sacrifice of Jesus, whose death atones for sin. do this in remembrance of me. A call to repeat Jesus’ action of breaking bread and remembering his death. Regularly remembering the significance of Jesus’ death is a fundamental activity of Christians.

11:25 after supper. The meal occurred after what Jesus said about the bread (v. 24) and before what he said about the cup (here). What Christian churches today celebrate in a single ceremony was originally connected with a real meal during which participants broke the bread at the beginning of the meal and drank the cup of blessing at the end of the meal. cup. Of wine; it symbolizes Jesus’ death (“blood”), which inaugurated the “new covenant” that God had promised (Jer 31:31–34; see 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15; 12:24). See Exod 24:8, where God’s covenant with the people of Israel was sealed with the sprinkling of blood; see also Exod 24:11, where Israel’s leaders share a meal in God’s presence immediately after the sealing of the covenant. As Passover eventually led to the covenant at Sinai, Jesus’ last supper with his disciples initiated the events that led to his death and resurrection and the inauguration of the new covenant.

The word “covenant” referred to a relationship in which one party established terms which the other party accepted or rejected. The focus of the Old Covenant was the written Word (Ex. 24:1–8). The focus of the New Covenant is the Living Word (John 1:14–18). Christ intended the cup to be a representational (cf. John 10:9; 1 Cor. 10:4) reminder of Him: do this … in remembrance of Me.

Though there apparently was no prescribed schedule for the observance of the Lord’s Supper (cf. Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 13:1), whenever it was celebrated its message of humiliation and subsequent exaltation (Phil. 2:6–11) went forth.

11:26. The Lord’s Supper was a visible sermon that proclaimed “the message of the Cross” (1:18, 23; 2:2, 8), that is, the reality of the Lord’s death, and also the certainty of His return (until He comes) (cf. John 14:1–4).

To participate in an unworthy manner, with divisions among them, profanes the supper and invites God’s judgment (11:29).

If the Corinthians thought the ordinances of the Lord’s Supper and baptism somehow communicated magical protection to the participants (cf. 10:12; 15:24), Paul’s excoriation must have been doubly painful since their behavior at this rite was directly linked to their chastisement (11:30–32)—the very thing they sought to avoid.

11:20–21. The Lord’s Supper should have been the remembrance of a preeminently selfless act, Christ’s death on behalf of others. Instead the Corinthians had turned the memorial of selflessness into an experience of selfishness and had made a rite of unity a riotous disunity. While one brother went hungry because he lacked the means to eat well, another brother drank to excess.

Nowadays when this passage is read before participation in the Lord’s Supper, it is usually intended to produce soul-searching introspection and silent confession to Christ so that no one will sin against the spiritual presence of the Lord by irreverent observance. Paul’s application was probably more concrete. No doubt his experience on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:4–5) contributed to this, for the body of Christ is the church, which consists of individual believers (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12, 27). His body, the church, is also pictured by the bread of Communion (5:7; 10:16–17). Thus to sin against another believer is to sin against Christ (8:12). Those guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord were those who despised a poorer member by utter disregard for his need (11:21–22). These came to the remembrance of Christ’s work of unity and reconciliation (cf. Eph. 2:15–16) with a trail of deeds that had produced disunity and alienation! If these would examine (dokimazetō, “test to approve,” 1 Cor. 11:28) themselves, they would see that they lacked God’s approval (dokimoi, v. 19) in this behavior. They should seek out the wronged brother and ask his forgiveness. Only then could a true spirit of worship flourish (cf. Matt. 5:23–24 and Didache 14. 1–3). Coming to the Lord’s Supper without that sin confessed brought judgment on the guilty participants. Only by recognizing (diakrinōn, “properly judging”) the unity of the body of the Lord—and acting accordingly—could they avoid bringing “judgment” (krima) on themselves.

11:30–32. What that judgment entailed was then explained by Paul. In brief, it was sickness and death (cf. 10:1–11). The solution was self-examination (diekrinomen, 11:31; cf. vv. 28–29; 5:1–5; 10:12), self-discipline (9:27), and promoting of unity. The alternative was God’s judging (krinomenoi, 11:32), which was a discipline that they were then experiencing. This was not a loss of salvation, but of life (cf. 5:5).

11:27 unworthy manner. Without love and regard for the poor in the congregation. guilty of sinning. During these meals some Corinthian Christians ate full meals in the presence of poor Christians who were hungry. They sinned not only against the poor Christians but, more important, “against the body and blood of the Lord,” i.e., against Jesus, who gave himself for others in his death on the cross.

11:28 examine themselves. Examine their behavior during the meals of the congregation—meals at which Christians from different social backgrounds ate together—especially their behavior concerning the poor. A more general application refers to self-examination regarding any unconfessed sin before partaking in the Lord’s Supper.