1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11:1

11:1 Verse 1 of chapter 11 probably goes better with chapter 10. Paul had just been speaking of how he tried to gauge all his actions in the light of their effect on others. Now he tells the Corinthians to imitate him, just as he also copied Christ. He renounced personal advantages and rights in order to help those about him. The Corinthians should do likewise, and not selfishly parade their freedoms in such a way as to hinder the gospel of Christ or offend the weak brother.

1 Corinthians 11:2

C. Concerning Women’s Head Coverings (11:2-16) Verses 2-16 of chapter 11 are devoted to the subject of women’s head-coverings. The remaining verses deal with abuses in connection with the Lord’s Supper (vv. 17-34). The first section of the chapter has been much disputed. Some think that the instruction given here was applicable only to Paul’s day. Some even go so far as to contend that these verses reflect Paul’s prejudice against women, since he was a bachelor! Still others simply accept the teaching of this portion, seeking to obey its precepts even if they do not understand them all. 11:2 The apostle first of all commends the Corinthians for the way in which they remembered him in all things, and held fast the traditions just as he had delivered them. Traditions refer not to habits and practices that have arisen in the church down through the years, but rather, in this case, to the inspired instructions of the Apostle Paul. 11:3 Paul now introduces the subject of women’s head coverings. Behind his instruction is the fact that every ordered society is built on two pillarsauthority and subjection to that authority. It is impossible to have a well-functioning community where these two principles are not observed. Paul mentions three great relationships involving authority and subjection. First, the head of every man is Christ; Christ is Lord and man is subject to Him. Secondly, the head of woman is man; the place of headship was given to the man, and the woman is under his authority.

Third, the head of Christ is God; even in the Godhead, One Person has the place of rule and Another takes the place of willing subordination. These examples of headship and submission were designed by God Himself and are fundamental in His arrangement of the universe. At the outset it should be emphasized that subjection does not mean inferiority. Christ is subject to God the Father but He is not inferior to Him. Neither is woman inferior to man, though she is subordinate to him. 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, that is, Christ. It is saying, in effect, that the man does not acknowledge Christ as his head. Thus it is an act of gross disrespect. 11:5 Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, that is, the man. She is saying, in effect, that she does not recognize man’s God-given headship and will not submit to it. If this were the only verse in the Bible on the subject, then it would imply that it is all right for a woman to pray or prophesy in the assembly as long as she has a veil or other covering on her head. But Paul teaches elsewhere that women should be silent in the assembly (1Co_14:34), that they are not permitted to teach or to have authority over the man but to be in silence (1Ti_2:12). The passage is admittedly a difficult one. What does seem clear is that in the matter of covering, the woman’s duty is the exact opposite of the man’s. In other words, it is proper for a woman to be covered whenever it is proper for a man to be uncovered in situations involving prayer and prophesying. 11:6 If a woman is not covered, she might as well be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, then she should be covered. The unveiled head of a woman is as shameful as if her hair were cut off. The apostle is not commanding a barber’s operation but rather telling what moral consistency would require! 11:7 In verses 7-10, Paul teaches the subordination of the woman to the man by going back to creation. This should forever lay to rest any idea that his teaching about women’s covering was what was culturally suitable in his day but not applicable to us today. The headship of man and the subjection of woman have been God’s order from the very beginning. First of all, man is the image and glory of God whereas woman is the glory of man. This means that man was placed on earth as God’s representative, to exercise dominion over it. Man’s uncovered head is a silent witness to this fact. The woman was never given this place of headship; instead she is the glory of man in the sense that she renders conspicuous the authority of man, as W. E. Vine expresses it. Man indeed ought not to cover his head in prayer; it would be tantamount to veiling the glory of God, and this would be an insult to the Divine Majesty. 11:8 Paul next reminds us that man was not created from woman but woman was created from man. The man was first, then the woman was taken from his side. This priority of the man strengthens the apostle’s case for man’s headship. 11:9 The purpose of creation is next alluded to in order to press home the point. Nor was man created primarily for the woman, but rather woman for the man. The Lord distinctly stated in Gen_2:18, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.11:10 Because of her position of subordination to man, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. The symbol of authority is the head-covering and here it indicates not her own authority but subjection to the authority of her husband. Why does Paul add because of the angels? We would suggest that the angels are spectators of the things that are happening on earth today, as they were of the things that happened at creation. In the first creation, they saw how woman usurped the place of headship over the man. She made the decision that Adam should have made. As a result of this, sin entered the human race with its unspeakable aftermath of misery and woe. God does not want what happened in the first creation to be repeated in the new creation. When the angels look down, He wants them to see the woman acting in subjection to the man, and indicating this outwardly by a covering on her head. We might pause here to state that the head-covering is simply an outward sign and it is of value only when it is the outward sign of an inward grace. In other words, a woman might have a covering on her head and yet not truly be submissive to her husband. In such a case, to wear a head-covering would be of no value at all. The most important thing is to be sure that the heart is truly subordinate; then a covering on a woman’s head becomes truly meaningful. 11:11 Paul is not implying that man is at all independent of the woman, so he adds: Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. In other words, man and woman are mutually dependent. They need one another and the idea of subordination is not at all in conflict with the idea of mutual interdependence. 11:12 Woman came from man by creation, that is, she was created from Adam’s side. But Paul points out that man also comes through woman. Here he is referring to the process of birth. The woman gives birth to the man child. Thus God has created this perfect balance to indicate that the one cannot exist without the other. All things are from God means that He has divinely appointed all these things, so there is no just cause for complaint. Not only were these relationships created by God, but the purpose of them all is to glorify Him. All of this should make the man humble and the woman content. 11:13 The apostle now challenges the Corinthians to judge among themselves if it is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. He appeals to their instinctive sense. The suggestion is that it is not reverent or decorous for a woman to enter into the presence of God unveiled. 11:14 Just how does nature itself teach us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair is not made clear. Some have suggested that a man’s hair will not naturally grow into as long tresses as a woman’s. For a man to have long hair makes him appear effeminate. In most cultures, the male wears his hair shorter than the female. 11:15 Verse 15 has been greatly misunderstood by many. Some have suggested that since a woman’s hair is given to her for a covering, it is not necessary for her to have any other covering. But such a teaching does grave violence to this portion of Scripture. Unless one sees that two coverings are mentioned in this chapter, the passage becomes hopelessly confusing. This may be demonstrated by referring back to verse 6. There we read: For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. According to the interpretation just mentioned, this would mean that if a woman does not have her hair on, then she might just as well be shorn. But this is ridiculous. If she does not have her hair on, she could not possibly be shorn! The actual argument in verse 15 is that there is a real analogy between the spiritual and the natural. God gave woman a natural covering of glory in a way He did not give to man. There is a spiritual significance to this. It teaches that when a woman prays to God, she should wear a covering on her head. What is true in the natural sphere should be true in the spiritual. 11:16 The apostle closes this section with the statement: But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Does Paul mean, as has been suggested, that the things he has just been saying are not important enough to contend about? Does he mean that there was no such custom of women veiling their heads in the churches? Does he mean that these teachings are optional and not to be pressed upon women as the commandments of the Lord? It seems strange that any such interpretations would ever be offered, yet they are commonly heard today. This would mean that Paul considered these instructions as of no real consequence, and he had just been wasting over half a chapter of Holy Scripture in setting them forth! There are at least two possible explanations of this verse which fit in with the rest of the Scripture. First of all, the apostle may be saying that he anticipates that certain ones will be contentious about these matters, but he adds that we have no such custom, that is, the custom of contending about this. We do not argue about such matters, but accept them as the teaching of the Lord. Another interpretation, favored by William Kelly, is that Paul was saying that the churches of God did not have any such custom as that of women praying or prophesying without being covered.

1 Corinthians 11:17

D. Concerning the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34) 11:17 The apostle rebukes the Corinthians for the fact that there were divisions among them as they gathered together (vv. 17-19). Note the repetition of the expression when you come together or related words (11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 1Co_14:23, 1Co_14:26). In 1Co_11:2 Paul had had occasion to praise them for keeping the traditions which he had delivered to them, but there was one matter in which he could not praise them, and that is the matter about which he is to speak. When they gathered together for public meetings, they came together not for the better but for the worse. This is a solemn reminder to us all that it is possible to go away from meetings of the church and to have been harmed rather than benefited. 11:18 The first cause of rebuke was the existence of divisions or schisms. This does not mean that parties had broken away from the church and formed separate fellowships, but rather that there were cliques and factions within the congregation. A schism is a party inside, whereas a sect is a different party outside. Paul could believe these reports of divisions because he knew that the Corinthians were in a carnal state, and he had previous occasion in this Epistle to rebuke them because of their divisions. F. B. Hole writes: Paul was prepared to give at least partial credence to the reports of the divisions at Corinth, since he knew that, owing to their carnal state, there were bound to be these opinionated factions in their midst. Here Paul reasons forward from their state to their actions. Knowing them to be carnal and walking as men, he knew that they would certainly fall victims to the inveterate tendency of the human mind to form its strong opinions, and the factions founded in those opinions, ending in the schisms and divisions. He knew, too, that God could overrule their folly and take occasion to make manifest those that were approved of Him, walking according to the Spirit and not as man; and consequently eschewing the whole of this divisive business. 11:19 Paul foresaw that the schisms already begun in Corinth would increase until they became more serious. Although in general this would be detrimental to the church, yet one good thing would come out of it, that is, that those who were truly spiritual and who were approved of God would be recognized among the Corinthians. When Paul says in this verse: there must also be factions among you, this does not mean that it is a moral necessity. God is not condoning splits in the church here. Rather, Paul means that because of the carnal conditions of the Corinthians, it was inevitable that factions would result. Divisions are proof that some have failed to discern the mind of the Lord. 11:20 Paul now directs his second rebuke against abuses in connection with the Lord’s Supper. When the Christians gathered together, ostensibly to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, their conduct was so deplorable that Paul says they could not possibly remember the Lord in the way in which He appointed. They might go through the outward motions, but their entire deportment would preclude any true remembrance of the Lord. 11:21 In the early days of the church, Christians celebrated the agape, or love feast along with the Lord’s Supper. The love feast was something like a common meal, shared in a spirit of love and fellowship. At the end of the love feast, the Christians often had the remembrance of the Lord with the bread and wine. But before very long, abuses crept in. For instance, in this verse it is implied that the love feast lost its real meaning. Not only did the Christians not wait for one another, but the rich ones shamed their poorer brethren by having lavish meals and not sharing them. Some went away hungry, where as others were actually drunk! Since the Lord’s Supper often followed the love feast, they would still be drunk when they sat down to partake of the Lord’s Supper. 11:22 The apostle indignantly rebukes such disgraceful conduct. If they insist on carrying on in such a way, then they should at least have the reverence not to do it in a church meeting. To practice intemperance at such a time and to shame one’s poorer brethren is most inconsistent with the Christian faith. Paul cannot but withhold praise from the saints for acting in this way; and in withholding praise, he thereby condemns them strongly. 11:23 To show the contrast between their conduct and the real meaning of the Lord’s Supper, he goes back to its original institution. He shows that it was not a common meal or a feast, but a solemn ordinance of the Lord. Paul received his knowledge concerning this directly from the Lord and he mentions this to show that any violation would be actual disobedience. What he is teaching, then, he received by revelation. First of all, he mentions how the Lord Jesus on the very night in which He was betrayed took bread. The literal rendering is while He was being betrayed. While the foul plot to deliver Him up was going on outside, the Lord Jesus gathered in the upper room with His disciples and took the bread. The fact that this occurred at night does not necessarily mean that the Lord’s Supper must thereafter be observed only at night. At that time, sundown was the beginning of the Jewish day. Our day begins at sunrise. Also it has been remarked that there is a difference between apostolic example and apostolic precepts. We are not obligated to do all that the apostles did, but we are most certainly obligated to obey all that they taught. 11:24 The Lord Jesus took the bread, first of all, and gave thanks for it. Since the bread was typical of His body, He was, in effect, thanking God that He had been given a human body in which He might come and die for the sins of the world. When the Savior said, This is My body, did He mean that the bread actually became His body in some real sense? The Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation insists that the bread and the wine are literally changed into the body and the blood of Christ. The Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation teaches that the true body and blood of Christ are in, with, and under the bread and wine on the table. In answer to these views, it should be sufficient to remember that when the Lord Jesus instituted this memorial, His body had not yet been given, nor had His blood been shed. When the Lord Jesus said, This is My body, He meant, This is symbolic of My body or This is a picture of My body which is broken for you. To eat the bread is to remember Him in His atoning death for us. There is inexpressible tenderness in our Lord’s expression in remembrance of Me.11:25 In the same manner the Lord Jesus also took the cup after the Passover supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. The Lord’s Supper was instituted immediately after the Passover Feast.

That is why it says that the Lord Jesus took the cup after supper. In connection with the cup, He said that it was the new covenant in His blood. This refers to the covenant that God promised to the nation of Israel in Jer_31:31-34. It is an unconditional promise by which He agreed to be merciful to their unrighteousness and to remember their sins and iniquities no more. The terms of the new covenant are also given in Heb_8:10-12. The covenant is in force at the present time, but unbelief keeps the nation of Israel from enjoying it.

All who do trust the Lord Jesus receive the benefits that were promised. When the people of Israel turn to the Lord, they will enjoy the blessings of the new covenant; that will be during Christ’s thousand-year reign on earth. The new covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and that is why He speaks of the cup as being the new covenant in His blood. The foundation of the new covenant was laid through the cross. 11:26 Verse 26 touches on the question as to how frequently the Lord’s Supper should be observed. For as often as you eat … and drink … . No legalistic rule is laid down; neither is any fixed date given. It seems clear from Act_20:7 that the practice of the disciples was to meet on the first day of the week to remember the Lord. That this ordinance was not intended simply for the early days of the church is abundantly proved by the expression till He comes. Godet beautifully points out that the Lord’s Supper is the link between His two comings, the monument of the one, the pledge of the other.In all this instruction concerning the Lord’s Supper it is notable that there is not a word about a minister or priest officiating.

It is a simple memorial service left for all the people of God. Christians gather together simply as believer-priests to thus proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.11:27 Having discussed the origin and purpose of the Lord’s Supper, the apostle now turns to the consequences of participating in it wrongly. Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. We are all unworthy to partake of this solemn Supper. In that sense, we are unworthy of any of the Lord’s mercy or kindness to us. But that is not the subject here.

The apostle is not speaking of our own personal unworthiness. Cleansed by the blood of Christ, we can approach God in all the worthiness of His own beloved Son. But Paul is speaking here of the disgraceful conduct which characterized the Corinthians as they gathered together for the Lord’s Supper. They were guilty of careless, irreverent behavior. To act thus is to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.11:28 As we come to the Lord’s Supper, we should do so in a judged condition. Sin should be confessed and forsaken; restitution should be made; apologies should be offered to those we have offended.

In general we should make sure that we are in a proper state of soul. 11:29 To eat and to drink in an inconsistent manner is to eat and drink judgment to oneself, not discerning the Lord’s body. We should realize that the Lord’s body was given in order that our sins might be put away. If we go on living in sin, while at the same time partaking of the Lord’s Supper, we are living a lie. F. G. Patterson writes, If we eat the Lord’s Supper with unjudged sin upon us, we do not discern the Lord’s body which was broken to put it away.11:30 Failure to exercise self-judgment resulted in God’s disciplinary judgment upon some in the church at Corinth.

Many were weak and sick, and not a few slept. In other words, physical illness had come upon some, and some were taken home to heaven. Because they did not judge sin in their lives, the Lord was required to take disciplinary action against them. 11:31 On the other hand, if we exercise this self-judgment, it will not be necessary to so chasten us. 11:32 God is dealing with us as with His own children. He loves us too dearly to allow us to go on in sin. Thus we soon feel the shepherd’s crook on our necks pulling us back to Himself. As someone has said, It is possible for the saints to be fit for heaven (in Christ) but not fitted to remain on the earth in testimony.11:33 When the believers come together for the love feast, or agape, they should wait for one another, and not selfishly proceed without regard for the other saints. Waiting for one another is in contrast to verse 21, each one takes his own supper ahead of others.11:34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home. In other words, the love feast, linked as it was with the Lord’s Supper, was not to be mistaken for a common meal.

To disregard its sacred character would be to come together for judgment.And the rest I will set in order when I come. Undoubtedly there were other minor matters which had been mentioned to the apostle in the letter from the Corinthians. Here he assures them that he will deal with these matters personally when he visits them.