A Verse-by-Verse Study in 1 Corinthians 11

This do in remembrance of me. — 1 Corinthians 11:24

The book of 1 Corinthians has three main parts with eleven sub-sections. It begins with Paul’s observations of the church at Corinth. Then follows these four sections:

a. Dangers of sectarianism (chapter 1).

b. Dangers of worldly wisdom (chapters 2-4).

c. Dangers of not judging sin in the church (chapter 5).

d. Dangers of brother suing brother (chapter 6).

Paul then answers questions from the Corinthians:

a. Male-female relations (chapter 7).

b. Regarding meat offered to idols (chapter 8, 10 to 11:2).

c. Regarding a paid ministry (chapter 9).

d. Order in the church (chapter 11).

e. Women’s role in the church (chapter 12).

f. Regarding spiritual gifts (chapters 13 and 14).

g. Concerning the resurrection of the dead (chapter 15).

Paul ends with closing admonitions.

The subject of the Passover and Memorial Supper is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:7,8; 10:16,17; and 11:20-27. It is always used as an illustration in discussing other subjects. This study examines the one found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 by looking at the context of the entire chapter, one that deals with questions concerning various matters of order in the church.

Three matters are brought up for discussion: women’s head coverings (verses 3-16); divisions in the church (verses 17-19); and the eating of the Lord’s supper (verses 20-27).

Misplaced Verses: 1 Corinthians 11:1,2

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Translators arbitrarily made the chapter divisions in the Bible. This is one place where that division may be inappropriately made. In the previous chapters the subject is meat offered to idols. The first two verses of chapter 11 complete the theme of the previous chapters.

Paul discusses three specific situations: prohibiting eating meat in temple restaurants (1 Corinthians 8:10-13); permitting meat bought in the open market (1 Corinthians 10:25,26—the word “shambles” found in the King James Version would, in modern English, be translated “market” or “grocery”); and the more delicate situation where one is invited to a meal in the home of a pagan friend (1 Corinthians 10:27 to 11:2). After discussing the pros and cons of the situation, he leaves the decision to the individual by saying, “Whether ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). He ends by using his own conduct as an example.

Head Coverings: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Verse 3 specifies the hierarchy of both human and divine relationships. The order should be: God, Christ, Man, and Woman.

While this relationship does indicate one of subservience, it does not suggest a dictatorship. Rather it indicates a willing cooperative association. The “us” relationship in the creation (Genesis 1:26) suggests such a mutual union. The same is implied in Christ looking at the Church as his brethren. Thus it should also be between man and woman: a consultation bond with the husband serving as chairman and making a decision that tries for a consensus. There is also a hint at a typical function that as Christ relates to God, so should the woman relate to man.

As a mark of this structure, Paul advises the use of a head covering. Yet, the words of verse 15 argue that her long hair is already a covering. Why then, some contend, does she require an additional covering? Apparently it was a Jewish custom based on Numbers 5:18, “The priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse.”

Adam Clarke comments: “To take off a woman’s veil, and expose her to the sight of men would be considered a very great degradation in the East.” This custom had fallen in disuse in New Testament times, but was widely practiced by Greek and Roman reputable women. According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia enforcement of this practice was especially strict in Paul’s hometown of Tarsus. Evidently the apostle recognized it as an appropriate mark of distinction between the modest and respectable women and the courtesans who removed their veils as a mark of independence and rebellion against the customs of their society.

Paul limits his recommendation to those serving in the act of prayer, though it seems logical it would appertain to any religious service in the house of God.

He also addresses the males, saying that for them to have long hair was as shameful as for women to have short hair. Yet, one of the requirements of the Nazarite vow (see Numbers 6) was for a man to let his hair grow. This exception is not inconsistent, for that vow was to show humbleness and subservience in the same way as does long hair on a woman. It was this humility that gave women their glory (1 Corinthians 11:15).

A key verse is 1 Corinthians 11:10 where Paul advances the thought that women ought to wear a head covering “because of the angels.” Of the many interpretations for this verse, three appear reasonable:

1) The angels, or messengers, represent the elders of the Church to whom proper respect is to be shown because of their office (The New Creation, p. 272).

2) Because women represent the Church before a man who pictures Christ, men and women are to “be a spectacle” unto angels (1 Corinthians 4:9).

3) Paul is thinking of Isaiah 6:2 where the angels used one pair of their wings to “cover their ”

In the eleventh verse the apostle makes it clear that a man is not to rule over his wife, but that they are to be mutually interdependent. In verse fourteen he says that long hair is even taught by nature. Of the many diverse definitions for the Greek word translated nature, the following from Brown, Driver, and Riggs seems most appropriate: “The sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others.”

Paul concludes his thesis by saying it should not be a matter of contention, for the Christian church at that time had no such ruling. Some take from this that this advice must therefore apply only to Corinth where the head coverings differentiated the humble housewife from the courtesans and intellectuals who wore short hair. Such a supposition seems unwarranted.

Divisions: 1 Corinthians 11:17-19

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Paul now turns aside from questions he was asked, to a report that there were divisions in that church. Although the cause of these schisms is not revealed, we may deduce from what follows that they concerned the celebration of the Lord’s supper and a possible failure to differentiate the Memorial from a customary Sunday dinner of the ecclesia.

The word heresy (Greek: hairesis) does not necessarily carry a negative connotation. The word simply means “to choose, or a choice.” It is five times translated “sect” and four times translated “heresy.” The word is used to describe the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Christians as groups.

The apostle is not saying that such divisions were good, only that they were necessary — unfortunately necessary. Neither is he implying that all of the approved are on one side of the controversy. In the words of Jesus, “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Matthew 18:7).

Barnes, in his Notes on the New Testament, makes this apt observation: “The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in all divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held, and where the corruption of the mass does not require separation, such divisions show who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are indisposed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes.”

The Lord’s Supper: 1 Corinthians 11:20-34

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Apparently the Corinthian brethren had fallen into the habit of observing the Lord’s supper in parties. This not only heightened the sectarian spirit in this church, but also destroyed the picture of a united church with a common appreciation of the Lord’s death and a united determination to share in it.

Verse 21 implies that the situation was so severe that the excesses of some led to outright drunkenness. Others, poorer in this world’s goods, were left with little or no food. Their celebration copied the love feast Jesus and his disciples ate that preceded the introduction of the Memorial emblems, rather than a common participation in the bread and wine. After chiding them for their irreverence and lack of understanding, the apostle calls attention to the fact that, rather than an elaborate meal, the Lord introduced two items, the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, as symbols of his death, and it was this ritual that they were to observe.

Not recognizing the significance of these emblems in their lives was to drink of the cup “unworthily.” The word “unworthily” is an adverb rather than an adjective and does not refer to the condition of their lives but to their attitude in participating in these elements.

Thus Paul urges serious self-examination of their motives in keeping this solemn ceremony. The following comment is especially apt: “But he that judges his heart, his motives, his will, his intentions, should always be able to find it true to the Lord, however much his life may come short of his new will” (Reprints, p. 1516).

Insincere participation is equated to being “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Counting the elements in such an irreverent manner would classify them with the Jews who said, “His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matthew 27:25). Thus they would be bringing judgment (mistranslated damnation in the King James) upon themselves.

Verse 26 says this ritual was to be continued “till he come.” This phrase does not refer to his parousia, or presence, at his return but to his coming in glory with all the holy angels (Matthew 25:31).

The problem in this regard was so widespread that Paul writes that it was responsible for a condition where “many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” While the primary meaning here seems to refer to spiritual weakness, sickness, and the lethargy of spiritual sleepiness (Ephesians 5:14), it may have also referred to physical maladies and even death. “This may refer to spiritual lethargy and sickness only; but not improbably also to the physical” (Reprints, p. 2008).

The apostle closes this section of his epistle by again advising self-examination so that they would not need to receive their judgment and consequent chastisement from the Lord. This chastisement is not punitive, but corrective: “The object of the Lord in meting out this chastisement is that we shall learn the needed lesson, and be more watchful” (Reprints, p. 5428).

Paul concludes by writing that they should have their meals at home and wait in an orderly fashion for all to arrive before commemorating the death of the Lord by using the emblems of the bread and wine.

Such admonitions continue to be appropriate to the church of the present time as we continue not only to appreciate the great sacrifice Christ made for us but also our privilege in dying with him.

–– The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom 2005/3