1 Corinthians Chapter 11
Concerning Women, and the Lord’s Supper
A. Instruction concerning women in the worship service.
1. (1 Corinthians 11:1) A call to follow the example of Paul.
“Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.”
Paul begins this section with a profound yet simple exhortation. He calls the believers in Corinth to imitate him, but not in his own strength, wisdom, or personality. Rather, he points them to Christ, affirming that he is only worthy of imitation insofar as he himself imitates Christ. This statement demonstrates both humility and confidence: humility, because Paul does not promote himself apart from Christ, and confidence, because he knows he is faithfully following the Lord in a way that others can safely observe and learn from.
Paul understood the need for examples within the Christian community. The Corinthian church was plagued with immaturity, divisions, and worldliness. They desperately needed living models of godliness. Therefore, Paul offered himself as one such example, just as he had exhorted his young protégé Timothy: “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12).
In our present day, this principle remains striking. Few believers are willing to boldly declare, as Paul did, “Imitate me.” Many Christians excuse their failings with phrases like, “Don’t look at me, look at Jesus.” While it is true that Christ alone is the ultimate model, Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that God’s people must serve as examples of holiness and faithfulness. Parents are to be examples to their children, pastors to their congregations, and older saints to younger believers (Titus 2:2-8). To refuse this responsibility is to deny the clear call of Christian discipleship.
The phrase “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” also places an important limitation on imitation. Paul does not expect unquestioned loyalty to himself as a man, nor should any Christian leader. The condition is clear: follow only insofar as that leader follows Christ. This safeguards the church from idolatry of personalities and directs ultimate loyalty to the Lord Jesus. The standard for every believer is not another Christian, no matter how faithful, but Christ Himself.
There is also a contextual question: does Paul intend this verse to conclude the discussion of liberty and love in chapter 10, or to begin the instruction on order in worship in chapter 11? The connection is likely to the preceding section, since Paul has just spoken of not seeking his own advantage but that of others, so that they may be saved (1 Corinthians 10:33). His life modeled self-denial for the sake of others’ salvation. Yet even if this verse is taken as an introduction to chapter 11, the principle holds true: Paul respected God’s order, authority, and design in the church, and he could be imitated in this as well. In either case, his life was consistent with the principle he proclaimed.
Paul’s call to imitation is also deeply Christ-centered. He reminds us that discipleship is not merely about believing doctrines but about following the example of a life lived in obedience to God. Christ Himself is the pattern. As Peter wrote, “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps” (1 Peter 2:21). Paul embodied this pattern in his ministry, so that believers might see the truth of Christ’s life reflected in his conduct.
Concerning Women, and the Lord’s Supper
A. Instruction concerning women in the worship service.
2. (1 Corinthians 11:2-3) The principle of headship.
“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
Paul begins this section by commending the Corinthian believers, at least outwardly, for remembering his instructions and holding to the traditions he had passed down to them. Yet his words carry a tone that may well be ironic, since the Corinthians were known for their tendency to disregard apostolic teaching whenever it conflicted with their desires. They had a history of questioning Paul’s authority and failing to apply his instructions properly. Nevertheless, Paul acknowledges that they had received traditions from him, which were not man-made rituals or ceremonies, but apostolic teachings rooted in the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ. The term “traditions” here refers not to empty formalism, but to divinely given truths and practices that preserve the doctrinal and moral integrity of the church. In this sense, Paul calls them to hold fast to the apostolic faith that was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
The heart of Paul’s instruction is found in verse 3, where he lays down the principle of headship: “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” With these words, Paul establishes an unchanging order of authority and accountability within God’s design. The term “head” (Greek: kephalē) can be understood as “source,” in the sense of origin, but it also carries the deeper meaning of authority and leadership. Biblically, to be the head is not merely to precede as a source but to bear responsibility and exercise God-ordained authority. If something comes from me, there is an appropriate order of accountability tied to it. Thus, Paul’s meaning is not limited to origin but includes the exercise of rightful authority.
This headship principle is illustrated in three relationships: Christ is the head of every man, man is the head of woman, and God the Father is the head of Christ. By connecting these three together, Paul shows that the principle of headship is universal, divinely ordained, and expressed consistently across all levels of God’s order. Importantly, these examples also demonstrate that headship does not imply inferiority. Christ was fully under the authority of the Father during His earthly ministry, as He said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner” (John 5:19). Again, He declared: “I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things” (John 8:28). Yet the same Christ also affirmed His equality with God, saying: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1), “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58), and “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30).
This demonstrates that submission in God’s order of authority never implies inequality of worth or essence. The Son is equal with the Father in deity, yet He voluntarily submits to the Father’s authority. In the same way, women are equal to men in dignity, value, and salvation, as Paul makes clear in Galatians 3:28, yet God has established a functional order in the church and in the home. Therefore, when women are called to recognize the headship of men, it is not a matter of inferiority, but of divine order.
From this perspective, women in the church are confronted with two possible attitudes toward headship. They may imitate the rebellion that men so often display toward Christ, resisting authority and asserting independence. Or, they may imitate Christ’s loving submission to the Father, which was never servile but always voluntary and rooted in equality. God’s great plan for the ages revolves around voluntary submission to His will, and Christ is the supreme example of this principle.
Ultimately, the teaching on headship reminds believers that God values order, authority, and accountability. He has established a chain of headship that begins with Himself, flows through Christ, and extends into human relationships. This is not about domination or suppression but about reflecting God’s own perfect design. When men submit to Christ, and women willingly acknowledge the headship of men, the church displays the harmony, beauty, and unity that God intended from creation.
Concerning Women, and the Lord’s Supper
A. Instruction concerning women in the worship service.
3. (1 Corinthians 11:4-6) The application of the principle of headship among the Corinthian Christians.
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.”
Paul now takes the principle of headship, previously established in verses 2–3, and applies it practically to the corporate worship setting in Corinth. He begins with the instruction that every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, which is Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3). For a man to wear a head covering in the worship assembly was, by cultural expression, to symbolically deny his God-given position of spiritual leadership. It implied that he was under human authority rather than under the direct authority of Christ, which dishonored both Christ and the order God had established.
By contrast, every woman who prayed or prophesied with her head uncovered dishonored her head, which is the man. In that culture, the covering or veil represented her recognition of her role under God’s order. To appear uncovered in worship was, symbolically, to reject submission to the authority God had ordained. Paul goes further by saying that for a woman to worship without a covering was the same as if her head were shaved. In ancient Jewish culture, shaving a woman’s head could mark her as an adulteress (Numbers 5:11–31), while in Greek and Roman society, shaved heads were often associated with prostitutes or women of dishonor. Thus, Paul equates rejection of the head covering with public disgrace, making the point vivid and inescapable.
The cultural symbolism is important to grasp. In Corinth, head coverings for women were not simply a matter of fashion but a public testimony of modesty, honor, and submission. The covering represented that she was under the authority and protection of her husband or the male leadership of the church. Conversely, to go without a covering communicated independence and even rebellion against God’s established order. As Adam Clarke noted, “It was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the East, and none but public prostitutes go without veils.”
Paul’s instruction makes it clear that symbols matter, because they communicate deeper spiritual truths. For men to cover their heads in worship was to obscure the truth that they are under Christ’s direct authority. For women to uncover their heads in worship was to obscure the truth of their God-ordained role in honoring their head. Both actions distorted the picture of headship and submission that God designed for His church.
Paul also highlights the seriousness of rebellion against these symbols. He says plainly, “For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” His argument is direct: if a woman refuses to honor God’s order in the smaller matter of a head covering, she may as well carry her rebellion to its most shameful expression, which is shaving her head. Yet, since this was culturally disgraceful, Paul concludes that the appropriate action is simple—let her be covered.
It is also important to notice that Paul acknowledges the reality of women praying or prophesying in the assembly, but he insists that such participation must be done under visible recognition of authority. This does not overthrow God’s design for male leadership in the church, but it allows for female participation in ways consistent with God’s order. Women were free to serve and exercise spiritual gifts, but only in a way that demonstrated their submission to the divine pattern of headship.
The broader principle here is timeless, even if the cultural expression may differ. Symbols of submission and authority change across societies, but God’s order of headship does not. The Corinthian veil may not be identical to modern dress codes, yet the principle stands: God calls His people to honor His established order, men by exercising spiritual leadership under Christ, and women by embracing their God-given role with humility and grace. To distort these roles, whether by cultural rebellion or neglect of symbols, is to dishonor the God who designed them.
A. Instruction concerning women in the worship service.
4. (1 Corinthians 11:7-10) Why is it important to respect the principle of headship in the church?
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
Paul now explains why the principle of headship in the church is not optional, but essential. He begins by teaching that a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. This goes back to God’s order in creation. Genesis 1:27 declares, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Both men and women bear the image of God equally, but Paul emphasizes that man reflects God’s glory directly, whereas woman reflects the glory of man as his helper and complement. She was made from him and for him, as Paul makes clear: “For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.”
This is a direct allusion to the creation account in Genesis 2. God created Adam first, gave him dominion over the created order, and then fashioned Eve from Adam’s rib to be his helper. Genesis 2:18 records God’s design: “And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.’” Then Genesis 2:22 states, “Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” Eve was not created independently, but from Adam and for Adam, to complement him in God’s plan. Thus, headship is not a result of sin or the fall, but part of God’s perfect design in creation.
Paul stresses that this principle applies beyond Adam and Eve; it is a universal pattern for all men and women. As Matthew Poole rightly noted, “The woman is the glory of the man, created for the honor of the man, and for his help and assistance, and originally made out of man, so as man may glory of her, as Adam did of Eve, saying, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’” (Genesis 2:23). This order, established before sin entered the world, shows that differences in role are not consequences of sin, nor are they abolished by salvation in Christ. Male headship in the home and in the church is God’s timeless design.
Paul then gives a third and profound reason for respecting headship: “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” This statement reminds us that the gathered worship of the church is not merely a human activity, but a heavenly one. Angels are present in Christian assemblies, observing not only our words of worship but also our order and reverence (cf. Hebrews 1:14). Paul implies that angels are offended when God’s order is disregarded in worship, for they delight in God’s design and serve as guardians of His holiness.
This connects with other passages that reveal the cosmic scope of God’s purposes in the church. Ephesians 3:10-11 teaches, “to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Likewise, 1 Corinthians 4:9 says, “For we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.” Even 1 Peter 1:12 reveals that angels long to look into the things God is accomplishing through His people. The church is part of a divine drama in which the angelic host is the audience, learning through us the beauty of God’s wisdom and order.
Therefore, for a woman to wear a symbol of authority in the Corinthian assembly was not merely a cultural accommodation but an acknowledgment of God’s eternal design, witnessed and honored by the angelic realm. John Stott described this in cosmic terms, calling history “a great drama” in which the church members are the actors and the angels are the audience. If this is the case, then how we carry ourselves in worship is not trivial but eternally significant.
Finally, Paul’s reasons for headship are not cultural but theological. They rest on three timeless truths: the order of creation, the purpose of creation, and the presence of angels. These transcend culture and remain binding in the church today. While the outward symbols may vary from culture to culture, the underlying principle of headship does not change. God has established a chain of authority in both the home and the church: Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ. This reflects the very nature of God Himself, for within the Trinity there is equality of essence but distinction of roles. To reject God’s order is to rebel against His nature. As 1 Samuel 15:23 warns, “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.”
5. (1 Corinthians 11:11-12) Headship in light of the interdependence of men and women.
“Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.”
After affirming the principle of headship and authority in verses 3–10, Paul carefully provides balance. He does not want the Corinthians to misunderstand his teaching as justification for male domination or female insignificance. Thus, he writes, “Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.” While there is headship, there is also mutual dependence. Men and women are not competitors or adversaries in God’s design; they are partners who need one another.
Paul affirms the truth that women originally came from man, as Eve was taken from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:21-22). But he also reminds his readers that since that moment, every man has come into the world through woman. No man exists apart from the womb of a woman, and therefore no man can despise or devalue women without dishonoring the very means God ordained for human life. In this, Paul corrects any misunderstanding of headship as superiority. Male leadership in the church and home does not diminish the equal worth, value, and necessity of women. Both genders depend on one another, and both stand equally in the Lord.
Matthew Poole wisely commented, “Since the creation of the first man, all men are by the woman, who conceives them in her womb, suckles them at her breasts, is concerned in their education while children, and dandled upon her knees; the man therefore hath no reason to despise and too much to trample upon the woman.” Headship that forgets this interdependence becomes tyranny, which is never God’s design.
This balance reflects the consistent teaching of Scripture. Ephesians 5:23 declares, “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.” Yet only a few verses later, husbands are commanded, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25). Headship is always to be exercised in love, reflecting Christ’s sacrificial leadership. A man who rules harshly, without tenderness or care, betrays the very principle of headship he is meant to uphold.
As Alan Redpath observed, “A man who can only rule by stamping his foot had better remain single. But a man who knows how to govern his house by the love of the Lord, through sacrificial submission to the Lord, is the man who is going to make a perfect husband.” Likewise, a woman’s submission is not to be forced or demeaning, but a willing recognition of God’s order, grounded in the reality that she is equally valuable and equally necessary in God’s design.
G. Campbell Morgan once recalled the testimony of an older Christian woman who had never married, saying, “I never met a man who could master me.” She understood that submission could never be demanded by a man apart from Christlike love; it must be freely given in the context of godly leadership. This highlights that both men and women are accountable to God in how they live out their respective roles.
Finally, Paul grounds his entire teaching with the reminder: “But all things are from God.” While man came first, and while women bear children, ultimately every life comes from God alone. Authority structures exist, but God is the ultimate source of life, order, and purpose. This humbles both men and women, keeping neither from pride nor despair. Men cannot boast over women, and women cannot resent God’s order, because both exist under God’s sovereign design.
6. (1 Corinthians 11:13-16) Appealing to experience, nature, common sense, and apostolic authority.
“Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
Paul concludes his instruction on head coverings with a final appeal to the Corinthians’ own judgment, to the natural order, and to the broader authority of the churches. He begins with a rhetorical question: “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” His point is that even without an explicit command, their own conscience and sense of propriety should recognize that a woman’s uncovered head in prayer dishonors the God-ordained order. He appeals to their lived experience, urging them to discern what is proper and fitting within the worship assembly.
Paul then appeals to nature: “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” In both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, men typically wore shorter hair while women wore their hair longer. Though hairstyles have varied throughout history, the general distinction between male and female hair length has remained a consistent marker of gender difference. Paul uses this natural distinction to reinforce his point: men should not blur the lines of masculinity and femininity, and women should embrace the outward symbols of femininity and modesty.
Some have mistakenly taken this verse to mean that it is always sinful for a man to wear long hair. But this is not Paul’s intent. He himself took a Nazarite vow that included letting his hair grow long (Acts 18:18). The point is not the absolute length of the hair but the cultural symbol it communicates. If long hair for men in Corinth blurred gender distinctions and dishonored masculinity, then it was improper. Likewise, a woman’s long hair was considered her natural glory, a visible sign of her femininity. Paul calls it “nature’s veil,” a built-in reminder that women were to reflect God’s order by being covered in worship.
Paul also addresses the contentious spirit that might arise in response to his teaching. He writes, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” In other words, this was not an isolated practice for Corinth alone but a consistent pattern across all the churches under apostolic authority. The Corinthians were not free to dismiss the teaching as a local or cultural oddity, nor were they permitted to quarrel with Paul over it. To resist apostolic instruction was to resist God Himself.
At the heart of Paul’s appeal is the recognition that Christian worship is not an arena for self-expression or rebellion against order but a context where God’s design is displayed. Head coverings, hair length, and cultural symbols all carried meaning in Corinth. While those particular symbols may shift across cultures, the principle remains: men and women must maintain the distinctions God ordained and reflect His order in worship. This requires humility, discernment, and submission to apostolic authority, which still governs the church today through the Word of God.
Concerning Women, and the Lord’s Supper
B. Instruction concerning observance of the Lord’s Supper.
1. (1 Corinthians 11:17-19) Introduction to the problem.
“Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.”
Paul transitions from addressing headship in worship to correcting abuses surrounding the Lord’s Supper. He begins with sobering words: “Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse.” Though the Corinthians faithfully assembled for worship, their gatherings were so marred by disorder and selfishness that they did more harm than good. While Hebrews 10:25 exhorts believers not to forsake assembling together, Paul reminds us that mere attendance is not enough—if our gatherings dishonor Christ or fail to build up the body, they can actually bring spiritual damage rather than blessing.
Paul identifies the root problem: “For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.” These divisions were not new; Paul had already rebuked them in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 when some boasted, “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos,” “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Earlier he addressed their sectarian spirit from a theological perspective, but here he confronts the practical consequences. Their partisanship had spilled over into their observance of the Lord’s Supper, turning what should have been a unifying remembrance of Christ into an occasion of pride and separation.
Yet Paul acknowledges a mysterious purpose in these divisions. He says, “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” While divisions in the church are sinful, God in His sovereignty uses them to expose what is genuine. As storms reveal the strength of a structure, so divisions reveal the faithfulness of those who are truly devoted to Christ. Those who remain steadfast in love, humility, and truth prove themselves “approved” (Greek: dokimos), standing out as genuine disciples amid strife.
This passage provides both a warning and an encouragement. The warning is that divisions in the church are destructive, capable of corrupting even the holiest acts of worship. The encouragement is that God is sovereign over such strife, using it to refine His people and make evident those who sincerely walk with Him. As Jesus Himself said, “For there must also be offenses, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!” (Matthew 18:7).
2. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22) The bad conduct of the Corinthian Christians at their common meal.
“Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.”
Paul gives a strong rebuke to the Corinthians for their conduct during their gatherings. He tells them plainly that though they may have assembled under the pretense of eating the Lord’s Supper, their behavior so contradicted its meaning that it could no longer be called the Lord’s Supper at all. Their selfishness and lack of love had stripped the meal of its sacred character, reducing it to something profane.
In the early church, it was customary to combine the agape feast (a shared meal of fellowship, similar to a potluck) with the observance of the Lord’s Supper. This made sense, since the risen Christ so often ate with His disciples and revealed Himself in fellowship meals (Luke 24:30-31; John 21:12-14). Unfortunately, the Corinthians corrupted this practice. Instead of fostering unity, their gatherings exposed divisions. “For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.” The wealthy brought plenty of food and indulged themselves, while the poor were neglected and left hungry. What was intended to symbolize the oneness of the body of Christ had become a display of greed, gluttony, and disregard for their brethren.
This behavior reflected the broader culture of Corinth. Pagan feasts in honor of idols often included riotous drinking, overindulgence, and class distinctions. The rich reclined in luxury while the poor were excluded. Tragically, the Corinthian believers had allowed these worldly customs to infect their fellowship meals. Instead of demonstrating the humility and selflessness of Christ, they imitated the decadence of pagan society.
Paul’s response is sharp and unmistakable: “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?” If their goal was to indulge themselves, they could do that privately at home. To carry such selfishness into the assembly was to show contempt for the church of God and to humiliate the poor within their midst. The church, which was meant to be a display of the unity and equality of all believers in Christ (Galatians 3:28), had been twisted into a place of division and shame.
Paul then repeats his judgment for emphasis: “What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.” He had already withheld praise in verse 17, and here he makes it clear once again that their conduct was utterly unacceptable. The repetition underscores his disapproval and the seriousness of their offense. To corrupt the Lord’s Supper is no small matter, because it directly dishonors the sacrifice of Christ which the Supper proclaims.
This section serves as a sober warning for the church today. Though we may not fall into the same exact abuses, we must guard against approaching the Lord’s Table with selfishness, pride, or carelessness. To partake of communion in a way that disregards the unity of the body or the holiness of the occasion is to sin against Christ Himself.
3. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26) How to conduct the true Lord’s Supper.
“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”
Paul brings the Corinthians back to the original institution of the Lord’s Supper, grounding his instruction not in human tradition but in divine authority. He writes, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you.” This underscores that the Lord’s Supper is not a human invention but a command given by Christ Himself. Paul likely received this either by direct revelation (Galatians 1:11-12) or through the testimony of the other apostles. Either way, he makes clear that what follows comes directly from the Lord, not from man.
Paul recalls that it was “on the same night in which He was betrayed” that Jesus instituted this ordinance. The timing is significant: Jesus established the memorial of His sacrificial death in the very context of betrayal. This reminds us that His love was not hindered by human treachery. The fact that Judas was present when the bread and cup were first distributed highlights both the grace of Christ and the solemnity of the occasion.
Jesus “took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’” The act of thanksgiving gave rise to the term Eucharist (from the Greek eucharisteō). The bread, unleavened as it was during the Passover, symbolized Christ’s sinless body. Its scorch marks and piercings visually foreshadowed the stripes and wounds He bore at the cross. Yet Paul, like Matthew Poole, carefully uses the words “bread” and “cup” instead of “body” and “blood,” preserving the truth that while these elements represent Christ’s sacrifice, they do not become His literal body and blood. This directly refutes the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Paul then recalls the cup: “In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’” The cup of redemption in the Passover meal now took on its fullest meaning. Just as the first covenant was sealed in blood (Exodus 24:8), so the new covenant was ratified by Christ’s blood. This new covenant promised not merely external ritual but internal transformation: “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:33). It also guaranteed forgiveness: “For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:34). Through Christ’s blood, believers now enjoy an intimate, personal relationship with God, something the old covenant could never provide.
Paul emphasizes that this remembrance is not passive but active proclamation: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” Communion looks backward to the cross, but it also looks forward to the return of Christ. Each observance is both memorial and prophecy, binding the church to the past work of redemption and to the future hope of the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9). As Jesus Himself declared in Matthew 26:29, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
This passage has historically been a battleground of theological interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church asserts transubstantiation, claiming the elements change substance into Christ’s body and blood. Martin Luther, rejecting Rome but still holding strongly to Christ’s presence, taught consubstantiation—that Christ’s body is present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. John Calvin emphasized Christ’s real spiritual presence, while Ulrich Zwingli argued for a purely symbolic memorial. The Marburg Colloquy (1529) highlighted the depth of this disagreement, with Luther famously inscribing Hoc est corpus meum (“This is My body”) on the table, while Zwingli insisted the words were figurative, as when Jesus said, “I am the door.”
While controversy has long surrounded this text, Paul’s emphasis is clear: the bread and cup are not empty symbols, but powerful pictures through which the church participates in the proclamation of Christ’s death. The Supper is the new covenant counterpart to the Passover, proclaiming deliverance not from Egypt, but from sin and death.
Finally, Paul reminds us that participation in communion is itself a sermon. The word “proclaim” (katangellō) is the same word used elsewhere for preaching. When we partake, we preach Christ crucified to ourselves, to the watching world, to Satan and his hosts, and to God Himself. As Alan Redpath once challenged, “As you break bread and bow your heart before Him, what sort of sermon are you preaching?” To participate in the Supper while living in sin or indifference is to preach a false message about the cross.
4. (1 Corinthians 11:27-28) How to prepare your conduct in receiving the Lord’s Supper.
“Therefore 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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”
Paul follows his explanation of the institution of the Lord’s Supper with a solemn warning. He writes, “Therefore 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.” The seriousness of this statement cannot be overstated. To receive the bread and cup in a careless, irreverent, or unrepentant way is to treat lightly the very sacrifice of Christ. Such conduct dishonors the One who gave His life and places the offender in the position of being guilty of profaning the sacred body and blood of the Lord.
However, it is critical to understand that Paul does not say a Christian must be worthy in themselves to partake, but that they must not partake in an unworthy manner. The King James Version’s rendering, “unworthily,” has led some to mistakenly believe they must make themselves worthy of Christ’s sacrifice before they can come to the Table. This has caused many believers to refrain from communion unnecessarily, believing their sins disqualify them. But the truth is the opposite: those who are repentant, aware of their sin, and trusting in Christ’s cleansing blood are precisely the ones who most need to come. Communion is not a reward for the sinless but a means of grace for the humble and repentant.
Still, Paul’s warning is real. If a believer approaches the Table in hypocrisy—living in open sin, refusing repentance, or treating the Supper as common—they mock the cross and dishonor Christ. Such behavior invites God’s discipline, as Paul will explain in the following verses. The bread and the cup are not empty rituals; they are sacred symbols of the greatest act of redemption in history, and to abuse them is to profane the Lord Himself.
Paul then provides the proper corrective: “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” Self-examination does not mean paralyzing introspection or morbid doubt but an honest appraisal of one’s heart before the Lord. It involves confessing sin, renewing faith in Christ, and approaching the Table with reverence and gratitude. The goal is not exclusion but preparation. The command is not, “Examine yourself and then stay away,” but rather, “Examine yourself and so let him eat.” The Supper is meant to be received, but rightly received—with a heart that acknowledges the holiness of Christ’s sacrifice.
This balance is important: the Lord’s Table is neither to be approached casually nor avoided out of misplaced fear. Believers are called to come humbly, remembering their sin, rejoicing in forgiveness, and proclaiming Christ’s death until He comes again. As John Calvin observed, the Supper is medicine for the soul; to stay away because we feel unworthy is to deny the very grace it offers. But to come with arrogance, presumption, or unrepentance is to invite judgment.
5. (1 Corinthians 11:29-32) The potential results of being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
“For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.”
Paul continues his sober warning regarding the Lord’s Supper. He states, “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” To partake in communion without reverence or self-examination is to invite divine judgment. The Lord’s Table is not an ordinary meal; it is a sacred proclamation of Christ’s death. To treat it lightly is to dishonor the sacrifice it represents.
The phrase “not discerning the Lord’s body” has been misused by the Roman Catholic Church to defend the doctrine of transubstantiation, arguing that the Corinthians were guilty because they failed to recognize the bread and wine as literally transformed into Christ’s body and blood. But this interpretation imposes far more on the text than Paul intended. It is just as valid, and more consistent with the context, to understand “the Lord’s body” as a reference to the church, the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:27). The Corinthians were guilty not only of irreverence toward the elements, but also of failing to honor and love one another as members of Christ’s body. Their selfishness, divisions, and disregard for the poor made their communion hypocritical and offensive to God.
Paul then reveals the seriousness of this judgment: “For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.” The consequences of their irreverence were not theoretical. God’s hand of discipline was already upon them. Some were afflicted with weakness and sickness, and some had even died. This shows that God takes the Lord’s Supper so seriously that He may bring physical discipline—even death—on believers who profane it. Yet Paul makes clear that this discipline is corrective, not condemning.
He clarifies: “For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.” In other words, self-examination and repentance prevent divine discipline. If we confess our sins and approach the Table in humility, the Lord has no need to intervene with corrective judgment. But if we refuse, then He will act in discipline. Paul explains this further: “But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” This is the crucial difference. God’s discipline of believers is not punitive wrath, but fatherly chastening. Hebrews 12:6 declares, “For whom the LORD loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives.” The goal is restoration, not destruction. Even if discipline leads to physical death, it is still an act of mercy, ensuring that the believer is not condemned with the unbelieving world.
Paul’s statement also connects with other passages about divine discipline. In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit, serving as a sobering example of sin leading to death. Likewise, 1 John 5:16 speaks of “sin leading to death,” where God may decide it is better to bring a believer home than allow them to continue damaging their testimony. This should never be misunderstood as applying to every premature death, nor should it ever be twisted into justification for suicide. Our lives remain in God’s hands, and His discipline, however severe, is always motivated by His love and wisdom.
Therefore, Paul’s warning is not meant to drive believers away from the Lord’s Table in fear, but to compel them to approach it with reverence, humility, and love. Communion is both a privilege and a responsibility. To neglect its seriousness is to invite God’s correction, but to embrace it in faith is to experience His grace.
6. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34) Summary: how to act at the church common meal.
“Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.”
Paul concludes his teaching on the Lord’s Supper with practical and pastoral counsel. After exposing the Corinthians’ selfishness and warning them of God’s discipline, he offers a simple remedy: “Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.” The solution to their abuse of the common meal was not complicated theology but basic Christian courtesy rooted in love. Waiting for one another showed respect, ensured fairness, and reflected the unity that the Lord’s Supper was meant to proclaim. It transformed the meal from a display of greed and division into an act of shared fellowship.
He continues, “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment.” The Lord’s Supper was never intended to be a feast for satisfying physical hunger. It was a spiritual meal of remembrance, not a banquet. Those who came to gorge themselves showed they missed the meaning entirely. If a person was truly hungry, Paul says, they should satisfy their appetite at home. To turn the Lord’s Table into an excuse for indulgence was to risk God’s judgment, as the Corinthians had already experienced with weakness, sickness, and even death among them (1 Corinthians 11:30).
Paul then closes with, “And the rest I will set in order when I come.” This reveals that there were additional matters regarding the Corinthians’ gatherings that Paul did not address in this letter. While we may wonder about these “other things,” Paul’s statement underscores that apostolic authority was ongoing and that the Corinthians were expected to submit to further correction. It also reminds us that the problems in Corinth were not limited to the Lord’s Supper but touched many aspects of their worship and fellowship.
This summary highlights that the Lord’s Supper is not to be approached as an ordinary meal but as a holy ordinance. It is not about indulgence, competition, or status, but about remembrance, proclamation, and fellowship. The Corinthians needed to recover the simplicity of love and order, remembering that the Supper was meant to unite the body in Christ, not divide it.
For the church today, Paul’s words remind us to approach the Lord’s Table with both reverence and love. We must examine our hearts before God, but we must also consider our brothers and sisters in Christ. Communion is not only vertical, a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice, but also horizontal, a proclamation of unity in His body. To neglect either aspect is to miss the true meaning of the Supper.
