Issues Concerning Giving Up the Right to Sacrificed Food (8:1-11:34)

Paul is still on the same subject of giving up rights and living for the good and the advantage of your neighbor (10:24,33). He has been addressing the third question: should Christians eat in the temple restaurants (chapter 8), and further, should they eat food sacrificed to idols? (chapter 10) To the first part of the question, he encourages the church to give up their temple-restaurant rights even though it is not a sin; to the second part of the question, he shares how to eat sacrificed food without wounding another. Now in chapter 11, he is going to discuss how authority and headship work in Christ.

Imitation and Traditions (1-2)

Paul’s opening statement reveals the standard for Christian conduct, imitation. We all are to imitate Christ, and we learn to imitate Him by imitating those who follow Him (1).

First, Paul is going to make it clear that he is addressing traditions and customs in this chapter, and those customs and traditions are important to navigate correctly. Yes, this does mean Paul is going to teach something from customs, but not establish these customs as laws (2).

The Argument of God (3)

Paul is going to lay out his position on women in leadership here in the eleventh chapter. 

The church, which was flourishing in the Roman empire, was a place steeped in the tradition of love and known for its liberating practices. One of those practices was the liberation of women to lead. In the liberation of women to lead, Paul does not want the church to drift off from some essential truths about headship, government, and honor, so in this chapter, he makes an argument for women in leadership, but not at the expense of authority and honor. 

The discussion on headship begins in earnest by using the example of marriage. He opens the subject by laying out the example of headship in God. Christ, being equally God, follows the Father’s example. Jesus imitated the Father by watching what His Father was doing. Paul could have used the example of slave and master, but this would not have followed the “imitation” motif of discipleship. The wife is no more the slave to her husband in the Church than Christ was to His Father. 

The imitation model is free, voluntary, and between two persons of equal station and personhood. Yes, the willing become servants but are not forced to do so.  

So the model between husband and wife is thoroughly established, not as male being superior nor female inferior but as equal, with the principle of imitation and honor as the guiding model, just as imitation and honor is the guiding model between Christ and His Father (3).

The Argument of Head Coverings (4-7)

Next, Paul explains how marriage is built on the principle of honor, appealing to the custom of head coverings. In using the example of head coverings, Paul is not institutionalizing the custom in the church; he is explaining why it was established as a custom.  

A man's head was left uncovered in worship because his head was Christ, and Christ was appearing for him before His Father's presence. His head was uncovered because he could shamelessly come into God's presence through Christ. 

He could appear in God's presence bold, free, uncovered, and unashamed because of Christ.  

The woman was to wear a head covering, not because she was not free and was ashamed, but quite the opposite. In wearing a head covering, she was standing with her husband, agreeing that he was bold to stand uncovered before Yahweh by His grace. As she stood with him, she was standing with him as one person in full agreement; they were both free to enter Yahweh's presence through Christ. She was doing so understanding that she was also honoring the patriarchal order. Not because men were better but because this was the process through which God had established authority. 

Head covering was not an admission of inferiority, but an admission of creative order. 

The man was created first and was to take the initiative of love, and the wife was called upon to imitate her husband's loving ways with respect and gratitude.  

The woman's head was covered certainly as a custom to make an essential point in this newly-formed, female-liberated church. All could appear before God without any covering because shame was gone—Jesus had taken it away. The woman only covered her head to establish the principle of honor: “I am standing in and with my husband in my freedom. We are free together, and I honor the truth that God has made me every bit as shameless before God as my husband” (4-7).

In Paul's day, some women would lavish themselves with gold, braid their hair, and then lead worship to Diana and Dionysus. In so doing, they were demonstrating their complete disconnection from Yahweh and their disregard for being under His authority or “head-ship.” 

The entire custom Paul is addressing here is headship, specifically the headship of Christ. Men demonstrated coming under Christ's headship with uncovered heads. Women established Christ's headship by covering their heads. They were each stating, by their head covering or uncovering, that they were under Christ and freely approaching Yahweh's presence. The point was never inferior or superior but coming under Jesus' rule as King and honoring the creative order in how He had released everyone to live free. To not honor one's place in God’s creative order does untold harm to the human spirit in relationship to pride. Paul is seeking freedom, but not at the expense of destruction through pride. 

The Argument of Creation (8-12)

Paul then mentions the creation order: God created it all, man and then woman. Man was created first and then the woman was taken from man. The woman was created for man because man was found lacking in some way.

Paul then made an odd statement. He concluded the woman should have her head covered so when she prophesied or prayed or did any kind of leadership, she was demonstrating in her head covering that she was under the government of Christ. She was to do so because of the angels. The word angels means “messengers.” There is much controversy around this statement, but likely it is referring to the messengers or leaders of the church. Leaders were referred to by the Greek word for messengers. The Greek word is where we get our English word “angels” (Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).

With her head covered in church, a woman was declaring that she was under Christ's government, respecting Christ's headship, and honoring how leadership or influence had been given to her through patriarchal authority (8-10).

Paul goes on to provide insight into marriage. While there is headship in the marriage, there is yet an interdependence that the husband has toward the wife and the wife toward the husband, and all toward Christ. There is complete and perfect interdependence. While man was created first, he became the beginning or the head of the woman. Paul makes it clear that woman was made from man, but man comes forth from a woman. 

To keep pride from erupting in the human heart, the principle of order and headship is timeless. Children are given birth by their parents. They may one day even lead their parents, but in no way should they ever regard them with anything but honor. Their parents are and will always be their head, their beginning. 

When someone gives another person birth into something, some area of responsibility, the rest of their days the person birthed should return honor for the original opportunity. The same is true between women and men. Women should ever realize that they were given power of influence and leadership by men and be careful to honor the order of creation. In so doing, they honor the truth that they were created through Christ by the Father. This does not make one superior and one inferior; it ever recognizes God's authority and creation of all. Once God's creative order is lost, then so is all true authority. 

The issue is headship—honoring where one has come from and respecting the place from where authority emerged (11-12).

The principle Paul is seeking to establish here is simple: women in the church are free to lead publicly and with God-given authority, but not at the expense of dishonoring the patriarchal order. Men should use all strength and influence to promote women to lead and fulfill their God-given calling, but not at the expense of caring for and respecting the women they release. In God's economy, authority does not restrict and control, but releases and builds up (2 Corinthians 2:10).

Paul is not seeking to establish an eternal custom concerning head coverings, but rather he is seeking to keep our hearts riveted to Him as our Creator and Lord through the principle of honor. 

The Argument of Nature (13-16)

The church was unlike any other group of people on the earth. It was a group of deep love and high liberation. With women taking places of influence in the church, Paul was seeking to make sure that it was not done at the expense of dishonor. Paul was not seeking to set up an environment where people were demanding equal rights while complaining about mistreatment. Such demanding and complaining would have destroyed the new community. Paul knew Jesus wanted everyone liberated, but not at the expense of creative design. 

Paul was building his case of liberation and yet liberation under Christ's authority, recognizing how God had created the world, and giving God worship as Head of all.

Paul calls upon the Corinthians to finally look at nature or customs within the world they lived. They were to evaluate the propriety of a wife’s praying with her head uncovered (13). In that day, if a man’s hair was too long, or a woman's length, it was considered a disgrace. It was shameful for a man to have any effeminate appearance (14).

On the other hand, a woman's hair sets her off as completely feminine. Her hair was part of what made her womanly and beautiful. 

In Paul's day, if a woman went outside with her hair down and flowing, she was certainly considered a leader, but a leader of the kind that would lead men seductively into immorality. To wear the hair down was to wear the hair provocatively, with a lack of respect for the covering that God designed a woman’s hair to be (15).

Paul then let the matter be set unequivocally. In Christ, anyone is free to dress and behave as they wish, as long as their conduct is gospel-controlled, meaning focused on following Jesus. Paul, however, makes it clear that, in the church, for women to wear their hair uncovered was stating to the world around them that they did not respect God's authority. Paul is not dismissing women as leaders, but he is merely stating that women who lead should also demonstrate their respect for where their authority came from, just as a man should. This subject was not a matter of debate for Paul; the church needed to respect lines of authority (16).

In all of this, Paul is really staying with his theme of giving up rights, the right to wear or not wear a head covering. The Corinthians were to give up their rights to show all they were living under God's ultimate authority without argument. 

The Lord's Supper (17-26)

Paul next takes on the practice of the Lord's Supper. Sadly, their dinner was doing more harm to the community of Christ than good (17-18).

Paul's concern was the division being caused by the meal. Oddly, Paul saw some benefit in division; those who caused divisions were those not under God's approving hand of blessing. Those who were concerned with unity enjoyed God's stamp of approval and blessing (19).

Here is a touch of history. By the time the communion meal was being practiced by the Corinthians, it had grown out of the ritualized Passover meal. It had become a two-part event. First, they would eat a meal together, and then at the end of the meal, they would partake of the Lord's Meal. Jude called this meal an Agape Feast (Jude 12).

The meal had, in Corinth, digressed from a love meal into a meal of self-indulgence. The focus had been taken off of eating the Lord's Supper and been placed on the first half of the meal. It was being eaten not in deep fellowship but for self-satisfaction. 

The Corinthians were meeting in cliques, arriving early, hurrying to eat in private parties with those they were most comfortable with. In other words, those richer in the church were arranging a pre-dinner where they would eat and enjoy each other, and then the poorer would arrive with their less-appetizing food. The common meal was forsaken and the sharing of food ignored. To make matters worse, the wealthy cliques within the church had so much to eat and drink that they were inebriated by the time the poor had arrived (20-21).

Paul urged them to have their parties in private homes but not to shame the poor by not eating with them and sharing their food. The whole thing was against everything Christ had died for and there wasn't one ounce of what they were doing worthy of a positive syllable of praise (22).

Paul then defined how the supper of the Lord should be approached. This is not just some good idea or a wise piece of advice; Jesus told Paul to have the supper done in a specific way.

Here is how it was to happen, following the same pattern Jesus gave on the night of His betrayal:

• Jesus took the bread. 

• Jesus gave thanks to God for the bread. 

• Jesus broke the bread into pieces.

• As Jesus was breaking the bread in pieces, He pronounced over the bread, “This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me” (23-24).

  It is important to note that Paul told the Corinthians that on the night Jesus was betrayed, even His betrayer sat at the table for the last supper and communion with Jesus. It was a way of crying out to the Corinthians to include everyone.

  Jesus was saying clearly that the bread was to be received as His incarnate body or presence, spiritually received into their very bodies. His body was their body.

• Jesus took the cup in the same way and said, “This cup is the new covenant between God and His people—an agreement confirmed with My blood. Do this in remembrance of Me as often as you drink it” (25).

Without the blood, there was no forgiveness for anyone, including the Corinthians. They were to hold the cup high and declare, “This is the New Covenant, the New Unbreakable Agreement.” It was confirmed with Jesus' own blood. Every time they enjoyed the Lord's Supper, they were to remember that forgiveness only came through Christ. Apart from Christ and His shed blood, there would be no escape from sin. 

This was to be the way the Corinthians were to treat the table, and in so doing they were announcing the Lord's death until He would come again. They were, in their partaking of the table, making an essential statement: “Just as certain as Jesus died and was risen, it is just as certain that He will come again. We will never forget” (26).

The Warning (27-32) 

Paul then makes a serious point concerning the Lord's Supper: those who ate the meal treating the poor as unworthy or not as special were guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Paul had learned this tough lesson on the road to Damascus when he was asked why he was persecuting Christ by persecuting the Church, His body (27).

Paul calls for the Corinthians to examine themselves to make certain that they were honoring all who were a part of Christ's body (28). Paul reveals the table was a great cure for their sickness and disease as they received Christ's presence. Those who ate but did not discern the worth of each member of the body were in danger of judgment instead of health (29).

Some of the Corinthians were falling sick, and as usual, were seeking healing at the Lord's Table but finding none (30). Paul assures them that if they would rightly engage in the self-examination of their own heart and prize every member of the body of Christ, then they would find the Lord's Supper to be rich in healing and presence (31).

If they refused to examine themselves, then the Corinthians would experience exactly what they were experiencing—God's judgment. When God judged, they would experience it like a discipline. Blessings would be lifted, sickness and disease would not be healed, and they would experience unusual reversals of fortune and lack of protections. They would experience exactly what they had been experiencing. All this was happening not at the fist of an angry God but in His love, seeking to keep them from being condemned by the world for acting like the world (32).

Yield Rights (33-34)

Paul ends this chapter on theme. Avoid being judged, give up your rights, wait for everyone to arrive, and then eat the Lord’s Supper together (33-34).