This chapter deals with two topics related to the liturgy during Paul’s time in Corinth: (1) the women’s head coverings during liturgical celebrations and (2) the Lord’s Supper.
Verse 11:2
The most interesting word here is “traditions”. Paul passed on to the church in Corinth traditions regarding liturgical worship. Thus, he did not invent them but received from others (see 1 Cor 15:3). Thus, already at that time, the Church came out with certain traditions. 2 Thess 2:15 indicates two types of traditions: (1) spoken and (2) written.
Verses 11:3–16
Based on 1 Cor 11:16, we can infer that there was a tradition in the churches known to Paul that women should pray with their heads covered. For Paul, a Jew familiar with the Bible, a woman standing with uncovered hair in front of a priest before the Lord indicated suspicion of adultery (see Num 5:11–18, particularly 5:18 LXX). During the time of Paul, Jewish and Asian women covered their heads with scarfs when in public (similarly to today’s women in Islam). However, we are not sure that Greek women followed the same tradition.
If we accept the claim that all women in ancient times covered their hair in public then why would Corithian women (all? Some?) challenge this tradition? Would it be a first instance of a feminist movement calling for equality (Gal 3:28)? Doubtful. If, on the other hand, we accept that Greek women were not bound by this tradition why Paul reacts so strongly? Did he want to ‘impose’ the Jewish and Asian tradition present in Churches in Asia on all the other churches? Some try to add one more explanation. They claim that in Ancient Greece, during the pagan worship, women prayed to the gods with their heads uncovered. Thus, Paul would want to make sure that that pagan custom did not enter the Church. All of these questions and answers are just guesses. We have no clear answer to these questions.
Worth noting is the fact that Paul does not object here to women praying and prophesying in public (compare 1 Tim 2:12).
The word “head” appears 9 times in this passage and presents a problem for an interpreter: does it mean (1) “source from which all comes”, (2) “superior in rank to which all should submit” or (3) “the highest point in the hierarchy”? All three types can be found in Paul’s hierarchy:
Eph 5:23, has another hierarchy: “Christ the head of the Church”.
The question is: why does Paul bring here this point (see 1 Cor 3:21–23 in another context). Paul builds his argument on Gen 2:21–22 - woman came from man. But, then from biological point of view every man comes from a woman (11:12).
Verse 11:7. According to Gen 1:27 both man and woman were created in the image of God. However, in Gen 1:27, we do no have the word “glory”. The Hebrew word “kavod” literally means “to be heavy” and it means “to be important”. From here, we have “honor, respect, majesty, and glory” This word was translated into Greek Septuagint as “doxa” (see Ex 24:16; Ezekiel 1:27–28). In this case, “man” would give the importance to God by respecting Him, and woman would give the importance to man by respecting him. Would that mean that by uncovering their heads, the Corinthian women disrespect their husbands?
Verse 11:10 - to have a symbol of authority “because of the angels”. In Paul’s world view, angels witness to what is happening on earth (see 1 Cor 4:9; Eph 3:10). Here, it would indicate that the angels participate in the liturgy of the Church and are sensitive to its propriety.
For a contemporary reader it is difficult to understand why so much fuss about such trivial thing, but if we again look at Islamic world and how important the head covering of women can arise strong emotion, we can understand how important that issue was for Paul and the community.
This part of the letter can be divided into four parts:
“Coming together in church” (11:18). The word - ekklesia - is used here. “Ekklesia” a Greek word for the Hebrew “Kahal” of God. This word is formed from ek, meaning “out of” or “away from”, and kaleo meaning “to call”; so it means literally “the called out assembly”. And Who’s doing the calling? God, of course. Thus, ekklesia is also translated as “assembly” and “congregation” (see Deut 4:10 LXX - we have there ekklesia as a noun = assembly and “Ekklesiason” as a verb = assemble”; see also Deut 9:10 - “on the day of the assembly = ekklesia; Deut 18:16).
It is worth noting that the noun “ekklesia” appears only in the Book of Deuteronomy and not in previous books of Pentateuch. In Exodus the term used for “assembly” is synagogue (see Gen 48:4; Ex 16:3; Num 14:5). The verb “ekklesiason”, however, is used (see Num 20:8 - where both words, “ekklesiason” - to assembly -and “synagogue” - assembly - are used).
So, God is calling Corinthians to His assembly, but when they come there are:
(1) divisions - “schismata” - from the root of this word we have such words like “schism” and “schismatic”;
(2) sects - “heireseis” - from the root of this word we have “heresies” and “heretic”, and “heretical”.
Paul seems to view this situation as a kind of test - those who are approved “may become manifest” (11:19).
(3) Lord’s Supper versus own supper (see also 10:21 - Lord’s table versus the table of demons). Here again, the Corinthians are influenced by the outside world. Selfishness and congregating only with equals destroys the purpose of Christian community. This community is at it best during the Eucharistic meal.
Greeco-Roman moralists argued whether it was ethically correct to serve superior food and wine to friends and equals, but inferior food and wine to inferior people at banquets of rich people. But, such arguments should not have place at the Eucharistic celebrations (see 1 Cor 1:27–29).
Verses 11:23–25 - three fold structure of the Eucharist
It is interesting that Paul says that the tradition of celebrating the Eucharist, he has received from the Lord (see Gal 1:11–12). So, from the Lord, to Paul, from Paul to Corinthians - we see here, what will be later on called “apostolic tradition”.
Since neither Paul nor the Corinthians were present during the Last Supper, there is a reference to the time of the first Eucharist: “the night in which he was betrayed” (11:23).
The pattern: take, bless, break, and finally eat is seen in Jesus’ life (see Mark 6:41). In Mark, Jesus gave the bread to his disciples; in 1 Cor 11:24, Jesus’ “take, eat” is done in remembrance.
The word “body” here is “soma”, not “sarx”.
“The new covenant” - “Diatheke”. This word is used in Septuagint to describe the following covenants:
The “new covenant” is also in blood, but not of animals but that of Jesus (see Heb 9:13–14).
“In remembrance of me” or “for my remembrance” - “anamnesis”. In Lev 24:7 LXX we have 12 “loaves for remembrance”. The loaves symbolizes 12 tribes of Israel and the bread itself was called by the Jews “the bread of (divine) Presence” (see Ex 25:30). The bread was placed on the table located before the Holy of Holies (the Holy Place) every Sabbath and it was eaten by the priests (see Lev 24:5–9; Num 4:7; 1 Sam 21:4–7).
“Anamnesis” is often translated as “reminder” (see Ps 69 LXX - heading of the Psalm “Psalm of David, as a reminder”; Wisdom 16:6 - “possessing a symbol of salvation to remind them of the command of your law” - connect with John 3:14–15 - the Cross as the symbol of salvation to remind us about God’s love).
But, it seems that this “reminder” makes the past event present (see Num 10:10; Ps 108:14) or as the Jewish tradition understands the Passover, by celebrating the past event of salvation, we ‘state’ that we had also taken part in that past event (Ex 12:14 - Passover as the day of remembrance through the ages for all Israelites, because on that day all Israel was delivered from Egypt).
In the phrase “this is the body of me for you”, the pronoun “you” embraces all those, who do remember Jesus by celebrating the Eucharist. Thus, the Eucharist “transfers” them to the first Cenacle and the Last Supper.
11:26
The celebration of the Eucharist is in itself the declaration or preaching of Jesus’ saving death on the Cross. Thus, we have here an important connection: the Eucharist points to the Cross.
The word “katanggello” means (1) to announce, declare, promulgate, make known 2) to proclaim publicly, publish. In Acts 4:2 it is used in reference to the resurrection of Christ and in Acts 13:38 to Jesus Christ, and in Acts 16:17 to the entire proclamation of the Gospel - “the way of salvation”.
This Eucharistic proclamation has a time frame: till the coming of the Lord.
Unworthy “eating and drinking” of the Lord’s supper has two consequences: (1) guilt and (2) damnation. Unworthy manner refers to the former complain about the division in the community (11:18) and selfishness (11:21).
11:30–32
Paul indicates that “weakness”, “sickness”, and even “death” of some of the members is related to that “unworthy manner” of celebrating the Eucharist. This is God’s judgement. On the other hand, Paul provides an alternative: “let us judge ourselves”, then we can avoid the judgement of God.
Paul also holds an idea that there is difference between judgement and condemnation. The first one is directed towards Christians as a way of educating - “we are chastened”. This kind of judgement aims at preventing Christians to be condemned with the world.
11:33–34
Paul goes back to the main problem that ‘disqualified’ their celebration as being considered truly the “Lord’s Supper”. It seems that Paul has particularly in mind the second part of the celebration - the supper. His advice is twofold: