1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 11

OBSERVATION STAGE

The purpose of the observation stage is to maintain focus on the text at hand within the normative rules of language, context and logic  which limits the observer to the content offered by the letter of 1 Corinthians especially the previous chapters. This will serve to avoid going on unnecessary tangents elsewhere; and more importantly, it will provide the framework for a proper and objective comparison with passages located elsewhere in Scripture utilizing the same normative rules of reading / interpretation.

Remember that something elsewhere may be true, but in the text at hand it may not be in view.

Manuscript Evidence from 'The New Testament And Translation Commentary, Philip W. Comfort, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Ill.

OR MOVE TO FIRST VERSE OF CHAPTER ELEVEN 

******

(1 Cor 10:23 NASB) "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

In view of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 10:21-22 which is as follows, (1 Cor 10:21 NASB) "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons; (1 Cor 10:22 NASB) Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?;"

Paul writes in 1 Cor 10:23, "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify" which indicates that personal sacrifices such as foregoing certain things for the moment - giving them up for one occasion or more - have to be made despite the missing out on pleasurable temporal matters that are within the realm of ones freedom in Christ to do. This is a matter of self-sacrifice in this temporal life for the gain of eternal rewards and for avoiding putting a weaker brother / sister in jeopardy of falling away from being faithful. So for the Christian all things - that are not sinful - are indeed lawful in the sense of acceptable to do - but with the proviso that not all things are profitable in the sense of always resulting in ones own and / or others' edification. And some things when done might cause a weaker brother / sister to fall into sin - hence he is to temper his freedom in Christ out of agape / self-sacrificial love for ones brother / sister in Christ at times so as not to cause a weaker brother / sister to fall into temptation - but rather avoid falling into temptation and instead be edified by his fellowshipping with a brother / sister in Christ.

In view of the theme which has been in view in this passage which continues to be in view in 1 Cor 10:23 as follows, "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify," Paul continues to instruct believers to look out for the welfare of fellow believers, and for that matter of all people.

So he wrote in 1 Cor 10:24, "Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor." So Paul established the principle of freedom (everything is permissible; cf. 6:12) but it was to be regulated by agape / self-sacrificial love for others - believers and non-believers alike. Hence activities that are not beneficial or constructive or that do not promote the good of others should be avoided even if permissible for believers.

And as an example of a first century believer's responsibility in Christ with regard to his personal freedoms in Christ yet keeping in mind his neighbor / fellow believer, Paul wrote as follows,

(1 Cor 10:25 NASB) Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake; 

(1 Cor 10:26 HCSB) for the earth is the Lord’s, and all that is in it. [cp Ps 24:1]

[Notice that in 1 Cor 10:25-26, Paul reaffirms that believers have the freedom to eat anything without questionning whether or not it might bother their Christian consciences because they might be violating Christian dietary rules. For there are no such rules or restrictions! So, Paul teaches, eat this meat without raising questions, remembering that meat and all things come from the Lord (v. 26). The OT quotation from Psalm 24:1 (cf. Pss 50:12; 89:11) was used as a Jewish blessing at mealtimes. Hence in the first century in Corinth for example, believers may eat anything that is sold in the local meat market without questionning their actions or consciences - even if it was meat that was sacrificed to idols, but with the proviso that weaker brothers / sisters in Christ might have their own misguided point of view on the matter and be tempted to sin on the matter.]

(1 Cor 10:27 HCSB) If one of the unbelievers invites you over and you want to go, eat everything that is set before you, without raising questions of conscience.

[On the other hand in 1 Cor 10:27 quoted above, Paul presents the supposed circumstance that if someone invites you over for a meal and you want to go, eat everything that is set before you, without raising questions of conscience, i.e., you as a believer are free to choose to eat whatever you will with a proviso which Paul brings up in the next two verses. So in approving of a believer joining an unbeliever at the latter's house for dinner (v. 27), the apostle is thinking of the believer's giving the unbeliever a quiet, appreciative testimony. If, however, at the dinner someone (probably a fellow Christian; cf. v. 29a) points out that the meat was offered to an idol, then the believer is to refrain from eating the meat. The reason for this is that he does not want his Christian freedom condemned through another man's conscience (v. 29). Paul asks why he should be condemned for partaking of something in the meal he could really thank God for. The verb blasphemeo (v. 30) means "to injure the reputation of," or actually "to revile" or "denounce" someone who has presumably done wrong. So the strong brother has the power to protect his "right" to eat by not eating meat in such a case.]:

(1 Cor 10:28 NASB) But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;

(1 Cor 10:29 HCSB) I do not mean your own conscience, but the other person’s. For why is my freedom judged by another person’s conscience?

So there is a condition - a proviso to be heeded as follows: "But if anyone says to you, 'This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake.' " So Paul reiterates the lesson in 1 Cor 8:1-13 quoted below and elaborated upon here: which admonishes the believer should someone raise an objection to some action one does despite the fact that it is okay to do that action such as instead to abstain from exercising ones freedom in Christ relative to such a matter as eating meat sacrificed to idols, (or alcohol as another example) so as not to jeopardize the Christian walk of a weaker / less mature believer which was previously addressed in chapter 8 and is quoted below:

[1 Cor 8:1-13 ]:

(1 Cor 8:1 NASB) "Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.

(1 Cor 10:29 HCSB) "I do not mean your own conscience, but the other person’s. For why is my freedom judged by another person’s conscience?

(1 Cor 10:30 NASB) If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I   give thanks?"

So in 1 Cor 10:29, Paul stipulates that he did not "mean your own conscience [which is clear] but the other person's" who might be in danger of falling away from the faith because a believer chooses to exercise his freedom in Christ such as eating meat sacrificed to idols around others who might not be mature in the faith. For [the question is] "why is my freedom judged by another person's conscience?" in the sense of why should I be held accountable to another's conscience instead of ones own conscience especially when the believer is correctly operating out of his own conscience in the first place? Answer: the believer must allow for the weaker believer's immaturity so as not to cause him to stumble in his faith as a result of his immaturity?

[Compare Bible Knowledge Commentary On 1 Cor 10:27-30]:

(1 Cor 10:27 HCSB) "If one of the unbelievers invites you over and you want to go, eat everything that is set before you, without raising questions of conscience.

(1 Cor 10:28 NASB) But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;

(1 Cor 10:29 HCSB) I do not mean your own conscience, but the other person’s. For why is my freedom judged by another person’s conscience?

(1 Cor 10:30 NASB) If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?"

"10:27-30. For a Christian who accepted an invitation to another's home Paul recommended eating from all the fare without scrupulous reservation. But if another Christian guest piped up (cf. 8:7-13) that the food had been part of a pagan sacrifice, the knowledgeable Christian should defer to the uninformed scruples of the weaker brother. To exercise his rightful freedom to eat might cause the brother with the scrupulous conscience to follow that example and cause him to sin (cf. Rom. 14:14-23).

A knowledgeable Christian did not need to alter his convictions to accord with the conscience of a weaker brother (1 Cor. 10:29b), but he did need to alter his behavior when in the weaker brother's presence. Otherwise the weak brother might act against his conscience and harm himself (cf. 8:11), which would bring denunciation on the strong brother. What the knowledgeable Christian could enjoy privately with thankfulness became in the presence of the weaker brother a contemptible act eliciting condemnation (why am I denounced [blasphēmoumai] because of something I thank God for? cf. 8:12; Rom. 14:16, 22). An echo of 1 Corinthians 8:13 concluded the matter:

(1 Cor 8:13 NASB) "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble."

Whereupon, Paul wrote in 1 Cor 10:31, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God," which takes into consideration the weaker brother in Christ. Hence, in 1 Cor 10:32-33, Paul admonishes believers to, 

(1 Cor 10:32 NASB) Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God;

(1 Cor 10:33 NASB) just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved."

So believers are admonished in 1 Cor 10:32-33 to give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; but follow the example of Paul and not seek ones own profit at the disregard of others; but instead, seek the profit of the many, so that they may have an opportunity to be saved.

So at the end of this chapter, Paul summarizes the purpose of believers relative to those of the church of God and non-believers as well - be they Jew or Gentile: "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God;" and thereby to take care as far as possible not to offend anyone, taking the example of Paul who as an example has endeavored to please men in all things - as far as possible without compromising the Christian faith; thereby not seeking his own profit / advantage but to seek the profit of the many so that the unbelievers may have an opportunity to be saved, and the believers an opportunity to grow in the faith without hindrance

[(1 Cor 10:31-33) Expositors' Bible Commentary on 1 Cor 10:31-33]:

(1 Cor 10:31 NASB) Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

(1 Cor 10:32 NASB) Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God;

(1 Cor 10:33 NASB) just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved." 

"31-33 These verses introduce a positive and more ultimate perspective. It is not just the other brother who should be in view, but God the creator and giver of all things. The oun ("therefore," "so") relates this ultimate concept to one's attitude toward the weak brother. The glory of God must be the Christian's objective in everything (1Pet 4:11; Col 3:17; ... But Paul says that doing all for the glory of God means thinking of the good of others, both Christians and non-Christians (v. 32). The mention of Jews and Greeks may refer to the unsaved groups talked about in 1 Corinthians 1. By "the church of God" Paul means to include the brother with the weak conscience (cf. Rom 14:13, 21). So we find encompassed by these verses the two great commandments—love God and love your neighbor (Matt 22:37-39). Paul seeks to benefit others, not himself. His ultimate objective in all his conduct is that people might be saved—not superficially but fully and to the glory of God.

****** END OF EXCERPT FROM 1 COR CHAPTER 10 ******

A) [Commentary on 1 Cor 11:1]:
(1 Cor 11:1 NASB) "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ."

Paul evidently ends 1 Cor chapter 10 with 1 Cor 11:1 which chapter and verse designations are not part of what Paul wrote but were added later by the publishers of the versions. So at the beginning of 1 Cor 11, verse one it reads as follows: (1 Cor 11:1 NASB) "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ," which continues the train of thought from 1 Cor 10:23-33 as excerpted above . So the issue is for individuals to be imitators of Jesus Christ as Paul stipulates he is albeit not in a perfect sense in his temporal life, but especially in view is the sense of living a godly / righteous life in accordance with Paul's instructions at the end of 1 Cor chapter 10 - especially for the benefit of others - which is and was God's intention from the beginning - giving mankind every opportunity to participate with God in a perfect universe, living out a joyous and perfect and eternal life as God intended in the first place giving mankind the opportunity to do just that through the first two humans in accordance with their and your individual expression of trusting in Christ's payment for their sins.

1) [(1 Cor 11:1) Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor 11:1]:

(1 Cor 11:1 NASB) "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ."

"[1 Cor 10:]31-11:1. The principle which summarized Paul's response to the question of eating food offered as a pagan sacrifice was an application of the command to love God and neighbors. Christian behavior should be for the glory of God. Also it should build up the church of God by leading some to new birth (v. 33b) and others to maturity in the process of salvation (justification, sanctification, glorification; cf. 1:30). Christians should avoid behavior that would cause others—whether Jews (cf. 9:20), Greeks (cf. 9:21), or the church of God... to stumble (lit., "fall"; cf. 10:12). (Interestingly this reference to Jews separate from the church shows that the NT church did not replace the Jewish nation. This argues strongly for premillennialism.)

The One who perfectly exemplified love for God and others was Christ (cf. Rom. 15:3; Phil. 2:5-8). Displaying the same spirit in his ministry, Paul urged the Corinthians to follow his example in this matter of food from a pagan sacrifice. They should allow their freedom to be regulated by love."

C) [(1 Cor 11:2-14:40) A Summary Of 1 Cor 11:2-14:40]:

Worship in the Church (11:2-14:40)

This entire section from 1 Cor 11:2 through 14:40 deals with problems connected with church worship in Corinth - matters concerning the veiling of women (11:2-16), observing the Lord's Supper (11:17-34), and the granting and use of spiritual gifts (12:1-14:40); albeit these matters when carefully considered were indeed relevant to all believers.

D) [(1 Cor 11:2-16) A Summary Of 1 Cor 11:2-16 By Expositor's]:

(1 Cor 11:2 NASB) "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

(1 Cor 11:3 NASB) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the mans is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

(1 Cor 11:4 NASB) Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

(1 Cor 11:5 NASB) But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

(1 Cor 11:6 NASB) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

(1 Cor 11:7 NASB) For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

(1 Cor 11:8 NASB) For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

(1 Cor 11:9 NASB) For indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.  

(1 Cor 11:10 NASB) Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

(1 Cor 11:11 NASB) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

(1 Cor 11:12 NASB) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

(1 Cor 11:13 NASB) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

(1 Cor 11:14 NASB) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,

(1 Cor 11:15 NASB) but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

(1 Cor 11:16 NASB) But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God."

SUMMARY OF 1 Cor 11:2-16 EXPOSITOR'S  BIBLE COMMENTARY

"2-16 The instructions given by Paul relating to the place of women in the church were addressed to the cultural milieu of the Corinthian believers in the first century A.D. Corinth was a pagan Greek city out of which God was calling a church of his redeemed. That Greek women did appear in public without a head covering is evident from ancient Greek vase paintings, and women in the Corinthian church may have come to worship services in this way. Also some Christian women who were Greeks or Jews may have been going to church with hair disheveled and hanging loose. This might have given the impression that they were mourning or it might even imply that they had been accused of adultery. So disorder and unrest might have begun to mar the services.

The apostle Paul, of course, wanted to correct any such improprieties. But his teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 goes far beyond the cultural conditions affecting the Corinthian church. Indeed, it was applicable also to other first-century churches (1 Cor 11:16b) and to God's people at any time. The principles Paul presents here that are to govern the church and individual Christians in their life and conduct are as follows:

1. Christians should live as individuals and in corporate worship in the light of the perfect unity and interrelatedness of the persons of the Godhead. The Father and the Son are perfectly united (John 10:30) and yet there is a difference administratively: God is the head of Christ (1Cor 11:3). So Christians are one, but they too have to be administratively subordinate to one another.

2. Christians are to remember that God first created man, then woman (Gen 2:21-23) and placed the man as administrative head over the woman and the woman as his helper-companion (Gen 2:18). So in the Christian community, the man is to conduct himself as a man (1Cor 11:4) and as the head of the woman (v. 3), while the woman is to conduct herself as woman with dignity without doing anything that would bring dishonor to her (v. 5).

3. Since Christians live in the Christian community of the home and that of the church, they are to remember that God has established the man and the woman as equal human beings: "As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman" (v. 12). So in the Christian community believers should treat one another with mutual respect and admiration as they realize each other's God-given special functions and positions.

4. Christian men and women should remember that, though God has made them equal human beings, yet he has made them distinct sexes. That distinction is not to be blurred in their realization that they are mutually dependent (v. 11)—the man on the woman and the woman on the man. It is also to be observed in their physical appearance (vv. 13-15), so that in worship the woman can be recognized as woman and the man as man.

5. God is a God of order. This means order in worship and peaceful decorum in the church (v. 16). Therefore Christian men and women should conduct themselves in a respectful, orderly way not only in worship but also in daily life.

CONTINUED SUMMARY OF 1 Cor 11:2-16 Expositor's Bible Commentary 

'''3-16 these verses have evoked considerable difference of opinion about the nature of the head covering and the place of woman both in public worship and in her relationship to the man. The head covering has been taken to be either a veil or shawl, or else hair—either long or short. As to the use of veils, women in the ancient Orient were veiled in public, or when among strangers, but otherwise they were unveiled. Note that Rebecca was unveiled till she met Isaac (Gen 24:65). James B. Hurley notes that in contrast, ancient pottery shows Greek women in public without head coverings. ("Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1Cor 11:2-16 and 1Cor 14:33b-36," WTJ vol.35 [Winter, 1973], no. 2, p. 194). In Corinth the women may well have gone to public meetings without veils. But the question is whether Paul is talking about the use of veils in public worship (as Hodge, St. John Parry, and others hold) or about women letting their long hair hang loose (a sign of mourning or of the shame of an accused adultress [Hurley, ibid.; cf. Grosheide, in loc.]) rather than having their hair "put up." ''

1) [(1 Cor 11:2) Manuscript Evidence for 1 Cor 11:2]:

(1 Cor 11:2 NASB) "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

The scribe of p46 made a clear break between the end of 11:1 and the beginning of 11:2. This spacing indicates that the scribe considered 11:1 to be the concluding sentence for the paragraph begun in 10:31, not the opening paragraph for chapter 11. The NU text has the same design, as do most modern translations. KJV, however, makes 11:1 the opening sentence for the eleventh chapter.

WH NU p46 Sinaiticus, A, B, C, 1739, cop have "now I praise you"
TR, D, F, G, Psi, Maj, syr The WH NU reading has the support of the five earliest manuscripts, plus that of 1739 and Coptic manuscripts. Scribes may have also been prompted to add                    "brothers" because 11:2 opens a new section, and it is typical in Pauline epistles for new sections to begin with this vocative.
The WH NU reading has the support of the five earliest manuscripts, plus that of 1739 and Coptic manuscripts. Scribes may have also been prompted to add "brothers" because 11:2 opens a new section, and it is typical in Pauline epistles for new sections to begin with the vocative.

D) [(1 Cor 11:3) Commentary on 1 Cor 11:3]:

(1 Cor 11:3 NASB) "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."

So in 1 Cor 11:3 Paul begins his instruction of the believers at Corinth in this section 1 Cor 11:3-16 dealing with the veiling of women in the congregation, which reads, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." This indicates the order in which believers - men and women - are to maintain with God, Christ and one another which is based upon the lines of origination and of authority from God through Christ through man through woman. With this in mind, now comes a detailed instruction relative to propriety in worship directed to the believers in Corinth and elsewhere who evidently had problems with.

(1 Cor 11:4 NASB) "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

(1 Cor 11:5 NASB) But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

(1 Cor 11:6 NASB) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head."

"11:5-6. It cannot be unequivocally asserted but the preponderance of evidence points toward the public head covering of women as a universal custom in the first century in both Jewish culture ([apocryphal] 3 Maccabees 4:6; Mishnah, Ketuboth 7. 6; Babylonian Talmud, Ketuboth 72a-b) and Greco-Roman culture (Plutarch Moralia 3. 232c; 4. 267b; Apuleius The Golden Ass 11. 10). The nature of the covering varied considerably (Ovid The Art of Love 3:135-65), but it was commonly a portion of the outer garment drawn up over the head like a hood.

It seems that the Corinthian slogan, "everything is permissible," had been applied to meetings of the church as well, and the Corinthian women had expressed that principle by throwing off their distinguishing dress. More importantly they seem to have rejected the concept of subordination within the church (and perhaps in society) and with it any cultural symbol (e.g., a head-covering) which might have been attached to it. According to Paul, for a woman to throw off the covering was an act not of liberation but of degradation. She might as well shave her head, a sign of disgrace (Aristophanes Thesmophoriazysae 837). In doing so, she dishonors herself and her spiritual head, the man.

4-6 Whichever view is held as to the nature of the head covering, the same basic principles emerge from the passage. In vv. 3-10 Paul emphasizes the order of authority and administration in the divine structure of things. As every man is to be under Christ's authority and Christ is under God's authority, so the woman is under her husband's authority. (Paul does not mean by his analogy that subordination in each case is of the same completeness.) Therefore, the woman should not demonstrate her authority by having her head uncovered, as the man did when he was praying and prophesying. Evidently at Corinth women were coming to church with their heads improperly covered, thus causing disorder and disrespect in the services. Paul is not necessarily giving his opinion on the propriety of women praying or prophesying in the church, which he observes was being done, though he does so in 1 Corinthians 14:34 (Hodge). Some feel that since he mentions women praying and prophesying here, he approves of the practice (so Hurley). Paul does state here, however, that if a woman is in the public worship with her head uncovered, it is as if she had her head shaved (v. 5). He concludes the argument by saying that if the woman in fact does have her head uncovered, she should have her hair cut; on the other hand, if it is shameful (and it is - note the condition of fact) for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, then, of course, she should have her head properly covered (v. 6)."

The alternate translation in the niv margin, which interprets the man's covering as long hair, is largely based on the view that verse 15 equated the covering with long hair. It is unlikely, however, that this was the point of verse 4 (cf. comments on v. 15).

(1 Cor 11:3 NASB) "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ;

(1 Cor 11:4 NASB) Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

(1 Cor 11:5 NASB) But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

(1 Cor 11:6 NASB) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

Although it was not proper for a first-century Jewish man to cover his head for prayer (a custom, originally meant to indicate sorrow, that evidently really developed as a practice in the fourth century A.D.), yet the act seems to have been innovatively tried in the Jewish synagogues of Paul's time. (See Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar Zum N.T., 3:423-426; Craig, in loc.)

10 The woman has a certain authority (exousia) in that in having her head properly covered in worship, she shows respect to the (good) angels who were in attendance. That these angels might be evil angels over whom women would have power certainly does not agree with the scriptural teaching that God's ministering angels (the good angels) serve God's people (Heb 1:14).

Perhaps angels are mentioned in this discussion about the place of women in the church to remind Christians that angels are present at the time of worship and that they are interested in the salvation of God's people (1 Peter 1:10-12; cf. Gal 3:10) and sensitive to the conduct of Christians at worship. So the angels would recognize the breach of decorum were Christian women not to have proper head coverings and the long hair distinguishing them as women  - the "sign of authority on her head" (v. 10), which symbolized her husband's authority over her."

2) [(1 Cor 11:7-10) Bible Knowledge Commentary]:

(1 Cor 11:7 NASB) "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

(1 Cor 11:8 NASB) For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

(1 Cor 11:9 NASB) For indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

(1 Cor 11:10 NASB) Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."11:7-9. The man, on the other hand, was not to have his head covered because he was the image and glory of God. Paul based this conclusion on Genesis 1:26-27. A woman's (a wife's) glory and image was derived from (1 Cor. 11:8) and complementary to (v. 9) that of the man (her husband). Man, then, was God's authoritative representative who found in woman a divinely made ally in fulfilling this role (Gen. 2:18-24). In this sense she as a wife is the glory of man, her husband. If a married woman abandoned this complementary role, she also abandoned her glory, and for Paul an uncovered woman's head gave symbolic expression to that spirit.

11:10. Paul offered a third reason (the first reason was the divine order—God, Christ, man, woman, vv. 3-6; the second reason was Creation, vv. 7-9) why womanly insubordination in the church should not exist. Angels were spectators of the church (4:9; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21; cf. Ps. 103:20-21). For a woman to exercise her freedom to participate in the church without the head covering, the sign of her authority (exousia, a liberating term; cf. 1 Cor. 7:37; 8:9; 9:4-6, 12, 18), would be to bring the wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10) into disrepute.

Other (but less acceptable) explanations have been suggested for the words because of the "angels": (a) evil angels lusted after the women in the Corinthian congregation; (b) angels are messengers, that is, pastors; (c) good angels learn from women; (d) good angels are an example of subordination; (e) good angels would be tempted by a woman's insubordination."

G) [(1 Cor 11:11-16) Commentary on 1 Cor 11:11-16]:

(1 Cor 11:11 NASB) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

(1 Cor 11:12 NASB) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

(1 Cor 11:13 NASB) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

(1 Cor 11:14 NASB) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,

(1 Cor 11:15 NASB) but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

(1 Cor 11:16 NASB) But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God."

1) [(1 Cor 11:11-16) Commentary on 1 Cor 11:11-16]:

"11, 12 But lest he be missunderstood as wanting to demote women, Paul now argues that man and woman are equal in the Lord and mutually dependent.

13-15 The final point in the passage is that man is to be distinguished from woman. Thus the Corinthians are to see that the woman should not pray with her head uncovered as the man does. They are reminded that in ordinary life man with his short hair is distinguished from woman with her long hair. If a man has long hair like a woman's, [and according to local customs, societies] he is disgraced, but with long hair the woman gains glory in her position of subjection to man. Also long hair is actually given to her as a natural veil

15 Ἀντί (anti) here is to be taken to mean "as" or "for" in the sense that the Christian woman's hair is to be considered a proper substitute for a head covering for worship. This is perhaps preferable to the tr. "instead of," which might lead to the conclusion that the apostle is suggesting that the hair is a replacement for any kind of head covering, even that worn by the pagan women.

16 Finally, Paul states that the churches and he himself follow this principle that in worship men come with short hair and women with long, and that the man exercises the position of authority (v. 16). This, he implies, should deter those who would want to be contentious about the matter. In using "we" (meaning the apostles), Paul teaches that the Corinthians are to take his statements given in the preceding verses (1 Cor 11:2-16) as having apostolic authority, and not as pious advice."

3) [(1 Cor 11:11-16) Bible Study Manuals Commentary On 1 Cor 11:11-16]:

(1 Cor 11:11 NASB) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

(1 Cor 11:12 NASB) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

(1 Cor 11:13 NASB) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

(1 Cor 11:14 NASB) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,

(1 Cor 11:15 NASB) but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

(1 Cor 11:16 NASB) But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God."

"11:11-12. Men and women together in mutual interdependence, complementing each other, bring glory to God (cf. 10:31). Neither should be independent or think themselves superior to the other. Woman's subordination does not mean in feriority. Man is not superior in being to woman. Eve came from Adam, and each man born in the world comes from a woman's womb (11:12). God created them both for each other (Gen. 1:27; 2:18).

11:13-15. Paul had based his previous reasoning for maintaining the head covering as a woman's expression of her subordination on arguments rooted in special revelation. Now he turned to natural revelation (cf. Rom. 1:20) for a fourth argument in support of his recommendation. Mankind instinctively distinguished between the sexes in various ways, one of which was length of hair. Exceptions to this general practice were due either to necessity (e.g., Apuleius The Golden Ass 7. 6, "to escape in disguise") or perversity (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6. 65). No abstract length of hair was in mind so much as male and female differentiation. The Spartans, for example, favored shoulder-length hair for men (cf. Lucian The Runaways 27) which they tied up for battle (Herodotus History 7. 208-9), and no one thought them effeminate.

Long hair was a woman's glory because it gave visible expression to the differentiation of the sexes. This was Paul's point in noting that long hair was given to her as a covering. Natural revelation confirmed the propriety of women wearing the physical covering (cf. Cicero On Duties 1. 28. 100). She has a natural covering, and should follow the custom of wearing a physical covering in a public meeting.

Some Bible students, however, say that the Greek anti, rendered "as" (i.e., "for" or "in anticipation of") should be translated in its more normal sense of "instead of." According to that view, a woman's hair was given instead of a physical covering, for it in itself is a covering. In this view women should pray with long hair, not short hair. This view, however, does not explain the woman's act of covering or uncovering her head, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:5-6.

11:16. Paul's fifth argument for maintaining the status quo on head-coverings came from universal church practice. Paul was not trying to foist a new behavioral pattern on the Corinthians but simply to hold the line against self-indulgent individual excess in the name of freedom. As in the case of food offered to idols (8:1-11:1), Paul dealt with the immediate issue but also put his finger on the root of the problem, the Corinthian pursuit of self-interest which was unwilling to subordinate itself to the needs of others (cf. 10:24) or the glory of God (10:31). Women not wearing any head covering was an act of insubordination to the traditions of the past which Paul was teaching about and it discredited God.

Whether women today in church services should wear hats or some kind of head covering such as a scarf or doily, evidently might depend upon what were the custom of head coverings in the first   century which was to be understood as a practice also intended for the present day and all days in between, even all societies - local dress codes, etc., etc. Many Bible students see that for today the principle of subordination (not the command to wear hats) is the key point in this passage. The intent of the custom of women wearing hats, scarves, doilies today, for fashion or function, seems far different from the purpose of the customs in the first century."

H) [Commentary on 1 Cor 11:16-22]:

(1 Cor 11:16 NASB) "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

(1 Cor 11:17 NASB) But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.

(1 Cor 11:18 NASB) For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

(1 Cor 11:19 NKJV) For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

(1 Cor 11:20 NKJV) Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper.

(1 Cor 11:21 NASB) for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

(1 Cor 11:22 NASB) What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? 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 dealing with the Lord's Supper, Paul discusses three matters: first, the problem of believers making a mockery of the Supper because of abuses practiced at the agape—the love feast or dinner accompanying the Supper (vv. 17-22); second, the necessity of taking the Lord's Supper seriously through rehearsing its institution as given by the Lord (vv. 23-26); and third, the warning about partaking of the Supper unworthily (vv. 27-34).

17-19 Regarding the meal that evidently preceded the communion service, the apostle condemns the conduct of the believers as harmful (v. 17) and degrading to the communion (see v. 20). Their actions at the common agape meal were betraying the divisions, including class distinctions between the rich and the poor. Though he might discount part of what he heard, Paul felt he had to believe some of it (v. 18). Knowing human nature, he assumes some such divisions are inevitable even among Christians, so that those who act worthy of God's approval might be evident (v. 19). The word haireseis must mean "factions" here, not "heresies" or "heretical sects" as the word can also mean.

20 "It is not the Lord's Supper you eat" may be interpreted in two ways—either by supplying the word "it" as in NIV, or by taking the verb estin ("to be") followed by the infinitive to mean "can." Thus the rendering may be, "You cannot eat [or celebrate] the Lord's Supper" (Hodge). Either translation fits the context. What Paul means is that in acting the way he is about to describe, they were not approaching the Lord's Supper in the right manner but were nullifying its spiritual meaning.

21, 22 The Christian common meal or agape feast apparently followed the pattern of public sacred feasting among the Jews and Greeks. Following Greek custom, the food was brought together for all to share (cf. the modern church's "potluck" or "bring-and-share" supper), with the rich bringing more and the poor less. As Paul described it, however, cliques were established and the food was divided inequitably. The rich took their "lion's" share and became gluttons and the poor remained empty. So they were despising or bringing contempt on the church of God and humiliating the poor."

2) [(1 Cor 11:17-22) Bible Knowledge Commentary On 1 Cor 11:17-22]:

At Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper with His disciples (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20) the bread and cup were part of a meal, with the bread probably broken near the beginning (cf. "when He had given thanks," 1 Cor. 11:24) and the cup taken at the end (cf. "after supper," v. 25). By the time Paul wrote, the Lord's Supper was celebrated in two stages which consolidated the partaking of the bread and cup at the end of a communal meal. The worship with the bread and cup came to be called the "Eucharist" (Didache 9:1; Ignatius Letter to the Philadelphians 4), from the Greek word for "thanksgiving" (eucharisteob;). The communal meal was called the Agapeb; (Jude 12; Pliny Letters 10. 96.7), a Greek word for "love."

What bothered Paul about the Corinthian celebration was that the Agapeb; meal had become an occasion not marked by love for fellow Christians but one of self-centered indulgence. In the subsequent development of the church the celebrations came to be divided (Ignatius Letter to the Smyrneans 8; 1-2; and [apocryphal] Acts of John 84), possibly on the mistaken assumption that Paul had advised the Corinthians to do that (cf. 1 Cor. 11:22, 34).

11:17. As in the preceding discussion on womanly excesses in worship, Paul had no commendation (but cf. v. 2) for the Corinthians when it came to their practice of the Lord's Supper. In fact an experience meant to build up the church was actually having the opposite effect: your meetings do more harm than good.

11:18-19. The church was divided at a celebration which was meant to express unity (cf. 10:17). If these divisions (schismata; 1:10; 12:25) were related to those noted earlier (1:10-4:21), then one factor contributing to those divisions is evident here, namely, economic differences in the church (11:21).

Paul did not want to believe the report about their divisions (v. 18b), but he knew that sin was inevitable (cf. Luke 17:1) and would not pass unnoticed by God. God's approval (dokimoi) resumed a point Paul had discussed earlier (1 Cor. 9:27-10:10), where he used in 9:27 the contrasting word "disqualified" (adokimos).

In the whole nation of Israel, freed from bondage in Egypt and bound for the Promised Land of Canaan, only two of that vast company gained God's approval and entered the land (cf. 10:5). Many in the Corinthian assembly did not have this approval, which His discipline on them demonstrated (cf. 11:30-32). If the Corinthians thought the ordinances of the Lord's Supper and baptism somehow communicated magical protection to the participants (cf. 10:12; 15:24), Paul's excoriation must have been doubly painful since their behavior at this rite was directly linked to their chastisement (11:30-32)—the very thing they sought to avoid.

11:20-21. The Lord's Supper should have been the remembrance of a preeminently selfless act, Christ's death on behalf of others. Instead the Corinthians had turned the memorial of selflessness into an experience of selfishness and had made a rite of unity a riotous disunity. While one brother went hungry because he lacked the means to eat well, another brother drank to excess.

11:22. If the Corinthians wanted private parties they could have them in their homes. The meeting of the church was no place for a sectarian spirit of any sort, especially since the Lord's Supper was intended to commemorate just the opposite spirit. To act in a spirit of selfish disregard for the needs of a brother was to despise the church of God, composed not of lifeless stones but of living people who could be grievously hurt. Did the Corinthians somehow think their libertarian acts were a matter for praise? (cf. 5:1-2) Just the opposite!

I) Commentary on 1 Cor 11:23-24]:

(1 Cor 11:23 NASB) "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

(1 Cor 11:24 NASB) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.

1) Manuscript Evidence for 1 Cor 11:24

[1 Cor 11:24a]:

WH NU p46, Sinaiticus, A, B, C*, D, F, G, 0199, 33, 1739, cop "this is my body"
TR, C3, Psi, Maj, it(t), syr have "take eat, this is my body"

The WH, NU reading is supported by vastly superior documentation to that of TR. The variant reading was created by those who wanted to harmonize Paul's version of the Eucharist with Matthew's (Mat 26:26). Evidently, it became increasingly important for the church to have harmonized accounts of the Eucharist for liturgical reasons. Thus, the majority of manuscripts in Mark 14:22, a parallel passage. This harmonization was included in TR, followed by KJV and NKJV.

1 Cor 11:24b
WH NU p46, Sinaiticus*, A, B, C*, 1739* have "my body for you"

TR, Sinaiticus2, C3, D2, F, G, psi, 1739mg, Maj, syr has "my body broken for you"

D* "this is my body sacrificed for you

cop has "this is my body given for you"

The absence of a participle form before "to utter umOn" elicited three supplements. The most natural "given," is found in Coptic translations and many modern versions (variant 2). And many manuscripts exhibit scribal conformity to the wording found in the gospel accounts of the Last Supper (see Matt 26:26-28); Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20). As was mentioned in the previous note, such changes were motivated by liturgical considerations. Church leaders did not want conflicting wording for the Eucharist. The change became so pervasive that two manuscrips (Sinaiticus2, C3), which originally lacked any participle, were emended to include  "klOmenon" and one manuscript (D2) was changed to "klOmenon". Most of these changes occurred in the sixth to the ninth centuries. The reading of the Majority Text was incorporated in TR in the sixteenth century and popularized by KJV and NKJV thereafter.

2) [Commentary on 1 Cor 11:18-24]:

(1 Cor 11:18 NASB) ^"For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

(1 Cor 11:19 NKJV) For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

(1 Cor 11:20 NKJV) Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper.

(1 Cor 11:21 NASB) for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

(1 Cor 11:22 NASB) What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you?

(1 Cor 11:23 NASB) For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

(1 Cor 11:24 NASB) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

So in light of the Corinthian believers' disrespectable and terrible behavior in the church at Corinth as reported by the previous verses listed above, in verses 23-24 Paul addresses the extremely significant celebration of the Lord's Supper which the believers were not honoring but rather disgracing as he explains in those verses that he received information from the Lord Jesus Christ which he relayed to the believers in Corinth that in the night in which He - Jesus Christ - was betrayed by Judas - evidently the last supper before He was crucified for the sins of the whole world - He took bread and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is [given] for you" as He Jesus spoke to the disciples in the upper room in the sense of to be killed / crucified for them and for all mankind - in payment for the sins of the whole world. Whereupon Jesus said "do this in remembrance of Me," in the sense of the disciples [and all believers including those in Corinth] were to consume bread and wine in a special ceremony to symbolize Christ's propitiation for them and for the sins of the whole world, not just the disciples as Scripture affirms, (cf. 1 Jn 2:2). This was perhaps the most important act that Christians could celebrate - the core of their faith and being in Christ - their salvation unto eternal life, their eternal destiny through their faith in Christ's propitiation for their sins resulting in their eternity destiny in heaven forever. So respecting and participating in this symbolizing act is key in the Christian life and must not be disrespected or neglected.

1) [Compare Expositor's on 1 Cor 11:23-24]:

(1 Cor 11:23 NASB) For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

(1 Cor 11:24 NASB) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." '''Since the Supper was celebrated in connection with the Passover (according to Matt 26:17-29; Luke 22:7-20), we assume that the bread that was available was unleavened. Jesus gave thanks (eucharistesas—cf. Eucharist). This was the Jewish practice at a meal. The breaking of the bread (also in the Synoptics) was symbolic of Christ's bruised and broken body (Isa 53:5). The better MSS, reflected in NIV and other newer versions, read, "This is my body which is for you" without the addition "broken" (KJV), which, however, is implied from the context. The word "this" most naturally means in the context "this bread" that Christ held in his hand as a symbol to represent his body, not Christ's body itself, as some hold (cf. somewhat similar figures in John 10:7; 1Cor 10:4). The command (cf. Luke 22:19) "Do this in remembrance of me," which, along with Luke 22:20, some versions omit (RSV, NEB) or print in brackets (TEV, BV), though others (NIV, JB) retain them (cf. note on 1Cor 11:24), is implied in the words "Take, eat." '''

2) [(1 Cor 11:23-24 Compare Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor 11:23-24]:

(1 Cor 11:23 NASB) For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

(1 Cor 11:24 NASB) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

"11:23-24. Paul proceeded to remind the Corinthians of what they knew but had denied by their actions. Whether this teaching came to Paul directly (by a vision; cf. Gal. 1:12) or indirectly (by men; 1 Cor. 15:1), it came with the Lord's authority. The bread represented the incarnate body of Christ unselfishly assumed (Phil. 2:6-7) and unselfishly given on the cross for the benefit of others (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:8), that kept needing to be remembered (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8-13)."

J) [1 Cor 11:23-26]:

(1 Cor 11:23 NASB) ^"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

(1 Cor 11:24 NASB) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.

(1 Cor 11:25 NASB) "In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying,

"This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.

(1 Cor 11:26 NASB) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

In view of the disorder and misbehavior when the Lord's Supper was to be solemnly celebrated by the congregation at Corinth, Paul relates what he has learned directly from the Lord Himself about the Lord's Supper for the purpose of informing the believers in Corinth - and all believers everywhere - of how to celabrate the Lord's Supper including their proper behavior and respect for such an important celebration which is the key to their salvation and to Whom they owe eternal allegiance and worship. So Paul wrote these simple words comprising vv 23-26:

(1 Cor 11:23 NASB) ^"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

[So at some time Paul received directly from the Lord Jesus Christ an accounting of what had occurred in the upper room at the last supper and he gave an accounting of what he received beginning with verse 23 above]

(1 Cor 11:24 NASB) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.

[and when Paul quoted Jesus as saying, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me" it was implying that Jesus paid for the sins of them and all mankind, (cf. 1 Jn 2:2); and that they and all believers were to eat of the bread in remembrance of His sacrifice for their sins - as a thanksgiving and commemoration]

(1 Cor 11:25 NASB) In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

[Whereupon Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers, "In the same way He took the cup [of wine] also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me," also to commemorate His sacrifice for the Corinthian believers' sins and for the sins of all mankind. Note that phrase rendered "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood," refers to the New Covenant that God will fulfill with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, (cf. Jer 31:31-34), which will also benefit all of mankind in the sense that Christ's propitiation / satisfactory payment for the sins of Israel was also for all of mankind, (1 Jn 2:2, Study on the New Covenant: Jer 31:31 ).]

1) [1 Cor 11:25-26 Expositor's Commentary]:

(1 Cor 11:25 NASB) "In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying,

'This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'

(1 Cor 11:26 NASB) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

"25, 26 That the Lord's Supper was connected with the Passover meal is clear in the phrase "after the supper," meaning, as the synoptic Gospels show, "after the Passover Supper." This cup was the third of the Passover cups, as C.E.B. Cranfield, shows in "St. Mark" in The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, C.F.D. Moule, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), p..426. The word "cup," used metonymously for its contents, symbolizes the covenant in Jesus' blood (Luke 22:20). The covenant (diatheke) idea is that of God's sealing his agreement of salvation with his people [BSM: Israel] through Christ's blood [BSM: as well as to make provision for all of mankind's sins]. It is a new covenant in being the fulfillment of the covenant promises of God in the OT exemplified in the sacrificial system (cf. Eph 2:12). In the ceremony Jesus does not say how often the communion was to be held but indicates that it is to be periodic—"whenever you eat... and drink"—and it is to be continued to the Second Advent—"until he comes" (v. 26). The statement "you proclaim" involves the personal application of the meaning of the Lord's death in the believer's testimony."

2) (1 Cor 11:25-26) Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor 11:25-26]:

(1 Cor 11:23 NASB) ^"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

(1 Cor 11:24 NASB) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.

(1 Cor 11:25 NASB) "In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.

(1 Cor 11:26 NASB) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

"11:25. The wine was a poignant reminder of Christ's blood, without the shedding of which there could be no forgiveness from sin (Heb. 9:22) and through which cleansing and a new relationship (covenant) with God was made [BSM: with Israel, Jer 31:31-34] (Heb. 9:14-15). The word "covenant" referred to a relationship in which one party established terms which the other party accepted or [BSM: between God and Israel, Jer 31-31-34 yet benefitting all of mankind re: propitiation for sins, 1 Jn 2:2, Jer 31:31-34]. The focus of the Old Covenant was the written Word [BSM: the Mosaic Law, Jer 31:31-34]. The focus of the New Covenant [BSM: will be for a future generation of Israel to be transformed into perfect priests to co-rule with Christ over the world when He comes again and the all believe in Him, Jer 31:31-34]. Christ intended the cup to be a representational (cf. John 10:9; 1 Cor. 10:4) reminder of Him: do this... in remembrance of Me.

The Lord's Supper was a visible sermon that proclaimed "the message of the Cross" (1:18, 23; 2:2, 8), that is, the reality of the Lord's death, and also the certainty of His return (until He comes) (cf. John 14:1-4). Though there apparently was no prescribed schedule for the observance of the Lord's Supper (cf. Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 13:1), whenever it was celebrated its message of humiliation and subsequent exaltation (Phil. 2:6-11) went forth. This was a needed reminder to all saints, especially those in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8-13)."

K) [1 Cor 11:26-34]:

(1 Cor 11:30 NASB) For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.

[Whereupon in 1 Cor 11:30, Paul explained the temporal, (not eternal) consequences that the Corinthian believers [and other believers throughout the age] suffer who abuse the Lord's Supper and are liable to have happen to them as it happened to a number of the believers at Corinth as some of them did as Paul stipulated: they became weak and sick and a number of them sleep in the sense of physically died an early physical death -  asleep but nevertheless present in heaven before their appointed time being eternally secure nevertheless . So what is implied in verses 28-30 is for the Corinthian believers and all believers to test themselves to see if their mindset and actions are commensurate with proper observation of / the celebrating of the Lord's Supper in order to guard against unworthy partaking of it and suffering the consequences.]

which may mean "judged" depending upon the context, in the case of 1 Cor 11:32 it has the temporal life in view, not ones eternal destiny. Eternal condemmnation of believers / born of God individuals is not in view, for those who are children of God, born of God are eternally secure . Since believers are children of God born of God, their sinful deeds afford them God's discipline. They will not be judged by God in their temporal lives as the rest of the world is judged because the rest of the world - unbelievers -  have not yet or will ever believe in Christ for salvation unto eternal life and are thereby in their temporal lives subject to God's temporal judgment, not His Fatherly discipline. Furthermore unbelievers stand eternally condemned already because they have not yet believed, (cf. Jn 3:18) - until they do believe if they ever will in the future. Just as God's temporal judgment of the rest of the world comprised of unbelievers will be exercised toward unbelievers during the 7 year Tribulation period, (Rev 6-16); and at the end of that period at the Judgment of Nations, (Mt 25:31-46); in the same way  God's temporal judgment of the rest of the world is in view in this passage in 1 Cor 11.

1) [1 Cor 11:26-34 Expositor's Commentary]:

"25, 26 That the Lord's Supper was connected with the Passover meal is clear in the phrase "after the supper," meaning, as the synoptic Gospels show, "after the Passover Supper." This cup was the third of the Passover cups, as C.E.B. Cranfield, shows in "St. Mark" in The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, C.F.D. Moule, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), p..426. The word "cup," used metonymously for its contents, symbolizes the covenant in Jesus' blood (Luke 22:20). The covenant (diatheke) idea is that of God's sealing his agreement of salvation with his people [BSM: Israel] through Christ's blood [BSM: which sacrifice benefits all mankind for salvation unto eternal life]. It is a new covenant in being the fulfillment of the covenant promises of God in the OT exemplified in the sacrificial system (cf.Eph 2:12). In the ceremony Jesus does not say how often the communion was to be held but indicates that it is to be periodic—"whenever you eat... and drink"—and it is to be continued to the Second Advent—"until he comes" (v. 26). The statement "you proclaim" involves the personal application of the meaning of the Lord's death in the believer's testimony.

27 Participating "in an unworthy manner" entails coming to the table in an irreverent and sinful way and so sinning against the body and blood of Christ. This is what some of the Corinthians had been doing (vv. 20-22). (Of course, any other sinful approach to the table would be unworthy also.) The apostle does not teach that in eating and drinking the elements Christians are physically eating of Christ. The supper is a memorial feast (v. 24) and a means of grace.

28-30 Now Paul shows how to guard against unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper. "To examine [oneself]" is to put oneself to the test as to the attitude of his heart, his outward conduct, and his understanding of the true nature and purpose of the Supper. This is making the Supper a means of spiritual grace. By self-examination the believer guards against eating and drinking to his own judgment through not recognizing the importance of this Supper that commemorates the death of Christ. That Paul is not speaking about God's eternal judgment is seen by the lack of the article with krima. It is "judgment," not "the judgment." Examples of such judgment are in sickness and death.

31, 32 The purpose of self-examination is to come to the table prepared in heart. Paul's teaching justifies the wholesome practice of some churches in having a communion preparatory service that affords opportunity for such self-examination. Here he quickly adds that even when a Christian is judged by the Lord, this judgment is not punitive to destruction, but a form of fatherly discipline (Heb 12:5) to bring God's child to repentance....

33, 34 Paul now deals positively with the agape meal. In eating it, the Corinthians should show respect for their brothers' physical as well as spiritual needs by waiting for each other and eating together. If they come only to satisfy their physical craving and not for communion with the Lord and his people, then they should eat their meal at home, for otherwise God will judge them in some way.

Verse 34b suggests that there were other irregularities regarding worship and the Lord's Supper but they were not sufficiently urgent for the apostle to deal with them here."

2) [1 Cor 11:27-34 Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor 11:27-34]:

(1 Cor 11:27 NASB) "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

"11:27-29. The Corinthians' despicable behavior at the communal meal was not without result, which Paul proceeded to point out. Nowadays when this passage is read before participation in the Lord's Supper, it is usually intended to produce soul-searching introspection and silent confession to Christ so that no one will sin against the spiritual presence of the Lord by irreverent observance. Paul's application was probably more concrete. No doubt his experience on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:4-5) contributed to this, for the body of Christ is the church, which consists of individual believers (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12, 27). His body, the church, is also pictured by the bread of Communion (5:7; 10:16-17). Thus to sin against another believer is to sin against Christ (8:12). Those guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord were those who despised a poorer member by utter disregard for his need (11:21-22). These came to the remembrance of Christ's work of unity and reconciliation (cf. Eph. 2:15-16) with a trail of deeds that had produced disunity and alienation! If these would examine (dokimazetob;, "test to approve," 1 Cor. 11:28) themselves, they would see that they lacked God's approval (dokimoi, v. 19) in this behavior. They should seek out the wronged brother and ask his forgiveness. Only then could a true spirit of worship flourish (cf. Matt. 5:23-24 and Didache 14. 1-3). Coming to the Lord's Supper without that sin confessed brought judgment on the guilty participants. Only by recognizing (diakrinob, "properly judging") the unity of the body of the Lord—and acting accordingly—could they avoid bringing "judgment" (krima) on themselves.

11:30-32. What that judgment entailed was then explained by Paul. In brief, it was sickness and death (cf. 10:1-11). The solution was self-examination (diekrinomen, 11:31; cf. vv. 28-29; 5:1-5; 10:12), self-discipline (9:27), and promoting of unity. The alternative was God's judging (krinomenoi, 11:32), which was a discipline that they were then experiencing. This was not a loss of salvation, but of life (cf. 5:5).

11:33-34. If the believers were self-disciplined, they should wait in the Agapeb; meal till all arrived. This also may have implied sharing the meal with others (cf. v. 22). If the demands of hunger were too great for some, they should satisfy those pangs at home before coming to the assembly. The Lord's Supper was a time not for self-indulgence but for mutual edification (v. 26). If the former prevailed, God would continue to discipline severely. Other matters—apparently less serious aberrations related to the Lord's Supper—Paul would attend to when he returned to Corinth (16:5-9)."