Because the Corinthian church is treating the Lord’s supper like a Greco-Roman banquet, Paul says some in the church are eating the bread and drinking the cup unworthily. What does it mean to eat and drink unworthily?
Paul reminds the Corinthians that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was handed down from Jesus himself (12:23-26). Presumably Peter and the disciples communicated the institution of the Lord’s Supper, since they witnessed the Last Supper. This is the earliest version of the Last Supper, since the gospels were not written for at least 10 years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
There are several important elements of this tradition. First, the bread and the cup are taken from the regular elements of the Passover meal, but Jesus uses them to predict his death on the cross. Second, Paul calls the cup the “new covenant in my blood.” This is an allusion to Jeremiah 31:31-33, where God says he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah when he establishes his kingdom “in that day.” The death of Jesus in some ways initiates that covenant. A covenant is usually confirmed with a sacrifice and a meal (sharing bread and wine). Jesus is therefore claiming that his death on the cross is, in some ways, the beginning of the New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah.
Paul says that sharing the bread and the cup is a symbol of deeper spiritual realities, initiated by the Lord Jesus himself and practiced by the whole Church. It is dangerous to abuse the practice to pursue worldly goals!
As often as the church gathers and shares this meal, they are proclaiming his death until he returns (v. 26). There is nothing in the tradition to indicate how often the meal is to be shared (weekly or once a year), only that it is a practice that is to continue until the Lord returns.
But when the church celebrates the Lord’s Supper, they condemn themselves because they are “eating unworthily” (12:27-34). What does it mean to “eat unworthily”? As I explained in a previous post, the shared meal is reinforcing divisions between the rich and poor. If the church was treating the Lord’s Supper like a Greco-Roman banquet, then gluttony and drunkenness are also possible.
In a modern context, most churches practice a ritual for the Lord’s Supper, Communion, or Eucharist. It is nearly impossible to be a glutton or a drunkard while taking communion is a typical evangelical church (using pre-fab bread chunks the size of a chicklet and sugar-free grape juice!) Even if we cannot dishonor the celebration in quite the same way, by treating the celebration flippantly or as a means of grace to cover or sin, we may be “eating unworthily.”
To avoid discipline, believers ought to examine themselves before they participate in the memorial meal. Paul says, “Judge yourself so you do not fall under judgment by God!” How does the believer examine themselves?
- Confession of sin. Communion ought to be a solemn time of introspection. While it is not the case that God will strike a person dead who takes communion if they have an unconfessed sin, it is a time to spend a few moments reviewing and confessing our shortcomings.
- Meditation on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Communion services really need to focus on the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. The scripture and the songs intentionally point our minds and our hearts toward Jesus’ self-sacrifice.
- Commitment to being a pleasing child of God. An important corollary to confession is really committing oneself to living a life that is pleasing and honoring to God, a life that makes God smile at his dearly loved child. Even if we have failed, our commitment pleases him.
- Unity of the church, the body of Christ. Everyone is sharing the same cup, and the same loaf, declaring together the same thing about Jesus’s death.
The celebration of the Communion ought to highlight unity of a church around Jesus and his death and resurrection. What is happening in Corinth is the exact opposite of this; they are (once again) emphasizing social divisions and creating discord and disunity. How we behave during worship and how we think about worship in the church must be based on Scripture and a sincere desire to please God as our heavenly Father. By importing ideas from our culture, we corrupt our worship and run the risk of facing God’s judgment.
Isn’t the New Covenant the same as the special covenant of Grace God had with the Seed of David?
Woodrow Nichols
I think the topic of the New Covenant is worthy of a book! To be honest, I cut out some of that explanation from this post to keep it manageable. New Covenant language is drawn from Jeremiah 31, although similar ideas appear in Isaiah and Ezekiel as well. Israel had a covenant with God, they broke it (frequently and intentionally!), so Jeremiah 31:31 says God will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and the House of Judah, one that he will enable them to keep so that all his people will know the Lord. that New Covenant is associated (in Jeremiah) with the return of the exiles to the land and a restoration of peace and prosperity to the nation. In Ezekiel 37, the restoration is like a resurrection and the nation will be led by a new Davidic king.
So yes, lots of theology behind that one phrase. How Christians participate in that new covenant is another issue.
To me, the similarities are they are both covenants of Grace, one made with a man and his descendants and the other made with all mankind. When you add the fact that Jesus was of the Seed of David and we are one in Christ because of his blood shed on the cross, we thus inherit the unconditional covenant of Grace with David. Jeremiah was likely the Deuteronomist in my opiinion, and we know what he thought about the House of David, so in my opinion that’s why the Covenant of Grace with David and the New Covenant in Christ do not appear as obvious as they are. You know I thought I was talking to a guy who was responding to your post, and I called him a fool, Sorry about that.
Woodrow
The Lord’s supper is a tradition kept by almost every sect of Christianity. I think you would be very hard pressed to find any “major” denomination that does not celebrate the Lord’s supper. In Catholicism and Orthodoxy this is called Eucharist. In protestant denominations it is called communion. One common thing that you will encounter is this idea that you cannot take the elements if you are in poor standing with God. otherwise known as taking the elements in an unworthy manner. Paul says that doing this will reap judgment upon you. Paul gives christians the answer in verse 28. Let each person examine themselves before participating in the Lord’s supper. For protestants this usually looks like a short time of prayer and reflection on what Jesus did for us on the cross. A lot of times people think that this means you cannot struggle with sin and take the elements. I would disagree with this. We are human with the sin of Adam in us, but I do think during this time of reflection and prayer we should be analyzing ourselves and the sins we commit. We shall not continue in sin so grace may abound. We should be convicted of our sins during this time. In Catholic environments you may not even be allowed to partake in the Lord’s supper if they have not been to confession recently. I would definitely not agree with this. I think what it looks like to look and see if you are taking the elements in a worthy fashion. First look inside, “search me o Lord” when I am getting ready to take the elements I want to be convicted of my sin that put Jesus on the cross. It brings back to the forefront of our minds the reason Jesus had to be the sacrifice. This conviction should prompt us to confess and repent of the sins we are struggling with. Then realize what the body of Christ is. The communion we share as brothers and sisters in Christ through Jesus’ death on cross.
If Paul commands that specific genders in the church either have to wear a head covering or they don’t have to for worship, how come we don’t see that today?
Clearly something else is going on. My mind instantly went to looking at the cultural context surrounding the 1st century and the Corinthian church. This section of scripture is to be put as one of the most complex and confusing as many scholars struggle to understand what the true interpretation is going on here. Craig Blomberg, an American Theologian, once said this “A survey of the history of interpretation reveals how many different exegetical options there are for a myriad of questions and should inspire a fair measure of tentativeness on the part of the interpreter”. He explains that there are so many questions while also bearing so many different options for the answers. He encourages that we should not be quick to latch onto an answer and call it correct. A deep study should be made into the passage instead of coming to a simple conclusion.
Something else to note about this specific passage in 1 Corinthians 11 is that the idea of head coverings is talked about nowhere else in scripture. It seems like Paul is addressing a specific issue to Corinth here, not the entire body of Christ. There are many issues that occur throughout Corinthians that are specific to Corinth due to the church struggling with following after the culture and people around them (1 Cor 5-6, 8-11, 14-16). With that being said, this begs the question that if it is just a specific issue for Corinth, does that make it applicable to today?
I would say no. Here is why: In regard to the passage. Paul makes it clear that the Corinthians have been following the traditions he taught them, and he commends them for it (1 Cor 11:2). In verse two, the Greek word, paradosis, also stands for teaching. And so Paul congratulates them for following previous teachings that he gave them. He transitions, though, into trying to get the Corinthians to understand a certain concept. The concept was that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). Paul then “oscillates back and forth with statements about men and women, but this pattern is broken in 11:13 with a statement about the woman but none about the man” (Garland, 2025, p. 507). Why does Paul make more statements towards the women?
Well, in Greco-Roman culture, “A woman cannot acquire honor for the family but can only lose it” (Garland, 2025, p. 509). In this case, the women were doing something that would bring shame and cause trouble during worship within the church. What could the women be doing that is causing issues?
My assumption is that the women were not covering themselves in the way that would respect Jewish tradition. Paul, who comes from Jewish descent, followed the tradition that women should have their heads covered. In Isaiah 3:17, it talks about how God will bring judgment on Judah and Jerusalem. Specifically in verse 17, he talks about how he will judge and shave the head of the “haughty women”. Which is a reference to verse 16 talking about the women who were trying to win others with their beauty. If God was to uncover their secret part, which in context is referring to the last thing mentioned which was their head, then he would be bringing shame upon the woman. So, women traditionally wore a head covering. With all of that said, Paul calls them to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying, or else they will bring shame (1 Cor 11:5). The following chapters are centered around prophesying and other sign gifts. I think that Paul is laying the foundation of how to properly pray and prophecy, according to his Jewish upbringing. Men and women were incorrectly doing this kind of worship out in public, and I think Paul seeks to correct that before teaching them further on how to prophecy and do other signs, which are significant to the Jews (1 Cor 1:22).
Another idea that I can also see being the correct interpretation of this scripture is the idea that the women were still actively participating in worldly standards when it comes to worship due to their previous lives. What I mean by that is in Greco-Roman culture, the prostitute woman would make it clear to other men that they were prostitutes based on what they wear. If women were doing this in the Corinthian church, that would be a huge issue because women were “licensed by Paul to pray and prophesy, and invited even to lead” (Peppiatt & Campbell, 2015). We see women in leadership roles in other pieces of scripture (Jdg 4-5, Exo 15, Acts 18, Rom 16). Paul wants to make sure that they are setting the right example. Furthermore, in the ancient first century, it is known that” in Cyprus the law prescribed that ‘a woman guilty of adultery shall have her hair cut off and be a prostitute’” (Peppiatt & Campbell, 2015). Being reduced to the status of prostitute was a big sign of shame, especially because of the shaven head. Knowing this, Paul warns the women, specifically wives, in the church to dress appropriately for worship, or else they will bring shame like the women with shaven heads because they committed adultery. This interpretation is a reasonable one because we see the Corinthians struggle to conform to their new faith in Christ because they still partake in old passions.
But, in bringing everything back to scripture in 1 Corinthians 11, whatever the men and women were doing, they were improperly wearing attire for worshipping God. Paul instead encourages both men and women to dress appropriately for prayer and prophesying (1 Cor 11:4-5, 10). I think that this is a hard issue to discern whether it is meant for us today or if it is specifically for just the Corinthian church. But I can say with confidence that right now, where I am at with my faith and convictions, I do not feel led by the Spirit to make a decision that my future wife or myself should abide by these commands made from Paul. The reason why is I believe that this is a specific issue going on in Corinth that desperately needs to be addressed and so he calls them out for the improper way of worship that they are partaking in. We see this idea of head coverings show up nowhere else in scripture. Furthermore, taking in that the first two verses of chapter 11 are unrelated to the head covering issue but rather something that Paul commends them for, and then verses 17-33 are about an issue that Paul does not “commend them” for makes the point that I think we can conclude that it was a cultural issue, not a body of Christ issue.
Garland, D. E. (2025). 1 corinthians (Second edition). Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group.
Peppiatt, L., & Campbell, D. A. (2015). Women and worship at Corinth: Paul’s rhetorical arguments in 1 Corinthians. Cascade Books.