The Dinner Party
What makes a gathering of people harmful instead of helpful?
1 Corinthians 11:2-34
Read the whole passage before anything else. Everything below exists to help you understand what you just read.
2Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and hold firm the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.
3But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
5But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved.
6For if a woman is not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or be shaved, let her be covered.
7For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man.
8For man is not from woman, but woman from man;
9for man wasn’t created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10For this cause the woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
11Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord.
12For as woman came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from God.
13Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled?
14Doesn’t even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do God’s assemblies.
17But in giving you this command I don’t praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
18For first of all, when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it.
19For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you.
20When therefore you assemble yourselves together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.
21For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken.
22What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in? Or do you despise God’s assembly and put them to shame who don’t have enough? What shall I tell you? Shall I praise you? In this I don’t praise you.
23For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread.
24When he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “Take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory of me.”
25In the same way he also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in memory of me.”
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup in a way unworthy of the Lord will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy way eats and drinks judgment to himself if he doesn’t discern the Lord’s body.
30For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.
31For if we discerned ourselves, we wouldn’t be judged.
32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
33Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest your coming together be for judgment. The rest I will set in order whenever I come.
What just happened?
Imagine ancient Corinth, a bustling port city in the Roman province of Achaia, around 50-55 AD. This was a place of vibrant trade, diverse cultures, and a reputation for moral laxity. The early Christian community here was a fascinating mix of people: former pagans, some Jewish converts, rich and poor, educated and uneducated. They met in homes, not purpose-built churches, sharing meals and worship. Paul, who founded this community, had left them some years prior, and now he's writing back to address a whole host of problems he's heard about. His letters are like getting an urgent report from the front lines of a chaotic, young movement.
In this section, Paul is specifically dealing with their gatherings, particularly when they come together to eat, which included what they called 'the Lord's Supper.' The Corinthian church wasn't just messy in abstract theological debates; their messiness spilled over into their most sacred communal activities. It was a dinner party gone very wrong. He's heard that their 'coming together' is doing more harm than good, creating divisions rather than fostering unity. This wasn't some minor etiquette breach; it was fundamental to their identity as followers of Jesus, whose last act with his disciples was a shared meal.
Paul's letter isn't just about table manners. He's tackling deep-seated issues of social hierarchy, economic inequality, and individual selfishness that were tearing at the fabric of this fledgling community. Some members, likely the wealthier ones who hosted the meetings, were eating their fill, even getting drunk, while others, the poorer members who might arrive late from work or have less social standing, went hungry and were shamed. This wasn't a spiritual fellowship; it was a display of status and neglect. Paul has to remind them what the Lord's Supper actually means, and what it demands of them, because they've completely lost the plot.
The Head-Covering Debate
Paul begins by praising them for holding to the traditions, then immediately dives into a confusing discussion about head coverings for men and women during prayer or prophecy. He talks about 'headship' — Christ as the head of man, man as the head of woman, and God as the head of Christ. This passage is one of the most debated in all of Paul's letters. Paul connects a woman's uncovered head with shame, equating it to having her hair shaved, which was a mark of disgrace for women in that culture, sometimes even indicating adultery.
He grounds his argument in creation order, stating man is the 'image and glory of God,' and woman is the 'glory of man,' created from man and for man. Then, in a twist, he emphasizes mutual dependence: 'neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord.' He brings in 'nature itself' and even 'angels' as reasons for these practices. The exact meaning of 'authority over her own head' (v. 10) is particularly unclear, with various interpretations ranging from a woman's personal autonomy to a symbol of authority on her head. He concludes by stating that if anyone wants to be contentious, 'we have no such custom, neither do God’s assemblies,' suggesting these specific cultural practices might not be universal directives.
The core issue here likely involves specific cultural markers of modesty, status, or identity within first-century Corinth. In that society, women often had their heads covered in public, especially when respectable, while men typically did not. Paul seems concerned that the way men and women were presenting themselves during worship was either causing scandal, blurring gender distinctions that were important culturally, or dishonoring the community's witness. This section is notoriously difficult because we're trying to reconstruct a specific cultural context that Paul understood instinctively but which is now lost to us.
The Harmful Gatherings
Paul pivots sharply, saying, 'In giving you this command I don’t praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.' This is the central problem: their gatherings, meant to build them up, are tearing them down. He's heard reports of 'divisions' among them when they meet. These aren't just disagreements; they are fractures in the community. He notes that 'factions' (Greek: _haireseis_, from which we get 'heresy') are almost inevitable, serving to highlight who is truly approved among them.
The real issue comes to light: when they assemble, 'it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.' This is a damning indictment. Why? Because 'in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken.' This isn't just bad manners; it's a profound betrayal of the very purpose of their gathering. The wealthy members, who likely hosted the meals and arrived early, were eating their fill and drinking too much, while the poorer members, possibly delayed by work or lower social status, were left with nothing, shamed and hungry. The Greek word for 'despise' (v. 22) carries the weight of contempt or treating with disdain.
Paul's question is piercing: 'What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in? Or do you despise God’s assembly and put them to shame who don’t have enough?' He's pointing out the hypocrisy. If they just wanted a meal, they had their own homes. Their communal gathering was meant to be different, a space of equality and shared life. By their actions, they were not only neglecting the needy but actively shaming them, turning a sacred act into a display of social hierarchy. This is where their 'love feast' (a term used for these early Christian meals) had become a 'shame feast.'
Remembering the Supper's Purpose
To correct their behavior, Paul takes them back to the source, the foundation of their faith: the institution of the Lord's Supper itself. He explicitly states he 'received from the Lord' what he delivered to them, emphasizing the divine authority behind his instruction. He recounts the events of Jesus's last meal with his disciples: taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it, and saying, 'This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory of me.' This isn't just a story; it's a sacred tradition passed down, a cornerstone of their shared identity.
Similarly, Jesus took the cup after supper, declaring, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in memory of me.' The 'new covenant' refers to a fresh agreement between God and humanity, sealed by Jesus's sacrifice, replacing the old covenant given through Moses. This act wasn't merely symbolic; it was a profound re-enactment and proclamation. By eating the bread and drinking the cup, they 'proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.' It's a statement of faith, a reminder of Jesus's sacrifice, and an anticipation of his return. Their selfish feasting had completely obscured this profound meaning.
Paul is essentially saying: 'You think you're celebrating the Lord's Supper, but you're missing the point entirely. You've forgotten what Jesus did and why. This meal isn't about your personal hunger or your social status; it's about remembering a sacrificial love that creates a new community rooted in equality and mutual care.' He uses the original event not as a rigid ritual, but as a reminder of the radical implications of Jesus's act for how they should treat one another.
Self-Examination and Judgment
Given the sacred nature of the Lord's Supper, Paul issues a serious warning: 'Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup in a way unworthy of the Lord will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.' To partake 'unworthily' (Greek: _anaxiōs_) isn't about personal sinfulness in general, but specifically about failing to 'discern the Lord’s body' in the context of the communal meal. It means participating in a way that shows disrespect for what the Supper represents and for the community, especially the weaker members, for whom Jesus also died.
This failure to discern the body, both Christ's broken body on the cross and His body, the church, in their midst, leads to severe consequences. Paul claims that because of this behavior, 'many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep' (meaning have died). This is a stark claim, suggesting a direct link between their inappropriate conduct at the communal meal and physical illness or even death. He frames this as divine discipline, not condemnation, intended to bring them to self-reflection so they won't be condemned with the world.
His solution is simple yet profound: 'let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.' This self-examination isn't about cataloging every sin, but about assessing their attitude toward the Supper and toward one another. Paul's final instructions are practical: 'when you come together to eat, wait for one another.' If someone is truly hungry, they should eat at home, so that their gathering isn't 'for judgment.' This re-establishes the meal as a communal act of remembrance and unity, not individual feasting or social stratification.
What are we supposed to see?
This passage vividly shows Jesus as the foundational act of self-giving love that defines his followers. By recounting the Last Supper, Paul isn't just relaying a historical event; he's pointing to the very heart of Jesus's mission and identity. Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, didn't establish a hierarchy or a ritual for the elite; he offered his body and blood as a 'new covenant' for all. His action is a paradigm for how his followers should interact, embodying sacrifice, memory, and an anticipation of future reunion. The Lord's Supper, in Jesus's action, is the ultimate expression of hospitality, where the host gives everything, even himself, for the guests, a stark contrast to the Corinthian practice.
What's equally clear is Jesus's profound concern for community and justice within that community. His original act of breaking bread and sharing a cup was about establishing a new family, bound by a shared experience of his sacrifice. The Corinthian behavior, where some gorged while others starved, directly violated this. Jesus, through Paul's correction, is revealed as One who demands that his followers mirror his self-giving in their treatment of each other, especially the vulnerable. The strong warning about 'unworthy' participation, and the consequences of it, demonstrates that Jesus's concern extends beyond individual piety to the health and fairness of the collective body.
- 1WHAT HE VALUES
God values unity and equality among his people, especially when they gather in his name. The communal meal should be a demonstration of mutual care, not a reinforcement of social divisions.
- 2WHAT HE CONFRONTS
God confronts selfishness, pride, and the shaming of the less fortunate within his community, particularly when these behaviors corrupt sacred practices meant to foster fellowship and remembrance.
- 3IDENTITY
Followers of Christ are called to be a community defined by Christ's sacrificial love, remembering his death and anticipating his return through acts of shared life and mutual respect.
Where this sits in the whole Bible
1 Corinthians 11:22 → James 2:1-7
Both passages condemn favoritism and the shaming of the poor within the Christian community, highlighting God's concern for justice and equality among his followers, particularly in their gatherings.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 → Luke 22:14-20
Paul's recounting of the Last Supper aligns closely with the Gospel accounts, underscoring the consistent tradition and foundational importance of Jesus's institution of the bread and cup as central to Christian memory and identity.
1 Corinthians 11:30 → Hebrews 12:5-11
Both passages speak of divine discipline for believers, not as condemnation but as a loving father's corrective action intended to lead to holiness and maturity, demonstrating God's active involvement in his children's spiritual formation.
The real scandal at the Corinthian dinner party wasn't just bad manners, but a profound spiritual blindness to the very meaning of Christ's sacrifice, leading them to actively harm the vulnerable among them.
Don't rush past this
The most uncomfortable part of this passage for many is Paul's explicit claim in verse 30 that 'many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep' (have died) because of their unworthy participation in the Lord's Supper. This is a direct, supernatural consequence attributed to their behavior, linking physical suffering and death to a spiritual failure to discern the body of Christ in their community. It's a stark reminder that our actions within the believing community can have profound, even life-or-death, implications beyond what we might expect.
Equally challenging is the passage on head coverings (verses 2-16). Paul's arguments about 'headship,' creation order, and the 'glory' of man and woman, combined with references to 'nature itself' and 'angels,' feel alien and potentially problematic to modern sensibilities. It raises questions about gender roles, cultural context versus universal principle, and whether certain biblical commands are time-bound or eternally applicable. Many find it difficult to reconcile with contemporary understandings of equality and women's roles in leadership and public life, highlighting the tension between ancient cultural norms and the enduring principles of faith.
Turn it inward
Three questions from this passage. Answer them or just sit with them — nothing here is required to finish the lesson.
God, open my eyes to see where I might be overlooking others or acting selfishly within my community. Help me to remember the sacrificial love of Jesus that defines us. Guide me to be a person who builds bridges, shares generously, and seeks unity, reflecting the true meaning of your love in how I gather with others. Amen.
This week, when you share a meal with others, especially if it's a communal gathering like a potluck or church event, be acutely aware of who might be overlooked or left out. Make an intentional effort to engage with someone new, ensure everyone has enough, or offer a kindness that bridges social gaps, remembering that hospitality is an act of discerning the body of Christ.
History, language, objections and sources. None of it is needed to understand the passage.
Paul says a woman ought to have 'authority over her own head' (v. 10) but also implies she should be covered. Is he contradicting himself, or is this phrase completely misunderstood?
This is one of the most debated phrases in the New Testament. Some interpretations suggest the 'authority' here refers to a literal veil or covering, signifying a woman's authority to pray and prophesy, or perhaps her authority within the existing social structure. Others argue it means she has authority *on* her head, meaning the covering itself is a sign of her power or dignity, or even a recognition of her husband's authority, which she exercises by choosing to wear the covering. The precise Greek phrasing (exousia epi tēs kephalēs) is unusual. Given the cultural context where covering could signify status or protection, it's likely not a contradiction but a nuanced statement about a woman's position, perhaps even asserting her right to participate in worship while maintaining cultural propriety. There is no scholarly consensus on the exact nuance, but most agree it's not a direct contradiction of the command to be covered.
Did Paul really believe people were getting sick and dying because of how they ate the Lord's Supper? Isn't that an over-the-top, almost superstitious claim?
Paul’s statement is indeed stark. In the ancient world, it was common to attribute misfortune, illness, and even death to divine displeasure, especially when community covenants were broken. It's important to remember that Paul and his audience shared a worldview where God was actively involved in daily life, and spiritual acts had tangible consequences. Whether these were direct, immediate divine interventions, or a recognition that spiritual disharmony could manifest in social dysfunction and its related health impacts (e.g., stress, neglect, poor hygiene in a struggling community), is debated. Regardless of the exact mechanism, Paul clearly believed a serious breach of the sacred communal meal had dire consequences, reflecting God's severe disapproval of their selfish behavior. He's not just using a figure of speech; he sees a direct link, warning them of genuine harm.
How can we apply Paul's specific instructions about head coverings in a modern context, given they seem so tied to ancient Corinthian culture?
This is a core challenge of biblical interpretation across cultures and times. Most scholars agree that verses 2-16 reflect specific cultural practices of first-century Corinth regarding modesty, social norms, and gender expression, rather than universal, timeless commands for all Christians. The principles behind the instruction – honoring God, maintaining appropriate witness within a culture, and avoiding causing scandal – are timeless. However, the specific *manifestation* of those principles (like head coverings) can change. Many interpret this passage as teaching that men and women should express their Christian identity and roles in ways that are culturally appropriate and do not dishonor God or the community, whatever those expressions might be in their particular time and place. The dispute is over whether any part of the *specific* covering instruction carries forward, or only the underlying principles of respect and cultural sensitivity.
The Roman 'Symposium' and Christian Meals
The early Christian communal meal, often called an 'agape feast' or 'love feast,' occurred within a Roman social context that heavily influenced its practice. Roman dining, particularly the 'symposium,' was highly stratified. Guests reclined according to social status, with the host and most honored guests closest to the 'head' of the table, receiving the best food and wine. Poorer clients or those of lower standing might be placed further down, receiving less, or even different, quality food. This social dynamic deeply permeated Corinthian society.
When Christians in Corinth gathered, they likely met in the homes of wealthier members. These homes often had a main dining room (triclinium) that could accommodate a select few, while others might have to eat in less prominent areas or stand. The issues Paul addresses—the rich eating their fill and getting drunk while others went hungry—directly reflect the pervasive influence of this Roman social stratification on their supposedly sacred Christian meal. Paul's critique is not just about bad manners, but about the failure to live out the radical equality and mutual care that should define followers of Christ, contrasting sharply with the existing social order. He's demanding a counter-cultural dinner party.