1 Corinthians 11

Introduction

Chapter 11 marks a transition in Paul's letter. Having concluded his discussion of food offered to idols and the limits of Christian freedom (chapters 8-10), Paul now turns to problems in the Corinthians' worship assemblies. The chapter divides into two major sections: the first (vv. 2-16) addresses proper order in worship, specifically the practice of head coverings and the theological principle of headship, while the second (vv. 17-34) confronts serious abuses in the community's celebration of the Lord's Supper. Both sections deal with the same underlying issue -- the Corinthians are allowing cultural arrogance and social stratification to distort their corporate worship. Verse 1, which properly closes Paul's argument from chapter 10, serves as a bridge: the call to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ sets the standard against which all the worship practices in the chapter will be measured.

The head-covering discussion is one of the most debated passages in the New Testament, in part because it weaves together theological principle (the headship order of God, Christ, man, and woman), creation theology (drawing on Genesis 1-2), cultural practice (veiling customs in Roman Corinth), and an enigmatic reference to angels. Paul is not simply enforcing cultural conformity; he is arguing that the created order of male and female, expressed through culturally recognizable symbols of honor and distinction, should be maintained in worship rather than erased. The Lord's Supper section, by contrast, is devastatingly concrete: wealthy believers are humiliating the poor by gorging on their own food and drink at the communal meal while others go hungry. Paul responds with the earliest written account of the institution of the Lord's Supper (vv. 23-26), using the tradition received from Christ himself to expose how thoroughly the Corinthians have perverted the meal's meaning. Their gatherings, which should proclaim the Lord's self-giving death, have become exhibitions of selfish indulgence.

Imitating Paul as He Imitates Christ (vv. 1-2)

BSB

You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ.

Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you.

Translation

Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

Now I praise you because you remember me in all things and hold firmly to the traditions just as I handed them down to you.

Notes

• Μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε (mimētai mou ginesthe, "become imitators of me") -- This verse properly concludes the argument of chapter 10 (many modern editions paragraph it with what precedes rather than what follows). The noun mimētēs ("imitator") appeared earlier in 4:16, where Paul urged the Corinthians to imitate him as their spiritual father. Here he adds the crucial qualifier: καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ (kathōs kagō Christou, "just as I also [imitate] Christ"). Paul is not setting himself up as an independent model; he is a transparent medium through whom the pattern of Christ's self-giving love becomes visible. The crasis kagō (from kai egō, "and I") is emphatic: "even I myself" follow Christ's example.

• παραδόσεις (paradoseis, "traditions") -- The word paradosis can carry a negative sense in the Gospels, where Jesus criticizes the "traditions of the elders" (Mark 7:3, 8, 13). But here it is entirely positive: these are the authoritative teachings and practices Paul delivered to the Corinthian church when he founded it. The verb παρέδωκα (paredōka, "I handed over, delivered") is the technical term for the transmission of received tradition (cf. 11:23, 15:3). Paul uses the same root (paradidōmi) for both the act of transmitting tradition and, in verse 23, for Christ being "handed over" (betrayed) -- a striking verbal connection between the content of the tradition and the act of passing it on.

• κατέχετε (katechete, "you hold fast, maintain") -- The verb katechō means "to hold down, hold fast, retain." Paul commends the Corinthians for holding firmly to his instructions -- a note of genuine praise that makes the sharp correction in verse 17 all the more striking by contrast. In verse 2 Paul can say "I praise you"; by verse 17 he must say "I do not praise you." The commendation here may refer specifically to certain worship practices the Corinthians have maintained properly, in distinction from the practices they have distorted.

• μέμνησθε (memnēsthe, "you remember") -- This is a perfect middle/passive indicative of mimnēskomai, indicating a present state resulting from a past action: "you have remembered and continue to remember." The perfect tense suggests an ongoing, settled commitment to keeping Paul's teaching in mind. The theme of remembrance will return powerfully in verses 24-25, where Jesus commands the church to eat and drink "in remembrance of me" (eis tēn emēn anamnēsin).

Headship and Head Coverings (vv. 3-10)

BSB

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is just as if her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Translation

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

Every man who prays or prophesies while having something down over his head dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is one and the same thing as having been shaved. For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her cover herself.

For a man, on the one hand, ought not to cover his head, since he exists as the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. And indeed, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. For this reason the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels.

Notes

• κεφαλή (kephalē, "head") -- This is the most contested word in the passage. In Greek, kephalē literally means "head" (the body part), but its metaphorical range is debated. Some scholars argue it means "source, origin" (as a river's "head" is its source), while others argue it means "authority over" (as in the Hebrew rosh, which can denote a leader or chief). Paul likely intends both dimensions: Christ is both the source and the authority of man; man is both the origin (in the creation narrative) and the head of woman; God is both the source and the one to whom Christ is functionally subordinate. The word appears nine times in verses 3-10, creating a dense web of literal and metaphorical uses -- Paul puns on the physical head and the relational head throughout.

• κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων (kata kephalēs echōn, "having [something] down over his head") -- This phrase literally means "having [something] down from the head." The BSB renders it "with his head covered," which is interpretive. The Greek does not specify what the covering is. In the Roman world, men of high status sometimes pulled their toga over their head (capite velato) when performing pagan sacrifices or presiding at public rites. Paul may be telling men not to import this Roman custom into Christian worship, since it would dishonor their metaphorical "head" -- Christ.

• ἀκατακαλύπτῳ (akatakalyptō, "uncovered") -- This adjective, used of the woman's head in verse 5, is a compound of the alpha-privative (a-, "not") and katakalyptō ("to cover, veil"). The related verb κατακαλύπτεται (katakalyptetai, v. 6) means "to cover oneself, to wear a veil." In the social world of Roman Corinth, a respectable married woman covered her head in public as a sign of her married status and social honor. To appear uncovered could be read as a deliberate rejection of marital and social propriety. Paul's argument is that in worship -- where women genuinely pray and prophesy (note that Paul assumes their active participation) -- this social symbol of honor and distinction should be maintained.

• εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ (eikōn kai doxa Theou, "image and glory of God") -- Paul draws on Genesis 1:26-27, where humanity is made in God's image (tselem). Notably, Paul says man is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory of man -- he does not say woman is the image of man. Both men and women are made in God's image (Gen 1:27), but Paul's point here is about representational glory: man reflects and displays God's glory directly, while woman reflects and displays man's glory. The word δόξα (doxa, "glory") carries the sense of radiance, reputation, and honor. The woman is the crowning glory of the man, not his subordinate reflection.

• ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς (exousian echein epi tēs kephalēs, "to have authority on her head") -- This is one of the most puzzling phrases in the chapter. The BSB adds "a sign of" before "authority," but the Greek simply says the woman ought to have exousian ("authority") on her head. Some interpret this passively (a symbol showing she is under authority), but the word exousia in Greek normally refers to one's own authority or right -- not to someone else's authority over you. Many scholars now read this as the woman's own authority to pray and prophesy, exercised through the wearing of a head covering. The covering is not a mark of submission but a badge of her authorized participation in worship. The veil grants her the freedom to prophesy with propriety.

• διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους (dia tous angelous, "because of the angels") -- This cryptic phrase has generated numerous interpretations. The most widely held view among scholars is that angels are understood to be present in the worship assembly (cf. Ps 138:1 LXX; the Qumran community also believed angels attended worship gatherings) and that proper order in worship matters because it reflects the heavenly order. The angels witness and participate in the worship of God's people, so the visible signs of created order -- the distinction between male and female expressed through head coverings -- should be maintained in their presence.

• ἐκτίσθη (ektisthē, "was created") -- The aorist passive of ktizō ("to create") in verse 9 points back to Genesis 2:18-22, where God creates the woman from the man and for the man ("It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper corresponding to him"). Paul's argument from creation order is not about superiority or inferiority but about the purposeful differentiation built into God's design. The preposition διά (dia) with the accusative means "for the sake of, on account of" -- woman was created for man's sake, as his complement and counterpart, not as his servant.

Mutual Interdependence in the Lord (vv. 11-16)

BSB

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Doesn't nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone is inclined to dispute this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

Translation

Nevertheless, neither is woman apart from man, nor man apart from woman, in the Lord. For just as the woman came from the man, so also the man comes into being through the woman -- and all things come from God.

Judge among yourselves: is it fitting for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman wears long hair, it is her glory? For her hair has been given to her in place of a covering. But if anyone is inclined to be contentious about this, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Notes

• Πλὴν (plēn, "nevertheless, however") -- This conjunction marks a significant qualification of what Paul has just argued. After establishing the headship order and its implications for worship practice (vv. 3-10), Paul immediately balances his argument with a strong statement of mutual dependence. The word plēn introduces a counterpoint or exception: "Nevertheless, lest you misunderstand me..." This is not a retraction of vv. 3-10 but a guard against misreading them as a statement of male superiority. Paul's theology holds both headship and interdependence in tension.

• χωρὶς (chōris, "apart from, without, separate from") -- Paul uses this preposition twice in verse 11: woman is not chōris man, and man is not chōris woman. The word denotes separation and independence. Paul's point is that neither sex is autonomous or self-sufficient ἐν Κυρίῳ (en Kyriō, "in the Lord") -- within the sphere of Christ's lordship. The creation order that made woman "from" man (Gen 2) is counterbalanced by the ongoing natural order in which every man is born "through" woman. The preposition shift from ἐκ (ek, "from/out of") to διά (dia, "through") in verse 12 is precise: woman originated out of man at creation, but man comes through woman in every subsequent generation.

• τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ (ta de panta ek tou Theou, "but all things are from God") -- This brief clause is theologically decisive. Whatever the created distinctions between man and woman, and however interdependent they are, the ultimate source of everything is God. This statement relativizes both male headship and female derivation: neither man nor woman has ground for boasting, because both owe their existence entirely to God. It echoes 8:6 ("for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things") and grounds the male-female relationship in a deeper theological reality.

• φύσις (physis, "nature") -- Paul appeals to "nature itself" (hē physis autē) as a teacher in verse 14. The word physis can refer to the natural created order, innate character, or customary practice that has become "second nature." Paul is likely appealing to the widely shared cultural perception in the Greco-Roman world that long hair on men was considered effeminate or disgraceful, while long hair on women was considered beautiful and honorable. Whether this constitutes a universal natural law or a culturally embedded sense of propriety is one of the central interpretive questions in the passage.

• κόμη (komē, "hair, long hair") and περιβολαίου (peribolaiou, "covering, wrap") -- In verse 15, Paul says a woman's long hair has been given to her ἀντὶ (anti, "in place of, instead of") a covering. The preposition anti means "in exchange for" or "as a substitute for." This creates an interpretive puzzle: if long hair is itself a natural covering, why require an additional artificial covering? Most interpreters see Paul arguing by analogy -- nature itself has given woman a built-in covering (her hair), which demonstrates the principle that a woman's head should be covered; the artificial covering in worship extends and formalizes what nature already indicates. The noun peribolaion means literally "something thrown around" -- a wrap, cloak, or mantle.

• φιλόνεικος (philoneikos, "contentious, quarrelsome, dispute-loving") -- This compound adjective is formed from philos ("loving") and neikos ("strife, quarrel") -- literally, "a lover of strife." It appears only here in the New Testament. Paul anticipates that some will want to argue the point and shuts down the debate with an appeal to universal church practice: ἡμεῖς τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν (hēmeis toiautēn synētheian ouk echomen, "we have no such custom"). The word συνήθεια (synētheia, "custom, habit, established practice") refers to the settled pattern of the apostolic churches. The ambiguity is whether "no such custom" means "no custom of being contentious" or "no custom of women praying uncovered." Either way, Paul appeals to the consensus of all the churches of God as the final word.

Abuses at the Lord's Supper (vv. 17-22)

BSB

In the following instructions I have no praise to offer, because your gatherings do more harm than good. First of all, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. And indeed, there must be differences among you to show which of you are approved.

Now then, when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat. For as you eat, each of you goes ahead without sharing his meal. While one remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have your own homes in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? No, I will not!

Translation

Now in giving this instruction, I do not commend you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you -- and I believe it in part. For there must indeed be factions among you, so that those who are genuine may become evident among you.

Therefore, when you gather together in one place, it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper. For each one takes his own meal first in the eating, and one goes hungry while another is drunk. Do you not have houses for eating and drinking? Or do you despise the assembly of God and put to shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? I do not commend you.

Notes

• ἐπαινῶ ... οὐκ ἐπαινῶ (epainō ... ouk epainō, "I praise ... I do not praise") -- The verb epainō ("to praise, commend") creates a deliberate contrast with verse 2, where Paul used the same word positively: "I commend you." Now he reverses it: "I do not commend you." The contrast is sharp and intentional. The Corinthians have maintained some traditions faithfully, but their practice of the communal meal has become so corrupt that their gatherings produce harm rather than good. The phrase εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ... εἰς τὸ ἧσσον (eis to kreisson ... eis to hēsson, "for the better ... for the worse") uses comparative adjectives that function as a devastating assessment: the purpose of assembling is spiritual benefit, but the Corinthians' meetings are making things worse.

• σχίσματα (schismata, "divisions, splits") -- The word schisma (from which English gets "schism") means a tear, a rip, a split. Paul used it already in 1:10 for the factionalism around rival teachers. Here the divisions are not theological but social and economic: the wealthy members are eating and drinking lavishly while the poor go hungry. The word αἱρέσεις (haireseis, "factions, parties") in verse 19 is related but distinct; it denotes a self-chosen group or faction. In later Christian usage it came to mean "heresy," but here it simply means party divisions. Paul's startling statement that factions "must" (dei) exist serves a providential purpose: they reveal who the δόκιμοι (dokimoi, "approved, tested, genuine") truly are.

• κυριακὸν δεῖπνον (kyriakon deipnon, "the Lord's Supper") -- This is the only place in the New Testament where this exact phrase appears. The adjective κυριακός (kyriakos, "belonging to the Lord") is rare, occurring only here and in Revelation 1:10 ("the Lord's day"). The deipnon was the main evening meal in the Greco-Roman world, the social event of the day. The early church combined this communal meal (later called the agape or "love feast") with the bread-and-cup ritual of the Eucharist. Paul's point is devastating: what they are eating is not the Lord's Supper at all. Their behavior has emptied the meal of its character as something that belongs to the Lord. The possessive adjective kyriakon marks the meal as Christ's property, not theirs to manage as they please.

• προλαμβάνει (prolambanei, "takes beforehand, goes ahead with") -- This verb reveals the specific abuse. The prefix pro- ("before") indicates that wealthy members are eating their own food ahead of everyone else, before the poorer members (likely slaves or freedmen who arrived later from work) can join. In a Roman triclinium (dining room), the host and higher-status guests would recline in the best seats and receive the finest food, while lower-status attendees might receive lesser portions or eat separately. The Corinthians have imported these social distinctions into the church, creating a situation where ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ, ὃς δὲ μεθύει (hos men peina, hos de methyei, "one goes hungry while another is drunk").

• τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας (tous mē echontas, "those who have not, those who have nothing") -- This substantive participle identifies the victims of the abuse: the have-nots, the poor members of the congregation. The verb καταισχύνετε (kataischynete, "you put to shame, you humiliate") is the same verb used in verses 4-5 for dishonoring one's "head." The rich are not merely being inconsiderate; they are actively shaming the poor and thereby despising the ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ (ekklēsia tou Theou, "the assembly of God"). To humiliate the poor at the communal table is to despise the church itself, because the church is constituted precisely by the gathering of all believers regardless of social status.

The Institution of the Lord's Supper (vv. 23-26)

BSB

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, 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." In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

Translation

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was being handed over, took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, also the cup, after the meal, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

Notes

• παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ... παρέδωκα (parelabon apo tou Kyriou ... paredōka, "I received from the Lord ... I handed on") -- Paul uses the technical vocabulary of Jewish tradition-transmission: paralambanō ("to receive") and paradidōmi ("to hand on, deliver"). These are the same terms used in rabbinic literature for the chain of authoritative teaching (qibbel ... masar). Paul received this tradition from the Lord -- whether through a direct revelation or through the chain of apostolic tradition that goes back ultimately to Christ. This account, written around AD 55, predates all four Gospels and is the earliest written record of the institution of the Lord's Supper.

• παρεδίδετο (paredideto, "was being handed over/betrayed") -- The imperfect passive of paradidōmi creates a profound wordplay that is impossible to reproduce in English. The same root (paradidōmi) means both "to hand over a tradition" (v. 23a: Paul "handed on" the tradition) and "to hand over a person" (v. 23b: Jesus "was being handed over" by Judas). The tradition about Jesus' self-giving is itself an act of handing over. The imperfect tense ("was being handed over") captures the process as it was unfolding -- on that very night, even as the betrayal was in motion, Jesus transformed the meal into a memorial of his sacrifice. The BSB renders it "was betrayed," which captures one dimension; "was being handed over" preserves the wordplay and the ongoing action.

• εὐχαριστήσας (eucharistēsas, "having given thanks") -- This aorist participle of eucharisteō ("to give thanks") is the word from which the church derived the term "Eucharist" for the Lord's Supper. Jesus' act of thanksgiving before breaking the bread transforms the meal from an ordinary dinner into an act of worship. The Jewish practice of giving thanks before a meal (berakah) typically blessed God as Creator and provider. That Jesus gives thanks on the night of his death, knowing what is about to happen, is itself a profound statement of trust and surrender.

• τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (to hyper hymōn, "which is for you") -- The preposition ὑπέρ (hyper, "for, on behalf of") with the genitive indicates substitution or benefit: Christ's body is given for your sake, on your behalf. Notably, the earliest manuscripts lack an additional verb here -- the text simply reads "This is my body, the [one] for you." The Byzantine text tradition adds κλώμενον (klōmenon, "broken"), yielding "which is broken for you," but this is widely regarded as a later scribal addition. The bare phrase "which is for you" is more powerful in its simplicity: Christ's body is given entirely for the benefit of his people.

• ἀνάμνησιν (anamnēsin, "remembrance, memorial") -- The noun anamnēsis appears twice in the passage (vv. 24, 25) and is richer than the English "remembrance" suggests. In the Old Testament background (especially the Passover tradition), anamnēsis (Hebrew zikkaron) is not merely a mental recollection but an active re-presentation that makes a past event present and effective. When Israel "remembers" the Exodus at Passover, it is not nostalgia but participation: "This is what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt" (Exod 13:8). Similarly, the Lord's Supper is not a sentimental memorial but a proclamation that makes Christ's death present to the gathered community.

• καταγγέλλετε (katangellete, "you proclaim") -- This present indicative verb is significant: every time the church eats the bread and drinks the cup, it proclaims the Lord's death. The verb katangellō means "to announce publicly, to declare." The Lord's Supper is not a private devotional act but a public declaration -- a sermon enacted in bread and wine. The temporal limit ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ (achri hou elthē, "until he comes") gives the Supper an eschatological horizon: it is a meal practiced between the two comings of Christ, looking backward to the cross and forward to the return. When Christ comes again, the meal will no longer be necessary because the reality it proclaims will have fully arrived.

• καινὴ διαθήκη (kainē diathēkē, "new covenant") -- The phrase echoes Jeremiah 31:31-34 (LXX 38:31-34), where God promises a "new covenant" (berith chadashah) with Israel, writing his law on their hearts and forgiving their sins. The word διαθήκη (diathēkē) can mean either "covenant" (a relational agreement) or "testament/will" (a legal bequest). In either case, this new covenant is established ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι (en tō emō haimati, "in my blood") -- ratified by Christ's death just as the old covenant was ratified by animal blood (Exod 24:8). The cup does not merely symbolize blood; it is the new covenant itself, actualized in Christ's blood.

Examining Oneself Before the Supper (vv. 27-34)

BSB

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Now if we judged ourselves properly, we would not come under judgment. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

So, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you come together it will not result in judgment. And when I come, I will give instructions about the remaining matters.

Translation

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. But let a person examine himself, and in this way let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. For this reason many among you are weak and ill, and a considerable number have fallen asleep.

But if we were discerning ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. Yet when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined, so that we may not be condemned together with the world.

So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you do not come together for judgment. As for the remaining matters, I will set them in order when I come.

Notes

• ἀναξίως (anaxiōs, "unworthily, in an unworthy manner") -- This adverb modifies the manner of eating and drinking, not the character of the person. Paul is not saying that unworthy people should stay away from the table; he is saying that the way the Corinthians are eating -- with divisions, selfishness, and disregard for the poor -- constitutes an unworthy manner. The word is formed from the alpha-privative (an-) and axios ("worthy, fitting"). The abuse described in verses 17-22 is what defines "unworthy" participation: turning the Lord's self-giving meal into an occasion for social stratification.

• ἔνοχος (enochos, "guilty of, liable for, answerable to") -- This adjective, followed by the genitive τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου (tou sōmatos kai tou haimatos tou Kyriou, "of the body and blood of the Lord"), carries a forensic sense: the person is held accountable for, or culpable in relation to, the body and blood. In classical Greek, enochos with the genitive of the offense means "guilty of" a crime. To eat the Lord's Supper while humiliating the poor is to profane the very body and blood the meal represents -- it is to reenact the violence done to Christ rather than to proclaim his sacrificial love.

• δοκιμαζέτω (dokimazetō, "let him examine, let him test") -- The imperative of dokimazō means "to test, examine, prove by testing." It is the same word family as δόκιμοι (dokimoi, "approved") in verse 19. The testing Paul calls for is not a search for personal moral perfection but a self-examination of one's attitude toward the community: Am I discerning the body? Am I waiting for others? Am I treating the poor with honor? The word οὕτως (houtōs, "in this way, so") is critical: "let him examine himself, and in this way let him eat" -- the examination leads to eating, not to abstaining.

• διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα (diakrinōn to sōma, "discerning the body") -- The participle diakrinōn (from diakrinō, "to distinguish, discern, judge between") describes the capacity to recognize what the bread and the gathering represent. The phrase τὸ σῶμα (to sōma, "the body") is ambiguous and probably deliberately so: it refers both to the body of Christ given in death (represented by the bread) and to the body of Christ that is the church (the gathered community of believers). To eat without "discerning the body" is to fail to recognize both Christ's sacrifice and the community it created. This double reference ties the Lord's Supper abuses directly to the divisive behavior Paul has been condemning.

• κοιμῶνται (koimōntai, "they sleep, they have fallen asleep") -- The verb koimaomai is the standard early Christian euphemism for death (cf. 1 Thess 4:13-15; John 11:11-14). Paul states that the physical consequences of unworthy participation are real and already visible: ἀσθενεῖς (astheneis, "weak"), ἄρρωστοι (arrōstoi, "sick, ill"), and some have died. This is a solemn warning that God takes the profaning of the Lord's Supper seriously. The language of weakness and illness is literal, not metaphorical -- Paul sees a direct connection between the Corinthians' sacrilegious behavior and the physical afflictions in their community.

• παιδευόμεθα (paideuometha, "we are being disciplined, trained") -- The verb paideuō means "to train a child, to educate, to discipline." It comes from pais ("child") and is the word from which English gets "pedagogy." Paul draws a crucial distinction between discipline and condemnation: when the Lord judges believers, it is παιδεία (paideia, "training, correction") -- the loving discipline of a father training his children (cf. Heb 12:5-11). The purpose clause ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν (hina mē syn tō kosmō katakrithōmen, "so that we may not be condemned with the world") shows that divine discipline is remedial, not punitive: it aims to prevent ultimate condemnation by bringing believers to repentance now.

• ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε (allēlous ekdechesthe, "wait for one another") -- The verb ekdechomai means "to wait for, to expect, to receive." Paul's practical solution is remarkably simple: wait. The wealthy members who arrive first must wait for the poorer members and slaves who arrive later, so that the entire community eats together as one body. This single imperative addresses the root of the problem: the church is not a venue for replicating the social hierarchies of Roman Corinth but a community where all share equally at the Lord's table. The closing remark that Paul will διατάξομαι (diataxomai, "set in order, give directions about") the remaining matters when he comes indicates that more practical instructions are needed but can wait for his personal visit.