1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2 1 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
4 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.
7 5 A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
10 for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority 6 on her head, because of the angels.
11 7 Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord.
13 8 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?
19 there have to be factions among you in order that (also) those who are approved among you may become known. 10
22 Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the
28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
1 [11:2-14:40] This section of the letter is devoted to regulation of conduct at the liturgy. The problems Paul handles have to do with the dress of women in the assembly (1 Cor 11:3-16), improprieties in the celebration of community meals (1 Cor 11:17-34), and the use of charisms or spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:1-14:40). The statement in 1 Cor 11:2 introduces all of these discussions, but applies more appropriately to the second (cf the mention of praise in 1 Cor 11:17 and of tradition in 1 Cor 11:23).
2 [3-16] Women have been participating in worship at
3  A husband the head of his wife: the specific problem suggests to Paul the model of the head as a device for clarifying relations within a hierarchical structure. The model is similar to that developed later in greater detail and nuance in Eph 5:21-33. It is a hybrid model, for it grafts onto a strictly theological scale of existence (cf 1 Cor 3:21-23) the hierarchy of sociosexual relations prevalent in the ancient world: men, dominant, reflect the active function of Christ in relation to his church; women, submissive, reflect the passive role of the church with respect to its savior. This gives us the functional scale: God, Christ, man, woman.
4 [4-6] From man's direct relation to Christ, Paul infers that his head should not be covered. But woman, related not directly to Christ on the scale but to her husband, requires a covering as a sign of that relationship. Shameful . . . to have her hair cut off: certain less honored classes in society, such as lesbians and prostitutes, are thought to have worn their hair close-cropped.
5 [7-9] The hierarchy of v 3 is now expressed in other metaphors: the image (eikon) and the reflected glory (doxa). Paul is alluding basically to the text of Genesis 1:27, in which mankind as a whole, the male-female couple, is created in God's image and given the command to multiply and together dominate the lower creation. But Genesis 1:24 is interpreted here in the light of the second creation narrative in Genesis 2 in which each of the sexes is created separately (first the man and then the woman from man and for him, to be his helpmate, Genesis 2:20-23), and under the influence of the story of the fall, as a result of which the husband rules over the woman (Genesis 3:16). This interpretation splits the single image of God into two, at different degrees of closeness.
6  A sign of authority: ＂authority＂ (exousia) may possibly be due to mistranslation of an Aramaic word for ＂veil＂; in any case, the connection with 1 Cor 11:9 indicates that the covering is a sign of woman's subordination. Because of the angels: a surprising additional reason, which the context does not clarify. Presumably the reference is to cosmic powers who might inflict harm on women or whose function is to watch over women or the cult.
7 [11-12] These parenthetical remarks relativize the argument from Genesis 2-3. In the Lord: in the Christian economy the relation between the sexes is characterized by a mutual dependence, which is not further specified. And even in the natural order conditions have changed: the mode of origin described in Genesis 2 has been reversed (1 Cor 11:12a). But the ultimately significant fact is the origin that all things have in common (1 Cor 11:12b).
8 [13-16] The argument for conformity to common church practice is summed up and pressed home. 1 Cor 11:14-15 contain a final appeal to the sense of propriety that contemporary Greek society would consider ＂natural＂ (cf 1 Cor 11:5-6).
9 [17-34] Paul turns to another abuse connected with the liturgy, and a more serious one, for it involves neglect of basic Christian tradition concerning the meaning of the Lord's Supper. Paul recalls that tradition for them and reminds them of its implications.
10  That . . . those who are approved among you may become known: Paul situates their divisions within the context of the eschatological separation of the authentic from the inauthentic and the final revelation of the difference. The notion of authenticity-testing recurs in the injunction to self-examination in view of present and future judgment (1 Cor 11:28-32).
11 [23-25] This is the earliest written account of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament. The narrative emphasizes Jesus' action of self-giving (expressed in the words over the bread and the cup) and his double command to repeat his own action.
12  It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus' intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf 1 Cor 8:12).
13  Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for ＂approved＂ in 1 Cor 11:19, which means ＂having been tested and found true.＂ The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus' death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18-25).
14 [29-32] Judgment: there is a series of wordplays in these verses that would be awkward to translate literally into English; it includes all the references to judgment (krima, 1 Cor 11:29, 34; krino, 1 Cor 11:31, 32) discernment (diakrino, 1 Cor 11:29, 31), and condemnation (katakrino, 1 Cor 11:32). The judgment is concretely described as the illness, infirmity, and death that have visited the community. These are signs that the power of Jesus' death is not yet completely recognized and experienced. Yet even the judgment incurred is an expression of God's concern; it is a medicinal measure meant to rescue us from condemnation with God's enemies.