This verse is the last sentence of the conclusion of ch. 10.

If one is an imitator of Christ, we should be imitators of him. This makes us also imitators of Christ. Otherwise, we should be imitators of no man.

Instructions handed down by word of mouth or writing (2 Thes. 2:15).

Instructions handed down by word of mouth or writing (2 Thes. 2:15).

Verses 1 Cor. 11:3-16 deal with the seventh problem, the problem concerning head covering. The first six problems, dealt with in chs. 1—10, may be considered one group. They are concerned with matters in the realm of human life. The last five problems, dealt with in chs. 11—16, constitute another group. They are concerned with matters in the realm of God's administration. The first problem in this latter group concerns the headship of Christ and of God in the divine government. In Eph. 1:22-23 the headship of Christ over all things is to His Body, the church. Here the headship of Christ over every man is related to individuals. Christ is the Head of the Body, the church (Eph. 5:23), corporately, and of the believers individually. He is the Head of every one of us directly. In the apostle's dealing with the Corinthians' problems related to God's administration, the headship of Christ and of God was his first concern.

In the divine governmental ordination, woman is under the headship of man. God created the female in this way (Gen. 2:18-24; 1 Tim. 2:13). According to the nature (v. 14) created by God, woman is subordinate to man.

Christ is God's anointed One, the One appointed by God. Hence, He is under God, and God as the Originator is His Head. This refers to the relationship between Christ and God in the divine government.

In dealing with the problem of head covering, the apostle took the headship of God, the headship of Christ, and the headship of man as strong ground for his instruction. His instruction concerning head covering was based not on any religious practice or human custom but on the headship in God's governmental administration. Such a strong base leaves no ground for argument over the matter of head covering.

I.e., speaking for God. See note 1 Cor. 12:10^2b.

Since man has the headship over woman and is God's image and glory (v. 7), he should keep his head manifested, unconcealed, uncovered, when he touches the throne of God's administration by praying to God or speaking for Him. Otherwise, he dishonors or shames his head.

Since woman is under the headship of man, she should keep her head covered, not exposed, when she touches the divine administration by praying to God or speaking for God. Otherwise, she disgraces or shames her head, as if her head were shaved, because she denies the divine governmental ordination by exposing her head to the observing angels (v. 10) while touching the authority of God.

This is a strong indication that for a woman to have her head shaved or her hair cut off is shameful (v. 6).

This indicates that the head covering is a covering in addition to long hair. For a woman to keep her hair long, not having her head shaved, means that she does not reject God's governmental ordination; and for a woman to have a head covering in addition to her long hair indicates that she says amen to the divine ordination.

Man was made in God's image (Gen. 1:26) to express God and glorify Him. Since man bears God's image and glory and represents God, he should not have his head covered. If he does, God's image and glory will be concealed.

Since the woman is the glory of the man, she should not have her head exposed but should have it covered. She should not express herself but the man, under whom she is. The apostle took this too as ground for his teaching concerning head covering.

As a rib taken out of man, woman was made out of man (Gen. 2:21-23).

Here the apostle took God's purpose in the creation of man and woman as further strong ground for his teaching concerning head covering. That teaching is not based on any man-made custom but on the divine purpose in creation.

Woman was made for the purpose of matching man (Gen. 2:18, 24).

I.e., the head covering, which signifies man's headship over the woman.

This was further ground for the teaching concerning head covering. Head covering is closely related to God's headship, God's authority. The archangel with his subordinates rebelled against God's headship (Ezek. 28:13-18; Isa. 14:12-15; Matt. 25:41), establishing his kingdom of darkness (Matt. 12:26; Col. 1:13), and became Satan, God's adversary. After God created man, Satan seduced man to follow him and rebel against God. Then God sent His Son to destroy Satan and rescue man out of his authority back to God's kingdom (1 John 3:8; Heb. 2:14; Col. 1:13). Now, when the believers worship God in praying to Him or in speaking for Him, they should bear some signs that they are under God's headship, the divine authority, showing the observing angels (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9), who are concerned with this matter, that they (the believers) are keeping God's ordained order in His administration. For this, the sisters should have a sign, a covering, on their head.

I.e., in the Lord's plan, in the Lord's arrangement.

Man is the source of the woman's existence. Hence, the woman is out of the man. Woman is the means through which the man is born. Hence, the man is through the woman (Gen. 2:21-23).

I.e., our natural constitution according to God's creation. Nature itself tells us that man should not have long hair, but that the woman should. The woman realizes by her female constitution that to have long hair to cover her head is a glory. This too is strong ground for the apostle's teaching concerning head covering. His teaching is not according to customs or practices established by man but according to man's nature, which was created by God.

The custom of contention, disputation, and debating. Neither the apostles nor the churches tolerated any disputation concerning the apostles' teaching.

That churches here is plural indicates that all the local churches are independent of one another, yet they all act in the same way according to the apostles' teaching.

But here indicates a contrast between I...do not praise you in this verse and I praise you in v. 2.

From this verse to the end of the chapter the apostle dealt with the eighth problem, the problem concerning the Lord's supper.

I.e., in the assembly of the church (1 Cor. 14:34-35).

Sects, schools of different opinions, as in Gal. 5:20.

Tested and found to have met the specifications.

Sects are useful for manifesting the approved ones, who are not sectarian.

In 1 Cor. 10:21 the Lord's supper is called "the Lord's table." The emphasis of the Lord's table is on the fellowship of the Lord's blood and of His body (1 Cor. 10:16-17), the participation in the Lord, the enjoyment of the Lord in mutuality, in fellowship; whereas the stress of the Lord's supper is on the remembrance of the Lord (vv. 24-25). At the Lord's table we receive His body and blood for our enjoyment; at the Lord's supper we give Him our remembrance for His enjoyment.

In the apostle's time the believers had a custom of coming together for supper, the main meal of the day, with the rich bringing more and better food for the mutual enjoyment and the poor, less food. This was called a love feast (2 Pet. 2:13; Jude 1:12), and it came from the background of the Passover feast (Luke 22:13-20). At the end of their love feast they ate the Lord's supper with the bread and the cup to remember the Lord (vv. 23-25). The Corinthians did not do it properly. They did not wait for one another (cf. v. 33). Each took his own supper first. The rich became drunken and the poor were hungry (v. 21). This caused divisions and parties among them (v. 18) and spoiled the Lord's supper. Thus, their eating was not the eating of the Lord's supper (v. 20).

Lit., delivered up.

The bread is broken that we may eat it (Matt. 26:26).

The word unto, here and in the next verse, implies not only a purpose but also a result. Participation in the Lord's supper will surely produce a result — a continual remembrance of the Lord for His satisfaction.

To take the Lord's supper is for the remembrance of the Lord Himself, not for anything else.

The bread is of life (John 6:35) and the cup is of blessing (1 Cor. 10:16). This cup is the new covenant, comprising all the rich blessings of the New Testament, including God Himself. The new covenant was established by the Lord's blood, which He shed on the cross for our redemption (Matt. 26:28).

The real remembrance of the Lord is to eat the bread and drink the cup (v. 26), that is, to participate in, to enjoy, the Lord, who has given Himself to us through His redeeming death. To eat the bread and drink the cup is to take in the redeeming Lord as our portion, as our life and blessing. This is to remember Him in a genuine way.

Or, proclaim, display. To take the Lord's supper is not to remember the Lord's death but to declare and display it. We remember the Lord Himself by declaring and displaying His death.

We should take the Lord's supper unto the remembrance of Him by declaring His redeeming death without ceasing until He comes back to set up God's kingdom (Matt. 26:29). By His first coming the Lord accomplished His death to carry out an all-inclusive redemption for the producing of the church. After His death He went away to receive the kingdom, and He will come again with the kingdom (Dan. 7:13-14; Luke 19:12). The period between His first and second comings is the church age. The church thus bridges the gap between the Lord's first coming and His second coming and connects His death in the past with God's kingdom in the future. Hence, to declare the Lord's death until He comes may imply the declaring of the existence of the church for the bringing in of the kingdom. When we eat the Lord's supper in this way, with a view to a continual remembrance of Him in His first and second comings, that supper becomes a satisfaction to Him in relation to the kingdom, God's administration.

I.e., not respecting the significance of the bread and the cup of the Lord, which signify His body broken for us and His blood shed for our sins through His death, accomplished for our redemption.

I.e., bring judgment to himself (vv. 29-30).

I.e, examine himself, put himself to the test and have himself approved, meeting the prescribed specifications.

Eating the bread or drinking the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner brings judgment to us. This judgment is not a condemnation but the Lord's temporary discipline (v. 32).

Lit., to distinguish, separate, discriminate, make a distinction. To fail to discern the Lord's body is to fail to make a distinction between the bread, which signifies the Lord's body, and common food. It is to fail to evaluate the significance of the bread that we take at the Lord's supper. This brings judgment, the Lord's discipline, to us.

The apostle used the expression the body instead of the body of the Lord. This may imply the fact that, in addition to the physical body of the Lord (v. 24), there is the mystical Body of Christ (Eph. 4:4). Therefore, when we participate in the Lord's table, we must discern whether the bread on the table signifies the one Body of Christ or any division of man (any denomination). In discerning the Body of Christ, we should not partake of the bread in any division or with any divisive spirit. Our participation in the Lord's table must be the unique fellowship of His unique Body without any division in practice or in spirit.

The apostle's dealing with head covering concerns the Head (v. 3); his dealing with the Lord's supper (the Lord's table) concerns the Body. Regarding the headship of Christ, which represents God and is represented by man, we must keep the divine governmental order ordained by God, without any disorder. Regarding the Body of Christ, we must be properly regulated by the apostle's instruction, without any confusion and division. The Head is Christ, and the Body is the church. Christ and the church — these two — are the controlling and directing factors of the apostle's dealings with the confused and disorderly church. In chs. 1—10 he dealt with the church's problems first by stressing Christ as God's center and our portion. After this, in chs. 11—16 he emphasized the church as God's goal and our concern. In chs. 1—10 he began with Christ as the antibiotic to heal the sick church's diseases. Then from ch. 11 he went on to the church and used the church, the Body, as the inoculation against the church's disorder. Both Christ and the church are crucial to the carrying out of God's administration in His New Testament economy.

I.e., not discerning the body.

This is the discipline, the temporary judgment of the Lord, on those who participate unworthily in the Lord's body. The Lord first disciplined them, so that they became weak physically. Then, since they would not repent of their offense, they were further disciplined and became sick. Because they still would not repent, the Lord judged them by death. To die in this way is equivalent to being strewn along in the wilderness in 1 Cor. 10:5.

I.e., have died (1 Thes. 4:13-16).

I.e., discriminated ourselves, formed a right estimate of ourselves.

Temporarily.

Forever.

This charge is due to the condition described in v. 21.

This indicates that the apostle did not give instructions for everything related to the practice of the church. For "the rest" we need to seek the Lord's leading, based on and governed by the principles set forth in the New Testament.