114 1 Corinthians 11 - The Lord's Supper - a podcast by Dr David Petts - Pentecostal preacher, former AoG Bible College Principal

Talk 16:  The Lord’s Supper - 1 Corinthians 11: 17-34

 

1 Corinthians was written before the Gospels and so this is the first written account of the events that instituted the Lord’s Supper.

 

One of our greatest problems is that we are very familiar with at least part of this passage and our understanding has been conditioned by its liturgical setting.

 

In seeking to understand it we must remember that what Paul writes here is in the context of the abuse of the Lord’s Supper in which the Lord’s people, and therefore the Lord himself, were being dishonoured.

 

The following facts will also help us:

 

1. Cultic meals were an almost universal phenomenon as part of worship in those days.
2. In the early church the Lord’s Supper was probably eaten as, or in conjunction with, such a meal.
3. The church gathered for such meals in the homes of the rich, the host acting as patron (cf. Romans 16:23).
4. The dining room (triclinium) in such homes would not accommodate many guests. The majority would therefore eat in the large entry courtyard (atrium).
5. The host would probably invite those of his own social class to eat in the triclinium.

 

With this in mind we may now approach the text.

 

a) The Problem - Abuse of the Poor (1 Corinthians 11: 17-22)

 

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.

 

Compare v2 I praise you.  Having commended them where he can Paul proceeds to reproach them for their misbehaviour.

 

18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

 

In the first place

 

We might have expected a secondly later in the passage, but there is none.  The expression should therefore be taken as indicating the importance of the subject he is dealing with.

 

 

 

as a church

 

In non-Biblical Greek ekklesia refers to the citizens of a town assembled. Here it refers to the assembled church. The Corinthians’ problem was not that they failed to gather, but that when they gathered they failed to be what God intended them to be. Their divisions (cf. chapters 1-4) are here seen to be directly related to their gatherings. Cf. my comments on 3:16.

 

to some extent I believe it

 

Paul did not automatically believe everything he heard, but on this occasion he had reason to believe there was some truth in the bad report he had received.

 

19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.

 

This either means that of logical necessity there has to be error so that truth may be shown to be truth, or, more probably, that their present divisions are a part of the divine testing process which are an inevitable part of the Eschaton. Paul would have expected divisions to accompany the End. Cf. the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 10:34-37, 24:9-13 etc).

 

20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat,

 

The early church gathered for a common meal which was far more than the modern communion service.  It was a love-feast (agape) (see Jude 12, 2 Peter 2:13). The word Lord’s here is emphatic.  Barrett suggests in honour of the Lord as a translation.  It is not the Lord’s supper that you are eating, but your own. They were thinking of themselves, not the Lord.

 

21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.

 

This verse either means that the rich ate their sumptuous meals before the others arrived, or that they were eating them at the Lord’s Supper itself. This reveals the total lack of courtesy and consideration that was being shown.  It is hard to imagine such selfish behaviour at a time when they were intended to remember Christ’s selfless love shown at Calvary.

 

22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not

 

homes ...the church

 

Note the contrast between eating at home and eating the Lord’s Supper with the assembled church.  The Supper is thus more than Christians having a meal together (as some have suggested). Its purpose was to remember Christ’s death, not to satisfy hunger.

 

despise...humiliate

 

The haves despise the church of God by humiliating the have-nots. The verb humiliate is the same as is in vv. 4-5.

 

b) The Problem - Abuse of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11: 23-26)

 

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,

 

Paul uses the pronoun ego here. Since Greek pronouns are usually contained in the verb the use of a pronoun in addition normally implies emphasis. I, Paul, have received. 

 

It may be that Paul is thus claiming to have received a direct revelation from the Lord concerning this (cf. Gal. 1:12), and not just to have learned it from the other apostles. However, the context in Galatians is different and Fee (548) concludes that Paul does not mean that Jesus gave him these words personally and directly.

 

24 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."

 

when he had given thanks

 

Jesus actually gave thanks knowing that his body was to be broken!

 

This is my body

 

This saying does not substantiate the doctrine of transubstantiation.  Jesus did not say ‘This will become my body’, and the bread was not his body on the first occasion.  Jesus was physically distinct from the bread he broke.  Further, the verb to be does not always imply identity (cf. 10:4).

 

do this

 

Do is a present imperative, a continuous command, keep on doing this.

 

25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

 

The communion service is the memorial and expression of a new covenant sealed with the blood of Jesus (cf. Exodus 24:8, Jer. 31:31).

 

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes

 

In the NT the verb kataggello is never used to express proclaiming to God, but always to man.  There is thus no basis for the sacrifice of the mass here.  The verb may be taken as an imperative or an indicative and so may be taken as a statement or a command.  The act itself may be seen as a proclamation, or the events of Christ’s passion may have been recalled by word of mouth.

 

c) The Answer - Discern the Body (1 Corinthians 11: 27-32)

         

27 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.

 

The AV unworthily is an unfortunate translation. It draws attention to the person doing the eating rather than to the manner in which the eating is taking place. The passage is not an exhortation to deep personal introspection. It challenges us to make sure that we are eating with our fellow-Christians in mind. Furthermore, it certainly does not refer to non-Christians taking communion.

 

guilty

 

This word implies liability. To be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord means to be liable for his death.

 

‘To “profane” the meal as they are doing is to place themselves under the same liability as those responsible for that death in the first place’ (Fee, p. 561).

 

28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

 

This is not a call for deep personal introspection as to whether one is worthy. It stands in contrast to the divine examination to which unworthy participation will lead (vv29-30).

 

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

The communion bread or the church?  Probably the church (cf. 17-22, 10:16-17). But perhaps there is a double entendre here.

 

30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

 

Note that Paul is not saying that all sickness among Christians is related to an abuse of the Lord’s Supper. Fee suggests that Paul had prophetic insight that this was the cause of the Corinthians’ sicknesses at that time.

 

31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.

32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

 

God’s judgement rested upon them because they would not judge themselves (v 31). However, the remaining verses make it clear that such judgement is remedial.

 

Verses 33-34 summarise the whole discussion.

 

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.

34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

 

For further comments on the Lord’s Supper see the relevant chapter in You’d Better Believe It! where I point out that the Lord’s Supper is a time of:

 

fellowship

self-examination

remembering

proclamation.

Further episodes of Great Bible Truths with Dr David Petts

Further podcasts by Dr David Petts - Pentecostal preacher, former AoG Bible College Principal

Website of Dr David Petts - Pentecostal preacher, former AoG Bible College Principal