BIG IDEA:
THE PROPER PRACTICE OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER:
– PROMOTES THE UNITY OF THE BODY
– PROCLAIMS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CRUCIFIXION
– PROTECTS AGAINST DIVINE DISCIPLINE
INTRODUCTION:
The Lord’s Supper was instituted as the central act of Christian worship. Its simplicity and symbolism point to the depth and richness of the significance of the Lord’s crucifixion for our salvation. Abuses in the practice of the Lord’s Supper at the church of Corinth led to these important words of correction from the pen of the Apostle Paul. The context was the love feast or potluck fellowship meal that led up to the observance of the divine ordinance. The abuses surrounded the selfish indulgence of the believers at Corinth on such occasions. The divisions in Paul’s day seemed to revolve around social and economic status as the believers failed to share their food and drink in a way that would unite their fellowship. Today the divisions are even more dramatic revolving around the significance of the ordinance itself. The Roman Catholic mass takes the extreme position that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ and communicate grace to the participants. But even within Protestantism there have been differing views regarding the meaning and practice of the Lord’s Supper.
Richard Hays: The source of the report is unnamed, but probably the news of the Corinthians’ disunity at table had been brought to Paul either by Chloe’s people (1:11) or by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17). Division in the community has been a consistent concern of the letter; therefore, we should not be surprised that their differences find expression in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, although the divisions here may not be precisely the same as the factions that Paul deplored in 1:10–17 and 3:1–4. In any case, the meal that should be the symbol and seal of their oneness has in fact become an occasion for some of them to shame others (11:21–22). Thus, their assembly for the common meal has actually become an occasion for them to “eat and drink judgment against themselves” (v. 29). That is why Paul says that “when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (v. 17). . .
Two preliminary observations about the original historical setting will help to keep our reading of the passage in focus.
First, when Paul refers to the Lord’s Supper at Corinth, he is not talking about a liturgical ritual celebrated in a church building. At this early date, there were no separate buildings for Christian worship. The Lord’s Supper was an actual meal eaten by the community in a private home. Commentators sometimes refer to a distinction — documentable only later in church history — between “the agape” (love-feast) and “the eucharist,” but Paul makes no such distinction. Evidently, the sharing of the symbolic bread and cup of the Lord’s Supper occurred as a part of a common meal; otherwise, the passage makes no sense. Christians accustomed to experiencing the Lord’s Supper only as a ritual “in church,” removed from a meal setting, will need to discipline their imaginations to keep this original setting in mind.
Second, the problem that Paul is addressing at Corinth is not (overtly) a problem of sacramental theology; rather, it is a problem of social relations within the community. Paul’s vision of community comes into conflict with the Corinthians’ conventional social mores, which require distinctions of rank and status to be recognized at table: the more privileged members expect to receive more and better food than others. Paul regards this as a humiliation for the community and as an abuse of the Supper of the Lord, whose own example contradicts such status divisions. Paul appeals to the tradition of Jesus’ institution of the meal in order to highlight Jesus’ death and to remind the Corinthians that they are to remember him as they eat together; this memory should bring a halt to their selfish behavior.
With these points in mind, we can turn to a reading of the passage, which has three main parts.
- In the first part (vv. 17–22) Paul describes and deplores the behavior of the Corinthians.
- In the second part (vv. 23–26) he reminds them of the tradition of the institution of the Supper.
- Finally, in the third part (vv. 27–34) he draws inferences about the meaning of the tradition for reshaping their practices of sharing the meal.
Daniel Akin: Main Idea: Examine yourself when taking the Lord’s Supper, repenting of all sin and selfishness and uniting with believers around the work of Christ.
I. We Must Deal with Problems When We Come (11:17-22).
A. We must deal with divisiveness (11:17-19).
B. We must deal with selfishness (11:20-22).
II. We Must Honor the Meal’s Purposes When We Come (11:23-26).
A. It is a commemoration of the Lord’s death (11:23-25).
B. It is a proclamation that anticipates the Lord’s return (11:26).
III. We Must Make Preparation When We Come (11:27-34).
A. There must be personal examination of ourselves (11:27-32).
B. There must be humble consideration of others (11:33-34).
Evangelicals and Baptists limit the number of ordinances to two because only baptism and the Lord’s Supper meet five important criteria:
- They were prescribed by the Lord.
- They were proclaimed among the saints.
- They were practiced by the churches.
- They were participated in only by the saved.
- They picture the atoning sacrifice and bodily resurrection of Jesus.
I. (:17-22) SHAMEFUL SCHISMS – THE PROPER PRACTICE OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER PROMOTES THE UNITY OF THE BODY
A. (:17) Constructive Criticism
- Correction Necessary
“But in giving this instruction,”
When people are involved in practices that are hurting the church instead of edifying the body, the Word of God must be applied first to provide instruction, and then followed up in a way to administer reproof, correction and then training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).
- Commendation Not Possible
“I do not praise you,”
- Coming Together Not Productive
“because you come together not for the better but for the worse.”
John MacArthur: It would have been much better for those Corinthians never to have had a love feast, and even never to have observed the Lord’s Communion, than to have so abused them. They came together not for the better but for the worse. The term for worse is a comparative of kakos, which represents moral evil. Instead of the celebrations being times of loving fellowship and spiritual enrichment they involved selfish indulgence, shaming the poorer brethren, mocking the Lord’s sacrificial death, and scandalizing the church before the unbelieving world around them.
Paul Gardner: Throughout this letter it has become clear that Paul wants the Corinthians to “build up” others and work for the benefit of others. It is this that Paul has in mind as he speaks of “not for the better but for the worse.” The “worse” means that people are being led away from the covenant relationship that the meal signifies rather than being built up in it. The “better,” had it happened as it should have, would have meant that the meal was serving to confirm their covenant commitment to each other as well as to the Lord.
David Garland: Paul’s accusation is that the meal that was supposed to be a sign of their integration and unity has become a flash point highlighting their inequality and alienation. This calamitous state of affairs, which could only feed arrogance and nourish bitterness, makes him wish that they had no group meal at all. Their assembly is not simply a waste of time; it is downright harmful. Paul specifies the harmful effects in the third part of this section: they become liable for the body and blood of the Lord (11:27); they incur condemnation (11:29, 32); and they are beset by sickness and death (11:30).
B. (:18-19) Demonstrative Divisions
- (:18) Divisions Disrupt Body Unity
a. Importance of the Issue
“For, in the first place”
Paul doesn’t always follow out his enumerations.
b. Identity as One Body
“when you come together as a church”
c. Report of Divisions
“I hear that divisions exist among you”
d. Credibility of the Problem
“and in part I believe it.”
- (:19) Divisions Separate True Believers From Pretenders
a. Inevitability of Divisions
“For there must also be factions among you,”
Paul Gardner: Paul sees this sort of horrendous division as being part of God’s way of revealing those who are truly his and those who are not. “It is necessary” (δεῖ) means that the divisions are part of God’s sifting process. It is argued that this leads well into vv. 27–31 in which people will be judged by God on the basis of their behavior at the Lord’s Supper. The “genuine” (δόκιμοι) are thus those who are righteous in this matter and not causing divisions at the Supper.
b. Separation of Wheat from Chaff
“so that those who are approved
may become evident among you.”
Usage of dokimos consistent in Paul’s writings for contrast between legitimate believers and mere professors of faith in Christ; the opposite would be the reprobate.
C. (:20-22) Self-Centered Selfishness
- (:20-21) Selfish Approach Documented
a. (:20) Missing the Point of Worship
“Therefore when you meet together,
it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper”
Anthony Thiselton: The word translated supper (Greek deipnon) primarily denotes the main meal of the day, without any necessary reference to timing. In this respect, like the English dinner it usually refers to evening dinner where the term is used in its traditional sense, but it can denote a different timing in such contexts as “Christmas dinner,” “Sunday dinner,” or “school dinner.” In other words, it denotes the importance of the occasion rather than a time. Paul insists that when it is the Lord’s Supper, the dynamics of this meal are determined not by the household, the host, or favored guests, but by apostolic tradition and by scriptural and ecclesial arrangements (v. 22b).
b. (:21) Putting the Priority on Self Satisfaction
1) Piggish Behavior
“for in your eating each one takes his own supper first;”
Craig Blomberg: The minority of well-to-do believers (1:26), including the major financial supporters and owners of the homes in which the believers met, would have had the leisure-time and resources to arrive earlier and bring larger quantities and finer food than the rest of the congregation. Following the practice of hosting festive gatherings in ancient Corinth, they would have quickly filled the small private dining room. Latecomers (the majority, who probably had to finish work before coming on Saturday or Sunday evening—there was as of yet no legalized day off in the Roman empire) would be seated separately in the adjacent atrium or courtyard. Those that could not afford to bring a full meal, or a very good one, did not have the opportunity to share with the rest in the way that Christian unity demanded.
2) No Consideration for Others
“and one is hungry and another is drunk.”
Richard Hays: We must bear in mind that the Christian gatherings were held in private homes, not in large public spaces. Archaeological study of Roman houses from this period has shown that the dining room (triclinium) of a typical villa could accomodate only nine persons, who would recline at table for the meal. Other guests would have to sit or stand in the atrium, which might have provided space for another thirty to forty people (see Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 153–61). The host of such a gathering would, of course, be one of the wealthier members of the community. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the host’s higher-status friends would be invited to dine in the triclinium, while lower-status members of the church (such as freedmen and slaves) would be placed in the larger space outside.
Furthermore, under such conditions it was not at all unusual for the higher-status guests in the dining room to be served better food and wine than the other guests—just as first-class passengers on an airliner receive much better food and service than others on the same plane.
Daniel Akin: Selfish and narcissistic behavior insults God and embarrasses brothers and sisters in Christ. There is no place for it in the faith family.
- (:22a) Shameful Conduct Exposed (for what it is)
a. Shocking Exclamation
“What!”
b. Searching Question
“Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?”
c. Sarcastic Accusation
“Or do you despise the church of God
and shame those who have nothing?”
David Garland: Why were some Christians oblivious to the needs of their fellow Christians? The answer is that they were too much at home in a culture in which contempt for the poor was typical of the wealthier class. The well-to-do were used to having servants stand around as they ate and also would have no misgivings about feasting in the presence of others who had nothing or had only inferior fare. Given the dinner conventions of the ancient world, they would have thought nothing of this inequity.
- (:22b) Scathing Rebuke Administered (in place of praise)
“What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you?
In this I will not praise you.”
John MacArthur: A Christian’s attitudes and motives should be pure at all times. But when believers come to the table of the Lord, sharing the bread of His body and the cup of His blood, it is absolutely necessary that they leave behind all sin, all bitterness, all racial and sexual prejudice, all class pride, and all feelings of superiority. Of all places and occasions, those attitudes are most out of place at the Lord’s Supper. They grievously profane that holy, beautiful, and unifying ordinance of God.
Mark Taylor: When the church gathered together, what occurred could not in any way be called the “Lord’s Supper” with integrity. Instead, their behavior was a travesty of love and the epitome of self-indulgence. Paul paints a stark contrast between the hungry poor and the drunken rich. The actions of the “haves” showcased contempt for the church of God and brought shame on the “have nots.” They were in clear violation of the principle of doing all things for the good of others and the glory of God (recall 10:23–33). This was no occasion for praise.
II. (:23-26) SYMBOLIC SIGNFICANCE – THE PROPER PRACTICE OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER PROCLAIMS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CRUCIFIXION
A. (:23a) The Significance of the Setting for the Establishment of the Ordinance
- Divine Institution
“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,”
Paul Gardner: The purposes for recounting the Supper tradition in this way are important. There are three.
- First, the Lord’s focus in giving this “Supper” was quite different from the focus of the Corinthian meals. There was a simplicity to the eating and drinking at the Lord’s Supper that should have overcome all social divisions.
- Secondly, the eschatological context of the meal relativizes any possibility of elitism.
- Thirdly, because of its status as a covenant meal, Paul emphasized that blessings and curses are attached to taking part in the meal.
- Traitorous Backdrop
“that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed”
Leon Morris: Paul brings out the poignancy of the institution of that feast of love which was to bring such strength and consolation to Christians, at the very time when human malignancy was engaged in betraying the Saviour to His enemies.
David Garland: The tradition is cited only by way of illustration, and excessive attention to tracing its historical particulars and theological vectors serves to eclipse the rhetorical point that Paul makes. He does not intend to teach the Corinthians something new about the Lord’s Supper or to correct their theology of the Lord’s Supper. He cites it only to contrast what Jesus did at the Last Supper with what they are doing at their supper.
B. (:23b-24) The Significance of the Bread
- Consecration of the Elements
“took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it”
- Connection to His Physical Body via Symbolism
“and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you;”
- Command to Practice the Ordinance
“do this in remembrance of Me.’”
C. (:25) The Significance of the Cup
- Consecration of the Elements
“In the same way He took the cup also after supper,”
- Connection to His Atoning Blood via Symbolism Surrounding the New Covenant
“saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood;”
Richard Hays: In Paul’s rendering of the tradition, two closely linked themes stand out: the sharing of the Supper calls the community to think of Jesus’ death for others, and that death is understood to initiate a new covenant (v. 25; cf. Jer. 31:31–34). To be in covenant relation with God is to belong to a covenant people bound together by responsibilities to God and to one another; the character of this new covenant should be shown forth in the sharing of the meal. The trouble with the Corinthians is that they are celebrating the Supper in a way that disregards this structure of covenant obligations and demonstrates an odd amnesia about Jesus’ death. By showing contempt for those who have nothing, they are acting as though his death had not decisively changed the conditions of their relationship to one another. Paul therefore retells the story so as to spotlight the death of Jesus as the central meaning of the Supper.
Craig Blomberg: The cup that was drunk after supper would probably have been the third of four cups of wine consumed during the Passover meal, again with redemptive implications. This was the point in the ceremony at which the words “I redeem you” from Exodus 6:6 were read. There is no chance that unfermented beverage was poured into the cup, since some who drank excessively were getting drunk (v. 21). The reason Paul, like the gospel writers, calls it the “cup” rather than using the word wine is because the expression would evoke Old Testament associations of suffering the “cup” of God’s wrath (e.g., Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17). Christ’s shed blood demonstrated that he accepted the wrath we deserved to experience and so made possible for us peace with God. In so doing he inaugurated the new covenant that had been prophesied (see esp. Jer. 31:31–34). “Whenever you drink it,” in verse 25, may hint at the fact that wine was not present with every meal. Or it may mean that bread and wine should form the center of the Lord’s Supper whenever it is celebrated. The message about the significance of Christ’s death which this ceremony re-enacts should be proclaimed throughout church history. Only when the Lord returns (v. 26) will cross-centered Christianity become redundant, a fact that the Corinthians clearly had yet to learn (recall under 1:18 – 2:5).
David Prior: The main word Paul uses to describe what has happened is covenant. Through the shedding of the blood of Jesus, the paschal lamb (5:7), it is now possible for Jews and Greeks, rich and poor, libertine and rigorist, men and women, to know the glorious freedom of forgiveness and to have personal knowledge of God. Those who enter into this personal relationship, this covenant relationship, with the Lord naturally enter at the same time into a covenant relationship with one another. Thus, the covenant community is established – and that is precisely what the Corinthians were undermining by their behaviour. For them the death of Christ was not central; the return of Christ was not dominant; the love of Christ was not in control. It was, in a word, not ‘the Lord’s Supper’.
- Command to Practice the Ordinance
“do this, as often as you drink it in remembrance of Me.’”
D. (:26) The Significance of the Regular Practice of the Ordinance
- Frequency
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup,”
- Focus
“you proclaim the Lord’s death”
- Finish Line
“until He comes.”
John Piper: If the Lord’s Supper is worship, how does it express our inner treasuring of Christ’s beauty and worth? Let me mention three things from the text. We express the value of Christ by “remembering,” by “proclaiming,” and by “nourishing.” . . .
This supper is not about physical nourishment. It is about spiritual nourishment.
III. (:27-32) SOBER SELF-EXAMINATION (= PREREQUISITE TO PARTICIPATION) – THE PROPER PRACTICE OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER PROTECTS AGAINST DIVINE DISCIPLINE
A. (:27) Unworthy Participation Condemned
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord
in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.”
Chestnut:
- What does it mean to “eat in an unworthy manner?” (27).
- Not individual worthiness–nobody is worthy!
- “Unworthy manner” is when you eat and hate your brother!
- What should we be examining about ourselves before we eat? (28).
- Whether or not we are worthy to partake?
- “Do I love my brothers?” or “Am I united with the brothers?”
- What does it mean to “not discern the Lord’s Body?” (29).
- Same thing as to “despise the church of God” (22).
- Church IS the body of Christ! (Eph. 1:22-23; 1 Cor. 12:27).
Charles Hodge: To eat or drink unworthily is in general to come to the Lord’s table in a careless, irreverent spirit, without the intention or desire to commemorate the death of Christ as the sacrifice for our sins, and without the purpose of complying with the engagements which we thereby assume. The way in which the Corinthians ate unworthily was, that they treated the Lord’s table as though it were their own; making no distinction between the Lord’s supper and an ordinary meal; coming together to satisfy their hunger, and not to feed on the body and blood of Christ; and refusing to commune with their poorer brethren. This, though one, is not the only way in which men may eat and drink unworthily. All that is necessary to observe is, that the warning is directly against the careless and profane, and not against the timid and the doubting.
Richard Hays: Paul’s words must be understood in the context of the specific situation that he is addressing: The more affluent Corinthians are consuming their own food and shaming the poorer members (vv. 20–22). In this context, to eat the meal unworthily means to eat it in a way that provokes divisions (v. 18), with contemptuous disregard for the needs of others in the community. Paul’s call to self-scrutiny (v. 28) must therefore be understood not as an invitation for the Corinthians to probe the inner recesses of their consciences but as a straightforward call to consider how their actions at the supper are affecting brothers and sisters in the church, the body of Christ.
B. (:28-32) Self-Examination Essential
- (:28) Avoidance of Judgment –
Self-Examination with a Goal of Qualification and Participation (not Disqualification and Avoidance)
“But a man must examine himself,
and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”
- (:29-30) Reality of Judgment
a. (:29) Possibility of Judgment
“For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself
if he does not judge the body rightly.”
Paul Gardner: Paul is urging discernment and right judgment upon the Corinthian elitists. The immediate problem here is summed up by Paul’s insistence that they should “discern” properly the “body.” The verb “discern” (διακρίνω), which may also be translated “judge,” has been used previously in 4:7 and 6:5 and appears again in 11:31 and 14:29. The noun (διάκρισις) is found in 12:10. In its broader connotation the verb implies judging between two positions or differentiating matters, as can be seen in most of these examples. The elite and wealthy, who are so keen to show off their status as they recline at a meal while others go hungry, have not discerned the nature of the “body.” Paul urges them to make a judgment about what the body is and what it is not and to understand its central place in the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.
To what does “the body” (τὸ σῶμα) refer? . . . A third view suggests that the body is the Lord’s body and blood (“my body . . . my blood”; vv. 24–25), but not in some sacramental sense. Rather, in the bread and the wine the one who died “for you” is signified together with all that his death meant. To “discern” this means therefore to distinguish this meal as different from a normal meal. Again, it is not that the bread is no longer bread (in some sacramental sense), but that in this meal, instituted by the Lord himself, something different is going on from what might happen in a normal meal. The “remembrance” must happen! Christ died to bring forgiveness of sin and form a people who participate together in the covenant he guaranteed through his blood. If they “discerned” in this way, they would not mix up two different meals nor would they conduct the meal in a way that divides covenant members one from another. This latter view seems to make most sense of the immediate context. The Lord’s Supper is not just any meal! Even if the Lord’s Supper is celebrated around a bigger meal, it will govern the nature of the bigger meal to ensure that the whole is “communal.”
David Garland: A proper understanding of what these elements represent should change the Corinthians’ attitude and behavior toward others. It reminds them of their dependence on Christ and their own interdependence and should cause them to share their own provisions with others at the meal who have little or nothing. Paul is arguing that when they recognize fully the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ, remembered in reenacting the Last Supper, they will act compassionately toward their brothers and sisters in Christ. Passakos (1997: 210) claims that the Lord’s Supper becomes “the starting line for the transformation of the relationships and structures in the community.”
b. (:30) Examples of Judgment
“For this reason many among you are weak and sick,
and a number sleep.”
- (:31-32) Purpose of Judgment
a. Self Judgment Avoids Divine Judgment
“But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.”
b. Divine Discipline Provides Necessary Protection
“But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord
so that we will not be condemned along with the world.”
(:33-34) SUMMARY – ABUSIVE PRACTICES MUST BE CORRECTED
A. (:33) Assemble to Promote Church Unity by Practicing Loving Self Control
“So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.”
Must be unselfish and loving towards the other members of the body
B. (:34a) Avoid Divine Discipline by Maintaining the Symbolic Focus of the Ordinance
“If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home,
so that you will not come together for judgment.”
It’s not about eating to satisfy your hunger
Paul Gardner: Coming together and eating in a way that understands the nature of the Supper and recognizes that all believers are equal at the Supper will mean they avoid coming together “for judgment” (εἰς κρίμα). God may overrule for good through the judgment of discipline for his people, but it is not something to be desired. Since the covenant Lord brings blessings and curses, they should clearly seek in every way that they can to live out the Lord’s will and receive his blessings.
C. (:34b) Anticipate Additional Authoritative Clarification and Correction
“The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.”
Mark Taylor: Since Paul does not elaborate on his concluding words, “And when I come I will give further directions,” we cannot be sure of his reference. Perhaps there are further issues concerning the Lord’s Supper that he feels can only be addressed in person. Or perhaps the reference is to other issues. We simply do not know.