Close Menu X
Navigate

An Unworthy Manner of Eating - 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

Sermon Series: Confused?

Last week we started examining a part of Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth in which we said Paul had turned his attention to address some of the ways that the believers in Corinth were abusing and misusing their rights and freedoms within their own worship services. In 11:2-16 Paul addressed the first problem – some of the believing women who were a part of the church of Corinth were participating in their public worship times without wearing head coverings. We noted that in those verses Paul refrained from using strong language and giving any specific commands. We also noted that that was probably because he considered head coverings for women participating in public worship more of a non-essential (areas where believers in Christ really do have freedoms, and areas over which believers ought not to judge one another). Instead, he encouraged the women to consider their cultural context and to think about how their actions and behavior in public worship might honor the men (as he also encouraged the men to think about how their actions and behavior in public worship might honor Christ).

In the next distinct portion of Paul’s letter (11:17-33) he turned his attention to a second misuse and abuse of freedom that he had become aware of in the church at Corinth – this one dealt with the Lord’s Supper. In this section of Paul’s letter we see him return to strong language, strong rhetoric, and strong commands. If the issue of head coverings for women in public worship wasn’t that big of a deal, clearly the abuse and misuse of the Lord’s Supper was. So Paul wanted to make sure that the church at Corinth understood that what some were doing was indeed wrong and that they needed to make some immediate changes to the times they gathered together to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

Before we jump into our examination of the text, let me start by reminding you of two points concerning the context. First, because this was a new church it is highly unlikely that at this particular time they had a “church building.” It is far more likely that the church at Corinth met in someone’s home or that they were split up into more than one home for their public times of worship. Second, because celebrative meals were a large part of the pagan worship that many of them had grown up in, and because the Lord’s Supper itself had first taken place while Jesus and His disciples were celebrating the Passover feast, it appears that when the church at Corinth gathered together to partake of the Lord’s Supper that they did so as part of a larger meal which they ate together. (This is unlike what most Protestant churches do today. We partake of the Lord’s Supper by only partaking of a small amount of bread and juice/wine as part of a worship gathering. It is very atypical for us to partake of the Lord’s Supper as part of a larger meal that the whole church eats together.)

Now let’s jump into the text. In 11:2 Paul began with a quick word of commendation. That was not so in verse 17. Instead Paul said, “But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.” As Paul turned his attention from one misuse/abuse of the church at Corinth that was not so critical (11:2-16) to one that was (11:17-33) he made sure that the church heard him clearly from the beginning. When it came to gathering together as a church in order to partake of the Lord’s Supper, the behavior of certain believers wasn’t building up the church, their behavior was tearing it down. (Let’s be clear to point out from the outset that the problem was not dealing with a failure to gather together, but rather their failure to act and behave in ways that should have set them apart as true believers in Christ.) The actions and behavior of some surrounding the Lord’s Supper was doing more harm than it was good. Paul went on to say in verses 18-19, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” In these verses Paul began his explanation for how their gatherings were for the worst. Paul said that when the church gathered together for these meals in order that they might celebrate the Lord’s Supper there were distinct divisions which set certain people apart in the church. Before moving on to address this specific division, Paul first seemed to make a side note about ‘division’ in the church. Paul didn’t say that he was shocked by the division in the church. Instead he seemed to suggest that he understood that there would be ‘division’ in the church. In some ways division and distinctiveness was necessary because certain division and distinctiveness served as identifying markers for those who were in fact genuine believers in Jesus and those who were not. Even Jesus, Himself, taught that this would be a reality in our churches when He taught the parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13:24-30:

He put another parable before them, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?” He said to them, “An enemy has done this.” So the servants said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” But he said, “No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

In Jesus’ parable there were two distinct things growing in the field: the wheat and the weeds. And in His parable both were permitted to grow together. The two weren’t permitted to grow together because the weeds could not be distinguished from the wheat – the weeds were in fact very obvious. The weeds were permitted to grow with the wheat so that no damage was done to the wheat while the wheat was still growing. But it is also true that the weeds help to set apart the wheat as the real and genuine product. From that stand point Paul seemed to understand that all churches would have some division because there would be some who were genuine believers in Jesus and others who were not. But Paul was also getting ready to make it clear that the kind of division he heard was taking place around the Lord’s Supper was not that kind of division.

Paul specified where the specific division was and what the behavior causing the division was in verses 20-22, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses 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 commend you in this? No, I will not.” The divisions that Paul had heard about and which he was addressing in this part of his letter were not the same divisions that he had addressed in the first part of his letter (i.e. divisions over allegiances to specific leaders). These divisions were sociological ones in which the ‘well-to-do’ in the church were alienating the ‘have-nots’ in the church. Let’s work to try to re-construct the situation as best we can. We already mentioned that at this particular time the church was probably not meeting in a building, but that it was probably meeting in someone’s home (or was spread out in several home gatherings). The odds are also very good that it was a wealthier individual(s) (one who owned a larger home) who opened his home as a meeting place for the church. So not only would the home of a wealthier believer have served as the location for their public worship times but it would have also served as the location where their community would have gathered to celebrate the Lord’s Supper around a larger meal that the church would have eaten together. Immediately this creates some very practical problems. People did not have “fellowship halls” in their personal homes - they had dining rooms. Additionally, the custom at the time was to recline on one’s side while eating. So the size of the room, plus the cultural posture for eating would have made it physically impossible for the entire church to gather in the dining room. Therefore, for large gatherings at one’s home the host would often make use of the home’s atrium (courtyard) to host the guests who could not fit in the dining room.

Lack of space was only part of the problem though. The different socio-economic classes of the time were also accustomed to different kinds of dinner parties. Those who possessed very little were forced to eat whatever was available to them. As you can imagine they were probably used to smaller quantities and lesser quality. The well-to-do, on the other hand, would have been accustomed to larger quantities of food that were made up of better quality (i.e. better produce and better cuts of meat). But when the church at Corinth was getting together as one body of believers to celebrate the Lord’s Supper it appears that the “well-to-do” believers were gathered together in the dining room eating the kind of meal that they were accustomed to (with the choicest cuts of meat and the best produce) while the “have-nots” were gathered together in the atrium eating a different meal that consisted of smaller quantities and lesser quality food. The emphasis then in verse 21 when Paul said, “One goes hungry, another gets drunk” isn’t on individuals consuming so much wine at the Lord’s Supper that they were getting drunk. It had more to do with the two extremes: when one had very little food and drink, he went hungry. On the other hand, when one had too much to eat and drink, he often ended up drunk. What Paul had come to understand was that when the church at Corinth was gathering together for these meals in Jesus’ honor and during which they would have partaken of the Lord’s Supper, the “well-to-do” believers were eating their “own meals,” which consisted of large amounts of food, while the “have-nots” were only served very small meals. Even though they were all believers in Christ and they were no longer to make distinctions among themselves (see Galatians 3:27-28), the church at Corinth was continuing to make those socio-economic distinctions. Paul said to the well-to-do in verse 22, (this is a paraphrase of course) “You guys have your own houses that you can eat and drink in. If you all want to have a dinner get-together with some of your friends where you all can consume a bunch of food and drink then you ought to do it at your own homes at a separate time. The community meal with the rest of the church isn’t a time to make use of your right to bigger and better meals. For when you consume these elaborate meals in one room while your less-fortunate brothers and sisters in Christ have very little to eat in the next room, you humiliate them. And no one would humiliate their brothers and sisters in Christ, unless of course they just despised God’s church. It may be true that you all have continued in the tradition of getting together and celebrating the Lord’s Supper, but I’m not going to commend you for the way that you’ve been doing it.” It was the behavior and the action of the “well-to-do” believers in Christ in Corinth that was humiliating the “have-nots” and which was ultimately showing contempt for God’s church. This was a huge problem in Paul’s assessment for several reasons: First, it distorted the picture of the Gospel that the Lord’s Supper was supposed to be. Second, it turned a meal that was supposed to be focused on Christ into a meal that was focused on themselves. And third, a church that continued to make these types of distinctions among the people would not be a church that endured the test of time. But how had all of this transpired in Corinth? How had the Lord’s Supper turned into a celebration that looked like many other cultural feasts at the time? Had the church at Corinth (particularly the well-to-do) forgotten what the Lord’s Supper was supposed to be about? It is impossible to know the answers to those questions. But Paul took it upon himself to remind the church at Corinth what the Lord’s Supper was really all about.

Paul wrote, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when 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 also He took the cup, after supper, 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 the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (verses 23-26). Paul began by reminding the church at Corinth that Jesus, Himself, was the source of this tradition. The practice of the Lord’s Supper began the night before Jesus was crucified when He was celebrating the Passover with His disciples. Paul chose an interesting way to remind the church of exactly what night that was. He said that it was, “the night when He was betrayed . . .” This qualification was probably a very significant one, because Paul could have used any number of reminders about the specific night, but chose specifically to mention Jesus’ betrayal. For while Jesus had been sentenced to death by a Roman governor and the sentence had been carried out by Roman soldiers, it was not the Roman Empire alone that was guilty of Jesus’ death. Before any of that had happened Jesus had first been handed over by one of those who was supposed to be His disciple. So much of the Lord’s Supper is symbolic of what was done for believers in Christ (as we are getting ready to see) and much of that would be lost if it was just a feast reminding believers of what Rome did to Christ. We have to remember that we ourselves betrayed Him with our own sin.

Paul’s reminder of Jesus’ instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper had some other significant aspects that we must understand as well. We have to understand that Jesus’ language was symbolic. When Jesus took the bread and said, “This is my body . . .” He didn’t mean that the bread experienced some kind of transformation and literally became His body – He meant that the bread ‘signified’ or ‘represented’ His body. We also have to understand that Jesus’ language was substitutionary. Jesus said, “This is my body which is for you.” The ‘for’ in this expression means “on behalf of” or “in place of.” So Jesus declared that the bread signified (or represented) His body being broken in place of those eating the bread (i.e. believers in Christ). Jesus’ language was also imperative. Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” In the church at Corinth the believers were still keeping the tradition of having a meal and partaking of the bread and wine. However, the meal was being eaten with sociological distinctions that were resulting in the humiliation of those who were part of the lower classes. The wealthy were not remembering Jesus and the visual reminder of His death as they should have been. As one commentator wrote, “The Corinthian meals are not truly the Lord’s Supper because they do not reflect or proclaim the meaning of that meal as it came from the Lord, Himself.” The wealthy believers needed to remember that the Lord’s Supper was more about reflecting on His death than it was networking and fellowshipping with other “well-to-do” believers in Christ.

In verse 25 Paul cited Jesus’ words about the cup in the same way he cited Jesus’ words about the bread in verse 24. Like verse 24, Jesus used symbolic language about the cup and imperative language to instruct His followers to continue in the tradition. Then in verse 26 Paul summed up Jesus’ instructions for all His churches (including the church at Corinth), “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” The Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the Gospel. It is a visual proclamation of each person who eats the bread and drinks the wine that declares “While my sin betrays Jesus and is deserving of death (i.e. broken body and shedding of blood), Jesus gave His body in my place and shed His blood in my place! Jesus died on my behalf the death I deserved! And the salvation I possess is based entirely on His completed work on my behalf!” This was the reason Jesus handed down the tradition of the Lord’s Supper. It was a means by which believers in Christ were to remind themselves of what Jesus accomplished for them and a means by which believers in Christ were to proclaim to others what Jesus accomplished for them.

Paul spoke some words of application to the church at Corinth in regards to their misuse and abuse of their rights and freedoms regarding the Lord’s Supper in verses 27-34. Verses 27-32 dealt with personal reflection and examination. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” In verses 27-28 the emphasis rested on two things: the manner in which the individual participated in the Lord’s Supper and the purpose in which the individual participated in the Lord’s Supper. Too often the church has misunderstood verse 27 and we’ve taken the verse as a challenge to examine our personal worthiness (i.e. are we partaking of the Lord’s Supper with a worthy character or an unworthy one?). The reality is that none of us can ever partake of the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner. The Lord’s Supper is in fact a declaration of our unworthiness and the need we had for someone else to die in our place and shed blood in our place so that our sin might be forgiven. In addition to that, the contextual problem that Paul had been addressing was the manner in which the church at Corinth was partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The “well-to-do” were making distinctions between themselves and the less fortunate, which was communicating something contrary to what the Lord’s Supper was supposed to communicate. So Paul was challenging the believers in Corinth to give consideration to the way they were partaking of the Lord’s Supper and to ask the question, “Is there anything about the way that I am, or we as a church are, participating in the Lord’s Supper that is dishonoring to others who are a part of the body of Christ?”

After they had examined their manner, they were also supposed to give consideration to their purpose? Were they simply going through the motions of practicing a religious tradition; were they partaking of the bread and the cup because they believed they were a means of receiving some kind of special grace; or were they participating in the Lord’s Supper because it is a way by which they remembered the extraordinary grace and love of their Savior and Lord as they recalled that His body was given on their behalf and His blood was shed on their behalf, so that their penalty for sin could be paid in full? These weren’t insignificant questions that they were to give some thought to one day. Paul said that they all needed to examine themselves (individually and corporately) to make sure that their reason and purpose in participating in the Lord’s Supper was to remember the amazing sacrifice that Jesus was on their behalf.

In the church at Corinth it seemed that the problem was related more to the manner in which some in the church were participating in the Lord’s Supper than it did the purpose. For Paul followed up verses 27-28 with verse 29, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Something was missing in verse 29 that served as a big clue to the church at Corinth. Paul left out the words “the blood.” He did not say, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body and the blood eats and drinks judgment on himself.” He left out the words “and the blood” and focused solely on the fact that some who were a part of the church at Corinth were not discerning “the body” as symbolized in the one loaf of bread. They were not honoring the truth that as believers in Christ they were all part of the same body and that socio-economic distinctions were not to be made within the church. In their participation of the Lord’s Supper they were making obvious distinctions between the “well-to-dos” and the “have-nots,” and Paul said that to partake in the Lord’s Supper in that way was to partake of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner because they were failing to discern the body.

The failure of some who were a part of the church at Corinth to partake of the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner had resulted in some consequences. Paul said, “That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (verse 30). Some who were a part of the church had experienced sickness (and some others had actually died) because they were partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. Did the “well-to-dos” not have the right and freedom in Christ to enjoy lavish meals? Were they experiencing sickness and death because their consumption of lavish meals was breaking a law? No, they did have the right and freedom in Christ to enjoy lavish meals, and consuming lavish meals was not in and of itself sinful activity? It was however unloving of the “well-to-dos” to distinguish themselves in that way during the Lord’s Supper and to humiliate those believers who were less fortunate financially. God did not intend for brothers and sisters in Christ to treat one another so unlovingly in the church and to make distinctions between themselves that no longer existed in Christ. So God was working to correct this misuse and abuse of their rights and freedoms. “But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world” (verses 31-32). Individually (and as a church) we need to take seriously the warning to examine ourselves in regards to how we participate in the Lord’s Supper. It is far better for us to discern any misuse and abuse of our rights and freedoms in regards to how we participate in the Lord’s Supper and to correct them ourselves, rather than continue in our misuse and abuse of our rights and freedoms and to experience God’s discipline.

Paul concluded this section with a final word to the “well-to-do” believers in Christ, concerning the specific problem that they had created in the church at Corinth. He said, “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another – if anyone is hungry (i.e. if the “well-to-dos” are wanting to consume a lavish meal) let him eat at home – so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come” (verses 33-34). Paul said, “You all can fix this problem! When you participate in the Lord’s Supper, do it all together, with no distinctions! I know some of you all enjoy lavish dinner parties, but the Lord’s Supper is not the time for one of those. Have those lavish dinner parties before you come together for the Lord’s Supper. That way you all can, as one body, partake of one meal, in which you all partake of the one loaf and the one cup, both remembering what Jesus did for you and remembering that as a result of His work you all are also now part of one body.”

The obvious question for many churches in our day is, “How does this text apply to us? We no longer partake of the Lord’s Supper as part of a larger meal, but typically as a part of our worship services. Do we go back to partaking of the Lord’s Supper as a part of a larger meal, or is there some other application that we are to make?” That’s a good question. The answer lies in rightly understanding the principle and then applying the principle to our current context. Paul was correcting some who were a part of the church of Corinth for a behavior that was dishonoring to their brothers and sisters in Christ and which was failing to discern that part of the Lord’s Supper was a proclamation that they were all a part of the same body. So Paul’s correction had to do with partaking of the Lord’s Supper in a manner that did not dishonor others and which rightly communicated all the aspects of the Lord’s Supper. Today we have the obligation to examine ourselves and to ask the question, “Are there any believers who are a part of our church body (including myself) that are partaking of the Lord’s Supper in a way that dishonors other brothers and sisters in Christ and which contradicts all or some of the message that the Lord’s Supper is communicating?” And I think there is one serious one that far too many believers in Christ are guilty of.

In America we love and value our individuality! And for many “believers in Christ” their love for themselves and their own individuality means that they don’t want to have any tangible connectedness to others (they prefer virtual connections through Facebook friends and Twitter followers), even in their own churches. They have a responsibility to their families and a responsibility to their employers which aren’t optional, but they look at responsibility to and connectedness to their church as if it is. This is a large reason that we see an epidemic of people who feel okay coming into church services a few minutes after they have started and who dart for the door the second the service is over. It’s a large reason why many believers in Christ don’t feel like its necessary to be connected to a small group. And it’s a large reason why many will attend a worship service but never serve within the church. Those “believers in Christ” see church as a benefit, not a responsibility.

Other than those 60-75 minutes they spend on Sunday mornings simply sitting in the same room with the other believers in Christ who are a part of that church, there is no indication that they are connected to or a part of that body. But on those particular Sundays in which their church participates in the Lord’s Supper they will partake of the bread and the cup along with all the others. Are they remembering that Christ gave His body and shed His blood on their behalf? Perhaps they are, in which case the symbolism of the broken body of Christ and shed blood of Christ on their behalf is being rightly proclaimed. But this was not the problem in the church at Corinth and it is probably not the bigger problem in our churches today. In Corinth the problem was that some individuals were not discerning the truth of the one body to which they all belonged. In our churches today we have many believers in Christ who are eating from one loaf, which should be their declaration that they are a genuine part of the one body of Christ. However, their disconnectedness and their lack of service suggests otherwise to the believers in Christ who are connected to one another and who are actively serving together. They are saying, “We are members of the same body,” and yet other than the few minutes each week that they sit near or around other believers in Christ there is no connectedness and no cooperation that would suggest that they are really a part of the functioning body of Christ. They are saying, “I can be a part of the church body without being connected to any of you and without serving alongside of any of you.” And that is a proclamation which I believe is dishonoring to those in the church who are working hard to be connected to one another and who are sacrificially giving of themselves to serve the body of Christ.

So let me conclude with a few last questions: (1) When was the last time you participated in the Lord’s Supper? (2) What evidence was there when you participated in the Lord’s Supper that you were really a part of that local body of Christ? (3) Are you connected to other believers in Christ in that body and doing life with them, or do you just sit in the same room with them for an hour or so each week? (4) Are you serving in co-operation with them as a working and functioning member of that body, or are you choosing simply to benefit from and receive from that church? Your participation in the Lord’s Supper is declaring more than the fact the Jesus gave His body and shed His blood on your behalf – it is declaring that you are part of the same body of Christ to which the others who are partaking of the same loaf are a part. If you are not remembering this you are failing to “discern the body” and may be guilty of participating in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. The good news though is that this problem is easily corrected. Start striving to build relationships with other believers in Christ in your church. Find a way to do life together with some of them. And look for ways to serve alongside of them. Be a part of the body of Christ which God has called you to be – and which we will examine further next week.

 

 

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post have been disabled.