“17 In the following instructions, however, I do not praise you, because your meetings for worship actually do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I have been told that there are opposing groups in your meetings; and this I believe is partly true. 19 (No doubt there must be divisions among you so that the ones who are in the right may be clearly seen.) 20 When you meet together as a group, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. 21 For as you eat, you each go ahead with your own meal, so that some are hungry while others get drunk. 22 Don’t you have your own homes in which to eat and drink? Or would you rather despise the church of God and put to shame the people who are in need? What do you expect me to say to you about this? Shall I praise you? Of course I don’t!” (1Cor 11:17-22)”

I promised an in-depth look at these verses, but I find that I’ve already jumped the gun a bit. I talked about some of this yesterday. Still, a good analysis can’t hurt our understanding:

11:17-19 Paul lets them know upfront his displeasure about how they are behaving in their assemblies, specifically the divisions that exist there. In the context of this letter, it’s obvious that verse 19 is meant to be sarcastic (though I’ve actually seen this verse used by those who want to justify division).

11:20-21 These verses go together. Kudos to the KJV, NASB, etc. who use the same word for “supper” in verse 20 as “meal” in verse 21. They are the same word, used by Paul for emphasis. “You’re not eating the Lord’s meal, each is eating his own meal.” [Question for the translators of the NIV… did you just forget to translate that word in verse 21?] Instead of pooling their food and joining together in a holy meal honoring Christ, they were each eating their own food. And they were not considering whether others had food or not. What was to be a holy meal shared in common had become just another meal for them.
As I pointed out yesterday, the problem sharpened due to the social differences in the church. Poorer Christians would have trouble arriving to the assembly on time (due to work constraints) and find it hard to have adequate food to bring. In Greek society, it was normal for the “important people” at a gathering to eat first, receiving the best food. Commoners and slaves made do with what was left. This societal norm had no place in the church of God.

11:22 If they just want to eat a meal, they have homes to do that in. The assembly of God’s people is for doing things together, not separately. Church meals are “common” because of the sharing, not because of their ordinary nature. And the problem was not the fact that they were eating together (we’ll see that later) nor that the Lord’s Supper was being taken during a meal; the problem was how they were doing it.

23 For I received from the Lord the teaching that I passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a piece of bread, 24 gave thanks to God, broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in memory of me.” 25 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup and said, “This cup is God’s new covenant, sealed with my blood. Whenever you drink it, do so in memory of me.” 26 This means that every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

In tomorrow’s post, I’ll spend some time with these verses. For now, let me point out that Paul, as he often does, deals with a practical problem by getting to the theological root. By acting as they are acting, the Corinthians show that they can’t tell the difference between this special meal and any other meal that they would eat. Paul says, “If you truly understood what the Lord’s Supper is about, you wouldn’t act the way you are acting.”

Which leaves me to wonder if I will ever have the wisdom to do the same, be it with the Lord’s Supper or with other issues in the church. Will I ever learn that what seems to be merely a question of forms is often a lack of theological understanding? Especially when it comes to the Lord’s Supper.