# 48: 2-19-16 E

First Corinthians 11:17-22

Paul has begun to correct issues in the church in Corinth concerning their assembling as a church body.
The first was a correction for the women to wear the customary head covering as done in the other churches
of God - for which Paul employed many gentle persuasions.
But as Paul moves on to the second issue, we find that his tone changes drastically - for he is no longer
dealing with just a matter of custom. Paul is rebuking the Corinthian assembly for abuses of the Lords
Supper, in which some are greatly dishonoring both God and man - which is leaving them open to Gods
judgment.
First well read through the whole passage, to get a sense of it, beginning in verse 17.
[First Corinthians 11:17-34]
We can detect that Pauls tone has completely changed. He is once again emphatic, in his statements (v. 17,
20, 22). He is expressing shock, at what is going on (v. 22). He uses irony, to generate a sense of shame,
among the violators (v. 19, 22). And he warns of impending judgment (v. 27, 29) - which some in Corinth
may already have begun to experience (v. 30).
But correction also involves exhortation to do what is right - which Paul urges using a tone of appeal,
reminding the Corinthians of what they should know (v. 23-26) as well as encouraging the Corinthians to
right conduct, in their assembly (v. 33-34).
Lets return to verse 17.
v. 17 Paul speaks initially about giving the Corinthian church particular instructions - but we dont see that
he gives them any, do we? The instructions dont come until the end of this passage (v. 33-34), for he has
much to say to them first, by way of rebuke.
You might remember that Paul began this section of his letter by praising the Corinthian believers (v. 2) that they remembered Paul in all things, and kept the traditions just as he had delivered them, concerning
their gathering together, as a church body. As mentioned previously, this was probably in response to
something they said in their letter - and Paul first graciously commended their efforts.
But some things were out of order when they came together as a church - and here, their conduct was so out
of order that Paul could not praise the Corinthians for it - quite the opposite. In fact, their conduct was such
that when they gathered together as a church, it was not for the better, but for the worse.
What should be the result, of the church gathering together? Edification; the building up of the Body of
Christ.
Through teaching, believers should together become more firmly established in the faith. Through
worshiping together - thanksgiving, praise and prayer - believers should grow in their love for their Lord.
And through fellowshipping together, believers should grow in their love for one another.
The gathering together of the church should promote the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3);
it should promote love, which is the bond of perfection (Col 3:14).

# 48: 2-19-16 E

Paul is saying, the opposite is happening, when the Corinthians assemble together. There is no unity, there
is no peace - and above all, there is no love. The church is not being built up; it is being torn apart. As Paul
continues, he begins to identify why this is happening.
v. 18-19 Paul heard that there are divisions among the believers in Corinth. Who might Paul have heard
that from?
Remember that Paul is writing this letter from Ephesus, and some members of Chloes household have
come there from Corinth, presumably on business. At the beginning of this letter, we learned that these
believers had shared their concerns with Paul about all the contentions in the church in Corinth; the church
was divided (1 Cor 1:10-11).
But there, the issue was specifically to do with doctrine. There were those who were intent on following
what Paul had taught them, and others who were enamored with various Greek philosophies, and trying to
blend them into the gospel. Obviously all of this different thinking would have caused division, and Paul
urged the brethren to have the same mind - and of course, he meant the mind of Christ.
But this is a different issue, over which the church in Corinth is also divided. It is not so much a matter of
the mind here, but the heart - and its strong desires, for self. Selfishness was causing this particular
division, in the church in Corinth, for where there is selfishness, there is a lack of love - and love is the
strong glue that binds the Body of Christ together, one member to another.
This division was being exacerbated every time the church was gathering together - which should instead
have been reinforcing their unity. And having heard this report of their division over this issue, Paul lets
the believers in Corinth know - in part, I believe it.
Now, Paul doesnt mean that he doesnt entirely believe the report. The idea is that this kind of division is
so shocking to him that in part, he doesnt believe it - surely such disunity cannot exist, in the Body of
Christ! But Paul says, in part, he does believe it - which he explains in verse 19.
Now, this statement is a stunning blow, to the Corinthians responsible for this division. Paul is employing
biting irony, here - of course, there must be factions among you - because that shows who is approved
among you.
What exactly does Paul mean by that? This is very important to understand. Those who are approved
refers to those who are accepted; received. The word basically mean proved, as metals are tested by fire to
prove that they are genuine.
We encountered the same Greek word in James 1:12: Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for
when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who
love Him. In that passage, the man has been proven to be a genuine Christ One, by his perseverance.
We came across the opposite Greek word already in this letter. Turn back to chapter 9, the last verse. Paul
wrote, But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself
should become disqualified (9:27).
The word disqualified is the opposite word, in the Greek - disapproved; rejected, cast away. The idea
that Paul was bringing out there was that if one didnt rule over his own body, this might indicate that he
was not a true contender in the life of the faith - that is, that he was not a genuine Christ One.

# 48: 2-19-16 E

Now turn back to chapter 11. What Paul is saying in verse 19 is that of course there is division in the
church in Corinth - because there are some who are genuine believers in the Lord Jesus, and there are some
who merely profess to believe. Such an issue as this reveals the heart - so that those who truly believe are
made manifest.
This is important because it tells us that while Paul is addressing the church as a whole, he will be
particularly targeting those in the assembly who have not yet believed. This issue is exposing their lack of
genuine faith in the Lord; and as we continue, we learn that these are some of the more affluent members of
the assembly - wealthy members.
v. 20-22 You can sense Pauls horror, over their conduct, by his wording. First he says that when they
gathered together as a church, they didnt do so to eat the Lords Supper. What does Paul mean? Verse 21
clarifies this. Theyre getting together to eat, all right, but by no means could it be considered the Lords
Supper - not with what they were doing.
So what were they doing? Paul says each one was taking his own supper ahead of others. And in doing
this, the late arrivals are left hungry, while those who have been dining for some time are - well, drunk, as
Paul says.
No further explanation is needed for the Corinthians, who of course know exactly whats going on. But we
could use a little help to more fully appreciate what Paul is saying. And we can get this from understanding
the accommodations and dining customs in the homes of the wealthy, in that place and time.
In Pauls day, there were no church buildings. The church would meet in a private home - ideally in the
home of a wealthy member of the assembly - a home that could accommodate numerous guests. In such
homes in Corinth, there were two areas set apart for meals.
The triclinium was reserved for prestigious guests, who tended to be wealthy individuals like the host,
from the upper class of Corinthian society. This was a smaller area for dining - an accommodation for a
private, exclusive group.
The second area of the home used for dining was the atrium - the expansive entry courtyard - which could
accommodate a larger group of people - perhaps 50 or more. This area was for guests of lower social
standing than the host.
Not only was the triclinium more exclusive, but the food that was served there was of finer quality than
what was served in the atrium. Of course, servants would parade this finer food through the atrium on their
way to serve it in the triclinium - so that those in the atrium would know just what they were missing!
All of this was designed to provoke the guests of lesser social standing to compete for the hosts favor.
That was the way things worked, in the Roman colony of Corinth - and many other Roman cities like it. Of
course, we see that they operated in accordance with the world.
But what does that have to do with the Lords Supper? Thats a good question. If the believers were
gathering together in this home as a church to take the Lords Supper together, why does it sound like a
common meal is being spoken of? If its the Lords Supper, how can anyone be drunk? And why does it
appear that some may not have eaten at all? More good questions.

# 48: 2-19-16 E

Notice Pauls wording again, in verses 20 and 21. He is making a contrast - between the Lords Supper, and
their supper - the supper of certain affluent members of the assembly. Their supper was indeed a common
meal - to which they had apparently attached a going-through-the-motions of the Lords Supper - almost
like an afterthought.
In their supper, each one of this exclusive group took his own supper privately, with other affluent
members, ahead of the other members of the assembly. The wealthy were the class of leisure - they didnt
labor. So these affluent members would assemble earlier in the day, in the home where the church met, and
have a banquet together - not unlike the old days - with sumptuous dining, and copious drinking.
By the time the working class members of the assembly were done with their day of labor, it appears that
the church proceeded right into taking the elements of the Lords Supper together - as soon as the working
class members arrived at the home.
After all, these affluent members had been eating and drinking all day, and now they were ready to retire to
their homes - and sleep off their excesses. They wouldnt have wanted to wait, while the others got a
chance to eat. So it would seem that the later arrivals never got a chance to eat at all - in the atrium or
anywhere else.
So the working class members were compelled to take the Lords Supper while famished, after a long day
at work - and no doubt, there were times when they made their meal out of the elements designated for
the Lords Supper.
Paul can hardly praise them for this; in fact, he is livid. But his ire is clearly focused, not on those hungrily
eating the Lords Supper - but on the affluent members who were creating this situation by their outrageous
conduct.
Could there be anything as unfeeling, as what these affluent members of the assembly are doing? Could
they possibly be any less compassionate, to their brethren? This is no less than contempt for the church of
God - the Body of Christ.
These wealthy members were shaming other members who had nothing - exposing their needs, in the face
of such gross excess. And in so doing, these wealthy members exposed their own selfish lack of love for
their brethren - something that unbelieving Corinth could hardly fail to see.
But these affluent members of the assembly not only dishonored their brethren - they dishonored the Lord,
Himself. Certainly getting drunk was a definite issue here; but perhaps a less obvious one was the
attachment of the Lords Supper to a common meal - and such a one as they would tend to have, in Corinth.
Notice what Paul says, in verse 22 - Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? These are affluent
people; what is the certain answer? Of course they have their own houses to eat and drink in. This is
sarcasm, on the part of Paul, and it implies that if they have houses to eat and drink in, that they should be
doing so there. They should take their common meals at home - and come together as a church to take the
Lords Supper, as a separate occasion.
We can confirm that this is what Paul means as we glance ahead to the last verse of this chapter: But if
anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment (11:34).

# 48: 2-19-16 E

So what does this tell us? Was this prohibition specific to the Corinthian church? Because of the excesses
of their former manner of life, was Paul designing a kind of protection for them - eat at home - to keep
them from riotous banqueting, and dishonoring the Lord? Or does this mean that a common meal was not
to be associated with the Lords Supper - and if not, why not?
Lets consider the matter from Scripture. In the NT, there is no clear cut instruction on this issue, other than
what Paul says to the Corinthians here - to partake of their meals and the Lords Supper separately, by
eating at home. That might make us think it was specific to the Corinthian church. But this is also the only
place in Scripture where a common meal is clearly being eaten in conjunction with the Lords Supper.
The book of Jude speaks of agape, translated love feasts, which appear to have been fellowship meals of
the church (Jude 12). But in what he wrote there, Jude does not associate this with the Lords Supper.
Peter alludes to the same type of fellowship meal, also apart from any connection to the Lords Supper (2
Pet 2:13).
Later in church history, love feast came to be the name that the church adopted for fellowship meals that
were sometimes taken in conjunction with the Lords Supper - and sometimes eaten separately.
But by going forward in church history this way, we find more and more error, so that we cannot trust what
was being practiced - and that is borne out by the inconsistencies, isnt it?
Instead, I propose that we take a look back. So lets return to the book of Acts, where Luke charts the
spread of the gospel and the history of the church from its very beginning - before the church became
corrupted by the thinking of this world.
In fact, well go right to the church at its inception - when the Day of Pentecost had fully come.
Turn to Acts chapter 2. On that day, the Lord poured out the Holy Spirit on His Body of believers on earth,
anointing them with power from on High, for their ministry of reconciling men to God.
And they began immediately to do so, speaking in languages known, not to them, but to the Jewish pilgrims
who had come up to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. This supernatural ability was one of the spiritual
graces, the charismata, which the Spirit had distributed to the members of Christs Body.
As a crowd gathered, Peter preached the gospel, and that day, 3000 souls were harvested into the Body of
Christ - and the fulfillment of the feast of Pentecost had begun. Afterwards, they were baptized, as a public
witness to their newfound faith in Christ. Then they began to assemble in Jerusalem, with the disciples of
Jesus. And Luke records for us their practices.
[Acts 2:42-47]
v. 42 Back in verse 41, we read of those who gladly received his word - Peters word, which was his
preaching of the gospel. So the good seed of the Word of God was planted in good receptive soil, where it
germinated, bringing forth Life - eternal life.
As Luke continues here in verse 42, notice he is describing how that new Life was nurtured; what caused it
to grow. The things that Luke lists relate to the edification of the believer both as an individual as well as
part of the Body of Christ.

# 48: 2-19-16 E

These new converts continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine - their teaching. What did the apostles
teach? What Jesus had taught them.
Jesus had opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures (Lk 24:45), and now they
taught His truth to the new converts - so that they might be rooted and built up in Christ, and established in
the faith (Col 2:7). This caused the new converts to be like-minded - which promoted their unity in the
Spirit.
The new converts also continued steadfastly in fellowship. Fellowship simply means a sharing in common.
What is it that the believers shared in common? The life that Christ had given them - eternal Life. Thats
the very Life of God - the Life believers share with the Father and the Son (1 Jn 1:1-3).
As the new believers together walked in the light - that is, as they conducted themselves according to the
truth in the Life that Christ had given them - they had fellowship with one another - brethren, dwelling
together in unity (1 Jn 1:7). It fostered a oneness with God and with one another, which then caused them
to grow even more in that Life.
And the new converts continued steadfastly in the breaking of bread. Now listed here, along with all of
these other things that nurture the new Life in the believer, do you think Luke is speaking about eating just
a regular meal together? No; Luke is clearly speaking about the Lords Supper; it was sometimes called the
breaking of bread (Lk 24:35, Acts 20:7).
But how does the Lords Supper nurture the eternal life in us? Through the reminder of the preciousness of
the One who died to give us that Life; of His great love for us. Through the reminder that we share His
Life now, with one another. The Lords Supper is food that nurtures the new Life. And what is that food?
Love.
The last thing that Luke includes in this sequence of what the new believers continued steadfastly in is
prayers - praying together. It was through communicating with the Lord together that the believers came to
know His will - and as they together submitted themselves to His will, the Lord moved powerfully through
His united Body of believers - and the gospel advanced with great strides - so that the Body grew in
members, as well.
Luke then writes of the reaction of those in Jerusalem to the church.
v. 43 Fear in this case has the meaning of awe. The residents of Jerusalem were no less than amazed by
this assembly of believers. And the Holy Spirit graced the apostles with the ability to do miracles, which
continued to astonish them - and cause them to listen to the good news they had to tell.
Having described how the new converts were growing in the faith, Luke next records how they were living
out their faith.
v. 44-45 When Luke says that all who believed were together, he doesnt mean that they lived together, but
that they spent much time together, on a daily basis.
And having all things in common doesnt mean that the believers shared everything they owned, like in a
commune. The idea is they recognized that all they possessed was from the Lord, and was for His good
purposes. Therefore, they didnt grip their possessions close to their hearts. When a need was made known,
they were willing to meet it.

# 48: 2-19-16 E

And that was a necessity particularly in Jerusalem, because when a Jew believed into Jesus and was
publicly baptized in His name, the unbelieving Jews excommunicated him from the Jewish community, so
that he lost his livelihood. And eventually, the unbelieving Jews began confiscating their properties, as well.
v. 46-47 What do you think they were doing in the temple? Could they possibly have been joining in the
false worship of Judaism? Of course not; they were there to preach the gospel to the Jews who came up to
the temple to worship - much as their Lord Jesus had done.
Now we come to another instance of the new believers breaking bread. But this time, Luke indicates that
they are doing it from house to house, and that they are eating their food - with a thankful and undivided
heart.
Does that sound more like a meal, or the Lords Supper? That sounds like a meal; and one that they shared
together, in various homes - of those who could afford to extend their hospitality, to those who had little.
This is likely where the fellowship meal came from - later called the love feast.
But notice that Luke lists it completely separately from the Lords Supper. The sense is that they were not
associated with one another; that they occurred on different occasions.
The Lords Supper was for the edification of the Body of Christ; the fellowship meal was a function of
them living out their lives together. And they did so, praising God. The Lord was lifted up, esteemed,
honored, in everything they did.
This was a joy-filled, thankful, loving group of people. Whats not to like about them? So with the
common people, they had favor, at this time. And the Lord used this brightly shining lampstand to draw
many to Himself, adding to His church daily those who were being saved.
[Return to First Corinthians 11]
So it would seem from Lukes record in Acts that, in all likelihood, the Lords Supper and the fellowship
meals occurred on separate occasions. Why would they have been separate? Because they served two
different purposes.
Simply put, the fellowship meal was a meal; its primary purpose was to feed the human body. The Lords
Supper is not to feed the body, but to feed the spirit. It is not a meal; it is a memorial, of the most sacred
act in history.
The sacred must not be mixed with the common; thats a desecration. And as we continue to consider that
sacred act next week with Paul, we will understand why such a desecration inevitably brings the Lords
judgment.
Reading: 1 Cor 11:17-34; Lk 22:1-20; Jer 31:31-34; Heb 9.