1 Cor. 11:17ff The Lord's Supper

Today's text (NLT):

Order at the Lord's Supper

If there is one rite of Christianity that is intended to illustrate the unity of all Christians, it is the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist). Yet, ironically, because of a difference in belief as to the meaning of the phrase "this is my body" large portions of the Christian movement cannot partake of this meal together. Such is the sad situation in today's world. Paul saw something equally distressing in Corinth. But this divisive behavior had nothing to do with the nature of the bread and wine. It had to do with a failure to appreciate the unity of the family of God, Christ's body, and allowing the existing social differences to interfere with celebrating the unity of all believers.

Paul has commended the Corinthian church in some areas. But he cannot and will not on this point.

17-19

17 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. 18 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, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

When believers in Jesus come together for worship, learning and sharing, it is a time of great spiritual growth. Each have their own gifts and contributions to make to the others. And just being together as a family with those you love is a joy.

But that's if attitudes are right and love rules. When attitudes are wrong and love does not rule, the very times of assembling that are designed to help us grow can have the exact opposite effect! That was what Paul was worried about here.

But what does Paul mean by "for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized"? We shall try to answer that question once we have seen from the text below what the problem was.

20-22

20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 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 heart of the problem was that, when the believers in Corinth gathered to celebrate the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist), they had a kind of "church supper", called an agapē ("love [dinner]") leading up to it. And it appears that instead of sharing a common food supply, symbolizing their unity‚ the social elite and the rich ate better food, and left the poor marginalized and disgraced. The extremes are vividly portrayed when Paul says that some go hungry, while others not only eat well but get drunk on the best wines!

The background to this behavior is found in the social clubs of Corinth. There it was routine for the social elite to be served the best food, and for the lower classes to be given inferior food. This was accepted behavior. But it was totally out of place in the setting of the Lord's Supper, where all believers—regardless of their social status in Corinth—were equal in the sight of the Lord.

23-26

23 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, 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." 25 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." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Paul begins his objections to this behavior by citing a tradition of the Lord Jesus' own behavior. It is one of the few examples in Paul's letters where he shows knowledge of an event in the earthly life of Jesus. And his way of introducing it—"I received from the Lord"—suggests that he did not learn this from those who had been followers of Jesus, but by a direct revelation from Jesus. It does match, however, what we know also from the gospel accounts.

And although the words attributed to Jesus here make no mention of his blood being shed for the remission of our sins, the final words—"you proclaim the Lord's death"—show that the ceremony of eating of the bread and drinking of the wine is intended to make his death known as the source of life for believers.

27-32

27 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. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

How does a person partake of this meal "in an unworthy manner"? Paul's answer is: "By failing to discern the Lord's Jesus' body. What is the body? Not the elements of the bread and wine, but the actual persons present who constitute the true Body of Christ. By failing to see that all believers present are one body and of equal value to Christ, the elite upper crust were dishonoring Christ at the very moment in which they were supposed to be "remembering" him!

33-34

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another‚ 34 if anyone is hungry, 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.

ⓒ2008 Harry Hoffner

1 Cor 1:10-17 — Divisions and Pride

Divisions in the Church of Corinth

Today's text is available online here: 1 Cor. 1:10-17.

Anyone watching news clips today of violent bloody battles in the Middle East between Sunni and Shiite Muslims sees clearly that violent confrontations between members of opposing religious factions within a single religion are by no means confined to one religion. True, the only example in history of such bloody fighting between rival Christian sects dates back centuries ago to the Thirty Years War in Europe.

But non-bloody conflicts within rival groups of Christians is as old as the Corinthians. Such conflicts do not result in real killings and physical maiming. But they tear the very fabric of love that Jesus and Paul both taught was that which binds all believers together as one. This is why, when I read of bitter recriminations between Christian groups (Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants), it saddens me. Not because we should not argue in a civil and loving way for what we believe to be God's truth, but because it is usually not done that way, and only ends in making the walls between us even higher.

Even sadder, though, are such conflicts based not upon a serious difference in interpreting Scripture—which might be more understandable—but on what human leader or teacher to follow. This was the kind of situation that was brewing in Corinth in Paul's absence, and which was brought to his attention by some members of the "household of Chloe". These may be slaves of Chloe's sent to Paul as messengers.¹

In good pastoral style, Paul gives them a positive goal (v. 10) before he points out their failure (v. 11-17). The goal (or "appeal") is that they "agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought". He doesn't go on at this point to explain why the unity is important. He simply urges it. A father, finding his children fighting, normally does not take the time to explain why they must stop fighting: he just grabs them and says "Stop fighting!" But of course, he may then add: "You are brothers! Brothers are suppose to love each other, and stand up for each other."

Elsewhere, Paul gives reasons for unity and solidarity within the Christian communities. They were exposed and vulnerable in a pagan world, and some of the more extreme members of the Jewish synagogues were just looking for a chance to attack and eliminate them. In a letter to the church at Philippi he once wrote “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27 NIV).

Instead, many among the Corinthian believers were contending about whose way of interpreting the message and sacrifice of Jesus was best. Chloe's house-church members apparently told Paul that one group said “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas’”; still another, “I follow Christ.” We don't know if they gave him the names and numbers of each group. Paul certainly doesn't mention it. He would not be flattered by being having the largest group! Apollos was a very learned and erudite Jewish convert to the gospel of Jesus, who was extremely knowledgeable in the Old Testament, as well as skilled in public argumentation. Paul, on the other hand, while he knew the Scripture well, was—by his own admission—not a polished speaker. A third group followed Cephas, which means Peter. Apollos had visited Corinth; Peter had not. But believers who had immigrated to Corinth from the eastern lands—especially Jerusalem—could easily have heard him often speak. His reputation as the chief of the Twelve would naturally have impressed believers.

Some interpreters believe that these groups corresponded to the social classes to which the believers belonged in secular society. If so, Paul's and Apollos' groups may have been for the lower classes, Cephas (as one of the Jerusalem "pillars") the middle class, and "Christ" the true social elite of the city! How horribly ironic, since Christ would have wanted this least of all!

Paul does not defend his own right to lead his "church-plant" over these rivals who have sprung up after his departure. He will eventually remind them that they may have had many teachers, but only one "father" in the gospel, Paul himself (4:15). But for now his concern is that they see the devilish sin of putting human leaders ahead of the Lord Jesus himself. Paul was no "Vicar of Christ", nor was Peter, nor Apollos. He uses his own name as the example to be criticized, when he writes: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1Corinthians 1:13-17 NIV).

We may get just a tiny glimpse of what Paul thought lay at the root of the problem, when he says that he avoided using sophisticated philosophical language ("words of human wisdom") when he preached in Corinth. His reason was, that a genuine conversion—turning from our society's other religious ideas, values and priorities, to faith in Jesus and his sole lordship over one's ideas about God, life and morals—can only be brought about by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in making the death of Jesus for our sins ("the cross of Christ") real and convincing. The use of persuasive philosophy, to his mind, produced only a shallow attraction to Christian teaching, something sham and weak that would never stand the test of persecution for the sake of the gospel. Paul may have even experimented with the other approach himself, only to find the results meager and unsatisfying. Some interpreters—I happen not to agree with them—think he did so at his last stop before arriving initially at Corinth. It was at Athens, where on Mars Hill (Areopolis) to an audience of philosophers he argued in their own terms for the gospel (Acts 17). But we need not hold that interpretation of Acts 17 in order to agree that Paul had somewhere, perhaps through bitter experience, concluded that the best approach was the simple one, the same one that Jesus himself used, a quiet and clear explanation of the truth about Jesus.

Brothers and sisters, what can we learn from this? Paul wrote later in 1 Cor 1:26 "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth." Certainly that is still true of us today, is it not? How many of us would claim to be impressive by our wealth or achievements? But that is not what Jesus calls us to be! He calls us to be the servants of the needs of others—like he himself was. He calls us to confront evil boldly with words of truth, but not with anger and hostility. Our message of the gospel will be believed because we love, serve, and pray, as well as testify to its truthfulness. Our greatest desire should be to please Jesus, to be his faithful and good servants. If we are, we will be fruitful in changing the thinking of those around us about our Lord.

References

1. This is the view of Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians [1983], pp. 59, 63, and 217 (n. 54). If so, as Meeks points out (p. 217, n. 54), it would mean that Chloe was one of the few "influential" and "noble" members of the congregation that Paul alludes to in 1 Cor. 1:26.