Doug Van Meter - 14 January 2024
The Supper as Story (1 Corinthians 11:17–26)
The church at Corinth was guilty of worldly division over social differences. This reared its ugly head in various way, including mistreating poorer members when it came to the Lord’s Supper. Though the Lord’s Supper was intended by our Lord to be a remembrance of the gospel story, some in the congregation were telling a different story. They needed to be corrected and to get on the right page of the story. We will study this passage under three major headings: 1. Rebuking the Saints (vv. 17–19) 2. Ruining the Supper (vv. 20–22) 3. Remembering the Story (vv. 23–26)
Scripture References: 1 Corinthians 11:17-26
From Series: "1 Corinthians Exposition"
An exposition of 1 Corinthians by Doug Van Meter.
Powered by Series Engine
We saw in our study of 1 Corinthians, 11:2–16 that the church gathers as a congregation each Lord’s Day for what we might call “story time.” We gather with the church to hear the story of the gospel of God. The gospel is the story of God’s grace in saving sinners from his judgement, the story of God reconciling rebels to himself through the sinless sacrifice of Jesus Christ who was vindicated by his resurrection. Each week we sing this story, we pray informed by this story, sometimes we read and preach the story, and we use an object lesson(baptism or the Lord’s Supper) to illustrate this story.
The hymn “I Love to Tell the Story” should describe our disposition, particularly as we gather for corporate worship to be reminded of this story. But there is more.
Corporate worship should remind us that, as Christians, we are a part of this story. And each of us should appropriately play our part. Each of us should do so in such a way that we do not distract others from paying attention to this story. Each of us should do so in an orderly way. This is the theme which Paul addresses in chapters 11–14.
When we studied 11:2–16, we did so under the heading “What to Wear When You Come to Church” and we learned that the church in Corinth was missing appropriate “story time” through unnecessary distractions and inordinate disorder. Paul reminds them that God’s creation design of humanity was two genders, each complementing the other in their mutual submission of relationship. Human beings are to submit to God and to one another (Ephesians 5:21). The carrying out of the mutual submission should be different and yet complementary.
Though some churches were contentious about this (v. 16), apparently the church at Corinth was pretty much sound in this area. Paul nevertheless wrote to provide further doctrinal clarity on this subject. Reminding them of the creation story was his goal to help them, as a congregation, to appreciate and appropriate the new creation story of the gospel. This required them wear their “Sunday best.” Our “Sunday best” is about our disposition rather than a tie or hat!
When Paul moves from the gender issue to the issue of gathering and the Lord’s Supper (vv. 17–34), he could no longer commend the church for how they gathered for story time. Though they were healthy when it came to gender distinction, they were unhealthy about social distinctions. This reared its ugly head in various ways (cf. 6:1–11), but particularly at “supper time.” When they gathered for the appointed mealtime, it was an ugly story time.
Rather than the Lord’s Supper telling the story of the cross and moving its participants to a cruciform life with one another, it told a completely different story: a story of worldly division. “They … twisted the sacrament from being about Christ’s accomplishment to being a ‘sacrament’ of their own accomplishment” (Um). They therefore needed to be corrected and to get on the right page of the story.
The Lord’s Supper proclaims a story—the story of the gospel—and we dare not do anything that messes with the storyline. We will study this passage under the theme “The Supper as Story” as we consider three broad movements in this text.
- Rebuking the Saints (vv. 17–19)
- Ruining the Supper (vv. 20–22)
- Remembering the Story (vv. 23–26)
Rebuking the Saints
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. 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 recognised.
(1 Corinthians 11:17–19)
Paul was indignant about their behaviour, rebuking them for behaving in a destructive rather than a constructive way when they gathered. He laments, “When you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (v. 17). Ouch!
The phrase “come together” occurs five times in the second half of this chapter. Gathering is good and commendable and necessary for the local church. Those who neglect gathering are in grave spiritual danger (Hebrews 10:24–25). During the COVID-19 pandemic, this truth came remarkably to the fore. Christians worldwide were experientially reminded of the need to personally gather in order to stir one another to love and good works. But though grateful for the resurgence of appreciation for corporate gathering, we must note from this passage that merely gathering is not always beneficial. In the case of the church at Corinth, their gatherings were actually harmful. Rather than gathering as those unified by the gospel, they were gathering as those divided. Just like the world.
Paul has previously noted some of their divisions: divisions over church leaders and favoured teachers (chapters 1–4); lawsuits between members (6:1–11); and tensions between the “strong” and the “weak” (chapters 8–10). In a future study, we will see that division existed around the exercise of spiritual gifts (chapters 11–14).
But Paul had also heard of another kind of division: social division over demographic prejudices. He “partly believed” reports about these divisions.
Paul wisely assesses that, though there might be slight exaggeration of the scope of the divisions, there was some validity to these complaints. We can learn from this not to believe everything we hear (see 1:10–11), but neither should we assess that everything is as great as press releases tell us! I sometimes think BBC is a very healthy church and, at other times, in desperate need of spiritual ICU!
The next statement—“for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognised”—is what Gordon Fee calls “one of the true puzzles in the letter.”
Is Paul saying that factions or divisions are a necessary part of the church life by which the true are separated from the false, the wheat from the chaff? Or is Paul using sarcasm? “No doubt, there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval!”? (Ciampa and Rosner). In other words, some were deliberately making distinctions in the congregation, wilfully separating from others since they were (so they thought) so much better.
It is quite possible that Paul was warning the congregation that how church members treat one another indicates their true spiritual condition, whether they are “genuine” or counterfeit. It is true that schism in a church has a revealing effect. So perhaps when it came to their relationship with each other, particularly in this context of their gathering for a meal, how they treated each other revealed true and false professions of faith. This would then serve as a warning to the more snobbish element in the church: Are you truly a disciple of Jesus?
On the other hand, the flow of the passage perhaps favours the sarcastic interpretation. That is, arrogant believers, obsessed with worldly class distinctions, needed the sarcastic rebuke to awaken them to the reality that perhaps they were not as “genuine” as they claimed. Thiselton writes, “It seems most probable that the phrase expresses an excuse or pretext made by householders in Corinth for the way in which the Lord’s Supper was conducted.”
Sadly, it remains an all-too-common reality that church members can gather with their own agenda, withholding themselves from unity with the wider body because they think they are the genuine ones. Almost everyone else is wrong, but they are “in the know.” What a shame. What a travesty. What danger.
Anyway, when it came to the Supper, there were those who were telling a far different story than the gospel story. Therefore, they needed this rebuke, for they were actually ruining the Supper. We see this in the next section.
Ruining the Supper
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.
(1 Corinthians 11:20–22)
Jesus instituted two ordinances. An “ordinance” is an authoritative rite required of those who profess to belong to Jesus Christ. The ordinances are baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Communion or the Eucharist). In baptism, one professes to be in covenant relationship with God, and with other Christians, through Jesus Christ. In the Lord’s Supper, one continues to profess being in covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ and with other Christians (10:16–17). These ordinances are non-negotiables in the local church, and only the local church has the biblical right to practice these. They serve, as it were, as the front door (baptism as entrance) and the back door (Lord’s Supper as continuance in the household). We will look at this in more detail next time, but for now we need to grasp that, since the Lord’s Supper is a non-verbal telling of the gospel story, the church in Corinth was correct to observe the Supper.
We can piece together from the passage that the Lord’s Supper was being observed within another meal: a kind of congregational feast, perhaps something like a potluck. At some point in the meal—probably towards the end—the congregation would observe Communion from the bread and wine from the feast (as Jesus did when he instituted it during his final Passover meal). The problem was not that they were including the Lord’s Supper as a part of a wider meal; the problem was how they were observing the Lord’s Supper.
Their attitudes and actions were having a ruinous effect on the Lord’s Supper. The story of the Supper was being ruined because, in their practice, the cross was no longer shaping the ordinance. An ordinance intended to be cross-centred had become crossless. An ordinance that was others-focused had morphed into an inordinate exercise in callous insensitivity. They were acting like those who don’t love the story.
The way the Supper was being ruined was that the poorer members of the church were being humiliated by those who were materially better off. Apparently, some church members were gorging themselves with food and wine while others were getting nothing, or little at best. Further, rather than waiting for the family to gather for the meal, they were commencing before all arrived (see v. 33). The result was that, when it came time to observe the ordinance, the selfish attitudes of church members actually disfigured what the Lord’s Supper pointed to: selfless sacrificial service on behalf of others. Their abuse had morphed the gospel story told by the Supper (v. 26). Therefore, Paul says, “It is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.” By their worldly behaviour, they had ruined the Supper and distorted its story.
Let me explain some cultural context to help us to see the bigger picture.
The early churches often met in homes, usually the large home of a church member. In Roman times (New Testament times), homes of the wealthy often had three different rooms designated for eating or entertaining. First, there was the triclinium (a smaller dining room), where the highly honoured guests reclined and ate. Then there was what was called the atrium, where those a step below on the social ladder would gather and eat, while the courtyard was for those who barely had a rung on the social ladder.
Further social humiliation occurred by serving different menus, depending on where you gathered. Those in the triclinium received the best food and wine while, in decreasing order, those in the atrium and then in the courtyard would receive poorer fare. Those of a high social class ate caviar and champagne while those in the courtyard received pap and beans washed down with Oros. When we understand this cultural milieu, we can better appreciate how the Lord’s Supper was being ruined.
Picture the scene. Church members receive a WhatsApp message: “The church is gathering this week at the home of Felix and Sophia, in the upmarket Corinthian Estates. We will observe Communion as a part of church-wide meal. Bring your food and a little extra for others. Looking forward to the fellowship. Signed, the Elders.”
Sunday arrives and the church begins to gather for a late afternoon meal. Not everyone is there, because some of the members, who work as servants, are still at work. But rather than wait, some decide that they should go ahead because, after all, they are hungry. The members begin to queue, only to be told that there is designated seating depending on the kind of chariot they drove to the gathering, or their professional standing, or, of course, the branding on their garments.
The church membership was literally divided between the haves and the have nots. After all, if the poorer members ate with the wealthier, they might pile up their plates and those more esteemed might have to forego some pleasantries. And so the world’s caste system ensured that those with social status were treated with privilege.
Having sorted out the seating arrangements, and the assigned menus, the meal begins. Two thirds of the way into the meal, poorer members enter, having just been released from the homes of their masters. They are hungry and tired but they know that gathering with the church is important and so they come to the meeting place. When they arrive, they are met by some very well-fed church members, some so well-imbibed that they seem rather tipsy.
These poorer members ask if there is any food left and are told, “Sorry, it seems like it has all been eaten. But at least there is bread and wine for the Lord’s Supper.”
Someone rings the bell, calling the congregation together: It is time for the Lord’s Supper. The church is now going to reenact the story of the night in which Jesus announced the new covenant through his body and blood, when he instituted this ordinance in commemoration of his selfless, sacrificial bloody and horrific death the next day for sinners. And so, with heads bowed and the pianist playing softly in the background, church members bow their heads and thank the Lord for such a selfless act. And, while doing so, one can hear the growl of hungry stomachs intertwined with the unpleasant sound of overstuffed stomachs. Worse, perhaps even some are belching from too much wine. Still worse, the wealthy demand to be served the elements first, in case the supply runs out.
With such a situation, it is no wonder Paul wrote, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat…. Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (vv. 20, 22). Good for you, Paul.
Paul is teaching that there is so much more to the Lord’s Supper than the details. What matters is the disposition of its participants. Apart from a cruciform disposition, apart from a gospel-shaped congregation, the Lord’s Supper is an empty ritual. Unless its participants are informed and impacted by the gospel, the Lord’s Supper is ruined and the story it is meant to tell will be marred and muted.
When we are shaped by the world rather than by the word, church members will be “despised” (looked down on) and “humiliated.”
Let me apply this.
Right actions must be coupled with right attitudes. The Lord’s Supper, baptism, and church gathering are right, but they should be wed to a right disposition. We might fool others, but we will never fool God. We are to do our duty, but we must do so with a disposition of devotion. If we are not selfless and sacrificial, we ruin the rite.
Let us guard against hypocrisy. Believers were denying the gospel at a meal and then pretending they loved the gospel at the Table. Their attitudes and actions were telling a story of worldliness while, at the Table, they tried to tell the story of an others-minded gospel. If there were any unbelievers in attendance, they doubtless heard the former story rather than the latter, which is the one they needed to hear. How we behave before we come to the Table matters. In fact, it is revealing of whether we know the story of the Supper.
Let the Supper raise our estimation of one another. We dare not despise another member, including despising them because of their so-called status in life. What matters is, do they belong to the Chief Shepherd (Matthew 18:10–14)?
I can speak only for my own church: As an increasingly diverse congregation—culturally and economically—what story will we tell one another? Will we tell the common tale that a person’s value is determined by their career, academic pedigree, or the part of town in which they live? Will it be determined by the size of their house or the brand of their car? Or, informed by the gospel, will our interactions with one another tell the radical story that, because God became man, because God’s Son laid aside his robes of glory, humbling himself, our worth is not in what we own but rather in being reconciled to God through Jesus Christ alone.
We need to seriously consider this. We need to repent of embracing the world’s shallow value system, a value system that has produced immeasurable misery. We have a story to tell the nations, which has nothing to do with social status. In fact, our story is grounded in the warning, “What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” (Matthew 16:26). The Lord’s Supper, as Paul will explain, is an antidote to such folly.
Finally, and related to the previous point, we must practically work hard to be understanding of those who have less. That is, because of the gospel story, let us be willing to share with one another without being critical of those who have little to share.
Here is the point: Think of the gospel story before jumping in boots and all with your condemnation. Because of God’s grace to spiritual paupers like us, we don’t need to sweat the small stuff.
Remembering the Story
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.
(1 Corinthians 11:23–26)
Paul now applies the gospel story to their sordid story. He recounts the narrative of Jesus’s institution of the Lord’s Supper. By doing so, he contrasts their unchristian behaviour with expected Christian behaviour.
Paul is probably alluding to Luke’s account of the Communion institution (Luke 22:14–20). As the Passover meal was being concluded, Jesus took bread and, likening it to his body, gave thanks, broke the bread and told his disciples to eat it in remembrance of him. He did likewise with the cup as a picture of his soon-to-be-shed blood, which would inaugurate the new covenant. There is a wealth of truth in these words. Jesus was declaring that he was about to enact a new and second exodus by which his disciples, and all who would repent and trust him, would be delivered from their guilt and their bondage to sin, being reconciled to holy God. It was for this reason that Jesus instituted this meal at the Jewish Passover, a feast through which the people of Israel were to remember God’s great and gracious and covenant-sealing deliverance. But here, Jesus was pointing to a greater deliverance, for he would save his people from their sins.
He would create a new people: the Israel of God, the new covenant church. And he would accomplish this by his selfless, sacrificial, others-oriented work on the cross. That is, the Passover feast pointed to a greater Passover event: It pointed to Jesus Christ who, as our Passover Lamb, was sacrificed for us (5:7). The original exodus story pointed to a greater exodus story. And just as the original exodus story was to influence how the nation of Israel lived, so the greater exodus story is to influence and shape how we live. The Lord’s Supper retells this story each time we observe it.
The Corinthians were out of shape, and the way to get back into shape was through this means of grace. When properly remembered—not merely mentally but meaningfully—the shape of their local church would become more cruciform, and thereby more conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. As Schreiner observes, “This remembrance is not mere mental recall but shapes and changes the life of the one who remembers.”
Paul is literally applying the Lord’s Supper to them with the expectation that, as they remember the gospel story, it will transform their attitudes and actions. As they remember the good news of Jesus dying for their sins, as they remember Jesus sacrificing his life in order to give them spiritual life, as they remember Jesus rising from the dead for their justification, it will humble them and will reshape their value system included how they value others.
David Jackman observes, “The Lord Jesus instituted the supper as a perpetual reminder, not simply to rekindle our memories but also to prompt us to an appropriate response in newness of life. When the Bible calls upon us to remember a truth, it is always in order to provoke us to an appropriate action.”
Paul is calling the church to remember the gospel, which will prove the remedy for what ails them. Again Jackman is helpful: “To eat and drink at the Lord’s Table implies not only saving faith, but a life-style lived under his active Lordship.” Clearly this was the need then and there and it remains the need here and now.
The Lord’s Supper is meant to shape us. The Lord’s Supper is a means of retelling the story of the gospel so that those saved by the gospel will be shaped into others-oriented people. After all, is this not a major message of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Brothers and sisters let us not lose sight of this powerful story proclaimed by the Supper (v. 26).
We will return to this passage but, as we conclude, let me make some important observations.
The Lord’s Supper properly appreciated requires our attention to the story. Guard against the rite becoming rote. How? By the aid of the Holy Spirit, who points us to Jesus Christ and his gospel. Engage your heart and your mind.
The Lord’s Supper requires recipients to esteem others better than themselves, not just at the Table. That is, if we abuse brothers and Christians during the week, if we are prejudiced and racist during the week, we will distort the story of the Supper.
We should regularly observe the Supper because we regularly need to hear the story that the Supper tells. And if you refuse the Supper because it does not fit into your preferred schedule, you should ask the Holy Spirit to grant you forgiveness so that you might appreciated the old, old story of Jesus and his love.
Are you eligible for the Supper? We will look at this more closely next time but, fundamentally, those eligible have a saving interest in the story. Schreiner writes, “The Lord’s Supper communicates a story to the world, a story of sacrificial love in which Jesus gave up his life for the sake of others.” Is this your story? As one commentator put it, the Lord’s Supper points to an event: “an event for me that involves me” (Thiselton). That event was the death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Can you say, “Jesus Christ died for me?” Are you a part of his story? Can you sing, “I love to tell the story?” Then the Supper is for you because the Saviour is for you.
AMEN