Jesus and Communion.
1Corr. 11:17-34
An understanding of historical background is essential in the interpretation of any document, biblical or otherwise. Consequently, this factor plays a larger role in the interpretation of many books of the New Testament .
Romans is one of those books where an understanding of historical background is essential. In Romans Paul is writing to a church which he did not establish and which he had not visited at the time of writing. As a result, the teaching here is the closest thing that Paul ever wrote as a summary of Christian doctrine, and there is less reference to local problems.
However, Paul was intimately involved with the church in Corinth. He had led in its establishment, had kept in close touch with it, and was now writing in the face of pressing needs. A thorough knowledge of the problems of the church is essential to the interpretation of this epistle.
The City of Corinth
Ancient Corinth was completely destroyed in 146 B.C. A century passed before it was rebuilt. The city lay on a narrow strip of land between the Corinthian Gulf and the Saronic Gulf, and this strategic location insured the commercial prosperity of the city. Merchant seamen preferred to send their cargoes across the isthmus ( the narrow strip of land) to making the long and perilous journey around the tip of Greece. Smaller ships were taken across the isthmus “by means of a ship tramway with wooden rails.” The larger vessels which could not be handled in this manner were unloaded, and the merchandise was transferred to other ships across the isthmus.
The new city was a Roman colony; and its inhabitants were mainly Romans, both veterans and freedmen. The international port and commercial prosperity that came with it had also attracted many to the city and it was truly cosmopolitan. Enough Jews were present to justify a synagogue The exact population cannot be determined; estimates run from 100,000 to 600,000. It was a teeming city made up of residents of many nationalities; in addition there were always present large numbers of sailors and merchants from all over the Roman Empire.
Corinth never became the intellectual center that Athens was, but it had distinguishing characteristics of its own. Just outside the city the Isthmian Games were conducted every two years. Athletes from distant parts were attracted to these games, which were conducted even during the century that the city lay in ruins.
Corinth was strategically located. It was a hub whose spokes radiated in every direction. Any movement which gained a footing here could be assured of a hearing in surrounding districts.
The Atmosphere in Which the Church Existed
A church will inevitably reflect to some extent the society in which it exists. The international port and the cosmopolitan population and also the influx of sailors and merchants made the city of Corinth a grossly sinful one and this atmosphere reflected in life of the church. Many of the problems of the church found their basis in the life of the city.
Perhaps the most significant of the factors which comprised the atmosphere of Corinth was immorality. Both the old city and the Roman colony were known far and wide for their sexual looseness. The focal point was the Acrocorinth, a sharp projection which rose to a height of 1,800 feet. On the summit of this steep mountain stood the temple of Aphrodite, a symbol of the lust which pervaded the mind of the city. The worship of this goddess was imported from the Phoenician cult of Astarte. In old Corinth the temple maintained a thousand priestesses who amounted to no more than common prostitutes. It is not certain that the thousand priestesses were maintained in the temple of rebuilt Corinth; nevertheless, the gross immorality continued as before. The attitude of the city toward immorality involved no condemnation whatever on those who were participants ; on the contrary, it was considered to be a normal part of life. The same loose attitude was often reflected in the church. The case of incest in chapter 5, immoral behaviour in chapter 6: 12-20 and the question about the Christian view of marriage in chapter 7 and the other matters mention in the epistle had their roots in the immoral mind of the city. Most of the members of the church were Gentiles, and the strict morality characteristic of the Jews was foreign to them. They found it difficult to understand that what they once considered virtue was now sin.
Idolatry is another feature of the city which was closely linked to its immorality. In addition to the temple of Aphrodite, there were numerous others, and the worship in these temples was popular among the residents. These idol temples played a significant role in both economic and social life. The economic factor arose from the practice of sacrificing animals to the idols. Some of the meat sacrificed was consumed in the sacrifice, some of it was eaten by the priests, and some of it was sold in the markets of the city. Accurate identification of this meat was often impossible, and a customer would have no way of knowing whether his meat had come from the altar of some pagan temple. Also when a citizen went to dine with a friend, there was no way of knowing whether the meat served him had come from the worship of an idol. The church in Corinth had a great problem at this point; some felt that there was no harm whatever in eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols while others felt that they were participating in idolatry when they did so. On the more distinctly social side, there was the problem of whether to attend feasts given in the idol temples. These feasts were outstanding social events, and many of the converted Gentiles continued to receive invitations. Could they in good faith attend on the assurance that an idol was nothing and that they were simply maintaining normal social intercourse? These problems were acute for the Corinthian converts, and Paul’s answers continue to be helpful today for the Christian who is struggling with similar questionable practices.
Another factor from the atmosphere of Corinth which made its impact upon the church was the intellectual climate. There is difficulty involved in classifying this climate because it consisted of many diverse elements. Here was an amalgamation of Roman and Greek life. Although Corinth was not the intellectual center that Athens was, the Greek mind was still felt here. In Athens Paul had been ridiculed because of his preaching of the resurrection (Acts 17:32). The Greeks considered matter evil and spirit good; consequently, they held that a resurrection of the body was repugnant. Corinth retained enough of this Greek outlook to view the doctrines of the resurrection and the potential goodness of the body during this life with suspicion. The one great doctrinal passage in First Corinthians, chapter 15, was elicited because of the Corinthians’ difficulty with the resurrection. Another expression of the Greek mind is reflected in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, where some were contending that the body was innately evil and that the sins of the flesh could neither be avoided nor condemned. Paul countered with the Christian teaching of the dignity of the body.
The factions and divisions which existed in the church at Corinth are in part explained by the spirit of the city. The population consisted of Romans, Greeks , a small number of Jews , other nationalities and also men of adventure from all over the then known world. This independent spirit carried over into the church, and there was displayed the tendency for each member to line up behind his favorite leader in competition with all others. This spirit was also revealed in the attempt of women to be as independent as possible in the congregation (11:5-15; 14:34-35) and in the insistence of those with spiritual gifts on displaying them publicly without regard to the edification of the church (chaps. 12 and 14).
Paul received news from Corinth by the household of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11). Several factions had appeared in the fellowship of the church, and they were menacing its life and ministry. Subsequently, the Corinthians themselves wrote Paul a letter and requested his advice on a number of problems (1 Cor. 7:1). Paul responded to the news brought by the household of Chloe and to the questions sent by the church with the letter we know as First Corinthians. He wrote to answer the questions addressed to him by the Corinthians and to correct the problems about which he had heard from the members of the household of Chloe. First Corinthians reveals Paul’s skill in dealing with the problems of a local congregation. If Romans reveals Paul as a theologian, First Corinthians shows him as an administrator.
With this as a background let us look at 1 Corinthians 11: 7-20 - The Lord’s Table.
What major significance is there about the Lord’s Supper? What can the Christian learn from this special night?
The Gospels of Matthew (26:26ff), Mark (14:22ff), and Luke (22:14ff) all report the Last Supper that Jesus had with his disciples the night before he died. Each describes Jesus giving thanks or blessing the bread and the cup, and giving them to his disciples saying that the bread is His body and the cup is the blood of new covenant in His blood. In Luke 22:19, Jesus says, “Do this in remembrance of me.” The Gospel of John in chapter 13 doesn’t report the eating and drinking, but rather the teachings that filled the evening.
So the historical origin of the Lord’s Supper is that final supper that Jesus ate with his disciples the night before he was crucified . We can go further back and say that The Last Supper also had its origin in the Old Testament Feast of the Passover. The actions and meaning of it are all rooted in what Jesus said and did on that last night. Jesus himself is the origin of the Lord’s Supper and He commanded that it be continued.
The Jewish Passover was the Old Covenant meal. The covenant had been in place for many years before the Passover. Israel’s identity flowed from the covenant that God made with Abraham. However, under Moses Israel needed more than just to be identified with Abraham’s covenant. That identification was producing bondage because the Egyptians feared it. They needed the power of the covenant to be delivered from the bondage in Egypt.
God told them to sacrifice of a spotless lamb. They were to put the blood of the sacrifice on the doorposts and lintel of their homes. Anyone who had the blood on their house would not suffer the 10th plague - death of the firstborn. It made no difference if they were Hebrew or Egyptian. Each had to choose to obey for themselves. No one could do it for them.
They were also told to eat the offering. However, there were specific instructions as to how they were to eat it. They were to eat it by faith in that they had to be ready to leave in the morning. They were to eat it in faith with the anticipation that they will be delivered from the power of slavery in Egypt.
Communion serves the same purpose as Passover. We are identified with the new covenant because we received Jesus as Lord and Savior and we were delivered from the power of sin.
When we received Jesus as Lord and Savior, we were also identified with Him and He with us. That is a spiritual reality. The devil knows it and we need to understand it. When we celebrate communion, we are legally reaffirming our legal connection to Jesus. When I take the bread and the wine I am saying to the world, my flesh and the devil, “I belong to Jesus. I am legally his and he is legally mine. All that I am belongs to him and all that he is belongs to me.” That is what covenant means. Jesus never instituted anything that was just a matter of religion or tradition. He brought life.
The Passover did the same thing but it did something else as well. God was going to unleash the full power of the covenant. He was about to prove that “He was their God and they were His people.” This required that they do more than just affirm their covenant relationship. They had to put weight on it. This was not just about identification it was about power. They were accessing the terms of the covenant by faith.
By putting the blood on the lintel and doorposts of their house the Hebrews were declaring their legal identity. By eating the covenant meal and having packed and were ready to leave , they were exercising their faith in their covenant partner - Almighty God. That is exactly what we should be doing when we receive communion.
Communion is the covenant meal of the “New Covenant in the blood of Jesus.” There is a great deal of difference between the new and old covenants. Nevertheless, both are covenants. Certain things are the same. When we receive communion, it cannot be just a religious or traditional duty. We are declaring that we are in covenant with God in Jesus Christ. We are also accessing the blessing of that covenant by faith every time we do it.
The Old Covenant of Moses was primarily an outward covenant. There were certainly those who had a deeper relationship with God than that of the vast majority of the Hebrew people who simply did what the covenant told them to do. The law gave a consistent method for keeping the terms of the covenant, but it was an outward thing not an inward thing.
We also see that the purpose of the covenant was to identify Israel with the one true God. He became the “God of Israel” and they became the “children of Israel” and certainly of Abraham.
The apostle Paul summarizes the last supper of the Lord which He had with His disciples, he was not a participant of the original Last supper but received it by special revelation.
"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." (I Corinthians 11:23-25)
So Paul says that Communion commemorates His sacrifice—His broken body and His shed blood—by which He paid the penalty for human sin and consecrated the New Covenant (see Hebrews 9:11-28). These details of the Passover are " types" that were fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, so the New Testament church is no longer required to slay a lamb, since, as the apostle Paul writes, "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us" (I Corinthians 5:7).
When a Christian partakes of the Lord’s Supper, he is celebrating the fact that he is the spiritual beneficiary of the New Covenant that has been inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ who shed His blood on the cross. The broken bread and the cup of wine symbolizes the New Covenant that Jesus inaugurated when He went to the cross and shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20). When writing to the Christians at Corinth, the apostle Paul borrowed the very words Jesus used when He instituted the New Covenant (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25):
It was designed,
To commemorate the death of Christ: "This do in remembrance of me."
To signify, seal, and apply to believers all the benefits of the new covenant. In this ordinance Christ ratifies his promises to his people, and they on their part solemnly consecrate themselves to him and to his entire service.
Let us now consider verses 22 to 24 of 1 Cor. 11
Reading the earlier chapters of 1 Corinthians we find that the church at Corinth was a very problematic church. There was strife, party-spirit, division, pride, and toleration of immoral behaviour. Besides that, there was also disorder in their gatherings for worship.
"Now when you come together , you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper."
We are not supplied detailed information as to the place where they were meeting.
Each took "his own supper." Those who had were not being considerate of those of those who did not have, shaming those who have nothing?" ( v. 22). Hence, the resultant disparity was "hungry" (deprivation) and "drunken" (excess).
22 Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink? Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this! ........
It would appear that they had designed to come together to partake of the Lord’s Supper, as this was a regular practice (Acts 2: 42, 20: 7.) Instead of celebrating the Lord's Supper they turned it into an apparent out-of-control orgy and exploited the poor among them. How did they do it? In the first place, the financially prosperous simply brought their food and consumed it before those who did not have? Regarding what they were doing, Paul used the Greek word "methuo" ( Strong #3184) to describe their actions and manner by which they took the communion meal,. "…one is hungry, and another is drunken," wrote Paul (I Cor. 11: 21). "Methuo" is a word presenting excess and satiation. "And another is drunken." The word here used means,," to become inebriated", or "intoxicated"; and there is no reason for understanding it here in any other sense. There can be no doubt that the apostle meant to say, that they ate and drank to excess; and that their professed celebration of the Lord's Supper became a mere revel.
Paul was telling them that one problem in their worship that needed correction urgently was the disorderly way in which the Lord’s Supper was being conducted. The church at Corinth had made communion into a common meal: 1 Cor 11:20-22. According to verses 20-22 they were not partaking of the "Lord's Supper". How did this situation come about. Paul tells us that there was abuse in the way they partook of the Lord's Supper. The outcome of this abuse of the Lord’s Supper was that many Corinthians became weak and ill and some even died (v.30) – and it wasn’t due to food poisoning.
What was this sin, so serious that it brought about divine judgment? Was it the shocking case of incest Paul referred to in chapter 5? Was it the lawsuits or sexual immorality of chapter 6? Was it divorce as dealt with in chapter 7? Was it involvement with idolatry as discussed in chapters 8-10? No, it was none of these.
When we look back into the scripture we find that there were many who were judged in a similar manner. Nadab and Abihu are struck dead for offering “strange fire” to God (Leviticus 10:1; Numbers 3:4; 26:61). In Numbers 15:32-36, a man is stoned to death for picking up a few sticks of firewood on the Sabbath. Achan and his entire family are executed because Achan kept for himself a portion of the spoils of war dedicated to the Lord (Joshua 7:1-26). Uzzah is struck dead by the Lord for reaching out and touching the ark, as he attempts to keep it from plunging to the ground from the ox cart on which it is being transported . Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead by the Lord for falsely reporting the amount of their donation to the church (Acts 5:1-11) .
We know from chapters 1-10 that there were many serious problems in the Corinthian church. And yet it is not until the final half of chapter 11 that we find a sin so serious that it results in divine discipline. God’s chastening comes in the form of weakness, sickness, and death for many of the Corinthian saints. According to Paul’s account, this discipline is extensive. We can see from our text that “many” of the Corinthians were weak and sick.
The problem which resulted in divine discipline was that some of the Corinthian Christians
(a) Refused to acknowledge the meal they were eating was the Lord’s Supper (1Cor.11:20; 29)
(b) They failed to recognise that this was a solemn occasion nay a holy one. Those who arrived early seem to be the affluent members of the church, while those who came late were poor and probably were slaves. Those who arrived early were eating their own food to excess and get-ting drunk while others who were poor had nothing. A clear evidence of the divisions that were practised in the Corinthian Church. There were problems in the manner in which they were par-taking of the communion meal. And as such because by their actions they did not acknowledge the "body and blood" of the Lord they were punished with sickness and death.
Some suppose divine judgment has come upon believers who did not properly examine themselves, searching out and confessing their sins before partaking of communion. This interpretation has a number of problems.
There is certainly a theological problem with this interpretation. We are never “worthy” to par-take of communion. Communion is the commemoration of our Lord’s sacrificial death in the sinner’s place. Because we are unworthy of eternal life and worthy of divine damnation, Christ died in our place on the cross of Calvary. He took our sins upon Himself. He alone is worthy, and communion celebrates what He has done for unworthy sinners like us. No matter how many sins we think of and confess, we will not be worthy, other than in the blood of Christ.
Why was the Corinthians’ conduct so offensive to God that He disciplined these saints so severely? The answer lies in the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, a meaning which many of the Corinthians seem to have forsaken or forgotten, a meaning not grasped by many Christians today. To understand the seriousness of this sin of failing to wait for the Lord’s Supper we need to look at the final verses in this chapter to see what Paul says to the Corinthians regarding the solution to this serious problem:
We are reading verses 33 and 34.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come.
(1) The Lord’s Supper was a meal that was celebrated by the entire church, when they gathered weekly as a congregation. The Lord’s Supper was a part of the meeting of the church. The whole church “gathered together,” a fact that Paul emphasizes five times in verses 17-34:
The verb ‘gather together,’ repeated five times in vv. 17-22 and 33-34, is one of the key words that holds the argument together. Given its similar usage in 14:23 and 26, it had probably be-come a term for the ‘gathering together’ of the people of God for worship. Thus the concern is "what goes on when they ‘come together as the church’" (v. 18). The Corinthians problem was not their failure to gather, but their failure truly to be God’s new people when they gathered.
When God enters into a new covenant with men, this is often symbolized by a change in what His people can eat. In the Garden of Eden, men are vegetarians (Genesis 1:30). When God enters into covenant with Noah, men are given permission to eat meat (Genesis 9:1-7). When God makes a covenant with Israel through Moses, certain meats are declared “clean” and others “unclean.” To keep the Mosaic Covenant, one must watch what they eat and also to keep the Sabbath. With the coming of Christ and the New Covenant in His blood, a new menu is prescribed. God declares all food to be clean (Mark 7:14-23). It also took a forceful vision to change Peter’s mind about eating foods previously declared unclean (Acts 10-11), for dietary matters are one of the things which separated Jews and Gentiles. At the Jerusalem Council, three of the four commands laid down for the Gentiles concerned food (see Acts 15:20, 29).
In the remainder of the New Testament, the dinner table is still a most important symbol. Paul severely rebukes Peter for separating himself from the Gentile believers and sitting at the sup-per table with the Jews (Galatians 2:11-21). In His letter to the Laodiceans, our Lord likens their repentance and restoration to fellowship with Him to sitting with Him at the meal table (Revelation 3:20). The final events described by John in Revelation 19 are depicted as two ban-quets. The first banquet in verses 1-10 is the marriage banquet, which celebrates the marriage of our Lord to His church. The second banquet the “banquet of the buzzards” (verses 11-18), in which the bodies of the defeated enemies of our Lord are consumed by the birds. In Revelation 22, it is almost as though we have returned to paradise regained, for there the “tree of life” is found, and by partaking of it, the nations are healed (Revelation 22:1-2).
(2) The Lord’s Supper was a meal which has its roots in the Old Testament celebration of Passover. The last supper, as described in the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and as communicated to Paul by our Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23-25), was originally a Passover celebra-tion. Our Lord observed this Passover in an upper room, along with His 12 disciples. This “last supper” became the “first supper,” or more properly, the “Lord’s Supper.” Jesus instructs His disciples to continually observe this “supper” until His return (see verses 24 and 25).
(3) The Lord’s Supper was a supper with great symbolic meaning attached to it. The two most prominent symbols (type) are the one loaf of bread, which is broken into pieces and shared by all, and the wine, which is apparently poured into a common cup and drunk by all. Jesus taught His disciples and Paul that the bread represents His body that was broken, and the wine, His blood that was shed. By the action of some of the Corinthians they degraded the "type" and made it useless.
Here is why Paul finds it so important that the Corinthians wait for one another: it is so that they can all eat the Lord’s Supper together and so that each one who eats can receive an equal share. Here is why failing to wait for one another is such a serious sin. The symbolism of the Lord’s Supper is not limited just to the bread and the wine, but it extends to the entire meal as well. Some more affluent Corinthians were arriving earlier than others, and when they arrived, they refused to wait for their poorer brethren. They hastily ate the food which they had prepared and brought with them so that they could enjoy it all without sharing with the poorer members of the church. The “haves” received more than they needed, and the “have nots” did not get enough.
There was blatant inequality at the Lord’s Supper. And yet Christ’s work on Calvary, commemorated in the Lord’s Supper, made all saints equal before Him . How could one commemorate Christ’s equalizing work of atonement by eating the meal in a way that exhibited inequality? How could the saints worship Him who said, “Blessed are you who are poor” (Luke 6:20) by shaming the poor - ".... Or do you look down on the church of God and embarrass those who have nothing" (verse 22) How could those who proclaimed their unity with their fellow believers ignore the physical needs of those who came with little or no food? How could a church which was one body begin to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with only a partial “body” present? What the Corinthians were doing at the Lord’s Supper denied the things the Supper was intended to symbolize. No wonder Paul said that when they gathered as a church, they were not celebrating the “Lord’s Supper.” They most certainly were not.
But wait. It gets worse. In the most general sense, the Lord’s Supper was a celebration of our Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary for our unmerited benefit and blessing. The Lord Jesus set aside His own personal interests and became the sacrifice so that by His sufferings and death , we might be saved. And yet at the Lord’s Supper in Corinth, there is no self-sacrifice but only self-indulgence. The saints are all more concerned with satisfying their own bodily appetites than those of their fellow-believers. The most self-indulgent are those who least need food or drink. Those most in need are denied sustenance. In the way the Corinthians were conducting the Lord’s Supper, the poor were being publicly shamed and humiliated by exposing their deficiencies, rather than concealing them and providing for them.
The problem Paul exposes in the Corinthians’ celebration of the Lord’s Supper should be instructive to us. I doubt very much that the Corinthians grasped the seriousness of the sin they committed by failing to wait for the rest of the church before beginning the Lord’s Supper. I imagine they were shocked to learn that this was the reason for sickness and death in their assembly. Some of our most serious sins are subtle sins, sins that our culture may not even regard as bad taste. The Corinthians’ practice at the Lord’s Table was sin because it distorted one of the great symbols of our age, the celebration of our Lord’s suffering and death on our behalf. The Lord’s Supper commemorates what the Christian has experienced in Christ, and it pro-claims to unbelievers what every person must do to enter into intimate fellowship with Him. To disregard or distort the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper is to distort and misrepresent the gospel. No wonder the Corinthians are sick and dying!
As a result of the unfairness and gluttony surrounding communion, Paul says they were not really even eating the Lord’s Supper (verse 20). The people were not treating communion as a sacred event instituted by Jesus. Instead of reminding people of Jesus’ sacrifice, communion became a means of self-gratification, furthering the divisions among the Corinthian Christians. After describing the situation and explaining what communion should be, Paul writes, “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves” (1 Corinthians 11:27–29).
The word rendered “unworthily” (KJV) or “unworthy manner” (NASB, NIV, NKJV) is not an adjective describing the condition of the one partaking of communion, but an adverb, describing the manner in which one partakes of the Lord’s Supper. The sin of the Corinthians, for which divine discipline was imposed, was related to the manner in which the Lord’s Supper was observed. The state of the Corinthian Christian was not the question but the manner by which they were partaking of the communion was the problem.
The problem which resulted in divine discipline was that some of the Corinthian Christians did not recognise that what he was partaking was the Lord's Supper? and to wait for others to arrive at the supper table before eating? verse 21 and verse 33. God was so severe as to discipline many with sickness and death because of their table manners and also because they failed to recognise that what they were partaking was the Lord's Supper.
Paul is essentially asking the people to do a “heart check” before communion. Are their hearts in the right spot? Are they eating the meal to remember Christ's sacrifice and to engage in community? Are they actually having communion, or are they just selfishly satisfying their own appetites?
