Expository Thoughts on the Local Body in 1 Cor. 11:17-34 from C. Paul Rhoades
Introduction
You probably attend one of many churches within your city, you know not the names of all of the pastors in the other churches, you probably don’t know much of what is happening in the churches aside from the one you attend. When your pastor preaches through Romans 12, or 1 Corinthians 12, or Ephesians 4, you get fired up at the notion of being one body of Christ, and yourself being an individual member of that body. All the while thinking that the body of Christ is simply your local congregation, there are a number of bodies within your town, and they have their own members and gifts and so on. This is the way most people view the body of Christ, but what if I told you that the body of Christ is nothing like that? That instead the local (not universal) body of Christ is all of the believers in the city? and that in the apostolic age there was only one assembly in every city? Atop these things, that some in Corinth were dying because they failed to have a mind for the local body of Christ, that is, the rest of the saints in the city, particularly with reference to communion?
Exposition
In order to see this we will be walking through 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Paul has just finished discussing meat sacrificed to idols (8:1-11:1), he then discussed the topic of head coverings (11:2-16), and is now moving into discussion regarding the Lord’s table (11:17-34). Throughout these discussions Paul has been highlighting the need to seek to edify, rather than fight for your own rights, and also being willing to submit to authority. In this discussion on the Lord’s supper we will see Paul communicating that a lack of reminder as to what the Lord’s supper truly represents has caused those in Corinth to mistreat the other members of the local body of Christ. And that because the Lord’s supper preaches such an important message these individuals must be judged because of their ill treatment of the supper.
v17 “But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.” “This instruction” is probably with reference to what follows, rather than what has already been stated. The reason this is probable is that logically speaking after having been corrected by Paul there would be no reason to give the caveat that he does not praise them. It only logically follows that he would need to give said caveat if Corinth was proud of itself for a particular issue, and seeing as Paul has already taken them down a peg on head coverings it would make little sense for him to say this regarding that. Instead it follows that he is referring to something Corinth is proud of, this would be the fact that they faithfully gather. Who is you? The answer lies back in the beginning of the book, “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1:2). This is all of the saints in this one city. “But how do we know that? How do we know there weren’t a number of different churches in Corinth? Just because it says “the church” it does not mean there is only one.” In response to this objection we will see that Paul has no issue using the plural form of ekklesia, but he (and the other apostles) is very specific about his use of the term. If we look at 1 Thes. 1:1 we find Paul saying; “to the church of the Thessalonians”, in Rev. 2:1 Jesus says; “To the angel of the church in Ephesus”. We notice in these two instances Paul and Jesus use the singular form of the word, this is in contrast to the plural form used in 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 8:1; and Gal. 1:2. In these passages Paul is referring to the churches (plural) in Macedonia, and Galatia. And what is interesting about these locations is that they are not cities, they are districts, or regions.1 This can be seen for Macedonia in Acts 16:12 where Luke says; “the district of Macedonia”. This simply shows that a church was no larger and no smaller than a city, and it also shows that every Christian in the one city Corinth was gathering, for there is no reason to believe otherwise. Whenever the church in Corinth gathers they come not for the better but for the worse, this rightly begs the question, why? Why does Corinth’s gathering have such a negative result?
v18 For, in the first place when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. It must once again be noted that this is all of the saints in Corinth gathering in one location. They may have gathered in the synagogue considering Crispus (a member of the church, 1:14) was the leader of the synagogue (Acts 18:8). But it is more probable (if not certain) that they met in the house of Gaius, (Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 1:14), this would make sense seeing as Paul was probably writing to Rome from Corinth when Tertius penned Romans as Paul dictated.2 When every saint in Corinth gathers in the house of Gaius divisions exist among them, these divisions will be laid out further in the following verses, but something of great importance here is the statement that in part Paul believes it. This is fascinating, we know Paul received word of their divisions from Chloe’s people (1:11), but this may have been exclusively with regard to the disputes over church leaders (1:12). Nevertheless Paul has received this word from someone among them, and he appears not to have 100% confidence in their account, nevertheless he proceeds to exhort based upon the report he has received.
v19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Paul is here explaining his belief in the report he has received of their schisms in gathering, explaining that there must be such great division so that those approved may be shown. The question then arises, who are the approved? The word approved (dokimoi) is the same word used in 9:27 where Paul says he disciplines himself that he may not be disqualified (adokimos). In examining the context, we see that Paul is saying he does not take full use of his right in the gospel, by making a living off of it, and he disciplines himself in this area so as not to be a burden on those to whom he is preaching. When this is seen within the broader context Paul is commanding the Corinthian church to do likewise (11:1), set aside the rights they know they have (eating meat sacrificed to idols) and doing all that they do to glorify God, and edify the saints (8:1, 10:31). The approved would also include those who are submitting to the authority above them, the head of them (11:2-16). The approved would also (and primarily) include those who are obeying what Paul speaks of in the following verses regarding communion.
v20-21 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. Something most don’t recognize nearly to the degree they ought, is the value of the Lord’s supper, communion was so important for the early church that they placed more emphasis upon taking the Lord’s supper than they did listening to the preaching of their elders.3 Not only this, but when the apostolic church gathered one of their primary goals would be to “break bread” this would include having a meal together, and the partaking of the Lord’s supper.4 This is why Paul ties the Lord’s supper and the gathering of the Corinthian church so closely together. Something that must be noticed is that Paul states that they indeed do not gather to eat the Lord’s supper, my assumption would be that this is quite shocking to them, as presumably they had been expecting praise for their persistence in gathering and partaking of what they thought was the Lord’s supper, (11:17). But Paul here goes on to explain that they do not gather for the Lord’s supper because they do not properly understand what it is, what they are doing is entirely foreign and ultimately disrespectful to the supper itself. There was a single store of food for the Corinthian believers to partake of, but rather than waiting for the other believers to each get their food, some would go ahead and eat their fill without consideration of others. Consequently some were getting drunk, and others were left hungry. We see this in the phrase “each one takes his own supper first”, and the command to “wait for one another”. Another important thing to notice is the intimate connection between the communal partaking of the Lord’s supper and eating a meal (Acts 2:42, 46, 20:7). This can be most clearly seen in Luke 22:19 where Jesus institutes communion, there it says that “He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them,”. This does not seem like much until one sees Luke 24:30; “He took the bead and blessed it, and breaking it, he began giving it to them.”. We know this passage to be with regard to an ordinary meal, not with reference to the lord’s supper. In this we see that the phrase “breaking bread” can refer to both communion, and simply a regular meal, and when seen in Luke’s other work (Acts) it is presumably with reference to both.5
v22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. Paul here ties up neatly his thought that began in verse 17, he restates that it would be better if they had not gathered, he here states it by asking if they do not have houses to do this in. This statement also shows us that those who had the ability to eat luxuriously at home were instead simply taking and eating their fill of the love feast. They did this without reference to those who have nothing, who did not have the ability to eat at home. The wealthy were eating plenty, without care for those who have nothing, causing those who have nothing to be shamed. We also see that the misuse of communion is despising the church of God (the single church in Corinth, 1:2). By not having a mind for the other members of the body, one despises the church of God. Throughout this section we have seen that the divisions in Corinth that arise when the church gathers are as a result of a misuse of communion, which is a despising of the local body of Christ. Once again we see Paul making reference to praise for the Corinthians, it seems implicit that Corinth was searching for praise because they faithfully gathered and partook of what they thought the Lord’s supper was. This also shows that the instruction spoken of in verse 17 is with reference to what follows, rather than the preceding verses. Paul has been laying out the fact that Corinth misunderstands communion, resulting in further ill treatment of the body of Christ. Corinth thought they deserved praise, but instead they needed rebuke, for their actions were ultimately unedifying and were harmful to the church of God.
v23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; Paul had received this message from Jesus, and not only that but he had already passed this along to the church in Corinth, but now he must remind them again of what they already knew. Paul frequently must do this with the churches, (Rom. 6:3, 16, 7:1, etc.), Peter too had to stir up his readers by way of reminder (2 Pet. 1:12, 13, 3:1). Paul then moves on to communicate that this occurred in the night in which He (Jesus) was betrayed, this is truly an incredible reminder for the Corinthian believers. Those in Corinth are taking communion in a selfish manner, but Paul here indicates the scenario in which the supper was first initiated. Jesus knew full well of the fact that Judas was to betray Him that night (Jhn. 6:71) yet He still extended the cup and the bread to him in love. This was to be the selfless attitude that all believers were to have in communion.
v24-25 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 He took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ There was a strong debate shortly after the beginning of the reformation with regard to the elements themselves. Roman Catholics hold to a doctrine called “transubstantiation”; this doctrine states that the wine and bread physically become the body and blood of Christ when the priest says; “horpus corpus”. The second view is that which was held to by Martin Luther; consubstantiation, put simply, it is the doctrine that Christ is spiritually present with (con) the elements. The third view is that of Calvin, the view is very similar to Luther’s, here Calvin says that Christ is spiritually present in the elements. The fourth view put across by Zwingli is the memorial view, that communion is simply the act of remembering the death of our Lord. Zwingli’s view would say that Christ’s statement that the bread and wine are His body are simply hyperbolic statements, and not to be taken with literal rigidity.The Zwinglian interpretation seems most valid, seeing as the entire purpose of communion is for it to be in remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ. Again we see here that which Corinth had to be reminded of, this supper is to be in remembrance of the great sacrificial work of Christ, this is important for Corinth because they were taking the supper in a selfish rather than sacrificial manner. This highlights again the two reasons they were misusing the supper; they had forgotten what it truly meant, and they were mistreating the local body of Christ. Jesus states that the New Covenant is in His blood. This does not mean that the covenant is for the church, but it is simply the foundation upon which the covenant is to be built. (Heb. 7:22, 9:16-18, 10:29, 13:30).
v26-27 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. Once again we find the Zwinglian understanding of the Lord’s supper, it is simply the reminder and proclamation of the death of Christ. The word proclaim (katagello) is used two other times in 1 Corinthians, first in 2:1, and second in 9:14, each time it is with reference to the preaching of the gospel. This sheds incredible light on what the Lord’s supper truly is, and why it was so important that Paul address this. Corinth’s false understanding of the supper, and the lack of care extended to the rest of the local body was having an effect upon the proclamation of the death of Christ. The partaking of the Lord’s supper is a visual and audible sermon, which itself preaches the death of Christ. Because this is what communion is, the proclamation of Christ’s sacrificial work if we take it in an unworthy manner we are guilty of His body and blood. The unworthy manner is that which is described in verses 20-21, where we see Corinth is not focused on the care of the whole church. This stems from a lack of understanding of what the supper represents, the sacrifice of Christ. To be guilty of the body and blood of Christ is to be convicted of mistreating the Lord’s supper by not understanding what they represent and consequently mistreating the local body.
v28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. Rather than partake of the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner each individual is to examine himself. The question then arises, what is he to search for? The answer would be to search for any hint of a lack of love and edification in one’s actions. This follows directly from what has been communicated over the last few chapters, Paul has pointed out the lack of edification and love that those in Corinth are offering (8:1), and also the lack of respect for those in authority (11:10), and now desires that those in Corinth should search themselves as they partake of the supper that they would be those who are approved (19) by having a mind for the well-being of the rest of the local assembly.
v29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. The reason one is to have such a careful attitude in taking communion is that if one does not do this then he is set to receive judgement. The phrase “judge the body rightly” is of utmost importance, the question that must be asked in order to glean the proper understanding of the phrase is this; “what does it mean to judge the body?” We will first be defining “judge”, then the object of said judgement, the body. The word judge is the translation of the Greek diakrinō. This is important because this word simply means to discern or decide. Vine’s dictionary defines this word as signifying; “to separate, discriminate; then, to learn by discriminating, to determine, decide.”6 Two things must be considered when defining “body”, first, it occurs in the absence of blood, second, context determines interpretation. The fact that the body occurs in the absence of blood is quite striking, for as we have seen in the past few verses (24-28) every time the terms “body” or “bread” occur, they always occur along with “blood” or “wine”. These instances are obvious references to the Lord’s supper, but because Paul here uses body alone it opens us up to the possibility that this use of the word is with reference to something other than communion. Next we must look at the context. Paul has been speaking of the need to love and edify those fellow members of the local assembly by having a mind for them in taking communion. Looking further into the context we find verse 31, where Paul says “if we judged ourselves rightly”, this is an extremely enlightening verse when it comes to properly interpreting verse 29. This is the only other instance in this passage where Paul uses the term diakrinō, and it is with reference to discerning ourselves. This fits quite well with the context of loving and edifying the other members of the church of God (v22). But the question must be raised, can it be substantiated that “body” refers to the entire church assembly, that is, does Paul define “body” in this way elsewhere? The answer is yes, if we look at chapter ten verse seventeen we will find Paul stating the following with regard to the Lord’s supper; “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” We can also look to chapter 12 verse 27 we find Paul closing up his analogy of the body of Christ, and then state that; “you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.” When Paul uses “body” he is speaking with regard to either the universal (10:17, notice the use of “we”), or local (12:27) body. He appears to be speaking of the local body here because the entire context is with reference to a problem in the Corinthian rather than universal church. The sin of the Corinthian believers was that they were not discerning the needs, and the hunger of the other believers of the city in communion, but they were instead dividing themselves.6 The Corinthian believers needed to properly discern the well being of every Christian in the city, gathered at Gaius’ house for communion, but because of the schisms and the lack of discernment, judgement was being brought upon them.
v30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. It is because of a lack of care, and the presence of divisions between the members of Corinth’s body that many are being afflicted with physical ailments. Some even to the point of death (sleep). Sleep is used as a euphemism by Paul of death (1 Thes. 4:13-15). Frequently the mistreatment of other believers can result in loss of life, or illness, (Jam. 2:14), and it really ought to show the incredible weight that is placed upon not having divisions among the Christians in a city in communion, and the need to do all for love and edification of our brothers and sisters in the city in which we dwell. For as has already been shown the body of Christ is here with reference to all of the believers in each city gathered as one ekklesia, one church.
v31-32 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. Here we see that if we were to discern ourselves, that is, the church as a whole, properly then we would not experience the judgement (that is, the discipline) of God. But this discipline is meant to keep us from having judgement pronounced upon us (being condemned), as will occur for the world. If the single ekklesia in every city judged itself rightly then there would be no punishment from God. But this punishment is discipline, not God’s wrath, but discipline. It is fascinating that Paul includes himself in this set of verses, this is probably because it is a general universal rule, if we discerned the needs of the body correctly then we would not receive discipline, but we are disciplined so as not to be condemned. Paul is applying the general rule to the specific problem of communion in the Corinthian church.
v33-34 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come. Here we find the practical solution to the great problem that Paul has been laying out over the past few verses. Those in Corinth were to wait for one another to be served before they began to eat, that way there is no chance of someone going hungry while others are getting drunk. The next ordinance is that if anyone is hungry he is to eat at home, they are presumably to do this so that they are not tempted to unlovingly eat before all of the others are served, and in so doing bring judgement upon themselves for failing to care for the needs and edification of others (29, 31). It is fascinating that Paul here ties together something he stated in verse 20, he there states that they gather not for the Lord’s supper, he then goes on to communicate why this was the case. He finishes his discussion regarding why they are not gathered for the supper by speaking of judgement, and here ties it all up by saying that what they ought to avoid is coming together for judgement not the supper. This implicitly shows that Corinth was not gathering for communion, but instead they were gathered for judgement, because their actions were not preaching Christ’s sacrificial death, but were instead bringing upon themselves judgement. Put simply; a proper understanding that communion is commemorative of Christ’s sacrifice of love will lead us to love and edify the rest of the church in communion, and thus we will be gathered for the Lord’s supper as we will truly be operating in a manner consistent with the purpose of the supper itself (to proclaim the death of Christ). Corinth was not doing this; they had forgotten what communion represented which caused them to neglect the rest of the body of Christ, and consequently they were receiving judgement, the entire point of Corinth’s gathering at that point was to shrink the assembly through judgement incurred upon themselves. They incurred this judgement because they were failing to operate in a manner consistent with the purpose of the feast; to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
Conclusion
To tie this all up neatly it must be known by every Christian that the failure of Corinth was neglect of those other christians of the city gathered at the house of Gaius. Now think about your city, the church you attend, the number of churches in your town. Seeing as Corinth failed because they neglected the other members of the single church in Corinth, incurring death upon themselves because of a misuse of communion. How much more we, disconnected and divided from the other churches in the area ought to strive to remove schisms, to have a mind for the well being of the rest of the local body, to come together all of us as one assembly, to gather for one communion, as one ekklesia, one body, one church.
1 “…the epistle was necessitated by serious defection among Paul’s converts in the Roman province of Galatia made on his first (Acts 13:4-14:28), second (Acts 16:6) and third (Acts 18:23) missionary journeys. Opinions are divided concerning the recipients of the letter. Early study suggested it was directed to N. Galatia, but following Sir William Ramsay, most believe the letter was sent to the S. Galatian churches of Lystra, Derbe, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch.” Merril F. Unger on the recipients of ”Galatians” in p. 537 of The New Unger’s Bible Handbook.
2 “Four pieces of information from 15:23-33 are especially helpful in understanding the situation of Paul as he writes Romans. First, he is almost certainly in Corinth at the end of the third missionary journey (Acts 20:2-3; cf. 2 Cor. 13:1). Not only does this place and time best fit the movements Paul describes in chapter 15; it also explains why he commends to the Romans’ attention to a prominent woman from the church in Cenchrea, the seaport of Corinth (16:1-2).” This is an excerpt from the zondervan backgrounds commentary by Douglas J. Moo. Though Merril F. Unger disagrees with this (p. 515, New Unger’s Bible handbook) he appears to offer no sound reasoning to support his claim that Paul wrote Romans from Ephesus, meaning we truly only have reason to believe Paul wrote Romans from Corinth.
3 “From that time, and throughout most of its history, the Christian church has seen in communion its highest act of worship. Only at a relatively recent date has it become common practice in many Protestant churches to focus their worship on preaching rather than on communion.” Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity p. 94, on first century worship practices.
4“Two distinctive activities marked the fellowship of the early church. The “breaking of bread” is a term that here probably included the Lord’s Supper as well as eating a meal together (cf. v. 46; 20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23-25; Jude 12). Elsewhere the phrase describes both an ordinary meal (Luke 24:30, 35; Acts 20:11; 27:35) and the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24). Probably these early Christians ate together and as part of the meal, or after it, used their common food, bread and wine, to commemorate Christ’s death.” This is from Constable’s commentary on the book of Acts, commenting on chapter two, verse forty two.
5 “The most remarkable characteristic of those early communion services was that they were celebrations. The tone was one of joy and gratitude, rather than sorrow and repentance. In the beginning, communion was part of an entire meal. Believers brought what they could, and after the communion meal there were special prayers over the bread and the wine. However, by the beginning of the second century the common meal was being set aside, perhaps for fear of persecution, or in order to quell the rumors about orgiastic ‘love feasts’ [Jude 12]. Although the celebration then became more symbolic, the original tone of joy remained.” Justo L. González on first century worship services, in The Story of Christianity, p. 94.
6 “The unity of the body of Christ was so important that it seemed that something was lost when in a single city there were several congregations. In order to preserve and symbolize the bond of unity, the custom arose in some places to send a piece of bread from the communion service in the bishop’s church-the “fragmentum”-to be added to the bread to be used in other churches in the same city.” (Justo L. González, Story of Christianity, p. 95). This incredible value that was once placed upon the unity of the body in a single city and its effects upon communion was probably due to the spreading of this epistle to all of the churches, as the other epistles were, (Col. 4:16; 1 Thes. 5:27). Other churches would have seen this epistle and been deeply moved by the fact that many in Corinth were dying (see verse 30) because they were misusing the supper, and mistreating the local body of Christ. The emphasis upon communion as a “love feast” (Jude 12) died down only shortly after the first century, possibly because Paul’s epistles fell out of favor. As Phillip Schaff describes in p. 204 of his great History of the Christian Church; “But soon afterwards he [Paul] is almost forgotten, except by name. He is indeed associated with Peter as the founder of the church in Rome [Peter was probably not the founder], but in a secondary line; his epistle to the Romans is little read and understood by the Romans even to this day; his church lies outside of the walls of the eternal city, while St. Peter’s is its chief ornament and glory. In Africa alone he was appreciated, first by the rugged and racy Tertullian, more fully by the profound Augustine, who passed through similar contrasts in his religious experience; but Augustine’s Pauline doctrines of sin and grace had no effect whatever on the Eeastern church, and were practically overpowered in the Western church by Pelagian tendencies.“. It is more likely, however, that the practice of feasting with communion fell out because of fear of persecution, or in order to quell rumours about orgiastic “love feats” (see note 5, p. 6).
Bibliography
Constable, T. L. (2021). Notes on Acts. Constable’s Sermon Notes. Retrieved 5 15, 21, from planobiblechapel.org
González, J. L. (1984). The Story of Christianity (Prince Press ed., Vol. 1). Prince Press.
Moo, D. J. (2002). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Romans (Vol. 3). Zondervan.
Schaff, P. (1858). History of The Christian Church (3rd ed., Vol. 1). Hendrickson Publishers, .inc.
Unger, M. F. (2005). The New Unger’s Bible Handbook. The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Vine, W. E. (1997). Vine’s Expository Dictionary. Thomas Nelson inc.
Rice and Reason 