The first abuse reflects a problem on the horizontal level, between believers in the church. The second more serious abuse was vertical, involving the church and its Lord.
This aspect of the problem involved showing disregard for the poorer members of the church.
11:17 The Corinthians' behavior at the Lord's Supper was so bad that Paul could say they were worse off for observing it as they did rather than better off. Their failure was not that they failed to observe the Lord's Supper. It was that when they gathered they did not behave as the church, in which there is no distinction between "Jews or Greeks,""slaves or free"(12:13).
11:18 "In the first place"evidently refers to all that follows in verses 18-34. Paul decided to wait to deal with other similar matters until he arrived in Corinth (v. 34).
The context of the occasion in view was the assembling of the whole church family (cf. 14:23). When Paul later wrote his epistle to the Romans from Corinth, the Corinthian church was meeting in the home of Gaius (Rom. 16:23).
The divisions (Gr. schismata) to which Paul referred here were social groupings within the church, not differences involving loyalty to leaders (1:12).
Evidently those who had reported this abuse in the Corinthian church to Paul had given him much detail about what was happening. Paul said he believed enough of this to conclude that there was a serious problem.
11:19 Divisions or factions (Gr. haireseis) of this type have a positive side. They clarify whom God approves as faithful and trustworthy and who are not (cf. Matt. 10:34-37; 18:7; 24:9-13).
11:20 In the Christian church's early years the Lord's Supper occupied a more central position in the life of local assemblies than it does in most churches today. The early believers often celebrated it daily or weekly (cf. Acts 2:42-46; 20:7). However, it was just as impossible to observe this feast properly in an atmosphere of social discrimination as it was to do so while also attending feasts that honored idols (10:21).
11:21 The Lord's Supper was usually part of a meal the Christians shared together, the so-called "love feast."In Corinth instead of sharing their food and drinks, each family was bringing its own and eating what it had brought. The result was that the rich had plenty but the poor had little and suffered embarrassment as well. This was hardly the picture of Christian love and unity (cf. Acts 2:44-46; 4:32, 34-35). Furthermore some with plenty of wine to drink were evidently drinking too heavily. They were eating their own private meals rather than sharing a meal consecrated to the Lord.
11:22 This verse contains some of the apostle's most critical statements in this epistle. If his original readers chose to behave in such a selfish way, they should stay home and eat rather than humiliating their less fortunate brethren. Such conduct showed disrespect for the church as the temple of God (cf. 3:17).
"The early Church was the one place in all the ancient world where the barriers which divided the world were down. The ancient world was very rigidly divided; there were the free men and the slaves; there were the Greeks and the barbarians--the people who did not speak Greek; there were the Jews and the Gentiles; there were the Roman citizens an the lesser breeds without the law; there were the cultured and the ignorant. The Church was the one place where all men could and did come together. . . . A Church where social and class distinctions exist is no true Church at all. A real Church is a body of men and women united to each other because all are united to Christ.
"A Church is not true Church where the art of sharing is forgotten."254
There was an even more serious dimension to this problem. The Corinthians were sinning against the Lord as well as one another.
11:23 What Paul taught here came ultimately from the Lord Jesus Himself. This reminder stresses the importance of this revelation.
"The verbs received' and passed on,' which occur again in combination in 15:3, are technical terms from Paul's Jewish heritage for the transmission of religious instruction. His present concern is to establish that the tradition about the Supper they had received from him came from Jesus himself: I received [it] from the Lord.'"255
The terminology used here does not require us to understand that the Lord Jesus communicated this information to Paul personally. Paul's wording suggests that he may have been repeating exactly what others had taught him. This is not a verbatim quotation from one of the Gospel accounts.
Paul described the night Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper as the night in which He was betrayed. This draws attention to the Savior's great love for His own. The Lord was graciously providing for His disciples when one of them was plotting to do away with Him.
11:24 The Greek word eucharisteo, "to give thanks,"accounts for the fact that another name for the Lord's Supper is the Eucharist. Likewise some Christians call it "the breaking of bread"because Jesus broke the bread as Paul stated here.
There have been various interpretations of what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body."There are four main views. Roman Catholics take it as a literal statement meaning the bread really becomes the body of Christ and the contents of the cup become the blood of Christ. They believe this is true when duly authorized representatives of the church conduct the service properly. This is the transubstantiation view. Adherents believe God transfers the body and blood of Christ into the substance of the elements. The bread and wine really become the physical body and blood of Christ.
A second view is not quite so literal. It is the consubstantiation view and, as the word implies, its advocates see the body and blood of Christ as present "in, with, and under"the elements. Christ is "really"present, though not physically present, in this Lutheran view.
The third major view is the spiritual presence view that Presbyterians and other followers of Calvin hold. For them the spiritual presence of Christ is in the elements and, as in the former views, God ministers grace to the communicant in a concrete way through participation.
The fourth view is the memorial view. Advocates believe that when Jesus said, "This is my body,"he meant, "This represents my body."In other words, they understand His statement as completely metaphorical. They view the elements as pictures or emblems of the body and blood of Christ. In contrast to the preceding views this one does not see Christ present in any special sense in the elements. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, promoted this view. Today most of the churches from the Anabaptist branch of Protestantism (i.e., Baptists, Methodists, independent Bible churches, et al.) follow this interpretation.256
"The identification of the bread with the body is semitic imagery in its heightened form. As in all such identifications, he means this signifies/represents my body.' It lies quite beyond both Jesus' intent and the framework within which he and the disciples lived to imagine that some actual change took place, or was intended to take place, in the bread itself. Such a view could only have arisen in the church at a much later stage when Greek modes of thinking had rather thoroughly replaced semitic ones."257
Jesus invited his disciples to take the bread that represented His body. He thus gave them a share in His body and invited them to participate in the meaning and benefits of His death. His body was "for"them in a double sense. It was what secured atonement on their behalf(cf. 15:3; Rom. 5:6, 8), and it was a body offered in their place(e.g., Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21).
The Lord's request that His disciples remember Him by partaking of bread and the fruit of the vine is rich with significance. Many followers remember their leaders by erecting stone monuments to their memories and making pilgrimages to these sites. In contrast the Lord Jesus made remembering Him easy yet profound. Eating the elements helps us appreciate the fact that Christ is really within us. Eating together reminds us of our unity with other believers in Christ's body.
Remembering in biblical terminology does not mean just calling to memory. It includes realizing what the event remembered involved (cf. Exod. 13:3; 20:8; Deut. 5:15; 7:18; et al.). The Lord's Supper is not just something Christians do to bring the memory of Jesus back into fresh view. It is a memorial of the salvation that He accomplished by His death and resurrection. First Corinthians 11:24 contains the Lord's command to observe the Eucharist as do the Gospel accounts of the institution of this ordinance.258It is impossible to be an obedient Christian without observing the Lord's Supper.
Some Christian groups refer to the Lord's Supper as one of the "sacraments."They mean the elements minister grace to the participant in a more direct and physical way than those who speak of it as an "ordinance,"assuming they are using these terms properly. An ordinance or sacrament is a rite the Lord commanded His followers to observe.
Most Protestants believe there are two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper. A few Protestant groups include foot washing as an ordinance on the basis of John 13:12-17 (e.g., the Grace Brethren, some Mennonites, et al.).
11:25 As Jesus had taken the bread and given thanks for it, so He also took the cup and gave thanks for it (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 20:25).
When Jesus shed His blood on Calvary, that blood ratified (gave formal sanction to) the New Covenant that Jeremiah had predicted (Jer. 31:31-34, cf. Exod. 24:8). The New Covenant replaced the old Mosaic Covenant (Heb. 8:8-13; 9:18-28). Even though the Jews will be the major beneficiaries of the benefits of this covenant in the Millennium, all believers began to benefit from the death of Christ when He died.259
This arrangement resembles one that is possible to set up in a Charitable Lead Unit Trust under the Internal Revenue Code of the United States. Suppose there was a vastly wealthy and generous philanthropist of the magnitude of a Rockefeller or Vanderbilt. As he prepared his will he bequeathed millions of dollars to various charitable causes that would benefit millions of people all over the world when he died. He also wrote into his will that when his only son reached the age of 21 he would inherit billions of dollars. When this man died, his son was only five years old, so for 16 years he did not enter into his father's inheritance. However as soon as the philanthropist died the millions of dollars he had bequeathed to charity went to work immediately to help many people.
This illustration shows how the church enters into the blessings of the New Covenant. When Christ established the Lord's Supper it was as though He notarized His will; it became official then. The will is the New Covenant. When He died His "estate"became available to those He chose to profit from it. Soon many people around the world, Jews and Gentiles in the church, began to benefit from the blessings of His death. However His chosen people, His son Israel, will not enter into their inheritance until the appointed time, namely the Millennium. Blessings for the church began almost immediately after Christ's death. Blessings for Israel will not begin until Christ's appointed time arrives.
Whenever the Jews celebrated the Passover the father who was conducting the service would explain the significance of each part to the rest of the family (cf. Deut. 16:3). Jesus did the same for His disciples when He instituted the Lord's Supper.
11:26 Paul continued Jesus' explanation. Participation in the Lord's Supper dramatizes the gospel. The service becomes a visual as well as an audible setting forth of the death of Christ and its significance.
"The Eucharist is an actedsermon, an actedproclamation of the death which it commemorates; but it is possible that there is reference to some expression of beliefin the atoning death of Christ as being a usual element in the service."260
Paul may have referred to "the cup"rather than "the wine,"which would have been parallel to "the bread,"to avoid the direct identification of the wine in the cup with blood. The idea of drinking blood was revolting to most people in the ancient world, particularly the Jews.261On the other hand, he may have viewed both elements symbolically, the cup being a symbol of one's lot in life and the bread a symbol of what sustains life.
The Lord's Supper is not only a memorial celebration looking back to Jesus Christ's first advent. It is also an anticipatory celebration looking forward to His second advent. Evidently when the Lord returns to set up His earthly kingdom He will establish a new form of worship that will include the offering of certain animal sacrifices (Ezek. 40-48). These will be similar to the animal sacrifices the Jews offered under the Old Covenant. However since Jesus Christ has made a final sacrifice these animal offerings will evidently be memorial and entirely for worship, not for the expiation of sin. Another possibility is that they will be for the purpose of restoring fellowship with God then.262
In this section Paul reviewed and expounded the significance of the Lord's Supper so his readers would value and celebrate it appropriately.
"In short, Paul is doing one thing and one thing alone. He is impressing on the Corinthians the tremendous importance of doing just this: eating thisbread and drinking thiscup. It is, after all, a matter of celebrating the Lord's death."263
