(Chap. 11:17-34)
At this point in the epistle the Apostle turns to address matters in the assembly when they were gathered together for worship and ministry. He says, “First, when ye come together in assembly...” As mentioned earlier, this phrase occurs seven times through the next few chapters, indicating that he is now addressing disorders having to do with the saints when they are together “in assembly.” It is significant that before speaking of ministry in the assembly, which is the exercise of gift, he addresses their behaviour at the Lord's Supper. This is the sphere of priesthood where praise and worship are offered. Since worship should always precede the exercise of gift in service, he addresses this first.
Prayer, praise, and worship all belong to the sphere of priesthood. Scripture teaches that every believer is a priest (1 Peter 2:5; Rev. 1:6; 5:10), and when the assembly is gathered together, the brothers should be in a good spiritual state so that the Spirit of God can lead them to act as the mouthpiece of the assembly, expressing publicly its dependence on God and its worship of God (1 Tim. 2:8). The Lord’s Supper is perhaps the preeminent meeting of the Church. It is not a meeting for the exercise of gift, but for the remembrance of the Lord in His death. It is not called a “worship” meeting, but worship certainly flows from the hearts of the saints when they are occupied with the Lord’s sufferings in death. It is a time when the saints can exercise their priesthood collectively in offering worship and praise to the Father and the Son.
Dishonouring the Lord’s Supper
Vss. 17-19—Such grave disorders existed in the assembly at Corinth that the Lord’s Supper, which should have been for their blessing, had become the occasion for bringing the governmental judgments of God upon them. Hence, Paul says, “Ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.” Coming to “the Lord’s Supper” in such a deplorable state was only for their “worse” in the sense that they were suffering under the governmental dealings of God for it, as verses 27-32 indicate.
The breaking of bread is the way in which the members of the body of Christ express their unity as set forth in their partaking of the “one loaf” (1 Cor. 10:17). However, the coming together of the saints at Corinth for that feast only manifested a state of division among them. The very feast that was supposed to manifest their unity manifested their spirit of division! He says, “There be divisions among you.” This was to their shame.
Moreover, since there were divisions, he tells them “there must be also heresies.” A division (a schism) is an inward rift among the saints, but a heresy (a sect) is an outward split among the saints where a party splits off and no longer meets in fellowship with the others. Paul warns that if those divisions (schisms) were not dealt with, sooner or later they would develop into a heresy. It was, and still is, Satan’s way of destroying the assembly from within. The Apostle says that if things get to that point, “they which are approved” will be made “manifest.” In other words, God allows these things to test us, and our state will be manifested by which side we take in the heresy.
Vss. 20-22—The Corinthians were apparently coming together for a preliminary social feast. Then at the end of it, they partook of the Lord’s Supper as sort of an add on. This was a terrible misunderstanding of the purpose of the Lord’s Supper. Paul would not have allowed it to happen when he was there with them for 18 months (Acts 18:11), so their meetings must have deteriorated considerably in his absence. Since some were poor and others were wealthy, it forged natural divisions among them as they ate their meals. Some brought an elaborate spread of food to indulge in, but others went “hungry.” This was diametrically opposed to the purpose of the breaking of bread at the Lord’s table. Their coming together had thus become a practical denial both of the Lord’s Supper and the truth of the assembly of God. To correct this, he tells them that they shouldn’t mix a social feast with the feast of remembrance. They could have their social feasts at home.
The Meaning of the Lord’s Supper
In verses 23-26, he goes on to speak of the real purpose of the Lord’s Supper. The setting in which the Lord instituted it is touching indeed. The very night that the evil of man rose to its height in the betrayal of Christ, His love was displayed in all its beauty. When lust led to betrayal, love instituted the Supper! Love and affection was the setting in which it was instituted, and love and appreciation is the manner in which it is to be eaten.
It is not called a “worship meeting,” but worship at the Supper spontaneously rises to the Father and the Son. With the hearts of those who partake of the Supper being deeply affected with gratitude, worship can’t help but rise from that scene. We do not come to remember our sins in the breaking of bread, but His love that suffered to put our sins away. This touching memorial of the Lord’s death is a stark contrast to the drunken feast to which the Corinthians, through their insensitivity, had reduced the Supper.
The habit of the early Church was to break bread on “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7). This was not merely something that the saints at Troas did locally; it was what the disciples did universally. This is what the Church should be doing today, but sad to say, the Church has largely put this preeminent feast into disuse. Some Christian groups have a form of the Lord’s Supper once a month; others do it quarterly.
The Difference Between the Lord’s Table and the Lord’s Supper
A common error is to confuse “the Lord’s Table” with “the Lord’s Supper.” Oftentimes these two terms are used interchangeably as if there were no difference between them:
• “The Lord’s Table” is a symbolic term that signifies the ground of fellowship upon which the members of the body of Christ meets, where the Lord’s authority is recognized and bowed to (1 Cor. 10:21).
• “The Lord’s Supper” on the other hand, is a literal ordinance that Christians partake of when they remember the Lord in His death in the breaking of bread (1 Cor. 11:20, 23-26).
We must not think that the Lord’s Table is a physical table that the brethren set in the middle of the room upon which they put the emblems. Nor should we think that the Lord’s Table is the act of breaking bread. As mentioned, it is a symbolic term. If we are truly gathered to the Lord’s name by the Holy Spirit, we are at “the Lord’s Table” 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but we only eat “the Lord’s Supper” at a specific hour on the Lord’s Day, once a week. Under normal conditions, a person should come to the Lord’s Table once in his life, when he comes into practical fellowship with those gathered to the Lord’s name, but he should come to the Lord’s Supper every week. The Lord’s Supper (the act of breaking bread) is to be eaten at the Lord’s Table—the ground of fellowship upon which the Spirit gathers the members of the body of Christ. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that we go to the Lord’s Table on the Lord’s day; but rather, that we go to partake of the Lord’s Supper on that day. Well-meaning people may say things such as, “Brother so and so stood up at the Lord’s Table to give thanks,” but the comment would be more accurate if it was said that brother so and so stood up at the Lord’s Supper to give thanks.
When a person is received into fellowship, he is received to “the Lord’s Table” wherein he has the privilege of eating “the Lord’s Supper.” If a person is “put away” under an administrative act of judgment by the assembly (1 Cor. 5:13), he is put away from “the Lord’s Table,” not merely “the Lord’s Supper.” He is put outside the fellowship of the saints gathered to the Lord’s name as a whole, which would include the privilege of breaking bread. Some think that the eating mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11 is referring to eating the Lord’s Supper. Hence, they conclude that we are not to break bread with him, but we can have fellowship with him on an individual basis. However, it has to do with any kind of eating—whether it is in the breaking of bread or at a common meal in our homes.
The question may be asked, “Can those who are not at ‘the Lord’s Table,’ but in the various man-made church organizations, partake of ‘the Lord’s Supper’ where they are?” J. N. Darby said, “They may individually remember the Lord’s death, and in that sense have the Lord’s Supper.” W. Potter said, “Take the tables in the various denominations: to these Christians the table with them is that of the Lord and the supper His, and as such they partake of it. Some among us were for years at one or the other of these tables, and there in all sincerity, there for want of further light. Could it be said in truth we had never partaken of the Lord’s Supper until we were found among those gathered on Scriptural ground? Surely not, though the way in which we had partaken of it was not according to Scripture.” Christians can eat the Lord’s Supper in their denominations, but if it is to be eaten rightly, it should be done at “the Lord’s Table.”
Two Aspects of the Breaking of Bread
The Supper is spoken of in chapters 10-11 in two ways. Some differences are: chapter 10:15-17 is the collective act of breaking bread—it says, “the cup of blessing which we bless,” and “the bread which we break,” whereas chapter 11:23-26 is the individual act of breaking bread. It says, “This do ye ... ”
In chapter 10:15-17 “the bread,” viewed in its unbroken state, represents the mystical body of Christ, whereas the “bread” in chapter 11:23-26 represents the Lord’s physical body in which He suffered and died.
Chapter 10:15-17 puts “the cup of blessing” first, then followed by “the bread,” because it is speaking of our title to be at the table as redeemed believers—which is a result of His blood being shed. In chapter 11:23-26 the order is reversed, putting the breaking of the bread first, then followed by the drinking of the cup, which is the order in which it is to be eaten (Luke 22:19-20). This is because we eat the Supper in remembrance of Him in His death, and He suffered in His body first, then after dying He shed His blood.
In chapter 10:16-17, the breaking of bread is in connection with “the Lord’s Table,” wherein we show forth the fellowship of the body of Christ (vs. 21). In chapter 11:26, the breaking of bread (“the Lord’s Supper”), we show forth Christ’s death.
Chapter 10:15-22 has to do with our responsibility to keep separate from all other tables (fellowships)—be it schismatic Christian tables, Judaistic tables, or idolatrous tables), whereas chapter 11:23-32 has to do with our responsibility to maintain purity in our personal lives.
Many have thought that since Christians drink of the “cup” (which represents Christ’s blood) that they are those with whom the New Covenant is made. It is true that the cup is connected with “the blood of the New Testament [Covenant]” (Matt. 26:28), but the New Covenant is what the Lord will establish with Israel when they are restored in a coming day (Jer. 31:31-34). The Old Covenant was made with Israel and was sealed with the blood of bulls and goats. The New Covenant will also be made with Israel, but it is made with the blood of Christ.
It is a common misunderstanding to think that the New Covenant is made with the Church. The Church partakes of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant without being formally in the New Covenant, because it rests in faith on the same foundation of the finished work of Christ—of which the blood speaks. In fact, whenever the making of the New Covenant is mentioned in Scripture, it always specifies that it is with “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:8). Furthermore, the fact that it is a “new” agreement or covenant implies that there has been some agreement in place prior to it. It is called “new” because it has been brought in to supersede the old. Hence, the New Covenant is made with those (Israel) who had the old. Gentiles who are being saved out from among the nations during this present time (Acts 15:14) never have had any previous agreement or covenant with God. It is not with them that a “new” covenant would be made. Similarly, you wouldn’t say to a person with whom you have never had any prior dealings, “Let’s make a new deal.” You wouldn’t call it “new” in that case.
Verse 26 tells us that this remembrance feast is something that is to be carried on “till He come.” We cannot help but think that if the Lord has asked us to do something that He will provide a way in which it can be done—even in this late day in the Church’s history.
Six Things the Lord Has Asked Us to Do “Till” He Comes
Follow Him in the path of faith (John 21:22).
Hold fast the truth that God has given us (Rev. 2:25).
Occupy (trade) in the field of service (Luke 19:13).
Don’t pass judgment on the motives of others (1 Cor. 4:5).
Be patient (James 5:7).
Remember Him in His death (1 Cor. 11:26).
The Danger of Partaking of the Supper in an Unworthy Manner
Vss. 27-32—The Apostle reminds them of the very real possibility of partaking of the Supper in an unworthy manner. God’s provision and remedy for any who were in a bad state of soul is self-judgment. He says, “Let a man examine [prove] himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” Therefore, if our conscience accuses us, there needs to be an honest self-examination followed by thorough self-judgment (vs. 28). Even if our conscience does not directly accuse us, it is a good habit to search our hearts in self-judgment before we eat the supper (Psa. 26:2-6; Psa. 139:23-24). There may be things in our hearts that we are not aware of that will spoil our enjoyment of that privilege (Job 34:32).
To partake in an unworthy manner would be to eat the Supper without having judged ourselves. If one does that, he eats and drinks “damnation [judgment] to himself.” This apparently was happening at Corinth, and the proof of it was that God’s hand in governmental judgment was upon them. Some were “weak and sickly,” and many had been taken away in death—“sleep” (vs. 30). Paul said that if they had been judging themselves, this would not have happened. He says, “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged” (vs. 31). Notice that he includes himself in the need for self-judgment, saying, “We ... ” This is because no saint on earth is beyond the need for self-judgment. Moreover, our self-judgment should not be superficial. It is not merely our ways that we are to judge, but “ourselves.” This would go to the inner springs of our thoughts and motives. We need to judge the very condition of our souls that has led to the unholy acts that we have done.
These verses tell us that we cannot do as we like in the holy things of God. It is a solemn thing to be laid aside through a governmental dealing of God, and even more solemn to be taken away from the place of testimony on earth through death. Paul says, “ ... and many sleep.” The Apostle John also speaks of this, saying, “There is a sin unto death.” This does not mean that a Christian loses his salvation, but that he would be removed from the place of testimony on earth through death because his life is a dishonour to the Lord (John 15:2; James 5:20; Acts 5:1-11; 1 John 5:16).
Vss. 33-34 – Note that in correcting the gross irregularities that were among the Corinthians at the supper, there is no suggestion of having some appointed official minister. Paul commends them, rather, to the leading of the Spirit. This is alluded to in that fact that he says that if they were in a right condition and waited “one for another,” the Spirit of God who is the God-appointed Leader of all proceedings in the assembly, would correct the disorder.