The Problem: The Abuse of the Poor
11: 17-22
The problem: the abuse of the poor DIG: What was the root problem with the “love feasts?” Why were they so upsetting to Paul? Why would such a scandalous report not have been hard for Paul to believe? How are the actions of the Corinthians and the actions of Yeshua contrasted? There are thousands of Messianic Congregations in the world today, how do they view the Lord’s Supper?
REFLECT: What are some of the ways a religious observance can be misguided? What factors contribute to the observance becoming misguided? What can be done to keep the focus of a religious practice on God and His purposes? How do the “haves” treat the “have-nots” where you worship? How can you be more sensitive to the poor and needy?
The Corinthian problem was not their failure to gather,
but their failure to be a reflection of God’s people when they gathered.
There is little doubt that the various practices, rituals, attitudes, and other hangovers from the mystery religions had infiltrated the church at Corinth. Just what would it have been like to go to church there? Imagine visiting that city in the first century and you and your family went to attend the First Church of Corinth. You arrive on time and go in to find that all the wealthy people have already been there for an hour and are just finishing the love feast. There is nothing left for you, and you notice that a lot of the poor people, who are just arriving, will have nothing to eat either.
Not only do you notice that the wealthy people are gluttonous as they gobble down the last bits of food, but some of them are also stone drunk. And so there are two groups: the poor people who sit on one side of the room totally sober with their stomachs gnawing, and the wealthier people on the other side, stuffed with food and intoxicated with too much wine. Because of the division, there is arguing and discord.
Someone announces it is time for the Lord’s Supper, but this also turns into a mockery. Those who have had nothing to eat or drink become gluttons. Next you go to the worship service, and this finds many people standing up, shouting, and talking at the same time. Some are speaking in ecstatic utterances, while others are trying to give prophecies and interpret what is being said. In other words, chaos. That is close to what it was like on a typical Sunday in the First Church at Corinth. Now you understand why Paul said: I do not praise you, because when you meet together (Greek: synerchomenoi) it does more harm than good (11:17)!316 The tragic state of affairs, which could only feed arrogance and nourish bitterness, made him wish that they had not met at all. Their love feasts were not only a waste of time, they were downright harmful.
Now Paul begins to explain how their gatherings did more harm than good, which really extends from 11:17 to 14:40, for it applies to the Lord’s Supper and the spiritual gifts. His concern is clear, and his point is singular: For, in the first place, I hear that when you gather together as a congregation you divide up into cliques (11:18a), the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Paul views these divisions as nullifying the very purpose for gathering together for worship in the name of Yeshua Messiah. It contradicted what the Lord’s Supper proclaims as the foundation of the Church: Yeshua’s sacrificial giving of His life for others. In Messiah’s Church, there was to be neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free (12:13), and as the present context strongly suggests, neither rich nor poor.317
Paul may not have wanted to believe the scandalous report; yet, those from Chloe’s household seemed credible (1:10). So, in the final analysis, he had to conclude: To a degree I believe it (11:18b). Such a report would not have been hard to believe. Paul began his letter by strongly rebuking the Corinthians for their divisions based upon cult “fan clubs” (to see link click Ak – Splits and Division in the Church at Corinth) and immaturity (see Ar – The Immaturity of the Worldly Believer). Those divisions inevitably ended in quarrels. The Corinthians were also divided socially, as this passage indicates. The “haves” brought their food and selfishly ate it before the “have-nots” arrived. Far from having all things in common and sharing with all, as anyone might have need, as Messianic community did after Shavu’ot (see the commentary on Acts Ao – The New Covenant Community Begins), the Corinthian “haves” disdain form even sharing a “pot-luck supper” with the “have-nots.” It was every person for themselves.318
In a statement of ironic rebuke, Paul declared: Granted that there must be some divisions among you in order to show who are the ones in the right (11:19). In the mess that Paul describes here, who is shown to be faithful and truly worshipful? The divisions at the Corinthian Lord’s Supper did not reveal which ones were in the right. Instead, they revealed a church that had failed to take to heart of the message of the cross. The Greek word for divisions here is aireseis, and comes from the verb to choose. The Corinthians had chosen to divide themselves along socioeconomic lines, and therefore stand condemned. The splits in the Lord’s Supper were imposed by prideful, insensitive believers seeking to differentiate the elite of society from the rabble. The tragedy was that they failed to honor the Body of Messiah at the memorial for Messiah.
Paul then turns to the crux of the problem at hand. Thus, when you gather together, presumably in a house large enough to accommodate the group, it is not to eat a meal of the Lord (11:20). It was their supper, not the Lord’s, because the Lord’s Supper was intended to convey to each person that he or she is someone precious to ADONAI. The Corinthians meal, however, communicated that the “have nots” were worthless nobodies. The “haves” arrived early, but instead of waiting for everyone to arrive, they immediately began to eat and drink, missing the greater purpose of the meal. But the time the “have nots” arrived, anticipating a decent meal in connection with the love feast, little was left and they went away hungry – both physically and spiritually.319 Paul will soon have an answer to this problem (see Cc – The Answer: Wait for Each Other).
The selfish devouring of their own food contrasted with Yeshua’s taking the bread. Both “take.” The Corinthians “take” on their own behalf; Yeshua “takes” on behalf of others. The Corinthians actions will lead to condemnation; Yeshua’s action leads to the salvation of others. Each believer gets an equal share of the benefits of His sacrifice.320
So, Paul declared: Because as you eat your meal, each one goes ahead on his own; so that one goes away hungry while another is already drunk (11:21)! They mocked the very purpose of the occasion, and turned the memorial of selflessness into an experience of selfishness, and had made a symbol of unity a chaotic mess. They acted no differently than the wealthy pagans in Corinth would have acted. As a result, fellowship was broken. This was certainly no way to remember the Savior who died for all sinners, rich and poor alike. Call it what you like, but you could not call it the Lord’s Supper.
The descriptions of hunger and intoxication in this passage may sound strange to modern readers. Messianic Congregations and churches today generally celebrate communion much differently from the way believers did in the first century. Now believers observe the ordinance with a pinch of bread and a modicum of drink, but the early Church celebrated the Lord’s Supper with great banquets. These meals came to be known as love feasts and were probably climaxed in an observance of the Lord’s Supper.321
How do Messianic believers handle this today? There is no unanimity of thought or practice. In general, Messianic believers do not tend to wrestle with labeling, a distinct partaking of the bread and wine, in remembrance of the Last Supper between Yeshua and the twelve apostles, as the Lord’s Supper. Messianic believers have some challenges and disagreements concerning how contemporary Christianity completely removes the Lord’s Supper from the Passover Seder. Some of this has to do with differences within the Messianic community itself. Some will remember the Lord’s Supper at a regular or semi-regular time, whereas others will only remember the Lord’s Supper once a year at the annual Passover Seder.322
The situation Paul had just described filled him with such indignation that he wrote a series of rhetorical questions that hammered away at the evil that the Corinthians practiced. The first question responded directly to what has proceeded and is full of irony: What! Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? If they intended to selfishly indulge themselves, couldn’t they go home and do it rather than at the Lord’s Supper where sharing was expected?
The second question gets to the real issue regarding their behavior. Paul wrote: Or are you trying to show your contempt for God’s church in Corinth and embarrass those who are poor? By their behavior, they were casting shame on the “have-nots” and thus showing how much they despised the church and the Lord Himself. Whatever the reasons may have been, they could not justify the harm being brought to the church. If they could not show love, why have a love feast?
The third and fourth questions bring the argument full circle. What am I supposed to say to you? Am I supposed to praise you? Just the opposite. Well, for this I don’t praise you (11:22)! Thus, in the strongest kind of language Paul asserts by their actions they despise God’s Church. No church can long endure if the differences of Jew or Greek, male or female, rich or poor, are allowed to persist. Especially so at the table, where Messiah, who had made us all one, had ordained that we should visibly proclaim that unity. So, to that issue Paul now turns, and he does so by first reminding the Corinthians of what the Lord Himself said about this meal (see Ca – The Problem: The Abuse of the Lord).323
Leave A Comment