The Disgrace of Divided Gatherings Pt. 2

I am certain that each of you
here this morning has had occasion, at least once in your life, to
visit a place or places that are considered sacred, hallowed
ground places, places in which or at which one is supposed to
be quiet, respectful, introspective, Cemeteries are like that. They
are not places of boisterous mirth. Several years ago, we
had the opportunity to visit the 9-11 Museum in New York City. That is such a place where visitors
move about in speechless solemnity. It was not uncommon to see someone
with silent tears running down their cheek. The Tomb of the
Unknown Soldier is such a place where guests are strictly forbidden
to speak out of respect for those who have died in battle but whose
remains have never been identified. There are those places, and we
know their importance. We know the rules, even if they
are unwritten. We know what is expected of us
as visitors to these places. But such also is the occasion
of the Lord’s table. For the Christian, it is the
most solemn occasion. A memorial service, not to a
deceased relative or friend, but a memorial, a remembering
of our great Savior, His active love in taking our sin to the
cross. In the communion service, there
is an extraordinary blend of seriousness and joy. There is the awe, the and can
it be element that Jesus did this even for me. There is a
tender sadness. that His was a real suffering. It was attended with real pain,
and that Jesus suffered a real death. But there is something
quietly majestic about the Lord’s Supper, because one knows that
His Savior was raised to be seated at His Father’s right hand, ever
to reign in absolute sovereignty. And there is something else. Communion. That when we partake
of the Lord’s Supper, we are suddenly brought back to a reminder
that there are other believers about us. That we are not alone in this
powerful moment. And that while we indeed commune
with our risen Savior, we also commune with our fellow believers. And we must recognize that. It’s
part of the design of the celebration of the Lord’s table to bind together
those for whom Christ’s blood atoned and to nurture them in
a sincere and fruitful one another love. No wonder Paul’s passionate concern
here. No wonder his tone in chapter
11. No wonder his directness. What
Paul saw was worse by far than a disrespectful outburst at the
tomb of the unknown soldier or giddy laughter in the 9-11 museum. The violation that he is confronting
is misbehavior at the most precious of all memorials, the Lord’s
table. The Corinthians, in their childish
and spiteful behavior, violated the very intent of that ordinance. Not only was it disrespectful
to their Savior, it revealed a disdain for their fellow believers. And so Paul is confronting the
Corinthians’ behavior during worship, their divided gatherings,
that title, giving an intentional oxymoron
because the very gathering of the Corinthian church had degenerated
into a display of division. Their gatherings, plural, as
a church were regularly and consistently dishonoring to the Lord. Whenever they gathered as a church,
their division was on full and uncomfortable display. This was
not only true of the Corinthians, but of any church that engages
in divided gatherings is likewise dishonoring to the Lord. Would
God’s people please turn once again this morning back to 1
Corinthians chapter 11, where we began last week to observe
as Paul transitions very abruptly to another major issue impacting
the Corinthians’ worship, specifically impacting their celebration of
the Lord’s table. We begin again in verse 17. But in giving this instruction,
I do not praise you, because you come together not for the
better, but for the worse. 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. But there must also be factions
among you, so that those who are approved may become evident
among you. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. But a man must examine
himself And in so doing, he is to eat of the bread and drink
of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment
to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason,
many among you are weak and sick and a number sleep. 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. 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.” Paul begins,
as we considered last week, with the rebuke of divided gatherings
there in verses 17 through 19, behavior for which Paul could
not possibly praise them. because their coming together
as a church only more greatly exposed the division among them.
And this division was brought about by those who were factious,
those with a self-willed mindset. They wanted what they wanted,
no matter the cost. Factiousness begins in the heart
of man, but eventually manifests itself openly by causing division. Paul didn’t really want to believe
this report about the Corinthians dividedness, but it didn’t really
surprise him either. But because there must have been
some validity to this report about division, and that this
division was affecting the worship service in Corinth, it prompts
Paul to address it. but it could justly be asked.
Paul, specifically, what are you talking about? What evidence
do you have that there are divisions that exist among our worship? And in verses 20 through 22,
it’s exactly what we will see today. Evidence of these divided
gatherings. And as Paul’s argument unfolds
in this chapter, we see that his criticism that these divisions,
schisms, factions, as he calls them, were manifesting themselves
in, of all places, the celebration of the Lord’s table, communion.
The observation of the perpetual ordinance of ordinances, plural,
of baptism in the Lord’s Supper should always and ever be solemn
and joyful occasions in the life of the church, any true church. Jesus himself instituted the
celebration of communion on the very night in which he was betrayed.
While neither of these ordinances, baptism or the Lord’s Supper,
have any saving merit, they don’t make you more saved, they don’t
save you, both are extolled by the Lord as special and significant
and intended to be treated as such. So for the Corinthian church,
or any church for that matter, To besmirch any one of these
ordinances with our petty distractions is exceedingly distressing. It
can’t go on. It was certainly distressing
to Paul. The Lord’s table was supposed to be among the sweetest
times of Christian fellowship. In Corinth, it was just one more
occasion to bicker and advance their individual agendas. The celebration of the Lord’s
table, communion, was not only being affected by this church’s
behavior, but it was also being tainted and even ruined by the
misbehavior of those in attendance. This is every bit as disturbing
as it first sounds to us, and it should be disturbing. It surely
was to Paul. Yet still, centuries of church
history have captured numerous controversies surrounding, of
all things, the Lord’s table. And when we ponder some of the
controversies surrounding the Lord’s table, it will serve as
a sobering caution to us not to lose sight of what is important.
We’re here to honor the Lord. We’re here to worship the Lord
for what he has done for us in Christ. We must always remember
the Lord Jesus Christ in communion, in the Lord’s Supper, lest we
lose sight of him amid the questions and the controversies. There have always been controversies. There still are controversies.
One such controversy is the frequency. How often should the Lord’s table
be celebrated? Should it be weekly? Every time
you gather, should it be bi-monthly? Should it be monthly? Quarterly?
There’s no specific prescription about this. Our practice is at
least every other month. Another Controversy that comes
up from time to time is which of the elements are to be offered
to the church body. In some denominations, the bread
only is presented to God’s people. In ours, we believe, as do most
evangelical churches, that both the bread and the cup should
be presented to the saints. What is the nature of these elements? The church has battled over that
for centuries. Are they spiritual only or are
they physical only? They are spiritual in the sense,
are they spiritual in the sense of becoming the body and the
blood of Christ? I would suggest to you, no, they
aren’t. I would argue that they are merely representative symbols
as Jesus introduced them. What about the physical elements
themselves? Should it, must it be unleavened
bread? Or can it be regular, a loaf
of bread? Can it be gluten-free bread?
Should we use wine, real wine, or mere grape juice? Should there be one common cup
out of which everybody drinks? or individual cups. Those have
all pestered the church for centuries. What about the sequence of the
elements? I remember in my one of my early churches, first churches,
getting in trouble for this very thing that my prayer was out
of order for the distribution of the elements. In what order
should the elements be consumed? Can the cup be followed by the
bread? Or must the bread be served first
and then the cup? That is our pattern, but there
is no specific prescription. And in fact, there even is evidence
to the contrary, that perhaps the cup came first. What is the
significance of the Lord’s table? It’s a key question. Is it, as
the Roman Catholics believe, an actual sacrifice, a re-sacrifice
of the real body and blood of the Lord? It’s one of the reasons
that when evangelicals attend a Catholic funeral, or in such
case, a worship service in the Catholic Church, their mass,
I would say that believers cannot possibly participate in communion
in that situation. Is there in communion an actual
imparting of grace? There’s nothing in the bread
or juice itself that is grace giving. I would suggest to you
that it is a memorial, a recalling of Christ and his sacrifice for
sinners and its benefits. Who are the participants of the
Lord’s table? Is it all interested parties,
anybody who comes in, including the children, the unlearned,
those that are merely curious? Let’s see if this communion thing
works. Is it for church members only? That has been a controversy that
we faced. I would suggest to you that is
for believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they’re members
of our church or not. if they’re visiting in our midst,
even for an extended period, if they are believers in the
Lord Jesus Christ, they are commanded to worship by participating in
communion. What about this question, which
we have also faced numerous times? Who should celebrate the Lord’s
Supper? Can portions of the church celebrate
communion? Can Christian groups go outside
of the church, as in the case of a youth retreat, and have
communion? Can individuals or families participate
in communion? I would suggest to you that all
evidence in scripture points to the gathered church only,
or those who properly celebrate the Lord’s table. One last question. Who should administrate the Lord’s
Supper? Can any respected member of the
church participate in distributing the elements? Can anyone pray?
I would say that the elders of the church must take the leadership
role in the distribution and in the celebration of the Lord’s
table. But respected men in the church, there’s nothing that
prohibits that. But in that, long and wearying
history of controversies regarding the Lord’s table, we cannot ignore
the very first one, the one that was happening in Corinth. And
so for that, I want to take you back to verse 20. Back to verse
20, where Paul says, therefore, when you meet together, it is
not to eat the Lord’s supper. Paul here begins to build a contrast
with what they, the Corinthians, were doing and what our Lord
had instituted. They were dramatically different.
And therein lay this church’s sin. They were not celebrating
the ordinance of communion as Jesus intended it. In order for
us to see the contrast, we must remind ourselves of the Lord’s
table as instituted by our Savior. All three of the synoptic writers
capture Jesus’ presentation of the Lord’s supper, and we could
turn to any of the three and profit, but let’s go to Mark’s
account this morning. Mark chapter 14. Mark. The Gospel of Mark chapter 14.
And if you would, glide down to verse 12. On the first day of unleavened
bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, his disciples
said to him, where do you want us to go and prepare for you
to eat the Passover? There was no question of whether
Jesus was going to celebrate the Passover. It was just a matter
of where and by what means. Verse 13, and he sent two of
his disciples and said to them, go into the city and a man will
meet you carrying a pitcher of water. Follow him. And wherever
he enters, say to the owner of the house, the teacher says,
where is my guest room? in which I may eat the Passover
with my disciples. And so Jesus stated intention
is to participate in the Passover meal. And he will, he himself will
show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Prepare for us there. The disciples went out, came
to the city and found it just as he had told them. And they
prepared the Passover. When it was evening, he came
with the 12. Now, in verses 18 through 21,
Jesus reveals to his disciples that one of them has already
betrayed him, which causes no little stir among them. But for
our purposes this morning, reviewing the institution of the Lord’s
Supper, jump down to verse 22. Verse 22. While they were eating, They’re in the midst of the Passover
meal. And it had all kinds of different elements that were
supposed to be followed to a T. And you can imagine that the
Lord Jesus honored God’s word here. While they were eating,
he took some bread. And after a blessing, he broke
it and gave it to them and said, take, eat, this is my body. And when he had taken a cup and
had given thanks, he gave it to them and they all drank from
it. And he said to them, this is my blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will never
again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink
it new in the kingdom of God. Now Mark’s gospel makes it clear
here that the institution of the Lord’s Supper takes place
during the Passover, while they were eating, he says. It was
a meal. Jesus embeds his new ordinance
of communion into that Jewish ritual. And what he institutes
there in the upper room was a solemn memorial of his life, his death,
And that memorial was intended to be galvanizing to the believers,
a unifying observance, because he instituted it during the Passover
meal, several elements of the Lord’s table were readily available. Bread and wine. It says that
he took some bread, likely the unleavened bread, which would
have been on the Passover table, And then he broke it and gave
it to them, his disciples. Then shortly after, when he had
taken a cup, identified by all three of the synoptic gospels
as the fruit of the vine, at least grape juice, if not actual
wine, there would have been red wine on the Passover table as
well. And there were four occasions
that the Jews would have taken drinks of that fruit of the vine
during the Passover. And so Jesus utilizes and merely
reassigns those elements of the Passover meal, the bread and
the cup. But though Jesus initiates this
new celebration during the Passover, even using some of the available
elements, the Lord’s Supper is clearly marked off as separate
and distinct from the Jewish celebration. Regarding the bread,
he declares, this is my body which is given for you. Regarding
the cup, he says, this is my blood of the covenant, which
is poured out for many. In a section of scripture where
there is a good deal of variety of expression exercised by the
writers, this sentence is the most varied. Not in contradiction,
just various elements inserted. into the account. All of them
mention a covenant in Christ’s blood. Matthew points out that
this covenant blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins. This is the great difference
between the new and the old covenant. Christ’s sacrifice need never
be repeated. Unlike the sacrifices of the
Old Testament, Christ, Peter says in 1 Peter 3.18, Christ
also died for sins, once for all, the just for the unjust,
so that he might bring us to God. And so Mark quotes Jesus
here as saying, of the cup, this is my blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many. And among the synoptic accounts,
only Luke adds this timeless piece of encouragement. When
Jesus says, this is my body, words that are captured identically
by all three of the synoptic writers, only Luke adds this.
This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance
of me. It was to be a perpetual memorial
in the church. In other words, what Jesus is
setting forth there is a memorial to be celebrated in the church
until he returns. The apostles were, and the church
was, from this time forth to celebrate the Lord’s table, communion
as we call it, in remembrance of their Savior. In his life,
in his death, in his burial, in his resurrection. It was and
is to be a supremely solemn occasion in the life of the church. There
are no greater occasions. Now remember, Jesus instituted
the Lord’s Supper in the context of the celebration of the Passover
Supper. And since the Passover was, after
all, a meal, The church, from the earliest days of the church,
sought to emulate the Last Supper by having a meal, and the overall
meal they referred to as the Love Feast. No wonder. No wonder they called it the
Love Feast, because at the very occasion in which Christ instituted
the Lord’s Table, Jesus uttered that new commandment. that these followers of his should
love one another. So the title Love Feast was a
great label for this new event, this new ordinance. And the meal
was akin to our modern day fellowship meal, if you will, a potluck
dinner. And as you can understand, the
idea was for everyone to bring a little something to share It
didn’t have to be a full four-course meal, just something to commemorate
the meal that Christ shared with his followers, that everyone
was to bring a little something to share as they were able. Such communal meals, those feasts,
they were popular events. They’re popular events still
in many cultures, including the Greeks, And so these communal,
these common meals became a fixture in the early church. And in order
to reproduce as much as possible the original scene with Jesus
and his disciples in the upper room, the church typically held
these celebrations in the evening. And they completed this evening
fellowship meal with a celebration of the Lord’s table. Must have
been an incredible occasion. And this is why the celebration
came to be called the Lord’s Supper. It was the evening meal. So it wasn’t just a celebration
of communion. First, there was a common meal,
food, fellowship, followed by communion. From time to time
when people hear this, they express dismay at that idea. that this
may have had the tendency to lower the special significance
of communion to the level of a fellowship meal. But the design rather was to
elevate the significance of the common meal to the solemnity
of the Lord’s Supper. The whole purpose of these meals
was to bring the church together, to brush aside all these thoughts
of self, with the goal instead of building oneness, unity with
one another. After all, since it was comprised
of the members of the church in fellowship, it was called
the Love Feast. Such a pleasant label, isn’t
it? Who wouldn’t want to attend that? But given the Corinthians’
behavior, there was a sad irony in that name. Isn’t there? Because
the atmosphere was anything but loving in Corinth. For some,
there was indeed a feast of sorts, but certainly not for all. And
Paul recognizes a problem specifically with these love feasts. As we
saw last week, Paul spoke about the problem very generally. That
the Corinthian church came together not for the better, but for the
worse. that we’d be better for them to stay home is essentially
what he says there. As it was, their gathering as
a church was doing more harm than good. And Paul made it clear
in verses 18 and 19 that divisions existed among them, that factions
among them were evident for all to see, especially at the Lord’s
table. Those factions, those divisions,
ultimately Paul says has a divine purpose, but they were truly
dishonoring to the Lord and to the celebration of communion.
The problem was, not only did it not measure up to that which
the standard of that which the Lord had instituted, it didn’t even measure up to
their own standard. It didn’t merit the label love
feast. It was unfitting, totally false. The meal was supposed
to be an exhibition of brotherly love. It was supposed to be a
communion in the true sense of that word. Everyone partaking
together, sharing, enjoying a common meal. Instead there was chaos,
gorging, gluttony. Most pulled aside to stuff their
faces while others looked on hungry. So horrific scene. Look at verse 20, how Paul says
it, therefore, when you meet together, it is not to eat the
Lord’s supper. You say, wait a minute. I thought
that the purpose of these gatherings ultimately was capped off with
the Lord’s table. How does Paul now say that they
were not gathered to eat the Lord’s supper? Well, the intended purpose of
the gathering was indeed to celebrate the Lord’s Supper together with
the Love Feast. Incidentally, this is the only
place in Scripture where this celebration is named. It’s called
the Lord’s Supper. It’s the Lord’s Supper because
Jesus inaugurated it. It’s the Supper because He inaugurated
it at the Last Supper. But essentially, Paul says, call
it whatever you want. You may well be eating. You may
go home full. You can call it whatever you
want, but just don’t call it the Lord’s Supper. Allegedly, they were gathered
for the purpose of worship and fellowship to enjoy a meal with
fellow believers as a church. capped off with the celebration
of communion, but by their behavior, they were destroying the very
essence of that which Christ had instituted. The importance
of the Lord’s table far outweighed the love feast, but the Corinthians
had flipped things upside down. The love feast was now the most
important feature. Their petty divisions clawed
away at the harmony that should have marked this special occasion. And as a result, the Lord’s table
and its very special significance was muddied over and lost. It was visible, evident, Paul
says, evident for all to see. Their motives were false. They
were effectively playing church And what they were doing showed
no love and care for one another, and it made the celebration of
the Lord’s Supper impossible. What was supposed to promote
unity degenerated into gluttony, and the ordinance itself was
desecrated. They were gathered as a church,
but they were not humbly worshiping the Lord, and thus they could not have
been eating the Lord’s Supper. It was a potluck without luck,
without grace, without love. How were they doing this? Look
at verse 21. We’ll take it in course. Therefore,
verse 20, 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. It wasn’t just a jostling
for a place in line. We’ve seen this. in some of the
meals we’ve been to. It wasn’t just a matter of overloading
their plate. We’ve all seen that. It wasn’t
just a matter of flat out overeating, the easiest thing to do in a
potluck dinner. Those things are all commonplace.
But it wasn’t just that. What was going on in the Corinthian
assembly was even worse. Here they were gathering together
in the Lord’s name ostensibly to honor their Savior by celebrating
his ordinance, cultivating a loving fellowship with their fellow
believers. But instead of waiting until all the people had arrived,
some of the members began to pull aside intentionally and
scarf down their own food. Before anyone had even arrived,
or at least before everyone had taken their seats for dinner,
for some people, dinner was over. They didn’t even wait for the
common meal. Instead, they pulled aside, and before the meal even
started, they started shoveling food into their faces. Forget
entirely the idea of a fellowship dinner. In Corinth, it was every
man for himself. It’s quite evident that they
didn’t want to share and that makes this a brown bag equivalent
of Ananias and Sapphira, right? They didn’t even want to eat
at the same time as their fellow believers. They didn’t want to participate
in a potluck, a fellowship meal, a love feast at all. They wanted
to eat, pure and simple. They wanted to eat only what
they brought for dinner. And it wasn’t just one family here,
another there, that were doing this. When Paul says in verse
21, each one takes his own supper first. There were all kinds of
people doing this. It had become commonplace. This
was now the new normal. So much for the idea of potluck.
So much for the idea of a love feast. This was just a hasty
gorging. For some, but not for all. By the time the rest of the church
even arrived, the early birds had already finished their dinner.
Perhaps they were cleaning up, maybe even washing dishes. I
suppose if you look on the bright side, at least there was now
plenty of seats available. But Paul says there was a very
disturbing result from these early diners. He says that as
a result of a refusal to share, one is hungry and another is
drunk. It’s possible that one of these
families maybe forgot that it was potluck Sunday. We’ve all
seen that before. And by the way, even when people
have come unprepared, we’ve never yet run out of food. The Corinthians, The Corinthians did, the early
birds ate it all, leaving nothing for their fellow believers. And
while it may just be a family or two that maybe forgot to bring
their dinner, Paul’s rebuke seems to suggest a much darker feature,
greed and just plain stinginess. People were well content to stuff
themselves full while others went hungry. And this suggests
a disparity between the wealthier members of the church and the
poorer members. It’s entirely possible that some
of the poorer members did not have the means to bring anything
to share because they didn’t have the means even to feed themselves.
And so in their impoverished hunger, Paul says here in verse
22 that they were shamed in the fact that they had nothing. This
is so utterly shocking. But astoundingly, they had not
even hit the low point yet. Paul concludes verse 21 by identifying
that as a result of attending to their own needs first, that
one is hungry and another is drunk. This was the disparity
in the fellowship. Before we even get lost here,
that’s Paul’s primary objective. One had means but did not share,
and as a result, he was found to be drunk. Another lacked means
and had to go hungry. Excess and indulgence. A lack
and famish on the other side. This is so upsetting. Drunk in
and among the fellowship of God’s people, And that led many commentators
to try and explain this thought away. Certainly it couldn’t be
drunkenness in the church. And so instead of actual drunkenness,
one attempted to suggest that they had merely eaten to the
full. They were just stuffed. They overate. And in order to
aid this interpretation, they bristle at the thought of there
being actual wine present in the gathered church. And I get
that. But neither of these things should
surprise us. Neither the presence of wine
or the fact that some among the Corinthians would abuse it. I
mean, after all, remember chapter five? They had permitted the
grossest kind of adultery allowed in their church. It shouldn’t
surprise us to learn that someone got into the communion supplies.
Or maybe again that someone brought their own supply from home and
overindulged. As one commentator so aptly put
it, of all the imaginable schisms, the most shocking would be hunger
and intoxication side by side. At what was supposed to be the
table of the Lord. But we have the point. The Corinthians
were not only destroying the so-called love feast, they were
greatly dishonoring the Lord’s table. They were in the church,
they were the gathered church, but they were not humbly worshiping
the Lord. And thus they could not have been eating the Lord’s
supper. Well, this is utterly disgusting
to Paul. and he verbalizes his dismay
in verse 22. 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. Someone asked me about this last
week, the first word in the NAS, what? And I assumed that this
was derived from what’s called a particle that has to, it must
translate something, but the context has to guide that. But there isn’t even a particle
there in the Greek. This is all interpretational.
It’s a small word, a particle is a small word designed to flavor
a sentence. But instead here, it’s purely
interpretational by the translators of the NAS. But in the end, I
think the NAS captures Paul’s shock here. What, are you kidding
me? You can’t be serious. Something
like that. And he opens the verse with a
series of questions. Do you not have a house in which
to eat and drink? If all you’re doing is filling
your tummies, if all you are is assuaging your hunger, you
could certainly eat at home. If your entire goal was to satiate
your hunger, fill your tummies, you could have done that in the
privacy of your own home, either before or after church. You don’t have to ruin the love
feast to do it. Then he asked, or do you despise
the church of God and shame those who have nothing? That’s exactly
what they had done. By coming to church, flaunting your
wealth, eating your food, gorging yourselves while others go hungry,
you’re actually revealing what you think about the body of Christ,
the church. By their callous behavior, they
were betraying their disdain for their fellow church members.
So Paul asks a few more questions. Shall I praise you? If this were not all enough,
they wanted a pat on the back? No way, Paul says. This is an
echo of what he said in verse 17. At the beginning of chapter
11, he had praised them, but he declares a different attitude
in verse 17. I do not praise you. And here
he says, I shall not, will not praise you. It’s an understatement. Not only will he not praise them,
he formally rebukes them. And here in verse 21, he repeats
his rebuke. The way that they behaved at
the Lord’s table was horrendous. The worship service at Corinth
was a disgraceful scene in its display of selfishness and irreverence. Their motives were false. What
they were doing showed no love or care for one another, and
this made the celebration of the Lord’s Supper impossible.
What was supposed to promote unity degenerated into gluttony. And you may say, how does this
relate to me? Because we don’t even have a
love feast. And even when we have a potluck
or fellowship dinner, we don’t celebrate the Lord’s table afterward. And I would say to you, yes,
you’re right. Although I have always desired to rekindle the
idea of a love feast followed by communion. That just is not
our standard practice. But make no mistake, this caution
is for us. We foster division all the time. We harbor grudges. We harbor
unforgiveness. We maintain offenses. We pick
favorites. We avoid others. And when we
do any of these things, we are already embarked on the process
of creating division. And the only cure for that is
to stop it at the heart level before it wreaks havoc in the
church. Even in such a solemn occasion as the Lord’s table,
we must be right with our fellow believers with whom we commune. We commune not only with God,
we commune with one another. We must confess our sin. and
plead for grace to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond
of peace. And immediately, Paul contrasts
this, the supper the Corinthians were celebrating, with the Lord’s
Supper, as he presents it in verses 23 through 26, which we
will consider next Lord’s Day. Would you humble yourself before
him?