Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: July 29, 2007
“EATING IN THE CHURCH BUILDING”
A Review of a Study on Fellowship (Part 4)
Ben Justice
Verse 20 — “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’
s Supper.” Again, we see the phrase “come together.” They were coming together
in the church, i.e., the worship assembly. This was “into one place” to worship
God. This is parallel with I Cor. 14:23 — “If therefore the whole church be come
together into one place, . . .” The apostolic pattern for NT worship is that all
members of the church assemble together in one place (or location) for the
purpose of worshipping God. According to Heb. 10:25, we are not to forsake
those assemblies.
As this verse reveals, when they came together, “this is not to eat the Lord’s
Supper,” as Paul said. The meaning is not that they did not intend to eat the
Lord’s Supper, for the context tells us that they did that very thing. The meaning
is that what they had done made it impossible for them to eat the Lord’s Supper
the way God intended. As the context bears out, they were mixing this Supper
with a common, social meal. Also, in eating their common meal, they were
neglecting the poor by dividing themselves into exclusive groups. Thus, they
defeated the purpose of the assembly in general and partaking of the Lord’s
Supper specifically.
Verse 21 — “For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is
hungry, and another is drunken.” This verse begins with the explanatory word
“for.” Thus, Paul provides the reason or explanation of why it was not possible
for them to partake of the Lord’s Supper. He said, “in eating every one taketh
before other his own supper.” “His own supper” is in contrast to the “Lord’s
Supper.”
In early church history, it was customary for the church to eat a common meal
before partaking the Lord’s Supper. However, the church at Corinth shamelessly
mixed the two. This resulted in the corruption of both suppers. The phrase
“every one taketh before other” is explained by Paul when he said “and one is
hungry, and another is drunken.” In other words, they were divided into groups
or clichés. Some were neglected, such as the poor. Paul presented two
extremes: one is hungry and another is drunken. Although the word “drunken”
can refer to intoxication in other contexts, it doesn’t mean that here. It simply
denotes filled to overflow. Thus, some were left without food and others were
filled full. We might say gluttony. There was no sharing at all. Paul expresses
his outrage in the next verse.
Verse 22 — “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the
church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise
you in this? I praise you not.” You can almost hear Paul say “What?” In other
words, “What in the world is going on?”
The Corinthians were shaming them that did not have anything. When we
couple this with the fact that they combined the two suppers together, we can
see that they were despising the church of God. It should be carefully noted
that Paul did not condemn a congregation’s eating in the building or upon church
property. To say that this is what Paul taught is to pervert the meaning of the
term “church.” It is to read something into the text that is not there. Again, the
term “church” denotes the assembly — not the building.
When Paul said, “Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?”, it is as opposed to
eating in the assembly. When Paul said, “or despise ye the church of God” it
helps clarify the first question. By mixing a common meal with the Lord’s
Supper, they were despising the worship assembly. Paul did not condemn them
for eating on church property; rather, he condemned them for corrupting the
worship and for exhibiting greediness. Also, if it is inherently sinful to eat on
church property, then it is also sinful to drink, including water, for Paul said,
“Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” Why would Paul ask, “Have ye not
houses to eat and to drink in?” Obviously, because this is where people
ordinarily consume food — not in the worship services. As Brother Woods noted,
“If his statement is to be construed as a positive command to eat and drink at
home, then it would be wrong to eat and to drink in restaurants or other eating
places, or, for that matter, in the homes of relatives or friends” (Questions &
Answers — Vol. 1, Pg. 98).
In v. 23-32, Paul instructs them concerning partaking the Lord’s Supper. Then,
in v. 33-34, Paul concludes his discussion. He says in v. 33, “Wherefore, my
brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.” Other translations
have “wait for one another.” Again, the Corinthians had desecrated the Lord’s
Supper by mixing it with a common meal, and they had abused the common meal
by forming themselves into exclusive groups, thus eliminating some who were
hungry. As the Lord’s Supper is concerned, no Christian can properly be
excluded. Everyone is to meet on a common level, no one before or above the
other.
The NT pattern is that the Lord’s Supper be eaten in the assembly when the
whole church is gathered together into one place. Brethren are to eat the Lord’s
Supper together — not separately. If one can’t assemble with the saints for
some reason beyond his control, then he is excused from that assembly. Since
the assembly involves partaking the Lord’s Supper, then this also means that he
is excused from partaking the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper must not be
separated from the assembly or from the Lord’s Day. It is a common practice for
many congregations to serve the Lord’s Supper in a separate room on Sunday
night for those who did not have the opportunity to partake of it Sunday
morning. While others are engaging in other acts of worship, those who did not
partake of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday morning engage in this act of worship
separate and apart from the rest of the congregation. Thus, the congregation has
been divided. Everyone is not assembled into one place.
It is also a common practice to take the Lord’s Supper to the sick and shut-ins.
But again, if the sick and shut-ins are excused from the assembly, then on the
same grounds they are excused from partaking the Lord’s Supper. The Biblical
pattern is that the whole church be gathered together into one place to partake
of the Lord’s Supper. Taking the Lord’s Supper to the sick and shut-ins involves
a violation of the apostolic pattern. If the Lord’s Supper is going to be served to
those who are sick and shut-in, then the whole church needs to assemble with
them. Also, why is only the Lord’s Supper served? Why are the other acts of
worship neglected?
In v. 34, Paul basically reiterates what he said in v. 22 — “And if any man hunger,
let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I
set in order when I come.” Howard Winters very aptly states, “The issue as to
where to eat is not between the home and the church building (the place where
they met for worship) but between the home and the worship assembly. The
assembly is not designed for festivities, but for worship. Taking the Lord’s
Supper is worship and it belongs to the assembly; eating a common meal is not
worship; it thus belongs to the home” (Howard Winters, “Commentary on
First Corinthians,” Pg. 160-161).
Lord willing next week, we shall continue to consider some additional matters.