This article on 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is also about the divisions in the Corinthian church.

Source: Ordained Servant. 4 pages.

  • Share

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 – The Lord's Supper and the Structure of 1 Corinthians 11:17ff

This article seeks to shed light on a key passage for the church’s understanding of the New Testament teaching on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:20-34, by re-evaluating the structure of vv. 17-34. As a first reaction, this topic might seem esoteric, only distantly related to worship and communion in the pew. That is not the case. How one views the structure from v. 17 through the end of the chapter has a profound effect upon what one reckons to be Paul’s central concern in the Corinthian’s defiling of the Lord’s body and blood (v. 27). That, in turn, impacts one’s understanding of the self-examination Paul demands in v. 28 and what constitutes the goal of that examination, “judging the body rightly,” in v. 29. Those verses are the primary (if not only) biblical basis for key historic elements of Reformed eucharistic liturgy, as evidenced both in the Westminster Standards and the OPC Directory for Public Worship.

Analysis of the Structure of 1 Corinthians 11:17ff⤒🔗

Today’s Consensus vs. Godet←↰⤒🔗

English translations suggest, and commentators of the last century seem to agree with, F.F. Bruce’s division heading, “The Lord’s Supper 11:17-34.”1 A search of numerous commentaries published over the past 150 years suggests that one must go back to 1889 to find an exception. The well-respected Swiss Reformed commentator, Frederic L. Godet, despite similarly entitling vv. 17-34, “Disorders in the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper,” insisted “vers. 18, 19, are not put by the apostle in any connection with the disorders in the Holy Supper.”2 In other words, Godet argues that vv. 18-19 deal with a different problem than that addressed in vv. 20-34. The latter section does indeed rebuke them for abuse of the holy table, but vv. 18-19 rebuke them for “divisions” within their worship services. This article supports and develops Godet’s view of the independence of vv. 18-19 from the Lord’s Supper problems.

Identifying the “Divisions (Schismata)” of vv. 18-19←⤒🔗

If Godet is correct, the unusual term, “divisions (schismata)” (v. 18), is not defined or explicated by vv. 20-34 (the Lord’s Supper problem), but either by vv. 18-19 itself or perhaps by 1:10ff., where the striking term also appears. 3 Similarly, Godet’s analysis would preclude reading the problem of divisions into their guilt with respect to the holy supper. In other words, by recognizing a clear break between v. 19 and v. 20, one segregates the problem of divisions from that of the abuse of the Lord’s Table.

In 1 Corinthians 11:18, Paul explicitly affirms the existence of factions “in the assembled church (en ekklesia)” in Corinth. He cites the existence of factions when they “come together” (v. 18a) as his first ground (prooton men gar) for denouncing their gatherings; they assemble (sunerchesthe), he chides, “unto the worse.”4 Yet, aside from asserting their existence as ruining their worship, Paul does nothing in vv. 18-19 to characterize the divisions or to provide evidence for his accusation. If one assumes 11:18 refers to the same factionalism described in 1:10-12–an assumption that has not gone un-challenged–the severe denunciation there shows that Paul judges the divisions to be both real and grave.5 In his final use of the term, 12:25, Paul declares the existence of division in the body of Christ to be contrary to the way that the Spirit has ordered the body. While these two uses of this (for Paul) rare term do not (contra Margaret M. Mitchell) prove the topic of the whole letter to be division, 6 both do presuppose the reader will recall Paul’s earlier case against the rivalries (1:10ff.), and that even in the midst of dealing with other matters, Paul is sufficiently concerned with that problem to take these further opportunities to turn aside and touch on it again.

In 11:18-19, Paul Recounts that←↰⤒🔗

  1. he hears (akouoo) that in their assemblies schismata “exist” (ASV). Then,

  2. he expresses his qualified (meros ti) credence toward that report, “to some extent I believe it” (NRSV). The common analysis of the discourse flow of 11:18ff. assumes that Paul has forgotten a “second ground.”7

However, for Four Reasons, 11:18 should be Read←↰⤒🔗

  1. separate from v. 20ff. and

  2. as expressly alluding back to the divisive “rivalries” already described in 1:10-12, with

  3. v. 20ff. being Paul’s “next” ground.

  1. The word (schismata) is the same and is distinctive; in Paul it appears only in 1 Corinthians (these three verses). Having warned against schismata and pursued the issue for almost four chapters (1:10-4:21), the appearance again of this distinctive term in chapter 11 would readily remind readers (who were themselves experiencing the “existing schismata” weekly) of 1:10ff.

  2. By “I hear” in v. 18, Paul again alludes to oral information, that is, to the report from the people of Chloe, the previously expressed source. It was the very report which had provoked the exhortation, “that there may be no schismata among you” (1:10).

  3. Verses 18-19 are the first of two reasons for his denunciation of their assembly (“unto the worse”).

    “The divisions, schismata, mentioned in vers 18, 19, are not put by the apostle in any connection with the disorders in the Holy Supper [vv. 20ff.], which are explained by a whole different cause… the two subjects cannot have been combined in one by Paul, and both embraced in the prooton men [first of all] of vers 18.”8

  4. 1 Corinthians 11:18 and 11:20 begin with virtually identical participial phrase constructions that accordingly read naturally as parallel, successive points. This becomes obvious once the interstitial particles (e.g., “for” and “then”) and similar discourse structuring words are struck:

    11:18a Proton men gar sunerchomenon umon … “For first, indeed, ye coming together …”
    11:20a Sunerchomenon oun umon … “ye, then, coming together…”9

As a blemish on their assembly entirely distinct from the Lord’s Supper (vv. 20ff.) and (hypothetically) distinct from the schismata of 1:10, Paul’s claim to have “heard there are divisions” would sound like little more than giving heed to gossip. It is the earlier probative case–naming witnesses (1:11) and recounting testimony (1:12)–that allows Paul to insert a severe criticism of their worship which, otherwise, would likely appear to be coming out of thin air. 10

Thus, 11:18 should (with Mitchell) be understood as referring back to 1:10. Like vv. 20-34, it explains v. 17b, yet it is distinct from the Lord’s Supper issue. They are two separate but serious blemishes on their worship services. Thus, Godet’s case for a divide between 11:19 and 20 is established. For once the factional issue in 11:18-19 is clearly identified as the same as that of 1:10-12, it cannot fit the Lord’s Supper problem of vv. 20ff. (this was Godet’s point).

Implications for Understanding Paul’s Lord’s Supper Teaching (11:20ff.)←⤒🔗

Since plural of schisma in v. 18 is a reference back to the multiple factions of 1:10-12, it cannot be a description of the single division (rich/poor) that many today (such as Fee) believe to be at the heart of the Lord’s Supper-related excoriation (e.g., v. 22b, “Or do you despise the church of God?”, NASB). The recent trend to see Paul as primarily concerned with mistreatment of the poor is misguided. Calvin’s view is closer to the mark, “the abuse that had crept in among the Corinthians as to the Lord’s Supper … their mixing up profane banquets with the sacred and spiritual feast, and that too with contempt for the poor.” With vv. 18-19 rightly segregated from vv. 20-34, the latter section opens and closes with the apostle proscribing what Calvin calls their “profane banquets” (Paul: “each one takes his own supper,” 11:21; “if … hungry … eat at home,” 11:34) from the time and place of the sacred assembly.

The central meaning of the sacred rite proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes again had been obscured to the point that many no longer discerned the Lord in the elements (v. 20b). 11 It is “for this cause many are weak …” Verses 18-19 are thus “first of all,” with v. 20 beginning the “next” of the discourse; each (first and next) explains independently why Paul believed they were “coming together for worse.” The problem at the Lord’s Table at Corinth was not “divisions” – that criticism was a part of point #1, not #2 – but a failure to remain cognizant of the Lord’s body and blood in the bread and wine, with the result that Paul judged that when they meet, “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (NASB; NKJV). With awareness of the Lord’s death gone from the sanctified elements, they turned the sacred meal into an ordinary dinner party, and one at which some were largely left out. The offense to the Lord’s body and blood was primary; the offense to the poor among his church caused what might be termed secondary damage.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

The crucial point that is clarified is this: in 1 Corinthians 11 the essence of what distinguishes eating profane bread and wine over against the Lord’s body and blood is not the time or the place. It is not the presence or officiation of elders or minister – an issue not addressed. It was not even their coldness toward their hungry brethren – a concern mentioned in passing. In 1 Corinthians 11 that which (alone) distinguishes the sacred meal from the profane, that which makes the meal truly “the Lord’s Supper” (or not), is the self-conscious partaking of the Lord on the part of those eating and drinking. Precisely by eating without that discernment of the Lord’s body in the meal, they profaned the Lord’s Supper, and ate and drank judgment to themselves. Surely if we agree that the apostle’s teaching on the essence of the supper is to govern our church’s practice, we, too, must instruct all whom we welcome to the Lord’s Supper that they can, and indeed they must, self-consciously partake not merely of bread and wine, but of the crucified Savior and if they lack such faith and discernment they approach the table at their own peril.

Worthy receivers … inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then … spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. (WCF 29:7)

Paul’s remedy for their having turned the Lord’s Supper into their own meal (vv. 20-21) is to order that the ordinary meal be completely separated from the Lord’s Supper (vv. 22, 34). Accordingly, that continues to be the practice of churches in our day. What of our church-wide luncheons following our services? Perhaps that is a topic best left for another article.

Endnotes←⤒🔗

  1. ^ F.F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Corinthians, edited by Matthew Black, The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983), 108. Similarly, a commonly used edition of The Greek New Testament, (United Bible Societies, 4th rev. ed.), puts this heading above v. 17: “Abuses at the Lord’s Supper.” The NIV and ESV have, “The Lord’s Supper”; the NKJV, “Conduct at the Lord’s Supper.” The NASB original edition has no precise section headings, though it implicitly agrees, making vv. 17-34 one paragraph. Its “Updated Edition” begins a section called “The Lord’s Supper” at v. 24, but still makes vv. 17-23 one paragraph.
  2. ^ Frédéric L. Godet, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, translated by Rev. A. Cusin, 1889 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971), 561, 565.
  3. ^ In Paul’s letters, the only three appearances of this word, from which the English term, schism, is derived, are 1 Corinthians 1:10; 11:18; 12:25.
  4. ^ Their meetings have become “positively harmful occasions instead of the blessing they ought to be”; Bruce, 1&2 Corinthians, 108-09.
  5. ^ My dissertation under Drs. Dyer and Knight at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary – from which this article was adapted – includes a section of Ch. 5 which seeks to prove the reality and seriousness of those rivalries; that chapter has already received preliminary approval. The argument is too long to repeat in Ordained Servant.
  6. ^ Mitchell’s thesis that the presence of terminology also found in ancient literature urging unity among divided groups (111, 180-81) demonstrates that “the issue of factionalism runs throughout all sixteen chapters” (p. 182) and that occurrence of the term schisma “again in 11:18 and 12:25 (and nowhere else in the Pauline corpus) gives a further indication that factionalism is indeed the topic of this entire letter” (p. 74), seems to go beyond the evidence. Even in chs. 1-4, the threat of schism is not Paul’s deepest fear (but rather the threat to the gospel foundation). In chs. 5-16, even occasional use of terminology, concepts and style which also appears in ancient writings against division cannot alter the fact that those chapters make cases for and against things besides unity and disunity. Factionalism is simply not the topic of those chapters. 11:18 and 12:25 do prove, however, that that topic continues to vex Paul even after he has moved onto other concerns (Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992]).
  7. ^ “The best explanation is the simplest one: the ‘prooton men’ is simply not picked up.” According to most, point one ends without a two in 11:34b; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 536, n. 26, 569.
  8. ^ Godet, 1 Corinthians, 565, underlining added. Fee dismisses Godet’s argument that ‘prooton men’ expects a “next of all” which role “therefore” can serve: “all of that assumes the letter to be more literary than it in fact is.” Fee points further to the discussion in “Hurd, 79-80”; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 536-37, n. 26. Hurd’s explanation is even less substantial, referencing a host of 19-20th century commentators who reject the older view (defended by Godet), Hurd merely says, “The opinion of some older scholars (cited by Meyer) that the second member of the series begins in v. 20 is now no longer current. It is firmly rejected by more recent commentators”; John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (New York: Seabury, 1983), 79. Fee seems to have missed the heart of Godet’s argument (Hurd does not mention Godet who directly refutes Meyer). The point is not that Paul’s style would not permit anacoluthon (i.e., forgetting no. 2) and that therefore a “next” is absolutely demanded. Godet’s argument is that the contents of 18-19 (divisions as blemish on worship) are distinct from 20ff. (defilement of the Lord’s Supper). As such, they do not fit into one point. Since ‘oun’ can function to signal the next stage in discourse (see below), the passage would naturally so read.
  9. ^ The English Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible 1862/1887/1898 (YLT) by J. N. Young.
  10. ^ Fee’s attempt to deny that 11:18 refers to the same divisions (schismata) as 1:10ff. based upon four reasons, is strained. Given the prominence of the theme in chs. 1-4, especially his use of the identical term in its theme-signaling 1:10, the burden here falls heavily on his shoulders to prove that 11:18’s schismata is different than that of 1:10ff. He argues:
    1. only 1:10ff. defines the schismata as rivalries and jealousies.
    2. 1:10ff. suggests 4 parties (slogans) and “there is a decidedly anti-Paul sentiment”; in 11:18, there are “only two groups, the ‘have-nots’ and the ‘haves,’ with no hint of a quarrel with Paul on the matter.”
    3. Only the later schismata is associated with the assembly (“when you come together as a church”); the earlier seems related only to “false allegiances to their leaders or to ‘wisdom’.”
    4. 11:18’s “I partly believe it,” Fee claims, “hardly fits … 1:10-4:21,” but Fee believes it explicable here as a tactful way to accredit the report from Chloe’s people, “especially if they were trusted Christian slaves,” while “bridging the sociological gap … [to] the wealthy who are guilty of the misdeeds”; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 537 & n. 31
    As to (1), if the schismata of 11:18 refer back to those of 1:10, then the absence of a repetition of its definition in ch. 11 is to be expected. Verses 18-19 in no way contradict the definition in 1:10-12.
    Regarding (2), Fee again reads his assumption of an underlying Pauline self-defense into a passage lacking any such positive evidence on its own (1:10ff. – in fact, v. 13 seems self-effacing). The difference between the several name-boasting rival groups of 1:11-12 and the poor/rich in 11:21 arises because Fee has read 11:21 back into v. 18. He assumes without explanation that v. 19 was a “brief digression” (p 539), with v. 20 resuming the concern about divisions. While, lexically, the latter is a possible sense for v. 20’s ‘oun’ (Friberg, #2.a), it can also, says Friberg (#2.b), “make a transition to a new thought or new phase of a narrative or discourse now, then.” Given v. 18’s ‘gar’ [For in the first place], ‘oun’ is better taken as carrying the sense of signaling the “next … phase” (expected after ‘prooton’, especially with ‘men’) and so denoting the second reason why they “assemble for the worse”: “You assemble not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear divisions exist … Then, in the second place (oun), when you assemble, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper.” Thus rendered, v. 18 is an express reminder of 1:10ff.’s treatment of the name-touting divisions. This time it is qualified by an acknowledgment of a providential purpose – “by the sure providence of God”; Calvin, 1 Corinthians 367 – to the divisions. Paul quickly moves on to a second major blemish on their worship services: profanation of the holy supper.
    Regarding (3), Fee claims only 11:18’s schismata are “especially related to their gatherings,” yet Thiselton argues for different schismata claiming that in 1:10-12 the “splits … reflect tensions between … different house [church] groups” (hence, different assemblies); Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 857. The fact is that 1:10ff. mentions nothing about the assemblies, Thiselton has read separate house churches into the rivalries, and both Fee and Thiselton have read 11:21’s rich/poor division back into the schismata of 11:18, a strained reading (given v. 20’s ‘oun’ as the next of all). Why does Paul imply that there are not fully formed divisions in 1:10 but say that he thinks there are in 11:18? Perhaps it is as simple as this: well formed divisions existed within one assembly, but the churches’ assemblies had not actually fractured along the party lines. The result was an obvious blemish when they assembled (establishing 11:17b); but, full schisms had not occurred.
    Finally, regarding (4), as to the “puzzling addition, ‘I partly believe it’” (Fee), once the above discourse analysis seeing v. 20ff. as ‘next of all’ is accepted, and vv. 18-19 is taken as an explicit reference back to 1:10ff., “I partly believe it” could be explained as an expression of the same cautious treatment of the oral reports seen in Paul’s use of the word schismata in 1:10 but avoidance of explicitly declaring the existence of such in 1:11. If Paul believed the probative testimony (v. 12) proved rivalries and jealousies, but did not quite prove schismata, then in 11:18 where he makes a summarizing reference citing the direct testimony to the existence of schismata, it is only logical that the careful pastor should so qualify his judgment as to leave open the possibility that the people of Chloe may have overstated the problem. On the other hand, one might render it, “I believe it in part” since there was a sense in which factions existed, but a sense in which the church was still unified. Either way, Mitchell is basically right that “Paul has already demonstrated that factions exist within the church – certainly he believes (knows!)”; Mitchell, Paul & Rhetoric, 152.
  11. ^ Hence, ouk…kuriakon deipnon.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.