Lessons #381 and 382
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual delivery not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GW = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improper conduct in the pre-the Lord’s Supper meal (1 Cor 11:17-22)
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
The message of this section of 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 that we have been considering is: Think of other believers as you take your portion of food during fellowship meals of believers. Although the general character of what the Holy Spirit gave through Apostle Paul in our passage is negative in nature because of his rebuke of the Corinthians but we stated we will expound on this passage by presenting positive assertions that if we understood and applied will lead to avoidance of the criticism the apostle levelled on the Corinthians. To this end, we have considered a first positive assertion which is that the assembling of believers for fellowship meals should be praiseworthy. This led to the first responsibility of the believer regarding the matter of fellowship meals which is that you should aim to make the assembling of believers in fellowship meal praiseworthy. A second positive assertion is that there are things that would ensure that fellowship meals are praiseworthy and so ensures that one is conscious of the portion of meal one takes during the fellowship meals of believers. This assertion we stated leads to the second and third responsibilities of believers that ensure fellowship meals are praiseworthy. The second is to ensure you do not cause division during the meal. This responsibility is derived from the second criticism the apostle brought against the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. We indicated in our last study that verse 19 is concerned with an emphatic way the apostle provided an explanation or reason for divisions or factions among the Corinthians during their fellowship meal that ends with the Lord’s Supper. The apostle indicated that the faction that exists among the Corinthians during the fellowship meal serves a purpose, or it is for a reason as in the last clause of 1 Corinthians 11:19 to show which of you have God’s approval. Literally, the Greek reads so that the genuine (ones) may become evident among you. We know this purpose because the apostle used a Greek conjunction (hina) that in our passage is subject to two possible interpretations of either purpose or result. We ended with the admission that because in some cases, it is difficult to differentiate purpose from result, the apostle could have meant both so that we need to further explore the clause the apostle stated. It is with this we begin today.
In any case, the purpose or result of factions among the Corinthians during their fellowship meal that leads to the Lord’s Supper is given in 1 Corinthians 11:19 to show which of you have God’s approval. The word “show” of the NIV is translated from a Greek adjective (phaneros) that pertains to that which appears clear or evident hence means “clear, evident, clearly, plain, known.” It is with the meaning “widely known” that the word is used to describe the popularity of Jesus during His earthly ministry in Mark 6:14:
King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
It is the sense of “clear” that Apostle Paul used it to describe the activities of the sinful nature that should be apparent to every believer as stated in Galatians 5:19:
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
The translators of the NIV used the meaning “obvious” that is synonymous to “clear” to translate our Greek word here in Galatians 5:19. In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:19, it is used in the sense of “being clearly revealed.”
Something is to be revealed but before we get to what is to be revealed, we should note that the word “have” in the clause in the NIV of 1 Corinthians 11:19 which of you have God’s approval is translated from a Greek verb (ginomai) that may mean “to be” although it is different from another Greek word (eimi) that may also mean “to be” in that our Greek word emphasizes that of being what one was not before. That aside, our Greek word has several meanings. For example, it may mean “to come into existence” so may have the sense of “to perform” as it is used for the description of the miracles of the apostles in Acts 5:12:
The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.
The word may mean “to become something” as Apostle Paul used it in cautioning believers not to become stumbling block to others in their use of their freedom in Christ in 1 Corinthians 8:9:
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
The word may mean “to occur as process or result” hence may mean “to take place, to happen.” It is in this sense of something occurring because of another thing that the word is used by Apostle Paul regarding the commendation the Lord will give in the future as stated in 1 Corinthians 4:5:
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
The sentence each will receive his praise from God is literally praise will come to each one from God. It is with the meaning “to happen” that Apostle Paul used the word to describe his sufferings as stated in 2 Timothy 3:11:
persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:19, the general sense of the word is “to become,” that is, “to enter or assume a certain state or condition.” The state or condition that is to be assumed or entered is given in the Greek with Greek word that NIV translated “show” that we have stated previously means “being clearly revealed.”
The thing that is to be clearly revealed because of the factions that exist among the Corinthians during their fellowship meals is described in the NIV in the clause which of you have God’s approval. A literal translation from the Greek reads the genuine (ones) may become evident among you. The problem, of course, is to determine what the apostle meant in the clause of the NIV which of you have God’s approval. To begin with, the literal Greek reveals the word God used in the NIV does not appear in the Greek. Anyway, the word “approval” in the NIV is translated from a Greek adjective (dokimos) that may pertain to being considered worthy of high regard and so means “respected, esteemed, approved” as Apostle Paul used it to describe those who would be approved of God and people as those who serve God by way of righteousness, peace, and joy as we read in Romans 14:18:
because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
The translators of the NIV gave our Greek word the meaning of “tested and approved” in Apostle Paul’s description of Apelles in Romans 16:10:
Greet Apelles, tested and approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus.
The instruction Greet Apelles, tested and approved in Christ is literally Greet Apelles, the tested/approved in Christ. The apostle described Apelles as one who has undergone a test of his faith and remained true to the faith thus the TEV translated it whose loyalty to Christ has been proved. The word may pertain to being genuine on the basis of testing hence means “approved by test, tried and true, genuine” as the word is used by the apostle to convey to the Corinthians that he would rather be found to have been wrong in his charges against them and seem to be a failure as an apostle, than for them to be found guilty of sins as we read in 2 Corinthians 13:7:
Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed.
The verbal phrase stood the test of the NIV is more literally approved. Anyway, in our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:19, the word is used in the sense of “genuine person,” that is, someone proven not to be fake or counterfeit. Of course, the apostle did not clearly specify in what sense a person is considered genuine among the Corinthians, but the NT helps us to understand what the apostle had in mind when he used the Greek word that means “genuine.”
In any case, the Greek words we have examined enable us to understand the clause to show which of you have God’s approval of the NIV or literally so that the genuine (ones) may become evident among you. The apostle meant to say that the factions that exist among the Corinthians regardless of the social or cultural reasons for them were brought about by God’s design to differentiate those who are not genuine in the Christian faith from those who are. In effect, the apostle implies that there were those who have joined the Corinthians in their house churches that were not believers in Christ, so their conduct reveals that they are not regenerated. It is not only in this passage that the apostle implies that there were those who joined fellowship of believers but were not saved. He referenced those he described as “false brothers” in 2 Corinthians 11:26:
I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.
The phrase false brothers is taken by some to mean that those so described are believers who are Jewish or those that advocate the necessity of the law in salvation. This is possible but it is more likely that the apostle had in mind those who claim to be believers in Christ and so joined the house churches without regeneration. These individuals were probably Jews who did not accept that faith in Christ alone is sufficient for salvation. It is difficult to understand how a person who rejects that faith in Christ is the only way to salvation could be considered a believer in Christ, especially as the Holy Spirit conveyed to us through Apostle Paul that it is only faith in Christ that leads to salvation as we may deduce with his interaction with the Philippian jailer as recorded in Acts 16:30–31:
30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
It is not only in 2 Corinthians 11:26 the apostle wrote about false brothers, but he also described those he considered false brothers in his epistle to the Galatians as recorded in Galatians 2:4:
This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
In this passage the “false brothers” were some Jews who pretended to be Christians or are truly Christians but did not understand the role of the law in salvation. However, it is most likely that they were not Christians at all but members of the sect of the Pharisees who joined the church without regeneration. Paul calls them “brothers” probably in the sense that they were Jews. In either case, these were Jewish opponents of the gospel that Paul preached to the Gentiles. Anyway, it is not only through Apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit conveyed that there were those in the early house churches that were not believers but pretended to be. The same truth is conveyed by the Holy Spirit through Apostle John as we read in 1 John 2:19:
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
In this passage, the apostle was dealing with the antichrists who were members of the house churches. The antichrists were members of the local house churches as indicated by several clauses Apostle John used. The clause they went out from us indicates the fact that the antichrists had been members of the congregation, as well as to the fact that they left it. These false individuals joined the specific congregation Apostle John addressed but that did not mean they were believers. They only appeared to be believers because they apparently were doing some of the things true believers were doing that did not require the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. For example, they could have participated in the Lord’s Supper although unbelievers. The fact they were not believers is conveyed in the clause but they did not really belong to us. Apostle John argued that if they were truly believers, they would not have left the congregation but as it is because they were unbelievers masked as Christians, they left the congregation of believers to show their true nature. We do not know the reason these individuals left the congregation, but we can be certain that God acted on them in such a way to show they were false for after all He knows those who are His children as the Holy Spirit declared through Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 2:19:
Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."
The Holy Spirit through Apostles Paul and John conveyed to us that it is possible, and in fact often the case, that there are individuals who join local congregations that are not believers but give the appearance of being believers in Christ not only because they participate in whatever is done in the local congregation as part of their worship, but some may even copy the moral standards of believers. I think that some people do not recognize this copying of moral standards of believers by unbelievers so that they equate morality to regeneration. A person can be moral and not be regenerated. This is proven by the example of Cornelius who was a moral religious person as we may learn from his description recorded in Acts 10:1–2:
1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.
If morality meant a person is saved, he would not have been instructed to send for Peter to give him the gospel message. Anyway, my point is that some people equate morality with being saved. In effect, if you are moral and come to church then they think you must be a Christian, that is not necessarily the case. A person could be moral and not be regenerated. This explains the reason you have moral people in various religions of the world that know nothing about regeneration through faith in Christ. This aside, you should not be surprised that it is possible to belong to a local church for some time and not be a believer in that a person is not regenerated. To me, the clearest example of belonging to a group of believers and not be one is Judas Iscariot. He belonged to the group of twelve apostles to the Jews the Lord Jesus chose. This means that he went everywhere with the Lord Jesus. In fact, he had an important function of being responsible for the finances of the Lord and His disciples according to what the disciples thought after the Lord had spoken to Judas to quickly carry out his betrayal of Him, but the disciples misunderstood what the Lord said to him and through their misunderstanding we learn Judas was the treasurer of the money of Jesus and His disciples as we may gather from John 13:29:
Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.
Anyway, there are those who teach that Judas Iscariot is a believer but there are several statements in the Scripture that refute such teaching. Jesus Christ calls him the devil as we read in John 6:70
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”
There are several interpretations interpreters have offered regarding the Lord Jesus calling Judas the devil. Regardless of how one interprets what the Lord said, it should be clear that such a description is not appropriate for a believer. The Lord probably implied that Judas was of the nature of the devil in the sense of the one that does not have the right relationship with God and so an unbeliever. Although some think that the Lord meant that Judas Iscariot was controlled by the devil while that is true, it is more than that. Judas had the same characteristic as the devil in the sense of one that has rejected God as Satan. The description of Judas by the Lord is certainly not the same thing as when He addressed Peter that on the surface reading appears that Peter is called Satan in Matthew 16:23:
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
It is true that the Lord addressed Peter in His command Get behind me, Satan but really, He addressed Satan who spoke through Peter to dissuade Him from God’s plan. We say this primarily because the same command addressed to Peter was essentially what the Lord said directly to Satan during His temptation as recorded in Matthew 4:10:
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”
You see, the expression Away from is translated from the same Greek word (hypagō) that is translated Get in Matthew 16:23. Thus, it is not Peter as such that the Lord rebuked but Satan who spoke through Peter to tempt Jesus Christ. Of course, the Lord knew that it was not Peter speaking but Satan, similar to what Job said to Bildad as we read in Job 26:4:
Who has helped you utter these words? And whose spirit spoke from your mouth?
Job was aware that the words of Bildad did not originate from him, implying that there was a spirit responsible for what Bildad said. If Job could recognize that a spirit spoke through Bildad it stands to reason that the Lord Jesus would certainly have known that it was Satan that uttered the words of Peter as a temptation to Him not to fulfill God’s plan. Thus, we are correct in asserting that the Lord rebuked Satan who spoke through Peter although He looked at Peter when He issued the rebuke that is given in Matthew 16:23. The point is that the Lord describing Judas as the devil is not the same thing as the Lord looking to Peter while calling out the word “Satan” that on the surface appears to apply to Peter.
The Holy Spirit through Apostle John described Judas as a thief since, as we have stated, he was the treasurer of the finances of the Lord and His disciples as stated in John 12:6:
He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
In the Greek, the imperfect tense is used in the statement he was a thief which implies that which is habitual of Judas. It is unusual for a believer to be described that way by the Holy Spirit implying that Judas was not regenerated. That he was unregenerated is also confirmed by what the Lord Jesus in His last supper with the disciples said of Judas as not being clean that was not said of any other disciple as recorded in John 13:10–11:
10 Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.
To say that Judas was unclean meant that he was an unbeliever who rejected the word of God and so did not believe in the Lord Jesus who indicated that the other eleven disciples were clean because of the word He spoke to them that by implication they believed as we read in John 15:3:
You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.
The word of God is His instrument in regeneration or being born again as the Holy Spirit tells us through the pen of Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 1:23:
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
The point is that since the Lord Jesus said that Judas was unclean that conveys that he was an unbeliever who was among the Twelve the Lord Jesus chose. Someone may ask if he was an unbeliever, why then did He choose him as one of the Twelve? The answer is that it was necessary for Judas to be a part of the Twelve to fulfill the Scripture as the Lord stated in John 13:18:
“I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: ‘He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.’
One scripture that was fulfilled by including Judas as one of the Twelve is Psalm 41:9–10:
9Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.
10But you, O LORD, have mercy on me; raise me up, that I may repay them.
Anyway, to me there is one passage that is decisive in asserting that Judas Iscariot was an unbeliever, in the priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus, that is, John 17:12:
While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
We should understand what the Lord prayed here considering what He had stated prior to this point in His earthly ministry, I am referring to John 6:38–39:
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
The Lord Jesus indicated that He would not lose anyone the Father had given Him. Therefore, if He says that Judas was lost that would imply that Judas was never an elect of God since the Lord could not lose an elect. It is because he was not an elect of God that the Lord Jesus described him in the sentence of John 17:12 the one doomed to destruction. This sentence, in my judgment, is an inconvertible proof that Judas was never a believer but was chosen to fulfill a purpose in God’s plan about the betrayal of the Lord Jesus.
We have interpreted the clause of 1 Corinthians 11:19 to show which of you have God’s approval of the NIV or literally so that the genuine (ones) may become evident among you to mean that the factions that exist among the Corinthians were brought about by God’s design to differentiate those who are not genuine in the Christian faith from those who are. This kind of statement should cause everyone to sit up and evaluate self to ensure you are an indeed a believer in Christ. That you come to this local church regularly does not necessarily mean that you are a believer. Remember that Judas Iscariot was with the Lord Jesus throughout His earthly ministry but in the end was not a believer. His situation causes me to wonder if there are not those who either in this congregation or other local churches that consider themselves members of the church of Christ although they are not. It seems to me that based on what the Lord said about Judas some of these individuals may be members of local churches to fulfill the words of the Lord Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew 7:21–23:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Thus, to ensure you are not such a person that the Lord Jesus described, you should do what the Holy Spirit said through Apostle Paul to the Corinthians as we read in 2 Corinthians 13:5–7:
5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? 6 And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. 7 Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed.
The test you are to take is to determine if you are living as a Christian that is first possible if you are one. A person who fails this test may not be a believer. So, you must test yourself to determine if you have believed in the Lord Jesus as evident in your living as a Christian should. The point we are concerned is that each of us should determine the genuineness of our claim of being believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. In any event, a second responsibility that you should undertake to ensure that the fellowship meals of believers are praiseworthy leading to you being conscious of the portion of meal you take is to ensure you do not cause division during the meal. This brings us to the third responsibility you have.
A third responsibility that you should undertake to ensure that the fellowship meals of believers are praiseworthy leading to you being conscious of the portion of meal you take is to ensure that you have the spirit that characterizes the Lord’s Supper. Recall we indicated that although we present the responsibility in a positive manner, but our intention is for the believer to act in a manner that avoids the criticism of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul against the Corinthians regarding the matter of the Lord’s Supper. Thus, we examine the criticism of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul upon which we derived the responsibility given positively. The Holy Spirit’s criticism of the Corinthians through the apostle regarding their coming together for fellowship meal that eventually ends with the Lord’s Supper is given in 1 Corinthians 11:20.
The criticism of the Corinthians that the apostle states in verse 20 results from the factions that existed among them brought about by God’s design to differentiate those who are not genuine in the Christian faith from those who are. We say that the criticism of verse 20 results from the factions that existed among the Corinthians the apostle mentioned in verse 19 because the apostle used a Greek particle (oun) not translated in the 1984 edition of the NIV and many of our English versions. However, the 2011 edition of the NIV translated the Greek particle using the phrase “so then” that begins verse 20. The Greek particle the apostle used has several usages but, in our passage, there are there are two possible ways of understanding its usage. It could be understood to mean that it is used to denote that what is stated in verse 20 results from what is stated in verse 19 and so may be translated “so, therefore, then.” This seems to be the interpretation adopted by such English versions as the NASB and the NJB, among others. In fact, the translators of the REB left no doubt that that is the interpretation they meant because they began verse 20 with the expression the result is that. Another possible usage of the Greek particle is as a marker that indicates a transition to something new in which case it may be translated “now, then, well.” This may well be the usage the translators of the NET had in mind that began the verse with the word “now”, but we cannot be certain since the English particle “now” may be used as a connecting particle to express a logical connection or a point of transition in thought. Of course, it is possible that the apostle used the Greek particle to resume the assertion of factions that exists among the Corinthians that he stated in verse 18. Nonetheless, it is more likely that the apostle links verse 20 to verse 19 so that his criticism given in verse 20 results from the factions that existed in Corinth when they meet for fellowship meal that eventually ends in the Lord’s Supper.
The criticism brought against the Corinthians is concerned with the special meeting of believers in Corinth during which the Lord’s Supper would take place. We say this because of what the apostle wrote in the clause of 1 Corinthians 11:20 When you come together. To an English reader, it would appear the apostle used a Greek word (hotan) that pertains to an action that is conditional, possible, and, in many instances, repeated and so means “at the time that, whenever, when” as the apostle used this Greek word when he explained the partisanship among the Corinthians as stated in 1 Corinthians 3:4:
For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
Of course, from the English translation of the clause we have in 1 Corinthians 11:20 When you come together it is possible to think that the apostle stated the action involved in the clause because of the sentence you come together. However, the apostle did not use a Greek word that may be translated “when” instead what we have is a participle of a Greek word (synerchomai) that we encountered in verse 18 where we indicated that the Greek word is used in the sense of “to meet,” that is, “to get together for a specific purpose.” It is in the same sense used in verse 18 that the word is used in verse 20. The question that helps us in focusing on the criticism of the Corinthians in verse 20 is: Why did the apostle use a participle when he could have used the Greek word that means “when” and a finite verb of our Greek word? The answer to this question is that the apostle was concerned to focus on the specific occasion that the Corinthians came together for a fellowship meal that would certainly end with the Lord’s Supper. The implication is that there are meetings of believers in Corinth that do not always end with the Lord’s Supper. We are limited in our understanding of the practices of the house churches in Corinth. It is possible that small house churches met together regularly to worship and hear the teaching of the word of God but every so often the house churches met in a home that could accommodate members of the other house churches. This meeting would certainly involve the fellowship meals that end with the Lord’s Supper. The reason for this speculation is a Greek phrase the apostle used that is translated together in the NIV but literally reads in the same (place). This is because the apostle used a Greek personal pronoun (autos) that pertains to that which is identical to or closely related to something and so means “same.” When the word is used with a definite article and in relation to a place, it may mean “at the same place” or “together.” It is the meaning “together” that is reflected in the NIV and some of our English versions. However, according to the standard Greek English lexicon (BDAG) that gave the meaning “together,” when the Greek phrase involves verbs of motion and place, it is better to use both meanings “at the same place” and “together.” Thus, the lexicon suggest we translate the phrase with the Greek verb used that we indicate means “to meet” as come together to the same place as reflected in the NET and a handful of our English versions. It would seem the apostle probably thought of a place where some of the house churches came together as a larger group to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Let me be clear that we are not certain that what I have stated occurred but that is possible. That notwithstanding, the thing we are sure is that when the apostle used a Greek participle he used, the best way to translate it into the English is to introduce the word “when” as you find in our English versions since the apostle wants to focus attention to specific meeting of the house churches in Corinth during which they participated in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
The point is that the various house churches gathered at a place for the purpose of first enjoying fellowship meal and then proceeded to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. However, the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul criticized them for what they considered celebration of the Lord’s Supper. He said that in fact what they called the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not what they think since it was not carried out in the spirit of its celebration. It is this criticism that is given in the last sentence of 1 Corinthians 11:20 it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat. The apostle was emphatic in this criticism because the word “not” is translated from a Greek negative adverb (ou) that is used for an objective negative, denying the reality of alleged fact. We are saying that the apostle states in an undeniable way that what the Corinthians celebrated in the name of the Lord’s Supper is in fact not that at all. It may be called that only in name but not what the Lord of the church instituted. What we have stated is further conveyed in the Greek by absence of a definite article. You see, the English versions introduced the definite article in the phrase the Lord’s Supper that literally reads Lord’s Supper. The apostle omitted the definite article because he wanted to stress the nature of the Lord’s Supper that the Corinthians have ignored. For sure, it is a type of meal, as we will note later, but the apostle intended to convey that it is a kind of meal that should be carefully partaken.
The expression “Lord’s” is translated from a Greek word (kyriakos) that appears only twice in the Greek NT; it pertains to belonging to the Lord and so means “the Lord’s.” Its other occurrence is in reference to what we consider Sunday, that is, the Christian day of worship, the day of Jesus’ resurrection, as when the Lord appeared to John to give him the content of book of Revelation as we read in Revelation 1:10:
On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,
Anyway, Lord in 1 Corinthians 11:20 refers to Jesus Christ since He is the One that instituted the celebration known as the Lord’s Supper.
The word “supper” is translated from a Greek word (deipnon) that may refer to an elaborate dinner celebration hence a banquet as the word is used in the Lord Jesus’ parable of the Great Banquet in Luke 14:17:
At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’
The word may refer to the principal meal of the day, usually in the evening so means “supper, evening meal, main meal” that may be religious in nature as in the last meal of Passover the Lord Jesus had with His disciples as recorded in John 13:2:
The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:20, it is used in the sense of “meal” that is food served and eaten at one time. Of course, the meal here refers to the specific meal that the Lord instituted for the church to celebrate in His name. It is a meal of a kind that is the reason, as we have indicated the apostle omitted the use of a definite article in relation to the Lord’s Supper.
The criticism of the apostle of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by the Corinthians should remind us that it is very easy to be superficial in the spiritual life regarding what the Lord had commanded. People simply go through the motion without any reality to it. A good illustration of this is that you may be here as a matter of routine in that you go through the motion of sitting in a Bible class, even take notes but that is as far as you go. In other words, attending Bible class has become a routine so that it has become a ritual to you without any significance in your life or without impacting you in any form. If you fall into this category, you are no different from the Corinthians who although obeyed the Lord’s instruction regarding the celebration of the Supper He instituted for the church, but they were actually just going through the motion of partaking the meal but without any spiritual reality to it. What the Corinthians were guilty of is still going on today among so many local churches that do not carefully explain to the participants the significance of the Lord’s Supper. You know that some groups give the Lord’s Super to anyone so long as the person has been baptized and has joined their local church. However, they conveniently forget that a person may be baptized but may not be regenerated so that such a person really makes a mockery of the Lord’s Supper.
We have indicated that we must be careful not to criticize others without facts. Thus, the apostle conveys to us that his criticism of the Corinthians is based on facts that are indisputable. For he began his reason or explanation of his criticism with the word “for” that begins verse 21. The word “for” is translated from a Greek conjunction (gar) that has several usages. For example, it can be used as a marker of inference with the meaning “so, then, by all means” or it can be used as a marker of cause or reason for something in which case it may be translated “for, because.” In our context, it is used as a marker of reason for the apostle’s criticism of the way the Corinthians went about celebrating the Lord’s Supper or an explanation of his criticism. Again, his reasons or explanations are based on facts that are indisputable that he gave. These facts the apostle provided in the rest of verse 21. However, we will not get to these in today’s study and so we will continue with the reasons or explanation of the apostle’s criticism of the Corinthians in our next study. However, let me end by reminding you of the third responsibility we have stated is to ensure that you have the spirit that characterizes the Lord’s Supper.
01/14//22