 |
| Illustration by Judith Clingan |
Assumption #1: Worship on Sunday is separate from the rest of life. The 'rest of life' concerns the other 165 hours of 'worldly' or mundane 'acts' or activities like work, play, and eating meals, etc.
Assumption #2: The '5-acts worship pattern' of singing, praying, giving, preaching & Lord's Supper must all be conducted every Sunday.
Christians must partake of the Lord's Supper as one of these 'acts' or are made to feel sinful.
Assumption #3: The Supper can only be a small piece of bread & small cup of grape juice which is viewed as a 'spiritual meal' based, evidently, on its limited contents and size, or 'because the Lord through the Apostle Paul "said so" in 1 Cor. 11:23ff.
Assumption #4: The above assumptions/behaviors are expected unless you been 'providentially hindered' by work or sickness, but I don't know why these particular reasons are excused from the '5 acts pattern of worship' since there is no verse stating this.
Usually, what is said upon inquiry is that "God does not expect you to do what you cannot," but I don't know where this verse is either. I suggest that this 'assembly for 5 acts of worship pattern' is arbitrarily imposed onto various NT texts through a cut and paste hermeneutic slightly modified but still based on the Catholic/Protestant tradition--not first century practice as is claimed.
Assumption #5: The "meeting" Paul speaks of in the passage below is in a "public worship building," because some were told to eat at home. It was not. Christians met in homes in the NT--not the Roman basilica with a stage and chairs, etc. Before the early 4th century A.D., a 'basilica' was the Roman government auditorium (city hall) before the Catholic Church patterned 'church buildings' after them.
Paul certainly told some to eat in their own homes if they could not refrain from humiliating others through not sharing what they brought. It is assumed, however, that Paul was condemning the eating of more than a small portion of bread/juice based on his description in verses 23-34.
The above assumptions, and especially meeting in a public building, heavily influences how we have been taught to interpret this text. If we do not know first century culture, then our interpretation is bound to what we see around us today, and/or what we have been taught by 'authority' figures in whom we have placed our trust/belief.
Usually, what is said upon inquiry is that "God does not expect you to do what you cannot," but I don't know where this verse is either. I suggest that this 'assembly for 5 acts of worship pattern' is arbitrarily imposed onto various NT texts through a cut and paste hermeneutic slightly modified but still based on the Catholic/Protestant tradition--not first century practice as is claimed.
Assumption #5: The "meeting" Paul speaks of in the passage below is in a "public worship building," because some were told to eat at home. It was not. Christians met in homes in the NT--not the Roman basilica with a stage and chairs, etc. Before the early 4th century A.D., a 'basilica' was the Roman government auditorium (city hall) before the Catholic Church patterned 'church buildings' after them.
Paul certainly told some to eat in their own homes if they could not refrain from humiliating others through not sharing what they brought. It is assumed, however, that Paul was condemning the eating of more than a small portion of bread/juice based on his description in verses 23-34.
The above assumptions, and especially meeting in a public building, heavily influences how we have been taught to interpret this text. If we do not know first century culture, then our interpretation is bound to what we see around us today, and/or what we have been taught by 'authority' figures in whom we have placed our trust/belief.
Contrary to the status quo--it matters where we meet.
It affects how we interpret worship, especially the formality of it. I am claiming that today's formality is based on the influence of man's government--not God's word.
Do you eat or sleep or worship in a bathroom? Why not if "it doesn't matter where you meet," (so long as you 'worship' correctly?)" It matters. Not all four walls are the same. Saying, "You could" evades the question and context of what was done in the NT and how it affects our interpretation.
Again, the viewpoint of having to complete '5 acts of worship on Sunday' to remain acceptable to God is integral to the above viewpoint's coherence. The key point to understand regarding this hermeneutic is the "have to" mentality.
Of course, some will say, "You should want to," but control is maintained by the "have to" mentality. We are not free to deviate from the '5 acts pattern' (ritual singing/ praying/ preaching/ giving/ Lord's Supper) and permitted to feel that we have 'worshiped' God correctly.
Assumption #6: The Corinthians were assembling for the wrong purpose of eating 'a common meal' when they should have been assembling for the right purpose of 'spiritual worship' of which one of the 'acts' is the Lord's Supper which must be limited to a small piece of bread and swallow of grape juice based on Paul's comments in vv. 22ff.
Assembling in a home for a meal is different than attending a formal, government style lecture-hall auditorium. Where we eat the Lord's Supper affects HOW we view it. It would be strange to eat a small piece of bread and swallow of juice at the dining room table in a home and call it supper. And it would be strange to eat a meal in pews looking at the back of someone's head. Even the "fellowship hall" method is not the home. It's institutional, rather than familial. It is certainly not 'expedient' or 'necessary.'
These assumptions affect how we understand the text of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. When we do not understand first century culture, then we can only project what we do today back onto the Bible. This is not an accurate/honest handling of the word of God. With these assumptions fresh on our minds, let's examine 1 Cor. 11:17-34:
1 Corinthians 11:17-34 reads,
"In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 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. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval."
"So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!"
While I believe that Paul is correcting the Corinthians who were 'abusing the Lord's Supper'--the abuse specifically stated in the text is "divisions." Divisions is described as not sharing one's meal (some would say "common," however, Paul says "private suppers") with other Christians.
Paul is not saying that it is 'wrong to eat the Lord's Supper as part of a meal.' Paul will specifically state what his correction of their abuse is as, "you should all eat [your "private meals"--not "common meals"] together."
I cannot stress enough the importance of understanding this context while reading the entire passage (vv. 17-34).
What we tell ourselves as we are reading the text is an interpretation of what we have been taught by preachers and teachers. We must understand that we bring an interpretation to the text while reading it. I am challenging this traditional interpretation with which many Christians read the text.
Paul specifically states what the problem is. It is the same as in chapter one--divisions.
See 1 Cor. 1:10.
Paul is not arguing the Greek dualistic viewpoint of 'physical vs. spiritual' food. One must be reading an interpretation previously taught not to see his plain statement that "divisions" is his concern--not 'physical' food.
Do you eat or sleep or worship in a bathroom? Why not if "it doesn't matter where you meet," (so long as you 'worship' correctly?)" It matters. Not all four walls are the same. Saying, "You could" evades the question and context of what was done in the NT and how it affects our interpretation.
Again, the viewpoint of having to complete '5 acts of worship on Sunday' to remain acceptable to God is integral to the above viewpoint's coherence. The key point to understand regarding this hermeneutic is the "have to" mentality.
Of course, some will say, "You should want to," but control is maintained by the "have to" mentality. We are not free to deviate from the '5 acts pattern' (ritual singing/ praying/ preaching/ giving/ Lord's Supper) and permitted to feel that we have 'worshiped' God correctly.
Assumption #6: The Corinthians were assembling for the wrong purpose of eating 'a common meal' when they should have been assembling for the right purpose of 'spiritual worship' of which one of the 'acts' is the Lord's Supper which must be limited to a small piece of bread and swallow of grape juice based on Paul's comments in vv. 22ff.
Assembling in a home for a meal is different than attending a formal, government style lecture-hall auditorium. Where we eat the Lord's Supper affects HOW we view it. It would be strange to eat a small piece of bread and swallow of juice at the dining room table in a home and call it supper. And it would be strange to eat a meal in pews looking at the back of someone's head. Even the "fellowship hall" method is not the home. It's institutional, rather than familial. It is certainly not 'expedient' or 'necessary.'
These assumptions affect how we understand the text of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. When we do not understand first century culture, then we can only project what we do today back onto the Bible. This is not an accurate/honest handling of the word of God. With these assumptions fresh on our minds, let's examine 1 Cor. 11:17-34:
 |
| Illustration by Judith Clingan |
"In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 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. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval."
"So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!"
While I believe that Paul is correcting the Corinthians who were 'abusing the Lord's Supper'--the abuse specifically stated in the text is "divisions." Divisions is described as not sharing one's meal (some would say "common," however, Paul says "private suppers") with other Christians.
Paul is not saying that it is 'wrong to eat the Lord's Supper as part of a meal.' Paul will specifically state what his correction of their abuse is as, "you should all eat [your "private meals"--not "common meals"] together."
I cannot stress enough the importance of understanding this context while reading the entire passage (vv. 17-34).
What we tell ourselves as we are reading the text is an interpretation of what we have been taught by preachers and teachers. We must understand that we bring an interpretation to the text while reading it. I am challenging this traditional interpretation with which many Christians read the text.
Paul specifically states what the problem is. It is the same as in chapter one--divisions.
See 1 Cor. 1:10.
Paul is not arguing the Greek dualistic viewpoint of 'physical vs. spiritual' food. One must be reading an interpretation previously taught not to see his plain statement that "divisions" is his concern--not 'physical' food.
Paul is not now, nor does he ever condemn 'common,' or 'physical' or 'gluttonous' meals in favor of a 'spiritual' meal consisting of small portions. He condemns 'private meals' to the exclusion of other Christians--that is all.
How would small portions be more spiritual? If we eat smaller and smaller portions are we more and more spiritual? No. Then why do we suppose one is less spiritual if he eats larger portions? We have allowed our focus to be narrowed too much based on inherited teachings of Catholic/Protestant traditions--not the first century context of 1 Cor. 11:17-34.
Have we inherited an aesthetically defined Lord's Supper and continue to forbid others from 'eating certain foods' (1 Tim. 4:3)?
I believe we have inherited and propagated it through reading this interpretation into the text based on verses 22 and 34.
Generally, the questions we ask are, "Why would Paul say, "Don't you have homes to eat it in?" if he was not condemning a 'common' meal?
He says why!
Because they were taking "private suppers" [not 'common'] and "humiliating those with nothing."
We have been taught an incorrect interpretation handed down from Catholic/Protestant history.
Please allow me to say this again:
Paul states why he makes the statement in 11:22 and 11:34--because their hunger caused them not to share their meals. Paul never says, "Don't eat 'common' meals. Never.
In fact, he says, "When you gather to eat, wait for one another, and if someone is hungry he should eat at home--why? "So that you will not come together and be condemned" by the Lord for not sharing your meal.
This is Paul's correction for "divisions."
His correction is NOT, "Stop eating common meals."
If you believe that he is saying this, then you are reading this into the text based on what you have been taught to believe, and how you have been taught to read it from some 'authority figure.'
We need to take responsibility.
We need to stop propagating error.
You and I are responsible as Christians to stand up for the truth--not to agree with 'authority figures.'
Paul says, "When you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers."
Why did he not just say, "Stop eating 'common' meals, and get 'spiritual?'" Because Paul was not a Greek dualist. He did not separate life into hierarchical compartments of 'spiritual' and 'physical.' He did not separate worship from "the rest of life."
The Gnostics are the ones who said the "physical was evil" not Jewish Christians. Eating meals was a 'spiritual' event among Jews.
Pauls says, "as a result one person is hungry another is drunk [full]."
Paul says, "Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?"
I believe we have inherited and propagated it through reading this interpretation into the text based on verses 22 and 34.
Generally, the questions we ask are, "Why would Paul say, "Don't you have homes to eat it in?" if he was not condemning a 'common' meal?
He says why!
Because they were taking "private suppers" [not 'common'] and "humiliating those with nothing."
We have been taught an incorrect interpretation handed down from Catholic/Protestant history.
Please allow me to say this again:
Paul states why he makes the statement in 11:22 and 11:34--because their hunger caused them not to share their meals. Paul never says, "Don't eat 'common' meals. Never.
In fact, he says, "When you gather to eat, wait for one another, and if someone is hungry he should eat at home--why? "So that you will not come together and be condemned" by the Lord for not sharing your meal.
This is Paul's correction for "divisions."
His correction is NOT, "Stop eating common meals."
If you believe that he is saying this, then you are reading this into the text based on what you have been taught to believe, and how you have been taught to read it from some 'authority figure.'
We need to take responsibility.
We need to stop propagating error.
You and I are responsible as Christians to stand up for the truth--not to agree with 'authority figures.'
Paul says, "When you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers."
Why did he not just say, "Stop eating 'common' meals, and get 'spiritual?'" Because Paul was not a Greek dualist. He did not separate life into hierarchical compartments of 'spiritual' and 'physical.' He did not separate worship from "the rest of life."
The Gnostics are the ones who said the "physical was evil" not Jewish Christians. Eating meals was a 'spiritual' event among Jews.
Pauls says, "as a result one person is hungry another is drunk [full]."
Paul says, "Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?"
and Paul says, "Do you despise the church of God by...
Doing what?
He says what:
"eating a 'common' meal?" No.
"by humiliating those who have nothing?" Yes!
This is what was causing the "divisions" he heard about--not eating a 'common meal.'
Well, why the following depiction of the Lord's Supper as a piece of bread and cup of juice?
Paul specifically states that it is more than that!
Again, here is another tradition we inherited and have been taught to read into the text.
Paul says specifically that Jesus took the cup "after supper" in the following verses:
"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."
There's the supposedly evil 'common meal' right there in 1 Cor. 11:25!
And this is "the New Law" not "the Old Law," or why do you accept the bread and cup in verses 23-24, but not the meal in 1 Cor. 11:25?
The answer to our modern misunderstanding is that in the first century, they broke bread to begin the meal and took the cup to end it. The thing that we "must" understand is not the arbitrary 5-acts of worship pattern, but first century culture and context.
Paul concludes:
"So
then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of
the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves."
"That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world."
What was the "unworthy manner?"
From what is written in the text, it can only be "divisions/humiliations" that resulted from taking private suppers/not sharing. If the Corinthians had been "more discerning with themselves," then they would not have been chastised by Paul (the Lord). And if we were more "discerning with ourselves," then we would challenge without fear misinterpretations handed down over the years.
What "examination" should we undergo?
Ourselves, when we don't share our meals based on our divisive behavior. That is all that is in the text from which to draw conclusions.
So what does Paul conclude?
Surely, this is where he says, "Stop eating 'common,' 'physical,' gluttonous' meals, right?
Nope. Just the opposite.
He says, "you should all eat together" which is in perfect context with where he started in verse 17:
"So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions."
Paul specifically says that they "should eat together"--NOT stop eating.
And Paul specifically says WHY some should eat at home--it is not "because a 'common' meal is sinful."
Telling the particular people, or "some," in the passage to eat at home is not an "abstract, timeless truth."
This was a real situation in real time in the real world with real Christians not sharing their meals.
Understanding this context is how we arrive at what the "truth" is--not by taking a verse out of its context, making it a proof-text and saying, "Anybody today who is hungry should eat at home, because the Bible says in verse 34..."
This modern, handed-down interpretation/application is not what Paul meant and it is clear from the text.
This is why it is so important not to view them in a 'public building'--one of the major assumptions above that we project back onto the text because we have not been taught proper first century context. We have been taught, "it doesn't matter where we meet," and/or we have been taught that the fact that the early church chose to meet in homes for three centuries is irrelevant. Hardly.
I recall your attention to the assumptions above about "having to" assemble for "acts of worship" one of which is the Lord's Supper, ritualistically (some say 'spiritually') taken to feel like one remains acceptable to God, and that one must only partake of small portions of only bread and juice.
"That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world."
What was the "unworthy manner?"
From what is written in the text, it can only be "divisions/humiliations" that resulted from taking private suppers/not sharing. If the Corinthians had been "more discerning with themselves," then they would not have been chastised by Paul (the Lord). And if we were more "discerning with ourselves," then we would challenge without fear misinterpretations handed down over the years.
What "examination" should we undergo?
Ourselves, when we don't share our meals based on our divisive behavior. That is all that is in the text from which to draw conclusions.
So what does Paul conclude?
Surely, this is where he says, "Stop eating 'common,' 'physical,' gluttonous' meals, right?
Nope. Just the opposite.
He says, "you should all eat together" which is in perfect context with where he started in verse 17:
"So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions."
Paul specifically says that they "should eat together"--NOT stop eating.
And Paul specifically says WHY some should eat at home--it is not "because a 'common' meal is sinful."
Telling the particular people, or "some," in the passage to eat at home is not an "abstract, timeless truth."
This was a real situation in real time in the real world with real Christians not sharing their meals.
Understanding this context is how we arrive at what the "truth" is--not by taking a verse out of its context, making it a proof-text and saying, "Anybody today who is hungry should eat at home, because the Bible says in verse 34..."
This modern, handed-down interpretation/application is not what Paul meant and it is clear from the text.
This is why it is so important not to view them in a 'public building'--one of the major assumptions above that we project back onto the text because we have not been taught proper first century context. We have been taught, "it doesn't matter where we meet," and/or we have been taught that the fact that the early church chose to meet in homes for three centuries is irrelevant. Hardly.
I recall your attention to the assumptions above about "having to" assemble for "acts of worship" one of which is the Lord's Supper, ritualistically (some say 'spiritually') taken to feel like one remains acceptable to God, and that one must only partake of small portions of only bread and juice.
Seeing these assumptions--especially the public building assumption--is paramount in understanding how we (mis)read the text. This "5-acts of public building worship--have to hermeneutic" is what I think is clouding the picture.
The above assumptions we have been taught cause us to misread the passage, therefore what we "must" do is learn more about first century culture/context to make sure we understand and propagate truth not error.
It's right there in the Bible.
The problem is with our reading of it based on interpretations we have been taught because we have a clergy/laity system of dependence that needs replacing with commanded Christian equality and growth (2 Pet. 3:18; cf. Eph. 4:11ff).
The above assumptions we have been taught cause us to misread the passage, therefore what we "must" do is learn more about first century culture/context to make sure we understand and propagate truth not error.
It's right there in the Bible.
The problem is with our reading of it based on interpretations we have been taught because we have a clergy/laity system of dependence that needs replacing with commanded Christian equality and growth (2 Pet. 3:18; cf. Eph. 4:11ff).
You make five assumptions before you look at the text. In educated circles we call that eisegesis. Next time approach the subject without hostility and stop trying to tell us what the Lord Supper is not. You make it sound like if people aren't worshipping the way YOU want (or interpret the Scriptures) that everyone else is wrong. I find that ironic - don't you? Sad.
ReplyDelete