As time goes on, more churches (even among brethren) are hosting meals as a function of the local church. But should churches be involved in this practice? As with every question, we must strive to determine if such activities are authorized. This will be determined by examining the word of God, not by observing the cultural norms in our society or the current trends in the religious world. So let us examine what Paul had to say to the church in Corinth.
“But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
“Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
“What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you” (1 Corinthians 11:17-22).
Paul’s Question to the Corinthians
Notice Paul’s question to these brethren: “What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?” The context is clear. Whatever it was that they were doing, the Spirit-inspired apostle did not approve of it.
So what specifically was Paul addressing? He was not condemning Christians for eating out at a restaurant as opposed to eating at home like we may do from time to time today. He was clearly talking about eating when the church comes together. Does this condemn “fellowship meals” like many churches host today? Or is this limited to peculiar circumstances in Corinth and, therefore, does not prohibit churches from hosting meals today?
In order to determine the answers to these questions, I want us to notice three problems that existed in Corinth surrounding their practice, the three solutions presented in the Scriptures, and three additional points to consider.
Three Problems in Corinth
First of all, we must recognize that there were three distinct problems that Paul addressed about this practice in the church at Corinth.
#1 – They had changed the Lord’s Supper. Paul said, “Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20). Of course, the New Testament pattern is for the Lord’s Supper to be observed in the assembly on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 11:33; Acts 20:7). But these brethren had so corrupted the practice that it could no longer be called the Lord’s Supper.
The brethren in Corinth had done two things to corrupt the Lord’s Supper. First, they were excluding some (1 Corinthians 11:21). The Lord’s Supper is to be observed “together” (1 Corinthians 11:33). Second, they made it into a meal to satisfy physical hunger (1 Corinthians 11:34). The Lord’s Supper was intended by Christ to be a memorial (1 Corinthians 11:23-26; Matthew 26:26-29), not a meal. If they wanted to satisfy physical hunger, the Lord’s Supper was not the time to do that.
#2 – They shamed those with nothing. Paul said that in their corruption of the Lord’s Supper, they would “shame those who have nothing” (1 Corinthians 11:22). Not only had they corrupted the sacred memorial of the Lord’s death, but they made a distinction between the haves and the have-nots. Those who were unable to contribute were not allowed to partake.
#3 – They were not eating at home. This is the problem that too many brethren tend to ignore. They recognize the first two problems, but not this one. Therefore, they see nothing wrong with “fellowship meals” hosted by the church, provided that these meals are distinct from the Lord’s Supper and open to all. However, notice what Paul wrote at the end of this discussion: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment” (1 Corinthians 11:34). The apostle made it clear that meals other than the Lord’s Supper that were meant to satisfy hunger were for the home, not the church.
Three Solutions to These Problems
After noticing the problems Paul addressed with regard to the Corinthian church’s practices, let us consider the Spirit-revealed solutions to these problems that are found in God’s word.
#1 – Value the words of Christ. In correcting these brethren, Paul cited the words of Jesus in His establishment of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). Anytime there is a question about what we should do, we must first consult the Scriptures. The words of Christ lead to life (John 6:68). As we obey Him, we can look forward in hope to salvation (Hebrews 5:9). Therefore, we must highly value the inspired word of God.
#2 – Value the unity of brethren. Paul told the Christians here that strife and unnecessary factions were wrong. After appealing for unity early in the epistle (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), he addressed the subject again in this context. When unnecessary “divisions exist” among brethren, they “come together not for the better but for the worse” (1 Corinthians 11:17-18). Unity among God’s people is precious (Psalm 133:1), and we must diligently strive to preserve it (Ephesians 4:3).
#3 – Value the role of the church. The role of the church is spiritual, not social. Paul explained that the place for social things like common meals was the home (1 Corinthians 11:22, 34). The church was the place for focusing on spiritual things like the death of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-33). We “despise the church of God” (1 Corinthians 11:22) when we mix the two in the work of the church. The church’s work is spiritual in nature (1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 4:16).
Three Points to Take from This
In addition to the three problems that Paul addressed in Corinth and their solutions, I want us now to consider three more points that relate to this issue.
#1 – The local church needs to be focused on its work. Besides the fact that such “fellowship meals” are unauthorized (as we have already noticed), adding works like this to the church distracts from the God-given work of evangelism, edification, and limited benevolence. When Paul wrote to Timothy about the care for certain widows, he said, “If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed” (1 Timothy 5:16). Caring for all widows was good. However, Paul said that only certain widows were to be cared for on an ongoing basis by the church. If a widow had family, those family members were to care for her. Why? So that the church would “not be burdened,” because this would distract it from its work of caring for “widows indeed.”
A similar principle is found in the record of the early days of the church in Jerusalem. When certain widows were being neglected, the apostles called upon the congregation to select certain men to handle this work. Why could the apostles not help these widows themselves? They said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables” (Acts 6:2). The apostles were charged by Christ to preach (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8; 2 Corinthians 5:20). While it was important that those in need were cared for, it would hinder the apostles’ work for them to do it. This principle applies to the local church. The works of evangelism (1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 1:8) and edification (Ephesians 4:11-16) are ongoing. Placing additional works upon the church which the Lord never authorized the church to do, not only violates the New Testament pattern (2 Timothy 1:13), but it also hinders these other works.
#2 – The desire for togetherness is good. It is good for Christians to enjoy one another’s company. The early disciples were described as “breaking bread from house to house, [and] taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart” (Acts 2:46). They were doing as Paul told the Corinthians to do – eating at home (1 Corinthians 11:22, 34). I assume that the desire for togetherness is the primary motivation behind these “fellowship meals” hosted by local churches. However, good intentions/desires do not justify bending or breaking the rules. Paul said that the Scriptures equip us “for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). In other words, good works are defined by Scripture. Therefore, if we have no authority in the word of God for something, it is not a good work, no matter how good our intentions may be. It is good for Christians to enjoy meals together. But it is not a “good work” for the church to host such meals.
#3 – We must look to the Bible, not to the religious world. Again, the Scriptures define good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17). While it is common in the religious world for churches to host “fellowship meals,” the world is not our standard. We will not please God by being like the world (Romans 12:2). Notice what Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness’” (Matthew 7:21-23). It is not enough to claim to do things for the Lord, we must do all things by His authority (Colossians 3:17).
Conclusion
The church belongs to Christ (Acts 20:28). Therefore, we must do His will in all things. Let us be content with the work He has given the church to do. We must not distract the church from His work, even to do things that are acceptable for us as individuals to do. “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home” (1 Corinthians 11:34). It is good for Christians to enjoy meals together (Acts 2:46), but let us not take that good thing and make it a work of the church when the Lord never made it one.
This article is one of the fifty articles included in the book Plain Bible Teaching: The First Ten Years. Click on the link to read more about the book.
Andy,you have shown the scriptures clearly do not authorize the church to have meals as a function of the church. Sadly, the church eventually picks up on every worldly habit the denominational churches practice. Perhaps that is due to the fact that many who are concerted to Christ come from denominational backgrounds and bring all their worldly thinking with them. How could the scriptures state it more clearly than it already does that God does not want the church hosting common meals, “What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?”
Wayne, you may be right about denominational ideas coming from new converts. Obviously, if the Philippian jailer could be converted in the same hour of the night, it is to be expected that new converts will have certain misconceptions that need to be corrected. However, the other Christians in the congregation should be there to help guide them in the truth.
I was talking with someone earlier this week about another issue, but I made a point that fits here as well. I think the problem is that people study the Bible and accept what they’re comfortable with. That may be most of the truth, but they still have the wrong standard. Their standard is not the truth, but themselves.
I’ve read your article and I’m not convinced of your premise. The first thing I see in this text is Paul’s thoughts on there being no divisions among brethren.
If this is true, isn’t the division that is in the Lord’s church a more pressing and Spiritual concern than whether or not people eat in a building?
I’d like to hear your thoughts on the division between those that are titled Non Coppetrative/Non Institutional/Anti (or whatever title you want to give them) vs the Traditional/Liberal/ (or whatever title you want to give them)
Jason, certainly unity is important. But unity is to be based upon the word of God (John 17:20-21). We must strive to maintain unity, but not by ignoring the rest of the text because we decide something is not a pressing concern.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Paul did not say that the home was the place for common meals rather than the church. That would then place this as a matter of OPINION — some brethren think it’s a good idea for the church to host meals; other brethren disagree. IF it’s a matter of opinion, the advocates for meals have three options: (1) push their opinion to the point that it drives the others away, (2) leave the other brethren and form their own congregation made up of just meal-favoring brethren, or (3) abandon the practice of church-hosted meals so as not to offend their brethren. Again, IF this is a matter of opinion, the only right answer — and the only one that maintains unity — is number three (Romans 14:1,13,15,20-21; 1 Corinthians 8:9,12-13).
But this is not just a matter of opinion. Paul plainly affirmed that common meals were for the home and not the church (1 Corinthians 11:22,34). Local churches should focus on their divinely-ordained work — evangelism and edification (1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 4:16) — rather than causing division by following after the pursuits that God left for the home and for individual Christians.
The Institutional/Non-Institutional division covers a lot. What specifically were you wanting my thoughts on regarding that?
I would like to continue this discussion but fell we should do so in a private setting. Can we continue this via email?
I meant “feel we should do so privately”, my fingers slipped on typing the response, sorry.