Are "Love Feasts" and Church Meals Sinful?

Some believe 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 prohibits Christians from incorporating the Lord’s Supper into broader feasts such as so called “love feasts.” Furthermore, some think Paul forbids Christians from eating any non-religious meal at all as a gathered church. These conclusions cannot be substantiated from the passage..

The claims are based mostly on two lines: 1) “For do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?” (V. 32), and 2) “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home” (V. 34). One cannot legitimately follow Paul’s line of thought and interpret these verses to mean either that it is wrong to join the Lord’s Supper (“LS” hereafter) with a larger meal or that the gathered church cannot eat any meal other than LS. In fact, the passage appears to permit both.

WORKING THROUGH THE TEXT

1 Corinthians 11:17-22

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 1evident among you. Therefore when you meet together in the same place, 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. For 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.

In verse 17, Paul begins by saying he cannot praise the Corinthians because their assembly is “not for the better” but “for the worse,” meaning it does more harm than good. Why? The first reason is because “there are divisions” (V. 18). From what follows, it is evident that the Corinthians assembled into divisive groups in their observance of the LS or maybe where one portion of the church was left out of eating by the other. There is not enough clear information to be sure about the exact nature of their situation, but seemingly, certain individuals brought food and preceded to eat but were not considerate enough to wait for latecomers (v. 33) who had no food (v. 21). The details are scant.

Paul says that when they assemble, “It is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” In saying they were not eating the LS, he wants to juxtapose the Lord’s meal with the Corinthians “own” (v. 21). In other words, the supper is supposed to be the Lord’s, but instead they were treating it as “their own,” using it as an occasion of self-indulgence and doing so at the expense of other Christians who had nothing to eat. The true purpose of this supper—Jesus—had been lost, and it was now more about them than Him.

Specifically, Paul says they ate their own supper first. By first he means they were not waiting on others, and, as the context goes on to say, some were being left with no food, and he later says they needed to “wait for one another” when they eat (v. 33). This isn't a rebuke about eating a meal with the LS. No, the problem was that individuals were actually making the supper their “own” by eating selfishly and leaving no food for some of their fellow Christians.

The most plausible setting that fits the narrative is that a larger meal incorporated the Communion. Evidently some individuals or families brought food, arrived before others, perhaps assembling into their “cliques,” and preceded to eat and drink, often in excess, and leaving little to nothing for those who came afterward. Should we think that such behavior was happening with only bread and wine? Yet, Paul only criticizes them for being divisive and self-absorbed.

If eating the LS with other food were itself sinful, it would be a lesser matter that some were eating their food “first” ahead of others when they shouldn't have been eating it at all! If you discover your children eating candy which they are not allowed to eat, would you reprimand them for not sharing with their siblings?

HOUSES TO EAT IN?

But then Paul asks, “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” It has been said that this question condemns eating the LS with a larger feast and even eating any non-religious meal as a church. For example, one writer says, “[I]n the one text where a schismatic group of Christians tried to integrate a physical meal with the ‘Lord’s Supper’ (1 Corinthians 11:17-22), abuses were present and they were told to take their physical meals home where they belonged! (Brent T. Willey, The Lord’s Supper and the Agapé Feast Analysis & Application, https://www.losososchurchofchrist.org, 16th paragraph; Emph mine - AKR)”

First, the term “physical meal” is not helpful because the bread and wine of the LS are just as physical as any other meal. But by “physical” he likely means a non-religious meal. Second, the writer does not demonstrate his interpretation from the text. Paul doesn't say meals "belong" at home. The first reference in the passage to eating at home is a rhetorical question, and it is asked because of the manner in which they were eating as a church—“taking his own supper first, and one is hungry, and another is drunk” (v. 21). Those are the reasons actually stated by Paul for the question. Most importantly, Paul sees eating the LS together with a meal as acceptable when done with love for others in verse 33: “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.”

The question, “Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?” is only half of what Paul asks. He continues to ask, “or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?” These are rhetorical questions; not commands to the universal church. Paul is asking the Corinthian church which of the two is the reason they assemble and behave the way they do. To paraphrase, he’s asking, “Why do you guys meet together and behave in this deplorable way with the Lord’s Supper? Is it because you don't have anywhere else to do it, or is it because you want to publicly demonstrate that you hate the church and humiliate those who have less than you do?” Nothing is said in rebuke of eating a meal but rather of eating and drinking in a self-centered, unloving, and unbridled manner. The idea is that if they are going to eat their own meals without regard for others then they might as well eat at home.

IT’S ABOUT THE PURPOSE; NOT THE FORM

In verses 23 through 26, Paul recites the Lord’s Supper narrative:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was being 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 He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.

Some think that Paul is reminding the Corinthians about the proper form of the LS, but he hasn't actually been discussing the form at all. We read nothing of wrong symbols, ingredients, unauthorized items, or the like. Paul’s objective is to remind them of the purpose—honoring Christ’s sacrifice. Note especially that Paul twice quotes Jesus as saying, “Do this in remembrance of me,” which is the only LS-passage in the New Testament where this line is stated twice. This is because the purpose of the observance—remembering Jesus—is the reason for quoting Jesus in the first place. The repetition of the line is for emphasis. Christ was not the center of their gathering. They were. This is why Paul says in verse 26: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.” Paul wants to redirect the Corinthians to the true purpose of the LS so they'll stop acting as they do.

A WORTHY MANNER OF OBSERVANCE

The next section (v. 27 - 32) is among general Christianity the most misunderstood part of the passage:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must test himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

Paul admonishes introspection and warns of eating in an “unworthy manner.” This is not about being an unworthy person but whether one’s attitude and behavior during the LS is worthy of its Christ-honoring purpose. To say it again, he's not concerned about how worthy they had been as Christians through the week. He means they should consider whether their manner of observance is a dignified memorial of the sacrificed Christ. The self-absorbed and divisive behavior of the church at Corinth was the “unworthy manner,” and Paul says that such a blatant dishonoring of the Lord’s memorial was a disregard for the Lord’s body!

EAT AT HOME?

Furthermore, Paul writes: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment” (v. 33). Missing the context, some think this means a feast should not be observed in a church gathering, but they miss the very reason Paul gives for eating at home—to avoid “coming together for judgment.” The judgment in context is the one for their previously discussed behavior. It’s obvious therefore that this injunction is meant for their particular situation. It is not a universal command.

Then Paul says, “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.” Clearly, he did not object to them gathering to eat, and considering they each were taking their own food, I don't find it very likely they were doing so with only the bread and wine. The information in this passage strongly suggests a meal larger than just the LS items. Yet, Paul’s ultimate solution is not to keep the LS separate from a feast but for them to be considerate enough to wait for everyone to arrive so that all may eat and to keep the observance in a manner worthy of a memorial for the Lord.

To conclude, nothing in 1 Corinthians 11 condemns a gathered church from eating a meal nor does Paul restrict the LS to only the bread and wine as if it should be anymore ritualistic than the Passover meal.

SUMMARY POINTS

• The most plausible setting is the Lord’s Supper was eaten with a larger feast

• No corrections are given for eating a feast with the Lord’s Supper

• The "eat at home" command is not a command for all Christians at all time

• Paul rebukes their sinful, self-absorbed behavior as unworthy of the memorial of Christ

• The method of observance was the issue; not the form of the Lord’s Supper