Lesson 8 — Table Hospitality

I Corinthians 11:17-34


Introduction

Imagine planning to host a meal in your home on a Sunday after church. You labor over who to invite—you’d like to bring some different families within the church together to meet and mingle. You labor over what you’ll have to eat; you want the menu to be just right, the finest of foods. You clean your house, you mow the lawn, and you set the table. Everything is in order.

And then the guests begin to arrive. To your surprise, the families are bringing their own meals with them! You made it clear that you were the host and would prepare the meal, but they don’t seem to care. Not only do they bring their own food, they sit down wherever they want and start eating. No asking permission, no prayer of thanksgiving, no waiting for the other families, no nothing! And if it couldn’t get any worse, by the time the last families arrive, many of the others have already eaten and are watching the game on television. You politely ask if they’ll turn it off and wait for the others, and the yelling begins…

What a hospitality nightmare! Believe it or not, the members of the Corinthian church were suffering from a similar hospitality disaster. The Lord had prepared to be the host of a meal, and no one was eating it. Moreover, everyone was doing their own thing, eating their own meal, with regard for no one but themselves. Paul responds to their problems in order to teach them about the hospitality of the table. 

Contextual Overview 

As has been seen in the previous chapters of Paul’s letter, the Corinthian church was having some major problems. To name a few: divisions existed (1:10-17); the Corinthians thought they were more spiritual than Paul and had “arrived” (4:1-21); one of their members was sleeping with his father’s wife (5:1-12); Christians were suing one another in courts of law (6:1-11); others were eating food sacrificed to idols in the temples of idols (8:1-13; 10:14-33); there was disorder and disunity in corporate worship (14:1-40); and some did not even believe in the resurrection from the dead (15:1-34)! 

The conflict over the Lord’s Supper finds its place amidst such troubles. While Paul praised the Corinthians for holding to the traditions of the faith (11:2), he would not praise them for their assembly times because they did “more harm than good.” (11:17) Indeed, they were neglecting the greatest tradition of all—the death and resurrection of the Lord as celebrated in his supper. All of their problems stem from one source: selfishness. Each was looking to his own interest and not to the interest of others. The Lord, however, is the Lord of open hospitality and selfless fellowship, and calls his church to be the same. The self-centered Christian is the enemy of God’s table hospitality.

Outline

I. The Problem in Corinth. (11:17-22)
II. The Solution from Tradition. (11:23-26)
III. The Application of the Solution. (11:27-34)

Textual Review

I. The Problem in Corinth (11:17-22). 
The problems that emerged in the Lord’s Supper at Corinth revolved around the form of the meal. In short, worldly values had infiltrated their practice of the supper, and as a result, distorted its gospel meaning. Paul notes the signs of this distortion: divisions (v. 18), failing to wait on one another (v. 21a), and some remaining hungry while others are drunk (v. 21b). As a result, the Corinthians were not eating the Lord’s meal; they were eating their own! 

Rick Oster, in his commentary on I Corinthians, identifies the table problems in Corinth with the characteristics of Greco-Roman meals (the popular culture at the time): 1) Hierarchical arrangement. Social and economic factors separated the rich from the poor and the free from the slaves, so much that in a meal, the best seats, food and wine were reserved for those who were wealthy and noble. 2) Disruptive speech and argumentative cliques. There was a tendency at the meals for fighting and arguing between factions, probably influenced by 3) Drunkenness. The quality and quantity of wine at the meals was so important that sometimes there was even an attendant in charge of distributing it (Cf. Jn. 2:8-10). These same problems came up in the Corinthian meal. The rich separated themselves from the poor, refused to wait on the slaves or lower-class workers to arrive for the meal, and would eat and become drunk before they showed up. When the poor did show up, there was no food left for them to eat, and because they could not afford to buy their own, they remained hungry (v. 21). Therefore, the very meal that was supposed to tear down social and economic barriers between Christians was maintaining them!

II. The Solution from Tradition (11:23-26). 
In order to put an end to the turmoil in the Corinthian meal, Paul reminds them of the Last Supper tradition (Cf. Lk. 22:7-23). The church comes together to remember the body and blood of the Lord in a meal, just as Jesus did with his disciples. They should not unite around themselves—by social, ethnic, gender, and economic distinctions—because that would not bring unity but division. Rather, they ought to unite around the Lord and the body and blood he gave on everyone’s behalf. The meal in which they remember Jesus’ death and resurrection should not be informed and shaped by popular cultural values, but by the gospel. It is the Lord’s table, not ours.

“Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (26) When the church gathers at the Lord’s table, it identifies itself with the values of the cross and the death of the Lord. “Proclaiming the Lord’s death” does not mean that the church recites and mourns over the gory details of Jesus’ body and blood on the cross. It simply means that the church proclaims the principles the cross embodies; it upholds and lives up to gospel values. For the Corinthians, “proclaiming the Lord’s death” meant showing how the cross had torn down all social and economic barriers; it meant proclaiming how Jesus’ death brought unity to people who were otherwise diverse; it meant expressing how Jesus, at the table, offers hospitality to everyone, regardless of personal status. It means the same thing in today’s church.

III. The Application of the Solution (11:27-34).
Paul gives three major instructions in light of the problems. First, “a man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup” (v. 28). This advice is necessary not because the Corinthians need to spend more time in private introspection and meditation during the meal, but because they are neglecting the communal values of the Lord’s supper. They are not showing hospitality towards one another! They should reflect and make sure they are proclaiming the gospel in their Christian fellowship. Paul’s point is clear as he continues to say, “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (v. 29) “Recognizing the body of the Lord,” in this context, is being aware of the community in the supper, the church (the church = “body of Christ,” cf. 12:27). This interpretation is supported by Paul’s use of the phrase “body of the Lord.” When referring to the physical body of Christ present in the emblems, he uses the phrase “body and blood of the Lord.” (10:16; 11:27) When referring to the church, he subtly changes the phrase to “body of the Lord/Christ.” (10:17; 11:29; 12:27) Indeed, the distinction between the two blurs because both are the body of Christ; but a distinction does remain. Therefore, eating and drinking “in an unworthy manner” does not refer to the failure of concentrating well enough on the death of Jesus or repenting of sin enough. Sinning against the body and blood of the Lord (v. 29) and judgment (v. 31-32) come when one fails to examine his/herself in the context of the community. As Hicks says, eating and drinking worthily “is not about private introspection, but about public action.” (emphasis mine)

The second instruction Paul gives is in verse 33: “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.” Paul does not tell the Corinthians to stop having the Lord’s supper as a supper. He doesn’t discard the form of the meal, but rather admonishes them to wait for one another. This is followed by his third instruction, “If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.” (v. 34) Again, Paul is not saying, “you can’t have food at the ‘building’” (in fact, they did not even meet in ‘buildings’ but in homes, cf. Rom. 16:23; Acts 2:46), but rather suggests, “if your appetite is going to keep you from waiting on your brothers and sisters at the Lord’s table, resulting in sin and judgment, then grab a bite to eat before you come to hold you over.” The solution, then, is hospitality. Specifically, the Corinthians will rise above their troubles when they extend to one another the hospitality of the Lord at the table—sacrificial, barrier-shattering, gospel hospitality. 

Discussion Questions

1. Hicks, in Come to the Table, claims that our individualistic practice of the Lord’s Supper (and our silent, introspective meditation) denies the hospitality values of the gospel in the same way the Corinthians did. Why would he say that? Do you agree or disagree? What are some obstacles to hospitality and community that we face at Pleasant Valley when we take the Lord’s Supper? What might help us to be more hospitable in our assemblies?

2. The Lord’s Supper was eaten in the context of a communal meal in earliest Christianity. And Paul, in I Corinthians, does not tell the church to stop eating it as a meal. Why then, do you think the Lord’s Supper is no longer practiced as a meal? Is the form of the Lord’s Supper as a meal/table important to its function? Why or why not?

3. Outside of the Lord’s Supper setting, what are some ways that you can practice ‘table hospitality’ while at church…at work…with your family? How does personal selfishness get in the way of being hospitable? What’s the difference between Christian hospitality and “socializing”?

References 
Hicks, John Mark. Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper. Orange, California: New Leaf Books, 2002.

Oster, Richard E. I Corinthians. Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1995.

-Charles Kiser





(Charles Kiser is the former associate involvement minister at Pleasant Valley Church, and now lives with his wife, Julie, in Memphis, TN. Charles is there pursuing his Master of Divinity degree at the Harding Graduate School of Religion.)