Notes on Jude 12 & 1 Cor. 11:20-34

By David J. Riggs

Jude 12 mentions "love feasts" but does not describe whether they were "love feasts when the saints came together for worship" or "love feasts when the saints met together in their homes." There is no way to determine which of the above is correct by so-called Greek Scholars because they can be found teaching either of them. For example, the Arndt & Gingrich Dictionary says, "A love feast, a common meal eaten by early Christians in connection with their church services, for the purpose of fostering and expressing brotherly love." However, the Homan Bible Dictionary (a scholarly dictionary found in nearly every Book Store and used far more among denominational people than those commonly used among brethren), says, "On these occasions a family or a group of friends who had banded together for purposes of special devotion (known as chaburoth from the Hebrew word for "friends") would gather weekly before sundown for a meal in the home or another suitable place." (Defining, "Love Feast," Homan's Bible Dictionary).

Let me emphasize that we need to always, "Let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Rom. 3:4). Any doctrine or practice which is established only by so-called Greek scholars is absolutely worthless and evil. Everything under the sun has been and continues to be established by so-called scholars. For example, various Catholic Greek scholars, when defining the Greek word petros in Matt. 16:18, state that it is translation of the Aramaic Kephas, the name given by Jesus to Simon, and means that Peter himself is the foundation on which the church is built. A proper definition of "love feasts" is, simply, "Meals eaten together in token of brotherly love." To insist that the "love feasts" of Jude 12 were "Meals eaten together in token of brotherly love when the saints met together for worship" is a transgression of the Word of God. To teach or practice something which is not clearly established (authorized) in the Scriptures is a grave error (1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 9-11).

Paul does not mention or in anyway indicate that 1 Cor. 11:20-34 is a "love feast." If so, where does he? Rather than upholding it, Paul condemns the practice of eating meals when brethren come together for worship. Let's examine 1 Cor. 11:20-34 very carefully verse by verse and see what Paul has revealed.

Verse 20 - "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper."

In this verse, Paul (or the Holy Spirit) introduces the subject which continues in the verses which follow. They should have been coming together to eat the Lord's Supper, but they were not. Thus, they were not properly eating the Lord's Supper, and he sets things in order.

Verse 21 - "For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk."

The word "for" (or "because") indicates that he is giving the reasons they were not properly eating the Lord's Supper. Everything was in a mess at Corinth. Each Corinthian brought his own food and was eating it before others arrived. Some had brought nothing and were hungry. Some were bringing into the church part of their heathen backgrounds which allowed drunkenness as part of worship. They were making a common meal out of the Lord's Supper. Their conduct made the proper observance of the Lord's Supper impossible.

Verse 22 - "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? 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 do not praise you."

Paul by his rhetorical question, commands them to eat at home. The assemblies of the church (public worship services as revealed in the N.T.) are not designed to satisfy one's hunger, but to render worship and service to God. Paul not only reproved them for their selfish indulgence (shaming those who had nothing), but told them they had houses in which to eat and drink. Thus, whatever abuses there might have been, he corrected the problem once and for all by commanding them to eat at home.

Please notice that Paul did not correct the problem by giving instructions on how a love feast was to be observed. Neither Paul, or any other inspired writer, gives instructions on any of the following: (1) Who are to provide the "love feasts" -- the rich, the church collectively, individually? (2) Of what did the "love feasts" consist? (3) How often were the "love feasts" observed? (4) Where were the "love feasts" to be observed? Paul did not say that the Corinthians were having a "love feast" and whatever type of meal it might have been, and whatever abuses there might have been, he corrected the problem once and for all by commanding them to eat at home. (1 Cor. 11:22,34).

Verse 23 - "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;"

Paul reveals the source of his information which he passed on to them and to us. Paul was not present when the Lord instituted His Supper; however, he received his information from the Lord by revelation. The Lord instituted His Supper on the same night He was betrayed by Judas.

Verse 24 - "and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.'"

Please notice what Paul is actually correcting in these verses. Certainly he is not correcting a misuse of a "love feast." Also, notice that the verse does not say that the bread actually becomes the body of the Lord. When Jesus said, "This is my body" he meant, "this represents my body." He did not mean it was transubstantiated, that it literally became His body, which is the Catholic teaching on this verse. Furthermore, when Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me" it means that we partake the bread as a reminder of His body which was broken for us. Just as His body was not literally broken (John 19:31-37), the bread does not literally become His body.

Verse 25 - "In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'"

Again, please notice that Paul sets in order the purpose and meaning of the Lord's Supper, thus, showing that the text refers to a misuse of the Lord's Supper rather than a misuse of a "love feast." Notice, again, that he did not say that the bread and fruit of the vine actually become the flesh and blood of the Lord. The blood of Christ seals or ratifies the new covenant or testament. (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:11-18).

Verse 26 - "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."

Thus, the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of our belief in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This memorial feast instituted by our Lord will continue until His Second Coming. The word "memorial" means "commemorative; preservative of, or continue in, the memory; something that keeps remembrance alive" (Webster). The Lord's Supper is truly a memorial of the Lord's death; it keeps the remembrance of His death alive.

Verses 27-30 - "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep."

In these verses, Paul gives the penalty for misuse of the Lord's Supper. The "unworthy manner" refers to "not examining himself" (vs. 28), and "not discerning the Lord's body" (vs. 29). The word "discern" means "to discriminate or to perceive the distinguishing features, or to recognize mentally." (Webster). When we partake of the Lord's Supper, we need self-examination, self-contemplation regarding what we are doing. We must focus our minds on what the emblems represent. We must not let our minds wander off on other things. We must carefully consider what the Lord has done for us. This "reverently contemplating on what we are doing," "mentally considering what the emblems represent" is absolutely necessary if we are to partake of it in a worthy manner.

When a person partakes of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner: (1) He becomes guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (vs. 27). (2) He is eating and drinking judgment to himself (vs. 29). He receives judgment from the Lord (vs. 31-32). (3) He is weak, sick and spiritually asleep (vs. 30). The Corinthians were treating the Lord's Supper as a common meal. Hence, they were strongly rebuked for partaking of it in such an unworthy and careless manner.

Some have misunderstood the above verses and claim that Paul meant that if one is guilty of sin, or that if he has a feeling of unworthiness, he should not partake of the Lord's Supper. This idea comes out of Catholicism which teaches that if one is guilty of sin (has sin on his soul), he cannot partake of the Lord's Supper. Hence, not all Catholics partake of the Lord's Supper in their worship. Actually, if one is guilty of sin, he should not be engaging in any of the acts of worship. Christians have the privilege of confessing their sins at all times (1 John 1:9), and should do so before entering into any type of worship.

Verses 31-32 - "For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world."

These verses show that if we partake of the Lord's Supper correctly, we would not be judged. However, when we do not partake correctly, we are chastened by the Lord. One way we are chastened by the Lord is through the means of this Corinthian letter.

Verses 33-34 - "Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come."

Verse 33 shows that the Lord's Supper is something that is to be done when the church is together. Verse 20 says, "Therefore when you come togther in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper." He states the negative, but the positive is true. We should come together in one place to eat the Lord's Supper. Transporting the Lord's Supper (carrying the emblems) to those who are sick at home or in the hospital would violate this principle.

In verse 34, Paul, as in verse 22, gives commandment for them to eat their common meals at home. Thus, as we have repeatedly mentioned, whatever type of meal it might have been, and whatever abuses there might have been, Paul corrected the problem once and for all by commanding them to eat at home. His commandment is in perfect harmony with other Divine principles. (John 6:27; Rom. 14:17).

I list the following quotes which make an excellent summary on what has been discussed.

"If the Corinthians wanted private parties they could have them in their homes. The meeting of the church was no place for a sectarian spirit of any sort, especially since the Lord's Supper was intended to commemorate just the opposite spirit." (Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1 Cor. 11:22)

"They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and not to change the holy Supper to a common feast; and much less eat up the provisions before those who could bring none did partake of them, lest they should come together for condemnation." (Matthew Henry, 1 Cor. 11:22; Vol. 6, p. 566.)

"Verse 22. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? They should have taken their ordinary meal at home, and have come together in the church to celebrate the Lord's Supper." "Verse 34. And if any man hunger. Let him not come to the house of God to eat an ordinary meal, let him eat at home - take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of his body before he comes to that sacred repast, where he should have the feeding of his soul alone in view." (Adam Clark, 1 Cor. 11:22,34, Vol. 2. p. 255)

"The public assembly was not designed as an occasion to satisfy one's hunger; it was an occasion to offer worship to Almighty God. The Corinthians had distorted the divine nature of the church. Paul, by this rhetorical question, commanded the Corinthians to eat at home. The congregational assembly is not designed to be a place for eating and, certainly, the Lord's Supper is no common meal. Many twentieth century churches have not taken seriously what Paul wrote in this verse. He is not only condemning the refusal of the rich to share with the poor, he is forbidding altogether the practice of eating a common meal at the public assembly. I wonder why this verse does not say as much to those who have "fellowship dinners" in the twentieth century as it said to those in the first century. This verse prohibits the perverting of the congregational assembly into an occasion for a common meal." (A Commentary on Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, Mike Willis, 1 Cor. 11:22, p. 395).