SHOULD YOU OBSERVE THE LORD'S SUPPER?

Now let’s look at 1 Corinthians 11 itself. The context starts in verse 17 and goes right up to verse 34. Here’s verse 17:

Very clearly Paul is addressing a problem with the way they observed the Passover! They were doing something of which Paul strongly disapproved. The way they were observing the Passover was really bad.

Paul was writing just shortly before the Passover (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). He was trying to see that they would do things correctly at the upcoming Passover. Paul does not really imply that they were doing this every week. He was referring to the once a year Passover observance. Remember, as with all the other topics in this letter, the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was speaking about.

In the next verse Paul briefly refers to the problem, of which problem his audience was fully aware:

Now let’s understand what Paul is addressing here.

He is not speaking about general divisions in the congregation! That is something he had already addressed in chapter 1 (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), and then fully expounded in chapter 3 (1 Corinthians 3:3-10), and also in chapter 4. At the beginning of chapter 5 Paul starts a new topic. So his statement in 1 Corinthians 11:18 is not meant to be a repetition of what he had said before!

In verse 18 Paul pointed out specifically that there were divisions among them in regard to how they observed the Passover! Can we understand this?

This means that different factions in the Corinthian Church were observing the Passover in a different manner from other people in the same congregation. This meant that some people were obviously doing some things that were wrong, since they couldn’t all be right!

In the next verse Paul confirms that there were indeed some heretical ideas about how the Passover should be kept:

So notice!

The question is: does Paul tell us what that heresy is or does he not tell us this? Having called it a heresy, why would he not expose it? The answer is simple: in the very next verse he proceeds to expose the heresy!

Paul is here spelling out "the heresy" that he referred to in the previous verse. So what was that heresy? The heresy was that they were eating something that they should not have been eating.

Let’s look at the transliterated Greek text for this verse.

Translated literally with the same word-order this reads:

Shortly I will explain why I changed "the Lord" into "lordly".

Changing the word order to comply with grammatical requirements in English we get:

Now you are not going to find a correct English translation for this verse, because all translators approach this verse with preconceived ideas. They think this is speaking about eating certain meals that the New Testament Church supposedly commonly ate together. But that is not what Paul is referring to.

The Greek word "kuriakos" translated as "the Lord’s" or as "of the Lord" is not a noun at all! It is an adjective! But in English "the Lord" is a noun. And all the translators have misunderstood what Paul is actually saying. And most people have likewise also misunderstood Paul’s statement.

In NT Greek the expression for "the supper of the Lord" (or "the Lord’s supper") would be: "to deipnon tou kuriou". This expression contains two Greek nouns, and the second noun is the genitive case of the Greek noun "kurios".

But that’s not the expression we find in 1 Corinthians 11:20.

Instead, the Greek text for the relevant expression in verse 20 reads: "kuriakon deipnon".

First of all, the Greek text does not contain the definite article for either Greek word. So Paul was not speaking about "the supper" or "the Lord"! He was only speaking about "a supper". And he was not at all speaking about "the Lord"! This already has major ramifications.

Thus this verse is not speaking about "the supper of the Lord". At best it is only speaking about "a supper of the Lord". But this is still not fully correct.

So secondly, Paul used the adjective "kuriakos" and not the noun "kurios". That makes a huge difference! Paul did not say "of the Lord"! Paul only said "lordly", an adjective. In plain language:

Where the noun "kurios", when used with the definite article, refers to Jesus Christ, the adjective "kuriakos", when used to describe "a supper", does not refer to Jesus Christ at all!

"Kuriakon deipnon" really means "a lordly supper"; in other words, "a supper fit for a lord", "a high society supper", "a luxurious supper", etc.

Once again, Paul did not write "to deipnon tou kuriou"! Paul did not use the Greek expression for "the Lord’s supper"! "The Lord’s supper" is nothing more than a very devious and diabolical mistranslation. It is just as devious as the mistranslation in 2 Timothy 3:16.

If we correct this mistranslation, then we find that the expression "the Lord’s supper" is in fact never used in the New Testament.

So let’s incorporate this correction into our translation of verse 20.

In plain English Paul was saying:

Paul was not talking about the supper "the Lord" had eaten. Paul was not calling the meal Christ had eaten "the Lord’s supper". Paul was not speaking about Jesus Christ at all. Paul was speaking about the excessive meals (i.e. "lordly suppers") that some members were bringing to the Passover service.

Next, there are different words in NT Greek to express negation. Some express a qualified denial and others express an absolute denial. The word "ou" (or "ouk" before a vowel) expresses absolute denial. [See Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and similar reference works.] This (i.e. "ouk") is the word used here by Paul.

To paraphrase, Paul is saying in this verse:

It is clear that Christ instituted the bread and wine of the New Testament Passover after the meal had been completed. This is clear from both, Luke 22:19-20 and Paul’s statement a few verses later (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11:25).

Let’s now see the next verse.

And here is the transliterated Greek text.

Translated literally, with the same word-order this reads:

The Greek word "gar" (translated as "for") at the start of this verse is of interest. It is a conjunction, joining two thoughts. In Thayer’s Lexicon there are three full columns of explanation for "gar". Here is a section of this explanation:

In plain language: what Paul says in verse 21 explains and gives the reason for his statement in the previous verse! So verse 21 explains what Paul means in verse 20. Verse 21 explains what Paul means with the statement: when you come to the Passover it is absolutely not to eat a lordly (i.e. sumptuous) supper. Can we understand this? That is what the use of the particle "gar" at the start of verse 21 tells us.

So what was the problem in Corinth?

Some (those involved in the heresy) brought a full meal, fit for a lord, with them to the Passover service, including substantial quantities of wine. Others came without any food (it doesn’t mean they were poor and starving ... that would have been a different issue for Paul to address) because they were coming for partaking of only the bread and the wine.

Those who practised the heresy Paul is addressing had some excuse or "justification" for bringing a feast-meal fit for a lord to the Passover service. Put yourself into the place of these people involved in this heresy: how would you have tried to justify bringing your own huge feast-meal to the Passover service? What is the justification you could possibly have used?

Here is the point we need to understand:

Where the OT Hebrew had two different words, one for "feasts" (i.e. "chag") and another for "appointed days", including Holy Days (i.e. "mow’ed"), the NT Greek language had only one word (i.e. Greek "heorte"). So in Greek "the feasts" are the same as "Holy Days" and also as "appointed days" ... all are designated as "heorte". This is discussed at length in my article "The Passover: Is it a Feast or is it Not a Feast?", available on my website.

So to some of the Greek-speaking Corinthians the Passover was "a Feast", and therefore they came to the Passover with a feast-style sumptuous meal, whose meal Paul referred to as "a lordly supper". To some of the Corinthians the Passover was no different from the feast-meals they had on Pentecost and at the Feast of Tabernacles, etc. ... it had to be celebrated with plenty of good food and good wine.

Perhaps they may even have reasoned that they were only copying the whole observance that Jesus Christ had observed ... first eating a full meal in the form of the Old Testament Passover, to then be followed by the new emblems of bread and wine.

Irrespective of any justification they may have used, "every one takes before others his own supper" (1 Corinthians 11:21). They were having a meal at the Passover service! That was wrong!

And therefore Paul told them that the Passover is not for "eating a lordly meal" (verse 20). This statement "a lordly meal" may perhaps sound a little awkward to some of us, because we are so conditioned by the translators translating the Greek adjective for "lordly" as if it was the Greek noun for "lord". We have been deceived. Today instead of "a lordly meal" we would more commonly say something like "a sumptuous meal fit for a king", or "a five star meal".

A supper is readily linked to "a Feast" and even to "a Holy Day", but a supper is not at all to be associated with "a Passover observance". The heresy (verse 19) Paul was confronting was that people brought a meal to the Passover service (verse 21), and Paul identified that meal as "a lordly supper".

In the next verse, verse 22, Paul proceeds to explain very clearly that people should eat such "suppers" at home in their own houses! We don’t come to the Church of God on the Passover evening to partake of "a supper"!

Notice:

In plain language: I praise you not for bringing "a lordly supper" to church on the Passover evening.

It should really be quite clear:

Verse 18: Paul shows they had divisions over how to keep the Passover.

Verse 19: Paul tells us that there was a heresy involved.

Verse 20: Paul identifies that heresy as eating "a lordly supper".

(Our English translations have here confused the issue by mistranslating this as "the Lord’s supper".)

Verse 21: Paul spells out what the heretics actually did; they ate a meal at the Passover service.

Verse 22: Paul condemns this heresy and makes clear that "suppers" should be eaten at home.

Verse 23 onwards: Paul explains how the Passover really should be kept, totally condemning the idea of "a supper"! There is no room for "a supper" anywhere in Paul’s thinking.

God’s people keep the Passover. The expression "the Lord’s supper" isn’t even in the Bible! It only appears in our translations because people have deliberately mistranslated the Greek adjective into the English noun expression "the Lord’s". And Paul’s instruction in verse 20 embodies an absolute denial, telling us something we are not to do.

So we need to acknowledge that the term "the Lord’s Supper" is a heretical term that should never be applied to the Passover!

Frank W. Nelte