1 Corinthians 11:21

for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

'for' -Paul's last statement is justified. No, what they were eating was not the Lord's Supper. He now explains the abuse.

Points to Note:

1. In most commentaries, at this point you will run into what has been called "the love feast." The following explanation is typical:

'They had their occasion in the custom of uniting the sacrament (Lord's Supper) with. "love feast" or common meal of which the Christians usually partook at the beginning of their assemblies. According to the custom, each person brought with him provisions according to his ability. The rich brought much, while the poor brought little or nothing. Thus provision was made for all...However, as the meal was begun, or sometimes at its close, the participants observed in simplest manner the memorial Supper which Christ had instituted.' (Erdman p. 115)

2. The following passages are offered to support the idea that God approved of such common meals in the assembly.

Acts 2:42. Yet "breaking of bread" in this passage refers to the Lord's Supper. Notice the other spiritual items in the same passage.

Acts 2:46. This is. common meal. But note, such. meal is partaken by Christians 'from house to house'. In fact this verse seems to place. division between their spiritual activities ('in the temple') and their social activities.

Acts 6:1. This is. benevolent activity, not. social or recreational one. In addition, the church didn't feed every member, the feast mentioned here was solely for widows/poor.

Acts 20:7. 'Break bread' in verse. is the Lord's Supper. "Broken the bread" in 1 Corinthians 20:11 seems to be. common meal, and yet nothing is said about the whole congregation joining in. What seems more likely is that since Paul must leave that morning, he himself has taken some nourishment.