Moore Perspective: What About Eating in the Church Building? (Part 1)

Is it contrary to God’s revealed will if a group of Christians eats a meal together under the same roof where they ordinarily assemble for worship? Some would say “yes” and appeal to Paul’s directives to the mid-1st-century church at Corinth. The apostle writes, “No! For do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and dishonor those having nothing? Shall I commend you in this? I do not commend you! …. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home so that you may not come together for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:22, 34).¹

Kyle Pope reasons from this passage, “Scripture prohibits or proscribes works and actions for the church assembly that it does not prohibit or proscribe at all times…. Eating together for hunger is good outside the assembly (1 Cor. 11:22a, 34), but to do it ‘as a church’ (NKJV) or literally ‘in the church’ (1 Cor. 11:18, KJV, ASV), beyond eating the ‘Lord’s Supper’ (1 Cor. 11:20), is to ‘despise the church of God’ (1 Cor. 11:22b)” (GA 37).²

The problem with this interpretation is the reading of these verses in isolation through the lens of modern-day religious experience, where the physical place of Christian assemblies is often regarded as intrinsically hallowed (contra John 4:19-24). However, Paul’s original intent is more clearly understood if we give attention to historical and literary context.

A Closer Look at Paul’s Exhortation

In the broader context (1 Cor. 11:17-34) the apostle is not upset with these brethren for merely eating together. His rebuke concerns defiling the Lord’s Supper by conflating the sacred and the common, and disrupting unity by segregating the church according to social classes. The assemblies had eroded to the point of no longer fulfilling their intended purpose; there was division, particularly between the more affluent members and the poor (vv. 17-22).

The Corinth church evidently met in the home of one of the more prominent members (Rom. 16:23), also providing a venue for customary banqueting (1 Cor. 11:21, 33). Love feasts or shared meals among brethren were not uncommon in 1st-century churches (Acts 2:46; Gal. 2:12; Jude 12). Apparently the Corinthian home-owner hosting church gatherings was inviting other affluent members to eat a meal prior to worship, before the less advantaged (incl. slave) members could arrive.³ They were over-indulging in food and drink while others were left wanting, and such partiality among Christians demonstrates contempt for God’s church (1 Cor. 11:22; cf. Jas. 2:1-9). If this is how they were going to act, they should eat and drink at home before coming to worship.

The communion service ought to signify unity (1 Cor. 10:16-17), but at Corinth it was engendering disunity. The congregational meal is another expression of unity, but at Corinth it was further promoting division. The Lord’s Supper is special and emblematic, not to satisfy an empty stomach, but at Corinth it had digressed into a feast of overindulgence. In response Paul gives corrective instructions to restore the sacred memorial to what it was originally meant to be (1 Cor. 11:23-29).

Partaking of the Lord’s Supper “unworthily” would involve failing to reflect on the Lord’s death and having disdain for fellow-believers, thus “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27; cf. Heb. 6:6; 10:29). Judgment awaits those who fail to discern (distinguish between sacred and common) the body (1 Cor. 11:29), i.e., the Lord’s physical body that he offered on the cross (cf. v. 27; 10:16) as well as his spiritual body, the church (cf. vv. 17, 18, 20-22; 10:17; 12:12-27). Consequently, many in Corinth were spiritually weak, sick, and asleep (1 Cor. 11:30).

When assembled to eat, therefore, “wait for one another,” i.e., stop showing favoritism and neglecting the poorer members of the church (v. 33; cf. vv. 17-22). While the main purpose of Christian assemblies ought to be communion with the Lord and with one another, if this purpose is being diverted by physical hunger, then eat at home lest you stand condemned (v. 34a).

Present-day Application

The above directives still apply today. However, to claim this passage prohibits eating meals in a church building is far removed from its original intent. During the NT era there was no such thing as a “church building” in the modern sense. Writing from Corinth, Paul sends greetings from Gaius, “my host and the host of the whole church” (Rom. 16:23). If the Christian community at Corinth met in this brother’s home, where would he and his family eat if the church’s meeting place was supposed to be off limits? Where would the congregational meals be shared, if this were an actual prohibition, and what about the other house churches in the NT (Acts 12:5, 12; 16:40; Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2)?⁴

Kyle Pope, quoted above, claims that eating together outside the assembly is permissible, “but to do it ‘as a church’ (NKJV) or literally ‘in the church’ (1 Cor. 11:18, KJV, ASV) … is to ‘despise the church of God’ (1 Cor. 11:22b)” (GA 37). This is a very curious deduction, not only in view of the broader context of the passage, but earlier in his article Kyle biblically defined the word “church,” and nothing is said about any temporal edifice in which the church assembles.

In the very next paragraph Kyle writes, “Does any act that members of a church do constitute acting as a church, or ‘in the church’? No. We are Christians at all times, but if a group of Christians goes shopping, camping, starts a business, or goes to the movies are they doing these things ‘as a church’? No. What’s the difference? The stated purpose of the assembly” (ibid., emp. added KLM). If the stated purpose of an assembly is to worship, or if the stated purpose of an assembly is fellowship, the physical premises of either is irrelevant.

Conclusion

Jesus provided spiritual instruction to thousands of people before feeding them a meal in the same location (Luke 9:11-17). He shared a feast with his immediate disciples in the very room he instituted the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:20-29). Paul ate food in the same place he had just preached (Acts 20:11). Whether a church assembles in its own building, in a house, in a schoolroom, under a tree, or anywhere else, there is nothing inherently sacred about the physical locality. Worshiping together (including the Lord’s Supper) and eating together (excluding the Lord’s Supper) are two separate activities, and if each occurs at different times in the same place, no clear biblical teaching is violated. Creating a rule or prohibition to the contrary cannot be substantiated by sound biblical exegesis.

Another objection is raised, however, concerning eating in a facility purchased with funds from the church treasury, which we will address in our next post.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

² Kyle Pope and Doug Burleson, “Distinguishing Expedients from Additions: Opening Statements, Church Benevolence, Institutions, Cooperation,” GA 161:10 (Oct. 2019): 28-40; also Truth Magazine 10:63 (Oct. 2019): 22-34.

³ Cf. 1 Cor. 1:26; 7:20-24; 12:13. The Corinth of Paul’s day was a Roman colony, and it was customary among affluent Romans to make distinctions between honored guests and less-honored guests, showing favoritism to the former.

⁴ See K. L. Moore, “House Churches,” Moore Perspective (24 July 2019), <Link>.