Why were some Corinthians getting drunk during the Lord's Supper, as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:21? Canonical Text (Berean Standard Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:20-22) “So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat. For as you eat, each of you proceeds with his own meal. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have your own homes in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you.” Historical and Cultural Setting of Corinth Corinth in the mid-first century was a prosperous Roman colony famous for commercial wealth, social climbing, and religious pluralism. Archaeological digs at the Temple of Demeter/Kore and the northern shops along Lechaion Road reveal plentiful krater fragments and drinking vessels, attesting to the city’s culture of lavish symposia. Banquets commonly began with a deipnon (full meal) followed by a symposium (drinking party). Pagan guild dinners often blurred piety with indulgence—habits many new believers imported into church life (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:7). Structure of Early Christian Gatherings Before purpose-built basilicas existed, believers met in the domus of a wealthy patron (Romans 16:23). The typical Greco-Roman triclinium seated perhaps 9-12 reclining guests; a large atrium or courtyard might hold another 30-40 standing. This layout naturally favored the elite at the table while the poor stood at the margins. When the Corinthian church assembled “to eat the Lord’s Supper,” they combined a fellowship meal (agapē) with the eucharistic remembrance. Without orderly oversight, the wealthier arrived early with ample food and wine, while laborers—unable to leave work—arrived late to find little left but inebriated tablemates. Socio-Economic Stratification and Patronage Culture Epigraphic evidence (e.g., the Erastus inscription in Corinth’s theater pavement) shows civic benefactors expected honor in return for generosity. In the church, such instincts mutated into ostentatious self-service: patrons flaunted abundance; clients jockeyed for proximity; the working poor were shamed. Paul brands this behavior “despising the church of God” (v. 22). Theological Significance of the Lord’s Supper Paul had “received from the Lord” (v. 23) that the Supper proclaims Christ’s death, unites believers in one body, and anticipates His return (vv. 26-29). Drunkenness inverted every symbol: instead of self-giving love, the rich exhibited selfish excess; instead of eschatological hope, they indulged present appetite; instead of discerning the body, they fractured it. Contributing Factors to Intoxication 1. Carry-over of pagan banquet norms (1 Corinthians 10:21). 2. Lack of teaching on the holy purpose of the meal (v. 34). 3. Absence of pastoral oversight—elders were likely few in this new assembly. 4. Readily available undiluted wine (oenē) common in Corinthian commerce. 5. Gathering time after sunset, when laborers finished work and the elite were already feasting. 6. Spiritual immaturity (3:1-3) producing fleshly behavior. Paul’s Corrective Instruction • Self-examination (v. 28) replaces self-indulgence. • Wait for one another (v. 33) counters social stratification. • Private satiation at home (v. 34) removes the meal’s misuse as a dinner party. Failure to comply would invite divine discipline—“many are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep” (v. 30). Early Church Reception The Didache 9-10 (late 1st-cent.) separates the thanksgiving cup from the common meal, reflecting awareness of Paul’s warning. Tertullian (Apology 39) describes the agapē as “modest, chaste, and beneficent,” contrasting it with pagan excess—evidence that churches heeded apostolic correction. Cross-Scriptural Parallels • Noah’s post-flood drunkenness (Genesis 9:20-27) and its shame echo dishonor at a covenant meal. • Nadab and Abihu’s possible intoxication while offering strange fire (Leviticus 10:1-10) parallels judgment for irreverence. • Jesus’ warning against carousing servants (Luke 12:45-46) prefigures Paul’s admonition. Modern Application Contemporary churches may not struggle with literal drunkenness at communion, yet analogous issues persist: casual attitudes toward worship, socio-economic cliques, potluck inequities, and entertainment-driven gatherings. Paul’s remedy—Christ-centered remembrance, mutual honor, and self-examination—remains normative. Key Takeaways 1. Abuse of the Supper sprang from cultural conformity and class division, not lack of resources. 2. The ordinance demands reverence, unity, and proclamation of the gospel. 3. Scriptural authority, corroborated by consistent manuscript evidence and early patristic practice, supplies the corrective framework. 4. Divine discipline for irreverence underscores God’s holiness and fatherly care. 5. Proper observance testifies to Christ’s historical resurrection—without which the meal is meaningless (1 Corinthians 15:14). Conclusion Some Corinthians became drunk during the Lord’s Supper because they treated a sacred ordinance as an ordinary banquet, importing Corinth’s status-driven, wine-soaked customs into the church. Paul exposes the behavior as a failure to discern Christ’s body, commands orderly, unified participation, and anchors his rebuke in the redemptive act the Supper proclaims. |
    |