"For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him. . ." Numbers 23:9

---

THE MOUNTAIN MESSENGER

JULY 2004
Volume 1..........................Number 6
Crum, West Virginia

---

"EATING IN THE CHURCH HOUSE"

By James E. Farley

For many years I have heard discussions (even as a child) about this issue. I have always known of good, sincere, and dedicated Christians who believed it was wrong to do so. These have stated that they believe the building is "dedicated" for one specific purpose, and some of these brethren have even gone so far as to condemn weddings and funerals in the church house. They have the idea that it is a "special" place, and is "sanctified" to the Lord for a special purpose. This is the same mindset, it seems to me, that has caused those among the denominations to refer to the meeting place as "the sanctuary" or "sanctified place".

Allow me to clearly state here that it is my personal belief that if a congregation of God’s people decides that they will not eat in their meeting house, that is right and proper. However, since this falls into the realm of opinion, if these brethren will condemn all others for having a place to eat in their church house, here is where the sin lies. It is simply binding where God has not bound.

From the time I was a child, I can remember that those who stressed that it is sinful to eat in the church building, using the passage from I Corinthians 11:17-34 (and especially verses 22 and 34) as their "proof text". Let us take the necessary time to examine these passages in their proper context.

READ PAUL'S CONDEMNATION IN 1 Corinthians 11:17-22, 33-34

Here Paul states boldly, "I praise you not . . ." Not only did the apostle not praise the Corinthians here, but he strongly denounced their false practice! You will certainly remember that earlier in this chapter he commends them (I Corinthians 11:2). However now he cannot praise them for their actions. He said they were not assembling for the better but for the worse! Their assembly was not promoting harmony, unity and love, but instead their actions were showing forth enmity, division, and disorder.

And it is here that the apostle has something to say about divisions or heresies which cause division. He stated that these were a "must"; they were necessary. Why? Well, Paul says that they were necessary so that they who are approved of God . . . those who are genuinely following the Lord . . . might be recognized or made manifest. (I Corinthians 11:19). The NEB translates this passages, " . . . for dissensions are necessary if only to show which of your members are sound."

THE REAL PROBLEM - AN IMPROPER OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 1 Corinthians 11:20ff

The Corinthians professed to be meeting to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Their actions proved something entirely different. Their problem was "heart trouble" and because of their bad hearts (their bad attitudes) the Lord’s Supper was changed by them. It was changed to the point that it was no longer "the Lord’s"

They seemed to have abused the Lord’s Supper by confusing it with, and intermingling it with, the common "love feast". (I Corinthians 11:21-22). As one reads the New Testament, it is clear that it was a common practice for the early church to eat common meals together. (Read Acts 2:42-47; 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12). These meals would have had

Back To The Top Of The Page

the purposes of promoting brotherhood and closeness as God’s family, and also satisfying the hunger and thirst of those poorer members of the church who could not afford to regularly have such meals. (Compare I Corinthians 11:21, 34). However, at Corinth they seemed to have lost their way in this matter. The rich were full and the poor went hungry. The needs of some were overlooked, and it became a meal to simply satisfy hunger. (I Corinthians 11:21, 33). A scan of early church history will also show that the "AGAPE meal" was something that the church did separate and apart from their worship; separate and apart from the Lord’s Supper. But it seems the Corinthians were combining the two, and even confusing them one with another. That was the problem at Corinth in the first century church of Christ. It is in the context of this sinful abuse on the part of the Corinthians that one must understand I Corinthians 11:22, and 34. For one to lift these out of their proper context is to make them pretexts for proving a preconceived idea. Those who are guilty of such contribute to division and will have to answer for it in the Judgment! It is sinful!

SOME THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT 1 Corinthians 11:22, 34

1. Some will ask, "Do you have a kitchen in the church?" Is this not confusing the church BUILDING with the people?

2. Are church buildings sacred places? Compare Acts 17:24 before you answer.

3. Is it right to eat in a church building IF a man’s house is also used as a meeting place for the church? Compare Romans 16:5 and Acts 20:7-12 etc.

4. Where did the Corinthians meet? Was it in a church building? Acts 18:7

5. Do you think eating took place in the same building in which they assembled for worship?

6. Can you have a brotherly meal in the preacher’s house purchased with the same money that built the church house?

7. Is it right to have a water fountain in the church building? What about another source of drinking water such as the sink in the rest room? Remember that I Corinthians 11:22 says "eat and drink".

8. Did Paul sin by eating in the same building where the church assembled? Acts 20:7-12.

9. Can you give one passage of Scripture that SPECIFICALLY or EXPLICITLY authorizes the building of a church house to meet in?

10. Can you give one passage of Scripture that SPECIFICALLY or EXPLICITLY authorizes the building of rest rooms, offices, nurseries, etc. in the church building?

11. May Christian people (in light of I Corinthians 11:22 and 34) eat anywhere other than at home?

12. Remember that I Corinthians 11:22, 34 says to eat "at home" and in your own houses. Does this rule out McDonalds or Shoney’s or Captain Ds or Burger King, etc.?

Over the past 32 years I have presented these thoughts and questions to those who contend it is wrong to eat in the church house. The response I usually get from them is something like, “Well, that’s just silly…” This is an obvious sidestep by these brethren. It is not silly at all…it is just that common sense will prevail in such matters if we will but allow it to. The division over eating in the church house is certainly one that needed never to have taken place

CONCLUSION

Paul was not condemning the PLACE of eating in I Corinthians chapter eleven, but he was condemning the WRONG ATTITUDE displayed during the meal. He was certainly condemning eating a common meal during the worship period. He simply states that if they intended to make a private or individual meal of the AGAPE feast, and if they intended to mix this with their worship, they should eat at home. That’s the point of I Corinthians chapter eleven.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The preceding article is one that is gleaned from several sources: class notes, tracts, commentaries, sermon notes, etc. I have collected such materials for years, and much of this is not original with me. - JEF

James E. Farley -To Contact Jim by email, click here