Rebuke divisions at the shared meal

This paragraph sits in a section where Paul addresses concrete problems in Corinth’s community life, especially what happens when they gather. Just before, he has been giving directions related to conduct in meetings (11:2–16), mixing affirmation with correction. Here the tone turns sharply negative: he refuses to commend them because their meeting practices damage the community. This rebuke introduces the longer instruction that follows about the meal and how to participate properly (11:23–34), so these verses function as the problem statement and moral diagnosis.

Corinth was a busy Roman city with sharp social differences, where status and public honor mattered. Local groups commonly met for meals, and meals could easily display rank: some had better food, earlier access, or more leisure. In that setting, a mixed community gathering across economic lines could be strained, especially if people brought their own food or arrived at different times. Paul’s complaint assumes that their meeting included an actual meal and that their practices were reinforcing inequality and public shame within the community’s gathering.

Shared ground

Paul is addressing what happens when the church gathers. He contrasts meetings that build people up with meetings that do harm (vv. 17–18). The central problem is social: the shared meal meant to express unity instead displays division, inequality, and public shame.

The passage assumes a real, communal eating event connected to “the Lord’s supper” (vv. 20–21). Paul’s rebuke is not about food in general but about what their behavior is saying about the community and about God’s assembly (v. 22; assembly).

Explicitly, Paul says their pattern—some taking “their own supper” first, leading to hunger for some and drunkenness for others—makes it effectively not the Lord’s supper in substance, even if they call it that (vv. 20–21). He frames the outcome as despising God’s gathering and shaming those who have nothing (v. 22).

Where interpretation differs

What does “there must be factions” mean (v. 19)? Some read this as Paul saying God uses conflict to expose who is reliable, without approving the conflict itself. Others read it as Paul describing an unavoidable reality in a flawed community (“this is bound to happen”), again without treating it as good.

Who are “the approved” (v. 19)? Some take “approved” to mean those whose character becomes evident as they respond rightly under pressure. Others think it may refer to those seen as “qualified” or “legitimate” in the community’s eyes, with Paul pointing out that conflict tends to sort people into recognized groups.

What exactly is the “Lord’s supper” here (vv. 20–21)? Many think it refers to a full shared meal that included a special remembrance component. Others think Paul is focusing on the core meaning of the communal rite, whether or not the gathering included a full meal every time. In either case, Paul’s point is that their practice contradicts what the meal is meant to be.

Why the disagreement exists

The passage is brief and uses compressed language. Phrases like “must be” and “approved” can describe either God’s larger purpose in exposing reality or a blunt recognition of what regularly happens. Also, “each takes his own supper” can be read as a timing issue (arriving and eating earlier) and/or an attitude issue (self-focused claiming of food). The text links both to the same end result: others go hungry and are shamed.

What this passage clearly contributes

This paragraph supplies the problem diagnosis for the longer instructions that follow (11:23–34). It makes several explicit claims: (1) a church meeting can be spiritually damaging (v. 17); (2) divisions can show up most visibly at the table (v. 18); (3) conflict reveals who proves genuine in practice (v. 19); (4) a ritual name (“Lord’s supper”) can be emptied by conduct that contradicts it (v. 20); and (5) inequality at the meal—hunger for some, excess for others—publicly shames the poor and treats God’s gathering with contempt (vv. 21–22).