1 Corinthians 11:21 Commentary: When Communion Becomes Selfish

In the early church, the Lord’s Supper was often connected with a communal meal, sometimes called a love feast (agapē). Christians would gather in homes, bring food, and share together before or after receiving the bread and cup. The practice echoed Jesus’ own Last Supper, which followed the Passover meal. However, at Corinth, this custom had become corrupted. The city of Corinth was marked by sharp social divisions between rich and poor, and those divisions infected the church. Wealthy believers brought abundant provisions, while the poor brought little or nothing.

Rather than sharing, each person took their own supper first. The Greek τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον (his own supper) highlights private possession rather than common fellowship. Paul’s charge in verse 20 is sharp: “It is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.” The Corinthians had turned a sacred, unifying meal into an occasion for selfish indulgence. Some commentators (including Chrysostom, as noted by Calvin) trace the abuse to the love feasts themselves, where the rich stopped sharing and began feasting separately. Whether the meal was technically the Lord’s Supper or a preliminary feast, the result was the same: the poor were shamed and the rich were drunk. Paul’s corrective (v.33, 34) is practical: “Tarry one for another,” and “if any man hunger, let him eat at home.” The assembly was for worship, not for private banquets.

No significant textual variants are noted in the consulted sources for this verse. The manuscripts uniformly read προλαμβάνει (takes first) and μεθύει (is drunk). Minor scribal variations in word order occur but do not affect meaning.

Early church fathers such as Chrysostom (quoted by Calvin) traced the abuse to the love feasts, which were meant to foster charity but became occasions for selfishness. Throughout church history, this verse has been used to warn against mixing secular feasting with the Eucharist. Reformers like Calvin and Wesley saw in it a rebuke against hypocrisy and a call to restore the Supper's dignity. In modern times, the passage challenges churches to examine whether their Communion practices reflect the social and economic unity of the body of Christ.

Three-point outline

1. The abuse: Selfish individualism replaces shared fellowship. Each person takes their own supper first, ignoring the needs of others.
2. The result: Division and shame, one is hungry, another drunk. The sacred meal becomes a display of social inequality.
3. The remedy: Paul calls for waiting, sharing, and discernment. Communion must be a corporate act of remembrance, not a private indulgence.

Five-point outline

1. The context of rebuke (vv.17, 19): Paul refuses to praise them because their gatherings cause harm.
2. The profanation (v.20): When they assemble, it is not the Lord’s Supper they eat.
3. The evidence (v.21): Each rushes to their own supper; some go hungry, others get drunk.
4. The theological failure (v.22): They despise the church of God and shame the poor.
5. The invitation to examine (vv.27, 34): Self-judgment restores right fellowship and avoids divine discipline.

Illustration hooks

• A church potluck where a few people fill their plates and sit down while others are still in line, leaving latecomers with scraps. The contrast between abundance and scarcity seen at one table.
• A family dinner where one child grabs all the best food before others are seated, a simple picture of how selfishness ruins the sense of belonging.
• In work meetings where the loudest voices dominate discussion while quieter team members never get a chance to speak. Communion reflects the same need for mutual regard.

Questions your congregation is asking

• “Does Paul mean that people literally got drunk at the Lord’s Supper?”
• “How do we balance reverence for the sacrament with the warmth of fellowship meals?”
• “What does this passage say about how we treat poorer members in our church today?”

This verse reveals how easily a sacred act of unity can become a display of selfishness. The Corinthians were not just disorderly, they were ignoring the needs of their brothers and sisters. As you discuss, consider how our own church gatherings might reflect similar failures, even in less obvious ways.

Discussion questions

1. What does the phrase “takes his own supper first” tell you about the Corinthians’ attitude toward one another?
2. Why do you think Paul mentions both hunger and drunkenness in the same context? What point is he making?
3. How does 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17 (the cup and bread as sharing in Christ) relate to the problem in verse 21?
4. In what ways might modern Communion services unintentionally favor the wealthy or the comfortable?
5. Paul’s solution includes waiting for one another (v.33). What might that look like in your church setting?
6. How does this passage challenge the way you personally approach the Lord’s Table?
7. If someone visited your church for Communion, would they see unity or division? What could change?