1 Corinthians 11_17-34 Study Notes

1 Corinthians 11:17-34

I Corinthians 11:17

This (τουτο [touto]). Probably the preceding one about the head-dress of women, and transition to what follows. I praise you not (οὐκ ἐπαινω [ouk epainō]). In contrast to the praise in 11:2. For the better (εἰς το κρεισσον [eis to kreisson]). Neuter articular comparative of κρατυς [kratus], but used as comparative of καλος [kalos], good. Attic form κρειττον [kreitton]. For the worse (εἰς το ἡσσον [eis to hēsson]). Old comparative from ἡκα [hēka], softly, used as comparative of κακος [kakos], bad. In N.T. only here and II Cor. 12:15.

I Corinthians 11:18

First of all (πρωτον μεν [prōton men]). There is no antithesis (δευτερον δε [deuteron de], secondly, or ἐπειτα δε [epeita de], in the next place) expressed. This is the primary reason for Paul’s condemnation and the only one given. When ye come together in the church (συνερχομενων ἡμων ἐν ἐκκλησιᾳ [sunerchomenōn hēmōn en ekklēsiāi]). Genitive absolute. Here ἐκκλησια [ekklēsia] has the literal meaning of assembly. Divisions (σχισματα [schismata]). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive ὑπαρχειν [huparchein] in indirect discourse. Old word for cleft, rent, from σχιζω [schizō]. Example in papyri for splinter of wood. See on 1:10. Not yet formal cleavages into two or more organizations, but partisan divisions that showed in the love-feasts and at the Lord’s Supper. Partly (μερος τι [meros ti]). Accusative of extent (to some part) like παντα [panta] in 10:33. He could have said ἐκ μερους [ek merous] as in 13:9. The rumours of strife were so constant (I keep on hearing, ἀκουω [akouō]).

I Corinthians 11:19

Must be (δει εἰναι [dei einai]). Since moral conditions are so bad among you (cf. chapters 1 to 6). Cf. Matt. 18:7. Heresies (αἱρεσεις [haireseis]). The schisms naturally become factions or parties. Cf. strifes (ἐριδες [erides]) in 1:11. See on Acts 15:5 for αἱρεσεις [haireseis], a choosing, taking sides, holding views of one party, heresy (our word). “Heresy is theoretical schism, schism practical heresy.” Cf. Tit. 3:10; II Pet. 2:1. In Paul only here and Gal. 5:20. That (ἱνα [hina]). God’s purpose in these factions makes the proved ones (οἱ δοκιμοι [hoi dokimoi]) become manifest (φανεροι [phaneroi]). “These αἱρεσεις [haireseis] are a magnet attracting unsound and unsettled minds” (Findlay). It has always been so. Instance so-called Christian Science, Russellism, New Thought, etc., today.

I Corinthians 11:20

To eat the Lord’s Supper (Κυριακον δειπνον φαγειν [Kuriakon deipnon phagein]). Κυριακος [Kuriakos], adjective from Κυριος [Kurios], belonging to or pertaining to the Lord, is not just a biblical or ecclesiastical word, for it is found in the inscriptions and papyri in the sense of imperial (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 358), as imperial finance, imperial treasury. It is possible that here the term applies both to the Ἀγαπη [Agapē] or Love-feast (a sort of church supper or club supper held in connection with, before or after, the Lord’s Supper) and the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper. Δειπνον [Deipnon], so common in the Gospels, only here in Paul. The selfish conduct of the Corinthians made it impossible to eat a Lord’s Supper at all.

I Corinthians 11:21

Taketh before (προλαμβανει [prolambanei]). Before others. Old verb to take before others. It was conduct like this that led to the complete separation between the Love-feast and the Lord’s Supper. It was not even a common meal together (κοινον δειπνον [koinon deipnon]), not to say a Lord’s δειπνον [deipnon]. It was a mere grab-game. This one is hungry (ὁς δε πεινᾳ [hos de peināi]). Demonstrative ὁς [hos]. Nothing is left for him at the love-feast. Another is drunken (ὁς δε μεθυει [hos de methuei]). Such disgusting conduct was considered shameful in heathen club suppers. “Hungry poor meeting intoxicated rich, at what was supposed to be a supper of the Lord” (Robertson and Plummer). On μεθυω [methuō], to be drunk, see on Matt. 24:49; Acts 2:15.

I Corinthians 11:22

What? Have ye not houses? (Μη γαρ οἰκιας οὐκ ἐχετε; [Mē gar oikias ouk echete?]) The double negative (μη - οὐκ [mē - ouk]) in the single question is like the idiom in 9:4f. which see. Μη [Mē] expects a negative answer while οὐκ [ouk] negatives the verb ἐχετε [echete]. “For do you fail to have houses?” Paul is not approving gluttony and drunkenness but only expressing horror at their sacrilege (despising, καταφρονειτε [kataphroneite]) of the church of God. That have not (τους μη ἐχοντας [tous mē echontas]). Not those without houses, but those who have nothing, “the have-nots” (Findlay) like II Cor. 8:12, in contrast with οἱ ἐχοντες [hoi echontes] “the haves” (the men of property). What shall I say to you? (τι εἰπω ὑμιν; [ti eipō humin?]) Deliberative subjunctive that well expresses Paul’s bewilderment.

I Corinthians 11:23

For I received of the Lord (ἐγο γαρ παρελαβον ἀπο του Κυριου [ego gar parelabon apo tou Kuriou]). Direct claim to revelation from the Lord Jesus on the origin of the Lord’s Supper. Luke’s account (Luke 22:17–20) is almost identical with this one. He could easily have read I Corinthians before he wrote his Gospel. See 15:3 for use of both παρελαβον [parelabon] and παρεδωκα [paredōka]. Note παρα [para] in both verbs. Paul received the account from (παρα - ἀπο [para - apo]) the Lord and passed it on from himself to them, a true παραδοσις [paradosis] (tradition) as in 11:2. He was betrayed (παρεδιδετο [paredideto]). Imperfect passive indicative (irregular form for παρεδιδοτο [paredidoto], Robertson, Grammar, p. 340). Same verb as παρεδωκα [paredōka] (first aorist active indicative just used for “I delivered”).

I Corinthians 11:24

When he had given thanks (εὐχαριστησας [eucharistēsas]). First aorist active participle of εὐχαριστεω [eucharisteō] from which word our word Eucharist comes, common late verb (see on 1:14). Which is for you (το ὑπερ ὑμων [to huper humōn]). Κλωμενον [Klōmenon] (broken) of the Textus Receptus (King James Version) is clearly not genuine. Luke (22:19) has διδομενον [didomenon] (given) which is the real idea here. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not broken (John 19:36). The bread was broken, but not the body of Jesus. In remembrance of me (εἰς την ἐμην ἀναμνησιν [eis tēn emēn anamnēsin]). The objective use of the possessive pronoun ἐμην [emēn]. Not my remembrance of you, but your remembrance of me. Ἀναμνησις [Anamnēsis], from ἀναμιμνησκω [anamimnēskō], to remind or to recall, is an old word, but only here in N.T. save Luke 22:19 which see.

I Corinthians 11:25

After supper (μετα το δειπνησαι [meta to deipnēsai]). Μετα [Meta] and the articular aorist active infinitive, “after the dining” (or the supping) as in Luke 22:20. The new covenant (ἡ καινη διαθηκη [hē kainē diathēkē]). For διαθηκη [diathēkē] see on Matt. 26:28. For καινος [kainos] see on Luke 5:38 and Luke 22:20. The position of ἐστιν [estin] before ἐν τῳ αἱματι [en tōi haimati] (in my blood) makes it a secondary or additional predicate and not to be taken just with διαθηκη [diathēkē] (covenant or will). As oft as ye drink it (ὁσακις ἀν πινητε [hosakis an pinēte]). Usual construction for general temporal clause of repetition (ἀν [an] and the present subjunctive with ὁσακις [hosakis]). So in verse 26.

I Corinthians 11:26

Till he come (ἀχρι οὑ ἐλθῃ [achri hou elthēi]). Common idiom (with or without ἀν [an]) with the aorist subjunctive for future time (Robertson, Grammar, p. 975). In Luke 22:18 we have ἑως οὑ ἐλθῃ [heōs hou elthēi]. The Lord’s Supper is the great preacher (καταγγελλετε [kataggellete]) of the death of Christ till his second coming (Matt. 26:29).

I Corinthians 11:27

Unworthily (ἀναξιως [anaxiōs]). Old adverb, only here in N.T., not genuine in verse 29. Paul defines his meaning in verse 29f. He does not say or imply that we ourselves must be “worthy” (ἀξιοι [axioi]) to partake of the Lord’s Supper. No one would ever partake on those terms. Many pious souls have abstained from observing the ordinance through false exegesis here. Shall be guilty (ἐνοχος ἐσται [enochos estai]). Shall be held guilty as in Matt. 5:21f. which see. Shall be guilty of a crime committed against the body and blood of the Lord by such sacrilege (cf. Heb. 6:6; 10:29).

I Corinthians 11:28

Let a man prove himself (δοκιμαζετω ἀνθρωπος ἑαυτον [dokimazetō anthrōpos heauton]). Test himself as he would a piece of metal to see if genuine. Such examination of one’s motives would have made impossible the disgraceful scenes in verses 20ff.

I Corinthians 11:29

If he discern not the body (μη διακρινων το σωμα [mē diakrinōn to sōma]). So-called conditional use of the participle, “not judging the body.” Thus he eats and drinks judgment (κριμα [krima]) on himself. The verb δια-κρινω [dia-krinō] is an old and common word, our dis-cri-minate, to distinguish. Eating the bread and drinking the wine as symbols of the Lord’s body and blood in death probes one’s heart to the very depths.

I Corinthians 11:30

And not a few sleep (και κοιμωνται ἱκανοι [kai koimōntai hikanoi]). Sufficient number (ἱκανοι [hikanoi]) are already asleep in death because of their desecration of the Lord’s table. Paul evidently had knowledge of specific instances. A few would be too many.

I Corinthians 11:31

But if we discerned ourselves (εἰ δε ἑαυτους διεκρινομεν [ei de heautous diekrinomen]). This condition of the second class, determined as unfulfilled, assumes that they had not been judging themselves discriminatingly, else they would not be judged (ἐκρινομεθα [ekrinometha]). Note distinction in the two verbs.

I Corinthians 11:32

We are chastened of the Lord (ὑπο του Κυριου παιδευομεθα [hupo tou Kuriou paideuometha]). On this sense of παιδευω [paideuō], from παις [pais], child, to train a child (Acts 7:22), to discipline with words (II Tim. 2:25), to chastise with scourges see on Luke 23:16 (Heb. 12:7), and so by afflictions as here (Heb. 12:6). ὑπο του Κυριου [Hupo tou Kuriou] can be construed with κρινομενοι [krinomenoi] instead of with παιδευομεθα [paideuometha]. With the world (συν τῳ κοσμῳ [sun tōi kosmōi]). Along with the world. Afflictions are meant to separate us from the doom of the wicked world. Final use of ἱνα μη [hina mē] here with κατακριθωμεν [katakrithōmen] (first aorist passive subjunctive).

I Corinthians 11:33

Wait one for another (ἀλληλους ἐκδεχεσθε [allēlous ekdechesthe]). As in John 5:3; Acts 17:16. That is common courtesy. Wait in turn. Vulgate has invicem expectate.

I Corinthians 11:34

At home (ἐν οἰκῳ [en oikōi]). If so hungry as all that (verse 22). The rest (τα λοιπα [ta loipa]). He has found much fault with this church, but he has not told all. I will set in order (διαταξομαι [diataxomai]). Not even Timothy and Titus can do it all. Whensoever I come (ὡς ἀν ἐλθω [hōs an elthō]). Common idiom for temporal clause of future time (conjunction like ὡς [hōs] with ἀν [an] and aorist subjunctive ἐλθω [elthō]).

[1]

17. I declare (παραγγέλλω). Wrong. It means in the New Testament only command. See on Luke 5:14; Acts 1:4.

18. In the church (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ). See on Matt. 16:18. Not the church edifice, a meaning which the word never has in the New Testament, and which appears first in patristic writings. The marginal rendering of the Rev. is better: in congregation.

19. Heresies (αἱρἐσεις). See on 2 Pet. 2:1. In Paul only here and Gal. 5:20. Better, parties or factions, as the result of the divisions.  Damnable heresies (αἱρέσεις ἀπωλεί̈́ας). Lit., heresies of destruction. Rev., destructive heresies. Heresy is a transcript of αἵρεσις, the primary meaning of which is choice; so that a heresy is, strictly, the choice of an opinion contrary to that usually received; thence transferred to the body of those who profess such opinions, and therefore a sect. So Rev., in margin, sects of perdition. Commonly in this sense in the New Testament (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 28:22), though the Rev. has an odd variety in its marginal renderings. See Acts. 24:14; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20. The rendering heretical doctrines seems to agree better with the context; false teachers bringing in sects is awkward

20. This is not (οὐκ ἔστιν). Rev., correctly, it is not possible.

The Lord’s Supper (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον). The emphasis is on Lord’s. Δεῖπνον supper, represented the principal meal of the day, answering to the late dinner. The Eucharist proper was originally celebrated as a private expression of devotion, and in connection with a common, daily meal, an agape or love-feast. In the apostolic period it was celebrated daily. The social and festive character of the meal grew largely out of the gentile institution of clubs or fraternities, which served as savings-4banks, mutual-help societies, insurance offices, and which expressed and fostered the spirit of good-fellowship by common festive meals, usually in gardens, round an altar of sacrifice. The communion-meal of the first and second centuries exhibited this character in being a feast of contribution, to which each brought his own provision. It also perpetuated the Jewish practice of the college of priests for the temple-service dining at a common table on festivals or Sabbaths, and of the schools of the Pharisees in their ordinary life.

Indications of the blending of the eucharistic celebration with a common meal are found here, Acts 2:42; 20:7, and more obscurely, 27:35.

21. Taketh before other. Not waiting for the coming of the poor to participate.

22. Them that have not. Not, that have not houses, but absolutely, the poor. In thus shaming their poorer comrades they imitated the heathen. Xenophon relates of Socrates that, at feasts of contribution, where some brought much and others little, Socrates bade his attendant either to place each small contribution on the table for the common use, or else to distribute his share of the same to each. And so those who had brought much were ashamed not to partake of that which was placed for general use, and not, in return, to place their own stock on the table (“Memorabilia,” iii., 14, 1).

23. I received (ἐγὼ παρέλαβον). I is emphatic, giving the weight of personal authority to the statement. The question whether Paul means that he received directly from Christ, or mediately through the apostles or tradition, turns on a difference between two prepositions. Strictly, ἀπὸ from or of, with the Lord, would imply the more remote source, from the Lord, through the apostles; but Paul does not always observe the distinction between this and παρά from, the preposition of the nearer source (see Greek, Col. 1:7; 3:24); and this latter preposition compounded with the verb received, the emphatic I, and the mention of the fact itself, are decisive of the sense of an immediate communication from Christ to Paul.

Also (καὶ). Important as expressing the identity of the account of Jesus with his own.

He was betrayed (παρεδίδετο). Imperfect tense, and very graphic. He was being betrayed. He instituted the Eucharist while His betrayal was going on.

24. Had given thanks (εὐχαριστήσας). Eucharistesas. Hence in post-apostolic and patristic writers, Eucharist was the technical term for the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice of thanksgiving for all the gifts of God, especially for the “unspeakable gift,” Jesus Christ. By some of the fathers of the second century the term was sometimes applied to the consecrated elements. The formula of thanksgiving cited in “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is, for the cup first, “We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus, Thy servant: to Thee be the glory forever.” And for the bread: “We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant: to Thee be the glory forever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and, gathered together, became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.”

Brake. Bengel says: “The very mention of the breaking involves distribution and refutes the Corinthian plan — every man his own” (ver. 21).

Do (ποιεῖτε). Be doing or continue doing.

In remembrance (εἰς). Strictly, for or with a view to, denoting purpose. These words do not occur in Matthew and Mark. Paul’s account agrees with Luke’s. Remembrance implies Christ’s bodily absence in the future.

25. After supper. Only Luke records this detail. It is added to mark the distinction between the Lord’s Supper and the ordinary meal.

Testament (διαθήκη). Rev., correctly, covenant. See on Matt. 26:28. The Hebrew word is derived from a verb meaning to cut. Hence the connection of dividing the victims with the ratification of a covenant. See Gen. 15:9–18. A similar usage appears in the Homeric phrase ὅρκια πιστὰ ταμεῖν, lit., to cut trustworthy oaths, whence the word oaths is used for the victims sacrificed in ratification of a covenant or treaty. See Homer, “Iliad,” ii., 124; iii., 73, 93. So the Latin foedus ferire “to kill a league,” whence our phrase to strike a compact. In the Septuagint proper, where it occurs nearly three hundred times, διαθήκη, in all but four passages, is the translation of the Hebrew word for covenant (berith). In those four it is used to render brotherhood and words of the covenant. In Philo it has the same sense as in the Septuagint, and covenant is its invariable sense in the New Testament.

28. Testament (διαθήκης). From διατίθημι, to distribute; dispose of. Hence of the disposition of one’s property. On the idea of disposing or arranging is based that of settlement or agreement, and thence of a covenant. The Hebrew word of which this is a translation is primarily covenant, from a verb meaning to cut. Hence the phrase, to make a covenant, in connection with dividing the victims slain in ratification of covenants (Gen. 15:9–18). Covenant is the general Old Testament sense of the word (1 Kings 20:34; Isa. 28:15; 1 Sam. 18:3); and so in the New Testament. Compare Mark 14:24; Luke 1:72; 22:20; Acts 3:25; 7:8. Bishop Lightfoot, on Gal. 3:15, observes that the word is never found in the New Testament in any other sense than that of covenant, with the exception of Heb. 9:15–17, where it is testament. We cannot admit this exception, since we regard that passage as one of the best illustrations of the sense of covenant. See on Heb. 9:15–17. Render here as Rev., covenant.

26. Ye do shew (καταγγέλλετε). Rev., better, proclaim. It is more than represent or signify. The Lord’s death is preached in the celebration of the Eucharist. Compare Exodus 13:8, thou shalt shew. In the Jewish passover the word Haggadah denoted the historical explanation of the meaning of the passover rites given by the father to the son. Dr. Schaff says of the eucharistic service of the apostolic age: “The fourteenth chapter of first Corinthians makes the impression — to use an American phrase — of a religious meeting thrown open. Everybody who had a spiritual gift, whether it was the gift of tongues, of interpretation, of prophecy, or of sober, didactic teaching, had a right to speak, to pray, and to sing. Even women exercised their gifts” (“Introduction to the Didache”). See, further, on ch. 14:33.

27. Unworthily (ἀναξίως). Defined by “not discerning the Lord’s body,” ver. 29.

Guilty (ἔνοχος). See on Mark 3:29; Jas. 2:10.  He is guilty (γέγονεν ἔνοχος). Lit., he is become guilty. Ἔνοχος, guilty, is, strictly, holden; within the condemning power of. Compare Matt. 26:66; Mark 3:29; 1 Cor. 11:27. Huther cites a Talmudic parallel: “But if he perform all, but omit one, he is guilty of every single one.”

28. So. After self-examination and consequent knowledge of his spiritual state.

29. Unworthily. Omit.

Damnation (κρῖμα). See on Mark 16:16; John 9:39. This false and horrible rendering has destroyed the peace of more sincere and earnest souls than any other misread passage in the New Testament. It has kept hundreds from the Lord’s table. Κρῖμα is a temporary judgment, and so is distinguished from κατάκριμα condemnation, from which this temporary judgment is intended to save the participant. The distinction appears in ver. 32 (see note). The A. V. of the whole passage, 28–34, is marked by a confusion of the renderings of κρίνειν to judge and its compounds.*  39. Judgment (κρίμα). Not the act of judgment, but its result. His very presence in the world constitutes a separation, which is the primitive idea of judgment, between those who believe on Him and those who reject Him.

Not discerning (μὴ διακρίνεν). Rev., if he discern not, bringing out the conditional force of the negative particle. The verb primarily means to separate, and hence to make a distinction, discriminate. Rev., in margin, discriminating. Such also is the primary meaning of discern (discernere to part or separate), so that discerning implies a mental act of discriminating between different things. So Bacon: “Nothing more variable than voices, yet men can likewise discern these personally.” This sense has possibly become a little obscured in popular usage. From this the transition is easy and natural to the sense of doubting, disputing, judging, all of these involving the recognition of differences. the object of the discrimination here referred to, may, I think, be regarded as complex. After Paul’s words (vv. 20, 22), about the degradation of the Lord’s Supper, the discrimination between the Lord’s body and common food may naturally be contemplated; but further, such discernment of the peculiar significance and sacredness of the Lord’s body as shall make him shrink from profanation and shall stimulate him to penitence and faith.

The Lord’s body. Omit Lord’s and read the body. This adds force to discerning.

30. Weak and sickly. Physical visitations on account of profanation of the Lord’s table.

Many sleep (κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί). The word for many means, primarily, adequate, sufficient. See on Rom. 15:23. Rev., not a few hardly expresses the ominous shading of the word: quite enough have died. Sleep. Better, are sleeping. Here simply as a synonym for are dead, without the peculiar restful sense which christian sentiment so commonly conveys into it. See on Acts 7:60; 2 Pet. 3:4.

31. We would judge (διεκρίνομεν). An illustration of the confusion in rendering referred to under ver. 29. This is the same word as discerning in ver. 29, but the A. V. recognizes no distinction between it, and judged (ἐκρινόμεθα) immediately following. Render, as Rev., if we discerned ourselves; i.e., examined and formed a right estimate.

We should not be judged (οὐκ ἀν ἐκρινόμεθα). By God. Here judged is correct. A proper self-examination would save us from the divine judgment.

32. When we are judged (κρινόμενοι). Correct. The same word as the last. With this construe by the Lord; not with chastened. The antithesis to judging ourselves is thus preserved. So Rev., in margin.

Condemned (κατακριθῶμεν). Signifying the final condemnatory judgment; but in ver. 29 the simple κρῖμα temporary judgment, is made equivalent to this. See note.

33. Tarry (ἐκδέχεσθε). In the usual New-Testament sense, as John 5:3; Acts 17:16; though in some cases the idea of expectancy is emphasized, as Heb. 10:13; 11:10; Jas. 5:7. Some render receive ye one another, in contrast with despising the poorer guests; but this is not according to New-Testament usage.

34. Will I set in order (διατάξομαι). Referring to outward, practical arrangements. See on Matt. 11:1, and compare ch. 9:14; 16:1; Gal. 3:19.

17. in this—which follows.

I declare—rather, “I enjoin”; as the Greek is always so used. The oldest manuscripts read literally “This I enjoin (you) not praising (you).”

that—inasmuch as; in that you, &c. Here he qualifies his praise (1Co 11:2). “I said that I praised you for keeping. the ordinances delivered to you; but I must now give injunction in the name of the Lord, on a matter in which I praise you not; namely, as to the Lord’s Supper (1Co 11:23; 1Co 14:37).

not for the better—not so as to progress to what is better.

for the worse—so as to retrograde to what is worse. The result of such “coming together” must be “condemnation” (1Co 11:34).

18. first of all—In the first place. The “divisions” (Greek, “schisms”) meant, are not merely those of opinion (1Co 1:10), but in outward acts at the love-feasts (Agapae), (1Co 11:21). He does not follow up the expression, “in the first place,” by “in the second place.” But though not expressed, a second abuse was in his mind when he said, “In the first place,” namely, the abuse of spiritual gifts, which also created disorder in their assemblies [Alford], (1Co 12:1).

in the church—not the place of worship; for Isidore of Pelusium denies that there were such places specially set apart for worship in the apostles’ times [Epistle, 246.2]. But, “in the assembly” or “congregation”; in convocation for worship, where especially love, order, and harmony should prevail. The very ordinance instituted for uniting together believers in one body, was made an occasion of “divisions” (schisms).

partly—He hereby excepts the innocent. “I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I cannot help believing” [Alford]: while my love is unaffected by it [Bengel].

19. heresies—Not merely “schisms” or “divisions” (1Co 11:18), which are “recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion” [Augustine, Con. Crescon. Don. 2.7, quoted by Trench, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament], but also “heresies,” that is, “schisms which have now become inveterate”; “Sects” [Campbell, vol. 2, pp. 126, 127]: so Ac 5:17; 15:5 translate the same Greek. At present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus’ words (Mt 18:7; Lu 17:1) foresees “there must be (come) also” matured separations, and established parties in secession, as separatists. The “must be” arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly, and to the discipline of the former for glory. “Heresies” had not yet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms. St. Augustine’s rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: “In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity.”

that … approved may be made manifest—through the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (Lu 2:35; 1Jn 2:19).

20. When … therefore—Resuming the thread of discourse from 1Co 11:18.

this is not to—rather, “there is no such thing as eating the Lord’s Supper”; it is not possible where each is greedily intent only on devouring “his own supper,” and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (1Co 11:33), where some are “drunken,” while others are “hungry” (1Co 11:21). The love-feast usually preceded the Lord’s Supper (as eating the Passover came before the Lord’s Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord’s Supper during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the question.

21. one taketh before other—the rich “before” the poor, who had no supper of their own. Instead of “tarrying for one another” (1Co 11:33); hence the precept (1Co 12:21, 25).

his own supper—“His own” belly is his God (Php 3:19); “the Lord’s Supper,” the spiritual feast, never enters his thoughts.

drunken—The one has more than is good for him, the other less [Bengel].

22. What!—Greek, “For.”

houses—(compare 1Co 11:34)—“at home.” That is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren [Alford].

despise ye the church of God—the congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom “God hath chosen,” however ye show contempt for them (Jam 2:5); compare “of God” here, marking the true honor of the Church.

shame them that have not—namely, houses to eat and drink in, and who, therefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feasts from their wealthier brethren.

I praise you not—resuming the words (1Co 11:17).

23. His object is to show the unworthiness of such conduct from the dignity of the holy supper.

I—Emphatic in the Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord’s institution.

received of the Lord—by immediate revelation (Ga 1:12; compare Ac 22:17, 18; 2Co 12:1–4). The renewal of the institution of the Lord’s Supper by special revelation to Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity between Luke’s and Paul’s account of the institution, favors the supposition that the former drew his information from the apostle, whose companion in travel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness.

night—the time fixed for the Passover (Ex 12:6): though the time for the Lord’s Supper is not fixed.

betrayed—With the traitor at the table, and death present before His eyes, He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Though about to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of His amazing love to man.

24. brake—The breaking of the bread involves its distribution and reproves the Corinthian mode at the love-feast, of “every one taking before other his own supper.”

my body … broken for you—“given” (Lu 22:19) for you (Greek, “in your behalf”), and “broken,” so as to be distributed among you. The oldest manuscripts omit “broken,” leaving it to be supplied from “brake.” The two old versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, read from Luke, “given.” The literal “body” could not have been meant; for Christ was still sensibly present among His disciples when He said, “This is My body.” They could only have understood Him symbolically and analogically: As this bread is to your bodily health, so My body is to the spiritual health of the believing communicant. The words, “Take, eat,” are not in the oldest manuscripts.

in remembrance of me—(See on 1Co 11:25).

25. when he had supped—Greek, “after the eating of supper,” namely, the Passover supper which preceded the Lord’s Supper, as the love-feast did subsequently. Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from the Lord’s Supper [Bengel].

the new testament—or “covenant.” The cup is the parchment-deed, as it were, on which My new covenant, or last will is written and sealed, making over to you all blessings here and hereafter.

in my blood—ratified by my blood: “not by the blood of goats and calves” (Heb 9:12).

as oft as—Greek, “as many times soever”: implying that it is an ordinance often to be partaken of.

in remembrance of me—Luke (Lu 22:19) expresses this, which is understood by Matthew and Mark. Paul twice records it (1Co 11:24 and here) as suiting his purpose. The old sacrifices brought sins continually to remembrance (Heb 10:1, 3). The Lord’s Supper brings to remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for all for the full and final remission of sins.

26. For—in proof that the Lord’s Supper is “in remembrance” of Him.

show—announce publicly. The Greek does not mean to dramatically represent, but “ye publicly profess each of you, the Lord has died for me” [Wahl]. This word, as “is” in Christ’s institution (1Co 11:24, 25), implies not literal presence, but a vivid realization, by faith, of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, as a living person, not a mere abstract dogma, “bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh” (Eph 5:30; compare Ge 2:23); and ourselves “members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones,” “our sinful bodies made clean by His body (once for all offered), and our souls washed through His most precious blood” [Church of England Prayer Book]. “Show,” or “announce,” is an expression applicable to new things; compare “show” as to the Passover (Ex 13:8). So the Lord’s death ought always to be fresh in our memory; compare in heaven, Rev 5:6. That the Lord’s Supper is in remembrance of Him, implies that He is bodily absent, though spiritually present, for we cannot be said to commemorate one absent. The fact that we not only show the Lord’s death in the supper, but eat and drink the pledges of it, could only be understood by the Jews, accustomed to such feasts after propitiatory sacrifices, as implying our personal appropriation therein of the benefits of that death.

till he come—when there shall be no longer need of symbols of His body, the body itself being manifested. The Greek expresses the certainly of His coming. Rome teaches that we eat Christ present corporally, “till He come” corporally; a contradiction in terms. The showbread, literally, “bread of the presence,” was in the sanctuary, but not in the Holiest Place (Heb 9:1–8); so the Lord’s Supper in heaven, the antitype to the Holiest Place, shall be superseded by Christ’s own bodily presence; then the wine shall be drunk “anew” in the Father’s kingdom, by Christ and His people together, of which heavenly banquet, the Lord’s Supper is a spiritual foretaste and specimen (Mt 26:29). Meantime, as the showbread was placed anew, every sabbath, on the table before the Lord (Le 24:5–8); so the Lord’s death was shown, or announced afresh at the Lord’s table the first day of every week in the primitive Church. We are now “priests unto God” in the dispensation of Christ’s spiritual presence, antitypical to the holy place: the perfect and eternal dispensation, which shall not begin till Christ’s coming, is antitypical to the holiest place, which Christ our High Priest alone in the flesh as yet has entered (Heb 9:6, 7); but which, at His coming, we, too, who are believers, shall enter (Rev 7:15; 21:22). The supper joins the two closing periods of the Old and the New dispensations. The first and second comings are considered as one coming, whence the expression is not “return,” but “come” (compare, however, Jn 14:3).

27. eat and drink—So one of the oldest manuscripts reads. But three or four equally old manuscripts, the Vulgate and Cyprian, read, “or.” Romanists quote this reading in favor of communion in one kind. This consequence does not follow. Paul says, “Whosoever is guilty of unworthy conduct, either in eating the bread, or in drinking the cup, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ.” Impropriety in only one of the two elements, vitiates true communion in both. Therefore, in the end of the verse, he says, not “body or blood,” but “body and blood.” Any who takes the bread without the wine, or the wine without the bread, “unworthily” communicates, and so “is guilty of Christ’s body and blood”; for he disobeys Christ’s express command to partake of both. If we do not partake of the sacramental symbol of the Lord’s death worthily, we share in the guilt of that death. (Compare “crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,” Heb 6:6). Unworthiness in the person, is not what ought to exclude any, but unworthily communicating: However unworthy we be, if we examine ourselves so as to find that we penitently believe in Christ’s Gospel, we may worthily communicate.

28. examine—Greek, “prove” or “test” his own state of mind in respect to Christ’s death, and his capability of “discerning the Lord’s body” (1Co 11:29, 31). Not auricular confession to a priest, but self-examination is necessary.

so—after due self-examination.

of … of—In 1Co 11:27, where the receiving was unworthily, the expression was, “eat this bread, drink … cup” without “of.” Here the “of” implies due circumspection in communicating [Bengel].

let him eat—His self-examination is not in order that he may stay away, but that he may eat, that is, communicate.

29. damnation—A mistranslation which has put a stumbling-block in the way of many in respect to communicating. The right translation is “judgment.” The judgment is described (1Co 11:30–32) as temporal.

not discerning—not duty judging: not distinguishing in judgment (so the Greek: the sin and its punishment thus being marked as corresponding) from common food, the sacramental pledges of the Lord’s body. Most of the oldest manuscripts omit “Lord’s” (see 1Co 11:27). Omitting also “unworthily,” with most of the oldest manuscripts, we must translate, “He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, IF he discern not the body” (Heb 10:29). The Church is “the body of Christ” (1Co 12:27). The Lord’s body is His literal body appreciated and discerned by the soul in the faithful receiving, and not present in the elements themselves.

30. weak … sickly—He is “weak” who has naturally no strength: “sickly,” who has lost his strength by disease [Tittmann, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament].

sleep—are being lulled in death: not a violent death; but one the result of sickness, sent as the Lord’s chastening for the individual’s salvation, the mind being brought to a right state on the sick bed (1Co 11:31).

31. if we would judge ourselves—Most of the oldest manuscripts, read “But,” not “For.” Translate also literally “If we duly judged ourselves, we should not be (or not have been) judged,” that is, we should escape (or have escaped) our present judgments. In order to duly judge or “discern [appreciate] the Lord’s body,” we need to “duly judge ourselves.” A prescient warning against the dogma of priestly absolution after full confession, as the necessary preliminary to receiving the Lord’s Supper.

32. chastened—(Rev 3:19).

with the world—who, being bastards, are without chastening (Heb 12:8).

33. tarry one for another—In contrast to 1Co 11:21. The expression is not, “Give a share to one another,” for all the viands brought to the feast were common property, and, therefore, they should “tarry” till all were met to partake together of the common feast of fellowship [Theophylact].

34. if any … hunger—so as not to be able to “tarry for others,” let him take off the edge of his hunger at home [Alford] (1Co 11:22).

the rest—“the other questions you asked me as to the due celebration of the Lord’s Supper.” Not other questions in general; for he does subsequently set in order other general questions in this Epistle.

[2]

11:17. As in the preceding discussion on womanly excesses in worship, Paul had no commendation (but cf. v. 2) for the Corinthians when it came to their practice of the Lord’s Supper. In fact an experience meant to build up the church was actually having the opposite effect: your meetings do more harm than good.

11:18-19. The church was divided at a celebration which was meant to express unity (cf. 10:17). If these divisions (schismata; 1:10; 12:25) were related to those noted earlier (1:10-4:21), then one factor contributing to those divisions is evident here, namely, economic differences in the church (11:21).

Paul did not want to believe the report about their divisions (v. 18b), but he knew that sin was inevitable (cf. Luke 17:1) and would not pass unnoticed by God. God’s approval (dokimoi) resumed a point Paul had discussed earlier (1 Cor. 9:27-10:10), where he used in 9:27 the contrasting word “disqualified” (adokimos).

In the whole nation of Israel, freed from bondage in Egypt and bound for the Promised Land of Canaan, only two of that vast company gained God’s approval and entered the land (cf. 10:5). Many in the Corinthian assembly did not have this approval, which His discipline on them demonstrated (cf. 11:30-32). If the Corinthians thought the ordinances of the Lord’s Supper and baptism somehow communicated magical protection to the participants (cf. 10:12; 15:24), Paul’s excoriation must have been doubly painful since their behavior at this rite was directly linked to their chastisement (11:30-32)—the very thing they sought to avoid.

11:20-21. The Lord’s Supper should have been the remembrance of a preeminently selfless act, Christ’s death on behalf of others. Instead the Corinthians had turned the memorial of selflessness into an experience of selfishness and had made a rite of unity a riotous disunity. While one brother went hungry because he lacked the means to eat well, another brother drank to excess.

11:22. If the Corinthians wanted private parties they could have them in their homes. The meeting of the church was no place for a sectarian spirit of any sort, especially since the Lord’s Supper was intended to commemorate just the opposite spirit. To act in a spirit of selfish disregard for the needs of a brother was to despise the church of God, composed not of lifeless stones but of living people who could be grievously hurt. Did the Corinthians somehow think their libertarian acts were a matter for praise? (cf. 5:1-2) Just the opposite!

11:23-24. Paul proceeded to remind the Corinthians of what they knew but had denied by their actions. Whether this teaching came to Paul directly (by a vision; cf. Gal. 1:12) or indirectly (by men; 1 Cor. 15:1), it came with the Lord’s authority. The bread represented the incarnate body of Christ unselfishly assumed (Phil. 2:6-7) and unselfishly given on the cross for the benefit of others (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:8), that kept needing to be remembered (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8-13).

11:25. The wine was a poignant reminder of Christ’s blood, without the shedding of which there could be no forgiveness from sin (Heb. 9:22) and through which cleansing and a new relationship (covenant) with God was made (Heb. 9:14-15). The word “covenant” referred to a relationship in which one party established terms which the other party accepted or rejected. The focus of the Old Covenant was the written Word (Ex. 24:1-8). The focus of the New Covenant is the Living Word (John 1:14-18). Christ intended the cup to be a representational (cf. John 10:9; 1 Cor. 10:4) reminder of Him: do this . . . in remembrance of Me.

11:26. The Lord’s Supper was a visible sermon that proclaimed “the message of the Cross” (1:18, 23; 2:2, 8), that is, the reality of the Lord’s death, and also the certainty of His return (until He comes) (cf. John 14:1-4). Though there apparently was no prescribed schedule for the observance of the Lord’s Supper (cf. Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 13:1), whenever it was celebrated its message of humiliation and subsequent exaltation (Phil. 2:6-11) went forth. This was a needed reminder to all saints, especially those in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8-13).

11:27-29. The Corinthians’ despicable behavior at the communal meal was not without result, which Paul proceeded to point out. Nowadays when this passage is read before participation in the Lord’s Supper, it is usually intended to produce soul-searching introspection and silent confession to Christ so that no one will sin against the spiritual presence of the Lord by irreverent observance. Paul’s application was probably more concrete. No doubt his experience on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:4-5) contributed to this, for the body of Christ is the church, which consists of individual believers (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12, 27). His body, the church, is also pictured by the bread of Communion (5:7; 10:16-17). Thus to sin against another believer is to sin against Christ (8:12). Those guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord were those who despised a poorer member by utter disregard for his need (11:21-22). These came to the remembrance of Christ’s work of unity and reconciliation (cf. Eph. 2:15-16) with a trail of deeds that had produced disunity and alienation! If these would examine (dokimazetō, “test to approve,” 1 Cor. 11:28) themselves, they would see that they lacked God’s approval (dokimoi, v. 19) in this behavior. They should seek out the wronged brother and ask his forgiveness. Only then could a true spirit of worship flourish (cf. Matt. 5:23-24 and Didache 14. 1-3). Coming to the Lord’s Supper without that sin confessed brought judgment on the guilty participants. Only by recognizing (diakrinōn, “properly judging”) the unity of the body of the Lord—and acting accordingly—could they avoid bringing “judgment” (krima) on themselves.

11:30-32. What that judgment entailed was then explained by Paul. In brief, it was sickness and death (cf. 10:1-11). The solution was self-examination (diekrinomen, 11:31; cf. vv. 28-29; 5:1-5; 10:12), self-discipline (9:27), and promoting of unity. The alternative was God’s judging (krinomenoi, 11:32), which was a discipline that they were then experiencing. This was not a loss of salvation, but of life (cf. 5:5).

11:33-34. If the believers were self-disciplined, they should wait in the Agapē meal till all arrived. This also may have implied sharing the meal with others (cf. v. 22). If the demands of hunger were too great for some, they should satisfy those pangs at home before coming to the assembly. The Lord’s Supper was a time not for self-indulgence but for mutual edification (v. 26). If the former prevailed, God would continue to discipline severely. Other matters—apparently less serious aberrations related to the Lord’s Supper—Paul would attend to when he returned to Corinth (16:5-9).

The Lord’s Supper (11:23–26). The simple, solemn service is conducted “in remembrance” of Jesus’ death. The phrase reflects the vital O.T. concept of zikkaron, “memorial.” This might be a memorial festival, a place, or an object intended to remind Israel of God’s acts for them in the past. By contact with the zikkaron the living sensed their participation with past generations in God’s historic acts. Thus the Lord’s Supper is a unique, holy occasion for the gathered church to sense the participation of every member with Jesus in His death. In the Lord’s Supper we are present at the Cross and testify to it.

Sickness and sin. Some Corinthians totally missed the significance of the Lord’s Supper. Rather than making it a time of shared participation in the holy, they made it an occasion for dinner parties, like those dedicated to the pagan deities with which they were familiar. Lest God judge us, let us approach the Lord’s Supper with awe and proper self–examination.

II.     Guidance concerning Communion (11:17–34): The Corinthian believers are not observing the Lord’s Table as they should.

A.     The perversion (11:17–22)

1.     They separate into their own little groups (11:17–20).

2.     They share with no one else (11:21–22).

B.     The pattern (11:23–25): Paul describes the original Lord’s Supper as conducted by Jesus in the upper room.

1.     What the Savior did (11:23, 25a)

a.     He held up the bread (11:23).

b.     He held up the cup (11:25a).

2.     What the Savior said (11:24, 25b)

a.     Concerning the bread (11:24): “This is my body, which is given for you.”

b.     Concerning the cup (11:25b): “This cup is the new covenant between God and you, sealed by the shedding of my blood.”

C.     The purpose (11:26, 28): Any Lord’s Table involves a threefold look.

1.     It serves as a backward look to the cross (11:26a).

2.     It serves as an inward look to the conscience (11:28).

3.     It serves as a forward look to the crown (11:26b).

D.     The penalty (11:27, 29–30): Any believer who partakes in an unworthy manner is guilty and risks punishment.

1.     To eat and drink God’s judgment on oneself (11:27–29)

2.     To be divinely judged with physical sickness (11:30a)

3.     To be divinely judged with physical death (11:30b)

E.     The profit (11:31–34)

1.     It can be used for judging ourselves (11:31–32).

2.     It can be used for giving ourselves (11:33–34).

Celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Verses 17–34)

This section relates to the disorders connected with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. These disorders were of a kind that, according to our method of celebrating the sacrament, seems almost unaccountable. It was, however, the early custom to connect the Lord’s Supper in the strict sense of the words with an ordinary meal. This sacrament was instituted by our Lord at the close of the Paschal supper, and it appears to have been customary at the beginning for the Christians to assemble for a common meal and to connect with it the commemoration of the Redeemer’s death. Intimations of this practice may be found in such passages as Acts 2:42, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” In verse 46 it says that this breaking of bread was from house to house. Acts 20:7 says, “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread,” which, from the narrative that follows, appears to have been an ordinary meal.

Whatever may be thought of these passages, it is clear from the paragraph before us that at Corinth at least the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was connected with a regular meal. This may have arisen not so much from the original institution of the Eucharist in connection with the Paschal supper as from the sacred festivals of both Jews and Greeks. Both had been accustomed to unite with their sacrifices a feast of a more or less public character.

It is also evident that, in keeping with a familiar Greek custom, the people assembled brought their own provisions, which were placed on the table and formed a common stock. The rich brought plentifully; the poor brought little or nothing. It was, however, essential to the very idea of a Christian feast that it should be a communion—that all the guests at the table of their common Lord should be on terms of equality. Instead of this fraternal union, there were divisions among the Corinthians even at the Lord’s Table—the rich eating by themselves the provisions they had brought, leaving their poorer brothers mortified and hungry. It is to the correction of these disorders that the concluding part of this chapter is devoted.

It was no matter of praise that the assemblings of the Corinthians made them worse rather than better (verse 17). The prominent evil was that there were schisms even in their most sacred meetings, an evil consequence of the state in which they were and that God permitted in order that the good might be made manifest (verses 18–19). The evil to which he referred was not merely that they had degraded the Lord’s Supper into an ordinary meal, but that in that meal they were divided into parties, some eating and drinking to excess, and others left without anything (verses 20–21). This was not only making the Lord’s Supper a meal for satisfying hunger—contrary to its original design—but a cruel perversion of a feast of love into a means of humiliating and wounding their poorer brothers (verse 22).

In order to show how inconsistent their conduct was with the nature of the service in which they professed to engage, the apostle recounts the original institution of the Lord’s Supper (verses 23–25). From this account it follows, first, that the Lord’s Supper was designed not as an ordinary meal, but as a commemoration of the death of Christ; second, that to participate in this ordinance in an unworthy manner was an offense against his body and blood, the symbols of which were so irreverently treated; third, that no one ought to approach the Lord’s Table without self-examination, in order that with due preparation and with a proper understanding of the ordinance he may receive the bread and wine as the symbols of Christ’s body and blood (verses 26–29). In this way they would escape the judgments that the Lord had brought upon others on account of their profanation of his Table (verses 30–32). In conclusion, Paul exhorts them to use their houses for their ordinary meals and to make the Lord’s Supper a real communion (verses 33–34).

17. In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.

In verse 2 he said, I praise you. His praise was consistent with grave disapproval of many things in their condition as a church. He did not praise them for the way in which they conducted their public worship. Their assemblies were disgraced not only by women appearing unveiled, contrary to the established rules of decorum, but also by the unfraternal and irreverent way they celebrated the Lord’s Supper, and also by the disorderly way in which they used their spiritual gifts. These evils he takes up in order. Having dealt with the first, he comes now to the second.

In the following directives I have no praise for you. The Greek may be translated, “Declaring this, I do not applaud.” To this, however, it is objected that the Greek verb never means “to declare,” but always “to command.” Hence the better translation is, “Commanding (or enjoining) this, I do not applaud.” It is doubtful whether “this” refers to what precedes or what follows. If it means what precedes, then the sense is, “While I command what precedes, concerning women appearing veiled, I do not praise you …”

For your meetings do more harm than good. This censure is general, embracing all the grounds of complaint that are specified in this and the following chapters.

18. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

In the first place. Paul often begins a list that he does not complete. There is nothing to correspond to these words in what follows. According to one view the first censure is directed against the divisions, and the second against their way of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. But the only divisions that he refers to here are those connected with their public worship, and especially with the celebration of the sacrament. Besides, the subject of divisions was treated at the beginning of the letter. Here he is speaking about their meetings. The second ground of censure is to be found in the following chapter.

I hear that … there are divisions among you. Literally, “schisms.” For the meaning of that word, see 1:10. The nature of these schisms is described in what follows. They were cliques—not sects, but parties, separated from each other by alienation of feeling. It is clear that the rich formed one of these parties, as opposed to the poor. And probably there were many other grounds of division. The Jewish converts separated from the Gentiles; those having one gift exalted themselves over those having another. It is not outward separation but inward alienation that is complained of here.

And to some extent I believe it. Paul intimates that he was reluctant to believe all he had heard to their disadvantage in this matter; but he was forced to believe enough to draw his serious disapproval.

19. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

This is the reason why he believed what he had heard. He knew that such things must happen, and that God had a wise purpose in permitting them; compare Matthew 18:7, “Such things must come.” Evil as well as good is included in the divine purpose. It is not intended as evil, but for the sake of the good that infinite wisdom evolves from it.

Differences. What are called divisions in one verse are called differences (heresies, kjv) in the next; both words have the same general sense. The nature of these divisions is to be decided by the context. The Greek word from which we derive the word heresy means literally “an act of choice,” then a chosen way of life, a sect or party; not always in a bad sense, but in the sense of schools (thus “the heresies of philosophers” means “the schools or different sorts of philosophers”). In the New Testament this word is repeatedly used for “the party of the Pharisees” or “of the Sadducees” (Acts 15:5; 5:17). Here and in Galatians 5:20 it means “dissensions.” The ecclesiastical sense of the word heresy is the choice of an opinion different from that of the church, or a doctrine contrary to Scripture. There is nothing to favor the assumption that this is its meaning here.

To show which of you have God’s approval. This is God’s purpose in permitting the occurrence of such divisions. It is to show who have stood the test and are worthy of approval. The opposite group is composed of “reprobates.” By the prevalence of disorders and other evils in the church, God puts his people to the test. They are tried like gold in a furnace, and their genuineness is made to appear. It is a great consolation to know that dissensions, whether in the church or in the state, are not matters of chance, but are ordered by God’s providence and are designed as storms for the purpose of purification.

20. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat.

“Eating the Lord’s Supper is not the real purpose, though it is your professed purpose. You come together for a common meal, and a disorderly, unbrotherly one too.” The words, however, permit two other interpretations. We may supply the word “this”: “This is not to eat the Lord’s Supper; your meal does not deserve that sacred character.” Or, “You cannot eat the Lord’s Supper.” (In Greek, the substantive verb followed by an infinitive often means “can.”) “Coming together as you do, it is impossible to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.” This gives a very pertinent sense. The Lord’s Supper is the supper instituted by the Lord, one to which he invites the guests and that is celebrated in commemoration of his death. That was a very different service from the agape or love feasts, as they were afterwards called, which on account of the disorders accompanying them were subsequently prohibited by the Council of Carthage. The agape feasts were feasts to which each one brought his contributions, during and after which (the bread during, and the cup after) the consecrated elements were distributed.

21. For as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.

For. That is, the reason why the Corinthian suppers were not the Lord’s Supper is that there was no communion or eating together. They were not all partakers of one bread (10:17). They did not wait for each other. Compare verse 33. On the contrary, each one ate the supper that he had brought before others could join with him. The consequence was that one remains hungry—the poor had nothing—while another gets drunk. It is not easy to decide whether the apostle intended to say that any of the Corinthians actually became intoxicated at the table that they called the table of the Lord, or whether he simply meant to say that while one had more, another had less than enough. As they seem to have accommodated their service to the sacrificial feasts they were used to when they were heathens, it is the less improbable that they were guilty of actual excess in some cases.

“It is wonderful, and well nigh portentous,” says Calvin, “that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time. We may learn from this example what is the worth of mere antiquity; that is, what authority is due to custom unsustained by the Word of God.” If within twenty years of its institution the Corinthians turned the Lord’s Supper into a disorderly feast although the apostles were still alive, we need not wonder at the speedy corruption of the church after their death.

22. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

The two grounds on which the apostle condemned this conduct of the Corinthians were, first, it was a perversion of the Lord’s Supper; and, second, it was disrespectful and mortifying to their poorer brothers. It was a perversion of the Lord’s Supper because it made it an ordinary meal designed to satisfy hunger. For that purpose they had their own houses. The church comes together to worship God and to celebrate his ordinances, not for the purpose of eating and drinking. It is important that the church, as the church, should confine itself to its own appropriate work and not undertake to do what its members, as citizens or as members of families, may appropriately do. The church does not come together to do what can better be done at home.

Or do you despise the church of God … ? This was the second ground of condemnation. Their conduct showed contempt for their brothers. They treated them as unfit and refused to eat with them. Yet the poor were constituent members of the church of God. They were his people—those whom he had chosen, whom he had made kings and priests to himself. The richer Corinthians treated with contempt these people thus highly honored by God; and that too at the Lord’s Table, where all external distinctions are done away, and the master is not a hair’s breadth above his slave.

And humiliate those who have nothing. That is, they mortified and humbled them by making them conscious of inferiority. This may refer either to those who do not have houses to eat and drink in, or simply the poor. Those who have are rich; those who have nothing are the poor. The latter interpretation is not only consistent with the Greek idiom but makes better sense. Even the poorer members of the church did not, and ought not, come to the Lord’s Table for the sake of food. As much as Paul was disposed to praise the Corinthians, in this matter he could not praise them.

23. For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread.

“I cannot praise you, for your way of celebrating the Lord’s Supper is utterly inconsistent with its original institution.” They were the more inexcusable in departing from the original mode of celebrating this ordinance, first, because the account of its original institution had been received by Paul from the Lord himself, and, second, because he had delivered it to them. Their sin was, therefore, one of irreverent disobedience, without the excuse of ignorance.

For I received from the Lord. Paul asserts that he received the account given here from the Lord. The whole context shows that he intends to claim the direct authority of the Lord himself for this narrative. As with regard to Paul’s doctrines generally, so with regard to the institution and design of this ordinance, he disclaims all indebtedness to tradition or to the instructions of men and asserts the fact of a direct revelation to himself. Of the Gospel he says, “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12). To this interpretation, however, the following objections are made.

1. He uses a Greek preposition that strictly expresses a mediate derivation (that is, through the instrumentality of others), and not the word that would imply a direct communication. This objection supposes a refinement in the use of the Greek particles that is not consistent with the character of New Testament Greek. The apostle John says, “This is the message we have heard from him” (1 John 1:5), which certainly does not refer to an indirect communication received through others. In 1 Corinthians from the Lord is evidently contrasted with “from men.” Paul received his knowledge from the Lord, and not from men. Again, compare Galatians 1:12. So also in Galatians 1:1 he says he was an “apostle … not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ.” Must it be inferred from this latter expression that Christ was only the medium of Paul’s call to the apostleship because the word used expressed the instrumental cause? This would be as reasonable as to infer from the present text that Paul’s knowledge was derived from the Lord indirectly. However, in Galatians 1:1 the apostle says that he received his apostleship not only “by Jesus Christ “ but also by “God the Father.” Must this also mean “through the instrumentality of God”? Is God the Father a mere instrument?

No writer uses language with such strict grammatical accuracy as this objection supposes; much less did Jews writing Greek. It is, of course, important to adhere as far as possible to the exact meaning of the words; but to sacrifice the sense and obvious intention of the writer to such niceties is unreasonable.

2. As the Lord’s Supper had been celebrated without interruption from the time of its institution, the facts concerning it must have been known by everyone and therefore needed no direct revelation. The same objection might be made to a special revelation of the Gospel to Paul. Why might he not have been allowed to learn it from the other apostles? Besides, Paul, as he shows us in Galatians 1 and 2, had no communication with the other apostles for three years after his conversion.

3. Ideas and truths may be communicated by visions and inner influences, but not historical facts. Then a large part of the prophecies of the Old Testament must be fables. The evidence is so strong from the context that Paul claims independent authority for what he says here that many who bow to the meaning of the Greek preposition say that the account Paul received from Christ through others was authenticated to him by an interior revelation. But this is not what he says. He says he received it from Christ, which in the context can only mean that he received it directly from Christ; his object is to give authority to his account of the ordinance. It was not only important for the Corinthians but for the whole church to be assured that this account of the Lord’s Supper was communicated directly by Christ to the apostle. It shows the importance that our Lord attributes to this ordinance.

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed. That is, while he was being betrayed—while the traitorous scheme was in progress. Under these moving circumstances the ordinance was instituted. This fact, which Christ saw fit to reveal to Paul, must be of permanent interest to his people. It is not a matter of indifference that this sacred rite was instituted on the last night of our Redeemer’s life and when he knew what the next day was to bring. This fact gives a special solemnity and interest to the institution.

Roman Catholics, in answer to Protestant objections that the mass is a departure from the original mode of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, say that if the example of Christ is obligatory, we should celebrate the ordinance at night, after a meal, and at a table covered with provisions, etc. Protestants, however, do not hold that the church in all ages is bound to do whatever Christ and the apostles did, but only what they intended should be done afterwards. It is not apostolic example that is obligatory but apostolic precept, whether expressed in words or in examples that are declared or shown to be preceptive. Christ’s example in celebrating the Lord’s Supper is binding on us as to everything that enters into the nature and significance of the institution. Those are the very things that we are commanded to do; they constitute the ordinance.

Took bread. Matthew 26:26 says, “While they were eating, Jesus took bread”; that is, he took some of the bread lying on the table. As it was the time of the Passover, there is no doubt that the bread used was unleavened, the thin Passover bread of the Jews. But as no part of the significance of the rite depends on the kind of bread used, as there is nor precept on the subject, and as the apostle subsequently celebrated the ordinance using ordinary bread, it evidently does not matter what kind of bread is used. For a long time, however, this was a subject of bitter controversy. At first the Latins and Greeks used leavened bread; when the Latins introduced the unleavened wafer from superstitious fear of any of the fragments being dropped, the Greeks retained the use of fermented bread and accused the Latins of Judaizing. Roman Catholics and Lutherans use unleavened wafers; Protestants generally use ordinary bread.

24. And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

When he had given thanks. The act of consecration is expressed by a grateful acknowledgment of God’s mercy and an invocation of his blessing.

He broke it. This detail is included in all the accounts—in those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as in Paul’s. This is one of the significant parts of the service and ought not to be omitted as is done by Roman Catholics, by the Greek church, and by Lutherans.

And said. The words our blessed Lord uttered at this moment are reported differently by the various evangelists. In Matthew 26:26 it is, “Take and eat; this is my body.” In Mark 14:22, according to the best authorities, the word “eat” is omitted. In Luke 22:19, both “take” and “eat” are omitted. Here they are both missing in the oldest manuscripts and so should probably be omitted. Paul’s account, therefore, agrees in this respect with that of Luke. The proper inference from this diversity is that the words were uttered by our Lord, but the ideas they express were clear enough from the gesture of handing the bread to his disciples, and so they were omitted by some of the narrators as unnecessary.

The idea, whether expressed by words or gesture, is important, however. The bread was to be taken and eaten. The elements must be distributed to those participating in the service. Otherwise it is not a communion. It should not be just the priest who eats the consecrated wafer.

“This is my body.” These words are found in all the accounts. Probably the history of the world does not furnish a parallel to the controversies over these simple words. The ordinary and natural interpretation of them is that the pronoun this refers to the bread. “This bread that I hold in my hand and that I give to you is my body.” That is, it is the symbol of his body, precisely as we say of a statue that it is the person it represents, or as the Scriptures say that the sign is the thing of which it is the symbol (Ezekiel 5:4–5; Galatians 4:24), or as our Saviour says, “I am the vine; you are the branches” (John 15:5) or “I am the gate for the sheep” (John 10:7), or as in verse 4 of the previous chapter it said, “that rock was Christ,” or as baptism is said to be regeneration. This is a usage so familiar to all languages that no one disputes that the words in question can be interpreted in this way. It would seem clear that they must have this meaning because of the following considerations.

1. It is impossible for the bread in Christ’s hand to have been his literal body then seated at the table, or for the wine to have been the blood that was then flowing in his veins.

2. It is even more obviously impossible to take the words, “This cup is the new covenant” literally. But Roman Catholics do not hold to a transubstantiation of the cup, but only of the wine. But if the words are to be taken literally, they necessitate believing both.

3. Assuming that the bread in the Lord’s Supper is literally the crucified body of Christ involves the utter subversion of all the rules of evidence and laws of belief.

4. Calling on people to believe so glaring a contradiction unavoidably brings about unfaithfulness on the one hand and superstitious idolatry on the other. Only by denying all distinction between matter and spirit and confusing all our ideas about substance and qualities can we believe that wine is blood or bread flesh.

The Roman Catholic interpretation of these words is that the bread is the body of Christ because its whole essence is changed into the substance of his body. The Lutherans say it is his body because his body is locally present in and with the bread. Calvin says that it is his body in the same sense that the dove (John 1:32) was the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, which was the pledge of his presence. So the bread is the symbol of Christ’s body because with the one we receive the other. What is received, however, and what Calvin calls Christ’s body and sometimes the substance of his body is not the body itself, which he admits is only in heaven, but is rather a life-giving power that flows to us from the glorified body of our Lord. The only presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament admitted by Calvin was this presence of power. The Reformed churches teach that the bread is called the body of Christ in the same sense that the cup is called the new covenant. Anyone who receives the cup in faith receives the covenant of which it was the pledge; and anyone receiving the bread in faith receives the benefits of Christ’s body as broken for sin. The one is the symbol and pledge of the other.

“Which is for you.” Luke says, it is “given for you.” In Matthew and Mark these words are omitted. The kjv has broken for you, but in some manuscripts this word is absent. “Broken” or “given” for you means “slain or given to death for you.” The sacrificial character of the death of Christ enters essentially into the nature of this ordinance. It is the commemoration of his death, not as a teacher or a benefactor but as a sacrifice; so if this idea is kept out of view, the sacrament itself loses all its significance and power.

“Do this in remembrance of me.” These words are not found in Matthew or Mark. They occur in Luke 22:19, as they do here.

“Do this.” That is, “Do what I have just done; take bread, consecrate it, break it, distribute it, and eat it.”

“In remembrance of me.” That is, “that I may be remembered as he who died for your sins.” This is the specific, definite object of the Lord’s Supper, to which all other ends must be subordinate, because this alone is stated in the words of institution. Of course, involved in this, we profess faith in him as the sacrifice for our sins, we receive him as such, we acknowledge the obligations that rest upon us as those who have been redeemed by his blood, and we recognize ourselves as constituent members of his church and all believers as our brothers. We are thus, as taught in the preceding chapter, brought into a real communion with Christ and with all his people by the believing participation of this ordinance.

25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Luke introduces this second part of the service with the same words that are used here. The literal and simple rendering of the Greek in each case is, “Likewise also the cup, after supper.” In Matthew and Mark it says, “Having taken the cup, and having given thanks.” This explains what Paul and Luke mean by “likewise” or in the same way. They intend to say that Christ did with the cup what he had done with the bread; that is, he took it and pronounced over it the eucharistic benediction, a blessing connected with thanksgiving.

After supper. That is, after the conclusion of the Paschal supper.

Saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The same words occur in Luke 22:20. In Matthew and Mark the corresponding expression is, “This is my blood of the covenant.” The sense must be the same. “The blood of the covenant” here, as in Exodus 24:8, means the blood by which the covenant was ratified and its blessings secured.

The passage in Exodus shows the way in which covenants were ratified in the ancient East. A victim was slain and the blood sprinkled on the contracting parties, by which they were solemnly bound to their mutual commitments. Some manuscripts call the covenant new in reference to the Mosaic covenant. The latter was ratified by the blood of animals; the new covenant is ratified by the blood of the eternal Son of God. The old covenant in itself could secure only temporal benefits and the remission of ceremonial offenses; the new one secures eternal redemption and the remission of sin in the sight of God. The Hebrews entered into covenant with God when the blood of the heifer was sprinkled on them, and they thereby bound themselves to be obedient to the law of Moses. By the same covenant, God graciously bound himself to confer on them all its promised blessings, provided they obeyed the law.

Similarly, in the Lord’s Supper, those who receive the cup profess to embrace the covenant of grace and bind themselves to obey the Gospel; and God binds himself to confer on them all the benefits of redemption. In receiving the cup, therefore, they receive the pledge of their salvation.

The death of Christ, which is so often compared to a sin-offering, is here, as well as in Hebrews, compared to a federal sacrifice. The two, however, do not differ. The death of Christ is the latter only in virtue of its being the former. It ratifies the covenant of grace and secures its benefits only because it was a propitiation—that is, because it was a satisfaction to divine justice, as is so clearly taught in Romans 3:25–26. Therefore, every time the consecrated wine touches the believer’s lips, he receives anew the application of the blood of Christ for the remission of his sins and his reconciliation with God.

If the Bible says we are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:2), why may we not be said to receive his blood? If the former expression means the application of the benefits of his sacrificial death, why may not the latter mean receiving those benefits? Here, as elsewhere, the difficulty is the lack of faith. Anyone who by faith appropriates a divine promise recorded in the Word receives the promised blessing; and anyone who exercises faith in receiving the sacramental cup receives the benefits of the covenant of which that cup is the symbol and the pledge. But what is faith? Or rather, what is it that we are required to believe in order to experience all this?

1. We must believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he loved us and gave himself for us.

2. We must believe that his blood cleanses us from all sin.

3. We must believe that in the sacrament he offers us, with the symbols of his broken body and his shed blood, the benefits of his death, and that he will certainly convey these benefits to all those who hold out even a trembling hand to receive them.

In Luke, after the words “in my blood” is added “which is poured out for you.” In Mark the explanation is, “which is poured out for many”; and in Matthew, still more fully, “which is poured for many for the forgiveness of sins.” These are different ways of expressing the sacrificial character of Christ’s death. Though it was the blood of the covenant, yet it was at the same time “poured out for many”—not merely for their benefit in general, but for the specific purpose of securing “the forgiveness of sins.” It was, therefore, truly a sin-offering. What is said concisely in one place is more fully and clearly stated in another.

“Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” These words do not occur in Luke. In Matthew the words are, “Drink from it, all of you.” Mark says, “They all drank from it.” Each account makes it clear that the cup was distributed to all at the table and that all drank from it. The words “Do this” are to be understood here as in verse 24: “Do what I have done”—that is, “bless the cup and distribute it among yourselves.”

“Whenever you drink it.” This does not mean that every time Christians drink wine together they should do it in commemoration of Christ’s death; but “whenever this ordinance is celebrated, do what I have done, to commemorate my death.” The Lord’s Supper is a commemoration of Christ’s death not only because it was designed for that purpose, but also because the bread and wine are the significant symbols of his broken body and his outpoured blood. In this ordinance, therefore, Christ is presented as a sacrifice that at once makes expiation for sin and ratifies the covenant of grace.

26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

What Paul had received from the Lord is recorded in the preceding verses. Here and in what follows we have his own inferences from the account that the Lord had given him. The first of those inferences is that the Lord’s Supper is, and was designed to be, a proclamation of the death of Christ and was to continue until his second coming. Those who come to it, therefore, should come not to satisfy hunger, nor for the gratification of social feelings, but for the definite purpose of bearing their testimony to the great fact of redemption and to contribute their portion of influence to the preservation and propagation of the knowledge of that fact.

For indicates the connection with what precedes. “It is a commemoration of his death, for it is in its very nature a proclamation of that great fact.” And it was not a temporary institution, but one designed to continue until the consummation. As the Passover was a perpetual commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt and a prediction of the coming and death of the Lamb of God who was to bear the sins of the world, so the Lord’s Supper is at once the commemoration of the death of Christ and a pledge of his coming a second time without sin for salvation.

27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

This is the second inference.

Therefore. That is, “so that,” “hence it follows.” If the Lord’s Supper in its very nature is a proclamation of Christ’s death, it follows that those who attend it as an ordinary meal or in an irreverent manner or for any other purpose than that for which it was appointed are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. That is, they become guilty with reference to the body and blood of Christ. See James 2:10. Someone who tramples on his country’s flag insults his country; and someone who treats the symbols of Christ’s body and blood irreverently is guilty of irreverence toward Christ. The inference that he is so evil that he would have joined in the crucifixion of the Lord or that he makes himself share in the guilt of his death does not miss the truth.

It is also obvious that this passage affords no ground for either the Roman Catholic or the Lutheran view of the local presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament just because an insult to the appointed symbol of his body is an insult to his body itself. Neither does the passage countenance the doctrine (held by both Roman Catholics and Lutherans) that unbelievers who take Communion receive the body and blood of Christ. If they do not receive them, it is asked, how can they be guilty in respect of them? By treating them irreverently in their appointed symbols. Such guilt does not, therefore, require either that Christ’s body should be locally present or that the unworthy receiver should share that body, which is received only by faith. The irreverent use of either the bread or the cup in this ordinance involves the guilt that the apostle is speaking about here, because the indignity extends to the whole service.

But what does it mean to eat and drink in an unworthy manner? It is not to eat and drink in consciousness of our unworthiness, for a sense that we are not deserving is one of the conditions of acceptable communion. Christ came to heal not the healthy but the consciously sick. Nor is it to eat with doubt and misgiving of our being duly prepared to come to the Lord’s Table; for such doubts, although evidence of weak faith, indicate a better state of mind than indifference or false security. The Larger Catechism, answering the question whether a person who doubts whether he is in Christ may come to the Lord’s Supper, says:

One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity; in that case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of the weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s Supper, that he may be further strengthened.

To eat or drink in an unworthy manner is in general to come to the Lord’s Table in a careless, irreverent spirit, without the intention or desire to commemorate the death of Christ as the sacrifice for our sins, and without intending to comply with the commitments that we undertake in that service. The way in which the Corinthians ate unworthily was that they treated the Lord’s Table as though it were their own, making no distinction between the Lord’s Supper and an ordinary meal, coming together to satisfy their hunger and not to feed on the body and blood of Christ, and refusing to commune with their poorer brothers. This is all one, but it is not the only way in which people may eat and drink unworthily. All that is necessary to note is that the warning is directly against the careless and profane, and not against the timid and the doubting.

28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

This is the third inference from the account of the Lord’s Supper that Paul had received. It requires self-examination and preparation in order to be worthily received. If it is a commemoration of Christ’s death, if we are therein made partakers of his body and blood, if we contract such guilt by eating and drinking unworthily—in other words, if such blessings accompany the worthy reception of this ordinance, and such guilt accompanies our receiving it in an unworthy manner, it is evident that we should not approach it without due self-examination and preparation.

A man ought to examine himself. In other words, he should ascertain whether he has correct views of the nature and purpose of the ordinance and whether he has the proper state of mind. That is, whether he desires to commemorate the Lord’s death in thankfulness, to share in the benefits of that death as a sacrifice for his sins, publicly to accept the covenant of grace with all its promises and obligations, and to signify his fellowship with his brothers as joint members with himself of the body of Christ.

Before he eats. That is, after this self-examination and after making sure that he is properly prepared. It is not essential, however, that this preparation should include being assured of our good state, but simply that we have the intelligent desire to do what Christ requires of us when we come to his table. If we come humbly seeking him, he will welcome us and feed us with his bread; and if we eat it, we will never die.

29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

This verse gives the reason why self-examination is necessary in preparation for the Lord’s Supper: it is because anyone who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is, he incurs the manifestation of God’s displeasure by the act of eating. The word judgment in the Greek has no article—it is not “the judgment.” So the meaning obviously is that the unworthy eater contracts guilt; he exposes himself to God’s judgments. What kind of judgment the apostle had in mind is clear from the next verse, where he refers to sickness and death. This verse is only a repetition of the idea expressed in verse 27, where he who eats unworthily is said to contract guilt with respect to the body of the Lord.

Without recognizing. That is, because he does not recognize the body of the Lord. The word translated recognizing means separating, then causing to differ (as in 4:7), and also judge of, either in the sense of discriminating one thing from another or in the sense of estimating aright. This passage may, therefore, mean not discriminating the Lord’s body—that is, making no difference between the bread in the sacrament and ordinary food; or it may mean not estimating it aright, not reverencing it as the appointed symbol of the Lord’s body. In either case the offense is the same. The basis of the condemnation incurred is regarding and treating the elements in the Lord’s Supper as though there was nothing to distinguish them from ordinary bread and wine. Here, as before, it is the careless and profane who are warned.

There is, therefore, nothing in these passages that should surround the Lord’s Table with gloom. We are not called to the mount covered with clouds and darkness, from which the signs of wrath come, but to Mount Zion, to the home of mercy and grace, where all is love—the dying love of him who never breaks the bruised reed.

30. This is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

This is why. That is, because those who share in the Lord’s Supper unworthily incur God’s judgment, many among you are weak and sick. Commentators make a distinction between these words: the weak are those whose strength decays by itself, as it were; the sick are those made infirm by illness. The latter is the stronger term.

And a number of you have fallen asleep. That is, have already died. As there is nothing in the context to intimate that these terms are being used figuratively of moral infirmities and spiritual decline, they should be taken in their literal sense. Paul knew that the prevailing sickness and frequent deaths among the Christians of Corinth were a judgment from God because of the irreverent way they had celebrated the Lord’s Supper.

31. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.

“These afflictions are judgments from God because of your sin in this matter,” for if we judged ourselves—that is, if we examined ourselves and prepared ourselves for the Lord’s Table, we would not come under judgment—that is, we would not afflicted like this. It is because we do not sit in judgment on ourselves that God judges us.

32. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

These judgments were chastisements designed for the benefit of those who suffered, to bring them to repentance, that they might not be finally condemned with the world—that is, with unbelievers. The world often means mankind as distinguished from the church, or those chosen out of the world. “They are not of the world, even as I am not of it” (John 17:16). What Paul says of the purpose of these judgments proves that even the extreme irreverence with which he charges the Corinthians in reference to the Lord’s Supper was not an unpardonable sin.

33–34. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

The two great evils connected with the observance of the Lord’s Supper at Corinth were, first, that it was not a communion—one took his supper before another (verse 21); and, second, they came to the Lord’s Table to satisfy their hunger. That is, they made it an ordinary meal. They thus sinned against their brothers (verse 22), and they sinned against Christ (verse 27). In the conclusion, therefore, of the whole discussion Paul exhorts them to correct these evils, to wait for each other and make it a joint service, and to satisfy their hunger at home and come together only to commemorate the Lord’s death. Mildly as this exhortation is expressed, it is enforced by the solemn warning already given: that it may not result in judgment—that is, so as to incur God’s displeasure.

When I come I will give further directions. It seems there were other irregularities of less importance than those mentioned above, which the apostle leaves to be corrected until he visits Corinth again. Paul’s letters abound in evidence of the plenary authority exercised by the apostles over the churches.

The word directions implies authoritative direction; see 7:17; 16:1; Matthew 11:1. The apostles were given great authority, as the representatives of Christ—to teach his doctrines, to organize the church and determine its form of government, and to regulate its worship. And what they ordained has binding force on the church to this day. What Paul teaches in this chapter concerning the nature of the Lord’s Supper and how it should be celebrated has determined the views and practice of evangelical Christians in every part of the world.

The festivals of the Jews, especially the Passover, as well as the sacrificial feasts of the Gentiles, were social meals, and our Lord instituted this ordinance in connection with the Paschal supper. So it is no wonder that the early Christians should have generally combined it with a social meal, or that this custom should have continued so long in the church. Nor is it surprising that the social element in this combined service should so often have prevailed over the religious one. It is clear from this chapter that this was so to a lamentable degree in Corinth, and it is probable from Jude 12 that the evil was by no means confined to Corinth. That apostle, speaking of certain sensual people, says, “These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm.”

Hence the unspeakable importance of the instructions and directions given by Paul, which are specially designed to separate the Lord’s Supper as a religious rite from the social element with which it was combined. The apostle urges that neither the sacrament itself, nor any feast with which it might be connected, should be regarded as the occasion of satisfying hunger. The communion of saints and the commemoration of the death of Christ as a sacrifice for our sins are the only legitimate objects that could be contemplated in the service. And by exhibiting the intimate fellowship with the Lord involved in the right use of this ordinance and the dreadful consequences of taking part unworthily, he has raised it to a purely religious service and made it the highest act of worship.

From one extreme the church gradually passed over to the opposite. From regarding it as it had been in Corinth, little more than an ordinary meal, it came to be regarded as an awful mystery, a sacrifice that the people were to witness and in which they were to adore the Redeemer as locally present in his corporeal nature under the form of a wafer!

This unscriptural view had taken so strong a hold of the mind of the church that Luther found it impossible to stop believing in the local presence of Christ’s real body in this sacrament. Even Calvin could not stop being convinced not only of its supernatural character (which everybody admits if they regard it as a means of grace), but also of its being truly miraculous. It was only after a severe struggle that the Reformed church got back to the simple, yet sublime view of the ordinance presented by the apostle Paul.

The danger has often since been that the church should go back to the Corinthian extreme and look on the Lord’s Supper as a simple commemoration involving nothing supernatural either in its nature of in its effects. Our only safety is in adhering strictly to the teachings of the Scriptures. The apostle tells us, on the authority of a direct revelation from the Lord himself, that while the ordinance is designed as a memorial of Christ’s death, it involves sharing his body and blood—not their material substance, but their sacrificial efficacy; so that (as the Larger Catechism puts it):

Although the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper; and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal or carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death.

By instruction and by example Christ instituted two ordinances, baptism and Communion, ordinances that those who believe in Him are to follow faithfully. Jesus commanded His disciples to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19), following His own example of being baptized by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:13–17). During His last Passover meal in the upper room Jesus initiated the Communion (or Lord’s Supper, as it has come to be known), telling the disciples to continue the ordinance as a remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19–20).

Paul had been faithful in establishing these ordinances in Corinth. Although he did not personally baptize many of the believers there (1 Cor. 1:14–16), he affirmed baptism as a non–optional act of obedience to the Lord. The present passage makes it clear that the Corinthians regularly celebrated the Lord’s Supper, in which the apostle had shared with them many times.

It was not incidental that Christ initiated Communion rites during the Passover meal. God instituted the Passover when He delivered His people from their 400 years of bondage in Egypt. The meal celebrated the death angel’s passing over the houses of those whose doorposts and lintels were smeared with lamb’s blood. The lamb itself was roasted and eaten, along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. “Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance” (Ex. 12:1–14). Throughout her history Israel celebrated this meal in remembrance of the Lord’s supreme deliverance of them, from Egypt to the Promised Land. It is still the holiest of Jewish feasts.

Jesus transformed the Passover meal into the celebration of the infinitely greater deliverance He came to bring, of which the Passover was only a foreshadow When we eat His body and drink His blood, we remember the spiritual and eternal redemption that He bought with the sacrifice of that body and the offering of that blood. The Passover celebrated the temporary, physical deliverance of the Old Covenant. The Lord’s Supper celebrates the permanent and spiritual deliverance of the New. “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). The Lord’s table reminds us of the cross of Jesus Christ.

Luke tells us that the four marks of the daily life of early Christians were obedience to apostolic teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42). We may be sure that the breaking of bread included frequent celebration of the Lord’s death with the bread and the cup. Some scholars and historians of the early church believe that in some households Communion was celebrated at every meal.

The early church developed special fellowship meals that came to be called love feasts (Jude 12) and that usually were closed with the observance of Communion. Those were congregational meals stressing fellowship, affection, and mutual caring among the believers. The emphasis on oneness led very readily into a celebration of the unifying accomplishment of the Savior on the cross. The church at Corinth followed this custom but, like those whom Peter condemns (2 Pet. 2:13), they had turned the meals into gluttonous, drunken revelry. And when the meal was connected to the bread and cup remembrance, it was a flagrant desecration of the holy ordinance.

When he introduced the discussion of women’s head coverings, Paul praised the Corinthians for holding firmly to the doctrines he had taught them (11:2). Now he has no praise. But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.

Giving … instruction (parangellō) means “to command,” specifically to give a charge or order. The basic idea of the word is “to pass along from one to another.” It was used especially for the order given by a military commander and passed along the line by his subordinates. Paul made it clear that what he was about to say was not merely personal advice. It was apostolic instruction that his readers were commanded to accept and follow.

It would have been much better for those Corinthians never to have had a love feast, and even never to have observed the Lord’s Communion, than to have so abused them. They came together not for the better but for the worse. The term for worse is a comparative of kakos, which represents moral evil. Instead of the celebrations being times of loving fellowship and spiritual enrichment they involved selfish indulgence, shaming the poorer brethren, mocking the Lord’s sacrificial death, and scandalizing the church before the unbelieving world around them.

In calling the Corinthians to sanctity in their observance of the Lord’s Supper, Paul discusses their perversion of it, the Lord’s purpose for it, and the right preparation for it.

The Perversion of the Lord’s Supper

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shah I say to you? Shah I praise you? In this I will not praise you. (11:18–22)

Church (ekklēsia) means “assembly,” or “congregation,” and in the New Testament is never used of a building or meeting place but always of believers. Apparently wherever and whenever the Corinthian Christians got together they bickered and quarreled. When you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you. Divisions (schismata, from which we get schism) literally refers to tearing or cutting, and metaphorically to division or dissension. The Corinthians apparently could not agree on anything, nor did they seek to serve each other. Instead of sharing together in fellowship and worship they spent their time in selfish indulgence, arguing, and disputing. Perhaps because he suspected that some of the reports had been exaggerated, the apostle wanted to give them the benefit of any doubt. So he added, and in part, I believe it.

Yet the reports would not have been hard to believe. Paul began this letter by strongly rebuking them for their divisions based on party loyalties (1:10–17; 3:1–3). Those divisions inevitably ended in “quarrels” (v. 11). The believers were also divided socially, as this passage indicates. Those who were well off brought their food and selfishly ate it before the poorer members arrived. Far from having “all things in common” and “sharing … with all, as anyone might have need,” as did the first Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 2:44), the Corinthian upper class disdained even sharing in a “pot luck supper” with their less fortunate brothers and sisters. It was every person for himself.

Paul’s first appeal to them had been, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). “As fellow followers of Christ you ought to have the same understanding, the same opinions, the same attitude, the same outlook,” he was saying. The reasons for their division were carnality, selfishness, and worldliness. “I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ” (3:1). They were walking in the flesh rather than in the Spirit and following their own wills rather than the Lord’s.

One of the most fearful things in the church is division, because it is one of the first and surest signs of spiritual sickness. One of the first symptoms of worldliness and backsliding, often before it shows up in compromised doctrine or life–style, is dissension within a congregation.

Paul was well aware that division cannot be entirely avoided. Until the Lord returns, there will always be tares among the wheat, and disobedient believers as well. For there must also be factions among you. There … must be translates the single word dei, which means “it is necessary” or “it must be,” and denotes necessity or compulsion of any kind. When Peter and the other apostles were told by the Sanhedrin to stop preaching the gospel, they replied, “We must [dei] obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The word is often used in the New Testament to represent divine necessity. Jesus used the term on numerous occasions in relation to certain scripturally predicted and divinely appointed events, including His crucifixion and resurrection (Matt. 24:6; 26:54; John 3:14; etc.). He even said, “For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!” (Matt. 18:7). That is the sense in which Paul uses the term here.

The paradox is that it was necessary for there to be factions in the Corinthian church in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you. The worldliness and fleshly disobedience of those who caused the divisions would expose and highlight the love, harmony, and spirituality of those who are approved. Approved (dokimos) refers to that which has passed a test. The term was used of precious metals tried in fire and proved to be pure. Church division, ungodly and sinful as it is, nevertheless is used by the Lord to prove the worth of His faithful saints. In the midst of bickering and divisiveness they are separated out as pure gold is from the dross. Evil helps manifest good. Trouble in the church creates a situation in which true spiritual strength, wisdom, and leadership can be manifested.

Paul spoke to the Thessalonians of the dokimos, those who “have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel” (1 Thess. 2:4). In every congregation of believers God has His approved people in whom He entrusts the work of His church. Those approved ones are especially made manifest in adversity and hardship, and it is only to such tried and tested saints that a church should entrust its leadership. A major cause of pastors, missionaries, and other Christian leaders leaving the ministry or being unproductive in it is that they are not approved, they are not fully qualified spiritually in the first place to do the Lord’s work. “Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial,” James says, “for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him” (James 1:12).

Factions are not merely disruptive; they are destructive. Initially they help reveal the strong, spiritual leaders, but when left unchallenged they will undermine any Christian group and are not to be tolerated. “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,” Paul wrote Titus, “knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self–condemned” (Titus 3:10–11). By the very fact that he is factious and divisive a person proves his carnality and his unfitness to be a part of the Christian fellowship. It is necessary that factions appear, but it is not necessary that they be tolerated or allowed to lead to division in the church.

The focal point of this evil was the Lord’s Supper. The term deipnon (Supper) was the normal word used for the evening meal. The addition of the Lord’s gives it special and much greater significance. This was a genuine meal, where the church congregated to eat the “love feast,” a meal followed by the Communion. The Communion was connected to this supper in the Corinthian church, but abuses were obscuring its divine purpose and destroying its sanctity. In the early church the love feast and Communion customarily were held together, but abuses such as those in Corinth eventually forced the two to be separated in order to protect the Communion. The love feast soon disappeared altogether.

The factious members of the Corinthian church had so perverted the congregation that the celebration of Communion was a mockery; in fact it was not Communion at all. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. They could not properly say it was devoted to the Lord. Neither the meal nor the Communion was honoring to Him. They had the ceremony but not the reality, the form but not the substance. “You may be breaking some bread, passing the cup, and repeating some of Jesus’ words,” Paul said in effect, “but what you are doing has nothing to do with the ordinance the Lord instituted. Christ has no part in it.”

For in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. The poorer believers came to the supper expecting to share in the food brought by the wealthy, but they went away hungry—physically as well as spiritually. Those who brought food and drink gorged themselves and became drunk. They mocked the very purpose of the occasion, which was to bring harmony and unity among those who belonged to Christ, as they remembered His sacrifice to make them one in Him. “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16–17).

In seeming frustration, as if trying to find a rational explanation, Paul asks, What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? If they intended to selfishly indulge themselves, could they not do that at home? Or were they actually trying to destroy the fellowship by flagrantly despising God’s church? Or were they so contemptuous of their poor brothers and sisters in Christ that they purposely embarrassed and shamed them? Whatever the reasons may have been, they could not justify the harm being brought to the church. If they could not show love, why have a love feast?

Again Paul tells them that he can say nothing in their defense. What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. “You will get no approval from me,” he said. “And you will certainly get no praise.”

A Christian’s attitudes and motives should be pure at all times. But when believers come to the table of the Lord, sharing the bread of His body and the cup of His blood, it is absolutely necessary that they leave behind all sin, all bitterness, all racial and sexual prejudice, all class pride, and all feelings of superiority. Of all places and occasions, those attitudes are most out place at the Lord’s Supper. They grievously profane that holy, beautiful, and unifying ordinance of God.

The Purpose of the Lord’s Table

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. (11:23–26)

These verses are like a diamond dropped in a muddy road. One of the most beautiful passages in all of Scripture is given in the middle of a strong rebuke of worldly, carnal, selfish, and insensitive attitudes and behavior. The rebuke, in fact, is of Christians who have perverted the very ceremony that these verses so movingly describe.

As he often did when about to present an especially important or controversial truth, Paul makes it clear that what he is teaching is not his own opinion but God’s revealed Word. From the tenses in verse 23 we know that what he is about to tell the Corinthian believers is not new to them. He is reminding them of what he had already taught them. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you.

Most conservative scholars agree that I Corinthians probably was written before any of the gospels. If that is true, Paul’s account here is the first biblical record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and includes direct quotations from Jesus. It is perfectly consistent with the gospel accounts, but Paul’s revelation most likely was received from the Lord directly, not through the other apostles (cf. Gal. 1:10–12), even though the terms here speak of a chain of tradition that had come from the Lord to Paul and then to the Corinthians.

In the night in which He was betrayed gives the historical setting, which many of the believers may not have known, because, as just noted, probably none of the gospels was yet written. Again we see a jewel against a filthy backdrop. This most beautiful and meaningful of Christian celebrations was instituted on the very night the Lord was betrayed and arrested. In the midst of the world’s evil, God establishes His good; in the midst of Satan’s wickedness, God plants His holiness. Just as, by contrast, the fleshly factions cause the Lord’s approved saints to “become evident” (11:19), so Jesus’ betrayal and arrest cause His gracious sacrifice to become more evident. In the midst of Satan’s absolute worst, the condemnation of the Son of God on the cross, God accomplished His absolute best, the sacrifice for the redemption of the world through that cross.

Although Jesus was celebrating the Passover meal with His disciples in the upper room, neither the gospels nor Paul’s account here give all the details of the meal. They concentrate on Jesus’ institution of the new meal, the new supper, which now supersedes the old.

The Passover meal began with the host’s pronouncing a blessing over the first cup of red wine and passing it to the others present. Four cups of wine were passed around during the meal. After the first cup was drunk bitter herbs dipped in a fruit sauce were eaten and a message was given on the meaning of Passover. Then the first part of a hymn, the Hallel (which means “praise” and is related to hallelujah, “praise ye the Lord”), was sung. The Hallel is comprised of Psalms 113–118, and the first part sung was usually 113 or 113 and 114. After the second cup was passed, the host would break and pass around the unleavened bread. Then the meal proper, which consisted of the roasted sacrificial lamb, was eaten. The third cup, after prayer, was then passed and the rest of the Hallel was sung. The fourth cup, which celebrated the coming kingdom, was drunk immediately before leaving.

It was the third cup that Jesus blessed and that became the cup of Communion. “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood’ ” (Luke 22:20). After Jesus gave some brief words of warning, rebuke, and instruction (vv. 21–38), the meal was concluded with the singing of a hymn (Matt. 26:30).

When He, that is, Jesus, had given thanks, He broke it (cf. John 6:11). In the Greek had given thanks is a participle of eucharisteō, from which we get Eucharist, the name by which some Christians refer to the Lord’s Supper.

The bread that had represented the Exodus now came to represent the body of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. To the Jewish mind the body represented the whole person, not just his physical body. Jesus’ body represents the great mystery of His whole incarnate life, His whole teaching, ministry, and work—all He was and all He did.

The word broken (as in the KJV of verse 24) does not appear in the best manuscripts or in most modern translations. Though the Romans frequently broke the legs of crucified victims in order to hasten death as an act of mercy John specifically tells us that Jesus’ legs were not broken. In order “that the Scripture might be fulfilled, ‘Not a bone of Him shall be broken’ ” (John 19:33, 36). The best reading therefore is simply This is My body, which is for you.

For you are two of the most beautiful words in all of Scripture. Jesus gave His body, His entire incarnate life, for us who believe in Him. “I became a man for you; I gave the gospel to you; I suffered for you; and I died for you.” Our gracious, loving, magnanimous, merciful God became incarnate not for Himself but for us. Whether a person wants and receives the benefit of that sacrifice is his choice; but Jesus made it and offers it for every person. He paid the ransom for everyone who will be freed.

The cup that had represented the lamb’s blood smeared on the doorposts and lintels now came to represent the blood of the Lamb of God, shed for the salvation of the world. The Old Covenant was ratified repeatedly by the blood of animals offered by men; but the New Covenant has been ratified once and for all by the blood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:28), which God Himself has offered. The old deliverance was merely from Egypt to Canaan. So Jesus took the cup and said it is the new covenant in My blood. It is important to realize that this was not new in the sense that it was a covenant of grace replacing one of works. It is new in that it is the saving covenant to which all the Old Testament shadows pointed. The new deliverance is from sin to salvation, from death to life, from Satan’s realm to God’s heaven. Passover was transformed into the Lord’s Supper. We now eat the bread and drink the cup not to remember the Red Sea and the Exodus but to remember the cross and the Savior.

Do this in remembrance of Me is a command from the lips of our Lord Himself. Sharing in the Lord’s Supper is therefore not an option for believers. We must have Communion on a regular basis if we are to be faithful to the Lord who bought us through the act we are called to remember. Not to partake of the Lord’s Supper is disobedience and a sin.

For the Hebrew to remember meant much more than simply to bring something to mind, merely to recall that it happened. To truly remember is to go back in one’s mind and recapture as much of the reality and significance of an event or experience as one possibly can. To remember Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross is to relive with Him His life, agony, suffering, and death as much as is humanly possible. When we partake of the Lord’s Supper we do not offer a sacrifice again; we remember His once–for–all sacrifice for us and rededicate ourselves to His obedient service.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. As often as we are willing to remember and to proclaim the death of Christ, we will celebrate Communion. No frequency is given, but it is a permanent feast. It is more than a remembrance for our own sakes; it is also a proclamation for the world’s sake. It is a testimony to the world that we are not ashamed of our Lord or of His blood, that we belong to Him and are obedient to Him.

Communion is also a reminder of the Lord’s coming again, for He tells us to proclaim His death by this means until He comes. It helps keep us looking forward to the day when we will be with Him. It is a celebration of His present life and of His future return in glory.

There is much involved in that remembrance. When a believer comes to the Lord’s table, he remembers Christ’s work on the cross (11:25), he partakes of Christ’s spiritual presence in the fellowship, not the elements themselves (10:16), he communes with the saints (10:17), he worships in holiness (10:20–22), he proclaims salvation in Christ (11:24–25), and he anticipates the return of the Lord (11:26) and the coming Kingdom (Matt. 26:29).

The Preparation for the Lord’s Supper

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come. (11:27–34)

Again Paul returns to warning. Because of all that is involved in the ordinance, whoever participates in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. One can come to His table unworthily in many ways. It is common for people to participate in it ritualistically, without participating with their minds and hearts. They can go through the motions without going through any emotions, and treat it lightly rather than seriously. They can believe it imparts grace or merit, that the ceremony itself, rather than the sacrifice it represents, can save or keep one saved. Many come with a spirit of bitterness or hatred toward another believer, or come with a sin of which they will not repent. If a believer comes with anything less than the loftiest thoughts of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and anything less than total love for his brothers and sisters in Christ, he comes unworthily.

To come unworthily to the Lord’s table is to become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. To trample our country’s flag is not to dishonor a piece of cloth but to dishonor the country it represents. To come unworthily to Communion does not simply dishonor the ceremony; it dishonors the One in whose honor it is celebrated. We become guilty of dishonoring His body and blood, which represent His total gracious life and work for us, His suffering and death on our behalf. We become guilty of mocking and treating with indifference the very person of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 7:52; Heb. 6:6; 10:29).

Every time he comes to the Lord’s Supper, therefore, a person should examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. Before we partake we are to give ourselves a thorough self–examination, looking honestly at our hearts for anything that should not be there and sifting out all evil. Our motives, our attitudes toward the Lord and His Word, toward His people, and toward the Communion service itself should all come under private scrutiny before the Lord. The table thus becomes a special place for the purifying of the church. That is a vital use of Communion, and Paul’s warning reinforces that ideal.

A person who partakes without coming in the right spirit eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. Judgment (krima) here has the idea of chastisement. Because “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1), the KJV rendering of damnation is especially unfortunate. The great difference in Paul’s use here of krima (judgment) and katakrima (condemned) is seen in verse 32, where it is clear that krima refers to discipline of the saved and katakrima refers to condemnation of the lost. That chastening comes if he does not judge the body rightly, that is, the blood and body used in Communion. To avoid God’s judgment, one must properly discern and respond to the holiness of the occasion.

The types of chastening the Lord may use are illustrated in verse 30. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. God does not eternally condemn those who abuse the Lord’s table, but His punishment may be severe illness. Sleep is here, as in several other places in the New Testament, used metaphorically to speak of the death of believers (as of Lazarus, John 11:11; and Stephen, Acts 7:60). God actually put to death a number (hikanos, lit., “sufficient”) of believers in Corinth because they continually despised and corrupted the Supper of His Son, just as He had put to death Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1–11). As in the Old Testament, such divine executions were to serve as examples of what all sinners deserve, and might receive (cf. Luke 13:1–5).

There is a remedy for unworthiness. If we judged ourselves rightly, we should not be judged. This involves discerning what we are and what we ought to be. If we confess our sins, our wrong attitudes and motives, God “is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

As has already been mentioned, if we come unworthily and are judged by God, it is not for condemnation. It is for the very opposite. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world. God sends individual chastening to push offenders back toward righteous behavior, and sends death to some in the church to encourage those who remain to choose holiness rather than sin. Even if the Lord were to strike us dead for profaning His table, it would be to discipline us, to keep us from being condemned. The thought is powerful. We are kept from condemnation not only by decree, but also by divine intervention. God chastens us to keep us from falling from salvation, and will even take our life, if need be, before that could happen.

Paul closes by admonishing the Corinthians to get their lives and their attitudes straightened out, to completely discard their prejudices, their selfishness, and their indifference to God’s holy ordinance. The fact that he says when you come together to eat assumes that he supported the idea of their fellowship meal, but they should wait for one another before they partake of it. If any were only attending in order to satisfy their physical hunger they should eat at home. Otherwise they pervert the love feast. When they come to the love feast, and especially to the Lord’s table, they should come to satisfy their spiritual hunger. There is no point in gathering to sin, because that is simply coming together for judgment.

Because they are mentioned here, rather than at the close of the letter, Paul’s closing remarks in this section, the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come, must refer to other issues related to worship, the Lord’s Supper, or both. He would take care of those matters when he arrived in Corinth personally.

VIII. Divisions at the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34)

Exegesis and Exposition

17But in instructing this, I do not salute you, because you do not assemble together for the better but for the worse. 18For in the first place, I hear that when you assemble together as a church, divisions exist among you, and I believe a certain report. 19For it is necessary that there be factions among you in order that the elite might be evident among you. 20Therefore, when you assemble together at the same place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21For each one devours his or her own supper during the meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22For do you not have homes in which to eat and to drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame the “have-nots”? What shall I say? Shall I salute you? In this [matter] I will not salute you.

23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was handed over, took a loaf; 24and when he gave thanks, he broke it and said, “❐This❒ is my body ❐which is for you❒. Do this unto my remembrance.” 25And in the same way [he] also [took] the cup after eating, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, unto my remembrance.” 26For as often as you eat this loaf and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the loaf and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be liable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a person examine himself or herself and in this manner eat from the loaf and drink from the cup. 29❐For the one who eats and drinks❒, eats and drinks condemnation on himself or herself by ❐not discerning the body❒. 30Because of this, many among you are sick and ill, and quite enough are dying. 31But if we were examining ourselves, we would not be judged. 32But while being judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined in order that we may not be condemned with the world. 33So then, my brothers and sisters, as you assemble together in order to eat, welcome one another. 34If anyone is hungry, let him or her eat at home, so that you do not assemble together for your condemnation. As for the other things, I will direct you whenever I come.

11:17–18 Paul raises another, more serious issue regarding the Corinthians’ assembly, and this time he begins on a reproachful note.2 He cannot salute them (cf. 11:2) for what they are doing but instead upbraids them because of reports of serious abuses when they gather as a church. The verb “to come together” or “to assemble” (συνέρχεσθαι, synerchesthai) occurs five times in this section (11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34) and elsewhere in Paul’s letters only in 14:23, 26 (cf. 7:5). The phrase ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ (en ekklēsia, 11:18) does not mean when they assemble “in the church,” as if he were thinking of a church building. Ἐκκλησία does not mean the place of meeting in the NT. He refers to them gathering “as a church,” that is, “in assembly” (14:19, 28, 35), and the phrase was not unique to Christians. He understands the Christian assembly, however, to be unique in its purpose and substance. He says nothing about how frequently, when, or where they meet. We can surmise that they gathered on Sunday evenings (1 Cor. 16:2; cf. Did. 14:1), and worshipers may have stayed late into the night (cf. Acts 20:7–12). If they met in the home of a wealthier member that was large enough to accommodate the group (Acts 18:8; Rom. 16:5, 23; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15), then space limitations, Murphy-O’Connor (1983: 158–59) claims, would have demanded discrimination between those guests who were invited to recline in the triclinium (dining room) and the others squeezed into second-class facilities in the atrium (see Osiek and Balch 1997: 201–3).

Paul’s accusation is that the meal that was supposed to be a sign of their integration and unity has become a flash point highlighting their inequality and alienation. This calamitous state of affairs, which could only feed arrogance and nourish bitterness, makes him wish that they had no group meal at all. Their assembly is not simply a waste of time; it is downright harmful. Paul specifies the harmful effects in the third part of this section: they become liable for the body and blood of the Lord (11:27); they incur condemnation (11:29, 32); and they are beset by sickness and death (11:30).

“For in the first place” (πρῶτον μὲν γάρ, prōton men gar, first of all) becomes emphatic (R. Collins 1999: 421) since no “second” follows. Paul may have started out with other matters in mind, but by the time he concludes this unit in 11:34, he decides he will raise them when he comes in person. All other problems about their gatherings pale beside the seriousness of this distressing news. The “divisions” (σχίσματα, schismata) that he is concerned about are not theological schisms (cf. 1:10). They are rooted in the socioeconomic gulf between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” as 11:22 makes clear. The rifts mentioned in 1:10 become dramatically evident when they assemble to eat the Lord’s Supper. Godet (1887: 139) poignantly refers to their Lord’s Supper as “a theatre of discord.” Murphy-O’Connor’s (1996: 273) analysis of the cause of these divisions bears repeating:

The potential for dissension within the community is evident. Most members had in common only their Christianity. They differed widely in educational attainment, financial resources, religious background, political skills, and above all in their expectations. A number were attracted to the church because it seemed to offer them a new field of opportunity, in which the talents whose expression society frustrated could be exploited to the full. They were energetic and ambitious people, and there was little agreement among their various hidden agendas. A certain competitive spirit was part of the ethos of the church from the beginning.

Paul views these divisions as nullifying the very purpose for gathering together for worship in the name of Christ. It contradicts what the Lord’s Supper proclaims as the foundation of the church: Christ’s sacrificial giving of his life for others.

The phrase καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω (kai meros ti pisteuō) may express his caution about believing rumors or appearing overly suspicious of them: “and I in part believe it.” He may not want to credit such a scandalous tale, yet the persons who inform him are presumed to be credible (Godet 1887: 138–39; Robertson and Plummer 1914: 239; Barrett 1968: 261). He comments on their factionalism in the opening chapters, and such news could not have been a surprise. M. Mitchell (1993: 263–64) thinks that he expresses “mock disbelief” for rhetorical effect (cf. Witherington 1995: 247; R. Horsley 1998: 158). Hays (1997: 195) avers that he sounds a note of incredulity, “I can’t believe it,” to heighten the outrageousness of what they are doing. Winter (2001: 159–63) argues convincingly, however, that μέρος carries a wide range of meanings in the NT and in literary and nonliterary sources and that it refers here to a “matter” (2 Cor. 9:3) or “report” and should not be translated adverbially (“partly”). Winter contends that Paul means that he is convinced of the report he has received from Chloe’s people about their factions (1 Cor. 1:10), which included tales of their fragmentation during the Lord’s Supper, and thinks that the phrase should be translated, “I believe a certain report.”

11:19 One finds the explanatory statement “for it is necessary that there be factions among you” (δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, dei gar kai haireseis en hymin einai) to be rather surprising in light of Paul’s condemnation of factiousness in 1:10–17. Does he now tolerate Christ’s being divided? In Gal. 5:20, the noun αἱρέσεις stands alongside διχοστασίαι (dichostasiai, dissensions) in the list of the works of the flesh, which suggests that the cause of such divisions is “not necessarily to be found in points of doctrine: it may simply be a matter of personal rivalries and matters of prestige and honor” (Simon 1979: 109). If that is the case, why does Paul say that these αἱρέσεις are necessary?

Some think that the factions serve some kind of divine purpose and interpret this statement from an eschatological perspective and from an agraphon that has Jesus predict that the end times will occasion heresies and divisions (cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 35.3; Syriac Didascalia 6.5.2; Pseudo-Clementine, Homilies 2.17.4; 16.21.4; see Paulsen 1982; Schrage 1999: 21–22). If this view is correct, Paul understands that a differentiation among believers is necessary to separate the true from the false (see Horrell 1996: 150–51). This statement then sets up the theme of judgment and condemnation in 1 Cor. 11:27–32. The γάρ (gar, for), however, indicates that this statement provides the evidence for Paul’s dismay in the previous verse. It explains why he cannot praise them. It is misleading to label it a slight digression (Kistemaker 1993: 387) or a “theological aside” (Fee 1987: 537). He is not describing some preliminary separation of the wheat from the chaff in preparation for the final judgment (contra Conzelmann 1975: 194; Fee 1987: 538–39). If that were the case, why would this statement not also apply to the division of Christ that he laments in 1:10–17? In the mess that Paul describes here, who is shown to be faithful and truly worshipful? The divisions at the Corinthian Lord’s Supper do not reveal who the tried and true Christians are. Instead, they reveal a church that has failed to take to heart the message of the cross.

R. Campbell (1991: 65–67) argues that the sense of the passage must control the understanding of the words. This is sometimes a dangerous approach, but here I find it helpful. Paul is not uttering a sigh about the inevitability of such splits among church members. The divisions at the Lord’s Supper are between those who are sated (though Paul uses the word “drunk,” μεθύει, methyei, 11:21) and those who go hungry. They have chosen (the noun αἵρεσις derives from the verb “to choose”) to divide themselves along socioeconomic lines, and so they stand in danger of condemnation. It is far more likely that he expresses bitter irony about these factions rather than affirming their eschatological necessity. If that is the case, he does not use the οἱ δόκιμοι (hoi dokimoi) in a favorable sense to mean those who will show themselves to be the “outstanding Christians” (Barrett 1968: 262). Rather, οἱ δόκιμοι denotes the “dignitaries” (R. Campbell 1991: 68; Snyder 1992: 155–56; cf. Philo, Jos. 34 §201). Certainly, those likely to be invited to recline in the triclinium would come from the ranks of the most dignified members of the church. R. Campbell (1991: 69–70) infers that the upper-crust Corinthians fancied themselves as οἱ δόκιμοι and concludes that Paul refers to “the requirement foisted on the Corinthian church by its well-to-do members.” Campbell translates 11:19, “For there actually has to be discrimination in your meetings, so that, if you please, the elite may stand out from the rest.” This reading has not been accepted by recent commentators (see, however, C. Porter 1989: 36; R. Horsley 1998: 159), but it makes the best sense of the historical context as many now reconstruct it. The splits at the Lord’s Supper are imposed by prideful, insensitive humans seeking to differentiate the top-drawer members from the common rabble. The tragedy is that they impose this discrimination of persons at the observance of the Lord’s Supper. In 11:28, Paul encourages them to test (δοκιμάζειν, dokimazein) themselves by a different measure. Those tested and approved by God (Rom. 16:10; 2 Tim. 2:15; cf. 1 Cor. 9:27) are, more often than not, quite different from the dignitaries who stand out according to worldly standards.

11:20–21 Gathering “at the same place” (or “for the same purpose”) becomes a technical term for the assembly of the church (Acts 1:15; 2:1, 44; 1 Cor. 14:23). Schweizer (1959: 400) surmises that the NT does not apply the usual terms of the cult (sacrifice, offering, worship) to the assembling of the church in order to avoid any hint that their gathering is analogous to the cults in the Jewish temple or in Greek temples. The cultic terms are used for everyday service of church members to one another or to the world (Rom. 12:1). What becomes important is that the whole church gathers together. Presumably, they assemble in a house large enough to accommodate the group. Behavior that might be acceptable in the privacy of one’s own home, however, may not be appropriate in the church gathering (Blue 1991: 227). This is particularly true for the church’s common meal. The Lord’s Supper celebrated by the Corinthians appears to have been a full meal in which the more affluent members may have supplied the bread and wine but each member brought his or her own food.

The meaning of the verb προλαμβάνειν (prolambanein) in 11:21 becomes crucial for ascertaining the historical context. Many underscore the temporal force of the prefix προ- to render it “to take beforehand” (BDAG 872). The resulting picture is that each one “goes ahead without waiting for anybody else” (niv; see Murphy-O’Connor 1983: 160–61). Those who arrived first, according to this view, began eating and drinking on their own schedule, so that they had too much by the time the late arrivals appeared. P. Lampe (1991: 198–203) explains the situation by comparing it to the Greco-Roman dinner party with dinner at “first tables,” a break, and “second tables,” when other guests arrived (see P. Lampe 1994: 37; Osiek and Balch 1997: 199–200). The late arrivals probably are poor freedmen getting off from work and slaves who had no control over their personal schedules. Schrage (1999: 24–26) concludes that upper-status Christians held a meal from which lower-status Christians were excluded before the Lord’s Supper. Since the lower-status Christians were delayed by their work obligations, upper-status Christians seized the opportunity to enjoy a meal without them. Translating the command ἐκδέχεσθε (ekdechesthe) in 11:33 as “wait for one another” provides further support for this view.

As Theissen (1982: 151–55) reconstructs the scene, the wealthy not only began their private meal before the congregational meal, but also ate by themselves and had more to eat. Theissen’s sociological lens is an important breakthrough for interpreting this passage, but giving the verb προλαμβάνειν a temporal meaning is a slight misstep. Winter (1978: 75–77; see also Blue 1991: 230–31; Hofius 1993: 89–91; Hays 1997: 197; Eriksson 1998: 176) argues that the verb does not refer to the consumption of food before the arrival of others; it means “to eat or drink,” “to devour” (MM 542). The problem is not that some jump the gun by dining before everyone arrives and that Paul must respond by insisting that they restrain themselves and politely wait for the others to arrive. The problem is that they devour their own ample amounts of food in the presence of their fellow Christians who have little or nothing to eat. His complaint is this: During the common meal, each consumes his or her own individual food (Hofius 1993: 91). The disparity in the amounts that each one brings to consume results in one group being drunk and sated and another pinched with hunger.

The arguments for translating προλαμβάνειν as “partake” or “consume” are compelling. First, the preposition πρό need not add a temporal force to the verb but can be added to verbs to “strengthen the meaning” (Winter 1978: 76; 2001: 144). The verb προλαμβάνειν does not have a temporal meaning in Gal. 6:1 (cf. Wis. 17:16). It appears three times in an inscription (SIG 3.1170) on a stele in the Asclepius sanctuary at Epidaurus (second century) and clearly means “to eat.” Winter (1978: 74) cites a papyrus (P. Cairo Zenon 59562, line 12) in which the verb is used for providing a substantial amount of food for the king at a festival.

Second, the temporal rendering of the verb makes no sense in the context. If Paul says that “each one” (ἕκαστος, hekastos) goes ahead without waiting for the others in 11:21, then “each one” must be limited to the early arrivals. But why does he immediately say that one is drunk and the other hungry? The hungry must be the late arrivals, but he does not specifically say that a later wave of guests shows up famished, to find the first arrivals already stuffed and drunk. The phrase ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν (en tō phagein) does not imply a private meal eaten beforehand but refers to something that takes place in the presence of all—“during the meal.”3 The unacceptable behavior occurs during the eating of the common meal, not before (Winter 1978: 77–79; 2001: 148–51; Hofius 1993: 91–93), and “each one” is a collective reference.

Third, the argument for the temporal dimension of the verb loses all its force if the verb ἐκδέχεσθαι in 11:33 does not mean “to wait.” Logically, simply waiting for the “have-nots” (οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες, hoi mē echontes, 11:22b) would not overcome the problem of their hunger. Lexical evidence suggests that the verb ἐκδέχεσθαι means “to receive” with the idea of sharing (see below on 11:33).

“His own meal” (τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον, to idion deipnon) refers to individual persons or households bringing to the gathering their own meals prepared beforehand. The practice of “basket dinners,” or eranos (contribution) dinner parties, in which persons make up a dinner for themselves and pack it into a basket to go to another’s house to eat was well known (see Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 8.365AB, and other sources in P. Lampe 1991: 192–98). The American potluck dinner is a misleading comparison because that practice assumes that each brings something to share with others. Xenophon (Mem. 3.14.1) reports an incident from Socrates’ life that reveals that this sharing was not the norm in the ancient world. He recounts that whenever some who came together for dinner brought more meat and fish than others,

Socrates would tell the waiter either to put the small contributions into the common stock or to portion them out equally among the diners. So the ones who brought a lot felt obliged not only to take their share of the pool, but to pool their own supplies in return; and so they put their own food also into the common stock. Thus they got no more than those who brought little with them.

This egalitarian sentiment apparently did not hold sway at the Corinthians’ common meal. At their meal they divide into two groups, the well-to-do and the “have-nots.” Each partakes what he or she has brought. Since some have more than others, the upshot is that those with more gorge themselves in the presence of others who are hungry (cf. Jude 12). What Paul condemns is the callous behavior of the “haves” in front of the “have-nots,” which serves only to entrench the social disparity and to remind the poor of their wretchedness. He does not encourage the wealthy to withdraw to their own private meals but admonishes them to feed the hungry during the community’s shared meal (Henderson 2002).

Paul treats this state of affairs as something far more serious “than a breach of social etiquette” (Winter 1978: 73). They cannot label it the Lord’s Supper, he says, when they come together and act like this. It is their supper, not the Lord’s. It is not the Lord’s dinner because the Lord’s dinner is intended to convey to every participant that he or she is somebody precious to God. The Corinthians’ meal communicated to some that they were worthless nobodies. It was tainted by the deadly combination of indulgence and indifference. This selfish devouring (προλαμβάνειν) of their own food contrasts with Jesus’ taking bread (λαμβάνειν, 11:23). Both “take.” The Corinthians “take” on their own behalf; Jesus “takes” on behalf of others. The Corinthians act selfishly; Jesus acts unselfishly in giving his life for others. The Corinthians’ actions will lead to their condemnation; Jesus’ action leads to the salvation of others. Each believer gets an equal share of the benefits of his sacrifice. That reality should be symbolized by what happens during the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians’ observance of the Lord’s Supper, in which one has more than enough and gets drunk while another has too little and goes hungry, hardly proclaims the meaning of the Lord’s death for all. Call it what you will, but do not call it the Lord’s Supper.

11:22 Paul clearly addresses the “haves” in 11:22 (Barton 1986: 237). In the ancient world the poor did not have kitchens in their tiny apartments and prepared their food on portable grills or ate out at a fast-food shop (caupona, taberna, or thermopolium). The privileged had the luxury of eating in their homes. Osiek (1996: 12) notes that as a result, “For the poor, a formal meal was had only for special occasions sponsored by a civic benefactor or a benefactor of some other kind; thus the regular Christian community meal would have had far greater significance than a meal would among the wealthy.” Paul must be addressing those who have houses to eat in and presumably are heads of households. They also have food to consume. They possess enough status to “despise” (καταφρονεῖν, kataphronein, treat with contempt) and “shame” (καταισχύνειν, kataischynein, dishonor) the “have-nots.”

Winter (1978: 81) suggests three alternatives for understanding who comprised the “have-nots”: (1) the genuinely poor; (2) those who were not impoverished, but, for whatever reasons, had no food to bring to the supper; and (3) those who did not belong to a social unit (a household) or network. Most were securely attached to households (homeowners, domestic slaves, and clients), which provided some measure of security—food, clothing, and shelter. Those who were the most vulnerable to the famines and other economic problems that regularly plagued the ancient economy were persons unattached to a household and its networks. They needed their household of faith to show concern for their welfare.

Why were some Christians oblivious to the needs of their fellow Christians? The answer is that they were too much at home in a culture in which contempt for the poor was typical of the wealthier class. The well-to-do were used to having servants stand around as they ate and also would have no misgivings about feasting in the presence of others who had nothing or had only inferior fare.4 Given the dinner conventions of the ancient world, they would have thought nothing of this inequity. Veyne (1987: 91) notes,

Guests of different rank were served different dishes and wines of different qualities, according to their respective dignities. Symbolism reinforced the sense of hierarchy. The paterfamilias did not simply receive individual greetings from certain of his friends; he admitted into his home a slice of Roman society, respecting public rank and inequalities. Over this group he exerted moral authority, and his knowledge of proper behavior always exceeded that of his clients.

D’arms (1990) shows that in spite of the talk of equality and social leveling among some writers—note Plutarch’s (Mor. 644C) remark, “When each guest has his own private portion, fellowship perishes”—social hierarchy prevailed (see additional note).

The practice of serving differing portions and qualities to guests became the subject of humor (Juvenal, Sat. 5), but the wit also reveals the searing public humiliation it evoked. Martial (Epigrams 3.60) complains,

Since I am asked to dinner, no longer, as before, a purchased guest, why is not the same dinner served to me as to you? You take oysters fattened in the Lucrina lake, I suck a mussel through a hole in the shell; you get mushrooms, I take hog funguses; you tackle turbot, but I brill. Golden with fat, a turtledove gorges you with its bloated rump; there is set before me a magpie that has died in its cage. Why do I dine without you although, Ponticus, I am dining with you? The dole has gone: let us have the benefit of that, let us eat the same fare.

Again, Martial (Epigrams 1.20) protests,

Tell me, what madness is this? While the throng of invited guests look on, you, Caecilianus, alone devour the mushrooms! What prayer shall I make suitable for such a belly and gorge? May you eat such a mushroom as Claudius ate!5

Most hosts accented the inequality to maintain and demonstrate their social distance from others on a lower social level. Christian congregations, with their shared meals including masters and slaves, transcended conventional barriers. Some of the wealthier Corinthian Christians, however, seem to have wished to retain these barriers (see Passakos 1997: 198). Some of the privileged Corinthian Christians did not want their advantages to vanish when they associated with believers of lower social and economic status. In fact, they may have flaunted their affluence to notify one and all that they were members of “the elite.” They had yet to be fully acculturated in the wisdom of the cross.

Paul remonstrates that they are despising and shaming God’s church. The primary focus is on horizontal relationships between Christians, but he reminds them that the people they spurn belong to God, and God will not take this lightly. If the predicament is simply their need to satisfy their gluttonous hunger, then they can stay home and eat. But to ignore a brother or sister in Christ at the common meal is unconscionable. Paul understands the church to be one large extended family, and all are expected to share their resources with others (cf. 12:26). The chapter that follows, emphasizing the one body and the need to honor those who are dishonored, not only addresses the question of spiritual gifts, but also looks backward to the inequalities painfully exhibited in their Supper.

11:23 Paul abruptly cites the tradition of the institution of the Lord’s Supper to reinforce his point. It is the only place in his letters in which he cites a tradition about Jesus that corresponds to a narrative in the Synoptic Gospels. Attention to the relationship between the Pauline tradition and the Synoptic tradition, questions about the original form and meaning of the words of institution, the development of the Lord’s Supper from the Last Supper, and Paul’s theology of the Lord’s Supper are important issues, but they distract interpreters from focusing on why Paul inserts this tradition at this point and what it means in this context.6 The tradition is cited only by way of illustration, and excessive attention to tracing its historical particulars and theological vectors serves to eclipse the rhetorical point that Paul makes. He does not intend to teach the Corinthians something new about the Lord’s Supper or to correct their theology of the Lord’s Supper. He cites it only to contrast what Jesus did at the Last Supper with what they are doing at their supper.

That Paul received “from the Lord” (ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, apo tou kyriou) distinguishes the Lord as the originator of the tradition from those who passed on the tradition.7 It does not imply some communication from the risen Lord (contra Edwards 1885: 200–201), but it does affirm the authoritative nature of this tradition. Christ is the originator and guarantor of the tradition (Schrage 1996: 194).8 The specific time reference, “on the night” (ἐν τῇ νυκτί, en tē nykti), places this occurrence in the realm of a historical event rather than in the ethereal neverland of a timeless, mythical story (Wolff 1996: 264; Lindemann 2000: 253). Most versions translate the verb παρεδίδετο (paredideto) to refer to Christ’s “betrayal” by Judas.9 Fee (1987: 549 n. 26) argues reasonably that since Paul cites tradition and since the Gospel accounts place the announcement of the betrayal at the Last Supper, it makes sense to conclude that he alludes to what Judas did on that night. The verb παραδιδόναι (paradidonai) is common in Mark’s Gospel and is used to refer to this betrayal (14:10, 42, 44), but it also is used for the arrest of John the Baptist (1:14), the chief priests’ handing Jesus over to Pilate (15:1), and Pilate’s handing Jesus over to be crucified (15:15). Translating it “handed over” or “delivered up” instead of “betrayed” retains a measure of ambiguity that allows it to point to something beyond the treachery of wicked humans. It can be a divine passive that refers to God’s plan of handing Jesus over for our salvation (Robertson and Plummer 1914: 243; Hays 1997: 198). God’s hand (Rom. 4:25; 8:32; cf. Isa. 53:6–12 LXX) and Jesus’ willing submission (Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2, 25) are ultimately behind Christ’s being delivered up. Where the emphasis should lie, whether on Judas’s betrayal or on God’s purposes, is no longer possible to determine, according to Popkes (1967: 210). The translation should not exclude the latter alternative, particularly since it reflects Paul’s perspective elsewhere (see Coleman 1975–76). This “handing over” and Jesus’ interpretation of what that meant in the words spoken over the bread and the cup mark this meal off from all others as something unique.

Paul’s outline of the sequence of the Last Supper—bread, supper, cup—raises the historical question about the course of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth. Was the breaking of bread followed by a communal meal and then the drinking of the cup, or was the original order broken so that the sacramental meal was placed at the end after the common meal (so Bornkamm 1969: 126–28; Neuenzeit 1960: 69–76; Jeremias 1966a: 121)? We need not get sidetracked too long by this issue. Hofius (1993: 80–88) makes a convincing case that the Corinthians’ Lord’s Supper began with the blessing and breaking of the bread, which then was followed by the common meal. It was concluded with the drinking of the cup. Hofius (1993: 88) concludes that “the Lord’s Supper paradosis handed on by Paul in 1 Cor 11:23b–25, presupposes, as the words μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι [meta to deipnēsai, after the supper] clearly attest, a meal between the bread rite and the cup rite.” Hofius confidently asserts, “Historically, there cannot be the slightest doubt about the existence of a Lord’s Supper celebration at which a full meal took place between the bread rite and the cup rite.”10 There is no reason for Paul to cite this tradition if the Corinthians deviated from it in some way.11 The bread rite and the cup rite frame the common meal and give it “its essential character” (Hofius 1993: 96; Eriksson [1998: 176] calls this “the new consensus”).12

11:24–25 Paul’s recounting of the words that Jesus spoke over the bread and the cup focuses on what Jesus did on behalf of believers (Winter 1978: 79). The words of institution, “This is my body which is for you,” reminds them that Jesus gave his body up on behalf of others. The word order differs slightly from what is found in the Gospels (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19), with the μου (mou) placed before “my body” (τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα, touto mou estin to sōma). Literally, it reads, “This of mine is the body which is for you.” For Paul, this formula does not represent some peculiar, sacramental alchemy. The verb “is” simply means “signifies, stands for, represents” (Engberg-Pedersen 1993: 117).13 It may mean that the giver is re-present in the gift. Winter (2001: 153) argues, however, that the τοῦτο, which is neuter, does not refer to the bread (ἄρτος, artos), which is masculine, but to Jesus’ action on their behalf.14 Paul may not be repeating the words from the institution narrative, but rather citing Jesus’ sacrificial action on their behalf—“This [action of mine] is my body [given] for you”—to contrast it with their actions. This interpretation of the grammar is disputable, as Winter (2001: 154) admits, but it is clear that Paul contrasts Jesus’ self-sacrifice at the Last Supper with the Corinthians’ selfishness at their supper.

The ensuing words, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” also emphasize Jesus’ sacrifice (Rom. 5:9; Col. 1:20). The salvation celebrated in this meal comes at the price of his blood. The meaning of a “new covenant” and “blood” is made clear in Exod. 24:8 (“Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people, and said, ‘See the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words’ ” [nrsv]) and Jer. 31:31 (“The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” [nrsv]). Covenants are made through the shedding of blood. The fresh covenant relationship with God through Jesus’ blood is a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (31:31–34). The two texts are combined in Heb. 9:20 and 10:16–18 to emphasize that Jesus’ sacrifice replaces the ineffective blood of bulls and goats: “It is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). The combination of the broken bread and the cup (which can include images of the cup of suffering) conveys the nature of Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice.

Paul’s citation of these words reveals a symmetry not found in the Synoptic accounts, which shows that it has been shaped by liturgical use as a confessional formula (Eriksson 1998: 100–101). The Lord’s Supper was a conscious imitation of Jesus’ Last Supper (Eriksson 1998:104). The command to do this εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (eis tēn emēn anamnēsin, unto my remembrance), as Paul understands it, serves as a reminder to the church of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. It does not mean that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial meal for a dearly departed hero, which only cherishes the memory of Jesus. The currency of memorial feasts in Greco-Roman life reveals that this kind of meal would not have seemed unusual, but these feasts do not provide the appropriate backdrop for interpreting what Paul means. Nor is it related to any mystery rite. The memorial requires that Christians reenact ritually what Christ did at his last meal to betoken his death and to explain its significance. The repeated imperative, “do this unto my remembrance,” then, commands ritual remembrance of this foundational saving event (cf. Exod. 12:14; Ps. 77:11–12; 105:5).15 It is related to Jewish liturgical remembrance that praises and proclaims the mighty acts of God. Psalm 105:5 (“Remember the wonderful deeds God has done”) and Ps. 105:1 (“Tell of the wonderful deeds God has done”) make clear that remembering is part and parcel of proclaiming (Hofius 1993: 105–8). The repetition of the phrase “unto my remembrance” (1 Cor. 11:24–25) stresses the integral connection between the character of what they do at the Supper and Jesus’ death (Barrett 1968: 270). What is to be remembered, as far as Paul is concerned, is that “the crucified one” gave his body and sacrificed his blood in an expiatory death that brings the offer of salvation to all persons (contra Jeremias 1966a: 252). By partaking of the bread and the cup, they recall that sacrifice and symbolically share in its benefits. This conscious imitation of the Last Supper expressed in this liturgical formula allows him to make his point forcefully. They are to imitate Christ’s example of self-giving. Everything they do in their meal should accord with his self-sacrifice for others. They should be prepared to give of themselves and their resources for others. Chrysostom (Hom. 1 Cor. 27.5) grasps the essence of Paul’s admonition: “He [Christ] gave His body equally, but you do not give so much as the common bread equally.”

11:26 The statement “For as often as you eat this loaf and drink the cup, the Lord’s death you proclaim [καταγγέλλετε, katangellete; indicative mood, not imperative] until he comes” is the key for understanding why Paul recites the Last Supper tradition (Gaventa 1983: 378–79). The “for” links this statement to what precedes. Interpreters ask whether the Lord’s death is proclaimed by the action (Lietzmann 1949: 58; Gaventa 1983: 381–83) or by the spoken word in a homily (Bornkamm 1969: 141; Neuenzeit 1960: 132; Jeremias 1966a: 106–7; Barrett 1968: 270; Käsemann 1964: 120–21; Fee 1987: 556). Conzelmann (1975: 201) asserts, “There is no such thing as a sacrament without accompanying proclamation.” But the verbal element should not be played off against eating and drinking (Surburg 2000: 203–4). “Eating” and “drinking” are mentioned five times in 11:26–29, and this is what Paul wishes to emphasize more than the verbal repetition of the story of the Lord’s death. It is not what is said during or after the meal that concerns him, but what is said in the action of eating and drinking. He is interested only in the fact that “whenever Christians eat this bread and drink this cup, they are proclaiming the Lord’s death” (Engberg-Pedersen 1993: 116). He believes that their actions in their meal do not proclaim the Lord’s death, which is why he says that their meal is not the Lord’s Supper (11:20).

The emphasis is on the death of the Lord, Christ crucified (1:18, 23; 2:2), which explains its forward reference in the clause (τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε, ton thanaton tou kyriou katangellete). For Paul, the Lord’s Supper should evoke Christ’s obedience unto death, the humiliating death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). It should preach Christ crucified. Gaventa (1983: 384) comments, “That death, in Paul’s view, stands diametrically opposed to the claims of social status that were at work in the Corinthian community.” If they are proclaiming the Lord’s death in what they do at the Lord’s Supper, they will not overindulge themselves, despise others, shame them, or allow them to go hungry.

Obviously, “remembrance” does not exhaust the meaning of the Supper. Witherington’s (1995: 251) observation is correct: “The Lord’s Supper is … part of the Christian witness to the crucified, risen, and returning Lord,” looking to the past, present, and future. But such affirmations are tangential to Paul’s purpose in citing the liturgical tradition. His focus is on the past—what Jesus did on the night he was handed over. It is not his purpose to develop fully a theology of the Lord’s Supper or to correct their theology. Those interpreters whose sole purpose in approaching this text is to mine it for its theological ore miss this crucial point. Their theological inferences ignore or skew Paul’s particular intention in this text.16 Jeremias (1966a: 253), for example, argues that ἄχρι(ς) οὗ ἔλθῃ (achri[s] hou elthē) is purposive because it is missing the particle ἄν (an) and refers to an eschatological goal elsewhere (cf. Rom. 11:25; 1 Cor. 15:25; Luke 21:24).17 Jeremias translates it, “until (the goal is reached) that he comes” (so also Hofius 1967–68). Jeremias concludes that Jesus’ death is proclaimed not as a past event but as an eschatological event that marks the beginning of salvation, and, thus, Christians pray for its consummation. This interpretation fails to take into account Paul’s purpose in citing this tradition. He focuses on the past event—what Jesus did at his last meal on the night he was handed over—to correct what the Corinthians are doing in the present at their meal: getting drunk and treating others with contempt. The phrase “until he comes” (cf. 4:5) is a temporal reference, which is part of the liturgical tradition. It is not inserted to redress an “over-realized eschatology” (contra R. Collins 1999: 434), “to add a ‘not-yet’ to their eschatological ‘already’ ” (contra Witherington 1995: 251). Nor is it intended to deflate a sacramental enthusiasm based on an exaltation Christology (contra Conzelmann 1975: 202). Proclaiming the Lord’s death is the only emphasis, and “until he comes” serves “to soften, to some extent, the harsh idea of proclaiming the Lord’s death” (Engberg-Pedersen 1993: 116). Christ died horribly, but he will come again as Lord and judge.

The Lord’s Supper is founded on the sacrificial death of Jesus for others, and the attitude that led him obediently to that death should pervade the Supper for Christians ever after. The way the Corinthians conducted their supper, however, gave witness to a culture of selfishness and status-mongering (Hays 1997: 200). To conduct their supper in this way and to have the temerity to call it the Lord’s Supper can lead only to their condemnation.

11:27–29 Paul returns to the Corinthian problem at the Lord’s Supper with an oblique warning about those who eat the loaf and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner. The adverb ἀναξίως (anaxiōs, unworthily) refers to doing something that does not square with the character or nature of something (cf. Eph. 4:1; Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:12). To eat the Lord’s Supper in a manner that violates its purpose to proclaim the Lord’s death makes one “liable” (ἔνοχος, enochos) for the death of the Lord. “Liable” is a judicial term (cf. Mark 14:64; 2 Macc. 13:6), which means that the Corinthians are answerable to God, the final judge, for this abuse. They become “responsible for his body and his blood” (Engberg-Pedersen 1993: 119–20)—that is, they are chargeable for his death. Paul’s logic is this: The Lord’s Supper proclaims the Lord’s death. Those whose behavior at the Lord’s Supper does not conform to what that death entails effectively shift sides. They leave the Lord’s side and align themselves with the rulers of this present age who crucified the Lord (1 Cor. 2:8; cf. Heb. 6:5). This explains how they make themselves so vulnerable to God’s judgment.

Paul’s use of paronomasia with words related to judgment is striking and gets lost in translation: κρίμα (krima, 11:29, 34), διακρίνων (diakrinōn, 11:29), διεκρίνομεν (diekrinomen, 11:31), ἐκρινόμεθα (ekrinometha, 11:31), κρινόμενοι (krinomenoi, 11:32), κατακριθῶμεν (katakrithōmen, 11:32). The repetition of these words serves to underscore the judgment theme (see Moule 1956). As Surburg (2000: 212) notes, “Eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood has implications which no other eating and drinking ever does.” They cannot treat this meal as a pleasant gathering of in-group friends (Engberg-Pedersen 1993: 115). It is fraught with spiritual peril if they treat the meal or those gathered for it in a cavalier manner. They will incur God’s judgment.

The divisions in Corinth that Paul mentions in 11:19 reveal a deeper, far more serious divide. The divide is between those who incarnate the cross of Christ with their self-sacrifice and those who put Christ to death again with their self-centered feasting. He insinuates that the Corinthians violate the spirit of the meal, which remembers Christ’s self-sacrifice, by eating it unworthily. Although no one is worthy of the Lord’s Supper, one can eat it worthily. Paul gives three key tests to decide whether one is eating worthily.

The first test appears in 11:28. All are to examine themselves. All must remember that Christ’s atoning death was necessary because of our sinfulness. Moule (1956: 470) contends that participation in the Lord’s Supper entails anticipation of the Lord’s judgment. Consequently, the Supper is to be eaten in an atmosphere of self-examination. They are to test (δοκιμαζέτω, dokimazetō) their genuineness before God does. Those who may imagine themselves to be the dignitaries and want to make sure that others recognize their higher status should check their pride at the door. They must examine themselves at this meal in light of Christ’s sacrifice for all. The cross offers a different standard for who can claim to be notable. The genuine Christian recognizes that there are no class divisions at the Lord’s table. No one is distinguished at this table except One, but all are honored together as his distinguished guests as the body of Christ. All are blameworthy before God, and yet all are forgiven because the sins of all have been transferred to One.

Through the negative example of the disciples, the Markan account of the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:17–21) reveals a model of what Paul intends. Before the meal, Jesus announces that one of his disciples will betray him. Each one asks in turn, “It is not I, is it?” Egocentricity, however, oozes from this question. Each focuses on himself and wants only reassurance that he is in the clear. Jesus gives his life for others and laments the miserable fate awaiting the betrayer. The disciples’ response shows that they are concerned only about themselves. Self-examination requires focusing on more than just oneself.

A second key test is implied in 1 Cor. 11:22, and it concerns how one relates to brothers and sisters in Christ. If one partakes of the Lord’s Supper with indifference to them, it is no longer the Lord’s Supper. To eat the Lord’s Supper worthily, one must recognize that all Christians, rich and poor, are joined together in Christ, share equally in his blessings, and should be treated worthily.

The third test requires “discerning the body” (11:29). Those who do not discern the body place themselves in dire jeopardy by “eating and drinking condemnation on themselves.” Paul’s meaning is unclear because the verb διακρίνειν (diakrinein) has a wide variety of usages in the NT. It basically means “to differentiate by separating” (BDAG 231) and then “to estimate or judge correctly.” It could refer to distinguishing the holy from the unholy or having the right estimate of Christ’s body. But it can also mean “to recognize” (BDAG 231 lists 11:29 under this meaning). Its use in 11:29 may be a conditional participle equivalent to a conditional clause, “if they fail to discern the body” (Burton 1898: 169; Wallace 1996: 633), or a causal clause, “by not discerning the body.”

The question is, What is it that the Corinthians do not discern?

1.     A venerable view going back to Justin and Augustine and reflected in some modern commentators (Godet 1887: 167; Weiss 1910: 291; Lietzmann 1949: 59; Héring 1962: 120) thinks that it refers to distinguishing the sacramental presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements from the ordinary bread on the table. But this view takes us wide of the mark of Paul’s concern. He accuses the Corinthians of despising and humiliating their impoverished brothers and sisters at their supper, not profaning the elements.

2.     Another view that has gained ascendancy assumes that Paul refers to the Corinthians’ failure to recognize the church as the body of Christ or Christ’s presence among his people.18 Referring to the “body” and omitting any reference to the “blood” are taken as clues that he does not have in view the sacramental elements but the church as Christ’s body. The Corinthians would catch this play on words from his assertion in 10:16–17 that sharing in the body of Christ by partaking of the bread means that “we, who are many, are one body” (cf. 12:26–27). The “body” to be discerned, then, is not just the piece of bread on the table but the body at the table (Keck 1982: 63–64). What they were doing accentuated the social and economic differences between the “haves” and the “have-nots” and showed a flagrant disregard for the body. Mistreating fellow members in this way at the Lord’s Supper becomes an offense against Christ. As attractive as this view is, it is difficult to make it fit the basic meaning of the verb διακρίνειν, “to judge rightly.”

3.     Another view asserts that “body” is shorthand for both the body and the blood and refers to the corporeal stuff that one eats and drinks.19 The meaning of “body” in 11:27, rather than in 10:16–17, should govern its interpretation here. The elements represent the crucified Lord and make this meal holy and different from any other meal. Discerning the body means recognizing this uniqueness and that the elements represent Christ’s death for them (Wolff 1996: 279). A proper understanding of what these elements represent should change the Corinthians’ attitude and behavior toward others. It reminds them of their dependence on Christ and their own interdependence and should cause them to share their own provisions with others at the meal who have little or nothing. Paul is arguing that when they recognize fully the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ, remembered in reenacting the Last Supper, they will act compassionately toward their brothers and sisters in Christ. Passakos (1997: 210) claims that the Lord’s Supper becomes “the starting line for the transformation of the relationships and structures in the community.”

11:30–32 “because of this” (διὰ τοῦτο, dia touto) marks a shift in argument as Paul applies the general truths of 11:27–29 specifically to the situation at Corinth (Surburg 2000: 204). The sick (ἀσθενεῖς, astheneis, literally, “weak”), ill (ἄρρωστοι, arrōstoi), and dying (κοιμῶνται, koimōntai, literally, “asleep”) have been taken by one recent scholar as metaphors for those who are “weak in faith,” “spiritually ill,” and “spiritually asleep” (Schneider 1996). This view might appeal to those who do not like to think that sickness can be directly caused by sin or that the Lord’s Supper might have numinous properties—mishandling it can lead to death. But Paul has in mind real sickness and real death (see Robertson and Plummer 1914: 253), and his words should be taken at face value (Oster 1995: 285). Real suffering in the flesh, not a decay of the spirit, is the divine warning bell that should awaken the Corinthians to the dangers of their practices. Paul probably has heard of these deaths from the same ones who told him of their divisions, and he connects these events to their improper handling of the sacred Lord’s Supper and to God’s judgment (cf. 10:4–5). The view of Ignatius (Eph. 20:2) that the Lord’s Supper is “the medicine of immortality” can be reversed. When misused, it can become a mortal toxin (Lietzmann 1949: 59; cf. the image in 2 Cor. 2:14–16). Its power for wholeness can become a power of destruction (Dunn 1995: 78).

Paul does not identify who or how many have become sick or have died. The word ἱκανοί (hikanoi) here is often translated as “a number” (nasb) or “some” (nrsv), but it can mean “enough” (cf. 2 Cor. 2:6) in the sense of “quite enough.” This translation conveys Paul’s concern about the situation that he wants to remedy. For his argument to have force as a threat, one would assume that the readers could readily identify those who were sick or have died as guilty of despising and humiliating their brothers and sisters at the Lord’s Supper. Another possibility, however, which is offered only tentatively, is that some have become physically weak from lack of food. The Corinthians’ lack of sharing has dire repercussions for the poor in their midst. This would be particularly true if Corinth was undergoing a famine, as Winter (1989) and Blue (1991) contend. This observation about their illnesses may not be a warning threat but an appeal for them to share with the poor: “Look where your behavior has led.” Hermas (Vis. 3.9.3–5a) uses a similar argument:

Some are contracting illness in the flesh by too much eating and are injuring their flesh, and the flesh of the others who have nothing to eat is being injured by their not having sufficient food and their body is being destroyed. So this lack of sharing is harmful to you who are rich and do not share with the poor. Consider the judgment which is coming.

In 11:31, Paul offers a means of escape from this judgment with a contrary-to-fact condition: “But if we were examining ourselves, we would not be judged.” Examining themselves (11:28) would remedy their mishandling of the Lord’s Supper. It also would prevent them from being condemned in the final judgment. Joining in the Lord’s Supper in the spirit of the world that put Christ to death means that they will be condemned with the world. Eating the Supper with the spirit of Christ means salvation and requires loving behavior toward others.

11:33–34 “as you assemble together” (συνερχόμενοι, synerchomenoi) harks back to the verb used in 11:17–18 to open this discussion and serves to bracket this unit. Paul issues the key command to correct the social discrimination: ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε (allēlous ekdechesthe). This phrase is usually translated “wait for one another” (cf. Acts 17:16; 1 Cor. 16:11). But this verb, when used of persons, usually means “to take or receive from another” or “to entertain” (MM 192). Orr and Walther (1976: 268) claim that the Corinthians can simply correct the situation by waiting for one another and “manifest community in taking food together.” But the problem is that the “have-nots” do not have food, and it will not be solved simply by the early arrivals waiting for them to show up (Blue 1991: 231). P. Lampe (1994: 42) recognizes this point: “If everyone was to wait before unpacking his or her own food basket, it stands to reason that the contents of these would have been shared on common platters. Otherwise the waiting, which is supposed to prevent some from remaining hungry, would be senseless.” In other words, even if Paul means “wait,” according to Lampe, it would necessitate sharing.

Winter (2001: 151–52) argues that one should look at words within their semantic field. The other uses of this verb in the NT occur in a different social context. In the context of a dinner, the verb means “to welcome” (see 3 Macc. 5:26; Josephus, J.W. 2.14.7 §297; 3.2.4 §32; Ant. 7.14.5 §351; 11.8.6 §340; 12.3.3 §138; 13.4.5 §104; 13.5.5 §148). Hofius (1993: 94) allows that the command can be translated “Care for one another!” “Receive one another warmly!” “Grant one another table fellowship!” “Show hospitality to one another!” and cites a case in Philo (Post. Cain 41 §136) where it means “receive as a host.”20 Paul expects the Corinthians “to receive one another,” which at a feast includes sharing food with others. Only by sharing their resources will they alleviate the acute embarrassment of the “have-nots” (Winter 1978: 79; 2001: 151–52) and capture the spirit of Jesus’ sacrifice.

The final direction, “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home,” could address the problem of those who are too famished to wait for everyone to arrive at the meal. But Paul is not giving banal advice about eating at home before the worship. Instead, he is reinforcing the idea that “the community’s gathering for worship … is not the place to satisfy one’s hunger and eat one’s fill” (Hofius 1993: 95). If they come only to fill their belly, then they are not there to proclaim the Lord’s death—they have homes in which to do the former. Conzelmann’s (1975: 203) analysis, “If they satisfy their hunger at home, they can celebrate the Supper together,” misses the entire point. How can they eat the Lord’s Supper with a full belly in the presence of those who are starving? He is not giving them license to indulge themselves and to ignore poor brothers and sisters so long as they do not do it in front of them at the Lord’s Supper and humiliate them. Nor is he advising them that if they are worried that there might not be enough food to go around if they have to share with everyone, they should dine first at home. He does not believe that they can retreat from the demands of the gospel in their homes. This command to eat at home connects to his first warning that they are worse off for having gathered together (11:17). If they are intent only on indulging their appetites, then they should stay home. If the church’s gathering is to be meaningful, it has to be an expression of real fellowship, which includes sharing.

Paul wishes to prevent the Corinthians from coming together for their condemnation (ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα συνέρχησθε, hina mē eis krima synerchēsthe). The implication is that their gathering brings condemnation on them rather than blessing. It may also be a double entendre because κρίμα can also refer to the action of judging. M. Mitchell (1993: 265–66) thinks that he implies, “Don’t come together to judge and rank one another disparagingly, because a far more serious (eschatological) judgment awaits.” This provides a segue into the next chapter, which exhorts them to bestow honor on the weakest members of the body, since they are all part of one body and need one another to function properly.

We will never know what the other things are that Paul needs to instruct them about when he comes. Presumably, they are related to the Lord’s Supper as well. Winter (1978: 80) suggests that these matters are difficult and “perhaps touch the very social structures of Corinthian society.” Winter guesses that this instruction serves as an interim ethic. What the “haves” need to do for the poor, he will deal with later.

Additional Notes

11:22. Pliny the Younger (Ep. 2.6) describes at length the convention of serving guests differing quantities and qualities of food according to their rank. In protesting this practice and his own liberality, he affirms it to be the usual custom with others:

It would be a long story, and of no importance, were I to recount too particularly by what accident I (who am not at all fond of society) supped lately with a person, who in his own opinion lives in splendor combined with economy; but according to mine, in a sordid but expensive manner. Some very elegant dishes were served up to himself and a few more of the company; while those which were placed before the rest were cheap and paltry. He had apportioned in small flagons three different sorts of wine; but you are not to suppose it was that the guests might take their choice: on the contrary, that they might not choose at all. One was for himself and me; the next for his friends of a lower order (for, you must know, he measures out his friendship according to the degrees of quality); and the third for his own freedmen and mine. One who sat next to me took notice of this and asked me if I approved of it. “Not at all,” I told him. “Pray then,” said he, “what is your method on such occasions?” “Mine,” I returned, “is, to give all my company the same fare; for when I make an invitation, it is to sup, not to be censored.

“Every man who I have placed on an equality with myself by admitting him to my table, I treat as an equal in all particulars.” “Even freedmen?” he asked. “Even them,” I said; “for on these occasions I regard them not as freedmen but boon companions.” “This must put you to great expense,” says he. I assured him not at all; and on asking how that could be, I said, “Why, you must know that freedmen don’t drink the same wine I do—but I drink what they do.”

11:24. Two textual variants appear in 11:24. The first, represented in the Textus Receptus, adds λάβετε φάγετε before τοῦτο. These words probably were inserted from the liturgical tradition influenced by Matt. 26:26. If they were original, there would have been no reason for them to have been omitted in P46, A, B, C*, D (Metzger 1994: 496).

Some texts bear witness to attempts to explicate the crisp expression τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν by adding participles: κλώμενον (א2, C3, D2, F, G, Ψ, 0150, 81, 104, 256), θρυπτόμενον (D*), or διδόμενον (vg, copsa, bo, eth). The shortest reading best explains this assortment of readings.

11:29. Two textual variants reveal attempts to clarify the meaning of the text, but in effect, they distort it (Käsemann 1964: 123–25). The reader has to attend to the end of the sentence to catch its meaning, with its final participial phrase, μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα, explaining what made the eating and drinking inappropriate. Scribes apparently elected to clarify, before coming to the end of the sentence, that “eating and drinking” by itself does not bring condemnation but “eating and drinking” ἀναξίως does. The ἀναξίως was added from 11:27. The shorter text is found in a reliable lineup of witnesses: P46, א*, A, B, C*, 33, 1739, ito, copsa, bo, geo.

The participial phrase μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα also was interpreted with the addition of the phrase τοῦ κυρίου, following the pattern in 11:27. The shorter text again is found in P46, א*, A, B, C*, 6, 33, 424c, 1739, ito, vgww, syrpal, copsa, bo, geo. The shorter reading best explains the development of the longer reading. Fee (1987: 558 n. 4) notes that in liturgical texts, “addition not omission is nearly always the rule.”

From a discussion on headship, propriety, and acceptable practice in worship, Paul now turns to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. He first examines the excesses at the meetings of the Corinthians (vv. 17–22), then the institution and formulary of the Lord’s Supper (vv. 23–26), and last the preparation for worthily eating of the bread and drinking of the cup (vv. 27–32). Paul concludes this section with an exhortation to exercise restraint (vv. 33–34).

a. Excesses

11:17–22

17. But in giving these instructions I do not praise you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.

a. “But in giving these instructions I do not praise you.” Paul begins with the adversative but to separate this verse from the preceding discourse. Is the break with the previous verses complete or partial? The answer depends on the interpretation of the term these instructions. This term might look forward to what Paul is going to say about the conduct of the Corinthians when they celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Then the break is complete. Or the term looks back, so that these instructions relate to what Paul had been saying earlier. Accordingly, the break is partial.

The fact that the Greek text has the pronoun this in the singular, not the plural (which most translations show), gives it a general connotation. Some scholars aver that this pronoun normally refers not to succeeding but to preceding material (compare 7:6).55 They understand the pronoun to refer to Paul’s instructions on the proper conduct of men and women in public worship services. They add that Paul’s instructions for the correct observance of the Lord’s Supper (vv. 28–34) are far removed from the current passage. They, therefore, opt for a partial break in the context.

Considerations for a complete break predominate, however. First, the content of the passage itself reveals that Paul introduces a new subject: the Lord’s Supper. Paul places the verb I praise in the negative to contrast his positive statement at the beginning of the chapter (v. 2) and to repeat the negative in verse 22. In verse 2, he praised the Corinthians for guarding the traditions; here he censures them for unruly conduct which he must correct with pertinent instructions. Paul writes two distinct sections (vv. 2–16 and 17–34), which he begins with praise and censure respectively. And the second half of this verse (v. 17) is a causal clause that refers to the Corinthians’ meetings which, as the rest of the chapter shows, were unruly. In short, the forward look is preferred.

b. “Because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.” In these few words, Paul compresses what he has heard concerning his readers’ unseemly behavior. He has become aware of the disorder by which the church is despised and the poor are humiliated (v. 22). Furthermore, the unworthy manner in which the Lord’s Supper is celebrated is a sin against the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27). Christians failed to observe basic rules of courteous conduct. Paul mentions two extreme examples: some people remain hungry while others become drunk (v. 21). He had to rebuke the Corinthians by saying that their meetings did more harm than good.

18. For in the first place when you come together in the church, I hear that there are factions among you and in part I believe it.

a. “For in the first place.” When a speaker says or writes first, he is expected to proceed to the next point. A logical presentation that begins with the phrase in the first place must be followed with succeeding points. But Paul does not always give an orderly sequence of his thoughts. Elsewhere Paul also begins to enumerate his points but never lists a single one beyond his “first of all” (Rom. 3:2). Nonetheless, with this phrase Paul wants to emphasize the importance of his instruction. He wants his readers to pay close attention to what he is going to say.

b. “When you come together in the church.” In context, the phrase when you come together alludes to worship services, because Paul uses the phrase repeatedly in this chapter (vv. 17, 18, 20, 33, 34; and see 14:23, 26). We assume that worship services were generally held in private homes or at times, to accommodate the entire congregation, outdoors. From other New Testament passages we learn that Christians used to meet for worship not in large buildings but in private homes known as house churches.56 This means that the Corinthian church met in subgroups in the homes of prosperous members.

The words in the church should be understood as a general term that does not signify a building. Here the term should be interpreted in the sense of the body of Christ at worship services held at various places.

During the worship services, Paul’s letters were read to the members of the church. Paul himself instructed the churches to exchange his letters and cause them to be read (see Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27; see also Rev. 1:3). These letters were placed on the same level as the Old Testament Scriptures and thus received canonical status (compare II Peter 3:15–16).

c. “I hear that there are factions among you.” We have no information on how Paul heard about these irregularities. But members of Chloe’s household (1:10–12) had told him about factions in the church, and a delegation from Corinth had given him an oral report (16:17). He elaborates not on personalities or theological matters but on social and economic issues evident at Corinthian worship services (vv. 20–22).

The factious spirit in the congregation probably originated for several reasons. Not only was there a desire to associate with either Paul, Apollos, Peter, or Christ (1:12); members of the church also came from different cultural, social, and economic backgrounds. These believers were either Jews, Greeks, Romans, or nationals from other countries. Some were merchants, government officials, and professionals who belonged to the educated class. They were prosperous and lived in spacious homes. By contrast, laborers and dock workers were poor and usually lived in rented quarters.

d. “And in part I believe it.” With the last clause in this verse, Paul expresses himself cautiously. Relying only on hearsay, he guards himself so that no one can accuse him of speaking rashly. Not everyone in Corinth is guilty of arrogance. Yet Paul wishes to call attention to the excesses that are prevalent in the Corinthian community, and he is fully aware that cultural and social differences remain facts of life.

19. For there must be dissensions among you, so that those who are proven [believers] may become evident among you.

a. Difficulties. This verse is perplexing for both translators and commentators. First, some versions put the text in parentheses to indicate that it is an explanatory note which could have been relegated to a footnote.57 Others introduce the first clause of the verse with translations that reflect concession or consent: “I admit,” or “indeed.”58 Next, the text itself features the term dissensions as a variant of the word factions in verse 18. The text has the adjective proven, which must be supplemented with the noun believers. And, last, it has the phrase among you twice. This verse is difficult to translate.

b. Explanations. Although this text digresses slightly from the discourse proper, we do not need to put it in parentheses. In fact, the word therefore in verse 20 draws a conclusion based on the text in verse 19.

Paul is realistic and notes that separations occur because of Christ’s gospel. He does not condone the schisms within the church but signifies that true believers should be cut off from societies inimical to that gospel. He urges that believers separate themselves from unbelievers (refer to II Cor. 6:14–18).

In one verse (v. 18) the writer counsels against factions but in the next verse allows dissension (v. 19). Still these two verses do not contradict each other; factions occur within the church while dissensions, in the good sense of the word, are voluntary separations from those who do not teach the doctrine of Christ. This interpretation of the term dissensions is strengthened by the rest of the verse, “so that those who are proven [believers] may become evident among you.”59

The proven believers are Christians who have been approved by God because they stood the tests he gave them. Tested in spiritual warfare, they are recognized among God’s people as genuine Christians.60 These believers shun things that pertain to worldliness. They love and obey God, adhere to Christ in faith, and demonstrate their loyalty to him in church and society.

In this verse the phrase among you occurs twice: first in regard to dissensions, and next with respect to believers. Some Greek manuscripts delete one or both of these occurrences. Yet the textual support is strong for accepting both as genuine readings. Paul is saying that among the believers in the Corinthian church, unbelievers will infiltrate and with their teaching and lifestyle cause disruptions. Writes Frederic Louis Godet, “The Second Epistle to the Corinthians shows in how brief a period this anticipation of the apostle was realized.”61 True followers of Christ will oppose the unbelievers in their midst.

c. Necessity. The verse in Greek begins with the word dei, which denotes not obligation but necessity. Paul tells the readers that dissensions among them are a necessity to bring out the best in true believers. God works out his own purposes to strengthen Christians in times of testing and to punish unbelievers for their wicked deeds.

Practical Considerations in 11:18–19

Factors relating to language, culture, and geographic boundaries cause separation within the church. Early in church history linguistic differences among widows in Jerusalem caused neglect of one group (Acts 6:1). The fact that in the early church the New Testament Scriptures were translated into various languages (e.g., Latin, Coptic, Syriac) reflects the development of various churches along linguistic and often geographic lines.

During the Middle Ages, many distinctive groups arose in the Roman Catholic Church. And from the time of the Reformation, Protestant denominations have experienced untold fragmentation. The church today compares with a tree of numerous branches and twigs that form one unit. The imagery of a tree is helpful in explaining the origin and roots of denominations; nevertheless, unity appears to be elusive. Even if we say that unity does not imply uniformity, we know that Jesus’ prayer calls us to strive for oneness in the Christian church (see John 17:21).

Unity and truth should be the two sides of the proverbial coin. Unity overcomes linguistic, cultural, and geographic barriers when believers confess and uphold the truth of Scripture. Conversely, unity and harmony should never be achieved at the expense of truth.

Christians must separate themselves from the forces of unbelief and disobedience. They have the duty, on the basis of numerous admonitions, to depart from these forces (II Cor. 6:14–18). On the other hand, believers should strive to maintain, defend, and promote the unity of the body of Christ. Church leaders can split a church without much effort but have an extremely difficult time mending breaches.

Paul briefly describes some deplorable conditions and voices his disapproval of the Corinthians’ lack of loving consideration for their poor brothers and sisters in Christ. He rebukes them for their ill-mannered behavior and informs them that he cannot praise them (v. 22). He teaches them how to observe Communion and counsels them to wait for one another when they come together for a fellowship meal (vv. 27–33). Paul’s exquisite “letter of love” (chap. 13), although given in a different context, contains explicit instructions for how the well-to-do in Corinth can practice brotherly love.

20. Therefore, when you come together in the same place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

With the word therefore, Paul summarizes the preceding context (vv. 17–19) and with the first clause he repeats what he has said earlier in verse 18. In that verse he mentions the church. Here he calls it “the same place.” Whether he means the church being assembled in one particular place (compare 14:23) or gathered in private homes is not particularly relevant in this verse. What Paul desires in the entire church is unity that can be achieved only in the context of love. He knows that the factions in the Corinthian church seriously undermine genuine love among God’s people.

The text of verse 20 is grammatically awkward, for it lacks balance. We would expect literary balance with the personal subjects you in both clauses. But such is not the case; the second clause has an impersonal it instead of a personal subject you. This switch causes confusion and leads to a possible misunderstanding. Does Paul mean not to eat the Lord’s Supper at all? Or is he saying that it is no longer appropriate for the Corinthians to do so? In light of the factionalism in the church, we presume that Paul’s contention is that partaking of Communion is inappropriate for the Corinthians. When believers come together in assembly, they cannot properly celebrate the Lord’s Supper, because their loveless acts and unseemly behavior make true observance inconceivable. The Corinthians no longer honor the Lord when they come together for either a meal or Holy Communion.

In his history of the early church, Luke refers to the celebration of Communion as “the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42; 20:7, 11). By contrast, Paul calls the sacrament “the Supper of the Lord.” The expression of the Lord occurs only once more in the New Testament, in Revelation 1:10, where John speaks of “the Day of the Lord.” That is, both the Supper and the Day belong to our Lord Jesus Christ. We surmise that the term Lord’s Supper became current about the time of Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthian church and that the expression Lord’s Day was well established by the end of the first century.

21. For as you eat, each one takes his supper before others; one remains hungry and another is drunk.

Even though the information Paul provides is scanty, we infer that the Corinthians had displayed inconsistent behavior at their love feasts. What precisely do we know about love feasts? Luke tells us that after Pentecost the early Christians came together in their homes and shared their food as they enjoyed common meals (Acts 2:46). The practice of sharing food with one another became the hallmark of the Christian church. Christians came together to eat a meal for nourishment and to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7, 11). At these gatherings they demonstrated the love of Christ for one another in word and deed. In a relatively short time, however, discrimination against the underprivileged became a common occurrence (see Jude 12; compare II Peter 2:13).

In all probability, the Corinthians observed class distinctions in worship services and at the love feasts: prominent members received preferential treatment. The rich people consumed choice food from their own larders and left the remainder for the poor.62 They had no patience to wait until everyone had arrived.63 Instead they ate without waiting for the day laborers and slaves. We conjecture that some of the poor who were unable to come earlier saw that all the food had been consumed. They are the ones whom Paul describes as being hungry. The affluent, by contrast, had used their time to eat their fill and drink excessively. The word each in the text applies to the rich, not the poor.

22. For do you not have houses for the purpose of eating and drinking? Or do you despise the church of God and put to shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I do not praise you.

a. “For do you not have houses for the purpose of eating and drinking?” Paul now raises a number of questions. The first one is rhetorical and calls for a positive reply. This is not a query addressed to every reader. Not at all. Paul boldly confronts the prosperous homeowners and tells them to eat and drink at home. He implies that they should not even attend love feasts if they have neither regard nor love for the poor.

b. “Or do you despise the church of God and put to shame those who have nothing?” In Acts, Luke records that some prominent people became members of Christ’s church. For instance, Luke mentions the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (13:6–12), the merchant Lydia from Thyatira (16:14), and Titius Justus at Corinth (18:7). The rich, however, were a minority while the poor were in the majority. Are the rich in Corinth looking down on those who are poor? Humble people may be materially poor but spiritually rich; the reverse is often true of the rich. Indeed, from a spiritual perspective the poor should take pride in their high position (James 1:9).

Paul rebukes the rich for looking down on the poor who are their spiritual brothers and sisters. The rich are despising the church, which is the very body to which they belong. They should realize that Jesus, the head of that body, loves and cherishes every member. Moreover, no part of the body can afford to disregard another part (see 12:14–27). With a rhetorical question, Paul approaches the rich and asks them if they realize that they are despising the church by humiliating the poor. To their shame they have to admit that this is the case.

c. “What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I do not praise you.” With two successive questions, Paul indicates that he is at a loss to express himself effectively. He puts the matter before his readers and asks them, as it were, to assist him in finding the correct words. “What am I to say to you? Am I to praise you?” They know the answer to the second query. They themselves have to admit that they are unworthy of praise. To underscore his disapproval, Paul repeats his earlier remark: “I do not praise you” (v. 17).

Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 11:17–22

Verse 17

παραγγέλλων—the present participle from παραγγέλλω (I command, instruct) denotes the mode in which Paul emphasizes his reason for being unable to praise the Corinthians.

κρεῖσσον, ἧσσον—these two comparative adverbs are positive in meaning: “in a good … bad way.”64

Verse 18

μέν—this particle has no counterpart in the next verse (v. 19) but has an implied contrast in verses 20–22 without the expected particle δέ. Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner interpret πρῶτον (in the first place) and its lack of sequel to mean “from the very outset.”65

ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ—this phrase without the definite article (in [the] church) is synonymous with ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (in the same place) in verse 20.

ἀκούω—the verb I hear actually means “I am told.”

Verse 19

γὰρ καί—this combination is the reverse of the usual καὶ γάρ (indeed) and signifies “for also, for precisely.”66

δόκιμοι—an adjective meaning “approved” from the verb δοκιμάζω (I test, examine [v. 28]). See Rom. 14:18; 16:10; II Cor. 10:18; 13:7; II Tim. 2:15; James 1:12.

Verses 20–21

συνερχομένων ὑμῶν—this is the genitive absolute construction with the present participle and personal pronoun in the genitive case: “when you come together.” The subject of the main verb ἔστιν is impersonal, however, and causes a more or less awkward construction.

προλαμβάνω—“I take beforehand.” First, this is the iterative or customary present, which shows that the action happened frequently in Corinth.67 Next, the preposition πρό (before) has not lost its temporal meaning in the context in which Paul uses it.68

Verse 22

μή—the negative particle in a rhetorical question expects a positive reply. The particle οὐκ negates the verb to have.

ἐσθίειν—“to eat.” The present infinite is used to indicate repeated occurrence. The two preceding verses (vv. 20–21) feature the aorist infinitive φαγεῖν (to eat) which is constative.

εἴπω—this is the aorist subjunctive of the verb to say, just as ἐπαινέσω is the aorist subjunctive of the verb to praise. In two successive questions, Paul uses deliberate subjunctives. The future indicative ἐπαινῶ appears in the following declarative sentence.

b. Institution

11:23–26

When churches celebrate Holy Communion, they hear the words Paul received from the Lord and which he has passed on to believers. The words of this particular passage are the formulary used for the observance of the Lord’s Supper. That is, we use the words Paul gave to the Corinthians and not the words recorded by the Gospel writers. The wording in the Gospel accounts, and even the sequence, differs from that given by Paul in this chapter. The commentary on the following verses (vv. 23–26) will discuss the dissimilarity of the various accounts.

23. For I have received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, 24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said: “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

a. “For I have received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you.” When Paul expressed his perplexity in not knowing what to say to the Corinthians (v. 22), he did not mean to convey to them that he was speechless. On the contrary, as the father of the Corinthian church he teaches its members the significance and proper manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Believers must understand that when they eat the bread and drink from the cup of the Lord, they are guests at his table. If Christians partake without loving their fellow church members, they are dishonoring the Lord himself. For that reason, they must learn the words spoken by the Lord when he instituted his Supper.

Paul says that he has received the Communion formulary from the Lord. Does he mean that Jesus communicated this formulary at the time of Paul’s conversion or during a subsequent vision? Either is possible. But the Lord Jesus also communicated his word indirectly to Paul, as he did through the agency of Ananias in Damascus (Acts 9:17). Thus, Paul may mean that some of the apostles taught him the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, Paul spent fifteen days in the company of Peter (Gal. 1:18). We conjecture that Paul received the information through the agency of other apostles. Nonetheless, the revelation came first from Jesus, who is the Lord of this tradition and personally directs the development of the church.69

The words received and delivered are technical terms that denote the individual links in the chain of tradition. (Elsewhere Paul alludes to this handing on of divine revelation [see 15:3]. A perfect example is Paul’s preaching in Thessalonica, where he orally transmitted the gospel to the Thessalonians. They in turn passed it on by word of mouth to people throughout Macedonia and Achaia [I Thess. 1:5, 6–8].) The words of the institution originated not with Paul but with Jesus. Hence, these words are divine and must he honored, kept, and transmitted. Paul is saying that he received the words of the Lord’s Supper from the Lord through the apostles and now passes them on to the Corinthians. He expects these people to accept this sacred trust and tradition which they must in turn pass on to others.

b. “That the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was betrayed.” We are confident that the account of the events regarding Jesus’ betrayal and arrest were familiar to the readers. By adding the name Jesus to the title Lord, Paul directs the attention of the readers to the earthly life of Jesus and the humiliation which the Lord experienced. But see the contrast: while Jesus’ adversaries were laying their plans to arrest and murder him, the Lord instituted the sacrament of Holy Communion.

Paul describes the act of betrayal with a Greek verb in the imperfect tense to indicate a deed that was in progress. Only Paul gives this information as an introduction to the very words Jesus uttered. The Evangelists place the institution in the immediate context of the Passover feast and the broader context of Jesus’ impending agony in Gethsemane and subsequent suffering and death at Calvary, thus placing the Lord’s Supper in the context of history. But Paul discloses that Communion also is the repeated act of receiving and delivering the sacrament until the Lord returns (v. 26).

c. “[Jesus] took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it.” In the Greek, we see the same wording in Luke 22:19. The accounts of Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22 are nearly identical in translation except for a different verb form for “gave thanks.” And the Gospel accounts specify that Jesus gave the bread to his disciples. Paul, however, omits this detail; he probably wanted to provide a general context applicable to everyone who partakes of the bread.

The words of the formulary echo other traditions or events. For example, at the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus took the bread, looked up to heaven, gave thanks, and broke it.70 Jewish fathers followed the same ritual at a meal or at a Passover feast. Near the conclusion of the Passover celebration, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper when he took bread—a reference to his own body that was about to be subjected to suffering and death.

d. “[He] said: ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” The Gospel writers also record this saying of Jesus; and we can compare their wording with that of Paul:

We see that the accounts of Matthew and Mark are almost identical, as are those of Luke and Paul. A dissimilarity between Matthew and Mark is the addition of the imperative eat in Matthew’s narrative. Likewise, Luke has the verb given, which Paul omits. Luke and Paul do not record the command take and eat at the beginning of Jesus’ saying; conversely, Luke and Paul alone feature Jesus’ command to “do this in remembrance of me.” All four writers have the words this is my body in common.

Since the time of the Reformation theologians have discussed the interpretation of the words this is my body. A commentary is not the place to present a lengthy theological discourse. But I will make a few remarks. The morsel of bread which Jesus held in his hand did not become his physical body; the bread remained bread. It was a symbol that stood for the reality of his body. Much as the dove descending on Jesus at the time of his baptism represents the Holy Spirit, so the bread represents Christ’s body.71

Jesus said to his disciples, “This is my body, which is for you.” On the eve of his death, he spoke prophetically about his physical body that would be nailed to a cross as an atonement for sin. His body would be delivered for all who believe in Christ and at Communion partake of the bread. Jesus indicated that he would die in their place (compare Rom. 5:7–8).

What shall we say about the exalted and invisible body of the ascended Christ? The bread which the believer eats is a sign of that glorified body which is now in heaven. Through the Holy Spirit, partakers of the bread are brought together by faith into fellowship with Christ and experience his sacred presence and power.

The command to “do this in remembrance of me” can be understood in both an objective and a subjective sense. Objectively, it refers to our prayer to God that he will graciously remember the Messiah and cause his kingdom to come at his appearing.72 Subjectively, it means that we as partakers at the Lord’s table remember his death on the cross. Of these two interpretations, the second one appears to be more relevant in the context. Within the Corinthian church, the people failed to observe the Lord’s Supper properly (vv. 20–21). They needed to remember Jesus’ death and reflect on its implication for them. Hence, Paul repeats the words of Jesus as a reminder to the Corinthians that the Lord’s Supper is an act of remembrance.73

By eating the bread and drinking from the cup, Paul says, we proclaim the Lord’s death (v. 26). We must do this repeatedly, as Jesus’ command indicates, to remember his death. But there is much more to the Lord’s Supper than a remembrance of his death. We also call to mind Christ’s redemptive work, his resurrection and ascension, his promise to be with his people always, and his eventual return.74

Practical Considerations in 11:23–24

What is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper when a Christian partakes of the holy elements? I remember the first time that I was given the privilege to participate. For weeks I had looked forward to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, but this anticipation was restrained when I ate and drank with the other worshipers. I had expected a supernatural influx of divine power, but nothing miraculous happened during that worship service. I thought about Christ’s death on the cross of Calvary, the remission of sin, and the presence of the Lord. In a sense, that first experience for me was sobering and devoid of magic.

As time went by, I matured spiritually and began to experience Christ’s presence at the Communion services. As the host, he invited me to be his guest at the table. As the Mediator of the new covenant that God had made, he considered me a covenant partner. As the Lamb of God slain at Golgotha, he cleansed me from my sins. As my brother and friend, he showed me how to live to God’s glory and express my thankfulness to him. As the source of bliss, he filled me not with grief and sadness for his death but with joy and gladness for his presence.

What is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper? It is a time of reflecting, rejoicing, and thanksgiving. As we experience the spiritual presence of the Lord at the table, we with the church of all ages and all places fervently pray Maranatha, “Come, O Lord” (16:22; see also Rev. 22:20).75

25. In the same way, also taking the cup after supper, he said: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.”

a. Variations. The wording of this verse is almost identical to that of Luke’s account. In the Greek text of the three synoptic Gospels, only Luke has the expression in the same way, and only he omits the verb to take (22:20; compare Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23). For the sake of clarity the word taking has to be supplied in verse 25.

Matthew writes that Jesus takes the cup and commands his disciples, “Drink from it, all of you” (26:27). Mark has a declarative sentence that states, “they all drank from it” (14:23). But Luke records Jesus’ comment: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20b). Paul relates the first part of Luke’s sentence but not the second. And of all Last Supper accounts, only that of Paul has the words, “Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.” Conversely, the three synoptic Evangelists show balance in respect to the beneficiaries of the bread and the cup when they write, “poured out for many/you” (Matt. and Mark/Luke).

Both Matthew and Mark write, “my blood of the covenant.” But Luke records Jesus’ words as “the new covenant in my blood.” Did Jesus say “new covenant” in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 31:31) and Luke recorded the adjective new? Did both Matthew and Mark delete this adjective? Regardless of the question concerning variations, Luke’s and Paul’s accounts show remarkable similarities in wording.

b. Meaning. “In the same way, also taking the cup after supper, he said.” Paul uses the phrase in the same way to parallel with a minimum of words the taking of the bread and the taking of the cup. The conjunction also affirms that Jesus adopted the same procedure with the cup as with the bread. When Paul writes “after supper,” he intimates that after the bread was distributed and eaten, the cup had to be filled for the third time, according to custom.76 Then it was passed on to the disciples. At a Jewish Passover meal, the participants drank at intervals from four cups (see the commentary at 10:16). When Jesus took the cup, it was the third cup known as “the cup of blessing.”77 At this moment he instituted the second part of the Lord’s Supper. Conversely, the partaking of the bread and of the cup in the Corinthian church may have been separated by some interval, in view of the phrase after supper (v. 25).

“‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood.’” According to Paul and Luke, Jesus does not say that the liquid in the cup is his blood and thus he fails to compose a direct parallel with his words this is my body. Although Matthew and Mark balance the terms body and blood in their Gospels, in the accounts of Luke and Paul the parallel fails because the expression new covenant is central. This expression gives the word blood a deeper spiritual meaning. The cup represents the new covenant that Jesus ratifies with his blood. When Moses confirmed the first covenant at Mount Sinai, he sprinkled blood on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you” (Exod. 24:8; see also Zech. 9:11). Animal blood was sprinkled for the first covenant, Christ’s blood for the new covenant.

What is a covenant? “The word ‘covenant’ points to a unilateral disposition made by God in favour of man, and is not to be understood in terms of a mutual agreement made between two parties of equal standing.”78 God instituted the first covenant in the days of Moses (Exod. 24:4b–8); he gave the Israelites promises which he fulfilled; as their part of the covenant obligations, the Israelites were asked to keep God’s law, which they failed to do. By making a new covenant with his people, God made the old one obsolete (Heb. 8:13). He ratified this new covenant with Christ’s blood shed once for all (Heb. 9:26; 10:10). God appointed Jesus as the mediator of this covenant (Heb. 7:22; 8:6), and Jesus fulfilled it by giving up his body and blood. Concisely, in the word covenant lies the implicit parallel of Jesus’ body that was slain for the benefit of his people and Jesus’ sprinkled blood that confirms this new covenant with them (compare Rom. 3:25).

Every believer who drinks from the cup at the Lord’s table is a member of the covenant that Christ has ratified in his blood. This also holds true for eating the bread. All those who partake of the one loaf signify that they participate in the one body of Christ (10:17). Together they form a covenant community.79

c. Command. “‘Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.’” For a second time, Jesus issues a command to observe the sacrament of Communion. But he is more specific in giving this command. He instructs his people to celebrate and, whenever they do, to remember him in connection with his shed blood for the remission of sin.

In Old Testament times, the Israelites were commanded to observe Passover on the fourteenth of the Hebrew month Nisan. By contrast, Jesus commands his people to both eat the bread and drink of the cup regularly, but refrains from giving his followers a fixed schedule. Some churches have Communion once every three months, others celebrate it monthly, and still others weekly. Although the Lord’s Supper is observed in numerous churches on Maundy Thursday or Good Friday, its celebration is not limited to a stated time. Instead Jesus says, “As often as you observe Communion, you must remember that I offered myself on your behalf.”

26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

a. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup.” Of all the New Testament writers who record the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, only Paul has Jesus’ command: “Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.” Paul adds his own summary of and insight into the Lord’s Supper. With the conjunction for, he summarizes Jesus’ formulary. He repeats the words as often as and links them to both the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup. These two actions must always be equal elements of this sacrament. At the Corinthian love feasts and Communion services, irregularities occurred which Paul now seeks to rectify.

b. “You proclaim the death of the Lord.” Paul teaches that all those who eat the bread and drink from the cup symbolically proclaim Jesus’ death.80 By his death, Jesus has made them partners of the new covenant that God established with his people and of which Christ is the mediator. Paul reminds them of the spiritual benefits that accrue from Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, and they by partaking of the bread and the cup acknowledge unity one with another in Christ.

When the church celebrates the Lord’s Supper in the setting of a worship service, ministers of the Word ought to proclaim the significance of Christ’s death. Whenever they expound the Word verbally, the worshipers proclaim it silently by partaking of the sacramental elements.

c. “Until he comes.” The members of the church proclaim both Jesus’ death and his return. They look forward to the day when Christ shall return and they shall be forever with the Lord. In the church of the second half of the first century, believers celebrated Communion and then prayed Maranatha (Come, O Lord).

Christians cannot suppress their desire to be with Jesus; they must proclaim his death, resurrection, and return. In a similar vein, the prophet Isaiah notes his inability to suppress this desire:

For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent,

for Jerusalem’s sake I will not remain quiet,

till her righteousness shines out like the dawn,

her salvation like a blazing torch.

[Isa. 62:1]

Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 11:23–26

Verse 23

ἐγώ … ὑμῖν—note that these two personal pronouns occupy key positions for emphasis: the first one at the beginning of the first clause and the other at the end of the main sentence.

ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου—“from the Lord.” The difference between ἀπό and παρά after the verb παραλαμβάνω (I receive) is negligible.

παρεδίδετο—the imperfect denotes the act of betraying or delivering (“he was delivered”). The passive is a Semitic construction to avoid using the name of God. According to Peter at Pentecost, the Father delivered Jesus over to sinful men (Acts 2:23).

Verse 24

The Majority Text, reflected in two translations (KJV, NKJV), has expanded the text by incorporating the words take and eat. Early and major manuscripts would not omit these words, however, if they were part of the text. For this reason, editors of the Greek New Testament regard them as an insertion influenced by the text of Matthew 26:26. Similarly, the Majority Text inserts the expression which is broken between “this is my body” and “for you.” The verb broken is an echo of the same verb used for the breaking of bread.84

τοῦτο μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα—“The gender of the demonstrative pronoun is natural, being attracted into the gender of the predicate nominative, τὸ σῶμα μου; the reference may very well be to ἄρτος [bread] although it is masculine.”85 In the present clause, the predicate nominative probably receives emphasis: “This is my body” instead of “This is my body” or “This is my body.”

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε—the demonstrative pronoun this includes all the parts of the ceremony (see also v. 25). The present imperative of the verb to do calls for repeated action.

εἰς—this preposition controls the accusative case and connotes purpose: “to remember me.”

τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν—the presence of the possessive adjective my between the definite article and the noun expresses emphasis. It is the act of remembering Jesus’ person and work.

Verses 25–26

ἐμῷ and ἐμήν—both possessive adjectives are placed between a definite article and a noun to indicate emphasis.

ὁσάκις—this adverb expresses the idea of indefinite repetition (“whenever”). It occurs in both verses (vv. 25, 26) with the present subjunctive ἐσθίητε (you eat).86

ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ—“until he comes.” “This clause is not a simple time reference but ἔλθῃ is a prospective subjunctive which … may therefore be freely translated ‘until (matters have developed to the point at which) he comes.’”87

c. Preparation

11:27–34

Merely reciting Jesus’ words while properly celebrating the Lord’s Supper is insufficient to rectify the deplorable conditions at the Corinthian love feasts and Communion ceremonies. Paul wanted the Christians at Corinth to examine their spiritual and social lives. After repenting of their sins, they are to come freely to the Lord’s table in the knowledge that they will not be condemned. They must realize the sacredness of the sacrament and the necessity of coming to the Holy Supper with profound reverence. Celebrating Communion calls for joy and happiness but never for superficiality and carelessness.

27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of [profaning] the body and blood of the Lord.

a. Translation. First, translators and editors of the Greek text differ on the division of this text. Should the verse be the conclusion of the preceding paragraph or the beginning of a new one? Most scholars think that Paul commences another aspect of his teaching about the Lord’s Supper and therefore opt for a new paragraph.

Next, the sentence is clear in Greek but not in English. The word profaning or its equivalent should be supplied to clarify that the nonchalant partaker of Communion is sinning against the Lord himself. If we provide a literal translation, it means that the partaker of the Lord’s Supper is guilty of murdering Jesus.

b. Incompatibility. “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily.” Both bread and cup belong to the Lord, so that anyone who partakes of both these elements without observing Christ’s holiness sins against him. Paul writes the little word or to emphasize the fact that when the eating or drinking is profaned, the partaker stands guilty. In light of the parallel sentences in the preceding and succeeding verses (vv. 26, 28), the connective or appears to mean the same thing as and.

Explanations of the adverb unworthily are numerous and diverse because the adverb by itself can be understood in various ways. To illustrate the options: persons are of the opinion that they are not worthy of such holy food and drink; partakers come without repentance of sin and thus without self-examination; affluent Corinthians reveal contempt for the poor; communicants fail to express gratitude to Christ by turning the sacrament into a frivolous feast.88

Perhaps Paul intended that the adverb unworthily be interpreted as broadly as possible. True, some of the Corinthians demonstrated a lack of love, while others failed to make a distinction between the love feast and the observance of Communion. Both were wrong, and Paul confronts them. But the text has a message for the universal church, too. Christians should never regard the celebration as a mere ritual. Rather, sincere believers ought to anticipate the Lord’s Supper. Christians should confess their unworthiness because of sin but their worthiness because of Christ. Paul is not demanding perfection before believers are allowed to come to Communion. He advocates a lifestyle that is governed by the claims of Christ’s gospel and which attributes the highest praise to God.

c. Guilt. “[He] shall be guilty of [profaning] the body and blood of the Lord.” The words unworthily and guilty are juxtaposed in the Greek and explain each other, as a contemporary illustration helps us understand. A person who burns the flag of his native country testifies that he has no respect for his homeland. Granted that a flag is a mere piece of cloth, we nevertheless know that it is a symbol of a nation; disrespect for a flag is understood as contempt for the country it represents.

Likewise, partaking unworthily of the Communion elements signifies sacrilege. Persons who profane the bread and the cup of the Lord offend the Lord himself. Purposely they have chosen not to proclaim Christ’s death but to set themselves against the Lord and take their place with those who killed him. These people are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, because they put the Son of God to open shame and treat him with insolence (compare Acts 7:52; Heb. 6:6; 10:29).

28. But let a man examine himself and thus let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Is Paul counseling the Corinthians to conduct self-examination before coming to the Lord’s table? Should a pastor exhort the parishioners to examine themselves before they celebrate Communion? The answer to these two queries is a resounding yes. Here are the reasons:

First, with the adversative but Paul prescribes self-examination for everyone who desires to partake of the bread and the cup of the Lord. He understands the word man generically to exclude no one.

Next, the meaning of the verb to examine is applicable both to the original reader’s of this epistle and to the members of the church universal. The present tense of the imperative verb to examine indicates that anyone who partakes of the Lord’s Supper must examine himself regularly. The Corinthians should know that they cannot partake of Communion with hearts filled with either contempt or frivolity. After due self-examination they must approach the Lord’s table with genuine love for both the Lord and their fellow man. This holds true for all Christians everywhere. They are to come to the Communion table with hearts attuned to God and the Scriptures (compare II Cor. 13:5–6). That table truly symbolizes the holiness of the Lord and his sacred presence. Into this holiness God’s people may enter when they have sought and obtained remission of sin. In brief, the table of the Lord tolerates neither unbelief nor disobedience.89 It is for those people who express true faith in Jesus Christ and proclaim his death in expectation of his return.

29. For he who eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not discern the body.

a. Text. This passage explains and supports the preceding verse (v. 28). Some Greek manuscripts have an expanded reading of this text. They add the adverb unworthily after the clause he who eats and drinks and the words of the Lord following the term body—that is, “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (NKJV). A few translations feature both additions,90 others embrace only the second expansion.91 The longer reading, however, appears to be a well-meant attempt to explain the text with the help of verse 27. In ancient times, a scribe usually would not condense but rather enlarge a text. The more difficult text is the shorter reading, and because omission of the words in question is hard to explain, we accept the shorter reading.92

b. Meaning. “For he who eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not discern the body.” The first part of the verse is repetitious and is explained in the second clause. The causal conjunction for links this verse to the preceding context that speaks of self-examination prior to partaking of the Communion elements. Anyone who eats and drinks without such introspection, receives God’s judgment but not God’s condemnation if he or she repents and properly differentiates. A person’s failure to submit to self-examination results in God’s subsequent judgment. This is as inevitable as night follows day.

What is Paul’s advice? He says that judgment happens only if a person discerns not the body. That is, the partakers must make a clear distinction between the bread that they eat at the love feast for nourishing their physical bodies and the bread of the Lord’s Supper for the benefit of the body of believers.93 We eat bread to nourish our bodies, but that same bread is holy when it is set apart for Communion. The act of differentiating relates to the eating of bread, which harmonizes with the immediate context.

Does the term body (v. 29) refer to the body of the Lord, as in some translations? Is it an abbreviation for “the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27)? Or is it a reference to the body of believers (10:16)?94 Almost all commentators understand this verse (v. 29) in the light of its immediate context that speaks of the body of the Lord; they see a close connection between verses 27 and 29. Commentators understand that the better manuscripts omit the words of the Lord as modifiers of the term body. Yet they understand that this particular term is a shortened form of the full clause “the body and blood of the Lord” in verse 27. And last they doubt that Paul expects the reader to perceive that he means “the body of believers” (10:16). Paul is referring to the body of the Lord which the Communion bread and cup represent.

Practical Considerations in 11:27–29

The psalmist asks the Lord who of all people may be admitted to God’s sanctuary (Ps. 15:1). To put it differently, who may be a guest at your table, Lord? The answer is: a person who is blameless, righteous, truthful, morally upright, and obedient to God’s law. Does this mean that only those who are perfect can enter the sanctuary and sit at the Lord’s table? No, but even in ancient Israel the people had to prepare themselves before they entered the tabernacle or temple grounds. They had to submit themselves to self-examination before they entered the courts of the Lord for the three feasts of Passover, Firstfruits, and Booths.95 Similarly, in the New Testament, Christians are asked to examine themselves before they come to the table of the Lord.

But who may be admitted to the Communion table? German theologian Zacharius Ursinus struggled with the same question. In 1563, he formulated a biblical answer that is thorough and to the point:

Those who are displeased with themselves

because of their sins,

but who nevertheless trust

that their sins are pardoned

and that their continuing weakness is covered

by the suffering and death of Christ,

and who also desire more and more

to strengthen their faith

and to lead a better life.

Hypocrites and those who are unrepentant, however,

eat and drink judgment on themselves.

30. Because of this, many among you are weak and ill and many have died. 31. But if we judged ourselves correctly, we would not be judged. 32. When we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we may not be condemned with the world.

a. “Because of this.” The result of the Corinthian neglect is evident in the Christian community. At the conclusion of his discourse on the Lord’s Supper, Paul courageously points out the sad effect of the abuses.

b. “Many among you are weak and ill and many have died.” As the Corinthians’ first pastor, Paul probably received detailed oral information about the physical health of the church members from the three-man delegation (16:17). He heard that many of the members were indisposed, others were sick, and still others had passed away. Those who were indisposed were inflicted with temporary illnesses; the sick were failing in health and many of them had no hope of recovery; those who died are euphemistically described as “they who are asleep.”

With prophetic insight, Paul draws his conclusions from the news he has received. He deems it necessary to inform the Corinthians that their illnesses and deaths are related to the verdict that God has handed down to them. This verdict stems from their improper observance of the Lord’s Supper. Hence, he once more calls attention to their self-examination.

Paul gives no one a license to become a self-appointed judge of someone else’s afflictions. Instead, he urges everyone to conduct a true self-examination of one’s moral and spiritual life.

c. “But if we judged ourselves correctly, we would not be judged.” The English translation is unable to match the Greek text, which has a double reflexive, one in the verb to judge ourselves and the other in the pronoun ourselves. Paul wants to avoid giving the Corinthians the idea that others may judge them. He wants everyone correctly to examine his or her own life.

Verse 31 is actually a conditional sentence that conveys a contrary-to-fact meaning. Paul is saying that if we subject ourselves to thorough self-examination (which we are not now doing), we would not be judged (but we are receiving God’s judgment). With the first person plural, Paul includes himself even though the conditional sentence clearly relates to the Corinthians alone. They are at fault; nevertheless God wants them to repent and change their attitude.

d. “When we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord.” Paul himself interprets for us the meaning of the verb judged. He says not that God punishes us but that he disciplines us. God punished his Son who bore our sins on the cross and with his death removed them. If God should punish us, Christ would not have borne all our sins. But God will not punish both Christ and us. God disciplines us, so that we may turn to him in full penitence. By repenting of our sinful ways, we experience God’s forgiveness, grace, mercy, and love (II Cor. 7:10). We should understand that afflictions are God’s instruments to bring us closer to him. He chastises us because we are his children (compare I Peter 4:17; Heb. 12:5–7, 10). Often sickness lingers because sin persists—in his epistle James advises the sinner to confess his sin so that he may be healed (5:16a).

e. “So that we may not be condemned with the world.” In two preceding verses (vv. 27, 29), Paul stated that anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the difference between love feasts and Communion is under judgment. But judgment is not the same as condemnation; the one is a timely warning, the other an irrevocable sentence. If we fail to heed God’s warning which he graciously sends us, we shall face damnation and perish with the world of hardened unbelievers. God does not delight in the death of either the righteous who willfully go astray or the wicked. Rather, God urges everyone to repent and, as a result, live (Ezek. 18:32).

33. Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34a. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home that you may not encounter judgment.

With the adverb therefore, Paul now summarizes his discourse on the Lord’s Supper. He addresses his readers once more with the tender greeting my brothers, which includes the sisters (see 1:11; 14:39; 15:58). With this greeting, he conveys both his love and concern. As a faithful pastor, he provides practical advice that will help them to correct the practices at their love feasts and the celebration of Communion.

The counsel Paul gives is to convert thoughts and words into deeds. If the Corinthians duly examine themselves with respect to their conduct at communal gatherings and then repent, they ought to make visible amends at future meetings. When they come together for their common meal to nourish their physical bodies and for the Lord’s Supper, they ought to exercise patience and wait for one another. The Greek verb ekdechomai (I wait for) occurs six times in the New Testament and always has the same meaning.98 It describes Paul waiting for Silas and Timothy in Athens and the farmer patiently waiting for the spring and autumn rains. It supports the intent of verse 21, where Paul decries the lack of patience on the part of those Corinthians who failed to wait for fellow Christians.99 Here he wants them to express genuine love for one another: the rich for the poor, and the poor for the rich.

When they come together for Communion, the Corinthians must realize that the intent is to receive spiritual rather than physical nourishment. Paul exhorts them to differentiate between spiritual and physical needs. He says, “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.” With the word anyone, he addresses all the members of the Corinthian church, both the rich and the poor. And he implies a clear separation of the love feasts and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. He tells the Corinthians to eat and drink at home and thus reinforces his earlier remark about their private homes (v. 22). They ought to know that partaking of the bread and the cup at Communion is meant to satisfy not physical hunger but a spiritual desire for fellowship with Christ and his people. If the Corinthians correctly make this distinction, Paul says they will not encounter God’s judgment.

34b. And the rest of the things I will arrange when I come.

In this chapter, Paul has discussed proper conduct for the worshiper at both the worship services and the observance of Communion. These subjects probably were not mentioned in the letter Paul had received, but he was fully aware of the situation in Corinth. He saw the advantage of giving his instructions in writing to have them recorded for the Corinthian community and all the churches.

We have no details on what Paul means with the phrase the rest of the things. We assume that the phrase refers to other irregularities in the Corinthian church, but these need not be disclosed. These can wait until he arrives. Then he will give further instructions when he meets them face to face (compare II John 12; III John 13–14). After visiting the churches in Macedonia, Paul hopes to come to Corinth and spend the winter there (16:5–8).

Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 11:27–34

Verse 27

ὥστε—this is an inferential particle that introduces an independent clause (followed by the indicative) or introduces a clause with an imperative (see v. 33). In both instances it means “therefore.”

ἀναξίως—this adverb occurs only here in the New Testament. It consists of the particle ἀ (un) and the adverb ἀξίως (worthily) and signifies “in an unworthy or careless manner.”

Verse 28

Note that all the verbs in this verse are in the present tense of the imperative mood—to examine, to eat, and to drink—to convey repeated and habitual action.

ἄνθρωπος—this is the generic use of the term man, which Paul purposely places between the verb to examine and the reflexive pronoun himself for the sake of emphasis.

Verse 29

κρίμα—here is the first word of an extended family of the root κρι- (separate), sprinkled throughout verses 29–34; each one has its own nuance: κρίμα, διακρίνων, διεκρίνομεν, ἐκρίνομεθα, κρινόμενοι, κατακριθῶμεν. The noun κρίμα, also in verse 34, means “judgment” in the sense of verdict.

ἑαυτῷ—in the context of this verse, the reflexive pronoun (“for himself”) is a dative of disadvantage.

διακρίνων—the present active participle denotes condition: “if he is not discerning.”

Verses 33–34

ὥστε—an inferential particle that is similar to οὖν (therefore). See verse 27.

εἴ τις πεινᾷ—the better manuscripts lack the postpositive conjunction δέ of the Majority Text. The particle εἰ (if) denotes a fact expressed with the indefinite pronoun anyone and the present indicative of the verb to be hungry.

ὡς ἄν—followed by the aorist subjunctive ἔλθω (I come), this combination is equivalent to ὅταν (whenever) and the subjunctive.

διατάξομαι—“I will arrange.” This verb in the future middle reveals that Paul is thinking not of external but of doctrinal matters.

Summary of Chapter 11

After praising the Corinthians for remembering him and his teachings, Paul discusses the authority of Christ, man, and God. From this discussion he draws some principles about proper conduct in worship. He mentions the impropriety of a man praying and prophesying with covered head and a woman with uncovered head. He teaches that a woman should have her head covered. Otherwise she should have her hair cut off, which would be a disgrace to her. He also teaches that man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man. Woman is taken from man and man is born from woman, but all things are from God. Long hair is a disgrace to a man but it is a woman’s glory.

Paul does not praise the Corinthians for their meetings, which are detrimental rather than beneficial. He remarks that when they come together for the Lord’s Supper, some remain hungry but others are drunk. Their humiliation of the poor and deviation from the norms are blots on the church of God. Paul, therefore, teaches them the institution of Communion as he received it from the Lord. He instructs them to regularly eat the bread and drink the cup as a proclamation of the Lord’s death, in expectation of his return.

Indifferent observance of Communion is a sin against the Lord himself. Paul urges the Corinthians to examine themselves before they eat and drink from the Lord’s table. Lack of self-examination results in divine judgment, as is witnessed by sickness and death among the Corinthians. Self-examination that leads to repentance precludes God’s judgment.

Paul concludes his discourse with an admonition to satisfy hunger pangs at home, so that the Lord’s Supper can be observed properly. He informs his readers that he will give further instructions when he comes to visit them.

11:17     In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. NIV At the beginning of the last section (11:2), Paul commended the Corinthians for remembering what he had taught them. Concerning this next issue in his letter, however, he had no praise for them. In this situation, their meetings were doing more harm than good.

11:18–19     For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. Paul allowed that there would be differences and divisions among church members. In some cases that would be natural—genuine believers would naturally be separate from those who were not true believers. However, when the people in a church develop into self-willed divisions (such as class distinctions, or the factions described in 3:4), these are destructive to the congregation. Apparently, Paul was referring to class (economic) distinctions here, because these divisions were hurting a time of fellowship that should have been drawing the believers together, not separating them.

11:20–21     When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.  The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus before he died. In a private meal with his disciples, often called the Last Supper, Jesus spoke to his disciples about the significance of this last meal: “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom’ ” (Matthew 26:26–29 niv). Jesus and his disciples ate a meal, sang psalms, read Scripture, and prayed. Then Jesus took two traditional parts of the Passover meal, the passing of bread and the drinking of wine, and gave them new meaning as representations of his body and blood. He used the bread and wine to explain the significance of what he was about to do on the cross.

The Lord’s Supper was celebrated from the earliest days of the church. Acts 2:41–42 says, “Those who accepted [Peter’s] message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (niv). “Breaking of bread” refers to Communion services that were celebrated in remembrance of Jesus; they were patterned after the Last Supper that Jesus had held with his disciples before his death.

When the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in the early church, it included a feast or fellowship meal followed by the celebration of Communion. At the fellowship meal in the church in Corinth, it seems that people brought food to share, with the rich bringing more food than the poor. Instead of sharing equally among everyone, the rich ate among themselves with their own food, leaving the poor with little or nothing. And when the people ate and drank excessively, without waiting for anybody else, this also caused people to go hungry. There was little sharing and caring. Therefore, Paul said that they were not preparing themselves to share the Lord’s Supper, but they were merely satisfying their hunger, as they would at any meal. The feast did not demonstrate the unity and love that should characterize the church, nor was it a preparation for Communion. Approaching the Lord’s Supper (Communion) with some of the church members hungry, while others had gotten drunk, made a mockery of what was to be a holy and unifying time for the believers. Paul condemned these actions and reminded the church of the real purpose of the Lord’s Supper.

Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat—the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself—is truly hidden.

C. S. Lewis

11:22     Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! Some in the Corinthian church had turned the fellowship meal into a gluttonous feast where some ate too much and others got nothing. This had made a mockery of the Lord’s Supper. In addition, by the rich separating themselves from the poor who could not bring as much food, the rich were humiliating those who had nothing. Obviously there was nothing for Paul to praise in this behavior. Instead, he advised the believers to eat and drink at home. Then, when they came to share in the feast, no one would be ravenous, but they could, with self-control, wait for one another and eat only a little so there would be enough for everyone (11:33–34).

11:23–24     For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Paul could not praise their actions, and he reminded them that he had delivered to them what he had received from the Lord regarding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Paul received the following instructions from the Lord. This probably does not mean that he had a divine, direct revelation because the tradition of the Lord’s Supper had been in circulation among the churches through the teaching of the apostles ever since the church first began. The same words of Jesus that Paul quotes are also quoted by the Gospel writers (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; and Luke 22:19). Thus, it seems clear that Paul and the Gospel writers drew upon the same apostolic tradition.

Christians pose several different possibilities for what Christ meant when he said, “This is My body… . This is My blood”: Some believe that the wine and bread actually become Christ’s physical blood and body (transubstantiation). Others believe that the bread and wine remain unchanged, but Christ is spiritually present with the bread and wine (consubstantiation). Still others believe that the bread and wine symbolize Christ’s body and blood (symbolization). Christians generally agree, however, that participating in the Lord’s Supper is an important facet of Christian worship and that Christ’s presence, however they understand it, strengthens them spiritually. By eating “the body of Christ,” believers receive, through faith, the power and benefits of Christ’s body broken for sin and glorified forever. Because the Lord’s Supper is commemorated in remembrance of the body and blood of Jesus given for the redemption of sinful people, it must never be taken lightly. Hence, Paul’s instructions in the remainder of the chapter.

11:25     In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” As Jesus had taken the bread, had given thanks, and had broken it (11:23–24), in the same manner He also took the cup. The “cup” represented the new covenant in [Jesus’] blood. What is this new covenant? In the old covenant (the promise of God with his people before Christ came), people could approach God only through the priests and the sacrificial system. God would forgive people’s sins if they would bring animals for the priests to sacrifice. When this sacrificial system was begun, the agreement between God and human beings was sealed with the blood of animals. The people of Israel first entered into this agreement after the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 24). But animal blood did not in itself remove sin (only God can forgive sin), and animal sacrifices had to be repeated day by day and year after year.

Jesus’ death on the cross ushered in the new covenant (or agreement) between God and humanity. This concept is key to all New Testament theology. Under this new covenant, Jesus died in the place of sinners. Unlike the blood of animals, Jesus’ blood truly removed the sins of all who put their faith in him. And Jesus’ sacrifice will never have to be repeated; it is good for all eternity (Hebrews 9:23–28). The new covenant completes, rather than replaces, the old covenant, fulfilling everything the old covenant looked forward to (see Jeremiah 31:31–34). Now people can personally approach God and communicate with him. Eating the bread and drinking the cup shows that God’s people are remembering Christ’s death for them and renewing their commitment to serve him.

11:26     For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.  The eating of the bread and drinking of the cup are to be done on a continual basis in the churches until the return of Christ (till He comes). By observing this special meal, the believers proclaim the Lord’s death. By partaking of the body and blood of Christ, they personally show their participation in the Christian community and their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior. The periodic, solemn celebration of the Lord’s Supper among believers reminds them of Christ’s suffering on their behalf and of his imminent return when he will take them with him.

11:27–28     Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. NRSV The solemn occasion of the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated carefully and entered into with spiritual readiness. When Paul said that no one should take the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, he was speaking to church members who were rushing into it without thinking of its meaning and, thus, were “not honoring the body of Christ” (11:29 nlt). Those who did so would be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. To treat the symbols of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice irreverently is to be guilty of irreverence toward his body and blood shed on sinners’ behalf. Instead of honoring Christ’s sacrifice, those who ate unworthily were sharing in the guilt of those who crucified him.

In reality, no one is “worthy” to take the Lord’s Supper. All believers are sinners saved by grace. But because they are saved, believers can celebrate this solemn rite as given to them by the Savior.

The very nature of the rite calls for introspection. Therefore, Paul told the believers to examine themselves. No one should partake of the Lord’s Supper who had not accepted Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for salvation. Neither should they come to the table drunk, angry with others, or with known but unrepented sin in their lives. Coming to the Lord’s table “in an unworthy manner” means to come without a solemn understanding of what is being remembered, and without a repentant and humble spirit before the Lord.

11:29–30     For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. NRSV The seriousness of the matter is revealed in these words. To eat and drink without discerning the body means coming to the Lord’s table and not honoring the body of Christ sacrificed for our sins. Some versions, following inferior manuscript support, exhibit the interpolation “body of the Lord,” in an attempt to distinguish Christ’s body from the body of believers, the church. According to superior manuscript evidence, the reading is “the body,” which can be interpreted as either the body of Jesus offered on the cross or the body of believers or both.

The Corinthians had two problems: (1) They did not distinguish this special meal from all others; and (2) they did not discern their interrelationship as believers—the body of Christ. Regarding the second problem, the Corinthians had become divided at the Lord’s Supper between the rich and the poor. But any such divisions had to be done away with if they were to truly come together as the body of Christ, remembering Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf. To not come to the table in unity and acceptance of fellow believers revealed arrogance and ungratefulness for what Christ had done.

To take the Lord’s Supper—to eat the bread and drink the wine—as though it were no more than a regular meal to assuage hunger is to miss the sanctity of this special rite. Those who did so were eating and drinking God’s judgment against themselves. This “judgment” was severe, one of the most severe in the New Testament. The judgment was disciplinary in nature (11:32); that is, this did not refer to eternal judgment, but it was severe enough as to cause many of the believers to be weak and ill, while some had even died. That some of the people had died may have been a special supernatural judgment on the Corinthian church. This type of disciplinary judgment highlights the seriousness of the Communion service. The Lord’s Supper is not to be taken lightly; this new covenant cost Jesus his life. It is not a meaningless ritual, but a sacrament given by Christ to help strengthen believers’ faith.

11:31     But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. NIV If the believers judged themselves—that is, if they took time to examine themselves (11:28) before taking the Lord’s Supper and so came to it with humble and repentant hearts—they would not come under judgment. This “judgment” refers to what Paul had just described in 11:29–30. While no one can come to the Lord’s Supper “worthy” of Christ’s redemptive work, all believers can come with the right attitude and the right motivation to thank and praise God for what he has done.

11:32     When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. NIV Paul hastened to add that the judgment of 11:29–30 was disciplinary in nature and not eternal. The judgment sent by God is meant to bring believers back to a right understanding of the Lord’s Supper so they can celebrate it correctly. The discipline will draw them back so that they can worship the Lord and not be condemned with the world. The world will face eternal condemnation because it has rejected Christ.

11:33–34     So, dear brothers and sisters, when you gather for the Lord’s Supper, wait for each other. If you are really hungry, eat at home so you won’t bring judgment upon yourselves when you meet together. NLT To solve the problem in Corinth, Paul advised the believers, when they gathered to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, to wait for each other. They should come to this meal desiring to fellowship with other believers and to prepare for the Lord’s Supper to follow, not to fill up on a big dinner. The phrase “If you are really hungry, eat at home” means that the people should eat dinner beforehand, so they would come to the fellowship meal in the right frame of mind. As Paul had already explained, to come with the wrong attitude would bring judgment upon themselves. How sad to turn a blessed time of unity and thanksgiving into a time of division and judgment. Paul did not want this to be the case in Corinth.

I’ll give you instructions about the other matters after I arrive. NLT Apparently there were other questions that needed Paul’s instructions, but these questions were not urgent enough for him to take up in this letter. He would talk with the believers about these when he arrived in Corinth.

The style of this section, together with Paul’s redescription of what he understands to be taking place at the Lord’s Supper, indicates that he is not responding to a question first raised by the addressees, but initiates the raising of an urgent matter for censure and re-education. This is prompted by oral reports of occurrences and practices at Corinth. Along with 1:10–4:21 and 5:1–13 (cf. also ch. 6), “at 1 Cor 11:18 occurs the third of Paul’s explicit references to this oral and unofficial information: ‘… I hear that there are divisions (σχίσματα) among you (11:18).… One goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry …’ (11:21).”1 Whereas he had commended the addressees for observing certain traditions shared by the churches as a whole in v. 2 (ἐπαινῶ ὑμᾶς ὅτι … τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε, i.e., probably in acknowledging the legitimate role of women under the gospel to lead in public prayer or preaching [see under “prophecy”]), Paul now explicitly retracts such commendation in 11:17: οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι οὐκ.

Although almost all of 7:1–14:40 (if not also 15:1–58) responds to questions from Corinth, the present topic appropriately comes at this juncture. This is the case partly because it addresses issues of the assembled congregation at worship (11:2–14:40; cf. also συνέρχεσθαι five times in 11:17, 18, 20, 33, and 34). More especially it is because the theme of disrupting the community and undermining the nature of the cross by self-affirming insistence on individual or group “freedom,” “rights,” and “celebration” continues the issue which dominates 8:1–11:1.2 In line with the research of Horsley, Gooch, and Gardner on the relation between “self-awareness” (or conscience) and security/insecurity in 8:1–11:1 Bruce Winter urges that those who held “secure” positions at Corinth, whether as host to others in the church or as clients of the patron-host, were too ready to enjoy their group security while leaving those without the protection of a patron to tag along as second-class citizens in the celebrations of the Lord’s Supper.3 Christians who have resources, Winter concludes concerning this passage, should welcome (ἐκδέχεσθε, v. 33) the “have nots” by sharing their food with them at the Lord’s Supper.4 The introduction of the possible role of the host-patron may call into question Fee’s contention that the splits (σχίσματα, 11:18) of this section are different in kind from the splits (same Greek word) in 1:10.5 Just as in 1:10–12, the groupings caused splits by generating an ethos which came to give the peer group or subgroup more prominence than the “one” Body (cf. 10:16, 17) of the whole church, so the dynamics of the celebrations of the Lord’s Supper in house groups in all probability generated the same spirit of focusing on a patron or host to a group rather than exclusively on Christ.

Moreover, by allowing to “the other” only second-class hospitality in the atrium rather than first-class comfort and service in the host’s triclinium see below), the proceedings defeated the very proclamation of the Lord, whose death was “for us” and “for the other” as one Body (12:12).6 It explicitly contradicted and undermined the very purpose of the Lord’s Supper (οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε, v. 17). For the love for the other, the outsider, and “the weak,” which characterized the death of Christ, was thrust aside.7 Was their meal still the supper of the Lord (v. 20)?

In spite of his tendency to project sometimes speculative imaginative scenarios in his more popular study You Wretched Corinthians! Hans Frör well captures the connection between 11:2–16 and 17–34 in the following projected dialogue initiated by his fictitious barmaid Mara. Mara exclaims: “They’re bothering about veils, as though one had only to throw away a bit of material and everyone would be equal at the Lord’s table.… ‘Not slave and free, not poor and rich! That makes me laugh! Clearly the better class gentlemen have been looked after for quite some time in the dining room when our kind comes rushing along. They eat lavishly, drink the finest wines.… They mix up the well-laid table of the master of the house with the Lord’s table.… If we’re lucky, all that’s left for the shared meal is a bit of bread and a sip of wine.… We get the bits.”

The focus of proclaiming the Lord’s death, therefore, serves as a parallel to the central point in 1:18–25: if the cross stands as “the ground and criterion” of what it is to be an apostle and a Christian believer (as Schrage and Moltmann rightly express the point), then the “splits” of chs. 1–4 undermine the heart of the gospel. Similarly, the practices which surround the sharing of the meal which (in Paul’s view) points above all to the “for others” of the Lord’s death undermine the very heart of why the worshiping community celebrates the Lord’s Supper at all. Like apostleship, “remembering” and “showing forth” the Lord’s death is a matter of conduct and lifestyle, not simply of words and ecclesial ritual. As in Israel’s participation in the Passover, assembled believers are brought “there” to the cross, to allow it once again to reshape their mind-set and their lifestyle.

Two further points should be added by way of introduction to 11:17–34. From the 1920s to the 1960s Hans Lietzmann’s work Mass and Lord’s Supper (first German ed. 1926; successive English eds. from 1953 to 1979) popularized the notion of a contrast between two “primitive types” of Eucharist or Lord’s Supper: a so-called “Pauline” type which focused on the death of Christ and finds expression in the Roman liturgy of Hippolytus, and a so-called “Jerusalem” type which reflects a joyous celebration of fellowship meals in communion with the risen Christ as reflected in Acts 2:46 and the early Egyptian liturgy represented in Serapion.10 Gregory Dix promoted Lietzmann’s view in Anglican circles, while A. J. B. Higgins accepted a modified version with the proviso that both “types” go back to earliest times. Even Cullmann regarded Lietzmann’s view as unduly neglected, even though he concedes that he was “too conscious of the [alleged] gulf separating these two conceptions.”12 At the time Cullmann acknowledges that behind Lietzmann’s theory lay the tradition of postresurrection Christophanies which in the radical views of A. Schweitzer, M. Goguel, and A. Loisy assumed the form of “myths of the table-fellowship of the Risen One with His disciples.”13 E. Lohmeyer subsequently argued that a “Galilean” type (which corresponds with Lietzmann’s “Jerusalem” type) should be distinguished from a “Jerusalem” type (close to Lietzmann’s “Pauline” type).

Lietzmann (followed by Dix) also postulated a parallel between the “Jerusalem” type of the eucharistic tradition and the Haburah meal of “Jewish meals invested with religious solemnity.” However, more recent research dismisses such a theory as “an ad hoc conjecture for which there is absolutely no evidence.”15 Jeremias’s evaluation has been endorsed by I. H. Marshall and others (discussed under exegesis of v. 17). We should not approach vv. 17–34 with any anachronistic preconceptions about “agapē (love-feast)” and “Lord’s Supper” as reconstructed hypothetically by Lietzmann and his legacy of thought (see below).

The second of the final two points concerns the possibility that the contrast between those who were well provided for and the “have nots” was exacerbated not only by socioeconomic differences of background, birth, patronage, and occupation but also by the specific circumstances of famine (or at least of severe food shortages) around the date of this epistle.16 B. W. Winter, B. B. Blue, and A. D. Clarke cite the appointment of Tiberius Claudius Dinippus as curator for problems caused by the shortages, although the dating may be a few years later.17 Donald Engels calculates that even with high yields (e.g., 18 bushels per acre, or 16 hectoliters per hectare) of barley, the 80 square miles (207 square kilometers) of cultivatable land which belonged to the agricultural territorium of Roman Corinth “would scarcely support 17,600 people” at around 1.2 kilograms (2,600 calories in barley) per day. This figure, even if we include fruit, vegetables, and other crops, represents “absolute maximum.”18 Granted that the city could not be self-supporting, it might well entail relatively small climatic irregularities, especially lack of adequate rain, to cause a degree of scarcity that would raise prices. The effect would be to widen the gap between the well-to-do who could take price rises in their stride, and those already on the bread line who could not. Suetonius attests several famines or at least shortages during the reign of Claudius (ad 41–54), and Josephus alludes to high prices during this period.19 Whether or not Blue’s reconstruction actually reflects the precise timing of our epistle, the principle of nonagricultural economics and high commercial population at Corinth, as well as a wide range of socioeconomic status, suggests the vulnerability of the poor to shortages. This would make the distinction between first-class and second-class guests at “the Lord’s Supper” all the more poignant.

17 The MSS reflect some confusion over whether παραγγέλλων and οὐκ ἐπαινῶ should be read respectively as a participle and as an indicative (UBS 4th ed., following א, G, and most MSS), or inverted respectively into an indicative followed by a participle (following A and C*), or even as two participles (following B). Most follow the א and G reading accepted by the UBS 4th ed.

As we noted in our introduction to 11:17–34, Paul’s use of οὐκ ἐπαινῶ in this verse signals a deliberate and conscious retraction of his ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς in 11:2.20 With respect to permitting women to lead in public in prophetic speech or prayer the Corinthian church accorded with the traditions observed among the Pauline churches. However, their mode of sharing, or more strictly of failing genuinely to share, the Lord’s Supper transposed it from being the Lord’s Supper, which proclaimed his giving of himself “for others,” into little more than a party meal given for the benefit of some inner group invited by the host of the house (see vv. 20–22). The verb συνέρχεσθε is repeated in vv. 18, 20, 33, and 34, and this specific eucharistic context denotes not simply assembling together but the meeting you hold as a church. In v. 18 this becomes explicit. It is as one believing community that they meet, not as a group of friends meeting for a private meal. Although they share in solidarity as recipients of divine grace through the cross of Christ (cf. 4:7), the disruptive and divisive nature of their meetings for what amounts to a meal in the house of a wealthy patron does more harm than good. This last phrase (REB and NIV) conveys in English idiom the sharpened contrast of Gk. οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον. We were tempted to follow NRSV’s translation of τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων … as Now in the following instructions (NIV, the following directives), but for the fact that as eminent an exegete as Barrett insists emphatically that τοῦτο bears its expected meaning as “referring to what precedes.”21 Since examples occur in Greek in which τοῦτο can denote what follows (NRSV, NIV; also by implication NJB), Barrett’s view is improbable, but our translation, these directives, leaves this issue open (as does REB).

NJB’s phrase the meetings you hold admirably paves the way for the question: What kind of meetings are these? Are they simply occasions for entertaining those of similar status and background, with hangers on who come because it has the form of a eucharistic memorial by virtue of its framework? Or do these meetings focus on Christ and on a celebration of the New Passover of redemption in which all Christian believers share in solidarity as thankful recipients of God’s grace through the work of Christ? As Hays observes, we should be careful to avoid reading back anachronistically the distinction between “the agapē (love-feast)” and “the Eucharist” of which Lietzmann made so much.22 We have already outlined Lietzmann’s hypothesis in our introduction to this section, noting its connections with theories of myths of postresurrection Christophanies among such controversial thinkers as Schweitzer, Goguel, and Loisy, its popularization among English-speaking readers by Dix and Higgins, and its subsequent criticism by Jeremias and Marshall, among others. Indeed, the work of Otfried Hofius establishes that the tradition of “remembering” (εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησις), especially in the context of Heb. זכר (z-k-r), constitutes a joyful “recalling” or “proclaiming” of God’s saving acts (cf. Ps 105:1, 5) which reaches its highest peak in grateful praise and celebration of grace through the cross and identification with Christ (“fellowship,” “sharing”) as the Crucified and Raised Lord.24 The two dimensions postulated as “two types” by Lietzmann achieve a historical and theological unity in the more convincing work of Hofius. This does not exclude the various “readings” of the early tradition which express several specific emphases in the liturgies of early centuries.25

18 In 1:10–12 we translated σχίσματα as splits both to preserve the metaphor of the Greek and to avoid the mistaken notion that the divisions were of a doctrinal nature. REB’s fall into sharply divided groups may be justified by the exegesis of the whole passage, but goes beyond the Greek of this verse. There is a fundamental difference between 1:10–12 and the point here, however. In 1:10–12 the splits seem to reflect tensions between different ethos of different house groups. The splits are “external” to given groups, although internal to the whole church of Corinth. Here, however, the very house meeting itself reflects splits between the socially advantaged and the socially disadvantaged. They are “internal” even within a single gathered meeting, i.e., ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, when they meet in one place as a church. However, the Greek phrase should not be interpreted as a locative: it means as a church, not in church (which would be anachronistic as well as contrary to the normal use of the phrase in this period).26 If we wish to make the preposition ἐάν explicit, we need to follow Robertson and Plummer’s in assembly as reflecting Heb. קהל (qahal).27 It is possible, but by no means certain, that ἀκούω can be understood as a continuous present, I continually hear or I hear again and again.28 However, most English VSS translate either I hear (NRSV, NIV, and NJB) or I am told (REB). Our translation approximates that of the REB here.

Commentators make heavy weather of μέρος τι πιστεύω, not least since a variety of understandings are permitted by the Greek. Hays interprets it as an expression of outrage: I can hardly credit it; I can’t believe it.29 Robertson and Plummer take the opposite view: Christian hope and charity are always reluctant to believe the worst.30 Fee argues: “he really does believe it but also acknowledges that his informants are scarcely disinterested observers.”31 Wolff and Kistemaker view this as a case of judicious pastoral “caution”: Paul avoids unnecessary confrontation and especially rash, overly hasty speech.32 This last suggestion is the most reasonable, and is well conveyed by REB, I believe there is some truth in it. Our translation, to some extent I believe it, assimilates this rendering, together with leaving open what Paul himself probably wishes to leave open, namely that while splits on the basis of first-class and second-class guests at dinner clearly occurred, some hosts or patrons may have shown more sensitivity than others. The accusation might not have been entirely universal. This strengthens the point noted above about the need for responsible pastoral speech over against rash generalization and the accusation of all and sundry.

19 D*, F, G and Cyprian omit the first ἐν ὑμῖν, and a few MSS omit the second occurrence; but the 4th ed. UBS Greek New Testament rightly retains both occurrences.

If our proposed interpretation is accepted, γάρ continues the explanation for the abuses, which are then described further in vv. 20–21. On αἱρέσεις, δόκιμοι, and φανεροί, see BAGD, which accords with our translation.33 We may begin, however, with Paulsen’s argument that Paul is referring here to a saying about the unavoidable process of “dissension” or “division” in the light of an eschatology of judgment.34 Justin explicitly cites the saying “There shall be splits and dissensions” precisely in such a context of eschatological judgment: “many shall come in My name clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” [Matt 7:15].… “There shall be many false Christs and false apostles … [Matt 24:11].”35 However, while we take up the allusion to a saying probably related to eschatology, we do not accept the view that it is Paul who himself appeals to this axiom in this eucharistic context. May it not be that the educated and sophisticated “strong” at Corinth had already anticipated and addressed criticism about “divisiveness” by taking up the saying, “Not everyone who claimed to be a believer might be proved to be tried and true”; hence all this talk of unconditional eucharistic “oneness” was debatable. They appealed to the eschatological maxim “dissensions are unavoidable.”

This meaning of ἀδόκιμος and the eschatological context is supported by Barrett, Conzelmann, Schrage, and Lang, among others.36 Kümmel and Conzelmann insist that Paul is neither “ironic” nor merely “resigned.” However, how can Paul otherwise appear to lend support to the very splits which he condemns? Hays sees it as “presumably necessary in the divine plan.”37 Fee, however, calls this “one of the true puzzles in the letter.”38 He can suggest only the possibility of “irony,” or alternatively an anticipation of Paul’s later allusion to judgment in 11:28–32. This would amount to “resignation in the face of the inevitable: Paul expected ‘divisions’ to accompany the End.”39 Yet Fee is not fully satisfied with his own attempt at an explanation. The suggestion of Weiss and of Robertson and Plummer that splits (v. 18) lead to more serious dissensions or factions (v. 19) might be plausible for the first half of the verse, but then the following maxim about the tried and true seems to make a virtue out of a sad necessity. If the second part of the verse indeed represents Paul’s own comments, this sentence remains “one of the true puzzles of the letter” (Fee). However, what Paulsen and many others identify is likely to have been in circulation among the pre-Pauline churches, and most probably derives from the sayings of Jesus. Such sayings were cited later to explain its phenomenon of spurious faith or the danger of Christian presumption, as indeed in the context of Justin’s citation.40 This credibly forms a parenthetical allusion to excuses for a problem of which some at Corinth were fully aware (cf. comments above on to some extent I believe it, v. 18). From initial remonstration Paul moves to the point that if the dining situation divides participants in the Lord’s Supper into a favored triclinium group of “first class” guests and hangers on in the atrium (see below), this is not the Lord’s Supper at all, but a meal in a private house.

If our interpretation is rejected, one possible alternative exists. We may perhaps follow Horsley in understanding the verse as Pauline irony, although not in a context of eschatology and judgment. Horsley’s own translation makes clear the possibility of an ironic allusion to the social categorization which prevailed: “For of course there must be ‘discrimination’ among you so that it will become clear who among you are ‘the distinguished ones.’ ”41 The reason for ranking this as a second choice is that while it makes good sense and fits the context, it construes Paul’s pastoral response as unusually sharp and sarcastic. Admittedly he is sharper and more confrontational when he responds to oral reports than when he replies to the Corinthians’ questions.42 Further, 4:8–13 witnesses to his use of accusatory irony, and the notion that the Lord’s Supper is so undermined that it does positive harm and becomes drunken revelry which divides the church into socially accepted and socially second-class is an outrage. Nevertheless, an even better purpose is served if the hypocrisy of self-justification is noted. Either of these two explanations explains what is otherwise regarded as a “puzzle.”

20–21 These verses offer a classic and well-known example of how historical and archaeological research can shed a flood of light on the meaning of a biblical text which would not otherwise have been available. Initially with Theissen but then most clearly with Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s application of James Wiseman’s archaeological work, a foundation is laid which has transformed exegesis since the early 1980s in such writers as P. Lampe and recent commentators.43

Virtually every commentator since the early 1980s rightly alludes to the dining customs and arrangements of the Roman world, which would certainly have a direct bearing on the source of splits or dissensions when believers met to share a common meal at which the death and risen presence of Christ was celebrated as the New Passover. The two major factors related to issues of space within a large Roman villa and to cultural customs of distinctions between the status of, and respective provision for, guests of the house.

It is possible to visit the site excavated by the American team led in the late 1970s by James Wiseman of the villa dated between ad 50 and 75 at Anaploga.44 It lies outside the formal boundaries of the site of ancient Corinth beyond the Erastus inscription. In the Museum of Corinth inside the formally contained site of ancient Corinth the impressive mosaic floor of the triclinium (dining room) remains in view and is sufficiently complete to compare its size with the site from which it has been removed. As Murphy-O’Connor observes, the triclinium measures 5.5 × 7.5 meters, giving a floor area of 41.25 square meters (roughly 24 × 18 feet). If we allow for the couches on which guests could recline at an appropriate table, it may well be the case that (as Hays suggests) nine guests may have been a normal maximum for this comfortable dining area. 

An entrance vestibule led into a central atrium or courtyard-hallway, which in turn led to four or five other rooms. These included the triclinium (in the Anaploga villa, the first entrance on the right). The atrium measured 5 × 6 meters (approximately 16 × 20 feet). However, the impluvium (pool to collect water) stood at its center, thereby diminishing practical floor space. Between twenty and thirty people might be able to squeeze into such a place (up to fifty perhaps in the largest villas excavated, but at a post-Pauline date). If they sat or stood, Hays suggests that between thirty and forty would be possible. It is quite clear that when more than nine or ten people came to dinner, the poorer or less esteemed guests would be accorded space not in the already occupied triclinium but in the scarcely furnished atrium, which functioned in effect as an “overflow” for those who were, in the eyes of the host, lucky to be included at all. The quality of food, drink, service, and comfort would be of a higher order in the triclinium, especially if some in the atrium could arrive only after the best of the meal was over.

A second factor exacerbates such a category distinction. Pliny the Younger describes in detail the categorization of qualities of food and drink as marks of favor to grades of guests: “The best dishes were set in front of himself [the host] and a select few, and cheap scraps of food before the rest of the company. He had even put the wine into very small flasks, divided into three categories … one for himself and us, another for his lesser friends (all his friends are graded) and the third for his and our freed persons.”46 The volume of essays Dining in a Classical Context takes us still further.47 According to Booth, only those who assumed the toga virilis (i.e., those who were adult males of high status) had authority “to bestow freedom to recline” in a triclinium.48 Favored boys might sit at the foot of the couch used by a high-status male. The pattern encouraged the notion (even if indirectly by analogy) that to be invited to recline near the host in the triclinium signified a mark of favor from the host which thereby conferred added status upon the recipient of the honor. Seneca readily identifies the connections between luxurious banquets, abuse of pretty servuli or “luckless slave boys,” and the abuse of power to confer the status of convivius on young men.49 We should not, of course, equate provincial civic life with all that took place in Rome. However, the very use for manipulative purposes of the varying status indicated by food, drink and the possible locations of diners as close friends, second-class friends, hangers on, clients, head persons, youngsters, and servants speaks volumes about the discriminatory conventions presupposed in Graeco-Roman society. This is all part and parcel of the symbolic world of an honor-shame culture.

The foundation for further research on the reliance of such material for our understanding of the present passage emerged largely with Gerd Theissen’s essay “Social Integration and Sacramental Activity: An Analysis of 1 Cor 11:17–34,” first published in German in 1974.50 Commenting on vv. 21 and 22, Theissen notes that “have nots” (μὴ ἔχοντες) stand in contrast to those who can have “their own meal, ἴδιον δεῖπνον.” This is the primary emphasis of ἕκαστος and τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον, although it does not exclude a critique of individualism as well. This issue would assume still sharper proportions if B. B. Blue and B. W. Winter are correct in their assessments of the impact of the famine of ad 51 upon the poor in cities.51 Followed by Fee, Theissen rightly declares, “ἴδιος and κυριακός refer to questions of ownership”: Is it the Lord’s [own] supper which is being held, or that of the host and his most favored guests?52 Who is the focus of attention? For whose benefit is it being held? Indeed, to put it most sharply: Who, indeed, is “hosting” this meal?

The Greek vocabulary and syntax entirely invite this understanding of the key issue in vv. 20–22. The genitive absolute with ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό denotes the act of meeting together in the same place as the situational context. The syntactical relationship between οὐκ ἔστιν and the aorist infinitive φαγεῖν expresses a logical definition of what the act of eating actually counts as in the situation described. Hence we translate οὐκ ἔστιν does not amount to being (or, we might suggest, does not constitute). From at least the time of Cranmer this has been expressed by many in English as a matter of “logical possibility.” Thus Cranmer’s Bible has the Lordes Supper cannot bee eaten, and Meyer, Edwards, Héring, and Conzelmann (with the RV of 1881) translate, “It is not possible for you to eat the Lord’s Supper.”53 The difficulty is that can or possible are also regularly understood not as logical possibility (it amounts to; it constitutes), but as contingent or empirical capacity. NRSV’s “it is not really to eat the Lord’s Supper” tends to shift the emphasis from logical status to psychological intention.54 The simpler It is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat (REB, NIV, NJB) at least avoids this possible misunderstanding and adheres closely to the Greek. Conzelmann well comments, “The Corinthians destroy its character by their conduct. It is not the Lord who determines the celebration [i.e., in v. 21] but the individual. Fellowship [joint sharing] is canceled.”

The next controversial Greek term is προλαμβάνει (v. 21). Traditionally this has been understood to mean goes ahead with (NRSV, NIV, NJB [variant], and Barrett). However, Bruce Winter has argued that here the Greek has the sense of devours or consumes, and Horsley strongly supports this.56 The value of this translation is that it places the emphasis on selfish greed rather than on courtesy or manners, and understands the prefix προ- to function as an intensive rather than as a temporal marker. Hays correctly observes that the temporal sense is possible but not demanded.57 It may refer to the problem of those who are forced to arrive late, but we cannot assume this.58 Hence, he suggests, consumes his own supper offers the best translation, which comes close to REB’s takes his own supper (against NRSV, NIV, NJB), but rightly conveys the intensive aspect. If the background is that of the further exacerbation of “haves” and “have nots” through food shortage (Winter and others), devour or consume seems more appropriate to such a context. Fee offers the useful comment that the force of Paul’s point (although not a precise translation) may be conveyed by the sense of self-absorption: “each enjoys his ‘own supper’ instead of the Lord’s Supper.”59 Collins translates takes by preference, which “may mean starting to eat before others do.…” Paul, however, does not stress the temporal aspect of the verb on the only other occasion that he uses it (Gal 6:1).

With regard to one or two remaining Greek phrases, Winter also argues that ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν carries the temporal force of at the time of eating.61 This is convincing and stands in contrast with the less specific anarthrous aorist infinitive in v. 20. The phrase ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ, ὃς δὲ μεθύει seems hardly credible after two thousand years of eucharistic tradition. Actual drunkenness underlines how closely some of the hosts or wealthy adhered to the cultural expectations of private dinner parties among people of high status. The contrastive Gk. μέν … δέ … always remains difficult to reproduce in English. Paul emphasizes the contrast between the extremes, for which we suggest simply actually … even … , since these serve to intensify the contrast.

Finally, while we have already noted that κυριακὸν δεῖπνον denotes Lord’s Supper in the sense of that which belongs to the Lord, a further comment may be added. δεῖπνον usually designates the main meal of the day in the Graeco-Roman world. Like the English dinner, it usually denotes an evening meal in formal circles, but as in the case of the phrase “Christmas dinner” the emphasis concerns the major event rather than a specific timing. It need not always be an evening meal, although in practice it usually was. It could be translated meal. κυριακός denotes whatever belongs to the Lord, as in the Lord’s Table in 10:21 or the Lord’s Day in Rev 1:10. This is the earliest title for the Eucharist or Holy Communion, and in this context may perhaps equally denote “in honor of the Lord.”62 Since Paul wishes to shift the emphasis from what the community does to the Lord himself, the Lord’s Supper constitutes a term which denotes the focus of thanksgiving, salvation, and sharing. In such a context it may be more appropriate than Eucharist, which denotes the community’s activity of thanksgiving. However, both titles reflect ancient and respected traditions, while Communion looks to 1 Corinthians 10.

22 The deliberative subjunctives find expression in most MSS in the two aorists εἴπω and ἐπαινέσω, what am I to say … ? Am I to commend … ? The very early P46 and early B read the present indicative ἐπαινῶ in place of ἐπαινέσω (which strictly could be either aorist subjunctive or future indicative). However, this is almost certainly by assimilation to the following ἐπαινῶ, as Fee observes.64

The Greek grammar and syntax deserve close attention. The first negative μή introduces a question which anticipates the answer “no,” surely it cannot be … can it? The second negative οὐκ qualifies the statement about having houses. Could it be (surely not!) that you have no homes … ? The use of εἰς with the articular infinitive conveys the sense of with a view to, for the purpose of.… Hence Paul expostulates that if what is in view is a celebratory party or private dinner, they should use their homes for such a purpose. Are they really forced by some economic or social factor to hold dual-purpose events in the same house? Hence, have you no houses for your eating and drinking takes account of the εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν construction more explicitly than do you not have homes to eat and drink in? (NRSV, REB, NIV; cf., better, for doing your eating and drinking in? (NJB). The genitive τοῦ θεοῦ is doubtless possessive, as it is in 1:2 (see above; cf. also 3:16). The church is more than simply a human society in institution; it belongs to God. To show contempt for the church, which is God’s, is to despise what God has made his own, and on which God has set his love, and therefore given it status and honor in his own eyes.

From the time of Findlay some have translated μὴ ἔχοντας as the have nots (taken up, e.g., by B. W. Winter and our heading).65 Since Paul is concerned about the effect of this selfish, thoughtless, and insensitive conduct upon brothers and sisters in Christ who suffer deprivation in an honor-shame culture, we translate καταισχύνετε as put to shame (with NJB; cf. shame, REB), although the intensive preposition justifies humiliate (NRSV, NIV) as a legitimate alternative. The nuance of the deliberative subjunctives should be preserved: what I am to say? Am I to congratulate you (see above on textual note). NJB’s congratulate adds force to Paul’s irony. The second occurrence of ἐπαινῶ, however, signifies the withholding approval.

On the contrast between meals in homes and the Lord’s Supper when believers meet as a church, see above. It may be the case, as Fee and Horsley argue, that Paul alludes to having houses in an explicit reference to house owners. Need this mean that, as Fee also urges, we must translate οἰκίας as houses, not as homes (against NJB, NRSV, NIV, REB, and Hays)?66 In current English the semantic scope of home has expanded to include home owner, even though this is technically an abuse of the traditional distinction between house and home. Here Paul seems to be drawing on a double contrast: (a) if you own a house, you should not assimilate times when you invite guests to a meal with your celebrations of Lord’s Supper when you meet in your house/home with fellow believers as a church; (b) the “sacred space” and more especially “sacred time” implicit in the use of a person’s home as a gathering for worship should not be confused with domestic utilizations of the same space.67 As Stephen Barton observes, Paul seeks to reorder “social relations in the church by restricting the intrusion of household-based power.”68 The issue turns at least in part on “where the line is to be drawn between church and household: 1 Cor 14:33b–36 and 1 Cor 11:17–34.”69

Witherington constructively takes up Barton’s point. However, it is anachronistic and hardly true to Paul to describe Paul’s concern for “one body” and “sharing” (κοινωνία) as “more democratic.”70 A more profoundly theological understanding of Paul’s mind is offered by Lionel Thornton.71 “Democracy” simply continues the mind-set of modern individualism but within an egalitarian value system. It does not restore solidarity and care for the other in place of competitive individualism. The Pauline emphasis on “sharing the Lord’s death” exposes the huge hermeneutical gulf that exists between “democracy” and Paul’s more radical, transformative, communal, noncompetitive theology of the cross and the one New Creation. Witherington is no less misleading in his comparison with “a Saturnalia,” for this again risks imposing alien categories on the nature of the issue at Corinth. Even Barton may go too far in his generally constructive use of sociological models from other cultures and traditions.  In contrast to a series of socially constructed customs and conventions, Paul as apostle now appeals to the givenness of a specific tradition received from the Lord.

23–24 (1) D replaces the earlier ἀπό before τοῦ κυρίου in v. 23 with παρά. Both mean from with the genitive, but D can be explained because Paul usually uses παρά with παραλαμβάνειν, understandably (cf. 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; Gal 1:12, et al.). It is conceivable that the original difference of preposition calls attention to the reception of a tradition originally rather than “directly” (in a charismatic sense) from the Lord, but this can be suggested not on the basis of any difference between the force of the prepositions, but only in the sense that received from occurs here in a slightly different sense from most occurrences of the phrase. The reading ἀπὸ θεοῦ (F and G) is secondary and later. (2) In v. 24 the KJV/AV, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Textus Receptus of the Western tradition presuppose λάβετε φάγετε, take, eat. However, this reading is secondary, found in C3, K, L, P, Old Latin and Vulgate Clementine ed., Syriac witnesses, and many minuscule MSS. Its absence from the early P46, א, A, B, C*, D, F, G, 33, Coptic, Cyprian, Basil, Chrysostom, et al., together with its occurrence in Matt 26:26 as an obvious source of assimilation, rightly leads Metzger and others to endorse the UBS 4th ed. in categorizing its omission as “A,” i.e., “certain.”73 From RV (1881 onward), translators render the clause which is for you (RV, REB, NIV, NJB) or that is for you (NRSV).

(3) Another later variant inserts κλώμενον before ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, broken for you, found in אc, C3, Db, G, K, and many Syriac MSS and Byzantine witnesses. Again, however, it is absent from the early P46, א*, A, B, C*, 33, Origen, Cyprian, et al., and can readily be explained as an explication of ἔκλασεν (v. 24), which is authentic. Hence no issue of meaning other than fuller explication is at issue. Similarly, one other later insertion, διδόμενον, given for you (Vulgate, Coptic), is an assimilation on the basis of Luke 22:19 and is already implicit in Paul’s which is for you. The concise phrase is characteristic of Paul’s style.74 Among major modern translations, only Moffatt seems to have retained the longer and later broken for you, although Marshall holds that the inclusion of Luke’s given (for you) may reflect the earliest stage of the saying.75

Over against the culture-specific issues which undermined the very purpose of sharing in the Lord’s Supper at Corinth (v. 17b), Paul appeals to the givenness and universality of a pre-Pauline tradition which originated with the Lord himself as a dominical institution and is transmitted as Christian paradosis in terms which soon became a formulaic liturgical narrative in the life of the churches. At the time of writing the most recent research of substance and detail on Paul’s use of tradition for the purposes of argument comes from Anders Eriksson in a careful and most useful study (although O. Hofius’s shorter treatment of the same subject [1993, in oral form 1988] remains also of the utmost importance).76 The introductory formula ἐγὼ παρέλαβον ὃ καὶ παράδωκα ὑμῖν makes it clear that Paul has delivered this tradition to the Corinthians.77 The parallelism between the bread-saying and cup-saying and the syntactical role of the Lord Jesus (v. 23) render the self-contained “received” character of vv. 23–25 “unproblematic.”78 Jeremias also cites several “idioms foreign to Paul” in these verses (his italics), including, e.g., εὐχαριστεῖν used absolutely to designate grace at table, κλᾶν without an object, ἀνάμνησις, and six other examples.79 Even if the form was not “completely fixed,” there can be no doubt whatever that these verses are pre-Pauline and are perhaps “the only place that Paul, at least in a longer quotation, betrays his knowledge of the Jesus tradition which later became the synoptic gospels” (italics mine).80

The REB (similarly NJB) is entirely justified, therefore, in translating v. 23a as For the tradition which I handed on to you.… Horsley and Schrage observe, “ ‘Received’ and ‘handed on’ in 11:23 (cf. 15:1–3) were virtually technical terms in Jewish culture for the transmission of important traditions … (cf. m. Abot 1:1). Hellenistic philosophies used the same terms in transmitting their standard doctrines. To emphasize the authority of this central … tradition Paul identifies it as having come ‘from the Lord’ … focussed on Jesus’ death.”81 Moule regards the Greek terms as “naturally apply[ing] to the receiving and transmitting of traditions,” while Marshall also sees here “a liturgical formula which he had handed on to the church when it was founded … a form of words which was regarded as authoritative in the church generally and was not Paul’s own composition.… The origin of the Lord’s Supper in the explicit command of Jesus as the Lord is thus emphasized.”82 Paul’s own willingness to accept and to stand under the authority of this tradition rather than to revise it for his own purposes is underlined by Neuenzeit, and, as McGowan recently argues, this prohibits us from obscuring the reception of this dominical legacy “by the figure of the authoritative apostle.”83 This is not to ignore those scholars who claim that the narrative of the institution of the Lord’s Supper does not originate from Jesus himself; however, such a view remains in the minority and lacks convincing weight.84

We should not assume that the Corinthians ignored this tradition, nor that they doubted its dominical origin. McGowan very constructively links the transmission of traditions with the insights of reader-response theorists (while rightly being aware of their limitations and potential for overstatement). The Corinthian church may well have perceived and interpreted the tradition as an injunction to the performance of thankful celebration of Christ’s victory as Lord. “ ‘Do this in memory of me’ would seem to lead to ‘thanksgiving’ (or ‘blessing’ which was often equivalent) … more easily than to recitation of the words ‘this is my body which is for you.’ …”85 Paul reinterprets the tradition in a way which he perceives to be more faithful to the context in which the words originated. This does not invalidate McGowan’s argument that the words of institution did not necessarily constitute words of liturgical recital from early times, as may be inferred, he argues, from Justin, Hippolytus, and probably the Didache.86 Marshall, anticipating this more “open” view of the words, states that in the specific quotation of the words of institution Paul gives “a description of what Jesus did at a meal” rather than a legislative account of “what the church ought to do.”87 It is the frame of theology and Paul’s allusion to the context of these words that serve to press Paul’s point most distinctively.

Eriksson identifies what motivated his constructive 1998 study of Paul’s eight uses of common pre-Pauline tradition in 1 Corinthians to promote a distinctive “rhetoric” or mode of argument: “The original impetus of my study was the disturbing fact that the words of institution (1 Cor 11:23–25) and the Gospel summary (15:3–5) seldom in modern commentaries were related to the context in which they are found.”88 Eriksson acknowledges, but expresses dissatisfaction with, the work on relevant Pauline uses of tradition carried out by A. Seeberg (1903), E. Lohmeyer (1927), O. Cullmann (1943 and 1954), Klaus Wegenast (1962), Hans von Campenhausen (1972), K. Wengst (1972), and Hermann von Lips (1991), although rightly he pays tribute to V. H. Neufeld’s The Earliest Christian Confessions (1963) as among “the most thorough of these studies.”89

This now throws into relief the importance of Paul’s specific allusion to the context of the words of institution as ἐν τῆ νυκτὶ ἧ παρεδίδετο. The allusion to the meal’s being at night favors the view that it was a Passover meal (see the Note below). But should the verb (in Koine form) be translated he was betrayed (with AV/KJV, 1662 Book of Common Prayer, NRSV, NIV, NJB, Barrett, Conzelmann), or he was arrested (REB), or delivered up (Rotherham, The Emphasized NT), or he was handed over (as above with Collins)? BAGD list hand over, deliver, as their first entry under the active παραδίδωμι, with examples from the Gospels (Matt 25:20, 22), Josephus (Antiquities 4.83), and the subapostolic period (1 Clement 12:5), as well as from Paul (1 Cor 13:3, “I hand over my body …”). However, they also note the use of the verb “especially of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas w. acc and dat Matt 26:15; cf. Mk 14:10; Lk 22:4, 6; Jn 19:11; passive Matt 20:18; Mk 10:33a.” They conclude, however, “It is not certain that when Paul uses such terms as ‘handing over’, ‘delivering up’, ‘arrest’ … he is thinking of the betrayal of Judas.”90 Moulton-Milligan also suggest hand over as “its ordinary meaning,” allowing that deliver up constitutes an additional area.91 Within these domains, we may agree, betrayed may or may not denote a specific subdomain. Fee observes, “The verb ‘betrayed’ is just ambiguous enough so that it could mean ‘handed over’ (as in ‘… over to death’).”92 He concludes that the word “most likely” refers first to the treachery of Judas, but his main reason is simply that an allusion to the betrayal occurs in the Jesus tradition of the announcement of the betrayal at the time of the Last Supper.93

Other factors, however, deserve consideration also. First, Hays notes that hardly any commentator or translator takes account of Paul’s play on παρέδωκα (I handed on, v. 23a) and παρεδίδετο (was handed over, v. 23b).94 Second, the theological emphasis of both the content and the context of the tradition in the Gospels and in Paul (cf. Eriksson’s points, above) is that Jesus was “ ‘handed over’ (paredothē) to death by God ‘for our trespasses’.… God ‘gave him up’ (paradōken) for all of us (Rom 8:32) … echoes of the Septuagint’s rendering of Isaiah 53:6 (‘And the Lord gave him up [paredōken] for our sins …’)” (Hays’s italics).95 Hays insists that this theme eclipses the proposed allusion to betrayal by Judas and provides “the background against which 1 Cor 11:23 must be understood.” Third, we recall Eriksson’s fundamental argument that Paul uses tradition as a shared presupposition with his readers on the basis of which he may press a specific argument. Here what dominates 11:17–34 is concern for the weak, the other, the despised, as precisely what sharing in Christ’s death as the handing over of the self to be used for God’s loving work of reconciliation and redemption includes. Just as the Lord’s Supper looks back to the last supper when Jesus was about to be handed over, voluntarily to renounce self-direction and autonomy to place his selfhood and destiny in the hands of God and human persons without any further “say” in what happens, so, Paul argues, by proclaiming it in word, sacrament, attitude, and life.

Eriksson’s careful argument is too detailed to reproduce here. However, it coheres precisely with these points. He writes: “What is the behavior prescribed by the words of institution? The answer … lies in Paul’s use of the tradition in 11:26.… Their behavior at the Lord’s Supper celebrations is, or at least should be, a proclamation of the Lord’s death. For Paul this is a logical consequence of the tradition.”96 This explains precisely why underlying 11:17–34 is a factor which (again) “the majority of interpreters have tended to overlook,” namely, “the Corinthians’ claim that they deserved praise” (i.e., for observing the tradition).97 “The tradition itself lifts the whole argumentation … to a higher plane” which concerns what it is to share in the life and death of “the Lord of the church Himself.”98 The translation of the single word παραδίδετο thus well illustrates the reality of the hermeneutical circle (in its initial sense of the relation between parts and whole in F. Ast and F. Schleiermacher). This detail both influences and reflects our understanding of the whole broader succession of verses.99

The participle εὐχαριστήσας may, as Jeremias urges, mean simply, said grace (i.e., at table) or gave thanks.100 If, with Fee, we speak of the Jewish practice in which the head of the house would be “giving the traditional blessing over the bread, breaking it, and giving it to those at table,” we must avoid any hint that the object of such blessing was the bread, as if to read back an anachronistic parallel with eucharistic “consecration of the elements.” The Jewish table grace expressed blessing God for God’s good gifts. REB’s explanatory gloss gave thanks to God is useful and on this basis perfectly justifiable, although it explicates what is implicit but absent from the text, no doubt because to God was quite obviously understood by the readers. If we compare m. Berakoth 8:1–5 with m. Pesahim 10:2–7, whether the context is grace at meals or the blessing of God for the three cups at the Passover meal, “saying the Benediction” uniformly means blessing God for his gifts, not “blessing” the gifts.101 Hence gave thanks is an appropriate translation for the verb εὐχαριστεῖν in a Greek-speaking setting, even if Jesus would have blessed God as the customary Jewish form of thanksgiving. Such modern versions of “grace” as “bless this food …” are not only alien to the meaning conveyed by giving thanks to God, whether in the context of Jerusalem, Jesus, or Paul, but also risk imposing at the earliest stage an overly explicit overtone of eucharistic “consecration.”

In spite of its later date, the Jewish Passover Haggadah reflects the tradition in question, whether Paul is describing the last supper as an ordinary meal or whether (as the Synoptic Gospels seem to imply, supposedly against the Fourth Gospel) Jesus presided at a Passover meal. The standard form remains, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, who [e.g.] sustaineth the whole world.… He giveth bread to all flesh …”:ברוךְ אתה יי אלהינו מלךְ העולם אשׁר (baruk ’attah y-y ’eloheynu melek ha’olam ’asher …).102 The meaning and translation of εὐχαριστήσας are therefore unaffected by the notorious controversy about whether the last supper constituted for Jesus a Passover meal or simply a fellowship on the eve of the Passover.

On the other hand, the contextual significance of ἄρτον, bread (as REB, NIV, AV/KJV, 1662 Book of Common Prayer, or loaf of bread (NRSV; some bread, NJB), and especially of the key words τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, does depend to some degree on whether these words were spoken in the context of a Passover meal. Hence a short note must be assigned to this question.

[3]

WAS THE LAST SUPPER A PASSOVER MEAL? SIGNIFICANCE FOR EXEGESIS

The question is frequently posed as one of sharp contradiction between the Synoptic Gospels and John. In the three Synoptics to prepare this meal is explicitly described as preparing the Passover meal (Mark 14:12–16; Luke 22:7–13). However, John states that the day of the crucifixion was the day of Preparation of the Passover (John 19:24). The Jewish opponents of Jesus do not enter the Praetorium lest they might be defiled, and so they could eat the Passover (John 18:28). John 13:1 speaks of the supper as “before the Feast of the Passover.”103 Some writers argue that the account of the institution became a self-contained unit so early that we can no longer rely on its setting in either the Synoptics or in John, but such a view has been firmly challenged.104 P. Billerbeck (followed by I. H. Marshall) proposed that two different calendars were in use, each a day out of step with the other, and observed respectively by the Sadducees and the Pharisees.105 A. Jaubert distinguished between an official lunar calendar observed by the Jerusalem priesthood and presupposed by John, and a calendar (different by one day) used at Qumran and perhaps in Galilee which the Synoptists may have followed.106 A whole array of further factors have been the subject of hypotheses to explain the apparent durability of the traditions: while “pure” Jews and certainly the Jewish priesthood would have counted the Jewish day as commencing at around 6 p.m. (or related to sunset), the Roman calendar (perhaps followed by Galileans in a more Gentile context, or even, according to H. Hoehner, the Pharisees); others appeal to the fact that δεῖπνον denotes the main meal of the twenty-four-hour period, which may be eaten around noon, in early afternoon, late afternoon, or evening. The timing of the slaughter of the Passover sacrifices also invites consideration.

It would take us beyond our purpose to explore details. In brief, three main hypotheses exist (to which we shall add a fourth). (1) Many accept the Synoptic tradition and view the last supper as a Passover meal, explaining John’s framework or comments as underlining his view of Jesus himself as the lamb of the Passover (John 1:29, 36; 19:14). This view is urged by, e.g., G. Dalman, A. J. B. Higgins, F. Leenhardt, and J. Jeremias. See the extended note on “The Cup of Blessing” under 10:16, esp. sect. (iii).107 (2) Some insist that the Fourth Gospel corresponds more closely with external reasons for dating, and explain the Synoptic tradition as either confused or as referring to a different fellowship meal, perhaps including the qiddush prayer said at a festival meal by the head of the household. This view is advocated by J. H. Bernard, G. Ogg, A. Strobel, and R. E. Brown, although Higgins and Kilpatrick urge (against Lietzmann) that Jesus and the Twelve do not form a chaburah type religious fellowship. On Lietzmann’s view, see the extended note on “The Cup of Blessing” under 10:16, esp. sect. (ii).108 (3) If more than one calendar system was operative, the traditions need not conflict, and a judgment about the Passover meal must be made on the basis of its content and/or the probable clarity of the Synoptic tradition (P. Billerbeck, J. Klausner, A. Jaubert, I. H. Marshall, D. Chwolson).109

Even if the Johannine chronology were conclusive, however, this would not exclude a fourth explanation, namely, that, as the Synoptists state, Jesus instructed his disciples to prepare their Passover meal, thereby integrating the fellowship meal as a redemptive, salvation-participation religious meal bound up with his immediate forthcoming death as the New Passover. In this sense, Leenhardt and Hofius identify a key emphasis. Leenhardt writes, “A few hours before His separation from them, Jesus partook of the traditional Passover meal with His disciples. Why? Shall we say that it is because it happened to be the day, the 14th of Nisan? Perhaps, but this reason is inadequate.… He wanted to introduce into the traditional ritual the most surprising innovation.… He only [?] celebrated the Passover in order to introduce this astonishing change. Jesus uses the tradition as a frame … the deliverance from Egypt.… According to the Mishnah: ‘In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt’ [m. Pesahim 10:5, my italics]. Everyone had to participate in the great redemption. … The past reaches and joins the present.”110 The “surprising innovation” which Jesus inserts into this frame is the “totally new element.… Taking the bread, he said: ‘This is my body.’ ”111

In spite of his reservations about a clear identification between the last supper and the Passover meal, Hofius also argues that more broadly the words of Jesus, transmitted by Paul, are to be understood as that of “worshipful ‘remembering’ ” of a kind “especially to be met in statements about Passover, which is performed ‘in memory of’ Israel’s redemption from Egyptian slavery.”112 “This is my body” and the word over the cup “both speak of the expiatory death of Jesus Christ” (Hofius’s italics) and, like the Passover, of covenantal promise.113 Nevertheless, Hofius adds, such “remembrance” and “participation” is not confined to the Passover alone. On Sabbaths and even in daily prayer “the memory of the foundational saving event … has its firm place.”114 Hofius explains the importance of this Passover frame for our understanding of several key phrases which follow in 11:24, 25. For example, τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν “can only mean ‘in remembrance of’ the crucified one, who gave up his body to death for his own and by whose expiatory death (= blood) the economy of eschatological salvation is established.… ‘Remembering (z-k-r, Ps 105:5a) is therefore realized in ‘proclaiming’ (y-d-’, v. 1b).”115 It has nothing to do with “ancient meals in memory of the dead.”116

Leenhardt rightly insists that only the Passover framework provides the proper contextual guideline (we should wish to say “background” in the technical sense used by John Searle of that which facilitates communicative competency to understand) for the meaning of “This is my body.”117 However, it is E. Ruckstuhl (also with Schrage) who most helpfully places “This is my body” explicitly in the context of the Haggadah.118 In the Haggadah the person who presides explains the various elements, objects, and events which fulfill a redemptive role in the history of God’s people, beginning “a wandering Aramean was my father …” (Deut 26:5–11; cf. Exod 12:4–39). The Mishnah identifies these objects as including a “remembrance” of redemption through Passover, through unleavened bread, and through bitter herbs “as if in every generation he himself came forth from Egypt.… He brought us from bondage to freedom (m. Pesahim 10:5).” The breaking of the bread is accompanied by the haroseth (nuts and fruit pounded together and mixed with vinegar, m. Pes. 10:4). In such a context “This is …” addresses a horizon of expectation in which the presiding host is about to designate an instrument in the redemptive process. Now, as the “surprise” or “novelty” (Leenhardt) Jesus designates “my body” and “my blood” as the decisive vehicles of redemption.

Hence, the issue of whether or not a Passover frame is presupposed as the framework of interpretation for last supper and the Lord’s Supper (and its tradition) has a decisive effect upon the exegesis of vv. 23b–25. In our view, the many factors customarily cited to establish a Passover framework remain utterly convincing.119 The only serious counter-argument, namely, the witness of the Fourth Gospel, may be explained either (1) on the basis of different calendars; or (2) on the basis of John’s primary concern with the death of Christ (to which the Lord’s Supper points and which it proclaims) as the central feature of an integrated Passover theology of redemption; or on the basis of the view that Jesus held his Passover for the Twelve in advance of the official calendar. The details turn out to be immaterial: Jesus presided at a Passover meal which proclaimed his own broken body and shed blood as the new Passover for Christian believers. “For Paul the Last Supper corresponds to the Passover of Judaism; it is the new Passover … εἰς ἀνάμνησιν is the equivalent of lezeker (לזכר) … of the Haggadah, except that Christ has been substituted for ‘the day thou camest forth from Egypt’.”120 All this coheres with Eriksson’s conclusion, “The punch line of Paul’s argument is hence the statement: ‘Your Lord’s Supper celebration is a proclamation of the death of Christ.”121 We may now resume our exegesis.

ἔκλασεν (v. 24a) receives particular significance in the light of the words that follow, as the secondary reading κλώμενον [ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] indicates (see above under Textual Notes, 3). In isolation from the following words of Jesus, however, breaking bread has a significance which may vary from social to socioreligious depending on its broader context of discourse. Moule observes: “For the devout Jew there was no meal that was not sacred. Indeed it is an unprofitable question to ask whether ‘the breaking’ (Klasis) means a merely ‘secular’ act or a ritual ‘fraction’ of the loaf.”122 In some contexts breaking the bread denotes only “the beginning of the meal.”123 On the other hand, in the context of the last supper and the Lord’s Supper all four accounts include the same pair of Greek words ἄρτον … ἔκλασεν (Matt 26:26; Mark14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23b, 24a).

Breaking bread has the communal sense of sharing in solidarity of objective fellowship (κοινωνία, that in which participants or shareholders share, not primarily the subjective feeling associated with this), and this aspect finds expression in 1 Cor 10:16 (τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν; see commentary on 10:16 above) and probably also in Acts 2:42, 46, (although the precise meaning of breaking bread in Acts 2 should not be presupposed without careful inquiry).124 In the Didache, however, more clearly the breaking of bread on Sunday is the Eucharist in the full sense of the term: κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου (on the Lord’s Day of the Lord, i.e., the double festal and eschatological title) συναχθέντες (cf. 1 Cor 11:17, 18) κλάσετε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε … καθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν ᾖ.125 Earlier allusions in the Didache are even more explicit: giving thanks to God over the cup and “the broken bread” (εὐχαριστοῦμεν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν … περὶ δὲ τοῦ κλάσματος … , Did. 9:2, 3). This is followed by the famous prayer, “As this broken bread (τούτο τὸ κλάσμα) was scattered over the mountains but was brought together (συναχθέν, again) and became one (ἐγένετο ἕν), so let your church be gathered together … into your kingdom …” (9:4). This section concludes by restricting the Eucharist to baptized believers (9:5), and is followed by instruction to conclude the rite with doxology (10:1–6).

He broke the loaf, therefore, constitutes the third component of the shared tradition of a chain of five or six common or replicated elements shared by Matt 26:26–28, Mark 14:22–24, Luke 22:19–20, and (earliest in textual form) 1 Cor 11:23–25. These are: (1) taking bread, (2) giving thanks to God, (3) breaking the bread, (4) saying, “This is my body,” (5) [taking] the cup (Matt and Mark “took”; Luke and 1 Corinthians, “likewise”), and (6) depending on whether the longer text of Luke stands (as Jeremias insists it does), reference to the blood and to the covenant. Already, therefore, the breaking of the bread has come to point from the bread alone to the self-giving of the life of Jesus as a redemptive offering for the restoration of the new community of his Body into one.126 As Hofius observes, the eucharistic bread has as its significance that of “a share in the σῶμα of Jesus given over to death.… The gift of which the word on the bread in 1 Cor 11:24b speaks is a participation in the σῶμα of Jesus. As in Rom 7:4, so here also (and … in 11:27 and 29) σῶμα means the body of Jesus Christ given over to death on the cross.”127

It is essential to understand εἶπεν, τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν within the frame of reference which has been expounded and examined over the pages which follow our translation of this verse. Since intensive controversy over this phrase has divided the church over the centuries, only constraints which genuinely arise from the context can avoid imposing some prior understanding on the basis of special pleading. Once we have grasped the Passover context, it is unnecessary to “defend” any exegesis against permitting a later doctrine of transubstantiation by insisting that, in Fee’s words, Paul “means ‘this signifies/represents my body.’ …”128 It lies beyond both Jesus’ intent and the framework within which he and the disciples lived to imagine that some actual change took place, or was intended to take place, in the bread itself.” Fee attributes such a view to “Greek modes of thinking.”129 Writers in the Protestant tradition have often appealed to semantics and to logic here. Godet asks, “Does the word is denote homogeneity of substance, so that the material of the bread gave place at that moment to that of the body of Jesus… ? It is difficult to conceive how the bread could have become the very substance of the hand which offered it. Or might it be His glorified body? But this body was not yet in existence.”130

Whether or not the outcome of such arguments hit upon truth, the route taken is unnecessary and may sound like special pleading to some ears. In the Passover Haggadah, as we have seen, “In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt. … ‘What the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt’ ” (m. Pesahim 10:5). “I” was/am “there.” The recital of the Jewish Haggadah (Order of the Seder Service) begins with doxology: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, Creator of the produce of the vine. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who has chosen us from all peoples.…” Following the benediction, the karpas (or hors d’oeuvre characteristic of Passover) is dipped in salt water or in vinegar and distributed, associated with the hyssop dipped in the blood of the first Passover sacrifice, with the words of a further benediction, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, Creator of the produce of the earth.”131 The Haggadah then begins: “This is the bread of affliction that our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt.” (הא לחמא עניא די ־ אכלו אבהתנא ברצא דמצרים. ha’ lachma’ ’anya’ diy-’akalu ’abahtana’ be’arats’ demitsrayim.)132 The “surprise” (to use Leenhardt’s imaginative phrase) is that my body now replaces the events or objects of redemption from Egypt made participatory and contemporary.

It is the event of Calvary, of the atoning death of Jesus as an event within the public domain, that is now appropriated in This is my body for you. My body for you (τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) precisely resonates with the repeated turn of phrase in the Haggadah: “We were Pharaoh’s bondmen in Egypt, and the Lord our God brought us out therefrom with a mighty hand” (Deut 6:21).133 “And the Lord heard our voice, as it is said, ‘And God heard their groaning.’ … And saw our afflictions … our toil.…”134 The Black spiritual “Were you there when they crucified my Lord?” captures the precise resonance of is and remember (Heb. z-k-r). (See further under Note on 10:16.)

The phrase τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, which is for you, characterizes both the early Pauline and the Lukan tradition, and may well reflect the “for you” of Isa 53:12.135 The work of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 oscillates between identification and substitution, as does σῶμα here. Hofius, followed by Wolff, cites further OT parallels, especially that of the sin offering in Lev 5:8 (cf. 9:8) and the reversal of the “curses” in Deut 28:23 (cf. 26:11). On this basis Hofius underlines a semitic linguistic background and rejects the theory that τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν derives entirely from a Greek-speaking background.136 While he argues that the Pauline text is otherwise closest to that of Mark, G. Bornkamm shares the view of Jeremias that the longer text of the Lukan parallel is early and authentic: “Now, … with good reason, most have been convinced … that the longer text is the older,” which is not necessarily dependent on Paul, but reflects, with Paul, the earliest tradition.137 Jeremias argues in detail that Luke’s shorter text is derived from the longer.138 Paul regularly uses the preposition ὑπέρ with reference to Christ’s death being for us or for our sins (1 Cor 15:3; Rom 5:6, 8). He does this even where the sacrificial death of Christ is plainly substitutionary (Gal 3:13, γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα). Thus, as Hofius observes, while σῶμα, my body, initially serves to promote the theme of sharing, participation, or identification (cf. “were you there … ?”, discussed above), τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, for you, speaks of “the expiatory death of Jesus Christ” (his italics) enacted to grant “for us” the “forgiveness of sins and communion with God.”139 In the context of the cup Paul will repeat the tradition of the frame of covenantal promise within which this is to be more fully understood.

The theory that This is my body may allude either primarily to the church or alternatively equally to the bread and to the people of God, hardly leaves room for the second of these two aspects, in addition to its implausibility, if it genuinely reflects the institution of the last supper.140 This is not to deny, however, that through the process of identification and participation the broken bread also (secondarily) comes to designate a pledge of eschatological promise that God’s fragmented people will finally be gathered as one in the eschatological consummation (cf. Didache 9:4; 10:5). However, the Jewish Passover Haggadah, the Synoptic tradition, and the Pauline use of the common tradition all convey a strong eschatological dimension (1 Cor 11:26b; cf. Luke 22:16; Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25).

[4]

“IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”

Only Luke and Paul (on Luke’s text see above) include the dominical injunction to repeat the rite (Gk. τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, v. 24b) do this in remembrance of me in the context of the bread. Since Paul also includes it in the context of the cup, some have suggested that its absence from Mark and the lack of a second occurrence in Luke cast doubt on its authenticity as part of the common tradition. However, it may well be implicit in Luke’s likewise.141 Moreover, Horsley observes, “Mark may have eliminated this command because it did not suit his historical narrative.”142 Discussion of the force of ἀνάμνησις must, once again, be shaped by the horizon of expectation which the Passover context and OT narrative, prayer, and promise establish. Remembrance denotes neither the exclusively subjective mental or psychological process of recollection characteristic of Cartesian or modern thought, nor the often exaggerated, overly objectified claims about “reenactment” associated with the so-called myth-and-ritual school of A. Bentzen, S. H. Hooke, and S. Mowinckel.143 Bentzen argued in the context of a history-of-religions approach to the OT: “To ‘remember’ the saving facts of religion means to the ancient world that these facts are tangibly experienced.”144 If this is understood in the sense of “reenactment” of cyclical myth and ritual, this idea should not be imposed onto the biblical tradition with its more complex (in very broad terms, more linear) view of time and history. However, Bentzen’s approach retains plausibility because he describes an area which genuinely overlaps with the narrative remembrance of the Passover Haggadah and the Lord’s Supper. He rightly declares, “members of the congregation … ‘become contemporary’ with the fundamental act of salvation,” although he then appeals to “the Roman Mass and the Lutheran interpretation of the Communion Service” to press his point.145

If we press the analogy with the “remembrance” of the Passover in the Haggadah, making contemporary is achieved primarily by projecting the reality of the “world” of the Passover and drawing participants of later generations into it, then transferring the Passover into the present in a process of reenactment, although these two intersecting “worlds” inevitably both cross boundaries of time. However, the notion in Mowinckel’s earlier writings that certain “Coronation Psalms” served in effect to “reenact” God’s mythical victory over cosmic forces cannot be applied to the Lord’s Supper. Such mistaken “objective” attributions to the “Hebraic mind” as J. Pedersen’s notion that to “remember” a name “calls forth the soul it designates” were long since discredited by the work of James Barr and others.146

On the other hand, “to remember God’s mighty acts” or “to remember the poor” is not simply to call them to mind but to assign to them an active role within one’s “world.” “To remember” God (cf. Deut 8:18; Judg 8:34; Ps 22:7) is to engage in worship, trust, and obedience, just as “to forget” God is to turn one’s back on him. Failure to remember is not absent-mindedness but unfaithfulness to the covenant and disobedience. “Remembering” the gospel tradition (Rom 15:15; 1 Cor 15:3) or “remembering” Christian leaders (Acts 20:31; Heb 13:7) transforms attitude and action. To “remember” the poor is to relieve their needs.

Modern research on the philosophy of “remembering” from Eric Voegelin to Paul Ricoeur reveals how closely the phenomenon is bound up with the establishing and integration of identity.147 Voegelin urges that anamnesis recaptures “living forces in the present constitution of [a person’s] consciousness,” and in turn offers a renewal of identity within “larger horizons.”148 Consciousness entails attention to the present, but, as Ricoeur insists in detail, this becomes construed in terms of a continuity of personal identity in the linking of past, present, and future in terms of memory and hope, or, in more social, intersubjective terms, in terms of responsibility, promise, accountability, and above all a meaningful “plot” of narrative history. Identity becomes integrative and transformative as “possibility” for change interacts with foundational “givens” as part of a temporal plot which looks back to the past and forward to a new future.149 A key category for selfhood becomes a temporally conditioned “narrative identity.”150 Appropriate or constructive acts of remembrance may recast and reorder the self. None of this deviates from what may be inferred from lexicographical research, still less contradicts it.151

When we place this kind of reflection alongside the biblical traditions concerning remembrance, do this in remembrance of me takes on a fuller and more accurate meaning than the inadequate notions that have beset the dated “subjective” versus “objective” debates of the past. Remembrance of Christ and of Christ’s death (i) retains the biblical aspect of a self-involving remembering in gratitude, worship, trust, acknowledgment, and obedience (see biblical examples above). (ii) It also carries with it the experience of being “there” in identification with the crucified Christ who is also “here” in his raised presence. However, still further, it embraces (iii) a self-transforming retrieval of the founding event of the personal identity of the believer (as a believer) and the corporate identity of the church (as the Christian church of God) as well as (iv) a looking forward to the new “possibility” for transformed identity opened up by the eschatological consummation (v. 25). All of this is gathered together in Paul’s point that such remembrance constitutes a self-involving proclamation of Christ’s death through a life and a lifestyle which derives from understanding our identity as Christians in terms of sharing the identity of Christ who is for the “other.”

One further point, at least, demands attention before we leave this verse. Jeremias, as is well known, understands in remembrance of me to denote not Christians’ or disciples’ remembering of Jesus, but “God’s remembrance.… Something is brought before God … that God may remember” (his italics).152 Jeremias’s case is based largely on linguistic factors, e.g., that the construction εἰς ἀνάμνησιν is absent as a formula from contexts having to do with memorials for the dead, or commemorative meals.153 Yet this, Jeremias concedes, relates only to “worldly” memorial feasts, which, as Hofius and Leenhardt argue, are not the point here. Jeremias seeks to find more positive evidence for the use of εἰς ἀνάμνησιν as remembering God or the commandments of God in the LXX (e.g., Lev 24:7; Ps 69:1, 2; Wis 16:6).154 He also urges that other NT passages about remembrance denote “a memorial before God” (Acts 10:4; probable Mark 14:9).155

Jeremias’s proposal remains at best controversial. The ensuing debate has been discussed by Reumann.156 Hays has sympathy with Jeremias but concludes: “However one might speculate about what Jesus himself originally meant, it is clear that Paul thinks of the symbolic action as reminding the church of Jesus’ death: the proclamation of Jesus’ death” (his italics).157 This would partly address Chenderlin’s view that the Godward/humanward direction is ambiguous but not entirely so.158 Chenderlin believes that only an entirely “open” translation “as My Memorial” (without specifying to whom the remembering is directed or who is its primary agent) can do justice to the text. Even Chenderlin’s semantic and conceptual explorations, however, which in the main serve negatively to guard against applying “modern” notions to Jesus or Paul, fail to make Jeremias’s “Godward” approach convincing.159 The Pauline passage throughout vv. 23–34 depends on a logic of self-involvement. To “remember” Christ is not only to be “there” at the cross, thankfully to appropriate Christ’s death, and to allow this redemptive event to constitute, shape, and transform individual and corporate identity of the persons and community who are his “body” (1 Corinthians 12) with an eschatological goal (see above on these four features); it is also to “remember” in the sense of pleading guilty, and pleading the body and blood of Christ under the weight of judgment and the glory of promise. Only in this derivative sense of “pleading the blood (body) of Christ” is it also directed toward God.

As C. F. D. Moule observes in his illuminating but often neglected essay “The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments,” “In 1 Cor XI:28–32 δοκιμάζειν, κρίμα, διακρίνειν, κρίνειν and κατακρίνειν are used in quick succession in a very striking way.”160 “Remembering” the Lord’s death means “participation in the Lord’s Supper [in which] we ought voluntarily to anticipate the Lord’s judgment.… If we fail to do so, he will himself judge us, but judge in order to save.”161 “Remembering” is appropriating “this sacramental verdict” in which, through involvement with the atoning death of Christ, believers say “guilty,” only to share with Christ God’s verdict of “put right”! As Hofius declares, “both [i.e., bread and cup] speak of the expiatory death of Jesus Christ” (his italics).162 Conzelmann painstakingly considers Jeremias’s case, including the sources cited from Judaism, and rightly concludes, “This interpretation is in contradiction to the plain wording … ‘in remembrance of me.’ …”163 This approach, far from offering a theological alternative to sociological and archaeological research on the Lord’s Supper at Corinth, complements it and makes possible an interactive understanding. P. Lampe’s research article, to which we have referred, places the two aspects together admirably. It was precisely because of a self-centered concern for honor, status, or peer group society and because of disregard for “the weak,” the despised, or “the other,” that the Lord’s Supper had come to defeat its very purpose (11:17). For remembrance of Christ and of Christ’s death “for others” entailed identification with the Christ who denied himself for others (cf. for you).164 Since this remembrance is not mere mental recollection, but a living out of this Christomorphic individual and corporate identity, the collapse of this Christian identity undermines what it is to share in my body in such remembrance.

25 ὡσαύτως, in the same way or likewise, explains the succinct, compressed syntax of the rest of v. 25, because in the same way urges the parallelism of meaning and action with that associated with the bread. Hence he took [the cup] (REB, NIV, NRSV, AV/KJV, Barrett, and Collins) has no precise counterpart in the Greek, although it may be understood.165 However, NJB preserves the Greek syntax by translating in the same way, with the cup after supper. Τὸ ποτήριον may well be accusative as the direct object of an implicit verb (he took); but alternatively it may be an adverbial accusative or an accusative of respect governed by the force of ὡσαύτως.166 This would explain the point noted by Héring and others about a “lack of exact parallelism” between the two respective actions and utterances over the bread and the cup. In the same way with reference to the cup would then suggest a more comprehensive parallelism of action than simply he took. It leaves room for Héring’s argument that this lack of parallelism also “seems to argue for the antiquity of the formula.”167

The preposition μετά with the aorist active articular infinitive, τὸ δειπνῆσαι, means after taking the main meal or after supper. Pesch and Stuhlmacher regard the phrase as an adjectival or prepositional attributive which modifies the cup in the sense of the cup-after-eating.168 Hofius agrees that the breaking of bread and thanksgiving occur at the beginning of the meal but disputes the sense in which Pesch and Stuhlmacher understand the syntax. He insists, “ ‘The cup after the meal’ in 1 Cor 11:25a is positively excluded,” partly on linguistic grounds and partly because Hofius doubts whether the cup denotes the third cup of the Passover.169 In the end, however, he accepts an “adverbial” understanding of after supper … the cup. Hence he challenges not the sequence of events narrated in 11:23–25 as such, but whether this has become a fixed liturgical ordo which replicates the third cup of the Passover. As Fee and McGowan observe, even if the narrative of the institution itself recounts a specific sequence, this does not necessarily prescribe a liturgical ordo or describe the sequence which actually took place at Corinth.170

It is unnecessary to repeat here the detailed discussion about the identity of the cup which we pursued in our extended note on “The Cup of Blessing” under 10:16 (see above, esp. sect. iii). We noted that although Lietzmann had attempted to relate the cup of the last supper to the chaburah fellowship meal and to establish a polarized distinction between the Jerusalem and Pauline traditions, such arguments are overstated and cannot be sustained. We also concluded that although Cohn-Sherbok identifies the cup with the fourth cup of the Passover, there is no reason to doubt that the cup in 10:16 and 11:25 denotes the third cup of the Passover sequence (with Allo, Barrett, Conzelmann, and Wolff, among many others). As Marshall observes, no sequential significance should be attached to the fact that in 10:16 the cup of blessing occurs in a different order from 11:24–25 since in 1 Cor 10:16 Paul “wanted to make a point about the bread rather than about the cup.”171

It has often been claimed that the words over the cup in Mark (sometimes claimed to be “behind” Paul) cannot go back to Jesus since the Greek form of wording cannot be turned back into Aramaic. A relatively recent article by P. M. Casey shows that, as Marshall also observes, this often amounts to no more than an expression of uncertainty about what the Aramaic might have been, and Casey also shows that Jeremias’s reconstruction is wide of the mark, and that J. A. Emerton’s “solution” is unsatisfactory.172 Paul’s wording does not replicate the most difficult Greek phrase in Mark from the point of view of Aramaic, i.e., τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης. The use of a suffix in “something like דמי דקימא … is not … satisfactory Aramaic because a suffix cannot be attached to a noun in the construct state, nor can a noun with a suffix generally precede ד or די, when this is the standard word for ‘of.’ ”173 Casey considers Emerton’s examples of the possibility of such constructions implausible.

If we allow that the Greek translator restructured the receptor language (e.g., by moving ἔστιν from its corresponding equivalent in the host language) an original Sitz im Leben of the third cup of the Passover becomes perfectly intelligible, over which Jesus “makes the main point, that the wine symbolizes his blood, that is, his forthcoming death. As leader of the Passover group, Jesus had to interpret the main elements of the meal.… The giving of this interpretation after the wine was drunk will also have helped to make the symbolism dramatic rather than revolting (Mark 14:23–4, altered by Matt 26:26–7 …).”174 Casey concludes, “A natural Aramaic origin of Jesus’ word over the cup can be found.… Jesus must have said הוא after קימא, [which] puts his interpretation more clearly within the framework of God’s covenant with Israel.”175 The Aramaic קים (qim) is “the everyday Aramaic equivalent” of Heb. ברית (berith), covenant.176

This brings us to a major second point. In our Extended Note under 10:16 we cited W. L. Lane’s important argument that covenant constitutes “the key to Paul’s conflict with Corinth,” although Lane draws most of his exegetical evidence from such passages as 2 Cor 3:1–7:1 and 11:1–2.177 We also noted that Bornkamm and Käsemann affirmed the centrality of covenantal considerations for 1 Cor 10:16. Schrage underlines its importance here as well.178 This achieves explicit formulation in the next clause of our verse: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι. This reflects the common tradition which Mark 14:24 and Matt 26:28 express as my blood of the covenant, and Paul and Luke express as the new covenant in my blood (the wording is identical in Luke and Paul except for Luke’s omission of ἐστίν).179 The new finds expression in Mark 14:25 (cf. Matt 26:29) in the saying about “new” in the eschatological consummation of the kingdom of God. Covenant holds together the role of divine promise with that of God’s faithfulness to the past and pledge of eschatological newness and well-being. As Luther observed in 10:16, sharing in the body and the blood of Christ entails “sharing in everything that ‘my body’ has and does and suffers … by virtue of God’s promise.180 Yet it is no less true that the death of Christ also constitutes the ratification and validation of God’s promise. In Käsemann’s words, the theme remains that of “Jesus given over to death for us [and] the new diatheµkeµ is founded on this death.”181

In the Synoptic Gospels three of the four occurrences of διαθήκη belong to accounts of the last supper, and the fourth to God’s “remembering” his holy covenantal promise (Luke 1:72). In the major Pauline epistles covenant refers to the continuity of God’s faithful promises to Israel (Rom 9:4; 11:27 [from Isa 49:21]), to the ratification of God’s promises through the free gift of grace made operative in and through Christ (Gal 3:15, 17; 4:24), and to the glory of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6, 14) ratified through the blood of Christ and visibly articulated in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:25). Outside the Pauline corpus, the new covenant constitutes “a linchpin” without which the Epistle to the Hebrews would “fall apart.”182 There it denotes the irrevocable nature of the divine promise both in continuity with the OT and in contrast to it as “better” or fully efficacious (Heb 8:7–13; cf. Jer 31:31–34). Given this theological background, it is entirely unnecessary to follow Lietzmann in ascribing the mood of joy and celebration to an emphasis on fellowship and on Christ’s risen presence rather than his death. It is precisely the death of Christ, the new covenant in my blood, which establishes the assurance of redemption, and which permits believers to know where they stand with God, namely, in identification with Christ the vindicated Messiah and exalted Lord on the basis of God’s promise duly ratified in the events of Calvary. There is no contrast here between Christ’s death and the celebration of his risen identification with the One who gave his body and shed his blood “for others,” i.e., for you. Celebration which ignores this identity is hollow and self-contradictory.

Covenant also reflects precisely the major theme which persists from 8:1 to 14:40, namely, that of constraint, or the free choice to forego one’s rights. For God himself limits his own range of actions by free sovereign choice when he determines to act only in accordance with declared promises of grace.183 On such a basis Christian believers may be confident that they are redeemed and accepted. Hence the unwillingness of many of the “strong” at Corinth to permit constraints of their own “rights” for the sake of the weak (cf. 8:7–13; 9:1–12) contradicts not only identification with the Christ who shed his blood for others, but also the very principle of divine covenant in which the faithful God pledges his faithfulness and thereby also constrains his own “rights” by a voluntary decision of sheer grace.

The repetition of do this in remembrance of me in conjunction with ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε underlines the four self-involving aspects which we described in connection with the bread: (1) trust and grateful acknowledgment; (2) identification with Christ and his death as those who were “there”; (3) allowing a reshaping of narrative identity in accordance with the founding event which defines the Christian story; and (4) looking ahead to projected eschatological worlds which give meaning to present identity and to present endeavor (see above under v. 24). Whether whenever you drink it represents a Pauline redaction “cannot finally be proved.”184

26 Some MSS understandably add τοῦτον to τὸ ποτήριον, largely to match this cup with this bread, but also perhaps to specify more clearly that as many times as applies only to the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper itself (this cup). The “improvement” is found as early as in P46, א2, and D1, but is missing from א*, A, B, C*, D*, F, G, and 33. This omission would be inexplicable, but the early addition is scarcely surprising, especially and perhaps most decisively in view of the attraction of a parallelism in liturgical usage.

The relative adverb ὁσάκις with ἐάν (indefinite) is variously rendered as often as (AV/KJV, NRSV, and BAGD), whenever (NJB, NIV), or every time (REB).185 Grimm-Thayer attempt to explicate the indefinite force of the adverb with ἐάν by as often soever as, which is strictly correct but archaic.186 As often as carries the disadvantage of perhaps seeming to introduce unintended nuances of frequency or regularity, while every time seems prosaic and misses the indefinite force of the clause. Findlay’s proposal as many times as seems to gain the best of all worlds and remains modern as well as accurate. This wording is un-Pauline (and usually late). Yet this alone cannot determine whether it remains part of “the tradition,” even if Paul may have taken it up from a pre-Pauline saying which he endorses. Nevertheless, other factors suggest that the isolation of the pre-Pauline tradition in 1 Cor 11:23–25 is unproblematic.187 We have already noted Eriksson’s identification of parallelisms and other features in vv. 23–25 (see above). In accordance with Eriksson’s arguments about Paul’s use of traditions as a basis for distinctive argument in 1 Corinthians, Paul introduces his application of the common presuppositions by γάρ, which serves as an explicative link with the recital of the tradition: For as many times as.… 188

The grammar, syntax, and word order place the emphasis on the death of the Lord (it is the death of the Lord that you …), and present καταγγέλλετε clearly as a continous present action: you are proclaiming. This not only takes up all that we have said above about the relation between identification with Christ as the One “for others” and a lifestyle that reflects this identification. It goes further. The verb καταγγέλλω regularly means in the NT to announce or to proclaim the gospel (1 Cor 9:14), to preach the word of God (Acts 13:5), or to preach Christ (Acts 4:2; Phil 1:17, 18).189 It also carries overtones of speaking or preaching publicly, to publish or to promulgate, or to perform a declarative speech-act openly.190 Hence Paul now further likens what the assembled congregation does in the actions of eating and drinking the bread and wine that makes believers contemporary with the cross to the recital of the Passover Haggadah as gospel proclamation. However, this is not simply a publishing of the objective event of the cross. It includes this (the bread is broken and the cup … in the same way …). Yet like those who recite the Haggadah of the Passover on the understanding that “in every generation a man must so regard himself as he came forth himself out of Egypt” (m. Pesahim 10:5), it also witnesses to the participant’s self-involving appropriation of the cross both for redemption and lifestyle as those who share Christ’s death in order to share Christ’s life.

It is no accident that καταγγέλλετε means you are proclaiming or you are preaching. By eating this bread and drinking the cup the whole assembled congregation stands in a witness box and pulpit to proclaim their “part” (cf. κοινωνία in 10:16, objective sharing with a stake; and μετέχειν in 10:17, being an involved participant; see on communal participation under 10:16 and 17, especially under (c), above).191

The eschatological dimension, which is firmly part of the common tradition but is expressed in different ways (see above), finds expression here in the phrase ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ. As is now well known, Jeremias attempted to argue that ἄχρι οὗ has a purposive as well as a temporal force, anticipating the maranatha tradition articulated in 1 Cor 16:22.192 However, whether 16:22 represents an Aramaic as an indicative or as an imperative depends on whether we read Μαρὰν ἀθά (our Lord comes, or our Lord has come) or Μαράνα θά (our Lord, come) (see under exegesis of 16:22 more fully, below).193 Whatever the linguistic force of Jeremias’s case (which fails to convince us), the theology of the argument is bound up with his notion that the primary direction of the Lord’s Supper is “Godward,” i.e., for God to “remember” the plea of Christ’s selfoffering. This view, however, we also found unconvincing, and the notion that the timing of the parousia is entailed in observances of the Lord’s Supper which plead for this consummation finds no echo elsewhere in the NT, whatever other arguments Jeremias may offer. Jeremias falls back on allusions mainly in Jewish prayers to God’s “remembering” the Messiah, and thereby of “causes the kingdom to break in by the parousia.”194 The most positive and acceptable strand in Jeremias’s argument is the valid suggestion that embedded in the Lord’s Supper is a longing which leads participants to “pray for its [the kingdom’s] consummation” (his italics).

[5]

The eschatological tone should not surprise us when in addition to playing a role in the common tradition, eschatology in this epistle serves to remind complacent groups within the congregation at Corinth of their fallibility, vulnerability, and status as pilgrims or travelers still en route to their final goal (1 Cor 1:7b–9, 18; 3:13–15, 17, 18; 4:5, 8–13; 6:9–14; 8:1–2, 7–13; 9:24–27; 10:1–5, 12; 11:26; 13:8–13). It would verge on the language of later Christian theology to suggest that the assurance of covenant promise is needed only for the interim period before all fallibility and ignorance is abolished. Yet to await the verdicts of the last day reflects the mind of Paul (4:1–5; 13:8–13). In Calvin’s words, “We always stand in need of such an aid as this, as long as we are living in this world.”196

All the same, Paul means more than this. Just as the full sun outshines any source of illumination otherwise provided in everyday life, so when he (the Lord) comes, this reality will eclipse and outshine the pledges and promises that have hitherto pointed to it. In this sense the fellowship gathered around the table of the Lord (10:21) provisionally and in partial measure constitutes the pledge and first preliminary imperfect foretaste of the “Supper of the Lamb” of the final consummation to which the Lord’s Supper points in promise. Thus, we return to Ricoeur’s notion of narrative identity. The founding event of the cross is constitutive for Christian corporate and individual identity. Self-involvement in the story of the cross shapes the story of the self and the Christian church. However, this is not yet the whole of the story. The story does not reach its culmination until he comes, and only then will the full meaning of all present moments be disclosed, beyond the need for partial significations.197

27 Some later MSS insert τοῦτον to read this bread, and a few add this to the cup, but P46, א, B, C, D, and other earlier texts place UBS 4th ed. beyond question.

ὥστε denotes a logical consequence, i.e., therefore (NRSV, NJB), or it follows that (REB), or consequently, which embraces the full force of result. ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ is indefinite (whoever …). The first major problem concerns the precise meaning of ἀναξίως (in an unworthy manner, NRSV, NIV; unworthily, REB, NJB, KJV/AV, Barrett). BAGD and Grimm-Thayer propose for this verse in an unworthy (or careless) manner.198 However, the adjectival form of ἀναξίως in 1 Cor 6:2 conveys the sense of incompetency, or being not good enough for a task, and this coheres with the adjectival meaning in Epictetus and Philo (although it seems to mean unworthy in 1 Clement 47:6). The adverb clearly stands in semantic opposition to the ἀξίως, ἄξιος, and ἀξιῶ group.199 Liturgy and song have familiarized Rev 4:11, “You are worthy, O Lord … to receive glory and honor and power.…” However, as BAGD note, in more common parlance the Prodigal Son exclaims, “I am no longer fit to be called your son, οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἄξιος.” ἅξιος may be used in a bad sense: deserving blows (Luke 12:48), i.e., fit to be punished. In the Apocalypse of John, God and Christ are deserving of honor; for the adjective most broadly denotes fitting correspondence (BAGD) or appropriate weight (Grimm-Thayer). Paul’s primary point is that attitude and conduct should fit the message and solemnity of what is proclaimed. At Corinth these were too often not fitting, or, in Meyer’s accurate words, “in a way morally out of keeping with the nature (10:16) and design of the ordinance (11:24–25; his italics).200 Similarly Wolff, describes this as an “inappropriate” or “unsuitable” attitude (inunangemessener Haltung).201

The second difficulty arises from how best to translate ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου. Barrett follows the traditional rendering of the AV/KJV and RV, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.202 Guilty is also retained for ἔνοχος by REB and NIV, although REB amplifies with guilty of offending against … (as in Barrett’s exegesis); NIV, quality of sinning against … ; NEB, quality of desecrating … ; Goodspeed, quality of profaning.… However, NRSV, NJB, Collins, and Hays translate will be answerable for … , which reflects H. B. Montgomery’s must answer for (Centenary Translation) and Parry’s will have to answer for.…203 Fee accepts guilty of but prefers to emphasize the force of liable and rejects NIV’s gloss, guilty of sinning against.… 204 Although we must be extremely cautious about etymology, which usually says more about history than meaning at a later time, Edwards confirms the lexicographical evidence of liable with reference to the continuing force of ἐάν — ἐχόμενος, held in, i.e., held responsible for.205 However, as he also points out, in legal contexts such liability to (e.g., the law) usually finds expression with the dative, while that which a person is liable for (e.g., the crime) is usually expressed by the genitive (as here), and then in Koine Greek came to denote the person against whom the crime is committed.

The syntax therefore implies not a sacrilege against the elements of the Lord’s Supper but answerability or being held accountable for the sin against Christ of claiming identification with him while using the celebration of the meal as an occasion for social enjoyment or status enhancement without regard to what sharing in what the Lord’s Supper proclaims.206 The lexicographical evidence of BAGD, Grimm-Thayer, Louw-Nida, MM, and LSJ confirms these points. BAGD allude to ἐνεχόμενος, caught in, where Edwards had spoken of held in, but they offer examples of the respective meanings of the adjective to denote subject to (with genitive), answerable or guilty (with dative, but sometimes genitive), in connection with a crime or a punishment or with “the person (or thing) against whom the sin has been committed … 1 Cor 11:27.…”207Grimm-Thayer devote almost a column to the varied uses and contexts, largely in parallel with Edwards, but also describing the word in 11:27 as “guilty of a crime committed against the body and blood of the Lord,” which out of context might threaten to undermine Edwards’s point.208 Deissmann claims that the construction in v. 27 represents a Cilician provincialism of Paul, but a range of constructions from legal and political contexts can be found in LSJ and MM.209 More significant, however, is Collins’s observation that vv. 27–32 are “replete with judicial language: ‘unworthily … answerable … scrutinize … judgement … chastise … condemn,’ all belong to the semantic domain of the law and the courtroom.”210

REB, NIV, and NEB, we noted, found it necessary to gloss or to insert a word or phrase for idiomatic English, even though Fee rejected this. If we follow the line of interpretation proposed, we need, similarly, to explicate the Greek by some such insertion as for so treating, which the context of discourse clearly implies. Otherwise the original danger identified by Fee and Hays reemerges. Barrett, however, rightly makes a major point here: “That body is not to be interpreted here as equivalent to church is shown by the addition of blood.”211 Exegesis suggests neither, on one side, the notion of sacrilege against the elements themselves, nor, on the other side, mere answerability for social disruption. The focus remains on Christ, and Christ crucified, as proclaimed through a self-involving sharing in the bread and wine. If stance and lifestyle make this empty of content and seriousness, participants will be held accountable for so treating the body and blood of the Lord.

28–29 The UBS 4th ed. text of v. 29 is rightly ranked as certain (“A”). The earliest witnesses confirm it: P46, א*, A, B, C*, 33, Coptic (Boh and Sah). However, אo, C3, D, G, K, most minuscules, and Latin and Syriac VSS insert ἀναξίως from v. 27 after πίνων and add τοῦ κυρίου after σῶμα. The AV/KJV includes both drinks unworthily and not discerning the Lord’s body, with the later Western readings, while oddly the NIV reads the Lord’s in the second instance. Clearly the longer text explicates and specifies the meaning on the basis of earlier verses, but, as Metzger urges, there would be no reason for the shorter text (with such support) except its authenticity.212

The adversative use of δέ introduces the theme of self-examination as a contrast (on the contrary) to the eating and drinking which is not fitting in the previous verse. Paul uses the verb δοκιμάζω to convey more than simple introspective examination alone. The cognate adjective δόκιμοι occurred in 11:19 to mean (in our translation of v. 19 above) those who are tried and true, i.e., those who have proved themselves to be genuine after examination. This entirely articulates the theme that links the negative of v. 27 with the positive of v. 28: a person (ἄνθρωπος) should examine his or her own genuineness, i.e., test how genuine their motives and understanding are.213

Only in this way renders the simple οὕτως translated ambiguously as and so let a man … in AV/KJV, exchanged for the temporal construction before eating in REB (also before we eat in NIV) and a combination of temporal and perhaps also logical, and only then eat, in NJB and NRSV. Clearly the traditional so for οὕτως is acknowledged to be ambivalent. οὕτως as the adverbial form which corresponds to οὗτος, this, means “thusly” or in this way most characteristically with reference to what precedes it, often summarizing the thought just expressed (although it may also refer to what follows). Here Paul clearly means that participants are only to eat from the loaf (ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου) and drink from the cup (ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου) in the way indicated, i.e., by examining themselves to confirm that their understanding, attitude, and conduct are genuine in sharing (cf. ἐκ) in all that the body and blood of Christ proclaims, both in redemptive and in social terms.

μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα AND “EXAMINATION FOR GENUINENESS” (11:29)

This prepares the way for a proper understanding of the much discussed wording κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα in v. 29. We have already noted how readily the theme of eschatology in the sacraments relates to the anticipation of judgment with reference to C. F. D. Moule’s classic essay “The Judgement Theme in the Sacraments” (see above under 11:24). Before we take this discussion further, we must note the force that Paul uses in διακρίνω. The verb, according to BAGD, Grimm-Thayer, Lampe, and others, has the force of to separate, to make a distinction, to differentiate. Only on the basis of discrimination (i.e., separating x from y) does the word come to mean to judge or judge correctly (under which BAGD include 1 Cor 11:31) and finally to recognize (under which they include our present v. 29).214 Clearly, therefore, the central motif of separation leads to the force of recognizing … what [is] different. However, if we translate simply to recognize what is different about the body, this risks imposing upon Paul a more narrow “sacramentalist” interpretation than the context of thought warrants. As Barrett observes, any thought that the ground of condemnation arises from failure to perceive a difference of substance between the eucharistic elements and ordinary bread “introduces a distinction that does not appear in the context.”215 Expressed differently, Horsley reminds us that the contextual issue remains that of “certain Corinthians’ sense of their own importance.”216 This, however, is not merely a “social” matter; as Conzelmann observes in v. 27, it is a matter of “theologia crucis as opposed to theologia gloriae,” in the sense in which Luther so finely expounds this.217

Three broad traditions of interpretation reflect different understandings of the phrase in question: (1) A strong tradition from Justin and Augustine through Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lombard, and even Beza to a number of modern (mainly nineteenth-century) writers, including Heinrici, Weiss, and even (in modified Protestant form) Godet, interpret Paul’s words to mean distinguishing between the sacred eucharistic elements of the Lord’s body and ordinary bread from the table.218 Godet believes that even Reformed theology can find room for the view that Paul is concerned for proper respect at the Lord’s Table, in contrast to merely social gatherings of Christians. Schrage rejects such a view as too narrow, and cites numerous writers in support.219

(2) A reaction, represented by such writers as Bornkamm, Käsemann, Kümmel, Schweizer, and earlier Robertson and Plummer, tends, in effect, to understand discerning the body as referring primarily to respect for the congregation of believers as the body of the Lord.220 Bornkamm believes that Paul alludes to “ ‘the mystical body of Christ’ of the congregation … the [united] ‘body’ of the congregation.”221 Kümmel, in the 4th ed. (1949) of An die Korinther, 1–2, interestingly dissents from Lietzmann’s 3d ed. (1942) in the same series. Lietzmann had spoken of treating the body of Christ as “profaner Speise.” Kümmel rejects the notion of a contrast between “ordinary food” and the holy elements of the Eucharist; it alludes to “the congregation” of the body of Christ. He approves Moffatt’s gloss “without a proper sense of the Body,” in the sense that “they forgot what the Body meant as they acted so selfishly towards their humbler fellow-Christians.”222 A flood of modern (often but not always evangelical Protestant) writers follow this approach, often citing (i) a parallel with 10:16–17 and (ii) the use of the body here without the addition of the blood or of the Lord. These arguments are repeated in Witherington, Blomberg, Senft, Horrell, Stanley, and Hays; Collins follows this mainly, but recognizing other nuances.223 One of the most detailed arguments in support of this comes from Fee, who claims that this verse “makes sense of what is otherwise an unusual short digression in 10:17,” where the “one loaf” is identified as the participating solidarity of the community of believers. In v. 29 Paul speaks of this “further sense, the church as that body.”224

(3) Arguments of this nature (for they are regularly repeated) fail to convince Barrett, Marshall, Hofius, Wolff, Schrage, and the present writer. Barrett argues that the second view “strains the meaning of διακρίνειν” (cf. also Hofius, although this may not be decisive); that it would require τὸ σῶμα to serve with a genitive; and (especially with Marshall) that v. 29 is too far in distance from 10:16–17 for Paul to expect his readers to refer to it as the decisive frame for his meaning.225 Hofius insists that in this verse “τὸ σῶμα stands pars pro toto” for the body and blood.226 Wolff makes the decisive point. The social is founded on the salvific: the issue is understanding the entailments of “sharing as participants in the death of Jesus ‘for you.’ ”227 The context of vv. 24 and 27, Wolff rightly urges, is most decisive of all, since it is this that impinges transformatively on believers’ attitudes and behavior toward others. Schrage sees v. 31 as an important indicator of the meaning of v. 29. “Right judgment” extends to what it means to be identified with, and involved in, the cross of Christ, in anticipation of judgment.228 In this sense our verse states that they must recognize what characterizes the body as different, i.e., be mindful of the uniqueness of Christ, who is separated from others in the sense of giving himself for others in sheer grace. The Lord’s Supper, by underlining participation in, and identification with, the cruciform Christ, thereby generates the social transformation, which is Paul’s second concern. Nevertheless, he never leaves behind the proclamation of the cross (1:18–25) as the ground of identity transformation, and it is of the very essence of the Lord’s Supper (and of baptism) to keep this anchorage in grace and in the cross in sharp focus.

This becomes corroborated in the remaining allusion to judgment (κρίμα) in this verse. We need to hold together the observations of Hofius about atonement with those of C. F. D. Moule about judgment and eschatology (above). The cross stands as an anticipation of God’s final, definitive judgment which takes the form of a double verdict “guilty” and “justified” (1 Cor 1:30–31). Hence, unless a believer examines his or her own genuineness (v. 28) and shares in the Lord’s Supper in this way, what characterizes the body as different (v. 29) will become lost from view and thereby the very eating and drinking (identification with Christ and sharing in the cross) elicits a verdict of “guilty.” In Moule’s words, what invites its own judgment is “fundamental blindness.”229 The alternative is to “plead guilty” and thereby pass not only under, but also through, divine judgment.230 Thus the process of passing through this context of eschatological judgment in advance by “sharing in” the Lord’s Supper can be redemptive as well as genuinely threatening to any who become hardened in their self-deception or “fundamental blindness.” As Barrett notes, the linguistic and forensic links between κρίμα, διακρίνειν, ἔνοχος, κρίνειν (vv. 31, 32) and κατακρίνειν (v. 32) are easier to see in Greek than to provide in English translation.231 (On possible pastoral implications for the admission of children to Holy Communion, see also v. 30, and n. 246 under that verse. On the inadequacy of introspective “self-examination” as such, see exegesis of vv. 31–32).

30 Almost alone S. Schneider argues that the three key words ἀσθενεῖς, ἄρρωστοι, and κοιμῶνται are used metaphorically, not physically, to denote weak in faith, spiritually sick, and asleep or lethargic, to convey the cumulative sense of having a moribund faith.232 He cites possible Philonic and patristic parallels. Most commentators, however, perceive a causal connection with v. 29 which reflects, in the phrase used by Allo, a “terrible realism” concerning physical illness and death.233 Fee believes that Paul draws on a prophetic insight that actual cases of illness, some of them terminal, are linked to attitudes of self-indulgent, manipulatory uses of the Lord’s Supper as occasions when they have despised the “have nots.”234 Since he earlier actually mentions drunkenness (11:21), it is just conceivable that a serious decline in health could result causally from excess in gluttony and drink which brought its own judgment, especially if a wealthy host saw an opportunity to masquerade sheer excess under the cloak of “doing the Lord’s work” by hosting frequent “Suppers of the Lord.”

Such lack of genuineness (see under v. 28) could well add force to M. Pesce’s proposal that this amounts to a breach of covenant or willful sin (cf. Moule’s “fundamental blindness”) demanding “a sacrifice of reparation” (Num 5:18; cf. 5:11–31), expanded in m. Sotah 1:1–4:3 in terms of “the water of bitterness that causes the curse.” The breach of covenant is comparable to an adultery in which covenant loyalty is compromised.235 When she has “finished drinking,” “the suspected adulteress” who is being “tested” or “judged” by “drinking the water” either shows immediate signs of serious illness (yellow complexion, bulging eyes, swelling veins) or “if she has any merit this holds her punishment in suspense …” (m. Sot. 3:4). Pesce relates this to the illness and death that befalls the covenant breaker who refuses to be judged by the Lord, or judged by himself, and the one who, in effect, is willing to plead guilty in accordance with vv. 31–32.

This suggestion may shed light on a theological principle, but we cannot be certain that these specific passages were in Paul’s mind. It is also worse than speculative to imagine that Paul had not expected deaths to occur before the parousia; this belongs to a discredited view which reads a naïve eschatology of imminence onto Paul on the basis of isolated passages and ignores the point made forcefully by Cullmann and others that, as Paul was fully aware, while Christians are in one (eschatological) sense delivered from sin and death, they still sin and still die.236 J. Weiss so strongly presses a supernatural “realism” in which he regards the elements of the Eucharist as “solidly sacramental, magical, and miraculous” that he has no problem about their potency for physical damage or benefit.237 At the same time, he rejects as a later hellenistic development which does not cohere with Paul the Ignatian notion of the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality” (Ignatius, Ephesians 20:2, φάρμακον ἀθανασίας).

Dale Martin combines a social-history approach with theological commentary. On one side he calls attention to the “shocking” nature of the suggestion that “the ingestion of the Eucharist, Christ’s body, might under certain circumstances have a toxic effect on the Christian’s body. These Corinthians are being poisoned by what should heal them.”238 However, Graeco-Roman medicine and pharmacology reflected a full awareness that φάρμακον, medical remedy, drug for curing disease (Philo; Josephus, Wars 4.573; Testament of Joseph 2:7; Ignatius, Ephesians, 20:2 et al.), also denoted poison (Josephus, Antiquities 16.253; 17.62; Testament of Joseph 5:1; LXX; Philo).239 The verb φαρμακεύω means to mix a potion, to prepare poison, or to practice magic, while the noun φαρμακεία in LXX and Jewish-Christian literature usually denotes sorcery.240 The double-sided effect of the same “medicine” resonates with Paul’s comment about the apostolic message as a “fragrance” that for some is “a deadly fume” but for others is “a vital fragrance that brings life” (2 Cor 2:14–16).

Many (most?) healing drugs actually operate by injecting “poison” into the system in a mode or degree that proves beneficial. Martin gives a careful account, with documentation, of the assumptions of Graeco-Roman medicine in the ancient world about the body.241 Paul, he argues, “clearly believes that something ‘real’ happens to the body of the Christian through partaking in the Eucharistic meal.”242 The modern notion of a merely “metaphorical” impact, he argues, is anachronistic. Dale Martin’s discussion is suggestive, even if it does not convince us in every detail. The upshot is that it would be entirely intelligible and credible to argue to readers at Corinth that what could serve as a positive benefit in a state of “recognizing one’s vulnerability to destruction” and “one’s contingent status as a member of the larger body of Christ” could also act as a deadly poison if ingested in the wrong way or in the wrong situation without due understanding, care, attention and caution.243

Several possible explanations for the clear facts (against Schneider) stated in v. 30 are available. There is no need to invoke some theory of magic or a “high” Ignatian sacramentalism. Paul simply states what has occurred. Most commentators understand the effect as “causal” rather than (with Conzelmann) as an act of “punishment.”244 The pastoral concern expressed by Fee, Hays, and others over the harshness of such terms as unworthily and guilty in v. 27 (while we accept the need for a better translation on linguistic grounds) seems to be eclipsed by this more terrifying warning about the consequences of taking part in the Lord’s Supper in a way that it is not fitting. Héring repeats and endorses Allo’s comment that the causal process described in this verse has a “terrible realism.”245 Issues about pastoral and liturgical implications for today are widely debated.246 C. F. D. Moule places these “judgment” verses in the wider setting of the conviction or judgment (ἔλεγχος) that the work of the Holy Spirit brings as part of the redemptive process, and the contrast between the ἀνάθεμα of judgment on those who do not love Christ and the acknowledgement of Christ as Lord (12:3; 16:22).247

31–32 P46, א, A, B, D, F, G, and 33 have an adversative δέ, which some later texts (אo, C, Syriac) change to γάρ.

The translation of διεκρίνομεν must take account of the close proximity of διακρινών only two lines above (v. 29). There we argued that the issue was whether those who take part in the Lord’s Supper recognize what characterizes the body as different.248 We need not replicate here the detailed lexicographical and contextual arguments and evidence (see above, under v. 29). This translation, allowing for the replacement of the accusative τὸ σῶμα (v. 29) with the accusative ἑαυτούς, fits the present context exactly. It is not simply a matter of being critical of ourselves (NJB) nor even whether we judged ourselves (NRSV, NIV, approximately AV/KJV) or examined ourselves (REB). Just as v. 29 combines recognizing what is the case with distinguishing or identifying a separation or difference in discrimination, so here Paul speaks not only of passing a verdict on ourselves (the verdict may be wrong or inadequate; see 4:1–5, where he rejects this). What is required is recognizing our portion in the cruciform Christ “for us,” i.e., recognizing our status and obligations as Christian believers, or, to replicate v. 29, recognizing what characterizes us as Christian believers. This is to discern our distinctiveness, not as individuals, but as the having-died-and-being-raised-one-body-of-Christ.

This entirely coheres with Moule’s comments about the judgment theme in the sacraments. He concludes, “It depends upon the person’s response to that situation whether it proves to be remedial and to be a judgment which will prepare him for salvation at last, or whether it plunges him further into a condition of fatal self-concern.”249 Rightly appropriated divine grace, expressed through “the sacramental verdict,” invites and promotes “entry beyond judgment into the life of the age to come.”250

Our translation misses the reproduction in English of the cognate forms κρίμα, διακρίνειν, κρίνειν, and κατακρίνειν in these verses, which Barrett recognizes cannot be reproduced unless we flatten each into some less nuanced form, probably Eng. judge.251 Fee and Hays note the linguistic advantage of seeking to use related or similar English words which bring into prominence the considerable wordplay on the language of judgment.252 However, Fee’s view that the issue turns on “self-examination” (vv. 28, 31) not only deprives δοκιμάζω and διακρίνω of their proper force as embracing specific effects as well as processes but also substitutes a pietist psychologism for a more robust theological conception of a genuine appropriation of grace anchored in identification with the crucified Christ. Paul’s concern anticipates Bonhoeffer’s declarations about “cheap grace.” Cheap grace is “the preaching of forgiveness without repentance … Communion with confession, grace without discipleship … Christianity without Christ.”253 By contrast a costly but authentic appropriation of grace entails “taking up the cross … sharing Christ’s crucifixion … the cup of suffering.”254 This is why identification with Christ and the cross in the Lord’s Supper is at the same time a dialectical passing through judgment as “guilty” and “accepted” or “rightwised,” as 1:18–25, 30–31 paves the way for the Corinthian Christians to perceive.

If “to belong to Jesus Christ means to participate in his giving of himself to God and his kingdom … in fellowship with all who are related in this way to the same Lord,” then “in right receiving” (11:27) … “we judge ourselves aright” (my italics) “[and] will not be judged (at the last judgment, v. 31).”255 For we “pass on ourselves God’s verdict.”256 Paul’s use of παιδευόμεθα is significant. As in the Epistle to the Hebrews, being disciplined (with NRSV, NIV, REB; cf. chastened, AV/KJV; corrected, NJB) performs an educative role (as in Heb 12:7).257 It should not give rise to doubt of salvation or be endured merely with resignation.258 It plays a positive role in the process of being conformed to the image of Christ in suffering as well as glory.

33–34 Some later MSS add δέ to the beginning of v. 34 for stylistic reasons, but the UBS 4th ed. reading is certain, supported by P46, א*, A, B, C, D, F, G, and 33.

On the difficulty of translating ἀδελφοί μου (REB, my friends; NRSV, my brother; NIV, my brothers and sisters), see on 1:10 and other instances. The most problematic Greek word for translation is the key imperative verb ἐκδέχεσθε. In the light of 11:21–22 (which Schrage regards as marking an inclusio with v. 33), lexicography, and the convincing reconstructions by Theissen, Murphy-O’Connor, and others, the common translation of the major English VSS, wait for (one another) (NRSV, REB, NIV, NJB, Collins with AV/KJV, tarry) is entirely correct.259 However, in Rom 15:7 Paul places similar weight upon a different Greek verb, namely, προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους, welcome one another, in the context of differences between “the strong” and “the weak,” and different cultural or religious observances and ethos within the church. Robert Jewett in a distinctive study regards this as the practical climax of Paul’s argument in Romans, and his insistence that both Jews and Gentiles become and remain Christians by sheer grace. Horsley, Hays, and Fee argue that here welcome, accept, or receive is more than an overtone. On the other hand, the lexicographical evidence is not strong.  Edwards points out that the Greek uses this verb for to receive only in sense of receiving from. The lowly or “despised” are not to be overlooked or made to feel second-class. This is true, but this situation was largely an outcome of the more privileged guests arriving at an earlier time and reclining in the triclinium (see above on 11:21–22). Paul has explained that this violates both the principle of identification with the Christ crucified “for you” and participatory sharing in the one bread (11:24–25; 10:16–17).

If the well-to-do take their more elaborate meals in their own private houses (ἑν οἴκῳ, at home, as NJB, NRSV), the poor and disadvantaged will not be shamed as they are in the case of current practices.265 εἰς expresses consequence in the middle of a purpose clause: Ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα συνέρχησθε. “If they satisfy their hunger at home, they can celebrate the Supper together.”266 They can thereby focus their entire attention on the purpose of the Lord’s Supper: to proclaim the Lord’s death and their personal and corporate involvement in its salvific and relational consequences as one body, the body of Christ. The adverbial τὰ δὲ λοιπά, also serving as an accusative of respect, introduces an allusion to other matters which Paul will set in order (διατάξομαι) when he visits them

----

niv New International Version

MM The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources, by J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan (reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976)

Wis. Wisdom of Solomon

SIG Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, edited by W. Dittenberger, 3d ed., 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1915–24)

3 Winter (2001: 149) cites Burton’s (1898: 50–51) remarks that the aorist infinitive φαγεῖν in 11:21 does not indicate action antecedent to the principal verb.

Mem. Xenophon, Memorabilia

4 If theological conceptions come into play and some Corinthians viewed the Lord’s Supper as communion only between the individual and the Lord and not as common-union between individuals and the Lord, then they may have considered it a matter of indifference who was present or not and what they had or did not have to eat.

Mor. Plutarch, Moralia

Sat. various authors, Satirae (Satires)

5 Fee (1987: 544) observes that “the view ‘from below’ (Martial’s) is that the poor should eat the same food as the rich; the view ‘from above’ (Pliny’s [quoted in the additional note]) is that the rich should eat the same fare as others.” Paul expects Christians to share with others, particularly at the common table.

6 Among the many works on this issue, see Lietzmann 1953; Jeremias 1966a; I. Marshall 1980; Knoch 1993; Klauck 1993; Betz 2001.

7 Those who pass on the tradition are identified by the use of παρά (para) plus the genitive (cf. Gal. 1:12; 1 Thess. 2:13; 4:1, 2; 2 Thess. 3:6; see Hofius 1993: 76 n. 3; Wolff 1996: 264).

8 Paul does not identify how he received this tradition about the Lord’s Supper (see Farmer 1993: 35–46).

9 The use of the imperfect (παρεδίδετο) as opposed to the aorist (cf. ἔλαβεν, elaben, took; ἔκλασεν, eklasen, broke; and εἶπεν, eipen, said) points to its duration.

LXX Septuagint

10 This reconstruction fits the Jewish custom of a blessing being recited over a cup after the meal.

11 Klauck (1993: 65–66) objects that Paul’s churches would not have followed this order, because those who came late would have joined only in the cup. He thinks that they had a full meal toward evening, followed by the twofold rite with bread and wine (11:23–26) and then a worship service. But Paul does not mention anyone coming late, and if the temporal aspect of προλαμβάνειν and ἐκδέχεσθαι are not stressed, this objection collapses.

12 Das (1998: 188) points out that for the Corinthians, the idea of a sacrament without a community meal would have seemed as strange to them as a fellowship meal in the midst of a worship service seems novel to us.

13 Arguments about transubstantiation or consubstantiation have no substantiation in the intention of the text.

14 Winter (2001: 153) claims that the neuter demonstrative pronoun represents an action in sixteen of its seventy-four occurrences in Paul’s letters.

nrsv New Revised Standard Version

15 The phrase “as often as you drink” in 11:25 does not occur in the Gospel accounts, and it is repeated in 11:26. The verb “drink” does not have an object in 11:25, but from 11:26 it is clear that it refers to the cup of wine.

Hom. 1 John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam i ad Corinthios

16 I do not disagree with these theological conclusions, but they are not relevant to Paul’s purpose.

17 Edwards (1885: 296) comments that detecting a difference in meaning because of the omitted ἄν is an “unreal refinement.”

18 So Kümmel in Lietzmann 1949: 186; Bornkamm 1969: 148–49; Neuenzeit 1960: 38–39; Käsemann 1964: 130–32; Orr and Walther 1976: 274; Fee 1987: 564; C. Porter 1989: 39–40; Horrell 1996: 153; Hays 1997: 200–201; Murphy-O’Connor 1998: 123; R. Collins 1999: 439.

19 I. Marshall 1980: 114; Hofius 1993: 114; Engberg-Pedersen 1993: 121–22; Schrage 1999: 51–52; Thiselton 2000: 893–94.

nasb New American Standard Bible

J.W. The Jewish War

Ant. Jewish Antiquities

Post. On the Posterity and Exile of Cain

20 So Fee 1987: 568; Witherington 1995: 252; Hays 1997: 202–3; R. Horsley 1998: 163.

Ep. various authors, Epistulae (Epistles)

55 See the respective commentaries of Barrett, p. 260; Bruce, p. 108; Grosheide, p. 264; Robertson and Plummer, p. 238.

56 See Rom. 16:5; I Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2.

57 See NCV, GNB.

58 Cassirer, NRSV.

59 Consult Henning Paulsen, “Schisma und Häresie. Untersuchungen zu 1 Kor 11, 18.19,” ZTK 79 (1982): 180–211.

60 Consult Gerd Schunack, EDNT, vol. 1, pp. 341–42; Walter Grundmann, TDNT, vol. 2, p. 259.

61 Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (1886; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), p. 569.

62 Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth, ed. and trans. John H. Schütz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), pp. 145–74.

63 Excavations at ancient Corinth have given us insight into the sizes of homes. Dining rooms in these homes could accommodate only a limited number of people. Some twenty to thirty people sat down to eat while the rest of the guests had to stand. Consult Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaelogy, Good News Studies, vol. 6 (Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1983), p. 159.

64 Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar, #244.2.

65 Ibid., #447.4.

66 Bauer, p. 151.

67 Consult Robertson, Grammar, p. 880.

68 Refer to Liddell, p. 1488; Burghard Siede, NIDNTT, vol. 3, p. 750; Gerhard Delling, TDNT, vol. 4, p. 14. By contrast, see the careful study of Bruce W. Winter, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth: An Alternative Reconstruction,” RTR 37 (1978): 73–82.

69 Compare Robert Paul Roth, “Paradosis and Apokalupsis in I Corinthians 11:23, ” LuthQuart 12 (1960): 64–67.

70 Matt. 14:19; Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16; and see John 6:11.

71 Calvin, I Corinthians, p. 245.

72 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin from the German 3d rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966), p. 252; Richard J. Ginn, The Present and the Past: A Study of Anamnesis (Allison Park, Penn.: Pickwick Publications, 1989), p. 20.

73 Fee, First Corinthians, p. 553. Consult also Fritz Chenderlin, “Do This as My Memorial.” The Semantic and Conceptual Background and Value of Anamnēsis in 1 Corinthians 11:24–25, Analecta Biblica 99 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982); M. H. Sykes, “The Eucharist as ‘Anamnesis,’ ” ExpT 71 (1960): 115–18.

74 Consult Otfried Hofius, “Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis. Erwägungen zu I Kor 11, 23b–25, ” ZTK 85 (1988): 371–408; “To sōma to hyper hymōn I Kor 11, 24, ” ZNW 80 (1989): 80–88.

75 Didache 10:6. See also I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 152.

76 Compare S. K. Finlayson, “I Corinthians xi.25, ” ExpT 71 (1960): 243.

77 SB, vol. 4, pp. 630–31; Leonhard Goppelt, TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 154–55.

78 Geoffrey B. Wilson, I Corinthians: A Digest of Reformed Comment (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1971), pp. 168–69.

79 Barrett, First Corinthians, p. 269.

80 Beverly R. Gaventa, “‘You Proclaim the Lord’s Death’: I Corinthians 11:26 and Paul’s Understanding of Worship,” RevExp 80 (1983): 377–87.

KJV King James Version

NKJV New King James Version

84 Refer to Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 562.

85 Robert G. Hoerber, Studies in the New Testament (Cleveland: Biblion, 1991), p. 7.

86 Robertson, Grammar, p. 974.

87 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 253.

88 For additional interpretations, see William Ellis, “On the Text of the Account of the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians xi.23–32 with Some Further Comment,” AusBRev 12 (1964): 43–51.

89 Contra Norman M. Pritchard, who advances the hypothesis that unbelievers were present at the Lord’s table in Corinth. See his “Profession of Faith and Admission to Communion in the Light of I Corinthians 11 and Other Passages,” SJT 33 (1980): 55–70.

90 KJV, NKJV, Phillips.

91 NIV, GNB, TNT, Cassirer. Two versions have “body of Christ” (MLB, SEB), but without textual support.

92 Consult Metzger, Textual Commentary, pp. 562–63.

93 Compare Gerhard Dautzenburg, EDNT, vol. 1, p. 305. See also Siegfried Wibbing, NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 503–4.

94 For a detailed discussion, consult Fee, First Corinthians, pp. 563–64; see also Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 115.

95 Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), vol. 5, p. 148.

98 Acts 17:16; I Cor. 11:33; 16:11; Heb. 10:13; 11:10; James 5:7; see also the variant reading of John 5:3.

99 Bruce W. Winter interprets the Greek verb ekdechomai as “‘receive one another’ in the sense of sharing [food].” See “The Lord’s Supper,” pp. 79–80. Consult also Fee, First Corinthians, pp. 567–69.

NIV Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

nlt Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.

1 Hurd, Origin of 1 Corinthians, 78–79; followed by Fee, First Epistle, 531, and Hays, First Cor, 193. On the other hand, Findlay earlier perceived this as a response to the church’s writing “self-complacently” about worship (from 11:2 onward) (Expositor’s Greek Testament, 2:876).

2 Cf. esp. Hofius, “Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis. Erwägungen zu 1 Kor 11:23b–25,” 371–408. Hofius argues that lack of hospitality and sharing contradicts the principle of proclaiming the cross of the Christ who died for the sake of others. See also P. Lampe below under n. 7.

3 Winter, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth: An Alternative Reconstruction,” 81; cf. 73–82.

4 Ibid., 73–82.

5 Fee, First Epistle, 537: “The former divisions were … defined as ‘quarrels’ and ‘jealousy’ (1:11; 3:4), which are quite missing from this section.… In 1:12 Paul mentions at least four names around which the quarrels are taking place.…”

6 See Murphy-O’Connor, “House Churches and the Eucharist,” 32–38; and St. Paul’s Corinth, 153–61. Also Pliny, Letters 2.6.

7 Lampe, “Das Korinthische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch-römischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11:17–34),” 183–213.

10 Lietzmann, Mass and Lord’s Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy, With Introduction and Further Inquiry by R. D. Richardson, esp. 172–86 on Jesus and the Haburah meal; 193–203 in “The Primitive Form of the Lord’s Supper,” and 203–9 on its development. The early chapters trace details in patristic liturgies.

12 Cullmann and Leenhardt, Essays on the Lord’s Supper, 6. (However, the original German dates from 1936.)

13 Ibid., 9.

15 Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 30; cf. 29–31.

16 Cf. Winter, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth,” 73–82; and “Secular and Christian Responses to Corinthian Famines,” 86–106; Blue, “The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply and the Present Distress,” 221–39; and Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 18–21.

17 Winter, “Secular and Christian Responses,” 86–106; and Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 18 and 140 (Appendix A, no. 38).

18 D. Engels, Roman Corinth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 27.

19 Suetonius, Claudius 18.2; cf. Tacitus, Annals 12.43; Dio Cassius, History 40.11; Josephus, Antiquities 3.320-21. Cf. also Acts 11:29–30.

UBS United Bible Societies

20 Also Hays, First Cor, 194.

21 Barrett, First Epistle, 260.

22 Hays, First Cor, 193; Lietzmann, Mass and Lord’s Supper, 172–86, 193–203, and 203–9.

24 Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition: Reflections on 1 Cor 11:23b–25,” in Meyer (ed.), One Loaf, One Cup, 75–115, esp. 103–11; Germ. “Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis,” 371–408.

25 McGowan, “ ‘Is There a Liturgical Text in This Gospel?’ The Institution Narratives and Their Early Interpretative Communities,” 73–87.

26 As Héring, First Epistle, 112, and Kistemaker, 1 Cor, 386, argue. The Didache (4) also bears this meaning.

27 Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, 239. Unfortunately the AV/KJV follows a MS reading which includes the definite article τῇ.

28 The former is proposed by Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, 239; the latter by Edwards, First Epistle, 284.

29 Hays, First Cor, 195.

30 Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, 239.

31 Fee, First Epistle, 537.

32 Wolff, Der erste Brief, 257; Kistemaker, 1 Cor, 387.

BAGD Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

33 BAGD, 23–24, 203, and 852.

34 Paulsen, “Schisma und Häresie. Untersuchungen zu 1 Kor 11:18, 19,” 180–211. Many others also argue this point more briefly.

35 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 34:3. Cf. further Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 16:21:4 and Didascalia Apostolorum, 23 (cited by Paulsen and others).

36 Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:21–22; Kümmel, “Anhang,” in Lietzmann, An die Korinther, 185 (“eschatologische Notwendigkeit”; cf. 1 Cor 15:25, 53); Barrett, First Epistle, 261–62; Conzelmann, 1 Cor, 194 and 194 n. 14; Héring, First Epistle, 113: “those who will come through the test victorious will stand revealed (dokimoi, cf. 2 Cor 10:18; 13:7; Rom 14:18)”; Land, Die Briefe, 148 (“notwendigen Prozess … das letzte Urteil …”).

37 Hays, First Cor, 195.

38 Fee, First Epistle, 538.

39 Ibid. On vv. 28–32, cf. Gundry-Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 99–113.

40 Trypho raises the issue of Christians who eat food offered to idols in the confidence that nothing destructive can touch them (Justin, Dialogue, 34:3).

41 Horsley, 1 Cor, 159.

42 We noted Hurd’s comments on this difference of tone, above.

Lampe Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon

43 Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 153–61; also summarized briefly in his 1 Cor, 128–29. Cf. further his “House Churches and the Eucharist,” 32–38. More recent work presupposes, builds on, and develops such work: e.g., Lampe, “Das korinthische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch-römischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11:12–34),” 183–213; Blue, “The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply and the Present Distress,” 221–39; Hays, 1 Cor, 195–97; Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 247–52; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:22–27; and Collins, First Cor, 417–19, also allude to H.-J. Klauck’s work on comparisons with “fellowship meals” or symposia in the Graeco-Roman world.

44 J. Wiseman, “Corinth and Rome I:228 bc-AD 267,” in ANRW, 528; cf. 438–548; and Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 155 (and plan of villa on 154).

46 Pliny, Letters 2.6.

47 W. J. Slater, Dining in a Classical Context (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), esp. A. Booth, “The Age for Reclining and Its Attendant Perils,” 105–20.

48 Ibid., 108.

49 Seneca, Epistles 95.24; cf. Plutarch, Quaestiones Romanae 33; Suetonius, Augustus 64.3 and Claudius 43; Polybius, 36.25.4.

50 G. Theissen, “Soziale Integration …,” NovT 16 (1974): 179–206; English in Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 145–74.

51 See Blue, “The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply, and the Present Distress,” 221–39; and Winter, “Secular and Christian Responses to Corinthian Famine,” 86–106; Theissen, Social Setting, 148.

52 Theissen, Social Setting, 148. Cf. Fee, First Epistle, 539 and 539, n. 10: “the Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10) has the same force.

53 Meyer, First Epistle, 1:335; Edwards, First Epistle, 286. Meyer cites the construction of ἔστιν with the infinitive in this sense from classical times (e.g., Thucydides, 8.53; Sophocles, Philoctetes 69) to the NT period (e.g., Heb 9:5). Cf. Conzelmann, 1 Cor, 192, 194; Héring, First Epistle, 113.

54 Héring, First Epistle, 113 insists that “the idea of purpose … is inadmissible.”

56 Winter, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth,” 73–82; Horsley, 1 Cor, 159.

57 Hays, First Cor, 197. Thus BAGD, 708, speak of “the temporal sense … felt very little.”

58 Kistemaker, 1 Cor, 390; Barrett, First Epistle, 262.

59 Fee, First Epistle, 540.

61 Winter, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth,” 73–82.

62 Fee, First Epistle, 539–40.

64 Fee, First Epistle, 535, n. 20.

65 Findlay, Expositor’s Greek Testament, 3:879, on the ground that οἱ ἔχοντες often means persons or property. Cf. Winter, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth,” 73–82.

66 Fee, First Epistle, 543; against Hays, First Cor, 197; cf. Horsley, 1 Cor, 157–58.

67 S. C. Barton, “Paul’s Sense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community Formation in Corinth,” NTS 32 (1986): 225–46; cf. also

UBS United Bible Societies

73 Metzger, Textual Commentary (2d ed.), 496.

74 Ibid.

75 Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 182.

76 Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians, esp. 100–134, on 11:23–25; and Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition: Reflections on 1 Cor 11:23b–25,” in Meyer (ed.), One Loaf, One Cup, 75–115. See also McGowan, “Is There a Liturgical Text in This Gospel? The Institution Narratives and Their Early Interpretative Communities,” 73–87.

77 Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof, 100.

80 Eriksson, Traditions, 100; cf. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 103–5.

81 Horsley, 1 Cor, 160; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 29–31.

Moule Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek

82 C. F. D. Moule, Worship in the NT (London: Lutterworth, 1961), 24 (cf. 18–46); Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 111 and 112; also Wolff, Der erste Brief, 263.

83 Neuenzeit, Das Herrenmahl: Studien zur paulinischen Eucharistie-auffassung, esp. 1,033-35; McGowan, “ ‘Is There a Liturgical Text in This Gospel?’” 78; cf. 73–87. (The question in inner quotation marks constitutes an intertextual allusion to Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?).

84 For recent questioning works, see (e.g.) J. Meier, “The Eucharist at the Last Supper: Did It Happen?” Theology Digest 42 (1995): 335–51; and J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991), 360–67. Against such claims cf. the works cited above by Hofius, Eriksson, and others.

85 McGowan, “ ‘Is There a Liturgical Text in This Gospel?’” 80.

86 Ibid., 75–76, 80–85, citing Justin, Apology, 1:66:2, 3, and Dialogues, 41:1 and 70:3–4; Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 4; cf. M. Metzger, “Nouvelles perspectives pour la prétendue Tradition Apostolique,” Ecclesia Orans 5 (1988): 241–59, and E. Yarnold, “Anaphoras without Institution Narratives?” Studia Patristica 30 (1997): 395–410. Cf. the warning of Barrett, First Epistle, 264, and Fee’s caution, First Epistle, 549, n. 22. On the other hand, see Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition: Reflections on 1 Cor 11:23b–25,” in Meyer (ed.), One Loaf, One Cup, 75–88, for the view that it speedily became fixed in liturgy.

87 Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 111.

88 Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof, 4. The other passages are 8:1–6; 10:16; 12:3 (cf. 12:13); 15:3–5; 16:22.

89 Ibid., 78. Cf. 77–134 and the bibliography of 11:17–34 for titles of these works.

BAGD Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

90 BAGD, 614–15, esp. 614, col. 2. The UBS text rightly reads the Koine form of the verb.

91 Cf. MM, 482–83.

92 Fee, First Epistle, 549.

93 Ibid., 549 and 549, n. 26.

94 Hays, First Cor, 198.

95 Ibid. Also Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:29–35.

96 Eriksson, Traditions, 186; cf. 179–96.

97 Ibid., 177.

98 Ibid.

99 The detailed discussion of tradition above seems to run counter to the view that “the Lord communicated immediately to Paul the truth in question … in some … visionary way” and to render unnecessary “a possible compromise.… Paul received the factual tradition by human means, but received the interpretation of it directly from the Lord” (Barrett, First Epistle, 265).

100 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 104 and 111.

101 Cf. Danby, The Mishnah, 8–9 and 150–51; Strack-Billerbeck, 4:41–76.

102 Hebrew in Roth (ed.), The Haggadah: A New Edition (London: Soncino, 1934 [5694]), 46–67, with notes. These pages are headed “Grace,” while 39–43 provide parallel examples for the thanksgivings in the washing, over the bread, the Mazzah, and the bitter herb.

[3]Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 862.

103 Cf. among other sources Marshall, Last Supper, 57–75 and his Table 4, 184–85.

104 See n. 84 above on Meir and Crossan, with the replies of Hofius and Eriksson. See also Schweizer, The Lord’s Supper according to the NT, 29; R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Eng. trans., Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), 265–67 (with John Meier and J. D. Crossan, cited above), against which see Marshall, Last Supper, 35; Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 607–8; Pesch, Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis, 70–71.

105 Strack-Billerbeck, 2:812–53; cf. Marshall Last Supper, 71–72.

106 A. Jaubert, La date de la Cène. Calendrier biblique et liturgie chrétienne (Paris: Études biblique, 1957), 105–36. Jaubert’s theory is less widely accepted.

107 G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua (Eng. trans., London: SPCK, 1929); Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the NT, 13–23 and 75–78; F. Leenhardt (with O. Cullmann), Essays on the Lord’s Supper (Eng. trans., London: Lutterworth, 1958), 39–43; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 15–88; Cf., however, O. Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition,” in Meyer (ed.), One Loaf, One Cup, 75–88.

108 G. Ogg, “The Chronology of the Last Supper,” in SPCK Theological Collections 6, Historicity and Chronology in the NT (London: SPCK, 1965), 75–96; A. Strobel, Ursprung und Geschichte des frühchristlichen Osterkalen-ders (Berlin: Texte und Untersuchungen 1977); R. B. Brown, The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1966), 2:556, and more fully in The Death of the Messiah (2 vols., London: Chapman, 1994), 2:1356–74.

109 H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 84; Marshall, Last Supper, 57–75, 184–85; and Jaubert and others, cited above.

110 F. J. Leenhardt, “This Is My Body,” in O. Cullmann and F. Leenhardt, Essays on the Lord’s Supper 39–40.

111 Ibid., 40.

112 Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition,” in Meyer (ed.), One Loaf, One Cup, 104; cf. Exod 12:14; 13:3, 9; Deut 16:3; Jubilees 49:7–23; Josephus, Antiquities 2:317; m. Pesahim 10:37d; 34:17.

113 Ibid., 99.

114 Ibid., 105.

115 Ibid., 103 and 106.

116 Ibid., 104.

117 Leenhardt, “This Is My Body,” in O. Cullmann and F. J. Leenhardt, Essays on the Lord’s Supper 39–40; cf. J. R. Searle, Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 19–20, 144–59; also expounded in Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, 45–46 and 362–63.

118 E. Ruckstuhl, “Zur Chronologie der Leidensgeschichte Jesu,” in A. Fuchs (ed.), Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Linz, 1985), 41–44; cf. 27–61; see also E. Ruckstuhl, Die Chronologie der letzen Mahles und des Leidens Jesu (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1963), and Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien (Stuttgart: SBA, 1988), 69–99; also Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:35–45, where covenant also receives due emphasis.

119 These include, e.g.: (i) the Last Supper took place in the evening and extended into the night (1 Cor 11:23; cf. Mark 14:17; John 13:30), although apart from the Passover the main meal (δεῖπνον) would more normally be in the afternoon; (ii) at the Passover, people reclined (rather than sat) as a symbol of liberty (cf. John 13:23); (iii) a preliminary dish preceded the breaking of bread (Mark 14:20; Matt 26:23; John 13:26); (iv) at Passover alms were given to the poor (John 13:29); (v) wine was drunk at the Passover; (vi) the Passover and the Last Supper concluded with a hymn (Mark 14:26; Matt 26:30), generally from Psalm 114 or 115–118; and (vii) the words of Jesus entirely cohere with the explanatory narrative of events of the redemptive history of God’s people. (See Jeremias; and Hofius, “This Is My Body,” 39–40.) Further, in addition to citing “Paschal Features in the Last Supper,” Marshall replies to “objections” to this case. Marshall, Last Supper, 58–66.

120 W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 2d ed. 1955 [1948]), 252.

121 Eriksson, Traditions, 187.

Moule Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek

122 Moule, Worship in the NT, 19.

123 Conzelmann, 1 Cor, 197, n. 49; cf. Jer 16:7.

124 See Marshall, Last Supper, 126–33. Cf. further literature on 10:16, and Thornton, The Common Life in the Body of Christ, 5–95; J. Hainz, Koinonia (cited above); and J. Wanke, Beobachtungen zum Eucharistieverständnis des Lukas auf Grund der lukanischen Mahlberichte (Leipzig: Erfurter Theologische Schriften, 1973), 19–30, with some justified warnings from Marshall, Last Supper, 129–30.

125 Didache 14:1; cf. 14:2. The “sacrifice” (i.e., of worship in sharing with Christ) must be “pure”; hence confession of sins precedes the breaking and sharing of the bread.

126 Cf. C. Wolff, Der erste Brief, 265–66.

127 Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition,” in Meyer (ed.), One Loaf, One Cup, 97 and 98.

128 Fee, First Epistle, 550. Cf. the longer discussion in Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:35–37.

129 Fee, First Epistle, 550.

130 Godet, First Epistle, 2:151. Charles Hodge observes, “Probably the history of the world does not furnish a parallel to the controversies occasioned by these simple words.” Is denotes “the symbol” which we use when we say of a statue that it “is” the person “which it represents … the sign is the thing of which it is the symbol.” Hodge transposes exegesis into comparative doctrine, comparing Rome, Luther, Calvin, and a “Reformed” emphasis on faith (First Epistle, 224–26). Even Kistemaker makes what might sound like a pronouncement: “The bread remained bread; it was a symbol that stood for the reality of his body. Much as the dove … represents the Holy Spirit …” (1 Cor, 394). There is a more secure, effective, historical and exegetical way to reach a similar conclusion.

131 Roth (ed.), The Haggadah, 8 (with note). Cf. further Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 41–62.

132 Roth, Haggadah, 9.

133 Ibid., 11.

134 Ibid., 23.

135 Fee, First Epistle, 551; and Hays, First Cor, 198.

136 Hofius, “Τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, 1 Kor 11:24,” 80–88; cf. Wolff, Der erste Brief, 266.

137 Bornkamm, “Lord’s Supper and Church in Paul,” in Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, 137; cf. 123–60.

138 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 138–60; cf. 160–203. Cf. H. Merklein, “Erwägungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der neutestamentlichen Abendmahlstraditionen,” BZ 21 (1977): 88–101 and 235–44; Ruckstuhl, “Zur Chronologie der Leidensgeschichte Jesu,” 41–44; and Marshall, Last Supper, 46–51.

139 Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition,” in Meyer (ed.), One Loaf, One Cup, 98 and 99.

140 Dunn’s comments on this (Theology of Paul, 617) may therefore seem unguarded; but he is also making our next point at the same time in a compressed summary of issues.

[4]Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 871.

141 See Marshall, Last Supper, 51–53, and again Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 138–203.

142 Horsley, 1 Cor, 161.

143 A. Bentzen, King and Messiah (Eng. trans., London, 1955); and S. Mowinckel, Psalmstudien (6 vols., Oslo: Kristiania, 1921–24).

144 Bentzen, King and Messiah, 12.

145 Ibid., 12 and 80; cf. 72–79.

146 J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 10–20, 25–88.

147 See esp., e.g., E. Voegelin, Anamnesis (Eng. trans., Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1978), esp. 3–35; P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative (3 vols., Eng. trans., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984–88), esp. vol. 1, essays 1 and 2, and vol. 3, 235–40; and Oneself as Another (Eng. trans., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

148 Voegelin, Anamnesis, 5 and 13.

149 Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 1:522–90, 100–152; 3:60–156, 207–74.

150 Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, 17.

151 See ἀναμιμνῄσκω, ἀνάμνησις in BAGD, 57–58; e.g., Peter remembered the word (Mark 14:72) in which remembrance initiated change of stance, action, and a reshaped identity; similarly, “remember the former days …” (Heb 10:32) is for identity reshaping, not mere intellectual recall; which is a reminder of sins (Heb 10:3) may well denote the reactivation of guilt in such a way as to cause a disruption of the new Christian identity. Cf. further Louw-Nida, 1:347–48 (the semantic domain of memory and recall). See also D. Stanley, “Do This in Memory of Me (1 Cor 11:24, 25),” Studies in Formative Spirituality 6 (1985): 103–15, on the relevance of imagination and anticipation.

152 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 248; cf. 237–55.

153 Ibid., 241–42.

154 Ibid., 246–47.

155 Ibid., 251.

156 J. Reumann, The Supper of the Lord: The NT, Ecumenical Dialogues and Faith and Order on Eucharist (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 27–34.

157 Hays, First Cor, 198–99.

158 F. Chenderlin, “Do This as My Memorial”: The Semantic and Conceptual Background and Value of Ἀνμνησις on 1 Cor 11:24, 25.

159 As I argued in 1980, a supposed lack of conceptual apparatus in an earlier era should not be regarded as evidence that what today can be expressed more readily cannot be expressed or understood by less direct or purpose-related language in different times or cultures. The relation between biblical and Paul material on the self-deception of the heart and its “secrets” and notions of the unconscious since Freud offers one of many examples. Cf. Thiselton, The Two Horizons, 115–42; G. Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology (Eng. trans., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 40–114, 271–393, and throughout (and earlier J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language).

160 Moule, “The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments,” in Davies and Daube (eds.), The Background of the NT and Its Eschatology: In Honour of C. H. Dodd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 470; cf. 464–81.

161 Ibid., 470.

162 Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition,” in Meyer (ed.), One Loaf, One Cup, 99.

163 Conzelmann, 1 Cor, 199; cf. 198.

Lampe Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon

164 Lampe, “Das Korinthische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch-römischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis” (1 Kor 11:17–34),” 183–213.

165 Fee, First Epistle, 554, states that it is “correctly supplied,” following, e.g., Barrett, First Epistle, 268; Findlay, Expositor’s Greek Testament, 2:881.

166 Admittedly the accusative of respect performs a function often performed by the dative in Koine Greek of the first century, but examples in the NT are by no means rare; cf. BDF, 87–88, sect. 160, and N. Turner, Grammar, III: Syntax, 247. Findlay supplies he gave, Expositor’s Greek Testament, 2:881.

167 Héring, First Epistle, 115.

168 Pesch, Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis, 64; and P. Stuhlmacher, “Das neutestamentliche Zeugnis vom Herrenmahl,” ZTK 84 (1987): 1–35, esp. 9–10.

169 Hofius, “Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition,” 82–83; further 80–88.

170 Fee, First Epistle, 554; McGowan, “ ‘Is There a Liturgical Text in This Gospel’?” 73–87.

171 Marshall, Last Supper, 119.

172 Casey, “The Original Aramaic Form of Jesus’ Interpretation of the Cup,” 1–12; cf. Marshall, Last Supper, 91.

173 Casey, “Original Aramaic Form,” 1.

174 Ibid., 9–10 (restructuring) and 7–8 (interpretation).

175 Ibid., 10.

176 Ibid., 7; the Aramaic translates the Hebrew in the Targums, and Casey rejects Jeremias’s view that it “had not penetrated into everyday speech” (Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 197, n. 3; Casey, “Original Aramaic Form,” 6.

177 Lane, “Covenant: The Key to Paul’s Conflict with Corinth,” 3–30.

178 Cf. Bornkamm, “The Lord’s Supper,” in Early Christian Experience, 140–43; and Käsemann, “The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” in Essays on NT Themes, 120 and 130–32; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:37–43.

179 The Synoptic tradition also includes which is poured out for many, where Paul’s ὡσαύτως may well echo the τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν of the body.

180 Luther, Luther’s Works, 36 (American ed., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 283.

181 Käsemann, “The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” 130.

182 S. Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, JSNTSS 44 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 11.

183 Cf. E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the OT (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), for the emphasis on divine choice, esp. in Deuteronomy and Hosea, and its relation to divine transcendence.

184 Fee, First Epistle, 556.

BAGD Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

185 BAGD, 585.

Grimm-Thayer Grimm and Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

186 Grimm-Thayer, 456.

187 Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof, 100.

188 Edwards, First Epistle, 295.

189 BAGD, 409.

190 Grimm-Thayer, 330; cf. Wolff, Der erste Brief, 274–75.

191 The discussion above of this aspect (esp. on 10:16–17) under communal participation in the blood of Christ is extensive, and necessarily supplements the exegesis of 11:26. In addition to patristic sources, such modern authors as Thornton, Smit, Strobel, Neuenzeit, Schrage, Hainz, Ortkemper, and Wolff play a decisive part.

192 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 252–55; cf. Barrett, First Epistle, 270–71.

193 See below under 16:22; and Eriksson, Traditions, 115.

194 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 252.

[5]Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 878.

196 Calvin, First Epistle, 250.

197 On Ricoeur, see above, pp. 879–80.

UBS United Bible Societies

BAGD Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Grimm-Thayer Grimm and Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

198 BAGD, 58; Grimm-Thayer, 40. Fee understandably attacks this translation as “unfortunate,” largely on the ground that unworthy would more appropriately apply to a person than to what is being done, which is Paul’s concern. Such a translation has led to a sense of “dire threat” of a moralistic nature especially in pietist circles, and thereby caused “tragedy” (First Epistle, 560 and 560, n. 10). Fee’s pastoral concern is shared by Hays, First Cor, 200. The Greek is a hapax legomenon. Weiss links unworthiness with sacrilege (Der erste Korintherbrief, 290). However, Barrett explains unworthily as with “factiousness and greed” (First Epistle, 272).

199 BAGD, 78–79; Grimm-Thayer, 52–53.

200 Meyer, First Epistle, 1:346.

201 Wolff, Der erste Brief, 277; cf. also Klauck, Herrenmahl, 324.

202 Barrett, First Epistle, 272.

203 Hays, First Cor, 200–201; Parry, First Epistle, 171.

204 Fee, First Epistle, 561–62 and 562, n. 12.

205 Edwards, First Epistle, 297–98.

206 Edwards’s patient exposition anticipates remarkably the reconstructions of the situation at Corinth, which sociological and archaeological research from Theissen and Murphy-O’Connor onward has established (First Epistle, 298).

Louw-Nida Louw and Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains

MM Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from Papyri and Other Nonliterary Sources

LSJ Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon

207 BAGD, 267–68.

208 Grimm-Thayer, 217.

209 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 116; MM, 217.

210 Collins, First Cor, 436. He alludes to the literary device of paronomasia here.

211 Barrett, First Epistle, 273.

212 Metzger, Textual Commentary (2d ed.), 496.

213 On δοκιμάζω, see BAGD, 202, to put to the test, examine; but esp. with reference to the result of the examination, e.g., proving the genuineness of gold by testing; hence to accept as proved, to approve. This is not fully conveyed by everyone is to examine himself (NJB) or examine yourselves (NRSV), while REB’s everyone must test himself is also without reference to a positive result.

Moule Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek

Lampe Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon

214 BAGD, 185; cf. Grimm-Thayer, 138–39: to separate … discriminate sometimes with reference to selection or to variation; also Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, 354.

215 Barrett, First Epistle, 274. Cf. Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, 252, for a rejection of the “substance” view.

216 Horsley, 1 Cor, 162.

217 Conzelmann, 1 Cor, 202. Cf. Luther, The Heidelberg Disputation, sects. 20–25 (conveniently in J. Atkinson, Luther: Early Theological Works, LCC 16 (London: SCM, 1962), 290–94, e.g., “God is not to be found except in sufferings and the cross …” [WA, 1:360–64]. “The theologian of glory says bad is good and good is bad. The theologian of the cross calls them by their proper name” (Heidelberg Disputation, 21; Atkinson, Luther, 291).

218 Justin, Apology, 1:66; Augustine, On John, sect. 62; and, e.g., Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben, 338–39; Weiss, Der erste Kor., 291. For a fuller list of sources see also Allo, Première Épitre, 283; Maier, Estius, et al.

219 Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:51 and n. 587.

220 Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, 252; Bornkamm, “Lord’s Supper and Church in Paul,” 148–49; Käsemann, “The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” 130–32; and E. Schweizer, “σῶμα,” TDNT, 7:1,067-69.

221 Bornkamm, “Lord’s Supper and Church,” 148–49.

222 Lietzmann-Kümmel, An die Korinther, 1/2:59 (Lietzmann) and 186 (Kümmel); cf. Moffatt, First Epistle, 171.

223 Witherington, Conflict and Community, 252; Blomberg, 1 Cor, 231; Senft, La Première Épitre, 153; Horrell, Social Ethos, 153; and “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth and in the Church Today,” 196–202; Stanley, “ ‘Do This in Memory of Me’ … ,” Studies in Formative Spirituality 6 (1985): 103–15; Hays, First Cor, 200; and Collins, First Cor, 436 and 439.

224 Fee, First Epistle, 564.

225 Barrett, First Epistle, 275; and Marshall, Last Supper, 114.

226 Hofius, “The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper Tradition,” 114 and 114, n. 224.

227 Wolff, Der erste Brief, 279.

228 Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:51–52.

229 Moule, “The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments,” in Davies and Daube (eds.), The Background of the NT and Its Eschatology, 473.

230 Ibid., 472; cf. 464–81.

231 Barrett, First Epistle, 274. See further under M. Pesce in v. 30, below.

232 S. Schneider, “Glaubensmängel in Korinth. Eine neue Deutung der ‘Schwachen, Kranken, Schlafenden’ in 1 Kor 11:30,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 9 (1996): 3–19.

233 Allo, Première Épitre, 283.

234 Fee, First Epistle, 565. Fee is anticipated in Edwards, First Epistle, 301.

235 M. Pesce, “Mangiare e bere il proprio giudizio. Una concezione culturale commune a 1 Cor e a Sota?” RevistB 38 (1990): 495–513. Cf. also Danby (ed.), Mishnah, 293–98, with Danby’s notes on the text.

236 A. Schweitzer argued that “the case of those who died believing in Jesus was a case not foreseen in the traditional eschatology … the first of the problems raised by the delay of the Return of Christ” (Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 92). He accepts, however, that Paul himself was among those who saw the need to come to terms with this “delay.”

237 Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 2:647; and Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 290–91.

238 Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 2:648.

239 Martin, The Corinthian Body, 191; and BAGD, 854.

240 BAGD, 854.

241 Martin, Corinthian Body, 3–37; 136–62, esp. 146–53; and 191–94.

242 Ibid., 190.

243 Cf. ibid., 194–97. Barrett believes that “those who abused the Lord’s table were exposing themselves to the power of demons, who were taken to be the cause of physical disease” (First Epistle, 275).

244 Conzelmann, 1 Cor, 203.

245 Héring, First Epistle, 120.

246 The debate is at its most sensitive over the admission to Holy Communion of children from Christian families prior to Confirmation. Some have manipulated the argument in order to detract from the role of Confirmation. However, in relation to these verses, on one side it is suggested that a fitting way and a discerning or recognition of the body entails an attitude of open welcome to Christian families who perceive their children as part of the body on the basis of baptism and household (v. 33). On the other side, this presupposes an exegesis of discerning the body which is not wholly satisfactory (see above), and the risk of inviting children to express their solemn covenant pledge of involvement in all that is proclaimed in the death of Christ may carry potential harm as well as potential good when the circumstances are fitting. At the very least these verses should invite pause for very solemn thought. In some circles the admission of “our” children has become something very much like the social status of eating in the triclinium. Pastoral and liturgical practice needs to come to terms with vv. 27–30.

247 Moule, “The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments,” in Davies and Daube (eds.), Background, 474–75.

248 Barrett regards it as “impossible” to use the same translation (First Epistle, 276). But this is because he chooses to use distinguish in v. 29 and examine in v. 31.

249 Moule, “The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments,” in Davies and Daube (eds.), Background, 481.

250 Ibid.

251 Barrett, First Epistle, 274.

252 Fee, First Epistle, 566; Hays, First Cor, 201–2.

253 Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 38 and 39.

254 Ibid., 71.

255 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:326.

256 Ibid.

257 Cf. Conzelman, 1 Cor, 203 and 203, n. 117.

258 Rightly, Wolff, Der erste Brief, 280.

259 Cf. BAGD, 238; Schrage, Der erste Brief, 3:56.

----