3. The practical outcome (11:27–34)
B. The Lord’s Supper (11:17–34)
1. The offences (11:17–22)
Accustomed as we are to the service of Holy Communion as the most solemn and dignified of services, this passage comes as something of a surprise. Clearly the service was far from being edifying, or even dignified, in first-century Corinth. The passage is of interest as the earliest account we have of a Communion service. It also contains significant teaching on the theology of Holy Communion.
17. There is nothing in the Greek corresponding to following (as NIV, RSV, GNB, etc.); Paul says, ‘commanding you this’, where ‘this’ would naturally refer to the preceding (cf. NEB, ‘In giving you these injunctions’). Then he goes on to a further matter. His verb (parangellō) is authoritative; Paul is not offering a few academic comments, but giving a firm directive. He goes on to the supreme condemnation of any assembly for worship: your meetings do more harm than good. Instead of Holy Communion being supremely an act of edification, it was disruptive.
18. In the first place, says Paul, but he never gets round to ‘secondly’ or the like. There is no article with church, and some hold that the word is used here in the older sense of ‘assembly’ (as in Acts 19:32, 39, 41). It is the coming together of believers that is in mind. But, even when people met for worship, Paul has heard that there were divisions (schismata). The word is that used in 1:10, but the divisions are probably not the same. Those were based on loyalties to teachers, these were economic (some had food and some had none). To some extent I believe it shows that Paul was not credulous. He recognized that there was some exaggeration in the account that had reached him, but he recognized also an unpleasant amount of truth.
19. He accepts the inevitability of differences (haireseis). The word has to do with choosing and means those who have chosen in the same way, e.g. the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), the Pharisees (Acts 15:5), and the Christians (Acts 24:5, 14). But the choosing can be disruptive; it may be one of ‘the works of the flesh’ (Gal. 5:20), which is the sense here. It does not differ greatly from ‘divisions’ (v. 18). It is only as those who choose in a self-willed manner make their appearance that those who have God’s approval (hoi dokimoi, ‘those who have stood the test’) are made manifest.
20. The adjective kyriakon (only here and Rev. 1:10 in the New Testament) stresses the connection with the Lord. The disorders at Corinth are so serious that it is not the Lord’s supper that is eaten; it has a different character (cf. 10:21). Chrysostom points out that what is the master’s is common to all the servants; to make a difference means that it is no longer the master’s.
21. Clubs and associations in antiquity often had communal meals, sometimes paid for out of group funds. It was not uncommon for the food served to the diners to differ in quality and amount. Theissen cites associations where officials by regulation received more than others, some one and a half times, some twice, and some three times the normal (p. 154). He also draws attention to hosts who had better food for privileged guests (pp. 156ff.). Clearly at Corinth the Holy Communion was a full meal, of the type called a ‘love feast’ (Jude 12; some MSS; of 2 Pet. 2:13). But what happened at Corinth was a travesty of love. The wealthier members of the congregation clearly provided most of the food, and this could have been a marvellous expression of Christian love and unity. But it was degraded into the very opposite. The poor would have to finish their work before they could come, and slaves would find it particularly difficult to be on time. But the rich did not wait. They ate and drank in their cliques (‘divisions’, v. 18), each eating ‘an own dinner’ (idion deipnon). The food was gone before the poor got there! One remains hungry, another gets drunk. There was a sharp contrast between the hungry poor, lacking even necessary food, and the drunken rich. There was no real sharing, no genuinely common meal.3
22. A typical series of rhetorical questions hammers at the evil of the practice. Home is the place to satisfy one’s hunger and thirst. To behave like the Corinthians is to despise the church which is no less than the church of God. It is to despise the poor (notice the connection between the poor and the church). There is no place whatever for praise.
2. A reminder of the institution (11:23–26)
This is the earliest account of the institution of the Holy Communion. Indeed, it is the earliest record of any words of Jesus, and one of very few incidents in his earthly life which Paul describes. There are some features of this account which we do not find elsewhere, such as the command to continue the service ‘until he comes’ (v. 26).
23. The verbs received and passed on (paralambanō and paradidōmi) are almost technical terms for receiving and passing on traditions (cf. v. 2). This, taken with the general probability, leads most commentators to the view that Paul means ‘I received a tradition which goes back to the Lord’. Against this is the emphatic I (egō); why should Paul say ‘I received of the Lord’ if he meant ‘I received from other men a tradition that derives ultimately from the Lord’? Revelations were made directly to Paul (Acts 18:9f; 22:18; 23:11; 27:23–25; 2 Cor. 12:7; Gal. 1:12; 2:2). The use of apo rather than para for from does not necessarily indicate an indirect report (though it would be consistent with it), for it sometimes refers to direct communication (Col. 1:7; 3:24; 1 John 1:5). Paul seems to be referring to a direct revelation (cf. Craig, ‘Paul may still be asserting that his interpretation of the Lord’s Supper was received by him from the risen Lord’). It all started on the night he was betrayed (better, ‘he was being betrayed’). Paul brings out the poignant truth that that feast of love that was to bring such strength and consolation to Christians was instituted at the very time when human malignancy was engaged in betraying the Saviour to his enemies.
24. Matthew and Mark use the verb ‘bless’ of the bread, though Luke employs Paul’s verb. All three use ‘give thanks’ of the wine. There is no important difference, for the prayer of thanksgiving would have begun, ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord’ (see on 10:16). Jesus broke the bread and said, ‘This is my body’ (Moffatt, ‘This means my body’). These words have been made the proof text for doctrines such as transubstantiation and consubstantiation with their realistic identification of the bread with the body of Christ. But This is neuter (touto), not masculine as it should be if it referred to the masculine word for bread (artos). It may refer to the whole action, as the second this does. Further, is can denote various kinds of identification (see John 8:12; 10:9; 1 Cor. 10:4, to name no others). Moreover, in the next verse the cup is not ‘my blood’, but ‘the new covenant in my blood’. The words do not prove all that the advocates of such theories claim. On the other hand they should not be minimized into a ‘Zwinglian’ view, that the service is no more than an occasion when we remember Christ. There is a very real gift of the Saviour in the sacrament, none the less real for being essentially spiritual. ‘The sacrament is a medium of communion with the body and blood of Christ, and a real means whereby faith appropriates the blessings which flow from the glorified Christ in virtue of His death’ (Edwards, on v. 25).
The body is for you (some MSS insert ‘broken’ or ‘given’, but Paul has neither word). The emphasis is on the vicarious work of Christ; what happened to the body was for us. There was purpose in his suffering, a purpose of blessing for his people. Do this is present continuous: ‘Keep on doing this.’ If it be judged that these words are no part of the true text of Luke 22:19, this is the sole record of the command to continue the Communion (though we should not pass over the significance of the regular practice of the church from the very first, Acts 2:42). Remembrance (anamnēsis) is the activity of recalling to mind. By breaking and receiving the bread we recall Christ’s sufferings for us.
25. There is no took in the Greek (cf. RSV); the language is terse and vivid. The impression left is that the bread was broken and shared during the course of the meal, and the cup was taken at the end. The word covenant (diathēkē) presents problems, too complex to be discussed here.4 Briefly, it is the normal Greek word for ‘last will and testament’, but in the Greek Old Testament it is used regularly to translate the Hebrew for ‘covenant’ (277 times). The question in the New Testament is, ‘Is diathēkē to be understood as in Greek generally, or as in the Greek Old Testament?’ Probably it is sometimes one and sometimes the other. Here covenant is the meaning, with special reference to the ‘new covenant’ (Jer. 31:31ff.). The idea of covenant dominates the Old Testament. The people entered into a covenant with the Lord (Exod. 24); they were God’s people. But they broke that covenant consistently and Jeremiah looks for a new covenant, one based on forgiveness of sins and with the law of God written in the hearts of the people. Jesus is saying that the shedding of his blood is the means of establishing that new covenant. It provides forgiveness of sins and opens the way for the activity of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. The whole Jewish system is replaced by the Christ, and everything centres on the death of the Lord; it is that death which establishes the new covenant.
26. The important word here is the one translated proclaim (katangellō). It has sometimes been made the proof text for positions like that expressed in W. Bright’s hymn:
We here present, we here spread forth to Thee
That only Offering, perfect in Thine eyes,
The one true, pure, immortal Sacrifice.
This, however, is quite unscriptural. In the Communion we receive Christ. We present neither him, nor his sacrifice, to the Father. We present, and can present, only ourselves. Katangellō means ‘announce’, ‘proclaim’. In the New Testament it is mostly used of proclaiming the gospel. It always denotes an activity exercised towards people, never one towards God. The solemn observance of Holy Communion is a vivid proclamation of the Lord’s death; in word and symbol Christ’s death is set forth before people. The Eucharist is an acted sermon, an acted proclamation of the death which it commemorates’ (Robertson and Plummer). Deluz reminds us that ‘we do not commit ourselves very far by listening to a sermon but a communicant both commits himself and confesses his faith’. Until he comes looks forward to the Lord’s return. Holy Communion has an eschatological aspect. It will not be necessary in the new order, but until then it keeps us mindful, not only of Jesus’ first coming, when he suffered for our sins, but also of his second coming, when he will take us to himself. A. C. Thiselton thinks that the revelling Corinthians had missed this. They evidently saw Holy Communion as ‘feasting at the eschatological banquet of the Messiah’. But the Lord’s Supper ‘has a distinctly interim character’ (NTS, 24, 1977–78, pp. 521f.). There is a ‘not yet’ about it, as well as a ‘now’.
3. The practical outcome (11:27–34)
Paul goes on to the way communicants should receive the sacrament. His exposition of the meaning of the service shows that it is a most solemn rite, instituted by the Lord himself, and charged with deep and sacred meaning. It should accordingly be observed with unfailing reverence.
27. Therefore (hōste) introduces the consequence. Because the Lord’s Supper is what Paul has just shown it to be, people must observe it with due care. There is, of course, a sense in which we all partake unworthily, for none can ever be fully worthy. But in another sense we can come worthily, in faith and with a due performance of all that is fitting. It is when we neglect this that we come in an unworthy manner, and sin against the body and blood of the Lord. Instead of proclaiming the Lord’s death, we then misuse the symbols of that death, and share the guilt of those who put Jesus to death. Cf. 8:12.
28. Examine is dokimazō, ‘test’ (often used of the testing of metals). Holy Communion is not just another service. It is a solemn rite, instituted by our Lord himself, and charged with deep significance. Before taking part in such a service it is important to conduct a rigorous self-examination (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5f.), so that we avoid communicating unworthily (v. 27). In passing we notice that the reference to the bread (not ‘the body’) does not accord with theories like transubstantiation. The bread remains bread at the moment of reception.
29. Without recognising the body of the Lord is a difficult expression. The verb diakrinō means ‘distinguish’ and thus ‘discern’, ‘separate’. Here it will mean distinguishing the Lord’s Supper from other meals; the offender is one ‘not bearing in mind, as he ought, the greatness of the things set before him’ (Chrysostom). Some think the body (of the Lord is absent from the better MSS) to be the church (as in 12:13; Col. 1:18). But there seems no real reason for thinking of a change of meaning from that in v. 27. At the same time, there is a marked stress throughout this passage on the corporate nature of the service, and on the responsibility of each to all.
30. Spiritual ills may have physical results. The ill health and even the deaths of some of the Corinthians had spiritual causes. Some see the results of excessive drinking (v. 21), but Paul seems not to be referring to the ‘natural’ results of excesses, but to the chastening hand of the Lord (v. 32). He does not say that all illness comes about in this way; there are other causes. But this is a real one, and it took place even though some of the Corinthians had ‘gifts of healing’ (12:9, 28).
31–32. Paul points to the value of ‘judging’ ourselves. We should make a practice (such is the force of the imperfect tense) of ‘distinguishing’ (diakrinō again; see on v. 29) ourselves, i.e. distinguishing between what we are and what we ought to be. Barclay translates, ‘if we truly discerned what we are like’. Then we would not come under judgment (krinō), the kind of judgment mentioned in v. 30. Being disciplined means that these judgments are not nameless evils, but the tokens of God’s love. They are meant to bring us back from the wrong way, so that we will not be condemned with the world.
33–34. Hōste introduces the logical conclusion. Wait for each other at the meal means the end of the disgraceful scramble of v. 21. The Lord’s Supper takes the form of a meal, but its purpose is not to satisfy physical hunger. If a man is really hungry, he should eat at home. If people act in this way, then when they come together for worship, the result will not be judgment
There were apparently other matters concerning Holy Communion, but they were not so urgent. They could wait until such time as Paul came to Corinth. When is the indefinite hōs an; Paul would come, but he did not know when it would be.