4. The Answer—Wait for One Another (11:33–34)
Paul now takes up a second abuse of Christian worship (cf. 11:2–16), “divisions” at the Lord Supper (v. 18) predicated along sociological lines (v. 22). Apparently Paul had already anticipated this concern in his previous reference to the table (10:17), where he reminded the Corinthian believers that because they all eat of the one loaf, they together constitute the one body of Christ. Their “divisions” at the table are giving the lie to the unity that their common partaking of the bread is intended to proclaim, and thus to affirm.
This issue is the one certain instance in part 2 of the letter (chaps. 7–16) that is not in response to their letter. This means (1) that, as in part 1 (chaps. 1–6), we receive more information from Paul himself as to the nature of the abuse because he tells the Corinthians what he knows about it, and (2) that the level of rhetoric is also more like part 1, where he took strong exception to what he had heard. Thus in striking contrast to what has immediately preceded (vv. 2–16), here he returns to biting rhetoric (v. 22), including threat and appeal (vv. 28–34), all the while trying to move them from totally unacceptable behavior to that which is more in keeping with both the gospel itself and the fellowship that are proclaimed at this meal.
Although not all are agreed on the precise details of the abuse in this case, its broad parameters are generally clear—and it is not a matter of getting drunk at the table. In fact the greatest difficulty in our attempt to reconstruct the problem is the need to overcome our own familiarity with part of the text (at least vv. 23–26, often vv. 23–32), which usually has been informed within a given liturgical setting. The abuse itself can scarcely be understood apart from awareness of two realities: (1) the nearly universal phenomenon of cultic meals as part of worship in antiquity, and (2) the fact that in the early church the Lord’s Supper was most likely eaten as, or in conjunction with, such a meal. On the first matter, see the introduction to chapters 8–10 and the commentary on the passage where Paul takes this on directly (10:16–22). The second matter is supported not only by this passage but also by the evidence of Acts (2:42, 46; 20:7, 11), and probably the “love feast” in Jude 12. In contrast to most subsequent Christians, who have kept the “food” but have rather completely lost the symbol of the meal, the Corinthians had kept the meal but were in grave danger of losing altogether the meaning of the food, and thus of the meal as well.
The abuse seems to have moved in two directions, horizontal and vertical. The primary problem was an abuse of the church itself. This is specifically stated in the rhetorical questions at the end of the first round (v. 22): Some are despising the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing. Both the structure of the argument and its details confirm this. The argument is in four parts, which together form a chiasm:
A Vv. 17–22—The statement of the problem: the rich are abusing the poor (“going ahead with their own [private] meal”) at the Lord’s Table.
B Vv. 23–26—The repetition of the “tradition,” the words of institution, with their emphasis on “remembrance of me [Christ]” and “proclaiming Christ’s death until he comes.”
B′ Vv. 27–32—“So then”—in response to the words of institution (vv. 23–26), one must “discern the body” as one eats; otherwise one is in grave danger of judgment.
A′ Vv. 33–34—“So then”—in response to the abuse of the poor (vv. 17–22), they are to “welcome/receive one another” at the meal, so as not to incur the threatened judgment (vv. 30–32).
Since the matter laid out in the two “A” sections “sandwich” the two “B” sections, one must ask how the latter function in the total argument. The clue lies with the crucial explanation in the middle (v. 29), which in a way similar to part of the preceding argument (10:16–17), focuses on the bread (= the body = the church) and thus ties this part of the passage to the primary concerns of these directives (the rich abusing the poor). Whatever else, the well-to-do are abusing “the body” at the believing community’s “fellowship meal,” which is a meal eaten at the Lord’s Table (10:21) in “honor of the Lord” (v. 20).
At the same time, for Paul such an abuse of the “body” is an abuse of Christ himself. The bread represents his crucified body, which, along with his poured-out blood, effected the death that ratified the New Covenant. By their abuse of other believers, the offenders were also abusing the One through whose death and resurrection they had been brought to life and formed into this new eschatological fellowship, Christ’s body the church. Thus Paul’s need to take them all the way back—to the actual words of institution—so that they will restore the meaning of the food to its rightful place in their meal. “Do this,” those words remind them, “in remembrance of me.” To which Paul adds, “for as often as we celebrate this meal we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Believers eat in the present in fellowship with one another, focusing on Christ’s death which brought them life; and they do so as eschatological people, awaiting his return (see on 4:1–5). In that context they must “discern the body” (v. 29); otherwise they put themselves under the same condemnation as those who crucified their Lord in the first place (v. 27). At his return Christ will execute judgment on those who do not believe; by their actions the Corinthians are already incurring that judgment (v. 30). They must change so as not to come under the final judgment as well (vv. 31–32, 34).
What is less certain is the specific nature of the abuse, which is made ambiguous for us both by Paul’s language and our lack of full understanding of the sociological factors involved in meals in the Hellenistic world. The problem has several dimensions. First, since the church gathered for such meals in the homes of the “upper class,” most likely the host was also the patron of the meal. Second, archeology has shown rather conclusively that the dining room (the triclinium) in such homes would scarcely accommodate many guests; the majority therefore would eat in the atrium (the somewhat larger entry “courtyard”), which would still seat only about 30 to 50 guests on the average.
These material realities are complicated by a variety of sociological factors. In a class-conscious society such as Roman Corinth would have been, it would be sociologically natural for the host to invite those of one’s own class to eat in the triclinium, while the others would eat in the atrium. Furthermore, it is probable that the language “your own private suppers” (v. 21) refers to the eating of “private meals” by the wealthy, in which at the common meal of the Lord’s Supper they ate either their own portions or perhaps privileged portions that were not made available to the “have-nots.” This is further complicated by the question of the relationship of this “private supper” to the Lord’s Supper, especially in light of the language “after supper” for the blessing of the cup (v. 25). Did the wealthy eat their “private meal” before or in conjunction with the eating of the bread that constituted the Lord’s Supper? And how did it affect “those who have nothing”? See further on the concluding cascade of rhetorical questions (v. 22).
In making his case, the apostle does not eliminate the social distinctions as such: The wealthy still have their own houses in which to eat their private meals (vv. 22, 34). What he will not let them do is to bring such distinctions to the common meal of believers, where Christ had made them all one, signified by their all eating of the one loaf (10:17). By carrying over into these meals a number of “privileged status” aspects of both private and religious meals, the rich were in effect destroying the church as one body in Christ. For Paul the net result was to destroy the gospel itself. Hence these especially strong words in behalf of the poor, which at the same time have served later generations in behalf of a proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper.
This is another passage (understandably so) that has received considerable scholarly attention over the past twenty-five years; as elsewhere (see on 8:1–13 and 11:2–16) a full bibliography is given here in chronological order:
G. C. Nicholson, “Houses for Hospitality: 1 Cor 11:17–34,” Colloquium 19 (1986), 1–6; B. B. Blue, “The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply, and the Present Distress,” CrisTR 5 (1991), 221–39; P. Lampe, “The Corinthian Eucharistic Dinner Party: Exegesis of a Cultural Context (1 Cor. 11:17–34), Affirmation 4 (1991), 1–15; P. Lampe, “Das korinthische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt hellenistisch-römischer Mahlpraxis und paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11,17–34), ZNW 82 (1991), 183–213; E. LaVerdiere, “The Eucharist, Sacrament of the Transformation of the World,” Emmanuel 99 (1993), 378–85; P. Lampe, “The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on the Cross,” Int 48 (1994), 36–49; J. A. Gibbs, “An Exegetical Case for Close(d) Communion: 1 Corinthians 10:14–22; 11:17–34,” ConcJ 21 (1995), 148–63; D. Horrell, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth and in the Church Today,” Theology 98 (1995), 196–202; A McGowan, “ ‘First regarding the Cup . . .’: Papias and the Diversity of Eucharistic Practice,” JTS 46 (1995), 551–55; L. D. Chrupcala, “Chi mangia indegnamente il corpo del Signore (1 Cor 11,27),” SBFLA 46 (1996), 53–86; R. Jewett, “Babette’s Feast and the Shaming of the Poor in Corinth,” Dialog 36 (1997), 270–76; F. J. King, “Eating in Corinth: Full Meal or Token Meal?” IBS 19 (1997), 161–73; D. C. Passakos, “Eucharist in First Corinthians: A Sociological Study,” RevBib 104 (1997), 192–210; L. Gentry, “Beyond Remembering: Proclaiming the Death in the Supper,” RestQ 41 (1999), 241–43; V. Alapatt, “Pauline Perspective on the Lord’s Supper,” BiBh 26 (2000), 62–81; L. Schottroff, “Holiness and Justice: Exegetical Comments on 1 Corinthians 11.17–34,” JSNT 79 (2000), 51–60; H. D. Betz, “Gemeinschaft des Glaubens und Herrenmahl. Uberlegungen zu 1 Kor 11,17–34,” ZTK 98 (2001), 401–21; S. W. Henderson, “ ‘If Anyone Hungers . . .’: An Integrated Reading of 1 Cor 11.17–34,” NTS 48 (2002), 195–208; A. Bach and J. A. Glancy, “The Morning After in Corinth: Bread-and-Butter Notes, Part 1,” BibInt 11 (2003), 449–67; M. Gielen, “Mut zur Herrenmahlgemeinschaft. Ökumenische Impulse aus paulinischer Perspektive,” BibZeit 48 (2004), 104–13; D. Horrell, “Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre,” NTS 50 (2004), 349–69; M. N. Keller, “Eucharist as Table Fellowship,” Bible Today 42 (2004), 36–42; L. Panier, “Bread and Cup: Word Given for a Time of Absence,” Concilium 2 (2005), 54–63; J. A. Adewuya, “Revisiting 1 Corinthians 11.17–34: Paul’s Discussion of the Lord’s Supper and African Meals,” JSNT 30 (2007), 95–112; K. O. Sandnes, “Ekklesia at Corinth: Between Private and Public,” Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke 78 (2007), 248–65; J. Kurianal, “Eating the Lord’s Supper and Christian Unity (1 Cor 11:17–34),” Jeevadhara 38 (2008), 164–77; P. Bernier, “Saint Paul on the Eucharist (I),” Emmanuel 115 (2009), 57–63.
17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In 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. 19No doubt there have to be factions among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
This opening paragraph, which is (understandably) seldom read at the Protestant communion service, bursts forth with a rhetorical force altogether missing from the immediately preceding argument. Paul’s point is singular: to accost the Corinthians with what he knows about the abuse of their common meal, at which the Lord’s Supper is also eaten, and with this very rhetoric to begin his response to it. The content of the paragraph clusters around three key ideas or word-groups: (1) “to assemble together” (vv. 17, 18, 22); (2) “to eat” (vv. 20–22); and (3) “divisions among you” (vv. 18–19, 21, 22). As they assemble together to eat the Lord’s Supper, instead of being “together” they are being sundered apart by the activities of some who are going ahead with their own private meals, thus despising the church by shaming those who have nothing. The perspective is clearly “from below,” taking the side of the “have-nots.”
17 Although there is some difficulty in determining Paul’s precise wording at the beginning of this sentence, there can be little question as to how it functions: to set the stage for what follows by announcing at the outset that their “gatherings” do “more harm than good.” At the same time both the adversative “but” and the participle “not praising” (cf. vv. 2, 22) tie what follows to what has preceded by way of contrast. Thus he begins, “But this I command, not praising [you].” What one expects next is some expression of the content of the “command.” What one gets, however, is the reason why he cannot praise them. It has to do with their “coming together” in such a way that it does “more harm than good” (lit. “not for the better, but for the worse”).
The verb “gather together,” repeated five times in the two “A” sections (vv. 17–22 and 33–34), is one of the key words that holds it all together. Given its similar usage later in the letter (14:23 and 26), it had probably become a semitechnical term for the “gathering together” of the people of God for worship. Thus the concern is with what goes on when they “come together as a church” (v. 18). The Corinthian problem was not their failure to gather, but their failure truly to be God’s newly formed people when they assembled; here there was to be neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free (cf. 12:13), and as the present context strongly suggests, neither rich nor poor.
18 Paul now proceeds to explain how their gatherings are for the worse rather than for the better. He begins as though he were going to list several lapses, “for first of all, on the one hand”; but just as in the preceding sentence, the argument unfolds without following through with either a “second” or “on the other hand.” Nonetheless, Paul’s concern is clear, and it is singular: “I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you,” to which he adds the interesting but perplexing words, “and to some extent I believe it.”
That he “hears” that there are “divisions” among them is reminiscent of the way the letter began (1:10–12); however, it is doubtful whether the present passage reflects the same reality—for several reasons: (1) The former divisions were further defined as “quarrels” and “jealousy” (1:11; 3:3), which are quite missing from this section, where they are spelled out totally along sociological lines (vv. 21–22; 33–34). (2) In the earlier instance (1:12) Paul mentions at least four names around which the quarrels were taking place; moreover, there is a decidedly anti-Paul sentiment in that quarreling. Here there are only two groups, the “have-nots” and the “haves,” with no hint of a quarrel with the apostle himself on this matter. (3) In the present passage Paul says, “When you come together as a church, there are divisions among you.” This language implies that the “divisions” are especially related to their gatherings, not simply to false allegiances to their leaders or to “wisdom.” Finally, (4) the puzzling addition, “I partly believe it,” hardly fits the situation described at the beginning (1:10–4:21). But it does fit well the present situation. Most likely it was added because Paul is here reflecting the view “from below,” whereas the response will be directed toward those “from above.” This is Paul’s way of crediting his informants with veracity, but also of bridging the sociological gap between them and the wealthy who are guilty of the misdeeds. “To some extent I believe it” most likely means that he really does believe it but also acknowledges that his informants are scarcely disinterested observers.
19 Having mentioned the “divisions” of which he has been informed, and that he is well disposed to believe his informants, Paul adds a theological aside, apparently as a further justification for his believing them. One of the reasons he does so is that (lit.) “for there must also be factions among you so that the approved also might become manifest among you”—a sentence that is one of the true puzzles in the letter. How can he who earlier argued so strongly against “divisions among you” (1:10–17; 3:1–23) now affirm a kind of divine necessity to “factions”?
The answer would appear to lie in two directions. First, although this could possibly be irony (“Given the nature of things in Corinth, it is inevitable that such things happen among you”), more likely it is a reflection of Paul’s “already/not yet” eschatological perspective (see on 4:1–5); second, it is probably inserted here in anticipation of the exhortation and explanation to follow, as to why they must “discern the body” (vv. 28–32).
In keeping with the teaching of Jesus, Paul expected “divisions” to accompany the End, divisions that would separate true believers from those who were false. Moreover, in the middle of the argument (v. 30) Paul asserts that some present illnesses and deaths among them are already expressions of divine judgment on their “divisions,” that is, on their “not discerning the body” at this supper. In that passage he also urged them to “test” (dokimazō) themselves (v. 28) so that they would not incur such judgments. Paul, therefore, probably sees their present divisions as part of the divine “testing/sifting” process already at work in their midst. Such “divisions” are not a good thing, but they are an inevitable part of the Eschaton, which has already been set in motion by Christ. Thus by this evil thing, their “divisions,” God is working out the divine purposes; those who truly belong to God, the “tested/approved” (dokimoi = those who have passed the “examination”), are already being manifest in their midst, and presumably they will escape the final judgment that is coming upon the world (v. 32).
Thus even though this sentence is something of an aside, it also places their “divisions” into a framework that is more than simply sociological. They may in fact be acting merely as the rich would always act with poorer guests in their homes; but at the Lord’s Table such activities must be viewed in the context of the larger divine drama. Such “divisions” have the net effect of revealing those who are genuinely Christ’s. And the “proof” lies not in a correct belief system, but in behavior that reflects the gospel.
20 After the preceding brief digression (v. 19), Paul returns to the concern of “the first place” (v. 18) by means of a resumptive “so then” and the repetition of “when you come together.” The new qualifier, “in the same place,” seems to be nearly synonymous with “as a church” in the first sentence (v. 18), both meaning “when you gather together in assembly.” But now he moves on to give content to the “divisions” about which he had been informed. They well may be “together in the same place,” but “it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat.”
The language “the Lord’s supper” is the only designation given this meal in the NT. One cannot be sure, therefore, whether the present language is traditional or Pauline. At least the noun “supper” is traditional, reflecting both the “Last Supper” of Jesus and the “suppers” in honor of the pagan deities. The question lies with the possessive adjective kyriakon, which ordinarily means “belonging to the Lord,” but here probably comes closer to “consecrated to the Lord,” or “in honor of the Lord.” This meal is uniquely “the Lord’s own,” eaten by the gathered people of God in the Lord’s presence (by the Spirit) and in Christ’s honor. In this passage the adjective stands in sharp contrast to the idion (“one’s own/private”) supper mentioned next. Thus, even though it is intended to be the Lord’s Supper that they are eating “in assembly,” those who are carrying over to this meal the distinctions that divided them sociologically also are being judged, so that it is “not the Lord’s Supper you eat.”
21 With an explanatory “for” Paul now ties together the preceding “come together” sentences (vv. 18 and 20) by spelling out both the nature of the “divisions” (v. 18) and why their meal ceases to be “the Lord’s Supper” (v. 20): “For when you are eating, each of you goes ahead with your own private suppers.” “As a result,” Paul goes on, “one person remains hungry and another gets drunk.” At the same time this is also the sentence where most of the ambiguities lie for the later reader. We are told enough to help us with some fairly good educated guesses, but not quite enough to give us certainty. The problems are many, and interlocking, having to do with the meaning of every major term in the sentence.
They boil down to three basic options: (1) Some place the emphasis on “each one” and suggest that the picture is that of intense individualism, in which “ ‘each’ enjoys their ‘own supper’ instead of the Lord’s Supper, obviously not only to one’s bodily enjoyment, but to their spiritual edification.” (2) Others emphasize the verb “goes ahead with,” understanding it to mean “to take beforehand.” In conjunction with the verb “wait for” at the end of the passage (v. 33), this is understood to mean that some, apparently the rich, ate their own sumptuous meals before others (slaves and poor freedmen) were able to arrive. (3) Theissen has emphasized the word idion (“one’s own”), for which he shows evidence that it can mean “private.” He posits that the rich were eating their private meals at the Lord’s Supper, which included both an earlier starting time and privileged portions not available to the others. A modified version of this position has been offered by Winter, who sees the problem as the rich “devouring” their private meals in the presence of the “have-nots,” but more in terms of their simply not sharing with them. Of these options, the first is the least likely, since it does not speak to the sociological issue that emerges in “some being hungry” and in “despising those who have nothing.” Some form of the third seems most likely, although one cannot rule out altogether the possibility that something like option 2 is also involved. The details of the sentence seem to support this view.
Given the fact that “one remains hungry” (= “those who have nothing”; v. 22), the pronoun “each of you” can hardly refer to every member of the community; rather, its emphatic position highlights the individualistic (i.e., noncommunal) character of the behavior of the well-to-do as they consumed their own private meals, in contrast to Paul’s emphasis that the divine intent is for them to be eating together as a church. The phrase “as you are eating,” which repeats the verb from the preceding sentence, refers to what takes place in the process of the meal. The implication is that the Lord’s Supper is eaten in conjunction with a communal meal. Although some have suggested otherwise, Paul does not seem overly concerned by this reality, nor are the concluding sentences (vv. 33–34) to be understood as prohibiting it. His point is that in eating what is supposed to be a communal meal consecrated to the Lord, some by their actions are instead eating their own private meals, not meaning “each individually” but in segregated clusters based on contemporary sociological realities.
The precise nature of these “private meals” is not certain; most likely they were both quantitatively and qualitatively superior to those of the “have-nots.” The picture that emerges from such Roman authors as Pliny, Martial, and Juvenal is one in which even at the same table privileged guests received both better portions and far more than others. Thus, the language some “are hungry” and “have nothing” implies that the “meal” of the latter consisted basically of the bread and wine designated as belonging to the Lord.
If this is what was going on in Corinth, the question still remains as to what the verb “go ahead with” means. Ordinarily the compound pro has the temporal sense of “before”; the possibility that it might mean “eat beforehand” would then be supported by one of the common meanings (“wait for”) of the final imperative at the end (v. 33). However, there is no clear evidence of this verb’s being used in this way in the context of eating. In the present case the lack of further description by Paul makes a clear-cut decision a bit difficult to come by. Very likely the verb is an intensified form of “take,” meaning something close to “consume” or “devour.” But one should perhaps not totally rule out a temporal sense. In either case, it is a clear abuse of some who are unable as others to eat “their own private meal.”
The net result is that “one remains hungry and another gets drunk.” To many modern minds this is both unthinkable and intolerable. But it tends to be only getting drunk that is so, since in itself this is quite unacceptable behavior (based on a good many biblical texts, one might add), not to mention doing so at the Lord’s Supper. More likely, however, Paul is not so concerned about “drunkenness” per se, although in other contexts such behavior comes under strong censure. What he appears to have done is to take words from both parts of a meal, eating and drinking, and express them in their extremes. The one extreme is to receive nothing to eat, thus to “be hungry”; the other extreme is to be gorged on both food and wine, thus to “be drunk.” As the following sentence makes clear, Paul’s present concern is not with the drunkenness of the one but with the hunger of the other—especially in a context where fellow believers have more than enough to eat and drink.
22 The situation Paul has just described fills him with such indignation that it calls forth a series of rhetorical questions intended to reduce the “sated” to a level of shame similar to that to which they have reduced those who are poorer. The first question responds directly to what has preceded and is full of irony: “For surely it cannot be, can it, that you do not have houses to eat and drink in?” That is, if you really do not have houses in which to eat such “private” meals, then you are excused for doing so in the assembly of God’s people. But of course if you are eating such meals deliberately in the presence (or absence) of others at the meal in honor of the Lord (= the Lord’s Table), then a second question must obtain: “Or do you despise the church of God and [thus] humiliate those who have nothing?” By this question Paul is getting at what for him is the real issue regarding their behavior, and so with a third (and fourth) question he brings the argument full circle (cf. v. 17): “What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you?” To which, of course, the answer is: “Certainly not!” Or more literally, and in the same language as before: “In this matter I have no praise [for you],” which was nicely put at an earlier time with “God forbid!”
On its own the first question could simply be a word to the whole church to eat at home those meals necessary for satisfying the appetite. But the second question will not allow such a view. Moreover, the first two questions together indicate that the whole is being addressed to the wealthy. They “have houses to eat and drink in.” This implies ownership, not simply a place where meals may be eaten, as at the end (v. 34). As such it stands in stark contrast to “those who have nothing” in the next question.
The structure of both this argument as a whole and of this series of questions in particular indicates that the second question is where the real problem lies. For those who think of themselves as “keeping the traditions” the actions noted here probably did not register as of particular consequence. They had always acted thus. Birth and circumstances had cast their lots; society had dictated their mores. But for Paul those mores at the Lord’s Supper were a destruction of the meaning of the supper itself because it destroyed the very unity which this meal proclaimed. Thus in the strongest kind of language he asserts that by their actions they “despise the church of God” (see on 1:2). “The church” is not here to be equated with the “have-nots” as such; rather it refers to the whole believing community as the people of God. Their behavior indicates that the church as a community of believers from all sectors counts for nothing in the eyes of the abusers. The way they show such contempt is “by humiliating those who have nothing.” The verb “humiliate” is the same as in the preceding argument (vv. 4–5), for those who bring shame on their “heads”; but in this case it is far more than dishonor or disrespect; they are degrading, humiliating the “have-nots.” No “church” can long endure as the people of God for the new era in which the old distinctions between bond and free (or Jew and Greek, or male and female) are allowed to persist. Especially so at the table, where Christ, who has made us all one, has ordained that we should visibly proclaim that unity.
In the more “democratic” cultures in which this commentary is most often being read, much of what Paul says and does here has a kind of “ho-hum” quality to it, as in “what’s the big deal?” But such moments as these should not be read in the context of “democracy,” but in that of the less-than-communal hierarchical culture of the Roman Empire. In that context, these words must have served as a kind of jolt from heaven, and we need to try to “hear” them as such, so as to appreciate the truly radical nature of the gospel the apostle was proclaiming in a very highly “class-conscious” culture.
Indeed, the Martial and Pliny passages noted above presented opposite solutions to the problem of “privileged portions” at a common meal. The view “from below” (Martial’s) is that the poor should eat the same food as the rich; the view “from above” (Pliny’s) is that the rich should eat the same fare as the less-well-to-do. Apparently by these questions Paul is adopting the second perspective. Those who want to glut at the common meal are being told to do so at home, as it were; the purpose of the Lord’s Supper is not to eat to one’s fill, but to remember/proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes, and to do so together at a common meal. To the contemporary social ethicist this may be a less-than-satisfactory response, but Paul’s present concern is not with penury or gluttony but with God’s newly formed people being truly together at the common table, with no class distinctions being allowed on the basis of the kind and amount of food eaten. As with the issue of slavery in Philemon, Paul attacks the system indirectly to be sure, but at its very core. Be a true Christian at the table, and the care for the needy, a matter that is always close to Paul’s heart (see on 16:1–4), will likewise become part and parcel of one’s life. But that is not his primary concern here; rather, it is the meaning of the table itself for their unity in Christ. So to that issue Paul now turns, and he does so by first reminding them of what the Lord himself said about this meal.
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In 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.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Since this is a “tradition” the Corinthians are not keeping (vv. 2, 17, 22), Paul apparently feels compelled to remind them of its significance by repeating the actual words of institution. The result is a highly unusual moment in the extant letters of Paul, since it is the only instance where he cites at some length from the Jesus traditions that would eventually appear in the Synoptic Gospels. Along with two earlier allusions to Jesus’ teachings (7:10; 9:14; q.v.), this serves as sure evidence that these traditions were known in the Pauline churches, even if the apostle did not often appeal to them in his letters.
Such a citation, however, raises a new set of questions for the interpreter. Since this material had a history of its own before Paul cited it, in the life-setting of both Jesus and the early church, one of the exegetical tasks has to do with that history. What did Jesus himself intend by these words? And how does Paul understand them? At the same time, as always, one must ask the crucial contextual question, How does this material function as a response to the Corinthian abuse?
The “tradition” of the institution of the Lord’s Supper was preserved in the church in two distinct forms, one represented by Mark and Matthew, the other by Paul and Luke. The two forms, and their differences, are best seen in parallel columns (material common to all four accounts is in italics):
Mark [Matthew]
{Paul} [Luke]
While they were eating
{On the night he was betrayed the
[Jesus] took bread, and after
Lord Jesus} took bread, and after
he had blessed it, broke it and
he had given thanks, broke it and
gave it to [his disciples]
[gave it to them, saying]
and said: Take [eat], this is my
said: This is my
body.
body, which is [given] for you.
This do in my remembrance.
Likewise
And he took the cup
also the cup after supper,
and after he had given thanks,
he gave it to them / and they all
drank from it. And he said to them/
saying,
[Mt.: saying, Drink of it all of
you; for] This is my blood of the
This cup, the new
covenant, which is poured out for
covenant {is} in my blood / This do
many [for the forgiveness of sins].
as often as you drink in my
remembrance/ [Lk: which is
poured out for you]
The basic differences between Mark and Matthew are three: (1) Matthew adds the imperative “eat”; (2) he transforms into an imperative the narrative of their all drinking from the cup; and (3) he adds “for the forgiveness of sins.” The differences between this tradition and Paul/Luke are considerable. The more significant are: Paul/Luke (1) have the verb “give thanks” instead of “bless”; (2) lack an imperative with the giving of the bread; (3) with the bread saying have the additional words “which is for you; this do in my remembrance”; (4) have the additional words “after supper”; (5) lack a blessing over the cup; (6) do not mention their all drinking from the cup; and (7) have a different cup saying: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”/ “This is my blood of the covenant.”
Two judgments may be made in light of these data: First, both traditions are rooted in the same history, since their common features, which are the essential items, are very similar. Second, the most significant differences are in the cup saying and the appearance of the “remembrance” motif in Paul/Luke. The more difficult question has to do with the difference between Luke and Paul as to the conclusion of the cup saying, where Luke’s version has similarities to that of Mark/Matthew, while Paul’s repeats the remembrance motif without mention of the blood being poured out for many. Without making judgments as to which is more likely the actual form used in the Pauline churches, it is at least arguable that the combination of the repeated remembrance motif with the addition at the end (v. 26), which is Paul’s own interpretation of the institutional words, gives us our best clues as to where Paul’s present concerns lie. By their going ahead with their own private meal, and thereby humiliating the “have-nots,” the wealthy have also apparently lost touch with the meaning of the supper itself. The words of institution are repeated to remind them of why they celebrate such a meal in the first place, a reason that goes back to Jesus himself. They do this to “remember him” in a special way, namely to “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” The Corinthians’ actions are obviously not in keeping with the essence of that proclamation. Thus in this indirect way Paul is bringing them back once more to the place where his contentions with them all began, with the “crucified Messiah” (1:18), whose death they must continue to “proclaim until he comes.”
23a In the immediately preceding sentence (v. 22), echoing his opening sentence (v. 17), Paul asserted that he has no praise for them in this present matter. Now he proceeds to explain why. It all has to do with their own self-understanding, expressed earlier on (v. 2), that they have been keeping the traditions that had been handed down to them. Insofar as that is true, Paul praises them (v. 2). But not here, for this is one tradition they clearly are not keeping. To demonstrate that, Paul appeals to the tradition itself, as he had “received” it “from the Lord” and had “passed it on” to them.
The verbs “received” and “passed on,” which occur again in combination later in the letter (15:3), are technical terms from Paul’s Jewish heritage for the transmission of religious instruction. His present concern is to establish that the tradition about the supper they had received from him came from Jesus himself: “I received [it] from the Lord.” But it is not certain exactly how one is to understand these words, especially in light of the strong affirmations and denials in his letter to the Galatians (1:11–12, 15–17) that he received his gospel directly from the Lord—by revelation and without human mediation. Some have suggested that the same is true here; however, two matters suggest otherwise: (1) In Galatians Paul is not referring to the teachings and narratives about Jesus, but to the message of redemption through Christ’s death and resurrection, offered freely by God to those who believe. (2) Paul uses the language for transmitting “tradition” to refer to these words of institution, and does not suggest that it came to him “by revelation.” Moreover, the Last Supper material is not the kind of thing that belongs to “revelation,” but to the church’s ongoing tradition from the time of its inception, which is thereby generally common to all.
Therefore, when Paul says “I received it from the Lord,” he probably does not mean that Jesus gave these words to him personally and directly; rather, what he himself “received” had indeed come “from the Lord,” but in the sense that Jesus himself is the ultimate source of the tradition. What may also be latent in such language is Paul’s understanding that the Lord, now risen and exalted, is still responsible by his Spirit for the transmission of such tradition within the church. Thus, the Corinthian meals are not truly the Lord’s Supper to the degree that they do not reflect or proclaim the meaning of that meal as it came from the Lord himself.
23b–24 The Lord’s Supper that Christians celebrate is in fact a continuation of the Last Supper that Jesus ate with his own disciples, probably a Passover meal at which he reinterpreted the bread and wine in terms of his body and blood soon to be given over in death on the cross. At that same meal he announced both their denial of him and his betrayal by Judas. One of the more remarkable features of the words of institution as they were used in the church liturgically, and therefore independently of the story of Jesus itself, is the singular historical context that was transmitted along with them: “on the night he was betrayed.” The verb “betrayed” is just ambiguous enough so that it could mean “handed over” (as in “handed over to death”). But more likely its first reference is to the treachery of Judas, which of course led to Jesus’ subsequent trials and death. The early Christians thus constantly reminded themselves that even though Jesus was crucified by the Empire, he was nonetheless handed over to the Romans by one of their own—a poignant reminder indeed at the table where the Lord’s people experienced anew forgiveness and life.
The ordinary Jewish meal began with the head of the house giving the traditional blessing over the bread, breaking it, and giving it to those at table with him. Jesus, as the “Teacher,” undoubtedly played that role in meals with the disciples. At the Passover meal the blessing and distribution of the bread came during the meal (cf. Mark 14:18; Luke 22:17–19), immediately following the “Passover liturgy,” in which the reasons for this meal were expressed. Hence Jesus’ action in blessing and breaking the bread at the Last Supper would have been in the natural course of things. If in fact this was a Passover meal, then the remarkable thing that he did was to reinterpret the meaning of the bread, as he was distributing it, in terms of his own death: “This is my body, which is for you.” Several things about this bread saying need to be noted.
(1) The identification of the bread with the body is Semitic imagery in its heightened form. As in all such identifications, he means “this signifies/represents my body.” It lies quite 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. Such a view could only have arisen in the church at a much later stage when Greek modes of thinking had rather thoroughly replaced Semitic ones.
(2) The use of the term “body” has elicited considerable discussion: does it mean “himself” or his “flesh”? Most likely it means neither, but refers to his actual body, which was about to be given over in death. If there is an analogy, it is with the sacrificial victim, whose “body” (carcass) was placed on the altar after the blood had been poured out.
(3) The phrase “which is for you” at this point is unique to the Pauline-Lukan version. Whether it belonged originally to this saying is much debated. In either case, it links the bread and the cup together, both referring to Jesus’ death. The words “for you” are an adaptation of the language of Isaiah, where the Suffering Servant “bore sin for many” (53:12). Thus for Jesus himself this was almost certainly a prophetic symbolic action, by which he anticipated his death and interpreted it in light of the Isaiah passage as in behalf of others. By giving them a share in “his body” in this way, he invited his disciples to participate in the meaning and benefits of that death.
(4) Almost certainly Paul also understood the phrase “which is for you” in this way. Whenever he uses this preposition in reference to Christ, it expresses either atonement, his death in “our behalf” (e.g., 15:3; Rom. 5:6, 8), or substitution, his death in “our place” (e.g., Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21). Thus Paul surely understands this language regarding the bread as referring to Jesus’ body as given over in death “in behalf of/in place of” those who are now eating at his table. What is significant, however, is that in his own interpretation of the bread, Paul does not pick up the theme of “for you,” pointing to the participants, but the imagery of “body” itself. Furthermore, even though there is no further interpretation at this point—since Paul is being faithful to repeat the institutional words themselves—this bread saying is the one that will eventually receive his attention (v. 29), even as it did earlier (10:16–17).
Also unique to the Paul/Luke version of the bread saying is the command to repeat the action: “Do this . . . in remembrance of me.” Because these words are missing in Mark/Matthew, there has been some question as to their authenticity. But in this case that is to place a considerable burden on the silence of Mark. What speaks most strongly in its favor is precisely the fact that the early church so soon after Jesus’ resurrection and the advent of the Spirit did just this—remember his death in this way, as “for us.” The words may have been omitted in the tradition available to Mark for the very reason that such a command is implicit in the continuation of the supper itself.
The phrase “in remembrance of me” is difficult and has elicited a considerable body of literature. On the basis of Hellenistic parallels, some have argued that the “remembrance” reflects ancient commemorative meals for the dead. The obvious difficulties with this are (a) that this meal, even in its Gentile setting, must be understood in light of Jewish meals, especially the Passover, not pagan meals, and (b) that the meal in honor of Jesus is not for a “dead hero” but for the risen Lord, through whose death salvation has been wrought for his people. But the greater issue, especially in light of Jewish usage, is the nature of the “remembrance” itself. Does it have a primarily “Godward” reference, in the sense that God is herewith being petitioned to “remember” Jesus’ atoning death and thus show mercy to his people, or does it have a primarily “humanward” point of reference, in which his people are to “remember” him and thus reflect again on the mercies of his atoning death? Or is it, as some have advanced, inherently ambiguous, so that it can mean either or both?
Although one commonly reads that our remembrance of Christ is the plain sense of the words, the issue is not that easy, having to do with (a) a complex range of usage in the OT and other Jewish literature, (b) Jesus’ own intent in light of this usage, and (c) Paul’s understanding. The Greek word anamnēsis occurs only five times in the LXX, although its cognate mnēmosynon occurs numerous times, as does the cognate verb “to remember.” Firm examples of both “Godward” and “humanward” references abound; however, very few uses are unmistakably “Godward.”
In the OT “remembrance” rarely carries the common English nuance of simply a mental activity. Very often “memory” and “activity” go together. God “remembers” and “visits” or “forgives” or “blots out.” So also Israel is to “remember” by erecting a “memorial” or by reenacting a rite (cf. Exod. 13:9). Of the various possibilities from the OT the most obvious as to what Jesus intended lies within the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, where the rite of the bread is specifically enjoined as a perpetual “remembrance” before their eyes. Thus just as the Passover meal itself was such a “remembrance” to be kept forever in Israel, so Jesus is now reconstituting the “memorial” for the newly constituted Israel that will gather around the table in his name to “remember” their own deliverance through him. That is why Jesus described it as “my remembrance.” It is not simply “in memory of him,” but it is eaten as a “memorial” of the salvation that he has effected through his death and resurrection.
In the same way, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion, based on Paul’s own interpretation to come (v. 26), that for him the “remembrance” was primarily “humanward.” After all, that is quite the point in the larger context, where the Corinthians’ meal had turned into such a fiasco that the “remembrance” of Christ is precisely what is missing. Thus Paul’s great concern in repeating these words is to remind them of the “humanward” implications of this “remembrance.” By this meal they “proclaim” Christ’s death until he comes, that is, they declare the good news of their salvation that makes them all one. To participate in a manner unworthy of that specific “remembrance” means to come under judgment for the very reason that it fails to acknowledge the meal as a “memorial” of God’s saving event.
25 In the tradition of the supper available to Paul and Luke the transition to the cup saying is made by the elliptical phrase “in the same manner the cup after supper, saying,” for which the NIV has correctly supplied “he took” from the preceding sentence. The words “after supper” indicate that at the Last Supper the bread and cup sayings were separated by the meal itself (or at least part of it); given their continuing but otherwise unnecessary role in the tradition, it seems probable that this pattern persisted in the early church. As noted earlier, this does not necessarily mean that this was also the Corinthian practice, but neither is there anything in Paul’s argument to indicate that the Lord’s Supper took place at the end of their “love feast,” as is so commonly asserted.
The cup saying is the place where not only Paul/Luke differ from Mark/Matthew, but also where, in the second part, Paul and Luke differ from each other. As with the bread saying, both traditions begin with “this,” and in both Jesus identifies the cup with his blood in covenantal terms; but there is no scholarly consensus as to which tradition represents the more primitive form. Arguments and counter arguments can be raised on both sides. Rather than trace that discussion, our concern is to note the significance of the differences.
(1) The Markan version, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” is more directly parallel to the bread saying in which the bread signified the Lord’s “body.” Here the cup signifies “my blood of the covenant.” The language “blood of the covenant” is an allusion to the narrative in Exodus (24:8), where blood, designated by this exact term, was sprinkled over the people to ratify the covenant. To this phrase Jesus added a direct allusion to a well-known passage in Isaiah (53:12), where the Lord’s Servant “poured out his life unto death” and thereby “bore the sin of many.”
In Paul’s version the identification is made directly with the covenant, in this case the “new covenant” of Jeremiah (31:31): “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” However, that passage also mentions the covenant of Mount Sinai (Exod. 24) as that which is being replaced. Therefore, in the one version (Mark’s), the Old Covenant is referred to explicitly and the New implicitly, while in Paul’s it is the reverse, the New being explicit and the Old implicit. In both versions the point is the same, that the wine of the cup signifies Jesus’ blood poured out in death, which ratified the new covenant.
(2) In contrast to both Mark and Luke, Paul’s version of the cup saying has no allusion to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant (“he poured out his life unto death . . . [and thus] bore the sin of many” [53:12]), which has already appeared in the bread saying. In the Gospels the tie to Isaiah suggests the additional theological motif of the forgiveness of sins, made explicit in Matthew’s version. But in Paul that motif is not tied to the blood as such, but to Christ’s death itself, which point is made in the final clause to come (v. 26).
(3) In place of the phrase “which is poured out for many/you,” Paul repeats “Do this . . . in remembrance of me” (see on v. 24), with the addition “whenever you drink it.” This addition in particular implies a frequently repeated action, suggesting that from the beginning the Last Supper was for believers not an annual Christian Passover, but a regularly repeated meal in “honor of the Lord,” hence the Lord’s Supper.
Although one cannot be certain whether Paul or Luke represents the more primitive form of their common tradition, a good case can be made that Paul is now beginning to move from citation back to his own argument, and has adjusted the institutional words accordingly. Three things suggest this possibility: (a) Since Luke’s version is otherwise independent of Mark’s, there is no good reason to suppose that he has now abandoned his and Paul’s common version for that of Mark. Most likely Luke at this point reflects the unmodified and more primitive expression of their version. After all, his context is that of historical narrative, while Paul’s is a vigorous argument with some who are abusing the table. (b) If that be the case, then Paul repeats the command “do this in remembrance of me” precisely because this is where his concern lay—not in the repetition of the words per se, but in their eating the Lord’s Supper truly in “Christ’s honor,” that is, in “remembrance” of the salvation that his death had procured for them. (c) This suggests further that the additional words “whenever you drink it,” whose counterpart is not found with the bread saying, are in fact a Pauline insertion into the words of command to bring out his own special emphasis. This seems all the more likely in light of Paul’s own concluding sentence (v. 26), where he uses this same language along with an explanatory “for” in order to reinforce his reason for citing the whole tradition in the first place.
If this argument for Pauline “redaction” cannot finally be proved, it nonetheless highlights the emphases in Paul’s argument. Some of the Corinthians were abusing what is supposed to be the Lord’s Supper by going ahead with their own private meals in such a way as to humiliate other believers among them. Paul recalls the words of institution precisely to emphasize that “whenever [= as often as]” they eat this meal it is to be in remembrance of the Lord. In the next sentence he will go on to explain what he understands that to mean, for to do otherwise, as it has been pointed out, is to deeply contradict the bequest of Jesus.
26 With this concluding sentence Paul brings things into perspective. The explanatory “for” suggests that he is now giving his reason for repeating the tradition at this point in the argument. It is not because they have forgotten the words, nor because they have abandoned the supper. Rather, it is because their version of the supper gives the lie to its original intent. “Shall I praise you for how you are carrying on?” he had asked. “No,” he replied, “for the tradition is this,” at which point he repeated the words of institution. The reason for repeating those words is now being given. The bread and the cup of this meal together signify the death of the Lord; “For,” he now explains, “as often as we do this, in his remembrance, we are to be reminded through proclamation of the salvation that was effected for us through that death.”
That this is Paul’s intent is evident from several converging data: (1) the explanatory “for,” (2) the word order, which puts the emphasis on his death, (3) the fact that he picks up the precise language of the final repetition command (“as often as you . . .”), (4) which in turn picks up the “eating of this bread” so as to include both parts of the meal in the explanation, and (5) the emphasis that both the bread and the cup proclaim Christ’s death.
Thus the focus of Paul’s concern is on this meal as a means of proclaiming Christ’s death, a point the Corinthians’ action is obviously bypassing. Despite the arguments of some to the contrary, the verb “to proclaim” probably does not mean that the meal in itself is the proclamation, but that during the meal there is a verbal proclamation of Christ’s death. That seems to be exactly how Paul now understands the two sayings over the bread and cup, and thus why he has repeated the words of institution. With the word over the bread, they “proclaim” that this bread is “Christ’s body for you (us).” It points to his death, whereby he gave himself freely for the sake of others. Likewise the cup; it signifies Christ’s blood poured out in death, whereby he ratified the New Covenant between God and God’s people. It seems certain that their version of the meal is less than satisfactory right at this point, probably not so much because they were not “thinking on Christ” properly, or failing to be in right communion with him, but because by their abuse of one another they were negating the very point of that death—to create a new people for Christ’s name, in which the old distinctions based on human fallenness no longer obtain.
At the same time, however, Paul is fully aware of the eschatological setting in which this meal was first instituted. Christ’s death is not itself the End, but the beginning of the End. Thus at this meal the proclamation is of “the Lord’s death until he comes.” By these final words Paul is reminding the Corinthians of their essentially eschatological existence (see on 4:1–5 and 6:1–6). They have not yet arrived (4:8); at this meal they are to be reminded that there is yet a future for themselves, as well as for all the people of God.
Because the words of institution are so well known to most of us, and because in reading those words we also often (usually?) include Paul’s own final comment (v. 26), it is easy for us to miss Paul’s concern in the argument for our own concern in “actualizing” the Lord’s Supper for ourselves. The latter is certainly legitimate, if for no other reason than that the whole paragraph serves as a kind of paradigm of such actualizing for the Corinthian community. The Lord’s Supper is not simply a memorial of the Last Supper, nor of Christ’s death per se. It is a constant, repeated reminder—and experience—of the efficacy of that death for us. But for Paul, as he will now go on to point out, the concern is not simply personal or introspective. Salvation through Christ’s death has created a new community of people who bear his name. We ourselves rather miss the point of Paul’s presentation if we think of the table only in terms of our own personal needs and not also in terms of the needs of others.
27So then, 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. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.
With this paragraph, and the next, Paul now applies the point of the “words of institution” (vv. 23–26) to their meals. Their supper in the Lord’s honor is in fact dishonoring to him—in two ways: First, the “haves” have been abusing the “have-nots” by going “ahead with your own private suppers” (v. 21). Second, they have thereby been abusing the Lord himself by not properly “remembering” him, especially in terms of the salvation he has wrought through his death, which was intended to make them one, not “divided,” as their current version of the supper does. The purpose of the present paragraph, therefore, is to correct the first abuse by warning them of the dire consequences if they persist in behavior at the supper that reflects failure to understand its true nature.
Because the paragraph has had a long history of being read at the Lord’s Supper independent of its original context, its interpretation has also been independent of that context, a problem that is increased by some inherent difficulties with the language. The entire paragraph is dominated by “judgment” motifs, some of which are wordplays not especially easy to put into comparable English. Furthermore, the crucial term (“body”) in the crucial sentence (v. 29) is ambiguous enough so that the point of the whole argument is frequently missed altogether, or at least in its main emphasis. The argument in context seems to go as follows:
Paul begins (v. 27) by picking up the language that has preceded (vv. 23–26), but now in the form of a severe warning that those who eat as they are doing, “in an unworthy manner,” will be liable for the very death that they are rather to proclaim as salvation at this table. That leads to the proposed remedy: self-examination before eating (v. 28), lest they come under divine judgment (v. 29). The present “unworthy” eating that brings judgment (v. 27) is next described as eating “without discerning the body,” now almost surely meaning the church (as in 10:16–17; this, after all, is the point of the whole section). This is followed by a prophetic pronouncement (v. 30) that some current illnesses and deaths are present expressions of such judgment, brought about by their failure to “discern the body.” The argument then concludes (vv. 31–32) with a considerable wordplay on “judgment” themes, in which Paul basically repeats what has just preceded (vv. 28–30). On the one hand (v. 31), if they were to “examine (discern) themselves” (cf. v. 28), they would not be experiencing the present “judgments” (v. 30); on the other hand (v. 32), the present “judgments” mean that they are “being disciplined” so that they will not come under the final “judgment”—condemnation with the world.
27 With the strong inferential conjunction “so then,” characteristic of the argumentation of this letter (see on 3:7), Paul proceeds to apply what he has just said about the meaning of the preceding words of institution (v. 26) to their abuse of the table: “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.” Partaking of this meal “in an unworthy manner” is what the entire section is about. Unfortunately, this adverb was translated “unworthily” in the KJV (unfortunately repeated in the NAB). Since that particular English adverb seems more applicable to the person doing the eating than to the manner in which it is being done, this word became a dire threat for generations of English-speaking Christians.
Paul’s concern is related directly to his earlier confrontation (vv. 20–22), where some are abusing others at the Lord’s Table by going ahead with their own private meals. Such conduct is unworthy of the table, where Jesus’ death is being proclaimed until he comes—after all, and whatever else, the ground is always equal at the foot of the cross. So much is this so, Paul goes on to say, that such a person “shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” What Paul has done here seems clear: Taking the two elements of the supper, the bread and cup, he has expressed the Corinthians’ “guilt” in terms of what the bread and cup signify, the Lord’s body and blood; that is, his death as sacrifice. But what he intends by this is less obvious. The adjective “guilty” is a technical legal term to express liability. In genitive constructions such as this one, it can denote either the person sinned against or the crime itself. In this case, therefore, it can mean either “guilty of sinning against the Lord” in some way, or “to be held liable for his death,” which the body and blood represent.
Most often this is understood as being a sin against the Lord in terms of his table, as though they were “desecrating” (NEB [omitted in the REB]) or “profaning” (Goodspeed) it by their actions. In a sense that may be true, but in light of the whole context and of the preceding explanation (v. 26) in particular—to which this declaration responds—it is doubtful whether that was Paul’s intent. Such a view seems to place far more emphasis on the sacred nature of the elements as such than Paul himself does. His concern is not with the bread and cup in themselves, but with how through these the participants together remember Christ (v. 25).
More likely, therefore, the “guilt” Paul has in mind is that of the crime itself. His point is that those who carry on at the Lord’s Table as the Corinthians are doing have missed the point of the meal, which is to proclaim salvation through Christ’s death, signified in the bread and cup and “proclaimed” in the bread saying and cup saying. To “profane” the meal as they are doing is to place themselves under the same liability as those responsible for that death in the first place. Thus, to be “guilty of his body and blood” means to be “liable for his death.” With this word Paul thus set in motion the whole chain of forensic language that is to follow.
28 This sentence is joined to what has preceded by an adversative “but,” which intends this imperative to be in contrast to their eating “in an unworthy manner” and thus becoming liable for the very death they should instead be proclaiming: “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.” As in the preceding sentence, to “eat of the bread and drink from the cup” means to participate in this meal. The problem lies with the imperative “everyone ought to examine themselves,” which along with the preceding sentence has been the cause of untold anxieties within the church. This is not a call for deep personal introspection to determine whether one is worthy of the table. Rather, it stands in contrast to the “divine examination” to which unworthy participation will lead (vv. 30–31).
Although not strictly a forensic term, in this context the verb seems to pick up some forensic imagery. Ordinarily it means “to put to the test” (cf. 3:13). Usually such “testing” is done by someone else; but in Paul it also takes on the special sense of believers’ “testing” themselves in relation both to their “works” (Gal. 6:4) and to the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). This is the first of such uses in Paul’s letters, the precise nuance of which is not easy to determine. Probably the verb was chosen in light of the “judgment” theme that runs through this paragraph. Since they will be “examined” by God at the End—indeed their present illnesses are part of that “examination” in the present—they should test themselves now as to their attitude toward the table, especially their behavior toward others at the table. This is probably not so much a threat as a call to truly Christian behavior at the table. It is in this sense that the Corinthian believers are urged to examine themselves. Their behavior has belied the gospel they claim to embrace. Before they participate in the meal, they should examine themselves in terms of their attitudes toward the body, how they are treating others, since the meal itself is a place of proclaiming the gospel. Although this does not lay a heavy dose of self-introspection on believers, as what follows will make plain, it does raise proper cautions about casual participation at this table by those who are not themselves ready to come under obedience to the gospel that is here proclaimed.
29 With an explanatory “for,” Paul now gives the reason for putting oneself to the test before eating: “For those who eat and drink not recognizing/discerning the body eat and drink judgment [i.e., pass sentence] on themselves.” These are the words that tie the present argument to the problem as it was articulated at the outset (vv. 17–22); however, as the textual variations bear witness, they have also been regularly understood in such a way that the intermediate material (vv. 23–32) is seen to function as a digression and thus not to speak directly to the problem as it is spelled out at the beginning and the end (vv. 17–22 and 33–34).
In the Received Text the words “unworthily” and “of the Lord” (cf. NIV) were added respectively to “anyone who eats and drinks” and “the body.” This produced a text that reads, “For anyone who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment on oneself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” This is an unfortunate, if understandable, assimilation to the preceding words of application (v. 27), to make it say much the same thing. It was thus understood to mean: Whoever eats of the Lord’s Table in unworthiness eats one’s way right into the very judgment already warned against, which is now further defined as not properly appreciating the fact that one is eating the body of Christ in this meal (although that is interpreted in different ways). But that is to make the words of institution themselves (vv. 23–25) the point of the section, rather than seeing them as part of the corrective to the situation described at the beginning (vv. 17–22).
Paul’s concern lies elsewhere. Their improper eating brings them under judgment, to be sure; but it is not that which has immediately preceded (v. 27), where they put themselves under the same kind of liability as those responsible for the death of Christ. That warning had to do with the vertical abuse of the supper. Here the judgment anticipates what comes next, where Paul asserts that some present illnesses and deaths are the direct result of their violations of the “body” at this supper.
The phrase “not recognizing the body” in this passage has often been interpreted to mean either (1) failure to distinguish the eucharistic food from the common food of their private meals, or (2) failure to recognize the Lord’s body, that is, reflect on his death, as they eat. The first of these must be ruled out as totally foreign to the context. The second has more going for it. Those who adopt it view it as supported by “the parallelism between vv. 27 and 29,” in which this phrase is to be understood as a shorthand form of “the body and blood of the Lord.” But this too seems to miss the argument here, which points in another direction. Most likely the term “body,” even though it comes by way of the words of institution (v. 24), deliberately recalls Paul’s earlier interpretation of the bread (10:17), thus indicating that the concern is with the problem in Corinth itself, of the rich abusing the poor. Everything Paul goes on to write seems to point in this direction.
(1) As already pointed out, it is an illusion for later readers to see the two different explanations (in vv. 27 and 29) as parallels. Despite some similarities, the differences in fact are more striking, especially (a) the absolute use of “the body,” without a genitive qualifier, and (b) the absence of the heretofore parallel mention of the cup. First, Paul wrote, “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup” (v. 26); then, “eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord,” followed by “the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27); and finally, “so let him eat of the bread and drink from the cup” (v. 28). That combination, it was argued, refers to Christ’s death, which this meal is to proclaim. But in this instance Paul says only “the body.” One is hard pressed to argue that this is “shorthand” for “the body and blood of the Lord,” since Paul otherwise mentions both when he intends both. Furthermore, the absence of the qualifier “of the Lord” seems purposeful, since that was the earlier pattern (vv. 26–27) when referring to the elements of the meal itself.
(2) This sentence now makes sense of what was otherwise an unusual short digression in the earlier passage (10:17), where Paul singled out the bread alone for interpretation and emphatically declared that their all partaking of the “one loaf” was evidence that they themselves were therefore “one body.” Although that interpretation played its own role in the preceding argument (10:14–22), it is certainly arguable that it was intended to anticipate the usage in both the present argument and that to come (chap. 12). It should be noted further that the earlier passage (10:17) offers the only interpretation of the bread as such in the NT. In the words of institution, as we have seen, and when used in conjunction with the cup, the bread does refer to Christ’s physical body that was given in death on the cross. But the “meaning” of that “body” at this table is that those who eat of the one loaf are now to understand themselves as one body, with all their old, thoroughly ungodly, distinctions—rich/poor, Jew/Gentile, free person/slave—absolutely set aside at the one table that unites them all. Why the absolute use of “body” in this sentence should mean something different from what Paul himself has previously explicitly said it means is what would need to be explained if in fact he was intending something different here; and such an explanation would not evolve out of Paul’s present argument with the Corinthians, but out of our own later (and fallen) distinctions Paul would know nothing about.
(3) If this usage were the only hint in this passage that the church were in view, one might see it as a veiled hint anticipating what is yet to come (12:12–26), but would have to understand it otherwise here. But precisely the opposite prevails. The whole point of the section, from the opening sentence (v. 17) and continuing through to the end (vv. 33–34), is to correct a considerable abuse of the church as it is visibly portrayed at the Lord’s Supper. In light of this context the question ought to be, Why would one think that this absolute use, set up by what was said earlier (10:17), would mean anything else? The usage comes by way of the “words of institution” (vv. 23–25), to be sure. The Corinthians are missing the meaning of the “body” given in death; but Paul’s present concern is with the further sense, the church as that body.
If then Paul is announcing judgment on them for their abuse of the body, why did he use the verb “recognizing/discerning” and what does it mean? The answer to this seems to lie in the wordplays on the theme of “judgment” that dominate the paragraph. No other forms of this verb would be appropriate for expressing the need properly to take cognizance of the whole church that is gathered as one body at this meal. The meaning here probably comes close to the English word “discern,” meaning to distinguish as distinct and different. The Lord’s Supper is not just any meal; it is the meal, in which at a common table with one loaf and a common cup they proclaimed that through the death of Christ they were one body, the body of Christ; and therefore they are not just any group of sociologically diverse people who could keep those differences intact at this table. Here they must “discern/recognize as distinct” the one body of Christ, of which they all are parts and in which they all are gifts to one another. For the “well-to-do” to fail to discern the body in this way, especially by abusing those of lesser sociological status, is to incur God’s judgment.
30 With an inferential “therefore” Paul indicates that the verdict pronounced against those who eat the Lord’s Supper as they are doing, “not discerning the body,” has already begun in their midst, in that “many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” This, too, has often been a troubling passage, especially for those who approach the table with fear lest they partake “unworthily.” But this is neither parenesis nor warning; it is an ad hoc reflection on their own situation. Most likely Paul is here stepping into the prophetic role; by the Spirit he has seen a divine cause and effect between two otherwise independent realities: the present illnesses of many, which in some cases have led to death, and the actions of some at the Table of the Lord who are despising the church and humiliating the “have-nots” by “going ahead with their own private meals.”
What is intriguing at this point is what is left unsaid, or what is implied. Most likely Paul does not see the judgment as a kind of “one for one,” that is, the person who has abused another is the one who gets sick. Rather, the whole community is affected by the actions of some, who are creating “divisions” within the one body of Christ. Probably the rash of illnesses and deaths that have recently overtaken them is here being viewed as an expression of divine judgment on the whole community. The “judgment” of course, as the concluding words (v. 32) make clear, does not have to do with their eternal salvation, but with the temporal judgment of sickness and death. Beyond that one may only speculate. Is this related in some way to the “present distress” mentioned earlier (7:26)? How many people were in the Corinthian community at this time, and how many of them had fallen ill to this “plague” to cause Paul to say “many of you”? In any case, Paul is not saying that sickness among believers is to be viewed as present judgment, nor that such sickness is necessarily related to an abuse of the supper. Rather, he has at this point prophetically judged this to be so.
31–32 As usual, Paul can scarcely bring himself to end an argument on a “down” note, so he concludes by repeating the preceding concerns (vv. 28–30) with a considerable play on the language of “judgment.” The two sentences correspond to each other. The first (v. 31) is a contrary to fact supposition. Picking up the preceding theme of self-examination (from v. 28, but now with the verb “discern” from v. 29), Paul says that if they had been examining/discerning themselves, they would not have been experiencing the “judgments” just noted (v. 30). Thus this sentence helps to fill out the sense of the two verbs used earlier (vv. 28 and 29). Their “examination” of themselves is to take the form of “discerning” the body (= of Christ as it now finds expression in the community of faith). If they had been doing that, they “would not be coming under judgment.”
The second sentence (v. 32) responds to the real situation. They are in fact presently being “judged by the Lord” (in the way mentioned in v. 30); but this sentence makes it clear that by “judgment” Paul does not mean that the sick or dead are threatened with eternal loss. Rather, such “judgment” is to be understood as divine “discipline,” in this case by “the Lord” whom they serve and who loves them, and is thus correcting those who are his, just as earthly parents in love correct/discipline their own children. The purpose of such discipline is “so that we will not be condemned with the world,” when brought to final judgment being implied. Thus Paul’s own concern is simple and direct, and those of us who read these words as divine Scripture need continually to keep our reading/hearing within the context of that which the apostle himself intended.
As noted throughout, this paragraph has had an unfortunate history of understanding in the church. The very table that is God’s reminder, and therefore his repeated gift, of grace, the table where we affirm again who and whose we are, has been allowed to become a table of condemnation for the very people who most truly need the assurance of acceptance that this table affords—the sinful, the weak, the weary. One does not have to “get rid of the sin in one’s life” in order to partake. Here by faith one may once again receive the assurance that “Christ receiveth sinners.”
On the other hand, any magical view of the sacrament that allows the unrepentant to partake without “discerning the body” makes the offer of grace a place of judgment. Grace “received” that is not recognized as such is not grace at all; and grace “received” that does not recognize the need to be gracious to others is to miss the point of the table altogether and thus fail to take seriously the apostle’s own concerns.
33So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further instructions.
Having argued theologically, on the basis of a proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper, that the Corinthians should “discern the body” as they eat, Paul now concludes by applying the results of this argument in a very specific way to their situation. The solution is simple and direct: On the one hand, when they come together to eat they should “receive” (“accept,” “welcome,” “wait for”) each other; on the other hand, those who intend to eat sumptuously should do that at home apart from this meal. As before, this reflects the attitude “from above.” Paul does not suggest that all should eat the privileged portions of the well-to-do; rather, he implies that in community the well-to-do should eat what the others do.
As noted in the introductory section, this final conclusion responds to the first part of the argument (vv. 17–22) in the same way that the first “conclusion” (vv. 27–32) responded to the second part (vv. 23–26). The language is thoroughly that of the opening material (“gather to eat” [vv. 18, 20]; “hungry” [v. 21]; “eat at home” [v. 22]); yet the final warning comes by way of what has immediately preceded (vv. 27–32, “so that it may not result in judgment”). Thus at the end a pragmatic resolution is tied directly to the preceding theological warning.
33 The repeated “so then” (see v. 27), plus the vocative “my brothers and sisters,” leads directly to the final inference to be drawn from this argument. This first pragmatic solution is, “When you gather together to eat, receive (or wait for) one another.” The difficulty lies with the intent of Paul’s verb, which has a quite broad range of meanings, depending ultimately on context for its precise nuance, but whose basic sense is “to “receive” or “wait for,” and was so rendered in the original NIV—on the basis of the verb Paul had used earlier (v. 21). Nonetheless, the current rendering (“all eat together”) seems to get at the heart of things. Although the issue may in fact have to do with time, Paul’s greater concern seems to be that, just as “the ground is level at the foot of the cross,” so it must be level when it comes to sharing at the Lord’s Table. If that be the case, then the verb here carries its primary meaning of “receive,” which it often does in the context of hospitality (hence, “welcome” or “entertain”). Since Paul uses the stronger compound for the concept of “await” or “wait for,” and since there is no sure evidence that the verb he used earlier (v. 21) means to “eat beforehand,” it seems most likely that Paul is here urging the wealthy to demonstrate normal Christian hospitality (cf. Rom. 12:13). They are to welcome/receive one another when they come together to eat, which the current NIV has rendered with the more colloquial “you should all eat together.” That, of course, is Paul’s ultimate intent; his way of putting it is to urge the “have’s” to make sure that the common meal in honor of Christ includes the “have-nots.”
34a This second piece of practical advice corresponds to the first. As with the rest of the section, it is addressed primarily to the well-to-do in whose homes the church is meeting. To them, not to the “have-nots” who are left hungry at the “private meals” of the rich, Paul says, “Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home.” In this context “anyone who is hungry . . .” almost certainly means “If anyone wants to gorge. . . .” That is, if you want to satisfy your desire for the kinds of meals that the wealthy are accustomed to eat together, do that at home, but not in the context of the gathered community of believers, where some “have nothing” and are thereby humiliated (vv. 21–22).
That this is Paul’s intent is supported by the final purpose clause, which picks up the preceding “judgment” motif (vv. 28–32): “so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.” With this clause the two sections of the argument are brought together. They are meeting together to eat the Lord’s Supper, but in so doing some are “devouring” their own private meals with their privileged portions and thereby humiliating those who have nothing. Because they have treated the Table of the Lord so badly, neither proclaiming the salvation for which this meal is intended nor “discerning the body of Christ, the church,” they are presently experiencing divine judgment. The remedy is simple: “In the gathered assembly, receive one another with full welcome at the Lord’s Table.” Moreover, as Paul said earlier (v. 22), “Since you have your own homes to eat and drink in, eat your ‘private’ meals at home.” And the reason is to keep from experiencing any further “judgment when you meet together.”
34b Paul signs off this section with what for later readers is one of the more intriguing texts in the letter: “And when I come I will give further directions.” How much we are left in the dark because Paul was not writing first of all for us! Indeed, it is not possible even to know to what “the other things” refer: The rest of the matters that have to do with the Lord’s Table? Other matters relating to traditions that are being kept but requiring further instruction? Other matters that have to do with relationships between the “haves” and “have-nots”? We simply do not know. What a sentence like this does is to remind us of how little we really do know and to teach us to be grateful for what we have received—even if it had to be at the expense of some unfortunate abuses in this assembly.
If from this section we do not discover the answer to everything that piques our curiosity, we are indeed given more than enough to “examine” us as to our obedience at the Lord’s Table. One wonders whether our making the text deal with self-examination has not served to deflect the greater concern of the text, that we give more attention at the Lord’s Supper to our relationships with one another in the body of Christ. The final imperative is perhaps the most significant one: “Receive/welcome one another.” It is the Lord’s Supper, after all, not ours. Our task—and joy—is to receive anew the benefits of the Lord’s grace in the context of truly welcoming others who are recipients of that same grace. It is not simply by coincidence that Paul begins his corrective on gifts of the Spirit in the next section by placing that once again in the context of the unity of the body, with all members being equally concerned for each other.