(3) παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶν (“in commanding this, not praising”—B)
Or as S. H. Ringe pointed out, it looks something like a combination of “Hospitality, Justice, and Community,” a study subtitled “Paul’s Teaching on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34” (Prism 1 [1986], 59–58). See more recently “ ‘If Anyone Hungers . . .’: An Integrated Reading of 1 Cor 11.17–34,” NTS 48 (2002), 195–208.
These are the only two references to the Lord’s Table in the extant Pauline literature. For a select bibliography on the Lord’s Table in Paul, see . It should be pointed out that a large body of literature has emerged on this passage, as well as on the earlier one, and in this case I have chosen not to append a complete bibliography, since so much of it reflects the vested interests of a later time regarding the Lord’s Table, including attempts to justify the practice of a “closed communion” that lies rather altogether outside of Paul’s concerns.
See v. 18. The reason for its place here in the letter is almost certainly topical, having been set up by the introductory affirmation of v. 2 and the mild narrative that has preceded (vv. 3–16), and thereby also anticipating the final matter on worship in chaps. 12–14.
Some have overlooked the sociological factors altogether, but they have great difficulty with vv. 17–22 and 33–34. It was common at one time, e.g., to suggest that the sacred meal was being profaned by being allowed to become a common, everyday meal, and that Paul’s concern is to reinstitute the sacred meal (e.g., Weiss, 283; Lietzmann, 256 [= bad manners]). Similarly, Schmithals, 250–56, saw the problem as coming from spiritualizing Gnostics, who rejected participating in the external elements as though they represented Christ and deliberately substituted a profane meal. Conzelmann, 194, following von Soden (“Sacrament”), took the opposite view, that the Corinthian pneumatics have an “over-heated sacramentalism,” an almost magical view that has moved them toward intense individualism at the Table (“each” eating “his own” meal). But none of these can be sustained in light of Paul’s own clear expression of the abuse in vv. 22 and 33–34 as a despising of the church by shaming those who have nothing.
Probably because of its considerably offensive nature to later readers, this has been the most common popular way of understanding vv. 17–22; but any careful reading of the text reveals that at best this is incidental to the real problem; indeed, it is not so much as mentioned again after v. 21.
This is true even of—perhaps one should say, esp. of—nonliturgical Protestant churches, where vv. 27–32 usually serve as a warning against improper participation—meaning “if one has sin in one’s life”—and encourage personal introspection.
And perhaps a third, less immediately available to us at such a later time—namely the effect that the famine of A.D. 51 might have had on all of this; see, e.g., 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.
Cf. Garland, 533: their “supper accented and intensified social differences.”
B. W. Winter (“The Lord’s Supper at Corinth: An Alternative Reconstruction,” RTR 37 [1978], 73–82, repr. After Paul, 142–63) cautioned against dividing the participants too easily into “rich” and “poor” as permanent classes of society; rather, the differences often involved “the secure i.e. those who are guaranteed security by reason of membership of a household, and the insecure i.e. those who had no protection from a patron” (81); Thiselton (848) uses the more colloquial language, “haves and have-nots.”
The original NIV unfortunately rendered the two ὥστε’s of vv. 27 and 33 with different English words (“therefore,” “so then”), thus causing the reader to miss the double response to the preceding paragraphs. So then, because when we eat and drink at this meal we proclaim the Lord’s death, we must eat the bread so as properly to “discern the body.” So then, because otherwise one is subject to judgment, we must “welcome/receive one another at this meal.”
The difficult terms are τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει (“go ahead with one’s own supper”), ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθαι (“wait for/receive one another”), “having houses to eat and drink in” (v. 22), and “eat at home” (v. 34).
This is further complicated by the fact that Corinth was a Roman colony, and that among the wealthy, Roman customs may have prevailed alongside Greek. Most of the more important literary evidence is from the Roman side. Two of the wealthier converts in fact bore Roman names (Gaius and Titius Justus; unless this is the same person [see on 1:15]).
Cf. Rom. 16:23 (written from Corinth at a later date), “Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church.”
The triclinia average about 36 square meters (about 18 x 18 ft.). If they actually reclined (triclinium = a table with three sides on which to recline) at such meals, there would be room for about 9 to 12 guests at table. Cf. Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 182–93, plus his response to D. Horell’s objections to these limitations of dining space (“Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre,” NTS 50 [2004], 349–69).
This was unfortunately left out of the original NIV. It is esp. doubtful whether “without waiting for anybody else” was a truly “dynamic equivalent” of “going ahead with/devouring one’s own [private] meal.”
See esp. the reconstruction by Theissen, 145–74; but note also the caution in Malherbe, Social Aspects, 84, and some correctives in Winter, “Lord’s Supper.”
S. C. Barton, “Paul’s Sense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community Formation in Corinth,” NTS 32 (1986), 238–39, argued that the divisions were between households or groups of households, thus positing the same divisions as in 1:10–12. This study contained some helpful insights, but on this crucial point it lacked adequate evidence from the text itself. See below on v. 18. On a quite different note, Suzanne Watts Henderson has argued that the essential point of the passage is care for the poor, the feeding of the hungry (“ ‘If Anyone Hungers . . .’: An Integrated Reading of 1 Cor 11.17–34,” NTS 48 [2002], 198–208); this corrective should probably raise our sights to the possibility that the correction exists for more than a single reason.
The Greek text shows considerable confusion here as to which is the main verb and which the participle. The options:
(1) παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ (“in commanding this, I do not praise”—NIV NA27 
F G Ψ Maj a d)
(2) παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶν (“this I command, not praising”—A C 6 33 104 326 365 1175 1739 f vg)
(3) παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶν (“in commanding this, not praising”—B)
(4) παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶ (“I command this; I do not praise”—D* 81 b)
Although eventually these all come out at the same place, the one that best explains the others is 2, since in light of vv. 3 and 22 it is the more awkward combination. All the others result from its awkwardness. Here is a place where WH seem to show better textual judgment than subsequent editors. Cf. A. Fridrichsen, “Non laudo. Note sur I Cor. 11,17.22,” in Mélanges d’histoire des religions et de recherches offerts à Johannes Pedersen (Stockholm, 1944–47), 28–32, who, however, makes the ὅτι epexegetic, thus translating, “disapproving of the fact that. . . .” Otherwise Conzelmann, 192 n. 1; Barrett, 258 n. 1.
The ἐν ὑμῖν is omitted in the Western tradition (D* F G lat Cyprian Ambrosiaster). See the discussion in Zuntz, 141.
A few MSS (P46 C 2464) also omit this second ἐν ὑμῖν, probably because it comes at the end of Paul’s sentence, which would have been complete in the scribe’s mind without it.
The original NIV omitted this οὖν (“therefore”), with P46 C* F G b Clement. Most likely the οὖν is original; the resumptive sense of the sentence (cf. v. 18) seems to require it. Cf. Zuntz, 192.
The original NIV read, “without waiting for anybody else.” See . This translation was apparently based on v. 33; but it rather missed the crucial idiom of this passage and the sharp contrast between the Lord’s “supper” and their own private “suppers.”
Some important early MSS (P46 B F G lat) read ἐπαινῶ in place of ἐπαινέσω, probably by assimilation to the concluding ἐπαινῶ (thus literally: “Shall I praise you? In this I do not praise you”), nicely rendered in the NIV’s “certainly not in this matter!”
See .
The NIV has kept the more traditional “meetings” here; this unfortunately also has a long history in English having to do with “church meetings,” which in the parlance of most people means “going to church.” That of course is not Paul’s emphasis, which rests rather on their “coming together as one people” for the worship of God.
Gk. δέ, not specifically rendered in the NIV (cf. NAB, NEB), as assumed by the flow of the argument; but see GNB, NRSV, NASB (NJB made it consecutive, “now”).
This τοῦτο helps to create some of the awkwardness of this sentence. Ordinarily it would refer to what precedes, as in 7:6 (q.v.), which it can hardly do here (but see Barrett, 260). On the other hand, when it refers to something that follows, Paul tends either to add an epexegetic ὅτι clause (15:50; cf. 2 Thess. 3:10) or to express the content of the “this” (7:29; cf. Gal. 3:2, 17). As in 7:29–35, this τοῦτο and the one in v. 22 enclose the paragraph, although he never does specify the “command” to which τοῦτο refers. By putting it in first position in this case, it probably functions as a kind of “heads up” = “This in commanding I am not praising” [the Greek text behind the NIV], which is now emphatically pointing forward to what follows.
Gk. συνέρχεσθε (cf. vv. 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26). Except for 7:5, where it has a different meaning altogether, these constitute the total number of usages in Paul’s extant letters.
Gk. γάρ; again explanatory. What follows explains how they come together for the worse.
Some have suggested that the expected complement lies with the “further directions” in v. 34 (e.g., Grosheide, 265), or with chaps. 12–14 (cf. Findlay, 877; Parry, 163), or is picked up in v. 20 with the “therefore” (Godet, 137). But all of that assumes the letter to be more literary than it is in fact. The best explanation is the simplest one: the πρῶτον μέν is simply not picked up, thus creating something of an anacolouthon; cf. BDF 447(4). Cf. the discussion in Hurd, 79–80. As such, it ends up being a rhetorical device rather than a numerical sequential word.
Gk. σχίσματα; cf. 1:10 and 12:25 (the latter is in the singular).
Cf. ; although Thiselton (850) has called this observation into question, on the whole the differences seem to outweigh the similarities. This is not to say that there is no relationship between the two; it is simply to observe that the way this argument plays out seems to suggest otherwise, differences which Thiselton himself recognizes in his actual exposition of the passage; similarly, C-R, 541.
Gk. ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ; for the word itself see on 1:2. This usage reflects the original sense of the term, to be “in assembly.” Thus even though Paul applies the term to individual local expressions of the people of God, he still uses the term in its primary sense. The people of God may be called the “church/assembly” first of all because they regularly assemble as a “church/assembly.” This is further confirmed by the ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (in the same place) in v. 20, which is nearly synonymous with this present usage.
Winter, “Lord’s Supper,” 80 n. 16, offers the unlikely suggestion that the informants in this case were one of the “parties” mentioned in 1:10. On the whole matter of “parties,” see the to 1:10–17.
It would make a lot of sense in this view for this information also to have come from “those of Chloe’s household,” esp. if they were trusted Christian slaves. The issue then becomes far more a ticklish sociological one than a theological one.
The sentence is joined to v. 18 with another explanatory γάρ, which seems to function esp. to explain the final clause, “and I partly believe it.”
The combination γὰρ καί is rare in Paul (cf. 2 Cor. 2:9; Rom. 13:6); it does not seem to mean the same as καὶ γάρ (“for indeed”), despite Findlay, 877. Most likely it is intended to signal an additional reason to the one stated or presupposed in what has already been said. Thus it does not mean “no doubt” (as NIV, GNB, JB), but “There is also this further reason for believing what I heard.”
Gk. αἱρέσεις, found elsewhere in Paul only in the vice list in Gal. 5:20; so its precise meaning for him eludes us. It is used elsewhere to distinguish sectarian groups (e.g., Sadducees in Acts 5:17), and later comes to be used of heretical groups. Here it is roughly synonymous with σχίσματα, and must mean something similar: divisions, dissensions, factions (cf. Witherington, 248, “the relatively well-to-do and the poor”). Otherwise, as Barrett, 261, notes, “the connection of thought would break down.” Attempts to soften its meaning (e.g., “discrimination”; R. A. Campbell, “Does Paul Acquiesce in Divisions at the Lord’s Supper?” NovT 33 [1991], 61–70) have (appropriately) failed to convince.
Gk. δόκιμοι (cf. ἀδόκιμος in 9:27), the cognate adjective to the verb δοκιμάζω in v. 28. The implication is that such people have been tested and found to be genuine.
Gk. φανεροί, the adjective of the verb φανερόω, “to reveal, make visible.”
Munck, Paul, 136–38, sees this sentence as pointing to eschatological “divisions” that are yet future; but the repetition of the idea of “division” and the prepositional phrase “among you” seem to indicate that he is reflecting on what is already present among them. Attempts to soften its meaning (e.g., “discrimination” [R. A. Campbell, “Does Paul Acquiesce in Divisions at the Lord’s Supper?” NovT 33 (1991), 61–70]) have (appropriately) failed to convince.
Cf. (1) his announcement that his coming had the effect of dividing households (Matt. 10:34–37), and (2) his prediction that internecine strife would accompany future tribulation, resulting in the “falling away” of some (Matt. 24:9–13). Indeed, there is a noncanonical saying of Jesus which may well be authentic (it is found in such diverse sources as Justin, Dial. 35; the Syriac Didascalia 6.5; and the Pseudo-Clementine Homily 16.21.4), which uses both words found in vv. 18–19: “There shall be divisions [σχίσματα] and dissensions [αἱρέσεις].” See the discussion in J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (ET, London, 1957), 59–61, and Munck, Paul, 137.
Gk. οὖν (usually “therefore”), which was unfortunately not rendered in the original NIV; cf. 8:4 and esp. the relationship of that verse to 8:1, where an almost identical resumption of the argument occurs.
The repetition is more striking in this case because both clauses are genitive absolutes.
Gk. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (omitted in the NIV, apparently as redundant in English). For this usage see E. Ferguson, “ ‘When You Come Together’: Epi to auto in Early Christian Literature,” RestQ 16 (1973), 202–8, who shows that it means “together” not in the sense of Christian unity, but in the sense of being “in the assembly.”
Cf. “the Lord’s Table” in 10:21, but that language refers more specifically to the “table of the God” that was part of the cultic meals. Paul there seems to be transferring that language to the Christian’s sitting at table in contrast to the pagan table.
Gk. δεῖπνον; the word for the main meal in the Hellenistic world, usually eaten toward or in the evening.
See J. Behm, TDNT 2:34–35. Cf. the papyrus invitations to “dine” at the shrines of Sarapis and Isis ().
Cf. Rev. 1:10, where Sunday has been designated ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα.
On this matter see .
Conzelmann, 194.
Gk. προλαμβάνει; only three times in the NT (here, Gal. 6:1; Mark 14:8), and in each case with a different nuance.
Gk. ἐκδέχομαι; cf. 16:11.
This is commonly suggested in the literature; see, e.g., Schweizer, Lord’s Supper, 5; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 160–61; Holladay, 144–46 (the latter two combine this with option 3).
It is of some interest that Conzelmann does not speak to these questions at all.
Gk. ἕκαστος; cf. 1:12; 12:7; 14:26, in each case of which it does not necessarily mean “every single person,” but is both emphatic and distributive; i.e., it emphasizes the individual as well as the broad character of the activity. Elsewhere when Paul wishes to emphasize “every single person” he uses εἷς ἕκαστος (1 Thess. 2:11; 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 Cor. 12:18; Eph. 4:7).
Gk. ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν, which actually appears at the end of Paul’s clause (lit., “for each his own meal goes ahead with in the eating”). Because of the aorist infinitive, this could refer simply to the time of eating the meal, i.e., “whenever you have the Lord’s Table.” But that could have been said more naturally with a conditional clause (ἐάν or ὅταν).
It is common to assert that “in Corinth this meal is no longer inserted into the Eucharist but precedes it” (Conzelmann, 195 n. 23; cf. Schweizer, Lord’s Supper, 5; Neuenzeit, Herrenmahl, 71–72, and the rebuttal in Theissen, 152–53). But nothing in the text itself supports this. On the basis of what Paul says, one cannot determine whether that portion of the meal specifically designated as the “Lord’s Supper” was eaten in conjunction with, or after, the communal meal. Both opinions are held. The language “after supper” in the “tradition” (v. 25) does not really help, only suggesting that at the Last Supper, quite in keeping with Jewish meals, Jesus as the “head of the family” started the meal by breaking the bread and blessing it, and concluded the meal with a final blessing over the cup, which in both cases he interpreted in terms of his impending death. It is highly likely that this tradition continued in the early church, under the rubric of “the breaking of bread.” This may very well also be the case in Corinth; but one simply cannot be certain. In any case, neither is there evidence that it was otherwise.
Indeed, in light of the tradition, it is unlikely that such would have occurred to him.
For a discussion of ἴδιον as indicating a “private” meal eaten in conjunction with the “common” meal, see Theissen, 147–50.
Juvenal devotes an entire satire (#5) to excoriating the wealthy for such folly. His is obviously a view “from below,” as is the complaint in Martial, Epigram 3.60: “Since I am asked to dinner, . . . why is not the same dinner served to me as to you? You take oysters fattened in the Lucrine lake, I suck a mussel through a hole in the shell; you get mushrooms, I take hog funguses; you tackle turbot, but I brill. Golden with fat, a turtledove gorges you with its bloated rump; there is set before me a magpie that has died in its cage. Why do I dine without you although, Ponticus, I am dining with you? The dole has gone; let us have the benefit of that; let us eat the same fare” (Loeb, 1:201; cf. Epig. 1.20; 4.85; 6.11; 10.49). The view “from above” may be found in Pliny, Ep. 2.6, where he takes exception to being one of the “privileged” at such a meal: “It would take too long to go into the details . . . of how I happened to be dining with a man—though no particular friend of his—whose elegant economy, as he called it, seemed to me a sort of stingy extravagance. The best dishes were set in front of himself and a select few, and cheap scraps of food before the rest of the company. He had even put the wine into tiny little flasks, divided into three categories, not with the idea of giving his guests opportunity of choosing, but to make it impossible for them to refuse what they were given. One lot was intended for himself and for us, another for his lesser friends (all his friends are graded) and his and our freedmen.” In response to how he himself could possibly afford to do otherwise, Pliny replies, “My freedmen do not drink the sort of wine I do, but I drink theirs” (Loeb, 1:95–97).
See .
In an inscription from Epidaurus it is used in a context that seems to mean simply “to take.” See BDAG, who place this verse under the heading: “prob[ably] w[ith] the temporal force of προ- felt to a degree” (BAGD had “very little, if at all”). Cf. the discussion in chap. 7 of B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth,” 144–48, who concludes, “The pejorative sense of ‘devours’ seems to best fit the whole context.”
See, e.g., 5:11 and 6:10 in this letter; cf. Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:21; 1 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 1:7.
This is an attempt to catch the force of the combination μή . . . οὐκ. The γάρ ties it directly to the preceding clause, and forces the irony, since what follows is not true. For the combination μὴ οὐκ see Rom. 10:18.
This may be a future indicative; more likely it is a deliberative subjunctive: “What am I to say to you?”
The NIV (cf. TR, KJV, RV, NRSV, ESV) punctuates by taking ἐν τούτῳ with the question “Shall I praise you?” NA27and UBS4 (cf. WH, ASV, REB, Barrett, Conzelmann) take it as part of the concluding statement. What favors the latter is the similarity to v. 17. Thus, “Shall I praise you? No! In this I will not praise you.”
Gk. οἰκίας ἔχετε; not “homes,” as in the NIV; that word does appear in v. 34.
Gk. καταφρονέω, a particularly strong word for expressing contempt for someone.
Gk. καί, which is epexegetical here, so that the second clause gives content to the first (= “and thus humiliate”).
See .
The MajT, with no early support, begins the institutional words with “Take, eat,” borrowed from Matt. 26:26. This is a “liturgical” assimilation; cf. the next note.
The Old Latin and Syriac traditions, followed by the MajT, add κλώμενον (“broken”); the Vulgate, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions add “given” from Luke 22:19. It is missing in P46 * A B C* 6 33 1739* Origen Cyprian. The diversity of traditions in itself indicates that the words are not original. See Metzger, 496.
The τοῦτον (missing in * A B C* D* F G 33 630 1739* 1881 2464 lat sa Cyprian) is not original here. It was added, very early and often (P46 a t sy bo Maj), for the same reason the NIV has translated it this way—it balances “this bread” so nicely.
This is not to say that he does not elsewhere refer or allude to the teaching of Jesus. Besides 1 Cor. 7:10 and 9:14, see 1 Tim. 5:18, and the discussion of the concept of imitating Jesus in 4:16. But this is the single instance where there is a considerable citation.
For a helpful discussion both of the data and of the scholarly debate, see Marshall, Last Supper, 30–56.
The text cited is that of Mark, with the Matthean additions/differences in square brackets [].
The text cited is that of Paul; Pauline peculiarities are in brackets {}, Lukan peculiarities in square brackets [].
These differences are expressed in terms of the author’s conviction of the priority of Mark (see my NT Exegesis, 101–16). These changes in themselves, plus a few incidental stylistic ones, offer further evidence for this view.
The question as to which at any point represents the more primitive form of the tradition is beyond the proper concerns of this commentary. On this question see esp. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 138–203; and the discussion in Marshall, Last Supper, 30–56. Cf. Conzelmann, 197: “Both in Mark and in Paul we find older and younger elements.”
Usually it has been argued that Luke is dependent on the tradition found in Paul, which he conformed at this one place to that found in Mark. H. Schürmann, Der Einsetzungsbericht Lk 22,19–20 (Münster, 1955), followed tentatively by Marshall, Last Supper, 39–40, argues that Luke represents an independent tradition, which seems most unlikely, given that he and Paul have a form that is verbally closer even than that of Mark and Matthew. Most likely they represent adaptations of a common tradition.
This whole problem is further complicated by the liturgical nature of the material; what one does in one’s own church will take precedence over whatever one reads in a source. The solution offered here, but in full recognition of the tentative nature of all such solutions, is that Luke represents the actual liturgical tradition of the Pauline churches, or perhaps of the home church at Antioch, while Paul, for the ad hoc emphases of this passage, has conformed the cup saying to that of the bread to highlight the “remembrance” motif. See on v. 25.
The sentence begins with another explanatory γάρ.
Gk. παρέλαβον; in Paul see 1 Thess. 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6 (with παράδοσις); 1 Cor. 15:1; 15:3 (with παραδίδωμι); Gal. 1:9, 12; Col. 2:6; Phil. 4:9. Cf. G. Delling, TDNT 4:11–14.
Gk. παρέδωκα; see the discussion on v. 2.
Cf. 2 Thess. 3:6.
While it also occurs in the mysteries and in Gnosticism (see Conzelmann, 195–96), that is irrelevant for Paul’s usage, given his rabbinical training.
Heb. qibbel/masar. See esp. m. Abot 1.1: “Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue” (Danby, 446); cf. m. Peah 2.6. For other examples see Str-B, 3:444.
Gk. ἀπό. Some (e.g., Grosheide, 269 n. 16) suggested that this preposition (vis-à-vis παρά) reflects a less direct revelation; but it is the context and language, not the preposition, that makes this seem certain.
Otherwise H. Macoby (“Paul and the Eucharist,” NTS 37 [1991], 247–67), who argues that it came from a personal vision. The question as to where Paul received it cannot be answered, but most likely it would have been either Damascus or Antioch. In either case, these churches were founded by disciples from Jerusalem, so that the tradition must come ultimately from there. Cf. Marshall, Last Supper, 32–33.
See, e.g., Bornkamm, “Lord’s Supper,” 131.
For the evidence in its favor, see Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 15–88; cf. the discussion in Marshall, Last Supper, 57–75. But see the discussion in Schweizer, Lord’s Supper, 29–32, for the cautions that cause uncertainty.
Barrett, 264, properly warns that one should not simply assume that such was the case, since nothing Paul says would indicate that the words were used in this way at the meal; but the very fact of their being quoted in this fashion and their being remembered in the church in two clear traditions suggests that they had probably already come to have liturgical usage.
One cannot be certain of course whether this note belongs to the tradition or to Paul himself. Its unusual nature is what suggests that it belongs to the tradition. Since the whole history was not repeated at any given eating of the Supper, this was a way to give the words a context when they were used independently. Cf. Marshall, Last Supper, 41.
Whatever may have been the meaning of the cultic meals in the mysteries, this little note drives a deep wedge between those meals and the Lord’s Supper. This is not the celebration of timeless myths or spiritual truths; it is rooted deeply in the history of Jesus. Cf. Bornkamm, “Lord’s Supper,” 132.
Gk. παρεδίδετο; its proximity to the preceding παρέδωκα is probably completely fortuitous.
So Barrett, 266; cf. K. Luke, “ ‘The Night in Which He Was Delivered Up’ (1 Cor 11:23),” BiBh 10 (1984), 261–79.
Mostly because Paul is here referring to the “tradition,” and the gospel traditions place the announcement of the betrayal at the time of the Supper. The verb also appears in the LXX of Isa. 53:6 and 12.
For a brief description of this meal, see Marshall, Last Supper, 21–23.
Paul and Luke use the word εὐχαριστέω, rather than εὐλογέω, for the “blessing” (however, see 1 Cor. 10:16). The latter more closely reflects the Semitic idiom; but both imply that thanksgiving is being offered to God for the food, and in the case of the Passover God is blessed for Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. See esp. m. Pes. 10.5, where R. Gamaliel uses a whole series of such words: “Therefore are we bound to give thanks, to praise, to glorify, to honour, to exalt, to extol, and to bless him who wrought all these wonders for our fathers and for us” (Danby, 151).
It is common to link the “breaking” of the bread with Jesus’ “broken” body; cf. the MajT reading (). For a brief overview of some who think that this is inherent in the act, see A. R. Winnett, “The Breaking of the Bread: Does It Symbolize the Passion?” ExpT 88 (1977), 181–82. In fact, of course, Jesus’ body was not broken; nor is any point made in the tradition itself linking the breaking of the bread with Jesus’ death, although one can well understand how the symbolism eventually arose. Cf. Marshall, Last Supper, 86.
See esp. the argument for this in Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 55–61. Bornkamm, “Lord’s Supper,” 138–39, argues that the words of Jesus do not represent an actual “interpretation” of the event of Jesus’ death, and therefore that this does not necessarily support its being a Passover meal. But that seems to have the character of a quibble. What Jesus said about the bread is far more understandable if it was spoken in a context where words were ordinarily spoken over the bread; such a context also best accounts for the words’ being remembered by the disciples as they continued such meals.
Cf. 10:4, “the rock was Christ,” and Gal. 4:25, “Hagar is Mount Sinai.”
The presence of Jesus with them as he spoke these words would have made any other meaning impossible. Cf. Moffatt, 168; J. C. O’Neill’s attempt to suggest otherwise (“ ‘This Is My Body . . .’ [1 Corinthians 11.14],” IBS 24 [2002], 32–43) has rightly fallen on deaf ears.
See the discussion in Marshall, Last Supper, 86.
Cf. the use of σῶμα in Rom. 12:1; see also the discussion of this term in 6:13, esp. .
For the arguments against, see Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 166–68; in favor, see the discussion in Marshall, Last Supper, 46–51, although Marshall himself finally takes a position of uncertainty. The focus of the debate is over whether it is more likely that the parallelism of the two sayings was made by Jesus and dropped by the tradition Mark represents (because they would be redundant in light of the cup saying), or whether they were added in the tradition known by Paul and Luke, under the influence of the cup saying, as a way of bringing the two into parallel. On the whole the latter seems more likely, but one cannot be sure.
That is, if original here, they tie the bread and cup together by means of the prepositional phrase “for you,” and would have been so understood by those who dropped them from the bread saying, allowing the one prepositional phrase to cover both. On the other hand, if they belong originally only with the cup saying, the proximity of the two sayings in the tradition links the one with the other, i.e., the body and blood together point to his death as “for many/you.”
Gk. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν; cf. 15:3, “for our sins.”
On the later addition of “broken” here, see .
There is some discussion as to what “this” means, whether to keep the rite, or to do these acts at a meal. Probably it is the latter. It is of some interest that he did not say “eat this bread,” but “do this,” which thus includes the blessing, breaking, distributing, and eating, all in light of the interpretative words “This is my body.”
E.g., Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 168; Barrett, 267.
The modern debate was begun by Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 237–55. Among those works devoted to the question in particular, see D. Jones, “Ἀνάμνησις in the LXX and the Interpretation of I Cor. XI.25,” JTS 6 (1955), 183–91; H. Kosmala, “Das tut zu Gedächtnis,” NovT 4 (1960), 81–94; M. H. Sykes, “The Eucharist as ‘Anamnesis,’ ” ExpT 71 (1960/61); F. Chenderlin, “Do This as My Memorial”: The Semantic and Conceptual Background and Value of Ἀνάμνησις in 1 Corinthians 11:24–25 (AB 99; Rome, 1982); D. B. Capes, “The Lord’s Table: Divine or Human Remembrance?” PRS 30 (2003), 199–209; R. A. D. Clancy, “The Old Testament Roots of Remembrance in the Lord’s Supper,” ConcJ 19 (1993), 35–50.
This view was advocated most notably by H. Lietzmann, both in his commentary and in his monumental Mass and Lord’s Supper (1926; ET, Leiden, 1979). Cf. Barrett, 267.
This is the position of Jeremias ( above), to which most of the other studies are in reaction; so also J. C. O’Neill, “ ‘This Is My Body . . .’ (1 Corinthians 11.24),” IBS 24 (2002), 32–43.
E.g., Chenderlin ( above).
One of the great weaknesses in Chenderlin’s presentation lies right here. He works through the semantic field with thoroughness and some degree of carefulness—although he does not deal nearly adequately with absolute vis-à-vis qualified uses of the idea—but he fails almost altogether to note that there might be a difference in the life-setting of Jesus and the present understanding of these words in Paul. Indeed, he criticizes Barrett for making this distinction (Barrett allows the “Godward” sense to Jesus but eliminates it from Paul). But in turn Chenderlin fails to address this issue in any significant way, dealing only with the usage in Paul, and even here tends finally to eliminate the context itself in favor of the semantic field on its own. The point, of course, is that whatever semantic range a word may have, it never has that whole range in any given context; moreover, however wide the semantic range of a given word, for the author/speaker in almost all cases (the exceptions are intentional ambiguity), it has only the singular meaning it was intended to have at that moment. It remains one of the inbuilt ambiguities that makes language such a fascinating part of the human experience.
Lev. 24:7; Num. 10:10; Ps. 37 (title); 69 (title); Wis. 16:6.
That is, when the “remembering” is “Godward,” it is usually clearly so because the text itself is quite explicit.
Although the rabbis differ over whether the bread represents the distress of “our fathers” in Egypt (m. Pes. 10.5) or the haste of their departure (Mek.Ex. 12.39; cf. Philo, spec.leg. 2.158).
This does not exclude the possibility that Jesus “reminded” God of their need of his forgiveness based on his sacrifice. But it would seem that the primary referent is the “manward” one.
Even though both Jeremias and Chenderlin pay lip-service to the larger context, they seem to abandon it almost totally when they examine the word ἀνάμνησις itself. Paul’s concern throughout the passage, and the reason for reminding them of the words of institution, seems altogether to lack a “Godward” dimension. This dimension is precisely what needs to be demonstrated, not the wide semantic range available to Paul. This meal and these words do not urge on them that God remembers Jesus in their behalf, but rather that this meal is a celebration of their common salvation, which their own private meals almost totally ignore.
On the place of this cup in the Passover, see on 10:16.
This is the plain implication of such an ellipsis; it may also, of course, include the blessing, but scarcely the “breaking”—and the distributing is not part of the tradition of Paul and Luke.
Gk. μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι (“after they had eaten”). It is generally agreed that this is a primitive element that reflects a tradition earlier than Mark’s. Grosheide, 270, without evidence, argues that the context implies “not after the whole supper was over, . . . but after the eating of the bread.” But the language implies otherwise.
J. Moffatt, “Discerning the Body,” ExpT 30 (1918/19), 19, notes that, since they ate a real meal, the Supper for them “was not a ‘sacrament’ in the modern sense of the term, i.e. a gathering at which the eating is only a form.”
See .
Cf. the discussion in Marshall, Last Supper, 44–51.
Luke’s version has no verb; in Paul it follows the predicate noun. But no point is to be made of its position, contra W. Ellis, “On the Text of the Account of the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians xi.23–32, with Some Further Comments,” AusBR 12 (1964), 43–51.
But see Barrett, 269, who notes that the phrase has a “limiting effect. Christians must do this not every time they have a meal, but whenever they drink wine. Bread was always available; in ordinary households . . . wine was not.”
Against this is the fact that ὁσάκις does not appear elsewhere in Paul, suggesting that it is not part of his regular vocabulary. But one must be cautious in this case, given the limited number of letters one has to draw conclusions from and that no synonymous expression is found.
See O. Hofius, “Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis. Erwagungen zu 1 Kor 11,23b–25,” ZTK 85 (1988), 371–408.
Holladay, 150, suggests that one cannot be certain whether this sentence also belongs to the tradition or to Paul. The change of person, from first to third, makes it certain that it does not go back to Jesus; the question is whether it belonged to a tradition of the institutional words earlier than Paul. Most likely it is Paul’s own elaboration.
Lit. “the death of the Lord you proclaim until he comes.” Cf. Beverly R. Gaventa, “ ‘You Proclaim the Lord’s Death’: 1 Corinthians 11:26 and Paul’s Understanding of Worship,” RevExp 80 (1983), 380.
Their new spirituality seems to have caused them to miss both points Paul makes here—Christ’s death (cf. 1:18–2:5), until he comes (cf. 1:7; 15:12).
See esp. Gaventa, “You Proclaim,” 381–83.
Gk. καταγγέλλετε (cf. 2:1; 9:14; Rom. 1:8; Phil. 1:17, 18; Col. 1:28), plus 11 more in Acts. In every case it means to preach Christ or the gospel. Cf. J. Schniewind, TDNT 1:70–72. The form here could be an imperative, but that is unlikely.
This view is held inter alios by Weiss, 288; Lietzmann, 58; Lenski, 474; Héring, 118–19; Thrall, 84; Barclay, 48.
See on 16:22 and the possible use of μαράνα θα in conjunction with this meal.
Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 252–54, argues that this ἄχρι οὗ is not simply a temporal reference, but functions as a kind of final clause. In keeping with his “Godward” view of the “remembrance” motif, and along with the maranatha prayer, Jeremias sees this as part of the meal’s function as a constant reminder to God to bring about the Parousia.
The MajT, anticipated by ita and bo, against all other early evidence (P46 A B C D F G Ψ 33 1739 pc lat syh sa) adds a τοῦτον, giving it a more liturgical (and therefore present) sense.
A number of ancient witnesses ( D2 L 326 al syh Ambst) chose to resolve the ambiguity of this adverb by adding τοῦ κυρίου (= “in a manner unworthy of the Lord”).
The MajT, following the lead of the Latin and Syriac versions, adds ἀναξίως from v. 27 (cf. the next note). The original text is found in P46 * A B C* 6 33 1739 pc co. This addition and the next one are understandable attempts to conform this sentence to v. 27, but in so doing they considerably alter the sense. See the commentary.
The NIV has added “of Christ” for purposes of clarification and interpretation; this appears also to have been an attempt to let the advanced reader know that they were not thereby following the actual text of the majority of ancient witnesses who had done the same thing (“of the Lord,” c C3 D F G K P Maj it sy [“of the Lord Jesus”]); it is missing in the best early evidence (P46 * A B C* 6 33 1739 1881* pc co Pel). Regarding Paul’s original text itself, this is secondary on every count. It was added on the analogy of v. 27, and probably for the same reason the NIV translators did. Had it been original, it is nearly impossible to account for its omission, esp. in a liturgical text, where addition, not omission, is nearly always the rule. It appears also to distort Paul’s own concerns at this point; see the commentary. Cf. Metzger, 562–63.
The MajT (against P46 * A B D F G 33 1739 pc) has changed this δέ to an explanatory γάρ.
Even though the two acts of eating and drinking are separated by the disjunctive ἤ, the genitive “of the Lord” refers to both the bread and the cup, just as in the following clause it refers to both the body and the blood.
These words are not in Paul’s own text; they are added to help the reader make sense of his rather clipped “guilty of the body”; NRSV has “answerable for” (cf. NAB, “will have to answer for”).
The context makes it clear that to “eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord” means simply to participate in the meal known as the Lord’s Supper. Paul is not trying to give special significance to the bread and wine per se. Indeed in Paul’s version the cup is not identified with the blood in any case, but with the new covenant brought about through the poured-out blood, thus through Christ’s death. His reason for spelling it out in this way is almost certainly related to the reason for reiterating the words of institution in itself: to remind the Corinthian believers of what this meal is all about, namely a time for experiencing and proclaiming their common salvation in Christ through his “body and blood,” i.e., his death “for us.”
Gk. ἀναξίως, a NT hapax legomenon (although it is added by later scribes to v. 29).
This is esp. true in the more pietistic sectors of the Protestant tradition. People are “unworthy” if they have any sin in their lives, or have committed sins during the past week. This in turn resulted in reading v. 28 personally and introspectively, so that the purpose of one’s self-examination was to become worthy of the Table, lest one come under judgment. The tragedy of such an interpretation for countless thousands, both in terms of a foreboding of the Table and guilt for perhaps having partaken unworthily, is incalculable—and seems to have missed Paul’s point almost altogether, which makes its being carried over in the NAB esp. puzzling.
Chrysostom clearly recognized this. Unfortunately, a higher interest in the Table per se and in sacramentalism has often caused the text to be read independently of its present context, so that a variety of other options have been suggested for “unworthily”: without self-examination, not realizing the real presence, without contemplation of the crucified body of Christ, with any form of sin in one’s life, etc. See the list in W. Ellis, “Text,” 45.
This literal translation follows the KJV, which in this case is to be preferred to the NIV’s “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
Gk. ἔνοχος (in the NT: Matt 5:21, 22 [three times]; 26:66; Mark 3:29; 14:64; Heb. 2:15; Jas. 2:10).
Cf. Parry, 171, “will have to answer for.”
Cf. Barrett, 273; Conzelmann, 202; see also 8:12, where to sin against a brother is to sin against Christ.
Gk. δέ, omitted in the NIV, since it is implied in the context.
Gk. δοκιμάζω, the cognate of the adjective used in v. 19 to refer to those who “are approved” (= “those who have already been tested and found genuine”). Cf. the discussion by W. Grundmann, TDNT 2:255–60.
Cf., e.g., 1 Thess. 2:4, where the God “who tests/discerns hearts” has “tested” Paul and entrusted him with this ministry, and 1 Tim. 3:10, where deacons are to be “examined, tested” before being allowed to serve.
As Barrett, 273, put it: “The decision is God’s but [people] may ask [themselves] what decision [they are] likely to earn.”
Gk. μὴ διακρίνων (cf. 4:7; 6:5; 14:29); the participle may sustain either a conditional or a causal relationship to the main verb.
Gk. κρίμα, the noun for the verdict, usually unfavorable as here, handed down by the judge.
See –
But cf. Conzelmann, 202: “This is a variation of v. 27.”
See for the variety of ways in which that was then understood.
A. Ehrhardt, “Holy Sacrament and Suffering,” in The Framework of the New Testament Stories (Manchester, 1964), 256–74, has offered a unique interpretation, in which “body” is understood to refer to one’s own self that should be “separated from” the process of judgment that takes place at the table. See the critique in Barrett, 275.
Cf., e.g., Weiss, 291; Parry, 171; Héring, 120.
It also runs aground on the probability that 10:1–13 reflects a somewhat magical view of the Table on the part of the Corinthians that would tend to take precisely the opposite stance toward the food.
Barrett, 275; cf. Marshall, Last Supper, 114.
This point was made many years ago by Moffatt, “Discerning,” 21–22.
Cf. God’s judgment of Judah in Isa. 1:14–17: “Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me. . . . Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the cause of the widow.”
Gk. διὰ τοῦτο; see the discussion on 11:10.
Gk. κοιμάω; see on 7:39; the attempt by S. Schneider to understand these terms metaphorically has (rightly) fallen on deaf ears (see his “Glaubensmängel in Korinth. Eine neue Deutung der ‘Schwaben, Kranken, Schlagenden’ in 1 Kor 11,30,” FilolNT 9 [1996] 3–19).
On the unlikelihood that this passage is related to 5:5 see the commentary on that verse.
Paul has used two words for illness, ἀσθενεῖς and ἄρρωστοι; the former is the common word for physical weakness of any kind, including sickness. The latter is less common in the NT; it literally means “powerless,” but had taken on the more specific meaning of “being sick or ill.”
Barrett, 275, suggests a connection to 10:20–21, and says that those “who abused the Lord’s table were exposing themselves to the power of demons, who were taken to be the cause of physical disease.” But there is no hint of this in the text, and the association with chap. 10 seems quite unwarranted, since that involved the “worship of demons” in the idol temples. That is a long way from the abuse recorded in this section.
He also reverts once more to the first person plural—in this case, as often elsewhere, as a means of identifying with them in these theological statements, even if he has had nothing to do with their behavioral aberration. Cf., e.g., 2:7; 5:7–8; 6:3; 8:8; 10:16.
This seems to make more sense in the context than the suggestion that Paul intended that they should “discern” themselves in the “examination,” meaning something like “distinguishing between what we are and what we ought to be before coming to the Lord’s Supper” (Parry, 171).
The imperfect in both the protasis and apodosis implies action that is in fact going on, and makes it certain that he is referring to the “judgments” and “discerning” that have just preceded.
Gk. παιδευόμεθα (cf. 2 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:20). Inherent in this usage is the idea of “correcting by discipline.” On the use of the word in the Greco-Roman world and the NT, see G. Bertram, TDNT 5:596–625; cf. D. Fürst, NIDNTT 3:775–80.
It is easy for the reader to miss the inherent “high Christology” implied by this phrase, so much so that, despite Paul’s consistent usage of κύριος to refer exclusively to Christ, in this instance it is regularly assumed that Paul is here referring to God the Father (see, e.g., the NAB; cf. the commentaries by Collins [436]); on this matter see my Pauline Christology, 138.
Gk. κατακρίνω; this is the final wordplay on κριν- words. If we were “discerning” (διακρίνω) ourselves, we would not be coming under judgment (κρίνω); but when we are being judged (κρίνω) it is to correct us by discipline so that we will not be condemned (κατακρίνω) with the world.
This is language taken from a gospel song from my youth, “Christ Receiveth Sinful Men,” written in 1718 by a Lutheran minister, Erdmann Neumeister, and later translated into English by Emma Frances Bevan, whose chorus goes: “Sing it o’er and o’er again, Christ receiveth sinful men; Make the message clear and plain, ‘Christ receiveth sinful men,’ ” to which the appropriate response is “Amen!”
The MajT adds a δέ, reflecting typical scribal uneasiness with asyndeton. It is missing in P46 * A B C D* F G 33 81 pc lat.
See above on v. 22.
This is one of only three occurrences of this more personal note with the vocative in this letter (see 1:11; 14:39; cf. “my beloved brothers and sisters” in 15:58).
Gk. ἐκδέχεσθαι, cf. 16:11 below.
The verb occurs elsewhere in Paul only in 16:11, where it has the meaning “expect.” BDAG offer as its primary meaning “to remain in a place or state and await an event or arrival of someone.”
Cf. NRSV, ESV, NEB, REB, NAB; for this meaning see such diverse texts as 3 Macc. 5:26; Jos., Ant. 7.351; and the Tebtunis Papyrus I.33 (cited by MM and LSJ).
Gk. ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, see e.g., 1:7.
Gk. κρίμα (as in v. 29).
Gk. πνευματικός (“when I have come, whenever that may be”). Cf. 4:19 and 16:5.