1 Cor 10.14-22 - Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper

AN INTERPRETATION OF PAUL'S LORD'S SUPPER TEXTS: 1 CORINTHIANS 10:14-22 AND 11:17-34 By Calvin L. Porter References and allusions to the Lord's Supper can be found throughout the New Testament. While some are obvious, others are less familiar. Those which come to mind immediately because they are heard in the Sunday observance of the Lord's Supper include the narratives of the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 14:12-25; Matthew 26:17-29; Luke 22:7-38) and Paul's instructions to the Corinthians in which the tradition of the Lord's Supper is cited. Paul also refers to the Lord's Supper in relationship to his exhortation to "shun the worship of idols" (1 Chrinthians 10:14-22) when he writes, "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Beyond these familiar texts the Book of Acts refers to the practice of persons gathering together for "the breaking of bread" (2:42; 2:46; 20:7; 20:11; 27:35). I cite one instance: "And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." The Gospel stories of the feeding of the four thousand and the five thousand (Mark 6:30-44; 8:1-10; Matthew 14:13-21; 15:32-39; Luke 9:1017; John 6:1-13) clearly contain eucharistie language: "And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples to set before the people" (Mark 6:41). Additional references are embedded within the narratives of the postresurrection appearances. In one story (Luke 24:13-35) two disciples returning home to Emmaus encounter a stranger for whom they provide hospitality. The guest becomes the host who "took bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them." In yet another story in the Johannine Epilogue (John 21) Jesus becomes known to a group of the disciples when he says to them, "Come and have breakfast" and then "took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish." Whether or not other texts refer to the Lord's Supper depends on the interpreter's judgment. This is especially true of texts in the Gospel of John; namely, the episode of the wedding at Cana (2:1-11), the bread *Calvin L. Porter teaches New Testament at Christian Theological Seminary; his paper was presented at the 1987 meeting of the Association of Disciples for Theological Discussion. ENCOUNTER

50:1

(29)

WINTER, 1989

30

Encounter

discourse (chapter 6 ) , and the vine symbolism (chapter 15). Some of the banquet parables of the Synoptic Gospels may be understood as alluding to the Lord's Supper. A case in point is Luke 13:29: "And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the Kingdom of God." Who can be certain whether or not texts like those found in Revelation (3:20), "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to them and eat with them and they with me." and in Hebrews (13:10), "We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat." allude to the Lord's Supper? Some writers within the tradition of the Disciples of Christ have understood Paul's appeal to the Galatians, "0 foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?", as referring to the Lord's Supper. William Robinson explains the text: Now the Galatians had never seen Him crucified. They had been living in Galatia at the time. When, therefore, had they ever seen Him visibly depicted crucified? . . . it was this they had seen every time they had gathered for the Lord's Supper. The bread had been broken and the wine out-poured and in an eschatological moment they had joined themselves in history to that moment when His body had been marred and broken on the Cross and His blood had been shed, and at the same time had stood within the moment of its fulfillment in His coming again. So Christ had been once again visibly depicted crucified (Robinson: 406.) A similar interpretation of the text occurs in The Church of Christ by Thomas W. Phillips, "A Layman," (Phillips: 338-39). Paul's Lord's Supper texts (1 Corinthians 10:14-22 and 11:17-34) are particularly important because Paul uses the Lord's Supper traditions to address issues of critical importance to the church. These texts, the earliest written texts which mention the Lord's Supper, are the only places Paul refers to the Lord's Supper. So that they can be before us I cite them in full from the Revised Standard Version. 14 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel, are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply

31

An Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper Texts then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? "k Vc *V

17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you this? No, I will not. 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home lest you come together to be condemned. About other things I will give instructions when I come. The

quest

for

some

origins characterizes most scholarly work

texts.

In

instances, writers

have attempted to

history

of the eucharistie practices and traditions of the

on

reconstruct early

these the

church.

32

Encounter

In other instances, scholars have sought to locate the texts in some reconstructed controversy. The comprehensive and exhaustive inquiry into eucharistie origins carried out by Hans Lietzmann has been influential on subsequent interpretation. In Mass and Lord's Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy Lietzmann, after a thorough examination of the earliest liturgies of the East and West, particularly "the two oldest types of liturgy, that of Hippolytus and that of Serapion" (Lietzmann: 195), concluded that "the gem of the former [that of Hippolytus] is to be found in the practice of the Pauline Churches with which we are familiar through the apostles" and "the Egyptian liturgy, with its distinctive features, is rooted in the Didache form" (Lietzmann: 195). The latter of these he designated "the Jerusalem type" and the former, "the Pauline type." The "Jerusalem type," characterized by the breaking of bread at the beginning of the meal, was the continuation of the table-fellowship, or ordinary meals, of the disciples with Jesus. The "breaking of bread" tradition of the Acts belongs to this type. This type makes no reference to the death of Christ; it is not connected with the Last Supper. Rather, it was marked by joyfulness and it anticipated the reunion of the participants with Jesus at the Messianic banquet. The "Pauline type" centered on the remembrance of the last meal and consequently on the death of the Lord. The meal began with the breaking of bread and ended with the wine-cup as symbols of the body and blood of Christ. Both types have in common eschatological hope of the expected parousia. To the question whether one type developed out of the other, Lietzmann argues that they arose independently. He attributes the origin of the "Pauline type" to Paul on the basis of the text, "I received it from the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:23). Lietzmann states, "The ascended Lord himself revealed it to him" (Lietzmann: 208). He continues, "Even though we are engaged in historical enquiry, we can take him at his word" (Lietzmann: 208). Lietzmann's analysis of origins led him to a hypothesis about the Corinthian situation. It is this hypothesis which has influenced subsequent interpretation, particularly of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Lietzmann argued that Paul had made known to the Corinthians the tradition of the connection of the Lord's Supper with the death of the Lord prior to the occasion of the writing of first Corinthians. He writes, "It is not a case of expounding it to them for the first time in a letter in order to

An Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper Texts defend

them

(Lietzmann: the

against 207).

Jerusalem

Jewish had

type which they had

was

with

the intention of supplanting

no longer a soma to them,

(Lietzmann: them

then

practiced

Church

the

by

Pauline

the type"

207). If they had taken up the "Jerusalem" practice then they

given up the idea of partaking of the body of

bread

until

Rather, he explains, "It is of course conceivable that

type was subsequently introduced into the

Christians

(Lietzmann:

another

33

208).

In

Christ:

and they partook of

"the ordinary

that case the words of Paul would have

to remember the death of Jesus,

blessed food"

challenged

thereby connecting the observance to

that death. I

have included this exposition of Lietzmann's views not in order

argue

for or against it but because subsequent

interpreters

to

more-or-less

begin with him and he has established a pattern of interpreting the problem in Corinth as a conflict over eucharistie theology.

It is widely held that

the conflict was between the observance of an Agape meal and the observance of

the

Lord's

Supper.

I cite two examples illustrating this

interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

model

of

In both it is assumed that what is at

issue is conflict over the character of the supper. According

to

Walter

Schmithals

in

Gnosticism in Corinth

the

instigators of the disorder were Gnostics who sought to sabotage the cultic observance

and

to transform it into a profane

Günther Bornkamm in an essay,

feast

(Schmithals: 255).

"The Lord's Supper and Church in Paul," also

interprets the material in terms of a conflict over eucharistie theology or "the

right

Corinthians

understanding

of

the

Lord's

Supper."

For

were "robust sacramentalists" who attached all

Bornkamm importance

the sacramental act and made the common meal a matter of indifference. is

his contention,

that Paul vigorously opposed the "absolutizing of

the to It the

sacramental communion" and "a conception which perverted the sacrament into a magic working 'medicine of immortality1" (Bornkamm: 147). Turning influential

from

this all too brief review of the work of important

interpreters,

I propose an alternative reading of the

one which is not based upon a hypothesis about the source of the in

Corinth.

I

propose

to analyze the

texts

as

texts.

Even

and

texts, conflict Walter

Schmithals acknowledges the methodological problem inherent in his proposal to reconstruct the .

background

unfortunately

or source

of

the conflict.

reasons for the disorders in the Supper at Corinth. is

thrust

He explains:

Paul does not give us any indication at all of the Every

back in the same way on conclusions a posteriori"

interpretation (Schmithals:

34

Encounter

255). He does acknowledge correctly, I am convinced, that there is "no doubt at all that it was the divisions in the community which in the last analysis caused the unedifying conduct of some at the observance of the Supper" (Schmithals: 255) about which Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Close scrutiny of the two texts, 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 and 11:17-34, reveals that they are only indirectly about the Lord's Supper. The subject matter is not the Lord's Supper. The texts do not address the topic of the Lord's Supper. This is widely acknowledge to be the case with 10:14-22. This text begins with the admonition, "Therefore, my beloved, shun (pheugete apo) the worship of idols." The text concludes with a rhetorical question, "Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? (10:22), a question which certainly relates to the opening admonition. The motifs of idolatry and jealousy go hand in hand as Deuteronomy 32:21 indicates: "They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god; they have provoked me with their idols." Almost no one questions that 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 is about idolatry. But I contend that the subject matter of 11:17-34 also is not the Lord's Supper. On the one hand, the section is frequently described in terms similar to those of A.J.B. Higgins, "abuses at the Lord's Supper in the Church of Corinth" (Higgins: 64), or to those of the notes of The New Oxford Annotated Bible, "Directions concerning the Lord's supper" (May and Metzger: 1390). On the other hand, Wayne Meeks in The First Urban Christian supports the point I want to make. He writes, "Paul cites the Eucharistie traditions only in order to address certain conflicts which have arisen in the Corinthian congregation" (Meeks: 159). A close reading of the text indicates that it addresses divisions or disorders within the community. Note the following items: "when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse (11:17); "there are divisions among you" (vs. 18); when they eat together "each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk" (vs. 21); some "despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing" (vs. 22). We ought not assume a disorder in the Lord's Supper itself. Neither should we assume opposing views about the Lord's Supper within the Corinthian church. The fact that the material pertaining to the Lord's Supper occurs within a discussion of other issues is significant. This structure suggests that the tradition of the Lord's Supper and the interpretation of that tradition is highly relevant to the life of the church, particularly to ethical reflection. This point will be examined more fully later.

An Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper Texts

35

The language of the two Pauline texts supports the contention that the Lord's Supper is relevant to ethical discourse. The texts contain language which is common to Greek and Hellenistic moral discourse. to cite all the evidence here. to

that

of

especially

In some instances alternative translation

the Revised Standard the

Version

following expressions:

idols" (10:14);

It is impossible

sharpens

this

point.

Note

"shun (pheugete) the worship of

"I speak as to sensible men (phonimois)"

(10:15);

"judge

for yourselves (krinate huméis) what I say" (10:15); "I do not commend (ouk epaino) you" kreisson . No,

(11:17);

is not for the better but for the worse

(to

. . to esson)" (11:17); "shall I commend (epainso) you in this?

I will not (epaino, untranslated)" (11:22); "let a man examine himself

(dokimazeto)" (11:28); "But

"without discerning (diakrinon) the body"

(11:20);

if we judged (diekrinomen) ourselves truly, we should not be judged

(ekrincmetha)" we

"it

(11:31);

"But when we are judged (krinomenoi) by the Lord,

are chastened (paideuometha)" (11:32);

"that we may not

(katakrithomen) along with the world" (11:32);

be

condemned

"lest you come together to

be condemned (krima)" (11:34). Two

verses

require more

extensive

comment

because

translations effect the interpretation significantly. 11

reads in the Revised Standard Version as follows:

factions as

chapter

"for there must

(haireseis) among you in order that those who are

dokimoi) among you may be recognized."

alternative

Verse 19 of

genuine

This verse is generally

be (hoi

construed

explaining why the divisions (schismata) mentioned in verse 18, "there

are

divisions

view.

Gordon

among you," are necessary from an eschatological Fee's

comments

are

typical

of

those

found

point of in

the

commentaries : 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 (literally) "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 "divisions" (Fee: 537-38)? Fee,

acknowledging that this could possibly be irony, argues that it is a

reflection of Paul's "already/not yet" eschatological perspective. He also argues that it is in keeping with the teaching of Jesus. Instead of having recourse to this sort of explanation, mean

the word "haireseis" can be taken to

"choices," "options," or "courses of action" in which case the verse

36

Encounter

then

emphasizes the necessity of making decisions in the face of options:

"for

there must be choices among you in order that those who

among

you may

extensive (Moulton

be recognized."

evidence

from

and Milligan:

James Moulton and

the papyri in support 13).

H.G.

are genuine

George Mil ligan cite

of

such a

translation

Liddell and Robert Scott also provide

instances in which such translation is appropriate (Liddell and Scott: 41). Such a translation strengths the ethical character of the material. Verse 32 of chapter 11, "That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.",

can be construed in different ways.

The interpretation

of Hans Conzelmann is typical. Instances of sickness and death are consequences of offending against the sacrament. Is Paul thinking of a magical effect on the substance or of material consequences of guilt, divine punishment? The context shows that he is in fact thinking of punishment of this kind. His teaching is not concerned with the elements, but with conduct and punishment (Counzelmann: 203). The

significant words used in verse 32, "astheneis" ("weak"),

("ill"),

and

that is moral weakness and deadness. words,

"arrostoi"

"koimontai" ("have died") can be construed in a moral sense,

"and

some

In relationship to the last of these

have died," a particularly interesting text

occurs

in

Plutarch's essay De Superstitione. But to the superstitious man it is possible to say, "The gift of sleep which the gods bestow on us as a time of forgetfulness and respite from our ills; why do you make this an everlastingly painful torture-chamber for yourself, since your unhappy soul cannot run away to some other sleep?" Plutarch then quotes Heracleitus. Heracleitus says that people awake enjoy one world in common (hena koinon kosmon einai) but of those who are fallen asleep (ton koimomenon) each roams about in a world of his own (idion, private). But the superstitious man enjoys no world in common with the rest of mankind; for neither when awake does he use his intelligence (to phonounti), nor when fallen asleep (koimomenos) is he freed from his agitation, but his reasoning is sunk in dreams, his fear is ever wakeful, and there is no way of escape or removal (Plutarch: 166,C). Instead have

of

fallen

"and some have died" I take the text to be saying

that

"some

asleep in the sense that they are roaming about in their own

private world

and are failing to use their

intelligence."

reading underscores the ethical character of the material.

Again,

this

An Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper Texts The

two

interpretation moral

Pauline occur

reflection

idolatry, One

texts

in which

Lord's

Supper

37 tradition

and

call for the community to engage in theological

and

discourse

on the one hand,

on the

issues

facing

the

and

community—

community division and disorder, on the other.

concerns the relationship of the community to the dominant social

cultural world.

and

The other takes up the life of the community itself.

In

each case the standard, norm, or criterion for that critical reflection and discourse

is

the

Lord's Supper

tradition.

The

provides the criterion for appropriate behavior.

interpreted

tradition

Turn again to the

texts

beginning with 10:14-22. After

stating

the subject matter—"shun the worship

of

inviting the readers to "judge" or "decide" for themselves,

idols"—and

the text turns

to the Lord's Supper: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation (koinonia) in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation (koinoina) in the body of Christ?" This

verse

tradition.

(vs. The

Kasemann,

for

16) has

been

identified as

a

piece

text apparently quotes commonly accepted example writes,

".

.

of

pre-Pauline

belief.

. while Paul refers to

Ernst

the

early

Christian tradition in vs. 16, he interprets it in vs. 17" (Kasemann: 110). the interpretation offered in the text is as follows: Because there is one bread (heis artos) we who are many are one body (hen soma) for we all partake (metechomen) of the one bread (tou henos artou). This

interpretation

leads

of the tradition forms the principle or

to certain conclusions.

axiom

which

Those who partake of the one loaf are,

in

spite of their plurality, one body. Having established that critical point, from "the people of Israel" (vs.

the text turns to an

analogy

18) and poses a rhetorical question which

expects a positive response, "Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners (koinonoi) says

in the altar?" The text cites this analogy to support what

about

the commonality of those who partake of the one bread

at

it the

Lord's table. The

text then eliminates the possibility that "food offered to idols"

and "the reality of idols" are the issues (vs. 19): "What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?

No, I

imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God."

The

issue concerns participating in the rituals of other religious groups.

The

38

Encounter

text concludes with a statement of that exclusivity: "You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (vs. 21). Fundamental allegiance is at stake. The text does not demand retreat from pagan culture. Rather, it establishes the point that those in the Corinthian community must not participate in the religious meals of their pagan neighbors. The argument is made using the interpreted tradition related to the Lord's Supper. A similar pattern of argumentation occurs in the longer text, 11:1734. Verses 17-22 describe the disorders within the Corinthian church. When they meet together it is "not for the better but for the worse" (vs. 17). There are divisions. Eating and drinking is taking place but it is not the Lord's Supper. Some are hungry; others are drunk. The abuses seem to move in two directions. The primary problem was an abuse of the church itself. What is at stake is the church itself. This is specifically stated in the rhetorical question of verse 22: "Do you despise (kataphroneite, "look down on," "scorn," "treat with comtempt," "care nothing for") the church of God? A secondary, but related problem is the social one. This is stated in the second rhetorical question: "Do you humiliate (kataischunete, "disgrace," "put to shame") those who have nothing?" At this point in the text the Lord's Supper tradition is cited: "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. . ." (vs. 23). The tradition itself continues through verse 25. Verse 26 sets forth an interpretation of the tradition: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." It is this interpretation of the tradition, and not the tradition itself, which becomes the criterion for the argumentation which follows. In other words, the interpretation bridges the distance between the tradition and the practice of the church. This distinction between tradition and interpretation finds wide-spread support. C K . Barrett, for example, explains: "It is probable that the material received by Paul from the tradition (verse 23) ends at verse 25; . . . He now adds a further sentence underlining the connection between the Supper and the death of Christ. . ." (Barrett: 270). The critical question posed by the interpretation (vs. 26) is whether the verb, "to proclaim" is to be construed as meaning that the Lord's Supper itself is the proclamation, or, as meaning that there is a verbal proclamation of Christ's death in connection with the Lord's Supper.Nothing

An Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper Texts

39

is to be gained here by citing critics who support each position. The reasoning of Hans Conzelmann defies explanation: Does Paul mean that the Eucharistie action as such is a proclamation of the death of the Lord, or is he thinking of an explicit proclamation accompanying it? Since there is no such thing as a sacrament without accompanying proclamation, we have to assume the latter (Conzelmann : 201 ). Beverly Gaventa in an article on this verse has argued persuasively that "Paul understands the Supper itself as an act of proclamation." She writes: "What Paul says here is that when believers celebrate the Lord's Supper they proclaim the death of the Lord in its eschatological significance. The celebration itself demonstrates the gospel" (Gaventa: 383). Implicit in the proclamation is the recognition of the "brother and sister for whom Christ died" (1 Corinthians 8:11). The text establishes this point: the action in the Lord's Supper proclaims the death of the Lord. That fact has consequences for the church. In verses 27-32 the text moves back to the problems in the church. The section begins by referring to the language of the tradition: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." This translation of the Revised Standard Version, particularly the phrase "guilty of profaning" distorts the text; there is no justification for it. The Greek word "enochos" means "subject to," or, in legal parlance, "liable, answerable, guilty" (Arndt and Gingrich: 267). In light of this, I propose another reading of the text: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be held responsible to 'the body and blood of the Lord.'" The principle is that of accountability. The call for self examination or testing (dokimazeto) picks up an earlier motif in verse 19, "that those who are genuine (dokimoi) among you be recognized." Critical self examination describes the mode or manner of participation in the Lord's Supper. A warning follows (vs. 29): "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body (diakrinon to soma) eats and drinks judgment upon himself." The phrase "not discerning the body" has been interpreted to mean either (1) failure to recognize the Lord's body, that is, the significance of his death, as they eat, or (2) failure to recognize the church, that is, the Body of Christ. Instead of choosing between these options, I suggest that both have merit. The affirmation is that eating and drinking without making the connection

40

Encounter

between

the death of the Lord and the church is to eat and drink

on oneself.

I am not alone in believing this to be the case.

judgment

Charles H.

Talbert explains the connection, "Given the context, failure to discern the body can mean only inability to perceive the Christian unity rooted in sacrifice

of

Christ

and actualized in the sacred meal"

Geoffrey Wainwright concurs. He writes,

".

.

the

(Talbert: 79).

.we are pointed towards a

dual understanding of soma in v. 29, both the eucharistie and the ecclesia! body

being

relationship

intended" results

(Wainwright:

185).

Failure

to discern

this

in (vs. 30) "moral weakness," "powerlessness," and

some "falling asleep," or, as I have suggested earlier, "some roam about in their

own

private world,

"judgments" would

not

failing to use

have

their

intelligence."

occurred if those in

the

church

These

had

been

examining themselves in relationship to the death of the Lord proclaimed in the

Lord's Supper.

That examination requires critical self-reflection in

relationship

to

discussion:

"But when we

the church and to one another. are

judged by the

Verse 32 Lord, we

completes are

(paideuometha) so that we may not be condemned along with the world." be

judged

"by the Lord" most certainly can be taken as referring

Lord's Supper, been to

especially the interpreted tradition,

"received from the Lord."

To

to the

the tradition having

The verse also connects the Lord's

the important Greek notion of "paideia,"

the

chastened

"upbringing,"

Supper

"instruction,"

"discipline," "education," "guidance." Having must

argued theologically from the Lord's Supper,

"discern the body" as they eat,

specific situation of the church. the

point.

together "wait

The

that the readers

the text concludes by moving to the

The proposed solution is simple and

first practical solution is that when the

to eat they are to "receive" (ekdechesthe,

for") one another.

church

comes

"accept," "welcome,"

The second proposal is that eating to

hunger is to be done at home.

to

satisfy

A final word is added urging these actions

"lest you come together to be condemned along with the world." The

text thus moves from a descriptive statement of the disorders

the church to the interpretation of the tradition. then used

in

That interpretation is

as the criterion for critical reflection on the church's

life.

Out of that theological reflection proposals for a revised practice are set forth. From my reading of Paul's Lord's Supper texts I propose the tentative reflections and questions.

following

An Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper Texts

41

That the Lord's Supper has a forming and transforming power in the lives of the participants almost goes without saying. Within our Disciple tradition, Alexander Campbell expressed this point of view. About the "breaking of bread" he writes: It is to him [the intelligent Christian] as sacred and solemn as prayer to God, and as joyful as the hope of immortality and eternal life. His hope before God, springing from the death of his Son, is gratefully exhibited and expressed by him in the observance of this institution. While he participates of the symbolic loaf, he shews his faith in, and his life upon, the Bread of life. While he tastes the emblematic cup, he remembers the new covenant confirmed by the blood of the Lord. With sacred joy and blissful hope he hears the Saviour say, "This is my body broken—this my blood shed for you." When he reaches forth those lively emblems of his Saviour's love to his christian brethren, the philanthropy of God fills his heart, and excites correspondent feelings to those sharing with him the salvation of the Lord. Here he knows no one after the flesh. Ties that spring from eternal love, revealed in blood and addressed to his senses in symbols adapted to the whole man, draw forth all that is within him of complacent affections and feeling to those joint heirs with him of the grace of eternal life. While it represents to him all the salvation of the Lord, it is the strength of his faith, the joy of his hope, and the life of his love. It cherishes the peace of God, and inscribes the image of God upon his heart, and leaves not out of view the revival of his body from the dust of death, and its glorious transformation to the likeness of the Son of God (Campbell: 175). This understanding of the Lord's Supper relates to the contemporary discussions of the "ethics of character" which are concerned with the duration, growth, and unity of the self. While this is an important consideration in relationship to the Lord's Supper, it is not the most important point of this paper. Because I wanted to call attention to the fact that the texts include a consideration of the Lord's Supper in the discussion of other issues of importance, I have insisted that these two texts from 1 Corinthians are not directly about the Lord's Supper. The structure of the texts itself communicates something about the character of the Lord's Supper—its ethical or moral character. The Lord's Supper is not unrelated to the issues before the church. The Lord's Supper is not primarily a commemorative event in which participants individually remember the death of Jesus as a past event. Neither is it the experience of Christ as present in the community that is primary. In fact, 1 Corinthians 11:26

42

Encounter

•suggests

the absence of Christ:

"For as often as you eat this bread

drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." is not on "spiritual uplift" or "personal communion."

and

The emphasis

The Lord's Supper is

a dramatic setting forth of the Lord's death—an action which has moral and ethical

implications and consequences.

Those who eat and drink

"without

discerning the body" fail to recognize and acknowledge this relationship of Supper

and

ethics.

Not

only is the Lord's

Supper

a

dramatic

action

proclaiming God's love for each and all—"You proclaim the Lord's death."— it also sets forth God's requirement of justice for each and all—"When you come together to eat, receive one another." William

Robinson's

convictions about the Lord's Supper

concur

with

this interpretation when he writes : Christianity is the Good News about God's action as Holy Energy, personally directed and morally conditioned. . . . And this holy action was perpetuated and actualized in the dramatic action of the sacraments. . It was the Real Action of God in the Sacraments which was central in early Christian thought, rather than the Real Presence (Robinson: 405, 406). There is a further crucial point. case

studies in practical theology,

The two texts from 1

Corinthians,

use the interpreted tradition of

the

Lord's Supper as the criterion for criticizing the church's practice and as the basis for recommended action. what

ways

can

consideration

the

of

which

interpreted Lord's

issues

practices today?

The question that emerges is this.

emerging out of

Supper the

tradition church's

the right observance of the Lord's Supper? Table?

celebrants? While

commitments

to and

I do not intend for this question to be limited to those

are related to eucharistie theology and practice:

Lord's

contribute

In

In what

way

is Christ

What constitutes

Who should be included at present?

Who

are

the

the

proper

Certainly these are important issues for the church. the claim is made among Disciples that "we are a people of

the

Table" or "the Lord's Supper is central for us" I find little evidence that indicates

that

criterion

for

we

employ the interpreted Lord's Supper

Disciples

as

coming to terms with and deciding upon the issues vital

the life of our church. is more

tradition

Even in ecumenical discussions the Lord's

of a problem than it is a criterion for ethics. thought

theologically

When

and critically about moral

issues with the Lord's Supper at the core of that reflection? it mean for us to do that?

What

to

Supper

have

and

a

the

ethical would

Do we not contribute to the "privatization" of

the Supper when we fail to think about the ethical issues facing the church

An Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper Texts

43

with the Lord's Supper as criterion for critical reflection? Those are some of the questions which Paul's Lord's Supper texts pose for us.

44

Encounter BIBLIOGRAPHY

William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957). C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968). Günther Bornkamm, "Lord's Supper and Church in Paul," Early Christian Experience (New York: Harper & Row, 1969). Alexander Campbell, "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things," "No. VI, On the Breaking of Bread: No. 1," The Christian Baptist, edited by D.S. Burnet, Cincinnati, [Vol. 3, No. 1 (August 1, 1825)]. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). Gordan Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians William B. eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987).

(Grand

Rapids:

Beverly Roberts Gaventa, "'You Proclaim the Lord's Death": 1 Corinthians 11:26 and Paul's Understanding of Worship." Review and Expositor, vol. 80, No. 3 (Summer, 1983), pp. 377-388. A.J.B. Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New Testament Biblical Theology"; No.T5 (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1952).

("Studies in

Ernst Kasemann, "The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord's Supper," Essays on the New Testament Themes ("Studies in Biblical Theology"; No. 41) (Naperville: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1964). Hans Lietzmann, Mass and Lord's Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979. Originally published m German in 1926)7 Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, new edition by Henry Stuart Jones, (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1940). Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, The New Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973). Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). James Hope Moulton and George Mil ligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, Limited, 1930). Thomas W. Phillips, "A Layman", The Church of Christ (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, Fourteenth Edition, 1909). Plutarch, Plutarch's Moralia, An English Translation by Frank Cole Babbitt. "The Loeb Classical Library." (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928).

An Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper Texts

45

William Robinson, "The Nature and Character of Christian Sacramental Theory and Practice," The Shane Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4 (October, 1941), pp. 399-408. Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971). Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987). Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology University Press, The American Edition, 1981).

(New York:

Oxford

^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.