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

7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.14-22 - Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper

1/18

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 inwhich 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 9:10-

17; John 6:1-13) clearly contain eucharistie language: "And taking the

five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, andblessed, and broke

the loaves, andgave them to the disciples to set before the people" (Mark

6:41).

Additional references are embedded within the narratives of the post-

resurrection appearances. In one story (Luke 24:13-35) two disciples

returning home to Emmaus encounter a stranger for whom they provide

hospitality. Theguest becomes the host who "took bread andblessed, 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 andhave 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 ofJohn; namely, the episode of the wedding at Cana (2:1-11), the bread


2/18

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. Theyhad been living in Galatia at the time. When,therefore, had they ever seen Him visibly depictedcrucified? . . . it was this they had seen every timethey had gathered for the Lord's Supper. The bread had

been broken and the wine out-poured and in aneschatological moment they had joined themselves inhistory to that moment when His body had been marred and

broken on the Cross and His blood had been shed, and atthe same time had stood within the moment of itsfulfillment in His coming again. So Christ had beenonce 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. 15I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what Isay. 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 ofChrist? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are manyare one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18


3/18

An Interpretation of Paul's Lord's Supper Texts 31

then? That food offered to idols is anything, or thatan idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans

sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do notwant you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannotdrink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. Youcannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table ofdemons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Arewe stronger than he?

"k Vc *V

17 But in the following instructions I do not commendyou, because when you come together it is not for thebetter but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place,when you assemble as a church, I hear that there aredivisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for

there must be factions among you in order that those whoare 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! Doyou not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do youdespise the church of God and humiliate those who havenothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend youthis? No, I will not.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered toyou, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was

betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, hebroke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you.Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way alsothe cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the newcovenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drinkit, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eatthis bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord'sdeath until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cupof the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of

profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a manexamine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink ofthe cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks withoutdiscerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and somehave died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, weshould not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by theLord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemnedalong 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 origins characterizes most scholarly work on these


4/18

32 Encounter

In other instances, scholars have sought to locate the texts in some

reconstructed controversy. The comprehensive and exhaustive inquiry intoeucharistie 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, isrooted 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 theparticipants 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


5/18


defend them against another type which they had until then practiced

(Lietzmann: 207). Rather, he explains, "It is of course conceivable thatthe Jerusalem type was subsequently introduced into the Church by the

Jewish Christians with the intention of supplanting the Pauline type"

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

had given up the idea of partaking of the body of Christ: "the blessed

bread was no longer a soma to them, and they partook of ordinary food"

(Lietzmann: 208). In that case the words of Paul would have challenged

them to remember the death of Jesus, thereby connecting the observance to

that death.I have included this exposition of Lietzmann's views not in order to

argue for or against it but because subsequent interpreters 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 model of

interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. 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 feast (Schmithals: 255).

Gnther Bornkamm in an essay, "The Lord's Supper and Church in Paul," also

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

"the right understanding of the Lord's Supper." For Bornkamm the

Corinthians were "robust sacramentalists" who attached all importance to

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

is his contention, that Paul vigorously opposed the "absolutizing of the

sacramental communion" and "a conception which perverted the sacrament into

a magic working 'medicine of immortality1" (Bornkamm: 147).

Turning from this all too brief review of the work of important and

influential interpreters, I propose an alternative reading of the texts,

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

in Corinth. I propose to analyze the texts as texts. Even Walter

Schmithals acknowledges the methodological problem inherent in his proposal

to reconstruct the background or source of the conflict. He explains:


6/18

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 lastanalysis 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 rhetoricalquestion, "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 interms 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 thecommunity. 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 occurswithin a discussion of other issues is significant. This structure


7/18


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. It is impossible

to cite all the evidence here. In some instances alternative translation

to that of the Revised Standard Version sharpens this point. Note

especially the following expressions: "shun (pheugete) the worship of

idols" (10:14); "I speak as to sensible men (phonimois)" (10:15); "judge

for yourselves (krinate humis) what I say" (10:15); "I do not commend (ouk

epaino) you" (11:17); "it is not for the better but for the worse (to

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

No, I will not (epaino, untranslated)" (11:22); "let a man examine himself

(dokimazeto)" (11:28); "without discerning (diakrinon) the body" (11:20);

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

(ekrincmetha)" (11:31); "But when we are judged (krinomenoi) by the Lord,

we are chastened (paideuometha)" (11:32); "that we may not be condemned

(katakrithomen) along with the world" (11:32); "lest you come together to

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

Two verses require more extensive comment because alternativetranslations effect the interpretation significantly. Verse 19 of chapter

11 reads in the Revised Standard Version as follows: "for there must be

factions (haireseis) among you in order that those who are genuine (hoi

dokimoi) among you may be recognized." This verse is generally construed

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

are divisions among you," are necessary from an eschatological point of

view. Gordon Fee's comments are typical of those found in the

commentaries :

Having mentioned the "divisions" of which he has beeninformed, and that he is well disposed to believe hisinformants, Paul adds a theological aside, apparently asa further justification for his believing them. One ofthe reasons he does so is that (literally) "there mustalso be factions among you so that the approved also

might become manifest among you"a sentence that is oneof the true puzzles in the letter. How can he whoearlier argued so strongly against "divisions amongyou" (1:10-17; 3:1-23) now affirm a kind of divinenecessity to "divisions" (Fee: 537-38)?

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

fl i f l l d / h l i l i l


8/18

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 are genuine

among you may be recognized." James Moulton and George Mil ligan cite

extensive evidence from the papyri in support of such a translation

(Moulton and Milligan: 13). H.G. 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 ofoffending against the sacrament. Is Paul thinking of a

magical effect on the substance or of materialconsequences of guilt, divine punishment? The contextshows that he is in fact thinking of punishment of thiskind. His teaching is not concerned with the elements,but with conduct and punishment (Counzelmann: 203).

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

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

that is moral weakness and deadness. In relationship to the last of these

words, "and some have died," a particularly interesting text occurs in

Plutarch's essay De Superstitione.

But to the superstitious man it is possible to say, "Thegift of sleep which the gods bestow on us as a time offorgetfulness and respite from our ills; why do you makethis an everlastingly painful torture-chamber foryourself, since your unhappy soul cannot run away tosome other sleep?"

Plutarch then quotes Heracleitus.

Heracleitus says that people awake enjoy one world incommon (hena koinon kosmon einai) but of those who arefallen asleep (ton koimomenon) each roams about in aworld of his own (idion, private). But thesuperstitious man enjoys no world in common with therest of mankind; for neither when awake does he use hisintelligence (to phonounti), nor when fallen asleep(koimomenos) is he freed from his agitation, but hisreasoning is sunk in dreams, his fear is ever wakeful,and there is no way of escape or removal (Plutarch:166,C).

Instead of "and some have died" I take the text to be saying that "somehave fallen asleep in the sense that they are roaming about in their own


9/18


The two Pauline texts in which Lord's Supper tradition and

interpretation occur call for the community to engage in theological and

moral reflection and discourse on the issues facing the community

idolatry, on the one hand, community division and disorder, on the other.

One concerns the relationship of the community to the dominant social and

cultural world. 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 interpreted tradition

provides the criterion for appropriate behavior. Turn again to the texts

beginning with 10:14-22.

After stating the subject matter"shun the worship of idols"and

inviting the readers to "judge" or "decide" for themselves, 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 (vs. 16) has been identified as a piece of pre-Paulinetradition. The text apparently quotes commonly accepted belief. Ernst

Kasemann, for example writes, ". . . while Paul refers to 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 manyare one body (hen soma) for we all partake (metechomen)

of the one bread (tou henos artou).

This interpretation of the tradition forms the principle or axiom which

leads to certain conclusions. Those who partake of the one loaf are, inspite of their plurality, one body.

Having established that critical point, the text turns to an analogy

from "the people of Israel" (vs. 18) and poses a rhetorical question which

expects a positive response, "Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners

(koinonoi) in the altar?" The text cites this analogy to support what it

says about the commonality of those who partake of the one bread at 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?


10/18

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, 11:17-

34. 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 youhumiliate (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, whichbecomes 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. CK. 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


11/18


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 aproclamation of the death of the Lord, or is he thinkingof an explicit proclamation accompanying it? Sincethere is no such thing as a sacrament withoutaccompanying 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 eschatologicalsignificance. 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)


12/18

40 Encounter

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

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

sacrifice of Christ and actualized in the sacred meal" (Talbert: 79).

Geoffrey Wainwright concurs. He writes, ". . .we are pointed towards a

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

body being intended" (Wainwright: 185). Failure to discern this

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

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

their own private world, failing to use their intelligence." These

"judgments" would not have occurred if those in the church 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 the church and to one another. Verse 32 completes the

discussion: "But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened

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

be judged "by the Lord" most certainly can be taken as referring to theLord's Supper, especially the interpreted tradition, the tradition having

been "received from the Lord." The verse also connects the Lord's Supper

to the important Greek notion of "paideia," "upbringing," "instruction,"

"discipline," "education," "guidance."

Having argued theologically from the Lord's Supper, that the readers

must "discern the body" as they eat, the text concludes by moving to the

specific situation of the church. The proposed solution is simple and to

the point. The first practical solution is that when the church comestogether to eat they are to "receive" (ekdechesthe, "accept," "welcome,"

"wait for") one another. The second proposal is that eating to satisfy

hunger is to be done at home. 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 in

the church to the interpretation of the tradition. That interpretation is

then used as the criterion for critical reflection on the church's life.

Out of that theological reflection proposals for a revised practice are setforth.


13/18


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 andsolemn as prayer to God, and as joyful as the hope ofimmortality and eternal life. His hope before God,springing from the death of his Son, is gratefullyexhibited and expressed by him in the observance of thisinstitution. While he participates of the symbolicloaf, he shews his faith in, and his life upon, theBread of life. While he tastes the emblematic cup, he

remembers the new covenant confirmed by the blood of theLord. With sacred joy and blissful hope he hears theSaviour say, "This is my body brokenthis my blood shedfor you." When he reaches forth those lively emblems ofhis Saviour's love to his christian brethren, thephilanthropy of God fills his heart, and excitescorrespondent feelings to those sharing with him thesalvation of the Lord. Here he knows no one after theflesh. Ties that spring from eternal love, revealed in

blood and addressed to his senses in symbols adapted tothe whole man, draw forth all that is within him ofcomplacent affections and feeling to those joint heirs

with him of the grace of eternal life. While itrepresents to him all the salvation of the Lord, it isthe strength of his faith, the joy of his hope, and thelife of his love. It cherishes the peace of God, andinscribes the image of God upon his heart, and leavesnot out of view the revival of his body from the dust ofdeath, and its glorious transformation to the likenessof 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 importantconsideration 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 Supperits

ethical or moral character. The Lord's Supper is not unrelated to theissues before the church. The Lord's Supper is not primarily a


14/18

42 Encounter

suggests the absence of Christ: "For as often as you eat this bread and

drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." The emphasis

is not on "spiritual uplift" or "personal communion." The Lord's Supper is

a dramatic setting forth of the Lord's deathan 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. The two texts from 1 Corinthians,case studies in practical theology, 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. The question that emerges is this. In

what ways can the interpreted Lord's Supper tradition contribute to

consideration of issues emerging out of the church's commitments and

practices today? I do not intend for this question to be limited to those

which are related to eucharistie theology and practice: What constitutes

the right observance of the Lord's Supper? Who should be included at theLord's Table? In what way is Christ present? Who are the proper

celebrants? Certainly these are important issues for the church.

While 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 we employ the interpreted Lord's Supper tradition as a

criterion for coming to terms with and deciding upon the issues vital to

the life of our church. Even in ecumenical discussions the Lord's Supper

is more of a problem than it is a criterion for ethics. When have theDisciples thought theologically and critically about moral and ethical


15/18


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.


16/18

44 Encounter

BIBLIOGRAPHY

William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University ofChicago Press, 1957).

C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968).

Gnther Bornkamm, "Lord's Supper and Church in Paul," Early ChristianExperience (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 tothe Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).

Gordan Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids:William B. eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987).

Beverly Roberts Gaventa, "'You Proclaim the Lord's Death": 1Corinthians 11:26 and Paul's Understanding of Worship." Review andExpositor, vol. 80, No. 3 (Summer, 1983), pp. 377-388.

A.J.B. Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New Testament ("Studies inBiblical Theology"; No.T5 (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1952).

Ernst Kasemann, "The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord's Supper," Essays onthe 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 theLiturgy (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979. Originally published m German in1926)7

Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, newedition by Henry Stuart Jones, (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1940).

Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, The New Oxford Annotated BibleWith the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973).

Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of theApostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).

James Hope Moulton and George Mil ligan, The Vocabulary of the GreekNew Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, Limited, 1930).

Thomas W. Phillips, "A Layman", The Church of Christ (Cincinnati: TheStandard Publishing Company, Fourteenth Edition, 1909).


17/18


William Robinson, "The Nature and Character of Christian SacramentalTheory and Practice," The Shane Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4 (October, 1941),

pp. 399-408.

Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of theLetters to the Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971).

Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and TheologicalCommentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987).

Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, The American Edition, 1981).


18/18

^ 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.

Documents

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