Paul’s Understanding of the Lord’s Supper:

A Call to Social Justice

Alexandra Benson

Religion 344—Paul: Apostle or Apostate?

11/27/2013

1

.

Introduction

Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians regarding the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:17-

34 make it quite clear that Paul is not pleased with the way the Corinthian community has chosen

to celebrate the meal. He reprimands the Corinthians saying that when they “come together it is

not for the better but for the worse” 1 because the community has become divided, with some

members eating their fill of food and drinking more than their share of wine while others are left

to go without. While the church’s contemporary understanding of the significance of the Lord’s

Supper is often centered on the idea of forgiveness, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul sees the

Lord’s Supper as a crucial symbol of unity and a time when followers of Jesus are called to

identify with Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on the cross by serving each other. This understanding of

the Lord’s Supper calls the modern day Church to active engagement in social justice by

working to eradicate divisions creating economic and social hierarchies.

Historical Context

While most commentators agree that serious injustices were causing divisions among the

Corinthian community during the Lord’s Supper, many disagree about exactly what these

injustices looked like. Most scholars suggest that the Corinthians based their practices around

Greco-Roman traditions of the time and that these traditions looked very different from

Christians’ liturgical practice of the Lord’s Supper today. Henderson points out that the original

Greek term for the “Lord’s Supper” in this passage translates to a phrase closer to “a meal of the

Lord” or “Lord-like meal”, which provides a separation from the strict interpretation of “The

Lord’s Supper” that only involves bread and wine in most churches today.2 Additionally, the

surrounding passage in chapter 11 focuses primarily on social issues (divisions among the people

1 1 Corinthians 11:17 NRSV 2 Susanne Watts Henderson, “’If Anyone Hungers…’: An Integrated Reading of 1 Cor 11.17-34,”

New Testament Studies 48, no. 2 (2002): 199.

2

.

in terms of wealth, food, and spiritual gifts), not on the forgiveness of sins or issues of eternal

salvation. 3 However, even this “ordinary meal” has enormous consequences for the structure of

the whole community. As Mary Douglas notes, “Every meal—especially when taken together

by more than one person—encodes significant messages about social and hierarchical patterns.”4

Most scholars suggest that the divisions among the Corinthians were primarily based on

economic class. The Corinthian community, and the Greco-Roman world in general, was one of

great economic and social diversity. It was uncommon for people of different classes to associate

with one another in most social and political contexts. However, the practices of the Church

challenged social structures and brought together a diverse group of people for worship and

fellowship. Because these blended communities were not in line with the norm, it is not

surprising that the Corinthians would not know how to act when associating closely with those of

other classes and instead would follow Greco-Roman social norms reinforcing these class

divisions. 5 Paul, however, is quite adamant in his insistence that the Christian community is to

be an exception to the hierarchical Greco-Roman customs and that members of the Christian

community are expected to share their resources with one another. In the case of the Corinthians,

it is apparent that some members of the community were overindulging in the food and wine,

while others were left with nothing, which is obviously not what Paul had in mind. 6

Smith proposes five hypotheses as to what the Lord’s Supper tradition in the Corinthian

church looked like historically. All five suggest that in addition to sharing bread and wine, the

3 Ibid., 199. 4 Rachel M. McRae, “Eating with Honor: The Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of Voluntary

Association Meal Practices,” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011):166. 5 Barry D. Smith, “The Problem with the Observance of the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian

Church,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 20, no. 4 (2010): 519. 6 C.K. Barrett, Black’s New Testament Commentary: The First Epistle to the Corinthians

(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1968), 263.

3

.

Corinthians ate an entire meal together as part of a larger celebration, often called an “agape

feast.”7

Sequential Sponsored Hypothesis

Smith’s first hypothesis, the “Sequential Sponsored Hypothesis” suggests that the poor

were not withheld the bread and wine (also known as Brotritus and Kelchritus), but received less

food during the rest of the meal. Because the first churches met in individual homes,8 it is likely

that the wealthy members of each community served as the hosts of the meal. Consequentially,

the wealthy hosts also probably provided most of the food; however, they did not wait for the

poorer members of the community to arrive before beginning to eat. By the time the poor

arrived, little food was left over for them to enjoy. 9According to Bornkamm, by placing special

emphasis on the Brotritus and Kelchritus, the wealthy may have “rationalized” their behavior by

suggesting that the rest of the meal held little significance and therefore was not necessary for the

poor. They also may have thought that sharing an entire meal across social classes would simply

cause too much “social friction” and would therefore create further divisions in the Christian

community.10 Smith argues that this is the most probable hypothesis, but he continues to explore

the other four, recognizing them as legitimate possibilities supported by other scholars.

Sequential Potluck Hypothesis

The second hypothesis proposed by Smith is the “Sequential Potluck Hypothesis,” which

suggests that instead of the wealthy providing the food for everyone, each person was expected

to contribute equally to the meal, as in a potluck. The poor were not able to provide as much

food as the wealthy and were therefore shamed within the community. This hypothesis also

7 Smith, “Problem with the Observance,” 521. 8 Richard A. Horsley, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians (Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 1998), 160. 9 Smith, “Problem with the Observance,” 521. 10 Ibid., 522.

4

.

suggests that the wealthy began eating before the poor arrived, as was frequently the custom in

the Greco-Roman world in both the Serapis (a pagan feast) and the eranos meal (another Greco-

Roman tradition.) 11

Inhospitable Hypothesis

Smith’s third hypothesis, the “Inhospitable Hypothesis” suggests that everyone ate

together, but everyone brought their own food to eat (and each person ate only what they brought

for themselves.) Consequently, the poor would not have as much to eat as the wealthy.12

According to Horsley, the NRSV translates the verb in 11:33 as “wait for one another,” but the

translation should really be something like “receive one another.” 13 This translation makes sense

in the context of the Inhospitable Hypothesis because instead of simply waiting for each other,

the Corinthians are encouraged to extend hospitality to each other in sharing the food more

equally.14

Private Meal Hypothesis

In his fourth hypothesis, the “Private Meal Hypothesis,” Smith proposes that the wealthy

host the meal, providing plenty of bread and wine for everyone (as in the Sequential Sponsored

Hypotheis.) However, the wealthy first engage in their own “private meal” that the poor are

simply not invited to. This hypothesis also suggests that the wealthy later consume more of the

bread and wine than the poor do. 15

11 Ibid., 522. 12 Ibid., 523 13 Horsley, Abingdon, 159. 14 Smith, “Problem with the Observance,” 523. 15 Ibid., 524.

5

.

Eranos Hypothesis

Finally, the fifth hypothesis, the “Eranos Hypothesis” suggests that the Lord’ Supper in

the Corinthian church was modeled after the traditional Greco-Roman eranos meal.16 Lampe

finds this particular hypothesis to be the most compelling option. The eranos meal consisted of

two separate meals, called the First and Second Tables.17 People brought their own food,

sometimes sharing it as a potluck, sometimes eating only what they brought for themselves.

Either way, the first guests to arrive, usually the wealthy, enjoyed the first meal (first tables)

together. First tables was followed by a break in which new guests would arrive, in this case the

people of lower classes. (In the eranos tradition, it was common for guests to arrive late or to just

come for part of the evening’s celebrations.)18 Second tables followed the break, but the wealthy

would have already eaten most of their food and the poor could not afford to bring much food,

thus creating a disparity in the amount people were able to eat and drink.19 Second tables

probably consisted of the bread (Brotitus) among other food that people brought for themselves.

This second meal was usually followed by a “drinking party” of sorts, which probably became

the Kelchritus in the Christian tradition.20

Because the eranos tradition was so common in the Corinthians’ culture, Lampe argues

that it is quite possible that the Corinthians did not realize the detrimental effects the tradition

was having on the Christian community. Lampe points out three distinct problems the eranos

tradition created for the Corinthian’s practice of the Lord’s Supper. First, and perhaps most

obviously, people brought different portion sizes for themselves. The wealthy, who could afford

both a larger quantity and a higher quality of food, therefore had more to eat than the poor, who

16 Ibid., 527. 17 Peter Lampe, “The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on the Cross,” Interpretation 48 (1994): 38. 18 Ibid., 40. 19 Ibid., 39. 20 Smith, “Problem with the Observance,” 527.

6

.

probably did not have the time nor the money to prepare a sufficient meal for themselves.

Second, some people, presumably the wealthy, started eating early (which coincides with the

practice of the first tables.) Therefore, by the time the poor showed up, the wealthy did not have

much left to share, even if they had been willing to do so. Finally, Lampe describes the physical

lay-out of a traditional Greco-Roman household and argues that those who only came in time for

second tables probably did not have a place to sit in the main dining room. The triclinium, or

main dining room, usually only comfortably fit about twelve people. Most likely these twelve

were the most elite members of the community. The less wealthy latecomers would have had to

eat in the atrium of the home, separate from the more privileged members of the group. 21

Value Code

McRae takes a bit of a different approach to understanding the source of the divisions

among the Corinthians community. Her ideas are in consensus with the eranos hypothesis, but

she suggests that the “honor and shame value code” of the time contributed to the divisions more

so than economic divisions. McRae explores the Greco-Roman honor system which appeals to

the idea of “limited good,” meaning that “all good things exist in limited quality.” Therefore, the

honoring of one person meant the shaming of another person. Shame was equivalent to a general

lack of recognition, so those who were held in the highest esteem were those who held leadership

positions within the group, contributed most noticeably to society, or who possessed the spiritual

gifts Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 12 .22 McRae argues that while the wealthy in society had an

increased chance of receiving honor and recognition, the divisions at the Lord’s Supper were

based primarily on the level of honor one received in society, not necessarily the amount of

wealth one possessed. It was possible for the less wealthy to work their ways into positions of

21 Lampe, “The Eucharist,” 39. 22 McRae, “Eating with Honor,” 169.

7

.

honor within the Christian community.23 However, Schottroff and Barrett agree with Lampe and

Smith in that the factions were most likely rooted in class divisions.24 Still, the key to

understanding this text is in the idea that these divisions existed—some people were viewed as

being more important than others and as a result, they received more food and drink while those

who were understood as lower in society received very little (or nothing at all.)

Paul’s Response

Paul responds to the situation in the Corinthian church by challenging the Corinthians to

treat the Lord’s Supper as a time of unity in which social and class lines no longer hold

significance. By following the example of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, members of the

community should be willing to give of themselves and their possessions out of compassion for

their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Paul shows little tolerance for the Corinthians’ current practices, and his language is

harsh as he rebukes the Corinthians for their behavior. In verse 22 he says, “What! Do you not

have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate

those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do

not commend you!” Later in verse 29, Paul says “For all who eat and drink without discerning

the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.” The passage even insinuates that this

judgment is resulting in sickness and death of members of the community. Wells argues that the

“body” refers to the body of Christ, meaning the members of the community. Those who take

part in the Lord’s Supper without considering the rest of the community “eat and drink judgment

23 Ibid., 176. 24Luise Schottroff, “Holiness and Justice: Exegetical Comments on 1 Corinthians 11.17- 34,”

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 79, (2000):53. ; Barrett, Black’s New Testament, 261.

8

.

against themselves.”25According to Horsley, “Paul is pleading with those whom he sees as

obsessed with ‘devouring their own dinner’ to ‘discern the body’ of the assembly as a whole and

to ‘receive’ the others in the solidarity of the covenant community Christ had founded in the

Lord’s Supper.” 26

In regard to verse 22, Barrett suggests that Paul is directing the rich to eat in their own

homes if they insist on eating a higher quality meal than the poorer members of the community.

That way the community practice of the Lord’s Supper takes on a crucial egalitarian component

and the food that everyone eats together will no longer cause divisions.27 Similarly, Lampe

argues that Paul is saying that if the wealthy absolutely cannot wait for the rest of the community

to arrive, they should eat at home beforehand and then wait to share their food baskets with the

whole community.28 Henderson, however, asserts that the wealthy are instead deeply encouraged

to share all of their food with the poor members of the community. Henderson acknowledges the

claims of other commentators who suggest that instead, the sacred components of the meal (the

bread and the wine) should be separated from the ordinary meal in order to ensure equality

among the factions. This also assumes that the acts of the community should be separated from

the acts inside a private home.29 In response, Henderson argues that “[i]n chapter 11, as in the

letter as a whole, Paul’s first impulse here is not towards liturgical propriety but towards the

integrity, the wholeness, of the community.”30 This plea for community wholeness is grounded

in Paul’s recount of the Last Supper in 11:23-26.

25 Wells, “Word of Love: The Sacramental Itinerary of 1 Corinthians,” Anglican Theological

Review, 93, no. 4 (2011): 596. 26 Horsley, Abingdon New Testament,163. 27 Barrett, Black’s New Testament, 263. 28 Lampe, “The Eucharist,” 42. 29 Henderson, “If Anyone Hungers,” 196. 30 Ibid., 198.

9

.

Paul places the account of the Last Supper directly in the middle of his discussion about

the Corinthians current practices. By doing so, he centers the entire practice on the words and

acts of Jesus. Verse 23 says that Paul is passing on the tradition that he “received from the Lord,”

suggesting that the tradition of the Lord’s Supper is significant because it originates from Jesus

himself. Henderson argues that in the original Greek, Paul’s account of the institution of the

Lord’s Supper reads something like “This of me is the body, broken for you,” which places an

extra emphasis on Jesus’ sacrifice of himself for others (as compared to the account in Luke

which is translated closer to the traditional “my´body” version.) 31 Consequently, Henderson

contends that the following “Do this in remembrance of me” (verse 24) is best understood as “Do

this, that is, give yourselves (and your resources) up for others, just as I am doing for you.”32

Lampe offers a similar solution. He agrees with Henderson in that Paul is not calling for a

separation between the bread and wine and the rest of the meal. Lampe proposes that Paul is

instructing the Corinthians to first wait for the whole community to gather before blessing the

bread. After the bread has been blessed, the Corinthians should partake in a “Eucharistic potluck

dinner that nourishes everybody,” which is to be followed by the “blessing of the cup.” Finally,

everyone should drink the wine and worship together.33 By intentionally breaking down the

barriers creating divisions within the community, Paul is trying to reestablish the Lord’s Supper

as a celebration “based on values such as equality, rather than hierarchy; mutual servitude, rather

than competition; and humility, rather than the upward mobility enshrined in the power

structures of the Greco-Roman world.” 34 Paul advocates for this reversal of values largely

31 Ibid., 201. 32 Ibid., 202. 33 Lampe, “The Eucharist,” 41. 34 McRae, “Eating with Honor,” 180.

10

.

through verse 26: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s

death until he comes.”

The practice of the Lord’s Supper must be based on the values and consequences of the

sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death.35Those who partake in the Lord’s Supper are then called to

embody these values through humble service and care for other members of the community.

Barrett argues that when Paul speaks of the “covenant” in verse 25, he speaks not only of a

covenant with Christ but of a covenant among members of the community. Black says, “Those

who enter into a covenant with the Lord naturally enter at the same time into a covenant with one

another, and a covenant community is thereby established.”36

Connections to Paul’s Broader Thought

Torvend highlights many of the aspects of Jesus’ life rooted in service and selflessness,

especially in his willingness to share meals with sinners and less prominent members of society.

The second chapter of Mark illustrates Jesus’ meal with “tax collectors and sinners.” As Torvend

notes, “by sharing meals with tax collectors, prostitutes, and unethical rascals, working for food

on the Sabbath, and directing his followers to welcome the chronically sick and mentally

disturbed to their meals, was Jesus not revealing the hospitality of God that seemingly knows no

limitations?”37 Paul saw Jesus’ sacrifice as embodying the very nature of God , so to root the

practice of the Lord’s Supper in Jesus’ death is to root it in his sacrifice. Jesus lived a life of self-

sacrifice and service; although this came to a climax on the cross, Jesus’ sacrifice was by no

means a onetime event. He held a lifelong commitment to loving and serving others. Paul sees

35 Henderson, “If Anyone Hungers,” 200. 36 Barrett, Black’s New Testament, 269. 37 Samuel Torvend, Daily Bread, Holy Meal: Opening the Gifts of Holy Communion

(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004), 45.

11

.

God “reveal[ing]” God’s power by allowing it to be “broken apart and given away, poured out,

for anyone who needs it.” 38

Manus too connects Paul’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper with the larger story of

the Bible. He draws connections with the story of the Exodus and the Passover meal in

particular. According to Manus, Christians’ liberation in Christ is a parallel to the story of the

Israelite’s liberation from slavery in Exodus. Throughout his life, Jesus poured himself out for

the sake of the poor and needy, and the Last Supper was given as a way to remember him and his

cause. Therefore, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is an occasion where people can gather as

free people of God, joined in unity around the table where they share in Christ’s body and

blood.39

First Corinthians is filled with Paul’s appeals to unity within the Corinthian community

on the basis of Jesus’ sacrifice. Chapter 3 addresses conflicts between different house churches

and the leaders they chose to follow (either Paul or Apollos), but Paul argues that all belong to

God and encourages the Corinthians to stop making distinctions among themselves. Chapter 12

is devoted to a discussion concerning spiritual gifts and how all gifts are needed to form the body

of Christ. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 8:11 (as well as Romans 14:15), Paul points out that Christ

died for the weak, meaning that the weak are also fully part of the Christian community, and in 1

Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul writes, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the

blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there

is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” In chapter 10,

Paul examines the divisions created by Jewish food laws and instructs members of the

community not to “seek your own advantage, but that of the other” (10:24).

38 Ibid., 51. 39 Chris Ukachukwu Manus, “The Eucharist: A Neglected Factor in Contemporary Theology of

Liberation,” African Ecclesial Review 27, no. 4, (1985): 202 .

12

.

Paul’s emphasis on giving of oneself is evident throughout many of his other letters as

well. In Philippians 2, Paul quotes a traditional Christian hymn emphasizing Christ’s “self-

denial.” He uses this hymn to instruct the Philippians to “not look to your own interests but to the

interests of others”40 and to follow the example of Christ who “humbled himself and became

obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.” 41 Wells argues that 1 Corinthians as a

whole is an illustration of Philippians 2. Paul is urging the Corinthians to live in humility, model

Christ, and to live and die “in Christ.”42 Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians concerning the

Lord’s Supper are a prime example of what modeling Christ’s death looks like.

Paul’s call to action in Galatians is also based on the idea of eradicating divisions within

the community (this time based on the degree to which Christians should observe Jewish law.)

In Galatians 5:13-14 Paul writes, “For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do

not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to

one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your

neighbor as yourself.’” First Corinthians 11:17-34 is really all about loving one’s neighbors as

oneself by sharing of one’s resources and disregarding the economic and social divisions that

create a sense of hierarchy in the community.

Implications for the Contemporary Church

To follow Paul’s instructions would require the Church to show radical love and

hospitality to all people, something the Church strives to do but unfortunately often comes up

short. To truly live out the covenant made to one another through the Eucharist, Christians are

called to not only show radical love and hospitality to members of their own congregation, but

the larger Church, including people of different social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. This

40 Philippians 2:4 NRSV 41 Philippians 2:8 NRSV 42 Wells, “Word of Love,” 584.

13

.

includes the “indispensable” yet weaker members of the body that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians

12:22. Manus presents a challenge to Christians in suggesting that “becoming one body carries

with it serious responsibility to the needy or poor brothers and sisters,”43 and Lampe argues:

In the Eucharist, Christ’s death is not proclaimed only by the liturgical words that

accompany the sacramental acts. No, in the Eucharist, Christ’s death is also proclaimed

and made present by means of our giving ourselves up for others. Our love for others

represents Christ’s death to other human beings. Only by actively loving and caring for

others does the participant in the Eucharist “proclaim” Christ’s death as something that

happened for others.

If then the Eucharist is an act of “giving ourselves up for others,” those who partake in

the sacrament of Holy Communion are called to fulfill Jesus’ command to “Love your neighbor

as yourself.”44 By ignoring this command, Christians “eat and drink judgment against

themselves.” The western contemporary Christian understanding of Holy Communion has

become incredibly individualized, with the significance of the sacrament becoming almost solely

placed on the forgiveness of sins. No doubt this is an integral part of the sacrament, but with the

loss of the significance of community, Christians lose an important call to social justice.

This call to social justice has serious implications for the Church in the United States, as

we live in a land of abundance with an ever-growing divide between the haves and the have-nots.

In an era of mega-churches and multi-million dollar sanctuaries, it may be time to ask if the

priorities of the Church are in the right place. Churches too often become a social club for white

suburban America when more than anything they need to be a place of refuge for the broken.

Instead of worrying about the color of the new carpet or constantly arguing about whether an

organ or a guitar provide the best worship experience, the Body of Christ should pour energy

into caring for the poor and empowering the oppressed. Instead of sending a message of

43 Manus, “The Eucharist: Neglected Factor,” 204 44 Mark 12:31 NRSV; Matthew 22:39 NRSV

14

.

exclusivity, Christians should be sending one of radical hospitality and grace, inviting others to

join in the journey.

Paul’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper calls attention back to Jesus. The whole point

is to “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes,” to become united as the Body of Christ and to

be sent forth as the Body of Christ to share in Jesus’ mission. As Paul explores in 1 Corinthians

12, all parts of the body are necessary for the body to function. Different people bring different

gifts, and as a result they have different roles to fill. However, all gifts come from the same

Spirit45 and are to be used for the “common good.”46

Completely disregarding societal divisions of economic class, race, gender, sexual

orientation, and the like may seem radical, but Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians in chapter

11 are no less progressive. He urges the Corinthians to engage in a lifestyle defying social norms

of the time, caring for each other in all aspects of life. They are to feed each other as much in the

literal sense as in the spiritual sense. By “proclaiming the death” of Jesus, the Christians of

Corinth are called into an all-encompassing lifestyle; they are not simply given instructions for

worship on Sunday mornings. The contemporary Church is still being called into the same way

of living—a lifestyle dedicated to social justice and compassion for all members of the Body of

Christ.

45 1 Corinthians 12:4 NRSV 46 1 Corinthians 12:7 NRSV

15

.

Bibliography

Barrett, C.K. Black’s New Testament Commentary: The First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers 1968.

Henderson, Suzanne Watts. “’If Anyone Hungers…’: An Integrated Reading of 1 Cor 11.17-34.”

New Testament Studies 48, no. 2 (2002): 195-208.

Horsley, Richard A. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians. Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 1998.

Lampe, Peter. “The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on the Cross.” Interpretation 48 (1994):

36-49.

Manus, Chris Ukachukwu. “The Eucharist: A Neglected Factor in Contemporary Theology of

Liberation.” African Ecclesial Review 27, no. 4, (1985): 197-208.

McRae, Rachel M. “Eating with Honor: The Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of

Voluntary Association Meal Practices.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011):

165-181.

Schottroff, Luise. “Holiness and Justice: Exegetical Comments on 1 Corinthians 11.17-34.”

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 79 (2000): 51-60.

Smith, Barry D. “The Problem with the Observance of the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian

Church.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 20, no. 4 (2010): 517-544.

Torvend, Samuel. Daily Bread, Holy Meal: Opening the Gifts of Holy Communion.

Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004.

Wells, Christopher. “Word of Love: The Sacramental Itinerary of 1 Corinthians.” Anglican

Theological Review 93, no.4 (2011)