Remembering Jesus - The Lord's Supper
ABUSE & CORRECTIONS
Remembering Jesus - The Lord's Supper
ABUSE & CORRECTIONS
The first and only extensive description in the New Testament of a group of Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper is found in 1 Corinthians 11. It is an ironic picture because the church is not actually observing the memorial in a legitimate way. However, it is a very helpful section for us because it contains a lengthy teaching about the meaning of the Supper and what is involved when the church truly participates in it.
It is worthy of note that this is also the only place in the entire New Testament where this observance is specifically called the “Lord’s Supper” (kuriakon deipnon), although 1 Corinthians 10:21 does speak of “the table of the Lord.” This teaching has echoes which need to be traced for possible implications in the Corinthian church setting. John’s gospel refers to the last Passover Jesus kept with His disciples as “supper,” or “the supper” (Jn. 13:2, 4; 21:20). We remember this supper consisted of special food and drink to remind them of the hardship of bondage and the historical Passover when they escaped death and made their exodus because of the blood of the sacrificed lamb on their doorposts. Also, we saw there were vegetables and meat of the sacrifice, along with wine, comprising an ordinary meal which was eaten with great joy and praise. Then, out of this setting, Jesus gave special significance to the unleavened bread and the cup.
Shortly afterward, the church came into being and the early Christians began to keep not the Passover supper, but the Lord’s Supper. The first example of this in Acts says “they devoted themselves ... to the breaking of bread ...” (2:42). Campbell quotes Hackett with approval concerning this phrase. He says, “Te klasei tou artou denotes the breaking of the bread, as performed at the Lord's Supper.” Campbell continues, “The expression itself may designate an ordinary meal, as in Luke 24:35; but that here would be an unmeaning notice. There can be no doubt that the Eucharist, at this period, uniformly by a common repast, as was the case when the ordinance was instituted. Most scholars hold that this was the prevailing usage in the first centuries after Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:20 ...” (Campbell, Translation from the Greek and Complete Notes on the Text).
Others maintain slightly different views. For example, with reference to Acts 2:42, F.F. Bruce says that the Lord’s Supper appears to have formed part of an ordinary meal with emphasis on the act of breaking the bread. He also makes a similar observation about Acts 20:7, where one finds the only mention in the New Testament of Christians meeting on the first day of the week to “break bread.” Note: The NEB (New English Bible) translates “on the Saturday night,” a phrase which has not been well received by those who see it as an ill-advised use of a “dynamic equivalent.”
Christians were not, of course, attempting to eat a Passover meal. The Lord had instituted His supper from elements of the Passover Feast. Therefore, the unleavened bread and the cup remained, while the other food items were eliminated. However, as we have seen, there was a meal eaten in some relation with the Lord’s Supper. It may have been before, during, or after the Lord’s Supper. The picture is not clear enough to speak dogmatically about the order of eating in relationship to the Lord’s Supper, per se. It is logical to assume the Passover order, as described earlier, was the general model; that is, after preliminaries, there was the breaking of the bread which signified Jesus' body, was eaten, then the “blessing cup” of the Passover became the cup signifying Jesus’ blood. Then, the common meal ended with songs of praise and the “consummation cup” with a blessing.
This common meal, held in some relation with the Lord’s Supper, was called the “love feast” (agape). It is specifically attested in the New Testament at Jude 12, and probably at 2 Peter 2:13. It served as an occasion of table fellowship; it provided for expressions of brotherhood. Since it was a charity feast, it was an excellent opportunity for the well-to-do to share their hospitality and food with the “have nots” (Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak).
This characteristic sharing (koinonia) in table fellowship was, no doubt, often a house church arrangement. The New Testament frequently speaks of Christians meeting in houses (Rom. 16:23; Col. 4:15; Phile. 2; Acts 2:46; 12:12). “A typical Christian cell was normally small, limited by the physical capacity of the house in which it met. The owner of the house functioned as host or patron” (John E. Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment).
Now, let us imagine the church at Corinth as we come to the “Lord’s Supper” passage in 1 Corinthians 11. Gaius is likely the host when “the whole church” (1 Cor. 14:23) comes together. Archaeology has shown that the typical house of the well-to-do at Corinth would have a courtyard (atrium) and a dining room (triclinium) available to accommodate guests. Together, the two rooms could hold about fifty people with necessary separation into the two rooms. The cliques present in the Corinthian church would find an atmosphere to flourish in such an arrangement. It would foster groupings around common loyalties and also on economic grounds. The more private and formal dining room would attract the wealthy, where they could recline while eating. The remainder ate sitting in the atrium. Roman social customs also allowed distinctions in the quality and amount of the food for guests of different economic status. This brings us to 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 with background which should help us analyze it accurately. This passage logically divides into four parts: verses 17-22 describe a situation within the church at Corinth which made it impossible for them to eat the Lord’s Supper; verses 23-26 give Paul’s teaching concerning the true significance and fellowship (koinonia = communion) involved in the proper observance of the feast; verses 27-32 emphasize instructions and warnings designed to help them partake acceptably; verses 33-34 add a major instructive guideline the Corinthians badly needed, with a final note alerting them about more instructions, possibly on other matters, when he sees them.
It is very difficult to keep a proper balance in the exegesis of this entire passage for two major reasons: (a) A knowledge of the context is invaluable. Without it we would be handicapped. (b) In our weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, we have been repeatedly impressed at the Lord’s Table with Paul’s description of Jesus' inaugurating the Supper. This is in order. However, this description stands in the very middle of our text under study. If we allow it to stand alone, we tend to forget Paul’s motive for delivering it. With these preliminary observations before us, we now turn to verses 17-22.
In the larger context of chapter 11, Paul is discussing abuses in the Corinthian worship. This, then, is the “umbrella” under which Paul discusses the Lord’s Supper in this section; and, as we see, Paul is certainly not offering a commendation to the Corinthians (v. 17a). In fact, the conditions under which they held their assemblies and approached the Lord’s Supper resulted in their being in a worse condition than before (17b). But why? Because their assemblies were divided assemblies. Paul knew about some of their divisions. They showed evidence of loyalties to men above their message, since it is inconceivable to view Paul, Peter, and Apollos preaching different gospels (1 Cor. 1:10-17). However, the divisions Paul is presently addressing have to do with when they assemble as a church (ekklesia) (v. 18).
Paul’s knowledge of these divisions seems not to come from the report of Chloe’s people (1 Cor. 1:11). He speaks of his information in this case as “hear say” (v. 18), which he obviously does not reject. Neither would the arrival of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Archaicus to see Paul in Ephesus have been the source of his information, since their coming brought him joy and refreshment (1 Cor. 16:17-18). A conjecture is that Paul heard this news “on the side” from one of Chloe’s people (a slave?) who had suffered from the type of division which existed in the assembly at Corinth. Paul then makes the generalization that factions have a way of eventually identifying the genuine as opposed to the false (v. 19).
Then Paul strikes hard. “When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat” (v. 20). Note Paul is not speaking of their intentions. “The Christians intended to be eating the Lord’s Supper; Paul’s complaint is that their malpractice renders what they do something other than their intentions” (Will F. Orr and James Arthur Salther, The Anchor Bible).
Here we have the beginning of a sad commentary on what had happened to their love feast and the Lord’s Supper kept in conjunction with it. Keep in mind the scenario of the house church meeting which we drew earlier and Paul's mention of Gaius, “who is host to me and the whole church,” when he writes to the church at Rome from Corinth (Rom. 16:23). Verse 21 describes the insensitivity and utter selfishness of the “haves” toward the “have-nots.” “They do not wait for latecomers (e.g., slaves) nor share what they have. Each is interested only in his own (emphatic) supper, not the Lord’s. The divisions of verse 18 are obviously based on money and class” (Norman Hillyer, The Bible Commentary).
These divisions do not reflect the “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos” sentiments. They grow out of the Roman culture of the times. They are counter to the Christian spirit of compassion which marked so well the early church. So, being a gathering marked by worldly, instead of godly actions and appetites. It had degenerated into a spectacle of disgrace. Those who had nothing, except for the unleavened bread and wine, were left hungry; those who had food brought it, or were provided some by the host. They over indulged. They were so disrespectful of the poor they did not wait for them to arrive at the “so-called” agape feast.
Verse 22 consists of a series of rhetorical questions. The strong implication is they were addressed primarily to those who had plenty of food and drink and were not hungry. The answers are obvious. If their motive in coming to the feast is to gorge and drink to surfeit, they should eat at home. By making a distinction among members of the church, they were making a mockery of the very body of Christ. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). Thus, their sectarian spirit demonstrated that they despised (kataphroneo) God’s church (an “inward” disposition) and humiliated (kataischuno) the unfortunate ones (an “outward” demonstration). The inclusio reflected in verses 17 and 22 “I do not commend you ... Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not,” indicates the strong negative thrust of everything he has said. This concludes the first section of our text.
The second part, verses 23-25, is so familiar to us from repeated exposure that we must struggle to grasp and retain its solemnity, dignity, beauty, and crucial significance for our lives. There is a startling irony in human nature that often causes us to think of trivial things while surrounded by the deeply profound. The Corinthians had fully trivialized the Lord’s Supper. That was bad enough, but the ultimate tragedy was that they did not know it. We see in verse 23a that Paul is motivated to give the first written account to a congregation which had desecrated the Supper of how that Supper was instituted, what it means, and the proclamation involved. “Whether this teaching came to Paul directly (by a vision; cf. Gal. 1:12) or indirectly (by men; 1 Cor. 15:1-7), it came with the Lord's authority” (David K. Lowery, The Bible Knowledge Commentary).
On that betrayal night (Matt. 26:20-25 and parallels) Jesus took bread. Scenes of Passover and the paschal lamb come to mind. Verse 24 says “when he had given thanks and broke the bread” (eucharistesas-eucharisteo). This feature of “giving thanks” was stressed in later times to such an extent that it gave rise to the popular appellation “eucharist” for the Supper. Jesus’ breaking of the bread would have been early in the context of the seder, that we have studied. Since it was from the seder that these events arose of which Paul speaks, we know the bread was unleavened. Paul does not say so here.
After breaking the bread He said, “This is my body which is for you.” The literature on this sentence is immense. This is due to the evolutionary development of eucharistic theology through the centuries. It does not fall within the scope of this study to attempt a history of the theology of the Lord’s Supper. We simply offer a quote which reflects our position. “The identification of the bread with the body is semitic imagery in its heightened form. As in all such identifications, he means ‘this signifies/represents my body.’ It lies quite beyond Jesus’ intent and the frame-work within which he and his disciples lived to imagine that some actual change took place, or was intended to take place, in the bread itself. Such a view could only have arisen in the church at a much later stage when Greek modes of thinking had rather thoroughly replaced semitic ones.” (Gordon D. Fee, Corinthians in: “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” The New International Commentary on the New Testament).
“Do this in remembrance of me.” (eis ten emen anamnesin), Jesus said. This seems so straightforward. But is it? Does Jesus mean to eat the bread, remembering Him? If so, why did He not say so? He said, “do,” not “eat;” He said “this,” not “bread.” Do this “in remembrance” of Me. It is well to note that “remembrance” is not a verb. “Remember” is a verb; “remembrance is a noun. Jesus did not say, “Eat bread while remembering me.” He said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” The verb “do” suggests more than merely eating. “Remembrance” suggests a certain state of being, not action, per se. (An analogy may illustrate. One may say, “‘Marrying’ is an exciting experience, but ‘marriage’ may have its dull moments.” In this sense, “marrying” is performing an act, while “marriage” is a state of being.) Therefore, it is quite possible that Jesus meant, by what He said, for them to keep the entire supper, including assembling, prayer of thanksgiving, breaking, passing, and eating the bread – all in a state of remembrance. This state of remembrance would certainly not be some kind of fleeting thought or momentary vague impression or feeling aroused at the single moment of ingesting the bread. “The Passover ‘remembrance’ is intended to reactualize what is remembered. In the same way, to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in ‘remembrance’ of Christ means to seek fresh communion with Him ...” (R.S. Wallace, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).
In verse 25 the subject shifts to the cup. The “cup” is an obvious metonymy for the contents of the cup. In the Passover meal the “cup(s)” was wine mixed with warm water. The gospel of Luke reflects the seder order more clearly than Matthew and Mark. He seems to speak of the introductory “cup of sanctification,” (Lk. 22:17-18), which Jesus used to emphasize the finality of this supper with them before the kingdom of God should come. Also, according to some manuscripts, Luke has closer affinities with Paul than do the other gospels. In both Luke and Paul, Jesus says, “This is my body which is (given) for you.” Also, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Both Luke and Paul speak of Jesus taking the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood ...” (Lk. 22:20). In seder order this would be the “cup of blessing” after the normal Passover meal.
Jesus identifies this cup as the new covenant (he kaine diatheke) in His blood, which is poured out for man (Mk. 14:24). In other words, the fruit of the vine stands for Jesus’ blood, shed in death, which ratified the new covenant. The parallel is seen in Exodus 24:8 where the agreement between God and His people was sealed with the sprinkling of the blood of sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ, with His blood, ratified the new covenant, the “last will” as diatheke originally meant.
The phrase, “as often as you drink it,” necessitates repeated observance. We know that at Troas the church met specifically on Sunday to keep this feast (Acts 20:7), and the churches of Galatia and Corinth, too, met on the first day of the week for other purposes as well, (1 Cor. 16:1-2). The Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10) was indeed a special day when Christians had the sacred privilege of communion with their sacrificed, victorious Lord. At the close of verse 25, Paul has concluded his presentation of what he had previously received and delivered (paredoka) to them, that is, the “tradition” (paradosis) about the Lord’s Supper (also 1 Cor. 11:2).
At verse 26, he stresses that every time they take the Lord’s Supper they “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” He is not saying that each partaking is an eternal proclamation; rather, each Lord’s Supper is an attestation of the Lord's sacrificial death, memorialized in the emblems, until He, as the One who lives eternally, makes His return (parpousia). The proclamation is continuous; the observance is periodic. However, the dynamic faith of the participants, intensified in a “state of remembrance,” sees the partaking in an eschatological context. The death of Christ is not the end. It is the beginning of the “end of days” (Dan. 12:13). So, each partaking, (“as often as” – all through time), is of eternal significance. So, too, is the unity of the world-wide community which partakes. The fraternal brotherhood, in unison, proclaims the unity of the faithful by meeting around the Lord’s Table. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread,” (1 Cor. 10:17). Of course, verses 29-26 contain Paul’s teaching concerning the true significance and fellowship involved in the proper observance of the feast.
Unfortunately, however, this is exactly what the Corinthians had disregarded. “When you meet together,” Paul says, “it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat,” (11:20). They did not fail because they did not intend to eat the Lord’s Supper. No, they failed because their actions showed they were still in the (Roman) world. They were governed by its mores and motivated by its goals. Each gathering was, in fact, a “proclamation” that they had lost the true meaning of the Supper. As a result, their selfishness and callousness created a tragic schism in the body between those who “had” and those who were hungry. And they went away from this “worship” thinking they had “done their duty!”
The next part of our text, verses 27-32, definitely teaches them they have no grounds for feeling smug or pious. Verse 27 begins with “Therefore” (RSV), “Wherefore” (KJV), “It follows that” (NEB). The word is hoste, used as an illative, signifying the primary idea of “consequently.” Thus, Paul means that in view of what he has delivered to them about the Lord’s Supper (vv. 23-26), the following consequences (vv. 27-32) hold true. So when Paul warns about eating the Supper in an “unworthy manner” he has the Corinthian situation primarily in mind. After all, he is writing to the Corinthian church. Evidence they were partaking in an unworthy manner is seen in two major areas: (a) They exhibited, if not a total misconception, at least a defective conception, of real gratitude for and true understanding of the Lord’s Supper, per se; (b) Many of them showed a lack of regard for their brothers and sisters. These two outstanding defects were made vividly clear by their segregations, insensitivity, selfishness, and drunkenness.
The “unworthy manner” which they exhibited had its impact in two directions, vertically and horizontally. Vertically, they were out of favor with God, since they were “guilty of ‘profaning’ (RSV), ‘sinning against’ (NIV), the body and blood of the Lord,” (11:27). Horizontally, they were creating havoc, divisions, and ill will within the (one) body of Christ. In view of these things, it is not surprising Paul said, “It is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat,” (v. 20).
It is an understatement to say that the situation at Corinth called for each Christian to submit to a rigid self-examination. The examination required in verse 28 was, primarily, intended to move the Corinthians to a true understanding of the Supper and their participation in it. If done properly, this would result in a true vertical relationship with God and a true horizontal relationship with their fellow Christians. This reminds us of the “state of remembrance” stressed earlier. It is not merely a fleeting moment of remembering. No, indeed. The Corinthians thought they were observing the Supper, but their scandalous “state of remembrance” nullified their purpose. Thus, self-examination applies to more than the moment or manner of partaking. It applies to the life and attitudes of the partaker as well.
The consequences of not following Paul’s instructions would carry grave results. Verse 27 says that a man (anthropos) partaking of the Supper “without discerning the body (KJV, RSV), eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” One of the guiding principles of exegesis is to know the context of a passage and keep it in mind when interpreting. We have stressed the context enough. Now, let us keep in mind when we consider the phrase “discerning the body.”
It seems almost unnecessary to stress that the direct meaning is the primary meaning. The NIV puts it squarely, “recognizing the body of the Lord.” So, if the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup does not activate our faculties to recognize the “body of the Lord” we bring judgment upon ourselves. But to recognize the body; what does that mean? The term for “body” here is soma. “The body and blood of the Lord, then, are the act of the Lord sacrificing Himself for the brother. The same applies to verse 29, where soma is a brief term for the reconciling sacrifice of Christ which in the Lord’s Supper is proffered to the participant.” (Eduard Schweizer, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament).
Surely, then, “discerning the body” does not mean to see in the emblems merely a lifeless corpse. No. In discerning the body we recognize the significance of the sacrificed body of Christ, which, as Paul says, is represented by both the bread and the cup. And the significance of the sacrificed body of Jesus is compounded in one word: Gospel – “Nothing could be clearer than the gospel, focused in the Lord’s Supper, is a gospel of God’s final and effective and infinitely sacrificial and costly dealing with sin; a gospel of obedience to the will of God achieved within man, sin’s entail met in man by maintaining perfect obedience in the face of the worst that man’s sin could do.” (C.F.D. Moule, Biblical Series).
On the other hand, there is another dimension of discernment which inevitably arises. We have considered the vertical significance of the body of Christ sacrificed on the cross. Additionally, if we are cognizant of the full meaning of the body of Christ, we are aware of our horizontal relationship with others who are members of that one body. Here we speak of that one body as the church with each Christian being a member. Paul says in Colosians 1:1:18 that Christ “is the head of the body, the church; ...” Here “soma(tos)” body, and “ekklesia(s)” assembly (church), are used in apposition, which indicates they mean the same thing.
Whether Paul also had this facet in mind is a matter of debate. What cannot be controverted is that the Corinthians were starkly derelict in this regard. What a blessing it would have been for each Corinthian Christian if he could have said in partaking of the Supper, “In my associates I behold One who is in them, even as He is in me, who imparts Himself to them as He does to me, who loves them as He does me. Thus, all sense of estrangedness is removed, and a feeling of true brotherhood is awakened, and a communion established wherein we freely share with each other what we have received from Christ.” (Christian Friedrich Kling, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures).
Verse 30 states that the Corinthians are suffering the consequences of their “fleshly” minds and inordinate behavior. Gluttony and drunkenness displayed so blatantly among them were symptoms of the far deeper malady that Paul has been addressing. Paul does not hesitate to draw a correlation between sinful behavior and its dire consequences. Some are weak and sick; some have died.
In verses 31-32, Paul points out the role and purpose of temporal judgment; that is, the need to be discerning in such situations as the Corinthians now find themselves. If they will profit from Paul’s teaching, if they will measure themselves on the scales of truth, and repent, they may in the future avoid the unpleasant chastening judgment of the Lord. He has already chastened some severely, apparently to no avail. Paul urges his present readers to apply holy self-discipline; otherwise, they will receive God’s discipline. Here, Paul speaks of a principle of God’s chastening which is found elsewhere. “Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent,” (Rev. 3:19). Unless the Corinthians turn, they stand condemned with the world which they have again embraced.
The last section of our passage, verses 27-34, begins with “hoste,” as did the previous section, verses 27-32. There, the “consequently” referred back to what he had said in the entire second section, verses 23-26. Here, the “consequently” refers back to the first section, verses 17-22. Hence, we make full circle and realize we have a great teaching on the Lord’s Supper that is structurally tightly knit and logically developed. We should be thankful for that because this is seldom characteristic of Paul’s writings. We find in 2 Peter something about the letters of “our beloved Paul.” “There are some things in them hard to understand ...” (3:15-16). The logical structure of the text under study has been a help in our understanding of this section of scripture. At verse 33, Paul gives his Corinthian brethren some very practical advice. Paul never disdains practical approaches for the cultivating of spiritual lives. Here, he is evidently referring primarily to those who are well off materially. Instead of quickly devouring the food that the early ones either brought or were given by their host, they are to wait for (ekdechomai = receive, expect, look for, wait for) those arriving later. The fellowship meal (agape), which was eaten in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper, is under construction here. Paul nevertheless tells them to practice decorum. It is not to be like a pagan gorge feast. Paul says if anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, (v. 34). Of course, this has to refer to the “haves.” “...they have to do simply, ordinary things, like waiting for one another (v. 33), and having a snack before the liturgical assembly if the pangs of hunger are too sharp (v. 34). They must translate love into such mundane gestures if they are to avoid the condemnation that will fall on the self-centered, (v. 32).” (Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, New Testament Message).
Paul is reaching back to tie in this closing statement with what he had said in the beginning section. In other words, if they will follow his teachings and accept his rebukes, their assemblies will edify rather than bring them into judgment. Other directions are pending, but Paul will deliver them when he arrives in Corinth.
