Study Notes Mom Dad thought you weren t coming back until tomorrow?? (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) 11:17 34 The problems in the Lord s Supper

Transcription

1 ONE: Busted June 7, 2015 Mom Dad thought you weren t coming back until tomorrow?? 1 Corinthians 11: But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another-- 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) 11:17 34 The problems in the Lord s Supper 17 If Paul has previously commended the Corinthians for observing apostolic traditions (v 2) he could not do so now as he gives commands to remedy abuses at the Lord s Supper (34). When they came together it seems it was not for the better but for the worse. Divisions among members ( cf. 1:10 12) are also reflected in the meetings. In the secular ekklēsia i.e. the meeting of citizens for political purposes, they did not hide their divisions, and the Corinthian Christians behaved in 1 More study helps at

2 a secular fashion on a number of matters when they met in their Christian ekklēsia. The enigmatic phrase and to some extent I believe it is how the NIV and other translators render it. It is surprising that Paul who is so well informed from Chloe s people should be only partly informed about a matter over which he sees judgment falling on some in the congregation. The clause can be rendered in Greek and I believe a certain report, which perhaps makes better sense. The word translated in other English versions as partly, which is an adverb, is also a noun in Greek meaning a report. 19 It is not until divisions arise that those who have God s approval, i.e. who are genuine, lit. those who pass the test, can be known. ( cf. 2 Cor. 2:9 where the genuine are those who have given heed to the apostolic instructions.) Divisions separated those faithful to God s word from the rest. 20 The second reason that Paul cannot endorse their conduct is that when they come together it is not the Lord s Supper they are eating. That undoubtedly came as a surprise to them, but Paul gives reasons why this is so. 21 Each one proceeds without any regard for others. Whether the behavior in question was not waiting for others, or simply devouring one s own food during the dinner is uncertain. The word translated goes ahead can mean to do something before others or to devour one s own food during the meal. 22 Such actions result in the disgraceful situation of some being hungry and others drunk. Paul asks three questions which are meant to make them realize their guilt for this disgraceful conduct. The first is whether those who eat and drink so much have their own houses in which to feast. The second is whether they despise the church, lit., meeting of none other than God for it is his church ( cf. 1:2). The third question is whether it is their intention to humiliate those who have nothing, lit. the have nots, meaning those who do not have the protection of rich houses in times of crisis such as the present famine ( cf. commentary on 7:26). Paul certainly cannot endorse or praise this inexcusable conduct. The reason they are guilty is spelled out Paul begins with a reminder that he is repeating the tradition received from the Lord which he had passed on to the Corinthians when he was with them. It recounts the actions and words of the Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed. They were to break bread in remembrance of Jesus death. They were also to drink the cup in remembrance of the new covenant which Jesus ratified in his blood ( cf. the ratification of the old covenant with blood in Exodus and the promise of a new covenant in Je. 31:31, a covenant which was for the blessing of all the nations Gn. 12:3). 26 The Lord s Supper proclaims the Lord s death until his second coming. Paul repeats and alters the order of the words of Jesus to give emphasis to his actions. He does this in order to contrast Jesus selfless giving of his life on their behalf with their self centered actions which create divisiveness in his body, the church ( cf. 10:17). He focuses on their failure to share their food at the supper to show how overwhelmingly generous Jesus action on the cross had been toward them personally. They are behaving in this selfish way at the very remembrance feast which Jesus instituted on the night of his betrayal so that they might recall his death. Is not their behavior at this remembrance a betrayal of him whose own supper they are celebrating? 27 In this particular context the unworthy eating of the bread and drinking of the cup has to do with their attitudes and actions towards each other, especially the needy who have suffered 2 More study helps at

3 acute embarrassment. Attention is being drawn to their status and circumstances in the meal, in a community where these social divisions were meant to be abolished in Christ ( cf. 1:30). They are therefore guilty of sinning against, or possibly on the grounds of, the body and blood of the Lord. 28 All must test or examine themselves before they participate. In this context, the examination has to do with attitudes of a party spirit and lack of compassion towards the have nots. 29 Failure to recognize the body of the Lord, i.e. the body of believers ( cf. 10:16), can only invoke personal judgment. 30 Judgment has already occurred. Some are spiritually weak because of their actions, others are suffering illness and some have been removed by death. This points to the enormous importance which God attaches to his church and reflects the same activity in the OT on his part in judging and removing those who disregard their commitment to the unity and needs of the believing community. 31 Passing judgment on their own actions would deflect divine judgment. 32 Lest the Corinthians believe that God s judgment is as uncaring as that of the pagan gods, he reminds them that the Lord s discipline is always remedial in this life, so that his people will not be condemned along with the world. 33 The phrase, so then signals the essence of what the Corinthians are being called upon to do. When they gather together they are to wait for one another or to share their meal, for the verb can mean either. 34 Those whose hunger is such that they cannot wait, are enjoined to eat at home. This will mean that they will gather not for the worse but for the better ( cf. v 17). This seems to be an interim measure because Paul promises to deal with the matter further when he comes. This statement is sometimes taken to mean that Paul has suspended the meal permanently and implemented a service such as we celebrate today. It is more likely that his intention is to eradicate the problems and the underlying attitudes which gave rise to them. It must be remembered that the citizens were experiencing a period of famine (7:26) in which the have nots were faring worse. It is also worth reflecting on the fact that the Lord s Supper can only really be that when those who participate do so with an attitude and actions towards others 1 consistent with the self giving attitude and actions of Jesus ( cf. 11:20). b. The state of Christians at the Lord s Supper (11:17 34) At Jesus institution of the Lord s Supper with His disciples (Matt. 26:26 29; Mark 14:22 25; Luke 22:15 20) the bread and cup were part of a meal, with the bread probably broken near the beginning (cf. when He had given thanks, 1 Cor. 11:24) and the cup taken at the end (cf. after supper, v. 25). By the time Paul wrote, the Lord s Supper was celebrated in 1 Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., pp ). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press. 3 More study helps at

4 two stages which consolidated the partaking of the bread and cup at the end of a communal meal. The worship with the bread and cup came to be called the Eucharist ( Didache 9:1; Ignatius Letter to the Philadelphians 4), from the Greek word for thanksgiving ( eucharisteō ). The communal meal was called the Agapē (Jude 12; Pliny Letters ), a Greek word for love. What bothered Paul about the Corinthian celebration was that the Agapē meal had become an occasion not marked by love for fellow Christians but one of self centered indulgence. In the subsequent development of the church the celebrations came to be divided (Ignatius Letter to the Smyrneans 8:1 2; and [apocryphal] Acts of John 84), possibly on the mistaken assumption that Paul had advised the Corinthians to do that (cf. 1 Cor. 11:22, 34). 11:17. As in the preceding discussion on womanly excesses in worship, Paul had no commendation (but cf. v. 2) for the Corinthians when it came to their practice of the Lord s Supper. In fact an experience meant to build up the church was actually having the opposite effect: your meetings do more harm than good. 11: The church was divided at a celebration which was meant to express unity (cf. 10:17). If these divisions ( schismata; 1:10; 12:25) were related to those noted earlier (1:10 4:21), then one factor contributing to those divisions is evident here, namely, economic differences in the church (11:21). Paul did not want to believe the report about their divisions (v. 18b), but he knew that sin was inevitable (cf. Luke 17:1) and would not pass unnoticed by God. God s approval ( dokimoi ) resumed a point Paul had discussed earlier (1 Cor. 9:27 10:10), where he used in 9:27 the contrasting word disqualified ( adokimos ). In the whole nation of Israel, freed from bondage in Egypt and bound for the Promised Land of Canaan, only two of that vast company gained God s approval and entered the land (cf. 10:5). Many in the Corinthian assembly did not have this approval, which His discipline on them demonstrated (cf. 11:30 32). If the Corinthians thought the ordinances of the Lord s Supper and baptism somehow communicated magical protection to the participants (cf. 10:12; 15:24), Paul s excoriation must have been doubly painful since their behavior at this rite was directly linked to their chastisement (11:30 32) the very thing they sought to avoid. 11: The Lord s Supper should have been the remembrance of a preeminently selfless act, Christ s death on behalf of others. Instead the Corinthians had turned the memorial of selflessness into an experience of selfishness and had made a rite of unity a riotous disunity. While one brother went hungry because he lacked the means to eat well, another brother drank to excess. 11:22. If the Corinthians wanted private parties they could have them in their homes. The meeting of the church was no place for a sectarian spirit of any sort, especially since the Lord s Supper was intended to commemorate just the opposite spirit. To act in a spirit of selfish disregard for the needs of a brother was to despise the church of God, composed not of lifeless stones but of living people who could be grievously hurt. Did the Corinthians somehow think their libertarian acts were a matter for praise? (cf. 5:1 2) Just the opposite! 4 More study helps at

5 11: Paul proceeded to remind the Corinthians of what they knew but had denied by their actions. Whether this teaching came to Paul directly (by a vision; cf. Gal. 1:12) or indirectly (by men; 1 Cor. 15:1), it came with the Lord s authority. The bread represented the incarnate body of Christ unselfishly assumed (Phil. 2:6 7) and unselfishly given on the cross for the benefit of others (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:8), that kept needing to be remembered (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8 13). 11:25. The wine was a poignant reminder of Christ s blood, without the shedding of which there could be no forgiveness from sin (Heb. 9:22) and through which cleansing and a new relationship ( covenant ) with God was made (Heb. 9:14 15). The word covenant referred to a relationship in which one party established terms which the other party accepted or rejected. The focus of the Old Covenant was the written Word (Ex. 24:1 8). The focus of the New Covenant is the Living Word (John 1:14 18). Christ intended the cup to be a representational (cf. John 10:9; 1 Cor. 10:4) reminder of Him: do this in remembrance of Me. 11:26. The Lord s Supper was a visible sermon that proclaimed the message of the Cross (1:18, 23; 2:2, 8), that is, the reality of the Lord s death, and also the certainty of His return ( until He comes ) (cf. John 14:1 4). Though there apparently was no prescribed schedule for the observance of the Lord s Supper (cf. Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 13:1), whenever it was celebrated its message of humiliation and subsequent exaltation (Phil. 2:6 11) went forth. This was a needed reminder to all saints, especially those in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8 13). 11: The Corinthians despicable behavior at the communal meal was not without result, which Paul proceeded to point out. Nowadays when this passage is read before participation in the Lord s Supper, it is usually intended to produce soul searching introspection and silent confession to Christ so that no one will sin against the spiritual presence of the Lord by irreverent observance. Paul s application was probably more concrete. No doubt his experience on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:4 5) contributed to this, for the body of Christ is the church, which consists of individual believers (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12, 27). His body, the church, is also pictured by the bread of Communion (5:7; 10:16 17). Thus to sin against another believer is to sin against Christ (8:12). Those guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord were those who despised a poorer member by utter disregard for his need (11:21 22). These came to the remembrance of Christ s work of unity and reconciliation (cf. Eph. 2:15 16) with a trail of deeds that had produced disunity and alienation! If these would examine ( dokimazetō, test to approve, 1 Cor. 11:28) themselves, they would see that they lacked God s approval ( dokimoi, v. 19) in this behavior. They should seek out the wronged brother and ask his forgiveness. Only then could a true spirit of worship flourish (cf. Matt. 5:23 24 and Didache ). Coming to the Lord s Supper without that sin confessed brought judgment on the guilty participants. Only by recognizing ( diakrinōn, properly judging ) the unity of the body of the Lord and acting accordingly could they avoid bringing judgment ( krima ) on themselves. 11: What that judgment entailed was then explained by Paul. In brief, it was sickness and death (cf. 10:1 11). The solution was self examination ( diekrinomen, 11:31; cf. vv ; 5:1 5; 10:12), self discipline (9:27), and promoting of unity. The alternative was God s judging ( krinomenoi, 11:32), which was a discipline that they were then experiencing. This was not a loss 5 More study helps at

6 of salvation, but of life (cf. 5:5). 11: If the believers were self disciplined, they should wait in the Agapē meal till all arrived. This also may have implied sharing the meal with others (cf. v. 22). If the demands of hunger were too great for some, they should satisfy those pangs at home before coming to the assembly. The Lord s Supper was a time not for self indulgence but for mutual edification (v. 26). If the former prevailed, God would continue to discipline severely. Other matters apparently less serious aberrations related to the Lord s Supper Paul would attend to 2 when he returned to Corinth (16:5 9). 11:17 34 Factionalized Fellowship The churches in Corinth met in well to do patrons homes (see comment on Acts 18:6 7). In Greco Roman society, patrons often seated members of their own high social class in the special triclinium (the best room), while others were served, in plain view of this room, in the atrium (the couches in which might seat as many as forty persons). The guests in the larger room, the atrium, were served inferior food and inferior wine, and often complained about the situation. This societal problem spilled over into the church. The background for the meal itself is the Jewish Passover, a sacred meal and celebration; see comment on Matthew 26: But the Corinthians seem to have lost sight of this background; they treat the meal as a festal banquet such as they knew from Greek festivals or meetings of Greek religious associations. 11: Paul could praise the Corinthians on some points (see comment on 11:2) but not on this one; like division by racism or cultural bias. 11:20. On the Lord s Supper see the Lord s table in 10:21. Paul intends an ironic contrast between the Lord s Supper (11:20) and their own (11:21). 11: Some are treated more honorably than others at the meal, and this treatment reflects the status values of the world. See the introduction to this section. 11:23. Received and delivered (KJV, NASB) were used especially for passing on traditions (11:2; 15:3). Some later rabbis spoke of traditions received from Moses ; although they believed they received them by means of their own predecessors, they meant that the tradition ultimately went back to Moses. Paul probably means that earlier disciples told him about the Last Supper. It took place at night, as the Passover meal always did. 11: The unleavened Passover bread was normally interpreted figuratively as the bread of 2 Lowery, D. K. (1985). 1 Corinthians. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, pp ). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. 6 More study helps at

7 affliction that our ancestors ate in Moses time; Jesus had applied it to himself (see comment on Mk 14:22 24). Pagans sometimes ate funerary meals in remembrance of a dead person, but the sense here is as in the Old Testament, where the Passover commemorated God s redemptive acts in history (e.g., Ex 12:14). As in the Passover ritual (cf. the principle in Deut 26:5), the you applied to all future generations. 11:26. Until he comes is the temporal limitation on the Lord s Supper that goes back to Jesus as well (Mk 14:25). Passover celebrations looked forward to the future redemption of Israel as well as backward to how God had redeemed them in the exodus of Moses day. 11: Eating in an unworthy manner here refers to the status conscious eating that is dividing the church (11:21 22). By rejecting other members of Christ s body, the church (10:17), they also reject the saving gift of his body represented by the bread (11:24). 11: Jewish teachers stressed that in this world God punished the righteous for their few sins, but in the world to come he would punish the wicked for their many sins; thus Jewish teachers believed that suffering could free one from later punishment. Paul agrees at least that suffering can be the Lord s discipline; the idea here may be that those who do not embrace other 3 members of the church no longer receive healing through the church (12:9). D. The Counsel Concerning the Lord s Supper. 11: The Lord s Supper, the only act of worship for which Christ gave special direction, receives Paul s attention now. It is connected with the previous section by the fact that both matters concern public worship. It may help in reconstructing the situation to realize that in the early church the Supper was usually preceded by a fellowship meal, called the Agape, or Love Feast (cf. Jude 12). Disorders at the Agape called forth the apostle s indignation (vv ), a review of past teaching (vv ), and a stern application of the truth to the Corinthian assembly (vv ). 1) The Indignation of Paul. 11: The fellowship meal was primarily religious, not social, but abuses had made it a disgraceful farce. 17. This refers to the following instruction. Their meetings were for the worse, because they were incurring judgment as a result of the disorders (cf. v. 29). 18. Divisions. Better, parties. These existed apparently because the rich, contrary to custom, greedily consumed their more bountiful provisions before all the poor came, so that they would not have to share their food in visible representation of the unity of the body. 19. Heresies. Factions, groups with 3 Keener, C. S. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (1 Co 11:17 34). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 7 More study helps at

8 self chosen views, is the emphasis and meaning of the word. These existed, Paul remarks somewhat resignedly, in order that the approved (cf. 9:27; 11:28) might be recognized. 20. It was a supper, but it was not the Lord s (the adjective is emphatic) supper; that is, it was not a real reenactment of the Last Supper. 21, 22. The indignant question, Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? was addressed to those who regarded the gathering simply as a social banquet and not as a spiritual fellowship meal. 2) The Review of Past Instruction. 11: The apostle justifies his rebuke by reviewing the real and true significance of the ordinance, tracing the teaching back to the Lord himself. 23. Paul could not praise them, for their conduct disagreed with that which he had received of the Lord (RSV, from the Lord ). He does not make clear whether he received his instruction directly from the Lord or through a source. The latter is probable. 24. The words take, eat, and the word broken, occurring in the AV, do not appear in the best manuscripts. The bread is distributed first, since it represents the incarnation. Then the wine follows, representing the death that ends the old covenant and establishes the new. One thing is sure: in the words, this is my body, Paul is not teaching transubstantiation. The bread certainly was not the Lord s body at the moment he said this, nor is the cup the new covenant literally (v. 25). The word is has the common sense of represents (cf. v. 7; Jn 8:12; 10:9; I Cor 10:4), as (the) German has it, not das ist but das heiszt (MNT, p. 168). For you emphasizes the sacrificial aspect. [In remembrance involves more than just memory; the word suggests an active calling to mind. And the phrase of me is wider than of my death. The person who did the work is the object of the calling to mind. The present imperative do suggests that frequent attendance at the Lord s Supper is a divine command (cf. Acts 20:7). 25. The new covenant reminds the hearer of the old Mosaic covenant, which could only condemn. The Greek diathēkē in contrast to synthēkē, the usual OT word for covenant, emphasizes the initiative of God in it. The new covenant provided an effective remission of sins. In my blood points to the sphere and basis of the covenantal blessings. Barclay s suggestive rendering is, This cup is the new covenant and it cost my blood ( op. cit., p. 114). The repetition of in rememberance of me is designed for the disorderly Corinthians; they needed to learn that fellowship with Christ, not food, was the important thing at the Supper. 26. For introduces the reason the Supper is continually repeated. It is an acted sermon, for it proclaim (s) (AV, shew ) the Lord s death. The Supper has both a backward and a forward look, since it is to be observed till he come (cf. Mt 26:29). 3) The Application to the Corinthians. 11: Paul now applies the teaching to the disorderly believers. 8 More study helps at

9 27. Wherefore introduces the application, a consequence of the instruction. Unworthily does not refer to the person of the one partaking, but to the manner of his partaking. All are unworthy always. Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Guilty of sin against the body and blood. 28. But introduces the proper alternative, self judgment. There must be preparation before participation. 29. For. The reason that self judgment, or confession of sin, must precede the partaking is that otherwise the believer makes himself liable to judgment (the meaning of krima ; the AV s damnation is misleading). Not discerning means not rightly judging (ICC, p. 252; the verb is found twice in v. 31). That is, the believer does not recognize the unity of the body, the Church (cf. 10:16, 17; 11:20, 21). 30. Judgment had already come upon some for this cause abuse of the Lord s Table. Some had committed sin unto death and already slept (the verb koimaō, sleep, when referring to death, always refers to the death of believers; cf. Jn 11:11, 12; Acts 7:60; I Cor 15:6, 18, 20, 51; I Thess 4:13, 14, 15; II Pet 3:4). These believers had not lost their salvation, but they had lost the privilege of service on the earth. 31. The preventive is to judge ourselves rightly. 32. Even God s judgment, however, is not eternal; it is designed to be family discipline, a chastening of the Lord, to prevent condemnation with the world. Here Paul uses the strong katakrinō, which does mean to condemn eternally. 33. Wherefore. Concluding words follow, a practical appeal to the Corinthians to remember the unity of the body in their observance of the feast. 34. Condemnation is incorrect. Read, instead, judgment (the word again is krima, as in v. 29). The rest of the details in connection with the Lord s Supper, Paul says, will be set in order at his 4 next visit. 1. The offences (11:17 22) Accustomed as we are to the service of Holy Communion as the most solemn and dignified of services, this passage comes as something of a surprise. Clearly the service was far from being edifying, or even dignified, in first century Corinth. The passage is of interest as the earliest account we have of a Communion service. It also contains significant teaching on the theology of Holy Communion. 17. There is nothing in the Greek corresponding to following (as NIV, RSV, GNB, etc.); Paul says, commanding you this, where this would naturally refer to the preceding (cf. NEB, In giving you these injunctions ). Then he goes on to a further matter. His verb ( parangellō ) is authoritative; Paul is not offering a few academic comments, but giving a firm directive. He goes on to the supreme condemnation of any assembly for worship: your meetings do more harm than good. Instead of Holy Communion being supremely an act of edification, it was disruptive. 18. In the first place, says Paul, but he never gets round to secondly or the like. There is no article with church, and some hold that the word is used here in the older sense of assembly (as 4 Pfeiffer, C. F., & Harrison, E. F. (Eds.). (1962). The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: New Testament (1 Co 11:17 31). Chicago: Moody Press. 9 More study helps at

10 in Acts 19:32, 39, 41). It is the coming together of believers that is in mind. But, even when people met for worship, Paul has heard that there were divisions ( schismata ). The word is that used in 1:10, but the divisions are probably not the same. Those were based on loyalties to teachers, these were economic (some had food and some had none). To some extent I believe it shows that Paul was not credulous. He recognized that there was some exaggeration in the account that had reached him, but he recognized also an unpleasant amount of truth. 19. He accepts the inevitability of differences ( haireseis ). The word has to do with choosing and means those who have chosen in the same way, e.g. the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), the Pharisees (Acts 15:5), and the Christians (Acts 24:5, 14). But the choosing can be disruptive; it may be one of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), which is the sense here. It does not differ greatly from divisions (v. 18). It is only as those who choose in a self willed manner make their appearance that those who have God s approval (hoi dokimoi, those who have stood the test ) are made manifest. 20. The adjective kyriakon (only here and Rev. 1:10 in the New Testament) stresses the connection with the Lord. The disorders at Corinth are so serious that it is not the Lord s supper that is eaten; it has a different character (cf. 10:21). Chrysostom points out that what is the master s is common to all the servants; to make a difference means that it is no longer the master s. 21. Clubs and associations in antiquity often had communal meals, sometimes paid for out of group funds. It was not uncommon for the food served to the diners to differ in quality and amount. Theissen cites associations where officials by regulation received more than others, some one and a half times, some twice, and some three times the normal (p. 154). He also draws attention to hosts who had better food for privileged guests (pp. 156ff.). Clearly at Corinth the Holy Communion was a full meal, of the type called a love feast (Jude 12; some MSS ; of 2 Pet. 2:13). But what happened at Corinth was a travesty of love. The wealthier members of the congregation clearly provided most of the food, and this could have been a marvelous expression of Christian love and unity. But it was degraded into the very opposite. The poor would have to finish their work before they could come, and slaves would find it particularly difficult to be on time. But the rich did not wait. They ate and drank in their cliques ( divisions, v. 18), each eating an own dinner ( idion deipnon ). The food was gone before the poor got there! One remains hungry, another gets drunk. There was a sharp contrast between the hungry poor, lacking even necessary food, and the drunken rich. There was no real sharing, no genuinely common meal. 22. A typical series of rhetorical questions hammers at the evil of the practice. Home is the place to satisfy one s hunger and thirst. To behave like the Corinthians is to despise the church which is no less than the church of God. It is to despise the poor (notice the connection between the poor and the church). There is no place whatever for praise. 2. A reminder of the institution (11:23 26) This is the earliest account of the institution of the Holy Communion. Indeed, it is the earliest 10 More study helps at

11 record of any words of Jesus, and one of very few incidents in his earthly life which Paul describes. There are some features of this account which we do not find elsewhere, such as the command to continue the service until he comes (v. 26). 23. The verbs received and passed on (paralambanō and paradidōmi ) are almost technical terms for receiving and passing on traditions (cf. v. 2). This, taken with the general probability, leads most commentators to the view that Paul means I received a tradition which goes back to the Lord. Against this is the emphatic I ( egō ); why should Paul say I received of the Lord if he meant I received from other men a tradition that derives ultimately from the Lord? Revelations were made directly to Paul (Acts 18:9f; 22:18; 23:11; 27:23 25; 2 Cor. 12:7; Gal. 1:12; 2:2). The use of apo rather than para for from does not necessarily indicate an indirect report (though it would be consistent with it), for it sometimes refers to direct communication (Col. 1:7; 3:24; 1 John 1:5). Paul seems to be referring to a direct revelation (cf. Craig, Paul may still be asserting that his interpretation of the Lord s Supper was received by him from the risen Lord ). It all started on the night he was betrayed (better, he was being betrayed ). Paul brings out the poignant truth that that feast of love that was to bring such strength and consolation to Christians was instituted at the very time when human malignancy was engaged in betraying the Saviour to his enemies. 24. Matthew and Mark use the verb bless of the bread, though Luke employs Paul s verb. All three use give thanks of the wine. There is no important difference, for the prayer of thanksgiving would have begun, Blessed art Thou, O Lord (see on 10:16). Jesus broke the bread and said, This is my body (Moffatt, This means my body ). These words have been made the proof text for doctrines such as transubstantiation and consubstantiation with their realistic identification of the bread with the body of Christ. But This is neuter ( touto ), not masculine as it should be if it referred to the masculine word for bread ( artos ). It may refer to the whole action, as the second this does. Further, is can denote various kinds of identification (see John 8:12; 10:9; 1 Cor. 10:4, to name no others). Moreover, in the next verse the cup is not my blood, but the new covenant in my blood. The words do not prove all that the advocates of such theories claim. On the other hand they should not be minimized into a Zwinglian view, that the service is no more than an occasion when we remember Christ. There is a very real gift of the Saviour in the sacrament, none the less real for being essentially spiritual. The sacrament is a medium of communion with the body and blood of Christ, and a real means whereby faith appropriates the blessings which flow from the glorified Christ in virtue of His death (Edwards, on v. 25). The body is for you (some MSS insert broken or given, but Paul has neither word). The emphasis is on the vicarious work of Christ; what happened to the body was for us. There was purpose in his suffering, a purpose of blessing for his people. Do this is present continuous: Keep on doing this. If it be judged that these words are no part of the true text of Luke 22:19, this is the sole record of the command to continue the Communion (though we should not pass over the significance of the regular practice of the church from the very first, Acts 2:42). Remembrance ( anamnēsis ) is the activity of recalling to mind. By breaking and receiving the bread we recall Christ s sufferings for us. 11 More study helps at

12 25. There is no took in the Greek (cf. RSV ); the language is terse and vivid. The impression left is that the bread was broken and shared during the course of the meal, and the cup was taken at the end. The word covenant ( diathēkē ) presents problems, too complex to be discussed here. Briefly, it is the normal Greek word for last will and testament, but in the Greek Old Testament it is used regularly to translate the Hebrew for covenant (277 times). The question in the New Testament is, Is diathēkē to be understood as in Greek generally, or as in the Greek Old Testament? Probably it is sometimes one and sometimes the other. Here covenant is the meaning, with special reference to the new covenant (Jer. 31:31ff.). The idea of covenant dominates the Old Testament. The people entered into a covenant with the Lord (Exod. 24); they were God s people. But they broke that covenant consistently and Jeremiah looks for a new covenant, one based on forgiveness of sins and with the law of God written in the hearts of the people. Jesus is saying that the shedding of his blood is the means of establishing that new covenant. It provides forgiveness of sins and opens the way for the activity of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. The whole Jewish system is replaced by the Christ, and everything centers on the death of the Lord; it is that death which establishes the new covenant. 26. The important word here is the one translated proclaim ( katangellō ). It has sometimes been made the proof text for positions like that expressed in W. Bright s hymn: We here present, we here spread forth to Thee That only Offering, perfect in Thine eyes, The one true, pure, immortal Sacrifice. This, however, is quite unscriptural. In the Communion we receive Christ. We present neither him, nor his sacrifice, to the Father. We present, and can present, only ourselves. Katangellō means announce, proclaim. In the New Testament it is mostly used of proclaiming the gospel. It always denotes an activity exercised towards people, never one towards God. The solemn observance of Holy Communion is a vivid proclamation of the Lord s death; in word and symbol Christ s death is set forth before people. The Eucharist is an acted sermon, an acted proclamation of the death which it commemorates (Robertson and Plummer). Deluz reminds us that we do not commit ourselves very far by listening to a sermon but a communicant both commits himself and confesses his faith. Until he comes looks forward to the Lord s return. Holy Communion has an eschatological aspect. It will not be necessary in the new order, but until then it keeps us mindful, not only of Jesus first coming, when he suffered for our sins, but also of his second coming, when he will take us to himself. A. C. Thiselton thinks that the revelling Corinthians had missed this. They evidently saw Holy Communion as feasting at the eschatological banquet of the Messiah. But the Lord s Supper has a distinctly interim character ( NTS, 24, , pp. 521f.). There is a not yet about it, as well as a now. 3. The practical outcome (11:27 34) Paul goes on to the way communicants should receive the sacrament. His exposition of the meaning of the service shows that it is a most solemn rite, instituted by the Lord himself, and 12 More study helps at

13 charged with deep and sacred meaning. It should accordingly be observed with unfailing reverence. 27. Therefore ( hōste ) introduces the consequence. Because the Lord s Supper is what Paul has just shown it to be, people must observe it with due care. There is, of course, a sense in which we all partake unworthily, for none can ever be fully worthy. But in another sense we can come worthily, in faith and with a due performance of all that is fitting. It is when we neglect this that we come in an unworthy manner, and sin against the body and blood of the Lord. Instead of proclaiming the Lord s death, we then misuse the symbols of that death, and share the guilt of those who put Jesus to death. Cf. 8: Examine is dokimazō, test (often used of the testing of metals). Holy Communion is not just another service. It is a solemn rite, instituted by our Lord himself, and charged with deep significance. Before taking part in such a service it is important to conduct a rigorous self examination (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5f.), so that we avoid communicating unworthily (v. 27). In passing we notice that the reference to the bread (not the body ) does not accord with theories like transubstantiation. The bread remains bread at the moment of reception. 29. Without recognising the body of the Lord is a difficult expression. The verb diakrinō means distinguish and thus discern, separate. Here it will mean distinguishing the Lord s Supper from other meals; the offender is one not bearing in mind, as he ought, the greatness of the things set before him (Chrysostom). Some think the body ( of the Lord is absent from the better MSS ) to be the church (as in 12:13; Col. 1:18). But there seems no real reason for thinking of a change of meaning from that in v. 27. At the same time, there is a marked stress throughout this passage on the corporate nature of the service, and on the responsibility of each to all. 30. Spiritual ills may have physical results. The ill health and even the deaths of some of the Corinthians had spiritual causes. Some see the results of excessive drinking (v. 21), but Paul seems not to be referring to the natural results of excesses, but to the chastening hand of the Lord (v. 32). He does not say that all illness comes about in this way; there are other causes. But this is a real one, and it took place even though some of the Corinthians had gifts of healing (12:9, 28) Paul points to the value of judging ourselves. We should make a practice (such is the force of the imperfect tense) of distinguishing ( diakrinō again; see on v. 29) ourselves, i.e. distinguishing between what we are and what we ought to be. Barclay translates, if we truly discerned what we are like. Then we would not come under judgment ( krinō ), the kind of judgment mentioned in v. 30. Being disciplined means that these judgments are not nameless evils, but the tokens of God s love. They are meant to bring us back from the wrong way, so that we will not be condemned with the world Hōste introduces the logical conclusion. Wait for each other at the meal means the end of the disgraceful scramble of v. 21. The Lord s Supper takes the form of a meal, but its purpose is not to satisfy physical hunger. If a man is really hungry, he should eat at home. If people act in this way, then when they come together for worship, the result will not be judgment There were apparently other matters concerning Holy Communion, but they were not so 13 More study helps at

14 urgent. They could wait until such time as Paul came to Corinth. When is the indefinite hōs an ; 5 Paul would come, but he did not know when it would be. Celebration of the Lord s Supper (Verses 17 34) This section relates to the disorders connected with the celebration of the Lord s Supper. These disorders were of a kind that, according to our method of celebrating the sacrament, seems almost unaccountable. It was, however, the early custom to connect the Lord s Supper in the strict sense of the words with an ordinary meal. This sacrament was instituted by our Lord at the close of the Paschal supper, and it appears to have been customary at the beginning for the Christians to assemble for a common meal and to connect with it the commemoration of the Redeemer s death. Intimations of this practice may be found in such passages as Acts 2:42, They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. In verse 46 it says that this breaking of bread was from house to house. Acts 20:7 says, On the first day of the week we came together to break bread, which, from the narrative that follows, appears to have been an ordinary meal. Whatever may be thought of these passages, it is clear from the paragraph before us that at Corinth at least the sacrament of the Lord s Supper was connected with a regular meal. This may have arisen not so much from the original institution of the Eucharist in connection with the Paschal supper as from the sacred festivals of both Jews and Greeks. Both had been accustomed to unite with their sacrifices a feast of a more or less public character. It is also evident that, in keeping with a familiar Greek custom, the people assembled brought their own provisions, which were placed on the table and formed a common stock. The rich brought plentifully; the poor brought little or nothing. It was, however, essential to the very idea of a Christian feast that it should be a communion that all the guests at the table of their common Lord should be on terms of equality. Instead of this fraternal union, there were divisions among the Corinthians even at the Lord s Table the rich eating by themselves the provisions they had brought, leaving their poorer brothers mortified and hungry. It is to the correction of these disorders that the concluding part of this chapter is devoted. It was no matter of praise that the assemblings of the Corinthians made them worse rather than better (verse 17). The prominent evil was that there were schisms even in their most sacred meetings, an evil consequence of the state in which they were and that God permitted in order that the good might be made manifest (verses 18 19). The evil to which he referred was not merely that they had degraded the Lord s Supper into an ordinary meal, but that in that meal they were divided into parties, some eating and drinking to excess, and others left without anything (verses 20 21). This was not only making the Lord s Supper a meal for satisfying 5 Morris, L. (1985). 1 Corinthians: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 7, pp ). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 14 More study helps at

15 hunger contrary to its original design but a cruel perversion of a feast of love into a means of humiliating and wounding their poorer brothers (verse 22). In order to show how inconsistent their conduct was with the nature of the service in which they professed to engage, the apostle recounts the original institution of the Lord s Supper (verses 23 25). From this account it follows, first, that the Lord s Supper was designed not as an ordinary meal, but as a commemoration of the death of Christ; second, that to participate in this ordinance in an unworthy manner was an offense against his body and blood, the symbols of which were so irreverently treated; third, that no one ought to approach the Lord s Table without self examination, in order that with due preparation and with a proper understanding of the ordinance he may receive the bread and wine as the symbols of Christ s body and blood (verses 26 29). In this way they would escape the judgments that the Lord had brought upon others on account of their profanation of his Table (verses 30 32). In conclusion, Paul exhorts them to use their houses for their ordinary meals and to make the Lord s Supper a real communion (verses 33 34). 17. In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In verse 2 he said, I praise you. His praise was consistent with grave disapproval of many things in their condition as a church. He did not praise them for the way in which they conducted their public worship. Their assemblies were disgraced not only by women appearing unveiled, contrary to the established rules of decorum, but also by the unfraternal and irreverent way they celebrated the Lord s Supper, and also by the disorderly way in which they used their spiritual gifts. These evils he takes up in order. Having dealt with the first, he comes now to the second. In the following directives I have no praise for you. The Greek may be translated, Declaring this, I do not applaud. To this, however, it is objected that the Greek verb never means to declare, but always to command. Hence the better translation is, Commanding (or enjoining) this, I do not applaud. It is doubtful whether this refers to what precedes or what follows. If it means what precedes, then the sense is, While I command what precedes, concerning women appearing veiled, I do not praise you For your meetings do more harm than good. This censure is general, embracing all the grounds of complaint that are specified in this and the following chapters. 18. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. In the first place. Paul often begins a list that he does not complete. There is nothing to correspond to these words in what follows. According to one view the first censure is directed against the divisions, and the second against their way of celebrating the Lord s Supper. But the only divisions that he refers to here are those connected with their public worship, and especially with the celebration of the sacrament. Besides, the subject of divisions was treated at the beginning of the letter. Here he is speaking about their meetings. The second ground of censure is to be found in the following chapter. I hear that there are divisions among you. Literally, schisms. For the meaning of that 15 More study helps at

16 word, see 1:10. The nature of these schisms is described in what follows. They were cliques not sects, but parties, separated from each other by alienation of feeling. It is clear that the rich formed one of these parties, as opposed to the poor. And probably there were many other grounds of division. The Jewish converts separated from the Gentiles; those having one gift exalted themselves over those having another. It is not outward separation but inward alienation that is complained of here. And to some extent I believe it. Paul intimates that he was reluctant to believe all he had heard to their disadvantage in this matter; but he was forced to believe enough to draw his serious disapproval. 19. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God s approval. This is the reason why he believed what he had heard. He knew that such things must happen, and that God had a wise purpose in permitting them; compare Matthew 18:7, Such things must come. Evil as well as good is included in the divine purpose. It is not intended as evil, but for the sake of the good that infinite wisdom evolves from it. Differences. What are called divisions in one verse are called differences ( heresies, KJV ) in the next; both words have the same general sense. The nature of these divisions is to be decided by the context. The Greek word from which we derive the word heresy means literally an act of choice, then a chosen way of life, a sect or party; not always in a bad sense, but in the sense of schools (thus the heresies of philosophers means the schools or different sorts of philosophers ). In the New Testament this word is repeatedly used for the party of the Pharisees or of the Sadducees (Acts 15:5; 5:17). Here and in Galatians 5:20 it means dissensions. The ecclesiastical sense of the word heresy is the choice of an opinion different from that of the church, or a doctrine contrary to Scripture. There is nothing to favor the assumption that this is its meaning here. To show which of you have God s approval. This is God s purpose in permitting the occurrence of such divisions. It is to show who have stood the test and are worthy of approval. The opposite group is composed of reprobates. By the prevalence of disorders and other evils in the church, God puts his people to the test. They are tried like gold in a furnace, and their genuineness is made to appear. It is a great consolation to know that dissensions, whether in the church or in the state, are not matters of chance, but are ordered by God s providence and are designed as storms for the purpose of purification. 20. When you come together, it is not the Lord s Supper you eat. Eating the Lord s Supper is not the real purpose, though it is your professed purpose. You come together for a common meal, and a disorderly, unbrotherly one too. The words, however, permit two other interpretations. We may supply the word this : This is not to eat the Lord s Supper; your meal does not deserve that sacred character. Or, You cannot eat the Lord s Supper. (In Greek, the substantive verb followed by an infinitive often means can. ) Coming together as you do, it is impossible to celebrate the Lord s Supper. This gives a very pertinent sense. The Lord s Supper is the supper instituted by the Lord, one to which he invites the 16 More study helps at