Institution? of the Lord's Supper

tuesday home
location
faq
resources
reading list
articles
events

Attention scholars:
Note that this is NOT a work of genuine scholarly research. It was required for a class I was taking, and though I hope it is thoughtfully presented, it represents only a few days' study (and was mostly written the night before it was due). Your comments and/or rebuttal are welcome.

The Institution? of the Lord’s Supper
an analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:23-34

I chose the above title based on a “heading” found in some printed bibles above this passage which reads “the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper,” or “the Institution of Holy Communion,” or some such variation. Of course such headings are inserted by modern publishers, and are not intended to carry the same weight as the scriptural text itself. They do, however, reflect the opinions and biases of the publisher, and have the affect (intended or not) of conveying those biases to the reader as he assimilates the subsequent verses. Thus generations of believers have (for the most part unquestioningly) regarded “holy communion,” “the Lord’s supper,” or “the mass” as an institution, not only of the church, but of divine ordination. To what degree is such an assumption valid? Did Paul (or for that matter Jesus himself) really intend to create an institution, a sacrament, or even a tradition? And if so, in what ways were such intentions supposed to be applied, both in the Corinthian church and in ours? What really was being said by the apostle in this passage, and how does it apply (if at all) to us today? It is the intention of this paper to address these questions. In this process we will examine (to the best of this student’s limited ability) the historical context in which 1^st Corinthians was written, the literary context of this passage, and cultural and customary practices relevant to the first century Corinthian church, as well as the principles put forth by Paul in 1 Cor.11, and the particular circumstances to which they were addressed.

First century Corinth was a major center of commerce, known throughout the Mediterranean world for its strategic accessibility to major trade routes, its wealth, and its debauchery. If Athens was the “Berkeley” of the ancient world, Corinth was its “Las Vegas.” Corinth’s immorality was legendary in Greco-Roman lore, to the extent that it was said of one who exhibited excessively loose behavior that he was behaving “like a Corinthian.” Knowing this makes immorality among church members (addressed by Paul early in the letter) more understandable, and the need for dealing with it all the more imperative.

Greece is commonly known as the birthplace of democracy. As lands around the Mediterranean were subjugated by Rome, their ideals and culture were assimilated, and the Roman Senate became a model of representative government for the rest of the world. Although democratic power (the voice of the “demos,” the people) was extremely limited, as compared with modern western standards, the concept of government “by the people” was deeply embedded in the Greek psyche – perhaps all the more so in the 1^st century because at that time it was Roman citizens, rather than Greek, who had a voice. Is it possible that this frustration over unfulfilled rights was a factor in the tendency of the Corinthian church to split into the kind of factions described in Chapter 1? While such a theory as to its cause is little more than speculation, the divided nature of the Corinthian body is at the core of Paul’s teaching on the Lord’s supper, as will be shown.

The inhabitants of Corinth were primarily pagans. Blood rituals were known to them, but differed significantly from the concept of atonement that made Christ’s blood covenant meaningful to Jewish believers. Pagan sacrifices consisted of animals killed and offered to idols as appeasements or bribes. Hence, such sacrifice stands not in parallel, but in contrast to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus which Paul described is being “proclaimed” in the “cup” and “bread” of 1 Cor.11. The reader will note that no comparison is made in chapter 11 between the “blood” of the Lord’s supper and blood sacrifices as understood in Corinthian culture. While a sharp contrast was drawn in the previous chapter (10) between “the Lord’s table” and the “table of demons,” this was not a comparison of religious ritual, but of identities, as will be explained later in this essay.

The church of Corinth was planted by Paul during his second missionary journey, around 50 AD. (While he was there he wrote the epistle to the Romans) Due partly to its strategic position in the Roman world, and due partly to the faithful efforts of such notable converts as Priscilla and Aquila, Corinth quickly assumed a high profile among the early Christian churches.

The first epistle to the Corinthians (which was not actually the first, but of perhaps several letters written by Paul to the church of Corinth, it is the first of the two that have survived) is believed to have been written by Paul in or around 55 AD, while he was at Ephesus. During its 5-year infancy, the Corinthian church had not only grown to prominence, but had acquired a number of problematic behaviors and attitudes which Paul sought to address in this letter.

While we, as modern believers, have a great deal invested in our traditions, it is likely that our modern communion rituals would have been virtually unrecognizable to the 1^st century church. Rather, the occasion mentioned by Paul in this passage was a communal meal practiced regularly (perhaps weekly) by believers. These meals were commonly referred to as “love-feasts,” and were probably not altogether unlike our “potluck” suppers. Since the church of Corinth had been practicing the Lord’s supper (whatever that expression may have meant to them) for 5 years, Paul obviously was not giving instruction in the sense of “how to do it,” but rather was addressing an attitude or heart-motive issue.

Note that many words often associated with communion tradition are not found in this passage. You will not find sacrament, ordinance, eucharist, holy, host, transubstantiation, or even communion. Indeed, the phrase “the Lord’s supper” is found only once in the entire Bible (in verse 20, preceding the passage we are looking at), and does not seem to refer to a religious ritual but is an expression of rebuke (as if to say “who are you doing this for, the Lord or yourself?”)

Instead, you will find such key words as: bread, cup, body, blood, eat, drink, and judge (discern). “Bread” and “cup” are metaphors intended to associate remembrance of the Lord’s sacrifice with the common practice of eating and drinking (Paul uses the same metaphors/symbols that Christ himself used at his last supper). Some of Paul’s references to the “body,” however, are probably a play on words, the dual meaning associating the physical body of Jesus with the “body” of his worshippers (Paul’s writings are rife with such comparisons). Note particularly verse 29, where Paul warns against “not judging the body rightly.” Using Jesus’ own body/bread metaphor, Paul is referring both to our identification with Christ and to the need for unity among believers.

A key to understanding this passage can be found not in the assigned passage itself, but rather a few verses earlier “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (vs.18-19) This is, in fact, one of the primary issues Paul intended to address in 1^st Corinthians, as can be seen from his introductory paragraphs: “For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels [disputes, rivalries] among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1:11-13)

Another important key to understanding Paul’s intent in chapter 11 can be found in the previous chapter, where we’ll find other “communion” verses. Note 1 Cor. 10:16 “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” And again in 10:21 “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” It is very natural for us to interpret these verses through the lens of contemporary experience. That is, while reading, we tend to envision our monthly (or weekly, or daily, depending on the custom of one’s religious associations) practice of including bits of bread or wafers and tiny cups of grape juice or wine in the course of our worship services. As we do so, it seems self-evident that Paul is referring to a similar ritual practice. But the context of chapter ten would indicate otherwise - nowhere else in this passage is there any hint of Christian ritual practice, but rather a discussion of eating and drinking in general (addressing in particular the question of whether meat slaughtered in pagan rituals is suitable for consumption by Christians). Paul’s emphasis here is that we become identified with our practices: if we participate in pagan practices, we identify with the idolatrous object of those practices. If we eat with other believers, blessing the food and one another in the name of Christ, we identify with Christ.

Thus the rebuke found in 1 Cor 11:18-22 has nothing to do with the proper administering of a religious ritual, but with the notion that when we behave selfishly (by “pigging out” when others are hungry, or by not “tarrying” for one another) we identify with sin (selfishness, the world, Satan), rather than with the Lord (as Jesus taught us to do at his last supper –vs. 23-26). In other words, enjoying your feast at your brother’s expense (disrespecting him by your insensitivity), while at the same time asserting your identity as a Christian is hypocrisy of the highest order. And according to verse 29, “he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.” That is, by identifying with Christ’s death while at the same time selfishly neglecting other members of His body in order to satisfy your flesh (ie with food), you invite judgment.

The words of verse 30 are particularly troubling: “For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.” Does this imply that God may inflict sickness, or even death, on believers who disregard the exhortation of the previous verses? Or that our lack of regard for one another weakens us to the point that we become vulnerable to attack by Satan? Regardless, verse 30 ought to be considered an indication that this issue is to be taken very seriously.

I submit, for the sake of discussion at least, the following hypothesis: that the intention of 1Cor.11, Matt.26, Mark 14 and other so-called “communion” passages is not to advocate a ritual whereby we are compelled to remember the Lord’s sacrifice, but rather that we ought to be in the habit of remembering the Lord’s sacrifice everytime we eat and drink. Furthermore, we are identified with our practices; if we partake actively in meals involving pagan sacrifice, we identify ourselves with the object for which the sacrifice was offered (i.e. we “partake of the table of demons”), but whenever we eat and drink, remembering as we do the blood and body of our crucified Lord, we identify with Him (i.e. we “show the Lord’s death until he comes.”)

The Lord’s supper was instituted (if such wording is indeed applicable) as a part of the Passover Seder. As such, any translation of said institution into Corinthian culture must include extrabiblical accoutrements, as the Corinthians had no traditional Passover observance (except perhaps those among them who may have happened to be Jewish). Likewise, the translation of “the Lord’s supper” as a ritual into modern practice involves numerous “stretches” which, while not necessarily wrong in a moral sense, cannot be supported by Scripture (and therefore ought not to be mandated by the Church). These include (but are not limited to) such practices as: serving grape juice instead of wine [there are, of course, reasonable arguments for avoiding the use of alcohol, but if they are employed, why grape juice and not water?], offering little servings of juice and bread and calling them a “supper,” serving juice (or wine) in tiny plastic cups rather than in the kind of cups normally used for meals, serving bits of broken crackers (or worse, wafers that taste like styrofoam or school paste) rather than the kind of fresh bread you’d normally serve to your guests.

Let the reader not misunderstand – I have no objection to religious tradition. Our traditions can have great value. As a Lutheran pastor once explained to me, if, in a hypothetical future, we found ourselves without Bibles in a culture where teaching of God’s word was forbidden, we could retain the essential knowledge of salvation through the practice of “holy communion.” My concern is not that we value our traditions, but that we forget that they are merely traditions, and that we elevate them to near-canonical status by calling them sacraments. Thus we risk turning practices which might legitimately enhance worship into objects of worship themselves. Note that this has happened quite literally in the Roman Catholic church, where the host (communion wafer) is lifted up before the congregation and the priest proclaims, “this is the Lord Jesus Christ!” While I do not believe most evangelical churches are in any danger of erring to this extreme (although some liturgical protestant churches may be), we may well, if we regard traditions above people, find ourselves in precisely the state of hypocrisy that Paul condemned, if we do not “judge the body rightly.”

End Notes:
Sources consulted while preparing this document included the following: