Original Meaning

FOR ONCE PAUL abandons his “Yes, but” logic. Whatever the Corinthians may have claimed in their letter about faithfully celebrating the Lord’s Supper (vv. 2, 22c), Paul has heard additional news that horrifies him (v. 18—from Chloe’s people or others). His comments are overwhelmingly critical, underlining the severity of their “malpractice.” Verse 17b reads literally, “For you come together not for the better but for the worse.” Verses 18–22 explain what the problem involves. Verses 23–26 appeal to foundational Christian tradition that teaches a quite different attitude to the Lord’s Table. Verses 27–34 explain the resulting implications for the church in Corinth.

Once again Paul refers to “divisions” (Gk. schismata, as in 1:10). But here he is not thinking of the rival parties that possibly separate various congregations but of the gulf between the rich and poor within a given house-church. The minority of well-to-do believers (1:26), including the major financial supporters and owners of the homes in which the believers met, would have had the leisure-time and resources to arrive earlier and bring larger quantities and finer food than the rest of the congregation. Following the practice of hosting festive gatherings in ancient Corinth, they would have quickly filled the small private dining room. Latecomers (the majority, who probably had to finish work before coming on Saturday or Sunday evening—there was as of yet no legalized day off in the Roman empire) would be seated separately in the adjacent atrium or courtyard. Those that could not afford to bring a full meal, or a very good one, did not have the opportunity to share with the rest in the way that Christian unity demanded.1

The clients of the wealthy patrons were probably accustomed to being treated unequally. The house churches in part resembled other religious associations and fraternal organizations in Corinth, where knowing one’s place in the hierarchy of fellowship meals was important.2 “No doubt there were affluent Christians in the church at Corinth who took it for granted that such differentiations were part of the nature of things.”3 Although Paul allows for a measure of bias or exaggeration in the reports he has received, he recognizes that they fit well enough with the rest of the Corinthian problems to be generally credible (v. 18).

Ironically, Paul laments that if some have deviated so far from the intention of the ceremony, then the divisions will at least magnify the authenticity of those who have remained faithful (v. 19). The word for “differences” is that which later developed into the concept of “heresies,” but here it simply means “factions.” The result of the lack of consideration by the wealthy for the less well-to-do implies that they are not celebrating the Lord’s Supper at all, merely “their own supper.” (The NIV “Each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else” in verse 21 is unusually paraphrastic. It reads literally, “Each goes ahead with his own supper.”)

Instead of sharing in a kind of “potluck” and ensuring that all get plenty to eat and drink, some gorge themselves and get drunk at the expense of those who come later or have less. Jude 12 seems to reflect and address a similar problem, and it uses the popular early Christian term “love feasts” for these communal meals. They would have probably culminated in the Lord’s Supper, based on Jesus’ model from the final Passover festival he celebrated with his disciples (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–20). Paul doesn’t object to the well-to-do enjoying a reasonable quantity or quality of food in the privacy of their own families (v. 22a). But in this church setting, their satiating themselves at the expense of the “have-nots” proves singularly inappropriate (vv. 22b).

The account of Jesus’ Last Supper stands in striking contrast to the report of the Corinthians’ behavior. Verses 23b–26 run closely parallel to the passages noted above in the Synoptic Gospels, especially to Luke’s version (Luke 22:17–20). “Receive” and “pass on” in verse 23 reflect standard terminology for the transmission of oral tradition. So when Paul says he received this information from the Lord, we must not think of some kind of direct revelation. Rather he is referring to that which the Lord Jesus spoke while he was alive, words remembered by the disciples and widely repeated and perhaps even memorized in the early Christian community (recall the similar phenomenon in 7:10). “Betrayed” and “pass on” in this verse both come from the verb “to deliver.” By this deliberate play on words, Paul thinks back to Jesus’ subsequent arrest and crucifixion, an appropriate introduction for reflections on a rite that commemorates Christ’s death.

The focus of those reflections centers on Jesus’ so-called “words of institution” about the significance of the bread and the wine (vv. 24–26). During the Passover, Jews ate unleavened bread to recall their hasty departure from Egypt when God rescued them from the hands of Pharaoh (Ex. 12). The head of the household would open the meal in prayer and then distribute pieces of the bread broken from a common loaf (recall 10:17).4 This historical setting makes any literal rendering of “is” in Jesus’ statement “this is my body” incoherent. No one sitting with Christ at table would have thought he was saying that the bread was somehow a literal extension of his flesh or spirit. Rather the bread symbolized or represented his coming bodily death, an atoning sacrifice for the sake of all who would accept the forgiveness of sins it made available.5 Each time the Corinthians ate the bread of the Lord’s Supper, they should have recalled this death and acted in ways consistent with Christ’s immeasurable self-giving and grace on their behalf. The last line of verse 24 (and v. 25) is probably best translated, “Do this as my memorial.”6

The cup that was drunk after supper would probably have been the third of four cups of wine consumed during the Passover meal, again with redemptive implications. This was the point in the ceremony at which the words “I redeem you” from Exodus 6:6 were read. There is no chance that unfermented beverage was poured into the cup, since some who drank excessively were getting drunk (v. 21). The reason Paul, like the gospel writers, calls it the “cup” rather than using the word wine is because the expression would evoke Old Testament associations of suffering the “cup” of God’s wrath (e.g., Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17). Christ’s shed blood demonstrated that he accepted the wrath we deserved to experience and so made possible for us peace with God. In so doing he inaugurated the new covenant that had been prophesied (see esp. Jer. 31:31–34). “Whenever you drink it,” in verse 25, may hint at the fact that wine was not present with every meal. Or it may mean that bread and wine should form the center of the Lord’s Supper whenever it is celebrated. The message about the significance of Christ’s death which this ceremony re-enacts should be proclaimed throughout church history. Only when the Lord returns (v. 26) will cross-centered Christianity become redundant, a fact that the Corinthians clearly had yet to learn (recall under 1:18–2:5).

In verses 27–34 Paul draws out the implications for the Corinthians of his appeal to tradition. Jesus’ self-giving love for them makes their behavior (as described in verse 21) that much more shameful. “In an unworthy manner” in verse 27a translates the Greek adverb anaxios (“unworthily”). Paul does not use the adjective “unworthy,” which would have referred to a person’s character, but highlights instead the nature of their actions. Thus his “warning was not to those who were leading unworthy lives and longed for forgiveness but to those who were making a mockery of that which should have been most sacred and solemn by their behaviour at the meal.”7 “The body and blood of the Lord” in verse 27b again refer to Jesus’ crucifixion and its significance. Instead of eating and drinking without consideration of others, the Corinthians ought to share with each other and partake in moderation. “Examine” (v. 28) means “test and find approved.” If their behavior towards their fellow-Christians is appropriate, then they qualify to participate themselves.

Verse 29 (“not recognizing the body of the Lord”8) seems to reflect the same problem described in verse 27 (eating unworthily), which in turn looked back to verse 21 (overeating and overdrinking). So “the body” in verse 29 probably refers to the corporate body of Christ, the church, particularly since Paul does not refer to both body and blood as in verse 26.9 Those who eat and drink in flagrant disregard of the physical needs of others in their fellowship risk incurring punishment from God. Alternately, “body” may be an abbreviation for “body and blood” and again refer to Christ’s atoning death. In neither instance, however, is there any contextual support for interpreting “recognizing the body” to mean “recognizing that Christ is actually present in the bread or wine.”

Verse 30 unpacks what was involved in God’s punishing the Corinthians for their profaning his holy table. “Weak” and “sick” are two relatively synonymous words for physical illness. “Sleep” was a common euphemism for death. In the latter case, one thinks of the tragic end of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1–11. The way to avoid such tragedy is to monitor one’s own behavior (v. 31). And Paul ends on a somewhat upbeat note by reminding his readers that even those who have died for their actions are not damned (contra the original KJV rendering of “judgment” in verse 29 as “damnation”). Rather God disciplines those he loves (cf. Heb. 12:5–11) to protect them from further damaging themselves or others (v. 32).

Verses 33–34 bring this chapter to a close by restating and summarizing Paul’s solution to the Corinthians’ unholy activity during Communion. “Wait for” (v. 33) might also be translated “welcome.” Anyone’s genuine hunger pangs can be satisfied privately (v. 34a), so that the main point of the public Christian meal is to share with one another rather than to satisfy one’s own needs. This is the core of Paul’s instructions; other matters can wait until he personally arrives in Corinth (v. 34b).

Bridging Contexts

THE LORD’S SUPPER, designed precisely to foster Christian unity, not only divided the Corinthians but has divided believers ever since. Early and medieval Roman Catholicism developed elaborate doctrines of transubstantiation (the bread and wine literally, though invisibly, turn into Christ’s body and blood) and incomplete sacrifice (the Eucharist or mass completes the atoning work that Christ left incomplete), which went far beyond and even contradicted the explicit teaching of Scripture. Whereas the Protestant Reformers sharply broke with many Catholic practices, Lutheran and Anglican traditions at least remained quite similar with respect to Communion. Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation saw Christ’s body and blood “really present in, with and under the wine.” Zwingli and the so-called radical Reformers swung the pendulum to the opposite extreme, seeing nothing but the memorializing aspect of the Lord’s Supper. Calvinism and Methodism may have captured the best balance by perceiving a special spiritual presence evoked by the powerful symbolism of the elements, but even they often carried the debate far beyond terrain that the Scriptures clearly cover.10

Yet the controversial issues go well beyond those of the relationship of the bread and wine to Christ’s body and blood and of a complete or incomplete atonement, though those have certainly been the most crucial. Almost every denomination has its distinctive traditions for how to perform the ritual: what if any liturgy to use in accompaniment, who may participate, who may distribute the elements, what form of food and drink is used, and so on. Often Paul’s threats of judgment have been unleashed on anyone who disagrees with one denomination’s unique traditions. In so doing, many Christians have entirely missed the real meaning of these threats, which, as we have seen, are directed against those who are not adequately loving their Christian brothers or sisters and providing for their physical or material needs.

Even when Paul’s words are supplemented by the Gospel accounts, there is very little in Scripture that insists that the Lord’s Supper must be celebrated a certain way. No text ever restricts who can officiate or distribute the bread and wine. No particular words mandate what must be spoken. Prayers of thanksgiving are appropriate, but this is a far cry from the formal “blessing” of the elements that has become enshrined in certain ecclesial traditions. No specific frequency of celebration is ever commanded, although the references to the “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 and 20:7 may suggest that at first Christians partook of the Lord’s Supper daily and later weekly. Acts 2:42 also suggests it was one of four central elements in early Christian worship, along with prayer, fellowship, and instruction. There is thus nothing wrong with including communion as a part of every worship service, though there is something to be said for reserving it for certain announced occasions, so that what was intended to be special runs less of a risk of becoming mere routine. On the other hand, churches that celebrate the Eucharist only quarterly or semiannually, and even then often with little fanfare, run the risk of so minimizing its role that its centrality to worship may be lost.

First Corinthians 5:8 has already clarified that Christians remove yeast from their bread not literally but spiritually, as they purge all kinds of evil from their lives. So there is no need to insist that Communion bread be unleavened, though the link with the Passover meal of the Jews may be heightened in so doing. Hence some churches use wafers, others crackers, others full-fledged bread that has risen. All are acceptable. The common loaf, however, provides powerful symbolism in most all cultures of the unity the rite intends to signify, and there is much to be said for preserving that specific symbol. Where health concerns prevent people from actually passing a loaf and each breaking a piece off it, eating simultaneously, perhaps accompanied by some outward expression of friendship for those nearby, can serve as an adequate substitute.

There is no theological reason why the “wine” must be fermented. Grape juice or other red drinks, preserving the symbolism of Christ’s blood, may be substituted. Again a common cup is desirable, perhaps with a cloth for wiping the lip of the cup after each person has drunk, but simultaneous drinking of individual glasses may prove more sanitary. Neither is there any reason why small cups of actual wine may not be used; no one will get drunk on a tiny sip. But for the sake of those who prefer total abstinence, perhaps the ideal compromise is the use of trays that contain two separate sections for cups of wine and others of grape juice, each clearly distinguished. Then individual celebrants can choose what is best for them.

Can other food or drink be used? If part of the purpose of both Passover and the Last Supper was to use that which best symbolized daily sustenance and ordinary drink in the ancient world, then perhaps the answer is yes. In some cultures, other food may be the staple (for example, rice) or other drink more common (for example, tea).11 But the further removed one gets from that which can be broken, like bread, or is red, like wine, the less the fullness of the original symbolism is preserved. Perhaps asking how far we can go away from literal bread and wine is asking the question backwards. Instead it would seem we should ask how close we can get to preserving what the first Christians themselves did, without exorbitant cost to others and without losing the actual meaning for the sake of preserving the original form.

Early in the church’s history, the inclusion of the Lord’s Supper as part of a full meal disappeared. Again, such inclusion was never commanded, but there are strong arguments for reinstating the practice, at least part if not all of the time.12 Most cultures have considered eating meals a significant time of intimate, interpersonal fellowship, even if not always to the degree that biblical societies did. When Christian communities contain needy people in their midst, serving meals can be an opportunity to share with those less fortunate a quantity and quality of food not always otherwise available to them. Some churches have served weekly meals for their members apart from the Lord’s Supper; how much more meaningful when the two are combined.

Taking up collections for the poor is also very appropriate in the context of the Lord’s table. Paul’s words in verses 22 and 34 distance him from both socialist and capitalist ideals. On the one hand, he does not condemn the wealthy from enjoying extra material benefits in private. On the other hand, he sets limits on public Christian behavior that leave no room for hoarding and indulgence at the expense of the needy.

The Eucharist should be a time of self-examination, not so much for past sins, though repentance from them is always appropriate. Rather, Christians should consider their present attitudes toward those more needy than themselves. This would lead to a radically different group of people who ought to refrain from the Lord’s Supper than usually appears. All repentant sinners are welcome, no matter how far away from God they may have recently felt. All professing believers who are unprepared to give generously of their wealth to help the poor in their midst, or who treat people of lower classes as second-class citizens, or who simply remain unreconciled with fellow celebrants, should refrain. Jesus’ words concerning a somewhat analogous situation remain remarkably relevant here too: “If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:23–24). Above all, whatever individual introspection is involved should not overwhelm the dominant symbolism of unity.

Either of the interpretations of verse 29 that we have noted supports the restriction of participants in the Lord’s Supper to those who are true believers. Those who partake must recognize “the body of the Lord,” referring either to the church or to his atoning death. Unbelievers, by definition, do not accept the biblical meaning of Christ’s death nor do they adequately care for his people.

On the other hand, Paul’s words include no restrictions that limit celebration to members of one local church, denomination, or theological tradition. Children old enough to profess faith should be welcomed, so that they do not feel like outsiders to the table. No Scripture suggests any link between baptism and communion so as to exclude unbaptized believers from partaking. Even less is there any suggestion that one must first be catechized or confirmed, though instruction on the significance of the ritual, whether formal or informal, is obviously important. Children too young to participate might receive a blessing, perhaps accompanied by the laying on of hands, after the manner of Jesus’ welcoming the children (Matt. 19:13–15). This would make them feel accepted, while guarding the integrity of the Lord’s Supper itself.

Verse 18 may not be applied as a rationale for deliberately dividing the church. Paul’s whole point in the larger context is to call those who have been behaving badly to change their ways and restore proper fellowship with one another. Yet, after a group has left a church, Paul’s words may at times help explain theologically what has happened. But frequently churches divide into two or more separate groups, not because one is clearly preserving right doctrine or practice and the other is not. Commonly, as with the Corinthian divisions in chapter 1, peripheral issues and powerful personalities in each group provide the major impetus for division.

Verses 24–26 suggest a theology of the Lord’s Supper that balances past and future. Debates as to which is dominant prove futile—both remain crucial. We commemorate the crucifixion, looking back to Christ’s Last Supper even as we anticipate his return, looking forward to the Messianic banquet (cf. Isa. 25:6–9; 65:13–14; Matt. 22:1–14; Rev. 19). Meanwhile we should revel in our present fellowship with each other and with the risen Lord (see under 10:16–17) and seek to incorporate ever larger numbers into that fellowship by the evangelistic function of the Lord’s Table. Verse 26b makes an explicit message of explanation and evangelism accompanying Communion very appropriate. But the word of proclamation need not be verbalized all the time. Paul’s language suggests that the ritual itself “proclaims the Lord’s death.”13

The threat of God’s judgment as a response to inconsiderate behavior among his people is unusual even within the New Testament and is rarely acknowledged as an option when sickness and death occur within the church. Perhaps if we were more open to the possibility that personal or corporate suffering was a response to Christian lovelessness, we would see the link more often. But God is gracious and usually does not respond in a tit-for-tat fashion.

The question most believers of most eras tend to ask is “Why does God treat his people this harshly, even if only rarely?” Verse 32, of course, provides Paul’s answer in this context: they are being disciplined. But the question itself is misguided. All human beings deserve discipline for all of their sins. What Christians ought instead to ask is “Why aren’t we punished more directly more often?” In so doing, God’s grace—his undeserved favor lavished on his people—becomes greatly magnified.

Michael Green gives an excellent sixfold summary of the theology of the Lord’s Supper that Paul stresses in verses 17–34: look back (to Christ’s death), look in (in self-examination), look up (fellowship with God), look around (fellowship with each other), look forward (to Christ’s return), and look outward (to proclaim God’s word to others).14

Contemporary Significance

ONE OF THE ironies of the modern ecumenical movement is that many denominations or branches of the church have been willing to abandon fundamental doctrines of the faith (the deity of Christ, belief in the biblical miracles, the historical trustworthiness of Scripture, and so on) and hence achieve a measure of unity around liberal theological perspectives, while balking at agreement on issues that stem from purely human traditions that divide them. One of these divisive issues is the significance of the Lord’s Supper and how it is to be celebrated. The most significant ecumenical document on the topic in recent years notes that areas of agreement have yet to be reached on the matters of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the real presence of Christ in the elements, the epiklesis (calling upon the Lord to come and be present), the relation between communion and baptism, and whether or not the elements are changeable.15 Yet not one of these issues is demonstrably addressed in Scripture!

In other arenas, significant progress has been made. Protestants are now sometimes welcome to participate in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox communion services, particularly in the West. And the theological reinterpretations that some Catholics and Orthodox have given make it possible at times for Protestants to partake in good conscience. Most evangelicals invite all “born-again” Christians to participate irrespective of denomination. There is a growing realization in both conservative and liberal churches that ordained clergy are not the only persons who can preside over the Lord’s Supper. A number of theological traditions are increasingly willing to leave the nature of Christ’s presence at the table somewhat undefined,16 or to express it merely by analogy.17 But, sadly, there remain widespread exceptions to each of these trends.

Debates still rage as to whether the Lord’s Supper should be called an ordinance or a sacrament. The latter historically has suggested the unbiblical notion of a quasi-mechanical “means of grace.” The former seems to limit the ritual to an act of obedience to Christ. Our culture is one of the few in the history of the world that has lost respect for the immense value of tradition, ritual, symbolism, and religious drama. Not surprisingly, evangelical liturgical churches thus prove very appealing to many who are more and more frustrated with this loss. Some evangelicals, unable to find such churches within their own traditions have increasingly turned to Anglicanism, Catholicism, and even Greek Orthodoxy to recover those emphases. What we need are balances between liturgy and spontaneity in the Eucharist and in worship more generally. We also need balances between planned sameness to stress our link with the past and opportunities for creativity to keep services fresh and meaningful for different subcultures within our society. We must simultaneously avoid the error of very formal churches that restrict God’s grace to ceremonies performed in duly authorized fashion and the error of very informal fellowships that measure God’s grace by “exotic experience.”18 The former seems most pronounced today in very conservative or traditional Catholic, Episcopal, and Lutheran contexts; the latter is most notable in charismatic circles. But to one degree or another, both problems usually appear sooner or later in all traditions.

As for the temporal emphases of the Lord’s Supper, the church in general today seems best at stressing the backward look to the cross. Most neglected is our anticipation of the heavenly banquet. Somewhere in between falls our focus on present fellowship with God and others. Celebration in homes and house churches could improve the last of these, and it is increasing, especially in charismatic circles. Other churches helpfully seat communicants in small groups around numerous tables in a fellowship hall. This format can easily be combined with a dinner or potluck, giving time for informal conversation as well as the more formal ritual. Christian Passover services, especially when led by Messianic Jewish congregations, can prove particularly significant in enhancing appreciation of the original setting of the Lord’s Supper.19

Many churches today appropriately include an offering for a “deacon’s fund” or similar account reserved for the financially needy within a congregation. This emphasis could be stressed considerably without risking the danger of “extreme obedience.” Messages that accompany the Eucharist, and that often tend to be unnecessarily repetitive in content, could emphasize the desperate plight of poor Christians around the world and the need for most Western Christians to be far more generous in giving their money and other aid to the marginalized both at home and abroad.

One way of modeling this concern within the communion service itself is to include women (and other minorities) intentionally among those who pray and distribute the elements. Even the most conservative interpretations of the “problem passages on women” in the Bible cannot logically preclude them functioning in this role. Culturally appropriate symbols of Christian fellowship—the kiss of peace, warm hugs or handshakes, and the like, also prove desirable.

Paul’s warnings against profaning the Lord’s Supper and incurring God’s judgment are consistently applied to all the wrong situations. People are made to feel they should abstain if they have not felt close to God recently, or if they have been particularly disobedient, or if they have not achieved a certain level of Christian maturity, no matter how much they are prepared to repent or grow. Instead, pastors should caution their congregations against partaking if they are unwilling to be generous in helping the poor in their midst, or if they remain unreconciled with a fellow-Christian over some interpersonal dispute or squabble.

In churches that limit communion to those who have been baptized or confirmed, stress should be shifted instead to limiting it to those who have truly accepted Christ as Lord and Savior. The closest analogy to the Corinthian problem, of course, rests with those who are the most factious. These are the believers who are least qualified to partake of the table. Ironically, these are the persons who when they refuse to change their ways should be most vulnerable to excommunication (Tit. 3:10). Yet today the most factious people in many congregations are also the power brokers, who intimidate or run-off dissenting members rather than being properly disciplined themselves.20

The link between sin and sickness or death is also usually ignored, except in certain charismatic circles, where it often runs the risk of being overly exploited. Paul knows that suffering often is not the result of one’s personal sin at all (2 Cor. 4:7–12; 6:4–10; 12:7–10). But the average noncharismatic church these days would do well to consider that perhaps sometimes such links are present. Weakness and illness can be “part of the wise, loving, painful, but productive, discipline of a perfect Father.”21

Paul’s vision of a church united across sociological divisions also calls into questions certain wings of the church-growth movement that overemphasize the value of homogeneous grouping. The Corinthians were doubtless preserving this kind of grouping during the Lord’s Supper, and it is precisely this which Paul condemns! Today we often go beyond separate seating for different socioeconomic groups and form entirely separate congregations—along ethnic, linguistic, or geographical lines. No wonder it is hard for worship to demonstrate sharing between the rich and the poor. Urban congregations tend to have too few rich to have many material resources to share. Suburban congregations tend to have too few poor for the rich to share with. Both models are an affront to Christ.

One contemporary Catholic writer notes that both in Scripture and in the early church, the Eucharist often functioned as a time of preparation for going back into a harsh, persecuting world during the week.22 We too live in a world in which social justice and basic human rights are increasingly denied to large numbers of people. At this point the words of the ecumenical commission referred to earlier prove highly relevant:

The Eucharist celebration demands reconciliation and sharing among all those regarded as brothers and sisters in the one family of God and is a constant challenge in the search for appropriate relationships in social, economic and political life. All kinds of injustice, racism, separation and lack of freedom are radically challenged when we share in the body and blood of Christ…. As participants in the Eucharist, therefore, we prove inconsistent if we are not actively participating in this ongoing restoration of the world’s situation and the human condition … and above all, the obstinacy of unjustifiable confessional oppositions within the body of Christ.23