# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S360
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

360 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

plains why the Corinthian Christians cannot partake of the sacri-
fices at idol shrines while also eating the Lord’s Supper. After es-
tablishing that their eating and drinking is, in fact, participation in
the body and the blood of the Lord (10:16), Paul continues: “Be-
cause there is one loaf, we many are one body, for we all partake of
the one loaf” (10:17). The Lord’s body in the Supper actually ef-
fects—that is, maintains—the oneness of the body of believers, the
Christians who eat the bread.” Accordingly, the Corinthians must
not see themselves merely as “individuals” who are free to do as
their “freedom” and “knowledge” might choose or suggest. Even to
speak of “individuals” communing in the Eucharist can lead to se-
rious misunderstanding, “for the participation in Christ’s body and
blood. . necessarily involves the individual with those with whom
he or she is communing.’”®

As we turn to examine the crucial passage | Cor. 11:17~-34, the
following two points from this brief contextual survey are impor-
tant. First, Paul's teaching in | Cor. 11:17—34 occurs in the broader
context of disunity and factionalism that was so central to the
Corinthian situation. Second, the apostle has already established
the unbreakable connection between the horizontal and vertical di-
mensions in the Christian life. To sin against the brother is also to
sin against Christ. Accordingly, divisions may not be tolerated or
fostered within the Christian congregation, for they contradict the
Gospel itself and threaten the very life of the church.

Exegesis of 1 Cor. 11:17-34

The Social Setting

What was going on in the Corinthian house churches as they
celebrated the Lord’s Supper? Specifically. what sinful attitudes
and practices evoked Paul's response? Although precise knowledge
of the situation at Corinth eludes us, we can rely on the one hand on
knowledge of Greco-Roman society in general and Corinth specif-
ically, and on the other hand on a careful reading of Paul’s own
words.

The general contours of the situation are clear. The house
churches of Corinth were practicing a communal meal in connec-
tion with the observance of the Lord’s Supper.’ During the com-
munal meal there was inequitable distribution of the food, resulting
in excessive eating and drinking on the part of some and a lack of
provision for others. The richer Christians, who owned houses,
were particularly subject to Paul’s disapproval: “It’s not that you
don’t have houses in which to eat and drink, is it?” (11:22a).

But we can go further than this general picture. Recent scholar-
ship on Corinth and on features of Greco-Roman meals brings in-
teresting and helpful insights. Noting what he calls a “staggering”
number of Corinthian inscriptions that honor the person who paid
for and erected the monuments in question, Ben Witherington con-
cludes that

Corinth was a city where public boasting and self-promotion had be-

come an art form.

The Corinthian people thus lived within an honor-shame cultural
orientalion, where public recognition was often more important than
facts and where the worst thing that could happen was for one’s reputa-
tion to be publicly tarnished. . . .

These cultural factors come into play over and over again in
1 and 2 Corinthians, where boasling, preening, false pride, and the like
are topics that the apostle addresses repeatedly.‘

Interestingly, this boastful aspect of Corinthian, Greco-Roman
culture manifested itself specifically at communal meals. In fact,
contemporary pagan writers critiqued their own culture for this ten-
dency. Festive meals were a standard feature of various group as-
sociations found in the Roman Empire. When wealthy patrons
hosted meals in their homes, society’s stratifications often mani-
fested themselves.” According to Gordon Fee, the average dining
room (the triclinium) in a good-sized home was about eighteen feet
square, comfortably seating (or rather, reclining) as many as twelve
people. A larger number of guests, perhaps as many as fifty people,

2001 Convention Workbook

could be served in the typical courtyard (the arrium).'” As one
writer expresses it,

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 interior food and inferior wine, and often
complained about the situation."

The parallels to the setting in Corinth are revealing. The culture
was setting the agenda for the church’s practice. Some members
were eating much, and eating well, and were doing so in the very
presence of fellow Christians who received less.'* Others were re-
ceiving precious little (if anything) at the community’s meal.'* This
was life as they knew it. Some members of society simply were
more important than others, and they deserved special treatment."
There was no need to be as one. Divisions were a normal part of
life, and the Corinthians saw no contradiction between life in the
world and life in the church.

Paul’s words, therefore, fit perfectly into the setting: “It’s not
that you don’t have houses in which to eat and drink, is it? Or are
you despising the church of God and bringing shame upon those
who do not have [houses]?” (1 Cor. 11:22) We should be clear
about the overt sin against which Paul brings his apostolic rebuke
and correction. The overt sin was their toleration, even promotion,
of divisions and factions between Christians. Yet, as the structure
of his argument reveals, Paul knew that the primary or fundamental
sin was sinning against the body and the blood of the Lord. Be-
cause the Corinthians were failing to live out the Sacrament’s pur-
poses for their life together, their sinful disunity automatically
meant that they were abusing the Lord’s Supper, the congregation’s
sacrament of unity.'* In ironic contrast to his earlier statement
(11:2), Paul sums up the sorry state of their disunity: “What shall I
say to you? Shall | praise you? In this 1 will not praise you!”
(11:22) And what does Paul say to them?

Paul’s Response

Remarkably, yet fittingly, Paul responded with the doctrine of
the Sacrament of the Altar, with the declaration of what the Eu-
charist actually is. For Paul the primary sin, the fundamental issue,
was not their abuse of one another, but their abuse of the Lord’s
Supper. The Corinthians’ disunity contradicted the very purpose of
the Eucharist, as Paul had already taught them in | Cor. 10:16-17:

The cup of blessing which we bless, it’s the participation in the blood of

Christ, isn’t it? The bread which we break, it’s the participation in the

body of Christ, isn’t it? Because there is one loaf, we many are one

body for we all partake from the one loaf.

On the assumption that his readers have agreed with him in
chapter 10, Paul responded to the situation in chapter 11 by pro-
claiming to them the words of institution. Their despising of one
another did not elicit Paul's praise because (gavr) the Eucharist
was what was really going on. Christ's body was given—for you
all (plural). Christ’s blood was received, maintaining the new gra-
cious covenant between God and His people—ail God’s people.'*
The body and the blood were for the remembrance of Jesus. This
was not an optional way to view the Sacrament.'’ The Lord’s Sup-
per was the communicants’ remembering of Jesus’ work on their
behalf. That is to say,'* they were proclaiming to one another its
meaning and its benefits.'”

Yet all the while the Corinthians through their disunity—their
despising the church and shaming the poor—were contradicting
both the Sacrament’s purpose and the Sacrament’s character as
proclamation. Their behavior belied the Supper’s purpose of mak-
ing and maintaining the many as one. Through His paradoxical
Gospel wisdom, God had chosen the foolish and weak things of the
world in order to shame the wise and the strong. But the Corinthi-
ans were heeding neither the proclamatory character nor the unify-
ing purpose of the Supper. Rather than being one voice, their as-
semblies were a cacophony of conflict. Their divisions effectively