New Testament

Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup Unworthily? 1 Corinthians 11:23-34

Because the Corinthian church is treating the Lord’s supper like a Greco-Roman banquet, Paul says some in the church are eating the bread and drinking the cup unworthily. What does it mean to eat and drink unworthily?

Eating Unworthily

Paul reminds the Corinthians that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was handed down from Jesus himself (12:23-26). Presumably Peter and the disciples communicated the institution of the Lord’s Supper, since they witnessed the Last Supper. This is the earliest version of the Last Supper, since the gospels were not written for at least 10 years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

There are several important elements of this tradition. First, the bread and the cup are taken from the regular elements of the Passover meal, but Jesus uses them to predict his death on the cross. Second, Paul calls the cup the “new covenant in my blood.” This is an allusion to Jeremiah 31:31-33, where God says he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah when he establishes his kingdom “in that day.” The death of Jesus in some ways initiates that covenant. A covenant is usually confirmed with a sacrifice and a meal (sharing bread and wine). Jesus is therefore claiming that his death on the cross is, in some ways, the beginning of the New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah.

Paul says that sharing the bread and the cup is a symbol of deeper spiritual realities, initiated by the Lord Jesus himself and practiced by the whole Church. It is dangerous to abuse the practice to pursue worldly goals!

As often as the church gathers and shares this meal, they are proclaiming his death until he returns (v. 26). There is nothing in the tradition to indicate how often the meal is to be shared (weekly or once a year), only that it is a practice that is to continue until the Lord returns.

But when the church celebrates the Lord’s Supper, they condemn themselves because they are “eating unworthily” (12:27-34). What does it mean to “eat unworthily”? As I explained in a previous post, the shared meal is reinforcing divisions between the rich and poor. If the church was treating the Lord’s Supper like a Greco-Roman banquet, then gluttony and drunkenness are also possible.

In a modern context, most churches practice a ritual for the Lord’s Supper, Communion, or Eucharist. It is nearly impossible to be a glutton or a drunkard while taking communion is a typical evangelical church (using pre-fab bread chunks the size of a chicklet and sugar-free grape juice!) Even if we cannot dishonor the celebration in quite the same way, by treating the celebration flippantly or as a means of grace to cover or sin, we may be “eating unworthily.”

To avoid discipline, believers ought to examine themselves before they participate in the memorial meal. Paul says, “Judge yourself so you do not fall under judgment by God!” How does the believer examine themselves?

  • Confession of sin. Communion ought to be a solemn time of introspection. While it is not the case that God will strike a person dead who takes communion if they have an unconfessed sin, it is a time to spend a few moments reviewing and confessing our shortcomings.
  • Meditation on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Communion services really need to focus on the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. The scripture and the songs intentionally point our minds and our hearts toward Jesus’ self-sacrifice.
  • Commitment to being a pleasing child of God. An important corollary to confession is really committing oneself to living a life that is pleasing and honoring to God, a life that makes God smile at his dearly loved child. Even if we have failed, our commitment pleases him.
  • Unity of the church, the body of Christ. Everyone is sharing the same cup, and the same loaf, declaring together the same thing about Jesus’s death.

The celebration of the Communion ought to highlight unity of a church around Jesus and his death and resurrection. What is happening in Corinth is the exact opposite of this; they are (once again) emphasizing social divisions and creating discord and disunity. How we behave during worship and how we think about worship in the church must be based on Scripture and a sincere desire to please God as our heavenly Father. By importing ideas from our culture, we corrupt our worship and run the risk of facing God’s judgment.

Divisions at the Lord’s Supper – 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

After dealing with veiling of men and women in worship, Paul moves on to reports about divisions a the Lord’s Supper. Because of these divisions, some members of the church eat before others, and some even go hungry. What is the meaning of “go before”?

Triclinium Pompeii

The House of the Triclinium (Pompeii,
Excavated 1883)

Compare a few Bible translations:

  • “every one taketh before other his own supper” (KJV)
  • “each one goes ahead with his own meal.” (ESV)
  • “each of you goes ahead with your own supper” (NRSV)
  • “some of you go ahead with your own private suppers.” (NIV 2011

For some interpreters, the situation is Corinth is that wealthier members of the community bring their own food and eat before the poorer members arrive. They literally eat before everyone arrives, perhaps so they do not have to share with the poor members. But Bruce Winter suggested “go before” (προλαμβάνω) refers to eating all the food at the meal so that the poor to not have anything (After Paul Left Corinth, 143-48). In this case, the wealthy are behaving like gluttons and drunkards. D. Clint Burnett examines the evidence from several inscriptions and concludes that “go before” is the right meaning (Studying the New Testament through Inscriptions (Hendrickson, 2020; reviewed here).

So why is food at the Lord’s Supper creating divisions in the Corinthian church? Christian gatherings in the earliest days of the church were held in homes, and it appears meals were an essential part of worship.  The meal resembled a Greco-Roman meal, and this may have been the problem for the church. In a contemporary context, we celebrate the ritual of the Lord’s Supper with very small, controlled portions and there is no opportunity for gluttony or drunkenness. Even if we drew the analogy to a church potluck supper, it is very unlikely there would be the sort of problems Paul is describing here.

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor suggested the wealthy host would invite the more important guest to dine with him in his triclinium, a formal dining room, while the poorer members ate in another room like servants. (St. Paul’s Corinth, 159). The real problem is that the church is treating the shared meal as it would a regular meal, using it to reinforce social distinctions, just as it would at a Temple meal (as described in chapter 8). Burnett argues the design of the Roman dining room contributed to social divisions since a dining room had three tables, a triclinium, and only held nine (elite) people, and (maybe) no women ate at the best tables.

Paul says he heard there are divisions even at these special meals (1 Corinthians 11:18-19). The church host provided food, but people may also have brought their own food and drink to share among their own social class, while the poorer members of the congregation shared their own food or perhaps waited for the leftovers from the wealthy members. Although it is not specifically mentioned, it is possible Jewish members brought their own food to avoid eating unclean foods, but the problem Paul is discussing is not food, but the treatment of people!

The poor in Roman Corinth did not have kitchens in their homes to prepare food, and if they were slaves, they depended on their masters for food; they could not contribute to a common meal unless they could purchase something at the market. In addition, the poor and slaves had to work, meeting began on early on Sunday, our Saturday evening. There was no weekend or day off for the poor, so they would have no way to purchase food even if they could afford it.

Imagine a church potluck dinner with different tables based on your annual tithing level. The top-tier givers eat from a catered table from a five-star restaurant with an abundance of filet mignon and fresh vegetables, while the lower-level givers get crockpots of meatballs and green bean casseroles; the lowest level get a hot dog and a bag of chips. Most people would be highly offended by this arrangement: if we are all equal in the Body of Christ, why do some people get preferential treatment?

From a modern perspective, it is unimaginable that wealthy Christians would overlook the needs of the poor, but the wealthy in Roman Corinth would take no notice of the poor at all! One of the main problems in the church is this social attitude was present when the church gathered for worship.

This behavior is not at all commendable because it is creating the same sort of social divisions in the church that Paul says are erased in the Body of Christ. There are no Jews and Gentiles, but also no slave and free. This means the slave has the same family position in the Body of Christ.

All Things to All People – 1 Corinthians 9:19-27

Paul’s desire is to preach the gospel with strings attached (9:18). To do this, he must set aside his rights as an apostle, someone who is an eyewitness of the resurrection, and as someone who was give a specific commission by the resurrected Jesus. But in the second half of this chapter, Paul goes further. He not only does not insist on his rights, but he makes himself a slave to all!  he claims he makes himself “All Things to All People.”

All things to all people

This should be shocking: the Apostle to the Gentiles, personally commissioned by the resurrected Lord Jesus and a Roman citizen, sets all that aside to be a servant. Imagine the highest-ranking Christian Corinthian Christians are likely to meet, and he works in the agora repairing tents as if he is a slave.

This is not just a servant to those higher than he is in Roman society. Paul says he is a servant to “all people.”  If Paul had a patron, he would naturally render appropriate service to that patron when necessary. But the patron-client relationship was not like a master-slave relationship. It was not undignified to owe a larger debt to a patron, and it was honorable to serve that patron. However, to be a slave to all people was unthinkable in Greco-Roman Corinth! Would Gallio, the highest-ranking Roman in the region, set aside the toga and help the slaves dig out a new cesspit?

Paul makes himself “all things to all people” (9:20-23). To what extent is this Paul’s model for Christian ministry? “‘All things to all men is better remembered than understood ‘” (Paul Gooch, Partial Knowledge, 124).

In order to reach Jews to the Gospel, Paul makes himself a Jew. In Acts, Paul continued to go to synagogues to preach the Gospel to the Jewish people. Even in Acts 28, he is still reaching out to Jewish people and arguing from Scripture (the Old Testament) that Jesus is the Messiah and that his death, resurrection, and ascension fulfilled Jewish messianic expectations. Romans 9-11 expresses Paul’s concern for the Jewish people. But Paul adds a parenthesis: I am not under the Law, but I will live that way to reach people who are under the Law. Maybe I do not insist on my right to eat whatever I want- food sacrificed to idols, for example- if insisting on that right offends the Jews and I am unable to reach them.

In order to reach the Gentiles with the Gospel, Paul says he becomes like “those not under the Law.” Does this mean Paul was willing to violate the Jewish food laws and eat meat sacrificed to idols? Violate the Sabbath to reach Gentiles? He adds a parenthetical clarification to living like a gentile. Even though he is free from the Law, “I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law.” Christ’s Law may be the two greatest commandments: love of God and love of neighbor. It is remarkable that Paul should say this, since James also refers to the “royal law.”

Did Paul intend “all things to all people” as a model for doing ministry? How does this work out in a contemporary ministry context?

This means Paul accommodated the message of the gospel to two different cultural contexts. For example, when speaking to Gentiles, he uses forms of rhetoric which would be familiar in a Greco-Roman context. When speaking to Jews in a synagogue, he quotes the Hebrew Bible and makes arguments which would be familiar to a Jewish audience. The sermons in Acts demonstrate this. In Lystra (Acts 14) and Mars Hill (Acts 17), Paul does not quote scripture, nor does he make a scriptural argument to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Quoting the Jewish scripture would not be effective in that Greek environment.

The very fact that Paul speaks in a local language, using rhetoric familiar to them, is a kind of accommodation. In a modern context, missionaries don’t go to a new region, teach the locals to speak English, and then preach the gospel to them in English. At the very least, they learn the language and the culture of the people they’re trying to reach. It would be foolish to do otherwise!

Did Paul make theological accommodations? For example, he could present Jesus as the fulfillment of messianic prophecy in a synagogue, but Jesus as a kind of philosopher when speaking to Gentiles in the agora. He quotes the Hebrew Bible for Jews and Greek philosophy for Gentiles.

Whether preaching to Jews or Gentiles, the core of the gospel message is the same: Christ crucified and raised to life. In fact, at Mars Hill his commitment to resurrection may have limited his effectiveness. But the message about Jesus has been contextualized for a different cultural situation.

Would Paul ignore some aspect of Christian teaching and practice when preaching to the Gentiles?  Some scholars suggest Paul downplayed the practice of circumcision among Gentiles, eventually canceling the practice since it was so offensive to Gentiles. If he was going to have success among the Gentiles, Paul needed to strip out the more Jewish elements.  If Paul is willing to set aside his rights as an apostle in order to reach people with the gospel, is there some small element of doctrine or practice that he could set aside in order to make the gospel more palatable to his gentile audience?

But passages like Galatians 1:6-8 indicate Paul is quick to defend core doctrine and practice. Even in 1 Corinthians, Paul staunchly defends the doctrine of the resurrection or speaks clearly against some practices such as lawsuits and visiting prostitutes.

So how does a modern church be “all things to all people”? Does this look different in America compared to an African or Asian church?

A Hindrance to the Gospel – 1 Corinthians 9:11-18

Paul claims to have certain rights as an apostle, just as Peter or the Lord’s brothers do. And he agrees that the church ought to support those who serve in the ministry. But Paul does not insist on those rights because doing so would hinder the gospel. Paul does not want anything to become a wall that keeps people from hearing the gospel.

A Hindrance to the Gospel

The Corinthian church seems to have supported other apostles; maybe Peter visited there, although it is unlikely James ever did. If Peter showed up in Corinth with his wife (and a small entourage, the “support staff”), then the church gave him a place to stay and made sure he and his wife had all their needs met while they were in town.  If Peter is due that kind of respect, Paul says, how much more is Paul due that kind of respect? He was the apostle who first brought the gospel to Corinth and labored in their church the longest. Paul is an apostle with a right to have the Corinthian church take care of his needs (food and daily needs, a place to live, and other expenses).

But he has not made use of his rights, so he will not be an obstacle in the way of the gospel.

Paul has rights as an apostle and as a Roman citizen. In Acts 16, he insisted on his rights as a citizen after he was arrested, beaten, and imprisoned without due process. But when Paul was arrested and stood before Gallio in Acts 18, he does not mention his citizenship. However, that he was afforded due process under the Law and received justice from the Roman governor himself may imply that he was recognized as a Roman citizen and that he received his legal rights. If Paul had access to some wealth, he would have more rights in Roman society since he would be seen as a Roman citizen of means who can travel extensively through the empire

He sets aside rights as an apostle so that he does not become a hindrance to the preaching of the Gospel. An obstacle (ἐγκοπή, only here in the NT) is something that causes a hindrance, since as great rocks and streams which are obstacles for travel through difficult territory (πολλάκις διὰ τὰς ἐγκοπὰς, Diodorus Siculus Hist. 1.32.8).

Were there people in the early church who sought to make a profit from the preaching of the gospel? An ancient equivalent of a modern televangelist?

Some philosophers were known for charging exorbitant rates for their services. Philostratus rebuked a Stoic philosopher Euphrates for “money-grubbing and selling wisdom at a discount” (Life, 1.12.3).  Paul will describe the so-called “super-apostles” in 2 Corinthians, teachers who do, in fact, insist on their right to support (and apparently good support at that!)

Didache 12: Beware the Christmonger! The noun χριστέμπορος only appears in Didache 12:5, combining Χριστός and ἔμπορος “trader.” BDAG suggests “one who carries on a cheap trade in (the teachings of) Christ;” BrillDAG, “trafficker in Christ.”

Didache 12 But everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, let him be welcomed. And then, having tested him you will know him. ⌊Then you will be able to distinguish whether he is true or false⌋.  2 If the one coming is a traveler help him as much as you are able. But he shall remain not among you ⌊more than⌋ two or three days, if he has need. 3 And if he desires to stay with you, being an artisan, let him work and let him earn his keep.  4 And if he has no craft, take this into consideration according to your understanding how he shall live among you as a Christian without being idle. 5 And if he does not want to act in this way, he is a Christmonger.  Beware of such as these. (Rick Brannan, trans., The Apostolic Fathers in English)

Paul does not want to be known as a Sophist or a philosopher who gathers wealthy students to himself to become rich and powerful. Nor does he want his relationship with the Corinthians to resemble a patron/client relationship. He denies anything he might have by rights if it hinders the Gospel.

Paul did not insist on this right when he was in Corinth, and he is not demanding it now (9:15-18). Why? If he is paid to preach the gospel, he has “no ground for boasting.” It is a job requirement! If Paul is just doing his job, he does not have the right to boast (9:15-17). In fact, Paul would rather die than be deprived of his grounds for boasting (9:15). By preaching the gospel in Corinth without demanding his rights as an apostle or Roman citizen, Paul can boast in what God has done, and he will receive his reward for being faithful to his commission.

This is challenging for the modern Church because we have created a professional class of Christian ministers; many expect to be paid a decent wage commensurate with their education and preparation. Some have pursued additional education in counseling and other people-oriented skills to be better prepared to help people in local churches. I do not think well-trained ministers are the problem, and churches should not expect their pastors to live in poverty or take two or three side-gigs just to make ends meet. But there are many pastors in this world, in America or the rest of the world, who are clearly in it for the money. Sinclair Lewis’s Elmer Gantry is almost a hundred years old now (or watch the 1960 movie), but the problem of pastors and evangelists demanding more money from their congregations is still one of the biggest hindrances to the gospel.

The Apostle Paul and Rights – 1 Corinthians 9:1-6

In the 1 Corinthians 8 Paul agreed with the Corinthians that eating meat sacrificed to idols was not sinful. However, if that act of freedom in Christ causes another believer to sin, then that freedom should be set aside for the sake of the gospel. What were the Apostle Paul’s rights?

Apostle Paul

In a series of rhetorical questions, Paul first argues he has the right to be treated with respect because he is an apostle (9:1-6). Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? This is one of the main qualifications for being an apostle, and in 1 Corinthians 15:8-10, Paul includes himself alongside Peter and James, and individuals to whom Jesus appeared (and commissioned for a particular ministry).

In fact, the church at Corinth is Paul’s proof of apostleship. He says, “Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?” Workmanship (ESV) tries to express the meaning of the word “work” (NRSV; NIV2011, ἔργον). The sense here is that the Corinthian church is Paul’s accomplishment in the Lord. If anyone doubts Paul is an apostle, the Corinthian church itself is a seal of his apostleship (9:2-3). The church at Corinth is a seal (σφραγίς) of his apostleship in the Lord” (v. 2). The noun translated as seal refers to something that bears an official imprint, signing or sealing a document, but also attesting to the authenticity of that document (BDAG). This might be understood as, “you are my certificate of authenticity as an apostle.”

This is my defense (ἀπολογία) if someone wants to examine me (ἀνακρίνω). Both words are legal terms, as if someone is bringing a lawsuit against Paul in a court. Paul needs to deal with people in Corinth who doubted his qualifications as an apostle (or rather, that he has an inferior apostleship compared to the super-apostles). In Galatians 1 he responds to people who question his authority to declare Gentiles are free from the Law.

The next questions concern Paul’s rights as an apostle (9:4-5): “Do we not have the right to eat and drink?” (9:4). This may mean that Paul and his ministry team have a right to “room and board” while they are in Corinth.

“Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife?” (9:5). In the section on 1 Corinthians 7, I speculated the Apostle Paul may have been married and was now single, whether because his wife died or she divorced him after he began to preach Jesus as Messiah.  This verse implies that Cephas (Peter) and Jesus’s brothers were married. Jesus’s brothers must include James. In 1 Cor 15:6-7, Peter and James are the only named individuals who witnessed Jesus’ resurrection besides Paul. In 9:5, Peter, James (implied), Barnabas, and Paul are the named apostles who have certain rights.

Do we have no right to refrain from working for a living (9:6)? Although there is evidence Jewish rabbis often had a trade, it is possible this manual labor was looked down on by Greco-Roman society. Bruce Winter cites Plutarch, Pericles 2.1, as evidence for disrespect towards manual labor, including leather workers (“we despise the workman…”). Manual labor may cost Paul credibility among the higher-placed members of Corinthian society. There was something suspicious about a philosopher who taught for pay.

By asking these questions, Paul establishes he has clear rights as an apostle. In the same way, an elite citizen of Greco-Roman Corinth had the right to a certain level of respect befitting his social status. But does Paul insist on the rights? Did Paul intentionally refuse patronage from members of the Corinthian church? If so, he may have offended some elite member of the congregation, creating enmity (along factional lines?)