Paul's Table Manners Part 1

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. 33So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
1 Corinthians 11:23-34

This passage has an unfortunate history. Often misinterpreted to exclude people from the table, one can only imagine the damage that misinterpretations of this passage has caused, exercising the very point that Paul himself was arguing against. In this paper I hope to give a more informed interpretation of this difficult text, slowly narrowing upon the passage. Beginning with important background information from Corinth and imperative socio cultural ideals, I will then tighten onto the text itself. In the end I will show that Paul’s central premise of this text is to reinforce that the purpose of communion is not to exclude believers based upon status, but rather to include all believers in the practice of communion.

The Aegan Sea was two miles to the east, while the Adriatic sea lay only a couple of miles to the west, Corinth existed in between two seas. A city with over 100,000 inhabitants, because of its location, it attracted a cosmopolitan population. An ancient day Las Vegas, the city was filled with scoundrels, as freed slaves of Greek, Syrian, Jewish, and Egyptian origin came to the thriving city to become wealthy, and many of them did. With the diverse population in mind, one can only imagine the charisma of the city, and therefore the charisma of a growing church in the city. Therefore, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was overflowing with Christologically pregnant pastoral responses to a charismatic church. The city was filled with many people, with many different ideals due to differing backgrounds. Not surprisingly, within this size of a city, the diverse population also brought large differences in socio economic class.

A natural way that these gaps in class were designated was through meals. Bread and wine were common elements within an ancient meal. At a traditional Jewish meal, the head of the house would say the traditional prayer over the bread, break it and distribute the bread to those whom sat (or lay) at his table. (Again, typically people of the same “status” as him.) Quoting the Dead Sea scrolls from the Qumran community, “And when they prepare the table to dine or the new wine for drinking, the priest shall stretch out his hand as the first to bless the fruits of the bread and of the new wine.” Josephus also records the actions of a noon meal within the Essene community, “they go into the dining room, as into a certain holy temple, and quietly set themselves down; upon which the baker lays them loaves in order; the cook also brings a single plate of one sort of food, and sets it before every one of them; but a priest says grace before the meat and it is unlawful for anyone to taste of the food before grace is said.” Jesus would have naturally fallen into the role of head of house or priest when it came time for the last supper, and thus, his breaking of bread, pouring of wine and prayers would have been common. Yet the Last Supper was different than the typical Jewish meal. The Last Supper had eternal implications, thus Paul commented upon the meal, and we still practice what Jesus told his followers to practice in the meal within our churches today.

Similar to today, it was uncommon for the rich to eat with the poor two thousand years ago, for as people sit at a table with one another, something much more mysterious happens than the satisfaction of appetites. Relationship is pursued. Life is shared, conversation progresses and commonalities are recognized. In the ancient world, table fellowship with another person was a ceremony richly symbolic of friendship, intimacy and unity. Relationship was also reconciled at a meal. When people were estranged in the ancient world, a meal invitation was like an open door toward reconciliation. At a meal, wounds were healed, forgiveness was asked, and forgiveness was granted. With this all in mind, it simply did not make sense that the rich would have table fellowship with the poor. They had nothing in common, no desire for unity, and the rich certainly did not want to put forth the effort to move toward reconciliation with the poor. This thought brings us to 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 and the context surrounding the meal in which Paul is speaking.

The words in 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 are not unique. The chain of historical tradition that Paul received, goes back, largely unbroken, from the words of Jesus himself. These words of Jesus show up in three other spots within the New Testament. They also appear in Matthew, Mark and Luke. All four of the author’s accounts, including Paul’s account, knew Jesus’ words. In essence, Matthew and Mark’s account of the Last Supper are similar, while Luke and Paul’s accounts are similar. However, when compared against each other as pairs (Matthew and Mark versus Luke and Paul), there are two differences that are important for the context of this paper. Firstly, in Matthew and Mark, there is an emphasis upon blood, whereas in Luke and Paul, there is an emphasis upon covenant. The emphasis upon covenant leads to a priority upon relationship, not only between God and human, but also between human and human. This emphasis makes sense in light of Paul’s context for his letter and for his pastoral responses to the sinful actions of the Corinthian church. Luke and Paul also include a command that this action of communion should be repeated, and that this repetition should be practiced as a means of remembering Jesus himself. This remembrance motif is extremely important for the context of the Corinthian situation. I will examine this word later in the paper. While these two differences between Paul and Luke over and against Mark and Matthew are important, and while there are many more differences that I did not highlight, the two most important elements of the Last Supper remain the same in all four accounts. All include the broken body of Christ symbolized by the bread, and the shed blood of Christ symbolized by the wine. And of course, in all four accounts, the elements of the bread and the wine are open to all whom might feast upon them.