Skip to main content

1 Corinthians 11:17-34

You can read the text here.

Paul, continuing to address issues of unity, now issues a stern rebuke to Corinthians practices concerning the Lord's Supper. Their meetings were doing more harm than good. Rather than bringing unity, their practices related to the Lord's Supper were dividing the church, shaming poorer members of the church and those of whom the host was not a patron by excluding them from the prime eating and fellowship area.[1] This deepened fault lines already present in the church.[2] Paul is understandably outraged.[3]

At this point Paul goes back to basics and reminds them of the tradition he handed down to them, of the meaning of the meal they were celebrating. It was a meal in which Jesus and his sacrifice for the sake of the church was to be remembered. And by remembered, he does not mean that events were to be recalled to ones mind. It meant that it required commitment to Jesus and engagement in worship, trust, and obedience.[4] It is a covenant meal where a community confirms their covenant relationship to Jesus, which puts them under his discipline. It is not a purely symbolic act.

Therefore, if Jesus died for the church, to make it collectively his body and to call people into it without regard to their worth or status, then to use the Lord's Supper as a means for making the fault lines of the church clear and demean those of lower status is to undo what Christ did and makes one answerable before God. It's breaking the covenant, because Jesus covenanted with the community, not a faction in it. Thus, the Corinthians needed to check themselves to ensure that they were keeping up their end of the bargain, to build up one another and to give up their rights in service of the other in imitation of Christ. Since some had been sinning against the covenant, God's judgment had come down on the Corinthians.[5] The Corinthians needed to examine their behavior because God takes their covenant commitment seriously. Better they correct themselves then God have to correct them, but even God's correction was for their own good.

Paul concludes on a very practical note after the stern warning, urging them to eat together, and if they're really so hungry, to eat before they gather.

[1] See Thiselton for helpful background on the meal time dynamics.

[2] Vs. 19 is ironic according to Ciampa and Rosner.

[3] Commenting on vs. 22, Ciampa and Rosner make an interesting point here. By hosting a worship service, the host's home was transformed into a sacred space. The house they were eating in was no longer a home.

[4] Thiselton expands helpfully on these themes.

[5] Ciampa and Rosner note that the community as a whole was judged which meant some who were innocent probably experienced judgment as often happened in the Hebrew Bible when the community suffered judgment for the sin of a portion of it.


Popular posts from this blog

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…