by the word, and that there is no other context in which the word is used in this way in the New Testament. What Paul might be indicating, therefore, is merely a distinction between those who eat their own meals and those who get nothing to eat at all (Winter 2001, pp. 144–8; Lampe 1994). Either way, the text does not suggest that the division between those who eat and those who do not eat is an easy distinction between rich and poor. Further sociological analysis is needed in order to draw out that conclusion and I will come on to look at that in the following section.
Before moving on, therefore, I need to discuss briefly the issues related to the name, the ‘Lord’s Supper’ (χυριακòν δεîπνον, 11.20). This is the only point within the New Testament where the phrase ‘Lord’s Supper’ is used and there is no internal evidence to suggest what Paul might mean by this. The term was never taken up in any consistent way in other early Christian literature, and where it does occur, in the Apostolic Tradition and in the writings of Tertullian, there is no direct reference to Paul and the letter to the Corinthians, and so this does not help to determine its meaning (Bradshaw 2004, p. 44).
Next comes Paul’s statement of the ‘tradition’ that was handed on to him concerning the Last Supper (11.23–24). A number of commentators note that the structure that Paul uses at this point is similar to that used in some Jewish traditions for the passing on of teaching: ‘I delivered to you . . . what I also received’ (Donfried 2002, p. 302; Alexander 2001, pp. 116–21). This is also one of a number of places within the letter where Paul makes specific reference to what has been passed on to him (Furnish 1999, pp. 21–2; Ellis 1986). Throughout the letter it appears that Paul is very particular about making a distinction between what is being presented on his own authority and what he has received from ‘the Lord’ or ‘the Lord Jesus’. Hurd notes that references to authority, whether of Jesus, scripture, common sense, custom or his own apostolic authority is a feature of those passages that are responding to the Corinthians’ letter (1965, p. 74). However, this section is dealing with an oral communication. The distinction Hurd makes is that ‘it is noticeable that Paul’s rehearsal of the Lord’s teaching here does not seem intended to give the Corinthians new information to settle a new problem, but seems intended rather to recall them to earlier behaviour from which they had strayed’ (1965, p. 79). Here another distinction between responses to the letter and responses to oral communication is highlighted, that is, instruction about the future as opposed to correction of past errors. In this reference to the tradition Paul is clearly referring to the past. What, however, is the nature and source of this tradition?
It is possible to suggest, and some scholars clearly argue, that when Paul talks about receiving a ruling or phrase from the Lord, or from Jesus, this was granted in a vision, whether that on the road to Damascus or some other subsequent experience. If this were the case then these sections would relate to direct communication between Jesus and Paul. The vast majority of commentators, however, argue that this is not what Paul means in these contexts, and that the phrase, or ruling, has been passed on to Paul as being authentically from Jesus by his immediate disciples, whether directly or indirectly (Bornkamm 1966, pp. 130–2; Fee 1987, pp. 547–9). What then are the distinctions that Paul wishes to make between rulings or phrases that come from Jesus and those given on his own authority?
In an earlier passage, in chapter 7, Paul states that ‘to the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband’ (7.10). Here Fee and others have argued that the reference is to an actual statement of Jesus, whether one that is preserved in the gospel tradition or another along similar lines, but this does not suggest how this command came to Paul (Fee 1987, pp. 291–4). The usual, and generally unquestioned, assumption is that Paul must have learnt about it in Antioch during his stay there following his conversion, or directly from the disciples in Jerusalem during one of his visits. The same has generally been assumed of the tradition of the Last Supper (Dix 1945, p. 64). This is certainly possible, but also raises more interesting questions about what role this text had within the community at Antioch or Jerusalem. That, however, is an issue I want to come back to in Chapter 5. For now all that is relevant is that the text is constructed to suggest that the account of the Last Supper is not something that Paul has made up for himself; it forms a tradition that he has heard before and passed on to the Corinthian community, either in exactly the same form that he received it or with his own additions and modifications.
What is important to note is that this is not the first time that Paul has told the Corinthian community about this tradition (11.23). He is reminding them of something that he has previously shared with them. In Hurd’s reconstruction of the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians, it seems most probable that the teaching on the Lord’s Supper would have been given while Paul was in Corinth during his initial founding of the community (Hurd 1965, pp. 213–39). The real question, however, is whether Paul expected the community to repeat, or otherwise remember, the text every time they met for a meal, or whether this was something he taught them when he first instructed them to celebrate the meal, and that they have subsequently forgotten. This question cannot be answered from the limited information provided in the text, but the question is central to the discussion of how often the meal was held within the Corinthian community and it is an issue I will be returning to in the following sections.
The next few phrases are probably the most difficult element of the whole text. This is the eschatological reference in verse 26 and the comments on judgement at the end of the chapter (11.27–34). One difficulty is that it is not at all clear whether verse 26 is a new interpretation that Paul is passing on to the Corinthians in this letter or whether it has always been a part of Paul’s understanding of the meal and was something that was passed on to the community at the same time as the tradition. Most scholars tend to assume that this eschatological reference is part of Paul’s own gloss on the meal, something that fits in well with his way of thinking and the particular stage in his developing thoughts about the death and imminent return of Jesus (Fee 1987, pp. 556–8).
The section on judgement, however, is even more difficult to situate. At one level it reads like a general statement about the worthy reception of the bread and the cup. However, the context that is set up by the issues raised at the beginning and end of the account of the meal (11.20–22 and 11.33–34) suggests that the particular ‘sin’ that the Corinthians are committing relates to their failure to share the meal as a community. It is judgement on this sin that is being called down, because this lack of respect for others in some way fails to recognize the presence of the body of the Lord (11.29), and this in turn has led to sickness and death in the community (11.30). Is the reference to the ‘body’ in verse 29, however, drawing our attention back to the association of the bread as the body of the Lord (11.24) or is it, as most recent commentators suggest, looking forward to the idea of the community as the body of Christ (12.27) (Fee 1987, pp. 562–4)? Both are possible and it may be that Paul himself is establishing a double meaning. It must be stressed, however, that it is the division within the community that is being judged and not any failure to understand a nascent doctrine of the real presence.
Finally, therefore, does the end of the chapter mark a natural break, and does this material form a clear and coherent section within the letter? Given that the next section opens with the ‘now concerning . . .’ (12.1) that Hurd defines as a reference to the letter Paul received from the Corinthians (1965, p. 63), then it is fair to see this as the end of the discussion of the meal. The subsequent discussion of spiritual gifts and the meeting at which each member brings a hymn or a testimony (14.26) relates to different issues. This is important only in relation to those who argue that the order of Paul’s letter, with a discussion of the meal in chapter 11 followed by a discussion of the meeting for prayer and singing in chapter 14, might represent a primitive order of service based, perhaps, on the model of the Graeco-Roman symposium or Philo’s account of the meal among spiritual Jews in Alexandria, where the meal is followed by discussion/teaching and/or ecstatic prayer (Alikin 2009, p. 28; Smith 2003, pp. 200–1). It is fairly clear, however, that Paul is simply moving through the series of issues raised by the Corinthians, either in their letter or by personal communication. These two sections clearly belong to different answers to different issues, and
