Pauline use of the Last Supper tradition (sacraments)

Pauline use of the Last Supper tradition (sacraments)

Sacraments have been a matter of serious theological debate in the history of Christianity and they are theological curtains that divide Christians into various denominations today. There is a difference between the Roman Catholic^[1] and the Protestants,^[2] and there is no uniformity since inception even on the mode of practices. There are two sacraments in the Pauline churches,^[3] namely Baptism and the Lord’s Supper which are of great significance for the life of the church. The baptism serves as an initiation rite whereas the Lord’s Supper occupies an important place as an integral part of worship in the Pauline churches.

Paul explicitly discussed on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians. The Lord’s Supper is called in variety of names^[4] and celebrated and understood in widely in different ways as denomination sprang up among the Christians. It is the direct descendant of the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples (1 Cor 11:23-26). It was a farewell meal, but at the same time an anticipation of the Messianic Banquet (cf. Lk 22: 16, 18; Mk 14: 24). It was an institution founded in connection with the Passover celebration. It is possible that the idea of Christ as a paschal lamb was quite familiar to the early church (1Cor 5: 6-8). However, the Lord’s Supper was probably held at frequent intervals (11: 17-34) not merely as an ‘annual’ remembrance of the Lord’s death at the Passover season [A.J.B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 20]. For Paul, Lord’s Supper is the remembrance of the Last Supper and consequently of the death of the Lord, with the “breaking of bread” at the beginning and the “wine cup” at the conclusions as symbols of the body and blood of Christ [Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthian, 546].

1. The Context: The Abuses at the Lord’s Supper at Corinth

Along with other disorders reported to him, Paul received a report^[5] that there were “Divisions” (11:18) among the Corinthian Christians as they came together to celebrate the “Lord’s Supper” (v. 20). And as a result of these divisions there were serious abuses at the Lord’s Supper.^[6] It is most probable that Paul himself had handed over to the Corinthians the liturgical tradition of the Lord’s Supper when he first planted the church at Corinth. The ‘Supper’ is to be done in remembrance of the meal on the night when Jesus was betrayed. The celebration of the Lord’s Supper should be characterized by an atmosphere of “fellowship” and “sharing” (10:16). Schmithals sees that “there is nothing here to indicate that a real meal to satisfy hunger belonged to the observances.”^[7]

What was happening in the Corinthian assembly was very different from that what was expected of them. There was a division on grounds of social stratification which led to the abuses in the observation of the Lord’s Supper. Christian community in Corinth consisted of Gentiles (1Cor 12: 2), Jewish (Acts 18: 4; 1Cor 7: 18), lower class including slaves and freed (1Cor 1: 26 ff) and there were also upper social class and economic levels (1Cor 11: 21ff; Acts 18: 8; Rom 16:23).^[8] The existing practice was that the participants brought their own food and drinks with them supposed to be shared by all. But what actually happened was instead of sharing at a common table; the members eat and drink what they themselves had brought. The wealthy brought so much food and drink that they could indulge in gluttony and even in drunkenness, whereas the poor remained hungry (11:21). The rich who could come early, having no bound at home, would not wait for the poor who came late for the Supper due to their less fortunate brethren, and in turn despised the church of God (11:22).^[9] Some scholars suggested that the food served to the rich was a higher quality whereas the less well-off guests had to content with more meager ration. Thus it was not the real Lord’s Supper (11:20), so Paul regarded this celebration as completely a distortion of the Lord’s Supper. The true essence of the Lord’s Supper was totally lost. There was no real fellowship and there was no place for the proclamation of the Lord’s death either.

There was also a division caused probably by the libertine Christians. These groups of influential people in the congregation were “opposing to the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ.”^[10] The attitudes of these libertines Christians toward the Lord’s Supper were not different in principle from that toward the sacrifices to idols. They took part in both the idol worship and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper without hesitation (10:22). Thus the undesirable happenings at the Supper were partly the influence of these people who saw no meaning in the cultic meal and try to transform the Supper into as assembly with a profane feast. Thus it is very doubtful whether the cultic liturgy would be properly carried out in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the Corinthians context.

2. Paul Solution to the Problems:

Paul, in his attempt to solve the disorder in the observance of the Lord’s Supper at Corinth gives certain instructions to the Corinthians congregation.

a) The Tradition From the Lord: In relation to the words of instruction of institution found in 1 Corinthians 11: 17-34, Barrett argues that these may “not be assumed” to be “already in liturgical use at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.”^[11] However, that Paul had already made known the tradition of the Lord’s Supper to the Corinthian church is indicated by the statement, “I delivered to you” (11: 23). But now due to the abuse of the Lord’s Supper in the church, Paul reminds the Corinthians the liturgical formula which the church should have been using for sometimes. However, the explanation of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (11:27) could be a new insertion into the Lord’s death through the letter.

Paul claims that he received the tradition “from” the Lord. This can mean either: (1) The Lord himself was the first link of the unbroken tradition which Paul received; (2) The Lord revealed the real meaning of the Eucharist to Paul through a vision or by special revelation similar to the Damascus experience. Here the probability of the former has been shared by most scholars,^[12] and that the narrative of the Last Supper would become familiar to Paul from the tradition of the church.^[13] When Paul claimed that he received the tradition from the Lord, he made himself independent of human authority. That mean, the Corinthians should not take the tradition lightly, because it is a divine institution. It is important that the Lord’s Supper should not be put in the same footing as an ordinary meal. Paul’s point is that a demarcation should be drawn from between the spiritual food of the Eucharist and the ordinary meal which satisfies bodily hunger.^[14]

(b) Warning Against Idolatry: Some of the Corinthian converts saw no harm in kind of religious syncretism and did not considered inconsistent with their Christian confession to continue attending to the heathen temples.^[15] They took part in the idolatrous feasts and at the same time participate in the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians out of their own intellect and wisdom might have thought that since idol is not real, it does not matter what they eat but also where they eat, and that as long as they participate in the Lord’s Supper they remain secure in Christ. Paul sees that to participate in both the meals is absolutely incompatible. Thus he warns: “Flee from the worship of idols” (10: 14), “you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of the demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?” (vv.21f.) Paul begins these warnings with a statement, “My dear brothers…” to show that it is his love for them that make him seems to be served and compels him to lay down this rule.^[16]

Paul was convinced that the image used in the idolatrous worship was a mere block of wood or stone and nothing more.^[17] But at the same time he was no doubt as to the existence and malign influence of the evil forces and the powers.^[18] Because of this, idolatry was not merely a meaningless but positively evil thing. It was evil because it robbed the true God of the glory due to him alone (cf. Rom 1: 23) and brought the worshipper into infinite relationship with the lower and evil-spiritual powers (1 Cor 10: 20). Paul argues that idolatry is an entry into unholy partnership with the demons as well as with other participants in the cultic meal.^[19] This partnership, Christian must denounce (10: 14) and be partaker only of God in Christ. For Paul it is not enough to express disapproval of idolatry, but the Christian must move away from it which would bring him/her into direct contact with it. The substance of Paul’s advice is that they must never participate in idol feasts in pagan temples, for that will mean nothing less than exclusion from the body of Christ.^[20] So for Paul, to eat both at the table of the Lord and of the demon is to make a mockery of the Eucharist.^[21]

c) Warning Against Unworthy Participation in the Lord’s Supper: The serious abuse which the Corinthians did upon the Lord’s Supper was that they partook the Lord’s Supper in an ‘unworthy manner’. Against this profane act Paul warns, “Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable to the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). Here Paul does not give a direct definition for ‘unworthy’. But the expression covers all that is incompatible with the intention of Christ in instituting the Supper.^[22] And the Corinthian context will indicate that the ‘unworthy manner’ has been shown forth by their selfish and greedy irreverent behavior as well as by their inward wrong attitude toward Christ and his salvific works which has been symbolized in the Lord’s Supper.

In the Corinthian assembly, the congregation members eat and drink the Eucharistic elements without “discerning the body” (11: 29). This means that they fail to show concern over the church (the believers), the body of Christ, in which the living Lord is present.^[23] According to Paul, the selfishness and the lack of consideration for the others – eating and drinking before others have come and to do them in excess (most probably by the ‘haves’) while others (probably the ‘have-nots’) are hungry, involve contempt of the church of God (11:22) by this selfish act they not only abuse the ‘have-nots’ but also the Lord himself for not properly “remembering” him especially in terms of the salvation he has wrought through his death, which was intended to make them one, not divided as their Supper does.^[24]

The Corinthians would benefit nothing from mere participation in the Lord’s Supper, rather a punishment would be inflicted upon them for their unworthy participation. In fact, according to Paul, the illness, infirmities and the loss of lives among the Corinthians are judgment from God against their abuses on the Lord’s Supper (11: 30). Paul insists that the Corinthians should ‘examine’ themselves before they participate in the Lord’s Supper (11:28). They should test themselves as to their attitude toward the Table, especially their behavior toward others at the table, since the meal itself is the place of proclaiming the Gospel.^[25]

Paul was particularly concerned about their own food taking the place of the Lord’s Supper and went on to the extent that he suggests them to take the ordinary meal to satisfy bodily hunger at home lest the result of their assembly be condemnation (11:34). Here one may suggest that Paul initiated a process which ended in the separation of the Eucharistic celebration from the community (or Agape) meal.^[26] But what Paul simply means here was that those who are hungry before that they cannot wait for their brothers should satisfy their hunger before they leave home, in order that decency and order may prevail in the assembly.^[27]

3. Theological Significance of the Lord’s Supper

a) The Bread: A Means of Sharing in the Body of Christ: There has been great controversy on the meaning of “this is my body” (11:24). In fact no verse in the Bible has raised so much discussion as this.^[28] Each of the great Christian churches puts its own interpretation on it.^[29] The whole Eucharistic rite and that bread and wine are only the outward and visible sign, the symbol of Christ’s unseen spiritual presence.

At the Last Supper Jesus “having given thanks broke” the bread and shares (11:24). This reflect the ordinary Jewish meal which began with the head of the house giving the traditional blessing over the bread, break it and giving it to those at the table with him. Jesus as the teacher, undoubtedly played the roles in meals with the disciples.^[30] At the Passover meal, it was accustomed that the blessing and distribution of the bread came during the meal (cf. Mk 14:18; Lk 22:17-19). In the Last Supper, the remarkable thing that Jesus did was to reinterpret the meaning of bread as he was distributing it, in terms of his own death.^[31] In ‘giving thanks’ Jesus bestows on the meal a religious significance and invites the disciples to receive the elements in a spirit of thankfulness and faith, as God’s good gifts and pledges of his mercy.^[32] By breaking the bread, Jesus proclaims the breaking of his body on the cross and symbolizes that he bestows to the disciples his redeeming sacrifices. Jesus died for all and whoever shares this bread, itself the expression of one love, together make up one body. Because there is one bread, all partake of the same bread (10: 17). Thus Paul asks, “The bread which we break, is not sharing in the body of Christ?” (10: 16). Here, the expected answer is ‘Yes’. These words would certainly mean “fellowship” with fellow members in the church, and with the Risen Christ, and also with the human body of Christ,^[33] i.e. to share in his suffering. These three implications of the breaking of the bread were not realized in the Corinthian church.

(b) The Cup: A Means of Sharing in the Blood of Christ: The Pauline liturgical rite reads “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” whereas Matthew and Mark has “This is my covenant blood”. Paul, unlike Matthew and Mark does not identify the cup, or the wine contained in it, with the blood of Christ. It is often argued that the Pauline form is secondary, for it avoids the direct identification of the wine contained in the cup with blood, since drinking blood is revolting to the Jews. However, Jesus was himself a Jew, and might therefore has avoided the identification of wine with blood. But there is in fact no significant difference in meaning between the two forms. Each form of the saying presupposes that the shedding of the blood of Christ inaugurated a new covenant between God and human beings.^[34] The background of this new covenant is found in the two of the O.T. passages: the covenant at Mt. Sinai (Ex 24:8), and the promise of new covenant to the people of Israel and Judah (Jer 31:31-34).

The expression “the cup of blessing” is a technical term for the cup of wine drink at the end of meal as its final close,^[35] and ‘this cup of blessing’ was a thanksgiving for the whole meal.^[36] In the Lord’s Supper, the ‘cup of blessing’ is a means of sharing in the blood of Christ, because believers in drinking the cup over which Christ gave thanks appropriate themselves the benefits of his sacrificial death (Rom 3: 25; 5: 9). They have communion with Christ crucified and risen again, because they show themselves ready to share in his sufferings (cf. Rom 8: 17). So, to partake of this cup is a criterion of readiness to share in his blood, i.e. in his suffering.^[37] In the church at Corinth, instead of sharing in the suffering in the blood of Christ, they despised the sacrificial death of Christ by profaning the Lord’s Supper, and were pre-occupied with their physical pleasures and selfishness.

(c) In Remembrance of the Lord: The liturgical words “do this in my remembrance” (11:24, 25) are characteristic of Pauline text and were omitted in Mark. Considering Paul as “the creator of the second (Pauline) type of the Lord’s Supper,”^[38] Lietzmann believes that “Paul was influenced by the contemporary Hellenistic practice of feasts in memory of the dead by relatives and friends on the anniversary of their death.”^[39] This is very common both in the O.T. and N.T.^[40] So, this may refer to the observance on the Supper instituted by Jesus on the night of his betrayal. The instruction to repeat the Eucharistic rite establishes the Lord’s Supper as a permanent rite, and so distinguishes it from the other symbolic acts related in the Bible which we are not told to repeat.

The significance of the Lord’s Supper is that it is the Eucharistic rite in remembrance of the Lord’s death (11:26). Thus the Lord’s Supper is more than a mere commemoration, it means a sacramental presence.^[41] The meal is to proclaim the goodness of salvation that makes all to become one through the death of Christ. The Corinthians seem to completely ignore about the sacramental aspects of the Lord’s Supper, because they considered the Supper as a mere festive gathering where they could satisfy their physical hunger.

The Lord’s Supper serves for the remembrance of Jesus, not merely as a means to recollect the past, but it looks forward to the meal in the Messianic Kingdom (Lk 14: 15-24; 22:16). Thus the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated as a memorial and in expectation.^[42] The Supper should be celebrated “until he comes” (11:26). Thus to the Supper belongs the eschatological outlook.^[43]

If the significance of the Supper is, primarily to proclaim the death of Jesus, there is also a secondary significance in that the meal looks forward to the time when he will come again at the Parousia. The early church’s liturgical use of the Aramaic form Maranatha “Our Lord, Come!” would certainly find its appropriate setting in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Thus, Maranatha implies both the congregation’s call for the final parousia in the future and for the fulfillment of Christ’s presence also in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

FootNotes

1. The Roman Catholic has seven sacraments: Confirmation, Penance (Confession), Holy Order, Matrimony, Unction, Baptism and Holy Communion. ↑

2. The Protestant has two namely Baptism and Lord’s Supper. ↑

3. Though Paul does use the word Sacrament at all but it is the product of the early Christian particularly the Latin Roman Christians. The word “Sacramentum” in Greek has been used indicate a kind of soldier’s oath to allegiance. ↑

4. The Baptist calls it Lord’s Supper and sometimes as Holy Communion, Eucharist, Breaking of the Bread and Mass. The lord’s Supper is derived from the Greek word kyriokon deipnon “the supper belonging to the Lord” (1Cor 11:20). The Holy Communion is from koinônia “Communion” or “Sharing” (1Cor 10: 16). The Eucharist is from eucharista “thanksgiving” (cf. 1Cor 11: 24). The Breaking of the Bread is from klasei tou arton “to break the bread” (Acts 2: 42; Lk 24: 35). And the Mass used by the Roman Catholic is not biblical based term. It is derived from the use of the Latin term missio which refers to the dis-missal of the non-members and the catechumens prior to the celebration of the ritual meal. Cf. Paul H. Jones, “The Meaning of the Eucharist: Its origin in the New Testament Texts,” Encounter, vol. 54 No. 2, Spring 1993, 169. The terms “Lord’s Supper” and “Eucharist” would be used interchangeably in our discussion. ↑

5. Barrett believes that the Corinthians, proud of their own achievements (e.g. 1: 4ff; 5: 2), may not report to Paul about the divisions in the Lord’s Supper in their “letter.” Paul had the news probably from Chloe’s people (1: 11) or from the Corinthian delegates Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaius (13; 17). Cf. Barrett, A commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968), 261. ↑

6. The Corinthian church was bound to be troubled with many problems and undesirable disorders in the church at Corinth. One of the most important issues was disorder in the observance of the Lord’s Supper (10: 14-22; 11: 17-34) which is the attempt in this study. ↑

7. W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Second Edition) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1914), 250. ↑

8. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 108. ↑

9. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 71. ↑

10. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 254. ↑

11. Barrett, A commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 264. ↑

12. Scholars like, W.G. Kümmel, A. Schweitzer, M. Debelius, R. Bultmann and J. Herring shared this view, Cf. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 25. ↑

13. Lietzmann, The Mass and the Lord’s Supper, 208. ↑

14. Deluz, A Companion to the First Corinthians (1963), 15ff. ↑

15. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 67. ↑

16. A. Robertson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 211. ↑

17. Barrett, A commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 237. ↑

18. Cf. Rom 8; 34; 1 Cor 2: 8; Gal 4; 9, etc. ↑

19. Willis Wendell L., Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Arguments in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (Society of Biblical Literature, 1985), 119. ↑

20. Craig C Tucker, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians,” The Interpreters’ Bible, vol. X (New York: Abingdon Press, 1953), 113. ↑

21. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 68. In 1 Corinthians 10: 1-13, Paul has drawn the analogy of the Israelites’ experience at the Exodus where all partook the spiritual food (manna) and drink (water) provided to them by God, i.e. the counterpart of the Christian sacrament of Baptism and the Eucharist. But the Israelites were not spared from the dire consequences of evil, particularly idolatry. Their experiences were a warning that the sacraments are not automatic protectors from punishment for disloyalty, as exemplified in idolatry. Since, the Corinthians were ‘sensible people’ they should be able to judge that to be both a partaker of the Lord’s table and of the demon’s table is absolutely incompatible. And also they realize the danger of engaging in idolatry while professing Christ from the analogy of the Israelites’ experiences. ↑

22. Robertson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 250. ↑

23. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 72. ↑

24. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthian, 558. ↑

25. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthian, 562. ↑

26. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 92. ↑

27. Barrett, A commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 277. ↑

28. Deluz, A Companion to the First Corinthians, 158; W.P. Orr and J.A. Walter, I Corinthians (Doubleday and Company Inc., 1976), 271. ↑

29. The Roman Catholics take literally, in the most realistic sense. They teach ‘Transubstantiation’, the literal changing of the substance of the body of Christ. Protestant Reformers were unanimous in rejecting the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. However, they could not come to consensus as to the alternate interpretation. Luther held to the idea of the ‘Real Presence’ of Christ as the sacrament. As Luther saw it, the bread remained bread but the body of Christ mystically united with it, it goes with, it is given with it. On the other hand, Zwingli held the other extreme position, for him the bread stands for Christ’s body, its symbolized it. Calvin, in trying to correct Zwingli, teaches that the Lord’s Supper does not merely ‘Represents’ Jesus but ‘Presents’ him. ↑

30. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthian, 549. ↑

31. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthian, 549. ↑

32. Deluz, A Companion to the First Corinthians, 158. ↑

33. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 70. ↑

34. Barrett, A commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 269. ↑

35. Barrett, A commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 231. ↑

36. Orr and J.A. Walter, I Corinthians, 272. ↑

37. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 68f. ↑

38. Lietzmann, The Mass and the Lord’s Supper, 208. ↑

39. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, 35; Cf. Barrett, A commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 267. ↑

40. OT: cf. Gen 26: 30; Ex 12: 47f.; Deut 16: 13, etc. NT: cf. Mk 6: 21; Lk 14: 12, 16 etc. ↑

41. Hans Conzelmann, I Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Fortress Press, 1969), 198. ↑

42. Deluz, A Companion to the First Corinthians, 162. ↑

43. Conzelmann, I Corinthians, 202. ↑

Friendly Note

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! We are deeply thankful for your visit to BD Materials. It is our mission and joy to serve Bible students, pastors, and believers with high-quality theological resources.

At BD Materials, you’ll find study notes, articles, question papers, and valuable academic content designed to support your biblical and theological education.

We also invite you to explore Telugu Gospel Lyrics and Theological Library.

Thank you for being part of this mission—may God bless your studies and ministry abundantly!