/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

2)1 Corinthians 11

Paul’s principal concern in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is with a practice of the Supper that involves or exacerbates distinctions and divisions rather than unity. In 1 Cor 12, where Paul challenges status concepts on the basis of the Spirit’s work in all Christians, combined with recent archaeologically informed study of the passage, it seems the issue is one of social honour. Whether ironic, or the quotation of a Corinthian saying, Paul’s reference to divisions that show God’s favour for some over others supports this conclusion. It appears that, in keeping with meal practices in Corinth, the host-patron and those belonging to an honoured group would be seated at the main table in the triclinium, while those of lesser social status would stand in the atrium, possibly in quite crammed conditions, depending on the numbers involved. The quality and volume of food and drink served to those in the triclinium would be superior to what was given to those in the atrium. The question of how this may relate to a banquet in connection with the specifically Eucharistic practice is less important than the almost universally acknowledged fact that the architectural space, and its use in meal contexts, embodied social distinctions.

Paul’s response to this turns on the participatory significance of the Supper that has already been outlined in relation to 1 Cor 10. For the apostle, the institutionalized humiliation of the ‘have-nots’ is an act of contempt towards the church of God itself (11:22) and it is with this challenge that he moves into a discussion of the significance of the Eucharist as a sacrament. His account of the institution of the Supper (11:23–5) presents it as a matter of closely transmitted tradition: Paul has received and passed on this account from the Lord. The closeness of the account to what is found in the Synoptic Gospels is widely acknowledged and here, by contrast to 1 Cor 10:16, the elements are named in the same order as in the Gospels. This emphasis on tradition is rhetorically and theologically significant as Paul emphasizes the ‘givenness and universality of a pre-Pauline tradition which originated with the Lord himself as a dominical institution’. This is not just a matter of claiming authority for the practice or for its significance, but of setting it in anentirely different category from any of its social parallels.

In addition, however, the use of "delivered" for the transmission of tradition by Paul to the Corinthians may be part of a rhetorical play by the apostle as he uses the same verb to speak of the ‘handing over’ of Jesus (usually translated as ‘he was betrayed’). This may echo Isaiah 53:6, where the subject of the verb is God himself; rather than being solely a reference to his betrayal, then, the verb speaks of the divine purpose of the death of Jesus. This takes us all the way back to 1 Cor 1:18–31, where the death of Jesus is precisely for those who are weak and foolish in the eyes of the world and where ‘Christ crucified’ is the divinely appointed wisdom that nullifies human standards. By his play of "delivered", Paul reminds his readers that the very tradition of the Lord’s Supper that has been handed down is of the divine purpose in Jesus’s death that pronounces a verdict on the very social distinctions that they cherish and maintain. That death is what is proclaimed in the sacrament (11:26), so that ‘the logical consequence of the tradition' ought to be an appropriate practice of the Supper of the kind that is thoroughly contradicted by the segregations practised in Corinth.

tl;dr

>>720254

Once again, we encounter covenantal language and imagery in the words of institution, which most scholars see as authentic, notwithstanding some translational issues that Paul shares with Luke. These are most in evidence with the designation of the cup as ‘the new covenant in my blood’. Paul, like Luke, employs the specific phrase ‘new covenant’, while Mark 14:24 and Matthew 26:28 have ‘my blood of the covenant’, the latter generally seen as the original form of the saying. At this stage, what is important for us to note is the fact that the phrase found in Paul and Luke is evocative of a theme that we have begun to encounter and will see that the death of Jesus has instituted the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31. By this covenant the significance of the law is truly realized through the ministry of the Spirit, uniting believers to Jesus and conforming them to him. The juxtaposition of this passage with 1 Cor 12, then, is not just a matter of the shared concern with the body of Christ, but also with the Spirit led character of this body; these two themes, the body of Christ and the work of the Spirit, operate in tandem in these chapters.

The seder associations of the Supper, implicit in 1 Corinthians 10:16 through Paul’s phrase ‘the cup of blessing’, also mean that the ‘new covenant’ is understood in terms of the old one or, perhaps better, that the old covenantis taken up into the symbolism of the new.

In his own re-occupation of the Exodus event through the symbolic meal of Passover, Jesus interprets the elements of that commemorative meal to anticipate the redemptive significance of his death. Interestingly, the body of the lamb is not one of the elements that is re-interpreted, so that the identification of the cup with ‘the new covenant in my blood’ (11:25) is distinguished from the death of the Passover lamb. Instead, it is understood in terms of the blood by whichratification of the covenant was achieved in Exodus 24:6–11. The passage also has an important point of correspondence to the Matthew–Mark version of the Eucharistic saying in the expression ‘bloodofthe covenant’. Although this close verbal parallel disappears in the Luke–Paul version, where it is replaced by an allusion to Jeremiah 31:31, Exodus 24 is nevertheless broadly evoked as a covenant ratified by blood and celebrated in a ritual feast (Ex 24:11). So, just as the Passover accountin Exodus12 deliberately looks forward to the establishment of the covenant with God’s people (12:1428) and lies behind a seder practice that understands Passover to evoke the whole narrative of Exodus (including the covenant), so in the New Testament the symbolism of the meal is understood to include covenant ratification.

Following the covenantal identification of the cup with Jesus’s blood, similar associations are also made with Jesus’s body. In identifying the broken bread of the Passover meal with his own body, ‘which is for you’, Jesus interprets that element in terms of his own sacrificial death. We have seen the possible echo of Isaiah 53:6. A further echo of the fourth Servant song, this time of Isaiah 53:12 is possible.

>>720256

Let me finish typing, as I want viewers to get the whole context before I summarize it all

>>720258

Such a breadth of background is well warranted by the Passover accounts, which are embedded in narratives that work towards Deuteronomy 28. Hence, this act of remembrance is one of identifying the narrative of Jesus as decisive for the believer’s own identity in the covenant, through his substitutionary death. While some allowance must be made onspecific details of the seder for the late character of the textual witnesses, it is suggestive that the Haggadah Maggid, told as the bread is raised and blessed, begins ‘This is the bread of affliction that our fathers ate in the land of Egypt’.We can readily see how such imagery of contemporizing remembrance might have been understood, in terms of Isaiah 53, as an identification of the eater with the one afflicted on his behalf.

Hence we see through this narrative identification and symbolism, the Eucharist in 1Corinthians demands the real presence as such a self identification and the use of the elements in them dont work if the bread and wine dont truly communicate the body and blood of Christ. As Augustine says after all about the Eucharist, we become what we eat.

>>720256

Ok basically what I want to show is how the Eucharist in 1Corinthians is in fact in close resemblance of the Jewish Passover which is now interpreted in terms of Christ. Now if the theme of narrative self identification and participation havent ring something yet, here is what it entails, it means that in the Passover Jews self identify as Israel in Exodus, they are participating not in a way of mere remembrance as I remember a past event, in that narrative. So in the Eucharist, we participate in Christ and have Him truly say that His body and blood are truly given for us. As this is an enactment of the Last Supper narrative, this means the elements themselves now take on the role as Christ's body and blood. They truly communicate Him to us and by eating them, we eat Christ as that is how we participate in Him.

>>720249

Do you have a link to this?

>>720768

Found it, many thanks!