By Angus Harley
I have already written three articles on the subject of the Lord’s Supper, which looked at this subject from different perspectives: historical theology, theology, and hermeneutics. [1] This article focuses on a simple exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11, and on principles derived from it we can use in observing the Lord’s Supper.
Lesson #1: Follow the apostolic example and tradition (11:1, 2)
The section of the Lord’s Supper (11:17-33) is part of a broader appeal by Paul for the Corinthians to imitate him, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (v1). Paul unfolds what he means by this in v2, “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” The Corinthians were holding to the apostolic tradition or teaching given by Paul. They did not fail to observe it. Paul himself was taught these things by the Spirit of Christ (e.g., v23). More pointedly, Paul quotes Jesus’ own words, firmly anchoring this particular ordinance in historical events and Jesus’ authority (see next section on authority). Paul says that he delivered these traditions to the Corinthians; presumably he taught them when he established the assembly in Corinth.
It is the assembly’s duty, therefore, to uphold all the apostolic traditions in the Scripture alone (see 2 Thess.2:15; 3:6). This includes the Supper (v23), but not those supposed ‘traditions’ given afterward by various theological councils, assemblies, and the like. Our tradition is the apostolic tradition in Scripture alone. The Lord Supper is one of those traditions that came from the Lord to Paul, and was passed on to the assembly. If a given teaching on the Supper is not in accord with Scripture, you need not follow it and submit to it.
Lesson #2: Follow the underlying structure of the assembly set down by Paul (11:3-16)
Commentaries recognize that the assembly in Corinth was a disorderly mess when it gathered together, even in observing the Lord’s Supper (v17), and that in 1 Corinthians 11-14, Paul is bringing order to bear on the Corinthians and their worship. The theology in vv2-16 is swept up into this broader concern of orderly worship, but is not considered relevant for the section on the Lord’s Supper. However, there is reason to think that it was. Disorder in worship was but the fruit of either despised authority, or a lack of it. The disorder of the Lord’s Supper was one example of this problem in motion. But before coming to it, let’s see how the apostolic tradition countered disorder by insisting on a structure of authority for worship that applied to praying and prophesying.
The male-female dynamic had to be observed for the assembly to be ordered in worship. There is a hierarchy in authority for the Christian life: God is first, for he is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of man; and man is the head of woman (v3). This principle of headship and hierarchy is drawn out regarding praying and prophesying: women had to have their heads covered when praying or prophesying in worship (vv4-6). In the assembly, man was in authority, and must not cover his head in praying or prophesying; woman was under man’s authority, and so must cover her head when praying or prophesying. This was creation’s order (vv7-11). Paul insists that this order of man over woman is not only natural, but that if anyone had any other view that person was being contentious (vv12-16).
Paul then states that the foregoing instruction was not an example of praise (v17); and from that point, Paul moves on to the lack of order in the Lord’s Supper. In saying this, he’s now going in the opposite direction to v2. It was true that the Corinthians had held firmly on to the apostolic traditions, but it was plain that they were not being executed properly. How, then, does the theology of headship apply to the Lord’s Supper? Wasn’t the chaos, in this case, about people eating when they wanted, and some having nothing to eat? Yes, it was. The point is that this lack of structure was evidence of a lack of authority, authority deriving from a particular order and hierarchy given by God, an order incorporating man as the head of woman. There was a lack of leadership all round. Where was the elders’ control? Why were the family heads not doing their duty of love and observing order? The men had to get a grip on the situation and get themselves in order. The women, too, had to examine their own status in worship. It was Jesus himself who established the Supper, by his own authority. Paul even precisely quotes Jesus’ words. Any chaos was therefore an attack on Jesus’ words, command, and authority.
In Jude 1:12, we read about false believers, “men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts”. The reference to love feasts is most likely to the Lord’s Supper and the meal that they shared together. This is another, yet different, example of male abuse, which suggests a lack of discerning leadership in the assembly. 2 Peter 2:13 probably conveys the same scenario (see the NET interpretation).[2] Unsurprisingly, these false Christians despise authority and angelic powers, ignoring how the angels, even in a time of crisis, conduct themselves with respect to authority given by God (Jude 1:9; 2 Pet.2:10-11). A theme not too far away from Paul’s mind in 1 Corinthians 11:10. Carousers caring for the flesh only, paying no heed to their conduct or their words, despising all authority.
Paul does not have to explicitly state every connection to the theme of male headship. We can ‘join the dots together’ for ourselves. To be pointed, a lack of order implied a lack of male leadership and control.
How important to you, as a Christian, especially as an elder, is the authority of God invested in the elders, in men? How important is woman’s submission to this authority? Is it possible to have an egalitarian belief system and properly do the Lord’s Supper? How many assemblies believe in male headship but pay lip service to its relevance for all worship, including the Lord’s Supper? Isn’t it purely of the flesh to do things in worship for the ‘fun’ of it, caring little-to-nothing for order and authority?
Nor do I think just anyone could lead the Lord’s Supper. Verses 3-16 imply that males lead in the assembly’s worship. And it would not be just any male; it would be a leader in the assembly (e.g., 1 Tim.3:1-13). That women could pray and prophesy does not obviate this teaching but circumscribes it, for if there were other exceptions to male action, Paul would have told us.
Lesson #3: Understand the place of the ugly in the Lord’s Supper (vv17-23, 27-32)
It is fascinating that the NASB’s heading for the Lord’s Supper is put above v23, not v17. The formulaic statement associated with Paul’s words (vv17-26) are thereby abstracted from the previous context. It cannot be doubted that the essence of the Lord’s Supper is pure and without defilement. It is the confession of the blood of Christ crucified for us. But why does the biblical record invariably represent all these ‘feast’ times as being problematic? We can answer one way: that the true practice of the Lord’s Supper exposes divisions and a lack of faith in ‘believers’. Yet, as it stands, this view makes such exposure merely incidental to the nature of the Lord’s Supper. But there is the suggestion that more is conveyed by the Supper. Paul writes in vv27-29:
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
The reader will see how to participate in the Lord’s Supper in a bad way is to “be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Someone might paraphrase this as saying, ‘When a Christian does not properly respect the Lord’s Supper, he violates the purpose of the bread and wine.’ This is true, but does it go far enough? The NASB gives us the literal rendition of the Greek text. The impression is that the body and blood themselves are holding ‘Christians’ to account. I do not mean by this a sacramental notion that the body and blood are Jesus in person, or that they have some innate power to judge or even transform. They have no such ability. Isn’t the Supper itself a form of proclamation, “you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (v26)? The Greek word katangello is normally used of the preaching of the Gospel, and although that might be implied here in v26, it is clearly not the main emphasis, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup”: the actual doing of the Supper is a proclamation of the death of Christ, or at least part of that proclamation. Put another way, the Lord’s Supper is like the Gospel in action: it will divide between those who believe and those who don’t, between those who abuse it and those who follow it. I’m not suggesting that the Lord’s Supper has innate power to set apart the godly from the ungodly. It does not. However, the Supper is so special to God’s order because it is an external dramatization of Jesus Christ’s death, that the assembly’s abuse of it and its implied order is a clear marker of disobedience to him. It is the Lord who uses the Supper to differentiate between ardent followers of Christ, and those who are playing fast-and-loose with the Gospel and its Supper.
I argued a similar point in my previous article, where I said that Judas’ participating in the Supper was not merely incidental, for the Lord himself, through the Supper, was separating the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff. This was similar in principle to the Passover itself, which spared those who were covered in the blood, and condemned those who were not. [3]
Look again at vv23-26. It is surely no coincidence, therefore, that they are sandwiched in-between verses that speak about the judgment of God woven into the Lord’s Supper itself (vv17-22, 27-32), a judgment that is not abstracted from the Supper, but is reflected in how the Supper is done, or, to be precise, not done! Is this not why the Pauline formula begins, “that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed” v23)?
Who would have thought that eating for the sake of eating, or ignoring someone who had no food, would be so costly and be a direct attack on the body and blood? We refer to ‘fencing the table’, keeping the ungodly from it. This type of practice is necessary. Unbelievers cannot just decide to participate. Reckless Christianity is verboten. Having said these things, we must underscore that the Supper itself does a fearsome dividing work. Or, to be more theologically accurate, it is the Lord through means of the Supper that does this dividing work, just as he did with Judas. This tension is brought out again and again in all the ‘love feast’ passages of the Supper, yet it gets the least amount of coverage in our practice and confession at the Supper. In sum, the ugliness of the Supper teaches us that we cannot mess with it for it brings judgment.
In saying these things, I am not suggesting that elders act like airport security. We are not in the business of inquisitions! Elders must bear in mind that they are not God and cannot see everyone’s heart, and a reasonable profession of faith in the Gospel is what is required, not confession of Berkhof’s Systematic Theology! Also, the Corinthian assembly had huge failings, and that Paul is condemning them for ghastly, overt behavior that essentially attacked the Gospel and the Lord’s Supper. The same level of overt disobedience is implied in all the Supper passages of Scripture. In fact, the level of disobedience of the Corinthians in general was such that the world itself could see it was reckless and depraved (5:11; 14:23). Is this not one reason why Paul appeals to the order of creation and “nature”- man above woman? Wasn’t the Corinthians’ behavior so obviously unrighteous that even the world could see it? Paul was not micro-analyzing their faith; in writing of the Lord’s Supper, he was not interested in their normal- if I may speak that way- sinful life that went against God’s will. During the Supper, Corinthians were actually wild in their attitude. To illustrate: instead of a controlled Supper like the controlled festivals of the OT, led by the priests in authority, the Corinthians were like the Israelites who caroused whilst Moses was up on the Mountain, for the priests did not do their job.
Lesson #4: Celebrate the New Covenant Supper (vv23-26)
It was a real supper centered on Jesus’ death. The universal practice of the Lord’s Supper is to ignore the setting of a love feast or supper of love. This failure is due to the abstraction thing at work again, as brought out in the NASB’s heading. There can be no doubt 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that the Lord’s Supper was part of a congregational time of eating and fellowship:
20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?…27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly….33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment.
Paul assumes that the gathering together to eat a meal was woven into the Lord’s Supper. This is a similar pattern to Luke 22:14-20 where our Lord and his apostles sat down to the Passover meal, but it was transformed into what we call ‘the Lord’s Supper’. Indeed, Paul recounts how Jesus gave thanks for the bread (Luke 22:19); it belonged to the Passover feast, but was now employed in the new Supper. As we saw before, Jude calls these times “love feasts”, and Peter acknowledges the feasting aspect, too.
The basic idea of the feast was that of one assembly together, as ‘one man’, remembering Jesus’ death until he comes. However, the Corinthians had turned it into a free-for-all, as if they were having lunch in a chaotic mall! The point of the Supper was not the food itself, the ‘feasting’, but the remembrance of Jesus’ death as represented in the bread and wine. Paul is also implying it ought to be a simple meal, for if the poor had nothing to eat, it would not do for others to be eating beef wellington! Rather, he would expect that if someone has nothing to eat, the assembly honors this by either sharing food with the poor, or by taking the food home and eating it there. Oneness, care and consideration for others, a simple meal, and fellowship- these are key notes. The assembly’s remembrance of the Lord’s death controls the feasting, not the other way around.
It was a time of thanksgiving for Jesus’ death (v24). The Supper honed in on one thing: the Lord’s death. Thanksgiving therefore centers on his death. It is not a general time of thanksgiving. We talk about ‘me time’. This is ‘cross time’! After all, it was all about Jesus’ death. It is the Gospel, our foundation, our joy!
The ‘drama’ is important. Jesus took the bread and broke it. Paul is not telling us merely to play back a verbal video of Jesus’ actions and words. Similarly, Paul’s reference to Jesus’ statement about the wine cup was not recalling a mere memory. The actions of breaking the bread and taking the cup are highlighted by Paul as a form of dramatization for the mind. But not merely for the mind, also for the eyes: “ “Do this in remembrance of me” ” (v19). Paul expects the Corinthians to do the same things that Jesus did. The external dramatization of Jesus’ actions is expected, and it is, therefore, essential to the Supper.
The Supper was a remembrance of Jesus. Contrary to popular opinion, there was no sacramental magic taking place in the Supper. The doing of the Supper was not a kind of mystical portal to Jesus or God. Rather, by faith, in doing the Supper, the believer remembered the Lord’s death, brought it to the very front of his mind, and there solemnly viewed it, giving thanks in his heart for what Jesus did for him.
The real Supper was Christ Jesus. Although the focus of the Supper is that of a memorial and remembering Jesus’ past death, we are to eat the bread and drink the cup as currently participating in Jesus as our spiritual food that we receive by faith (see John 6:41-58). More wonderfully, in remembering his death, we engage in living fellowship with the Christ, for he comes to those of faith who gather together to worship God and remember the cross.
The wine represents the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood. Our feasting is mimicking the great New Covenant feast that will happen at the end of time.[4] Its wine of festivity is the blood of Christ. Not that the wine of the eschatological feast, or of the Supper, is actually Jesus’ blood, for it merely represents his blood. This implies that the Old Covenant is completely discarded with all its elements and aspects. To mix Moses’ Law and commandments in with the Gospel and the Supper amounts to adding vinegar to the wine! His blood alone is sufficient for the New Covenant. For his life blood was poured out for us, and thereby the New Covenant was created for our sake. He didn’t need the New Covenant; we did!
Until he comes. Christians are to observe this Supper until the Lord comes. There is another Supper to come, as I said, and it is our final destination. Jesus will come, and we will feast with him in the new heaven and earth. The assembly must observe the Supper until that time comes.
The frequency of the Supper is not directly spoken to here, but the wider context suggests that it was fairly frequent, for it happened when they gathered together. Even so, it does not tell us precisely how often it would have been practiced when they met together. It could have been each time they met. As the Supper is an important ‘dramatization’ of Jesus’ death, a holy remembrance, worship and proclamation, and a time of the fellowship of the body of Christ with Jesus, we ought to observe it more frequent than is commonly practiced.
[1] Angus Harley, “The Lord’s Supper: Luke 22:14-23 read hermeneutically”; “ “Sacrament”, “Eucharist”, “Real Presence”, “Sign”- not cool!”; and, “New is New! (Luke 22:20)”, in All Things New Covenant.com.
[2] The Greek phrase is suneuochoumenoi, which should be rendered something like “feasting with”. It is exactly the same phrase as found in Jude 1:12 to refer to faux believers at the love feast, “feasting with you”.
[3] Harley, “The Lord’s Supper: Luke 22:14-23 read hermeneutically”.
[4] Ibid.
All Things New Covenant 