The Eucharist in 1 Corinthians

At first glance, Paul’s writing about the Lord’s Supper may not appear to address social issues. It is debatable whether Paul’s advice to the Corinthians addresses the issue of hunger. Two things point to this in 1 Cor. 11.23-34. First, there is the simple fact that 1 Cor.11.34 advises those who have problems about hunger to eat at home before they come:

The second, but more contentious, is that the meal proposed does not appear to be a particularly effective means of addressing hunger, for Paul’s corrections seem to indicate a token meal, comprising bread and wine. This scenario draws on a particular view of how the Eucharist developed. The Passover meal is not considered as significant as a Jewish token meal tradition which finds its expression in the Jewish romance Joseph and Aseneth.Footnote 20 J.C. O’Neill, drawing on the work of G.D. Kilpatrick, argued that a token meal tradition lies behind the meals described in Joseph and Aseneth, and the Supper Narratives of the New Testament, noting that ‘there is no early evidence of a stage in the history of the eucharist when the distinct act of worship is being disentangled from something embedded in something like a full-scale meal’.Footnote 21 Behind O’Neill’s comment lies the fact that the descriptions of the Last Supper given in the Gospels which connect it more explicitly to a full Passover meal postdate the Corinthian correspondence, and may thus import an anachronistic identification with the Passover seder into the accounts. Christoph Burchard argues that an alternative tradition such as that in Joseph and Aseneth may help:

It suggests a scenario rather, in which a token meal is intended, and may even originate with Jesus himself: this, certainly, is the source that Paul claims (1 Cor. 11.23).Footnote 23

Paul does not provide a quick fix to the problem of hunger. Tucked into his advice on eucharistic celebration is ethical teaching of a different order, but it is revolutionary within his context. To grasp this fully we need to consider Paul and the context of the letter, and, in particular, what social scientific criticism brings to our understanding of the dynamics of the situation. Paul is writing to the people of Corinth, a city with a strong Roman character situated in Greece.Footnote 24 The behaviours of its citizens reflect both Romanitas and Hellenism. Their social interactions are governed by principles and practices from those cultural trajectories. Paul uses these together with the prophetic traditions of Judaism which linked ritual observance to right behaviour. The prophets never wish to abolish the cult, but rather to ensure that cult practice is not divorced from ethics:

The upshot of Paul’s approach is that the practice of the Eucharist be extended into the full life of the community. Hunger may not be addressed immediately, but wider questions are. What happens in the celebration should exemplify the life of the community — and be put into practice.

Thus returning to Hull’s categories, worship becomes expressive of mission by providing a ritual expression of the values of the Kingdom.

Graeco-Roman Society: The Meal as Paradigm of Community

A considerable body of literature built up in the Hellenistic world in which meals figured prominently in philosophical writings: the symposium tradition.Footnote 26 This appears in a number of locations: Plato’s Symposium, Xenophon’s Apologia, Plutarch’s Table-Talk and Athenaeus’s Deipnosophistae are recognizable examples of the genre. In Judaic Greek literature, Philo Cont. 57-64 sets the description of the Therapeutai within this literary tradition, effectively to show their superiority to many of their Hellenistic counterparts.Footnote 27 In Old Comedy, related material is used to satirize society and democracy, even if it never provides practical advice for improving either.Footnote 28 The symposium traditions allow actions or sayings to be invested with significance through their being singled out and set within a narrative frame or dialogue.Footnote 29 Indeed, they do more than this, for they set up a scenario in which the meal parallels the beliefs or world-view of those who take part in it: it becomes a model example of the ways in which the beliefs of the school should be practised, not just their etiquette:

Or, ‘[the meal] might be in many regards a microcosm of the aspirations and aims of the culture as a whole’.Footnote 31

This literary tradition does not, however, stand in a vacuum. It is the tip of a larger social iceberg. The symposium tradition is revealed in how meals are celebrated in the different cultures of the ancient world. Dennis E. Smith considers that Paul stands within such ‘banquet ideology’:Footnote 32 this is revealed in the controversies at Antioch, Corinth and Rome. This ideology has a particular social significance:

Paul’s advice on the celebration of the Lord’s Supper thus provides advice on how the Christian community ought to function, not just celebrate its rituals. We might paraphrase this as ‘you are (or should be) how you eat’. The substance of Paul’s reflections on the meal as a paradigm for behaviour focus on two areas: status and honour, and sacramentals.

Graeco-Roman Society: Status and Honour

In our post-Marxist age it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that issues of poverty and exclusion have a predominantly economic basis. While this may be increasingly the case, it is not universally or necessarily so even in the modern world, and no less a political thinker than Julius Nyerere counselled against the unthinking application of post-industrial theory to pre-industrial societies.Footnote 34 Certainly, economics played a part in the stratification of the ancient world, but this role was not unique.Footnote 35 A number of other factors made an impact on the ordering of society:

This analysis provides a reminder that local status and official position could well vary,Footnote 37 and a further rider, that local context influenced rankings, also may be added.Footnote 38

The social scientific analysis of such societies, based on modern anthropological theory and ancient rhetoricFootnote 39 suggests one in which honour and shame are key components. Scott Bartchy has identified five features which characterize such an honour-based society:

1. 1. Honour is the pivotal social value.

2. 2. Seeking honour for the family was the primary task of males.

3. 3. Honour was limited in supply: to gain honour meant someone else lost it.

4. 4. A loss of honour demanded retaliation of some form. The society was thus agonistic and competitive in nature.

5. 5. Status and honour were revealed in the ways in which participants were treated in social settings such as meals.Footnote 40

Such stratification was indicated by a number of signs: seating, portion size, food quality and so on. Two illustrations from first-century ce writers indicate this. The first comes from a satire by Martial, in which he chides his host for the way he has been treated:

The second, from Pliny the Younger, uses a debate about stratification at meals to show how his ability to be austere is a triumph for his Roman virtues over the profligacy of his interlocutor:

What is happening at Corinth appears rooted in such conventions. Note that here I assume that Paul is dealing with a real rather than a fictional practice. The Corinthian congregation, to borrow a phrase from the late Douglas Adams, seems to have had ‘problems beyond the dreams of analysts’:Footnote 43 it is hard to imagine the apostle inventing fictional scenarios to resolve. Paul’s rhetorical flourish to introduce his reflections (1 Cor. 11.18) does not detract from the reality of the problem.Footnote 44 Reports from CorinthFootnote 45 have revealed that participants at the meal are either distinguished by when they eat or what they eat:

Either way, their practice is making distinctions, and this is challenged by Paul.

Paul’s Response: Status and Honour

Viewed against this background, Paul’s advice on how the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated becomes one in which the standard conventions of stratification are shattered. All the guests, whatever their background, are to eat the same food at the same time, irrespective of the issue of physical hunger (1 Cor. 11.34). Put simply, it shows that all are equal in the sight of God. It is a ritual embodiment of the principles we are more familiar with from Gal. 3.26-29.

It is even possible, but this is more contentious, that, should wheat bread rather than barley bread (as may be implied by the use of artos, as opposed to maza, ‘barley bread’ [Hippocrates, VM 120]) be consumed, it could imply that all hold a high status in the sight of God. For both wheat breadFootnote 47 and wineFootnote 48 were arguably considered high-status foods. This is a very different outcome from meals stratified by ranking and food types such as Pliny described.

The position taken by Paul has severe implications for a principle adopted in the Mission-Shaped Church, and identified as the ‘Homogeneous Unit Principle’ (HUP) in which:

This principle has its origins in the writings of Donald McGavran, whose 1955 The Bridges of God Footnote 50 articulates a theory that the best foundation for mission is ‘people movements’, and that people will respond more readily to mission when there is no demand that they be moved out of their society. His later works develop the theme.Footnote 51 It is worth noting how McGavran describes the principle in his early work, defining a ‘true people’ viewing themselves as a ‘separate race’.Footnote 52 Their self-perception of themselves as distinct, or ‘race prejudice’, is, in his view, something which should be built upon, contrary to popular contemporary views:

While its advocates view HUP as essentially a pragmatic category, some theologians have raised concerns about its theoretical bias. David Bosch noted two concerns: the first, the possibility that the Church growth movement might share the presuppositions of the German missiologist Keysser that ‘Der Stamm is zugleich die Christengemeinde’ (‘the tribe is at the same time the Christian Church’), the other, that their preferred interpretation of ethnê (Mt. 28.19) in an ethnological and sociological sense is unsupported by ‘a single NT scholar of any repute’.Footnote 54 Bosch’s sensitivity to the language of race may be over-played, but is generous compared to Barth’s brutal summary of this exegesis: ‘It is worthless!’Footnote 55

Others take a more positive line: Richard Pierard argues that Keysser’s pattern was ‘to preserve the Volksstructur, while replacing the aboriginal religion — which served as the social glue — with Christianity’,Footnote 56 that while the debate about ‘race’ was coloured by the ideological controversies of the 1930s and 1940s,Footnote 57 and that these corporate approaches, sometimes referred to as indigenization,Footnote 58 have remained valid.Footnote 59 That said, indigenization and the HUP are not co-terminus categories. Even if, as the Dutch scholar Johannes Hoejendijk, reflecting on Barth’s and Brunner’s examination of such methods, concluded, ‘the approach is treated as one of the possibilities [of mission] there is nothing sinful in talking about Volkskirche’,Footnote 60 there is surely a huge question begged here. It is this: how may ‘race prejudice’ be accepted within a missionary programme without some degree of clarification? For McGavran seems to suggest that either for utilitarian ends, or to some unspecified degree, race prejudice is acceptable. And, as people living after the Holocaust and other genocides in the late twentieth century, never mind the smaller, less spectacular, but no less alienating treatment of minorities within many cultures, we must not be so naïve. We might circumvent the problem by renaming it as, say, pride in one’s identity, but still the question remains: at what point does ‘race prejudice’ become unacceptable?

There are further more concrete problems. As used in Mission-Shaped Church, this principle contradicts what Paul does in bringing people from diverse social groups together in Corinth. This seems so straightforward that really no further exposition is needed. If Paul had advocated ‘race prejudice’, he would simply have advised the Corinthians, ‘Look, just eat with whom you like in honour of the Lord.’ If such an approach is right, Paul’s whole attitude seems completely wrong-headed: why bother to get different types of people to come together, especially in a society in which status was affected by so many different factors? As we shall see, this is not the final word.

The second point, and here I depart from what might strictly be called biblical theology into missiology, is that the HUP is based on a category mistake, and cannot be applied universally. We may illustrate this by considering Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Advocates of the HUP claim that such principles informed the strategy which ensured that it was easier for non-Jews to be admitted:

While initially attractive this is not an analysis which holds up under scrutiny. The HUP essentially says that there are cultural categories (exemplified by circumcision, dietary requirements and the like) and theological categories (such as confession, repentance, faith and baptism): whatever is deemed cultural may be rejected. Yet these two categories are not distinct. What are described as ‘cultural barriers’ have a patently theological content.Footnote 62 Following Bruce Chilton’s arguments about food purity in Mk 7.14-15 where he describes Jesus making ‘an assertion concerning defilement, not a general denial of defilement’,Footnote 63 I would suggest that within emerging Christianity the supposedly ‘cultural’ elements are not purely cultural, but also have theological significance. This does not have to be fulfilled through the following of one set of practices: alternatives are possible. So, elements within emerging Christianity view it as permissible to achieve these ends without following the existing pathways. This is a phenomenon which is visible at a number of points within Second Temple Judaism. In the development of synagogues, it can be seen when a worshipper fulfils the requirements for attendance at a Temple festival by hearing the appropriate texts read in the synagogue.Footnote 64 In the Qumran/Essene nexus, the sectarians, after walking away from what they considered a debased and sacrilegious Temple priesthood, evolved a community way of life in which their community was identified as the Temple in which sanctity, purity and covenant responsibility were more important than a particular building.Footnote 65 This process, identified by Cheryl Newsom as ‘re-accentuation’ sees traditional theological language reappropriated and invested with a fresh significance:

In this understanding, the HUP advocates’ distinction of culture and theology no longer seems appropriate or relevant. It also has the merit of explaining why non-Jewish converts might have found their theological needs answered by early Christian preaching and teaching, for there were commonalities with their religious traditions. The observer here seems to be setting up an artificial distinction between the two: a bifurcation of theology and culture.

There is an additional issue of the historical accuracy of the HUP, for the congregations at Galatia and Antioch were evidently, like many other of the NT communities, heterogeneous.Footnote 67 The Galatian correspondence reveals difficulties in using the HUP within such groups. Gal. 3.28, for example, does not lend itself to the establishment of ethnic churches, despite HUP advocates interpreting it thus on the grounds that the differences cited are essentially irrelevant:Footnote 68

Further, the argument with Peter (Gal. 2.11-14) is a further example of Paul’s disapproval of ‘race prejudice’ which he would obliterate from the new Christian community: it would set up distinctions which Paul is determined to break down. If anything this passage suggests that acknowledgement of ‘race prejudice’ is a retrograde step — reversing a practice of eating together (Gal. 2.11-13).Footnote 70 F.F. Bruce, following T.W. Manson, suggests that such practices may have become known further afield and become an obstacle to evangelization.Footnote 71 If this is so, Paul’s refusal to accede to the demands of the visitors from Judaea is, in fact, the antithesis of the HUP: unity within the congregation is not to be compromised for the sake of evangelization. Far from tolerating a principle of homogeneity for the sake of the wider mission, Paul appears opposed to it, judging it ouk orthopodousin (Gal. 2.14), a ‘crooked, wavering, and more or less insincere course’.Footnote 72 The apostle’s verdict should at least prompt modern congregations to consider whether the HUP is really appropriate to their circumstances. Those who persevere with the HUP must address Robert Gration’s reminder that what really matters is how individual churches ‘function both in their internal organic relationships and in their external relationships with other parts of the Body. It is here that the unity of the Body will be exhibited or denied’.Footnote 73 They also will need to address the issues of conversion raised by Bruce Fong which imply that there must be some change from the social identity which was held prior to conversion because this in itself is a proclamation of transformation in Christ:

Graeco-Roman Society: Sacramentalia

It has already been suggested that there were affinities between the different religious traditions of the ancient Mediterranean. Both Graeco-Roman and Judaic religious traditions included a sacramental dimension. I purposefully call these sacramentalia, following Christoph Burchard’s lead,Footnote 75 rather than sacraments, to stress that these are not identical with the later doctrinal understandings of sacraments. G.D. Kilpatrick stresses this point:

It is worth, then, clarifying what is meant by sacramentalia. In Judaic thinking sacramentalia are essentially ordinary items, such as food, drink and ointment, used for a ‘heavenly’ purpose, given a fresh power by the use of benedictions and blessings which are effective when administered by one gifted by God.Footnote 77

Graeco-Roman religions also knew of sacraments: rites which were spiritually effective when carried out in a correct way.Footnote 78 Thomas Söding offers the following definition:

However, there appears to be a difference between the two which can be expressed as follows. Again it is difficult because later sacramental theology has complicated the terms used. In medieval and post-medieval sacramental theology the phrase ex opere operato has come to mean that the rite is effective irrespective of the moral or spiritual condition of the one performing the rite. In the ancient world it had a related meaning, but with a different emphasis. The same phrase meant that the correct performance of the ritual guaranteed effectiveness, and that morality really was an irrelevance to this process:

Such a view is based on an understanding of Graeco-Roman mysteries and religious practice which places little emphasis on the ethical behaviour of participants in the rites. A text which illustrates this is found in Diogenes Laertius, where the Cynic philosopher Diogenes makes the following criticism of the mysteries:

However, we must be cautious not to oversimplify. The Graeco-Roman mysteries are not reducible to a standard pattern: a cult like that of Dionysus, for example, changed considerably over time,Footnote 82 and it is also highly contentious to make one cult paradigmatic for all.Footnote 83 Further, some of the descriptions of the cults by ancient writers as licentious and uncontrolled may say more about ‘novelistic stereotypes and upper-class pretensions than the reality’,Footnote 84 and some did have moral prerequisites for admission, which dealt with sexual morality and obedience to the deity.Footnote 85 Thaddeus Zielinski noted that within some traditions those who participated and behaved badly might incur ‘spiritual destruction’.Footnote 86 Christopher Fraser notes that the Andanian Mysteries appear to have an ethical component,Footnote 87 but the behaviour outlined in the descriptions of the mysteries is sketchy: those which appear in detail refer principally to behaviour concerned with the celebrations of the rituals.Footnote 88 In short, we may conclude that Graeco-Roman mysteries ascribed varying significance to ethics in relation to the efficacy of their rituals.

Paul’s Response: Sacramentalia

Paul brings a strong ethical dimension to his understanding of the Lord’s Supper by placing it after the material of 1 Cor. 10.1-13. Here Paul uses the people of Israel in the wilderness as an example, or rather a warning.Footnote 89 Given the chance to enter into the Promised Land, they forfeit the opportunity and perish in the wilderness because their behaviour, which characterizes their response to God, is inadequate, and manifested in disobedience. They are held up as a warning to the Corinthians not to be complacent. It appears that Paul is saying something like this: ‘do not rely on rites and rituals to get your reward, what you do is also important’. That will later be manifested in the way in which the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated. It may be celebrated wrongly,Footnote 90 so that those who take part do so ‘unworthily’ (1 Cor. 11.27), become ‘fit to be punished’Footnote 91 and even guilty of the death of the Lord.Footnote 92 1 Cor. 11.23-34 marks an attempt to ensure that the celebrations of the Lord’s Supper are characterized by suitable behaviour, and this appears to be an argument for a change to current practice.

The section which follows the warning-cum-example (1 Cor. 10.1-13) makes a demand for exclusivity and obedience to the will of God, demanding that the Corinthians separate themselves from other cups offered to demons or other deities (1 Cor. 10.14-22). The sense of communion which follows is one which is often given a diminished significance in contemporary use, in which koinonia is reduced to ‘fellowship or ‘sharing’. Yet something much more intense is meant:

John Fotopolous links this to the example of the people of Israel:

This is part of a wider debate about religious ideology — and that includes the sacramental dimension of Graeco-Roman cults.Footnote 95 In place of the ex opere operato machinery of Graeco-Roman practice, Paul seems to place a dono data system in which the sacraments are only effective when those who take part in worship also manifest signs of behaviour which resonate with the will of the deity.

That said, a note of caution must be introduced. It has been common for New Testament scholars to propose a controversy which identifies sacramentalism as ‘external, crude and magical’.Footnote 96 Interestingly, Hull’s critique of worship does exactly this in the modern context when he suggests the Mission-Shaped Church’s concept of worship may turn it into a ‘fetish’.Footnote 97 The ancient debate must be described differently. Magic and worship were distinct, but so distinguished by factors which drew the line between illicit and licit religion (respectively, religio and superstitio) at a point different from our modern reckoning.Footnote 98 An ex opere operato mechanism was not a distinguishing characteristic. Fotopoulos argues that at no point does the Corinthian material directly give evidence that a magical, apotropaic understanding of sacraments was held: he would rather see idolatry than sacramentalism as the root of their problem.Footnote 99 While he seems here to rule out sacramentalism in favour of idolatry, it still remains possible that such a dimension remains.

First, a sacramental dimension to such religious practices found in the temples at Corinth was part of Graeco-Roman theology and worship, and Fotopoulos notes as much, criticizing Wendell Willis for his dismissive approach to sacramentalism.Footnote 100 Thus, even if there is no direct evidence in the Corinthian correspondence, it may reasonably be assumed that sacramentalism was part of the world-view which shaped the meal practice in Corinthian temples. After all, the word koinonia arguably appears to be part of the terminology of the Graeco-Roman mysteries and has a sacramental feel to it. Here, Paul uses that term and gives it a sacramental significance at variance with the dominant understandings in the mystery traditions: not so much giving deification to the believers as strengthening them in fellowship, and introducing them to a right relationship with God.Footnote 101 David Aune’s wider conclusions are apposite: debates among or within Christian groups were not about accepting or rejecting sacramentalism, but what constituted ‘appropriate sacramental piety’.Footnote 102

Second, discussions about what is appropriate need to span Judaic and Graeco-Roman theology. We have already noted differences in the way Graeco-Roman mystery cults engaged with ethics, ritual and behaviour. Judaic theory and practice adds a further perspective which arises from its combination of prophetic and cultic elements. Writings like Joseph and Aseneth locate proper sacramental behaviour firmly within a setting of idolatry and true faith. Two quotations from Christoph Burchard’s writing illustrate this. The first is the contrast made between the eating patterns found in Paul and Joseph and Aseneth with those offered, in their terms, to demons:

The second reinforces Paul’s Judaic style of thinking:

All this points to sacramental thought as symptomatic of, not distinct from, idolatry: these are not exclusive theological categories. Ultimately, the key point, however nuanced, remains the same: participation in the meals demands certain behaviours. Paul implies that these are changes which the Corinthians need to make irrespective of whether scholars find their source in sacramentalism, idolatry, or some combination of the two. True worship demands modifications of behaviour as part of faithfulness to God: it has an ethical dimension. Even if it appears that there were divisions within the mystery traditions regarding the role of behaviour and its effects, Paul’s Judaic sensibilitiesFootnote 105 indicate a bias towards those traditions which would include a much greater emphasis on morality: he significantly ‘ups the ante’ on behaviour by implying in 1 Corinthians 10 that it is not just behaviour during ritual which is of importance.