If Paul provides “instructions,” “warnings,” and “correctives” during the course of his treatment of communion, common sense would tell us that he did so in the context of dealing with a significant problem in the congregation to which he was writing. This is a legitimate conclusion to reach, and it is reinforced by what comes before Paul’s delving into his “passing along” of what he had “received from the Lord” (11:23a). It is what precedes this that is so incredibly instructive for our understanding why Paul takes this route, for understanding the meal practice of the early church, for understanding the role of the communion in particular within that meal practice, for understanding the kingdom implications and the way in which the church of Jesus was charged to represent that kingdom through meal practice and communion, and ultimately, for understanding the vomit-inducing problem in the church at Laodicea.
Something was taking place in Corinth that, for Paul, was odious in the extreme, and ran contrary to all that was represented by the example that had been provided by Jesus. If we consider the tone that Paul is clearly taking throughout this letter, and then hear words such as “Now in giving the following instruction I do not praise you” (11:17a), it would not be much of a stretch to imagine Paul thinking something akin to “I am going to vomit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16b). In effect, just as the Laodicean church was doing to Jesus, the Corinthian church, with what they were doing, was making Paul sick. When Paul writes, “I do not praise you,” he is providing a contrast with an earlier statement in which he writes “I praise you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I passed them on to you” (11:2). This is quite the stark contrast to Paul saying “I do not praise you,” and then going on to add “Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this” (11:22b), before launching into “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you” (11:23a). It is of interest to note that in one area, this church is remembering Paul and maintaining the traditions that he passed on to them, but on the other hand, had become completely dismissive of that which Paul passed on to them as coming from Jesus Himself.
As we continue moving forward, and as we consider what is happening within this church, let us remember those strong, dividing, separating, stratifying societal forces that were mentioned in our brief analysis from the second chapter of the book of James; while also remembering that, owing to our having taken great pains to understand the importance of meals in that time, because of the language that was in use in James we were able to identify the fact that James was communicating in the context of problems centered on meal practice. Here in this letter, Paul is doing the same. It is with this already in mind that we hear Paul saying “I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it” (11:17b-18).
Now, Paul is not speaking into a vacuum. This church is going to know about their divisions, and they are going to know where those divisions are most clearly seen. This letter, which would have been read out loud to the congregation in one sitting, has already made mention of “jealousy and dissension” (3:3), and beyond the eleventh chapter---quite noticeably in chapter twelve---Paul is going to address further divisions. Because those divisions come on the heels of what he is communicating in the eleventh chapter that is going to be clearly situated within church meal practice, and because the congregation is going to hear these words in short order (no private reading and no artificial chapter and verse divisions), they actually play into the divisions that Paul is referencing in the eleventh chapter.
Returning to the nineteenth verse, we read “For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident” (11:19). This is a rhetorical exercise by Paul. He is not saying “there must be divisions so that we can know, and know correctly, who among you is truly saved and approved by God.” Rather, he is being critical of their divisions, and of the steps that are taken to highlight, or to make it quite evident, those who are “approved.” Because he goes on to write “Not when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper” (11:20a), we know that Paul is addressing divisions and those who are “approved” in the context of the meal table. This seems to be a clear reference to the honored guests and the chief seats of the world’s banqueting tables, which opens up a whole new world of understanding.
We cannot short our understanding of what is being said by thinking of the Lord’s Supper as simply the bread and the cup of the communion. The Lord’s Supper must here be understood in the context of the well understood tradition of the entire meal of Jesus and His disciples, of what that meal and the specific and identifiable tool for remembrance and identification of kingdom participants that Jesus provided to His disciples at that meal, and of the messianic banquet. We have to adjust our thinking so that when we think of the Lord’s Supper, our thinking goes beyond just the bread and the cup of communion and of those few minutes of church services that are taken up by the practice. We must force ourselves to think of the Lord’s Supper in its larger context and against the background of common meal practice of the ancient world.
No comments:
Post a Comment