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 of 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, and 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.
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), we should hear this as the sharp rebuke that it is. 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 keep in mind that the culture was possessive of strong, dividing, separating, stratifying societal forces that were existent and readily demonstrated at the meal tables of the ancient world. When we take great pains to understand and reflect upon the importance of meals in that time, because of the language that is in use we are able to identify the fact that Paul is communicating in the context of problems centered on meal practice. It is with this 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 (with 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 “Now 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 the common meal practice of the ancient world.
No comments:
Post a Comment