Celebration of Unity

An Exegetical Study of I Corinthians 11:27-29

            Several years ago I found myself attending church with a friend of mine on an evening in which communion was being served.  Upon both the plates of bread and juice passing us I noticed that my friend, a Christian for many years, passed the elements without taking her portion.  Inquiring later, I found that she was feeling “unworthy” at the time because of some undealt with issues in her life and thus did not feel able to partake of the elements.  As I had seen this happen before, it did not shock me, but there was a vague sense of this being a position which lacked merit.  In this paper, I am going to face this issue, seeking to understand what it means to participate in the Lord’s Supper, and what requirements seem to have been laid out for our participation in it.  I will do this by looking specifically at the relevant passages, focusing my attention on I Corinthians 11:27-29.  

            However, it is necessary to first take a broader look at the church at Corinth, and the entirety of Paul’s first letter to them.  It will also be beneficial to look at the broader picture of Church history to seek to find how the church has understood, and developed in its understanding of, the Lord’s Supper.  What we will find is that the position my friend took, while understandable according to a prevailing interpretation, simply misses the point of why and how we should be celebrating Communion in our churches.  It is the goal of this paper to seek to better discover the crucial role of the Eucharist in the life of the church, a role which not only celebrates the death and resurrection of our Lord, but also emphasizes the role which the church plays in the lives of believers.  For Communion is just that, a time to commune with one another, celebrating the unity of the body, and rejoicing together among ourselves.

            The city of Corinth has a long and rather interesting history.  Settled for over four thousand years prior to the coming of the Romans upon the scene, it came to possess a reputation not unusual for the trading, cosmopolitan city which it was.  Located on a plateau, overlooking the isthmus connecting the mainland of Greece with the Peloponnessus peninsula,  Corinth controlled two major harbors, and thus found itself in a very important position, central to the life of the entire region.  Its very name became synonymous with licentiousness and fornication, leading Aristophanes to coin the verb “to Corinthianize” referring to open sexual behavior. [1]   It was an important port city,  with travelers coming through constantly, money being made easily,  and had the strengths and weaknesses all such cities possess.  In 146 B.C., however, Rome reminded the region of its authority, and in an act of discipline for Corinth’s (and the Achaian league of which it was a part) assertion of independence, conquered, looted, and razed the city. [2]   Because of its unrivalled location, however, the city was officially rebuilt in 44 B.C. by Julius Caesar who understood its strategic location and usefulness as a major center of commerce. [3]  

The new city was repopulated almost totally by freedmen, those who ranked just above slaves in the social world of the day, who found themselves somewhat trapped in their poor status, but who Roman society allowed to advance through enterprise and work. [4]   This was a boon both to the Romans, who had a large population of freedmen, and to the freedmen who suddenly had an opportunity to advance themselves in a non-oppressive environment.  Free from former constraints, [5] they could find new ways of supporting themselves and raise their cultural and economic status.  In a few short generations families of former slaves were civic leaders, “skilled both in the affairs of state and in the craftsman’s arts.” [6]   Its government was modeled after Republican Rome, where citizen voters elected four magistrates, and other civil leaders, to manage city operations.  Beginning in 27 B.C. its restoration was acknowledged by becoming the seat of the region’s proconsul, and in 15 A.D. becoming an imperial province [7] .  The city which was destroyed soon became wealthy again, first from the selling of ancient art ransacked from the graves of the old city, [8] then from other enterprises arising from their own abilities, and its location as a central trading city, leading Fee to call the Corinth of Paul’s day, “at once the New York, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas of the ancient world.” [9]  

            Paul first visited Corinth following his discussion with the Areopagus in Athens during what is commonly called his second missionary journey. [10]   He met with discouragement here in his preaching to his fellow Jews, but was able to convince the leader of the synagogue, Crispus, as well as other influential leaders in the Jewish and Gentile communities, of the message of Christ.  Indeed, his converts included folk from all levels of society.   An interesting event allows us to be able to date this visit rather accurately.  Because of their dislike for Paul and his message, the Jews of the city agitated against him and brought him before the proconsul of Achaia, Gallio, who ruled from Corinth.  Gallio, judging this to be a religious dispute rather than an instance of civil disobedience or disturbance, dismissed the case.  From an ancient inscription we know that Gallio served as proconsul from June 51 through May 52, [11] and so Paul’s residence here roughly coincided, or at least overlapped, with these dates.  He later moved on to Ephesus, but stayed in contact with the believers at Corinth, writing them a number of letters of which two are extant.

            The First Letter to the Corinthians is now understood as Paul’s second letter to this community. [12]   The first letter, which is lost, is mentioned in I Cor 5:9, where Paul refers to his earlier warning to not associate with sexually immoral persons.  The second letter is our First, and seems to have been occasioned by both reports of problems in the community, [13] and the church’s own request for Paul’s advice in certain matters. [14]    He begins by responding to reports that there are divisions within the Church which are endangering the church’s mission and existence.  Urging them to “be in agreement” and to “be united in the same mind and the same purpose” [15] , he exhorts them toward unity, rather than being caught up in differences caused by jealousy and competition. [16]   He then responds to reports that there is sexual immorality and litigiousness within the church, which is not only causing difficulties for those who are part of the community, but is also bringing shame upon the community as a whole. 

            From chapter seven on, Paul proceeds to discuss issues which the Corinthians themselves have raised, including issues of marriage, and family life, as well issues of diet and Christian freedom.  What is prevalent in Paul’s response is for believers to understand the freedom which they have, but to also at all times remember both Christ and each other in all that they do.  It is vital that in all they do the sanctity of the community is at the forefront of their thought.  He calls on them to be imitators of his own example in seeking to please others, not seeking after his own advantage, so that all may be saved. [17]

  With this said, Paul commends them for doing just that, following his example and the traditions which he had laid out in understanding the role of men and women in the church.  He reminds them again of his own policy in this regard, but as a reminder rather than a criticism.  There is an acknowledgment of possible disagreement, but Paul does not seem to think that there is a serious issue here causing major problems within the church.  However, in 11:17, we read of an issue in which Paul does not commend them, because at this point he feels they are causing harm rather than good.  Apparently, the divisions which had exhibited themselves in other ways throughout the community also are showing up during their gatherings together. 

            From the very beginning Christians met together for prayer and meals, part of which was the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, which was initiated by Jesus. [18]   Eating meals together was not a new concept for either Jewish or Gentile believers.  The Last Supper itself was celebrated in remembrance of Passover, in which the community of Israel was to gather together and ritually remember through their meal the salvation from Egypt by God, and their unity as a community.  It was, and remains, one of the holiest events in the Jewish calendar.  Each aspect of the meal had a symbolic aspect meant to focus the participants mind on a specific activity or thought. [19]   In addition to the Passover meal, Jewish tradition had various other special meals which were part of their communal life.  Pharisees met together in small groups known as haburot to eat together, giving thanks to God and dedicating themselves anew for his service. [20]   Daily meals often began with special remembrances, thanksgivings, and blessings. [21]   The festal meals of the Jews were often characterized by the act of drinking wine, which was probably not part of an ordinary meal. [22]

            There were also Hellenistic antecedents to this meal, which are useful to discuss in order to understand how the gentiles may have viewed this gathering.  Meals were very much a part of the Hellenistic social and religious world, and were part of a great variety of celebrations and events.  A.D. Nock discusses three varieties of ritual meals. [23]   The first was the meal of a cultic society, who ate together to celebrate their fellowship and to commemorate a founder or benefactor.  Also, there was a meal in which the deity itself was thought to be present, and finally, the ritual tearing apart and enthusiastic eating of animals.  In addition, there were meals at sacrifices and other religious offerings, meals for the dead, and a variety of meals in the various mystery religions. [24]   The symposium of the Greeks was a social occasion, made up of free men, in which there was drinking and eating, as well as drink offerings, philosophical discussions, artistic presentations, speeches, and songs. [25]   Interestingly, archeological discoveries indicate that rooms adjoining temples for use by those gathering together for cultic meals were extremely common in the immediate region of Corinth. [26]

            With these diverse religious backgrounds in mind, let us now look at the specific context of I Corinthians 11:17-34, in which Paul focuses on how the Corinthians are celebrating the Christian meal of communion.  What is immediately apparent from his discussion is that Paul is worried about the divisions which seems to be arising in the life of the community.  There appears to be a disunity caused by social disparity, a tension developing between rich and poor.  There may be several factors which led to the severity of this disunity.  The first may be part of the traditional format of dividing meals into distinct “courses”, one in which the wealthy and privileged would come early, eating and drinking copiously, [27] and later allowing the poor and less well socially connected to join in the second half in which the fare was leaner and limited possibly to the specific bread and wine used in communion. [28]   It has been proposed that the first meal was the main event, followed by the desert and “symposium” at which additional guests would be invited. [29]   Alternately, it may be that there was a single “course” and those who were well-to-do were eating their own rich food in front of the poor, who had very little. [30]   The situation would have been exacerbated by a famine which may have been occurring at this time. [31]   No matter how it was expressed what is clear from Paul’s response is that the disparity and disunity which is being exhibited will not be tolerated.  By acting in this manner, they are showing “contempt for the church of God” and are humiliating “those who have nothing”. [32]  

Paul proceeds to remind them, as a criticism of their practices, of the tradition which he has been given, and which we read in v. 23-26.  After restating the tradition, Paul admonishes them and warns them saying:

²⁷ Therefore, whoever eats [33] the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner [34] will be answerable [35] for the body and blood of the Lord.

²⁸So examine [36] yourselves [37] , and in this way eat from the loaf and drink from the cup.

²⁹For the one who eats and drinks [38] judgment upon himself [39] is eating and drinking without judging correctly [40] the body. [41]

Having now put forth, once again, the basics of the tradition, Paul caps his polemic on the Lord’s supper beginning with his inferential conjunction wste  in verse 27.  Used to give a deduction, conclusion, or summary to the previous verses, [42] Paul begins to elucidate the severity of their actions in no faint terms.  He writes to them that if any of them dare to eat and drink the elements in a manner which is unacceptable, they will be guilty not only of causing simple division but responsible for the guilt brought on those who persecuted and killed Christ.  The verse seems to hinge on Paul’s use of the word anaxiw  , which is translated as “unworthy”.  In contrast to the KJV rendering “unworthily” (Zerwick also defines it this way) this word implies not so much the internal status of the partaker but rather the external process of the taking. [43]   It is referring to how they are treating the elements and the meal.  For in their eating and drinking, their celebrating with their rich foods and much wine, they are forgetting the solemnity of the moment, the reason for which they are gathered together, which is Christ. [44]   The Lord’s Supper, then, is first of all a proclamation of Christ, a continual reassertion of the life and mission of Jesus, and to forget this, to act in such a way which is in conflict with this life and mission puts one at odds with the one who is being celebrated.

In this context, the “unworthy manner” refers certainly to the way in which the Corinthian believers are treating one another in their gatherings together, as well as in other areas of life.  It is at this point that Paul asserts the true seriousness of the disunity which he has been discussing throughout the entire book.  This is not simply a nice wish that “everyone would just get along”, rather this is a command by Paul which relates to their very salvation.  If they do not get along, if they do not abandon their pride and disunity they will be found guilty for the very death which they are proclaiming.  For they are not gathering together for themselves, to promote their own success or abilities, they are not gathering for a social club or typical cultic gathering, but rather they are gathering together to proclaim the death of Christ, and the fact that he will come again.  It is at their own peril that they forget or ignore this.

Thus in verse 28 Paul tells them each to examine oneself, not just once, but continually every time they gather.  Although typically understood as an introspective inspection of one’s moral and spiritual level, the word dokimazw signifies something more in the New Testament context.  It is an examination of worthiness, a testing of one’s fitness for salvation, and the developing of a lifestyle which is consistent with the salvation we are given by and through Christ. [45]   With this comes a need to understand the meaning of salvation in Christ, and an understanding of what makes us worthy.  The context is not discussing the moral strictures of the Christian life, but instead gives us two guidelines as to what constitutes unworthy participation. 

The first is found in 10:14ff. in which Paul warns against the worship of idols.  He states in verse 21, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.  You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”  By participating in idolatry in any form we are forgetting the primacy of Christ in our meal, and our profaning the table.  In 11:17ff. Paul discusses the divisiveness of the church, and warns that they are showing contempt for the church of God.  By treating others in a contemptible manner they are likewise profaning the Lord’s Supper.  This profanation is liable to the judgment of God, and thus Paul exhorts them to look at their attitudes toward Christ and the church prior to participating in such a solemn moment.  This is not so much a warning to spend time in quiet reflection as much as it is a reminder that they must be mindful of their behavior at all times, so as to not cause offense. [46]

            Verse 29 tells us that indeed those who are not mindful, those who eat and drink without examining themselves are bringing judgment upon themselves.  The central phrase here is “without judging correctly the body” for it is this which will bring judgment.  What then does it mean to judge the body correctly?  A traditional way of understanding is to see this as a warning to have a proper comprehension of the elements, and to take them understanding the grace and/or symbolism which they possess. [47]   This implies that verses 23-26 are the central part of the section, rather than part of the total argument. [48]   It is not the words themselves, or the symbolic attachments which Paul puts on the bread and wine which are the issue here.  As Fee says, “Paul’s concern lies elsewhere.” [49]   In the context we are discussing, Paul’s emphasis is not on the cultic meaning and definitions, but on the way in which the Corinthians are treating each other.  The body, for Paul, must be understood in the context of his wider usage, and cannot simply be limited to the use of the term in verse 24, as referring singly to the physical body of the Lord.  Paul’s very use of the word body [50] is interesting and unique, and he intentionally plays around with the several meanings for which he uses it. 

            The first meaning is the prevalent understanding of the body being spoken of here as indeed representing the body of Jesus.  Verse 24 brings this immediately to mind, and the later addition “of the Lord” [51] certainly indicates this was a common interpretation.  Yet, we cannot simply look at this passage in its immediate context, but rather must seek to find the surrounding motifs and seek to discover Paul’s extended meaning.  In 10:16ff. we read of an less quoted interpretation of the body and blood which certainly bears upon our meaning.  Calling the cup the “cup of blessing” and the bread the “body of Christ”, Paul proceeds to explain further his understanding of the “body”.  He states that “because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we partake of the one bread.”  With this, Paul not only relates the bread to the physical body of Christ, but extends the meaning to include the body of Christ which is the church.  The body metaphor is then later discussed in chapter 12 in a more thorough way, as being descriptive and analogical to the life and activity of the church as a whole.  Between 10:17 and chapter 12 we find our passage, and thus must conclude that the imagery of the body as being the church must be what is being referred to in 11:29.  Paul is in the midst of a unique metaphor, and is developing it throughout these chapters. [52]

            To not judge the body correctly implies that one is not correctly understanding, or discerning, the nature and make-up of the body of Christ which is the church.  It is to cause division within the body, because one is not aware of the nature of such a body.  The word diakranw is related to the concept of judgment, and implies a discerning, a recognizing as distinct, and attaining to a correct understanding of the object being scrutinized. [53]   If those in the community do not attain to a correct understanding of the nature of the body, as Paul delineates in chapters 12 and following, then they will be bringing judgment upon themselves.  Paul is essentially saying here “judge correctly, for you will be judged.”  And to treat each other poorly, to act in such a way which devaluates fellow believers, to raise oneself up and push others down, and to act in any way which causes division and hardship within the body is to show that one is not properly understanding the nature of the Church, nor of Christ who is the head of the Church.  The judgment here [54] can be thought of as a judicial verdict in an unfavorable sense, coming as the result of transgression, and which will lead to punishment. [55]   Paul warns the Corinthians that unity is not an option in the church, that it is of utmost importance that they view themselves as under Christ and equals with each other, and to act accordingly during their gatherings together.  To fail to act and think in such a way will result in God’s judgment and discipline. [56]

            It is interesting to note that if the Corinthian church was acting in accordance with Paul’s teaching we would not have a record of the practice of the Lord’s Supper within the New Testament.  Early Church writers, however, do mention the practice, and can help us to understand the development of communion from the time of Paul, and together with Paul can assist in our understanding guidelines which would be useful for our own celebration.  Maybe most interesting is the comments in the Didache [57] referring to the prayers to be said before the Lord’s Supper. [58]   These are prayers of thanksgiving and refer both to Jesus Christ and to the Church.  This tradition limits the participation in the Eucharist to those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord, so as not to “give what is holy to dogs”. [59]   The passage ends with the inference that this was not just a symbolic meal, but rather that the Eucharist was contained within a full meal. [60]   Justin also limits participation to those who are Christians, and while not specifically mentioning the recognition of the church, expresses that church unity and equality are important aspects, and that the elements are sent by the deacons to those who are unable to come and participate at the full assembly. [61]   His discussion clearly exhibits that his church was vitally concerned about the welfare of others as well as remembering Christ in their gatherings.

            The agape feast of Tertullian sounds the most delightful. [62]   For the church at Carthage around 200, the feast was a festive gathering, in which those who excelled in community throughout the week gathered together for solemn and joyful celebration.  The Eucharist was an evening’s activity, part of and enveloped within all sorts of celebratory events and practices.  He reports in another writing that the Eucharist be taken at meal-times and to be taken by all alike. [63] Even by this time, however, the communion meal had begun to develop farther away from the earliest understanding, a trend which continued throughout Church history.  The elements themselves were imbued with deeper significance, becoming more and more important in the ceremony, while the emphasis on the community as “the body” seemed to lessen. [64]

            In our time it would be useful to return to the philosophy of Paul, and the practices of the earliest churches.  Our times of communion in many ways have been individualistic, introspective, and while sometimes nicely focused on the heavenly aspects of Christianity often forget the equal importance of the body here on earth, and in the seats around us.  We would do well to remember in our services to “discern the body” and to examine ourselves continually to make sure that this is evident in our actions and thoughts.  In 1 Cor 11:30, Paul suggests to the Corinthian believers that their actions have resulted in some becoming weak, some becoming ill, and even some death.  This has often been thought as being a spiritual peculiarity to the time, or an exaggeration by an author who wishes to make a point.  I am not sure this is the case.  Rather, could it be that when we are gathered together as a body, when we are united under Christ, we are under some kind of authority over our resources and time, so that if we are not regarding each other as equals, if we are not “discerning the body”, than our resources (financial, material, giftings, etc.) will be missed in such a way that actual physical results could occur?  

            By creating, encouraging, and persisting in divisions we allow sickness and misery to find its way into the church.  Gordon Fee states in the introduction to his commentary on 1 Corinthians, “The cosmopolitan character of the city and church, the strident individualism that emerges in so many of their behavioral aberrations, the arrogance that attends their understanding of spirituality, the accommodation of the gospel to the surrounding culture in so many ways – these and many other features of the Corinthian church are but mirrors held up before the church of today.” [65]   The specific format of the communion service does not seem to be the primary issue, there can be multiple ways in which to recognize and celebrate the bread and wine.  What is important is that in doing so, we with fervor and intensity acknowledge both the body of Christ who died for us, and the body of the Church who lives with us, and in doing so celebrate the unity of the Body for now and all of eternity.

---

[1] Fr. 354, other terms of derision include plays by Philetaerus and Poliochus called Korinthisastes (“The Whoremonger”) and Plato’s use of “Corinthian girl” to refer to a prostitute (Rest. 404d), quoted in Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Corinth”, Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1 (New York:  Doubleday, 1992), 1135.  The tendency now is to understand these terms as more derisive than descriptive and to see Corinth as a large thriving city, full of sin, but no worse than any other large city.

[2] Murphy-O’Connor, 1136.

[3] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids:  Eerdman’s, 1987), 2.  Also, important in a cultural sense was its control of the Isthmian games, second only to the Olympic games in importance in the ancient world.  Murphy-O’Connor, 1136  argues that the city was not completely destroyed or depopulated, and that Caesar restored the city to prominence, but did not necessarily rebuild it from the ground.

[4] Strabo 8.6.23, also Appian Hist. 8.136.  Murphy-O’Connor, 1136 asserts that the freedmen were not native Romans but were Greeks, Syrians, Judeans, and Egyptians – a truly diverse group indeed.

[5] Although free they still were somewhat bound to their former master.  See Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1993), 55.

[6] Strabo 8.6.23

[7] Scott J. Hafemann, “Corinthians, Letters to the”, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove:  IVP, 1993), 173

[8] Especially terra-cotta reliefs, but also bronze work.  Strabo 8.6.23

[9] Fee, 3.

[10] Acts 18:1ff.

[11] From an inscription found at Delphi, Hans Dieter Betz, “Corinthians, First Epistle to the”, Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1 (New York:  Doubleday, 1992), 1140.  See also Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth.  Texts and Archaeology, (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazer, 1983), 141-152.

[12] Or possibly third, see Fee, 5.

[13] I Cor 1:11, 5:1, 11:18.

[14] 7:1, 8:1.

[15] 1:10.

[16] 3:3-9.

[17] 10:32-11:1.

[18] Mt 26:21ff. and parallels.  For early Christian gatherings Acts 2:42, 46.  While there is not an explicit reference to the formal Communion service in the Acts passages, what we read in Paul infers that what he is discussing is not something he created, nor something which is new to the Corinthian believers, but rather Paul seeks to correct their improper carrying out of a previously taught activity, which extends to prior to his own ministry beginnings.  See Hans-Josef Klauck, “Lord’s Supper”, Anchor Bible Dictionary, V. 4 (New York:  Doubleday, 1992), 366.

[19] See Ralph P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church (Westwood, NJ:  Fleming H. Revell, 1964), 123ff., “Paul seems to have in view the purpose of the bread and wine as signifying to the Christian what the Passover dishes mean to the Jew.”  For a worthwhile discussion of the validity of the Eucharist as a Christian Passover see Ralph P. Martin, “Lord’s Supper”, New Bible Dictionary, 3^rd ed.  (Downers Grove:  IVP, 1996), 696ff.

[20] I. Howard Marshall, “Lord’s Supper”, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove:  IVP, 1993), 570.  Paul, of course, was a Pharisee, and may have had this in mind.

[21] For example in the Qumran community where after being admonished to “eat in common and bless in common and deliberate in common” they are taught that “when the table has been prepared for eating, and the new wine for drinking, the Priest shall be the first to stretch out his hand to bless the first fruits of the bread and new wine.”  (1QS 6).  See also Marshall, 570 and Klauck, 369ff.

[22] Marshall, 570. 

[23] A.D. Nock, Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Background  (New York:  Harper & Row, 1964), 72-74.

[24] H.J. Klauck Herrenmahl und Hellenistischer Kult (Munster:  Aschendorff, 1992), 31-40, quoted by Marshall, 574.

[25] Klauck, Lord’s Supper, 370. He considers these events to be “structural equivalents to a church’s celebration.”

[26] Ferguson, 179ff.

[27] One is reminded of The Banquet of Trimalchio written in the mid-first century by Petronius, a satire in which the efforts of the “new rich” to show off are shown to  be instead vulgar displays (Ferguson, 97).  Those at Corinth could easily fit into the category of the “new rich” and probably enjoyed both showing off and displaying distance from the less fortunate.

[28] Marshall, 571.

[29] Ibid.

[30] This is the argument of B.W. Winter, “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth:  An Alternative Reconstruction”, Reformed Theological Review 37(1978):  73-82.

[31] See Bradley Blue, “Love Feast”, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove:  IVP, 1993), 579.  Also see B. Winter, “Secular and Christian Responses to Corinthian Famines”, Tyndale Bulletin 40(1989): 86-106.

[32] 11:22.

[33] The subjunctive here is in an indefinite relative clause, with the contingent element being expressed in the “whoever” and thus allowing this to be  translated as an indicative.  See Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1996), 478.

[34] Or careless manner.  BAGD, 58.

[35] Understood as a legal term, implying “guilty enough to go into the hell of fire”, but also being used to denote who the sin is being committed against (BAGD, 268).  See also Fee, 560.  Cf. Mt 5:22; Js 2:10.

[36] Iterative present imperative, implying repeated action, “do it again and again.”  Wallace, 722.

[37] lit. “But, let a man examine himself”.

[38]   a² C³ D F G Y 6 81 and others add “in an unworthy manner”.  See n.41.

[39] Dative of disadvantage.  See Wallace, 143.

[40] Gk. diakrinw.  NRSV, “without discerning”; NIV, “without recognizing”.  See BAGD, 185.

[41] Interestingly, the editors of the NIV chose to disagree with the confident conclusions of the NA²⁴ and add  “of the Lord”,  following the lead of a^c C³ D G K P most minuscules it syr^{p, h, pal} goth arm and others.  tou kuriou is non-existent in the best texts (including P⁴⁶ a^**** A B C^* 33 1739 and other MSS).  It is likely that this and the addition following pinwn were later clarifications.  There does not seem to be a reason for these two words to be left out had they been original.  See Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2^nd ed. (Stuttgart:  UBS, 1998), 496.  One wonders if the decision to include this phrase in the NIV was determined by politics and imposed theology more than proper textual analysis.

[42] Wallace, 673.

[43] BAGD, 58.  Cf. 2 Macc 14:42. 

[44] 11:26

[45] Walter Grundmann, “dokimo  ”, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament V. II, Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Geoffrey Bromiley, trans. (Grand Rapids:   Eerdmans, 1964), 257ff.  Cf. 4:7, 6:5, 14:29.

[46] Fee, 562.  Being mindful of our place before Christ and in the community must include our awareness of not only our sinfulness but also our forgiveness.  By refusing the elements because one is feeling “unworthy” is to deny the forgiveness and grace which Christ offers.  Paul is not saying that one has to be morally perfect, but that one must be aware of our place and act accordingly. 

[47] This understanding is especially seen in the NIV and AV, in which the longer text used seems to st.rongly indicate this interpretation.  See n. 41.

[48] Fee, 562.

[49] Fee, 563.

[50] Gk. soma.

[51] See n. 41

[52] See Eduard Schweizer, “soma”, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament v. VII, Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich eds., Geoffrey Bromiley, trans. (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1971), 1060-1081.  ----, “swma”, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament v. 3 (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1983), 323ff.  See also Fee, 563ff.

[53] Bauer, 185.  Also see Fee, 564.

[54] Gk. krima

[55] Bauer, 451.

[56] 11:30, 31.

[57] Written somewhere between 50 and 150, though probably closer to the former.  See Michael Holmes ed., The Apostolic Fathers, updated edition (Grand Rapids:  Baker Book House: 1999), 247ff.

[58] Didache, 9.

[59] Didache, 9.5.  quoting Matt 7:6.

[60] Didache, 10, “And after you have had enough…”

[61] Justin Martyr, 1 Apology, 66, 67.

[62] Tertullian, Apology, 39.

[63] Tertullian, De Corona, 3.

[64] See Everett Ferguson, “Eucharist”, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity 2^nd ed. v. 1(New York:  Garland, 1997), 393-397.

[65] Fee, 19ff.