What is the Cup and the Bread?
Was He Referring to a
Communal Meal, or to a Ritual?
Was He Speaking of a
Life To Be Lived, or of a Symbol?
By Jonathan Mitchell
When Jesus told His disciples,
"You will indeed be progressively drinking My cup" (Mat. 20:23)
He was speaking of experiences that they would have that was a part of the experience that He would soon have. The term "cup" was a metaphor, and it referred to another metaphor that He had used, in Mat. 16:24,
"If anyone continues intending (purposing; willing; wanting) to come on behind Me, let him at once completely say, 'No,' to, deny and disown himself, and then in one move lift up his execution stake (pole for suspending a corpse; cross), and after that proceed to be by habit continuously following after Me."
In Mat. 26:27-28, He presented His disciples with a parable that represented Himself, and them:
"Next, upon taking a [other MSS: the] cup and speaking words about grace and expressing gratitude, He gave [it] to them, while saying, "All you men drink from out of it, for you see, this is My blood - which pertains to the covenant [with other MSS: this is The Blood - which is My new, different arrangement that is innovative in character, kind and quality] - the [Blood] around (or: encompassing and pertaining to) many people (or: peoples), [the Blood] continuously (or: presently) being poured out and progressively diffused into a divorce from failures, a forgiveness for mistakes, a dismissal of errors, a release from deviations, and a flowing away of sins!"
And in Mat. 26:39 He prayed to the Father,
"My Father, if it is possible (or: since there is power; if it be able), let this cup pass away (or: go to the side, away) from Me! Nevertheless, more than this, [let it be; it is] not as I continue willing (wanting; intending), but to the contrary, as You [will and intend]."
What we suggest is that the cup represented existential experiences, in each place that Jesus used the term. Not only would the disciples live cruciform lives, they would live lives that were participation in the covenant (or: arrangement) that existed within His Life (which in the parable of the "last supper" was signified by the cup that represented His blood).
In Mat. 26:21 we are informed that it was during their "meal" that Jesus began speaking to the disciples, saying that,
"that one from among you will proceed committing Me and turning Me in (or: handing Me over and commending Me)."
He then identified of whom He was speaking by saying,
"The person dipping [his] hand with Me in the bowl..."
So this was during their communal meal. The meal was still going on, when we read in vs. 26,
"Now during the progression of their eating [the meal], upon taking the loaf of [unleavened?] bread and saying words of ease and wellness (or: speaking blessing [to them?]), Jesus broke [it in pieces]. And then at giving [them] to the disciples, He said, 'You folks take [it] (or: receive [this]). Eat [it] at once. This is My body (or: This is the body which is Me).'"
The loaf of bread was the other half of the lived-out parable. It was a part of their "table fellowship."
In 1 Cor. 10:16ff, Paul raises the topic of "the cup and the bread." Let us examine that passage, noting first that in vs. 13 he was speaking on the topic of a
"trial (or: ordeal; temptation; putting to the proof; effect of probing and testing)"
- in other words, hard "experiences" that they would face, but how God would be faithful to
"make the way out (the egress; or: He also will habitually do the stepping forth from out of the midst; or: He will even progressively construct the out-come) to continually enable and repeatedly empower you folks to undergo [it] (to bear up under [it]; to carry on under [it], sustain [it], and lead on)."
So in this context, Paul bring up the metaphors of the cup and the bread:
16. The cup of The Blessing (or: The cup which is the Word of goodness, ease and well-being; the cup of the Idea from goodness) which we are habitually blessing (speaking well of; speaking of with reference to goodness, ease and wellness), is it not (does it not exist being) the common existing and sharing with, participation in, fellowship of, communion of being with and partnership of, and from, Christ's blood (or: the blood which is the Anointing)? The bread (or: loaf of bread) which we are habitually breaking, is it not (does it not exist being) the common existing and sharing with, participation in, fellowship of, communion of being with, and partnership of, and from, Christ's body (or: the body which is anointed)?
Let us extract the two realities that he draws from "the cup" - clearly a reference to the "spiritual drink" of vs. 4, above, which was a part of their natural sustenance in the wilderness - and "the bread," that is an echo of the "spiritual food," in vs. 3, above:
a) the common existing and sharing with, participation in, fellowship of, communion of being with and partnership of, and from, Christ's blood (or: the blood which is the Anointing);
b) the common existing and sharing with, participation in, fellowship of, communion of being with, and partnership of, and from, Christ's body (or: the body which is anointed).
Israel, in the wilderness, had a "common existence." They depended on God for something to drink and something to eat. Likewise with the Corinthian community that existed within the "wilderness" of the Roman Empire and a Hellenistic society. They needed
"spiritual food and drink"
- both of which were aspects of Christ's Life (His blood, which was also the Anointing - cf Heb. 10:22,
"hearts having been sprinkled... the body having been bathed" - and His body, which is "true, real, genuine food -- Jn. 6:55).
So observe this: both the cup and the bread were their "common existing and sharing." The cup and the bread are the Life and the Body which is, in fact, the called-out covenant community in Corinth. On offer is a conflation of the semantic range of the Greek term koinónia: "common existing (the root of this term is ón, a present participle of the verb "to exist," and it is prefixed by koin, from the adjective koinos, 'common; belonging equally to several; shared; etc.')... partnership" which can be seen in both a) and b), above. This community in Corinth is "the body of Christ" (cf, e.g., 12:27, below) - both of these metaphors (cup and bread) refer to this group of people, or to any called-out community. Paul gives further explanation by saying...
17. Because we, The Many, are (exist being) one bread (one loaf of bread), one body, it follows that we, The All (the all of humanity), are continuously holding a share with others and are co-partaking from out of the one Bread (or: this one loaf of bread).
One bread also means "one body." On the first level of interpretation, he is speaking of the spiritual unity of relationship among the membership of the community. He is not talking about a cracker and a sip of grape juice! He is not speaking of a symbolic ritual, but of an existential relationship that is a "common existence." He will develop this theme in ch. 12, below. Now on another level, just as Paul used one human, Adam, to represent all humanity, in Rom. 5:12-21 as well as in 15:44-49, below, and then in 15:50 he instructs us that he is not speaking of "flesh and blood," i.e., of the physical existence, here the Body of Christ is representative of, a picture of, and a living parable of, "The All (the all of humanity)." The body of Christ is the firstfruit of the later harvest of all of humanity.
Jacob made this same analogy in Jas. 1:18,
"Being purposed (intended; willed), from being pregnant He gave birth to us (brought us forth; prolifically produced us) by a Word (in a collected thought; for an expressed idea; with a message) of Truth and from Reality - into the [situation for] us to be (or: to continuously exist being) a specific (or: a certain; some) firstfruit of His created beings (or: of the effects of His act of creating; or: from the results of the founding and creation which is Himself; [other MSS: of the Himself-creatures])."
In the types found in Israel's annual feasts, we find the waving of the sheaf of the firstfruits (Lev. 2:10-14). This was done prior to the general harvest (cf all of Lev. 23).
It is interesting that Paul used the definite article with both "Many" and "All," in this verse. The common versions usually do not translate the article (e.g., NRSV, NASB, ESV, KJV, NIV), however Wuest's Expanded Translation renders it with the first noun, "the many," but not with the second noun, "all." Why is this important? When Paul used the phrase, "the many," in Rom. 5:15 and 5:19, he was using it to refer to "all humanity" in 5:12 and 5:18. Here Paul is associating these two phrases as referring to the same, corporate group: mankind as a whole.
Thus the "we," found twice in vs. 17, here, should also be seen as speaking of "the all of humanity," i.e., the corporate Adam of ch. 15, below, and of "the many" of Rom. 5:12ff. On the firstfruits level, Paul was referring to "the called-out," but on the humanity-wide level it applies to Adam
("who is, and continues being, a replication {an impress; a pattern; a type; a pre-figure} of and from the One being repeatedly about to [be] {or: the One habitually impending}," - Rom. 5:14b)
, whom he uses to refer to all humanity in 15:45 and 47, below. You see, the "world" is supposed to partake of us as we partake of Jesus. The Corinthian community was "one loaf of bread" that was
"continuously holding a share with others and are co-partaking from out of the one Bread,"
i.e., Jesus Christ. Now the called-out that is "joined to the Lord" is "one loaf of bread" from out of whom a greater loaf of bread (the rest of humanity, in its time and class - 15:23, below) will continuously hold a share and co-partake of the Christ. This time-tiered presentation (firstfruits, then the rest of the harvest) is similar to the association of the various "heads/sources" in 11:3, below.
The idea of humanity being in God's likeness was incarnated in humanity's oneness: the One New Humanity of Eph. 2:15. The "common existing" of the called-out is a figure for the "common existing" of all of humanity.
When everyone sees Him, they will all be like Him (1 Jn. 3:2), for they will see Him as He is
- not at the institutional church has painted Him to be.
The concept of God's Temple (a called-out community) being integral to the whole of humanity can be seen in Jesus' parable of the kingdom (reign) in Mat. 13:33,
"The reign (kingdom; sovereignty; dominion) of the heavens and atmospheres exists being (is) like leaven (or: yeast) which a woman, upon getting (taking; receiving) [it], hides within (= mixes in) three large measures (1.5 pecks, or 12 quarts, per measure) of wheat flour, or meal, until [the] whole [batch] is leavened to thus be fermented, risen [and teeming with life]!"
The kingdom/reign, which is represented in Paul in the "community-temple" metaphor, permeates all humanity, raising it higher, as it becomes One Loaf that is ready for His Fire of purification.
Another picture from Jesus is found in Mat. 13:44,
"The reign (or: kingdom; sovereignty; dominion) of the heavens and atmospheres exists being (or: is) like a treasure - having been hidden (or: being concealed) within the midst of a field..."
Now recall that Jesus instructed them in Mat. 13:38,
"Now the field is the organized System (the ordered arrangement; the world of religion, economy, culture and government; = the realm of society; or: the aggregate of humanity)."
Covenant communities are the treasure hidden within "The Many."
Now let us move to 1 Cor. 11, where Paul once again discusses their communal meals, and we once more find the metaphors of "the cup and the bread," and determine whether or not these symbols were figures of a ceremonial ritual, or of a life to be lived. We will begin with vs. 20 and read on through the remainder of the chapter:
20. So then, on the [occasion] of your periodically coming together at the same [time and place], it is not to be eating an evening meal having the character or qualities of the Lord (or: a supper for, or pertaining to, the Owner; or: a Lord's [= Yahweh's or Christ's] dinner; a supper belonging to the Master; an evening meal validating, and directed by, the Master).
21. for each person, in the midst of the progressive eating, is habitually taking his own meal before [another person], who, in this second case, is also constantly hungry, [or] who, in another situation, is repeatedly drunk (or: constantly intoxicated).
Verse 21 explains why vs. 20 says that their group meal was
"NOT to be eating an evening meal having the character or qualities of the Lord."
It was because they were being selfish or behaving in a way that Paul would call "the flesh," as opposed to "the spirit."
22. So do you folks by no means continue having houses for the habitual eating and drinking? Or are you constantly despising (holding a negative attitude toward) God's called-out community, and are you repeatedly pouring shame and disgrace down on those presently having nothing? What should I say to you? Am I supposed to now praise and commend you folks? In this I am not now sending praise, applause or commendation upon [you]!
He asks two rhetorical questions: first, concerning their personal living situations (and the taking of sustenance); second, concerning their attitudes toward other members of the called-out community, or towards the group as BEING God's covenant community. The behavior described in vs. 21 would be poor form even on the natural level, but it certainly should not happen during the communal meals of God's Temple, which they are!
As regards his second question, Paul sees their behavior as either "despising" or "holding a negative attitude" toward the group as a whole. Their behavior was "manifesting them in clear light" (19b, above). Obviously he was not praising or commending such behavior. He was chiding them.
24. and then, with gratitude and expressing the ease of grace, broke it in pieces and said, "[some MSS add: You folks take {it}; eat {it}.] This is My body, being now broken over [the situation and condition of] you folks (or: for you people; on your behalf). Keep doing this, into the calling up of the memory pertaining to Me (or: with a view to remembering Me; or: unto a remembering of what is Mine)."
Paul is referencing, in vs. 23a, the tradition that was passed along to him and which he had then passed along to those in Corinth. This tradition he identifies and recites, in 23b-25: it is the one that describes the final meal that Jesus had with His disciples before His crucifixion, as recorded in the Gospels in Lu. 22:19-20; Mk. 14:22-24; and Mat. 26:26-28.
25. Similarly, [He took] the cup also, after the eating of the supper, saying, "This cup is the new arrangement within My blood (or: exists being the thorough placing and setting - which is new in kind and character - in the sphere of My blood; or: is the different covenant [being made] in union with My blood). Keep on doing this, whenever you may be normally drinking, into the calling up of the memory pertaining to Me (or: with a view to remembering Me)."
Because Paul has referenced this historical and symbolic meal, traditional interpretations of this passage have normally assumed that either this whole passage on communal meals in the covenant community was instruction concerning the group having "Communion," the "Eucharist," or the "Lord's Supper" (as it is variously termed), or that it is addressing "table fellowship" of the community on two different levels, and actually two different meals - one being the symbolic "Eucharist (etc.)," the other a regular community dinner.
He began talking about an "evening meal" in vs. 20, and, because of their behavior at it, he disqualifies it as being "having the character or qualities of the Lord." Let us now examine the optional renderings of this phrase, as given in vs. 20:
a) a supper for, or pertaining to, the Owner
b) a Lord's [= Yahweh's or Christ's] dinner
c) a supper belonging to the Master
d) an evening meal validating, and directed by, the Master.
As we ponder these five renderings of the phrase, we can observe a variety of meanings. The question is, Were the communal meals that they were having (as described in vss. 21-22) SUPPOSED to be what Paul presents as the "tradition" in 23b-25? Verse 21 would seem to say, "No!" Verse 22 would seem to answer an even stronger "No!!" as we see Paul's reference to "despising" and "negative attitudes," along with their
"repeatedly pouring shame and disgrace down on those presently having nothing."
So up to vs. 23, it would NOT seem that Paul was talking about what would later be called "the Eucharist (etc.)," i.e., the grape juice and the cracker. Also, the five optional descriptions in vs. 20, listed above, do not necessarily point to a symbolic meal, but rather a meal that would be appropriate for a community that had been set-apart for the Lord. All that they were to do in their lives was to be for His glory (10:31, above).
Furthermore, in 12:13, below we read Paul's thinking on "drinking":
"For we, ourselves - within the midst of one Spirit (or: in union with one Breath-effect and Attitude) - are all submerged into one body (or: were all immersed into, so as to be enveloped by, one body) - whether Jews or Greeks (or: Hellenists), whether slaves or free folks - and we all are (or: were) made (or: caused) to drink one Spirit (or: spirit; Breath-effect; Attitude)."
This is not speaking about the "drinking" half of the Eucharist; it's about the life of the body, which is the called-out folks.
So why did Paul rehearse "the Last Supper" of Jesus in this context, especially following a discussion of their taking meals in a disreputable way? Was he, perhaps, reminding them that they are a COVENANT community, and that they should act that way toward one another? Was he merely alluding to the final meal that Jesus had with his group (which symbolically established the new covenant, and the partaking of the life of Christ), as contrasted to the very different "table fellowship" that these Corinthians were displaying? In other words, was he holding up before them that standard and example of to what table fellowship (having a communal meal together) should compare? Was he simply saying, remember the kind of meals that Jesus had with the poor and the outcasts, and how His final meal was as a parable, revealing what common meals in His kingdom represented?
In vs. 22, above, he challenged their table behavior that was shaming those who had "nothing" - i.e., they were obviously poor. It was the custom in that time and culture for the upper class of society to eat first, and those of the lower class to eat last - when often the best parts of the meal had already been consumed. The situation in Corinth reminds us of Jacob's instructions for the called-out folks (Jas. 2:1-7). There, in vs. 1, he instructs them not to hold Christ's faithfulness (i.e., the Life of Christ)
"in respect of persons or appearances."
Then he gives an example of how rich guests are treated, as contrasted to how the poor are treated, and points out that in this disparity they
"dishonor and devalue the poor" (vs. 6).
Now returning to Paul...
26. It follows that, (or: For) whenever (or: as often as) you folks may be repeatedly eating this loaf of bread and may be habitually drinking the [other MSS: this] cup, you are continuing to proclaim and bring down the announcement of the death of the Lord - until which point He may come (or: up to the point at which He should come; or: until the time where He would suddenly come).
When he says "this loaf" (recall that he has called them, the whole community, "one loaf" in 10:17, above) and "this cup," is he referring to their common existence and reminding them that all their meals should reflect the COVENANT of which they are all partakers? Does their table fellowship
"continue to proclaim and bring down the announcement of the death of the Lord"?
Recall what he said to them, in 2:2, above?
"I decided not to see, perceive or know anything within or among you folks, except Jesus Christ - and this One being one having been crucified."
Paul wants to see a cruciform life among these Corinthians; that their lives together would proclaim His death for humanity, by their self-giving love for one another. He wanted to perceive the crucified Lord within them. Specifically, he wanted their "table fellowship" to reflect the covenant, death and life that was proclaimed by the symbolic meal that Jesus had with His first disciples.
We see Christ talking about coming to the seven called-out communities is Rev. 2 and 3. He is repeatedly "coming and going" (Rev. 1:8), while
"continuously walking about within the midst of the seven golden lampstands (i.e., called-out communities - Rev. 1:20-2:1)."
He would come to Corinth, as well, but perhaps Paul was referring to His coming WITHIN their lives and behaviors. Or, He might visit the community, as He did in Laodicea,
"Consider! I have stood, and continue standing, upon (= at) the door (entrance), and I am constantly knocking; if ever anyone may (or: can) hear My voice (or: sound) and would open the door, I will proceed entering (coming or going in) toward him, and then I will continue eating the evening meal with him, and he with Me" (Rev. 3:20).
Dan Kaplan pointed us to Lu. 24:13-53, where the risen Jesus, after joining the disciples on the Road to Emmaus, in
"beginning from Moses, and then from all the prophets, He continued to fully interpret and explain to (or: for) them the things pertaining to (or: the references about) Himself within all the Scriptures" (vs. 27)
, so the disciples pressed Him to stay in the village with them. Then,
"during the [situation for] Him to be reclining [at the meal] with them! After taking (or: receiving) the loaf of bread, He spoke words of well-being and blessing. Then, after breaking [it], He began giving [it] to them" (vs. 30).
But notice what happened next:
"At that their eyes were at once fully opened wide, and they experienced full recognition of Him" (vs. 31).
In vs. 35 we read that,
"He came to be known to them (or: personally recognized by them) in the breaking of the loaf of bread."
Keep in mind that in this setting, and in the Rev. 3:20 situation, it was simply eating a normal meal - but it was in His presence. A.T. Robertson has pointed out that the recognition did not come in His exegesis of Scripture, but at the meal and His serving them.
27. So that whoever may habitually eat the loaf of bread, or should be drinking the cup, pertaining to (or: with reference to) the Lord in a manner or situation without equal value (or: unworthily; unsuitably), he or she will proceed in coming to be one held within (or: embraced by and possessed within the sphere of; or: will continue being a possession that is engulfed within) the body and the blood of the Lord.
Now notice that Paul returns to the subject of bad form, which started this passage in vs. 20, above. He is speaking of their behavior: eating or drinking... in a manner or situation without equal value (or: unworthily; unsuitably). Now think back to his discussion of their meals, in 10:16-21, above, where in vs. 18 he said,
"are not those habitually eating the things sacrificed common-beings of the altar."
He was referencing the temple priests of the old covenant. But now, the members of the Corinthian "temple" are the priests of the new covenant, and so ALL of their meals are temple meals; they all are
"pertaining to (or: with reference to) the Lord."
And again, in 10:31, above, he admonished them,
"whether you folks are habitually eating or continually drinking, or anything you are constantly doing, be continuously doing all things unto God's glory."
We suggest that this is the same thing to which he is referring, here in 11:27. Cf Col. 3:23
The second half of vs. 27 is normally read as a kind of judgment against the person eating or drinking "unsuitably or unworthily," and in one sense it is, as vs. 29, below, explains. But we rather suggest that this offense is also covered by His blood, and that the literal rendering,
"one held within (or: embraced by and possessed within the sphere of... engulfed within),"
is a positive promise. John said it this way:
"the blood of, from, and which is Jesus, His Son, keeps continually and repeatedly cleansing us (or: is progressively rendering us pure) from every sin (or: from all error, failure, deviation, mistake, and from every shot that is off target [when it occurs])" (1 Jn. 1:7b).
That is continually happening within the community, since the "blood" is a figure of the Life of Christ which flows among the members of His body. Therefore, we can see another practical application of 27b, here: the "the body and the blood of the Lord" is the Life and manifestation (the Loaf) of Christ incarnated in the group at Corinth. The "body" of Christ-followers would "embrace and engulf" such a person.
28. So let a person habitually examine, test and evaluate himself (or: regularly approve and accept himself [i.e., his attitude and behavior in the occasion]), and in this manner let him be habitually eating from out of the loaf of bread and drinking from out of the cup,
What a person is to examine and evaluate is his or her behavior and attitude towards others within the group, at these communal meals. All too often, "churches" have come to be places of gossip and back-biting. The common meals should be "love feasts" but those of vs. 21, above, could be as those described in Jude 12,
"These folks are sharply-cleft portions of rocks (or: reefs; = menaces) in your love [relationship]s (or: love-feasts and table fellowships; movements toward acceptance with the drive for reunion), repeatedly feasting well together, by habit fearlessly shepherding themselves."
29. for the one continually eating and drinking in a manner or situation without equal value (or: in an unworthy or unsuitable way) is repeatedly eating and drinking the effect of an evaluation and the result of a decision (or: a sifting and a judgment) in (or: to; for) himself - by not habitually discerning the body (or: in not continuing to separate throughout the body; not completely evaluating the body; not discriminating for, discerning about, or making a distinction of, the body [of believers]; not now passing judging throughout the body; [other MSS add: of the Lord]).
What Paul is speaking about is the
"manner or situation without equal value (or: in an unworthy or unsuitable way)."
He is not saying that the person is without equal value or unworthy. He has come back to the opening of this topic (vss. 20-21, above), and now gives further instruction about the situation:
a) "an evaluation and the result of a decision (or: a sifting and a judgment) in (or: to; for) himself." And how had he brought this on himself?
b) "by not habitually discerning the body."
This calls to mind how Paul dealt with the individual member, in 5:5-7, above, and b) would indicate that this person was not discerning that the Corinthian community was in fact "the body" of Christ, and so would need an adjustment in perception and attitude. But let us consider the options on offer for the last clause, in the parenthetical expansion:
a) in not regularly distinguishing the body;
b) not completely evaluating the body;
c) not discriminating for, discerning about, or making a distinction of, the body [of believers].
d) not now passing judging through the body.
With
a) it is saying that the sifting was due to not treating the body as being sacred and distinct from the pagan society around him; he made no distinction. Then
b) would show that the individual evaluation would not come to a complete evaluation of the entire body. Now
c), may expand upon this person's "evaluation, in himself," concerning the other members: being self-centered and "not discriminating for (i.e., on behalf of)" the others, or not "discerning about" them, or "not making a distinction of" the group - in relation to the surrounding community. The final offer,
d), would say that the judgment was just for the individual; he would not be passing it throughout the body. There is ambiguity in Paul's construction of the final clause of this verse.
30. Because of this, many among you folks [are] without strength (or: weak and infirm) and without health (ailing; chronically ill), and a considerable number (or: quite a few) are habitually asleep (or: continuously sleeping; or: = dead).
The "this" of which he refers is the lack of Christ's love that is demonstrated in the bad form and unworthy behavior. Any time there is a split in a group, the entire group is weakened. Those who create the factions separate themselves from others by doing so. If one is separated, that person become weak, then without health, and finally dies (either metaphorically, or literally). They become a branch that is no longer abiding in the Vine (Jn. 15:1ff).
31. But if we were (or: had been) in the habit of thoroughly evaluating, sifting throughout and passing discerning judgment on ourselves, we would not have been being sifted, separated, evaluated and judged.
God continues at work within and upon the community. As we abide in Him, we see with His eyes and are able to evaluate our walk with Him, sift out the issues with which we are dealing, and then pass discerning judgment in regard to any adjustments that we need to make, as Christ empowers us to do so. This is what is meant in Heb. 5:14,
"But solid food belongs to perfected ones (complete and mature ones; ones who are fully developed and have reached the goal of their destiny) - those, because of habit, having organs of perception trained as in gymnastic exercise and thus being skilled, because of practice, and disciplined with a view to a discerning (or: when facing the act of separating, making a distinction and then a decision about) both good and evil (both that which is excellent, ideal, of good quality, profitable and beautiful, as well as that which is of bad quality, worthless, ugly or of bad form; or: = between right and wrong)."
Notice the metaphor of food in this verse.
32. Yet, being folks habitually being sifted, separated, evaluated and judged by, and under, the Lord [= Christ or Yahweh], we are being continuously child-trained, educated, disciplined or corrected [by the Lord or His agent], to the end that we should not at any point be correspondingly evaluated or commensurately decided about (separated-down or condemned; or: = have sentence passed on us) together, and in company with, the organized and controlling System (the world of culture, religion, economy, government and mankind).
The corrective and guiding work of the Lord is always for our benefit and growth - it is "child-training" and calls to mind Heb. 12:3-11 which is an admonition that follows the reference to the cruciform life of our Lord, in vs. 2 there, and how He endured the cross. That passage in Heb. 12, about child-training, closes with instruction that would apply well here in vs. 30, above:
12. Because of which [education],"straighten up (or: build anew and restore) those hands hanging down helplessly, and those knees having been paralyzed or loosened at the sides," [Isa. 35:3]
13. and then,"make straight and upraised wheel-tracks for your feet," [Prov. 4:26]
This is a call to solidarity and mutual love among the community members. Take care of the weak (vs. 30, above); help others adjust and rightwise the paths of their lives.
A benefit of this is that the Corinthian community (and we, likewise) would not need to be adjusted in the same manner as "the organized and controlling System (the world of culture, religion, economy, government and mankind)," in which the "correspondingly evaluated or commensurately decisions" are periodically brought by God.
33. So that, my brothers (= fellow believers; folks from the same womb), while repeatedly coming together into the [situation or occasion] to be normally eating, be constantly receiving from out of one another, taking them in your arms and welcoming them from out of the midst [of the group].
34. Now if anyone is habitually hungry, let him be regularly eating at home, so that you may not be constantly coming together (gathering) into a result of judgment (the effect of a separation, an evaluation and then a decision).
Paul summarizes the instruction, begun in vs. 20, closing with the same topic of "normally eating" of times of "repeatedly coming together." They should take each other in their arms and welcome the weak and the outcasts, or those of lower social status. Verse 34 give them practical advice in order that they might not come together and have the Lord address them as He did the seven called-out communities in Rev. 2 and 3.
If we are correct in our interpretation of vss. 20-34, does this call into question the long traditions of the Eucharist which substituted a symbolic ritual for something that was to be communally lived out in the lives of the called-out folks?
Jonathan
Return To Jonathan Mitchell's Page