Eugene LaVerdiere, S.S.S.

The Eucharist in the New

Testament and the Early Church

A PUEBLO BOOK

The I .iturgical Press Collegeville, Minnesota

A Pueblo Book published by Pho Liturgical Fross

Cover design by Frank Kacmaroik. Euchariatk fish (and century), Catacomb

a I St. Qjllisti).

UnlHE-s othurwisi! Litcd. excerpts aru Irvin tiiu New American Bible, T 19*41
iijSti, [971.1 by theCiuilrdtuniib ul Clinstian Doctrine, 3211 fourth Street
N E., Wuslungtoji, DC 20J17-1194 and are used by licensed the topy right
holder. AU rights resaved

i0 1904'1 by |Tip Order n{ h i . IJenedid. Inc,, Collegeville. MiiwicsoLi. All nglits

reMTvud. Mil part of this bnnk may he reproduced in ,iiiv lorni or by jlll\
means, electronic nr mpchaniral, including photocopying, recording, taping,
or any retrieval systum. without thi j written permission ol I lie Litiirgiml
ProsN, CoUuguvilk’, Minnesota s<i /pi Printed in the United Mates ol America.

Library ol Congress CaEaluging-in-Publicaiion D a l i

I aVerdiere, Eugene
The Eucharist in the New Tostanicnt and the early church ■'
I 11gene [..iVeidiere
p. cm.
H
A Pueblo book. '
Includes bibliographical rvtbrL'ncfh and index.
ISBN u-Ht 46-6152-1
1. Lord's Supper— History Early church, ca. 30 6ihi. x Bible.
N.T.—Cntirihm, inlerpreLdlioM, etc. | . Utk.
|iVSz3-l .33 1996
5 1'. T 63—cirso 96-19741
Contents

Preface ix
1 Before liver 'I here Was a Name: Our Daily Bread i
2 Telling What Happened.
The Genesis of a I jlurgical Narrative 1.2
3 Proclaiming Hu- Death of the Lord;
The Eucharist in the Letters of Paul 29
4 In the following oi Christ;
TTic Eucharist in Mark's Gospel 46
5 For the Forgiveness of Sins:
I ki? Eucharist in Matthew's Gospel 65
ri Dining in the Kingdom of God:
The Fucharist in Luke's Gospel 79
7 ’I he Breaking of the Bread;
The I'.iiehcirLst in the Acts of the A pestles 96
8 Bread from Heaven: The Eucharist in John's Gospel 112
4 On the Lord's Day: The Eucharist in the DiJuclrt1 12B
10 One Flesh, One Cup, One Altar
The Ehl h.i i Lsi in the Letters of Ignatius ui Antioch 148
11 The Food Called Eucharist:
The Eu chH r ist in the Writ ings nf St J ustin 167
Conclusion 185
Index of Proper Names and Subjects 19*?
I ud ex of Gree k, La tin, and Hebrew Terms ■11id Expressions f 09

vii
3
Proclaiming the Death of the Lord:
The Eucharist in the Letters of Paul

Paul knew the formative power of

tradition. In letters written between
a.d. 51 and 62. he drew tin baptismal and
I Lidiiirislk traditions and fihuwed their
implications for a Christian community.
When problems arose a l Corinth*
Paul reminded the w i n m unity of the
tradition he handed tin to them.
i < urinthians 11123-25 is an
elcHfuent witness in lhe prophetic

The Fuehaiifit a tradition. F.vcry lime we celebrate the Fucharisl,

we repeat the words or a lihirgk.il Ibrmula, itself traditional, saying
what Christ did "on the night he was handed over." Taking bread and
giving 1hanks, breaking bread and sharing it and also a cup, we dn
what Christ did in remembrance 01 him. This wa>ht» inman d 1 And
this if eitir tradition For nearly two thousand years it has been mir
tradition.
Like names and liturgical formulas, trad i Hons matter They express
ibid reinforce a community's identity. I rad itinns announce who we
are or who wo are men nt to be, in this case, the body of Christ and ,»
new covenant in Christ's blood
Sometimes traditions can be a problem, as when they become loo
rigid anti stifle a community's vitality. In Mark’s community, adher-
ing to "the tradition of the elders" would have prevented it from
leaching nut to the Gentiles {7:1 15) 2 Traditions may also develop Loo
quickly; severing a comm unity from its moorings. At Corinth, fur ex-
ample, the l.iasic tradition concerning freedom in Christ led to unwar-
ranted individualism, threatening the unity,. it not the very existence,
of the community. But usually; traditions are a great blessing. defin-
ing and iacihratmg the flow of a community's life and energy, as the
embankment does for a river
She F UL’Iiaristrc tradition of Christ's Last Supper has come down to
us through the New Testament in four different forms, each with its
own traditional formula, showing discreet but significant adaptations
to the life setting of a particular community as well a s the hand of a
New Testament author. Two of the traditional formulas, i Corinthians
11:23-25 and Luke 22119-20. are developments of the Eucharistic tradi-
tion of ?\ntioch. The other two, Mark 14122-25 and Matthew' 26:26-2 ,
are developments of a Palestinian tradition.
The oldest form of the Eucharistic tradition is the one Paul referred
tu, quoting 1 Corinthians 11:31-25:
"The Lord jesus, on the night when ha was betrayed
took bread, and alter he had given thanks, broke it and said.
This is my body that is lor you.
I Jo this in remembrance of me.’
In the same way also, Hie cup, after supper, saying,
' I his cup is the nets' covenant in my blood.
Du this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'"
This tradition is important, not only for its antiquity but for Ils place
in Paul's mission and ministry as a prudaimer of the gnspi‘1 l ul knew
the power of a tradition. In 1 Corinthians, he summoned that power
prophetically, challenging the Church at Corinth to be faithful to
w h a l he handed on to them and they I hem selves received.

The T r a d i t i o n

The traditional formula Paul quoted In 1 Corinth Ians 11:33-25 pre-

suppeses that at Its origins the lord's Supper was celebrated as a full
meal This is dear from l\iul\ reference to "after supper.'* Paul's mes-
sage in 1 Corinthians 1 1:17-22 also presupposes that the Lord's Supper
continued In be celebrated as a full meal in the Church al Corinth.
I he I iicharistic meal wras divided mto two parts, the supper itself
and the cup taken after supper. The meal thus had the formal of a
symposium, in which the meal proper was followed by a dialogue,
discourse, nr entertainment over wine.
The supper was introduced by a formula declaring that the bread
broken was the body of the Lord Jesus and commanding the assem-
bly Lo do what the Lord Jesus had done m remembrance oi him ( i Cor
11:23-24). t lie cup alter supper was introduced by a similar formula
declaring that the cup was the new covenant in Christ's blood, and
at least as Paul presented it r repeating the command that the assem-
bly do I his in remembrance oi him (1 Cor 11:25).
Hie Eucharistic formula, therefore. actually consisted of two for-
mulas spoken at different moments in the lord's Supper. Recalling
l he I wo formulas, Paul brought them together in a single rhetorical
statement ( t Cor 11:23-25), summarized the second formula by refer-
ring to the first ami most likely added.. "Do this, as often as you drink
jt r in remembrance of me "
Paul's iiiudili cation of the cup formula placed the emphasis on the
meaning of the cup and Jesus' command. Paul thus adapted the Eu-
charistic formula in response io the situation at Corinth, where I he
Christians very much needed to be reminded that what they wen*
celebrating was the new covenant in Christ's blood. Adding further
emphasis, Paul also reminded them of Christ's command that they
drink the cup as he drank it, making dear that if was his memorial.

Handing on the Tradition

Tor I received from the Lord what 1 also handed on Lo you"’ (1 Cor
11:23). I ha1 is how Paul introduced the tradition, presenting himself
as a link in the chain of Eucharistic tradition. He received Qwretarrp
bwito) the tradition of Eucharist in the early 4ns while in the commu-
nity at Antioch? He handed ii on fpamdrifpfldj to the Corinthians in
the year 51 when first proclaim Ing the gospel Lo them I ike Paul, the
Corinthians also were to become a link in the* chain of Eucharistic tra-
dition, handing on to ethers what Paul handed on to them. Several
years later, arefl 54, Paul reminded them of this in i Corinthians.
To hand on the tradition, Lhe community at Corinth first had to ap-
propriate it, be faithful to it and reappropriate over and over again,
making II a vital and integral element in the comm unity's commitment
to be with Christ, the Lord [esus. Fur this, they had to make the actions
and words of Christ their own. Like the Lord Jesus, they had to take
bread, give thanks and break it so that they too could say, 'This is my
body th.il is for you."1 Like the I ord Jesus, they had tu du the same with
the cup, saying, 'The* clip is the new covenant in my blood." That is
in *w they would fulfill his command tu do Ihiis in retncitibrance of him
ji nd proclaim his death until became.
The Euchflristk tradition was part, of Paul's gospel tu all the
Churches, and it influenced every one nl his tellers. Since the letters
were Lo be read in the liturgical assembly, Paul wrote them wllli that
selling in mind. He adapted greetings, blessings, prayers, h i id hymns
from the liturgical assembly and used them in his letters, giving the
letters n unique, apostolic, and I ucharisljc form. The letters tdsro have
a Strung homiletic tone, suggesting that in writing them Paul imag-
ined himself personally addressing the Eucharistic assembly. Indeed,
some portions of FauFs letters may be adaptations of homilies in
which he addressed the same issues/1
For Paul's most explicit teaching concerning the l-udwisi, howi-vur,
we turn lo his First Letter to the Corinthians, where he achiiilly quoted
the comm unity $ to iili t»m-il. liudiiiristic formula (i Cor 11:23-25) and
dealt with two sets of problems which had important implications for
celebrating and living I he Eucharist
One set or problems stemmed from the pagan, religious environ-
ment from which the community came and w ith which it remained
surrounded ( 1 Cor H;i r t : i }P Most of the Christians of Corinth were
of Gentile background* I hey had once taken part in the worship of
idols and in religious banquets associated with them, just a s those of
lew is h background had participated in the synagogue. As converts to
Christi I hey had turned away from idol worship but still had lo deal
with the many ambiguities of living in an urban environ mrn l where
pagan temples, images, culls, public processions and festivals shaped
the culture and marked every aspect of life.
What did the Eucharist demand of them? Could they eat meat that
was offered to idols? Could they take part in pagan banquets, sepa-
rating I he social and cullura! from the religious aspects of such ban-
quets? In sorting out the various issues, Paul turned to the Old
Testament for events paralleling baptism nnd the Eucharist i n search
of historical precedents. He also Incused on the community's Eucha-
ristii common-union ( 1 Cor 10:1-22) and its implications for
members exercising their freedom in Christ. Same were interpreting
Lhcij- Christian freedom in a very individualist! r manner, tvilh no
consideration fur others in the community (see 1 Cor 9:1-27;
 The second sot of problems stemmed from the social environment
from which the Christians came and to which they still belonged (i Cur
1112-14140,1. Some of the members were men, some were women. Did
this difference affect ibetr roles in the liturgical assembly (see 1 Cor
11:3-16)? Some mendXfrs of the community were slaves, nt hers free.
Souie member* were rich, while other members were pour (see 1 Cor
r 1: r y- 34). Did these differences among them affect their positions in
the assembly? As I Tiristfens, xill were horn anew as children of God,
and all were one in Christ (Gal 3:2b-28). But did I heir rebirth and
oneness in Christ do away with all gene he, sexual and sikihI differ-
ences among them?
What behavior was appropriate in the liturgical assembly? Did the
Christians’' new identity as Christians leave them free to disregard
the commonly accepted norms for public behavior in the Cnrinthum
setting? Wh.it did Hie I’ucharist demand of them? While sorting out
these issues, Paul developed the social implications of the commu-
nity's participation in the Lord's Supper ( 1 Cor 11:17-34,1. It is in this
section he quoted the traditional liturgical account of who I Jesus did
"on the night he was handed over" (1 Cor 11:23-25}. Again, a main
problem was tire distorted v few sonic had regarding the exercise of
their freedom in Christ (see 1 Cur 1 1:3*16; 12:1-14:401.
Ln Older to < elebralc die Eucharist as the I ord's Supper, to do in re-
membrance of the Lord [psus what he did on thi night he wras handed
over, I ho communitv had to deal with these many issues and with the
prublem> they were experiencing. It was not just a matter oi getting
away with the maximum permissible and doing die minimum re-
quired. but of proclaiming the death 0.1 the Lord until became. It was
a matter of handing on the gospel of the Eucharist, proclaiming "the
death of the Lord until becomes" t 1 Cor 11:26}.
The Eucharist was a central element in Paul's Gospel. Paul referred
to the Em harist when In- firM preached at Corinth: "When I came to
you, brothers/ proclaiming the mystery’ of God" l.i Cur 2:1). The
Eucharist was part oi God's mystery, revealed in feaus Christ, the suf-
fering servant of the Lord, handed over by God (1 Cor 1 iizjb; see Isa
5 2 : n - ; i : i z ) mid giving his life as saving nourishment for all (1 Cor
11:25b- 25)- As Christians handing on the gospel of the Eu< barest, the
community look part in that same "mystery nf God" and proditimed
it to others.
The gospel of the I ucharist was part of Paul's "message of the cross,"
a humanly feolbdi message for those who demanded "signs" ur looked
tor "wisdom " But for three who believed. lhe gospel of Christ i md l ied
rev enled "the power ol God and the wisdom oi Cod r' 11 Cor 1:18-3.4).
As Christiana Im tiding on the gospel of the Euctarfel, the comunmity
made PaulN message ot die cross" their own. Like Paul, they prt>
claimed "Christ crucified" every time they celebrated the Eucharist
and they revealed "the power and the wisdom ol C . n d "
When haul first came to Corinth, he did not preach the gospel of
the Eucharist "with prsuasivc | words of | wTsdum, but with a
demon strati un of bjtiril .mt I poivi-r ' ( 1 Cor 2.4). Nor did he do so in 1
Conn thians, avoiding "lhe wisdom ui human eloquence, so that the
cross of Christ might not be emptied ol its meaning" 1 l Cur 1:17), In
his letter, Paul was now Lalling the community to the same simple
and direct proclamation ol lhe gospel of the Eucharist Without it,
they could nol claim genuine fidelity to lhe traditions he handed on
to I hem 11nd lhev themselves received.
9

t he Attraction nt Paganism

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians I m h i i Ephesus Neu 1 Cur 16 :S) after receiv-

ing word from Cldoe rs pt>uple -itoinit divisions and rivalries in the com-
n 1unity (1 Cur 1:1ilr along with a letter with various practical questions
l.hi Christian living. The letter may have been hand tJfl i vt rwl by a
snirtlJ delegation from Corinth made u p of Sl<phan.is r [‘drtunatus,
and Achaicus 1.1 Cor 16117). I housrlmld uf Stephanas had been the
first tu be converted not only Ln Corinth but in all of Achaia, of which
Corinth was lhe capital, I ’ i i l i I expected this household tn provide
|(*fidershlp for the < immunity, providing ri’im? around which all the
Christians ol Corinth would gather ( 1 Cm if?:i 5-16)
In their letter, the Corinthians affirmed I heir fidelity in maintaining
the traditions as Paul handed them cm tu them, and Paul co mm ended
them for doing that (1 Cur 11:2). In affirming their fidelity, however,
I hey also referred to problems, they were experiencing m the commu-
nity. I uneeming these, Paul rut ewed further and more specific infor-
mation from Chloe's people and lhe delegation I hat brought lhe
letter from Corinth.
In cine of their queshuris, the community asked alxmt the eating ol
ini 'a I I hut was uttered to idols 11 t.'cir 8:11. The same question came up
cd lhe apustulic assembly in Jerusalem (Acts 15:20). On that occasion,,
"the apostles and prosbytens. in agreement with the whole church/
fipjiL a k'llcr to Anfiuih (AcLs 3 51221 with this scilemnlv worded deLi-

1-1
sinn: "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place un you
any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat
sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and
from unlawful marriage" (Acts 1512R-29). In his response (1 Cor
8 c i - n : i ) Paul was mure nuanttd. dealing concretely with iliilen-ni
cases. distinguishing the various aspects of the question and showing
their implications for the celebration of Lhe Eucharist (1 Cor 10:1-22),
People rarely ate meal in the ancient world, doing so mainly during
religious festivals when the meat of sacrificial victims became avail-
able in the market. It was one thing to buy such meat cmd eat it at
hnmc r or even a l the home of unbelievers for whom it had no religious
meaning I J Cor 111:25-29}. h was another thing to participate in public
temple banquets where meat offered to idols was served. 1 luld in
temple dining rooms, of which many have been excavated in Corinth
and its environs/ religious banquets played an important rule in the
cultural life ot the city. especially during religious festivals and the
biennial Isthmian games, which were associated w1th die temple uf
Poseidon and for which people came trum the whole Aegean region
and well beyond.4 For recent converts from paganism, t-uuh festivals
and games, together with their banquets, remained very rittnu+ive. "
Some members of the Christi dn comm unity were appealing to the
special knowledge ( rjcs/sJ and freedom they had in Christ to justify
eating meat that was offered to idols. As <. hrifitians, they knew dial
■“there is no idol in the world " and that "there is nu God hut one."
Since idols were really nothing, why could Christians not eat meat
that was sacrificed to idols n Cur 8:4)? Further *ince idol worship
had no objective, religious value, what prevented Christians from re-
clining and dining with others in Lhe temple of an idol 11 Cor 8: ici)?
Thu question of eating meat offered to idols might nut have been a
major issue, iwropt that not all in the community looked on idols in
I lie same way. Fur some, idols were harmless images, whose worship
meant nothing. For them, eating meat offered tn idols had no reli-
gious implications. For others, I i u w u m t . idols represented demonic
prest rices, whose worship was all too real h:u them, slianng 111 pagan
religious banquets meant sharing in the table uf dunums.
Tin use who were sure in their new knowledge might easily Ir-nd Lhe
others to do what may no! have been wrong in itself b u t fur them
was seriously wrong. The issue, therefore, was not so much Lhe fact
of eating meat that had been uttered to idols or even participating in
temple banquets. It was that of scandalizing those who were "weak/ 1
 and would be drawn into rating meal offered to idols c u t nl sohdar-
jlv with those who were "strong-"1
Tn Ins response r Paul exhorted thiwc who fell "strung ' not to hi? over-
confident. I tii/y might well have a hidden weakness Being baptized
and participating in the Eucharist did not guarantee diiy one's salva-
Licin. Like Lheu ancestors in the exodus, they might again desire evil
things l i Cor iu:6)f slip back into idolatry ( i Cor 10:7k indulge in im-
mu ratify (1 Cw 1mH), test Christ ( 1 Cor 10:9), not to mention grumble
n bruit resit Ictions on their freedom 11 Cor 10:10), all u:t which were
serious matters Those who thought the) were "standing secure should
take care nd to fall" 1,3 Cor in:12), for their baptism and ihr Eucharist
to be pi'fsiiiiallv salv'llk, Christians had to live according to their bap-
tismal and Eucharistic commitments.
hi any case, leading the "wreak" to participate in wh.it they consid-
ered the table of dem i ms was leading them into what for them was
idolatn and Lid absolutely io be avoided. C hristians who pflrtirlpafed
at U’112 table ol the Lord could not participate al thi* table ol demons.
At the table of the Lord, everyone, whether "weak" or "strong,"
joined in so lid a dry, kununjtting themselves to the Lord fesus and to
one another in Christ. Thu ‘'sLi'iitigi enjoyed freedom Ln Christ but
with due regard for their common -union tlohjmrii!J with I he others
and the mission of the community (1 Cor 10:23-24, 28-29). I Ike I’auJ,
they had to freely limit the exercise of their freedom out of concern
for the community and its universal mission l.i Cur 9:1-27; 10:32-31).
In making his point, Paul drew a parallel between the baptism and
Eucharisl nl Christians and the exodus experience of their ancestors,
who "were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea." Using
a reverse typology, Paul viewed the Israelite story through a < hristian
lens and presented it in transparently Christian terms, speaking of the
Israelites as being "baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,"
and as eating "I he same spiritual food" and drinking “the same spir-
itual drink " None nl this, however, kept God fmm striking down those
who turned to idolatry and indulged in immorality 11 Cor 10:1-5)
Spelling out his warning in biblical terms, Paul witnessed to the
beginnings and early development ol a Christian Lypologv lor bap-
tism and Eucharist Ihi cloud and the passing through I he Red Sea
were seen at, literary and then logical symbols of baptism. The manna
■in11 the water from the rock wrn- -r-n as literary and theological sym-
bols nl F.uchi]ri.sl Ln like the Synoptic Gospels a n d to a lesser extent
John, Paul may in it have connected the Eucharist with the Passover,
but he did associate it w ith the closely related theme of the exodus.

3*
 I nam Paul's presentation, we see how baptism and L'licliiarist were
very closely related in both life and thvologv. We see too how Paul re-
fleeted u n gospel realities and chriUenges in light of the Old
leytament where baptism and Eucharist had a prehistory.
In bin response, Paul also provided the early Church with impor-
tant Hn?ukigical and pastoral vocabulary, describing the Eucharist as
a ''spiritual fond'' and a "spiritual drink'’ ( i Cor m:j} r "the cup of
blessing that we blvss” and "'the bread that we break/' "pariidpation
(kmunuriJ? in the blood of Christ” and ‘'parti ci pa tin n (tarjfliimrtJ in the
body of Christ" (i Cor 10:16), "the cup of the Lord ' and IJ the table of
the Lord" (1 Cor W £ t 1.

Men and Women hi the Assembly

One nt the problems that arose at Corinth had to do with women

veiling their heads and men wearing their hair long. Should women
have their heads veiled when they prayed or prophesied in the as-
sembly? From today's standpoint, the issue seems extremely minor.
But as often happens, something quite nun lit becomes a flashpoint
for deeper and more significant matters. Things as simple as clothing,
even a particular piece of clothing such as a hcadcovcringj and things
as simple as long hair easily become symbolic, fix using, emotion.
Linger, and deep resentment, 1'
From Paul's response, we team man) things about the early Chris-
tian assembly. Wc note, first of all. that praying and prophesying Ln
the assembly worn nnl limited Io men. Paul assumes that women as
well ns men were nut only allowed but expected to pray rind proph-
esy In the assembly. Those wr ho prophesy address the assembly;
building up Ils members, encouraging them, and providing solace
Someone who prophesies builds up LHe Church 4 1 Cor 14:3-4).
Prophesying in the early Christian Assembly, as well ns praying, were
pari of what we would describe as liturgical ministries of the word.
The spiritual gifts, the various ministries and the works of God, of
which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 124-11, knew no dfecriminatiorv
The issue in the Christian community was not whether women, like
men, could pray and prophesy in the assembly, bul whether they had
to have their heads covered to perform these ministries. In first-century
Cormth, women were expected to have their heads covered. Tu do
otherwise w a s to project masculine or un feminine behavior. By the
same taken, men were expected to have their hair cut short. Wearing

17
their hair long projected effeminate, unnuisoiline attitude . Some mem-
bers uf die community had concluded from their now freedom in < hrist
Hint such social and ml rural norms no longer applied io them (see
j Cor 9:1-27; 10:23-33)- In essence, the issue involved the blurring of
sexual differences, something not uncommon in first-century Corinth.12
It is Irui! that for those who were baptized into Christ, "there is nei-
ther slave nor free person, there is not male and female," and that all
are "onr in Christ [calls” (Gal 3:28), Everyone can be a Christian and
assume those rules in the assembly lh.it express their new Christian
identity.
But the statement from Galatians is about those whom die gospel
invited to be Christians, nut about abolishing the difference between
those who accepted the invitation. One did not have to be a Jew or
first become! one in order to become a Christian. NurP of course,, did a
[ew have to become a Gentile. Christianity transcended the difference
between Jew and Gentile,
Ilia l is why those who were I’kmtilcs (uncircumcisedl should not
be 1 irvumciscd, and those who were Jews rein uinciscd) should not
be uik’irru incised ( j Cor 7118-14), In this respect. "evfiAutu1 should
remain In the state in which he (or she I was called" {1 Cur 7:20), I lie
outward dilferenee Iwlwecn few and Gentile remained, but among
those who were "ut (. hrisf r (CJjrjsfejj Gal 3:29), It no longer mattered.
In Christ, being Jewish ur being Greek was of no cons i deration.
For the same reason, one did nut have tu he .1free persun to become
a Christian. Nor did one have to become a slave, at least not in the
ordinary sense. 11 But becoming a Christian did not alter someone's
suiial status as slave or I rec. Oneness in Christ made a big difference
in their attitudes toward one another. ' Hur the slave called in the
Lord is a treed person in the Lord, just as a free person who has been
called is a slave of Christ” 11 Cor 7:22). But a s with those of Jewish or
Gen fife origin, "everyone should continue before God in the stale in
which he (or she) was called” (1 Cor 724).
The same applied Io being male and female. Both men and women
were called to be one in Christ, and so to pray and prophesy in the
same assembly. Their becoming Christian did not flow from human
generation, Irani the ii'l.itiurinhip between male and rem a I e. 1'’ \ o r did
it depend un their being a man or a woman. The expression "male
and female" feram A™ t/refe) refers to Genesis: "God created man in
his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he
created them * .(< len 1:27).
 I hr passage from Genesis emphasizes the radical uni tv of the human
race, using the term ‘‘man" (lxx, trnffirajws) to include both man and
woman. As persons, created in the image of God. man anil woman
arc equal. At the same limo, the passage states the difference between
the sexes, enabling them to act in the image of God. Blessed by God,
they are to be fertile and multiply (Gen 1:28).
As Christians' the man and woman not nnly main t u n their human
equality but achieve a now equality and unity in ChrLt. As human be-
ings, be they Jew or Gentile. slave or free person, they also continue
their probative mission Being Christian, however, is a mailer not of
human generation but of grace. That is why *'lhoro |.g not male and fe-
male/' so far as being ‘children of Cud in C hrisf Jesus (Gal 3:26).11
Oneness in Christ, then?fore, did nut abolish the distinction between
male and female. Nor did it allow either to set aside the behavior that
was appropriate for each. In their behavior and in their outward ap-
pearance, men and women should respect the order and manifest the
identity given them from their creation at birth (1 Cor 117-12).
Ln reading the passage, it is very important to keep Paul's main
poinl in mind: while recognizing Lhc oneness of men and women, in
Adam and in Christ fsrc Rom 5:12-21), let women be women and lei
men he men. Both men and women are indeed one in Christ, As such,
they are also heirs according to the promise made to Abraham (Gal
1:29). Formerly, only men (sons) could be heirs, and m that context,
the term "son - applied only to males. In baptism, however, women
also become heirs. Tu express the equality of mon and women as
Abraham's heirs in Christ. Paul extends the term "sons" and gives it
a Christian, inclusive meaning: "For through taith you are rill chil-
dren (frimrf) of God in Christ losus" (Gal 3:2b)."
II ls easy to become distracted from I ‘auTs main pm nl by the three
arguments he adduced in its favor, the first from social propriety (1 Cm
11:3-6), the second from creation (1 Cor 11:7-12). and the third from
sexual identity (1 Cor 11:13-15). I he arguments may be significant in
themselves, but they have no direct bearing on the roles of men and
women in the Christian assembly.

Al the Lord's Supper

Among the problems in the community, some, such as eating meat

that hud burn offered to idols, invol veil behavior and relationships
outside the Christian assembly and the Lord's Supper (1 Cut 8:1 -11:1 >.
 I hcse problems were related to Hu* religious ami cultural environ*
ment of a pagan city like Corinth.
Other problem such as the behavior and appearance of men and
women, involved attitudes, problems, and behavior Ln the assembly
itsdf ( i Cor 11:2-16)- These problems reflected the moral climate uJ a
cosmopolitan city I’kc Corinth.
Still other problems involved attitudes, behavior, and relationships
ir the assembly's central ami defining event the I ord s Supper (i Cor
11:17-34). I hesc problems reflected the social and economic environ-
ment of a city like Corinth. Like the previous problems, those in the
Lord's Supper reflected a distorted, indn idualistic sense or Christian
freedom + incompatible with the Eucharistic assembly and the Lord's
Supper.
Ilu- Christian community at Corinth suffered from many kinds o I
divisions, I here were the factions referred to at the beginning of the
letter, with some rial mi ng allegiance to Paul, others to Apo 11os, some
to Kcphas and still others to Christ {1 Cor 1:11-12). I here were also
those who thought uf themseh es as enlightened and secure in I he
faith and ignored others viewed as weak 1, 1 Cor S: 1-13). Divisive,
tnu, were those of variant sexual orientation w ho ostentatiously dis-
played their difference even in the exercise of their ministry (1 Cur
10:3-16).
In a context where freedom in Christ became a warrant for individ-
ualistic self-expression ami triL.-tionalisni r these divisions surely had
an impact on the community's assembly as C hurch (tn and
I he Lord's Supper. As if these divisions were not enough for a small
ctiiniriunllyr N further divisions arose from diJferenccs in economic
class and social status among the members. Ch ere were wealthy
people in the community, ami (here were pour. Some in the commu-
nity were free,, while others were slaves. These last differences had a
great impact on the Lord's Supper itself
When 11 it- early Christians assembled as a Church (rrt ettksifiL they
met in a home that was large enough to welcome the whole commu-
nity. Concretely this meant they met in a wealthy borne, one with
several rooms arranged around a central open court But even a
wealthy home did not haw a dining room to accommodate the entire
Christian community, there were those w h o ale in the dining room,
the principal reception room in the house. And there were those who
ate in adjoining moms or in tlir open courtyard, depending 011 the ar-
chitectural style of the house.
 A wealthy home in Corinth alsu had a separate dining room or
area for slaves, I n a wealthy Jewish nr Gentile home, slaves did rtul
cal in the main dining room along with free people, nor did. they eat
reclining. They sat.. as did ivomcn and minors. Reclining was a mark
and expression ol freedom, reserved for free adult males.
All such distinctions and restrictions should have disapjX*areJ al
tin.- Lord's Supper (tu fcururJton derprruH, i Cor nrani, which was in-
spired by tire values of Christ's universal lordship and reflected its
Image. But they did nut. Paul said in his letter that the Lord's Supper
in Corinth w as no more than each one's private supper ffo iiiicur lieij'
r/iiuiJ. with participants disregarding one another, each one going
ahead with his or her own supper, and wilh one going hungry while
another was getting drunk (i Cur 11:21).
Il Is easy to understand how this could come about, given the cur-
rents of freedom and individualism in a community with rich and poor,
slave and tree, all meeting in a wealthy member's home. In principle,
the poor should have had equal iiiuess wilh the rich Io the dining rinirn,
and the slaves with tree members; but they obviously did not have this
equal access. While the wine flowed freely in the main dining room,
tin.1 lood served in other moms, wrhere slaves, the poor and some oth-
ers were eating, proved rather meager In such a setting, each one
had to look for himself or herself. Thifoe who did not went without.
Io address this situation, Paul quoted the Liturgical tradition which
they not opj\ ftcvlvod hut in turn passed it on to others (1 Cur W2j-
25). The Lord's Supper was to be a mral ni generous self-giving show-
ing the unity possible in Chnst j cuithiilhi- union ffawwioj ol people
from very7 disparate backgrounds. The Lord's Supper should have
shown what it meant to be one as God's cluldren (fturerj in Christ,
where "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free
person, there is not male and female” (Gal 3:28). In terms ol the situ-
ation at Curinlh, we should add, "there is neither rich nor poor.”
In the Lord's Supper, the ccnmiunitv was to d o wbuit Jesus did., giv-
ing Ills life for IJicm.and tor all. They were io be tin: bodv nr C hrist in
the world, prot I aiming by the gift of their own life in Christ — and
Christ's life in them — the death of the Lord until hi.s coming 1.1 Cur
11:26). Lhe Lord's Supper was to be one great resounding Afanrntf fha
f'O Lord, camel”) 11 Cor 16122). Proclaiming the death 01 tin1 Lond was
,< proclaim tion of the gut-pt'1■ ,J| mouncing life and salvation.
Proclaiming the death of l he Lord was nut just a mdttei ul words.
11 was a ma Her df deeds, rating th is bread ' ' and drink ing ” t)us ci ip '

41
meant Liking bread,, gn ing thanks, and breaking the bread as Jesus
did The command, "Do this in remembrance of me,," called fur some-
thing to be done,, not just: spoken, In the same way, “This is my body
which is for you ' declared what is being dune, lusus Eucharistic
words are meant to be active, creative, and etlcctive words. I hey are
also prophetic words. Spoken in the assembly for the Lord's Supper,
their challenge is dear.
When the Christi. ins ale "this bread' and drank "this cup," they did
what he cummimdcd them to du "in remembrance toNtiwiriesraJ of mu"
(i Cor 11,24, -?)- They witnessed to his presence, making his voice and
gestures theirs, announcing, "This 15 my h n i y that is tor you, ' and
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” When they did do what
he did "in remembrance of him, 01 the words of the Lord lusus re-
sounded, calling for a response. Hits was indeed Ills body. And this
cup was indeed a new covenant in his blood’
Al Corinth, the words and the gestures had become empty because
the Corinthian community no longer did what Jesus did. Their Euch-
arist was no longer a remembrance of Christ’s passion and resurrec-
tion, n o longer expressed what he did "on tiro night he ivas handed
over." As such, the coni mu ml} was.no longer acting as a link in I he
chain of Eucharistic tradition, handing on to others what had been
handed on In them. That is why Taut told them their supper was no
longer "the Lord's Supper." Ami that is why be reminded them of
the tradition, reminding them of what they believed and once did,
hoping to stir the faith and love they had once shown. Without these,
there could be no hope.
If their supper was no lunger the 1 ord's Supper (fn Jqxriflhir? Jeip
jranj but each one's uwri indiv idual supper (to rJinrr itojpjnrri, there
was no point to their assembling in one place (epi tonutoj? 0 Better
that they should eat and drink in their o w n homes 11 Cor 11:22). We
recall that besides assembling for the Lord's Supper "in one place" or
"in common" (rpj to itoto.l. Christians also assembled as smaller
Church (rWesvd communities in individual homes, such as that of
Aquila and I’risea al Ephesus to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians
16119 (see also Rom [6:3-4).
There were other problems in the community, related to those we
have set'll, problems in the exercise oi gifts and ministries in the as-
sembly (1 Cor 12:1-14:4-. >1. As in other parts of 1 Corinthians, I'aul's
biggest challenge was the maintaining of unify. With regard to gifts
and ministries, therefore, as in other areas, he stressed how r diversity
did not imply opposition and division but complementarity.

4
 Appealing for unil \, Paul exhorted everyone In respect the body ol
Christ ot which they wore members. Freedom, tin - cl i a risrriS, and the
ministries were not meant lor the good id the individual, but for
building u p the body, in u hich each member could and should rind
meaning anil purpose. In the Eucharist J, my body that is (or you."1
each member works in concert to build Christ's body, the Chun'li
l l is in Lhis conlext that Paul extols the primacy and eternal ((Utility
of love among all other virtues and gifts 1,1 Cor 13:1-13; see 8:1-2). ft is
love that moved Christ to offer his life for all. Love, too, that is needed
for the Lord's Supper, ft is love that moved Paul in hand on Lhe tradi-
tion oi what Icsus did the night hr was handed over II Is out of lovr
that the Corinthians received it and handed it on to others. Love is
also what kept Paul from giving u p on Lhe Christian community at
Corinth and moved him to write lhe first letter to the Corinthians.
"Love never fails" li Cor t 3:8),

NOTES
I The ivirliesi wrirlpn witness tor this traditirm is 1 Corinthians, a guixi p.irt ut
which concerns pastoral issues related tu the Lord's Supper Pur tile tTiiiUtluK itscli
i Lurinthiarts iilzj z?. Tur verv helpful Li inrni.sil.it ies 111 English mi i Cnrin-
tiuLins, sue Huns Conzelma h i ' 1 C1irijjlhiirix jr, ed. L.rpnrge Vv MacRae, S.J., and trunk
limes W leiirh, Hr/wrcncu ■_ Philadelphia: i-ortruHb1'rca;, 1 75); and JtTunic
Mlirphy-C VC nnnnr, I.IJ'.. 3 Curmfhjijnt, New Testament Message i o (Wflminglrm.
Michael Glazier, ryTy). Plt .in excellent study ol 1 Corin thbrns, nee Margaret M.
Mitchell, PjitiJ d the Rhetoric oj Rrrottttluilwn, An Lxcgeltai! httxkiitflitjun at the
1 a-1 rpd.'ftnsjJi.uj i?r r CorinthinFU iLmuiville We hnuisi er, 1991) FcrPfldVs
message concerning the t.uchan-t. sue Xavier LeoivDu four; h.|., Sfctrrrifl li'ir.’ Elici'iif-
rMir HniJd, trans. Matthew J O'Connell (New York Paulist Press, irjtiy) 21 n 9
a_ Rigid adhuraiti' ii> I = mid I ion would be a basic problem tn the conuriiinily ol
the frit ii;.1 show in chapter n
1. The wording <11 the tradition came Lu P.uil from lhe community at Antioch,
bill Paul's receiving it in faith w.i:- ' from Ihv I end' (1 Cnr 11:23)1
I Such a reLirion.ship td Paul's preaching would help .Kcijunt for sliitiu iif thu
ilu'm.itic and verbal piir.illels between letteEB audi aa Galatians and Romans.
5. The Greek plurul .h u'ini, which the Revised Xvw AmeriL’an Bihlr transhtee
03 ■■’iziTi ith-.Ts." is ijriimmaticalLy iniiuHve wliunever refers to women as well a>
men. Since t l i m i m m u n i h at Curuilti Mirely liii liuded women I we x Cur 11: j-16),
lire appropriate English trmulnln.11 \n is ccmsequuritly nut "brothers'' but
"bKilhi'rs and sisture." gjvvn in the New Revised Stand /.rd Version I ike many
Other languages, luidenl mid modem, Greek distinguishes iVgiilarly between gen-
der, a matter of grant mar, and sex a matter of genetics, while English dues nnt. As
a result, Englisll lends In rnntusu mLisuulinc ,uul (oniin inp with male and fvnuile
6 Cliloe may have been ■* merchant with business m hutti Ephesus mid ( ii- inlh
Paul assumes tlidl she and her people were known M lhe community at Corinth.

41
1.ike C r ihp i is-1 Taim anil the 110 u seiuild uf Stephana 'wv i Cut i t-j-ifi), th*?y iiihV
uilsn have buun meillhers
; Pl l i I refers tu fivi! questions in all. introducing lire tirs-t witfl tile esrpTEsriup.
"Nnw in regard iti I he matters about which ymi wrote ’ (peri P.’ fcnff I Cor
1 l2: 1
iind the tnur tfthcn with ‘ ow in regard to" (pm de, i Cur 7 5' ■ •
H. Sx V i i h c v Bncikidis, the Salicin. irv nl Demeter and Korei An Arduxi logics I
Approach tu Anctent Religion," . Immuirt /twrtwf 1 rdiri.'fqgy 91 (iQ y) iSo-+bv
James Wiserna n,, l jvriif/i o/?J RtWhr f; fl H i -A.D. z6? AufsLieg und NfeLtergang
der Homischun Well, cd P.-ij iriuj. VII i (1979) 43S-54H; Nancy Boukidis and
[u.m Filter, 'The Sanctuary uf Dunicler and Kure tn Corinth: Prelim man Report
V," Jn-bpci 1,1 41 I I4'q? 267-307.
q, Jufll as the tbthnurari game wrre associated with the sanctuary ul Pubeidun.
the Olympic parties were assodaled with tfl.il ol Zells., and the EteJphic gflmes
with that of Apollo
ui. C(iinp.s:.ilite nations exist today In places such as India. Sri Lank a. and
rhailiinJ. where Hinduism or Buddhism are dammonl cilHural li ,»ri>’S and there i.i
nn separating religion from Culture Wherever I hat lh the rase, Chrertmns ,ire «xm-
'-lantlv surrounded by the religious practices that con kite I li<L t<i llwir persunai
.Hid ethnic identity but which they llflVC let! behind at baptism Thu nttrdvlKui 1?
espu'clnlly sb niig ar I os tn-al times when a whole region or a!y is swept up In cul-
tural and religious Letebfatkifl A foreign visit nr F perience 1- such testsVdls very
dlfftTuiil lv frcim thnv whfl hire native tu the culture.
1 1 A good l'. cd tuple of how volatile the question nf women covering their head*
can he Is seen in trnditiunal Muslim environment- where women are required !o
wear tlte i.'li'.iitir ih? I r.idilional.. long black veil rvachinc tu the ground . tuV uring
not imly a woman** IiuiIlI but her whole person
11, The problem applied not 4tnly to Wunum'but also tu aiui mjitiL 1 i_if swhuni
wunj tlieir Ikiir Juiii .ui-.l I .nl ll done u p in elaborate end lunes, al h»rti ng an urtma.s-
culine attitude. See Juju mu Murphy -C>’Connor, O T . x Sl'.\ and Lugde in 1 Lunn
thuuis 1 ill- 11," raH/m'tr fiihJio 44 |C Irloher a q/vn-> .4 1-500
11. In the New IvstLimcn! buginrung with tlw tetters ul PjuJ. the term "&Lb u
hiii.'/iii?. .' was .in iiupoilanl metaphor lor !how who followed ( hrisl Iho J nrd
ihrWflfil Fur a Jtudy of the thomc in 1 Ctirinthi*in<r u and the Atting cif slavery in
Ihv .1iu-teii L world, st-v [late Ik Martin, Sumcry dr Se/niixon l \ e u Haven: Y.iIp IJ11I-
vendt) Press, 1990I
l .| See S. Scott Uartchy, Fersf-Centirry SLns'ry and j CimhfhfcriS ;?. J 1 SBL DiSsui
tatnm Seni's 11 (Min iulii MiHLI.iiui The Sodc I v of lilbhcaJ Literature, iu71)
15. Not? the difference in the tyording of Gala hans 3:18: "Tliere ft neither Jew
nor (twite,1 I'iTi-ek there is niliflitT i-linu nor -1/1/4* I Free person,' 1 bul lhen "ihcrc ss
no! niali* and lAn'rl female ''
16. rhe kten is well LAprcssed in llic prologue of SL Jnhni Tiu! Im ihose who did
accept him he gave power to become children (trfowJ of Cud, to those who belteve
in hte riiiniL*, wild were burn nut by natural generation nor by human choice mrt
bi ,1in.in's dvri-siun bul nt God" I John 1 11-13)
17 Suite fur Uulu \ ■ in i l i l I LLhivc understanding nt lhe Icnii i.' ■.un- 1 mn-
11
nul be presimncd, th? RN4B translated It as ■'Lhildren. lhe Greek term loi ' 'cllil
dren/ tn reLitiuii tu llteir parents, not necesKrfiiy in retatiutt tu their ago, would
be (jingiilar tekunn)

44
 I R Sul Eugime Ln Verdi eiv, "Thu Etithiirbt StftramBnl nl tile "I n h11?rm.i I li 111 ur
the World/' li preMintatlon made al the |5<h IntLTiuitiondL LiiL-hanstic Congress in
Spain I June 6-15, iws). which d? 11 wilh the meaning jjil3 iinplicaticm.H
of Bmemhllng 3pC€lLkillly Church, Lrnmd?iud (Seplcnilier 1993J 178- yRi.
iij. Today, thn C-orinlhiad CMnmurdty would be considered a small, grassroots
uX-LinudiCiil. and cotechpric.nl community free of Lunju urstitutiLinnJ structures. Lt
would i1]hli lx: Loniidered extremely dysriniclioiii.il. Since Lhe ulituu uummunitv
was Able Io iiK'L't in ueil 1 htjmu r it must have counted somewhere rrnm w lu nxi
members, no more
zd. 1 he Creek id Inina rir e¥pnM8fcn, e i? k» WM I’m unu place"} cunvhpunLLH to
•■pi fun dlitfurr i"in or "nt th? same place' 1}.11 can fllsi lx? ItJitsl.iled inLo Eii li<]l
bi "in CLinunoji" or " bo utlwic Besides 1 CorfnthtaM 1 i ’i. f p (4 - 1 nd Matthew
also with lhe verb "n seiriblL' ‘ fsyjiETchDirajrJ and Luke 17:35 and Acts 1:15;
2JI, with the verb rt | n Lie” rdntfji

45