𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝’𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐫: 𝐒𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐇𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐎𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬

 

The Lord’s Supper: Sacred Tradition, Hidden Origins, and Controversial Practices

𝐓𝐨𝐦𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐬

 

Introduction

The Lord’s Supper occupies a central place in Christian worship and theology, warranting careful and sustained study. The New Testament refers to this practice with various terms—the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:20), Communion (1 Cor 10:16; koinonia), and Eucharist (1 Cor 11:24; eucharistia, “thanksgiving”)—each emphasising a distinct theological dimension. Given its foundational role in Christian identity and ecclesial life, it is essential to examine whether contemporary practices align with the scriptural witness. Moreover, serious reflection on the frequency, form, and meaning of the Supper is necessary, both for individual believers and for the Church collectively. Across the centuries, the Church has articulated a range of theological interpretations of the meal, often shaped by historical, cultural, and doctrinal contexts. Therefore, a responsible engagement with the Lord’s Supper must include not only rigorous exegesis but also critical interaction with the broader tradition of Christian thought and practice. To neglect the insights of those who have gone before us would be both historically uninformed and theologically presumptuous. While no single treatment can claim to be exhaustive, this inquiry aims to foster a deeper and more faithful observance of the Supper by exploring its significance through biblical, historical, and theological lenses.

By returning to the early Christians and the way they lived and celebrated the Eucharist, we are not abandoning the present, but seeking to engage it more fully.

In learning how the first Christians prayed, hoped, and gathered around the table of the Lord, we gain more than historical insight—we find ourselves again. Their witness helps us recover a deeper understanding of what the Eucharist truly is, and what it means for us today.

Meaning of the Eucharist

“When you assemble as a Church. . .” (RSV). The words are from St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:18).! For Paul, the ex-pression, “to assemble as a Church,” referred to the nature and purpose of the assembly at which the Church celebrated the Eucharist. As Alexander Schmemann put it, “the very word ‘church’ — ekklesia — means ‘a gathering’ or ‘an assembly’ and to ‘assemble as a church’ meant, in the minds of the early Christians, to constitute a gathering whose purpose is to realise the Church.” [1]

Etymology of the word Eucharist

P. Schaff was among the first scholars to draw attention to the fact that, in Didache. 9.1, the Didachist uses the term ‘eucharist’ differently than it is used in the NT. In the Didache , the term is more technical, loaded with ecclesiastical and liturgical meaning (Did. 10.6). At present, most scholars would recognize the technicality of the term, especially because of its use in Did. 9.1 and 9.5.[2]

While the name “Eucharist” is not found in the New Testament, the verb “to give thanks” (eucharistein), which gave rise to it, was part of the Eucharistic tradition almost from the beginning (see 1 Cor 11:23- 25). The name “Eucharist” first appears in a collection of early Christian writings known as “the Apostolic Fathers.”? The oldest attestation is in the Didache (9:1) in the heading for a set of blessings for community meals, “Regarding the Eucharist” (Peri de tes eucharistias).? The Didache’s reference to “the Eucharist” assumes the name was already well known, at least in the community of the Didache. One of the earliest names for the Eucharist is “the breaking of the bread” (he klasis tou artou), which appears both in Luke’s Gospel (24:35) and in the Acts of the Apostles (2:42). Like the name “Eucharist,” it is related to very early Eucharistic texts, which refer to Jesus’ gesture of breaking bread for his disciples (see 1 Cor 11:24). The name emphasizes the quality of sharing among the early Christians. The very oldest name we have for the Eucharist is “the Lord’s Supper’ (to kyriakon deipnon). That is what the early Christians called it in the early 50s of the first century. We know this from Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians: “When you meet in a place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper and one goes hungry while another gets drunk” (1 Cor 11:20-21). Attitudes and behaviour at Corinth made a mockery of the Lord’s Supper. [3]

Hence, The Lord’s Supper is a church’s act of communing with Christ and each other and of commemorating Christ’s death by partaking of bread and wine, and a believer’s act of receiving Christ’s benefits and renewing his or her commitment to Christ and his people, thereby making the church one body and marking it off from the world.[4]

The Daily Bread as a Meal

Food in Palestine during the Roman period, like other Mediterranean countries, relied heavily on bread—the Hebrew word leḥem means both “bread” and “food.” It has been estimated that in ancient Palestine, bread accounted for somewhere between 55 and 75 per cent of a person’s daily caloric intake.[5]

Since bread was so basic for a meal, and since the word “bread” was often used to refer to the entire meal, to eat bread together was to have a meal together. A meal was not something taken individually but with others, such as a family or community. The word "bread” consequently evoked the family or community event, the people gathered and sharing the meal, far more than the food they shared. If so, it seems safe to assume that the simplest and most ordinary way for Christians to refer to their Eucharistic meal together was to speak of “our bread,” that is, The expression indicated that there was something Special about their bread or meal, something that characterized it and distinguished it from the meals, “the bread,” taken by other people, something that made it different from meals they themselves might take while away from the community. Only those who took part in their meal could know what that something special was, let alone appreciate it. This was not something easily described for someone who never experienced it. It depends on how the early Christians viewed themselves and on their sense of identity as a community. [6]

Sacred or Secular Meal?

Many studies of early Christian meals attempt to compare them with forms of meals in their pagan environment. Invariably, however, what is compared is the assumed essence of the early Christian Eucharist, namely, its nature as a "sacramental" meal. This term refers to the special sense in which the Eucharist is seen to impart spiritual power. In most studies, it refers especially to the act of eating the flesh and blood of the deity.[7]

Before continuing, however, it is appropriate to define what I mean by “sacred meal” and by “feast.” At the most basic level, a sacred meal is a meal that is special. In being a meal, it takes part in a culturally-defined category, meaning that it is constituted not just by physical-material eating and drinking, but by symbol-carrying culture. In Hebrew or West Semitic philology, it is difficult to localize a meal in terms of terminology. Two terms, mišteh and ḥag, roughly demarcate the terminology of the “feast” and the “pilgrimage feast.” Merely use of the terms “eating” or “drinking” need not indicate a “meal,” however, in that a “meal” was probably intended to be a communal (at least familial) event, though this contention has little firm evidence to substantiate it from the biblical texts themselves. The ḥag, in biblical texts, undoubtedly implies a cultic setting, namely a cultic feast involved in the undertaking of a pilgrimage. The mišteh, on the other hand, need not take place at a temple, that is, a specifically sacred location, yet one should hesitate before concluding that this implies either “profane” or “quotidian” as a result. It could rather be that its movement towards the sacred end of the continuum for meals is indicated in a different manner[8]

Why Study Greco-Roman formalised meal customs to know Eucharist?

The meals at which they gathered also tended to follow the same basic form, customs, and rules regardless of the group, occasion, or setting. They followed the form of the banquet, the traditional evening meal, which had become the pattern for all formalised meals in the Mediterranean world in this period. In this sense, the banquet can be called a social institution in the Greco-Roman world.

This means that if we are to understand properly any individual instance of formalised meals in the Greco-Roman world, such as Greek philosophical banquets, or Jewish festival meals, or early Christian community meals, we must first understand the larger phenomenon of the banquet as a social institution.[9]

Features of Ancient Banquet

Long before the Roman Empire, a distinction was already made between a feast (deipna) and a symposium (from the Greek symposion, meaning a gathering to share a meal). The latter originated in classical Greece and referred to a more formalized event, often held by a private club or guild. It likely began as a drinking party among close friends—a setting for conversation and wine diluted with water. Early on, these meals often took place outdoors and could involve neighbours dropping by spontaneously. However, by the time of the New Testament, such gatherings were increasingly hosted indoors in a home’s triclinium—a formal dining room equipped with couches and tables—and were by invitation only.

Greek meal customs became crystallised in their basic forms in the classical period. Although much was retained from the Homeric period, there were significant changes as well. For example, as has already been mentioned, there was a change in the meal posture from the Homeric practice of sitting at the table to the oriental practice of reclining. This was accompanied by a change in the time of day when the major meal would be eaten. In the Homeric period, the major meal, known as the tkipnon, was most often eaten at midday. By the time of the classical period, namely, in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E., the tkipnon had moved to the evening. The midday meal was then called ariston and breakfast went by the name of altratisma. The akratisma, as the name implies, consisted of little more than bread dipped in unmixed wine (altra tos) and was normally taken at sun up. The midday meal was also a rather light meal.[10]

Greek Customs of having Meal

Greco-Roman banquets were often viewed as a luxury of the elite, but lower classes participated in their own banquets as members of associations[11]. The Greeks customarily had two well-defined courses in their banquet. The first course was the deipnon proper, during which the meal of the evening would be eaten. The second course was the symposium (symposion} or "drinking party," which would be an extended period of relaxed drinking during which the entertainment of the evening would be presented.[12]  In classical Greek culture, the symposion was seen as a serious occasion, but by Roman times it had evolved into a more casual, entertainment-centred affair known as a convivium—a term from which we get the word convivial. Importantly, behavior at these meals was considered a microcosm of the group’s character. What took place around the table was believed to most clearly reflect the values and identity of the community.

Roman Customs of having Meal

The Romans had the same two basic courses, to which they added a course of appetizers at the beginning of the meal, called the gustation or  promulsis. During the Roman period, the Greeks added an appetizer course as well, known as the propoma. Following the appetizer course was the meal proper, which the Romans referred to as the fercula or "courses."  It was divided into the prima cena, the altera cena and the tertia cena. The altera cena was also sometimes known as the caput cenae, designating it as the chief dish. The name the Romans gave to the last course was comissatio or convivium, both of which are usually translated as "drinking parry." This course was also called "second tables" (mensae secundae). It tended to be more of a dessert course than in the Greek tradition, with nuts, fruits, and sweet cakes (bellaria) being served.  It was especially, however, a time for serious drinking and entertainment. In some cases, drinking and entertainment would take place during the meal as well. Quite often in such cases, the convivium might be reserved especially for conversation.[13]

It is striking how banquets—and the social prestige tied to them—were a major draw for non-Romans seeking to assimilate into Roman culture. People did not want to be left out of the party. The term convivia referred primarily to smaller, private dinner gatherings rather than large public feasts. So, when Christians in Corinth gathered for meals in a member’s home, those meals would have been understood in this context—as private, upper-class-style dinner parties. It is no surprise, then, that partially Romanized Gentile Christians assumed the usual dinner customs still applied.

At a typical convivium, male slaves known as ministri served the food, kept order at the door, and acted as informal security. Social hierarchy was central to the experience: those of higher status—including the host—received the best food, the finest wine, and the most honoured seating. A person’s position at the table clearly signalled their social standing. The guest of honour would recline beside the host, and proximity to the host meant prestige.

The one notable exception to this rigid pecking order was during Saturnalia, an annual festival when societal roles were temporarily reversed—masters served slaves, and a spirit of mock democracy briefly took over homes and meals. To an outsider, early Christian gatherings—which brought together people of all social ranks, from elites to slaves—might have looked a lot like these Saturnalia meals.

Typically, the host, his wife, and sometimes their children would attend the opening part of the meal, but the wife and children would usually withdraw before the convivium began. When women remained at the gathering, it was often assumed—fairly or unfairly—that they were of questionable character.

The structure of the Roman house

The fact that the whole church or a very large pan of it was expected to be present at the weekly Sunday ecclesia forced the church from the outset to hold this in the houses of its wealthier members, for there alone could it be accommodated in a domestic setting. Certain families of Roman nobles had been attracted to the church, and even, perhaps, furnished martyrs for the faith, before the end of the first century. And fortunately, the great Roman mansion of the period offered in its traditional layout certain arrangements not found in the tenements in which the mass of the population lived, which precisely suited the needs of the church. The domestic apartments of the noble family were a modem addition to the traditional scheme of old Roman houses and lay at the back of the palace. With typical Roman conservatism the front half of the patrician great house in the first century retained for its public rooms the exact ground-plan of the peasant's hut of the first Latin settlements twelve or fifteen hundred years before, though, of course, immensely enlarged and embellished. The entrance hall (vestibulum) led to a large pillared hall, the atrium, which was always lighted by skylights or open to the air in the centre. This formed, as it were, a broad nave with narrow aisles. At the further end from the entrance, and generally forming a dais up one or two steps, was a further room, open along its whole front to the atrium; this inner room was known as the tablinum. The central part of this (forming a sort of chancel) was separated from its side portions, the alae or 'wings' (=choir-aisles) by low walls or pierced screens. Behind the tablinum a further door led to the private apartments and domestic quarters of the house.

The tablinum represents the original log cabin of the primitive settler, with a lean-to (the alae) on either side. The atrium was the old fore-court or farmyard, roofed over-(atrium displuviatum ='fore-court sheltered from the rain' was its full name)-and the rooms which opened off it at the sides represented the old farm-buildings and sheds of the steading.

But the intense conservatism of the Roman patricians preserved more than the mere plan of their ancestral huts; it rigorously kept up the memory of their primitive fittings. Let into the floor of the atrium was always a large tank of water, the impluvium, representing the original well or pond beside which the farm had been built. Between this and the entrance to the tablinum there stood always a fixed stone table, the cartibulum, the 'chopping-block' outside the door of the hut.

The tablinum, the original home, was revered as the family shrine, even though it was also used as a reception room. There in a pagan household was the sacred hearth; there stood the altar of the Lares and Penates, the ancestral spirits and the gods of hearth and home. There, at the marriage of the heir, was placed the nuptial bed from which the old line should be continued. When the whole patrician clan met in family conclave or for family rites, there was placed the great chair of the paterfamilias, the head of the clan, and around him sat the heads of the junior branches, while the younger members and dependents stood assembled facing them in the atrium: On the walls. of the alae and the atrium were hung the trophies and portraits of generation upon generation of nobles who in the past had brought honour to the name and house.[14]

Motto of the Greco-Roman meal

One of the central concepts defining the theoretical basis for meal ethics is koinonia or "sharing," which refers in a larger sense to the communal nature of the meal situation itself.[15]

The communal nature of the meal was also affirmed by reference to the idea of friendship, a category that was basic to ancient philosophical discussions of social ethics.[16] The purposes of these banquets were threefold. First, it was to foster a sense of community, or koinōnia, among the guests, and the best way of doing that was to eat the meal while reclining.[17] The second purpose of these banquets, equality, is tied to the first, but with some tension. In the second century AD, Lucian, a Greek satirist, described the ideal for equality at the banquet.

Each man shall take the couch where he happens to be. Rank, family, or wealth shall have little influence on privilege. All shall drink the same wine, and neither stomach trouble nor headache shall give the rich man an excuse for being the only one to drink the better quality. All shall have their meat on equal terms. The waiters shall not show favour to anyone, but shall neither be too slow nor be dismissed until the guests choose what they are to take home. Neither are large portions to be placed before one and tiny ones before another, nor a ham for one and a pig’s jaw for another—all must be treated equally.[18] The third purpose of these banquets was to establish good order, quietness, and peace.[19]

Benefits of being in associations

Associations enriched the lives of their members, both men and women, by providing them with a social and religious context more inclusive than the family but smaller than the city. They were larger than the narrow confines of the family, yet intimate enough for one to feel at home in them. Associations had rules and regulations governing their activities; there were offices to be held, honours to be received; and one could be confident that, on one’s death, one’s fellows would see to it that one received a decent burial.^[20]

Difference between Roman and Greek symposium

Another well-known difference between Greek and Roman convivial practice concerned the presence and role of women. In Greece, reclining at dinner was a male prerogative. Respectable women did not normally attend the symposion of guests, nor the deipnon that preceded it. On occasions where women were present, for example at wedding feasts, they would be seated, not reclining. It is possible that there may have been some religious feasts for women only, for example in the cult of Demeter, at which women did recline, but we know little about them^[21]

The Greek prohibition against the presence of respectable women at a banquet lasted a long time, and was seen as contrasting with Roman practice, where women participated in banquets reclining together with the men ^[22]

By the late Republic, and throughout the imperial period, there is no doubt that elite women could and did attend mixed banquets, and that they would recline when they did so[23]

Meals in the Bible Antiquity

In antiquity, like today, eating and drinking were foundational activities of daily living. In ancient agrarian societies, the production of food, including the planting and harvesting of crops; the hunting of game or fish; the collection of honey and milk; the breeding, raising, and domestication of animals; as well as the preparation of that food, was a major focus of daily activity for all members of the family. As important as food and drink were for nutritional sustenance, however, the acts of collectively engaging in meals with family members or in larger communal banquets also performed important social and religious functions.[24]

In the Old Testament, meals were served as a sign of hospitality (see Genesis 18:1–8; 2 Kings 4:8–11), and they were used to consummate treaties of peace and goodwill between family members (see Genesis 31:43–54) and with economic or political competitors (see Genesis 26:26–33; Joshua 9:1–15). At times, meals such as the Passover were also understood to have sacred purposes that initiated and maintained both vertical and horizontal covenantal relationships for the family and community with God (vertical) and within the family and community themselves (horizontal; see Exodus 12:1–17; 24:3–11; 29:31–37).[25]

Jewish Meals

The phenomenon of associations holding banquets and symposia spread all through the Hellenistic world and penetrated groups that were originally from different backgrounds and cultures. Just as other people in the Graeco-Roman milieu, Jews had their associations with their concomitant communal banquets. Evidence of periodical meals held by Jewish associations occurs in the works of Philo, the writings of Qumran, Josephus, and 3 Maccabees.^[26]

Jews did not follow the Greco-Roman rules of symposium

Archaeological evidence of ancient synagogues shows that several ancient synagogues contained rooms where food could be prepared for meals, or rooms where meals could be served. But this evidence is second century CE (Ostia) or later (third century: Stobi in Macedonia) and in any case it does not prove that, if communal meals took place in synagogues, they took place every week or every Sabbath. In the first century CE, however, Jews did follow the common Graeco-Roman practice of dining and following it with a symposium, both at home in the family circle and in associations. Discussion of the Torah at meals was highly commended in Judaism.^[27]

Jesus and the Meal

Meals played an important role in Jesus’s ministry and the early Church. Jesus used communal meals to show compassion to those in need of both physical and spiritual strengthening. He fed multitudes because they were hungry, even though he refused to use his power to feed himself (see Mark 6:33–42; 8:1–9; Matthew 4:3–4). There were times when the nourishment of the meal was more spiritual than physical (see Luke 7:36–50; John 6:22–58). In addition, he used communal meals to encourage unity among the members of his fledgling church (see John 17:11, 21–23). Unlike John the Baptist, who lived an ascetic type of life, Jesus was criticized as “a gluttonous man, and winebibber,” because he came “eating and drinking” (Luke 7:33–34) and participated in banquets (doxē; Luke 5:29). He was also criticized because he ate with sinners (see Mark 2:15–16; Luke 5:30; 15:2). In so doing, he challenged some of the social, cultural, and religious hierarchical practices that were sometimes associated with banquets.

Perhaps most significantly, according to the Synoptic Gospels, he purposely and deliberately used the Passover meal to institute the sacrament (see Mark 14:16–23 and parallels) and to point his disciples toward the future kingdom of God, which he described in terms of an end-time banquet. In doing so, Jesus drew upon and adapted both Israelite and Greco-Roman meal customs that would have been familiar to his audience. To better appreciate the use of meals in the New Testament, this paper will first briefly look at the social function of banquets in the Greco-Roman world as a springboard for understanding the central role that meals played in the practices and teachings of Jesus and the early Church.[28]

Meal changed to agape

As the Eucharist became limited to the bread and wine as Christ’s sacrificial Body and Blood, features of the original Eucharist were developed in other ways. Common meals without the bread and wine sacrificially offered were held, and especially were arranged as an act of charity by richer members of the church. Such a meal was called an agape (‘a charity’), and could be quite formal. At the same time, the church developed its common purse for charitable purposes, and this had a significant influence on the way it was organised.[29]

Last Supper and New Testament Texts

Paul's account is the earliest (i Corinthians 11:23-26). His Jesus speaks of the bread that is his body and the cup that is "the new covenant in [his] blood," which should be eaten and drunk in memory of him and of his sacrifice: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (11:26). We will look at the Corinthian text later below.

In the Gospels

Mark (14:12-26) uses slightly different words to refer to the bread and the cup, and he emphasises the cup more than Paul does. Furthermore, he does not include the instruction to do this "in remembrance of me." Matthew (26:17-30) seems to have copied Mark fairly closely (or vice versa). Luke's version (22:7-39), though similar to the accounts of Mark and Matthew, reverses the order of the bread and cup, and according to some manuscripts, adds a second cup at the end of the meal. Some manuscripts also include instructions of remembrance, which nevertheless differ from those of Paul.

John's last supper (John 13:1-30) does not mention the bread and cup at all. He concentrates on the episode, unique to his gospel, in which Jesus washes his disciples' feet and then feeds his betrayer, Judas. Jesus' statements identifying his body and blood with the bread and wine occur in John's version of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand (John 6:1-30), where they are more strongly and elaborately worded than in any other account, evoking a violent response.

Both Paul (2 Corinthians 3:6-18) and the author of the letter to the Hebrews (8:1-13, 9:18-28,10:16-17) elaborate on the parallel between the Mosaic and Christian covenants, arguing that Jesus established the new covenant predicted by Jeremiah: Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbour and each his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. [Jeremiah 31:31-34]

The author of Hebrews cites this passage in full, adding that "in speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is become obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13).

Greco–Roman Means and its relevance to the Corinthian Church

After Jesus’s death and resurrection, early Christians continued their efforts to nurture their new Christian family ties. Paul taught, “For in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. And as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:26–29 NRSV). To reinforce those ties they gathered regularly to remember Jesus’s sacrifice and to reenact the communal meal. Paul made explicit what the Gospels intimated: “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). The book of Acts describes the communal life of the early saints as continuing “stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship [koinōnia], and in breaking of bread and in prayers” (Acts 2:42) and further in “breaking bread from house to house,” where they did “eat their food [Greek trophē] with gladness and singleness of heart” (Acts 2:46). It is not at all clear in these passages whether the references to “breaking bread” signaled a sacramental meal, since breaking bread was a regular feature of ancient Jewish meals (see Luke 24:30, 35; Acts 20:11; 27:35)[30]

This context sheds light on why Paul was so disturbed by the behaviour of certain high-status Christians during the communal meal celebrating the Lord’s Supper. For him, their actions were not just impolite—they betrayed the very values the Christian community was supposed to embody.

In 1 Corinthians 8–11, where Paul addresses issues related to meals—whether in pagan temples, private homes, or specifically the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—several key concerns emerge. First, Paul makes it clear that Christians should completely avoid attending feasts or drinking parties held in pagan temples. Second, he discourages his converts from continuing the practice of holding fellowship meals—referred to as agapē or “love-feasts” in Jude 12—because the Lord’s Supper was typically embedded within these broader communal gatherings. Unsurprisingly, these restrictions came as a shock—often a difficult one—for higher-status Christians in Corinth. Many of them had only begun to grasp the full, practical implications of what it meant to live out their faith as members of a new kind of community.

Paul presses a crucial question to the Corinthians: are they truly willing to risk their salvation for the sake of a piece of meat—much like Esau, who gave up his birthright for a bowl of lentil stew? Just as significantly, he challenges them to consider whether they are willing to jeopardize the unity of the body of Christ simply to satisfy their own desires and cling to familiar social customs. It seems that some among them believed that participation in Christian sacraments—such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper—guaranteed them eternal life. That assumption, of course, still persists among some Christians today.

From the perspective of ancient religious culture, it is not hard to understand why they might have thought this way. Most ancient religious rituals were believed to produce immediate, tangible benefits—healing at the temple of Asklepius, renewed virility, or extended life through blood rituals like the taurobolium. As Plutarch notes (Moralia 1105B), many people believed that participation in certain sacred initiation rites removed all fear of death by assuring them of a blessed afterlife. The Corinthians may have held similar expectations regarding baptism and perhaps the Lord’s Supper.

But Paul needs to correct this thinking. He reminds them that the Israelites, too, participated in what could be seen as spiritual rituals—experiencing God's provision and presence in the wilderness. Yet none of those experiences shielded them from judgment or death. Their participation in what we might call Mosaic “sacraments” did not save them, nor did it guarantee them entry into the promised land. Likewise, Corinthian Christians must not mistake ritual involvement for spiritual immunity.

Here, Paul is responding primarily to those in Corinth who had written to him, asserting their right to attend dinner parties held in pagan temples. Paul must warn them of the serious spiritual dangers that such participation could bring. These individuals—likely higher-status Gentile Christians—believed that, because they had undergone Christian baptism (an initiation rite) and regularly participated in the Lord’s Supper (a communion ceremony), they were spiritually invulnerable.

They assumed that Christian sacraments provided at least as much spiritual protection and benefit as pagan rituals did. Given how central salvation and eternal life were in the message of the gospel, such a conclusion might seem understandable—especially from the perspective of people familiar with the promises attached to ancient mystery cults and religious rites.

But Paul reframes their thinking. Rather than likening Christian sacraments to pagan rituals, he compares them to the spiritual privileges Israel experienced during the Exodus—benefits that did not ultimately prevent many Israelites from falling under divine judgment. In other words, Paul warns that mere participation in sacred rites does not guarantee divine approval or eternal security.

It becomes increasingly clear that Paul’s opponents in this matter are wealthier Gentile believers who were accustomed to attending these temple meals and saw no harm in continuing to do so. Yet Paul strongly disagrees. Importantly, there is no indication here that Paul considered the elements of the Lord’s Supper to be magical or inherently “spiritual” in themselves. On the contrary, his argument is aimed at dispelling magical or superstitious views of religious rituals—whether Christian or pagan.

That said, Paul does affirm that there is a genuine spiritual danger in pagan worship. He warns that demons are at work in pagan religion, and thus when one participates in a temple feast, it is not just a meal—it is an act of fellowship within a spiritual environment that is hostile to God. The issue for Paul is not about what is on the menu, but where and in what spiritual context the food is consumed.

This is why, in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul urges his converts not to become idolaters. He is not concerned with the consumption of meat per se—even non-kosher meat. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 10:25–27, he explicitly permits believers to eat any meat sold in the marketplace, even if it originally came from a temple, so long as it is served in a private home. Such meat is not considered “idol food” (eidolothuton) because it is no longer partaken of in a ritual setting where idols and demons are actively being honored.

The term eidolothuton, literally “idol stuff,” does not refer to a particular type or cut of meat, nor to whether it is kosher. Rather, it denotes meat consumed in the presence of an idol, in a context of religious devotion. Paul even switches terminology when referring to food served in a non-religious setting—using the term hierothyton (“sacred food,” as rendered in the NRSV: “offered in sacrifice”) in 1 Corinthians 10:27–28. This linguistic distinction reinforces his point: the issue is not the food itself, but the setting and spiritual associations surrounding it.

Christian gathering/symposium

Even before the middle of the first century CE, Christians gathered together at set times during the evening in order to eat together and enjoy one another’s company. In this respect, early Christian communities were easily compatible with the social and cultural milieu of the Graeco-Roman world; in both secular and religious circles, formal banquets comprising a supper and a symposium were the most common means of giving expression to one’s sense of belonging to a group.^[31]

Thus, the most conspicuous feature of the early Christian movement was the periodical, in this case weekly, communal dining of its adherents. The earliest description of these Christian gatherings is from shortly after the year 50 CE. It concerns the common meals held by the Christian community in Corinth which were followed by an informal convivial party where the supper guests socialised with one another.63 Paul discusses the course of these gatherings in 1 Corinthians 10:16–23 and 11:17–14:40. The latter passage is one coherent section of Paul’s letter, dealing with the regular gatherings of the Corinthian Christians, as is made clear by the occurrence of the verb συνέρχεσθαι at the beginning and the end of the section in 1 Corinthians 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26. See, for instance, 11:17 “when you come together” and 14:26 “when you come together.”.^[32]

From the earliest account of the communal meal in 1 Corinthians 10–14 it is clear that in order to experience the joy of community, Christians gathered around the dinner table and partook of a communal meal, in the same manner as the members of other clubs and associations. At pagan meals, the participants became one with the deity and thus with one another (1 Cor. 10:20). Κοινωνία was the ideal of numerous voluntary associations; it was realised in particular by participating in the common meal in the presence of a deity. Because the Corinthian church shows serious lack of community, Paul finds it necessary to remind the Corinthians of the fact that in principle the Lord’s Supper is the expression of the congregation’s community with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16) and, as a result, should lead to divisions and factions among them becoming inadmissible. In order to restore and reinforce the κοινωνία of the Corinthians with Christ, Paul adduces the tradition concerning the Last Supper, which, as it appears from Acts and the Didache, originally had played no role in the celebration of the Christians’ communal meal. Paul adduces this tradition because it implies the soteriological effect of Jesus’ death and resurrection for his followers (“for you,” “the new covenant”) and, thus, the corporate unity of Christ and his followers, which is the presupposition of this soteriological effect^[33]

Last Supper and Passover

The authors of the synoptic gospels also represent the last supper, the meal that will be fulfilled in heaven, as a passover seder (Matthew 26:2, 17-19; Mark 14:1, 12-16; Luke 22:1, 7-13, 15). Jesus says to his disciples: "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified" (Matthew 26:1-2; see also Mark 14:1-2; Luke 22:1-2). His disciples ask him: "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?" (Mark 14:12; see also Matthew 26:17; Luke 22:7-8). In the versions of Matthew (26:30) and Mark (14:26), Jesus and his disciples conclude the meal with "a hymn," probably the Hallel (Psalms 113-118) associated with the Passover service.

John refers to an earlier occasion when Jesus went to Jerusalem for Passover (John 2:3): it was "when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, [that] many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did" (2:23). The feeding of the five thousand, where Jesus uses the eucharistic language characteristic of Paul and the synoptic gospels, is also made to take place when "the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand" (6:4). The "Passover of the Jews" was again at hand when many people who had come up to Jerusalem from the country for the occasion stood in the temple looking out for Jesus and asking one another: "What do you think? That he will not come to the feast?" For "the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they might arrest him" (11:55-57). It is six days before Passover when Jesus eats supper with Lazarus, whom he has raised from the dead. There Mary anoints his feet with costly perfume, which he associates with his imminent death and burial (12:1-8).

Nevertheless, it was "before the feast of the Passover [that] Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father" (John 13:1). Some biblical scholars have argued that John altered the date to meet contemporary Jewish objections that none of these events—Jesus' arrest, trial, and crucifixion— could have taken place on a holy day. But this seems unlikely in view of his contentious attitude toward "the Jews" elsewhere in the gospel. John's last supper would still be surrounded by the atmosphere of the Passover even if it occurred the evening before the feast. But it could also be argued that John placed the crucifixion a day earlier so that it, rather than the preparations for the meal, would coincide with the slaughter of the Passover lambs (John 19:31; see also 18:28,19:14).

Like Paul, he may have intended to make the identification of Jesus' death with the Passover sacrifice even more explicit than it is in the synoptic gospels. John has already had John the Baptist announce Jesus at the very beginning of the gospel as "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, 36; see also 1 Peter 1:19). Furthermore, only John emphasizes that Jesus' bones were not broken in the crucifixion. The Jews had requested that Pilate to have the legs of the condemned men broken to hasten their deaths so that the bodies could be taken down before the sabbath, but Jesus is already dead. Nevertheless, one of the soldiers does stab his side with a lance, immediately releasing blood and water (John 19:31-39).

Significantly, both the Passover and Jesus' sacrifice signified the beginning of a new time and a new people, a new nation. With the institution of the Passover, the Lord founded the nation of Israel and initiated a new time; the month of Passover was made the first month of the new year (Exodus 12:1-2). With the sacrifice of Jesus, "a new humanity" was born into a "new heaven and new earth" (Ephesians 2:15; Revelation 21:1; see also Romans 8:19-23; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:9-11; James 1:18; 2 Peter 3:13). Jesus is "the bright star of dawn" (Revelation 22:16).

“The appointed Time” in Passover

Scripture is emphatic that the passover must be held at its appointed time (Exodus 12:6, 18, 23:15). The passover haggadah in Jubilees warns that "there may be no passing over from day to day, and month to month, but on the day of its festival let it be observed" [34]. The Passover occurred at midnight: At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where one was not dead. [Exodus 12:29-30].

The Passover meal was consequently celebrated after nightfall. Early Christian writers are equally emphatic that Jesus' death occurred at "an appointed time" (Matthew 26:1-2, 18, 45; Mark, 14:1; Luke 22:53; John 12:23; !3:I> 16:31-32). But the day of the Lord is unpredictable. Jesus is constantly exhorting his followers to be ready, to stay awake and aware, for he will come like a thief in the night at an unexpected hour (Matthew 24:43-44; Mark 13:35; Luke 12:39-40; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 3:3,16:15). They must be prepared to leave in haste, just as the Israelites had to leave in haste from Egypt (Exodus 12:11; Mark 13:14-20,33-37; Matthew 24:15-22,42-44; Luke 21:34-36).

The last supper may actually have been held at an illegal hour by temple standards. When the Passover finally comes, it comes not at midnight but at midday. But this midday, a darkness suddenly covers the land, and it is Jesus who echoes the cry of the Egyptians: And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "E'lo-i, E'lo-i, la ma sabachtha'ni?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" [Mark 15:33; see also Matthew 27:45-50; Luke 23:44-46; John 19:14, 28-30]

“The appointed Place” in Passover

The Passover must be sacrificed at the temple in Jerusalem: "You may not offer the Passover sacrifice within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you; but at the place which the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell in it, there you shall offer the Passover sacrifice" (Deuteronomy 16:5-6; see also 16:2, 11). Again, the Jubilees haggadah is especially emphatic on this point (Jubilees 49:16-22).

Jesus' sacrifice occurs outside the temple at a place that is absolutely taboo according to temple law. Although the temple must not be contaminated by anything having to do with death (Leviticus 21:1-3), Jesus is sacrificed at "Golgotha (which means the place of a skull)" (Mark 15:23; see also Matthew 27:33, John 19:17), or as Luke puts it, "the place which is called The Skull" (Luke 23:33).

When he dies, the temple curtain that hung before the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctuary representing God's presence among the Israelites, was "torn in two, from top to bottom" (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:28; Luke 23:45; see also Exodus 26:31-35; 2 Kings 19:14-15; 2 Chronicles 6:1-2, 18-21; Hebrews 9.3, 8; 10:19-20).

John (19:23-24) expresses the same idea in contrasting terms. It is Jesus' robe, his cosmos, that is "without seam, woven from top to bottom." Because they cannot tear it, the soldiers cast lots for it, fulfilling scripture into the bargain (Psalms 22:18).

Golgotha is the supreme repudiation of the Jerusalem temple. But the theme recurs throughout early Christian writing, notably in the cleansing of the temple recounted in all four gospels. The synoptics place the event within the passion narrative where it provokes the hostility that leads to Jesus' arrest and crucifixion (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48). Mark (14:58) and Matthew (27:61) cite the false witnesses at his trial, who accuse Jesus of saying: "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands."

All four gospels emphasize that Jesus is buried by a pious Christian, Joseph, in his or a "known tomb" (Matthew 27:57-61;

Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:49-54; John 19:38-42), although it is more likely that Jesus was buried by those who had crucified him and that "those who knew the site did not care and those who cared did not know the site" (Crossan 1976:152). But he vanishes from that place to reappear "where two or three are gathered in my name" (Matthew 18:20), in every person according to his promise.

So, Mark's Jesus appears to his disciples for the last time while they are eating and instructs them to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." And they go forth and preach everywhere, while the Lord goes with them and confirms their messages with his signs (Mark 16:14-20). Matthew develops the idea further. The closing passages of his gospel correspond to the closing passages of Deuteronomy: Moses stands on the top of Mount Nebo so that before he dies the Lord can show him the land of Canaan to which he has brought the Israelites. Canaan is consecrated to the Jews alone; it is their patrimony (Deuteronomy 34:1-4). Jesus instructs his disciples to meet him for the last time on a mountain in Galilee. There they survey the world, and he instructs them "to make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:18-19).

Luke goes further still. At the end of his gospel, Jesus instructs the disciples to "stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high." So they return joyfully to Jerusalem, where they remain "continually in the temple blessing God" (Luke 24:49, 52-53). Luke devotes a second book, the Acts of the Apostles, to explaining how God's "chosen instruments" carried his "name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel" (Acts 9:15).[35]

The Lord’s Supper and its roots in the Jewish Passover

Most scholars agree that the Lord’s Supper has its roots in the Jewish Passover celebration. The Passover meal consisted of lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread. It was instituted to celebrate and commemorate God’s liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The story is told in Exodus 28. The meal was celebrated as a thanksgiving for the gifts of food, fellowship, and freedom. When Israelite children would later ask their parents, “What does this ceremony mean to you?” (Exod. 12:26), the parents were to refer them to these great events.

When Jesus instituted the meal that we call the Lord’s Supper, it was not a Passover meal he celebrated but rather an entirely new ceremony within the context of the Passover. It was not celebrated yearly, as the Passover, and it involved only two simple elements —bread and wine. And though Jesus is “the Lamb of God,” who sacrifices himself for our sins (John 1:29), a literal Passover lamb was not involved in the Lord’s Supper, as in the Passover.[36]

The function of the Supper as proclamation is particularly acute in the old covenant precursor to the Lord’s Supper — the Passover meal. Yahweh delivers the people of Israel from the curse on the firstborn through a substitutionary sacrifice, the death of a lamb. He then commands them to continue the meal as a statute — a memorial to the deliverance from the curse on Egypt (Exod. 12:43 -50). The point of the meal was explicitly commemorative. The Israelites are told how to respond when future generations ask what the meal means: “Then tell them, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians’” (12:27). But the meal did not simply point backward. Yahweh reminds the people that they will continue to celebrate the Passover when their children are in the land of promise. In so doing, Israel’s God signifies that he will keep his covenant to multiply the nation and to deliver them into a land flowing with milk and honey. Moreover, the meal was to prompt the Israelite community to worship in light of Yahweh’s redemptive act (v. 27, “the people bowed down and worshiped”). As one commentator observes, “The annual Passover celebrations, then, were a constant summons to Israel to look back and were never meant to be anything other than a ‘Getting out of Egypt’ feast, a commemoration of their deliverance and redemption. “The feast was to continue even after the conquest of the Promised Land, to remind the people of Israel in perpetuity that they were a redeemed people.[37]

It is no accident that the first Lord’s Supper was a Passover meal. Luke specifically tells us that it was “the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed” (Luke 22:7). It is not incidental that the institution of the meal coincided with Passover since Jesus explicitly called it the Passover meal, an identification Matthew repeated in retrospect (Matt. 26:18 - 19). Again, just as with the Passover meal, Jesus ties the significance of the meal with its function as a proclamation. If Jesus intends to suggest that the elements of bread and wine are literally his body and his blood, he certainly avoids the obvious question as to how then the disciples see his body still before them, at that point neither broken nor poured out. But he does suggest that the bread and the wine function as covenant markers (Luke 22:20), that the disciples should “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Moreover, Jesus points forward to the messianic banquet to come by noting that he will not eat or drink with his disciples “until it finds fulfilment in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16).

It seems, then, that for Jesus the institution of the Lord’s Supper functioned for the new covenant Israelite community precisely as it had for the old covenant Israelite community. Yes, the meal strengthened faith, but it did so through a visible sign of an invisible covenant promise — the promise of the kingdom of Christ. The question, then, is not whether the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace but how it functions as a means of grace. The Supper does indeed ground, buttress, and establish Christian faith — but it does so through the proclamation of the finished redemption of Christ and the promise of the kingdom to come. In this sense, the eating and drinking of the Lord’s Supper create faith within the body, and this is analogous to the verbal proclamation of the word of truth. The church’s faith is established through the preaching of the gospel — a proclamation that includes the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine.[38]

A significant indicator that the last supper was intended to be the New Passover was the fact to which all the Synoptic Gospels bear witness (Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:14) that Jesus and his disciples “reclined” at the table at the Last Supper. Jeremias argued from rabbinical texts that first-century Jews sat when dining. “Wherever the gospels speak of reclining at meals,” he wrote, “they mean either a meal in the open (feeding of the multitudes), or a party, or a feast, or a royal banquet, or a wedding feast, or the feast of salvation time.” Jeremias continued on from this point to state with emphasis that “It is absolutely impossible [his italics] that Jesus and his disciples should have reclined [his italics] at table for ordinary meals.” How is it then that they reclined at table in the case of the Last Supper? There could only be one answer, according to Jeremias: “it was a ritual duty to recline at table as a symbol of freedom, also, as it is expressly stated, for ‘the poorest man in Israel.’” Rabbi Levi (c. 300) said that people should recline to eat the Passover, “to signify that they have passed from slavery to freedom.”[39]

Possibly within a short space of time some developments took place in the way the Passover meal was kept by the Israelites. The regulations in Deuteronomy 16:1–8 show a number of differences from the Exodus narrative. These should not be seen as contradictions, but simply represent obvious developments as the ceremony changed in purpose from being one which produced deliverance to one which remembered that deliverance.

The emphasis on the blood has disappeared. There seems to have been a greater choice in the animal chosen for the meal, which could be taken from either the flock or herd.4 The unleavened bread is called in Deuteronomy “the bread of affliction” and appears to focus the thoughts of the participants so “that all the days of your life you may remember the time of your departure from Egypt.”

It seems clear that Jesus intended that his disciples and all his subsequent followers should understand and treat the Lord’s Supper in the same or very similar ways that they understood and kept the Jewish Passover. In the first place, Jesus called the Last Supper a “Passover.” Luke 22 records that he told his disciples, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”6 The Last Supper can only have been held on the evening of 14th Nisan, as Mark 14:12 indicated, since only on that day would the Passover lambs have been slaughtered in the temple precincts and made available for that purpose.[40]

Jeremias offers detailed evidence in favour of the Last Supper being a Passover meal. A summary of fourteen points in his argument will serve to illustrate the credibility of this view, which many have followed since the time of his writing.[41]

(1) The meal took place properly in Jerusalem, although Jesus’ custom had been to overnight outside the city in Bethany, probably because of the large number of pilgrims in the overcrowded area during the time of the festival.[42]

(2) The meal took place in a room readily made available in Jerusalem (Mark 14:13-16) according to Passover custom.[43]

(3) The meal took place at night (Mark 14:17), after the customary afternoon-time of ordinary meals,[44] and

(4) with a customary-sized group of a minimum of ten[45].

(5) The meal took place in the reclining position (Mark 14:18), which was proper for Passover.[46]

(6) The meal included washing and levitical purity appropriate for Passover but not necessary for ordinary meals.[47]

(7) The breaking of bread happens in the course of the meal (Mark 14:22) instead of at the beginning.

(8) The meal included the drinking of wine (Mark 14:23, 25), which is not part of ordinary meals. [48]

(9) Red wine in particular is used rather than other available types.[49]

(10) Last-minute purchases (John 13:29-30) are understandable on the night beginning Nisan15.

(11) The interpretation by others that Judas is going out to give alms to the poor is[50] consistent with the practice that even the poor are to have four cups of wine on Passover.

(12) The singing of a hymn at the end of the meal (Mark 14:26) refers to the Passover hallel.

(13) Jesus does not go out to Bethany since the night of Passover is to be spent within the city district, which includes the Garden (Mark 14:26).[51]

(14) Jesus speaks words of interpretation over the meal, which is part of the Passover ritual (Mark 14:22-25).[52]

Counterpoint that the lord’s supper was not a Passover meal

Down through the centuries, however, there have been a number of scholars who have not seen the Last Supper as a Passover meal. The most celebrated of the early supporters of this view was Melito (d. c. 190), Bishop of Sardis. Although he was strongly of the view that Jesus died on the evening of the 14^th when the Passover was being prepared, he nevertheless drew a number of clear parallels between the Jewish Passover and the Last Supper.[53]

Christian Tradition

Didache

The Didache (also called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) is among the oldest Christian writings left outside the NT canon.[54] Moreover, according to J. Quasten it is ‘the most important document of the subapostolic period.[55]

With most scholars, I will, in the following, suppose that the Didache was composed in Syria toward the end of the first century or around the year 100. Likewise, I will take for granted with scholars in general that it was written on the basis of earlier traditions. I share Dietrich-Alex Koch’s view that the entire text was written by one and the same author and that it is neither possible nor necessary to distinguish between different redactional layers.

Chapters 9–10 undoubtedly mirror what had long been the practice in the communities where the Didache developed, namely, to celebrate the Eucharist in the form of a full meal. Whether the exhortation in chapter 14.1 to celebrate it on Sundays (κατὰ κυριακὴν κυρίου) also mirrors older practice is a question intertwined with the problem of the emergence of Sunday celebration at large, which cannot be discussed here.[56]

The often-studied chapters 9–10 of the Didache contain prescriptions for a meal that is expressly called ἡ εὐχαριστία. That this meal is to be understood as a Eucharist – a real correspondence to the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper in later Christianity – has often been questioned. However, the hesitation to accept it as such has often been caused by anachronistic understandings of a “real” Eucharist, above all the expectation that a eucharistic ritual must contain “the words of institution”, i.e., an explicit reference to Jesus’ words over the bread and cup at the last supper. That this is anachronistic has been eloquently shown by liturgical scholars during the last decades. Summarising these studies, Robert Taft wrote in 2003: “Although theories on the origins and evolution of the pristine anaphora remain in flux, one point of growing agreement among representative scholars […] is that the institution narrative is a later embolism – i.e., interpolation – into the earliest eucharistic prayers.”[57]

Christian Meaning of Lord Supper

Fellowship

In 1 Corinthians 10:14 22, the apostle Paul warns these believers not to participate in sacrificial meals honouring pagan gods. Instead, he pleads with them, “Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry” (v. 14). To support his argument, Paul first refers to the Lord’s Supper: “The cup of blessing that we give thanks for, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break- is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread” (vv. 16–17). Paul’s main point is that when we participate in the Lord’s Supper, we share together in the benefits of Christ’s death. And because we have fellowship with Christ, we have fellowship with each other. In the Lord’s Supper, we keep company with Christ and the church.[58]

Who can participate

In the “Church”

While the Lord’s Supper is not the main focus of this passage, Paul’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper here is both rich and neglected. First, this passage shows us that early Christians did in fact do what Jesus commanded; they shared the bread and wine together to commemorate his death for them. And they did this as a local church. Paul assumes that the whole church to which he is writing shared the bread and wine together, as one (v. 17).

Paul also describes what is happening in the Lord’s Supper: we are “sharing in” the blood and body of Christ (v. 16). What does this “sharing in” mean? It means that when believers in Jesus participate in the Lord’s Supper, we experience the benefits of his death for us. The bread and wine are visible words of promise, drawing our hearts to the new covenant realities of forgiveness and reconciliation that Jesus purchased by his blood. In the Lord’s Supper, we have fellowship with Christ. We keep company with him.

And because we keep company with Christ in the Lord’s Supper, we also keep company with each other. As Paul says in verse 17, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread.” Our fellowship with Christ creates fellowship with each other. As a local church, we are one body because we share in the one bread and all it represents. Because we are united to Christ, we are united to each other in him.

The Lord’s Supper defines the company we keep as Christians: Christ, and in Christ, the church. Paul defines Christian identity over against pagan identity in terms of mutually exclusive meals. If you belong to Christ, you eat his meal with his people. You do not eat the meal of demons. Just like the Passover did for Israel, the Lord’s Supper defines the identity of the church and therefore the membership of the church. Those who eat it form one body. And only those in Christ should eat it.

The Lord’s Supper beautifully pictures what it means to be a Christian. Through Christ’s sacrifice for us on the cross, we have fellowship with him and also with his people. In the meal Jesus gave us, we taste the goodness of this twofold fellowship. In the Lord’s Supper, the gospel becomes not just something we hear, or even something we see, but something we eat[59]

It is clear that in Corinth, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated by the entire local church in one gathering. It was not something individuals or families or small groups did—it was something the whole church did. And there is no solid evidence that any other New Testament church did otherwise. The Lord’s Supper is celebrated by the church, as a church. The Lord's Supper is not a private meal among friends, but the church's public celebration of fellowship with Christ and each other. The Lord’s Supper is not detachable from the church. Take away the gathering of the church and you take away the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a church’s act.[60]

This is why the Lord’s Supper is often called “Communion”: in it we commune with Christ. We have fellowship with him. We enjoy and experience anew the salvation he won for us on the cross. As we feed on the bread and wine with our mouths, so we feed on Christ in our hearts by faith. And the “we” is crucial. As we have seen, the Lord’s Supper is a church’s act. And it is not as if we are simply a few dozen or a few hundred people having particularly meaningful private devotions, and we happen to be in the same room together. Remember Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:17: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread.” In the Lord’s Supper, because we have fellowship with Christ, we also have fellowship with each other. The Lord’s Supper gives expression to our union with Christ and therefore our unity in Christ. In the Lord’s Supper, we commune with Christ together, and therefore have communion with each other.[61]

Just as much as the Lord’s Supper is a church’s act, it is also a believer’s act. In the Lord’s Supper, you eat the bread. You drink the wine. You proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. And the Lord’s Supper is something in which only a believer in Jesus should participate. Only those who trust in Jesus’ death to save them should commemorate Jesus’ death with the church. Only those whose hope is in Jesus’ death should proclaim Jesus’ death. Further, recall Paul’s warning that to participate in the Lord’s Supper “in an unworthy way” is to “be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27). While the specific “unworthy way” Paul has in mind is sinning against fellow believers like the Corinthians were doing, the principle includes anyone who partakes without trusting Christ. The Lord’s Supper should bring blessing, but it can bring judgment (1 Cor. 11:29). Those in church who are not Christians should be reminded that they need to trust in Christ by the fact that they are not invited to participate in the Lord’s Supper. They are to let the elements pass them by. The Lord’s Supper is an evangelistic ordinance not in the sense that it helps convert people, but in that it highlights their need to be converted.[62]

Where to conduct

It was at the ecclesia in 'the church ' alone that a Christian could fulfil his personal 'liturgy', that divinely-given personal part in the corporate act of the church, the Eucharist, which expressed before God the vital being of the church and each of its members. The greatest emphasis was always laid upon the duty of being present at this, for which no group meeting could be a substitute.[63] In other words, when we gather, or wherever we gather as a “Church,” we should conduct the Lord’s Supper.

Why is the Lord's Supper so Important?

Recall Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, First, “The cup of blessing that we give thanks for, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?” Paul reminds the Corinthians that to eat the bread and drink the cup is to enjoy fellowship with Christ and to experience the benefits of his death.

From this “vertical” fellowship between Christ and believers, Paul draws a “horizontal” conclusion in verse 17: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread.” Paul’s central claim in this verse is that we who are many are one body. And he twice grounds or supports this assertion by referring to our joint participation in the Lord’s Supper: “Because there is one bread . . . for all of us share that one bread.” The fact that Paul repeats his reason twice weighs against seeing the bread as merely representing or picturing the church’s unity. Instead, Paul roots the church’s unity in its celebration of the Lord’s Supper. There is one body because there is one bread.

Paul is saying that the Lord’s Supper actually makes many one. The Lord’s Supper gathers up the “we who are many” and makes us into one body. In other words, the Lord’s Supper constitutes a local church. Of course, Paul’s point is not about the mechanics of bread and eating, as if a larger church that needed more than one loaf to celebrate the Lord’s Supper was no longer one church but many. Instead, Paul uses “one bread” as shorthand for the church’s corporate, all-together celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Paul’s point is that, in the Lord’s Supper, because we all share in fellowship with Christ together, our unity in Christ creates the unified body of the church.

Remember that the Lord’s Supper is the renewing oath-sign of the new covenant. In the Lord’s Supper, we renew our commitment to Christ and each other. And it is this twofold commitment that makes a church a church. God creates a local church in two steps. In the first step, he creates Christians. How? He sends preachers who proclaim Christ (Rom. 10:14–17). When people come to Christ, they become members of his universal body.

They are spiritually one with him. But in order to create a church, people have to come not only to Christ but also to each other. They have to come together, and that coming together requires commitment. A local church does not automatically spring into existence whenever two or more Christians are in the same town, or same room. Otherwise, whenever you bumped into a Christian at the grocery store a new church would emerge, and it would dissolve as soon as one walked down another aisle. A church is more than simply “Christians” in the plural. It is more than the sum of its parts. There has to be something binding people together.

The Lord’s Supper marks off an entire group of Christians as one body, drawing a line between them and the world around them. And by drawing a line between the church and the world, baptism and the Lord’s Supper draw a line around the church. The ordinances make it possible to point to something and say “church” rather than only pointing to many somethings and saying “Christians.”

A gathering of believers is not a local church until they seal their union with each other through the Lord’s Supper. If a group of believers who meant to be a church never celebrated the Lord’s Supper together, not only would they be disobeying Jesus, but there is a real sense that which they would not yet be a church. The Lord’s Supper consummates the commitment by which Christians become a church.

How does the Lord’s Supper make a local church? Together with baptism, the Lord’s Supper is how a gospel people form a gospel polity. The Lord’s Supper is how Christians come together, commit to each other, and cross the line from “many” to “one.” In the Lord’s Supper, our fellowship with Christ creates fellowship with each other. The Lord’s Supper makes many one.[64]

Extended Eucharist

Twice in his First Apology Justin Martyr mentions that the deacons take the consecrated elements out from the service. He says, “He who presides likewise offers up prayers and thanksgivings, to the best of his ability, and the people express their approval by saying 'Amen.' The Eucharistic elements are distributed and consumed by those present, and to those who are absent, they are sent through the deacons.”[65] The reasons for absence are not given, but presumably it could include sickness or imprisonment, or be due to work or slavery. This is not yet fully developed home communion, as Freestone comments: The purpose of the practice was to secure the participation of all the faithful in the one Eucharist: it was in no sense a private communion, but rather a local extension of the public service, as nearly coincident with the open communion as might be.[66]

This practice arises from the wrong notion of the New Testament Scriptures concerning the real meaning of the Lord's Supper. Jesus never intended this when he instituted the Lord's Supper, nor did His Apostles, who went on teaching and establishing the churches with Christ's teachings.  

Forbidding them to take it home

Bradshaw says that 'regulations provide excellent evidence for what was actually happening in local congregations, not by what is decreed should be done but by what is either directly prohibited or indirectly implied should cease to be done'.[67]

Jerome complained that those who were excluded in church were receiving communion at home. 'What is not allowed in church is not allowed at home... Let each one examine himself and then approach the body of Christ.' This is not against home communion as such but indicates one of the reasons for increasing legislation against it. The Council of Saragossa (c.379-381) passed the resolution, 'if anyone is found guilty of not consuming in church the eucharist he has received, let him be anathema. A council of bishops in Toledo (c.400) promulgated, 'if anyone does not consume the eucharist that he receives from the priest, he is to be expelled as sacrilegious.' Thus, Spain seems to have turned against the practice of home communion. The Council in Rouen (650) instructs the clergy to place the eucharist not in the hands but only into the mouth. Mitchell sees this 'to be an implicit prohibition against eucharistic reservation by laity in their homes.' But Callum sees 'no compelling reason for connecting these canons with the private reception of Communion.' Canon 58 of the Council in Trullo (692) forbids the laity to distribute the communion whenever clergy are present, and canon 101 forbids the putting of the elements into special vessels at the communion, both of which Freestone sees as nails in the coffin of domestic communion.' Nevertheless, John Moschus writes of home communion by laity in the seventh century. Symeon of Thessalonica talks of self-communion by monks in the fifteenth century, and the practice continued for another two centuries in the Russian church.[68]

Regulations on Eucharist

By the time of the Apostolic Tradition, this further step has been taken, as it includes regulations on the protection of the Eucharist.

'37 Let everyone take care that no unbeliever eats of the eucharist, nor any mouse or other animal, and that none of it falls and is lost. For it is the body of Christ...

38 For having blessed (the cup) in the name of God, you received as it were the antitype of the blood of Christ. Therefore, do not pour it out, as though you despised it, lest an alien spirit lick it up.'[69]

When the Meal replaced wafers and a cup

What happened when Christianity went public, when worship moved from the house to the basilica, when the Lord’s Supper ceased to be set in the context of a meal and seen as part of the Christian agape, and indeed related to Christian hospitality? It cannot be accidental that at the same time the social character of early Christianity was changing in dramatic ways, the theology of the Lord’s Supper increasingly changed as well, moving from the concept of a meal to the concept of a sacrifice of the Mass. This even entailed going against the flow of some Old Testament texts, for in the Old Testament at least people brought their own sacrifices to the altar for the priest to deal with. But as things turned out in the church, only priests were to be involved in offering the sacrifice of the Mass. Eventually, of course, these sorts of shifts were also to involve moving from the use of ordinary bread and wine to the use of “communion,” or holy, wine and the use of various sorts of bread substitutes, including wafers. Historians of ritual will tell you that when the symbols change, the social reality has changed, or is changing, as well. These things do not happen by accident.[70]

There was no monolithic teaching or dogma about the Lord’s Supper in the early church of the first or second century. And especially in the second century, we see a plurality of views and approaches begin to surface. It is worth stressing that there continued to be this variety of views for several centuries thereafter. Two examples will need to suffice. Origen, for example, can take the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ to signify the receiving of the teaching and words of Christ, which bring life and nourish the soul (Hom. On Matt.85). Eusebius, the so-called Father of Church History, can write in the fourth century, commenting on John 6.51-52, that in that text flesh and blood refer to the words and sermons of Jesus at that time (Eccles. Theo. 3.12). This is actually far more likely to be historically accurate than later highly sacramental readings of those verses. Yet it was precisely in the fourth century, and not accidentally or incidentally after Constantine became emperor and Christianity came out of the catacombs and into increasing public prominence, that we have Cyril of Jerusalem in the East in about A.D. 347 and Ambrose of Milan in the West in about A.D. 374 both saying that the prayer of consecration turns the ordinary elements into something they were not before. Cyril, speaking to his catechumens, says they must be completely convinced and persuaded that “what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but rather the body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but rather the blood of Christ.” He then goes on to explain how this change is wrought: “We call upon the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ. For whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is sanctified and changed” (Mystagogical Catecheses 4.1–9; 5.7 [my emphasis]; the Greek word metaballesthai is used in the lattermost verse and means “transformed” or “changed”).[71]

What is 1 Corinthians 8–10 all about? Is Paul implementing the decree of James as it is found in Acts 15?

It is no coincidence that, in urging the Corinthians to avoid idolatry in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul draws on the story of the golden calf from Exodus 32:6. This passage is especially relevant because it brings together four key elements: (1) the making of an idol, (2) idol worship, (3) the consumption of food associated with idol sacrifice, and (4) sexual immorality. It serves as a powerful and fitting parallel for Paul’s warning, reinforcing his call for the Corinthians to avoid pagan temple gatherings.

Paul is entirely within the bounds of scriptural reasoning when he suggests that by attending these temple feasts, the Corinthians are provoking Christ just as the Israelites provoked God at Sinai with their idolatrous revelry. This point reaches its climax in 1 Corinthians 10:14: “Flee from the worship of idols!”—a direct and urgent exhortation.

At the heart of this discussion is the question of Christian identity in the midst of a deeply syncretistic culture. What is ultimately at stake is not only theological clarity—particularly regarding idolatry and the exclusivity of Christian worship—but also the integrity of the church’s communal life. Religious syncretism threatens both the authenticity of Christian theology and the unity of the Christian community.

Idol food was not limited to temple feasts. In the Greco-Roman world, sacrifices were routinely offered to civic and household deities during various public and private events—such as athletic games, weddings, funerals, and the banquets of private associations. These sacrifices and meals took place in appropriate venues, often reinforcing social bonds and religious loyalties. In such a context, participation in these events carried strong theological and social implications.

In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul refers to the “cup of blessing,” a technical term from Jewish tradition. This was the cup of wine over which a blessing was recited at the conclusion of a meal: “Blessed are You, O Lord, who gives us the fruit of the vine.” In the Passover celebration, this was the third of four ritual cups to be consumed. This is likely the very cup Jesus identified at the Last Supper as “the cup of the new covenant in my blood.” By invoking this tradition, Paul grounds the Lord’s Supper in deeply rooted Jewish liturgical practice, reinforcing its sacred character and the communal covenant it signifies.

The translation of the word as “common participation” effectively communicates the communal nature of the activity—this is something worshipers do together. While the term “fellowship” is often used, it can be misleading in this context, as it implies a result of the act rather than the act itself. Participation here refers not just to social connection, but to a shared act of worship with spiritual implications.

Gordon Fee offers a helpful distinction: the sharing in the cup is vertical, signifying communion with Christ, while the sharing in the loaf is horizontal, symbolizing and fostering the believers’ unity as the body of Christ. According to this interpretation, the phrase “body of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 10:16b refers not to Christ’s physical or transcendent body, nor to a mystical participation in his glorified form, but to the community of believers—the church.

This reading is reinforced by the following verse, 1 Corinthians 10:17: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Paul is emphasizing the shared act of partaking as the basis of spiritual unity among Christians. It's not simply the physical act of eating the bread, but the deeper spiritual communion it creates and signifies.

Another key to understanding the phrase “common participation” lies in Paul’s use of the verb “to partake,” especially as he builds toward the comparison with Israel in verse 18. In 1 Corinthians 10:18, Paul draws on Jewish sacrificial practices, explaining that eating the sacrifices involves a communal sharing or participation in the altar. This analogy strengthens the view that Paul understands the Lord’s Supper as a form of sacrificial meal.

Deuteronomy 14:22–27 provides context for such meals, where worshipers shared in what was offered to God, reinforcing the idea of sacred participation. Paul, then, uses this logic to emphasize the spiritual consequences of partaking in meals associated with idols.

Although Paul affirms that idols and idol food are nothing in themselves (1 Cor 10:19), he insists that demons operate through these objects and practices to ensnare people. Therefore, while the objects are powerless, the spiritual powers behind them are not. Christians cannot share in the benefits of the Lord’s Supper while simultaneously partaking in what Paul calls “the table of demons” (1 Cor 10:20). He warns against becoming co-participants with demons by eating idol food in the context of temple worship.

Paul’s concern is not just theological but deeply spiritual: these are mutually exclusive acts of allegiance. He essentially asks his readers, “Are you provoking the Lord to jealousy? Do you think you are stronger than He is?” (1 Cor 10:22). The rhetorical force of this question makes the answer obvious—they are not. To partake in both tables is to align oneself with two opposing supernatural realms, a contradiction that threatens both spiritual identity and divine relationship.

Exegesis on 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

The context in which the Lord’s Supper took place was the home, embedded within the social framework of a shared meal—likely a love feast that formed part of a Christian act of worship. This meal was a distinctively Christian gathering, shared by the community of believers meeting in a house church. Within that setting, the Lord’s Supper was observed.

Paul’s goal was to establish a communal practice that ran counter to prevailing cultural norms—especially those regarding status and privilege. He insisted that all participants, regardless of social rank, wait for one another and partake together as equals. This was a radical redefinition of social customs in meal settings.

Importantly, this gathering was not about sacred buildings or physical spaces. Instead, it was about sacred time, sacred occasions, and sacred actions. Paul does not reference consecrated architecture, but holy people engaged in holy practices—worship and fellowship. These gatherings were to be shaped by sacred tradition, particularly the narrative of the Last Supper, which provided both the form and theological meaning for the Lord’s Supper. It was a sacrament of communion—both vertical (with Christ) and horizontal (with one another)—but not a rite of incorporation into the community per se.

The mention of the leatherworking trade is also relevant. Acts 18 indicates that Paul, Priscilla, and Aquila were all involved in this profession, and it was likely this common trade that brought them together in Corinth. This professional link mirrors the structure of Roman trade associations, offering some insight into the composition and functioning of early Christian house churches.

Paul’s attempt to challenge and undo the socially divisive and individualistic behaviors exhibited during the Lord’s Supper directly contradicted what many Greco-Roman banquet participants would have considered the point of such meals—namely, to display wealth, assert social status, and enjoy privileges. The Christian ekklesia (assembly) was intentionally different from these associations, even if it shared certain surface similarities. Paul addresses this issue directly in 1 Corinthians 11:17–18, where he notes divisions within the congregation—specifically between the "haves" and the "have-nots." These divisions appear to be driven, once again, by high-status Gentile Christians or social climbers who were replicating the cultural patterns of elite social gatherings.

Whether the problem was one of arrival time, seating arrangements, or exclusivity, the effect was the same: disunity within the body of Christ. Paul says he “half-believes” the reports he is received—not because he doubts them, but because the behavior is so out of step with Christian values that it is almost unbelievable.

In 1 Corinthians 11:20, Paul refers to believers “coming together in one place,” highlighting that the primary purpose of their gathering was to share the Lord’s Supper. This was a communal act that the entire body of believers was meant to participate in together. Acts 2:43–47 supports this vision of the early Christian community as being unified, meeting in one place, in one accord, and sharing meals in common. Clearly, in Corinth, the Lord’s Supper was integrated into a larger shared meal and communal gathering, and Paul viewed its proper observance as central to Christian identity and unity.

What shall we say about 1 Corinthians 11:21?

What Paul is likely pointing out is that the wealthier members of the community—those he is specifically critiquing—are hosting their own private meals. The affluent are served first and receive the best portions, while the poorer believers, likely relegated to the atrium, are left with the scraps. As a result, some end up overindulging while others go hungry. This scenario falls far short of what should be a shared, communal meal. Much of what Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians concerns behaviors that undermine the unity of the Christian community.

In 1 Corinthians 11:22a, Paul makes it clear that the issue lies with those who already have homes where they could host private dinner parties. His frustration is directed at the fact that they bring the cultural norms of pagan banquets—where status determines service and portions—into the Christian gathering. Such social customs have no place in a Christian setting, especially not during a communal meal that includes the observance of the Lord’s Supper. The sacred meal itself is being desecrated—not just general fellowship or even the ekklesia as a whole.

In 1 Corinthians 11:23, Paul uses the formal, semi-technical language of Jewish tradition to emphasize that he is passing down a sacred teaching. This tradition concerning the Lord’s Supper appears to be one of the first things he delivered to the Corinthian community, likely to establish the practice of the meal from the beginning. It is more appropriate to say that the version found in Luke reflects Paul’s form of the tradition, rather than the other way around—especially since Luke wrote later and was at times a companion of Paul.

Paul stresses that the Lord’s Supper is grounded in historical memory—it commemorates a real event. This resembles the Greco-Roman custom of memorial meals, where a person nearing death would leave a provision in their will for an annual feast to be held in their honor. Diogenes Laertius, for instance, notes that Epicurus arranged for such a celebration to be held "in memory of us" (10.16–22). The Corinthians may have perceived the Lord’s Supper in a similar funerary light.

However, a major distinction lies in the fact that the Lord’s Supper does not simply commemorate a deceased person’s life. Instead, Christians participate in communion with the living Christ. Through the meal, they both proclaim his death and anticipate his return. Unlike pagan funerary meals—often held at gravesites under the belief that the deceased, though in Hades, could in some sense share the meal with the living—the Christian meal affirms that Jesus is risen and continues to be present with his people.

If we look carefully at this text, the following points come to light:

(1) there is no association here of the breaking of the bread with the breaking of Jesus’ body,

(2) notice the double reference to “for my memory/memorial” or “in remembrance of me” after both the bread and the cup words.

(3) only Paul says they are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as often as they drink of the wine cup.

 (4) in the Last Supper meal, the language was clearly figurative, as we have seen, following the lead of the symbolic use of language in the Passover

(5) the phrase hyper humoμn (“that is for you”) is found only in the Pauline/Lukan form of the tradition (1 Cor 11:24; Luke 22:19-20).

(6) what Jesus did at the Last Supper should not be seen as a funerary rite. This is not Jesus’ last will and testimony, for the word new here, referring to a new covenant or testament, is fatal to such a view. The term diatheke or “covenant” should be seen as a reference to the founding of a new covenant relationship through the shedding of Jesus’ blood.

(7) Jesus is said to have broken the bread only after giving thanks. This does not prove he was celebrating a Passover meal since the giving of thanks was part of any Jewish meal. Nevertheless, the other features of this historical memory certainly suggest he was celebrating a Passover meal;

(8) The reference to the wine cup coupled with the reference to some getting drunk makes it clear that the early celebration of the Lord’s Supper did involve wine with some alcoholic content; it was not mere grape juice;

9) notice that Paul does not specifically link the cup to Jesus’ blood. It is rather called the cup of the new covenant, which is “in my blood” (i.e., instituted by the death of Jesus)

(10) Paul stresses that the meal involves both eating and drinking, but it also includes the words said—proclaiming Christ’s death, until he returns. Thus, the meal has past, present, and future orientations.

1 Corinthians 11:27

Anazioμs has been translated as “in an unworthy manner,” Perhaps Paul means such abusers are guilty of standing on the side of those who abused and even killed Christ—an atrocious sacrilege. Perhaps, like the author of Hebrews (see Heb 6) he is indirectly accusing them of crucifying Christ afresh. Paul uses this as a solemn warning to the other Corinthians against continuing to abuse the Christian meal.

The juridical language

Paul uses the juridical language to warn us of the consequences of taking the Lord’s Supper in a meaner way. For that he uses 5 of the words as mentioned below.

We have, for example, the use of enoxos (guilty/liable, v. 27), dokimazetoμ (examine, 11:28), krima (judgment), diakrinoμn (distinguishing, recognizing, v. 29), ekrinometha (be judged, v. 31), katakrinoμmen (condemned, v. 32).

Paul believes that the Corinthians are bringing judgment on themselves, both temporally in the form of weaknesses and illnesses, and possibly even permanently in eternal condemnation. Paul even says that because of this very failure “some have died” (11:30),

It is presumably not the food that made them ill, but the judgment that came upon them for partaking in an unworthy manner. Such disasters can be avoided, says Paul, if the Corinthians will simply examine themselves and their behaviour and remember their fellow believers who are their equals in Christ before they partake (11:31).

First Corinthians 11:33 then provides a final word of remedial advice. The verb ekdesesthe, while it may mean “wait for one another,” is perhaps more likely in this context to mean to welcome one another, show gracious hospitality to one another, and partake together with one another without distinctions in rank and food.

Secondly, Paul is trying to distinguish the Christian meal and its protocol from the usual socially stratifying customs of a pagan meal.

Thirdly, the Lord’s Supper was clearly not just a reenactment of the Passover meal, not least because of its prospective element, looking forward and pointing forward to the return of Christ.

Christ himself was viewed as the Christians’ Passover through his death and its benefits. What Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 is telling: “Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us. So let us celebrate the festival, not by eating the old bread of wickedness and evil, but by eating the new bread of purity and truth” (NLT )

In Conclusion, the Lord’s Supper is far more than a ritualistic observance; it is a theologically rich practice that embodies the Church’s memory of Christ’s atoning death, participation in His risen life, and anticipation of His return. As Scripture attests, and as the historical witness of the Church affirms, the Eucharist invites believers into a profound communion with Christ and with one another. The diversity of interpretations across Christian history should not discourage us, but rather compel us to engage with humility, critical discernment, and a commitment to unity. Faithful observance of the Lord’s Supper requires both theological clarity and pastoral sensitivity, ensuring that our practices are not only biblically grounded but also shaped by the wisdom of the Church’s broader tradition. Ultimately, our goal is not merely to understand the Supper, but to honor Christ through it—proclaiming His death, giving thanks for His grace, and living as a reconciled and holy people in light of His sacrifice.

---

[1] Eugene LaVerdiere - The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church- Liturgical Press (1996) p ix

[2] Amiel Drimbe - The Church of Antioch and the Eucharistic Traditions (Ca. 35-130 CE) (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.reihe)-Mohr Siebrek Ek p 156

[3] Eugene LaVerdiere - The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church-Liturgical Press (1996) p 2

[4] (Church basics) Jonathan Leeman Bobby Jamieson - Understanding the Lords Supper-B&H Publishing Group (2016) p 23

[5] Magen Broshi argues for 53–55 per cent in Bread, Wine, Walls, and Scrolls, Sheffield Academic Press

[6] Eugene LaVerdiere - The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church-Liturgical Press (1996) p7-8

[7] From Symposium to Eucharist The Banquet in the Early Christian World by Dennis E. Smith p5

[8] David Hellholm, Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - The Eucharist - Its Origins and Contexts_ Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity.  p26

[9] From Symposium to Eucharist The Banquet in the Early Christian World by Dennis E. Smith p2

[10]From Symposium to Eucharist The Banquet in the Early Christian World by Dennis E. Smith p20

[11]Smith and Taussig, Meals in the Early Christian World, 59–85;

[12] From Symposium to Eucharist The Banquet in the Early Christian World by Dennis E. Smith p27

[13] From Symposium to Eucharist The Banquet in the Early Christian World by Dennis E. Smith p27

[14] Dom Gregory Dix - The Shape of the Liturgy-Dacre Press Westmister (I949) p 21-23

[15] From Symposium to Eucharist The Banquet in the Early Christian World by Dennis E. Smith p54

[16] From Symposium to Eucharist The Banquet in the Early Christian World by Dennis E. Smith p55

[17] 18. Smith, “The Greco-Roman Banquet as a Social Institution,” p24.

[18] K. Kilburn, Lucian, Loeb Classical Library 430

[19]Sperry Symposium - The Household of God_ Families and Belonging in the Social World of the New Testament (2022 Sperry Symposium)-Deseret Book Company (2022) p 56

[20] (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 102) Valeriy A. Alikin - The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering. Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries p 23

[21] Katherine M. D. Dunbabin - The Roman Banquet_ Images of Conviviality- Cambridge University Press (2010) p34

[22] Katherine M. D. Dunbabin - The Roman Banquet_ Images of Conviviality- Cambridge University Press (2010) p34

[23] Katherine M. D. Dunbabin - The Roman Banquet_ Images of Conviviality- Cambridge University Press (2010) p34

[24] Meals in the Early Christian World Social Formation, Experimentation, and Conflict at the Table by Dennis E. Smith, Hal E. Taussig p 23-36

[25] Sperry Symposium - The Household of God_ Families and Belonging in the Social World of the New Testament (2022 Sperry Symposium)-Deseret Book Company (2022)p 51

[26] (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 102) Valeriy A. Alikin - The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering. Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries p 27

[27] (Classics of Western Spirituality) Philo of Alexandria - The contemplative life_ The giants_ and Selections-Paulist Press (1981)75-78

[28] Sperry Symposium - The Household of God_ Families and Belonging in the Social World of the New Testament (2022 Sperry Symposium)-Deseret Book Company (2022) p 53

[29] Doctrine and practice in the Early Church by Hall, Stuart George p23

[30] Sperry Symposium - The Household of God_ Families and Belonging in the Social World of the New Testament (2022 Sperry Symposium)-Deseret Book Company (2022) p59

[31] Burton Mack, Myth of Innocence (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 81–83.

[32] (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 102) Valeriy A. Alikin - The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering. Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries p 31

[33] Valeriy A. Alikin p33

[34] Jubilees 49:14; see also 49:1, 7-10, 12,15

[35] Gillian Feeley-Harnik - The Lord's Table_ Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity-University of Pennsylvania Press (2017) p 107-48

[36] (Counterpoints_ Church Life) Zondervan - Understanding Four Views on the Lords Supper-Zondervan (2009) p 20

[37] Alec Motyer, The Message of Exodus (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005), 147.

[38][38] (Counterpoints_ Church Life) Zondervan - Understanding Four Views on the Lords Supper-Zondervan (2009) p 38

[39] Nigel Scotland - The New Passover _ Rethinking the Lord’s Supper for Today-Wipf and Stock Publishers (2016) p16

[40] Nigel Scotland - The New Passover _ Rethinking the Lord’s Supper for Today-Wipf and Stock Publishers (2016) p 13

[41] Gundry, Mark, 822

[42]Robert Horton Gundry - Mark_ A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross-Eerdmans (1993)p 822

[43] Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987)42 -43

[44] Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987)p44

[45] Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987)p 47

[46]Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987)p 48

[47] Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987)p49

[48] Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987) p 50

[49] Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987) p 53

[50] Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987) p 53

[51] Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987) p 55

[52] Joachim Jeremias - The Eucharistic Words of Jesus-SCM Press (1987) p 41-56

[53]Nigel Scotland - The New Passover _ Rethinking the Lord’s Supper for Today-Wipf and Stock Publishers (2016) p22

[54] Amiel Drimbe - The Church of Antioch and the Eucharistic Traditions (Ca. 35-130 CE) (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.reihe)-Mohr Siebrek p137

[55] J. Quasten, Patrology (3 vols.; Utrecht/Antwerp: Spectrum, 1975), 1:30.

[56] David Hellholm, Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - The Eucharist - Its Origins and Contexts_ Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. p 959

[57]  David Hellholm, Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - The Eucharist - Its Origins and Contexts_ Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity 962

[58] (Church basics) Jonathan Leeman Bobby Jamieson - Understanding the Lord's Supper- B&H Publishing Group (2016) p15

[59] (Church basics) Jonathan Leeman Bobby Jamieson - Understanding the Lords Supper-B&H Publishing Group (2016) p 16-17

[60] Church basics) Jonathan Leeman Bobby Jamieson - Understanding the Lords Supper-B&H Publishing Group (2016) 24

[61] (Church basics) Jonathan Leeman Bobby Jamieson - Understanding the Lords Supper-B&H Publishing Group (2016) p 24

[62] Church basics) Jonathan Leeman Bobby Jamieson - Understanding the Lords Supper-B&H Publishing Group (2016) p 26

[63] Dom Gregory Dix - The Shape of the Liturgy-Dacre Press Westmister (I949) p 21

[64] (Church basics) Jonathan Leeman Bobby Jamieson - Understanding the Lord's Supper- B&H Publishing Group (2016) p. 26

[65] (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series) Justin Martyr (Author), Thomas B. Falls (Translator) - The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, p 107

[66] Phillip Tovey - Communion Outside the Eucharist-Gorgias Press (2010) p 74

[67] P. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (SPCK, London, 1992) p.69.

[68] Phillip Tovey - Communion Outside the Eucharist-Gorgias Press (2010) p9

[69] G. J. Cuming, Hippolytus A Text for Students (Grove Books, Bramcote, 1976), pp.27-28.

[70]Ben Witherington III - Making a Meal of It-Rethinking the Theology of the Lord's Supper-Baylor University Press (2007) p112-13

[71] Ben Witherington III - Making a Meal of It- Rethinking the Theology of the Lord's Supper-Baylor University Press (2007) p115