The Breaking of Bread in Corinth
This well known quotation from 1 Corinthians 11 really needs to be put in its
context.
17 ¶ But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together
not for the better but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together {1} in the church, I hear that divisions
exist among you; and I partly believe it. {1) Or: in congregation}
19 For there must be also {1} factions among you, that they that are approved
may be made manifest among you. {1) Gr. heresies}
In these 3 verses Paul is writing not just about minor differences of opinion
over the meaning of words, but fairly significant doctrinal differences based
on individual gnosis claimed by certain individuals through their 'gifts', by
the which they no doubt claimed divine inspiration and that 'God' or 'Jesus'
spoke or was speaking through them (the emphasis on speaking in tongues); by
the which it seems they divided the ecclesia in Corinth into competitive factions.
This was a significant (modernist) Darwinesque feature of Hellenistic culture
of the time. This competitive spirit went on to characterize Christianity down
through the ages... so we are certainly not alone in this problem. All of which
'gifts' of divine inspiration or special 'gnosis' he goes on to deal with in
what is for us chapter 12. Paul suggest that this factionalism, which he only
partly believes is occurring, ''must be" as it is through the cauldron
of debate hot or otherwise, having to defend one's concepts and ideas against
attack etc, and having to reflect upon behaviour that causes one to think deeply
on the values and belief system we have heard with our ears (Job), that they
crystallize and are either rejected burned with fire, or through this refining
process they become one's own meaning of life and place in the metanarrative
etc. To use another metaphor the wheat and the tares will always grow (that's
the point-growth) in proximity to one another, that is the way life is, so it
is a useless exercise to try and root out the tares. Beside the fact that some
wheat will be rooted out too, as is happening in ecclesias, religions, cultures
and societies around the world today it is a very destructive practice. Monoculture,
exclusivity, is a human device by the which we try to make the world over, restructure
it, in our own image, in the way we 'think' it should, must or ought to be according
to the ideal picture we have in our heads (idealism). This is because we do
not understand the nature of reality and thus 'fear' what appears to be the
chaos of everything growing together, the way the Creator intended. Monoculture
has its own problems which are often more insidious, that of dis-ease which
can decimate the population.
20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat
the Lord's supper:
21 for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is
hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the {1} church
of God, and put them to shame that {2} have not? What shall I say to you? {3}
shall I praise you? In this I praise you not.
{1) Or: congregation 2) Or: having nothing 3) Or: shall I praise you in this?
I praise you not.}
It is highly possible they were treating their assembling to eat the “Lord's
supper” in one of the upper class members 'front rooms' as a sort of symposium
in a way that was common in the culture in those times. Perhaps they did not
run to quite the same ‘excess of riot’ as they may have done prior
to their conversion and acceptance of ‘the way’, but these gatherings
were now open to equal participation by women (wives), the 'lower' strata of
their society as well as males of the middle and upper classes, whose exclusive
privilege these symposia were under the dominate Greco/roman culture of this
‘roman colony’ as Corinth was at this time having been sacked and
rebuilt by the Romans. But such ‘unChristian’ class and caste distinction
was still being thoughtlessly promoted and practiced. The internal evidence
could also suggest the rich were treating these gatherings as we might a picnic,
bringing and eating their own bread and wine not sharing it with the less fortunate
brother or sister who, according to the rules of society did not deserve it.
Thus some were drunk and others starving. Paul was disturbed perhaps even outraged
by this lack of respect and filial love and care of the poor brothers and sisters,
"putting them to open shame". In their society the accumulation of
goods the amassing of riches was a sign to the recipient of the god's [plural
or now singular] pleasure because of their righteousness', of their do gooding
etc and ipso facto the rightness of the philosophy that justified their behaviour.
It was this that made them rich, and for the sake of cognitive balance in the
black and white polarity of this worldview the polar opposite must be true of
the poor, each, in this worldview, got what they deserved by 'divine' decree.
Whereas the reality of the situation was that it had more to do with the rigid
structure of society which was by design unjust and inequitable. Most of the
time the poor were kept poor and not allowed to rise above their station etc
by the rigid legal artifice of not acknowledging any other than men born in
the city states of Greece as citizens, thus making them a permanent underclass.
Greece was a slave owning society and these non- persons without whom the city/state
just would not be able to function did all the menial work surviving as best
they could in a repressive and degrading social system. It made no economic
sense in this system to allow them to better themselves or to even allow them
to think themselves equal to their masters. This hierarchical structure was
propagandized as divinely decreed and immutable law. This was what was so different
and so attractive about Christianity particularly among the poor and stateless
who struggled to survive.
As it is written remember the sabbath. Everyday "in Christ" is a
sabbath or shabbat. Freedom in Christ is freedom from these arbitrary rules
or laws of men imposed upon the poor and the other most vulnerable sectors of
society for the selfish purposes of those in power.
23 ¶ For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that
the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was {1} betrayed took bread; {1) Or:
delivered up}
24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which
{1} is for you: this do in remembrance of me. {1) Many ancient authorities read
is broken for you}
25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant
in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's
death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in
an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink
of the cup.
The words in v27 "unworthy manner" mean just that, they didn't make
a difference (a discernment) between the symbolic body and blood of the Lord
and the bread and wine (mostly wine) of the usual orgy type of activity where
in times past paid 'female entertainers' (who were not Greek or at least not
‘citizens’) would regale the assembled patricians and other high
born men only (guests at such gatherings could also include the glitterati of
society at the time men like Socrates, Aristotle, Homer etc) with poetry, song
and dance, and engage in rhetorical debate whilst they ate and drank to excess
getting more raucous and raunchy as the night wore on, served by naked young
male and female slaves and from which their wives were excluded. These type
of social gatherings or symposia were common practice in Hellenic culture amongst
the upper or ‘ruling’ class and seen as the height of sophistication.
This hedonistic indulgence was perceived as theirs by right of being the ruling
or upper class. The Lord's table should have been a place where all were equal
in the sight of God and should have been in theirs as well and worthy of respect,
whether Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female. So what follows can be seen
in a different and I think more logical light. Not just the remainder of the
chapter but the next three chapters as well (12-14) and particularly chapter
13. In these chapters individuality is maintained and championed as essential
to the group whereas individualism is exposed as mere self-seeking, which is
competitive and divisive.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself,
if he {1} discern not the body. {1) Gr. discriminate}
30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.
31 But if we {1} discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. {1) Gr. discriminated}
32 But {1} when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not
be condemned with the world. {1) Or: when we are judged of the Lord, we are
chastened}
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another.
34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not
unto judgment. And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.
I would suggest it is the unity and inclusiveness of the elements of the Lord's
table the symbols of his body and blood that is the central unifying factor
that cuts across all the rigid divisive structure of not only Greek society,
but also that of the Jewish culture, and the way they explained/justified their
exclusivity and the abusive inequality that was part of the fabric of their
‘exclusive’ cultures and unconsciously practiced by them perhaps
because they perceived themselves as more (equal with the upper class Greek
males) and others less than human. According to this doctrine we deserve or
merit what we get in this life. And it is for this that Paul says they would
be ‘judged’ (discriminated), indeed for which they, as a body were
being judged or ‘disciplined’ at the time by the real divine law,
that of cause and effect. This unthinking, unfeeling, unjust, abusive treatment
of one another would if it continued factionalize, fracture and eventually destroy
the ecclesia, which in this case is ‘the Lord’s body’ in Corinth.
It would be the vulnerable, the poor, the noncitizens (non-Greek), the slaves,
the women (wives), the less honourable, those who had no standing before the
law in the perception of the state who were already suffering and would suffer
the most as the body was slowly dismembered because they abused and misused
their ‘gifts’ (30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly,
and not a few sleep) selfishly fighting amongst themselves for preeminence and
status. What you do to one of these the least of my brothers and sisters you
have done it to me. Glibly mouthing these words and others like them we, like
they, fail to recognize the real depth of interconnectedness the sense of all
in one and one in all they express as in 10:17 Because one loaf one body are
we the many for we all share from the one loaf. These discriminatory and competitive
elements and practices still permeate the fabric of modernist and post-modernist
meritocratic societies and cultures around the world today and are used by astute
politically minded men and women who may even perceive themselves as more than
human, having earned the right to victimize and manipulate ‘the other’
whom they perceive and treat as less than human, to divide and rule as is their
perceived right through merit and perpetuate the anxiety of status.
Because of the way the written Greek language seems to have evolved over time
they employed many literary devises to impart a sense of meaning. These devises
like voice and parallelism gave some structure, rhythm and flow etc to the written
word, which was probably meant to give it the feel of the strong oral rhetorical
tradition from which it seems to have come. In all of Paul’s letters he
uses the literary structures of ‘inverted parallelism’ or ‘chiasmus’
not only as an organizational tool often repeating and interweaving these structures
to organize his words into subdivisions on three or more levels and types, but
as a powerful rhetorical devise which could be easily understood and remembered
by an audience, the majority of whom could neither read nor write. This portion
of the letter to Corinth is no exception and a look at the structure (below)
reveals several fairly distinct chiastic structures [symmetrical or inverted
parallelism as some call it]. His writings, if not his thinking, make extensive
use of the mainly oral tradition of Hebraic and Greco/roman poetic structural
forms. Sometimes this is conceptual, in which thesis and antithesis are posited
either side of an important central concept (1 Cor.11: 2-16) which is the turning
point (chi or X) of his argument. At other times the chiastic structure is embedded
in the use of words as can be seen in this central portion. But again, at least
here, the structure is being used to reinforce the central point, which is of
equality. Though characteristic of large portions of the Old Testament, particularly
the books of Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes though not exclusive to these
(e.g. Isa.55: 7-8) chiastic structures were also common in Greek language and
the literature that developed out of it. These oral traditions upon which the
written language is based seem to be characteristic of both cultures though
more highly developed in the Hebraic language and culture.
These structures can it seems be perceived to ‘overlap’. A major
thematic or overarching chiastic structure on a macro level involves chapters
11-14 with a powerful central climax in chapter 13. So in chapter 11 we can
discern the theme of some sort of disorder, in verses 2-16 it is of dress of
both female and male prophets. From verses 17-34 the theme of disorder in the
Passover meal that Paul had passed onto the Greek believers. In chapter 12 he
discusses spiritual gifts. In chapter 13 the great theme is of love the natural
‘in-between’. Chapter 14 refers once again to spiritual gifts in
verses 1-25. In the remainder of the chapter Paul once again returns to the
twin themes of disorder, this time it is all the prophets (men and women) talking
at once in verses 26 to part way through 33 and women (wives) asking questions
and/or chatting among themselves during the worship in verses 33-36. This it
could be suggested is a signal that they still considered themselves in the
subordinate role accorded them by the traditions of the Hellenic and even the
Jewish culture that relegated women, particularly wives, who, it must be remembered
were not particularly well educated, to mere onlookers and not full participants
in the worship.
In 11:4-5 both the men and the women are prophesying. Thus the reader knows
that the prophets who interrupt one another in chapter 14 are comprised of both
men and women. So when the women in 14:34-35 are told to be silent and listen
to the prophets, Paul assumes that it is obvious that some of those prophets
are the women prophets of 11:5 when he wrote 14:35-36. He then reinforced the
unity of this four-chapter chiasmus with a brief summary. It reads as follows:
If anyone thinks that he/she is a prophet (ch 11) or spiritual (ch 12) he/she
should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord (ch
13). If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brethren,
Earnestly desire to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues (14:1-25).
5. But all things should be done in decency and in order (26-36) and not, we
could add, after the fashion of the symposium. If these four verses are a summary
of the entire chiasmus, then the command of the Lord referred to by Paul is
the command to ‘love one another’, which is definitively explained
by him in ch.13. If however, 14:34-40 is only read in a linear fashion, then
the ‘command of the Lord’ becomes the command to tell the women
to be silent in church, not the command to love, without which it is all but
empty sound or noise. A babble of competitive voices each seeking the preeminence
of the self. If then the link with ch. 11 is forgotten, the women prophets are
also forgotten. Together these two misunderstandings of the text can and have
been shaped by some into a club with which to threaten women into silence in
the name of ‘the command of the Lord’. Paul’s intent is simply
to solve some problems, which seem to stem from their individualism and the
competitive milieu of their society exacerbated by conflict with legalists who
sought to impose the traditions of men upon the group.
There is another chiasmus which overlaps that mentioned above, this appears
to start in chapter ten at verse one finishing at the end of chapter eleven.
And again we must remind ourselves what is the purpose of the letter to the
Corinthians in the first place. The last verse of chapter 11 leaves us in no
doubt “And the rest I will ‘set in order’ when I come”.
In the third verse of chapter 11 Paul seems to be reiterating as he does elsewhere
in the letter the cause of this ‘disorder’, this disquiet among
the brothers and sisters of Corinth and that seems to be the legalism of some
who seek to impose their idea of order and justify this by such arguments as
are recorded in the following verses, which to verse 9 is probably the ‘thesis’
if you will, of the letter written to him.
10:1-13. Spiritual food and drink of Israel, and their unresponsiveness
10:14-22. The meaning of sharing in the Lord’s supper
10:23-11:1. Eating and drinking to God’s glory with others, an ecclesia/Paul’s
example
11:2-16. (X) Equality of relationships and ‘authority’ in the Lord
11:17-23a. Eating and drinking to God’s glory with others, the ecclesia/Paul’s
example
11:23b-26.The meaning of sharing in the Lord’s supper
11:27-34 Spiritual food and drink of the ecclesia, and their unresponsiveness
This conceptual chiastic structure can be more readily perceived if we narrow
the focus from macro to micro and use a translation that retains more of the
Greek structural elements as in this example from 1Cor10
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the Anointed’s
blood?
The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the Anointed’s body?
17 (X) Because one loaf, one body are we the many,
for we all share from the one loaf.
18 Consider Israel according to flesh, are not those who eat the offerings
sharers in the
altar?
We all share life (zoë) and the struggle of life. It is sharing these
elements that make one out of the many, it is the voluntary sacrifice of the
survival of the individual self and that which pertains to the self that is
encouraged in the Lord’s supper. It is the meaning of the sabbath, a ceasing
from our own works, including the traditions and practices of men by which we
seek to control the world external to the self. In the words of this post modern
world “Letting go and letting God”.
As was stated above the central element or turning point of the chiastic structure
of these two chapters is 1Cor.11: 2-16. When we read these words in their context
it is always with a sense of unease as they just don’t seem to fit with
the general tone or tenor of the immediate context and seems on the face of
it to contradict other Pauline concepts, not to mention those espoused in the
Biblical metanarrative per se and seem decidedly controlling. When we look at
these particular verses from a structural point of view we can again perceive
a chiasmus in the arrangement of words that seem to transition at those of verse
10
(2-3) Introduction
(4-7) 'woman,' 'uncovered,' 'to pray,' 'man,' 'glory'
(8a) not 'man from woman'
(8b) 'woman from man'
(9a) not 'man on account of woman'
(9b) 'woman on account of man'
(10x) For this reason, because of the angels the woman ought to have authority
over her [own] head
(11b) 'Neither woman apart from man'
(11a) 'nor man apart from woman'
(12b) "just as the woman is from the man'
(12a) 'thus also the man is through the woman'
(13-15) 'woman,' 'uncovered,' 'to pray,' 'man,' 'glory'
(16) Conclusion
The phrase ‘dia touto’ “For this reason” (for this
thing) (This is why) of verse 10 can be understood to not only relate to the
foregoing concepts but to those subsequent to it. Paul uses the phrase ‘dia
touto’ fourteen times in his epistles, of which 1 Thessalonians 2:13;
3:5; 1 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 4:1; Philemon 15; and Romans 4:16 should
be understood as pointing to concepts which follow the ‘dia touto’.
To look ahead for the reason or concept leads us to the otherwise difficult
‘dia tous angelous’ as that concept. This leads us back to the point
of the ordering in verse 3 and that is there is no hierarchy based on sex or
gender among the angels. Compare Jesus’ words in Matt 22: 23-30 (AV)
23 “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no
resurrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having
no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a
wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise
the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman
died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven?
For they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, ye do err, not knowing
the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
This answer of our Lord agrees perfectly well with the meaning of the word translated
‘authority’ which same word is used of Jesus in Matt. 7:29 and other
parallel texts, in the sense of power of choice or permission when He spoke
authoritatively. For ‘this thing’ or for ‘this reason’
then a woman has been given permission over her own head to choose, to exercise
self control even in the face of such strong external controlling traditions
and erstwhile spiritual signs and metaphors etc that had been woven around this
interpretation and the so called ‘spiritual truths’ they seemed
to represent. None of which were sacrosanct “For in the resurrection they
neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”.
Here, as elsewhere in this letter, ‘authority’ is to be understood
in this active and personal sense. The veil is not a sign of the woman’s
submission to her husband’s authority or even of her social dignity and
immunity from molestation; it is a sign of her authority. In the synagogue service
a woman could play no significant part: her presence would not even suffice
to make up the requisite quorum of ten (all ten must be males). In Christ she
received equality of status with men; she might pray or prophesy at meetings
of the house church or ecclesia and it is now her choice, the sign of her authority
over her own head, to wear or not to wear the veil. The woman is no longer subject
to the man at all and particularly not in this setting that foreshadows the
age to come but which also in a very real sense was immediate because “For
where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them.”.