This is St. Paul instructing us on the Eucharist/Lord's Supper, one of the central mysteries of the Christian faith. If you didn't know, this parish was messed up. Back in chapter 5, St. Paul says he knows there's a guy sleeping with his father's wife. The context seems to indicate that sexual ethics was going to be challenging for these people. Sex cults devoted to various gods and goddesses in the Greek pantheon were not uncommon, even in these latter days long past the heyday of Alexander the Great.
Let's remind ourselves that this was literally in human terms just a letter at first. What we know now as the Bible is--in the New Testament--four accounts of the life of Jesus, believed to be the Messiah hoped for in the Hebrew Scriptures, and a bunch of letters to churches that sprang up for the purpose of adoring Jesus as this Messiah. St. John the Evangelist, the fourth Gospel guy, clearly believes this Jesus is God in human flesh, and fair to say that the convert Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) isn't about to protest. Wait until you hear what happened to that guy! Oh, yeah, that reminds me: the book we know as the Acts of the Apostles is principally a defense of St. Paul by St. Luke the physician. Luke wrote the third Gospel also, conveniently called "Luke."
Probably written about 61 or 62 CE, was Acts. Fun thought: If one gives any credence to the theory that the final prophecy of St. John, better known as Revelation, was written earlier than commonly supposed--for example, 67--then the entire Christian Testament let's call it, was written in about 40 years. Personally, I have no gripes if both the Gospel of John and Revelation were written late. (The traditional date is around 95 for Revelation.)
I have taken a few moments to give you background, because you're smart enough to figure out what you want to do with miracles, prophecy, and the Church. But these people actually existed. Don't let some candy-buns stupid "atheist" confuse the issue. If you want to deny anything supernatural as such, go for it. But a lot of these guys are just mad because Mom threw out their naughty magazines when they were 14. I digress.
There must have been a communal meal subsequent to the Eucharist itself which explains the verses immediately prior to these we're going to focus on. A Methodist commentator I can't recall called it an "agape-love feast." I read that probably 20 or more years ago. By the way, everything written here is off the top of my head. Any commenters or friends who want to fact-check anything in here, have at it. I just want to "de-mystify" the Bible, in a way. Faith is faith, grace is grace, but if none of this actually happened, well, that's unlikely. But I will say that there are easier ways to avoid religion. Pretending it's all foolish probably won't work, intellectually.
Nobody will generally make fun of you if you claim that St. Paul was under house arrest in 61 and 62. He went a third missionary journey between those years and his probable death in 68. Nero: way worse than any US president, and that's saying something. Anyway, one non-trivial reason why Rome became important to the early Christians is that Sts. Peter and Paul both were martyred there.
So there must have been a mixing between the communal meal and the ritual of the Eucharist. I haven't read The Didache (circa 85-145?) in a while, but it strongly indicates that their whole liturgy was at least in parts highly ritualistic. After the sign of the cross in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church today, the priest says, "Let us prepare ourselves to celebrate these sacred mysteries." Other writings of the Church fathers indicate that those who weren't fully initiated into the Church could not even witness the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the earliest days. They'd be escorted out after the homily or sermon.
Here is the text:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
--
The "received...delivered" formulation is Paul saying he received this from Jesus, and is passing it on authoritatively. This letter could have been circulating at the same time as the Gospels or before, especially the first three. The verb "delivered" in the Greek is closely related to the noun which is translated "tradition" elsewhere, literally, "that which is handed on." This whole passage is supernatural revelation. We miss this, because we have the privilege of going past the Gospels with the Supper institution accounts, just to read this. St. Paul is humble when it serves the purpose of enabling faith in Jesus. He invokes his apostolic authority only when denigrating himself and his apostleship would harm people putting their faith in Jesus.
One interesting mystery is what the Apostles received in that first Eucharist. His death and resurrection had not yet occurred. Was it post-resurrection grace? We cannot know from the text itself.
Remember Jesus in the Upper Room with the Apostles? (John 13-17) Recall how Peter didn’t want Jesus to wash his feet. Peter is thinking that Jesus shouldn’t take the place and do the work of a slave. It’s another “Get behind me, Satan!” moment for Peter, though the Lord is gracious here. Still Jesus does say that unless he washes Peter’s feet, he will have no part with him. These are justification and final salvation type of words from Jesus, though their consecration as bishops (and priests) is also in view here. I think it served as their baptism here also, though it seems reasonably clear when he calls them “clean” that he doesn’t regard any of them other than Judas Iscariot to be sinners subject to wrath. Peter might have seen the whole thing as a ceremonial washing, something he knows well. I think his lack of understanding fully in this conversation with Jesus was in his mind when he later wrote this:
who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (1 Peter 3:20-22, RSVCE)
--
Let's leave the claim of baptismal regeneration to one side, and notice v. 21. It's not a ceremonial washing, and it's not a bath in the ordinary usage. It's a sacred sign that re-orients a person toward God in Christ. Because it is sacred--dedicated to God--this explains why people are getting sick and dying in the 1 Cor. passage on the Lord's Supper. Sacred signs and sacred objects are a kind of invasion of God into the common world. Not showing reverence to the sacred, or outright misusing a sacrament, or not examining oneself in conscience can result in death or illness. I leave the sacramental theology and dogmas to the questions of authority, submission, and communion with those whom Christ has sent. But the Lord's Supper itself is not a meal in the ordinary sense. We feed upon Christ as the one in whom we place our trust (John 6:51-59). Faith in Christ gives the Supper meaning, and to receive worthily increases our faith. The writer of the book of Hebrews outright says that without faith it is impossible to please God (chapter 11, verse 6).
The differences and arguments about justifying faith are highly technical, and probably best solved by answering prior questions about legitimate authority and submission. But beyond that, it strikes me that faith is the reasonable response to what God has revealed about himself. Superstition is what makes people treat the sacred signs as magical, disconnected from what God has revealed, and what God intends to do in us and through us. God intends to make us His children and friends in Christ. Without prejudice to the ideas of the canceling of debt or the putting away of sin and guilt--present in many places in the Scriptures--God does not will, in a sense, to pour out wrath on the wicked. He cannot ignore evil; his nature cannot abide it. But Peter writes:
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:8-9, RSVCE)
--
As a result of the creative tension between God's omnipotence and control over everything and the command to repent and believe the gospel in Jesus, St. Thomas Aquinas drew a distinction between God's antecedent will (apart from the actions of free creatures) and consequent will (taking into account the actions of free creatures). Honestly, this discussion can itself get unhelpfully technical also, but well prior, we hit a limit with respect to what Scripture makes plain.
Regardless, the Bible seems to prioritize the relational over the legal with respect to people and God. Grace is not only God's favor, but also God's power to bring fallen humanity into relationship with himself. What we can say is that eternal blessedness with God completes a person's existence. We should see wrath and Hell as results of failed human existence, rejection of God in a real sense being a rejection of the self and its purpose. To me, universalism fails to honor the fact that the all-powerful God sees, knows, and judges everything. The human soul is eternal. Therefore, the idea that a failed life/soul simply ceases to exist fails to honor the permanence of the soul. Blessedness cannot end, on the other side, because God cannot end.
Comments