Criswell Theological
Review 5.2 (1991) 221-239.
Copyright © 1991 by The
THE
AND THE LORD'S SUPPER:
FAMINE, FOOD SUPPLY, AND
THE PRESENT DISTRESS *
BRADLEY B.
BLUE
Introduction
Food
figures prominently in 1 Corinthians. This should not come as
a surprise, since food and related concerns
(e.g., commensality) are pre-
dominant in many other NT texts. In addition, it
was an important is-
sue in the Jewish communities; so important, that
many of the
synagogue complexes included cooking and dining
facilities. In some
instances, the Jewish community gathered in a
renovated house (i.e.,
house synagogue), in which case the facilities were
already present.
And
in the nondomestic setting, facilities were sometimes
introduced.1
Food and meals were also important
concerns to the non-Jews in
the Greco-Roman world.2 In particular,
as in the Jewish communities,
* For John McRay,
with sincere appreciation.
1 The most helpful
collections for synagogue complexes are offered by L M. White,
The Christian Domus Ecclesiae and Its Environment: A Collection of Texts
and Monu-
ments (HTS
36;
Synagogue:
Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik,"
Aufstieg und Nie-
dergang der riimischen
Welt 2.19.1
(1979) 477-510. Evaluations of the material include:
L
M. White, Building God's House in the
Roman World. Architectural Adaptation
among Pagans, Jews, and Christians (The ASOR Library of
Biblical and Near Eastern
Archaeology;
Baltimore/London: Johns
and In Private: The Role of the
2 D. E. Smith,
"Meals and Morality in Paul and His World," SBLASP (1981) 319-39;
"Table
Fellowship as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke," JBL 106 (1987) 613-38,
222
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
food and meals are prominent features in various
associations and
religious/cultic groups.3
This fact is seen in 1 Cor 8:10 with the refer-
ence to being "at table
in an idol's temple." It was not uncommon for
a temple to include culinary appurtenances and
accommodate com-
mon meals. In addition to
literature from this period4 and the archae-
ological evidence from
invitations to religious meals at temples as well as
in houses.6 One ex-
ample will illustrate the phenomenon of religious
meals and their set-
ting in the Greco-Roman world: the cult of Sarapis.
The remains of an inscription on
a column) of a temple to Sarapis
by Apollonius II.7 The inscription,
and Social
Obligation in the Context of Communal Meals: A Study of the Christian
Meal in 1 Corinthians in
Comparison with Graeco-Roman Meals (unpublished ThD.
dissertation,
3 A catalogue of material
has been assembled by H.-J. Klauck in his 1980 disserta-
tion (Catholic Theological
Faculty,
was later published as Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult.
Eine religionsgeschichtli-
che Untersuchung zum
ersten Korintherbrief (NTAbh
[NF] 15;
1981).
A second edition appeared in 1982.
4 Philostratus,
for example, writes that Ptolemy of Naucratis had a
brilliant repu-
tation among the sophists: “For
he was one of those who were admitted to dine at the
public expense in the
of the Sophists 595 [LCL
Heinemann, 1968]). Like other public
buildings, the banqueting halls (in the temples)
were donated by benefactors. See for example the
banquet hall in the
mis at
self (Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 605).
5 A good example can be
seen in the sanctuary of Asclepius at
cincts included dining rooms
beneath the Abaton which accommodated meals G. Wise-
man, “
Welt 2.7.1 (1979] 487, 510;
cf. J. Murphy-O'Connor,
ology (Good News Studies 6;
Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1983) 161-67, figs. 9 and 10.
The
earlier sanctuary of Demeter-Core at Acrocorinth
(6th-2d century B.C.) included
some 40 dining rooms (accommodating seven-ten diners
each). For this evidence see
the literature cited in “Invitations to the Kline
of Sarapis,"
New Documents Illustrating
Early Christianity. A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri published in
1976
(Macquarie
University: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1981)
21:5-9.
One recent study is concerned with this question: E.
Will, “Banquets et salles de
banquet dans les cultes de la Grece et de l'Empire romain," Melanges d'histoire anci-
enne et d'archeologie offerts a Paul Collart (ed. P. Ducrey; Cahiers d'archeologie ro-
mande 5; Lousanne:
Bibliotheque historique vaudoise, 1976) 353-62. For a general
discussion of the function of the Roman temples see
J. E. Stambaugh, "The Function of
Roman
Temples," Aufstieg und Niedergang der ramischen Welt 2.16.1
(1978) 554-608.
See
the examples and literature cited in R MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Em-
pire (London/New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1981) 36.
6 C.-H.
Kim has produced a satisfying (although not exhaustive) collection in his
study "The Papyrus Invitation," JBL 94 (1975) 391-402.
7 The report appeared in
full in 1975: H. Engelmann, The Delian Aretalogy of Sa-
rapis (Etudes
preliminaires aux religions orientales
dans l'empire romain 44;
Bradley B. Blue: THE
dated to the late 3d century B.C., records that
Apollonius received a
nocturnal vision in a dream in which he was
encouraged not to pro-
long the despondency of his ancestors who ignored
the god; rather, he
was to build a temple so that Sarapis
would no longer have to live "in
a rented room" (e]n
misqwtoi?j). Despite opposition, Apollonius fulfilled
the summons, and the project was completed in six
months. The Sa-
rapeion included a dining hall
(40 sq. m.), marble seats, and couches.
In addition to this epigraphic
evidence, the papyri are full of invi-
tations to a dinner at the
table of the lord Sarapis.8 The occasions for
these dinners in the Sarapeion
were wide ranging, including birthday
parties.9 What is most striking,
however, are the references to dining "at
the table of the lord Sarapis"
in places other than the Sarapeion,10 and
in particular the references to the meals in the
homes belonging to in-
dividuals.11 It is not inconceivable
that the Sarapeion could in fact be a
Brill);
cf. A. D. Nock, Conversion: The Old and
the New in Religion from Alexander the
Great to Augustine of
Hippo
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933) 50-53 and most re-
cently R M. Grant, Gods and the One God (Library of Early
Christianity;
and development of this cult group in his The Sarapis under
the Early Ptolemies
(Etudes
preliminaires aux religions orientales
dans l'empire romain 25;
Brill, 1972).
8 P. Oxy 110 (2d century A.D.): Invitation to a dinner at the table
of the lord Sarapis
in the Sarapeion (deipnh?sai ei]j klei<nhn
tou? kuri<ou Sara<pidoj
e]n t&? Sarapei<&. Klei<nhn
appears to be a technical term (roughly
equivalent to i[e<rwma
in the
76),
cf. Kim, "The Papyrus Invitation," 395; H. C. Youtie,
"The Kline of Sarapis," HTR 41
(1948)
9-29; L. Koenen, "Eine
Einladung zur Kline des Sarapis (P. Colon
inv. 2555),"
Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 1 (1967) 121-26. P. Oxy 2592 is similar
while 1485 is an invitation to dine at the
9 P. Oxy 2791: "Diogenes invites you to dinner for the first
birthday of his daughter
in the Sarapeion
tomorrow " This is not to suggest that all birthday celebrations
were held in the Sarapeion
or other temples. Most of the common celebrations took
place in the home. One of the most common invitations
sent was for the marriage cele-
bration (which often included a
meal), cf. P. Oxy 111, 524, 1579 (all
listed, along with oth-
ers, in Kim, "The
Papyrus Invitation").
10 P. Oxy 1484: "Apollonius requests you to dine at the table of
the lord Sarapis on
the occasion of the approaching coming of age of
his brothers at the temple of
Thoeris. . . ."
11 This has not gone
unnoticed. Cf. Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult,
134-36;
idem, Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche im fruhen Christentum
(SBS 103; Stutt-
gart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1981) 88-89. (A revision of this work
appeared later as
"Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche im fruhen Christentum,"
Theologisches Jahrbuch 1985
led. W. Ernst et aL;
publication). Kim, "The Papyrus
Invitation"; cf. "Invitations to the Kline of Sarapis,"
New Docs 1976 (1981) 21:5-9. Nonetheless, a few
examples are instructive:
P. Oxy 523 (2d century A.D.) Invitation to a dinner at the table of the
lord Sarapis in
the house of Claudius Sarapion
(deipnh?s(ai) par ] au]tw?i ei]j klei<nhn
tou? kuri<ou Sara<pidoj
e]n
toi?j Klaud[i<ou] Sarapi<w[noj ] . . . ).
224
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
house12
(converted or otherwise).13 A house may be envisioned in the
Delian Aretalogy (i.e.,
rented quarters—e]n misqwtoi?j). Keeping this in
mind, Paul may very well have been referring to
religious meals in
1 Cor 10:27 as well as
in 8:10.
In 8:10, it is clear that a temple
proper is
the venue. In chap. 10, the matter is not quite so
clear. Given the evi-
dence, we should not rule out
the possibility that Paul is referring to re-
ligious meals in a private
home. If the meal was not religious, it was
more likely than not that the meat would have been
part of a pagan sac-
rifice (cf.10:28),
particularly since meat was usually only available on the
occasion of sacrifices.14
This preliminary overview allows us
to turn to the Corinthian cor-
respondence. Unfortunately, we
cannot take up all the questions con-
cerning food/invitations and
religious associations at
is more modest and our question more restricted:
we will only take up
the question of the difficulties at the table and
Paul's injunction in
1 Cor 11:17-34. We begin with three
assumptions: 1. Like many other re-
ligious groups, the Christians
gathered in a house. 2. Like other groups,
P. Oslo 3.157 (2d century A.D.F
Invitation (from Sarapion the gymnasiarch) to a dinner
at the table of the lord Sarapis
in his own house (deipnh?s[ai] ei]j
klei<nhn tou? kuri<ou S[a-
ra<pidoj]
e]n t^? i]di<&
oi]ki<% . . . ).
P. Yale 85 (2d century A.D.F
Invitation (from Dionysios) to dine on the 21st at
the kline
of Helios, great Serapis,
at the Ninth hour, in the house of his father (deipnh?sai
t^? ka ei]j
klei<nhn [Hli<ou mega<lou Sara<pidoj. . . patrikh?i e[autou? oi]ki<%).
A
fourth possibility is in P. Oxy 1755
(second or early 3d century A.D.): Invitation to din-
ner at the table of the
lord Sarapis in the house of Sarapion
( ]Erwt%
se ]Api<wn deipnh?sai
e]n
t&? oi@k& tou? Sarapei<ou ei]j klei<nhn tou?
kuri<ou Sara<pidoj . . . ). As Grenfell et al., com-
ment: "It is not clear
whether the oi#koj was Apion's
[the host's] own house, in which
case e]pi< may be supplied before tou? Sarapei<ou,
or was a part of the temple itself; cf. e]n
t&?
Sarapei<& in [P.
Oxy.]
110.3." Similar invitations to religious banquets in private homes
could be included at this point, e.g., for the
devotees of
A.D.F
Invitation (from Sarapous) to a dinner in his house (deipnh?sai
ei]j i[e<rwma th?j kuri<aj
@Isidoj e]n t^? oi]ki<%).
12 In addition to the
literature cited above, see J. E. Stambaugh and D. L Balch,
The New Testament in Its
Social Environment (Library
of Early Christianity; Philadel-
phia:
13 It is not
inconceivable, however, that the houses belonging to the Delian
sup-
porters were too small for such a gathering
although the dining hall in the new Sa-
rapeion would not have
accommodated a large crowd It must be remembered that
whatever location was chosen, accommodation was
needed for the sacrifice and meal (cf.
"Invitations
to the Kline of Sarapis," New Docs 1976 (1981) 21:6.
14 Smith, Social Obligation, 12; G. Theissen, The Social Setting of
Pauline Chris-
tianity: Essays on
Bradley B. Blue: THE
the Christians partook of a common meal15
in the house. 3. Given the
at
his lengthy stay at
tainly addressed the question
of proper procedure and protocol at the
table. That this was the case is seen in Paul's own
words in 11:2; i.e.,
Paul's
commendation that the Corinthians maintain the
traditions.
If 11:2 serves as more than sarcasm17
or literary device,18 but as a
captatio benevolentiae to introduce the issues
taken up in 11-14,19 we
must seriously consider whether the
"deviations" addressed in 11-14
(specifically 11:17-34) are deliberate, or whether recent events
(unparal-
leled during Paul's visit)
have raised new problems which Paul must ad-
dress in absentia. If this is indeed the case,
alternative solutions must
be found which answer the question: Why so much
attention to such a
fundamental and important issue? In the case of
11:17-34, the syntax
suggests that new circumstances have been
introduced at
which affected the Christian gathering and, in
particular, the meal.
The Language of Gathering
The vivid language of gathering in 1
Cor 11:17-34 includes the
use of sune<rxomai five times. In this passage Paul does not commend
15 Tertullian's
comments are most instructive: “The Salii cannot have
their feast
without going into debt; you must get the
accountants to tell you what the tenths of
Hercules
and the sacrificial banquets cost; the choicest cook is appointed for the Apa-
turia, the Dionysia, the Attic mysteries; the smoke from the banquet
of Sarapis will call
out the fireman. Yet about the modest supper-room
of the Christians alone a great ado
is made" (Apology
39, ANF 3).
16 Murphy-O'Connor
dates Paul's arrival to A.D. 49 and his departure to A.D. 51 (St.
Paul's
liest History of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 49. R.
Jewett dates Paul's ap-
pearance before Gallio sometime during the twelve month period ending with
July 1,
A.D.
52 (Dating Paul's Life [
Apostle to the Gentiles. Studies in Chronology [
C.
Herner, The Book of Acts in
the Setting of Hellenistic History [WUNT 49;
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1989] 255-56).
Most recently, see J. McRay (Archaeology and
the New Testament [
to A.D. 51.
17 So J. C. Hurd, The Origin of 1
Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965) 182-82, citing
support.
18 So H. Conzelmann, 1
Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1975) 182.
19 G. D. Fee, The First Epistle
to the Corinthians (NICNT;
mans, 1987) 500.
20 In
11:17, 18, 20, 33 and 34. The only other occurrences in the Pauline
corpus
come in 14:23, 26, and 7.5.
226
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
the Corinthian gathering for the community meal;
rather, his griev-
ances indicate that their
meetings are more destructive than benefi-
cial (ou]k ei]j
to> krei?sson a]lla> ei]j to> h$sson sune<rxesqe; "when you
come together it is not for the better but for the worse").
Apparently
the abuse was sufficiently abhorrent that the
divisions (sxi<smata,
v 18)
and factions (ai[re<seij,
v 19) rendered the meal as merely one of many
and not the Lord's Supper (v 20). In this pericope Paul establishes
three pairs of antithesis: 1. "house"
contrasted with "house church,"
2.
kuriako>n dei?pnon
("the
Lord's supper") with to> i@dion
dei?pnon ("one's
own meal"), and 3. e@xontej ("those who
have") with mh>
e@xontej ("those
who do not have").
(18) prw?ton me>n ga>r
w!ste, a]delfoi< mou,
(33)
For, to begin with, So then, my brothers and sisters
sunerxome<nwn u[mw?n
e]n e]kklhsi<% 1
when you come together as the church
a]kou<w sxi<smata e]n u[mi?n u[pa<rxein
I
hear that there are divisions among you
(20)
sunerxome<nwn ou#n u[mw?n e]pi> to> au]to> sunerxo<menoi
ei]j to> fagei?n
when you
come together when
you come together to eat
ou]k e@stin
kuriako>n dei?pnon fagei?n:
it is not to eat
the Lord's supper
(21)
e!kastoj
ga>r to> i@dion dei?pnon prolamba<nei
2 a]llh<louj e]kde<xesqe
e]n t&? fagei?n,
when you eat, each of you goes ahead share with one another
with
your own supper
kai>
o{j me>n pein%? o{j de> mequ<ei ei@ tij pein%?
(34)
and one goes hungry and another becomes if anyone is hungry
drunk
(22)
mh> ga>r oi]ki<aj ou]k e@xete 3 e]n
oi@k&
do you not
have houses at
home
ei]j to> e]sqi<ein kai> pi<nein; e]sqie<tw,
to eat and
drink in? eat
h}
th?j e]kklhsi<aj tou? qeou? katafronei?te
i!na mh> ei]j kri<ma
sune<rxhsqe
Or
do you show contempt for the church so
that when you come together,
of God it
will not be for your condemnation
kai>
kataisxu<nete tou>j mh> e@xontaj:
and humiliate those who have nothing?
"House” as
Residence and Church: (Re-)Defining Boundaries
The first pair contrasts the oi#koj/oi]ki<a (house) and the e]kklhsi<%
("church," i.e., "the meeting in
the 'house"'). Paul describes the latter
as: ounerxome<nwn u[mw?n e]n e]kklhsi<% (assembling as a church, v 18),
sunerxome<nwn
ou#n u[mw?n e]pi> to>
au]to<
(assembling as the community,
Bradley
B. Blue: THE
v
20)21 and sunerxo<menoi ei]j
to> fagei?n (assembling to eat, v 33). Here,
Paul's
emphasis is on defining what is appropriate and inappropriate
when the various house churches (h[
kat ] oi#kon e]kklhsi<a) gather in
one house:22 behavior which may be
acceptable in the house (oi#koj/
oi]ki<a, vv 22, 34) is not
appropriate for the "church" (e]kklhsi<a) when
gathered in the house.23 The very fact
that the believers met in a pri-
vate house forces Paul to
avoid using house, i.e., oi#koj/oi]ki<a, as a desig-
nation for assembled believers in favor of participial
clauses which
effectively mean: when all of you are gathered together
in a given
house as the church.
"Those Who
Have" and "Those Without"
The third pairing contrasts those
who have and those who are
lacking: one is hungry, another drunk (o{j
me>n pein%? o{j de> mequ<ei);
some
have houses, others have nothing (oi]ki<aj e@xontej, mh>
e@xontej). On the
one hand there are believers who have plenty of
food and drink while
others have an insufficient quantity (and quality?)
and are hungry. The
stark difference between these two groups is seen at
the table. To fur-
ther accentuate the
difference, those belonging to the advantaged
group have houses to which Paul relegates their
detestable behavior,
while the second group are without (food and,
perhaps, houses).24
21 According to B.
Metzger this phrase (e]pi>
to> au]to<)
"which is common enough in
classical Greek and the Septuagint, acquired a
quasi-technical meaning in the early
church. This meaning, which is required in Acts 1:15;
2:1, 3:1, 47; 1 Cor 11:20; 14:23,
signifies the union of the Christian body, and
perhaps could be rendered 'in church
fellowship'" (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [
Bible Societies, 1971] 305). This rendering is
supported by M. Wilcox (The Semitisms of
Acts [
church" (94,98). In his opinion, the expression
is a Hebraism and may carry with it the
idea of (joining/belonging to) the
community/congregation, similar to the
dHyl
tzyhl; cf. M. Black, An
Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3d ed.;
Clarendon,
1967) 10-11 and
Early Christian Literature," Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973) 202-8.
22 The construction h[ kat
] oi#kon e]kklhsi<a, 'die sich hausweise konstituierende
Kirche' (Klauck, Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche,
21) occurs four times in the NT: 1 Cor
16:19;
Rom 16:5; Phlm 2;
ering in the confines of a
private house. The construction e]kklhsi<a o!lh depicts the
ering of the believers in one
house. At
23 It may very well be
that the behavior which Paul relegates to the oi#koj is
equally unacceptable in that context and must be
addressed at a later time (cf. v 34). His
present concern, however, is to intervene so
that what has been/may be acceptable in
the oi#koj is not promulgated in
the house gatherings.
24 Although it is not
explicitly stated that those who are lacking are without
"houses," the group which "is lacking" the
food for the meal (see below) is likely the
228
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
G. Theissen
has recently addressed the attendant social conditions
of the Corinthian community and has convincingly
demonstrated that
at the socioeconomic level the early believers,
unlike many of the con-
temporaneous associations, were not
a homogeneous group; rather,
early Christianity as reflected in the Corinthian
correspondence dis-
plays "a marked internal stratification."25
This diversity promoted cer-
tain difficulties in the
meal context. In addition to enjoying better food
as well as greater quantities,26 it is
conceivable that because the host
would have been a wealthy member of the community,
same group who lacked the houses of plenty. Although
we are uncertain of the propor-
tion of insulae to detached, the former
outnumbered the later by a considerable num-
ber. It is likely that
during our period, the domus
accounted for approximately three
percent (the rest insulae) while claiming one third
of the residential space. Cf. J. E.
Packer,
"Housing and Population in Imperial
MacMullen, Roman
Social Relations: 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (
Press,
1974) 62-63; Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient
sity Press, 1959) 23-24; K.
H. Beebe, "Domestic Architecture and the New Testament,"
BA 38 (1975) 96-97, and
most recently P. Garnsey and R P. Saller,
The
Economy, Society and
Culture
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) and J. E.
Stambaugh, The
Johns
25 G. Theissen,
The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity:
Essays on
(Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1982) 145-74; 69-120; cf. E. A Judge, The Social Pattern of
Christian Groups in the
First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of the New Tes-
tament Ideas of Social Obligation (London: Tyndale, 1960) 60-62. In addition to the lit-
erature cited one further point
needs mention: for the most part, societies and
associations included people who
(even though they might only be guests) could afford
the provisions for the festivities (cf. P. Teb
118-late 2d century B.C.). Furthermore, an
initiation fee and maintenance costs would, in
part, restrict membership. This, how-
ever, did not mean that the group was
"purely" homogeneous. The constituents of the
burial society at Lanuvium,
for example, included slaves and masters. The voluntary so-
ciety met once a month for
business and more frequently for social and religous func-
tions. The initiation fee was
100 sesterces, and each member was required to pay
monthly dues. The four men chosen to be in
charge of each feast were required to pro-
vide the dinners. Cf. the bylaws of a burial club
(dedicated to Diana) in Lanuvium (136
A.D.) in CIL 14.2112-Roman Civilization. Sourcebook
II: The Empire (trans. N. Lewis
and M. Reinhold;
Renewal (Sociological Studies
in Roman History 2;
Press, 1983) 215. Theissen
discusses this matter in Social Setting,
153-63, esp. n. 25. In
addition we should add the example of the private
house cult at
This
house cult has been discussed in S. C. Barton and G. H. R Horsley, "A
Hellenistic
Cult
Group and the
tionum Graecarum (3d ed.; ed. W. Dittenberger) 985,
26 Theissen, Social
Setting, 153-63. "Differences in menu are a relatively timeless
symbol of status and wealth, and those not so well off
came face to face with their own
social inferiority at a most basic level." Ibid., 160.
Bradley B. Blue: THE
He invited into the triclinium his closest friends among the believers, who
would have
been of the same social class. The rest could take their places
in the
atrium, where conditions were inferior. Those in the triclinium
would have reclined. . . whereas those in the
atrium were forced to sit.27
The Communal Meal and
Private Meals
Given the discrepancy in the social
makeup of the Corinthian
community, Theissen
interprets prolamba<nw
as a reference to wealth-
ier Christians who began
their private meal before the communal
meal which was an integral part of the Eucharist.28
According to his
reconstruction, the wealthy add injury
to insult by consuming larger
and better quantities of food both prior to the
inception of the Eucha-
rist and during the sacred
meal. Other scholars, who separate the
communal meal from the Eucharist, also claim that
the wealthy are
able to arrive leisurely at their convenience and
gorge themselves be-
fore the Eucharist.29 For our study we
are not so much concerned to
determine whether the communal meal was introduced
by the break-
ing of bread or whether the
latter followed the meal and was a rite
which was separated very early in the church. What is
important is
Paul's
attitude toward the common meal as it relates to the Eucharist:
Paul in no way had in mind a
fundamental and definitive separation of
the common
meal and the sacramental celebration, as it had been carried
out from
the beginning of the second century. Rather, for Paul meal and
celebration
still belong so closely together that he can maintain that the
bad state
of affairs in the common meal [part of the Eucharist or
otherwise]
makes the entire Lord's Supper illusory.30
Although Theissen
does not deal with the corrective given by
Paul
(a]llh<louj e]kde<xesqe, see below), he
suggests that the i@dion
dei?pnon
27 Murphy-O'Connor,
Paul to the Corinthians:
An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New
Testament
Commentaries; rev. ed.;
contexts only free citizens (including women
during our period) reclined. To be sure,
"the
use of this custom promoted a consciousness of social ranking” (Smith,
"Meals and
Morality," 321). In 14:30 we have a
reference to believers sitting (kaqh?sqai) during a
meeting. Although it is difficult to establish
that it was necessary for some (or all) to
have done so during the meal, the large number of
people may have necessitated the
posture.
28 Theissen, Social
Setting, 151-53.
29 G. Bornkamm,
Early Christian Experience (New
Testament Library;
SCM,
1969) 127-28, 142; P. Neuenzeit, Das Herrenmahl: Studien
zur paulinischen
Eucharistieauffassung (SANT 1; Munich: Kosel, 1960) 71-72.
30 Bomkamm,
Early Christian Experience, 129; cf.
I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and
Lord's Supper (Didsbury
Lectures, 1980; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 111.
230
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
is the meal which the individual Christians bring
and that because
others have no i@dion
dei?pnon not all contributed to the Lord's Supper
(or, following Bornkamm et al., to
the common meal) but that the
wealthier
Christians provided, for all e]k tw?n i]di<wn
(i.e., “from their
own).31 Apparently, then, Paul’s advice
would be something like this:
the wealthier Christians who arrive early should
not begin eating a
private meal which precedes the communal meal
but should wait and
thereby have more to contribute to those who
have nothing. If the
wealthy are insistent on gorging themselves,
they should do so at
home (in a private meal) but not at the Lord's
Supper.32 Theissen's in-
terpretation is not avant-garde.
Other scholars have offered a similar
interpretation of this passage. To his
credit, Theissen, unlike the ma-
jority of other commentators,
has reconstructed a milieu which would
explain the problem envisaged in 11:17-34.
B. Winter has offered an alternative
reconstruction which, when
considered in light of epigraphic evidence from
fying. According to Winter, prolamba<nw
is not a reference to the con-
sumption of food by some prior
to the arrival of others. Rather, he
submits, during the communal meal (which he
takes to be part of the
Eucharist)
certain Corinthians were "devouring" (prolamba<nw) their
own private meal while the latter were lacking (mh> e@xontej).33 Winter's
proposal that prolamba<nw
carries this overtone (and does not retain the
temporal sense) is supported by Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (3d
ed.) 1170 (in which the context is a meal scene in
the
pius at
found three times: turo>n
kai> a@rton prolabei?n ("eating cheese and
bread,"
meta>
me<litoj prolambei?n ("eating
honey-milk," 1.15). The fact that in each
case the verb carries the idea "to eat" is
seen in the editors' suggestion
that prolamba<nw
should be read proslamba<nw.34 In this
respect, both in
SIG31170
and 1 Corinthians 11, the temporal force of the prefix pro<- is
31 Theissen, Social
Setting, 148. According to his scenario, the fact that some Chris-
tians can afford to have a
private meal before the communal meal to which they con-
tribute substantially is further confirmation of
the wealth which some of the
Corinthians
possessed.
32 Theissen
envisages either a modest common meal or perhaps the simple ele-
ments of bread and wine (cf. Social Setting, 161).
33 B. W. Winter,
"The Lord's Supper at
Reformed Theological
Review
37 (1978) 73-82. Others have taken note of Winter's
con-
tribution (cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 542; G. C. Nicholson,
"Houses for Hospitality: 1 Cor
11:17-34," Colloquium 19 [1986] 1-6).
34 As Winter indicates,
there is weak textual attestation for proslamba<nw in 1 Cor
11:21
(cf. Acts 27:33, where "eating" is clearly the meaning).
Bradley B. Blue: THE
lost.35 Furthermore, given the
severity of the problem at
possible that pro<- is affixed to
strengthen the meaning of the verb.36
This unacceptable behavior takes
place e]n t&? fagei?n, that is, during
the meal/supper.37 By way of contrast,
Paul gives the injunction a]llh<-
louj
e]kde<xesqe, that is, receive one
another in the sense of sharing.38
From the vantage of the text itself,
the greatest strength to Win-
ter's proposal is the
appropriateness of the corrective with respect to
the indictment. It makes little sense to render a]llh<louj
e]kde<xesqe as
"wait for one another,"39 even if the
indictment was that some were
arriving early. How would this alleviate the
problem that there were
those who had nothing? Rather, if the contrast is
between those who
devour and Paul's exhortation to share, the passage is
intelligible.
In
addition, there are other merits to Winter's argument
and evi-
dence which supports his
reconstruction which has largely gone un-
noticed. We will begin our discussion with the
question: who are the
have nots? In turn, we
will ask: what is it they lack and why?
Commensality and Social Classes
Commensality was of central concern
in the establishing of the
early church. The conflicts in the early church
included what groups
35 This is brought
forward in J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of
the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other
Non-Literary Sources
(London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1930; repro Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 542, and
New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (2d ed.;
36 See Winter,
"Lord's Supper," 76 for examples.
37 The aorist articular infinitive connotes that it was during the meal
that each ate
his own.
38 Winter,
"Lord's Supper," 79-80. Barrett suggests that Paul instructs them to
wait
for proper distribution (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Black's New Testament
Commentaries;
2d ed.;
Theissen is close to this when he writes:
"At home everybody may eat and drink in
whatever way seems proper. . . . Within their own
four walls they are to behave accord-
ing to the norms of their
social class, while at the Lord's Supper the norms of the con-
gregation have absolute priority.
Clearly this is a compromise. It would be much more
consistent with the idea of community to demand
that this 'private meal' be shared.
Paul's
compromise, which simply acknowledges the class-specific differences within
the community while minimizing their
manifestations, corresponds to the realities of a
socially stratified congregation which must yield
a certain preeminence to the rich-
even contrary to their own intentions," Social Setting, 164.
39 See, for example, Bornkamm, Early
Christian Experience, 126; S. C. Barton,
"Paul's
Sense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community Formation in
Paul's Corinth, 161, and the majority
of commentators.
232
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
could eat together and what sorts of food were
acceptable (cf. Gala-
tians 2; Acts 15). In 1 Cor 11:17-34, the issue is appropriate eating hab-
its at the Lord's Supper (including the common
meal) between social
classes. The problem which Paul addresses in
this pericope is not so
much who can and cannot eat together, nor what sorts
of food are ac-
ceptable (1 Corinthians 8).
Rather, assuming that gathering of Jews
and Gentiles had been established, it seems that
further problems
have developed. In this instance, the social
stratification at
evoked certain problems at the communal meal. The
wealthy, as
Bornkamm writes:
could
confidently spend the time eating and drinking in table fellowship
with
family, friends and peers. Everyone can imagine the very understand-
able
reasons which may have played the role there: the very human ten-
dency to a sociability among one's own; antipathy for
the embarrassment
that comes
when rich and poor, free and slave, sit bodily at one table-real
table
fellowship is something quite different from charity at a distance; the
worry that
the "atmosphere" for receiving the sacrament may be spoiled by
such an
embarrassing rubbing of elbows with the poor.40
S. Barton furthers Bornkamm's thesis.41 He proposes that there
were some members of the Christian community who
consciously
wanted to impose the patterns of private practice on
the church. Since
the church met in the house, it would have been
natural, he argues, to
collapse the boundaries (which were already thin
by the very defini-
tion of church-in-house) so
that the eating patterns and practices in
the house church would be the same as in the
confines of one's own
domus (which in some cases
would have been the same house!).
While this reconstruction is at
first glance attractive, we must
raise two objections. First, it seems questionable to
assume that such a
basic question as "whether or not all the
believers should partake in
the common meal together (especially if it was an
integral part of the
sacrament)?" would not have been addressed by
Paul during his
lengthy visit at
pattern of practice for the gathering community
at
larly a pattern for something
as important as the Lord's Supper
(including the communal meal). After all, he was there for some
18
months, and the issue of commensality had impressed
itself from the
start. Paul would have addressed the issue of the
"rubbing of
elbows.”42
40 Bornkamm,
Early Christian Experience, 128.
41
Barton, "Paul's Sense of Place," 235-36.
42 This is not to say
that all the issues concerning food (e.g., what sorts-1 Corin-
thians 8) or the distribution
thereof (see below) had been answered. Rather, the funda-
Bradley B. Blue: THE
Furthermore, to equate mh> e@xontej ("those who
lack") with the
slaves or even freedmen who fell under the auspices of
a householder
is a misnomer. As E. A. Judge has observed:
"the dependent members
of city households were by no means the most
debased section of so-
ciety. If lacking freedom,
they still enjoyed security, and a moderate
prosperity."43 This prompts us to
ask two questions: 1. "If the slaves and
freedmen who had the social security of a
household are not the ones
who are lacking, to whom is Paul referring?"
and 2. "What recent de-
velopment at
11:17-34,
which seems to be a new problem not addressed previously?"
Social Class: Security
and Insecurity
We propose that those who are
lacking the material substance for
the meal and the houses of plenty are those who do
not fall into the
net of a secure household. (And, most obviously,
they are not the
householders). That is, there is a
broad division between the "inse-
cure" (i.e., those who are not financially solvent
or do not fall under
the security of a patron/ess's
economic umbrella) and the "secure" (i.e.,
those who are financially solvent or, despite
insignificant status, find
security under the covering-especially during the
frequent storms).
Tacitus, for example, describes certain people
as those who were "at-
tached to the great
houses" ("magnis domibus adnexa," Histories
1.4).
Unlike the patron/ess and the household dependents, the non-
slave labor did not enjoy the security of the
"house." Under favorable
economic conditions the nonslave
laborers prospered; however, when
the economy was threatened, they were the first
affected and, effec-
tively, the worst off. Since
the "majority of the population living under
Roman
rule worked the land and were directly dependent on it for
their livelihood"44 and the nonslave (free workers) were employed by
landowners only as they were needed "by informal,
regular arrange-
ments with neighbouring farmers and contractors of labour,
not
through the mechanism of an extensive labour market,"45 any crop
mental axiom of the Christian message would have
brought people from different reli-
and socioeconomic backgrounds together at the table
and would have been of
central importance in the teachings of Paul at
43 Judge, Social Pattern, 60; cf. S. S. Bartchy, MALLON XRHSAI: First-Century
very and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 (SBLDS 11;
J.973).
We should not altogether exclude the possibility that
there were slaves present
at the meal whose masters were not Christians and,
therefore, not present to provide
for them.
44 P. Garnsey,
"Non-Slave Labour in the Roman World," Non-Slave Labour
in the
Greco-Roman World (ed. P. Garnsey;
45 Garnsey,
"Non-Slave Labour," 43.
234
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
failure would have been doubly disastrous. On
the one hand, the free
laborers would be the first to be without
employment, and, on the
other hand, they would be without the financial
resources to afford
the expensive staples (imported or otherwise) and
would not have the
security of a "household" to fall back
upon.46 In his recent book Fam-
ine and Food Supply, P. Garnsey submits:
The claim of wage-laborers to the
product of the land was obviously the
weakest,
and they were particularly vulnerable in times of food shortage
when demand
slumped and wages fell. In comparison with wage-
laborers, tenant
farmers had greater access to the resources of the land-
lord, who
might feel obliged to guarantee their subsistence, at least until
the crop
was harvested.47
Like the tenant farmer, the slave
would enjoy a certain security as
would the freedman who through manumission had
received freedom
but had decided to remain under the auspices of the
householder. In
such a case, the master-turned-patron would have
exercised substantial
control and would have been obligated to provide
the necessary staples
of life. The libertini orcini (including the wage laborers), on
the other
hand, could not always be assured of such security.48
This classification
of people (nonslave
labor) was by no means small, making a shortage
of food an immediate problem which could result in
a riot.
If we are correct that the
"have nots" at
who belonged to this group of people, the logical
question which must
be asked is "Do we have evidence for an event
which would have
affected the economy at
but rather without?"
A Famine at
The bench mark
for confirming whether a famine had threatened
an area in the Greco-Roman world was the
appointment of a curator
46 Of course the
independence of the nonslave was precarious and is
precisely
why the number of slaves increased and the number
of independents decreased (cf.
Garnsey, "Non-Slave Labour,"
43).
47 P. Garnsey,
Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to
Risk and Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988) 45.
48 Of course it is
possible, as Garnsey suggests, to "envision a class of freedmen
with living patrons, who might have been kept in
tow, but were in practice given a con-
siderable measure of freedom, . .
." "Non-Slave Labour," 45; cf. Judge, Social Pattern, 31.
These
"have nots" could have "appealed to
the Haves to play patron" in which case the
relationship with the patron would
have been based on deference. "He in turn was
granted the right to command" (MacMullen, Roman
Social Relations, 123-24). The only
other safety net was the generosity of others:
"Smallholders who were also a valued
source of seasonal labour on
a large estate were perhaps better cushioned against disas-
ter, if they could accept their
neighbouis aid without falling into debt and depen-
dence," Garnsey, Famine and
Food Supply, 45-46.
Bradley
B. Blue: THE
to cope with the actual or potential threat to the
populace. The office of
"curator of the grain supply" (curator annonae) was crucial in the an-
cient world during severe
shortages.49 "In
ratores annonae were probably not
annually elected officers. Instead
they seem to have been appointed in times of
threatened or actual
famine, and often, . . . the office fell upon men of
wealth who used
their private resources for the relief of the
city."50 This phenomenon
of appointing a wealthy patron in time of crisis
was not rare. As S. C.
Humphreys
has recently observed: "In many cities the concepts of po-
litical office and of liturgy .
. . had completely merged."51
The epigraphic evidence from
ous occasions it was
necessary to appoint men to the office of curator
annonae in order to alleviate
the tension precipitated by a potential
or actual shortage and, thereby, dispel potential
unrest. In the 1st cen-
tury A.D. a wealthy
benefactor by the name Tiberius Claudius Dinip-
pus held the office of curator annonae no fewer than three times
at
Corinth.52
In addition to the many other offices he held at
was also agonothete Neroneon. What is most striking for our study is
the dating of the inscriptions.
49 For the most recent
treatment of famine in the ancient world see: P. Garnsey,
Famine and Food Supply; P. Garnsey
and C. R. Whittaker, ed., Trade and
Famine in
Classical Antiquity (
bridge Philological Society, 1983). It was, of course,
common for the government to reg-
ularly distribute grain
(usually monthly), cf. Garnsey and Sailer, The Roman
Empire,
83-88.
On the grain supply of
nity had a common purse and
other mechanisms to attend to the needy, the poorer in
their midst still received the dole, cf. M.
Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule.
From
Pompey to Diocletian. A Study in Political Relations (Studies in Judaism in
Late Antiq-
uity 20; 2d ed.;
50 A.
B. West, ed.,
School of Classical
Studies at
(Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1931) 73; cf. Wiseman, "
499.
51 S C. Humphreys,
"Public and Private Interests in Classical
Journal 73 (1978) 98.
52 The significance of
the Dinippus inscriptions has recently been brought
to my
attention by B. Winter. His own assessment of the
significance of the material appears
as "Secular and Christian Responses to
Corinthian Famines," Tyndale Bulletin
40 (1989)
86-106.
For the Dinippus inscriptions see West,
and J. H. Kent,
Classical Studies at
The
*No.
158 = "[Members of the tribe -------] (erected this monument) to Tiberius
Claudius
Dinippus, [son of Publius,
of the tribe Fabia], who was duovir,
[duovir quinquennalis],
augur, priest of Britannic Victory, [military tribune
of Legion VI] Hispanensis, chief en-
gineer, curator of the grain
supply three times, [agonothetes] of the Neronea [
and the Isthmian and Caesarean games]." The
fact that Dinippus received the highest
236
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
A B. West has suggested that Dinippus' presidency of Neronea
likely the celebration of A.D. 55. Furthermore, he
places the quinquen-
nalic duovirate (the highest magistracy
of the colony) in the year A.D.
52/53.53
Most importantly, it is probable that Dinippus was curator
annonae at the time of the
severe famine during the reign of Claudius
which, most probably, can be dated in the year A.D.
51.54 "That Dinip-
pus' service was rendered during this time is not
at all improbable,
and for the next few years
oring him. Thus it is not
strange to find him presiding over the next
Isthmian celebration, the first of Nero's
reign."55 J. Wiseman also dates
Dinippus' curatorship
to the severe famine during the year in which
Gallio was governor of
then it would have occurred shortly after Paul's
departure in A.D. 51.
We find corroborating evidence for a
famine in Paul's response to
the Corinthians' queries in 1 Corinthians. The
issues addressed in
1
Corinthians 7 (i:e.,
matrimonial status and procreation) are certainly
symptomatic of eschatological events57
and, without question, the
trauma surrounding a (potential) famine would have
precipitated
honor that the city could bestow (agonothes)
suggests considerable wealth and benefac-
tion (cf. Wiseman, “
Boulagoras of Samos also
was a wealthy benefactor who was appointed three times as
the corn supply commissioner of his city (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 366,
cited in A R Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (Aspects of Greek
and Roman Life;
Food Supply, 14-15).
53
West,
74-75.
54
West,
55
West,
56
Wiseman, “
office is from spring to spring, A.D. 51-52, cf.
Wiseman, “
Murphy-O'Connor,
Time:
What Can Archaeology Tell Us?" Biblical Archaeology Review 15 (1988) 19.
57 That is, should a man
have sexual intercourse with his wife? See the evidence
collected by G. O. Fee, “1 Corinthians in the
NIV," JETS 23 (1980) 307-14; cf.
idem, First
Corinthians,
275, as well as the additional material in Winter, “Corinthian
Famines,"
94, n. 43. Herein lies the insight into the text
which is gained by a detailed study of at-
tendant circumstances. On this
score, Winter has been able to provide (what is in our
opinion) a satisfactory explanation of the
impetus behind the questions raised by the
Corinthians
in addition to providing the background to serious problems (e.g., at the
table). Given the recent famine which would have been
interpreted as an eschatological
event (cf. Mark 13:3-37), Fee is surely correct when
he renders a]na<gka (1 Cor
7:26) as a
present reality (First Corinthians, 328-29; cf.
Winter, “Corinthian Famines," 93). With-
out question, famine at
1 Clem. 56:9).
Bradley B. Blue: THE
su,ch anxiety.58
Given all these indicators, it is most likely that the is-
sues which Paul addresses in view of the present
distress (dia>
th>n
e]nestw?san
a]na<gkhn, v 26) have arisen on
account of the recent famine.
Once Again: Paul's
Response
If this historical reconstruction is
accurate, then the problems al-
luded to in 1 Cor 11:17-34 can be explained in light of the recent de-
velopment, i.e., the famine. That
this was indeed the cause of the
problem is the most likely given the
alternatives. In a time when fam-
ine threatened the
populace, the householders as well as the slaves
and freedmen who fell under their auspices would
have had
sufficient food and drink.59 Therefore,
as in Theissen's (and others')
interpretation, the injunction to
"wait for one another" makes little
sense. The alternative, "share with one
another" (as over against "de-
vouring your own meal"), however, befits
the problem: those who
have the security of ample food during a difficult
period such as a
famine should share with those who could have
otherwise contrib-
uted to the common meal
according to their means.60 This is precisely
the principle invoked in later tradition (from
which also knows of famine (56:9).
Without undue embellishment, this
interpretation could be help-
ful in understanding what
Paul is alluding to when he writes, "about
the other matters, I will provide directions when I
come" (ta>
de> loipa>
w[j
a}n e@lqw diata<comai,
11:34b). Assuming that he had dealt with the is-
sue of commensality Jewish and Gentile) during his
lengthy stay at
ing which (some of) the
Corinthians sought his advice. From our histor-
ical reconstruction we
demonstrated that there was a famine at
shortly after Paul's departure and a curator was
appointed to establish
the mechanism by which the potential unrest could
be quenched and
the populace assured that food would be distributed
to the needy. Iron-
ically, it would seem, this
spirit of benefaction at
when the believers gathered for the Lord's Supper.
To this end, Paul
instructs them to share. It is consonant, then, to
suggest that Paul would
have addressed the issue of (regular) distribution
of food to those who
58 Winter,
"Corinthian Famines," 93.
59 Garnsey
argues that "euergetism [public generosity of
the wealthy]. . . was an
institution devised by the rich in their own
interests. As the grain stocks of the commu-
nity were in their barns,
they could time their release to suit themselves; that is why
the same class produced euergetists
and profiteers," Famine and Food
Supply, 272.
60 Bornkamm,
Early Christian Experience, 128; E.
von Dobschutz, Christian
Life
in the
238
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
were in need. This is precisely his recommendation
during the gather-
ing of the believers.
The Corinthians who were evidently
not willing to display gen-
erosity during the gathering
might have argued that the mechanisms
for distribution of the needed staples were well
established and con-
firmed by the appointment of a curator.61
If the needy were lacking
(daily or otherwise), provisions could be obtained through
the govern-
mental channels. Perhaps Paul's response concerning
these matters
(ta>
loipa<) was too involved and required his presence
rather than his
words. It may very well be that he would have
established an alterna-
tive mechanism within the
church to ensure that the economically
disadvantaged were taken care of by
the church and not the city. To
be sure, similar mechanisms were already at work
in Judaism.62
Summary
The central importance of the Lord's
Supper and the common meal
in the early church established the
incontrovertible necessity of house
gatherings. The radical implications of the gospel
message necessitated
cultural and religious disestablishment which
could only be manifest at
61 Winter,
"Corinthian Famines," 102-3.
62 The recently published
inscription from Aphrodisias (in Caria-140 km/87 mi.
east of
ing God-fearers)
contributed to programs within that community, in this case a commu-
nity soup kitchen (pa<tella).
The raison d'etre
for the erection is given as: ei]j a]penqhsi<an
t&?
plh<qi e@ktisa[n], translated as:
"erected for the relief of suffering in the commu-
nity. . ." or,
alternatively: "erected for the alleviation of grief in the
community." This
would correspond to the Hebrew yzHmt (found both in the Mishna, Tosephta, and both
Talmudim as the name of a charitable institution;
cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First
Centuries of the
Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim [3 vols.;
vard University Press,
1927-1930] 2.176-77, and E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish
People in the Age of
Jesus Christ
[ed. and rev. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M.
Goodman;
4 vols.;
was organized in Jewish communities and was
required by Mishnaic law "for the daily
collection. . . and distribution of cooked food
gratis to the poor and vagrant" (Jews
and
God-fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary [Cambridge Philo-
logical Society Supplement 12;
date the inscription from the 3d century AD.
(19-22). The discovery was reported by
K T. Erim in AJA 81 (1977) 306, and Assyriological Studies 27 (1977) 31. Reynolds and
Tannenbaum conjecture that, although the literary
sources are later than the NT
period, the reference to the h[
diakoni<a h[ kaqhmeinh< (the daily service/distribution)
in
Acts
6:1 might indicate a daily distribution of food to widows (and perhaps others
in
need) by the early Christian community of
ied from a Jewish community
institution such as the one found at Aphrodisias. If
this is
indeed the case, it is conceivable that such charities
were extant in
thirties of the 1st century AD.
Bradley B. Blue: THE
the "table," The boundaries which defined
Judaism as a race and reli-
gion were drawn at the
table; therefore, the desegregation of the Chris-
tian message had for its
appropriate setting the table, Similarly, the
boundaries which defined social and economic
classes were forcefully
exposed at a meal. It was uncommon for different
classes to eat together:
"The
interests brought together in this way probably marked the Chris-
tians off from other
unofficial associations, which were generally so-
cially and economically as
homogeneous as possible".63
In the case of the meals at
though the Christians tolerated existing mores: in the
case of a food
shortage the appointment of a curator would
hopefully lessen the dis-
crepancy. Paul, however, seems
dissatisfied with the existing scheme.
The
only way in which the Christians can become the body is to eat
of one body, together, This meant sharing,
particularly in the context
of a Christian gathering, Love for one another
must be manifest above
all when a meal was shared, and the significance of
the bread and cup
must displace former conceptions which tolerated
inequality and un-
even distribution,64
63 Judge,
Social Pattern, 60.
64 In this respect, Klauck's claim that, in part, "Die Hausgemeinde
war. . . .Ernst-
fall der christlichen Bruderlichkeitn is
on target (Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche,
101-2), although he does not use the expression
in this particular context.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: