-~ ~-
THE HOUSE CHURCH AT CORINTH
AND THE LORD'S SUPPER:
FAMINE, FOOD SUPPLY, AND
THE PRESENT DISTRESS *
BRADLEY B. BLUE
King College
Bristol, TN 37620
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 comple~es 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 w~re already present.
And in the nondomestic setting, facilities were sometimes introduced:
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; Minneapolis: Fortress, forthcoming) and A T. Kraabel, "The Diaspora
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 Hopkins, 1990) 60-111 and B. B. Blue, In Public
and In Private: The Role of the House Church in Early Christianity (IVP, forthcoming).
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,
Criswell Theological Review 5.2 (1991) 221-239
222 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
food and meals are prominent features in various associations and
religious/cui tic groups.S 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 Corinth and elsewhere,5 the papyri attest to
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 Delos records the dedication (on
a column) of a temple to Sarapis by Apollonius II! 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, Harvard Divinity School, 1980).
3 A catalogue of material has been assembled by H.-J. Klauck in his 1980 disserta-
tion (Catholic Theological Faculty, Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich). This
was later published as Hen-enmahl und hellenistischer Kult. Eine religionsgeschichtli-
che Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief (NTAbh [NF] 15; Munster: Aschendorff,
1981). A second edition appeared in 1982.
4 Philostratus, for example, writes that Ptolemy of Naucratis had a brilliant repu-
tation among the sophists: uFor he was one of those who were admitted to dine at the
public expense in the temple of Naucratis, an honour paid to few of her citizens" (Lives
of the Sophists 595 [LCL Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PresslLondon: William
Heinemann, 1968]). Like other public buildings, the banqueting halls (in the temples)
were donated by benefactors. See for example the banquet hall in the temple of Arte-
mis at Ephesus which was part of a gift from Damianus (the sophist), dedicated to him-
self (Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 605).
5 A good example can be seen in the sanctuary of Asclepius at Corinth. The pre-
cincts included dining rooms beneath the Abaton which accommodated meals G. Wise-
man, uCorinth and Rome: 228 B.C.-A.D. 267," Aufstieg und Niedergang der ramischen
Welt 2.7.1 (1979] 487, 510; cf. J. Murphy-o'Connor, St Paul's Corinth. Texts and Archae-
ology (Good News Studies 6; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1983) 161-67, figs. 9 and ~o.
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 uInvitations 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, UBanquets 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) ?91-402.
7 The report appeared in full in 1975: H. Engelmann, The Delian Aretalogy of Sa-
Tapis (Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire romain 44; Leiden: E. J.
,- -~
Bradley B. Blue: THE HOUSE CHURCH AT CORINTH 223
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" (BV ~tO"ero't"o'i:~). 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 pa~ are full of invi-
tations to a dinner at the table of the lord Sarapis. 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:1 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; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1986) 38-39. J. E. Stambaugh has provided a good overview of the history
and development of this cult group in his The Sarapis under the Early Ptolemies
(Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire romain 25; Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1972).
8 P. Oxy 110 (2d century A.D.): Invitation to a dinner at the table of the lord Sarapis
in the Sarapeion (&tnvfjaat tiC; lCA&ivTJv 'toG lCupiou 1:apamooc; BV 'tcp 1:apantiq». KA&ivTJv
appears to be a technical term (roughly equivalent to iEpco~a in the Isis cult, cf.P. Fouad
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 temple of Demeter.
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 friihen 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; Leipzig: St. Benno, 1985) 144-213. We will refer to the earlier SBS
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 i
the house of Claudius Sarapion (Ottnvfja(at) nap' au 'tOOt tiC; ICAtivTJv 'toG lCupiou 1:apamooc;
IBV 'toiC; KAauo[iou] 1:apamco( voc;]. ..).
~
.~
224 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
house12 (converted or otherwise)!3 A house may be envisioned in the
Delian Aretalogy (i.e., rented quarters-ev Iltcrt)(1)'to"i<;). 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!4
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 Corinth. Our task
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 (6Et7tV1'Io[at] Ei<; ICAEivTlv 'toB ICupiou 1:[a-
.pam6o<;] EV 't1l i6icp oilCi~ ...).
.P. Yale 85 (2d century A.D.F Invitation (from Dionysios) to dine on the 21st at the kline
of Helios, great Sera pis, at the Ninth hour, in the house of his father (6Et7tV1'lOa\ 'tllICa Ei<;
ICAEivTlv 'HAiou ~E'Yawu 1:apam6o<; ...7ta'tp\IC1'I\ r.au'toB oilCi~).
.A fourth possibility is in P. Oxy 1755 (second or early 3d century A.D.F Invitation to din-
ner at the table of the lord Sarapis in the house of Sarapion ('Epro.~ OE Amrov 6Et7tV1'lOat
EV 'tcp 01ICq1 'toB 1:apa7tEiou Ei<; ICAEivTlv 'tou ICupiou 1:apa7tt6o<;.. .). As Grenfell et al., com-
ment: "It is not clear whether the 01ICO<; was ApioD's [the host's] own house, in which
case Em may be supplied before 'toB 1:apa7tEiou, or was a part of the temple itself; cf. EV
'tcp 1:apa7tEiq1 in [Po Oxy.1110.3." Similar invitations to religious banquets in private homes
could be included at this point, e.g., for the devotees of Isis in P. Fouad 76 (2d century
A.D.F Invitation (from Sarapous) to a dinner in his house (6E\7tV1'lOat Ei<; t£prol!a 't1'l<; ICupia<;
.10"1.60<; EV 't1l oilCi~).
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: Westminster, 1986) 43.
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-
rape ion 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 Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 155-63; Murphy-o'Connor,
St. Paul's Corinth, 101, 161-67.
C"~c.-.~~~---'~ " ~-- -
Bradley B. Blue: THE HOUSE CHURCH AT CORINTH 225
the Christians partook of a common meal15 in the house. 3. Given the
at Corinth, the i.mportance of meals taken in a religious context
his lengthy stay at Corinth (18 months),16 Paul would have cer-
tainly addressed the question of proper procedure and protocol at the
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
Gaptatio 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 Corinth
which affected the Christian gathering and, in particular, the meal.
The Language of Gathering
The vivid language of ~thering in 1 Cor 11:17-34 includes the
use of auvEPxo~at 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
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 stipper-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 Corinth, 139-40). So too M. Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Ear-
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 [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 40; cf. G. LUdemann, Paul,
Apostle to the Gentiles. Studies in Chronology [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 2 and
C. Herner, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History [WUNT 49; TUbingen:
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989] 255-56). Most recently, see J. McRay (Archaeology and
the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, forthcoming] who dates the tribunal episode
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; Grand Rapids: Eerd-
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.
.I
--
I
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 (OUK EiC; 'to KpEtcrcrov aAAil EiC; 'to '!lcrcrov cruvEPXEcrf)E; "when you
come together it is not for the better but for the worse"). Apparently
the abuse was sufficiently abhorrent that the divisions (crxicrJ,la'ta, v 18)
and factions (aipEcrE1C;, 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. KuplaKov OEt1tVOV ("the Lord's supper") with 'to 'tOlOV OEt1tVOV ("one's
own meal"), and 3. EXOV'tEC; ("those who have") with J,lT1 EXOV'tEC; ("those
who do not have").
(18) 1tpro.ov j!f.V yap rocr.£, l1o£A.<poi j!OU, (33)
For, to begin with, So then, my brothers and sisters
cruv£Pxoj!&vrov uj!rov EV EKKA.T]cri~ 1
when you come together as the church
I1KOUro crxicrj!a.a EV uj!lv U1taPX£lV
I hear that there are divisions among you
(20) cruv£Pxoj!&vrov oOv uj!rov E1ti .0 au.o cruv£PX°J!£VOl £1C; .0 <paY£lv
when you come together when you come together to eat
OUK £cr.1V KuplaKOV O£l1tVOV <paY£lv.
it is not to eat the Lord's supper
(21) £Kacr.oc; yap .0 tOl0V &l1tVOV 1tpoA.aJ!~av£l 2 dllf1A.ouC; EKO&X£cr9£
EV.cp <paY£1v,
when you eat, each of you goes ahead share with one another
with your own supper
Kai OC; J!f.V 1t£1.vl} OC; of. J!£9I)£1 £t nc; 1t£1.vl}, (34)
and one goes hungry and another becomes if anyone is hungry
drunk
(22) j!TJ yap olKiac; OUK £X£.£ 3 EV OtKcp
do you not have houses at home
£1C; .0 Ecr6i£lV Kai mV£lV; Ecr91&.ro,
to eat and drink in? eat
fI .ftC; EKKA.llcriac; .ou 9£ou Ka.a<ppov£l.£ '{va j!TJ £1C; KpiJ!a cruv&pXllcr9£
Or do you show contempt for the church so that when you come together,
of God it will not be for your condemnation
w
Kal Ka.alcrxuv£.£ .OUC; lIT] £xov.ac;;
and humiliate those who have nothing?
"House'.' as Residence and Church: (Re-)Defining Boundaries
The first pair contrasts the olKoc;/oiKia (house) and the BKKAllcri~
("church," i.e., "the meeting in the 'house"'). Paul describes the latter
as: OUVEPXOJ,lEVroV UJ,lrov BV BKKAllcri~ (assembling as a church, v 18),
cruvEPXOJ,lEVroV oov UJ,lrov B1tt 'to au'to (assembling as the community,
Bradley B. Blue: THE HOUSE CHURCH AT CORINTH 227
v 20)21 and aUVEPX°J.lEVOt Ei<; 'to q>aYEiv (assembling to eat, v 33). Here,
Paul's emphasis is on defining what is appropriate and inappropriate
when the various house churches (li Ka't' olKov EKKA1laia) gather in
one house:22 behavior which may be acceptable in the house (olKO<;/
oiKia, vv 22, 34) is not appropriate for the "church" (EKKA1laia) 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., olKo<;/oiKia, 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 (0<; ~8V 1tEtvc:i 0<; 88 J.lE6UEt); some
have houses, others have nothing (oiKia<; EXOV'tE<;, J.lTJ EXOV'tE<;). 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 (eX1 '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 [London: United
Bible Societies, 1971]305). This rendering is supported by M; Wilcox (The Semitisms of
Acts [Oxford: Clarendon, 1965] 95); however, Wilcox seems to allow that it may mean "in
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 Qumran idiom
,"', nT'i1'; cf. M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3d ed.; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1967) 10-11 and E. Ferguson, "When You Come Together: Epi to Auto in
Early Christian Literature," Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973) 202-8.
22 The construction 1'] ICa't' OtICOV EICICA."aia, '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; Col 4:15. Like the phrase EX1 'to au'to this phrase denotes a gath-
ering in the confines of a private house. The construction EICICA."oia OA.TJ depicts the gath-
ering of the believers in one house. At Corinth, Gaius was one such host (Rom 16:23).
23 It may very well be that the behavior which Paul relegates to the OtICO~ 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 OtICo~ 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 fonner 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 Ostia and Rome," IRS 57 (1967) 80-95; R
MacMullen, Roman Social Relations: 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1974) 62-63; Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome (New Haven: Yale Univer-
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 Roman Empire:
Economy, Society and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) and J. E.
Stambaugh, The Ancient Roman City (Ancient Society and History; BaltimorelLondon:
Johns Hopkins, 1988).
25 G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth
(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.). Furthennore, 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 reli&ous 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; New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 274-75, and K. Hopkins, Death and
Renewal (Sociological Studies in Roman History 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University
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 Philadelphia (in Lydia).
This house cult has been discussed in S. C. Barton and G. H. R Horsley, "A Hellenistic
Cult Group and the New Testament Churches," lAC 24 (1981) 7-41; cf. Sylloge Inscrip-
tionum GrlEcarum (3d ed.; ed. W. Dittenberger) 985,
26 Theissen, Social Setting, 153-63. "Differences in menu are a rel!itively 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., !60.
Bradley B. Blue: THE HOUSE CHURCH AT CoRINTH 229
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 sit27
The Communal Meal and Private Meals
Given the discrepancy in the social makeup of the Corinthian
community, Theissen interprets npOAQ/.l!3avro 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 ceI)tury. 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 ecntire Lord's Supper illusory.SO
Although Theissen does not deal with the corrective given by
Paul (dAAtlAOUC; f.KOeXEcr9E, see below), he suggests that the 'iOlOV OElnvov
27 Murphy-o'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth, 159; cf. L Morris, The First Epistle of
Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries; rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 157. In the Greek and Roman
contexts only free citizens (including women during our period) reclined. To be sure,
"the use of this custom promoted a consciousness of social rankingn (Smith, "Meals and
Morality," 321). In 14:30 we have a reference to believers sitting (ICa9fja9at) 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. Bomkamm, Early Christian Experience (New Testament Library; London:
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) Ill.
230 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
is the meal which the individual Christians bring and that because
others have no i8l0V 8£invov not all contributed to the Lord's Supper
(or, following Bornkamm et al., to the common meal) but that the
wea~t~~er Christians provided, for a!l f.K trov i8irov (i.e., ."fro~ their
own). 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 Corinth, is more satis-
fying. According to Winter, npOAaJ.lf3avro 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" (npOAaJ.lf3avro) their
own private meal while the latter were lacking (J.lTl £xov't£<;).33 Winter's
proposal that npOAaJ.lf3avro carries this overtone (and does not retain the
temporal sense) is supported by Sylloge Inscriptionum GrlEcarum (3d
ed.) 1170 (in which the context is a meal scene in the temple of Ascle-
pius at Epidaurus, 2d century A.D.). In the inscription, npOAaJ.lf3avro is
found three times: 'tUpov Kat «p'tov npoAaf3£iv ("eating cheese and
bread," I. 7); Kl'tpiou npOAaJ.lf3av£lv ("eating of the citron," II. 9-10); yaAa
J.l£'tcI J.lEAl'to<; npoAaJ.lf3£iv ("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 npOAaJ.lf3avro should be read npoCJAaJ.lf3avro.34 In this respect, both in
SIG31170 and 1 Corinthians 11, the temporal force of the prefix np6- 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 Corinth: An Alternative Reconstruction,"
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 1tpoaAa~l3aV(J) in 1 Cor
11:21 (cf. Acts 27:33, where "eating" is clearly the meaning).
~~~~,~~-~, ~~ -"~~=~~===~c=c=cccvvc===~~-'"C~ ~
Bradley B. Blue: THE HOUSE CHURCH AT CORINTH 231
lost.35 Furthermore, given the severity of the problem at Corinth, it is
possible that 1tp6- is affixed to strengthen the meaning of the verb.36
This unacce~table behavior takes place f.V 'tcp <paY£lV, that is, during
the meal/supper. 7 By way of contrast, Paul gives the injunction aAAll-
AoUC; f.KoiX£cr9£, 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 aAAllAoUC; f.Koix£cr9£ 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
W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2d ed.; Chicago: University of
Chica~o, 1979) 708.
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.; London: A. & C. Black, 1971] 276; cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 568).
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
Corinth," NTS 32 (1986) 241; Smith, "Meals and Morality," 327; Murphy-o'Connor, St.
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 Corinth
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 Corinth. To be sure, Paul must have established a
pattern of practice for the gathering community at Corinth, particu-
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 HOUSE CHURCH AT CoRINTH 233
Furthernlore, to equate ~i] EXOV'tEC; ("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 Corinth precipitated the abuse which Paul addresses in
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 stOrnls).
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
ihe 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 infornlal, regular arrange-
ments with neighbouring farnlers 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
~entral importance in the teachings of Paul at Corinth (cf. 11:2).
43 Judge, Social Pattern, 60; cf. S. S. Bartchy, MAAAON XPHL'A/: First-Century Sla-
~ry and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 (SBLDS 11; Missoula, MT: Scholars,
J.973). We should not altogether exclude the possibility that there were slaves present
~t 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; Cambridge Philological Society Supplement 6;
Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1980) 34-35.
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 shortag~
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 obl~ed to guarantee their subsistence, at least until
the crop was harvested.4
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 (nons lave 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 Corinth were believers
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 Corinth so that this group was not prospering
but rather without?"
A Famine at Corinth
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 GriEco-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.