The Crucified Christ as Lord of the Church
Theological Reflections on 1 Corinthians 11-14

In Memory of Athol Gill

by

Thorwald Lorenzen

 Introduction

          Athol Gill was a man of the church.  He was an ordained minister, and he was a theological teacher.  And yet, he often wondered whether the church as he found it was an adequate reflection of Jesus Christ, whom the church confessed as (“Lord”).  His exegetical studies and insights convinced him that there was more to faith in Christ than the established church manifested.  He had begun to understand that at its deepest level the biblical message invited people to become disciples of Jesus and to join his passion for the world.  Obedience to that invitation, rather than theoretical orthodoxy or liturgical celebration, became for him the determining reality of Christian faith.  Athol Gill was concerned with the implementation of human rights, and in the last years of his life he was engaged in research to locate and understand the theological place of the poor in the biblical story.

          Relevance.  We shall keep these concerns in mind as we focus our attention on a New Testament text that has played a major role in shaping the self-understanding of many Christian communities and churches.  Sacramental churches use 1 Corinthians 11 to insist on the centrality of the Eucharist, and to contend for the real presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine.  Charismatic communities cherish 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 because there glossalalia is listed among the gifts of the Spirit.  The apostle affirms and practices that gift himself, and indeed, he encourages Christians to seek after the gift of tongues.  Baptists and other churches who are suspicious of church structures and church offices find in these chapters an affirmation of their “low key” structures, their democratic organisation and their self understanding as the “gathered community” (1 Cor  11:20).  And even those who are disillusioned with the religious establishment altogether, find in the “love-feast” of chapter 11 and in the "ode to love" (1 Cor 13) a worthwhile vision for life.

          Context.  It is unusual to select 1 Corinthians 11-14 - more exactly: 1 Corinthians 11:17-14:40 - for discussion.  It seems to be more natural, and it is certainly more common, to take chapters 12-14 as a unit.  With 1 Corinthians 12:1 Paul clearly sets out to respond to an inquiry concerning matters related to the (“spiritual gifts”) and the (“spiritual people”).^[1]  The danger is, however, that by centring our attention on chapters 12-14, the dominating interest becomes the gift of tongues in their relationship to the other gifts of the Spirit.  Then the context, how and where believers actually live their lives in the church and in the world, recedes into the background.  But, for Paul, this context has theological significance.  Spiritual gifts are the gifts of the Spirit of God, and God is the creator and reconciler of heaven and earth.  The gifts of the Spirit of God can therefore only be discussed in relationship to the nature of the church and its responsibility in the world.  When Paul questions the very identity of the church (11:20), he is not questioning the fact of their spiritual practices and manifestations, and he is not doubting their religious efficacy.  His concern is whether the gifts that are being exercised, are a manifestation of that Spirit who glorifies the crucified Christ as Lord.  Chapter 11 therefore provides the social and ecclesiastical context for a discussion of chapters 12-14.

          The task of theology.  In his correspondence with the church in Corinth, Paul is fulfilling the task of theology in the church: he is asking whether the life and practice of the church is an adequate reflection of its confession to Jesus Christ as Lord.  And since in Corinth it was also controversial what “Jesus Christ” actually stands for, Paul places his exhortations to the church within a christological framework that portrays Jesus Christ as the crucified and risen One (1 Cor 1, 2 and 15).

          The church in Corinth.  That brings us to the church in Corinth.  Here we have a prime example of a church that was in danger of losing its Christian identity, and consequently its relevance.  The salt was in danger of losing its flavour; the light of the gospel was being placed under a bushel.  A passion for God and his Christ had issued into a religiosity that was primarily concerned with self-edification; no longer could the “world” see the good works of the Christians, and in response give glory to God (Matt 5:13-16).

          We shall read Paul's passionate plea to the church in Corinth with the hope that in understanding that ancient text, our own situation may also be interpreted and modified.

The Church in Corinth
(1 Cor 11:17-22, 33f.)

          We do not have any texts written by the Christians in Corinth.  But we have letters of Paul to that church, and from these letters we can deduce a fairly clear picture of the situation of the church in Corinth.

          The church as a multi-cultural community.  It must have been a mixed group of people who made up the church in Corinth!  Paul notes that, according to worldly standards, not many of them were “wise” or “powerful” or “of noble birth” (1 Cor 1:26).  The church was made up of rich people in whose houses the Christians met;  there were also shop-keepers and tradesmen;  then there were men and women who occupied leadership functions in the church; and there were poor people, and people from the lower social classes: slaves, servants, nannies and labourers. 

          While in the social and religious clubs of that time people were usually classified according to social status, and they separated themselves accordingly, in the Christian community an alternative vision began to take shape.  Faith in Jesus Christ relativised social differences.  The God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ and in the power of the Spirit was understood as affirming the equal dignity of all human beings.  Where his Spirit becomes concrete in faith and baptism, the barriers of self-interest are removed and a community of equals is being shaped (12:13; compare Gal 3:28, Col 3:11).^[2]

          The church meeting. Paul implies that the Christians in Corinth gathered regularly for meetings (11:17-21, 33-34; 14:23, 26).  In the late afternoons, after work, the church members - rich and poor, home owners and slaves, widows and wharf labourers, nannies and children - would come together for a common meal, and in its context to thank and worship God, and to be spiritually nourished.  They would bring their own food, and, remembering that “the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof” (Ps 24:1), they consecrated the food to the Lord.  With this act of consecration they showed their desire to share.  The food now belonged to the whole community.  Their primary intention was not to eat their own meal, but they wanted to share and then eat together.  By doing that, they manifested the church of God (11:22), and they demonstrated their unity in Christ (10:16).  Then they ate and drank.  At least here at the community meal - later called “A)ga/ph” (“Love”: Jude 12; Ign. Smyrn. 8:2; [2 Pet 2:13]) - all the members of the community would get enough to eat!  The grace of God became an event in a community that confessed Christ as Lord and therefore shared what it had.  They would eat and sing and pray and listen to a sermon - and in that context, probably towards the end of the gathering, they would also celebrate the “Lord's Supper” (so called in the New Testament only in 11:20).^[3]

          These regular gatherings for food, fellowship and worship are of great theological importance for Paul.  In them the church as the "body of Christ" becomes, ever again, an event in human history.  They are the presupposition for the discovery and exercise of the “spiritual gifts”.  It is interesting that Paul avoids religious cult language.  He simply speaks of “coming together” (11:17f., 20; 14:23, 26).  He does not want to separate fellowship and worship from every day life.  He does not want to raise a barrier between the sacred and the secular realms of life.  “The only really important thing in its services is simply the fact that the whole church gathers there.”^[4]

          Our text is of great interest because it is one of the few biblical texts that allow us a view into an early Christian worship service.  Its holistic character - with a meal and the “Lord's Supper” - has already been mentioned.  The (“spiritual gifts”) or the (“gifts of grace”) of the Christians are recognised, although in Corinth there seems to have been the tendency to give greater honour to the more demonstrative gifts, especially the gift of speaking in tongues.  Paul therefore emphasises that in the worship service it must become evident who their Lord is, and that salvation is a communal reality.  Neither individualism nor an inflexible liturgy, but the order of shalom (“salvation”, “peace”) must determine their coming together (14:33, 40).  Each member accepts responsibility to make worship a community experience.  There are no spectators.  Different people would offer their gifts.  Hymns would be sung (14:26).^[5]  The Scriptures would be read, they would be interpreted (teaching and prophesying; also by women, 11:5), people would listen, and prayers would be offered.  If these prayers were in a tongue then an interpretation would be required so that all could join in.  Others would bring a “revelation” from the Lord (14:26, 30).  The participants would respond with “Amen” (14:16).  Perhaps credal confessions like “Jesus is Lord!” (12:3) and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 were also recited.  And the invocation “Our Lord, come!” (1 Cor 16:22) probably played a role.  It is important to note the inherent leaning of the Christian faith not to withdraw from responsibility for the world, but to live in open communication with the world.  Clear and understandable communication is therefore more important than individual edification, and the preaching of the gospel was a great concern to the apostle (1 Cor 1:17; 2:1, 4; 3:1).

          Nevertheless, a discord must have begun to spoil the atmosphere at the community meal.  Paul speaks of “divisions” and “factions” among them (11:18f.); and he distinguishes between their “own meals” (11:21) and the “Lord's Supper” (11:20).  What had happened?  Most likely, those who were rich and had more leisure time came earlier than the rest (implied in 11:21, 33).  The food which they brought for themselves and for others they consecrated to the Lord and thereby manifested that it was for all people. However, for themselves they must have brought some extras like fish and meat and good wine; and they began to eat before the slaves and labourers and nannies had arrived (11:21, 33).  Indeed, it must have happened at times, that while there was not enough food left for the late-comers (11:21), some of those who had come early where already drunk. 

          The problem was twofold.  The fact that some people brought and ate their own food revealed their individualistic tendencies.  This went hand in hand with an increasing lack of concern for the late-comers.

          How could the Christians in Corinth justify such a situation - consciously or subconsciously?  The increasing individualism was probably related to a growing spiritual elitism.  There were those who thought that they had already arrived (1 Cor 4:8).  They tended to be preoccupied with their own spiritual needs and desires, and in consequence, they structured their life and the life of the church accordingly.  Not the welfare of the whole community, not the mission of the church in the world, but the benefit of the individual or of a certain group of individuals (1 Cor 1:12) became the determining interest.

          They knew, of course, of the late-comers.  But they probably thought that it was most important that “after supper” (11:25) all people would participate in the “cup”.  Is the sacrament not more important than the meal?  Does not the sacrament feed the soul, while food only provides pleasure for the perishing body?^[6]  This is what those thought who had enough to eat!

          At this point the protest of the late-comers must have arisen.  But how did the apostle come to know about their discontent?  It is unlikely that those who had plenty to eat, who did not wait for the late-comers, and who had theological reasons for going ahead with their meal, would have informed the apostle.  The information must have come from those late-comers themselves. 

          Now the apostle was challenged.  Should he take this matter seriously?  Did this complaint affect the identity and relevance of the church?  Does this criticism deserve or even demand theological attention?  Is this only a question of morality, or is this a question of faith?  And: whom should he believe, and with whom should he side?  How should truth and expediency be weighed against each other?  In those days they did not have church buildings; he therefore needed the homes of the richer people for church gatherings.  But then, the late-comers also belonged to the community of faith.  How will the apostle rank the importance of those who had houses and food, on the one hand, and the slaves and servants and labourers, on the other?  In which way does his theology - spelled out in 1 Corinthians 1, 2 and 15 - become relevant in a concrete church situation? 

          It is important to note that Paul takes the information “from below” very seriously.  Indeed, so seriously, that he hurls at the church in Corinth the unbelievable verdict: “it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat” (11:20).  Given the importance of the Lord's Supper, Paul seems to question the church's Christian identity.  Had the church become another religious club, of which there were many in Corinth?  How shall we understand such a harsh criticism?

          Problems in the church.  The church in Corinth was plagued by many problems.  We hear of “divisions” and “factions” (11:18f., 1:10f.).  There were those who claimed to “belong to Paul”, others to Peter, or to Apollos, and even to Christ (1:12).

          Indeed, the whole of 1 Corinthians deals with problems.  There were theological problems as to how one should understand the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and what consequences this would have for one's life and for the church (chapters 1, 2 and 15).  Also the meaning of Baptism and the Lord's Supper was controversial (chapters 10-11).  Religious problems included the question of how Christians should behave when food was served them which had previously been dedicated to idols (chapter 8).  Moral problems strained the fellowship of the church.  Sexual immorality (chapter 5), and questions of sexual behaviour (chapter 7) were discussed.  Christians brought lawsuits against each other before the worldly courts (chapter 6).  (“all things are lawful for me!”) had become a libertinistic slogan amongst some members in the Corinthian church (6:12; 10:23).  This was related to spiritual problems.  An overwhelming experience of the Spirit of God had, for some of the Christians, led to a feeling of spiritual elitism, arrogance and triumphalism (4:8-13, 18f.; 5:2; 13:4f.).  Indeed, they seemed to be so sure of their present reign with Christ (4:8), that they saw no need for the future resurrection of the dead (15:12).  This then raised the question how one could distinguish between the Spirit of God and their own spirit or the spirit of the world (chapters 12-14).

          Our text points to a social problem that gained theological significance for Paul because it was directly related to a certain understanding of Jesus.  Paul does not criticise the spiritual experiences of the Christians in Corinth, nor does he reject spiritual manifestations in the church there.  He does not question the worthwhileness of their singing, preaching, healing and praying.  His scathing criticism is directed against a church that claims to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, but at the same time (literally!) fails to display a social conscience.  For him it was an intolerable contradiction that they met for the Lord’s Supper, but failed to fully integrate the slaves, the servants and the labourers in the community meal: “... do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (11:22).  With this question he suggests an essential inter-relationship between the nature of the church, as the church of God, and the mission of the church in the world.  And since God has revealed himself in the crucified Christ as the God who is love, therefore the mission of the church must manifest a partiality for the late-comers.^[7]

          Was it not the central passion of Jesus to share his life with the outsiders and the late-comers?  Did Jesus not eat with publicans and sinners, and in direct consequence of his life-style was criticised, opposed, arrested and finally killed?  Indeed, did his opponents not call him “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matt 11:19 = Luke 7:34; Mark 2:16)?  How then can the church celebrate the Lord's Supper and not give equal status to the lower social classes?  That, for Paul, was a denial of the Lordship of Christ and therefore a negation of their identity: “it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat” (11:20)!  Indeed, with their individualism and the subsequent disinterest in the late-comers,  they, the church : v. 18), despised the “church of God” =: v. 22) and thereby negated their own identity.

          The ideal would have been that the church meets for a community meal where the presence of Christ is celebrated.  In that context of eating, worshipping and praying, they would also have a special liturgical part of eating the bread and drinking the wine, with a sermon to interpret what was taking place (10:16f.; 11:17-34; 14:26).  Christian fellowship must be lived by people who know that God shared his life with them, and who, on that basis, now gladly share their life with others.  In this integrated fellowship and gathering of believers they would manifest who their Lord is.  For Paul it was impossible to believe in Jesus Christ and not wait for the late-comers.  That would change the community meal into a cultic liturgy which he could no longer call “the Lord's Supper”.  Faith in Christ and worship of him cannot by-pass those with whom he spent his life and for whom he died.

          And yet, on the other hand, Paul could also not imagine that a church can cease to be, or that a church could exist without celebrating the Lord's Supper.  Was the church in Corinth not part of the “church of God” (1:2)?  Could God's creation be annulled by human disobedience?  Paul finds this difficult to imagine.  Therefore, as a compromise, he suggests that in future they should eat their real meal at home (1 Cor 11:22), and then meet together for a separate “Lords Supper”.

          Who, then, is Jesus Christ, and where is he present?  The significance of the conflict becomes clearer when we try to understand the difference in Christology between Paul and the Christian leaders in Corinth.  Their attitudes and practices implied that they had forgotten that faith in Jesus Christ is an ultimate concern and therefore encompasses all dimensions of life.  They had begun, first to distinguish, and then to separate their faith from social and moral responsibility in the church and in the world.  In the church they considered it to be their main responsibility to provide for spiritual nourishment and therefore to make sure that all people participated in the sacrament.  Participation in the full meal was secondary.  In other words, they began to place greater emphasis on the presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine, than in the community of men and women, where the social barriers of society had been relativised, and where a new humanity had begun to dawn, a humanity in which those who “have” would wait and share with those who “have not”. 

          What does Paul do?  Paul interprets the situation in Corinth by comparing it with the story of Jesus.  He explains that the authenticity of faith in Christ, the efficacy of participation in the sacraments, and the truth of worship is at stake in their relationship to the late-comers.  The efficacy of the sacrament is not assured with the taking of the elements, nor does liturgical correctness of citing the Lord's Supper tradition guarantee the efficacy of the Eucharist.  A proper celebration of the sacrament inter-relates faith in Christ and commitment to the late-comers.  Is this not a terrifying reminder to the church of all ages that we can go through the motions of liturgy, sacrament and worship, and yet miss the point of it all!^[8]

          It is of great significance, however, that Paul does not merely give moral instructions to the church in Corinth.  He reminds them of the gospel, the liberating story of Jesus.  Perhaps, so his implied hope, if they would realise that the Eucharist is the Lord's Supper and not the church's meal, that it is the feast where the presence of Christ is celebrated, and that Christ is the one who shared his life with the late-comers and thereby revealed that “God is love”, then they might find a way back to a worthy celebration of the Lord’s Supper and thereby recover the identity and relevance of the church.

The Crucified Christ as Host at the Lord's Supper  
(1 Cor 11:23-33)

          In and with the Lord's Supper tradition Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that the crucified Christ is host at the Lord's Supper.  It is not the church's table, and it is not for the church to decide who can come, and who must stay away.  The church's privilege and responsibility is to recognise who the host at the table is, and then to provide space for him to minister to the community through the Holy Spirit.  In doing that the church celebrates the Lord's Supper as a worthy remembrance of the crucified Christ.

          The Lord's Supper, then, is intimately inter-woven with the passion story of Jesus: “the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread ... as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes” (11:23, 26).  The “Lord Jesus” is host at the Lord’s Supper.  And this Lord Jesus, whom they have experienced in their life and whom they confessed to be present in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, is no other than the crucified Jesus!  The risen and exalted Christ has not left the offence of his life and the resulting death behind; it is not the Pneuma-Christ who is experienced through sacramental communion and spiritual exercises.  Rather, the Lord is “Jesus”.  In this way the present experience of Christ is interrelated with the life and death of Jesus.  The story of the church is inter-woven with the story of Jesus.  And Jesus is understood with reference to his passion: “... on the night when he was betrayed.”  And Jesus’ passion resulted from his life giving solidarity with the “late-comers” in his society.  The Lord's Supper is therefore not a religious liturgy that separates the church from the world.  Rather, it is the intensive re-calling and re-assuring that the church is the “body of Christ” and as such must minister to the world.  The church's privilege and responsibility is to let its life and its worship be shaped by the crucified Christ and thereby create analogies to him.  If and when that happens, then they “proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.”

          The host, then, at the supper is Jesus Christ, and the identity symbol of Christ is the cross.  This emphasis is in harmony with the early Christian conviction that the identity of the risen Christ is to be understood with reference to the marks of the crucifixion (John 20:20; Luke 24:39).  Indeed the apostle himself interpreted the presence of Christ in his existence as “always carrying in the body the death of Jesus” (2 Cor 4:10).  By understanding the death of Jesus as being for us - “This is my body which is for you” (v. 24) - the story of Jesus becomes intimately inter-woven with our own story.^[9]  It is this story, the passion-story of Jesus, that the church must re-live and re-present in each new situation.  The church can do it in the power of the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead.  The reality of the resurrection and the subsequent faith in Jesus Christ therefore do not cause a break between Jesus and Christ;  the historical Jesus is not dissolved into the Christ of faith.  But through Easter and Pentecost the Crucified One has been revealed as the head of the church and as the host of the meal where the church celebrates its Christian identity.  It is for these christological reasons that the Lord's Supper tradition cannot be separated from the context as it is described in vv. 17-22 and vv. 33f.

          Some Christians in Corinth - possibly the leading persons of the church - had obviously forgotten that at their community meals, at the “Lord's Supper”, they were the guests of the crucified Christ.  Instead of living their life, as Jesus did during his life, in solidarity with the late-comers and thereby “proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes”, they wanted to protect and enjoy their own religious sentiments.  They defined the content of their faith primarily with reference to their own religious needs and interests, rather than focusing their faith on the passion story of Jesus.  Since Jesus' passion marked the intensification of his life for the poor, the oppressed, the leper, the widow and the children, it should have been impossible to celebrate the Lord's Supper and at the same time by-pass the needs and interests of the late-comers.

          Ideally, therefore, the a)ga/ph-meal should not be separated from the sacrament of breaking the bread and drinking the wine.  The whole meal, including the breaking of bread and, “after supper” (11:25), the drinking of wine, should be the Lord's Supper.  The often repeated “this” in the Lord's Supper tradition -“This is my body which is for you.  Do this in remembrance of me ....  This cup is the new covenant in my blood.  Do this in remembrance of me” (11:24f.) - does not refer primarily to the elements of bread and wine,^[10] but it applies to the whole meal, the whole “Lord's Supper”, which, if it is to be the Lord's Supper, must include the servants and nannies and slaves.  In Corinth, however, modifications in the celebration of the Lord's Supper must have taken place.  At first the sacramental action was placed at the end of the meal, so that those who came too late for the meal, could at least partake in the sacrament; and then, finally, the sacrament was separated from the meal altogether.  For Paul this was a compromise.  The church has institutionalised that compromise and kept it to the present day.

          In the celebration of the Lord's Supper, the church is defined as the community of the “new covenant” (v. 25).  The newness of the eschatological community consists in the fact that in and with its life and celebration it anticipates the ultimate victory of the crucified Christ - “until he comes”, v. 26; compare the invocation in 16:22: “Our Lord, come!”.  It anticipates the future of the crucified Christ by creating analogies in which the content of their faith comes to expression.  Social, racial and sexual barriers are relativised.  The church understands itself as the community of the friends of Jesus who are liberated by the power of the gospel to provide an alternative to the encroaching selfishness and individualism.  Faith in Christ and the love implied therein create community, while selfishness and individualism destroy it.  And since human beings are relational beings who need fellowship and friendship as much as they need air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat, the destruction of community has consequences that affect the health of the participating members (v. 30).

          When the church “remembers” Christ in the celebration of the Lord's supper (vv. 23, 25), in this act of remembering, the passion story of Jesus merges with the life of the community of believers, so that the church can no longer be the church apart from remembering at the same time the people with whom Christ lived and for whom he died.  The church cannot “remember” Christ, worship him and pray to him and, at the same time, block out those with whom he shared his life.  The Lord's Supper tradition therefore reaches its aim when it kindles within each successive generation the question as to who the late-comers in our community and in our world are.  The Eucharist as the Lord's Supper is therefore not only concerned with the identity of the church, but also with its relevance.

          Recognising that the crucified Christ is host at the table, and knowing that Jesus had no other passion than sharing his life with sinners and with outsiders, would it not be presumptuous for the church to decide who can participate in the Lord’s Supper and who cannot?  When, in addition, one hears that some churches use the Lord’s Supper for disciplinary measures, then its original meaning of being the celebration of Christ's unconditional love is distorted altogether.  The Lord’s Supper has then become a means to narrowly define the church's identity without being concerned for its relevance.  The -meal, where believers celebrate their freedom in Christ and where people seek spiritual resources to exercise responsible freedom in the world, has become the secure haven for Christians who anxiously try to keep for themselves what God has freely shared with them.  The Lord's Supper would then no longer be the Lord's Supper, because it would no longer manifest the deepest mystery of the Christian vision of reality, that in giving oneself in service one will receive the enriching grace of God (2 Cor 4:7-12; Mark 8:35).

          By eating the bread and drinking the cup worthily the church is proclaiming “the Lord's death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).  Unworthy participation in the Lord’s Supper manifests disobedience to Christ: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27).  What does “unworthy” mean in this context?  It can only refer to the individualism and the selfishness that destroys community.  Paul is reminding the Christians in Corinth that it is possible to participate in the Lord’s Supper in a manner that is inappropriate to the occasion.  The reference point for “unworthy” is not one's private morality, or the liturgical way in which the sacrament is administered.  The reference point is given with vv. 17-22 and vv. 33f.  In Corinth it was simply unfitting to the occasion, to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, and then by-pass the concerns of the late-comers.  Had not Jesus, the host at the Lord's Supper, shared his life with those who were morally and religiously suspect?  Not private morality but concrete social concern is at the heart of the matter.^[11]  When Paul writes those strong exhortations in 11:27-30 and even intimates that weakness, illness and death are the result of an unworthy participation in the Lord's Supper, then this signifies that one cannot and one must not separate spiritual welfare from the bodily, social or historical dimension of human life.  “Discerning the body” (v.29) refers therefore to the failure to recognise the nature of the community meal as the Lord’s Supper.

          Paul's plea becomes very personal: “examine yourself” (v. 28, compare v. 31)!  Self examination is an implicit aspect of faith in Christ.  By examining, evaluating and judging oneself in light of the passion story of Jesus, the believer and the believing community recognise their humanness and their selfishness and they realise that the way of the cross is a process of continual repentance and renewal.  It belongs to the theological function of the church to constantly evaluate its faith and practice in light of the story of Jesus.   This text has a cutting edge that challenges the church today.  While most churches carefully define a theology of the Lord's Supper and use the Lord's Supper as the most intense celebration of their identity, indeed, while there are still major churches who restrict participation in the Lord's Supper to its own members or to baptised believers, we must insist that the Lord's Supper anticipates the final victory of the crucified Christ.  It is at this table where it must come to expression that Christ died for all people, that his life manifested a marked partiality for the poor and oppressed, and that his salvation has ecological and cosmic consequences.  Here the celebration of unconditional love is the major content.  Is it possible to celebrate the Lord's Supper without remembering that 35,000 children under the age of five die each day because they don't have enough to eat and to drink, while the budgets in our countries use billions for unnecessary military equipment?  Can we celebrate the Lord’s Supper without remembering those who are tortured by government agencies because they have followed the voice of their conscience and engaged themselves for the furtherance of justice?  Is it possible to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, eat nature’s bread and drink nature’s wine, and not problematise our exploitary attitude to nature?  Identity is important; but its purpose is to retrieve those resources that help the church to be relevant in a broken world.

“You are the body of Christ” (12:27)

          What Paul has intimated with the Lord's Supper tradition, he makes explicit when he interprets the church's identity as: “You are the body of Christ”!  What does that mean?  Can this concept help us to understand the identity of the church, and its mission and responsibility in the world?

          The idea of using the concept “body” () for a group of people, for the state, or even for humanity and for the world, was well known in the ancient world.^[12]  In addition, the Jewish tradition embraced the idea of a “corporate personality” whereby a whole people could be designated by one name, as it was the case with Adam = humanity or Jacob = Israel.^[13]

          With the concept “body of Christ” Paul inter-weaves several realities: the church, the Lord's Supper, Jesus Christ, and even the world.  In Romans 7:4 “body of Christ” refers to the crucified body of Christ through whom Christians have died to the law.  In our text “body” refers to the Lord's Supper: “This is my body” (1 Cor 11:24; 10:16); and from there it flows over to designate the church: “we who are many are one body” (1 Cor 10:16f., compare 1 Cor 12:12-30; Rom 12:3-8).  An early Christian hymn even celebrates Christ as the head of the “body”, the world or the cosmos (Col 1:18; “the church” is a later interpretation).

          This means that the church as the “body of Christ” is the community of faith in and through which the crucified and risen Christ encounters the world as saviour, reconciler and liberator.  In the church as his “body”, Christ's salvation and liberation is believed, experienced and lived.  And through the life and ministry of the church Christ shares his life with the world.  Just as human beings with their bodies are woven into the world, into society, into history and into nature, so Christ through his body, the church, wants to communicate the riches of his salvation to society, to history and to nature.

          It is important to see that the community of believers is indissolubly inter-related with Christ.  After having said that “the body is one and has many members”, and that “all the members of the body, though many, are one body,” one would expect the continuation: “so it is with the church.”  Instead, Paul continues: “so it is with Christ” (12:12).  The church is part of the reality of Christ, although Christ must not be reduced to the church, and the lordship of Christ over the church must be safeguarded.  In the post-Pauline literature it is therefore explicitly stated that Christ is “the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18).  Christ cannot be understood apart from the church, just as the church is nothing without Christ.  The church is the concrete historical manifestation through which Christ ministers to his world.  The church is grounded in the resurrection of the crucified Christ and this foundational event must determine the nature of the church.

          As the “body of Christ” the Christian community endeavours to make room for him to minister to the world.  The church is not autonomous.  The church cannot decide what it wants to do or does not want to do.  As the “body of Christ” the church can only make itself available to him, listen to him, follow him.  The identity of the church is in him and in him alone.  And since he is the saviour of the world, therefore the church's identity consists in its being relevant to the world.

          This interpretation of the church's identity assigns a critical function to the church.  Just as Jesus in his earthly life took his stand with the underprivileged and engaged his life for their dignity, liberation and salvation, so as the risen Lord, through his “body”, the church, he wants to continue the process of salvation and liberation.

          “You are the body of Christ”!  With this the concrete existence of the church is being interpreted.  We are reminded of a similar saying of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: “You are the salt of the earth. ... You are the light of the world” (Matt 5:13-16).  These are not moral exhortations that the church should be the body of Christ, the salt of the earth and the light of the world.  The church is also not pointed towards a future when they will be the body of Christ.  No, the sayings are addressed to concrete people interpreting their situation: “You are the body of Christ”!  Their identity is in him.  All the church needs to do - but that is what they can and must do - is to listen to him, and then put into practice what they have heard.  No more, and no less.

          What consequences does it have when the church is understood as the “body of Christ”?  It means, firstly, that the church as “his body” must have an ecumenical longing.  In him all Christians and all Christian churches are one: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:17). 

          It means, secondly, that with its life and ministry the church and its members witness to Christ as saviour and liberator in the world.  In and through the church the risen and exalted Christ wants to exercise his lordship over the world.  Paul takes up that theme and provides a theological interpretation for Christian existence: “we are fellow workers for God” (1 Cor 3:9).  The same is meant when at the end of the gospel of Matthew the risen Christ exercises his lordship through the ministry of the church.  All authority in heaven and on earth is his, but in the exercise of that authority he does not by-pass the church; rather, he invites the church to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Matt 28:18-20).  In and through the service of the church the lordship of Christ becomes real and concrete in the world.

          Thirdly, since we are his body, and since he is the Lord of life, therefore Christian life can be a festival without end.  Faith cannot be separated from morality, but it needs to be carefully distinguished from it, and in this distinction the priority of faith needs to be guarded.  The church's identity is not found in performance or achievement.  Ultimately, it can only be found in being “his body”.  Celebrating the presence of Christ and anticipating his ultimate victory over the forces of selfishness, estrangement and death - that is the privilege of the church.  Nevertheless, because it is his presence that the church celebrates, therefore all people and all of creation must be included in that celebration.  What this means for the concrete life of the church is spelled out in 1 Corinthians 12.

The Spirit empowers the Church for its Mission 
(1 Cor 12:1-31)

          How can the church actually be what it is, the “body of Christ”?  Answer: by echoing in its “order” and in its “ministry” the being of Christ as the self-revelation of God.  To do that, God himself will provide the spiritual resources!  Paul therefore grounds the gifts of the Spirit in the trinitarian nature of God (vv. 4-6), and he specifies this with reference to Jesus as Lord (vv. 1-3).  The spiritual gifts enable the church to create and shape analogies to the God who has revealed himself in the Crucified Christ. 

          "Jesus is Lord" (12:1-3).  Addressing the controversial issue of “spiritual gifts” () ^[14] Paul reminds the church that religious experiences and demonstrations as such are not unusual.  In all religious traditions people can experience conversion, illumination and ecstasy.  An unknown and undefined power (good or evil) can take hold of people and heal or destroy them.  Such spiritual experiences can include activities of healing, glossolalia, singing, dancing, jumping and ecstatic movement.^[15]  The apostle therefore reminds the Christians in Corinth that already before their conversion to Christ they “were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak” (v. 2).

          Paul then correlates “Jesus” and “holy”.  When we recall how the church in Corinth had treated those who came late to the Lord's Supper, we may begin to understand why “Jesus” had become a problem to them.  Jesus and traditional holiness do not mix.  The poverty of Jesus, his communion with publicans and sinners, and his commitment to the marginal people does not square with an understanding of holiness that has no room for poverty, suffering and ambiguity.  The Christians in Corinth probably preferred to speak of the risen “Christ” who, in their opinion, had left the poverty of his life and death behind.  Paul intimates that they considered themselves to have already arrived.  In a moving and somewhat ironic contrast Paul spells out what it means when “Jesus” becomes real in the power of the Spirit:

... I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, as though sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to mortals.

We are fools for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ.

We are weak, but you are strong.

You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.

To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, we are poorly clothed and beaten and homeless, and we grow weary from the work of our own hands.

When reviled, we bless;

when persecuted, we endure;

when slandered, we speak kindly.

We have become like the rubbish of the world, the dregs of all things, to this very day.

(1 Cor 4:9-13)

          It is this vision that Paul wants to introduce when talking about the gifts of the Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is at work when the Lordship of Jesus is made manifest.  This means concretely that God and neighbour, and especially the neighbour in need, must be thought of together.  One cannot worship God and by-pass those whom God loves.  Not religiosity, but the concrete manifestations of love are the marks of the Holy Spirit.

          The church must accept a perpetual challenge.  On the one hand, it must earnestly seek the gifts of the Spirit (14:1).  On the other hand, the church must distinguish between the human spirit, which constantly tends to use God and religion to compensate human needs and validate human interests, and the Holy Spirit who creates analogies to the crucified Christ.  Thus Paul makes clear at the outset:  not spiritual experiences and demonstrations as such, but the commitment to Jesus as Lord forms the basis and content of Christian faith.

          The trinitarian God empowers his church (12:4-11).  Having specified the theological criterion for locating and measuring the work of the Holy Spirit (v. 3), Paul now lays the theological foundation for communicating his conviction that Christian faith calls for a variety of spiritual gifts, that in such a variety the colourful grace comes to expression, and that the content and manifestation of the gifts must cohere with God's self-revelation in the crucified Christ.

          The controversy about which he was informed and to which he needed to respond had to do with the nature of “spiritual gifts” (v. 1: ; v. 4: ), and their function within the community of faith.  From the implicit criticism that Paul utters in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (compare especially 13:1-3; 14:1f., 13-16, 37), it is fairly clear that the massive and demonstrative gifts (especially glossolalia, speaking in tongues) were greatly valued by some in the church.  At the same time these gifts became cause for controversy.  Most likely, those who had and practised the gift of tongues claimed and enjoyed a special honour in the church.  It is even possible that some Christian leaders claimed that glossolalia constitutes the empirical verification for being a Christian, and that therefore it should be sought and practised by all Christians.^[16]  This implied, of course, that those who did not have that gift experienced soteriological uncertainty, which in turn caused confusion and division in the church.  How does Paul interpret the situation in Corinth?

          First of all, he recognises a variety of spiritual gifts and locates their theological foundation in the trinitarian nature of the one God: “there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit ... varieties of service, but the same Lord ... varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in every one” (vv. 4-6).  The oneness of God, his Godhood, does not exclude, but it includes variety.  The “varieties” of gifts are an expression of the “same” God.  The nature and being of God does not validate uniformity and elitism, but it seeks analogies that represent God as the one who has revealed himself in the crucified Christ through the power of the Spirit.  In post New Testament days this conviction led to the doctrine of the trinity which to the present day has attempted to formulate the specifically Christian understanding of God.

          Paul emphasises, secondly, that the trinitarian nature of God can only be reflected in “varieties of gifts ()”, “varieties of service ()” and “varieties of activities )”.  God has given many gifts to his church in order to communicate his colourful grace to a pluralistic world.^[17]  As a rainbow with its many colours reflects the beauty and depth of the sun, so the community of faith with its many gifts reflects the colourful grace of God.  Not the individual Christian but the Christian community reflects the trinitarian being of God.  The questions of vv. 29f. - “Are all apostles, are all prophets, are all teachers, are all ...” - all imply the answer “No!”.  It is not important that every Christian has all the gifts, what is important is that the gifts are grounded in God and that they reflect his nature.

          One wonders why Paul changes the terminology from (“spiritual gifts” - v. 1) to ^[18] (“gifts of grace - v. 4), and then places alongside of the , and on the same level, the (“services”) and the (“activities”).  This modification results from his christological interpretation of the ministry of the Spirit.  If the spiritual gifts are a manifestation of God's revelation in Jesus (v. 3), then they must manifest a certain pull “toward the below”.  With the use of , rather than Paul emphasises that the gifts of the Spirit are grounded in the (“grace”) of God.  And the grace of God aims at concreteness in service          () and in the activities of the Spirit ().^[19]  The emphasis is no longer on the individual and his or her spirituality.  What Paul emphasises is that Christ through his “body” ministers to the world, and for that ministry God equips the community of faith.

          Thirdly, this emphasis on “service” and the implied partiality for the late-comers surfaces also in Paul's passionate desire to communicate the gospel, and to communicate it holistically.  Words of wisdom and knowledge as well as prophesying, together with a holistic view of salvation (faith and healing!) feature therefore before the more individualistic and demonstrative manifestations of the Spirit. 

          Fourthly, if the church realises that spiritual gifts are gifts, then there can be no reason for any conceit or elitism.  They are more than talents and they are not acquired through personal discipline.  They are the gift of God to enable the church to reflect his being in the world.

          The fact that the spiritual gifts are grounded in the colourful grace as it is revealed in the resurrection of the crucified Christ leads to a transfiguration in their order of importance.  While in Corinth the massive demonstrations of the Spirit received great honour and featured on the top of the list, Paul relativises their importance by reversing the order of importance (vv. 8-10, 28-30).  Glossolalia is now mentioned last.  Paul does this for christological reasons.  Just as God raised the crucified Jesus from the dead and thereby demonstrated his power in weakness, so the church recognises Jesus as Lord by distinguishing between the power of weakness and the weakness of power.  The church and its functions are focused on Christ - and he came to serve!^[20]

          Paul insists, fifthly, that the Spirit of God is given to every Christian:  “... the same God ... activates all of them in every one.  To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit ...” (vv. 6f.); “... the same Spirit ... allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses” (v. 11).  While some Corinthian Christians may have distinguished between the (“spiritual people”) and the ordinary Christians, Paul insists that through faith and baptism every Christian has been endowed with the Holy Spirit (vv. 12f.).  The Spirit is given with the event and the process of faith.  This does not mean, however, that Christian faith can be measured, or that every Christian must have all the gifts.  Faith is like a grain of mustard seed (the smallest seed one could think of in those days!), but it stands under the promise of growth and greatness (Mark 4:30-32; compare 1 Cor 3:5-9).  Important is not to compare gifts or to seek the gifts that one may not have; important is to recognise one's own gifts and then submit them to the Lordship of Christ and contribute them to the up-building of the community.  There is therefore no reason, for instance, to think that all Christians must have or should seek the gift of tongues.  If there is any hierarchy at all, it must reflect God's self correspondence to the poverty of Jesus.^[21]

          We note finally that God's nature of love is reflected in the fact that the gifts are primarily there “for the common good” (v. 7).  Paul never speaks of self-edification as such.  Only if the spiritual gifts are used “for the common good” will they then also bring authentic self-edification.  Self-discovery is a by-product of living in openness toward God and neighbour.  The Spirit is bound to Jesus and therefore calls to service as the secret key to life (v. 5).  Paul does not question the importance of personal edification and renewal.  But in light of his christology he doubts that it can be an end in itself.  The individual is part of the community, and the community is the “body of Christ”.  Only by actively participating in the community and by helping the community to be the “body of Christ” will Christians be nurtured in their own spiritual life.

          Paul holds several things together.  Since it is God who gives the gifts, therefore they must reflect his nature.  While the gift character excludes elitism, the trinitarian nature of God excludes individualism.  Any order of importance among the gifts of the Spirit must reflect the fact that God has revealed himself in the crucified Christ.

          The church as the “body of Christ” (12:12-31).  Paul argues that Christ is present in the world and ministers to the world through his “body”, the church.  And since it is his body, therefore “all” members are important (v. 13).  This christological orientation leads to the assertion that in the church the consequences of sin and selfishness are relativised; in the church the social barriers that are operative in the world give way to a new humanity in which the equal dignity of Jews, Greeks, Slaves and Free are affirmed (v. 13).  In the church there is variety within a unity of vision and purpose.  This is now being illustrated with a picture: the human body.

          The human body consists of many parts (v. 14).  Each one of these parts (eye, ear, hand, foot) is necessary to make up the body (v. 18).  Just as the body consist of the togetherness of all its parts, with the same emphasis it must be said that the parts are nothing, they cannot exist, apart from the body.

          This leads the apostle to a first conclusion.  There must have been people in the church in Corinth who thought that they didn't have much to offer.  It may have included those who did not have the gift of tongues.  This led to inferiority feelings and the subsequent desire to be someone else and to crave other gifts.  But why should the hand try to be a foot?  Both are needed!  Why