ABSTRACT

One of Jesus’ deepest wishes for his followers, expressed in his prayer in John 17, is the unity of Christians. He asked the Father to protect his disciples so that “they may be one, as we are one” (v. 11, NRSV), and in verses 20–21 he extended the request to all who would come to believe through their word. The preaching and practice of the early Christians were likewise directed at preserving this unity (Acts 2:41–47; 4:32–35; Eph 4:1–4; Phil 2:2–3). Significantly, Jesus instituted the Eucharist during a Jewish Passover meal, a feast that unites the Jewish people in remembering their deliverance from slavery in Egypt. For Paul, the Eucharist is more than a memorial meal. It is a fellowship meal that binds Christians together (1 Cor 10:16–17), and for that reason it is a serious abuse to make it an occasion for dividing the Church (1 Cor 11:18, 20–22). Yet even a brief look at the practice of the contemporary Church shows that the way the Eucharist is observed today is often too closed to promote unity among Christians. Against this background, the thesis examines Paul’s principal Eucharistic text, 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, and argues that the Eucharist is more than a service that simply marks Jesus’ death. It is a holy meal that strengthens the bond of unity among believers, a communion for union. The thesis therefore calls for a paradigm shift from the concept of anamnesis (remembrance) to the intent of koinōnia (fellowship).

Keywords: Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, Paul, 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, koinōnia, anamnesis, Christian unity

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the Problem

The Eucharist, also called the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, is a rite that Christ himself established for the Church to observe in remembrance of his death. Unlike baptism, which is an initiatory rite performed once, the Eucharist is a continuing rite of the Church. Almost every form of Christianity practises it, and every denomination affirms its importance in the worship life of its congregations. Ademiluka (2022) notes that most denominations in Nigeria celebrate the Lord’s Supper and teach that Jesus instituted it for all believers to share regularly until he comes. It ought to be a common factor that unites the branches of the Christian faith.

Contrary to this expectation, its interpretation and practice have tended to divide Christendom, both historically and today, and diverse traditions have grown up around its observance. When the understanding of its value and purpose as taught and practised by the denominations is examined critically, the points of disagreement appear to outweigh the points of agreement. Instead of promoting unity in the Body of Christ, individual approaches to the rite have produced division. Christians do not agree on who may administer it, who may receive it, how often it should be observed, what the nature of the elements is, or what effect it has on communicants. Some denominations serve only their own members, even when those who are refused are as devout as the members and are communicants in good standing in their own churches. Others have set conditions so stringent that most believers are excluded from the Lord’s Supper, which widens the gap of fellowship.

Evidence from Nigeria illustrates the point. Ademiluka (2022) found that some mainline churches in Nigeria restrict Communion to supposedly holy members, drawing on Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27–30 that unworthy participation brings judgment, and he concluded that such restriction is counter-productive and self-defeating because it denies many Christians the opportunity to partake. A study of Anglicans, Baptists and Catholics in Kaduna State, Nigeria, likewise found that the emphasis on worthiness of communicants was intended to guard against condemnation but that some members felt marginalised by it, and that Anglican and Baptist members felt excluded by the Catholic refusal to admit them to the Eucharist (Chechet, 2016). Peters (2021) argues, from Ephesians 4, that the unity of the Spirit that the Church is called to maintain is a unity of faith that can bind divergent traditions together, which is the kind of unity that the Eucharist is meant to express.

The summary of these observations is that Christendom, by precept and practice, appears to undermine the Eucharist as a unifying factor in the Body of Christ. The Eucharist is, in a sense, the last wish of Jesus: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). That instruction has nourished the faith of Christians for centuries and bound them in common love and hope. In breaking the bread and drinking the cup, the Church looks to Calvary and sees the blood of the Lamb of God shed for the salvation of humanity.

One of the fundamental and abiding truths that Jesus stood for is the unity of believers, as he prayed: “that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:11). It must therefore be a great embarrassment to him if the holy meal that he himself instituted becomes a tool of division among his followers. Christ’s presence in the midst of those who share the meal, and the hope of his final coming, are central to its meaning, so the presence of Christ truly acknowledged in the sacrament ought to unite rather than divide. That the same rite can both unite and divide Christendom is contradictory, much like allowing fresh water and salt water to flow from the same spring (Jas 3:11).

It is against this background that the thesis advocates the observance of the Eucharist as a religious meal that goes beyond a memorial of the death of Jesus to a meal that strengthens the bond of unity among Christians. It studies Paul’s teaching on this continuing rite as found in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, in order to show that the Eucharist, in its original intention and tradition, is more than a mere memorial, that is, more than a historical reflection. It is a fellowship (koinōnia), a communion for union, and it is unity-based at its core.

1.2 The Purpose of the Study

The observance of the Eucharist most probably stood at the centre of early Christian worship. We read that the first believers “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42, emphasis added). Even so, the picture that Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 11:17 and following shows that something had gone wrong. He tells the Corinthians that he cannot praise them because their meetings do more harm than good. He has heard that when they assemble as a church there are divisions among them. When they come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that they eat, because each goes ahead with his own meal without waiting for the others, so that one remains hungry while another becomes drunk (1 Cor 11:17–21).

With this opening, Paul identifies an open case of division at the Lord’s Table. What ought to have united the Corinthians was being used to segregate them, and Paul therefore finds nothing to commend. The reading of the Corinthian problem most widely held among scholars is that the Supper was a full meal at which the wealthy arrived first and ate before the poor arrived, so that Paul’s concern is to restore the aspect of unity (Svendsen, 2021). Theissen (1982) analysed this situation in terms of the social stratification of the Corinthian congregation, in which differences between rich and poor were carried into the common meal. Graterol (2024) describes the abuse as a betrayal of koinōnia that turned the Lord’s Supper into a self-serving feast.

Contemporary Christendom may not be doing much better. The disputes that divide the churches today concern the presence of Christ, the efficacy of the rite, who qualifies to administer it, who may receive it, the elements used and the time of observance. These are matters of philosophical and theological debate, but they show that one’s theological persuasion determines one’s practice, and since there is no agreement in theology and biblical interpretation, the result is a diversity of practice that shuts out those whose positions differ.

The purposes of this study are therefore:

1. to establish that the original intention of Jesus in instituting the Eucharist was fellowship, which by design promotes unity in the Body of Christ, the Church;
2. to challenge contemporary Christendom to see the observance of the Eucharist as a factor for unity;
3. to show that the Eucharist is a covenant by which participants are bonded to Christ and to one another; and
4. to show how Paul’s teaching on the sacrament advocates unity, love, communion, brotherhood and corporate witness to Christ’s atoning death.

1.3 Research Methodology

The thrust of this research is to bring to the fore the Pauline thought on the Eucharist as a unifying factor among Christians, on the basis of his teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. The task requires the student to understand the context and content of the text under study, since one must first enter the author’s original thought before interpreting the message and applying it to contemporary Christendom.

The methodology of this work is therefore historical and descriptive, since literature is used to gather the information needed to achieve the objectives. The sources include books, journal articles, Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries and the biblical text itself, notably the major commentaries on 1 Corinthians (Thiselton, 2000; Fee, 2014). These exegetical and expositional tools are considered necessary for achieving the objectives of the work. The researcher’s participant observation, drawn from many years of teaching and pastoral experience, provides a subsidiary method. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible is used for all quotations unless otherwise stated.

1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study

The study focuses on Paul’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist) as reflected in his first letter to the Corinthian church. Other Gospel traditions are referred to only to clarify the historical background of its institution and the mandate for its continued observance. The Matthean, Markan, Lukan and Johannine traditions of Holy Communion are mentioned in passing but do not form the core of the exposition.

Paul has much to teach on other Christian doctrines, such as faith, salvation, sin, spiritual gifts, tongues, love, marriage, the Church, the Second Advent, the rapture, resurrection and discipline, some of which occur in 1 Corinthians itself, but they are not essential points of discussion here. The text of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is the text of the thesis.

The scarcity of books and articles by African authors on this subject is a major limitation of the study, and the library of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, leaves much to be desired in this regard. Internet technology has helped to ease the limitation, and the researcher was able to draw on recent African scholarship (Ademiluka, 2022; Peters, 2021; Chechet, 2016).

1.5 Significance of the Study

The two outstanding sacraments that the early Christian community embraced were water baptism and the Eucharist. Of the two, the Eucharist became part of regular worship because of its continuing nature. Baptism was, and still is, performed once for all on the believer, with no reason for repetition, whereas the Eucharistic mandate allows continuous observance. The early Christian community after Pentecost therefore built the Eucharist into its regular meetings. Luke reports that the early converts, after baptism, “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42), and that they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts (Acts 2:46). The picture is one of love and unity strengthened by the observance of the Eucharist.

At this stage two meals were combined, the love feast (agapē) and the Eucharist, which were later separated, and the Eucharist became a distinct sacred ordinance. Paul is the first New Testament writer to mention the Eucharist, since 1 Corinthians is generally dated to the mid-50s AD, before the written Gospels (Thiselton, 2000; Fee, 2014). What he found in Corinth was a picture of abuse, profanity and disunity, in which religious and social elements had been mixed. Wealthier members consumed their own provisions while poorer members went hungry, and some drank to excess, so that what was meant to be a sacred fellowship became a shameful display of social inequality (Svendsen, 2021; Theissen, 1982). Whereas the early Church sought to bridge the gap of inequality (Acts 2:44–45), the Corinthian Church widened it.

The question is whether modern Christendom has overcome the temptation of the Corinthian church, or whether the Eucharist is still used as a vehicle of discrimination and disunity. A brief observation of how the Eucharist is administered shows that its observance as a vehicle of fellowship, communion and union among Christians remains elusive. Some Christians are denied the Lord’s Supper because they are not baptised, and others because they do not belong to the same denomination (Chechet, 2016; Ademiluka, 2022).

The significance of this study therefore lies in showing that the Eucharist ought to unite Christians of all persuasions in fellowship (koinōnia) rather than tear them apart. It must be seen as more than a commemoration of Christ’s death, as a factor that fosters unity, a loving participation and sharing that displays the unity of believers irrespective of denomination. Those who partake need not only a correct understanding of what Christ has accomplished and a living relationship with him; they must also be at peace with one another, since disregard for fellow Christians contradicts the Lord’s Supper. The Supper is as much a sign of the present fellowship of believers with the Lord and with one another as it is a sign of the past death of Jesus.

The study is significant, then, because it shows that the necessary import of the Eucharist is Christian unity, made possible by the spirit of sharing, koinōnia, that permeates its celebration. It is a great weakness on the part of the Church to let the manner of administering the Eucharist divide the Body of Christ. The study contends that Christian unity is the original import and intent of the institution of the Eucharist.

1.6 Definition of Terms

Eucharist: Another name for Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper.

Koinōnia: The Greek word for fellowship or sharing.

Anamnesis: The Greek word for remembrance, memorial or recollection of an event.

Covenant: An agreement between two or more parties that binds them together for mutual benefit.

Sacrament: A Christian rite established to be observed continually, such as baptism and Holy Communion.

Rite: A solemn religious ceremony or action usually carried out in the same way, for example baptism, ordination, marriage and burial.

Ordinance: An established, well-ordered religious practice observed as an expression of faith or as a means of communicating grace.

Didache: The Teaching of the Apostles, a Christian document compiled in the early second century AD.

Exegesis: The act of giving a detailed explanation of a Bible text, an exposition of a Bible passage.

Communicant: A Christian who partakes of Holy Communion.

Communion elements: The bread and wine used in Holy Communion to represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Abuse: Misuse of something; wrong use.

Agapē: A love feast, or communal meal, practised by the early Church that preceded the Holy Communion.

References

Ademiluka, S. O. (2022). “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner, eats and drinks judgment to himself”: Interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:27–30 in light of the denial and avoidance of the Holy Communion in some churches in Nigeria. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 78(4), Article a7271. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i4.7271

Chechet, M. (2016). Understanding of the Eucharist among Anglicans, Baptists and Catholics: Implications for Christian unity in Kaduna State, Nigeria [Unpublished thesis]. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. https://kubanni.abu.edu.ng/handle/123456789/9667

Fee, G. D. (2014). The first epistle to the Corinthians (Rev. ed.). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Graterol, E. A. (2024, May). The complexities of unity: A brief analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. Ministry. https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2024/05/The-complexities-of-unity

Peters, P. E. (2021). Support for making Pauline henotic unity the fulcrum of Christian ecumenism in Nigeria. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 77(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v77i1.6523

Svendsen, E. (2021, March 1). The table of the Lord: Part 1. Grace Evangelical Society. https://faithalone.org/?p=111610

Theissen, G. (1982). The social setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Fortress Press.

Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The first epistle to the Corinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary). Wm. B. Eerdmans.