Journal: Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Volume: JOTGES 34:67 (Autumn 2021)
Article: The Table Of The Lord, Part 2
Author: Eric Svendsen

JOTGES 34:67 (Autumn 2021) p. 45

The Table Of The Lord, Part 2

Eric Svendsen1

I. The Alleged Separation Of The Eucharist From The Common Meal

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul addresses the Lord’s Supper as it relates to the unity within the assembly of the Corinthians. It is evident from Paul’s words in this passage that the Corinthians were partaking of an entire meal, not just the bread and wine. As we have already pointed out, very few dispute this.2 What is disputed, however, is the precise relationship between the Lord’s Supper and the Corinthians’ meal, and whether Paul in this passage gives any indication that he wants the Corinthians to put an end to their practice of eating a meal together or whether he wants them to continue. To find the answers to these questions it will be helpful to look at the tradition that Paul received about the Supper, and then to reexamine the so-called “Pauline Precedent.”

A. Paul’s Concept Of “The Lord’s Supper”

The first step in deciding about the ongoing relevance of the meal-aspect of the Supper is to determine just what Paul means by the title “Lord’s Supper” in 1 Cor 11:20. This title, kuriakon deipnon, occurs only here in the NT. The word kuriakon means roughly “belonging to the Lord.” In this case the title means “the supper belonging to the Lord.”3 Yet just what is this “supper”? Is Paul here referring to the

JOTGES 34:67 (Autumn 2021) p. 46

meal of the Corinthians, of which the bread and wine are dominant features, or is he referring to the bread and wine alone? Put another way, could Paul have referred to the bread and wine as a “supper” apart from the meal?

It is an interesting fact that every other instance of “supper” in the NT refers to nothing less than a full meal, and in many (arguably, all) cases it refers to a banquet or feast. It would be odd in light of this to maintain that Paul has in mind the so-called “elements” (i.e., the bread and wine)—apart from the meal— when he refers to the kuriakon deipnon. On the contrary, what Paul calls the “Lord’s Supper” is itself the meal with the bread and wine.4 The bread and wine by themselves can no more be called the Lord’s Supper than the meal without the bread and wine. Any attempt to view kuriakon deipnon as a title for a symbolic supper is refuted on the grounds that the Corinthians themselves were not partaking ...