1 Corinthians 11.17-34 Summary

Who have died in Corinth? The present article challenges the assumption that the victims were from among the wealthier strata of society, and suggests that they instead were from among the poor. The habitual interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.17-34 is that some from among the rich members had died because of their (own) unworthy celebration of the Lord’s supper. A more probable historical situation is that some of the ‘have-nots’ had become weak and sick due to food-shortage, and that some of them had in fact died from starvation. The consequential link presented in the passage is between the unworthy behavior at the Lord’s supper in Corinth and cases of weakness and death. Nowhere does it say that the persons who were guilty of abuse and its victims were the same persons. As Paul and his first audience all knew the circumstances, there were no reason to describe the historical situation explicitly. The suggestion will be discussed from rhetorical, historical, and theological perspectives. John
Were the victims to misbehavior and abuse from among the wealthy or from among the poor of the church members? The improper conduct at the Lord’s table is described in terms of the rich not waiting and sharing their food supplies with the poor. Paul’s solution to the situation has been under scholarly debate in recent years. As Ma. Marilou Ibita convincingly suggests, Paul’s exhortation did not imply that the rich must eat their food ahead of the celebration in their own homes, but that the hungry must to go into the house where the Lord’s supper is celebrated – and eat. This interpretation proves to be a solution both to the problem of malnutrition and to fractionalism. Furthermore, the interpretation is both economic and makes sense in the rhetorical context of the