Paul and his interpreters : $b A critical historySchweitzer, Albert
Religion
Paul and his interpreters : $b A critical history
Schweitzer, Albert
Bible. Epistles of Paul -- Criticism, interpretation, etc. -- History; Paul, the Apostle, Saint
The vestiges of this ancient conception are to be found, not in the
Mystery-religions, but in the ordinary heathen sacrificial worship, in
cases where the sacrificial [pg 198] feast has been retained in
connexion with it. Here there certainly exists in some form or other
the conception of a fellowship with the god set up by eating. It is to
be noted that Paul in I Cor. x. draws a parallel between the Lord’s
Supper, which unites us to Christ, and these feasts. How expositors
have arrived at the idea of making him refer here to the cultus-meal
of the Mystery-religions is quite inexplicable.
The hypothesis that the earliest Christian conception of the Lord’s
Supper in some way represented the surviving influence of an ancient
cultus idea, is at first sight much more plausible than the
corresponding hypothesis in the case of the Mystery-religions. At any
rate the existence of the desiderated fact is here proved. The
conception of the sacramental eating stands in the centre of the
belief; by this act, fellowship with a divine Being who has died and
risen again is maintained; and what is eaten and drunk is brought into
relation to the person of Christ, inasmuch as it is called, in some
sense or other, His body and blood.
Nevertheless in the decisive point the alleged facts break down.
Paul knows nothing of an eating and drinking of the body and blood of
the Lord. When Dieterich gives it as the Apostle’s view that “Christ
is eaten and drunk by the believers and is thereby in them,” and adds
that nothing further need be said about the matter, what he has done
is, instead of taking Paul’s words as they stand, to interpret Paul
through John—and through a misunderstanding of John at that.
It is not of an eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ that
Paul speaks in the First Epistle to the Corinthians; he always speaks
only of eating and drinking the bread and the cup. He assumes, no
doubt, that this somehow or other maintains a communion with the body
and blood of Christ (I Cor. x. 16-17), and that anyone who partakes
unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord (I Cor. xi.
27). He quotes, too, the words [pg 199] in which the Lord, on the
historic night, after the Supper, speaks of bread and wine as His body
and His blood. But the conception which seems inevitably to arise out
of this, that the participant partakes of the body and blood of the
Lord, is not found in him.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account