[B-Greek] 1COR. 11:23 APO TOU KURIOU

Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Sat Oct 18 16:38:42 EDT 2008


Dear Elizabeth,

You may be correct regarding I Corinthians 7:25 and 40b, but Paul is definitely
referring to a particular statement of Jesus in 7:12.

In the context of I Corinthians 11:17-34 Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for
the abuses of partaking of the Lord's Supper during the communal "Agape" feast.

11:17-22 Abuse of the Agape Meal.
11:23-26 The Lord's Supper: It's Reception and Proclamation
11:27-34 Improper Reflection and Its Consequences.

The centerpiece of the entire discussion is around the ordinance of the Lord's
Supper. It is to be taking seriously and not misused nor taken lightly. Paul It
is interesting that Paul shows that the solemnity of the Lord's Supper is Not
enhanced when they misuse it. This is the earliest reference to the Lord's
Supper in the NT and it does signify that there was to be a significant time of
reflection/meditation that was already attached to it. This is indicated with
the references to the elements of the bread and the wine, their memorial
significance and the proclamation of the Lord's Return by continual repetition
of the Lord's Supper.

Another aspect that is sometimes forgotten in the debate of whether this is
direct versus indirect revelation is that Paul appears to be making a contrast
between his reception, "from the Lord" and passed/handed down to them, versus
that of the feasts/meals that occurred and were "passed/handed down," in the
temples of Apollo (both upper and lower temples) in Corinth. The Corinthians
were not to act the way they formerly acted in the Temples of Apollo (or
elsewhere for that matter). There was to be a contrast between the believer and
the non-believer. I think that Paul is also making a reference back to the
10:16-22 with the connection of the Idol's Feast and the Lord's Supper. In fact,
chapters 8-11 are connected because of this. I also think that there is a
contrast between Apollo and Christ being made here (this is speculation and have
not been able to check it out as yet).

Furthermore, I think that the GAR is being overlooked. It is causal. Paul is
reminding the Corinthians that this is not just some ritual to be done without
reflection or performed at any time one pleases. He reminds them of this in
11:23-34. It appears that the other churches Paul established did not have this
problem, but this is speculation due to lack of information.

You do raise an interesting question about the questioning of his authority. He
already had that authority, but it appears that some "Judaizers" had arrived in
the midst of the Corinthians to cause the same type of problem that occurred in
Galatia (Galatians 1-2). This problem became acute in II Corinthians 11-12
[maybe in the letter referenced in 7:8-12 (our current I Corinthians?)].

En Xristwi,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1COR. 11:23 APO TOU KURIOU


> >>
> Hello Bryant,
>
> >>
> >> 1COR. 11:23 EGW GAR PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU, hO KAI PAREDWKA hUMIN,
> >> hOTI hO KURIOS IHSOUS EN THi NUKTI hHi PAREDIDETO ELABEN ARTON
> >>
> >> Is Paul claiming direct revelation in 1COR. 11:23 APO TOU KURIOU?
> >> This
> >> question isn't new, see Fee, Thiselton (1Cor NIGTC) and Spicq
> >> (III.18 n26) for bibliography.
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
>
> > I can see both sides of the issue here. On the one hand, Paul did
> > have direct
> > revelation APO TOU KURIOU (cf. Acts 18:9-10; Gal.1:12; I Cor. 7:10;
> > II Cor.
> > 12:1-10); but, on the other hand it is clear that he did distinguish
> > direct from
> > indirect revelation (I Cor. 7:12, 25, 40b).
>
> I am not sure I Cor. 7:12, 25, 40b illustrate the kind of indirect
> revelation which some claim for  APO TOU KURIOU in 1COR. 11:23. Paul
> didn't receive his teaching in 1Cor 7 as an item of apostolic
> tradition passed down from those who heard it first APO/PARA TOU
> KURIOU. That is what a number of scholars claim is happening in 1COR.
> 11:23 and even those who claim apostolic tradition as the means by
> which Paul obtained the teaching of 1Cor 11:17ff, most of them do not
> base their argument on a grammatical distinction between  APO/PARA TOU
> KURIOU (see Fee, Rob.-Plummer, Thiselton). Fee's argument is based on
> the historical nature of the content. Rob.-Plummer don't find any
> reason to claim a supernatural revelation to Paul, where apostolic
> tradition was available.
>
>
> >
> >
> > I am more inclined to lean toward direct revelation APO TOU KURIOU
> > since the
> > context "seems/appears" to indicate just that..
>
> Yes. I think it is difficult to read Paul's "EGW GAR PARELABON APO TOU
> KURIOU" as a reference to apostolic tradition. Using the language of
> "tradition passed down" does not settle the issue, see J.Dunn:1977
> [1].  Note that Codex Bezae apparently made an attempt to clarify this
> by replacing APO with PARA -- of course there are other viable
> explanations for this variant.
>
> [1]J.Dunn, Unity & Diversity (1977), 67: "Moreover he specifically
> designates the source of the Last Supper tradition as 'the Lord'. This
> seems to mean not so much that the earthly Jesus was the original
> source of the tradition, but rather that Paul understood the present,
> exalted Jesus to be the immediate source of the historical formula -
> that is to say, that it was authoritative not because it was a
> tradition but because it was received and accepted on the direct
> authority of the exalted one (cf. and note the present tense in I Cor.
> 7. l0). Here again evidently we are back with the idea of 'pneumatic
> tradition', tradition which is authoritative because of its immediate
> inspiration and its direct relevance."
>
> Another question. Is Paul highlighting a distinction between how he
> received this "tradition" and how the Corinthians received it? If Paul
> had actually received this "tradition" from Peter but considered it
> ultimately APO TOU KURIOU, then why wouldn't the Corinthians also be
> able to claim that this "tradition" was APO TOU KURIOU. In other
> words, if it was passed down from the twelve (Peter?) to Paul and from
> Paul to the Corinthians then Paul's position would not be
> substantially different from the Corinthians, he would be a recipient
> of a tradition passed down. If this were in fact what had happened it
> seems to me that Paul would not have formulated it as  EGW GAR
> PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU, hO KAI PAREDWKA hUMIN. The expression EGW
> GAR PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU sounds to me like a claim to a special
> kind of authority for the content of his message. Once again, the
> clause initial EGW and the ambiguity of APO TOU KURIOU which could
> mean direct communication. My reading of this is based less on grammar
> or linguistics than it is on Paul's clearly evident preoccupation with
> his authority in this letter.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>   Elizabeth Kline
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1731 - Release Date: 10/17/08 7:01
PM
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list